I was told that Winchester Ranger 9mm NATO (RA9124N) was too hot for an Sig M11-A1 and that is is for "full size pistols" only and not compacts.

Is this true or a bunch of baloney?

What are the expert opinions on this question?

Respectfully, Bill

Bunch of baloney.

At 1185 FPS, it's slightly hotter than basic range 9mm (~1150 FPS), but it's not to the level of +P at 1200 FPS or higher.

The M11A1 is rated to handle 9mm +P ammo, so it can easily handle this slightly hot FMJ ammo.

SIG's Classic Series online .pdf owners manual (2022) states use only SAAMI and/or US Military spec ammo. Plus P ammo is SAAMI rated.
There isn't anything mentioned about the smaller/compact pistols in the Classic Series concerning different ammo vs full sized models.
SIG has 124 grain non plus P ammo velocity at 1165 fps in both FMJ and hollow points.
SIG has 124 grain plus P ammo velocity at 1198 fps in NATO and hollow points.
That Winchester Ranger/LE ammo you mentioned is rated at 1200 fps.

Yes you can use that ammo.
Will it increase wear and tear on your pistol compared to slower/lower pressure ammo? Yes also.

quote:

Originally posted by cee_Kamp:
That Winchester Ranger/LE ammo you mentioned is rated at 1200 fps.

Winchester lists 1185 for that particular load (RA9124N)

I would be curious to know what that advice is based on.

The primary damage to guns like the P229 is caused by the battering of the aluminum frame by containing and stopping the rearward movement of the slide when firing. In general the hotter the ammunition, the higher the slide speed and therefore the more stress on the frame. But that’s assuming all else is equal, such as firing different loads from the same gun.

SIG uses different recoil springs and slide weights for different power cartridges and of course for different size guns. But for Classic line pistols chambered for 9mm, here are weights in grams I’ve recorded for different models’ slides:

P225 – 302.7
P228 – 297.1
P226, carbon slide – 314.7
P226, stainless slide – 333.0 and 335.8
P229, DA/SA – 337.0
P229, DAK – 350.2

That shows that P229 slide weights are actually somewhat greater than that of the P226, and especially the pre-stainless slide version’s. The recoil springs also affect slide velocity, but I believe that SIG also bases their resistance on the slide weight and cartridge power, so for that reason alone I would expect the P229 to be better able to handle the power of a hot round than the “full size” P226.

But as the teevee commercials say, there’s more.

Long ago when attending an armorer course at SIG land, I asked the instructor about the feeble ejection my P225 exhibited with training ammo. He pointed out that it, and therefore similar SIGs, were designed to function reliably with hotter European ammo, and the P225 and other models with carbon steel slides have slides that weigh the least of the lot—and significantly less than the P229s’.

Now, about the ammo:
The Winchester Ranger 124 grain NATO is a little hotter than some loads. From a P229 I measured its average muzzle velocity at 1143 fps.
The Winchester 124 grain NATO (Q4318) was a little milder at an average of 1130 fps, but the extreme velocity spreads of the two loads overlap.

The average of my preferred 9mm carry ammo, the Speer 124 grain +P Gold Dot, from the same P229 was about 1206 fps. That load meets SAAMI specs and is therefore approved for use by SIG in its pistols. SIG also approves loads that meet NATO specs.

So, after all that, I can see no reason not to use the Winchester Ranger load in a P229 or the M11-A1 which is the same gun except with a different model designation.

Folks -thank you for the education. I appreciate all the information and time it took to post replies. I did homework and found similar numbers. Looks safe to use.

It appears I received some bogus info from one of my pals. I suspected as much but trusted this forum and its members for hand info. Thanks.

Respectfully, Bill

RA9124N by cee_Kamp 32ACP, on Flickr

Interesting. Winchester's catalog contradicts that webpage.



And on this Winchester webpage it's also listed at 1185: https://www.winchestermilitary.com/Cartridges

But the packaging states 1200.

Perhaps their load changed at some point, or their testing parameters changed (like different barrel lengths), and not all of their materials were updated.

Either way, 1200 or 1185, it's fine for your M11A1.

