True blue

[stemoo01]

That's interesting, I assumed that 720 ish was off the cards with the 230 grain loading starting at 800.

Am I right in assuming that the increased ES is related to this? Ie. Is there an optimum point per powder outside of which variation increases?

Either way, thanks for running the trial, much appreciated. Is there anything except squibs I need to be aware of if I start loading under min spec?

 

[Deavis]

I only ran a small sample to see if it would work. I'm not sure what you are comparing to in terms of stats but 20FPS for the ES isn't terrible.

Different powders react in different ways when they are reduced. One of the most important is magnum powders in large capacity (relatively) cases. You can search for detonation or secondary explosive effect for info on that.

With other powders, the minimum charge listed doesn't necessarily mean you can't load below it. The minimum may be related to functionality but sometimes it may be the point the testers thought made sense or just where they started. There was a good article on this very topic in a recent Handloader.

In this case, you should have no issues with squibs but I'd test it in your gun. The worst case is powder front in my experience. I've never done that with True Blue, but I suspect it is like Titegroup and won't show extreme variation at the lower charge weight.

Do you have a chronograph to test with?

 

[57K]

Since you don't list sample size, an ES of 20.5 for even 5 rounds would be excellent. An ES of 20.5 for 10 rounds would be outstanding.

steemoo, if you don't have a chrono, you won't be able to verify anything. As far as True Blue and TiteGroup, about the only thing they have in common is that they're both categorized as spherical powders. Very few pistol powders come close to the pressure stability of True Blue and that can be proven with pressure rated data from low like .45 Colt/some ACP loads, etc. to extremely high pressure like the .454 Casull.

The lowest published data I have for True Blue with .45 ACP 230 gr. FMJ bullets is 6.4 grs. Lyman used the 230 gr. SPEER TMJ @ 1.275"/ 804 FPS from a 5" Universal Receiver that a 5" 1911 won't likely equal, and Western shows 6.4 grs. for a Rainier 230 gr. PLATED HP @ 1.237". With a SIERRA 230 gr. FMJ @ 1.250", Western's Start Charge is 6.8 grs. for 800 FPS from a 5" test barrel.

Some common sense safety is in order here. While you could probably load plated and cast slightly lower than FMJs, dropping a full grain below the lowest listed minimum charge from published data is not a good idea unless it's being done with a fixed barrel handgun, i.e. revolver or test barrel. It may not squib, but is it likely to completely cycle the action?

There are too many variables here that simply don't add up. You certainly do not want to load more than 5 rounds in such a fashion so you won't have as many bullets to pull afterwards. There has been no mention of reduced recoil spring weight. The SR45 I test with has an 18# factory recoil spring and I can't imagine a Glock 21's is much lighter.

Say you could get ES down low enough to achieve a Standard Deviation of 5 (Excellent or better). To make sure your loads will pass for average velocity from another chronograph with some wiggle room, you'd need a PF of 170, or 739 FPS with a 230 gr. bullet. At a minimum, I would use a cast or poly-coated bullet if you're going to attempt lighter loads than those listed in pressure rated data like Lyman's. Articles from Handloader are not necessarily intended for reloaders that have a ways to go on the learning curve. With Lyman's Start Charge of 6.4 grs. for the SPEER 230 gr. TMJ, pressure tested at 13,800 CUP. They only dropped to 6.2 grs. for their 225 gr. RN Cast bullet rated 12,900 CUP and there are 2 different test methods used to rate Maximum pressure for the .45 ACP with identical loads, 19,900 CUP/21,000 PSI.

Not saying you might not get away with something slightly lower, but without pressure testing equipment, all you can determine are velocity with a chronograph and whether or not the pistol will cycle the load. At the same time, you'll notice the correlation with slightly faster burning powders being used as the pressure of the load is reduced.

SO, did Deavis get an ES of 20.5 from 2 rounds or 20? Did he use a lighter than factory rated recoil spring. Has he checked his chronograph numbers with someone elses chrono? There's a little too much baffle 'em with bullshit here to suit me. Detonation or secondary explosion effect? Just more reason why it's best to stay with published data.

