Quantcast
Tula Primers...What's your experience? - Page 3 - THR
THR  

Go Back   THR > Ammunition, Gear, and Firearm Help > Handloading and Reloading

Welcome to THR
You are currently viewing our site as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have, access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!


If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please visit the help section.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 15, 2011, 11:54 PM   #51
GLOOB
Member
 
 
Join Date: September 16, 2007
Posts: 5,042
Well, I'm not sure that you agree, at all.

With all my guns except for my Ruger, Tulammo SPP are pretty much 100%. Since they're only $20 per 1k, and I don't have any headaches or frustration with them, they're well worth it to me. Even with my Ruger, failures are rare enough I don't worry about it at the range. When I load my Ruger for SD, I just use factory ammo. Every other handgun that takes SPP is loaded with Tulammo primered ammo both at the range and when it counts. This includes my other revolver, which is a 686. I've put probably 500-600 of these reloads through that particular gun without a hiccup. Over 1500 through a G19, no issues aside from my learning mistake.

Last edited by GLOOB; December 16, 2011 at 12:04 AM.
GLOOB is offline  
Old December 17, 2011, 11:34 PM   #52
bds
Contributing Member
 
 
Join Date: January 10, 2010
Posts: 9,551
This is a follow-up to post #26 and post #40.

My C-H 205 single stage press got some workout today as all the cases were resized/loaded in single stage mode and hand primed in Lee XR hand primer to the depth of about .004" below flush (primer pockets were cleaned but not modified). I loaded up some 9mm (mixed brass) and 45ACP (Federal small primer cases) with Tula SP primers and range tested them in Glock 17 and Sig 1911 TacPac.

I stopped the range test after 4 failure to fire in Glock 17. The rounds that did fire had deep primer indentations. I cycled the slide and refired 2 of the FTF rounds 3 times with still no primer ignition. Sig 1911 fired all the Tula SP primed Federal cases. My plan was to remove the single strike FTF primer from 9mm case and seat it in the Federal 45ACP case and restrike with the Sig 1911.

This is what once-struck Tula SP primer looked like (Interestingly enough, the case head stamp was PMC even ). Pictures on the right show once-struck primer out of the PMC case clearly showing pink colored paper cup indicating the priming compound did not ignite.




This shows the once-struck primer seated in the Federal 45ACP case.




This shows 1, 2 and 3 restrike of the primer with the Sig 1911. There was no ignition of the Tula SP primer.




Tula SP primer struck once with Glock 17 and three times with Sig 1911 removed from the Federal 45 case. Pink paper cup under the anvil clearly shows the priming compound did not ignite.



I will conduct further testing of Tula SP primers in 9mm, 40S&W and 45ACP (small primer) cases, but this failure rate is not too promising for this lot number (20-10) primers. For those that have concern over Glock striker spring/fouling build up in the striker tube channel, they were checked prior to the range test and all of the cases primed with Winchester SP primers fired without failure using the same Glock 17.

Any comments or thoughts? Is there anything else you want me to test?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg xPrimer1.jpg (73.8 KB, 617 views)
File Type: jpg xPrimer3.jpg (161.9 KB, 462 views)
File Type: jpg xPrimer4.jpg (161.5 KB, 609 views)
File Type: jpg xPrimer5.jpg (101.8 KB, 445 views)

Last edited by bds; December 17, 2011 at 11:57 PM. Reason: added links to post #26 and #40
bds is offline  
Old December 18, 2011, 02:55 AM   #53
bds
Contributing Member
 
 
Join Date: January 10, 2010
Posts: 9,551
Here are three primers that ignited next to the failed to ignite primer that's been struck multiple times in Glock and Sig 1911.

Attached Images
File Type: jpg xPrimer6.jpg (91.0 KB, 229 views)
bds is offline  
Old December 18, 2011, 04:14 AM   #54
4895
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 6, 2011
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Posts: 705
I will check my lot # and post when available. I can't believe you had that much trouble with them. That is horrible.
4895 is offline  
Old December 18, 2011, 12:44 PM   #55
SlamFire1
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 29, 2006
Location: Alabama
Posts: 6,565
BDS, put the misfired primer on the stove top, under a pan. If it goes bang, the priming compound is good.

This is a once struck WSP that squibbed, leaving a lead bullet in the throat. I had to use a screwdriver to beat the bullet back in the case. I had all sorts of misfires and hangfires in cold weather.

