Shot my first reloads

[awshoot]

Nice work and welcome to the reloaders club. You have one up on those chumps spending all their days looking for ammo, unless you are low on primers.....

A couple months ago I felt fairly satisfied with 3000 SPPs. I'm down to 300 now and although my ammo cabinet is full, I hesitate to shoot stuff because I don't know when I'll be able to get more.

What constitutes a chump varies with time I think.

 

[wollzy]

A couple months ago I felt fairly satisfied with 3000 SPPs. I'm down to 300 now and although my ammo cabinet is full, I hesitate to shoot stuff because I don't know when I'll be able to get more.

What constitutes a chump varies with time I think.

Yea I'm gonna be sure to stock up if/when this drought ends. Hell if SHTF really bad primers will probably be better currency than cash

 

[bbbass]

All the .45 fired fine but I did have about 3 stovepipes out of the 50 rounds. I haven't had this issue with factory ammo through my 1911. I did err on the side of caution and used the lighter charges from the load data table so I assume it could be from that or could it be from improper crimp?

Didn't read the entire thread, so maybe somebody already posted this info:

In my experience with 1911, 3 stovepipes indicate an underpowered load, or too much recoil spring (if fired in a clean and freshly oiled gun!). If using the stock spring, I vote for underpowered load. That said, I took the stock spring out of my Para, and replaced it with an 11lb spring, enabling me to shoot powder puff loads after my hands got bad arthritis. I'm always messing with springs in my various semis, so ladder load testing is important to me to see which ones function and which give the best accuracy.

I don't use much taper crimp at all on .45ACP nor on 9mm (barely measurable) unlike with .38 in which I use lead bullets that require a good roll crimp.

 

[wollzy]

Didn't read the entire thread, so maybe somebody already posted this info:

In my experience with 1911, 3 stovepipes indicate an underpowered load, or too much recoil spring (if fired in a clean and freshly oiled gun!). If using the stock spring, I vote for underpowered load. That said, I took the stock spring out of my Para, and replaced it with an 11lb spring, enabling me to shoot powder puff loads after my hands got bad arthritis. I'm always messing with springs in my various semis, so ladder load testing is important to me to see which ones function and which give the best accuracy.

I don't use much taper crimp at all on .45ACP nor on 9mm (barely measurable) unlike with .38 in which I use lead bullets that require a good roll crimp.

Yea general consensus was light loads. I started off on the low end of the charge data since it was my first go.

 

[DizzyJ]

Bullseye has always worked well for me in 45acp and 9mm especially.

Glad you had success your first trip out. I'm sure you were nervous the first time you pulled the trigger!

 

[wollzy]

Bullseye has always worked well for me in 45acp and 9mm especially.

Glad you had success your first trip out. I'm sure you were nervous the first time you pulled the trigger!

I may have shot my 1911 with my off hand and covered my jewels with the other hand for those first couple rounds

 

[awshoot]

I may have shot my 1911 with my off hand and covered my jewels with the other hand for those first couple rounds

When you get to the point you're strapping a firearms to a frame of some sort and tying a 20' string to the trigger -- that's when you know you're really having a good time. ;-)

 

[nammac]

Agree the load it too light to consistently cycle your 1911. Increasing the powder charge will most likely rectify the stove piping issue. As others have mentioned there are better powders for the .45 including Bullseye, Winchester 231, Unique, Red Dot and even Promo...

The choices are many, that's for sure...

 

[bbbass]

I would venture a guess that the CFE pistol might burn better in a smaller, higher pressure, round. 9mm, .40 cal? Or, increase the amount some. I see it only has a .8gr spread in the Hodgeon data though.

Titewad in 9mm is the same way.... it becomes unstable very quickly. Most prefer Titegroup. But TiteWad can be a good powder for light loads in .45ACP.

 

[tac]

If the ball of flame and blast from the muzzle sets the peak of your hat afire, removes your safety glasses in a dribble of transparent plastic, and chars the buttons on your shirt, as well as levelling small shrubs on either side, then you can assume that you have an overload.

OTOH, if the nose of the bullet can be seen sticking out of the muzzle, then there's a pretty good chance that there is too little by way of propellant.

