Tag: #45ACP

Posted on

Hornady Action Pistol 185 GR Quality Measurements

I wonder about ammunition quality a lot. I even get somewhat meta about it when asking myself, “what does it mean to say ammunition is high quality?” Perhaps like Justice Potter Stewart, who reportedly said something to the effect of, “he knew pornography when he saw it,” the same idea can be expressed about quality ammunition, “I know it when I shoot it.” Of course, I’m not skilled enough to take advantage of the mechanical edge that the highest quality ammunition can provide, though I do hope to some day be able to. That would be mastery of a skill that relatively few in the world possess.

There is another reason for my curiosity. What I’d really like to know is “how does Federal consistently make high quality 45 ACP Gold Medal Match (45 GMM) ammunition that works well in most every gun?” I have a hard time believing they are doing something that the average handloader can’t either duplicate or perhaps improve upon. One way to potentially back into the answer is to use similar components, though I presume Federal knows a great deal more about running “a good lot” through the high speed machines than even the quickest of Dillon 1050s. Even so, with the proper components, I’m sure there are quality checks along the way that just aren’t feasible for the home handloader, but Federal can do as a matter of practice.

And so, in the quest to measure and compare presently made components, I picked up some repackaged Hornady Action Pistol 185 grain 45 ACP bullets from Midway USA. The reason people interested in handgun precision and accuracy tend to prefer to use hollow point constructed bullets is because the format of construction lends itself well to those qualities. They are easier to construct in a consistent fashion, which in turn leads to some degree of predictability of precision.

The Hornady name is no stranger to the shooting community. Like any reputable company, they consistently produce great products the shooting public wants while also delivering good value. The company got its start by purchasing surplus munitions equipment from the US Government after WWII, and the company has since expanded from bullet making alone to reloading tools, completed cartridges, and bringing new cartridges to market.

Measurements taken were weight, length and diameter (in that order).

Diameter:

The Hornady samples all measured .451″ in diameter.

Length:

Using digital calipers, I found very little variation- the most frequent length was .542″, with one .541″ and a few .543″. Chances are if you reach into a box of these, you’ll pull a .542″ out- very close tolerances here.

Weight:

The probability plot indicates that the sample weights reported fell within normal process bounds, though there is a little clustering due to the consistency of the bullets:

What is even more revealing than “keeping all the blue dots between the red lines,” is the distribution of weight itself. The lightest bullet measured was 184.7 grains, and the heaviest was 185.27 grains. The difference between these two points is .57 grains- this means that, even if you doubled the difference, you’d only be a little over a grain difference between bullets in the same box. Incredibly impressive that they can keep tolerances to just a hair over half a grain difference between lightest and heaviest.

Put in practical terms- assuming two bullets were pulled from the same box and were constructed equally, loaded the same, and then shot from a test fixture of your choice, there would be negligible difference in point of impact, all things being equal.

Relationship Between Weight vs Length:

A regression analysis indicates that there is a relationship between weight and length, but they are not particularly strongly related with one another, as Pearson’s coefficient is low- 11.06%. This is most likely due to the tight distribution of lengths to model the corresponding weights.

Conclusion:

In general, these bullets appear to be well made and arrived in excellent shape. On average, these bullets are exactly 185 grains- which, if you have been following these notes of mine, makes my heart warm with joy. These bullets have had the lowest standard deviation in weight of any bullets measured thus far, and this consistency will not be a detriment. These bullets appear to be constrained in terms of their length, as they have been the most tightly spaced of any measured thus far. Like the Nosler and Sierra bullets previously measured, this tightly controlled length may help keep bullet seating repeatable and crimping consistent. This in turn may explain why these bullets could be excellent performers for 50 yard bullseye shooting. We’ll find out over the course of 2018!

Measurement Tools:

Mitutoyo Digital Micrometer/GemPro 250 Digital Scale

Posted on

Sierra Sports Master #8800 JHP 185 GR Quality Measurements

In an email exchange with Dave Salyer regarding handloading for Bullseye, he made mention that when using Nosler JHPs he had found a half inch improvement in group size at 50 yards when using new cases compared to mixed cases. This has me thinking two thoughts: 1) that case tension when new could potentially be a factor in attaining accuracy and 2) that bullet choice should center on a JHP bullet for optimal results.

With Dave’s mention on the brain, I purchased a bunch of different match grade bullets and have been slowly measuring them and sharing the results here. I believe that by measuring them I should be able to tell at least two things: 1) whether or not the bullets were statistically consistent and 2) try to determine if the measurements I found from the Nosler JHP were also present in other makers offerings.

