Load data for Horn fmj/fp

msta999 · August 8, 2009, 10:22 PM

I came across, what I consider TC (Truncated Cone) bullets made by Hornady. These are older bullets (.451 FMJ/Flat Point, 230 gr, #4518). My hornady book is the new one and doesn't cover these bullets. Does anyone have load data for these? I was going to just use Hornadys 230 HP data, but thought I'd ask here first.

QBall45 · August 9, 2009, 12:45 AM

I see no reason not to use Hornady's load data for 230 gr JHP wheb loading their 230 gr Jacketed TC.

Can't see why 1 would load differant than the other as both are 230 gr jacketed bullets.

rg1 · August 9, 2009, 01:26 AM

Hornady's Fourth Edition has the #4518 FMJ-FP listed. Latest edition #7 has basically the same bullet now #45187. Both have the same B.C. and load length is the same at 1.200". Powders tested in the 4th are not the same as in the 7th. Primers used in the 4th are Fed 150 while primers used in the 7th are Win LP while both tests used Hornady cases. Same type pistol used.
Three popular powders used in both Editions are Unique, AA#5, and HS6.
4th Edition Unique from 5.3 grains-750fps to max. 6.2-900fps
7th------- Unique-----5.1-700-------------max 6.1-850
4th-------AA#5-------6.0-700-------------max 7.0-900
7th-------AA#5-------7.1-700-------------max 8.3-850
4th--------HS6-------7.0-750-------------max 8.3-900
7th--------HS6-------7.2-700-------------max 8.7-900
Big change in the AA#5 data for some reason. Basically they are the same bullet both 4518 and 45187 and I'd work up carefully using data from your 7th edition.

msta999 · August 13, 2009, 07:44 AM

Thanks, now I just wish they used the same powder I am using.

)

SL1 · August 13, 2009, 08:09 AM

can have an important effect on pressure. For bullets of the same weight and construction type, it is mainly the lenght of the BULLET that matters. Going from a hollow-point to a truncated cone FMJ most likey makes the bullet a little shorter, because it is the same weight and doesn't have a big air-space in its nose. So, loading it to the same COL leaves more space for the powder inside the case and thus causes lowwer pressure. Going from a FMJ TC bullet to a JHP would probably raise pressure.

But, if you throw-in a FMJ ROUND-nose bullet, all bets are off with resect to guessing the length. So, getting actual BULLET lengths is the key to swapping bullets safely. I can give you bullet lengths from the QuickLOAD data base, but I always check those with a caliper when working on loads for my own guns, and I sometimes find them off a little.

SO, let me suggest that folks who want to swap bullets use this forum to ask others for measurements of bullets in the data if they don't have some to measure themselves. If you supply the bullet makers part number for the bullet in the data, odds are that somebody on this forum has one and will measure it for you.

SL1

**Unclenick** · August 13, 2009, 08:43 AM

I'd be cautious with the Hornady data. It's interesting how different the velocity data is between the older and newer data, and that waves a red flag for me. I ran the newer loads in QuickLOAD, which thinks the maximums are way too hot in the new data for that bullet and seating depth. You could put them under the 230 grain RN, if you seated it to the normal 1.270" commercial hardball load length instead of the listed 1.230" length (which I suspect is an erroneous listing) then the hardball will be barely OK with those listed loads. But I also think they may have made an error here and used their loads developed with hardball for the loads that are seated deeper. I'll have to drag out my .45 ACP pressure test setup to check it, which I will when I get time, but don't hold your breath—this year's been very busy.

I also noticed that the Hodgdon site has that same Hornady bullet listed. Where Hornady maxes it out with 8.7 grains of HS-6, Hodgdon maxes it with 8.2 grains, which further supports the QuickLOAD contention that 8.7 grains gets past proof load pressure. QuickLOAD was developed for bottleneck rifle cases, however, and doesn't do as well with straight wall cases, so this isn't gospel. Again, I'd want to correlate velocity and pressure calculations in a gun during load development and run it through my pressure test rig (a custom Encore barrel in .45 ACP with a pressure trace strain gauge on it) to see what's really going on?

