9mm – The ExhaustNotes Blog

DKC 147-grain 9mm Full Metal Jacket Bullets

By Joe Berk

Here’s the bottom line upfront: Don’t expect stunning accuracy from DKC’s 9mm bullets.

I bought 1000 of them from Raven Rocks after watching a YouTube video about FBI handguns and ammunition, in which an FBI ballistics expert explained why the FBI uses 147-grain bullets in their 9mm Glocks. The YouTube fellow didn’t specify which 147-grain bullet the FBI uses, although a friend later told me it’s the Speer Gold Dot. The DKC bullets I bought were cheap at $98 per 1000, and my testing showed why. You get what you pay for. Sometimes.

Full metal jacket, 147-grain, 9mm DKC bullets.

DKC is relatively young Turkish ammunition and reloading components manufacturer. One of their importers is Raven Rocks here in the US. I’ve ordered components from Raven Rocks before (in particular, their composite 9mm and .45 bullets) and I’ve been pleased with the results. I was hoping the same thing would happen with these 9mm full metal jacket bullets, but it was not to be. Win some, lose some.

I fired my 9mm DKC bullet handloads at the West End Gun Club using the 147-grain full metal jacket bullets. I tested the bullets in three different handguns (a Springfield 1911, a SIG P226, and a S&W Shield), with a light load and a heavier load for each of four different propellants (Red Dot, Bullseye, Unique, and Power Pistol). For the initial accuracy testing, I shot two 5-shot groups at 50 feet for each configuration.

How did the new bullets do? All the 50-foot groups were disappointing from an accuracy perspective. A few of the groups dipped below 2 inches, but most were above (and some well above), and at 50 feet, that’s not the kind of accuracy I’m used to. Here’s how it shook out:

The results. I fired 400 shots in total for this blog’s test series. I used my Garmin Xero to chronograph the velocities. **Click on the table to make it bigger.**

The above table is data intensive and correspondingly small (ah, if only my groups were the same). If you click on the table, it will open in a new window and be a little easier to read.

You can see from the above that the group sizes generally were mediocre to poor. As a point of reference, what I consider good is a group of an inch or less from a 9mm at that distance. None of the loads I tested met that threshold.

I added a column to show the best of the two groups fired for each load in each pistol (this is highlighted in yellow), thinking that maybe it was my shooting that returned the mediocre groups and this might give a better feel for what worked best. None of the groups met my 1-inch threshold. I had been h0ped that a few of them would, as had occurred when testing previous 9mm loads (see, for example, A Tale of Two Nines, A 9mm Comparo: Cast Bullets, and A 9mm Comparo: Jacketed Bullets). On the plus side, all the loads functioned all three handguns reliably. There were no failures to feed and no failures to extract. I guess that’s something.

Surprisingly (especially when considered in light of the mediocre accuracy), the velocity standard deviations were all relatively low, and in some combinations, surprisingly low. Bullseye was generally the winner from a standard deviation perspective, although its low standard deviation did not translate into superior accuracy.

I averaged all groups for each handgun (both high and low loads and the different propellant loads). Predictably, the SIG returned the best groups overall, and the short-barreled Shield was the worst. The SIG has always been a stellar performer.

Average group sizes for all loads in each pistol.

I then considered the results across the three pistols to try to select a powder that I could use for all three handguns. To do this, I averaged the three pistol’s performance with the light Red Dot load, the average performance with the heavy Red Dot load, etc. Nothing emerged as a significantly better accuracy load, as you can see below.

Average group size for different loads across all three handguns.

By this time, the data were confusing me. I was also feeling my age a bit, thinking maybe my old eyes just aren’t what they used to be.

At the end of the session, I had 20 rounds left in each load combination. I fired the heavy loads (for each powder) into each of four targets at 50 feet using the SIG only. By this measure, the heavy Power Pistol load had maybe the best group. I didn’t do the same for the other two handguns. The Power Pistol load had perceptibly heavier recoil, and it averaged over 1000 fps (a lot, I think, in a 9mm 147-grain load). I don’t know if I want to subject an aluminum-framed handgun to a steady diet of this load (see my blog on the Smith and Wesson Model 59).

The targets you see above are (clockwise from top left), the heavier Red Dot load, the heavier Bullseye load, the heavier Unique load, and the heavier Power Pistol load. If you eliminate the one or two flyers in each group, there’s not a lot of difference between any of the heavier loads.

I also had 20 rounds left for each of the four loads at the lower end of the propellant charges. I took these 80 rounds and one of the Alco mini-4 silhouette targets to my indoor range. I again fired all rounds through the SIG, shooting the groups you see below at 10 yards. Here’s what that target looked like:

These are targets shot at 30 feet with 20 rounds each of the lighter loads. Clockwise from top left, these were shot with the lighter Red Dot load, the lighter Bullseye load, the lighter Unique load, and the lighter Power Pistol load.

The experimental design for the lower and higher load comparisons with the SIG you see above would probably earn a failing grade from a competent statistics professor. The sample size is too small, I shot at different distances for the higher-level loads versus the lower-level loads, and I probably broke one or two other statistics rules. That notwithstanding, here’s a summary of what the group size data looks like:

Data from the above two targets summarized in tabular form.

Where’s all this going? The bottom line is none of the results were anything to write home about. Why, I wondered? Other 9mm loads had done significantly better.

To further assess why my results were as mediocre as they were (and recognizing but not fully accepting that 100% of the mediocrity could have been due to me, the shooter), I next evaluated the bullets themselves. The first parameter I measured was bullet weight. In a random weight sample of 20 DKC 147-grain 9mm bullets, here are the weights I recorded (all weights are in grains):

Weights for 20 of the DKC 147-grain 9mm bullets.

That first bullet was right on the money at 147.0 grains, so I thought these would prove to be good bullets from a weight variability perspective. But I was wrong, as the remaining measurements above showed. Here are the particulars on weight variability:

I think that half a grain weight variability (0.55 grain, to be exact) is a lot for a jacketed pistol bullet. I would have expected the weight to be within ±0.1 grain, so an extreme spread of 0.55-grain is not good. It’s also not likely that the weight variability is symmetric to the bullets’ axes, which further aggravates the problem. As the bullet spins, any weight asymmetry will induce larger group sizes.

That had me wondering about bullet diameter. After zeroing my calipers, I measured the diameter of 10 bullets. Note that these are stated by the supplier to be 0.355 inches, which is what I would expect on a 9mm jacketed bullet. Here’s what I found:

0.355 inches in diameter? Guess again, Bullet Boy!

Damn! Four of the ten bullets I measured were out-of-round by 0.001 inch (these are Bullets 1, 2, 4, and 6), and where this occurs, they are undersized. Small wonder the group sizes were not that good. The undersized bullets would have rattled down the bore, with perhaps some propellant gas sneaking around their periphery. I think the reason the hotter Power Pistol loads did a little better is the higher chamber pressure probably deformed the bullet to fill the bore better.

