![]() |
Found this 9mm Luger ammo vs 9mm
Long article. Wonder what the members think of their conclusions? MMM?? Does not highlight, but does still link.
http://thebigdeer.com/what-is-the-di...mm-luger-ammo/ |
In my Navy shooter I have fired older 9mm Luger ammo, and todays 9mm (no +p) and found no difference in function or accuracy. I must be out of touch. Used the term 9mm Luger, and just 9mm, but never 9mm NATO. Of course hear the term 308 NATO used all the time.
|
Not all "9mm nato" ammo is loaded to the same velocity or pressure; neither is commercial 9mm "luger".
There are lots of threads here and on the other forum about the possible differences. You are not out of touch, that article is somewhat misleading - and never trust a guy that says the specifications "implies"- something; that means "he doesn't know for sure and made no attempt to check it". JMHO ;) |
An article full of hot air.
SAAMI publishes modern specifications for 9mm by 19mm Luger ammunition. Either a modern manufacturer follows these specifications and enters the market responsibly or they don't. Gun manufacturers design firearms to handle SAAMI specification cartridges, then test them to ensure safe operation. Guns developed prior to the SAAMI specifications also complied with diverse standards that differed from the SAAMI standards. Wartime Lugers did not comply with SAAMI standards because those standards didn't exist at the time. But this article is not about wartime Luger pistols. Cartridges go by a variety of marketing names. The original name of the 9mm x 19mm cartridge was the "9mm Parabellum". The article author doesn't even mention that name in his overview. ALL 9mm Luger ammunition is tapered. It's in the specification. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...bellum.svg.png It tapers from the 9.96mm diameter base to the 9.65mm mouth, which is where the cartridge headspaces. Nato standard "STANAG 4090" is a 1982 standard issued separately by NATO for their service cartridge. This specification is for a +P variant of the standard 9mm x 19mm pistol round with the same dimensional specifications as the 9mm Parabellum round. In the United States, the cartridge is also know by a US Military specification: 9mm NATO 124 MC M882 Specs:MIL-C-7050 It is focused on interchangeability and the NATO process is discussed here: https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovc...Pellegrino.pdf A good overview: https://ammunitionstore.com/content/...Parabellum.pdf |
Thank you. It's a great history of the 9mm Luger and it's variants.
|
Quote:
A quick conversion of 230 MPa to PSI yields 33,358.7 PSI. SAAMI maximum average chamber pressure for the (non +P) 9 mm Luger is 35,000 PSI In short, STANAG 4090 calls for NATO compliant 9x19 ammunition to be loaded to a lower maximum average chamber pressure that that permissible under SAAMI. |
And we all should recognize that "transducer pressure" is not the same as "cup" or "copper units of pressure; though both are usually denominated in British units of "PSI" - pounds per square inch.
One can read about the differences in these two methods of chamber pressure of measurement till one's head spins. Look it up if you are interested in learning more. ;) |
Quote:
Don is absolutely correct here, just as I was two or three months ago. You are just repeating your misunderstanding over and over with the hope that someone, anyone, will believe it. Don is right in suggesting that you spend more study time on this often misunderstood and somewhat confusing topic. Also please check the warning label on each box of 9mm NATO ammo, commercially sold by Walmart, that warns that Winchester 9mm NATO is loaded to 10 to 15% higher pressure than commercial 9mm Luger cartridges. Your comments on Winchester's warning label are welcomed. Respectfully, Sieger |
Quote:
mrerick, Bump for 99.99% of this post!!! Except, I disagree that a case as tapered as the 9mm Luger head spaces on the mouth of the case. Respectfully, Sieger |
Quote:
By completely ignoring this article, you will save time and total confusion. Respectfully, Sieger |
Quote:
NATO is primarily a political organization and only secondarily a military alliance. Each NATO signatory is free to ignore any and all NATO agreements (including all the STANAG) if the signatory finds those agreements to be counter to the national security of the signatory. Net result of that is each NATO signatory fields whatever equipment (including ammunition) that meets the needs of the signatory, STANAG be damned. Re the marking on boxes of Winchester commercial ammunition, take them all with a grain of salt. Not too long ago Winchester began marketing 7.62x25 Tokarev ammunition in boxes marked "Winchester", cartridges head stamped "Winchester", with performance data for "Winchester 7.62x25 Tokarev" on the Winchester web site. Nowhere did Winchester acknowledge that ammunition was produced by S&B, in the Czech republic, and marked and packaged by S&B as Winchester ammunition. It was, in reality, Czech S&B 7.62x25 Tokarev ammunition and it's only relation to Winchester was Winchester's check book (pun intended). In terms of US Army 9x19 ammunition, somewhere I have a US Army ammunition TM that gives data on commercial 9x19 and US Army 9x19. The TM sez US commercial 9x19 has an average max chamber pressure of 36,000 psi, and US Army NATO 9x19 has an average maximum chamber pressure of 27,000 psi. That same TM sez the use of commercial 9x19 ammunition in the M9 pistol is not authorized. What's the truth here? The truth is there isn't a single truth. There are a number of truths, and they all conflict in some way. |