This situation was cured with a new mainspring in that M586.

This pistol had not mis fired when used with Federal primers. Federals are the most sensitive primers on the market.





This is a picture of a CCI #34 that did not ignite. CCI #34's are "mil spec" and I have been reaming the primer pockets to depth. Never had a problem with my M1a's or Garands, but in my M70's, sometimes the combination of too deep and too hard and things don't go bang.



I have had American primers dud, even after repeated strikes. Bad primers happen.

American primers are very sensitive precisely because US makers don't like reading about how their primers are the problem, when most ignition problems are due to insufficient firing pin energy strike. People just don’t replace mainsprings, and many firearms are designed with insufficient ignition systems. In cold weather, I have experienced and so have a number of other shooters, mis fires with our Kimber M82 small bore match rifles. The ignition system was marginal when it left the factory and it has not gotten any better in time.

Military weapons tend to have robust ignition systems, Communist block designs especially so. Military primers are relatively insensitive because these mechanisms have heavy free floating firing pins which will slamfire with sensitive American primers. Federal match primers are the most slamfiring primer ever in Garands and M1a's. Sensitive American primers also pierce something awful, as I found with the redesigned, more sensitive brass colored WSR primers. I ate up a handful of AR15 firing pins at loads that never bothered the less sensitive nickle plated WSR.

This is an interesting read. Shows how little attention is spent in designing firearms with good ignition systems, for a number of very bad reasons.

IT DON’T GO BANG:
FIRES, HANGFIRES, MISFIRES AND SHORT ORDER COOKS IN JERSEY

http://riflemansjournal.blogspot.com...t-go-bang.html
__________________
Accuracy is a skill acquired through constant practice.
SlamFire1 is offline  
Old December 18, 2011, 01:52 PM   #56
bds
Contributing Member
 
 
Join Date: January 10, 2010
Posts: 9,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlamFire1
BDS, put the misfired primer on the stove top, under a pan. If it goes bang, the priming compound is good.
Good idea. And yes, The Rifleman's Journal website has some great information!

I used the side burner on the grill and two stainless steel bowls (they were garage solvent bowls and won't be used for food prep) to cook the primer. After several seconds, I heard the "POP".

It left a dent on the bottom bowl and smaller dent/gouge on the top bowl!
Use of good eye/face protection could not be stressed when handling/working with primers, even the ones considered "dud" like this Tula SP primer.



Attached Images
File Type: jpg xPrimer7.jpg (71.3 KB, 576 views)
File Type: jpg xPrimer8.jpg (63.4 KB, 575 views)
bds is offline  
Old December 18, 2011, 02:18 PM   #57
GLOOB
Member
 
 
Join Date: September 16, 2007
Posts: 5,042
My current batch is 32-10.

That's too bad. I guess you just don't know for sure which guns are going to like a specific primer.

Still, if I did a lot of shooting (could save a lot of money on primers), I'd be tempted to do some more testing, seeing as they all fired in the 1911. Either a new striker spring, reexamine my striker channel cleanliness methods if not 100% sure, and/or my seating procedure.

I built a special jag for cleaning the bottom of the striker channel in my Glocks. Hammered the head of an appropriately big nail till it was square. Sharpened the edges so it'll hold the patch while twisting. Ground the face flat. Gave it a sharp corner on the back of the head to ensure it pulls the patch back out. Then stuck a wooden handle on it. Works a treat.

As for priming depth, I just measured the Tulammo primer depth in a sample of 10 from one of my recent batches of 9mm reloads. These are all Winchester brass. I seat on a SS press, press gently, stop when the primer bottoms out, then give a very gentle final squeeze. I have also modified my primer arm as mentioned in an earlier post.

All primers measure between 0.000" and 0.0025". More than half were 0.0015" or shallower. 4 of them were exactly 0.000". And many primers show small areas of flattening, even the ones that are just flush. What can I say? When they seat, I stop. And as mentioned before, MY Tuallmo SPP measure longer than MY CCI primers. I don't routinely measure my primer pocket depth. If I can set 'em on a flat surface and they don't wobble, they pass. I typically have to go back and reseat aobut 1 out of a 100 that is too long.

Last edited by GLOOB; December 18, 2011 at 03:10 PM.
GLOOB is offline  
Old December 18, 2011, 02:51 PM   #58
bds
Contributing Member
 
 
Join Date: January 10, 2010
Posts: 9,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by GLOOB
I'd be tempted to do some more testing, seeing as they all fired in the 1911.
I agree and plan to do more testing with the 1911 using small primer 45ACP cases.

