AA#9 Squibs in 45 Colt cases

BLUEDOT37

BLUEDOT37

Member
Silver Supporter
Joined
Dec 26, 2012
Messages
6,689
Reaction score
9,958
Location
N.E. OKLA.
I wanted to see if anybody else has had the same issues I've had using Accurate #9 powder. I'd always used flake powders (Hercules/Alliant) in the past for my reloading but after I added a 454 Casull to my inventory I decided it was time to try some of the ball powders. I tried some different loads with H110 & was aware not to load it down & to use magnum primers, & have had no issues with it in any of my cartridges. Since I have a large quantity on-hand of regular primers, that I use with my 44s & 45s, I was interested in AA#9 when I saw that the Speer & Lyman manuals do not show a need to use a magnum primer in there data. Looking at Accurate's manual for the 45 Colt doesn't show a magnum primer "specifically", but more on this later.

I loaded up some 45 Colt +P (Ruger/TC) rounds using new Starline cases, 18.5gr. of AA#9, .452" 255gr. cast LSWC bullets with a heavy crimp at the cannelure ring, CCI300 primers firmly seated. This load is in the 23K psi range, & I fired them in my 454 Casull pistol. The new powder was individually weighed, then a bullet was seated to 1.605". I only loaded 25 to start & the first few rounds fired fine. After a few more I noticed one that didn't have quite as sharp a report, but otherwise okay. After a few more good ones I had one with a small delay/hang-fire. I debated the issue & decided to press on & after a few more good ones the day ended with a squib & the bullet stuck in the barrel/forcing cone, with a wad of partially burnt powder packed behind it.

Accurate's online manual, v3.5, shows a range of 15.8 - 17.6gr. of #9 for this bullet. My 18.5grs is more powder, but less than I've subsequently used in other variations in 45 Colt & Casull cases. I sent an email to Accurate describing the problem & asking for their ideas. I received a prompt reply & was told that AA#9 is a hi-performance powder, that they definitely recommended using magnum primers & that my load was of too low pressure & I should bring up the charge. He also included a couple small partial charts for 45 Colt & 454 Casull loads. The 45LC chart had a AA#9 powder range of 19.1 - 22.5gr. with a 255gr LSWC using Rem 2-1/2 primers, at 25K psi. The chart for the 454 Casull loads were similar, but different, than online & showed CCI400 primers. I sent a reply asking why the powder range he said I should be using for the 45LC was (& still is) different from the range in the current v3.5 manual. I also asked why the primers shown in his charts are non-magnum primers. I've never got a reply back, even though I sent it a second time.

So this is the rub, how can they show one thing online but tell me something different? Why, if #9 needs a magnum primer (all weight loads & calibers?) don't they show a magnum primer being used, like CCI350 or CCI450? Using Win WP primers or Rem 2-1/2 (one primer does it all type) doesn't let me know a "magnum primer is recommended". And why does Speer & Lyman manuals show their loads with regular primers, CCI300, for all their AA#9 loadings, even 44Mag.?

I've reloaded for over 40 years, try to be careful, verify data is safe, loaded for pistols from 38 Spcl. to 500 Mag & admit that I don't know everything. So what's the deal with this? Was this just bad luck or am I missing something? Have others out there had any related issues using #9, in 45LC or other cartridges? I lost confidence in AA#9 & haven't loaded it in anything else since.
 
Last edited:
Register to hide this ad
Accurate was telling you to change the primer because you were having a problem. Most reloaders use a standard primer with AA#9 and have no problems no matter what the cartridge is. Just because the work magnum is in the cartridge doesn't require you to use a magnum primer. A magnum primer is a powder need, not a name need.

Recommending a small rifle primer isn't so out of line since most 454 Casull loads use that primer.
 
I don't load for 45 colt, but I actually use that same charge weight of 18.5 in my 44 mag with a 240 LSWC and regular CCI 300's. I have never had a hang fire, squib or any issue for that matter with any of the 200+ rounds I've fired.

If you ever get down to the SW corner of OK, let me know and I'll drive up from Arkansas and take that AA9 off your hands.

