Brazos 160gr Button Nose OAL?

Having some issues with some Brazos 160gr button nose.  I got a sample pack, and then won a full bag of 600some in a raffle at our sectional.  I've loaded 3.8-4.2gr of N310 at an OAL of 1.160in.

Accuracy is not a problem at any powder throw, and ejection is no problem either, but I keep having a failure to feed.  The round gets jammed up in the top of the chamber, some so hard I've had to get a chop stick in there to get it loose.  

Is my OAL off?  I couldn't find much on this online.  

Thanks!

Probably magazine issue. It's releasing cartridge from magazine too soon. Might try a GI magazine.
Jon

But the gun and magazines are extremely reliable with 185 SWC and 185 JHPs. I have had less than 5 alibis in the past 12 months. I also tested some 200gr SWC with no feeding issues. It's just the 160s.

I have been using that bullet for over three years now. Just measured some of the latest batch and your length matches mine. It did have some teething problems at first. Others on this forum stated this bullet needs a little more steam to shoot well. They suggested a little more powder, ( .2 or .3 gn). Also recommended a tighter crimp than usual for cast bullets. A taper crimp .463 to .465 was suggested. They were also using WST. I was using 231 and had a can of WST so gave their load a try.

After trying these things my gun shoots very well with 4.6 grains of WST and .465 crimp.

Trying a different magazine like Jon said would be worth a try.

Darrell

Assuming they are the same profile as the Bob's/QC/Valiant 160s, I use 1.165".

I'll clean my magazines and buy new springs. I'll also try 1.165. Measuring mine most are 1.158-1.16. Nothing is over 1.16.

As far as OAL  my Brazos are 1.153. I use magazines that have the hybrid feed lips.. Jon is probably right if you are using bullseye type feed lips.. just because the pistol feeds 185s or 200s doesnt mean it will like the 160s. BTDT.

My crimp is 463

What magazines are you using?  I use the Metalform with the round follower, they worked reliably with the 160 gr Brazos in my 1911.

I use the same magazines.. metalforms

I use these!  They were given to me by my father-in-law.  They worked so I used them.

I have one with a round follower matched to the pistol I use for long line. I'll give that one a try too.

I use Wilson combat magazines with the plastic follower, I don't use the overall length to seat, I seat my heads .925 from the shoulder to bottom of the case. I have zero feed problems. They are loaded with 4.2 grains of Titegroup.

That magazine has bullseye feed lips which release the rounds quicker.than either the hybrid or military style .

Look for.a metalform 7 round magazine with a round follower.

Here is an explanation of each style

https://how-i-did-it.org/magazines2/read-my-lips.html

try 4.5 BE, WST or VV310

jglenn21
Thanks for posting the magazine test report. I compared my magazines to the photos and all four have wadcutter lips.
One is original to my Gold Cup. I got 2 GI mags at a gun show 40ish years ago and they had feeding problems with wadcutter bullets in the GC. I took them to old Joe Chambers and he reformed the lips by driving them in a forming die. He also changed the flat followers to ones modified with a piece of drill rod soldered to the top creating a round follower. After that the GC fed whatever I fed it.
When I got my Clark it had a round follower but the lips looked exactly like my other three mags.

Both guns feed whatever bullet reliably. All I need now is to fix the jerk behind the trigger.

Note: My mags look like the wadcutter examples in the photos.

Darrell

Yes, thank you. Had no idea about different magazine designs!

Soupy44 wrote:Having some issues with some Brazos 160gr button nose.  I got a sample pack, and then won a full bag of 600some in a raffle at our sectional.  I've loaded 3.8-4.2gr of N310 at an OAL of 1.160in.

Accuracy is not a problem at any powder throw, and ejection is no problem either, but I keep having a failure to feed.  The round gets jammed up in the top of the chamber, some so hard I've had to get a chop stick in there to get it loose.  

Is my OAL off?  I couldn't find much on this online.  

Thanks!

Forgive my ignorance but I thought the OAL on a LSWC is dictated by the length of the base-to-shoulder measurement since this can engage the throat/rifling and cause the gun to not go into battery all the way if the shoulder is sticking too far out of the case.
Consequently, my understanding is that there is no room for playing with seating depth when using a SWC. 

