Comparing 9mm NATO rounds.

I have been looking at some old 9mm rounds I have and pulling bullets and examining.

I decided to disassemble a Winchester M1152 round. This is the 115 grain FMJ flat nose that the military is now beginning to utilize.

The head-stamp was WMA ‘19. The primer was crimped in the casing and I saw no case mouth sealant. When I pulled the bullet with my kinetic bullet puller, it took very few strikes and was “easy”.

I then disassembled a Winchester M882 round. This is a 124 grain FMJ, that is a legacy military load

The head-stamp was WMA ‘18. The primer was crimped in the casing and I saw no case mouth sealant. Effort with the kinetic bullet puller was moderate.

Lastly, I disassembled another Winchester M882 round

The head-stamp was WCC ‘11 (? It’s not in front of me right now). The primer was crimped in the casing and there was black case mouth sealant. Took more effort than just about any other round I pulled, except Federal 147 grain HST.

Obviously manufacturers change their products as they see fit. But is the sealant being deleted from this type of ammo? Or is the M1152 simply being loaded in a “civilian” version without all the good stuff?

I don’t have my chronograph with me, but hope to rectify that soon and compare the loads. Thoughts? Comments? Outrageous remarks?

I’ve pulled a couple of bullets from WCC 12 M882 straight from the Ammo Supply Point and didn’t see any sealant. Effort was moderate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phattmatt1000

I don’t have my chronograph with me, but hope to rectify that soon and compare the loads.

---

Going from memory, M882 went about 1170 fps and M1152 went about 1235 fps from my PX4. Both MEN and PPU have 124-grain NATO loads; the MEN went about 1160 fps and the PPU about 1185 fps from my CZ-75B. I reported the data in this section a year or three ago, I'm getting ready for bed or I'd dig it up.

The Winchester 124 NATO has been one of my main range/target/plinking rounds for about 20 years now. I've chronographed the Win., IMI, SIG NATO, and more recently the Win. M1152 in a variety of guns. Within the last couple years, I bought a box of Win. NATO at Walmart that had the crimped and sealed primer, but no case mouth sealant. Win. NATO before and since all had case mouth sealant. I don't know sometimes if it's just an error in manufacture, or a worker or the manufacturer does whatever they feel like on any given day. In any case I still like the Win. NATO, and the IMI NATO too. BTW, after purchasing the 124 SIG NATO ammo, I noticed that the primer is uncrimped and unsealed, and there is no case mouth sealant. All three manufacturer's NATO worked fine in my guns.

FWIW, some 9MM NATO velocities in a couple of my guns: In a 16" barrel the SIG NATO averaged 1260 FPS, the WIN. NATO 1312 FPS, IMI NATO 1350 FPS, and the M1152 1448 FPS.

In a 4.7" barrel the SIG NATO averaged 1181 FPS, the Win. 1203 FPS, the IMI 1255 FPS and the M1152 1308 FPS.

Barrels of the same length often vary in velocities produced, so YMMV.