1911 trouble feeding

[Larry Gibson]

Nanookofthenorth

In your 1st post you state; "Factory FMJ bullets with the same ogive feed fine no matter what."

Thus there is nothing wrong with your pistol. It is obviously your reloads. While I certainly agree that Doug does excellent work to have him ream the throat is fixing the pistol to fit the ammunition (if it works). That is backwards as it isn't the pistol that is the problem. I suggest fixing the ammunition.

Let's take it one step at a time.

Are you sizing the bullets to .452 before or after PCing?

[rustyshooter]

Since factory ammo feeds it’s definitely in the reload. It sounds like it’s the profile of the boolit and PC. Switch to Lyman 230gn or RCBS 230gn lubed should do the trick. I would be happy to loan you a 2 cavity I have to try it out. The Miha copy of this mould is the bomb also. Additionally you can make some really sweet hp with the pins he has with them.

[DougGuy]

Nanookofthenorth

In your 1st post you state; "Factory FMJ bullets with the same ogive feed fine no matter what."

Thus there is nothing wrong with your pistol. It is obviously your reloads. While I certainly agree that Doug does excellent work to have him ream the throat is fixing the pistol to fit the ammunition (if it works). That is backwards as it isn't the pistol that is the problem. I suggest fixing the ammunition.

Let's take it one step at a time.

Are you sizing the bullets to .452 before or after PCing?

Ok one step at a time..

1st step: Factory FMJ are .451" in diameter, non PC'd which makes the ojive considerably less forward than a PC'd .452" boolit.

2nd step: Doug does excellent work to have him ream the throat is fixing the pistol to fit the ammunition (if it works). Fact: The majority of cast boolits loaded and fired are indeed .001" or so greater than groove diameter. This is VERY common, and I think you yourself subscribe to this school would that be correct? .358" for 38/357, .452" for 45 ACP/45 Colt, .431" for 44 Spl/Mag and on and on.

It is common math to measure a cylinder throat, and either size to fit the throat, *OR* size the throat to fit the boolit. The first way delivers a boolit to the bore at throat diameter, regardless of what you size to before chambering and firing. We both know this comes with it's own set of gotchas, undersized boolit leading, poor groups, whereas the boolit delivered to the bore *at intended diameter* which is fired through throats that are sized to the boolit in most cases works much better than a smaller boolit. We both know that sizing the throat to fit the boolit is the smarter more practical way to avoid using undersized boolits. It works in 100% of the cases to not reduce the size of the boolit sized .0005" under throat diameter, and it works when it's time to compare groups before and after. There are literally hundreds of our members that can attest to this being fact in 45 caliber alone. There are hundreds more with 44 caliber. There are hundreds more with 35 caliber. If it didn't work, I think the whole community would be aware of that by now.

The 45 ACP is no different in fitment than a revolver. It's still a cast boolit being pushed through a bore. We shoot cast boolits. Almost 100% of those cast boolits are .001" to .002" greater than their factory assembled, jacketed counterparts. It is necessary to fit the throat to the ammo we will use to preserve fitment, to facilitate feeding, and to improve the cast boolit experience to a satisfactory level of performance. If everyone sized cast boolits to .451" we wouldn't be having this discussion, but let me refer to the history of sizing cast to .451" in the 45 ACP, this would be the FIRST suggestion to change when someone posts they are getting a leaded barrel with cast boolits. Oh! Size to .452" this will fix it! Why is this? Because .452" works MUCH better than .451"

One more factor that an autoloader has to worry with is setback. When a boolit is crammed into a tight throat during normal cycling, and it happens to become set deeper in the case as the slide goes into battery, pressures can skyrocket, and it is entirely possible to KB the gun in the shooter's hands, blowing pieces of grip material, brass, powder, lead, into the palms, face and neck, while dumping the contents of the magazine that didn't detonate downward and out of the gun. This has happened to members right here on this forum. The amount of crimp was blamed by the majority when in fact, the barrel of this gun was NOT throated, and it did suffer boolit setback which was the root cause of the KB. Had this barrel been throated, and care taken to fit boolits to plunk, this would have been avoided.

