Well, sort of by me. I came across this on the ADVRider.com forum and contacted the poster (a651) to ask if I could use it on the ExNotes blog. He graciously consented. It’s an unusual gun I had not heard of previously, it had my attention, and I thought you might enjoy reading about it. We’ve had a couple of guest pieces here on ExNotes on the Hi Power before; this adds to that database.
From a651 on ADVRider.com:
Some time ago I bought a Hi-Power off Gunbroker. Not the prettiest, but possibly the rarest Hi-Power variant in the world. Anyone care to take a guess before I go on and spill the beans?
So if you must know…it’s a Hi-Power in .30 Luger.
The magazine guy at the gun show, who has magazines for everything ever made, didn’t even know that Hi-Power magazines came in .30 Luger. Luckily, it seems to feed fine from 9mm mags as well.
But what makes this one so odd is that according to the interwebs, these pistols were made for the Italian market in 1981-1982. And then exported to the U.S. when that market showed little interest. Can’t get a definitive answer, but some sites say FN made about 5000 of them, with 1500 coming to the states, but other sites say the total production was between 1500 and 1800. That’s an absolute drop in the bucket.
Anyway, so this particular pistol has a serial number prefix of PM…. which according to FN puts production in 1980. I have yet to see another pistol with that prefix. Barrel S/N matches the frame, so it’s not a Frankenstein that someone put together. It’s got the “CAT 1086” marking behind the magwell that the importer apparently added, so who knows. Not going to stop me from shooting it.
The above intrigued me, so I poked around a bit and here’s what Google had to say:
The FN Browning Hi-Power in .30 Luger (7.65x21mm Parabellum) is a rare, collectible commercial variant of the classic semi-automatic pistol.
Overview and Origin
Purpose: FN Herstal introduced the .30 Luger variant primarily for European civilian markets (such as Italy and France) where laws restricted civilian ownership of standard “military” calibers like 9mm Parabellum.
Production & Imports: Production mostly occurred in the late 1970s and early 1980s (with examples like 1981 models being well-documented). Only about 1,500 to 1,800 units were imported into the United States, making them scarce collector items.
Markings: Many imported models feature “FN” markings on the slide or specific import stamps on the frame. Browning-marked variants are even scarcer.
Key Specifications & Characteristics
Caliber: .30 Luger (7.65x21mm bottlenecked cartridge), which offers mildrecoil and a flatter trajectory compared to standard 9mm.
Capacity: Typically features a standard double-stack Hi-Power magazine capacity (13+1 rounds).
Interchangeability: The .30 Luger Hi-Power shares most architecture with the 9mm version, though finding original barrel/slide assemblies or specialized magazines can be difficult.
Value: Used and collector market values typically range from roughly $625 to over $1,375 depending on condition, box/accessories, and whether it bears FN or Browning rollmarks.
This is very cool stuff. I always enjoy learning more about rare handguns, especially those that never quite caught on in the European police or military market and came to the US as a result. I have a Benelli B76 with a similar commercial background, which you can read about here.
I went to Turner’s (a local gun shop) today because I saw online that they have the Girsan 9mm Hi Power clone pistols in stock. I wanted to see them in person. I’ve been to three dealers looking for these and only my local dealer (2nd Amendment Zone) had one in stock.
When I last fired a Browning Hi Power (back in the 1970s) I did not care for the Browning Hi Power’s grip. It’s been described as grasping a brick, and that was my impression back then. Don’t get me wrong: Some folks love the feel of Browning’s Hi Power. I could get used to it, I think. Springfield Armory also makes a Hi Power clone, but it’s not on the California Department of Justice Roster of Approved Handguns. You know our politicians in California.
These Girsan cosmetiguns are made up kind of like what I imagine cartel or pimp guns look like. Years ago, Taurus had a polished aluminum and stainless version of their PT 92 (their copy of a Beretta 92), with gold accents and white pearl grips, and I’m sorry I didn’t buy one back then (you never know when a job opening for a pimp or a cartel kingpin might turn up). Anyway, when I saw advertisements for the Girsans, I thought I would take a look.
