Fiocchi 9MM FMJ-FP COMBATAvailable

[rhuff]

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.

[Sieger]

Originally Posted by rhuff

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.

Rhuff,

Great!

I hope you can find it!

Sieger

[DonVoigt]

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

[Sieger]

Originally Posted by DonVoigt

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

Don,

Great!

Thanks!


Sieger

[deserthumvee]

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.

[Kyrie]

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.

Originally Posted by Sieger

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

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

Originally Posted by Sieger

What does acceptable to NATO mean?

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

Originally Posted by Sieger

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Sieger

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

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.

Originally Posted by Sieger

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Sieger

Please cite your sources.
Sieger

Done :-)

Best,

Kyrie

[Sieger]

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

[Kyrie]

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.

[Kyrie]

Kurusu

That's some outstanding shooting!

Kyrie

[Sieger]

Originally Posted by Kyrie

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.

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

[Kyrie]

Originally Posted by 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

Sorry Sieger, but you're seeing what you expect to see rather than what is there.

What's being 'implemented' is the acceptance of the 9 mm Luger cartridge as a US issue cartridge. The US notified NATO the USA was accepting the 9 mm cartridge the year after the Beretta model 92 was accepted as a standard US sidearm.