1911Forum banner

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
972 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
According to a number of sources I am led to believe John Moses Browning's original idea for the 45 ACP cartridge was a 200g bullet at 900 fps. The Ordnance Department suggested a 230g bullet as that was what they had issued for the 45 Colt (their version of the 45 Schofield) and thus 230g Ball was born.

Being a reloader I long ago tried the above performance level (200g @ 900 fps) and found it to work very well. A little flatter shooting than ball at extended distances, less perceived recoil, and easily making Major Caliber on the old ballistic pendulum or todays chronograph. My current recipe for this performance level is 6g of 231 behind a H&G #68 200g SWC. Any number of other powder choices and charges will produce the same results.

On the factory end (for carry) the choices are much more limited. I can only find two factory loads in this performance level - most 200g loadings being +P. Pro-Load offers a 200g soft point at 900 fps. I don't know what bullet they use, soft points being kind of a rare offering these days. Hornady has a non +P load with their 200g XTP bullet that averages 914 fps from my KZ-45.

The XTP bullet isn't known as one of the spectacular expanders but they certainly do feed nicely. Hand cycling any of the various 1911 pattern guns we have with the Hornady round feels like loading ball. The recoil is noticeably milder than any of the 200g +Ps, which my wife particulary likes in her Kimber Ultra Carry Aluminum. Frankly I like it too and it duplicates the load we use for practice.

My point in starting this thread is to see what some of the rest of you think about this level of performance (JMB's original idea) and pose a question of why it isn't more popular with both shooters and ammo makers. I sometimes think the whole magic bullet, more is better (+P) thing gets over done. We Americans do suffer from on going Magnum-ites.

Your comments or opinions would be welcome.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
605 Posts
If your velocity was from a 5" barrel, I'm a little surprised that it takes 6.0 gr of 231 to reach 900fps with 200gr H&G 68 cast bullet. I load this same bullet with 5.6gr of 231 and I get 900fps.

Last batch I chronoed were as follows:

Bullet - 200gr H&G 68 cast (sized 0.4515")
Power - Win231 / 5.6gr
Primer - Winchester LP
Case - Federal once shot brass
OAL - 1.258"

From the Kimber TLE II it averaged 890fps, Custom Target 910fps, S.A. 1911 870fps and Sig P220 870fps.

With 6.0gr of Win231 I was getting very close to 1,000fps from 1911 pistols.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
972 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Although the topic here isn't reloading, all I can tell you is that I've chronographed this load three times from 5" guns.

Kimber Custom - average 913 fps

KZ-45 - average 905 fps

KZ-45 (different day) - average 906 fps

This was with the first skyscreen 10' from the muzzle.

Maybe there has been a shift in the universe or the planets are re-aligned and I should try it again???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,769 Posts
I have long thought the 1905 loading was still the optimum and wish it were more available in factory service loads. I might even go for the Charles Petty .45 Lite of a widemouth 200 hollowpoint at 800 for the lightweight guns.

I have gotten ca 900 fps with a wide range of powder charges, it seems to vary a lot with powder lot, bullet temper, and temperature.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
605 Posts
Dave T,

Please don't get me wrong, I am not questioning your information.

One thing I have learned about reloading is that one person's load is not same as another person's even when you use same components and powder charge. There are many H&G 68 "style" bullets (while there is only one true H&G # 68) and they are all a little different in design so it contributes to the velocity differences along with accuracy of scale, lot to lot variances with powders, distance to first sky screen, temp, etc. etc.

Many years ago I used a Lyman beam scale to measure all my powder chages when loading 308 match ammo. I always got higher velocity than published by Lee and Lyman books. One day I took the scale to my University chem lab to test the scale against the scale at the school and it turns out that my scale was off... way off :eek: What I thought were safe loads were near the max published loads Now I have 2 beam scales (not Lyman) and a digital scale to check and cross check my charges :)

This is the reason we are always told to start with powder charges about 10% less than published loads.

Stay safe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
972 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
rug357,

I didn't take any offense. I know you mean about everybody's loads being different. I've been at this long enough to know every gun is an entity unto its own too. That's why I mentioned that I had chronographed this load out of two different 5" guns, so you wouldn't think I was just spouting off.

Also, I was serious about trying it again the next time I have the chronograph out. It could be the universe has shifted!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,480 Posts
I don't know that the loads are all that different, but the guns. The only way to make a fair comparison is to shoot the handloads in question from the same gun during the same session.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
972 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
No offense to you other guys but Jim Watson is the only one to address the original topic. I'd still like to hear what some of you think about a factory load at JMB's original specks of 200g @900 fps - particularly with today's highly engineered expanding bullets.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top