The US military is shooting +P+ now?

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.
 
.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 :)
 
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
 
Last edited:
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. :p
 
Brutus said:
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. :p
Click to expand...

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

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!
 
Forte S+W said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
screw SAAMI

anything over 35,000psi is overpressure, hence what designations such as "+P" indicate
Click to expand...

Let me be utterly clear: A SAAMI +P+ designation means, specifically, no pressure standard met.

It does not mean anything other than the manufacturer does not care about the pressure; it may be anywhere on the spectrum.
It just doesn't adhere to SAAMI.
'We' normally consider +P+ to mean high pressure, but it is not always so.


Ask me how I know.
 
TunnelRat said:
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?
Click to expand...

There's no difficulty in making that happen with different powders. Peak pressure is not the variable to focus on. A load with a high peak pressure but a very steep decline in pressure while the bullet is still traveling in the bore can produce a lower muzzle velocity for a given projectile than a load with a lower peak pressure but a much less steep pressure curve.

It's a calculus problem. Focus on the area under the pressure-travel curve -- the average pressure exerted on the projectile by the propellant -- not solely the peak pressure figure, which is achieved for only a very small fraction of the time that the bullet is in the barrel.
 
AustinTX said:
There's no difficulty in making that happen with different powders. Peak pressure is not the variable to focus on. A load with a high peak pressure but a very steep decline in pressure while the bullet is still traveling in the bore can produce a lower muzzle velocity for a given projectile than a load with a lower peak pressure but a much less steep pressure curve.

It's a calculus problem. Focus on the area under the pressure-travel curve -- the average pressure exerted on the projectile by the propellant -- not solely the peak pressure figure, which is achieved for only a very small fraction of the time that the bullet is in the barrel.
Click to expand...


Good point, thank you.

Though in this particular case Fiocchi doesn’t list a cartridge on its website that performs as was suggested.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
WESHOOT2 said:
Let me be utterly clear: A SAAMI +P+ designation means, specifically, no pressure standard met.

It does not mean anything other than the manufacturer does not care about the pressure; it may be anywhere on the spectrum.
It just doesn't adhere to SAAMI.
'We' normally consider +P+ to mean high pressure, but it is not always so.


Ask me how I know.
Click to expand...

How do you know?

Are you saying that +P+ could mean the pressure is within standard non+P pressure limits?
 
I know of at least one commercial 9mm +P+ loading that conforms to SAAMI 9mm +P standards. When I contacted them, the manufacturer stated that the pressure was, in fact, the maximum allowable 9mm +P pressure.

I have speculated that perhaps the manufacturer was concerned that the loading might exceed 9mm +P in certain circumstances (e.g. high temperatures) and therefore felt like they should market it as +P+ to be safe. But I don't know for sure why they made the decision.
 
For what it's worth the M1152 isn't marked anywhere as being +P+

6f1ea5a8f6c4f85f825151d779b13e0d3ba042c8.jpg


The box has a small warning that it is loaded 10% to 15% higher than industry standard.
 
How do you know?

Are you saying that +P+ could mean the pressure is within standard non+P pressure limits?
Click to expand...

As a former manufacturer I was privy to SAAMI info.
And yes, +P+ ammo can be within SAAMI specs, and in fact can be 'standard', low, or over-SAAMI pressures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top