Let's talk about vetting carry ammo

[PX4 Storm Tracker]

I am starting to wonder if the QC from Federal, Speer, CCI, etc. has decreased since Vista bought them. When ATK was running the show the ammunition always seemed to exude more consistent performance. Now, it seems performance is different from lot to lot. Obviously I’m just hypothesizing, to prove this would require a fairly extensive testing of various lots of the same product numbers, which aren’t readily available now.

I have had the opportunity to observe a larger sampling of ammunition in the Federal Champion 45, 230 grain ball. I shoot about 900 rounds per week and have used the Federal Champion for nearly 100k rounds.

Lately there have been inconsistencies where some rounds are fire breathing and more stout and quite a few rounds have the bullet set back too far to function or be safe. Lately Federal Champion has been like a box of chocolates...

I am currently using PMC or S&B FMJs and am finding more consistency. However, the S&B are little more smokey and the PMC are far more smokey and stinky.

Fortunately, I had a good supply of Federal Premium HSTs in all calibers before the quality control diminished.

In 9 mm the Federal Champions have seemed a little bit weak, but also the Fiocchis have produced squibs.

[spence]

I am starting to wonder if the QC from Federal, Speer, CCI, etc. has decreased since Vista bought them. When ATK was running the show the ammunition always seemed to exude more consistent performance. Now, it seems performance is different from lot to lot. Obviously I’m just hypothesizing, to prove this would require a fairly extensive testing of various lots of the same product numbers, which aren’t readily available now.

I've seen a bunch of chrono work on YouTube, and while I find value in the efforts of others, I decided that I wanted to run about every load I could get my hands on through the same 4-5 barrels. I could have saved myself some time, the biggest thing I concluded was it's often the maker of the barrel, not the length of it, that really drives velocity. I think that series had 27 FMJ loads in it. I was indeed very curious at some of the results. 9mm Champion chronographed hotter than just about anything at like 1170, but i believe it was more of a fluke because it's not that good now.


I was also surprised just how low the numbers were a couple places.

[Hot Cereal]

In 9 mm the Federal Champions have seemed a little bit weak, but also the Fiocchis have produced squibs.

Funny you say that about Fiocchi. I bought three boxes of 9AP just to see how I liked them and I had a FtFire with one. I concluded the primer was set too deep which resulted in a light strike. Pistol was a Beretta APX.

Thus far the most consistent 9mm ammo I have experienced has been Hornady Critical Duty 135 +P. I’m just not convinced the load is worth it given the mediocre expansion and barrel length pickiness it suffers from. Those bullets seem very velocity dependent, so much so I question why Hornady even sells the standard pressure version. I would find it logistically annoying to be required to use a different load in pistols with sub ~3.7 inch barrels to ensure performance. That said, I would like to try the 124 +P version in both service and subcompact barrels.

[JBP55]

Funny you say that about Fiocchi. I bought three boxes of 9AP just to see how I liked them and I had a FtFire with one. I concluded the primer was set too deep which resulted in a light strike. Pistol was a Beretta APX.

Thus far the most consistent 9mm ammo I have experienced has been Hornady Critical Duty 135 +P. I’m just not convinced the load is worth it given the mediocre expansion and barrel length pickiness it suffers from. Those bullets seem very velocity dependent, so much so I question why Hornady even sells the standard pressure version. I would find it logistically annoying to be required to use a different load in pistols with sub ~3.7 inch barrels to ensure performance. That said, I would like to try the 124 +P version in both service and subcompact barrels.

If you want better expansion try 124gr. HST.

[Hot Cereal]

If you want better expansion try 124gr. HST.

That’s what I use now.

[PX4 Storm Tracker]

... That said, I would like to try the 124 +P version in both service and subcompact barrels.

In 9 mm we use the HST 124 +P. The unscientific testing that we have done with the SubCompact 3" barrel and Ruger LC9 3" barrel has been encouraging. Hydra-Shoks & FMJs were used as control loads.

In the LC9 we use the standard velocity and it does open up very well. With the +P in the SubCompact PX4 it opens even better. We have always had consistent results.

[Hot Cereal]

In 9 mm we use the HST 124 +P. The unscientific testing that we have done with the SubCompact 3" barrel and Ruger LC9 3" barrel has been encouraging. Hydra-Shoks & FMJs were used as control loads.

In the LC9 will use the standard velocity and it does open up very well. With the +P in the SubCompact PX4 it opens even better. We have always had consistent results.

What kind of velocity were you getting from the +P and standard pressure? In the standard pressure I notice negligible difference in velocity between a 3.1in Shield barrel and 3.7in APX barrel (1050fps). When shooting it through a polygonal rifled P2000 barrel the speed increased 30fps to 1080fps. Even a Glock 17.2 barrel barely yielded an average of 1100fps and if I had chosen to shoot 10 instead of 5 rounds I suspect the average would have been 1085-1095fps. The Federal AE9AP also averaged similar numbers, being about 20-30fps slower than the HST in each barrel length. I thought this was a considerable performance decrease. I expect to see 1050fps or so from the short barrel of the Shield, though I was expecting a bit closer to 1075fps. In the Beretta APX/HK P2000 I was expecting results closer to 1100-1125fps, given the load is specified to produce 1150fps from a 4in barrel.

Another factor I can’t overlook- while bullets shot informally into water filled 2L soda bottles did expand, they only penetrated 2 bottles. While this is unscientific and not able to be quantified, in a rudimentary fashion I can compare that to the penetration I received from 165gr HST (.40), which penetrated 3 2L soda bottles, and 135gr +P Critical Duty which penetrates nearly 16inches of informal wet-pack. Before the ammo crunch started I planned to order some more ammo and some clear ballistics gel (I know it isn’t ‘true ballistics gel’, but it’s a consistent medium against which to measure multiple projectiles.) and test them all again.

