Should I go even higher on muzzle velocity?

[Mysterious Stranger]

I have been doing some extensive testing trying to find a .357 Magnum handload that will work in both my 1873 rifle and my 2 Cimarron Model P revolvers, and it has been challenging because both revolvers are replicas of the "original" Peacemaker, so have really small and hard to see crappy front and rear sights, and both have laser boresight proven serious sight windage errors (one having almost double the windage error of the other), AND one of the 2 revolvers is notably less accurate than the other (5.4" versus 2.9" 5-shot group size at 25 yards). Before anyone says I'm stupid for testing CAS revolvers at 25 yards, I am doing it to accentuate the differences on paper, so please, no advice to reduce the test distance.

 

After a lot of testing, the (rather dramatically) best load so far, that at least minimizes the revolvers' issues, is 4.4g of TiteGroup behind a 130g cast RNFP bullet with 12 – 14 BHN hardness.

 

This load was notably better than the 2nd best contender, which was 3.8g of the same powder with the same bullet. The 4.4g load produced groups that were 5.4" versus 6.4" with my "left" revolver (the worse accuracy one),  and 2.9" versus 4.2" with my "right" revolver.

 

I had previously compared loads ranging from 3.6g to 4.4g, and the best, and really only decent, results were from the 3.8g and 4.4g loads. Both loads showed a favourable lower slope segment in a plot of muzzle velocity versus  grains of powder, so apparently are favourable "nodes". The 3.8g load actually had a lower slope than the 4.4g load, but the 4.4g load actually shoots notably better groups than the 3.8g load.

 

However, the 4.4g load also worsened the windage error from 2.0" left to 2.9" left on the "left" revolver, and from 3.6" left to 4.8" left on the right revolver! These results, while not good, were remarkably CONSISTENT for each revolver.

 

The group sizes are rather large compared to my normal shooting ability, but I blame 72 year old eyes and the crappily authentic sights for that, rather than assuming that the revolvers are inherently not very accurate. Although, one being THAT much worse than the other makes me suspicious of its mechanical tolerances.

 

The 4.4g load is just about exactly in the middle of the Hodgdon load table for a 135g cast RNFP bullet, which says anything from 3.5g (13,100 cpu) to 5.2g (24,500 cpu) is safe, so the pressure is still very moderate. So, logic says keep going higher on the powder load and see what happens to group size and to windage error.

 

However, the velocities are already pretty high for CAS:

 

Left revolver 864 fps

Right revolver 849 fps

Rifle 1155 fps

(For comparison, the revolver fps was around 775 with the 3.8g load).

 

The revolvers have barrels that are only 4.75" long.

 

I am very insensitive to recoil (This recoil is nothing compared to my 9mm semiauto firing 115g at 1365 fps). And I do realize that SASS rules allow up to 1000fps for the revolvers and I did not see a limit for rifle muzzle velocity. But I wonder how more recoil might slow me down too much (my speed is already an issue with those hard-to-use-fast sights). I also wonder if with BHN of only 12 to 14, leading might become a problem.

 

I am also concerned about the windage error, being so large already, might become even worse. Or, it could I suppose get better, since i noted that the original 3.5 to 4.4g load testing DID produce varying windage errors in both directions as the powder load changed, superimposed upon the "built-in" sight error that the laser boresighter proved was present,

 

How high a muzzle velocity have any of you successfully used, i.e. good accuracy and no leading, with 130g BHN 12-14 bullets?

 

[Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933]

[Abilene, SASS # 27489]

no

[Totes Magoats]

Maybe a WTT/WTS add is in order here.  

 

Totes

[Mysterious Stranger]

6 minutes ago, Totes Magoats said:

Maybe a WTT/WTS add is in order here.  

 

Totes

 

No can do. Here in Canada, The Federal Government recently made the future buy or sell of any handgun illegal, at least temporarily, and likely permanently if they can reinforce the "order in cabinet" via a successful passing of their proposed legislaiton banning handgun transfers permanently (They need opposition party support to do that and are waiting til they can get it). I bought my 2 revolvers just before the cabinet order.