Here’s the bottom line from an old ordnance engineer: These bullets are (ah, what’s that ordnance technical term again…oh yeah, I remember): MAB (or mediocre, at best). They are cheap at $98/1000, but in retrospect, they are at best plinkers, nothing more. Maybe I’m expecting too much. Maybe a 9mm handgun just won’t group that well with a 147-grain bullet. I don’t think that’s it, though. I’ve done better with other 9mm 147-grain bullets.

I relayed the above results to a few of my buddies and one of them asked me if he could have some of the DKC bullets because, as he put it, he is more of a plinker than a wannabe ballistics engineer (like yours truly). Done and done, I immediately answered. Then the question becomes: How should I load the rest of these bullets? I still have several hundred left.

I realized this would not be a decision based on accuracy, as none of the different recipes I tried resulted in impressive accuracy. I don’t need big time penetration and I don’t need high velocity, as I’m not an FBI agent preparing for a rerun of the Miami gunfight. I decided I would go with a load that offered:

- - A low velocity standard deviation (which held at least a promise of better accuracy).
  - Reliable performance.
  - Lower recoil.
  - A load that was adequate (if not stellar) across all three 9mm handguns.

Any of the loads I tested with the 147-grain DKC bullets meet the above criteria, so the choice came down to which powder I had the most of on hand. That made it easy. I’m going with the lower Red Dot load of 3.2 grains. That will give me just under 900 feet per second from the 1911 and the 226, and just over 800 feet per second in the Shield. That’s as good as or better than a .38 Special with a comparable weight bullet, and the .38 Special is a great cartridge. I’ll be flush with these 9mm handloads for a while, and then I won’t buy any more of the 147-grain DKC bullets.

More gun stuff? You bet!

We need your support! Do what you can to help ExNotes stay in the black!

More Huber? Check out A Trip Into The Moment.

More Gresh and Berk? You bet! Check out A Cup O’ Joes!

Join our Facebook ExNotes page!

Help us keep the lights on:

Rapid Fire at 10 Feet

By Joe Berk

I had not been to the indoor handgun range for a couple of weeks, and recent post on Facebook about close-range, rapid-fire shooting made me want to try the same. Most of the time, I’m a target shooter, which usually involves longer distances and careful aim. This would be different: 10 feet and firing as quickly as possible. What slowed my aim was not recoil or the ability to find the front sight; it was the target moving. At that short distance, and with a hanging target, muzzle blast made the target move around. The results were relatively acceptable.

The two guns were the Springfield Target 1911 (in .45 ACP) and the 9mm Smith and Wesson Shield, and the loads were with the ARX bullets I’ve written about before. In the .45, the load I use is 8.8 grains of Power Pistol and 118-grain ARX bullets. In the 9mm, it’s 5.2 grains of Winchester 231 and 65-grain ARX bullets. Both loads are completely reliable, the ammo feeds beautifully, and they group with target handgun accuracy.

I buy the targets you see at the top of this blog from Alco, which is in nearby Duarte. For that target above, I put 25 rounds on each of those upper little silhouettes with the 9mm Shield, and then I did the same with the .45 on the lower two silhouettes. The .45 is more accurate, but it’s a big gun and it’s not comfortable for concealed carry. The little Smith and Wesson Shield is much better for that job.

Join our Facebook ExNotes page!

Never miss an ExNotes blog:

Help us keep the lights on:

Don’t forget: Visit our advertisers!

9mm and .45 ACP ARX Load Testing

By Joe Berk

I recently received my order of Inceptor ARX 118-grain .45 ACP bullets. I had previously loaded 9mm ammo with ARX 65-grain bullets and I was pleased with them, so I wanted to try the ARX bullets in the .45, too.

I compared how two 1911s performed on my local indoor pistol range, firing with a two-hand hold (but without a rest) at 10 yards. I used nearly identical 1911 Springfield target pistols, one in 9mm and the other in .45. The .45 1911 is as it came from the factory; this gun has had no custom work done to it other than installing a one-piece guide rod. The 9mm 1911 had the same one-piece guide rod, along with other custom touches by good buddy TJ at TJ’s Custom Gunworks. The 9mm 1911 has a much crisper and lighter trigger, it is an absolute delight to shoot, and it is my favorite handgun.

The two Springfield 1911s used in this test., shown here with cast bullet loads. The testing described herein used ARX composite bullets, as shown in the photo at the top of this blog.

The ARX bullets are different than anything I’ve used before. They are a mix of copper particles suspended in a polymer matrix. The ARX bullets are much lighter than cast or jacketed bullets, with consequently dramatically higher muzzle velocities. They are not marketed as frangible bullets. They are intended to produce a larger wound cavity and I suppose because of that they could be considered a better defense round. I’m not interested in any of that. I’ll never hunt with either a 9mm or a .45, and although I sometimes carry a 1911 chambered in .45 ACP or my 9mm S&W Shield, when I do so it is always with factory ammunition. Nope, my interested was a result of my buddy Robby gave me a few 9mm ARX bullets and I fell in love with them. The ARX bullets are less expensive than cast or jacketed bullets and they are accurate. For a range rat like me, that’s a good deal.

I reloaded all ammo used in this test series with my Lee turret press, a great setup that consistently produces superior ammo. This photo shows a completed ARX .45 ACP round. Here’s our earlier review of the Lee gear.

9mm 1911 ARX Results

I wrote about my initial impressions with the 65-grain 9mm ARX bullets previously (they were all good), so for this first portion of the comparison there’s not too much that’s new other than this load’s attaining 100% reliability in holding the slide back after the last round.

9mm ammo loaded with the ARX 65-grain polymer composite bullet. After my first trial with these bullets, I ordered a bunch.

9mm ARX bullets loaded in my 1911’s magazine.

My 9mm load uses 5.2 grains of Winchester’s 231 propellant, with the bullets seated to an overall cartridge length of 1.135 inches. I used CCI 500 primers and mixed brass for the loads you see here (I am lazy and I didn’t want to sort the 9mm brass). I loaded these on my Lee turret press using Lee dies (including the factory crimp die). I took the load data directly from Inceptor’s website. This load is a max load in their standard load listings (i.e., it is below the +P loads the Inceptor data also lists).

I shot at the Alco four-silhouette target (it has four quarter-sized silhouettes on each sheet), and I sent either 12 or 13 rounds downrange on each silhouette. That made for a total of 50 rounds on each target.

The Alco Targets 4-silhouette target. I shot 12 rounds at the top left target ,13 rounds at the top right target, 12 rounds at the bottom left target, and 13 rounds at the bottom right target. That top right target is pretty sweet.

