Para 1911

[newton]

I do see a 200 grain SWC mold on my future though. Lol. I like the looks of it and it would save a tad bit more lead.

[35remington]

Keep looking, newton. You're not there yet. Check your math.

BD, the bullet I speak of reasonably approximates the Hornady 230 FMJ-FP design. Same page or not?

[35remington]

DG's comments on the OAL of his rounds are sorta in sync with the more recent acclaimed HP's designs as well. I find GS to be the longest and a bit of an exception. Trying to be more ball like it appears.

[newton]

Keep looking, newton. You're not there yet. Check your math.

BD, the bullet I speak of reasonably approximates the Hornady 230 FMJ-FP design. Same page or not?

Woops....lol.... yea, the math was off I recon. Long day, dark night.

Regardless, for sure I know what I spent the better part of yesterday looking up, and post after post - not only on this site but many others - people were using that 'shorter' OAL. I ran across many of your replies to people talking about how their OAL was too short. They are not all using 1.170", but if not I would say 90% used OAL of 1.190" or less. On top of that, several people use an even shorter OAL. I know of one guy in particular, who I asked specifically a little while back, who uses 1.155" as his OAL. He shoots way more than I do. However, he does not shoot a 1911.

The interesting point about that is IF the boolit, being in the case 1.170", is contributing to the bulge that is not allowing the rounds to chamber, then 1.155" surely would be significantly worse. On top of this, I asked his sizing diameter. .452". So he either has a ridiculously large chamber, or the boolits are fine to be set in that deep. He has been loading it like this for quite some time now, I would imagine he would have said if there were issues.

This is just one example, of a personal conversation I had. I found many more like it, even of guys using this shorter OAL, that go back years. They found that the shoulder of the boolit needed to be below the case mouth completely. However, NONE of them EVER talked about failure to feed issues. Seems to me, if FTF was an issue, with a short OAL and this boolit, then there would be SOME talk about it. I find none.

I think its the angle/shape of the nose that lends itself to the good feeding. I only found one place, and I do not think they were talking about the Lee boolit specifically, but they were discussing different OAL and feeding issues. One guy was able to take the boolit drawing specs of factory ball ammo and whichever boolit they were talking about. Laid them over the top of each other and found that the angle the round entered the chamber, and place where the nose touched, were right on with each other even though the OAL was different. I have enough to look at, but eventually I can see doing the same type of experimenting with the Lee boolit.

So, I was off on my math, but the fact that it is a shorter boolit may also mean that the angle/shape of the nose is also different. Which would lead to a different OAL. I did not choose this OAL haphazardly. I did a LOT of looking here a while back, and came to the same conclusion. Yesterday's searching just made it that much clearer. I have NO doubt that some use a long OAL with this boolit. I think it could be done in my gun if I had a long leade. But that's the way it is with guns. Each one has the potential to be different. Even the feeding can be different in what would be normally called 'standard' GI guns. If we are only talking about .08" of difference between a "standard" OAL and a "short" OAL, I can see how the way a round is chambered, the angle it enters the chamber, can vary that much in a gun.

All in all. OAL is the LEAST of my concerns. lol. We have talked a lot about it, but I think its chasing a rabbit really. I could see if I was pioneering this, but I am not.

[35remington]

Talking oneself into a particular course of action is not the same thing as being correct.

[robertbank]

Newton baring something mechanical with the pistol itself the problem you are having is the OAL of the bullet. You have not measured the maximum cartridge length your gun will accept for the bullet you are using and until you do you are going to be spinning wheels.

A second, if you discount the mechanical problems that might be with your pistol, is you maybe collapsing your brass just ahead of the webbing when seating your bullet. Not every time but enough to be a nuisance. I have had that happen to me in both .45acp and 9MM with cases that have either grown weak from reloading or from a poorly belled case. Other causes can be a to tight of sizing die. Sized to narrow the belled case receives to much pressure as the bullet seats causing a ridge at the base of the bullet.

