1911Forum
Forum   Reviews   Rules   Legal   Site Supporters & Donations   Advertise


Go Back   1911Forum > Hardware & Accessories > Gunsmithing & Troubleshooting


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #26  
Old 03-14-2008, 09:15 PM
Santa Fe Santa Fe is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Santa Fe, NM
Age: 72
Posts: 12



Craig,

I, for one (and possibly many more), appreciate what you have posted on the 460 ROWLAND (not Roland). I am just getting started with my Clark kit installed on a Springfield and, since I have loaded a bunch of .45 ACP, mostly for Action Pistol (at Zia and Los Alamos), as well as many other high pressure rifle calibers (hottest was 708 in a Rem XP100), I feel I can reload the 460 Rowland with appropriate care.

I really don't care re. comparisons on the .44 Mag or any other calibers since it is the 460 R I will be shooting and my focus needs to be on that.

You say you like Hodgdon powders (me too, but never for a close-to-max like the Rowland), which powder have you used the most for the 460 R and which bullet did you choose? What was your OAL with the bullets you chose?

I'm going to start with the 20# spring with beginning loads and see how they eject. Any problems, I'll put in the 24#.

Again, thanks for your information. I occasionally shoot at the Espanola range, perhaps I'll see you there?

Paul
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-15-2008, 02:16 AM
Bearbait in NM Bearbait in NM is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Taos, NM
Age: 52
Posts: 448
Santa Fe,

As to my powder choices, I have only used Longshot to date. Way back when I started with the 460, LS and the powders from AA were all that I could find data on. Now we have a few more choices, and I will likely experiment with these others.

As to bullets tried, there have been a slew. I'll list a few Oal's.
Hornady
230 xtp - 1.255
250 XTP - 1.215
230 JFP FMJ - 1.260
230 JFP - 1.255

Lasercast
200 rnfp - 1.260
225 TC - 1.260

Nosler
250 HP - 1.255
185 JHP Match - 1.250

Ranier
250 Plated FP - 1.265

This is a partial list, with quite a few others that I have discounted for use. The only shapes that have given me problems with regard to seating depth are some of the 230 fmj's, as some have ogive shapes that force the case mouth above the curved portion of the nose, some of the 255 lead bullets that end up again with the case mouth above the step in the bullet ogive, and some of the half jacketed flatpoints that get a little dinged when seating and/or mashed in the magazine under recoil.

Along the same line of thought, not all magazines behave similarly to OAL. Different mag designs and makes do vary a little bit as to depth of body, but have significant differences regarding follower design and fit as you fill the magazine to capacity. And as I am sure that you are aware from your competing, that taper lipped magazines like Colt feed differently than the "wadcutter" style lips on a Wilson, for example. Your just gonna have to play with it, if you venture much outside the XTP type shape. Especially with the heavy 45 Colt designed bullets.

With regard to the springs, I had extensive conversations with Mark at ISMI, the Silicon spring folks. It was his contention that his 20lb spring might work better than the 24# Wolff, as it is his belief that his silicon design take less of a set (remain longer in length once set) than the Wolff. This would theoretically apply more static pressure at lock, to aid in lock. I did indeed confirm that his 20# spring remained longer in length than a 24#, but I did not have a way to measure locking rate other than feel. I ran one of my kits for several thousand rounds with his 20# spring, and really could not tell from ejection or battering that it was better or worse. I switched back to a Wolff 24# spring once I found the postings of the folks using the EGW flat FPS. The EGW stop combined with a 25# mainspring made a decided difference in the dynamic locking of the gun. I just am not smart enough to know whether the static spring tension really does impact the dynamic forces of locking and unlocking in any meaningful way. In any case, i would suggest that if you decide to go with a 20# spring, you try an ISMI spring as well. It might have to be trimmed, I do believe I had to take a coil or two off of mine. That is an easy check.

One little additional test that you can perfrom regarding springs and recoil is to use the 45 ACP as a benchmark. By this I mean use a known quantity of 45acp to see how well it ejects, compared to any changes you make to the gun. I am not sure the ejection distance of the 460R case is a great measure in and of itself. With my benchmark 45 ACP load, a new 24# Wolff spring will not let the 45 spent case eject, at first. After a mag or two of Rowland rounds, the 45 case will dribble out (spring set). Eventually they will progress further, as the spring weakens. This test does not tell much in and of itself, but if you try it with the new gun/kit with factory spring and then compare to your 20# tests, this might help determine whether or not the 20# spring is significantly affecting slide recoil velocity.