What puzzles me is this.

In the past 16 years of reloading over 300,000+ rounds of primarily 9mm/40S&W/45ACP reloads using various components and at times "sloppy" reloading practices using Pro 1000 presses and mostly Winchester/CCI primers (and on more limited basis with about 10K+ Magtech SP and 20K+ PMC SP/Wolf LP/Tula LP), I have not had this kind of consistent primer failure to ignite issues, ever.

Mind you, until I started hand priming my match cases, I used to seat Winchester primers to "crush depth" in dirty primer pockets where the cup was completely flat but they still fired. For "fair and objective" testing of Tula SP primers, I used single stage press and hand primed each case to .004" below flush after cleaning the primer pockets ... and they still failed to ignite, even after being struck multiple times in a 1911 to rule out any concern over striker/spring issue.


Quote:
I built a special jag for cleaning the bottom of the striker channel in my Glocks.
Believe me, the Glock striker channels were inspected and cleaned to be sure until I even started to see shiny metal surface at the bottom of the channel. There was absolutely no fouling buildup at the bottom of the striker channel on the test Glock pistols.


Quote:
That's too bad. I guess you just don't know for sure which guns are going to like a specific primer.
At this point, I am inclined to say that Tula SP primer failure issue is not gun related as Winchester SP primed 9mm cases I took to the range did not experience any failure using the same pistol (G17). But I will continue my range test with other pistols.
bds is offline  
Old December 18, 2011, 03:08 PM   #59
GLOOB
Member
 
 
Join Date: September 16, 2007
Posts: 5,042
I think it IS gun related, at least in the sense I'm thinking. If it wasn't, then you'd have had failures in both guns. It could just be that the Tulammo priming compound needs a harder strike to light off than a Win SPP. I.e., some guns won't like this primer.

And putting a struck primer into the 1911 isn't the same as having a failure in the 1911. The first strike could potentially damage the primer, cracking the priming compound without igniting it? This might explain why they still popped off under heat.

Last edited by GLOOB; December 18, 2011 at 03:22 PM.
GLOOB is offline  
Old December 18, 2011, 03:37 PM   #60
bds
Contributing Member
 
 
Join Date: January 10, 2010
Posts: 9,551
Yes, hence why I plan on doing more range test with 1911 using small primer 45 cases.

If I have no primer failure in 1911, then it will be gun-related (IMHO, I still think it's primer related ).

If I have primer failure in 1911, then it will be the primer issue.

Still, since G22/G27 is my match/carry pistol combo, I won't use Tula SP in my match loads and Winchester SP will continue to be my designated SD/HD SP primer. To check if Tula addressed this issue on newer lot SP primers, I plan on buying a sample of newer lot SP primers in the future. If I do not have any issues in my Glocks, then it would be lot related.

I am not trying to put down Tula/Russian primers as I have not experienced any primer failure with Tula LP/LR/SR/.223, Wolf LP and PMC SP primers. My issue is only with Tula SP primers.
bds is offline  
Old December 18, 2011, 03:42 PM   #61
GLOOB
Member
 
 
Join Date: September 16, 2007
Posts: 5,042
It certainly sounds like you're doing everything within spec. BDS. It might be a bad lot. But how's about you try 'em in your G22, too, just to be thorough?

Guns that have fired my Tulammo SPP reloads without fail:
G27
FNX
PA63
P64
SW 686
Ruger LCP
Gen4 G19
Gen3 G19 (minus the 2 badly crushed primers from one of my early lots)

Even the 2 light strikes I had with my Ruger GP100 in DA mode fired on the second strike. So that might be chalked up to a seating error.

Still, I'm thinking of trying Wolf SRP to save a few more bucks per K. PV carries those for only 15.50.

Hmm, here's a random thought. The PM Makarov has a free floating firing pin. Perhaps the Russians make their priming compound more stable for a practical reason.

Last edited by GLOOB; December 18, 2011 at 03:57 PM.
GLOOB is offline  
Old December 18, 2011, 03:58 PM   #62
bds
Contributing Member
 
 
Join Date: January 10, 2010
Posts: 9,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by GLOOB
But how's about you try 'em in your G22, too, just to be thorough?
Yes, I had planned on loading some 40S&W loads also to shoot in G22 at the range yesterday, but I had to pickup a replacement kitchen door for the wife and didn't have enough time.