[Sam Sackett]

Have you tried a softer bullet?  I use plain lead and 3.0 Bullseye. You might want to try soft bullets with about 3 to 3.2 Titegroup ??????

 

you have fairly hard bullets and speeds are getting pretty high for cowboy stuff. 
 

or maybe you are overthinking things a tad?

 

Sam Sackett 

[Michigan Slim]

I understand where you're going and I won't ask why. Try a softer bullet alloy just for giggles. Same charges. I shoot about a 9 bh, at a 0.359 diameter. 0.358 gave me leading so I quit sizing them. 

[The Surgeon]

are you testing off of a rest or free hand? Those groups don't seem very big to me. 

[Mysterious Stranger]

1 hour ago, Sam Sackett said:

Have you tried a softer bullet?  I use plain lead and 3.0 Bullseye. You might want to try soft bullets with about 3 to 3.2 Titegroup ??????

 

you have fairly hard bullets and speeds are getting pretty high for cowboy stuff. 
 

or maybe you are overthinking things a tad?

 

Sam Sackett 

 

Thanks, Sam. I had tried a soft swaged 158g bullet from Hornady originally, that is apaprently almopst pure (soft) lead. But that bullet did not shoot well because when the seating die pushed it into the case, rather than the case expanding a bit, the bullet was re-swaged down to .355" diameter, which is a little too small for a .357 Magnum barrel.

 

The current 130g bullets are only doing about 850 fps, and when I graph the fps versus grains of powder, the slope shows that the fps picks up only 20 fps per 0.1g of TiteGroup powder. So, if I tried, say, 4.8g of TiteGroup, my fps would still be only 930 fps. That SOUNDS high for CAS, but with just a 130g bullet weight, the current 4.4g load does not reliably knock down my club's 8" knockdown targets at 17 yards, because the Power Factor is only 130 x 850/1000 = 110.5. To put that in perspective, a 250g bullet from a 45 Long Colt at 650 fps has a PF of 162.5 (And the recoil that reflects that PF).

 

Aren't 12-14 BHN unjacketed lead bullets good to much higher speeds than 850?

 

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

Your MV is fine, GO SHOOT!

[Mysterious Stranger]

1 hour ago, Michigan Slim said:

I understand where you're going and I won't ask why. Try a softer bullet alloy just for giggles. Same charges. I shoot about a 9 bh, at a 0.359 diameter. 0.358 gave me leading so I quit sizing them. 

 

With those 158g soft swaged Hornady bullets I tried, the accuracy was less consistent and the windage error was similar, and it was because the bullet was TOO soft and got swaged down to a measured .355" while being seated in the case. 

[Sam Sackett]

Not sure what dies you are using, but they are not expanding the case enough. You are trying to offset this by using a harder bullet. I recommend you get an expanding die that will properly expand the casing so it will not stage down the bullet. Undersized bullets cause bad accuracy. Once you properly expand the case, you can use softer bullets. 
 

Sam Sackett 

[Mysterious Stranger]

1 hour ago, The Surgeon said:

are you testing off of a rest or free hand? Those groups don't seem very big to me. 

 

Those groups were the averages from 8 groups of 5 shots each, from each revolver, with my hands resting on a very rigid local club saloon "bar" in Sinful Sue's Saloon on the club's CAS range. ONLY my hands were touching the bar surface per Bounty Hunter's book. No bag or other rest, but my hands being on the bar surface took away any tremble. My only issue was seeing the tiny sights well enough. The latest groups I shot with a really good modern semiauto (SIG P210A) were approximately 1 inch at the same distance. So, it's either my eyesight not being good enough anymore to see those tiny and very narrow (.055" wide) sights well enough to do better, or less likely, the limitations of Old West replica revolvers firing  powder loads that fill too little of the case.

 

Speaking of which, this is one reason why I suspect more powder might actually be better, since I would be filling more of the big case. Even a 4.8g load would only be 92% of the Hodgdon maximum load, and would likely hit only 850+80 = 930 fps. Recoil would still be pretty modest since PF would be only 121. And I cannot see a 12-14 BHM bullet leading at only 930 fps. But maybe I am wrong.

