45ACP Seating Depth Issue

[Guy La Pourqe]

Hey fellas. Can you help me out with a seating issue?

286721

It drops from a Lee mould at .452" at 220 grains. I note that the Lyman manual calls for an OAL of 1.272". I cannot get these to cycle through my Springfield Trophy match at that length; the gun will not go into battery. I found that if I seat the bullet deeper, and apply a heavy crimp, the gun will pass the 'plunk test' if the OAL is down around 1.212". Is that too deep? will that cause dangerous pressure spikes? I have only loaded dummy rounds as I try to get this boolit to work.

Am I having a senior's moment? As far as I know, that boolit is right in the ball park and should easily load to book specs. Am I doing something wrong? any help is appreciated, this is driving me crazy....

[jcren]

That depth is fine as long as you aren't loading for max pressure +p loads with a twitchy powder. I dont load that particular bullet, but I use a lot of 200rf and lee 230tc which both require short oal and a lot more bullet in the case than you are getting. Sneak up on max powder loads and feed her what she likes.

[Walks]

No I don't think it's a senior moment. I seat a "new" bullet to pass the plunk test first. Then a magazine test, and finally a feed test.
Then head to the range for a firing test.
An O.A.L. is a guide that works for whoever's data you are using.
That's the way I work a seating depth for semi-auto's. Seat the bullet in 1/4 turn increments until it passes the plunk test and go from there. 1/4 turns of the seating screw.

[Keyman]

New to the "plunk test". What is this test? Thank you.

[zarrinvz24]

Springfields are notorious for having short leade into the barrel throat. It is designed for jacketed ammunition and works just fine for that. Most shooters shy away from boolits because of the glutton of misinformation regarding their use. I'm sure others will be along shortly to say the same thing, but it may be a good idea to send it in for barrel throating.

OAL needs to be the first step in load development. If you are going to increase seating depth, you are also reducing the available powder space and the resulting increase in pressure will reduce the safe maximum load. I interpret this to mean reducing your flexibility of finding a load that the pistol likes.

[zarrinvz24]

New to the "plunk test". What is this test? Thank you.

this is a good explanation:

https://www.shootingtimes.com/editorial/reloading-tips-the-plunk-test/99389

[scattershot]

OAL is just what worked for them, with their bullet, and was safe in their guns ( or pressure barrel ). Different bullets have different OAL, just go with what feeds best in your gun. You don’t give your load, but if it’s not over pressure to begin with, you should be fine.

Keyman:

The “plunk test” consists of dropping a loaded round into your barrel to see if it fits properly. It should bottom out in the chamber with a “plunk” sound, hence the name. It should fall out easily, too. The round should be even with or slightly below the barrel hood. Hope that helps.

[Larry Gibson]

The Lyman OAL of 1.272 is for the Lyman 225 gr 452374. The Lee bullet you are using has a different nose profile. The Lee bullet is intended to seat deeper. The 1.212" OAL you've found is pretty close to the correct OAL for the Lee bullet. As to a potential psi problem it should pose any problems if you are using the Lyman data for the 225 gr Lyman bullet. I would suggest the 5 gr load of Bullseye. That's what i use with 195 - 230 gr cast bullets in my 45 ACPs. That includes numerous of the 220 gr Lee bullets you have but mostly the Lee 452-200-SWC, the 453-230-TC and the Lyman 452374.

I've also found with modern commercial "Match Chambers" that bullets sized .451 and the loaded round given a taper crimp makes for 100% reliable chambering. I get no leading with .451 bullets in any of my 45 ACPs as I use a correct alloy and a proper lube. The use of the Lee 45 ACP FCD on rounds loaded with .452 sized cast also makes them 100% reliable feeders.

[hunter49]

What did your barrel slug at and what are you sizing to?

[35remington]

Ah, The 228-1R Conundrum.

I also concur the seating depth is correct. If it runs have fun with it.

[DougGuy]

You could always send the barrel and have it throated then you can use .452" boolits seated to whatever depth you choose, as long as they will cycle through the magazine. If you want to use published load data at the COA they list, throat the barrel to fit the load and take advantage of the much more reliable feeding and cycling that a longer COA gives you in the 1911 platform.

For the record, SAAMI specs call for a .453" lead boolit, how many of today's 1911s will even go into battery with that?


The use of the Lee 45 ACP FCD on rounds loaded with .452 sized cast also makes them 100% reliable feeders.

Provided the boolit diameter ahead of the case mouth will not interfere with the throat as the FCD does not address this area, it only addresses what's down inside the case. They still have to plunk, to function.

[Keyman]

New to the "plunk test". What is this test? Thank you.

Great info, and I thank you for answers.

[daloper]

I had a similar problem with my Rock Island 1911. I sent it to DougGuy and had the barrel done and now it will feed anything I put in it. He does good work and you will not regret having it done.

[44MAG#1]

You will have everyone from those with very little experience to those that have thousands of dollar of equipment to those who owns more firearms than the US Army and shoots more ammo than the whole US Military give answers. But, it only becomes an issue if one chooses it to be an issue.

[1006]

It is almost impossible to over pressure a 45ACP by reducing the COL. I only say “almost” to account for the supernatural phenomena of poltergeist living in the powder, or anything else I may have missed.

[Guy La Pourqe]

Well thanks a lot fellas! I really appreciate the info.

I am only loading patty-cake target loads with about 5.something HP38. If it gives me book velocities I am happy. Part of my confusion came from that new fangled Ruger Redhawk I got that does both 45ACP and 45 Colt. The revolver doesn't give a hoot about bullets or case dimensions - and it will accept anything I make.

I thought I was going bonkers - thanks again guys! Shoot straight, and good luck in the hunting draws!

[Char-Gar]

Plunk smunk....Throat your barrel and it will feed anything that will fit in the magazine as slick as snot on a glass door knob. Talk to DougGuy about it.

