BarryinIN

Thanks everybody. CamuMahubah- I don't have a CZ anymore. I used to have a CZ75B in .40 but for a fairly brief time. This was about ten years ago at least, maybe more. I had been curious about CZ75s for a long time, but don't like .40s much. I mostly bought that one for two reasons: It was priced right ($280 I think, used like new, but it might have been even less) and I needed a gun for a match that was coming up. It was the first IPSC 3-gun match anyone had held since I started and I didn't want to miss it, but I was caught with my usual match gun down for repairs, and for some reason I didn't want to use my carry guns (though I don't know why now). For $280, I solved that problem and got a CZ75 to try out. I ended up using something else in the match for some reason, but I was impressed with that CZ. Up to that point, I had tried several .40s (trying to like them) but was not very happy with the accuracy. One Glock out of the five .40 Glocks I had tried shot pretty well, and that was it. But that CZ shot very nicely. At the time, the CZs were still a bit uncommon. Magazines were available for the 9mms, but I had trouble finding mags for the .40 that didn't require waiting on a backorder. I got a few Tanfoglio mags from IPSC guys that had used them. Kind of a pain, but not a tragedy. I'm a Browning HiPower fan, and I soon got a .40 HiPower that shot even better than the CZ. With the Browning being what I was used to, and shooting even better, the CZ didn't stay around much longer. Nothing wrong with it; I just didn't see a need to keep both, and when I saw something else I wanted it got traded. If it had been a 9mm, I might still have it. I would like to have one in 9mm just to have an example of them (the first 9mm Jeff Cooper blessed). I wouldn't hate another .40 like I had after reading more about the history and development of the .40/10mm cartridges. Those 1970s experiments (.40 G&A, The Centimeter, etc) by Whit Collins, Jeff Cooper, Chuck Taylor, etc were centered around getting a .40 in a CZ or HiPower sized gun. Neat that now we can just go out and buy one.

I know it's an old thread, but I just joined and don't see that you have stopped looking. I've been trying to find a good 9mm mould for almost two years now, so I know it can take a while. Some of them didn't do so great, a couple have, and the rest fell somewhere in the middle. The Lyman 356402 (120 grain truncated cone) is about as popular as any, but never did much in my guns. One that surprised me is the Saeco #383, a 140 grain SWC that looks like it wouldn't work at all. It has a wide flat nose, then a long taper to a short full diameter bearing surface. It looks like it wouldn't feed and not hit anything if it did. But it feeds fine and shoots great in everything I've tried (mostly HiPowers, Kahr, Sig P-210). The Saeco #115 is another. It's a 125 grain RN, but the nose is sort of a pointed round nose instead of the more usual rounded shape. I'm staying with one of those two- the Saeco 383 or 115. Probably the 115 because it's a four-cavity. I had high hopes for the Saeco 924, a gas checked 124 grain SWC that sorta resembles the H&G 68 for the .45 ACP. But I haven't got much good from it. An old H&G #275 which is a lot like that one but without a gas check was about the same. I have an old Ohaus 9-124 that is a lot like the Lyman 356402 and current RCBS 9-124-CN. It shoots about like the Lyman too, which is fair at best. Lyman made a mould for .38/.357 that I like some for 9mm. The bad thing is that it is out of production and hard to find in more than a single cavity. That is the 358480, a 133 grain SWC. It's an odd shaped SWC that feeds and shoots well in my guns. I'd use it more if mine wasn't a single cavity. An important thing to note in 9mms is the range of bore sizes. The general thought is they should be .355, but I haven't slugged any yet that was. The smallest was .356 and most run around .357, so I size 'em big. If I don't, they shoot terrible, and even sometimes tumble. The 9mm doesn't have a great reputation with cast bullets and I wonder if that's from people not slugging bores and sizing too small.

