45 ACP Hand Loads.............

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:DHow bout Frankenstein????

That is one I have not seen or pulled out in YEARS on top of YEARS........... I believe we put some sort of really hot 45 something or other barrel on that gun. Then after ONE magazine I got rid of that crap, and the 500 pieces of brass we had for it. It was AWFUL. Twist your damn wrist off. One magazine of that and it was DONE.......... Frankenstein is in there somewhere????????????............ But back in its 45 ACP barrel as I remember. I forgot now what that hot 45 was? Sure you remember.
 
Yeah, OK got it..... wasn't it 45 Rowland??? Something like that????
Yes it was. BUT we exceeded 1,000 FPS in 230 ball and Regular 45acp. That gun was tough!! Of course there was the time we shot 9mm so hot the Pachmayr grips would bow out from the frame on each shot. We have done some pretty goofy stuff to still have all our fingers!!!
 
Hell, now we can just put stuff in the Ransom Rest and Bang away!!! 230 Ball at 1,250...yeah that sounds about right!!!!!
 
Hell, now we can just put stuff in the Ransom Rest and Bang away!!! 230 Ball at 1,250...yeah that sounds about right!!!!!


I remember shooting one magazine full of that crap, and I ended up getting rid of the barrel, and then traded 500 pieces of 45 Rowland I bought for the project for 500 pieces of 45 Colt. I came out great on that deal, and was happy to be rid of 45 Rowland.

Then I put the Frankenstein gun back together and stuck it in a hole somewhere and has not been fired since........I think Thelbert put a new front site on that gun, and it was about a foot tall, and I was too lazy to mess with it anymore. And where ever it is, it still is.........
 
Mike,

I see you use Starline brass alot. A few years back, I ran across a stamping company called Jagemann. They stamp their own brass cases for many calibers.
Have you ever used any Jagemann brass in your testing?
I ran across some Jagemann brass before, I think it was 10mm. Was good brass as far as I remember.
 
The last couple of batches of 45 ACP brass I received here were from Everglades. Mixed Commercial brass. Mixed in with that brass was a bunch of that damned small primer brass most of it Federal. What a pain! The bastard that decided that was a good idea needs his ass kicked, as far as I care anyway. So anyway, been tossing that stuff to the side and see that I have collected way more than I wish I had! I am thinking I might load that junk up sometime, nothing special of course, just some cast loads or what have you, and maybe even do a bit of test work to see if I can understand what the idiot was thinking when they decided small primers were a good thing in 45 ACP?
 
Our Frankenstein gun was a gun that was put together by Don Carroway. It had the best of everything available in 1985. It was never put together for Looks. It was a gun overbuilt for Experimental purposes. It has served us well. From a standpoint of personal observation, it is a gun you could bet your life on. It kinda reminds me of …..me. Not very good lookin but works real good.
 
The last couple of batches of 45 ACP brass I received here were from Everglades. Mixed Commercial brass. Mixed in with that brass was a bunch of that damned small primer brass most of it Federal. What a pain! The bastard that decided that was a good idea needs his ass kicked, as far as I care anyway. So anyway, been tossing that stuff to the side and see that I have collected way more than I wish I had! I am thinking I might load that junk up sometime, nothing special of course, just some cast loads or what have you, and maybe even do a bit of test work to see if I can understand what the idiot was thinking when they decided small primers were a good thing in 45 ACP?
I can tell you that with most powders, you will see 30-50fps less velocity with regular small primers, compared to large primers. I have seen a few powders that showed more than 100fps less, though. The ones I can remember, off the top of my head, were PB (discontinued), Trailboss, and most recently, Sport Pistol. I also discovered that most of that lost velocity will come back with small magnum primers. When I work up 45acp loads, I always work with large primers, just so I can compare my results directly against the published load data. I will then run a test with small magnum primers just to compare, which is all I will use in small primer 45 now.

I actually prefer small primer 45acp, as I can leave my press setup for small primers. If a larger primer case happens to sneak into the mix, it won’t bring things to a halt, I will just end up without a primer in that case. If I am loading large primer brass and a small primer case sneaks in, it obviously won’t fit and will bring things to a halt.

Oh, and if you find the NT version from either Winchester or Federal, not only are they small primer, they are also crimped primer pockets.
 
Last edited:
Our Frankenstein gun was a gun that was put together by Don Carroway. It had the best of everything available in 1985. It was never put together for Looks. It was a gun overbuilt for Experimental purposes. It has served us well. From a standpoint of personal observation, it is a gun you could bet your life on. It kinda reminds me of …..me. Not very good lookin but works real good.
I'd like to see that bad boy my next trip to Battery Oaks. I'll take function over form 9 times out of 10.
 
I can tell you that with most powders, you will see 30-50fps less velocity with regular small primers, compared to large primers.

Exactly what I would expect.

Thanks for the info, I don't think I even have any small magnum? Would have to look. I ran some tests with some small rifle 308 and it was dismal. I can see your point with using small primer brass on small primer press. Thing is, I have several Dillons set up, one small primer for handgun and another small for rifle. The rest are all large. The only reason I would even use the small brass is just because I have it, and I really hate to toss it in the trash. Figured I would just load it with some good cast loads. Without small magnum, I will probably just add 1/2 gr or so of powder, maybe make up for it....??? Thanks, will see what I can come up with.

Will look for Frankenstein tomorrow........ If I find it, will send it over to Battery Oaks.........
 
