How low can I go?

A

Aguila Blanca

Staff
I recently encountered someone who wants to learn to shoot, is recoil sensitive, and who doesn't want to learn on a .22 because it's "not enough for self defense."

I have a couple of pocket 380s, but even I recognize that they can be a bit "snappy," and the triggers aren't great. Being a 1911 guy, I have long dreamed of building a 1911 chambered in .380 ACP just for situations like this, but I haven't found anyone who can/will build me a .380 barrel for a 1911.

So the easy way out would be to download a batch of 9mm and use my 9mm Commander for instructing this person. I have Winchester 231 for powder. For projectiles, I have 9mm projectiles in 115 gr, 124 gr, and 147 gr. I also have some 95 gr bullets for reloading .380 (which I have only done once).

What's the better way to get a reduced recoil 9mm load: use the 95 gr projectiles, or use the 115 gr? If I want to replicate the ballistics (recoil) of a light .380, how can I determine what to use as a powder charge?
 
Lyman is the only source I know for tested loads less than the conventional -10% starting load.
They show a 95 gr JHP + 3.7 gr W231 = 1068 fps f 101

I think that will take a substantially reduced recoil spring, maybe a reduced mainspring and long radius firing pin stop.

You could also try for a 147 at 750 fps allee samee .38 wadcutter. We know that works, going back to Clark .38 WC conversions for NRA Centerfire.

Once upon a time when Iron Curtain surplus was common and cheap, there was some heavy bullet 9mm Makarov, I think about 109 grains. I loaded some 9mm p down to see if it would be feasible to make a Makarov barrel for a 1911 and concluded it would work. But the supply of heavy ball ammo dried up and I did not pursue it down to the usual 95 grains.
 
My Thanks to Jim Watson for answering the question. I have the current Lyman's reloading manual, but I've gotten lazy and I tend to just look at Hodgdon's on-line loading data. I'll dredge up the Lyman's manual and see where we go from there.
 
I am curious about the motivation of the person who claims to want to learn to shoot. If he is simply wanting to avoid investing in both a 22 and a gun in the defensive chambering of his choice, I can understand that. But if he is telling the teacher how to teach him something he doesn't know about, he's getting the cart before the horse by putting constraints on the teaching method. Given the greater cost of larger caliber ammunition and that it tends to produce bad habits in the tyro that take an inordinate amount of practice to break, he might be being penny-wise and pound-foolish but not be aware of that possibility.

If he is satisfied with the idea of owning a 38 Special or a 357 Magnum revolver, I think the solution is to drill out a few case flash holes to 1/8" and have him start with primer-fired wax bullets. Wax bullets can be fed into a self-loader one at a time, as well. I once helped a deputy sheriff who had a terrible flinch, to pass his firearm qualification by letting him practice with an air pistol of mine quite a bit. It didn't produce what his startle response was anticipating, and, for combat accuracy purposes, some pretty inexpensive Daisy and airsoft products are out there.
 
"He" is a succession of recoil-sensitive women who don't want to deal with revolvers and who are afraid that the recoil of a standard-power 9mm or .45 ACP will be more than they can be comfortable with.

Not for nothing -- I understand that everyone who has chosen to provide advice other than what was asked for thinks they are being helpful. YOU'RE NOT BEING HELPFUL. I spelled out the criteria. I have my reasons. I've been an NRA instructor for twenty-something years. If I have come to the conclusion that a low-powered semi-auto would be a beneficial teaching tool, that's up to me. FWIW, Bill Laughridge of Cylinder & Slide agrees with me. He was starting to develop a .380 Commander-size 1911 for me, but health issues and other work side-lined the project. So I'm not the only person who sees potential value in such a platform.

If I can't obtain a 1911 in .380 ACP, thern my other option is to create .380-power 9mm ammo. ALL I'm asking is what's the best approach to doing that.
 
Aquila, I hear your frustration, but...

You're a 1911 guy by admission.
Is there some reason you don't just download that [gov't] platform with a powderpuff 185/Bullseye load?
1911-185-BE-3-6.jpg


With that platform's weight, it barely feels like a 38 wadcutter.


-- OR --

with the 9mm:
95gr Gold Dot/3.0gr Bullseye: -- 775fps -- not much more than 1/4 the recoil of a std 115gr commercial high-speed load.
(QL recoil calculation)

.
 
Last edited:
95gr Gold Dot/3.0gr W231: -- 850fps
(Approx: 1.005" OAL/4" barrel)
I'd probably try 2.8gr/800fps (and take a chrono/range rod for 1st shot)

YMMV, but you get the idea.


(I'd try it myself in an M17 tomorrow, but I only have 115/124 and 147gr bullets)
 
Last edited:
One thing I’ve learned in loading 9mm is using a moderate load of Clays. The recoil is noticeably softer than most other powders. It’s more of a push, not as snappy. Add to this using a full size steel pistol such as a Beretta or CZ and its very pleasant and very accurate. My two main powders for casual shooting in 9mm are Clays and 700X, and even though these powders are close in burn rates and I load them close in level the Clays is still noticeably softer shooting. Possibly coupled with a Berreta PX4 full sized pistol with their rotating barrel design could be the ticket.
 
