The US military is shooting +P+ now?

[wild cat mccane]

Agreed.

Just reread the article and the box. It does not say this "IS" the training round.

It says "developed for"

[TunnelRat]

So if we both agree that the American Rifleman article does not in fact claim that the M1152 is the sole training round, and as best as I can tell the article I linked is the only one posted in this thread (about the M1152 that is), then to what articles were you referring when you said, “This isn’t the sole training ammo as the articles leads you to believe?”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Forte S+W]

Originally Posted by rock185

I am kind of surprised that our military went to the trouble and expense of having Winchester develop this newer load, since 9MM NATO is the standard and has been in use by the US military and NATO partners for so many years. Listed as training ammo on the civilian market, an NRA article indicates, "The Ball cartridge is intended for use against enemy personnel".... Would the higher velocity and flat point make it a more effective anti-personnel round? I admit I don't know, but perhaps the military thinks so? I'm even more surprised that this higher pressure load has been released for sale on the commercial market. In any case, I like it and recently acquired another case of the stuff. Whether the military is actually using it or not, I've not seen anything to indicate to me that the M1152 round is a "bunch-o crap".

During the M17 Trials the US Military was actually playing with the idea of potentially replacing 9mm NATO and thus encouraged applicants to supply firearms chambered in cartridges other than 9mm, so presumably they weren't exactly satisfied with the performance of the standard issue 9mm NATO load, however, they obviously didn't take the decision to potentially drop 9mm NATO lightly and the M1152 Ball round was most likely an attempt to increase the performance of 9mm so that the Army wouldn't need to replace the 9mm cartridge altogether which would not only cost them more but also potential result in a logistics issue with supply lines in a conflict, especially one in which we were fighting alongside allied forces who still use 9mm NATO.
As for the question of whether or not a flatpoint projectile traveling at higher velocity would be more effective, absolutely. A flatpoint bullet crushes more tissue as it passes through whereas a more rounded or conical point slips through it. Some would argue that any increase in effectiveness would be marginal, and that may be so, as it wasn't ever formally adopted as a replacement for the existing 9mm NATO load, so maybe they tested it and it didn't make enough of a difference to matter. Who knows?

However, I will say this, the adoption of overpressure 9mm loads has certainly benefited Law Enforcement, or at least they claim that it has, and I personally don't doubt that a double-stack magazine full of hot 9mm JHPs would get the job done. However, those are JHPs whereas the Military uses FMJ, so it's entirely possible that the extra energy of the M1152 Ball round is wasted because that FMJ is just going to punch through the enemy without dumping any of that extra energy into them.

[cslinger]

I love 9mm NATO, well in the before time when it was commonly available. I always felt like it fell somewhere between standard velocity stuff and “REAL” +P stuff. I mean it’s definitely higher pressure then standard pressure stuff but seems mildly so.

Wasn’t there talk of a HP or HP like round for the M17/18? I may be mistaken but I though I read something back when it first started rolling along.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by Forte S+W

However, I will say this, the adoption of overpressure 9mm loads has certainly benefited Law Enforcement, or at least they claim that it has, and I personally don't doubt that a double-stack magazine full of hot 9mm JHPs would get the job done. However, those are JHPs whereas the Military uses FMJ, so it's entirely possible that the extra energy of the M1152 Ball round is wasted because that FMJ is just going to punch through the enemy without dumping any of that extra energy into them.

Keep in mind that the M17 trials also had a JHP component when it came to ammunition, the M1153. That has been tested as well and while not as high pressure as the M1152 it is still claimed to be +P (Edit: actually according to the AR article it is the same pressure, though even taking the heavier projectile into account the given velocities are so different that the two cartridges being the same pressure doesn’t make sense to me). How widespread the adoption for that is I do not know.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Aguila Blanca]

Y'all are focusing on pressure but you need to keep in mind that the NATO specification for 9mm isn't for one cartridge. The NATO spec covers a range of bullet weights, from 108 grains to 128 grains. The 9mm cartridge was originally developed as a 124-grain, and most ammo you find for sale that's labeled as "NATO" today has a 124-grain projectile. However, the most common 9mm plinking ammos in the U.S. are all 115-grain.

[JohnKSa]

The use of the term "overpressure" to refer to ammunition that conforms to an accepted standard is kind of off-the-wall.

The term generally refers to ammunition that unintentionally exceeds the standard to which it was intended to conform. Ammunition that is essentially defective by virtue of not conforming to the pressure it was specified ,or intended, to be. Or, potentially, I suppose, it could also refer that was intentionally loaded to exceed a standard that it purports to adhere to.

The connotation of the term "overpressure" is not one of a round that conforms to an accepted pressure standard, but specifically one that does not.

