Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

9mm Ultralight barrel reliability


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, philmadxx said:

Texaspaul - thanks - that's a lot of good info.  

Matt - I sometimes shoot flatnose 147g for falling steel matches - have you tried those?  

 

Question - The Taccom barrels have "extreme feed" ramps - basically an extension of the bottom of the barrel - I see what this does - make sense.  What I don't understand is why does this barrel need the extended feed ramp when other barrels without this feature feed 100%.  And if it is so effective, what is the purpose of the "super feed" ramp recently (I think) introduced?  The guns I am most familiar with are the JP and the MBX, I know the JP doesn't have extensions and I'm 99% sure the MBX doesn't either.  I've not seen either fail.  A friend shoots a Palmetto based gun with a Faxon (not sure) barrel and it is also rock solid.  Is the ramp needed or just overkill (which I appreciate)?

 

Phil

As for ramped barrels.....I believe that TACCOM and Shooting Innovations are the only ones that make a ramped barrel. There are a few companies that make lowers with built in ramps.....Lead Star being one of them. TACCOM is the only company that makes the upper 'hood' on the barrel.

We all know that round nose bullets are king as a rule for reliable feeding......yes, the relationship between the mag and barrel is key as well as spring pressure for a good bullet presentation. The bad news is tolerance can make for bad things to happen. Due to the fact that there is a .200" gap between the back of the barrel and the front of the magazine allows for the rounds to most commonly nose drive into the back of the barrel......and sometimes over shoot the chamber and jam up either in the charge handle or again, into the back of the barrel. What TACCOM did (and others) by doing the feed ramp is to eliminate the possibility for the round to nose dive into the back of the barrel.....increasing reliability. And with adding the 'hood', TACCOm took it one step farther.......is it all needed? mmmmmmaybe, maybe not.....if your AR9 is running 100%.....why change? Can you get a none ramped barrel to function, absolutely!! It may or may not take a little more, but there are plenty of people out there to help. You can even retro fit a feed ramp in to most AR9 uppers if you have a problem child.

 

Addressing the hood question.....1911's all have a hood and it is the for one reason.....to keep the round from over shooting the chamber, it is not there to align the barrel.....that is done in frame, not the slide. There are also other semi-auto pistols that have the hood as well.....you may even have some examples in your safe. Like I mentioned earlier......the Ruger PC Carbine even has a hood and they are pretty well known in those circles to feed just about any bullet style. the Ar9, for the most part is pretty reliable.....adding a feed ramp and a hood do nothing but increase the reliability. Little side testimony, When I got in to the game, I bought an NFA lower and for the life of me I could not get that thing to feed at all, the mags were way to loose.......so I set it aside. It was that lower (as well as QC10, Spikes, etc.), with a crappy South Korean drum (another POS that didn't function right), that we used it testing the reliability of the super feed option on the TACCOM barrels.....that lower is now being used (with 100% reliability) in competition today.

Edited by TRUBL
Link to post
15 hours ago, Matt1911 said:

Taccom ULW has been 100% for me as long as I'm using RN ammo. HP's just don't agree with it, of course mine is the older model without a ramp.

 

I had the same issue with JHP it was a horrible relationship for me, but eversince Tim introduced the super feed, it has solved my issues, home life has been great again : ).

Tim at Taccom is a great guy, easy to talk to and a beautiful mind.  It doesn't hurt that his stuff is reasonably priced when he could easily mark it up.

 

I have JP and Taccom barrels (super feed) both work well with JHP.

 

To the OP: you have a JP lower, so take note, unless anything has changed in the last year you will need a JP bolt or else you will not be able to seat a magazine with a JP lower + Taccom bolt.  Suggestion, buy a Taccom ULW super feed barrel if you want to save money and send a JP bolt to Tim to mill the notch for the super feed ramp.  Or you could just get a JP ULW barrel if you want to.   

 

Edited by Sniperboy
Link to post
12 hours ago, Sniperboy said:

 

To the OP: you have a JP lower, so take note, unless anything has changed in the last year you will need a JP bolt or else you will not be able to seat a magazine with a JP lower + Taccom bolt.  Suggestion, buy a Taccom ULW super feed barrel if you want to save money and send a JP bolt to Tim to mill the notch for the super feed ramp.  Or you could just get a JP ULW barrel if you want to.   

 

 

Thanks Sniper - I plan on staying with my JP bolt - was planning to build just a swapable upper - and reuse my bolt, charge handle, etc.  Not really a fan of notching my bolt.  

 

Thanks for the information - I probably would have missed the bolt mod issue.  

