.45 ACP 200gr LSWC

[69daytona]

I have been casting and loading the H&G 68 for years loaded at 1.245 with a taper crimp and have never had one failure to feed and I have ran it through my 7 different 1911s, the dan Wesson's love them but need to keep velocities up around 850-900 or I have problems because they are so tight, still not broke in. Beside even at that velocity they shoot great with No leading.

[youngmman]

I have the book too and it says the extractor spring tension should be between 3.5 -4.5 lbs. I bought one of the tensioning tools from Brownell's and found the factory original (Loaded Springfield Armory, 1911) was less than half the tension but all the angles were fine. The extractor was not holding the case so the ejector could kick it out.

[Boogieman]

I bought a Ruger Commander 1911 pistol and really like it even though it is not perfect. The front sight broke after the first 50 rounds so I replaced it, no biggie. The darn thing likes to eject cartridge cases straight back over the top of the pistol and into my face, I still have to figure out how to fix that...

Anyway, I have been working on loading the Lee 452-200 200gr LSWC boolits and have been having difficulties trying to get them to feed. They seem to occasionally get caught up trying to transition from feed-ramp into barrel. My theory is it is an OAL problem. Currently I am loading to 1.245 and I see some load manuals call out for 1.170 minimum.

I always thought that longer lengths were the cure for the type of feed issues I seem to have, but perhaps I should go shorter. I want to say that I thought I have read that people load the SWC flush to the case where my rounds have the front driving band about .050-.060 out of the case. Anyone have words of wisdom for me?

My current load is 4.5 grains of Promo in mixed brass with the Lee boolit sized at .4525 (+).

Which Lee swc are you using? The H&G #68 clone should work loaded to1.240- 1.260" while the 200gr. TL needs to be 1.170-1.205". The shorter ones can be hard to get to feed, recoil causes them to move forward in the mag.& get ahead of the extractor as the slide comes forward . You get the dreaded 3 point jam. extra power mag. springs & mags. that release later can help this. Too light a recoil spring or loose grip can add to this problem. Wilson Combat's website has some good info. on making a 1911 feed.

[ultramag]

Boy this one sure got derailed....

OP, have you got your SR1911 running good with the Lee H&G 68 copy yet? If not, I don't see how anyone gets this bullet to work at the longer lengths some have posted. I load this bullet and have a SR1911 and a SR1911CMD. I load it at 1.200" and it works in both with stock magazines and any other mag I stick in them....Baer, Wilson, Kimber, McCormick etc.... It wouldn't even chamber in most, if not all, of my .45's at anywhere near 1.240"+. I loaded it at 1. 215" for a while but when I got my second Les Baer every great once in a while I'd have one FTRB. This was caused in part by a little lip that was being rolled up at the front driving band during sizing sometimes, so I just dropped it down to the 1.200" OAL and have had no issues since. I use the same load in 7 or 8 different 1911's and a couple polymer guns as well. Hope this helps if you haven't sorted it out already.

[35remington]

Ultramag, being a HG 68 copy (a bit imperfect) there is no way a 1.200" seating depth would work. The front band would be well below the case mouth. Whatever you are thinking of, it ain't this bullet.

The reason it works at the longer lengths posted here is that they are loading it correctly. You're thinking of another bullet. 1.240 to 1.250" is correct, and 1.200" is not. The other reason they're using it at that length is it chambers correctly at said length.

If you don't understand, I may have to post a picture.

[ultramag]

I bought a Ruger Commander 1911 pistol and really like it even though it is not perfect. The front sight broke after the first 50 rounds so I replaced it, no biggie. The darn thing likes to eject cartridge cases straight back over the top of the pistol and into my face, I still have to figure out how to fix that...

Anyway, I have been working on loading the Lee 452-200 200gr LSWC boolits and have been having difficulties trying to get them to feed. They seem to occasionally get caught up trying to transition from feed-ramp into barrel. My theory is it is an OAL problem. Currently I am loading to 1.245 and I see some load manuals call out for 1.170 minimum.

I always thought that longer lengths were the cure for the type of feed issues I seem to have, but perhaps I should go shorter. I want to say that I thought I have read that people load the SWC flush to the case where my rounds have the front driving band about .050-.060 out of the case. Anyone have words of wisdom for me?