From well over fifty years of experience in successful reloading without one destroying a gun, I'd opine that the ideal compromise occurs somewhere between these two extremes.

 

[Lesliet]

Just a suggestion, but my usual drill when working up a new load goes something like this: Figure out what depth I want to seat the bullet, so it fits the specific gun, not into the rifling, but not TOO far away, and able to feed through the magazine, if it's not a revolver. Then load about 10-15 rounds each from the minimum charge listed up to the max, in .2 grain increments. Go out and chronograph the loads, and write down the numbers in my book, observing accuracy and whether the slide cycles properly if it's an autoloader. The light loads often have issues getting the slide back far enough to not stovepipe and to pick up a new round, so I'm watching for that sweet spot where it gets 100% reliable, and loading at least .1 or .2 grains more than that.

My favorite powder for .45 ACP in an autoloader so far for moderate target loads and light recoil is Accurate #2. It can be kind of dirty in .45ACP revolvers, but works well in my CZ97 for light target or heavier bowling pin loads, with bullets from 200 grains up to 250. I've heard good things about Bullseye for these loadings, got a can of that to try out. Titegroup worked, but I didn't really like it for .45, although it works great for 9mm. Been wanting to try Sport Pistol for a year, but no one ever seems to have it locally, and it's scarce now, even online.

Congrats on getting into reloading, I know for me, it's been a very rewarding investment of my time and money.

 

[Mikej]

Titewad in 9mm is the same way.... it becomes unstable very quickly. Most prefer Titegroup. But TiteWad can be a good powder for light loads in .45ACP.

Neve used Titewad. I would think being more than just a couple places faster powder than Titegroup and Bullseye that it would be more appropriate with 185 and 200gr bullets? At least that's how my mind works.

After I "Soaked" up the relationship between powder burn rates, bullet weights, barrel lengths and so on, I tend to stay away from the fast(er) powders when a slower, appropriate, powder was available. I also stay with middle of the road bullet weights.

Once a person realizes that the load data put out by various sources are not specific recipes that must be followed, but they are just showing results that sources chose to print of results they got from various combinations of components. That's not to say you should go out on your own and make up data. I'm saying that using the burn rate chart and choosing other powders close to the same burn rate, and THEN looking for data for those similar in burn rate can give you more powder choices. There is data out there that is safe, because they proved it was by loading it within accepted pressures and velocities, but it may be a dog in your gun.

 

[bbbass]

Neve used Titewad. I would think being more than just a couple places faster powder than Titegroup and Bullseye that it would be more appropriate with 185 and 200gr bullets? At least that's how my mind works.

Mmmmm, I think it's more about case space than burn rate... IDK.

Titewad works within acceptable pressures in .45ACP and 230gr bullets at very low charge weights. However, despite the burn rate charts it does not work well in 9mm using any of the available bullet weights... because of the small case, the pressures become rapidly unstable with only an increase of .2gr of powder, so if your not weighing each load, something I don't do for pistol loads, a boom can happen. Not worth messing with for 9mm!!

Just remember, all these shotgun powders were made for faster burn rates in huge cases that really don't have much pressure. When used in pistol cases, use only tested recipes!!!

After I "Soaked" up the relationship between powder burn rates, bullet weights, barrel lengths and so on, I tend to stay away from the fast(er) powders when a slower, appropriate, powder was available. I also stay with middle of the road bullet weights.

I've got several copies of the burn rate charts. But I'm too chicken to substitute powder recipes on my own.

Once a person realizes that the load data put out by various sources are not specific recipes that must be followed, but they are just showing results that sources chose to print of results they got from various combinations of components. That's not to say you should go out on your own and make up data. I'm saying that using the burn rate chart and choosing other powders close to the same burn rate, and THEN looking for data for those similar in burn rate can give you more powder choices. There is data out there that is safe, because they proved it was by loading it within accepted pressures and velocities, but it may be a dog in your gun.

I agree they are not SPECIFIC recipes that MUST be followed, esp since the companies are now erring on the conservative side to avoid liability. However, they do give min/max as a place to start... that's not very specific. And the data provided in a load manual or company data AFAIK is a result of in-house testing. Usually, the specifics of which firearm, barrel length, etc are provided. However, there are informal sets of data out there provided by Joe Yahoo and his buddies... use at one's own risk.