[fastdadio]

I was having a problem where my loads that cycled fine in my Auto Ordnance 1911 were too tight in my Colt Commander and would often be tight enough to hold the slide out of battery. I triple checked my last loads thinking it was the ammoes. What plunked fine in the AA was too tight for the Colt. I sent my barrel off to Doug Guy for a throat job. He did a wonderful job, but it didn't cure the problem. More reading on these pages led me to the discovery that My RCBS die was a roll crimp type die. Why, I'm not really sure. I bought a Lee taper crimp die, tried that, and Badda Boom! Bob's yer uncle! That same load with the same brass and Lee 230 lrn I've been loading for years now cycles 100% in both pistols. So my conclusion is that some pistols simply have chambers on the tight side and auto pistol cartridges should be taper crimped.

[Larry Gibson]

I was having a problem where my loads that cycled fine in my Auto Ordnance 1911 were too tight in my Colt Commander and would often be tight enough to hold the slide out of battery. I triple checked my last loads thinking it was the ammoes. What plunked fine in the AA was too tight for the Colt. I sent my barrel off to Doug Guy for a throat job. He did a wonderful job, but it didn't cure the problem. More reading on these pages led me to the discovery that My RCBS die was a roll crimp type die. Why, I'm not really sure. I bought a Lee taper crimp die, tried that, and Badda Boom! Bob's yer uncle! That same load with the same brass and Lee 230 lrn I've been loading for years now cycles 100% in both pistols. So my conclusion is that some pistols simply have chambers on the tight side and auto pistol cartridges should be taper crimped.

Exactly why "throating" isn't always a cure.....

[fastdadio]

Exactly why "throating" isn't always a cure.....

I never felt that the throat job that Doug did was wasted money though, he did a nice job on it. That barrel had a very abrupt square step up from chamber to rifling and I would have done it anyway.

[Larry Gibson]

Never said Doug's work was a "waste of money", just saying throating is always a cure for a handgun chambering problem. I've run into similar chambering problems with new 45 ACPs having "match" chambers and newer commercial 9mms with tighter chambers. Many times using .452 or .357 or larger bullets creates the chambering problem similar to yours. Using a taper crimp die, the Lee FCD or just using .451 or .456 sized bullets has always cured the problem. The problem being the tighter chambers, not too short throats.

[cobia]

I had similar issues with new Lee 452-200 SWC but was stove piping, got frustrated, got a NOE HTC 452-230-RF, PC, sized .452 after coat, took a while to get it to pass plunk on all 4 45's i have. Slowly seated until it passed. All 4 were (very) close in tolerance to depth. Went with that, all run 100% with just enough powder to cycle. Chrony says a tad fast? If I survive a KB I still have three other spares..

[BKS]

All of Hodgdon’s data has a 1.20 OAL. I have three different 45acp handguns and two will chamber a longer round than the 1 pistol so I load all of them to fit the short throated one. 1.21

[DougGuy]

It is almost impossible to over pressure a 45ACP by reducing the COL. I only say “almost” to account for the supernatural phenomena of poltergeist living in the powder, or anything else I may have missed.

This is definitely not true. In fact the opposite, is true. It is all but CERTAIN to raise pressure by shortening the COL. Without adjusting load data to compensate for less case volume.

To make the statement that it is impossible to over pressure, flies in the very face of the laws of physics, AND in every single loading manual or load data known to man.

Notice I said RAISE pressure by shorter COL, not over pressure. Over pressure occurs when the pressure generated by firing exceeds SAAMI published data for the caliber and load in question. Meaning that some setback in a round loaded to below max may not in itself be dangerous. The same setback in a round loaded to max or +P pressure, could become extremely dangerous. 9mm, 40S&W, both of these are high pressure rounds in their normal loading, setback as little as .010" can send pressures skyrocketing. So you can't just assume that you can shorten a COL without consequences, either at the loading bench or by boolit setback when cycling in a pistol. You DEFINITELY cannot assume that it is all but impossible to over pressure the 45 ACP by using a shorter COL.

I will put this in red, because it is fact beyond proof: Boolit setback IS a VERY dangerous event that very often leads to catastrophic and potentially fatal results.

There are at least one thread here where a KB did occur with injuries to the shooter and virtual destruction to a 1911 from boolit setback detonating the entire magazine.

Yet one more reason to MAKE SURE your ammo will plunk and spin freely when chambered, how many times do shooters bump the slide with their palm to force it into battery if they have a failure to fire because a round is jammed into the throat? Or lack of a throat? How many times do you reckon the boolit was pushed back a little bit and never caused an over pressure event? How close to an over pressure event blowing the case out and detonating the magazine did they come?

I personally blew up a Para 1911 in 40 caliber by exceeding safe pressures, thank GOD it was a solid cast receiver with plastic grip panels that did not explode in my hands, thank GOD it just blew up a few rounds in the magazine and blew the bottom off sending loaded rounds and shards of brass and lead downward toward my legs and the floor.

[DougGuy]

The problem being the tighter chambers, not too short throats.

Larry Gibson we are VERY fortunate to have you here contributing to this community. Understanding that the majority of shooters here don't have quite as much experience as you, much less pressure testing equipment, they come here to learn, and seeing your posts one can figure out how to feed a 1911 for example, to get it to work successfully with whatever barrel it came with, and the MOST important and MOST overlooked part of the equation is the alloy the boolit is cast in, and the lube.

Just like undersized cylinder throats can be made to shoot acceptably with soft alloy that actually obturates or bumps up larger when it hits the forcing cone and seals in the bore, the same can be applied to the 45 ACP and other autoloaders.

LET ME STATE THERE ARE TWO AREAS OF CONTENTION TO ADDRESS WITH AN AUTOLOADER, THE THROAT, *AND* THE CHAMBER.