Am I wrong? 

-Trevor

Attached photo shows two rounds. The one of the left is a Lyman 452460 swc loaded last month. It measures 1.175 oal and .920 base to shoulder. The one on the right is the Brazos 160 swc. It was loaded September 2021 and measures 1.156 oal and .925 base to shoulder.

The seating die was adjusted by eyeball. ( too lazy to go inside for calipers).  Just as an aside I used to load with about twice that much shoulder showing with no problems. Somewhere here it was stated by someone way better than me, that .920 was the optimal base to shoulder distance. That was due to the differing nose lengths. My take away is we have some leeway as long as the rounds chamber without jamming into the rifling.
As the photo shows the Brazos bullet has more shoulder and is easy to measure.
These are my two most favorite 45 bullets. They shoot as well as any I have tried and cut holes like a paper punch ( so easy to score).



Darrell

New magazines on the way, will seat a few thousandths longer. 

FYI, this is for an Iron Sight gun. 3.8gr N310 has easily cycled the slide.

Searing die stays set the same for any SWC, .925 to the shoulder. Might seat something deeper if the nose makes contact somewhere else.

I went thru a batch of the 160's. Needed more powder to cycle reliably. And seemed more snappy in recoil than the 200's. I didn't see the point in continuing, the qty difference per dollar was irrelevant. And that was before the price increases of powder and primers over the last couple years.

452460. A friend gave me a bunch he cast to try. Don't remember if I've shot any yet, but I like the profile. 200 grs, +-, good bearing surface, which also means better load density.

If they do well, I might have to get a mold and go back to frying my brain on lead fumes ...

;-)

Try 4.3 of wst with the 160s. Less snappy

WST is all I've used the last ?? years. 4.2 with a 200. I think I started with Bullseye when I got the gun.

I think I wound up with 4.4 or 5 with the 160's, and tightened the crimp up to get them working. Played with springs, don't remember where I wound up.

Adding:

I bumbled into some load data notes*, with Dardas and Brazos 160's, using 4.3 N-310 and Titegroup. I'd bet money, and lose likely for lack of data, that I used WST as well. And that was all with WLP's, essentially a magnum primer.

Recent ammo is 4.2WST/200's with F150-M's, a couple bricks a friend gave me. 'Seems' softer than with WLP's, but maybe the level of cleanliness of the gun is a bigger factor?

* Generally, I write data on the back of old business cards (I've got stacks) and throw them in the box. There's a pile of them for various things, and more recent pistol stuff under the AP press and Inline riser.

So maybe I'm FOS.

I should keep a notebook ... but then again I nearly failed one semester of HS English where the big project was to keep a journal ...

On the other hand, it might be a fun math problem to work out how many alibi strings I can shoot with the lower cost/rd of 160's, considering the current price of primers and ammo ;-)

Used my one hybrid magazine with a round follower and things worked flawlessly today at the range.  Time to load up some more!

FWIW, I'll keep the same length.  This batch maxed out at 1.16, but most were 1.157-1.158.  This batch went down to 3.8gr of N310, but that never failed to cycle the slide.  I'll load about 30 each 3.8, 3.7, and 3.6 and see how that goes.  This will be practice ammo in all likelihood unless I start to like it!

Thanks for the help!

WesG wrote:Generally, I write data on the back of old business cards (I've got stacks)

I'm picturing a CONEX of plain white T-shirts, Levis, and business cards.

WesG wrote:I nearly failed one semester of HS English

But have you ever been kicked out of the US Olympic Training Center?

Soupy44, I hope this load works out for you. I have been shooting 160s (or 165s, as we called them back in the day) for decades. They make a nice, forgiving, accurate, and soft-recoiling short-line load.

rburk wrote:What magazines are you using?  I use the Metalform with the round follower, they worked reliably with the 160 gr Brazos in my 1911.

That's the magazine...it keeps the short bullet proud heading in the right direction. I found some round followers on Brownells some time ago and changed out the flat followers.

What difference does flat vs round follower make (or does it)? Mathematically the amount of surface contact should be the same.