185gr 9mm anyone?

Status
Not open for further replies.
On the ammo and two piece cases.

From the Seismic website:

"What is the average velocity of your 9mm 185gr?
The velocity typically ranges between 900-1,000 FPS depending on barrel length. We recommend using a full-size pistol or carbine for optimum expansion and performance."

"Why do you use NATO instead of SAMMI specifications on your 9mm 185gr?
We chose to use NATO because of the ShellShock™ cases which are stainless steel. SAMMI spec for 9mm calls for a conformal transducer to be used on the case itself and is designed for brass cases. NATO measures the pressure at the case mouth and doesn’t factor the case material in its measurement."

"Is your 9mm 185gr +P or +P+ rated?
Since we use the NATO spec there is no +P or +P+ standard."

https://seismicammo.com/faq/

A good look at their website shows an interesting lack of precise information.

They use Russian made ShellShock aluminum/steel cases. These are two piece cases that have an aluminum base and a nickel alloy stainless steel upper. these have a step inside the case that helped to increase pressure in some manner. Look at their website for a bit.

https://www.shellshocktechnologies.com/

A good many promises of extreme performance. Big claims need big proof to back them.
 
And measured velocity in a full size pistol was less than 900 FPS. Do note one HUGE point...absolutely nowhere on the ammunition package does it say "full size pistol or carbine" anywhere. No firearms recommendations of any kind. The anodizing on the red bases is weak - one week after the first video I recovered several spent brass, and exposed anodizing had faded severely. Recoil felt...odd Not bad, not harsh, not weak just...odd. Hard to explain.
 
tipoc said:
They use Russian made ShellShock aluminum/steel cases. These are two piece cases that have an aluminum base and a nickel alloy stainless steel upper. these have a step inside the case that helped to increase pressure in some manner. Look at their website for a bit.

https://www.shellshocktechnologies.com/

A good many promises of extreme performance. Big claims need big proof to back them.
Click to expand...

Why did you feel the need to lie about where the shellshock cases are made? It says at the link you posted that they are made in the USA.

Where did you get the information about the "step" in the case increasing pressure?
 
fxvr5 said:
Why did you feel the need to lie about where the shellshock cases are made? It says at the link you posted that they are made in the USA.

Where did you get the information about the "step" in the case increasing pressure?
Click to expand...

It's a bit early to accuse me of intentionally lying don't you think. Lying requires intent to deceive or mislead. I first saw this type ammo a year or two back in ads from both a Russian and a Serbian (IIRC) ammo manufacturer. So that led me to recall that the cases were likely built there or originated there. This is not the first time these cases have been discussed on the internet. However I may have been wrong and they may have begun in the U.S...

American Rifleman however had an article on NovX Ammunition and the the Arx lightweight bullet in April of last year. The article also discussed ShellShock cases.

"In another display of eschewing tradition, NovX selected an atypical case for its Engagement:
Extreme Self-Defense (ARX) loads and Cross Trainer/Competition (RNP). Manufactured in the United States by Shell Shock Technologies (SST), the bi-metal cases are upward of 50 percent lighter than those of brass, and twice as strong. Purportedly, the cases have a pressure rating of 65,000 p.s.i. and can be reloaded—which should not be taken as an open invitation for dangerous loading practices—however, that requires special sizing/de-priming and expanding/flaring dies available from SST.

According to SST’s website, the primer base is made from nickel-plated aircraft-grade aluminum, while the cylinder of the cartridge case is nickel-alloy stainless steel. The benefits of the design are many. For example, the base is easy on extractors and ejectors, while the cylinder is corrosion-resistant, exhibits excellent thermal characteristics and is magnetic. The latter eases clean-up at the range. Further, the cases won’t chip or crack, have higher tensile strength (twice that of brass, so less crimp is required), work well in unsupported chambers, and, reportedly, generate faster, smoother cycling. Ejected cases are also cooler to the touch than brass. Lastly, the cases’ natural sheen makes them easy to see through a magazine witness hole or during a low-light press-check."

The article in Rifleman seems a bit premature on a new case design.

https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2018/4/23/breaking-with-convention-novx-ammunition/

You can also read about the pressure here

"NAS3 cases are the perfect platform to support lead free and frangible projectiles. Lighter bullets demand +P and +P+ loads to achieve desired energy levels; NAS3 cases have been tested successfully with pressures up to 65k psi.

NAS3 is “Best in Class” for maintaining consistent velocity between rounds. In an independent test performed by H.P. White Laboratory (a major munitions testing facility), rounds fired using NAS3 cases achieved a velocity standard deviation of 0.093 FPS (124 grain FMJ bullet, 4.2 grains Titegroup powder, 10 rounds, extreme variation 3fps). Unbeatable performance!
NAS3 cases are the perfect platform to support lead free and frangible projectiles. Lighter bullets demand +P and +P+ loads to achieve desired energy levels; NAS3 cases have been tested successfully with pressures up to 65k psi.

