Printable View
I use round-nose bullets in my LP08, and it can shoot as long as I like with perfect feeding from all magazines
I tried truncated cone bullets, and immediately had feeding hangups. Checked the magazine lips etc. etc, etc. The LP08 is perfect (as far as I can tell), but the front of the cone just does not run smoothly into the chamber. Not a scientific experiment, just my experience.
I wondered about that train of thought Patrick...
I had feeding troubles with other than the usual RN bullets, except with a Schmeisser magazine. It allowed the P08 shoot function perfectly with every 9x19 round tried with the exception of 90gr Federal JHPs. Those being just too short, I think.
The reason for the change would definitely seem to be easier feeding if the `traditional´ round nose bullet.
I'm still wondering...Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
Just look at the following pics made today with my LP08, which I carefully arranged so that the magazine had the same angle and vertical position as if it were inside the pistol.
Attachment 47161
The bullet is a copper-plated type (fairly soft), and in the close-up you can see how the nose was slightly crumpled after hitting the edge of the chamber.
Attachment 47162
As the bullet is pushed out of the stack, one imagines that any distortion of the magazine lips (or maybe just plain dynamics and manufacturing tolerances) might even allow the bullet to tip up a few degrees more. With an ogival nose this is hardly a problem, as there is always a curved surface to contact the chamber and lead the bullet in, never an edge.
So, for me, the suspicion remains that the reason put forward:
was a convenient face-saver.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Peppers
I.e.
"It worked fine, but others wouldn't let us"
was politically more acceptable than
"It didn't work so well, we got a lot of feeding problems".
Does anyone have documentation to indicate that there were feeding problems with the truncated cone ammunition?
This is a translated facsimile of the directive from the war department replacing the truncated bullet with the ogival bullet.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...1/wsqkxs-1.jpg
Thanks Johnny! It does indeed seem to be, in official language "It worked fine, but others wouldn't let us".
However, I remain sceptical that the Prussian War Ministry would give a hoot what some field units thought the enemy might think in 1916! The same people who had enthusiastically (see Wikipedia) approved the use of poison gas as a weapon more than a year before???
The most generous interpretation I can provide, based on the key words "ballistic properties....identical" is that it did not provide any advantage and so a change was pointless. And maybe the coned bullets were a touch more expensive?
History is history, but I guess we can always second guess it anyway.
Two unrelated comments here:
First, I have to wonder if the primary reason to go with the round ogive bullet might have been that it was easier to produce.
Secondly, and here I digress, I've been using Hornady's 125 gr. "FP-FMJ" bullets (read "Truncated Cone") for practice reloads for a variety of 9mm pistols, BHPs most frequently, since they replicate the feed dynamics of JHPs. I have had absolutely no feeding problems in the 10+ years I've been using them.
Not familiar with the Hornady bullet, but if you look at the original truncated cone bullet posted by RCS and the bullets posted by Patrick, the early bullet appears to have more angle to the "cone", which should improve feeding.