The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Skunkworks > Handloading, Reloading, and Bullet Casting

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 14, 2006, 09:59 PM   #1
Q.C.
Junior Member
 
Join Date: September 28, 2006
Posts: 13
.45 Colt loads

1st. post on this forum. I'm looking for some data for .45 Colt loads using 250gr. Lswc (soft lead) bullets with titegroup. I read somewhere that you should not use the same data for hard lead bullets. All of the info I can find using titegroup is for hard lead. Has anyone else heard this or have any info on it.
Thanks Q.C.
Q.C. is offline  
Old October 14, 2006, 11:17 PM   #2
Duckdog
Junior Member
 
Join Date: October 12, 2006
Location: Antigo, WI
Posts: 5
Funny you should post this, as I was just dinking around with 45 colt reloads tonight. I casted about 200 - 220 gr .456 pills that I have been using with unique with excellent results.

I have a 255 gr mold that I use WW with and again I use Unique. If it helps at all, I charge it with 8 gr and seat it to the seating groove. I'm using it in a 45 lc / .410 NEF combo that I had a scope mounted on, so it is a work in progress.

Not to pry, but does the tite group burn a tad cleaner than the unique?
Duckdog is offline  
Old October 15, 2006, 02:21 AM   #3
timothy75
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 19, 2005
Location: Nevada
Posts: 1,113
From Hodgdon: 5.0-6.2grs for 716-881fps. This should be on their website also. Good luck
timothy75 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.07027 seconds with 9 queries