After my informal testing I assisted a friend with dispatching a troubled ground hog and was quite pleased with the performance the 124 standard pressure HST exhibited. I was not able to recover the bullet. With the results of my informal and unscientific testing I have penetration concerns related to the 124 HST standard pressure. These concerns have not caused me to cease carrying it, more the ammodemic has provided me with little alternative. I prefer the penetration capability of Critical Duty, but do not want the logistical issue of not being able to effectively use that bullet in the Shield or APX/P2000. All my testing of that bullet was from a Glock 17.2.

[PX4 Storm Tracker]

What kind of velocity were you getting from the +P and standard pressure? In the standard pressure I notice negligible difference in velocity between a 3.1in Shield barrel and 3.7in APX barrel (1050fps). When shooting it through a polygonal rifled P2000 barrel the speed increased 30fps to 1080fps. Even a Glock 17.2 barrel barely yielded an average of 1100fps and if I had chosen to shoot 10 instead of 5 rounds I suspect the average would have been 1085-1095fps. The Federal AE9AP also averaged similar numbers, being about 20-30fps slower than the HST in each barrel length. I thought this was a considerable performance decrease. I expect to see 1050fps or so from the short barrel of the Shield, though I was expecting a bit closer to 1075fps. In the Beretta APX/HK P2000 I was expecting results closer to 1100-1125fps, given the load is specified to produce 1150fps from a 4in barrel.

Another factor I can’t overlook- while bullets shot informally into water filled 2L soda bottles did expand, they only penetrated 2 bottles. While this is unscientific and not able to be quantified, in a rudimentary fashion I can compare that to the penetration I received from 165gr HST (.40), which penetrated 3 2L soda bottles, and 135gr +P Critical Duty which penetrates nearly 16inches of informal wet-pack. Before the ammo crunch started I planned to order some more ammo and some clear ballistics gel (I know it isn’t ‘true ballistics gel’, but it’s a consistent medium against which to measure multiple projectiles.) and test them all again.

After my informal testing I assisted a friend with dispatching a troubled ground hog and was quite pleased with the performance the 124 standard pressure HST exhibited. I was not able to recover the bullet. With the results of my informal and unscientific testing I have penetration concerns related to the 124 HST standard pressure. These concerns have not caused me to cease carrying it, more the ammodemic has provided me with little alternative. I prefer the penetration capability of Critical Duty, but do not want the logistical issue of not being able to effectively use that bullet in the Shield or APX/P2000. All my testing of that bullet was from a Glock 17.2.

I do not have a chronograph available. By calculations, if the HST 124 +P starts at 1,200 fps from a 4" barrel, I approximate about 1,150 or a little less from a 3" barrel. Standard velocity loads should be 90% of that, based on definition.

In one test using gallon water jugs it penetrated through two and the bullet stayed in the third.

At the ranch, dispatching livestock for butchering it always gave a one shot termination.

A gunsmith friend of mine uses HST in 45 for hog hunting. He was amazed at how a one shot kill was the normal, which he had not experienced with other 45 loads.

[spence]

Funny you say that about Fiocchi. I bought three boxes of 9AP just to see how I liked them and I had a FtFire with one. I concluded the primer was set too deep which resulted in a light strike. Pistol was a Beretta APX.

Thus far the most consistent 9mm ammo I have experienced has been Hornady Critical Duty 135 +P. I’m just not convinced the load is worth it given the mediocre expansion and barrel length pickiness it suffers from. Those bullets seem very velocity dependent, so much so I question why Hornady even sells the standard pressure version. I would find it logistically annoying to be required to use a different load in pistols with sub ~3.7 inch barrels to ensure performance. That said, I would like to try the 124 +P version in both service and subcompact barrels.

In all the thousands of rounds I've launched from 92's, I've only had one failure to fire due to a light strike, and I'm not blaming the gun or ammo, but on fluke. It was a Magtech round. However, I ran a bunch of Fiocchi for a while, and I had several blown primers with it, I believe. Like three or four of them in a couple thousand rounds.

That said, I don't know that I'd expect to see much difference in velocity from another mfr 3.1" to a Beretta 3.7". In my tests, the 3.3" PX4 compact netted the same or a bit less than the 3" PF9 barrel. I was somewhat disappointed by this. I also shot a 4" XD, 4.3" 92, and 4.9" 92 barrels. The 4.3" Beretta typically chronoed less than the 4" XD, and the 4.9" was pretty on par with the XD. At that time, I had a Wolf threaded 5" Glock barrel, and while it didn't shoot the majority of the test, what I did run through it, it ran 100 fps over the 4.9" Beretta.

If I had a couple hundred rounds to chuck for the hell of it, I've got a bunch of different pistols I did not have at the time. I'd be curious as to how the whole heap compare. The only JHP load I sent across the chronograph was my carry load, 147 gr Ranger Bonded. Box velocity is 995. M9's 4.9" was 988fps, 4.3" compact was 913, IIRC.

I haven't shot any jugs with the stuff yet. I used the Winchester Defend for a while because that was what I could get locally, and it lacked the velocity to get good expansion. It chronoed 850 from the PX4 compact.

[Hot Cereal]

That said, I don't know that I'd expect to see much difference in velocity from another mfr 3.1" to a Beretta 3.7".

True. Barrels all have their own identity. I think my APX has a “slow” barrel. I was more surprised the 124 HST ran as slow as it did from everything than the lack of any performance difference between the two.