Black chrome and copper accents. I like the plain white plastic grips on this one better than the other Girsans. The trigger pull was atrocious.
2nd Amendment Zone had the black chrome Girsan with copper-colored accents in stock. It was pretty, but the trigger was atrocious (it was Letitia Jones heavy and it was gritty as hell). Nope. In person, I thought the black chrome version looked cheap, and the trigger was a deal killer. This Girsan is $899. It could have been $99 and I still would have taken a pass. It was that unappealing.
The silver Girsan was stunning, but alas, it wouldn’t rack. I think that is a Mexican eagle on the grips. If this gun had allowed me to pull the slide back, I would have bought it.
At Turners this morning I saw the polished and sand blasted stainless steel version. It is a beautiful pistol. It is also $899 and I was ready to give the guy my credit card until he took it out of the display case and tried to rack the side (to check it before handing it to me). The slide wouldn’t rack. He cocked the hammer and tried again. No dice. The sales guy could get the slide back about a third of the way (enough to see the chamber was empty). Then he let it go forward and handed it to me.
I tried to rack the slide with similar results. It wouldn’t budge beyond moving rearward about one third of its intended travel. I dropped the mag to see if that would help. No dice again. I tried the trigger and it was a bit better than the black chrome version at 2nd Amendment Zone, but with the slide not racking, it was a no go. It sure was a beautiful handgun, but it was a nonfunctional piece of junk.
For the well-dressed cartel gunsel. Nope, it wasn’t for me. The photo looks better than the gun does in person.
I next asked to see the gold Girsan. Even in the display case, I didn’t like the look of it. In pictures, it looks good. But seeing it in person was a nonstarter. The kid behind the counter took the gold Girsan out and couldn’t rack the slide, just like on the silver version. He offered to hand it to me and I declined. “Do you have any that work?” I asked, doing my best not to sound snarky. I was being polite. I’m trying to be a better person in my senior years.
“We’ve had some that do, but a lot of them have this problem,” the youngster behind the counter admitted. “I think they have a problem with the bluing,” he said, looking at the gold automatic in his hand. The gold version is $929.
I think the problem is the plating. Girsan may not have thought through how the increased thickness (due to the plating) would affect slide/barrel/bushing/frame relative movement. It’s amazing that such a thing could occur. Even as I type this, I can’t believe it. It’s also surprising Turner’s would keep these in their display case.
The no frills Girsan Hi Power clone. I don’t like the finish or the looks of the grips, but it racked and it felt comfortable in my hand.
I next looked at the black Girsan. It is not blued; I think the finish is some kind of flat black powder coating (the guy behind the counter didn’t know what the surface treatment was). This is the economy version. It racked okay and the trigger felt almost acceptable (but not great). I didn’t like the look of the grips, but they felt better to me than the other Girsans shown above. As the economy version, this Girsan Hi Power clone is $569, which is probably a bargain compared to the other three. But, with the racking problems described above, who knows that other issues these guns have?
I thanked the kid behind the counter and then told him I wouldn’t be buying a Girsan. If a gun gets out of the factory that won’t allow racking the slide, it doesn’t say very much about Girsan’s quality. Nope, not for me.
I looked for Girsan reviews online. There are a few Bubba YouTube videos out there, but I wasn’t going to rely on them. Any mental defective can publish a YouTube video (not that there’s anything wrong with being a mental defective; the California legislature is full of them). Most of the time when I see these online Bubba reviews, I’m amazed these guys can operate a camera or figure out how to post a video. Maybe they have other people helping them. It’s the price of living in a free society, I guess.
The SIG P320. I like this handgun a lot. Keep an eye on the ExNotes blog; I might pull the trigger on this one.
