Garrison Joe

i know of none of the custom 1911 smiths who will tune a gun to a 2# trigger pull. Especially for use in an action sport (rather than a bullseye gun). GJ

Nope. Not "certain" at all. With a proper sear to hammer cock notch fit, the 1911 hammer does not move any appreciable amount as the trigger is pulled. If the hammer does not move back, the mainspring does not compress any farther. Therefore, no compression of the mainspring means no extra force is applied to the trigger during trigger pull by the mainspring. Just the force which is applied to the trigger by the leaf of the sear spring which is resting against the trigger saddle. Browning really knew what he was doing when he designed the 1911. It allows the 1911 trigger to be tuned to 3.5 pounds of pull - and that is needed mainly to prevent the gun from doubling or firing when dropped. The 1911 pistol is a single-action design. Pulling the trigger does not cock the hammer. The hammer is cocked by the slide moving backwards during firing or racking a round in from a new magazine. Badly tuned hammers/sears that have a lot of positive angle to the full-cock-notch engagement WILL have a trigger pull that stacks (increases) as the trigger is pulled, and THAT stacking does get worse and more detectable with a real strong mainspring. But, a REAL strong mainspring is not needed for our 150 power factor loads anyway - most guns are well behaved with a mainspring at about 19 pounds of spring weight. And a recoil spring at about 15 pounds. good luck, GJ

Hodgdon publishes data for shotshells that they believe meet their own reliability of performance standards. The soft end of those are are heavier loads than what many cowboy shooters use. Hodgdon is not "your huckleberry" with making cowboy loads either for shotshells or pistol cartridges. They just don't want to get into the testing that we (maybe 2%) of the shooting pubic might need for what used to be called "gallery loads". So, other cowboys' experience is about the best you can count on. What we "need" falls below the velocity (and recoil) of almost any commercial usage - even target loads. When no factory loads that way, why would Hodgdon stick out their neck and recommend them? good luck, GJ

There is no correlation between trigger pull and the hammer impact force. IF the sear and the full-cock notch have a nice tuned fit. The force on hammer fall comes from the MAINSPRING strength and the weight of the hammer. Now, you probably don't want to change out to a different weight hammer. So you will be concerned with the force applied by MAINSPRING. A stronger mainspring, and you get more hammer strike force. Not linear and exact relationship, but that's the way it works. Why does the trigger pull force have nothing to do? Because the sear notch on the hammer is in the same place REGARDLESS of how much force you set the trigger up with. Since the hammer fall starts in the same place (when sear clears the full cock notch), and the mainspring works on the hammer through the same amount of rotation, all that matters is how strong that mainspring is (and how smooth the hammer pin and side walls of the hammer slot in the frame are, to eliminate any friction). A heavy spring on the trigger or sear only adds to the force you have to apply to the trigger. The trigger does not transfer any of the trigger pull force to the hammer. You use the chrono and lower the powder charge (MAYBE 1 GRAIN STEPS) until you get your desired velocity. Once there, you fire 25 or 50 rounds in practice sessions to make sure you get a working discharge of both shot and wad EVERY TIME. Using a double barrel, load two rounds, fire them, then look from the chambers down the barrel to make sure everything cleared the barrel. Pump gun testing would be harder to do (use a cleaning rod to punch out the barrel) and tell you nothing extra about the function of the shells. If you start getting sunken crimps due to the lower charge weights, you may have to find a taller wad or put less pressure on wad seating or lower the level of the crimp die settings. Or use a more bulky powder. Clays was a great powder for light shotshells for cowboy shooting. Titewad and Titegroup are less satisfying because they are not as bulky and can give you fits with the "stack height" that supports the crimp petals and prevents sunken (leaky) crimps. good luck, GJ

You were informed correctly. But, as you note, close up gun inspections have proven distasteful at major matches. Not saying they WON'T happen, but only the "visible at 5 feet" stuff seems to be the norm for call outs of rules violations. good luck, GJ

Point 1 - as far as I have followed the two categories, match directors have restricted ammo to lead bullet only so as to not require clubs to put AR500+ armor steel targets at 100 or more yards. Both the steel and the land is expensive. Point 2 - lead bullet ammo can be made to shoot real well from 1400 up to 1800 FPS or so with little difficulty, and hold accuracy of 2 to 3 MOA over at least 200 yards. Going beyond that requires a fair amount of understanding and testing. Up until about 1895, all rifles shot lead bullets (and black powder, even). good luck, GJ

No filler. BAMM is not THAT much a precision shooting match. Besides, the use of any filler with a shouldered case and smokeless powder is strongly DISCOURAGED by Lyman and Hodgdon. Can lead to ringed chambers, and they don't really understand why. good luck, GJ

