Steve Camp… Actionsbyt supports Jerry Patterson

Personal Choices in .45 ACP Defense Ammunition

By Steve Camp

We have all heard comments like, “They all fall to hardball” or “Hit a man in the little finger with a 45 and he’ll go down.”

Most of us know that such claims are false but that emphatically does not mean that the .45 ACP is anything less than a very fine defense round…with the right loads. Despite tests showing equivalency of 9mm ball loads to 45, I do not believe it. The reason is simple. I have not observed it on either animals or people. I am personally aware of 45 and 9mm ball not doing the intended job and have seen both fail to stop even smallish critters like jackrabbits unless hit well, but the larger caliber did seem to have a bit “more” in this regard. Were I forced to use ball in an automatic, I would unhesitatingly choose .45 ACP if we envision face-to-face mortal combat using only handguns.

With expanding ammunition, it is my belief that .45 ACP is darned hard to beat assuming barrels of no less than 4″ and preferably 5″. The old saw that a hollow point will not expand at less than 1000 ft/sec is simply not true; at least not anymore. The ammunition makers today do manufacture factory ammunition that does and within velocity ranges that are realistic and from actual handguns, not test barrels.

Over the last century, the .45 ACP has proven itself a versatile round capable of extreme accuracy with light target loads to a highly-rated man stopper, though I believe the latter is sometimes overstated. It remains a most popular handgun round today and whether its effectiveness is overrated or not, .45 ACP is usually the yardstick by which other calibers/loads are measured.

This article is not intended to cover each and every .45 ACP load available. It will simply provide my choices based on personal observations and experiences coupled with reliable reports from others.

Service-size Handguns: To me this means barrels of 4 to 5″. These would include the Commander-size 1911 pattern pistols, SIG-Sauer P-220 and the 5″ 1911’s for example. In my experience, these work well with any quality ammunition weighing 185-grains up. I personally prefer standard pressure ammunition in the traditional 230-gr. weight in such pistols. With better loads, expansion is usually reliable, recoil remains manageable for accurate quick fire, and most have proven accurate from quality handguns. My picks have normally possessed that most important aspect of the “serious handgun” and ammo combination: reliability.

Winchester 230-gr. Ranger (RA45T): Loaded in nickel cases, this JHP is the original “Black Talon” without the dark colored bullet. The bullet has also been tweaked to expand a bit more than the original and its jacket contains about 5% more copper than usual gilding metal. Though blunt, the bullet ogive is rounded nicely at the edges and the cartridge usually feeds with boring regularity in 1911 pattern pistols. I’ve shot it in Commanders and the P-220 as well with no problems. Though sold only to law enforcement by Winchester, it can be had for private citizens willing to look and there is no federal law prohibiting its use by non-law enforcement folks. (State laws can vary and it is up to each individual to know the laws in his or her state.)

It is a stellar load with regard to performance and meets or exceeds the FBI testing protocols. This load expands after passing through various intermediate gelatin testing, including the dreaded four layers of denim.

I find it very consistent in velocity, regardless of lot number. Shot into both water and super-saturated newsprint, the bullet has never failed to open for me, when using barrels of no less than 4″. Expansion characteristics have been remarkably similar and I have not found this load to be “inaccurate” in any quality handgun. I have not seen any of these bullets pulled out of people. I have seen a couple taken out of deer and they expanded about like the ones fired into various test media including 10% ballistic gelatin. (Now and again, an expanded bullet actually removed from a living creature will be chewed up a bit as bone is sometimes struck.)

Let’s take a look at some actual velocities from different length barrels. The average velocities listed are based on 10 shots fired 10′ from the chronograph screens.

Winchester 230-gr. Ranger Average Velocity Results

Handgun	Barrel Length (inches)	Average Velocity (ft/sec)
Kimber Custom	5	886
STI Trojan	5	880
Norinco	5	841
Springfield Armory LW Gov’t	5	886
Colt Commander	4 1/4	838
SIG-Sauer P-220	4 1/4	857
Colt Defender	3	797

I believe that the roughly 40-ft/sec deficit shown with the Norinco is due to mine having a “slow barrel” rather than anything with the ammunition. This gun typically shows average velocities that are slightly lower than when fired from other guns having the same length barrels.

At a ballistics seminar, a law enforcement friend of mine advised that the Winchester representative suggested going to the +P version of the 230-gr. Ranger if using one of the short barrel .45 compacts. If memory serves, the standard pressure was still “OK” at 3 1/2″, but that was the cutoff; barrels of less than that needed the +P to achieve the velocity necessary for reliable expansion. I included the data on the Defender only for comparison purposes. For those interested, here is a link to an article done on Corbon’s “Compact Gun” load. That round is standard pressure and specifically designed for 45’s having shorter barrels:

http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/Corbon%20160%20gr%20DPX.htm

Here is the Winchester Ranger 230-gr. JHP. If you look carefully, the “deadly” talons can be seen. I am not convinced that this aids significantly in the bullet’s wounding ability. To me, this round’s endearing attributes are reliability in feeding and consistent expansion coupled with usually fine accuracy. I have not noticed this bullet to be particularly prone to setback when cycled through the handgun repeatedly. That does not mean that this shouldn’t be checked with ammunition being carried for self-protection.

Remington 230-gr. Golden Saber: Much more readily available to the general public, this is a load that I’ve become especially fond of…although my first encounters with it were not all that positive. The first batches of Golden Saber that I fired just didn’t group well for me, but that was right after it was introduced. Since then I believe that the ammunition’s been altered because it now groups most satisfactorily from a number of pistols I’ve tried it in. It was also the ammunition used in conjunction with the FBI HRT team’s 50-yard accuracy requirements for their Springfield 1911 pistols. (It is my understanding that HRT has since gone to Winchester’s RA45T, but simply because Winchester sells this ammo at lower prices than Remington does with their Golden Sabers.)

The Golden Saber’s jacket is a brass alloy and not the traditional gilding metal used in most jacketed hollow points. Where Winchester altered their bullet’s jacket to make it “softer” and more malleable, Remington opted for another approach: Make the bullet jacket extremely stiff, but engineer the bullet to expand and let the jacket do most of the “wounding.” The petals on an expanded Golden Saber are not particularly sharp compared to the talons on Winchester’s, but they are stiff and contribute greatly to the bullet’s final expanded diameter. With the Golden Saber, the lead bullet does not provide the bulk of the expanded diameter. For those concerned with possible bullet/jacket separation, the Golden Saber is now offered in a bonded version but I have not yet tested it.

This factory Golden Saber was fired into super-saturated newsprint from a 5″ 1911. Notice that the petals, though folded rearward, extended to considerably less distance than just the brass jacket. The bullet is deeply notched to help insure expansion.

Because the brass jacket on the Golden Saber is harder than traditional gilding metal, the bullet itself has slightly less diameter than conventional bullets. A “driving band” of normal diameter does contact the barrel and according to Remington, pressures generated as well as barrel wear are the same as for conventionally jacketed ammunition.

Remington 230-gr. Golden Saber Average Velocity Results

Handgun	Barrel Length (inches)	Average Velocity (ft/sec)
Kimber Custom	5	857
STI Trojan	5	853
Norinco	5	805
Springfield LW Gov’t Model	5	858
Colt Commander	4 1/4	829
SIG-Sauer P-220	4 14	822

Some have expressed concerns about separation between the bullet and the jacket with the Golden Saber. I have seen this more in expansion testing when water is used than in other media, but it did occur on a deer I shot using a Golden Saber handload. The bullet and jacket separated to be sure but this occurred during the last couple of inches of penetration.

For those interested, here is a more detailed report:

http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/45%20ACP%20Golden%20Saber%20Field%20Report.htm

At this point, someone will be wondering about Speer’s 230-gr. Gold Dot. I like Gold Dots, particularly in 9mm and .38 Super, but have simply found them not to feed reliably in a fairly significant number of 1911 type handguns. In some they run as slick as butter but not so well in enough that I cannot list it as a favorite load.

If your pistol reliably feeds it and you prefer this round, I think you have picked a good one. Like the Winchester Ranger, the Gold Dot uses a more malleable jacket than conventional jacketed hollow points. I have found it to be accurate and a reliable expander. It normally averages between about 830 and 850 ft/sec for me from a 5″ barrel.

Speer’s Gold Dot is a bonded bullet in that the jacket is chemically bonded with the lead core. It takes velocities way beyond those for which the bullet is designed to even see it begin to try and fragment. In .45 ACP, this bullet is almost guaranteed not to do so.

I am aware of one shooting with this load in my area. A law enforcement officer was required to shoot an armed felon with it at close range. The felon was struck in the head and was dead before he hit the ground. The Gold Dot did expand. I am not sure if it fully penetrated the head or not. The officer’s pistol jammed after the first shot.

Federal 230-gr. “Classic” JHP: Having the same profile as the company’s HydraShok, this conventional JHP can be had for less money per shot than the flagship ammunition previously mentioned. It also comes in 50-round boxes. It is an older technology bullet to be sure, but one that has performed nicely for me in years past. I prefer it to the HydraShok and the reason is simple: I see no difference in performance.

Like the HydraShok, this load is usually more accurate than expected. Though it probably will not perform as well as some more modern loads after passing through intermediate targets, this does not automatically indicate that it is no longer effective as some folks seem to imply.

On the left is the Federal 230-gr Classic JHP. On the right is the HydraShok. Profiles are identical. I have noticed no difference in actual expansion between the two. Neither have I observed any lack of reliability due to the brass case being used instead of the nickel-plated one.

Fired into super-saturated newsprint, this is about normal for the 230-gr. Classic JHP. There is frequently jacket fragmentation…at least to some degree but I do not believe that this bullet is “ineffective.” For folks preferring to buy their “serious” ammunition in bulk, this one would be a real contender in my opinion. This load averages about 860 ft/sec from the 5″ guns I’ve fired it from.

