PDA

View Full Version : 45acp oal



sdelam
04-04-2009, 10:56 AM
Anyone have a good OAL for a Lee 452-228-1R mold? I just got this yesterday and tried seating to just above the top grove (1.245) and they would not chamber. i had to go down to 1.173 to get them to chamber properly. Man do they look funny. They weight out at around 229-230g. I'm planning on starting out with 4.7g of bullseye. Does this OAL sound right or did I miss something?

Shiloh
04-04-2009, 11:28 AM
4.7 gr. of Bullseye is a hot load.

My Alliant book as well as Alliant's online manual lists 4.0 as max.
My Lyman book says 5 gr. Max.

Would do you think about starting out at 3.6 or 3.8 and working up from there??

Shiloh

Echo
04-04-2009, 12:03 PM
And how did you check the chambering? By dismounting the barrel and dropping them in, to see if they stood up proud? If so, re-assemble the gun and try to cycle them out of the magazine. The force of chambering may engrave the rifling, but that's a good thing. Along that line, what's the hardness of the alloy?

And +1 on dropping the charge - start @ 3,6 and move up. Four point seven is HOT...

sdelam
04-04-2009, 01:09 PM
I checked the chambering by inserting it in the removed barrel, I have always tried to to seat bullets .010--.020ish off the rifling. I am under the impression that forcing a bullet in the the rifling of the barrel is bad, am I wrong?

The Hornady 7th ed lists 230g lead at 4.5-5.7g of bullseye.

The Lyman cast bullet hand book lists a 225g at 4.0-5.0g

I couldnt find a 230g LRN load for bullseye on the alliant site, can you please give me a link.

I can back off if needed but I normally trust what is printed.:confused: I'll try some 3.6's and see what happens.

I was more concered with OAL than powder charge.

Not real sure on hardness, its all range scrap.

codgerville@zianet.com
04-04-2009, 01:29 PM
I am using that bullet also. OAL is 1.240 and they chamber ok in my Springfield and Charles Daly. I am using 5 gr. of Bullseye with very good accuracy and no signs of high pressure. I use the same charge for 452374, got it from Lyman's cast bullet manual.

Shiloh
04-04-2009, 01:41 PM
You're right!!
There is no longer a load for Bullseye with the 23o gr LRN. on the website.
My Alliant load book that I received about 2 years age is the 2005 version.

In it, the loads for the 200 gr. SWC and 230 gr. LRN are the same. They are both listed at 4.0 grains. This is the max load and it suggests reducing 10%, 3.6 gr., and working up. I would strongly suggest you start at 3.6. I mentioned 3.6-3.8 as a staring load. I have used both with a 200 gr. SWC,
as published. I experinented with both with a LEE 230 TLTC boolit that drops at 238 gr.

One source I use as a REFERENCE, is http://www.reloadammo.com/45loads.htm
He lists his max load as 4.8 grains as HOT!!
His loads for the LRN are 4.0 grains. Again, he suggests starting loads by reducing 10%
Verify loads found on the web. If it different than published data, you need more research.

Alliant lists the seating depth at 1.19 min. The Lyman 48th. ED. reloading book list the OAL at 1.272.

Shiloh

Recluse
04-04-2009, 01:53 PM
I can back off if needed but I normally trust what is printed.:confused: I'll try some 3.6's and see what happens.

I was more concered with OAL than powder charge.

I normally trust what is printed also, but only sometimes. There are factors to be considered, and in this case, one of the factors is that this is really kind of an "odd" boolit.

In talking with some serious 45 ACP shooters at the American Legion Post, they tell me that this mould and boolit are/were set up to mimic the old military ball ammo configuration.

Now, that's a great load to shoot, but not always an easy one to load for. You have to seat this particular Lee boolit a bit deeper than what it appears you would just so it will chamber in most of today's modern 45's--especially ANYTHING newer than a Series 70.

One of the guys down at the Post is a WWII vet, 85-years-old, still reloading and still shooting. He still has his old Colt 1911 45 that was issued to him in 1939 and that was given to him when he retired after thirty years of service. He can load that boolit up a bit longer and it chambers fine. I suppose several hundred thousand--or more--rounds over the years will do that. :) Plus, he told me the guns back then were built a lot looser than today's gun. He said it was because back during the war, they never knew WHO was going to be making their ammo--so it ALL had better chamber and fire.

4.6 grains of Bullseye is what I normally load in my 200SWC 45 rounds. I've loaded that with my TL230RN boolit, but would be very hesitant to start off with that much using the 228RN boolit seated to an OAL in which it will chamber reliably.

Would have no problem working up to it, but sure would not start with it.

:coffee:

sdelam
04-04-2009, 02:31 PM
I seated another round out to 1.235 and here is the difference in how it sets in the barrel. Please excuse the pic's, I dont know what happened to the color.
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m237/sdelam1/IMG_6165.jpg

1.235
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m237/sdelam1/IMG_6163.jpg



1.073

http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m237/sdelam1/IMG_6164.jpg



I inserted it into a magazine and released the slide, as you can see it did not chamber all the way and the slide did not fully close.


http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m237/sdelam1/IMG_6167.jpg

I had a difficult time pulling the slide back to eject the round. It was jamed in there really good. Here is the mark left on the bullet.

http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m237/sdelam1/IMG_6170.jpg



Seating them that long is not an option at all. I will reduce down to 3.6g and work up from there. Thanks for all the help guys.

I guess I should add these are unsized, they seem to drop at about .454ish. Do you think that sizing them down to .452-.451 will allow for a longer OAL? They drop the same as the TL-452-230-2R that I'm trying to replace due to the issues I have had with the shoulder on those. According to Lee you shouldnt have to size those.

Dale53
04-04-2009, 03:39 PM
I size ALL of my .45 ACP's to .452". Looking at the picture you furnished, it is obvious that you will have to either seat deeper or size. Having an interference fit is NOT acceptable (as you have found). However, seating just a bit deeper will, no doubt, work for you.

Keep us posted...

Dale53

35remington
04-04-2009, 04:05 PM
A few comments need to be corrected here, as some of the previous information you've received is erroneous. Also, conflicting information needs to be resolved.

