45 acp bullet weight...

[BCB]

Been thinking’ about getting a 45 acp caliber handgun in the 1911 style—not sure which make though…
(Maybe Kimber as I have a Micro 9 and it has performed well, just too small for my hand)

Is the 230 grain FMJ the “standard” bullet profile for that cartridge?…

In all honesty, I will likely only shoot jacketed bullets from it…

Or, would a 40 S&W be a better cartridge?…

Thanks...BCB

[Outpost75]

Nothing wrong with 230-grain bullets from the M1911, but if you are going to do more than punch paper there are lots better bullets than FMJRN.

I would really re-think shooting only jacketed bullets unless you are OK with replacing the barrel in your pistol about every 5-8000 rounds.

If you don't want to cast your own bullets, you can buy good quality cast bullets in bulk and shoot tens of thousands of rounds without shooting out your barrel. Back in my IPSC days I ran nothing but H&G #68 200 grain SWC with 5 grains of Bullseye and was completely satisfied.

These days I shoot lots of .45 ACP in revolvers, and converted lever-guns. The 230-grain rounded flat-nosed "Cowboy" style bullets work fine in the .45 ACP cartridge in both auto pistols and revolvers and give good performance on game. The RCBS 45-230CM and Saeco #954 bullets are typical of the type.

Cast bullets from wheelweights, size .452" in most M1911s, and .454" for the Colt New Service and S&W M1917s and load 5 grains of Bullseye or TiteGroup which will approximate service velocity. Not rocvket science...

The .40 S&W is also a good cartridge, full loads approximate the .38-40 Winchester black powder load.
I load 5 grains of Bullseye also with Accurate 40-182H bullet. Fully adequate for a "Packing Pistol" for general outdoor use.

But the .45 ACP is ubitquitous, brass can be had cheap or for free as range pickup and the .45 ACP accomplishes just about everything you want to do with a handgun.

[wv109323]

The 1911 was originally designed around the 230 g.RN bullet. Or maybe I shouldvsay yhe round and pistol were developed with the 230 RN.
With that said the 200 g. SWC bullet is the most popular amoung reloaders for that cartridge. This bullet is known for its accuracy.
Lately the 185 g.JHP shows promise for accuracy and SD.
The .45 acp is known as an easy cartridge to load for. Manufacturers have made their firearms more acceptable to handle different bullets profiles.
So I think there is not a standard bullet anymore. You may need to tune your pistol to function with the bullet if it is not 230g. RN.

[TNsailorman]

In days past, I shot Combat Pistol matches and I used 200 grain SWC lead bullets with W231 powder . I used 225 grain truncated cone lead bullets for bowling pin matches. I also had a S&W .45acp revolver, Model 25-2, which is what I used in bowling pin matches. I now have a S&W Model 22-4, and it is super slick. Good luck with your .45, james

[tazman]

I have three 1911 pistols in 45acp. One is a Springfield Armory milspec, one is a Sig Tac style, and one is a Springfield Armory Range Officer.
I just had them at the range today, shooting a variety of boolit styles through them and they all performed flawlessly. I shot 2 different 200 grain SWC styles(H&G68 and Lyman 452460), a 200 grain RNFP, a 230 grain RN, and a 230 grain FMJ.
Accuracy was outstanding will all ammo and all guns. With today's choices, it is easy to buy good to great guns and more difficult to buy really bad ones.
I also suggest a 200 grain SWC style boolit for most shooting. They feed in nearly anything, are easy to either cast or buy, shoot accurately and have soft recoil compared to the 230rn.
What is not to like about them?

[Bazoo]

I've got a Springfield armory milspec stainless. I've for about 6k rounds on mine, mostly factory jacketed. I don't think you'll shoot out the barrel with jacketed bullets in less than 10k. Mines very reliable with RN or hp that is close, and with the lee TC. Personally I stick with 230 grain bullets as that's what the guns designed for. If I want to shoot light bullets, I shoot a 38 special.

[35remington]

The 45 in 1911 format works so well with lead bullets that I see no compelling reason to shoot just jacketed bullets. Have you priced a box of jacketed bullets lately or ammo in 45 ACP?

Ouch. Reloading lead bullets seems really pertinent here.

For frequent shooting and mild recoil I use a longnose SWC of HG 68 pattern. Take note the original had a rounded edge to the meplat for good reason. 4 grains of Bullseye, Red Dot or a little more of WST or W231 works well for such use and gets about 800 fps which will cycle pistols with standard weight springs reliably.

For standardization on a single do it all load, Outpost’s recommendation of a 230 RNFP at 820-850 fps will do very well. I like the RCBS 230 Cowboy myself and load it to a smidge longer than 1.200.” For such a blunt bullet it feeds surprisingly smoothly, probably a function of the rounded ogive and the curved leading edge of the meplat, both 1911 friendly features. Rounds so loaded have a very businesslike appearance and the effect seems to follow.

[Walks]

I've shot the H&G 200gr in just about everything. It will feed in an Old Sig 220 that I have and even My Glock 21 with a Wolf aftermarket bbl.
The 230gr RN at Factory Level Loads works in everything.
For Powder Puff Loads I like the discontinued Lyman #452488 over a light charge of Bullseye. But ya gotta get it out past 50ft before it will stabilize enough to cut clean holes in the paper. And it Really needs a 1911 that has a very good Ramp & Throat Job.

My goto Everything bullet has become the Lee #45-230-TC. Over a Fullcharge of Bullseye it's a blast at steel or rolling cans.

It's also become my Cowboy Action bullet for .45Colt. So that 6cav mold gets a workout at just about every Casting session. Lee makes Tumble Lube version too.

If I had too pick a bullet, I'd pick two the; the 230gr TC and the H&G 200gr.

Lyman, Saeco & Lee makes both versions. And RCBS makes the H&G version I use.