Specifically the 1911 in 45 ACP caliber is one of the most popular pistol/caliber choices for a handloader or a caster, it's usually the first step in learning to cast and load one's own ammo, and in nearly every gun made by a multitude of manufacturers, there is nearly no throat, almost certainly no freebore to speak of, and if there is any, it is almost as a rule, smaller in diameter than .452" yes some pistols come with a little freebore in there that you can get a .452" gage pin to go in, but not very many.

Most look like the barrel on the left. Rifling running right down to the chamber mouth where even a .451" loaded to published COA often won't plunk if there is any of the full boolit diameter sitting outside the case mouth, which it would be if you followed the COA listed in load data.

286912

Usually, interference and failure to go into battery can be traced to the boolit being jammed into the rifling as it would be with the barrel on the left in the photo. However, as you mention match chambers this would refer (imo) to chambers themselves cut to minimum specs for both length and diameter. Some ammo won't function in a match chamber unless the shoulder of the case is .472" or less, but let's consider the math. a .472" chamber mouth, minus .011" x2 for case walls only leaves .450" for the boolit! Most 45 ACP chambers will feed a round crimped to .474" and this is a very common dimension to use since this represents a .452" boolit seated in the 45 ACP case.

Case wall thickness is usually the culprit with a tight chamber (match chamber) and a barrel that has enough throat to plunk the loads. Often one interference is mistaken for another interference, i.e. the throat is often blamed because the loaded round is too big for the chamber, or the chamber is blamed for the failure to plunk when in fact it is the throat causing the interference.

With a barrel that has a match chamber, you often need to sort brass by headstamp in order to have good feed and function. Some cases are just too thick to use with a match chamber unless you are using less than .452" boolits.

[fastdadio]

[QUOTE=Larry Gibson;5234937]Never said Doug's work was a "waste of money", just saying throating is always a cure for a handgun chambering problem. /QUOTE]

I realize you weren't implying that. I posted that to clarify that it wasn't done simply to cure the tight chamber problem. To me, it was simply one box to check off on my search for a cure.

[Forrest r]

Actually the "taper crimp" is the most misunderstood part of reloading the 45acp. Typical ball ammo with a .473" crimp and a .452" bullet.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=eBpzR38m&id=805A8913769CE6D5644AE4355D3F5F87BA723FF8&thid=OIP.eBpzR38mCuzrBu7fjqaF_AAAAA&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fth.bing.com%2fth%2fid%2fR.7 81a73477f260aeceb06eedf8ea685fc%3frik%3d%252bD9yuo dfP1015A%26riu%3dhttp%253a%252f%252fthegunrights.c om%252fwp-content%252fuploads%252f2015%252f03%252f45acpdimen sions.gif%26ehk%3dHChuzjXcJwCQ7Ajv4yKWwokkLrUf6tQI wW9m1fgjQuA%253d%26risl%3d%26pid%3dImgRaw%26r%3d0&exph=233&expw=440&q=45acp+dimensions&simid=608048716474958360&FORM=IRPRST&ck=64914F8D19113829AE7BA4454866968B&selectedIndex=1

I read all the time that "I only crimp enough to remove the flare." Good way to cause nothing but issues!!!

The tried and true h&g #68 seated to 1.250 with a .469/.470" taper crimp. Countless millions of this same reload have been put down range for decades.
https://i.imgur.com/rQlREhC.jpg

I target a 3/1000th's+ taper crimp on every semi-auto caliber I reload for. That .469"/.470" is +/- 20/1000th's of an inch long.

When you have a +/- 3/1000th's" taper crimp on your 45acp reloads it takes any loose/tight chamber fit out of play along with tapering the shoulder of your cast bullet to conform to the leade of the tight match bbl's.

My stock springfield armory nm range officer barrel.
https://i.imgur.com/wvwbomH.jpg

3 different bullets shooting 5-shot groups @ 50ft. All loads used 4.3gr of clays and all reloads had a .469/.470" taper crimp. The worst group was 1" outside to outside.
https://i.imgur.com/N17hNIE.jpg

That h&g #68 reload pictured above, 10-shot groups @ 50ft with a .469/.470" taper crimp.
https://i.imgur.com/lxO5I66.jpg

Now that you know how to use the plunk test you should work on the crimps of your reloads. Get the crimp dialed in so your reloads will pass the plunk test in those match bbl's and you'll be shooting bugholes.

And ya, a 3/1000th's taper crimp that's 20/1000th's long is what I use on my 9mm target loads. 10-shot group @ 50ft fired from a box stock springfield armory range officer with a tight nm bbl chambered in 9mm
https://i.imgur.com/N6XBlbc.jpg

Heck it used to be extremely common to use a .465" taper crimp with the h&g #130's in our custom wadguns. Take a little time and do an internet search to see what the bullseye shooters are doing. Match chambers need match grade ammo.

1 of hundreds of links out there from a web search.
https://www.bullseyeforum.net/t8204-latest-handloader-has-pet-loads-article-on-the-45-acp

It's always good to keep an assortment of springs around, I use a variable power or a strait 10# spring depending on what I'm shooting in the springfield armory ro's.
https://i.imgur.com/4thwWlK.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/8NOmyg6.jpg

At the end of the day you can run a .469/.470" taper crimped 45acp reload in anything from a cheap millspec 1911 to a match grade 1911. A .474" crimp, not so much in the match bbl's.

A .469/.470" taper crimp is your friend.

[9mmskng]

Bullet profile dictates length, NOT quoted OAL! Load that bullet to groove closest to bullet nose, put 4.0/4.5grs Bullseye under it. You can thank me later.

