200gr SWC .45acp COL

uncle.45 · January 17, 2018, 06:47 AM

I really enjoy and appreciate this forum and it's members.
I look forward to the day when I can give someone some helpful input.

But in the meantime, I just need to ask an easy question for comparison.

Those of you who use 200gr SWCs in .45acp semi-autos---
To what COL are you seating?

I see that Hodgdon's data is based on a COL of 1.225".
Mine feed in the magazines and pistols at 1.255".
Isn't it better to load as close to the lands as possible without sacrificing feeding?

THANK YOU!

USSR · January 17, 2018, 07:16 AM

I seat my H&G #68 type SWC's to an OAL of 1.250". While it will vary from one bullet to the next, common knowledge says to seat them to a depth where 1/16" of the bullet shoulder shows above the case mouth.

Don

dahermit · January 17, 2018, 07:18 AM

I have never used published data to determine the overall length of my .45 ACP cartridges. I determine the O.A.L. by using the "plunk test"...that way I am assured of proper functioning.

243winxb · January 17, 2018, 08:41 AM

This works for me. COL is 1.263" LYMAN 200 gr bevel base.
Case head to shoulder is .947"

Northof50 · January 17, 2018, 09:42 AM

Uncle.45 - the primary issue with using COL from somewhere other than the bullet manufacturer is that the number you are reading is not specific enough to measure in thousandths. I like and have used the 200SWC from many manufacturers. About the only thing consistent is the weight and "overall" shape. But, the weight is determined by the material of the bullet, not the shape. So, if your material is less dense, your bullet will be larger. It also depends on the shape of the conical which forms the point. I've seen them longer/thinner as well as shorter/squattier [mind you these are not huge difference]

As has been mentioned, load a round and 1) see if it will fit in your magazine, 2) drop one down the chamber of your barrel and see if the case headspace on the case mouth properly.

Theoretically, the closer the bullet comes to the lands of the barrel, the more accurate, as there is less free-flight of the bullet before hitting the lands. But, for semi autos, there tends to be more emphasis put on feeding and function than MOA accuracy.

reddog81 · January 17, 2018, 10:10 AM

I go for somewhere in-between 1.24 and 1.25. If my Lee seating stem starts to back out and the rounds get close to 1.26 I have some magazines that will start to cause problems.

**Unclenick** · January 17, 2018, 11:03 AM

There are too many variations in nose form for one answer to fit them all. I seat mine to headspace on the bullet, as that reduces leading and reduces group size by about a third for me. The only problem is that in some guns with some longer SWC shapes, there can be a feed problem. In that instance, it is necessary to seat shorter until feeding is reliable. But that's unusual.

Headspacing on the bullet in the 1911 is determined as in the third image from the left, below.

Charlie98 · January 17, 2018, 11:07 AM

Uncklenick, I think your terminology is incorrect. The .45ACP headspaces on the case mouth, not the bullet... or are you actually saying the bullet jamming into the rifling is the actual headspace dimension?

**Unclenick** · January 17, 2018, 11:19 AM

Yes. That's what happens. The bullet jams the lands before the case mouth reaches the step at the end of the case space in the chamber. Headspacing a cartridge is a somewhat technically loose but common piece of jargon referring to whatever surface stops the cartridge going further forward into the chamber, regardless of whether it's the chamber headspace determinate or not. Even though the .45 Auto chamber headspace is from the breech to the step at the end of the case-holding portion of the chamber, a good many production 1911's in the past have been loose enough that their cartridges actually stop against the extractor hook before they reach that step. These are said to be headspacing on the extractor.

Extractor headspacing doesn't seem to bother jacketed bullets much, but lead bullets are scraped and swaged a little of out shape on the right side by it, unbalancing them and opening groups up. Since lead is soft, there's no particular pressure problem caused by doing what the image shows, so it's a good way to make start pressure more consistent as well as to avoid deforming the bullet.

Northof50 · January 17, 2018, 11:31 AM

Just note - If your bullet is headspacing on the bullet, not the case, you've crimped too much, or your bore is oversized/dies are undersized. Chamber pressures/velocities will be different than those listed in manuals. I know of no manuals that test loads seating bullets on the lands. Keep an eye out for pressure signs if loading near max.

ammo.crafter · January 17, 2018, 11:46 AM

The plunk test will tell you a lot about how your reloads are being supported in the chamber.

