Glock Talk banner

OK, I am going to buy a Glock 45 ACP...

5003 Views 77 Replies 31 Participants Last post by  spatin
I was thinking the 30S however it seems there is more recoil with that being lighter than the 30SF or the 30 gen 4 which is is essentially the same as the 30SF with a few enhancements.
Whichever one will be an edc and I will compete with it for practice and to gain competency.

My question now is about powder. I have a 43 & 19/4 and have only used TG to reload my practice and competition rounds due to the deal I got on it, and have a ton left... If TG is a top choice then fine however I don't want to use it just because I have so much if there is better..?
Opinions please...
Thanks in advance from G!
  • Like
Reactions: friej
1 - 20 of 22 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
677 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Just understand, if you decide you want to make nice round holes with those 200gr LSWC's. while possible with a Glock subcompact, the OAL is going to be REALLY fussy.

PS - reading about someone who enthusiastically proclaims they are getting their first 45 Auto handgun makes one feel really old. :(
Ok, so the 230gr will be easier to load/start with? Also don't feel aged... I shot 45 on the 101st Airborne Pistol team in 1974, so let's not discuss age...
:cool:
 

· Registered
Joined
·
677 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I used to run TG in my old G21s. Cast 230s on top of 4.5 grains at 1.250" Chrono'd about 740 fps to make Major. TG is not the first choice for .45acp though, it would be 5 grains of W231, because of the lower density takes up more volume. Slower powders work better in .45acps.
Thanks 9x45, this is the info I need and can learn from as I need to understand the "why"
Cheers!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
677 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Never a problem with hi-tek coated RN out of my G30 gen 3. As others noted, SWC can be a challenge. I've also found that my G30 didn't play well with loads that are too light (RSA or slide weight issue??), so I use a couple of tenths heavier charge (231) than I can get away with in my 1911s.
were the loads that wouldn't run it too light or had the gun just not been fired enough?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
677 Posts
Discussion Starter · #21 ·
Example of density, WST, Ramshot Comp are about the same burn rate as TG but both are 1.5x more loft, meaning they take up 1.5x the space in the case as the same charge of TG. Both are a liver grey color too, makes seeing the charge just easier. Yeah, yeah, I know, powder check die, blah, blah, I still visually verify each powder drop.
So taking up more space is good for performance or just being able to see the charge in the case easier?
Only 9 but I have been reloading for about three years so not brand new to it. What would make a soft shooting load for practice & competition and meter well in my 650?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
677 Posts
Discussion Starter · #34 ·
Actually it isn't quite as simple, but load density is a factor in how efficient some powders work. With faster powders (like we have been discussing in this thread), most will work fine at any load density (how much the case is filled). As you move to slower powders load density becomes a bigger factor in performance (efficiency).
Thanks WW, would you mind a short explanation on the slower powders as noted above in bold?
Thx!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
677 Posts
Discussion Starter · #35 ·
I use Bullseye with a 230 coated for a moderate 45 load, naturally, that works great in my 30S, 30, 41. I've given up on SWC for those same guns. My Colt wad gun however loves a LSWC.

I've found that AA5 works very well if you want a full power load. I was using HS-6 but I think AA5 is better.

I have used Tight Group and HP38 with 200gr RNFP coated and they work well but they do seem to give more of sharper recoil and are not as accurate as Bullseye.
Is this due to being double base powders?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
677 Posts
Discussion Starter · #51 ·
I can try. ;)

With slower burning powders, pressure is a larger part of their burn efficiency. Slower powders that are started with a lot of free space left in the case, don't get a chance to get up to their ideal pressure for burn efficiency before the bullet starts moving.

Very fast powders burn relatively efficiently even when starting with quite a bit of free space, most even need a little as a buffer to assure pressures don't spike too quickly, causing an over pressure. That is why OAL (or more accurately, seating depth) matters so much more with faster powders, versus slower powders.

My SD load practice simulator (loaded to simulate my carry round of 124gr +P HST) uses 6.2gr of BE-86, a powder quite a bit slower than say WST, Clays, Bullseye, Titegroup, etc.). This powder charge is over 100% load density, that is, it is compressed. It burns very cleanly in this setup. If I go down to say Hodgdon non-+P start load charge level of BE-86, I get some free space in the case after I seat the bullet to my normal OAL. This load burns pretty dirty, with a fair amount of "debris" floating around after the shot. Combustion was less than efficient. It still will go bang, you are just using a lot of powder for a pretty anemic velocity and some unburned/partially powder.

If I charge the same case with a middle of the book load Titegroup charge and seat the bullet so it is a compressed charge, I would get a case head kaboom, an ejected magazine and maybe a broken gun.

Make sense?
Thank you WW, yes it makes sense however the more one learns the more questions there are! What charts do I look at to be able to research and cross reference stats to make a determination?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
677 Posts
Discussion Starter · #54 ·
The best place to start is the powder makers own web sites. If a powder isn't listed for a load you are looking for it was probably left off for a reason. Sometimes it is because their ballistician's found something they didn't like about the combination, sometimes for marketing reasons where they just would rather hawk a particular offering. Sometimes you won't find a fast powder, heavy bullet combination in their data because there isn't a big enough margin for error from their point of view. Many times you will find, especially with target loads, that something fast for a heavy bullet is everyone's favorite and yet nothing in the load data exists.

There seems to be a great reference work that Dudel has posted a number of times here that outlines all the different powders and their characteristics. Maybe PM him and he can provide a link.

For my own part, most everything is from experience, trying different powders and different loads and learning myself what they do. A burn rate chart (Hodgdon, Lapua (VV powders) and others publish these) can get you in the ball park of what to expect. Another way is just to ask here and guys will tell you what they like.
All is much appreciated, I'll stay on this...
 

· Registered
Joined
·
677 Posts
Discussion Starter · #63 ·
I have, love, and carry a Glock 30. My first Glock, first gun and I'll never part with it. It's still the gun I carry the most.

I've used TG but it's not my favorite in any caliber let alone 45. It's ok for reduced revolver loads. I don't like the small volume charge weights and the small difference between min and max charges. It burns hot, I don't like the recoil impulse and can pressure spike quick. It can be accurate and isn't position sensitive. If I need a fast powder I tend to use Bullseye, Red Dot or WST. WST is my favorite for target/plinking 45. It's clean, economical, the recoil impulse is awesome and I like how it smells! You won't be able to duplicate factory ball with it though. 4.2 gr. behind a 230 Lead gets me 725 fps out of my G30, 755 fps out of my Blackhawk 5.5" and 850 fps out if my 16" carbine. Unique, CFE Pistol and Power Pistol are good choices for standard power loads.

I have a 45 Shield and am still amazed at how well that little gun shoots. I thought it would be a handful but it isn't. I got it mainly as a smaller gun to carry while mountain biking.
Thx FFM!
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top