Don't forget Accurate Molds too.

[megasupermagnum]

I don't know the entire history on why the military went with 230 grain as their choice, but I do know the 1911 and 45 acp were originally designed around a 200 grain bullet. I'll be the first to admit, I am a heavy bullet guy. In nearly every cartridge a heavier bullet shoots more accurately and just plain works better than lighter. The 45 ACP is probably the only exception I have. Bullets around 200 grains are where I am finding my best results.

[onelight]

The 45 auto is my favorite auto pistol round , easy to load for , good power at low pressure , lots of bullets and data to choose from works well with cast , plated or jacketed .
A great cartridge.

[Petrol & Powder]

BCB - There's nothing "wrong" with the 230 grain bullet and that's the standard bullet weight for a lot of factory loaded FMJ 45 ACP rounds. I've shot a lot of 230 gr bullets out of a 1911 and back when I trained with and carried a 1911, that was my practice load.

However, as others have stated and I'll join, the H&G #68 style bullet, which runs about 200 grains - is a fantastic bullet !
I use the SAECO clone of the H&G 68 which is the flat base SAECO #69. With my alloy it drops from the mold at around 207 grains. It feeds reliably and is very accurate. I'm very happy with that bullet and I highly recommend it.
Enough said about 45ACP bullet weight and style.

In you post you put forth two other issues: Brand of 1911 and the possibility of a chambering in 40 S&W.

I tackle the 40 S&W issue first. Everyone is welcome to their opinion but I'm not a fan of the 40 S&W. It achieves some impressive velocities with bullets not much lighter than most 45 ACP but it accomplishes that with a lot of pressure. I'm well aware of the history behind the 40 S&W and I completely understand its linage but I just never warmed up to it. I have a few pistols chambered in 40 S&W but I rarely load for that cartridge. I wouldn't go out of my way to obtain a 1911 chambered in 40 S&W. The standard single stack 1911 magazine will hold 9 rounds of 40 S&W and that slight increase in capacity over 45 ACP is of no value to me.

Moving onto manufacturer of 1911:

Everyone and their brother makes a 1911 pattern pistol and honestly, many of them are very good. One of the worst 1911 pistols I ever owned came to me new from the Colt Custom Shop. One of the best 1911 pistols I ever owned also had Colt stamped on it but it was made in a different era.
The 1911 has been with us now for over 100 years and it is one of the most refined pistol designs on earth. I don't think the platform holds any secrets these days. So just about any company that wants to build a good 1911 can do so.

If I was going to go out and spend my money on a new 1911 and wanted a solid pistol for the money - I would put the Ruger SR1911 at the top of my list. Ruger incorporates many desirable features in their design: an integral plunger tube that is cast as part of the frame, a lightweight titanium firing to increase safety without that Colt series 80 nonsense, very good sights from the factory and one of the better slide to frame fits in a production pistol.

Everyone has their favorite and that's just my $0.02 worth.

Good Luck

[6bg6ga]

I have a number of 1911's and I shoot bullet weights from 185-230 gr with extreme accuracy. Your not going to wear out a barrel in your lifetime probably shooting jacketed bullets. Either lead or jacketed will be fine in the 1911 and it has plenty of power to stop any intruder is fun to shoot and is economical to shoot.

[Bigslug]

.40 S&W. . .I wouldn't waste any time on it. Law enforcement seems to be concluding that it was an interesting 25 year experiment that, in retrospect, wasn't all that great an idea. 9mm seems to be re-replacing it in all the federal alphabet soup agencies, and local are steadily following.

230 grains at about 830fps is standard medicine with the .45 ACP, and that's mostly what I shoot. 200 grains is a common match load formula that will lower the recoil nicely - - depending on what you're intending to do.

As to brand of 1911. . .the Colt 70 Series (still produced) and the Rock Island Arsenals use true 1911 spec parts.

The Springfield's are ALMOST all GI spec. The only real difference is they use the skinny diameter .38 Super firing pins in all their calibers, so a GI .45 pin won't fit in a Springfield slide.

Series 80's add a pair of levers and a trigger-actuated firing pin blocking safety, and alter the frame, slide, and firing pin accordingly. Colt stamps it on their slides, but it's easy to spot in others - run the slide back and look at the bottom of it. If there's a round plunger on the right side = Series 80

Kimbers with a Roman numeral II behind the model designation copy the Colt Swartz safety briefly used in the late 1930's. That's a firing pin block similar to a Series 80, but actuated by the grip safety instead of the trigger.

Sigs and a few others replace John Browning's internal, leaf-spring style extractor with an external model. Functional enough, but no longer 1911's - at least in THIS reporter's opinion.

[str8wal]

Or, would a 40 S&W be a better cartridge?

Better for what? The 45 ACP and the 1911 go together like PB and J.

[one-eyed fat man]

I feed four Colts, one Smith, and a Thompson submachinegun with a 225 grain truncated cone bullet. Flawless feeding, good accuracy and excellent terminal effect. That truncated cone bullet just flat works! The only gun I do not shoot it in a National Match tuned for soft ball bullseye loads.

247134

[daloper]

I also load the Lyman 452460. That SWC is my go to for my RIA 1911 45 ACP.

[Burnt Fingers]

I cast, load, and shoot .45 ACP boolits from 155 gr to 245 gr. I shoot more 200 gr than anything else. Actually 210 gr as that's what the RCBS 201KT drops.

My goto load is 4.2 gr WST.

[Gray Fox]

Have any of you compared the overall length, bullet weight and velocity of the .45 ACP and the .45 Schofield round? Until the supply chain difficulties made the Army use only the .45 Colt round the Schofield round was preferred by many because of the reduced recoil in the SAA. Just a thought, GF.

