The M1911 Pistols Organization Forums Site - Fit new bushing. Range photo.

ducati650

6th October 2007, 20:42

I bought an EGW angle bored bushing and fit it to my Kimber 9 mm Target II. The bushing OD was about 2 thou too big. I worked it down until it just fits the frame. It takes a wrench to rotate. It can be done by hand but it is hard and the wrench just makes easier. You can feel no movemoent between the bushing and the slide.

The ID was real close and a little polishing was all that was needed. The measured gap was slightly less than 1 thou.

At the range today 8 rounds were fired at the target at 50 yards. The pistol was supported on a bag. The range was indoors. Altogether about 100 rounds were fired without any problems of any kind.

Here is a photo of the bushing and the target. There are 7 hits on the paper. The other round was called out.
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-11/65524/XHDIF-75013632-DSCF0014.JPG

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-11/65524/FMLVL-GLNPE-644410107-DSCF0007a.jpg

tightgroups

6th October 2007, 21:02

Hi,

You should have gotten much better results than you did, maybe you need to practice benching your pistol more? I don't say that to be rude or imply anything bad about your shooting, just that when I first benched my pistols it was a bit difficult to get the hang of it. After a little practice the patterns went away and I was getting very good, tight groupings. And 50 yards to start is not easy. Are you used to benching your 1911 or is this one of your first attempts? The reason I ask is because you probably should be getting groups instead of patterns. How did this pistol shoot before the new bushing was installed? How does the pistol shoot at 25 yards with the new bushing? Lots of variables, you know what I mean? From ammo to trigger pull, etc. One thing I didn't think about was the caliber...9mm is not as accurate as .45.

1911Tuner

6th October 2007, 22:05

Next time try using the bags under your wrists instead of having them touch the gun.

ducati650

6th October 2007, 22:30

This was just rested on a bag sitting on a range table on wheels and the ammo was 115 gr. cheap Winchester White Box from Walmart. This is the first time it was shot at 50 yards so I don't really have anything to compare it to. At shorted distances, 10 yards and 25 yards it seemed to group better than before. This is just a standard Kimber Target II with a 4 pound C&S hammer/sear/disconnector kit, Greider trigger and the new bushing.

The Jpoint is a 4 MOA red dot, my 57 yr. old eyes have trouble with seeing the front post, and at 50 yards the dot is 2" big so that may have contributed some, too.

I don't know what standard Kimber 9 mms group normally. I know in their full size 45 cal they will install a match grade 45 barrel, new bushing and tighten the frame to slide fit for $375 and guarantee 1" @ 25 yds. I don't know if that equates to exactly 2" at 50 yards but I thought, seeing this is the first time at that distance, that 7 shots in 4 1/4" and 4 of those inside 2" at 50 yards was a pretty good return on an $18 bushing and a 2 hour investment.

Please don't get me wrong. I appeciate the feedback and no offense was taken. I don't have a frame of reference so this is real helpful.

I will include benching in my shooting routine and will post some results at 50 and 25 yards once I'm not embarrassed. I normally shoot standing at 7 to 10 yards so I'm looking forward to the new challenge.

ducati650

6th October 2007, 22:31

Next time try using the bags under your wrists instead of having them touch the gun.

Thanks. Will do.

pa_guns

6th October 2007, 22:44

ducati650

6th October 2007, 23:12

Hi

A couple of things to check:

1) The trigger needs to be set up right or you simply can't hit anything under any conditions.

2) I'm not a big fan of big dot holo sights. I agree that it may have been the issue. Swap it out if you can.

3) The bushing / barrel is half of the slide to barrel fit. The barrel to slide fit at the other end counts at least as much. How much play do you have at the breach end?

4) Ammo does matter. I would try at least one other brand.

The pistol should do under 4" groups at 50 yards. Anything under 3" is fine. To get to 2" you will need more than just a real good bushing ....

Bob

Thanks Bob. Good input.

The trigger is much better than the stock Kimber. 4 pound pull and no creep. It breaks very crisply. What would you suggest? Lighter pull or is there more that might need attention?

