My Rock Island Armory Compact 1911 is a favorite. I carry with factory ammo (Winchester’s 230-grain hardball, like I had in the Army). But that’s not what I shoot on the range; there, I shoot reloads exclusively. This blog answers a question keeping all of us awake at night: Where do different loads shoot compared to factory ammunition?
What you’re going to see aren’t tiny target groups. The Rock Compact 1911 is a concealed carry handgun. I know Facebook trolls can shoot dime-sized 1911 groups at 100 yards with both eyes closed. What you see below are my groups.
I have three favorite loads for my .45. The first is one I’ve been shooting for 50 years. That is a 230-grain cast roundnose bullet (I like Missouri bullets, although I’ve had good luck with just about any cast 230-grain roundnose), 5.6 grains of Unique, whatever primers I can find, and whatever brass I have on hand. I use the Lee .45 ACP factory crimp die on all my ammo; overall length is 1.262 inches. This load is a bit lighter than factory ammo, but not by much. The good news is it feeds in any 1911 (it doesn’t need a polished ramp and chamber) and wow, it’s accurate.
From left to right: 185-grain Gardner powder-coated cast semi-wadcutter, 200-grain Missouri cast semi-wadcutter, 230-grain Missouri cast roundnose, and Winchester 230-grain full metal jacket hardball .45 ACP ammunition.
The next load is a 200-grain cast semi-wadcutter bullet (I use Missouri or Speer), 4.2 grains of Bullseye, anybody’s primers, and mixed brass. Cartridge overall length on this one is 1. 255 inches. The semi-wadcutter profile usually needs a polished feed ramp and chamber.
The third load is a 185-grain cast semi-wadcutter bullet and 4.6 grains of Bullseye. For this test, I had CCI 350 primers. My usual 185-grain cast load uses 5.0 grains of Bullseye and a CCI 300 primer, but primers are tough to find these days so I dropped the powder down to 4.6 grains. Lately I’ve been using Gardner powder-coated bullets. They look cool and they’re accurate. Cartridge overall length is 1.260 inches. Like the load above, this one needs a polished ramp and chamber, too.
And then there’s factory ammo. I use 230-grain hardball from Winchester. Just for grins I measured its overall length; it is 1.262 inches. Factory hardball typically runs between 1.260 and 1.270 inches.
Good buddy TJ over at TJ’s Custom Gunworks polished my Compact’s ramp and chamber (it feeds anything), he recut the ejector (no more stovepiping) and fitted a better extractor, he polished the barrel and the guide rod, he engine-turned the chamber exterior, and he installed red ramp/white outline Millett sights. The Compact didn’t need a trigger job; it was super-crisp from the factory. I added the Pachmayr grips. You can read more about the Rock here.
All shooting was at 50 feet, all groups (except with factory ammo) were 5-shot groups, I used a two-hand hold, and my point of aim was 6:00 on the bullseye.
I shot my first set of four groups with the 185-grain cast semi-wadcutter load. As you can see on the target below, the groups move around a bit. That notwithstanding, the center of the groups seems to be pretty much right on the point of aim.
185-grain Gardner bullets and 4.6 grains of Bullseye.
About that 4.6 grains of Bullseye with the CCI magnum primers: The standard load (5.0 grains of Bullseye and regular primers) is a much more accurate load.
The next four groups were with the 200-grain cast semi-wadcutter. The center of these groups is maybe just below the point of aim. Maybe. It’s very close to the point of aim.
200-grain semi-wadcutter Missouri cast bullets.
Next up was the 230-grain cast roundnose load. The groups are about 2 inches below the point of aim and maybe slighly biased to the left, but they’re still pretty close.
230-grain cast roundnose Missouri bullets.
My last shots were with the Winchester 230-grain roundnose factory ammo. I used a full-sized silhouette target (not the four-targets-per-sheet targets you see above) and again, I held at 6:00. The point of impact is just about at point of aim (maybe a scosh lower).
On target with 230-grain Winchester hardball ammo.