First, this bullet is NOT, repeat, NOT, a duplication of the ball profile. It is a one radius ogive. The proper ball profile is a 2 radius ogive and Lee offers this as their 230-2R.

Second, standard bullet seating depth of a 2 radius ogive is around 1.265", which is the same as ball ammo. Since the 228 1R has a 1 radius ogive, it cannot be seated to ball length in most guns as the portion of the bullet that is full diameter - .452" - is outside the case mouth a significant amount. In this particular instance, your gun cannot fully chamber the round because the bullet is bearing on the rifling, preventing full chambering. I have further comments about your improper .454" diameter later.

I also need to point out your gun has a rather short leade or throat, as my Colt 1911's will accept this bullet at 1.220" and allow chambering flush with the barrel hood. Again, see my later comments.

Third, you've received some erroneous information on powder charges. Powder charges cannot be properly evaluated without considering bullet seating depth and the effect that has on pressures.

4.7 Bullseye is NOT a hot load with a 230 grain lead bullet with a 2 ogive radius seated to standard ball overall length in the vicinity of 1.265." In fact, in my 1911's, this charge and bullet fall a bit short of being able to duplicate standard ball velocities. 5.0 grains Bullseye gets 830 fps with a 2 radius ogive Lee 230. With a 230 FMJ, also of 2 radius ogive configuration it gets 810 fps from my 5 inch 1911's. A quite safe standard velocity. References available on request - this load with this bullet is quite safe.

Further, 4.0 grains Bullseye with a 230 of this configuration (2 radius) is a rather light load, failing to give standard velocities by a rather significant margin.

What needs to be understood is the influence of deeper seating depth with your shortnosed 228-2R. Your seating depth is significantly - almost excessively - deeper than standard. Your gun has an almost nonexistant throat, and the deep seating depth will raise pressures substantially. Therefore, with this particular, non standard bullet design, I would start in the 4.0 grain range and evaluate velocity. Since the reduced case capacity means higher pressures to produce velocities that are standard, with the quick burning Bullseye powder I would not exceed standard velocities of around 800 fps.

Increase the charge gradually, using a chronograph, until you hit that range or just under and go no further. Essentially, with the short bullet, you've turned your 45 ACP into a 45 GAP. Which needs higher pressures to equal standard 45 ACP velocities due to greater bullet seating depth, less powder capacity and less room for the gasses to expand on primer ignition and powder burn.

4.0 grains will cycle the gun. If you have no chronograph proceed cautiously. I need to point out that around 5 grains is proper with a 230 FMJ of standard 2 radius ogive configuration, and would be suitable IF your gun would allow a 1.265" overall length WITH a 2 radius ogive lead bullet. Since your gun does not, you should not be using the full charge without checking velocity.

You're flying blind without one, and that is not a good place to be.

Sorry for the lengthy post, but given all the preceding "information" it's something you really, really needed to hear.

On edit: Size them!! .452" is proper, and .454" will not be compatible with many guns. And check what overall length is possible, as a reduction in bearing surface diameter may allow chambering with the bullet further out, which is very, very desirable. Hopefully, you can seat longer and BY ALL MEANS try to do so if the gun will allow it.

On further edit: with the 230-2R you're also headspacing on the shoulder rather early in your very short throat. Try seating the bullet so the shoulder is only slightly protruding and check chambering. If you may chamber correctly with the only slightest bit of shoulder protruding, overall length will still be much more correct than with the non standard 228 1R. I am assuming you will try .452" sizing on the 230-2R first at standard lengths of 1.265" and work downward very gradually until chambering is proper

If proper chambering still cannot be obtained, very seriously look into having the gun throated slightly so standard overall lengths can be obtained.

The bullet is not the only nonstandard thing that's present here - it's also your throat. I can empathize, as my P97 also has a short throat, but not as short as yours, apparently.

I regard such a short throat as a handicap, and it sounds like your gun will puke on many semiwadcutters like the H&G pattern 200 and many of the other configurations as most of these have a slight bit of shoulder above the case mouth when properly seated. If your gun cannot tolerate any amount of bullet shoulder above the case mouth the chamber configuration is a bit nonstandard.

Likely it was chambered with jacketed, not lead bullets in mind. I see that it's a Glock, and it's almost legendary that lead bullets receive less consideration in that particular brand. I'm not saying you can't use a lead bullet, just that your leade configuration makes it more difficult.

I'd get that looked into.

Dale53
04-04-2009, 04:16 PM
sdelam;
I would suggest you heed 35 Remington's post. Excellent information.

Dale53

sdelam
04-04-2009, 05:42 PM
Thanks for all the info, thats exactly what i was looking for.

The issues i had with the 230-2R were extraction problems. The spent case was catching the shoulder of the next round in the magazine. They work great in my RIA GI model but the angle of the magazine in the G36 is too shallow. Hopefully this will fix that. If not I guess I will spring for a lyman mold to get a true GI profile. Anyone interested in a Lee 6 cav 230-2R?:wink:

Can anyone tell me which top punch I need for the 228-1R?

35remington
04-04-2009, 07:15 PM
It's unfortunate that your G36 has extraction problems with a shouldered bullet, but then it will have problems with most all bullet designs that are not roundnose and have that shoulder.

It will likely do the same thing with any SWC. It's too bad that you must be limited in bullet choice in this way, but I guess that's the price you pay for the supposed "Glock Perfection" as they rather misleadingly claim.

Once again, you've a gun problem rather than a bullet problem. I wouldn't sell a mould that makes good bullets for your 1911 pattern pistol. Besides, nobody will give you much for a used Lee mould, but then again you might get lucky.

The Lee is such a close duplicate of the ball feed profile that I myself would keep it. I've got a six banger in that design myself.

243winxb
04-04-2009, 09:23 PM
For a lswc i go by this measurement for oal. http://i338.photobucket.com/albums/n420/joe1944usa/45acp947inch_001.jpg
I guess I should add these are unsized, they seem to drop at about .454ish. The need to be sized to .452"

Echo
04-05-2009, 01:28 AM
I mostly agree with 35Rem, and the others - especially the bit about sizing to .452. I believe that the .454 boolits were causing the jamming and difficult slide retraction.

