45 Long Colt Primer - Regular, Magnum, or Doesn't Matter?

[trickg]

Unique and a 255 grain Keith have long been like ham and eggs with 45 Colt for a Colt SSA or Uberti clone revolver. Then probably around the time your Dad got his Ruger, that's when you start seeing the Magnum powders. Would make all kinds of sense. With the Ruger, he could range from mild to wild, and anywhere in between as the revolver is much stronger. Great round!

Dad's mold for the Keith bullet he loaded most in 45 Colt was the 250 gr. I'm not sure what the difference might have been between the 250 and 255 gr molds, but the bullet that's listed over and over again for 45 Colt in his ledgers is the 250 gr with usually 9.0 or 10.0 gr Unique, with the occasional 9.5 gr or even 10.3 gr.

There doesn't seem to be any real rhyme or reason for the deviation from one to the other, although past a certain point it's almost always 10.0 gr rather than the 9.0, and I suspect it's when he retired the 1st Gen Colt SAA because it was becoming valuable, and when he got the stronger Ruger.

Sorry - this has strayed a bit from the original topic of the thread - mag primers with Titegroup - but I do find it interesting to go back through his ledgers.

 

[Rockzilla]

When using ...296, 4227, 110, 2400 = CCI-350
basically others ... = CCI-300
Like the Heavy Keith Style LSWC, MiHec brass mold with all the "pins"
the "Penta-Hollow Point" is awesome

-Rock

 

[lazarus]

Definitely with 296 magnum primers and don't load 296 light, stick to the load data. I had bad results near the low end of 296 load data with a hang fire type situation that could have blown up my gun, a first gen Colt Anaconda.

I've only started playing with H110 loading in 357 and 44 (and nothing else yet). Reading up a ton on it, that sort of thing seems to be more at very low end. Of course the issue I see, load data varies WIDLY. 125gr XTPs in 357, Hornady's MAX load is below Hogdon's starting load. So do I use the bullet manufacturer or the powder manufacturer's load data? Or do I use randos on the internet loading it a solid grain and a half more than Hogdon's hottest load? Some loads only have a 1 grain difference from starting to top end load. Others for a slightly different bullet weight have a 2 grain variance from bottom to top.

Anyway, at least in testing, everything so far has been significantly more consistent around Hogdon's minimum load up to about their maximum load. Like for those 125s, Hornady has a maximum of, IIRC 19.7gr and I forget their starting load. Hogdon is 21-22gr. 21 and 21.2gr are very consistent for me. I haven't tested hotter. Pushing down in to the 20 range and below 20, my extreme spread skyrockets. 21 and 21.2gr loads for 125 XTP in 357 mag has SDs around 25fps with ES around 100 for 12 rounds. Down at 20? it is about 50fps SD and 150fps SD. around 19 and it was over 70fps SD and close to 200fps ES. 44 mag I saw similar things, but I have less testing there, but the cooler loads had higher SD/ES than the hotter loads of H110.

That is actually something I really appreciate with Bullseye. It is dirt as can be and a little goes a long way pressure wise, but every handgun I've tested it in always has very low SD and ES figures no matter how light or how heavy I load the cases. I've got a 660fps 45acp load (4gr?) with Bullseye with 230gr that clocks and SD of 5 and an ES under 20. Standard load is 5gr (780 fps?) and I see an SD of 6 and an ES of like 18 or 19. And I've got a hot load that is 5.3gr and I think 840fps is also well under 10fps SD (I forget exactly what it is without going and looking at my reloading log). Similar things in 357, 38spc, 9mm, 44 mag. I think the only thing that has big SD and ES is 32acp. But that is all non-locked breach firearms which are going to have higher SD/ES to start with. And it is dealing with TINY case volumes so a very slight error in charging adds up to a much bigger variation in velocity. There I see SDs in the 20s.

 

[John from MD]

I've only started playing with H110 loading in 357 and 44 (and nothing else yet). Reading up a ton on it, that sort of thing seems to be more at very low end. Of course the issue I see, load data varies WIDLY. 125gr XTPs in 357, Hornady's MAX load is below Hogdon's starting load. So do I use the bullet manufacturer or the powder manufacturer's load data? Or do I use randos on the internet loading it a solid grain and a half more than Hogdon's hottest load? Some loads only have a 1 grain difference from starting to top end load. Others for a slightly different bullet weight have a 2 grain variance from bottom to top.

Anyway, at least in testing, everything so far has been significantly more consistent around Hogdon's minimum load up to about their maximum load. Like for those 125s, Hornady has a maximum of, IIRC 19.7gr and I forget their starting load. Hogdon is 21-22gr. 21 and 21.2gr are very consistent for me. I haven't tested hotter. Pushing down in to the 20 range and below 20, my extreme spread skyrockets. 21 and 21.2gr loads for 125 XTP in 357 mag has SDs around 25fps with ES around 100 for 12 rounds. Down at 20? it is about 50fps SD and 150fps SD. around 19 and it was over 70fps SD and close to 200fps ES. 44 mag I saw similar things, but I have less testing there, but the cooler loads had higher SD/ES than the hotter loads of H110.

