Garrison Joe

BF - your clarification doesn't really make much difference to the situation. EXCEPT - that this new description CLEARLY shows that the shooter NEVER "engaged" (using our poor long-standing definition) the tenth target in the first set. He only pointed his piece at the first nine (by order) while "attempting" to fire at those black targets. So, he clearly gets the P. Because he went from the 9th (by order #) target in the black set to the #1 (by order) target of the white set. Broke target order required for a Nevada sweep on black targets by not completing the sweep - there's the P. And one round was not fired, because only 19 of the required 20 pistol shots were fired for the stage. So, a miss for round not fired. Miss and a P, still. And I believe you want to correct the re-written description to say that the last bank of pistol targets that he shot were the white ones (not black).

And that almost impossible to make decision (did shooter engage the target but not fire a round) is why I continue to lobby to replace"engage" with an act that really can be seen or otherwise measured. I will continue to suggest that we need some other, more visible, part of the act of firing at a target to decide if a target no longer needs "another shot attempt" on it. I really like condition of "a bullet has left barrel" as a sufficient condition to have "engaged" a target. We already use that act (for first round has gone downrange) for similar purpose - it marks the time that a shooter is committed to the stage. And it has turned out to be a much clearer and not-easily-argued condition on which to make a call. Then with that definition, squibs would not satisfy "engaged". Failures to chamber - would not be "engaged" Failures to fire would not be "engaged". Empty chamber with trigger pulled - would not be "engaged". Spotters cannot see "engaged" very accurately. Most can usually see "bullet fired at target or somewhere down range." Until we make the conditions upon which we judge Procedural errors be something that most folks can see or otherwise sense with their other senses, we will continue to have these "hard to make" calls. And that degrades our ability to convince shooters we are scoring them "fairly" in comparison to other shooters. Good luck, GJ

Yep a P and a Miss (round not fired).

My reloads are made to come out just slightly shorter than factory Remington STSs. As pointed out, Factories hold length to fairly loose specifications. Reloads - hold to even less length uniformity between all the types of presses and loads that folks make. If you are concerned, measure what shell length works if you load 6 in your magazine, and make sure not to load shells longer than that! Good luck, GJ

Legal. But very frustrating and disturbing to shooter. At just completed state side match WB, a shooter had a gun that would fail to slide lock half of his mags. I RO'd for him quite a bit, and between the two of us, we'd both yell to each other "LOCK SLIDE BACK" as soon as his fifth shot was fired. He was good at paying enough attention, never took more than one-step before getting slide locked back, and made it through the match without safety penaties, but I am also quite sure he gave up lots of time trying to manage that situation. As mentioned, take a loaner offer from a pard. This is not IPSC or 3-Gun. Thank goodness. :D Good luck, GJ

Well, you have repeated results that have been reported here several times over the last 6 years. BTW, you will NEVER see lead in the barrel with BP rounds (unless things are going horribly wrong), because the temperature of the barrel reaches a point where leading burns out. In well-run BP guns, only the chemical residue (potassium sulfates and carbonates and hydroxides) remain behind. Yes, it CAN be done. Yes, at some number of rounds through the gun, the 1911 will foul out to the point where it quits feeding. Yes, it would be really dumb to compete with these BP loads. But it can be done. Are congratulations expected? I'm not so sure they will be extended - no one asked me to hold their beer while they tried it. ;D Good luck, GJ

Found my oldest Lyman reloading manual today - the 1970-dated 45th edition. Unfortunately, the Lyman technicians wrote that they only had time to research and publish Alcan #8 powder loads, out of the several powders that Alcan was still making at the time. So, I found no Alcan #5 data in my best hope for old data. Sorry, GJ

Blaze - Thanks for the kind words about EOT. I'd probably think more seriously about coming down for one of your fine WB monthly matches if it weren't 7 hours of driving for a 3 hour match, and then 7 hours to get back. Maybe when I get retired. ;D

Yep, you can open that rear sight notch to where you can get a good sight picture. Well within the rules.

Modern - about 2 seconds Traditional - about 1 second (traditional shooters get to have a mag in hand and close to the mag well - makes a big difference!)