BUT, and it's a big but. Johnny Rowland promoted use of 45ACP in his kit. Patrick Sweeny suggests this could be dangerous due to headspace issues. And I have seen thoughts and posts both ways. You really need to do some research to decide if you want to try ACP's in the Rowland kit. I shoot a few, but not a lot.

As to the 44 mag reference, as I posted again, it is only a rough comparison. Not the final word. But, as I type this, I have the Hodgdon annual reloading manual in my lap, and a full house 230 grain 460R meets or exceeds 4 of the 10 240 grain 44 mag loads for a Nosler JHP, and these from an 8.275" barrel. I do feel that the 460 and 44 can be discussed in the same sentance. Not that one is better or worse, but that someone will know "ok. low end 44 mag, I know what I can do with it". No more.

Great that you are a neighbor. I actually do all of my shooting on public land, other than trips to the Whittington Center. Although I guess we could cross paths somewhere. A side note that I found a little funny. When I got my concealed permit here a few years ago, I decided to qualify (for others, in NM we have caliber requirements) with my 460. I thought due to so little 460R info on the web, that there were not a lot of us around. At the class one of the guys said that he had one, and that he knew of 8 or ten other guys just in the Taos area with Rowlands. I guess we are just a meek bunch.

Craig
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-16-2008, 04:51 AM
Porter Rockwell Porter Rockwell is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Alaska
Posts: 333
Whoops

Enhanced By Vodka Speed Reading (Wrong Poster/OP) Twas Nordic

I also purchased a Mechtech carbine in .460 rowland, and have shot that extensively (a little over 1000 rounds) before I got the Clark Custom kit... that'd make a really nice hunting gun, but unfortunately Ohio doesn't allow rifles. My 460 drop in kit is legal for hunting though.

Craig, it's not my intent to sway readers that Rolands (intentional) 460 is less than the Super, BOTH have the freaking same powder capacity and somehow me brain recalls that Starline wrote (memory cells that sort of survived the 60s) that the +P brass of theirs was stronger than the Roland? Info just for the folks with unsupported chambers BTW.

FYI, I used 3 platforms for clock readings in determining that Super brass was NOT needed for loads in the 30-40K range

FA 97 convertible (5.5in barrel, obviously full supported brass and wanted to see the primers before moving on to)

Colt CE W/non ramped but supported chamber (hmmm? No catastrophic case failures so)

Colt/Drake/Clark Comp/Pin Gun (When it dawned on me that since Comp Guns work best with high pressure) yeppers, ramped and supported

Short slide with full Clark comp (pin master W/ a couple of extra holes)

And yes Craig I suppose I do have an agenda but it's certainly not to Ace whatshis face, I got a serious kick from Tritons .450 SMC (I'll assume ya know what SMC means)

It's simply because some yahoo stole someone else's cartridge and renamed it.
If Jim Sr was alive it would never have happened IMO.

Good shooting and thanks for the thread Craig!
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-16-2008, 12:44 PM
Bearbait in NM Bearbait in NM is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Taos, NM
Age: 52
Posts: 448
Porter,

Thanks for the clarifications. it is actually refreshing to have someone state where he stands, rather than perfrom petty semantical gyrations trying to convince readers that he is only trying to be helpful. I am still a little fuzzy though. I think that you are saying Clark renamed the 451 Detonics the 460 Rowland? I think the Smc is just a Super? I'll try a little research on the Detonics round. I had owned several of their guns years ago, and have always been sadened by the fact that they are not still around with us today. Pretty nice products, and a bit of innovation.

