Can now handrack most 115gr ammo, but...

[Evi1joe]

I noticed it's easy to hand-rack 115gr Critical Defense and other 115gr ammo (FMJs). However, IF I try to do a regular hand-rack with the Federal 147gr HPs, it catches on the feed"ramp".

I almost wonder if I should take away from this that even though 147gr WILL work, that 115gr (or 124gr) might be more reliable as the gun gets dirty, etc.

Of course, the bullet-angle of the Critical Defense is very steep and probably good for feeding (as is the Pow-R-Ball, which is too snappy). Previously, I thought the longer 147gr would reach out and be closer to the ramp and therefore feed easier. For all I know, these Federals aren't as sharply angled as other 147gr--I'll have to try a few other 147gr brands.

[chrish]

Under normal use (firing) either will be reliable. The Kahr slide is so lightweight/low-mass that what you are seeing, even after a long break-in period, is expected. Obviously, firing the gun, you have much more force coming down on that round just like manually releasing the slide to chamber a round. I've got hundreds and hundreds of 147gr thru my P9. Mine will actually hand rack anything I throw at it now. My TP9 still will not, but eventually I expect it to. Hand racking though isn't something I do unless I'm clearing a jam or happened to be riding the slide on the last round and have to hand rack after the mag change...which is infrequent w/ either of my Kahrs. I almost always load w/ the slide back, drop the slide w/ the slide release and go.

[Evi1joe]

Yeah, I know 147s will work, I'm just wondering if I can conclude that since they don't hand-rack as well, that they'll be the first to have an issue if the slide slows due to dirt or fouling or whatever.

I keep mine clean, so it's no big deal--I was just thinking that it might follow that a CW9/P9 gun fired 5000 times will hang up on 147s before 115s (if both are quality ammo). It might all be about bullet-shape though--the Critical Defense are little points.

I've just always thought the Kahr's "ramp" was a bit steep, and that this might make the gun more prone to causing set-back with repeated chamberings and failures-to-feed depending on the length and shape of bullets.

[RRP]

There is plenty of data showing that 124 grain +P hollow points, like Speer Gold Dots, Remington Golden Saber, and Federal HST are highly effective self-defense loads. These are used by many agencies, local and federal.

Since these loads are proven man-stoppers on the street, I see no reason to use 147 grain ammo (for which there is far less data). If you question the reliability of 147 grain ammo, don't use it. Stick with what you know feeds in your gun, and what history tells us works best on the street.

[TheTman]

I would like to ask those who choose the 147 gr. bullets, what advantage they perceive them having over the 124gr. bullets?
I ask this, hoping to learn something. My friend with a 3" barrel Kimber Officer's sized pistol, was advised to use 185gr ammo, due to it's lighter mass gaining more speed from the short barrel. Since many of us carry 9mm with 3-3.64 inch barrels, are we getting the maximum performance, with the 147gr bullets? I always looked at it like the lighter bullets were more like a .357 magnum, while the heavier bullets more like a 38 Special. Both do their job pretty well. I can see where one might choose the heavier bullets, to penetrate barriers and such when using service sized pistols, but I'm not sure that carries over to the short barrel pistols many of us use, except for the ammo that is intended for short barrel applications. Not trying to start an argument over which is best, but just want to get some ideas why you choose the load that you do. My personal choice is Hydra Shok 124 gr. normal velocity. Barrel Length is 3.3". Although I also use it in full size pistols that aren't CC'ed. Another factor was in hand load tests a friend and I did a few years ago, the 147gr bullets were the least accurate of the bullet weights tested, although the hand loading data at the time might not have been as good as it is now.

[Evi1joe]

Yeah, I don't like +P ammo because of the snappiness in little guns (and probably wasted powder). I like the recoil impulse of the heavier bullets, but as of right now, I have 147 in the pipe and Critical Defense in the mag...until I can find some affordable 124gr standard HST or Winchester PDX1 147s to try out.

