Question about Bullseye in 45ACP

[Trent]

CAUTION: The following post includes loading data beyond currently published maximums for this cartridge. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The High Road, nor the staff of THR assume any liability for any damage or injury resulting from use of this information.

I've been working up a load using 185 gr .451 jacketed truncated cone bullets (remington match). Did a lot of experimenting to get OAL right so it feeds in *most* 45 autos. (like a democracy, it appears with this bullet, I cannot please all the weapons all the time). Feeds in 7 different 45's I own except one - Taurus PT145.

Anyway I ran out of my goodly supply of Unique finally (took 12 years to run that keg dry), and started loading with Bullseye. I like the way it meters but the charges are tiny compared to Unique. Much cleaner in my progressive as I don't have powder jumping out of the case anymore on cycling.

Annnnyway.. enough bantering. My question is this:

I've worked up this load to 5.6 grains, which is listed as maximum load for 185gr in two reloading manuals I own. Velocity on the chronograph shows it at about 900 fps average in my Glock 21, 940 fps in my Springfield 1911.

When shot in my Glock 21...

Recoil at 5.6gr level still feels "weak" compared to other 45 loads I've used - including factory ammo, other handloads I've done, etc.

Brass doesn't get thrown very far. In fact, a lot of what I shoots bounces off my nose, which is pretty annoying!

I bumped the load to 5.7, no signs of overpressure, etc, but it STILL feels weak. Chronos to 925 avg in the Glock. Brass bounces off of my nose and forehead still (whereas factory ammo brass gets chucked 3x as far).

When I shoot in my Springfield 1911

It behaves the polar freaking opposite. It has STOUT recoil, chronos at +50 fps on any given load. Brass flings out just like factory ammo. At 5.6 grains casings and primers look fine, at 5.7 I see a bulge starting to form on the brass so I quit shooting that in that weapon.

My assumption is...

With this particular .451 truncated cone bullet, in the Glock, the polygonal barrel isn't getting as much friction as the bullet is shaped to fit upon firing. The same results were later obtained on an H&K USP - it shot slower, and with reduced recoil, despite the load being at "max".

In the Springfield 1911, Taurus PT24/7, Smith & Wesson M&P 45, the bullet seems to seal better or (at least) has more friction going down the tube, so the pressures are higher.

My question is...

Do you think it's wise to develop the load to higher amounts in the Glock 21 and USP as long as I segregate and clearly mark that ammo "FOR GLOCK/USP ONLY" ? The weak recoil is an obvious sign that with this particular bullet is getting lower pressures for some reason (which I've deduced to be the polygonal barrel design and the size/construction of the bullet).

Or, am I going to risk a kaboom for some unforeseen reason if I try to get these loads up to a more standard power in the H&K USP or Glock?

Thanks for any input, all is welcome!

 

[rduckwor]

I would worry about going further as the pressure curve may well not be linear to the charge weight.

RMD

 

[Trent]

Yeah, on additional thought I'm a bit worried about bullet OD consistency too. I mean, if 1 out of 200 bullets is sized closer to .452 instead of .451, what turns a moderate load in to a decent one may become a big problem.

They may not have as much power as-is in the Glock or USP, but they DO cycle and are at least marginally reliable (every once in awhile I'll get a stovepipe because of their awkward shape).

Rather err on the side of caution.

 

[rcmodel]

Do you think it's wise to develop the load to higher amounts in the Glock 21 and USP as long as I segregate and clearly mark that ammo

NO!

Murphy's law is still very much in effect, and always will be as long as people live & die.

And Mr. Murphy will sooner or later jump up and bite you, or someone else in the azz, no matter how well you mark your loads.

Max is Max, regardless of Glock Perfection, polygooohedrail polished rifling, or how you hold your mouth that day.

rc

 

[Trent]

Thanks RC.

My gut was telling me it was a bad idea, but I still wanted to do it. You see, I bought 10,000 of these dang truncated cone bullets at a good price, and I'm bound and determined to shoot them all. Come hell or highwater, they're going to be shot!

I love shooting my Glock 21. I've gotten pretty fast with it, hold our major auto pin shoot record with this one. Was HOPING I could get this round up to power so I could use it, those truncated cone bullets would pack a whallop against a pin.

I'm not a big H&K USP fan (slide is too "high" and it has a lot more muzzle jump), but the USP sees some occasional range time too, so a crossover round would be nice for plinking with the USP.

