LEE 452-230-TC in a 1911?

[texaswoodworker]

I need a new mold for my 45 acp 1911, and I'm stuck between getting the classic RN bullet, or a 230gr Truncated nose bullet. I like the idea of having more knockdown power in the TC, but I'm not sure how reliable they will be. Does anybody have any experience with shooting them in their 1911?

[GabbyM]

They tend to weigh in at close to 240 grains cast from wheel weights.
Feed fine in my limited experience. You get a defined shoulder with any TC design. Unlike a cast RN where you may get a out of round casting with a variation in the shoulder. Which can cause chambering issues. Which is why you see the H&G design RN with it's front band step. IIRC the #34. I think Saeco makes a 200 grain TC that would be worth looking into. Or see what NOE has in there catalogue. The H&G #68 SWC in 200 grain is noted as a poor killer. Just drills a hole of 45 caliber with great penetration. My favorite 45 acp bullet is a Magma 200 grain RNFP with a canalure. Made for 45 Colt revolver. Crimp grove gets covered in the acp loading.

[Sweetpea]

Also, check out the Lee 452-200 rf.

Feeds flawlessly in my 1911, and will put a thump on something... while saving a little bit of lead...

[sghart3578]

I use the tumble lube version of the Lee 230 TC in my Auto Ordnance 1911. Feeds fine, accurate too.

[GoodOlBoy]

I can tell you in two milspec 1911a1 (Pre-70s) that I have tried, or seen them tried in they wouldn't chamber for beans. Neither would the 200gr RNs. The 230gr RN in a 1911a1 will do the job each and every time without hesitation. I have killed both whitetail deer, and coyotes with them with ease.

GoodOlBoy

[RobS]

The Lee 230 TC has worked for many 1911 shooters however if your barrel throat is short you will likely have to seat it to a shorter COAL. This may or may not be an issue with your 1911. Some good pictures of throats are here in the 1st post: http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?232061-1911-Throating

I'm not indicating that you need to throat your barrel by any means the link is for reference only to your current barrel situation. The Lee 228 1 R you will run into similar problems as you would with the TC as it's not a true "ball" type ogive; it too will have to be seated to a shorter COAL if you have a shorter throat.

The Lee 230 2R would work well if you have a tighter throat and don't have issues with the tumble lube grooves. A classic that comes to mind is the Lyman 452374. Basically any boolit that you can seat to a longer COAL (1.20 or longer) and doesn't have much if any full diameter front drive band extending past the case mouth at such COAL will likely work well. The Lee 200 SWC (the traditional lube groove one that is similar to the H&G 68) might be a good alternative too.

With that I have short seated the Lee 230 TC to a 1.19 COAL and it feed in a few different 1911's as well as a few Springfield XD's, a hi-point, and a SAR K2. I think a good idea is to ask some of the forum members here for some sample of a particular design to be sent out to you. I've seen people ask for samples before, me included, and simply pay the shipping however I personally always added a little extra for the time to help me.

[knifemaker]

I use the lee 230 gr. TC boolit in several of my 1911s and it feeds great. Was using it as my practice and match ammo for IDPA matches before I went to plated bullets. Proved to be a very reliable load. COAL was 1.20 if I remember right.

[Tom W.]

The ones that I cast yesterday weighed in around 232 or so. It is the bullet with the traditional lube groove. I also have a few of the tumble lube style that I fired from my Colt GM. Didn't have any problems with those bullets. The 228 gr Lee 2 r round nose had to be seated too deep for comfort, I ended up shooting those from my Ruger.

[RobS]

The ones that I cast yesterday weighed in around 232 or so. It is the bullet with the traditional lube groove. I also have a few of the tumble lube style that I fired from my Colt GM. Didn't have any problems with those bullets. The 228 gr Lee 2 r round nose had to be seated too deep for comfort, I ended up shooting those from my Ruger.

Which Lee mold are you talking about?
The Lee 230 2R; the tumble lube groove design
or
The Lee 228 1R; the traditional lube groove design

Since you are saying you had to seat short I thinking you were working with the 1R ogive design. This design is not a traditional "ball" type round nose profile where as the 2R ogive is more so.

