SIGforum
M1152 9mm

This topic can be found at:
https://sigforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/410601935/m/1220050484

August 09, 2021, 04:56 PM
NavyAgShooter
M1152 9mm
Has anyone tried the Winchester M1152 9mm flat nose made for the Army handgun system?

Range report?
August 09, 2021, 06:03 PM
sigfreund
I have fired it in a full size P320. It feels hotter than the typical 115 grain stuff commonly used for training, but not excessively so.




“Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something.”
— Plato
August 10, 2021, 11:18 AM
iron chef
I've shot some. It definitely has more punch behind it than standard 115gr. According to Winchester:

WWB 115gr - 1190fps muzzle velocity
Q4318 NATO 124gr - 1200fps
M1152 Active Duty 115gr - 1320fps

I don't know if it qualifies as +P, but the M1152 has more energy and felt recoil than 9mm NATO.

Last time I shot M1152 was through a P365 and Kahr P9, both subcompact/micro guns. The ammo was accurate and didn't give me any feed problems. Due to the increased energy, I'll probably reserve it for my compact & full-size guns.
August 16, 2021, 07:25 PM
jdshank
Has anyone came up with load data to match this round?
August 18, 2021, 03:03 AM
rock185
I have tried the M1152, and chronographed it in several different firearms. It really does meet the advertised velocity. Velocity in my guns is similar to the factory Federal 9BPLE 115 grain JHP +P+ load. The M1152 9mm energy, momentum and attendant recoil are just a bit more than the Winchester Q4318 9mm NATO I've chronographed...

For example, in semi-autos the M1152 averaged 1258 FPS in a 4" barrel, 1308 FPS in a 4.7", 1319 FPS one 5" gun, 1353 FPS in another. Out of curiosity, I also chronographed it in a 2" revolver, which averaged 1217 FPS. In a 3" revolver it averaged 1308 FPS.


Back in the day, long before such a thing as the M1152 existed, using Herco powder, I loaded 9mm to similar velocities with 115 and 124/125 grain bullets. I hesitate to post the exact powder weight because, while the load was published in older reloading manuals, it has been reduced in more recent editions. I used thousands of such loads in various 9mm pistols without any issues, but another's firearm might not digest it as well...


NRA Life
August 18, 2021, 06:37 AM
sigfreund
Thanks, rock185. Good information.




“Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something.”
— Plato
August 25, 2021, 04:40 AM
Jelly
As far as I can tell the M1152 9mm pressure is simular to the +P+ 9mm ammo.

From American Rifleman

There were reports of stoppages and double-feeds in XM17 testing, which were addressed by SIG. It was never an ammunition issue, as Winchester made no changes to M1152 or M1153. One of the differences between the military-issue M17 and the P320-M17 civilian version are the recoil springs. The U.S. M17 is designed to work with U.S.-issue ammunition only—the commercial guns have to run with everything.

The M1152 employs a 115-gr. full-metal-jacket, flat-nose (FMJ-FN) bullet. The M1153’s 147-gr. jacketed-hollow-point bullet bears a familial resemblance to the company’s law enforcement Ranger T-Series, but it was “designed to maximize performance based on the government specification set out in the RFP,” Glen Weeks, director of government contracts & specialty products for Winchester Ammunition, told me during an interview. The powder used is not a special propellant. Weeks said it is a “propellant we have experience with and use in other products.” The pressures for the M1152 and M1153 are 39,700 p.s.i.

In our tests in 1985, XM882 propelled a 124-gr. round-nose FMJ out of the 5" barrel of an M9 at an average of 1273 f.p.s., delivering 446 ft.-lbs. of energy at 15 ft. Using an Oehler Model 43 and firing the new ammunition out of a 4.7"-barreled P320-M17, M1152 with the 115-gr. bullet was at 1326 f.p.s. and 449 ft.-lbs. of energy, while the M1153 clocked 962 f.p.s. with 302 ft.-lbs., both at 15 ft.

Full article.

https://www.americanrifleman.o...ew-9-mm-luger-loads/