NAS3 is “Best in Class” for maintaining consistent velocity between rounds. In an independent test performed by H.P. White Laboratory (a major munitions testing facility), rounds fired using NAS3 cases achieved a velocity standard deviation of 0.093 FPS (124 grain FMJ bullet, 4.2 grains Titegroup powder, 10 rounds, extreme variation 3fps). Unbeatable performance!"

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/new-shell-shock-technologies-nas/

Even for a careful handloader to get only a 3 fps variation in velocity, from 10 rounds of ammo, is quite an achievement. Especially from factory ammo. To attribute this to the cases is also interesting.

The point I'm making is to approach new ammo and cases carefully and expect a proven track record before accepting all the claims. There are a lot of claims with these cases.
 
tipoc, you have not addressed this question: Where did you get the information about the "step" in the case increasing pressure?
 
These discussions are part of what I recall about the SST cases and reminded me of the Eastern European cases of MaxxTech and apparently some others. In 2016 folks were running across a number of 380 and 9mm cases that were stepped inside the brass colored steel cases. This reduced case capacity and so required increased pressures.

https://forums.brianenos.com/topic/237712-maxxtech-stepped-to-a-whole-new-level/

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/stepped-9mm-cases.838097/

Now SST ammo looks different and appears better professionally. But there is something that is similar here.

This is similar to what SST says about their cases...that to get a light weight bullet going faster requires +P and +P+ pressures in their cases. How light a bullet they don't say.

They also say that they can't measure the pressures in their cases using a traditional measure like the pressure transducer method. . But they also don't say what their pressures are using any method, that I saw. Maybe it's there and I missed it.
 
fxvr5 said:
tipoc, you have not addressed this question: Where did you get the information about the "step" in the case increasing pressure?
Click to expand...

I've addressed this a couple of times. I quoted SST as saying...

tipoc said:
"NAS3 cases are the perfect platform to support lead free and frangible projectiles. Lighter bullets demand +P and +P+ loads to achieve desired energy levels; NAS3 cases have been tested successfully with pressures up to 65k psi.
Click to expand...

They are vague here in saying how light a bullet they are talking about and how fast that bullet needs to go to reach the "desired energy" levels. But the implication is that due to reduced case capacity you need to get to +P and above to reach standard velocities.

I also pointed out that they are vague in how they measure the pressure of their loads. They do not say except that they use NATO standards. +P and +P+ are SAMMI designations.

They say they are going by NATO pressures. Which I assume is EPVAT. This is that method:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_EPVAT_testing

The CIP method is different.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_arms_ammunition_pressure_testing

They claim to be moving a 185 gr. bullet at 900-1000 fps with traditional powders in a 9mm case with reduced capacity. They do not say what pressure that is running at. But they claim that to get a light weight bullet to achieve "desired energy levels" requires +P and +P+ levels. So I'm betting that that a 185 gr. pill at 1000 fps is heck-a-hot!

The stepped case ammo in the previous post also claimed exceptional performance.

tipoc
 
tipoc said:
These discussions are part of what I recall about the SST cases and reminded me of the Eastern European cases of MaxxTech and apparently some others. In 2016 folks were running across a number of 380 and 9mm cases that were stepped inside the brass colored steel cases. This reduced case capacity and so required increased pressures.

https://forums.brianenos.com/topic/237712-maxxtech-stepped-to-a-whole-new-level/

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/stepped-9mm-cases.838097/

Now SST ammo looks different and appears better professionally. But there is something that is similar here.

This is similar to what SST says about their cases...that to get a light weight bullet going faster requires +P and +P+ pressures in their cases. They never said that. The truth about guns article said, "NAS3 cases are the perfect platform to support lead free and frangible projectiles. Lighter bullets demand +P and +P+ loads to achieve desired energy levels; NAS3 cases have been tested successfully with pressures up to 65k psi." Even they don't say that +P and +P+ pressures are required in the SST cases. They only say that "Lighter bullets demand +P and +P+ loads to achieve desired energy levels: " That means that IF +P and +P+ pressures are required, the NAS3 cases can handle the pressure.

They also say that they can't measure the pressures in their cases using a traditional measure like the pressure transducer method. . But they also don't say what their pressures are using any method, that I saw. Maybe it's there and I missed it. See the H.P. White lab report.
Click to expand...


So you made up the "shelf" in the NAS3 case.


tipoc said:
I've addressed this a couple of times. I quoted SST as saying...