That is actually something I really appreciate with Bullseye. It is dirt as can be and a little goes a long way pressure wise, but every handgun I've tested it in always has very low SD and ES figures no matter how light or how heavy I load the cases. I've got a 660fps 45acp load (4gr?) with Bullseye with 230gr that clocks and SD of 5 and an ES under 20. Standard load is 5gr (780 fps?) and I see an SD of 6 and an ES of like 18 or 19. And I've got a hot load that is 5.3gr and I think 840fps is also well under 10fps SD (I forget exactly what it is without going and looking at my reloading log). Similar things in 357, 38spc, 9mm, 44 mag. I think the only thing that has big SD and ES is 32acp. But that is all non-locked breach firearms which are going to have higher SD/ES to start with. And it is dealing with TINY case volumes so a very slight error in charging adds up to a much bigger variation in velocity. There I see SDs in the 20s.

Hornady actually tests the loads with their specific bullets. The powder manufacturer gives you a range or max for their powder with a specific bullet weight.
While I don't care what the bullet looks like when I'm loading pistol plinking loads, I always use the bullet manufactures load data when using sensitive powders like H110.

The reason for this is that 4 different bullets may have 4 different lenghts. The Hornady manual will specify the COAL for a specific bullet which insures you don't have over pressure problems. The Hogdon manual tells you to start with reduced load and work up.

As for SD, ES etc., I stopped worrying about that years ago when an Army armorer taught me how to load for case capacity to get better consistency. When powder was cheaper, I used to even load my pistol rounds by volume. Now that it is expensive, I use the smallest load of fast powder that works for the velocity that I want.

 

[lazarus]

Hornady actually tests the loads with their specific bullets. The powder manufacturer gives you a range or max for their powder with a specific bullet weight.
While I don't care what the bullet looks like when I'm loading pistol plinking loads, I always use the bullet manufactures load data when using sensitive powders like H110.

The reason for this is that 4 different bullets may have 4 different lenghts. The Hornady manual will specify the COAL for a specific bullet which insures you don't have over pressure problems. The Hogdon manual tells you to start with reduced load and work up.

As for SD, ES etc., I stopped worrying about that years ago when an Army armorer taught me how to load for case capacity to get better consistency. When powder was cheaper, I used to even load my pistol rounds by volume. Now that it is expensive, I use the smallest load of fast powder that works for the velocity that I want.

Hogdon is in theory using that exact bullet. They specify a 125gr XTP. Same COAL as Hornady. For the XTP, Hornady is giving you a specific bullet, but most of their loads it is several bullets in a weight class. GRT even says Hornady is well under max pressure using their data and double checking the real length of an XTP against what is in their library. Doesn’t mean they are right. But everyone else XTP 125gr, or 125gr JHP dat is a solid 1+ grains higher than Hornady’s.

 

[John from MD]

Hogdon is in theory using that exact bullet. They specify a 125gr XTP. Same COAL as Hornady. For the XTP, Hornady is giving you a specific bullet, but most of their loads it is several bullets in a weight class. GRT even says Hornady is well under max pressure using their data and double checking the real length of an XTP against what is in their library. Doesn’t mean they are right. But everyone else XTP 125gr, or 125gr JHP dat is a solid 1+ grains higher than Hornady’s.

It could be that Hornady's lawyers had their say.

 

[lazarus]

It could be that Hornady's lawyers had their say.

Or how they tested it. Both are using Win LPM primers for their test data too.

Hornady uses an 8" Colt Python for their .357 test data. I have no clue how anyone tests for pressure. Do they only use a universal test apparatus (Hogdon mentiones they do. Lee doesn't mention, but their velocity and load data look to be an exact match to Hogdon and their 10" test fixture)? Or did Colt drill the cylinder to a pressure transducer? If the latter, I can see how it is easily possible to get much higher (or lower) pressure based on the condition of the firearm (does it have tight chambers? Is the forcing cone "tight" or low cylinder gap?

 

[John from MD]

Or how they tested it. Both are using Win LPM primers for their test data too.

Hornady uses an 8" Colt Python for their .357 test data. I have no clue how anyone tests for pressure. Do they only use a universal test apparatus (Hogdon mentiones they do. Lee doesn't mention, but their velocity and load data look to be an exact match to Hogdon and their 10" test fixture)? Or did Colt drill the cylinder to a pressure transducer? If the latter, I can see how it is easily possible to get much higher (or lower) pressure based on the condition of the firearm (does it have tight chambers? Is the forcing cone "tight" or low cylinder gap?

That's why most ammunition testing is done by Universal Receiver these days. There are less variables and you get more consistent results.

 

[Biggfoot44]

Or how they tested it. Both are using Win LPM primers for their test data too.

Actually , no such thing .

Winchester only makes one flavor of Large Pistol Primer . It iis designated as " Suitable for both Standard and Magnum Loads "

The product designation is WLP .

 

[Biggfoot44]

.45 Colt , classic stuff generally :

The * True , Original , Authentic * Keith Bullets for .45 were a 235 for .45 AR , and a 255 for .45 Colt . Over the years , Lyman made small changes to his design , that he grumbled about .

