45acp fast loads

M

mikerjf

Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2018
Messages
2,182
Reaction score
3,525
Ok, today we got Nevada Ed posting some chrono data, guys talking about 3" 1911's, and recent posts on both using manuals vs online info and people mixing primers. All relevant to something I've been thinking on.

I ran into this article (online) about fast 45acp loads. I'm interested because he claims near-45 Super velocities at *standard* 45acp pressure - not even +P. Who wouldn't like that!

Note that he is talking about data that *used* to be in the manual, but isn't now. It even used to be on the powder label, but isn't now.

45 ACP Fast Loads

A specific question I have - it seems to me (beginner) that this powder is intended for magnum loads, and might be slow-burning? Being a magnum powder, it ignites better with a magnum primer, which he does use.

His results were with a 5" barrel, a typical 45acp length. Being a slower powder and getting so much performance out of 5", would you expect a serious fall-off in performance with the shorter barrel guns?

I haven't found Ramshot Enforcer available anywhere yet, but am eager to try this one out.
 
Register to hide this ad
To answer your specific question, Ramshot Enforcer is a slow powder, falling between old faithful 2400 and H110, both more familiar magnum powders to many reloaders. Not having tried Enforcer, I can't comment on how hard it is to ignite, which determines primer choice.
The comment from Western Powders on Enforcer being inefficient in .45 ACP makes sense to me, since .45 ACP is a low-pressure round, and you can get about the same practical performance using a lesser amount of a somewhat faster powder. Using lots of slow powder in a low pressure round usually results in marginal speed increase, with tremendous blast and recoil increases, and often not-so-great accuracy.
Many load .44 magnum, a high pressure round, with 2400 to get great balanced performance without trying for absolute max MV. Trying to get max MV from .45 ACP or .38Spl or similar low pressure cartridges has even less practical rationale.
Putting such loads in short barrels guarantees massive balls of fire, and blast, as the powder finishes burning in the air.

Unless your 1911 is set up for a steady diet of +P, you also risk gun damage. Remember peak pressure is what blows up barrels, but the total force-the integral of the pressure curve all the time the bullet is in the barrel-is what wears out the gun and cracks frame.
 
Last edited:
A couple of comments on data that "used to be" in load manuals that are no longer. And "fast loads within pressure limits".

In some cases, data for old reliable powders has been replaced with data for newer powders. If it's new, it's gotta be better (?), besides there's a lot of sources for data on old powders.

In other cases, the data source is using a different firearm or barrel in a universal receiver and the data for that barrel is different from the old data.

Then the adoption of the piezo-electric pressure gauges allowed accurate time/pressure curves that didn't show up on the previous copper crusher (now shown as CUP for copper units of pressure). This resulted in some load data being dialed back because we now were aware of pressure spikes that exceeded SAAMI specs.

As the post just above notes, there's also cases where a given powder may work, but it's not really a good choice if something else is available. Looking at a burn rate chart, it's slightly faster than 296, that doesn't bode well for really short barrels. That doesn't strike me as a reasonable choice for .45 ACP, but hey, it's your money, gun and body.

I'm not aware of the article in post 1, but I have to wonder about how the author established pressures. There are some powders out there now that just might, maybe, generate some velocities above those generally seen at acceptable pressures. However, based upon experience, when you see claims of stupendous velocities at "standard" pressures, there's often at least one misstatement there.

I also have to wonder about why you need to super size the .45?
 
Yes a shorter 3" or 3.5" barrel does fall of in FPS from a 5" barrel, but..........

they usually have plenty of energy and knock down power to do a BG in
with the correct ammo........
plus they are pretty darn accurate, to boot !!

Fast is good but a lower recoil load that gets back on target is also a good thing.
I like ONE shot with my .357 MAGNUM.............
but two with a 9mm or .45 ........... will also work.

More popcorn.
 
The author got his pressure data from the powder manufacturer's manual. This was a published load.

Good comments, thank you, trying to learn from this. Like was said, claims of high velocities at lower pressures are suspect, and I was wondering if this was a time where the powder just worked out perfectly for the particular bullet and barrel length. Altho the author did substitute a different bullet and got similar results.

