1873 Short Rifle load tests

[jager3]

I recently traded in my old PACT chronograph (that had a lot of abuse) for a new XP-1 unit, which has coincided with testing a new 1873 Short Rifle from Uberti. After reading all the posts on this site and others (and the warnings!), I sought out to find a 250-255gr cast load that was accurate and had a target velocity of 1250fps out of my 20" BBL. Well, I found several that worked that would also work in my 7 1/2" Beretta Stampede. The following loads do not exceed CIP European standards (should meet SAAMI specs as well):

1) 17.0/SR4759/WLP/Starline (SL)/250cast @ 1350fps(avg)
2) 9.0/Unique/CCI/SL/250 @ 1240fps
3) 12.9/Blue Dot/WLP/ST @ 1300fps
4) 18.5/IMR4227/Fed155/SL @ 1260
5) 11.0/AA5/CCI/SL/250 @ 1250
6) 16.5/2400/CCI/SL/250 @ 1360

I tried H4198 (3 work up loads), as suggested by one poster, but accuracy never appeared and velocity never reached 1200fps in my rifle. While the 2400 load was accurate, velocity deviated as much as 35fps, which is pretty much what I expected by previous experience with this powder in the .45 Colt. I used a Lee 255RF mold that cast a bullet of .453 diameter, weighing 253grs, and has an average BHN of 13 (according to Lee Hardness test kit). I lubed with Lee Alox (in a "tub"), ran through a .454 sizer (none really needed, but to preclude mold/user "miscue"), and lubed again with Alox. I loaded them to 1.570 OAL and seated them in "polished" once fired brass, using a Lee "Factory Crimp" die after seating. I did not have any cartridges that failed to feed or fire. I did fire six rounds of 240JHP jacketed bullets over 8.7gr of Unique after my cast load sesson to help (theoretically) preclude barrel leading. I am happy to report that I did not have much leading, and "clean up" was a "non-problem"! I took the side plates off during cleaning process and the inside was "clean as a whistle".
These are loads I will refine for my "deer hunting" pursuits this Fall. My plinking loads will include 5.8gr/Trail Boss/250gr cast, along with Red Dot and Bullseye loads I've used in the past. As reported here and elsewhere, it is hard to beat Unique for a "do everything" .45 Colt load, although it is not as "clean" as other powders (sorry Hobbie, I do not shoot Black Powder in cartridges, yet !) I am a very pleased with my new (to me) rifle and the performance of the new/improved PACT chronograph .

[Griff]

Would it be safe to assume your velocities reflect averages vs. high or low? If so, what was the number of shots and your SD and ED numbers for each group?

[Lefty Dude]

Would it be safe to assume your velocities reflect averages vs. high or low? If so, what was the number of shots and your SD and ED numbers for each group?

For a Free-loader ya don't want much do ya.

[Griff]

Would it be safe to assume your velocities reflect averages vs. high or low? If so, what was the number of shots and your SD and ED numbers for each group?

For a Free-loader ya don't want much do ya.

Actually yes... I don't use any of those powders now, (except Unique), and just wondered what the difference would be to my RedDot (if I had loads in the ballpark)... Since I don't have a chronograph, I couldn't duplicate his test... otherwise... I might!

[FatJackDurham]

May I ask how you measures and weighed you powder? I ask because, although I don't yet have chrony to measure the results, I spent some time last night trying to hand load some FTX rounds. My Lyman digital scale has a tendency to wander, and even checking with a balance scale, I had a devil of a time getting exactly 13.0 grains. I ended up starting with the Lyman, the went back through the loading block and rechecking each round. I ended up measuring up to three times.....

What is a better way for creating consistent loads?

[jager3]

Fatjack - I use a PACT digital powder measure and all charges were weighed to the nearest .1 grain. I shot a 5 shot "batch" of each load through the "screens" for velocity and accuracy. I too have a balance beam to verify my digital scales, but as you noted, I find the digital scales much faster and easier to work with (especially light loads). My "balance beam" doesn't get much use these days unless I suspect "volt current" problems. My normal procedure is to use a RCBS powder measure once I finalize my pistol loads, IF the load to be used is NOT maximum and the particular powder "meters" consistently well! (I've not arrived at my best loads yet with this rifle and will continue to test!) I will only publish my results if anyone is particularly interested. (I published the results this time because I was pleasantly surprised that SR4759 and IMR4227 were not only accurate, but delivered more velocity than expected! Both loads are listed in the Lyman manuals. (BTW, I am not an "ad man" for PACT but like their products and know they are made here in the U.S. of A.)