@TheTMAN: 147gr bullets have lesser percentage of velocity lost with shorter barrels AND seem to have a softer recoil impulse. The weight helps them penetrate, and with most modern bullets, they still open up fine and make it to the magic 12"-14" mark. SEE QUOTE FROM Winchester LE Ammo's Senior Tech Specialist:

"When we redesigned the Ranger T Series of ammunition we widened the velocity window under which the round would expand to allow for the slower velocities that shorter than standard barrels produce. What this means is that if you own a standard or sub compact pistol the round should have adequate expansion. In 9mm I would recommend the 147 grain bullet as it loses a lower velocity percentage than the faster lighter bullet in shorter than normal barrels. This is because the bullet has more dwell time in the bore and has a greater opportunity to burn the powder before the bullet exits the bore. Powder that is burned outside the bore does nothing for velocity. The lighter faster bullets generally have more powder to burn and since the lighter faster bullets have less time in the bore they are not efficient burners of powder in the shorter barrels.
We increased the velocity window under which the round would expand by increasing the size of the hollowpoint, tweaking the jacket thickness and the depth of the cuts on the inside of the jacket petal segments.
Sincerely,
Paul Nowak
Senior Technical Specialist
Winchester Law Enforcement Ammunition"
--
Since that quote, I think they've come out with the PDX1 to compete with the Fed HST, which had beaten them in some of the FBI testing (if I'm remembering correctly). I don't care much about auto glass and other tests. I don't see a lot of love for Critical Defense in 9mm though I haven't researched it--the .380 seems like good stuff. Speer GD, Winchester Ranger and Fed HST are all great rounds. I prefer HST or Ranger, but Speer GD is always near or at the top, and Rem GS does well in most varieties (the .380 is hit and miss).

[chrish]

This is just m 2 cents, take it for what its worth.

I didn't choose 147 as my carry round because it was 147, but because of the test results compared to other stuff (also of various weights). I carry (actually carried, past tense) the Winchester PDX1 147 and Winchester Ranger RA9B 147 because they offered seemingly as good or better results that most anything else out there, but also barrier penetration if/when needed.

That being said, I've recently completed pumping enough Critical Duty 135 thru my carry guns and reliability has been 100%. That coupled w/ the tests results I've seen on this round makes it another equivalent carry round to the PDX1 for my needs. I happened to get a great deal on the CD stuff back at Christmas and I have more of it on hand now than the PDX1. But both are my top shelf ammo.

I want my bullet to hit and stay in my intended target, but if I were to have to shoot thru a barrier, I want it to fly straight if at all possible. Heavier and bonded is more likely to do that. Both the 147 PDX1, RA9B, and 135 CD seem to offer this. Not that there aren't others. Those are just the ones I've settled on.

I'm w/ Evi1joe on the +P issue. While I have _some_ of the CD 135 in +P, I don't typically buy it. See no need to have snappier ammo, particularly from something like my P9. Test results from a 4" barrel show the 135 and 135 +P CD stuff offering almost exactly the same results. +P less penetration w/ slightly more expansion. But neither were enough difference to make me want the snappier load. That's just me.

[bamaman]

I never liked 147 ammo until I tried the 147+P hst's. T
his is what I keep in my CW-9. Very accurate, and makes the gun feel like a cannon when being fired. They have come a long way with 147 ammo. It used to be junk years ago from what I've read. I just prefer heavy bullets in all my firearms.

[TheTman]

Thank you folks. Learned something useful today. Will have to mark my calendar. Only the first week in May and it will already have a smileyface on it. Too bad the rest of the week already has dunce caps on it.
Now, if we ever the 9mm inventory back up to par, I shall give the 147's a try.
It may have gotten better, I've been laid up the last couple weeks with something I'm calling flumonia. Started my 2nd round of antibiotics today, and these are some heavy hitters, so hope the worst is over.

[CJB]

What happens with hand racking has almost no bearing on what happens during recoil induced operation. So much depends on things being "just so" during high speed operation that hand racking proof, or disproof, of nothing.

