The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old December 8, 2013, 04:20 AM   #1
ElijaTull
Junior Member
 
Join Date: August 28, 2013
Posts: 9
Am I getting too hot? IMR PB and 45ACP 200gr

Weapon Glock 30s
200 GR copper plated RN
OAL 1.225
IMR PB
Started: 5.2 GR, average of 5 shots(584.2 ft/s)
Then: 5.4GR(634.0ft/s), 5.5GR(644.9ft/s), 5.6GR(676.5ft/s), 5.7GR(663.1ft/s), 5.8GR 658.5ft/s),
5.9GR(692.7 ft/s), 6.0GR(702.3 ft/s), 6.2GR(721.9ft/s)

To check chrony did string of 5 with factory new Gold Dot 230GR, HP (784.3ft/s), seems right. I am trying to get to 800ft/sec.

Is it safe to keep increasing the charge;6.3GR, 6.4GR, 6.5GR etc?
Thanks,
ElijaTull is offline  
Old December 8, 2013, 04:48 AM   #2
steve4102
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,949
Yes, you are to hot.

According to Hodgdon,
MAX for 200gr Lead bullet is 5.7gr of PB

Max for 200gr Jacketed bullet is 5.5gr of PB.

If you want to get to 800fps with that short 3.5 inch barrel, you are goinf to have to use a different powder. You are over Max now and not going to make it unless you go way over max, not a good idea.

Ramshot Silhouette might get you there safer.
steve4102 is offline  
Old December 8, 2013, 11:06 AM   #3
g.willikers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 28, 2008
Posts: 10,442
Trust the reloading manuals and charts.
They were made by experts.
Velocity is not always an indication of pressure.
__________________
Walt Kelly, alias Pogo, sez:
“Don't take life so serious, son, it ain't nohow permanent.”
g.willikers is offline  
Old December 8, 2013, 11:21 AM   #4
Sure shot wv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 137
PB is one of the powders I use in 45 as well. IMHO there is know way your gonna hit 800 outa that short barrel "safely". I love PB but just for target loads. Now if you were using a 4.5 or 5 inch barrel it wouldn't be a problem.

My suggestion would be to throw that *cough* glock away and grab a 1911 or Springfield lol. I'm sorry I had to!
Sure shot wv is offline  
Old December 8, 2013, 12:57 PM   #5
Nick_C_S
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 21, 2013
Location: Idaho
Posts: 5,512
Quote:
I am trying to get to 800ft/sec.
Chasing velocities has destroyed a lot of guns.

I have extensive experience with loading 45 ACP, but none with IMR PB. It's my understanding that it's a fast "target powder."

Steve4102 recommended Ramshot Silhouette. I agree. Because you need to go to a slower powder if you want more velocity, with it is going to bring muzzle flash (due to the short barrel). Not only does Silhouette have the burn rate you need, it also has a flash suppressant. Therefore, it would be the ideal choice.

Another choice would be AA5. It will deliver a better velocity than the IMR PB, but it lacks flash suppressant of Silhouette.
__________________
Gun control laws benefit only criminals and politicians - but then, I repeat myself.
Life Member, National Rifle Association
Nick_C_S is offline  
Old December 8, 2013, 01:10 PM   #6
Sure shot wv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 137
O.P- what are you trying to get at 800FPS?
Sure shot wv is offline  
Old December 8, 2013, 04:14 PM   #7
ElijaTull
Junior Member
 
Join Date: August 28, 2013
Posts: 9
IMR PB and 45ACP 200gr

Well crumbs. I am trying to imitate the feel of my carry defensive rounds (Speer Gold Dot, 230gr hp) in terms of perceived recoil. I don't really care about velocity as such, just using it as an indicator of pressure.

Question, at 6.2 gr PB, and a velocity of 721.9 ft/s, SD 30.5, I am about 9% above max recommended load. It also feels close to what the carry defensive rounds do, in terms of perceived recoil. Is it safe to use this as a target load? I practice at about 500 rounds per month or more.

At the recommended maximum of HODGDON/ IMR manual for PB and 200GR cast LSWC at 5.7 grains, the perceived recoil is mushy, weak and the ejected case lands in front of me or on my head.