Before leaving Turner’s, I spotted a SIG P320 in the display case. I like SIG (I have a SIG P226 and it is a marvelous handgun). I shot a P320 last year at my indoor range. Even though it is a striker-fired pistol (with all that entails with regard to trigger pull), I was impressed with it. I shot several tight groups with the P320 and doing so was easy. The gun fit me. I’m not surprised the US Army selected the P320 to replace the Beretta. The SIG P320 is a great gun.
The P320 has had some bad press for inadvertent discharge(s), but SIG recently prevailed in a lawsuit (with a unanimous jury verdict) that negated that story. I think anti-gunners jump on such things whenever somebody screws up and lets a round go unintentionally, as occurred with the Remington 700 and a few other firearms. The P320 is a nice handgun. It looks great, I like the short barrel, and I like the desert tan colors. I think the P320 would make a good concealed carry gun. This may be the next 9mm pistol I buy. It is $669, which is reasonable given the price of everything else today.
I reloaded one box of 9mm ammo yesterday in the garage and it was HOT. I had to stop because I was soaked and I was getting a little woozy out there. The heat this summer has been worse than usual, I think.
Bullets, powder, an ammo container, and reloaded ammo. It was hot out there, but I love reloading.
The load was 4.2 grains of Bullseye from an old bottle I got from a friend, the 125- grain Raven Rocks full metal jacket truncated roundnose bullet (seated to an overall length of 1.080 inches), and no-name factory second primers. I never used factory second primers before, but they were cheap and I can’t pass up a deal. The Raven Rocks bullets were cheap, too, but in measuring a few, the diameters varied from 3.54 inches to 3.55 inches (which is not very good). File that under “you get what you pay for.” Sometimes. I loaded with mixed brass, mostly because I had some readily available and I didn’t want to go to the bother of sorting headstamps. I didn’t load this ammo to nail a woodchuck at 500 yards or make “major” in the action pistol world (running around with a loaded handgun and shooting it as fast as you can makes that game a nonstarter for me). It’s 9mm ammo and I’m a guy who likes to go the range. If it feeds, chambers, and goes bang, I’m a happy camper.
This morning, I took the box of 9mm ammo and two 9mm pistols to my indoor range. The handguns were the S&W Shield and the SIG P226 (they are two pistols I shoot a lot). They are the two you see in the photo at the top of this blog. I’ve written about them before. They are both great guns.
At the range, I ran the targets out to 10 yards. I wasn’t really going for accuracy; I mostly wanted to get the chrono data for this load.
Smith and Wesson Shield, reloaded ammo, and the Garmin chronograph.The Shield target, fired at 30 feet. I’ve done better. I’ve done worse. Your mileage may vary.The SIG P226 with the Scorpion treatment. It’s a nice look. I think this is one of the finest handguns I’ve ever owned.
I shot 25 rounds in each pistol, and here’s the chrono data.
Note the relatively low extreme spreads and the tight standard deviations. Bullseye showed me once again that it is a great handgun powder.
As you can see from the above targets, the SIG does a little better for both accuracy and velocity, mostly because of its longer barrel and longer sight radius.
I had one misfire in the SIG, but that was probably due to a primer that wasn’t fully seated. Was that a function of the primers being factory seconds, was it the result of my Lee Turret Press not fully seating the primer, or was it just me? Who knows. When I cocked the pistol and released the hammer a second time, it fired. That’s a classic symptom of a primer not being fully seated. The first firing pin strike seats the primer all the way into the case, and the second lights it.
The Bottom Line
I like this load a lot. I haven’t really done a lot of work with Bullseye in 9mm before (mostly it’s been Unique, Accurate Arms No. 5, and Red Dot in the past). 4.2 grains of Bullseye was a moderate recoil and velocity load and I think it is accurate enough. At around 1000 fps average velocity in both pistols, it’s good enough for me. Like I said, I wasn’t going for accuracy, but I think if I shot from a rest this load would do better in both pistols.