Since the point of language is communication, coming up with personal definitions for common terms tends to be non-productive and often causes needless confusion and disagreement--as we've seen here.

[rock185]

Forte, Thanks for adding some context on the possible reason for the M1152's existence.

[Brit]

In purchasing 30,000 rounds from a Canadian military contractor, it was designated a Sub-Gun use? It was going to be used by Canadian Gun Club members (not to be resold for profit) it came in cardboard boxes of 64.
Our members were shooting this ammo in Glock 17s. And having failure to fire (the primers were too hard, designed for use in Sten Guns) one of our shooters was an engineer. And developed a method of tenderizing? the primers, using a hand primer seater, to give the primer an extra squeeze. Spreading it a little. Something you could do while watching TV! Sending a box of this ammo to Glock, had them increase the angle of the firing pin, making it sharper in effect. Better, but not a perfect cure.
We all bought that little plier like seating tool! My Browning High Power worked fine.

I rented range time to El Al security, and when they changed pistols from BHP to Glock 17s their Israeli manufactured black tip Mil-Spec Ammo had no failure to fire what so ever. Why pay me, when the Police would let them use their ranges for free?
They had some range exercises, that did not bear Police scrutiny? I worked with those Special Forces Chaps for 16 years. No complaints. What was that WW11 saying, loose lips sink ships?

[wild cat mccane]

Again though, Fiocchi has 2 loads that are just has hot as this. I think S&B does too, but can’t recall if it is still being produced.

This isn’t going to be used in actual fighting. NATO 124/125gr can go as fast (Fiocchi), can have a flat point (Fiocchi) which is meaningless in 9mm with its tiny meplat..

Gimmick. No better than already available to the public and the article reads to suggest something that isn’t happening. The US military uses DOD Lake City NATO. We call it warm American Eagle

Appears to be a 1,000 articles out there that just cite each other. They are wrong

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by wild cat mccane

This isn’t going to be used in actual fighting.

You know this how?

So far in this thread you've said:

Originally Posted by wild cat mccane

M1152 is 115gr is trainer.

BUT...it's trainer that isn't actually used. We know this because it's a Winchester/Olin round.

Winchester no longer is the private partner of the EVERY DEPLOYED round DOD produced Lake City plant.

The US military isn't using this round.

Which you then essentially backed off of by saying:

Originally Posted by wild cat mccane

I did. I said it is only being used as a trainer and VERY limited.

"Isn't actually used" is not the same as "VERY limited".

You've also stated:

Originally Posted by wild cat mccane

Olin has no presence in Lake City. DOD requires all rounds are through Lake City.

This is despite the fact that Olin has had and currently has military contracts, linked by me previously, that involve ammunition production at the Oxford, Miss. plant.

You then went on to state:

Originally Posted by wild cat mccane

This isn’t the sole training ammo as the articles leads you to believe

And yet you followed that up with the contradictory statement of:

Originally Posted by wild cat mccane

Just reread the article and the box. It does not say this "IS" the training round.

But contradicted yourself again now with:

Originally Posted by wild cat mccane

the article reads to suggest something that isn’t happening.

Despite the fact that you just previously agreed the article doesn't suggest this is the sole training round. So what exactly is the article suggesting?

Originally Posted by wild cat mccane

NATO 124/125gr can go as fast (Fiocchi)

How can a heavier projectile (124 gr vs. 115 gr) at a lower pressure (we've established 9mm NATO is typically 36,500 PSI whereas M1152 is 39,700 PSI) go as fast? I don't see any 124 gr 9mm on Fiocchi's site that is listed as going 1326 fps. The highest I see is 1175 fps. https://fiocchiusa.com/shop/ammo/han...rain_rifle=220

This is the second thread in recent memory where you have come in making some very definitive statements that frankly can be proven incorrect without that much effort. You then backpedal rather than simply admit you were in error.

[Forte S+W]

Can we not do the whole multi-quote argument thing? That's typically where threads fall apart entirely.

Honestly, it's not a battle of wills here gentlemen. Also, when you start going back and cherry-picking statements out of context or otherwise to point out contradictions, much less to shame them over an inaccurate statement which they have since humbly accepted they were wrong about by ceasing to mention, you're only making yourself look petty/spiteful and hurting the credibility of your own previous statements by giving the distinct impression that you cannot get by on the validity of your own statements and therefore feel the need to attack your opponent's credibility in order to make your own statements appear more valid.

Sometimes the true "winner" of an argument (a term that I use for lack of a better one) is the one who knows when to stop arguing, regardless of whether or not they were right or wrong, because at least they knew when to quit. If your statements are 100% factual and verifiable, then you needn't argue any further because you are undeniably correct under scrutiny. On the other hand, if your statements are based largely upon opinions rather than facts, then likewise you needn't argue any further because your statements are likely verifiably false under scrutiny.