The 9mm ARX load functioned perfectly in my 1911. There were no failures to feed or eject and the pistol stayed open after the last shot fired. This is an accurate load. The flyers are due to yours truly, not the gun or the load. Maybe if I had sorted the brass they would be a little better, but these are good enough for my purposes.

These 9mm bullets only weigh 65 grains. They step out sharply, but the recoil is low (perceptibly lower than what I would feel with a 115 or 124-grain cast or jacketed bullet). Velocities are high for a 9mm (which are typically in the 1100 fps range with cast or jacketed bullets). The Inceptor data for my load showed that they achieved 1433fps with 5.2 grains of HP38 propellant (which is the same powder as Winchester 231). Their results were with a 4-inch barrel. My 1911 has a 5-inch barrel; I achieved an average velocity of 1626fps, or nearly 200fps faster than what Inceptor achieved in their testing. To add a little more context to these findings, I previously tested this load in my S&W Shield (which has a 3.1-inch barrrel). In the Shield, this load averaged 1364fps. The bottom line? My results are consistent with the Inceptor load data.

Take a look at the Garmin chrono data for this load in the 1911.

Yikes! These are smoking hot 9mm rounds!

In my prior test of this load in the Springfield 1911 and the S&W Shield, I found that the 1911 would not hold the slide back after the last shot (the Shield didn’t have that problem). In that earlier initial test, I used a two-hand hold and I rested my arms on the bench. I think that might have caused the 1911’s problem with holding the slide open after the last shot. In the range session yesterday, I used a two-hand hold, but I did not rest my arms on the bench (and the gun functioned perfectly, holding the slide open after the last shot on every 5-shot string). The 5.2-grain Winchester 231 load is a good one for the 9mm. It’s accurate, the recoil is light, and reliability is superb.

.45 ACP ARX Bullet Testing

I next moved on to test the 118-grain ARX bullets in my .45 ACP Springfield 1911.

A cartridge that looks like a drill bit! ARX bullets in the .45 ACP make for an interesting and handsome round.

The .45 ACP load used the ARX 118-grain bullet with 9.1 grains of Power Pistol, a Winchester large pistol primer, and Winchester brass, all loaded on the Lee turret press with a Lee crimp die. The .45 ACP load data also came from the Inceptor site. The site lists three powders; the only one I had on hand was Power Pistol. The 9.1 grains of Power Pistol is at the top of their non+P range. It is not a +P load. Ordinarily I would not start testing at the top of the listed propellant weight range, and I probably shouldn’t have done so here (more on that a paragraph or two down).

.45 ACP ARX bullets loaded in my 1911’s mag. Everything works. They look cool.

The Inceptor load recommended a cartridge overall length of 1.26 inches. I loaded with a cartridge overall length of 1.250 inches, which is what I have used in all my other .45 ACP loads. That length fits well in the magazine. I don’t think the additional 1/100 of an inch Inceptor specified would cause interference between the ammo and the forward inside magazine edge, but it’s close and in any event, I wanted to stick with the cartridge length that has always worked for me in the past.

The .45 loads felt hot to me. I think that’s primarily because I have been shooting my 9mm handguns lately. A few of the cartridge cases showed a little (very little) primer flattening. I’m not sure if that was due to firing the round or if it was due to me putting extra effort into primer seating during the reloading process. The .45 ACP is a powerful cartridge, and when I haven’t shot one in a while, it can seem even more powerful.

Same target, different cartridge. That top left target has 12 rounds through it and it is what I’d like to do all the time. When it happens, it’s its own reward.

Accuracy was about the same as with the 9mm. I thought both were good. There were occasional flyers, but that was undoubtedly me and not the gun or the load. Again, I shot offhand for all of these groups, so I wasn’t expecting one-hole results.

1346fps from a .45 Auto! The chrono tells the story!

Velocities were very much higher than what I’ve seen with other bullets in any .45 ACP. I had previously loaded .45 ACP with all kinds of cast and jacketed bullets ranging from 185-grain wadcutters to 230-grain full metal jacket projectiles. They would typically see velocities of 700fps to maybe 900fps. Some folks load the .45 a little hotter than that with cast or jacketed bullets. I’ve never felt a need to. But those ARX 118-grain bullets! Wow! The Inceptor load data said I would see 1,317fps with 9.1 grains of Power Pistol propellant (and for their .45 ACP testing, Inceptor used a 5-inch barrel); my ammo averaged 1346fps. Extreme spread and standard deviation were low; both extreme spread and standard deviation were similar to what my 9mm ARX loads achieved.

Feed and ejection were flawless in my Springfield 1911. That said, I am going to drop the load down to 8.7 and 8.5 grains of Power Pistol and try that for the next load. If I get good groups and reliable function, that’s where I’ll load in the future.

The Bottom Line

These are good bullets, and I think they represent a huge step forward. They are the first really new thing to come along in the reloading game in a long time.

Surprisingly, both the 9mm and the .45 put the bullets where I wanted them, with no sight adjustments from my previous lead or jacketed bullet loads. I expected both the 9mm and .45 ACP ARX loads to shoot low, but they did not. The sights were right on the money.

I didn’t see any copper fouling from the bits of copper mixed in the ARX bullets’ copper/polymer matrix. There’s a tiny bit of blue/purple fouling from the bullet polymer, but it’s very minimal and it’s only in the grooves. I had not cleaned either the 9mm or the .45 1911 after earlier range sessions with cast and plated bullets and the bores were dirty when I started shooting the ARX bullets. Both guns were cleaner after shooting the ARX bullets than they are after shooting cast or jacketed bullets. Bore cleanliness is a big plus here.

Price is another advantage; the 9mm bullets are $57/1000 and the .45 ACP bullets are $65/500 (I think the .45 bullet price at $65/100 is an increase from what I paid a couple of weeks ago). I’ve ordered ARX bullets three times now; on all three orders, they did not charge sales tax. I guess the sales tax is included in the retail price already. Whatever. I’m an anti-tax guy. Whether it’s real or imagined, not paying sales tax is plus in my book.

I’m not going to hunt with either my 9mm or my 1911, but here in California, these bullets should meet our lead-free bullet criteria. Similarly, the bullets are not hollow points. Some places (San Francisco and all of New Jersey come to mind) have outlawed hollow point bullets. These bullets should be okay in places where hollow points are outlawed.

As mentioned near the start of this blog, the drill-bit-like bullet profile creates a much larger wound channel. The idea is that bullet spin allows the bullet to grab onto tissue and propel it outward. There are some YouTube videos that purport to show this in ballistic gelatin. I suppose if you were defending yourself against a bad guy made of ballistic gelatin (think Steve McQueen and the 1958 classic, The Blob) these would be the preferred bullet. None of that matters to me, and from a defense perspective it’s probably moot (especially with the .45). Dead is dead, and with a .45, I’m guessing a larger wound channel won’t make a bad guy any deader. My interest is in how well the ARX bullets shoot on paper, and they do that extremely well.

