Shooting +P+

JohnKSa said:
While Beretta has improved the locking block design over the years to increase longevity they don't consider it to be a problem in the conventional sense (they consider it a normal wear item) and also, therefore, have never claimed to have resolved it.
Click to expand...
At the time, Taurus claimed its metallurgy was superior to Beretta's. Whether they were just blowing smoke up my nether regions and whether Beretta later improved its metallurgy, I don't know. I've been told that no Taurus, no Italian Beretta, and no commercial U.S. Beretta, has ever had a slide separation. I was told that only the military issues had the problem.

But you're right that there were no design changes that affected the wear issue; only a design that kept the slide from hitting the shooter in the face. If the problem was metallurgy, were the design changes made in civilian issues of the gun, or only the military issues?

The Tomcat also had frame cracking problems, and Beretta ignored the problem for several years (and I don't know if it ever addressed the problem).
 
But you're right that there were no design changes that affected the wear issue; only a design that kept the slide from hitting the shooter in the face.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying that there have been no slide separations other than the ones experienced during Navy testing, but they do not appear to have been anything approaching common.

In other words, I don't believe it's really accurate to call it a wear issue. It appears to have been a metallurgical problem which was solved.
If the problem was metallurgy, were the design changes made in civilian issues of the gun, or only the military issues?
Click to expand...
The metallurgical problem was supposedly a very limited issue, not widespread. Beretta made the changes to the entire line anyway. The 'S' in 92FS is the mod that prevents a separated slide from coming off the back of the gun.
 
I did just the opposite.

I went from 357SIG back to 9mm, when I realized the +P+ 9mm, was very similar to 357SIG in performance, and I could practice and shoot a LOT more for my money, with 9mm, especially when the 357SIG ammo prices spiked back during the Obama ammo scare.

9mm is a lot more versatile in that I can shoot standard loads in practice and take advantage of the extra punch and performance of the +P+ in my carry guns.
Click to expand...

I guess it is a matter of perspective.

The 357 Sig begins where the 9mm +P+ stops. The ammo I use in my 357 Sig is Underwood 115 grn JHP's @ 1550 fps, I don't know of any 9mm load that gets closer than about 200 FPS slower, that is a lot of energy.

My Glock 31 C is factory ported, I have a factory ported 40 S&W BBL and a non ported 9mm conversion BBL. All three shoot to the same POI/POA with whatever I shoot thru it. Due to the porting they all have about the same objective feel when shooting, just the 40 & 357 are louder.

I do not use much 357 Sig ammo for practice for the reasons mentioned above. Cost is a non issue for carry ammo. I shoot this gun in IDPA and literally shoot thousands of rounds a year thru it. It is my main carry gun.
 
Last edited:
Another aspect of this issue is that as a bullseye competitor pistol cartridges with a short powder column tend to be less accurate as the powder gets compressed. First noticed this in 10mm vs. 40S&W. Proved it to myself when acquiring a 38 Super. Select the right tool for the job and you can't go wrong.
Click to expand...

I guess that is why Bullseye shooters used the 38 Special instead of the 357 Magnum.
 
Just on the M9 and slide separation. It has not been an issue since it was resolved in 1989. But like many things in the gun world the stories linger on and grow and grow till a small monkey becomes King Kong.
Click to expand...

Until 1995 and they chambered it in 40 S&W at which time they added steel to that area and created the 96 Brigadier. Some of those managed to get past 3000 rounds without failure.
 
Nanuk said:
I guess it is a matter of perspective.

The 357 Sig begins where the 9mm +P+ stops. The ammo I use in my 357 Sig is Underwood 115 grn JHP's @ 1550 fps, I don't know of any 9mm load that gets closer than about 200 FPS slower, that is a lot of energy.

My Glock 31 C is factory ported, I have a factory ported 40 S&W BBL and a non ported 9mm conversion BBL. All three shoot to the same POI/POA with whatever I shoot thru it. Due to the porting they all have about the same objective feel when shooting, just the 40 & 357 are louder.

