How risky is .5 grain over maximum charge (.45 Colt+Unique)

[USSR]

MacTech,

You really need to move up to slower burning powders. I would suggest 2400, H110, or IMR4227 to take advantage of your long barrel and get the velocity it is capable of.

Don

 

[justgoto]

Can't answer that... Folks who know a hell of a lot more about shooting than I have repeated this rule of thumb and I have seen it for myself but I do not wish to spend the day arguing about it.

In the future, expect to be challenged when parroting wild theories you don't understand.

why is it that EVERY handgun I've ever owned has a taller front sight compared to the rear sight

Because your firearms are defective? Maybe you don't know how to use a measuring device? From my derringer to my 8" 357, not one of my handguns suffer from that affliction.

Why are you even mentioning a rifle cartridge since this is a pistol cartridge and handgun phenomena.

Read the "quoted" section I was addressing. Here is some help. "In [my] world," "pistol cartridge and handgun" are bound by the same laws of physics as "rifle cartridge."

Not likely given the different burn rates of the powder and primer and the completely different pressure curves.

Thank you for driving home my main point so pointedly! The pressure curve in a 30-06 with 220gr bullets is such that the bullet leaves the barrel much, much later. I didn't think either of you two were going to swallow the hook.

As CraigC stated, this isn't necessarily a universal rule

So "in your world," the laws of physics don't apply evenly. Oh yeah, we've covered that already.

Why is it that neither of you tried to address one point I've made, (without being tricked into it,) or tried to further your theory? (That is rhetorical.)

 

[Sport45]

It may have just been my shooting skills at the time, but my 7.5" SBH in .44mag shot .44 special much higher that it shot magnum rounds. Enough so that I sold the thing and bought a .45 Colt instead.

(Maybe it was an unconscious effort to get a new gun )

 

[MCMXI]

Because your firearms are defective? Maybe you don't know how to use a measuring device? From my derringer to my 8" 357, not one of my handguns suffer from that affliction.

Here are three of my revolvers clearly showing that the front sights are taller than the rear sights. I can post photos of the 20+ handguns that I own and the story will still be the same. And yes, I do know how to use a tape measure, and a caliper and a micrometer.

 

[MCMXI]

Here are my GP100s ... yep, same story. The front sight is taller. So that's five revolvers all with front sights taller than the rear sights. Shall I continue?

 

[MCMXI]

Here are my two USFA revolvers ... yep, same again ... front sights are taller!!

 

[MCMXI]

Even my S&W 629 uses a taller front sight ...

 

[MCMXI]

Well, that's eight revolvers all with taller front sights than rear sights ... now I'm bored ... but what was your response to my observation that all of my handguns have taller front sights compared to the rear sights ....

why is it that EVERY handgun I've ever owned has a taller front sight compared to the rear sight

Because your firearms are defective? Maybe you don't know how to use a measuring device? From my derringer to my 8" 357, not one of my handguns suffer from that affliction.

 

[justgoto]

Well, that's eight revolvers all with taller front sights than rear sights ... now I'm bored

That you actually think that is the case, is astounding!

You'll need help for this... Try measuring the height of the sight to the bore axis, not the frame.

For your next trick, (since you still haven't addressed any of my numerous points,) tell me how the people designing the sights know your load is reduced and therefore shooting high? [edit]fixed[/edit]

now I'm bored

I would expect that from someone that has NOTHING to validate this theory.

 

[Skip_a_roo]

I have shot handguns for years and years but just recently started reloading for the 45 Colt. I have 3 firearms chambered for it and enjoy everyone of them. The first one I bought was a Ruger 45 Convertible (45ACP & 45 Colt) the next a Puma rifle and the third a M25 -7.

I have several bullets I cast for 45ACP and one especially for the 45AR for use in my M625JM. That bullet is an H&G #502, 240gr LSWC of the Keith design. Now I have a Mihec mould that is a copy of the RCBS 45-270-SAA that weighs in at 285gr as a solid and 270gr with the round hollow point pins.

When the latter bullet was shot from the Ruger, loaded to Brian Pearce's data for 30,000psi loads, I could adjust the sights for it to hit POA/POI. The rear site had to be moved down. That means that the bullet was hitting higher. Now, that bullet was traveling somewhere near the 1300fps mark. The previous loads that I ran from this firearm was the above mentioned 240gr bullet with a similar velocity, maybe a little faster, 1400fps.

