Lswc 185. 45acp

[unionman]

Loaded some lswc in 185 and 230 LRN

230 ran great. Could not get the 185 to load. I could loan individual with the mag in and slide open and they shot great. But would not load from the magazine

Shooting a springer loaded.

Any ideas?..

Thanks

[strongbow67]

possibly too long? the shoulder of the bullet should be barely longer than the case

[ben b.]

185 LSWC can be a PITA. H&G #68 style 200 gr LSWC seem easier.

Edited January 23, 2012 by ben b.

[strongbow67]

they run like a clock in my springer loaded

[pskys2]

Some still make 185 lswc in the h&g68 design. But if it's the one with a short nose, not the 68's, they are very unreliable.

[unionman]

Thanks all. I am going to stick with 230 llrn. No issues and runs good. I am nitbsure what type( h &g or ? ) it was. Picked up at grafs just 100 to try. Agree a pita.

Thanks

Loaded them to 1.24. But had about .15 before break in lead. So hated to load a bunch shorter.

[strongbow67]

Just checked mine they are also at 1.24" I guess some guns just don't like semi-wadcutters.

[GregJ]

When you say they would not load from a magazine, were you getting a 3-pt jam, like this?

I would get these on my Kimber if the crimp was more than .472

Now I crimp everything at .4695 - .470 and it eats them all, RNF, SWC, whatever.

Edited January 25, 2012 by GregJ

[want2race]

Also, try 1.250". There is no difference between 200 and 185's at the front end. The 185's have a short base. If your gun will feed 200's, it will feed 185's of the same profile (not counting the bullseye profile with longer bearing surface and stubby nose).

Then again if you like 230 then there is no point to switch. I like the lighter bullet.