Any insight why there is such variation on various 124 grain FMJ NATO round specs? Shouldn't NATO spec be universal and consistant? European stuff is usually higher powered FWIW.

Greek

Brass-cased, non-corrosive, Boxer-primed and FULLY RELOADABLE. 124-grain, loaded with an FMJ bullet. Muzzle Velocity is 1,251 F.P.S.; Muzzle Energy is 431 ft.-lbs.

S&B gov't contract 124 FMJ NATO

UPC SB9B-R
UPC 754908505098
Manufacturer Sellier & Bellot Ammo
Caliber 9mm Luger Ammo
Bullet Type Full Metal Jacket
Muzzle Velocity 1181 fps
Muzzle Energy 384 ft. lbs
Primer Boxer
Casing Brass Casing

Winchester/Olin

SKU: 80864
UPC: 020892212213
MFR#: Q4318

Caliber: 9mm Luger
Bullet Type: Full Metal Jacket
Bullet Weight: 124 Grain
Muzzle Energy: 358 ft lbs
Muzzle Velocity: 1140 fps

These are just 3 for example. Huge swing for the same "spec"

If you look at commercial reloaders who sell "NATO" spec loads, they are even weaker.

When you look at NATO M855 or M193 5.56 round specs from various manufacturers, they all match.

The large variations in velocity are likely due to the use of different barrel lengths. The often quoted velocity of 1250 fps with a 124 grain FMJ bullet is the NATO standard, but if I recall correctly, the test barrel is about 7.5 inches in length. For a pistol with a barrel length of 4-5 inches, expect 1150 to 1200 fps.

The difference between the fastest and slowest loads quoted is 111 fps. This is hardly a large variation -- in fact, individual shots in a string can easily vary as much using one load and one gun. I have no problem at all believing all of these loads are "NATO spec", the differences in velocity being because of the guns or fixtures they were tested in, the exact protocols under which they were tested, conditions on the days they were tested, etc., etc.

__________________
Pisgah

I can understand that, but when it comes to something like a NATO standard weapon component, they should all be made essentially identical.

And that includes a standard testing protocol.

NATO specifications for 9x19 mm are for a particular pressure, 36,500 psi. Lot to lot variations in powder and other components will result in different velocities from one lot of ammo to another.

For comparison, SAAMI pressure for this cartridge is 35,000 psi and for the +P version 38,500 psi. So the NATO cartridges are between standard and +P 9 mm pressures.

STANAG 4090 defines 9mm NATO as having a bullet weight of 108 gr to 128 gr inclusive. Muzzle energy from a standard proof barrel must be at least 400 ft/lbs and not more than 600 ft/lbs. There is no standard for velocity.

There are detailed dimensions for the case and chamber to insure that all NATO ammunition will function in any NATO firearm. Standards for maximum pressure, accuracy, and penetration of body armor are also specified.

Have you got a link for 4090? I came up dry for it.

I'd love to see it too. Would give me an idea of their proof barrel for example.

I get physical dimensions, and energy requirements, but 2 of those rounds I mentioned had energy below 400. So either they are using a far shorter barrel than the STANAG protocol, or don't meet NATO specs and can't be NATO rounds. I think that is the case with Winchester White box. Lots not passing acceptance testing.

I don't expect the velocity out of my S&W 6906 or KelTec P-11 to be as high as a 5" Beretta 92, but at least knowing what barrel those numbers are based on would help.

The ammunition might meet ONE of the NATO specs, and for
the marketing department, that might be enough...who's gonna
file a suit over it?

First off, let's look at the pressures. The published pressures are Maximum Average Pressures, not to be exceeded. Ammo companies load their products to velocity/energy specs within acceptable pressures. They don't load every lot to max pressures. Speaking of which, since CIP & SAAMI locate their pressure sensors differently the same round will show different pressures in the different test fixtures.

About the energy specs, please note the phrase in the post above: "From a standard proof barrel". We don't know the length of that test barrel, we can expect that it's got much tighter tolerances than production service pistol barrels. All of which can jack up the velocities.

I expect most of the folks on this board aren't old enough to recall ammo catalogs from before chronographs were widely available. [Bear in mind that whoever develops a cartridge and standardizes it with SAAMI gets to establish all specs. Including length & dimensions of the test barrels.] Back in them thar days, published velocity specs were often optimistic to varying degrees.

