When you’re a retired engineer who likes to play with guns…well, read on.
After my great results with 8.8 grains of Power Pistol under the 118-grain ARX bullet in the .45 ACP, I learned that Power Pistol is no longer available. That was good news and bad news. The bad news is I that I can no longer get that powder. The good news is that I already have something like 850 loaded rounds with Power Pistol (those will last me for a while). More good news is that I have an excuse (not that I needed one) to find another load for my .45 with the ARX bullets.
.45 ACP cartridges reloaded with ARX 118-grain poly/copper composite bullet.
Winchester’s 231 worked great in the 9mm and I had some on hand, so that’s what I thought I would try next. Inceptor lists two load ranges; I stuck to the standard (i.e., non +P) range. With the 118-grain .45 ARX bullets, Inceptor showed the Winchester 231 propellant range to be 6.3 to 7.0 grains. I loaded at 6.8 and 7.0 grains. I test fired at 10 yards, just as I had done before with the Power Pistol loads.
In the full-sized Springfield Armory 1911, both 6.8 and 7.0 grains of 231 functioned reliably. The 7.0 grain group was noticeably tighter than the 6.8 grain load. The two targets on top were with 6.8 grains of 231; the two on the bottom were with 7.0 grains. The two 7.0-grain groups were right on top of each other if you look at both targets. There was one flyer in the first group, and that’s due to me. The second group was one ragged hole. This is a good load in the 5-inch Springfield 1911.
The top two targets were shot with 6.8 grains of Winchester 231; the bottom two were with 7.0 grains of 231. There are five shots on the bottom right target; they cut one ragged hole.
From a velocity and velocity variation perspective, the Springfield 6.8-grain load was tighter, but I’m sticking with the 7.0-grain load (it grouped better). If there was a difference in felt recoil between the two loads, I couldn’t detect it. Here’s the chrono readout for the Springfield and the 6.8-grain load:
The 6.8-grain 231 load chrono results.
Here’s the chrono result for the Springfield and the 7.0-grain load:
The 7.0-grain chrono results. The extra 0.2 grains of propellant bumped the average velocity 57 fps.
As a point of reference, the average velocity with the 8.8-grain Power Pistol load was 1299 fps, so this is only a little bit slower (16 fps, to be exact). The bottom line is that the 7.0-grain 231 load is a suitable substitute for the 8.8-grain Power Pistol load in the full-sized 1911.
I next turned to the Rock Island Armory Compact. It’s one my good buddy TJ of TJ’s Custom Guns worked over for me and it is superbly accurate and reliable with conventional cast and jacketed bullets. The Compact has a 3 1/2-inch barrel. The ARX bullets did not perform well with either powder (Winchester 231 or Power Pistol) in the Compact 1911. They tumbled in flight and they were not accurate. The 7.0-grain 231 load functioned the pistol reliably, ejected all cartridge cases, and held the slide open after the last round. The 6.8-grain 231 load worked the slide and it stayed open after the last round, but on the last round the cartridge case remained in the chamber. These factors (along with the poor accuracy and the tumbling in flight) showed the ARX bullets and 231 are not good in my Compact 1911.
I tried the ARX bullets with my prior 8.8-grain Power Pistol load in the Compact 1911 Everything on the gun functioned the way it should (I had reliable ejection and the slide stayed back on the last round), but the accuracy was poor and the bullets tumbled in flight just as they had with the 231 loads. The shorter 3 1/2-inch barrel just doesn’t give the bullets enough velocity to stabilize.
Here’s what the targets looked like with the Compact 1911. The left top is the 6.8-grain 231 load, the top right is the 7.0-grain W31 load, and the bottom two are with 8.8 grains of Power Pistol. Accuracy was terrible with all, and like I mentioned above, all loads exhibited tumbling. This is why we test loads. Some work, some work wonderfully well, and some don’t work at all.
Whoa! Things went to hell in a handbasket with the ARX bullets in my Compact 1911.
