.45 ACP Thanks

[462]

I'd like to thank Brad and Pistolero for unknowingly helping me dial in my .45 ACP Randall.

I was having an intermittent feeding problem, with Lyman's 452460 semi-wadcutter, that was defying my attempts to remedy. Seating depth variations were tried, and while some improvement was realized, feeding was not 100% reliable. Replacing the magazines' springs with Wolff extra power springs, again, made some improvement, but the occasional problem would still occur. Replacing followers didn't help at all. Brad, in a rather long thread at the other place, extolled the virtues of Check-Mate's hybrid feed lip design magazines. I bought three. They feed perfectly every time.

Of the three original Randall magazines, two have the GI design lips and the other has the full-wadcutter lips. Weird. They continue to give the occasional feeding hiccup, but Pistolero's thread about a tighter taper crimp has been an educational read. My latest reloads are crimped to .468", down from .470", using a Hornady New Dimension taper crimp die. They will see action at the next opportunity.

By the way, Bill, the interior of the Hornady die looks identical to a '73 dated RCBS taper crimp die, which is dedicated for use with Lyman's 452374. It'll have to be turned down a wee bit too.

Thank you, gentlemen!

 

[yodogsandman]

That was some great information, I learned a lot, too. Thanks guys!

 

[Brad]

Thank 35 Remington, he directed me towards those magazines and springs. When I have 1911 questions he is a guy I turn to. Bill would certainly be one of those too.

 

[Pistolero]

You are very welcome, and no doubt that 35 Rem has a great deal of knowledge of the care and
feeding of the mighty and vernerable John Mose Browning 1911 model. Interesting how the various
individual guns and individual bullet shapes can work better with different feed lip configurations.
At least people are starting to become aware that there ARE difference in magazine lip designs
so that they can try out different ones.

After a LOT of loading and shooting the .45 ACP and .38 Super in the 1911 platform, I have had a
few problems, and solved them, and had a number of other people bring their problems to me
over the decades of IPSC competition about 40-45 weeks of the year, several stages each night.
Slowly, slowly you learn things as you solve problems. Passing that knowledge on is something
that I am happy to do.

Bill

 

[Brad]

It seems to me that the farther one gets from the original design the worse it becomes.

I also installed a small radius firing pin stop. Changed recoil sensation a bunch.

I need to tune my extractor, brass all over sucks.

So many projects, so little time.

 

[Pistolero]

I had to make my small radius firing pin stop, it was a nice mill project. Yes, it really does
change the feel of the recoil. You will never go wrong trusting John Browning to have
"done it right" the first time, with the exception of some purely ergonomic things like
beavertail grip safeties and longer triggers. Better sights are something that was just
not really understood 100 years ago on "fighting pistols", so he gets a pass on that, too.

I think I have posted all you need to set up the extractor properly. Not too difficult. If not
clear or you can't find it, start a conversation. Here is the gist of it, but for the 1911 there
is more, too.

Most obvious case for this was the wife's SIG 238, which has the same basic extractor design,
the gun is not clone but certainly follows the general design of the 1911.

It was a used gun, in absolutely mint condition, and I was watching the extraction pattern as I
do on all new guns.

The first shot she fired ejected just a slight bit right of straight up, hit the tin roof of the shooting
point and bounced hard. The second case ejected nearly horizontally about 90 deg to the right of
the line of aim, landed about 7-8 ft out, far less energetic than the first shot. Third case rolled out
of the gun, literally dribbled down her knuckles of the right hand and fell on the bench and laid there
without a bounce. Nearly zero ejection velocity.

OK, stop shooting, this is NOT right. Unloaded, pulled the top off, popped off the firing pin stop,
and the extractor basically fell out, absolutely zero tension. Flipped it around and inserted the rear
of the extractor into the rear of the extractor hole in the slide and used the slide as a handle to
bend the extractor GENTLY towards the firing pin hole (move hook closer to case, increase preload).
Checked for a firm thumb press to insert fully, and it needed more bend still. After
the second tweak, it was right.
Reassembled and cases started extracting smartly and consistently into about a 5-6 foot diameter
area to the right and rear of the shooter.

I would bet that this was why we got an essentially new gun for $150 below retail.

Bill

 

[Ian]

Maybe that's why my Kimber throws brass every which way, including smacking me in the bridge of the nose at least one shot every magazine (I shoot lefty). I'll have to look at that again.

Yesterday I gave that Lee TC die a workout and it did me right. Now I see what you were talking about, way better than my Redding TC die. .469" TC was plenty for what I needed and it made my AR-45 quite happy (the way the magazine well adapter presents the cartridges in the USC magazine, the bottom bolt lugs will catch on a proud case mouth and split it like a tomato, which also precludes the use of SWC bullets which it otherwise shoots better than anything else).

