[cooterMN]

I own a Springfield Armory long slide that is supposed to work with either .45 ACP or the .45 Super cartridge.  I've looked for the .45 Super cartridges at all of my local haunts with no luck.  Can't seem to find any loads for them (none on this site either) either.  The only thing that showed up on a Yahoo search was a custom pistol smith that built the guns.  I guess my next step is to contact him via e-mail, but thought maybe someone out there in Load Swap Land might have some ideas.

Also-  Any ideas for a good reduced charge load that will run through this gun reliably with 200gr SWC?

 

[Jack Monteith]

Hi, Cooter:
 Starline has brass.
<a href="http://www.starlinebrass.com/

Bye" target="_blank">http://www.starlinebrass.com/

Bye</a>
Jack

 

[cooterMN]

Might have been mis-leading on the load request.  I am looking for a reduced power .45 ACP load to put together with 200 gr SWC, not with the .45 SUPER.  I am planning on shooting a combat league and would like to reduce my recoil/muzzle flip.

I would be interested in any ideas on where to find loads to put together with the .45 SUPER cases once I order them from Starline Brass.  Thanks Jack.

 

[MikeG]

Jack, you'll probably just have to see what powder charge will be the lightest you can go and still cycle the gun.  Assume this is what you want?

Personally in the .45 ACP I like WW231 and AA #2, just working up to see what the gun likes.

 

[Clark1]

I the best 45Super information I have found are the three articles in archives at realguns:
http://www.realguns.com/archives/020.htm
http://www.realguns.com/archives/021.htm
http://www.realguns.com/archives/022.htm

There is some legal trouble over the rights to use the name "45 Super" but realguns is not a buisiness, and so was able to get out of trouble. Meanwhile the load data posted at  the Triton site was taken down.  I saved that data:
http://groups.google.com/groups?....umd.edu

I personally have found out through high pressue testing that the 45 Super and 460 Rowland brass from Starline is no different than any other brand 45 acp brass with respect to brass failure in a supported chamber. 45 Starline +P is diffeerent and has thicker walls, weighs more, and has less case capacity.

Moderator Note:
The load data/unsafe overloads at the bottom of this post have been deleted in accordance with the policy here at the Beartooth Forum to avoid posting such information.

Should these loadings be desired by someone interested in the above subject, feel free to take it to e-mail with the author. That way it is private and both corresponding parties can take responsibility for their own actions with their own experimentation.

As a public forum we have no such luxury and have to consider all potential users of the info including novices that could get into major trouble should dangerous loads like the ones just deleted be posted here.

This is not intended to discourage the posting of SAFE personal load data but please use common sense and if your load is considered a Max loading either in data manuals or a top end loading in your particular gun advise as such or consider not posting it at all as someone may use it blindly without working up to that loading and thus getting into major trouble right off the bat.

Contender



<!--EDIT|Contender|Feb. 10 2002,00:31-->

 

[Joe DAlessandro]

I the best 45Super information I have found are the three articles in archives at realguns:
http://www.realguns.com/archives/020.htm
http://www.realguns.com/archives/021.htm
http://www.realguns.com/archives/022.htm

There is some legal trouble over the rights to use the name "45 Super" but realguns is not a buisiness, and so was able to get out of trouble. Meanwhile the load data posted at *the Triton site was taken down. *I saved that data:
http://groups.google.com/groups?....umd.edu

I personally have found out through high pressue testing that the 45 Super and 460 Rowland brass from Starline is no different than any other brand 45 acp brass with respect to brass failure in a supported chamber. 45 Starline +P is diffeerent and has thicker walls, weighs more, and has less case capacity.

Moderator Note:
The load data/unsafe overloads at the bottom of this post have been deleted in accordance with the policy here at the Beartooth Forum to avoid posting such information.

Should these loadings be desired by someone interested in the above subject, feel free to take it to e-mail with the author. That way it is private and both corresponding parties can take responsibility for their own actions with their own experimentation.

As a public forum we have no such luxury and have to consider all potential users of the info including novices that could get into major trouble should dangerous loads like the ones just deleted be posted here.

This is not intended to discourage the posting of SAFE personal load data but please use common sense and if your load is considered a Max loading either in data manuals or a top end loading in your particular gun advise as such or consider not posting it at all as someone may use it blindly without working up to that loading and thus getting into major trouble right off the bat.