And 243winx, that is the way I seat my boolits. But then I load for accuracy, not max velocity,and 3.6 BE is my standard for the Lyman -460 boolit.

And seating to contact the rifling is not a bad thing with low-pressure cartridges such as the .45ACP... Can be a good thing, actually...

ghh3rd
04-05-2009, 09:54 AM
.

I'm new at this and having the same type of problem with my .40 cal. I seated them in a bit, and manually cycled a magazine full OK, but had an FTE about every 4 or 5 rounds.

When I seated the boolit in a bit farther, I was concerned that I was raising pressure -- is that a concern when seating about an additional 1/16"

.

robertbank
04-05-2009, 10:22 AM
I
And seating to contact the rifling is not a bad thing with low-pressure cartridges such as the .45ACP... Can be a good thing, actually...

Well I have to disagree here a tad. The problem with maxing out on OAL is that you are using hobby equipement. IF for what ever reason some of your bullets wind up a thousandths or so over your projected maximum length you can wind up with feeding issues. If these issues raise there ugly head while shooting USPSA or IDPA your day is going to go south in a hurry.

An easy way to determine max OAL for your pistol round is as follows:

1. Mesure the length of the bullet.

2. Remover your barrel from your gun and drop a bullet into the chamber and measure from the base of the bullet to the edge of the barrel hood where the rim of the case would normally be flush.

3. Add the two measurements together and deduct a few thousanths.

What you will have is the maximum length for that bullet in that gun. Now check to see if a cartridge loaded to that length will feed in your mag and your gun. From my expreince using a progressive press and loading for volume you have to make allowances of a few thousanths of an inch for bullets that may have a bit of lead on the nose etc causing some variation in OAL when seating.

The above works for me.

Take Care

Bob

Shiloh
04-05-2009, 10:22 AM
Was the failure to eject because the round was a little long? getting hung up at the back of the chamber or slide? I have that problem with a LEE 230 gr TLTC boolit in the 1911. My mold drops at 238 gr. They engrave slightly when chambered, but the slide closes. The .45 ACP operates at a much lower pressure than the .40 S&W, and they are loaded at 3.6 grains, the low end of the Bullseye charge weight. I may go with a slower powder for that boolit.

The .40 S&W operates at a much higher pressure and seating an additional 16 of an inch would cause higher pressures. How much I don't know. Others may. Glocks are finicky, if in fact it is a Glock that you are using. I got an aftermarket barrel for my Glock 22. Feeds everything.

Shiloh

Recluse
04-06-2009, 03:43 AM
OK, now I'm a bit confused. I thought we were discussing the one-ogive (Lee) 228 gr boolit. I've never cast that one, nor loaded nor shot one. Have the TL230RN mould and it produces decent boolits and is a breeze to load and seat--no issues with feeding or chambering.

I was told the one-ogive 228RN was designed to mimic military ball ammo performance--but not a "duplicate" of the actual projectile itself. Having shot a helluva lot of military ball ammo, but never bothered to load it via lead boolit projectiles, I have no idea how it would mimic the 230FMJ ball load. Sometimes I just take the old guys at their word. :)

I toyed around with buying that (Lee) mould in a two-cavity until Buckshot shared his experiences with the boolit and the extreme care he had to take, if I remember his posts correctly, in loading and seating it. The excessive depth with which it had to be set spooked me a bit. . . a lot, actually. When I want to shoot ball ammo, I shoot the FMJ stuff that I load and store.

So I'm confused on the powder charge being discussed. 4.6 Bullseye with my 230RN boolits seated correctly is not only NOT a problem, it is extremely accurate and one of my pet loads. But as deep as that one-ogive boolit has to be set simply in order to feed and chamber, no way in Hades would I start with that load.

Didn't see where the original poster was loading or casting a 230-2R boolit--only that 228-1R boolit.

:coffee:

sdelam
04-08-2009, 11:14 PM
I started with the 230g-2R and had issues with the shoulder. So I tried the 228-1R
because it has no shoulder.

Update. I tried running them (228-1R) through a .452 sizing die and it didnt make a difference at all.

As luck would have it, I finally smartened up enough to go ahead and order a Lyman 452-374. That did the trick, seated at 2.272 (per the lyman cast book) they chambered like a champ.

I did come up with a few more questions though. I brought out the Lyman 450 to size and lube (obviously) and I couldnt for the life of figure out how to insert a lube stick without making a huge mess. I couldnt even get it out of the plastic tube. What am I missing?


And lastly, since I could not find a set of handles for the lyman I thought I'd see what it would take to make my Lee 6 cav handles work. To my suprise, I didnt have to do anything. They fit and worked as is. Is that normal? I was under the impression they would have to be modified to work right.

Cant wait to shoot the lyman boolets, thanks guys for all your help.

slimpickins
04-08-2009, 11:43 PM
Nope lee handles usually fit fine in the lymans at least the ones ive got do.

randyrat
04-09-2009, 06:46 AM
.

I'm new at this and having the same type of problem with my .40 cal. I seated them in a bit, and manually cycled a magazine full OK, but had an FTE about every 4 or 5 rounds.

When I seated the boolit in a bit farther, I was concerned that I was raising pressure -- is that a concern when seating about an additional 1/16"

. Yes be concerned.. The "fourty cal" is a high pressure round up to 35,000 psi by seating deaper you are raising the pressure and you don't want more pressure with cast or jacketed. The 40 can be on the edge of danger in a flash. OAL is something to pay attention to.

Railbuggy
04-09-2009, 08:00 AM
I did a post like this about 6 months ago using the Lee 228grLRN in my Norinco 1911.Had the same problem , had to size the 200gr SWC long and the 228gr LRN short.I'm looking for a 2R mold?:bigsmyl2:

sdelam
04-12-2009, 01:13 PM
Well I finally made it to the range to try the lyman boolets in my G36. They worked much better. I still had a few issues with the slide needing a bump on the back but not like before. I checked some of the rounds and found they were a little long, 1.285 ish somehow. I set them up for 1.272, not sure what happened there. I'll load some more up at 1.265 and try again. It really liked the 4.0g of Bullseye the best.