Some will say - well, if I can hand rack them in, then they're sure to feed. And thats a load of malarky. Timing - of the slide as it passes the point that it will allow the next cartridge to rise in the magazine, stop, and move forward to strip that round.... how fast the round rises, and its position as its stripped.... to some extent barrel position in relation to the cartridge.... all this matters, and none of that will be dynamically illustrated with hand racking.

[Evi1joe]

CJB.
Yep.
I don't know if I'd go as far as to say it has no relevance and nothing is illustrated, but certainly the vast majority of OTHER factors (mags and springs and all the other stuff) add up to the important question of whether a round will feed successfully or not--though with bad mags, springs, grip, etc., even a "good" round may not function.
Assuming all else is equal--gun and shooter--I think due to the bullet shape, PowRBalls and 115gr CDs **MIGHT** feed more reliably than, say, Liberty 50gr wide-mouth "HALO Point" and Fiocci 158gr FMJ or **MAYBE** even these very good Federal 147 white box Hydashoks.

[CJB]

Granted, most of my functioning, tuning, accurizing is with .45's... or what we used to call .45's, which are now "1911's". More on that later...

I've seen and worked on 1911's that would hand rack everything, and not feed reliably or at all, during live fire. Seen the opposite too. You'd ask if they'd feed at all... but they did, with perfect reliability. Then there are the oddballs - the zingers - those that don't hand rack and wont feed, or those that do hand rack, and do feed. Its not really a crap shoot... there's just much more to it.

Forty-five's vs 1911's....... its like spaghetti vs "pasta". Michael Savage is correct. When we were kids, we ate spaghetti. Usually once a week. Now its a big deal, and we're eating "pasta". Used to be spaghetti was the cheapest thing on the menu, now... its pasta and the same thing is four or five times the price... just like "1911's" got real expensive when they got trendy.

[Evi1joe]

Yeah, 1911s can be weird. I like them--love the thin grip and trigger--but left them for the polymer stuff and 9mm since I was getting 9mm for free for a long time.
I still have my Colt Gov't model (accurized by Colt in the 70s), and I REALLY want an STI Spartan. But I just can't justify it. Even if I could justify another ".45", the M&P45s are 28 ounces, hold 11 rounds, and don't need much upkeep or tuning and go bang every time for years without any maintenance except minor cleaning (though they do need a trigger job and it's still nothing compared to most any 1911). Conversely, 1911s are about 40 ounces, hold 8 rounds, and generally require a little upkeep/tuning over the years or else they might not go bang every time.
--
As for this Kahr, I'm finishing breaking her in today or Tuesday, then it's off to get cera-hide or cerakoted and a new Front Sight (don't see any standard CW9 OEM sights on their website, so I may have to splurge and pay for tritium--not that I want/need it).

[tigwelder56]

Barnes 185 gr. SCHP

During my PM 45 break in I decided that following the 200 +/- round break in I would test some Taurus TCB45ACP 185 gr. SCHP's in my pistol and considering a positive outcome, I would use it as my carry load. I found it to be an extremely well functioning load, not at +P pressures either. Making it a very easy to manage round would be putting it lightly! The only problem I forsee is it's short lifespan on the retail market. I purchased several boxes a few years ago and should've had my crystal ball warmed up. Had I done so I would've purchased a tractor trailer load of the stuff. I paid $13.00/20 at the time!! If I think about it terribly hard I can easily bring myself to tears. We've truly elected an evil administration into the Whitehouse and wonder if we'll ever see prices like that again. I'm going to continue to keep my fingers crossed and enjoy these rounds as long as I can make them last!! Take a look at them, you'll probably never see them on the shelf again, at least in this wrapper.

http://www.handgunsmag.com/2010/09/2..._taurus_45acp/

[bulletdodger]

My CW9 cycles 135 grain critical duties like butter now. No hang ups or feed ramp snags at all. I sanded my follower a bit and the bullet retention lips on my magazines. Polished my feed ramp too. I also noticed that the tension is a bit high on the magazine spring. So I compressed it coil by coil to simulate mild fatigue and that helped too. Heres the tek I followed....