I have not tried the Winchester USA 230-gr. JHP’s so I cannot comment on them. I am guessing that they will probably perform about like the Federal 230-gr. Classic JHP, as both are “old technology” in design. These seem to be quite popular with many shooters but I think this is due to price more than possible performance.

Other loads that seem to work nicely despite some laboratory testing to the contrary come from Hornady. I have not shot their factory-loaded ammunition extensively, but have handloaded more than a few 200 and 230-gr. XTP bullets for my .45’s. As with their 9mm bullets, the 45-caliber XTP is normally capable of extremely fine accuracy.

The bullet is not in favor with many people because it is not an aggressive expander. It is not designed to be. Usually the XTP will go to about one-and-a-half calibers in the test media I’ve tried and likewise in animals. This bullet will usually penetrate an inch or two deeper than its competitors’ at similar velocities.

Of the bullets I’ve shot into various media and those recovered from actual animals, the XTP has been the most consistent I’ve seen from any maker. (Corbon’s DPX may very well give it a run for top place in this regard, but I’ve not yet seen any pulled out of critters.)

The XTP bullet has fed reliably over the long-term for me in all of my 1911 pattern pistols and never missed a stroke from the P-220.

Both the 230-gr. Golden Saber (left) and the 230-gr. XTP (right) expanded nicely when fired into water from a 5″ barrel. Both of these were handloads in the 850-ft/sec range. Note that the beginning of bullet/jacket separation is visible. I see this with bullets fired into water more than with other media or animal tissue, but it does happen. How bad or good this is I cannot say.

Despite the 230-gr. weight, some folks remain concerned with insufficient penetration and still with FMJ. This is their decision, but I respectfully suggest trying the Hornady XTP whether loaded under the “Custom” or “TAP” moniker.

I have shot two 130-lb whitetail deer with the 200-gr. XTP loaded to about 970 ft/sec, which is in line with the factory’s +P version in the same weight. The deer went down, but no bullets were recovered as they completely penetrated the animal on broadside shots. Ditto for the one I hit with the 230-gr. XTP loaded to 850 ft/sec.

Please do not think that I’m suggesting that these are the only “good” loads for the .45 ACP. They are my choices based on informal testing and field results on animals coupled with reports from some folks who have used them in mortal combat situations. Above all, don’t use any load that is not reliable in your pistol.

Stephen Camp- Actionsbyt Supports Jerry Patterson for Lt. Governor

  

  The Shooter’s Guide to the Browning Hi Power – REVISED EDITION Brand New!

        The Shooter’s Guide to Airweight J-Frames

    Paid in Full – A Novel of Revenge

    The Shooter’s Guide to the 1911 Pattern Pistol

   

    Defensive Handguns

   Hi Power Disassembly Guide

How to Order

If you have a PayPal account, just click on one of their links on this page to make payment. Use stevecamp9@yahoo.com as “recipient.” Be sure to include the address where you want your order sent (in the “notes” section).  Mail orders are always welcome.  Send mail orders to: Sandra Camp, PO Box 111, Krum, TX 76249. Cash, check, money order, or cashier’s checks are fine.  Make checks, MO’s or cashier’s checks payable to Sandra Camp. On the order, please print or write legibly and be sure to include the address where you want your order mailed. BE SURE TO INCLUDE WHICH items YOU ARE WANTING TO BUY. If you’ll also include your Email address, I will notify you when your items are to be mailed. Thanks.

Shipping and Handling Charges on Multiple Book Orders

Below are the charges for all orders in the US.  Email me for S&H charges on orders outside the US.

Full Size 8 1/2″ x 11″:  S&H on the first book is $5.  Subsequent full size books have a $3 S&H charge when ordered at the same time.

Should you have any questions concerning S&H charges, don’t hesitate to Email me.  I’ll figure it for you and let you know the correct amount.  As always, should you overpay (as has happened), I will refund the overpayment with your order.

Revolver comparison by Steve Camp

Please Support Jerry Patterson for Lt. Governor of Texas

Comparison: S&W Model 60 vs. Ruger SP101

When revolver fans congregate, comparisons between round guns from S&W and other makers are not unusual. These can be detailed, helpful and well-considered or done with the, “I-decree-this-so-no-other-talk-is-needed-‘nuff-said” ego-driven drivel seen (too) often at Internet firearm forums. It almost appears that some consider it at least a minor sin that a company other than S&W (or Colt) have actually manufactured a wheelgun.  And then they dare say it has “quality”!

Let’s make a comparison between the current S&W line of Model 60’s and Ruger’s SP101’s.

S&W Model 60 & Ruger SP101 38/357 Specifications

Specification:	S&W M60	Additional Comments:	Ruger SP101	Additional Comments:
Construction:	forged stainless steel		Cast stainless steel
Stocks:	synthetic		synthetic	Now using Hogue *
Cylinder Capacity:	5		5
Sights:	Fixed on 2 1/8” bbl	Adjustable on 3” bbl. Front serrated ramp is blackened and pinned to bbl.	Fixed on both  2 ¼” and 3 1/16” inch bbl’s in these calibers	Front serrated ramp is blackened and pinned to bbl for better visibility.
Hammer:	Exposed, spur		Exposed	Some versions available with hammer spur removed
Trigger:	Smooth	DA/SA pull weight(lbs.): 12/3	Smooth	DA/SA pull weight(lbs:): 13/5
Weight Empty (oz.):	2 1/8”: 22.5	3”: 24	2 ¼”: 26	3 1/16”: 28
Barrel:	Heavy	Full-length underlug	Heavy	Full-length underlug
Twist (inches):	1:18 ¾		1: 18 ¾
Revolver LOA:	2 1/8” bbl: 6 5/8”	3” bbl: 7 ½”	2 1/4” bbl: 7”	3 1/16”bbl: 7 7/8”
Frame Width:	0.534”		0.708”
Top Strap thickness:	0.178”		0.192 (front) to 0.229” (rear)	Top strap tapers
Cylinder Assembly:	Swing-out	Locks front and rear	Swing-out	Locks front and rear
Cylinder Rotation:	Counterclockwise		Counterclockwise
Internal Storage Lock:	Yes	Visible above cylinder thumb latch	Possibly Pending	Not visible. Beneath stocks
Mainspring:	coil	8.5-lb. standard	coil	14-lb. standard
Firing Pin:	Frame-mounted		Frame-mounted	Transfer bar
Safe to Carry Fully-loaded	Yes (All S&W revolvers are.)	Internal safety block	Yes (All Ruger revolvers are.)	Transfer bar

*Ruger’s OEM grip maker went out of business and Hogue is now supplying grips for the SP101.

Originally, Model 60’s were available only in .38 Special though that’s obviously changed, with current versions chambered in .357 Magnum.  The SP101 was originally chambered in the magnum round, but limited bullet-weight to 125-gr. due to a shorter cylinder on early guns. That problem has long been corrected and SP101’s can be loaded with heavier bullets.

A point of contention remains Smith & Wesson’s forged frame construction versus Ruger’s use of quality investment castings.  Some argue passionately that no casting can match a quality forging for strength and that the cast parts must be larger than their forged equivalents because of it.  I am not a metallurgist so I do not know.  I am a shooter and Ruger revolvers have developed a long-term reputation for toughness and durability. From gun shop range-rental personnel to ammunition makers, I continue to hear tales of the Ruger’s handguns seemingly near indestructibility! Some reloading manuals offer loading data specifically for some Ruger handgun models that is considered too severe for other makers’ handguns.

The flip-side to the “debate” remains that the S&W revolvers are usually “more refined”, have considerably fewer tool marks coupled with significantly better trigger pulls.

Shown are an S&W Model 60-9 in .357 Magnum and sporting a 2 1/8” barrel. Below it is a Ruger SP101 with the 3 1/16” barrel. Both Ruger and S&W have their devout faithful and detractors while others see advantages to using both.

The S&W Model 60 (left) cylinder’s diameter measures 1.309” compared to the SP101’s (right) at 1.353, greater than the J’s but less than the K-frame cylinder at 1.446”. Note that the bolt cuts are between the charge holes on the S&WJ-frame cylinder but not as much so on the Ruger. Is this due simply to design differences or the thinner cylinder walls on the S&W?

Both of these all-stainless steel revolvers have shrouded extractor rods with full-length lugs that add recoil-dampening weight and help reduce muzzle flip. Both have darkened serrated ramp front sights that many find easier to define than light-colored stainless steel. Both of these front sights are snag-free and in my experience, quick to find at speed and each is 1/8” thick.

Whether it is due to cast parts “needing” to be bigger for equivalent strength to forgings, I do not claim to know, but the SP101 is slightly larger than the J-frame. Dimensions provided in the chart along with accompanying weights prove this, but as can be seen in the preceding photograph, size differences are not extreme.  If a person chooses one over the other, the reason will almost certainly not be the gun’s size.

Having shot both 3” Model 60’s frequently as well as  3 1/16” SP101’s, I find that the S&W does have lighter trigger pulls in either double or single-action than the SP101 but the S&W is not always necessarily smoother; that seems to be dependent upon the individual gun.  On paper and against the clock, I have noticed no real world differences between the two, but my personal, subjective preference in this case is for the Ruger. I find its original synthetic-with-insert stocks more comfortable. Couple that with its slightly heavier weight and I simply prefer shooting the SP101 to the magnum Model 60. An electronic timer shows no real, consistent “winner” between the two, at least in my hands and I have seen no reliability differences between the two. I wish that S&W still offered a 3” Model 60 having both a heavy barrel and fixed sights…and no internal storage lock.  That might very well change my decision.