It isn’t the least bit uncommon for ammunition manufacturers to exaggerate velocity figures or to use uncommon methods to achieve higher velocities than the rest of us get. For example, I seem to recall that ammunition often achieves higher velocities from Glock pistols than from guns with conventional land and groove rifling.

Or they may have gotten called out about certain claims and decided to reduce them some.

I also recall that Evan Marshall said that ammunition manufacturers develop loads to certain pressures, not arbitrary muzzle velocities that can vary depending upon the guns they’re fired from.

SAAMI shows different nominal velocities for 124 gr 9mm at the same maximum pressure. I assume that means the manufacturer can load to and catalog whichever he wants to.
1,030 1,090 1,130 1,170 fps.

Standard number for +P is 1180 fps.

Test barrels are held to close tolerances, with chamber and bore diameter -0 +.0005" 4" length for 9mm P.

Real guns are much sloppier.

zbill, For the last 20+ years, my most used range/target/plinking 9mm ammo has been the Winchester 9mm NATO. I have used it in a variety of SIGs, to include a model M11A1 like yours. I've not been able to detect any premature wear, damage, etc. in using this ammo in SIGs and other pistols. The instructors in the SIG armorers classes I attended indicated that SAAMI and NATO spec ammo was fine for use in SIGs.

BTW sigfreund, I've weighed some SIG slides in ounces, but doing the conversion results in slide weights similar to what you list. Velocities with NATO and 124+P are also in the same ball park..

quote:

Sig M11-A1

Wasn't the P229 originally designed for .40S&W and .357SIG? I would think it more than capable of handling a hot 9mm.

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:
Wasn't the P229 originally designed for .40S&W and .357SIG?

Yes, but 357/40 P229s have heavier slides and stiffer recoil springs than the later 9mm version, and those features help reduce the slide speed of the hotter rounds and its effects on the frame.

I agree that the 9mm pistol should be able to handle hot ammunition, but not for that reason.

1185 fps vs. 1200 fps -- the difference is 1.25%, probably less than measurement error.

Up until the recent adoption of the newer sig and some new ammo options for the military, M9’s &M11’s shot nothing but the Winchester nato round for both duty and training in the military so I can’t see how it wouldn’t be just fine

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:
Wasn't the P229 originally designed for .40S&W and .357SIG?

Yes, but 357/40 P229s have heavier slides and stiffer recoil springs than the later 9mm version, and those features help reduce the slide speed of the hotter rounds and its effects on the frame.

I agree that the 9mm pistol should be able to handle hot ammunition, but not for that reason.

I see. How about the 229's heavier and stronger milled slide vs. the 228's folded slide? Would that help it handle a hotter round? Though I believe the recoil spring is the same for either.

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:
How about the 229's heavier and stronger milled slide vs. the 228's folded slide? Would that help it handle a hotter round? Though I believe the recoil spring is the same for either.

Yes, as far as I know/recall the 9mm P229 and the P228 recoil springs are the same.

The 9mm P229 slide is however significantly heavier than the P228’s formed and welded carbon steel slide, so I’d guess that it would reduce stress on the frame somewhat better than the latter’s.

All that being said, though, I’d still go with SIG’s approval of SAAMI and NATO spec ammunition for their handguns, and I’ve never seen any caveats about what type of slides they have.
The only thing I’d be careful about with any gun having a separate breech block is to follow their guidance about changing recoil springs and the breech block retention pins at the recommended intervals. If those two recommendations are followed, I wouldn’t hesitate to fire approved ammo with the older guns.

https://sigforum.com/eve/forum...0601935/m/6801056451

quote:

Is this true or a bunch of baloney?

The latter.

I consider 9MM NATO loads to be "regular" plinking ammo. This stuff seems to me to be loaded properly, which increases reliability in handguns. When folks start shooting "regular watered down range ammo", you know the Winchester white box, the Remington UMC, these loads seem to be in the 1100 feet per second range or slower, and as such, they "dribble" out of the ejection port with barely enough power to overcome the recoil spring in some guns. As stated by someone else above, many of these guns are designed in Europe to shoot European spec ammo, which is hotter than American ammo.

I wish American ammo companies would start at 9MM NATO power levels and go up from there.