[Cmm_3940]

The Lee 230 TC has worked for many 1911 shooters however if your barrel throat is short you will likely have to seat it to a shorter COAL. This may or may not be an issue with your 1911. Some good pictures of throats are here in the 1st post: http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?232061-1911-Throating

I'm not indicating that you need to throat your barrel by any means the link is for reference only to your current barrel situation. The Lee 228 1 R you will run into similar problems as you would with the TC as it's not a true "ball" type ogive; it too will have to be seated to a shorter COAL if you have a shorter throat.

The Lee 230 2R would work well if you have a tighter throat and don't have issues with the tumble lube grooves. A classic that comes to mind is the Lyman 452374. Basically any boolit that you can seat to a longer COAL (1.20 or longer) and doesn't have much if any full diameter front drive band extending past the case mouth at such COAL will likely work well. The Lee 200 SWC (the traditional lube groove one that is similar to the H&G 68) might be a good alternative too.

With that I have short seated the Lee 230 TC to a 1.19 COAL and it feed in a few different 1911's as well as a few Springfield XD's, a hi-point, and a SAR K2. I think a good idea is to ask some of the forum members here for some sample of a particular design to be sent out to you. I've seen people ask for samples before, me included, and simply pay the shipping however I personally always added a little extra for the time to help me.

This has been my experience as well. I also have 1911's with short throats, and have been seating the 452-230-TC to an OAL of 1.18". I also have the 452-200-RF which works well at 1.10". Yes, that's 1.10". Even though these OALs seem short, that is how deep they need to be to pass the plunk test. Both of these designs perform reliably in my 1911s when seated to these overall lengths.

[texaswoodworker]

Ok, I checked and it looks like my 1911 has a decently long throat. It's a Remington 1911R1, so it so it has a more modern chamber than a milspec. I just realized that some of the ammo I've run though it (220gr Hornady Critical Duty) is a TC bullet, and it has run the 2 boxes I've put though it just fine. It passes the plunk test. The Lee TC should work too then right?

http://www.handgunsmag.com/files/2011/12/Critical-Duty-2.jpg

[RobS]

The jacket bullet is a .451 bullet where as if you are sizing to .452 for the cast TC there might be enough of a difference to create a different situation in seating depth. However if you have looked at the barrel throat pictures in the thread I posted and your throat looks like it has been cut well then the Lee 230 TC will likely be fine. The design has been proven an accurate boolit from many firearms.

[Moonie]

I've had the 230 TC (non TL) for many years. I've never had it fail to feed properly in a 1911 that wasn't my fault. I've also had it feed in non 1911's that were having issues with factory ammo. In fact I've really never had feed isues with this boolit in anything I've tried it in. The only time I've had issues is when I tried to seat and crimp in one station causing it to push up lead in front of the crimp.

[Wasalmonslayer]

Good morning
I have used the lee 230 truncated in a sig 220, 2 Springfield 1911 1 was a gi model one was an enhanced model, remington r1 1911, and a browning bda aka early sig p220.
I just verified oal with a plunk test and once that was good off to the races with no issues.
Hope the info helps
Wasalmoslayer

[DougGuy]

There are two things to consider when looking at a throat in a 1911 barrel. It really doesn't matter how long the throat is in front of the chamber as long as the rifling isn't hitting the boolit, it matters the diameter of the throat. That little ring of freebore that you can see needs to be at least the diameter of the boolit, and is best if it is .0005" larger.

The TC boolits feed great, you just have to make sure that the .070" or so of the boolit's shoulder (or driving band) will go into the freebore (throat).

If you size .451" and there is a little bit of throat visible, it will likely pass plunk test and function very well. If you size .452" you will need to verify that loaded rounds do indeed pass the plunk test and if they don't, then addressing the barrel throat would be the correct thing to do, as opposed to seating lower in the case which is a common practice which basically creates a second problem as a workaround for the first problem, too tight a throat...

[jcren]

I run the tl230 tc in my Taurus and load for a buddy with a Springfield compact 1911 and have no problems. I use Hornady custom for my carry ammo which uses the xtp bullet, the tc has nearly an identical profile and I set the oal to match (his gun has a shorter throat than mine) and they duplicate that ammo.

[243winxb]

With some Lee 230 gr bullets, if your barrel throat is short you will likely have to seat it to a very short OAL. As said above.

[leadman]

The RCBS 230gr RN bullet works in all the guns I have tried it in, even guns the Lee will not work in. It is a close match to the ball profile.

Have run into quite a few guns in 9mm and 45 that would lead when using Hi-Tek coating. Found that the lack of a throat was the cause as the boolit was cut, along with the coating by the end of the chamber and lands.