The Hodgdon data is in the attached PDF file. They list the HDY 230 FMJ FP, which is that same bullet, also seated to 1.2". They use Winchester brass and the Federal 150 primer.

msta999 · August 15, 2009, 06:16 AM

I wonder if it would be better to just go with the max COL, that will feed good though the gun, on these? I called Hodgodon and that is pretty much what he said.

**Unclenick** · August 15, 2009, 12:30 PM

I happen to have a quantity of both the 230 grain FP ENC (truncated cone) and the 230 grain FMJ RN ENC (hardball) bullets I got in bulk before the shortages began. So, today I dug some samples out and set them on my surface plate and used a height gauge to make some measurements. The information was useful. For one thing, both bullets had length specs too long in the QuickLOAD database, with the TC actually listed as 0.004" longer than the RN. In reality it is shorter, as you might expect from the shape, in the measurements it is shorter by 0.015".

As to the seating depth you use, you'll have to check feeding and throat fit. What actually matters to pressure, assuming the throat is far enough away to accommodate it, is not the COL but the position of the bullet base in the case. That defines the volume the powder begins burning in. Since the primer not only lights the powder, but also establishes the burn start pressure, the bigger that volume is, the longer it takes for peak pressure to be reached, and the further the bullet has travelled by the time it reaches that peak. Thus the peak pressure is lower if the powder space is larger, an higher if it is smaller.

The problem with seating the Hornady truncated cone design to hardball length, is the TC shape has a longer bearing surface. I measured 0.35" for the TC and 0.300" on the RN, so seating the bases to the same depth will leave 0.050" more metal sticking straight out into the throat with the TC design, and that will likely cause it to jam into the throat if the barrel hasn't had a throating reamer run into it. You don't want the bullet out so far that it jams in the throat, because then the casehead of the chambered round overhangs the breech end of the barrel and won't chamber.

Also, while lead bullets benefit from headspacing on the bullet (bullet touching the throat when the case head is flush with the breech end of the barrel; the end of the barrel extension (hood) on the 1911), the jacketed rounds may raise pressure doing that. I'd have to do an experiment to see? So, I think you are stuck seating the TC about 0.050" deeper than the RN for universal load fit, and that puts you right at 1.225" COL based on seating the RN design to SAAMI maximum. If you have some extra room in the chamber to seat it out farther without jamming into the throat, try that, but work the loads up from a lower level owing to the possible pressure rise.

For the starting load, I would follow the most conservative advice, which, for HS-6, seems to be QuickLOAD's in this case. With the bullet lengths properly adjusted in the program and using that 1.225" COL for the flat point bullet, and using a 26 grains water capacity case (typical of mine) it looks to me like you should start with just 7 grains of HS-6 and work up in 0.1 grain increments. QuickLOAD thinks 8.2 grains will be at almost 20,500 psi, just under the 21,000 psi SAAMI limit with the bullet positioned at that COL. Hodgdon's data shows significantly lower pressure than that, but I would not push it. 25,200 psi is the bottom end of the proof range, and I don't want to get too close to it without doing some actual pressure measuring, at least with a chronograph to see how velocity compares?

For the TC bullet and 1.225" COL in a 26 grain water capacity case, fired in a 5" barrel:

I'm showing 7 grains of HS-6 producing 824 fps and 8.2 grains producing 945 fps from 5" barrels. Those correspond to 344 ft-lbs and 456 ft-lbs of muzzle energy. The first number is close to commercial hardball, which runs about 350 ft-lbs, while the second exceeds military hardball, which runs about 390 ft-lbs. So if the velocity is right, your getting up there in pressure. Predicted pressures corresponding to the load range are: 14,686 psi to 20,462 psi.

For Accurate #5, QuickLOAD finds the Hornady manual is more conservative, giving 796 fps and 324 ft-lbs from 7.1 grains, and 921 fps and 433 ft-lbs from 8.3 grains. Corresponding predicted pressures are 13,617 psi and 18,912 psi.

For Unique, QuickLOAD again finds the Hornady manual a little more conservative that it would be. 5.3 grains it give 13,651 psi and 806 fps and 332 ft-lbs. For 6.2 grains it gives 18,543 psi and 918 fps and 430 ft-lbs.