[Kosh75287]

You could ALSO try THIS:
1.) Put a 230 gr. FMJ factory round in the shell holder and run the ram up, as far as it will go (no die at top of press).
2.) With the seating plug elevated so that it won't seat a bullet, put the seating die in the top of the press and turn it downward, using fingers. When the first sign of resistance is felt, stop turning and engage the locking ring.
3.) Screw the seating plug down until it contacts the top of projectile (usually, the first sign of resistance). UNscrew the seating plug 1/4 to 1/2 turn from there.
4.) Remove the factory round and replace it with a primed, powder-charged case, with the projectile of choice started in the case mouth. Run the ram up as far as it will go, finger-tighten the seating plug, then retract the ram. Inspect the round for signs of crimp, and measure the case mouth. The figure that seems to work well is 0.470 + 0.001". It should be found in the top-most groove of the projectile, with the case mouth abutting the "swell" immediately in front of the groove. If part of the top-most groove is visible, adjust either the die or the seating plug down in 1/8th-turn increments until the groove is no longer visible.
5.) At THIS point, it should all be "fine tuning" for the best fit in the chamber of your pistol.

MY experience has been that, with MODERATE charges of propellants that are slower-burning than Bullseye, seating the bullet SLIGHTLY too deeply and/or crimping SLIGHTLY too much elevates pressures A LITTLE, but not enough to be worrisome.

[1hole]

Is that too deep? will that cause dangerous pressure spikes? I have only loaded dummy rounds as I try to get this boolit to work.

You will get no "pressure spikes" in any auto cartridges except the already twitchy high pressure 9mm and 10mm rounds. Adjust your seating to obtain reliable feeding and chambering in your modest pressure .45 ACP and all will be well.

[Larry Gibson]

You will get no "pressure spikes" in any auto cartridges except the already twitchy high pressure 9mm and 10mm rounds. ............

Having measured the pressure of many different auto cartridges, I would not bet the farm on that erroneous conclusion.......

[1hole]

Having measured the pressure of many different auto cartridges, I would not bet the farm on that erroneous conclusion.......

Welll ... I wonder what degree of seating depth changes in what pressure range of cartridges you're supposing.

Seating autoloader ammo long only causes failures to feed and chamber. I do agree that seating modest pressure autoloader cartridges deeper than a half inch would likely raise start pressure of a hot book load above safe limits. But the cartridges would unlikely feed from a magazine so it would be a moot point.

However, if the seating depth variation is within common sense ranges I don't believe the pressure of a book load for any autoloader cartridge (other than already hot loaded, high intensity 9mm and 10mm) will blow anyone's handgun from together. And I'd bet my neighbor's farm on that! ;)

[Burnt Fingers]

You could ALSO try THIS:
1.) Put a 230 gr. FMJ factory round in the shell holder and run the ram up, as far as it will go (no die at top of press).
2.) With the seating plug elevated so that it won't seat a bullet, put the seating die in the top of the press and turn it downward, using fingers. When the first sign of resistance is felt, stop turning and engage the locking ring.
3.) Screw the seating plug down until it contacts the top of projectile (usually, the first sign of resistance). UNscrew the seating plug 1/4 to 1/2 turn from there.
4.) Remove the factory round and replace it with a primed, powder-charged case, with the projectile of choice started in the case mouth. Run the ram up as far as it will go, finger-tighten the seating plug, then retract the ram. Inspect the round for signs of crimp, and measure the case mouth. The figure that seems to work well is 0.470 + 0.001". It should be found in the top-most groove of the projectile, with the case mouth abutting the "swell" immediately in front of the groove. If part of the top-most groove is visible, adjust either the die or the seating plug down in 1/8th-turn increments until the groove is no longer visible.
5.) At THIS point, it should all be "fine tuning" for the best fit in the chamber of your pistol.

MY experience has been that, with MODERATE charges of propellants that are slower-burning than Bullseye, seating the bullet SLIGHTLY too deeply and/or crimping SLIGHTLY too much elevates pressures A LITTLE, but not enough to be worrisome.

This works great if you're using the same exact bullet as the factory round. But using a factory round with a RCBS 225 gr RN profile and then using a Lee 228 gr 1R bullet is going to lead to nothing but cussing.

[DougGuy]

This is very simple, it's the laws of physics that define it, but long story short, the greater the operating pressure, the smaller the amount of seating variation it will take to cause a dangerous spike in pressure. The smaller the amount of case volume, the smaller the amount of seating depth variation it will take to cause a dangerous spike in pressure.

That leaves this conclusion. In a cartridge which operates at middle level pressures, the variation in seating depth can be greater without causing dangerous spikes in pressure.

However, even in the 45 ACP, boolit setback on feeding from the magazine with a round that isn't crimped enough to hold the boolit firmly, CAN AND WILL very easily spike pressure enough to blow out the case web in a non supported area of the chamber, detonate the remaining rounds in the magazine, exploding the wooden grip panels driving shards of brass, lead, and splinters of wood into the shooter's hands and face.



However, if the seating depth variation is within common sense ranges I don't believe the pressure of a book load for any autoloader cartridge (other than already hot loaded, high intensity 9mm and 10mm) will blow anyone's handgun from together. And I'd bet my neighbor's farm on that! ;)


It happened to a member on this forum, exactly as I described above, the thread is still archived here. It's obvious you haven't read this thread.

You didn't read my earlier reply describing my own experience KB'ing a Para in 40 caliber.

[Finster101]

Reading this thread and a couple of others with that bullet, it seems a poor design for the ACP. I believe I would find a mould with a better nose profile and call it a day.

[Char-Gar]

I continue to be amazed at how much dissention and contention can be generated over reloading the 45 ACP round. Countless billions of reloads have been fired in countless 1911 pistols over the past 110 years. It is a remarkably easy round to reload, yet folks can still find issues to stress about. In these kinds of threads there is more taught about human nature, than reloading the 45 ACP round....just saying boys!

