Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 82

Thread: M1152 & M1153 9mm Loads Info

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by JHC View Post
    Providing a stout jacket, my assumption would be barrier penetration, but then, I was reading too much into the quoted velocity.
    Perhaps I am mistaken (would not be the first time ), but I was of the impression that the terminal performance effects that Doc is alluding to are those that would occur within the human body as a result of the increased velocity of these rounds. Unfortunately, neither the Winchester (1152) nor the Norma 115-grain ball ammo have a heavier jacket so penetration against hard barriers may not be as much as we would hope for even with the increased velocity.

    This is why I am so interested in revchuck38s tests; I suspect that none of the loads to be tested will do better than 1,200 fps from pistol length barrels. Of course, I would love to be surprised.
    Last edited by the Schwartz; 05-08-2019 at 12:02 PM.
    ''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein

    Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection.

  2. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by HCM View Post
    I am skeptical to say the least. Troops too concerned about Hague convention issues to use effective ammo are likely missing, or at least not getting solid high chest hits. Review of video from the Blackhawk down incident revealed similar results with regard to the supposedly “ineffective” green tip 5.56.

    The Moro’s were not just true believers. Like many of their modern counterparts in ISIL etc they were high as kites on opium etc.
    Those are reasonable cautions. The Swedes were good soldiers (better than we understood at the time) but I doubt that they got to shoot many rounds in their training--back then (and for the most part probably now) European armies tended to give their soldiers less training ammo to shoot than we got, and of course, our soldiers did not get a lot.

    In addition, it is the case that people firing full auto tend to shoot high, without realizing it, and of course, if they were shooting at over 100 meters (maybe 150) hitting a target with a K-gun isn't easy.

    Yet when others (say the US SF soldiers who were officially not there) fought the Simbas it was very often a case of massed Simba charges at them, which increased the fright factor but made the targets easier to hit, so I've assumed (only an assumption, though) that these were relatively close engagements and the Swedes got nervous as the Simbas kept coming despite apparent multiple hits.

    Again, I don't know. I talked to some Swedish soldiers later in the 1960's and was impressed with them but I never discussed the Congo with them.

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by HCM View Post
    Yes the Somalis chewed Khat and Khat is Stimulant but it is not a that strong a stimulant. Just like chewing coca leaves does not equal the effects of cocaine. Review of video from the incident shows lots of misses. Increasing hit ratios over iron sights was a driving factor in the Army adopting aim points just before the GWOT.
    I read a book written by a Marine who was in an infantry unit in the initial Iraq invasion. He said that the Iraqis had taken a concentrated form of it, and during the Marines' clearing of a village the iraqis would not go down despite multiple solid hits. He said that inside the houses they found refrigerators full of water and they had understood that it was due to the intense thirst produced by ingesting khat.

    Of course I have no idea if the Somalis were on anything or not.

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by DocGKR View Post
    Hmmm....what exactly does the increased velocity offer in terms of terminal performance effects?
    Since (I believe) we are talking about FMJ rounds, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say absolutely nothing.

  5. #65
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Asuncion, Paraguay
    The hot 9x19 mm FMJ rounds were intended to increase the effective range and penetration of SMGs in a time when compact carbines chambered in intermediate rounds were not available. But the current use for 9 mm is mainly pistols.

    Today's most 9x19 NATO ball loads are relatively mild, just a notch above SAAMI spec 9 mm Luger and probably below SAAMI +P specs. NATO sttandard 9 mm "superloads" have largely disappeared...

    Regarding muzzle energy, the NATO standard STANAG 4090 is exceptionally lax:

    The test barrel is 7.85", the muzzle energy must be between 400 and 600 ft·lbf, and bullet weight between 108 and 128 gr.


    This means that a humble SAAMI spec 115 gr 9 mm load that has about 1130 fps out of a 4" barrel, but probably does about 1270 fps in a 7.85" barrel (with 412 ft-lbs) meets the NATO spec. at the low end.

  6. #66
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    South Louisiana
    Quote Originally Posted by spyderco monkey View Post
    Its apparently not a 1300fps load.

    1207fps avg from a 5" barrel, 1134fps average from a G19:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P46OUlrJfSg

    Kind of a bummer, would have made a perfect 9BPLE training analogue had it been 1300fps.
    Quote Originally Posted by the Schwartz View Post
    I'd appreciate seeing that velocity data from those different barrel lengths here if you'd be interested in posting it.
    I finally made it to the range to chronograph this stuff. Temperature was in the mid-80s, chronograph was about ten feet from the muzzle. Results are given as velocity/standard deviation. Five rounds from the Walther and CZ, six from the Beretta because there was a duplicate velocity that the chronograph didn't mark as duplicate so I fired another round.

    Walther P99C, 3.5" barrel: 1139/14

    Beretta PX4 full size, 4" barrel: 1165/12

    CZ-75B, 4.7" barrel: 1201/15

    These velocities are in line with the ones reported in the above-referenced video. All rounds fed, fired, extracted and ejected from all three guns with no issues.