Just to keep this thread sort of on track, although our deviations are probably useful, much of what I have posted as concerns for the 460 Rowland center on the unsupported ramp of the Clark kit. To further clarify, in my testing of only the Clark kits, it seems to me that the 40K pressure approaches the mechanical limitations of the 1911 platform. That same pressure approaches very closly the mechanical limitations of the unsupported portion of case (in an unramped and throated barrel), at least as it applies to the current Rowland case from Starline. IMHO, I feel any user of any of these high pressure variations needs to understand these differences, as you could be over in either and have an unsafe condition. I know that you understand this. I jumped into the OP query, as I hoped to shed some light on my experiences, as there is so little posted info on the Rowland.

You have certainly done MUCH more experimentation with the line of improved 45 cases, and I find your results interesting. And I have seen a lot of the confusion regarding case strength v. type. To further illustrate the point, the current Hodgdon reloading annual lists the 45 Super as basically a 45 ACP +p. A 230 grain bullet at something less than 1000 fps. That is sure to confuse a lot of folks making a buying decision based on the "numbers". And we can be sure that many folks buy based on the numbers. My "x" is bigger than your "y". Where have we seen that before?

To be totally honest, knowing what I do now, if I were to to it all over again, and I was only interested is launching a 200-230 grain bullet the fastest that I could, I would seriously consider the 45 Super. In a ramped and comped gun, proper lock-up, flat FPS and something like a 24# recoil spring to maximize platform life expectancy. But, knowing that I were gonna play with heavier Colt bullets, I feel that the Rowland does offer a little more internal ballistic wiggle room with the slightly longer case, for the handloader. Although the longer case does make the heavier bullet a balancing act, as to OAL. And I would have to admit that now we have a couple of new powders listed as suitable for these stubby hot rods, this ballistic edge (as percieved in my grey mass) could be somewhat mitigated. I'd wager a bit that you have dabbled with heavy weight bullets in the ACP length case?

And to help keep the moderators from throwing me out on my ear for hijacking, I have a little more Rowland testing from yesterday to throw into the mix. I fitted an new EGW fps with minimal, and I do mean minimal, radiusing. With this FPS, 25# mainspring, 0.053 lug engagement on all three lugs, 24# recoil spring, and reasonably tight hood fitting, my Colt with Clark conversion will not function with warm 45 ACP rounds. Based on Johnny Rowlands demonstration on his show (yes he had a TV show for a while) using 45acp and Rowland interchangably, and stating that his gun was setup properly and had digested a lot of rounds, I think that I am at a point where my gun is as mechanically fit for the long haul as I can make it. Now for the long haul.....

Craig
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-16-2008, 03:32 PM
ClarkEMyers ClarkEMyers is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,432
I thought I saw a nit to pick.

Quote:
it seems to me that the 40K pressure approaches the mechanical limitations of the 1911 platform
Well yes, but then again I carry and load for a 9x23 where I use Winchester cases exclusively WSR primers as well - factory only for carry - and I don't sweat the pressure at all the same way I do in the .460 Rowland.

Sort of reminds of the difference between ram pressure and line pressure in a hydraulic press. Pumps and lines both would blow disastrously at reasonable ram pressures.

Continuing to digress there has been some discussion of Starline brass and what Starline has to say about some of the variety offered. I too have heard a variety of things in the past.

It is important to me to keep cases separate for many reasons including internal lots to track my own use so I am mindful of different headstamps

(I've never experienced super face nor blown a case in a pistol but I don't use ivory grips on my Rowland either- I have had odd results pushing a magnum revolver and loosened up some handguns prematurely. Recently a friend blew a Glock smiley 40 S&W case that he should have pitched - my analysis of the KaBoom not necessarily correct these things do happen).

I'd be very reluctant to use some of the model railroad techniques to color brass when I use the brass in full pressure loads. I'm not up for swiss loading in the 1911 although I did at one time carry a Model 58 with a couple of the police lower power load up first followed by full power for reasons that seemed good at the time.