I do not use much 357 Sig ammo for practice for the reasons mentioned above. Cost is a non issue for carry ammo. I shoot this gun in IDPA and literally shoot thousands of rounds a year thru it. It is my main carry gun.
Click to expand...
At the time I had my 357SIG's, the standard load was a 125-grain bullet at 1350fps. There were a few, like Double Tap, who were getting a little more out of them, but it wasnt a "whole lot more". I know things have advanced some, but I dont think things have changed all that much.

200fps with a 125 grain bullet, equates to 11 foot/pounds. Nothing Id call a major difference.

As far as I know, 40,000 is still the limit for 357SIG. How they get more velocity out of it with the same weight bullet, has always been a question, if not questionable.

Im simply going by what the Speer engineer told me about rounds of similar pressures and bullet weights producing similar velocities and performance. They call +P+ 9mm to be 40,000psi as well.

Im sure powder burn rates and a few other things are involved as well, but Ive never really wanted to get lost in that rabbit hole trying to find out. I just like to shoot them. :)


Believe me, I was big time Gung Ho, 357SIG when I first got into it, and got into it more than a few times with a couple of people defending it, who were saying that 357SIG wasnt really any, or all that much different.

They were, I believe now, to be correct in what they were saying. But, I was still in that emotional denial stage. :D

Hey, if it floats your boat, by all means, stay with it and enjoy it.

I think if you get to looking though, most all the major calibers perform to the same base standard, and really dont do anything "more better" than another.

I went back to 9mm simply because its a lot cheaper, so I shoot more for the same money, a bit more versatile, and the guns chambered in it usually carry more ammo than the other, larger calibers Ive used in the past.

I still have a number of those guns/calibers too, and shoot them regularly, and each time I do, it just confirms (for me) my choice.

Pick the one you find you shoot the best with, and I doubt it will let you down, if you do the same for it. :)
 
AK103K said:
200fps with a 125 grain bullet, equates to 11 foot/pounds. Nothing Id call a major difference.

As far as I know, 40,000 is still the limit for 357SIG. How they get more velocity out of it with the same weight bullet, has always been a question, if not questionable.

Im simply going by what the Speer engineer told me about rounds of similar pressures and bullet weights producing similar velocities and performance. They call +P+ 9mm to be 40,000psi as well.
Click to expand...

Wow. You sound clueless.

A 124 grain bullet at 1150 fps from a 9mm Luger produces 364 ft lbs of muzzle energy. A 357 Sig pushing a 125 grain bullet to 1350 fps produces 506 ft lbs of muzzle energy. That's a difference of 142 ft lbs.

Are you trying to say that a 9mm at 40,000 psi produces the same ballistics as a 357 Sig at 40,000? They don't.
 
74A95 said:
Wow. You sound clueless.

A 124 grain bullet at 1150 fps from a 9mm Luger produces 364 ft lbs of muzzle energy. A 357 Sig pushing a 125 grain bullet to 1350 fps produces 506 ft lbs of muzzle energy. That's a difference of 142 ft lbs.

Are you trying to say that a 9mm at 40,000 psi produces the same ballistics as a 357 Sig at 40,000? They don't.
Click to expand...

If you look around, some of the 9mm +P+ rounds of that weight are pretty much right there with the 357SIG velocity wise. If you do the math, they are very similar energy wise.


And according to the engineers at Speer, 9mm at 40,000psi, will basically equate to 357 SIG at 40,000psi, given bullets of the same weight. Ill take their word on that over internet conjecture.

357SIG is really nothing more than a 9mm in a different case. Its max pressure is 40,000psi, unless they have found a way to go +P with it, which I havent seen.

9mm +P+, according to Speer anyway, is loaded to 40,000 psi.

These sorts of discussions always seem to end up being arguments about whose round or load has the best paper numbers, and having a few fps makes a major difference (they dont) if you want to win.

The reality is, they are all handgun rounds and not some super duper man stoppers. They all pretty much suck. They also all strive to perform to those FBI standards that everyone seems to use, and they all seem to perform about the same there too.

