9mm

Yeah, here I go again. Would it be possible to take a clip(or magazine) of 9mm cartridges made in 1915 and shoot it in a brand new modern gun like a Sig,CZ, Walther,IMI ect. 9mm? Would it function as far as expected in ballistics, feeding, cycling, ejecting and accuracy? That's exactly what I'm doing when trying when I shoot my Erfurt 1918 but in reverse. Once again, I'm revealing the depths of my firearms and cartridge knowledge, (about 1 1/2") but it can't be the same. Changes in propellant composition, cartridge manufacture and primer ignition have to be relevant. If not the firearms industry is the most successful business ever not to have improved any in 75 years. Just wondering.


Roadkill

[Kyrie]

Hi Roadkill,


Cartridge propellant, primers, and brass deteriorate over time. Brass becomes brittle, primers become inert, and smokeless propellants have a very strange decay curve. Firearm steel, OTOH, doesnâ??t deteriorate if it is given minimal maintenance.


While shooting old firearms with modern ammunition can have some risks (worst case likely being Damascus shotguns), those risks are minor when compared to shooting old ammunition in any kind of firearm - new or old.


Best regards,


Kyrie

[BILL]

If I understand the statement (ammo manufactured in 1918 would function the same as ammo manufactured today) I would have to say yes, that is correct. Amazingly, a 9mm cartridge made today would function essentially the same as one manufactured in 1918. As far as little or no improvements, well, the only variable in the cartridge would be the propellant and that has seen better quality control but primarily the same ingredients. I would think that today's powders burn more efficiently but as far as cycling the action there would be little or no noticeable difference.

Kyrie, I meant theoretically, I do understand what you mean. Its amazing with all the technological changes in the last 75 years that firearms would remain basically unchanged. That's like still driving the Model T as a primary means of transportation or coal fired locomotives. This is no epiphany on my part, I argue with a guy at work that the cartridge is a dinosaur and we won't let it die, just keep on resurecting it from the dead in a new and improved version.


Roadkill

[Johnny Peppers]

People normally buy what they like, and they like the way the cartridge is packaged even though it has changed little in the past 100 to 150 years. The .22 rimfire cartridge is the most popular cartridge in terms of sales, and though more accurate loadings have been developed it is essentially the same as the day it was first sold. Modern powders and primers have certainly improved our ammunition, but the basic principle is still the same.

On the other hand, Remigton Arms recently promoted a new cartridge that was ignited electronically in a specially prepared rifle. It had virtually zero ignition time lag. It went over like the proverbial turd in the punchbowl.

I agree but it is unusual to me that weapons development in the last 100 years has developed around the brass cased cartridge concept. Its the tail wagging the dog. And I've seen the rocket guns and caseless projectiles that are electronically ignited. The caseless rounds worked great. No bolt, no ejection, no recoil, no jamming, double & triple projectiles, no smoke, very little noise.


Roadkill

[Johnny Peppers]

Although no thought was given to the problem when the brass cartridge case was first used but became critical with full automatic fire, the brass case does a wonderful job of as a heat sink in removing heat from the gun chamber.

[HÃ?Â¥kan Spuhr]

There is one problem with old ammo and that is the fact that the brass is hardening by time.

So the brass primers will get harder and harder all the time.

I have recognised that in our swedish 9mm service ammo that when its from the 50ths or older that it's not very reliable.

Regardless of gun.

In my opinion is old ammo far bigger problems than old guns.


Regards HÃ?Â¥kan