Fiocchi 9MM FMJ-FP COMBATAvailable
 

Friends,

The Fiocchi 9MM COMBAT, 124 Grain FMJ-FP, is available, once again, and at a decent price, $12.06 for 50 rounds!
!
This ammo is about the closest clone to the original DWM loading that you will find. The bullet is a dead ringer for the originals!

I loved it so much that I purchased a 1,000 round brick!

Search Gun Broker for 9mm FMJ TC for the ad.

Enjoy!


Sieger

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/760651165

Hi,

Actual tested fps is more like 1070, close to the exact original DWM cartridge!

Sieger

velocity...
 

Hi Bob, For my Numrich Drum testing, I have been experimenting with American Eagle 124 grain ball, which lists specs as to very close to NATO loadings from other manufactures? (actually exceeds WW 124 gr. NATO marked ammo???) I've been having some positive results with this ammo on board! It doesn't seem to recoil as does NATO or +P so I question as to whether or not it is?...
Can you tell me anything about the American Eagle 124 grain ball?... Is it a Luger killer, or good stuff?.. :)... Thanks, til..lat'r...GT:cheers:

Hi,

GT, always a great pleasure!

The NATO Cross in Circle ammo (NATO Proofed Ammo) is the +P ammo I referenced above. Winchester sells this exact ammo to the public as..."9mm NATO" This is to be avoided.

Your American Eagle 124 grain ball ammo should be loaded to modern commercial 9mm Luger specs. These, will, again, likely exceed the original German Army loading, but by much less than the NATO loading.

One of the secrets to getting perfect function from a Luger is medium/slow burning powder. Modern commercial ammo is generally loaded hotter and with much faster burning powder than the original DWM loading.

The ultimate answer is to hand load!

I hope this helps!

Sieger

The Fiocchi Combat, I reference above, has worked great for me!

.

GT,
what is the code on the box, AE have at least 3 124 gr 9mm loadings, none are +P.

All "nato" ammo is not the same, commercial "nato" which should be hotter, is not- if the fps data on the boxes are to be believed!

Seiger,
have you crono'd any Nato ammo? if so which brands or which military ammo.

I can't agree that "handloading" is the ultimate to make a 9mm luger run well; I have and do use at least 4 or 6 brands of 115 and 124 gr ball ammo that works equally well and will run a luger in good trim without problem; including from a drum.

For some reason, that particular GB seller won't ship to Florida!

That's kinda unheard of and odd...

ammo
 

hi guys, AE9AP..... seems to work great, although I've only run about 100 rounds thru a Luger... very positive feel on recoil?... Best, GT:cheers:

Hi,

Opinions often vary, that's one reason I am here to learn.

Of the REAL 9mm NATO ammo I have fired (cross in circle proofed, crimped primers) it has all produced breach block slap! This will, eventually, destroy a Luger!

A lot different types of ammo will make a Luger "work". To work "right", you should be able to place 8 shots to one hole at 25 yards with no jams in at least 1,000 rounds fired.

This can be done with proper hand loads, but NOT with any modern commercial ammo that I am aware of.

Sieger

Zorba,

That is quite odd!!!


Sieger

I'd still be interested in the velocity if you measured any, along with the source(country or mfg) of the real Nato ammo.

I have ammo with the Nato cross/circle which should be real, but when compared "roughly" by firing, it is not any hotter, and this is the same ammo that the mfg reports in the 1050 to 1100 fps, and yes it has the supposed Nato mark.

Perhaps only the brass is "Nato" and the loads are commercial?

You must be kidding about 8 rounds in one hole; with all due respect I do not buy it from a 4" luger, not even from a machine rest.:confused:

1000 rounds without malfunction, sure there are some pistols that would do that, but it would wear me out!:cheers:

depends on the size of the hole!
 

Although not with a Luger, I know a rural farm fellow & family (good friends of mine) back in South Dakota that can put them in one hole all day long! Also, some years back, his son placed 5th in the Olympics in pistol shooting... collectively, they probably shoot a million round a year!!
But, it's all relative, given a big enough hole, I can do the same with some restrictions.. or conditions?
One, the hole has to be close enough...ideally, the muzzle protruding slightly thru the hole?
two, big enough, (see number one above?
three, no wind! Can't see when my eyes water...
four, group size, (what ever can be attained with one shot.... ?)