A simple method to check is to load up a few reloaded rounds and place them in a magazine to see if they fit and also to see if they feed without issue in the breech.

**Unclenick** · January 17, 2018, 11:59 AM

Northof50,

When my bullets headspace on the bullet, it's because I seated them out far enough to do that, as the illustration shows. No relation to my crimping technique (light taper crimp). Lead bullets are too soft to cause a pressure problem in this regard. Indeed, one of the reasons the technique reduces group size is that lubricated lead bullets in this cartridge, due to the small powder space, are frequently unseated by their primers before the powder burn gets fully underway, and this means some bullets are in the lands as pressure builds, anyway, and some are only part way to the lands when the powder really gets burning. This variation in starting powder space causes ignition and velocity irregularity. Headspacing on the bullet intentionally clears it right up.

My first experiment with this was back around 1983 or '84. Using a fit up Goldcup, I was working on a gallery load using 185 grain swaged Star SWC's that someone in our bull's eye pistol league had made a bulk purchase of. Swaged bullets, being extra soft, are particularly prone to being swaged into a bore slightly off-axis. Running about 3.8 grains of Bullseye under these lit with a Federal 150 primer, at 25 yards they grouped around 2.5" off sandbags. After I started seating them out to headspace on the bullet's contact with the throat, the groups dropped to about 1.5". The same gun would shoot 200 grain hard cast SWC's into just under 1" when loaded this way and fired off bags.

The other bonus was the leading reduction. I've had my school gun (S.A. A1, fit up with a Clark barrel) shoot 3000 rounds of cast 200 grain SWC's with about 4.8 grains of Bullseye over 4 days with no cleaning and no sign of more than a few streaks of lead immediately adjacent to the lands over the first half inch of the bore ever building up. The only thing that stopped it was caking up of the powder fouling and graphite that Bullseye sprays around.

I worked this out on my own, but reading various authors over time, of course I found that others had been there before me. A number of the old bullseye shooters did this without pressure problems. (They also did things like applying heavy roll crimps below the bullet shoulder to help make this happen, but I value my brass too much to do that.)

Ammo.crafter,

The plunk of lead on a throat is slightly muted as compared to a brass case hitting the end of the chamber, but in the instance of my photo, it's on purpose. All rounds drop in freely of course. The plunk test's one shortcoming is its failure to tell you whether or not a cartridge will end up headspacing on the extractor hook. You have to look at the level of the head below the plunk to ascertain that. Since .45 Auto brass typically shortens about half a thousandth every load cycle, there will come a point where that is happening, even if it doesn't happen initially. This is another advantage of headspacing on the bullet; the length of the case isn't an issue.

Northof50 · January 17, 2018, 12:14 PM

Unclenick - cool - We may be on different pages. I was referring to cast bullets. I cannot remember the last time I use lead. FYI - I still have my '85 Gold Cup - probably my favorite pistol. Never thought about seating bullets out far enough to touch the lands. Never had an issue and the GC, with 200 cast SWC is extremely accurate [even 30+ years later].

Thanks.

**Unclenick** · January 17, 2018, 12:31 PM

I count cast bullets as lead, because they are still far softer than copper jackets and the lube will still let a primer unseat them. The first pistol rest group below was from 1985 from my Goldcup right after I'd fit the barrel up, and a year later for the cast bullet group. Both off bags. The cast bullets tighten up a bit further if I use a bullet spinner to sort them. The masking tape on the first target covers a .22 hole. To save money, we used to shoot targets with a .22 first, then move to the .45's.

uncle.45 · January 17, 2018, 01:45 PM

That's pretty much the intel I needed.
unclenick, my ammo headspace exactly as shown in the third image on your graphic even though they are headspacing on the case mouth. Could I make some dummies longer until either they won't go in the magazines, or the case head is past the barrel hood?

