The Rohrbaugh Forum

Rohrbaugh Products and Accessories => Rohrbaugh R9 (all variations) => Topic started by: Marine Ordnance on September 27, 2009, 04:46:00 PM

Title: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: Marine Ordnance on September 27, 2009, 04:46:00 PM
Hi Folks,

I thought I would pass on a small bit of information on some ammo I recently ran through my R9.

Instead of clogging up the bandwidth on this forum I added the info and pictures on my website http://www.arizonasilhouette.com/Rohrbaugh.htm

Hope this info may answer some questions.
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: Quiet1 on September 27, 2009, 05:23:50 PM
Marine Ord,

Good report.  Thanks for sharing.  I couldn't agree more with your comment about spending $1200 on a pistol
and then "nickel and diming" on ammo.   :)

Now, having said that I find that WWB Q4172, 115 gr. functions perfectly in my Pup for "playing" at the range.  The Speer Gold Dot 115 grain, which is my carry ammo, has also been 100%.  Oh, and BTW welcome to the forum.   :)

Regards, Quiet1
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: Richard S on September 27, 2009, 08:45:12 PM
Marine Ordnance:

Welcome to the Forum, and thank you for that excellent report! Verrrrrry interesting . . . .
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: kjtrains on September 28, 2009, 09:57:26 AM
Quote
Hi Folks,

I thought I would pass on a small bit of information on some ammo I recently ran through my R9.

Instead of clogging up the bandwidth on this forum I added the info and pictures on my website http://www.arizonasilhouette.com/Rohrbaugh.htm

Hope this info may answer some questions.

Marine Ordnance.  Thanks for the report.  Good information.
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: ccoorreeyy on September 28, 2009, 12:08:50 PM
Nice report and some really cool looking pens on your website!
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: theirishguard on September 28, 2009, 01:45:15 PM
Marine ord, thanks for the very good range report and welcome to the forum and pup ownership.  Tom
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: musicman on September 28, 2009, 03:37:05 PM
Quote
Hi Folks,

I thought I would pass on a small bit of information on some ammo I recently ran through my R9.

Instead of clogging up the bandwidth on this forum I added the info and pictures on my website http://www.arizonasilhouette.com/Rohrbaugh.htm

Hope this info may answer some questions.

Hi Marine,

Thank you for this information... I found it very interesting.  

I was wondering if you could elaborate on the Hornady Primer problem...  As i use these...i have never had a single problem with this misfireing or anything like that.  

BUT - are you saying that these rounds have the potential to damage the weapon ?  Please explain what you mean here...

"The primers on the fired cases are flat and the firing pin strikes are more than flat - they are actually scrapped across the surface of the primer.  I only fired five rounds as I did not like what I was seeing."

Tks!
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: sdlsaginaw on September 28, 2009, 05:34:44 PM
I saw the same thing, even posted pictures of it awhile back.  Some of the primer metal ended up in the lock mechanism and prevented the slide from moving.
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: Marine Ordnance on September 28, 2009, 10:53:32 PM
"I was wondering if you could elaborate on the Hornady Primer problem...  As I use these...I have never had a single problem with this misfiring or anything like that.  
 
BUT - are you saying that these rounds have the potential to damage the weapon ?  Please explain what you mean here... "

Hello Musicman,

The Hornady CD ammo shows definite signs of high pressure in my R9 - I cannot say nor do I know for a fact that these signs and/or misfires will occur in other R9's.   My intent was to let others know what I experienced.

If you will look at the close-up picture, there are four fired cases (all Hornady CD 115gr FTX) and the normal indentation produced by the firing pin strike is not there.  The 'indentations' are actually flat and the primer metal has partially flowed back into the hole in the face of the slide. http://www.arizonasilhouette.com/Rohrbaugh.htm  One of these days I will figure out how to post a picture.

I would be happy to mail a fired case to a member here that has the technical expertise to evaluate when I am trying to describe.  I am not qualified to say that what I experienced can cause damage.  I do know that signs of high pressure are not to be fooled with.

Bill
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: tracker on September 28, 2009, 11:36:39 PM
What is the connection with light primer strikes to the possibility of high pressure?
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: Marine Ordnance on September 28, 2009, 11:51:07 PM
There is no connection that I know of with a light strike & high pressure.  If a light strike fails to cause ignition then you don't have to worry about high pressure.

As I mentioned earlier the only ammo I had problems with misfires is with the Critical Defense brand.  None of the other two brands of personal defense ammo nor the FMJ types I tested since purchasing my R9 had any problem with ingnition.

I have no idea what make the primers are in the Hornady rounds.  The Speer Gold Dot and Federal Premium are silver in color while the Hornady are gold.

Bill


Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: tracker on September 28, 2009, 11:55:27 PM
You said that the CD shows definite signs of high pressure in your R9. What were the signs?  
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: Marine Ordnance on September 28, 2009, 11:57:35 PM
Flat primers and no 'dimple' (caused by the firing pin strike) in the primer.  The primer is totally flat.

Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: Richard S on September 29, 2009, 07:58:23 AM
Quote
* * * One of these days I will figure out how to post a picture.

* * *

Bill

Bill:

The information which Chris compiled at this link may be of help in that regard:

http://www.acbsystems.com/boards/rohrbaugh/basefile/pic-post.htm
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: musicman on September 29, 2009, 03:48:37 PM
Hi Bill,

Thanks...