Currently the Starline web site posts this:
Quote:
45 Auto+P is a strengthened version of the 45 Auto with the same external dimensions. A thicker web and heavier sidewall at base strengthens the case in potentially unsupported areas. This case has approximately 2 grains less internal capacity than the standard 45 Auto.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
45 Super* is the same externally as the 45 Auto, but has a thicker web, denser grain structure in the metal and special heat process which enhances the durability of the case. Similar internal capacity as the 45 Auto. 45 Super load data is available through ACE Custom 45's at (281) 659-1017. *Loads to be shot ONLY in guns modified professionally to handle extreme pressures. DO NOT SHOOT IN STANDARD 45 AUTO!
emphasis added

No question the Winchester cases in 9X23 have less internal capacity than some other cases that might be used for similar applications (notice again that in a carry gun I like factory ammunition and so I want factory loads to be available) and so pressure can be very different across the family of .355/.356 bore cartridges with .900 inch or 23mm long cases. Similarly it seems to me there are real variations across .45 Auto cases and of course a smaller internal capacity case will show a disproportionate increase in pressure with a proportionate increase in charge.

I'm quite comfortable assigning at least relative pressures in rifles where I have extensive experience and lots of load development with a particular rifle. I'm not in handguns.

In sum the Rowland suits me as a real step up at an affordable price in a pistol I enjoy with enough extra performance from factory parts and pieces to make the whole thing worthwhile.

The old Wisconsin furnace salesman has long left the range and Jerry Ahern didn't revive that line of .45's. I'll give naming rights to the man who gets the pieces mass produced and factory tested loads published.

I've bugged Barnes for .460 Rowland loads with their bullets and had little response.

I don't substitute components and I do use a chronograph - and a Ransom Rest - for pistol load development. Anybody notice any particular tested, including especially pressure tested loads for the Rowland that the rest of us might have missed?
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 03-16-2008, 09:32 PM
NordicRX8 NordicRX8 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: NW Ohio
Posts: 812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Porter Rockwell View Post
Enhanced By Vodka Speed Reading (Wrong Poster/OP) Twas Nordic
Alcohol is always to blame...

Quote:
"If I see data showing a longer O.A.L. than what I use (1.250"), I reduce the powder by another 2 tenths of a grain and work up from there."
Clarification: If a particular load specifies that the OAL should be 1.275, and I load it to an OAL of 1.250", I will lower the powder charge by .2 and work up from there. After re-reading what I posted, I can understand the misunderstanding... heck, even without the influence of alcohol (12+ years, sober, tyvm) I can understand the confusion as I was confused reading it myself!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ClarkEMyers
Anybody notice any particular tested, including especially pressure tested loads for the Rowland that the rest of us might have missed?
Probably not, not a whole lot of info out there for this cartridge...

from realguns.com
from clarkcustomguns.com
Mechtech only info
Taffin article

I also have "subscribed" to ammoguide.com, but there are very few loads listed that couldn't be found elsewhere on the net. I did find several loads for the Remington 185 JHP and Remington 185 Golden Sabre (if I recall correctly) that have not been listed elsewhere

Quote:
Originally Posted by ClarkEMyers
I've bugged Barnes for .460 Rowland loads with their bullets and had little response.
As have I. Here's the e-mail I sent to them and their response.
Quote:
Your FAQ page states: "Load data for 9mm .40 and .45-caliber bullets are included in each box of bullets. Please check the Barnes website for load data for other cartridges."

Will the upcoming 4th edition Barnes reloading manual contain additional reloading data (.45 ACP) other than the data that came in the box of XPB bullets? (additional powder types and charges)?

Also, since the .45 caliber bullets can be used in different cartridges, will other load data be available in the new reloading manual (specifically, .45 Winchester Magnum and .460 Rowland)

I am a fan of your all copper XPB bullets, and believe they would make excellent hunting projectiles for handguns chambered for .45 Winchester Magnum/.460 Rowland. Due to the elevated costs of the XPB bullets over conventional jacketed or hard cast lead... experimentation (without starting guidelines) in the calibers I mentioned would be prohibitive.

Thank you for your time and anticipated assistance. Regards,
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the email. We will have some additional data for the handguns in manual #4 but I don't see plans to have the Rowland and the 45 mag init.


Dave Card
Barnes Bullets Inc.
Customer Service/Sales
800-574-9200 ex 103
[email protected]
That kind of response will not sway me to purchase their 4th edition reloading manual nor join the online "copper club"
__________________
It continues to amaze me that so much time and effort are spent trying to figure out new ways to improperly use this weapon (1911). If the same amount of time was spent learning to do it correctly...well...it's self explanatory." -- MTSCMike

Last edited by NordicRX8; 03-16-2008 at 09:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-16-2008, 10:33 PM
ClarkEMyers ClarkEMyers is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,432
Repeating what everybody knows on data

Quote:
Warning! Notes: Be careful with AAC-7 loads. It seems the burn rate has changed, and there appears to be more than one generation currently in the supply line. On the other hand, the powder gives excellent results and is among the best choices for the .460 Rowland. The Sierra bullet gave the best accuracy results. The XTP bullet would be the toughest for penetration on game, expanding well and holding together. The Nosler gives a bit more penetration than the Sierra but by a small margin, and the Nosler is very accurate. Begin at least 10 percent below powder charge. (Handloader Issue #247 - June, 2007)
Emphasis added. Fifty one (51) assorted loads as developed outside the laboratory.

The data from Handloader is available from the magazine - back issues available - or from the website by subscription to the LoadData portion of the site.

It's probably obvious that I went with #7 because of Taffin's article and as noted at today's prices trying to develop the loads from first principles is way too expensive for the rewards.

I'd hope the Barnes bullets would develop into the obvious choice in the .460 Rowland - much as say LBT style heavyweights with a flat meplat have swept the field in heavy revolver loads - as the all copper is reported to perform above its weight and so allow a margin while perhaps taking it back again with bearing surface

Any thoughts on useful pistols beyond the list from Clark Custom guns? I do wonder about break in, stretching and peening until there is more lug contact and switching among top and bottom ends but I don't plan to give more than one slide to the project.

So far as I know Patrick Sweeney has reported good results in a Wilson CQB and tried fit in a good many others without any details of just how good the fit really was beyond go or no go. Wilson does not appear on the Clark approved list and I have no idea whether that's for lack of trying or lack of success. Some brands frex like Valtro I'd expect to go untried for simple value and rarity other brands like Wilson I'm sure have been tried more than just the once by Mr. Sweeney.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-17-2008, 12:04 PM
Bearbait in NM Bearbait in NM is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Taos, NM
Age: 52
Posts: 448
Let me clarify a bit about my thoughts on the mechanical limitations of the 1911, and thusly address my thoughts on ClarkEMeyers additional querry of useful pistols.

I think we would all agree that in a standard 45ACP round, the life expectancy of the pistol is related mostly to quality of components, and fit of these same components. I think this concept is adequately borne out by the results of competitive shooters, folks who put 10's of thousands of rounds downrange every year. So called "hardfit" guns, guns with tolerances so tight as to make the gun unsuitable in many minds for field conditions or carry. These tightly fit guns are typically not purchased of the shelf. Add to the mix that while there are "blueprints" available on what a "milspec" 1911 should be, I think we all could agree that each manufacturer builds to their own version of these "specs". Toss in a little tolerance stack in the parts. Now add the drop in Clark conversion operating a round at 40K and what is the end result? Basically, IMHO a crap shoot. Sure, a properly fit 1911 might theoretically be more than sufficient to withstand pressures in excess of 40K, but the reality of dropping a kit into a gun with unknown (to Clark's design of their kit) variables creates a situation where some guns will be fine, some on the edge, and some unsafe.

As an example, I fit a Brownell's version of the Baer slide to a Springfield frame. Nice tight fit after lapping. I changed out the bushing on one of my Clark 460 conversions for a nice tight fit, and proceeded to run a lot of 460's down range. I was getting primer hits that were quite a bit off center, and started to see peening on the guide rod. This was before I had a better understanding of lug fit. I know better now, that off center primer hit was what you might call a "clue". Luckily the peening was a clue that I could understand, and I halted that combination of parts. I honestly feel that Clark's recommendation of suitable 1911 platforms is a combination of parts material, and most assuradly parts fit. My current platform of the Series 70 Colt appears to be about as mechanically sound as I can achieve. Was it luck? Perhaps the fact that Colt probably had a good idea what those "specs" were aided in my fit. How long this gun will last with mostly moderate and some full loads, the Lord only knows.

