Lesson learned
- Thread starter Brad
- Start date
35remington
New Member
Despite what the other guys might want to tell you that's probably true. It follows the designer's dictates in how the gun should feed. We shouldn't have to be rediscovering this yet we are.
Pistolero
Well-Known Member
This is a serious problem on a lot of mags, Ian. Too thin and too soft is a death knell,
even if shaped correctly in the beginning. The old, dirt cheap "genuine GI surplus" mags
we bought 3 decades back were made of the hardest, strongest and most durable steel
of any I have ever owned. Many went through decades of IPSC competition, two matches
every Friday night, and 3 or 4 matches once a month, plus some out of town matches thrown in
for a LONG time. None ever cracked (MANY mags crack a the rear top corners) and none
ever failed to work properly feeding H&G 68s into several Gold Cups and a Kimber.
Two are on my belt every day, with a nickel pinned floorplate Colt up the spout. The
original military blueprints show the milled and pinned floorplates, and I know they were
changed at some point, but I have no info on when they stopped using the milled and
pinned floorplates and went to stamped and spot welded floorplates. I am guessing
pretty early, but not sure.
That particular Commander really prefers the original lip designs, even though it has never actually
failed to feed with hybrid or parallel lip early release mags.
Buy a couple from Metaform and a couple from Checkmate. I would try the Metalform 45.777
7 rd SS, removable floorplate, rounded follower (ultra reliable lock back), and for Checkmate I'd
either get CM45-7-S-GI, which is 7 rd, SS, GI lips, welded base or the CM45-7-B-GI which is the
same thing in blued steel. Checkmate seems to be the only modern source for quality
GI mags for the .45 1911s.
These are quality mags, have worked for me in many different guns for many years. Cannot
guarantee anything, but good chance of success with these. The Wilson mags are good ones,
but not too thrilled with plastic floorplate and especially plastic follower, not totally reliable in
lock back, IME the plastic ledge wears. I used these for a while in my carry gun with the Wilson
replacement steel floorplates, but they still left that hitch in the feed cycle.
Here is the Checkmate image of feed lips.
even if shaped correctly in the beginning. The old, dirt cheap "genuine GI surplus" mags
we bought 3 decades back were made of the hardest, strongest and most durable steel
of any I have ever owned. Many went through decades of IPSC competition, two matches
every Friday night, and 3 or 4 matches once a month, plus some out of town matches thrown in
for a LONG time. None ever cracked (MANY mags crack a the rear top corners) and none
ever failed to work properly feeding H&G 68s into several Gold Cups and a Kimber.
Two are on my belt every day, with a nickel pinned floorplate Colt up the spout. The
original military blueprints show the milled and pinned floorplates, and I know they were
changed at some point, but I have no info on when they stopped using the milled and
pinned floorplates and went to stamped and spot welded floorplates. I am guessing
pretty early, but not sure.
That particular Commander really prefers the original lip designs, even though it has never actually
failed to feed with hybrid or parallel lip early release mags.
Buy a couple from Metaform and a couple from Checkmate. I would try the Metalform 45.777
7 rd SS, removable floorplate, rounded follower (ultra reliable lock back), and for Checkmate I'd
either get CM45-7-S-GI, which is 7 rd, SS, GI lips, welded base or the CM45-7-B-GI which is the
same thing in blued steel. Checkmate seems to be the only modern source for quality
GI mags for the .45 1911s.
These are quality mags, have worked for me in many different guns for many years. Cannot
guarantee anything, but good chance of success with these. The Wilson mags are good ones,
but not too thrilled with plastic floorplate and especially plastic follower, not totally reliable in
lock back, IME the plastic ledge wears. I used these for a while in my carry gun with the Wilson
replacement steel floorplates, but they still left that hitch in the feed cycle.
Here is the Checkmate image of feed lips.
Last edited:
Ian
Notorious member
Thanks a million, Bill, there's no substitute for long experience, photos, and part numbers. That will significantly shorten my learning curve.
I find it interesting that neither my SA 1911A1, stainless Gold Cup, nor my Kimber Tactical Pro II will reliably feed the MiHec 200 SWC, with any magazine. I finally gave up and went back to a RN design.
I find it interesting that neither my SA 1911A1, stainless Gold Cup, nor my Kimber Tactical Pro II will reliably feed the MiHec 200 SWC, with any magazine. I finally gave up and went back to a RN design.
Weird. My Stainless Gold Cup eats that bullet up. Mine are all fed from a hybrid lip Checkmate magazine. Powder charge doesn't seem to matter. Just replaced the spring and it is just the same.
