Just wondering what was required to make a conversion of a normal 1911 to 45 Super caliber. Did a little research and saw that a 30 pound recoil spring was required along with a new, longer ejector, an extra-power firing pin spring, and shock buffers. I would imagine that this would do it, but am I missing something? Can anybody give me more advice?
If you goto REAL GUNS ARTICLE at (www.realguns.com/archives/newarc.htm) check out the 3 articles titled A KIMBER IN .45 SUPER FOR UNDER $8. Pretty good reading and some load data also. Probably answer most of your questions.
Quote:
It is doubtful that the individual who made this statement: 1 - has ever had
an F.F.L. license, 2 - has ever owned a business in the Firearms industry, 3 -
has ever fired a firearm properly converted to shoot "45 Super"
ammunition, 4 - has never personally seen a box of factory loaded "45
Super" ammunition, 5 - and certainly has not ever been a "Gunsmith" and
probably does not even know one! And most assuredly has never had any direct
contact with Ace Custom 45s Inc.
An individual such as this is rather, someone who views himself as an expert but claims not to be, (but who certainly wants you to believe he is!) and who likes to try and elevate his status based on his opinions of someone else's work or ideas (they don't have the ability to develop anything on their own!) and then hide behind a shield of objectivity such as; I am no expert and of course I would not recommend this to someone else, these are just my fact findings (of course they have no direct experience with what they claim to be knowledgeable or factual about). The world is full of these types, and the Internet is a safe haven for them! Beware!
Sounds like Ace Custom 45s is not ready to let go of the 45Super.
Ditto on what BEARMAN said about http://www.realguns.com/archives/020.htm.
I think that Ace Custom Guns should let the 45Super get into the public domain. That would do more to the success of the 45Super than anything else.
That said, I see that over at Ace Custom 45s Inc, there is a FAQ.
I have no experience with the .45 Super. However, I do load for my 10mm Delta Elite. So I can perhaps give you some insight into 1911s that are boldly going where no man has gone before.
I would install a heavier than stock mainspring. Also, the square bottom EGW firing pin stop is a simple, reversible modification that will help slow down that nasty slide velocity.
Stronger magazine springs may be in order.
So, to this point you haven't spent all that much money. I would like to try a bull barrel in my DE, but the R&D budget has been spent for this quarter.
Brownells sells some steel plates that will fit under the stock grips. These are supposed to be a good idea if you ever blow a case head. You should use a barrel that provides good case support.
I am not a fan of the extremely heavy springs. While they may cushion things going back, they really slam that slide forward. I am a believer in the philosophy that the less spring that you can get by is better than too heavy a spring. I have a hard enough time racking the slide on my DE with the 20 lb. spring. The square bottom firing pin stop is the culprit there. It is much easier if you cock it first.
If $$$$$ were no object, I would have some holes drilled in the slide, and then plugged with depleted uranium. The extra weight would reduce the slide velocity.
How about a wider/beefier slide?
Might have a hard time finding a holster that would fit though.
I'd say you could make a slide that had a Glock-like square profile. That extra meat on the top of the slide would add weight without significant bulk increase. I read the article through. The bottom line is:
Quote:
There is nothing I experienced within this project that would make me feel
compelled to send my gun somewhere to be modified to .45 Super. In fact,
most of the modifications bundled into these conversion packages are already
standard configurations on quality guns, and really have little to do with the
.45 Super. Required changes seem to be limited to a routine spring change,
and maybe a light weight firing pin tapered to reduce primer flow. $17 - $20
tops. I think selecting the correct gun to start with is critical. Personally,
I'd only use a steel, full length gun - no alloy, no plastic and no stamped
steel slides. I'd also skip trying to covert a short barrel .45 for this
purpose. Short barrels negate the whole premise of this round; pushing a .45
slug to a higher velocity.