It appears that the Sierra Sports Master, model #8800, exceeds the beloved Nosler JHP in standard deviation (SD) of both weight and length and may be an idea candidate for a 50 yard load. This assumes that a lower SD (in these areas) is conducive to best accuracy.

Diameter:

Measurements taken were weight, length, and diameter (in that order). At first, I was a bit baffled by my measurements- I even got out the micrometer to check, but these bullets, as the specification sheet indicates, do in fact measure .4515″ at the base. There is a slight outward taper below the ogive from .451″ to .4515″ at the base, but it is there.

Length:

You won’t believe this, but there were only two different lengths captured in my sample of 50: .536 and .537 inches.

Either I just measured 50 of the most consistent bullets so far, or something was wrong in my measurement process. As near as I can tell, both my technique and equipment is no different than previous studies. These bullets are incredibly consistent in terms of length- a single thousandth of an inch being the only difference between the bullets in the sample.

Weight:

The probability plot indicates that the sample weights were normally distributed, save for an outlier:

The summary report indicates that the mean and median are the same. The report also indicates that the SD is .18 grains, more than half smaller than the Nosler weights reported back in March. Lastly, I’m pleased to report that the Sierra bullets I measured here are on average 185.09 grains- meaning you actually on average getting what is claimed on the box.

Relationship Between Weight vs Length:

A regression analysis indicates that there is some relationship between weight and length, but that they are not particularly strongly related with one another, as Pearson’s coefficient is a modest 16.91%. This is most likely due to only two lengths to model the evenly distributed weights.

Conclusion:

In general, these bullets appear to be well made and arrived in excellent shape. On average, these bullets are slightly overweight. These bullets have had the lowest standard deviation in weight of any bullets measured thus far, and the consistency will not be a detriment. These bullets appear to be constrained in terms of their length, as they have been the most tightly spaced of any measured thus far. Like the Nosler JHP, this tightly controlled length may help keep bullet seating repeatable and crimping consistent. This in turn may explain why these bullets will be excellent performers for 50 yard bullseye shooting.

Measurement Tools:

Mitutoyo Digital Micrometer/GemPro 250 Digital Scale

Posted on

Magnus #801 185 GR Quality Measurements

Terry Labbe is a High Master shooter from Alabama and is the proprietor of Magnus Bullets. He makes his way around the Southeast bullseye scene, shooting lights out wherever he goes. I met him at the 2016 GA State Shoot after calling and placing an order for his #801 (185 GR Button Nose) and #802 (200 GR SWC) cast bullets to be delivered at the shoot. From the phone call I thought he was a affable fellow; meeting him in person did not disappoint.

After playing around with other cast bullet providers, I thought it was incredibly short sighted on my part that I wasn’t supporting a guy one state over who shoots his own product- with excellent results. In my defense, I didn’t know about Magnus until visiting either the bullseye forum or the mailing list, so while I might be late to the party, I did finally arrive! I like supporting folks invested in their business, and the quality of Terry’s bullets speak for themselves.

Diameter:

Measurements taken were weight, length, and diameter (in that order). I found very quickly that I was unable to discern much diameter difference- it’s entirely possible that there is a difference that a micrometer could tell, but the calipers I was using all turned up measurements of .452 inch in diameter.

Length:

I had some outliers in my length measurements:

It is entirely possible that the outliers were due to faulty measuring on my part. I did find that, depending on how you rotate the bullet around its axis, you can find yourself coming up with different measurements; you should also be aware that the sprue on the bottom of the bullet can distort the length measurement.

I always choose the longest measurement by turning each bullet a quarter turn and then taking a measurement; whatever is the longest is the one recorded. I did not have to do much rounding up or down- most every measurement was right on or near a graduation. Nevertheless, it is entirely possible I introduced bias, though I took great pains to avoid doing so.

In general, however, the length of the 801s I measured were evenly distributed:

Another view of the same data:

Weight:

The weight recorded across the sample lot of 100 had a median value of 185.28 grains and a mean value of 185.26 grains. Finally- a manufacturer that actually meets specification instead of hiding material savings in process control!

To be fair to other manufacturers- I’m not making the claim that I can tell the difference between 184.4 grains and 185.5 grains; all I’m saying is that I’d like to get what is listed on the box most of the time.

Lastly, I hope that a pattern is becoming clear about the various manufacturing methods bullet crafters employ- we’ve seen a electroplated bullet, a cup and core bullet, and now cast. Last on the list is the swaged variety- any ideas what that data is going to look like? Stay tuned!

Relationship Between Weight vs Length:

A regression analysis indicates that there is a relationship between weight and length, which is fairly strong, though it would be better if Pearson’s coefficient was 65% or greater, instead of 50.4% that the data supports. That said, if I reran the analysis without the outliers, I’d probably see an increase that might approach 65%.

