Conflicting info on 45acp

[s8200]

I'm loading 45acp with 185gr xtp with HP38. The 3 books I own have conflicting info on how much powder to use.

Hornady: 6.5 - 6.9
Lyman: 3.5 - 5.8
Lee: does not have any HP38 for 185xtp but does have 5.0 - 5.9 for 185 jacketed

I took a guess and loaded some rounds at 5.0... will be testing them out this weekend.

What would you guys do?

[Mike38]

I'd use what the powder manufacturer says for 185 grain jacketed.

Hodgdon HP-38 --- 5.0 - 5.9 grains.

So your load of 5.0 would be a good starting point.

JMO, but I'd stay away from Hornady's list if you like your gun / fingers.

[Jim Watson]

Ah, yes, dueling manuals again.

It has been some years and different distributors and different lots, blah blah blah, so I will only say that I was loading 185 Remington JHP from high Lyman to low Hornady specs.

5 grains W231 for a 185 gr bullet will be very mild, that is not a Hodgdon maximum load for even 230 gr bullets.

[Hammerhead]

I've got the same Hornady data, seems pretty high.

I started with 5.0 HP38, not enough to cycle my USP 45.

5.5 grains HP38 cycles fine with low recoil. That's as far as I've worked up so far. This is a target load for me.

5.9 grains HP38 with 185 JHP's is going to be my max.

[243winxb]

The +P ammo is loaded at higher pressure , 23,000 PSI. Not all data will contain it. Some powders are to fast of a burn rate for +P.

SAAMI lists 45 auto, 45 Target and +P.

185 gr is listed at 1130 fps. With +P . Not something i would fire in a 1911 type. My old S&W 645 auto was better suited for +P. IMO.


http://www.saami.org

[Unclenick]

CAUTION: The following post includes loading data beyond or not covered by currently published maximums for this cartridge. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The Firing Line, nor the staff of TFL assume any liability for any damage or injury resulting from use of this information.

Very gun dependent. 3.5 grains would be a very, very low target load for something like a Goldcup modified by low weight recoil springs. Hodgdon gives 15,800 CUP for their maximum load. Multiplying that by the ratio of the SAAMI MAP for transducer of 21,000 psi, divided by the SAAMI MAP for copper crusher of 18,000 CUP, you get 18,433 psi, which is a good estimate of what a transducer would read and what QuickLOAD should read for that powder if the powder properties are an exact match. The properties aren't, of course, a perfect match, but if I tweak them to get that way I wind up estimating the peak pressure of 6.9 grains at around 24,500-25,200 psi, depending on how I work the powder matching. So, with the discontinued Hornady JSWC that Hodgdon uses, at their COL (1.135"), that's the expectation with their standard test barrel (5" with minimum chamber dimensions, nominal bore dimensions) using a Winchester case and Federal 150 primer. Hornady uses the same COL, but a Hornady case and Winchester WLP primer. I don't know their exact effects. Hornady uses a SA 1911 with 5" barrel. Hornady may also have had a slow lot of HP38. That can knock 1000 psi off.

But here's the main telling point to me: When I match Hodgdon's 5.9-grain max load as perfectly as QuickLOAD will let me do, I get 906 fps, same as they do, and when I jump it to 6.9 grains, velocity goes to 1,001 fps. But Hornady's manual shows 900 fps, about what Hodgdon's 5.9-grain load is doing. That suggests to me that Hornady has a very generous chamber and maybe a bigger jump to the throat or a lot of extra case capacity or a wimpy primer or some combination of all of the above.

So, based on those velocities, something is tempering the load the way Hornady is using it. I would probably treat my brass and primer and gun as unique. Assuming I also was shooting a 5" barrel, I'd get out the chronograph and see how close Hodgdon's load came to producing Hodgdon's velocities with my lot of powder. If I were inclined to experiment with going hotter, I just wouldn't go above 900 fps. Keep in mind, most optical chronographs have some degree of error, so unless you can calibrate yours, believing it much closer than 50 fps can be hazardous.