 

I asked because asking if anyone else has tried it is a lot easier and faster than loading up another ladder test batch of ammo with stepped higher amounts of powder, and using up another afternoon at the range. I've already burned up almost half of the 500 trial bullet order I bought, and I'd feel stupid if a better load was just a couple or few of tenth grains away.

[Mysterious Stranger]

35 minutes ago, The Original Lumpy Gritz said:

Your MV is fine, GO SHOOT!

 

I AM shooting Lumpy. But I am still not happy with the results. That's why I am asking here. The rifle is doing great with ANY of the loads I have tried with the 130g bullet, and will have its trigger lightened and its action smoothed early next month. The shotgun just needs to have its chambers polished a bit to drop the hulls easier and its barrel hinge smoothed out a bit to drop easier when released. But I want the 2 revolvers to shoot closer to POA, and I am disappointed that they won't reliably knock down the club's knockdown targets at 17 yards. 

 

The knockdown issue may be aggravated by the fact that the tops of the 8" plates lean towards the firing line when properly re-set, presumably to ensure that any bullet that does not knock down the plate will still be deflected towards the ground. Maybe the tilt angle as built is TOO much?

[Mysterious Stranger]

10 minutes ago, Sam Sackett said:

Not sure what dies you are using, but they are not expanding the case enough. You are trying to offset this by using a harder bullet. I recommend you get an expanding die that will properly expand the casing so it will not stage down the bullet. Undersized bullets cause bad accuracy. Once you properly expand the case, you can use softer bullets. 
 

Sam Sackett 

 

You could be correct, Sam. I THINK though the harder bullets I am now using are not being swaged down, as the OD on the finished cartridges, below the actual crimp, measures at about .378", with the case wall thickness accounting for .010" x 2 = .020" of that, so the bullet is presumably still at .378" minus .020" = .358". The Lee Factory crimp die is crimping the mouth of the case  by what looks like the right amount (pretty hard to "measure" a crimp), and is doing so right near the top of the crimp groove in the bullet, so basically perfect.

 

The earlier Hornady pn 10408 bullets WERE being swaged down. AFter I got them out via my inertia bullet puller, they emasured at .355", and the finished cartridge dimeter with those was in fact .375", which proved they were being swaged.

[BenW]

I appreciate your accuracy requirements, I'm a former bullseye shooter and even though CAS shooting is up close, I want to know where my bullets are going!  I went through something similar when shooting .45 Colt; unexplained misses with the revolvers from time to time.  Anyway, before you drive yourself nuts I suggest you do the following.  First check the bore of your revolvers; you need to slug them and figure out the groove diameter as that's the size you want your cast bullets to be.  Then, measure the throats of each chamber of your cylinders.  Ideally, they should be .001-.002 larger in diameter than the bullet you want to shoot.  Lastly, check the forcing cone of the barrel.  It should have a tapered, smooth transition into the bore, and a slight chamfer at the rear and not a sharp edge.  

 

I'm also pretty sure from your comments that you're using a carbide sizing die.  In my experience, they tend to over size the case ("undersize?")... anyway, FWIW, I find that older type STEEL sizing dies size the cases less overall and in my opinion are better for making accurate information, especially with soft lead.  If you clean/polish your brass, you can usually use a mild sizing lube like One-Shot, or a homemade brew, and finish the loading process.  I find this works for me and I'm using a 550 and a Load-Master.  Usually you don't even have to remove the slight amount of lube remaining on the cartridge.  On the light loads we shoot you shouldn't have any problems at all.  

[Cypress Sam, SASS #10915]

Short answer  is NO. 
 

If you’re an experienced reloader, you wouldn’t be asking that question.

 

I want my loads to be powerful enough to knock down the targets, and burn all the power, along with clean empties, but no more than that.

 

This usually means about 800 fps with 158 gr bullet, around 800 fps.  

