History: Long Read
Blakenzy wrote:
>Geez. Hope I'm not drifting off topic here, but I really don't understand why modern manufacturing companys can't reproduce today what was once being massed produced way back during WWII.
**********
Not off-topic at all. Of course they can make'em. There's just not a market for an obsolete design that'll only work with hardball...
A little history may be helpful.
Back in the early days, bullseye shooters were given a little help with the
design of the Hensley&Gibbs #68 200-grain SWC bullet. It was accurate and cheap, once the shooter amortized the cost of his bullet molds and related equipment, and it helped with scoring due to the shoulder that cut a clean, round hole in the target instead of tearing through as hardball tends to do.
Sometimes it was hard to tell if the next higher scoring ring was cut when a shot edged right on the line. The SWC was easier to judge. It either cut the line, and gave the shooter the higher point...or it didn't.
The Bullseye competitors also discovered that many pistols wouldn't feed with the SWC unless the magazine was modified to release the round earlier, and the development of the present-day timed-release magazine began.
Along comes IPSC competition, and there was a major power floor, in which the ammunition had to meet certain velocity and energy levels...usually determined by a ballistic pendulum that had to be moved a certain distance in order for the shooter to qualify for the higher point afforded by major power factor...or be bumped into minor power with its reduced scoring for a given hit.
So, the shooters...in order to keep recoil as low as possible...handloaded their ammo to just make major...though sometimes they were so close, that variations put them into minor anyway. With IPSC competition and the tendency of the shooters to fudge on their ammo a bit, also came the desire to have more rounds in the magazine...since one extra round could make or break a stage if the stage could be completed without losing time reloading...or afford a faster reload on a hot chamber if the shooter was adept at counting rounds.
The trouble came with the necessarily shorter and lighter magazine springs that didn't cause much trouble with the reduced power levels of the ammo...but often did with the full-power hardball, and the hotter +p offerings.
Along comes a new bullet with an even shorter nose than the #68...which worked well with the modified magazines, and often even the unaltered hardball mags. The shorter nose placed more weight at full bullet diameter, making the bullet a bit more accurate...and it allowed the weight to be dropped to 185 grains and still provide enough weight at the bullet diameter to maintain accuracy...AND...the lighter bullet brought the recoil impulse down a bit below the 200-grain pill with the ammo still able to make major.
Problem was, that the short, stubby bullet was a real bear to get to feed in the tapered-lip.late release magazines...even the ones that were altered to provide an earlier release.
Enter the parallel-lip/early,abrupt release design. With a little work, the guns would function reliably with the new magazine and the short bullets...and then the world changed with the growing trend toward hollowpoint ammo...and I give credit to the old 200-grain Speer Lawman round...or the blame, whichever it may be...for the complete changeover to the wadcutter magazine.
Affectionately known as the "Flying Ashtray" the speer bullet was a stubby
.45 caliber bullet with a huge hollow cavity in the nose. So short that it gave a lot of trouble in many guns with the GI mags and the hybrid that Colt developed, with its tapered lips coupled with a timed release that was a little earlier and more abrupt than the GIs...but later and less abrupt than the wadcutter design. The Flyin' Ashtray still didn't do too well...so somebody tried straightening the feed lips and timing it to release earlier and very abruptly...and it worked in most pistols, though certainly not all. The Speer ammo became the standard, and the catch-phrase "If it'll feed the Flyin' Ashtray, it'll feed anything"...and that was pretty much true.
Only problem was, that the new magazine design gave trouble in some pistols when ammo OTHER than the short wadcutter bullet or the Speer lawman round was used. Mainly because of cartridge overall length, but sometimes bullet shape was also a player. In such pistols, a return to the "hybrid" or even the old GI "Hardball" magazines was usually the cure...and that still stands.
Depending on the gun's particular specs...and this doesn't include all guns and all magazines...the wadcutter magazines fall short unless the guns are precisely tweaked to work with those magazines. Sometimes the amateur gets lucky and makes the right moves...and sometimes he makes the problem worse. Most often, it's the latter, judging by the high number of pistols that I used to get that had been "Ramped and Throated" by various means...most often the ubiquitous and dreaded Dremel.
In a high percentage of the guns that I see nowadays that have feed issues...especially on the top couple of rounds...simply using a tapered/late-release magazine completely cures the problem, or at least makes it somuch better than the rest of it is taken care of with minor tuning without invasive surgery or the now-standard practice of mirror polishing the feed ramp.
Pistols that have what is considered by many to be insufficiently deep feed ramps...I think the accepted minimum is about .400 or so from the top of the rail...function perfectly with ramps as shallow as .300 inch or even less, provided that the ramp angle is correct. I have a 1919 USGI Colt that is unaltered and completely stock in every way. Its feed ramp is a mere .290 deep, yet it will feed and function perfectly with hollowpoints and even the 200-grain H&G #68, and it;ll do it from the original GI magazines. It feeds so smoothly that it almost sounds and feels like it's goint to battery on an empty chamber. The same holds true for ALL of my USGI pistols...WW1 and WW2 era...as well as a stock 1225 Commercial Colt. None of the feed ramps are more than .320 inch deep, and none have anything even approaching a mirror finish.
I also have two Colt Commander pistols...one is a steel-framed version built in the ealry 70s, and the other is a mid-90s production LW Commander. Both feed roughly with the wadcutter magazines...even using hardball. Both feed smoothly with "GI Hardball" or Colt "hybrid" magazines...no matter what type of ammunition is used. Ramp polishing isn't an option. One is alloy and the other is Satin Nickel. Ramp inserts are labor intensive, and expensive...since I don't have easy access to a mill these days...so the clear choice was simply to use the "obsolete" magazines, rather than to insist on using a design that was trendy or because I just had to have 8 rounds in the mag.
I have dozens of the wadcutter magazines, and they work perfectly in my beaters and in most of my carry guns. In some of the others...they don't. So, I keep another few dozen of the magazines on hand that they do work with. FWIW, I carry the GIs or the hybrids in ALL of my carry guns, even though they do okay with the wadcutter mags, even though they work.
Stickler for reliability that I am, I want to stack the deck in my favor as much as possible.