For different barrel lengths, see below.

5" 906 fps
4" 868 fps
3" 811 fps

[RC20]

Just remember, Quick Load is not a loading manual.

Its better!

Good to have cross checks isn't it? When in doubt got with the lowest high. safer than the highest high (dang, I am a philosopher not to mention good opioid prevention )

[Nick_C_S]

s8200, welcome to TFL.

Unclenick already took us into the weeds; so the technical stuff is handled. That's a good thing, btw.

When I read your post, I decided to simply pretend I was in your situation - to load 185 XTP's with HP-83 (I have both, but haven't loaded the combo. In fact, I haven't loaded the 185 XTP's at all. 200 of them been collecting dust over here for a few years now.).

Since it's a Hornady bullet, I reached for Hornady's manual. Sure enough, it's 6.5 to 6.9 grains. That sounded a bit high, so I grabbed Speer's manual. Speer's Gold Dot bullets are of different construction, so I know the load data will be different, but I still wanted to see what they're doing with their 185 GD's. Their data is higher. That at least told me that Hornady's data is likely correct and not a misprint or something.

So I decided on starting at 6.5 grains. That gives you a feel for how another loader approached it. In this hobby, it's easy to overthink things. After well over three decades, I've managed to get past that .

5.0 grains will be very week. And that's perfectly okay.

[Nick_C_S]

Just remember, Quick Load is not a loading manual. Its better!

Hmm. I have QuickLoad. I'm glad I have QuickLoad. I do refer to Quickload from time to time.

But to say it's better than a load manual; or manuals/data collectively? I don't share that opinion. With all the published data out there, I actually find having QL superfluous for the most part.

I know that according to QL, my 357/158/2400 loading would blow my gun to smitherines. They are within published data and shoot just fine. Point is, QL can be a little wonky with straight-walled pistol cartridges. The only rifle I load is 223 for AR-15. And it seems right on the money with what little I do with rifle.

[mikld]

FWIW; reloading manuals aren't hard and fast formula, they are published reports of what the test personnel found when they used their powder, their bullets, their brass, their primers in their equipment. Your (and any other testing lab's) results will vary...

I normally use the bullet manufacturer's load data, then powder manufacturer's data, and if not satisfied, the lowest published loads...

[Nathan]

Let accuracy drive you. If you are a decent shooter, benchrested accuracy will be worse, if that hotter load is too hot. Also, a chrony will tell you....you are after all, shooting for 850-900 fps in a 5" 1911 for std pressure loads. If you get >900, it might be hot!

[RC20]

Nick CS: That was some tongue in cheek, another poster had noted the QL was not a reloading manual.

My take is that QL is a tool and in this case its staying the load is hot. Sounds the same in your case.

Very good in that it induces caution to start low and work up.

The more data the better (there will be a pattern and you can assess from that)

Reloading manuals as I have noted are also not given reliable per sey as they are one off data points on a single given chamber. Thats bad science.

We can make it useful by looking at other manuals and tools like QL to tell us where it stands. Ugly outlier or withing the norms or someplace in between.

[willr]

Was surprised not too long ago to learn that HP38 and Win231 are the same powder. So data for either should be interchangeable.
willr

[T. O'Heir]

"...does not have any HP38 for 185xtp..." You do not need bullet specific data. You need jacketed or cast. An XTP is jacketed. So is a 'JSWC'. Who made it or its shape doesn't matter.
Lee does no testing themselves. They use the powder maker's data. Hodgdon shows 5.0 to 5.9 of HP38 for a 186 grain jacketed bullet.
Something is wrong with that Lyman and Hornady data. Look at it again.
Velocities will vary from manual to manual as they're averages of tests done with a specific barrel length and powder lot.
"...Quick Load is not a loading manual...." Right, but 'better' it ain't. It is a wild hairy buttock theoretical guess by some programmer who very likely has never seen a real firearm.

