.45 ACP 200gr LSWC

[jrayborn]

I bought a Ruger Commander 1911 pistol and really like it even though it is not perfect. The front sight broke after the first 50 rounds so I replaced it, no biggie. The darn thing likes to eject cartridge cases straight back over the top of the pistol and into my face, I still have to figure out how to fix that...

Anyway, I have been working on loading the Lee 452-200 200gr LSWC boolits and have been having difficulties trying to get them to feed. They seem to occasionally get caught up trying to transition from feed-ramp into barrel. My theory is it is an OAL problem. Currently I am loading to 1.245 and I see some load manuals call out for 1.170 minimum.

I always thought that longer lengths were the cure for the type of feed issues I seem to have, but perhaps I should go shorter. I want to say that I thought I have read that people load the SWC flush to the case where my rounds have the front driving band about .050-.060 out of the case. Anyone have words of wisdom for me?

My current load is 4.5 grains of Promo in mixed brass with the Lee boolit sized at .4525 (+).

[Bonz]

Having the same issues with all my 45's, 3", 4" and 5" barrels. I even tried X-Treme 200gr SWC copper plated and still experience feed issues, but not as many as with cast. I tried polishing the feed ramp on one and it doesn't seem to help. One thing I noticed is the shorter the barrel, the steeper the feed ramp and the most feed problems. On my 3" Colt Defender, it has actually pushed the bullet back into the case on a few rounds.

105975

[Airman Basic]

Anyway, I have been working on loading the Lee 452-200 200gr LSWC boolits and have been having difficulties trying to get them to feed. They seem to occasionally get caught up trying to transition from feed-ramp into barrel. My theory is it is an OAL problem. Currently I am loading to 1.245 and I see some load manuals call out for 1.170 minimum.

I always thought that longer lengths were the cure for the type of feed issues I seem to have, but perhaps I should go shorter. I want to say that I thought I have read that people load the SWC flush to the case where my rounds have the front driving band about .050-.060 out of the case. Anyone have words of wisdom for me?

My current load is 4.5 grains of Promo in mixed brass with the Lee boolit sized at .4525 (+).
Yes, I did the same and thought longer was better. Wrong. Once I started seating the Lee SWC with a 32nd or less above the case mouth, my feed problems eased up.

[bangerjim]

Same problem with a new 45 ACP 1911 with match grade barrel. Tolerance is very VERY tight! My cases jam going into the chamber. Factory FMJ's cycle OK.....not my cast loads. I can actually see the grease grooves expanding the brass! Boolits sized exactly at 452 as standard for all my other 45 cal guns, but I am ordering a 451 die. And a factory crimp die to get that case back down to uniform diameter at the front. I'll be darned if this new gun is gonna whip me!

I can see shiny rub marks on the front of the cases where they are jamming in the chamber.

My like for ALL types of semi's is rapidly waining........FAST! I have a 9mm I cannot get to function due to jamming. Length, crimp/no-crimp, and size is VERY critical.......too critical in my book. Those kind of guns are just waaaaaay to finicky. My 40 XD-m loads perfectly with my loads and is dead accurate. Guess it is just the luck of the draw.

Give me a good old reliable revolver or a long gun any day. To heck with all these fancy semi pistols with ammo clip shoved up their keisters.

banger

[TCLouis]

I have only loaded these for two different guns and feed, and firing was perfect in both.
One of the guns was a "rough finished" Auto Ord, brand new (but 20 years old) unfired gun.
Owner is glad he got lucky and has two guns that feed and fire.


Makes me understand why I like wheel guns.

[osteodoc08]

Shorten your OAL a little at a time until feeding well. Don't go below min OAL. I'd also suggest a good LRN mold if the SWC continue to be an issue.

As far as smacking you in the face, you've got to look at your extractor tension. Plenty of resources that go over that in finer detail than what I have time to type today.

Keep at it. The 1911 design is truly a marvel.

[jrayborn]

The extractor tension seems ok. I fit an Ed Brown extractor and it is tensioned so it will hold a live round when you shake the slide. I realize it could still be the problem but I also installed a Wilson extended ejector and think the angle needs to be played with a bit still. Sigh...

I'll get it!

[Old School Big Bore]

If your port hasn't been relieved yet, that might be it.

[jrayborn]

Yes, the Ruger comes with a lowered and slightly flared ejection port.

[Jupiter7]

Ive found that short loaded ammo is less reliable in all my 1911's. I load the lee boolit at 1.255 thats roughly .030 out of case mouth. Certain mags will not feed this boolit reliably. Especially when springs are weak and allows nose to droop, some new mags have pretty weak springs.

[wv109323]

I would shorten the length until 1/32" or .030 of the boolit protrudes beyond the case. A taper crimp of .468 to .470 is needed also. Velocity of at least 800 FPS is needed for the factory spring. The direction of case ejection can be changed by the profile/angle of the front of the ejector or by using an extended ejector(which it might already have).