Appears to be a 1,000 articles out there that just cite each other. They are wrong.

That's why I abandoned my youthful aspirations of investigative journalism, because it doesn't exist anymore. Nobody takes the time to actually research or confirm the validity of a story they're running because that would take time and they can't be late getting an article out there, even if it is better written, includes more facts/info, or corrects some of the misinformation of the other hastily-written articles, just copy what everyone is saying then cite their articles as a source, that way if it all turns out to be wrong, then you can just blame the other article.

Don't even get me started on Sensationalism, more commonly referred to as "Click-bait" these days... That's what really killed my interest in a career in the field of journalism, favoring exaggeration over accuracy and emphasizing excitement over facts.

[TunnelRat]

This isn’t about being petty. It’s about pointing out inaccuracies that are being said as if they are definitive facts. I’m still waiting to find out what actually is inaccurate about the American Rifleman article as everything that has been pointed out seems, as best as I can find, generally correct. If me doing that bothers you, feel free to add me to your ignore list.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Forte S+W]

It doesn't bother me, I'm just saying that it would be a shame if the thread derails into an argument between two people, with all new posts being nothing more than a back and forth argument in which neither side is willing to concede because it has ceased to be a matter of facts but rather a matter of pride/ego.

We're not there yet, but I'm used to seeing that sort of thing begin with multi-quote arguments, so I'm merely saying that if you are correct, then that should be enough. One way or another, there's no sense in persisting in an argument if you are verifiably correct and your opponent is just endlessly replying to facts with opinions based on assumption.

So just keep that in mind and if it ever starts going there, then drop it. Believe it or not, I'm trying to be helpful here because I've been there before, I've been that guy who just couldn't quit because I was right, my opponent was very wrong, and so long as they kept posting I would counter it, even though nobody else was even posting in the thread anymore, and obviously no amount of facts was going to change the mind of my opponent, so it was a waste of time and effort. That's all.

[TunnelRat]

Your own comments are further derailing the thread (if that's how you see the exchange above). I've stopped and wild cat hasn't responded. As best as I can tell the argument between he and I is over. If you want to discuss maintaining the moral high ground in an argument, you're welcome to PM me. If you want the thread to get back on topic the best way is to frankly stop discussing things that you think are in fact off topic.

[Brit]

At this time, we are in an area, where we can not obtain 9mm ammunition, there is none to be obtainable.

How about we use materials that are currently obtainable? But not currently being used in ammunition manufacturing? The cartridge case, for instance, copper/brass/steel. Currently in short supply.
How about a newly developed polymer/plastic?

Then comes the projectile/bullet. Same thing, a polymer/Plastic. Made so as it strikes a wall/steel/ it breaks up and ends as a cloud of particles. Causing a deadly wound when it impacts on human flesh. There is nothing of this type out there now? Well we some of the best engineers and scientists in the word here at this time? get working.

I emigrated to Australia for three years. 1965 to 1968. But alas the first wife hated Australia, so we changed countries once more, and ended up in Canada for 36 years.
That marriage dissolved.

The last 6 months in Sydney NSW. I worked for ICI a huge chemical Conglaminate.
In the polymer producing division. The polymer production was simple and cheap.

It started with a steel pressure-proof tank. No idea now of the capacity! But hundreds of gallons for sure. The construction was akin to a pressure cooker. With a lid like a submarine hatch, when the vessel was full, suction was applied, to stop the fumes (which were deadly!) from escaping, a gallon or so of a deadly chemical was then poured into the tank, then the water was heated. As the tightly sealed Autoclave was cooked so to speak, it thickened and then was dried to a powder, and taken from the vessel, dried into a powder that could be dried into pellets, which were turned into plastic. A very cheap process, other than labour, and machinery.
When compared to producing steel, a very cheap process.

[74A95]

Originally Posted by Brit

At this time, we are in an area, where we can not obtain 9mm ammunition, there is none to be obtainable.

Then comes the projectile/bullet. Same thing, a polymer/Plastic.

ammo: https://www.luckygunner.com/handgun/9mm-ammo

bullets: https://www.inceptorammo.com/incepto...-utility-ammo/

[wild cat mccane]

.Mil website....

https://www.jmc.army.mil/Installations.aspx?id=LakeCity

Federal/Northrop is the private partner of Lake City. Winchester lost the contract a long time ago.

Orlin has no presence in the DOD ONLY ammo plant. Financials show Winchester took a huge hit when it lost the contract.

Winchester ONLY supplies this for training. It is NOT the major 9mm training round. ALL MOST ALL is Federal 124gr NATO. This 115gr Winchester round "developed" for the Sig is not used in combat.

Winchester makes a NATO marked round. It isn't purchased by the US govt any longer through the DOD.