Reminds me of my fathers favorite drinking rules...
1) always cut me off at two, nawww, better make it two thirty!
2) the only two times I ever drink are alone or with somebody! :)

Best to all, til....lat'r....GT:cheers:

Don,

:(


Sieger

Don,

Please check the warning on the back of a Winchester brand 9mm NATO box. Here, Winchester warns the prospective shooter that Winchester NATO ammo is loaded about 10% hotter than normal Winchester 9mm Luger ammo.

Also, on the net, there are several velocity tests of various brands of 9mm ammo, both NATO and otherwise. With PPU (of all things) 9mm NATO 123 grain ammo, shot through a 5 '' barreled service M9, velocities ranged from 1,243 to 1,260. Hirtenberger 9mm NATO, again, shot through a 5'' inch barrel, was about the same.

The United States Army Technical Manuel for service ammo also lists the 9mm NATO cartridge at 1,260 fps, as shot through a service M9 pistol.

Don, do you hand load? If so, you will find that I have posted several of my successful Luger loads in the reloading section, and my accuracy results with each of them.

I hope this helps!


Sieger

Sieger,
No, I no longer hand load.

I have read all the "listed or printed" fps data; I am interested in actual Chrono data you might have measured yourself. As you well know, what a mfg. says and what is actually in the box is not necessarily the same.

Thanks.

Don,

Sorry, nothing here for your specific question.


Sieger

Points of order, no disrespect intended.

The cross in a circle indicates only that the ammunition is of a type acceptable to NATO.

NATO does not proof ammunition or firearms. NATO is a political treaty, and its signatories may or may not honor the terms of that treaty.

There is no such thing as a "NATO load". Each NATO signatory is a sovereign nation and uses whatever ammunition, loaded to whatever standard they set, in whatever firearm they choose.

Chamber pressure cannot be deduced from muzzle velocity.

Hobby chronographs are not calibrated to any given standard, nor can the owner do a valid recalibration. They are effectively toys, and don't produce velocity readings that can be meaningfully compared to velocity readings produced by any other chronograph.

Kyrie,
True dat, but I would still be interested in fps data from the SAME chrono from different "nato" marked loads. This would show relative differences, which are what are of interest to me.

I'm of the opinion that all "nato" loads are not the same, and many are not so "hot" to preclude their use in a luger.

Of course as usual the disclaimer, JMHO. :)

Well said :-)

Somewhere I have a U.S. Army FM that contains a warning not to use US produced commercial 9 mm Luger ammunition in the M9 (Beretta) handgun as US commercial 9 mm Luger ammo may be loaded to pressures that can damage US issue M9 pistols.

This stuff can get passing strange in fairly short order.

Part of that is, I think, due to bad preconceptions. Take, as an example, the 7.62x25 Tokarev cartridge. S&B lists their 7.62 Tok as having a 1600 FPS MV, so people expect to get 1600 FPS out of their TT-33s and Vz.52s. When all they get is something like 1400 FPS they wonder how S&B could get things so wrong.

The missing element here, and the root of the misconception, is S&B (like just about all munitions makers) take their MV measurements at the same time they do pressure testing, and from the same pressure test barrel. Which, for S&B, and for the 7.62 Tok cartridge is a barrel that is just shy of eleven inches in length. Small wonder people usually get circa 1400 FPS from TT-33/Vz.52 using S&B 7.62 Tok.

Sometime in the past, I read a nice report about the "range" of velocities that were found in NATO 9mm ammo. It was quite staggering, to say the least. I will try and see if I can find this information and present it here. It was a well written article with good references.


When one reads the velocity rating for any brand and caliber of ammo, you must know how that was determined(i.e. barrel length, test barrel or production barrel, actual firearm or test barrel, etc.) in order to deduce the values as to your situation. A lot of variation exists in velocity rating from professional equipment and private equipment, but I feel the gap has closed down a lot in the recent years.

