I went to the range with a handful of 255 gr bullets over 20 grains of 2400and a federal large non-mag primer and a heavy crimp. I barely got 900 fps from my 5.5" Ruger stainless blackhawk. Besides being completely underwhelmed by the velocity, I could tell I wasn't getting proper ignition at all. I suspect the answer lies in H110 and something in the 300 gr category of life.

Still, I have about 6# of 2400 I'd like to plink off. Any suggestions on what to do with a load for a 255 gr hard cast that has some decent punch to it?

I think something must be wrong with your chrongraph, thats really slow for that much 2400. I get more than that with 9 grs of Unique or 18.5 grs of 2400. But, thats in my guns.
For the upper level loads its hard to beat H110 with a mag primer. The Hodgon #26 manual is very helpful with heavy 45 Colt loads for Ruger sixguns & it also gives you pressure data.
The heavier 270-300 gr slugs really shine with H110.

Dick

quote:

SIXSHOT 10 - " I think something must be wrong with your chrongraph, thats really slow for that much 2400. I get more than that with 9 grs of Unique or 18.5 grs of 2400. But, thats in my guns."

I think so too. I get more velocity than that with the same load, 255 grains SWC hard cast, in my Ruger B.H. 4 5/8" bbl., .45 Colt(1,000 FPS).

You might go to beartoothbullets dot com and look in the load section. Lots of good loads for .45 Colt there, plus BTB makes some really fine bullets.


L.W.

I came home and actually pulled three bullets just to make sure they weren't under-charged: nope. 20gr. of powder on the button, 2400.

It wasn't the chrono - I also chrono'ed my 300gr. .44 mag load with 17.5 gr. of 2400, Federal Match Pistol primer: 1,250 fps on the button. Same as it's always been. Tested a couple of my standard rifle loads - no problems either. It's a Shooting Chrony and it's worked great for years.

That's what threw me off so much. These .45 Colt loads were light and felt like it might well have been an ignition problem.

Why don`t you use Mag primers???

Because bfrshooter will admonish him.

OK

quote:

Posted 16 April 2012 19:40 Hide Post
Because bfrshooter will admonish him.

Yep. Use a 335 gr LBT WLN with 21.5 gr of 296, Fed 150 primer and get 1160 fps.
The Lyman 452651 with the same load.
Crimp is not the solution but case tension is.
That load of 2400 with a 255 gr should be 1200fps roughly.
The shorter barrel in the .45 is not too important and 5.5" is OK, maybe ideal.
No need for a mag primer with 2400 or 296 but the WW primer works well.
I suspect something is not right, maybe a soft boolit getting sized when you seat and broken case tension from a hard crimp. Just fold the crimp to the bottom of the groove and no more.
2400 is a good powder so you need to track it down.

I learned about even and enough case tension long ago. Then I read about poor performance with the .45 and the writer went to RCBS about it. RCBS made the .45 expander smaller for more case tension. Sadly, they never changed the .44 so I use Hornady dies.
You will read about using a softer boolit so it expands to obturate and using Lyman "M" dies to open the brass more for soft boolits. It is wrong.
After you seat a boolit you should see the base and even indications of the grease grooves on the brass. It will be rippled. Boolits should open the brass when you seat and brass should never size the lead.
If you load .452" boolits and pull one, it should still be .452".
If you depend on crimp, you are also wrong. Crimp has so little affect on powder burn it is useless. If fired cases have some crimp left, the boolit is too soft, they get scraped trying to get past the crimp.

BFR, you just hit something I need to check: is the bullet too soft? I doubt that, but it could be sized just a hair small and that WOULD definitely be an issue. Makes me wonder if the bullets were sized for an ACP instead of the Colt. 5/1000's of an inch could be the culprit.

Thanks for the pointer on the load. I'll give that a try - I have some H110 in the cabinet just for such an experiment!

