parabarbarian
Member
I have a Ruger Blackhawk with a 45 ACP cylinder that I shoot without moonclips but that's a different thing. I've never tried to shoot my 625 without them but now I'm curious if it will work.
Experiences shooting 45ACP without moonclips?
- Thread starter aterry33
- Start date
I shoot all my .45 ACP revos without moon clips. The more recent ones, the 625JM and 625PC, both have longer firing pins to take care of the longer chamber and/or shorter brass, but mostly I prefer to just use .45 AR brass and forget the entire issue.
I was at the range a while back doing a shooting project which involved a number of .45ACP revolvers. I had ammo loaded up in full moon clips, both 230gr ball and some CCI Blazer 200gr JHPs in aluminum cases. I also have .45 Auto-Rim brass and ammo, but did not have any with me at the time.
When I went to shoot my Colt 1917, I was re-surprised to find that it wouldn't accept the moon clips – the extractor ratchet was too big and the hole in the clip wouldn't fit over it. I say re-surprised because I had noticed this years ago, but had forgotten about it. I put it aside and shot the other guns without issue.
I was going to go ahead and pack up when I remembered that it's possible to shoot .45ACP revolvers without a clip, you just can't use the extractor to eject the empties. I've never actually done this before so I thought it'd be a good time to experiment and try it out. I checked the cylinder of the Colt to make sure it had a headspace step – I've read that some of the early Colt 1917s did not.
So, I shot the Colt with the ball ammo and it worked fine. Now my curiosity was piqued, because I have also heard that some recent Smith & Wesson revolvers won't necessarily headspace correctly without clips. I have a recently acquired S&W Model 325 Night Guard so I tried it with the aluminum cased Blazer ammo. No problem. A current production Model 22-4 (modern version of the 1917 with 4" barrel and the lock) – also no problem. The older Brazilian 1937 version of the S&W 1917 worked fine, as did the S&W 1955 Target Model.
All of the revolvers that I tried without using moon clips worked just fine, whether old or new, whether with brass-cased ball ammo or Blazer with aluminum cases. All the cases extracted using just a fingernail, and I was often able to pull out two at once using my middle finger and ring ringer at the same time. Once in a while one was a little sticky, but by and large they just slipped right out.
I had always thought that shooting a .45ACP without clips was something that you did only out of desperation, and that getting the empties out would be a big hassle. Seems I was wrong.
When I went to shoot my Colt 1917, I was re-surprised to find that it wouldn't accept the moon clips – the extractor ratchet was too big and the hole in the clip wouldn't fit over it. I say re-surprised because I had noticed this years ago, but had forgotten about it. I put it aside and shot the other guns without issue.
I was going to go ahead and pack up when I remembered that it's possible to shoot .45ACP revolvers without a clip, you just can't use the extractor to eject the empties. I've never actually done this before so I thought it'd be a good time to experiment and try it out. I checked the cylinder of the Colt to make sure it had a headspace step – I've read that some of the early Colt 1917s did not.
So, I shot the Colt with the ball ammo and it worked fine. Now my curiosity was piqued, because I have also heard that some recent Smith & Wesson revolvers won't necessarily headspace correctly without clips. I have a recently acquired S&W Model 325 Night Guard so I tried it with the aluminum cased Blazer ammo. No problem. A current production Model 22-4 (modern version of the 1917 with 4" barrel and the lock) – also no problem. The older Brazilian 1937 version of the S&W 1917 worked fine, as did the S&W 1955 Target Model.
All of the revolvers that I tried without using moon clips worked just fine, whether old or new, whether with brass-cased ball ammo or Blazer with aluminum cases. All the cases extracted using just a fingernail, and I was often able to pull out two at once using my middle finger and ring ringer at the same time. Once in a while one was a little sticky, but by and large they just slipped right out.
I had always thought that shooting a .45ACP without clips was something that you did only out of desperation, and that getting the empties out would be a big hassle. Seems I was wrong.
Fishslayer
US Veteran, Absent Comrade
Well ain't that somethin'. Learn something new everyday. I may just try that next range trip. What'll probly happen is that my M1950 will go bang every single time and the cases will fall out slick as you please.
...seein' as how I'm almost finished with my "project" of loading up an ammo can with exactly 576 rds of moon clipped target loads...
...seein' as how I'm almost finished with my "project" of loading up an ammo can with exactly 576 rds of moon clipped target loads...
gunnerbern
Member
I shot my 625-4 with GI hardball without moon clips and found most cases would fall out of the cylinder when lightly shaken; those that didn't could be pulled out by fingernail.
David Sinko
Member
All three of my 625-4s will fire without moonclips. They will also fire .45 GAP without moonclips as long as the revolver is not held straight up or pointed straight down. Actually, firing individual loose rounds of .45 ACP can be problematic with a gun that has lightened springs when the gun is held straight up, as I discovered when squirrel hunting. All my revolvers are now sprung to fire all commercial primers and I no longer have to worry about these problems.
Most if not all of these issues occur with the new "improved" frame mounted firing pin. It is likely due to a combination of California compliant firing pins and sloppy chamber dimensions. Model of 1988 designation has nothing to do with it.