This info is not on "nato" ammo, but on a lot of other 9mm loadings; added here for info and/or confusion! :)

http://www.ballistics101.com/9mm.php

Hi,

Please cite your sources.

What does acceptable to NATO mean?

Per the United States Army Technical Manual on Service Ammo, I cite above, acceptable U.S. 9mm NATO service ammo is listed as a 121 grain bullet at 1,260 fps, as shot from an M9 Service pistol. Powder and charge weights are also listed. Obviously, these standards may have changed over the years.

This is in the +P range for regular commercial ammo.

What is actually in the treaty concerning standardization of members' ammo, I do not know.

It seems a bit futile to me to standardize on a caliber while ignoring the performance requirements of same, given the range of weapons designed for its possible usage.


Sieger

Don,

Great!

Thanks!


Sieger

as far as Lugers are concerned??
 

It looks to me, that any 124 gr. factory load UNDER 1200 ft per second, is fine.... I didn't look at the standard 115, but would think there is a bridge to cross there ae well!
Now, +P was definitely a BIG step up in velocity and I would suppose all other factors that would cause some Luger issues from too much use??
The NATO listings were, from what I could see, in a range between the two?... Soooo, as a total lack of experience guy, I would NOT shoot anything labeled NATO or/and NEVER shoot +P in my Luger! Basically, I'm just looking for stuff that works, is consistent, and reliable... best to all, til...lat'r...GT:cheers:

Rhuff,

Great!

I hope you can find it!

Sieger:banghead:

Hi,

Modern chronographs are certainly not priced as toys.

Does anyone here have specific performance test data on the various brands?


Sieger

On the point of barrel length and it's effect on manufacturers published velocities... Shooters have always been drawn to higher velocities and manuf played that up in their advertising and data tables. Back between wars, when most if not all African game ammo was produced in England, the Brits stacked the deck to show their ammo and cartridges were vastly superior to those of the Continent. Many heated discussions were held over 375 Flanged vs. 9.3X74 and .416 Rigby vs. 10.75X68 etc. The data tables showed the Brit cartridges to be vastly superior with similar bullet weights. The truth could be found in that little block listed as 'barrel length'. The British cartridges were generally tested with 32-36" barrels and the European with 20-22" barrels! Most buyers went down the list and looked at velocity and bullet weight and inquired no further in how they got there. Sorry if I went off on a tangent but my point is that advertised data is only that...advertising. The truth is in verification.

Hello Sieger,

I’m going to break your post up into sections, and re-order your questions/comments in hopes of making this more readable.

The short (and uninformative) answer is “nothing.” I strongly recommend you read the text of the NATO treaty. Google and find a copy yourself, or use this link :

https://www.nato.int/cps/ic/natohq/o...exts_17120.htm

The standardization agreements between NATO signatories (STANAG) are numerous and those few STANAG that speak to small arms ammunition address the storage and handling of ammunition rather than manufacture. Google ‘NATO STANAG’ and do some reading to get a flavor of this, or use this link to browse publicly available standard documents:

http://nso.nato.int/nso/nsdd/listpromulg.html

The cross in a circle in general use indicates the material so stamped is acceptable to a NATO signatory and is interchangeable with the same material accepted by other NATO signatories. A shovel is a fair example of such ‘material’.

In the context of small arms ammunition the cross in a circle is essentially meaningless. See here:

https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovc...Pellegrino.pdf

Respectfully, and with no offense intended, you are mistaken. There is no single bullet weight standard of US Army M882 ball ammunition. Velocity testing is never done from a service pistol; rather it is done from a pressure test barrel. I don’t know where your information came from, but it is a departure from reality.

Here are three pages from TM 43-0001-27 (small caliber ammunition data sheets) consisting of the cover page, the page detailing the characteristics of the M882 ball ammunition, and (for context) the page that details the TM’s data concerning commercial 9x19 Luger and its usage by the US Army. Page 12-5 is the one that contains the correct information for the M882 cartridge.

http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/m...n/TM_Cover.jpg

http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/m...on/TM_12-5.jpg

http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/m...on/TM_12-3.jpg


No sir, it is not.