I also had little to no leading unlike the lee's using the same alloy. Not sure if it was the bullet, lube or sizing but it was very clean after 100 rds. :-D

MtGun44
04-12-2009, 01:34 PM
Failure to taper crimp is 85-90% of the time the problem in
failure to close in .45 ACP. Use the dismounted barrel to check
the die setting.

Buy and use a taper crimp die to push half the thickness of the
brass (use magnification to look) into the lead.

Read my comments and the final result on this thread:

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=47847

Bill

bobk
04-12-2009, 02:13 PM
Actually, taper crimping is unnecessary. It won't hurt anything if you do it, but I loaded thousands of rounds of .45 ACP and have never owned a taper crimp die. I roll crimp, and seat the boolit into the rifling to control OAL. As long as the diameter at the mouth is not too large to chamber, and the boolit is not seated out so far as to prevent chambering, all will be well.

I got involved in one of these "headspace on the mouth of the case threads" a while back, and subsequently we miked a bunch of cases, and depth miked a few Colt barrels, and discovered that yes, indeed,with some older Colt parts, some production tolerances would stack up so that the case movement into the chamber actually was limited by the extractor. But all of that is irrelevant, other than it points up the fact that regardless of what old data developed in old Colt pistols says, you must fit the OAL of the round to YOUR gun. And you can do that when taper crimping, roll crimping, or not crimping at all, though I don't recommend this last one. No matter how you crimp, you still can't seat the boolit out too far FOR YOUR GUN, or it won't chamber! Surely this is obvious to anyone.

Bob K

35remington
04-12-2009, 02:32 PM
Is it possible to headspace on the extractor?

Sure.

Does it happen more often than not?

No. Not even close to it.

The same quoted "tolerances" are set up to this ensure does not happen the great majority of the time; "tolerance stacking" is the exception, not the rule. Part of the reason tolerances are set as they are is to avoid undesirable situations like headspacing on the extractor. The 1911 is a worst case situation, and even this design from widely sourced manufacturers does not headspace on the extractor most of the time.

"Some instances" do not equate to "most instances." To state otherwise is incorrect.

Since some means of turning in a case mouth flare after bullet seating is beneficial, a taper crimp can be seen as necessary for chambering when flare diameter significantly exceeds chamber diameter near the stop shoulder. Or some other method to turn in the flare, whether that be a very mild roll crimp or whatever you want to call it.

bobk
04-12-2009, 03:40 PM
35remington,
I never said that the 1911 headspaces on the extractor most of the time. What was said in a previous thread was that this was a fallacy, and had been debunked. Ah, no, it can and does happen. And it depends to some degree how many times the cases have been reloaded. The nominal case length is 0.898. I haven't measured one longer than 0.890, new, and they get shorter the more times they have been sized. The shortest Colt chamber I measured some time ago was 0.920, IIRC. At some point, the round will chamber on something other than the mouth of the case. It will probably be the boolit, since regardless of how short the case gets, it's not going to change the OAL, determined by your seater die. If, however, you do not have the boolits seated out very far, the chambering of the round can be limited by the extractor.

If the cases are much used, you will probably notice that something has changed by the ejection pattern. As the brass gets pushed back, shortening the case, eventually the extractor groove on the case will set back to the point that the extractor begins to nick the forward part of the groove. This being just opposite of where the ejector is hit by the case changes how they eject, and you can get smokestacks, particularly on light loads.

But what Bill implied was that a taper crimp die is essential. It's not. I think setting the seating depth is a much better way of controlling chambering, since the throating changes much more slowly than the length of your cases, which will affect the amount of crimp you get when taper crimping OR roll crimping. Your ballistic performance will be much more consistent during the lifespan of the case.

The reason I like some sort of crimp, however you do it, is that it prevents boolit setback during the stress of feeding. A too-deep seated boolit will raise pressures a lot, particularly with hot loads of a fast burning powder like Bullseye. I also never used Bullseye, nor any powder where a double charge would not overflow the case. I'd rather have a mess on my bench than trash the gun (or me!).

Bob K

35remington
04-12-2009, 04:31 PM
"I never said that the 1911 headspaces on the extractor most of the time."

Great! We're getting somewhere! Keep repeating that sentence above to yourself.....we agree!

Yet, strangely, the rest of your post seems to be trying to indirectly make the case that it does do so or will eventually do so (headspace on the extractor) more often than not.

Anytime you feel tempted to promote this belief, reread your first sentence, please, and save me some bandwidth if we already agree.

Bob, you're being disingenuous. You're arguing for the sake of something to do, and purely to be contrary.

We can all think of exceptions.

The nonarguable point is the automatic pistol is toleranced to headspace on the case mouth. What you're trying to do is argue by setting up a "straw man" scenario....and doing a bit of misdirection in your argument.

In most of the automatic pistols, most of the time, the case does not headspace on the extractor.

Let's make that perfectly clear. Even with shorter than normal cases, and in most 1911 chambers.

Are we good? Because arguing this point, continually, means you're confusing the issue.

I would also strongly suggest that SIG, Glock, HK, Smith and Wesson, et. al, would be quite offended if it were advanced that their tolerances were so "sloppy" that their pistols did not headspace as intended, on the case mouth. I can assure you these pistols are intended, and actually do, headspace on the mouth the majority of the time using ammo they were intended to use (or on the bullet if the handloader sets them up this way).

Not on the extractor.

Nothing has been "debunked" except the erroneous point set forth earlier that the automatic pistol is so sloppily "toleranced" that extractor headspacing is so common as to be the norm. Apparently some believe tolerances are so wide that the chamber shoulder is a mere formality, and we'd be just as well off if it was bored straight through.

Extractor headspacing is the exception. Happens when things go wrong. Agreed?

"At some point, the round will chamber on something other than the mouth of the case."

Let's make clear that "something else" is usually, in the large majority of the instances, something OTHER than the extractor.

