First, before I go any farther, I would like to say your study is interesting and very useful. Thank you for it. It looks like a lot of good hard work involved.
I do not want to or intend to be contentious, I want to discuss/debate some of your conclusions, which are entirely your own business, and I respect your conclusions even if I disagree with them. But that is what creates good and valid discussion/argument in my opinion.
If I offend you, it is not my intent, and I apologize right now.
With that respectful approach, may we ‘have at it’.
The reason I am moving from JHPs in hybrid mags to FMJ in GI mags is because analysis of both at slow speed shows more consistent, controlled feeding with ball ammo and USGI magazines. It's true that I've never had a stoppage when using Golden Sabers, and likely that I could keep putting those bullets down the pipe until the end of my days without seeing a jam.
Well said, Sir. You seem to have made MY point quantitatively. How does one improve on 100% reliability. There may be advantages that I am not aware of.
That being said, putting a bunch of ammo through the gun without seeing a jam is a quantitative measure. The more rounds you put through it without seeing a jam, the more confident you can be that the next round will not jam. Analyzing how the magazine feeds is qualitative. I can look at it and see how and why feeding is reliable, not just that it hasn't jammed in so many rounds. It does more for my confidence that way.
There is a quantitative point which in fact validates any given action. If it always works, it in fact, always works. Biologically speaking life itself is actually quantitative, as many random activities, done in very large number of times, constitutes life at the cellular level in all carbon based life forms. It is in fact reliable. And that is my point.
If there is no defacto difference in the occurrence of an action one way or when done another way, it could well be argued those actions are EQUALLY RELIABLE even if one is preferred over the other.
It is in fact the qualitative advantage you believe to have with ball and controlled release, that in anyway be proven, quantitatively? Or is the move to an anemic bullet to get an advantage that is effectively non-existent? 100% = 100%
It's why I'm not as comfortable with Glocks as 1911s, even though you could argue that Glocks in general are more reliable. Glocks just chuck the round at the chamber; they use completely uncontrolled feed, so there are a ton of random factors influencing whether or not the cartridge ends up in the chamber. Sure, most or all of them have been taken into account, but the randomness means you can't say what happens to the round until after it happens. It may be irrelevant in the final reckoning, but where guns are concerned I prefer to minimize the number of things I take on faith.
Faith? Consistent and over whelming quantitative evidence says you don’t need faith, but have experience. It does raise the question of the superiority of controlled vs. non controlled feeding? Is there in fact a need for control feed if non controlled is as reliable if not more so, particularly when using the most effective bullets available for self defense?
It is in fact much more “probable” of a magazine’s “controlled” release lips to become out of spec than those of a reliable non controlled lip magazine, in my opinion, based on your report and my experience. The part about all specs being critical. Where the spec’s are not as critical when using a non controlled release lip magazine, per your report.
What problem does the controlled feed solve? If the non-controlled magazine works with equal reliably and with JHP bullets? Is that faith or a fact?
A year ago I shot a 1000 round reliability match with my Kimber. All FTF were counted against you, even operator error, or as I like to call it DFO. I had two DFO FTF’s. The group that finished with no FTF’s was a Colt Commander with Wilson Magazines, a Glock 26, with Glock magazines, and a SIG 239 with SIG magazines. Not one control feed magazine in the bunch. The next group with only two FTF’s, (no one had only one) was a Glock 17, a Baer TRS 1911, and my #2 Kimber 1911 Warrior. I used Wilson 47D magazines, The fellow with the Baer used Wilson’s too, and a Springfield EMP 9mm with the Springfield magazines.
BTW, I'm also a huge fan of the Hi-Power. My every-day carry is an FM Detective, an Argentine Hi-Power variation with an inch taken off the slide and barrel. I carry Golden Sabers in it; I'd carry FMJ if I considered 9mm FMJ terminal ballistics acceptable. Because I consider .45 ACP FMJ to have acceptable terminal ballistics (not as good as JHP, but acceptable) is the only reason I'm going with that and USGI mags.
Kool on the FM. When I carry a Hightower it is usually a Custom Jim Gartwaithe Browning Highpower, with CorBon DPX 115 +P. I find your statements about ammunition interesting by way of your quantitative vs. qualitative argument above.
There is absolutely no qualitative or quantitative proof that the 45 acp FMC is ‘better’ or worse than the 9mm FMC, none. Frankly I have much personal experience in the above subject. My two tours with the 3rd Marine Division in Vietnam (I often get the question, “were you a medic?” Nope the Marine Corps has no medical personal, we use Navy Corpsmen. I was a Marine), on the delivery end of shootings (not withstanding my own rifle wounds) And my last 19 years as a Critical Care RN working amongst other special care units (CVICU, Cardiac Transplant, SICU, MICU etc..), Trauma ICU, and inner city ER’s. The receiving side of a lot of bullet wounds.
Yet we have both qualitative and quantitative evidence that the JHP is vastly superior to the FMC in either caliber.
My understanding of your conclusion, and please correct me if I read that wrong, is you want at least equal reliability with what you used to carry (100% which is impossible to improve on), with a bullet that is well documented and scientifically proven to do much less damage to the target, and to use a much abused and misunderstood term, less “stopping power“?
Personally I am not willing to give up the vast advantage of JHP pistol bullets over any caliber in FMC. With that statement I have frankly, per your study, ruled out ever wanting to used a control feed magazine.
I prefer 100% reliability with a bullet that is much more effective, to a weapons system with 100% reliability and substantially less effective FMJ bullet. I am not a purist although to some, at times I may sound like one. I want the singularly most reliable system that will do what I need done effectively in my holster and/or hands, at that moment of highest extremity.
I just don’t understand.
Thank you.
Fred