Along came readily available, accurate consumer chronographs and people started screaming about the ammo not coming close to published velocities. This led to SAAMI deciding to make handgun test barrels the same lengths as generally used firearms in that caliber. Revolver test barrels got vents to simulate gas loss from the barrel cylinder gap. Published velocities dropped and became a whole lot more realistic.

Would be interesting to get significant sized samples from various manufacturers and running them through the same test guns/test barrels.

http://gigconceptsinc.com/files/STAN...ridge_9x19.pdf

This is a pdf of the Standardization Agreement for Small Arms Ammunition (9 mm Parabellum) from 15 April 1982.

They do not define what a "standard proof barrel" is so we can only guess. Maybe someone else can find that standard.

Ours, when we still had a defense industry, were 115 gr at around 1280 fps*. And were very accurate. There were also no complains of lack of power from the receiving end.

Edit * actual chronograph readings from my 4 inch barrel Luger made in 1941.

__________________
Expect the unexpected

Is this ammo marked 'NATO' for military use or for us turkeys? The ammo has to be created under a list of specifications to be accepted as government issue. If it is created under that spec and doesn't make it, I'm sure it goes to the civilian market.

Also, there must be a RANGE specified for NATO ammo but the numbers given do look extremely variable.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

Hah, downright unrealistic. There was an elaborate set up with electrified screens that were used for tests, but the manufacturers were just like anybody else. Make claims that make your product sound 'better' than Brand 'X'.

Even now, the companies make it hard to get any comparison because who has a 10" Universal Receiver? I liked my Speer #9 that told what gun was used in the testing.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

I'm talking about the stuff on the shelf at Walmart, in retail
market boxes with the "NATO" advertising--not gubmint contracted goods.

Who is it, Winchester, that has a retail line of 9mm ball labeled "NATO"?
It would be interesting to find out if the primers are lacquered, and
slugs sealed. Those are basic "NATO" requirements (as "waterproofing"),
but rarely used on civilian retail ammo.

Don't know about no "turkeys".

But NATO specs ammo has to have the marking on the case head. It's the sort of cross within the circle, like in the box. And it doesn't mention NATO specs anywhere, at least not on our ammo.



Sorry about the lousy pictures.

Attached Images

	DSC00005 (3).jpg (118.8 KB, 431 views)
	DSC00006 (2).jpg (80.0 KB, 428 views)

__________________
Expect the unexpected

Outstnding! They give the mechanical drawings for the proof barrel, it's several pages in. The proof barrel is 7.85 inches long. They also provide the rifling details, 0.347 bore, 0.356 groove, didn't check the tolerances.

Added material: barrel can be up to 0.011 in shorter. Bore tolerance is +0.0005 in/-0.0000 in; groove tolerance is +0.001 in/-0.0000 in. That's tight tolerance for the bore.

My C9 3.5" barrel does not get 400 ft/lbs Energy from a 124 NATO round......
but does reach 382 ft/lbs.

This makes me think that a 4" or longer might be used for NATO spec's
that is printed on the ammo boxes.

Even my 5" has trouble getting the printed spec's that come with some ammo.
Must have been from that 7.5" pistol.......

This makes my day! So even a long slide Glock 34 or a S&W M&P 6" won't generate those numbers.

Probably explains the M882 spec (US) of 124gr @ 1250 f/s.

I can get 1250fps with a 124gr Gold Dot out of my 5" but...............

only with one powder, a full load of Blue Dot and the group was
nothing to brag about.
Sorry, I don't have any of the "newer" 2000 type slow powders to test.

We've seen a lot of these threads and questions over the years. I would say (and this is just my own estimate), that Winchester NATO 124 grain ammunition will get somewhere between 1140-1180 in service length handguns. In spite of the warnings on the box, I believe that this load's pressure is only mildly +P by U.S. standards and probably average by western European standards. Note that pressure and velocity don't always correlate due to various factors such as burn rate, etc. Some NATO countries use 115 grain bullets, which appeared fairly early in the 9mm Parabellum's life.