I have a Marvel 22 with a small dot Leupold/gilmore on it and it has a better defined do for sure, and it is smaller. This 9 mm is just a plinker but I need something other than the iron 'cause I just can't see them. The L/G is cool but the JPoint is smaller and lighter. Guess I need to decide how I plan to use this Kimber.

The breech end is very tight. Any movement is barely perceivable when in batter. It is not as tight as the Nowlin-fit 38 Super barrel in this pistol. It has none but the 9 mm is darned close.

This pistol likes 147 gr. better for sure but all I had was WWB 115.

Those are good numbers to know. Are these guidelines for a stock pistol or one with my mods?

I was pleased that the 7 "good" shots were inside 4 1/4" and that 5 were inside 3". I never shot a pistol at anything over 25 yards so I thought it did OK. I chalked the spread to being unfamiliar with this pistol at 50 yards.

pa_guns

7th October 2007, 00:18

Hi

What counts with a trigger is that it breaks cleanly and *consistently*. As long as it's reasonable (below 6 pounds) the pull weight matters less than you might think.

The 1911 is not a pistol that does well with optical sights. Mounting them on the slide changes slide weight and impacts the way the pistol operates. Most optics get mounted to the frame. That opens up all sorts of slide to frame fit gotcha's.

The numbers I came up with at 50 yards are fairly reasonable ones for a pistol with the work you have done on yours. To *consistently* get below 2" for a mag full at 50 yards you need tweaking by somebody who is fairly experienced on 1911's.

Any time you deal with spread on groups you can get yourself in trouble. I have done it may times. If you shoot five mags, they are not all boing to give you the same sized groups. Depending on what's going on you may see a variance anywhere from 20% to 50%(as in 2:1). There is a tendency to do things that make no difference and then "declare victory" when the small group happens along.

If you are going to tweak further, don't fall into a "3 shot group" mentality. You want to watch what happens with a couple of mags ...

Bob

wichaka

7th October 2007, 08:48

You can feel movement between the bushing and the slide.

That shouldn't be, something's a miss.........

ducati650

7th October 2007, 09:46

That shouldn't be, something's a miss.........

Whoops, typo. No movement at all. Very snug fit.

Bob,
Thanks for the input. I normally run several mags worth of shots when I'm evaluating performance for just the reasons you explain. This one mag at 50 yards was a "what the heck, why not?" thing and not even my idea since I never shoot pistols at that distance and only "benched", I use the word loosely, when doing initial sighting in.

99+% of my shooting is between 7 and 10 yards, a few times at 50 feet and once or twice at 25 yards (all standing, one or 2 handed). At 7 to 10 yards, when I do my part, this pistol, before the new bushing, could most times make one ragged hole 5 shot groups (2 handed, standing). My goal with the new, fitted bushing was, and is, to try to make the ragged hole smaller.

Thanks for the help. I'm kind of getting intregued by the longer distance stuff.
Why do I think this is going to cost me more money? :)

Ed

pa_guns

7th October 2007, 11:22

Hi

I 100% agree that what a pistol does at <20 yards is a *lot* more important to keeping you alive than what it does at 50 yards. That's why I would be very careful what you do (and don't do) on a carry weapon.

It is fun to fiddle at long range. You eventually find that things like the stability of the table you are using for a rest is important ....

Bob

Canuck-IL

7th October 2007, 11:45

Most optics get mounted to the frame.
Not so - check a Bullseye match.
/Bryan

ducati650

7th October 2007, 11:57

This is my "plinker" gun. I shoot it for fun to make the world safe from paper targets. My 45 cal Kimber CDP Compact is another matter. It is my carry/home defence weapon.

pa_guns

7th October 2007, 12:06

Not so - check a Bullseye match.
/Bryan

Hi

I've seen them go both ways.

