SOFTBALL question.

[SawmillJack]

Does anyone have a definition for the term “softball” ? I never had to load any, but as I remember it 40 years ago, the term meant a soft shooting reload of .45acp. Now I'm looking around trying to find a softball load for a Gile's Bullseye gun that I bought from my Dad. It seems now that the definition, (at least on a couple other forums), means bullets cast from soft lead. Am I just getting old and forgetful or am I behind times, and it is one of those words that doesn't mean the same thing as it used to?

Does any one have any advice on a good starting point using a 230gr RNL and Tite Group. My usual powder is Unigue but I am almost out, and can't find anymore. I also have Trailboss and 8lbs of old Winchester 230. I noticed last time I was at the LGS that there is now a good supply of most powders except Unique. So I can obtain a new powder if it is worth it. Any suggestions?

[wv109323]

The military load of a 230 gn. RN bullet at 825-840 FPS is called "Hardball". Usually "softball" is a term for a reduced load with the 230 gr, bullet. It is usually around 725-750 FPS so that the 1911 will still function without modifications.
If you have a Giles Bullseye gun you probably don't want to shoot 230 gn. Bullets. A true Bullseye pistol was probably set up for 200 gn. SWC bullets. The pistol probably has a lighter spring for reduced loads. The 230 gn. bullets may be a little much for a tuned "Wad" gun.The standard load for iron sighted Bullseye guns is 3.5 gn. of Alliant Bullseye powder with the 200 gn. Bullet. That is around 750FPS. I don't know about Tite Group but it is a good powder for the .45 ACP.

[pipehand]

Jack, why would you not want to use the Winchester 230? I don't have any data for that powder, but have used its successor, 231 with great results in the 45 ACP using both 200 and 230 grain cast boolits. I'm guessing the Win 230 is over 30 years old, and not getting younger. I'd use it.

[SawmillJack]

I haven't shot the gun much, but was told it didn't feed semi wadcutters very well. Is there a specific s-wadcutter boolit design that might feed better than the short stubby variety? Truncated cone perhaps? Do you think thirty grains of boolit weight will make that much difference after a reduction in powder charge? Not trying to be difficult just trying to learn and understand something. It is interesting to learn there is a "standard softball load".

[SawmillJack]

Jack, why would you not want to use the Winchester 230? I don't have any data for that powder, but have used its successor, 231 with great results in the 45 ACP using both 200 and 230 grain cast boolits. I'm guessing the Win 230 is over 30 years old, and not getting younger. I'd use it.

I have looked for quite some time for load data for it. I finally got my hands on a couple old reloading books 1969, 70, 71.
It does seem to be very close to Bullseye powder. I'm not sure if it has changed chemically in all the years it has sat around. It was apparently kept sealed. I plan on using it in cast bullet loads for my .303, .308 etc rifles.

[gandydancer]

I was always under the impression the term Hardball was the bullet type in 230 grain military ball ammo. and I must confess I have never heard the term SOFTBALL used in talking about ammo. in over 60 years it was "is it Hardball? or lead?" GD

[SawmillJack]

I was always under the impression the term Hardball was the bullet type in 230 grain military ball ammo. and I must confess I have never heard the term SOFTBALL used in talking about ammo. in over 60 years it was "is it Hardball? or lead?" GD

I heard it a bunch around target shooters years ago. But back then I didn't shoot a 1911 just .22 and .38. I agree it is not a term you hear very often anymore. My target gun is designed to only digest softball though and I couldn't even find it mentioned in my reloading books.

[fecmech]

I'm pretty sure your Giles is set up for mid range target loads in the .45 acp. Using either a 185 or 200 gr swc at about 700-750 fps. Your 230 powder should be perfect for it. For bullseye guns all shooters were interested in was of course accuracy and enough velocity to penetrate the paper target. Light recoil was sought to make it easier to shoot the timed and rapid fire stages, hence the lighter bullets. The Giles .45's were extremely accurate and reliable with these loads

[Mk42gunner]

I haven't shot the gun much, but was told it didn't feed semi wadcutters very well. Is there a specific s-wadcutter boolit design that might feed better than the short stubby variety? Truncated cone perhaps? Do you think thirty grains of boolit weight will make that much difference after a reduction in powder charge? Not trying to be difficult just trying to learn and understand something. It is interesting to learn there is a "standard softball load".

The Hensley and Gibbs 68 is supposed to be the ne plus ultra of 200 gr SWC's. Its meplat mimics the ogive of military ball when hitting the feedramp, giving it a much better chance of working in just about any 1911.

Since H&G are no more, there are numerous mold makers that offer copies of the design.

Robert

[SawmillJack]

Robert thanks for the info. I ordered a Lee copy of the H&G 68 today, hopefully me and Mr. Giles will be back in business soon.