My current load is 4.5 grains of Promo in mixed brass with the Lee boolit sized at .4525 (+).

Ultramag, being a HG 68 copy (a bit imperfect) there is no way a 1.200" seating depth would work. The front band would be well below the case mouth. Whatever you are thinking of, it ain't this bullet.

The reason it works at the longer lengths posted here is that they are loading it correctly. You're thinking of another bullet. 1.240 to 1.250" is correct, and 1.200" is not. The other reason they're using it at that length is it chambers correctly at said length.

If you don't understand, I may have to post a picture.

35remington,

I've quoted the original post and yours. Not to be disrespectful to a senior member, however I think I'm one of the few who do actually understand what has been asked. Between all the discussion of how folks load the original H&G 68, along with JMB and feed lips, it seems to have become lost that the original question was about the Lee H&G 68 "copy", which you are correct is different. The Lee bullet absolutely can be loaded down to 1.200"-1.215" and when done as such it's nose profile will match identically with a factory loaded ball round as in the picture MtGun44 posted on the first page. I have 5,000+ of them I can take a picture of if necessary as well.

[Piedmont]

35remington,

I've quoted the original post and yours. Not to be disrespectful to a senior member, however I think I'm one of the few who do actually understand what has been asked. Between all the discussion of how folks load the original H&G 68, along with JMB and feed lips, it seems to have become lost that the original question was about the Lee H&G 68 "copy", which you are correct is different. The Lee bullet absolutely can be loaded down to 1.200"-1.215" and when done as such it's nose profile will match identically with a factory loaded ball round as in the picture MtGun44 posted on the first page. I have 5,000+ of them I can take a picture of if necessary as well.

I would like it if you posted a picture. That "near 68" as I remember it had a slightly smaller meplat than the 68 and I can't visualize how the shorter seating length would match up with the ball ogive. It seems it would have to be seated longer to do that to catch the ogive further out, but nose length will be a big factor on overall length. Are you sure you aren't thinking of a different Lee SWC with a short nose?

[ultramag]

Sure thing Piedmont....I kind of expected to have to anyway. I'm certain I'm loading the Lee H&G 68 copy, 6 cavity mold#90310. I don't have any loaded rounds at 1.200" here, but do still have my dummy round at that OAL. I also have one from the batch I just loaded in May. These were loaded to 1.220" and the specific one I plucked out of the other 3500 +/- is 1.2185". These were measured with Mitutoyo dial calipers that were issued to me when I worked as a Lead Man in a Tool & Die shop back in the '90s. That should hopefully get the "can I measure OAL" question and "how did I do it" out of the way.

First pic up....dummy round at 1.200" by itself. I mentioned earlier that I had some bullets roll up a bit of a lip at the front drive band during lubesizing. Not sure why that happened, but they shot well so I used them. This picture is taken at a point on the front driving band that didn't have this, but I include the info to explain why it appears there is so much more driving band to the left of center. I also think it is somewhat exaggerated by the photos angle. Anyway, here it is:




Next up is the same 1.200" dummy round in front of a factory 230 gr. ball load. Factory round measures a pretty standard 1.263".



Finally, for good measure here is the 1.2185" round in front of the same factory FMJ. You'll notice, the shorter one actually lines up better with the profile of the ball load than the longer. It should also be noted how much of the front driving band is still exposed. Measuring a challenging spot the best I can (remember, former tool & die shop guy here) there is .035"-.040" of drive band still protruding from the case. A ROCK solid .025", which could get the OAL easily even below the 1.200" in question here.



Now, a couple things here. One, I wasn't intending to challenge anyone really when I commented that I don't see how the Lee H&G 68 wannabe bullet can be loaded out to 1.240"-1.250". I really don't, wish I knew why, but I don't. I just know someone always seems to be struggling with this and I wanted to try and help with what information I had through my own trials. It will come nowhere near chambering in any of the dozen .45's I own at that length. Two, I did some digging and measuring before responding here again and the Lee version H&G 68 is supposed to measure .331" from the front driving band to the nose. Mine does and if you add that .331" to the .890" length of the piece of brass the bullet is seated in in the above picture and you should have a OAL of 1.221" with mouth of the brass seated flush with the front driving band. This would make 35remington's original assertion that what I'm doing here can't be done correct, but yet here you have a 1.200" round and a 1.2185" round with .025" plus of bullet left before you get to the front driving band. Lastly, I just knew how to load the damn thing and make it work so I did. I never got this deep into the measurements and the why's because it didn't seem to matter at the time. They feed, function, go bang, and are accurate so I was happy.