[Outpost75]

The .45 Schofield cartridge dates from 1875 when Major George W. Schofield convinced the U.S. Army that the S&W No. 3 top-break’s simultaneous ejection was faster and easier to manage on horseback than the Colt Single-Action Army’s rod ejection.

By 1879 the Army had bought 8289 No. 3 Schofields and also realized that having two different .45 revolver cartridges in its supply system was an awkward complication. So, the Schofield cartridge was adopted as the M1887 for interchangeable use in both Smith & Wesson No.3 top-break and Colt Single-Action Army revolvers. The .45 S&W was loaded commercially until just before WW2.

Keith, in Sixguns (1950) stated, “While many soldiers could shoot the Smith & Wesson better, on account of its lighter recoil, the S&W cartridge was never as good for knocking over a running Indian pony.” None the less, by the late 1880s, the Schofield was the only .45 revolver cartridge being produced for US Army issue. By then, it had gained a reputation as a reliable man-stopper, in the hands of gunmen such as Bill Cody, both the James and Younger gangs, John Wesley Hardin, Pat Garret, and Virgil Earp, among others. In 1902, Colt Single Actions and Schofield ammunition would be sent to the Philippines as a stopgap, after noted failures of the .38 Long Colt, until adoption of Colt’s .45 Double Action Revolver Model of 1909.

Hatcher’s Textbook of Pistols and Revolvers (1935) stated that the .45 Schofield cartridge was loaded with 28 grains of black powder and a 230 grain flat-nosed bullet, producing a muzzle velocity of 730 f.p.s. The performance expected of production ammunition was a mean absolute deviation of 5 inches, with 4 inches of penetration in soft pine, at 50-yards, the range at which Army revolvers were sighted. This standard of accuracy and penetration still represents a useful benchmark to assess what an adequate “service revolver” should do.

The popularity of Cowboy Action Shooting has revived interest in the Schofield cartridge. This is because mild, low-velocity loads are best suited for this sport. Getting acceptable ballistic uniformity when firing bullets of 230 grains or lighter, at velocities less than 700 fps, is challenging, when loading dense, fast-burning, modern smokeless powders in the full-length (1.285”) Colt .45 case, because it was originally designed for black powder and has excessive airspace. Cowboy shooters have discovered that the shorter (1.10”) Schofield case is better for light loads, but they fire short-range events, which don’t require high levels of either power or accuracy.

Schofield load data in popular manuals is for mild “Cowboy Action” loads, rather than being at “full charge” levels required of hunting or service ammunition. A few years ago I fired velocity tests with Alliant Bullseye powder and the Saeco Cowboy bullets, comparing them in a Colt M1909 with 5-1/2” barrel, and Ruger New Model Blackhawk with 4-5/8” barrel. Despite better steel, modern reproductions of the S&W No. 3 revolver probably should not be used with loads exceeding about 700 fps. as they will "pop" open.

Modern smokeless-frame Colt Single-Actions, their clones and the Colt New Service, in sound condition, can handle up to 900 fps with 260-gr. lead bullets or 1000 fps with the lead 230-grainers. Medium-frame Ruger Flat Tops and Vaqueros are strong enough for use with a steady diet of 1000 fps loads with 260-gr. lead bullets, but are NOT recommended for use with so-called “Ruger Only” loads intended for revolvers on the Super Blackhawk frame and the T/C Contenders, which approach or exceed 1100 fps and 25,000 psi. with 250+ grain bullets.

For most of my testing I used the Saeco #954. This traditional ogival-nosed, 230-grain flat-point resembles the original Schofield service bullet and is one with which I have a lot of experience. It is my favorite bullet for use in both the .45 Colt and the .45 ACP in revolvers, rifles and auto pistols. If I were limited to one bullet to use in all of my .45s this one would be “it.”

Only limited tests were fired with the Saeco #955. This 260-grain bullet has the same profile as the 230-grain #954, differing only in width of its base band. I found it less accurate, and simply used up my remaining rounds and loose bullets, because I no longer own that mold.

Revolver accuracy tests were fired at 25 yards, hand-held, off sandbags. Cylinder throat diameters of all three of my Colt New Service revolvers in .455 Eley, .45 ACP and .45 Colt measure .456.” As-cast Saeco bullets cast of wheelweights + 2% tin fit them optimally without sizing. The accuracy results obtained, despite its tiny fixed sights, which are difficult to see well, reflect this. The tighter cylinder gap of the 4-5/8” Ruger revolver (0.006”) produced somewhat higher velocities than the Colt New Service, which has a 5-1/2” barrel, but with a .008” cylinder gap, fairly typical of revolvers made before WW1.

Firing .45 Colt ammunition loaded with unsized .455 bullets in the Ruger, increased group size from 2” or less at 25 yards expected when firing bullets, sized to .452” to fit its cylinder throats, to 2-1/2” to 3" for groups shot with as-cast and unsized bullets. While not enough to impair utility for field shooting, resizing bullets to fit the cylinder throats improves accuracy of .45 Colt ammunition.

When loading ammunition in Schofield brass and crimping bullets in the crimp groove, at 1.40” OAL, sizing bullets to cylinder throat diameter was of no benefit. But when seating bullets out in Schofield brass, and crimping instead in the lubricating groove, at 1.55” overall length, grouping improved when bullets were properly sized to fit the cylinder throats.

Best accuracy was obtained in the Ruger revolver when bullets were resized from their as-cast diameter of .455 down to .452” in a Lee push-through sizing die. While sizing as much as 0.003” is not ideal, test results clearly illustrate the importance of sizing bullets to fit the cylinder throats, rather than to barrel groove diameter (which was .4505” in the Ruger vs. .453” for the Colt). Further improvement may be possible in Ruger revolvers using bullets from a mold which casts smaller.