[missionary5155]

Good morning Sawmill
Have here with me a 1973 Lyman with load data for 230.
185 452389 4.0 - 5.5 grains 230
195 452488 4.0 - 5.2
200 452460 4.0 - 5.2
225 452374 4.2 - 4.8
238 452423 3.8 - 4.8
I agree to use it up. If it still smells good load 5 rounds and test. 8 pounds translates into around 14,000 happy moments.
Better stock up on LPP.
Mike in Peru

[SawmillJack]

Good morning Sawmill
Have here with me a 1973 Lyman with load data for 230.
185 452389 4.0 - 5.5 grains 230
195 452488 4.0 - 5.2
200 452460 4.0 - 5.2
225 452374 4.2 - 4.8
238 452423 3.8 - 4.8
I agree to use it up. If it still smells good load 5 rounds and test. 8 pounds translates into around 14,000 happy moments.
Better stock up on LPP.
Mike in Peru


Thank you, that's good info to have Mike. If that many of you gentlemen think I should use it, I better try it for sure. Besides I kinda like the idea of 14,000 "FREE HAPPY MOMENTS". As a matter of fact, anymore those are turning out to be the highlights of my weekly existence! I sure appreciate it, I'll put it to good use sir and report back here what the results are.

[MtGun44]

H&G 68s feed the most reliably of any of the 200 SWCs, in my experience. 3.5-3.8 of Titegroup or Bullseye will drive it
very accurately at 'softball' speeds. Lyman 452460 is a close second, not quite as reliable feeder. Taper crimp either
with a separate die to .465 to .470 at the extreme case mouth.

Bill

[rintinglen]

Back in my Bullseye days, a "softball" load was a 185 grain boolit, loaded over the least amount of Bullseye that would still function the gun. Guns were fitted with lighter springs, adjustable sights, and trigger jobs to allow the best shooting. A soft recoiling round was very helpful during the timed and rapid fire segments of the match. I used a commercially cast boolit that resembled a Lyman 452-488. I believe I used 3.3 grains, but It has been 35 years since I last competed, and I don't have any notes from back then.

[SawmillJack]

H&G 68s feed the most reliably of any of the 200 SWCs, in my experience. 3.5-3.8 of Titegroup or Bullseye will drive it
very accurately at 'softball' speeds. Lyman 452460 is a close second, not quite as reliable feeder. Taper crimp either
with a separate die to .465 to .470 at the extreme case mouth.

Bill

Thanks Bill, I appreciate it. Any special instructions on seating depth? ~ Jack

[km101]

I heard the term "softball load" used frequently back in the early - mid 70's when I shot on a military pistol team. Then it referred to a light cast bullet load that had just enough punch to cycle a "tuned" .45 acp. with lighter springs.

We shot mostly H&G 68's or something very similar. I don't remember the powder charge, because they were loaded by a fellow team member that I trusted. I haven't heard the term in years, and it brought back good memories of "bullseye" shooting in years gone by.

Good luck with your Giles pistol. As I remember it he built very good guns. And 14,000 "Happy moments" that are also free is definitely something to smile about.

[wv109323]

There is no real definition for "softball". The usage now has to do with the distinguished pistol medal. The DCM (Director of Civilian Mrkmanship) now CMP (Civilian Marksmanship Program) is the governing body for that competition. Before Bill Clinton the competition was shot with issued military match ammo provided by the military to each competitor. The rules said that the ammo had to be 230 gn. jacketed RN. The military spec. on the ammo was 825-840 fps. Since many ammo manufacturers were involved part of the competition was adjusting your sights to an unknown ammo. The ammo was known as Hardball and the competition also wore the name Hardball. The guns used in the competition were also very specific and known as Hardball guns. A hardball gun has to very closely resemble an issued 1911. The biggest exception is adjustable sights. The required trigger pull is 4 lbs on a Hardball gun.
When Bill Clinton was president he defunded the DCM and there was no support from the government as before. That eliminated the military issued ammo. The DCM became a private organization and the name was changed to CMP.
With no issued ammo interest in the competition declined. The CMP then allowed reloaded 230 gn. jacketed ammo to be used to help avoid some of the expense with factory 230 gn. commercial ammo. Once reloaded ammo was allowed many shooters reduced the load to avoid the recoil of full military Hardball. That ammo was labeled SOFTBALL. Many of the old timers cried foul and thought the usage of softball ammo in CMP competition was heresy.
Ammo that is loaded for "Wad" guns is almost exclusively 200 gn. SWC. Now that red dot sights are mounted directly to the slides of most "wad" guns the "average' load is around 4.0 to 4.2 gns. of Bullseye powder or an equivalent load. Before the usage of red dots the standard load was 3.5 gns of Bullseye. This ammo is referred as "Wad" ammo. As mentioned the profile of the nose of the 200 gn. SWC is very close to the profile oF a 230 RN. Also the overall cartridge length is also very close. Generally the 200 gn. SWC is considered a more accurate bullet over the 185gn SWC. Or at least the 200 gn. SWC is more "load tolerant". Also the 185 with a shorter nose causes some issues with reliability in the 1911 platform.
You asked about cartridge length. With all SWC bullets in the 1911 the most reliable length is to leave 1/32" of the bullet shoulder out of the case. Or from the end of the case to the square shoulder of the bullet should be 1/32". Since there are different nose profiles (length) of all the 200gn. SWC bullets there is no one right overall cartridge length for all 200 gn SWC bullets. Just leave 1/32" inch and that will be the length that will feed most reliably through the 1911.
Pistolsmiths that accurize the 1911 build both "WAD' guns and "Hardball" guns. If your pistol is like an issued 1911 with adjustable sights and a 4 lb. trigger it is probably considered a "Hardball" gun. If it has a rib,extended sight, an 3.5 lb. trigger pull, special grips,lighter than a 16lb. recoil spring, or any modification that would alter it outside profile it would be a "Wad" gun. WW230 is a fine powder for the .45 ACP. With a standard recoil of 16 lbs. you need to be around 775 fps with a 200 gn. bullet to function reliably.

