Winchester M1152 9 mm Ball Ammo

H

HKSmith

Member
Bronze Supporter
Joined
Sep 8, 2003
Messages
730
Reaction score
750
Location
Ohio
Has anyone here tried the Winchester M1152 9 mm ball ammo? It's supposed to be for the military's new modular SIG handgun and is being marketed under the name "Active Duty". Claimed muzzle velocity and energy are 1320 ft/sec and 445 ft-lbs, respectively. It uses a flat point 115 grain FMJ bullet, different from the usual RN ball ammo. In one test I've seen those ballistics held up, which makes this a significantly hotter round than other American made 9 mm ball ammo. Presumably it's in the +P pressure range.

The online retailers are selling it for about $220/1000, which is about 30% higher than other American made 115 grain ball ammo. I'm tempted to try it, but wonder if there's been any experience here with it.
 
Register to hide this ad
They state 1320fps....... which probably comes from a 5" or longer barrel
maybe even a Lab barrel?

The Federal 115 +P+ load was also a fast load, per their data but in a lot of weapons
it did not come up with the top numbers in fps.

Only way to know what your weapon gets is to test some out.

Most pistols with a 4" barrel do well with "Standard" 9mm ammo for SD use
with the +P ammo needed in the shorter 3" pistols for maximum energy.
 
The Winchester web site doesn't give the barrel length tested, but the NRA tested this ammo in an M17 with 4.7 inch barrel and got 1326 ft/sec (American Rifleman), so the claimed velocity seems to be real. They reported pressure at 39,700 psi, so it's definitely +P or greater.
 
HKSmith said:
The Winchester web site doesn't give the barrel length tested, but the NRA tested this ammo in an M17 with 4.7 inch barrel and got 1326 ft/sec (American Rifleman), so the claimed velocity seems to be real. They reported pressure at 39,700 psi, so it's definitely +P or greater.
Click to expand...

Wow! Truth in advertising when it comes to NATO ammo. Much better than the way the M882 ammo was originally advertised. SAMMI spec for +P is 38,500 psi, so this new U.S. ammo would be +P+, likely the same or very close to the pressure levels of the old Federal 9BLE load.
 
As a note;

in a Beretta 5" type pistol I can get a 115gr FMJ with a OAL of 1.12" with a cci primer and a full load of Unique to put out 1350fps.

However for target work it does much better at around 1120fps
with medium burning powders.

I prefer the 125gr Ball for the metal games since the fast big 147 did not get the accuracy in my weapons.
 
The NATO standard 9mm test barrel is somewhere around 8"-9" as I remember. I do have the full test details somewhere and I would have to look it up. Whether that MV is from a NATO test barrel or an actual pistol would make a big difference. I tend to doubt that figure is possible from the shorter pistol barrel unless it is very high pressure.
 
DWalt said:
The NATO standard 9mm test barrel is somewhere around 8"-9" as I remember. I do have the full test details somewhere and I would have to look it up. Whether that MV is from a NATO test barrel or an actual pistol would make a big difference. I tend to doubt that figure is possible from the shorter pistol barrel unless it is very high pressure.
Click to expand...

If you check Post #3 in this thread, the NRA reported in the American Rifleman that they tested this ammunition in a SIG M17 with a 4.7 inch barrel and got 1326 ft/sec. Pressure was given as 39,700 psi, so this is definitely above SAAMI standard for +P. It is not NATO ammunition, but was made specifically for the US military.
 
I read of the 1152 ammo, but have never seen any for sale around here. To satisfy my ballistic curiosity, I'm going to order some and chronograph it in various barrel lengths. The advertised, and NRA tested, velocities sure seem high to me. Right up there with what I get with the 9BPLE in 5" barrels...
 
Well I did get some M1152 to chronograph in a few average real world guns. All semi-autos; going to test it in a couple revolvers later.

4" bbl. = 1258 FPS.
4.7" bbl.= 1308 FPS
5" bbl. = 1319 FPS
16" Bbl.= 1448 FPS

I was skeptical of the advertised 1320 FPS, but no longer. It is the fastest 115 grain ball ammo I can recall chronographing. I experienced no malfunctions in the limited testing I did.
 
Rock185 said:
Well I did get some M1152 to chronograph in a few average real world guns. All semi-autos; going to test it in a couple revolvers later.

