USGI Service Load for the 1911A1?

[Slamfire]

If you peruse Mr. O'Heir's past posts and my responses to them, you will find he is a frequent poster of authoritatively stated "facts" that aren't so, mixed in with ones that are. I don't think he reads responses to his posts much, as I've directed him to articles disproving some of his erroneous "facts" only to see he repeats them later in other threads.

I am not a trained psychologist , but I have read enough to believe that what you are dealing with is a highly manipulative individual who enjoys, shall we say, kicking over the ant hill to watch the ants scurry. This reinforces his feelings of superiority as he sits back and watches people fall over themselves in refuting his bad information, and if someone actually follows his dangerous advice, and gets hurt, it just proves how superior he is to all the "human ants" on the web.

https://www.sociopathicstyle.com/psychopathic-traits/

Under his other name, Sunray, the good guys at Canadian Gun Nutz recognized him for what he is and have banned him. I think the smart people at the CMP web site have also banned him, for purposely giving out dangerous information.

Some things are not funny, you can have him back

http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/foru...ny-you-can-have-him-back?highlight=sunray+ban

Originally Posted by laker415

He is dedicated at providing terrible advice. I wonder if he thinks he knows it all or is purposely providing poor information. He drops some bad info in a thread and never seems to return to read everyone ripping apart his stupidity.

It's what's known as seagull commenting- flys in, drops a bunch of crap that gets everybody riled up, then flys off to crap on somebody else

If you notice, he gets his post count up with lots of inane posts. He really does not show any expertise in much of anything. But people confuse post count with expertise. When he drops his dangerous advice, new people will look at his post count and assume he is trust worthy. He always errors on the side of bad advice, down to just bad advice. I have seen this particularly with respect to slamfires and the dangers of old gunpowder. Having corrected him many times, only to read the same bad advice later on many websites, it becomes obvious that he is not mistaken, not confused, he knows what he is doing and is doing it deliberately. The guy wants to hurt people, or at least, manipulate them to scurry around picking up the crap he dumps.

 

[44 AMP]

Care to add some qualifying specifics?

Thank you Unclenick and Slamfire for the "qualifying specifics" about Mr O'Heir, and his information.

As to the OP's interest in duplicating GI ball ammo, I'd say any load that pushes a 230gr slug to 850fps +/- from YOUR 5" barrel effectively duplicates GI ball ammo.

While I know its nice to have all the numbers "line up" with published specs, every gun is a little different, Every ROUND is a little different, and the numbers you need to look at are averages, most of the time.

Getting hung up on a bare handful of fps is passing beyond "attention to detail" and entering into OCD range, as I see it.

 

[Unclenick]

Slamfire,

I checked with HS Precision, the NATO certified test barrel maker, and they confirmed the military test barrels for .45 are 5", same as the SAAMI barrel. Prior to that, I had looked for a drawing without luck, but did find in MIL-C-1311E the ball mean velocity given as 855 fps from that barrel, ±25 fps at 25.5 ft after 70°F ±2°F conditioning, with no more than 27 fps SD. I also confirmed in MIL-C-48642B(MU) that the match version of ball ammo had that same velocity under the same conditions. The main difference is the 50 yard accuracy of the average diagonals of all test shots fired must not exceed 7.42" for service ball nor 3" for the match version. So the reason the old information had lower velocities is that the spec had changed over time with the improvement in powders, and not that they were loading match rounds down, as it had appeared to me.

So, the 885 fps number in TM-43-0001-27 is either wrong (I've found wrong information in it in a couple of other places) or the number changed again, which is possible as the two MIL-C standards I found are both from way back in 1972. As powders improve it becomes possible to reach higher velocities without increasing peak pressures, so that may have happened.

 

[Slamfire]

I looked up the specifications for 45 caliber ball and the match grade ammunition. The only significant difference was the accuracy criteria. If you shoot Bullseye, you know the ten ring is 4 inches in diameter at 50 yards. Obviously to shoot a perfect score, the ammunition has to shoot less than four inches. The National Match ammunition has a three inch requirement at 50 yards, ball has a 7.46 inch requirement.

Anyway, I did do a document research and found technical manuals giving a 885 fps number, and 855 fps. Heck if I know why. The box number of 820 fps, that is within the 855 minus 25 fps, but, it is puzzling why the low velocity number is printed on the box, not the average, or the spread.


