COAL using campro 230g FCP RN

FoxAlpha

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
265   0   0
Location
Calgary
Can't seem to find any "official" load data on these bullets, and I'm struggling with seating depth and crimp.

As I'm new to reloading, I'm probably over complicating this but I'd rather be safe then sorry.

The closest load data I can find is hodgons website recommending a 230gr LRN at 1.200 COAL, whereas my Lyman 49th is calling for 1.272.

I've tried the plunk test and these bullets only start to pass the test at around 1.235-1.230 COAL.


Anyone have any information that could help out?
 
based on what you said then i would seat them to 1.200 and call it a day, start low and work up to what ever load the gun likes.
 
Where did you find that on the campro site?
I went through every heading on the menu and couldn't find anything.
Is it because I'm stuck using nothing but an iPhone?

Ha, yeah, ditch the iphone!!

If you check the product pages of any campro bullet (for example this one for hollow point http://www.campro.ca/en/products/bullets/45/45-230-tchp-fcp) there's a link. It looks like this:

Weight (grain/gram): 230 / 14.9
Sectional Density: .162
Cannelure: No
Diameter (in/mm): .451 / 11.455
Cupper thickness (in/µm): .008 / 203
Quantity (box or bag): 500
Load data  Download

They have that for every bullet type.
 
The OAL's provided in data can be ignored for the most part. Find your own OAL and start at the minimum charge.
 
The OAL's provided in data can be ignored for the most part. Find your own OAL and start at the minimum charge.

This. Reloading recipies are not meant to be prescriptive. They are starting suggestions for an exercise in experimentation.
 
This. Reloading recipies are not meant to be prescriptive. They are starting suggestions for an exercise in experimentation.

That's a hard pill to swallow when you're new to reloading and you're terrified being .001" under COAL or .1 grains over on your charge will cause "yer d!ck to fall off".
 
That's a hard pill to swallow when you're new to reloading and you're terrified being .001" under COAL or .1 grains over on your charge will cause "yer d!ck to fall off".

It won't. Well, mine won't fall, I'll let you handle yours. But even double charges most likely will only make you stain your underwear.

The things that can be really dangerous:
1-pistol powder in a rifle case. 25grn of titegroup in a 223 will likely not be really funny;
2-Squib load, followed by normal ammos shot in a blocked barrel. Especially true for a magnum calibre.

If you look at most load datas, even their hottest load never reach the maximum SAAMI pressure of the cartridge. And guns must support 125% of the SAAMI pressure. So you have some wiggle room. Keep in mind there are complete idi*ts who have been reloading for decades and still haven't lost a finger. I don't mean to say you shouldn't be careful, or that the system is idiotproof, but the dangers isn't to be .01'' short or. 1grn of powder too much.
 
Can't seem to find any "official" load data on these bullets, and I'm struggling with seating depth and crimp.

As I'm new to reloading, I'm probably over complicating this but I'd rather be safe then sorry.

The closest load data I can find is hodgons website recommending a 230gr LRN at 1.200 COAL, whereas my Lyman 49th is calling for 1.272.

I've tried the plunk test and these bullets only start to pass the test at around 1.235-1.230 COAL.


Anyone have any information that could help out?

I have been seating that particular bullet to 1.260", with just enough "crimp" to remove the bell(ie: no separate crimping step). This has produced the best results for me; feeding consistently well and cycling my G41 consistently with powder charges from 4.3 - 5.0gr of Bullseye. 4.3-4.4gr has been a really nice load for the range, 4.5-4.6gr seems to duplicate the Federal factory ammo I've shot, and 5.0gr was kind of excessive for just putting holes in paper, but was manageable.

I have tried 1.225" and 1.250" with powder charges on the lower end of the scale(4.2-4.5gr Bullseye), but 1.260" just seems to perform the best out of my particular firearm in terms of feeding so I tend to stay in the 4.3-4.5gr range for plinking. That keeps you in the 715-745fps range if memory serves, but I'd have to check my notes to be sure.
Your results may vary.
 
This. Reloading recipies are not meant to be prescriptive. They are starting suggestions for an exercise in experimentation.

That's a little more loose than I think you intend. Yeah, there's some fudging room. But when reloading sites and manuals give you a max weight for the charge they typically mean it.

FA, just take note that the COAL makes a relatively minor difference. For example at Hodgdon's online reloading page they list the min to max range for Titegroup as 4.0 to 4.8 grains for a cast LRN (similar shape and length bullet) for a 1.20" COAL. Campro lists 4.4 to 4.8 for their longer 1.25" length.

When I loaded some Campro bullets a while back I opted for the 1.25 length simply because at 1.20 it was starting to look like it was going to end up crimping onto the beginning of the ogive nose shape. And that's not a good thing. But since you posted that your barrel won't "plunk test" nicely unless the rounds are down around 1.230 1.25 is going to be too long for your gun. Given that I'd aim at 1.220 and call it a day... unless you find that it's something else causing the issue. Be sure you're not crimping too tightly. If you do it'll bulge the bullet and that may be what is riding in the chamber and preventing a nice "plunk". I see that Campro gives you a crimp measurement. I'd try that and I'd also try for a crimp where the mouth rim is about .005 smaller than the skirt diameter half way to the end of the bullet (not the head, the bullet). You want the crimp to be there but not to be too radical.

