Received my barrel and slide this morning and had my machinist buddy help install 24 lb spring. In order to do it he made a special tool as shown below. We stuffed the stuff shown with the tool into the port to hold the slide in the right position. The very end of the tool was clamped in a vise and the gun pushed against it to compress the spring.



Shot 4 rounds loaded with 9 gr of Longshot and 250 gr XTP set at 1.215 inches OAL. First was at 1135 fps, but the other 3 were 1049 to 1081. Maybe the first may have had a miss weighed load? I checked for any bullet setback after chambering the first round and it was ok.

Shot one round that I had set a little deep, 1.200 inches and it was 1144 fps which I had expected it to be higher.

No signs of any pressure so I think I will go to 9.3 gr and see what happens.

Noticed that Clark sent a new firing pin spring with the kit. I did not install. Is it needed?

That 'tool' looks handy. I don't know whether the spring is needed or not, but I went ahead and put mine in since it only takes a minute. I like the velocities you're getting with Longshot and the 250's. Thanks for the report.

Loaded up 4 at 9.3 gr and got 1143, 1171, 1150 and 1151. Used my Hornady powder thrower but checked each load on scale and it was spot on for all 4 loads. Yesterday it was not spot on for some reason. No signs of pressure. Think I will stick with this load for now. Next I will do some target shooting to see how it shoots.

Recoil is very mild by my standards, but I think you know what I am used to.

Hank,

Great news, and things look good. The new firing pin spring is included with all Wolff recoil springs that they sell that are rated above factory. They are "needed" to keep the firing pin from slamming against the primer under the recoil/return of the heavier recoil spring. I never tested to see if it was happening with the stock firing pin spring, I just install them and be done with it. Not a lot of reason not to.

You might find that you do not need the tools to install the Wolff spring now that you have fired it a few times. The spring will take about a half inch of set now, so it should be easier. Your loads mirror mine pretty closely, so hopefully you will find them to be very accuarte. Keep us posted.

As to the bullet setback, it is important to check the first round in the magazine, and at least the last, as these two positions can be different. The same if trying a different brand of magazine, as different brands usually have different followers and lip geometry.

Craig

I changed out the firing pin spring today and shot 4 rounds at a target just to see where the fixed sights are shooting . Shot a little over an inch group, but I was not concentrating, about 3 in low at 20 yds. I can correct for that untiil I get some adjustable sights by putting the 3 dots in a triangle and be pretty close.

Hank,

I figured you would be happy with the accuracy of the Clark unit. All of mine have been great. If I could only get this Colt barrel to perform the same. I fire lapped it last weekend, and the bore is looking pretty good, but I think it will never be a quality tight group shooter. Perhaps I should just fit a Clark 45 acp barrel to the gun and be done with it. But where's the fun it that.....

Craig

And 'fun' is the real reason most of us 'play'.

Hadn't got to shoot mine, yet. Babysitting sick grandkids takes prioity over grandpa's playing, just ask grandma.

Tried some Montana Bullet Works 250 gr WFN today set at 1.210 today. First one at 9.3 gr and got about 1230 fps. I then loaded 2 with 9 gr. First one was 1173 fps and I ejected the second one to check for setback. It had a little gouge on the side if the bullet and had moved back about .005. I shot it and it went 1190 fps.

I think that it is going to be hard to WFN bullets to feed without set back. I wonder if not only the shape of the bullet but the bullet lube contributes to the problem.

I have Dave Clements Ruger Old Army 50 Cal cap & Ball conversion and the only way I could get the bullets to stay still under recoil was to wipe as much of the bullet lub as I could off the side of the bullets. I then would load it with wonder wads under the bullet for some extra lube.

I really enjoy it now that I live out of the city limits on an acreage so I can test with out having to go to the range.

Hank,

The WFN's can be hard to feed period. As the nose has to bounce off the feed ramp (if you are lucky just the case side will hit the ramp), then bounce of the top of the chamber, it is a rough ride. Not sure if you have other brands of 1911 mags or someone who could let you test drive a different brand, sometimes a different mag with different feed lip geometry might feed better. Much like Wilson mags have what is loosely called wad cutter lips, they release the cartridge base typically sooner than the traditional Colt feed lips. Not sure I would go out and spend money to test, as it will be a crap shoot. generally Colt style mags are called tapered, and the Wilson and others would be called parallel or wad cutter style, in case you want to ask any buddies for a test drive.

A 250 at 1230 would seem to me to be pretty darn close to max pressure. I would definately be very concerned about setback at that level, as you probably have very little wiggle room.

And when you rub in your home shooting range, proper etiquette requires some amount of tongue protrusion......At least it explains why you can load 4 at a time to test.

Craig

I figured it was a crap shoot, but I have a bunch of 250 gr WFN's for my M92 Levergun so I thought I would give it a try.