It is best that molds drop bullets at correct diameter, so as to not require sizing at all. Sizing bullets to .454” to attempt a compromise diameter fit for use in both revolvers was of no benefit, compared to firing loading bullets as-cast and unsized. Cylinder leading severe enough to cause resistance to chambering .45 Colt ammunition was noted after firing 100 or more Schofield loads in the longer .45 Colt chamber. Changing bullet lube from Lee Liquid Alox to SPG helped mitigate the crud ring, but didn't eliminate it entirely. Seating bullets out in Schofield brass to an overall cartridge length of 1.55” improved accuracy, but did not mitigate the chamber leading with either LLA or SPG lube. Removal of these lead deposits required VIGOROUS scrubbing with Kano Kroil on a .410 shotgun brush.

If One-Inch-Per-Ten (Yards) revolver accuracy is important, the Schofield cartridge is less accurate than .45 Colt ammunition assembled with the same bullet, at all velocity levels tested. Bullseye powder gives quite acceptable ballistic uniformity and accuracy in .45 Colt brass, even with reduced charges down to 700 fps with 230-grain bullets, using 5.5 grains of Bullseye. The advantages of Schofield brass are in being able to visually identify low-recoil Cowboy loads, and for nostalgia. Schofield loads provide adequate accuracy for close range Cpowboy action and plinking steel targets, but are best reserved for that purpose.

The .45 Colt is still best for any serious use where power and accuracy are important. Schofield loads tend to be less accurate than .45 Colt also unless you seat bullets out to 1.55" Ctg. OAL.

A charge of 4.5 grains of Bullseye in Schofield brass with the 230-grain Saeco #954 bullet approximates service velocity at 1.40" Ctg. OAL.

If you seat bullets out and crimp in the lube groove at 1.55" OAL in Schofield brass the powder charge should be increased to 5.5 grains for best accuracy and this level not exceeded. The same 5.5 grain charge of Bullseye is the minimum recommended for use in .45 Colt (1.285") length brass at 1.59" Ctg. OAL with either 230-grain Saeco #954 or 260-grain #955 bullets. Lighter charges produce erratic velocity and poor accuracy in .45 Colt brass.

In .45 Colt brass a full-charge load with the Saeco #954 230-grain bullet at 1.59" OAL is 7.5 grains of Bullseye.

In .45 Colt brass a full-charge load with the Saeco #955 260-grain bullet at 1.59" OAL is 6.5 grains of Bullseye.

[osteodoc08]

There is no reason to limit yourself to jacketed. If strictly range use, I’d look at the tried and true 200gr SWC H&G 68. Load it up with W231 and you’ll have a smooth operator.

There are sales, particularly around the holidays, there you can get a basic Kimber in 45 Target version for a song. I recommend target sights if all range work. The Kimber Grand Raptor is also nice if you want a little more pizzaz, but if spending that much, I’d recommend a Les Baer.

Head on over to GB or even Davidson’s and price shop.

[Pete44mag]

I have two Kimber .45's, love them both. I have a Master Carry Pro (4") for EDC that I load 185 gr. +P hollow points and a Target Eclipse model that I use for Bullseye with 200 gr. SWC. I use Double Tap 185 gr. factory ammo for carry because of legal reasons in New Yorkistan, and load 200 gr. SWC over 4.0gr. of Titegroup for Bullseye shooting. Both guns and loads work great and are more accurate then me.

[OldBearHair]

Should you get a chance, hold a Bersa Thunder 45 compact in your hand. Heavy, not much barrel jump, and ready for next shot on target.

[johniv]

I cast, 185 gr. 200 gr , 230 gr. and 240gr. 45 boolits. I have no feeding issues with any of them. The 240 gr. is Elmer’s 452423. Guns are Colt series ‘70 or earlier. Most used is the 200 gr. 452460.
FWIW.

[Texas by God]

My most used .45 ACP load is the 200swc(Lee at present) over 5grs of Bullseye. Sometimes a 230 RN or TC over the same charge. Easy Peasy.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Char-Gar]

The 45 ACP round was first designed with a 200 grain bullet, but the Army wanted a 230 grain bullet so thusly the change.

I second the motion for cast bullets. They can be bought much cheaper than jacketed bullets and do indeed wear the barrel far less. I am another guys that has put several hundred thousand rounds of 45 ACP cast bullets through various 1911 pistols without wearing out a barrel.

[Petrol & Powder]

Out of 25 posts there were more than 9 positive comments concerning the lead 200 gr SWC bullet.

I think that's a healthy endorsement.

And Char-Gar is spot on, When John Browning designed the 45 caliber pistol it was originally designed for a 200 grain bullet. The Army wanted a heavier projectile, so that's what they got ! They were paying the bill for the pistol and its development and Mr. Browning was very bright.

[Outpost75]

If you go through the old reports of the chief of ordnance in the National Archives the performance of service revolvers was based upon requirements set by the US Cavalry that they wanted to be able to shoot through a horse broadside at 50 yards and be able to incapacitate an Indian holding onto the saddle, using his horse for cover and shooting back at the trooper. The Colt Walker and Dragoon revolvers firing a .45 ball with 40 grains or more of black powder did that. The .44 American did not.

The .45 Schofield with 230-grain flat-nosed bullet and 28 grains of black powder at 730 fps defined the "minimum performance envelope" which at that time according to Hatcher (1935) was five 7/8" pine boards. When Schofield ammunition was sent to the Phillipine Islands with Colt SAs after the .38 Long Colt proved inadequate the Army was then VERY firmly convinced that a 230-grain .45 bullet was needed and there would be no further discussion on the subject.

While the 28-grain black powder Schofield cartridge only produced about 730 fps, its heavy, blunt-nosed bullet penetrated, delivering the goods and it defined the minimum performance envelope that the Army wanted.

John Browning accepted this and said,

"Yes Sir, Yes Sir,Three Bags Full!" We can give you 800 fps with a 230-grain bullet, would that be sufficent?

