http://www.lightfighter.net/forum/ba...le-performance
http://pistol-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?19-Ammunition
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/07/07/ju3u5ybu.jpg
Printable View
http://www.lightfighter.net/forum/ba...le-performance
http://pistol-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?19-Ammunition
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/07/07/ju3u5ybu.jpg
The inconsistent performance of the Q4355 (lot# WCC07-1) through four layers of denim was highly unexpected. The first 2 shots through denim failed to expand, then the next three opened up; as a result of the inconsistent performance, we elected to shoot an additional 5 shots, resulting in 2 more failures, 2 good shots, then another failure. The bizarre performance made averaging the 4LD results difficult. Additional testing with a new lot is warranted...[/QUOTE]
The testing results, above, certainly begs the question: "Why did the FBI choose the Q4355/RA40B (exact same ammo per Paul Novak of Winchester)?
I had conjectured it might be because of more consistent performance through barriers (plywood, sheet rock, sheet metal, and auto glass), which is somewhat irrelevant to civilian personal defense.
I located some RA40B ammo simply because it might help a bit in a court should I ever--God forbid--be forced to deploy my "personal defense appliance." The denim results, above, have me considering going back to RA40T ammo.
Any thoughts, Doc?
I have to question this a bit because the Q4364 (9mm 147-gr) is very different from the RA9B. In comparing the samples I have of each, the projectiles are completely different between the two and the Q4364 is effectively a +P, although the cases aren't stamped as such.Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckskinJoe
RA40B was changed across the board to Q4355, the latter being developed specifically for the FBI test.
And unless you can provide some pressure data showing otherwise, it's highly unlikely that Winchester is producing +p pressure ammo and putting it in a non-+p case. This would violate SAAMI, and the FBI ammo procurement specifically required that all submissions conform to SAAMI specifications.
I spoke with Paul Novak, Sr. Tech. Spc. at the Winchester plant in East Alton, IL, via telephone, right after he returned from the Shot Show. He told me, very specifically, that Q4355 and current RA40B are exactly the same ammunition, with the Q4355 designation being used for Winchester's Federal Government contracts. If that is not correct, then Mr. Novak misinformed me.Quote:
Originally Posted by RWK
I did not ask, and he did not speak to Q4364 vs. RA9B.
Stupid question: Is the HST the right-most bullet in the pic? I assume it's used as a control?
HST on the right--it is the current duty load and was used as a reference and comparison load during this round of testing.
I don't have pressure data but, I did call Winchester on it because the boxes are labeled as +P but, the cases are not stamped +P. I was told that the boxes were indeed labeled by Winchester, that the +P rating is correct even though the cases weren't stamped as such. Mixed signals from Winchester? Maybe. I did the Google and discovered that there seems to be a bit of a dust-up over some "ZQ4364" that was let into the wild by Winchester. Some talk about it being "contract" ammo that is made to a different spec.Quote:
Originally Posted by ToddG
Doc, have you had a chance to run any .45 ACP of the Winchester Ranger Bonded through any tests?
I stand corrected, then! Depending on whom you ask, some manufacturers always use +p brass it just might not always be marked +p, so I wouldn't immediately be concerned that there is a problem with the ammo in question. And if it's marked and marketed as +p, that's a clue. Again, my bad ... thanks for the info!Quote:
Originally Posted by RWK