Looks like I'll need some brass, a new firing pin spring, new recoil spring, and NOT the ejector. If I have problems with the slide locking back, I'll need a new magazine spring. Sounds simple enough.
I have been there with 45 Super. All that is needed is the 30 or 32 lbs recoil spring. If you are so inclined you can use a heavy duty Sprinco recoil reducer. 45 Super will chew up shok-buffs in less than 50 rounds. The gun I used was a Colt 1991A1. I used Wilson mags and had no jams stovepipes or other hiccups. I used the Sprinco gizmo for awhile and tossed it.
I didn't like the recoil. Follow-up shots were much slower than standard 45ACP. I was pushing a 225gr hard cast bullet to 1150 fps. Big deal. I came to the conclusion that it was better to shoot three shots of 45ACP than one shot of 45 Super in the same period of time.
I downloaded to about 1000-1050 fps. Kinda like a +P+ 45ACP. Worked much better than the heavy-duty nuclear power loads.
I think building a 45 Super would be almost the same as a 10mm. 30 pound recoil springs would be tough on the barrel bottom lugs and slide stop pin. I think a better route would be a 23 or 25 pound mainspring and flat bottom EGW firing pin stop combined with a recoil spring of no more than 22 pounds, maybe just 20. A bull barrel and heavy slide are good ideas, but heavy slides are harder to come by and finding a carry holster might be problematic.
I have not yet delved into the world of 45 Super, but I think I have the pistol for it. A Smith & Wesson 4506. I bought it with the idea of 45 Super conversion, just have not gotten around to working on it. I do have experience with the 10mm in my Delta Elite. I think any pistol that can handle 10mm can also handle 45 Super. Granted, anytime you increase operating pressures you will accelerate wear, so I doubt a 45 Super will go 100,000 rounds, but I don't think they will shoot themselves to death in 1000 rounds either.
The Sprinco recoil reducer may be a better "buffer" than a heavy recoil spring and shock buff. They are expensive, so you might want to use some CP Bullets shock buffers just to see if 45 Super is for you. This is what I am planning to do.
Quote:
I think a better route would be a 23 or 25 pound mainspring and flat bottom
EGW firing pin stop combined with a recoil spring of no more than 22 pounds,
maybe just 20. A bull barrel and heavy slide are good ideas
Great minds think alike!
I understand your remarks concerning recoil. While adding weight to the slide will reduce slide velocity, adding weight to the frame will help reduce the recoil to more manageable levels. I don't carry my DE very far, so I don't mind it being a little on the heavy side.
There are several little tricks to add weight. I saw some pewter grips at the last gun show. They were substantially heavier than wood or rubber. My DE came with a plastic mainspring housing. I have no issues with the plastic MSH's, and would welcome one on a carry gun, but changed to a steel MSH for the 10mm.
People either love or hate full length guide rods. Their one advantage is that they do add weight. You can even get a tungsten guide rod & plug that will add about 3 ounces. If you use a bull barrel, you will have to use a FLGR anyway.
I am fortunate. I can shoot just about any combination of grip safety that there is. Some might find a beavertail more comfortable.
The farther away you get from the original design, the more problems you will find.
Agreed with adding weight on the frame to reduce felt recoil, but I think the main issue is slide velocity and durability. That would mean a heavier slide would not be going so fast that you sacrifice durability.
Tungsten guide rods... hmm... nice idea, but thats still part of the frame group.
Yes, increasing the slide weight would go a long way towards increasing durability.
The tungsten guide rod is part of the frame weight, but the tungsten recoil spring plug would add to the weight of the slide. Not much, but every little bit helps. The reverse plug would add the most weight, but even the conventional plug would weigh more than stock. Not enough to justify the expense, but it is a drop in part, easily reversible.
Tungsten, titanium, depleted uranium, polymers.
I bet JMB is spinning in his grave right now.
John Moses Browning was a real thinker, I expect if he were around today he would look at the 10mm and wonder why he hadn't thought of it!