Edit: Okay let me add this. Char-Gar has been shooting the 1911 longer than many of us have been breathing. I would consider his opinions from decades of experience quite factual. Here is his opinion of having the barrel throated to accommodate the ammo:

I would pay attention to DougGuy's information about barrel throating. I was skeptical for years, but sent him a barrel for throating. I have since that time, sent him my other two 1911 barrels. He know what he is talking about. I no longer "plunk" anything, for this is useless in a properly throated barrel. I set the length of my rounds, as long as they will fit without binding in the magazine and taper crimp. They all feed as slick as snot on a glass door knob!

Pretty hard to argue with that level of success. I don't see the "if it works" in any of that.

[Char-Gar]

One major factor is that barrel throats (if any) vary with make and even within the same make over time. Older Colt barrels have more throat than current makes. I have a good Bar-Sto barrel and the throat in it, would make DougGuy proud. I fine nothing untoward in fixing differences and discrepancies in various firearms to make them more accurate and/or reliable. We have been doing that with rifles, shotguns and handguns since the mind of man rememberth not.

[Forrest r]

OAL's all over the place isn't good.

I'd start with a laundry list of things to look at on the reloading bench.

The garbage lee expanders:
They are designed for the shorter in length, smaller in diameter jacketed bullets. A factory lee die next to a lyman m-die expander. Note the high water mark on the lee die (brass line in the middle of the expander button). That was put there from the case mouths as the got expanded.
[IMG][/IMG]

The m-die pictured above goes deeper into the case then the factory lee expander. It going into the case clear up to the step in the top of the expander button like in this picture.
[IMG][/IMG]

Expanding the cases larger & deeper makes it easier to seat the bullets strait along with having a more even seating pressure required to seat that bullet reload after reload. Consistency is the name of the game & if it takes 10ft lb's to seat 1 bullet & 35ft lb's to seat the next you'll end up with oal's all over the place.

Seating the bullet and crimping in the same step will cause your oal's to be all over the place with semi-auto/taper crimped ammo. It's best to seat the bullet in 1 stage and then crimp the reload in another stage. You can easily check your oal's this way before taper crimping to not only fine tune your reloads. To find out if a specific brass has issues or seating the bullet strait issues, checking neck tension, etc. Taper crimp to +/- .469" and life will be good.

The plunk test:
Everyone seeing the "Max Accuracy" thing and OOOOOOOOOOBBBBBBBBBOOOOOOOOOYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!! Gotta set that oal up to the ragged edge of max to get them bullseye loads. Try setting the oal to +/- 10/1000th's less, accuracy is not only still there it's actually better then using a "Max" oal. Why 10/1000th's under vs Max??? Simple!!!!

If the 10/1000th's under seats a little deep you'll never see the difference on paper. Same goes for the oal ending up a little longer. This also gives you a little room for the fouling that occurs during a range session.

If you set your oal to "Max" on the plunk test loads that are shorter or come out the "Max" oal setting will be fine. Anything longer is jammed into the throat of the bbl. Not only can this align the bullet off center to the bore, it raises the short start pressure of your load. These types of things cause you to loose accuracy. Add to that any fouling that builds up during range use will do nothing but destroy accuracy simply because you have created an environment that cause your reloads to have to be jammed into battery from the changing conditions of the bbl.

If you can keep your 45acp reloads oal +/- 5/1000th's and keep your oal under the "Max" plunk test, you'll do a lot better.

Myself I set my oal to what feeds the best & then do the plunk test. I own a couple springfield 1911's, the range officer.
[IMG][/IMG]

They are both stock/no mods/as they came from the factory. The 45acp, owned a bunch of 1911's before this 1 and they always held their own with the h&g #68/69's sized to .452" with a oal of 1.250" with a +/- .469" crimp & 3.6gr to 4.0gr of bullseye. Not hand/cherry picked by any means loaded up a ladder test of bullseye and went to the range. In less then 15 minutes I had my answer.
[IMG][/IMG]
That oal is 10/1000th's less then the "Max" plunk test.

