185 gr. .45 acp jswc sanity check.

Hodgdon Reloading data center for 185 gr JSWC 5.0 - 5.5 gr. Titegroup with COL 1.135" (bullet on left). Bullet on right is MBC 185 gr. cast SWC5.3 - 6.0 gr. Titegroup with COL 1.245", which piuts the case mouth just barely touching the upper band. I would prefer to seat the CAST SWC to 1.135".
My concern is reducing the space in the case increasing pressure. You're thoughts, please
Taylor

That nominal of a difference in length wouldn't cause an increase in pressure worth being concerned with if using those powder charges (both are mid-to upper level of power but still shy of +P).
If you were at max or slightly above on your charge of any type of powder while loading for .45 acp +P........maybe.

I've found the new Hodgdon Loading Center Data to be on the lighter side when it comes to what they list as max loads.
All of my old manuals & publications list higher max charges than they do for all calibers & powders & I've never had a problem with safety while using my manuals that were produced long before the Hodgdon Data Center recently came into it's current format. The original online Data Center was different than this newer version.

Pressure concerns can pop up in cases like the .380, .9mm .40 S&W, and .45 acp if a few factors are combined.
With these smaller volume cases,, and using a hotter, faster powder,, it can cause a quicker pressure spike.
Just last weekend,, at the USPSA SC State Championship,, a shooter had a .9mm blow up in his gun & hands. Luckily,, no serious injury.

While I don't have the most current loading manual from Hodgdon or Hornady in front of me,, I'd study them carefully, and if I were to be increasing the bullet depth,, AND going to max powder levels,, you may be flirting with a potential issue.

And while many older manuals do show higher amounts of powder, (as mentioned above,) it's not safe to assume the older data is totally safe.
Powder formulas have often changed.
Better pressure testing procedures have been developed.

ALWAYS use the most current manuals for the best data.

Things I ALWAYS do when starting to build any new load.
I study several manuals to get an idea of the range of differences in each companies minimum & maximum charges.
I try & match the components as much as possible to published data.
I always start low & work up slowly in my test loads.

But the main thing I ALWAYS look for is the most accurate load,,, NOT the most powerful. Most often, it's not a max load.

And while a lot of online data is good,, I prefer actual published books to study.

contender said:

Pressure concerns can pop up in cases like the .380, .9mm .40 S&W, and .45 acp if a few factors are combined.
With these smaller volume cases,, and using a hotter, faster powder,, it can cause a quicker pressure spike.
Just last weekend,, at the USPSA SC State Championship,, a shooter had a .9mm blow up in his gun & hands. Luckily,, no serious injury.

While I don't have the most current loading manual from Hodgdon or Hornady in front of me,, I'd study them carefully, and if I were to be increasing the bullet depth,, AND going to max powder levels,, you may be flirting with a potential issue.

And while many older manuals do show higher amounts of powder, (as mentioned above,) it's not safe to assume the older data is totally safe.
Powder formulas have often changed.
Better pressure testing procedures have been developed.

ALWAYS use the most current manuals for the best data.

Things I ALWAYS do when starting to build any new load.
I study several manuals to get an idea of the range of differences in each companies minimum & maximum charges.
I try & match the components as much as possible to published data.
I always start low & work up slowly in my test loads.

But the main thing I ALWAYS look for is the most accurate load,,, NOT the most powerful. Most often, it's not a max load.

And while a lot of online data is good,, I prefer actual published books to study.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your responses (apologies for posting in he wrong category)

No problem at all.
After handloading for over 40 years,, (almost 50,) and seeing several blown up firearms due to some form of improper loading,, I always urge caution to folks when they start deviating from published data.
Companies publish data,, and they have serious pressure testing facilities to assure their data is good. We mere mortal handloaders do not have that kind of testing equipment,, so we need to heed their warnings & follow their suggestions.

Hats Off! to Hodgdon! I have 10 reloading manuals all the way back to 1970. Very few list COL for 185 gr. LSWC .45 ACP. So I sent the Hodgdon Reloading Data Center (RDC) with a question regarding the COL for 185 gr MBC LSWC. They sent me a prompt reply thanking me for bring this to their attention since the listed COL was incorrect. They gave me the corrected COL and said the RDC info had been corrected.
With so many cartridges and loads now available I think that a lot of data in carried over, as it is almost impossible to test every combination for each bullet and load.
I think Hodgdon should be commended for listing the Missouri Bullet Company LSWC as I I really like MBC Bullets!
I'm happy.