On a serious note, has the powder and primers used been kept dry and free from oil or moisture?
 
Last edited:
I use A#9 when building hog loads for my old Ruger .45 Colt Bisley.

15gr. #9
CCI 300 primer
300gr. jacketed bullet
This load chronographs at approximately 815 fps. from a 5 1/2” barrel.

I also use #9 in .357 magnum loads with 150gr. lead and standard 300 primers, without incident. I’ve never experienced any of the problems you described with this powder.
 
I’ve started experimenting with #9 this past year and it is defiantly my new favorite powder for mid range 45 Colt +P loads. (23K-28K)
My current general purpose hunting load is:
280 gr. LBT WFPGC
18 gr. #9

Like others have found, I get better accuracy with standard primers rather than Mags.
But I don’t think the primers are your problem.

What I suspect is happening is, when your primers go off, the powder just starts to ignite, but the pressure from the primer explosion pops the bullet out of the case and it then lodge’s in the forcing cone. The increased space in the case reduces pressures immediately and cause’s the burning of the powder to be reduced or, as you discovered, go out completely. The band-aid fix is to put a heaver crimp on the bullets and switch to a hotter primer but there is a better way.

When I started loading magnums (44, 45C+P, 454) back in the 1980’s, I read everything I could find from all the reloading guru’s of the day.
Several, like Elmer Keith, made mention of needing more bullet pull with magnum loads that crimping would not fix. Elmer noted that most expander plugs were too large to give adequate grip on the bullets. Check your expander plug with a set of calipers. It should measure .002-.003 under bullet diameter.

Following the advice from another article, I size my 45’s twice. I full length size in my RCBS 45 Colt die, then I size about the top 1/3 of the case with my 45 acp die. I also turned down my expander plug in a hand drill with some emery paper to .449 dia.
Doing all this is a PITA but it has improved my accuracy and I’m fairly certain I have adequate bullet tension as the last time I had a squib, the bullet never left the case.:D

Hope this helps.

Jeff
 
Fltbed, you have me confused. If the expander die is under bullet diameter, then it won't do its job. It is meant to expand the top of the cartrdge ever so slightly to prevent the base of the bullet from shaving off when you seat it. I only expand, or bell, the mouth of my cases to the point that I can barely see the bell with the naked eye. The bevel base boolits I load then seat just fine without shaving off lead and the bell is done away with when I crimp.

Now I have heard of reducing the size of a neck expander in a bottle neck cartrdge to increase neck tension, but never anything of the sort on a straight walled handgun cartrdge.

Can you clear up my confusion. I don't think I'm understanding you correctly.
 
Can you clear up my confusion. I don't think I'm understanding you correctly.
Click to expand...

It is you who do not understand.

The purpose of the expander is not merely to bell the case mouth. After the sizing die sizes the case, the ID of the case will (or should be) smaller than the bullet's diameter. The expander opens that ID up to the point where it will be close to the bullet's diameter but small enough to maintain purchase on the entire length of the bullet enclosed in the case mouth. Flaring the case mouth only facilitates starting the bullet into the case.

In straight walled pistol rounds, bullet movement after seating is controlled, by far, by neck tension. A firm roll is merely the finishing touch and not the determining factor. A taper crimp in autoloader rounds is used for removing the flaring of the case mouth only and not for bullet retention. This is why the expander must be .003" smaller than bullet diameter and, in big kickers, you may need to go a thousandth or so smaller yet.

Bruce
 
Did you load these in 45 Colt cases, or 454 cases? If you loaded them in 454 cases, you are way under the minimum load, according to Accurate.
 
BruceM said:
It is you who do not understand.

The purpose of the expander is not merely to bell the case mouth. After the sizing die sizes the case, the ID of the case will (or should be) smaller than the bullet's diameter. The expander opens that ID up to the point where it will be close to the bullet's diameter but small enough to maintain purchase on the entire length of the bullet enclosed in the case mouth. Flaring the case mouth only facilitates starting the bullet into the case.

