Looking for a 45 ACP "Light Target" bullet, 170 grain SWC similar to the Magnus #801

First topic message reminder :

Dave tells me it's because my Baer was never intended for Bullseye, but my Premiere II doesn't like the Magnus #801 bullets I've been using for a few years now for my wad guns.  Terry Labbe sent me some samples of the #806 - will try in my Springfield tomorrow, but I shot 20 of them today in my Baer, with no issues.  The problem is, Terry is out of everything, trying to catch up on orders, and nobodyI can find has the #806 bullets in stock.


Does anyone here know of where I might be able to buy some more, or of an appropriate (similar) bullet that might work in the Baer?  
They seem to cycle through the Baer with no problem, both indoors with my "dummy rounds" and at the range today.

.....no, I'm not about to cast my own.  That is light years over my skill level !!

(I'm also curious as to why the #801 bullet doesn't work in my Baer.  Terry tells me the 801 works fine in his Baer.  Dave tells me that a gunsmith making a bullseye gun makes changes that would allow these bullets to work.  For me, they either jam, like when I had the extractor issue in my Springfield, or today, when I got a "stovepipe".) 

mikemyers wrote:From SAAMI:



If I'm seating my bullets to an OAL of 1.130", that's quite a bit less than the minimum OAL in the above drawing.

Does SAAMI load your cartridges for you?

Then buy a box of Federal GM 185 jacketed bullets. Measure the OAL, it’s 1.130! It’s basically the same bullet as Magnus 801, except lead of course.

mikemyers wrote:
You wrote: Reading afterwards that issue at hand is purely an educational is somewhat disparaging. 
I can understand that, but that was NOT the issue.  The issue was finding something that WILL work, not modifying the gun to work with the 801.  Maybe I didn't make that clear enough in the original post - I thought I did, but maybe I should have made it clear that I do not want to modify my Baer.   Sorry......

You don't have to modify your Baer, it seems to me that it is a magazine issue. Sometimes you have to modify the magazines to suit the gun and rounds being used.

I've had two .22 pistols that stove piped rounds just like your image, and it might have taken 30 seconds to tweak the magazines to solve the issue.

The 1911 I just built had a feeding issue even though I tried different magazines. A magazine tweak and it'll now feed empty cases.

Basically, If the magazine releases the round too early the nose goes too high to find it's way into the chamber, and if it releases too late, it can go too low and may jam below the chamber. The length of the round can have an affect on the release point.

Why is it difficult to get the 801's to feed well?

The more the cartridge overall profile diverges from the standard 230 FMJ round, the more feeding issues will pop up for the 1911. And that's why 185 JHP loads feed better than 185 FMJ target loads.  

The 1911 feed process does not "throw" or push the feeding round directly into the chamber.  It starts leaving the magazine, needs to slide under the extractor, begin releasing from the feed lips (standard magazine lips or wadcutter profle lips help determine the release point), encounters at some angle the frame feed ramp, bounces into the top of the chamber, then finally settles into the chamber (or not! ).  

The 801 load is on the short end (OAL and profile) of a cartridge for feeding with a 1911. The only thing even worse to try and get to feed would probably be a full wadcutter load.     So yea, it takes some work (or simply luck from gun to gun); usually on the gun and magazines (lips and springs sometimes) to get those to feed well.  If you find a set up that shoots the 185 FMJ target rounds like Federal, then that set up will be close to the set up for 801's.

Start with different magazines if you want to try the cheaper route first.  Or just load a bullet with a longer nose profile......

(Remember, light is not always right when it comes to accuracy and reliability.....) 

CR

Thank you Cecil.

My mind might bounce around differently than other people's minds, but you've given what sounds like a very plausible explanation for what's going on with my Baer and the #801.  It matches what Dave told me, but in a lot more detail.  That 's the biggest thing I wanted to find out, the "WHY".

I seem to have multiple choices, to try to get magazines to work, or to have a bullseye gunsmith modify the Baer so the #801's work.  Or, I can follow your advice - I can switch to a bullet like the Magnus #806 that does work, or the Magnus #811.  That's the last thing you wrote up above.....