Gentlemen... may I inject somethin' here?
I would strongly suggest that before converting to any high-pressure round that you have your pistol checked for the amount of locking lug engagement between the slide and barrel. With rounds like the .45 Super and the Big 10... you want as close to 100% engagement as you can get.
It's a common misconception that a heavy recoil spring is all that's needed for such rounds. The recoil spring doesn't have anything to do with containing pressures. By the time the recoil spring comes into play, the pressures have already dropped to nil. The locking lugs absorb the brunt of the impact... and if engagement of those lugs aren't up to par, they will shear off in short order.
Ned Christiansen proved that the recoil spring has little or no effect on containing pressures or barrel unlock/linkdown timing when he repeatedly fired a .45 without a recoil spring in the gun. The recoil spring controls slide velocity and timing in recoil AFTER the pressure drops and AFTER the barrel has unlocked and linked down... and it determines the slide velocity on the return to battery. That's all.
Don't assume that because you can buy a drop-in recoil system to convert your pistol to .45 Super or .451 Detonics, that all will be well. You might get away with it, and you might not. As the pressures go up... the lug engagement and barrel fit becomes more critical... even with .45 +P loadings. That's why these kits come with a disclaimer... "These parts should be installed by a competent gunsmith." It's because a smith who knows the design will check these things out before installation.
If John Moses had seen the Big 10, he would have probably said: "Uh... Better fit that barrel up good and tight, boys."
Tuner is right. There is no room for error with these kind of high performance, (high pressure), loads. None whatsoever.
I am going to go in the other direction soon. I am going to load a couple of boxes for my .38 Super. A young lady has expressed interest in the Gov't model, and I thought this would be a good way to get her started. I haven't decided on a load yet, but will probably pick one out of the .38 ACP data in the Hornady manual. Shouldn't take too many shots to find a dose of 231 that will be both accurate and work the action reliably.
I would sure like to know what velocities .38 ACP actually produced a century ago. I suspect it has been tremendously watered down over time.
Nice thing about a .38 Super is how they don't produce enough slide velocity to cause problems, even if loaded hot. 14 lb. springs are usually plenty. Keep your pressures to a reasonable level, and you are good to go.
.451 Detonics! That brings back memories. That is a cartridge that did not stand the test of time. Ranks right up there with the .41 Action Express. We need a museum of fallen cartridges.
My next project will be to convert my Series '70 Gold Cup to the 5.5 mm Velo- Dog.
Too bad we can't have full-auto handguns.
Could you imagine a .17 HMR, or even a smaller flechette/dart teeny-tiny needle sized bullet and cartridge, that can fit 60+ rounds inside of a standard 1911 magazine, firing full auto and controllably because of the large slide mass?
Back in the day when the .451 was all the rage, a lotta guys were jumpin' on that bandwagon. On an average of about once a month, I'd get one in that had undergone the change... complete with sheared barrel lugs (Top and bottom) and ruined slides. One guy even brought a Combat Commander to me to get a clean bill of health for the conversion. I checked the lug engagement and advised him not to do it. The barrel that came with the "Drop-In' kit didn't provide the lug engagement it should have... I offered to work on it for him... He declined and said that it would be fine because he didn't plan on shooting it very much. It took less than four magazines for everything to come unwrapped.
The .38 ACP factory ammo would hit about 1050 fps from a 5-inch barrel... which is about the same level of today's loadings, assuming that you can even find any of it. Remington used to run a small lot at certain times of the year... probably along about the time they'd run .45 Auto-Rim. It's the Super that's been downloaded. I had a .38 Super Colt years ago, and my father had a box and a half of the old ammo. Shazam! That stuff was uber-hot! Never clocked it, but compared to the modern Winchester Silvertip +P ammo that chronographs at about 1150 or so... it HAD to hit well over 1300 fps.
If you load to the standard ACP levels with 125-130grain bullets, a 12-pound spring should be about right.