Like many reading this, my personal revolver preferences were S&W for either recreational or “serious” revolver choices.  That changed after putting an SP101 through its paces. I suggest that if you happen to be in the market for either a small snub or compact 357 all-steel revolver, not to immediately turn up your nose at the Ruger.

Trust me; owning a Ruger has in no way diminished my passion for S&W wheelguns. It is very possible to use and appreciate, both.

Stephen Camp

A Critical Look at the CZ-75

By Stephen Camp

The CZ-75 and its “off-spring” have caught on with shooters not only in the US, but also wherever handgunners have any choice in their personal sidearm. This all steel recoil-operated, locked breech, semiautomatic handgun was originally brought out in 9x19mm and that’s the caliber we’ll be looking at in this article. Pre-Ban magazines are conventional double-stack and holds 15 rounds of ammunition. The pistol has fixed sights in normal trim and is conventionally rifled with a 1:10 twist in its 4.72″ barrel.

This conventional double-action/single-action pistol also has a frame mounted thumb safety of ample size that allows for “Condition One” (cocked and locked) carry which is very popular among many serious carriers. The pistol is 8″ long and came with black plastic grips, a generous tang, and a hammer with an equally generous spur. The thumb safety, magazine release button, and slide stop lever are not ambidextrous on the CZ-75 as a rule, but at least one exception to this exists in a transitional model when the gun was evolving from the earlier version to the CZ-75B. This work focuses on a Pre-B CZ-75, but whenever possible, I will make comparisons to the CZ-75B, the model sold today.  Not discussed will be the CZ-85, 97, nor other versions, but they do have much in common with the CZ-75.

 

This 2.2-lb. pistol was apparently brought out for sale beyond the Iron Curtain as 9x19mm was not used by communist regimes in Europe. Because of unpleasantness between communist countries and the United States, we could not get the pistol in this country except on a sporadic basis and importation was an “on again-off again” type affair. Some paid pretty hefty prices for an example of the gun that Jeff Cooper had dubbed the “world’s best service nine.” Its appeal was rivaled by its scarcity! (Mercifully, this has reversed in recent years and the CZ-75B and CZ handguns in general represent “best buys” in my opinion.)

 

The pistol used for this report is a Pre-B pistol, but is not one of the earliest with the shorter slide rails and crude ring hammers. It does have the customary half-cock notch although some of the earliest pistols did not. Slide rails measure approximately 5.5.”

 

In the Pre-B pistols, the fixed sights tended toward the past.  In other words, they were smallish and hard to see, particularly if you’re in a hurry. The rear sight on any CZ-75 is relatively high for the short front sight. (Current CZ-75B pistols have fixed sights that are easier to see at speed than the Pre-B.)

 

The recoil spring guide in the Pre-B is steel and not a “full length” type affair.  It’s similar to the standard GI recoil spring guide found in the 1911 and unlike the Browning Hi Power, it does not apply downward tensioning of the slide stop lever. While the slide stop lever shaft passes through the rear of the Browning Hi Power spring guide, the CZ’s does not.  It’s more like that found on the 1911.

 

These two CZ-75 pistols are Pre-B versions. The one on the left has had Novak fixed sights added and the barrel and some internal parts hard chromed. The one on the right is practically stock, although it has been refinished.  Note the smallish front sight on that CZ compared to the other.  CZ-75B pistols have solved the “small sight” problem on their current pistols.  Both of these guns have spur hammers, which have been bobbed to prevent hammer bite. In the rear of the magazine well is a bowed flatspring. This is often called a “magazine brake” and does prevent the magazine dropping free when released. It’s easily removed, the bow removed, and magazines will then fall free. Some folks just remove the brake, but this is a mistake as some have found out when quickly loading their CZ’s. A raised portion of the frame normally behind the brake can damage the rear top of the magazine.

 

For this report, I’ll provide shooting results from both of these pistols.

 

The CZ-75 uses a one-piece feed ramp and the pistol offers very good chamber support.

 

CZ-75 barrels do not come hard chromed.  Armalloy of Ft. Worth, Texas, did this one.

Note the wide ramp and the very good chamber support. “Kabooms” with the CZ are very unlikely. Note the protrusion at the top of the barrel ala Browning Hi Power.

 

The factory standard for the 9mm CZ-75 recoil spring is 14-lbs. with a 20-lb. mainspring compared to a 17-lb. recoil spring for the 9mm Browning Hi Power and 32-lb. mainspring. The 5″ Colt 1911 in 9mm uses a 14-lb. recoil spring and a 23-lb. factory standard set for the mainspring. Thus, the factory CZ-75 requires the cartridge to provide enough momentum to overcome at least 34 pounds compared to 49 and 37 for the Hi Power and 1911, respectively. I find this interesting, as the Hi Power slide would come closer to the weight of the CZ than would the more massive 1911. Be that as it may, the CZ has proven to be an extremely durable 9mm service pistol.

 

At this point, it should be mentioned that there have been several complaints concerning the breaking of the slide stop in some CZ-75B 9mm pistols. Mike Eagleshield, gunsmith at CZ-USA, has stated that the 14-lb. recoil springs frequently were not and sometimes closer to 10 or 12! He recommended at least a 14-lb. Wolff conventional recoil spring and perhaps up to about 16 pounds. I use a Wolff conventional 18-lb. recoil spring in my CZ-75 pistols as well as a shock buffer from Buffer Technologies. (Wolff can be found at www.gunsprings.com and Buffer Technologies at www.buffertech.com if interested.) Some report ejection problems with the 18-lb. spring so it might be better to go with something in the 16-lb. range if you primarily shoot standard pressure ammunition. My pistols work fine with the 18-lb. spring, but have been used quite a lot might be slicked up enough that I don’t get the ejection problems mentioned by others. Most standard pressure loads eject the hulls about 4′ to the right with the hotter stuff going about twice that distance.

 

The CZ-75 pistols do not have removable barrel bushings and the guns are internally more complex than either the 1911 or the Hi Power, but the 44- part design seems to be a reliable one as I’ve owned and shot these pistols since the early ’80’s with zero small parts breakage or reliability issues…with one exception.  One the CZ having the original fixed sights, a certain “hot” handload would routinely fail to feed. To cut to the chase, replacing the factory magazine spring with a Wolff +10% spring solved the problem. With that change, the problem went away and has not reappeared. If you’re experiencing any such problems, that might be the cure for you as well.

 

Internally the CZ-75 is more complex than the single-action automatic preferred by many, including myself. You can also see tool marks here and there.  Be that as it may, the pistols have been around about a quarter of a century and seem to be having no problems. They would be more difficult to detail strip in the field than a few, but if that’s not a major concern, I believe that arguments against the pistol are more theoretical than practical.

 

The CZ-75 has internal slide rails, just the reverse of the majority of semiautomatics on the market today. In other words, the slide is contained within the frame rather than riding outside it. Frame to slide to is not nearly so tight as on the Hi Power, 1911, or practically any quality automatic you can name, but the CZ-75B pistols do seem tighter in the examples I’ve seen than the Pre-B pistols.

 

The frame to slide fit as shown at the front of the frame and dust cover is not very tight by most standards, but the slide to barrel fit is extremely tight. How much the former contributes to inherent mechanical accuracy is unknown to me, but unless your shooting is done from a Ransom rest, the CZ-75 will prove to be a very accurate shooter. Groups I’ve seen fired from a mechanical rest where there’s no adjustment between shots via the sights have been larger than with several other makes of 9mm pistol.

 

Here’s the slide to frame fit from the rear.  The sharp-eyed will notice that the long curved hammer spur has been trimmed a bit to prevent hammer bite.  This is not a concern on the CZ-75B pistols as they come with a ring hammer.

 

Some have opined that the CZ-75 is a poorly made handgun because the internal finish is rough.  I respectfully disagree. They are rough internally, but this has never caused me any problems and the CZ-75 pistols I’ve shot have consistently had long, but smooth double-action trigger pulls and very usable single-action trigger pulls. Because of their design, even in single-action, pressing the trigger will cam the hammer back a very small distance before releasing it. Mercifully, this pistol does not come with a magazine “safety” and the single-action trigger pull is almost always considerably lighter than the Hi Power’s out of the box. The CZ trigger pull is somewhat “mushy,” but the gun will “shoot,” but don’t expect to have a crisp single-action trigger pull like that of a 1911 or a tuned Hi Power.

 

I have consistently found these pistols to be accurate. They will not match the SIG P-210 nor the FN Competition or a target-grade custom 1911, but like the Hi Power, they will be capable of accuracy that is beyond most shooters, particularly under field conditions or if under the stress of a gun fight.

 

This 15 yard slow fire target was fired with the CZ-75 with Novak fixed sights.

 

So was this one. It was extremely hot when these groups were fired and I wasn’t for sure if the first group fired with the Remington UMC was me or the ammo. It was me as the second group at the lower right shows.

 

Using Fiocchi’s 123-grain FMJTC round, the CZ did plenty good enough for me at 25 yards. The group was fired seated and using a rest.

 

In slow fire, the CZ-75 with the small factory sights did not prove unsatisfactory. This 15 yard group consists of a full magazine of 115-grain Fiocchi FMJ. I have never noted any instances of “first round flyer” with any CZ-75 I’ve ever fired in either 9mm or .40 S&W.

 

This group was done in rapid-fire using the smallish sights. This is tougher than with more easily seen sights such as the Novaks on a different CZ or those from the factory on the current CZ-75B’s.

 

I did pull one using the CZ with the better sights. That was me and not the pistol, of course. This group was 8-sets of controlled pairs from 10 yards. Like most pistols having double stack magazines and a wide front grip strap, the gun can become slippery with sweaty hands. This is the bane of any such pistol not having stippling, checkering, or something to provide secure purchase with wet hands. Unfortunately, my CZ-75 pistols do have smooth front grip straps.