Mike the title of your post is asking for other Bullets similar to the 801 not why the 801 doesn’t work in my gun.  

Here is one theory 

10 pistols from the same manufacturer identically the same model made one the same day. 

I bet the farm not everyone will like the same bullet and powder charge to function and perform perfectly every time. 

Some pistols just don’t like a particular bullet 
Square peg round hole

James Hensler wrote:Mike the title of your post is asking for other Bullets similar to the 801 not why the 801 doesn’t work in my gun.......Some pistols just don’t like a particular bullet.........Square peg round hole

James, if I knew then, what I know now, the title would have said "similar to the #801 but with a longer nose".

In retrospect, I didn't do a very good job of explaining what I wanted, but I didn't know what I wanted.  Somehow I/we muddled through this thread, and both of my goals did get accomplished thanks to you guys.  Thanks to Ian, I now have bought 1200 or so Magnus bullets that should work fine in the Baer, and thanks to Cecil I now understand the reason I've had my problems with my Baer.  

Hindsight is always 20:20.  

Somewhere on the net I found a long nose 160 but I don’t remember which site. I do remember it looked very nice but it was very expensive. Maybe Tim’s Bullets or something like that

James, wouldn't a long nose 160 result in a very short driving band?  At some point biasing the feeding (long nose) over the accuracy and obturation (needing more powder and crimp) would make a light bullet inappropriate for bullseye.

Good question. I really don’t know. Brazos makes a 160 and some love it and some only likes it.

I think I finally figured out an explanation for why my Baer sometimes does not cycle the short #801 bullets.

On a round that the gun IS designed for, the end of the bullet gets to the throat of the barrel, and starts to slide into the barrel. 
However, on a bullet that is very short, like the #801, the bullet runs into the bottom of the hood (and everything locks up).

To figure this out, I made two test rounds.  
Both had a new Magnus 801 bullet seated to the 1.130” length.
I ran these rounds through the Baer.
When examining the tip of the new #801 bullets, one had a “dent" pressed in from hitting something.

Below are two photos of the same bullet - you’ll clearly see the “dented” part of the bullet at 4:30 o'clock
The only part of the gun I can think of that might have caused the dent in the bullet is the hood.
The curvature of the dent seems to match the curvature of the hood.

After thinking about these photos, everything seemed to click into place.

Bullets with a longer “nose” would contact the throat of the barrel further into the barrel, so the hood wouldn’t interfere with the bullet.

Put a mark on the case with a Sharpie so you know how it was oriented when you try to chamber it. 

That should make it easier for you to determine what it is contacting.

Thanks!

I tried something similar to that - I painted a round with Dykem, then looked for damage, but didn't see any.
I think it would be logical for the dent to happen at the very top of the bullet.  

Terry Labbe from Magnusbullets sent me a "fix" for this kind of issue:
    "Some barrels have to have the lower edge of the hood chamferred to get rid of the blunt edge."


That is way over my skill level.  If I did want to fix it, I'd send the barrel off to Dave or Jon or KC.
But I now have a thousand Magnus #811 bullets on the way, so there's no rush.


Maybe this will help others with a similar problem.

DA/SA wrote:Put a mark on the case with a Sharpie so you know how it was oriented when you try to chamber it..........That should make it easier for you to determine what it is contacting.

Excellent advice.  Had I thought to do that, the real problem would have been obvious.

I sent my photos to a gunsmith who specializes in bullseye.  Apparently the bullet was damaged because it hit the bottom edge of the barrel throat.  The bullet hit the bottom sharp edge of the barrel throat, instead of jumping into the throat.  For shooting wadcutters, the bottom edge of the barrel throat needs to be set forward enough to shoot wadcutters.


For me, "hindsight is always 20:20".  If I ever do this again, I'll mark the bullet so I know how it was oriented while it got "stuck".
I ain't no gunsmith, no way, no how, so I don't know the correct terminology.
My 1911 shop manual will arrive by this weekend.


