Pistol Smith Forum banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I have a question about the reliability of each of these calibers in a 1911 mini 3" pistol. I am curious given the geometry of each round such as a the centerline of a 9x23
would be more inline with the chamber so it would have a greater chance of loading properly. Also slide velocity with each load. Which round works better with a light slide? Last but not least how about the magazine springs in these mini 3" guns. Are they stronger so as to load a fresh round in the pipe?

From what I have read a .45 is still the best load from a short barrel as far as stopping power, because it is effected the least by shortening the barrel........Mike

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: timujin on 2001-04-11 08:58 ]</font>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
705 Posts
Mike,

Your assumptions about the geometry being related to feeding reliability is valid, for just the reasons you outlined. Dane Burns has said on several occasions that the 9x23 feeds better in a 1911 package than does any other round it can be chambered for. I agree with that opinion.

Since this new forum is meant more for the discussion of ballistics than hardware, I would like to see us focus more on that part of yor question. I think you raise a very interesting question about stopping power in all of the calibers mentioned, when shot from a 3" barrel. In another thread here, I touched on my subjective observations about the 2" S&W J-frame 940 converted to 9x23 vs. a equal barrel length 640 shoting .357 Magnums. My contention being the 9x23 will carry more velocity than would the .357 Magnum in that example.

I only mention the revolver, because if you measure the length of a available barrel in a 3" 1911, you will find it is actually fairly close to that of the 2" revolver, because your are really subtracting the chamber area from the auto and adding length for the revolvers cylinder.

I don't have any verifiable results (yet) but I find it interesting to consider how the same 125gr. bullet is achieving greater velocity from the higher cup pressure shorter brass of the 9x23 round, with its faster burning powder being more completely burned out of the short tube.

The theories of greater stopping power from a short barreled .45 are based on the heavier bullet delivering more energy. Of couse this only serves to fuel the argument between the "light and fast" camp and those favoring the opposing view that "heavy and slow, but a big hole" is the key to real world stopping power. I have no real answers to the original question, but think this makes a great discussion point for our new forum.

Anyone have any data to share, or opinions to add?


DD

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Desert Dog on 2001-04-11 10:35 ]</font>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,831 Posts
Nothing IMO is relaible in a 3" 1911. That said, stick with the 45 if you want a 3".

The 40 is the worst of the bunch.

The first issue is recoil stroke. 3" is not enough in a 1911. Reliability is defined by ammo, mags and gun. 40 S&W will never be as reliable in any 1911 as teh other two for obvious reasons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
295 Posts
DD,
feed reliability is very important, but what about "extraction".

9x23 seems to be a more difficult cartridge to extract (the need for Aftec) than most others.

Maybe .40 super is what the doctor ordered.

bottleneck for better feeding, thick case, a large rim, and can be used in all .45 mags.

Load one down to lite-10mm velocities with the 165 grain Quick shock and you will have one hell of a 3" gun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,831 Posts
The 1911 is made and designed to run at a OAL of 1.25 for ammo in ball form. The 9mm , 357 SIG and .40 don't make it. hence by design they are unrelaible. Mags are a problem too. The IPSC boys run 40s at 10mm OAL. Which solves the problems.

Remember 45 ball OAL and ojive, 5" gun and 7 round mags. Past that things start getting iffy in a 1911. Yes you can build around it. I use darn near ever HP made and 8 round mags and build commanders and 5" guns that are totally reliable.

I build only for 10mm, 9x23, 38 Super and 45.
And I suggest Wilson mags in all. Metalform now that Wilson has stopped production of 10 and 38 Super/9x23.

Suggesting that a bottle neck is the way to go or that a round that clearly changes the feed dynamics by changing the ojive of the round and how it feeds is not a better idea IMO.

The 40 super is a 45 case necked to a 40. The round nose dives because of OAL and ojive in a 8 round mag. Another hype round.

The 9x23 does need help on extraction. Not that the AFTEC isn't a better design that the current manufacture extractors. It is for function. The 9x23 works at almost 50K CUP (figure 30K CUP for the others in general) and can be sticky in the chamber and has little rim to help with extraction.

You need to understand what makes a 1911 reliable in the first place and go from there in cartridge, mag and gun design.

Hope that helps.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Dane Burns on 2001-04-11 12:35 ]</font>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
274 Posts
All right, now that I can post again. Dane, as usual, is right about the case length being critical. I have a single stack .40 and it is sensitive to OAL. Since I load my own ammo, that is not a problem. But the fact of the matter is, this pistol does not like factory ammo. Factory .40 in the literature I have indicates an OAL maximum of 1.135". I am loading 1.160" and trying some new bullets, going to 1.170". Note to anyone thinking about doing this, check the lead into your rifling. See if you can go this long.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Great discussion, I was hoping to find a reliable combination which would be a step above my 2nd choice, a Kahr MK9. If any of the hotter rounds out there could work in a mini 1911 this is the board to find out. Thanx...........Mike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,831 Posts
The OAL of the 10 and 45 is the same, ie 1.24" to 1.26" for reliability. That is definded by mags and ojive.

Understanding the ojive problem and how it effects feeding will answer your question.

But yes the 40 Super will nose dive easier everything being equal.

Quick lesson is look at the best of the new holow points in 45. All are ball 230 ojives as close as possible. The closer it is the better the feeding.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
503 Posts
Dane wrote;

Quick lesson is look at the best of the new holow points in 45. All are ball 230 ojives as close as possible. The closer it is the better the feeding.


Do mean to imply that John Browning knew what he was doning? Imagine that :grin:

Take care Amigo!
Jim H.
 
G

·
Anthony-Dane,
I have an OM length 1911 that started out life as a Wilson CQB ultracompact, being steel I felt it would be a viable candidate for .45 Super, well it went from being rock solid reliable to completely problematic.
I believe Dane has explained the issue accurately as the short slide/cycle speed problems were exemplified by the heavier spring/faster slide/cycle velocity.
I would not recomend .40 Super from anything under 5" and believe it is actually a better round for a 6" gun.
I have a 5" 1911 in .357 Sig and have found it to be exceptionally reliable and accurate.
It is also a Wilson gun and I have used Wilson mags since Mr. Rogers designed them.
It has been my experience that 9x23 and 10mm JHPs are very reliable and .45 230 grain ball is the most reliable period.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,831 Posts
Jim Higginbotham wrote:

Do mean to imply that John Browning knew what he was doning? Imagine that :grin:
If most (shooters and smiths) would just take the time to figure out how JMB really built the first 1911s most of this stuff would never be an issue :grin:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Thanks for the info fellows. My favorite handguns are my Commander size guns. The only auto chucker that I trust that is smaller than my Commanders is my Kahr E9 and was looking for a smaller powerhouse but more oomph than a 9mm. Best......Mike
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top