The bottom line? The Compact shoots different loads to different points of impact, but the difference isn’t significant. Predictably, the 230-grain loads shoot a little lower than the 200-grain loads, and the 200-grain loads are a bit lower than the 185-grain loads. Factory ammo shoots essentially to point of aim. The differences wouldn’t matter on a real target. For a fixed sight combat handgun all are close enough for government work.
One last comment: Every load tested fed and functioned perfectly with my TJ-modified Compact Rock. If you want world class custom gun work, TJ’s Custom Gunworks is the best.
What’s next? I’m going to repeat this test, but with a Turnbull-finished Smith and Wesson 1917 revolver. That’s going to be fun.
A 1917 Smith and Wesson with Turnbull color case hardening. It, too, shoots the .45 ACP cartridge.
I’m a lucky guy. One of the Holy Grail pieces in my collection is a Model 52 Smith and Wesson. These guns were discontinued nearly 30 years ago and a lot of folks (myself included) consider them to be the finest handguns ever manufactured. I had always wanted one, and finally, after pestering a good friend relentlessly, he agreed to sell me his.
An impressive target handgun: The Smith and Wesson Model 52-2. It has one of the best triggers I’ve ever experienced.
The Model 52 was built as a no-compromise bullseye target handgun chambered for mid-range .38 Special wadcutter ammunition. What that means is that it’s not a duty weapon or a concealed carry weapon. It’s a full-sized, 5-inch-barreled, adjustable sights, tightly-clearanced handgun with but one objective in mind: Shooting tiny groups with wadcutter ammo.
The .38 Special cartridge has been around forever, and the target variant uses a wadcutter bullet. One of my friends saw these and commented that it was odd-looking ammo, and I guess if you’re not a gun nut it probably is. The bullets fit flush with the case mouth, and because of the sharp shoulder at the front of the bullet, they cut a clean hole in the target (hence the “wadcutter” designation).
.38 Special wadcutter ammo, reloaded on a Star reloading machine. The secret sauce (not so secret, actually) is a 148 grain wadcutter bullet seated flush and 2.7 grains of Bullseye propellant.
I love reloading .38 Special wadcutter ammo, especially now that I am doing so on my resurrected Star reloader. You can read about that here.
You can see the clean holes cut by the wadcutter bullets in the target below, and that’s a typical target for me when I’m on the range with the Model 52. What you see below is a target with 25 shots at 25 yards shot from the standing position.
25 rounds at 25 yards from the Model 52, all in the bullseye. I’m a ham-and-eggs pistolero; guys who are good can shoot much tighter groups.
Yeah, I know, 2 of the 25 shots were a bit low in the orange bullseye. A gnat landed on my front sight twice during the string of 25. (That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.)
That’s a Hornady hollow-base wadcutter on the left, and the Missouri Bullets cast double-ended wadcutter on the right. The HBWC is orientation sensitive; the DEWC is not.Reloaded HBWC and DEWC cartridges, with two of the double-ended wadcutter bullets that show the wadcutter end (which faces forward in the cartridge) and the hollow base end. These HBWC projectiles are Hornady bullets.
Next question: Which is more accurate in the Model 52, the hollow-base wadcutters or the double-ended wadcutters? The two I tried are the Missouri cast double-ended wadcutter, and the Hornady swaged hollow-base wadcutter. Here’s what they look liked (with me behind the gun) on a set of 50-ft targets:
50-ft targets used for comparing DEWC bullets versus HBWC bullets. These targets are about one-fourth the size of the silhouette target shown above.
And here’s the group size data from the 16 five-shot groups I fired a couple of days ago (all dimensions are in inches). It was all focused on answering the question: Which is more accurate? Hollow-base wadcutters, or double-ended wadcutters?
The load was 2.7 grains of Bullseye, a CCI 500 primer, and mixed brass for all of the above groups. They were all shot at 50 feet. So, to answer the accuracy question, to me the difference is trivial (it’s less than a 1% difference when comparing hollow-base to double-ended wadcutter average groups). The standard deviation (a measure of the variability in the group size) was a little bigger for the hollow-base wadcutters, but the difference was probably a statistcal anomaly and it was more due to me, I think, than anything else.