[seagiant]

I would shorten the length until 1/32" or .030 of the boolit protrudes beyond the case. A taper crimp of .468 to .470 is needed also. Velocity of at least 800 FPS is needed for the factory spring. The direction of case ejection can be changed by the profile/angle of the front of the ejector or by using an extended ejector(which it might already have).

Hi,
+1 This^^^^^ should fix your problems! You MUST taper crimp! Also the angle on the face of the ejector must be right!

You also need the "bible" By Jerry Kuhnhausen!

http://www.cotep.org/forum/showthread.php?t=566

[gray wolf]

Just because the extractor is holding a case does not mean it's functioning the way it should.
When adjusting an extractor a little tiny bit goes a long way. The same goes for ejector angle and length.

If your getting hit in the head with an occasional case that's one thing, every case in the head is another.
A thing to look at is the extractor clocking in it's tunnel, as it rotates, every once in a while it can position it's self in a way that will hit you in the head, or have erratic extractor patterns.
I little more tension on the extractor may cure the clocking, to much and the case will not control feed
correctly and can jam against the fire wall. Also the FPS may not be a good fit in the extractor groove at the back end or the FPS may just be to loose.

This causes the extractor to clock ( turn in it's tunnel like the hands on a clock )
Tuning an extractor takes knowing what causes problems and knowing how to do the work around to fix it.
The slide travel on a commander may be different than a standard 5" 1911 and an extended ejector may be wrong for the pistol, ( not 100% on that one )

The ejector angle can be a flat surface, ( 90* to the top ) ( it can look like an arrow head > )
or it can have a slight down angle, flat on top and then slope down like this / on the front.
They all work to a degree when used in the proper situation. Ejector angles direct the case ejection angle out of the port but would have to be way out of whack to hit you in the head.

The port flaring I doubt has anything to do with your problem, a none flared port can cause brass marks on the slide and an occasional hang up in ejection, case stays in the gun and is not ejected.

As for the rounds not cambering, look at case flare removal and proper crimp, do not over crimp it is not needed. Also OAL of the case as determined by the seating dept of the bullet.
From what you have said so far, DO NOT TRY TO ADJUST THE FEED RAMP OR CHANGE ANY ANGLES
I would like to ask, how did it run before you changed out the parts you mentioned ?
The 1911 is simple, but not always plug and play, and you need to know what your doing before you do it, and how to come back if you mess up.

[jrayborn]

Hey G-W

The gun ran ok, basically the same. The ejector was loose as shipped by Ruger so I swapped it out, hoping to cure the brass-to-the-face issue (which is occasional). That didn't help the issue much but I haven't messed with the angle yet.

The extractor shouldn't clock if it ever did, I fit an O/S FPS for a NICE tight fit when I changed out the extractor.

The gun runs fine with ball ammo, or 225 gr Lee Round Nose Boolits (still brass-to-the-head sometimes) but I have had a devil of a time with the LSWC boolits. I suspect the issue there is the OAL of the loaded cartridge so I will keep playing. I am kind of long so I will try shorter and see if it helps.

One thing I have noticed is that the barrel when the slide is locked back is not held back tight against the feed ramp and there is a bigger gap there than I have read is ideal (.030). I made up some dummy's and hand cycled them a few dozen times (perfectly I might add) and notice some nicks on the case mouth.

When I have the barrel locked into the frame by hand with the Slide Release Installed the barrel/feedramp gap looks is perfect, but when the slide is locked back on an assembled pistol the barrel is raised up off the ramp by maybe .020 and forward by .060 or so. Leads me to wonder if my barrel link is the right length? It appears that the casemouth is driving into the very bottom of the barrel and nicking the case before it gets driven against the skirt and up into the mouth of the barrel.

Tomorrow I will hit the range with a hundred loaded at 1.215 OAL and see if there is any difference. Wish me luck!!

Phew that's a lot of info!

[jrayborn]

Well 1.215 was not the magic number. I will keep trying, there has to be a sweet spot!

[Tom W.]

I can actually see the grease grooves expanding the brass!


I gotta see that.....:kidding:

[LAH]

I use 1.275"

[jrayborn]

Thanks LAH, thats what I'm looking for!

[daniel lawecki]

200 gr SWC oal is 1.250 works in all my 1911'S

[MtGun44]

What you are looking for is to put the front corner of the meplat on the curve of
the ball bullet.

The pic is a 9mm TC, but the concept is the same. If it was an H&G 68 I'd tell you
to set to 1.250-1.260 LOA, but you are using the Lee with a different nose length.

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=52652&d=1314925371

A big part of jams with .45 ACP is INADEQUATE OR NO TAPER CRIMP. If you are not
taper crimping with a separate die to about .465-.468 this is likely your problem.

Bill

[jrayborn]

Thanks for the tips folks!