 

Time to S*** or get off the pot - decision tomorrow.  

 

Thanks everyone.  

 

Phil 

Link to post
8 hours ago, philmadxx said:

 

Thanks Sniper - I plan on staying with my JP bolt - was planning to build just a swapable upper - and reuse my bolt, charge handle, etc.  Not really a fan of notching my bolt.  

 

Thanks for the information - I probably would have missed the bolt mod issue.  

 

Time to S*** or get off the pot - decision tomorrow.  

 

Thanks everyone.  

 

Phil 

Notching the bolt will not make the bolt any weaker......and if will not affect the use of the bolt in a non super feed barrel.

Link to post

I have one of the earlier ULW with about 15k through it, it has the smaller ramp not the newer style.  I've had no issues running RMR 124gr JHP through it and it's an awfully blunt tipped bullet.

 

Tim/Taccom are great!

 

I have been tempted to try out another barrel they have just to see if I like it.  I wish they had the older style 13/16 barrel as I don't care for the looks of the newer ones.

Link to post

Montana gold 115 gr JHP bullets also ran fine in my old Taccom barrel. It just wouldn't run the 95 gr bullets which are loaded to 61 Power factor. That was my  motivation to go to superfeed barrels.

Link to post

@JohnnyD & @tomv if I may ask, what lower receiver and what bolt were you using when you were using the old Taccom barrel and had no issues with JHP?  Not relevant now with the cool new super feed but was curious for educational purposes.

 

JHP bullet overall length would be usefull too if you have that handy : )

Edited by Sniperboy
Link to post

I was using a PWA pre ban lower receiver with a Stern defense mag adapter, a JP bolt, JP SCS buffer and the old style Taccom shrouded barrel. The barrel is all that I've changed.

 

The old configuration would feed the 115 gr MG JHP just fine but I that bullet has a relatively long, pointy tip and was seated to 1.135" COAL.

 

The 95gr MG JHP, which wouldn't feed, has a short fat profile and needs to be seated to 1.085 to retain the bullet.  The shorter length also contributed to the feeding problem.

Link to post
2 hours ago, Sniperboy said:

@JohnnyD & @tomv if I may ask, what lower receiver and what bolt were you using when you were using the old Taccom barrel and had no issues with JHP?  Not relevant now with the cool new super feed but was curious for educational purposes.

 

Taccom Extreme Bolt (it was a complete ULW upper that I bought) on a PSA lower.

Link to post
22 hours ago, JohnnyD said:

I have been tempted to try out another barrel they have just to see if I like it.  I wish they had the older style 13/16 barrel as I don't care for the looks of the newer ones.

The new brake on the 1316 pretty much duplicates the design of the brake on the 1016 (only lots shorter)........while a radical looking design, it's been proven to be more efficient that the previous design.....really utilizes all the gas possible.

Link to post
3 hours ago, TRUBL said:

The new brake on the 1316 pretty much duplicates the design of the brake on the 1016 (only lots shorter)........while a radical looking design, it's been proven to be more efficient that the previous design.....really utilizes all the gas possible.

 

I wish the 10/16 barrel had no vents up to the point where the 13/16 does, in other words, a long tube to the last three inches, then the vents. I have a homemade 10/16 barrel (I squibbed it, and shot three more times, but the bulges were in the last 3", so I cut it at the end of the gas block space and pinned & welded a 3/4" ID aluminum tube in place) and love the way it shoots. I have your 13/16, would have bought the 10/16 if the vents mimicked the 13/16. Does any of this make sense?

Link to post

Decided to take the path of least resistance - ordered the JP ultralight and associated upper.  Just seemed to be the least finicky.  If it feeds as good as my 14.5, I'll be ecstatic!  Thank you everyone for  your input - helped a lot.  

 

Now to order the smoke PCC handguard - unless someone wants to talk me out of that!  Should be much lighter - hopefully red dot bounce won't be too bad.  

 

Thank you everyone.

Phil 

Link to post
On 7/25/2020 at 12:38 PM, philmadxx said:

Decided to take the path of least resistance - ordered the JP ultralight and associated upper.  Just seemed to be the least finicky.  If it feeds as good as my 14.5, I'll be ecstatic!  Thank you everyone for  your input - helped a lot.  

 

Now to order the smoke PCC handguard - unless someone wants to talk me out of that!  Should be much lighter - hopefully red dot bounce won't be too bad.  

 

Thank you everyone.

Phil 

You do know that you could have ordered a complete.....reliable feeding taccom upper with bolt, for less......It would ship Monday and you'd probably have it for the next weekend.

