My results vs. Hodgdon printed data

[TonyK]

Bit of a conundrum.

Did up some 45 test rounds in 3 Hodgdon powders (IMR 7625 is made by Hodgdon)

All bullets were Berry's 230 plated RN's, mixed brass, all large pistol CCI primers, Taper crimp of .470

Universal 6.1 grains OAL of 1.24 average chrono of 15 rounds 784 fps

7625 5.9 grains OAL of 1.24 average of 15 rounds 685 fps

Titewad 3.5 grains OAL of 1.24 average of 15 700 fps

What has me perplexed is that all of these loads exceed maximum powder charges by a couple of tenths yet the fps doesn't come close to what Hodgdon has on their website for lesser powder charges. And there were no signs of overpressure either (ie no flat primers)

The other difference is that I set an OAL that is .040 longer but past experience has shown that this would only reduce the fps by about 40 or 50 fps which would still be much slower than the published data

According to Hodgdon Lead 230 grn RN with an OAL of 1.20 for all recipes

5.4 grns of Universal should push a lead bullet at 857 fps

6 grns of 7625 should be doing 897 fps

and 3.3 grains of Titewad should be doing about 767 fps

As you can see my rounds are way off even taking into consideration the change in OAL that should have been offset by my increase in the powder charge.

All rounds were fired over on a chronograph that I fired 3 factory rounds and all 3 were within 15 fps of the rating on the box, Winchester White Box 230 grain FMJ. All Rounds were split evenly between two 1911's and both came out virtually identical so I didn't break that info down

Also double checked my digital scale against a Dillon Beam scale and they both indicated the same charge weights so that is not the issue.

Any idea what I may or may not be doing?

Edited October 28, 2013 by TonyK

[Steve RA]

Most ammunition companies usa a Universal Receiver with (it would seem) longer barrels than the average handgun would possess. So, they will get higher velocities than the average user will get with the listed powder charge.

http://www.wisemanballistics.com/product/

[TonyK]

Steve - Hodgdon lists a 5" barrel for all their 45 data. Speers uses a 4.25 Sig if I remember correctly and some of their data is close to Hodgdons

[Steve RA]

Ok, but my experience is similar to yours as I load over the max in the Hodgdon manuals in my .45 ACP. 4.2 of Clays with a 200gr LSWC isn't very far over Major in my gun.

[Doc Hunter]

Welcome to the world of reloading.

[MHicks]

Somewhere in the Hogdon data, they have warned before that you may lose up to 175 fps with barrel lengths around 4" and varying amounts with other length barrels. Mark

[bowenbuilt]

For a full understanding and the best explanation I have ever seen read Speer's forward: Why ballisticians get gray. This literature is very well written and explains your question superbly.

[TonyK]

I am also guessing that there is a drastic difference in ballistics data from a universal receiver and what you would get out of my 1911's.... But what I got wasn't even close to speer data and they used a Sig if I remember correctly (I don't have a speer book I just have copies of the 45 data....)

I am not looking to get crazy with overpowered loads, I am one of those guys who wants his training/range rounds to match my carry/defense loads which all run around 850 fps for the rounds I use. Not worried about Major/Minor at all.

For the most part I am wondering how far I can push powder loads? Do I keep creeping up with the loads or do I need to find other powders? My main goal is to get close to factory loads of 830-850 fps. Even a consistent 800 fps would make me more than happy.

[njl]

Re: Hodgdon's data, I've found with .45acp, I generally get less FPS than they say I should, and with 9mm, I get more.

If you have a recent Speer manual, read the section "Why Ballisticians Get Gray".

[ZackJones]

What a disappointment that your results were so much different than the published data . If you're not worried about power factors and all then the first load you listed with Universal comes closest. I wonder if you did seat them at 1.20 instead of 1.24 how much closer you'd come to your goal?

[jcc7x7]

Might have been said already but you're shooting plated and the info is LEAD.

Generally lead is faster per grains of powder than plated or jacketed

[TonyK]

Might have been said already but you're shooting plated and the info is LEAD.

Generally lead is faster per grains of powder than plated or jacketed

X-treme and Berry's both say to use mid range data for jacketed bullets and X-treme also says you can use high end lead loads.

But since I already exceeded some max loads, the OAL and use of plated bullets would not account for such drastic differences in the fps. Plated will cost some fps but it should not lower it by so much. Is there a common percentage loss in fps compared to Lead?

Fortunately just bought the Sierra load manual and all their 230 grain data is for an OAL of 1.27, so I am going to load up a bunch of test rounds and look for better numbers. Sierra even mentions altering powder charges based on OAL, doesn't say by how much but at least they talk about it...

[Steve RA]

You'll never get the same results as any of the loading manuals - whether they use a Universal or a gun - since they aren't deriving their data with your gun. They all will give good starting information but you'll have to work up loads in your gun to get the exact results you want.

[Chris iliff]

I dare say, we couldn't list all the different variables from what the manufacturer does to what we do. Even following the load data perfectly the variables in everything else are huge. Different brass, different lots of powder, different barrel lengths, different primers, different bullets, different lead hardness, the list goes on and on.

Steve RA hits the nail right on the head. The books aren't definitive per se, they are illustrative and show us good starting points and how to work loads up using safe increments. Also, what we should expect as we increase our loads.

[Jim Watson]

The plated bullet makers say to use the same data as cast, they do not say you will get the same results. In pressure maybe, but not velocity.

Also, were you using virgin factory primed brass? That can matter.

[RePete]

The plated bullet makers say to use the same data as cast, they do not say you will get the same results. In pressure maybe, but not velocity.

Also, were you using virgin factory primed brass? That can matter.

Not all, Frontier say to load as FMJ.

http://www.frontierbullets.co.za/product/cmj-bullets/

[Mikethor]

Might have been said already but you're shooting plated and the info is LEAD.

Generally lead is faster per grains of powder than plated or jacketed

I have lost 100fps by going from my 5 inch sig and lead round nose to using my old 5 inch colt and Berrys plated. I was surprised by how much I lost.

[TonyK]

I guess what is the most surprising to me is that 45 acp and the 1911 have been around for over 100 years yet when it comes to reloading no ones data is consistent.

You would think by now that I could look up a bullet style and OAL, type of case, primer and powder and achieve results that are somewhat consistent. Or at the very least pretty close to published data.

Yes I understand there are variables but ammunition makers can get consistent results year to year and they have to deal with the same variables that we do. How do they do it?

And even with all the variables when following load guidelines and OAL to the letter why have the results always been slower than published data? On occasion wouldn't you expect some loads to come out faster?