Do all semi's beat up the bullet during chambering?

M

Mike_Fontenot

New member
I've gotten the impression that the chambering process for all 1911's is very chaotic, with frequent bullet-push-back, and "whops" to the bullet (and also the case). I've seen that on my 10mm Kimber Eclipse, and I've also seen some copper deposits on the small FRAME feed-ramp that is immediately underneath the barrel-mounted feed-ramp ... that's a LONG way below where I'd like the bullet to be during feeding. I also occasionally see some tiny copper fragments left on the feed-ramp, and once even in the upper lug area. Since my gunsmith throated my chamber (several hundred fired rounds ago), I haven't had any more failures to feed or eject, but I still don't like that chaotic feeding precess. In contrast, when I chamber the first round by SLOWLY moving the slide forward (with only a single round in the mag), the feeding is like melted butter ... absolutely smooth and controlled. But when live-firing, or when slingshotting the first round, it's clearly not smooth, even though it doesn't ever seem to jam now.

Do other semi-auto's have chaotic feeding, with bullet-push-back, etc?
 
I don't know of any personally. I will say that my built 1911 is very tight and is unkind to bullets, however, my production guns which are looser are much less of a problem. I have to chamber hollow points from an open slide and slingshot. They cannot be rechambered again.
 
Cartridge overall length and extent of crimping almost have to be variables in this equation. I have a Springfield Armoury NM in .45 ACP, and it chambers EVERYTHING, with little or no ill effect to the projectile. I probably taper-crimp my rounds heavier than factory rounds, but I don't think it's excessive by any means.
 
I have to chamber hollow points from an open slide and slingshot. They cannot be rechambered again.
Click to expand...

I have to wonder, why???

But when live-firing, or when slingshotting the first round, it's clearly not smooth, even though it doesn't ever seem to jam now.

Do other semi-auto's have chaotic feeding, with bullet-push-back, etc?
Click to expand...

If it feeds and doesn't jam, then by definition, it's smooth enough. Scrapes and flecks of copper or brass happen. The gun is sliding them against steel at speed.

Other designs, and other individual guns of the same design will feed with varying degrees of "smoothness". Bullet setback is, in my opinion, the result of improperly crafted ammunition. Period.

And I don't care if it IS a factory round. Made RIGHT, it does NOT happen.

The reason you see it happening (with factory ammo) today, I suspect is because factories no longer make the "best" ammo they can, they make ammo that is "good enough".
 
Wot's bullet-push-back?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I used the correct term, but I'm talking about the situation where the bullet hits something during the feeding that pushes it farther back into the case than it started out. You can tell that it has happened just from seeing less bullet sticking out in front of the case. Supposedly, that can cause higher than intended pressures when firing that round.
 
The bullet being damaged by feeding in an auto pistol was the reason for development of the FMJ bullet for auto pistols iin the first place. Whether a pistol does more or less damage to a soft bullet depends on the design, but very few pistols will chamber a round with a soft lead or hollow point bullte without some damage to the bullet.

FWIW, S&W once developed a bullet that it hoped would have the best of both worlds - it was soft so the sides filled the grooves and did not wear the barrel as a FMJ would do, yet it had a cupro-nickel "cap" covering the nose to let it feed better. It may have been a good idea but it was used only in ammunition for the .35 S&W, not one of the world's most successful pistols, so it never caught on.

Bullet setback from feeding has been much exaggerated both as to the frequency of occurrence with factory ammo and the supposed disastrous effect of even the tiniest setback. It is not easy to setback factory bullets even by repeated feedings, and it takes a lot of setback to cause any significant pressure spike.

Jim
 
1911s do seem to have a rougher feed cycle than a Glock/Sig/HK. The feed ramp on my 1911 .38 Super was nearly straight up and down and you really had to have good tension on the bullets, otherwise you were guaranteed some set back.
Never had set back problems or bullet damage with Glock/Sig/HK.

I don't think bullet damage is much of an issue. They still shoot straight unless you're missing a big chunk, and dents do no harm.
 
I've gotten the impression that the chambering process for all 1911's is very chaotic, with frequent bullet-push-back, and "whops" to the bullet (and also the case).
Click to expand...
You seem to have gotten the wrong impression,M1911's feed and chamber processes are controlled by design and are certainly not chaotic,modified versions like the one you mention may have different geometry to make them
functional.And just out of curiosity do you frequently check cartridge OAL and
then load and unload and check it again? Reloads or factory ammo?
And what do you do if you find setback pull the bullets?
 
Thanks Mike, I kinda thought that was what you were talking about. In 1970 I bought a 1911 parts gun that would only chamber FMJs or cast round nose and since then maybe 7 other 1911s and currently own 3. I have never experienced bullet push back, and have shot 1000s and 1000s of rounds thru them and have never had a bullet push back. This can't be a common problem.
 