 

[stemoo01]

steemoo, if you don't have a chrono, you won't be able to verify anything.

Yeah, probably should get round to picking one of those up.

Some common sense safety is in order here. While you could probably load plated and cast slightly lower than FMJs, dropping a full grain below the lowest listed minimum charge from published data is not a good idea unless it's being done with a fixed barrel handgun, i.e. revolver or test barrel. It may not squib, but is it likely to completely cycle the action?

So the power pistol 700FPS/230gr had some failures in my S&W 1911 but the FNX45 was ok.

At 750FPS both were fine.

You certainly do not want to load more than 5 rounds in such a fashion so you won't have as many bullets to pull afterwards.

Cycling a few by hand isn't an issue, I wouldn't load thousands without testing first.

you'd need a PF of 170, or 739 FPS with a 230 gr. bullet.

Indeed that's roughly what I'd target.

I wasn't aware I could load below min until Deavis kindly ran an experiment.

Detonation or secondary explosion effect? Just more reason why it's best to stay with published data.

This is what I need to get around to reading up on.

Failing to cycle the action is ok, blowing up the gun in my hands? not so much.

 

[Deavis]

Going beneath the minimum listed charge is not something for informed people to freak out about. In this particular case, you aren't going to experience SEE, detonation, or squibs.

Your only problem should be functionality of your semi autos, but we already discussed that. If your 1911 doesn't like the load and you want to run there, then change to a lighter spring.

It really is that simple in this case, don't make it or let someone else make it more complicated than it really is.

I'll gladly run a few more for you, but I'm out of 230s, loaded them all

 

[57K]

Going beneath the minimum listed charge is not something for informed people to freak out about. In this particular case, you aren't going to experience SEE, detonation, or squibs.

So you're making an assumption on someone's experience level.

Your only problem should be functionality of your semi autos, but we already discussed that. If your 1911 doesn't like the load and you want to run there, then change to a lighter spring.

Which should have been mentioned in the first place.

It really is that simple in this case, don't make it or let someone else make it more complicated than it really is.

Such as bringing detonation and secondary explosion into a conversation about .45 ACP when it's much more prevalent in large capacity cases with low charges of powders that are position sensitive or magnum powders that don't like unused case capacity?

I'll gladly run a few more for you, but I'm out of 230s, loaded them all

So how many did you load and shoot in the first place?

Stemoo, here's the deal. I'm all for getting good advice. But good advice is detailed advice. Not a bunch of hyperbole designed to make an impression on readers of a thread.

Let's look back at the quoted ES of 20.5. Like I said, for 5 rounds, that's pretty good and could well put Standard Deviation below 10 which is very good. For 10 rounds fired, Standard Deviation might even be 5 or less. BUT, if only 2 rounds were fired, Standard Deviation could be close to the ES.

Now, why I point this out is because I've been loading with True Blue since it was first introduced. I never chrono fewer than 10 rounds for pistols and twice around the cylinder for revolvers, 12. A minimum of 10 for rifles, but tends to be a higher number based on the number of 3 or 5 round group. In my experience loading thousands of rounds with True Blue in 9 x 19mm, .40 S&W, .357 Magnum and .45 ACP is that True Blue will give tighter Extreme Spreads and Standard Deviations as the charge-weight and pressure of the cartridge is increased: NOT the reverse.

While we're talking about chronographs, if you do a thread, you're gonna get recommendations for every one made. Oehlers are still the Gold Standard but more expensive than many of us want to spend. Go to Midway and read the reviews on the different chrono's they sell. When I had to replace an older used model I had a few years ago, that's exactly what I did. I looked for the highest rating level with the highest number of reviews. At that time it was the Competition Electronics Pro Chrono and I bought one 3/13. It's a very good chrono and their customer service is outstanding. Unfortunately, I'm one of very few that have had to use it, but with anything electronic, there's nothing unusual about that and my first unit was replaced, no questions asked other than the specific error related issues. There is also a newer model made by Caldwell that when bought with its own tripod includes a number of accessories. Not as many reviews but very good grades. And being the newest chrono on the market that I'm aware of, it obviously benefits from newer processor technology based on its exceptional probability of error rating.