[Mysterious Stranger]

7 minutes ago, BenW said:

I appreciate your accuracy requirements, I'm a former bullseye shooter and even though CAS shooting is up close, I want to know where my bullets are going!  I went through something similar when shooting .45 Colt; unexplained misses with the revolvers from time to time.  Anyway, before you drive yourself nuts I suggest you do the following.  First check the bore of your revolvers; you need to slug them and figure out the groove diameter as that's the size you want your cast bullets to be.  Then, measure the throats of each chamber of your cylinders.  Ideally, they should be .001-.002 larger in diameter than the bullet you want to shoot.  Lastly, check the forcing cone of the barrel.  It should have a tapered, smooth transition into the bore, and a slight chamfer at the rear and not a sharp edge.  

 

I'm also pretty sure from your comments that you're using a carbide sizing die.  In my experience, they tend to over size the case ("undersize?")... anyway, FWIW, I find that older type STEEL sizing dies size the cases less overall and in my opinion are better for making accurate information, especially with soft lead.  If you clean/polish your brass, you can usually use a mild sizing lube like One-Shot, or a homemade brew, and finish the loading process.  I find this works for me and I'm using a 550 and a Load-Master.  Usually you don't even have to remove the slight amount of lube remaining on the cartridge.  On the light loads we shoot you shouldn't have any problems at all.  

 

Yes, the revolvers will be going to the local gunsmith early next month to get the sight situation improved, and I plan to have the gunsmith check the key dimensions (barrel, cylinder throat ID, and forcing cone) on both, especially since they perform notably differently. I do hear you on the steel versus carbide dies, but I don't want to add the lube and de-lube processes to my overall process. With target rifle handloads where I use only 30 or 40 rounds per outing, the extra work and time is ok. But for CAS where we burn through MANY rounds on each outing (match OR practice), it would slow down my Dillon XL750 based process too much.

 

I have been surprised how troublesome it has been finding a decent laod for these 2 revolvers. My modern 9mm SIG P210A was a snap in comparison. The SIG cost me more than each of the Cimarrons, but in the "high demand / very limited supply" situation created by our Federal Government recently, not MUCH more. I suppose in "normal" times and marketplaces, the Uberti revolvers are not anywhere close to the price range of the SIG, and I guess their lower price reflects the compromises made. It looks like CAS revolvers, rifles, and shotguns all need work to get up to what I would consider decent firearms standards.

[Texas Jack Black]

It must still be winter up where you are.

[Garrison Joe, SASS #60708]

Quote

"crappily authentic sights"

 

Same sights as were on the gun when you bought them.  And same sight design that Sam Colt's company used in 1873.   Time to quit belly aching on THAT topic.  If you know your eyesight has deteriorated to the point that you can't see small front sights any more, then you need to go to larger, thicker blade front sights.   Or decide that your shooting iron sight days are over.  Neither of those are fixed by any amount of load tinkering.

 

Now, not every single pistol powder will have an "accurate node" at which it shoots REAL well.   That comes from a precision rifle mentality, which uses barrels that FLEX a lot when fired.  Handguns don't do that (much).   Accept that the powder you are using now is just not working for you, your bullets and your loading techniques, and try another.    If THAT also produces nasty groups, well, it's time for your guns to get worked over by a good pistol smith, checking especially a true cylinder axis, well timed cylinder rotation, a consistent throat in cylinder ahead of chamber, a well cut forcing cone, and a barrel that is square with frame.  Any one of those problems can give accuracy problems, and there's probably another 25 more than just those.

 

good luck, GJ

[Mysterious Stranger]

1 minute ago, Cypress Sam, SASS #10915 said:

Short answer  is NO. 
 

If you’re an experienced reloader, you wouldn’t be asking that question.

 

I want my loads to be powerful enough to knock down the targets, and burn all the power, along with clean empties, but no more than that.

 

This usually means about 800 fps with 158 gr bullet, around 800 fps.  

 

That IS what I thought. But 158g at 800 fps means that the 158g bullet has a PF of 126.4, which is 14% higher than the 1105. PF of my 130g at 850 fps. currently has.

[Mysterious Stranger]

10 minutes ago, Texas Jack Black said:

It must still be winter up where you are.

