Dud rounds: a cogent explanation for one leading cause

[Dave DeLaurant]

I had never considered the connection between solvents remaining in propellants and dud primers until reading this interesting article this morning:

Why Some Cartridges Seem to Last Forever and Some Are Duds in 10 years or Less - Small Arms Review

The problem of ammunition deteriorating and failing to fire seems to have become bigger in recent years with relatively new ammo failing to fire in some

smallarmsreview.com

I never noticed that Seal, Case Vent in this specification until now!

 

[I6turbo]

Interesting, and a bit worrisome. Just thinking about how many shortcuts companies in general have been driven to take makes me wonder if ammo I've acquired in the last few years will be as reliable in the future as older stuff that I have. Some of the older ammo has been loaded for 35+ years and hasn't produced a dud when I fired a 20-30 rounds of it from time to time.

 

[herrwalther]

I picked my first hunting rifle because it was a cartridge that has been around for over a hundred years. 35 Remington. And now, it is impossible to find ammo or components for. It makes me leery of investing in a new cartridge like 6.5 Creedmore, because no one knows how long anything is going to stick around.

I don't place much stock in the solvents and wannabe solutions for cartridge life of the article. Why? Because consumerism drives innovation almost, if not more so than military contracts. In the 1970s and 1980s, 9mm was considered the weakest service caliber. Agencies opted for the 40 S&W and the 10mm. Then the 1986 Miami shootout happened. Where the 9mm really came under a microscope. Using the basis of this article, 9mm should have died. But it didn't. It went through a major change and is now the most common caliber on the planet. Arguably alongside 22LR. It is now considered "good enough" for agencies world over as well as civilian self defense use.

Chemical studies along side military studies in the article is frank hogwash BS. The military has known what makes stable powder and primer work for the better part of a century. And made significant bounds since Vietnam on the stability and reliability of powder propellants over the IMR 4475. Which is long dead because of issues related to 5.56 NATO. The author is throwing out terms that sound smart, but aren't. I have fired ammo from before the author was even born. And work fine. Jim Dickson majorly writes for Huffington Post and New Food magazine. Emphasis not in firearms. But I digress. Self proclaimed "expert" in firearms is not always the case.

 

[Dave DeLaurant]

Redacted

 

[rust collector]

Thank you for the link to the article. I always wondered why primers for centerfire rounds did not appear to be sealed, while those for shot shells usually had some type of lacquer or sealant.

I suspect that plasticizers and solvents have many side effects that are not well known, including endocrine disruption. We all grew up in the miracle plastics era, but have since learned that many modern conveniences comes with a hidden price.

Meanwhile, my efforts to rotate my stock may have been misguided. I still rarely encounter misfires in 50 year old ammo, so probably should shoot the newer stuff first.

 

[tmd16556]

Ive had cleaning solvent dud powder before seeping in from an over oiled chamber. Never a primer problem.

It looks like they’re selling celluloid strips here. I wonder how effective plastic cling film would be. It might be awful but primers are energetic enough to pop it.

 

[Dave DeLaurant]

Ive had cleaning solvent dud powder before seeping in from an over oiled chamber. Never a primer problem.

It looks like they’re selling celluloid strips here. I wonder how effective plastic cling film would be. It might be awful but primers are energetic enough to pop it.

FWIW, my main takeaway from the article was the importance of storing loaded ammo and bulk propellant and primers at moderate temperatures.