This magazine article is basically wrong. MOST ammo is from Northrop. SOME very small amount is this round. What this person bought is not the SKU round, which the magazine article makes the mistake of. It is the same, but it isn't THE round. You can't buy the Winchester DOD SKU 115gr ammo. It has to be different for the DOD.

Emphasis for any clarification

[TunnelRat]

Saying that this round will not be used in combat is, to me, a broad statement and has an air of permanence to it. I know that Olin is no longer a partner at Lake City. I have not once challenged you when you claimed as much the previous times. But that hasn’t stopped Olin from receiving military contracts for ammunition (such as I’ve linked previously). I haven’t seen evidence that confirms that none of the ammunition produced in Oxford under military contract will see combat. The purpose of this round from the article is given as, “The Ball cartridge is intended for use against enemy personnel, for training, and for force protection.” Supposedly this description is from government documentation.

Neither I nor the article claims this round is the major training round; we both have agreed to that previously. So why keep repeating it as if you’re confirming new information?

From the above it seems one issue you have is that while the commercial variant may be the same round, it’s not the same SKU as the military version. If the commercial variant replicates the same performance as the military round, then for the sake of this particular discussion does it matter if the SKU is exactly the same? If your point is that is one area where the article is wrong, okay I understand. Does that really make the entire article basically wrong?

My issue is with making definitive statements and not being willing to admit an error might have been made when counter evidence is presented. All that does is spread misinformation, which seems to be the same issue you have with the American Rifleman article. To Forte’s point about attacking credibility, none of what I have said has been from the standpoint of attacking wild cat as a person or trying to embarrass anyone. I’ve been wrong myself on this forum, probably more times than I can remember. That’s why I’ve tried to temper the claims I make these days.

I will take Forte’s comment to heart and bow out of this. My hope with this comment is to explain that what might seem like me just being a pain in the butt isn’t meant that way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Brutus]

I think you are all a bunch of schmucks, all this talk about +P+ punybellum's when JMB's 38 Super ends all discussion. Get your mind out of European sillymeters and go for the all American rounds.

[74A95]

Originally Posted by Brutus

I think you are all a bunch of schmucks, all this talk about +P+ punybellum's when JMB's 38 Super ends all discussion. Get your mind out of European sillymeters and go for the all American rounds.

To be fair, and accurate, JMB didn't create the 38 Super. He created the 38 Automatic.

And he died (1926) before Colt introduced the Super 38 Automatic Pistol (1928/9), which was chambered in 38 Automatic.

I know, I know, details be damned!

[TruthTellers]

Originally Posted by Forte S+W

9mm NATO has always been substantially hotter than Standard Pressure 9mm Luger, M1152 Ball in particular is comparable to +P+.

That's also why I've criticized folks who parrot the FBI's blanket statement that there's no substantial difference between 9mm Luger, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP while neglecting to mention that they're not using Standard Pressure 9mm Luger, but rather +P+ loads which are practically poor-man's .357 SIG in terms of ballistics performance.

Neither the Military nor Law Enforcement uses Standard Pressure 9mm ammo.

There are differences between handgun calibers 9mm and up, but enough to make a difference, IDK. The fact is people shoot 9mm because it's cheap or because they shoot it the best, not because it's the best.

What I like about .40 is it's a more powerful round, it retains more energy, it defeats barriers well, but it's also designed from the ground up to use hollow points. This means the practice ammunition has the same bullet profile as the JHPs. What this does is it means don't have to try 100 rounds of a specific 9mm hollow point ammo before I can say it runs 100% without issue. Most people are shooting standard 9mm ball that is different that the JHPs.

I know, I know, I shouldn't put a price limit on making sure the carry ammo works with the gun, but we're in another panic and I'm not willing to spend a buck a round to test my 9's with, not when I know my .40's run just fine.

The bonus with .40 that I've learned the past couple years is being able to shoot it in most 10's, Glock especially.

[stuckinthe60s]

does anyone remember the cracking frames on the sig 226? team armorers use to go to sig to learn how to rebuild 226's after 20,000 rounds, of 9mm nato being fired in them.
fyi...we learned that TZZ is hotter than WIN. very noticeable difference.

[Radny97]

The bigger question for me is why load any handgun ball ammo that hot? A 115 gr round nose 9mm going 800 fps will zip through a person about the same as one going 1300 fps. So why do they use a round that beats up the handguns so much if they are only permitted to use round nose. It’s an honest question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wild cat mccane]

From post one of mine, it isn't being used for anything but training.

And it is only a small amount.

We know this off Winchester's financial data.

It is not deployed in combat. We know this because it is labeled a training round and again, Winchester isn't selling this in huge quantities.

The DOD 9mm round is made by Northrop/Vista/Federal. It is a 124gr FMJ.