185 gr. .45 acp jswc sanity check.

[shootinfule]

Hodgdon Reloading data center for 185 gr JSWC 5.0 - 5.5 gr. Titegroup with COL 1.135" (bullet on left). Bullet on right is MBC 185 gr. cast SWC5.3 - 6.0 gr. Titegroup with COL 1.245", which piuts the case mouth just barely touching the upper band. I would prefer to seat the CAST SWC to 1.135".
My concern is reducing the space in the case increasing pressure. You're thoughts, please
Taylor

 

[3manfan]

That nominal of a difference in length wouldn't cause an increase in pressure worth being concerned with if using those powder charges (both are mid-to upper level of power but still shy of +P).
If you were at max or slightly above on your charge of any type of powder while loading for .45 acp +P........maybe.

I've found the new Hodgdon Loading Center Data to be on the lighter side when it comes to what they list as max loads.
All of my old manuals & publications list higher max charges than they do for all calibers & powders & I've never had a problem with safety while using my manuals that were produced long before the Hodgdon Data Center recently came into it's current format. The original online Data Center was different than this newer version.

 

[contender]

Pressure concerns can pop up in cases like the .380, .9mm .40 S&W, and .45 acp if a few factors are combined.
With these smaller volume cases,, and using a hotter, faster powder,, it can cause a quicker pressure spike.
Just last weekend,, at the USPSA SC State Championship,, a shooter had a .9mm blow up in his gun & hands. Luckily,, no serious injury.

While I don't have the most current loading manual from Hodgdon or Hornady in front of me,, I'd study them carefully, and if I were to be increasing the bullet depth,, AND going to max powder levels,, you may be flirting with a potential issue.

And while many older manuals do show higher amounts of powder, (as mentioned above,) it's not safe to assume the older data is totally safe.
Powder formulas have often changed.
Better pressure testing procedures have been developed.

ALWAYS use the most current manuals for the best data.

Things I ALWAYS do when starting to build any new load.
I study several manuals to get an idea of the range of differences in each companies minimum & maximum charges.
I try & match the components as much as possible to published data.
I always start low & work up slowly in my test loads.

But the main thing I ALWAYS look for is the most accurate load,,, NOT the most powerful. Most often, it's not a max load.

And while a lot of online data is good,, I prefer actual published books to study.

 

[shootinfule]

Pressure concerns can pop up in cases like the .380, .9mm .40 S&W, and .45 acp if a few factors are combined.
With these smaller volume cases,, and using a hotter, faster powder,, it can cause a quicker pressure spike.
Just last weekend,, at the USPSA SC State Championship,, a shooter had a .9mm blow up in his gun & hands. Luckily,, no serious injury.

While I don't have the most current loading manual from Hodgdon or Hornady in front of me,, I'd study them carefully, and if I were to be increasing the bullet depth,, AND going to max powder levels,, you may be flirting with a potential issue.

And while many older manuals do show higher amounts of powder, (as mentioned above,) it's not safe to assume the older data is totally safe.
Powder formulas have often changed.
Better pressure testing procedures have been developed.

ALWAYS use the most current manuals for the best data.

Things I ALWAYS do when starting to build any new load.
I study several manuals to get an idea of the range of differences in each companies minimum & maximum charges.
I try & match the components as much as possible to published data.
I always start low & work up slowly in my test loads.

But the main thing I ALWAYS look for is the most accurate load,,, NOT the most powerful. Most often, it's not a max load.

And while a lot of online data is good,, I prefer actual published books to study.

Thanks for your responses (apologies for posting in he wrong category)

 

[contender]

No problem at all.
After handloading for over 40 years,, (almost 50,) and seeing several blown up firearms due to some form of improper loading,, I always urge caution to folks when they start deviating from published data.
Companies publish data,, and they have serious pressure testing facilities to assure their data is good. We mere mortal handloaders do not have that kind of testing equipment,, so we need to heed their warnings & follow their suggestions.

 

[shootinfule]

Hats Off! to Hodgdon! I have 10 reloading manuals all the way back to 1970. Very few list COL for 185 gr. LSWC .45 ACP. So I sent the Hodgdon Reloading Data Center (RDC) with a question regarding the COL for 185 gr MBC LSWC. They sent me a prompt reply thanking me for bring this to their attention since the listed COL was incorrect. They gave me the corrected COL and said the RDC info had been corrected.
With so many cartridges and loads now available I think that a lot of data in carried over, as it is almost impossible to test every combination for each bullet and load.
I think Hodgdon should be commended for listing the Missouri Bullet Company LSWC as I I really like MBC Bullets!
I'm happy.

 

[akbluz]

I'm not surprised that Hodgdon came through for you... they're a good bunch of folks.

 

[contender]

Yes,, Hodgdon folks have always been good to me and many others. No surprises there that they helped & did so promptly.