Just had a crazy thought - I "could" test some Tula SR/.223 primers in G17 (pistol I had misfires in) to see if the striker could ignite the harder primer cups.

I'll go load some in 9mm cases and fire them (primer only in case) in the garage. Be right back.
bds is offline  
Old December 18, 2011, 04:28 PM   #63
bds
Contributing Member
 
 
Join Date: January 10, 2010
Posts: 9,551
Using the same PMC 9mm case I had Tula SP primer failure (to keep the test conditions the same ), I hand primed CCI 400 SR, Tula SR and Tula .223 primers and fired in the same Glock 17.

They all fired with very visible muzzle flash.

If you look closely at the picture, you'll notice that Tula SR and .223 primers left an imprint from the rectangle striker hole but the CCI SR primer cup did not. This may be due to hotter primer ignition of Tula SR/.223 primers than CCI SR, but may be also due to CCI cup being harder.

What do you think?

Attached Images
File Type: jpg xPrimer9.jpg (84.7 KB, 2644 views)
bds is offline  
Old December 18, 2011, 04:38 PM   #64
bds
Contributing Member
 
 
Join Date: January 10, 2010
Posts: 9,551
Here's comparison between CCI 400 SR and Tula SP primer indentatons (note that CCI 400 SR primer ignited and Tula SP did not).

Attached Images
File Type: jpg xPrimer10.jpg (32.7 KB, 585 views)
bds is offline  
Old December 18, 2011, 05:16 PM   #65
GLOOB
Member
 
 
Join Date: September 16, 2007
Posts: 5,042
I dunno what to think. My only goal is to find what is cheapest and still works. Tula SPP work for me. So far, so good, anyway.

BTW, I shot 1k CCI400's through my handguns back when they were on crazy clearance sale. I had a couple light strikes in my 686, but they were 100% in my Glocks. I wish I had stocked up, esp now that I actually have a rifle to load for, too. This is what made me think of trying the Wolf SRP. Right now I am using Wolf .223 primers, which I thought might be too hard. But now that you've gone and done it, I may have to try them to see.

Last edited by GLOOB; December 18, 2011 at 05:25 PM.
GLOOB is offline  
Old December 18, 2011, 05:54 PM   #66
bds
Contributing Member
 
 
Join Date: January 10, 2010
Posts: 9,551
If "Glock" striker could set those off, then ...

With the current economic condition, I hear ya. Why do you think I bought those Tula primers in the first place? However, I do reserve the CCI BR2 primers for more accurate .308 loads. As far as Wolf LP, Tula SR/.223/LR, they get my endorsement for the lot numbers I have been shooting.

I bought the Tula primers when they were cheaper. Now, even at Powder Valley, they are priced at $20/1K. With Winchester primers at $25 and CCI primers at $24, I plan on not buying Tula SP for now until I hear better performance reviews. I stocked up on Winchester primers when they were selling at $20/1K earlier this year at gun shows so I am good for a while. Perhaps, Tula SP issue may have resolve by then.
bds is offline  
Old December 19, 2011, 11:28 AM   #67
Master Blaster
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 26, 2002
Location: Delaware home of tax free shopping
Posts: 4,678
When I use a primer in a handload I expect it to fire 100%. I don't care if it explodes when you heat it on a stove (seriously bad idea), hit it with a rock, or the Giant Monty Python Foot comes out of a cloud and stomps on it.
If it fails to fire in my guns that shoot other primers 100%, then my conclusion is the primer is defective, not my firearms, because it does not perform in the way it should be expected to perform.

The primer strikes shown on the Tula primers above is sufficient to set off a non defective primer.
My conclusion after experiencing failures with Wolf primers, and having them be harder to seat, is that I will not use them for anything other than practice ammo. I will not buy them again unless they are the only primers availible and I am out of other primers.
__________________
יזכר לא עד פעם
Master Blaster is offline  
Old December 19, 2011, 03:52 PM   #68
jacksgd
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 13, 2011
Posts: 36
Absolutely Master Blaster!!

Go ahead and do all the test, comparisons and analyze compounds as much as you want (Something Tula should be doing). Please try and figure out why they have such a high failure rate and don't go bang when they are suppose to (not on a kitchen stove).