4" bbl. = 1258 FPS.
4.7" bbl.= 1308 FPS
5" bbl. = 1319 FPS
16" Bbl.= 1448 FPS

I was skeptical of the advertised 1320 FPS, but no longer. It is the fastest 115 grain ball ammo I can recall chronographing. I experienced no malfunctions in the limited testing I did.
Click to expand...

Good information. I presume the 16 inch barrel is an AR-15, but what were the makes/models for the shorter barrels?
 
Wow. That stuff is smoking. I'll have to get my hands on some to give it a shot
 
stansdds, the guns were a 4" S&W 5906, 4.7" SIG P210A, Dan Wesson PM9 5" and Marlin Camp 9 16".

Also found that while the primers were crimped, case mouth and primers were not sealed. The case mouths are very heavily crimped. Velocities in pistol length barrels was similar to the 115 grain Winchester and Federal +P+ I've tested. But in the 16" barrel, M1152 is well over a hundred FPS slower than the +P+. So I guess the M1152 is optimized for the military's new pistols. Given manufactuer's concern in general about selling higher pressure 9MM ammunition to the public, I'm a bit surprised the M1152 has been made available commercially. In any case, I like it and intend to buy more.
 
Rock185 said:
Well I did get some M1152 to chronograph in a few average real world guns. All semi-autos; going to test it in a couple revolvers later.

4" bbl. = 1258 FPS.
4.7" bbl.= 1308 FPS
5" bbl. = 1319 FPS
16" Bbl.= 1448 FPS

I was skeptical of the advertised 1320 FPS, but no longer. It is the fastest 115 grain ball ammo I can recall chronographing. I experienced no malfunctions in the limited testing I did.
Click to expand...

Thanks, that's just the information I was looking for. I'll order some now.
 
I bought some of my 1152 from SG. Surprised they are sold out already. Maybe people are catching on that this relatively new offering from Winchester might be pretty good ammo.
 
I'm resurrecting this thread after watching Buffman's video on this load. He got similar velocities, although his 16" carbine shot faster (a little under 1600 fps). Accurate for FMJ service ammunition and a bit snappy for 9mm.

Now, from the safety of my armchair (my military career was very boring), I'm going to offer my opinion (and it's just that). I think this combination of M1152 and M1153 (147 grain JHP) is actually well-thought out and may be the best U.S. service handgun ammunition choice I've seen. Leaving aside the politics, myths, and various international accords, I believe that for most military use, the FMJ is a better choice. This load seems to maximize what the 9mm Parabellum can do. It offers good penetration, good accuracy, seems pretty consistent across a wide variety of platforms, and honestly, I've yet to see any scientific data that other caliber's FMJ loads demonstrate significantly better stopping power. I notice that the bullets in the video's gel test remained nose forward and all penetrated within a few inches of each other (for what ever that's worth. This is not an armor-piercing round, though. I think that really requires a different caliber. For other special applications, the M1153 load is available.

I hope we'll see more tests of this load. I do think however that the military thought this through and got exactly what they wanted.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWf81jlaQU4[/ame]
 
Not $ 0.22 per, now. But a good price for 2021. Just bought a 500 round case, because... why not?

Will probably hurt my hand in my 365XL, maybe tolerable in my 6906 (big Hogues on it, and not for regular use in my "old classic"). Looking for a bigger pistol anyway, a Sig, or a Beretta or Taurus clone.
 
Interesting video. I looked up Accurate Arms data as they publish +P loads for their powders. Nothing there that achieves the velocity achieved by those factory rounds, so duplicating this round as a reloader may not be quite so easy as it is with the 124 grain NATO load. As an aside, I think the truncated cone bullet is a step above the round nose bullet of the M882.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Solomon was right
Replies
13
Views
1K
Duckford
D
D
  • Locked
**SOLD** 3" Korth / Nighthawk Mongoose .357 Accessories & Ammo
Replies
2
Views
1K
lowriderfxr
lowriderfxr
ddeanjohnson
WTS: list of 22 guns that remain -- MORE PRICE REDUCTIONS -- collection liquidation
2
Replies
27
Views
14K
Rick Sanborn
Rick Sanborn
ddeanjohnson
  • Locked
WITHDRAWN --WTS- GUN BOOKS -- MAKE AN OFFER
2 3
Replies
45
Views
8K
ddeanjohnson
ddeanjohnson
S
.357 Magnum question
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
oldman10mm
oldman10mm

Latest posts

Back
Top