In straight walled pistol rounds, bullet movement after seating is controlled, by far, by neck tension. A firm roll is merely the finishing touch and not the determining factor. A taper crimp in autoloader rounds is used for removing the flaring of the case mouth only and not for bullet retention. This is why the expander must be .003" smaller than bullet diameter and, in big kickers, you may need to go a thousandth or so smaller yet.

Bruce
Click to expand...

Ok. I just re-read my manual. I guess I have never had an issue like this so I've never given it much thought. I see now where the expander die expands the inside of the case as well as belling the mouth.

And you were right Bruce, I didn't understand. Thats why I said in my first post that I was not understanding. But thanks for the clarification.
 
Last edited:
Response to the expander die posts.

I use the Lyman Neck-Expanding “M” dies after sizing the case. It’s a two-step plug. The first step of the plug expands the neck of the case to slightly under bullet diameter and the second step expands the first 1/16” of the neck to slightly over bullet diameter. The “M” series are the best dies I’ve found for seating bullets, especially cast, without shaving lead and the bullets seat perfectly centered.
 
I have a idea on what the issue is that caused my problem, but let me answer some of the questions in the replies posted.

Post #3: The powder & primers are new & have been kept in good condition. (I did load & shoot a limited amount, 2 ea., of S-L Colt brass, 250gr JHP, Colt +P+ loads with #9 powder, ranging from 19 to 25grs., ~43K psi, & CCI 300, without issue, again in my SRH 454.) Your 44 Mag loads are similar to mine but the 45 Colt case has about 18% more capacity, which is an element in what I think the problem was. By the way, I had previously loaded up some 44 Mags with Speer 240gr. JHPs, CCI 300, & AA#9 incrementing from 18.0 to 20.0grs. without issue in that small test lot, using my Mdl. 29-2.

Post #5: You didn't mention what gun you're shooting your loads in, but I'm assuming a 45 Colt chambering? I agree that bullet pull/neck tension is important in magnum loads, & even ones like mine with slow powder in a large case, to get & keep the fire going. I did put the heaviest roll crimp I thought suited for the fairly hard cast lead bullet. Your idea of "double sizing" is interesting. In fact some of the aforementioned 250 JHP "+P+" loads were "double crimped". Probably like you, I went overboard. I used the Lee 45LC FCD to first apply a heavy roll crimp, then swapped the crimping plug insert from my 45ACP Lee FGD to the 45LC FCD to add a taper crimp (I admit I was paranoid because of the squib issue). The Lee expander die I currently use is different from my old RCBS expander die in that the Lee has a shorter length of die that goes into the case before it starts to flare vs. the RCBS which is a much longer part. I think the Lee is better, in this respect, because the seated bullet seems fitted in the case better, IMO. The finished cartridge has a barely visible line were the bullet is seated in the case, which may not be the way the factory perfect ones look like, but satisfies me as to bullet tension. I don't put any more flare on the case mouth than is needed to start seating the bullet, which also helps avoid too little neck tension.

Post #8: The squib was loaded in S-L 45 Colt cases & shot in my SRH 454.

Post #10: I was unaware of this Lyman die.

So, while looking through some back issues yesterday I saw an article in Handloader #225, Oct-2003, that talked about a problem some of the early SRHs (mine's a 2012 model) had with too tight chamber throats, causing high pressures & sticky extraction on max. 60K psi loads. I recalled that I had checked my gun's throats with my caliper (don't have any pin/plug gauges), as well as dropping factory jacketed bullets thru the chambers, & was dismayed that they were larger (~.4545" range) than I expected. The email from Accurate did allude to large Casull chambers. I then put a 45 Colt cartridge loaded with a Hornady XTP 250gr. JHP in one cylinder & a 454 Casull case loaded with the same bullet in another. The OAL difference is only about .11" longer (it looks like even more), in favor of the Casull of course, but looking at them from the front shows how much more cylinder throat the Colt round has to go thru before it exists the cylinder. So my guess is that: the "loose" throats, the longer (than Colt) Casull cylinder throats, large case to powder weight ratio, regular primer, & slow burning powder, combine to marginalize this load in this situation. Most had fired as expected but others were amiss with weak discharge, hang-fire, & "the" squib. I don't know if this explains why the 45 Colt JHP workup loads, that started at 19gr., fired okay since the sizing is .001" smaller, but harder, than the LSWC. It could be because I only shot a couple before the next powder increment or, they got a harder crimp (my notes don't show I "double crimped" these, but I may have since other loads completed a day later were so noted) being they're jacketed? I would assume that this same issue, if correct, would apply to anyone shooting 45 Colts or 454 Casulls in a 460 Magnum?

