PDA

View Full Version : Velocity Loss From Standard 5" .45ACP To 3" Compact



Landy
09-27-2016, 12:56 AM
What velocity loss have you seen between 5" and 3" .45ACPs with full but not +p 230 grain loads?

Does powder burn rate effect it? Ranch Dog lists some powders as burning fully in 2.5" and some in 5".

shoot-n-lead
09-27-2016, 01:00 AM
We have chrono'd a good many, as we are 1911 fans and found that there is not a lot of velocity loss...or at least, not enough to stop us from carrying them.

dubber123
09-27-2016, 06:50 AM
I read a test of 3,4, and 5" 1911's a while back. As I recall, the spread was less than 50 fps.

Greg S
09-27-2016, 07:02 AM
828 avg on a 5 and 790s with a 3.5 if I recall correctly. Can't remember the load, factory or homebrew but most likely it was a 230 fmj load.

bosterr
09-27-2016, 07:04 AM
I shoot a 200 grain #68 H&G style SWC in my 3" Kimber Ultra Eclipse and in my Kimber 5" Gold Match. Back when I was shooting 4.9 grains of Red Dot, the 3" gave me 820 fps with 43 extreme spread. The 5" gave me 922 fps with 43 extreme spread. I never tried 230 grain boolits and use Win. 231 now since I got a good deal on 5 pounds of it and meters better than Red Dot. Red Dot had the accuracy edge though.

Landy
09-27-2016, 06:15 PM
Thanks, good info so far.

The economics and availability of the Vectan powders is calling, but I've found no TL452-230TC (Only 45 this new caster has so far) data.

I'd match burn rates and match chronograph averages with a ladder of loads, but all the data is for 5" and all of mine are 3" guns.

Boogieman
09-27-2016, 08:49 PM
My 3.6" Colt O.M. looses about 75 fps from my 5" Colt. This holds true with every load I've tried.
Type of powder didn't change much, used B.Eye, titegroup, and BE86.

Outpost75
09-27-2016, 09:19 PM
I haven't done side-by-side comparisons with short and standard length 1911 platforms, but have compared an ordinary GI M1911A1 pistol to revolvers of various lengths:

Ammunition__________S&W 625 3"______Ruger BH 4-5/8"____M1911A1 5"_____S&W M1917 5-1/2"
____________________cyl. gap .006_____cyl gap .005________solid bbl________cyl. gap .008

FC61 Ball____________778, 9 Sd________820, 9 Sd__________862, 4 Sd_______837, 13 Sd

Speer 230GD ShtBbl___764, 22 Sd_______800, 14 Sd_________844, 4 Sd_______845, 10 Sd

Win. 230 SXT_________757, 12 Sd_______803, 5 Sd_________858, 8 Sd_______ 851, 16 Sd

jcren
09-27-2016, 09:32 PM
Look at ballisticsbytheinch.com for some interesting data on various factory loads in tc barrels cut down an inch at a time.

Groo
09-28-2016, 12:43 PM
The loss of the 3in over the 5 [or even the commander]
is why I tend to use Hardball in the short barrel.
Ideal would be a flat nose,or if CCI would bring it back out , the 200gr SWC TMJ Combat Match.

Artful
09-28-2016, 01:06 PM
Look at ballisticsbytheinch.com for some interesting data on various factory loads in tc barrels cut down an inch at a time.
Best reply so far
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/45auto.html

Yodogsandman
09-30-2016, 04:06 PM
Here's a comparison in castpics...

http://www.castpics.net/LoadData/Surplus/Datapages/45acp_BD.htm

Landy
10-02-2016, 05:13 PM
Thanks all.

This in composite indicates 3" barrels achieving 90% of 5" specs in standard ball and target loads and 87% in hotter SD loads. This gives me something to work from.

Groo, you've a good point. At these velocities (and likely even some higher) a big solid flat point is likely better and more reliable than expanding designs.