.45 Win Mag?

Haven't seen these ^^^ in a LONG time--it's amazing how a flood of memories rushed through my brain when I saw that very distinctive trigger guard in your photos (on the 3, 4 and 5). It's just frustrating, a little, that such lovely handguns are now basically collector's pieces.

Your Automag 4 is actually the only 10mm Magnum I've ever heard of--everytime I visit the Starline site I wonder if anything was actually ever chambered in that caliber. Now I know the answer.

I understand Sig just came out with a 10mm offering and Glock just produced it's 3rd 10mm offering--a longlslide no less--so progress is being made. But as much as I absolutely love 10mm and can appreciate the utility and price of a Glock, but those aren't machined mechanical marvels, Automag 4s or anything like them. What a mouth-watering collection.

Enough whining and wonderin' about the ways things might have been--they don't make Deusenbergs anymore either and I guess I'll be okay with that. I expect my Grizzly will last my lifetime (not a tall order really, at this point), and to me it's a piece of history, American innovation and entrepreneurship, and born of a rock-solid concept that appeals to me--that's good enough.
 
Last edited:
My experience with various automag products over the years has not been good.

I fired an AutoMag II (.22 WMRF) that failed to fire about 20% of the time, failed to feed about 50% of the time it did fire, and regularly failed to eject.

The Automag III I shot (.30 Carbine) fired OK when I had my hands on it, but rather quickly cracked the slide in several places for the original owner. He was never able to get any satisfaction from the company, IIRC.

The Automag IV (10mm Mag.) came in to American Rifleman when I was on staff there. About every third shot the baseplate would fly off the magazine and the guts and rounds would go everywhere. It also had a nasty habit of locking open on every shot until the last one.... when it absolutely refused to lock open.

I always called IMI/AMT products the worst most expensive handguns ever made...
 
That is SO funny!! I look down inside my M&P 45c and wonder how such a Fisher-Price collection of coil springs and stampings functions at all--no 'mechanical marvel' there in that sense. That little piece of cheap plastic shoots more accurately and reliably than any gun I own or any I've ever fired, one Ed Brown, one Les Baer and one Sig Elite Stainless included. My absolutely stunning Model 41 that I dreamed most of my life of owning and finally could afford to buy jams at least once per magazine, and it's been 'fixed' by Smith & Wesson. It sure is a beauty though. :)

Sometimes form precedes function, and function just can't catch up.
 
Sometimes form precedes function, and function just can't catch up.
Click to expand...

There you go. Except I would modify that statement to say "function isn't allowed to catch up".

AND, it is a catch-22 type circle.

Most of the magnum auto pistols have failed in the market. Besides all the other factors, function was a big issue. The companies making some of them either couldn't, or didn't do the best job possible in many ways. Radical new designs ALWAYS have bugs, and quirks.

When your total production and sale amounts to a few thousand units, you simply don't have the experience base to get all the bugs out. Without major financial backing, you're in a tough spot. Even the niche market you are aimed at doesn't want your gun if it doesn't work well, so you don't sell many. And if you can't sell enough, you don't stay in business long enough to get the bugs out.

Desert Eagle went for a massively overbuilt (in some ways) design. Mechanically they work pretty well, within their intended range, The majority of the "flaws" in the Desert Eagle design are inaccurate expectations in minds of potential pundits. I, on the other hand am completely accurate and justified when I say they could have done the grip better! :D:rolleyes: (sarcasm, and a joke)

I thought this was because they wanted a single frame design that would also accommodate 50AE--and if that's the case of course it makes sense.
Click to expand...

It would make sense, and I can't speak to what the designers knew or planned, but the .357 Mag came out (retail sale) in about 1984, the .44 Mag some years later, and the .50AE some years after that. Not sure (have to do some research) but I don't think the .50 was even thought of when the first DE's hit the market.
 