 

Edited by TRUBL
Link to post
On 7/25/2020 at 11:16 AM, robertg5322 said:

 

I wish the 10/16 barrel had no vents up to the point where the 13/16 does, in other words, a long tube to the last three inches, then the vents. I have a homemade 10/16 barrel (I squibbed it, and shot three more times, but the bulges were in the last 3", so I cut it at the end of the gas block space and pinned & welded a 3/4" ID aluminum tube in place) and love the way it shoots. I have your 13/16, would have bought the 10/16 if the vents mimicked the 13/16. Does any of this make sense?

none......what you are saying is make a 1016 like a 1316 and that would be silly

Link to post
30 minutes ago, TRUBL said:

You do know that you could have ordered a complete.....reliable feeding taccom upper with bolt, for less......It would ship Monday and you'd probably have it for the next weekend.

 

Yes - I am aware that the Taccom is less expensive.  Cost was only one factor in my decision.  

 

Thanks

Phil 

Link to post
1 hour ago, TRUBL said:

none......what you are saying is make a 1016 like a 1316 and that would be silly

I'm saying make it a 10" barrel with a lightweight shroud for the remaining 6". If you want to cut compensator like ports on it, fine. 

 

I have a homemade 10/16 barrel that I made to repair a 16" barrel that squibbed & bulged in the last 3", it's got an aluminum shroud fit over the gas block spot (it's an M4 profile barrel) for the remaining 6". 

 

If you're saying your 10/16 wouldn't be any lighter than the 13/16 if the ports were the same as the 13/16 barrel, then I agree it would be silly. But if you could use a lighter shroud, and make the last 6" of barrel lightweight, it would be a good option. 

 

It's been my experience that you lose very little velocity cutting a barrel from 16" to 10". So offering three options, 14.5" pinned & welded comp to 16", 13/16 exactly how yours is (not complaining about this, it's nice, and weights about the same as my cut 16" with aluminum shroud), and 10/16 with normal ports mimicking a compensator at the end of a barrel, so you can use a 13" or 14" handguard. Essentially the last 6" (plus required overlap for pinning & welding) is lightweight material, with ports cut where a normal compensator would be on a pinned & welded 14.5" barrel.

 

It's harder to make this make sense on a keyboard than in person, sorry if it sounds like I'm rambling..

Link to post

Basically Robert is saying to have a 10/16 barrel without cuts (or more to the point, move the "compensator cuts" further down the line) on it so a longer handguard can be used. 

 

The 10/16 shroud is magnetic, so its not aluminum.  Therefore if there are less cuts then it's going to be heavier, possibly negating the weight savings??  I think this is what may be lost in transmission.

 

Link to post
13 minutes ago, Sniperboy said:

Basically Robert is saying to have a 10/16 barrel without cuts (or more to the point, move the "compensator cuts" further down the line) on it so a longer handguard can be used. 

 

The 10/16 shroud is magnetic, so its not aluminum.  Therefore if there are less cuts then it's going to be heavier, possibly negating the weight savings??  I think this is what may be lost in transmission.

 

Yeah, it's  a moot point for me, I have the 13/16 barrel, and have no complaints about it. Maybe a lighter shroud for the last 6" on a 10" barrel would be an idea...

 

Link to post

Other than a 5.5/16 barrel and of course my 14.5 pin/weld, the only other shorter than 16" 9mm I've had a chance to shoot was a 10" - no shroud,  just a shorter barrel - an SBR.  That shot really well but I don't think it was giving the same advantage as the 5.5/16 - which, in my mind, is not just the weight savings, but moving the center of the mass of the gun further back.  Does the shrouded 10/16 or 13/16 do that enough to make a difference - I shot those a while ago and there are too many variables with ammo, etc.

 

Would be nice to get a bunch of different sizes together for a side by side comparison. 

 

It seems the velocity difference might be a factor but according to http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/9luger.html , the difference between 5" to 10" is about 87 fps (115g Fed JHP) and 115 fps jumping to 13" from 5".  Is that significant?  I confess I shoot mostly commercial ammo, I don't reload so maybe you guys are exploiting the barrel length to gain power factor.  

 

Phil

Link to post

I get it......but the 1016 really makes use of the gas. I'd like to go even lighter, aluminum is possible, if I can steel pin it and cover weld aluminum, but that is difficult to a point. Ti is an option but it will drive the cost up. In the end, I'd still have the ports where they are......so it comes down to making a hand guard that still allows for the guys to grab out farther and still allow for the ports to work where they are at.......and THAT is the fun part!! It's possible and we are looking at it.

Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...