Heavy bullets in the 625 S&W .45 ACP

[Dale53]

I finally got around to making up some dummy cartridges to see if they would chamber in my two 625's (one is a 5" 1989 Model 625-6 and the other is a JM Special 4" barrel 625-8).

Some have reported problems chambering heavy bullets in their 625's. I loaded up six dummies with the Lyman 452664 (250 grs with my alloy) roll crimped in the crimping groove. They chambered just fine. However, they were sized at .452" and .451" might have been a slightly better fit for the cylinder throats (could feel just a bit of resistance when I loaded each chamber). This bullet design has a "full diameter nose" that extends slightly past the case mouth and is bullet size (in my case, .452"). This is a picture of the bullet for those who haven't seen it (also labeled Lyman's Cowboy Bullet for .45's):

http://www.lymanproducts.com/lymanproducts/images/452664.gif


I have found this particular bullet gives excellent results in my Ruger Bisley Vaquero with both black and smokeless powder (with suitable BP Lube). I have shot scores as high as 92x100 at fifty yards slowfire with black powder in competition. I have cracked a 100x100 at the 25 yard distance on the timed fire target. So, I believe it to be an excellent choice for a heavy bullet (for the caliber) in a .45 ACP revolver.

Frankly, I personally have little need for a heavy bullet in my 625's. However, I have academic interest in the possibilities. Others have safely loaded to 1000 fps with similar bullets out of similar revolvers. That should take care of most any woods deer hunting situation. I have .44 magnums and .454's for "heavy work" but frankly most of my deer hunting days are behind me (getting too dern old to drag a deer out of the woods and too prideful to have someone else do it for me:(). However, I KNOW this would do the job if needed.

I will be reporting on use of the Lyman 452664 bullet in my 625's later on. I plan to have chronograph data with the report.

Incidentally, the September 2008 issue of Gun Tests Magazine, has an interesting article on three .45 ACP revolvers. I pretty much agree with their choices but it is pretty amateurish in several areas. They report on the S&W 625 (Model of 1989), the Night Guard 325, and the Taurus Tracker.

I have been working with my two 625's this year and also working with my Taurus Tracker in .45 ACP. The Tracker is an interesting revolver. Mine has a 4" ported barrel, has a good trigger and handles quite well. It has some idiosyncrasies - it works perfectly, every time with .45 ACP cartridges used without the furnished full moon (five shot) clips. Of course, you have to pick the cases out of the chambers with your finger nails. The clips appear to be made of spring steel and are VERY thin. It would be easy to cut your fingers on them. They are less than positive in holding the loaded rounds in position. The Tracker is different from the traditional Colt and Smith and Wesson .45 ACP revolvers - it does NOT have sufficient head space to allow the use of .45 Auto Rim cases (Gun Test incorrectly thought that was because the cases were expanded too much to use. Not so, there just isn't enough room for the thicker rims of the Auto Rim cases). That is a major faux pas on the part of the authors.

I discovered that the Tracker's head space was EXACTLY correct for the rim thickness of .45 Colt cases (but of course the chambers are too short for this case). The .45 Cowboy Special case is PERFECT for the Tracker. They have the same capacity as the .45 ACP and Auto Rim but the case head of the .45 Colt. So, they take the place of the Auto Rim cases that I use in my 625's and end up serving the same purpose.

My Tracker (can't speak for all of them) will not allow a loaded round to fully chamber if ANY of the bullet shoulder extends past the case mouth. This is just a minor annoyance to me as I just load the .45 Cowboy Specials up just for the Tracker. The Tracker makes a fine trail gun and packs easily. My Tracker is a VERY accurate piece with cast bullets (boolits to you all:mrgreen:).

My 625's, as I have reported here ad nauseum, are just flat wonderful revolvers. Accurate, easily handled with adequate power for most any reasonable use. They are as good a target revolver as money can buy. The .45 ACP or Auto Rim case is an extremely fine platform for target loads up to and including decent hunting loads (not a magnum but adequate power for many purposes, nonetheless).

Dale53

[chunkum]

Thanks for the great post, Dale 53. Something I've done in an old S&W 1917 that has shown reluctant chambering of some 270 gr Ohaus #45255K (neither .452 nor 255 grs with WWs) when they are crimped in the crimp groove, is to lube and size the bullets first and then turn them upside down (Using a Lyman 450 here) and carefully size the front driving band a thousandth or so smaller depending on what is necessary for easy chambering. That way I can use the extra powder space left when the bullet is seated and crimped in the designated crimp groove. In other instances where the shallower seating depth is less of a priority, I don't bother but I really like this bullet in the AR and it should do just as well in the Cowboy Special brass.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/PhilHarris/CastBullets-Data/OriginalRound.jpg

Best Regards
chunkum

[Dale53]

That is an interesting bullet, Chunkum. It appears to leave about as much powder room as possible for a bullet of that weight.

Dale53

[Dutch4122]

Yeah, and I think it's a shame we couldn't get the Group Buy off the ground for that Ohas Heavy .45 Auto Rim boolit!:groner:

[Bass Ackward]

Trouble seating heavy bullets? Could well be?

My throats measured .4515 when I got both guns with the bore .4505. Then my bore cleaned up to .4515. So .... I had my throats reamed to .4525 to stay ahead of it. The bores have since stabilized at .452.

I shoot a 250 trunicated cone of my own design, which is a Cavalry design knockoff and a 260 LBT LFN that was made for automatics (no crimp groove). Both have WIDE front drive bands and the OAL for the LBT is 1.375 with over .200 of bore diameter band outside the case. I have no problems chambering either and I just pass a brush every hundred rounds or so as a precaution.

[Cayoot]

Yeah, and I think it's a shame we couldn't get the Group Buy off the ground for that Ohas Heavy .45 Auto Rim boolit!:groner:

I agree, I would really like to pick one up!

[45 2.1]

Either of these work well in the 45 AR. The top one is a PB copy of the Lyman 452490 at 230 gr. and the bottom one is a modified 270 gr. Ohaus boolit.

[Dutch4122]

Either of these work well in the 45 AR.................................. and the bottom one is a modified 270 gr. Ohaus boolit.

Well, well! I decide to check the board before heading out for work and what do I find. Looks like you've set the hook on me again, Bob![smilie=l:

[45 2.1]

Well, well! I decide to check the board before heading out for work and what do I find. Looks like you've set the hook on me again, Bob![smilie=l:


It looks like i'm in trouble now.........hee hee. You've already shot the top one in hollow point form. The bottom one, in the original Ohaus form was a present from Lloyd (Thanks Much Lloyd). :mrgreen:

[Dutch4122]

After some discussion with several interested parties it looks like we'll have enough interest in the 45 2.1 Modified Ohaus 270 grn Keith type design for the .45 Auto Rim revolvers to get at least 10 molds ordered

I'll be starting a Group Buy on this design at the end of the month for those that will be interested so keep an eye out on the Group Buy section!

[Paul5388]

Dutch,

Who are you going to get to make it?

The original Ohaus bullet is a very nice shooting bullet and works well in M625s without modifying anything for them to chamber.

They look like this when loaded.

http://www.bbhfarm.com/albums/Reloading/adw.jpg

http://www.bbhfarm.com/albums/Reloading/adr.sized.jpg

[Hardcast]

Are there any custom casters selling that 270 Gr Ohaus boolit?

[Paul5388]

I only know of two people who have the mould, so I think it would be highly unlikely for a commercial caster to produce it.

[Dutch4122]

Dutch,
Who are you going to get to make it?


The Group Buy order will be sent in to Lee to be cut in their six cavity mold blocks.