It’s also important to note that Pearson’s coefficient isn’t the only criteria by which any bullet in particular, and this variety specifically, should be measured or critiqued.

A strong relationship between length and weight, especially when diameter is constrained, is what passes the sniff test here. If there wasn’t such a relationship, you’d naturally wonder what was causing such variation- no such wondering is needed here.

Conclusion:

I’ve shot a couple thousand of these and can’t say enough good things about them. Terry has shot 2658 with his lead bullets, so I should think they’d be good enough for anybody!

While bullet technology has advanced, using electroplating as an example, it still stands to reason that a cast bullet, made properly, will get the job done- and in this case, your money is supporting someone who supports the sport- how can you beat that?

Measurement Tools:

Brown & Sharpe Dial Micrometer/Frankford Arsenal DS-750 Scale

Posted on

Nosler JHP 185 GR Quality Measurements

When I think about the big bullet companies, I think of metal(s) futures contracts, sales, supply chains and manufacturing- probably in that order. Planning the desires of the company, making those hopes and dreams come true, a way to build what is necessary for them come true… well, it’s enough to boggle the mind. Winchester, or Olin Corporation, is an integrated metals and chemical manufacturer. Did you know they make a lot of chlorine? They also sold their brass business back in 2007.

Nosler is not as large any of the big three, and was founded around the time Hornady and Speer got their start. Nosler is still a family owned and run company in Oregon- I’m not sure if it is 2nd or 3rd generation at this point- and they are well known in the bullseye community for making P/N 44847, a 185 grain jacketed hollow point bullet, that became somewhat famous due to it’s use by the Marine Corps pistol team.  Based on this reputation alone, I sought out a couple of boxes and finally sat down to measure a few.

Diameter:

Measurements taken were weight, length, and diameter (in that order). I found very quickly that I was unable to discern any diameter difference- it’s entirely possible that there is a difference that a micrometer could tell, but the calipers I was using all turned up measurements of .451 inch in diameter.

Length:

I had some outliers in my length measurements:

Now, it is entirely possible that the outliers were due to faulty measuring on my part. I did find that, depending on how you rotate the bullet around its axis, you can find yourself coming up with different measurements. I always chose the longest by turning each bullet a quarter turn and then taking a measurement; whatever was the longest was the one I recorded. I did not have to do much rounding up or down- most every measurement was right on or near a graduation. Nevertheless, it is entirely possible I introduced bias, though I took great pains to avoid doing so.

That said, this data is not normally distributed (though it is mostly evenly distributed) as I keep measurements to .001″. However, it probably would be normally distributed if I could get repeatable resolution to another significant digit- which would be nice, but also expensive.

The bulk of measurements were from .532 to .533- a very narrow band. I wonder what the specification is for the length of this bullet?

Weight:

While the P-value in this case is high, it isn’t as high as that of the Speer TMJ 185 Grain bullets I measured previously. That in and of itself is not an indictment on this particular bullet in general, or this lot (KM06F18-1/150513121312) in specific. All this means is that the weight was normally distributed across the sample taken (50).

You’ll note the same trend here was was seen with the Speer before- on average, the bullet you pull out of the box is going to be lighter than 185 grains. Also, in regards to the weight distribution, the Speer had a better standard deviation than the Nosler.

A note of process change: I’ve since moved to my new forever home and sufficiently warmed up the scale and have kept it in a temperature/humidity stable area, which is different than the place in which I made my previous measurements of the Speer TMJ 185. In due course, I’ll run some gage R&R tests to see what variability my equipment (and technique!) may play in my results.

Relationship Between Weight vs Length:

A regression analysis indicates that there is some relationship between weight and length, but that they are not particularly strongly related with one another, as Pearson’s coefficient is a modest 25.5%.

I think if the outliers were taken out, the regression model would still not be as robust a predictor of weight vs. length. I’m at a loss as to why there isn’t a stronger relationship, other than:

  • Measurement bias in length or weight
  • Bullet construction properties are not represented well in a regression analysis
  • Analysis may in fact be correct, and this is the level of quality to be assumed is aimed for
  • Outliers distorting the data

As more measurements are taken, I’ll be sure to update the results.

Conclusion:

In general, these bullets appear to be well made and arrived in excellent shape. On average, these bullets are underweight, though there seems to be a very narrow band(s) of bullet length that is showing up in the data, which may help keep bullet seating repeatable and crimping consistent. This in turn may explain why these bullets are known for their match quality.