Seems this may be one of Robert McNamara"s "unknowable knowns". :)
|
Quote:
Back at the end of the 1950s, beginning of the 1960s, NATO signatories had a tiff concerning a NATO "standard rifle and cartridge." The US wanted a main battle rifle (the M-14) and a full power rifle cartridge (the 7.62x51). The rest of NATO wanted an assault rifle and a to-be-named assault rifle cartridge. The English were hot for a FN SLR chambered for a .276 intermediate power cartridge. To bring the tiff to an end the English said they would agree to the 7.62x51 cartridge as the NATO standard rifle cartridge, if the US would agree to adopt the FN SLR as the standard NATO rifle. The US agreed. Just after England bought a crap load of FN SLR rifles chambered for the 7.62x51 and tooled up to produce 7.62x51 ammunition, Bob McNamara announced the US was adopting the M-16 rifle and the 5.56x45 mm cartridge. Parts of the English military arms selection group were frostily polite to their US counterparts for several years. Welcome to NATO :-) |
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
|
I know of the correct term 7.62 mm NATO being used. but I hear the term 308 NATO used for more often as when I ask what caliber their rifle is, most respond 308 or 308 NATO.
|
What a can of worms! :)
|
Since the availability of lower cost strain gauge pressure instrumentation, I doubt many manufacturers rely on CUP copper cup crushing technology to measure cartridge pressures.
CUP is not only unrelated to modern PSI measurement technology, it is not linear in nature and doesn't even begin to provide the accuracy of PSI strain gauge measurements. As a mater of standardization, the SAAMI standard specifies both techniques for pressure measurement. MegaPascal "MPa" is the metric measurement for pressure (Newtons per square meter), calculated using the same strain gauge instrumentation as "PSI" (Pounds per square inch). In a linear conversion one MPa = 145.0377 PSI. 235 MPa max pressure is measured with a different method using piezo strain gauge sensors. The method is not the same technique used by SAAMI, even though the type of sensor is the same. The method differences are discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_...#C.I.P._method The NATO standard of 252 MPa measured in the SAAMI technique would convert to 36500 PSI. This exceeds the SAAMI 35,000 PSI max standard. As to the 9mm Luger cartridge taper - I was not talking about taper crimp (which is what is used on a cartridge that headspaces on the mouth of the case) but rather the specification for the cartridge. A tapered 9mm Luger cartridge does indeed headspace on the mouth of the cartridge case, which is why you can never roll crimp the cartridge. In the drawing, you can see that the 9mm Luger case outside diameter tapers from 9.96mm on the rim and 9.93mm at the cartridge body base to only 9.65mm on the cartridge mouth. The cylinder it fits in is also tapered up to the ridge that supports the case mouth. A Luger cartridge chamber is actually shallowly conical in shape, not cylindrical with parallel walls. This aids extraction. If you look at the drawing of the 9mm Luger chamber on numbered page 27 of the SAAMI specification, you'll see that the ridge where the 9mm cartridge headspaces toward the front of the chamber is identified with a circle "X" symbol. https://saami.org/wp-content/uploads...12-14-2015.pdf |
Ok,
great references. But the 9mm does headspace on the case mouth, no matter what sammi "x'ed". Just as soon as one has a minimum case in a maximum chamber, the "x" moves immediately to the case mouth. The "x" only enters the equation in the imaginary world of engineeers. :) JMHO |
Quote:
"Headspace" is a characteristic of a firearm's chamber, and not a characteristic of firearm's cartridge. In a 9 mm Luger barrel that is properly dimensioned with a correctly cut chamber the headspace datum line will be located in the chamber between .754 and .776 inches from the standing breech when the firearm is in battery. A correctly dimensioned 9 mm Luger cartridge will have a case with an LOA (case head to case mouth) between .754 and .776 inches in length. The verbal shorthand for those two paragraphs is "A 9 mm Luger cartridge takes its headspace off the case mouth." |
Over the years, I have often wondered about the SAAMI organization and its functions in the states. Is it a mandate or a suggested set of data?