I would solve the OAL question before moving on to anything else. We are at page 5 on this subject and my sense is no nearer to the solution to your problem. The sized bullet at .452 would be the least likely cause of the problem IMHO.

Take Care

Bob

[newton]

Talking oneself into a particular course of action is not the same thing as being correct.

Just for grins and giggles....lets make my 1,000 post special.

What, pray tell, makes something correct?

[newton]

Newton baring something mechanical with the pistol itself the problem you are having is the OAL of the bullet. You have not measured the maximum cartridge length your gun will accept for the bullet you are using and until you do you are going to be spinning wheels.

A second, if you discount the mechanical problems that might be with your pistol, is you maybe collapsing your brass just ahead of the webbing when seating your bullet. Not every time but enough to be a nuisance. I have had that happen to me in both .45acp and 9MM with cases that have either grown weak from reloading or from a poorly belled case. Other causes can be a to tight of sizing die. Sized to narrow the belled case receives to much pressure as the bullet seats causing a ridge at the base of the bullet.

I would solve the OAL question before moving on to anything else. We are at page 5 on this subject and my sense is no nearer to the solution to your problem. The sized bullet at .452 would be the least likely cause of the problem IMHO.

Take Care

Bob

I am not sure how mechanical problems with the pistol have even come into this conversation? It is functioning, and has functioned, flawlessly. I am not sure how a bulged case, that has not been fired, is related in any way, shape, or form to the mechanical operation of the pistol? I have measured it, the OAL. But it varies on what you consider maximum. Is the boolit completely not touching, kind of touching, or crammed into the lands? I have tried all three, and all three will shoot from the gun. However, I went with the boolit not touching, which is 1.170". I can cram it into the lands at 1.180", but any filth or slide momentum lost and it will not lock up. So please, if you are seeing something here that I am not, enlighten me. I assure you, my wheels are not spinning.

Now your thoughts on the case webbing collapsing may indeed be viable. I have no idea how many times this brass has been fired, and its all mixed head stamp. It very, very well could be the brass weakening. I am using Lee dies for all operations. I have never had any issues with these in my 45acp cylinder and I have run hundreds through it.

I have solved my OAL question.....er......everyone elses question. See, I have never had a question about it since the beginning. I researched before I ever got the gun - my findings were a OAL ~1.170". I tested rounds after I got the gun - my findings were an OAL of ~1.170". I spent hours and hours yesterday researching again - my findings were a OAL of ~1.170". I have no questions about OAL.

Like I said, it would be different if I was the only one using this OAL with this EXACT boolit - much less if I was even in a minority of people who used this OAL. But the fact, undeniable and completely provable, is that this particular Lee boolit is used by many, MANY, people with an OAL of ~1.170". I am not sure how clearer that can get.

Guys, OAL is NOT the issue here. I know you all insist that it is, but there is no proof of that. You all do not have my gun, you don't have my barrel, I do. I am the one looking at it, I am the one firing it, I am the one testing it. You all can suggest that I consider OAL, but when I come back with solid, rock hard evidence, that it is not what is causing this issue, then you have to understand - OAL is not causing this issue.

I get it that some people have a hard time letting go of the "old" ways. I just had a conversation with my boss about this and something we do here at work. Old guys, as wise and full of knowledge and experience as they may be, have a hard time of letting go of "the way its always been". We have seen it through the years - indoor plumbing, electricity, cars, planes, credit cards, etc. When something else, that does not make sense to you, comes along, its natural to try and say its wrong. It may be wrong in some situations, but if it works in others - well, then it works. Hey, you guys are talking on a PC. Yes, you are doing something that used to be taboo. But we have come to find out that it is helpful. Sure, PC's have been the demise of a lot of things, but they have "worked well" for others.

My 1.170" OAL works in my gun. I have proven this. Yes, I tried 1.200", and above, and it would not work. I am not sure how else to put this. Yes, we are on page 5, if you go back you will see that when this started I made it known that I believe its a boolit seating issue. I still believe that's the case. It may also be a brass issue, but it is very random if so. And those rounds that do not work in the 1911 barrel work just fine in the 45acp cylinder. So, the round is very close to spec. Within .001".