I'll probably reserve the AA#9 for heavy to magnum load usage in same as caliber brass. Any thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Interesting that I too, have experienced PRECISELY the problem you describe-quite recently.
19.5 gr. AA9 with CCI 300, 255 gr. KTSWC (GC) and Starline cases; results were abysmal. Hangfires (pop/BOOM), even stuck a bullet and extremely erratic velocities.
I was shocked, as AA9 and CCI 300, Starline brass had proven a winner in .41 and .44 mag-at similar chamber pressures (not maximum loads).
My first thought was not enough roll crimp. Adjusted die to max and went to the range again-same problem.
I then switched to WLP primers, thinking that since they are marketed as "standard and magnum" primers they must be hotter.
This worked well. Velocities were 1150 fps +- with small deviation
(this in a S&W MG-4" barrel).

Additionally; my experience has been that like amounts of 2400 and AA9 in .41 and .44 mag gave VERY close to the same velocities with the same/above components. This was not what I experienced in the .45 Colt-the 2400 load worked well, where the AA9 was a complete failure with the CCI 300 primers.

The only thing I can figure is; the case volume of the .45 Colt resulted in maybe a 70% load density which was obviously insufficient with the CCI 300 primer. The .41 and .44 loads had a powder volume that has to be 80 to 90%, which apparently was compatible with the same primer.

Regards.
T
 
Last edited:
BLUEDOT37 said:
Post #5: You didn't mention what gun you're shooting your loads in, but I'm assuming a 45 Colt chambering? I agree that bullet pull/neck tension is important in magnum loads, & even ones like mine with slow powder in a large case, to get & keep the fire going. I did put the heaviest roll crimp I thought suited for the fairly hard cast lead bullet. Your idea of "double sizing" is interesting. In fact some of the aforementioned 250 JHP "+P+" loads were "double crimped". Probably like you, I went overboard. I used the Lee 45LC FCD to first apply a heavy roll crimp, then swapped the crimping plug insert from my 45ACP Lee FGD to the 45LC FCD to add a taper crimp (I admit I was paranoid because of the squib issue). The Lee expander die I currently use is different from my old RCBS expander die in that the Lee has a shorter length of die that goes into the case before it starts to flare vs. the RCBS which is a much longer part. I think the Lee is better, in this respect, because the seated bullet seems fitted in the case better, IMO. The finished cartridge has a barely visible line were the bullet is seated in the case, which may not be the way the factory perfect ones look like, but satisfies me as to bullet tension. I don't put any more flare on the case mouth than is needed to start seating the bullet, which also helps avoid too little neck tension.
Click to expand...

That load was developed in my Accusport Bisley 45 Colt/acp.
100_0923-1.jpg

The only 454 I’ve ever loaded for is my brothers Freedom Arms. Back then there were no 454 dies except for the custom RCBS dies FA sold for well over $100. I modified my Lee 45 Colt die in a lathe (removed most of the flair on the mouth of the die) and ground off a few thousands off the top of my shell holder so I could resize enough of the casing in order to get them to fit back into the extremely tight chambered FA.