[Reloadron]

What you are seeing is pretty much par for the course. Hornady for example in the Hornady 9th list as you stated 6.5 to 6.9 grains of HP 38. They also, like the others, list the test gun, barrel length, trim length, cartridge overall length and the primer they used. So their powder charge recommendation as to a min and max load are based on their test under their conditions. This is why we start with a low or minimum load and work up.

While I won't say I never used or loaded to maximum my own observations since I began to roll my own around 1972 has been in my guns my best groups have always come in below maximum loads. That being especially true with rifle.

Ron

[Reloadron]

T. O'Heir mentions:

"...does not have any HP38 for 185xtp..." You do not need bullet specific data. You need jacketed or cast. An XTP is jacketed. So is a 'JSWC'. Who made it or its shape doesn't matter.

That isn't quite true. Pictured below are two each 230 grain 45 ACP bullets, likely the most highly loaded 45 ACP weight. Both bullets are JHP design and both bullets share a 0.451 diameter. The bullet on the left is a Speer 230 grain Gold Dot JHP with a length of 0.652" while the bullet on the right is a Hornady XTP with a bullet length of 0.636". Speer suggest a COL of 1.270" for their bullet while Hornady suggest a COL of 1.210". So you are saying that if I choose either COL that the pressures developed at maximum loads will not be affected? Speer using Winchester 231 reflects 5.0 to 5.6 while Hornady reflects 5.0 to 5.7 of the same powder which is the equivalent of the HP 38 the original poster is using. So using the theory all 230 JHP bullets are created the same what is the maximum safe load and what should the COL be? I want to know.



The image is mine but if anyone wants it feel free to download it and the image is linked to a domain which I own.

Ron

[44 AMP]

Just remember, Quick Load is not a loading manual. Its better!

Explain, please, how a computer program that can only "predict" is better than data obtained by actually shooting real ammo in real guns.

Real world data doesn't match Quick load prediction? sorry, life is like that sometimes.

Actual ammo and actual guns vary. Often the variation is fairly small, this is why reloading data works AS A GUIDELINE. Sometimes the variation is much larger.

The only 'correct' data for your gun is the data you work up and test IN YOUR GUN, with YOUR COMPONENTS.

While you will see "conflicting" data from different sources, it really isn't "conflicting". The conflict is a false assumption. The data reported is an honest and accurate account of what they tested.

NO two or more different sources can test the same identical guns or ammo. And even if they could, it would be different from what you and I have in our hands.

So using the theory all 230 JHP bullets are created the same what is the maximum safe load and what should the COL be? I want to know.

First off, you shouldn't use the "theory all 230gr JHP bullets are the same", because they aren't. You're asking about differences in seating depth affecting pressure, and it does, but there are OTHER factors to consider, as well. One big one is the length of the bearing surface of the bullet. (that part of the bullet that is engaged by the rifling) Another factor is the material the bullet bearing surface is made of. (lead, plating, regular "normal" copper jacket, harder or softer than "normal" jacket, etc.)

These things all have an effect on the pressure of a load, as well.

The maximum safe load and COAL is what YOU determine, for your gun, by carefully testing different combinations, until you find it.

SAAMI specs and limits are industry limits, intended for manufacturers, and meant to be safe in EVERY gun. Nothing wrong with that. and they will be safe in your gun (absent some extraordinary conditions).

But there is no hard and fast rule or limit for your gun (and ammo) except what you test in your gun. Think of it somewhat like a speed limit on the highway, (somewhat like, not exactly like), you can drive 55, and be mechanically safe, tis the posted limit. Maybe your car can do 80, and still be mechanically safe. Maybe my car will blow a rod if I do over 65, or I've got bad tires, so I only drive 55. Book (and internet) say 55 is safe. Beyond that, you're on your own.

Doesn't mean 80 isn't safe in your car, with you driving, only means they won't say its safe, because they don't have your car, or you driving, to test your safety.

Like the pirates say "arrr, they aren't rules, more loike guidelines, really..."