[1hole]

I continue to be amazed at how much dissention and contention can be generated over reloading the 45 ACP round. Countless billions of reloads have been fired in countless 1911 pistols over the past 110 years. It is a remarkably easy round to reload, yet folks can still find issues to stress about. In these kinds of threads there is more taught about human nature, than reloading the 45 ACP round....just saying boys!

Yep. And anyone lying to you about blowing the grip panels off a 1911 because of a few thousanths of seating depth will lie to you about other stuff too.

Oh well, it really doesn't matter very much and momentary web experts need a place to play too.

[Char-Gar]

I was told by a law enforcement guy that some years back he and some others were told to destroy some firearms that had accumulated. There were a couple of 1911s in the batch, so they set out to destroy them and learn something in the process. They started with the traditional 5 grains of Bullseye under a 230 RN FMJ bullet. They went up 1/2 grain at a time and all was good till they got to 12.5 grains of Bullseye, which was a really compressed load. The handgun did not come apart or blow the grips off, but the slide expanded enough to cease function.

Bottom line is you could destroy a 1911 but you could not "blow it up".

[Larry Gibson]

1hole

The OP only asked if the seating depth difference could cause "dangerous pressure spikes". Did I miss where a dangerous pressure spike was defined as "blow it up"? I've seen the end result of too many over pressure loads from overloading, double charges or even bullet set back in 45 ACPs in M1911s.... case ruptures at feed ramp, magazine blown out the bottom and damaged beyond repair, grip panels shattered or splintered and hands cut or burned. Most of those M1911s were not damaged and given new grips and a new magazine were back in operation....when the shooters hand healed and he got his nerve back. Maybe some have not seen that, including you, but I have as have many others....and that ain't no lie.....

I've also seen enough bullets set back into the case from hitting or jamming on the feed ramp. I've actually measured such "set back" and founds as much as .25" +. Does such set back cause an increase in pressure? It certainly does.

My pressure testing measuring the pressure difference in numerous auto loading cartridges such as the 380 ACP the 9mm, the 38 Super and the 45 ACP and revolver cartridges of 32 S&WL, 32 H&R, 38 S&W, 38 SPL, 357 Magnum, 44 SPL, 44 magnum, 45 Schofield and 45 Colt indicate that, with a given load and all else being equal, a set back of .2" will get a 10,000 psi plus increase in pressure at lease. A lot depends on the burning rate of the powder used but with the burn rate of most powders used in the 45 ACP that 10,000 psi figure is pretty close. BTW, a .1" set back nets about 5,000 psi gain.

Yes, many get away with firing such in M1911s especially if the loads are in the normal 16 - 18,000 psi range. However, if you are pushing a top end +P load running already at 23,000 psi and you add another 10,000 +/- psi to it because the bullet sets back during feeding or you seat them too deep.....well, very bad things can happen.....and that also ain't no lie......

Now, if you have some pressure test data to the contrary I sure would like to see it?

[Kosh75287]

[QUOTE]This works great if you're using the same exact bullet as the factory round. But using a factory round with a RCBS 225 gr RN profile and then using a Lee 228 gr 1R bullet is going to lead to nothing but cussing./QUOTE]

I'm not sure about it being "the same exact bullet", but the projectile the OP posted in his "o.p." seems sufficiently redolent of a FMJRN that using a factory ball round as a guide would get him very close to where he needs to be. He didn't mention reloading SWCs, TCs, hollow-points, flat points, nor inverted wadcutters. A .45 auto that will feed 230 gr. FMJRNs, but not a reload with a properly cast Lee 228-1R is suffering from problems OTHER than seating depth. On closer examination, I'm not sure I know of a cast projectile that more closely resembles the 230 gr. FMJRN than the 228-1R, so I'm not at all clear about what the source of your trepidation is. <shrug>

[QUOTE]Having measured the pressure of many different auto cartridges, I would not bet the farm on that erroneous conclusion.../QUOTE]
Amen to THAT, sir.

[35remington]

A 228-1R resembles 230 FMJ not at all, and rounds with both bullets loaded to the same approximate 1.262- 1.265” which duplicates factory 230 FMJ will result in the 228-1R not chambering fully even in barrels that have some throat.

Said by a guy who has loaded both type bullets and casts the 228-1R. That OAL is a problem when confusing the two bullets is a well settled issue and not open to doubt.

[35remington]

Examples of bullets that match the 230 FMJ profile much better than the 228-1R are available in plenty. Examine the other 230 RN Lee offers and take that as but one example. Hint….it’s a 2R. Also look up the Lyman and RCBS iterations among others.

[Forrest r]

There's a lot of 1r & 1.25r bullet designs for the 45acp out there that have been used for decades. Just because a bullet is a swc doesn't mean that it will need a different oal then a 1r round nose to feed correctly.

H&G #130
Lyman 452488
cramer #5
Mihec 200gr hp
LEE 228-1r

All those bullets should be in the +/- 1.20" oal range. Milspec bbl's use longer oal's, match grade bbl's shorter oal's.

Left: cramer #5 It's a clone of the h&g #130, the lyman 452488 is also a clone of the h&g #130
Center: H&G #68
right: Mihec 200gr hp
https://i.imgur.com/lZyBjGD.jpg

It's been posted countless times on this website that "I set my oal with a thumb nail thickness of the bullet's shoulder sticking above the rim."

That is excellent advice for any semi-auto cartridge anyone reloads for. Myself I always say +/- 20/1000 sticking above and then do a plunk test.

The cramer #5 & mihec 200gr hp have a oal of 1.18". The cramer #5 has +/- 20/1000th's of the bullets body sticking above the top of the rim. The mihec 200gr hp is seated so that the bullets body is +/- 5/1000th's above the top of the rim. The mihec is seated deeper for reliable function/100% feed.