It has been my experience that I usually get more velocity out of cast bullets than jacketed, but I backed off a bit after the 9.3 gr load anyway.

Hank,

Just moved into this place in December so grandma could be closer to the grandkids. Figured it was the least I could do for her since she's put up with my job and hobbies all these years. I do miss my 100yd range, tho.

What I like about the LEE is that it is a RFN which, IMO, allows it to feed a little better than a straight WFN.. I've not had any problem in the acp with set back, but that remains to be seen with the Rowland.

Those are just a little more velocity than I'm wanting with the 255. Hopefully by working 'back' from your data, I can get there without any 'set back'. The deformation may require some 'alloy' changing to keep the bullet hard enough. We'll see.

Russell

My gun has been shooting about 2 in low at 15 yds and 3 in low at 25 so I ordered a .150 high Kensight front night sight which is .020 shorter than the stock sight and should make it work. I also had to order a dove tail cutter because the Remington dovetail is a smaller size than the Kensight and my machinist does not have the right cutter.

I had talked to Novak and they said that Remington uses their own size. I could not use a Novak because it is smaller than the Remington sight.

Appreciate the info on the 'dovetail cut'. I was going to order a Novak.

I am not sure that the Novak will not work because I have seen info that the Novak front cut is the same as Kensight. Anyway unless you are planning on a adjustable rear I would shoot and see where it is hitting so you can buy one that will bring you POI to where it needs to be.

The Kensight is somewhat less expensive than the Novak. When you are ready to change sights I will have access to the correct dove tail cutter.

http://stores.homestead.com/KenSight/-st...0721/Detail.bok

I'm headed up to the 'home-place' this morning to get in some 'shooting'. Yes, I was looking at putting in an adjustable rear. I've got a dandy little 200gr hp mould that I'm anxious to try in the Rowland. It works well in the acp. Anyway, as I shoot different weights of bullets, I had planned on an adjustable.

FINALLY!! got to put some rounds down range. When I loaded them, I hadn't acquired any Longshot so I went with some Unique and Blue Dot using some 'pin load' data and some +P+ data. Out of 56 rounds (used McCormick 8rd 'Shooting Star' ss mags)with 2 different powders and 2 different bullets, I had two 'failure to return to complete battery'. The gun digested both the 230 JHP and the 255 cast RFN. The 2 failures were with the cast and on one it appeared that it drug on the slide stop. I have no idea on the other. No set back when I made random checks. did not check for accuracy or velocity but at 25 yds was able to keep all rounds on an ISPC target. Think I'm going to like this round.

As a note, one of my Blue Dot/255gr cast loads is actually a low end .45 Win Mag load (and judging by the sharp ejection and FLAT primers, too much for the Rowland); recoil was not as bad as some of the .45 Linebaugh colt loads I shoot.

Was able to con one of my shooting buds out of two pounds of Longshot so now for the 'fine tuning'. I may have interested my bud in getting one. Let him shoot a couple of mag fulls.

Intersting on the Remmy sight cuts. Sheesh, you would think that making them Colt or at least Novak would help with the selling points. The gun afterall is one that folks do a lot of customizing. The rear cut for a Novak Adjustable does remove a lot of material, I would have guessed it could have worked. I have a real hard time with fixed sights on anything, as I tend to like heavy bullets, and play around enough. The Novak Adjustable Extreme duty has been a great sight so far.

Russell, it is pretty common for the 1911 slide stop to make contact with these heavier bullets. You can (and I have) removed just a tad of material to clear that up. But obviously it is one of those things to do as a last resort, once you know you want to stick with a particular bullet. It can be further complicated if your mag springs get fatigued. Obviously you have new springs, but I run Wolff extra power in all my mags, just to make sure things keep up. But I am an oddball, I actully like Colt 7 round magazines.

The buldging brass that you can get at the web from loads that are too hot can reaaly be felt when resizing. Sometimes they are obvious when looking at the brass, sometimes only felt when going into the size die. I immediately pitch any of those. And a little trick to keeping track of how many times brass gets reloaded (if you do not do so manually) is that you will probably find that your brass at the top end gets some kind of mark from the extractor or ejector somewhere on the case in and or around the rim or groove. I just count them up ;^) But I also try and only do full throttle on new brass.

I am sure you are gonna dig the accuracy, and how little recoil that you actually have for what the ballistics produce. It sure seems that most gun junkies do like 1911's, and when you show them the capabilities, the Rowland does sorta sell itself.

I cant wait for spring and snow melt, so I can shoot my 1911's more......

Craig

When I talked to Novak we were only discussing the front sight. I am sure that there would be no problem putting a Novak on the rear. On further research I believe that the front Novak will also work at least the current R1's. My R1 has a front cut that is about .040 smaller than what my research shows a front Novak is, so with the proper dovetail cutter it can be enlarged.