OK folks, here's how I did it (it's not a "how to do it", so proceed with caution and at your own risk if decide to attempt something similar)
Note!: While I'm very pleased with the results of these mods, some folks have tried modifying the follower (though not exactly as I did) and not had the same results (to varying degrees). It could be that I just encountered a "perfect storm" with this mod and my particular gun. If you attempt something similar please keep this in mind and be sure to read their posts.

First off I want to give some credit where it is due. I’m sure many here have seen this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPa3MtWkias
Basically, the maker of it suggests the use of a ProMag magazine to facilitate loading the first round from a magazine.

I finally acquired a ProMag (thanks Jim) for a little hands on research. ProMag has something of a less than stellar reputation on the internet. I’m not going to try and change that because, after seeing this magazine, I believe it’s warranted. I do need to mention that this magazine was used, so read the following with that in mind. My ProMag is a ten round magazine; I found the spring is totally inadequate for that configuration. To compound this, the follower is rough and oversize. The magazine would only feed two rounds before a nose dive stoppage on the third round. However, it did feed the first round easily; now is that because of the loose spring tension (my Kahr will usually feed without issue from a downloaded magazine) or something else. After a little comparison, I decided to eliminate the magazine tube from the equation and opted to try the ProMag follower in a Kahr magazine. My first thought here was use the Kahr spring, but it will not work with the follower unless the follower is modified to accept it. Speaking of modifications, the follower needs to sanded on it sides and rear to function without binding in the Kahr tube. I tried installing the follower with the ProMag spring and was able to fit it all in the Kahr magazine tube. This combination allowed for a capacity of 7 rounds (just like a complete Kahr unit). It also put the rounds under much more spring tension. Bench testing confirmed that the top round still fed easily and that the follower would lock the slide back. Testing in the field, the magazine functioned without issue. If the ProMag spring will hold up, I believe this is a viable modification as is.

Here's the ProMag follower/spring in a Kahr tube at work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYYZrSqGTdk

I’m not inclined to trust that spring; beside that, I’m not sure where to find a replacement if need should arise.
As it did put comparable (to an OEM magazine) pressure on the top round, I decided that the follower is the reason this all works. Now, I probably could modify the follower to work with the Kahr spring and be done with it, but after some study thought I could modify the Kahr follower to work and eliminate the need to buy extra parts.

What I did to the Kahr follower requires a pencil and some sand paper.
There is a transition point on the Kahr follower where the front portion of the feed surface slopes downward from the rear section. I decided this needs to be reduced and moved forward. I did this by wrapping the pencil in sandpaper and sanding along the rear plane of the follower maintaining it original angle. This did not totally solve the feeding issue, but perhaps it might if you took it further than I did. Then again, you risk sanding through the top of the follower. Next, I sanded the top of the follower, reducing the two ridges there. I did this by laying the sandpaper on a flat surface and sanding the top by moving the follower (again maintaining the existing angle). Now we’re cooking! Bench testing results were great as the top round feeds much easier than the stock configuration and there is no change to how the slide locks back. My previous video shows how it works, but here's another where I somewhat ride the slide home:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogM036r016M

How to sand:

How much to sand with the pencil backed sandpaper:

How much to sand using a flat surface (just under .06" on the calipers. I suggest repeated testing as material is removed to preclude manufacturing tolerances causing any issues) :

Finished:

For comparison:


Update - I had an interesting development:
"... I had both mags apart yesterday and upon reassembly, both required brisk manipulation to feed hollow point (no more riding the slide). I was dumbfounded by this development, but figured it had to be something I had done. A quick checked showed that everything looked good (parts were clean and installed correctly with the springs properly orientated). I decided to flip ends of the springs and was back in business after doing this. While this worked, I've no clue why other than there is the slightest difference between ends of the springs (and on both springs). The end that seems to have a less steep angle on the last coil needed to be at the follower. I'm going to follow this up when the new springs arrive."

So for now, I'm pleased with my modified mags, but want to do more testing. (as of 5-27, make that "very pleased" )
Regards,
Greg