I think I have discovered your problem. Dump the Lee CFCD.
When these dies were introduced, I did some testing in 9mm and 45 acp and discovered that, in my testing, they actually decrease neck tension. Especially with lead bullets. What happens is, brass is elastic, lead bullets are not. When the carbide ring goes over the top part of the case holding the bullet, it swages the case, and the bullet, down a bit. The brass case will naturally spring back due to it’s elastic properties, (that’s why brass works so well as a cartridge case, it seals off the back end of the chamber but as soon as the pressure drops it springs back allowing for easy extraction) the bullet, being lead, does not spring back at all. (gilding metal jacketed bullets will spring back some but not much) The original Lee Factory Crimp dies are for rifles and use a collet to crimp the mouth of the case. This is the best idea I’ve ever seen for crimping and I still use them on all my rifle ammo. I just wish Dick Lee would have gone in this direction when developing the handgun version. (The only “trick” crimping die I’ve ever seen that actually is an improvement over conventional roll crimping is the Redding Profile Crimp die. A combination taper/roll crimp in one.)

It’s that elastic properties of the brass case that gives so much neck tension when double sizing. I forget who wrote the article on double sizing the case. It could have been Jan Libourel or Ross Seyfried, I can’t remember, and I have long since lost the article, but I’ve used this technique with LBT 335 gr. cast bullets, which have a very long nose leaving more room for powder but less bullet inside for the case to hang on to, in both my Bisley (@ 1250 f.p.s.) and my brothers FA (@ 1600+ f.p.s.) and those bullets don’t budge till the powder lights off. I sure a metallurgist could explain why the case grips the bullet tighter better than I ever could but it does work. If you don’t feel like sizing your casings twice, Redding now offers a double sizer die. With two carbide rings installed that will do the same thing in one pass. (although it cost almost as much as two complete die sets!)

I’ve never used a Lyman M die but I’m told by others they like it for loading bullets in certain progressive machines as the bullets don’t tip when the shell plate indexes.

I agree with you on the Lee expander plugs and have modified my RCBS and Lyman expander plugs to do basically the same thing.

Hope this helps.

Jeff
 
gaijin said:
The only thing I can figure is; the case volume of the .45 Colt resulted in maybe a 70% load density which was obviously insufficient. The .41 and .44 loads had a powder volume that has to be 80 to 90%.

Regards.
T
Click to expand...

IMO, the reason so many have problems loading for the 45 Colt is that over the last, what…130 years now? The chamber, throat and bore dimensions have been all over the place. Originally designed to use black powder and soft swaged .454 diameter lead bullets. Older guns will have rather generous chambers, huge throat’s and bores running anywhere from .452 -.458 diameter.
It’s only been in the last few years that the gun companies have settled on .451-.452 bores and chamber throats of .452-.4525 like the custom gun builders have been making for over 40 years.

It only stands to reason the reloading die dimensions will be all over the place as well. The most common issue I’ve seen is oversized expander plugs. Well…their not oversized for loading an older 45 Colt with .455 swaged lead bullets but they don’t work worth a darn with modern .451-.452 diameter bullets. Especially when loaded to 28K-30K with slow burning “magnum” powder. That’s one of the reasons Ruger chamber throats were always (until recently) so undersized. When the primer explosion pops the bullet out of the case it only made it about .010 till it’s wedged in the chamber throat. Less bullet movement = a smaller decrease in pressure that might give you a hang fire or a squib. The down side is, those tight chamber throats sure don’t do anything for accuracy. It’s even worse with lead bullets because after the bullet goes through the throat, it’s .002-.004 under the bore diameter.:(

Anyway, I’m rambling and getting off topic.

T, I suspect you may have the same issue as the OP. what I suggest is to check your expander plug.

Jeff
 
fltbed;136932205 T said:
In my instance, the expander plug isn't the issue Jeff.
I've never had any issues in this caliber, loading from mid level to upper end (Ruger only) loads until trying AA9 with CCI 300 primers.
I think it was as simple as minimal load density allowed the standard primer flame to pass ON TOP of the powder column (with gun held horizontally) with insufficient energy to ignite the powder (as evidenced by the amount of powder fouling/unburned/partially burned powder residue present in chamber after "hang fire").
A hotter primer was the answer here-results with accuracy and velocity were what I'd come to expect with AA9 with this one change.
Click to expand...
 
gaijin said:
In my instance, the expander plug isn't the issue Jeff.
I've never had any issues in this caliber, loading from mid level to upper end (Ruger only) loads until trying AA9 with CCI 300 primers.
I think it was as simple as minimal load density allowed the standard primer flame to pass ON TOP of the powder column (with gun held horizontally) with insufficient energy to ignite the powder (as evidenced by the amount of powder fouling/unburned/partially burned powder residue present in chamber after "hang fire").
A hotter primer was the answer here-results with accuracy and velocity were what I'd come to expect with AA9 with this one change.
Click to expand...

