How many times can you chamber a round safely?

[JJ45]

Nobody has explained about the other rounds. Do they set back or is it limited only to the first round chambered? Should not this set back be happening to all the rounds cycled through the gun?

Where is there genuine examples of set back rounds making a KB? This would come from some source other than the net. "Everybody knows" does not count. I am not talking about a rehash of increasing pressure as bullets being seated deeper in the case. Most of this KB stuff is to cover up a double charge anyway.

Some of the photos here are dubious. Not all but some look cooked. Information cited from the net is the same old stuff repeated over yet again. The danger is closer and more serious each time story is passed along the net.

There is still the issue of there being no firearm or cartridge manufacturer with a warning about set back. No warning other than those on the net have been cited. How about showing the non-believers some of these real warnings. I can't remember a recall of cartridges due to set back. This would be some solid information not from the net about set back. This would exclude the National Inquirer.

I tend to agree. Though a recall would be because of a manufacturing defect.

I don't reload 45 ACP any more but I still have the dies including a Lee Factory Crimp die. I might just run the cartridge in question through the die to tighten it up

 

[JohnKSa]

Do they set back or is it limited only to the first round chambered? Should not this set back be happening to all the rounds cycled through the gun?

No, it isn’t limited to the first round chambered; it happens to any round that is chambered enough times for the bullet to be set back. It’s important to understand that it’s rare for a bullet to setback from only one chambering/loading unless there’s a problem with the gun or the round. However, it’s not that uncommon for a round to setback if it is chambered repeatedly.

The reason it most often happens to the first round (or first two rounds) in the mag is that if a person is constantly unloading and reloading, it’s only the top round (or top two rounds) that get chambered repeatedly.

The chambered round is ejected during unloading. If the person doesn’t top off the mag when loading then the ejected round is put back into the magazine for the next time the gun is loaded and it gets chambered repeatedly until it is shot or replaced. In that case, only the first round is getting chambered frequently and therefore it’s the only one that is likely to show setback.

If the person tops off the mag (full mag and one in the chamber), then the easiest reloading method is to chamber the next round in the mag, remove the mag, put the ejected round back in the mag and the put the mag back in the gun. So the top two rounds will get “rotated” each unload/reload cycle until shot or replaced. Each of the top two rounds would be chambered once for every two unload/reload cycles.

Some of the photos here are dubious. Not all but some look cooked.

Sadly, given the way this discussion has progressed, I anticipated such accusations would be made. That’s why in addition to taking and posting two pictures of my own, I also went to the additional trouble of finding a third party article on the web that had a picture showing the same thing as my photos did. There are other similar photos available on the web if one does an image search.

There is still the issue of there being no firearm or cartridge manufacturer with a warning about set back.

Glock mentions the issue in their armorer’s manuals and includes the following warning—reproduced below from a 2015 edition with the emphasis present in the manual:

“Set Back”

Cartridges sometimes may be damaged or altered in some way and this can cause an unsafe condition. An example is a cartridge that has had the projectile (bullet) pushed back deeper than normal into the casing. This can change the combustion space characteristics and powder burn rate boosting pressures to unacceptable levels. Repeated loading and unloading of the same cartridge can cause a condition known as “set back.” The projectile has been pushed deeper into the case and the overall length of the round is noticeably shorter than others of the same bullet weight, make or style.

DO NOT CHAMBER AND EJECT THE SAME ROUND REPEATEDLY!​

For what it’s worth, the topic is also commonly addressed in reloading manuals.

 

[J.G. Terry]

Warnings and Feed Ramps

Common Sense: First up, if you do think repeated chambering is unsafe do not do it! :

Cooked: This is easy. Explain how a bullet contacts the very base of the feed ramp on a Glock. Starts at the bottom of the ramp and zigzags up That's simply not the way that works. That is, unless the somebody, Bubba, has altered the gun. Unless my three guns are unique. I don't think so. The Guilty Fleeth...."