Northof50 · January 17, 2018, 02:06 PM

Very cool Unclenick. No question, the 200gr is a winner in a Gold Cup. There was a time, when I used to weigh bullets, cases, etc [not all - just those for serious accuracy work]. Years ago, I made a pistol stand which supported the barrel, butt and had a spring loaded side support. I believe I saw it first in ShootingTimes magazine. it worked great. But, over the years, my shooting has changed. It's more "tactical" unfortunately. Still fun. But, I used to love going out with a packed lunch, chronograph, sorted and loaded cartridges of various recipes... I think it was all the component shortages that helped end it as well.

Thanks for all the info.

**44 AMP** · January 17, 2018, 02:21 PM

Quote:

I was referring to cast bullets. I cannot remember the last time I use lead.

What are your cast bullets cast out of, if not lead / lead alloy???

Swaged, cast, or hard cast, they're all lead, and different from jacketed bullets.

Swaged (soft) and cast (soft or hard) are different from each other, but are all still lead or lead alloys.

uncle.45 · January 18, 2018, 09:04 AM

Without the recoil buffer my 1911s ran 100%, and shot to just over the front sight with a load of 3.8gr Clays and a COL of 1.255".
I am going to leave the COL as is. Going shorter to Hodgdon's published data wouldn't improve accuracy, and going longer probably wouldn't work in the magazines.
I think this load is good-to-go in these pistols.
My 625 revolver shoots well with this load, too. It hits a little higher, but with a 4.0gr load it hits right on top of the front sight.
I will start loading separately for semi-autos and revolvers. Then they will print the same.
All is well! Thank you everyone!

Northof50 · January 18, 2018, 10:15 AM

44 AMP - I was referring to hard cast. Which are harder than most jacketed bullets. Feel better?

rodfac · January 18, 2018, 11:17 AM

Northof50

Quote:

referring to hard cast. Which are harder than most jacketed bullets

Are you saying that hard cast lead alloy is harder than jacketed bullets? I doubt that. Do you have any data or a reference for that? Rod

DaleA · January 18, 2018, 11:21 AM

dahermit---first in for the win with the plunk test.

I used to shoot a lot of .45 ACP 200 grain semi-wadcutter target loads and the plunk test served me well...never used a caliper.

But I loaded before the internet age. I read 'ABC's of Reloading' and one reloading manual, and talked to a few folk in the pistol league. I found a process that worked and my reloading education stopped right there. I never thought to expand my knowledge.

Unclenick---not only gives great information but he explains WHY the information is great and gives you a ton of extra information for you to think about. Plus he can write clearly and often posts illustrations to show what he is talking about.

44 AMP---thanks for keeping the terminology straight and giving good explanations. FYI I almost always used Hornady swaged 200 grain SWC with just enough Bullseye powder to cycle the action of my 1911 style pistol. That's what most of the folk in my pistol league used so that's what I used too.

This site has really opened my eyes to a LOT of reloading stuff I never thought of before.

Northof50 · January 18, 2018, 11:28 AM

Rodfac - absolutely. That's why big game hunters use hard-cast or solids - not "jacketed" bullets. Jacketed bullets are simply soft lead wrapped in a jacket. They can have some exposed lead [soft point] some exposed lead can have hole [JHP] or some with complete jackets [FMJ]. While there are degrees of thickness and harness of the jacket, they are not "solids" like some of the Barnes bullets.

Pick up some recovered bullets from a range. Most of the hard cast bullets are still in tact. Some look like you could load them again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2aQpVKiCN8

USSR · January 18, 2018, 12:47 PM

Northof50,

Lead, hard cast or otherwise, is not harder than copper jacketed bullets. You are confusing hardness with the ability of a particular bullet to hold together on target. The copper jacket which makes contact with the bore is much harder than lead, that is why there is separate load data for lead and copper jacketed bullets.

Don

**44 AMP** · January 18, 2018, 01:16 PM

Quote:

That's why big game hunters use hard-cast or solids - not "jacketed" bullets. Jacketed bullets are simply soft lead wrapped in a jacket. They can have some exposed lead [soft point] some exposed lead can have hole [JHP] or some with complete jackets [FMJ]. While there are degrees of thickness and harness of the jacket, they are not "solids" like some of the Barnes bullets.