 

I have found the CZ-75 to be extremely reliable with the vast majority of JHP ammunition I’ve tried in them. Here are the average velocities, extreme spreads, and standard deviations for several factory loads. Measurements were taken with the pistol’s muzzle being approximately 10′ from the chronograph screens and figures are based on 10-shot strings.

 

Ammunition:                                                   `           Average Velocity (ft/sec)

 

Aguila 65-grain IQ                                                                  1492

Extreme Spread: 24

Std. Deviation: 12

 

Corbon 100-grain PowRball +P                                            1431

Extreme Spread: 50

Std. Deviation: 24

 

PMP 115-grain FMJ                                                               1076

Extreme Spread: 42

Std. Deviation: 14

 

Remington 115-grain UMC FMJ                                            1186

Extreme Spread: 38

Std. Deviation: 11

 

Fiocchi 115-grain FMJ                                                           1132

Extreme Spread: 73

Std. Deviation: 24

 

Federal 115-grain JHP                                                           1151

Extreme Spread: 43

Std. Deviation: 15

Fiocchi 123-grain FMJTC “Combat”                                    1061

Extreme Spread: 61

Std. Deviation: 21

 

Federal 124-grain Nyclad HP                                                1162

Extreme Spread: 27

Std. Deviation: 12

 

Hornady 124-grain CQ (XTP) JHP                                        1153

Extreme Spread: 52

Std. Deviation: 19

 

Triton 125-grain Hi Vel JHP +P                                            1266

Extreme Spread: 69

Std. Deviation: 25

 

Corbon 125-grain JHP +P                                                     1194

Extreme Spread: 17

Std. Deviation: 8

 

Winchester RA9TA 127-grain +P+                                        1285

Extreme Spread: 70

Std. Deviation: 29                    

 

I was somewhat surprised with the sub-1200 ft/sec with the Corbon 125-grain JHP as it normally exceeds 1200 ft/sec from both my CZ and Browning pistols.  Note the extreme uniformity in the load. I was also taken back by the better consistency shown in the PMP ammunition.  This recent stuff has normally grouped poorly in other 9mm pistols. The figures are from ammo having the same lot number.  I reckon I’ll just shoot it in my CZ 9mm pistols.

For those interested, there is information on this site concerning other JHP ammo when fired into water.  There are better sites for detailed analysis of such things, but I went ahead and fired the Hornady CQ 124-grain into water from the CZ as well as Corbon’s PowRball.

 

Here’s what happened:

 

Fired into water from the CZ-75 shown, the Corbon PowRball impacted at an average velocity of 1431 ft/sec. The bullet weighed 77.4 grains and the expanded slug measured 0.65×0.66.” The jacket fragmented and not one piece could be found. The weight of the PowRball includes the small lead fragment shown to the left of the bullet. The standard pressure and heavier Hornady impacted at approx. 1153 ft/sec.  The recovered bullet including the small fragment weighed 120.1 grains and measured 0.52×0.54.”

 

In short, I’ve had extremely positive results with the CZ-75 pistols I have owned and shot over the long-term and have no problems at all in recommending them to others with but one caveat: Test any handgun before relying on it for any serious purpose.

 

Main differences between the CZ-75 and 75B include an internal firing pin safety on the latter, as well as some cosmetic changes like the B’s hooked trigger guard as well as thumb safety lever and slide stop. There is also a slightly different contour on the trigger face and has been mentioned the B has sights that are easier to pick up at speed.

 

As there have been some breakage complaints of the roll pin that retains the B’s firing pin rather than the traditional retaining plate, I would use a snap cap if dry firing the CZ-75B or any other CZ handgun with a “B” designation.

 

The shape of this Pre-B thumb safety lever has been changed in the B version, as has the slide release lever. The B’s also have ring hammers. The slide serrations on the Pre-B are vertical while they’re angled slightly forward on the new guns.

 

The CZ-75 pistols be they “B” or not are world class service pistols in my experience and opinion. That they can be purchased easier and less expensively these days than in the past is a good thing as far as I ‘m concerned. If you like doing lots of shooting, there are certainly many fine 9mm semiautomatics from which to choose. If I could not use a Browning Hi Power, I would use a CZ-75.

 

The CZ-75 remains a real favorite in my collection of 9mm handguns. This one’s taken a javelina or two and I would not be afraid to use it for serious matters, either.

SNUB REVOLVERS BY STEPHEN CAMP

.38 Snub Vs. .357 Snub

 

For as long as I can remember, the question of whether or not the .38 Special snub is as potent as the .357 magnum in a snub-nose revolver has been debated again and again. This is not an extensive article, but I think the answer becomes pretty clear.

 

I didn’t have a .357 with a barrel as short as the 1 7/8″ barrel on my snub thirty-eight’s so I just fired the .38 Specials out of a 2 1/2″ Model 19.  The magnums were fired from the same revolver.  It is true that .38 Specials will lose a little velocity when fired from a revolver chambered for the slightly longer .357 Magnum. The figures are slight, but later on, we’ll “give” another 50 ft/sec (which is a generous amount) to the measured thirty-eight special velocities.

 

A stock S&W Model 19 2 1/2″ revolver, except for the stocks, was used for the chronograph results shown below.

 

Velocities are based on 10-shot strings of fire about 10′ from the chronograph screens.

 

                                            Ammunition                                                                            Average Velocity (ft/sec)

 

                    Federal .38 Special 129-grain Hydrashok +P                                                                   846

 

                    Winchester .38 Special 158-grain LSWCHP +P                                                              858

 

                    Remington .357 Magnum 125-grain SJHP (Full-house load)                                      1243

 

                    Handload: Rucker 158-grain CSWC                                                                               1100

                    7.0 grains Unique

                    Winchester Small Pistol Primer

                    Starline Case

 

At this point, I’ll have to ask you to accept that the 129-grain .38 bullet is approximately the same as the 125-grain .357 and that the 4 grains would not make any real difference. Also, the handloaded .357 round was used simply because I had no data on any factory magnums in that bullet weight.  Note that this is not a “hot” handload in that caliber and bullet weight.

 

Now add the 50 ft/sec we spoke of earlier to each of the .38 average velocities and we get an “adjusted average velocity” of  896 ft/sec for the Hydrashok and 908 ft/sec for the LSWCHP. Compared to the 125-grain .357, we see that the magnum bests the .38 by 347 ft/sec.  I find this a significant gain. With the heavier .38 Special bullet compared to the same weight slug from a .357 handload, we find a difference of 192 ft/sec in favor of the magnum and a medium handload.

 

The data provided was not extensive, but based on it and what I’ve seen on more than one occasion in the past, the little .38’s main advantage as a carry gun or BUG is that it’s light, small, and easy to conceal. Its ballistic payload is not equivalent to the .357’s in most cases.  While it is true that both S&W and Taurus offer .357’s in very nearly the same size package, it’s been my experience that they border on being uncontrollable when shot in rapid-fire. Others may have had better luck.  I’ll take my .357 magnums in a K, L, or N frame.

 

Little in this world is a hard and true fact and the same applies here.  I note that out of a 1 7/8″ barrel S&W Model 642, Corbon’s 115-grain +P+ JHP averages an amazing 1188 ft/sec. This is in the .357 range of velocities and might be thought of as a “quasi-magnum” load. A Ruger SP-101 averages 1278 ft/sec with Triton 125-grain Quik Shok +P ammo, so we see the magnum winning again, but the .38 load does surprisingly well. Sadly, both of these loads are discontinued, as Corbon no longer uses and Triton’s out of business. Out of the 2 1/2″ Model 19, Winchester’s 110-grain .357 JHP averaged 1166 ft/sec so the Corbon .38 Special load beat it slightly in both velocity and bullet weight. These are exception to the rule. FWIW, with the thin forcing cone in the J-frame S&W, I’ve quit using the 115-grain load for fear of cracking it.

 

The notion that the .357 is so inefficient in the two-inch guns that it’s no more effective than a hot .38 Special just doesn’t seem to be true. While neither is at its best in the snub, the magnum is the more potent of the two with most ammo.

CLASSIC ARTICLE BY STEPHEN CAMP

I SUPPORT JERRY PATTERSON FOR LT. GOVERNOR IN TEXAS.

“House Guns and the 24/7 Solution”

“I in my own house am an emperor,
and will defend what is mine.”

Massinger-The Roman Actor. Act 1. Sc. 2.33

It is no secret that more honest citizens are lawfully carrying concealed handguns than ever before due to more states enacting concealed carry laws, a change that I heartily welcome.  Handgun manufacturers responded with “compact” or “ultra-compact” versions of their service size shooters such as Glock’s Model 19, 23, 26 and 27 and Beretta’s PX4 Storm ultra-compact. Ruger created both their LCP (.380 ACP semiautomatic) and the LCR (.38 Special/.357 Magnum revolver) for the concealed carry market as well as a compact version of their newest full-size autopistol, the SR9c. Kel-Tec’s line of firearms predominantly cater to the compact handgun market.

The list can go on but you get the idea:  Readily concealable “carry guns” are in high demand.

But what about choices for non-carriers or handguns dedicated solely to defense of hearth and home? Are their better choices than the popular compacts for this purpose?  What about overlap or dual purpose handguns? Can some rack up high points in either role or are such considerations needless over-complications?

It has frequently been suggested that since concealment is not an issue, the house gun need not be as small as the carry gun.  In fact, some opine that we could be restricting our defensive capabilities by using a small, harder-to-shoot, handgun as well as unnecessarily limiting our “firepower” due to size constraints that are just not necessary. I partially agree with this.