[huntrick64]

Show us a "close-up" with good lighting of the ammo that your having problems with. I was having the same issues with my Ruger full-size and was removing all of the flare, but that wasn't enough. Like said above, taper crimp to .467 - .468 and try again.

[Geraldo]

Here's the list of things I would look at:

1-Your ammo. Make some dummy rounds and see how they fit the chamber with the barrel out of the pistol and if you can hand cycle them. You should taper crimp. If it's a starting load you're using, it may be time to move up a notch as I'm guessing your Ruger has an 18# recoil spring.

2-Magazines. I have no idea what Ruger ships with their pistols, but they're probably not primo mags. Try CMC or Wilson.

[seagiant]

Hi,
IMO Wilson 47D mags will usually work in more different 1911's than any other!

[jakharath]

I second getting good magazines.

[littlejack]

jrayborn:
What type of feed lips do your magazines have?
Are they USGI tapered (hardball)?
Colt style hybrid?
Parallel early release (wadcutter)?
If you are having "failure to feed" with wadcutter ammunition, you may be using the wrong magazine (wrong feed lips).
It does make a difference.
Regards
Jack

[huntrick64]

I'm not for sure, but I'm thinking my factory mags on my SR1911 (early production) were Check-Mate. I was having the exact same problems as OP and thought about replacing them with Wilson 47D mags. Problem is, I could fire 10 full mags straight with factory hard ball and it would never fail to fire, fail to eject, or fail to amaze. I was convinced that since it would fire factory ammo all day long, it was not my mag, but my ammo. Sure enough, after implementing the "plunk" test for OAL, and then taper crimping to .467-.468, it fired my 200 LSWC all day long without a hitch. I have fired over 500 rounds of my handloaded LSWC in one afternoon without cleaning it, and it never failed. That was 4,000 - 5,000 rounds ago and I am still using the original mags (7-round and 8-round) that came with the gun from the factory. Make sure you try to fix the ammo before plunking down a bunch of money on replacement mags. If you do buy new mags, you would be hard pressed to find better than the 47D.

[35remington]

Actually, you would be hard pressed to find better magazines than the tapered lip design JMB. designed for the 1911. All others do not feed the 1911 like it is supposed to be fed.

No aftermarket magazine designer knows the 1911 like JMB did. If a different design was better he would have used it.

[bangerjim]

I gotta see that.....:kidding:


Believe me........you DON'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The brass has ripples in it where the grooves are on the boolit. Never EVER had that with any 45LC's. The ACP brass must be thinner. Factory crimp die + 451 sizing should solve all.

bangerjim

[seagiant]

Actually, you would be hard pressed to find better magazines than the tapered lip design JMB. designed for the 1911. All others do not feed the 1911 like it is supposed to be fed.

No aftermarket magazine designer knows the 1911 like JMB did. If a different design was better he would have used it.

Hi,
Well...I wouldn't try to second guess JMB in a million years! How a man could sit at his workbench and invent the 1911 pistol is beyond me! We have to remember though, that people have taken his design and changed things with it that he never intended! Process,materials,hollowpoint(SWC) boolits,powder,ect,ect!

I can't help but wonder how surprised JMB might feel if he came back and saw his pistol was even more popular today than when he died and the Cult Status it has achieved and how many companys build it today, besides Colt!

[Geraldo]

Actually, you would be hard pressed to find better magazines than the tapered lip design JMB. designed for the 1911. All others do not feed the 1911 like it is supposed to be fed.

No aftermarket magazine designer knows the 1911 like JMB did. If a different design was better he would have used it.

I'm not taking anything away from JMB, but I think a lot of top end 1911 smiths know as much or more about the 1911 than he did. The OP has a Commander length slide, and the shorter 1911 slides get, the higher the likelihood of problems. I still say it's ammo first, mags second, and third would be a pistol with a bunch of stacked up problems.

[35remington]

Wrong on all counts as to the knowledge bit and magazines, gentlemen. The 1911 is less reliable due to some of these mods and the point isn't debate able.

The taper in the feed lips is best preserved. If you don't understand why, I'll show you why in pictures. The "improved" magazine designs take away from reliability.

The sad thing is most users don't understand that or why it is so.

When your gunsmiths design their own gun I will give them due credit. Otherwise they are just modifiers, often to the detriment of reliability.

[littlejack]

This debate about magazine lips could go on for a long while.
As I am not an expert in the functioning of the 1911, I do believe that JMB, (who I think was a firearms genius) did in fact
design the magazine with the "tapered" USGI lips for his pistol because that is what the ball ammunition would function best
with. The reason that the particular "ball" ammunition was used, is simply that that is what the military/ War Department
required.
All that being said, if the military had wanted to use the now standardized SWC slug, the magazine lips would probably have been
a different design, to facilitate proper functioning of the swc slug.
In my own experience, my two acp firearms WILL have "failures to feed" using swc boolits if I use the "tapered" USGI lips.
When I use the "hybrid" lipped magazines, the failures to feed go away.
Now you can argue that as long as you want, but the simple fact is that the "hybrid" and the "parallel early release" wadcutter
lips were designed to help feed the swc AND other non-ball ammunition properly.
If there had not been a need for the other lip designs, there would have not been any reason to manufacture them, EH?

