View Full Version : Why do they still make/sell outdated bullet technology?
The first thing I do after deciding on a new firearm is decide what to use for HD/SD ammunition. When I first got into firearms for personal defense, I found the AR15.com/Firearms Tactical article that pretty much laid out what "worked" vs. what "didn't".
Obviously, the ammunition industry is always trying to improve their products as we see new stuff all the time. My question is :Why do they still produce ammo that is less effective?
You don't see Chevy simultaneously producing 1986, 1996, 2006 and 2014 models of the Impala do you? Does anyone make anything but flat-screen TVs? Does Intel still make 386 processors?
Yet we have ammo companies who continue to produce products with 20-30 year old technology. In the same grains, Federal has LE JHP, Hi-Shock, Hydra-Shock and HST. The older models don't pass "professional standards" at all. How many different lines of the same caliber do the other companies have?
This doesn't even include *all* the 115gr 9mm loads that don't "pass". How people load up their 9mm w/115gr WWB JHP and feel remotely safe is beyond me. I'd rather carry Ball @that point.
I know their price points are different, but if they only sold what "works" wouldn't they streamline and save money?
1st question is "Why?". My second question is: Is it deceitful to sell ammunition that they know may not perform its intended job?
All these re-sellers on Armslist and GunTrader selling 115 gr Hi-Shock for SD really kinda worries me.
Thanks!
They sell them because ignorant people still purchase them...
The first thing I do after deciding on a new firearm is decide what to use for HD/SD ammunition. When I first got into firearms for personal defense, I found the AR15.com/Firearms Tactical article that pretty much laid out what "worked" vs. what "didn't".
Obviously, the ammunition industry is always trying to improve their products as we see new stuff all the time. My question is :Why do they still produce ammo that is less effective?
You don't see Chevy simultaneously producing 1986, 1996, 2006 and 2014 models of the Impala do you? Does anyone make anything but flat-screen TVs? Does Intel still make 386 processors?
Yet we have ammo companies who continue to produce products with 20-30 year old technology. In the same grains, Federal has LE JHP, Hi-Shock, Hydra-Shock and HST. The older models don't pass "professional standards" at all. How many different lines of the same caliber do the other companies have?
This doesn't even include *all* the 115gr 9mm loads that don't "pass". How people load up their 9mm w/115gr WWB JHP and feel remotely safe is beyond me. I'd rather carry Ball @that point.
I know their price points are different, but if they only sold what "works" wouldn't they streamline and save money?
1st question is "Why?". My second question is: Is it deceitful to sell ammunition that they know may not perform its intended job?
All these re-sellers on Armslist and GunTrader selling 115 gr Hi-Shock for SD really kinda worries me.
Thanks!
Same reasons people by a lot of outdated and or worthless stuff: $$$.
Demand exists, they'll sell it.
Triton Quik-Shoks come to mind... Glaser Safety Slugs and Magsafe...
Because some agencies have the philosophy "don't confuse us with facts, we have always done it this way."
The tooling is paid off, and until that tooling wears out, they'll keep using it.
Because some agencies have the philosophy "don't confuse us with facts, we have always done it this way."
Yeah, often there are contracts that continue on into oblivion, and the maker will keep kicking out that ammunition to satisfy those contracts. My agency ***JUST*** switched from Hydra-shoks in the past 12 months. We were using .40s&w 155gr Hydrashoks, and those perform abysmally in almost all tests. (Although just prior to the switch they were used in a shooting and did their job.) Now we're using .40 s&w 180gr HSTs. I'm much happier with these. That said, if you have bullets and a threat, just keep putting them together until you don't have a threat anymore....
As an example...
Hydrashok is alive and well, in some demand, sells well when in stock, yet is priced higher on many contracts than the HSTs.
Folks don't know what they don't know. Some have been carrying them so long, they don't have any desire to do differently.
