FBI to adopt 9 mm pistols

[JLM]

From testing that I have done, seen, and talked to other folks about that they have done, in a .mil situation the 9mm is very often the better choice as well.

9mm rounds such as our M882 ball get through things better than .45 ball ammo. Troops tend to wear stuff. In testing that I have seen and/or performed 9mm reliably gets through things like steel helmets, loaded magazine pouches, canteens, flak vests, etc. far more reliably than .45 ball.

I would submit that any hole you can put in your bad guy during a fight, even a small one, is better than no hole in your bad guy.

Note that even irregular troops tend to be wearing stuff;

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-1...desert/5519606

Now THAT is interesting! Thanks for sharing. Is this a velocity dependent phenomena re the 9mm NATO pressure ball?

[Chuck Haggard]

NATO ball is, in my experience, not all that hot. Most of the M882 I've shot has been a 124gr FMJ in the mid to high 1100fps range

Would love to see our 9mm ball ammo be something more like the old Swedish army loading

[Kyle Reese]

NATO ball is, in my experience, not all that hot. Most of the M882 I've shot has been a 124gr FMJ in the mid to high 1100fps range

Would love to see our 9mm ball ammo be something more like the old Swedish army loading

Shot some of that stuff from Swedish Army Glock 17's - felt like it had some sizzle.

[Chuck Haggard]

I wish I hadn't shot up all of the Norma brand of that ammo that I had bought way back when.

[Molon]

NATO ball is, in my experience, not all that hot.

Contrary to the nonsense 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 shown below is from the Speer 124 grain Gold Dot standard pressure load fired from a Beretta 92. The instrumental velocity at 21 feet is 1114 fps.









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 instrumental velocity at 21 feet is 1108 fps; 6 fps less than the Gold Dot load.






....

[Chuck Haggard]

^Exactly^

Thanks Molon, I always enjoy your posts, and you are a wealth of information.


(I secretly wish that there was a well built, high quality, bonded FMJ in 124gr +P running in the 1250fps range...........)

[Suvorov]

I'm sure someone here has the ability to confirm or refute my understanding on the matter of M882

Here is how I understand it -

When the M9 was adopted, the M882 spec ammo was definitely on the Hot side. According to my OCT 1988 vintage (damn I'm getting to be old) FM23-35, pushing a 124gr bullet at 1230 fps through a 5 inch barrel. Along the line (sometime in the 1990s) it was downloaded a bit?

In the mean time, my state marksmanship unit was issuing me the stuff by the can to go and shoot. When Federal started selling M882 ammo to the public in the Mid-Late 1990s I purchased several cases. I then began to get concerned about after reading about the hot nature of the M882 and contacted Federal about the issue. I received a call back from one of their techs stating that the White Box ammo was at the high end of SAMI specs but not true M882 spec ammo. It was almost 20 years ago so I don't recall the dudes name.

Anyhow does the above jive with anyone else's understanding or experience?

I don't chrono much but I would be more than happy to supply some 1993 military spec M882 and some 1996 commercial sales M882 to anyone who would want to.

[JLM]

Molon, thanks for the data points!

Maybe DocGKR can answer this. Are there references in the medical literature that dispel the myth of "kinetic energy transfer" as a wounding mechanism from handgun calibers? I'm guessing that's something that's probably extensively covered in Vicent DeMaio's book which is cited by the FTU.

[John Hearne]

FWIW, in a previous life, I did some .mil contract training. One of the units I worked with were MP's and had access to both M9 and M11's. We could "magically" get better results when the women shot the M11. The size differences may not seem like much but there's just enough difference to matter.

[DocGKR]

http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.p...formance-Facts

"All projectiles that penetrate the body can only disrupt tissue by these two wounding mechanisms: the localized crushing of tissue in the bullet's path and the transient stretching of tissue adjacent to the wound track."

In other words, there are only TWO wounding mechanisms for both rifle and handgun projectiles and "kinetic energy transfer" is NOT one of them...