Untested ammo

[sixsixnine]

Just got back from a match, and had a few ammo-related malfunctions that cost me 1st place in my class.

 

In the weeks leading up to the match, I was messing around with some new ammo combinations, and made a new 9mm minor load with some coated projos that I've never really used in the past.  They made right around 130 PF, shot pretty flat, and passed the chamber checker and 'plunk' test with flying colors, so I ran about 100 rounds through my Production gun during practice with zero issues.  All's well, right? 

 

Wrong. 100 rounds is not enough.  

 

Three times throughout the match, my slide completely locked up and I had to sit there for about 30 seconds trying to (safely) manhandle it open.  When I did finally get the round(s) to eject, all of the projectiles had areas of coating scraped off from being smashed into the chamber.  Back at the hotel that night, they all passed my little Lyman gauge, but failed the barrel 'plunk' test.  The profile of these coated bullets was so wildly inconsistent that some would chamber, and others would get stuck.  All were pretty close to the same COAL. 

 

Lesson learned:  Don't bring 'new' ammo to a match without testing the everliving shit out of it. 

 

 

Edited April 16, 2018 by sixsixnine

[Hi-Power Jack]

3 hours ago, sixsixnine said:

 new load  passed the 'plunk' test,  so I ran100 rounds through my Production gun during practice with zero issues. 

 

Back at the hotel, they passed my gauge, but failed the barrel 'plunk' test. 

 

 

The Plunk Test is done with the Barrel.

 

Did you test the cartridges before the match using a gauge ?   Or, your barrel ?

[sixsixnine]

On 4/16/2018 at 1:40 PM, Hi-Power Jack said:

Did you test the cartridges before the match using a gauge ?   Or, your barrel ?

 

Both.

 

I ran them through the Lyman gauge first, and they all passed.  

 

After that, I dropped a bunch of them in the barrel.

[StuckinMS]

I always use my barrel and I plunk every round going to a match.  There is no gauge made exactly the same as your barrels chamber.

[zs6hdv]

Although a properly sized case gauge should always be smaller than a properly sized chamber.  That is the purpose of the case gauge - to ensure that ammo is smaller than the maximum SAAMI ammo spec, and that they will fit in any chamber cut to the minimum SAAMI chamber spec (or larger).

 

When I recently switched to a Shadow 1, I immediately started experiencing failures to feed with ammo that had been plunk tested in the barrel. All the rounds that FTF in the Shadow worked flawlessly in my 1991 vintage CZ75 Pre-B model.

 

The problem was in an extremely close tolerance breech face on the Shadow. If the diameter of the rim of the case is greater than about 10.02mm (SAAMI maximum is 9.95mm), the rim does not fit under the extractor and the round does not feed. 

 

It passes the barrel plunk test (which does not measure rim size), but does not fit into my Dillon case gauge. At least 30-40% of my many-times-fired range pickup cases are affected.

[Hi-Power Jack]

8 hours ago, sixsixnine said:

 

  I dropped a bunch of them in the barrel.

 

I drop into the barrel only the ones I want to make sure don't FTF.

 

If a match is important to me (I can't even imagine vying for

first place, but that would be pretty important to me), I PLUNK

Every Round into the chamber of my gun (barrel out).

 

If it is a little close, a little sticky, I put that round into the

practice pile.

 

100% of my rounds for an important match slip and slide

Very Easily thru my chamber     

 

BTW, I also check Every Round for high or missing primers.

[toothandnail]

9 hours ago, zs6hdv said:

Although a properly sized case gauge should always be smaller than a properly sized chamber.  That is the purpose of the case gauge - to ensure that ammo is smaller than the maximum SAAMI ammo spec, and that they will fit in any chamber cut to the minimum SAAMI chamber spec (or larger).

 

 

Reminds me of 2 phone calls I got last month.

We make a .223 Wylde case gauge. 

Got 2 calls a couple days apart guys wanting to return the gauge.

Why you ask?

Because they had 3-5 rounds fail out of 2-300 checked.

[sixsixnine]

6 hours ago, Hi-Power Jack said:

 

I drop into the barrel only the ones I want to make sure don't FTF.

 

If a match is important to me (I can't even imagine vying for

first place, but that would be pretty important to me), I PLUNK

Every Round into the chamber of my gun (barrel out).

 

If it is a little close, a little sticky, I put that round into the

practice pile.

 

100% of my rounds for an important match slip and slide

Very Easily thru my chamber     

 

BTW, I also check Every Round for high or missing primers.

 

This is exactly my plan from here out. 

 

Every other load I've developed has been slicker than cat shit on linoleum when plunking it into the barrel. 

 

These particular projos seemed a little stickier than usual,  but they didn't cause issues during practice, so I decided to run them at the match.  From now on, if a load even comes close to sticking in the barrel, it's getting redeveloped.  I'll also be testing at least 500 rounds, possibly more, before trusting the ammo in an actual match.  

 

I already had trust issues, but this incident has just about given me a complex.

[sixsixnine]

13 hours ago, zs6hdv said:

Although a properly sized case gauge should always be smaller than a properly sized chamber.  That is the purpose of the case gauge - to ensure that ammo is smaller than the maximum SAAMI ammo spec, and that they will fit in any chamber cut to the minimum SAAMI chamber spec (or larger).