Folks often wonder how the Smith and Wesson wizards managed to get a semi-auto to feed wadcutter ammo. It’s partly in the magazine design and partly in the ramping (but mostly in the magazine). The Model 52 magazine is designed to only hold 5 rounds, and if the bullet protrudes beyond the case mouth, it won’t fit into the magazine. The magazine holds the the top cartridge nearly perfectly in alignment with the chamber, and when the slide pushes the round forward, it glides right in. It will even do so with an empty case, as the video below shows.
The Model 52 was first introduced by Smith and Wesson in 1961. It was based on Smith’s 9mm Model 39, but it had a steel frame (instead of an aluminum frame, although Smith also made a small number of Model 39s with steel frames), a 5-inch barrel (instead of the 39’s 4-inch barrel), and target-grade sights adjustable for windage and elevation (instead of the 39’s windage-adjustable-only sights). The original Model 52 had the Model 39’s double action first shot capability, although I’ve never seen a no-dash Model 52. In 1963 Smith incorporated a better single-action-only trigger and the 52 became the 52-1, and then in 1970 it became the 52-2 when Smith incorporated a better extractor. Mine is the 52-2.
I was lucky…when my friend sold the Model 52 to me, he had the complete package: The original blue Smith and Wesson box, the paperwork that came with the new gun, and all of the tools and accessories (including the barrel bushing wrench).
You might be wondering: Which is more accurate? The Model 52 Smith and Wesson, or the new Colt Python? They are both fine and accurate handguns, but in my hands and after coming back from good buddy TJ and TJ’s Custom Gunworks with a crisp single-action trigger, the Python gets top billing in the accuracy department. You can read about the Python’s accuracy with wadcutter .38 Special ammo here.
Never miss any of our ExNotes blogs on guns, bicycles, motorcycles, construction equipment, product reviews, and all the rest. Subscribe for free here!
Bottom line first: The SIG P226 Scorpion can get ‘er done! This is a phenomenal handgun, one of the best I’ve ever shot.
This is Part I of the promised 9mm comparo, and after thinking about it for a bit, I thought I would focus on the cast bullet loads in the first installment, and then move on to the jacketed bullet loads in the next one (that will come a little later). There are a lot of ways I could have organized the comparo; this one made the most sense to me. There’s a lot of information here and I didn’t want it to be overwhelming. It also involves a lot of shooting (about a half day’s worth with just the cast bullets), and I wanted to clean the pistols after shooting the cast bullet loads before moving on to the jacketed loads.
I used three 9mm handguns for this test: A former police-issue Model 659 Smith and Wesson, a Springfield Armory 1911 Target, and a SIG P226 Scorpion. Let’s start with a few words about each.
Keep us in clover…please click on the popup ads!
The 659 S&W is a gun that’s been featured on the ExNotes blog before. It’s a police department trade-in that was manufactured in the 1980s. My good buddy Tom gave me a great deal on it, I refinished the brushed stainless steel slide and frame, I fixed the decocker (it wasn’t dropping the hammer when the safety was actuated), and I’ve been shooting it a lot in the last few months. My gun has Pachmayr checkered rubber grips (which I like a lot). It is a heavy gun at 40 ounces, mostly because it has a steel frame (many 9mm handguns have a polymer or aluminum frame).
The 659 Smith and Wesson. It’s a solid service pistol, one that was used widely when police agencies in the US switched from revolvers to autos 40 years ago.
I like the 659. Like I said above, it’s heavy (but that means it’s steady) and it seems to shoot everything well. What do I not like about it? It needs to be kept clean behind the extractor, or it will sometimes fail to fully extract and eject a fired cartridge. That’s due to the nature of the extractor, which is a hinged arm. When grit or powder reside gets behind the aft portion of the extractor, it can’t pivot and it doesn’t pull the cartridge all the way out so that it can be ejected. I think the squared-off trigger guard is goofy. I never wrap my left hand around the front of the trigger guard and I prefer the look of a rounded trigger guard. Like most double-action/single-action semi-auto handguns, this 659 has the Joe Biden trigger (it’s kind of creepy). The front sight is unfinished stainless steel, so it is hard to see on the target (I paint the front sight on my 659 flat black so I can get a good sight picture). The Pachmayr grips add to the 659’s bulky grip design, but they also allow a secure hold.