NATO ammo pressure almost perfectly splits the difference between SAAMI standard pressure and +P pressure specifications. It's not as hot as many believe. Except for that NATO ammo made by Hirtenberger that was specifically for submachine guns. Don't know how much of that stuff is still out there as it was produced only in 1991, 92, and 93, but it is reported to be really hot ammo. FYI, that ammo is marked HP-91,92, or 93- L7A1 - and the NATO acceptance stamp.

This is what I always understood. I do not own a chrono, but I do have a good hand-dyno with 30 years of shooting exp.

I've ran some stout 9mm rounds, mostly +P and +P+ offerings from Winchester in their Ranger line (as well as +P+ 9mm 9BPLE from Federal). Those 9BPLE rounds are down right hot, the recoil from them is notable compared to STD.

The difference from STD to +P, to +P+ is definitely notable. I have quite a bit of Winchester 9mm NATO and I'll say that it seems just slightly hotter than STD pressure rounds. I even ran a staggered magazine to see if I could tell the difference, it wasn't big.

Hirtenberger ammo was made for the MG and is a full +P+ ammo.
I found one testing on the net and they shot just two rounds out
of their weapons, to get a fps reading on May 2016.

The round is at a OAL of 1.16" with a metallic 123gr bare base bullet
that has a .354" dia. with bullet and primer being sealed.
The NATO ball type bullet is pushed with 7.0 grs of powder.

A CZ PO9 4.53" had a two shot average of 1343fps.

A CZ E-VO 7.72" had a two shot average of 1413fps.

A 4" Desert Eagle with ZOI NATO 124 ammo did ...... 1187fps.
A 4" M&P with Winchester 124 NATO 94368 did ........ 1207fps.

As you can see, a 124gr bullet reaching 1300fps is a +P+ possibility
that brings high pressures to the table.
Take care

Compatibility is probably the biggest issue. Next being lethal and accurate to shoot 3" groups at 50 yards.

Well, whaddya know? That's more accurate that I'll ever be!

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

We also had a load specific for submachine guns. They had 124 gr bullets, don't know what velocities they achieved, but I know that using them in our service P.38s was a sure way to end up cracking the locking block on them.

And the Beretta 92 is a P.38 in disguise.

__________________
Expect the unexpected

I wouldn't put too much thinking into this. I guess this stuff would be considered bulk ammo and FMJ bulk ammo for handgun or rifle doesn't shoot all that well anyway from an accuracy perspective. It's reliable and always fires, but I wouldn't expect more than that.

Stamping NATO on the box does not make it so. There is commercial ammo sold as NATO spec for types of ammo that NATO never even adopted.

Ours wasn't half bad.

25 meters one handed from a fixed sight 4 inch barrel.

Attached Images

Target-50x-2012.jpg (61.6 KB, 318 views)

__________________
Expect the unexpected

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.

__________________
NRA Life, COTEP 640

Those numbers were pulled from advertisements or grabbed from the manufacturers website.

BUT, part of this threads purpose was to find out what the barrel SHOULD be that was used in their testing. Knowing now that the NATO spec includes a nearly 8" barrel, those advertised numbers are higher than what we would get in a 4"-5" service pistol. I can see a nearly 8" subgun getting those numbers.

After reading the above spec data on the 9mm NATO round
with the minimum energy of 400 ft/lbs. a 124gr bullet needs 1205fps.
I think the 600 ME maximum of 600 ft/lbs is an error and should read 500 ft/lbs....
A 124gr bullet doing 1350fps would produce 500 ft/lbs of ME.

I don't think there is a 9mm weapon made today that can fire a
magazine of ammo that gets 600 ft/lbs ME and survive that FPS/pressure.
I also don't think some "NATO" ammo gets a minimum 400 ft./lbs. or is waterproof?

Somewhere I remember reading that a PF of 160-161 (?) should
be the maximum load for a 9mm pistol. At 1350fps the power factor is 167.

My 5" is happy with a 124 plated at 1200fps for a NATO round that hits at POA.
It has a nice PF148 that is easy on the weapon.

edit c/o124 fps/pf .....not 115 data.

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.

I've got a couple of cases of WWWB 115 grain that do not have the NATO box and a couple of loose boxes that do. I suspect WW will load it with brass surplus to other needs, but usually they load it with cases made specifically for that line.