.45 ACP expanders and swaged bullets

First topic message reminder :

After less than stellar results with my normally "very accurate" circa 1924 Colt Government Model at last weekend's 50 foot match, I noted that the barrel's grooves showed less than full contact with the old Star 185gr Swaged LSWCHPs which were substituted for the usual cast bullets. Pulled an unfired round apart and found that most of the bullet shank was 0.449" diameter. The taper crimp area was smaller yet. 
Dummy, me!

To make matters worse, all of my other spare expanders were no bigger than 0.450" diameter. Not feeling the desire to mess with the .45AR or various .45 Colt set-ups, I have ordered some expanders from Photo Escape. 

Little things....

That old Colt was built right. It locks up superbly and shoots very close to POA with 200gr bullets. It won't win a serious bullseye match but it was more than adequate for IDPA, etc., back when ammo was cheap. Figured it needed an outing or three during it's 100th year.

james r chapman wrote:Those old swaged soft lead bullets should expand easily to fill the bore with a decent load. What was your load??

3.8gr of Bullseye. Taper crimp ~0.469". Bullet shoulder ~0.062" above case mouth using a seater that contacts the shoulder. Essentially as recommended many times on this site. 

jmoore wrote:The current FCD installed after reading the replies has about 0.005" clearance. 

I assume that you left out a zero there. (typo)

My FCD is about .0005" larger than the case with a seated bullet. My carbide ring measures .473" ID, which is at the upper range of the Lee tolerance. The first FCD I bought was at the lower range and was at .4705". That's why people either like them or hate them.

inthebeech wrote:The bullet does not swage down friend.  There isn't nearly enough hoop strength in the .010'ish inch thick brass, even with BHN 9 swaged bullets.  

OK, so I got curious.

I normally use my own powder funnel/expander, but I reverted back to a Dillon powder funnel/expander for .45 that measures .448", which is smaller than mine. Loaded a few Zero swaged LSWC in Speer cases and pulled the bullets. They are swaged from .452" down to .450".

Did the same with Blazer cases and they did not swage at all. Still .452" when pulled.

Case wall thickness appears to be about the same with a quick check without setting up for an accurate measurement. Speer possibly slightly thicker by .0005"

DA/SA wrote:

inthebeech wrote:The bullet does not swage down friend.  There isn't nearly enough hoop strength in the .010'ish inch thick brass, even with BHN 9 swaged bullets.  

OK, so I got curious.

I normally use my own powder funnel/expander, but I reverted back to a Dillon powder funnel/expander for .45 that measures .448", which is smaller than mine. Loaded a few Zero swaged LSWC in Speer cases and pulled the bullets. They are swaged from .452" down to .450".

Did the same with Blazer cases and they did not swage at all. Still .452" when pulled.

Case wall thickness appears to be about the same with a quick check without setting up for an accurate measurement. Speer possibly slightly thicker by .0005"

Greetings,

Pleased to see some real test data. Thanks!!!

Question on your process, however.

Did you taper crimp either of the two loads? If yes, how much?

If crimped, is it possible the reduced case mouth is "sizing" the bullet smaller whilst pulling?

I have not conducted your test to any great extent.

Cheers,

Dave

Crimp was the same on both case types.

Ran out of time tonight, but OD of cases differed after seating bullet. Speer case was smaller OD as well as possibly slightly heavier wall thickness. 

I have run into differing brass hardness before. Possibly at play here as well. Seems odd being deep drawn though.

I may add Federal and ITT cases tomorrow if I have time.

fc60 wrote:If crimped, is it possible the reduced case mouth is "sizing" the bullet smaller whilst pulling?

Hello Dave,

I considered that, but I use the same crimp with the expander that I would normally use, and there is no reduced diameter of the same swaged LSWC when pulled.

I tried a Federal case this morning using the reduced expander, and the LSWC was swaged down .001".

The only change to my press/process for the test was to use a reduced diameter expander. 

I went through all of this previously when I first started loading swaged lead LSWC. I bought some expanders from PhotoEscape, and also started making my own to arrive at a size that is .001" below the LSWC diameter and does not reduce the diameter of the swaged LSWC in the cases that I use.