Arguments for large-frame handguns are frequent in these discussions.  With revolvers, ammo-capacity is sometimes upped a round or two and even if it remains at the traditional six, the gun’s extra size and weight reduce felt-recoil and its longer sight radius will probably aid in more accurate shot placement. I partially agree with this concept, too.

The small 5-shot J-Frame S&W Model 37 Airweight (bottom) gives up only one round to the medium size S&W Model 10 built on the K-Frame. Even though both are snubs, it has been my observation that most shooters find the heavier all-steel Model 10 significantly easier to shoot accurately due to considerably reduced felt-recoil.

If bigger is better, wouldn’t this larger S&W Model 28 N-Frame be a better choice than the medium K-Frame Model 10 below it if both were loaded with the same ammunition? After all, it weighs more and would further dampen recoil. While that is true, the size is just too large for some shooters and accuracy, particularly at speed is sacrificed if a proper hold on the handgun cannot be had. Where folks with larger hands might find the Model 28 just the ticket, odds are that they would find the medium-frame gun comfortable as well as would their wives.  Are you the only one to use the house gun or are their others?  Such factors should be considered when selecting a house gun in my opinion.

Some folks who normally tote an autoloader for defense opt for the DA/SA revolver for a house gun.  Why is this and do you agree with this idea?  The reason I most often hear is that since the house gun will probably be “out of sight and out of mind” more than the carry gun and compressed magazine springs might weaken over time.  Others suggest not wanting to leave a single-action autopistol “cocked-and-locked” when off of the body and express concerns over the mainspring weakening over time.

At the other end of the discussion, folks not all that concerned with maximum ammunition-capacity for the carry gun, feel just the opposite for the house gun, the idea being that the ammunition you have in the handgun is probably all that you will have on you if quickly exiting your bed because of the infamous “bump in the night”.  If fully dressed, the concealed handgun carrier probably has a spare reload or two secreted on his person, but this is probably not the case if creeping about only in pajamas…or less.

So what is the truth…or best gleaning of it from these ideas? I believe that it depends significantly on your own personal situation but will offer what I hope to be useful suggestions for your individual consideration. In other words, you decide what you believe to be right for you, not me.

The late Jeff Cooper wrote that the service handgun was possibly the most useful because it could be used in a wider array of scenarios than handguns designed for more specific purposes such as formal target competition or deep concealed carry.  It might not be the “best” for all things, but it very well might suffice. I believe that he was correct.

Revolver vs. Semiautomatic: In my view this is strictly personal preference.  With quality handguns, either is reliable and loaded original-capacity magazines just do not weaken dangerously from being loaded over time.  Ditto, autoloaders stored in Condition One. Test after test over the years from such folks as Cooper, Taylor and others as well as my own have convinced me that such concerns are not justified. Seldom mentioned is that revolver mainsprings and trigger-return springs are compressed. If worrying about this is appropriate for automatics, why isn’t it for revolvers as well?

The notion that the house gun is likely not to be checked over great periods of time is just not a valid reason to justify revolvers in my opinion.  To me it probably indicates either negligence on the part of the owner or the (dangerous) mindset that a handgun in itself can be counted upon to ward off evil like some sort of talisman.

Compared to some autoloaders, the DA/SA revolver does have a simpler manual-of-arms and it seems more readily “understandable” to people not really interested in shooting and firearms. This or plain old personal preference are valid reasons to opt for the “round gun” in my view.

Ammunition Capacity: I cannot envision anyone suggesting that they prefer less ammunition rather than more in a defense situation but I still believe that in the surprise, compressed time-frame situations for which we tote a handgun, we will run out of time before ammunition. If we cannot quickly “solve” this unexpected surprise problem before it “solves” us, how many rounds we still had on tap is moot while our chalk outline is being drawn by homicide officers.

Many folks express concerns over home invasions.  Consider that they will have the element of surprise and will be right on top of you as soon as they can manage it. A larger-capacity service pistol in the bureau drawer might as well be in China. A 17-shot Glock might be of great use but how many shots can we get off before we ourselves take incoming fire from presumably armed home invaders?

This brings me to my main point:

Instant Accessibility: Handguns are chosen for the unexpected, for the deadly force scenarios we hope we never have to experience but can happen in the blink of an eye. They can be employed with but one arm while carrying a kid to safety under the other. They can be easily hidden in strategic places. The handgun is what we have with us “just in case” but is not (usually) our primary choice when we know the wolf is either at the door or on the way.  For that we call law enforcement or opt for some sort of long arm such as a fast-handling carbine or shotgun.

The service sidearm suggested by Jeff Cooper makes a lot of sense to me assuming that our lifestyle allows us to have it immediately at hand while at home. If memory serves, the good colonel suggested wearing it at home as well as when out. Whether we agree with this concept or not (I do), more than a few of us simply will not be able to do this. Neighbors might perceive us as paranoid mental cases while the wives of some would be constantly upset over it despite the fact that it might save her life someday…or night. So, while I believe that this is the optimal house gun accessibility solution, it just won’t work for many of us, which brings me to what I call the “24/7 approach”.

I strongly believe that unless our abode sports bank vault doors or barred windows, we are deluding ourselves if we believe we can access our stored house gun in time to ward off unlawful, surprise deadly attack or other unexpected criminal activity within our homes. (There’s that pesky time issue again.  Most doors can be kicked open rather easily, more so than many even suspect.)

The gun must be on the person.  After trying more than a few, my nomination for the best 24/7 gun, one that is own my person while awake and near it when asleep, bathing or whatever is a Plus-P-loaded S&W J-Frame in .38 Special. Being on my person, it allows me at least five immediate “tries’ at survival rather than double or triple that from a firearm somewhere else! I would hate the sting of my throat being slit because I didn’t have my “obsolete” pocket snub on me and just didn’t have the time to access my “tactically superior” light-mounted autoloader in the next room!

The Glock 19 (left) is shown next to an S&W Model 042 J-Frame .38 Special I carried as a BUG while a police officer.  I think that the Glock 19, a worldwide favorite, is the better defensive arm but only if it is immediately ready to use. For me the Glock 26’s 10-round magazine and simple revolver-like point-and-pull operation had much to recommend it, but the G26 (right) was enough too large to preclude it from pocket carry for me…though I tried for over a year.

As this is being written, a service size pistol is on the desk next to my right hand and it is what I would use if unexpected push came to very hard shove, but if I walk over to a filing cabinet across the room, my J-Frame is with me and ready to go from its Tuff Products pocket holster, which also contains a spare reload.

For me, the “24/7 solution” has been viable.  My “always” snub is on my person and a service size handgun as close to hand as possible. I would much prefer the .45 Dan Wesson Patriot in a fight than the S&W Model 642, but I am more likely to have the snub with me at all times. With the snub on my person and a “real gun” close to hand, I have a choice rather than just hope. In my opinion, immediate accessibility is as non-negotiable as reliability for the handgun(s) employed for home defense. It has to work but to do so it must be present!

For me, this means two.

You decide what works best for you but I respectfully suggest (strongly) giving it some serious thought before there are any problems.  Statistically, there will not be but I don’t choose to live on the proverbial “wing and a prayer”.

How about you?

Russian Makarov – Steve Camp

We Support Jerry Patterson for LT. GOVERNOR OF TEXAS

The Defensive Makarov  Revisited

Hello. A good while back I penned out a thing called “A Case FOR the Defensive Makarov” and after receiving several queries concerning how “appropriate” the 9x18mm Makarov is as a defensive arm, I decided that a follow-up piece might be of service.

My perception of why the Makarov remains so popular with many shooters is that the little things have a second-to-none reputation for reliability and didn’t cost the proverbial “arm and a leg”, yet one got a quality firearm for this lesser tariff. When the rest of the shooting community (finally) learned that these little shooters could also actually group nicely and with many of the then inexpensive foreign ammo, the rush was on. (Sadly, I fall into the latter group, foolishly waiting until about the end of the rush to get my Makarovs.)

In my initial shooting of the little guns, I found the claims on reliability, quality-vs.-cost, and built-in mechanical accuracy to be true.

Still, like the .380 ACP, I never could really get all that enthusiastic about the 9x18mm Makarov cartridge as a self-protection round; maybe it was just too many years of .45’s, hot-loaded 9×19’s, .357’s and other more powerful rounds. Yet, I found myself not willing to sell any Makarov and just enjoying the fire out of shooting them.

For me, they remain as addictive as homemade sin, but as “fun guns” primarily; any sort of “serious” theme remains secondary. At the same time, I believe that “placement is power” and have said so on more than a few ocassions. Thus, it appears to me that IF you feel comfortable with the 9mm Mak’s ballistics coupled with a willingness to shoot if necessary and accurately at speed, the gun might very well make a viable “carry gun” for self-defense.

Rather than sit here and try to pontificate on any handgun caliber’s “worthiness” in the self-defense arena, I thought that I’d run a few tests, present my findings and let the reader make his or her decision. I will interject my own observations here and there but will try and be as objective as possible on what seems for many to be a most subjective and emotional topic.

Firearms: Today I used a Bulgarian Makarov for most shooting drills. It was used with its factory slide and fixed sights as well as with the now discontinued “Beast” slide, which is a new Bulgarian slide nicely fitted with Novak fixed sights.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This Bulgarian Makarov was used for most of the shooting today. In the past I’ve shot it usually with the very comfortable Pearce grips. Today, I used thin factory plastic grips as most folks buy their Makarovs wearing them and I could compare to the Pearce grips being worn by the Russian-made gun. (To me, the Pearce grips are more comfortable but a tad harder to conceal due to their extra thickness. Some folks complain of “stickiness” with rubber grips to outer garments like shirts. I suspect this will depend upon both the maker of the grip and the particular shirt material, but do not know this for a fact.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some shooting was done with the Beast slide conversion on a commecial Russian frame wearing Pearce grips.