Why not go all the way into Magnum territory and do the poorly-named .460 Rowland? I've fired one in both M1911 and Glock frames, and it seems to work just fine with more than "Super" velocities.
Tuner, I have a partial box of .38 ACP. Relatively modern production. I picked it up some where in the late .80s, and the box was consistent with Remington's production back then. It would clock about 930 fps, and shot fairly well in my Gov't model. 130 grain jacketed bullet, it looked identical to the bullets in a box of .38 Special I bought about the same time, except the Special had a cannelure.
Not to be outdone, Winchester loaded their 125 grain revolver bullet in .38 Super cases. Good bullet for expansion, but feeding was kind of questionable. I don't miss that load. The Silvertip was a big improvement.
This is my second fling with the .38 Super. 20 years ago I thought the hot setup was 115 grain Hornady JHP's and healthy doses of Unique. Worked well to reduce the local groundhog population.
I think that I can blame Major George C. Nonte for that. Now the hot setup is Remington 147 grain JHP and reasonable doses of Power Pistol. It seems the evolution of cartridges occurs at a measurable pace decade by decade.
Colt had a cartridge developed similar to the .40 S&W back before the Great War. They introduced the .38 Super at exactly the wrong time. It is funny how history and economics affect our pistol cartridges more than we realize. Everybody in the world wanted to make long 9mm pistol cartridges except for Germany. So what ended up being the most popular?
To the best of my memory these are the things that were done by Gary Hindeman (SP) on my 5" 1911 45 Super conversion:
1) full length custom guide rod with hard buffer between dual end plates
2) dual counter wound recoil springs est 32#
3) special recoil spring bushing for the spring setup
4) heavy firing pin spring
5) heavy (23# or 25#) main spring
6) almost square bottom, tightly fit firing pin stop
7) tight fit extractor with higher than normal tension
8) tuned ejector
This was done on a Les Baer framed Ed Brown SS gun. After shooting it a few times, I replaced the stock parts and abandoned 45 Super. I would do it again in an H&K full size 45 but it just didn't seem right in a $2000 custom gun.
I don't think I would Superize a $2000 gun either, but I have a S&W 4506 that really has no use in my stable. Seriously thinking about a buffer or the Sprinco recoil reducer, heavier recoil spring, firing pin spring, magazine spring and mainspring. The 4506 does seem to have a heavier slide than the 1911. Where did I put my scales?....
quote:
the late .80s, and the box was consistent with Remington's production back
then. It would clock about 930 fps...
Hmmm...They seem to have attenuated the ACP loading a bit too.
(I clocked some pre-war ACP amo in a 5-inch barrel that went a tick over a thousand.) No doubt due to the number of century-old Colt autos still floating around or buried in attics. may be why they brought the Super down too... Somebody that knows not the difference could have an unpleasant surprise if the original-spec stuff was used in one.
Yeah... they print a warning on the boxes, but some folks don't read the directions.
Tuner, I have seen a re-print of an old Sears catalog, 1904, I think. They were selling Colts in it, and claimed 1300 fps for the 130 grain .38 ACP. At the time I thought this was strange. The 6" barrel would help a little, but a honest 1300 fps with Unique, or other powders available then would be a bit much for those old guns, I think. Of course, they made other claims for other products that I had a hard time believing too.
I don't remember hearing many stories of mishaps with .38 Super in .38 ACP. Either the downloading worked, or people in the old days heeded the warnings on the box.
Too make this post match this thread I will comment on the fact that the same problem exists with the .45 Super. It will chamber in .45 ACP, and there are some senior citizens out there that should not be firing such a load.
quote:
Either the downloading worked, or people in the old days heeded the
warnings on the box.
Probably. Either that or the fact that, back then it was pretty common knowledge that there were two different pistols and two different loadings... and never the twain should meet. While the old Colts likely wouldn't kaboom if fired with the Super ammo...they probably wouldn't continue to function for very long if fed a steady diet of the stuff.