As to why super-size the 45, well, we could just all shoot 22s. <yawn>

Besides, the whole point of handloading is to optimize something - velocity, ME, accuracy, cost, whatever - so any load that seems to offer something-for-nothing, well, you want to take a look at that and learn from it.
 
In any caliber, any bbl length, you will always get max vel with slower powders. You will also get more blast & flash but vel will be higher. Get really short bbls & medium burners will get very close to the slow powders with less blast & flash. So just decide how badly you want that extra 40-50fps.
Slower powders build pressures more gently, so sure its possible to get higher vel with lower pressures.
 
Last edited:
mikerjf said:
The author got his pressure data from the powder manufacturer's manual. This was a published load.
Click to expand...

I saw that article a couple months ago & pretty much discounted it for several reasons, one of which is I have no need to use Enforcer in anything else.

I don't have any Western reloading manuals but I've got some older Accurate manuals, which consolidated all of their powders together, & Enforcer is in v5.0 but it's not listed in any 45ACP load. v7.0 is the current manual.

Westerns/Accurate burn rate chart shows Enforce is roughly the same burn rate as Lil' Gun.

I've tried a 185gr JHP & 15.5grs of Alliant 2400, which is slightly faster than Lil' Gun, in some 45 Super loads in my Colt 1911 Mk.IV, set-up for 45 Super, & it performed poorly. The slow burn rate couldn't cycle the action/slide properly, not doubt because of the heavier springs.

You have to wonder why, since the Enforcer label suggested 13.0grs, did he go up to 14.2grs?

FWIW, QuickLoads (& I don't put blind faith in it) calculates 14.2gr/Enforcer with a HDY 230gr FMJ-RN @ 1.245" is just under 32K psi at 1106mv from a 5" bbl. The fill rate was 119%.

.
 
Last edited:
mikerjf said:
Ok, today we got Nevada Ed posting some chrono data, guys talking about 3" 1911's, and recent posts on both using manuals vs online info and people mixing primers. All relevant to something I've been thinking on.

I ran into this article (online) about fast 45acp loads. I'm interested because he claims near-45 Super velocities at *standard* 45acp pressure - not even +P. Who wouldn't like that!

Note that he is talking about data that *used* to be in the manual, but isn't now. It even used to be on the powder label, but isn't now.

45 ACP Fast Loads

A specific question I have - it seems to me (beginner) that this powder is intended for magnum loads, and might be slow-burning? Being a magnum powder, it ignites better with a magnum primer, which he does use.

His results were with a 5" barrel, a typical 45acp length. Being a slower powder and getting so much performance out of 5", would you expect a serious fall-off in performance with the shorter barrel guns?

I haven't found Ramshot Enforcer available anywhere yet, but am eager to try this one out.
Click to expand...

It never get tired of reading about perpetual motion machines or plug in devices that can cut your power bill in half..or proposed Democrat policies or even super power secret handgun loads that have the same mean pressure of standard loads! All of these "dreams" defy the first law of physics which is "there ain't no free lunch"! If a .45 acp load produces .45 Super velocities in a 5" barrel then it is producing .45 Super pressures....Now if you are using a 15" barrel then you might get close...
 
I'm interested in the company's statement (quoted in the article) - they "felt it was not a very efficient powder for the .45".

What makes an "efficient" powder?
 
mikerjf said:
I'm interested in the company's statement (quoted in the article) - they "felt it was not a very efficient powder for the .45".

What makes an "efficient" powder?
Click to expand...

A powder that gives complete combustion and does not leave unburned granules. I have experienced powders, generally the medium and slow burning rates, that can leave a fair amount of unburned or partially burned granules. An efficient powder will be one that uses the least amount for the desired pressure and velocity and burns completely.
 
mikerjf said:
The author got his pressure data from the powder manufacturer's manual. This was a published load.
Click to expand...

OK, but those pressures are for that barrel/firearm. Does not mean it will be that pressure/velocity in yours. There's a deplorable tendency to take a set of load data as the one true way. That's not the case and, at the upper end of the data, potentially dangerous. That's why one should have several sources of load data and be very cautious.

Also, as I've grown older, more knowledgeable and more experienced, I've discovered glaring technical errors in both articles and technical information-including books on gunsmithing. Bear in mind the old saying about believe nothing of what you hear/read and little of what you see. This is particularly true of what you may read/see online.