Bob

tightgroups

7th October 2007, 21:23

I'm glad you didn't take offense and to tell the truth I didn't realize you were shooting 9mm until after I wrote my comments. The 9mm cartridge is not yet considered a target round and I only know of one guy testing different loads for that specific reason. The 45ACP is inherently a great and very accurate cartridge, JMB knew his business! If the shots had been centered on the black I think it would have been a very good first effort. I apologize for any unfortunate remarks, regardless if it was not intended to skin you a bit.

pa_guns

7th October 2007, 22:05

Hi

It's the "9mm factor" that makes the optics on the slide a significant issue ...

With the 45 you have more energy, so you can get away with more weight on the slide.

Bob

ducati650

7th October 2007, 22:47

No problem tightgroups. I didn't realize that the 9mm was not as accurate as 45. I've experimented with 115, 124 and 147 gr rounds. It seems this particular 9 mm likes the 147 a little better than the others but 115 is cheap. ;)

I'm not a competitor, I just like to shoot and especially 1911s. I was looking for a cheaper way to shoot 1911 than shooting 45 all the time so I bought a Kimber 9 mm. It was, for my kind of shooting and ability, very good. Like I said in an earlier post, I shoot 7 to 10 yards, mostly 2 handed. I shoot 5 round groups and try to make a small hole. In this context, this 9 mm is at least as good as I am. Many groups of 5 are in the 1/2" -5/8" size. Not all but most of the ones that just "feel right" when the trigger breaks make this size hole. The Jpoint is sighted in at 25 feet and I was surprised it was even on the paper at 50 yards.

The problem is the "1911 disease". I just can't leave it alone. I need to make "better".

I sent it to Nowlin and they fit a 38 Super barrel ( I should try this at 50 yards come to think of it). At my distances it seems a bit more accurate than with the 9 mm barrel installed. Then I added a C&S trigger kit-nice improvement and my groups got tighter and more consistent ( more conssitent trigger?). Next I sent it to John Harrison and he serrated the front strap, S&A magwell and blended it and installed the solid Greider trigger. While he had the frame, I fit a new bushing that removed 3 to 4 thou of combined barrel to bushing and bushing to slide slop that the 9 mm barrel and Kimber bushing had.

I got it back from John on Friday, after only a 2 week wait, put slide on and went to the range Saturday to see if it functioned OK with the new bushing. It worked great, no failures of any type. Shot over 100 rounds of WWB 115 9 mm ammo. I was pleased. Firstly, my bushing didn't screw up the operation or accuracy. This was my first bushing fit.
Secondly, it looked like from the many 5 round groups that it might actually be grouping better.

The one mag at 50 yards was a "why not? I wonder what this will do?" impulse.

Now, after everyones input, I'm going to try to shoot some at 25 and 50 yards, benching my wrists instead of the mag base and see what several groups look like. If I'm not totally embarrassed, I'll post some results if anyone is interested.

I'll have to pick up some 38 Super ammo and try it too (so much for shooting cheaper than 45!).

Anyway, thanks everyone.
Ed

watchin

8th October 2007, 02:10

Just a little off topic..but I shoot both .45ACP and 9MM 115gr. WWB. The 9 is shot exclusively with an UZI and is quite accurate at 50 yds. The 45 is shot with a Colt OACP with an EGW bushing that I hand fit. I shoot it at about 30 to 40 ft and it stays in the 2" group. I haven't ever rested it on anything. I use a two handed Weaver style grip/stance. I have several holographic sights, one on a Ruger 10/22 (very accurate).
I am sure that some people might take exception that a 9mm is not as accurate as a .45ACP. I think it is the firearm and the distance.
-watchin-

tightgroups

8th October 2007, 12:37

Watchin:

You're right, there are people who would take offense even though that wasn't my intention. It is pretty common knowledge that the 45ACP is a more accurate cartridge than the 9mm, that's why you see Bullseye leagues centered around the .45ACP. From my personal experience my .45 out shoots all of the 9mm I have ever come across and some of the people shooting the 9's were very good shooters indeed. I know of a guy who makes commercial ammunition for Bullseye shooters and he's been tinkering around with some new 9mm loads and has gotten pretty impressive results. There are different variables to take into consideration when comparing the 1911 .45 to the Beretta 92 9mm. One of the bigger differences is the case capacity between the two rounds. Seems like cartridges with more space give you better accuracy...to a point anyway.

