Discussion in 'Handguns' started by Ed Hunter, May 1, 2018.

  1. Ed Hunter

    Ed Hunter Distinguished Poster



    We originally reported 2/1/18 on those Polycase Inceptor ARX 45 ACP rounds in my Ruger Blackhawk Convertible thread. In that report we noted again our experiencing some point-of-aim point-of-impact anomalies with the “hotter” loads (we include the Polycase Inceptor ARX in that category).

    We wrapped up that report with the statement, “I’ve got a few of the Polycase Inceptor ARX’s left. When the opportunity arises I might run them through the 1911 and see what results we get” (i.e.; that point-of-aim point-of-impact anomaly).

    You can check it all out at: RUGER NEW MODEL BLACKHAWK CONVERTIBLE.

    Well, the opportunity has arrived and that’s where we are today.

    This is going to be short and sweet (I’ve only got a handful of rounds left over).

    But first, let’s refresh our memory on that Polycase round.

    Polycase Inceptor .45 ACP 114 Gr ARX

    This is a re-hash of what we wrote in that 2/1/18 report referenced above.

    Polycase tells us that the ARX bullet uses fluid dynamics and non-expanding surface area instead of expansion to achieve terminal performance, a release of energy “…in the form of hydraulic displacement (hydrostatic shock).”
    The basic spec’s for the Polycase Copper Polymer ARX 45ACP are:
    Bullet Type: Injection Molded Copper Polymer ARX Projectile (Cu/P), Lead Free
    Bullet Weight: 114 Grain
    Muzzle velocity: 1260 fps
    Muzzle energy: 402 ft/lbs​

    For more information on the Polycase round go to: Inceptor Preferred Defense | Inceptor Ammunition

    For the purposes of today’s report we’re really not concerned with the energy properties of the ARX. I think we established that in that 2/1/18 report cited above.

    What we’re doing here to day, is to re-run our “Shooting For Group” trial to see if we get a similar point-of-aim point-of-impact anomaly with the 1911 that we experienced with the Ruger Blackhawk (and, probably more importantly, use up those remaining ARX rounds).

    We quoted above from that 2/1/18 report, “…I might run them through the 1911…”. So let’s look at the 1911 we’ll be using.

    The 1911

    TEMP MGO - Let’s Re-Run The Polycase Inceptor .45 ACP 114 Gr ARX - 1911 PIX.jpg

    The 1911 we’ll be using is an RIA 1911 A1 CS. Here are some of the spec’s for that pistol:
    Mag. Capacity : 6 rounds
    Barrel: Bull
    Barrel Length: 3.5”
    Overall Length : 7.13”
    Weight, empty : 2.16 lbs​

    I really like that pistol. I’ve had it around for quite awhile. While it’s not exactly what I’d call my choice for carry; however, during cold weather and the heavy outer garments we wear then, it can carry well in a shoulder holster. Probably more accessible considering those heavy garments than something carried around the belt area. Enough of that.

    I guess we’ve got all the preliminaries out of the way. It’s time to go out to the range, set up some targets, shoot a few familiarization rounds, and then get set up for the for-the-record target.

    Shooting for Group

    And, as a reminder, we shoot this at 50 ft rather than 25 yd. And, for the record, I have neither a machine rest nor sandbags, I sort of trust to luck, draping my forearms over my range bag, with the pistol dangling over the off side, and have at it.

    We spent a couple of those few left over rounds to get a feel for what we might be experiencing. The results were totally unexpected. At that point we decided to shoot our for-the-record grouping, limiting ourselves to 3 rounds ‘cause of that limited supply.

    Here’s the result…

    TEMP MGO - Let’s Re-Run The Polycase Inceptor .45 ACP 114 Gr ARX - TARGET.jpg

    Point of aim was the center of the target.

    “Dumfounded” is probably too strong a word, even knowing, as we shot this for-the-record target, the results would be at variance with what we had written in earlier reports.

    If you go back to those earlier reports in this thread where we experienced those point-of-aim point-of-impact anomalies with those “hotter” loads, that just didn’t happen using that 1911.

    By the way, let me note that we recognize that that isn’t much of a grouping. But that’s the way it was (we don’t “cream” our reporting).

    It was time, now, to shoot a for-the-record proof target with what could be called a “standard” 45 ACP round – Remington 230gr FMJ.

    Here’s that result…

    TEMP MGO - Let’s Re-Run The Polycase Inceptor .45 ACP 114 Gr ARX - PROOF TARGET.jpg

    Okay, I admit I’m no Deadeye Dick and that group is miserable, but that’s how it was.

    Point of aim was the center of the target.

    As we see it, that group-center for the ARX is 1 ½ inches above (but vertically centered with) the group-center of the Remington FMJ.


    The question we have, then, is why did we not get relatively the same point-of-aim point-of-impact variances with the 1911 that we have experienced more or less consistently with these “hotter” loads in the Ruger Blackhawk?

    I don’t have an answer at this time. Feel free to express your opinion if you so desire.

    In closing, I want to thank you for taking the time to read this.

    phillipd and Jarhead5811 like this.
  2. 2DARK2C

    2DARK2C Distinguished Poster

    nice write up as usual. could it be the extra space in the cylinder before the bullet gets to the barrel. might try a revolver chambered in .45 acp with a shorter cylinder (if such a beast exists).
    Jarhead5811 likes this.

  3. rigrat

    rigrat Semper Fi

    Your pretty much not going to find one. The Taurus 45 acp revolver I had seemed short. And yes the barrel jump could be affecting it or not.
    Jarhead5811 likes this.