Perhaps earlier R1's had a different cut and that is why the Novak guy thought it would not work.

Craig,
Only had 2 'failures' out of 30rds of the RFN. One I can definately say was caused by the slide stop as there was a nice 'groove' on the exposed lead. There was none on the other so I'm not sure. Neither round showed any evidence of 'set back' which is usually evidence of the 'nose' catching on the feed ramp. Both fed and fired when re-inserted in the mag.

I segregated the flatten 'primers' from the rest of the empties so that I would know which was which when I resized them. When I ran them through the resizer they were not harder to size than the rest of the brass which really surprised me since the primer condition and ejection pattern would indicate max overload. The only other thought is the 20# spring was not slowing things down enough and of course Clark's barrel has a 'tight' chamber which did not allow the brass to expand as much. Food for thought anyway. I'm using Longshot published data now.

I do segregate my brass as to number of times reloaded and as the number of loadings increase, the amount ofpowder decreases. I was curious as to how many loadings you could get from the brass.

I like adjustables on my hunting pistols because I shoot several different weights depending on what I'm hunting. One weight would do it all, but what's the fun in that.

I'm looking hard at the Novak Adjustable Extreme Duty.

Just come in from casting some 200gr HP's. I'm going to see how well they work in the Rowland. They're little dandies in the acp at 1000fps. Hell on coyotes.

Russell

Russell,

Pressure sign in the Rowland are pretty tough. You have the bunch that say primers only flatten in the 50k range, but clearly we are not in that range, even oopsing a little. In about a half dozen Clark barrels, working up loads to published I always seea little flattening of the primer. I think it best to mix that sign in with primer pocket looseness, and other common sense things. One of the reasons I keep my 230's closer to 1250 or 1275. Wilson seems to think the mid 12's are better for their gun, I think. My first batch of 1000 cases got a lot of loadings. I did not keep track, but 6 or 7 for sure, some more, unless you run right at the redline. I started retiring the brass by and large more for the nicks in the case rims from all of the feeding and ejecting. Starline is good stuff.

I give two big thumbs up for the Novak adjustable. On my Colt with the recommended Novak front, the blade is down a bit for the Rowland, but real close to the top for 45 acps. Good range of movement, and Novak did a wonderful job of installation. Only took about a week, and they re-beadblasted the top of the slide.

I would imagine if those hollowpoints are cast without serious hardening, they would make a mess out of a coyote. The Clark barrel is reasonably tolerant of softer lead, as the bore is pretty dang nice. The comp may be another matter ;^)

Craig

Craig,
The hollow points are cast from an alloy that Roto-Metals puts together and is 'tested' at Bhn 9. I use it in casting hollowpoints for a 270gr for my .45 colt, a 200gr for my .41 mag and the 200gr for the acp. At 1000fps I can usually count on the bullet holding together and expanding to nickle size. Much faster and it starts coming apart so I'll have to watch it with the Rowland. Didn't notice any comp leading to speak of in my first outing, but as the 255's were 'hardball' alloy.

I've already reloaded the 'oops' bunch and the primer pockets were tight. I may have 'lucked thru' this time. Thank goodness Clark makes a good barrel and the Remmy's all steel.

I ruined a nice little Martini cadet's chamber with too heavy a bullet seated too deep once, pains me still.

I've got a big brother to the 255 RFN that drops from my mould at 301grs w/ gas check. Haven't seen any Longshot data for anything heavier than a 260. Did find a Unique load for a 300+ load but it was pretty anemic. Have you ventured up in that weight, yet.

Russell

Russell,

I only have one dead Springfield slide to my credit ;^( The frame is still in use, as well as the barrel. I have wrecked my fair share of brass over the years, and my kinetic bullet puller has seen some use ;^) So all in all fairly lucky, or at least methodical enough to catch a few of my own goofs.

You might find the 300 starts to hit in the brass case web before any hope of a load. I have only been as high as 250-255. I did try and seat a few heavier bullets last week in acp brass to get a feel for feeding and nose profile, and few got into the case web. Them be some goofed up rounds, but I did not loose any powder or primers.... The nose profile is gonna be the deal breaker there.

Craig

Hank
Just a 'heads up'. When I got back from the OPHA hunt, my Novak adjustable had come in. It's definately not going to fit. It appears that the cut on my slide is the standard
'GI' dovetail cut and not the Novak. Don't know if mine is an early slide or a later one, but it is definately not a Novak 'cut'.

I was sure that a Novak adjustable would not fit as is, but there should be plenty of "meat" left on the slide with the existing cut that a gunsmith can recut it to a Novak rear sight cut. To do the job he has to have the proper dovetail cutter however..

I know that Remington states that the R1 has Novak cuts on their web page, but I believe that that is only on the enhanced model that comes with an adjustable rear sight. The front sight on our guns is some unknown cut, but is small enough to be cut to a Novak front cut also. That is if I have the correct info on what a Novak front cut is.