One final note: Bullseye propellant has been hard to get. My local reloading components store and most of the online outlets don’t show it in stock. Natchez does appear to have 8-lb bottles in stock, priced at about $355 (a sum that would have been unheard of in earlier days). What’s nice about Bullseye is most loads only need a little bit of the stuff. I have enough to last for a while.
Any day spent on the range is a good day, but some days are better than others. Today…well, let’s just say that some of my other days I’ve done better.
The S&W Shield with reloaded 9mm ammo. This was old stuff that I wanted to use up (and I did).
I belong to two ranges: The West End Gun Club up in the San Gabriel Mountains, and the Magnum Range in Rancho, California. The West End Gun Club is good for rifle and handgun (and now, shotgun, too), and you’ve seen more than a few photos of it on this blog. The WEGC shooting stations go out to 325 yards.
It takes about a half hour for me to get to the West End Gun Club, and as a guy who is still recovering from back surgery, it’s a bit tougher given my current (and hopefully, temporary) physical limitations. Carrying a target frame out to the 100-yard line is just not in the cards for me yet. Carrying all my gear to the bench exceeds my lifting restrictions.
The indoor range in Rancho is a lot easier. It’s about 10 minutes away. Rancho has a motorized target placement and retrieval system. The indoor range only goes out to 50 feet, but for my handgun shooting that’s plenty.
I paid $599 for my Garmin and it was worth every cent. You can get them now for $399. That’s a hell of a deal. These are my results with the box of 50 cartridges I had reloaded several years ago (long before I bought the Garmin).
On this particular day, I wanted to use a box of ammo that was hiding in the ammo locker. It was 9mm ammo I loaded several years ago. The recipe had been an accuracy winner in my Model 59 and Model 659 Smith and Wessons, and that load was the 125-grain Missouri cast roundnose bullet with 4.8 grains of Unique. It’s not a max load, but as you can see from the above photo, with an average velocity of 1043 feet per second, it’s hot enough. The spread and the standard deviation were higher than I’d like, but I guess that’s okay. I was using mixed older brass (which I didn’t bother policing when I was done shooting; it can get mixed in with the other spent cases and it is probably already on its way to the recycling center).
Win some, lose some. At 10 yards, I would probably still come out ahead if this was a bad guy. But from an accuracy perspective, I was not on top of my game.
In my two other Smiths (the 59 and the 659), this was a good load. In the Shield, not so much. The groups were too big. Was that me? Was it the shorter barrel and sight radius? Was it the ammo? Or am I just getting older? It might be all of the above, but I think my getting older is probably the biggest accuracy detractor.
That’s a lot of leading. Leading occurs if the bullet doesn’t seal well in the bore. Hot gases sneak around the bullet (between the bullet and the barrel) and it melts lead onto the rifling.
The good news is that I only had one failure to feed in a box of 50 rounds, and that one held the slide only slightly out of battery. I pushed the slide forward another maybe tenth of an inch and it fired on the next trigger pull. All the rounds extracted and ejected. There was quite a bit of leading, which surprised me. This load had not leaded the bores of either my Model 59 or Model 659. As the ammo was several years old, perhaps the lead had age hardened a bit, preventing the bullet from obturating adequately. Eh, it’s history now; this was the last box of that ammo. More good news is that the leading came out easily. A few passes with a stiff bore brush and it was gone.
You know, I like posting targets with tight groups clustered into one ragged hole. But those kinds of groups are becoming harder and harder to create. I’d be lying if I said I don’t care. I’m bothered when I don’t shoot as well as I think I should, and it lets me know that the years are catching up with me. It’s still fun to get out on the range, though, even when the groups aren’t that tight. Even a bad day at the range is better than sitting around in a doctor’s waiting room, which seems to be what I do a lot of anymore.
All three pistols in this blog are favorites, and all three have been tuned by good buddy TJ (of TJ’s Custom Gunworks). There’s a message there. He does great work.