Griff - I didn't post the High, Lows, SD's, etc. because I thought my post was long enough and the "smallest" numbers among the group did not produce the best groups. I have not found that having a "small" number recorded as "standard deviation" (SD) always points to the most accurate load, but have found that having a very high number is usually indicative of poor performance related to cartridge composition (primer, bullet, powder combination). Other than the 2400 load, which I considered the SD to be rather high and "typical", none were over 15fps and some less. While I do like Unique, I find that anything less than 9.0gr starts giving "blow by" (acceptable amount, but more than the others). My 2400 is an "old lot", but I cannot verify that it is slower or faster than the newest.
Regarding Red Dot, and also Bullseye, I've found in pistols that velocities vary substantially whether you hold your pistol in the "up" position or "down" position prior to shooting each round to position the powder charge on top of the primer or away from the primer, since the charges in each case is such a "miniscule" amount (5.0 to 6.5gr) in a .45 Colt case (Just my opinion gathered from chronograph data of each powder usage, which confirms my "bias" that it is "case position sensitive").
I will load another test batch of rounds to further refine my "hunting load" and, at your request, include all the SD's, ED's, High, Low, air temperature, and elevation (sorry, had to throw in the last two ). I do have have chronograph information on shooting Red Dot in my pistol in some old data books that I'll publish when I find them, if any of you might find them of some interest. Since I am indebted to you, as well as a few others on this site, for getting me "hooked" on the 1873 rifle I will endeavor to be more precise on my "ballistic reporting" . There are few pursuits I enjoy more than experimenting with various cartridges and I find the chronograph an indispensable tool in determining the best load for the job.

[hightime]

Jager, since you brought it up. Tip up or tip down before the shot. Is there a way to use a filler to keep the powder against the primer?
I had the exact problem with my 45-110 when trying smokeless. There was no accuracy at all. I didn't even try to get smokeless to work and the full blackpowder loads shot great. I'll bet that a lot of exrta space in the shell will cause the same problem in the 45 Colt cartridge. How about a wad?
Anyone try something? Or is there another smokeless powder that more fills the case?

Owen

[jager3]

Hightime - I've not used a wad or fillers in pistol cases due to the small volume, but I've read where some shooters use them. These very fast burning powders ("tip-up, tip down" type like Bullseye) develop pressures so rapidly that I'd be afraid to add to the pressure "spike" by filling the volume with another object other than the bullet (others on this forum my have experience in this area, I have not). I have used fillers in rifle cartridges, eg. 38/55, 30/30, 45/70, .270, etc. and favor "Kapok" (bought in the "sewing section" of a department store) to hold the powder against the primer. I've had good success with Unique powder using this technique. I've found it to help consistency in velocity and an improvement in accuracy, while not depositing any "residue" in the bore or raising pressures to any discernment. My standard Kapok use is a 1/2gr, which is just a "pinch" for you "Skoul" users . Some folks prefer "cornmeal" or a wad to take up the space, but I tend to favor the less "solid" method of "taking up the space".
I have found, like most posters here, that the "disk" design of IMR's Trail Boss takes up much of the "dead space" of a case without using much powder (very economical). I use 5.8gr of it behind a 255 cast in my .45 Colt 7 1/2" revolver for 720fps. This load is both very accurate and one of the most pleasant to fire of any I've used thus far. I tried it in the 1873 rifle and it showed promise, but does not print close to my "current" sight picture (I may have to "up the ante"). Hodgdon is now publishing data for Trail Boss for rifle use thanks to the "Cowboy Shooters"!
The SR4759 load I posted is another powder designed for max "bulk" in rifle cartridges with "oblong, tubular" granules that are hollow, so when you load 17 or more grains in a .45 Colt case (17.5gr listed as max by Lyman) the case is almost up to the base of a normal size .45 bullet - I like that! You might try this powder in your .45-110 to fill up that "huge" case. I've used this powder in a 38/55 and a .375 H&H with good results without employing a filler. I have also used "H" or IMR4198 for reduced rifle loads, but 4198 is not as "bulky" as SR4759 and when reaching max loads can "spike" rather suddenly if you get "out-of-bounds" of a reliable "loading manual" where loads have not been used in your type rifle!
I want to think that Mike Venturino has published several loads for your cartridge where various wads are used. And, Hodgdon has loads using Pyrodex and Triple Seven, as well. Is your rifle a "Sharps?" I think it might be time to put my "Quigly Down Under" CD on for a review of your rifle ! Regards.