My gut won out though, and I thought better, and decided to make a post instead.

Guess I'll have to resign myself to the fact that I need to shoot them in the rifled barreled guns. I can keep using the 185gr golden sabers for the Glock / pin shoots, they run fine and I still have a pile of them.

 

[rcmodel]

My suggestion?

Buy just a pound of Unique again, and try that in both guns.

A little slower powder may change both the Glock & the 1911 timing enough to stop hitting you in the nose.

If nothing else, that has to be an improvement over what you are doing now with Bullseye!

rc

 

[Galil5.56]

Your two manuals seem to find 5.6 grains as max for some 185 grain jacketed bullet; MidwayUSA LoadMap data shows 6.2 grains of Bullseye as max (1005 fps/21k psi 1.215" OAL) with the exact same bullet you are using... Always interesting what different manuals find as max, and before anyone might say the Midway data is bogus, they used a piezo transducer equipped universal receiver, 5" test barrel, with testing done following SAAMI procedures. FWIW, it seems your 5.7 grain load correlates well to theirs; their LOT of Bullseye produced 18,800 psi/930 fps using 5.7 grains and the same Rem 185 grain match bullets.

Not that you can substitute any same weight jacketed/thick plated bullet like a Gold Dot, and expect identical internal/external ballistic results, but my Speer #12 shows 6.4 grains of Bullseye as their particular max using a Gold Dot seated @1.200".

 

[kingmt]

If you want more recoil get a slower powder. The only Glock I shoot is a 9mm & if they fly at or over your head they are to hot. My duty gun makes nice little piles.

 

[Fishslayer]

Maybe try a different bullet with a similar less than max charge for the Glock? Something that would work in the Glock but not be unsafe in the others?

I thought Glocks were perfection? They should work with anything!

 

[357Shooter]

Hornady's latest (8th) Edition lists 6.6 gr Bullseye as max for their 185 gr XTP and they are sometimes pretty conservative, I guess not in this case!

 

[Blue68f100]

For light loads try the WST it burns supper clean. But not good for heavy bullets >200gr. With the heavy bullets you have a narrow load range (similar to bullseye), not much room to move around in. For the heavy try the WSF, it's a high loft powder that will fill the case nicely. Unique does not meter well in some progressive presses, both of the powders listed above are a fine ball powder and meter good.

It's not a good idea to have a load that's good in only one gun with the chance of blowing up another. All it takes is get in a hurry and grab the wrong box, Murphy Law will win hear.

Remember for every 0.050" your shorter your pressure increase is equivalent to 0.1gr of powder increase. So shorter than the OAL recommend makes the load hotter yet.

Be safe for you and others around you,

 

[Galil5.56]

The Midway LoadMAP data lists 7.2 grains of Bullseye (NOT a typo) using a Speer 185 grain Gold Dot, OAL of 1.273" as max, yielding 21,000 max avg psi/1086 fps from their 5" test barrel.

 

[Trent]

Wow, so we have two books (Sierra V edition and Lyman 47th edition, pp. 416, for lead MCWC) that list it at 5.6 grains at a CUP pressure of 16,600. On the next page, lists a JHP at a max of 6.0 gr of bullseye at 18,000 CUP.

Apparently Lyman breaks out lead vs. jacketed, while Sierra just does their loads off of bullet weight.

7.2 grains??? Damn that's gotta be a mistake somewhere, it disagrees with all other published data I've seen.

I can't believe that we're looking at published max load differences ranging from 5.6 to 7.2 for 185 gr. projectiles. Yeah, I could understand maybe 5% difference.. but almost 30%????

 

[ljnowell]

I thought Glocks were perfection? They should work with anything!

Doesnt seem to be anything wrong with the glock, seems to be a loading issue.


What is odd is that my glock barrel is faster than my other pistol barrels. In my experience talking with other reloaders is the same.

 

[Trent]

Doesnt seem to be anything wrong with the glock, seems to be a loading issue.

What is odd is that my glock barrel is faster than my other pistol barrels. In my experience talking with other reloaders is the same.

In my testing on these truncated cone bullets, the Glock scored worst on FPS in every test. The XD45 was second-worst (but had huge feed problems). My Glock 21 has significantly shown slower FPS in every controlled ammo test I've done, not just this one!