Mil C 1311 E 17 May 1972 Military Specification Cartridge, caliber .45 Ball, M1911

3.4 Velocity. 3.4 Velocity. The average velocity of the sample cartridges, conditioned at 70 F plus or minus 2 Fahrenheit, shall be 855 feet per second plus of minus 25 ft/sec at 25.5 feet from the muzzle of the weapon. The standard deviation of the velocities shall not exceed 27 ft/sec.

3.5 Chamber pressure The average chamber pressure of the sample cartridges, conditioned at 70 F plus or minus 2 F shall not exceed 19,000 psi

3.6 Accuracy. The average of the diagonal of all targets of the sample cartridges fired at 50 yards shall not exceed 7.46 inches.


Mil C 46482 25 Feb 1972 Military Specification Cartridge, caliber .45, ball, M1911, Match Grade

3.4 Velocity. The average velocity of the sample cartridges, conditioned at 70 F plus or minus 2 Fahrenheit, shall be 855 feet per second plus of minus 25 ft/sec at 25.5 feet from the muzzle of the weapon. The standard deviation of the velocities shall not exceed 27 ft/sec.


3.5 Chamber pressure The average chamber pressure of the sample cartridges, conditioned at 70 F plus or minus 2 F shall not exceed 19,000 psi


3.6 Accuracy The average of the diagonal of all targets of the sample cartridges fired at 50 yards shall not exceed 3 inches.

Any chamber pressures are a not to exceed, which means if the bullet will meet velocity requirements at lower pressure, the lot is acceptable. The military tended to load to velocity specifications for these very old cartridges as powder technology improved and allowed the same velocities at lower pressures. You can understand if they changed the velocity, because the powder technology allowed higher velocities at 19,000 psia, the sights on all of the existing inventory would have to be changed, because the bullet impact would be different. So, the velocity parameters tended to remain the same.

If they used a five inch pressure barrel, that would have been a realistic test velocity.

Having examined a number of Army Ordnance Department specifications and reports, I am of the opinion that post WW2 the Army Ordnance became dumber and dumber to the point of blithering idiocy. There was still some organic knowledge up to the middle to late 1970's, but it is apparent that afterwards, they don't know their specifications nor the operating characteristics of their weapons. Take for example , in 2010, the Army conducted a first article test of a SAWS and the dumb-dumbs cooked both the ammunition and weapon at 160 F and fired both at that temperature. The dumb-dumbs did not know that the ammunition upper temperature operating range was 125 F. Ammunition has to meet a safe storage requirement of 160 F, but ammunition is not to be fired at that temperature because it will be over pressure. The dumb-dumbs did not know that, and blamed the over pressure conditions they encountered on oily ammunition! www.dtic.mil/ndia/2011/ballistics/11826.pdf

 

[44 AMP]

So, the 885 fps number in TM-43-0001-27 is either wrong (I've found wrong information in it in a couple of other places) or the number changed again, which is possible as the two MIL-C standards I found are both from way back in 1972. As powders improve it becomes possible to reach higher velocities without increasing peak pressures, so that may have happened.

I suppose it is possible, higher velocity due to more modern powders, or that the spec was changed. HOWEVER, having served in the Army during the 70s, I think it more likely neither of those is the reason for 885fps.

I think it more likely (though it is just a guess) that what happened was that 885 was a typo, NOT caught by the proofreader. Once in print, everyone simply repeats the number, assuming it is the valid number, because it is in print in the manual.

The Army isn't unique in that regard, sadly.

 

[Unclenick]

That occurred to me as a possible cause of them being wrong, too. The TM editors never adopted used of CUP long after the Aberdeen lab techs had changed terminology, and kept reporting it as psi, causing much confusion to later readers. The other thing that seems to have happened is cut and paste. You'll note that TM I referenced give 50 grain of 4895 as the charge for both M2 Ball and M72 Match, despite the latter's heavier bullet. I have a list of NM loads from 1957 through 1966, and it varied from 46.0 to 48.5 grains, depending on the powder lot's performance. Never got to 50 unless there was some super slow lot of 4895 later. I think they just didn't know the data and just copied if from the M72. Pretty sloppy.

We'll have to get copy of SCATP-45 if we really want to know what's current.