Do yourself a huge favor and start testing oal's of a load with +/- 20/1000th's of the bullets body sticking out above the rim. Plunk test to dial the oal in & then test for function.

The op more than most likely had +/- 60/1000th's of the bullets body sticking out above the top of the case.

Myself, I crimp everything. I could care less about case life!!! Consistent ignition & consistent oal's ='s accuracy. Bullet setback is something I don't worry about between the correct expander for a consistent neck tension and a good crimp.

Quickloads will make graphs showing pressures per seating depths. A 9mm graph
https://i.imgur.com/iVohJkW.png

Ramshot puts this out in their reloading manuals
https://i.imgur.com/UlcjxB5.jpg

Bullseye used to be the bad boy on the block claiming many revolvers with wc loads. Hercules (before alliant) used to put this out as a aid for reloading and the affects of oal's
https://i.imgur.com/uIUZpPE.jpg

Anyway, be safe & try to keep the amount of the bullets body +/- 20/1000th's" above the top of the case.

[Larry Gibson]

The graphs and illustrations Forrest r posted above coincides very well with what my actual pressure measurements increases were with deeper seating depths for a given load.

[Char-Gar]

That graphic of deep seated and double charged 38 Special Wadcutters was published in the American Rifleman and was the results of testing done by H.P. White lab at the requested of AR magazine. The word was floating around that revolvers were being "blow up" with the standard target load of 2.7/BE under the solid base wadcutter. AR did the research to counter this myth.

[1hole]

... all else being equal, a set back of .2" will get a 10,000 psi plus increase in pressure at lease.

Larry, I don't know what you tested nor how. I have no such "test" data, and you know it. But I am an old space electronics system tech and I do have a detailed analytical approach to technical questions.

The OP stated his concern about dangerous pressure spikes from a minor seating depth change; I only addressed what he said, not all possible events. (And I don't think it's necessary to blow the barrel off to qualify as a "blow-up".)

The OP was specifically concerned that a (very small) change in his .45 ACP seating depth might be dangerous; it is not. Your mention of a .200" seating change is not small.

First, modern 9mm and 10mm cartridges pressures normally run very high and their case volume is quite limited. So, by (Boyle's Law) of physics, we know that small decreases in volume can make oversized differences in pressure. But that volume effect simply isn't a player with our older pistol cartridges so, IMHO, the OP need have no fear with normally loaded .45 ACP.

Second, the only real "spike" in chamber pressure occurs shortly after ignition and that comes before the bullet has moved much. Anything such as crimping that retards initial bullet movement will increase the peak start pressure. Your mention of seeing massive bullet set back because of cartridges hitting the feed ramp says those bullets were held so loosely they could not have appreciably resisted forward movement so the shortened seating depth, as such, couldn't have amounted to much.

Finally, I cannot imagine having a normally loaded bullet seated so loosely that simply chambering the round would cause .200" of set back. BUT, if it happened, that same loosely held bullet would also move forward very easily to expand the volume of the combustion chamber and that rapid volume increase would have greatly reduced the attainable pressure.

So, no; small changes in the seating depth of older modest pressure cartridges are not dangerous.

[Burnt Fingers]

Larry, I don't know what you tested nor how. I have no such "test" data, and you know it. But I am an old space electronics system tech and I do have a detailed analytical approach to technical questions.

The OP stated his concern about dangerous pressure spikes from a minor seating depth change; I only addressed what he said, not all possible events. (And I don't think it's necessary to blow the barrel off to qualify as a "blow-up".)

The OP was specifically concerned that a (very small) change in his .45 ACP seating depth might be dangerous; it is not. Your mention of a .200" seating change is not small.

First, modern 9mm and 10mm cartridges pressures normally run very high and their case volume is quite limited. So, by (Boyle's Law) of physics, we know that small decreases in volume can make oversized differences in pressure. But that volume effect simply isn't a player with our older pistol cartridges so, IMHO, the OP need have no fear with normally loaded .45 ACP.

Second, the only real "spike" in chamber pressure occurs shortly after ignition and that comes before the bullet has moved much. Anything such as crimping that retards initial bullet movement will increase the peak start pressure. Your mention of seeing massive bullet set back because of cartridges hitting the feed ramp says those bullets were held so loosely they could not have appreciably resisted forward movement so the shortened seating depth, as such, couldn't have amounted to much.

Finally, I cannot imagine having a normally loaded bullet seated so loosely that simply chambering the round would cause .200" of set back. BUT, if it happened, that same loosely held bullet would also move forward very easily to expand the volume of the combustion chamber and that rapid volume increase would have greatly reduced the attainable pressure.

So, no; small changes in the seating depth of older modest pressure cartridges are not dangerous.

Case capacity of the 10mm is slightly less than the 45 ACP.

10mm 24.1 gr H2O
45 ACP 26.7 gr H2O
9mm 13.3 gr H2O.

[Larry Gibson]

1hole

Larry, I don't know what you tested nor how. I have no such "test" data, and you know it. But I am an old space electronics system tech and I do have a detailed analytical approach to technical questions.

That is excellent because you should have an open mind and understand that many times what we think may happen isn't always what will happen.

The OP stated his concern about dangerous pressure spikes from a minor seating depth change; I only addressed what he said, not all possible events. (And I don't think it's necessary to blow the barrel off to qualify as a "blow-up".)

We are certainly in agreement there. However, my response wasn't necessarly to you alone. many read such a seemingly simple statement and take it as gospel. I was only adding a caution.

The OP was specifically concerned that a (very small) change in his .45 ACP seating depth might be dangerous; it is not. Your mention of a .200" seating change is not small.