Big game hunters (including Africa's Big 5) absolutely use "jacketed bullets" and have, since they first came on the market over a century ago.

The problem is your definition of "jacketed bullets" vs. "solids" isn't quite the same as traditional use. Yes, some jacketed bullets are nothing more than "soft lead wrapped in a jacket". Others are more complex. Ivory Hunters and those taking Cape Buffalo used "solids" that were lead core bullets. The "solid" name came from the fact that they were "solid" jackets, (aka FMJ) with no exposed lead at the tip, and were not designed to be expanding bullets.

The 500gr FMJ .458 Win Mag load is a "solid", the 510gr SP is not, it's intended to expand, and is often referred to as the "lion load", BECAUSE it is intended to expand, and while one wants a solid for elephant and buffalo, one wants an expanding bullet for lion.

I think it was A-Square, a few decades ago, who came up the term "monolithic solid" to describe their "solid" bullet made entirely of copper alloy. It is entirely correct to refer to the solid copper, bronze etc., bullet made these days as "solids", but it also correct to refer to traditional cup and core bullets, not designed for expansion as "solids" as well.

Northof50 · January 18, 2018, 01:22 PM

Respectfully Don, I would disagree. Though copper [itself] is harder than the casting material of the typical hard cast bullet, the jacketed bullet is not all copper. The copper is simply a thin shell, supported primarily by the soft lead inside. If you are comparing solid copper bullets to hard cast, I would concur.

Yes, there are loading differences for lead, hard cast, and jacketed bullets, just as there are different loading instructions for solid copper bullets. The differences have to do with bearing surface, friction of the exterior material, as well as it's ability to compress.

But, that's simply been my experience picking up fired rounds from ranges.

January 17, 2018, 06:47 AM	#1
uncle.45 Senior Member Join Date: November 11, 2017 Location: Lakeland, Florida Posts: 134	200gr SWC .45acp COL I really enjoy and appreciate this forum and it's members. I look forward to the day when I can give someone some helpful input. But in the meantime, I just need to ask an easy question for comparison. Those of you who use 200gr SWCs in .45acp semi-autos--- To what COL are you seating? I see that Hodgdon's data is based on a COL of 1.225". Mine feed in the magazines and pistols at 1.255". Isn't it better to load as close to the lands as possible without sacrificing feeding? THANK YOU! __________________ Shoot Often, Have Fun, BE SAFE! Last edited by uncle.45; January 17, 2018 at 07:12 AM.

January 17, 2018, 07:16 AM	#2
USSR Senior Member Join Date: November 14, 2017 Location: Finger Lakes Region of NY Posts: 1,442	I seat my H&G #68 type SWC's to an OAL of 1.250". While it will vary from one bullet to the next, common knowledge says to seat them to a depth where 1/16" of the bullet shoulder shows above the case mouth. Don __________________ NRA Life Member NRA Certified Metallic Cartridge Reloading Instructor

January 17, 2018, 08:41 AM	#4
243winxb Senior Member Join Date: July 26, 2011 Location: USA Posts: 1,730	45 acp col 200gr swc This works for me. COL is 1.263" LYMAN 200 gr bevel base. Case head to shoulder is .947" Last edited by 243winxb; October 5, 2018 at 07:11 AM.

January 17, 2018, 11:03 AM	#7
Unclenick Staff Join Date: March 4, 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 21,063	There are too many variations in nose form for one answer to fit them all. I seat mine to headspace on the bullet, as that reduces leading and reduces group size by about a third for me. The only problem is that in some guns with some longer SWC shapes, there can be a feed problem. In that instance, it is necessary to seat shorter until feeding is reliable. But that's unusual. Headspacing on the bullet in the 1911 is determined as in the third image from the left, below. __________________ Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor NRA Certified Rifle Instructor NRA Benefactor Member and Golden Eagle

January 17, 2018, 11:07 AM	#8
Charlie98 Senior Member Join Date: September 6, 2006 Location: Great state of Texas Posts: 1,077	Uncklenick, I think your terminology is incorrect. The .45ACP headspaces on the case mouth, not the bullet... or are you actually saying the bullet jamming into the rifling is the actual headspace dimension? __________________ _______________ "I have this pistol pointed at your heart!" "That is my least vulnerable spot."