 

[Slamfire]

The TM editors never adopted used of CUP long after the Aberdeen lab techs had changed terminology, and kept reporting it as psi, causing much confusion to later readers

Don't assume they know what the difference is, or care. If you model Government employees as the best of the worst, disinterested in their job, ignorant of the details of their job, and, trying their best to do as little as possible, then, how our Government "works" sort of becomes understandable. There are a vanishing small number of component individuals and they are weighed down by all the mediocrities.

I think assigning the velocity discrepancies to incompetence is reasonable, and the mostly likely explanation.

After all, this is the same Army that wastes money as quickly as they get it. I have attached a link to obvious and track-able wastage, which was called "Insane" by the Special Investigator General :

Pentagon wasted $28 million on uniforms for Afghan soldiers, report says

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...iforms-afghan-soldiers-report-says/413219001/

This wastage is nothing compared to the $12 Billion in cash that was "lost" How the US sent $12bn in cash to Iraq. And watched it vanish https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1 I heard, through others, that a whole pallet load of American cash disappeared. The pallet was said to have around a billion in cash and the whole pallet disappeared. There are some very happy Iraqi's just wishing for another American invasion of their country.

 

[44 AMP]

At the risk of thread drift, I just have to relate this story.

Have a "nephew", good lad, bit wild, daredevil type, real redhead. He joined the Army, wanting to drive a tank. The Army wouldn't let him drive a tank, because he was colorblind confused. They put him in Finance. They sent him to Iraq. In Finance. He found about 2million dollars (cash) that had been "lost". The Army gave him a commendation, and made him a SAW gunner.

Clearly, the lad was not cut out for Finance.

If you're a PFC or a Spec 4 and your job is to "rewrite" (cut & paste) a manual to meet the new, improved standard, you aren't going to be doing any fact checking of the old manual to be certain they got their numbers right. Your NCO/officer will review it, MAYBE check to make sure you got all the info from the old manual into the new one, in the new approved format and sign off on it. Odds are THEY aren't going to do any spec fact checking, either.

From Basic to the day I separated from the service, I ran into many, many people who held the belief that "the Army doesn't make mistakes".

Maybe the Army doesn't , but the people IN the Army sure make a lot of them, at least as far as I saw. Doubt it's changed much since then.

 

[Slamfire]

The Army gave him a commendation, and made him a SAW gunner.

I would say, they rotated him out of finance because by finding lost money, he embarrassed the organization. Large organizations do not accept that they are imperfect, make faults, and people who find their faults are considered enemies.

 

[disseminator]

So I was paging through my copy of Townsend Whelen's "Why Not Load Your Own" and I noticed something in the 45 Auto Colt Pistol table that might be relevant here:
(Especially the last three loads)

 

[44 AMP]

I'm not sure what relevance Whelen's very old data has, other than to show how different powder must have been, then.

Or, perhaps, how different their velocity measurement was...??

4.9gr Bullseye giving 825fps? that's about 75fps faster than the starting load (5.2gr) in the Speer #11 (1987- first old manual I picked up)

Very interesting to me is the last load listed, 7.7gr Unique. 875fps, ok, that's what he got. (we'll assume 5" barrel)

A couple decades ago, I did load up to 7.7gr Unique, with the 200gr Speer "flying ashtray". WAAY above listed book maximums. Cratered primers in 1911A1 pin guns Did NOT crater primers in a Browning BDA (SIG P220).

Clocked speed from the 4.25inch barrel of the Browning/Sig, 998fps! Recoil was sharp, and ejection was ...energetic, to say the least. Only did one batch of that stuff, enough to find out that it could be used, but shouldn't be.

Clearly, things were different, back then.

 

[disseminator]

I'm not sure what relevance Whelen's very old data has, other than to show how different powder must have been, then.

And from the OP:

I want to load up some 230 gr FMJ to USGI service load velocity. Some books say 830 fps, some say 860 fps. I think originally it was with a 200 gr FMJ at 900 fps. Can someone fill in the blanks. I'll probably use Bullseye. Thanks.

During the course of the thread there has been questions about what the original loads actually were with a variety of sources cited, I was just providing another point of reference.

I agree the Unique load is too high. The Bullseye load looks lower than the current data as well. Your probably right on the powders being different back then.

I was posting it for the velocity information and it's reference to them being the "Government" loads.

All safety precautions should be observed.