[Nick_C_S]

Thanks for the second post (#12) RC20. Not that I was bustin' your chops, but your clarification was an excellent explanation of how QL should be used. My sentiments exactly.

If you get 1150, it might be hot!

nathan, let's hope our OP doesn't get anywhere near 1150 f/s using HP-38. I'm pretty sure HP-38's peak pressure would cause a rapid, violent, and uncontrolled dismantling of the firearm well prior to 1150.

Great post reloadron. Point well made.

To get back on track: I hope our OP reports back on the results.

[Hammerhead]

You do not need bullet specific data. You need jacketed or cast. An XTP is jacketed. So is a 'JSWC'. Who made it or its shape doesn't matter.

I don't agree with that either.

The Hornady 185 JSWC seats almost twice as deep in the case as the 185 XTP.

The JSWC only needs 5.0 grains af HP38 to cycle the gun, the XTP takes 5.5 grains to cycle my USP.
I can only imagine how hot the Hornady 185 JSWC is at 6.9 grains of HP38. I was really surprised to see those two bullets lumped together in the Hornady manual. (USA Load Books actually)

[Reloadron]

44 AMP:

First off, you shouldn't use the "theory all 230gr JHP bullets are the same", because they aren't. You're asking about differences in seating depth affecting pressure, and it does, but there are OTHER factors to consider, as well. One big one is the length of the bearing surface of the bullet. (that part of the bullet that is engaged by the rifling) Another factor is the material the bullet bearing surface is made of. (lead, plating, regular "normal" copper jacket, harder or softer than "normal" jacket, etc.)

I agree without a doubt, my question was aimed at T. O'Heir and was sarcasm.

Ron

[Nathan]

Good point.... I was thinking 185's in general....with HP38, it seems like 850-900 fps is the target and over 900 is hot.

Still, I would bet anything over 900 has crap for accuracy!

[Nick_C_S]

with HP38, it seems like 850-900 fps is the target (with 185's)

I read that and so I perused my chrono data, just to see.

Yep. It's correct .

[RC20]

An XTP is jacketed. So is a 'JSWC'. Who made it or its shape doesn't matter.

It can matter, using low loads should be fine but this is that odd one they list a narrow window for.

Various shapes have various differences in performance.

[RC20]

The JSWC only needs 5.0 grains af HP38 to cycle the gun, the XTP takes 5.5 grains to cycle my USP.
I can only imagine how hot the Hornady 185 JSWC is at 6.9 grains of HP38. I was really surprised to see those two bullets lumped together in the Hornady manual. (USA Load Books actually)

Both Sierra and Hornady dump a lot of non common shape bullets into the same loading page.

While I like both manuals I always do some crass checking, more so if its that narrow a listing and not a wider range for a low start load.

It makes for an interesting read of the QL data in this case.

[gwpercle]

Originally Posted by s8200

I'm loading 45acp with 185gr xtp with HP38. The 3 books I own have conflicting info on how much powder to use.

Hornady: 6.5 - 6.9
Lyman: 3.5 - 5.8
Lee: does not have any HP38 for 185xtp but does have 5.0 - 5.9 for 185 jacketed

I took a guess and loaded some rounds at 5.0... will be testing them out this weekend.

What would you guys do?

Here is my unscientific way :
get three or four max/min loads as you have done.
Add them all up and take the average , in this case : 6.5+6.9+3.5+5.8+5.0+5.9 = 33.6
33.6 divided by 6 = 5.6 grains. So my starting load would be 5.6.
I would load 10 or 15 each loaded with 5.5 , 5.6 and 5.7 grains and test them out at the range.
In the last 50 years I've found the middle of the road a good place to start...you notice 5.6 grains is not over any book's maximum load nor is it below any minimum load.
Experience has taught me those extremes are usually not the best and working up from the very absolute minimum is a waste of time powder and bullets. The middle is the baby bear place to start and most often is where I find my best loads.
Gary