[dudel]

The Lee 452-230-TC works fine in all my .45 guns. I have the 6 cavity version, and it makes lots of boolits per session. I also have the Lee RN. I prefer the TC.

However, each gun in different in terms of chamber, throat, bore and feed ramp. I guess that means, YMMV.

[Artful]

I don't use the Lee 230 TC but I have a NEI mold
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v355/rowdyfisk/FAL/Boolit/NEI452230TC5cav_zpsbdee1db3.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/rowdyfisk/media/FAL/Boolit/NEI452230TC5cav_zpsbdee1db3.jpg.html)
works fine in all of these
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v355/rowdyfisk/FAL/P1020211.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/rowdyfisk/media/FAL/P1020211.jpg.html)

[fredj338]

I shoot a 200gr version in 5 diff 1911s & 2 XD & a M625. You should be fine. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v703/fredj338/45200TCPB.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/fredj338/media/45200TCPB.jpg.html)

[texaswoodworker]

Thanks everyone for the help and suggestions. I think I'm going to go ahead and get it. :D

[newton]

If you haven't completely decided yet....here is another happy customer. I have a very short throated 1911, next to non existent, and I have got it to work for me. Wound up with a 1.190" OAL(even though 1.170" and 1.180" both worked ok). lyman #4 lists loads for the TL version, which is the same length boolit as the regular version.

Just got done casting a few up tonight. One word of caution, some of us have had molds that like to throw them out of round. Keep an eye on that.

[Tom W.]

Which Lee mold are you talking about?
The Lee 230 2R; the tumble lube groove design
or
The Lee 228 1R; the traditional lube groove design

Since you are saying you had to seat short I thinking you were working with the 1R ogive design. This design is not a traditional "ball" type round nose profile where as the 2R ogive is more so.

Yup, you are right... I no longer have the mold, I just didn't like the small lube grooves, nor the fact that I had to seat so short.

[DougGuy]

Well, you guys that have to seat short gotta realize that the load data and COA given is safe and recommended by the powder makers and they use SAAMI specs for chamber dimensions AND ammo dimensions, and the pressures and velocities listed in the load data are for that specific load, at THAT specific COA.

Manufacturers don't throat barrels for cast boolit shoooters. They throat them (sometimes) for factory, jacketed .451" ammo.

If the load won't chamber because of A.) A throat that is short or non-existant, or B.) A throat that is tight, meaning .451" or .4515" in diameter, and the boolit won't go into the throat, it is a minor, one time deal to send the barrel and have it throated. Throating is probably the CHEAPEST fix in the world of 1911s. and it does the MOST good for the $$ spent. Twenty bucks plus shipping!

I know I know, seat shorter, yada yada, this is a common fix, but NOT the right fix. The chamber is a guide. It holds the case while the boolit is fired. The throat is a guide, it is a tool, that holds the boolit straight and aligned with the bore while it is being fired. It is NOTHING to "adjust" the diameter, OR the length of the throat to fit whatever COA you want to load to!

Fact is, there will be an "optimum" COA for every 1911 made and every boolit style made. There will be one seating depth that it will like better than shorter or longer, and it will feed the best with this COA for a certain boolit. Take the SAME gun and barrel, change boolit styles, the COA may change from boolit style to boolit style, but each one will have an "optimum" length in the same 1911.

The barrel throat, should NOT be the factor dictating COA! If the throat is causing you to have to seat shorter to accommdate it, THIS is what needs to be addressed, not seating depth. Plain and simple.

All seating shorter does, is raise pressures unless charges are lessened accordingly, and create feeding problems because of the round being short. In short (pun intended) all this does is create a second problem, as a workaround to the first problem, which is a short or tight barrel throat, and this is NOT the correct way to remedy the problem!

[newton]

Just to push you over the edge in your descision...
126463

Always helps to have published data on a boolit. That is the one thing I don't like about lee. They are not a big player, sort of speak, in the market to get much data published on their molds. Lyman must have considered this mold worthy of use to include it I would think. Just shows the popularity of it. The tumble lube and the regular lube are the same boolit. A quick call to Lee can cure any doubts for you. But this is a blessing to me because I've worked up several loads for several "unpublished" rounds, always having that little bit of fear that I might not be right.