Without small magnum, I will probably just add 1/2 gr or so of powder, maybe make up for it....??? Thanks, will see what I can come up with.
With the low charges typical of pistol powders, I would say about 0.2gn would be plenty.
 
The last couple of batches of 45 ACP brass I received here were from Everglades. Mixed Commercial brass. Mixed in with that brass was a bunch of that damned small primer brass most of it Federal. What a pain! The bastard that decided that was a good idea needs his ass kicked, as far as I care anyway.


I agree with you!!

They're the spawn of the devil.....
 
With the low charges typical of pistol powders, I would say about 0.2gn would be plenty.

I have a long way to go before actually getting to those damn things, but when I do, we will study them a bit and see what is what with them. You are probably correct....

I agree with you!!

They're the spawn of the devil.....

I don't know, some idiot must have been having a vision or something. I hate the concept, whether rifle or handgun. It causes nothing but issues, and reduces productivity. Yeah, "Spawn of the Devil", sounds about right to me.

I am going out back and process some brass now and get it ready, but this is the good stuff, New Starline, and loading some more 120 Lehighs with WSF........... Then later back to that batch of Evergreen and the RMR 185s, and then I might have time to think about those Small Primer 45 ACPs......... if something else don't get in the way first. Which most likely it will...........Priorities!
 
If y’all wanna give away your small primer 45 brass, I’ll give you my address. :D
 
I can tell you that with most powders, you will see 30-50fps less velocity with regular small primers, compared to large primers.
I also discovered that most of that lost velocity will come back with small magnum primers.
FWIW, here's a table of primer energy (CCI only):CCI-primer-energy-1280x854.jpg
(Don't remember where I got it. Looks like maybe p. 66 of somebody's reloading manual.) :)
 
If y’all wanna give away your small primer 45 brass, I’ll give you my address. :D
Ha. I’ve actually traded large primer for small primer before. I usually pick up more 45 than I shoot, so I always have a surplus, but I am finding more and more small primer these days.

FWIW, here's a table of primer energy (CCI only)
Interesting.

Recently, I noticed that the new Sport Pistol powder seemed to be sensitive to primer types in 45, so I tried various primers for comparison. I remember the CCI small magnum primers actually appeared weaker than the CCI regular small primers. I even tried primers from different lot numbers because I didn’t believe the results. There is more to the equation than ft-lbs of energy, I suspect it is the heat generated. I often read about something called “brisance” related to primers that I don’t fully understand.
 
.....I often read about something called “brisance” related to primers that I don’t fully understand....


From my career in explosives I've come to understand brisance as the shattering power/ability of an explosive compound.
 
Last edited:
.....I often read about something called “brisance” related to primers that I don’t fully understand....


From my career in explosives I've come to understand brisance as the shattering power/ability of an explosive compound.
Yeah, still kinda hard to wrap my head around that "shattering power" statement. Shatter what? I mean, how do they measure or quantify that? And how does that relate to igniting powder?
 
Last edited:
Yeah, still kinda hard to wrap my head around that "shattering power" statement. Shatter what? I mean, how do they measure or quantify that? And how does that relate to igniting powder?


Shatter the target material. Becomes important in demolition depending on the intended result. Push, cut, break, blast pressure, production of lethal fragments, etc. As such, the type of explosive chosen is tailored to the results desired. In some cases a small arms powder charge needs somewhat more "shattering effects" to be efficient. I've seen this most often with heavily compressed BP in SAA ctgs....breaks up the pellet for a fuller burn. Rather rare requirement though, heat over time seems to more often be the efficiency requirement with most smokeless saa cartridges as they are not typically compressed into a solid pellet.

So, from an applications perspective, anti aircraft artillery. A heavy, thick walled projectile intended to produce fragments needs to be shattered by a more brisant explosive. Perhaps with a low brisance filler it breaks in two, two relatively low velocity but large fragments headed toward the target. With a higher brisance filler in the warhead, when it bursts that thick walled projectile breaks into 300 smaller but high velocity fragments.

Or with a primer, a more brisant primer penetrates more deeply into a large power charge, moving grains apart, more of the surface area of the powder is ignited at once.

Simplification for sure, but simple, shatter.
 
Last edited:
Shatter the target material. Becomes important in demolition depending on the intended result. Push, cut, break, blast pressure, production of lethal fragments, etc. As such, the type of explosive chosen is tailored to the results desired. In some cases a small arms powder charge needs somewhat more "shattering effects" to be efficient. I've seen this most often with heavily compressed BP in SAA ctgs....breaks up the pellet for a fuller burn. Rather rare requirement though, heat over time seems to more often be the efficiency requirement with most smokeless saa cartridges as they are not typically compressed into a solid pellet.
Interesting point about the BP pellets.

How much of that "shatter the target material" was derived from mathematical computations as opposed to trial-and-error? Nothing wrong with trial-and-error. I will take real world empirical data over theory any day. :)

I know a lot of engineers that can explain why something happened the way it did, after the fact. The really good ones can tell you exactly what it is going to do before hand. But that usually is the result of experience, not theory. That is what I like about reloading - I make a change, observe the results, and try to understand why I sometimes don't get the result expected.
 
Don't know the math. I seem to recall that brisant explosives may be those with much higher decomposition velocities but Im not sure if that velocity is the be all/end all of defining a brisant explosives. I suppose its a matter of both math and validation tests on targets and we learn how to push or break a given material.
 
Back
Top Bottom