Hi-Point Pistol Armorer's class

[BillSWPA]

From the penultimate paragraph in the Week 6 update:

Good catch.

It would be interesting to know what happened when he went beyond that 200 round point as compared to prior to that point, and how he arrived at that number, since it seems to imply that he was not cleaning this often at first. Was he getting stoppages the whole time and they just started increasing at that point? Was it 100% reliable until a certain point and then stopped working?

[LSP972]

Here's another "data point".

Two years or so ago, a colleague went to the NFEA; the National Firearms Examiner Academy, hosted and administered by the ATF. This is a six-month school where the student gets immersed (slammed, really) with the various methods/etc. of the trade. IOW, detailed science. There are several involved projects one must do; in addition to selecting and writing the parameters, etc.

For her first one, my colleague chose breech face marking interpretations on the Hi-Point C9. The Firearms Examination Unit supervisor at our lab was friends with Tom Deeb, and he graciously provided one C9 barrelled frame and five different slides. All of the Hi-Point guns are blow-backs, with the barrels mounted semi-permanently to the frame.

Now, one of the sensible things ATF does on these big projects is allow someone to do the grunt work for the student, back at their home lab. I got selected for the joyful task of firing 500 rounds through that C9; 100 per slide. Those 500 cartridge cases were then sorted into an AFTE-certified test protocol. Thank goodness we weren't using the bullets; more on why in a moment.

The procedure was simple; mount a slide and shoot 100 rounds of Federal AE 115gr ball through it, dismount that slide, clean the bore with a nylon brush (actually a Glock bore brush, which I thought a bit funny), throw on some oil, mount the next slide, shoot 100 rounds through it, rinse and repeat. It took me two days, because, you know… science. I had to be meticulous in keeping everything straight.

I won't bore you with all the science stuff (and cannot talk about most of it anyway), but there are two key points here. First, I experienced very few malfunctions. Second, at the end of the test, the barrel was pretty close to being a smooth bore. I didn't get a chance to do any before/after groups, although I will say that some C9s actually print pretty well. The sheriff's office range I worked at for a while after retiring from LSP had one that we would use to shame problem shooters blaming their issue pistol. It functioned just fine, last time I shot it; and, shot from barricade supported at 25 yards, would stay in the nine ring of a B-8 center.

Anyway, we found that bore issue interesting. Sure, these guns are made of pot metal, but we talked to Tom about this afterward and he said that had to be an anamoly, he used decent steel for the barrels. We returned the barreled frame and five slides to Hi-Point, the supervisor said Tom was going to look into it, etc. I dunno what the outcome was, because I never asked due to not really giving a shit. I'll try to remember to ask next week.

So, make of that what you will. This study was published in the AFTE Journal last year, for those who might be interested and have access to that publication. I believe I even got an honorable mention as Igor The Trigger Puller…


.

[BillSWPA]

LSP972, thanks for the additional data point.

At the risk of thread drift, why was a nylon brush selected? I used to use the supplied rod and brush to clean my Glocks. I stopped after I cleaned a Glock that I had previously cleaned using the Glock cleaning supplies, and had not shot since cleaning, using a brass .38/9mm jag and a bronze brush. I got all kinds of grime out of what I had thought was a clean gun.

[LSP972]

At the risk of thread drift, why was a nylon brush selected?

Habit. When test-firing a gun to get usable bullets for forensic comparison, even using a softer-than-steel bore brush can introduce additional scratches/etc. that make the scope work that much more tedious. It won't change anything enough to alter the exam- so anybody hoping this was another CSI tip to avoid getting caught, forget it - but it can annoy the person who does the scope work… and we have enough uncontrollable annoyances as it is in this gig. This one is controllable.

So even though we weren't using the bullets, I cleaned with nylon out of habit. Agreed, bronze and/or copper brushes and solvent does wonders for a grimy/neglected bore. The test C9 was new production, proof-fired only prior to my shooting it. So that wasn't an issue here.

.

[UNK]

Great user name... Igor the Trigger Puller...I think it fits you

Here's another "data point".

Two years or so ago, a colleague went to the NFEA; the National Firearms Examiner Academy, hosted and administered by the ATF. This is a six-month school where the student gets immersed (slammed, really) with the various methods/etc. of the trade. IOW, detailed science. There are several involved projects one must do; in addition to selecting and writing the parameters, etc.

For her first one, my colleague chose breech face marking interpretations on the Hi-Point C9. The Firearms Examination Unit supervisor at our lab was friends with Tom Deeb, and he graciously provided one C9 barrelled frame and five different slides. All of the Hi-Point guns are blow-backs, with the barrels mounted semi-permanently to the frame.

Now, one of the sensible things ATF does on these big projects is allow someone to do the grunt work for the student, back at their home lab. I got selected for the joyful task of firing 500 rounds through that C9; 100 per slide. Those 500 cartridge cases were then sorted into an AFTE-certified test protocol. Thank goodness we weren't using the bullets; more on why in a moment.

The procedure was simple; mount a slide and shoot 100 rounds of Federal AE 115gr ball through it, dismount that slide, clean the bore with a nylon brush (actually a Glock bore brush, which I thought a bit funny), throw on some oil, mount the next slide, shoot 100 rounds through it, rinse and repeat. It took me two days, because, you know… science. I had to be meticulous in keeping everything straight.

I won't bore you with all the science stuff (and cannot talk about most of it anyway), but there are two key points here. First, I experienced very few malfunctions. Second, at the end of the test, the barrel was pretty close to being a smooth bore. I didn't get a chance to do any before/after groups, although I will say that some C9s actually print pretty well. The sheriff's office range I worked at for a while after retiring from LSP had one that we would use to shame problem shooters blaming their issue pistol. It functioned just fine, last time I shot it; and, shot from barricade supported at 25 yards, would stay in the nine ring of a B-8 center.

Anyway, we found that bore issue interesting. Sure, these guns are made of pot metal, but we talked to Tom about this afterward and he said that had to be an anamoly, he used decent steel for the barrels. We returned the barreled frame and five slides to Hi-Point, the supervisor said Tom was going to look into it, etc. I dunno what the outcome was, because I never asked due to not really giving a shit. I'll try to remember to ask next week.

So, make of that what you will. This study was published in the AFTE Journal last year, for those who might be interested and have access to that publication. I believe I even got an honorable mention as Igor The Trigger Puller…


.

[jh9]

Great user name... Igor the Trigger Puller...I think it fits

"It's pronounced EYE-gor."

what? no mel brooks fans here? seriously?