.45 ACP lead semi-wadcutter

BlueTrain

New member
An obscure western hunting guide by the name of Elmer Keith, who sometimes dabbled in handloading, seems to have always preferred a lead semi-wadcutter ("Keith style") in all calibers for all purposes. I don't recall if he used gas seals but he apparently knew what he wanted and was satisified with the results. Only he preferred revolvers.

Could a lead semi-wadcutter be a good all-round bullet for the .45 ACP? I put this thread here because it mainly concerns the 1911 and other .45 automatics but it applies to your model 25 and model 1917, too. Everything hangs on whether this round will work in your particular automatic or not, naturally, but they did in mine, mostly.

This all centers around handloaded ammo. If you don't think handloaded ammunition is a Good Thing, then read no further. I am even aware that some think that handloaded ammuntion, as opposed to factory ammuntion, is a Bad Thing for anything other than recreational use and I understand the reasons. Only it seems like there is no factory ammuntion with hard-cast lead SCW bullets. There might be some custom reloader making some but essentially, that amounts to the same thing: not factory ammo.

One of Keith's principles was find a good load and stick with it. For that matter, he believed the same thing about his guns. Factory ammuntion was not good enough for him and he was an experimenter like nobody else (other than Phil Sharpe and a few others, now almost all forgotten). But the idea here is to have a single handloaded combination (bullet and powder, that is) to be used for everything. Is that a good thing? Or not? I expect the biggest objection is the handloaded part.

This also hangs on whether or not a hard-cast lead SWC will do it all or not. It will certainly makes nice, neat holes in paper but what about other things? At least when compared with other bullet styles. Is this about when you are thinking of going back to your large frame revolver? Or is a 1911 automatic a reasonable handgun for everything?

Although I have loaded 158 SWC (swaged, in this case) bullets for 9mm, which worked well enough (but frankly not worth doing-but they worked), I somehow don't think the same logic will transfer to a 9mm automatic.
 

auto45

New member
I use and handload the 200 gr LSWC for all my 45 shooting.

BlackHills ammo produces/sells them new, by the way. So, that could be an option for not wanting to use handloaded ammo, for whatever reason.

I'm not really qualified to debate whether that bullet does "everything", but I like the way they shoot.
 

BlueTrain

New member
Thanks for the reply. I also wasn't referring to mid-range ammuntion, either. I'm hardly qualified to give advice either but it hasn't stopped me. But I am always interested in other people's opinions, mostly.

I will check out Black Hills ammo.

Any comments on 200 gr versus 230 grain?
 

Jim Watson

New member
I don't know offhand of a 230 grain .45 ACP semiwadcutter, although some have adapted revolver bullets of about that weight. Nothing wrong with a 200 grain bullet, that was good enough for Mr Browning and Colt until the Army got into the act.

I have shot a lot of 200 grain semiwadcutters but all new purchases are roundnose. Not all guns are reliable with the SWC shape and if you want to use the same load in all, it has to function in all. The Black Hills 200 gr SWC is good quality if your gun is compatible. It is not a heavy load, but it is not a light midrange load.

Clint Smith, proprietor of Thunder Ranch gunfighting academy, is said to be a one load per caliber shooter. In .45 ACP that means hardball. I think he has a point. Why worry about the throading of the gun for semiwadcutters, or what the Hollowpoint Of The Month Club is doing, just shoot the service load.
 

kraigwy

New member
I think you have a point. Kieth, Sharp, Whelen, and others did also. Their reasoning, as you mention the SWC type bullet cuts (as it does paper) through material. The RN has a dendency to push material asside. The cutting effect, in my opinion would do more damage the the pushing of material asside.

The miliary wanted a heavier bullet (230 vs 200) because they were gonna use a round nose design. Everything being equal, as in bullet shape, then the heavier bullet would be better.

I dont know about the newer gimiced up 1911s but the orginial 1911a1s didn't seem to have a problem with the SWC style bullet. I had several (even rack grades) on my property book when I was running the AK NG Marksmanship unit, and we used lots of 45 WC Match. They worked. Loading hotter didnt seem to hurt then.

I havent researched it, so I dont know if anyone makes a SWC in 230 gr. for the ACP but it does seem like a good ideal.
 