Bottom line is THEY DON'T GO BANG WHEN THEY ARE SUPPOSE TO!!
jacksgd is offline  
Old December 19, 2011, 04:27 PM   #69
jdmudcat
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 10, 2011
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8
Just want to share my experience with Tula SP primers.
I bought 1000 at a gun show to try out. I did notice they are harder to seat than the CCI's that I normaly use. After shooting several hundred through my .357 Blackhawk with no problems, I loaded up 50 rounds for my 38 special. (Charter undercover) The charter would only fire about 5 out of ten. I tried my wifes chick lady .38 and got about the same results.

I was able to run all the 38 rounds through my Blackhawk with no FTF's. Even the ones that did not fire in the Charters.

The FTF's in the charters would look like a light primer strike. Have shot thousands of CCI's through these guns and never had a misfire. My guess is it may take a stronger hammer spring to get the Tulas to go off.
I did not try the Tula primers in my 9mm or .380

Just my 2 cents worth.

JD
jdmudcat is offline  
Old December 19, 2011, 04:41 PM   #70
bds
Contributing Member
 
 
Join Date: January 10, 2010
Posts: 9,551
jdmudcat, if the primer cup is harder, it would leave a lighter indentation and give the shooter the sense that it was a "light" primer strike. If another primer type load was fired with the same pistol, that would have verified whether the primer strike was light or not.

Yes, primer should always go bang when "typical" firearm in "typical" condition releases "typical" striker/hammer with "typical" spring tension.

In the spirit of THR, my hope was to provide objective evaluation and root cause analysis as to why there was primer failure when I have not experienced such failure with other primer types of the same brand.

The steps I have taken to maintain consistency in primer pocket cleaning without modification, hand priming to seat primers to about .004" below flush, ensuring there is no compacted fouling at the striker channel bottom to limit striker travel and using a hammer fired 1911 should have provided Tula SP primers of lot 20-10 optimal conditions to ignite. The fact that application of heat ignited the failed primer that was struck multiple times indicated active priming compound inside the cup.

My comparison test of firing several rifle primers (especially of same Tula brand) showed the Glock striker was operating properly. The indentation left on CCI 400 SR primer cup (that ignited without leaving the typical Glock rectangle indentation) being similar to Tula SP primer cup after the first strike in Glock 17 indicated to me that the primer cup hardness of Tula SP may be the root cause of primer failure I am experiencing.

If this is not the case, I would love to hear them.
bds is offline  
Old December 19, 2011, 05:49 PM   #71
kingmt
Member
 
 
Join Date: November 17, 2009
Posts: 3,063
When I bought my first Glock years ago it had several FTFs that I put in my Ruger which fired without a problem. I never checked anything & traded the gun off. I branded all Glocks as junk. It wasn't until I had to carry one for a living that I really looked at it & decided I liked it. Not that they are my favorite but a good choice.

If you aren't willing to look & find the problem then ether you don't know what your doing or just lazy. It is easier to just say brand X is junk. Those primers strikes look light to me but it is hard to tell from a picture. It could be a bad lot but it is more likely something is being done wrong or they just aren't a good match for the gun. I believe bds will find the root of it & has good credit with me if he believes they are bad. I've had tons of problems with CCI but after years of learning I think I was the problem. I own several Tarus that I know have light strikes but no problem with Tula so far.

I sent a Tarus back for repair not long ago for pinging on the breech face then read on here that NT primers cause this. Who would have thought? Things aren't always as they appear.
__________________
What I do isn't instruction for others. It is only the way I do things. You need to make your own decisions.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
For every action there is a reaction.
kingmt is offline  
Old December 19, 2011, 06:16 PM   #72
Walkalong
Moderator
 
 
Join Date: November 20, 2006
Location: Alabama
Posts: 36,215
Quote:
I have thrown this bit of common wisdom out the window. When I feel the primer seat, that's how deep I leave it, as long as it's at least flush.
I seat primers hard. It is harder (Much harder, if not nigh on impossible.) to screw up a primer seating it too hard than it is to get a misfire from seating too shallow.

I agree though, as long as it is flush or deeper, and you felt it hit bottom solidly, it's OK.

I don't have any Tula's, but I did get a bad sleeve/box/pack/whatever we decided 100 was , of Winchester primers. After several hammer strikes in two guns there were some that did not fire. Decapping them and hitting them with a hammer failed to set them off as well. Since that 100, I have had no more misfires using the same gun. First misfires in all my years of reloading.
__________________
Do you ever wonder why nobody ever robs the bag man for the mob? No, you don't.