I knew it was a dimensional reference to try to commonalize ammo and chambers here. Guess some definition for the industry needs to be in order to have interchangeable ammo and firearms(chambers) and to veer off such is a financial/physical risk. The wrath of a shooter that cannot chamber a cartridge in his weapon is a force to be reckoned with huh?; much less one that got hurt and the litigation that follows for years. The circled X to me has always been just a dimensional identifier, nothing else. The numbers tell the story. Not a M.E. here. The 754-776 is the go and no go chamber dimensions, take a reading on your gages. Interesting to note that a case can be 744, and in a max chamber of 776, looks like some stress is put directly on the extractor. A lot of once fired brass is shorter than the 754 number, probably for edge in commonality. Some gunsmiths will chamber a minimum chamber, trying to help out the fit of case with today's brass. Some will give more slack, and comes down to philosophies. Combat weapons need to go no matter what, competition guns that need the accuracy; get the tighter fitment. I now remember Mark1 talking about other standards for the min/max of the 9mm. The numbers he mentioned pretty much are like what most smiths will chamber a new 9mm barrel to in final breeching. Tighter numbers. When I first got into reloading, we all rolled crimped. Revolvers got a heavy crimp, autos got a light crimp; since we all knew how things headspaced right? Then the advent of the taper crimp available dies, and now even the collet crimp. So some advancements have been found over the years. Of course, our friends across the big pond have their own version of a controlling or voluntary mechanism. With all the pictures I have looked at of vintage chambers in 9mm(thanks to all here) I have not learned enough yet about their dimensional data; maybe some day, but for now..........I have to live with today's brass dimensional data. |
Quote:
SAAMI serves as the clearing house and reference center for the data need to insure uniformity of firearm critical dimensions and the uniform compatibility of the ammunition manufactured to be used in those firearms. Firearm/ammunition manufacturers’ adherence to SAAMI manufacturing data is voluntary. Quote:
Quote:
For C.I.P. signatories, C.I.P. standards are supposed to be legally obligatory. The degrees to those obligations have been observed has varied from country to country, and from proof house to proof house, and from time period to time period. At the risk of blending threads, C.I.P. and NATO have a lot in common when it comes to making and complying with agreements. |
I always had the concept that the SAAMI deal was voluntary. Voluntary from a business sense I guess.
Most of the reamer vendors offer go, no go, and field gages. I have never seen a field gage in the hand, only in pictures. I measured a set of 9mm gages a while back, curiosity you know, and they measured 754 and 776. Were marked go and no go..............go figure huh? I was surprised that the European standard was tighter between the go and no go(some slack please). In today's environment, tis probably the more better spec to me at least. Maybe some poetic license or semantics by us in the colonies huh?...:) |
Rick,
US arms/ammunition manufactures compliance with SAAMI is legally voluntary. The US, unlike most EU countries, has no set of proof laws and no government established and run proof houses. Generally speaking, those (mostly European) countries that are signatories to the C.I.P. agreement have internal laws that require, by statute, adherence to C.I.P. standards as a prerequisite for any firearm/munition to be legally offered for sale in commerce (sometimes including export - even export to countries that are not C.I.P. signatories) On the subject of head space gauges and how vendors mark them, vendors can do just about anything they want. Ultimately it's up to the people who need to use to head space gauges to understand what the gauges measure, and to understand and appreciate the potential problems of firing SAAMI compliant ammunition in a chamber that is not SAAMI compliant (e.g. chamber is too short as revealed by failing to close on a GO gauge, or chamber is too long as indicated by closing on a FIELD REJECT gauge). The NO GO head space gauge has some arbitrary length between the lengths of the min (GO) and max (FIELD REJECT) lengths of a chamber. It is really only useful for hobbyist reloaders who reuses fired cases, and especially the hobbyist who intends to reload a fired case more than once. Reloaded ammunition that is intended for use in a firearm that passes a FIELD REJECT gauge but fails a NO GO gauge should be neck sized only and never, ever full length resized. Full length resizing a case progressively thins the cartridge case wall (esp. the case wall just ahead of the case web). This thinning of the case wall progressively, with each incident of full length resizing, increases the potential for a catastrophic case failure that dumps the chamber pressure out of the firearm's barrel into the slide and frame of the firearm. That's how people lose fingers, or hands, or for the very unlucky their lives. A chamber that has distal end of the head space datum line beyond that length expressed by a NO GO gauge significantly increases the risk of case failure with reused cartridge case, and greatly increases the risk of case failure for cartridge cases that have been full length resized. The intersection of chamber head space, cartridge case length relative to the head space datum line, the effects of chamber pressure on the cartridge case of a round of ammunition when that round is fired, and the reuse of cartridge cases is a profoundly complicated discussion. The above comments only scratches the surface of that discussion and should be read with the understanding it's a small part of a much larger subject. |
Found the TM I'd mentioned earlier.