You may be on to something with the #9 and CCI #300 primers as I always use Federal primers in my revolvers. But I doubt it.

The guy who turned me on to #9 is the owner of my old S&W 25-5. I used his load data as a start load for my experiments in my Bisley.

255 gr. SWC from Mastercast
16.5 gr. #9 (Max load for modern S&W)
CCI #300 primer
Starline brass
1000 f.p.s. (6” 25-5)

All I did was switch to a Federal #150 primer, LBT 280 gr. WFP’s and worked the charge up from 16 to 18 gr. for a velocity of just over 1100 f.p.s. out of my 5 ½” Bisley. The internal case capacity between my 280 LBT and your 255 Keith's are about the same yet my load works with standard primers and yours requires magnum’s? That just don’t add up.

Like I said in my first post, (#5) magnum primers and more crimp are a band aid fix. The problem is not enough bullet grip. The most common reason is a too large expander plug.
The primer “flashover” myth was busted back in the 90’s with the advent of the electronic pressure transducer. For those that don’t know, a pressure transducer looks like a piece of thick packaging tape and can be attached over the chamber. It can measure the exact chamber pressure, in a sine wave, from the moment the primer ignites to the instant the bullet leaves the barrel. Much better that the old copper crusher (c.u.p.) method, where they drilled a hole in the chamber, inserted a copper plug, and guessed the chamber pressures based on how much the plug was crushed.
Like I described in my first post (#5) the primer explosion pops the bullet out of the case and it loges in the forcing cone. This sudden decrease in pressure, just as the powder is starting to ignite, is what causes hang fires and squibs. More bullet grip is the solution.

Now, if we were talking about reduced charges of H110/296 this situation can get very catastrophic, and deadly, as that particular powder has a tendency to drastically spike pressures at that point causing all kind of bad things to happen. That’s why there are minimum loads today that were normal to max loads twenty years ago. #9 is not like that though and takes to moderately reduced charges quiet well.

Jeff
 
First off, I appreciate every bodies thoughts & related experiences. I'm going to consolidate my thoughts/questions/reply like I did last time.

I'm still of the opinion, at this point, that my particular issue was multifaceted, not just a black & white, clear-cut one aspect cause, but maybe I'm wrong. I do strongly suspect that the one item that could have bettered it (but I wasn't going to experiment after it happened twice) was using a magnum-type primer with this particular combo. "gaijin" had the same trouble & he was shooting basically the same load, except his was in a 45 Colt chamber & the WLPs (one primer does all) fixed it for him. He also had (bravely) tried again with a stronger crimp, before the primer change, which didn't help. It just seems that the lead bullet had to have been another element as, stated before, I didn't have a problem with (the few) AA#9 19grs. & JHPs loaded in Colt cases. "Kelly Green" said he shoots 15grs. in a Colt case/chamber using a JHP & CCI 300, with no problems, though his bullet is 300grs, 20% heavier, which in itself could be enough to help keep the pressure up & burn consistently.

fltbed: Nice gun! I never had a Bisley frame Ruger. Isn't their shape supposed to handle recoil better than the regular style? I'm glad you did mention specifically what primers you use, Fed 150 primers, but your 280gr. bullet is heavier than the 255gr. Like above, that 10% extra weight may make the difference in consistency & needing a magnum primer?? I hear what you're saying about the Lee FCD, & don't dispute your findings, but I started using them when all of a sudden I started having bullet neck tension issues with my 45 ACP 1911 reloads. First off, I discovered how much better I liked a Lee 4 die set vs. the 3 die RCBS set I was using. (I have come to decide that part of the trouble was the old & tired nickel plated (thin?) cased Remingtons. I hate to throw anything away & have successfully been using them loading lead bullets & the "tighter" Lee dies, but I think they'll go in the trash next go-around.) I do like the easy adjustability of the crimp setting on the FCD best. If all your brass aren't the same exact length, like happens after using them for light & heavy loads & mixing them up, it's quick & easy to tweak it one way or the other. As far as the post-sizer TC ring, I rarely feel it contact the case when withdrawing the cartridge & if I do feel it, it's usually light. Probably more so with lead bullets, like you said, no matter which caliber I'm using. It's kind of a shame the pistol FCD doesn't crimp like the rifle FCDs, but I guess there's a good reason.