Last sold about 1975. So old that loads for it were for hulls and wads that are no longer available. And that was back when shotshell powder did not get listed very often in the handgun loading data section. It was a rather slow powder, so it was only recommended for 1 1/8 and mostly 1 1/4 field loads. So, not all that useful for Cowboy loads. It would make great lawn fertilizer, though. Good luck, GJ Here's a post showing an old AL5 load with Win AA hulls: http://www.shotgunworld.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=80118 And another showing .45 auto and .45 Colt loads, but read it carefully as there is bad data in part of it: http://www.pistolworld.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?t=2776

Oh, man! If I took the buckle off to take a picture of it, I'd be running around work with my pants around my knees. ;D Maybe this evening. If I can get my brass cleaned and clothes washed and guns scrubbed. By the way, scores now posted at: http://www.sassnet.com/EoT/2016results.php

(He probably wants the 2016 results - right now, those are last year's). Hold onto your hat, pard, they will be posted when they are ready. Apparently not ready yet.

Sure, Gene....put me down for whatever you need on the speed stuff - leave me time for BAMM, though.

Sure. As long as the "style" fits with what was originally available for the Win Model 12. However, I wouldn't drag in with a raised, high-rise rib from a modern Perrazzi trap gun.

Quite satisfied with my Competitive Edge Dynamics chrony. Just under $200. Accurate, easy, does what I need. http://www.cedhk.com/shop/products/CED-M2-Chronograph-Set.html Good luck, GJ

NEVER say can't, better to say "I don't know how." Because my 1.580" OAL cartridges load fine and fast over the top. Some carriers need a little proper shaping to get the round to settle properly on top of them to get a clean run into the chamber, however.

I'm using lots of cut down Colts. Not a problem, really. Work fine. (As large as the SAAMI specs are for .45 Colt chambers, even when the .45 Colt cut down cases end up with a thicker wall at the mouth than the factory made C45Specials, there's plenty of room for the rounds in the chamber of a rifle or pistol. Now, why you need the C45S in a rifle, I really don't know, especially in WB where a more realistic PF minimum is required). I still use .45 Colt loads there.

First - there is NO guarantee that any one .452 diameter bullet will work well in both your 1911 and your rifle. NO guarantee. NONE. But, good news abounds - it's cheaper to buy different bullets than it is to modify guns to shoot a particular bullet real well. 8) ;D Second - if you want simple, put the 1911 away. It's not tough, but it's not simple. It's very fun, but it's not simple like a SAA revolver is simple. Here's Alliant's published max load for that bullet weight: 45 Auto 200 gr Lead bullet 1.19 OAL Red Dot 4.5grains 831 FPS That is the velocity (or very slightly slower) you want for Wild Bunch, as it translates to 166 Power Factor. Your cartridge OAL will depend upon what feeds and chambers well in your 1911. Be aware, there may be problems with the front driving band and first section of the rounded nose jamming tight into the rifling, as the 45 auto barrel is cut with NO throat at all before the rifling starts. You don't EVER want that jamming into the rifling to occur. A tight slug raises pressure, and a tight slug can be pulled out of the case when you clear the pistol with a live round in the chamber! And a slug touching the rifling lands is just a smidgen away from not chambering all the way, leading to a round that will not fire, and has to be ejected, and probably made up at some time. Seat your first loads at an OverAll Length (OAL) to put the mouth of the case right where the front driving band starts to turn into the round nose. Ignore any crimp groove that may be on the slug, crimp into the top edge of the driving band. Taper crimp, which is what a good 45 auto crimp die produces, so that the mouth is taken down from the slight expander belling down to about 0.471" (no tighter than 0.470") diameter right at the mouth. Load only five or ten, then go shoot. If the bullet won't chamber the last 1/16", but will seat with a firm slap on the rear of the slide, seat slightly deeper. If bullet sticks with the nose on the feed ramp, you may need to shape and polish the ramp (a job better left to gunsmith until you gain experience with it). If bullet jams with a 3-point jam, you may have a poor quality magazine. Colt, Tripp or McCormick mags remove the doubt about that. If you still have a problem feeding, and the bullet's flat point is very broad, you probably have a feed-ramp/barrel throating problem. Starting 10% under Alliant's max load, you might start at 4.1 grains of RD. Work your way up. You WILL need to shoot your load over a chronograph, as velocity/power factor is watched closely at major Wild Bunch matches. And each 1911 shoots the same load to different velocities. When you get a good PF, good extraction, good feeding, good accuracy, and a good feeling - stop, you are probably done! Good luck, GJ

Yep, those are great. Wilson quit making those for several years. Looks like they got the feedback that a bumperless, economy-but-well-built mag is needed for lots of reasons. When I wear out my twenty or so Tripps, I (or more likely one of my grandsons) might have to look at those. ;D

