9mm subsonic ammo question

The only generality we should abide by is to not abide by generalities. I had a 1911 in 9mm that worked fine with several different .38 Super magazines, but I never found an actual 9mm magazine (with the spacer up the spine, or the Springfield Armory mags with the "integral feed ramp") that was reliable in that pistol.
Click to expand...

Here's are three generalities: Use the magazine made for the gun and the caliber that you are shooting and the chances of problems are greatly reduced.

Sometimes things that shouldn't work do, for awhile at least, but don't bet your life on it.

If you have a size 10 foot but wear a size 12 shoe, and your feet hurt after awhile...don't blame the foot.

I'll note that the line I highlighted above has the opposite conclusions from the Brad Miller Phd article. In that article the 9mm feeding from a 38 Super magazine nosedived regularly. He blamed the poor design of the 9mm.

tipoc
 
Last edited:
tipoc said:
I'll note that the line I highlighted above has the opposite conclusions from the Brad Miller Phd article. In that article the 9mm feeding from a 38 Super magazine nosedived regularly. He blamed the poor design of the 9mm.
Click to expand...
That's why I posted it -- to show that anecdotal evidence is ... anecdotal.
 
Was that the guy who "invented" the "9mm Auto" in a 19mm straight case?
Click to expand...

Yes. That was back in 2014. I don't know if he ever patented it. I can find it for sale no where. He explains the reason for it's development in the article below:

https://web.archive.org/web/2017042...s.com/ammo/9mm-automatic-better-9mm-cartridge

Since the 9mm is the most widely known handgun cartridge in the world and is the most widely used by armies and law enforcement around the world it's a tough case to prove it's inherently flawed and tends to nosedive. Many of the most reliable guns in existence are in 9mm.

It's like complaining that chocolate chip cookies are no good because it's a cookie with chocolate chips in them.

tipoc
 
If DWM had thought a straight case of value they could have made it the 9.2 mm.
Or used the odd DW*K* slight bottleneck.
 
dyl, from what you're written it sounds like you're trying to keep the same powder and powder charge for the same regardless of bullet weight. There are plenty of powders in load manuals that will handle all the bullet weights typical of that caliber. But you damn well better change the powder charge - reducing it for heavier bullets - or the gun will kaboom.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the concern, I do vary the powder charge when changing projectile weights. I try to keep the same powders whenever working up a new pistol caliber or bullet weight (when appropriate), just hoping an accurate load can be had without complicating things further.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top