 

When I recently switched to a Shadow 1, I immediately started experiencing failures to feed with ammo that had been plunk tested in the barrel. All the rounds that FTF in the Shadow worked flawlessly in my 1991 vintage CZ75 Pre-B model.

 

The problem was in an extremely close tolerance breech face on the Shadow. If the diameter of the rim of the case is greater than about 10.02mm (SAAMI maximum is 9.95mm), the rim does not fit under the extractor and the round does not feed. 

 

It passes the barrel plunk test (which does not measure rim size), but does not fit into my Dillon case gauge. At least 30-40% of my many-times-fired range pickup cases are affected.

 

Interesting that your issue was on the breech face.

 

I think mine was more related to a tight chamber.

[Hi-Power Jack]

39 minutes ago, sixsixnine said:

1.  if a load even comes close to sticking in the barrel, it's getting redeveloped. 

 

2.  I'll also be testing at least 500 rounds, possibly more, before trusting the ammo in an actual match.  

 

1.  Not sure what "redeveloped" means, but I just throw them into a box market "practice only" and most of them fire just fine.

 

2.  No reason to test anywhere near that number, if you just PLUNK each and every round in your gun's chamber     

[sixsixnine]

54 minutes ago, Hi-Power Jack said:

1.  Not sure what "redeveloped" means, but I just throw them into a box market "practice only" and most of them fire just fine.

 

2.  No reason to test anywhere near that number, if you just PLUNK each and every round in your gun's chamber     

 

My issue with this specific load was the overall length.  By 'redeveloped,' I mostly mean loading it shorter, and possibly reducing the charge (if needed) in order to make power factor.

 

Plunking every round would be a good start, though.  That'll be my first step.

[jim m]

Always randomly check, especially before a match.  Good post ----- it will make me check alittle more--- .  

[pmills2001]

Somewhat similar, but on a slightly different theme, at the New England Icore match last weekend, we had 5 people not make power factor(120 for icore), in icore thats a 360 second penalty.

 

I think 4 out of 5 were shooting factory ammo that did not make power factor and they just assumed it would.  One box we tested listed velocity as 770fps,  a 158 gr bullet, best we got was around 755, which didnt cut it.

 

One of the guys ended up last place because of this, and as last place won a ruger redhawk 8 shot revolver, so at least he was happy.

[Hi-Power Jack]

I have to take up Revolver, if last place is a Redhawk    

[GrumpyOne]

Damn, I can finish last place easy! I wouldn't even have to try!

[GrumpyOne]

On 4/18/2018 at 3:28 PM, sixsixnine said:

 

My issue with this specific load was the overall length.  By 'redeveloped,' I mostly mean loading it shorter, and possibly reducing the charge (if needed) in order to make power factor.

 

Plunking every round would be a good start, though.  That'll be my first step.

Shadows are notoriously picky when it comes to OAL. Many have reamed their chambers because of it...I have not. For instance, running a MG 124 JHP in my Shadow, I had to load at 1.085...running a PD 147 FMJ RN, I load at 1.150. 

[pmills2001]

27 minutes ago, GrumpyOne said:

Damn, I can finish last place easy! I wouldn't even have to try!

Funny thing was the guy that won( last place) had finished shooting before the prize draw. The gent who won the random drawing for the revolver( is associated with I core) and decided he was going to donate the revolver to last place. 

[sixsixnine]

2 hours ago, GrumpyOne said:

Shadows are notoriously picky when it comes to OAL. Many have reamed their chambers because of it...I have not. For instance, running a MG 124 JHP in my Shadow, I had to load at 1.085...running a PD 147 FMJ RN, I load at 1.150. 

Yeah,  shortening up the OAL by a few hundredths was all it took to make the gun function flawlessly with that particular load. 

 

I had similar results with different brands of projectiles.  Those coated projos had to be loaded around 1.130" but plated worked fine out to 1.150".

 

There's no way I could justify spending money to ream the chamber when the fix is as simple as slightly cranking my seating die.

 

 

[SweetToof]

What brand coated bullets were so inconsistent? Lots of tried and true brands for coated lead out there. Blue Bullets for myself.

 

Even when I lad for practice, I'll take a random sampling out of every ~100 rounds and pop a few into the gauge. If you only get the gauge out match day you may end up overlooking an issue until it's too late. SEE BELOW

 

 

[sixsixnine]

13 minutes ago, SweetToof said:

What brand coated bullets were so inconsistent? Lots of tried and true brands for coated lead out there. Blue Bullets for myself.

 

Even when I lad for practice, I'll take a random sampling out of every ~100 rounds and pop a few into the gauge. If you only get the gauge out match day you may end up overlooking an issue until it's too late. SEE BELOW

 

 

 

I saw your other thread about that random .22 case.  That's crazy.  

 

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that it wasn't so much a manufacturing issue with the projectiles, but rather my own error in not loading them short enough for my CZ.  I'd never used that particular projectile before, and didn't order enough of them to really do enough reliability or accuracy testing with them.  Basically just loaded up 100 and compared the recoil impulse to my usual minor load.

 

Ever since, I've been loading Ibejiheads (both 9mm and .40) with zero issues.

 

The lesson I learned was to just suck it up and plunk test every round before a big match. 

[SweetToof]

41 minutes ago, sixsixnine said:

 

 

 

The lesson I learned was to just suck it up and plunk test every round before a big match. 

 I like to make my girlfriend drive so I can plunk on the way to the match