Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rebs
Isn't 325 fps MV low ?
|
Yep. It doesn't go with the muzzle energy number. I just spotted that typo myself and corrected it. Was meant to be 825 fps. Can't figure out how I typed it with the 3 and 8 keys so far apart.
The ft-lbs were right, though, and if you calculate backward from it to find the fps you get close to that number. Both are approximations. I've seen averages of 815 fps to 840 fps for different commercial hardball from my hardball gun (Plain Jane 5" 1911 with some fitting and minor tweaks). But 350 ft-lbs is about what the commercial stuff usually is and is what old military hardball was loaded to. I've seen photos of some old (ca. 1925) FA hardball boxes labeled as having Bullseye powder and producing 825 fps, and I think that's where this originated. 400 ft-lbs is about what the current military loadings are, with their slightly heavier bullets.
Shane,
The different COL's are just about the nose shapes. A lot of cast bullets have a more spherical nose than some jacketed bullets and wind up shorter. As a result, even with the same seating depth, the COL is shorter. Nothing wrong with that as long as you establish your load with the COL you are going to load to. A lot of lubricated lead bullets in short powder space cartridges seem to be unseated by the primer and kiss the throat before the powder gets burning, so the effect on pressure is a bit less predictable than running QuickLOAD would suggest. So, usually nothing to fret about in the .45 Auto until you start pushing to work up +P loads.
I always used Bullseye in conventional pistol matches. A number of folks would use 231 and said it was more sooty, but it metered so well they didn't want to switch. More recently I've found Clays and N310 to burn cleaner at target load levels, but I can't say I ever found Bullseye objectionable. You just have some soot and graphite thrown around that you have to clean out.