Contender



<!--EDIT|Contender|Feb. 10 2002,00:31-->

Just a note to rebut some statements that have been made regarding Real Guns, Inc. -

As operator of www.realguns.com. I am not sure what the inference is regarding Ace Custom, The company I understand to be the owner of the .45 Super Trademark. I have never heard from this company in regard to use of their mark, a mark we have only used in journalistic context and properly notated and credited reference to the .45 Super name. In fact, we have never heard directly from Ace Custom in any regard. Real Guns, Inc. does not sell or distribute any firearms or ammunition, nor does it trade or sell products associated with the .45 Super cartridge.

Real Guns, Inc is a commercial site, drawing revenue from non-firearm industry related advertising clients and other Internet related services. We do not charge visitors to access the site. We have been in operation for over 6 years. I am not promoting, just correcting the poster's comments.

I do not know if our data is being referenced in this post as being posted then removed with comments regarding its safety. We do use an Oehler 43 Ballistics lab and test barrels on fixed breech firearms to test most handload loads prior to posting, including handgun ammo where possible, we do use software modeling for all handloads and we do post appropriate and necessary instruction regarding the use of such data. The people who handload for Real Guns have in excess of 40 years of experience in this process.

In any event, we do not want our data posted elsewhere, specifically because disclaimers, important cautions and instructions are typically stripped from the material. Beyond this a good deal of time and money is spent in the production of this information for the benefit of our site visitors not for general distribution.

When we write articles, our company name, personal names, email, phone numbers and fax are made available so readers have a chance to respond. We have had a respectful relationship with industry companies and site operators, we receive incredibly few complaints about the content of our site, and we do enjoy a good reputation with our registered users and other site visitors. Again, not promoting, but I would appreciate it if this information is allowed to be posted as a response to misleading or incorrect statements that were made earlier.

I not making a judgement on the people who operate shootersforum.com or to their participants. I do not know them and I am not in possession of any facts that would suggest I should or could. I would appreciate the same consideration for Real Guns, Inc.

Thank you,
Joe D'Alessandro

 

[MikeG]

Hi Joe, nice to see you here.

Yes some of your articles have been referenced over here from time to time as they are generally well done and pretty interesting.

As you can see the links to the articles on your site have been left in place. When referencing another source, I believe that using a link is an appropriate way to let people know where the source of the information is, rather than just copying it. Let us know if you have a problem with those links being here.

The notes regarding trademark use, etc., I believe don't really have anything to do with your site, just an independent observation and perhaps merely speculation as to why the .45 Super hasn't caught on any more than it has. Given that the last activity on this thread was 2 years ago, it's kind of hard to say what the conversation was about in that respect.

Anyway - if there is something that references your site which you are concerned about, please feel free to contact any of the moderators or Marshall by PM, email, or use the 'report this post' and we'll try to address your concerns.

Now - if there is some confusion regarding the data which originally appeared in the above post, let's get that cleared up.

First you should know that the post was originally made by one of our members, Clark, and then edited by one of our moderators.

Mr. Clark has had a history of posting data far beyond what would appear in any load manual or reputable data source, and we've had to clean this up on occasion. So, I believe what was removed was in fact Mr. Clark's own data and not yours.

 

[vandy]

Feeding The .45

HAVE BEEN WORKING ON HEAVY LOADS FOR THE .45 FOR SOME TIME AND HAVE FOUND MANY PEOPLE USING THE 255 GR SWC, HOWEVER, I HAVE NOTICED THAT HUNTERS SUPPLY OFFERS A 275 GR BULLET THAT IS ESSENTIALLY A LFN AND IS THE SAME LENGTH AS THE 255 GR SWC. IN MY GUNS THE 255 GR BULLETS MUST BE SEATED TO 1.190, HOWEVER, DUE TO THE NOSE CONFIGURATION THE 275 GR BULLETS CAN SEAT TO 1.240. MARSHALL WROTE A GREAT ARTICLE IN HIS BOOK ON THE ADVANTAGES OF INCREASED CASE CAPACITY AND I HAVE FOUND THIS VERY USEFUL IN DEVELOPING HUNTING LOADS.

Hi Joe, nice to see you here.

Yes some of your articles have been referenced over here from time to time as they are generally well done and pretty interesting.

As you can see the links to the articles on your site have been left in place. When referencing another source, I believe that using a link is an appropriate way to let people know where the source of the information is, rather than just copying it. Let us know if you have a problem with those links being here.

The notes regarding trademark use, etc., I believe don't really have anything to do with your site, just an independent observation and perhaps merely speculation as to why the .45 Super hasn't caught on any more than it has. Given that the last activity on this thread was 2 years ago, it's kind of hard to say what the conversation was about in that respect.