Here is the TM page for commercial 9 mm Luger ammunition. I've boxed in red the info I thought especially interesting: http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/m...-27%2012-3.jpg And here is the page for the US army rendition of 9 mm Luger, a la NATO: http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/m...-27%2012-5.jpg If we were to take the data from these two pages at face value we would have to conclude US army 9 mm Luger NATO is the weak sister of US commercial 9 mm Luger. But there is a potential problem lurking here; the TM doesn't tell us whether the same test method and procedures were used to produce both sets of data. If both data sets were determined using the same methods/procedures then the data sets are comparable and US army NATO is slower and has a lower chamber pressure than US, SAAMI compliant, 9 mm Luger. If both data sets were not determined using the same methods/procedures then the data sets cannot be meaningfully compared. While we still have the caveat from page 12-3 that use of commercial 9 mm Luger is not authorized in the M9 pistol and what that caveat implies, the pressure/velocity data sets just can't be used to draw any comparative conclusions. Such is the wild, and sometimes counterintuitive, world of internal ballistics :-) |
1 Attachment(s)
Some interesting information and comments in this thread.
The original article referenced at the beginning of this thread is nonsense. There is no straight-walled 9mmx19 cartridge and pressure differences are to be expected when 2 organisations are testing using different methods and equipment. As Rick W noted, I commented a while ago on a thread by member GT who was having problems with a P08 rebarrel job. My suggestion was to use CIP Standard headspace gauges because they are made to a headspace tolerance of 0.012" whereas the SAAMI type are to a tolerance of 0.022". This difference occurs with most calibres and for that reason I would always recommend that the CIP standard be the first reference where there is a problem or discrepancy. The CIP is a regulatory authority and the standards published by them have the status of law in the CIP signatory countries. No ammunition may be sold on their commercial markets which does not meet all aspects of the standards and is so marked. The SAAMI is an association of companies which publishes recommendations for dimensions and pressures of ammunition. Compliance with the SAAMI standards is entirely optional in the US (and NZ), even for companies who are members of SAAMI. Also there is no requirement to identify which ammunition does or does not comply with the SAAMI standards. As Rick W noted previously, it's really 2 different approaches. |
I have a little different view on C.I.P. vs. SAAMI, and on whether to use C.I.P. or SAAMI compliant head space gauges for any specific task.
I'll share those views, purely FWIW. C.I.P. standards are supposed to have the force of law in those countries who are signatories to the C.I.P. agreement. But in actual practice there is no force of law applied. More than one C.I.P. signatory has a history of fudging actual adherence to C.I.P. and sometimes simply ignoring C.I.P. standards. Structural problems within the C.I.P. organization and the sovereign powers of C.I.P. signatories make this evasion/disregard for C.I.P. standards difficult to detect and impossible to prevent. SAAMI, OTOH, is admittedly voluntary, and (largely) funded by and run for the major US arms/ammunition manufactures. That’s why I trust those major manufacturers to be SAAMI compliant; no viable business ignores the expensive consultative service they have paid to create, and continue to pay to function every business day. On the subject of C.I.P. and SAAMI head space gauges I tell people who are sufficiently concerned with the head space of one or more of their firearms to want to buy (or rent) head space gauges to check head space to get the head space gauges that are compliant with same system as the ammunition they intend to use. As a real life example of this, I recently bought a CZ model 455 .22 rimfire rifle. I also bought, at the same time, two interchangeable barrels; one barrel chambered for the .22 Winchester Magnum cartridge and the other barrel .17 Hornady Magnum, all of which let me choose whether I wanted to shoot .17 HMR, .22 WMR, or .22 S/L/LR in that rifle. I plan on shooting nothing other than SAAMI compliant ammunition in this rifle, so I made sure I had SAAMI compliant .17 HMR, .22 WMR, or .22 S/L/LR head space gauges. Every time I change barrels I check headspace to be sure I haven’t committed canine carnal knowledge when I did the barrel change, and to be sure ammunition and chamber dimensions are a safe and functional match. Just an account of my choices, and a little background on why I made those choices the way I did. |
Just to add a bit more confusion, the 9mm case, since it is tapered, may or may not headspace on the case mouth. The case is a cone, going into a cone-shaped hole. When the two cones meet, the case stops, whether the case mouth has reached the front of the chamber or not.