If the OP were to seat the Lee bullet to it's correct depth there would not be any "dangerous" pressure with the load he is using. Never said there would be and I believe i told him to seat it to the correct depth and he would be ok. Yes, .2" setback is a lot but I have seen such, especially with lighter loads that do not take up a lot of case volume. Here is one I saved to get a picture of and to dissect the round. The 200 gr hard cast commercial bullet set back .153" and probably would have set back more had it not been stopped by the powder charge. The shooter had a M1911 with an "un-ramped" barrel that left a small amount of the bottom of the barrel overhanging the feed ramp of the frame. He'd had no problems with FMJ and RN cast feeding but had went to the 200 gr SWC hard cast. He was shooting 7 gr Unique under the bullet. He also had put a 22 lb spring in the pistol. I stopped him after he tried the round (1st one out of the magazine) 3 or 4 times. The bullet nose hung up on the bottom of the barrel "ramp" each time. I saw the bullet was rammed back into the case as he dropped the round straight into the camber to fire it. I stopped him. So I guess we really don't know if that would have been "dangerous" but I convinced him it might not be. He stopped shooting and got the barrel "ramped" and fitted properly and then shot up that load w/o any problems.

If you look close you might also see the case mouth flare was not completely straightened out. We did run the loaded ammo through my Lee FCD before he shot it up. He has subsequently got his own FCD and uses it religiously......

287067

First, modern 9mm and 10mm cartridges pressures normally run very high and their case volume is quite limited. So, by (Boyle's Law) of physics, we know that small decreases in volume can make oversized differences in pressure. But that volume effect simply isn't a player with our older pistol cartridges so, IMHO, the OP need have no fear with normally loaded .45 ACP.

My pressure measurements of other pistol cartridges with deeper seating of the bullets included similar higher pressure cartridges such as the 357 magnum and the 44 magnum along with the 9mm. They also are proportionally susceptible to Boyles Law. In Ballistics we use the "expansion ratio" to express it. You certainly are entitled to your opinion but my pressure measurement data of varied seating depths in "our older pistol cartridges" shows that "volume effect" is indeed a player and can be a serious player at that. And no, as I've mentioned, the OP should have "no fear" with "normally loaded" 45 ACP ammunition.

Second, the only real "spike" in chamber pressure occurs shortly after ignition and that comes before the bullet has moved much. Anything such as crimping that retards initial bullet movement will increase the peak start pressure. Your mention of seeing massive bullet set back because of cartridges hitting the feed ramp says those bullets were held so loosely they could not have appreciably resisted forward movement so the shortened seating depth, as such, couldn't have amounted to much.

Again, actual pressure measurement data, the time /pressure traces specifically, shows us there are indeed secondary pressure "spikes". Take a close look ath the secondary pressure spike in this 38 SPL load.....

287070

.....then tell us there aren't any........Those "spikes" occurred well after the bullet started moving and had left the chamber.

Finally, I cannot imagine having a normally loaded bullet seated so loosely that simply chambering the round would cause .200" of set back. BUT, if it happened, that same loosely held bullet would also move forward very easily to expand the volume of the combustion chamber and that rapid volume increase would have greatly reduced the attainable pressure.
It indeed can happen as illustrated in the picture previously posted. I may just have to test that load to see what the pressure may have been......But I still wouldn't bet the farm it would be good......

So, no; small changes in the seating depth of older modest pressure cartridges are not dangerous.

Perhaps......

[Larry Gibson]

1hole

Please don't get me wrong. I'm not being critical of you. The assumptions you've proffered are what many think. I did too at one time until i actually began questioning some of those assumptions and actually testing them. I've found much of what we thought, and the old time gunwriters thought have proven not to be correct. Looking at time/pressure curves is a good example. The one I posted above does look pretty radical. Most of us have for years become accustomed to nice smooth curves we've seen in books and magazines. But those are either drawings or computer generations. Actual traces, even the older oscilloscope ones, many times show a different trace.

Here's a data sheet taken with a different load in the same test barrel.....

287088

Quite a difference with no secondary pressure spike........

The more I test, the more I learn......

[1hole]

No offense was meant and none was taken. If I took offense at everyone who disagrees with me I couldn't even talk with my wife!


I do have a detailed analytical approach to technical questions.

That is excellent because you should have an open mind and understand that many times what we think may happen isn't always what will happen....

Open mind? Well, I know some folk who would simply say I have an extra hole in my head. (Good friends can be hard to find these days so we have to live with the ones we have. ;))


Again, actual pressure measurement data, the time/pressure traces specifically, shows us there are indeed secondary pressure "spikes". Take a close look at the secondary pressure spike in this 38 SPL load.....

287070


THAT spike blows me away. IF it's valid, I can't fathom what could have caused such a spike inside the cartridge. What I CAN fathom is that it looks like an electronics problem, not chamber.

Part of what I used to do at the Cape was repair and calibrate high precision storage scopes (Tektronix and Hewlett Packard) and spectrum analyzers. I suspect something internal to or near the instrument itself caused that otherwise unexplainable (and brief) pressure trace deviation. Perhaps a distant power line pulse or an electron phart?

Whatever, even if that strangely detached pressure trace was/is somehow valid, it only reaches as high as the initial pressure before the bullet moved, then the trace immediately drops back to where it started and continues to fall normally (that detached "coming and going" spike is really weird!) so nothing unsafe should have happened. ???

[Larry Gibson]

While that is a severe example of a secondary pressure spike such spikes are more common than we would like to think and not really such an anomaly. Many would think it was an electrical problem or or other glitch with the system. However, when we look at the trace's (as in post #49) measured with the same test barrel and equipment having only the ammunition being different we see it was not the equipment or an electrical problem. I most often have a "standard" load, either commercial or my own load, that has given consistent performance with me such being referred to as "reference" ammunition. When I see such an anomaly I test a few rounds of the reference ammunition to be sure.

