The ammo you have is the RA9SXTC and not the RA9T. Testing protocol aside, that is likely part of the problem.
The ammo you have is the RA9SXTC and not the RA9T. Testing protocol aside, that is likely part of the problem.
Doing a quick google search I couldn’t find the difference? Can you share what the difference is?Originally Posted by SWAT Lt.
Should it ? Yes.
But keep this in perspective. It’s not going to get you “killed in the streets.”
As noted Winchester and Remington have had poor QC compared to ATK/Speer and Hornady for the past decade. However, my primary concern about Winchester QC is whether or not the round fires, not whether or not a JHP expands.
I’ve seen enough people shot that I don’t believe in “magic bullets.” Shot placement is FAR more important.
Modern JHP performance is preferable but not essential.
How many people were killed in WWII with 9mm JHP ? Zero. Yet there are literally cemeteries full of people killed with 9mm FMJ.
I totally agree! It’s just if I have a bullet that I’m confident will expand (hst), I’d rather use that
My concern would be that QC issues in one aspect (bullets) may carry over to QC in their other aspects of ammo manufacturing like primers, case sizing etc which would effect functional reliability of the rounds themselves.
This is the real problem. There is a reason a bunch of that load was dumped on the market a while back. Not sure if it's an older bullet design, closer to the old Black Talon, or what, but it sucks. The talk about bad lots and poor QC really applied to only a small range of Winchester ammo.
I've shot and carried a bunch of RA9T, and have never had issues with expansion when I've done my own redneck "tests"... but all of my stash was older tan box stuff that was made when Winchester was better with QC.
I bought 250 rounds of this 147-grain Ranger T RA9SXTC because the sale was outstanding. Later research led me to regret that decision somewhat and believe that if I wanted cheap ammo I'd have been better served just sticking with the crate of Hornady XTP 124 +P I got, which might have suboptimal expansion and overpenetrate a bit but is still a reliable expander. It's a functional JHP but outdated. I got suckered in by "T Series" without doing my homework closely enough and basically ended up with Hydra-Shok. Fortunately I have enough 147-grain HST on hand for my frontline stuff, but way less than I'd prefer.
I still think in all likelihood the round will work fine, but for me the SXTC and XTP are just placeholders until I can find affordable 124 +P Gold Dot or 147-grain HST in pallet-sized quantities again. Then they become backup stash and/or expensive range ammo. If it was my only round I wouldn't fret too much, it's still likely to run and put holes in stuff.
At the risk of being laughed out of the room for still liking and shooting .40 decently frequently, I've always thought the .40 has a much better selection of so-so rounds that are actually still pretty excellent terminal performers. Older 9mm seems very heavily dependent on velocity envelope to function. For a comparison point, I was able to buy Winchester Ranger Bonded 180-grain - which is on Doc's list and is a proven street performer - even cheaper than this SXTC.
Anyway, I digress. Easiest route I recommend is the one I just took: accept you bought a JHP that is outdated but probably fine enough in the short term, don' t buy any more, use it as a placeholder, and wait until you can locate a good price on HST, Gold Dot, or RA9T.
State Government Attorney | Beretta, Glock, CZ & S&W Fan
It could be rejected ammo that failed terminal performance testing by a law enforcement agency, which somehow ended up in the consumer marketplace.
If you buy 50 rd boxes of law enforcement ammo then buy it directly from a reputable law enforcement distributor or you could be buying rejected ammo.
Usually reject lots are sold in alternative/contract packaging for that reason, not commercial packaging. It's bad for business. Combined with the design of the Winchester bullets and their historical propensity in general for QA issues with the skiiving depth, I get the impression that what you wrote is improbable.
Do you have evidence of Winchester knowingly selling contract reject lots in regular production commercial packaging?
"Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer
All the reject duty ammo I’ve seen sold has been loose bull packed for the reasons @TGS cited.
Not to mention many LE distributions are contractually restricted from selling 50 round box LE ammo to non LE.
Reply With Quote