I believe the ability to fire without moonclips is extremely important and I'm surprised at how many of you blow this off as some mere triviality. My 625s are the handguns I rely on most and if I find myself in a bad spot, the 625 is what I will have on me. If I lose or don't have time to retrieve more moonclips, I know that my revolver will fire without them. That S&W would shortcut and compromise one of the greatest and most useful revolvers they ever made is a great insult.
Dave Sinko
Most if not all of these issues occur with the new "improved" frame mounted firing pin. It is likely due to a combination of California compliant firing pins and sloppy chamber dimensions. Model of 1988 designation has nothing to do with it.
I believe the ability to fire without moonclips is extremely important and I'm surprised at how many of you blow this off as some mere triviality. My 625s are the handguns I rely on most and if I find myself in a bad spot, the 625 is what I will have on me. If I lose or don't have time to retrieve more moonclips, I know that my revolver will fire without them. That S&W would shortcut and compromise one of the greatest and most useful revolvers they ever made is a great insult.
Dave Sinko
David, If the first part of this statement was directed towards my earlier statement, I'll stand by it. I have quite a few articles by writers and well known gunshop owners like JD Jones regarding this issue. His article details a rather lengthy go round with S&W over that very issue with the Model of 1988 he received when they first came out back then. John Taffin also covers it in an article he wrote, and there's another good one recently by Brian Pearce in an issue of Handloader that covers basically the same issue and problem with Smith and Wesson refusing to ackowledge it. He even urged readers to call S&W when they encountered the issue with their personal guns.
The rest of this statement though, I highly agree with.
I have no use for moon clips for just shooting at the range. There is no need to go to all the hassle of loading and unloading moon clips just to shoot at the range. My 1950 .45 works just fine without moon clips. Now, that does not apply to to competition or self defense, where moon clips are great for ejecting and reloading rapidly, either .357 or .45. I have had issues with .357 with some ammo and have bent a couple of clips learning that some ammunition will just not work witht he moond clips I have, most notably some Winchester Silver Tip I bought specifically to use for self defense with moon clips. :-(
David Sinko
Member
Well, if Jones, Taffin and Pearce are writing about this problem, I have never seen any of their articles. Are there any links to these? I know some shooters have complained about the 625-2 variation, but I didn't think it was for this reason. I'd really like to see what these writers have to say; they always had credibility and were not just salesmen.
Dave Sinko
Dave Sinko
In the August 2008 issue of Handloader (# 254), Pearce wrote an excellent article on loading for the .45 AR. There is a god sized side bar all about the 625's FTF problems without moonclips.
In an issue of American Handgunner form 1988 or '89 Jones describes (in his monthly column) his displeasure at his gun ( amodel of 1988) not functioning correctly, and how he went round and round with S&W over it. I can't find it right now, but I'll look. I have over a thousand gun mags and digests etc going back to the late '40's, so it'll take quite a while since they aren't organized.
The Taffin article I had my wife download at her office from an online site (can't recall if it was his or just one of the ones he is a member of) and if you want to send me your mailing addy, I'll send you a copy. His chief complaint was with Blazer ammo not functioning without clips, but also his accuracy sucked until he used clips for all loads.
In an issue of American Handgunner form 1988 or '89 Jones describes (in his monthly column) his displeasure at his gun ( amodel of 1988) not functioning correctly, and how he went round and round with S&W over it. I can't find it right now, but I'll look. I have over a thousand gun mags and digests etc going back to the late '40's, so it'll take quite a while since they aren't organized.
The Taffin article I had my wife download at her office from an online site (can't recall if it was his or just one of the ones he is a member of) and if you want to send me your mailing addy, I'll send you a copy. His chief complaint was with Blazer ammo not functioning without clips, but also his accuracy sucked until he used clips for all loads.
Last edited:
Vulcan Bob
Member
Yeah the moonclips are a pain, thats why I shoot a lot of AR's out of mine. I'll have to take a peek at the chambers in my 1989, JM and 22-4 to see if they are chambered or not, never really noticed, might be nice to know in a pinch.
BearBio
Member
Re: Finding AR. I merely shot 45 acp with clips until I found that Midway USA had 45 AR in stock. Bought 200 or so. Keep my loads fairly light and now use them in both my 1917s (S & W and Colt).
I bought an extra set of 45 acp dies to use for the 45 AR.
I bought an extra set of 45 acp dies to use for the 45 AR.
I have a Model 625-6 and a Model 1950 so I thought I would compare measurements with loaded .45 ACP with and without moon clips. The 1950 serial S1241xx measured 1.606 from the case head to the forward end of the cylinjder when headspacing singly in the cylinder. With moon clip it measured 1.621. The 625-6 measured 1.610 and 1.622. Boith about .015 difference. I did measured all chambers and noticed a greater difference between chambers with the 625 as much as .005. All the rounds I have fired from them have been without moonclips with no misfires. I have read several different commentaries on the new guns working only with moon clips. One sample does not mean much out of the thousands made, so I do not know if it means anything or not. The numbers are really not too far apart for guns made 40 years apart.
Similar threads