Measurement Tools:

Brown & Sharpe Dial Micrometer/Frankford Arsenal DS-750 Scale

Posted on

Speer TMJ 185 GR Quality Measurements

At work, I’ve been learning Six Sigma/Lean principles, and thought that my interest in reloading might be a good point where I can delve a little deeper into both what I enjoy intellectually for work and for fun, and, hopefully, learn more about what makes a quality bullet or case. Consequently, I’m documenting my efforts so that others can compare notes, generate discussion, and develop a greater understanding of this facet of reloading.

Having recently taken up bullseye, or precision pistol shooting as the NRA is now deciding to call it, like anyone new to a sport, I dug right in and started studying what has been written about reloading for this particular course of shooting. It’s a well worn field by all accounts, rife with genius and ignorance, but what bothered me most was the complete lack of data regarding what sorts of qualities one should look for in a round of match grade (meaning “target”) ammunition. Surely, I thought, the answer could just as easily be measuring a “known” match grade round and trying to replicate that. SAAMI even has a specification for 45 ACP Match ammunition- so surely there isn’t a mystery here.

Of course, it isn’t that simple. What may shoot well in one pistol may not in another, some powders may “feel” different in regards to recoil (something I don’t believe in at present), component differences between what a factory may use and what you may be able to get, and so forth. Additionally, I don’t have access to an outdoor range or independent testing mechanism like a Ransom Rest, so even if I could take all the measurements I could get my hands on, I couldn’t presently test them in any controlled way. Lastly, even if I could do a double blind controlled study and find a “magic bullet,” there are going to be days when the human factor- the skill necessary to shoot a shot deep into the black- is the limiting condition.

Nevertheless, I decided I’d start measuring bullets and cases and making the results available to all. As I revisit brands/lots, I’ll continue to expand the various data sets that I collect. If variation occurs from established, repeated measurements over time, then it may be a good reason to investigate an alternative supplier.

I recently purchased a couple boxes of Speer’s TMJ 185 gr. bullets (lot D12X, Part #4473) that I plan on using in bullseye tournaments over the course of this year. These bullets are made in the new style- instead of cup and core construction– and are instead electroplated. The accuracy of plated bullets is subject to great debate among the bullseye community, though I’m not aware of which specific brands anyone has found lacking. I can’t remember who commented on The Bullseye Forum that one could probably get away with using rocks as projectiles at the 25 yard line, so I’m guessing the complaints about plated bullets has something to do with the 50 yard performance- but who, when, and evidence of them not performing haven’t been demonstrated to my knowledge with any sort of test results such as with photos, target, and load data to back up the claim that plated bullets don’t work well.

Diameter:

Measurements taken were weight, length, and diameter (in that order). I found very quickly that I was unable to discern any diameter difference- it’s entirely possible that there is a difference that a micrometer could tell, but the calipers I was using all turned up measurements of .451 inch in diameter. This makes a certain sense; the constraint on a bullet isn’t weight or length- we speak about bullets in terms of their caliber, which is what will determine practical weight and length for a given projectile (assuming sufficient rifling and other necessary conditions).

Length:

You’ll note that the length of N measured is evenly spaced; I only have resolution to .001 inch. My measurement system is such that if I took a measurement and the needle was between graduations that I made a judgement call; if it was past what I considered a half space, I rounded the size up. If the tick was below the half space, I rounded down. I didn’t have to do that frequently, but I do want it noted.

The data are evenly distributed and have a low standard deviation, however, the data is not normally distributed; as I noted above, the data does have some semblance of continuous measurements, but it was categorized for ease of reporting, as the alternative is to get more resolution, which seems unfruitful.

Weight:

The data is normally distributed which is indicated from the high P-value (the null hypothesis in this case was that the bullet weight would be normally distributed; thus, the null cannot be rejected). This is also evident from the trend of the samples to tend towards the center, or mean, of the graph. There are a couple of straggler data points on either end, which could be an indicator of either an improper measurement on my part (bias), or that the bullet was in fact the weight recorded.

The weight plot above indicates that, if my scale is to be believed, the majority of bullets are in fact underweight. Interestingly, the standard deviation from the mean is just enough weight to get many samples “over the hump,” assuming that it was a positive value, of course.

Relationship Between Weight vs Length:

A regression analysis indicates a strong relationship between bullet weight and bullet length. Remembering that we are fundamentally constrained by diameter (caliber), one would reasonably conclude that in order to increase weight, one must either use a different material or increase the amount of mass present; which in this case would be length. The model is explained to a high degree of confidence, statistically speaking.

Conclusion:

The bullets appear to be very well made and to very tight tolerances, even though in general they are underweight. How they will shoot remains to be seen, but there is nothing in the data to suggest that, if loaded properly and within a narrow velocity tolerance, any particular physical property would present non-nominal performance.

Measurement Tools:

Brown & Sharpe Dial Micrometer/Frankford Arsenal DS-750 Scale