Once again, are we good? No more "straw man" arguments, please.

Even after considerable shooting, the case STILL headspaces on something OTHER than the extractor the vast majority of the time. Tolerances are set up so this does not occur most of the time. References upon request.

That's why there are tolerances in the first place.

The vast majority of the time the pistol headspaces on something other than the extractor. Since you agree with this point, as in your first sentence, I would therefore presume there's nothing further to argue about.

Your Colt chamber dimensions are rather generous. In reading of the tolerances of 1911 chambers, and by actual test, what you state is considerably outside the norm, and you may check several references to see that your dimensions are outside what is typical by a considerable margin.

As for the rest of your argument just to be argumentative........

"But what Bill implied was that a taper crimp die is essential. It's not."

Another straw man argument.

Didn't you just admit you roll crimped to turn in the flare? Taper crimp turns in the flare. Roll crimp turns in the flare. You know what he stated was that this flaring MUST be made straight. A taper crimp addresses this important issue.

So does a roll crimp. Who cares what you use? The issue must be addressed, and this is how most prefer to address it since it is less case length critical than a roll crimp. A taper crimp is well established as a loading step for automatic pistols. Just because you do not use it to load automatic pistol cartridges does not mean it is incorrect to use one.

Arguing just to be contrary does not diminish the significance of the point he made.

Most use a taper crimp in preference to a roll crimp.

But I suppose you feel like arguing that point, too?

bobk
04-12-2009, 05:16 PM
35remington,
Ah, I explained in considerable, if concise, detail the mechanics of chambering in the 1911. I fail to understrand the reason for your reply to me, but I hope you are enjoying the day on whatever planet you're on. I apologize for ever having directed any reply towards you. I will not do so in the future, nor will I enjoy or be entertained by any future dialogue with you.
Bob K

35remington
04-12-2009, 05:33 PM
Glad to see we're on the same page. I don't like to argue just for the hell of it, either. And, of course, the point as stated by me is correct.

Your "mechanics of chambering", which I understand fully, do not change the fact that most of the time the rounds do not headspace on the extractor. As stated in your first sentence.

sdelam
04-12-2009, 10:55 PM
So anyway.............. I loaded another 100 rounds and this time I seated them a little deeper 1.265-1.272, I seem to get some slop in there some how. Maybe the seam of the boolet is a bit more pronouced on some? Anyway I took half and cleaned any excess lube that squeezed out and made sure I didnt have any lead shavings stuck to the case mouth. My plan is to shoot that 50 first and see how there compare to the ones I didnt clean. Or maybe just seating them a bit deeper fixed it and I wasted my time. I guess i'll see after work. Thanks guys

bobk
04-13-2009, 07:56 AM
If you are getting a "seam" on some of the boolits, then the seater is pushing on this, and seating those boolits a bit deeper. Some molds I have used closed consistently, but I have seen a couple that you had to give a quick glance before pouring, because the weren't completely closed. Irritating, but the one cast very nice uniform boolits as long as I made sure it was closed all the way. :neutral:

Bob K

shotman
04-13-2009, 08:44 AM
You said a G 36 are you de glocking the brass? I have never had a problem in a colt or sig If it will go in mag it will chamber. Try a few new brass.

sdelam
04-13-2009, 02:28 PM
I am using a lee 4 die set. I dont have any issues with my RIA 1911, Just the G36. I really like carring this gun and it shoots flawlessly with jacketed ammo. I just cant afford to shoot it as much as I like unless I get the lead to work.

I found on my lyman mold that after about 200 rounds one of the aligment pins seems to work loose and I have difficulty closing it completely. I let it cool and tried to clean it with no luck so I used a brass punch to re-seat it and it worked great again......for about another 200 rounds. I dont think the seam (which is miner) is causing my issues but it could be responsible for the slop in OAL.

I'm determined to figure this out! I cant let it beat me. ........................................ And I cant find a resonably priced compact 1911 to replace it.

mpmarty
04-13-2009, 03:03 PM
Sell the Glock and buy a Taurus PT145 PRO. I've carried mine for two years, eleven rounds and it feeds anything I load for it. I've got around two thousand rounds through it (Got a range at home), used it in IDPA type stuff as well as some IPSC practice rounds. It never fails to go bang, is accurate, smaller than the 36, lighter than the 36 and with a set of williams fire sights on it is a joy to carry and shoot. It is more accurate than any three inch 45 deserves to be. This is my fourth Taurus pistol and I've had two Taurus revolvers also and they all gave great value and service. I sold my
glock 30, 23 and 21 last year and am well rid of them and their loose chambers, smiley faces, and purported "perfection".

dwtim
04-13-2009, 06:52 PM
Late to the party, but:

* I load the 228-1R to cartridge overall length 1.272"; this is to tip, not widest part of ogive.

* sized to .452"

* S&W 4506, with a more gentle ramp

* any longer, and I can't get a good crimp, so set back is a problem

* any shorter, and occasionally one tips up, catches on the hood, and the gun FTF

* have not tested the load in an available Colt 1991; I'll make a mental note of it


EDIT: Shaving is a problem if you don't bell the cases first. I bell my 45 ACP cases and then crimp them, at the risk of brittle brass. Shaved, distorted bullet bases always foul the bore badly, and never produce good accuracy.

sdelam
04-13-2009, 06:59 PM
alright, just got home from the range. I had 60 rounds cleaned, and 40 rounds as loaded. I had 2 failures with the first cleaned 60, both had high primers. Thats a LNL shellplate issue, that I should have caught. Hope to get my new one soon.


When I shot the "as loaded" batch, the first 12 worked great but it went way down hill from there. By the end I had to bump the slide almost every round.

So it would appear that I have to do something a little different with the lube to get it to work. I really dont want to have to be anal with the cleaning of the loaded rounds, But I think it is the only way it will work. I might try to change the depth of the seating die, maybe I'm lubing to far up the boolet. I tried tumbling som but that seemed to make a bigger mess. :???:

MtGun44
04-13-2009, 08:22 PM
The key feeding reliability function of the taper crimp is to fully remove the flare, with
a very important second function of keeping the boolit from pushing into the case during
feeding. This push-in will increase pressures seriously.