I am not hashing this out anymore. Its ludicrous. You all have taken a thread that I meant to help others who would be coming along with their new Para Experts, wondering about cast boolits, and turned it into a discussion about "what is standard". Well, its "standard" to develop a load that works in your gun. That's standard. There is no exact in reloading. Everything is relative to something else. You can get close, but you will never see exact. We are muddying up the water with a .08" difference in OAL. Pathetic.

If you all want to keep on, then please start another thread about how everyone should seat to X OAL when reloading for the 1911. Please leave this thread alone if your not going to look at the facts given and respond to them in like manner.

[newton]

Have you solved the issue yet?

Well, you will have to be more specific please. Are you talking about my issue, or what others think my issue is. lol

If you are referring to the random case bulge, then no, I have not solved it yet. It is either the boolit seating a tad crooked or the brass being weak. It may even be the type of brass I am using, or rather how they made it, because headstamp does not seam to matter. The bulge is not prejudice when it comes to what case it seeks out. lol

However, I may never know what the true cause of it is or why it works in some guns and not others. As you can see from previous posts, most cast boolits in a 45acp case will bulge it to some degree. I wish I had an older 1911, or just another one for that matter, to see if the bulged cases that wont fit into mine would fit into another. I still have a degree of belief that my chamber is on the tighter side, and maybe one day I will cast it just to see.

But, if you really want to know the outcome stay tuned. I have a new die and new sizer on the way. I am going to put some theories to the test. I am not far from resolving the issue I believe.

[Bodine]

Gentlemen
Please refrain from continuing this I'm right, your wrong form of banter. If you cant post constructively, dont post at all.
Thank you
Bodine
Moderator

[35remington]

This has run its course. I replied as I did as it has become more about argument than action.


In making any "video" you might want to see that you're not actually making a video on how not to do things.


The righteous indignation bit you're affecting is ringing a bit hollow right now and it's ceased to be about the topic. Get to doing whatever you want to do and be done with it.

[NavyVet1959]

Gentlemen
Please refrain from continuing this I'm right, your wrong form of banter. If you cant post constructively, dont post at all.
Thank you
Bodine
Moderator

It's "you're", not "your"... Is that constructive enough?

Seriously though... It is getting a bit tired. It is like a train wreck though... You know what is about to happen, but you just *have* to watch.

I'm not sure what the OP is doing wrong, but I have *never* had *that* much trouble getting a round set up in my dies.

[35remington]

At some point it becomes evident the OP is "playing" those trying to help with or discuss a topic. We're there and well past there.

I have never heard of anyone having this much trouble with a simple seating step. That draws some degree of suspicion as well.

I am done with helping perpetuate this.

[newton]

Good grief....

[DougGuy]

Correct me if I am wrong.. The thread was about some rounds not chambering in a PO .45 ACP..

See if I can diagram this out in a simple fashion.

The round doesn't chamber because:

A. The diameter of the boolit won't fit into the throat of the barrel. Two things to check, the diameter of the throat, AND the length of the throat.
Possible solutions:
Seat the boolit deeper so it doesn't go into the throat. *
Ream the throat diameter to accept the diameter boolit the shooter wants to load.
Lengthen the throat to accept the COA that the shooter wants to load.
Use a smaller diameter boolit.

B. The case has a bulge at the base of the boolit when assembled.
Possible solutions:
Lengthen the COA so the base of the boolit is not seated in the thicker part of the case.**
Use a shorter boolit.
Use a smaller diameter boolit.
Use a carbide FCD to size down the assembled round and remove the bulge.
___________________________________________

Have I left out anything?

Notes:

* = This solution is often used and is generally accepted by many, even though it can raise pressures dangerously UNLESS tested and published load data can be used to insure safety at the shorter COA. This is not a good choice, even though many do it.

