18+ Content Warning

By clicking Enter, you confirm you are 18 years of age or older and agree to comply with all applicable local, state, and federal laws.

Notice: Any content or member activity - including anything you may buy, sell, transfer, or discuss - must comply with current and upcoming laws.

Members are encouraged to stay informed: California Firearm Laws: 2026 Outlook & 2025 Recap . Responsibility for compliance rests solely with the individual member.

caguns.net

Welcome to CAguns.net!
Join our growing community where you can ask questions, share knowledge, or browse our classifieds section.

Sign up for a free account today and unlock full access! Once registered, you can search, post, and take advantage of exclusive features unavailable to guests.

A note on why more of the site now requires an account: automated scrapers and AI systems have been crawling our forums and classifieds at a scale. Requiring sign-in for those sections is the most effective tool we have. It takes a minute to register, it's free, and it keeps what happens here between actual members.

New to California gun ownership or trying to keep up with the changing laws? Check out our sister site CA2A.com — free courses, plain-English legal updates, and step-by-step guides built for California owners.

Advanced features are available only to registered members. Register today!

Testing Carry Ammo

$.02 to add to the thread. I don't carry so have no valid input but bought some ammo from someone who worked for a company that tested body armor so I can relay that info.

He stated the only round out of all the testing that actually penetrated the test armor was Winchester LE Ranger 9mm 127gr +P+ RA9TA.

You can take that with a grain of salt but it was a valid source that stated it.


Another note, I know several LEO's and Federal HST gives the biggest discounts to LE compared to Win, Speer, Hornady, etc which I think might add to the reason that most agency's use that round. (just my speculation though)


Just another note: in testing, Winchester had the lowest measurable flash of all LE ammo at night time conditions. (that test was years go though)


Matt
 
I usually run 5 to 10 rounds of new ammo through for function test and zeroing. After that it is reloads only for practice when I do shoot my carry. At the end of the year I use up the carry ammo and buy a few new boxes and start over. No real rhyme or reason to it.
 
Which ones in your experience has had issues and require alot of testing?

I’m curious too which guns and ammo were an issue? So far I haven’t ran into a reliability problem but it’s probably just the type of pistols I have

Had issues with feed ramps on a couple micros. A p229 that had issues with HP catching on LCI & then some 2011 style guns but those were magazine/follower issues.
 
I’m curious too which guns and ammo were an issue? So far I haven’t ran into a reliability problem but it’s probably just the type of pistols I have

When I get a new gun, I'm totally stoked. I'm excited. I WANT to shoot it. First time out, I'll probably put 100-200 rounds of regular ammo though it. That gives me an idea about reliability. I'm of the opinion that if a gun has a problem with any ammo that cannot be accounted for logically, then maybe the gun isn't really what I'm looking for. After having a little fun with the gun, I'll probably put a magazine or two of top shelf ammo through it. If the gun isn't screwing up during that period, I deem it reliable. If it ever starts screwing up, I need to know WHY.

When you've been playing with guns long enough, you'll eventually come across some duds. Here's a couple of mine that come to mind:

1. 1976 Colt .22 LR Single Action. I had a lot of failures to fire and could never figure it out. I was young and stupid. The gun was set aside for decades. When I next took it out, I figure out that the CCI ammo I was using was the culprit. Every other ammo I tried was reliable. CCI wasn't.

2. Colt Government .380 from the 1980's. This was a low point for Colt. The gun had failures to feed and failures to fire. A couple trips back to Colt didn't fix the problems. That's when I decided that I could be a better gunsmith than those who were paid to do it. I still have the gun, and it's now reliable.

3. Kimber Solo circa 2014. It was a raging piece of şħíț from Day 1. Leslie Edelman can #$%^ (*&#% #&#@. Kimber screwed me, insulted me, and eventually quit production of the little piece of junk. Fool me once, shame on you.

4. Kahr P380. This one isn't terrible. It will be reliable enough so you'll think it's ok... and then it will fail to fire or jam. I think it might be dirt dependent: it seems to run good at first, but then after 50-100 rounds, it will glitch. One might argue that you don't put 100 rounds through your carry gun between cleanings. I'll reply that a carry gun MUST run when dirty. If a gun screws up after a little bit of powder residue, then you can't depend on it if you get knocked the the ground and the gun hits the dirt. That's not good enough.
 
When I get a new gun, I'm totally stoked. I'm excited. I WANT to shoot it. First time out, I'll probably put 100-200 rounds of regular ammo though it. That gives me an idea about reliability. I'm of the opinion that if a gun has a problem with any ammo that cannot be accounted for logically, then maybe the gun isn't really what I'm looking for. After having a little fun with the gun, I'll probably put a magazine or two of top shelf ammo through it. If the gun isn't screwing up during that period, I deem it reliable. If it ever starts screwing up, I need to know WHY.

When you've been playing with guns long enough, you'll eventually come across some duds. Here's a couple of mine that come to mind:

1. 1976 Colt .22 LR Single Action. I had a lot of failures to fire and could never figure it out. I was young and stupid. The gun was set aside for decades. When I next took it out, I figure out that the CCI ammo I was using was the culprit. Every other ammo I tried was reliable. CCI wasn't.

2. Colt Government .380 from the 1980's. This was a low point for Colt. The gun had failures to feed and failures to fire. A couple trips back to Colt didn't fix the problems. That's when I decided that I could be a better gunsmith than those who were paid to do it. I still have the gun, and it's now reliable.

3. Kimber Solo circa 2014. It was a raging piece of şħíț from Day 1. Leslie Edelman can #$%^ (*&#% #&#@. Kimber screwed me, insulted me, and eventually quit production of the little piece of junk. Fool me once, shame on you.

4. Kahr P380. This one isn't terrible. It will be reliable enough so you'll think it's ok... and then it will fail to fire or jam. I think it might be dirt dependent: it seems to run good at first, but then after 50-100 rounds, it will glitch. One might argue that you don't put 100 rounds through your carry gun between cleanings. I'll reply that a carry gun MUST run when dirty. If a gun screws up after a little bit of powder residue, then you can't depend on it if you get knocked the the ground and the gun hits the dirt. That's not good enough.
Wow surprised about Kimber, they have a good reputation
 
So 30 years ago I would give different advice, but most modern semi autos will fire a wide range of carry/hollow point ammo.

Now a days I fire a couple hundred rounds of ball ammo through a new gun to verify it, and the mags are good to go. Then I'll buy a box or two of my favorite carry ammo and shoot 20 rounds slow, 20 rounds fast. If there are no stoppages and the slide is not sluggish (nose dives, etc) I feel confident.

You'll have people motherless 🐐 about carry ammo price, but I'd rather know, then find out at the wrong time.
 
Back
Top Bottom