And originally with 4.6 grains of Bullseye No. 1, as described in Hatcher's Textbook of Pistols and Revolvers (1935) it was so... Being later revised to 5 grains of Bullseye No.2 which remains true to this day, as current Allliant powder is really VERY little different from that of the WW2 era.

855 +/- 25 fps at 25-1/2 ft. from the test barrel is still a good number, and an M1911 with new barrel will closely approximate that, a 5-1/2" S&W M1917, Colt New Service or Ruger Blackhawk 4-5/8" with cylinder gap at Mean Assembly Tolerance (Pass 0.005"/hold 0.006") will usually meet this spec., but may be closer to the -25 fps tolerance from the mean.

[Harter66]

BCB ,
It looks like you have plenty of data .

I will add that the 1917 I shot with 5.5 Unique with a 45-200 SWC , 452-200 RNFP , 452423 , 429421 (opened to 448 and paper patched) , 454424 and 452-255 RNFP all worked fine and delivered over 800 fps 1000 in a 16" PCC . It's a 45 what more could you ask for ?

I had an XD40 great gun , very utilitarian , 15 rounds , it just fit me , and groups were really not a problem . I drove a 178 gr SWC 980 fps for 4" standing 2 hand groups at 25 yd and would not worry about those loads having made an impression on any target .

I liked the 40 it delivered more of everything the 9mm had and generally the whole light end of 45 ACP was well covered too .

[wl620]

Excellent information Outpost, I always enjoy reading your posts.
I am also a fan of a good 1911 loaded with 200 grain boolits , there is usually one within reach of me at all times. I like the H&G 68 but in my pistols it seems the accuracy edge goes to the lyman 452460, therefore I shoot more of them than anything,it would be easier for me to make the 68 because my mould is a 4 cavity and my 452460 is a 2 cavity but I like the 452460. Currently I am using it with titegroup, and will probably stay with that powder.

[Bazoo]

I can't remember, although I have read on this.

Was the 230 grain bullet adopted in conjunction with the 1911 or after acceptance of the 1911? Or was the 230 grain bullet introduced in the 1905 and just carried over into the 1911?

[BCB]

Thanks for the information…

I did check on the availability of commercial cast boolits and it appears there are plenty to choose from and most won’t break the bank purchasing 500 or a 1000...

Of course I do cast my own, but I seem to have gotten in a bit of a lag with my casting the past year—other things occupying my mind and can’t seem to get into the mood to drop hot lead…

I will be shooting some jacketed bullets also…

Regardless, now I will need to make a decision on which manufacture’s version I will purchase…

Unfortunately, it seems to get adjustable rear sights, one must go to the top-of-the-line expensive models. I do have concern as to where point-of-impact might be once a final load is accepted. Most models seem to have dovetailed sights and I wonder if someone makes after market adjustable rear sights…

I’m still reading this thread so keep posting should other opinions be needed…

Thanks again...BCB

[tazman]

Assuming the pistol is sighted in for 230 grain boolits, the 200 grain boolits will impact a bit lower than point of aim. How much depends on the load.
As far as who to order boolits from, there are many choices out there.
I order plated and full metal jacket from rmrbullets.com. I order cast from two alpha bullets which can be found on facebook. The two alpha company is a small operation, run by a farmer who lives near me(about 50 miles away. He makes good boolits.

[Petrol & Powder]

I can't remember, although I have read on this.

Was the 230 grain bullet adopted in conjunction with the 1911 or after acceptance of the 1911? Or was the 230 grain bullet introduced in the 1905 and just carried over into the 1911?

I've read the answer to that question but it is now buried somewhere in my brain. I believe that by the time the 1911 pattern was presented for trials the 230 grain bullet had already been adopted for that platform. I'll see if I can find a source to confirm that recollection.

OK, here's what my research has found:

Early in 1905, Colt developed a 45 caliber pistol on John Browning's design that utilized a 200 grain, 45 caliber bullet. This became the Colt Browning model of 1905.

In January of 1906, U.S. Brigadier General Crozier invited several suppliers to submit handguns for evaluation. The ammunition for those trials would be supplied by the Ordnance Department and would consist of two types of cartridges. A rimmed revolver cartridge and rimless (referred to as a cannelured shell) pistol cartridge. Both types of cartridges were loaded with the same 230 grain bullet at a velocity of roughly 800 fps (actually expressed as 243 meters per second which is 797 fps). If the inventors submitting handguns wanted cartridges for preliminary testing prior to submitting handguns, they could purchase the ammunition from the Ordnance Department at a cost of $2.86 per hundred cartridges.

Those handgun trials were eventually held in 1907 and the results of those tests narrowed the field of handguns down to 3 types: the Browning 45 caliber pistol, a Colt 45 caliber DA revolver and Savage 45 caliber pistol.

SO - as early as 1907 the bullet weight for the 45 caliber cartridge was fixed at 230 grains. (30 grains heavier than the 200 grain loading the 1905 pistol was designed around)

An improved 1909 model Browning pistol was later submitted and that design was very close to the ultimate 1911 design. There was a 1910 model later submitted and finally the 1911 model was adopted.

It appears the change from a 200 grain loading to the 230 grain loading took place in 1906 and was dictated by the U.S. Military.

[Petrol & Powder]

As for the sights available on 1911 pistols, you're in luck here. There are a LOT of good options on the market.
Honestly, I like the Novak rear sight or some Novak style rear sight, paired with a standard blade front sight. Pick ONE load for the pistol (a H&G #68 style 200 grain SWC sure seems popular :-o hint, hint) and match the front sight height to the POI for that one load.


Find a combination your pistol likes (bullet, powder, etc.) that functions reliably and produces small groups. Once you settle on that, if you need a taller or shorter front sight to match the point of aim with the point of impact you can modify or change the front sight as needed.
Once you get it where you want it - Stop playing with the sights.
The beauty of fixed sights is they are.......well...fixed! They don't move, or get out of adjustment. In a lot of ways fixed sights are superior to adjustable sights.
The only drawback to the Novak style, snag-proof sights, is you can't easily use the rear sight as an aid to rack the side one-handed if needed.
Just my $0.02 worth.

[Bill*B]

230 grains was the weight the Army chose, so I guess it passes muster as "standard" - BUT - I enjoy the lightweights, and shoot more 151 grain cast in my .45 than any other. If I get in a casting mood I may reach for the 185 grain mold, but most of the time I'm lazy enough to just grab a handful of 151 grain commercial out of the box. I load them with the lightest load that will kick the brass out of the pistol. Of course, I'm just punching paper.

[ole_270]

I use a Sig 1911 Stainless Target as my only handgun, Santa doesn't seem to hear my requests for a Blackhawk 45 Colt, don't know if it's being hard of hearing or hard headed. I hadn't had a handgun for close to 40 years until I retired and my shooting shows it. I had the barrel throated by Doug Guy and it feeds anything I feed it so far. I use the Lee #68 and the 200 gr rnfp over HP-638/231 with maybe a slight edge to the #68. Worst thing I've found so far is the #68 is a double cavity mold, need to order a 6 cavity. I've been thinking about that 230TC instead, can't seem to make up my mind which to get. I need to get one coming as cooler casting weather is approaching and I just melted down 32 lbs of the #68 that the alloy turned out to be harder than I was shooting for. Don't want to run out.

[Burnt Fingers]

230 grains was the weight the Army chose, so I guess it passes muster as "standard" - BUT - I enjoy the lightweights, and shoot more 151 grain cast in my .45 than any other. If I get in a casting mood I may reach for the 185 grain mold, but most of the time I'm lazy enough to just grab a handful of 151 grain commercial out of the box. I load them with the lightest load that will kick the brass out of the pistol. Of course, I'm just punching paper.

What is your load for the 151? I have a couple 155-160 SWC molds and I'm always looking for more load data.

[Conditor22]

200gr SWC easiest to fit OAL most barrels
Lee 200 RF also shoots great but is a little temperamental with OAL

I believe the 45 ACP was made to shoot 200 grn boolits BUT the military wanted heavier projectiles.

the Lee 452-228-1R shoot good BUT is a fat boolit and temperamental with loading OAL ie going into battery.
the Lee 452-230-TC and 452-230-2R-TL work much better

I've also had good luck with RCBS 45-230-RN, SAECO 45-225-RN and the LYMAN 452374EV (.452 225 GR RN).

I find that the 45 ACP is one of the easiest pistol rounds to load for.

[Bazoo]

BCB, you said you want adjustable rear sights and that's top of the line guns/price. No sir, top of the line would be Baer, Wilson Combat, Ed Brown, $2000 on the low end. You can get adjustable sights in the $800 range though, That's about where the quality starts. Now, you can get bottom of the barrel where fit finish and quality are just enough for the gun to function; RIA, Remington. Some folks like them but from my experience these cheaper 1911s ain't worth fooling with. Some will say they have one that functions and hits what they aim at, but the fit and finish are sorry.

The Springfield armory range officer has adjustable sights. That's where I'd start looking. It's just one step above the milspec, which is what I have. I prefer 1911 A-1 configuration, but the modern 1911s are still plenty nice. The Kimber custom target II is in the same range and worth a look.

I had a buddy that had a Sig 1911. It had this black finish on it and a squared slide. He couldn't find a holster to fit it. It also gave him trouble with the slide hold open wearing against the finish on the inside of the rails. Basically it would start to fail to lock the slide on an empty mag. Not sure if it was a problem with all Sigs or just his. Sig was not real helpful in resolving the issue, I recall. I think they refused to send a replacement slide stop, and wanted him to send the gun in on his dime. It cost more to send the gun in then to replace the part. He finally traded it off.

[Petrol & Powder]

BCB, as I stated earlier, I don't think adjustable sights are necessary nor are they always desirable. Unless you're jumping around from one load to the next, fixed sights are often a better choice.

If you just will not be happy with fixed sights, there are options for installing adjustable sights on a gun that was originally made with fixed sights. One of the benefits of the 1911 platform is the incredible amount of aftermarket parts available for the platform.
Don't let the inclusion or exclusion of adjustable sights drive your selection of a pistol.

[Bazoo]

Petrol & powder, Thank you for that information, and for all the effort you put into answering my question.

BCB, do you have a brownells catalog? They have a large selection of 1911 parts in a specific section and good for browsing.

[Bazoo]

My take on bullet weight is that the 230 grain bullets are the standard combat loading, where as the lighter bullets are for competition loads.

The benefit of competition loads would be they recoil less and are thus more controllable during strings if rapid fire. And also they use less powder and lead which makes a difference when shooting 50K rounds a year.

Almost all factory ammo is the standard 230 loading. So if you're going to run factory ammo as well as lighter reloads you'll have POI differences. If you think you're going to want to carry the gun, and probably carry factory HP ammo, that's a consideration.

Far as mags, not all mags will run swc or TC ammo without jamming, but any mag will run ball ammo.

[Petrol & Powder]

Having extensively run both the 230 gr and 200 gr bullet weights I have to say they are both good choices. I'll also say there are some outliers beyond those weight ranges but I don't think they are serious candidates for the 1911 in 45 ACP.
As Bazoo points out, there's probably a lot more choices in factory ammo within the 230 grain selections than the 200 grain selections.

