Author Topic: Non-Scientific Ammo Test  (Read 30171 times)

Offline kjtrains

  • Grand Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 8107
Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
« Reply #60 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.
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 #61 on: November 03, 2009, 10:44:12 PM »

This is nice discussion but it is just obfuscation.

Offline jetboater

  • Expert
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
« Reply #62 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!!!!!

Offline Marine Ordnance

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • NRA Benefactor Life Member
Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
« Reply #63 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.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2009, 02:03:51 PM by Marine_Ordnance »
Guns have only two enemies - rust and politicians.

Offline Cap.

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 40
Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
« Reply #64 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?


Offline tracker

  • Grand Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 5391
Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
« Reply #65 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.

Offline kjtrains

  • Grand Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 8107
Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
« Reply #66 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.
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 #67 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.


Offline Marine Ordnance

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • NRA Benefactor Life Member
 I was not informed oRe: Non-Scientific Ammo
« Reply #68 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
Guns have only two enemies - rust and politicians.

Offline tracker

  • Grand Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 5391
Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
« Reply #69 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.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2009, 04:08:45 PM by tracker »

Offline kjtrains

  • Grand Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 8107
Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
« Reply #70 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.
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 #71 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!  :)


Offline tracker

  • Grand Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 5391
Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
« Reply #72 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.

Offline Marine Ordnance

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • NRA Benefactor Life Member
Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
« Reply #73 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
« Last Edit: December 10, 2009, 03:24:41 AM by Marine_Ordnance »
Guns have only two enemies - rust and politicians.

Offline kjtrains

  • Grand Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 8107
Re: Non-Scientific Ammo Test
« Reply #74 on: December 10, 2009, 08:44:48 AM »
Thanks, Bill, for the report.
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