I'm not trying to dissuade you away from a novel idea, I simply don't see enough relevant information to reinforce it. I like to recommend to all handloaders regardless of their experience level to own at least 1 Lyman manual. That's because with the pressure rated data, if you study it, you'll get a better understanding about which powder does what in cartridge X. And looking at Lyman's data, you see that True Blue is at the slow end of recommended powders. The correlation I mentioned is that as start charges decrease in pressure, they tend to increase by faster burn rates.

There is no law of handloading physics that says you can't load below a Start Charge. That has to be based on the individual powder and its sensitivity to positioning in the case or needing a minimum level of case-fill, i.e. H110/W296. But that's pretty much all of the relevant information given and like I said using lower charges of True Blue and getting lower extreme spreads and Standard Deviation runs counter to the great deal of experience I've had with the powder.

Then there's another thing I just barely touched on, but first, let me recommend this: use the lowest published load you have for a Start Charge and see what it actually chronographs before you jump to something like reducing a Start Charge by one full grain of powder. It isn't likely that you'll get the same published velocity, and if your pistol functions, you'll have a better idea about the necessary powder charge reduction as well as the lower spring weight that may be req'd. So, about the part I didn't touch on. Since the lowest charge I've been able to give you is 6.4 grs. of True Blue with a 230 gr. FMJ with it's very long OACL of 1.275" (to create a form of worse case scenario) because as you shorten the load, pressure will increase slightly based on the increment of shortening. Say you want to experiment and see what happens with 6.0 grs. as a Start Charge. Use a cast or poly-coated lead bullet as close to the length of the FMJ bullet possible. Load both at 6.0 grs. at the same OACL and while velocity won't vary a great deal at the lower pressure, the cast or poly-coated bullet will have the higher operating pressure. That's exactly how I'd go about it, and personally, I don't even shoot FMJ in any pistol cartridge load. A properly sized cast lead bullet will do anything as well, and if you have any negative opinions on the use of cast lead, the guys that know from actual experience that for just pennies more and still less than plated, poly-coated bullets not only eliminate any negative from cast whether or not it was the handloaders fault, while having a number of advantages like shooting longer with a cleaner barrel and less wear on than rifling compared to jacketed. And because of that, I don't shoot plated either and never have. Knowing the rules for using cast bullets has prevented me from having any leading issues, pistol or revolver and poly-coated are all I use now except for JHPs in defense loads.

I'm in the same boat in not having any 230 gr. FMJs, but because I never use them in the first place. Don't have any 230 gr. poly-coated because I buy 200 gr. RNFPs and SWCs. I do have 230 gr. JHPs, however, and I load them at 1.230" and 7.2 grs. of True Blue yields around 800 FPS which is pretty much the performance limit as far preventing jacket separation with the ZERO 230 gr. JHP. What I set out to do was to replicate the Winchester plain Jane defense load which is actually pretty decent at around 850 FPS with decent stats and terminal performance. At 7.6 grs. of True Blue that load is duplicated at 849 FPS, ES of 34 and an SD of 10. Pointless because the bullet's overdriven, but those are the stats for 10 rounds. Everything I've said regarding loading jacketed with True Blue holds up with 200 gr. SWCs and RNFPs as well. As chargeweight, velocity and pressure increase, ES and SD decrease with some being exceptional. I have a 9 X 19mm 125 gr. RN-SWC poly-coated (Blue Bullet Co) loaded to 1.142"/29mm with 6.2 grs. of True Blue that gives 1122 FPS, ES of 12 with an SD of 3 for 10 rounds over the chrono anytime I want to do it. One problem is that Blue Bullets has switched to an FMJ shape, but SNS casting still makes a 125 gr. RN-SWC. And as you might imagine, that charge is about as high as you'll see in published data, provided you can find any. I worked that load up myself and am comfortable that it is NOT +P.