An example from a couple of years ago, where I did a side by side on these truncated cone bullets across 5 firearms (taken on May 10, 2009, with a bit of a 'rant' on Springfield XD's at the end...):


The first batch was made with 4.3 grains bullseye (25 rounds, 5 per gun), the second 4.8 grains (25 rounds, 5 per gun), and the last 5.2 grains (50 rounds, 10 per gun).

Gun Load Cycles? AVG FPS
1911 4.3 Yes 800 fps
Glock 21 4.3 Yes (barely) 717 fps
USP45 4.3 Yes 754 fps
XD45 4.3 NO! 724 fps
M&P45 4.3 Yes 700 fps
1911 4.8 Yes 849 fps
Glock 21 4.8 Yes 768 fps
USP45 4.8 Yes 795 fps
XD45 4.8 Yes 777 fps
M&P45 4.8 Yes 769 fps
1911 5.2 Yes 911 fps
Glock 21 5.2 Yes 814 fps
USP45 5.2 Yes 870 fps
XD45 5.2 NO! 830 fps
M&P 5.2 Yes 855 fps

The data is quite interesting in that the handgun I thought would have the most problems with truncated cone bullets actually turned out to be the best overall - the Springfield Armory 1911. Not only did it consistently show the highest FPS in each test it also had zero problems feeding truncated cone bullets - quite a surprise considering the notoriety surrounding the 1911 design.

The worst performer overall was the Springfield XD 45. It consistently was on the low end of power (in feet per second) but it also had problems feeding the rounds, with several stovepipes during the first and third tests. I've had it jam numerous times with Winchester factory ammo at pin shoots as well, costing me a lot of time, which is why it stays in the cabinet instead of my range bag most of the time. In my book, the only thing worse than having no gun at all, is having a gun that doesn't shoot all the time.

 

[Trent]

About those "hitting myself in the face with casing" probs..

When cleaning the gun after shooting yesteray, I noticed that my ejector is worn pretty badly on the Glock 21. Going to replace it and see if it fixes the issue. (It's also on it's 3rd set of springs, been shot a LOT since I bought it back in '98...)

 

[Galil5.56]

See it all the time over the decades comparing current data for the time. Also, remember the 185 grain Rem bullets max in my first post, was one grain below the 185 Speer Gold Dot in the second, and they had the same 21k psi pressure using the OAL listed in the manual; just goes to show how much difference bullet design/type along with OAL can be a factor, as can changing propellant lot, etc. They could have made a mistake, but other 185 grain jacketed loads use 6.9 grains of Bullseye, making the same 21k psi max. Mistakes elsewhere?; I know they do, because the manual publishers will print an errata edition, showing just where the mistakes are with corrections, and I have emailed some to the manual publishers myself.

Lastly, as an example, one example of crazy readings comes from Hercules/Alliant. From one edition of a manual in 1995, to one in 2007 flat out has something funky going on to be kind. Yeah, some will say it's all the variables; extrapolating CUP-to-psi, test barrel dimensions, lot of brass, lot of bullets, whatever... Everything was the same for all the manuals (All sources list OAL as 1.15", barrel length 4", and WW small pistol primers), and the sets of data were done in psi, NOT some hokey CUP-to-psi conversion. You can be sure Hercules/Alliant has one hell of a good lab, since they were a primary supplier of military propellants for a lot of weapon systems. Try these numbers on for size:

1995: 6.2 grains 1170 fps 31,300 psi
1996: Same
2007: 4.9 grains 1077 fps 31,745 psi

Hmm, everything is the same, yet 1.3 LESS grains of Unique results in higher pressure. BTW, I have always understood Unique to have the exact same ballistic properties as it always has over the years, and an email to Alliant confirmed it... FWIW, I have in my experience found current Alliant data to well agree with my own chronograph testing for a given caliber, minding the same barrel length they used.

One last thing to remember is the near universal lack of a printed psi given for load data in a lot of the more recent manuals. People may assume they push it to the SAAMI max average value, but who knows... Maybe what they consider max pressure, is what they themselves decide as max pressure, and print the charge weight that achieves this, without regard or concern of going to the SAAMI max average pressure for a given round??? Midways LoadMAP was expressly done to report data that actually reached this SAAMI max allowable average pressure for a given cartridge, and what the MAP part stands for (Maximum Average Pressure).

 

[Trent]

Looking at my testing data above, there's a +/- 100 fps spread on the 5.2gr loads. (Those were 10 shot averages on velocity, the others two loads were 5 shot averages).