** = This problem usually results from choosing to seat deeper in the case, generally as a poor workaround for problem A listed above. It can be remedied by separating headstamps and using cases that will accept the chosen COA without bulging, OR by taking the necessary steps to permit the use of the correct COA as suggested in the load data.

[newton]

I think your close Doug. Or rather, one of those is the "issue" if you want to say it that way, B to be exact.

On A, I did exactly what you put the astric by. But it was when I was determining my Max OAL. That was my very first step when I got the gun. In fact, I had the barrel out and testing OAL within an hour after picking the gun up. The boolit hitting the throat is what kept me from going larger though. However, on your note, the beauty of this OAL is that it is a published OAL. I did run a few over the chrony. They ran right about where the published data said.

Also, on this note, when seated out longer and pressed into the lands, you can see where it's hitting on the boolit shoulder. I am going to do some picture taking tonight. This will be apart of it. I have no doubt that if the throat was reamed that it would then allow a longer OAL. But as it stands, the 1.170" is quite fine for the gun.

On B, you are correct. It varies with different rounds, the degree as to which it rubs on the chamber wall, but it's alwsys just in one area or another. Not the entire way around. My very first thought was to use the FCD to size it down, but I'm going to try smaller boolits first. Then, I'll try the FCD. I want to use this boolit, and the OAL won't allow it out further.

So A is a set thing, but B is what I'm working on. Really does bring things into perspective and eliminate the notion that this is a troublesome issue I'm having. I only figured out what was happening on Friday, and ordered the tools I need Sunday. I guess it just sounds worse than it is because of all the dialog. But you have very well "boiled" it down and brought us back on track. Thanks.

One other thing. I do see where a lot of people don't think of crimping as potentially causing an issue. That can be eliminated because I tried all manner of crimps down to some very extreme ones that really burry the mouth into the boolit. That did nothing to help the bulge, but I could go back and see how much OAL I could get. However, that would just be a test because I do not trim all my brass to the same length and that would potentially cause different clambering depths I would think. Regardless, it is something I don't want to have as a finished round.

[NavyVet1959]

I remember reading about how they used to hand fit the pieces of a firearm by blackening the piece of metal with the soot from a candle flame and then seeing where it was removed when the pieces were brought together. I wonder if something similar could be done with the barrel to see definitively where the bullet is coming into contact with the chamber. You might have to paint a very light coat of white on the bullet to see the carbon better though.

If the bullet does not get any soot on it, then the issue is probably with the diameter of the brass.

Although I like being able to use the FCD to separate bullet seating from the actual crimping stages, I initially started with just the regular taper crimp die and it worked well enough for me. I found that I could set up my dies to a particular OAL quicker though when I separated the seating and crimping stages. Probably could have done the same thing with just another taper crimp die with the bullet seating stem removed.

[newton]

Actually, I have tried what your suggesting navy. I painted the boolit with a magic marker. You can see the ring of bright lead when I put the rounds in that are too long.

Ive been crimping with my seating die. It does ok, but it will be nice to have a seperate crimp die.

[newton]

Ok, got measurements and pictures done. It's a pain to load from my phone so I'll do it tomorrow on the computer. In the end, looks like 1.180" is going to be the best. It leaves a tad bit of the shoulder exposed which is nice because when the shoulder is dead even or below the mouth, the crimp likes to pull the boolit deeper on occasion. I'm not sure if the FCD will work any different though.

All of them, when placed in the chamber, and spun, would leave a bright ring. So none of the rounds were headspacing off the mouth. Correct me if I'm wrong though, but even really short rounds tend to be held back by the extractor and don't really headspace off the mouth anyways. Guess it's a moot point anyways, I really don't want to go deeper.

[newton]

why would you want the boolit to ram into the rifling on an auto pistol. I thought the 45 hedspaced off the case mouth.

Good question. Ideally I don't. I'm actually hoping the .451" boolits will work better. But if not, it's a trade off I guess. I would rather ram into the lands than to have the boolit ram backwards. Although, it seems like if the boolit was pushed any further back it would not chamber because of the bulge.