Drive on up and you can try my magazines in your handguns
Drive on up and you can try my magazines in your handguns
Ian
Notorious member
Imagine my frustration.
I also had the ONLY Mihec mould cut with three raised dimples on the meplat in all four cavities. How that little machining operation was physically possible, I'll never know. It took me several hours with an X-acto knife and #2 pencil eraser/lapping compound to remove them so the bullets did not mechanically lock in the cavities. After all that, the bullets are only fit for my SAA revolvers. If I didn't have so much blood, sweat, and tears in trying to make that bullet mould work or bullets cast from it function in my semis, I would have sold that thing down the river LONG ago. I'll just be happy if I can get the proper round-nose bullets to feed without the extractor crunching. Actually, I only feel that in my Kimber, the Gold Cup with what you guys are calling "hybrid" feed lip magazines work very well in my GC with ball ammo.
I also had the ONLY Mihec mould cut with three raised dimples on the meplat in all four cavities. How that little machining operation was physically possible, I'll never know. It took me several hours with an X-acto knife and #2 pencil eraser/lapping compound to remove them so the bullets did not mechanically lock in the cavities. After all that, the bullets are only fit for my SAA revolvers. If I didn't have so much blood, sweat, and tears in trying to make that bullet mould work or bullets cast from it function in my semis, I would have sold that thing down the river LONG ago. I'll just be happy if I can get the proper round-nose bullets to feed without the extractor crunching. Actually, I only feel that in my Kimber, the Gold Cup with what you guys are calling "hybrid" feed lip magazines work very well in my GC with ball ammo.
Pistolero
Well-Known Member
If that MP 200 SWC is the H&G 68 copy, I am absolutely flabbergasted. That has to be one of THE most reliable
feeding bullets for 1911s. I have watched literally many millions of those go downrange
over 35 years of IPSC competition and observation. They use it because if feeds like
magic in almost all 1911s.
I tell people to load it to 1.250 to 1.260 LOA, and taper crimp as a separate operation to about .466 at the case
mouth. Yes, folks accuse me all the time of "over crimping", which I consider a mythological offense. About 85% of
all "jamming" for 1911s that I saw with this bullet were due to total lack of or inadequate taper crimp, with too
long LOA right behind. I used 1.260 to even 1.270 for decades in Colts and a Kimber, but several newer Dan Wessons
require 1.250 due to very tight, short throats so that is the new standard.
See if this won't work for you. My normal load is 4.7 of TG, but the same amount of BE will
be essentially identical, or try 5.6-5.7 of W231 for the same velocity, about 900 +/- 25 fps, depending
on the chamber tightness. Learned to load for 180,000 power factor and have stuck with it.
Bill
feeding bullets for 1911s. I have watched literally many millions of those go downrange
over 35 years of IPSC competition and observation. They use it because if feeds like
magic in almost all 1911s.
I tell people to load it to 1.250 to 1.260 LOA, and taper crimp as a separate operation to about .466 at the case
mouth. Yes, folks accuse me all the time of "over crimping", which I consider a mythological offense. About 85% of
all "jamming" for 1911s that I saw with this bullet were due to total lack of or inadequate taper crimp, with too
long LOA right behind. I used 1.260 to even 1.270 for decades in Colts and a Kimber, but several newer Dan Wessons
require 1.250 due to very tight, short throats so that is the new standard.
See if this won't work for you. My normal load is 4.7 of TG, but the same amount of BE will
be essentially identical, or try 5.6-5.7 of W231 for the same velocity, about 900 +/- 25 fps, depending
on the chamber tightness. Learned to load for 180,000 power factor and have stuck with it.
Bill
Last edited:
Ian
Notorious member
My biggest issue with the MP 200swc is jamming on the barrel hood. Probably a magazine issue, which is why I have been so keen for info on that. The second biggest issue is failing to make the turn into the chamber and getting locked between the extractor, ramp, and nose against the top of the chamber. The thicker the rim and less beveled the back edge is, the worse it is. The feed angle is just wrong for that bullet in all three pistols I have, at any OAL. As far as I can tell, the MP mould has a meplat smaller than the H&G #68, but not so small as the Lee, and I think that's part of the problem. I've played with COAL and crimp both quite a bit in an effort to solve this, but eventually gave up. Like I said, imagine my frustration that the one bullet design that's supposed to be a dead-ringer in the easiest to load cartridge of all time has me completely flummoxed. In my frustration, I designed the AM 45-230L and the nose on that thing is OMG perfect! Feeds like butter in everything and shoots straight too boot. For some reason I got stuck on the sharp front band not being so perfecto for everything and got a 45-230C, which oddly doesn't feed as well and doesn't shoot for beans. I mean 3" groups at 25 yards from my carbine and easily twice that from revolver and autos. So right now I'm in the process of transitioning back to the 45-230L.