North Bender

New member
"An obscure western hunting guide by the name of Elmer Keith, who sometimes dabbled in handloading .... "

Yeoucchhhh! Apparently there aren't many cowboy action shooters on the forum. Keith's books are akin to bibles for handloading .45 Colt (and the .41 and .44) revolvers. His work has been fine-tuned but he really broke ground.

He preferred the SWC, arguing it made a larger wound than round nose. And Lord knows he shot enough animals to base his opinion on.

There are lots and lots of manufacturers making SWC .45. Google the subject - you'll find soft and hard bullets and many styles. Backyard guys selling them in your state proably. The widespread availability of lead SWC bullets is due to the amount of folks shooting everything ranging from slow-moving soft lead for cowboy action, to those die-hards who hunt bear with Rugers pushing hard lead 330-grain bullets at 1,300 fps.
 

Slopemeno

New member
The H&G #68 200 grain semi-wadcutter is a great bullet- I've gone through thousands upon thousands of them. We loaded ours to make major power factor (bullet weight x velocity divided by 1000) of 180, and they shot incredibly well.

Throating helps, but if your shooting a more modern Colt (post 1991) they come with decent throating already. Using enough taper crimp in your reloading process makes quite a bit of difference in getting good reliability.

Use caution if you're buying bulk reloaded ammo- I've found that a lot of bulk reloaders don't control things like case thickness variations, or unsized bullets. I used to take my barrel out of my gun and "test-drop" ammo into the chamber- if it dropped in cleanly, I'd use it for the upcoming match. If it didn't I pitched it.
 

robctwo

New member
I shoot a lot of lead swc. Have run 200 grain for a few years, but a local guy is casting 155 gr swc that are really nice in my guns. A bit cheaper, so good for paper punching. If I want to "make major" I'm going to use 200 gr or 230 gr. For shooting bowling pins the 230 gr ball is much better, the 230 gr Hornady HAP are the best, but much more $.

I have loaded well over 100,000 rounds in the past few years, mostly 9mm and .45. I have a number of favorite loads.
 

Al Thompson

Staff Alumnus
If I couldn't carry a good JHP, I'd carry a 200 gr hard cast SWC as fast as I could push it. Shooting critters, you can see the increase in impact when it hits.

Nothing obscure about Elmer Keith. :)
 

Jim Watson

New member
As I recall, ol' Elmer had a low opinion of automatics in general. Doubt he ever went to the trouble to develop semiwadcutter bullets or loads for them. Only thing I recall him saying good about one was in connection with Fitzgerald swiping his tuned hammer at a match.

And I doubt he would recognize cowboy shooting as presently conducted, with a majority of tenderfeet loading powder puff ammunition.
 

BlueTrain

New member
I thought the mention of Elmer Keith would get some attention. It doesn't seem like he is mentioned enough here. I didn't get the impression he had a low opinion of automatics, only that he preferred large frame revolvers. I have one of his articles in which he recommends the combat magnum (pre model 19, I think) for those with weak hands). And just about everything he said was preceeded with "properly loaded." I also recall his review of a S&W Model 39 ("small enough").

I had been thinking this might be a retrograde step, almost ante-bellum, but apparently others think well of the concept, even if suspicions remain about applying it to an automatic. But the .45 ACP would seem to be a good vehicle for the concept and possibly the 1911 might be the best of the .45 autos to use it in.
 

Chuck38

New member
45 Acp Lswc

In circa Oct to Dec 1980, I ran across some handloads using 185 grain LSWC with Unique and Bullseye.

Powder weights were way above any other published data. The author stated the lead was a lubricant and the 45 could handle loads without overpressure.

I loaded 50 of each and shot all 100. No signs of over pressure, and recoil was not significantly more than with hardball.

I do not remember the Bullseye weight and would like to reconfirm the data.

UNIQUE Weight was 13.7

I know...excessive.
 

nate45

New member
The 200 grain SWC cuts nice clean full .45 caliber holes in targets and meat.

I've fired thousands upon thousands of .45 ACP using the 200 grain SWC that I cast from wheel weights with a Hensley & Gibbs #68 mold. I use 5.6 grains of Red Dot, for about 925 fps. There are better powders and I think I'll start using Power Pistol for that bullet like I do with my 230 grain XTP loads. I started using the Red Dot about 1986 because I always had an 8 lb. can around for shot shell reloading, its dirty and smokey, but it gets them moving. Also this load makes all my practice ammo suitable for defense, 230 FMJ, 200 H&G SWC, 230 XTP, they all will get the job done.
 

fomalley

New member
SWC in .45 autos

Some years back I bought 1000 rds of SWC in .45 ACP at a gun show. I was interested in bullseye shooting then, and the SWC cuts the paper nicely. I'm sure those who report success with SWC in .45 ACP know what they're doing and have made the ammo work in their guns. I, however, had nothing but trouble. Both my Kimber Gold Match (purchased in 1998) and my Sig P220 hated the stuff. Mostly feed problems. The Kimber manual recommended hard ball. Both guns feed round nose ammo great, but they certainly didn't like SWC. Just my experience based on one batch of ammo.
 

Chuck38

New member
SWC In .45 Colt

Overall length may have been too large.

I cast my own 185 grain and they feed without a flaw.

I bought some LSWC at a gunshow and the cases evedently were not sized small enough and failed to feed.
 

Hafoc

New member
I'd be delighted to shoot lead SWCs in my .45 Auto-caliber Smith and Wesson revolver, any time, any range-- or for other purposes. Funny, the revolvers have little trouble feeding 'em. :D

I've got a Colt Combat Commander that eats the same handloads. It seems to have no trouble with them at all. On the other hand, I know that beast was designed for a round-nose full metal jacket. For cheap shooting at the range I'm happy to use the lead bullets, all the more so because they're supposed to be easier on the barrel than jacketed ones. I'm not sure I'd trust my safety to them unless I had no other ammo available, though.
 

Sevens

New member
In circa Oct to Dec 1980, I ran across some handloads using 185 grain LSWC with Unique and Bullseye.

Powder weights were way above any other published data. The author stated the lead was a lubricant and the 45 could handle loads without overpressure.

I loaded 50 of each and shot all 100. No signs of over pressure, and recoil was not significantly more than with hardball.

I do not remember the Bullseye weight and would like to reconfirm the data.

UNIQUE Weight was 13.7

I know...excessive.
I wish you luck in "re-confirming" this load data. In my (not expert) opinion, there's either some fuzzy memory or poor record keeping that went on somewhere. I knew with just a cursory glance that 13.7 grains of Unique pushing ANYTHING in .45 auto is unlikely to say the least, so I grabbed two different powders guides to see what the numbers look like.

One is a fairly recent guide from Alliant, the folks that took over the Hercules powder line and who produce Unique these days. This guide is from 2005. The other guide is a '92 Hercules guide.

The old Hercules guides lists a 180 grain JHP pushed by 13.0 grains of Unique, in a .44 Magnum at 35,000 PSI! Their max load listed for a 185 grain bullet in .45 auto is a JHP pushed by 7.0 grains of Unique. That's 950 FPS, 15,800 PSI. The load you listed would basically a double charge. The newer '05 guide gives a little hotter charge, but remember that powder blends do change over time... 1980 Unique is not exactly the same powder as 2005 Unique. The newer guide lists a max load for a 185 grain JHP at 8.2 grains of powder, 1,030 FPS, and 18,900 PSI, and that's a pretty warm .45 auto round.

Bullseye is a faster burning powder. It's even less forgiving. That means it'll peak in pressure quicker, give you less velocity at more pressure, and it's a dense powder that doesn't take up much of the case. You could probably triple charge a piece of .45 brass using Bullseye, because it's that dense.

We are talking about a load you remember from nearly 30 years ago, and made by someone else. So the jury is out on how accurate your 13.7 grain load of Unique is or isn't. But the bottom line is... don't try this at home unless you really, REALLY want to see if you can blow up a pistol, get hit in the face with a slide, grenade a magazine right out of the bottom of the handgun, maybe split a barrel, torch up your right hand, hurt some bystanders, etc etc etc.

You either got very, very lucky, or the numbers were skewed, or, hell, there must be some other way to explain it. But no rational person outside of a laboratory with pressure testing equipment (and a place to safely hide!) should be anywhere near that charge of Unique in a .45 auto load.

7.0 to 11.0 grains of Unique is a typical load range for a 240 grain LSWC in .44 Magnum. The .44 Magnum uses a case that's twice as long and runs at nearly twice the allowable pressure of the .45 auto. The less space inside the case, the higher the pressure. The load you listed goes beyond any handloader's definition of MAX load or "hot" load or anything of the sort. I don't even think calling it a liability does it justice.
 
Top