45 ACP - juuuust a bit much OAL

[Nick_C_S]

So a couple weeks ago, I purchased and received 500 X-treme 200gn FP's (plated, of course) for 45 ACP. These bullets are new to me so I needed to determine the OAL. Well frankly, I was too lazy to dismantle my 1911's (3) to do the plunk tests. And I have the OAL recommendations for the entire line of Berry's bullets. I was thinking how different can their ogive's be from X-treme's?? Right? Wrong.

I loaded up 50 of them, OAL = 1.202 - I was shooting for 1.200 (Berry's recommendation); but I got 'em just a touch long (4.8gns TiteGroup, CCI 300, mixed brass) and took off to the range - with chronograph in tow.

About every third round, the gun (Kimber Target II) didn't quite want to go into battery. I had to force the slide forward a bunch of times. Then I got one that I couldn't get it into battery and it was a real beast to rack the slide back. I had a couple more of these. THEN - I had one that required extreme effort to rack it back, and when I finally did, I managed to pull the bullet apart. Powder everywhere; the bullet stuck in the breech.

It was at that point when I figured I had an OAL problem .

(Background: I've had this gun only a few months, and our relationship has been a bit rocky - long stories. Point is, I was rather jumping to conclusions that it was just the Kimber giving me fits - again.)

After punching out the bullet with my trusty dowel, going in from the muzzle, I put on my strong glasses to aid my old eyes - and sure enough, extensive groove marks were clearly visible on the shoulder of the bullet. That left no doubt what the problem was.

When I got home, I decided to plunk test these bullets. Good idea, right?! In the Kimber, they plunked at 1.155 - a full 47 thousandths less than where I had them. And since I had my Colt handy (I took it to the range too. But I have completely different ammo for it, since it only has a 12 Lb recoil spring - it's my pure target shooter), I broke it down and plunked it too - 1.145 - 57 thousandths less (although I don't plan on using these bullets in the Colt).

I scrunched down the remaining ammo of the batch (27 rounds). Which I figure probably tore up the plating from the crimp. Therefore, I won't be using them for anything but range fodder now. As for the chronographing: I'll be retesting a new batch, with the new OAL - same charge weight. QuickLOAD shows only a modest boost in peak pressure.

So what's the moral to the story? Well, after 31 years of loading, it is still not wise to cut corners. I found myself in this situation out of pure laziness. I didn't feel like breaking down my guns to get to the barrels. I didn't feel like mocking up rounds, then pulling them when I was done, then reworking the brass, etc. - just pure laziness. No excuses. And I paid the price. I will be plunk testing all new semi-auto bullets from now on.

[noylj]

Those are frighteningly SHORT COLs.
Either both guns have bad chambers or something else is wrong. A reloader doesn't have to follow SAAMI specifications, but SAAMI calls for a minimum 1.190" COL.
I would call X-treme and ask them if they know about this COL problem...

[steveno]

been down that road also. using a 200 grain swc I had an oal that worked in a Kimber 1911, Colt 1911 and S & W 1911. it was too long for the Range Officer that I got. I started using a 225 grain TC bullet in my RO and ended up with a 1.195 oal. for cast bullets it had better not have a diameter more than .452 as anything bigger it doesn't like that either. the RO has a short throat and a tight chamber as well. sure ruins a day to find these things out once you get to the range

[polyphemus]

You don't need to strip the pistol to plunk test a round.

[steveno]

I bought an EGW cartridge gauge saves a lot of time

[Nick_C_S]

Those are frighteningly SHORT COLs.

Yeah, you're right. Which prompted me to go back to the drawing board . . .

Yesterday, I plunked the 1.202" round into my barrel, then measured from the top of the head of the case to the "breech rest" of the barrel - or whatever it's called - the "lip" that sticks out and rests against the slide breech face when the gun is in battery. Anyway, I measured that distance (see Unclenick's illustation - far right image), and figured that's how much I need to shorten the OAL. Well, per those measurements, I got the "calculated" OAL's as mentioned in my OP. Then I tested it - maybe going a bit too fast, now that I think of it - at the load bench.



So this morning, I broke down the two 1911's which are going to shoot this X-treme 200 PFP bullet (which would be my Springfield and my Kimber - the previously mentioned Colt will not).

After going real slow and careful this time, I got the dummy test round to sit flush - with just a gentle pressing at 1.175" for both guns. The Kimber went flush about 0.005" (1.180") sooner. But even at that, the round didn't just "plunk" - it took just a touch of persuasion to get it flush - otherwise, it sticks up a few thousandths. I'm thinking that might be a light crimp issue; besides, the slide's momentum of going into battery will easily push it flush.

Anyway, the next batch I'll load will be at 1.175". Still shorter than SAAMI minimum though. At 1.190 they were clearly too long.

You don't need to strip the pistol to plunk test a round.

I'm curious how?

I bought an EGW cartridge gauge saves a lot of time.

I've thought of getting one a few times. But I'm of the school of thought that you should do an actual plunk test with the barrel that's going to shoot the round. But then, I was obviously too lazy to do that, so here we are

[polyphemus]

I'm curious how?

I think you're kidding but here it goes:
Pull slide and lock it,point pistol down,insert round to be tested in chamber and
drop.You can easily hear it plunk/or not.

- or whatever it's called -

Barrel hood.

[T. O'Heir]

Hodgdon shows 1.155" as the OAL for a jacketed 155. 1.225" for an LSWC.
I'd suspect an insufficient taper crimp issue before an OAL issue.
"...don't need to strip the pistol to..." Just a lot easier if you do. Otherwise, you drop in via the ejection port.