Herein lies part of the problem with loads, pressure tested loads and published loads. Here we have a wildcat round, with no data (that I am aware of) with regards to longevity. Loads that produce no pressure related issues safety could ultimately prove to rattle an improperly fit 1911 in short order. Is short 2K rounds, 5K , 10K? I have not a clue. Is it likely Barnes is gonna stick their neck out on this one, when they are currently beyond capacity designing and redesigning multiple lines of bullets? I would not hold my breath. At least Hodgdon saw fit to help with some pressure tests. As an aside on that, in my researching the tangled web of higher pressure 45 rounds (as "suggested" by Porter) I did see mention of Bruce Hodgdon's name, so there may be a connection as to why they list loads. For all I know, Johnny Rowland paid for these. What I do know is that Hodgdon is the biggest friend to reloading pistol shooters, especially those who like to go fast or heavy, with a wide selection of possble powders.

And ClarkEMeyers, thank you for the note on the blown 40 with a smiley case. As I posted ealier, if a 460R user sees a smiley on an ejected case, it is IMPERATIVE to rethink that load, and certainly that brass needs to be discarded. And I do run Elephant Ivory on my 460R, but I also have one of the thin metal grip shims under them. Gotta be safe, ya know. And it might have been nice for Mr. Sweeney to add more than just go, no-go with a statement to the possible end user to check for overall fit, or have it done by a competent gunsmith.

Honestly, I feel that the Clark 460R is a wonderful enhancement to the 1911 platform. It does perform as advertised, up the power level of the 1911 significantly. In the same breath, if my gun gives up the proverbial ghost in a few thousand rounds, I will at least have a better understanding of the limitations, and write that one off as part of the price of admission.

Craig
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-17-2008, 05:27 PM
Porter Rockwell Porter Rockwell is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Alaska
Posts: 333
Lots Of Info Online These Days Craig-

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bearbait in NM View Post
Porter,

Thanks for the clarifications. it is actually refreshing to have someone state where he stands, rather than perfrom petty semantical gyrations trying to convince readers that he is only trying to be helpful. I am still a little fuzzy though. I think that you are saying Clark renamed the 451 Detonics the 460 Rowland? I think the Smc is just a Super? I'll try a little research on the Detonics round. I had owned several of their guns years ago, and have always been sadened by the fact that they are not still around with us today. Pretty nice products, and a bit of innovation.

Just to keep this thread sort of on track, although our deviations are probably useful, much of what I have posted as concerns for the 460 Rowland center on the unsupported ramp of the Clark kit. To further clarify, in my testing of only the Clark kits, it seems to me that the 40K pressure approaches the mechanical limitations of the 1911 platform. That same pressure approaches very closly the mechanical limitations of the unsupported portion of case (in an unramped and throated barrel), at least as it applies to the current Rowland case from Starline. IMHO, I feel any user of any of these high pressure variations needs to understand these differences, as you could be over in either and have an unsafe condition. I know that you understand this. I jumped into the OP query, as I hoped to shed some light on my experiences, as there is so little posted info on the Rowland.

You have certainly done MUCH more experimentation with the line of improved 45 cases, and I find your results interesting. And I have seen a lot of the confusion regarding case strength v. type. To further illustrate the point, the current Hodgdon reloading annual lists the 45 Super as basically a 45 ACP +p. A 230 grain bullet at something less than 1000 fps. That is sure to confuse a lot of folks making a buying decision based on the "numbers". And we can be sure that many folks buy based on the numbers. My "x" is bigger than your "y". Where have we seen that before?

To be totally honest, knowing what I do now, if I were to to it all over again, and I was only interested is launching a 200-230 grain bullet the fastest that I could, I would seriously consider the 45 Super. In a ramped and comped gun, proper lock-up, flat FPS and something like a 24# recoil spring to maximize platform life expectancy. But, knowing that I were gonna play with heavier Colt bullets, I feel that the Rowland does offer a little more internal ballistic wiggle room with the slightly longer case, for the handloader. Although the longer case does make the heavier bullet a balancing act, as to OAL. And I would have to admit that now we have a couple of new powders listed as suitable for these stubby hot rods, this ballistic edge (as percieved in my grey mass) could be somewhat mitigated. I'd wager a bit that you have dabbled with heavy weight bullets in the ACP length case?