Join our Facebook ExNotes page!

Never miss an ExNotes blog:

Help us keep the lights on:

Don’t forget: Visit our advertisers!

ARX Bullets In Two 9mm Pistols

By Joe Berk

About three years ago I had dinner with good buddy Robby at a Mexican restaurant outside of Atlanta. Robby bought some sample bullets for me and one of the flavors was a 65-grain 9mm ARX bullet. It was something I had not seen or heard of before.

These are frangible lightweight bullets designed to inflict a lot of damage without penetrating walls. The bullets are called a fluted design, and they are a composite copper/polymer material. They are a very high velocity bullet. There are a number of reloading admonitions with these, including not to overcrimp because doing so will break up the bullet. I’m talking like I’m an expert on these; I am not. This is the first time I’ve played with them.

I loaded these with 5.2 grains of Winchester 231. That powder is the same as HP 38, and I found a load for HP 38. I’m thought I would get something like 1400 fps with this load based on what I saw on the Hodgdon site. Other powders provide more velocity, but I loaded with what I had on hand (and that was Winchester 231).

I loaded on Thursday and fired these the next day, testing for velocity, reliability, and accuracy in two 9mm handguns. Those were a 1911 (with a 5-inch barrel) and a Smith and Wesson Shield (with a 3.1-inch barrel). From what I had read in online reviews, the ARX bullets are supposed to be relatively accurate. I expected them to shoot way low (as lighter bullets in handguns generally do). The loaded ammo looks cool, and the ARX bullets are relatively inexpensive at $39/500.

At the range, I set up a couple of targets at 25 yards. I had only loaded 25 rounds, so I shot the first 10 in the Shield. The Shield functioned perfectly with all 10 rounds (I shot two magazines with 5 rounds each). There were no failures to feed or eject. As I had read, the load was accurate (in fact, it was more accurate than anything else I’ve shot before in the Shield). Recoil was very light. I held at 6:00 on a standard 25-yard pistol target; the rounds hit low left (but not as low as I expected). This ain’t half bad with a little belly gun like the Shield. If I needed to, I could slide the Shield’s rear sight to the right to correct for the bias you see below.

The Shield’s velocities were high, and the standard deviation was low. I am impressed. There are better results than I had previously seen in the Shield.

I next fired my remaining 15 rounds in the Springfield 1911. The load was at the top end of what Hodgdon lists for these bullets using HP38 powder (which is the same propellant as Winchester 231).

In the 1911, I had one failure to eject. You can see that below.

Also, on the last round for each of the three mags I fired in the Springfield 1911, the pistol did not hold the slide back (it functioned okay for the first four shots). This load apparently has just enough energy to cycle the 1911 slide, but not enough to drive it all the way back. I could probably address this with a lighter recoil spring. Subsequent testing proved to me that the above-described failures were related to how I was holding the 1911 during this test. I used a two-hand hold and I bench rested the pistol on a rest. When I fired with a two-hand hold without bench resting the pistol, it functioned flawlessly.

Here are the chrono results in the 1911. As expected, velocities were higher due to the 1911’s 5-inch barrel. There are other powders will give more velocity with the ARX bullets, but I loaded with what I had on hand. Like Donald Rumsfeld used to say, you go to war with the Army you have.

Like I found with the Shield, the 1911’s accuracy was similarly good at 25 yards (again, with a 6:00 hold on the target). I could probably do better. I didn’t make any sight adjustments, so I was surprised that the gun was pretty much on target.

Another pleasant finding was that the both the Shield and the 1911 dropped the brass right next to the gun. With the 1911, the brass just plopped out and came to rest on the table next to the gun. The Shield dropped most of the brass on the table; three pieces fell off the bench. Where you see the brass in the photo below is where it landed; I didn’t scoop it up and put it there.

The ARX bullets are a little trickier to reload than regular 9mm bullets. Inceptor, the manufacturer, advises against a heavy crimp as it will crush the bullet. The one time I blew up a gun two or three years ago I’m now convinced was the result of bullet setback when feeding due to a light crimp and a slippery powder coated bullet. Setback would be more of a concern here with the light crimp.

I could probably load these bullets a bit hotter to get them to hold the slide back after the last round in the 1911 (or, as mentioned above, go to a lighter spring). I don’t think I want to go above the 5.2 grains of Winchester 231. Also, as noted above, the issue disappeared when I fired normally without bench resting the pistol. This was intended to be a quick look. I learned what I wanted to. The ARX bullets are very good. I ordered a thousand of them, which should last for a while.

Join our Facebook ExNotes page!

Never miss an ExNotes blog:

Help us keep the lights on:

Don’t forget: Visit our advertisers!

Shoemaker Holsters

By Joe Berk

Back in the 1970s I was a falling plate competitor. That competition involved knocking over a set of steel plates at a relatively short distance, usually with something in .38 Special or .45 ACP. In those days, nobody competed with a 9mm; the 9mm pistols had not made the inroads they enjoy today. A lot of guys competed with 1911s or modified K-frame S&Ws; I was a bit of an oddball and I used an N-frame Smith and Wesson .44 Magnum (with light .44 Specials, as the shot-to-shot recovery was faster and the .44 Special easily knocked the plates down). We shot from the ready position, with the gun held at an angle to the ground. The video below gives you an idea what the falling plate game looks like:

There were variations of this competition. The most exciting one was a bowling pin competition, which involved clearing a half dozen bowling pins from a table. In that one, you needed a .44 or a .45; the .38 Special didn’t have the energy to clear a bowling pin off the table. Both competitions were all about speed; whoever knocked all the plates over (or blew away all of the bowling pins) in the shortest time won.

Other similar competitions involved drawing the gun from a holster, and I wanted to shoot my AMT Long Slide Hardballer, a really cool 7-inch-barreled 1911. It’s the one Arnold Schwarzenegger used in Terminator.

An AMT (Arcadia Machine and Tool) Long Slide Hardballer. The story on it is here.

I needed a holster long enough to hold the Long Slide AMT 1911, and at that time there were none on the market. Other holsters could hold either 5-inch or 4 ¼-inch 1911s, but nobody had anything for the 7-inch AMT. Hold that thought. I’ll come back to it shortly.

I’ve written about good buddy Mike here on the blog before. Mike and I have been buddies since junior high school. He went on to become Chief of the New Brunswick Police Department. We still talk every week. Mike deputized me a couple of times when he attended the International Association of Chiefs of Police conventions. I’d always ask for a gun, and the answer was always no. But we had a lot of fun at those conventions.

The Director at the International Association of Chiefs of Police 2023 convention. I was his administrative assistant on that adventure. That story is here.