Another factor would be the trigger setup (a non-issue if you're shooting a 1911 style 9mm). Most Bullseye shooters love the single action 1911 trigger as opposed to a double action with lots of creep and take-up. When talking about bullseye accuracy we're looking for groups less than 2" outer edge to outer edge...that's pretty tight shooting. Combat accuracy is more forgiving...anything within an eight inch group will get the job done.

Ducati:

Glad I didn't ruffle your feathers my friend. I feel the .45ACP is more accurate than the 9mm but to each his own! Since my experience is limited much of it comes from more experienced shooters, people who have been shooting Bullseye style for decades. My own experiences have matched theirs though and I find the .45ACP to be a more accurate cartridge with more loadings being possible. Time and experimentation may change these views.

I love the 1911 also and part of the "disease" is to tinker around until your personal gun suits your own needs and style. I've got one production 1911 and I'm building my own off of a S.A. G.I. I wish I owned a mill, it would make things go a lot smoother. I've already made some very minor mistakes but that's all part of learning. You're fortunate to be able have someone as masterful as John Harrison work on your pistol, his work is excellent, one of the top ten guys building 1911's today in my humble opinion. I'd like to see some more pics of your efforts, don't feel bad if you think they're not good enough, we can still learn something from our mistakes. My shooting hasn't been to great lately since I haven't had much of a chance to go shooting this past summer. You have shoot at least once a week to remain in top condition, if you don't shoot often enough then you're shooting will most likely suffer a bit.

ducati650

8th October 2007, 13:14

Thanks TG. I'll post some results after my next range trip.
Ed

pa_guns

8th October 2007, 16:08

Hi

I think the 1911 is way more accurate than just about anything you can find tossing 9mm down range in the US. There certainly are 9mm pistols that are very accurate, but we see very few of them here in the US. The same goes for 9mm target grade ammo. A lot of it has to do with how "power factor" works it's way into US competitions ...

A properly set up 1911 with good ammo should shoot one inch groups at 50 yards pretty consistently. There are a number of guys who can set up a 1911 to shoot that way off of a Ransom Rest. Because of the way the Ransom works, you can beat it with a hand held pistol (you can, but I can't .. :D ).

I would not want to bet on getting a 9mm 1911 to shoot 1" at 50 yards, but I think you could certainly get well below 2".

Bob

tightgroups

8th October 2007, 19:53

That's pretty much what the commercial reloader said. He doesn't expect the ammo to group better than 1.5" at 50 yards. I completely agree with you Bob. What do you think are the main reasons for the 1911's awesome accuracy? I feel at least part of it comes from the excellent design of the cartridge itself even though I imagine the pistol design contributes the most to overall accuracy. I'm not even a good shooter and I've outshot everyone that has ever come to the range I go to that shoots a 9mm when compared to my 1911. I generally shoot at 20 yards and will move out as my level of skill increases. I like Bullseye shooting and feel it is the ultimate challenge for my own satisfaction. I'd like to do some combat style shooting also but the range I go to isn't set up for moving and drawing, etc.

I'm a hand loader so part of the joy of shooting for me is tailoring different loads with different powders to see what kind of off-hand accuracy I can squeeze out of my pistols. It is very satisfying to craft excellent quality ammunition and know there isn't anything out there for sale that will shoot better in my guns. I also cast all my own bullets which adds to the fun and enjoyment but I do have a decent amount of free time on my hands. For those who must buy ammunition I wonder what they feel is the most accurate that can be found? I've heard that Federal Gold Match is the best available and it is the only commercial ammunition I haven't really compared to my hand loads. Most Bullseye shooters swear by the stuff! Have you ever used it Bob?

Thanks.

pa_guns

8th October 2007, 20:54

Hi

A lot of what you try to figure out about a cartridge turns out to be wrong. That said, here goes ...

Most accuracy rounds fill the case pretty near full with powder. Not true in a 45, but true in most bench rest rifles, and a number of pistols. Certainly more true in the 9mm than the 45.