Whats really important with any of them is, youre as competent as possible in your shooting skills, know your anatomy, and what you really need to be targeting when you shoot, use a reasonable caliber that is easy for you to shoot well with, and you dont stop shooting, until the threat is down and out. That applies to EVERY one of them.

If you think you have a gun that shoots some sort of magic bullet, especially if you paid extra for them, and youre using them to make up for a lack of skill, I would seriously suggest you need to rethink things. ;)
 
Topic slides no longer fly off the rear of the pistol, but locking blocks still break and malfunction. It is not as prevalent but it still happens. And it’s well known. I’ve had it happen on an M9. That was in 2004. Years after it was supposed to be resolved.
Click to expand...

Neither the Army, Navy nor marines have had an issue with the locking blocks. Those parts are replaced at regular service intervals or as they show wear. They still are as the services still have a significant number of M9s in service.

The issue was the slide cracking. It cracked at the point wear it engaged the locking block.

As I related and linked to earlier in this thread...
The M9 pistol program ran into trouble when in September of 1987 the slide of a civilian model Beretta 92SB pistol fractured at the junction where the locking block mates into the slide. The broken half of the slide flew back at the shooter (A member of the Navy Special Warfare Group) injuring him. (NSIAD-88-213) In January and February of 1988 respectively, 2 more military model M9 handguns exhibited the same problem, injuring 2 more shooters from the Navy Special Warfare Group.

All three shooters suffered facial lacerations. One suffered a broken tooth and the other two required stitches. (NSIAD-88-213)
Click to expand...

The Army also ran into the issue...
The Army was doing unrelated barrel testing on current production civilian model 92SB pistols and military model M9 pistols and ran into the same slide separation issue. They fired 3 M9 pistols 10,000 times and inspected the weapons with the MPI process for evidence of slide cracks. They discovered that one of the weapons had a cracked slide. The Army then decided to fire all of the weapons until the slides failed. Failure occurred at round number 23,310 on one weapon, 30,083 on another, and 30,545 on the last weapon. (NSIAD-88-213)
Click to expand...

So they tested further and came up with the origin of the problem and a solution...
Examination of the NSWG (Naval Special Warfare Group) slides and the Army slides showed a low metal toughness as the cause of the problems with slide separation. The Army then began to investigate the production process of the slides. (NSIAD-88-213) At the time the frames of the M9 pistols were produced in the US, while the slides were produced in Italy. There are reportedly documents from the Picatinny Arsenal that report a metallurgical study blaming the use of Tellurium in the manufacturing process for the low metal toughness of the Italian slides, but I have been unable to independently verify this information.

After April of 1988, however, all slides for the M9/92 pistols were produced in the US. (NSIAD-88-213) As a part of the contract requirements, the Beretta Corporation had to build a plant inside the United States to produce the M9. It naturally took some time for the US plant (located in Accokeek MD.) to get into full production swing, so the Italian plant made the slides for a time.
Click to expand...

http://sightm1911.com/lib/history/true_story_m9.htm

This was the end of the problem. This along with the added part to prevent the slide from flying off the rear of the frame if the slide cracked enough to allow for that.

Remember that both the Navy and Army could find only 14 guns that showed evidence of slide cracking. This was early in the service life of the gun.

If you like you can click on my source and copy and paste into the original service reports as below...

https://www.gao.gov/products/NSIAD-88-213

tipoc
 
AK103K said:
If you look around, some of the 9mm +P+ rounds of that weight are pretty much right there with the 357SIG velocity wise. If you do the math, they are very similar energy wise.

And according to the engineers at Speer, 9mm at 40,000psi, will basically equate to 357 SIG at 40,000psi, given bullets of the same weight. Ill take their word on that over internet conjecture.

357SIG is really nothing more than a 9mm in a different case. Its max pressure is 40,000psi, unless they have found a way to go +P with it, which I havent seen.

9mm +P+, according to Speer anyway, is loaded to 40,000 psi.
Click to expand...

No need for internet conjecture, since hard data is on the internet.