A roll crimp will do both purposes, but in my several hundred thousand rounds experience
loading .45 ACP, the large variation of .45ACP case lengths makes roll crimps inconsistent to the
point of impracticality with the run of the mill IPSC mixed bag brass. If someone has
all matched brass from a single lot or has taken the time to trim them all, then a roll crimp
can be just fine. Most folks do not trim .45 ACP (I've actually never seen a non match
headstamp .45ACP case that reached the book "trim to" length).

I will repeat as a certainty - the overwhelming majority of failure to close problems with
.45 ACP is due to no taper (or roll) crimp. The second most common cause is too much
full diam boolit fwd of the case, and jamming into the throat. This varies all over the map
with different throats and boolit designs.

Bill

35remington
04-13-2009, 08:25 PM
It's not the lube. Your overall length is deeply and primarily suspect - and as MtGun says, attend to the case flare as well.

You're still too long with the 228-1R. I'm wondering why you're loading this bullet to a ball duplicate length of 1.265", given all that was mentioned before about its shape not duplicating ball, combined with your short throating. Only 2 ogive ball should be loaded to 1.265 - not the 228-1R. As was mentioned before, you've got full bearing surface diameter of .452" outside the case. Not good with a short throat - the rifling is hitting your bullet and grabbing hold of it.

When the gun's squeaky clean, it likely chambers with a full impulse of the slide, or dropping the first round in the chamber from slide lock, but once a little lube and fouling buildup occurs, the trash on the short leade prevents full chambering.

Bumping the back of the slide is a big, big hint.

Try 1.220", do the chamber test with the barrel out of the gun, taper crimp to .472" or a bit less, and try again. My Colts have longer throats than your Glock and won't take any longer length than 1.220."

At 1.265" you're wedging them into the rifling as the gun returns to battery, considering your short throat.

Likely you're going to wind up somewhere between 1.220" and 1.200." The latter dimension if you're throat's a bit shorter than standard.

Here's a function test BEFORE you go to the range.

Seat bullet in dummy cartridge - no powder or primer. Make sure you turn in the flare from the seating step.

Place in magazine. Drop from slide lock (let gun drive round into chamber - do not do gently, but more like the gun would do when feeding).

Now, try to eject the chambered round.

If it "sticks" it's wedged into the rifling. You need to shorten slightly and try again. (Note: it's possible for the bullet to stick so solidly in the rifling that ejecting the round will actually pull the bullet out of the case. My short throated P97 will do this with standard length round and lead bullets).

When rounds chambered this way eject with little added resistance, you're right.

Save yourself some time, start at 1.220" and go from there. Forget longer.

On edit: You may also give the dummy round a firm, solid tap with a wooden dowel or similar on the base after chambering it with the barrel out of the gun. If, when the barrel is inverted, the round stays in the chamber, it's because the rifling origin is biting deeply into the bullet. You don't want this.

Reduce overall length until this does not happen. Then, check with full slide impulse. If the chambered cartridge falls freely out of the barrel, and chambers and ejects freely with no sticking, you've got it right.

sdelam
04-13-2009, 11:55 PM
Alright slow done here fellas. It appears there's some confusion. I gave up on the 228-1R and switched to a lyman 452374. That is what i am seating at 1.265.

I did some more doodling in the garage. I decieded to measure the chamber on the aftermarket barrel vs the factory. Measuring from the same spots on both barrels and taking 10 measurements of each, I found the after market chamber is .007-.008" shorter. I dont know the spec's but that seems alot to me.

Next I started playing with the ammo. I took some mineral spirits and cleaned all the lube off of 50 loaded rounds. I noticed one round that must not have seated straight and had some lead on the case mouth. So taking a scribe, I lightly scatched around the case mouth of all 50 rounds. I found 35 or so had at least a sliver of lead on the case mouth.

With that in mind I decided to load some more with an increased mouth flare as recomended here. I increased the flare a good bit and after 50 rounds checked the case mouth with the scribe again. This time only 2 or 3 had any lead and it was very minor. I think I'll flare the mouth just a bit more and see if I can get rid of the lead smear/slivers all togther.

I went back and re-examined the 228-1R's I had loaded and found several of them had the same lead build up around the case mouth. I still dont like how deep they have to be seated so I'll stick with the lyman.

I'll try and go to the range again and if the "cleaned rounds" work this time then I guess I've about got it.

Recluse
04-14-2009, 12:54 AM
Lube should have no bearing on your rounds feeding--unless you have lube literally gooping up outside the case from when the boolit was seated. If that's the case, then you're using way too much lube.

Are you tumble-lubing or lubesizing?

If you're tumble-lubing and having that much excess lube that you feel it is causing chambering problems, then you're putting way too much LLA (or whatever) on those boolits. Easy solution there: cut your lube amount down by half.

But if you're using a lubesizer and still having that much excess lube coming/squeezing out, could be several things ranging from improper sizing of the brass cases themselves, not enough flare when seating the boolit, or a sizer die that is too large, or a combination of any or all of the preceeding.

Now, if that aftermarket barrel chamber/throat is shorter than the Glock's, yeah, that could be contributing as well. But I would think that taking a REAL close look at your crimping--so long as you're seating to proper spec OAL--is where I'd be focusing my attention.

:coffee:

Crash_Corrigan
04-14-2009, 02:43 AM
My Taurus 1911 has digested over 6,000 200 Gr LSWC which I molded with a RCBS steel 2 cav mold. I love Bullshop Sprue Plate Lube and that combined with Bruce B's speedcasting and a cold bucket of water has made casting a breeze.

I lube and size the boolits to .452 and lube with Lars Carnuba Red {heated a mite} and then loaded in any brass I can lay my hands on I generally use Clays, bell the mouth with my Lee expanding die, load the boolit and then taper crimp to get out the bell and finally run them thru a Lee FCD. That final step is what keeps everything working smooth. Prior to using the FCD I would get a failure to feed completely in about every 300 rounds fired or so.