Before my back surgery last Friday, I wanted to get to the indoor pistol range. I enjoy shooting there, and I didn’t know how long it would be before I could do so again. And I had ammo I wanted to use that I had loaded several years ago. I don’t think it’s really necessary to rotate my ammo stash, but I do so, anyway. The plan was to shoot two 1911s and my 9mm Shield, and get a little practice in with all three. One of the 1911s was the gorgeous MacManus Award Series 70 1911 Government Model you see above; the second was my bright stainless Series 80. The 9mm was my Shield. I’ve written about all of these pistols before; you can find those stories here.
185-grain powder coated semi-wadcutter bullets with 5.0 grains of Bullseye. This one of my favorite .45 ACP loads. In addition to being accurate, this is good-looking ammo.
When I arrived at the range, I sent one of my Alco targets down to the 10-yard line and started shooting at it with my Series 80 1911. It’s the bright stainless version and it’s gorgeous. TJ added a Les Baer barrel, Millet sights, and a few other touches to this gun, and it is a joy to shoot.
The 5.0-grain Bullseye/185-grain powder coated semi-wadcutter load averaged right around 835 feet per second. The spread was a bit more than I would have thought, but that’s okay. Or maybe it wasn’t. Sometimes the Garmin picks up a round from an adjacent lane, and if it caught a 9mm round, that would explain the higher velocity shot above 1000 fps.
I tend to get my money’s worth out of a target, and this one was no exception. Surprisingly, after firing the 75th round (out of a box of 100 cartridges), the 1911 experienced a failure to eject. The empty case just sat there, kind of wedged between the barrel hood and the slide. Hmmm. I looked in, and the extractor had slid forward. It broke. I’ve experienced that before on another 1911 (my RIA Compact), so I wasn’t shocked. Maybe just surprised a little. The bright stainless 1911 is the 1911 I shoot the most. I’ve been sending lead downrange with it since 1986, so having the extractor fail after 40 years of heavy use…well, I’ll live with that. It was off the TJ’s for fitment with a new extractor. I should get the gun back sometime early next week. But I digress. Back to today’s blog.
I sent a fresh target downrange and started firing the same ammo (my .45 ACP reloads) through the MacManus Series 70 1911 (the blue steel 1911 at the top of this blog). The target you see below? I put 125 rounds through it.
125 rounds through an Alco target. Like I said, I like to get my money’s worth out of a target.
With that, I had fired 200 rounds of .45 ACP so far that morning, and I had expended all of the reloaded .45 ammo I brought with. It was time to move on to the 9mm. I wanted to use another lot of ammo I had reloaded, this time with the 147-grain Hornady full metal jacket bullet in my Smith and Wesson Shield (another pistol tuned by TJ). The Shield is the firearm I usually carry when I’m carrying, and I like to stay proficient with it. I like the a full-sized 1911 a lot more than the compact Shield, but the Shield is a much more concealable handgun and it is way easier to carry.
My Smith and Wesson Shield. It’s compact. It’s easy to carry. And I love the hi-viz sights. TJ slicked it up a bit for me.
I mentioned a while back that I have a big bottle of Red Dot propellant, and earlier testing showed that 3.2 grains of this powder with a 147-grain full metal jacket Hornady bullet is one of the Shield’s sweet spots.
The straight scoop on a great 9mm load. This particular combination is extremely reliable and relatively accurate.
I had another one of my Alco silhouette targets (is the guy facing toward me, or away from me?), and I sent 100 rounds downrange toward it, too.
Another target, another 100 shots. My point of aim was at 6:00 on the orange bullseye.
I had a nice morning on the range. All the ammo I brought with me was old stuff, reloaded with brass that had been reloaded many times. I didn’t bother collecting it. I just swept up my area and left it for the range’s recycler. That felt like I was doing something wrong (not picking up the brass), but with back surgery two days away I wasn’t bending too well that morning. I’ve got plenty of brass.
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:
Bullet weight variability parameters.
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.
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.
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.
I’ll be ready. Will you?
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.
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.
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.The Tex Shoemaker logo.
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.
