Bullseye shooting with a mostly stock Les Baer Premiere II

The recommended powder weight for Magnus #801 bullets for a 45 wad gun with red dot sight using WST powder was 4.4 gr.  
I wanted to practice with my Les Baer 45, using the same ammo.  4.4 worked fine, and so did 4.3gr. 

What is the lowest I could safely go, without going "too low".  

I don't have any feel for this; I just use what people here in the forum and Terry at Magnus recommend, and Dave Salyer has always agreed.  

As part two of this equation, I replaced the stock 18# spring with a 16# spring, as was approved by the person at Baer I spoke to.
If I'm only shooting these light Bullseye loads, would it be advisable to also reduce the spring weight?


I started with the Baer just to see what steel sights would be like.  
The scary thing is now that my cataracts have been fixed, I enjoy the steel.
When my vision went south from the cataracts, I switched to red dots.  
Now I can't say either is "better" than the other - I enjoy both.
Steel is nice, because I actually get to see "the gun", rather than some mysterious red dot floating in the air.   :-)

You already have received advice from the best, now you can have advice from the rest. I don't know what you mean by having a "too low" powder charge. Do you mean it could actually be unsafe? If that is what you mean, you shouldn't be concerned. There is no such thing as a "too low" unsafe powder charge. Ed Masaki used to have his spring weight so that the pistol wouldn't lock back on the 5th (last) round in the magazine. It would eject the brass, but no lock back. He figured anything more would unnecessarily batter the slide. What kind of lenses did you get with your cataract surgery? Do you wish you'd gotten a different type of lens?

This reloading choice depends on one's priorities.  If the goal is to have absolutely the best precision and accuracy, I'm sure that is what defined the answers I got.  But if I could get 98% of the accuracy and precision with a lighter charge that was much easier to shoot, to me, it would be a good trade-off.  Would be wonderful if my 1911 felt like my Model 41....      From past experience, I once loaded 50 rounds between 0.1 grains and 0.2 grains too heavy, because the micrometer adjustment had come loose on my press.  When I asked my experts, they told me the rounds would be fine to fire, but would be more "snappy".  They were, but not too uncomfortably so.  That got me to wondering what change I would get if I made the rounds 0.1 gr too light.  They still worked fine, but were nicer to shoot.  

I hadn't acted on it yet, but what if I loaded 4.1 or even 4 gr of powder.  From what you just said, it would not be unsafe.   So, were I to do so, and were the gun to function properly, and if there was no noticeable lack of performance, and at the same time the gun was nicer to shoot, why not do so?  I'm tempted to start lowering the charge by 0.1 gr for each loading of 50 rounds, and see how it goes, paying attention to performance and comfort and so on.

At the other extreme, I took the gun to the range a few weeks ago and fired 100 rounds of 230 gr Winchester White Box ammo, all factory loads.  They were very definitely NOT enjoyable to shoot.  I figured that they would cure any tendency to flinch that I might have had, and I'd end up with 100 more empty cases for reloading.

(I'll post my thoughts on the different types of IOL's that I was offered, and why I picked the one I did, and why it worked so much better for me than any of the other choices I could have made.  I don't have time right now, but will do so later today.  Going out now for breakfast.   :-).

Rather than ask questions that get too many confusing answers, I’d load 10 rounds each starting at 3.5 gr, then increasing by .2 grains up to 4.4 gr. Shot them all in your gun paying attention to function. 2x 5 shots in the magazine. Your gun will tell you which is the lowest charge for reliable function faster than here. Once you’ve established your minimum reliable charge, you can then check it’s accuracy and recoil impulse.

4.4 WST under a Magnus 801 is pretty darn hot. For you I would try 3.8 grains then reduce your recoil spring weight as needed to function.

When I run the #801 in my slide mount pistol built by Jon running a heavy 9000SC I usually run 4.1 WST to have enough energy to cycle. Yesterday though I ran some leftover 3.9wst loads and it cycled fine probably due to the hot weather. 4.4wst may be accurate but you can get by with far less to have an enjoyable load. I've probably shot 2 cases worth of the #801 over the last few years, I currently have a case in stock.

Dave, actually, I don't mind too many confusing answers.  In fact, it helps me.

Your way would be better, but I don't mind doing 50, each time reducing the charge by 0.1gr.  By the time I've shot four targets, 10 rounds each, I will have a pretty good idea of how well they work, and I'll have the scores as well to see if it's even making a difference.  About how many rounds I load at a time, at least half of the 50 I shoot one round at a time, only loading one round in the magazine.  I'm shooting just the way I'm dry-firing.  Then I load 5 rounds at a time, and fire 10 rounds each at the last two targets.

What you both suggested gave me an idea - my plan has me shooting 40 rounds, ten each at four targets.  Maybe the remaining ten rounds I'll load with only 3.8 gr as 'zanemosely' just suggested, same powder, same everything else.  I don't want to get too far away from what the experts all recommended; I'm not sure I want to try anything even lighter than this.  If the gun doesn't cycle properly, I will try next time with a lighter spring, assuming I have one.  Right now there's a 16 pound spring in the gun.  The Baer only has steel sights, so it's actually very light compared to my other Bullseye guns.

Just to clarify I said 3.8wst, you typed 38 which I'm sure was a typo but don't go blowing your gun apart over a decimal place.