Here’s a closeup of the tumbling. It’s obvious what’s going on here.
The bullets tumbled in flight when fired in the Compact Rock. The lower left shot was flying sideways as it passed through the target.
These bullets need a minimum velocity to stabilize, and the Compact 1911’s shorter barrel isn’t delivering it. Here are the chrono results for the 6.8-grain 231 load (the chrono didn’t pick up a couple of the shots):
Lower velocity = less stability. Things fell apart with the Compact’s shorter barrel.
Here are the results for the 7.0-grain 231 load:
The chrono picked up a round fired by someone else. It didn’t matter; the results were not good at these lower velocities.
I didn’t bother chronographing the Power Pistol load in the Compact when I saw that those were tumbling, too.
It appears that the .45 bullets need something above approximately 1200 fps to stabilize. I’ll probably next test the 7.0-grain 231 load at 25 yards and 50 yards in the Springfield 1911 to see if the bullets are stable at those longer ranges. I don’t know how much velocity they’ll give up as a function of range and I’m not willing to stand downrange with the chrono to catch them as they fly by.
I recently received my order of Inceptor ARX 118-grain .45 ACP bullets. I had previously loaded 9mm ammo with ARX 65-grain bullets and I was pleased with them, so I wanted to try the ARX bullets in the .45, too.
I compared how two 1911s performed on my local indoor pistol range, firing with a two-hand hold (but without a rest) at 10 yards. I used nearly identical 1911 Springfield target pistols, one in 9mm and the other in .45. The .45 1911 is as it came from the factory; this gun has had no custom work done to it other than installing a one-piece guide rod. The 9mm 1911 had the same one-piece guide rod, along with other custom touches by good buddy TJ at TJ’s Custom Gunworks. The 9mm 1911 has a much crisper and lighter trigger, it is an absolute delight to shoot, and it is my favorite handgun.
The two Springfield 1911s used in this test., shown here with cast bullet loads. The testing described herein used ARX composite bullets, as shown in the photo at the top of this blog.
The ARX bullets are different than anything I’ve used before. They are a mix of copper particles suspended in a polymer matrix. The ARX bullets are much lighter than cast or jacketed bullets, with consequently dramatically higher muzzle velocities. They are not marketed as frangible bullets. They are intended to produce a larger wound cavity and I suppose because of that they could be considered a better defense round. I’m not interested in any of that. I’ll never hunt with either a 9mm or a .45, and although I sometimes carry a 1911 chambered in .45 ACP or my 9mm S&W Shield, when I do so it is always with factory ammunition. Nope, my interested was a result of my buddy Robby gave me a few 9mm ARX bullets and I fell in love with them. The ARX bullets are less expensive than cast or jacketed bullets and they are accurate. For a range rat like me, that’s a good deal.
I reloaded all ammo used in this test series with my Lee turret press, a great setup that consistently produces superior ammo. This photo shows a completed ARX .45 ACP round. Here’s our earlier review of the Lee gear.
9mm 1911 ARX Results
I wrote about my initial impressions with the 65-grain 9mm ARX bullets previously (they were all good), so for this first portion of the comparison there’s not too much that’s new other than this load’s attaining 100% reliability in holding the slide back after the last round.
9mm ammo loaded with the ARX 65-grain polymer composite bullet. After my first trial with these bullets, I ordered a bunch.9mm ARX bullets loaded in my 1911’s magazine.
My 9mm load uses 5.2 grains of Winchester’s 231 propellant, with the bullets seated to an overall cartridge length of 1.135 inches. I used CCI 500 primers and mixed brass for the loads you see here (I am lazy and I didn’t want to sort the 9mm brass). I loaded these on my Lee turret press using Lee dies (including the factory crimp die). I took the load data directly from Inceptor’s website. This load is a max load in their standard load listings (i.e., it is below the +P loads the Inceptor data also lists).