[Centaur 1]

Use the OAL that's listed in the Lyman manual that Newton scanned and posted. When loaded to 1.170", the flat nose profile lines up with the nose profile of ball ammo. I have the mold with standard lube grooves and it feeds great in every gun that me and my friends have. I tumble lube using straight Johnson paste wax then size to .452". I haven't killed anything yet, but I carry my 1911 while hunting just in case I need it. I also figured that the flat nose would hit harder than a round nose. I have the six cavity mold and it uses up lead quickly. I preheat my ingots on a hotplate so they melt quicker when placed into the pot.

[hickfu]

Newton, is that from the 3rd or 4th edition of the Lyman book?

[Centaur 1]

I don't have the third edition, but it is in the fourth.

[rsrocket1]

My very first cast boolits were from the 6 cavity TL452-230-TC. That mold empties the 4-20 pot in a hurry. My mold drops all 6 boolits without even a shake of the handle. Just open the mold and the heavy (240g) boolits drop out.

My old Thompson Auto Ordnance likes military hardball round nose bullets and chokes on SWC's unless they are seated to the perfect length and then it can still be finicky with different magazines. With the TL-452-TC boolits, the old gun eats 'em all perfectly.

This was my very first batch and first target shot with them.

126524126525126526126527

[newton]

That is from the 4th edition, as Centaur said.

Personally, while the boolits did work at 1.170" as Lyman says, I did not leave them there for long. I was being constantly scrutinized for the short OAL that I felt like I might actually be doing something wrong. lol. So I did manage to get mine to seat longer, but that could be from other things I did. Regardless, I would go as long as possible to tell you the truth. And, seeing how pressure increases going deeper, it would only serve to say it decreases going longer. So you would be safe with loads listed. Also, the main reason I wanted to go longer was because of where the mouth hits the boolit. At 1.170" the case mouth was right at the shoulder. You could see that it was receiving some abuse from the loading process if it managed to catch something. With the longer OAL, the boolit shoulder sits a little out and receives the bumps, given you do a decent taper crimp to the round.

rsrocket, whats your OAL on those? Looks like 1.170"-1.180"? I think the wider nose is what helps them feed so well for having such a short OAL compared to ball ammo. Its got to be something, because people really like to use this boolit from what I can tell, and OAL's shorter than 1.200" are the norm for this round from all the searching I have done on the web.

[rsrocket1]

That is from the 4th edition, as Centaur said.

Personally, while the boolits did work at 1.170" as Lyman says, I did not leave them there for long. I was being constantly scrutinized for the short OAL that I felt like I might actually be doing something wrong. lol. So I did manage to get mine to seat longer, but that could be from other things I did. Regardless, I would go as long as possible to tell you the truth. And, seeing how pressure increases going deeper, it would only serve to say it decreases going longer. So you would be safe with loads listed. Also, the main reason I wanted to go longer was because of where the mouth hits the boolit. At 1.170" the case mouth was right at the shoulder. You could see that it was receiving some abuse from the loading process if it managed to catch something. With the longer OAL, the boolit shoulder sits a little out and receives the bumps, given you do a decent taper crimp to the round.

rsrocket, whats your OAL on those? Looks like 1.170"-1.180"? I think the wider nose is what helps them feed so well for having such a short OAL compared to ball ammo. Its got to be something, because people really like to use this boolit from what I can tell, and OAL's shorter than 1.200" are the norm for this round from all the searching I have done on the web.

Good eye there newton!
1.17" is right where I seat them. I could seat them longer, but then the bulge from the top band starts to come into play and I wanted as little transition from the bullet to the case rim as possible (just like on a round nose fmj bullet and the opposite of that step on a SWC which was causing 3 point jams on my 1911). I load anywhere from 3 grains Red Dot (600fps and very mild) to 5g Bullseye (900fps and a little hot) but my standard load is 5.0g Unique for a very comfortable 730 fps. It feels like you are shooting a real 1911 while not beating up your hands.

[Cherokee]

I've used the TC design since it came out years ago. When I bought the Lee mold (not TL) version, it continued the good performance I had been getting from the NEI mold but was 6 cavities. It works at 1.180" OAL in all my 1911's but will give me a smokestack in my XDM once in a while, can't figure out why. Ayway, highly recommend you try the mold. And it will cast heavy with wheel weight alloy.


Artful - I noticed a Para and Star PD (or is that a Detonics ?) in the pic. Got those too, great guns and they feed the Lee TC fine.