Believe me 3.8 isn't going to be too light with an iron sight pistol. As mentioned above 3.9wst functioned my heavy slide mount yesterday. You'll shoot better scores with a more mild recoil.

BE Mike wrote:........What kind of lenses did you get with your cataract surgery? Do you wish you'd gotten a different type of lens?

I spent a LOT of time reading about, and talking about, and asking lots of questions about the type of lenses to get.  The so-called "premium" lenses turned out to be a terrible idea for me.  They're great for convenience, as you can do well enough at most things without needing to wear glasses, but only a part of the lens is giving you the correct prescription for whatever distance you happen to be from what you're looking at.



So-called "premium" lenses may have half the lens designed for distance correction, and the other half for close-up.  Clarity suffers.  It's a choice of clarity/precision, or convenience.  To see something as sharp as your eye is capable of seeing it, I feel it is better to get a basic lens, for a single prescription.  (The flip side of this coin, is after the cataract surgery, you need to wear corrective glasses much of the time.  If your IOL has a prescription for distance, you need glasses for reading, or looking at a computer.  That's why I now have three pair of shooting glasses, one for distance (red dot), one for 24 inches (distance to front sight while shooting with two hands) and one more for 30 inches (distance to front sight while shooting with one hand).  If you have astigmatism, getting single focal length premium lenses with astigmatism correction is an excellent idea.


If you get the other types of "premium" lenses, making life more convenient, you will likely see reflections, and glare, and who knows what else, especially at night.  That's something many professionals don't mention, while patients gladly pay thousands of dollars more for something that is supposed to be "premium".   Do your research.




Do I wish I had gotten a different type of lens?  Absolutely not.  I spend half a year at an eye hospital as a volunteer, and I pay attention to what doctors and patients have to say about their eye issues.  I had a very long discussion with the person who actually designs the IOL (intra-ocular-lens), reviewing the formulas they use, and so on.   My advice to anyone getting cataract surgery - spend enough time with your doctor to allow both of you to select the best lens for YOU.  




Also....if you plan on getting a pair of high quality progressive glasses, you'll wear them most of the time, but everything will always look sharp.

.....end of side track - back to shooting....

zanemoseley wrote:Just to clarify I said 3.8wst, you typed 38 which I'm sure was a typo but don't go blowing your gun apart over a decimal place.

Believe me 3.8 isn't going to be too light with an iron sight pistol. As mentioned above 3.9wst functioned my heavy slide mount yesterday. You'll shoot better scores with a more mild recoil.

Thanks - I found the missing period, and put it back where it belongs.

I'll be loading this afternoon, and shooting tomorrow.  It will be 3.8 WST.  I think I'll load another ten rounds just for the heck of it, and see how they work in my Springfield with an Aimpoint L/T on top.  Probably too light.
Thanks!!

If it helps any, I use 4.0 grains of WST with both 185 HPLSWC and 200 LSWC, with a 12 pound recoil spring. I plan to try 3.8 grains of WST soon.

Thanks, everything helps...    :-)

Having thought about this for a while, I'm back to trying 4.0 grains WST tomorrow, not changing anything else.
If that works fine, I will next try 3.8 grains WST.
I don't think I have any lighter springs; need to go through what I have stored somewhere, then order more.

Thanks for the lens info. I do have astigmatism and am a couple of years away from surgery. One of the loads from years ago was 3.5 grains of Bullseye. There is nothing wrong with trying to get a great, light recoiling load that is accurate. This would be most beneficial for the short line. One thing to consider is that what might light load that might work for outdoor shooting in the summer in Florida, might not function in the late fall in Indiana, when the temperature drops.

OK, thanks - I'm keeping records of everything, and I can always go back to the load I've been using, recommended by Terry and Dave - 4.4 grains WST.

(As to lens info, you need to do the homework, because the advertising and promotion makes the Premium lenses sound like what that name implies.  They do allow people to do more without having to wear glasses, but it's a trade-off with clarity.  Two words to remember, monodical (one focal length) and multi-focal (more than one focal length).  You only get one chance to do this, so make sure your choice is what is best for you.)


I'm surprised this gun testing is working out the way it is.  My gut feeling was a red dot sight would be so simple, but the steel sights in many ways seem be better.  It's certainly a lighter option!

To bring this up to date, 4.0 grains WST worked fine in both my Baer, and my Springfield with the very light Ultradot L/T sight.  The only reason this sight is on this gun is weight.  I'm hoping to replace it with an Aimpoint Acro P-1.

I also tried 3.8 grains of WST in both guns.  In the Baer, the rounds felt nice to shoot, and the group didn't change much, but with the Springfield I got a better group than I've ever shot before.  

All I was testing for was proper function, and if the load got even lighter, maybe more accuracy/precision.  I may well have reached the limit of how well I can shoot with open sights, but I'm tempted to try an even lighter load in the Springfield with the red dot.  Maybe for next time, I'll try ten rounds with 3.5 grains WST, and see how that works out.  From everything I think I've understood, I'm surprised the slide remained open after the last shot.

Final target for today, Springfield, 25 yards, my last 15 rounds, shot two handed.  I'll try one handed once I know everything is good.

(Jim, pretend the holes are where they are, for better composition in the photo.....       :-)    )