I shot at the Alco four-silhouette target (it has four quarter-sized silhouettes on each sheet), and I sent either 12 or 13 rounds downrange on each silhouette. That made for a total of 50 rounds on each target.
The Alco Targets 4-silhouette target. I shot 12 rounds at the top left target ,13 rounds at the top right target, 12 rounds at the bottom left target, and 13 rounds at the bottom right target. That top right target is pretty sweet.
The 9mm ARX load functioned perfectly in my 1911. There were no failures to feed or eject and the pistol stayed open after the last shot fired. This is an accurate load. The flyers are due to yours truly, not the gun or the load. Maybe if I had sorted the brass they would be a little better, but these are good enough for my purposes.
These 9mm bullets only weigh 65 grains. They step out sharply, but the recoil is low (perceptibly lower than what I would feel with a 115 or 124-grain cast or jacketed bullet). Velocities are high for a 9mm (which are typically in the 1100 fps range with cast or jacketed bullets). The Inceptor data for my load showed that they achieved 1433fps with 5.2 grains of HP38 propellant (which is the same powder as Winchester 231). Their results were with a 4-inch barrel. My 1911 has a 5-inch barrel; I achieved an average velocity of 1626fps, or nearly 200fps faster than what Inceptor achieved in their testing. To add a little more context to these findings, I previously tested this load in my S&W Shield (which has a 3.1-inch barrrel). In the Shield, this load averaged 1364fps. The bottom line? My results are consistent with the Inceptor load data.
Take a look at the Garmin chrono data for this load in the 1911.
Yikes! These are smoking hot 9mm rounds!
In my prior test of this load in the Springfield 1911 and the S&W Shield, I found that the 1911 would not hold the slide back after the last shot (the Shield didn’t have that problem). In that earlier initial test, I used a two-hand hold and I rested my arms on the bench. I think that might have caused the 1911’s problem with holding the slide open after the last shot. In the range session yesterday, I used a two-hand hold, but I did not rest my arms on the bench (and the gun functioned perfectly, holding the slide open after the last shot on every 5-shot string). The 5.2-grain Winchester 231 load is a good one for the 9mm. It’s accurate, the recoil is light, and reliability is superb.
.45 ACP ARX Bullet Testing
I next moved on to test the 118-grain ARX bullets in my .45 ACP Springfield 1911.
A cartridge that looks like a drill bit! ARX bullets in the .45 ACP make for an interesting and handsome round.
The .45 ACP load used the ARX 118-grain bullet with 9.1 grains of Power Pistol, a Winchester large pistol primer, and Winchester brass, all loaded on the Lee turret press with a Lee crimp die. The .45 ACP load data also came from the Inceptor site. The site lists three powders; the only one I had on hand was Power Pistol. The 9.1 grains of Power Pistol is at the top of their non+P range. It is not a +P load. Ordinarily I would not start testing at the top of the listed propellant weight range, and I probably shouldn’t have done so here (more on that a paragraph or two down).
.45 ACP ARX bullets loaded in my 1911’s mag. Everything works. They look cool.
The Inceptor load recommended a cartridge overall length of 1.26 inches. I loaded with a cartridge overall length of 1.250 inches, which is what I have used in all my other .45 ACP loads. That length fits well in the magazine. I don’t think the additional 1/100 of an inch Inceptor specified would cause interference between the ammo and the forward inside magazine edge, but it’s close and in any event, I wanted to stick with the cartridge length that has always worked for me in the past.
The .45 loads felt hot to me. I think that’s primarily because I have been shooting my 9mm handguns lately. A few of the cartridge cases showed a little (very little) primer flattening. I’m not sure if that was due to firing the round or if it was due to me putting extra effort into primer seating during the reloading process. The .45 ACP is a powerful cartridge, and when I haven’t shot one in a while, it can seem even more powerful.
Same target, different cartridge. That top left target has 12 rounds through it and it is what I’d like to do all the time. When it happens, it’s its own reward.