Mike called me last week. He was pumped up. He found his old New Brunswick Police Department duty holster from the days when they carried Heckler & Koch P7M8 9mm squeeze cocker semi-autos. That was the gun the New Jersey State Troopers adopted back in the ‘80s.

A New Jersey State Trooper Heckler & Koch P7M8 and its Tex Shoemaker holster.

The NJSP emblem embossed on the Tex Shoemaker holster.

The New Jersey State Police had custom holsters crafted for their handguns by the Tex Shoemaker company, a legend in the holster business. They also had Shoemaker emboss the NJSP emblem in the leather. Not to be outdone, the New Brunswick Police Department also adopted the Heckler & Koch P7M8 9mm semi-auto, and they, too went to Tex Shoemaker for holsters embossed with the NBPD emblem. Mike had one when he served, and it was this holster he recently found. The Tex Shoemaker H&K police duty holsters have become collectible items, with this particular model appearing on Ebay for $300. Mike is going to donate his to the New Brunswick Police Department Headquarters display case. I think that’s pretty cool.

Good buddy Mike’s Heckler & Koch P7M8 Tex Shoemaker holster.

The Heckler & Koch P7M8 holster with an embossed New Brunswick Police department emblem.

So I was thinking about this story and Mike’s holster and then I remembered: Hey, I have a Tex Shoemaker holster, and mine is brand new. The Tex Shoemaker company was located in San Dimas, which is not very far from my home. They closed up shop in 2019 (I’m assuming it fell victim to the pandemic, the move toward plastic holsters, and competition from the plastic holster manufacturers). Whatever the reason, it’s a pity. Shoemaker’s was an old line holster manufacturer started by Tex Shoemaker, a former lawman who started out making holsters in his garage. Their quality was unsurpassed.

When I needed a quick draw holster for my anticipated pistol competition (as described at the beginning of this blog), I couldn’t find anyone in the ‘80s who was making a holster for the AMT Long Slide Hardballer. I searched the yellow pages for holster companies (this was all pre-Internet), and that’s when I learned that the Tex Shoemaker company was nearby. I called them and explained what I wanted. I spoke with a nice guy who told me he didn’t know of anybody making a holster for the Long Slide 1911, but Shoemaker was experimenting with a new break-front holster that would handle all 1911 barrel lengths. He explained that it wasn’t on the market yet, but I could swing by and take a look at it.

My AMT Long Slide in it’s Tex Shoemaker experimental holster.

Sue and I rode over to Shoemaker’s that day. It was a factory and they didn’t have a retail facility, so I walked up to the loading dock, looked up at a guy standing above me, and explained why I was there. A minute later that same nice guy I had spoken with on the phone appeared with the holster he told me about on the phone. I had my Long Slide with me and we tried the big 1911 in it; the fit was perfect. He also had two magazine holders (together they could hold four magazines). The holster was just what the doctor ordered, and I told him that even though it wasn’t commercially available yet, I’d like to buy it. He smiled, gave all three items to me, and told me there was no charge.

The Tex Shoemaker holster is adjustable for draw angle. It’s a cool feature.

For normal carry, the pistol is secured with a cross strap.

For quick draw work, the cross strap is removed. The holster has a strong clamp spring inside the leather that secures the pistol. When drawn, the pistol can be snapped forward without withdrawing upward from the holster.

The Long Slide Hardballer, the Tex Shoemaker holster, and two Tex Shoemaker magazine holders.

The Tex Shoemaker logo on the back of a magazine holder.

I was shocked when that nice man told me there was no charge, and then I realized I didn’t even know who he was. I introduced myself, and as we shook hands, he told me his name: Randy Shoemaker. Randy Shoemaker was Tex Shoemaker’s son.

I never pursued quick draw competition. I had visions of shooting myself in the foot, and it just wasn’t something I wanted to do. But I sure enjoy owning my Tex Shoemaker leather. Maybe someday, I’ll enter the Quick Draw McGraw games. In the meantime, here’s an unashamedly doctored video of me playing around a few years ago at the West End Gun Club.

Never miss an ExNotes blog:

Don’t forget: Visit our advertisers!

A Tale of Two 1911s

If I had a dime for every article and Internet post comparing the 9mm to the .45 ACP cartridge (and the guns that shoot them) I could probably pay cash for a new Ferrari. That said, I make no apologies for this being another one. In this case (and for this article), one of the variables I have sort of eliminated is the gun. Both are Springfield Target model 1911 autos in stainless steel. They’re the two pistols you see in the photo above.

Here’s a macro photo of the 9mm cartridge (designed in 1901; also known as the 9×19 and the 9mm Luger) and the .45 ACP cartridge (designed in 1904). Both of the rounds shown below are my reloads, which I prefer over factory ammo for many reasons. We’ve written a lot about reloading both cartridges, and you can find those articles here.

I like these kinds of photos. The photo shows the 9mm cartridge (arguably the most popular handgun cartridge in the world) and the .45 ACP.

For this comparison, I used the Springfield Armory magazines that came with of the two 1911s. Here’s what the ammo looks like in the magazines.

Loaded .45 ACP and 9mm magazines. The .45 mag holds 7 rounds; the 9mm mag holds 9 rounds. I’ve read that the average number of shots fired in an armed confrontation (not counting military actions) is less than two.

The Springfield target guns have nice features, including click adjustable rear sights, dovetailed and pinned front sights, ambidextrous safeties, target triggers, skeletonized hammers, and more. I didn’t like the two-piece guide rods that came with both guns (you need a tool to unscrew the two-piece guide rods for takedown). Another two-piece guide rod issue is that they constantly unscrew. I immediately replaced those in both guns with one-piece guide rods.

A few of the features included on these Springfield 1911 target models are skeletonized hammers (a useless feature, in my opinion), a click adjustable rear sight (a very useful feature), an extended grip safety (another useless feature), and an ambidextrous thumb safety (yet another useless feature). I prefer wraparound Pachmayr-style rubber grips, but the Springfield Armory exotic wood checkered grips look cool.

The Springfield Target model front sights are dovetailed and pinned to the slide. The one on my 9mm still came loose when the retaining pin backed out. The .45 front sight has stayed put. You can see the one-piece guide rod below the barrel; it’s a feature I added to both 1911s.

What has been a disappointment on the .45 Springfield was that the stainless steel was not properly passivated (it came this way from the factory). The gun exhibited minor corrosion in a few spots after a while, which is unacceptable for a stainless steel firearm. It’s the only stainless steel gun I’ve ever owned that did this. The corrosion comes right off with a bronze bristle brush and the steel beneath it then looks pristine, but you shouldn’t have to do this with a stainless steel firearm, much less one purchased new.

