When I bought my two CZ-52's from AIM last week I also ordered a box of MFS +P 230gr. HP Law Enforcement Grade ammo to try out. Instead they sent me a box of FMJ. Talked to them on the phone Friday and they said they'd send me a box of HP on Monday. So anyways today at the range I was shooting the rest of the Winchester value pack, some Blazer 230gr. and some Winchester HP 230gr. SXT through my Colt Sistema without any problems. Then I decided to try out the MFS ammo. The slide did not want to go into battery about 80% of the time upon chambering the first round. Tried a few different magazines and the same result. I had to yank back on the slide very hard to get the round out of the chamber, I hope I didn't damage my extractor, but it seems ok.
When I was able to chamber a round successfully, it would fire the rest of the magazine without problems. I switched back to the Winchester SXT HP and some Blazer and no problems again. Something must be catching, but upon comparing cases of different ammo side to side I could not tell what the problem would have been. I did not have my Norinco 1911A1 along to try out the ammo in as well. Just a heads up for people who are considering buying some, you might want to just try one box first.
On a side note, both of my unissued CZ-52's I received from AIM functioned flawlessly with S&B 7.62X25mm, barring the occassional failure of the slide to lock back....:D I'm not able to hit the broadside of a barn door with them yet though.
If you enjoyed reading about "No so good experience with MFS .45 +P FMJ ammo today..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
April 4, 2004, 10:28 PM
I just bought a case of MFS 45 +P JHP. I put a box through my Kimber and a box through my Sig 220ST without any problems.
April 5, 2004, 05:20 AM
Sounds like maybe the bullet ogive is gettin' into the rifling before the
slide can go to battery. Either that, or the chamber has a very short
leade section that's not compatible with that particular bullet shape.
If it happens again, chack the bullet for land marks on the side. They
may be faint and require close inspection. Color the bullets with a
Marks-a-Lot felt pen to make it easier to see.
Also a possiblilty that the ammo is out of spec on the overall length...
bullet seated depth. Since it's +p, I don't recommend seating the bullets deeper. A quick pass with a finishing reamer may solve the problem, if
you're dead set on using that particular ammo.
April 5, 2004, 06:08 AM
Perhaps it is a tight chamber combined with a slightly oversized diameter round. Happened to me with a Bar-Sto barrel.
April 5, 2004, 10:32 AM
Perhaps it is a tight chamber combined with a slightly oversized diameter round.
That's what I was thinking. Have you had the chance to gage these rounds? If you don't have a .45acp gage, using your (removed) handgun's barrel will do. If you can't drop the loaded cartridge into the chamber, they'd probably rate a "no-go".
Just a thought before fingers point to the handgun.
As for CZ-52's lack of accuracy, I've noticed that too... but I think it's capable of better accuracy than we're seeing. Once my Hogue Handalls arrive, I'll see what kind of accuracy I can squeeze out of those crappy sights. I just have to get over the blatant lack of ergonomics before I invest any more time and ammo and I think the slip-on grips will help me do just that.
April 5, 2004, 11:23 PM
This is not what you asked, but bears mentioning .... I chronographed some of that "Law Enforcement Quality" MFS +P 230 FMJ last summer.
None of it was faster than 830 fps, averaged around 815....hardly +P velocity.
April 6, 2004, 05:19 AM
What was the gun and barrel length you chrono'd it out of? It definately felt hotter and sounded louder to me than the other ammo.
I believe AIM originally advertised it as 940 fps.
April 7, 2004, 10:25 PM
What was the gun and barrel length you chrono'd it out of?
Springfield Armory 1911A1 5" stock barrel. I was a little low on the velocities in my previous post....but, after checking my numbers, this is obviously still too low for +P.
Here are the numbers: 859.7, 860.6, 840.0, 867.9, 860.1, 854.9, 831.2, 857.7.
Average = 854.01, SD = 12.17 Coefficient of variation = 1.4%