Any 'bullet-push-back' indicates insufficient taper crimping. Sometimes the angle a cartridge comes out of the mag isn't right either. That's fixed by tweaking the mag lips open a wee, tiny, bit with needle nosed pliers.
Your smithy polish the feed ramp as well or just chamfer the back of the chamber?
1911's tend to dislike chambering the first round by SLOWLY moving the slide forward.
"...development of the FMJ bullet for auto pistols..." The Hague Convention for the Rules of Land Warfare mandated FMJ bullets.
 
James_K said:
It is not easy to setback factory bullets even by repeated feedings, and it takes a lot of setback to cause any significant pressure spike.
Click to expand...

I've definitely seen it often with my gun, with my carry rounds: DoubleTap Nosler JHP's (three different weights: 150, 180, and 200 grains). I think I've also seen it with Underwood's Gold Dots (various weights). Usually takes several chamberings of the same round, and probably most often when stripped off a fully loaded mag (8 round (older-style, round follower) Kimber 10mm mag (made by Metalform, I think)). I've also seen it with 9-round Checkmate 10mm mags, but I only load them to 8 rounds. I think I've also seen setback of a round stripped out of a mag with only the single round loaded. I've seen setback of probably at least 1/8". And given that, I'm sure that I've had similar setback when actually firing (but of course, you don't get to see it then). If it DOES cause a pressure increase, it's never been apparent.
 
T_O'Heir said:
Your smithy polish the feed ramp as well or just chamfer the back of the chamber?
1911's tend to dislike chambering the first round by SLOWLY moving the slide forward.
Click to expand...

He didn't polish the feedramp. His work on the throating and on the extractor stopped the jamming, but I still didn't like it that I couldn't get a smooth feed when I manually moved the slide forward very slowly ... being able to do that is very important to me when I'm loading up the gun at home after cleaning or dry-firing. So I went through several iterations of smoothing the feedramp with #600-grit emery paper, until the cartridge would slide in perfectly. Trouble is, that's not at all what the chambering is like when actually firing a 1911 ... I certainly wish it WERE.
 
A properly made 1911 uses controlled feed. Meaning the bullet is always retained and under some kind of tension that makes the round captive by the system the entire feeding cycle.

If you removed the recoil spring, and assembled the gun, then held it upside down as you very slowly push the slide forward, with a loaded mag.

You would find that the bullet at no point will fall loose from the gun.

Many new designs will allow the round to fall free when fed that slowly... Not that such a thing is practical, just a demonstration of the concept.


1911s were designed to feed FMJ (the classic round nose type) and the original GI mags were optimized to feed that round as well.

Once the 1911 started gaining popularity in competitive shooting, problems with feeding semi wad cutter bullets lead to the design of a new magazine. The feed lips were altered to improve feeding, but it compromised the controlled feed design a bit.

With the advent of hollow point ammo, feeding issues once again flared up, even with the wad cutter mags.

Tweaks to the feed geometry helped. Careful design of the hollow point round geometry helped as well. (some ammo makers were conscious of ensuring a design would feed well in 1911 platforms)

Some companies released new mag designs that completely negate the controlled feed of the 1911 design by holding the rounds higher and having them feed straighter.


Take a true mil spec 1911, proper GI mags, and some FMJ ammo, and the feeding cycle is very smooth.
 
A 1911 mag should probably be tuned for a particular bullet. I have a 9MM that will feed RN bullets with my 2 Wilson mags and 3 Metalform mags. The Metalform mags feed SWCs without a hitch, the Wilsons don't, the nose of the bullet hits the ramp hard enough to deform them and hang up. I'm told that just recently Wilson has redesigned their mags but I haven't seen one. I'm stuck with the bad ones. At least they work with RN bullets.
Some of the 1911 manuals deal with tuning mags for earlier or later release. I haven't had any problems with .45 ACP guns.
 
Two things worth commenting on,

Thing 1: mike fontenot thinks an entire 8th of an inch of setback is insignificant. I can't speak to all calibers but if I had a 9mm back up that far I would not fire the round. I'm scared of a milimeter of setback, about as much as my eye can detect. If one round is shorter than another from the same lot I don't fire the shorter round. KBs are real and I don't think bullet setback should be considered insignificant.

Thing 2: 1911 mags ought to be tuned to a specific load, really? You mean I need 230gr mags and 185gr mags? I don't think so. My 1911 I only put maybe 100rds through but I never would have bought different mags for different loads. Is that really true?

My automatics all beat up the bullets, FYI. Scoring marks on the FMJ nose jacket and a deformed cone on JHP. I no longer make a habit of chambering the same round twice and if I rack out a live one I cycle it to bottom of magazine and if I ever got to the bottom I'd toss it before I chambered it twice.
 
Last edited:
Modern hollow points from respectable companies should handle more than a couple chamberings.


Most new 1911s come with a hybrid style mag, that is designed to feed everything reasonably well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top