Quickload

Brad

Benevolent Overlord and site owner
Staff member
And not all 9mm are plastic and boxy. The CZ 75 is steel and has some nice lines. The BHP is even better looking,

Hate the platform,not the cartridge.
 

Rick

Moderator
Staff member
I've nothing against the 9mm or the Glock or the platform. It's just my good buddy John is so sold on the 9mm I can never resist the chance to needle him. :p
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ian

fiver

Well-Known Member
doesn't the 9mm pre-date the 45 acp?
wait that can't be right if it did then that means small pistol primers WERE available back then and the 45 could have been using them all along.
 
Last edited:

462

California's Central Coast Amid The Insanity
My dislike for the 9 mm is due to that "P" word -- otherwise we may very well have stayed with the .45 ACP.
 

Brad

Benevolent Overlord and site owner
Staff member
I hate the SP 45 brass. My Dillon doesn’t like trying to shove a LP into a SP pocket. They go right into the scrap brass bucket.

Even if there is an advantage it wouldn’t matter for the shooting I do with my 1911.
 

462

California's Central Coast Amid The Insanity
I save the small primer brass in case large primers become unavailable.

I know a guy who said he got better accuracy with small primers.
 

Pistolero

Well-Known Member
462, I heard that and saved up a bunch of same headstamp SP .45 brass and tested several
loads. I could see zero difference in accuracy. And since I have probably 5-6K of LP .45 ACP
brass, I find the SP stuff a real irritation. Maybe with a careful enough test, there might be
something to find, but if so, I think it is very small or non-existent. I think the ammo makers
somehow save maybe 4 cents per 1,000 rounds loaded and so have gone that way in some of
them.

Over the years, I have periodically sat down and loaded up different bullets, brass, powders,
and powder charges (to a smaller degree, since I want full power ammo mostly) and tested it
repeatedly in multiple 1911 guns.

For MY guns, I have found that most of them do their best with R-P brass, 452460 or H&G 68, sized
to .452 (even though for a LONG time commercial H&G 68s around here were sized to .451, take it
or leave it, and leaded very slightly) and lately I have been trying different primers, although not too
systematically. I need to sit down and do some five five shot groups of each primer in rotation
with some of my more accurate guns and see for sure. At this point I think Rem 2 1/2 primers are doing
a bit better with my standard 4.8 TG load than my most common choice for the last 30 years, the
CCI-300. I have done some tests with Fed LPs and from other's reports, expected improvements
with some specific tests. So far, Fed LPs have shown me nothing special. I have tested .451 and
.452 diameters, since most of my .45 ACP barrels slug at .4515 (amazing over decades of time
and multiple companies to hold that tight). .452 wins, but .451 is not horrible. Another design
that is quite accurate is the MP200 HP, basically a copy of the 452374 Lyman with a HP. I haven't
shot enough of the 374s for accuracy to have an opinion on them, although they sure load nicely
into a 1917/625 in moon clips, and will feed well in any gun. I have found no issues ever with
H&G 68 in any gun made since the early 80s because they have the mil std Colt absolutely square edges
of the chamber on the sides ramped. All guns that I have seen, from any maker since about 1980
have been good to go with H&G 68s, IF YOU TC them properly as a separate operation! Key
issue, there.

Preferring R-P brass today surprised me, because early on, in 1980 when I started with .45 ACP
in quantity, the little bit of range pickup R-P brass that I had seemed to have thinner necks
and I seemed to get less neck tension. I had yet to really work out the need for TC as a separate
operation as a crucial step in loading for reliable ammo, and got it in my head that WW brass
which I had more of, was somehow better. That idea persisted until about 2003 or so when I sorted
out a bunch of different brands, Fed, WW, R-P, Starline (which I expected to win) and loaded up
a BUNCH of each and shot the heck out of it in 3-4 different guns, my more accurate ones.
I was surprised that R-P consistently beat all of the others by a substantial margin. Retesting
couldn't make it go away, so I gave up and bought 1000 new R-P and now sort my brass every
so often to put R-P in bins by itself, all others mixed. I have a bunch of new Starline still, and
respect it greatly, but it hasn't been quite as accurate in this caliber for some reason.

I have seen nothing so far that makes me think the SP .45 ACP brass is anything but what Brad
pointed out, a PITA to have accidentally mixed in with your brass at the range. I don't scrap
them, but they get put aside for "after the EMP or zombie apocalyps" or whatever.

Bill
 
Last edited:

waco

Springfield, Oregon
Great info there Bill. I just loaded up a handful of loads to test. Mix brass, NOE H&G68 clone with a cup point, sized to .452" after powder coating. COL is 1.250"
These are giving a mild taper crimp is a separate operation. They measure .472" across the case mouth. 5.8gr of W231 and WW LPP is the load.
They feed reliably in my Kimber 1911.
These bullets weigh 208-209gr
 

Ian

Notorious member
I have a small primer accuracy load for the 1911 that spanks every other by a wide margin........it's called the ".38 Super"! :rofl:
 

Pistolero

Well-Known Member
Hmmm. The case OD should be .470, Walter, so with .473 at the case mouth, I don't think you have even removed
all the flare at that point. Fo ammo where reliability is paramount, and especially with commercial iron-hard
bullets, I crimp to .465-466 or so. I am sure some are horrifies at my "overcrimping' and I have been warned
by many over the years that this is "dangerous, because the cartridge headspaces on the case mouth". Yeah,
really? Never heard that. :rofl: Losing 0.0025 on each side of the case with a 0.005 TC had better
not keep the case from hitting the end of the chamber. The step is 0.013+ on each side. Cases are .470,
bullets are .452, so total 0.018", plus at least a couple thousandths more loosness in the chambers. I'll
look up the SAAMI chamber diam. OK, SAAMI std chamber for .45 ACP is 0.4796, throat is 0.452.
In any case, I am pretty cofident a .465 edge will reliably catch on a .452 edge. :)

Actually, Ian, my two Wilson LEComps, both fine examples of custom grade 1911s, one in .38 Super
and one in .45 ACP are about the same in accuracy. The .38 Super is flatter shooting to 100yds though,
by a noticable bit.

Bill
 
Last edited:

Brad

Benevolent Overlord and site owner
Staff member
I have a small primer accuracy load for the 1911 that spanks every other by a wide margin........it's called the ".38 Super"! :rofl:
Isn’t that just a long 9mm Luger?
 

Ian

Notorious member
I did just like Walter with both of my Kimbers and had great results for many years. Then I started shooting other platforms and other brands of 1911s and had to change that. .468" at the mouth is what I do now, with the Lee taper crimp die Bill sent me.
 

waco

Springfield, Oregon
Not sure what to say. My Kimber is the one and only 45acp I have ever owned. I set the Lyman taper crimp die 19 years ago when I bought the pistol. Seems to work okay for me.
 

Pistolero

Well-Known Member
If it runs reliably, hard to argue with that. Chamber SAAMI diam is .004ish bigger than your .473, at the
rear, but is supposed to be 0.474" at the front edge, so it should go in by 0.001. In IPSC competition this
situation would lead to failures to close over time, probably crud scraped forward not much but maybe
1 in 60 or 100, which is deadly for your scores in competition against the clock. Some were match chambers,
too. Although SAAMI match chamber are not actually tighter diam, in my experience, I think the real world
match chambers ARE tighter.

What model Kimber, exactly? I have a couple of Classic Customs (Custom Classics?), one early enough to say Clackamas
on it, which was where the FFL was officially located for a while, but all guns were actually made
in Brooklyn. :embarrassed:

Bill
 
Last edited: