Load plated w/ lead data? Well, read this. . .

[Brian Pfleuger]

Ok, keeping in mind that QuickLod is not expecting a cylinder gap...

.38Spl, 4" barrel, 1.238 OAL, 148gr DEWC, bullet length 0.575, QuickLoad default 1,160psi start pressure, 3.3gr AA #2

QuickLoad expects 11,060psi, 700fps

Plated bullet, 0.540, start pressure 1,800psi (between default of jacketed and plated)

QL expects 10,029psi, 681fps

(The Start Pressure assumption makes almost no difference to pressure in this case BTW)

The 0.575 bullets over 4.4gr AA #2, QL says 20,357 899fps.

Keep in mind both that QL is not calculating for a cylinder gap and is known to be less reliable with straight-walled cases.

[mmb713]

And this is why you load plated bullets to JACKETED data.

Nick, you are absolutely right. I asked Xtreme over the phone when ordering bullets once what kind of data to use. They said to use Speer's jacketed data. I believe this would be best practice for ALL brands of plated bullets. Obviously the velocity ceiling needs to be observed but starting lead loads are a recipe for disaster.

I load 9mm, 45 Auto, 45 Colt and 357 Magnum with Xtreme plated bullets. With the first three I won't reach the velocity ceiling with any published data. Accuracy loads are almost always short of max so that's where usually I stop anyway, at mid-jacketed levels, but I always start with starting jacketed data. I've loaded their 125gr bullets in 357 Magnum to some pretty high velocities in the past with no problems but any more I stick to their 158gr flat points at moderate velocities in 357 Magnum. If I want the high powered stuff I'll load XTPs.

[Nick_C_S]

Wow, my 4.4g recipe exceeds +P. I knew they were snappy. 935 fps. I was actually going to back them down to 3.8g anyway. They're supposed to be a slightly-more-than-power-floor IDPA practice round.

Good info all-around Brian. Thanks!

I promise, I won't hit you up for QL data every time I want to try a new recipe :-) That was a one-time ask.

Thanks again.

[Wreck-n-Crew]

COL does not equal seating depth.

True bullet base to Ogive may be different from say a 115 GR LRN to a 115 GR plated RN thus producing a different seating depth if COL were the same.

[WESHOOT2]

I start with a goal for the load; normally my personal ammo goal is reliable accurate 'target' ammo (used for USPSA competition).

I pick a bullet and appropriate powder and primer.

I test my load choices until my goal is reached.

I use swaged, hardcast, plated, and jacketed bullets.

Know what I mean?

[Nick_C_S]

I started with a goal for the load (also known as a "purpose"): In this case, IDPA power floor.

I pick a bullet and appropriate powder and primer: 148g DEWC - three different types. Using AA2, and Winchester WSP primers.

I test my load choices until my goal is reached: Started with 3.3g. That's where I am now. I need to go up with the plated, and down with the other two.

I use swaged, hardcast, plated, and jacketed bullets. In this case, soft cast; coated; and plated.

Sounds like our processes are similar.

[totalloser]

Sevens-

Good point, but I have one detail: some powders may not play nicely with this formula. I have found power pistol to be finicky behind cast pills, and jacketed data would have been sketchy to work with. Starting data +10% would have been "hot".

I probably should have been more clear too- when I say cautious, I mean follow the book. Less than starting to me would not be cautious. To me, that's experimenting. But as a disclaimer, I only load for autos. For now...

Are wheelgun shooters having stuck pills using starting load data, or is this issue relegated to "mouse fart" loads?

[Nick_C_S]

Are wheelgun shooters having stuck pills using starting load data, or is this issue relegated to "mouse fart" loads?

Wheelguns have the cylinder/barrel gap. It causes leakage And thus, are more prone to stuck bullets. It can happen with starting lead loads, but using a jacketed or plated pill.

I've never actually done it. But I'll keep working on it

[Hal]

Are wheelgun shooters having stuck pills using starting load data, or is this issue relegated to "mouse fart" loads?

When I was a young and stupid reloader and didn't know any better - - and - - many years before the internet.........

I loaded up some .44mag rounds using half jacketed bullets.
I started @ 10% less than the Lee recommended starting load.

The first shot seemed a bit odd.
The bullet went downrange and a hole appeared in the target, but, it just felt - - odd.

For reasons known only to God, I unloaded the gun and pulled the cylinder and looked down the bore.

The bore was blocked. The bullet had shed the jacket and the jacket was stuck in the barrel.

I took a pair of pliers and crushed the other 6 cases so they couldn't chamber and I keep them as a reminder....

[totalloser]

OK, so my books are all wrong. WHY?

Wheelgun analogy makes sense but does not match the analogy of the OP that ALL should be loaded to jacketed data.

Should this formula should only apply to wheelguns?

I have been working up loads for PC based on plated, which is based on cast. With cast/PC I have found that usually the book suggested CC has consistently been the final load, and the jump in heat substantially more than the starting load. So if loading for jacketed data in this instance, going higher than the starting load would be "hot" and thus there would be no workup. I am specifically thinking of 7 grains of PP behind 230 grain lead/PC.

In this instance, the Lead starting load would be a no-no and the DNE would be the next step up. This seems wrong to me. Thus I am concerned that this one size fits all statement has challenges since it eliminates the workup in some instances.

[Hammerhead]

And this is why you load plated bullets to JACKETED data.

I agree.
I had a plated DEWC (don't remember if it was Rainier or Berry's) get stuck in the bore of my .357 using starting lead data.
Also, every time I chrono'd 9mm, .40, 10mm and .45 auto plated loads, their velocity was a match for jacketed data, not lead.

It's disappointing that plated bullets have been around for so long without much data for them.