[MtGun44]

1.250-1.260 LOA, based on your throat dimensions. Most older Colts will
digest 1.260 just fine, but newer guns with match chambers have shorter
throats and often demand the shorter LOA. Using your dismounted bbl as
the gage, set the LOA to clear the lands with the shoulder and TC to freely
drop into the chamber. These are for H&G 68, Lyman 452460 is shorter in
the nose, so will have shorter LOA with the same location for the full diameter
shoulder.

The shorter number for H&G 68 is roughly 1/32" out of the case, like the \
above poster mentions.

Bill

[SawmillJack]

There is no real definition for "softball". The usage now has to do with the distinguished pistol medal. The DCM (Director of Civilian Mrkmanship) now CMP (Civilian Marksmanship Program) is the governing body for that competition. Before Bill Clinton the competition was shot with issued military match ammo provided by the military to each competitor. The rules said that the ammo had to be 230 gn. jacketed RN. The military spec. on the ammo was 825-840 fps. Since many ammo manufacturers were involved part of the competition was adjusting your sights to an unknown ammo. The ammo was known as Hardball and the competition also wore the name Hardball. The guns used in the competition were also very specific and known as Hardball guns. A hardball gun has to very closely resemble an issued 1911. The biggest exception is adjustable sights. The required trigger pull is 4 lbs on a Hardball gun.
When Bill Clinton was president he defunded the DCM and there was no support from the government as before. That eliminated the military issued ammo. The DCM became a private organization and the name was changed to CMP.
With no issued ammo interest in the competition declined. The CMP then allowed reloaded 230 gn. jacketed ammo to be used to help avoid some of the expense with factory 230 gn. commercial ammo. Once reloaded ammo was allowed many shooters reduced the load to avoid the recoil of full military Hardball. That ammo was labeled SOFTBALL. Many of the old timers cried foul and thought the usage of softball ammo in CMP competition was heresy.
Ammo that is loaded for "Wad" guns is almost exclusively 200 gn. SWC. Now that red dot sights are mounted directly to the slides of most "wad" guns the "average' load is around 4.0 to 4.2 gns. of Bullseye powder or an equivalent load. Before the usage of red dots the standard load was 3.5 gns of Bullseye. This ammo is referred as "Wad" ammo. As mentioned the profile of the nose of the 200 gn. SWC is very close to the profile oF a 230 RN. Also the overall cartridge length is also very close. Generally the 200 gn. SWC is considered a more accurate bullet over the 185gn SWC. Or at least the 200 gn. SWC is more "load tolerant". Also the 185 with a shorter nose causes some issues with reliability in the 1911 platform.
You asked about cartridge length. With all SWC bullets in the 1911 the most reliable length is to leave 1/32" of the bullet shoulder out of the case. Or from the end of the case to the square shoulder of the bullet should be 1/32". Since there are different nose profiles (length) of all the 200gn. SWC bullets there is no one right overall cartridge length for all 200 gn SWC bullets. Just leave 1/32" inch and that will be the length that will feed most reliably through the 1911.
Pistolsmiths that accurize the 1911 build both "WAD' guns and "Hardball" guns. If your pistol is like an issued 1911 with adjustable sights and a 4 lb. trigger it is probably considered a "Hardball" gun. If it has a rib,extended sight, an 3.5 lb. trigger pull, special grips,lighter than a 16lb. recoil spring, or any modification that would alter it outside profile it would be a "Wad" gun. WW230 is a fine powder for the .45 ACP. With a standard recoil of 16 lbs. you need to be around 775 fps with a 200 gn. bullet to function reliably.