Ballistic the 9mm is a better round than the 45. A 230 grain 45 has a bc of 0.184. A 9mm at 147 grains is up to >=0.212 in ballistic coefficient. Higher velocity helps the 9mm as well.

Bullets count a lot as range increases. Here in the US we can get all sorts of 45 ammo. The 9mm market is mainly driven by either low cost or high stopping power (JHP's). I have heard (but not seen) that the situation elsewhere is more to the 9mm's favor.

What the 9mm will not do is make "major" in US competition. The rules generally are set up with the 9mm defined as "not major". That gives the 45 guy another point (or what ever) for every hit he gets.

If you shoot 9mm in a "service pistol" match you will be running an M9 or an M11 against a 1911. Pity the poor guy with the M9, the M11 still will only score runner up.

In Bullseye shooting it's the highest value ring you touch that counts. A bullet 0.45x diameter gives you another tenth of an inch over one that is 0.35x diameter. In area (which is what really counts) the 45 has almost a 2:1 advantage over the 9mm.

It's not that the 9mm is a bad round accuracy wise, it's just that the competition is rigged in the 45's favor. Rightly so in my opinion, since the 45 is a lot more effective round.

The 1911 is accurate because we have learned how to make it accurate. It's a nice simple (elegant) design and that's helped the learning process a lot. People have played with the design for a lot of years. There is an enormous mass of people out there making good parts for the 1911.

There are also some basic features (single action trigger, solid barrel to slide lockup) that help a lot. Minor issues like - "hey it hits where I point it" count a lot with me, but may only be true because I've shot many thousands of rounds through one.

Don't sell either the 9mm or the 45 short. They both are very fine rounds. Both have their place, and both can be very accurate.

Bob

tightgroups

9th October 2007, 18:58

Bob,

Could you explain to me why what I said about cartridges that is/was wrong? This isn't a "challenge" or anything, I just want to learn a bit more about ballistics and how it is related to cartridge length/width/height/overall shape, etc. I've heard that the way JMB designed the 45ACP cartridge did actually have an effect on accuracy though I can't honestly tell you if that is really true, just something I've heard. Things like sectional density and other hard to relate to terms. A bigger bullet will give you better odds at hitting the rings, no doubt about it but that isn't the prime advantage as to why the .45 is more accurate.

I understand that complex mathematics can be used to explain ballistics and in theory predict how a specific round may preform in the physical world, further complicating the learning curve for people on a similar level as I am ( I never really applied myself in math so I don't know what my true potential for understanding complex equations would be) The actual math may not really be too intricate to begin with but I'm still limited by my present ignorance, so please, explain it without the math.

Overall I think you're probably right...that cartridge has little overall effect on accuracy and that the actual design of the pistol is the most important factor, followed by the skill of the shooter. At least this is my opinion at this time. Though I still feel that the way the cartridge is put together has a serious effect on accuracy. Meaning powder choice, crimp, bullet weight, shape, lube, etc. If any of these parameters is done without the proper care you'll most likely end up with a round that will preform badly, regardless of how well the pistol was designed. This is a fact and easily proven to be true to anyone willing to put it to the test.

I think accuracy is possible in any caliber if the time and effort are applied by someone willing to go the distance. I think you're correct on many different levels I just want get a better understanding of why these things are true, and without the mathematical explanations.

thanks.

pa_guns

9th October 2007, 20:46

Hi

The 45 acp was designed at a point where they were not quite sure if they would have to go back to black powder. The 9mm was designed by people who had had no intention of going back. A reasonable load of powder in a 45 leaves the case mostly empty. Reasonable loads in a 9 fill the case up full.

That's about all there is to designing a chunk of brass to put behind an auto-pistol bullet. Either it's got a lot of extra room or it doesn't. Things like rim's are not needed on an auto. Taper will help ejection a little, but it's rarely an issue with pistol bullets.

A cartridge is simply the combination of a case, powder, and a bullet. There is nothing in the mix that makes a .45 "more accurate" than a 9mm. I have seen no evidence that there is any significant accuracy difference between the two. That assumes you are comparing good stuff to good stuff.

