View Single Post
 
Old 06-11-2018, 08:34 AM
typetwelve typetwelve is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 492
Likes: 64
Liked 572 Times in 256 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rock185 View Post
Racer X, were the velocities mentioned advertised, or did you chronograph the ammo? Within my humble experience, chronographed velocities are often different than advertised velocities. I've seen the Winchester 9MM 124 NATO most commonly advertised as 1185 FPS, but also 1140 and 1200 FPS.

FWIW, over about the last 20 years or so, I've used thousands of rounds of the Winchester Q4318 124 NATO in a variety of pistols, carbines and revolvers. More recently I've also used and chronographed IMI 124 NATO ammo. Both bear the NATO cross in circle headstamp, with year of manufacture,etc. I don't have a 7.85" test barrel, but have tested some NATO ammo in the closest I have, a Hi Power GP with 5.9" barrel. The Winchester averaged 1244 FPS and the IMI 1286 FPS. In a 16" carbine, the Winchester was 1296 FPS, the IMI NATO 1344 FPS. I too have read other's results in chronographing various manufactuer's "NATO" ammo. If not marked with the NATO cross in circle, I wonder if it is just their regular commercial ball ammo marketed as "NATO" for a hoped for marketing advantage?

I can't speak for some of the other manufactuer's ammo marketed as "NATO", but did check into the Winchester NATO. I contacted a Winchester LE Rep. He indicated the Winchester 9MM NATO ammo is NATO spec ammo, whether sold in the white Q4318 boxes, or in the tan Ranger RA9124N boxes. Based on chronograph results, sealed case mouth,sealed and crimped primers, I believe the information he gave me is correct.
I was going to say, the only 9mm NATO I've ever ran has been the Winchester white box offering. All of their stuff has the NATO cross on the casing. One weird thing of note, some of it has sealed primers, some does not.
Reply With Quote