Liked that ro chamber in 45acp enough that I bought 1 chambered in 9mm. It took a little longer to find a plinking load for it. The mihec 359-125 bullet turned out to be an excellent choice. Cast/pc'd and sized to .358" with an oal 10/1000th's under "Max". Another not hand/cherry picked target, simply what the test target looked like for that test load.
[IMG][/IMG]

I'm sure doug does excellent work, just don't know if it's really needed. I'd be taking a hard look at what your doing at the reloading bench to find out why your oal's are all over the map.

[Char-Gar]

We are 110 years deep into reloading the 45 ACP round for the 1911 pistol. There no mysteries, no codes left to break. Our Grandfathers and Great Grandfathers did that years ago. I fail to understand who folks seem to be confused, perplexed and generally distressed about how to do all of this. We use the wrong bullets, wrong powder, wrong springs etc. etc. etc.. The father we get from the original Browning design and load, the more we introduce problems into the equation.

Get a Lyman 452374 (230 RN) or clone. Size cases and expand mouths to .451 or .452. Size the bullet .452. Do not powder coat. Prime the case and put 5 grains of Bullseye into the case. Use a GI or factory 230 grain ball round to set the OAL and taper crimp. With a good magazine and a pistol, clean, properly lubricated and in spec, you will be good to go.

If you want to deviate from this recipe, get your barrel throated.

If you want to use your pistol for home/self defense. Save you nickels and dimes to buy a couple of boxes of good 230 JHP. I used Winchester White Box version.

OK, I am done now. Oh yes! Some good stone ground yellow grits, seasoned the way you like, with some side meat off a hog, is the way to start your day. Black coffee to wash it all down. Love Jesus, brag on Him when you can and treat each other with love and respect. OK....now I am really done!!!!

[Larry Gibson]

Whoa Doug, I didn't criticize you or your work. I just stated in is obvious the gun is not the problem so I see no reason to fix it. Particularly I see no reason to alter the gun to fit the ammo when it is apparent something is wrong with the ammunition. What needs fixed is the OPs ammo.

The OP has not yet advised if he is sizing before and/or after PCing. If PCing after then the bullets are to large in diameter which easily could be the problem that some cause the failure to chamber (the pistol is feeding fine, just not chambering all the time). If so, the simple fix is to size the bullets after PCing to .452.

The OP also had an OAL problem. That could also be the problem. The easy fix is to seat deeper so the loaded rounds pass the "plunk test".

The OP self admits his PCing is not the best with it being "lumpy" which is self evident in the photo he posted. That could be the problem also. The solution is to improve the quality of his PC or to forego PC and lube the bullets.

None of those solution require alteration of the pistol. Now I have no idea how old Char-Gar is but I shot my first M1911 in 1960 when my uncle got one. During 1964 through 1967 I fired many 45 ACP rounds through different M1911s including one I carried in combat and even used it in such. I've been loading cast bullets of numerous designs and weights sized .452 for M1911s and M1917s since '68. I fired thousands of rounds through my own M1911s (competed in IPSC with a M1911 Series 70), Combat Commanders and Para 14. I carried a M1911 on duty as and LEO and my Combat Commander was my off duty pistol. Thousands of rounds were fired through both, mostly my cast bullet practice loads. I had 83 M1911s in my SF arms vault. Also had an indoor range and I shot probably all of them with issue ball and my own cast bullets sized .452. With that said I never, ever one single time found it necessary to throat any M1911 barrel.

When the ammunition with .452 sized cast bullet of any configuration with appropriate nose for the ramp was loaded correctly to 45 ACP specifications it functioned fine in all M1911s with one exception. One M1911 match pistol had a very tight match chamber and with some thicker milsurp cases would not chamber reliably with .452 sized bullets unless the loaded cartridges were run through the lee FCD or loaded using W-W cases. Even .451 sized bullets prove too large in some milsurp cases. However, that was with a custom match barrel.

And BTW; I've shot thousands of .451 sized commercial cast through numerous M1911s and really couldn't tell any difference that .001 made.

And yes, I have loaded a lot of 45 ACP with the Lee bullet mentioned and commercial cast of similar nose profile w/o any chambering problems. The last Lee ones I loaded (about 300 rounds on a SDB) were shot in a very nice original commercial Thompson sub machinegun.