[prs]

Here's the list of things I would look at:

1-Your ammo. Make some dummy rounds and see how they fit the chamber with the barrel out of the pistol and if you can hand cycle them. You should taper crimp. If it's a starting load you're using, it may be time to move up a notch as I'm guessing your Ruger has an 18# recoil spring.

2-Magazines. I have no idea what Ruger ships with their pistols, but they're probably not primo mags. Try CMC or Wilson.

I have early production and a more recent SR1911 and both came with Check Mate magazines with good springs and what I believe to be the GI type follower profile and tapered lips. They seem to be quite good.

prs

[seagiant]

Hi,
Check Mate mags are suppose to be good to go! I've just always ran Wilson and Chip McCormick Power Mags! Not the Shooting Star models! I tried the SS models but had problems with the feed lips expanding!

As I mentioned earlier to the OP about obtaining the Colt .45 Books Vol. 1&2. by Jerry Kuhnhausen. Volumn 2 has the original type BP of the pistol as it was designed. One of the things I did not know, which it tells about, is how important the quality of the slide has to be and then spec true barrels to fit them correctly!

Like I said before JMB and Colt teamed together to make a military pistol that was spec go,no- go, so they could be repaired in the field and parts would all be to a certain quality to work in that type enviroment!!!


Seeing how the 1911 was used as a service pistol for 85 years I'll stick my neck out and say they figured it out! Some other company,maybe yes, maybe not so much!

[35remington]

"if the military had wanted to use the now standardized SWC slug, the magazine lips would probably have been
a different design, to facilitate proper functioning of the swc slug."

The taper would still have been there, and JMB wouldn't have agreed to extra short SWC's. All that is needed to convert GI magazines to SWC ammo is to quicken the release timing by opening up the feed lips a little sooner. Making a quicker release point, that is. That is why the hybrids feed......they have an earlier release point. There was, in fact, no real need to come up with the straight lip SWC type magazine until super short rounds were introduced, which are a fool's errand in the first place. They do not feed with nearly the reliability no matter what magazines are used, which is why target shooters get alibis. Nobody else will risk using them when the gun hasta go bang.

The crime is the assumption that the straight lipped magazine is "best" for the ammo the 1911 is most likely to feed well. They are most assuredly not. The hybrid magazine, which is the Colt type, preserves the all important taper. JMB would have approved.

Littlejack, thanks for confirming my point. The hybrid magazine preserves Browning's needed feeding principles.

Straight lip magazines? JMB would have been aghast. He likely would have told you he specifically rejected that type, and that his magazine lips had a taper for a darn good reason. He knew what straight feed lips were, having used them on several earlier designs, some very popular. He declined their use with the 1911. The penalty for failure was substantial, in terms of not winning the military contract. He went with tapered for, again, darn good reason. He wanted the gun to work.

To assert that a straight lip magazine design is "best" for feeding a wide variety of 1911's is to ignore the fact that JMB picked a tapered lip design to feed a wide variety of 1911's. He knew that wartime production would involve, potentially, several different manufacturers. The tapered lip magazine is more forgiving of firearm dimensional variations while still producing a reliable gun.

The cartridge has a straighter approach to the chamber than a straight lip design, which reduces stem binding and makes the rim approach the extractor at less of an angle, widening the "window" it has to get under the extractor. If the rim doesn't fit under the extractor, it won't feed or the extractor may lose its tension quickly.

Deepening the feed ramp and widening the extractor hook so common today? The consequences of feeding the 1911 too short ammo with the wrong magazines. The gun has to be modified to work in spite of them. The same reliability edge remains when tapered lip magazines are used, no matter the purpose of the modification, as the functional envelope is wider.

[35remington]

The value of the taper. Which magazine feeds at less of an angle? Which rim is closer to the extractor when it is released? If the rim is closer to the extractor on release........it's more likely to make it under the extractor. Note these are littlejack's hybrid lips, which preserve the taper.

That is my thumb in the photo. Both cartridges are the barest tick before the release point.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y228/johnnyrem/Feedlips.jpg

Incidentally, the longer SWC's work with GI magazines just fine, as do most of the hollowpoints exceeding 1.200" in overall length, especially those featuring rounded ogives.