Hi everyone. I have two AutoMags. I first saw a picture in a Guns & Ammo magazine in the mid 70s while in grade school and wanted one immediately. It took about 20 years, but I got one. I would get close to having the money, then something would happen, like that Dirty Harry movie that caused prices to skyrocket out of reach for several years. Then after having waited and looked for so long to get that first one, I found another six days later that I traded for. Strange things happen. Anyway, to reply to an earlier point, it is true that High Standard did not manufacture any AutoMag pistols. Not exactly anyway. What High Standard did was to have some made for them with their name on them and serialized in their own range. The company making AMs reorganized/sold/closed/reopened and changed names a few times over it's life, but I think TDE was the name at the time. FYI, TDE was short for Trust Deed Estates which was a company that mainly bought and sold oil leases. Max Gera and Harry Sanford designed the gun. Sanford ran the company and later founded OMC and AMT, and was also the designer of the AMT Backup .380 (the original single action version). Prototypes were around in the late 60s, and Jeff Cooper tested one that was written up for a 1970 issue of Guns & Ammo. That is the earliest article I know of. It would be over a year before any guns were actually made, and they were not exactly production guns. The early ones (called Pasadena AMs because of the Pasadena CA factory location) were more or less hand made tool room guns. While these are generally the best fitted and finished, later guns are probably better as shooters because they updated and the design and materials as they went on. This company folded quickly because as you might guess, it was hard to turn a profit making guns one at a time. The company, and gun, bounced around until giving up the ghost some time in 1975 or so, although AMT assembled some guns from parts for years after. Sanford said they lost money on every AM made, and I believe it. Most were in 44 AMP (AMP = Auto Mag Pistol) caliber, followed by .357 AMP and .41 AMP. There were some other experimental chamberings like .30 AMP. The basic .44 AMP case was a .308 or .30-06 type case cut off then inside reamed. The .357 and .41 cases were that same case necked down. The .44 AMP was roughly .44 Magnum equivalent or a little faster. The .357 AMP is pretty interesting, as it can throw 158 grain bullets over 1800 fps and 125s over 2000 fps, and was the choice of some hunters for it's flatter trajectory. I have a book on handgun hunting by George Nonte, where Lee Jurras (Super Vel founder) shot an antelope at some ridiculous range using a .357 AMP. After I got mine and started looking it over, I found there was nothing really new about the gun. It was the combination of features that was new. The bolt and locking system resembles an M1941 Johnson rifle, with the addition of an accelerator arm from a Browning MG. The trigger mechanism is very similar to a High Standard target pistol. The recoil spring arrangement is like a Walther P38. It was an early stainless steel gun, though not the first. It was pretty radical at the time, though. Consider that at the time, the only .44 Magnums were the S&W 29 and Ruger Super Blackhawk. Then there comes this all stainless autoloader. I usually my .44 with 22 grains of Winchester 296 and a 240 grain bullet. That is about the lowest charge that will operate the action, and gets around 1250 fps. Articles from the time say they needed full power loads to function, which some took to mean it thrived on the hottest thing you could put in it. Apparently, quite a few bolts were cracked that way. My other one is .357 AMP with 8.5" barrel (6.5" was typical). I have not shot it very much. About that 8.5" barrel: Since the barrel and barrel extension (upper receiver) moved a short distance with the bolt upon firing, the weight of the barrel was important to function. While the standard 6.5" barrels has vent ribs, the 8.5" barrels were usually non-ribbed to make them the same weight. They both work fine, if I keep the load where it wants and keep them lubed. The magazines have a stiff spring, so can be a bear to load (seven rounds). A lighter spring allows the rounds to compress the spring under recoil, and drop down so the bolt passes over the top round without feeding it. Recoil is pretty mild for what it is. I don't like recoil, and have never kept a .44 Magnum revolver very long. But I can shoot the .44 AM just fine. The recoil operated action and the weight help. I need to stop. I can yak about these a while.

Hi, I found the forum through a link from Jay Pee's blog while reading his excellent article on the CZ85.