January 17, 2018, 07:18 AM	#3
dahermit Senior Member Join Date: October 28, 2006 Location: South Central Michigan...near Posts: 6,501	I have never used published data to determine the overall length of my .45 ACP cartridges. I determine the O.A.L. by using the "plunk test"...that way I am assured of proper functioning.

January 17, 2018, 09:42 AM	#5
Northof50 Junior member Join Date: January 5, 2018 Location: Northeast USA Posts: 232	Uncle.45 - the primary issue with using COL from somewhere other than the bullet manufacturer is that the number you are reading is not specific enough to measure in thousandths. I like and have used the 200SWC from many manufacturers. About the only thing consistent is the weight and "overall" shape. But, the weight is determined by the material of the bullet, not the shape. So, if your material is less dense, your bullet will be larger. It also depends on the shape of the conical which forms the point. I've seen them longer/thinner as well as shorter/squattier [mind you these are not huge difference] As has been mentioned, load a round and 1) see if it will fit in your magazine, 2) drop one down the chamber of your barrel and see if the case headspace on the case mouth properly. Theoretically, the closer the bullet comes to the lands of the barrel, the more accurate, as there is less free-flight of the bullet before hitting the lands. But, for semi autos, there tends to be more emphasis put on feeding and function than MOA accuracy.

January 17, 2018, 10:10 AM	#6
reddog81 Senior Member Join Date: October 16, 2014 Location: Iowa Posts: 1,634	I go for somewhere in-between 1.24 and 1.25. If my Lee seating stem starts to back out and the rounds get close to 1.26 I have some magazines that will start to cause problems.

January 17, 2018, 11:19 AM	#9
Unclenick Staff Join Date: March 4, 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 21,063	Yes. That's what happens. The bullet jams the lands before the case mouth reaches the step at the end of the case space in the chamber. Headspacing a cartridge is a somewhat technically loose but common piece of jargon referring to whatever surface stops the cartridge going further forward into the chamber, regardless of whether it's the chamber headspace determinate or not. Even though the .45 Auto chamber headspace is from the breech to the step at the end of the case-holding portion of the chamber, a good many production 1911's in the past have been loose enough that their cartridges actually stop against the extractor hook before they reach that step. These are said to be headspacing on the extractor. Extractor headspacing doesn't seem to bother jacketed bullets much, but lead bullets are scraped and swaged a little of out shape on the right side by it, unbalancing them and opening groups up. Since lead is soft, there's no particular pressure problem caused by doing what the image shows, so it's a good way to make start pressure more consistent as well as to avoid deforming the bullet. __________________ Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor NRA Certified Rifle Instructor NRA Benefactor Member and Golden Eagle

January 17, 2018, 11:31 AM	#10
Northof50 Junior member Join Date: January 5, 2018 Location: Northeast USA Posts: 232	Just note - If your bullet is headspacing on the bullet, not the case, you've crimped too much, or your bore is oversized/dies are undersized. Chamber pressures/velocities will be different than those listed in manuals. I know of no manuals that test loads seating bullets on the lands. Keep an eye out for pressure signs if loading near max.

January 17, 2018, 11:46 AM	#11
ammo.crafter Senior Member Join Date: June 25, 2006 Location: The Keystone State Posts: 1,970	45acp The plunk test will tell you a lot about how your reloads are being supported in the chamber. A simple method to check is to load up a few reloaded rounds and place them in a magazine to see if they fit and also to see if they feed without issue in the breech. __________________ "Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading". --Thomas Jefferson