At one time, someone was making .45 WinMag conversions of the M1 Carbine. It seemed like a pretty cool piece, though like a lot of "cool pieces" I've seen over the years, I'm not really sure what it's for?
I think the converted 15rd Carbine mags held only six or eight rounds, and that seemed to hurt the concept.
I chrono'd some .45 Super rounds out of a converted, 6" .45 ACP, and you can get a 230gr bullet up to 1200fps without going to a really big gun.
 
Believe it or not, I knew the man that was trying to get that .45 Win Mag/M1 Carbine project off the ground. His name was Tim LeGendre and he was from the area where I grew up and I shot smallbore with his son for a short moment in time back in the late 80's. I really don't know almost anything about how far he got with the project but I do distintively remember that he got at least one (maybe two?) shout-outs from Jeff Cooper in the back page column of Guns & Ammo magazine. For the time... that was almost minor celebrity status.

MWM, always love to hear about your Automags...
But your collection lacks the 9mm Win Mag -- perhaps as rare as the 10mm Magnum.
 
It's a weird thing--sometimes big companies that cover a lot of ground with their products and services can afford to try to pick up niche markets--they have the expertise and access to capital that can allow them to reduce their risk to a minimum and yet tolerate the loss should it happen. Glock might be an example with their 10mm offerings--where they probably sell a relative few. The product itself has virtually no risk at all because it's essentially identical to every other product they make and sell scads of. Other cases are quite surprising to me, though--such as the case when Miller Brewing attempted to peel off a bit of the craft beer market, at a time when craft beer was creeping up to about 1% of the brewed beverage market. They too built a high quality product, but it simply didn't come from a credible source and died a very quick death--possibly for many other reasons.

Well, the 16 lbs of 4227 came today and the press is set up to load some 44. Man was I surprised at how hard it is to jam 22 gr of that stuff into a 44 Mag case! Wow. Looks to me like most published loads that are mid- to max-book are going to be at least a little bit compressed for sure. Oh well, it's what was available and I understand it's good stuff for loading under cast payloads. That's what I got.

THe 45 WM brass will be here Friday and by the time that Grizzly gets to the Club, I should have an adequate stockpile to support a range review of great detail and accuracy. :)
 
Most parts in the grizzly are normal 1911 parts and the ones that are not are not likely to brake
the grizzly is not a1911 cobbled together to fire another round. It was purpose built for the 45wm
460 rowland doesn't come close to 45wm
The grizzly is not THAT huge. 44mag revolver relm, smaller than a desert eagle.
Starline still sells brass for the 45wm and it can be loaded with existing .45 cal bullets. I have some with 300gr jhp and 230gr fmj at 1700fps. New ammo can be had on gunbroker for $.70 a round
As far as recoil yeah its "aggressive" with heavy loads. COGAN can port it to tame the jump for a really reasonable price. I was warned not to use smooth grips with heavy loads and no porting( I have no stippling on the grip front). Yeah thats a suggestion you may want to listen to. I don't have large hands and the gun will climb out of my hand.

Sorry for the sterile post method, was hard for me to remember all the points.
 
I've never used 4227 (no real reason just never got to it).

For .44Mag,.44AMP and .45 Win mag I have used Unique, Blue Dot, AA#9 and WW296.

I should have an adequate stockpile to support a range review
Click to expand...

Am I reading right, that you are going to load the 45WM brass before you get the gun?

Should be ok, but I personally don't load ammo in any quantity without the gun available.

Do you have .45WinMag dies? Everybody makes the point of how the WM can be loaded with ACP dies, and it can. Done it myself a bit. Found out that what works best is a dedicated set of dies. I found a set of WM dies at a show, and snapped them up. The other solution is to get a spare set of acp dies and dedicate them to the WM. You don't have to, but I found it easier for me.

As to smooth grips, checkered grips, and stippling or checkering, etc., I'd just like to point out that the sharp pointy stuff that locks into your hand so you can shoot a 1911 like a machine gun becomes a cheese grater when you get to a certain level of recoil.

Just a thought...
 
Yes, I'd like to show up at the Club with ammo in hand so after doing the transfer I can walk out on the range and start shooting. A little field strip first, of course to check for major missing parts, no slugs stuck in the barrel, etc., and hose everything down with lube. But why would I (you) not load the ammo before having the gun?

