Any advice running steady +p 9mm through a Beretta 92?

[Mark]

I picked up a new Beretta M9 the other day and really enjoyed shooting it. I know most people say +p is fine but not recommended as a steady diet but my department provides me with training ammo so I never buy any. We run HST across the board as duty ammo but in .45 and .40 we have cheaper training ammo. With 9mm since traditionally very few people have carried it they just carry 124 +p HST for training and duty so it's all I have access to. I'm thinking this will change as more guys start transitioning to the 9mm but it is what it is for now. I ordered a "D" spring from Wolf and figured I'd up the recoil spring to 15lbs. Anybody have any other advice for consistently running +p through the gun or am I making much ado about nothing?

[LockedBreech]

Well, the current 92 is designed for NATO 9mm, which as I understand is run at +p pressures. So I think you'd be fine as long as you replaced springs and locking block at factory-advised intervals.

[Trooper224]

You're fine on the ammo and there's no reason to go with a heavier recoil spring.

[Chuck Haggard]

It's a HUGE worry, send all of the HST to me and I will send you the same amount of WWB ball ammo.................




(Just kidding, you'll be fine...........)

[Jeep]

You might want to change the recoil spring more towards 3000 than 5000 rounds, and keep the slide and locking block well lubricated. If you do that, though, it should run for a very long time.

[JonInWA]

And since you've got a new M9, by definition you'll have the newer "Gen 4" locking block/plunger, which handles and dissipates recoil stresses more effectively and with less wear/stress (and providing significantly greater durability) on the locking block.

Best, Jon

[LockedBreech]

And since you've got a new M9, by definition you'll have the newer "Gen 4" locking block/plunger, which handles and dissipates recoil stresses more effectively and with less wear/stress (and providing significantly greater durability) on the locking block.

Best, Jon

I was under the impression that the locking block was on Gen 3. Is there a Gen 4 now? If so, the $42 (incl. shipping) I spent on a new Gen 3 locking block and plunger two days ago for my surplus 92S was not as good an expenditure as it could have been.

[Molon]

Well, the current 92 is designed for NATO 9mm, which as I understand is run at +p pressures.


The methods and equipment used for pressure testing 9mm NATO ammunition are different than those used for testing SAAMI 9mm Luger ammunition and the two methods are not comparable. Contrary to the nonsense often posted by Internet Commandos, there is nothing at all “hot” about the 9mm 124 grain NATO load. The velocity figures that people like to throw around for the 9mm 124 grain NATO round are from test barrels, (7.85” EPVAT barrels to be specific) not actual pistol barrels. Even when fired from a Beretta 92, with its 5 inch barrel, the 124 grain NATO round doesn’t even come close to the velocities people claim. In fact, there is little difference in velocity between the 9mm 124 grain NATO round and a modern standard pressure 9mm 124 grain duty/self defense round.

As an example, the chronograph printout (from an Oehler 35P chronograph with proof-screen technology) shown below is from the Speer 124 grain Gold Dot standard pressure load fired from a Beretta 92. The average instrumental velocity at 21 feet is 1114 fps.

http://www.box.net/shared/static/6qhibittqd.jpg


Now take a look at the next chronograph printout. This printout is from the Winchester 9mm 124 grain NATO load fired from the same Beretta 92, fired immediately after the Gold Dot load was fired. The average instrumental velocity at 21 feet is 1108 fps; 6 fps less than the Gold Dot load.

http://www.box.net/shared/static/t7y4024qhq.jpg


….

[Jeep]

Molon: Thanks for the data, which is very interesting. I don't have a chrono, but I have fired foreign-made 9mm that was supposedly NATO ball (it had sealed primes with the little cross on the head stamp), that seemed a lot hotter than US M882 (which in turn feels a bit hotter than normal range ammo). I don't know it for a fact, but my working assumption has been that the NATO standards might be minimums and that different countries load their version of NATO 9mm differently.

Might you have any insight on that?

[LockedBreech]

The methods and equipment used for pressure testing 9mm NATO ammunition are different than those used for testing SAAMI 9mm Luger ammunition and the two methods are not comparable. Contrary to the nonsense often posted by Internet Commandos, there is nothing at all “hot” about the 9mm 124 grain NATO load. The velocity figures that people like to throw around for the 9mm 124 grain NATO round are from test barrels, (7.85” EPVAT barrels to be specific) not actual pistol barrels. Even when fired from a Beretta 92, with its 5 inch barrel, the 124 grain NATO round doesn’t even come close to the velocities people claim. In fact, there is little difference in velocity between the 9mm 124 grain NATO round and a modern standard pressure 9mm 124 grain duty/self defense round.

As an example, the chronograph printout (from an Oehler 35P chronograph with proof-screen technology) shown below is from the Speer 124 grain Gold Dot standard pressure load fired from a Beretta 92. The average instrumental velocity at 21 feet is 1114 fps.

http://www.box.net/shared/static/6qhibittqd.jpg


Now take a look at the next chronograph printout. This printout is from the Winchester 9mm 124 grain NATO load fired from the same Beretta 92, fired immediately after the Gold Dot load was fired. The average instrumental velocity at 21 feet is 1108 fps; 6 fps less than the Gold Dot load.

http://www.box.net/shared/static/t7y4024qhq.jpg


….

I really appreciated this info, especially since I run the standard pressure 124-grain Gold Dots as my 92FS's nightstand load.

My mistake for repeating incorrect information. As a big fan of 92 platform constantly debunking exploding slide rumors and jam-o-matic rumors, I should be more careful about that.

[JonInWA]

I was under the impression that the locking block was on Gen 3. Is there a Gen 4 now? If so, the $42 (incl. shipping) I spent on a new Gen 3 locking block and plunger two days ago for my surplus 92S was not as good an expenditure as it could have been.

You''re fine-as I recall, there were actually a couple of iterations of the Gen 2 in it's eventual phasing to the current one, with the smaller plunger. You've got the current one and are good to go. FWIW, I've been shooting for years with my "early" Gen 2, with no untoward issues.

Best, Jon

[Suvorov]

Molon. I am curious if the M882 ball you tested was actual .mil issue (brown box) or commercial M882?

The reason I am asking is because back in the 1990s when Federal started selling M882 ammo I was concerned about the pressure and contacted Federal. The tech rep stated that their commercial loads were not as "hot" as actual military loads. Now he may have just been blowing smoke but it made sense to me.

[5pins]

Molon. I am curious if the M882 ball you tested was actual .mil issue (brown box) or commercial M882?

The reason I am asking is because back in the 1990s when Federal started selling M882 ammo I was concerned about the pressure and contacted Federal. The tech rep stated that their commercial loads were not as "hot" as actual military loads. Now he may have just been blowing smoke but it made sense to me.

I was wondering the same thing. Is Winchester selling the same stuff as M882 (DODIC A363) or just stamping NATO on the box to drum up sales.