[polyphemus]

I'd suspect an insufficient taper crimp issue before an OAL issue

Nick if you haven't pulled or otherwise reworked them could you mic. the OD's
especially the case mouth at the edge and post?

[Nick_C_S]

"...don't need to strip the pistol to..." Just a lot easier if you do. Otherwise, you drop in via the ejection port.

Actually, I wasn't kidding. I just thought there was maybe something besides the obvious "drop in the ejection port" method that I didn't know about. I don't consider that practical because you can't really get a good look at how the case head lines up with the barrel hood (thanks polyphemus).

It's not really that much work to break down the gun. Especially given the potential consequences (see OP).

[Nick_C_S]

I'd suspect an insufficient taper crimp issue before an OAL issue.

I just measured the rounds at the mouth. First time I have ever done this, btw. I crimp by feel. Always have. Always will.

Anyway, they measured 0.472" at the mouth. And I measured several other loadings - same. Which comes as no surprise to me since my crimp dies have been locked down and haven't moved since I got my Dillon press in June . . . And I suspect all my 45 ACP ammo prior to getting the Dillon probably measures much the same too.

Below is a pic of the bullet of question, and two others.

On the left is an Everglades 185 JHP; with an OAL of 1.205. It plunks right into my Springfield's chamber - slightly below flush.

On the right is a Hornady 230 XTP with an OAL of 1.240. I plunks right into my Springfield's chamber - slightly below flush.

In the middle is the offender (X-treme 200 PFP). This one has an OAL of 1.175 (which is what I'm loading them to now); and it sits slightly above flush in my Springfield's chamber - the bullet is still slightly impinging on the barrel lands. Note: The tall shoulder. It's a rather odd ogived bullet, now that I compare it against the others.

[Nick_C_S]

Here's a pic of the bullet that pulled apart at the range. As you can see, there's plenty of crimp - quite probably too much, as there's exposed lead along the crimp line. So it's not a crimp issue.

And more noteworthy is the "notch" on the bullet ogive. That is a mark from the barrel land digging into it. It stuck so hard, I had to push it out with a dowel.

[polyphemus]

Too much crimp can do it and an ogive is a curve.
.472" is right for a 1911,so maybe you didn't do nothing wrong.Thanks for the
info on dimensions I can't go any further because I only load ball ammo and don't touch lead.Good luck anyway

[Nick_C_S]

Good luck anyway

Thanks.

I'm sure the issue is resolved. I just wanted to report out about it because it just goes to show that cutting corners doesn't pay off. And decades of experience doesn't mean you can cut corners.

I never stop learning.

[TfflHndn]

I had a similar problem with the same bullets - didn't plunk test them, and got them stuck in the lands. Something about the shape of that bullet, you have to seat them short to prevent the shoulder from sticking. Plunk testing is such a simple thing, it's easy to assume they'll fit and not check. Then you learn an unscheduled lesson...

[lee n. field]

About every third round, the gun (Kimber Target II) didn't quite want to go into battery. I had to force the slide forward a bunch of times. Then I got one that I couldn't get it into battery and it was a real beast to rack the slide back.

Yep. Classic.

Been there, done that.

[pete2]

Do the plunk test. If you have 3 pistols do all 3 bbls. One of mine has no lead what so ever and I had to shorten my loads for it. Ammo still works well the 6 other guns.

[Nick_C_S]

If you have 3 pistols do all 3 bbls.

I already have. The Kimber - the one which had the problem at the range - actually has the longest chamber. Imagine if it was with one of the other two.

My Colt has the shortest chamber; and the Springfield is in between.

Moving forward, I will build ammo for both the Kimber and Springfield; using the Springfield to do the plunk. I'd say the Kimber is about 0.005" longer.

The Colt is a pure target shooter with a 12lb recoil spring and is on a special diet. It only gets fed 200gn LSWC's (the ol' H&G 68 style we've all come to know and love) with very light charges, running about 650 f/s-ish. I plunked this bullet in its barrel years ago.

[Longshot4]

This has been just what I needed to continue with my loading of my Colt. So now I can cut cost by loading some thing other than a 230gr. FMJ. Are the use of LSWC... used for accuracy or cost or why. Since booth are what I like.

[Nick_C_S]

Are the use of LSWC... used for accuracy or cost or why?

I use them because I punch holes in paper. Their shape cuts a nice large round hole. That's the single biggest reason.

Also, because they're 200 grains, and not 230, they are generally less expensive. But that alone is not a good enough reason for me to use them.

The "H&G 68" (the most common 200gn LSWC http://missouribullet.com/details.ph...y=13&keywords=) design has been thoroughly proven for its accuracy and feeding reliably. Most loaders who shoot a lot of 45 ACP will eventually find themselves using this bullet. Tried-n-true.

[Nick_C_S]

I got out to the range today - with chronograph - to re-test the round (X-treme 200 PFP; 4.8gn TiteGroup), this time with the corrected OAL of 1.175.

I fired 50 rounds, with one FTF - I just had to re-rack, and it went in. Otherwise, they shot flawlessly.

I chronographed 24 rounds - 839.1 f/s; 11.51 SD. Compared to 850.1 f/s; 15.18 SD with the longer (1.202) OAL.

These are just range shooters; so I'm good with it at 4.8 grains; no further adjustments necessary. They run at nearly the same velocity as my decade's old recipe for 200 LSWC's (5.0gn W231/HP-38 - 843 f/s); and the recoil impulse feels the same. They run clean and meet their purpose.