So, we have here the OPs pistol functions fine with factory ammunition but not with his reloads......the problem that needs correcting is the reloads. I see no reason to alter the pistol to fit sub standard reloads. [No offense or criticism meant to the OP] And certainly no offense or criticism mean to you Doug. As I said, you do excellent work. I just don't think it's needed in this instance.

[Forrest r]

OAL's all over the place isn't good.

I'd start with a laundry list of things to look at on the reloading bench.

The garbage lee expanders:
They are designed for the shorter in length, smaller in diameter jacketed bullets. A factory lee die next to a lyman m-die expander. Note the high water mark on the lee die (brass line in the middle of the expander button). That was put there from the case mouths as the got expanded.
[IMG][/IMG]

The m-die pictured above goes deeper into the case then the factory lee expander. It going into the case clear up to the step in the top of the expander button like in this picture.
[IMG][/IMG]

Expanding the cases larger & deeper makes it easier to seat the bullets strait along with having a more even seating pressure required to seat that bullet reload after reload. Consistency is the name of the game & if it takes 10ft lb's to seat 1 bullet & 35ft lb's to seat the next you'll end up with oal's all over the place.

Seating the bullet and crimping in the same step will cause your oal's to be all over the place with semi-auto/taper crimped ammo. It's best to seat the bullet in 1 stage and then crimp the reload in another stage. You can easily check your oal's this way before taper crimping to not only fine tune your reloads. To find out if a specific brass has issues or seating the bullet strait issues, checking neck tension, etc. Taper crimp to +/- .469" and life will be good.

The plunk test:
Everyone seeing the "Max Accuracy" thing and OOOOOOOOOOBBBBBBBBBOOOOOOOOOYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!! Gotta set that oal up to the ragged edge of max to get them bullseye loads. Try setting the oal to +/- 10/1000th's less, accuracy is not only still there it's actually better then using a "Max" oal. Why 10/1000th's under vs Max??? Simple!!!!

If the 10/1000th's under seats a little deep you'll never see the difference on paper. Same goes for the oal ending up a little longer. This also gives you a little room for the fouling that occurs during a range session.

If you set your oal to "Max" on the plunk test loads that are shorter or come out the "Max" oal setting will be fine. Anything longer is jammed into the throat of the bbl. Not only can this align the bullet off center to the bore, it raises the short start pressure of your load. These types of things cause you to loose accuracy. Add to that any fouling that builds up during range use will do nothing but destroy accuracy simply because you have created an environment that cause your reloads to have to be jammed into battery from the changing conditions of the bbl.

If you can keep your 45acp reloads oal +/- 5/1000th's and keep your oal under the "Max" plunk test, you'll do a lot better.

Myself I set my oal to what feeds the best & then do the plunk test. I own a couple springfield 1911's, the range officer.
[IMG][/IMG]

They are both stock/no mods/as they came from the factory. The 45acp, owned a bunch of 1911's before this 1 and they always held their own with the h&g #68/69's sized to .452" with a oal of 1.250" with a +/- .469" crimp & 3.6gr to 4.0gr of bullseye. Not hand/cherry picked by any means loaded up a ladder test of bullseye and went to the range. In less then 15 minutes I had my answer.
[IMG][/IMG]
That oal is 10/1000th's less then the "Max" plunk test.

Liked that ro chamber in 45acp enough that I bought 1 chambered in 9mm. It took a little longer to find a plinking load for it. The mihec 359-125 bullet turned out to be an excellent choice. Cast/pc'd and sized to .358" with an oal 10/1000th's under "Max". Another not hand/cherry picked target, simply what the test target looked like for that test load.
[IMG][/IMG]

I'm sure doug does excellent work, just don't know if it's really needed. I'd be taking a hard look at what your doing at the reloading bench to find out why your oal's are all over the map.

[oscar669]

Had the same problem with miss feeds with SWC cast but would shoot fine with round ball Colt officers model. I pulled the mags apart and stretched out the springs and it it ran like a champ with all ammo. The mags were the original Colt that came with the gun and 2 Kimbers

[fredj338]

Too much over thinking on this. The Lee 228R is just not a good design at all. IT will not load to anything near SAAMI for the 45acp in most 1911. So adjust the throat or adjust the oal or buy another mold.

[DougGuy]

So adjust the throat or adjust the oal or buy another mold.