Chrongraphs are not called "heartbreakers" for nothing. Some revolvers are slower or faster than others. I'd recommend shooting several different loads and comparing your results to the published data to see how your particular revolver compares. You can also try using a .44 Mag expanding plug for belling the case mouths.

Also, trying a different lot of 2400 or primers may change your results. Too little data to draw any conclusions from here.

I do not know if you cast your own or are buying boolits. Many bulk boolits have a bevel base, poor lube grooves and a hard lube. Some are too hard and undersize. All of this is bad.
I do like hard but fit is so important. Lube is VERY important and hard lube is wrong. If lube cracks out of the grooves, get rid of it. All lube should depart the boolit at the muzzle or it should all stay in the grooves to the target. Losing any will throw a boolit out of balance so it is best to dump lube at the muzzle exit.
The big thing is that a recovered boolit should look exactly as cast with only rifling marks. Grease grooves should be clean of lube or still full all around. I prefer a clean boolit.
Gas checks should never fall off until the boolit hits.
Revolvers are harder then autos and rifles because of the jump to the cone and the need to take the rifling without skid. You never want lead or lube to leave the gap or to have a boolit slump.

quote:

Originally posted by bfrshooter:

No need for a mag primer with 2400 or 296 but the WW primer works well.

The Winchester primers are magnum primers. Mine all say for standard or magnum loads. One can use a magnum primer in standard loads, but not the other way around.

MS is correct. I never, ever use a chronograph to work loads. Leave it home but once accuracy is found, it is fun to see what you have. No dead animal has ever griped about a few hundred FPS.

quote:

The Winchester primers are magnum primers. Mine all say for standard or magnum loads. One can use a magnum primer in standard loads, but not the other way around.

Not exactly, they are in between. A very good primer but without the high pressure.
Too much primer pressure can move a boolit out of the brass before good ignition.
Case size dictates the primer.
Some powders do worse with a mag primer because they ignite too easy. A good progressive burn is better the an all at once start. 2400 does not need a mag primer.
The .41 and .44 do better with standard. The .45 Colt is borderline, does good with standard, does OK with WW but not so good with full mag primers.
As cases get larger, mag primers are needed.
The .475, .500 JRH, .500 Linebaogh and .500 S&W all work fine with the LP mag primers. Then there are .500 S&W cases made for the LR primers but no advantage is found.

quote:

Originally posted by bfrshooter:
MS is correct. I never, ever use a chronograph to work loads. Leave it home but once accuracy is found, it is fun to see what you have. No dead animal has ever griped about a few hundred FPS.

thats not what hitman said. he was suggesting that the chrono is a useful tool

quote:

Originally posted by bfrshooter:

quote:

The Winchester primers are magnum primers. Mine all say for standard or magnum loads. One can use a magnum primer in standard loads, but not the other way around.

Not exactly, they are in between. A very good primer but without the high pressure.
Too much primer pressure can move a boolit out of the brass before good ignition.
Case size dictates the primer.
Some powders do worse with a mag primer because they ignite too easy. A good progressive burn is better the an all at once start. 2400 does not need a mag primer.
The .41 and .44 do better with standard. The .45 Colt is borderline, does good with standard, does OK with WW but not so good with full mag primers.
As cases get larger, mag primers are needed.
The .475, .500 JRH, .500 Linebaogh and .500 S&W all work fine with the LP mag primers. Then there are .500 S&W cases made for the LR primers but no advantage is found.

They are magnum primers exactly, bfrshooter. Kind of like being somewhat, or a little pregnant. It's one way or the other, not in between.

quote:

Originally posted by maxenergy:

quote:

Originally posted by bfrshooter:
MS is correct. I never, ever use a chronograph to work loads. Leave it home but once accuracy is found, it is fun to see what you have. No dead animal has ever griped about a few hundred FPS.

thats not what hitman said. he was suggesting that the chrono is a useful tool

That maxenergy is a really smart guy. He actually READS a post before responding.

