Substituting Bullets With Other's Load Data

Help Support Ruger Forum:

Lehigh defense 220gr 452 maximum expansion bullet length .900
45 colt cartridge oal 1.915
Case length 1.275
1.915-1.275=.64
.900-.64=.26" inside the case
Accurate #5 max load 13gr no pressure given
True blue max load 12gr no pressure given


45 colt in a 45/410 shot chamber.
Barrel: 6 " fed 150 primer trim to 1.275
Laser cast 200gr rnfp bullet length .542
45 colt 200gr lc 1.560 oal
1.560-1.275=.285
.542-.285=.257" inside the case
Accurate #5 13.1gr @13,696 psi
True blue 11.9gr @13,478 psi


The biggest factor in pressure of pistol cartridges is case capacity. Especially in the case of a 45 colt in a 3" chamber. Pistol cartridges reach their peak pressure at about 1/2" of bullet travel. In most situations that bullet has just entered the cylinder throat or for semi auto, has just entered the rifling. In your case it still has a mile to go as far as internal ballistics go. The Lehigh employee gave you a generic answer.

Another example in 45 colt.
Beartooth use to make a 350gr bullet called the lcmn(long cylinder medium nose), the nose was too long to fit in anything other than a red hawk when seated to the crimp groove. This was designed this way to give a larger case capacity vs similar weight bullets. The lcmn seated about .365 inside the case, this gave a bigger boiler room vs say a 340 ssk and resulted in the 350 taking about 4.5gr more h110 to reach the same pressure.
Your bottom two 45 Colt example [of which I enbolded] are irrelevant because they are not the .452 Lehigh defense 220 grain Xtreme Defense bullet. You are comparing the first bullet to bullets that have absolutely nothing to do with what I ask Lehigh and their answer back to me.

And yes while the ME bullet was made to shot out of a Judge so was the XD bullet going to be shot out of the same cylinders within that Judge. You keep bring up normal 45 Colt data and cylinder jump of which none of the two bullets in question would ever chambered in to start with. So I do not know why you keep bring that into play as if it were relevant to my posting.

Other than that there is a difference as to the bullet seating depth of the ME and the XD bullets which would make a difference in the usable case volume for sure, and while that is as well part of what this whole thread was about as well, yet so is the Brinell hardness and the bearing surfaces of bullets too. And Lehigh Defense's answer was not generic but rather quite specific. There were more emails of us talking back and forth about this subject but I only put forth hear the part that made the point. But you can argue other wise yet I know good and well what and why he said what he said, and it was that the two bullets have different metal compositions and bearing surface, period. Now He should had mentioned seating depth too but that point was moot being the other two points trumped them anyway. But yes in addition it would had made pressure even worse. So your point being taken still does not negate the two points that Lehigh brought up. Weather or not you except this fact is up to you. So just know that beside the point of seating depth that their Brinell hardness and bearing surfaces are so different one from anther that the pressure would be different. And a normal load data for a normal colt cylinder is tee totally irrelevant to the points of the conversation between me and Lehigh Defense.
 
Seems like it would be pretty easy for a person to measure the bearing surface of a bullet for comparison purposes. Might want to make or buy some comparator hardware to make sure the datum lines are the same.

Measuring hardness is a bit more costly, but not a whole lot more. Several options there, indenter tester with right correction factors seems to me to be most foolproof.

My understanding of Lehigh's production process is they basically use CNC lathes to cut the bullets from copper round stock. Shouldn't be any hardening in that process, so either they're using different raw materials seeking different properties for the final product, or they're not willing to entertain questions from reloaders for liability reasons.

If a person were really interested in knowing the answer, wouldn't be too hard to figure out.
 
It's ok. You're fairly new to reloading and don't quite understand what I'm telling you. Some day it will click. Remember, that 3" chamber runs about .469 allllll the way out, that bullets bearing surface doesn't touch a thing after it exits the case for a long way. If those two different bullets were seated inside the case the same amount.......it would be at the same pressure. See pressure time curve of pistol powders. The Lehigh employee probably thought you were going to crimp the second bullet in the groove as intended.

Did you post in this forum to learn or proclaim your expertise and experience?
 
