Valid question. It being subsonic it probably won't be a problem. I am convinced the 180gr WWB I used had a contributing factor in the pivot block failure on the Space ModulatOr but that stuff wasn't subsonic either. I won't shoot anything heavier in 165gr anymore. But I haven't tried any subsonic ammo yet.
ammo energy affect on S2K
I try to go easy on my 40 S&W S2K with a can, as far as ammo energy is concerned. Right now I shoot Federal 165 gr hydro shok that has a value of 161,700 when you multiply bullet weight, 165gr, times fps (980) = 161,700. I have found some subsonic ammo that is 200gr bullet weight, with a fps of 800, which comes out to 160,000. Because the 200gr bullet is traveling at a slower speed, and giving a lower mass times velocity number, I would think that it should be less stressful on the gun. Am I right, or just full of waste matter? Thanks for your help. In the past, I have been told to stay away from the 180gr bullets, because they were said to be hard on the gun.
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
I have been using the Winchester train and defend. 40 S&W 180 gr at 925 f/s suppressed with good success
Next week I am going to try out some Federal 135gr hollow points at 1190 fps which they call "reduced recoil" ammo. It has a power factor of 160,650 which is a little lower than the 165 gr Hydrashok (161,700). I am still a little worried about using the 180 gr ammo because of the bullet setback in the case. Will let you know how it works out.I have been using the Winchester train and defend. 40 S&W 180 gr at 925 f/s suppressed with good success
Sounds Ok for wear and tear, but certainly not sub somic.
I cannot address this with specific regard to the K T 2000, as I am a novice in that respect. But your concerns are, IMHO, valid.
With regard to handguns at least, there is a lot of evidence suggesting the .40 S&W can be quite hard on what are actually 9 mm Parabellum guns and frames. It is a lot like using +p ammunition in othe calibers. It is okay, as long as one heeds the advice, if you want a magnum, buy a magnum. When Bill Jordan started this trend, by suggesting S&W could build K-frame "part-time" .357 Magnums, it was great, except that many forgot the "part-time" caution. I can only wonder if a parallel exists here with the K T 2000. 9 mm platform, yet a .40 S&W option.
In all of my .40 S&W handguns, I practice 98% + of the time with "softer" loads. This is one advantage handloaders can claim. It won't hurt to practice a bit with the "carry" load but don't overdo it. Even the best handguns such as rugged 226 Sigs suffer from too much exposure to hotter .40 S&W loads, as few guns are really purposed for this cartridge; most are adapted from the 9 mm platform, and apprently, to heck with the cumulative wear-and-tear.
Just a thought. . . . Hope it helps.
Brian
With regard to handguns at least, there is a lot of evidence suggesting the .40 S&W can be quite hard on what are actually 9 mm Parabellum guns and frames. It is a lot like using +p ammunition in othe calibers. It is okay, as long as one heeds the advice, if you want a magnum, buy a magnum. When Bill Jordan started this trend, by suggesting S&W could build K-frame "part-time" .357 Magnums, it was great, except that many forgot the "part-time" caution. I can only wonder if a parallel exists here with the K T 2000. 9 mm platform, yet a .40 S&W option.
In all of my .40 S&W handguns, I practice 98% + of the time with "softer" loads. This is one advantage handloaders can claim. It won't hurt to practice a bit with the "carry" load but don't overdo it. Even the best handguns such as rugged 226 Sigs suffer from too much exposure to hotter .40 S&W loads, as few guns are really purposed for this cartridge; most are adapted from the 9 mm platform, and apprently, to heck with the cumulative wear-and-tear.
Just a thought. . . . Hope it helps.
Brian
Brian, not trying to be an ass...but it's called a Sub 2000, or a Sub/Subbie for short.
Not a K T 2000.
Not a K T 2000.
I think its okay to call them an "S2K" also?
I took my 40. S&W S2K to the range and used some of the Federal 135gr (low recoil) ammo and found the recoil to be nice and low. Now, I have been using the KT heavy bolt and the Sumo heavy charging handle for at least the last 6 months. Recoil is also light when using the Federal 165gr hydra shok at 980 fps. I would say that either ammo is a good bet to take it easy on your Subby, 6 of one, half a dozen of the other, with the 135gr being just a little lighter recoil. I don't feel like my subby is being hammered to death any more, like I did while running the 180gr ammo. Just my 2 cents, your results may vary.
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Community for Kel-Tec Shooters
A forum community dedicated to Kel-Tec firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, personal defense, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Recommended Communities