Accuracy was about the same as with the 9mm. I thought both were good. There were occasional flyers, but that was undoubtedly me and not the gun or the load. Again, I shot offhand for all of these groups, so I wasn’t expecting one-hole results.
1346fps from a .45 Auto! The chrono tells the story!
Velocities were very much higher than what I’ve seen with other bullets in any .45 ACP. I had previously loaded .45 ACP with all kinds of cast and jacketed bullets ranging from 185-grain wadcutters to 230-grain full metal jacket projectiles. They would typically see velocities of 700fps to maybe 900fps. Some folks load the .45 a little hotter than that with cast or jacketed bullets. I’ve never felt a need to. But those ARX 118-grain bullets! Wow! The Inceptor load data said I would see 1,317fps with 9.1 grains of Power Pistol propellant (and for their .45 ACP testing, Inceptor used a 5-inch barrel); my ammo averaged 1346fps. Extreme spread and standard deviation were low; both extreme spread and standard deviation were similar to what my 9mm ARX loads achieved.
Feed and ejection were flawless in my Springfield 1911. That said, I am going to drop the load down to 8.7 and 8.5 grains of Power Pistol and try that for the next load. If I get good groups and reliable function, that’s where I’ll load in the future.
The Bottom Line
These are good bullets, and I think they represent a huge step forward. They are the first really new thing to come along in the reloading game in a long time.
Surprisingly, both the 9mm and the .45 put the bullets where I wanted them, with no sight adjustments from my previous lead or jacketed bullet loads. I expected both the 9mm and .45 ACP ARX loads to shoot low, but they did not. The sights were right on the money.
I didn’t see any copper fouling from the bits of copper mixed in the ARX bullets’ copper/polymer matrix. There’s a tiny bit of blue/purple fouling from the bullet polymer, but it’s very minimal and it’s only in the grooves. I had not cleaned either the 9mm or the .45 1911 after earlier range sessions with cast and plated bullets and the bores were dirty when I started shooting the ARX bullets. Both guns were cleaner after shooting the ARX bullets than they are after shooting cast or jacketed bullets. Bore cleanliness is a big plus here.
Price is another advantage; the 9mm bullets are $57/1000 and the .45 ACP bullets are $65/500 (I think the .45 bullet price at $65/100 is an increase from what I paid a couple of weeks ago). I’ve ordered ARX bullets three times now; on all three orders, they did not charge sales tax. I guess the sales tax is included in the retail price already. Whatever. I’m an anti-tax guy. Whether it’s real or imagined, not paying sales tax is plus in my book.
I’m not going to hunt with either my 9mm or my 1911, but here in California, these bullets should meet our lead-free bullet criteria. Similarly, the bullets are not hollow points. Some places (San Francisco and all of New Jersey come to mind) have outlawed hollow point bullets. These bullets should be okay in places where hollow points are outlawed.
I’ll be ready. Will you?
As mentioned near the start of this blog, the drill-bit-like bullet profile creates a much larger wound channel. The idea is that bullet spin allows the bullet to grab onto tissue and propel it outward. There are some YouTube videos that purport to show this in ballistic gelatin. I suppose if you were defending yourself against a bad guy made of ballistic gelatin (think Steve McQueen and the 1958 classic, The Blob) these would be the preferred bullet. None of that matters to me, and from a defense perspective it’s probably moot (especially with the .45). Dead is dead, and with a .45, I’m guessing a larger wound channel won’t make a bad guy any deader. My interest is in how well the ARX bullets shoot on paper, and they do that extremely well.
About three years ago I had dinner with good buddy Robby at a Mexican restaurant outside of Atlanta. Robby bought some sample bullets for me and one of the flavors was a 65-grain 9mm ARX bullet. It was something I had not seen or heard of before.