I'm not surprised that Hodgdon came through for you... they're a good bunch of folks.

Yes,, Hodgdon folks have always been good to me and many others. No surprises there that they helped & did so promptly.

Well, Hornady 185gr jswc is .523 long. If they trimmed all cases to .889, and set oal to 1.135 it would be seated .277 inside the case.

Now here's the thing, mbc lists 2 different 185gr swc. One is .551 long and that's the one you have, it's the button nose. It's a kind of hg130 clone. As you've already seen your bullet at 1.245 or even 1.23 will have most of the driving band above the case mouth, thats not right, and I doubt hodgdon tested it that way. The other is .61 long and I'd bet that is the one in the hodgdon data.

If the .61 long bullet was at 1.23 it would be seated .269 inside the case. At 1.245 it would be .254 inside the case. That seems to line up with their data.

sandspider: thanks for figuring this out. I haven't loaded any 185 gr LSWC since I was still not satisfied the COAL was correct. I didn't like the driving band so far out of the case. Really appreciate you taking the time to sort this out for me.

contender said:

Pressure concerns can pop up in cases like the .380, .9mm .40 S&W, and .45 acp if a few factors are combined.
With these smaller volume cases,, and using a hotter, faster powder,, it can cause a quicker pressure spike.
Just last weekend,, at the USPSA SC State Championship,, a shooter had a .9mm blow up in his gun & hands. Luckily,, no serious injury.

While I don't have the most current loading manual from Hodgdon or Hornady in front of me,, I'd study them carefully, and if I were to be increasing the bullet depth,, AND going to max powder levels,, you may be flirting with a potential issue.

And while many older manuals do show higher amounts of powder, (as mentioned above,) it's not safe to assume the older data is totally safe.
Powder formulas have often changed.
Better pressure testing procedures have been developed.

ALWAYS use the most current manuals for the best data.

Things I ALWAYS do when starting to build any new load.
I study several manuals to get an idea of the range of differences in each companies minimum & maximum charges.
I try & match the components as much as possible to published data.
I always start low & work up slowly in my test loads.

But the main thing I ALWAYS look for is the most accurate load,,, NOT the most powerful. Most often, it's not a max load.

And while a lot of online data is good,, I prefer actual published books to study.

Click to expand...

Excellent advice, Contender. Do you know what powder the shooter was using that had mishap?

I do not know any of the details of the blown up gun. I'm sure others may have later found out,, but it can often be caused by various things.
I know that many, many people shoot 9mm in USPSA competition safely. But when the USPSA started allowing the use of "9mm Major power factor" I had my doubts as to it being a wise decision. First off,, yes,, it can be loaded in a manner to make "major" easily,, AND safely.
But I have been around long enough to know that the one variable that can't be easily controlled is the human mind.

Loading a caliber like the 9mm to levels not found in manuals, or fully approved by SAAMI specs can result in problems. The 9mm is a small volume case, and is subjected to stricter levels of specs & components. Just a small amount of bullet seating depth,, or extra crimping can create a totally different pressure spike.

And when the human mind is involved,, sometimes,, without totally safe, well tested things,,, things can happen. Example; You load a "hotter" than the manual max load in a case. You fire a few and see no ill effects. A human mind may think; "I know they proof loads at 50% or higher for this,, so I should be ok!" Yet,, it's not usually the first,, or the 100th, or even the 1000th round fired that the problem rears it's head & proves to the shooter that they "did something wrong." In fact,, I've heard comments like; "I've used this load for a long time without any problems!" In their way of doing things,, they did NOT have access to pressure testing equipment,, NOR do they have the info on the actual metals used in their guns. Metal can accept a certain amount of excessive stress a few times,, but over time,, a well known thing called "Metal fatigue" can cause problems.

So,, when I teach reloading,,, I stress the fact that the manuals are published with LIABILITY in mind,, and that if the loads were not safe,, then the publishers could be held liable in a lawsuit.

I hate lawsuits.

But I hate injury or death even more.