The rounded lube groove has been modified to a more squared off dimension; and I believe the nose and crimp groove have been left alone. 45 2.1 can describe all the changes better than I as he is the designer.

[Heavy lead]

I am absolutely in this one. Not into waiting 9 months or whatever, but for this one I will. IMO the more square grease groove would be welcome. I'll keep an eye out for it.

[Hardcast]

I only know of two people who have the mould, so I think it would be highly unlikely for a commercial caster to produce it.

I had to ask.......:)_

[Paul5388]

Chunkum has two moulds, the original Ohaus and a later copy by NEI. GLL has one of the NEI copies. Chunkum has been generous enough to send me "care" packages containing the Ohaus bullet. All I have to do is send him a copperhead once in a while. :mrgreen:

Here's a picture of the bullets from the two moulds.

http://www.bbhfarm.com/albums/Reloading/afn.jpg

About the only difference I can detect is the NEI has a little more rounded grease groove.

I have never sized the Ohaus, but the NEI tends to smear lead down into the grease groove when I take it down to .452" in a Lyman 4500. It may be something I'm doing wrong (like using a 50/50 mix of clip-on to stick-on WWs), but it does reduce the groove's capacity. I think squaring the grease groove is a good move.

BTW, did I mention I'm interested in one of the moulds?

I'm taking terrible pictures tonight, but here's the Ohaus compared to the RCBS .45-255-K

http://www.bbhfarm.com/albums/Reloading/afo.jpg

[Dale53]

Incidentally, I met up with two friends at our local club and checked out their 625-8's (JM Specials) with the Lyman 452664 dummy loads. They were just a "leetle bit" tight (.452"). They actually go in fully but you can "feel" the last little bit as they fully enter the cylinder. I think they'll do just fine at .452" but some will prefer .451" for that additional bit of ease of loading. I found it quite interesting that these three revolver's throats measure as close t0 one another as is physically possible for me to measure (certainly within 1/2 of 1 Thousandth). That speaks VERY well for Smith. AND, I am talking all six cylinders of all three revolvers. Good work, SMITH & WESSON!

In the next few days maybe I can get some chronograph data for the group.

NOTE: I have no intention of "magnumizing" my 625, but rather allow it to reach it's safe potential for a "deer gun" for woods ranges. I have a number of magnums (.44 Magnums and .454 Casulls) if I have need for a true magnum revolver. There is absolutely NO reason to extend beyond safety with these but I do have an interest in reaching a certain level (900-1000 fps with a 250 gr bullet). I believe it is well within reach (others here have done it and the June-July Handloader Magazine has a nice article on the .45 Auto Rim).

Dale53

[Paul5388]

About two years ago, I clocked the Ohaus bullet out of a M625-4 loaded with 13.0 gr of 2004 vintage 2400, Win LP primer and having an OAL of 1.361" in mixed brass. 921 fps was the average instrumental velocity with 960 fps MV and 553 ft lbs of ME.

If you compare the seating depth of this bullet, you'll notice it takes much less case capacity than the .45-255-K RCBS of the same weight. Some bullets, like the Oregon Trails 255 gr SWC, seat to an OAL of only 1.23" and the 240 gr Lee tumble lube was only 1.27" both seated to the crimping groove. The OT bullet produced 1045 fps MV with the same 13.0 gr load, but it only has 19 ft lbs more ME than the Ohaus.

[Bass Ackward]

They were just a "leetle bit" tight (.452"). They actually go in fully but you can "feel" the last little bit as they fully enter the cylinder. I think they'll do just fine at .452" but some will prefer .451" for that additional bit of ease of loading. Dale53


That's exactly why I opened up to .4525. Doing so also shortens that ramp at the end of the chamber so that my bands actually enter the throat at the larger diameter. This does not improve accuracy of the gun. But it does improve the accuracy of the gun with softer lead (20-1) and improves the flexibility of the gun with bullet design. (semi's)

Smith cut these guns with very tight throats, but the chambers were left pretty much the same diameter as the olden days. I can deep seat a bullet and chamber a .456 bullet with no problems using Starline brass. Remington brass drags with .456. I assume this dimensional issue was for the speed factor as you have to consider the shooting segment that these guns compete in. And that drives the train.

For some reason, they also cut the chambers a little deeper. And remember, the 90 degree edge is supposedly to allow headspave with ACP cases. Supposedly this was a big internal argument at Smith and this is the direction they went. Don't ask me why? So your bullet can and will catch the 90 degree edge of the end of the chamber if it isn't wide enough to reach across this expanse to the ramp or into the throat.

This plays hell with narrow band semis as they will catch and hang up momentarily. Or if you are shooting PB bullets and fast powders where the bullets are soft enough that the base obturates out with the case to fill this space. The base band is scraped away forcing better accuracy with harder bullets. But it only happens until the chambers lead up and turn the 90 degree angle into a ramp itself. This is why HS7 is working so well for me when it should border on being too slow.

This is exactly why Elmer complained that Lyman ruined his design when they cut down the front band on his bullet design. They did it so it would chamber in all guns. And of coarse, Elmer was shooting soft by today's standards. Clearly, my guns are much more consistent with wider band slugs of all designs or with olgivals if they aren't. But I had to open the throats to be able to use this technique at .452 diameter.

[GLL]

As Paul5388 indicated I have the NEI copy, but would like to see Group Buy go with 45 2.1's squared lube groove design ! :)

Let's get this one going soon !! We will be waiting a year to see it as is !

Jerry

[Bass Ackward]

I decided to try this at longer range simply because I hadn't done that. Notice that it is starting to tip at this range. And this is my slower load that I use when I might not have hearing protection available. This will give you a warm fuzzy for heavier slugs. The Ohaus should do a little better as the weight will be back on the rear. I think that the design could be improved if the nose was shortened a little and the weight from that used to make the front band a little wider for low rifling height. Then I would steel a little length off the band behind the crimp groove to widen the grease groove a little.

http://s146.photobucket.com/albums/r267/ba2_shoot/?action=view&current=45AR100.jpg

[Paul5388]

Actually, the weight on the Ohaus is forward, just like Elmer specified for long range shooting (meaning further out than 100 yards). If you shorten the nose very much, it's just another SWC, like a bazillion others.

Here's what Elmer had to say about loads and alloys, in case you haven't seen it in a while.

http://www.bbhfarm.com/albums/album06/aat.jpg

[Bass Ackward]

Paul,

Think for a minute. A semiwadcutter is a wadcutter with a nose.

Take that wadcutter and divide it in two. Where is the center of balance? Midway, right? That's why most are designed semitrically.

Now start to put a nose on the wadcutter and then divide the bullet in half. Which half is going to be the heaviest? SO the center of balance moves backward, not forward. That's the whole idea to a semiwadcutter. The longer you make the nose, the larger the percentage of weight you shift to the back portion.

[Paul5388]

If you take the balance point on that Ohaus bullet, it's located on the nose, and the longer the nose, the further the balance point moves forward. The shorter the nose, the further the balance point moves back, provided the driving bands stay the same size and in the same place.

There's a big difference in the halfway point and the center of balance, i.e. take that wadcutter with the balance point at the halfway point and add lead to one end without moving the point already referenced and see which end is heavier when you get through.

[Bass Ackward]

[QUOTE=Paul5388;391527]If you take the balance point on that Ohaus bullet, it's located on the nose, and the longer the nose, the further the balance point moves forward.