That's a significant difference in how these bullets shoot out of different barrels. All of the barrels above were the same length, except the USP "tacticool", which has the slightly longer threaded barrel.

Having multiple 45's, as everyone has agreed, I have to be careful that I don't exceed the max on any of them. I can't locate any notes on the Taurus PT145 or 24/7 - I may not have tested them with this ammo yet.

Function testing on the 5.6 grain has been done on two - but I have to fact-check my chronograph data on that again. I had some inconsistencies with it being a cloudy day, and I didn't have my screens on. I don't trust my readings.

Will go out again and test it over this weekend, with all 7 firearms, at 5.6gr.

 

[ljnowell]

In my testing on these truncated cone bullets, the Glock scored worst on FPS in every test. The XD45 was second-worst (but had huge feed problems). My Glock 21 has significantly shown slower FPS in every controlled ammo test I've done, not just this one!

Hmm, I wonder if it has to do with lead vs jacketed? I have only chrono'd jacketed ammo out of it once, its usually lead.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Back when our club was still an IPSC club, guys used Bullseye because that's what everyone shooting many thousands of rounds a year used. The low powder charges went a long way.


Then everyone began developing tendonitis.


The fellas switched over to Universal Clays, and the tendonitis went away.


Bullseye in .45 ACP loads is a killer on the wrist. The recoil impulse from it in that caliber is all wrong.

 

[brickeyee]

Bullseye in .45 ACP loads is a killer on the wrist. The recoil impulse from it in that caliber is all wrong.

Funny, Bullseye was the original powder for the .45 ACP.

 

[Trent]

If you're talking about the XD feed problems; the feed problems in the XD45 are due to the feed angle. XD45's have a steeper feeding angle than any other 45 I own. I have far more FTF's with all brands of factory ammunition in an XD45 than in any other type. I thought it may have been a lemon, but the same issue held true in two other XD45's I had at my shop (one personally verified, another reported by a customer).

Long ago, I wrote a three page long rant about problems and issues I've had with XD45's. I absolutely, positively, cannot stand them.

Now, as far as the bullets being slower in the Glock. This is due to the size of my bore. Bullets sized .4510 tend to show much lower velocity. Bullets sized at .4515 or .4520 work at the same velocity as in other rifled guns.

Lead (which you aren't "supposed" to shoot in Glocks) will smoosh (yes, that's my technical term). It'll conform under gas pressure to seal much better in my Glock barrel than jacketed ammunition sized .451. However, I get severe leading problems, moreso on rapid fire (which is the norm when I shoot), so I don't often shoot lead from the G21.

 

[Trent]

Regarding recoil; I haven't noticed much of a difference between Unique and Bullseye, recoil wise (except with the 185 truncated cone bullets I've been talking about, there's a big difference in the felt recoil in the Glock on that one, but it's bullet and not powder related).

I have gone through 40 lbs of Unique in the 45 ACP, and so far I've used up 8 lbs of Bullseye. (I shoot 45 a bit)

 

[Slamfire]

I think it is a good thing when cases fall close to the pistol. Bullseye is a fast powder and the whole event is over and done with quickly.

I think it is a good think to have low barrel pressures at unlock, at least good on the pistol. High barrel pressures at unlock are hard on the frame. I had a Colt series 80 peen out due to early unlock issues. Cases will also eject far with high slide speeds and high unlock pressures.

If you are getting the velocities you want in your Glock with low felt recoil, I think that is just wonderful.

It is annoying to have cases hit you in the nose. How about wearing a hat?

By the way, Green Dot also worked well in the 45 ACP.

at 5.7 I see a bulge starting to form on the brass so I quit shooting that in that weapon.

EEK!.

 

[Trent]

Solved the cases hitting me in the nose problem. Yesterday when I cleaned my Glock I did a rare full takedown, scrubbed crap out of the extractor assembly, and also had to scrape crud off the ejector.

Just got back from shooting another 100 of the same load, and had zero problems with cases hitting me in the nose. They all piled neatly to my right side about 3' away.

So that part, at least, was a gun maintenance issue. Not so worried about velocity - could care less if my bullets are shooting at 900 or 950 fps as long as they hit.

So, I'm gonna call the 5.6gr load a keeper and shoot the snot out of it.

Thanks for all the input guys!!!!