Simple question here, does your theory on High Pressure from these rounds suggest i am potentially damaging my R9 ?

tks MM
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: Marine Ordnance on September 29, 2009, 07:37:01 PM
MM,

It is my opinion that using ammo that shows signs of high pressure in a firearm not designed for high power loads may cause damage.  That is why I only fired five rounds after examining the fired cases.  

(http://  http://i606.photobucket.com/albums/tt149/WoodGuyOne/Hornady/Hornady_Critical_Defense-Close-up2.jpg     )

Bill

I'll get this picture thing figured out ....
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: tracker on September 29, 2009, 08:02:39 PM
Bill,
Would you please forward your info and opinions to Steve Hornady? They have been in business for over 100 years and deserve a chance to respond to the high pressure allegation; otherwise, it is only an opinion.
Thanks.

http://www.hornady.com/contact_us.php
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: Marine Ordnance on September 29, 2009, 08:28:46 PM
Tracker,

This whole thread has been a personal opinion and not an allegation that the company is producing less than quality ammunition.  I am in no way leveling critcism at Hornady.  I use their match ammo in two of my rifles.

The title of this thread is Non-Scientific Ammo Test.  I shot three different self defense loads and noticed an irregularity in one of the three brands of ammo.  My intent was to give the members of this forum a "Head's up!" and to be on the lookout for the same results that I experienced regardless of brand.

Bill
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: sdlsaginaw on September 29, 2009, 08:29:09 PM
Found the picture I posted awhile ago...

On left is HCD with flat primer, center is PMC with typical R9 dent, right is brass fired from who-knows-what showing a more typical deep dent.

(http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/1055/primerstrikes.jpg)
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: tracker on September 29, 2009, 09:54:35 PM
On a non-scientific basis I just compared an unfired CD to several other .9mm rounds, including Winchester. It is my opinion that the CD primer has slightly less gap between it and the casing than other ammo. Also, it appears to be flatter and more flush than other ammo. In summary, it appears to be of a tighter manufacturing process.
The main problem I have with your opinion is that you draw a conclusion that this perceived difference is caused by an apparent higher pressure in the CD vis-a'-vis other rounds. The fact that the CD did not function well in your gun is irrefutable; I just don't agree with your fault analysis.
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: Marine Ordnance on September 29, 2009, 10:07:50 PM
Tracker,

In your opinion what do you think caused the primers to flatten during firing?  Have you run any Critical Defense 115gr FTX ammo through your Rohrbaugh R9?

Bill
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: tracker on September 29, 2009, 10:15:03 PM
I am saying that the primers in CD are flatter than other rounds before you fire them. I have fired numerous rounds of the CD in my R9, all successfully, and that is now my carry round. In my opinion, it is far superior to whatever is in second place and I have tried every premium brand of ammo recommended in this forum. They are all good, some just work better than others.
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: yankee2500 on September 29, 2009, 10:32:19 PM
I have been pleased with the CD ammo and carry it in my R9 and in my P380, when I can find some in 40S&W it will be in my PM40 as well. It's possible that the primers are softer or thinner than the others and that could account for the flattening.
 It functions well in both of my pistols, and felt recoil seems no different than Gold Dots or Silvertips to me.
  The gun shop were I do most of my business sold a lady a 9mm pistol and some CD ammo, which she later used to shoot her better half twice in the back and once in the back of the head, the Sheriff told the guys at the shop that the damage done by these rounds was some of the worst he had seen.
John
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: Marine Ordnance on September 29, 2009, 10:45:19 PM
Tracker,

Unfired ammo tells you very little.  Deep seated primers can cause misfires and 'soft' primers may cause some problems.

Pictures recently posted by sdlsaginaw also show a flattened HCD primer.

Again I ask you - In your opinion what caused the HCT ammo to have flat primers and no firing pin 'dent' after being fired?

Bill
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: tracker on September 29, 2009, 10:48:08 PM
We are not speaking the same language; please contact the factory to discuss your problem.
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: sdlsaginaw on September 30, 2009, 11:21:17 AM
I'm very curious what the fired primers look like from one of the R9s on the list that they are reliable in.  

Do they have the same flat look or are they dented like other rounds?
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: Marine Ordnance on October 14, 2009, 02:33:30 AM
Hi All,

I received a response from Hornady this morning asking me to ship them the CD ammo I was having problems with (flat primers).

I will let you know what I find out.

Bill
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: tracker on October 14, 2009, 12:21:32 PM

Thanks, Bill.
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: Cap. on October 15, 2009, 12:51:35 AM
I've got some 115gr HCD. I'll shoot some this weekend and let you know what I find.
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: Cap. on October 18, 2009, 07:06:19 PM
I had a chance to fire some HCD 115 gr in both my R9 and a friends P7. The ammo used in both was from the same box.

The HCD primers are significantly flatter after firing in the R9. Also the area around the strike was kind of 'starred out'. It tore that metal up pretty good. Enough that I would worry that small particles of metal could (and probably do) fly away from the primer and potentially lodge themselves somewhere I don't want them to.

When fired in the P7, the primers looked 100% normal. Still rounded, clean pin strike indentation, no seperating metal.

There is clearly something different happening with this ammo in the R9. I'll take a picture and get it posted on here sometime soon.

I think that at this point, Hornady engineers need to be aware of this and tell us R9 owners what they think.