9mm +P+ 124 grain @ 1300 fps = 465 ft lbs ME
https://www.underwoodammo.com/colle...ed-jacket-hollow-point?variant=18785726824505

357 Sig 124 grain at 1475 fps = 604 ft lbs ME
https://www.underwoodammo.com/colle...-jacketed-hollow-point?variant=18785729282105

And then there is the lowly 357 magnum with it's mere 35,000 psi limit that pushes a 125 grain bullet to a mere 1600 (4" barrel) -1700 fps for a piddly 710-802 ft lbs ME.
4" = https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=103
https://www.underwoodammo.com/colle...-jacketed-hollow-point?variant=18785727217721

The extra case capacity of the 357 Sig gives it an advantage over the 9mm when loaded to the same pressure. That's why the 357 Magnum excels. Much greater case capacity.
 
Stargater53 said:
I have some of this ammo I acquired from a friend several years ago. Some people say that guns should have stiffer mainsprings before shooting this kind of ammo, but it sounds like a hassle.

Does this kind of ammo put a lot of wear and tear on guns? I have a number of guns with steel slides (S&W 5906, 3906) and I've got a Taurus PT92. I'd think all of these guns would be robust enough to handle it.




S&W 5906 (top) and Taurus P92.

Does anyone shoot this type of ammo? And is it hard on guns?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
If you have a lot of it, I would pick up a Hi-Point 995TS Carbine and run it through there. They can take it. I have run some very hot .45 ACP through mine without any issues.
 
Frame damage is also possible, especially if the frame is aluminum (as is the case with most of the Berettas and S&W 59XXs like those shown in the images above). Aluminum frames just aren't as robust as similar steel-framed guns.

Most quality (non +P) factory self-defense rounds will penetrate sufficiently, and many will also expand quite well; darned few of them will abuse the weapon. +P versions of the same ammo will arguably perform a little better than the standard ammo, but not all guns are designed to handle +P rounds.

That said, I'd suspect that +P+ ammo is a "crap shoot" in every sense of the term -- if for no other reason than there is no generally accepted standard for that rating.

I sometimes wonder whether +P+ ammo is more focused on the shooter's EGO than upon better results at the point of impact?
 
Last edited:
Years ago I got my hands on some strong ammo. I don't know what rating it had, but it would really liven up a Sig 226. Strong ammo.

I still have some of that ammo waiting on a semi auto 9mm rifle. Might be my next purchase.
 
FWIW, in earlier armorer classes for the S&W 3rd gen metal-framed pistols (like the 5906), we were told to use whatever the issued ammunition was for our respective agencies, presuming that any 9mm +P & +P+ someone was using was made by one of the Major American ammo companies who had experience producing duty ammo for LE.

Remember that the ISP basically pioneered the use of 115gr +P+ ammo in their 2nd & 3rd gen S&W's (alloy frames), meaning they worked with the Winchester and Federal ammo engineers to develop and make those rounds for them. They used that 115gr +P+ JHP as their standard duty load for many years.

They also told us in the older S&W armorer classes that the use of +P and +P+ ammo would accelerate the normal wear and tear on guns, and gave us some things to periodically check for and watch in case they developed (like slide stop lever assemblies that might acquire an inward or outward bend due to the greater recoil forces). We were told we'd probably end up having to replace recoil and magazine springs more often (but replacing mainsprings wasn't mentioned).

At one time or another my issued 9mm duty loads were standard pressure 147gr, 124gr +P and 127gr +P+ JHP's. I used them in my alloy-framed 3rd gen Smith's, both the issued ones and the one's I've owned for many years.

Now, on the other hand, in the new S&W Shield 9's we were told that the use of +P was okay for limited use, but not to use +P+ loads in them.

Since +P+ really only means that industry pressures for +P have been exceeded, but there isn't an upper limit set, personally I won't use +P+ loads made by anybody but the major American ammo makers who have acquired years of experience in producing duty ammo for LE agencies and not blowing up guns. (I'm also pretty conservative when it comes to replacing recoil springs, too.)

Just my thoughts.
 
Since I can always use an EGO boost, please send me all that unneeded, and possibly pistol destroying, 9MM +P+ ammo. I will properly dispose of it into the berm at our range;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top