I might have read it wrong but I am still right. Just to use it to compare to published loads will get you nowhere.
To get the smallest SD's and MAD's does not mean you found accuracy and in fact it might be a lot worse.
Read the manual and see 1400 fps but you get 1200 fps with the same max load. Are you really going to increase the charge over max to reach 1400 fps? Do you think you are under pressure because velocity is low? I am going to step away from that, do what you want.
It is stupid to make your gun do what a manual says you should have.
The chronograph has never been a factor to achieve accuracy.
I do forget that some want the most and fastest with no regard to accuracy, pressures and safety. Something is wrong if you can't shoot as fast as you can or what a book says.

quote:

Originally posted by bfrshooter:
I might have read it wrong but I am still right. Just to use it to compare to published loads will get you nowhere.
To get the smallest SD's and MAD's does not mean you found accuracy and in fact it might be a lot worse.
Read the manual and see 1400 fps but you get 1200 fps with the same max load. Are you really going to increase the charge over max to reach 1400 fps? Do you think you are under pressure because velocity is low? I am going to step away from that, do what you want.
It is stupid to make your gun do what a manual says you should have.
The chronograph has never been a factor to achieve accuracy.
I do forget that some want the most and fastest with no regard to accuracy, pressures and safety. Something is wrong if you can't shoot as fast as you can or what a book says.

You are twisting this all wrong, again. I have said nothing about the fastest load possible. I said it is useful to compare, but never forget each firearm is a law unto itself. Only by gathering data on many different loads, lots and combinations will one begin to make educated assessments of what a load will do. The published load data is pressure tested. Max is not the same for each revolver and a little common sense goes a long way.

I also made the remark to the fact that chronographs will invariably show a load going slower than the published data, hence the "heartbreaker" remark.

Now, either read what I am posting and respond accordingly, or don't bother responding.

quote:

Originally posted by bfrshooter:

quote:

The Winchester primers are magnum primers. Mine all say for standard or magnum loads. One can use a magnum primer in standard loads, but not the other way around.

Not exactly, they are in between. A very good primer but without the high pressure.
Too much primer pressure can move a boolit out of the brass before good ignition.
Case size dictates the primer.
Some powders do worse with a mag primer because they ignite too easy. A good progressive burn is better the an all at once start. 2400 does not need a mag primer.
The .41 and .44 do better with standard. The .45 Colt is borderline, does good with standard, does OK with WW but not so good with full mag primers.
As cases get larger, mag primers are needed.
The .475, .500 JRH, .500 Linebaogh and .500 S&W all work fine with the LP mag primers. Then there are .500 S&W cases made for the LR primers but no advantage is found.

Winchester primers are magnum....

Mag primers should be used when the reloading data calls for them

quote:

Originally posted by MS Hitman:

quote:

Originally posted by bfrshooter:
I might have read it wrong but I am still right. Just to use it to compare to published loads will get you nowhere.
To get the smallest SD's and MAD's does not mean you found accuracy and in fact it might be a lot worse.
Read the manual and see 1400 fps but you get 1200 fps with the same max load. Are you really going to increase the charge over max to reach 1400 fps? Do you think you are under pressure because velocity is low? I am going to step away from that, do what you want.
It is stupid to make your gun do what a manual says you should have.
The chronograph has never been a factor to achieve accuracy.
I do forget that some want the most and fastest with no regard to accuracy, pressures and safety. Something is wrong if you can't shoot as fast as you can or what a book says.

You are twisting this all wrong, again. I have said nothing about the fastest load possible. I said it is useful to compare, but never forget each firearm is a law unto itself. Only by gathering data on many different loads, lots and combinations will one begin to make educated assessments of what a load will do. The published load data is pressure tested. Max is not the same for each revolver and a little common sense goes a long way.

I also made the remark to the fact that chronographs will invariably show a load going slower than the published data, hence the "heartbreaker" remark.

Now, either read what I am posting and respond accordingly, or don't bother responding.