 

Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: Cap. on October 18, 2009, 10:34:48 PM
Here some pics I've taken of this. I apologize for my lack of camera skill.

The column on the left is WWB fired through the R9. They look normal.

The middle 3 columns are HCD fired from the Rohrbaugh. They look very NOT normal.

The far right column is HCD fired from an HK P7. They look very normal.

(http://pic80.picturetrail.com/VOL2064/12722644/22632136/376304023.jpg)

(http://pic80.picturetrail.com/VOL2064/12722644/22632136/376304205.jpg)
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: Marine Ordnance on October 18, 2009, 11:15:18 PM
Hi Cap.,

Thanks for posting the pictures.  I am VERY GLAD that I am not the only one experiencing this problem.  However, I am NOT happy that there is a problem but at least I am not the only one.

As I mentioned in an earlier email I shipped one partial box and four full boxes of the Hornady Critical Defense 115gr ammo to Hornady last week for their evaluation.  All of the ammo I had was of the same lot number: 3091459 .

I will let you know what I find out.

Bill
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: tracker on October 18, 2009, 11:50:01 PM
There is definitely something amiss here. I just checked two boxes  of CD lot# 3091459 and the primers are very flat and flush with the casing; not so with a recently purchased box, lot# 3090863. The 3090863 box of ammo primers have a considerably different look--more recessed and more space between the primer and the casing, i.e., much more normal in appearance. Another interesting difference between the two lot numbers is that #3090863 has "MADE IN THE USA" below the lot number whereas 3091459 does not. The bar code number is the same on both lot numbers.
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: tracker on October 19, 2009, 01:37:45 PM

I e-mailed Hornady this morning with observations and concerns from previous posts on the "flat primer" issue.
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: sdlsaginaw on October 20, 2009, 02:16:57 AM
Mine are from lot #3090552.

I realized I kept one of the shells that didn't fire the first time.  It has the typical R9 firing pin dent.  The casings I kept that did fire have the flat look to them.

I'll have to take that unfired round out next time and see what it looks like afterwards.
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: kinoz on October 20, 2009, 09:14:25 PM
I think you may have something there with the lot numbers.  I have a 200+ round inventory from 4 different lot numbers, so it made me uneasy that 80 came from a lot I hadn't tested yet.

Went to the range today and as expected, the Critical Defense had a 100% performance.  Beyond that, I fired off 2 magazines of American Eagle and couldn't hit the targets (pie plate size) at all.  I was 22 yards away, which is farther than I usual like for the Rohrbaugh, but the range was crowded and I didn't trust standing closer.

Anyway, after missing with the American Eagle I put in a magazine of CD.  I went bang seven times and knocked over seven targets!  Hmmm.  I've said it is more accurate than other ammo (at least in my hands), but that sure impressed the hell out of me.

Hornady's a keeper in my book.
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: tracker on October 20, 2009, 09:30:21 PM
I agree with you, Kinoz, on everything you said but there is something about that lot number we need to resolve.
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: Cap. on October 20, 2009, 11:34:11 PM
Quote
Snip:
Anyway, after missing with the American Eagle I put in a magazine of CD.  I went bang seven times and knocked over seven targets!  Hmmm.  I've said it is more accurate than other ammo (at least in my hands), but that sure impressed the hell out of me.

Hornady's a keeper in my book.

I not sure this thread is about accuracy. It's about signs of high pressure when HCD is fired in the R9. Did you get a chance to look at the primers when you were done?

Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: tracker on October 21, 2009, 12:29:57 AM

The following is provided to confuse this issue to an even higher level.
Maybe we should wait for a response from Hornady.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_10_47/ai_78129999/?tag=content;col1
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: kinoz on October 21, 2009, 12:33:14 AM
No, I didn't.  Nor do I think the bad guy is going to ask as he slumps to the ground in his winter coat.  :)

I think the thread is actually going to end up being about a bad lot of ammo.  Stay tuned.


Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: tracker on October 21, 2009, 03:48:54 PM

I received a timely reply today from Hornady Technical about the CD ammo in question. He said they would be happy to test fire it so I intend to send lot# 3091459 back to them. He said that they have been forced to use different primers from time to time due to availability. "We do test every lot of ammo though and assure that they are functioning well and within the SAAMI specs."

We shall see.
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: kjtrains on October 21, 2009, 06:20:01 PM
Will be interesting as to what they say.  I do like Hornady in .44 Mag 300 gr. and never have had an issue with it.  I have a box of CD for the R9 bought in April this year, just holding it for backup for Silvertips and Gold Dots.

I expect the problem to be just a bad batch of primers, just my thinking.
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: tracker on October 21, 2009, 06:56:50 PM
That is my thought also. There is a distinct visual difference in the lot no. in question and all of the rest of them. Hornady is responding well so far.
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: Marine Ordnance on October 21, 2009, 10:16:54 PM
Hi All,

I received a call from Hornady yesterday morning regarding the 9mm CD ammo I sent back to them (lot # 3091459) for evaluation.  They were very concerned by what was happening.  A lot of questions were asked and one possible cause discussed was a ‘light’ strike by the firing pin.  This possibility really didn’t make sense to me since Winchester white box ball, CCI Blazer, Speer Gold Dot and Federal Hydro Shock all performed flawlessly.

They tested my returned ammo in a couple of different pistols and the ammo performed as it was designed to (no high pressure issues were encountered).  However, they did not have a Rohrbaugh R9 pistol to use in their test.  The used a Kahr and a Keltec.