That’s a lot of bitching, I suppose, especially when it’s directed at a handgun I enjoy shooting enormously. None of the above would keep me from buying a 659 (and none of the above kept me from buying this one). I like my 659. If you get an opportunity to buy one and the price is right for you, take it from a guy who knows: You won’t regret pulling the trigger (literally and figuratively) on a used Model 659. That’s if you can even find one. The police departments have all traded them in, Smith and Wesson stopped making these guns decades ago, and the supply is drying up.
The next one up is a Springfield Armory Target model 9mm 1911. As handguns go, it doesn’t get any better than the 1911 (or so I thought up until this test, but more on that later), and having a 1911 chambered in 9mm seems to me to be a good idea.
Springfield Armory changed the name on this gun. It used to be called the “Loaded” model (as in loaded with all the options, including target sights and hand fitting here in the US), but they later changed the name to the Target model. That’s good. “Loaded” makes it sound like the gun is a stoner (i.e., a doper, not the weapons designer).
I’ve had my 9mm 1911 for about 5 years (I bought it new from my good buddy Brian at Bullet Barn Guns). I knew it was accurate, but I had not really played with it that much to find out what loads it liked best.
The Springfield Armory 1911 Target Model, with adjustable sights, a 5-inch barrel, and all stainless steel construction.
There’s not too much to dislike about the Springfield Armory 1911. Springfield makes a quality gun. The fit and finish on mine are superb. One thing I’ve noticed is that it has a tight chamber, and ammo loaded on a progressive reloader is prone to sometimes jam if the cartridge isn’t perfect (unlike the 659, which feeds anything). That doesn’t bother me because I load everything on a single-stage RCBS Rockchucker these days. I don’t need the speed of a progressive reloader, and my ammo quality and accuracy are better when I load on a single-stage press. The trigger on my 1911 is superb, as is the case on nearly every 1911 I’ve ever shot. I think that as 1911s go, Springfield Armory is one of the best. I’ve owned and shot several of them. They are accurate and they hold up well. Fit and finish are top drawer, too, on every Springfield Armory 1911 I’ve ever seen. It’s just a beautiful 1911.
The third handgun for this test series is my recently-acquired SIG P226 Scorpion. This is the first SIG I’ve ever owned. I’d heard so many good things about SIG handguns (and in particular, their accuracy) that I thought I would take the plunge and buy one. I bought mine at Turner’s here in southern California.
So how do I like the SIG? In a word, it’s awesome. I like the look of the Cerakote finish and the SIG grips, and gun just feels right in my hand. The grips fit like a glove, and the grip texture works. It is one seriously good-looking and good-handling handgun.
SIG’s P226 Scorpion. It has a Cerakote finish and an aluminum frame. This is a good-looking handgun, I think.
The SIG is the only pistol used in this test that does not have adjustable sights. The SIG literature told me they offer sights of different heights, and the rear sight can be drifted left or right in its dovetail, but none of that was necessary on my gun. My SIG shoots exactly to its point of aim at 50 feet (take a look at that target at the top of this blog again).
Speaking of sights, the SIG has what is evidently a fairly expensive set of Tritium sights that glow in the dark (I think they are about a hundred bucks if you buy them separately). The glow is not like the lume of a watch dial; instead, they have something else going on that makes them light up at night. You can see that in this photo I took in the dark:
There’s the sights. Where’s the target? Normally, you’d get the front and rear sights aligned; that is not the case in this photo. The only point of this photo is that the SIG glows in the dark.
I think the Tritium sights are kind of a Gee-Whiz deal, and I don’t think I need them. I’m an old guy and I shoot targets when I can see what I’m shooting at. If I was a lot younger and I was running around in a white Ferrari with Miami Vice music playing while chasing bad guys at night, maybe Tritium sights would do it for me. But even under those conditions, it would still be dark and I wouldn’t be able to see my target. I think the Tritium sights are gimmicky, and the little lenses (or whatever they are) for the Tritium inserts are distracting. Plain black sights work best for me. Your mileage may vary.