Shooting: Distances in these tests were 5, 7 and 15 yards. The “quick-and-dirty” practical-type drills were done starting from a low-ready position and timed with a Pact Club Timer III. A two-hand hold was used and each drill began with the pistol in the double-action mode as this is how it is meant to be carried. I did not have the safety engaged. The shots fired for group were done at 15 yards from a seated position and in slow-fire; no effort was made at speed. They were fired single-action only with my wrists braced.

Ammunition:

Barnaul 95-gr. JHP
Wolf 100-gr. FMJ
Silver Bear 115-gr. JHP
Brown Bear 115-gr. JHP

15 Yards:

 

 

 

 

 

 

This was admittedly the best 5-shot group of the day at this distance, but in my two guns, the Barnaul consistently grouped better than the Wolf ammunition. This group is probably as much luck as any skill.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This was the best group I could get with Wolff 100-gr. FMJ at 15 yards. Like the group in the previous picture, this one was done using the Russian frame/bbl and Beast slide. POA in both was the center of the bullseye.

 

 

Using the Bulgarian, this group was fired with the heavy-for-caliber 115-gr. JHP as loaded in Silver Bear ammunition.

 

 

Brown Bear’s 115-gr. JHP grouped equivalently to the Silver in my opinion. POA using the Bulgarian and this ammunition was 6 O’ Clock on the bullseye.

5 Yards:: At this close distance I fired Mr. Jim Higginbotham’s “Standard Controlability Test”. (He is a long-time long-time firearm instructor for both state and federal agencies.) The drill is this:

1. Start at a low-ready 5 yards from the target, which is the size of a vertically-folded piece of 8 1/2 x 11″ typing paper. The target is now 5 1/2″ wide by 8 1/2″ tall.

2. Passing is 5 shots into the target in no more than 2 seconds.

3. An average of 3 runs was taken.

4. I used the 115-gr. Silver Bear ammo for this drill as it was offered a little more recoil than the 95-gr. Barnaul JHP.

I did the test 3 times using the Bulgarian with its smallish factory sights and then 3 times with the larger Novak 3-dot sights on the Beast slide.

Resulting averages were very similar for both setups:

Factory Bulgarian: 1.77 secs

Bulgarian w/Beast Slide: 1.71 secs

I forgot to photograph the “groups” but they were roughly the same with some on the edge of the target from both the plain Bulgarian Mak or with it using the Beast slide.

7-Yards: At this distance, I did 5 runs starting from a low-ready position. As was the case when doing the controllability drills, the gun was DA for the first shot. It was the standard “two-to-the-body-and-one-to-the-head” exercise that the late Jeff Cooper also called “The Mozambique Drill”. How valid it is or isn’t in real life might be argued by some deep into training and tactics but my point in using it is simply to have a consistent standard to be used in conjunction with Mr. Higginbotham’s controlability test to see if the “high-visibility” Novak sights were superior to the admittedly small sights standard to the Makarov.

Here are the Beast slide w/Novak sights (top) and the Bulgarian factory slide (bottom) as viewed from the top so a visual comparison of the sights can be made. Are the Novak sights really better? I just wanted to put them to the test and see using the same frame with the same trigger-pull for the gun in either configuration. POA vs. POI were very acceptable (with both the Bulgarian and the Russian, which says something to me about consistency in manufacture of these pistols, at least with these two.

Again, an average was taken using the Pact timer.

Here are the results are 5 FTS drills using the Bulgarian in standard factory trim using the small fixed sights.

…and using the Beast slide conversion.

Average times were 2.26 secs with the standard fixed sights and 2.19 secs with the Novak-equipped slide. How much of this is just my human reflex variation and how much is actually being able to pick up the larger sights? I do not know? Is there enough time to make a real difference in the real world? I’m not sure. You decide for yourself.

I will say this. If one’s eyesight is such that close-in objects (like handgun sights) are no longer clear (like they were 25 years ago), the larger sights probably do make a difference. I shot with my eyeglasses removed. Otherwise I could not have seen either sight clearly. (I didn’t think to try the drills with my glasses on or we might have seen a more distinct winner. Note that the chest group with the smaller Bulgarian sights seems more vertically strung. Might this be from my trying to find the smallish front sight at speed and perhaps overcompensating?)

In any event, I found the results from either variation of the Bulgarian pistol to be satisfactory.

Observations: I will admit that I was not really surprised at the similarity in results using the factory vs. Novak sights. This is because several years ago I had Novak sights installed on a couple of Mk III 9mm Hi Power pistols. Comparing them to the standard fixed Mk III sights, I found no real difference in either slow or rapid-fire exercises. Those sights are closer in size than the Novak to the Makarov standard sight but how much real world difference is there between the two? Would this hold true for every single shooter or just some and not others? I don’t know.

There were no malfunctions with either pistol, something that remains the standard for the Makarov.

Are they acceptable defensive “carry guns”?

You decide.

For me, there’s no question that they remain addictive…

Browning Hi Power Accuracy by Stephen Camp

Browning Hi Power Accuracy

 

The term “accuracy” doesn’t necessarily mean the same thing to all of us. To a competition match bullseye shooter, it means having the most intrinsically accurate pistol he can have.  Malfunctions are a secondary issue in most cases, but he must have a competition pistol capable of putting one bullet hole right on top of another. To the IDPA shooter, the gun must be reliable and capable of dropping hits within a more generous scoring area that the bullseye target. If both of these fellows have pistols capable of meeting their requirements, they have accurate pistols in their respective frames of reference.

 

So where does the Browning Hi Power fit in with regard to accuracy?

 

First, you have to remember that the Hi Power was originally designed to be a military service pistol. Emphasis was strong on reliability and accuracy parameters would not be so strict as those for our bullseye shooter previously mentioned. The gun was intended to fire under adverse conditions more than to provide the tightest possible groups. The Hi Power generally will not match the tight groups of pistols designed for competition target shooting including accurized versions of other service pistols such as the Gold Cup or 1911 pistols custom built to provide extreme mechanical accuracy.

 

Does that mean that it is inaccurate? The answer depends upon your definition and requirements.  It’s been my experience with many Hi Powers that almost all of them will drop most brands of ammunition into groups under 3″ at 25 yards. Some will do better and most will do surprisingly better with a specific load that the gun “likes.” I’m happy with loads that do in the 2 to 2.5″ range at that distance as I cannot achieve such groups except from a rest and I’m not involved in Camp Perry competition. If the pistol is capable of dropping its shots onto a tennis ball size target at twenty-five yards (assuming I’m doing my part), the Hi Power is accurate, as least to me.

 

This nearly stock 9mm Mk III has proven satisfactorily accurate with most rounds and surprisingly so with selected ones it “likes.” One that comes to mind is Remington 115-grain JHP +P. This particular Hi Power will shoot groups in the 2″ range with it at 25 yards from a rest.

 

One of the endearing traits of the Hi Power is that it is usually consistent in accuracy, one gun to another. I’ve rarely seen one that wouldn’t group in the ranges mentioned and the best-grouping is usually not that much better than the worst-grouping Hi Powers I’ve owned and/or shot. This speaks highly to FN’s manufacturing.  (I do wish they’d place such an emphasis on trigger pulls!)

 

This group was fired with a standard Mk III at twenty-five yards using a rest.  I’m sure the flyers are my fault, but I sincerely believe most of us would consider this plenty accurate.

 

Every now and again, I hear from a shooter having trouble with his Hi Power throwing a wild shot without warning that is not the shooter’s fault. Assuming that the ammunition is not at fault, it seems that pistols afflicted with this malady are suffering from the barrel not locking up the same way each time a shot is fired. Finding the specific location of improper fitting, be it in the slide or the barrel can be a tedious problem.  If you are suffering from such a problem and happen to have a spare barrel, you might try a switch and see if this does it. The problem here is that such swaps can result in a different POI for the same POA. If this works, great, but if not I’d buy an oversize Bar-Sto match Hi Power barrel and have it fitted to the pistol. On two occasions, this has been the cure and is generally not much more expensive than having a qualified gunsmith weld the original barrel and refit it to the pistol.

 

At this point, it might be appropriate to compare Hi Power accuracy with a fitted Bar-Sto vs. a stock barrel. It has been my experience that perhaps a 10 to 20% tightening of groups with jacketed bullets will be seen, although the favorite load for the factory barrel might very well be different than that preferred by the match barrel. You will see a significant increase in grouping ability with the Bar-Sto if using either cast or plated bullets. I believe that this is due to the difference in pitch between the two barrels. The factory FN barrel has a 1:10 twist while the Bar-Sto is 1:16. It appears that the cast and plated bullets “like” the slower twist. In general, I’ve noticed about a 40 to 60 ft/sec decrease in velocity from the 1:10 to the 1:16 with most loads. I assume this is due to more complete combustion of the powder in trying to drive the bullet out the faster twist barrel without reaching the point where too much is used and velocity suffers. This has proven true with many loads I’ve tested, but not all and it can be different from barrel to barrel. The main thing is that if you’re shooting a maximum load that’s fine in the slower twist Bar-Sto, it might be too hot in the faster twist factory barrel. This is only a potential problem with loads pushing the maximum ballistic envelope for the cartridge and I’m aware of no factory loads, standard, +P, or +P+ in which it can be risky or dangerous.

 

This group was fired with an older Hi Power with a fitted Bar-Sto match barrel at 15 yards. I do not note it being much better than with the standard barrel.  With cast bullets, accurate loads can be had with the factory barrel, but I’ve had much better results with the Bar-Sto. I also find that the Bar-Sto barrel does not lead as much, which is likely due to its slower twist.