I sent them the link to this entire thread that included the pictures submitted by Cap. and myself.  They were still mystified on what may be causing the primer problem.

Hornady is sending me some ammo with two different lot numbers for me to test through my R9.  I am then to return the fired cases to Hornady so they can possibly make some sort of determination.

I'll keep the group posted on what I find out.

Bill
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: tracker on October 21, 2009, 10:38:50 PM
Thanks, Bill, for identifying that lot no.. I am going to fire a magazine of it before I return it to them. I have not fired it yet but have two boxes of #3091459. I cannot overemphasize the visual difference of those primers compared to many other lot nos.
There may be a slight incompatibility with the R9 and that particular lot no.; sounds strange but I have seen many things that defy belief also. I think we will get to the bottom of this one.  
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: mefly2 on October 22, 2009, 02:37:40 PM
The R9's locked-breech (vs P7:gas port / blowback) may also contribute to longer retained pressure / higher pressure impulse - resulting in the primer deformation with the HCD.  Perhaps that is just why we are advised against +p or +P+ ammunition use in the R9. Certainly, cratered primers on fired brass indicate higher than normal pressure ... flattened primers - to me - indicate excessive pressure that should be avoided ...  some manufactureers of ammunition tell us up front that their product is loaded to higher velocities (generally, that means higher pressure given all other variables stay the same).

The photos posted by MO are very indicative to me.
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: tracker on October 22, 2009, 07:07:03 PM
 SAAMI maximum pressure for .9mm is 35,000 psi. and 38,500 for + P .9mm and it shouldn't be any mystery about the Hornady .9mm Critical Defense pressure, even though it is not listed in their website. If there were excessive pressure in this round, one would think this would have surfaced before now.
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: jetboater on October 23, 2009, 10:56:25 PM
I have about 24 boxes of CDs so I went thru the them and I have 4 boxes from lot 3091459. I took the pup to the range last night and fired 15 rounds of that lot # and they all went thru it fine--my pup has about 250 rounds thru it and it's (knock on wood) never had a problem with WWB, Blaser, GDs, or the CDs--every round has fired and ejected fine.
I shot at an outdoor range with about 3 inches of leaves on the ground so I was unable to pick the brass up so I don't have the cases to compare to the others that had problems.
Nevertheless, I think I'll use the rest of this lot number in my other guns just to be safe
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: tracker on October 24, 2009, 12:30:39 AM

Sounds like a good plan until we have some clarification from Hornady; thanks for letting us know. I plan to shoot some of that lot no. next week when it dries out a bit here.
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: tracker on October 29, 2009, 06:40:56 PM
Today I fired 35 rounds through my R9: 14 were WWB; 13 were Hornaday Critical Defense lot no. 3091459 and 8 were CD from another lot number with normal looking primers. 34 fired normally with one misfire from lot no. 3091459. This is the only misfire with any ammo since my gun was returned from the factory with a new slide about 15 months ago.

I did not pull the trigger again on the misfire, waited 30 seconds and manually ejected the unfired round. This was done at Hornady's request. They want to see that unfired round and all fired rounds plus I am sending back a box of lot no. 3091459  


Although it is preliminary and anecdotal, I am convinced that "bad" lot no. 3091459 had something like S&B primers instead of Winchester primers. As related from the factory the S&B primers are hard and
flat compared to others. My fired rounds all looked the same as others
posted here: flat and no indentation. The reason I say S&B is that Hornady, on rare occasion, used S&B primers and they confirmed my observations even though they have had very few failure reports of any kind with CD. They load CDs to 32,500 psi, well within standard limits. I firmly believe that the fault lies within the flat, hard primer and that there is no overpressure with this ammo. I will continue to carry CD but with no S&B primers. The visual difference, as noted before, is obvious.
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: kjtrains on October 29, 2009, 08:00:44 PM
I checked the lot no. on the box that I have, #3090310, which I guess is, an older box.  Primers look ok with this lot.
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: tracker on October 29, 2009, 08:12:34 PM

I have some left of that same lot no. and I agree with you. Hornady will address this isolated but troubling issue.
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: tracker on October 29, 2009, 10:56:00 PM

P.S.; after the wringing out test session with the R9 and CD I had some fun shooting about 100 more rounds with a beautiful 1911, Ruger MkII, Glock 17, and a Colt Huntsman.
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: kjtrains on October 30, 2009, 01:51:12 PM
Sounds like a good event.  What make was the 1911?
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: tracker on October 30, 2009, 04:49:44 PM

It is an ordinary Springfield Mil-Spec that has an extensive customizing by Teddy Jacobson. I don't think he does these complete makeovers much anymore. All it needs now is a match barrel; maybe a Kart and it will be perfect.
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: kjtrains on October 30, 2009, 04:56:11 PM
Excellent.  I do like Springfields.
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: Cap. on November 01, 2009, 10:53:21 PM
I'm done with HCD in my R9. Even if this just turns out to be a bad batch of primers. I'm giving my HCD and WWB to a friend  with a P7 that shoots this stuff well.

My main reasoning for this is that it's a truncated cone design bullet. For a pistol that has a quarter inch freebore, the truncated cone doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Too little bullet meat near the front for a reliable 'gradual increase in surface contact' between the bullet and rifling.

To me, a truncated cone bullet is better suited in a pistol with very little freebore.