I'm most likely not going to have any jacketed bullets by the weekend, other than some 200 gr XTPs, so I'll likely cast up some 230 gr round nose (a mold I also had forgotten about) and just seat to the typical OAL for 230 gr FMJ ball. I can't see blowing those little XTPs downrange in a trial run.

For whatever reason I've got two sets of 45 Auto dies--a Hornady set and a Redding set. I'll definitely set up a set for 45WM and dedicate--undoubtedly I'll choose the set that I actually had working for 45 ACP, but I'm fairly certain I never ended up using the Reddings.

As for grips--well, it'll be just me and the originals that come with the gun. I'll no doubt attempt to make a pair of panels from some very nice linen or canvas micarta I have. I don't think there are many other choices--I assume grips for Govt 1911s won't cover the real estate on the Grizzly. I got a feeling cartilage will be bearing the brunt of the fun with this one.

Is the ambidextrous safety one of the interchangeable parts? The plated safety is going to be tough for me to accept unless there's no alternative.

At this point I consider this thread formally hijacked. Sorry.
 
Last edited:
Bongo, look at texas grips. I bought micarta panels and Henry cut grizzly panels out of them, look great.
 

Attachments

  • 20150201_174632_zpsmsmtvwyk.jpg
    20150201_174632_zpsmsmtvwyk.jpg
    15.6 KB · Views: 39
But why would I (you) not load the ammo before having the gun?
Click to expand...
Well, I would. But, I also had many different loads to see what worked best, and then ended up tweaking that load into several at the next outing, looking for best accuracy. Easier for me, as I wasn't looking for many different loads, like you may be in .45 Win Mag, but only 2 in .45 ACP, and 2 in 10mm.
 
Yes, I'd like to show up at the Club with ammo in hand so after doing the transfer I can walk out on the range and start shooting. A little field strip first, of course to check for major missing parts, no slugs stuck in the barrel, etc., and hose everything down with lube. But why would I (you) not load the ammo before having the gun?
Click to expand...

Ok, yes, I get that. For me, that's what factory ammo is for (if you can get it) a small amount (one mag or cylinder usually does it) testing the "new" gun to ensure it works properly. IF something goes wrong on factory ammo, its a gun problem.

If it goes wrong with my handloads, it MIGHT be a gun problem. There's a difference.

I like having the gun on hand, as I create the loads, to be able to test chamber fit, feeding issues, sizing and crimping adjustments, etc.

I won't load a quantity of an untested load. Every time I've ever done it, it always seems to make more work, fixing what could have been avoided by testing a small batch first.

Real pain in the but to load up, say 300rnds and find out that gee, this gun wants .5gr more of Blasto powder to cycle reliably.
Or that your best bullet needs to be seated a tiny bit longer, or shorter to feed right. Or what looks like the right amount of crimp isn't...Things like that... Case gauges/ calipers, and all the other tools, careful measurement, all that, yes, sure. But to be certain, you need the gun, in hand.

This is, of course, only for new (to you) calibers. Think of it as part of the load development process. Real tough to develop a good load for a gun you don't have. If, on the other hand, its your 3rd .44 mag (for example) you already have developed loads, when the gun gets there, you just see if they need any tweaking to run right in the new beast...;)
 
I think it's a cool cartridge but due to size is rather limiting. Looking at Hodgdon's online data from a 5" barrel, seems to me the 45 Super and 460 Rowland basically are a .45 Win Mag that fits in a normal sized gun.

I've loaded .45 Super from my 5" KKM comped Glock 21 and ran anywhere from a 185gr to 1600 fps to a 255gr hardcast to 1325 fps to a 300gr hardcast over 1150 fps.

The .45 Win Mag has higher capacity so it would be a better candidate for stuff like H110 and the like, but if you want .45 Win Mag performance in a normal sized gun, handload the .45 Super will do it, so will the 460 Rowland.
 