Firstly, the term ‘+P’ is a technical term used by SAAMI (See here: http://www.saami.org/specifications_...wnload/205.pdf
) to denote ammunition intentionally manufactured with acceptable chamber pressures that exceed those allowable to non plus P ammunition. It is a chamber pressure standard, not a MV velocity standard, and it is not possible to determine whether an ammunition is or is not plus P based solely on that ammunition’s MV.

There is a misconception that ammunition manufactured for military usage is loaded to higher chamber pressures than the corresponding ammunition manufactured for commercial sale. The reality tends to be the reverse, with commercial ammunition having a higher pressure limitation than the corresponding military cartridge. The 9 mm Luger, AKA 9x19 is a good example of this as can be seen by comparing pages 12-3 and 12-5 from the TM, included above.

Not really. NATO STANAG was always intended to deal with larger issues than small arms ammunition. And while having true interoperability of ammunition across NATO signatories has always been a goal of the NATO signatories militaries, such interoperability has not been attained and (IMO) likely never will be.

Done :-)

Best,

Kyrie

Kyrie,

I appreciate your response above and have uncovered additional, very valuable, information regarding it. This additional information is directly on point; that being, the standards to which 9mm NATO ammunition is loaded.

Please review the following materials, all of which are available on the internet.

NATO STANAG No. 4090 (Edition 2), STANDARDIZATION AGREEMENT, SMALL ARMS AMMUNITION (9mm PARABELLUM).

This somewhat inclusive agreement lays out standardization requirements for: the cartridge, the chamber and barrel, and technical performance specifications governing design and acceptance of NATO 9mm ammunition. Please read through this it in its entirety.

Please note under AIM ...to ensure functional interchangeability of this ammunition on the battlefield".

Please also note the ratification and implementation dates on the various NATO member countries.

NATO SMALL ARMS AMMUNITION INTERCHANGEABILIY VIA DIRECT EVIDENCE TESTING (one of your cites to me above).

Here we are given an insight into the actual tests and procedures used, the various facilities used and the various standards required. Without passing these stringent tests, the NATO interchangeability (Proof Mark) can not be applied. In fact, future failure of a given lot to meet these same stringent requirements will cause the removal of this mark. Please read this short publication in its entirety.

NATO EPVAT TESTING

Therein is explained and described the three major world standards for testing ammo: NATO EPVAT (as used for NATO member testing) , SAAMI (as used in the U.S.) and CIP (as used in Europe). By far and away, the NATO EPVAT is the most inclusive testing standard, as terminal affect, verses shooter's safety only, is also thoroughly tested.

It is important to note that pressure is tested using totally different methods for the aforementioned three distinct testing standards. This fact has proven to be point of much confusion! Please read through this in its entirety.

SAAMI's webpage, under TECHNICAL DATA SHEET, UNSAFE FIREARM-AMMUNITION COMBINATIONS

Here we find, on page 3, that they warn not to fire 9mm NATO Military ammo through firearms chambered for 9mm Luger (Parabellum). Please read through these SAMMI warnings in there entirety.

TM 43-0001-27 TECHNICAL MANUAL, ARMY AMMUNITION DATA SHEETS, SMALL CALIBER AMMUNITION, FSC 1305, CHAPTER 12, 9mm CARTRIDGES, PAGES 12-3,5 &6

Please take note of the pressure measurement warning carefully noted in the middle of page 12-3. Here, we are warned that mid case pressures (SAAMI and CIP testing methods) may be 8,000 to 10,000 higher than case mouth testing procedures (NATO EPVAT testing method).

Please also note that M882 U.S. NATO ball ammunition, is standardized with a 112 grain bullet, shot from an EPVAT test barrel, at 1,263 fps, at 15 feet from that barrel. Please note that case mouth pressure figures are quoted here. Usage IS authorized in the M9 pistol.

