Fiocchi 9MM FMJ-FP COMBATAvailable

[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 Kyrie

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.

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

[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

[G.T.]

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

[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

[Sieger]

Originally Posted by Kyrie

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.

Hi,

Modern chronographs are certainly not priced as toys.

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


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

[kurusu]

Originally Posted by Sieger

Don,




Sieger

No machine rest, not one hole either. 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.

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.


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

[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

[DonVoigt]

Originally Posted by kurusu

No machine rest, not one hole either. 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.

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.


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

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

[Sieger]

Originally Posted by DonVoigt

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

Don,

Thanks again for your caustic comment.

Maybe you suffer from low expectations.


Sieger

[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

[Sieger]

Originally Posted by kurusu

No machine rest, not one hole either. 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.

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.


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

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

[DonVoigt]

Originally Posted by Sieger

Don,

Thanks again for your caustic comment.

Maybe you suffer from low expectations.


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.

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".

[kurusu]

Originally Posted by DonVoigt

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.

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.

[kurusu]

Originally Posted by 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

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

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

[Sieger]

Originally Posted by DonVoigt

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.

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".

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