All forms of pistol competition are dominated by pistols designed to take maximum advantage of the rules. Pretty much when ever you see "everybody" using one pistol/round at the XYZ match that means the rules are weighted in favor of that pistol/round. It does not mean that pistol is more accurate in terms of group size.

If you want to go crazy - get a Tompson single shot and a bunch of scoped barrels.....

Bob

tightgroups

9th October 2007, 21:13

Very Interesting post, especially about the doubt of nitro based powders in the beginning. The only question that seems to me to be left unanswered is whether the difference in space vs. no space in a case does or doesn't make any difference. In other words are there knowledgeable commercial loaders or ballisticians (made that one up!) who would argue that the design of a case has important effects on accuracy. The only reason I keep harping on this single issue is because I'm sure I've read somewhere that it does play an important part but I'm having trouble remembering the source.

It's not about trusting your opinion or knowledge, just that we as human beings tend to be limited in information on any given subject, i.e., new data is almost always coming to light and changing the way we understand and look at things. I'll do my best to find out if there is some importance to case design that would increase accuracy. Shouldn't be too hard to find out since I know a guy from a Bullseye list who is a considered an expert on ballistics and loading ammunition. Maybe he can shed some light on my question that you couldn't, or at the least prove you to be absolutely correct that case design has no effect on accuracy.

All things being equal in competition, there should be a scientific way to prove that one firearm is more accurate then another. Different target bulls for different sized bullets...things like that. Could be that I'm thinking way too much on the subject also!

Thanks for the help Bob, I'll talk to the other guy and post his opinions and list any real factual information on the subject if at all possible. Have a good evening.

pa_guns

9th October 2007, 21:23

Hi

If you look only at case capacity, the case that is "more full" will be more accurate. In that respect the 9mm is by design a significantly more efficient / accurate round than the 45.

Can you *measure* that difference on a straight walled pistol cartridge? Good luck ... :D

Bob

toolman

10th October 2007, 15:28

It seems to me the people to talk to about case design vs. accuracy would be the long range benchrest rifle shooters. Are there any of those out there that could fill us in on this even though we M1911 types would never be able to notice the difference?

watchin

10th October 2007, 17:52

With regard to case design, I am not sure if the 9 is more or less accurate than the 45 but the fuller the case is the more consistant the burn time of the powder will be. With a half empty case vs. a full case you could be burning the powder completely before the bullet exits the barrel. With a compressed powder charge you might not completely burn all the powder until the bullet is already downrange. Powder burn rates also have an effect on the overall efficiancy of a round. There are so many factors that it is unreasonable to say that caliber x is more accurate than caliber y. I am a believer that more people have been working longer to get more accuracy out of the .45ACP but I have always thought it was because the 1911 was not designed for inherent accuracy. There are historical records of the 1911 in .45ACP being field tested against the Luger P.08 in 9mm which were done in 1909-1910 that found the Luger to be more accurate but the 1911 to be more reliable. Again, we are not comparing cartridges as much as pistol design since the acceptance of the 1911 only used accuracy as one factor. The Luger test trials would have been a better data point if the 1911 had been chambered for 9mm. The Luger design has a fixed barrel making it easier to understand the inherent accuracy in the design.
-watchin-

tightgroups

10th October 2007, 18:41

Pretty interesting views...keep them coming! I'm still on hold until I speak with the guy I talked about in my previous post. I still don't agree that the 9mm is more accurate then the 1911. In fact, I think the 1911 is more accurate then the 9mm. Bob Marvel however, makes a 9mm gun that groups at .750" which is better then any 1911 I've heard of, so either of these arguments do have merit and real world testing on their side. Weighing the facts and opinions so far I think both designs can be as accurate as the other, depending on specific parameters.

pa_guns

10th October 2007, 21:57

Hi

It's the bench rest guys who study this stuff enough to draw the conclusions. The "95% full" design parameter is straight from the bench rest community. It's one of the basic things they worry about when they design things like the 6PPC.