 

For most of us, the Browning Hi Power is more accurate than we can actually make use of as it comes from the manufacturer, but it is still essentially a service pistol and should not be expected to group with a target gun. Contrary to some statements I’ve seen, I’ve observed no difference overall between Hi Powers having fixed sights vs. those with adjustables with regard to inherent mechanical accuracy. Do not buy an adjustable sighted Hi Power under the false assumption that the pistol is fitted better or held to higher standards in terms of grouping ability. The basic gun is the same with only different sights.

 

These groups were fired with a factory barrel in a Mk III Hi Power at 15 yards. I submit that this is plenty accurate for a service pistol and would serve plenty good for protection needs, informal target competition, practical pistol competition, or small game hunting.

 

While I believe that the standard Hi Power is accurate enough to meet the vast majority of shooters’ perceived needs, the trigger pull can often inhibit their ability to utilize the gun’s accuracy.  Unfortunately, poor trigger pulls are not uncommon on the Hi Power pistol. The statement that ” a trigger pull need not necessarily be light, but should be crisp” is true, but they do need to be lighter than those common on many Hi Powers. Fortunately, this can be addressed with a number of cures from removing the magazine disconnect to having a gunsmith do a trigger job. The latter will mean more money spent, but for many of us, the result is worth it.

 

While the Browning Hi Power remains a service pistol with service accuracy, I believe that it falls in the better range of this rating and with but a little help can be a very accurate pistol for all but the very best shots or those in formal competition.

UPDATE SA Mil-Spec Update by Stephen Camp

 

Springfield Armory Mil-Spec “Progress Report”

Since I wrote “A Critical Look at the Springfield Armory Mil-Spec” in January 2005, many more rounds have flown downrange and I thought that it might be of interest on how the pistol has held up and any problems. (That article is in this section of the site for those interested.)

The pistol worked fine as it came from the factory, but had a less-than-stellar trigger pull and the hammer spur nipped me regularly. I bobbed the hammer and eliminated that and also used a Pachmayr drop-in grip safety to eliminate the wear and tear caused by the sharp edges of the factory grip safety. Not happy with that set up, I eventually rounded the edges of the factory GI-type grip safety and this pretty well solved the problem.

I find that with the rounded GI grip safety and a slightly shortened spur hammer, I can comfortably shoot the pistol about 200 full-power loads without problems. I much prefer the wide grip safety, but wanted at least one 1911-pattern pistol that somewhat resembled the unmodified 1911 stalwart. (Some seem to think that because they have no problems with the GI type grip safety, no one else should either. Frequently, comments like, “If beavertails were needed, John Browning would have put them on the gun,” and other such information-filled eloquent pearls of …crap. Different folks find that different things work for them and if you are one better served with the wide grip safety, go for it. If the standard type works fine for you, great, but I submit that it is up to the individual user to make the decision.)

 

 

Not readily visible from the outside, this Mil-Spec’s internal parts have been replaced with upgraded ones done by trigger specialist, Teddy Jacobson. This “hidden” work has resulted in a very good 1911 pattern pistol and one that I would absolutely trust in a serious situation.

Even though the pistol was working fine and in stock condition, I did upgrade the internal parts with those supplied by trigger specialist, Teddy Jacobson of Actions by T. The trigger was initially just shy of about 5-lbs, with the break being both crisp and clean. It settled in at about 4 1/2-lbs and has stayed there. The gun was equipped with a steel firing pin as well, but the slide stop and single-side thumb safety have been left alone. The wide EMC spur hammer he provided is finely checkered and has been bobbed and recontoured to eliminate hammer bite.

I kept the factory short trigger, but smoothed it up. I also replaced the mainspring housing for another arched one that I already had. It has no lock and standard size parts work in it. Though not at all necessary, I replaced the checkered plastic stocks that came with the pistol for a set I simply think looks better while still offering a secure grip.

This Mil-Spec .45 auto has proven itself utterly reliable with a wide selection of bullet types and is one I trust for “serious matters.”

I have not kept an exact round count, but it is in excess of 4K as this is written. Most of these have been either 200-gr. CSWC handloads at about 870 ft/sec or 230-gr. CFP and CRN at roughly 840 ft/sec. It has also gobbled up several hundred 230-gr. Federal HydraShoks, Golden Sabers, Gold Dots, Ranger JHP’s, and ball rounds.

With any full-power load, it has had zero malfunctions, not one. There have been no failures to extract or eject and the slide stop consistently locks back when the last shot’s fired and not before.

The sights on this gun are as they came from the factory. They were properly regulated and I’ve seen no reason to change them.

Slide-to-frame fit both vertical and horizontal has very, very little “slop.” The barrel-to-slide fit has remained solid as a rock, with wear marks evenly distributed on the rear edge of the barrel hood. I have no intentions of changing either the factory barrel or bushing as the gun groups very nicely as is.

The pistol’s parkerized finish is holding up nicely, though a ding or two is now present.

Wear marks are not excessive and evenly distributed on both sets of slide rails.

It is my understanding that the Mil-Spec is not so easy to find as in the recent past. I do not know if that is because gun dealers sell them as fast as they get them or if SA is focusing on other models, or what, but if you want a relatively inexpensive no frills 1911-pattern .45, I would give these a long and hard look.

I own several 1911 pistols, most being more costly than the Mil-Spec, but I trust none of them more than I do this one.

 

 

This Mil-Spec has proven itself to me. It groups adequately and has demonstrated extreme reliability while being essentially a “basic” type 1911 pattern pistol. The 9mm/38 Super firing pin used has presented no problems with either breakage or firing. The gun runs on everything I’ve tried with the exception of a very light target SWC that was loaded too lightly for the gun’s standard power ISMI 16-lb recoil spring. All standard pressure and +P loads have worked flawlessly.

Four thousand full power loads are certainly not that many compared to what more than a few serious shooters crank off in a year’s time. I think that they’ve been enough to prove to me (at least) that the old saw that a 1911 has to cost thousands to be reliable is pretty much false…but many already know that.

Do I believe that all Mil-Specs will run flawlessly out of the box? Nope, but the last 5 or 6 I have seen sure have. With the immense continuing popularity of John Browning’s enduring design, factories crank them out as fast as they can and some that shouldn’t have got past quality control simply do. It is not right, but such seems to be the case. That said, I believe that the Mil-Spec is a very, very fine choice for folks wanting a quality 1911 without breaking the bank.

A gun does not have to be ultra-expensive to be special. I would not hesitate to use this one in a fight if required. When I carry a 1911 for self-protection, it is almost always this one.

Springfield Armory / Mil-Spec / Part 1/ Stephen Camp

A Critical Look at the Springfield Mil-Spec

 

It is a safe bet to say that 1911 pattern pistols are extremely popular with American shooters. There are many reasons for this and 1911 type pistols are sold in various price ranges.  Enter customized pistols or truly custom 1911’s built from the frame and slide up and costs can soar.  One can spend from a few hundred dollars to about as much as he can afford for this classic pattern pistol.

 

The focus of this article is the somewhat spartan Springfield Armory Mil-Spec in .45 ACP. The Mil-Spec is a “no frills” 1911 A1 type forty-five.  It does not have an internal firing pin safety ala Colt Series 80 pistols or the Kimber II guns. Its titanium firing pin has passed the drop tests mandated by some states. No longer news, the front grip strap on more recent SA 1911 pistols is rounded.

 

The Mil-Spec .45 ACP can be had in the following variations. 

 

Parkerized (Product Number: PB9108L)

Stainless (Product Number: PB9151L)

Bi Tone (Product Number: PB9104L)

OD Green (Product Number: PB9609L)

 

For this report, a parkerized version was used.

 

This Mil-Spec is as it came from the box with the exception of a drop-in Pachmayer grip safety. There will be more discussion of this in the text. The Mil-Spec has a lowered ejection port with the “scallop” at the rear and fixed sights that are easy to see at speed.

 

As can be seen on the box, another version of the Mil-Spec is available. Now called the “GI .45 1911-A1” by Springfield Armory, it has small fixed sights and the traditional non-lowered ejection port. These can be had for about a hundred dollars less than the Mil-Spec and the main differences between the guns have been mentioned. I prefer the larger sights. The GI .45 as shown here is designated by product number PW9108L. The Mil-Spec and the GI .45 come with spur hammers and the more narrow GI type grip safeties. The Mil-Spec has slide serrations angling slightly forward while the GI gun’s are vertical. If the sights on the Mil-Spec are not satisfactory and a change is planned, the WWII Mil-Spec aka “GI .45 1911-A1” might be the way to go as these run about a hundred bucks less. The one shown ejects reliably without dented cases with its smaller, non-lowered ejection port.

 

Specifications:

 

Barrel Length: 5″

 

Pitch: 1:16 with left hand twist

 

Weight: 35.6 ounces

 

LOA: 8.625″

 

Trigger: short, serrated

 

Trigger Pull: 5-6 lbs.

 

Hammer: Spur

 

Grip Safety: Standard GI

 

Stocks: Black checkered plastic

 

Thumb Safety: Single side, not extended typical GI

 

Mainspring Housing: Arched, grooved and with “safety” lock

 

Recoil Spring & Guide Rod: Standard GI

 

Barrel Bushing: Solid

 

Magazine Well Beveled: Yes

 

Loaded Chamber Indicator: Yes.  It is a small slot in the top of the barrel hood. 

 

Forward Slide Serrations:  (Mercifully) none

 

Throated for JHP: Yes

 

Sights: Fixed 3-dot style (Rear sight dovetailed with front sight staked)

 

Firing Pin: Small diameter as for 9mm/.38 Super and made of titanium

 

The barrel on my pistol is stainless steel with an average barrel OD of 0.570″ until you get to 0.60″ from the muzzle.  At that point, the OD is slightly greater, measuring 0.578″. This allows for tighter lock up in battery and generally provides greater mechanical accuracy assuming that the bushing is tight.