There is only two ways to do this, fit the boolit to the throat, OR fit the throat to the boolit. Both methods have their pros and cons. The latter is considerably safer than the first and generally feeds much better.

[Burnt Fingers]

Too much over thinking on this. The Lee 228R is just not a good design at all. IT will not load to anything near SAAMI for the 45acp in most 1911. So adjust the throat or adjust the oal or buy another mold.

This right here.

I've never had good luck with any 1R boolit from Lee molds. They're just too fat too far out.

[gwpercle]

Well I can tell you being a long time 1911 guy, that 228R does NOT have the same ogive as FMJ. It has a much rounder ogive that requires deeper seating. At 1.230", I can get them to feed in most of my 1911s, most are Springfields. Its just not a good design imo. YEs throating reamer will fix it. The Lyman is a near copy for ball ammo.

I knew there was something wrong with that Lee 228 1- R profile ... and you are right about having to deep seat the bullet ... that short stubby round profile is just ...wonky ... it really should be a 2-R profile and why they don't correct that ... is beyond me .
Lee has several other 2-R profile boolits ... I have the 9mm 356-125- 2R so I know they can do 2R profiles quite easily ... another mystery of life I guess .
Gary

[mehavey]

Nanook: If you happen to have some Lee Liquid ALOX....

- Size the bullets first (bare)
- Swipe a thin coat of ALOX onto bullet [including a bit on ogive]
- Bake in a 225° oven for an hour
- Load at "plunkable" OAL [whatever that is] 24 hours later...
- Shoot

Let us know.
(I'm betting you have a PC/metal surface/slip problem on turning corner entering chamber)

[Nanookofthenorth]

I see this has got alot of attention, that's great.

Just some notes from looking over your replies. My OAL are not all over the place I'm not sure if I miscommunicated this they are all at 1.220. The powder coating is bad and I have ordered a different kind that most people seem to be using. I'm sizing the bullets after I PC them. I loaded some dummy rounds with some of my uncoated boolits (sized) and I'm having the same issues. So I'm assuming the gun does not like the bullet profile and or crimp. I have ordered a taper crimp die. I would just go ahead and order a different mold in reference to some you have suggested, but they are (as everything else) in short supply right now with prices through the roof.

So I've sent my barrel to Doug for him to throat. I'm going to change my powder coating (I do have some of Lee's allox lying around that I can try) use the taper crimp along with the lengthened throat and check back in.

[Nanookofthenorth]

What's the consensus for seating depth for this particular bullet? I saw 1.225 mentioned.

[mehavey]

Nanook: Your Sizing die (minus the decapping stem) makes the best taper die there is.
[you're just looking to reduce the mouth to 0.471-ish]

[BC17A]

What's the consensus for seating depth for this particular bullet? I saw 1.225 mentioned.

I seat the Lee 228 to an OAL of 1.210" for my 45's. I've read through this thread and some people are getting too deep into the proverbial weeds over something that's not as big an issue as it seems. Load to an OAL that fits and use the standard rules of load development. For comparison, the Hornady 230XTP is seated (Horn 9th) to 1.210" also, and it's length is nearly identical to the Lee 228, or within a few thousands. By the way, the minimum book spec for the 45 auto is 1.190".

[Nanookofthenorth]

I seat the Lee 228 to an OAL of 1.210" for my 45's. I've read through this thread and some people are getting too deep into the proverbial weeds over something that's not as big an issue as it seems. Load to an OAL that fits and use the standard rules of load development. For comparison, the Hornady 230XTP is seated (Horn 9th) to 1.210" also, and it's length is nearly identical to the Lee 228, or within a few thousands. By the way, the minimum book spec for the 45 auto is 1.190".

Which powder coat powder did you use for that?

[Larry Gibson]

I seat the Lee 228 to an OAL of 1.210" for my 45's. I've read through this thread and some people are getting too deep into the proverbial weeds over something that's not as big an issue as it seems. Load to an OAL that fits and use the standard rules of load development. For comparison, the Hornady 230XTP is seated (Horn 9th) to 1.210" also, and it's length is nearly identical to the Lee 228, or within a few thousands. By the way, the minimum book spec for the 45 auto is 1.190".

Exactly......