Yes, I most likely do not understand what you are trying to say being both bullets are jumping in that same long cylinder. And yes I always crimp the bullets, and being there is a handy crimp groove there I figure why not put it to good use. So you are right in assuming that they believed that I would crimp the bullet in the cannelure so niftily provided for such purposes. Yet for some reason you seem to be saying that only one of the bullets [ME] would be shot out of a three inch cylinder while not the other [XD]. Not saying that I have a better understanding than you do, but I will say no matter your expertise you so far are lacking an ability to convey relevant material. There is a saying that goes something like the following - some times something said in a different way helps get the point across. But anyway you using bullet data on bullets that are not the bullets in question is not helping your point.

And I do not mind learning if one has the ability to teach. So if first you do not succeed try try again. But keep these things in mind - both bullets are being shot out of the same revolver (so both bullets will be having the gasses able to blow past the bullets before they hit the rifling)- both bullets will be seated to their crimp grooves as intended by the manufacture (as that is what those crimp grooves are for, and I always but always crimp every round I load for better ignition of the powders and other safety factors as well)- and my original question to Lehigh Defense was can I use their 45 Colt load data for the ME bullet (which was intended to be shot out of an overly long cylinder) with their XD bullet (to be shot it out of the same exact overly long cylinder). So if you can keep your response without wondering outside these parameters perhaps I would have a far better chance at not misunderstanding your thoughts. And it most likely couldn't hurt to keep it simple and direct as possible before expounding more.
 
Last edited:
Seems like it would be pretty easy for a person to measure the bearing surface of a bullet for comparison purposes. Might want to make or buy some comparator hardware to make sure the datum lines are the same.

Measuring hardness is a bit more costly, but not a whole lot more. Several options there, indenter tester with right correction factors seems to me to be most foolproof.

My understanding of Lehigh's production process is they basically use CNC lathes to cut the bullets from copper round stock. Shouldn't be any hardening in that process, so either they're using different raw materials seeking different properties for the final product, or they're not willing to entertain questions from reloaders for liability reasons.

If a person were really interested in knowing the answer, wouldn't be too hard to figure out.

Now keep in mind when I asked Lehigh Defense the question in question it was years ago back when I had very little knowledge or understanding of ammunition other than it either goes bang or KA-BOOM, depending on how it was assembled.

So at the time I had no idea as to how to go about measuring Brinell hardness. And if I did I probably would not have asked them the question being I could had just measure the hardness and bearing surfaces and came to my own conclusions right? Any way to keep it simple just know that Lehigh Defense's answer had sufficed my curiosity at that time. Also know now that there are parts of the email I left out (because I do not believe in passing on experimental load data on line, perhaps once it is tested out and proven safe - we'll see) but know that they steered me in a direction they believed to be safe enough. Yes they gave me a specific starting load and max load to try out with the usual warning of be absolutely sure to work up slowly and also keep an eye out for signs of high pressure. Boo-Yah there went you theory that Lehigh Defense is not willing to work with reloaders!

Moving right along, yes since that time I have learned about Brinell hardness testers and how to check the bearing surfaces of a bullet. And I have thought of acquiring such equipment, but at this time I have found that such, in my handloading journey, is not pertinent at this point and time. You might ask why, and I would tell you because I already made those rounds up and am waiting for better weather to test them within as we speak. But yes I do still wish to acquire these tools for future use when I will be lathing out some silver bullets.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I most likely do not understand what you are trying to say being both bullets are jumping in that same long cylinder. And yes I always crimp the bullets, and being there is a handy crimp groove there I figure why not put it to good use. So you are right in assuming that they believed that I would crimp the bullet in the cannelure so niftily provided for such purposes. Yet for some reason you seem to be saying that only one of the bullets [ME} would be shot out of a three inch cylinder while not the other [XD]. Not saying that I have a better understanding than you do, but I will say no matter your expertise you so far are lacking an ability to convey relevant material. There is a saying that goes something like the following - some times something said in a different way helps get the point across. But anyway you using bullet data on bullets that are not the bullets in question is not helping your point.