January 17, 2018, 11:59 AM	#12
Unclenick Staff Join Date: March 4, 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 21,063	Northof50, When my bullets headspace on the bullet, it's because I seated them out far enough to do that, as the illustration shows. No relation to my crimping technique (light taper crimp). Lead bullets are too soft to cause a pressure problem in this regard. Indeed, one of the reasons the technique reduces group size is that lubricated lead bullets in this cartridge, due to the small powder space, are frequently unseated by their primers before the powder burn gets fully underway, and this means some bullets are in the lands as pressure builds, anyway, and some are only part way to the lands when the powder really gets burning. This variation in starting powder space causes ignition and velocity irregularity. Headspacing on the bullet intentionally clears it right up. My first experiment with this was back around 1983 or '84. Using a fit up Goldcup, I was working on a gallery load using 185 grain swaged Star SWC's that someone in our bull's eye pistol league had made a bulk purchase of. Swaged bullets, being extra soft, are particularly prone to being swaged into a bore slightly off-axis. Running about 3.8 grains of Bullseye under these lit with a Federal 150 primer, at 25 yards they grouped around 2.5" off sandbags. After I started seating them out to headspace on the bullet's contact with the throat, the groups dropped to about 1.5". The same gun would shoot 200 grain hard cast SWC's into just under 1" when loaded this way and fired off bags. The other bonus was the leading reduction. I've had my school gun (S.A. A1, fit up with a Clark barrel) shoot 3000 rounds of cast 200 grain SWC's with about 4.8 grains of Bullseye over 4 days with no cleaning and no sign of more than a few streaks of lead immediately adjacent to the lands over the first half inch of the bore ever building up. The only thing that stopped it was caking up of the powder fouling and graphite that Bullseye sprays around. I worked this out on my own, but reading various authors over time, of course I found that others had been there before me. A number of the old bullseye shooters did this without pressure problems. (They also did things like applying heavy roll crimps below the bullet shoulder to help make this happen, but I value my brass too much to do that.) Ammo.crafter, The plunk of lead on a throat is slightly muted as compared to a brass case hitting the end of the chamber, but in the instance of my photo, it's on purpose. All rounds drop in freely of course. The plunk test's one shortcoming is its failure to tell you whether or not a cartridge will end up headspacing on the extractor hook. You have to look at the level of the head below the plunk to ascertain that. Since .45 Auto brass typically shortens about half a thousandth every load cycle, there will come a point where that is happening, even if it doesn't happen initially. This is another advantage of headspacing on the bullet; the length of the case isn't an issue. __________________ Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor NRA Certified Rifle Instructor NRA Benefactor Member and Golden Eagle

January 17, 2018, 12:14 PM	#13
Northof50 Junior member Join Date: January 5, 2018 Location: Northeast USA Posts: 232	Unclenick - cool - We may be on different pages. I was referring to cast bullets. I cannot remember the last time I use lead. FYI - I still have my '85 Gold Cup - probably my favorite pistol. Never thought about seating bullets out far enough to touch the lands. Never had an issue and the GC, with 200 cast SWC is extremely accurate [even 30+ years later]. Thanks.

January 17, 2018, 12:31 PM	#14
Unclenick Staff Join Date: March 4, 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 21,063	I count cast bullets as lead, because they are still far softer than copper jackets and the lube will still let a primer unseat them. The first pistol rest group below was from 1985 from my Goldcup right after I'd fit the barrel up, and a year later for the cast bullet group. Both off bags. The cast bullets tighten up a bit further if I use a bullet spinner to sort them. The masking tape on the first target covers a .22 hole. To save money, we used to shoot targets with a .22 first, then move to the .45's. __________________ Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor NRA Certified Rifle Instructor NRA Benefactor Member and Golden Eagle

January 17, 2018, 01:45 PM	#15
uncle.45 Senior Member Join Date: November 11, 2017 Location: Lakeland, Florida Posts: 134	Thank you, everyone! That's pretty much the intel I needed. unclenick, my ammo headspace exactly as shown in the third image on your graphic even though they are headspacing on the case mouth. Could I make some dummies longer until either they won't go in the magazines, or the case head is past the barrel hood? __________________ Shoot Often, Have Fun, BE SAFE!

January 17, 2018, 02:06 PM	#16
Northof50 Junior member Join Date: January 5, 2018 Location: Northeast USA Posts: 232	Very cool Unclenick. No question, the 200gr is a winner in a Gold Cup. There was a time, when I used to weigh bullets, cases, etc [not all - just those for serious accuracy work]. Years ago, I made a pistol stand which supported the barrel, butt and had a spring loaded side support. I believe I saw it first in ShootingTimes magazine. it worked great. But, over the years, my shooting has changed. It's more "tactical" unfortunately. Still fun. But, I used to love going out with a packed lunch, chronograph, sorted and loaded cartridges of various recipes... I think it was all the component shortages that helped end it as well. Thanks for all the info.