I totally understand your perspective regarding the untested loads. Here's my perspective though: I'm going to put together a load that is published, using a propellant that has pretty big wiggle room, and my main objective is really to get the 'feel' of the gun. I truly expect it to cycle since I'm going mimic the shape of factory Winchester ammo, and I think I know what the factory load was (read it somewhere on the internet--so I'm basically an expert on the matter now). So, barring the edge case where the bullets are tumbling by the time they get to the target, I simply have a bunch of faith in the matter. This is a case where desire, hope and emotion are far stronger than everything I learned in engineering school. That happens a lot--I was just a 'B' student. :)
 
Last edited:
You know how to make good ammo, you are matching the length / profile of the factory round, odds are good it will work ok. Besides I like to check things, I don't recall ever being in a situation where I could make ammo before I got the gun.

I do understand, though.

I think it's a cool cartridge but due to size is rather limiting.
Click to expand...

Is the .45LC rather limited, because of its size? The .45Win Mag is slightly shorter. Case length .45 Colt: 1.285" .45 Win Mag: 1.198"

Granted, the guns are bigger and heavier than less powerful ones, they sort of need to be.

On the other hand, the small light guns have their limitations as well.

Can you easily conceal a Grizzly .45 Win Mag IWB under your Hawaiian shirt? Probably not well if at all.

Can you smack a target with 500ft/lbs of energy at 100 meters with a compact 9mm? Not that I am aware of.

Everything has its limitations.
 
All I can say is this: if I'm confronted by a good number of angry watermelons, I want something that can turn 98% of each one into harmless saturated steam--not bust them into large chunks that are going to hit me in the head.

For that, my friend, you need a heavy hitter. They don't move or maneuver quickly, but they're massive.

Now back to the regular program. So...I learned a lesson--or I will have learned a lesson if I don't do it again. I loaded up 1,000 rds of 10mm with a hollow point cast bullet, with the intent of shooting it all in the Hunter. Went to the range today, and guess what? I can't get more than 3 rds of it in the Tanfo magazines. It's not the COAL that's the problem, it's the combination of OAL and the wide meplat--they get all goofed-up on the front of the magazine and the first one to get snagged by the slide takes a nosedive. So sure, they cycle fine in the G20--but that's not what I wanted to shoot them in. So, again, B student.

So...I may load a few 45 WM before the gun gets here, but if I load more than 50, I think that's not learning one's lesson. I've probably loaded 75,000 rds in the past 6 years--most of it 40SW, 45 Auto and 10mm Auto, and I've never had that happen. I've had ammo that didn't feed well, but I've never loaded 'standard' length ammo that wouldn't load into a magazine. I guess when you have a very wide flat nose, 'standard' length may not be the right length. Sure, seating them another 0.015" deeper solves the problem--but the point you were trying to make is now appreciated a little bit more 44 AMP. :o Coincidence this should happen for the first time just hours before my 45 WM brass gets here? I think not!


The first 45 Win Mag rolls off the line. Thank you sir! May I have another?



I think these 200 gr XTPs might just make the perfect watermelon load. Isn't going to win any contests--just 22 gr of 4227. But, I think that should be enough to cycle the gun and get a feel for it. Not sure how I'm supposed to get any more in the case, actually.

I fired 100 rds of 44 Mag today with the same load, except 240 gr cast slugs instead of XTPs. They were surprisingly comfortable loads--4227 looks to not only be slow, but gentle too. Like I say...it's what's on the shelf that we shoot.

Then, we'll give 'er an acid test with a few of these 205 gr RNFPs babies:

 
Last edited:
Glad you understand my point, Bongo, I was just trying to help.

22.2gr 4227 240gr .44Mag is the starting load listed in the first old Hornady manual I grabbed. They got 1100fps with that load from a 7.5" superBlackhawk. its a mild load. Just for comparison, the same table lists 22.4gr 2400 as max, they got 1350fps (same gun). That's NOT a mild load.

4227 isn't the powder I would choose, but if its what you can get (got) you can run with it.

If I can screw things up for you further, just ask (if I don't notice and butt in on my own! :D) that's why we're here!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top