Keepin' it on topic... No worries. We're pointing out the very real risks involved in firing what amounts to a near proof load in a gun designed to stay within certain paramaters, and how critical it is that everything be "right" within the gun before it's done.
The standard 1911 design is more than strong enough to contain the chamber pressures of the .45 Super... but I think that it's asking a lot of the locking lugs on a pistol that was designed around a low-pressure cartridge like the .45 ACP. Just not much leeway there.
For the readers of this thread, ask yourselves this:
Would you take a bolt-action rifle in .30-06 caliber... machine 25% of the bolt lugs off, rechamber the rifle to .300 Win Mag... and expect it to live very long?
Food for thought... make sure that the barrel is correctly fitted with maximum lug engagement in the slide...
Quote:
The standard 1911 design is more than strong enough to contain the chamber
pressures of the .45 Super.. .but I think that it's asking a lot
I'm going to disagree on principle, not experience here. Does the 10mm have problems with lug damage? The lugs seem to take much less stress than you are leading on.
re: Stresses(Long)
I'm going to disagree on principle, not experience here. Does the 10mm have
problems with lug damage? The lugs seem to take much less stress than you are
leading on.
Howdy Badger,
I'll take a little different approach at this question... I may repeat some of that which I've already written.
ANY high-pressure round is going to make lug engagement more critical... even the 9mm and .38 Super. Add the momentum/recoil impetus of a heavier bullet... and it becomes even more so.
Study the locking lugs in the slide and on the barrel for a minute.
Even with 100% engagement... AND assuming that both lugs are bearing an equal share of the load horizontally(Which many factory-installed barrels don't)...there's not a lot of meat there to absorb the pounding of the 10mm and the .45 Super at best.
Reduce that vertical engagement by 25%... which many factory-fitted barrels do... and you've reduced the strength of that lockup by 25%... again assuming equal horizontal lockup. If both aren't bearing an equal share of the load on a horizontal plane AND vertical engagement... the strength of the lockup is further reduced.
Don't assume that because there are two lugs that both are bearing half the load. Don't assume that because the lugs on the barrel and in the slide are a given height/depth... that they are vertically meshed for 100% of their depth and height. You may get lucky, but don't bet on it.
Think of the gears in a transmission. If your shift fork were bent, and the maximum engagement between first gear and its mate in the cluster was about 50 or 60 or even 70% of full mesh... and you revved the engine to 3,000 RPMs and sidestepped the clutch... what do you think would happen? It works on the same principle. The lugs on the slide and barrel are very much like gears. They mesh. They absorb shock loads. If they aren't completely meshed when that shock load hits... they won't live very long.
Remember that the recoil spring doesn't have a thing to do with how well the lugs bear up under the shock. If it did, the spring in a 10mm would be so strong that you probably couldn't rack the slide unless the slide were so heavy that it would make carrying the gun impractical. That's why we don't see major caliber autopistols with a straight blowback design.
And, to answer your question... Yes. I've seen a few Delta Elites with sheared lugs. I've also seen a few .45s... and the usual cause was insufficient lug engagement in the vertical and horizontal planes... Another frequent cause is the location of the rear of the lower lug in relation to the impact surface in the frame... but that's a mechanical timing issue that occurs after the pressures have dropped.
Barrel fit is the key to a long and happy life in any 1911, regardless of caliber. When the pressures go up, it gets even more critical.
CAUTION: The following post includes loading data beyond currently published maximums for this cartridge. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The High Road, nor the staff of THR assume any liability for any damage or injury resulting from use of this information.
When I read the 3 realguns articles on 45 Super back in 2000, a great big, AHAH!" went off in my head.
There is a continuous range of increasing pressure of 45 acp from:
1) What will just cycle the action with a soft recoil spring to 45acp
2) 45acp
3) 45acp +P
4) 45 Super
5) 460 Rowloand equivalent loads
6) Beyond 460 Rowland loads
I have done all of these, and points in between in .1 gr increments.