[Old School Big Bore]

My match 1911 was having occasional hiccups with a #68 copy, and my long-time shooting buddy, who worked at STI and now has a shop of his own, showed me the proper dimensions for the gap between the feed lips. I got out the caliper and found that ALL my McCormick AND Wilson mags were set at the .40 S&W width. I converted a tired old screwdriver into a lip tweaker, reset all the feed lips, and haven't had a problem since.
Ditto ref check extractor & ejector face angles. My match 1911 used to bounce 'em off my right earmuff, and both my rack-grade (NRA Clanky) EIC gun and my NM hardball gun bounced brass from GI match ball off my helmet. Same armorer fixed all three of them with a couple file strokes each.

[bangerjim]

Just got my 451 die and factory crimp die. Problems solved!

You may have to buy a throating reamer, as some take that. My 1911 seems to cycle OK with the undersize slugs and factory crimp.

bangerjim

[gwpercle]

Same problem with a new 45 ACP 1911 with match grade barrel. Tolerance is very VERY tight! My cases jam going into the chamber. Factory FMJ's cycle OK.....not my cast loads. I can actually see the grease grooves expanding the brass! Boolits sized exactly at 452 as standard for all my other 45 cal guns, but I am ordering a 451 die. And a factory crimp die to get that case back down to uniform diameter at the front. I'll be darned if this new gun is gonna whip me!

I can see shiny rub marks on the front of the cases where they are jamming in the chamber.

My like for ALL types of semi's is rapidly waining........FAST! I have a 9mm I cannot get to function due to jamming. Length, crimp/no-crimp, and size is VERY critical.......too critical in my book. Those kind of guns are just waaaaaay to finicky. My 40 XD-m loads perfectly with my loads and is dead accurate. Guess it is just the luck of the draw.

Give me a good old reliable revolver or a long gun any day. To heck with all these fancy semi pistols with ammo clip shoved up their keisters.

banger

In total agreement . Revolvers Rule. Got tired of chasing brass all over creation too!

[69daytona]

I have been casting and loading the H&G 68 for years loaded at 1.245 with a taper crimp and have never had one failure to feed and I have ran it through my 7 different 1911s, the dan Wesson's love them but need to keep velocities up around 850-900 or I have problems because they are so tight, still not broke in. Beside even at that velocity they shoot great with No leading.

[youngmman]

I have the book too and it says the extractor spring tension should be between 3.5 -4.5 lbs. I bought one of the tensioning tools from Brownell's and found the factory original (Loaded Springfield Armory, 1911) was less than half the tension but all the angles were fine. The extractor was not holding the case so the ejector could kick it out.

[Boogieman]

I bought a Ruger Commander 1911 pistol and really like it even though it is not perfect. The front sight broke after the first 50 rounds so I replaced it, no biggie. The darn thing likes to eject cartridge cases straight back over the top of the pistol and into my face, I still have to figure out how to fix that...

Anyway, I have been working on loading the Lee 452-200 200gr LSWC boolits and have been having difficulties trying to get them to feed. They seem to occasionally get caught up trying to transition from feed-ramp into barrel. My theory is it is an OAL problem. Currently I am loading to 1.245 and I see some load manuals call out for 1.170 minimum.

I always thought that longer lengths were the cure for the type of feed issues I seem to have, but perhaps I should go shorter. I want to say that I thought I have read that people load the SWC flush to the case where my rounds have the front driving band about .050-.060 out of the case. Anyone have words of wisdom for me?

My current load is 4.5 grains of Promo in mixed brass with the Lee boolit sized at .4525 (+).
Which Lee swc are you using? The H&G #68 clone should work loaded to1.240- 1.260" while the 200gr. TL needs to be 1.170-1.205". The shorter ones can be hard to get to feed, recoil causes them to move forward in the mag.& get ahead of the extractor as the slide comes forward . You get the dreaded 3 point jam. extra power mag. springs & mags. that release later can help this. Too light a recoil spring or loose grip can add to this problem. Wilson Combat's website has some good info. on making a 1911 feed.

[ultramag]

Boy this one sure got derailed....

OP, have you got your SR1911 running good with the Lee H&G 68 copy yet? If not, I don't see how anyone gets this bullet to work at the longer lengths some have posted. I load this bullet and have a SR1911 and a SR1911CMD. I load it at 1.200" and it works in both with stock magazines and any other mag I stick in them....Baer, Wilson, Kimber, McCormick etc.... It wouldn't even chamber in most, if not all, of my .45's at anywhere near 1.240"+. I loaded it at 1. 215" for a while but when I got my second Les Baer every great once in a while I'd have one FTRB. This was caused in part by a little lip that was being rolled up at the front driving band during sizing sometimes, so I just dropped it down to the 1.200" OAL and have had no issues since. I use the same load in 7 or 8 different 1911's and a couple polymer guns as well. Hope this helps if you haven't sorted it out already.

[35remington]

Ultramag, being a HG 68 copy (a bit imperfect) there is no way a 1.200" seating depth would work. The front band would be well below the case mouth. Whatever you are thinking of, it ain't this bullet.

The reason it works at the longer lengths posted here is that they are loading it correctly. You're thinking of another bullet. 1.240 to 1.250" is correct, and 1.200" is not. The other reason they're using it at that length is it chambers correctly at said length.