Chronographs are indeed useful tools, if used properly a lot can be gathered from their use

OK, work with the chrono to get the lowest SD's, etc. Get down to 1! That will tell you zero about the velocity and spin the bullet needs to be stable. You might be 2000 fps away from what the bullet really needs but since the powder burns evenly, you think it will shoot.
Take the revolver boolit that needs 1000 fps but you see good numbers at 1500 fps or 700 fps. Now what do you learn about accuracy?
Those numbers have nothing to do with accuracy.
It is the same argument as muzzle energy.
To think you need to reach book numbers when what you have shoots better is folly.
Some of the most accurate loads ever shot have large numbers.
But then a number is more important then twist rates. Very common with revolver shooters.
Real life ballistics just escapes many.

quote:

Originally posted by bfrshooter:
OK, work with the chrono to get the lowest SD's, etc. Get down to 1! That will tell you zero about the velocity and spin the bullet needs to be stable. You might be 2000 fps away from what the bullet really needs but since the powder burns evenly, you think it will shoot.
Take the revolver boolit that needs 1000 fps but you see good numbers at 1500 fps or 700 fps. Now what do you learn about accuracy?
Those numbers have nothing to do with accuracy.
It is the same argument as muzzle energy.
To think you need to reach book numbers when what you have shoots better is folly.
Some of the most accurate loads ever shot have large numbers.
But then a number is more important then twist rates. Very common with revolver shooters.
Real life ballistics just escapes many.

You continue to not read my posts! I have said nothing about SD's or extreme spread, nor have I said anything about max velocities. The velocity for a particular load is going to be what it is in a particular firearm. Nowhere have I endorsed overloading a firearm to achieve a given velocity.

You need to cease responding until you learn how to read a post and reply in an intelligent manner. Real life conversation just seems to escape you.

quote:

You continue to not read my posts! I have said nothing about SD's or extreme spread, nor have I said anything about max velocities. The velocity for a particular load is going to be what it is in a particular firearm. Nowhere have I endorsed overloading a firearm to achieve a given velocity.

You need to cease responding until you learn how to read a post and reply in an intelligent manner. Real life conversation just seems to escape you.


You'd be surprised how hard simple is on some people.

It is why I said I agree with you, go back and see. I have no argument with you. I just want others to understand that numbers mean nothing and to try to reach what your gun can not do because a book says so can be wrong.
My posts have not been for you, only those that think they MUST reach printed figures.
My posts are general, never against one person.
You will have a hard time proving I am wrong about numbers. Truth be told, we agree.
Yes, I read what you said, I agreed with it. Are you ever going to take my hand? I have nothing against you, why do I irritate you so much?

quote:

Originally posted by bfrshooter:

quote:

You continue to not read my posts! I have said nothing about SD's or extreme spread, nor have I said anything about max velocities. The velocity for a particular load is going to be what it is in a particular firearm. Nowhere have I endorsed overloading a firearm to achieve a given velocity.

You need to cease responding until you learn how to read a post and reply in an intelligent manner. Real life conversation just seems to escape you.


You'd be surprised how hard simple is on some people.

It is why I said I agree with you, go back and see. I have no argument with you. I just want others to understand that numbers mean nothing and to try to reach what your gun can not do because a book says so can be wrong.
My posts have not been for you, only those that think they MUST reach printed figures.
My posts are general, never against one person.
You will have a hard time proving I am wrong about numbers. Truth be told, we agree.
Yes, I read what you said, I agreed with it. Are you ever going to take my hand? I have nothing against you, why do I irritate you so much?

I don't recall ANYONE on this post saying ANYTHING about having to reach a certain published velocity. Smaller SD's and ES's indicate a more consistent ignition for a particular load, but does not guarantee an accurate load. We agree on that. I have used a chronograph for a number of uses, one being to determine what load data I needed to use for a particular lot of surplus powder. The seller posted to use WW296/H110 data and that particular lot needs to be loaded with 2400 data. I would not have known this without using a chronograph.

So I would have to state, based on the posts in this thread, you are preaching to wind at this point.