And I do not mind learning if one has the ability to teach. So if first you do not succeed try try again. But keep these things in mind - both bullets are being shot out of the same revolver (so both bullets will be having the gasses able to blow past the bullets before they hit the rifling)- both bullets will be seated to their crimp grooves as intended by the manufacture (as that is what those crimp grooves are for, and I always but always crimp every round I load for better ignition of the powders and other safety factors as well)- and my original question to Lehigh Defense was can I use their 45 Colt load data for the ME bullet (which was intended to be shot out of an overly long cylinder) with their XD bullet (to be shot it out of the same exact overly long cylinder). So if you can keep your response without wondering outside these parameters perhaps I would have a far better chance at not misunderstanding your thoughts. And it most likely couldn't hurt to keep it simple and direct as possible before expounding more.
I'll draw some pictures to make it as simple as possible.

9fssm2.jpg

9fssjj.jpg

Seated to the same depth in the case, you can use the data for the 220 maximum expansion bullet for the 220 Xtreme defense bullet.
 
I'll draw some pictures to make it as simple as possible.

9fssm2.jpg

9fssjj.jpg

Seated to the same depth in the case, you can use the data for the 220 maximum expansion bullet for the 220 Xtreme defense bullet.
Your right the pictures do help, especially being you are not mixing in different bullet data that was immaterial to these two bullets this time around. And while I guess one could seat the XD bullet that far out I can not see your reasoning for doing so because it was not designed to be loaded in such a fashion. Unless you did so simply for the sake of argument then lets us go there. But first let me say that you where right when you speculated that Lehigh Defense figured I would be seating the bullets all the way to the cannelure. And I find it strange that you did not think so as well. With this point absolutely understood, and hopefully out of the way, let us get back to the point of what Lehigh Defense said about Brinell hardness. If you are not going to believe them at face value then you should at lest do a Brinell hardness test and present the results here that prove them wrong as apposed to just speculating. Yet I'll digress.

Now another place were you lost me also is what good does it do to bring up such a hypothetical situation that has nothing to do with real life situations? Was it just to try and prop up your unproven theory that Lehigh Defense does not know what they are talking about so that you would have ammunition of which to discredit the Position in which I put forth in the original post? If so I again would like to encourage you to bring evidence not only showing to the contrary that the two bullets have the same exact metallurgy but also a non-theoretical argument against what Nonte and Siewert proclaimed in their writings.

And I know that if I were to have posted all the correspondences, in their entirety, I had with Lehigh Defense some of those missing pieces would have helped to clear away some of your misguided thoughts [i.e. -making Lehigh Defense out to be nonfriendly to handloaders, whereby overtly dodging a legit answer to a serious question] as being ridiculous, but I feel as if a lot of the content of those conversations are best left off of any public forum. And if anyone wishes to get with Lehigh Defense on special load data then I feel that they should seek it for themselves with out any of my typos BLOWING THINGS [i.e./e.g. - a perfectly good firearm] out of proportion.

But back to the what if end of this stick. I would have to agree with you that IF these two bullets had the exact same composition in metallurgy and were seated to the exact same depth and fired in the exact same chamber and barrel. Then and only then would the two bullets theoretically have the exact same pressures. I say theoretically here being murphy's law has its way of mixing things up a bit here and there when ever possible. Yet again I agree that the two pressure readings ought to be very close indeed. But what I do not agree with, is you using hypothetical situations as opposed to real substance to prop up your stance upon the subject at hand. Could it be that the absence of such is because no such evidence exist!

Once more I adjure you to stop making thing up just to try and discredit reality, so you can continue to live out your fantasies. After all

cognitive dissonance

is a reality in which you're best bet is to face off as opposed to embracing. Best wishes. Hope to see you on the other side. And if and when you do make it don't be a stranger.
 
I personally emailed Lehigh Defense to ask them if I could use the load data for their .452 caliber 220 grain Maximum Expansion monolithic copper bullet to load their .452 caliber 220 grain Xtreme Defender monolithic copper bullet. The answer I got back was "NO!!!" They went on to explain that even though both bullets weight the same and are made of monolithic copper, the Brinell hardness was different and the data would not work safely even at a starting load. So even with two bullets made by the same manufacture it is not always safe to substitute load data for two bullets of equal weight!