Added edit: I just recalled once receiving an ink-still-wet load data sheet from one of the prominent powder makers. This was back when the 125 gr JHP .357 load was the NEW BIG THING! A buddy had grabbed a box of bullets and I was supposed to cook up some loads. Well, when I looked at the data, the max charge with the powder I had was right up there with the listed max for .44 Magnum with 240 gr JHP. I thought about that, did some math-several times- and decided to drop the loads. Then I think I dropped them again and loaded maybe 6 rounds. The test loads still produced cratered primers and a muzzle flash you could see on a bright sunny day. Very shortly, a new, revised load data sheet appeared.

I kept both load data sheets for decades as examples of the dangers of believing load data to be absolute. Unfortunately, I moved too many times and lost them. Maybe after I'm gone and the kids are cleaning up after me they'll find them and wonder why I saved them.
 
Last edited:
stansdds said:
A powder that gives complete combustion and does not leave unburned granules. I have experienced powders, generally the medium and slow burning rates, that can leave a fair amount of unburned or partially burned granules. An efficient powder will be one that uses the least amount for the desired pressure and velocity and burns completely.
Click to expand...

And some un-burned powder/residue can be enough to tie up a tight fitted semi-auto. Tried blue dot in 45 acp couple of times, and while it gave very good accuracy, it tied up a tight fitted 45.

And the recoil impulse may be another consideration, especially when shooting it unsupported in your hands.
 
I use Enforcer in my 41mag Henry with 210JHP's . Haven't tried it in other calibers yet . I too fail to see it as good in 45acp . Silhouette maybe as IIRC it's same as discontinued WAP . In a full size Gov't Model & a full diet of hot loads I'd consider following as prudent : 23lb MS , small radius FPS , XP FP spring , bowtie cut , 16 - 18lb RS . 5" barrel 900-950fps is doable @ std press . Medium speed like AA#5 , N-340 etc. Speed aint everything in this caliber . Look at the 230 Fed HST gel tests with both std & +P . Granted that's with that bullet , but it's easier to get better placement with less recoil / place followup shots .
 
The bottom line is - Pressure = Velocity. More pressure makes the bullet go faster.

Power Factor is - Bullet Weight x Velocity divided by 1000. So a 230 gr. bullet at 800 FPS is a power factor of 184. That is a heavy hitting load with low recoil and low pressure.

A 115 gr. 9mm bullet would have to be doing 1600 FPS for an equal power factor. That would be hotter than 38 Super and very hard recoil. Might blow up your gun.
 
mikerjf said:
I'm interested in the company's statement (quoted in the article) - they "felt it was not a very efficient powder for the .45".

What makes an "efficient" powder?
Click to expand...




Who wants to use 13 to 14 grains of powder in a 45 ACP load just to get a hundred fps more velocity??:confused:
I can use a powder such as LongShot and use 7 grains and get 900 or so FPS
 
<<Who wants to use 13 to 14 grains of powder in a 45 ACP load just to get a hundred fps more velocity??>>

I guess the correct answer would be "Who knows? Is a bear chasing them?"
 
Protocall_Design said:
The bottom line is - Pressure = Velocity. More pressure makes the bullet go faster.

Power Factor is - Bullet Weight x Velocity divided by 1000. So a 230 gr. bullet at 800 FPS is a power factor of 184. That is a heavy hitting load with low recoil and low pressure.

A 115 gr. 9mm bullet would have to be doing 1600 FPS for an equal power factor. That would be hotter than 38 Super and very hard recoil. Might blow up your gun.
Click to expand...

Actually, these 2 loads would have the same recoil energy in the same weight gun. Of course, as you pointed out, there's no safe way to get 1600 ft/sec with a 115 grain bullet in 9 mm, but you might come close in the .357 SIG.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

7
700x in 45acp
Replies
5
Views
190
STORMINORMAN
S
elpac3
Model 53 Jet, Unique / BE86 loading
Replies
2
Views
271
Flyingliver
F
jimmyj
.45acp Reload Issue
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
shil
S
chief38
I HAVE FINALLY RAISED THE SURRENDER FLAG IN RELOADING 45ACP
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
4K
jimmyj
jimmyj
P
Overpressure signs in a Model 66-3 with starting load data
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
HKSmith
H

Latest posts

Back
Top