Recommended Loads

[Plaz]

I am new at this for reloading ammo so please forgive my stupid questions.
Reloading is a hobby I know I will enjoy. The ammo I want to reload is 45 ACP for target and defense shooting.

I would like some opinions on good inexpensive loads for target practice shooting?

Also, I would like some recommended loads for defense?

I always thought that the loads you get out of the catalogs are reliable tested loads. When people recommend loads such as on the internet how certain are we that these loads came out of a catalog, or must they come out of a catalog? How do you normally interpret these recommended loads from a safety point of view?

[Thirties]

I suggest these two books. Buy them and read them. Don't spend a lot of time getting load data on the internet when better, more thorough info is available in carefully composed books. And, of course, there are other loading manuals available. But for what you are asking about, these two are a good start.

http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpag...613&t=11082005

http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpag...752&t=11082005

[WESHOOT2]

>sized case

>CCI300 (can substitute WLP)

>230g bullet; can be lead ("LRN") -- least expense--, plated ("TCJ-RN"), or fully jacketed, although base is exposed lead ("FMJ")

>5.0--5.3g W231

>OAL 1.245--1.265"; recommend start OAL 1.255"+/-.005", unless bullet shoulder extends outside the case too far to allow complete chambering, then try 1.250"

>LEE Carbide Factory Crimp die, mouth sized to .469--.471"; recommend start .470"

This load is 'safe', normally accurate and reliable, with the added benefit of 'making Major' through most 5" barrels (if that matters). It is mild in recoil and wear, economical when components are chosen wisely, and can be easily turned out both single-staging and progressively.
And tested.

[Sevens]

I am new at this for reloading ammo so please forgive my stupid questions.
Reloading is a hobby I know I will enjoy. The ammo I want to reload is 45 ACP for target and defense shooting.
No stupid questions here! The only "annoying" questions from folks new to the forum are ones that are easily answered by looking at ANY of the sticky topics. Everyone in here loves to help, and some of us try to help by answering the "easier" ones so the old guys who have the really good stuff don't get burnt out by a bunch of softballs. <g>

For target and plinking loads, yes-- but loading for personal defense opens up a whole can of worms in most forums. The short answer is that most don't load defense rounds because of liability associated with using non-factory loaded rounds for this purpose. This conversation quickly moves far away from useful information to passionate, opinionated ranting and multi-page arguments.

I would like some opinions on good inexpensive loads for target practice shooting?
Inexpensive is easy-- the two parts of reloading where all money goes is brass and bullets. Primers and powders are a relatively small part of the equation.
And you can take the brass question pretty much out, because as reloaders... we use our brass over and over again. Which leaves you with:
Bullets. Your cheapest bullets are typically going to be the lightest ones you can safely use, and lead, unjacketed bullets. The more you buy in bulk, the cheaper they will be. So once you find a bullet that feeds and performs in your reloads, buy them by the 500 or 1000 or more and that's where you save all your dough.

The lightest common bullet 1911 .45 loaders use is the 185 grainer. I use 200 gr myself.

I always thought that the loads you get out of the catalogs are reliable tested loads. When people recommend loads such as on the internet how certain are we that these loads came out of a catalog, or must they come out of a catalog? How do you normally interpret these recommended loads from a safety point of view?
You can get your recipes from anywhere. A post in a forum, a guy you met at a range or an author's pet load from a magazine article. What you do NEXT is how you keep things safe.

Compare the load with those from the powder and bullet makers. Look for the MAXIMUM listed loads and compare the data you have. If the recipe you have asks for more powder than the powder manufacturer lists as a MAX, then don't use it.

Basically, for safety's sake, you need to take the time to cross reference every recipe you intend to try. If you want to try 8.6 grains of SuperBlast powder and a 200 grain bullet because some guy named "Sevens" told you that he uses it all the time, you can-- but you approach it like this:
--What does SuperBlast powders list for a 200 gr bullet in a 45 with this powder?
--If they don't list anything, you can call them or e-mail them. (powder and bullet makers are very good at these questions)
--Do you have any load manuals with data? How do they compare? If they list SuperBlast at 6.6 grains, that's a big red flag
--Who made your bullets? Do they offer any data, or have a 800 number to answer questions?

And finally, go with the 10% rule. If you've cross referenced a possible recipe and it's passed those tests and you want to try it, REDUCE it by 10%. And if it works with no signs of excess pressure, you can then proceed to up it by a little bit at a time until you are at the full load as listed.

And going up incrementally is easy, don't make it any harder than it needs to be. If you are shooting for 5.5 grains, start at 4.9 and load up 3 or 5 cartridges. Then load 3 or 5 more at 5.1 grains. 3 or 5 more rounds at 5.3 grains. And so on. Make sure they are clearly marked. Take them all to the range and shoot them in succession and check the brass carefully as you go, looking for red flags.

There are many folks who will tell you they would NEVER take a load from an unpublished source. But this isn't rocket surgery. If you do your part and cover your bases, you'll soon have your OWN pet loads that other folks will need to triple-check before THEY dare to use it!

[Unclenick]

I would say it is actually fear of there being liability associated with using non-factory rounds. I moderate at another forum where this discussion has gone on for page after page, as it has here. Nothing ever convinces everybody one way or the other. I will only point out that in the print gun press famous writer and firearms instructor Masaad Ayoob first raised the concern by stating the issue had come up in trials he had served as expert witness in. Another writer challenged him to produce a transcript of such a trial or any other trial where it had been made an issue, and neither Ayoob nor anybody else did so until last year, when Ayoob posted this one. The circumstance is not self-defense, but gives some idea how handloads might affect an investigation. It doesn't settle the defensive handload issue one way or the other, but is instructive. Real life CSI's are not like TV CSI's, it seems.

Reducing loads 10% is a general rule of thumb that assumes the published load range is at approaching the maximum for a particular production gun. There are, however, exceptions, and light target shooting loads, of the paper punching type, are frequently already far more than 10% below any working gun's maximum and do not need further reduction. Indeed, these loads are often so light that special 1911's called "wad" guns were built with reduced power recoil springs just because the loads would not function a standard gun. 3.5 grains of Bullseye under a 200 grains H&G #68 SWC cast bullet was being used in the 1960's and still works in these specialized guns today. Going to the commercial target load equivalent, 4.2 grains of Bullseye, will, with that bullet, function a standard gun.

The original military load was 5 grains of Bullseye under the 230 grain round nose jacketed bullet. I have never heard of that old load being a problem in any .45 ACP, but since it is the full military load, it won't hurt to drop back to 4.5 grains, and work up as a matter of good practice.