OK, I will go with you on that. The machine can be worthwhile at times.
You do admit searching for book figures are wrong. That is my stand.
Why don't you ease off some. I would rather call you a friend.
Are you going to shake hands or continue to rub?

quote:

Originally posted by bfrshooter:

You do admit searching for book figures are wrong. That is my stand.

I admitted no such thing. I do not advise anyone to try and load to the posted velocities, if doing so is an overload for the firearm.

How does the data and results differ if you are shooting bullets vs. boolits?

quote:

Originally posted by SFRanger7GP:
How does the data and results differ if you are shooting bullets vs. boolits?

you just need to lobotomize yourself and the differences will be clear.

quote:

How does the data and results differ if you are shooting bullets vs. boolits?

It doesn't, boolits are cast, easier to just say "boolit" then to type "cast bullets." All are bullets of course!
Still, you could be way off from what any gun shoots best at just because you have small numbers. To continue to make your gun shoot to the printed velocity when your gun can not support it because you are already at max will just get you in trouble.
Every single gun is different and all will have different readings, some are slower, some faster. Even two bullets the same weight will have different pressures and now the solid bullets that you dare not use the same loads you use with a lead core.
Common sense escapes some guys.
Understand many posts here are personal even to the point of danger for a guy with no common sense or a rank beginner.
I must be wrong so go ahead and reach book figures even if you need 5 gr more powder. Work for nothing but small figures on your chronograph even if you like shotguns.
Putting this with your post makes you real smart!

quote:

Putting this with your post makes you real smart!

and using the term boolit makes one look illiterate and under-educated (meaning less than uneducated)

keep taking cheap shots

quote:

nd using the term boolit makes one look illiterate and under-educated (meaning less than uneducated)

keep taking cheap shots

Maybe you earned it. Show where I am wrong before making pot shots.

quote:

Originally posted by bfrshooter:

quote:

nd using the term boolit makes one look illiterate and under-educated (meaning less than uneducated)

keep taking cheap shots

Maybe you earned it. Show where I am wrong before making pot shots.

if one could make sense of your inane ramblings

quote:

if one could make sense of your inane ramblings

I am accused of not reading posts. Now it is my turn. You do not understand anything. My posts are simple common sense the simple can understand.
Just how tough is it to understand you do not load over looking for book figures and do not look for small numbers if you are out of range of twist, velocities?
Real tough--- right? Inane ramblings? Or truth?
Prove me wrong instead of crying on your keyboard.
I do not think you are intelligent enough to dispute.

quote:

Originally posted by bfrshooter:

quote:

if one could make sense of your inane ramblings

I am accused of not reading posts. Now it is my turn. You do not understand anything. My posts are simple common sense the simple can understand.
Just how tough is it to understand you do not load over looking for book figures and do not look for small numbers if you are out of range of twist, velocities?
Real tough--- right? Inane ramblings? Or truth?
Prove me wrong instead of crying on your keyboard.
I do not think you are intelligent enough to dispute.

whose crying, punchy? youre the one getting defensive. im not intelligent enough? wanna compare educations?

your posts routinely wander in directions other than those being discussed and you contradict yourself often. this is what is meant by inane rambling. simple? indeed, very simple as in far from complex

quote:

you just need to lobotomize yourself and the differences will be clear. dancing

Here is what you said.
Is that an answer from someone with education?

quote:

Originally posted by bfrshooter:

quote:

you just need to lobotomize yourself and the differences will be clear. dancing

Here is what you said.
Is that an answer from someone with education?

that you were not able to see his post (the one i was responding to - also in jest) was tongue in cheek speaks volumes about your lack of ability to comprehend the written word

Alright, let's take a break from this.

ok. probably for the better. the more he posts the more doubt is removed. draw your own conclusions

Reading this thread I was under the influence I might learn something about the 45 Colt since I just bought a 45 Bisley.
To bad the thread went south after a few intelligent posts.