I have only found one split .45 ACP case in 25 years of shooting that caliber. They seldom grow too long and generally when they are corroded and really grungy I toss them. Also if the primer pockets loosen up too much an my primers just about fall into the pocket they also are retired.



I set up the dies in my toolhead {Dillon 550B} years ago to just fit a factory 200 GR Copper washed bullet and I have not have had any reason to change it. IT WORKS AND I AIN'T GONNA MESS WITH SUCCESS!

I decap, resize and prime prior to running the cases through the Dillon. I do not know what my OAL i nor do I care.....it fits in the chamber, the case gauge and the darned round work ALL THE TIME. No leading, outstanding accuracy and "cheaper than dirt" just like me "older than dirt".

Station one is where I add powder, two is adding the boolit with a Dillon seating die, three is taper crimping and four is the Lee FCD.

bobk
04-14-2009, 06:46 AM
One of the reasons I'm a bit skeptical about all this crimp, what type, how much, etc., is because I started working on 1911s many years ago. I'm sure many of you remember the days when Colt was about all there was to be had. The triggers sucked, the sights were invisible, and they often had trouble feeding anything but hardball. Gunshow mags were often trash, which the vendor had given up trying to make work, so they blew them out for maybe $5. In that bygone era, if you wanted a .45 that worked, you had it smithed, either by you or a hopefully qualified smith.

I'll be the first to admit that I ruined a few sears and hammers, and bent the three leaf springs until they were unreliable. I throated barrels too deeply. I did a lot of stupid things, but this was just the price of my education. I finally got to the point where I did decent work, and the culmination of this was a pair of Commanders that would feed empty cases from good magazines. The triggers went 3 1/4 pounds, and the hammers never followed. I never went whole hog for accuracy at the expense of reliability, though the guns would easily do sub 3" at 25 yards with most any load.

Now, having said all this, I am sure there are smiths who could give you a much nicer 1911. Nobody is beating a path to my door. :roll: So I have trouble believing that currently produced guns are not far better than what we had 40 years ago, and probably better than any of my amateur efforts at smithing.

Now, all of this is not related to the poster's original question, but I think he found the answer. His cases needed more belling to eliminate having the case mouth shave lead and push it into a ridge that prevented feeding. He's a good troubleshooter. But I do think that much of the rest of the flailing around here was so much bull puckey. And I'll bet his "bad" loads would feed just fine in an old, loosely chambered Colt, especially one with a stronger recoil spring, because of what some would consider to be an undesirably loose chamber. But the sloppy old Colt would go bang all the time, which strikes me as being a good thing. I never got the impression that a perfectly set up 1911 would group any better with me shooting it than an ordinary Colt would.

Bob K

Recluse
04-14-2009, 12:46 PM
But I do think that much of the rest of the flailing around here was so much bull puckey. And I'll bet his "bad" loads would feed just fine in an old, loosely chambered Colt, especially one with a stronger recoil spring, because of what some would consider to be an undesirably loose chamber. But the sloppy old Colt would go bang all the time, which strikes me as being a good thing. I never got the impression that a perfectly set up 1911 would group any better with me shooting it than an ordinary Colt would.

Bob K

Have to politely disagree with the bolded part--and have a Series 70 Gold Cup tuned at Colt (shortly after I acquired it NIB in the 70's) that will prove it. Also have a old GI-issue Gov't 1911 that is looser than a White House intern and rattles more than a pocket full of pennies.

Difference between the two is that in a CQB situation (such as might happen when carrying concealed), I'll trust that old Gov't Colt 1911 with my life. It'll feed anything, anytime, anywhere and keep on shooting.

But if I'm shooting a match, that gun stays in the truck and the Gold Cup gets shot. It'll out-group that Gov't 1911 with ease. But she's a finicky eater and the ammo has to be loaded to spec.

Then on the other hand, I have an ongoing love affair with an old Hardballer that will eat and shoot anything round, but SWC rounds better be done 100% correctly or she'll call you on it. And the only tuning that gun has had is by way of a LOT of rounds being blasted through her. Rough gun, to say the least, but dang if she ain't a shooter.

:coffee:

Dale53
04-14-2009, 03:35 PM
I have two 1911's that will feed ANYTHING that is put together correctly. The two guns will reliably group well under an 1" at 25 yards. I have shot the two guns over 100,000 rounds and they are super reliable (stake your life on it reliable). However, they were built up by an EXCELLENT pistolsmith.

I haven't rolled around in the hog lot with mine but with reasonable care (I clean my guns every 300-500 rounds whether they need it or not:mrgreen:) they DO perform.

The new guns produced by Kimber, Springfield, and others are FAR, FAR better than Colt EVER turned out. A good number of them would probably rival my built up guns. The good ol' days are HERE AND NOW, fellows...

Dale53

35remington
04-14-2009, 07:20 PM
Sdelam, make sure you're not crimping and seating the bullet in the same step. Seating the bullet deeper while the case mouth is being crimped can also "plow up" that ring of lead around the case mouth and prohibit chambering. Seat first, then taper crimp. Sounds like you had more than one issue that needed to be resolved.

Since the question was originally about the 228-1R, which the OP decided to give up on in preference to the 452374, it very much needed to be pointed out that these are entirely different bullets with different chambering requirements related to overall length.

Proper overall length for those two bullets needs to be kept as a separate issue, as these two bullets present different problems. Especially in a short throated gun as is this Glock. Overall length issues are especially critical here.

More belling of the case mouth was not the solution to the issues with the 228-1R, as was mistakenly hypothesized. These bullets still require excessively deep seating in the short throated Glock, as the OP mentions. Since the throating was indeed very short, a 1 ogive bullet is not the answer. So the OP is probably wise to switch to the Lyman bullet if a reasonable duplication of proper overall length is desired.

Those with experience with these issues have no difficulty understanding the different overall length requirements of these two very different bullets, and how a very short throated gun is incompatible with the 228-1R, especially when trying to obtain the proper overall length for the 45 ACP.

These differences needed to be made clear.

I'll leave the bull puckey to those unfamiliar with the differences between the two bullet types, which allows them to draw the wrong conclusion as to possible solutions and compare apples to oranges.