Maybe not apples to apples, but I'm fully prepared to debunk some of this nonsense. When there is a lack of specific data, I tend to make my JHP Start Loads using True Blue with Lyman's data for the 230 gr. TMJ, or Western's for the 230 gr. SIERRA FMJ. Really don't know that I want to waste 10 bullets, but I'd certainly be willing to load up 5 of them at the lower charge of 6.0 grs. I pretty much already know what the outcome will be. Now if we need to get empirical and there is something to be gained in terms of tangible gain vs. superfluous bullshit. I'll load and chrono 10 at 6.0 grains, and maybe by Friday. The wheel won't be reinvented and lets make it for say 50, 230 gr. JHPs. What'ya say Dr. Deavis?

 

[popper]

Nice to know CFE pistol has flash suppression in it, loaded it for 40sw HD. I'm using WST in compact 9 for similar reason. Army says flash is either powder burning outside the barrel or ash & air that glows (like charcoal) from high temp. My experience in rifle shows ES (SD) decrease with load density increase. I go from ES of 42 to 15 by just adding a grain of powder. I found the Blue bullets too soft for 40SW - leading. HiTek coating works fine with proper alloy.
My 2 centavos.

 

[Brains]

CFE is nice powder, I like it a lot in 9mm, I bet it'll be great in .40


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Deavis]

Stemoo1, here is some data I took today for you. This is all out of a G21, CCI300s, OF brass, 1.240" OAL, .470" Crimp, True Blue

Charge / AV / SD / ES
5.5gr / 659.6 / 7.0 / 20.8
5.9gr / 686.0 / 8.0 / 26.8
6.1gr / 717.3 / 8.0 / 21.1

Hope that helps.

 

[stemoo01]

Thankyou.

I loaded a bunch with 6.6gr and a test batch at 6.4gr.

All functioned fine in the fnx45 & 1911.

It might just be perception but these lighter loads didn't sound as good as I remember the 800+ ones did. Next time I'll make up a 6.2 & 6.8 batch & see if that's real or just the fog of memory.

 

[Deavis]

When your say sound, do you mean the amount of sound overall or the type of sound? There is a difference across the load range, but I feel like the muzzle blast contributes to the "feeling" of sound. In your case, going to that 725FPS zone is going to feel/sound light.

 

[stemoo01]

With all the .45 and .38 now loaded I've switched the 550 over to 9mm.

Got a bunch of different bullets for it, all of them I can get a reasonable match in the ramshot data except for one. Xtreme 165 grain plated round nose....

I could start at the low end of the 147 grain table, but I'm as yet unsure if the bullet would compress the load... Any thoughts?

 

[Deavis]

Wait, a 165 in 9mm? Do you mean in 40S&W?

 

[Younggun]

There are 165gr 9mm bullets.

 

[stemoo01]

Yeah, these are 165 grain 9mm, hence the trouble finding load data.

http://www.xtremebullets.com/9mm-165-RN-p/xc9mm-165rn-b0500.htm

I loaded some test batches of 9mm with true blue for other weights, aiming for ~125PF
- 115 grain, 5.5g true blue, col 1.15
- 124 grain, 5.3g true blue, col 1.11 (flat points)
- 147 grain, 4.3g true blue, col 1.15

All the loads in the ramshot data are between ~15 to ~20 FPS/.G in the min/max load range.

Given that's true across all the bullet weights & I can estimate 124/147 loads from 115 data with some margin, I'm looking at ~4g for the 165 loads. I'd like to find some corroborating data before pressing on, but I've yet to find any.

Apparently someone did try these with titegroup, before they failed to cycle the action they were seeing a few cases fail to expand enough to seal the chamber, resulting in dirty case sides.

 

[Deavis]

I'd you have the bullet dims, we can plug it into quickload to get some estimates of pressure and velocity. I can't engender seeing anything that heavy in 9mm in any standard manual.

 

[stemoo01]

The caliper's say 0.734 tall & 0.356 wide. I'm loading to 1.15 COL