The commercial ammo listed on page 12-3 lists a 115 grain bullet, at 1,125 fps, at 15 feet from an EPVAT test barrel. Please note that mid case pressure figures are quoted here. Usage is NOT authorized in the M9 pistol.

WINCHESTER'S BOX LABEL WARNING REGARDING 9MM NATO AMMO.

On the box labels I have read on Winchester 9mm NATO ammo, sold through commercial channels, the following is warned..."These cartridges are loaded to military velocity and pressure; average pressure is 10% to 15% higher than industry standard pressure for 9mm Luger."

Given that Winchester is using a standardized method of testing (SAAMI standards) for all ammo sold by it, and the fact that they should know about the products they are selling, the conclusion they have stated should be obvious to anyone.

CONCLUSIONS.

I believe both Winchester's warning statement, as well as, the other substantial authority as cited above.

THE NATO PROOFED AMMO I HAVE SHOT THROUGH MY LUGERS HAS CAUSED BREACH BLOCK SLAP, WHICH WILL EVENTUALLY DISTROY A LUGER!!

FIRE IT AT YOUR OWN RISK!!!


Sieger

No machine rest, not one hole either.:rolleyes: But, good anyway at 25 meters, and from a 4 inch barrel, shot one handed in competition.

First target 115 gr WWB before they "improved" them.:rolleyes:

Second and third targets, my own reloads with 124 gr FP bullets and Vectan BA9.

And for your information. I am not a fan of Fiocchi. You can get 3 well grouped shots and 2 flyers in one 5 shot string.:mad:


Edit. Wrong quote.:o It should have been Don Voigt's. Sorry. :o

Sieger,

Yes sir, I am aware of STANAG 4090:

http://www.gigconceptsinc.com/files/...ridge_9x19.pdf

4090 was never accepted by US DOD or ANSI/SAMMI, and was not implemented by the US.

Strongly advise keeping in mind the fact NATO is a treaty that has no enforcement element. NATO treaty signatories pursue their own interests without regard to NATO treaty obligations. NATO Standard Agreements are something of a bad joke.

Kurusu

That's some outstanding shooting!

Kyrie

These groups I would expect, but not "one hole" BS.:eek:

Don,

Thanks again for your caustic comment.

Maybe you suffer from low expectations.


Sieger

Kyrie,

Then why does STANAG 4090 state that it was, indeed, implemented, by all three branches of our Armed Forces, in June of 1986?

Sieger

Kurusu,

Hi, its been a while.

I bet with some Power Pistol powder, you could tighten those groups considerably. Try 5.1 to 5.5 grains and find your sweet spot. Also, what bullet are you using and at what C.O.A.L.?

With a bench rest position, hand held over a sand bag, I'm sure an excellent shot like you could hold the "X" ring with no problem.


Sieger

Seiger,
No I just don't believe your one hole comment, unless as GT said, it is a "big" hole.
Kurusu "holding the X ring" is a far cry from one hole!

If you can document such a group I'll shut up.:eek:

I know what it takes to get a one hole group from a precision bench rest rifle, with a roll of paper moving behind it to to confirm that indeed, the number of rounds claimed were fired.

A Luger just will not do it, no matter how good your hand loads are.

I have "reasonable" expectations, neither "low" nor "pie in the sky". ;)

I know that. But I am only human, very far from a Ransom rest.:rolleyes:

Hi back to you. I would have tried Power Pistol already. If it was for sale here.:mad:

COL was 1,1 with RG (Spanish brand) bullets.

Don,

Please feel free to comment as you would like to.

Yes, I do have many Luger fired, twenty-five yard, three-to-one-hole (defined as three shots touching) group targets as posted by me over the many years I have been active here. Does that meet YOUR definition of one hole groups? Maybe not.

"One hole" vs. "in the same hole" have two completely different meanings, as we both realize. For instance, a three shot one hole group could be a group with an 18 mm total spread, whereas, a three shot in the same hole group would have only a 9mm total diameter.

My post above regarded one hole groups, not, in the same hole groups, as you will note when you reread my post. Eight shots, in the same hole, would be a good group, indeed!

I hope this clarifies things a bit.

Comments?


Sieger