My 9mm 1911 had a problem with its front sight. The pin securing it in place backed out under recoil. I contacted Springfield about that and they sent an oversized pin. It similarly backed out. I applied Loctite to the pin and very lightly peened the edges at the top of its hole in the front sight, and that seems to have fixed the problem.

Neither of the above issues should have been present. I’ve purchased three new Springfield Armory firearms over the years and every one of them has had an issue. My Springfield M1A rifle had two issues: The magazines were extremely tight going into the receiver, and the ejected .308 cartridge cases were striking and damaging the stock. I sent the rifle back to Springfield. Springfield fixed the magazine fit issue (that fix worked) and they attempted to address the cartridges impacting the stock (that fix did not work). The cartridge cases still hit the stock after being ejected (even after Springfield did a ham-fisted job removing wood in the impact area), so I put electrician’s tape on the stock where the spent cases impact before I take it to the range. The rifle is quite accurate, but damn, you shouldn’t have to deal with issues like this on a new gun. I believe these things speak to a generally sad state of affairs in Springfield’s quality assurance and process control. But I’m going off track a bit. Let’s get back to the topic of this article, and that’s the two 1911 Springfields.

Corrosion on the Springfield Armory .45 ACP 1911. I believe the stainless steel was improperly passivated. I removed the tarnish/oxidation with a bronze brush and it has stayed off.

My .45 reloads. I’ve been shooting this same recipe for more than 50 years. It works, so why mess with it? .45 ACP brass can be reloaded many, many times (and this brass has been).

In my most recent outing with both 1911s, the .45 was significantly more accurate. I believe that to generally be the case when comparing the .45 ACP and 9mm Luger cartridges, and this range day was no exception. The 9mm load I used was a 124-grain Xtreme plated roundnose bullet over 5.5 grains of Accurate No. 5 propellant. The .45 ACP load was a 230-grain Missouri cast roundnose bullet over 5.6 grains of Unique propellant (an accuracy load that always works for me). I shot the targets shown below on the 50-foot West End Gun Club handgun range using a two-hand hold supported by a rest beneath my hands.

The 9mm 1911 grouped just over 2 inches, which is typical for this load. This same handgun has done much better with other loads, which is outlined in earlier blogs on 9mm cast bullet loads and 9mm jacketed bullets loads.

The 9mm grouped okay, but not great. I’ve shot other loads in this handgun that were much more accurate, but I didn’t have any of those loads in the ammo locker the day I went to the range. If you would like to know about this, you can read about my 9mm ammo development efforts with the 9mm 1911 (and other handguns) using cast bullets and jacketed bullets.

Groups with the Springfield Armory .45 ACP 1911. Point of aim was at 6:00 on each target. Shooter fatigue is what opened up the last group.

The .45 1911 grouped very well. It’s a funny thing: The 9mm 1911 has way less recoil than the .45 and the trigger on my 9mm 1911 has been tuned to perfection by good buddy TJ (you can read about that here), but I shoot better with a .45 (and I always have). The .45 1911 barks like a Rottweiler and it kicks like a mule, but the thing is just flat accurate.

So there you have it: Another take on the rehashed ad infinitum 9mm versus .45 ACP argument. If you have an opinion, please weigh in with a comment or two below.

If you would like to read a bit more about how to shoot a handgun well, that story is here.

Never miss an ExNotes blog:

SIG Alert

By Joe Berk

No, I’m not talking about the SIG Alerts we get here in California when there’s a traffic jam on our freeways. This is about a sale at SARCO, a preferred military surplus outlet, on SIG police department trade-ins. When police departments upgrade to different weapons, they sometimes sell their older handguns. That’s what’s happening here. What makes this sale special, in my opinion, is that the trade-in guns are 9mm SIG P226 sidearms. You follow the blog, and you know that I consider the SIG P226 to be the world’s finest handgun. With a SARCO price on the P226 at just over $700, I think it’s a great deal.

My SIG P226. I consider it to be the world’s finest handgun.

I’ve never seen SIG P226 police trade-in guns for sale. It’s a hell of an opportunity to pick up a great handgun at a bargain price. I once owned a Smith and Wesson Model 659 police trade-in and it confirmed what I thought about police sidearms. They are carried a lot and shot very little. That means there might be some cosmetic shortfalls (holster wear, etc.), but the guns’ internals are probably in superb shape.

A Smith and Wesson Model 659 police trade in that was a lot of fun. Like most police sidearms, it was carried a lot and shot little.

I’ve purchased military surplus equipment through SARCO before (in my case it was a replacement gas cylinder for my M1 Garand, which fixed my rifle’s cycling issue). SARCO is a reputable outfit.

SARCO’s SIG P320 police trade-in pistols.

SARCO is also selling SIG P320 police trade-ins. I don’t have any experience with that model, so I can’t tell you anything about it (other than that it’s SIG, so it’s probably good). The SARCO price on the SIG P320 police trade-in is only $425; that’s a superb deal.

What might be fun is to pick up either handgun from SARCO and send it to good buddy TJ (at TJ’s Custom Gunworks) for a full cosmetics and action job. That would be fun. If you have ever entertained any thoughts about picking up a SIG or a custom pistol, this might worth looking into.

Never miss an ExNotes blog:

Don’t forget: Visit our advertisers!

SIG’s M18 versus the S&W Shield

I had a chance to fire the new SIG M18 9mm handgun, which was recently added to the California Department of Justice roster of approved handguns here in the People’s Republik. I was impressed with the M18’s accuracy, grouping, comfort level, feel, and sights. I love the desert tan colors. I was not impressed with the trigger (more on that in a bit).

It was a good day on my local indoor pistol range, and as I was leaving, my good buddy Shannon asked where I’ve been (I hadn’t been there in a few weeks). “Overseas,” I told her. She then pointed to the new M18 SIGs they had in the display case and asked if I’d like to try one. That reminded me of the old joke about the guy with the wooden eye. I responded with an affirmative and rhetorical, “Would I?”

The venerable 1911. It’s chambered in .45 ACP. All steel and with a Parkerized finish, as God intended. In my opinion, you can’t improve on perfection, but the Army had other ideas.

A bit of background: The US Army and I have something in common: We change handguns on a regular basis. The Army had been using the venerable .45 ACP 1911 since about, well, 1911. It served the Army well (and still serves well in certain special ops units), but the Army decided it wanted something better. That led to adoption of the 9mm Beretta 92 (designated as the M9 for the military) in 1985. I never cared for the Beretta, so I’ve never owned one and I can’t tell you anything about how it shoots or feels. The M9 had pushed out my beloved 1911, so I didn’t like it. Period. No handling or testing required.

The Army wanted a smaller pistol cartridge, and it settled on the Beretta M9. The M9 has an aluminum frame. Bob likes it.