And yes, turning in the mouth flare by crimping is an important aid to reliable chambering, no matter how far over SAAMI spec you think your chamber is. An uncorrected, belled case mouth can easily exceed the inside diameter of the largest chamber and prevent proper chambering. Experienced shooters know this and make sure they remove this belling, generally by taper crimping. Those that doubt this are in considerable error.

A "sloppy chamber" is not the solution for ammo that does not meet specifications, and it does not excuse badly assembled ammo. The solution is to make sure the ammunition is within specifications.

Knowing "how much" is the key to assembling ammunition within specs. You'd darn well better not guess!

sdelam
04-14-2009, 07:43 PM
Alright, Let me see....

I guess I'll start on a postive note. I got most of the way through a box of 50 rounds with no problems. Increasing the bell of the case mouth to ensure I didnt shave the lead was the trick. I really apprieate all the help guys.

And yes I did remove the bell with a Lee FCD.


And for the rest of the story.........

I was on round 40 of the 50 round box when IT happened.




















http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m237/sdelam1/IMG_6182.jpg
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m237/sdelam1/IMG_6732.jpg
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m237/sdelam1/IMG_6727.jpg
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m237/sdelam1/IMG_6728.jpg

The only thing I can think of is that with all the measureing and re seating etc. I stuck a case in the wrong slot and double charged it? Or maybe a bad case? I dont know.

I do know it hurt........alot! It happened about 2 hours ago and my hands still hurt, like they fell asleep and are waking back up.

It aslo hurt my pride. I thought it happened to other people, careless people, not me I was careful! I'm sure it will hurt my pocket too. $500 gun, 4 bullet molds $100+, 3 extra mags $60, aftermarket barrel $100.

At least I wasn't hurt other than the stinging hands and a nasty blood blister on my trigger finger.

My confidence is a little shaken as well. I will at least pull down the rest of that box, probably the other box I loaded that day and some of the box I loaded yesterday. Just makes me wonder if there are any more out there. I've loaded 3400 9mm since early Feb, 1000 .223 but they'd be hard to double charge.

I guess you can tell I'm a little bumed.

:groner:Maybe Glock will cut me a deal on a replacement, who knows.

35remington
04-14-2009, 07:49 PM
Bad news. Looks like the frame is completely trashed.

I don't think Glock will just give you another frame, as the frame is the part that is officially the firearm, and the error was due to no fault of their own.

A bad case is much less likely as a cause than a double charge.

sdelam
04-14-2009, 07:56 PM
I agree, The likely cause was a double charge.

I dont expect Glock to replace for free. Shall I run the list of Glock rules I broke? Reloads, Lead bullets, aftermarket parts....

sdelam
04-14-2009, 07:57 PM
Man I had it shooting nice too...........

35remington
04-14-2009, 08:14 PM
They number of guys who have made the same mistake is legion. Including experienced handloaders. A double charge is one of the most common handloading errors.

The hell of it is you'll receive even MORE advice about how to avoid this after the fact, which isn't useful now, but store it away for later.

I'd throw yourself on Glock's mercy (which may be a forlorn hope......does Glock mercy exist?...... but you gotta ask) and see what they can do about a frame. You may need an FFL holder to set up the transaction for you.

It's possible to get 8 grains Bullseye or more in the case without noticing it, especially on some progressives. You may now consider a higher bulking powder (like Red Dot or Unique) that will make a double charge more obvious, but you still gotta look for the double charge, and that's usually the problem.

Glad to hear you weren't hurt.

MtGun44
04-14-2009, 08:39 PM
Might have pushed the boolit in during feeding. If it was a double
charge, well - I have been there and done that, I used a
steel frame 1911, cracked the wood grips and boy does that sting!

Very sorry to see this, glad you are OK. Things are replaceable, even tho at
times the financial hardship is a real issue.

Were you using a taper crimp? If no crimp or inadequate crimp, the boolit pushin
would likely be a more probable cause. See if you can push a boolit into the case
with heavy hand pressure. If so, this is not good, may have been the cause. If
the boolits are crimped or really solid due to interference fit, then you likely made
the double charge mistake.

Bill

sdelam
04-14-2009, 08:42 PM
Tried to push on the rest of the box and I cant budge them at all.

sdelam
04-14-2009, 10:02 PM
I've gone over my loading and the only thing I can think of was that I remember that I was one primer short at the end of the run. Only had 99 loaded rounds. I didnt think much of it then, but now I remember during some of my first couple I was pulling rounds out at different times to check things and I must have put a charged and primed case in station 1 instead of back in station 3. This would explain why I was one round short at the end, I punched a new primer out and reset a second new one and charged it a second time.

thenaaks
04-14-2009, 10:09 PM
Man, it breaks my heart to see your Glock like that. I too am glad to hear that you're okay! Now's the time to pick up that Taurus PT145, probably for less than a Glock frame. Don't be afraid to jump back on the horse! :Fire:

Echo
04-14-2009, 10:15 PM
If you had put a previously charged case in station 1 and cycled it, there would have been at least a little bit of powder leak out of the primer hole before being sealed up by the new primer. Didi you notice any powder lurking around station 1 at the end of the session?

sdelam
04-14-2009, 10:24 PM
It would have likely fallen down the spent primer hole. I havent pulled the shell plate off the press yet, but that seems like a good call to look for it. thanks

sdelam
04-14-2009, 10:27 PM
Man, it breaks my heart to see your Glock like that. I too am glad to hear that you're okay! Now's the time to pick up that Taurus PT145, probably for less than a Glock frame. Don't be afraid to jump back on the horse! :Fire:

I bought a Taurus snubby and had to send it back to the manufacture for a cylinder clearance issue. I probably wont buy another one.

Dependeing on what Glock says in the morning, I maybe looking a little harder for that 3" 1911. I'd like to find a RIA compact of maybe a para warthog.

Dale53
04-15-2009, 12:07 AM
sdelam;
You have my heartfelt condolence's. I am truly happy you escaped injury. Hallelujah! for that, anyway.

I also respect you to not try to direct blame on others. Pretty much what "being a man" is all about.

Dale53