Thanks so much for your help.
ElijaTull is offline  
Old December 8, 2013, 06:34 PM   #8
Sure shot wv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 137
This sounds like the perfect job for quickload!! Unfortunately I don't have that software..."YET"...
Sure shot wv is offline  
Old December 9, 2013, 01:31 PM   #9
Nick_C_S
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 21, 2013
Location: Idaho
Posts: 5,512
Quote:
I am trying to imitate the feel of my carry defensive rounds (Speer Gold Dot, 230gr hp) in terms of perceived recoil.
The first step in trying to emulate the feel of a 230g round, is to load a 230g bullet. All things being equal, a 200g slug leaving the barrel at 800fps will yield less recoil than a 230g slug leaving a barrel at 800fps.

Of course, if you decide to load 230g bullets, you are most definitely going to need a slower powder to emulate your Gold Dots. Which of course, leaves you headed back to your LGS to look for both new bullets and new powder. These days, neither of which will be available :-(

Perhaps a re-approach is in order. Maybe it would just be better - for now - to load some good target/practice rounds with your 200g/IMR PB. Practice is always good - even if it isn't the same as your Gold Dots.
__________________
Gun control laws benefit only criminals and politicians - but then, I repeat myself.
Life Member, National Rifle Association
Nick_C_S is offline  
Old December 9, 2013, 03:53 PM   #10
g.willikers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 28, 2008
Posts: 10,442
Quote:
Is it safe to use this as a target load
It's been explained in plain English that it is not.
You have no margin for error.
Like if the bullet sneaks a little further into the case,
Or the powder drop dribbles a little extra by mistake,
Or the brass is fatigued.
The reloading manuals and charts include a margin of safety, which you are ignoring.
So, don't blame the gun manufacturer, or the powder maker or anyone but yourself if it backfires.
__________________
Walt Kelly, alias Pogo, sez:
“Don't take life so serious, son, it ain't nohow permanent.”
g.willikers is offline  
Old December 10, 2013, 06:02 PM   #11
noylj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2007
Location: Between CA and NM
Posts: 856
If you KNOW the velocities are correct (and all your numbers are too low) and you know how to watch for pressure signs (not primer signs as that is way over pressure for .45 Auto) then, yes, you COULD work up.
If you compare a bunch of loading manuals, you will find as much as 1.0+ grain difference in the max load in one and another. Each represents ONLY what they found in their gun with their particular lots of components. You almost certainly don't have those exact same lots of components (much less even the same components) so your results are going to be slightly different.
If the gun is cycling quickly (not going "Cha-Chunk"), if the cases are being thrown up and more than 5 feet away, and if the recoil feels like a factory 200gn load, then you are probably near max. If the gun is barely cycling, the cases are dropping at your feet or right next to the gun, and recoil feels lighter than a 200gn factory load, then you are not at max load yet.
noylj is offline  
Old December 10, 2013, 06:08 PM   #12
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElijaTull
I don't really care about velocity as such, just using it as an indicator of pressure.
Velocity is only an indication of average pressure, not maximum pressure.

Continuing on the path you're on is an excellent way to blow up a gun.

Since no one knows what your pressures are running, no one can tell you if that load is or will continue to be safe.

Handgun brass does not exhibit any of the typical "pressure signs" as discussed by rifle reloaders until you are sometimes at MULTIPLES of max pressure.

If you want more speed, get it with a powder that will do it within published load data.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sure shot wv
This sounds like the perfect job for quickload!! Unfortunately I don't have that software..."YET"...
Unfortunately, this question is well centered around QuickLoad's biggest weakness. Namely, straight-walled cases. I would not trust it to keep me from blowing up a handgun.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives...
...they just don't plan not to.
-Andy Stanley
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old December 10, 2013, 06:17 PM   #13
ElijaTull
Junior Member
 
Join Date: August 28, 2013
Posts: 9
noylj, sent you a pm

I sent you a pm about a table I found with PB data
ElijaTull is offline  
Old December 11, 2013, 12:18 AM   #14
Sure shot wv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 137
Brian- I didn't know that about quickload. Actually I don't know much about the software other than everyone raves about.

What about a straight wall case makes the difference? My natural thought would think the exact opposite. A bottleneck would be harder to compute. But... You learn something new everyday.
Sure shot wv is offline  
Old December 11, 2013, 01:25 AM   #15
Brotherbadger
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 10, 2010
Posts: 1,149
As has already been said, you are going down the path towards an accident. If i were you, I'd turn back before you blow up your gun, or worse.