I assume that your adjustable Novak is a low mount which not only reqires a different cut but some milling on the slide also.

I did quite a lot of research on the various dovetail cuts and it can be confusing.

It's not supposed to require more than a 'Novak cut dovetail' according to the instructions, but ..... If the smith can't do it, I'll send it in with the slide to Novak and let them do it. Their turn a round is supposed to be a week.

I'm finding out that you're right on the various 'cuts'. Seems every manufacturer has their own.

You guys need to also note that the Novak Adjustable requires a small falt be also cut in front of the dovetail. Once cut this way, I think the adjustable Novak is the only one on the market that will cover/need this small flat. Kinda a one way proposition.

Craig

This is the additional milling other than the dovetail cut that I was referring to above. It should be no problem for Russell's gunsmith if he has the proper size dovetail cutter and Novak's instructions. The instructions are available on their web page if they did not come with the sight.

http://www.novaksights.com/products/sights/installation.html#adj

I'm wanting the sight 'melted' into the top of the slide so if can't do it like I'm wanting, it's off to Novak.

Russell,

Not sure how much material is left between the bottom of the dovetail and the firing pin tunnel, but in my standard installation the bottom of the dovetail has very little room above the slide serrations. Not sure if you would care about getting into those, but a little melt would be pretty cool. While my front sight is not what I would call excessively high, it can be a little hard in some leather. The Brown barrel that fit to compliment my Rowlands is looking like for all loads, my rear is down a little in the notch, so I may have a little wiggle room to reduce my front sight a bit.

Along the same lines, the one thing I really like about the Novak adjustable over a Bomar is that the sight body really protects the notch/blade from wear or loss of bluing. It really is a joy to have a rear blade that does not require touch-ups.

Craig

Craig,

That 'sight protection' is what sold me on the Novak as well and the sight body does not have as many sharp 'edges' as some others. While this is strictly a 'hunting' 1911, years of habit causes me to limit the number of sharp edges on a handgun. Easier on the jackets, shirts, and 'hide'.

I'll have to take another look at the 'meat' in the slide around the 'cut'. I like melded sights, but it may remove too much metal. Thanks for the 'head up'.

Russell

No kidding about the hide. I love Bomars, but they really suck on a gun that is carried a lot. The ears on the Novak did take a little getting used to, as it takes a split second more to line everything up, but now that I have used them for a while, I am good to go. I do have to admit a buried Bomar cut is a thing of beauty ;^)

And I did load up some of those 250rnfp bullets we discussed in the other thread. As I mentioned before, regular acp brass is more foregiving to oal due to the brass being shorter than the Rowland. They feed so slick that it almost feels like a missed feed, seriously. And I may have mentioned this sometime earlier, but I compared them to Marshall's (Beartooth) 225 fn acp bullet, and the 225 has a .300 meplat, while the rnfp is .250

Marshall highly recommended his 225 to me, and they do make a pretty wide very deep hole in wet print in the Rowland. I wished they were a tad heavier, but I may test them again in my current project.

Craig

Craig,

The meltplate on my 255's is .337, measured with my old style dial caliper. (I'm not aware of anyone casting the LEE 452-255RFN commercially.)I'm sure that's not 'exact', but it'll be withen +/- .005 which is similar and heavier than Beartooth's 225.

If they shoot well in your Rowland and you run them 1150-1200fps, I'd wager they'd break down a black bear or elk just fine. If I'm remembering right part of the army's desire when they were looking at the acp was that it duplicate the old .45 Colt load (250rfn @ 900fps). They seem to think the 230gr in the acp was close enough that they adopted it. So, you're only giving up 25grs (and putting a little more shove behind it).
Just some random thoughts.....

Russell

Russell,

Your random thoughts are pretty much mine. The consensus seems to be that .300 is a good minimum meplat, but I still get confused when I read stuff on Kieth bullets v. the others. Nose versus the bands, what enhances the penetration. I am pretty good on the Rowland front, my current project is a tad slower at 45 Super levels. No problem with 250's at 900, 950 and 1000.

And it is also my understanding of the goal of the acp when it was developed. Thank goodness, as there are no .355 class bullets in any 1911 version that would give me comfort with critters bigger than whitetails ;^)

Craig

Here is a bullet I have been working with in the super.



This feeds fine as long as I use the mag with the stronger spring. reflex264

I should add that I set OAL 1.153"

I shot a 460 Rowland once, liked it! Have never shot a 10mm though - I have a friend who has one, but he is as mean as a biker with a Harley with that gun... no one touches it but him.
Did I say he was a friend?... maybe I should change that definition some.

Great it see you over here Roy.

Looks like a great bullet for game. lots of meplate going on.

Craig

Someone has to keep you out of trouble!!! :-)