If you don't understand, I may have to post a picture.

[ultramag]

I bought a Ruger Commander 1911 pistol and really like it even though it is not perfect. The front sight broke after the first 50 rounds so I replaced it, no biggie. The darn thing likes to eject cartridge cases straight back over the top of the pistol and into my face, I still have to figure out how to fix that...

Anyway, I have been working on loading the Lee 452-200 200gr LSWC boolits and have been having difficulties trying to get them to feed. They seem to occasionally get caught up trying to transition from feed-ramp into barrel. My theory is it is an OAL problem. Currently I am loading to 1.245 and I see some load manuals call out for 1.170 minimum.

I always thought that longer lengths were the cure for the type of feed issues I seem to have, but perhaps I should go shorter. I want to say that I thought I have read that people load the SWC flush to the case where my rounds have the front driving band about .050-.060 out of the case. Anyone have words of wisdom for me?

My current load is 4.5 grains of Promo in mixed brass with the Lee boolit sized at .4525 (+).


Ultramag, being a HG 68 copy (a bit imperfect) there is no way a 1.200" seating depth would work. The front band would be well below the case mouth. Whatever you are thinking of, it ain't this bullet.

The reason it works at the longer lengths posted here is that they are loading it correctly. You're thinking of another bullet. 1.240 to 1.250" is correct, and 1.200" is not. The other reason they're using it at that length is it chambers correctly at said length.

If you don't understand, I may have to post a picture.

35remington,

I've quoted the original post and yours. Not to be disrespectful to a senior member, however I think I'm one of the few who do actually understand what has been asked. Between all the discussion of how folks load the original H&G 68, along with JMB and feed lips, it seems to have become lost that the original question was about the Lee H&G 68 "copy", which you are correct is different. The Lee bullet absolutely can be loaded down to 1.200"-1.215" and when done as such it's nose profile will match identically with a factory loaded ball round as in the picture MtGun44 posted on the first page. I have 5,000+ of them I can take a picture of if necessary as well.

[Piedmont]

35remington,

I've quoted the original post and yours. Not to be disrespectful to a senior member, however I think I'm one of the few who do actually understand what has been asked. Between all the discussion of how folks load the original H&G 68, along with JMB and feed lips, it seems to have become lost that the original question was about the Lee H&G 68 "copy", which you are correct is different. The Lee bullet absolutely can be loaded down to 1.200"-1.215" and when done as such it's nose profile will match identically with a factory loaded ball round as in the picture MtGun44 posted on the first page. I have 5,000+ of them I can take a picture of if necessary as well.

I would like it if you posted a picture. That "near 68" as I remember it had a slightly smaller meplat than the 68 and I can't visualize how the shorter seating length would match up with the ball ogive. It seems it would have to be seated longer to do that to catch the ogive further out, but nose length will be a big factor on overall length. Are you sure you aren't thinking of a different Lee SWC with a short nose?

[ultramag]

Sure thing Piedmont....I kind of expected to have to anyway. I'm certain I'm loading the Lee H&G 68 copy, 6 cavity mold#90310. I don't have any loaded rounds at 1.200" here, but do still have my dummy round at that OAL. I also have one from the batch I just loaded in May. These were loaded to 1.220" and the specific one I plucked out of the other 3500 +/- is 1.2185". These were measured with Mitutoyo dial calipers that were issued to me when I worked as a Lead Man in a Tool & Die shop back in the '90s. That should hopefully get the "can I measure OAL" question and "how did I do it" out of the way.

First pic up....dummy round at 1.200" by itself. I mentioned earlier that I had some bullets roll up a bit of a lip at the front drive band during lubesizing. Not sure why that happened, but they shot well so I used them. This picture is taken at a point on the front driving band that didn't have this, but I include the info to explain why it appears there is so much more driving band to the left of center. I also think it is somewhat exaggerated by the photos angle. Anyway, here it is:


http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a529/ultramag74/A2683431-9C9D-4D99-9CF9-90AF98AA6F35_zps8dmouy7p.jpg (http://s1282.photobucket.com/user/ultramag74/media/A2683431-9C9D-4D99-9CF9-90AF98AA6F35_zps8dmouy7p.jpg.html)

Next up is the same 1.200" dummy round in front of a factory 230 gr. ball load. Factory round measures a pretty standard 1.263".

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a529/ultramag74/95A3FE91-89F0-4DA3-AD0B-BDE9B72DD07D_zpsw9ql8iz3.jpg (http://s1282.photobucket.com/user/ultramag74/media/95A3FE91-89F0-4DA3-AD0B-BDE9B72DD07D_zpsw9ql8iz3.jpg.html)

Finally, for good measure here is the 1.2185" round in front of the same factory FMJ. You'll notice, the shorter one actually lines up better with the profile of the ball load than the longer. It should also be noted how much of the front driving band is still exposed. Measuring a challenging spot the best I can (remember, former tool & die shop guy here) there is .035"-.040" of drive band still protruding from the case. A ROCK solid .025", which could get the OAL easily even below the 1.200" in question here.