Hmm, could that be because the 220 maximum expansion bullet is designed for a 45/410 chamber? Maybe because the load data is at a 1.915 oal. That won't fit your standard 45 colt chamber. That bullet is .9 long. The 220 xtreme defense bullet is .845 long. If 220 xtreme defense bullet is loaded to 1.86 oal in a 45 colt case and fired in a 45/410 chamber, I can just about guarantee you it will get the same velocity as the 220 maximum expansion bullet.

Take a look at Western powder load manual 8th edition. You will find 45 colt loads fired in a 45/410 chamber. It takes 1-1.5gr more powder for the same loads to reach the same pressure. Why? Because the chamber is 3" long and acts like a pressure vent when 45 colt standard length loads are used, that's a big jump to the rifling. So if you used 45/410 loads(which the Lehigh 220 maximum expansion is) it would be higher pressure in a normal Colt chamber, not that you could anyway, it's too long.

Bang.. your 1.915 oal 220gr Lehigh fires in your 45/410 3" chamber, a lot of the gas from your fast burning pistol powder goes around the bullet. Pressure has peaked already and the bullet hasn't even hit the rifling yet.
The major difference in that particular case is the Brinell Hardness of the projectile. Seating depth can be it's own variable but usually only in heavily compressed loads etc. It creates a lot more pressure forcing a harder material into a bore than a softer one. That's why we use different powders and pressure levels for Soft Lead, Linotype, Plated, Jacketed and monolithic projectiles of various materials.
Even if there isn't data for the particular load you are working up there is almost always data for the components you are intending to use. By crossreferencing you can establish Ratios to use while working up your loads. There is a huge difference between merely reloading and actual Load Development. Merely reloading is just following a recipe. Load Development even using established data within the Min, Max, Do Not Exceed parameters involves shooting for groups over a Chrono and following the data for the desired results. Wether it's the most accurate or just how fast can you make one of those go. As I said previously it's basic Scientific Method.
 
Last edited:
The major difference in that particular case is the Brinell Hardness of the projectile. Seating depth can be it's own variable but usually only in heavily compressed loads etc. It creates a lot more pressure forcing a harder material into a bore than a softer one. That's why we use different powders and pressure levels for Soft Lead, Linotype, Plated, Jacketed and monolithic projectiles of various materials.
Even if there isn't data for the particular load you are working up there is almost always data for the components you are intending to use. By crossreferencing you can establish Ratios to use while working up your loads. There is a huge difference between merely reloading and actual Load Development. Merely reloading is just following a recipe. Load Development even using established data within the Min, Max, Do Not Exceed parameters involves shooting for groups over a Chrono and following the data for the desired results. Wether it's the most accurate or just how fast can you make one of those go. As I said previously it's basic Scientific Method.
9fterz.jpg

On the left is a 45 colt case, it measures 1.278, on the right is a 9.3x74r case that has been fire formed and then loaded and shot with a 451 345gr ssk in a 45/410 shot chamber. This load was extrapolated from 45/90 and 458 win mag data and it does not exceed the limit of my firearm.
It measures 2.840 and is still short in the 3" chamber. The colt case is 2"+ shorter. That's a big jump, in a hole that is larger than the bullet.




Both 220gr bullets from Lehigh are soft enough to take the rifling. By the time it hits the forcing cone the pressure is way down. In this particular case, the brinell hardness has no effect on the MAP of the load. Fast pistol powder is used, there is no secondary pressure spike bigger than the initial one that launched the bullet in the first place.

When dealing with handgun cartridges, the biggest factor that effects pressure is the seating depth. All copper bullets are substantially longer than an equal weight jacketed or lead counterpart. When dealing with an oal that is limited by a magazine or cylinder.
9ftjrs.jpg

From left to right
263gr 45, 296gr 45, 185gr 45 Barnes xpb, 115gr 355 Barnes xpb, Lyman 358156, mp 360-640 hp 145gr, mp 357 130gr rn.

The copper bullets are much longer than a cast or jacketed bullet. The 185gr Barnes bullet is longer (.727) than a 300gr bullet (.712). The 115gr Barnes bullet is longer than a 163gr bullet of similar diameter.