These are frangible lightweight bullets designed to inflict a lot of damage without penetrating walls. The bullets are called a fluted design, and they are a composite copper/polymer material. They are a very high velocity bullet. There are a number of reloading admonitions with these, including not to overcrimp because doing so will break up the bullet. I’m talking like I’m an expert on these; I am not. This is the first time I’ve played with them.
I loaded these with 5.2 grains of Winchester 231. That powder is the same as HP 38, and I found a load for HP 38. I’m thought I would get something like 1400 fps with this load based on what I saw on the Hodgdon site. Other powders provide more velocity, but I loaded with what I had on hand (and that was Winchester 231).
I loaded on Thursday and fired these the next day, testing for velocity, reliability, and accuracy in two 9mm handguns. Those were a 1911 (with a 5-inch barrel) and a Smith and Wesson Shield (with a 3.1-inch barrel). From what I had read in online reviews, the ARX bullets are supposed to be relatively accurate. I expected them to shoot way low (as lighter bullets in handguns generally do). The loaded ammo looks cool, and the ARX bullets are relatively inexpensive at $39/500.
At the range, I set up a couple of targets at 25 yards. I had only loaded 25 rounds, so I shot the first 10 in the Shield. The Shield functioned perfectly with all 10 rounds (I shot two magazines with 5 rounds each). There were no failures to feed or eject. As I had read, the load was accurate (in fact, it was more accurate than anything else I’ve shot before in the Shield). Recoil was very light. I held at 6:00 on a standard 25-yard pistol target; the rounds hit low left (but not as low as I expected). This ain’t half bad with a little belly gun like the Shield. If I needed to, I could slide the Shield’s rear sight to the right to correct for the bias you see below.
The Shield’s velocities were high, and the standard deviation was low. I am impressed. There are better results than I had previously seen in the Shield.
I next fired my remaining 15 rounds in the Springfield 1911. The load was at the top end of what Hodgdon lists for these bullets using HP38 powder (which is the same propellant as Winchester 231).
In the 1911, I had one failure to eject. You can see that below.
Also, on the last round for each of the three mags I fired in the Springfield 1911, the pistol did not hold the slide back (it functioned okay for the first four shots). This load apparently has just enough energy to cycle the 1911 slide, but not enough to drive it all the way back. I could probably address this with a lighter recoil spring. Subsequent testing proved to me that the above-described failures were related to how I was holding the 1911 during this test. I used a two-hand hold and I bench rested the pistol on a rest. When I fired with a two-hand hold without bench resting the pistol, it functioned flawlessly.
Here are the chrono results in the 1911. As expected, velocities were higher due to the 1911’s 5-inch barrel. There are other powders will give more velocity with the ARX bullets, but I loaded with what I had on hand. Like Donald Rumsfeld used to say, you go to war with the Army you have.
Like I found with the Shield, the 1911’s accuracy was similarly good at 25 yards (again, with a 6:00 hold on the target). I could probably do better. I didn’t make any sight adjustments, so I was surprised that the gun was pretty much on target.
Another pleasant finding was that the both the Shield and the 1911 dropped the brass right next to the gun. With the 1911, the brass just plopped out and came to rest on the table next to the gun. The Shield dropped most of the brass on the table; three pieces fell off the bench. Where you see the brass in the photo below is where it landed; I didn’t scoop it up and put it there.
The ARX bullets are a little trickier to reload than regular 9mm bullets. Inceptor, the manufacturer, advises against a heavy crimp as it will crush the bullet. The one time I blew up a gun two or three years ago I’m now convinced was the result of bullet setback when feeding due to a light crimp and a slippery powder coated bullet. Setback would be more of a concern here with the light crimp.
I could probably load these bullets a bit hotter to get them to hold the slide back after the last round in the 1911 (or, as mentioned above, go to a lighter spring). I don’t think I want to go above the 5.2 grains of Winchester 231. Also, as noted above, the issue disappeared when I fired normally without bench resting the pistol. This was intended to be a quick look. I learned what I wanted to. The ARX bullets are very good. I ordered a thousand of them, which should last for a while.