"Oh bother" said Pooh, as he chambered another round. Author unknown.
Walkalong is offline  
Old December 19, 2011, 07:17 PM   #73
USSR
Member
 
 
Join Date: July 7, 2005
Posts: 7,880
Quote:
I seat primers hard. It is harder (Much harder, if not nigh on impossible.) to screw up a primer seating it too hard than it is to get a misfire from seating too shallow.
+1.

Don
__________________
Never underestimate the amount of toil and angst a cheap SOB will put himself thru to save 50 cents.
USSR is offline  
Old December 19, 2011, 09:30 PM   #74
Seedtick
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 23, 2009
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
I believe bds will find the root of it & has good credit with me if he believes they are bad.
+1

bds, I'm paying close attention to your testing. I picked up ~ 14K Tula/Wolf primers back in the spring. I've only shot a few hundred of them, out of curiosity mainly, and they have each gone bang thus far.

I haven't shot nearly as much as a bunch of ya'll have but out of what I have shot I have only had 1 dud, excluding rimfire. It was a .270 Winchester load in Winchester brass and a Winchester large rifle primer I loaded for my son-in-law. We tried to pop it 8 or 9 times but got nothing. I thought it might not have had an anvil but it did. Other than the huge dent from the multiple strikes it looked like the new ones still in the box.

Seedtick

__________________
Got Bullets? --> Missouri Bullet Company <---> Rocky Mountain Reloading <--
I thought nothing could be more fun to reload for and shoot than my Ruger Blackhawk in .357 .........then I went and got one two in 45 Colt. Number 2 is a stainless Bisley. w00t! :)
Seedtick is offline  
Old December 19, 2011, 11:25 PM   #75
bds
Contributing Member
 
 
Join Date: January 10, 2010
Posts: 9,551
My concern is this.

Enough people have verified that they had failure to ignite issues with Wolf SP primers last year. I do realize that manufacturers may get material lots with varying levels of quality that could affect final product quality (it happens, and in this country, responsible manufacturers usually voluntarily recall those lots in question ). As far as I know, initially Wolf honored refunds/exchanges but later dropped that policy with the claim that too many customers were making false claims.

I could imagine that sales of Wolf SP (and perhaps other Wolf primers) may have seen a dip in sales because of this in 2010. Then early this year, we see a new brand of primers on the market labeled TulAmmo (and later we find that they were produced in the same plant in Russia ). I do not have any evidence to support this theory, but who's to say that early 2010 TulAmmo SP primers were those Wolf SP primers in question repackaged as TulAmmo SP primers?
And I am only speaking of lot # 20-10 that I have in my possession as I do not have experience with other lots.

Now, many have posted that they don't have an issue with occasional primer misfires because they got a good price on them (say $15/1000) and the number of "dud" primers more than make up the difference in price. Based on my failure rate, I would have been better off buying $20/1000 Winchester primers earlier this year without the misfire issue (BTW, I did stock up well on those Winchester primers ).

Here is my real concern with any primer with misfire issues. Let's say you are plinking at your favorite spot in the "woods" with Tula SP loads that you are experiencing misfires with. What if a four legged creature (or even a two legged creature ) threatens your life? Instead of your pistol going "bang", you hear "click". I do not want anyone I know to be in that situation. I guess a good insurance is to have a spare magazine full of reliable ammunition in your pocket or ammo pouch, but what if you don't get the chance to do a mag change? And still, you may have a round in the chamber that may not ignite, so to be 100% sure, you would have to eject that round and do a mag change/chamber a round ...

Last edited by bds; December 19, 2011 at 11:48 PM. Reason: deleted some comments to make post more THR friendly
bds is offline  
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Optimisation by vB Optimise.
This site, its contents, Shooting Reviews, and its contents are Copyright (c) 2010-2013 Firearms Forum, Inc.
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER
Although The High Road has attempted to provide accurate information on the forum, The High Road assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the information. All information is provided "as is" with all faults without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. Neither The High Road nor any of its directors, members, managers, employees, agents, vendors, or suppliers will be liable for any direct, indirect, general, bodily injury, compensatory, special, punitive, consequential, or incidental damages including, without limitation, lost profits or revenues, costs of replacement goods, loss or damage to data arising out of the use or inability to use this forum or any services associated with this forum, or damages from the use of or reliance on the information present on this forum, even if you have been advised of the possibility of such damages.