[kens]

I use that Lee 230-TC bevel base, regular lube groove, 6 banger mold.
I love it.
It feeds fine thru 3 1911's.
I do use a collet crimp die for all my semi-auto loading, they feed much better with taper crimp.
Also, a little deeper seating helps feeding of 1911's, and Hi-powers too.
If yours wont feed, get a taper crimp, and seat a bit deeper.

[hickfu]

Thanks Newton and Centaur, I ordered the Lyman 4th today, it will be here on Thursday...

[newton]

Good eye there newton!
1.17" is right where I seat them. I could seat them longer, but then the bulge from the top band starts to come into play and I wanted as little transition from the bullet to the case rim as possible (just like on a round nose fmj bullet and the opposite of that step on a SWC which was causing 3 point jams on my 1911). I load anywhere from 3 grains Red Dot (600fps and very mild) to 5g Bullseye (900fps and a little hot) but my standard load is 5.0g Unique for a very comfortable 730 fps. It feels like you are shooting a real 1911 while not beating up your hands.


:smile: I tried many different OAL to the point I could almost see the difference. But it was just a guess. lol

I am going to be trying some 5 grains of Unique tonight. I have been using 5.5 grains, but my POI is 3" low. Someone mentioned that I might be sending the boolit out faster than the natural barrel rise, therefor the low hit. I am hoping that 5 will reliably cycle and hit closer to POA. I have not ran any factory rounds through it, does the 5 grains feel like ball ammo?

[newton]

I've used the TC design since it came out years ago. When I bought the Lee mold (not TL) version, it continued the good performance I had been getting from the NEI mold but was 6 cavities. It works at 1.180" OAL in all my 1911's but will give me a smokestack in my XDM once in a while, can't figure out why. Ayway, highly recommend you try the mold. And it will cast heavy with wheel weight alloy.


Artful - I noticed a Para and Star PD (or is that a Detonics ?) in the pic. Got those too, great guns and they feed the Lee TC fine.


I've been reading a lot on the 1911 lately, just trying to get my self familiar with the gun. Smokestacks are almost always associated with extractor tension. I'd start there.

Mine is a Para, good to know that yet another person is having good luck with this boolit in their gun. Did you have to ream/throat your Para?

[newton]

Thanks Newton and Centaur, I ordered the Lyman 4th today, it will be here on Thursday...

You'll like it. Lots of good info. I wish someone would make a book for Lee's molds. I think in the end, it would make a killing. I would have to say as time goes on, a lot of people tend to buy Lee molds just because of their low cost. Most of those people are new casters. And the one thing that new casters need is load data.

[Linstrum]

I use the Lee 452 230 TC in my Citadel version of the 1911A1 and have no problem hitting a 9" paper plate at 100 yards by walking my shots to the target. Both the 1911A1 pistol and the Lee 452 230 TC projectile are winners.

rl 1,233

[CJR]

A little historical knowledge on the TC bullet design. In the late 70s, the Air Force (AF) started a program to improve the accuracy of the 9mm RN bullet with a concave base. The AF was assisted in this effort by General Electric(GE), Hornady, and S&W. The equations for accurate small arms bullets were developed by the AF & GE and were also used to improve the 20mm ammo for fighter aircraft.

The inaccurate 9mm bullet design suffered from minimal or no separation between the Center of Pressure (CP) and the Center of Gravity (CG). Blunting the nose moved the CP forward and removing the concave base moved the CG rearward, This increased the CP/CG separation distance, to increase gyroscopic damping, and significantly tightened groups. The first test bullets were simply nose-flattened RN bullets, done by S&W, and used to test the AF/GE equations. Hornady was then contracted to produce the final TC designs for final testing. The AF shot many rounds to verify the very small groups/dispersions of this design and then later patented this technology. The AF also went on to configure this technology for the 45ACP. Hornady then started producing the 45ACP TC and other calibers for commercial sales, and CB clones followed.

Some 1911s may require minor tweaking to feed this design, but the benefits are well worth the effort. And now you know the whole story. If you would like to know the names of the participants of this effort, let me know as this development is well documented.

Best regards,

CJR

[newton]

I've heard that same story CJR. Its very interesting. One question that pops up in my mind is if they saw any accuracy differences with faster or slower velocities? Or if it really did not matter?

I have heard that some bullet designs favor one or the other. But wonder if they documented anything, seeing how you have some good info source there.

