Inspector gave me a bottle of IMR TARGET to try out.
I looked up the data from the Hogdon site and settled in on 4 separate tests.
200 gr LSWC at 5.1 and 5.7 grains
230 gr Xtreme plated round nose at 4.8 and 5.5
Pistol was a colt gvt with a 5.5 in. Barsto match bbl. (note:it shoots faster than stock)
Fed150 primers/ mixed brass
Chrono at 5 ft and groups at KHSC 25 yd line

The chrono data fell right in line with the data on the website:
200 gr/ 5.1= 912 av/ 8sd es23
200 gr/5.7=997 av/ 10sd es28
230 gr/4.8=831 av/ 10sd es25
230 gr/5.5=865 av/15sd es42

This powder likes to work at high pressure and speed. Accuracy was as good or better as anything I've ever done.

See pix and judge for yourself..

That's some nice shooting there OF. 

The SD numbers look VERY GOOD. You wouldn't happen to have the ES numbers as well, would you? Just curious.

IMR (Hodgdon) is marketing this powder as a direct competitor to Bullseye. At least that was the original intent since they have sort of changed marketing directions since. How would you compare these results with your Bullseye results?

Have you cleaned your firearm yet? I would like to know if you happen to notice any more or less cleaning effort as IMR was touting a cleaner powder than Bullseye as well.

This is my first attempt at loading for .45 ACP and it is for my revolver. I am using a 250gr LSWC boolitt that is a little heavier than the normal 230gr. I found that 4.5 grains of the IMR Target gave me a nice accurate load with moderate recoil. I have been disappointed with Titegroup and Trail Boss loads as I "felt" the pistol was capable of better results. And I was right after experimenting with this powder. My next attempt was going to try CFE Pistol but I think I am going to call it quits and stick with this load for this pistol.

Thanks for doing this.

Nice!

That's some nice shooting there OF. 

The SD numbers look VERY GOOD. You wouldn't happen to have the ES numbers as well, would you? Just curious.

IMR (Hodgdon) is marketing this powder as a direct competitor to Bullseye. At least that was the original intent since they have sort of changed marketing directions since. How would you compare these results with your Bullseye results?

Have you cleaned your firearm yet? I would like to know if you happen to notice any more or less cleaning effort as IMR was touting a cleaner powder than Bullseye as well.

Thanks for doing this.

...
OK I added the es numbers to the original post.
Re. Bullseye powder, I never really used BE. I used ww231/hp38 until the great powder shortage.

Re. Cleanup, I only fired about 80 rounds. But that powder is sure interesting.
By that I mean the minimum charge weights make the bullets go fast.
When you get near max, the speeds are crazy.
Note the 200 gr. Bullet with 5.7 gr is not a max load. It was doing 1000fps.
To put it in IPSC terms, that is a 200 power factor and IPSC major is only 160.
Heck, even my low level charge was 180 pf.

Using 230 gr plated, the minimum charge easily approximated military ball strength.
In fact, the minimum load was way hotter than Winchester White Box ammo.

The primers were flat but not scary.

...
OK I added the es numbers to the original post.
Re. Bullseye powder, I never really used BE. I used ww231/hp38 until the great powder shortage.

Re. Cleanup, I only fired about 80 rounds. But that powder is sure interesting.
By that I mean the minimum charge weights make the bullets go fast.
When you get near max, the speeds are crazy.
Note the 200 gr. Bullet with 5.7 gr is not a max load. It was doing 1000fps.
To put it in IPSC terms, that is a 200 power factor and IPSC major is only 160.
Heck, even my low level charge was 180 pf.

Using 230 gr plated, the minimum charge easily approximated military ball strength.
In fact, the minimum load was way hotter than Winchester White Box ammo.

The primers were flat but not scary.

That is very interesting information. The ES numbers are looking okay as well.

The load I am using in my revolver is a load interpolated from the published data since they don't list my boolit type and weight. My primers are not even showing any signs of flattening. Recoil feel is moderate but of course it is by seat of the pants. I actually half ass expected the recoil feel to be a little less but I feel it is acceptable. I was only guessing the velocity was going to around 750fps. But based on your results I would think the velocity would be more in the 800fps to 825fps range. Which would back up my seat of the pants felt recoil.

That is very interesting information. The ES numbers are looking okay as well.

The load I am using in my revolver is a load interpolated from the published data since they don't list my boolit type and weight. My primers are not even showing any signs of flattening. Recoil feel is moderate but of course it is by seat of the pants. I actually half ass expected the recoil feel to be a little less but I feel it is acceptable. I was only guessing the velocity was going to around 750fps. But based on your results I would think the velocity would be more in the 800fps to 825fps range. Which would back up my seat of the pants felt recoil.

===========
yes it is an interesting powder...

I'm still astonished how the minimum charge essentially duplicates military ball ammo.....then goes up from there.
In comparison, WW231/HP38 needs a maximum charge to simulate mil ball

They managed to pack a lot of energy into those flakes, yet controlled the burn rate to prevent scary pressures.

===========
yes it is an interesting powder...

I'm still astonished how the minimum charge essentially duplicates military ball ammo.....then goes up from there.
In comparison, WW231/HP38 needs a maximum charge to simulate mil ball

They managed to pack a lot of energy into those flakes, yet controlled the burn rate to prevent scary pressures.

I wonder if that was their original intention with this powder? They are trying to market against probably some of the best known and highly used powders on the market.

Sounds to me like this powder warrants more testing in other calibers..... 

I wonder if that was their original intention with this powder? They are trying to market against probably some of the best known and highly used powders on the market.

Sounds to me like this powder warrants more testing in other calibers..... 

....
I have cfe in my 9mm press and Target in the 45 press.
I'll just swap the powder measures and create a whole new series of experiments