Author Topic: Non-Scientific Ammo Test  (Read 30181 times)

Offline mefly2

  • Sharpshooter
  • **
  • Posts: 58
Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
« Reply #45 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.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2009, 02:40:14 PM by meflyjeep »

Offline tracker

  • Grand Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 5391
Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
« Reply #46 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.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2009, 07:17:04 PM by tracker »

Offline jetboater

  • Expert
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
« Reply #47 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
« Last Edit: October 23, 2009, 10:58:49 PM by jetboater »

Offline tracker

  • Grand Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 5391
Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
« Reply #48 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.

Offline tracker

  • Grand Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 5391
Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
« Reply #49 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.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2009, 06:49:26 PM by tracker »

Offline kjtrains

  • Grand Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 8107
Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
« Reply #50 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.
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 #51 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.

Offline tracker

  • Grand Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 5391
Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
« Reply #52 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.

Offline kjtrains

  • Grand Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 8107
Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
« Reply #53 on: October 30, 2009, 01:51:12 PM »
Sounds like a good event.  What make was the 1911?
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 #54 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.

Offline kjtrains

  • Grand Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 8107
Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
« Reply #55 on: October 30, 2009, 04:56:11 PM »
Excellent.  I do like Springfields.
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 Cap.

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 40
Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
« Reply #56 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.

Offline Marine Ordnance

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • NRA Benefactor Life Member
Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
« Reply #57 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
Guns have only two enemies - rust and politicians.

Offline tracker

  • Grand Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 5391
Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
« Reply #58 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.

Offline jetboater

  • Expert
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
« Reply #59 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!!!!!!!!!!!