I bought several cases of the 9MS for about the same price as economy training ball. I will continue to do so, as it's quite accurate, reliable, and a great deep-stock contingency load.
...1st question is "Why?". My second question is: Is it deceitful to sell ammunition that they know may not perform its intended job?
1. Because it sells.
2. No.
PA PATRIOT
06-13-13, 19:25
Cost, older designs are less expensive to manufacture.
Departments save money when buying in bulk.
My department for over 15 years would only purchase Federal Classic 115 H/P's (BP9) or Remington Express 115gr H/P's (9mm1) and I'm sure the only deciding factor was cost as there were much better loadings on the market during that time.
Over the last three years we have switch over to the Federal HST line in all calibers except .38spl and I now feel a little safer knowing that if I do my part with bullet placement the bullet has a much better chance of doing its job also due to better design technology.
Older designs are not necessarily less expensive to produce.
Because 9bple was before the panic $10.00 for a box of fifty and it still works very well.
They have 20 years of brand recognition involved, that's a lot for them to walk away from.
Given the robust expanding barrier blind duty loads now available, 9BPLE is at best a mediocre, inconsistently performing load with poor intermediate barrier capability that is not acceptable for duty use--would you still use a 1989 Chevy Caprice Classic for a patrol car?
Older designs are not necessarily less expensive to produce.
Now that makes sense, in a effed-up sort of way. If they all cost near the same, then the differentiation between the 3 or 4 lines allows the "Top of the line" to retain it's price point. Kind of like calling it PDX1 so you can charge more than RA9B. They make the same profit on the lesser stuff while making significantly more on the "good stuff". I still don't think that makes it right, but like the rest of the world- what are you gonna do?
They have 20 years of brand recognition involved, that's a lot for them to walk away from.
I think this is probably one of the biggest reasons.
Not everybody knows enough to seek out the top defensive loads.
I suspect there are a great many buyer that just buy brand "X" because they've been buying it for years and are "comfortable" with it.
Can you imagine the horror if you went to the ammo shelf and all your familiar, known brands of ammo were replaced with newfangled models with strange names.
A person may just walk away...
So instead, the Mfgs just keep the shelves filled with product produced on long ago paid for tooling, John Q. Public buys it up by the wheelbarrow load, and everybody is happy.
It's just business.
So in a sense, making better ammo for general public sale is risky for the company.
Now a big mil/LE contract takes that risk away, and they'll develop whatever the contract requires.
Notice the latest "big contract" loads like XM556FBIT3, RA556B, XM68GD, are the top performers.
The only trouble is that those loads tend to have limited public availability.
Given the robust expanding barrier blind duty loads now available, 9BPLE is at best a mediocre, inconsistently performing load with poor intermediate barrier capability that is not acceptable for duty use--would you still use a 1989 Chevy Caprice Classic for a patrol car?
Is the 9BPLE load comparable to the Winchester +P+ ?
would you still use a 1989 Chevy Caprice Classic for a patrol car?
Well, can I have modern bullets as I drive it around? :D
Is the 9BPLE load comparable to the Winchester +P+ ?
Yes, pretty much all of the 115gr +p and +P+ loads work about the same, with the exception of the Gold Dot and DPX loads.
Fed 115 gr +P+ (9BPLE) is comparable to Win 115 gr +P+ (RA9115HP+); it is not comparable to the more modern Win 127 gr +P+ (RA9TA).
Given the robust expanding barrier blind duty loads now available, 9BPLE is at best a mediocre, inconsistently performing load with poor intermediate barrier capability that is not acceptable for duty use--would you still use a 1989 Chevy Caprice Classic for a patrol car?
You are correct as comparing 9BPLE to today's bonded bullets. I am convinced that today's bonded bullets are superior. I've had some 124 GD stick on the feed ramp of a Gen 3 19 and have never had a failure to feed with 9BPLE.
But I'd take a 1988 Crown Victoria over a 2013 Impala or a POS Charger.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.