Well, that's not too descriptive. Suppose you meant "choke". But, a feed ramp failure is often a magazine problem. Put a good mag in it and try again. Tripp, McCormick, Colt are some of the best. Wilson would be if they'd make a no-base-bumper model again. Feed ramps do work better nicely smoothed and polished and aligned so the barrel lip does not stick out over the top of the ramp.... Sounds like your pard's gun needs a light action job, not necessarily a different slug. Tell him he really ought to WANT his 1911 to feed most ammo, because that is TRUE. If the slug you are using has a wide meplat (the flat tip at the front), 1911's hate trying to shove that up a feed ramp, even if it is well tuned. A truncated cone design feeds much better. Or a conventional round nose (which can be considered to be a "very small meplat"). Good luck, GJ

What you added to your initial post is EXACTLY what my earlier reply addresses. The front band (called the driving band) of the slug is jamming into the rifling, which on a 1911 starts within 0.050" of the end of the chamber. His barrel may have even "taller" lands than normal, or less of a throat where the chamber tapers into the rifled barrel. Symptom - rounds often fail to chamber that last 1/16", leaving slide JUST out of battery, and slide has to be whacked with helle of the weak hand to get it to close. Solution - seat your existing SWC slugs slightly deeper for your pard! The very top edge of the driving band needs to be exactly at the mouth of the taper crimped loaded round. Seated slightly longer, and the driving band jams into rifling. Seated slightly shorter, and the mouth's taper crimp wraps over the band and does not bite slightly into the driving band as the crimp is applied. Using a RNFP design won't help his problem, not near as much as using a truncated cone design does, because the cone has a sharper angle and keeps the lead of the slug just above the driving band off of the rifling much better than the RNFP or RN. Good luck, GJ

Never seen such a critter (LRNFPSWC). Closest I've seen is the Accurate 45-200B. Which isn't a real RN and it's not truly a SWC. But it is a FN. Kind of a mixed-breed, in my opinion. I like a 200 grain Truncated Cone (flat nose) for both rifle and pistol. Simplifies supply. Shoots perfectly. In case you want to know, I cast the Accurate 45-200E design for myself. Any degree of semi-wadcutter shape gives you a shoulder that lever guns usually hate. Otherwise, I'd probably still be shooting H&G 68 semiwadcutters. I've shot some round nose flat point 200 grainers in the 1911. It's susceptible to failing-to-chamber completely with a tight throat like 1911 barrels have (bullet seating position has to be just right). The TC design gives more flexibility on seating position, because the nose tapers away from the rifling more quickly than a RNFP does. Lots of folks have their barrel throats opened up to correct the chambering of a RN or RNFP slug. I just use the right bullet. ;D Some folks like a 230 grain slug. I've noticed most of them shoot two handed. I don't, and a 200 grain slug works better for recoil recovery FOR ME. Good luck, GJ

Sure sounds like a too-light firing pin strike is occurring on the '73 that has been rechambered to .45 auto. Small primer might have a more rigid anvil than a large primer design does, due to "bigger span" of the LP anvil's arch? It's not the outside dimensions of the .45 auto case that varies between the NT (non-toxic) SP case and the original design of the LP case. If you taper crimp both the SP cases and the LP cases the same way, then it's not likely that the gunsmith cut the .45 chamber too long (bad headspace, thus letting the round slide forward on firing pin impact). The only thing different is going to be the primer and the pocket. SP primers MAY be a little more sensitive to a FP strike than LP primers. I've not seen anyone run that test yet. Would be interesting to see, when using exactly the same brand of primers, whether SPs are easier to light off as the main spring tension is backed off. There's a tremendous number of cowboy type shooters who over the years have claimed that a particular gun after it was tuned up for lighter spring weights, would no longer run anything but Federal primers. This sounds a lot like the same story, just in a different suit. I'd bet the lack of reliability of firing can be resolved by tuning hammer fall to be a little heavier, as has been the case in hundreds of cowboy guns I've heard about and a few I've even tinkered with. Good luck, GJ

+1 for AW. I still don't believe their existence is justified. Even if we have data saying small primers in these new cases work OK, we don't have data saying this is a good idea for the redesign of ammo that has been standard for about 105 years now. Most deviations from standards in the firearms industry usually end up hurting someone. That is one reason SAAMI was set up in 1927. But at least I've not blown up a Dillon press more than once with large primers being seated into small primer pockets, as one of our pards has reportedly done. Mine just slams to a halt. So far. Good luck, GJ