Ever wonder why we've never really seen many of the traces of manufactures of load manual ammunition tests? My guess is because they know they would get the same reactions from the un-informed public that I often get on this forum. Here is another example from a 1975 published book called "The 30-06 by W.L. Godfrey. The book has many time/pressure traces as recorded on an oscilloscope. As was back in the day before transducers and strain gauges were commonly used only one test per load is used. We see with this powder we see what the author calls "mini" spikes and on others he refers to them as "camel humps". Regardless of what they're called we see the secondary pressure spikes are there with some loads in most all cartridges. This anomaly or phenomenon has been known for some time since the advent of the oscilloscope, transducers and strain gauges to produce time/pressure curve/traces. Ballisticians were not aware of such secondary spikes with C.U.P. measurements because that method can only measured to peak pressure whether obtained from the primary or the secondary pressure.

287100

[Kosh75287]

A 228-1R resembles 230 FMJ not at all,
Hmmm...
1.) 0.608" vs. 0.665" for the FMJ, okay, some difference there, which is why I mentioned fine-tuning. A difference in length of 0.057" is quite easily adjusted out with a SMALL turn of the seating plug screw.
2.) Both noses are round & pointed, and bereft of a discernible shoulder.
3.) TL-230-2R (thanks AWFULLY for the "2R" hint, NEVER woulda found it without you) has a more similar length to the 230 gr. FMJRN, which might help matters. But WAIT! What's that THING located .365" aft of the nose? It appears to be a SHOULDER! I don't recall seeing one of THOSE on a FMJRN! And I'm QUITE sure that it'll be NO issue in determining where the loaded round stops in the chamber.
Now, just so I'm SURE that I have it right, WHICH of the Lee bullets resembles the 230 gr. FMJLRN "not at all"? I'll concede a bit of difference in overall projectile lengths, but I see NO SHOULDER on the 228-1R NOR on the FMJRN.
I've loaded and shot the 228-1R a little. I've loaded and shot other 230 gr. LRNs from HEAVEN ONLY KNOWS which molds, a great deal. I've seated both with similar practices, plus or minus a few tweaks, obtaining similar and good performance from both, and problems from neither. I guess I lack your "experience" in encountering problems when switching from the 1R to other projectiles resembling the 230 gr. FMJRN even LESS "not at all." <SMH>

[35remington]

The OP started the thread wondering why the 228-1R did not allow an OAL that was functional except when it was seated to produce a short OAL, much shorter than standard ball ammo.

A 230-2R does allow a duplication of ball or standard factory FMJ OAL.. A 228-1R does not. Problem solved.

If he was using the 230-2R he likely would never had the question of why the OAL to produce functionality differed from spec. I load and cast the 230-2R as well.

In terms of producing ammo that most duplicates the feeding characteristics and overall length of FMJRN, the statement that the 228-1R resembles 230 FMJRN “not at all” is quite correct. If you want to duplicate ball, choose the 230-2R. Functionality at a comparable overall length is the issue here. The features of the 230-2R facilitate that. The features of the 228-1R do not.

A helpful hint: First, swap the 230-2R for FMJ when the seating die is adjusted for 1.265” for the FMJ. Make no change in seating stem adjustment. Second, try the 228-1R. The first example will work, chamber freely, and function through the gun. The second one won’t.

[BD]

This has been an interesting and wide ranging thread. I do not claim to be an expert, but I have some experience with 1911s in .45 acp. 30 years ago when I first started shooting action pistol sports competitively, 1911s of one sort or another in .45acp made up about 90% of the guns we'd see at matches. As RO I've seen my share. At a rough guess I'd say I've witnessed 7 or 8 "over pressure events" in these pistols over the years. I only saw one serious injury as a result. That was a Para Ordinance which blew out the bottom of the case, and detonated 6 of the cartridges in the mag below, carrying everything out the bottom of the grip frame and swelling the slide. It also burst the grips which led to the serious part of the injury. The rest of the injury was brass shrapnel in the shooters face. I believe that one was likely a double charge as I was not able to easily set back any of the cartridges that survived intact. The other 6 or seven events resulted only in blowing the lower rear out of the fired case which blew the mag out of the bottom of the grip frame. In each of those cases I was able to set back a boolit in the surviving cartridges just by squeezing the the cartridge in my hand. The other thing they all had in common was that they were all seated too short IMO. Little or no drive band was apparent forward of the case mouth. IMO seating short like that in an attempt to get them to chamber reliably in an un-throated barrel does not allow the case mouth to get a real "bite" into the boolit from the taper crimp leaving it liable to being set back by the ramp as it is stripped from the mag. When this happens the boolit will nearly always set all the way back to the powder charge. Easily .20" when using the #68 style over Bullseye, (which was the most common load in those days). These occurrences are what led me to start looking at throats, and throating barrels. In the '90s all of the older pistols had some throat from the factory. Since then, proper throating seems to have been left to the consumer. These days I don't see many new shooters starting out with 1911s in .45acp. I only attend the local matches any more and it's rare if there is more than one or two other old farts competing with me using 1911s in the single stack division. Most of the Super Seniors in our area have gone to optics on some form of high cap plastic pistol.
I would hazard that over all the 1911 is a pretty safe platform in this regard. These events rarely cause serious physical injuries, (maybe some dirty underwear), and they rarely destroy the firearm.
Nothing like what I saw when Glock first started chambering the .40SW

[Forrest r]

Thank you for your input Larry.

As usual Larry always has interesting tops for discussion. I wish info like this was around in the 80's/90's. Sure would of made it a heck of a lot easier having such a quality learning curve at my finger tips.

Pressure spikes
Secondary pressure spikes
Bullet setback
Seating depths affect on pressure
Crimping & short start pressure

Understanding these things leads to a safe quality reload that puts bugholes in targets.