[CJR]

Newton,

In the technical paper I have, describing this AF effort, about four(4) different powders were used. Some had military designations of which I am not familiar. Testing was very thorough and done at Elgin AFB, Aberdeen, and H.P. White Laboratory. The 124 gr. 9mm flat nose bullet velocities ranged from 1200 to 1272 fps and were shot in Mann barrels. Pressures ranged from 29,700 to 36,400. The AF made these comments:

"The accuracy reported is not an accident or one time occurence. It is a fact based on sound engineering principles. As confirmation of the consistency, a 50 yd., 100 round group that was fired measured 1-11/16 inches extreme spread and another group fired , utilizing a different propellant , placed 99 rounds into 1-3/8 inches with a 'flyer' which spoiled the group by raising it 1-13/16inches". The AF went further and stated, ----" it should be possible to develop full power ammunition capable of firing ten round , 50 yd groups of 1/4 to 1/2 inch extreme spread." The AF was obviously very confident in the equations they had developed based on the targets shot.

If there is one lesson to be learned here, it is this. Do not ignore what has has been developed and thoroughly tested, for bullet design, by a lot of very astute engineers and scientists. After all, we all paid for this bullet design research with our tax dollars and we all own it.

Best regards,

CJR

[newton]

Very interesting. I wonder what they would say is the ideal speed for the 45 caliber TC.

I do know that last night I tried 5 grains of Unique under my boolit instead of 5.5. They for sure hit higher on the target(which is what I was doing the test for in the first place - different subject), but what astounded me was how much closer they grouped together.

I'd have to do some more testing to verify it, but these TC's seem to like the slower velocity. Of course, this is all subjective and not done in a lab environment. But it is something for the OP to keep in the back of mind when it comes to loading the new boolits out of the new mold. lol

[Saltner]

I have a H & K Mark 23 and shoot well with TC 230 and even 252 SWC, but the best groups i have with the 200 SWC, 10 shots in a square inch at 27 yards, i tried 110 yards ... all inside a 10-inch :bigsmyl2:

[CJR]

Saltner,

Excellent groups. What "SWC" design are you using? You may have a SWC that has a larger distance between CP & CG. For a given TC design, a HP would move the CG rearward and increase the distance between the CP and CG. This is what's done with rifle match jacketed bullets, i.e. sleek nose profiles for desired ballistic coefficients which shifts the CP rearward. Then the lead core is only filled-up to about the start of the jacket ogive or more to move the CG rearward and increase the separation distance between the CP & CG. Rifle HP match jacketed bullets are not made that way to gain expansion on a paper target!

Bottom line. Whether you're shooting match jacketed or PPCB the geometric bullet parameters must satisfy the Laws of Physics. However, the aerodynamic flow characteristics will vary based on surface irregularities. The small PP retention grooves , on rifle PPCB, allow the PPCB to closely approximate a smooth match jacketed bullet which also has barrel grooves to degrade its aerodynamic flow.

Best regards,

CJR

[sparky45]

Lee's 452 TC @ 230gr (mine drops @ approx. 230gr) in a 6 banger is my most preferred missile. Loads great because of the beveled base and really shines when PC'd, literally!

[Col. Cornelius]

I have experimented with the Lee 230gr TC, standard lube groove, in several different 1911's (2)-Colts and (2)-Rugers. I found the most reliable OAL to be 1.200". Any shorter and I would get an occasional malfunction. The 1.200" OAL passed the plunk test in three of the four guns.

[Big Steve]

The Lee TC 230 TC is my go to bullet for my RIA 1911 and my XD Tactical. No problems with it either in my Blackhawk convertible or P345 either. It is by far my favorite .45 lead bullet !

[MT Beard]

I've been reading a lot on the 1911 lately, just trying to get my self familiar with the gun. Smokestacks are almost always associated with extractor tension. I'd start there.

Mine is a Para, good to know that yet another person is having good luck with this boolit in their gun. Did you have to ream/throat your Para?


I shoot a Para expert commander with the 452-230-tc. I did ream the throat of my pistol and it feeds perfectly with an OAL of up to 1.220.

I also use this boolit in a RIA 1911. That pistol kept producing smokestacks and FTE's, once I reshaped the ejector to kick the brass out at a bit higher angle that problem was solved. Now that pistol runs great with as well. Did not ream that throat, a .452 reamer will drop down the barrel.

[shoot-n-lead]

I shoot a Para expert commander with the 452-230-tc. I did ream the throat of my pistol and it feeds perfectly with an OAL of up to 1.220.

