Macchina
Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 998
Ammo in question:
I have an older box (probably 15 years old) of Blazer .357 158g JHP (Type 3542, Aluminum Cased) ammo that I shot over my Master F1 Chronograph. It clocked 1044 FPS from my 4.2" Ruger SP101. I was pretty happy with this, but noticed it was a whole 150 FPS slower than advertised. I thought this may be due to age. On CCI Blazer's own website the ammo is supposed to go 1150 FPS from a 4" vented barrel. This is by no means a barn burner, and a 158g load at 1150 FPS from a 4" barrel is a pretty light load compared to many current offerings. I purchased two more boxes at Walmart a few weeks ago and decided to run those over my chronograph as well. I shot them from my snub and the SP101. The average velocity of 5 rounds:
Blazer .357 158g JHP, Type 3542 (lot#: L24U5):
Ruger SP101 .357 4.2" barrel: 810 FPS
Ruger LCR .357 1.875" barrel: 818 FPS
That's right: CCI claims this stuff should go 1150 FPS from a 4" vented barrel, and it actually clocks 810 FPS from a 4.2" barrel! Not only that, but it's traveling faster from a SNUB! Talk about running out of gas... This .357 MAGNUM load is about the same speed as a similar weight bullet out of STANDARD PRESSURE .38 SPECIAL.
I emailed CCI about this and the guy who responded was very helpful and kind at first. He asked me for the lot number, then tested ammo from that same lot, but through a 10" test barrel. Coming out of a much longer test barrel, the ammo was traveling 1155 FPS. He proceeded to tell me that the test shows it actually goes faster than CCI advertises it should. I asked him several times why the chart claims an 1150 FPS speed from a 4" vented barrel when they are testing it in a 10" test barrel. After beating around the bush through many emails he finally admitted that they test all of their ammo in the 10" test barrel and run it through an equation to calculate the speed from a 4" vented barrel. I'm sure he felt as stupid as it sounds as he typed it. I of course asked him what the equation was that takes 1155 FPS from a 10" barrel and calculates the ammo will travel 5 FPS slower from a barrel 6" shorter.
I am still waiting on a response and it's been a bit so I assume he's done talking to me. Through this whole email exchange he kept suggesting that my gun is malfunctioning or my chronograph is measuring the gas speed instead of the bullet speed. Each time he suggested something wrong with my setup (which there could have been, but I'm quite sure there wasn't) I pleaded with him to measure the velocity of this ammo through a 4" barrel instead of a 10" barrel. He never even referenced my requests and acted as if barrel length did not have an effect on velocity.
Bottom line: I will never buy CCI centerfire ammo again. I do not trust a company that makes such extreme jumps in logic when it comes to trusting a small explosion happening 1/2" from my mouse-hand. Instead of once admitting that I may have been on to something.
TL;DR: CCI Blazer .357 158g JHP (Type 3542) chronographs at 810 FPS while they claim it should travel 1150 FPS.
I have an older box (probably 15 years old) of Blazer .357 158g JHP (Type 3542, Aluminum Cased) ammo that I shot over my Master F1 Chronograph. It clocked 1044 FPS from my 4.2" Ruger SP101. I was pretty happy with this, but noticed it was a whole 150 FPS slower than advertised. I thought this may be due to age. On CCI Blazer's own website the ammo is supposed to go 1150 FPS from a 4" vented barrel. This is by no means a barn burner, and a 158g load at 1150 FPS from a 4" barrel is a pretty light load compared to many current offerings. I purchased two more boxes at Walmart a few weeks ago and decided to run those over my chronograph as well. I shot them from my snub and the SP101. The average velocity of 5 rounds:
Blazer .357 158g JHP, Type 3542 (lot#: L24U5):
Ruger SP101 .357 4.2" barrel: 810 FPS
Ruger LCR .357 1.875" barrel: 818 FPS
That's right: CCI claims this stuff should go 1150 FPS from a 4" vented barrel, and it actually clocks 810 FPS from a 4.2" barrel! Not only that, but it's traveling faster from a SNUB! Talk about running out of gas... This .357 MAGNUM load is about the same speed as a similar weight bullet out of STANDARD PRESSURE .38 SPECIAL.
I emailed CCI about this and the guy who responded was very helpful and kind at first. He asked me for the lot number, then tested ammo from that same lot, but through a 10" test barrel. Coming out of a much longer test barrel, the ammo was traveling 1155 FPS. He proceeded to tell me that the test shows it actually goes faster than CCI advertises it should. I asked him several times why the chart claims an 1150 FPS speed from a 4" vented barrel when they are testing it in a 10" test barrel. After beating around the bush through many emails he finally admitted that they test all of their ammo in the 10" test barrel and run it through an equation to calculate the speed from a 4" vented barrel. I'm sure he felt as stupid as it sounds as he typed it. I of course asked him what the equation was that takes 1155 FPS from a 10" barrel and calculates the ammo will travel 5 FPS slower from a barrel 6" shorter.
I am still waiting on a response and it's been a bit so I assume he's done talking to me. Through this whole email exchange he kept suggesting that my gun is malfunctioning or my chronograph is measuring the gas speed instead of the bullet speed. Each time he suggested something wrong with my setup (which there could have been, but I'm quite sure there wasn't) I pleaded with him to measure the velocity of this ammo through a 4" barrel instead of a 10" barrel. He never even referenced my requests and acted as if barrel length did not have an effect on velocity.
Bottom line: I will never buy CCI centerfire ammo again. I do not trust a company that makes such extreme jumps in logic when it comes to trusting a small explosion happening 1/2" from my mouse-hand. Instead of once admitting that I may have been on to something.
TL;DR: CCI Blazer .357 158g JHP (Type 3542) chronographs at 810 FPS while they claim it should travel 1150 FPS.
Last edited: