Range Report: 45 ACP; 230 XTP; HS-6

[Nick_C_S]

Hello everybody. I did a work up for 45 ACP, using the Hornady 230 grain XTP bullet, with HS-6 under. I got out to the range yesterday to chrono them . . .

Gun: Springfield Mil-Spec - near new; full-size; 5" bbl; Wilson Combat 20 Lb recoil spring, with shock buffer.
Chronograph is a Chrony Master Beta - 4 yards out (same as always for me).
CCI 300 primers. Mixed brass - some of it amazingly old, btw.
OAL - 1.240; attained via plunk test. Medium taper crimp.
12 round samples.

Here's the numbers:

7.2gn - 809 f/s; 18.33 SD; soot, unburnt powder.
7.4gn - 848 f/s; 14.14 SD; seemed sooty.
7.6gn - 859 f/s; 18.79 SD; ran fairly clean, and started to feel "right."
7.8gn - 881 f/s; 16.20 SD; ran clean.
8.0gn - 896 f/s; 23.49 SD; ran clean, feels stout.
8.2gn - 903 f/s; 25.95 SD; ran clean, feels stout.

So there it is. My observation: velocities flattened and SD's went up after 7.8 grains - a bit disappointing, as this is where HS-6 is suppose to shine brightest (heavy slugs; loaded up good n stout). I really wish the results on the high end were more linear, as it would make my decision on where to narrow it down a lot easier. Either way, the next step is to try a larger sample. It's just a question of which charge weight.

According to tnoutdoors9's U-tube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ct33tKvpKo) using the factory-loaded version of this bullet (+P); he got 896 f/s from his full-size Colt.

So between the velocity flattening of my results, and his results using known +P pressured ammo; I have chosen not to go any further with the charge weights. Next, I will likely chrono a large sample at 8.0 grains.

All of these shot nice with no feeding/cycling problems. The XTP ogive is rather pointy and seems to lend itself to reliable feeding. They all shot straight.

For those of you playing at home with QuickLOAD, I had to tweek the OAL to 1.300" in order to get near-like results; however, QL gave higher velocities (902, & 922 respectively) with the last two charge weights - as my actual results flattened out.

About propellant selection: I considered Power Pistol; but PP is a bit spunky and makes me nervy doing defense load work ups with heavy bullets. It ignites easily and is highly energetic - and that bodes well for lighter bullets. Which is why my 45 ACP defense loading with 185's is indeed Power Pistol.

I considered AA#7; but AA7 is a bit slow for my taste in this application. I haven't ruled out trying it, but my expectation wouldn't be very high. I'm not sure 45 ACP is a high enough pressure round to get #7 to burn the way it's designed - just my opinion. At any rate, trying it is low in my priority list; and I have plenty of other irons in the fire right now.

I like this 230 XTP bullet. I believe - when loaded properly - it is quite capable of being an effective defense round. And my gun seems to gobble them right up.

 

[Dufus]

I did some extensive testing on the 230 gr. XTP a couple of summers ago.

I found that I could not get the velocity to expand the bullets at even 3 ft.

I was using Bentonite as a test medium.

A lighter weight XTP was a different story.

As a note, I do not believe in "+P" for anything.

 

[texgunner]

You may want to give AA#5 a try. It works really well for full power .45 acp loads.

 

[Nick_C_S]

AA#5

You may want to give AA#5 a try. It works really well for full power .45 acp loads.

I just may - now that you mentioned it. And I have AA#5 on hand. Forgot about that one .

 

[Unclenick]

I don't think you did badly in the test. None of Hodgdon's 230 grain loads with this powder breaks 900 fps out of their 5" test barrel, and that will be a tight barrel. The SD doesn't look so bad when you view it as a percentage of the velocity. The flattening of the curve is just barely outside the 95% confidence interval for the range of average velocities you got, so there is a chance that repeating the experiment could bring the high group more in line with the others. There is a caveat to this, though. I note the lowest load is furthest below that line, suggesting ignition issues. If so, and if we drop that point, then the trend line moves up, and the flattening of the last load is a lot more certain to be happening.

Bottom line, I think, is that since 8.2 grains is Hodgdon's maximum, and you are feeling like it's time to stop, it would probably be best to go forward only in a gun that can measure pressures. It might be interesting to work it up over again with Winchester's combined standard/magnum primer or with a CCI 350 to see if that makes a difference to that bottom point or to the top velocity. I'll note that current military ball is loaded to about 407 ft-lbs (234 grains projectile at 885 fps). That would put you at 893 fps. 7.9 or 8.0 grains look like it will average near that.

 

[Nick_C_S]

That's some awesome legwork there Unclenick - thanks. It's really nice to get a visual like that.

Not sure what my next step will be. I might run the test at 7.8, 8.0, & 8.2 again - maybe. Trying magnum primers is a worthy consideration; after all, it is HS-6 (I generally use mag primers w/ HS-6 in revolver cartridges, but not semi-autos).

And ever since texgunner mentioned it, working up with AA#5 is starting to itch at me too It tends to run a little faster than HS-6 from my experience though. Of course, that's a rather generalized statement as it's really hard to know for sure. They're two different animals - even if they are in the same intermediate speed range.

 

[Nick_C_S]

there is a chance that repeating the experiment could bring the high group more in line with the others.

I went to the range today and did just that - repeated the experiment . . .

8.0 grains = 889.9 f/s (previously 896.6 f/s)
8.2 grains = 903.4 f/s (previously 903.8 f/s)

I would consider these results remarkably similar.

It is what it is. I think I'll make my "set" load 8.0 and call it good. Sometimes we find ourselves looking for something that doesn't exist. All the rounds in this charge weight range ran great. They'll make great (and expensive ) defense practice ammo.