So far I have not been able to find anything about set back in the owner's manual in the "5/04 form." If this is the case, shame face on Glock for keeping it a secret. That is, unless it has been discovered between 2004 and 2015.

The full manual is for Glock armorers: The armorer that did the Glock workshop I attended did not share this set back information with us. He is a retired LEO. If set back is such a big deal how come it's not in the literature in the box? Was the Armorers manual for general use and in wide circulation? Nope.

Somebody help me with set back in Glock commonly circulated official owners literature. I'm not saying such is not there. If have not found in the owner manual. So far, no warning on set back has been found in the Ptooma Productions "The Complete Glock Reference Guide" If there is one in the book please point it out to me. Thanks for your help.

Added: I could not find the set back warning in the Glock Manual. A page number would help. Deformed ammo yes but no to set back.

 

[Nanuk]

Why do some people feel the need to load/unload their gun all the time? My pistols generally stay loaded in the safe, out of the safe. I never need to check.

You can damage more than causing setback. You can actually destroy the primer from repeated chamberings. There was an article in Police One several years ago discussing this as it had happened with some 45 ACP ammo.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Added: How come this set back is only on the first round. Looks like all the rounds should be shortened. What's special about that first round? The clanking noise in one video in post #26 is the action going into battery. It makes this noise with or without round.

It's not only the first round. I'm currently working on a 9mm 1911 that has feed issues. It usually feeds the first and second round pretty consistently. It usually sees the third, fourth, and fifth rounds come to a hard stop with the bullet nose jammed into the barrel throat. Then the remaining rounds typically feed okay. Having the middle rounds in a magazine create the problem is unusual, but there you have it.

And the hard stop definitely does result in bullet setback. My 9mm dummies were made to a C.O.L. of 1.160". I measured some of them last night and they're at 1.140".

 

[J.G. Terry]

Set back in 9mm 1911's and others

I dislike voodoo reloading-keep it simple. I did not have a problem with my old RIA 1911 9mm. It ran like a top but for some poor magazines.

To most anybody I'd suggest looking at bullet changes and use of a taper crimp die. Also, look at COL. I can have one or more of these things out of line and the wheels come off. Bad magazine in that RIA would double feed. That's the mother of all malfunctions. In my experience the standard 1911 is the easiest of all handguns to live with (bad grammar).

Trash bad magazines: I cannot comment further since I have not had a round jam up in the throat. Should that have happened I would look to my handloading. The majority of my recent reloads have been with the hand cast Lyman 356402 bullets. No jacketed bullets in this 9mm save some 9mm factory. Shape of the bullets and short ramp on my 1911 45ACP makes for reliability. Again magazine and/or cartridges first. No problems here with two 9mm SIG's at different times.

 

[TunnelRat]

Wow, we've really gone all out.

It seems to me that in this discussion some have provided evidence and some have made claims. The people that made claims then claim the evidence presented is false or "cooked". It seems odd to me that of all topics to doctor evidence for this would be where people put their effort. But then again, we have been told we can't trust what we read on the internet (at least if it doesn't agree with a certain point of view). Truly dizzying.

I've seen cartridges with bullets that have setback. I'm also aware of pressure changes as they relate to volume. Just because I haven't had something happen to me personally doesn't mean it can't happen. To the concern at hand, it seems to be something that can be checked for and if observed the offending round can be discarded. Though I imagine the discussion will continue.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[J.G. Terry]

Missed the mark?

TR: You be right it is confusing. I bet you have seen some stuff on the net that's just downright wrong or made up. We know of examples on the net where some pretty wild stuff has taken on a life of it's own and repeated as gospel. I have cited some specific information and requested that errors be pointed out. If I challenge it's up to me to prove it's wrong.

My favorite from the net involved a Kel Tec 380. This guy was giving information and how to shoot and all that stuff. He continued that the gun was easy to handle. He reached over and pulled back the slide with two fingers. You try it with a Kel Tec 380.

.

