.45 ACP 155 & 170 gr. LSWC bullets - Why bother?

I tried some .45 ACP 155 and 170 gr. LSWC bullets from Magnus Bullets recently and was disappointed.  According to Magnus, in order for them to cycle properly a larger load is required than heavier bullets and in do so the felt recoil ends up about the same.  So, I have to ask why bother?  Is there a use for these bullets that I'm not seeing?  Maybe for a revolver?  I had some Fiocchi .38 Special wadcutters that wouldn't cycle in my 52 but they worked great in my 686 revolver for example.

Felt recoil in most cases is related to slide velocity not bullet weight. That's why it's important to have proper marriage between recoil spring, mainspring and what I consider the most crucial is barrel upper lug fit. Barrel lugs retard the slide. Poorly or factory fit barrels do bare minimum to slow down the slide. Felt recoil is much less from properly fit barrel. One of the typical responses I get after building a pistol for other shooters is they can't believe how much less recoil they get. I just ordered some 155gr Magnus bullets and will be experimenting.
Jon

It must be in the stars because I had just ordered some 155 grain Magnus too. My Clark LS functions fine with 3.1 of BE under a 185 grain SWC and a 14 pound recoil spring so I will be experimenting also in the next few weeks.


Virgil

Virgil Kane wrote:It must be in the stars because I had just ordered some 155 grain Magnus too. My Clark LS functions fine with 3.1 of BE under a 185 grain SWC and a 14 pound recoil spring so I will be experimenting also in the next few weeks.


Virgil

They may work for you without changing anything.  I was having similar issues with my stock Range Officer when trying 185 gr. LSWC bullets with 3.4 grains of Bulleye.  I had to go up to 3.8 grains for it to function well enough.

beeser wrote:

Virgil Kane wrote:It must be in the stars because I had just ordered some 155 grain Magnus too. My Clark LS functions fine with 3.1 of BE under a 185 grain SWC and a 14 pound recoil spring so I will be experimenting also in the next few weeks.


Virgil

They may work for you without changing anything.  I was having similar issues with my stock Range Officer when trying 185 gr. LSWC bullets with 3.4 grains of Bulleye.  I had to go up to 3.8 grains for it to function well enough.

I will see when the 155 grainers get here. It would be nice if they work but if not I'm going to play with lighter recoil springs and see how things go. My winter league is shooting at only 50 feet so if I can get descent accuracy and lighter recoil so much the better, if it were 50 yards I wouldn't even bother trying these lightweights.

I feel like I'm trying to reinvent the wheel by trying these light bullets, I'm sure many others have tried.  I'm a hands on type of guy so even if they say it doesn't work I have to check it out for myself. I'll report back when I get these little gems.


Virgil

I just started casting about midway through this year and most of what Im casting is a 170gr swc.  NOE mold says its a 155 but with my lead they are coming out at 169.8-170.3.  Sized on a Star, thanks to my friend Lee, to .4515.  4.1gr of WST crimped to .469.  14# spring.    The lead is free and the lube costs me about .5 cents.  Shot them for short line outdoors and have been shooting them indoors at 50'.  I like them a lot.  I have 4000 Zero 185's in the loading room but havent loaded any since I started shooting the 170's.

Scott

The way I understand it those 155 bullets were intended for the run and gun 45 guys who wanted to make their comps work better.  Early on the Bullseye shooters tried them and found that they had to be run pretty fast to make them shoot good enough to be considered.

For those who are looking for a lighter bullet the 160 is a really good choice. Accurate, and with a light recoil they are very popular among BE shooters in Northern Ohio.
The bullets were originally cast w/ an H&G mold and ran closer to 165 grains. Mold no was 242s. Later, from the machines they were a couple of thousands shorter and weighed 160 gr.  Quality Cast was the best source but I understand they have shut down. I got some excellent ones from a co. named Valiant. Sorry I have no info on that co.
Ron Habegger

I and many friends shoot a 160 gr 45acp lswc, they are very accurate at 25 yards, the load is 4.4-4.6 of bullseye.

DavidR wrote:I and many friends shoot a 160 gr 45acp lswc, they are very accurate at 25 yards, the load is 4.4-4.6 of bullseye.

Assuming your loads for a heavier bullet are less, does the felt recoil end up about the same?  Did you change the recoil spring for the 160 gr bullet?

no spring change, the 160s have a snap, the reason many of us shoot them is they are cheap from our source and they are accurate, If I didn't have them id shoot a 185 at 25 and a 200  lswc at  50

Over the yrs I tried several bullets @ 50 but always came back to the 160. I never found a bullet which yielded better scores for me, so it was kept simple, one load.


The powder chg was always close to 4.15 of BE. The amt was adjusted for variation in lot strength. 10# Wolf recoil springs,  the std Colt mainsprg was cut to 1.85" and an extended ejector installed.

I used a pair of Giles HS's as supplied by him. When red dots came into use the early Aimpoints were very heavy and the 'smith who mounted mine put a soft recoil sprg in the gun as the dots weighed near a pound. No info on that particular spring. Much later Aimpoint SC9000's (great scope!!) were used with a 9# Wolf recoil spring.

I have severe rotator cuff damage and arthritis in the shoulders so don't shoot the .45 anymore    but when trying to hang on I used the 160, lightest dot I could find, a 6# Wolf and something like 3.5 or 3.6 of BE. I found a point at which lowering the sprg and using just enough pdr to function did not reduce the recoil. Since gun wt was a factor for me also I gave in and shoot .38's....but not much.

Ron Habegger