A Layman's Look: Winchester RA45T, PowRball, & Rem GS...

[Stephen A. Camp]

Hello. First, I am not a terminal ballistician. I have no axe to grind with anyone. I do not try and persuade anyone to use any particular type of ammo for self-defense; make those decisions yourself.

Questions are frequently asked about the LE Winchester .45 ACP round referred to as the "Ranger T" ammo. The ammo I choronographed and shot for group today is marked "Winchester RA45T" and is the standard pressure 230 gr JHP. (I could NOT find a lot number on the box anywhere.) It was compared to Remington's 230 gr Golden Saber BJHP, also a standard pressure load. (Lot # Y24LA3103). Also fired was Corbon's +P 165 gr "PowRball" expanding bullet. (Lot # 200209-1). I also fired a "known" round to see if the pistol used today was giving extraordinarily high or low velocities. The round is Sellier & Bellot 230 gr FMJ as many folks use it. (Lot # 304*13). I also fired a handload using a 200 gr CSWC with which I'm quite familar in terms of velocity and so forth.

Test Gun: Simply because I wanted to shoot it today, I used a Norinco 1911 5" .45 ACP that I've lightly modified. Because today's focus is on the ammo, sufficient information on the pistol is that the bbl is the standard factory bbl.

Chronograph Results: Average velocities listed are based on 10-shot averages approx 10' from the gun's muzzle. Extreme Spreads and Standard Deviations are also listed for those interested.

Sellier & Bellot 230 gr Ball:
Average Velocity: 820 ft/sec
Extreme Spread: 42
Std. Deviation: 17
(Though from a different lot number, when fired from a 5" STI Trojan, this load averaged 789 ft/sec with SD of 10. This is well within the normal "ball park" for differences in ammo from different lots and fired from similar, but different pistols of the same type.)

Winchester RA45T 230 gr JHP:
Average Velocity: 841 ft/sec
Extreme Spread: 38 ft/sec
Std. Deviation: 13

Remington 230 gr GS:
Average Velocity: 805 ft/sec
Extreme Spread: 39
Std. Deviation: 17
(Fired from a 5" Kimber Classic Custom, this load, but different lot number, averages 847 ft/sec.)

Corbon 165 gr +P "PowRball":
Average Velocity: 1220 ft/sec
Extreme Spread: 119
Std. Deviation: 40
(The actual average velocity from this pistol compares very well with Corbon's advertised velocity of 1225 ft/sec.)

Because the Extreme Spread was higher with this load, I will give the High and Low velocities:

High: 1285 ft/sec
Low: 1166 ft/sec

Handload:
Kead 200 gr CSWC
5.5 gr Unique
Mixed Cases
Winchester LP Primer
LOA: 1.25"

Average Velocity: 742 ft/sec
Extreme Spread: 58
Std. Deviation: 40

(Fired from an STI 5" Trojan, this same load from the same loaded "batch" averages 745 ft/sec.)

Accuracy Testing: Due to the expense of some of these rounds, I fired 5-shot groups @ 15 yards, but did so using a rest today.

Groups fired @ 15 yards with Norinco 1911...

With many loads in the past in various calibers, the lighter, faster rounds normally hit lower than heavier-bulleted rounds. Neither in this 1911 nor others I've fired it from has this been the case with the Corbon. I really don't "know" why. I am assuming that even though faster, the recoil is a bit more "sharp" and noticiable than with any of the other listed loads. Could it be that the increased recoil "balances out" the higher velocity round's expected tendency to strike low? I don't know, but it does NOT significantly do so out of this pistol nor 2 others I've tried it in. Though not "inaccurate," this pistol did not "like" this lot of PowRball as well as other pistols I've tried it in.

I also fired 4 sets of controlled pairs from 10 yards, using a 2-hand hold. I marked the holes in an attempt to see if there was any significant difference in POI vs POA. The marking wound up making a damned mess.
To me, any of the rounds fired strike essentially the same POI for the same POA at distances most-expected in private citizen defense scenarios, but the only way to know is to test the ammo in your pistol. The same holds true as to what velocities you're actually getting.

4 sets of controlled pairs fired at 10 yards...

"1" = handload, "S" = Sellier & Bellot, "GS" = Golden Saber, "W" = Winchester, and "P" = PowRball.

No firing was done beyond these distances today.

Expansion: Some of the rounds used today have been fired into water and recovered dimensions recorded. Today, I did some "scientific mud expansion tests" in addition. I am aware that these don't mean much in comparison with carefully done 10% ballistic gelatin. One can find data on such at various sites such as www.ammolab.com, www.firearmstactical, etc. I am NOT in competition with any of them! Hahahahaha!

From the side, here's the recovered expanded bullets. Left to Right:
Winchester RA45T, Remington Golden Saber, and Corbon PowRball.

From behind...

and the front...

When I got home, I washed off the excess mud and took some measurements and weighed the bullets.

Winchester RA45T: 0.79 X 0.70", 207 grains

Remington 230 gr GS: 0.74 X .92", 223 grains

Corbon 165 gr PowRball: 0.92 X 0.84," 163 grains
(I really expected more loss than this with the high-velocity round.)

Fired into water, you can see the Corbon compared to the Winchester. I don't have any Golden Sabers fired into water, yet.

For what it may be worth, here's the data on the recovered rounds fired into water:

Corbon PowRball: 0.80 X .81", 161 grains (bullet + jacket)

Winchester RA45T: 0.80 X 0.78," 229.7 grains

There were zero malfunctions with any ammunition fired.