I'm pretty sure that the min/max provided for ladder load testing is because individual firearms have diff characteristics. @Lesliet is right about the need to test by shooting at .2gr steps and observing the results. Usually for me, the min fails in my semis, and I'm a bit more observant for signs of overpressure as I get towards the max.

Edit to add: Burn rate is not the only characteristic to look at in choosing a powder... there are different types of powder, cone, sperical, flake, etc, that have other characteristics besides burn rate. Looking at burn rate will not tell one how fast pressure builds up in different shape/size of case. I don't think it's a one to one ratio.

 

[Mikej]

Mmmmm, I think it's more about case space than burn rate... IDK.

Titewad works within acceptable pressures in .45ACP and 230gr bullets at very low charge weights. However, despite the burn rate charts it does not work well in 9mm using any of the available bullet weights... because of the small case, the pressures become rapidly unstable with only an increase of .2gr of powder, so if your not weighing each load, something I don't do for pistol loads, a boom can happen. Not worth messing with for 9mm!!

Just remember, all these shotgun powders were made for faster burn rates in huge cases that really don't have much pressure. When used in pistol cases, use only tested recipes!!!




I've got several copies of the burn rate charts. But I'm too chicken to substitute powder recipes on my own.




I agree they are not SPECIFIC recipes that MUST be followed, esp since the companies are now erring on the conservative side to avoid liability. However, they do give min/max as a place to start... that's not very specific. And the data provided in a load manual or company data AFAIK is a result of in-house testing. Usually, the specifics of which firearm, barrel length, etc are provided. However, there are informal sets of data out there provided by Joe Yahoo and his buddies... use at one's own risk.

I'm pretty sure that the min/max provided for ladder load testing is because individual firearms have diff characteristics. @Lesliet is right about the need to test by shooting at .2gr steps and observing the results. Usually for me, the min fails in my semis, and I'm a bit more observant for signs of overpressure as I get towards the max.

Edit to add: Burn rate is not the only characteristic to look at in choosing a powder... there are different types of powder, cone, sperical, flake, etc, that have other characteristics besides burn rate. Looking at burn rate will not tell one how fast pressure builds up in different shape/size of case. I don't think it's a one to one ratio.

I can't disagree with any of that.

And RE the burn rate charts....They are helpful to see other powders, with similar burn rates, that may work. All you have to do is find the data for those powders as they may not be in the book(s) you have. If there is no data and you load it? You're going against one of the prime rules for reloaders.

 

[bbbass]

And RE the burn rate charts....They are helpful to see other powders, with similar burn rates, that may work. All you have to do is find the data for those powders as they may not be in the book(s) you have. If there is no data and you load it? You're going against one of the prime rules for reloaders.

Good clarification!!!

I usually just pull out all the books I have and look at recipes for the powder I have on hand. But I can see where a shopping list could be generated by looking for recipes with powders of similar burn rate to what I've had previous success with...

 

[Caveman Jim]

I stopped using a RCBS swager long ago.
I cut the crimp away with a pocket knife so it's just flat gone.. not just randomly displaced.

I've been using the RCBS pocket swager for a year now and have not had one single problem with non seating or loose primers.
I do take my time and try not to mass swage like I did years ago with the Dillon Super Swager II... Boy Howdy...

 

[Certaindeaf]

I've been using the RCBS pocket swager for a year now and have not had one single problem with non seating or loose primers.
I do take my time and try not to mask swage like I did years ago with the Dillon Super Swager II... Boy Howdy...

I hear you. I've hardly ever had a need to de-crimp much. My blade technique works for me.

 

[Caveman Jim]

I hear you. I've hardly ever had a need to de-crimp much. My blade technique works for me.

I agree, I too have some non conventional techniques.

 

[Pops1911]

Congratulations and welcome to a large world of reloading!!! I agree with the 45acp advice herein given. A 230 grain round nose driven by a mid range load of powder does the trick.

 

[ron]

Accurate light target load for 45 ACP I have used for +30 years. 200 gr. SWC lead bullet and 4 grains of Bullseye.
Bullseye is the old classic fast burning powder. Kind of Dirty. For full power 200 to 230 grain jacketed bullets I like Unique.