Concerning the various 45 Colt bullet & chamber dimensions, I became aware of that once I started loading the Colt cartridge & did some reading, & that's why I was disappointed in the looser throats in my 454. I don't see why they didn't leave them at .452" to closely match the barrel? The Handloader article I mentioned above stated the problem guns had throats less than .452", which makes sense, & they should be opened up to .4525". Don't know why they went so wide on mine, or if mine's an exception? (Maybe I should check into it more?) If the factory would size them together then the commonly found .451-.452" bullets would be fine. People with old guns could get the appropriate sized bullet for their's. You'd think we could start to get on the right track by now!?

gaijin: Do you use magnum primers, in your case WLP, for all your AA#9 45 Colt loads? I don't know how heavy a load you can/do use in the S&W Mountain Gun. Concerning the load density (LVMD) of mine (18.5gr.), I calculated it at 63% using the Lee manual's "useful case capacity" of 1.93cc (I use it as a relative number, as surely that number would have to vary with the size/style bullet loaded?) & the powder's VMD of .0657. This is low but, looking back at my records, when I first started trying this powder out, I loaded some (limited incremental test rounds) S-L .454 Casull cases with the same bullet, 255gr LSWC .452", CCI 400 (SRP) & AA#9 from 19.5grs. up to 21.5grs (~1265fps - 1400fps). The LVMD range is 59% to 65%, & I didn't have any issues with these. The notable difference between the two, the 45 Colt & the 454 Casull case load, is the primer & the throat distance traveled. The Casull load had lower LVMD but less distance to go to exit the cylinder & a small rifle primer, as is normal. My first impression is that the CCI 400 is hotter than the CCI 300. Primer strength is a hard thing to pin down because there doesn't seem to be a lot of data or a uniform way to rate them (almost as bad a comparing powder burn rate tables...don't you love them?). I did recently see a chart (from an old reloading manual?) someone posted in a thread that was for CCI primers & showed the 300 stronger than the 400, 7.10 ft/lbs vs. 6.0 ft/lbs. Of course this data could have changed ten times since that test & doesn't address the flash duration, seemingly only the peak power, of each. I wouldn't doubt too that powder case position, powder forward or powder back, may have been a factor (I've seen reports both ways about this but can't say I could vouch for any).

It is good to know that AA#9 burns consistently in the 44 Mag with CCI 300 primers. If nothing else I can use it up there & save my (venerable & dependable) 2400 for other loads.

Sorry this is so long, but if anybody else has any related experience that would be good to know & compile, speak up.

Ken
 
Ken, the ONLY .45 Colt loads I use WLP primers in is the one in question (19.5 gr. AA9, 255 gr. cast, etc) and a couple using H110 (in which I use CCI mag. pistol).
All the rest (at least six) I use CCI 300. (using HS-6, HS-7, 2400 and Unique)
 