 

Well, yes and no. True, it has been cold and snowy until about a week ago. Then we had a couple of nice Spring days, and then this morning it was below freezing and we got 2.5 inches of snow. But now, by 4pm local time, the snow is all melted, and the forecast for the next 10 days after tomorrow is for daily highs in the 12 to 15C = 56 to 62F range. So, I would say we are "transitioning" from Winter to Spring. My neighbour had to take his F150 out this morning in the snow, and it now is coated in mud. When I take my Ford Maverick out tomorrow, it will stay clean. This is the nature of weather when you are JUST east of The Rocky Mountains on the  Southern Canada prairies . . .

[Eyesa Horg]

Sounds like your pistol knockdowns are tuned way too heavy.

Ellie takes em down with 2.8gr. Clays behind a 125gr. TC bullet using 38 cases in  .357 pistols. 

[Mysterious Stranger]

39 minutes ago, Garrison Joe, SASS #60708 said:

 

Same sights as were on the gun when you bought them.  And same sight design that Sam Colt's company used in 1873.   Time to quit belly aching on THAT topic.  If you know your eyesight has deteriorated to the point that you can't see small front sights any more, then you need to go to larger, thicker blade front sights.   Or decide that your shooting iron sight days are over.  Neither of those are fixed by any amount of load tinkering.

 

Now, not every single pistol powder will have an "accurate node" at which it shoots REAL well.   That comes from a precision rifle mentality, which uses barrels that FLEX a lot when fired.  Handguns don't do that (much).   Accept that the powder you are using now is just not working for you, your bullets and your loading techniques, and try another.    If THAT also produces nasty groups, well, it's time for your guns to get worked over by a good pistol smith, checking especially a true cylinder axis, well timed cylinder rotation, a consistent throat in cylinder ahead of chamber, a well cut forcing cone, and a barrel that is square with frame.  Any one of those problems can give accuracy problems, and there's probably another 25 more than just those.

 

good luck, GJ

 

Yes, Sam Colt realized that the original sights, and also the screw that secures the cylinder in the frame, both needed improvement, and finally provided those 2 improvements in the "Pre-War" model introduced in the 1890s. These were the ONLY revolvers available for me to buy given the current Government situation here in Canada. I have an appointment set with the gunsmith for the 2 revolvers early next month (Gunsmiths have a work backlog and The Government requires me to get a "transport permit" from it to take the revolvers there, and then again a separate permit to bring them home). He will check all the areas you and Ben have identified. SOME may be practically alterable given the current supply lines and the current Government efforts to make arts import more difficult. I am hoping the smith can either mount the Surehit front sight "sleeves" on the existing front sights, or replace the front sights entirely with the "Pre-War" sights which are MUCH easier to see, and which can correct the built-in windage errors my 2 revolvers happen to be blessed with.

 

As for powder, right now, the ONLY powder available to me in any reliable quantities is TiteGroup, Yes, Trail Boss was better in these firearms but Trail Boss is gone entirely now. And yes, I do have a sample batch of 158g HARD cast bullets enroute to me to try, since in MOST handguns, the heaviest bullets for the caliber tend to be the most accurate. But those are very late in coming to me as the bullet maker's lead supply is from The U.S. and was delayed at Canada Customs like most other firearms related items are. But yes, I plan to try those to see if their hardness makes them perform ifferently than the very soft 158g Hornady bullets I tried first (which at the time were the only bullets available to me given the current supply issues in Canada).

 

I am persevering despite the obstacles to get back into CAS, because I had SO much fun doing it a couple of decades ago. 

 

Back when I was living in "The land of the Free", I recall one CAS match in particular at Cody Wyoming, where I got to shoot a national sized match with many stages including one John Wayne one based on True Grit thta had us on an electric rocking horse (in the rain in my case), and a side long range match where I was able to shoot my Pedersoli 45-70 at a life-sized buffalo silhouette at 500 yards and hear the "pings", and where me and my buddies were able to legally walk into the Irma Hotel dining room (Buffalo Bill's actual hotel) for lunch wearing our revolvers and carrying our rifles or shotguns, and have the Japanese tourists snap photos of us and ask us "Do you do this all the time?" to which we answered "Yes".  (Wyoming at least at the time, was an open carry state)

[Mysterious Stranger]

37 minutes ago, Eyesa Horg said:

Sounds like your pistol knockdowns are tuned way too heavy.