And to help keep the moderators from throwing me out on my ear for hijacking, I have a little more Rowland testing from yesterday to throw into the mix. I fitted an new EGW fps with minimal, and I do mean minimal, radiusing. With this FPS, 25# mainspring, 0.053 lug engagement on all three lugs, 24# recoil spring, and reasonably tight hood fitting, my Colt with Clark conversion will not function with warm 45 ACP rounds. Based on Johnny Rowlands demonstration on his show (yes he had a TV show for a while) using 45acp and Rowland interchangably, and stating that his gun was setup properly and had digested a lot of rounds, I think that I am at a point where my gun is as mechanically fit for the long haul as I can make it. Now for the long haul.....

Craig

well, compared to the olden days of Rag Articles and little to zero information on spring rates, chuckle I once called LAR to find their mainspring weight and then bought one of their slide locks guessing that it ought to be the strongest available.

As for brass strength, either here or the other forum had a email posted by Starline saying the +P had the strongest case head.

Finding a barrel that supports the brass right up to the extractor groove shouldn't be difficult, better safe eh?

Ah the .450 SMC, because of litigation from the Ace Hindman company Triton went to a small primer and the SMC (suck my ????) designation. the guy that did the load development is Fernando over @ http://www.eotacforum.com/index.php?...a571f7a20fa106

sorry, copy and paste grin!

Heavy bullets, 260s is what I loaded for a customer. Not much room for heavier IMO.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03-18-2008, 10:35 AM
Bearbait in NM Bearbait in NM is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Taos, NM
Age: 52
Posts: 448
Porter,

Thanks for the link. I actually spent quite a few hours doing a little online "research" the other day, and found that forum, as well as a lot of other interesting tid bits on the history of high performance 45's (in the 1911). To be honest, I had seen much of this in the past but glossed over it in search of more specific 460 Rowland data. As I posted above, what a tangled web. Certainly worth the read and understanding.

I concur, there does seem to be posts indicating the plus P is the strongest, although I am not sure how the Rowland fits in the scheme other than at the top end of published numbers with the unsupported barrel, case bulges are easily possible.

My only experience with ramped barrels (in the 1911) is with my Kimber UCDPII. And I certainly have not pushed that little gun. It does not take a lot of thought and experimenting to come to the conclusion that a fully supported chamber would be the optimal scenario for any of these hotrods. But I guess this would add one additional complexity to the Clark system that would likely not allow them to sell as many as they do. If every gun/kit had to be fit by them. Finding a fully supported barrel would not be hard, finding a mass produced 460R kit, over the counter with such a barrel, well.....

I was digging through my older Rowland testing data the other night, and found where I had tested the 255 grain SWC as produced by Lasercast. These were keyholing at all the velocities tested, up to 1100 fps plus change. Barring some mechanical issue with that barrel, I guess it is not only the weight, but perhaps how it is distributed about the rotational axis of the bullet, and possibly bullet construction? I had no keyholing issues with the 255 Beartooth bullet with that kit. My current 460 barrel digs all 250's tried thus far. Perhaps a new venture into the extra-heavy weights is called for, although the lack of published data and my unsupported chamber area may give me pause. Back when I first tested these weights, I did not know exactly how thin the ice really is.

Craig
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 03-18-2008, 02:49 PM
Hawk400 Hawk400 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2
230 XTP question

I've been working with the 230g XTP in a 460R built on a Kimber Custom II and have noticed that I'm getting deformation of one side of the bullet tip while the cartridge is still in the magazine and before chambering. This occurs at an OAL of around 1.250 over even the low end load of 10.2g of Longshot, producing velocity of 1250 fps. I'm using factory Kimber mags that will accept an OAL of about 1.265 before becoming too tight. There are no excessive pressure signs on the fired case. I'm trying to figure out what's causing this and was wondering if anyone else has experienced it and might suggest a cause and/or solution. Thanks for any help.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 03-18-2008, 05:15 PM
Bearbait in NM Bearbait in NM is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Taos, NM
Age: 52
Posts: 448
Hawk,

The deformation is from the recoil forces, causing the bullets to get pushed forward into the front of the mag body. I have seen this to some extent with most of the bullets that I have used. If you really want to see deformation, try one of the half jacketed type bullets with the exposed lead nose. These are typically pretty soft lead in the nose, and you can see the front of the magazine body etched on both sides.