" Heavy Keith for .45 Colt " is a posthumous tribute mold , designed by Dave Scovil . It is an * True , Original, Authentic * Keith .44 Bullet . porportionally scaled up from
430 to .454 , with resulting weight of 270 gr . In the 1920's Keith had to shorten the nose tp fit SAA cylinders . The Ruger Blackhawk , etc cylinders are long enough for the Keith's prefered Nose porportions .

From the 1870's to today , commercial ammo and bullets are equally split between 250 and 255 , and either is " authentic " .

From 1920's to 1980's , Unique was THE powder for .45 Colt , for every flavor of load . 8.0 was " light " , and 10.0 was " full power " . Heck , I was known to chase Bambi with 10.0 Unique & 255 SWC ( not in Md) .

By 1980's when when pressure testing became more common , and lawyers became more vicious , single catagory , or "standard" portion of multiple catagory data backed away 10 .

In the modern era 8.5 is the yardstick for "Matching 40gr BP , safe in SAA " .

In the category of " safe for SAA in good condition , using classic powder " , 20gr of 4227 will give slightly faster , at slightly lower pressure , than 10.0 Unique .

 

[trickg]

^^ That's good stuff right there.

One of my biggest regrets when we were finally settling the contents of Dad's gun stuff accumulation was that I didn't grab dies, and I didn't grab bullet molds. I didn't grab any reloading stuff - I did get ammo though.

I think part of it was that the whole event was kind of overwhelming. After Dad died, Mom didn't do anything at all with his gun stuff for 11 years - it was almost verboten to even bring it up. Then, all of a sudden (prompted by the guy my Mom was dating at the time) it all HAD to go, and an auction was scheduled.

I got there on Thursday night, we had Saturday to move stuff to the building at the fairgrounds where the sale was to be held, the auction was held Saturday, and then I trekked back here from Nebraska on Sunday. I was going to be highly limited by what I was going to be allowed to bring home, and I had to bid (but not pay) at the auction for the guns I wanted as a means to establish value for future estate planning by my Mother in an effort to try to make things "fair" between me and my sisters.

If I knew then what I know now, I would have grabbed a whole bunch of hand-cast bullets, dies, bullet molds and some casting equipment, but I was just overwhelmed by the whole thing. In the end I brought home about 15 guns and related ammo.

Again, I know this isn't pertinent to the thread - just some rambling thoughts on a Saturday morning. I wish Dad was still around to talk to about this - he'd no doubt have much more insight than I can glean from his reloading ledgers. At least I have those.

 

[lazarus]

Actually , no such thing .

Winchester only makes one flavor of Large Pistol Primer . It iis designated as " Suitable for both Standard and Magnum Loads "

The product designation is WLP .

Sorry, yeah I am aware. I refer to them as large pistol magnums, since that is what they are suitable for. Magnum primers are almost always suitable for regular powders and loads too. Though not necessarily ideal. Regular primers are pretty much not suitable for powders and loads that need a magnum primer (cause they need them)

 

[lazarus]

That's why most ammunition testing is done by Universal Receiver these days. There are less variables and you get more consistent results.

It does seem to be a better way to go. I do wish powder/bullet manufacturers would stick to something closer to more appropriate for the caliber. Hogdon is using a 10" universal receiver for their 357 testing. Pretty sure no one is getting 1800fps from any realistic .357 revolver. And it doesn't even give good data for a rifle, because that's pretty slow if you were running a 16" rifle. A 6" or 8" universal receiver and a 16" one if providing rifle load data would, IMHO, be best.

Not the end of the world, but I've seen that with load data a few times where the test barrel for a universal receiver was reasonably far off anything resembling a firearm you'd actually be shooting in that caliber, which makes it a lot harder to gauge if your velocity might actually be ballpark correct. Okay, sure, if your data is for a 4" .357 (Lyman) and you are shooting an 8 3/8" (my 27-2) that can also make it pretty hard to square up. But at least plenty of people probably are shooting 4" .357.

 

[John from MD]

It does seem to be a better way to go. I do wish powder/bullet manufacturers would stick to something closer to more appropriate for the caliber. Hogdon is using a 10" universal receiver for their 357 testing. Pretty sure no one is getting 1800fps from any realistic .357 revolver. And it doesn't even give good data for a rifle, because that's pretty slow if you were running a 16" rifle. A 6" or 8" universal receiver and a 16" one if providing rifle load data would, IMHO, be best.

Not the end of the world, but I've seen that with load data a few times where the test barrel for a universal receiver was reasonably far off anything resembling a firearm you'd actually be shooting in that caliber, which makes it a lot harder to gauge if your velocity might actually be ballpark correct. Okay, sure, if your data is for a 4" .357 (Lyman) and you are shooting an 8 3/8" (my 27-2) that can also make it pretty hard to square up. But at least plenty of people probably are shooting 4" .357.

One thing I learned from touring ammo manufacturers is that they don't like to spend money. One of the reasons the .22's dried up is that none of them was interested in making a new line. Their claim was that they weren't sure the demand would stay high. Give me a break, more people own guns today than ever before and most of them, I'm guessing, would own a .22.