Thank you to everyone who tried to help me with this issue.  I apologize to anyone who got upset at the way I was:
a)  trying to find a replacement bullet that would work in my Baer, and
b)  to those (PhotoEscape) who got upset when I wasn't taking some of the advice as seriously as they thought I should have.  I need to send him an apology.
     (Anyone who didn't read the very first post on this thread wouldn't have known those were my objectives.)

Years ago when I first started Bullseye shooting, I had sent my 1911 to Clark Guns for a trigger job. In the note I sent with the gun I told them of feeding problems with short nose bullets, Star 185 short nose.  The note that was  sent back with gun read: We have had better performance with the Metalform magazines using a short nose bullet. Signed, Jerry Meculek. [spelling]  David H.

Every time I post something lately, I've been debating whether or not I should do so.  So at the risk of starting another endless discussion, can I ask you two things:

a) What kind of magazines did you send to Clark Guns along with your gun?

b) Assuming that a Metalform magazine would work better in a Baer than the magazine provide by Baer (or whatever the company might be) in what way might it do so?  Someone up above (Cecil?) mentioned something about magazines designed for the short lead bullets we shoot in Bullseye.  


Once again, you guys are going to tell me I over complicate things - it's me, everything I touch or do results in complication..

I went to the website for Metalform, and found what I thought was the appropriate page:
https://metalform.us/product/

I did find the 1911 45 ACP, but then it lists choices:

• 6, 7, 8, or 10 rounds
  
• flat, round, or PRO follower
  
• finish - stainless, teflon, or black
  
• (It's not listed on the website, but I think someone here discussed modifying the magazine lips to work in wad guns?)
  

....but there is nothing to click on, and nothing to take me to the proper page to do so.

So, I called Metalform, and spoke with Bill Lataile.  He had no idea how to do that either.  So I asked him to send me a catalog, which he will do later today.

I'm not going to start yet another thread here - this one is already confusing people.  Assuming one of you knows the answer, which of the above choices is best for shooting short lead bullseye rounds.

I'm perfectly willing to spend the money for one (or more) Metalform magazines, but other than to specify 6 rounds, I don't know what's most appropriate for the other choices.


I also went to Brownell's, and found this selection, most of which are not available:
https://www.brownells.com/magazines/handgun-magazines/magazines/45-govt-comm-s-s-8-rd-flat-follower-w-welded-base-sku620045084-71636-22884.aspx

Would one of these be appropriate?

Since you enjoy "research", this should help confuse things even more!    JackH mentioned the different magazine styles in a previous post, so this sort of explains that...

http://how-i-did-it.org/magazines2/read-my-lips.html

Remember, all rounds loading into a 1911 will impact somewhere and more than once on something and generally produce more of less the same type of impressions when using a lead bullet.  Do whatever makes you happy with your results.  

However, as my participation in this thread draws to a tearful close, I'm reminded of something someone said a long time ago about bullseye guns.

"Bullseye guns are kinda like finding a great pardner for life.  Don't spend too much time trying to make them do what you want to do and just find out what they like and see if it works for you.  That way, you'll both be happy."

"In other words, unless that particular load for that particular gun shoots the smallest groups you've ever seen in your life and you're absolutely sure its the best way to get into the 2650 Club; why waste time and money trying to making it do something it doesn't want to do when you could have a great relationship accepting what it wants and spend more time dryfiring?  It's easier and cheaper to change bullets than guns."

"So, my wife and my guns get taken to the best places / gunsmiths I can afford; I try my best to listen to them; I don't argue with them (well, much); I genuinely try to do what they say and have so far reaped the benefits of better overall relationships with both.   Then again, I have a number of guns, rarely have alibis and the same wife for over 37 years...." 

Wait a minute, I remember now.  That was me.....

So, I bid everyone a quiet adieu and y'all have a nice day.

CR

Hear! Hear!

DA/SA wrote:Since you enjoy "research", this should help confuse things even more!    JackH mentioned the different magazine styles in a previous post, so this sort of explains that...

http://how-i-did-it.org/magazines2/read-my-lips.html

Thank you for posting this, along with the links on these pages that lead to yet more information.  I've read it once, slowly.  Now I need to read it over again, more slowly.  It's a great starting point to try and understand.