The Army quickly decided it didn’t much like the Beretta, either. But the Army is big and it moves slowly when it’s not lobbying for more funding from Congress, and it wasn’t until 2017 that they decided to go with a militarized version of the 9mm SIG P320. There are two versions of the new military handgun: The M17, which has a 4.7-inch barrel, and the M18, with a 3.9-inch barrel. Both are full sized handguns with magazines carrying a gazillion rounds, and until recently, neither was available to lowly and untrustworthy civilians here in the People’s Republik of Kalifornia. Nah, scratch that. Lowly or not, trustworthy or not, no California civilians could purchase either of the new SIGS, although weirdly, we could purchase the civilian gun from which it was derived, the SIG P320. Go figure.

The SIG P320, the gun the M17 and M18 handguns are based on. All three guns (the P320, the M17, and the M18) have a polymer gripframe. You can tell they’re swell (I’m not going to explain that comment; you have to be old enough to get it).

The 9mm SIG M17. Note the longer barrel length.

The SIG M18 recently appeared on the California Department of Justice approved handguns roster. That’s just a bit on the weird side, too, because the M18 is the version with the shorter (i.e., slightly more concealable) barrel. You’d think in their wholesome attempts to keep us pure our legislators would have approved the longer-barreled M17. Maybe they will in the future.

The Rock Island Compact 1911. This is a short barreled, shorter grip frame 1911 chambered in .45 ACP.

My Smith and Wesson Shield. It has a very short barrel compared to either the SIG M17 or M18, which makes my shooting with it a bit less accurate.

I had fun on the range. I shot a box of .45 ammo in my Compact 1911, and then two boxes of ammo in my Smith and Wesson Shield. I was doing pretty good with both, too. It’s a pleasant way to spend an afternoon. As I was leaving the range, Shannon told me about the new M18s they had in stock and offered a trial run, so I put a box of 50 rounds through one of them.

I used a 6:00 hold on the orange bullseye on both targets, and I fired 50 rounds at each. The Shield target is on the left; the SIG target is on the right. Both guns are good enough; the M18 is surprisingly accurate.

As I said above, I didn’t care for the M18 trigger (the M18 is a striker-fired handgun; give me a hammer-fired gun any day). But the thing was accurate, even with the Joe Biden trigger (it was clumsy and creepy). I put nearly all 50 rounds through a single jagged hole at my point of aim 10 yards downrange, and then I started hitting low with the last few rounds. The few that dropped a bit below the orange bullseye were entirely due to me being tired and shaky (it wasn’t the gun; I was coming up on 200 rounds in that range session and I’m an old man). The bottom line: I like the new M18. A lot. I may buy one somewhere down the road, unless the M17 gets approved in California first.

Join our Milsurps group!

Never miss an ExNotes blog:

Please click on the popup ads and visit the folks who advertise with us.

The 9mm 1911 Resurrection

By Joe Berk

As mentioned in recent blogs on my 9mm Springfield Armory 1911, I took the gun to TJ’s Custom Gunworks to have it repaired and customized. I have the gun back now and I am very satisfied with the work.

When I took the 1911 to TJ, I asked him to repair the damage I did to my 1911 and to add several custom touches. That’s what he did, and I’ll describe them below. Most of the photos in this blog are from TJ. I took a few, too.

Fortunately, the 1911’s barrel was not damaged (the cartridge blew apart; the barrel and chamber survived). TJ polished the barrel, the chamber, and the ramp. The reinvigorated barrel looks great and it adds to the 1911’s appearance.

TJ polished the 1911’s ramp and chamber. This helps to prevent feed failures and assists in extraction. The polished ramp also helps to prevent bullet pushback into the case as the ramp is pushed from the magazine into the chamber.

The trigger was in bad shape after the 9mm cartridge went into its sudden unintended disassembly mode. TJ cleaned it up, but I’m going to have him fit a new target trigger at some point in the future.

The rigger before TJ cleaned and finished it.

The trigger and its bracket after brushing and polishing.

While TJ was in the gun, he removed and replaced the Springfield Armory firing pin and firing pin spring (which he does on all the Springfield Armory 1911s that come into his shop). Springfield uses a titanium firing pin and a heavier firing pin spring, which is a bad combination. I’ve had occasional misfires with my Springfield, and the primers have previously always shown light firing pin strikes. With the new Wilson firing pin and firing pin spring TJ installed, that problem is in the rear-view mirror (where it belongs).

TJ found that the extractor on my Springfield Armory 1911 was terrible. I thought that might be due the base of the cartridge bursting, but it was not. It was just a factory goof up. The photo TJ included shows the extractor about as I remembered it before the event that set all this in motion. The extractor had been extremely difficult to remove from the slide when I disassembled it for cleaning, but I never thought to check if it was engaging the cartridge (the gun had been ejecting). You would think an outfit like Springfield would know what they are doing in this area, but apparently they did not. TJ fit a new extractor to fix that problem.

This photo shows the original extractor not touching the cartridge case at all. It appears that the claw is just too short.

The new extractor TJ installed; note that it now has a firm grip on the case rim.

Another shot of the extractor on the case rim. It’s amazing the cartridges were extracting and ejecting before this fix. They were flying everywhere.

The old extractor is on top; the new one is on the bottom. Note that the old extractor was not reaching in to engage the case.

Ejection is way better now. The gun drops all the cases in the same spot just to my right (they don’t go flying all over creation like they used to). It makes scooping up my brass a lot easier.

Reinstalling the slide release on my Springfield was difficult. The slide release plunger was too long and the camming surfaces on the underside of the slide release were not cut at the correct angles. TJ reconfigured both. The slide release snaps into place in a very slick manner now. There’s no more worry about scratching the receiver (the so-called idiot scratch) when the gun is reassembled.

The slide release plunger, as delivered by Springfield Armory, was originally too long. It made installing the slide release problematic. TJ shortened and recontoured it.

The slide release has a contoured bevel to push the slide release plunger in when the slide release is installed. As delivered by Springfield Armory, the angles were incorrect. TJ recontoured this area to make installing the slide release much easier.

TJ polished and fit a new hammer, which looks better than the original. He also lightened the trigger pull. The new trigger is light and I like it.

The Springfield Armory 9mm 1911 came from the factory with a two-piece guide rod, which I hated. It would constantly unscrew, even after applying blue Loctite after each cleaning. The stock Springfield guide rod needed an Allen wrench to unscrew and remove it (Springfield provided one with the gun). The gun required doing this to be able to rotate the barrel bushing after depressing the guide rod plug. In my opinion, two-piece guide rods are a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. I don’t know why manufacturers fit them to new guns and I don’t why anybody would want one. I asked TJ to fit a polished one-piece guide rod to my 1911, and to make it short enough so that I could rotate the barrel bushing for disassembly without having to unscrew the guide rod. I like the new set up a lot better.