Without getting into different guns, different calibers, different powder, etc - although it is fun to help somebody else spend his money - I would:

Get a couple of the lightest Commander recoil springs or maybe the Wolff "reduced power calibration pack" and select the lightest one that will strip a round out of the magazine to the chamber in THAT gun. Hand cycling with dummies ought to work, magazine loaded however full you will give a student, maybe not a full clip so as to reduce feeding drag.

Work reloads DOWN until you find the lightest one that will function with that light spring.
A 95 gr bullet might come out around .380 equivalent or maybe have to stop at 9mm Ultra or 9mm Police.
Or use whatever you have plenty of, I have loaded .380 with 115 gr. bullets and as I said, a slow 147 is equivalent to a .38 Special automatic.
 
Loading a 9mm down to medium 380 power levels (85 to 95 gr bullet at 800 to 900 fps) will result in a much nicer experience for starting out. I have done this once with a relative. Note that I had tried to load down 9mm for the relative's gun, but the lightest load that would cycle in that gun was still too much.

Although I managed to make low power 9mm work with one of my guns, the gun was no longer suitable for full power 9mm. That gun eventually failed when I ran some full power stuff through it.

Starting with a medium to larger 380 allows reaching a more reasonable performance level without compromising the guns ability to shoot factory ammo.
 
zukiphile said:
I note this only because I didn't see it above.

Browning makes a 380ACP in the 1911 pattern, but it's scaled down to 85% at 100% the price.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the suggestion. In fact, I have a Browning 1911-380, as well as a Browning 1911-22. The 1911-380, aside from being scaled down, has a polymer frame, so standard-power .380 ACP is slightly snappy. Not a problem for shooters, but not great for recoil-averse newbies. My hope is to come up with a load that feels like .22LR from a full-size pistol.
 
hope is to come up with a load that feels like .22LR from a full-size pistol.
Click to expand...
I think we can pretty much guarantee that load -- while approachable -- will not function most any slide.
:o
 
Well -- yes, and no.

Basically, .22LR even with a Ciener (aluminum slide) conversion on a 1911 steel frame generates virtually zero felt recoil. It's about like shooting an airsoft.

A good number of years ago, when I first got the idea of creating a 1911 in .380 ACP, one of my first questions was whether .380 ACP had enough oomph to cycle the slide. Obviously, I didn't have a .380 barrel, but I know you can (but shouldn't) fire a 1911 using rounds that headspace on the extractor. I was willing to try that for a few rounds.

First try was a 9mm barrel. That was a total failure. The first round fired, but because of the tapered case and chamber, the blow-by was extreme and all the pressure needed to cycle the slide went elsewhere.

So I moved on to a .38 Super barrel. That was better. I found that a very light recoil spring (IIRC 12-pound or 10-pound) allowed the slide to cycle, even though there was still some blow-by (since the .38 Super case and chamber are still a couple of thousandths larger than .380 ACP).
 
Berry's 115 RN/OAL: 1.13"
W231/2.8gr
SIG M17/4.25" barrel

QL says 10.5ksi/773fps

Three rounds
All exited barrel/knocked down (baaaarley) 6" plate @ 25 yards
Very soft
Did NOT cycle slide.
.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
A good number of years ago, when I first got the idea of creating a 1911 in .380 ACP, one of my first questions was whether .380 ACP had enough oomph to cycle the slide. Obviously, I didn't have a .380 barrel, but I know you can (but shouldn't) fire a 1911 using rounds that headspace on the extractor. I was willing to try that for a few rounds.
Click to expand...

Just a tangent on a thought that shook loose: maybe the weight of the slide will not permit sufficient slide velocity and taking weight out of the slide would permit a slightly heavier spring.

I briefly possessed a Walther PK380, a S&W design I believe, for a small woman to carry. Usually "recoils like a 22lr" is an exaggeration, and my slight experience with the PPKS and its fixed barrel had me expecting something terribly punishing. This polymer PK380 with a very light slide recoiled like the 22lr versions of the PPKS. Unfortunately, the slide mounted safety sometimes engaged under recoil and the accuracy was poor. I don't recommend it based on that one example.

However if a polymer lower and toy like slide can be that gentle, a steel framed 1911 built on one of those slides with a light of metal drilled out should be ridiculous.

I don't know whether the link below is useful.

https://fusionfirearms.com/1911-government-barrel-selector-ultra-match-grade
 
Guys, we're making this harder than it has to be.

Aquila... are you really committed to 9mm of some kind,
or can you entertain a standard 1911 with light loads/light springs?
 
mehavey said:
Aquila... are you really committed to 9mm of some kind,
or can you entertain a standard 1911 with light loads/light springs?
Click to expand...

I don't dismiss how gently a pistol like that can recoil, but recoil may not be the only special consideration.

Women typically don't only have smaller hands, but often don't have anything like the grip strength of an average man. There's a market for S&W EZ pistols in part because a recoil spring you may think is very easy, so easy you think it is due for a new spring, is a challenge for some.

A pistol with a grip that is a little too big and on which it is difficult to work the slide is going to make an unpleasant learning experience. I've had women decline use of a Ruger MKII 22lr because they can't operate the bolt, but who were pleased to use a Bersa Thunder 22.

I read a thread earlier this morning by a fellow who had put together a 1911 in 380acp and gotten down to a 7 pound recoil spring.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top