BLUEDOT37 said:
fltbed: Nice gun! I never had a Bisley frame Ruger. Isn't their shape supposed to handle recoil better than the regular style? I'm glad you did mention specifically what primers you use, Fed 150 primers, but your 280gr. bullet is heavier than the 255gr. Like above, that 10% extra weight may make the difference in consistency & needing a magnum primer?? I hear what you're saying about the Lee FCD, & don't dispute your findings, but I started using them when all of a sudden I started having bullet neck tension issues with my 45 ACP 1911 reloads. First off, I discovered how much better I liked a Lee 4 die set vs. the 3 die RCBS set I was using. (I have come to decide that part of the trouble was the old & tired nickel plated (thin?) cased Remingtons. I hate to throw anything away & have successfully been using them loading lead bullets & the "tighter" Lee dies, but I think they'll go in the trash next go-around.) I do like the easy adjustability of the crimp setting on the FCD best. If all your brass aren't the same exact length, like happens after using them for light & heavy loads & mixing them up, it's quick & easy to tweak it one way or the other. As far as the post-sizer TC ring, I rarely feel it contact the case when withdrawing the cartridge & if I do feel it, it's usually light. Probably more so with lead bullets, like you said, no matter which caliber I'm using. It's kind of a shame the pistol FCD doesn't crimp like the rifle FCDs, but I guess there's a good reason.

Concerning the various 45 Colt bullet & chamber dimensions, I became aware of that once I started loading the Colt cartridge & did some reading, & that's why I was disappointed in the looser throats in my 454. I don't see why they didn't leave them at .452" to closely match the barrel? The Handloader article I mentioned above stated the problem guns had throats less than .452", which makes sense, & they should be opened up to .4525". Don't know why they went so wide on mine, or if mine's an exception? (Maybe I should check into it more?) If the factory would size them together then the commonly found .451-.452" bullets would be fine. People with old guns could get the appropriate sized bullet for their's. You'd think we could start to get on the right track by now!?
Ken
Click to expand...
Thank you. It’s from the first production run Ruger did for Accusport and it was a basket case when I got it. Chamber throats were between .448-.450, cylinder was too loose, (for me) barrel cylinder gap was too wide, (for me) trigger was horrible, etc. This is my forth Ruger so I pretty much knew what needed to be done. I ended up turning the barrel in one revolution, re-cutting the forcing cone and setting the B/C gap to .004, reaming the chamber throats, fitting a Belt Mountain #5 base pin, fitting a Power Custom cylinder stop, hammer, trigger and having a new taller, thinner, fiber optic front sight made for it. All before I fired the first shot through it. But it was worth it.

Yes, IMO the Bisley grip frame is great for controlling recoil. The gun just rolls up in your hand in recoil.
In my experience, there are basically three ways to counteract felt recoil.
Weight (like the Ruger Super Redhawk)
Porting or compensator’s. (like the Taurus 454)
Ergonomics
I don’t like heavy revolvers. I figure if I’m gonna carry 4.5-5 pounds worth of gun, I’ll just step up to a rifle and lead is a pain to clean out of comp’s, so…

I’ve been shooting USPSA for a while now and I discovered the same thing with Remington cases. Brass, nickel, 45 acp and 40 S&W as well. My jacketed bullets would drop down inside the casing right out of the sizing die. And just like you, I hate throwing anything away so I started segregating them for lead bullets only. LOL

I gave my 9mm Lee CFCD to a buddy of mine. He just had to have it so he could load for the match barrel in his new open gun. I still use my Lee 45 acp CFCD though. I just knocked out the carbide sizing ring and use it like a standard crimp die now. I hate throwing anything away. LOL

I can’t think of any reason the chamber throats on your 454 would be cut so large. The “old school” bullet casters rule of thumb is to size your lead bullets to the same (or slightly larger) size as your chamber throats and ignore bore diameter. I know this works with standard 45 Colt, 44 special and even mid range 44 mags but I’d be hesitant to try it at 454 levels.

Speaking of old school rule‘s of thumb. Did you try, loading the cylinder full, shoot all but the last round, remove said round and measure the OAL to see if it had grown any under the recoil forces?
You probably have but I’d thought I’d ask.

Jeff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
45 colt
Replies
13
Views
709
Wyo
Wyo
jsfricks
Berry 45 230gr. RN for 45 Colt?
Replies
11
Views
773
jsfricks
jsfricks
AJ
S&B 10MM Cases
2
Replies
21
Views
992
stansdds
S
AJ
Crinkled Cases
2
Replies
34
Views
1K
AJ
AJ
N
A heavy 45 Colt bullet problem - 1.6-inch overall length
Replies
7
Views
602
jem102
J

Latest posts

Back
Top