First let me say that I am not touting the LBT design here. Each designer has a purpose. As long as his guns conditions can deliver what that bullet needs to maintain bore center, it will launch well. And what applies in one situation doesn't necessarily apply in another. If your conditions match his, you will have success. If they don't, you won't. That's why two guys can be totally opposite in what they observe with a design. What makes a "better design" for me using cast is the flexibility it offers across a broader range. So I ask myself the question what will be the advantages and disadvantages to this design in my ARs. (I do this with anything and everything)

What are my gun limitations? Are there any cartridge limitations? Does these limitations dictate and limit me to any particular design that I would require a design of a certain type? Well I have a 625 in 45AR caliber. This caliber has the lowest rifling height of any caliber cause I might shoot hardball. It will require a strong(er) design to do well at any weight if I want to push it. So if I want to push it, I am going to have to harden it excessively not to strip unless it is a strong design. But I have a low pressure cartridge. Even at my top pressures, that will limit me for hardness. I will only be able to obturate a bullet at " X " hardness (what ever that isas it varies with weight) so that I can seal. IF I had a tall rifled 45 Colt or more, this would not be as much of a concern as the rifling would get a deeper bite and I can go as hard as I need if I just raise the pressure to obturate. So if I want "flexibility of use" to push, I need a strong (enough) design to shoot soft.(er)

Are there any designs out there that can do this for me or that I have had experience with? So enters the LBT in the picture. This was only to show that that design, that has low velocity limitations, would stabilize down to about 700 fps even with it's extra nose weight. On a side note, a sculptor was once asked how he came up with such works of art. His answer was that the statue was buried there beneath the rock and all he did was remove the unwanted parts. So I did the same with the LBT design cutting straight down at the beginning of the front band to make an imaginary semiwadcutter out of it. In this case, it is very similar to the Ohaus bullet in that it allows similar case capacity, not quite as long a nose, and it has proven it stabilizes at low velocity that would only be improved. So .... can I afford to go with an even wider band? My answer is yes.

What does the Ohaus bullet provide as an advantage if gun conditions were perfect and none of my disadvantages were a concern? (because they may not be a concern for other people's guns) It would be easier to stabilize at a lower velocity than the LBT. That's it. What would be it's short comings? Because of the excess nose weight, any cylinder misalignment would be tougher on the front band to over come. It would have to be harder. Would it be strong enough? There is the BIG question. No one can answer that until it is tried. But I do have experience with the LBT to fall back on. And if the Ohaus would have been a barn burner design, it would have been imitated and sold by other manufacturers just like the H&G 68.

What advantage does the LBT offer? Basically a wider front band that would be strengthened even more if we removed the excess nose weight. If I could improve the LBT design for use in my AR what would I do? Believe it or not, I would use the removed nose lead to slightly increase the band width even more keeping the nose length in proportion which means lengthen it ever so slightly. Cause I have no trouble stabilizing it in it's current configuration (out to 100 yards) but lengthening it will require more twist rate and or velocity which the gun may not be able to provide without strengthening the design.

From this above, I can tell you that my guns would not be able to push the Ohaus bullet and have it do well. I could probably shoot it OK, but I would have to hold the velocity down and launch it gently because I couldn't harden it enough to win the fight. And that is in direct opposition to the intended purpose for this design. If I did harden it, I couldn't get it to seal and the design doesn't carry enough lube to make it out without the streak leading associated with too hard of bullets that are under lubed. So you got the comments I made that are really a mental note to myself.

What I should have said in the post above was that it could be improved for my use. What I read you to say, is that you want it exactly as it is. I am considering designing a custom bullet just as I have described to you as a result of this thread. Cause I don't do nearly as well with generic or compromise bullets. This is how I get ideas from this board.

But after all that, I don't care if you make that bullet 4 feet long. If you put a balance in the center of THAT bullet, at that length, it will ALWAYS teeter to the back. The problem is the more unsupported nose weight you add that allows it to stabilize easier, the weaker you make the design to achieve a stable / good launch. Every individual gun will have that cut off based upon too many variables to list. I know about where mine are, and that the Ohaus (without the modifications I listed) isn't worth the risk. Just wanted you guys to think.

[Paul5388]

The Ohaus bullet stabilizes just fine from a 625, even when cast from 50/50 clip-on to stick-on WWs. The same alloy will shoot at 1000 fps without problems in accuracy or leading (provided it fits in the first place).

Since Clark Custom makes .460 Rowland from M625s, the use of .45 Super brass is entirely in order. That means the 625 doesn't have to be relegated to low pressures with 28K psi being usable pressure.

I attempted to balance a couple of bullets last night by using the knife edges of my calipers as the fulcrum. The RCBS .45-255-K will balance in the crimping groove, even though it has a sizable rear driving band. Of course, the sizable grease groove helps offset the rear driving band's weight somewhat. The Ohaus bullet will actually balance in the middle of the front driving band, not on the nose as I stated previously.

To recap without having to go back a page, here's that comparison picture again.

http://www.bbhfarm.com/albums/Reloading/afo.jpg

Those balance positions would place both at about the same distance from the base of the bullet. Since the OAL of the Ohaus is greater, it does not follow that the distance from the balance point to the nose is the same. It should be obvious to the most casual observer that the RCBS is base heavy, whereas the Ohaus is nose heavy.

[35remington]

I see that Clark converts 625's to Rowland, but that makes me rather antsy given the very thin chamber walls over the bolt notches in this revolver.

I sincerely hope that this is addressed somehow, and I'd be rather hesitant about doing it myself. I see no comments about shooting heavy SWC's (since autos can't use them) and I think this is another breed of cat entirely which may very well lead to trouble in the small capacity ACP/Rowland type brass.

If high pressures are routinely approached that equal or exceed .44 magnum levels (and articles describing the Rowland say they do and are) then I'd PASS on doing the conversion to a 625 if the cylinder is not replaced.

The heavy 255+ SWC's have too much weight and take up too much case capacity to make a junior .44 magnum out of a 625. The margins just aren't there in sufficient quantity. Quantifying any "freebore" effect of a revolver cylinder, or hypothesizing about increasing OAL to reduce pressure with judicious chamber or cylinder throat dimensions seem to be a poor way to skin the cat. By the time you're done you'd be better off choosing a revolver model with thicker cylinder walls and greater case capacity than the stubby ACP, Auto Rim or Rowland.

Besides, just how will you KNOW when you're at "28,000" psi? Quickload ain't accurate enough to take in all variations and model them with sufficient accuracy, and that means you're the beta tester.

Not too desirable.

Paul, the limitation ain't the brass at all. It's the gun. Rechambering the gun doesn't make it stronger. Given similar OAL's the thicker Rowland brass would give higher pressures with the same loads, and that ain't the solution. Rechambering the gun without regard for the other limitations of the 625 is short sighted and may lead the shooter to think the gun is somehow more capable and will acheive higher velocity than is otherwise possible.

Which it will not. It's the gun, not the brass. There's a reason the 625 is not specced at higher pressures, and the Rowland conversion don't help things. I note that the 1911 coversions have better than normal chamber support for an automatic and a muzzlebrake which prevents gun damage.

[Paul5388]

Since you've already looked into the .460 Rowland conversion from Clark Custom, you should be aware that it's a simple chamber reaming task. They also do the Rowland conversion for 1911s and they don't have any problems there either.

If I remember correctly, there's an article link on the conversion that John Taffin wrote. http://www.sixguns.com/tests/tt460r.htm Here's the form the article took in American Handgunner, Nov-Dec, 1999 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_143_23/ai_56221635

Specifications for the .460 Rowland are found at this site. http://clarkcustomguns.com/rowland.htm

I would assume John Taffin has the ability to dispel any of your apprehensions on the suitability of the 625 for the conversion.

There's also the data from Elmer Keith that indicates 14.0 gr of 2400 is acceptable, even in 1917s, but I only used 13.0 gr in a much stronger gun. 1000 fps is easily attainable with the Ohaus bullet, but 960 fps from 13.0 gr of 2400 is probably close enough.