Ellie takes em down with 2.8gr. Clays behind a 125gr. TC bullet using 38 cases in  .357 pistols. 

 

I will ask the guys that maintain the targets about that!

[Sam Sackett]

You seem to have made up your mind before posting. I’ll stop now. 
 

Sam Sackett 

[Mysterious Stranger]

32 minutes ago, Sam Sackett said:

You seem to have made up your mind before posting. I’ll stop now. 
 

Sam Sackett 

 

Sam, I do have an expanding die "on standby" that I bought when I was trying to make the soft Hornady 158g bullets work. But since the 130g bullets don't seem to be getting swaged down (evidenced by the proper finished cartridge OD ), why introduce another variable now before I even have the gunsmith examine the revolvers and make any necessary mods to them?

 

IF the gunsmith does his stuff (mechnaical AND sight improvements) and the revolvers STILL are marginal, then I'll try to make a number of simultaneous changes that require each other to have any effect:

1. Install the larger expander

2. Go back to the soft 158g Hornady bullets that actually seem to NEED that expander

3. Reset the seating die and the crimping die

 

and then repeat the entire testing project with stepped amounts of powder.

 

That's a LOT of work, and naturally I am hoping to avoid having to do all that, because if it is not fruitful, I'll have to reproduce my current setup exactly.

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

Shotgun 

Get a 12 ga mop.

Put polishing compound on it. Put it in a drill motor and work the chambers back and forth.

[Mysterious Stranger]

2 hours ago, The Original Lumpy Gritz said:

Shotgun 

Get a 12 ga mop.

Put polishing compound on it. Put it in a drill motor and work the chambers back and forth.

 

That's all there is to it? I guess you polish the cylinders in short bursts, trying the snap caps or pre-fired hulls in them periodically, until the snap caps or hulls fall out easily?

[Mysterious Stranger]

Getting back to the entire reason for the posting, which was asking the question of should I go even higher than 850 fps looking for better results: I asked the question because that is the single easiest thing i can try next. I would just need to load a set of rounds for another ladder test, this time starting at 4.4g and going upward to a conservative maximum of maybe 4.8g. The consensus opinion of contributors however seems to be "no". 

 

I have to say I wish folks would have said "why" not.

 

It can't be the increased recoil, because the recoil at even 4.8g or more would still be less than with a typical CAS 45 Long Colt loaded to CAS velocities.

 

It can't be safety, as i am only halfway up the Hodgdon load table right now.

 

It can't be for the extra cost of powder added, as the powder even at 4.8g is the lowest cost portion of the total cartridge cost.

 

It can't be the SASS rules, because they allow up to 1000 fps for a revolver, and I'd still be way below that velocity.

 

It can't be because everyone thinks it will not have any favourable effect, since going from 3.8g to 4.4g DID have a profound effect on group size (16% smaller on one revolver and 31% smaller on the second revolver).

 

it can't be because it is hard to do, since it is the absolute easiest change I could make right now.

 

It can't be because it will slightly improve the fill ratio of the cartridge case, and everyone knows that is generally better rather than worse. In fact, looking at the Labradar results, the Labradar statistics  show that the increase in powder load and speed had a favourable effect on both standard deviation and extreme spread:

 

                                      3,8 grains of powder                    4.4 grains of powder

                                      Left  revolver    Right revolver      Left revolver    Right Revolver

Std Dev                        20                       23                             16                        17        

Extreme spread         92                       82                             61                        64

 

Yes of course I recognize that these are not great statistics compared to what we strive for in accurate "normal" loads, BUT remember the cartridge case here is barely being filled for CAS use compared to the percent of filled capacity that we strive for in normal non-CAS loads. It looks to me that there is a reasonable chance that adding more powder will make things better yet, since 4.4g proved to shoot better than 3.8g.

 

So, please, tell me: why NOT try to go higher?