 

Here you can see the stainless steel barrel in the Mil-Spec from SA. Note the “loaded indicator” slot in the barrel hood.  Chambered cartridges are easy to see.  I can live with or without it but it has caused no problems. Initially I had thought that this was a one-piece barrel, but barely visible about midway between the “O” in “Auto” and the end of the chamber area of this barrel you can see the hairline where the two pieces are joined. I have heard of one or two of these barrels coming apart, but have never seen it.  I suspect those instances were flukes.  Browning Hi Power barrels have been two-piece for decades as are current aftermarket match barrels for them from BarSto.  I believe it to be plenty durable and have no intentions of changing it.

 

The SA Mil-Spec front sight is not serrated and is staked to the slide. This is a slight change from earlier versions of the gun that had a post front sight.  While I prefer the post for sight pictures, they can be a problem if the pistol is carried in the waistband without a holster.  In a proper holster that clears the sight, I’ve found posts to be no problem. For a carry gun this gently sloping front sight is probably a better choice.

 

The rear sight is plain but in conjunction with the front sight provides an extremely nice sight picture. The front sight measures 0.12″ while the notch in the rear sight is 0.11″. This combination allows for plenty of light with the pistol’s sight radius of 6.25″.

 

Slide-to-frame fit on this gun is very good, better than expected, in fact. There is very little lateral play and none vertically. Likewise, the barrel fits the slide tightly.  In battery there is no detectable movement.  The bushing is snug, but can be removed without a bushing wrench.  The bushing-to-slide fit is quite satisfactory, but it is not flush fitting or as nicely done as would be the case with one hand-fitted to this individual slide.  It is plenty good for my purposes and never noticed by many.

 

Springfield Armory rates the trigger at 5 to 6 pounds.  While I didn’t measure it, mine is heavier than that and I’d estimate it at about 8 pounds initially.  It has lightened up to a bit less after shooting.  It does not break as cleanly as a 1911 having a proper trigger job, but is usable. (More on this later.)

 

Some tool marks are evident inside the gun, but nothing excessive and nothing that cannot be cleaned up if desired by the owner. Slide-to-frame fit at the rear of the gun is not perfectly blended as in the case of a custom gun, but neither is it “bad” or excessive. The degree to which the slide is not flush with the rear of the slide is minute and while not “acceptable” on a custom 1911, it really doesn’t affect reliability for a “street gun”.  Most folks never notice it unless extreme; in this instance it is not.

 

Shooting: This pistol has had approximately 600 rounds fired through it without cleaning.  Ammunition included Sellier & Bellot 230-gr. FMJ, Remington 185-gr. MC Flat Nose, Winchester USA 230-gr. FMJ, and various factory JHP’s and handloads.  Distances were 10, 15, and 25 yards.

 

During one session in which 300 rounds were fired, the web between my thumb and trigger finger got pretty chewed up, as has been my plight with GI grip safeties for decades. My problem with the SA was that the edges of the GI grip safety were sharp, real sharp, and cut two parallel lines along my hand. Combine that with the tip of the hammer nipping like a piranha in a feeding frenzy and it became more than evident that a change was in order.  It is for that reason that I removed the grip safety before any further shooting and replaced it with a “drop in” from Pachmayr.  It worked properly and being the shorter version of the two sold by this company, it worked fine with the spur hammer. Another approach might be to gently bevel and round the offended edges of the GI grip safety and bob the hammer spur approximately 3/16^th to 1/4″. (For many this is never an issue, but for me the traditional grip safety and spur hammer have always been a significant problem.)

 

10 Yards: This was done standing w/two-hand hold from a Weaver stance and simply consisted of controlled pairs along with a few failure to stop drills involving head shots.

 

Starting at a low ready each set of controlled pairs was fired in a bit under a second. There are some shots farther out than I like and part of that is due to the somewhat heavier trigger pull and the fact that while no longer being “bitten” by the gun, the scabs were wearing off and discomfort growing with each shot. None the less, results were encouraging.

 

15 Yards: These groups were fired standing and in slow-fire using a two-hand hold.

 

The Mil-Spec is plenty accurate for my purposes and I have no intentions of changing the barrel, bushing, or sights.

 

25 Yards: At this distance, I fired sitting and with my wrists braced.  Two hands were used and shots were fired with no effort at speed.  I simply wanted to see how the gun grouped at this distance.

 

This group was fired using a Precision 200-gr. CSWC loaded over 5.0-gr. of Bullseye powder. It averages around 860 ft/sec from most 5″ 1911 pistols.  Due to rain, I did no chronograph work, but will in the future. Other Springfield Armory 1911’s have normally provided no surprises in velocity in my experiences with them.

 

Federal 230-gr. HydraShok remains popular with a great number of 1911 shooters so I fired a few groups with it at 25 yards from a rest.  The ammunition used was the early truncated cone version of the load that was changed to have a more rounded ogive for better feeding. This load usually clocks about 870 ft/sec from a 5″ gun.

 

Groups shown are the best fired, but those that were not so nice were due to me, not the gun, as I knew before looking when a shot was going to be bad.  The “piranha” had taken its toll.

 

Observations:  The gun is a keeper and one that will have different “guts” in the near future. I’ve not yet decided whether to retain the arched mainspring housing or go with a flat one, but I noticed no real difference in shooting. I will probably go with a long trigger. I will use a spur hammer (bobbed) as I would kind of like to have a 1911 with one since all of my others have ring hammers. The SA hammer could be used but I simply don’t care for the half-cock “shelf” vs. the more traditional notch.  With the SA hammer in the half-cock position, a press of the trigger will drop it. With the lightweight titanium firing pin, primers were not dented and barely marked, but not each and every time.  I simply prefer the hammer not to fall from the half-cock position should the trigger be pressed.

 

Trigger pull will wind up being about 5 pounds and will break cleanly.  The standard thumb safety that came on the gun is satisfactory as I do not shoot high thumb. 

 

I was most pleasantly surprised that the POA vs. POI was dead bang “on” for me.  Sometimes this relationship in fixed sight pistols is rather casual, but I’m more than happy with the sights on this pistol as they are and do not intend to change them.

 

Here are some of the rounds that were fired in the SA Mil-Spec that differ from 230-gr. ball.  From left to right: 200-gr. Precision CSWC/5.0-gr. Bullseye, Speer 230-gr. Gold Dot/6.3-gr. Unique, Hornady 230-gr. FMJFP/6.3-gr. Unique, Remington 230-gr. Golden Saber/6.3-gr. Unique, Federal 230-gr.HydraShok (old style), Federal 230-gr. Classic JHP, and Remington 185-gr. MC-Flat Nose.

 

The Mil-Spec was used with several different magazines. Some are shown here with the ammunition fired using each.  From top to bottom: Springfield OEM 7-round magazine, Randall 7-shot with Tripp Cobra Mag follower and spring, and an 8-shot McCormick PowerMag. The gun was also fired using Mec-Gar 7 and 8-shot magazines, Wilson 7-shot mags, and some 7-shot Colt magazines.

 

With just over 600 rounds fired, this Mil-Spec has had exactly zero malfunctions. Feeding and extraction have been smooth and positive. (I’d checked the extractor and it seemed to be tensioned properly.  I left it alone.) The slide stop never failed to lock back after the last shot was fired and it never locked the slide back with rounds still remaining in the magazine.  It did this with all magazines tried.

 

None of the magazines fit too tightly in the magazine well and all dropped freely when released.

 

Ejected cases do strike the slide, but recovered cases showed no dents.

 

The ejector is pinned in place and measures 0.99″ from the top of the rear to the front upper tip. A solid steel pin is used.  All ammunition used was easily cycled and ejected by hand without hang ups and none of the primers were marked by the tip of the ejector.

 

With the full-power mainspring, the titanium firing pin had no problems with primers not being set off. I have not yet decided whether or not to change this.  So far it has not been an issue.

 

Depending on where one looks, this version of the Mil-Spec can be found at around $500 or a bit less and I believe it is money well spent if a person’s looking for either a base gun for further enhancement or to use as is. I’m satisfied with the parkerized finish as I prefer dark guns, but the pistol can be had in stainless steel construction and other finishes are certainly available.

 

My plans for this particular Mil-Spec are for it to become a trusted carry gun. I have a Norinco that meets such duties now and while in the same general price range with its minor upgrades, they are getting hard to come by.  The Mil-Spec is not and neither does it cost so much that it is out of too many folks’ financial reach. While I cannot say that each and every Mil-Spec will function as flawlessly as this one, I do believe that they can with very little effort. This one worked perfectly with or without shock buffs in place.

 

The SA Mil-Spec can be a very good carry gun and one that doesn’t break the bank if dinged up a bit as is normally the case when a pistol is carried daily.  Should a person have to use it against another human being, the time that it is in evidence might be a bit less traumatic than were it a 1911 costing several times as much. Do not misconstrue my last sentence. There is absolutely nothing wrong with carrying an expensive sidearm for the very important business of protecting one’s hide, but for many of us, this pistol is capable of being a most satisfactory defense gun.

 

This Springfield Armory “low end” 1911 is neither my favorite nor best looking 1911, but it is proving to be one that I enjoy, will use, and more importantly, trust. Many of us have some really nice custom and customized 1911’s…and I fall into that group.  At the same time I really like “using guns” that perform well and this gun is proving itself to be perfect for such perceived needs. When I eventually get through with the changes necessary to suit me, it will still look very much like an out of the box Mil-Spec but I suspect that it will perform at a level that belies its “basic” look.