For Bullseye, QuickLOAD gives the old standby 5.0 grains of Bullseye load a peak pressure of 16,096 psi, 853 fps, and 372 ft-lbs. That's probably what I would default to.

msta999 · August 24, 2009, 11:00 PM

WOW! Thanks for the info, sounds like I should be using one of the powders listed.
The only thing I can use for comparison is the 230 gr TC FP Buffalo bore bullets I shot, a couple months ago. These are that hot, but hotter than the cheapies.

What is this Quickloads data? I take it that is a book. Can you tell me a little about it, sounds like it might be something to invest in.

August 8, 2009, 10:22 PM	#1
msta999 Senior Member Join Date: June 7, 2009 Location: Western, WA Posts: 123	Load data for Horn fmj/fp I came across, what I consider TC (Truncated Cone) bullets made by Hornady. These are older bullets (.451 FMJ/Flat Point, 230 gr, #4518). My hornady book is the new one and doesn't cover these bullets. Does anyone have load data for these? I was going to just use Hornadys 230 HP data, but thought I'd ask here first.

August 15, 2009, 12:30 PM	#8
Unclenick Staff Join Date: March 4, 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 21,063	I happen to have a quantity of both the 230 grain FP ENC (truncated cone) and the 230 grain FMJ RN ENC (hardball) bullets I got in bulk before the shortages began. So, today I dug some samples out and set them on my surface plate and used a height gauge to make some measurements. The information was useful. For one thing, both bullets had length specs too long in the QuickLOAD database, with the TC actually listed as 0.004" longer than the RN. In reality it is shorter, as you might expect from the shape, in the measurements it is shorter by 0.015". As to the seating depth you use, you'll have to check feeding and throat fit. What actually matters to pressure, assuming the throat is far enough away to accommodate it, is not the COL but the position of the bullet base in the case. That defines the volume the powder begins burning in. Since the primer not only lights the powder, but also establishes the burn start pressure, the bigger that volume is, the longer it takes for peak pressure to be reached, and the further the bullet has travelled by the time it reaches that peak. Thus the peak pressure is lower if the powder space is larger, an higher if it is smaller. The problem with seating the Hornady truncated cone design to hardball length, is the TC shape has a longer bearing surface. I measured 0.35" for the TC and 0.300" on the RN, so seating the bases to the same depth will leave 0.050" more metal sticking straight out into the throat with the TC design, and that will likely cause it to jam into the throat if the barrel hasn't had a throating reamer run into it. You don't want the bullet out so far that it jams in the throat, because then the casehead of the chambered round overhangs the breech end of the barrel and won't chamber. Also, while lead bullets benefit from headspacing on the bullet (bullet touching the throat when the case head is flush with the breech end of the barrel; the end of the barrel extension (hood) on the 1911), the jacketed rounds may raise pressure doing that. I'd have to do an experiment to see? So, I think you are stuck seating the TC about 0.050" deeper than the RN for universal load fit, and that puts you right at 1.225" COL based on seating the RN design to SAAMI maximum. If you have some extra room in the chamber to seat it out farther without jamming into the throat, try that, but work the loads up from a lower level owing to the possible pressure rise. For the starting load, I would follow the most conservative advice, which, for HS-6, seems to be QuickLOAD's in this case. With the bullet lengths properly adjusted in the program and using that 1.225" COL for the flat point bullet, and using a 26 grains water capacity case (typical of mine) it looks to me like you should start with just 7 grains of HS-6 and work up in 0.1 grain increments. QuickLOAD thinks 8.2 grains will be at almost 20,500 psi, just under the 21,000 psi SAAMI limit with the bullet positioned at that COL. Hodgdon's data shows significantly lower pressure than that, but I would not push it. 25,200 psi is the bottom end of the proof range, and I don't want to get too close to it without doing some actual pressure measuring, at least with a chronograph to see how velocity compares? For the TC bullet and 1.225" COL in a 26 grain water capacity case, fired in a 5" barrel: I'm showing 7 grains of HS-6 producing 824 fps and 8.2 grains producing 945 fps from 5" barrels. Those correspond to 344 ft-lbs and 456 ft-lbs of muzzle energy. The first number is close to commercial hardball, which runs about 350 ft-lbs, while the second exceeds military hardball, which runs about 390 ft-lbs. So if the velocity is right, your getting up there in pressure. Predicted pressures corresponding to the load range are: 14,686 psi to 20,462 psi. For Accurate #5, QuickLOAD finds the Hornady manual is more conservative, giving 796 fps and 324 ft-lbs from 7.1 grains, and 921 fps and 433 ft-lbs from 8.3 grains. Corresponding predicted pressures are 13,617 psi and 18,912 psi. For Unique, QuickLOAD again finds the Hornady manual a little more conservative that it would be. 5.3 grains it give 13,651 psi and 806 fps and 332 ft-lbs. For 6.2 grains it gives 18,543 psi and 918 fps and 430 ft-lbs. For Bullseye, QuickLOAD gives the old standby 5.0 grains of Bullseye load a peak pressure of 16,096 psi, 853 fps, and 372 ft-lbs. That's probably what I would default to. __________________ Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor NRA Certified Rifle Instructor NRA Benefactor Member and Golden Eagle