Great policy for you. Won't help grow the game, though, if you have any concern there. Won't help keep older folks shooting as joint pain creeps into their lives. And gets SASS into a nanny role on reloading. good luck, GJ

I think there is so much loading data for Unique in the 45 auto that it was largely unnecessary to ask here where lots of non-sourced or even speculative info might be thrown around. It's very hard to get in trouble with Unique cast bullet loads in the 1911. Unique has been used since the cartridge's introduction - if there were lurking dangers in it, they would have been reported by now. At worst, shooter will stick a slug in the barrel. If we start insisting that new loaders in SASS stick to nothing lighter than published starting point loads in pistols (and rifles, too), it's going to be hard for them to make the soft-ish loads our rules allow (even encourage). And since Alliant rarely publishes starting point loads, it's even tougher. And over the last year or so, if you were to trust what Alliant publishes, you would not use ANY Alliant power except Sport Pistol with cast bullets in the .45 auto! They have removed Bullseye and Unique and any other fast Alliant powders from the on-line listing. good luck, GJ

Ummm, still is a RH holster, unless your photo is reversed. Which it is not, as there is no thumb safety showing on right side of frame as it would look if photo got reversed. GJ

Bigger problem - Looks to me that they made you a right-handed holster! I have cowboy and WB belts made with NO built in ammo loops or mag holders. All such holders are on slides to be easily adjustable, but locked down with a Chicago screw providing clamping pressure. Maybe the next one you will want to do that, so it can be adjusted to match your comfort needs and shooting styles. good luck, GJ

The change from a 230 grain slug to a 225 grain slug will make about 3 Power Factory numbers difference (lower). It will NOT knock down a 180 PF to a 155 PF or so! There is still something really wrong in your understanding of the load. 5.2 grains of Unique cannot make that load have 180 PF. good luck, GJ May be time for another person to chrono your loads. Not every chronograph is accurate nor is every shooter good at setting up and calibrating and operating a chrono.

NOPE! I don't believe something with your data! Lyman loading manuals for years have shown the starting load for a 225 grain cast bullet and Unique to be 5.5 grains of powder, which they report making 695 FPS. That would be 156 Power Factor - just barely legal for WB. Tell us your EXACT bullet weight and chronograph muzzle (5 feet away) velocity reading. I suspect you have the velocity reading wrong. I doubt you would ever need to be below 5.5 grains. Otherwise, you have a 1911 that is able to make a much HIGHER muzzle velocity than would be expected. I went way back in Lyman handbooks. The 45th Edition (1970 vintage) shows a starting load for the 225 grain slug as 5.0 grains of Unique. Manuals newer than that start the load data at 5.5 grains. And as to "flash-over" (AKA Secondary Explosion Event)? NEVER heard that concern when loading light loads in a 1911 or any other handgun using a normal speed handgun powder. But, there is no real reason to be below Lyman's 5.5 grain starting load that I mentioned above. I suspect the "powder company rep" made quite a mistake with his advice, or you asked him a poorly worded question. If he was from Alliant, he needs to go back to school. Did you calculate Power Factor correctly? PF = bullet weight (grains) x velocity (fps) / 1000 So, Lyman's starting load makes 225 x 695 / 1000 or 156 PF. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Now, if by any chance you are using a 250 grain slug in the 1911 - STOP! All the 250 grain bullets I have tried do NOT seat well in the short .45 Auto case. The base of the slug bulges most brands of brass at the mid-case area when seated to put the top of the bullet lands at the mouth of the case. There are several real reasons why no loading manual shows loads for bullets heavier than 230 grains in the .45 auto. Potential failure to chamber loaded rounds is one of them. Also, easy to get recoil that pounds the gun too hard. My personal experience - when I was much younger and longed for my 1911 to really buck, I loaded the 225 grain cast bullet with 7.0-7.5 grains of Unique - kind of the standard load with Unique back when Col Cooper was holding court. A load that will make you understand the 1911 is a potent gun. But now I like the 5.6 grain load better with a 225 grain bullet, but not as well as I like several cleaner modern powders. good luck, GJ

I've seen a gun that was too heavy in Traditional back about 2011. Shooter brought out his backup. He carried on. good luck, GJ

I've never noticed any holster-tie-down (or strap) being used in Wild Bunch over the last 18 years. So, the call seems to hold to customary equipment use. But then, I would not see that any holster hold-down provides a lot of assistance. Nor would I consider it to be harmful to the "traditional" look of a shooter's costume. I think you took the correct course of action at the match. good luck, GJ