Anyways, I hope that this all gets worked out so that people who can't get anything else can make an informed decision.
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: Marine Ordnance on November 03, 2009, 02:43:26 PM
Hi All,

I just received a box of Critical Defense 115gr FTX ammo direct from Hornady (lot number 3090858).  Yesterday I got my R9 back from Accurate Plating & Weaponry (I had my R9 ported).

So tonight I will stop by the range and see what happens ….. :>)

Bill
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: tracker on November 03, 2009, 04:03:24 PM

Bill,

I sent a package to Hornady with fired casings from two lots of CD, some fired WWB, and the one FTF bullet from the suspicious lot. They are going to test some of the unfired questionable lot I sent them also and get back to me. If you hadn't identified lot no. 3091459 we couldn't have addressed this issue; thanks.
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: jetboater on November 03, 2009, 09:42:16 PM
Quote
I'm done with HCD in my R9. Even if this just turns out to be a bad batch of primers. I'm giving my HCD and WWB to a friend  with a P7 that shoots this stuff well.

My main reasoning for this is that it's a truncated cone design bullet. For a pistol that has a quarter inch freebore, the truncated cone doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Too little bullet meat near the front for a reliable 'gradual increase in surface contact' between the bullet and rifling.

To me, a truncated cone bullet is better suited in a pistol with very little freebore.

Anyways, I hope that this all gets worked out so that people who can't get anything else can make an informed decision.

OK---I'll admit I'm a newbie----I don't quite understand the implications of what you're saying---what's a "truncated cone bullet" and "freebore"?  
thanks!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: kjtrains on November 03, 2009, 10:37:09 PM
jetboater.  Here are a couple of links that can explain what you are asking.

"truncated cone bullet" - Imagine a bullet shaped like a lampshade.  http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/QQ/database/QQ.02.06/phil1.html

"freebore"

http://www.gunnersden.com/index.htm.rifle-barrel-free-bore.html

Hope this helps.
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: tracker on November 03, 2009, 10:44:12 PM

This is nice discussion but it is just obfuscation.
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: jetboater on November 03, 2009, 11:12:33 PM
Quote
jetboater.  Here are a couple of links that can explain what you are asking.

"truncated cone bullet" - Imagine a bullet shaped like a lampshade.  http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/QQ/database/QQ.02.06/phil1.html

"freebore"

http://www.gunnersden.com/index.htm.rifle-barrel-free-bore.html

Hope this helps.



it does! thanks very much!!!!!
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: Marine Ordnance on November 03, 2009, 11:38:19 PM
Hi All,

I took my newly ported R9 to the range late this afternoon to test fire the box of CD ammo that Hornady sent me (lot number 3090858).  The primers are seated a consistent .004” below the case head of the cartridge and have the same color primers as the ammo lot I initially had problems with (lot # 3091459).  I do not know who made the primers. I will try to find out.

The new lot of ammunition shot fine without displaying the problems encountered with my original ammunition.  The fired primers look normal, there were no failures to fire and there were no ejection failures.

As for the porting:  Accurate Plating & Weaponry did a very nice job and the turn-a-round was about three weeks.  There is a noticeable difference in recoil and if you are a smoker you will be able to light a cigarette without having to use a lighter.  Is porting worth the cost?  IMHO: Yes.

Bill

November 4 Update:  The primers were Winchester.  Hornady is sending back one of the boxes of ammo that I originally had problems with to see how they shoot in my newly ported R9.
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: Cap. on November 04, 2009, 12:39:45 AM
Not quite a fair test since the one you tested with has been ported, but good to know! Glad to hear the porting has worked out for ya.

Make sure you don't offer a lady 'a light' with that thing! It might be taken the wrong way!

I'd like to hear from someone who has tried some of the latest lot #s without porting. Anyone else willing to give this a go?

Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: tracker on November 04, 2009, 01:05:41 AM

If it works with porting it should work with anything. As soon as I hear from Hornady I will fire some of the latest but there is no doubt in my mind that this was just an isolated lot of flat, hard S&B primers that did not function well in the R9. The primer strikes looked like a fried egg on lot# 3091459. All other lots of CD have functioned flawlessly.
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: kjtrains on November 04, 2009, 11:09:44 AM
Bill.  Glad to hear the lot 309085 did well in the newly ported R9.  I, too, think it was just that bad batch of primers.
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: Cap. on November 04, 2009, 12:59:04 PM
Quote
If it works with porting it should work with anything. As soon as I hear from Hornady I will fire some of the latest but there is no doubt in my mind that this was just an isolated lot of flat, hard S&B primers that did not function well in the R9. The primer strikes looked like a fried egg on lot# 3091459. All other lots of CD have functioned flawlessly.

Tracker, you're probably right. The peak pressure most likely occurs before any porting is involved. I couldn't find anything supporting it either way last night, but it makes sense.

Title:  I was not informed oRe: Non-Scientific Ammo
Post by: Marine Ordnance on November 17, 2009, 01:39:25 AM
Hi Folks,

Here is where I'm at:  A couple weeks ago I received a box of Hornady CD 115gr FTX 9mm ammo (lot number 3090858). About the same time I also received my newly ported R9.  I took the above mentioned ammo to our local indoor range and it performed exactly as it should – no flat primers and no misfires.  The ammo was primed with Winchester primers.