TJ installed a one-piece guide rod. I like it. The original two-piece guide rod was always unscrewing.

The new guide rod in its bushing. TJ modified it so I could disassemble the 1911 without having to unscrew the guide rod. Not the polished end of the new guide rod, and the polished barrel end.

Finally, TJ polished the slide-to-receiver interface points. You can see this work in the photos below.

While TJ had the gun, I ordered new grips and a replacement magazine from the Springfield Armory website. The original crossed-cannon cocobolo Springfield grips were damaged when the cartridge burst, so I bought another set (they were reasonably priced at $32.95). The Springfield site also advertised a set of double-diamond checkered cocobolo grips (without the Springfield logo) for $15, so I checked that box, too (I like having an extra set of 1911 grips on hand). The grips and the new magazine arrived a few days after I ordered them.

I picked up the repaired and reinvigorated 1911 from TJ this week. I’ve already been to the range with it and it works well. Watch the blog; I’ll post a range report in the near term. I’ve also had a few more thoughts on what might have caused the burst round that started this adventure, and we’ll have another blog on that as well. Here are links to our prior blogs on this topic:

KABOOM!

Thoughts on the 9mm Double Charge

Help us bring more content to you…please click on the popup ads!

Seeing double? Nope. I liked my 9mm 1911 so much that when I saw the same gun in .45 ACP, I bought it, too. Watch for a report on it in an upcoming ExNotes blog.

Never miss an ExNotes blog:

Home on the range…

The stream crossing to the West End Gun Club has been too deep to cross in my Subie Outback since early January. I tried it once back then and I wasn’t going to make that mistake again.

My January Meyer Canyon Road mishap. The Subie is not a submarine and I am not a U-boat commander, although we both came close that morning.

I’ve been going to the Magnum Range in Ontario (an indoor pistol range), watching the West End website for updates and occasionally driving out to check the stream. The Magnum Range is a good place to shoot, but I missed shooting my rifles. Then a good thing happened earlier this week: Good buddy Duane offered to pick me up and attempt a stream crossing in his Toyota 4×4. I was in.

Duane’s Toyota 4×4. It’s an impressive vehicle.

I’ve known Duane for years, going back to my work with CSC Motorcycles in their early days of the replica Mustangs and the RX3 250cc adventure bike. Duane and I both owned the CSC bikes and we traveled extensively on them.

The Meyer Canyon Road stream crossing was still deep and the water was moving swiftly, but Duane’s Toyota had no problem crossing it.

I knew which rifle I wanted to shoot when I received Duane’s email invitation: My Mosin-Nagant 91/30. It’s the one you see at the top of this blog. The Mosin is a favorite. It’s accurate, I reload 7.62x54R ammo, and it is fun to shoot.

My Mosin-Nagant 91/30. The Russians built 17 million of these rifles. They are becoming hard to get and prices have risen substantially. These rifles are surprisingly accurate.

I’ve owned this Mosin rifle for maybe 10 years now. It came about almost as an afterthought. To me, the Mosins appeared to be cheap pieces of junk. Then one day after a class about engineering creativity, a student asked about the cover photo on a book I wrote. He told me he and his father owned a Mosin and enjoyed shooting the rifle. I saw a Mosin on the rack at a sporting goods store a short while later for $139. It looked crude, but for $139, I thought I’d take a chance. The guy who sold it to me did not know there was a bayonet in the Mosin’s cardboard box, and when he put the rifle back in its box, the bayonet scratched the stock. Neither of us knew this until 10 days later (after California’s silly waiting period). The store offered to sell me a different Mosin, but that meant starting the 10-day waiting period all over again. I viewed the scratch as an opportunity, and indeed it was. I refinished the stock (10 coats of TruOil worked nicely). Then I glass bedded the action, reworked the trigger, polished the bolt, and worked up a load. It was fun and I learned much about the rifle. Mine has matching numbers on the receiver, the butt plate, and the bolt. I know it’s weird: I own some really nice rifles, but the Mosin is one of the ones I love the most.

Serial Number 2339, built in 1940. Production rates ramped up sharply in 1940, but this rifle was built before that occurred. Fit and finish nosedived that year; mine is one of the good ones.

When Duane and I arrived at the range, I set up a target at 50 yards. Like always, shooting the Mosin felt good. It had been too long.

Duane is a milsurp rifle enthusiast, too. He has a beautiful 8mm Mauser K98 that his uncle took home from Germany after World War II. I keep trying to buy it from him. He keeps saying no.

Nazi markings on the Mauser’s barrel and receiver.

Like me, Duane is a reloader. He had reloaded reduced loads for our outing. A reduced load is one loaded for lower velocity, which means the rifle has significantly less recoil. One of Duane’s loads had cast bullets. The other had jacketed 150-grain bullets. Both were loaded with Trail Boss powder, and both shot well.

8mm Mauser reloaded ammunition. The upper rounds have 150-grain jacketed soft point bullets, the lower rounds have 150-grain cast bullets.

As soon as Duane fired his first shots, I knew he had reduced-load ammo. Check it out in the video below.

Duane and I both brought handguns, and to my surprise, we both decided to bring our Smith and Wesson 9mm Shields. I’ve written about the Shield before, as well as the custom work TJ (of TJs Custom Gunworks) did on my Shield. I shot my Shield at 50 yards. Using a short-barreled 9mm concealed carry handgun at 50 yards is not a formula for accuracy, but I managed to keep all of my shots on the target. The group was large, but at least they were on the paper.

My Shield in flat dark earth. I shot my reloaded ammo with Gardner powder-coated bullets.

My Sheild and Duane’s. Duane’s has a Crimson Trace laser just forward of the trigger guard. The laser is actuated by a pushbutton below the trigger.

One of the things I like about my Shield is its bright sights. Duane’s Shield has white dot sights and a green Crimson Trace laser mounted beneath the slide. The laser is a cool touch for close in work. My Shield has high visibility fiber optic sights (they catch light from the side and light up green and red dots). They’re good if there’s any light at all. If there’s no light, the sights don’t light, but if there’s no light, it’s not likely you’d be shooting.

A comparison of the sights on both Shields. My pistol’s Hi Viz sights are the best I’ve ever used on a handgun.

Before we called it a day, Duane let me try a couple of shots with his Mauser. I shot at the same 50-yard target I’d been using with my Shield and the Mosin-Nagant.

The proof is on the paper. The upper red circle surrounds the shots I fired with my Mosin-Nagant (with one exception, all are in the 10 ring…that one exception was the first shot I fired). The circle around the two shots below were mine, fired with Duane’s 8mm Mauser and his reduced-load ammo. All the other shots were with the Smith and Wesson 9mm Shield.

After the West End Gun Club visit, we stopped at our local Mexican restaurant. I had albondigas soup and a chile relleno. As always, both were outstanding.