[chunkum]

35 Remington,
What I got from Paul's post was that, in view of the fact that Clark offers the conversion commercially, then it's likely they have some basis for believing it to be safe. Unless someone has evidence to the contrary, I believe Clark to be a reputable and reliable authority on what is safe and what is not, and have a hard time believing they'd do the conversion if it were not safe in this instance.

However, nowhere in Paul's post do I see anything suggesting he advocates doing this conversion to his revolver, but only that he believes that if the Rowland pressures are safe in the 625 then the reloads he's referred to, albeiit the pressures aren't actually verified, are almost certainly below the Rowland pressures.

I'm sure he'd never do the conversion on his revolver. He's much too frugal to do that. And also, I'd think that a modern S&W enhanced 45 Colt load correlates better here (than the "44 Mag" comparison) in regard to the end goal. I think there has been extensive work done there including pressure measurements, although I don't have the reference hand right now. I'll see if I can hunt it up.
Best Regards,
chunkum

[Dale53]

35Remington;
I'm with you, on this one. I admit to being rather conservative but I shoot my revolvers a LOT and plan on them being left to my grandchildren:mrgreen:.

Shooting heavy bullets for the caliber leaves us with NO real pressure data and I, for one, tend to err on the side of caution.

As has been stated before, if I can get original .45 Colt ballistics for occasional use of heavy bullets (250 grs) I am going to be happy. I firmly believe that is possible well within prudent safety practices when using suitable powders. That's good enough for me. My attitude is that I'll be using more effective bullets than the original .45 colt bullets and with the same or slightly greater speed (900 should be safely attainable) I'll have a very effective "woods range" handgun.

After all, I have a couple of .454's if I need REAL power and don't need to beat up my two favorite revolvers (625's) for no reason.

On the other hand, Paul's load of 13.0 grs of 2400 behind the Ohaus bullet does not seem "beyond the pale" to me. I agree that adding another grain for just a few fps is not the way I would go. I'd also stop at 13.0.

.35Remington's comments on the lack of capacity in this case that can cause pressures to increase QUICKLY is well taken.

Just some friendly thoughts on the issue at hand...

Dale53

[35remington]

Chunkum, I was addressing the feasibility of the conversion in regard to this thread, which is "heavy bullets in the 625."

I believe pressures may be moderated somewhat in a revolver cylinder, except when the variable of the heavy 255+ grain bullet taking up case capacity are considered. Then weird things happen in a revolver, especially with the bullet/cylinder gap/forcing cone interaction, which may cause pressure spikes. Heavy SWC bullets in small capacity cases do jack up pressures very substantially - more so than the bullets offered as suitable for the Rowland.

It's an apples and oranges type comparison, and running 255 SWC's and heavier at 460 Rowland pressures strikes me as a very bad idea in a 625. Something about the conversion in a 625 must moderate pressures with short bearing surface bullets that don't rob much case capacity.

The stubby 185-230/240 grain jacketed bullets are one thing, but some of the SWC designs out there are another thing entirely. Some have quite deep seating depth compared to bullets used in the Rowland conversions.

I am sure that the suggestion of shooting a 255 SWC at Rowland pressures in a 625 would be viewed with VERY considerable alarm at Smith and Wesson.

My intent was to suggest that Rowland pressures with heavy bullets in a 625 aren't a very good idea, and I stand by that.

If you have a pressure gun and know you are keeping the pressures mild with the heavy bullets, have at it. The rest of us are going to have to stay on the safe side and load well below +P .45 Colt level loads. In fact, staying at the energy/velocity levels of the top standard .45 Colt loads, which are around 1000 fps with 255 grain bullets, seems very prudent.

Equalling the velocity levels of a much larger capacity case means pressures are very considerably higher.

Sticking the the standard of a 255 at 1000 fps with the slower powders in the Auto Rim (Taffin, Taylor, et. al) and no faster has got no one in trouble that I am aware of when using these loads in a 625. Going much faster is going into risky, uncharted territory. Especially if one extrapolates that "higher pressures with these bullets are okay because Clark rechambers to the Rowland."

Not the same thing.

It's the gun, not the brass.

Incidentally, PASS on Elmer's loads. I get more or the same velocity with less powder than Elmer did.

With considerable experience with 2400 in a 625, I regard a 255 at 1000 fps using 13 grains as tops, same as some of the other authorities. My source? The old Speer number 8. Yeah, I've been around awhile. I wisely stayed away from the top listed charge of 15.0 grains with the 240 grain bullet listed (undoubtedly the 452423 Lyman) using the heavier bullets of 250-260 grains in cast.

No deer will survive this, and the load penetrates substantially. Want more? Get a bigger gun.

I very sincerely doubt that 255/1000 with 2400 in the 625 is at the pressure level suggested for some of the Rowland loads in the 1911.

Stay away from those levels, as you must "extrapolate" to get them, and there's trouble with a capital T.

Incidentally, given the gun limitations, I don't see the point in the conversion given the use of heavier SWC bullets. Any small increase in case capacity obtained in seating the bullets out in a reconfigured cylinder and optimizing things to the nth degree yields small energy increases better obtained by starting with something else - sorta like supercharging a Volkswagen. If you really need more power, 50 or 100 fps ain't gonna help that much. The velocity differences needed to make a noticeable impression on the target cannot be safely obtained with the conversion as opposed to the standard revolver.

[Paul5388]

It's pretty obvious some really haven't taken the time to look at the picture of the Ohaus bullet I've posted at least twice.

The crimping groove is well below the crimping groove of the RCBS .45-255-K. That means, the seating depth is reduced and less case capacity is utilized. That fact by itself negates most of the discussion about the greater seating depth for 255 gr bullets.

Now, to illustrate the shallow seating depth of the Ohaus, here are three bullets sitting beside it to compare the crimping/seating location for each. The bullets are labeled, but the H&G 68 is really a 196 gr Lee copy that has been tumble lubed.

http://www.bbhfarm.com/albums/Reloading/afp.jpg

The bullets are arranged by seating depth, with the shallowest to the left and the deepest to the right. The Ohaus casts at 270 gr with my alloy, the H&G is 196 gr in my alloy, the RCBS is 270 gr in my alloy and the OT is 255 gr.

[35remington]

Quite sensibly, advice is to keep pressures moderate in thin walled cylinders of the Auto Rim revolver type. Since the Rowland, supposedly, operates at 40,000 CUP (whatever that translates to), please tell us just exactly how you're going to determine just what your pressures are?

"That fact by itself negates most of the discussion about the greater seating depth for 255 gr bullets." (In reference to the shallower seating of the Ohaus bullet).

Does it?

Case capacity is still very low. And it's shooting a heavy bullet for that capacity. These things still must be considered.

You've gained, what, a sixteenth of an inch of case space, if that, compared to a similar flatbase design with a shorter nose? Not exactly overwhelming, and not enough to put the round in the magnum class.

Making a case for bullet design differences that make minor increases in velocity possible isn't very persuasive as a prelude to an argument for hot loading the Auto Rim revolver. Especially when you can't quantify the pressure.

Sure, you can state the obsolete Ohaus will get to 1000 fps at less pressure than a similar weight bevel based, capacity robbing Oregon Trail. But just how much faster can you go at the same pressure - 40 fps? 80?

I'm still waiting for information that this all makes a difference in game taking effect. Or pressure gun results. I suspect I'll be waiting a long, long time.

Until that happens, we're all guessing, and better off with a proper magnum revolver caliber for any velocities with the heavy bullet other than those that have proven themselves over many years in many guns.