August 9, 2009, 12:45 AM	#2
QBall45 Senior Member Join Date: April 5, 2008 Location: South Central Minnesota Posts: 584	I see no reason not to use Hornady's load data for 230 gr JHP wheb loading their 230 gr Jacketed TC. Can't see why 1 would load differant than the other as both are 230 gr jacketed bullets.

August 9, 2009, 01:26 AM	#3
rg1 Senior Member Join Date: November 6, 2001 Posts: 1,125	Hornady's Fourth Edition has the #4518 FMJ-FP listed. Latest edition #7 has basically the same bullet now #45187. Both have the same B.C. and load length is the same at 1.200". Powders tested in the 4th are not the same as in the 7th. Primers used in the 4th are Fed 150 while primers used in the 7th are Win LP while both tests used Hornady cases. Same type pistol used. Three popular powders used in both Editions are Unique, AA#5, and HS6. 4th Edition Unique from 5.3 grains-750fps to max. 6.2-900fps 7th------- Unique-----5.1-700-------------max 6.1-850 4th-------AA#5-------6.0-700-------------max 7.0-900 7th-------AA#5-------7.1-700-------------max 8.3-850 4th--------HS6-------7.0-750-------------max 8.3-900 7th--------HS6-------7.2-700-------------max 8.7-900 Big change in the AA#5 data for some reason. Basically they are the same bullet both 4518 and 45187 and I'd work up carefully using data from your 7th edition.

August 13, 2009, 07:44 AM	#4
msta999 Senior Member Join Date: June 7, 2009 Location: Western, WA Posts: 123	Thanks, now I just wish they used the same powder I am using. )

August 13, 2009, 08:09 AM	#5
SL1 Senior Member Join Date: November 8, 2007 Posts: 2,001	Changing bullets can have an important effect on pressure. For bullets of the same weight and construction type, it is mainly the lenght of the BULLET that matters. Going from a hollow-point to a truncated cone FMJ most likey makes the bullet a little shorter, because it is the same weight and doesn't have a big air-space in its nose. So, loading it to the same COL leaves more space for the powder inside the case and thus causes lowwer pressure. Going from a FMJ TC bullet to a JHP would probably raise pressure. But, if you throw-in a FMJ ROUND-nose bullet, all bets are off with resect to guessing the length. So, getting actual BULLET lengths is the key to swapping bullets safely. I can give you bullet lengths from the QuickLOAD data base, but I always check those with a caliper when working on loads for my own guns, and I sometimes find them off a little. SO, let me suggest that folks who want to swap bullets use this forum to ask others for measurements of bullets in the data if they don't have some to measure themselves. If you supply the bullet makers part number for the bullet in the data, odds are that somebody on this forum has one and will measure it for you. SL1

August 15, 2009, 06:16 AM	#7
msta999 Senior Member Join Date: June 7, 2009 Location: Western, WA Posts: 123	I wonder if it would be better to just go with the max COL, that will feed good though the gun, on these? I called Hodgodon and that is pretty much what he said.

August 24, 2009, 11:00 PM	#9
msta999 Senior Member Join Date: June 7, 2009 Location: Western, WA Posts: 123	WOW! Thanks for the info, sounds like I should be using one of the powders listed. The only thing I can use for comparison is the 230 gr TC FP Buffalo bore bullets I shot, a couple months ago. These are that hot, but hotter than the cheapies. What is this Quickloads data? I take it that is a book. Can you tell me a little about it, sounds like it might be something to invest in.