    While this isn't as hot as we had hoped, it's still energetic enough to ensure positive function. For reference, Federal's XM9001 round pushed a 115-grain JHP at 1175 fps from the Beretta, and it's supposedly a +P round. If I were able to carry in NJ (I'm not), I'd use the P99C and this ammo. Glad I'm planning on never going to or through NJ again.

  7. #67
    This is for the Winchester 115-grain FMJFP, yes?

    Quote Originally Posted by revchuck38 View Post
    I finally made it to the range to chronograph this stuff. Temperature was in the mid-80s, chronograph was about ten feet from the muzzle. Results are given as velocity/standard deviation. Five rounds from the Walther and CZ, six from the Beretta because there was a duplicate velocity that the chronograph didn't mark as duplicate so I fired another round.

    Walther P99C, 3.5" barrel: 1139/14

    Beretta PX4 full size, 4" barrel: 1165/12

    CZ-75B, 4.7" barrel: 1201/15

    These velocities are in line with the ones reported in the above-referenced video. All rounds fed, fired, extracted and ejected from all three guns with no issues.

    While this isn't as hot as we had hoped, it's still energetic enough to ensure positive function. For reference, Federal's XM9001 round pushed a 115-grain JHP at 1175 fps from the Beretta, and it's supposedly a +P round. If I were able to carry in NJ (I'm not), I'd use the P99C and this ammo. Glad I'm planning on never going to or through NJ again.
    Thanks for posting the numbers, revchuck38. It is nice to have confirmation from actual pistols (and not from factory test barrels) that give us 'real-world' answers. That CZ-75 seems to give us the best comparison of what we could expect from a typical M-9 or a 4.7'' P320, so the M1152 looks to be a standard pressure 115-grain load at best.

    Have you had the chance to run the 124-grain Magtech and Fiocchi FMJ stuff that you ordered over the screens yet?
    Last edited by the Schwartz; 05-17-2019 at 07:59 PM.
    ''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein

    Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection.

  8. #68
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    South Louisiana
    Quote Originally Posted by the Schwartz View Post
    This is for the Winchester 115-grain FMJFP, yes?



    Thanks for posting the numbers, revchuck38. It is nice to have confirmation from actual pistols (and not from factory test barrels) that give us 'real-world' answers. That CZ-75 seems to give us the best comparison of what we could expect from a typical M-9 or a 4.7'' P320, so the M1152 looks to be a standard pressure 115-grain load at best.

    Have you had the chance to run the 124-grain Magtech and Fiocchi FMJ stuff that you ordered over the screens yet?
    Yup, that data was for the Winchester load. The other loads follow:

    Fiocchi 124-grain - P99C: 1085/23; PX4: 1120/27; CZ: 1135/21

    Magtech 124-grain - P99C: 1107/24; PX4: 1114/18; CZ: 1150/18

    I had a minor bobble with the CZ and the Fiocchi load; one round didn't quite make it up the feed ramp. I bumped the slide closed and finished the string, then checked the pistol. I had last fired it about a year ago and put it away uncleaned, then took it out today to use. Today it was dirty and dry. The CZ-75 series seems to prefer running wet, like 1911s and B92s. That's the second bobble in its life (about 8k rounds). I'm putting it down to the loose screw behind the gun. I later lubed it the way the Army taught me to lube 1911s - lock the slide back, pour oil down the slide rail until it drips out the front, flip it over and repeat, work the slide back and forth a few times and wipe it off - and put another ten rounds of the Fiocchi through it wth no problems.

  9. #69
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Canton GA
    I carried a pistol in the Army for 30+ years. Qualified once per year - AC and ARNG. 1911 them later M9. I shoot more pistol ammo in 6 months now at my local range now that I am retired than I did in my entire Army career as an Army Infantry officer. Yes, the special units shoot a lot more, but that is why they are special. What pistol and what ammo is kind of a moot point.
    Last edited by ranger; 05-17-2019 at 08:42 PM.

  10. #70
    Site Supporter psalms144.1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Bloomington, IN
    Quote Originally Posted by ranger View Post
    I carried a pistol in the Army for 30+ years. Qualified once per year - AC and ARNG. 1911 them later M9. I shoot more pistol ammo in 6 months now at my local range now that I am retired than I did in my entire Army career as an Army Infantry officer. Yes, the special units shoot a lot more, but that is why they are special. What pistol and what ammo is kind of a moot point.
    I was lucky enough to get picked to shoot on my Brigade's pistol marksmanship team when I was a 2LT into 1LT, so I shot a LOT of 45 ammo (I'm pretty sure the handful of us on the team shot ALL the Brigade's allotment one year, because I know no one in my BN or my sister BN shot any pistol quals that year...) But, I agree with you, when I was on active, I would shoot more ammo in a month in personal training than I was allotted for training/qual in the entirety of my 12 year stint.

    Having said that, I've no doubt the new JHP load is more "effective" than our old A260 JHP, and, when it comes to ball ammo, I think you can only polish a turd so much, so I don't really care about it. Of course, it WOULD have been nice if the egg heads at ARL had figured out to get a training FMJ round that was at least CLOSE in exterior ballistics to the "duty" JHP...

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •