NATO ammo varying specs?

[Racer X]

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.

 

[stansdds]

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.

 

[Pisgah]

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.

 

[Racer X]

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.

 

[HKSmith]

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.

 

[Bastogne71]

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.

 

[Steve912]

STANAG 4090 defines 9mm NATO...

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

 

[Racer X]

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.

 

[Steve912]

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.

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?

 

[WR Moore]

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.

 

[Bastogne71]

http://gigconceptsinc.com/files/STANAG4090-cartridge_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.

 

[Kurusu]

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.

 

[rwsmith]

Is this ammo marked 'NATO'.....

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

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.

 

[rwsmith]

Back in them thar days, published velocity specs were often optimistic to varying degrees.

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.

 

[Steve912]

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.

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.

 

[Kurusu]

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.

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.

 

[WR Moore]

http://gigconceptsinc.com/files/STANAG4090-cartridge_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.

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.

 

[Nevada Ed]

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.......

 

[Racer X]

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.

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

 

[Steve912]

The proof barrel is 7.85 inches long.

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