If you want to recreate the recoil of your 230gr defense rounds, your best bet is to use 230 gr bullets. Either trade your 200 gr bullets for 230s, or save them for another purpose.
__________________
Once Fired Brass, Top quality, Fast shipping, Best prices.

http://300AacBrass.com/ -10% Coupon use code " badger "
Brotherbadger is offline  
Old December 11, 2013, 09:55 PM   #16
ElijaTull
Junior Member
 
Join Date: August 28, 2013
Posts: 9
IMR PB some findings

I tested the chronograph with a 10 round string of my standard 9 mm loads built on Winchester 231. The mean and standard deviation were in line with previous measures and in-line with the data from Winchester on the powder. Therefore, I think the problem is not with the chronograph and the velocities are actually low.
It may be there is a problem with the chamber in my gun producing lower velocities or no real problem; just the published loads on PB will not produce the published velocities in my gun. To rule out the possibility that it is my particular gun, I will be testing factory loads on a full-sized 45 with the chronograph tomorrow. If the alternate gun produces the same or similar velocities with factory ammunition that the Glock 30S produces, then I think may be safe to say it's not the gun. If they are significantly different, then maybe there is a problem with the chamber of my gun?
What I have found with further tests is:
1. a tighter crimp made little if any difference and not more than 6% increase in velocity.
2. I found a formula for PB on IMR's handloader’s guide (old) specifying 1.170 inches COL and start of 5.1 GR and a stop of 5.9 GR. The previous strings have been run with essentially the same powder charges with a COL of 1.225”. The new formula would be essentially testing a reduced COL. Although the new formula produced lower velocities than the published velocities, they were on average 10.4% higher than the velocities for the same powder measure at the larger COL of 1.225 inches.
At 5.9 grains I recorded a mean velocity of 741 ft./s which is relatively close to the mean for my defensive ammo at 784.3 ft./s. I increased the charge from 5.1 grains to 5.9 grains (in .1 grain increments) and the velocity increased from 623 ft./s to 741 ft./s. While I realize the relationship is not linear; there was on average a 1.71% increase in velocity per .1 grain increase in powder. If this holds true for my next test strings I should reach about 780 ft./s at 6.2 grains or 5% above the published recommendations. I would of course work in .1 grain steps but, it seems my target velocity may be within reach at only 5% above published recommendations as compared with the 20% above published recommendations I calculated necessary for the 1.225 COL. In short it looks like this second formula may be a little safer to pursue increased velocities.
Other things I noticed: at higher than 750 ft./s (individual measures) the brass ejected about 5 feet and ejected without the powder burn on the brass seen at lower velocities, additionally the perceived recoil felt "similar" to factory rounds. The higher velocities, perceived recoil, and appropriately ejected brass occurred in the 5.7 grain to 5.9 grain range. My guess, the higher powder weights led to higher pressures and the brass expanded faster making a better seal and the powder burn on the brass went away. Further the same higher pressure will led to “similar” perceived recoil and normal distance for ejected brass.
Summary: barring any differences in velocities between the two guns tomorrow (G30S vs full-sized 45), it is starting to look like the problem may have just been low pressure from a low charge or the published charge weights may just not produce the published velocities in my gun. However; increasing the charges slowly may produce the desired velocity. This is in line with what some of you have been suggesting.
Input? Suggestions?
As usual, I do appreciate your help.
ElijaTull is offline  
Old December 12, 2013, 11:50 PM   #17
ElijaTull
Junior Member
 
Join Date: August 28, 2013
Posts: 9
Conclusion

The differences do not appear to be due to my pistol when compared with a Colt Commander
G30S Mean of 5 Factory Speer GD 230GR = 784 ft/s
Colt Mean of 5 Factory Speer GD 230GR =774 ft/s

G30S Mean of 5 Factory Blazer 230GR RN =760 ft/s
Colt Mean of 5 Factory Blazer 230GR RN = 705 ft/s

G30S Mean of 5 PB 5.9 GR COL 1.170 = 767 ft/s
Colt Mean of 5 PB 5.9 GR COL 1.170 = 692 ft/s