Ian
Notorious member
Makes sense, that's probably what I've been battling all along. I've worked all around the mid 4s with Titegroup, it's a good powder for that. Will be looking into some of the magazines suggested next time I put in an order, see if that helps now that I have a better idea of what is available and what the different lip styles do.
Ian
Notorious member
This afternoon I loaded up a few rounds for my AR-45 using the MP 200 SWC and 5.5 grains of HP-38. Testing a dummy round for function, I remembered why I gave up on the AM 45-230L: Nothing with a sharp step in the nose will function in this carbine because the bottom two bolt lugs hang on the top round in the magazine and rip the case open like a banana. I went down to the range and shot them anyway to see what the powder would do and if it would lock the bolt back, which it did just fine just loading one at a time in the magazine. Shot a 3/4" ragged hole with nine rounds at 25 yards, sorta rested. MUCH better. Loaded up a few more at 1.250" and tried to run them through my Kimber again with the WC magazines, I recall that two out of seven didn't jam, and one was mangled too badly to risk firing. I also ran two magazines full of AM-230L and 5.0 HP-38 through my Kimber without a hitch and they shot better than I remember that combo. Unfortunately, since that bullet won't work in my AR-45 either, I'm still on the hunt. Next up will be the Lee 230TC.
Pistolero
Well-Known Member
Amazing. I have a Kimber Classic Custom that has perhaps 45,000 rounds through it, essentially
all commercial versions of H&G 68 and mostly run with WC type parallel lip, early release mags.
I is an absolutely 100% reliable gun. I'm sure you know HP-38 is the same as W231, so 5.5 is
good, just a tad lighter than I would normally load. It tolerates 1.260 or even a bit longer, but
does need a good TC. What diam is your taper crimp on these? Inadequate TC was the most
common problem with 1911 jamming in my experience. I recommend .466 or .465 diam at
the case mouth after TC, regardless of the insistence of some that you never go beyond
cylindrical, which is .470.
Do you have a picture of this bullet, the 200 SWC? Something odd going on here. How about
a picture of the rear of the barrel, dismounted is fine. And please verify the taper crimp.
When you say 2 of 7 didn't jam, do you mean nose into the roof of the chamber, rear down,
caught in the slide?
Bill
all commercial versions of H&G 68 and mostly run with WC type parallel lip, early release mags.
I is an absolutely 100% reliable gun. I'm sure you know HP-38 is the same as W231, so 5.5 is
good, just a tad lighter than I would normally load. It tolerates 1.260 or even a bit longer, but
does need a good TC. What diam is your taper crimp on these? Inadequate TC was the most
common problem with 1911 jamming in my experience. I recommend .466 or .465 diam at
the case mouth after TC, regardless of the insistence of some that you never go beyond
cylindrical, which is .470.
Do you have a picture of this bullet, the 200 SWC? Something odd going on here. How about
a picture of the rear of the barrel, dismounted is fine. And please verify the taper crimp.
When you say 2 of 7 didn't jam, do you mean nose into the roof of the chamber, rear down,
caught in the slide?
Bill
Ian
Notorious member
Roof jams, mostly. Rim gets halfway under the extractor and rather than slip under it, it just keeps moving forward until it hits the feed ramp, then jams against barrel hood. Same setup feeds ball and my ball copy like poop through a goose.
Now, you may have me on the crimp. After your comments before, I payed special attention to that and measured it at .472" on a couple of different ones, which amounts to being about .001" smaller than the diameter where the driving bands bulge out. Any more crimp than that and I get lead rings pushed up in front of the case rim and a leaded leade, though I suppose I could crimp in a separate operation (done that plenty of times before). That's been my MO for years and years but I guess it won't work on these SWCs. I'll go try again with more crimp, but aside from my .45 ACP roll-crimp die I don't think I own one that will get below .469".
Now, you may have me on the crimp. After your comments before, I payed special attention to that and measured it at .472" on a couple of different ones, which amounts to being about .001" smaller than the diameter where the driving bands bulge out. Any more crimp than that and I get lead rings pushed up in front of the case rim and a leaded leade, though I suppose I could crimp in a separate operation (done that plenty of times before). That's been my MO for years and years but I guess it won't work on these SWCs. I'll go try again with more crimp, but aside from my .45 ACP roll-crimp die I don't think I own one that will get below .469".