Then I got the Smith. Now, I believe that it will take the above mentioned loads BUT am just a chicken to try at this time. It is a super nice gun and I don't want to ruin it before I even get started, so to speak. At any rate, I started off with a load of 9.0gr of Unique, well within published data, under the 240gr H&G and found that even at 25 yards that it was printing about 6" high! Velocity was near 950fps, as I recall. As I tried to adjust the sights to compensate for this, I ran out of adjustment room. Printing high means that the rear sight has to move down to get POA to equal POI.

I "adjusted" the rear sight with a file to lower its overall height and then deepened the groove in it to allow me to see the full front sight then re-blued it. Now it hits where I aim it with the 950fps 240gr load as I mentioned above. I do not need to shoot it to know two things.

#1: If I were to take my 45-270-SAA bullet and load it to the same velocity, it will print higher on the target, period.

#2: If I were to take my H&G #68, 200gr LSWC and load it to the same velocity it will print lower on the target, period.

Both statements assume two things.

#1: Point of aim is the same.
#2: The distance to the target is the same.

Barrel dwell time is a big factor in shooting handguns, no doubt about that. While I haven't spent a lot of time doing ladder test targets, I have proven the above statements over and over and over again, in more than just this one caliber.

What happens when you hot rod the 270gr bullet to "infinity and beyond"? Where will it print on the target? There are two many factors to put into this equation to say too much for certain BUT, I can tell you where it will hit if I am shooting it, higher. Take the 200gr and do likewise, load it to "infinity and beyond" and it will still print lower than the 270gr at slower typical velocities.

Why? You can figure that one out, I really don't need to KNOW the why of it. If I want to be the reloader/handloader/shooter that I want to be, I sure had better know that this is how it works in real life!

Otherwise, I am going to have to spout INTERNET theories and "ought to be's".

 

[CraigC]

In the future, expect to be challenged when parroting wild theories you don't understand.

Try throttling back on the attitude buddy, I didn't just all off the turnip truck yesterday.

Nobody on this end is "parroting wild theories" and I understand, fully. I am repeating conventional wisdom that I have PROVEN for myself on the range with a multitude of firearms. If your experience has been different, that's fine, it's even to be expected. Just keep in mind that your contrary experience does NOT prove the general rule of thumb to be myth.

No, it is not a hard and fast rule and no, simple physics do not fully encompass every minute detail. As 1858 mentioned, recoil is a contributing factor and every single human body that fires a rifle or handgun is different and therefore, they all react differently to recoil. Also as suggested, since recoil is a factor, it 'may' react differently with such a moderate load in a full-sized rifle. Which is why it's a general rule of thumb, not one of the ten commandments.

Lighten up.

 

[jerkface11]

justgoto needs to shoot some .44 special and some red hot .44 magnum out of the same gun. Then tell us which one prints higher on the target.

 

[MCMXI]

I said ...

Well, that's eight revolvers all with taller front sights than rear sights

justgoto said ...

That you actually think that is the case, is astounding! You'll need help for this... Try measuring the height of the sight to the bore axis, not the frame.

What's astounding is your ARROGANT attitude. Here's a photo of one of the Blackhawks shown earlier with the top of the front and rear sights level with the table. Which direction is the BARREL pointing in relative to the table? In your world, the barrel and the table should be parallel. In the REAL world .... they're NOT. Anyone with half a brain can clearly see that the sights and barrel are NOT parallel, and that the centerline of the barrel and the horizontal plane of the table diverge. Once again, I can post images until the cows come home showing that the barrels on ALL of my handguns point lower than the sights BY DESIGN!!!!

 

[Skip_a_roo]

I think a good read would be the Brian Pearce article found in this preview version of Handloader. Pearce runs the new model Vaquero through it's paces and has some interesting observations on page 44 (column all the way to the right) and 45 (column all the way to the left).

Very interesting read for this thread hijacking discussion!

http://www.riflemagazine.com/magazine/PDF/HL_234_preview.pdf

 

[KodiakBeer]

Here's a photo of one of the Blackhawks shown earlier with the top of the front and rear sights level with the table.