[adirondakjack]

Decent ES/SD will give POTENTIAL for accuracy, but actual velocity has to match barrel harmonics to get that accuracy. All the good ES/SD really tells you is your loading practice is sound and the charge density and bullet weight are conducive to consistent pressures. Take a "good" load like that and move it up or down little in charge weight, sometimes you can find a velocity in agreement with the barrel (produce a harmonic null) and shazaam, gold mine.

Not sure with your short rifle, but with my 7.5" .45 Colt blackhawk, a load with a 250 at 750 fps OR at 1175-1225 tended to find "happy places" for the barrel....

[Lefty Dude]

When I am working up a test load, I use my balance beam and a powder trickler. I use a Lee powder scoop, close to the load I want and trickle the rest. I can get very close to what a digital scale will be.

[hightime]

Thanks, Jag.
I'm not at all concerned with what the Sharps needs. In that action I'm sold on blackpowder. I might try black in my 1873, 45 Colt, but am concerned with clean up, so finding a load of smokeless that works is my mission. I'm going to look into those other powders you mentioned.
Remington factory loads shoot quite well in my gun, Uberti 1873, 24''. I bought their .455 dia. swagged bullets and am trying to match shots with the factory loads. I'm getting there. If I can improve, then I'll go bact to my own castings. I have .452 rn, .454 rn fp, and .455 rnfp. All 250 gr. The gun slugs at .451.
The gun shoots better and better the more I shoot. I'm currently loading and shooting .452 240 gr. jacketed with 8.5 gr Unique to help break in the barrel. I'm enjoying the challenge.

Owen

[J Miller]

Wads over light charges of pistol powder in the .45 Colt is nothing new.

REM-UMC did that back in the 1930s. I have a box of said ammo loaded with 5.0grs of what looks like Bullseye under a 250gr bullet that has a thin cardboard wad right on top of the powder. This ammo is loaded in balloon head cases which you know has a larger case capacity than the modern cases do.
This set up worked for them, no reason it won't work now.

That said, I've never tried it since I get plenty of accuracy from regular loads.

Joe

[kimwcook]

That's the first time I've heard of wads over powder and leaving a gap between the wad and the bullet base. Of course I've heard of fillers used before, but not a wad. Apparently no issues with pressure or Remington wouldn't of done it. I learn something new here all the time. I don't recall the wad being suggested when the topic of fillers has come up on position sensitive powders. Maybe my mind isn't recalling the right files.....

[hightime]

I just loaded up 10 cartridges of 45 C with 7.5 gr. Unique with those Rem .455 dia. 250 rn. , and I slid a veg. wad down to the charge. I try them tomorrow. I held down the load just in case.

Owen

[J Miller]

kimwcook,

I've mentioned it once or twice here but I don't dwell on it. If I could shoot like some hand gunners I know I might. But I just can't.

Years ago I bought a box of REM-UMC .45 Colt balloon head ammo and out of curiosity I took one apart. 5grs of powder (looked like Bullseye), a card wad (like the thin card board on the back of tablets), then the bullet.
I have fired some of that vintage and head stamp of ammo and it works very well.
If I had a cutter that could make me some consistent sized wads I'd try it.

I have used poly-fill as a filler with Unique at the suggestion of a retired gunsmith over on The Ruger Forum.net. That is his pet load. It worked, but I fired it side by side with the exact same load with out the filler and I couldn't tell any difference in accuracy.

Now for the record I do not have a chronograph, so for my loads I use accuracy and trajectory as compared to factory ammo as my guide.
If a load won't do better than factory ammo, then why go to all the expense of the extra components, labour, time, and expense?

Joe

[hightime]

I finally got to try the loads with the wads to hold the powder against the primer. They seemed to shoot great, but then I shot other loads and they all shot good. so I don't think the wads helped.

Owen