So it would be foolish to use load data for a 115gr jacketed bullet(which is much shorter!!!) for a Barnes bullet loaded to the same length, as the Barnes would take up much more case capacity. If loaded to the same seating depth the Barnes would be too long to fit the magazine. If a Blackhawk 9mm cylinder were used, then no problem.
 
Here's a 45 colt load fired from a 20" rossi 92 barrel. The bullet used was cast from zinc using a lee 452 230 tc mold. The load used was extrapolated from Lehigh defense data. The bullet weighed 144gr. Seating depth was adjusted for the load.

Description: lee 230tc zinc
Notes 1:
Notes 2:
Distance to Chrono (FT): 0.00
Ballistic Coefficient: 1.000
Bullet Weight (gr): 0.000
Altitude (FT): 0.0
Temp: 82 °F
BP: 1011.00 inHG
Shots
# FPS FT-LBS PF
4 2364 0.00 0.00
3 2330 0.00 0.00
2 ERROR 3
1 2348 0.00 0.00
Average: 2347.33
StdDev: 17.01
Min: 2330
Max: 2364
Spread: 34
True MV: 2347.33
Shots/sec: 0.07
Group Size (IN): 0.00
 
Lyman 357 magnum data. One bullet is 40gr heavier, so it should get less velocity at the same pressure.
9ftqsw.jpg

9ftqws.jpg

Hmm...these loads look very similar, anyone like to take a guess why?


Here's a clue.....
9ftq8d.jpg
 
9fterz.jpg

On the left is a 45 colt case, it measures 1.278, on the right is a 9.3x74r case that has been fire formed and then loaded and shot with a 451 345gr ssk in a 45/410 shot chamber. This load was extrapolated from 45/90 and 458 win mag data and it does not exceed the limit of my firearm.
It measures 2.840 and is still short in the 3" chamber. The colt case is 2"+ shorter. That's a big jump, in a hole that is larger than the bullet.




Both 220gr bullets from Lehigh are soft enough to take the rifling. By the time it hits the forcing cone the pressure is way down. In this particular case, the brinell hardness has no effect on the MAP of the load. Fast pistol powder is used, there is no secondary pressure spike bigger than the initial one that launched the bullet in the first place.

When dealing with handgun cartridges, the biggest factor that effects pressure is the seating depth. All copper bullets are substantially longer than an equal weight jacketed or lead counterpart. When dealing with an oal that is limited by a magazine or cylinder.
9ftjrs.jpg

From left to right
263gr 45, 296gr 45, 185gr 45 Barnes xpb, 115gr 355 Barnes xpb, Lyman 358156, mp 360-640 hp 145gr, mp 357 130gr rn.

The copper bullets are much longer than a cast or jacketed bullet. The 185gr Barnes bullet is longer (.727) than a 300gr bullet (.712). The 115gr Barnes bullet is longer than a 163gr bullet of similar diameter.

So it would be foolish to use load data for a 115gr jacketed bullet(which is much shorter!!!) for a Barnes bullet loaded to the same length, as the Barnes would take up much more case capacity. If loaded to the same seating depth the Barnes would be too long to fit the magazine. If a Blackhawk 9mm cylinder were used, then no problem.
Powder selection can play a part as well. A denser powder takes up less space allowing for deeper seating depths. A very lightly compacted load is ideal for consistency and accuracy. So I will frequently deep seat a bullet so it lightly rests on the powder.
 
Lyman 357 magnum data. One bullet is 40gr heavier, so it should get less velocity at the same pressure.
9ftqsw.jpg

9ftqws.jpg

Hmm...these loads look very similar, anyone like to take a guess why?


Here's a clue.....
9ftq8d.jpg
In this case I would look at the H110 along with the few that are used in both. The biggest variable between these projectiles is that the FTX has a much heavier jacket to hold up to rifle velocities and the JHP has a thinner jacket and a soft lead core and would fly apart on impact at rifle velocities.
When I started loading for 350 Legend and 450 Bushmaster I used standard 9mm & 45acp bullets for a lot of my initial loads because I had them laying around. Regular JHP's would pretty much disintegrate in the first jug with the base making it to the second. FTX's would mushroom nicely and end up in the 4th jug.
 
Top