Incidentally, Taffin's article on hot loading the Springfield XD .45 ACP with heavy 255's, including the Oregon Trail, made me more than a little nervous, as would suggestions of any loading data that pushed the envelope in any revolver or automatic not originally designed as a magnum that may be operating at magnum type pressures, due to lack of pressure data.

The Ohaus design was discontinued for some reason, and bullets of its configuration have not found favor of which I am aware. Just what was that reason? Why are SWC's with extremely long non bearing surfaces not popular in nearly every caliber?

Rereading Bass's post, as he intended it, would provide an answer.

[Paul5388]

The Ohaus design was discontinued for some reason, and bullets of its configuration have not found favor of which I am aware. If you stop to think, the .45 AR market isn't very big. Then if you stop to think again, Ohaus bullet moulds was bought out by someone in the 1970s, which is why the .45-225-K was discontinued.

I'm very sorry Taffin makes you nervous. Maybe you can write better articles for us, that won't make us nervous?

Back to the original issue of heavy bullets in the 625 .45 ACP, the Ohaus design is a viable design that uses less case capacity than other designs of lesser weight, i.e. H&G 68 and OT 255 gr LSWC. By increasing the percentage of Sn and/or Sb and/or As, the weight will be less and will probably be the intended 255 gr.

It's only in light of recent data that 1000 fps is considered to be magnum performance, since the .38/44 was faster than that in 1930.

[35remington]

Taffin admitted his loads exceeded +P in the 45 ACP. If that doesn't make you nervous, you may be the type that is addicted to base jumping without a parachute. Especially since the auto he was firing lacked case head support, the bullet was very, very deeply seated, and he was using fast powders.

Not everything published by gunwriters fits the bounds of rationality.

My point for this discussion?

Arguing the Ohaus design is somehow even slightly superior for the capacity challenged Auto Rim is a bit disingenuous, given that you're dealing with reduced velocity potential with heavy bullets anyway.

Supposing that this design, which exchanges bearing length, (extremely important in a revolver of high cylinder jump like the Auto Rim) for slightly greater aerodynamic efficiency and slightly greater velocity potential is arguing about things that don't matter in Auto Rim revolvers - or, in fact, most revolvers period. Most of us don't shoot over 100 yards, and I believe the shorter nosed Keith designs have proven quite sufficient even at long range.

Usually the ideal revolver bullet strikes a balance between accuracy through stability (with long bearing length) and aerodynamics. If in doubt, lean toward stability as ranges are usually short, and sucessful designs empasize this as their primary characteristic towards accuracy. An aerodynamic bullet of high dispersion isn't too desirable.

It appears you're angling toward aerodynamics and a little extra velocity in the Auto Rim.
Not really things of value. Maybe in a silhouette gun if accuracy is not impaired somehow, but not here. Spending money on such a mould and expecting worthwhile improvement in a 1000 fps and below revolver is hoping for the moon.

[Paul5388]

Spending money on such a mould and expecting worthwhile improvement in a 1000 fps and below revolver is hoping for the moon.So what you're saying is, those of us who have actually shot the bullet are wasting our money on a piece of junk. Of course, I don't really know how you have come to that conclusion, since you haven't shot the bullet.

Maybe you are thinking your mission in life is to dissuade us poor old country boys from using a product that we know will work as intended?

I find it's easy to talk about things, but much more convincing after you've pulled the trigger.

[Dutch4122]

Seems to me that a similar, if not the exact same, argument came up the last time that this old Ohaus 270 grn SWC/Keith design for the .45 Auto Rim was proposed for a Group Buy. Must've been back 2006 if memory serves that we went over this ground.

My position is this. I want this boolit enough to run a group buy for it. I know of two individuals who use and like this design in the S&W 625's chambered for .45 ACP. I'd like to try it in my 625-6 Mountain Gun if I can get enough interested buyers together so we can get an order in to Lee.

I have no plans for taking this Ohaus design and using it to turn my .45 ACP Mountain Gun into a .45 Colt Mountain Gun. If all I get is 800-850 fps with accuracy and safety then I will be happy. After all, an 800-850 fps slug weighing 270 grns is going to drive deeper on deer/pigs than a 230 grn slug at the same speed. Anybody who "hot rods" this slug in the .45 ACP/AR is taking their own risks; and should consider buying a .45 Colt.

[smilie=b:

[Paul5388]

Matt,

I believe you're pretty close on the last time the group buy for this bullet was squashed.

Did I mention I was interested in getting in on the buy?

BTW, I'm shipping a sample of the bullet to Indiana tomorrow, which may produce another interested party. :-D

[35remington]

Actually, no, I'm suggesting it may well be less suitable than many current designs when it comes to accuracy, and that's the primary characteristic for which we select a revolver bullet. It is for me, anyway.

Sorry to break that one to you, but I'm afraid popular SWC's look like they do for a reason, and designs that stray are a risk in revolvers that must have better bullet designs. Poor accuracy has been a risk more certain with Auto Rim revolvers when marginal bullet designs are discussed due to gun configuration. Think horrible bullet jump. And the absolute need for hard bullets and good lube in heavy bullet weights.

Heavy bullets can go to an extreme, and you're edging toward that in the Auto Rim.

You poor 'ol country boys can do what you want - it's a free country, and we've had more than a few moulds made here that are not necessarily optimum. If a little less accuracy potential is a fair trade for a little more velocity potential for you, then hey, you've floated your boat.

The rest of us will wonder if you've gained anything worthwhile.

Since you asked, Auto Rim revolver bullets of heavy weight need to emphasize bearing surface to mimimize skidding. Thick forward bands are good. ACP/Auto Rim revolvers have very shallow rifling, and if this isn't dealt with first and formost when using heavy bullets you're not going to be as pleased with the accuracy results as designs that address this need.

Since the bullets I use are quite aerodynamic enough for any range I shoot, you may appreciate why I value accuracy above all.

And yes, in case you're wondering, I have indeed shot bullets that don't have the characteristics I desire, and you now know why I don't recommend them. To each his own.

[Paul5388]

Again, your talking like someone who has shot this bullet and declared it inaccurate. I'm telling you I've shot the bullet and I wouldn't be wanting a mould if it wasn't accurate.

Here's the original box.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/PhilHarris/OhausKeithType.jpg

and here's a better picture of the bullet as posted by GLL.

http://www.fototime.com/898459E34AA62C9/standard.jpg

I suppose you notice the box says it's a Keith bullet. It was designed for the AR, since it's too long to seat and chamber in many .45 Colts. If you want to talk about bullet jump, there is .420" from the front of the cylinder of my M625-4 to the tip of a OT 255 gr bullet. OTOH, there is only .279" from the same point when using the NEI Ohaus 270 gr bullet.

[35remington]

Bullet jump, to inform you, is relevant to the bearing surface of the bullet, not the nose of the bullet. There is no advantage whatsoever to your Ohaus design there. The extra weight is a liability as regards skidding. Inertia plays a big role in Auto Rim revolver accuracy, and accurate designs incorporate features to deal with the extra weight, long jump, and shallow rifling. Past a certain point, extra weight detracts from accuracy.

If I have to inform you as to why only bearing surface is relevant to bullet jump, then this whole post has been rather wasted, and accuracy distinctions are quite lost on you. Think about why and get back to me if you don't understand.

Have fun with your design; I have many bullet designs I consider less than suitable for my use that may work very sufficiently well for others.