If he can't grasp that excellent graphic demonstration, then you'll just have to give up!

I'm amazed that somebody who reloads doesn't understand such basic firearms knowledge.

 

[PT1911]

Justgoto, 1858 is correct about the difference in height in the front and rear sights. If one were to put a laser bore sighter in the chamber of a revolver and then line up the sights naturally, they would find the laser to be much lower than the sights. Why? the design of the gun takes barrel lift into account.

 

[zxcvbob]

You'll need help for this... Try measuring the height of the sight to the bore axis, not the frame.

For your next trick, (since you still haven't addressed any of my numerous points,) tell me how the people designing the sights know your load is reduced and therefore shooting high?

The bullet weight is by far the most important variable, and the sights will be regulated to a common (probably heavy) bullet weight. A "target" load and a "magnum" load with the same weight will impact pretty much the same place at reasonable distances -- until you get far enough out that bullet drop becomes significant.

 

[justgoto]

What's astounding is your ARROGANT attitude.

You mean by throwing your own words back in your face, like "in your world"?

No, your attitude got the best of your argument long ago. You have abandoned your argument completely for picture shows with [single] upside-down weapons, (apparently, your 'measuring devise' is broken,) sporting ADJUSTABLE sights that we have no idea where it hits and why. I can only assume we have embarked on the dishonest route.

Otherwise, I am going to have to spout INTERNET theories and "ought to be's".

I can see how you people get so confused, nothing you are doing is based in scientific method. Especially the pictures, and "I ran out of adjustment room." How embarrassing it must be for you... Should be.

I deal with misunderstanding of data and blatant disregard for common sense on a weekly basis. I always end up wasting time and ammo proving my point beyond a doubt; when I do I am always countered with, "simple physics do not fully encompass every minute detail." Absurd!

When I produce a theory nullifying conundrum, the tune changes to "isn't necessarily a universal rule."

I am repeating conventional wisdom

No, it isn't. No matter how many times you keep "repeating" that, it will not make the wild theory scientific fact.

If he can't grasp that excellent graphic demonstration,

Let's hope that is sarcasm...

Anyone of you flat-earthers want to try addressing an actual point instead of circle-jerking? No?
I'll leave you with the only thing I think you'll understand. PWNED! It's the internet, complete with blatant disregard for scientific method, physics, and common sense... but with pictures!

 

[CraigC]

Wow! If you are so smart and we are so dumb, then maybe you can explain how 'our' experience confirms what you call "theory"??? Tell me exactly why, in a .44Mag, that a 240gr at 1400fps prints lower than the same bullet at 700fps. Tell me why a 355gr at 1200fps prints higher than a 240gr at the same velocity.

 

[justgoto]

Attention flat-earthers, the argument has been moved to here.

 

[MCMXI]

You have abandoned your argument completely for picture shows with [single] upside-down weapons, (apparently, your 'measuring devise' is broken,) sporting ADJUSTABLE sights that we have no idea where it hits and why. I can only assume we have embarked on the dishonest route.

Yep, that's it ... I'm being dishonest. Here's a photo of a GP100 with fixed sights. I even show a closeup where once again, the barrel and the table top clearly aren't parallel. But wait, maybe I machined some steel off the rear sight to make a point.

 

[MCMXI]

For those in the audience capable of following along, basically everyone except justgoto, the GP100 shown above has a sight radius of approximately 4.8". As an example of how a small change to the height of the front sight has a large effect on the target, if the revolver shown above were shooting 6" high at 15 yards, I would only need to add 0.053" to the height of the front sight to move the POI down 6".

 

[Skip_a_roo]

My friend once told me: "Never argue with an idiot, someone standing nearby won't be able to tell which one is which!"

Now, I'm not calling anyone names, I'm just saying I'm done. I hate looking like an idiot!

p.s. I have spoken with John Linebaugh about the M25 and shooting his loads out of it. One of the first things he said about it was that the front sight wasn't tall enough. I guess I am in that group. I think that is a good group to be in! Since I'm not a gun smith, I fixed the problem the best way I could.

 

[Sam1911]

No reason to get so worked up about some of these things.

This is THR.org -- we're supposed to be comporting ourselves like gentlemen.