![]() |
my profile |
register |
faq |
search upload photo | donate | calendar |
![]() |
#24 |
User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 757
Thanks: 0
Thanked 212 Times in 101 Posts
|
![]()
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: ![]() And here is the page for the US army rendition of 9 mm Luger, a la NATO: ![]() 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 :-) |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|