And Kyrie, where did those pages come form Did the Army really print technical data on 9mm cartridges that lists the bullet weights as 182 and 179 grains? Finally, the MAP, Maximum Average Pressure, is a ceiling, not a goal. If an ammo maker can get the velocity they want, at a lower pressure, they will. So, if the goal is (for example) a 115 grain bullet, at 1,200 fps, and they can do it with the powder you have, at 27,000 PSI, then they'll do it. |
When I started rebarreling Lugers for my needs/wants, I went out to SAAMI to see the numbers on the 9mm and 30 Luger. The go and no go limits on one was over 20, the other was 10. Always thought that was a little odd, but not much influence as I was taught to stay at go or go plus some(some is a relative term I know, but depends on environment)
I have noticed a lot of 9mmx19 range brass being short of the 745 9mm SAMMI number, but guess that they are interested mainly in one time compatibility. The reloaders are a small market comparatively. In coming up thru the ranks of hard knocks, I have come to kinda like when things are intended to work together. When the chambers are cut appropriately, the sized case is long enough, overall length is there, and the pressure is semi-sane, whether factory whatever or handloads, the pistol is a joy to shoot, no muss; no fuss; just an enjoyable experience; just works. My thanks to Mark for his comments on the tighter spec. I learned under some benchresters, fussy types, knowledgeable. Not seen two guy argue over 2 thousandths of length for hours on end before, but just their nature. Cannot say too much against their successes. All in all, everything has its place....and time. One has to ponder a lot of things in life and see what works for them. The 20 in the 9mm spec is almost half of the firing pin total protrusion in some things, so one thinks things could get dicey in ignition if nothing else. Rimfire is mostly done with the rim. Lots of available vendor dimensions there, some in the mid 30's on rim to mid 40's on the rim, so a victim of circumstance as Curly would say about finding the right 22 ammo for the right rifle/chamber. One notes in rimmed with cases with shoulders, like the 22 hornet or its wildcats, headspacing on the rim becomes a search for the right lot of ammo with reloading intents. The sharper shoulder of a hornet wildcat seems more flexible and works with the reloader type. I have a Ruger No.1 mule as I call it; maybe 10 barrels for it. It has been everything from a 17 bumble bee to a 375 H&H. Being a packrat, I still have all the barrels, so one can screw on the barrel, check the index mark, and the extractor number.............and go shooting. These are threaded actions of course. The actions like Savage, and the rimfires, are pretty flexible as to headspace and even gapspace, and take the extra tooling. The clowns that I know that do custom chambering, know exactly what the headspace is going to be after torquing down, they measured it with a nice depth mic on the action and holding feature face. They use gages to double check their work and for liability requirements. Odd one can measure to a tenth, but use of a simple gage trumps all in some circles. Then there are the guys that use no gages, because their cartridges are not on the list............but I have a nightie that they know how. Obviously there are guys that gunsmith beyond their capabilities as well.......The more knowledge an individual has, the more clear some things become. I do not know if SAAMI updates old cartridge info with current manufacturing. I would doubt if the establishment moves much. The 35 Winchester Legend was just added as a new case recently. I think everyone is on the same basic page. Be safe and likes performance. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
SAAMI has performance as the goal, with that stated performance to be attained without exceeding some stated average peak chamber pressure (“Maximum Probable Sample Mean"; MPSM). |
Boy, my suggestion on reading that article sure has brought some detailed responses!! Tried to absorb much of it, but left my head spinning at times!
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:34 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1998 - 2025, Lugerforum.com