It's especially important if you are not seating and crimping in different dies. If you're doing a combination in one die such as a Lee set then it's more important to really minimize the crimp. Otherwise it's crimping while still pressing the bullet into place. And that could possibly bulge the bullet and cause it to ride against the leade of the chamber. The "leade" being the groove diameter section just ahead of the lip that catches the casing mouth to headspace the cartridge. If the bullet is bulging to that size or larger it won't "plunk" correctly.

If you don't have room on your press for a fourth die so you can crimp separate from seating I'd consider seating with only enough crimp to close the flare of the mouth. Then run it through the crimp die after with the seater drawn up about 3 or 4 full turns and the die body screwed in an 1/8 to 1/4 turn to give you a proper crimp without touching the bullet. Separating the operations will aid in avoiding a pressure bulge from crimping while seating. Or learn to set the crimp VERY carefully for just a minimal amount.

The other issue is how well the gun cycles ammo of a given length. The rounds have to slide up from the mag and turn the corner into the chamber easily. So try some at 1.25 and a few slightly shorter

All else being equal moving in .05 will end up with the muzzle velocity going up around 5%. So it does make a difference. But it's relatively minor.
 
That's a little more loose than I think you intend. Yeah, there's some fudging room. But when reloading sites and manuals give you a max weight for the charge they typically mean it.

FORUM DISCLAIMER: I'll start by saying that I don't disagree with anything you said and I'm not trying to pick a fight.

Now with that out of the way....

I have loads that go under/over the min/max suggested charge listed for a particular powder. Heck, from book to book the min/max for a given powder changes. There are simply too many variable. I think curseyou's statement holds a lot of value. Reloading is an exercise in experimentation but that experiment should always start on the safe side of things. e.g. Currently one of my favourite 9mm loads is a 147gr CamPro over 3.8gr of WST which travels at 891 ft/s (130 PF) out of my Ruger SR9/9E. You'll have a hard time finding any book that lists WST for 9mm and when you do it will likely be for a 124gr projectile. Without experimentation I wouldn't have been able to develop this load.
 
Last edited:
Discussion is good. It's how we can learn.

The way you describe how you got to that load shows that you approached it with all the proper and safe practices that should go into reloading. And for someone that is well along the reloading road that's fine. You used a powder that you knew is appropriate to handgun loading and worked up your own load for a bullet you could not find listed for that powder. You're very likely also using a fair amount of background and "similar powder" information in working up that load and monitored the gun and primers for over pressure signs. All great stuff and perfectly acceptable when done with care, knowledge and research. To a large extent I'm sure that's how the loading data manuals were done as well.

But given FA's self proclaimed newbiness I felt it's not really the right time to be suggesting that the manuals are just a launching off point that are only suitable as a rough guide.... which is the impression that curseyou's wording gave me when I read his post.

Now his response was in reply to your own;

The OAL's provided in data can be ignored for the most part. Find your own OAL and start at the minimum charge.

which I thought was fine. But from where I was reading I felt that curseyou's wording was a bit over the top.


_____________
To add a little more data to the actual loading experience as related to COAL. Back when I was testing loads and COAL's for my Shadow back I did find that altering the seating depth by .010" produced roughly 30 to 35 fps variation at the chronometer. I did this because the suggested COAL from the manual I was using at the time turned out that it would not "plunk" test into my Shadow barrel. And a bit of internet searching turned up that CZ owners all seated shorter. So I ran my own reloading experiment with three small batches all the same other than three different COAL's that were done in .010" steps. It showed that there's some effect but it's fairly minimal.
 
Those OAL numbers are usually maximum length. You can go shorter within reason.

No. The posted OAL is the OAL at which they get a given pressure/velocity given a powder load. If you go shorter you'll increase pressure (and maybe velocity a bit, but not so much). You can safely go longer as long as it passes the plunk test, but shorter will increase pressure, which can be a bad thing.
 
Those OAL numbers are usually maximum length. You can go shorter within reason.

I'd look into that a little more. For example on the Hodgdon reloading web site they give the OAL for .45ACP as 1.2". But that's really short and if I try to load at 1.2 with the Berry bullets I used (I said Campro above but checked earlier and they are Berry's) I'd be crimping onto the first of the ogive nose. So they are actually giving us a size on the shorter end of the allowable range. Most other data was more like 1.25"
 
This. Reloading recipies are not meant to be prescriptive. They are starting suggestions for an exercise in experimentation.

Very, very well said.

Round should be short enough to fit the mag and chamber without getting rifling marks.

Make it long and then seat deeper and deeper until it stops getting mark. Seat it a 1/4 turn deeper and make a note of that OAL. That is the correct OAL for that gun with that bullet.
 
Back
Top Bottom