I think I remember when Clinton did that. I'm not sure what the weight of the original spring as it came from Giles was. I am fairly certain that it has never been changed. I am going to order a spring probably this week. From what you are saying I probably need a 13 or 12 pound spring and make sure I reload accordingly?

[SawmillJack]

1.250-1.260 LOA, based on your throat dimensions. Most older Colts will
digest 1.260 just fine, but newer guns with match chambers have shorter
throats and often demand the shorter LOA. Using your dismounted bbl as
the gage, set the LOA to clear the lands with the shoulder and TC to freely
drop into the chamber. These are for H&G 68, Lyman 452460 is shorter in
the nose, so will have shorter LOA with the same location for the full diameter
shoulder.

The shorter number for H&G 68 is roughly 1/32" out of the case, like the \
above poster mentions.

Bill

My mold came today! So tomorrow or the next day I will cast some. Meanwhile I need to get a new spring, just to make sure. ~ Jack

[Mohillbilly]

I aquired a 70 series Colt NM Gold Cup . I was shooting "hard ball " FMJ 850-950 fps and was warned that the sight cross pin would fall out or break , and to use softball 750-850 fps , and or replace the solid pin with a rollpin .

[shtur]

Softball is what bullseye shooters refer to when loading 230 grain bullets with less velocity than GI hardball. wv is right on the mark with his post. We originally called it gayball, but to be politically correct, we now call it softball.

[HeavyMetal]

Mohillbilly:

the serise 70 Gold Cup's came with a roll pin in them and thats the pin that would break when shooting hardball loads!

If you gun has a solid pin in it it has already broken and been replaced!

Do not put a roll pin back in that gun! I know for a fact that a rear sight for a Gold Cup will fly 30 feet when the slide goes into recoil, if it doesn't bounce off your forehead, LOL!

[offshore44]

So did the Series 80 Gold Cups. Roll pin that is. There is a numbered drill bit that is the perfect size to replace the roll pin, but for the life of me, I can't remember what it is. A little research will reveal that number. A little bench work grinding the drill shank to length, a miniscule drop of non-hardening Loctite, and you are good to go for decades of happy shooting. Be sure to use non-hardening Loctite though. You may want to remove the sight at some future date. I think it cost me about 19 cents to replace the broken roll pin in my Gold Cup Elite Series 80 several years ago. I'll see if I can find the drill size and post it up.

Edited to add: Try a #52 or #53 drill. If the hole is a little loose, the #52 should work perfectly. Don't forget the non-hardening Loctite (purple?), or the pin will walk out and launch the sight assembly into low earth orbit.

[mikeym1a]

I haven't shot the gun much, but was told it didn't feed semi wadcutters very well. Is there a specific s-wadcutter boolit design that might feed better than the short stubby variety? Truncated cone perhaps? Do you think thirty grains of boolit weight will make that much difference after a reduction in powder charge? Not trying to be difficult just trying to learn and understand something. It is interesting to learn there is a "standard softball load".
My .45 is an AutoOrdanance 1911A1. Since I started loading cast, I've used the Lee 200gr semi-wadcutter, with the microgrooves. I've put several thousand through this gun, and never had any problem with feeding. Mine a full power loads, but that shouldn't make any difference on feeding. Never tried another. This one worked. Might work for you.

[SawmillJack]

My .45 is an AutoOrdanance 1911A1. Since I started loading cast, I've used the Lee 200gr semi-wadcutter, with the microgrooves. I've put several thousand through this gun, and never had any problem with feeding. Mine a full power loads, but that shouldn't make any difference on feeding. Never tried another. This one worked. Might work for you.

My gun started life as a Colt Government Model sometime in the 60s. Newer Colt pistols and clones have a different style feed ramp designed specifically for shorter bullet styles, hollow-point and semi-wadcutters. John Browning never visualized even the remotest possibility that his world changing handgun would ever need to fire anything other than 230gr FMJ. If I'm not mistaken he designed the cartridge first and then developed the pistol around it. That sure made one heck of a good combination for the armed forces but was the main weak point as far as civilian target shooters and modern self defense ammo. The newer guns work better with cast, H-P ammo and anything other than 230gr FMJ.

[rintinglen]

20 years before Tail chaser Bill defunded the DCM,"Softball" was used to describe 1911's set up for target wadcutters. IIRC, I first made the acquaintance with the term in 1974, but it had been current for years before that. However, the English language being as it is, it would not surprise me if the term has been redirected. After all, in my lifetime, "bad" has gone from meaning not good, to "great", and back again.