Back when I was carrying a 1911 pistol as a SD weapon, I trained with both the 200 grain and 230 grain weights but I wasn't casting bullets in those days. So most practice was with my reloads and a little bit of factory HP ammo mixed in my training to assure proper functioning in my pistol. In those days the Speer 200 grain "flying ashtray" was available and that required practice ammo to be loaded with 200 grain bullets to match the carry load. When using 230 grain HP carry ammo the practice ammo was 230 gr loads to match those ballistics.
Because it was easer to find 230 grain hollow point ammo that would reliably function AND 230 grain ammo was just often generally cheaper and easier to find; the 230 grain bullet weight became my norm back in those days.

Fast forward several decades and I am casting my own bullets. I no longer use a 1911 as a primary SD gun, so it's mostly just target stuff now. I really favor the 200 grain cast SWC and believe it's a fine all purpose round for the 45 ACP.

I agree with Bazoo, you must take into consideration how you will use the gun. There are a lot more ammunition choices for the 45 ACP now than there were years ago. Good SD ammunition can be found in both the 200 gr and 230 gr weights, so I don't think that's a huge factor these days BUT I concur the 230 grain selections are far more numerous. I do think it's important to pick ONE bullet weight and stick with it. I don't think you need to confine yourself to one bullet style (HP, TC, SWC, RN FMJ) but I do think it's wise to limit the bullet weight to one specific weight.

As a side note, the old Speer 200 gr "flying ashtray" is no longer available but Speer offers the excellent Gold Dot in both the 200 & 230 grain bullet weights.

[Bigslug]

Outpost has a really good finger on the pulse of the history. A couple points I might add:

Back in the Civil War era, the U.S. Navy was rolling with handguns loading .375 caliber roundball, because they were pretty much expecting to exclusively shoot people.

The Army went with handguns that loaded .454 caliber roundball, because they fully intended to "**** both you AND the horse you rode in on" :mrgreen: The Peacemaker pretty much continued that concept.

The 200 grain option probably would have served in the old Navy role, and MIGHT have even served in the old Army role if they had stopped to consider what a copper jacket would have done to help with penetration. Kind of a new fangled thing, & I doubt it crossed their minds.

In the days leading up to the 1911, cavalry was still very much an active thing because Hiram Maxim's machinegun had yet to really show us why continuing with it would be a bad idea. Many of the guys involved with selecting the new handgun would have been either brought up by the prior generation of Civil War vets, been aging Indian fighters, or troops just back from the Phillipines who saw softball .38's not do the job, Krags not do the job, and psychologically needed a .45 or a 12 gauge to feel comfortable addressing the issue.

200 grains probably WOULD have worked, but they felt they had a handle on what DID work, and John Browning probably knew better than to ask a lot of annoying and unnecessary questions.

[Patrick L]

I too shoot cast exclusively in my .45s. you'll NEVER wear the barrel out.

The H&G 68 (mine a clone that we did as a group buy over at Castboolits, but pretty much everyone makes one) had been my boolit for years, but recently I was given about 5-600 of the old H&G 185 SWC bullseye standard ( I think it was the 130???) and I must admit it is accurate and reliable, plus it recoils just slightly less, being lighter.

[Burnt Fingers]

Fixed sights never seem to aim where my loads hit.

[Gray Fox]

I have here on my desk what I hope to be the answer to fixed Novak rear sights on my Springfield .45. It's from Brownells and is "Novak Lomount Adjustable rear white dot" sight. Part # 625-000-010. I bought it a while back and have to take the gun to my 'smith because I don't have a sight pusher to get the original Novak sight out of my slide. Even after soaking the slide cut in Kroil I can't get it to move with a brass drift. If I recall the cost was about $75. The only drawback I can see is it comes with the tiniest little Allen wrench I've ever seen to adjust it with. But, once you've gotten it adjusted to your chosen load you should be OK anyway. GF

[Petrol & Powder]

Gray Fox, that adjustable Novak may be a good compromise between low profile and some ability to adjust the sight.

Burnt Fingers - if the fixed sights don't point where the rounds impact - fix the fixed sights :-o !

On a 1911 it's easy enough to file the front sight or add a taller one as needed. The rear sight can be drifted side to side as needed.

[Bazoo]

The local gun store today has a Ruger 1911, full size with adjustable sights and ambi safety, used 650.00. The same new was 750.

[BCB]

The local gun store today has a Ruger 1911, full size with adjustable sights and ambi safety, used 650.00. The same new was 750.

Hmmmm, I looked at a Ruger, but I don't remember if it had adjustable sights. I've looked at so many makes. Was that an aftermarket rear sight. If not, that might be what I'm looking for. I've sure had good luck with Ruger revolvers...

Thanks...BCB

[Bazoo]

It was factory, I asked specifically and that's why we looked at the new one. It was stainless but they also had a blacked out version with adjustable sights as well as the none adjustable sight stainless version.

The Ruger doesn't have the firing pin block safety either which is a pain if you're going to detail strip the gun for cleaning occasionally.

[BCB]

It was factory, I asked specifically and that's why we looked at the new one. It was stainless but they also had a blacked out version with adjustable sights as well as the none adjustable sight stainless version.

The Ruger doesn't have the firing pin block safety either which is a pain if you're going to detail strip the gun for cleaning occasionally.

I just looked at the black version and it has "adjustment for drift" is what is says. Does that mean the dovetail slides, OR, does it have a screw that moves it?

Thanks...BCB

[osteodoc08]

I just looked at the black version and it has "adjustment for drift" is what is says. Does that mean the dovetail slides, OR, does it have a screw that moves it?

Thanks...BCB

I imagine it’s a drift adjustable (hit the fixed rear sight with a punch) type of sight.

You may want to consider a SA Range Officer. They have several different finishes with several different price points.

[Bazoo]

Adjustable for drift would mean windage only, and by hammer and punch.

I thought the black version I seen was fully adjustable but now I'm doubting myself. Course if you look at guns for an hour it starts running together.