Anyway - if there is something that references your site which you are concerned about, please feel free to contact any of the moderators or Marshall by PM, email, or use the 'report this post' and we'll try to address your concerns.

Now - if there is some confusion regarding the data which originally appeared in the above post, let's get that cleared up.

First you should know that the post was originally made by one of our members, Clark, and then edited by one of our moderators.

Mr. Clark has had a history of posting data far beyond what would appear in any load manual or reputable data source, and we've had to clean this up on occasion. So, I believe what was removed was in fact Mr. Clark's own data and not yours.

 

[Joe DAlessandro]

Hi Joe, nice to see you here.

Yes some of your articles have been referenced over here from time to time as they are generally well done and pretty interesting.

As you can see the links to the articles on your site have been left in place. When referencing another source, I believe that using a link is an appropriate way to let people know where the source of the information is, rather than just copying it. Let us know if you have a problem with those links being here.

The notes regarding trademark use, etc., I believe don't really have anything to do with your site, just an independent observation and perhaps merely speculation as to why the .45 Super hasn't caught on any more than it has. Given that the last activity on this thread was 2 years ago, it's kind of hard to say what the conversation was about in that respect.

Anyway - if there is something that references your site which you are concerned about, please feel free to contact any of the moderators or Marshall by PM, email, or use the 'report this post' and we'll try to address your concerns.

Now - if there is some confusion regarding the data which originally appeared in the above post, let's get that cleared up.

First you should know that the post was originally made by one of our members, Clark, and then edited by one of our moderators.

Mr. Clark has had a history of posting data far beyond what would appear in any load manual or reputable data source, and we've had to clean this up on occasion. So, I believe what was removed was in fact Mr. Clark's own data and not yours.

Thanks, I appreciate your comments and clarification, and the opportunity to post a response. As you've indicated, it was an old post and ancient history. I only picked it up because it was the source of a link referral to the Real Guns site - we always like to check to see what topics people find of interest on the site and also to do quality control on our site content by using forum discussion as an open critique. We do not host forums on the RG site.

Clark's a good man, I've exchanged information with him over a long period of time. To me he has represented someone pushing the envelope on material strength and failure analysis more than a guy suggesting mainstream reloading data. He is certainly thought provoking and expends a lot of energy on building equipment and modifying firearms. I do believe he should be packaged with a disclaimer of intent to avoid finding a puff of smoke where once stood a beginning handloader.

Again, thank you. You guys have a nice set up over here, congratulations.

Joe

 

[Thegman]

Vandy,

Have you used those 275s? In what kind of pistol? Do you have any loads you can share?

I'd like to hear a little about your experience with heavy 45 ACP loads, I you wouldn't mind sharing some of your info.

I shoot a lot of 10mm and have just started with 45 ACP. I found this weekend that it's pretty easy to get 900+ with 250 grain flat points, but these, like your SWC had to loaded pretty short.

 

[vandy]

I USE THE 275 GR BULLETS IN A CUSTOM SIX INCH 1911 AND BECAUSE OF THE LBT NOSE DESIGN I ACTUALLY HAVE MORE CASE CAPACITY THAN WHEN LOADING A 255 GR SWC. THE TWO POWDERS I USE ARE ENFORCER AND POWER PISTOL. HOWEVER, I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE GIVING SPECIFIC LOAD DATA. ALTHOUGH I THINK IF ONE WORKS UP CAREFULLY I BELIEVE 950 FPS SHOULD BE EASILY ACHIEVED, ESPECIALLY WITH ENFORCER AT FAIRLY LOW PRESSURE











TE=Thegman]Vandy,

Have you used those 275s? In what kind of pistol? Do you have any loads you can share?

I'd like to hear a little about your experience with heavy 45 ACP loads, I you wouldn't mind sharing some of your info.

I shoot a lot of 10mm and have just started with 45 ACP. I found this weekend that it's pretty easy to get 900+ with 250 grain flat points, but these, like your SWC had to loaded pretty short.[/QUOTE]

 

[Gowge]

Light Loads For Longslide 45ACP/.45 Super® ??

I am looking for a reduced power .45 ACP load to put together with 200 gr SWC, not with the .45 SUPER. I am planning on shooting a combat league and would like to reduce my recoil/muzzle flip.

Cooter, you might wind up replacing the recoil spring or re-tuning the pistol for the light loads. If the piece is setup already to handle the .45 Super®, it's probably gotta' pretty stiff spring. There's a good article about .45 Super® conversions on this link...

http://www.realguns.com/archives/020.htm

GOOD LUCK!

 

[Thegman]

Thanks for the info, Vandy...