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a529/ultramag74/359DEEE2-A864-43F8-B0C7-EEB2FCCA0B26_zpsn9g8cuox.jpg (http://s1282.photobucket.com/user/ultramag74/media/359DEEE2-A864-43F8-B0C7-EEB2FCCA0B26_zpsn9g8cuox.jpg.html)

Now, a couple things here. One, I wasn't intending to challenge anyone really when I commented that I don't see how the Lee H&G 68 wannabe bullet can be loaded out to 1.240"-1.250". I really don't, wish I knew why, but I don't. I just know someone always seems to be struggling with this and I wanted to try and help with what information I had through my own trials. It will come nowhere near chambering in any of the dozen .45's I own at that length. Two, I did some digging and measuring before responding here again and the Lee version H&G 68 is supposed to measure .331" from the front driving band to the nose. Mine does and if you add that .331" to the .890" length of the piece of brass the bullet is seated in in the above picture and you should have a OAL of 1.221" with mouth of the brass seated flush with the front driving band. This would make 35remington's original assertion that what I'm doing here can't be done correct, but yet here you have a 1.200" round and a 1.2185" round with .025" plus of bullet left before you get to the front driving band. Lastly, I just knew how to load the damn thing and make it work so I did. I never got this deep into the measurements and the why's because it didn't seem to matter at the time. They feed, function, go bang, and are accurate so I was happy.

I hope this clears up what I claimed earlier and possibly someone can shed some more light on the issue.

[Piedmont]

Ultramag, That is interesting. Thanks for the pictures. I don't own the Lee mold but do own an H&G 68. I wonder if Lee has offered more than one variation of that mold over the years? If you seated the H&G that short the shoulder would be way back in the case.

[9.3X62AL]

Actually, you would be hard pressed to find better magazines than the tapered lip design JMB. designed for the 1911. All others do not feed the 1911 like it is supposed to be fed.

No aftermarket magazine designer knows the 1911 like JMB did. If a different design was better he would have used it.

35 Remington posted this same information in a much more detailed form about 3 years ago, right about the time I ran down a Colt Series 80 Gold Cup. I followed his advice--got Colt OEM 7-round mags--and have had ZERO issues feeding both the Lee SWC and Lyman #452460. I seat both with about .020" of their front driving bands exposed, and a gentle taper crimp (.469"-.470"). These feed unfailingly in my Gold Cup--in a SIG P-220--and in a Glock 21, which are notorious for not feeding SWC bullets. The Glock gave a mild "ke-chunk" during feeding, but never bobbled.

[Boogieman]

Ultramag, That is interesting. Thanks for the pictures. I don't own the Lee mold but do own an H&G 68. I wonder if Lee has offered more than one variation of that mold over the years? If you seated the H&G that short the shoulder would be way back in the case.
I just checked my Lee 200gr. H&G style mold .It casts a boolit with a .310" noise . Loaded with the shoulder flush with the case mouth the OAL is 1.200". Loaded to 1.250" it will chamber in both my Colts. I think Lees molds have changed over the years.

[35remington]

Ultramag, if your bullet is in fact correctly seated with a little shoulder of the bullet visible at 1.200" then it isn't a HG 68 clone, nor a good copy, because HG68's have always been correct at 1.245-1.250." If your round is a mere 1.200"......it's not a very good HG 68 clone, as it's way too short.

Somehow whatever you've got clearly isn't right. The ball profile match was intended with an OAL of 1.250", not at any shorter length. What you have is nonstandard, which is the reason for your confusion. Most others post that 1.250" or in that vicinity is correct, because it is. If it loads to 1.200" with the correct amount of front band in front of the case mouth, it clearly is a poor HG 68 cone. It isn't worthy of the "clone" designation, because a salient feature of the HG 68 when correctly loaded is the 1.250" overall length.

That should solve the mystery for you. If the OP has a similar mould, it is incorrect as well. Pardon the additional observation, but frame strike cannot be similar to a ball round when it is that much shorter. Correct frame ramp strike is at the 1.250" overall length and when the meplat is in that location, not at a substantially shorter 1.200" OAL. Please see an original or more close copy of the HG 68 to visualize. Your HG 68 clones isn't.

My Lee 200 grain 68 "clone" has a smaller meplat than the original HG 68 and a skinnier nose, as well as a bevel base which means more bullet is in the case. However, it is at 1.245-1.250 when seated so at least the OAL is within hailing distance. Modifying both OAL and meplat will affect frame ramp strike, obviously.

[35remington]

The original poster may or may not have so stated, but Lee also makes a 200 LSWC in tumble lube configuration that more closely resembles the Lyman 452460, which loads to substantially shorter OAL. This may be the mould he actually has. Confusion over 200 LSWC's in 45 ACP is common.