[tazman]

Fixed sights never seem to aim where my loads hit.

I have the same problem with whatever sights are on my pistol.

I am happy with 3 inch groups at 10 yards but I aspire for better. I have tested my guns accuracy by letting people who are good shoots fire them so I know they are capable of great accuracy.

[BCB]

Adjustable for drift would mean windage only, and by hammer and punch.

I thought the black version I seen was fully adjustable but now I'm doubting myself. Course if you look at guns for an hour it starts running together.

Yea, that's what happened to me also. I looked and looked and I've now forgotten which ones were used and which ones were new. But, the adjustment-by-hammer seems to be what the ones were that I looked at...

I guess a brass punch and a fiberglass ended hammer and a light tap. Trial and error I reckon?

Thanks...BCB

[tazman]

I broke down and purchased a tool that clamps over the slide and uses a screw system to move the dovetailed sight. Easier to be precise with the adjustments that way.
Once you get it set correctly, you never need to move it again.
I have been lucky that every 1911 with fixed sights I have owned was right on for me. The only thing I need to adjust for is difference in height with light boolits.
Even then the difference isn't much. Not enough to miss the 10 ring an a bad guy.
Maybe a couple of inches at 15 yards.

[BCB]

I see one of the LGS has a Springfield Armory model that has adjustable rear sights...

Is this a dependable brand name for the 1911. I liked the look of it, but it was pricey, but that may be just what it is to get the adjustable rear sight.

Any thoughts? I say that name mentioned in this thread...

Thanks...BCB

[onelight]

The Ruger SR1911 Target has the adjustable rear sight .

[tazman]

I think you may be talking about the Springfield Armory Range Officer. There are a couple of different versions of it but mine has adjustable sights, is very accurate, and very reliable.
I would recommend that pistol without reservation.
I have them in both 9mm and 45ACP. Excellent pistol.

[BCB]

O.K. Moving forward--I am seriously looking at the Springfield Amory and the Ruger...

It appears most loads mentioned here are with the fast burners, Tite Group, Bullseye, and 213--Got 'em all so likely in good shape there...

I will start with 230 FMJ's as I got several hundred of them with a "grab bag" purchase at a yard sale some time back--years as a matter of fact...

I have been looking at some other powder options and AA#7 really stands out with pressure and velocity. I realize velocity may not be a goal, but that #7 sure looks like an acceptable powder--thoughts?...

Thanks...BCB

[tazman]

I use AA7 in my 9mm with heavy boolits to good effect. I never considered it for 45ACP and don't really know why.
I looked at the data from the manufacturer and it shows some promise.
You may be on to something here.

[johniv]

I've used Unique for years. Works great, Bullseye is good also.

[MostlyLeverGuns]

I have a couple Colts, a few Para-ord, an AMT Hardballer and an XDS. Mostly I shoot the 200 gr SWC, H&G 68, or the same in 185. For the back country I do load a Flatnose 230 or Fedral Hydroshock in my Para-Ord 14-45 aluminum frame. I do load a 155 SWC in the XDS and the the COLT Combat Stallion (stainless aluminum frame Officers). I don't shoot much 'Hardball' 230. There are many, many vendors casting high quality cast bullets for the 45 ACP (38, 9mm, 40 also). I seldom cast for handguns since vendors have quality bullets are very good prices. I use lighter bullets in lighter guns, its a recoil thing when shooting for fun. Self-defense and hunting are different. I recommend adjustable sights for almost all shooting, maybe not REAL pocket guns, but anything in a holster. Adjustable sights allow you to pick the bullet weight and style you like and still hit where you want.

[LUCKYDAWG13]

O.K. Moving forward--I am seriously looking at the Springfield Amory and the Ruger...

It appears most loads mentioned here are with the fast burners, Tite Group, Bullseye, and 213--Got 'em all so likely in good shape there...

I will start with 230 FMJ's as I got several hundred of them with a "grab bag" purchase at a yard sale some time back--years as a matter of fact...

I have been looking at some other powder options and AA#7 really stands out with pressure and velocity. I realize velocity may not be a goal, but that #7 sure looks like an acceptable powder--thoughts?...

Thanks...BCB
I would go with the Ruger and 231 powder they work for me

[Petrol & Powder]

I'll concur with ww231 powder but Bullseye is certainly a favorite also.
My "standard" 45 ACP load now utilizes ww231 and a 200 gr LSWC. I'm sure I could accomplish the same thing with Bullseye.

If you find yourself chasing those last few FPS numbers with a 1911, you're in the wrong game.

I don't own a Ruger SR1911 but I'm very impressed with the Ruger. Integral plunger tube (a big plus in my book), lightweight titanium firing pin that eliminates the need for all of that silly series 80 firing pin safety nonsense AND provides faster lock time as a bonus. A better than average fit for the price class based on the ones I've handled and nice sights right out of the box.

[wl620]

I would pick the Ruger,I have a regular 5” fixed sight sr1911 and although not the best shooter out of my 45 acp lineup its not bad and it is very reliable. I would like to try out that target model.
I haven’t tried any #7 with 230’s but have burnt up quite a bit of it with top end loads pushing 200 gr. semi wadcutters because that’s where I obtained the best accuracy, drop powder charges down very much and extreme spreads vaulted up into the hundreds of FPS and accuracy went out the window. You may have better luck with the 230’s and that powder. If you are going down that rabbit hole you probably should order a good heavier recoil spring,I like the 18.5 pound Wilson Combat springs that come with the little shock buffers, the pistol will generally still function fine with a wide variety of loads with these springs, in my experience.
My advice, buy the Ruger oil it up good(not too heavily) grab that big bag of 230’s, load up 500 of’em in the 850 FPS. range, go shoot the tar out of it. You will get to know it better and it will be just starting to break in good when your done.