Last Friday I received five boxes of the CD 115gr FTX ammo but with a different lot number (3091299).  I will attempt to take a box of this lot of ammo to the range this week and see how it performs.  I was not told who made the primers on this lot.

I did not get back any of the type of ammo that caused the concern in the first place (lot number 3091459) so I am unable to perform a test in my ported R9 (to see if the porting would make a difference).  I do know from talking with a tech at Hornady that this particular lot number was primed with Seller & Bellot primers.

I’ll post a report when I’ve fired this new lot of ammo.

Bill
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: tracker on November 17, 2009, 01:03:27 PM
It seems that Hornady sent me and Bill the same lot nos. to try out. As he said lot# 3090857 are Winchester primers. I fired 18 of them and they were all normal. However, on lot# 3091299 I fired 18 rounds and had 3 FTFs; they were all manually ejected. That lot no. had an identical look to the original lot no. 3091459,which were S&B primers. Interestingly, I fired 7 rounds of lot no. 3091299 in a PF-9 and they were all normal. Additionally, I fired  6 rounds of Wolf with steel cases and Berdan primers in the R9 and they were all perfect but a bit hot at 1150 fps.

All of these lot nos. may seem confusing but here is my opinion on Hornady CD in the R9. Winchester primers should fire flawlessly but S&B primers are unreliable and should not be carried. Although my Hornady contact is out this week the last I heard from them is that they intended to produce ammo from both Winchester and S&B, depending on the supply. This means that pending a change in their primer policy I will not be making any more CD purchases.
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: kjtrains on November 17, 2009, 05:40:50 PM
Nor I as well, although I've only purchased the one box with seemly good primers.  Don't plan on shooting them anyway, at least not in the R9.
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: Cap. on November 17, 2009, 06:56:03 PM
That's great info guys, much appreciated!

I think what you're saying is good feedback:
This ammo isn't for the Rohrbaugh.

For complete fairness to Hornday though, it does need to be mentioned that in my experience, and everyone I've spoken to about this ammo, ALL of this ammo shot well through other 9mms.

P.S. I've been having really great luck with Federal Hydrashocks in both 115gr and 124gr. The 147's 'worked' well, but took my 1.5" groups (with 115 and 124) @ 15 yds. out to
about 5". This isn't surprising given the light rifling twist of the R9.

It's too bad though on the HCD, the bullet performace potential is very high. Maybe someone will come up with a piece of rubber or whatever that stuff is and stick it into a gold dot!  :)

Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: tracker on November 17, 2009, 07:25:46 PM

I agree with you Cap. and as far as I am concerned the S&B primers are the only thing wrong with CD but it is a very weak link. The reason I fired 6 rounds of Wolf was just to see what cheap ammo did in the R9 and it worked just fine. Wolf's web site said that their ammunition was 100% guaranteed or money back. I haven't seen that statement anywhere else.
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: Marine Ordnance on December 10, 2009, 03:21:58 AM
Hi All,

Sorry for the delay in getting some additional information posted on the Hornady Critical Defense ammo.

To save space please go to http:// www.arizonasilhouette.net/Rohrbaugh.htm   
for an additional non-scientific range report.

Bill
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: kjtrains on December 10, 2009, 08:44:48 AM
Thanks, Bill, for the report.
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: steel714 on December 12, 2009, 09:08:12 PM
Thanks for the great ammo report..... 8)
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: Marine Ordnance on December 18, 2009, 02:31:06 PM
Hi Folks,

Here is an email I received this morning from Hornady regarding the problems I am experiencing with Critical Defense ammo.

Bill
____________________________________________________

Mr. B.,
 
Sorry it took me so long to get back to you it has been a crazy week.
 
Let me just kind of run you through what has happened with the 9mm Critical Defense. At first we thought we had a problem, we had many meetings and hashed out our plan of attack just in case this turned out to be our problem. Over thanksgiving we also had one of our engineers build a really nice primer sensitivity tester.
 
To make a long story short we did get a fair amount of returns on the 9mm Critical Defense. However after advising people, many of which had either Kahr or Kel-Tec pistols and specifically in your case Rohrbaugh, we have decided that the problem is not on our end. Every single person that I have gotten back in touch with in regards to these returns have said they sent their gun in to the manufacturer and after getting it back with parts replaced they can't get anything to misfire. Moreover, we have not seen a Critical Defense return of any kind in the past month.
 
We tested the sensitivity of the primers, they are well within spec. We have tested pressure and velocity countless times, always in spec.
 
At this point, and I hate to do this, I have to blame your firearm for these troubles and I'll restate again what I am almost certain the problem is. Your gun has a weak firing pin. From careful study of the pictures you posted on your website I and the other guys in the lab think that is clear. Your firing pin is penetrating the primer and normally a properly working firing pin is going to stay in the mark it just made, the chamber pressurizes and gets hot, the primer is shoved flush with the breach face and you get a nice filled out firing pin strike. However in the case of a weak firing pin it is not strong enough to stay put in the depression it just made and is shoved back into the firing pin channel. As this happens the chamber pressurizes and there is no firing pin there to stop the primer material from flowing. So, it flows straight back into the mouth of the firing pin channel and is sheared right back off when the round is ejected, netting you "fried egg primers".
 
I know from the pictures on the website that some of the winchester loads work great in your gun and I can't comment on those. What I do know is that ours are still in SAAMI specification. SAAMI specification is SAAMI specification and the gun makers are just as obliged to follow them as we are and it seems that your firing pin simply isn't up to par.
 