 

[T. O'Heir]

"...the bullet may "set back"..." That means it wasn't loaded correctly in the first place. If it's a pistol round, it'd be the crimp not being correct.
"...assume the factories use a taper crimp..." It's a taper crimp only for a case that headspaces on the case mouth.

 

[Bill DeShivs]

My example pictured above is factory loaded Winchester ammunition.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The fact that setback hasn't generated a gazillion kabooms does not in any way prove ... or even suggest ... that setback does not happen or is not a real phenomenon.

I dislike voodoo reloading-keep it simple. I did not have a problem with my old RIA 1911 9mm. It ran like a top but for some poor magazines.

To most anybody I'd suggest looking at bullet changes and use of a taper crimp die. Also, look at COL. I can have one or more of these things out of line and the wheels come off. Bad magazine in that RIA would double feed. That's the mother of all malfunctions. In my experience the standard 1911 is the easiest of all handguns to live with (bad grammar).

Trash bad magazines: I cannot comment further since I have not had a round jam up in the throat. Should that have happened I would look to my handloading. The majority of my recent reloads have been with the hand cast Lyman 356402 bullets. No jacketed bullets in this 9mm save some 9mm factory. Shape of the bullets and short ramp on my 1911 45ACP makes for reliability. Again magazine and/or cartridges first. No problems here with two 9mm SIG's at different times.

What does any of the above have to do with bullet setback?

 

[J.G. Terry]

Relevance: It has all to do with handgun malfunctions and bad handloaded and/or factory cartridges. If you do not understand or feel the post is irrelevant please delete it without delay. Thanks for your comment.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

We are not discussing handgun malfunctions, and we are not discussing bad handloaded and/or factory cartridges. This thread is about bullet setback. None of what you wrote in post #66 has anything to do with the topic.

 

[J.G. Terry]

#65

The malfunctions in #65 sure looked it had to do with cartridge problems and handgun problems. My mistake. Hope I did not offend.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The malfunctions in #65 sure looked it had to do with cartridge problems and handgun problems. My mistake. Hope I did not offend.

The cause of the malfunctions mentioned in my post #65 have not been determined. That's not the point. The point was -- and is -- that rounds fed through that pistol have the bullets set back.

My carry pistols are all 1911s chambered in .45 ACP. Rounds that have been chambered in any of those guns more than two or three times also demonstrate measurable bullet setback. It does not require a direct, head-on collision between the bullet and some part of the gun for setback to occur.

And, for the record, in my carry pistols I only carry premium, factory hollow-point ammunition, so there's no need to accuse me again of "voodoo" reloads (whatever that was about).

 

[JohnKSa]

Cooked: This is easy. Explain how a bullet contacts the very base of the feed ramp on a Glock. Starts at the bottom of the ramp and zigzags up

The question was about what guns I had that left brass marks on the feedramp. I posted two pictures and then found another on the web that showed a similar effect.

We now have proof from multiple sources that bullets do, indeed, hit the feedramp during the feed cycle. It boggles the mind that such proof was necessary—one wonders what a feed ramp is for if not to direct cartridges into the chamber and how it could do that if fed rounds never made contact with it—but the proof has now been provided.

So far I have not been able to find anything about set back in the owner's manual in the "5/04 form." If this is the case, shame face on Glock for keeping it a secret. That is, unless it has been discovered between 2004 and 2015.

Proof has been provided that the claim that “no firearm or cartridge manufacturer” provided warnings against setback is false. There have been no claims that the warning was in the Glock owner’s manual—the location of the warning was stated clearly. Concerns that there is no warning in the owner’s manual, should be taken up with Glock by those who are concerned about it, but that’s a separate issue.

We now have proof that at least one firearm manufacturer does provide a warning about setback. If you want to attempt to find more sources, you’re welcome to do so, but their presence or absence doesn’t change anything. Because the claim was sweeping (i.e. NO firearm or cartridge maker warns against setback) only one counterexample was required to debunk it.

The full manual is for Glock armorers: The armorer that did the Glock workshop I attended did not share this set back information with us. He is a retired LEO. If set back is such a big deal how come it's not in the literature in the box? Was the Armorers manual for general use and in wide circulation? Nope.