[chunkum]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/PhilHarris/CastBullets-Data/SquareLubeGroove.jpg
Paul,
Here's a jpg of the modified Ohaus bullet from my NEI mould. Not as pretty as JLLs but they shoot real good out of my 1917 S&W:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/PhilHarris/1315C_SW_1917.jpg
Actually, it was in this revolver using Auto Rim brass that I first came to appreciate the accuracy of the Ohaus design, having been less than happy with some other designs I'd tried in it. Of course, the throat and groove diameter relationship is completely different in this revolver than it is in the 625 but, nonetheless, the old revolver performed admirably with the Ohaus over a correct load of old 2400. It's much better, of course in my 625, which has more ideal relationships of those parameters. I surely hope y'all get your group buy going satisfactorily.
Best Regards
chunkum

[Paul5388]

Let's go over this one more time.

The bullet was designed by Elmer Keith and it wasn't for the .45 Colt. So, it was designed for shallow rifling guns to begin with.

The front driving band gets to the rifling at the same time as the RCBS or the OT and before the H&G 68 design gets there. This is evident, if you just look at the width of the front driving bands, where the bullet is seated and compare them. The Ohaus has traversed the BC gap before the other heavy bullets do, because the bearing surface is shorter in length, while still being sufficient to accomplish its task.

If "skidding" was a problem, there should be some residue as evidence, which isn't the case at all. The bullet doesn't lead at 960 fps, even at BHN 11 hardness.

The skimpy grease groove is sufficient to prevent leading in a 5" barrel, without resorting to "super" lubes. Felix lube is all it takes.

Now, what's your latest objection to a bullet you don't plan on buying?

[Paul5388]

Chunkum,

It seems like I've shot 13.0 gr of 2400 out of that gun, with the Ohaus bullet. It's amazing the old thing held up to that load, that was just a little less than what Elmer recommended for it.

After all, the gun was built before either one of us was born and it isn't nearly as strong as a 625. So, it should have been shot from a Ransom rest with a 20 foot lanyard! :mrgreen:

[crabo]

I find this whole discussion to be really interesting. It would be cool if it could continue without anyone getting really pissed off.

[Dutch4122]

I have started a Group Buy of the 45 2.1 Modified design of the Ohaus 270 grn boolit.

Anyone who's interested in ordering one of these can check out the Group Buy Forum thread entitled:

"Modified Ohaus 270 grn Keith SWC Group Buy for .45 ACP/AR"

Cost will be $70 per mold based on a projection of 10 molds ordered; and the order will go in to Lee for production in their six cavity blocks.

[Hardcast]

Matt, what are the dimentions of the 3 driving bands?

[Dutch4122]

Matt, what are the dimentions of the 3 driving bands?

I'm affraid that 45 2.1 will have to answer that question as I don't have a diagram from him yet.

[35remington]

Paul:

I'll be glad to go over it "one more time."

Is it a Keith design?

No. Elmer didn't design it for the Auto Rim.

He would have disapproved of the small lube groove and the thin base band. Look it up, please. A lot of bullets have been called "Keiths" without Elmer's approval; this is one of them. Please show your documentation that Elmer designed it; I can find no such claim in my records. Elmer was quite displeased that many "Keith" and "Keith type" bullets were so named when he had no part in the design.

Study the Keith bullet Elmer did design for the Auto Rim in one of your references you posted here: the 452423. Note the thicker base band, with the larger lube groove. Keith characteristics. Keith would have not have designed your bullet; too many features he did not like. This is not unusual; the Lyman 429421 no longer has features Elmer approved of either, and he was displeased Lyman modified it and marked it as such. Ohaus did the same and put Keith's name on it without his design input.

All this may be moot if you like how it works for you, but it ain't a "Keith designed auto rim bullet." It's an imperfect copy of a Keith, a distinction Elmer would have been happier with.

You misunderstood the bit about bullet jump; reread Bass's post on the characteristics of an Auto Rim bullet that works for him to see my own preferences. See his note about a very thick forward band and consider how that helps things. Study Dave Scovill's RCBS .45 Colt 270-SAA design and note the thick forward bands: Elmer states he wished he could have made them even thicker on the 454424 but could not due to Lyman's weight limitation stipulation. The heavier the bullet, the more it benefits from a thick forward driving band in the Auto Rim.

Do me a favor: recover a few bullets after firing in undamaged condition. Note the rifling marks. Only then will differences in skidding be apparent to you. Note alloy and hardness differences as well. They are there; no question.

Trust me; skidding very definitely occurs with heavy bullets in the Auto Rim. It is one of the worst offenders of all revolvers in that regard, and your assumption that no skidding is occurring is incorrect. Look and see. Soft alloys will make it extreme. Try your soft alloys and recover the bullet in wet phone books. Be prepared for an eye opener.

Is your Ohaus the ultimate Auto Rim design?

No, not in my opinion. I've shot quite a few heavy bullets through the Auto Rim. I prefer other features that cater to my preferences in accuracy.

I'm sorry you don't tolerate dissenting opinions on a "heavy bullets in .45 Auto Rim" thread, but hey, that's the breaks, and we don't all march in lockstep with our discoveries in what works well for us. It would be surprising if we did.

Is it good enough for you? You say it is. That's good enough for me.

Good luck. I'm done with the discussion; I trust that you've gained a little information in participating.

All you need to do is a little more research to verify what I've said here. Easily done.

[Paul5388]

I really don't know what you've been reading, but it isn't about Keith designed bullets. Here are 4 bullets. Which ones are Keith's design?

http://www.lasc.us/454424pair-09.jpg

http://www.lasc.us/452424-e.jpg


Elmer Keith designed his semi-wadcutters to have 3 driving bands of equal width (he felt very strongly about a full-width forward driving band), a deep, "square-cut" grease groove, a beveled crimp groove, a wad-cutting shoulder, a gently curved ogive for stable long-range flight and a hearty meplat to generate dependable, open wound channels. Three sizeable and well-spaced driving bands combine to provide lots of bearing surface to keep the bullet aligned in the cylinder throat, the full-width forward driving band provides positive engagement as the bullet transitions between the cylinder and barrel and starts to be engraved. The so-called "square-cut" grease groove was actually beveled slightly so that bullets would release from the mould more easily, but he used the "square-cut" description to differentiate between his design and the rounded grease grooves of other designs (which he didn't care for since they didn't hold as much bullet lube).
Now, you'll notice the design does not call for a wide grease groove, just square cut. However, it does call for 3 EQUAL sized driving bands, not with one larger than the others. Another feature is having over half of the bullet outside of the case.

The Ohaus bullet has 3 EQUAL sized driving bands, a square cut grease groove that holds ample grease for 1000+ fps and you'll never know if it was designed by Elmer or not. Elmer is dead, so you can't ask him, and Ohaus has been out of the mould business for about 30 years. Of course, Elmer was alive when the Ohaus came out, so he may have designed it, as the box says, so I'll trust the box more than you on this matter.

In your quest for superiority, you seem to neglect thinking about a real AR designed bullet and the way it's very difficult to use a true AR Keith bullet in a .45 Colt. All four bullets above will function just fine in a .45 Colt, but they sure would take up a lot of case space in an AR. In 1980, Elmer recommended the Lyman 454424 with 14.0 gr of 2400 for the AR, but what other choice did he have, since Ohaus wasn't making the .45-225-K anymore and I don't know if RCBS was making the .45-255-K, that was cataloged in 1986?

I hope you've learned what a true Keith design is now, because it isn't the big based bullet you seem to prefer.

BTW, it would be nice if you backed your opinions with some source material.

In "Sixguns", page 229, original edition, Elmer says this,

Later, when these bullets had proved to be exactly what I wanted, I sent Lyman similar designs for the .45 auto rim and .45 Colt, both in solid, flat-base type to weigh 240 and 250 grains #452423 and #454424 respectively.
Here's the Lyman #452423, with 3 equal sized driving bands, modest square cut grease groove and at least half the bullet seated outside the case.

http://www.three-peaks.net/images/452423_238g.gif

[Bad Karma]

I shoot the RCBS 45-255 SWC-K sizes .452". I cast with WW or Lyno. My favorite load is 6.0gr of Unique. Shoots great and I call them my little flying sledge hammers. I seat to the crimp groove.