[Sevens]

It's tough to get published data for them because each companies product is decidedly different than the next and load data really wouldn't be accurate from one to the next. The plated bullet companies simply don't have the bankroll or the lab setup to do what the big boys can do in their ballistic laboratories.

YEARS back, Accurate had some published data for Ranier slugs (IIRC) and I believe that lately, Xtreme bullets has been suggesting you load their slugs like jacketed and not lead. Berry's continues to roll out their catch-all advice, which is poor advice, IME, after tens of thousands of the (great!) Berry's bullets I've run over the years.

Xtreme also suggests a far higher max velocity for their slugs than anyone else in the plated business does, although Berry's has a precious few thick plate slugs that also have a much higher speed rating.

[WESHOOT2]

I'd start with 7.0g Power Pistol in the 45 ACP case under any 230g bullet.

[totalloser]

So I'll venture why:

Lubed lead bullets seal the bore 100% due to the liquid piston ring, thus are more efficient at transferring pressure to velocity.

Jacketed bullets do not, and neither do plated. Though the way I see it, plated should seal the bore very slightly better than jacketed due to a combination of diameter and exterior deformation better fitting the bore. So this means that the real world *difference* in bore fit is somewhat negligible between plated and jacketed.

As I am interpreting this, that means PC should follow this same generalization. *Consistent* chrony #s should support this assertion, as some posters have expressed, yes?

[Nick_C_S]

Should this formula should only apply to wheelguns?

Umm. . . I really don't know. Keep in mind the inference I drew based on my observation in my OP has since been rebuked by Brian Pfleuger during the course of this thread.

That said however, I still believe - as do others in this thread obviously - that loading plated bullets on the low end of lead data is not a good idea. I wouldn't do it with revolver or semi-auto ammunition. Yes, the bullet is more likely to leave the barrel of a semi-auto, due to the inherent difference in architecture. But that is ancillary to the issue of which load data to reference. Plated bullets more closely emulate jacketed in terms of ballistic results. So load to jacketed data. IMO.

[Nick_C_S]

Good input Sevens:

It's tough to get published data for them because each companies product is decidedly different than the next and load data really wouldn't be accurate from one to the next. The plated bullet companies simply don't have the bankroll or the lab setup to do what the big boys can do in their ballistic laboratories.

I don't think it's all that necessary anyway. Maybe I've just been loading too many decades to see it from a novice's standpoint. I'm really not trying to be smug here - it's just takes a lot more than creating a plated bullet recipe to get me all wrapped around the axle.

[totalloser]

Personally in load workups, I intend currently to stick to starting with starting loads in the book for auto workups, but this thread leads me to lean towards working up toward jacketed loads. Which is essentially what I have been doing all along- except in the case of lubed.

I have *very* little fear of a squib during a load workup in an auto- not just because of the inability of the gas to escape like in a revolver, but because special care to catch such issues is a critical component of a load workup. Not that it cannot happen, but that it will be caught. Lower pressure cartridges fired in direct blowbacks might merit a higher level of caution with this consideration though. IE something like a 9mm luger (30,000psi) loaded light is still highly unlikely to squib, where a lower pressure (15,000psi) cartridge like .380acp will be much more likely to squib if loaded light.

Don't get me wrong, I am not disputing the OP. But a thorough discussion is merited IMO when talking about tossing published load data out- especially to bump them up 10% across the board. And understanding why is also a useful tool. Especially since this concept can potentially apply directly to something like PC for the same reasons.

I could care less about smug, but understanding the perspective of a noobie, is something worthy of consideration since this *is* posted on the internet...

DaleA- yes I meant to say squib. Botched the terminology while being distracted by my two year old.

[1Victor30]

As I have stated before, Xtreme says to load their bullets from low to mid jacketed data or high end lead data. Can't be anymore plain than that.

[DaleA]

Totalloser-did you mean 'squib' in your post?

"Stovepipe" I've always thought a stove pipe was when the fired brass case gets caught in the ejection port and 'squib' is when the bullet fails to get all the way out of the barrel (or does get out but with very, very little force.)

Using my definitions I'll admit to having many stovepipes and one squib so far - and the squib was in a revolver and as you mentioned the cylinder/barrel gap might have made it easier to do...although it was still my own fault.

[1Victor30]

This is a quote from Xtreme:

Load Info:
- Our Copper Plated Bullets can be run at mid-range jacketed velocities or higher end lead velocities. We do not recommend velocities over 1500 FPS (Feet Per Second) and only a light taper crimp.
Any velocities over 1200 FPS we recommend either our Heavy Plate Concave Base or Hollow Point products for superior accuracy. We do not recommend velocities over 1500 FPS (Feet Per Second) and only a light taper crimp.
- All of our Hard Cast Lead Bullets are approximately 18 on Brinell, our Cowboy lead bullets are approximately 15 on Brinell.

[kerreckt]

I always load plated bullets to the mid range of the jacketed data. I have been doing it this way since about 1983 and never had any problems. Best wishes

[Sevens]

I always load plated bullets to the mid range of the jacketed data. I have been doing it this way since about 1983 and never had any problems. Best wishes

I am genuinely curious about your pre-1990 experience with plated handgun bullets. I am certain of one product out there that far back, but I'm always curious of more. Want to learn about the roots of plated bullets in the marketplace.

It would be accurate to say that you didn't have a lot of plated bullet products to choose from in 1983.

[Hammerhead]

Were the Speer TMJs the first commercial plated bullet?

[Sevens]

I don't know when those Speer TMJs hit the market, but I've got a supply of USAC plated bullets that were live around 1984, IIRC. And I believe after the failure of USAC, those guys later became the Ranier plated bullet folks, but I have no citation for that.

[Nick_C_S]

I'm about 99% sure I was loading Speer 185 and 200 SWC's (45 ACP) in the 1986/1987 neighborhood.