I'm glad that you found ammunition that works in your gun and it is your right to completely ignore the problem; however, I still have to recommend that you get your gun looked at by a reputable gunsmith or Rohrbaugh as I believe you have a firing pin problem. The fact is guns should shoot and function perfectly with any ammunition that is in SAAMI specification. I know for a fact ours is in spec in regards to any quantitative value that it is possible for me to measure, that leaves only one other link in the chain that could be at fault.
 
Again I'm happy you found ammunition that worked and I wish you the happiest of shooting with it. I don't want this email to come across as nasty I'm just trying to level with you. As always if you have any questions or want to talk about anything you have my number and email.
 
Sincerely,
Curt Emary
Hornady Manufacturing Company
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: tracker on December 18, 2009, 06:15:30 PM

Thanks for posting, Bill; I was afraid that would be their answer and now the problem is back onto us. If this is true, and I think it is, maybe it points out that some of us have weak firing pins/springs. I would be interested to hear Karl's take on this one.
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: Marine Ordnance on December 18, 2009, 07:00:33 PM
Hi Tracker,

What I don't understand is why does ammo produced by other manufactures (Federal, Winchester, Speer, etc.) shoot as they should and CD doesn't.  If the firing pin spring is too 'soft' wouldn't this symptom show up with other ammo?  Maybe the metal used to manufacture CD primers is significantly softer than Winchester, Remington, etc.  

I will be interested to see what the folks at Rohrbaugh think.  I sent Hornady's response to Maria this morning.

Bill
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: tracker on December 18, 2009, 07:22:52 PM
All of this exercise is puzzling; one thing we do know is that the suspect primers and the R9 are incompatible with each other. It is like a bad marriage.
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: sdlsaginaw on December 18, 2009, 07:36:45 PM
I'm very interested in hearing a response from Rohrbaugh too, I have a few boxes of CD sitting on the shelf that show this problem.

The description does sound right though, when I was shooting the CD and getting "fried egg primers" I also ended up with some brass shavings that landed in the barrel lock and kept me from opening the slide.  Also explains the poster that had a photo of brass in the firing pin hole.
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: tracker on December 18, 2009, 11:00:20 PM
One point here that Curt Emary, apparently a superb ballistician by all counts, deftly sidesteps is the S&B primer issue. He constantly mentions SAAMI specs without addressing the difference between their primers. As far as I am concerned the S&B primer lots look like they came from a Cracker Jack box. I suspect there will be more exculpatory "Mi no Alamo" as this mystery unfolds.
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: kjtrains on December 19, 2009, 02:31:32 PM
I still think it's the S&B primers as well.  They are definitely dancing around the issue of anything wrong on their end.
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: Marine Ordnance on December 23, 2009, 11:10:02 PM
Hi Folks,

Here is a message I received Monday from Curt Emary at Hornady:

Mr. B,
 
Just thought I would inform you that the company has purchased a Rohrbaugh that we will be testing extensively with our Critical Defense ammo. Hopefully we can shine some more light on this issue and figure out what the problem is for certain. I'll keep you up to date if you would like.
 
Regards,
Curt Emary

I told him that I would like to be notified of any findings.

Bill
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: kjtrains on December 23, 2009, 11:23:41 PM
Bill.  It certainly seems like now Hornady is interested in working out the problem; gun or primers.  However, it could still be one sided.
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: Chihuahua TN on December 25, 2009, 10:14:03 AM
Quote
Hi Tracker,

What I don't understand is why does ammo produced by other manufactures (Federal, Winchester, Speer, etc.) shoot as they should and CD doesn't.  If the firing pin spring is too 'soft' wouldn't this symptom show up with other ammo?  Maybe the metal used to manufacture CD primers is significantly softer than Winchester, Remington, etc.  

Exactly my thoughts......My R9s is new, however the only defense ammo I have issues with is FTF (fire) is from Hornady's critical defense. I had this issue with my LCP as well....hence why I don't use critical defense it inspires little confidence and its rather disappointing,
Mike
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: yankee2500 on December 25, 2009, 12:10:56 PM
And I have fired Critical Defense in my LCP, P380, and Rohrbaugh and had zero issues always fed, fired and ejected as it should.
 But I have had no problem with any ammo in my R9s and have put at least seven differant brands through it.

John
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: tracker on December 25, 2009, 03:45:05 PM

This is a welcome pro-active response from Hornady but since the problem didn't appear prior to the S&B primers in their ammo I don't know where they are going with this.
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: kjtrains on December 25, 2009, 05:53:07 PM
Yes, it could be just a gesture of good faith.
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: steel714 on December 25, 2009, 09:42:19 PM
Well since we are on the subject of ammo, I am going to be sending my R9s back to the factory. I have tried all the following ammo, and I am getting failures to fire and failure to eject on all this ammo so I know I must have a problem with the gun.
Speer Gold Dot 124gr gdhp - were the best 1 ff
Fiocchi 115gr fmj - out of 14 rounds 1 ff and 1 fe
Winchester 147gr bonded jhp - 14 rounds 1 ff & 3 fe
Remminton umc 115gr mc - Terrible may failure on both fire and eject (terrible)
Federal Premium le 124gr hs jhp - out of 14 rounds 1 ff & 1 fe

I have only had the gun for about a month and I am not about to carry a weapon that I cant depend on. I hope Rohrbaugh can figure out the problem and rectify it. :'(
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: kjtrains on December 25, 2009, 10:46:38 PM
I remember you had tried the Winchester Silvertips without any problems.  I know they are hard to find, for sure.  I'm just thinking, with all the ammo you've tried, your R9 may have dreck and all sorts of stuff, lodged around the firing pin, and around parts that make it work.