As to the obturation question with using reduced size LSWC projectiles, I may look into that as well at some point. For now, though, I'm pretty happy with the ammo I load using my expander of choice.

One thing I do know for sure is that I have never seen any trace of leading in my barrels shooting Zero swaged LSWC, where I see that as a fairly common complaint.

Thanks!

DA/SA wrote:

jmoore wrote:The current FCD installed after reading the replies has about 0.005" clearance. 

I assume that you left out a zero there. (typo)

My FCD is about .0005" larger than the case with a seated bullet. My carbide ring measures .473" ID, which is at the upper range of the Lee tolerance. The first FCD I bought was at the lower range and was at .4705". That's why people either like them or hate them.

No, five thousandths is correct. The old one (made for .45 ACP versus the current .45 Colt FCD) measures about like yours at 0.473". It SHOULD have cleared the brass by a wee bit in the bullet seating area, but just to be certain it felt prudent to reduce the possibility. It still produces a good taper crimp, so why not? Surprising how much taper is allowed in the .45 ACP case. The base can measure 0.476", I think, and the rim 0.480".

FYI, most of my brass has been resized many times, much of it dating to the late 1980s. (I got paid to shoot factory ammo back then, and my employers didn't want the used brass.)

However, swaging occurred with new Starline brass as well.

I was going to try a new load this weekend, so I took this a bit farther.

I took ten rounds that were loaded with the undersize expander/swaged down projectiles, and ten that were loaded with my regular expander which has little to no swaging down of the projectile. Nothing else on the press/process was changed. 

Ten rounds with the undersized expander. Rounds felt weak and not one ejected properly. (four .22 holes were already in the target)


Ten rounds using my regular expander. Felt much better and eight ejected cleanly with only two feeling weaker and not ejection.


As to obturation making up for a swaged down projectile, you can make your own conclusion there.

All shot at 25 yards. I saw no reason to move to 50 yds after the first target.

DA/SA wrote:

fc60 wrote:If crimped, is it possible the reduced case mouth is "sizing" the bullet smaller whilst pulling?

Hello Dave,

I considered that, but I use the same crimp with the expander that I would normally use, and there is no reduced diameter of the same swaged LSWC when pulled.

I tried a Federal case this morning using the reduced expander, and the LSWC was swaged down .001".

The only change to my press/process for the test was to use a reduced diameter expander. 

I went through all of this previously when I first started loading swaged lead LSWC. I bought some expanders from PhotoEscape, and also started making my own to arrive at a size that is .001" below the LSWC diameter and does not reduce the diameter of the swaged LSWC in the cases that I use.

As to the obturation question with using reduced size LSWC projectiles, I may look into that as well at some point. For now, though, I'm pretty happy with the ammo I load using my expander of choice.

One thing I do know for sure is that I have never seen any trace of leading in my barrels shooting Zero swaged LSWC, where I see that as a fairly common complaint.

Thanks!

This ^^^^
I was getting some leading with Zero LSWC. Not just one barrel either. I remembered some posts Jerry Keefer wrote about cases slightly sizing the softer bullets down. Picked the largest size die I had and purchased a expander from PhotoEscape. No more leading.
Just my very non scientific experience.

With the Redding dual ring 45acp sizer and Photoescape PTU for SWCs and Redding micro adjust crimp die with 0.464" crimp, when I pull the Zero 185gr swchp (same shank length as the 200) the bases still measure 0.452 as well. I haven't tested it in other configurations, but was worried the extra crimp would hit the bases and with this die mix it does not from what I've observed.

I ran 50 of the previously troublesome Starline cases through the press yesterday using the 185gr Stars. Pulled some bullets after seating but before taper crimping. Only the lube was thinner. No change to the bullets. Still 0.452". Even with the "big" Photo Escape expander and no FCD last ditch sizing, loaded case OD over the bullets measured 0.472". taper crimp a conservative 0.469". Might go a little more if testing warrants it.