 

[Brad]

My extractor is, I think, clocking a little. That is throwing brass all over. I will add a little more tension but I think it is more a clocking issue. When I fit the new firing pin stop I over did the work and it is a little narrow. This lets the extractor move a little.

Bill, you are a great resource on this stuff. Thanks

 

[Pistolero]

Thanks! Very glad to pass on what I have learned. Ian - isn't it amazing that a seemingly simple statement
like "taper crimp with a separate die to .465 or so" can be such a difficult thing to accomplish, in reality?!
Differences in tools that are given the same name cause great confusion.

If your guns are OK with .469, that is fine. Keep an eye out for a few niggling jams, and when/if they
happen, tighten the TC just a bit. TC dies are not created equal. Also, someone has posted that they
have an apparently recent Hornady TC die which has a rapid taper. Brad has one with a long taper. I
wonder what the story is at Hornady?

As to extractors, tight fit is good, both for preload, which gives reliable extraction and for consistent orientation
which gives consistent extraction. One other issue, is that the cases hit the bottom inside edge of the ejection port
in 1911s, and then flip around 180 instantly and hit the side of the slide. Both these impacts leave brass marks on
the slide eventually, and the ejection port can put a really nasty dent in the case mouth. A 'lowered and flared'
ejection port has ALMOST become standard, and improved the brass condition and trajectory consistency, but these
may be affecting your brass trajectory, too. Browning, I'm sure, wasn't too worried about
brass condition when he was designing the gun, but us handloaders want less damage if
we can get it.

Bill

 

[Pistolero]

OK, here are some pix grabbed from the web.

Stock Government model 1911 ejection port.


Here is a fairly extreme, but not crazy version of lowering, flaring (at rear) and this one adds a bit
of front extension, which helps when unloading a live round with a long bullet, like a 230 RN.



This is a bit more typical.



Note that if you go modifying your ports, easily done with a dremel and steady hands,
the inside corner of the bottom of the port needs to be angled at a 45 deg angle,
about a 1/16th wide or more flat for the case to hit and be deflected upwards.

Also, filing the front face of the ejector to make it hit more on top or bottom can change
the ejection trajectory a lot, too. Some gunsmiths put Commander ejectors, with a long
snout, on all guns, dramatically changing the ejection timing and path.

Bill

 

[Ian]

If your guns are OK with .469, that is fine. Keep an eye out for a few niggling jams, and when/if they
happen, tighten the TC just a bit.

Will do. That was just the first go, I know my Kimber is fine with .471" crimp, the others get those "few niggling jams" with such so I still have some testing to do. I want one load to shoot in everything, so that's what I'm working toward.

 

[Pistolero]

Good luck, I think you will find that the Lee TC is a useful tool.

Is the SL 68 an all purpose lube, or more oriented towards pistol or rifle?

Bill

 

[fiver]

it's mostly all purpose but I think it's a little better suited to pistols.

I have been running off all of my homo-lube before switching back to the simple lube for the pistols and the moly complex for my rifles [except the 41 mag it likes the moly complex so I ain't switching it]

 

[Pistolero]

homo-lube?......almost afraid to ask.

 

[Ian]

SL-68.1 was specifically engineered for HV rifle use with a bent toward also using it in pistols, at any shooting temperature, any shooting condition, and any storage condition. It almost lives up to its design criteria, I'm seeing a dropped first shot in subsonic .30-calibers (.30-30 and 300 BLK) and it doesn't quite hold the groups at HV that Felix lube does, but it melts at 200+ and shoots fine frozen solid, doesn't fade group size out when rapid-firing and getting the guns roasting hot, and is very clean in revolvers and 1911s. The soft lube is a do-all, the firmer stuff won't jettison as well in mild loads and may not group as well.

Homogenous lube is Fiver's end result of taking about 6,000 lube experiments, combining them, and adjusting the result into an all-purpose lube. I've done the same thing a few times, just to use up the boxes and boxes full of 4-6 ounce samples of different things that accumulate.

 

[Pistolero]

OK, that makes sense, it would be a shame to waste all the ingredients. And the 68.1 that I have is firmer or softer, just thinking how to be sure to use it as intended.

Bill

 

[fiver]

and then cause I couldn't leave well enough alone I hit one batch with another experiment which locked everything up solid.

I got so much of it I have it marked out in 3 separate batches.
I'm still working on soft batch number-1 using it up.
batch 3 is solid, and batch-2 is somewhere in between.
i'll end up modifying batch-3 back to the feel of batch-2 at some point.

 

[Ian]

sounds like batch 1 would fix batch 3 if you have enough of it left.