Are you letting the R9 cool down between magazines?  That could affect the fte.  Just some thoughts.

As I've mentioned before, I started with Winchester Silvertips and have never tried or used anything else.   What works, works.  

Good luck in resolving the problem.
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: Richard S on December 26, 2009, 09:04:47 AM
I agree with KJ. Unless you permit the R9 to cool down a bit  between strings of fire and keep it clean and well lubricated (for me that means a clean/lube after each 50-60 rounds or so), you're apt to have problems. The tolerances of a 9mm pistol scaled down to a 13-ounce package are minimal. Of course, you may have been doing all of the above described care and maintenance. If so, the factory will be able to identify any problem.

Good luck, and keep us posted.
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: abboberg on January 09, 2010, 12:40:12 AM
To respond to the first post on this thread:

Putting a .50 BMG cartridge in a Rohrbaugh-sized gun is my next project. ;D
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: steel714 on January 09, 2010, 01:35:11 AM
Let me know how that works out for you :o  ;D   ::)
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: Richard S on January 09, 2010, 09:51:58 AM
Quote
To respond to the first post on this thread:

Putting a .50 BMG cartridge in a Rohrbaugh-sized gun is my next project. ;D

abboberg:

I don't think I have yet welcomed you to the Forum, so permitme to do so at this time.

Now . . . if you will let me know when you are nearing completion of that .50 BMG project you mention, l'll send you a list of superb orthopedic surgeons specializing in reconstructgion of the human hand and wrist. You might want to include their contact information in the owner's manual for that new blaster.   ;)
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: kjtrains on January 09, 2010, 09:57:55 AM
Quote
To respond to the first post on this thread:

Putting a .50 BMG cartridge in a Rohrbaugh-sized gun is my next project. ;D

I'll also be on the list for that one!   :)    :)
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: birdman on January 15, 2010, 03:42:40 PM
Bill, pm sent
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: P7Enigma on January 15, 2010, 04:49:46 PM
QUOTE: To respond to the first post on this thread:
 
Putting a .50 BMG cartridge in a Rohrbaugh-sized gun is my next project.
...and end QUOTE

uuuhhh....

And I will be in the county behind you during testing....
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: kjtrains on January 15, 2010, 05:14:16 PM
In case you want to order ammo in advance of production, here's a link:   ;D    ;D  

http://www.goodtimeoutdoors.com/index.php?target=products&product_id=713
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: P7Enigma on January 15, 2010, 05:41:56 PM
Quote
In case you want to order ammo in advance of production, here's a link:   ;D    ;D  

http://www.goodtimeoutdoors.com/index.php?target=products&product_id=713

As mentioned, If I can observe from another county...I will "GLADLY"[/i] give him some of my Barrett 650gr ammo

This thing below is bad enough! Its the CQB version and the muzzle brake is to close to ones face. Definitely don't shoot it with you mouth open!

(http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t304/007ENIGMA/IMG_0985-1.jpg)
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: kjtrains on January 15, 2010, 06:28:20 PM
Looks just like yours!  Scope is different.

(http://s575.photobucket.com/albums/ss197/kjtrains/Barrett9929inch50BMG.jpg)
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: P7Enigma on January 15, 2010, 07:25:15 PM
You have the one I should have bought! Your barrel is at the "normal" length of 29 inches I think.

Scope on mine is NightForce 5.5-22x56. Yours appears to be either Burris or Nikon???
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: kjtrains on January 15, 2010, 07:47:54 PM
I didn't even notice the barrel length was different, but can see it now.
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: Richard S on January 15, 2010, 08:14:38 PM
Enigma & KJ:

When the zombies come, y'all are welcome to bring those blasters up to Critter Creek for "The Stand." I'll even provide the MREs.   8)
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: kjtrains on January 15, 2010, 08:25:20 PM
Richard.  Sounds like a plan!   ;D    ;D
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: P7Enigma on January 16, 2010, 02:08:07 PM
Quote
Enigma & KJ:

When the zombies come, y'all are welcome to bring those blasters up to Critter Creek for "The Stand." I'll even provide the MREs.   8)

 ;D...MREs? I think I'd rather have that raccoon you had hauled off...! :o
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: Richard S on January 16, 2010, 08:08:29 PM
Quote

 ;D...MREs? I think I'd rather have that raccoon you had hauled off...! :o

Enigma:

Back in Africa, we called that kind of stuff "bush meat." Do you prefer it deep fried or grilled? (My rule was to eat it only if I personally observed it being removed from boiling oil.  8) )
Title: Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
Post by: horseman on January 16, 2010, 08:23:53 PM
Around here, we barbecue coon.  It's pretty tasty.

Seriously, there is an annual coon supper in Gillette, Arkansas, where a bunch of politicians always show up to ACT like they are regular people.

On an unrelated note our central Arkansas US represntative, Vic Snyder, a noted anti-gun advocate, has decided not to run in 2010, since the polls show he's getting his ass kicked.  Everyone should do a happy dance!!