... and yes there are a few of us who shoot more than just 1911 :D

The problem is that the cartridge has a lot less bearing on how a pistol does than a single shot rifle. Take a look at a couple of rounds after your 1911 has chambered them (but not fired them). You will see all kinds of nicks and dents that would immediately put them in the "reject" pile for bench rest ...

Bob

tightgroups

11th October 2007, 02:37

That's a very good point that can't be denied, and here is the response from the commercial loader I spoke of...seems he made some of the same points as you did Bob:

It is not the case. It is the barrel, and load combination. The 9mm is more accurate than the 45, in terms of best possible groups, from selected components.

Try to avoid sweeping generalities. Most people have no clue as to what we are doing, nor do the have any concept of what the ballistical characteristics of a cartridge are at the distances, 50 yards, we are testing. A lemon and a cherry, although both are fruits, are not anything alike.

A 6" group, is a 6" group, regardless of the caliber. The 45, however, does make a much bigger hole. In theory, a 9 mm, by virtue of its size (diameter), will always make a smaller group (hole) than a 45. All things being equal.

Regards,
Neil
NSK Co
410-833-2100 | Fax: 410-833-2101

A response from another guy on my email list said:

I would say, in a word, "yes". But the basis for my answer comes from rifles, not pistols. The 6mmPPC was the original wildcat cartridge that spawned today's popular trend of "short" magnums. Browning's .30-'06 and his geometrically congruent .50BMG represent the traditional long skinny cartridges. My old school high power is a .270Win which shares the case with the .30-'06 and improves upon the ballistics. But it is still old school. The short cartridges today do tend to deliver better accuracy. As I understand it, the key is the timing of the flame propagation during combustion, yielding .

Now, it's easy to contrast short and fat versus tall and skinny. Given any straight wall cases, I would treat them all as constant. But, hey, what do I know!

Looks like they said the same things as you Bob!

Well, there you have it, or rather, there I have it! :D

I'd still like to provide the information I'm sure I read, whether it be from a reloading manual or what the source, which made the claim that the .45ACP case design had an effect on accuracy. It may have been a Lyman reloading manual but I'm not sure. Guess I'll take a look to make sure.

Thanks for the replies Bob.

TG.

pa_guns

11th October 2007, 20:07

Hi

Just about any US reloading manual is going to say nice things about the 30-06 and the 45acp. It's kind of obligatory in order to keep the audience happy ....

The only other comment I can remember is one that compares rimmed to rimless cartridges. That doesn't have much relevance on 9mm vs 45 though.

Bob

tightgroups

11th October 2007, 20:45

Hey Bob,

I did get some other responses that made some good points but it's all up in the air since there is no real standard to measure between. Some of the other guys felt the 9mm was more accurate then the .45 and others had the reversed opinion. the key word is opinion I think. And what does it really matter as long as a person is happy with the accuracy and performance of their own pistol and load combos? It's all relative anyway, we couldn't claim that we as individuals had anything to do with the design of the pistols. That honor is left to the designer of said weapon. I guess I learned to leave it alone, after all these different points of view; it doesn't really matter in the grand design of life! Thanks for the help.

pa_guns

11th October 2007, 20:54

; it doesn't really matter in the grand design of life! Thanks for the help.

Hi

Pistols are not as "sensitive" as rifles. I can easily demonstrate group changes on a rifle with minor load changes. Do the same thing with a pistol and the groups don't change much, if at all.

On top of that, pretty much nobody can shoot close to as good as a well set up pistol when holding it in a normal way.

Bob

Canuck-IL

11th October 2007, 21:53

And what does it really matter as long as a person is happy with the accuracy and performance of their own pistol and load combos?
It mostly matters because there are so many experts who assert, at any opportunity, that the 9mm is an "inherently inaccurate cartridge." God knows from whence it arose but it's a common refrain, often encountered on forum threads begun with "What should I buy for my first pistol?"

It's also frequently heard from gun shop kibitzers who chime in unsolicited. Perhaps (pure speculation), it's an "us vs them" thing with 70 plus years of American preferences leaning to the 38 and 45 while Europeans, I believe, went 380 and 9mm...?
/Bryan