On edit: that would explain his confusion over the manual listings of as short as 1.170" OAL, but he's using the longer Lee 68 "clone." Thus shorter manual OAL's don't apply to this bullet.

[35remington]

Here's a final test:

Load the Hornady 230 FMJ to 1.265", which is the correct overall length to mimic ball OAL. The Hornady is a very good approximation of ball 2 radius profile in an "authentic" bullet shape. Fine to use a roundnose seating stem, and actually preferred for the correct purpose of the test. Now, using your "clone" bullet, and not changing the seating die adjustment, add your "clone" HG 68 and seat it in the unadjusted die. Tell me what the OAL is.

See if the resultant round will chamber. If it will.....now you've duplicated 230 FMJ ball frame strike. If it won't chamber unless you shorten it, you will not.

[35remington]

A final question: Since the original poster is loading to 1.245" and that solves the mystery of what mould he is using (the imperfect Lee HG 68 clone and that rereading of his original post renders my post #53 as meaningless) how come your overall length can be correctly loaded so much shorter than his? Is the mould design changed from his to yours?

If so, the Lee HG 68 clone, already imperfect, just got more imperfect.

[MtGun44]

Seems like even calling this a "clone" is a huge disservice to the discussion. It is not a clone if it is not IDENTICAL, that is
the definition of a clone - it is actually a biological term for organisms with IDENTICAL DNA. A "near copy", or "look-alike", or
"somewhat similar design" would be a whole lot more descriptively accurate - "H&G 68 clone" is not an accurate description
of the Lee molds, to the point of muddying the waters.

MP makes actual clones of H&G 68s, as do a few others, AFAIK Lee does not make any boolit mold design that could
fairly be called a "H&G 68 clone". I think the discussion would be clearer if these were just called "Lee 200 SWC
designs for .45 ACP"

NOTE THAT THE OP DOES NOT USE THE TERM "H&G 68 CLONE". HE CALLS IT " .45 ACP 200 SWC" absolutely accurate
and correct.

H&G 68 clones (all commercial casters have them) will work in virtually all 1911s at 1.250-1.260 in my 250-300,000 rounds
loading experience in this cartridge. Taper crimping to .465 or so also helps reliable feeding. Somehow folks fear the
imaginary boogey man of "over crimping" - which really isn't an issue in this range of dimensions for this cartridge. Under
crimping is an extremely common cause of failures to close. IMO the extra .004 to .005 crimp tightness never hurts
and frequently helps.

When working with a new design of truncated cone or SWC boolit in a semi-auto, the process of matching the
ogive shape of the ball round is a very useful tool.

Bill

[LAH]

I use 1.275"

I went back & checked my notes to find the advice given me by a 1911 shooter from NJ was to use 1.265" though I'm using the longer. As for crimp dimensions given by our friend from KS I will take time to measure some of mine & see how they "measure" up. I simply take the bell out of the case mouth & witness this by running my finger & thumb down the case. Think maybe it's time to man up & at least try to do things correctly.

[35remington]

Yep.......that's the true definition of "clone", which is exact copy. I was using it in the sense that everyone has an IMperfect iteration of the HG 68, and sometimes it's hard to pin down exactly what an original looks like, as the HG 68 itself varied a little.

Given that I've seen "original" HG 68's that had rounded edges to the meplat, and HG 68's with squarer edges, the feature that is uniform for both is the finished overall length. Thus copies and originals could have square(r) edged meplats and rounded edges and both be correct yet would not be clones, but the most important seems to be meplat location and diameter to duplicate frame strike of ball.

Point is, in terms of "cloning" even Hensley and Gibbs did not clone their own design in terms of following exactly true in every detail. Mould maker's cherries varied, and so did the cavities over time.

[SSGOldfart]

I bought a Ruger Commander 1911 pistol and really like it even though it is not perfect. The front sight broke after the first 50 rounds so I replaced it, no biggie. The darn thing likes to eject cartridge cases straight back over the top of the pistol and into my face, I still have to figure out how to fix that...

Anyway, I have been working on loading the Lee 452-200 200gr LSWC boolits and have been having difficulties trying to get them to feed. They seem to occasionally get caught up trying to transition from feed-ramp into barrel. My theory is it is an OAL problem. Currently I am loading to 1.245 and I see some load manuals call out for 1.170 minimum.

I always thought that longer lengths were the cure for the type of feed issues I seem to have, but perhaps I should go shorter. I want to say that I thought I have read that people load the SWC flush to the case where my rounds have the front driving band about .050-.060 out of the case. Anyone have words of wisdom for me?

My current load is 4.5 grains of Promo in mixed brass with the Lee boolit sized at .4525 (+).
check your cramp use a taper crimp and not a roll crimp watch you OAL and look for pressure signs