I hope this clears up what I claimed earlier and possibly someone can shed some more light on the issue.

[Piedmont]

Ultramag, That is interesting. Thanks for the pictures. I don't own the Lee mold but do own an H&G 68. I wonder if Lee has offered more than one variation of that mold over the years? If you seated the H&G that short the shoulder would be way back in the case.

[9.3X62AL]

Actually, you would be hard pressed to find better magazines than the tapered lip design JMB. designed for the 1911. All others do not feed the 1911 like it is supposed to be fed.

No aftermarket magazine designer knows the 1911 like JMB did. If a different design was better he would have used it.

35 Remington posted this same information in a much more detailed form about 3 years ago, right about the time I ran down a Colt Series 80 Gold Cup. I followed his advice--got Colt OEM 7-round mags--and have had ZERO issues feeding both the Lee SWC and Lyman #452460. I seat both with about .020" of their front driving bands exposed, and a gentle taper crimp (.469"-.470"). These feed unfailingly in my Gold Cup--in a SIG P-220--and in a Glock 21, which are notorious for not feeding SWC bullets. The Glock gave a mild "ke-chunk" during feeding, but never bobbled.

[Boogieman]

Ultramag, That is interesting. Thanks for the pictures. I don't own the Lee mold but do own an H&G 68. I wonder if Lee has offered more than one variation of that mold over the years? If you seated the H&G that short the shoulder would be way back in the case.

I just checked my Lee 200gr. H&G style mold .It casts a boolit with a .310" noise . Loaded with the shoulder flush with the case mouth the OAL is 1.200". Loaded to 1.250" it will chamber in both my Colts. I think Lees molds have changed over the years.

[35remington]

Ultramag, if your bullet is in fact correctly seated with a little shoulder of the bullet visible at 1.200" then it isn't a HG 68 clone, nor a good copy, because HG68's have always been correct at 1.245-1.250." If your round is a mere 1.200"......it's not a very good HG 68 clone, as it's way too short.

Somehow whatever you've got clearly isn't right. The ball profile match was intended with an OAL of 1.250", not at any shorter length. What you have is nonstandard, which is the reason for your confusion. Most others post that 1.250" or in that vicinity is correct, because it is. If it loads to 1.200" with the correct amount of front band in front of the case mouth, it clearly is a poor HG 68 cone. It isn't worthy of the "clone" designation, because a salient feature of the HG 68 when correctly loaded is the 1.250" overall length.

That should solve the mystery for you. If the OP has a similar mould, it is incorrect as well. Pardon the additional observation, but frame strike cannot be similar to a ball round when it is that much shorter. Correct frame ramp strike is at the 1.250" overall length and when the meplat is in that location, not at a substantially shorter 1.200" OAL. Please see an original or more close copy of the HG 68 to visualize. Your HG 68 clones isn't.

My Lee 200 grain 68 "clone" has a smaller meplat than the original HG 68 and a skinnier nose, as well as a bevel base which means more bullet is in the case. However, it is at 1.245-1.250 when seated so at least the OAL is within hailing distance. Modifying both OAL and meplat will affect frame ramp strike, obviously.

[35remington]

The original poster may or may not have so stated, but Lee also makes a 200 LSWC in tumble lube configuration that more closely resembles the Lyman 452460, which loads to substantially shorter OAL. This may be the mould he actually has. Confusion over 200 LSWC's in 45 ACP is common.

On edit: that would explain his confusion over the manual listings of as short as 1.170" OAL, but he's using the longer Lee 68 "clone." Thus shorter manual OAL's don't apply to this bullet.

[35remington]

Here's a final test:

Load the Hornady 230 FMJ to 1.265", which is the correct overall length to mimic ball OAL. The Hornady is a very good approximation of ball 2 radius profile in an "authentic" bullet shape. Fine to use a roundnose seating stem, and actually preferred for the correct purpose of the test. Now, using your "clone" bullet, and not changing the seating die adjustment, add your "clone" HG 68 and seat it in the unadjusted die. Tell me what the OAL is.