Contact him and ask him why he didn’t cover it.

Somebody help me with set back in Glock commonly circulated official owners literature. I'm not saying such is not there. If have not found in the owner manual. So far, no warning on set back has been found in the Ptooma Productions "The Complete Glock Reference Guide" If there is one in the book please point it out to me. Thanks for your help.

There have been no claims that there are setback warnings in “Glock commonly circulated official owners literature” or in any of Ptooma Production’s products.

If you want to find further warnings against setback, you should spend your own time doing your own research to satisfy your own curiosity. An official warning from a firearm manufacturer has been provided and that was all that was required to prove the claim was false.

I have cited some specific information and requested that errors be pointed out.

And the errors have been pointed out. But instead of accepting the information (verifying that proof and information as appropriate where you felt there were legitimate concerns about accuracy) you merely changed the "target" or came up with new demands/objections.

Example 1: You claimed that bullets didn’t leave marks on feedramps. Pictures were posted to show that they do. You dismissed them as “cooked” even though they were from multiple sources and even though you could have easily verified their validity by finding other examples. And at the same time you made some nonsensical remarks about zigzags on the feedramp that don’t relate to any claims made on this thread or any pictures posted.

Example 2: You claimed that no firearm or cartridge maker warned against setback. Proof was posted that Glock has published an official warning about setback. Then, instead of accepting that your claim was false, you started asking about warnings in other Glock published materials or in books about Glocks published by other companies even though no one had made any claims about warnings existing in those materials.

Example 3: You claimed that setback is merely internet myth. Multiple firsthand accounts of setback in various guns and with various ammunition have been provided on this thread and yet you apparently dismiss all of them out of hand.

Example 4: You recommended looking at slow motion footage of a 1911 feeding. That footage was provided (before you recommended it, by the way), showing clearly that the round is driven forward into the feedramp and hesitates there upon impact, then the slide drives it forward and up the ramp into the chamber, clearly slowing due to the significant amount of energy required to accomplish that task. Apparently in spite of mentioning it repeatedly you either failed to look at it carefully (which seems likely given that you misidentified the gun in the footage as a Glock instead of accurately noting that it was a 1911) or simply dismissed the obvious visual evidence for no other reason than that it disagreed with your opinion.

Example 5: In post #60, you claimed that no one had explained about why no other rounds in the mag typically showed setback even though there was an explanation provided in post #58.

And so on...

If this thread is just going to become an exhibition of how creative one person can be in their attempts to dismiss substantive proof and/or in their attempts to change the subject/standard of proof as one after another of their claims are shown to be incorrect, then it's the definition of pointless.

 

[Sharkbite]

I was at the range yesterday with my shooting partner. After about 300rounds fired he had occasion to field-strip his pistol (a Smith M&P 2.0).

There was a clear drag mark up the center of the dirty feed ramp. This was clearly caused by rounds sliding up the ramp.

How anyone can claim there is no contact between the nose of the bullet and the feed-ramp is beyond comprehension.

As was stated above...what is the FEED ramp for, if not to FEED the round

 

[44 AMP]

focus....

The original question was

How many times can you chamber a round safely?

Here's your answer:

Somewhere between 1 and infinity. Period.

The exact number is unknown and unknowable.

It is not something that must happen. It is not something that will happen if you chamber X number of times. It is not something you can say does not happen, it is an observed fact.

It is a RANDOM thing, and is COMPLETELY dependent on a specific combination of factors that are not knowable in advance.

Every single round chambered in every centerfire semi auto COULD have setback, only a very, very, VERY tiny fraction of a percentage of them do.

Every gun, and every round of ammo has a different combination of factors. There is no predictability.

I think we have answered the original question, and are done here.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The question has been asked and answered as well as possible, so this discussion is closed. Certain posts have wandered into the realm of personal attacks and have been made to disappear. Certain members would be advised to review the forum rules regarding personal attacks.