 

 

[Captain Bill Burt]

Your partners ears and faces will thank you for not running hard cast bullets at or near maximum velocities. Nobody cares that you’re insensitive to recoil. Nobody cares if your shots are half inch off center at Cowboy distances.

 

They do care about excessively loud rounds. They do care about splash back that draws blood and they do care about damaged targets.

 

Stating that ‘only accurate guns are interesting’ in this context is like stating you only like hammers that can also chop wood.

[The Rainmaker, SASS #11631]

You have too much time on your hands and to ask for validation here is an exercise in futility.

But... it's your project, so have a good time experimenting and I will suggest making only one change at a time or you will never know what worked and what didn't.

Happy Trails...

[Bo B. Fetterman]

On your first post for max rifle vel,  the rule book shows 1400FPS for Rifle, page 25

When I first read your post and saw 130gr I thought you were shooting .38 ....and from your quote below..Where is 130gr load data from Hodgdon for 45 LC? I am curious to see that.

STD Dev of 16-17 is about that of federal automatch 22 in a decent rifle and you can see your ES is load related also, not necessary a single pistol/cylinder.
 

To keep velocity lower have higher knockdown power and maximize use of case efficiency, a heavier bullet may fare better then a faster charge, it will also reduce pressure even the 160gr shows only 6000CUP for 6,0 titegroup with a 160gr.... however for such a short light bullet compared to original design optimum performance most probably is at a high(er) charge.


 

17 hours ago, Mysterious Stranger said:

 

The 4.4g load is just about exactly in the middle of the Hodgdon load table for a 135g cast RNFP bullet, which says anything from 3.5g (13,100 cpu) to 5.2g (24,500 cpu) is safe, so the pressure is still very moderate. So, logic says keep going higher on the powder load and see what happens to group size and to windage error.

 

llets?

 

 

[Bison Bud]

Sounds to me that your 4.4 grain load is about as good as it's going to get.  Accuracy may improve somewhat with higher velocity, but probably not enough to make it worthwhile.  If it were my choice, I'd make sure the round is sub-sonic in the rifle and just deal with that load in the revolvers (850 fps is not that bad) and that sounds pretty much like where you are with the 4.4 grain load.  You could try to adjust the windage errors, especially in the worst case revolver by slightly turning the barrels, but the groupings are probably a combination of factors ranging from the poor sight picture to, bullet size, hardness, and possible leading issues.  While the true beauty of reloading is being able to taylor the rounds to fit your needs and to what the guns prefer (and that can vary quite a bit sometimes) it's not real hard to over think things.  Good luck and good shooting to all.  

[Mysterious Stranger]

3 hours ago, Bo B. Fetterman said:

On your first post for max rifle vel,  the rule book shows 1400FPS for Rifle, page 25

When I first read your post and saw 130gr I thought you were shooting .38 ....and from your quote below..Where is 130gr load data from Hodgdon for 45 LC? I am curious to see that.

STD Dev of 16-17 is about that of federal automatch 22 in a decent rifle and you can see your ES is load related also, not necessary a single pistol/cylinder.
 

To keep velocity lower have higher knockdown power and maximize use of case efficiency, a heavier bullet may fare better then a faster charge, it will also reduce pressure even the 160gr shows only 6000CUP for 6,0 titegroup with a 160gr.... however for such a short light bullet compared to original design optimum performance most probably is at a high(er) charge.


 

 

 

Thanks for pointing out the maximum rifle bullet velocity. I would not be anywhere near that even at 4.8g or 5.0g of TiteGroup.

 

The think I did mention that the Hodgdon load table is for a 135g, not 130g, cast RNFP bullet, nothing to do with 45 Colt, but here is a screenshot of it:

 

 

As I mentioned, I tried the Hornady 158g soft bullet first, but that did not shoot consistently in my revolvers at any load level, probably due to being swaged down during bullet seating because of its softness.

 

I do have a sample of 158g harder cast bullets finally enroute to me from a supplier that a club member found for me.

 

It looks like you agree with me that a higher powder load might produce better results with the 130g bullet.