Remington 9mm Inconsistent Specs??

OK now I get it your comparing f150 to f350, so is a short box f150 weaker than a full size bed f 150.
all kidding aside I get what your saying a full size all steel gun is stronger than a plastic small gun. again comparing apples to walnuts.
 
Statistically speaking, all of those loads are identical. The slight velocity variations are a distinction without a difference...
 
I’m inclined to believe it is the ammunition only packaged differently. If you think about the Glock 19 has a 4” barrel and the M&P 9mm that S&W describes as full-size has a 4.25” barrel. So for a difference of 1.0” +/- it doesn’t make sense two production lines.

Don’t ask about canning factories putting different companies labels on the same line of cans
 
Find any of the various Speer reloading manuals of the past 50 years with the often-reprinted chapter "Why Ballisticians Get Gray". Good explanation of why no two firearms will ever produce identical results with the same ammo on any given day, ambient temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, or any of the other factors that can affect testing results.

Published data is a guideline at best, at worst it is only a marketing tool.
 
I tried some of the 380 compact and full size UD loads. Neither expanded worth a darn in water jug testing from a sig P238, but from recollection the normal(full size) load had slightly more flash.
I just stick to Gold dots and critical defense in my micros.
 
The only modern 9mm I've seen in the recent past that shot to factory advertised speeds has been the Winchester 1152 110gr and 1153 147gr, and the Sellier & Bellot 124gr. All three seem "hot", but none are marked +P. All shoot well in my 9mm's, just a little easier to handle in my 3913 and 6906 than my 365XL
 
From my experience in ammunition procurement in LE, manufacturers change specs, packaging and components frequently, without notification or warning. Primers, propellant, cases, pressure levels, even details of the actual projectile can vary from lot to lot, year to year. Some of it marketing driven - what they think people will buy - and some of it is driven on component availability and consistency. Sometimes it is due to differences in measuring equipment and firearms used. And they rarely announce changes, even when it impacts reliability and performance.

One well-known manufacturer changed primers and it caused misfires. Another well-known manufacturer didn't adequately control it's bullet manufacturing process, and the contract-winning projectile that did great in testing suddenly stopped expanding altogether. A third well-known manufacturer changed the velocity specs and the load no longer shot to point of aim. All without warning or notice. I could go on for an entire book.

After decades of nonsense like this, my agency specified that ANY change to the components or performance specs required notification and retesting before acceptance. But we bought tens of millions of rounds of ammo, and had the reputational position to demand that. John Q Shooter does not.

If you don't have access to a chronograph and testing media, you are relying solely on the manufacturers claims, which sometimes leave much to be desired. I prefer to "trust, but verify". When you find a lot of particular ammunition that meets your needs, BUY LOTS OF IT. It will rarely be the same thing the next time you find it.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Back
Top