January 18, 2018, 09:04 AM	#18
uncle.45 Senior Member Join Date: November 11, 2017 Location: Lakeland, Florida Posts: 134	VOILA! Without the recoil buffer my 1911s ran 100%, and shot to just over the front sight with a load of 3.8gr Clays and a COL of 1.255". I am going to leave the COL as is. Going shorter to Hodgdon's published data wouldn't improve accuracy, and going longer probably wouldn't work in the magazines. I think this load is good-to-go in these pistols. My 625 revolver shoots well with this load, too. It hits a little higher, but with a 4.0gr load it hits right on top of the front sight. I will start loading separately for semi-autos and revolvers. Then they will print the same. All is well! Thank you everyone! __________________ Shoot Often, Have Fun, BE SAFE!

January 18, 2018, 10:15 AM	#19
Northof50 Junior member Join Date: January 5, 2018 Location: Northeast USA Posts: 232	44 AMP - I was referring to hard cast. Which are harder than most jacketed bullets. Feel better?

January 18, 2018, 11:21 AM	#21
DaleA Senior Member Join Date: September 12, 2002 Location: Twin Cities, MN Posts: 5,313	dahermit---first in for the win with the plunk test. I used to shoot a lot of .45 ACP 200 grain semi-wadcutter target loads and the plunk test served me well...never used a caliper. But I loaded before the internet age. I read 'ABC's of Reloading' and one reloading manual, and talked to a few folk in the pistol league. I found a process that worked and my reloading education stopped right there. I never thought to expand my knowledge. Unclenick---not only gives great information but he explains WHY the information is great and gives you a ton of extra information for you to think about. Plus he can write clearly and often posts illustrations to show what he is talking about. 44 AMP---thanks for keeping the terminology straight and giving good explanations. FYI I almost always used Hornady swaged 200 grain SWC with just enough Bullseye powder to cycle the action of my 1911 style pistol. That's what most of the folk in my pistol league used so that's what I used too. This site has really opened my eyes to a LOT of reloading stuff I never thought of before.

January 18, 2018, 11:28 AM	#22
Northof50 Junior member Join Date: January 5, 2018 Location: Northeast USA Posts: 232	Rodfac - absolutely. That's why big game hunters use hard-cast or solids - not "jacketed" bullets. Jacketed bullets are simply soft lead wrapped in a jacket. They can have some exposed lead [soft point] some exposed lead can have hole [JHP] or some with complete jackets [FMJ]. While there are degrees of thickness and harness of the jacket, they are not "solids" like some of the Barnes bullets. Pick up some recovered bullets from a range. Most of the hard cast bullets are still in tact. Some look like you could load them again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2aQpVKiCN8

January 18, 2018, 12:47 PM	#23
USSR Senior Member Join Date: November 14, 2017 Location: Finger Lakes Region of NY Posts: 1,442	Northof50, Lead, hard cast or otherwise, is not harder than copper jacketed bullets. You are confusing hardness with the ability of a particular bullet to hold together on target. The copper jacket which makes contact with the bore is much harder than lead, that is why there is separate load data for lead and copper jacketed bullets. Don __________________ NRA Life Member NRA Certified Metallic Cartridge Reloading Instructor

January 18, 2018, 01:22 PM	#25
Northof50 Junior member Join Date: January 5, 2018 Location: Northeast USA Posts: 232	Respectfully Don, I would disagree. Though copper [itself] is harder than the casting material of the typical hard cast bullet, the jacketed bullet is not all copper. The copper is simply a thin shell, supported primarily by the soft lead inside. If you are comparing solid copper bullets to hard cast, I would concur. Yes, there are loading differences for lead, hard cast, and jacketed bullets, just as there are different loading instructions for solid copper bullets. The differences have to do with bearing surface, friction of the exterior material, as well as it's ability to compress. But, that's simply been my experience picking up fired rounds from ranges.