Author Topic: Non-Scientific Ammo Test  (Read 29981 times)

Offline Cap.

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 40
Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
« Reply #30 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.





Offline Marine Ordnance

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • NRA Benefactor Life Member
Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
« Reply #31 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
Guns have only two enemies - rust and politicians.

Offline tracker

  • Grand Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 5391
Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
« Reply #32 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.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2009, 11:14:54 AM by tracker »

Offline tracker

  • Grand Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 5391
Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
« Reply #33 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.

Offline sdlsaginaw

  • Expert
  • ***
  • Posts: 115
Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
« Reply #34 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.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2009, 02:17:26 AM by sdlsaginaw »

Offline kinoz

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
« Reply #35 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.

Offline tracker

  • Grand Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 5391
Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
« Reply #36 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.

Offline Cap.

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 40
Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
« Reply #37 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?


Offline tracker

  • Grand Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 5391
Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
« Reply #38 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

Offline kinoz

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
« Reply #39 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.



Offline tracker

  • Grand Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 5391
Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
« Reply #40 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.

Offline kjtrains

  • Grand Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 8107
Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
« Reply #41 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.
Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it.  Abraham Lincoln

Offline tracker

  • Grand Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 5391
Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
« Reply #42 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.

Offline Marine Ordnance

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • NRA Benefactor Life Member
Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
« Reply #43 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
Guns have only two enemies - rust and politicians.

Offline tracker

  • Grand Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 5391
Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
« Reply #44 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.