[Bass Ackward]

I think that arguing about a bullet design when there is no single weight or design that performs under every condition, and thus in all guns .... is sort of counter productive.

But Elmer tells you himself. Reread what Paul posted on the second page of this thread from Six Guns that Elmer wrote about the 454424 and hardness. He is very clear. He tells you might have to harden it for the Colt over what he used in the 44 Mag, but that to use it in the AR, you need to harden it dramatically. That's from the guy who aught to know.

What's the difference from 44 to 45 caliber at close to the same weight? Narrower bands. :grin:

The point should be, with all you have to work with, will it work for " YOU ". Once you consider all the points made, you have a decision to make. You can be right, or you can be wrong. That's all any of us have. :grin:

[45 2.1]

I really don't know what you've been reading, but it isn't about Keith designed bullets. Here are 4 bullets. Which ones are Keith's design? The one on the upper left is....................... I've seen most all of the variations and butcher jobs Lyman did to Keiths original design. Very very few people here know what an original Keith boolit looks like. It is very little like what is considered a Keith now, equal band length or not.

http://www.lasc.us/454424pair-09.jpg

http://www.lasc.us/452424-e.jpg


Now, you'll notice the design does not call for a wide grease groove, just square cut. However, it does call for 3 EQUAL sized driving bands, not with one larger than the others. Another feature is having over half of the bullet outside of the case. While your looking at that basically square grease groove, notice the depth also. Remember Keith didn't have extremely good cases or boolit lube to work with and he used a very soft alloy by todays standards.

The Ohaus bullet has 3 EQUAL sized driving bands, a square cut grease groove that holds ample grease for 1000+ fps and you'll never know if it was designed by Elmer or not. Elmer is dead, so you can't ask him, and Ohaus has been out of the mould business for about 30 years. Of course, Elmer was alive when the Ohaus came out, so he may have designed it, as the box says, so I'll trust the box more than you on this matter.

In your quest for superiority, you seem to neglect thinking about a real AR designed bullet and the way it's very difficult to use a true AR Keith bullet in a .45 Colt. All four bullets above will function just fine in a .45 Colt, but they sure would take up a lot of case space in an AR. In 1980, Elmer recommended the Lyman 454424 with 14.0 gr of 2400 for the AR, but what other choice did he have, since Ohaus wasn't making the .45-225-K anymore and I don't know if RCBS was making the .45-255-K, that was cataloged in 1986?

I hope you've learned what a true Keith design is now, because it isn't the big based bullet you seem to prefer. Correct.......

In "Sixguns", page 229, original edition, Elmer says this,

Here's the Lyman #452423, with 3 equal sized driving bands, modest square cut grease groove and at least half the bullet seated outside the case. I have an old square cut grease groove Lyman 452423 mold. It is a bit different than what is pictured here.

http://www.three-peaks.net/images/452423_238g.gif

[Paul5388]

45 2.1 is right about the Keith bullet, as if that would be a surprise. They are all Lyman 454424/452424 from various incarnations Lyman decided to use at the time.

The difference you have on the 452423 may just be from the angle they have the drawing at. Then too, drawings aren't always perfect representations of the actual bullet. :)

I replied to the RCBS post last night and it got lost in cyber space. Basically, what I said was, the RCBS .45-255-K is a nice bullet and I have one. I do think, my opinion, it has to be seated too deep in AR brass, but not as bad as the Oregon Trails 255 gr LSWC. It's also a little short and that brings up what Elmer said about length (page 230 of "Sixguns").

The uniformly excellent killing performed by these hollow-point bullets in .38 caliber prompted us to try them in the larger calibers as well, so we had Lyman hollow-point some moulds in both .44 Special and in .45 Colt. In the former, the regular Lyman hollow-point plug gave the bullet a weight of 235 grains, and by using this same size plug in the 250 grain .45 Colt mould, its weight was also cut to 235 grains. These weights are both better suited to high velocity loadings than were the 250 grain solid bullets. The solid bullets in all four calibers will penetrate more deeply, but will not tear such unbelievably large holes in game as do the hollow points. Since the .45 Colt bullet is the longest of the two in this caliber, I decided it would work out the best in hollow-point shape for both .45 auto rim and .45 Colt. The shooting by both Dickey and myself, as well as many others we have handloaded it for, proved it to be the most destructive of all .45 bullets. (emphasis added)

[Bass Ackward]

In the former, the regular Lyman hollow-point plug gave the bullet a weight of 235 grains, and by using this same size plug in the 250 grain .45 Colt mould, its weight was also cut to 235 grains. These weights are both better suited to high velocity loadings than were the 250 grain solid bullets.


Paul,

What is saddest about Elmer is that I believe he assumed we knew too much. And because of it, he did not leave an addendum relating to bullet design to clarify it as he felt compelled with the 44 Mag. Take his statement above.

If you read the above, he was hollow pointing. What does that do? It removes weight from the nose. The result is the same thing as strengthening the front band cause it has to do less work. It also means that it was changing the balance point of the bullet MORE to the rear. And he says that it resulted in a better high velocity bullet than the 250 grain solid. He just didn't state why.

If you can see it, those same comments will also hold true for the Ohaus as well. Especially if you want to push it. Question is, is there any way to do something similar without removing nose weight as with the hollow point?

[45 2.1]

If you can see it, those same comments will also hold true for the Ohaus as well. Especially if you want to push it. Question is, is there any way to do something similar without removing nose weight as with the hollow point?

A very leading question for you John, and a little unfair to Paul. The answer to your question John would negate some of the most important things about Keiths design. Keith was doing other things in his designs that are little known. Can "you" answer what those would be? [smilie=1:

[Paul5388]

precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little;Elmer rarely provided anything more than a crude drawing for his bullets, but that was enough to provide the "precept" that was necessary for Mr. Pickering to work with.
Tests with #421 on jack rabbits and similar game soon showed that it was the best killer we had so far tried; that it would not jump its crimp, and was the most destructive bullet we had then used on game. Next, I had Lyman make up another bullet exactly like it, but with a hollow base to weigh but 230 grains. Mr. Pickering again worked out this model for the new bul*let from my own crude drawings. ("Sixguns", page 229)The "hollow base" bullet would accomplish the desired weight reduction for higher velocity and still provide weight forward the hollow point couldn't provide.

As Elmer said, the hollow point was "destructive", due to it's rapid expansion. It's a far different concept than what would be used for deep penetration, which he explained, if you were paying attention.

Most people aren't going to go to the trouble to make a hollow based bullet and usually hollow point bullets are a novelty. With that in mind, the easiest bullet to make in multiple gang moulds would be the solid point bullet. That's why there's probably more interest in the proposed group buy than if it had been a 2 cavity being offered.

BTW, it would probably be a good idea to read "Sixguns", if anyone really wanted to discuss Keith bullets.

[35remington]

Your clear bullet photo shows a thin base band to my eye. I am very well aware of Keith's preference for equal width bands and their importance to him; read my post to say " the 452423 has a thicker base band than your example."

Agreed, a thick base band SWC would not be a Keith either. Did not mean to imply it was if such a characteristic was present.

My preferences have come about due to the cantankerous nature of Auto Rim revolvers. Shallow rifling, long jump giving the bullet high inertia and a tendency to ride over the first section of the rifling rather than turn with it. Much more so than the average revolver. A heavy bullet makes this worse.