So, on to the main attraction: The 9mm loads and how they performed in each of the three handguns. I loaded everything for this first 9mm test series with a bullet I’ve known and loved for 50 years, and that’s the 124-grain cast roundnose. My particular flavor these days are the pills from Missouri Bullets. At $33 for a box of 500, they are inexpensive and the quality is good. A roundnose configuration bullet feeds well in just about any gun. Yeah, I know there are other cast bullet configurations and other cast bullet weights. I’ve always had my best results with the 124-grain bullets, though, and that’s what I used for this test.
124-grain cast roundnose bullets from the Missouri Bullet Company. They are relatively inexpensive and they shoot well.
I tested with four different propellants: Bullseye, Unique, 231, and Power Pistol. For the 231 and Power Pistol loads, I loaded near the lower end of the recommended charge range for one test set, and I loaded another test set near the upper end of the recommended charge range. With Unique, they were all loaded with 5.0 grains, which is a max charge in most reloading manuals. I had a bunch of these already loaded, and I knew from a past life that this was an accurate load. I tried one load with Bullseye, too. I had a box of 50 loaded and I grabbed those as I headed to the range a few days ago. I used Remington small pistol primers for everything, and I used several different brands of brass, but I used the same kind of brass for each load. Cartridge overall length was 1.112 inches for all loads.
All loads were handheld at a distance of 50 feet. I shot two 5-shot groups with each load. I didn’t use a machine rest or a chronograph because I have neither. I shot from the bench, resting my arms (but not the gun) on the bench. Yes, a lot of the variability you see in the chart below is due to me. Hey, I’m what you get. My intent was to get an idea what worked best in each of these guns, and I think I succeeded.
That’s the background. Here are the results:
Clearly, the SIG is the most accurate of the three handguns. What I’d read and heard about SIG’s performance is true. Some of the SIG groups were amazing, putting 5-shots into under an inch at 50 feet. That’s about as good as I’ve ever done.
While the SIG was accurate with Winchester’s 231 propellant, the gun didn’t like it. On both of the 3.4 grain loads, the slide went forward after the last round (it didn’t lock open), and it did it again on one of the 3.9 grain magazines. While the 231 loads had enough poop to cycle the action, it wasn’t running the slide far enough back to lock open on the last round. This powder also did that on one of the Springfield Armory 1911 tests. Interestingly, the Smith and Wesson 659 worked okay with both the upper and lower 231 loads. These were light loads (I could see the slide moving back and forth with each shot, and it popped the brass out right next to the gun). My testing got me far enough along to decide Winchester 231 is not for me as a 9mm propellant.
The SIG really liked Power Pistol propellant, and from an accuracy perspective it performed similarly at both the low (5.0 grain) and high (5.5 grain) levels. There was perceptibly more recoil (but no pressure signs) with 5.5 grains of Power Pistol, so my load for the SIG with this bullet will be 5.0 grains. The SIG also did well with 5.0 grains of Unique. That’s a good thing, as I have a bunch of ammo loaded with this recipe. As I mentioned above, I found 5.0 grains of Unique did well in accuracy testing a long time ago, and it’s good to see this test supports those earlier findings. The 5.0 grains of Unique load also did very well in the Springfield 1911 (it was the Springfield’s most accurate load). With this load, the Springfield is as accurate as the SIG. But the SIG did well with all loads; the Springfield was pickier.
The 659 is a great gun, but from an accuracy perspective it can’t run with the big dogs. That’s okay; it’s still fun to shoot and I plan to continue shooting it a lot. And it only cost about a third what the others cost. Like I said earlier, if you get a chance to pick up a 659, don’t let it get away.
But that SIG. Wow!
So there you have it. Next up? I want to see how these same three pistols shoot jacketed bullets. Stay tuned.
One last comment…it’s time for the warnings and disclaimers. These are my loads in my guns. You should always consult a reloading manual published by one of the major sources (Hornady, Speer, Sierra, Lyman, Winchester, Alliant, you get the idea) and rely on the load data published there. Start low and work your way up, watching for any pressure signs along the way.
Help us keep the lights on: Please click on the popup ads!
. Buy online and get