The things to watch are:
1) Ammo must be powerful enough to cycle the action with that spring and
slide mass or it will jam.
2) Ammo must be too much more than enough or the slide will batter the frame.
3) The case must be supported enough for the pressure, or the case will bulge, or worse.
Following these guide lines, I have found the level that is right for my 45acps:
1) Mauser Rifle, beyond 460 Rowland
2) Patriot pistol, 460 Rowland
3) Colt Commander, between 45 Super and 460 Rowland
4) Para Ord P10, 45 Super, Starline +P brass, 1.275", 155 gr SWC
I have had to put serious recoil springs in the Patriot and the Commander.
4506 in 460 Rowland?
I have been looking for info on converting a S&W 4506 to 460 Rowland, anyone think this will work? I picked it up for a song to be a tinker gun and play with different chamberings.
400 CORBON is now out as I can't find a barrel manufacturer anymore, to many reliability issues claimed with the S&W in 400. Barsto has discontinued any S&W auto barrels, and all 400 CORBON barrels in the last couple months.
45 Super is not a good idea, as I have several 45's, the chance of accidentally chambering a super in a non modded gun is not worth the chance I think.
So any inputs on the 460 Rowland? Seems all the 1911's have compensators to get the extra squeeze on the round, and control recoil. Doesn't seem practical or cost efficient with the 4506. What about porting the barrel to minimize recoil a bit, or would it knock velocities down to Super or =P loads?
Any ideas/advice? Open to other chamberings as well, only requiremnt is available brass, preferrably that I don't have to form.
You don't need 460 Rowland brass to take 460 Rowland pressure.
45acp brass is just as good.
But the extra length of 460 brass keeps the ammo from getting mixed up.
You need case support.
You need to deal with the recoil.
There may be a 45 out there with thin chamber walls, but I have not seen it. Still you need thick chamber walls. The P3AT and CZ52 are the only pistols I have seen with chamber walls so thin it could be a problem.
I have gone past 460 Rowland pressure and performance in a small 45acp pistol with 45acp brass, and I got a flinch.
I built a 42 pound triple recoil spring assembly and the chamber came up empty.
I doubled up the mag springs and the chamber came up loaded.
Now I have a gun that takes a strong grip to cycle and a strong thumb to load.
But the slide stopped hitting the frame so hard, and now my flinch is gone.
If you are going to do something like that you need to have your wits about you. Like climbing a mountain, mistakes can get you hurt. You must be able to think. Making up your own rules as you go, means mistakes can get you hurt.
What does it all mean?
If you don't know what you're doing, don't do it.
After reading the Real guns article with its assurances the 1911 was a great overly robust design, I developed a .45 Super load using reloader 7 and Hornady 200gr XTPs at ~1350fps. This was to be for hog hunting with my Springfield GM. I only shot about 100 rounds. Enough to develop the load and be mostly assured that everything was going to work okay.
After recently reading Kuhnhausen, I did a blueprint of my Springer and found a number of glaring deficiencies. The most egregious, was the upper barrel lugs were cut only 0.038" deep. They only had about 85% engagement, and they were not equalized, with only lug #1 doing all the work. So only about 15% of my potential engagement surface was actually working.
Very lucky I didn't break anything.
Quote:
I have seen a re-print of an old Sears catalog, 1904, I think. They were
selling Colts in it, and claimed 1300 fps for the 130 grain .38 ACP.
What technique did they use to measure that in 1904?
They would have used a ballistic pendulum. This method dates back to the 18th century, I believe.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=102485
Google Boulenge, and you will find a lot of good information on early ballistics measurement.
Some of those numbers were exaggerated. I don't think this was because of the inaccuracy of the measurements, but more likely it was the result of overly aggressive marketing.