My Para will feed OAL up to 1.270 with stock throat...????

[DougGuy]

I shoot a Para expert commander with the 452-230-tc. I did ream the throat of my pistol and it feeds perfectly with an OAL of up to 1.220.


And there you have it.... Been saying all along..

[dragonrider]

When I had an s&w 1917 some years ago, Grrrrrrrr, I fed it stead diet of Lee 230 truncated cone boolits. Something around 5 to7000 of them. I think I was using AA100 at the time somewhere around 4-5 grns IIRC. It liked them, they shot very well. However by some evil witchcraft I was relieved of my 1917 by a friend who wanted it bad, he nagged me for weeks and I finally broke down and said yes to shut him up. And now he will never shoot it again but I can't get it back. He has Alzheimer's and has no idea who I am or anyone else for that matter.

[CH8100]

I've cast thousands of these out of range scrap water dropped from a 6 banger mould. I load to 1.180 (a hair longer than the Lyman 4th recommends) and have zero feeding problems in my 1911, Sig220, and XD. Favorite loads are 4.3 grains of Red Dot for right at about 800 fps, and 5.7 of Unique for almost 900. Mine fall out of the mould at about 238 grains, no sizing required.

[Saltner]

Saltner,

Excellent groups. What "SWC" design are you using? You may have a SWC that has a larger distance between CP & CG. For a given TC design, a HP would move the CG rearward and increase the distance between the CP and CG. This is what's done with rifle match jacketed bullets, i.e. sleek nose profiles for desired ballistic coefficients which shifts the CP rearward. Then the lead core is only filled-up to about the start of the jacket ogive or more to move the CG rearward and increase the separation distance between the CP & CG. Rifle HP match jacketed bullets are not made that way to gain expansion on a paper target!

Bottom line. Whether you're shooting match jacketed or PPCB the geometric bullet parameters must satisfy the Laws of Physics. However, the aerodynamic flow characteristics will vary based on surface irregularities. The small PP retention grooves , on rifle PPCB, allow the PPCB to closely approximate a smooth match jacketed bullet which also has barrel grooves to degrade its aerodynamic flow.

Best regards,

CJR


I modified the mold LEE that cast projectiles SWC small bevel base, i was tired that the lubricant was attached on the bottom and so I modified the mold for bullets flat base.

252 SWC http://leeprecision.com/images/T/t-71.jpg
230 TC http://leeprecision.com/images/T/t-45.jpg
200 SWC small BB http://leeprecision.com/images/T/t-69.jpg

[MT Beard]

My Para will feed OAL up to 1.270 with stock throat...????

I should have been more specific, the pistol would feed the longer OAL just fine. However, it would jam the bullet into the lands. Mine needed reaming to pass the plunk test, even with a OAL of 1.185.

[Blackwater]

FWIW, my guns have always liked shorter OAL's if feeding was to be 100%. Same with the Lee 230 TC (mine is std lube grooves). If I don't seat them down right to the last few thou of the shank's length, and right at the ogive, they don't feed well. Seat them down like I described and they feed like water. If at first you have trouble with it feeding, seat the bullet a tad deeper and try again. That has seemed to be a pattern with several 1911's I've had experience with. Many don't realize just how crucial OAL can be in 1911's for reliable feeding, and many a mould has been abandoned when the real problem was the OAL, so don't make that mistake. It'll feed. You just have to experiment with it to find the "sweet spot" for your taper crimp.

[newton]

So what is your OAL with the Lee boolit?

[twc1964]

If you have any wsf powder, try 6.0 grains at 1.185 oal. Shoots great and accurate. As always , you should drop down a bit and work up but this works for me. Tc boolit from lee feeds flawlesly in my glock and it has been known to feed poorly with some other styles unless seated short. Ymmv

[newton]

I'm just curious if people seat it short due to the throat/leade in their gun, or if it's because it feeds better shorter.

I did not have any feeding issues when I was at 1.170", but figured I would try seating as long as possible given my throat/leade and have had just a few FTF now. I think they were agrivated due to the very sharp corner on the top of the barrel ramp which was even catching factory ammo.

I might have to seat a little shorter to see if it makes a difference.

[newton]

Just got back in from running 50 through the gun with shortening my OAL to 1.180" from the 1.190". Only one hiccup, when I loaded a single round and let my 8 year old shoot it. Needless to say, he doesn't have the best grip and it failed to eject.