See if the resultant round will chamber. If it will.....now you've duplicated 230 FMJ ball frame strike. If it won't chamber unless you shorten it, you will not.

[35remington]

A final question: Since the original poster is loading to 1.245" and that solves the mystery of what mould he is using (the imperfect Lee HG 68 clone and that rereading of his original post renders my post #53 as meaningless) how come your overall length can be correctly loaded so much shorter than his? Is the mould design changed from his to yours?

If so, the Lee HG 68 clone, already imperfect, just got more imperfect.

[MtGun44]

Seems like even calling this a "clone" is a huge disservice to the discussion. It is not a clone if it is not IDENTICAL, that is
the definition of a clone - it is actually a biological term for organisms with IDENTICAL DNA. A "near copy", or "look-alike", or
"somewhat similar design" would be a whole lot more descriptively accurate - "H&G 68 clone" is not an accurate description
of the Lee molds, to the point of muddying the waters.

MP makes actual clones of H&G 68s, as do a few others, AFAIK Lee does not make any boolit mold design that could
fairly be called a "H&G 68 clone". I think the discussion would be clearer if these were just called "Lee 200 SWC
designs for .45 ACP"

NOTE THAT THE OP DOES NOT USE THE TERM "H&G 68 CLONE". HE CALLS IT " .45 ACP 200 SWC" absolutely accurate
and correct.

H&G 68 clones (all commercial casters have them) will work in virtually all 1911s at 1.250-1.260 in my 250-300,000 rounds
loading experience in this cartridge. Taper crimping to .465 or so also helps reliable feeding. Somehow folks fear the
imaginary boogey man of "over crimping" - which really isn't an issue in this range of dimensions for this cartridge. Under
crimping is an extremely common cause of failures to close. IMO the extra .004 to .005 crimp tightness never hurts
and frequently helps.

When working with a new design of truncated cone or SWC boolit in a semi-auto, the process of matching the
ogive shape of the ball round is a very useful tool.

Bill

[LAH]

I use 1.275"

I went back & checked my notes to find the advice given me by a 1911 shooter from NJ was to use 1.265" though I'm using the longer. As for crimp dimensions given by our friend from KS I will take time to measure some of mine & see how they "measure" up. I simply take the bell out of the case mouth & witness this by running my finger & thumb down the case. Think maybe it's time to man up & at least try to do things correctly.

[35remington]

Yep.......that's the true definition of "clone", which is exact copy. I was using it in the sense that everyone has an IMperfect iteration of the HG 68, and sometimes it's hard to pin down exactly what an original looks like, as the HG 68 itself varied a little.

Given that I've seen "original" HG 68's that had rounded edges to the meplat, and HG 68's with squarer edges, the feature that is uniform for both is the finished overall length. Thus copies and originals could have square(r) edged meplats and rounded edges and both be correct yet would not be clones, but the most important seems to be meplat location and diameter to duplicate frame strike of ball.

Point is, in terms of "cloning" even Hensley and Gibbs did not clone their own design in terms of following exactly true in every detail. Mould maker's cherries varied, and so did the cavities over time.

[SSGOldfart]

I bought a Ruger Commander 1911 pistol and really like it even though it is not perfect. The front sight broke after the first 50 rounds so I replaced it, no biggie. The darn thing likes to eject cartridge cases straight back over the top of the pistol and into my face, I still have to figure out how to fix that...

Anyway, I have been working on loading the Lee 452-200 200gr LSWC boolits and have been having difficulties trying to get them to feed. They seem to occasionally get caught up trying to transition from feed-ramp into barrel. My theory is it is an OAL problem. Currently I am loading to 1.245 and I see some load manuals call out for 1.170 minimum.

I always thought that longer lengths were the cure for the type of feed issues I seem to have, but perhaps I should go shorter. I want to say that I thought I have read that people load the SWC flush to the case where my rounds have the front driving band about .050-.060 out of the case. Anyone have words of wisdom for me?

My current load is 4.5 grains of Promo in mixed brass with the Lee boolit sized at .4525 (+).

check your cramp use a taper crimp and not a roll crimp watch you OAL and look for pressure signs