The reduced COL of 1.170 produced higher velocities (compared to the original build COL=1.225) but also produced 4 FTF in 75 rnds with Glock, and 1 FTF in 5 rnds with Colt, So, back to the original build with a COL of 1.225.
Recommended build (From HODGDON) was COL 1.225 5.2gr start, Stop 5.7GR
From the data I started with and at top of thread:
Started: 5.2 GR, average of 5 shots(584.2 ft/s)
Then: 5.4GR(634.0ft/s), 5.5GR(644.9ft/s), 5.6GR(676.5ft/s), 5.7GR(663.1ft/s), 5.8GR 658.5ft/s),
5.9GR(692.7 ft/s), 6.0GR(702.3 ft/s), 6.2GR(721.9ft/s)
Conclusion:
Not a chrony problem
Not a pistol problem
Probably just load at 5.7GR and 663ft/sec. for now. I just wish the published info matched my findings like it has for previous loads (9mm, 40 S&W, win 231). PB meters well, is cheap, burns clean..seems to be good stuff. Best of all, it’s available!
Still open to input, and thanks for the input!
ElijaTull is offline  
Old December 13, 2013, 01:54 AM   #18
steve4102
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,949
Quote:
The reduced COL of 1.170 produced higher velocities (compared to the original build COL=1.225) but also produced 4 FTF in 75 rnds with Glock, and 1 FTF in 5 rnds with Colt, So, back to the original build with a COL of 1.225.
FTF?

Failure to fire?

Failure to feed?
steve4102 is offline  
Old December 13, 2013, 09:50 AM   #19
243winxb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,730
SKYSCREEN Spacing must be exact.

SCREEN SPACING:

Minimum spacing of 1 foot is allowed; minimum spacing of 2 feet is recommended. Spacing of 4 feet is suggested for high velocity rifles. Spacing of primary screens can be set from 1 to 15 feet ; proof screen is always set midway between primary screens http://www.oehler-research.com/specs.html Check the scale for accuracy.

Last edited by 243winxb; December 13, 2013 at 09:58 AM.
243winxb is offline  
Old December 13, 2013, 11:15 AM   #20
Clark
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 1999
Location: WA, the ever blue state
Posts: 4,678
Quote:
g.willikers
Trust the reloading manuals and charts.
They were made by experts...
I can't say for sure, but my first load manual, "Speer 12", seems to have been written by a committee of attorneys with a Ouija board and a case of whiskey.

"Speer 12" 1994:
"Some bolt-action and single-shot rifles have been chambered for this cartridge. Reloaders can sue spritzer-type bullets in these rifles, but should keep the weight to 150 grains or less. Heavier spritzer bullets cannot be drive fast enough in the 30-30 to expand reliably. We are occasionally asked if the 30-30 can be loaded to higher velocities in a modern bolt action like the Remington model 788. The answer is NO! The 30-30 case is an old design with relatively thin walls. Attempting to load "hotter" would risk a dangerous case failure."

I'll bet they got a good laugh when they thought they could write that.
Err.... they thought they were right?
That's scary.
__________________
The word 'forum" does not mean "not criticizing books."
"Ad hominem fallacy" is not the same as point by point criticism of books. If you bought the book, and believe it all, it may FEEL like an ad hominem attack, but you might strive to accept other points of view may exist.
Are we a nation of competing ideas, or a nation of forced conformity of thought?
Clark is offline  
Old December 13, 2013, 02:58 PM   #21
ElijaTull
Junior Member
 
Join Date: August 28, 2013
Posts: 9
FTF

FTF= Failure to feed, sorry.
ElijaTull is offline  
Old December 13, 2013, 09:54 PM   #22
ElijaTull
Junior Member
 
Join Date: August 28, 2013
Posts: 9
Screen spacing:

well I hate to sound like an idiot but, what are we talking about here? What screens?
ElijaTull is offline  
Old December 14, 2013, 09:16 AM   #23
243winxb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,730
chrony- Screens, what the bullets pass over or Timers? Last i had one was in 1979. The timers were spaced on a metal tube and had to be spaced exactly to the correct distance apart.
243winxb is offline  
Old December 14, 2013, 09:31 AM   #24
zxcvbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,720
You should be able to get over 800 fps with 230 grain bullets using Bullseye, Unique, AA#5, or Herco. (and probably others)
__________________
"Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth
zxcvbob is offline  
Old December 14, 2013, 10:04 AM   #25
243winxb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,730
Bottom line is - you have a Chronograph problem. Not a velocity problem. I could be wrong??
243winxb is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 05:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.08572 seconds with 8 queries