Best.

 

[Spackler]

That's a mighty fine report for a layman! You should think about going pro. Your stuff is better than most (ok, all) of what I read in gun mags.

 

[BevrFevr]

Mr. Camp does it again

I love your reports.

nuf said.

-bevr

 

[New_comer]

You should have a segment here all your own, Stephen!

I enjoy reading your reports very much.

Thanks again

 

[Stephen A. Camp]

Hello and thanks. Glad ya'll liked the post.

Best.

 

[sm]

As Always

Another Fine Report by Mr. Camp.
Information, pics, fine shooting, and well organized.

Thanks!!

 

[cratz2]

Hello, Stephen! Another great report, as always.

Those Rangers sure do look like they'd leave a nasty wound.

 

[WhoKnowsWho]

Nice report as always!

What's the next firearm you are going to review?

 

[Stephen A. Camp]

Hello. Glad the post was enjoyed.

I'm not sure which pistol to do yet. Maybe a Glock 26.

We'll see.

Best.

 

[Newton]

A most excellent post Stephen, and I thought you were only an expert on Hi-Powers

Great work

Newton

 

[Stephen A. Camp]

For What It's Worth...

Hello. I went out to the range today and took the same pistol through which the other rounds mentioned and chronographed were fired, my Norinco 1911.

I fired the current version of the Federal 230 gr HydraShok for group at 25 yards and a "scientific water expansion" test. I also chronographed Speer's 230 gr Gold Dot Hollow Point.

Federal 230 gr HydraShok:

Average Velocity: 836 ft/sec
Extreme Spread: 23
Std. Deviation: 11

CCI/Speer 230 gr GDHP:

Average Velocity: 816 ft/sec
Extreme Spread: 36
Std. Deviation: 15

I also chronographed the handload I killed a deer with last season, using a DW Patriot.

Handload:
200 gr Hornady XTP
7.2 gr Unique
TZZ Cases
Win LP Primers
LOA: 1.22"

Average Velocity: 925 ft/sec
Extreme Spread: 45
Std. Deviation: 17

The above figures are based on 10-shot strings fired about 10' from the chronograph.

It was so windy today that I opted to fire the 25-yard ten-shot group from a rest.

Any of these would have hit a human heart. The ammunition's almost always pretty darned accurate in 1911 type pistols. It has also grouped well for me from a SIG-Sauer P220 pistol.

Fired into water, here's the recovered, expanded slug....

Recovered Bullet Information:

Diameter including jacket petals: 0.70 X 0.76"

Diameter across lead only: 0.61 X 0.65"

Weight: 226.6 grains

Best.

 

[Ikari]

Tell me more about this "scientific water expansion test" I'd like to conduct some testing of my own, on various .40 S&W carry ammo out of an XD and a Glock 23.

 

[Stephen A. Camp]

Hello. First, let me restate that the most meaningful expansion & penetration tests are done with 10% ballistic gelatin at specific temperatures.

I have neither the means, money, nor inclination to do this, but do recommend various sites that do, one being at www.ammolab.com.

In the past, I'd done the "Fackler Box" setup, using baggies filled with water such that measurements could more accurately be taken and so that the penetration of water jugs' plastic wouldn't interfere with accuracy measurements.

This became a problem in being able to transport enough water/bags to the range to shoot.

Since serious students of terminal performance will be checking at dedicated sites for such information, I took the "Laziness is next to Godliness" approach and just use water-filled milk jugs as I can gather them up.

I use any of the lab data and gelatin results only as a general "indicator" of how a round might perform in the non-homogenious body of an animal or a felon.

It's easy and maybe a step above the "scientific mud expansion tests" I do when there's some wet ground at the range and I've not drank enough milk!

Best.

 

[Schuey2002]

Yet another brilliant report from Mr. Camp.

[If I were given a vote on who should get Moderator status, Stephen would get my vote.]

 

[Wildalaska]

Hmm.....wait there is something wrong with all of your tests Steven....that is..

All the rounds fired have just about the same POI, the same level of accuracy, the same expansion, the same weight retention, the same velocity, etc...

This cannot be true. I know this since I have read several many tiomes on the internet and on this Board that Hyda Shock is better than Winchester, that Winchester is better than Remington that Corbon trumps them all, vice versa, etc, ad nauseum, ad infinitum...

In the interests of keeping arguments alive, please review your data...

Wildthe9mmisbetteranywayAlaska

 

[Stephen A. Camp]

Hello. No, it's what it is! The thing is that the "scientific mud expansion tests" will overexpand most everything though I'm not sure if it's really expansion or deformation. The "scientific water tests" are "better," but do cause jackets to shed a bit quicker than the gelatin. The groups POI can be seen to be a little different, but unless doing something specifically on POI vs POA like I did in an earlier post concerning the "useless" fixed sights, I'll generally compensate for it so that the group's at least on the target. The size of the groups with most service sized pistols that are accurate are very similar even though some of the pistols are very capable of tighter. I just cannot shoot them to their potential. None of the velocities have been very surprising to me other than the extremely high spread shown with one lot of Federal 125 gr .357 Magnums. I think it was just a bum lot and will try it again with the same revolver, but a different lot sometime in the future. I have been very pleasently surprised at the forty-five Ranger T's ability to retain about all of their weight.
The 9mm does lose more than the slower forty-five in water.

The "expansion tests" are just interesting, but not really all that meaningful or accurate in my opinion. The truest way to judge effectiveness would be illegal so I reckon the gelatin tests on other sites are still the best source of information.

Best.