If it is really concerning you, I would recommend shooting them for an accuracy session. What I have found is that the XTP's that I am using, both 230 and 250 shoot better than I can hold at 25 yards, with the little bit of deformation. The 185 Nosler match HP really takes a whacking at full throttle, but they seem to shoot extremely well in my gun, as well. Then you'll have to decide whether or not you think the deformation could possibly affect the performance of the hollow point, as to opening. I suspect little if any. But, you could likely devise a test to check for that. Personally, I don't sweat this detail.

Coventional wisdom and testing has pretty much concluded that the bullet base is far more critical to accuracy than the nose, in rifle type rounds. At pistol ranges and velocities, I suspect this relationship is even more pronounced, ie. the tip plays virtually no role in accuracy, expansion aside.

As to mitigation, reloading to very slow velocity (not likely), or perhaps increasing the OAL so the bullet nose have less of a running start. This of course opens a whole new can of worms as to reloading and possibly feeding.

Craig
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 03-18-2008, 06:10 PM
Hawk400 Hawk400 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2
Thanks much

Craig,

I appreciate your perspective on it. I also doubt it will have much if any influence on accuracy. I had never seen that effect before and was wondering if it was a cause of concern or relatively routine. Also, I'm suspecting based on one possible example that I may be getting about .007 setback on the cartridge while it's still in the magazine, a round that never was asked to chamber, reducing OAL from 1.250 to 1.243, but that may be false indication due to bullet deformation. I'll be testing that. Because this round is sort of at the edge of the pressure envelope I may be being a little overly cautious, but hey, what's the rush, eh? Thanks again, Craig.

Gregg
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 03-19-2008, 04:22 PM
Bearbait in NM Bearbait in NM is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Taos, NM
Age: 52
Posts: 448
Hawk,

I do not think it prudent to necessarily discount bullet setback in the magazine. While not potentally as catastrophic as setback due to feeding, things can add up.

Not sure if you know what a bullet Comparator tool is, but Hornady is now marketing the Stoney point tool which is pretty inexpensive. This tool uses inserts to measure the length of a loaded round at a point on the ogive of the bullet, to allow precise comparisons of cartridge length. Rifle folks use it to fiddle with bullet to land jump. In handgun rounds, I find it handy for loads using hollow point bullets. I have this shiney spot on the top of my head, partly from adjusting my seating stem up and down, trying to figure out why bullets from a box of hollowpoints "shift" around as to OAL, by a few thou here and there. The comparator has saved some hair, and lets me know exactly what is going on in the magazine and feeding cycle of the 1911, without relying on the bullet tip for precise measurements.

One other point worth mentioning about you query as to bullet movement is crimp. Right now I am using a measured 0.467 crimp on all of my 460R rounds, lead or jacketed. As near as I can tell from comparing other sources, this is certainly a pretty heavy crimp (tapered of course). I also seat and crimp seperately. While crimping is not in and of itself a fix for poor case neck tension, it seems to work well for me in my 460's. I have found that with the Lasercast 200 grain RNFP bullet, I can actually crimp in the bullets crimp groove. I played with some Lasercast 250 grain RNFP's yesterday, and while I seated them deeper than the crimp groove, I think there shape is similar enogh to the 200 grainer that I can hit that groove. I am gonna try that next, to see if I can buy a little cheap insurance. By the way, these
250's group right with my 250 XTP loads, and do not lead at all at my reduced charge (should be between 1000 and 1100 fps, I'll check this weekend).

Also, Corbin tool makes a handy cannelure tool that can also be used to put a crimp in the case below the bullet base (holding the bullet in place). Similar to what a lot of premium loads have. I was looking at that one the other day on-line, and I may give it a try. Perhaps someone here can shed some light on that process. I'd love to hear some thoughts.

Craig
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:11 AM.


NOTICE TO USERS OF THIS SITE: By continuing to use this site, you certify that you have read and agree to abide by the Legal Terms of Use. All information, data, text or other materials ("Content") posted to this site by any users are the sole responsibility of those users. 1911Forum does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity, or quality of such Content.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 2011 1911Forum.com, LLC. All Rights Reserved