I haven't yet, from recovered slugs, found a bullet that shot well that skidded more than a bullet that shot poorly. Features that let the bullet "grab" the rifling sooner (turning with the rifling right away really doesn't happen with the Auto Rim except with light bullets) let the bullets shoot better.

That includes not getting too carried away with the weight of the bullet to reduce the effects of inertia, and providing a solid surface to grab the rifling immediately and get the bullet turning rather than going straight forward.

If weight must be added, then offset that weight by providing a feature that helps to offset inertia by holding the rifling better and sooner, and reduces the bearing surface jump to the rifling.

A thicker front band(s) does these things. And I do prefer features that don't shift the weight toward the front of the bullet.

Bearing surface never hurt an Auto Rim bullet. Except maybe for velocity if it's all inside the case. I did say I don't care so much about that.

[Shome10x]

Ok..Ok..

Since I've limited experience with a 625, which bullet IS recommended for a "heavy" load...

I've shot a MM 230gr flatpt that worked well.. I've shot a 452423 that shot OK.. but I would like a bullet of at least 230gr and closer to 250gr...

What am I looking for?

Thanks,

Chris G...in MO

[Paul5388]

It may help if I provide some numbers on the original, which may actually be a NEI.

From the crimping groove to the base is .262"
From the crimping groove to the nose is .476"
The OAL is .738"
The driving bands are all .078"
The nose/meplat is .345"
The nose at the front driving band is .400"
The grease groove is .065" wide
The grease groove reads .410" deep (.010" wider diameter than the nose)

The bullets I have from the NEI mould (I don't have any that haven't been sized) will size down to .452", so I estimate they are casting at about .454"-.455" in my 50/50 WW alloy.

My micrometer set isn't geared to measure some of this, so I used a good quality Japanese dial caliper I've had for 25 years.I measured my M625-6 and the cylinder was 1.546" long. That was after I shot a cylinder full of NEI/Ohaus bullets with 13.1 gr of 2400. It isn't a weenie load, for sure, but it's shooting to POA on a spinner target that's in my front yards.

#1 son informed me of 5-6 hogs that were in the creek bottom today. Maybe I can arrange a meeting with them tomorrow afternoon and see how this bullet likes hog meat!

[Dutch4122]

#1 son informed me of 5-6 hogs that were in the creek bottom today. Maybe I can arrange a meeting with them tomorrow afternoon and see how this bullet likes hog meat!

If it happens I'd love to hear every detail. And of course we'd need to see lots of pictures.:cool:

BTW, have you guys done any work with Alliant Power Pistol and the Ohaus boolit?

[Paul5388]

Actually Matt, I don't even own any Power Pistol. I tend to use 2400, Unique and SR 4756 for medium to pretty healthy loads. I like true flake powders, which may be stretching it a little with 2400. 800X, now that's a flake! :mrgreen:

Once upon a time, I shot a 230 gr Golden Saber with 11.0 gr of SR 4756 for 1143 fps (average MV) and 663 ft lbs of ME in AR brass. I might try 9.0 gr and work up from there with the Ohaus bullet and maybe use .45 Super brass. ;)

[GLL]

Here is a collection of IDEAL / LYMAN 454424 (452424) bullets I have posted before but feel may be of interest here. The bullet on the extreme right is actually a 45 2.1 design Group Buy bullet run by CAT.

The pair of bullets are from what appear to be very early IDEAL 454424 moulds (unvented).

Jerry

http://www.fototime.com/82F143EDC5E6FEE/standard.jpg

http://www.fototime.com/0F4E9982A4E54F1/standard.jpg

[Bass Ackward]

A very leading question for you John, and a little unfair to Paul. The answer to your question John would negate some of the most important things about Keiths design. Keith was doing other things in his designs that are little known. Can "you" answer what those would be? [smilie=1:



Bob,

No. Not intended to be. I am just trying to maintain perspective. I got the idea we were sort of looking at things as absolutes. That all of Elmer's designs were of equal capability. I don't think Elmer believed they were either.

The bulk of Elmer's design work became known to the world as the 429421. Some of the rest of the designs that Keith attached his name to simply held the same principals that Paul identified of equal length bands and square grooves to provide a "marketable bullet" in that diameter. But they didn't receive the extensive long range testing the 44 caliber one did.

If one assumes that "dimensional perfection" is the original 429421, then if it was scaled up to 45 caliber, what would a 452421 weigh? How wide would the equal width bands need to be to remain in proportion? That bullet should be the "true Keith" for 45 caliber. Problem is that as you scale that bullet up, you lose case capacity in the larger bores when the case length remains constant.

That's why the compromise bullets, the 454424 /3 were made and had to be harder in 45 caliber. And it will always be true in 45 caliber unless the bands are widened. More weight length to hold that nose and turn that weight over once it slams the rifling. And the farther that a cartridge / gun requires that distance to be, the wider still it needs to be.

[Bass Ackward]

Someone once asked me about bullet design. I felt the question to involved to answer simply. And it isn't complex for most casters really. You just have to understand what it is you have to work with.

After a few months of thought and my hollow pointing experiments along with Larry's RPM discussions, I was able to put design into three simple sentences.

[ Good bullet design is a two part process. The first requires you to design a slug to be able to load and launch well out of the gun of interest. If launched successfully, then you can worry about balance, BC, and how it flies. ]

If you have perfect alignment and proper sized dimensions with tall rifling, you have much more flexibility to design poorly. Bottom line is that if you fail to launch well, the last portion is irrelevant. 99% of the problems casters have concerning accuracy is attributable to bullet design. Design affects everything from fit to hardness to sizing and lube plus all the other variables that occur right up to the launch.

Since the vast majority of cast bullets are shot at short ranges (< 100 yds) almost any rational design that is launched well will fly accurate enough if you don't get silly.

So I focus on launch criteria first.

[ddixie884]

Is anyone using 14gr 2400 under 255 to 270gr swc in the M-25 or M-625? Are you getting any pressure signs?

[Dale53]

I keep seeing this "pressure signs" dialogue. In a 625 revolver that has a realistic pressure limit of 23,000 psi or so, you will see NO pressure signs until you FAR exceed the limits. The first sign of high pressure may be the revolver top strap sticking out of your head.

I have discussed this over the years, in person, with a number of ballisticians and industry technicians.

Use good data and only exceed at your peril. There are people in the industry that have access to pressure testing equipment and technicians that can and do advise us. My current source of data that, while exceeding SAAMI standards is safe, is Brian Pearce of Handloader Magazine. For most use I rely on several current reloading manuals. However, there ARE areas where the conventional sources are of little help (as a for instance using heavy bullets in the .45 ACP 625). Then I look to Brian as someone who understands the matter and has access to those with actual pressure testing equipment. He has written extensively in this area.

I have loaded for .44 Magnum revolvers for fifty years. I have used loads that pressure tested at 40,000 psi and even then, there were NO pressure signs. No sticky extraction, decent brass life, in short, other than recoil and noise, nothing that would suggest I was approaching the limit of equipment. My only guide was pressure tested data available to anyone. So, that being the case, it is obvious to me that you will not be likely to have any "pressure signs" with a .45 ACP revolver while keeping within sane pressure limits.

In years gone by, I used Bruce Hodgdon. He was extremely helpful to me in expanding the use of my .45 Colt with higher pressure loads while still keeping within safety limits. Bruce was one of the earliest to explore the benefits of the Ruger Blackhawk with higher pressure loads and he had access to his own pressure testing equipment. If he had confidence in your approach to the problem he freely shared this information. Frankly, I still miss Bruce. I only met Bruce at various NRA Conventions and when he came to the ATA Shoots at Vandalia, Ohio but I will be eternally grateful for the wisdom he freely shared with me.

Stay safe, folks, STAY SAFE!

FWIW
Dale53