Yes, it does "confuse things (me) even more", but that's a good thing, especially with the photos he posted to show what's going on.

On my Springfield I removed the extractor and removed the recoil spring.  I could then manipulate the various parts slowly, and watch what they did.  That's sort of how these photos were taken, but I was moving the slide back and forth, until I could get a good better idea for what the bullet was doing.

(Just for the record, I knew NONE of this until now.  And no, I"m not going to post any follow-up questions in this thread, unless others are already discussing it.  It may or may not make the slightest difference in how well I shoot, but I like to understand things almost as much as I like to "do" things.  I need to go back and re-read what JackH wrote.)

Mike, The release on the Metalform  mags. is what matters. If I remember right , the release is longer on the MF. After I got that note back from Clarks, for the past 25 years I have used nothing but the Metalform magazines. 7 rd. round follower.  I have 4 Stainless Metalform mags same profile on the list now for sale . I did not tell you this to try to sell these mags. I was just trying to help you. David H.

Thanks, David.

I'm thinking now of the saying "Ignorance is Bliss".

So many things I took for granted, not realizing the complexities.
Thanks to everyone else, too, and sorry for anyone who I upset by asking so many questions.
Will continue using PM or email.

I need more time behind my gun, and less time behind my computer screen.

Well, one more thing....  Keep asking questions.

Just remember that my comments are not just specific to you, but to others in general. We have shooters at many levels and interests here, but it is mainly a "bullseye sport" forum. So if I take the opportunity to point out a potential "rabbit hole" that may swallow up some unsuspecting reader or lead them to assume some things are the holy grail of getting more points; do not take it personally. They are just general comments to provide a different perspective to balance the conversation.

Ignorance is not bliss, it is more like oblivious.

Just remember that no matter what you read on the internet;  most of it is either biased, not exactly correct, not exactly applicable to the specific situation or just happens to be one of many answers to the same problem.  
 
So, just keep on asking questions.  The hard parts are asking the right questions, sorting through the answers and figuring out if they are applicable to that specific situation (understanding the answers).  That is path to knowledge. 

Don't just look, see.

CR

CR10X wrote:

...........no matter what you read on the internet;  most of it is either biased, not exactly correct,
not exactly applicable to the specific situation or just happens to be one of many answers to the same problem.  

 

So, just keep on asking questions.  The hard parts are asking the right questions, sorting through the answers
and figuring out if they are applicable to that specific situation (understanding the answers).  

That is path to knowledge.    
Don't just look, see.

CR

I appreciate everything you wrote (write), especially the part I quoted.
I wish there was a way to make this a prominent note for everyone in the Bullseye Forum to see.
Maybe you can use it as a "footer" to your posts, the way Ian did with something else I think you wrote.

mikemyers wrote:

I need more time behind my gun, and less time behind my computer screen.

https://youtu.be/CAIBS8hqlUE

DA/SA wrote:Since you enjoy "research", this should help confuse things even more!    JackH mentioned the different magazine styles in a previous post, so this sort of explains that...

http://how-i-did-it.org/magazines2/read-my-lips.html

In reading this thread, the author suggests people start by reading the first article he wrote.
That takes me here:
    http://how-i-did-it.org/magazines/feeding-time.html

I no sooner started on this article when I read "Before continuing on, please read this post on controlled feed principles on the M1911.org forum."
That took me here:
    https://forum.m1911.org/showthread.php?9178-Controlled-Feed-Principles
Start playing at the 2:30 mark, at 1/4 speed.
    

To understand what's going on a little better, I played this YouTube animation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjQrhDKDWFk ) at 1/4 speed.

Two weeks ago, all of this seemed so simple.  Magazine holds cartridges, and the slide moves them into position to shoot, then ejects them.  To be honest, I never really thought about it very much, it's just "there" and it works (or should).  


What you wrote is so true:  "this should help confuse things even more!"      :-)