They are vague here in saying how light a bullet they are talking about and how fast that bullet needs to go to reach the "desired energy" levels. But the implication is that due to reduced case capacity you need to get to +P and above to reach standard velocities. You're putting words in their mouth. Don't do that.

I also pointed out that they are vague in how they measure the pressure of their loads. They do not say except that they use NATO standards. +P and +P+ are SAMMI designations.

They say they are going by NATO pressures. Which I assume is EPVAT. This is that method:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_EPVAT_testing

The CIP method is different.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_arms_ammunition_pressure_testing

They claim to be moving a 185 gr. bullet at 900-1000 fps with traditional powders in a 9mm case with reduced capacity. They do not say what pressure that is running at. But they claim that to get a light weight bullet to achieve "desired energy levels" requires +P and +P+ levels. So I'm betting that that a 185 gr. pill at 1000 fps is heck-a-hot!

The stepped case ammo in the previous post also claimed exceptional performance.

tipoc
Click to expand...

You seem to be making up a lot of stuff. You don't seem to be a very good resource for information.

What do you mean by reduced capacity? Simply that using a longer bullet at the same general OAL reduces the size of the powder chamber, or that NAS3 cases have less capacity than other 9mm cases?
 
fxvr5 said:
Does this matter?
Click to expand...
To someone desperately trying to defend the stuff, no. For me, it's just one more piece of information on a subject to be reported.
I am not near my home at the moment, but if I get the chance I will be happy to do water measurements in both the recovered Quakemaker "brass" and standard 9x19mm brass, since I have many of each. If someone here wants a case or two to look at themselves, I might be able to arrange that. I won't ship loaded ammo, just expended brass.
 
armoredman said:
To someone desperately trying to defend the stuff, no. For me, it's just one more piece of information on a subject to be reported.
I am not near my home at the moment, but if I get the chance I will be happy to do water measurements in both the recovered Quakemaker "brass" and standard 9x19mm brass, since I have many of each. If someone here wants a case or two to look at themselves, I might be able to arrange that. I won't ship loaded ammo, just expended brass.
Click to expand...

The comparative internal volume of NAS3 cases has been addressed and measured and is available at other resources on the web, but thanks for the offer.

There are detailed photos of the NAS3 cases on the web, too, for the curious.
 
fxvr5 said:
The comparative internal volume of NAS3 cases has been addressed and measured and is available at other resources on the web, but thanks for the offer.

There are detailed photos of the NAS3 cases on the web, too, for the curious.
Click to expand...

It would be useful for you to provide links to these for those who have asked questions. It's helpful when you know the answer to questions to provide answers. This would also be a more productive way to address any errors in observation or in surmises that I made, or could have made,or others may have made. More useful than calling folks liars or accusing people of making things up.

What pressures do the rounds operate at? For let's say a 124 gr. bullet at a given velocity?

Is the case volume the same as standard 9mm brass case ammo? If so how and why? It appears from pics that the bottom portion of the case would restrict case capacity by a good amount. If not why not?

Since asking some questions earlier (and not liking being called a liar by a fella who don't know me) I've been looking at links to this ammo and have the answers to some of my original questions. I was wrong on some suppositions and I misidentified a pic. Like I said in a previous post I first assumed this was the same ammo, in a different package, as the eastern European stuff with a ridge in it that was around a couple of years ago. I was wrong on that.

If you look at this video, about 1 minute 30 seconds in, they have some good interior shots of the case. The case is made of two separate types and pieces of metal joined together somehow. This is unlike standard brass cases that must have tapered bottoms of the case. The bottom holds the primer and the upper the powder. This allows for the upper portion of the case to have a flat bottom which allows for a 2% increase in case capacity the vid maker claims.

It also makes for some changes in reloading procedures and equipment if you reload. Some of which the vid goes into.

 
Just an aside on the video above The man who made the video says he reloaded thew new cases himself for his test and fired 30 rounds of ammo. I note that the velocity spread was from 1269-1300 fps from the Glock. Standard diviation of 9.5 which ain't bad. This is quite a bit different from the variation of 3 fps over 10 rounds that Shell Shock claims on it's website. This could be due to the fellas reloading though or some other factor. But it's worth keeping in mind.
 
 
I was unable to measure water volume in a Federal 9mm case and one of the expended Quakemakers, as my measuring tools were inadequate to the challenge. Only thing I could do is measure interior depth, which in the Quakemaker, as measured by my old Frankford Arsenal calipers, was .54 inch. The Federal was .572 inch, roughly.I could not see or measure ANY difference in the bottom of the interior volume of either expended case, however, the tools available were not the most precise, to be certain. The secret must be in the powder, to make that 884 FPS personally measured velocity, with such a long bullet.
 
armoredman said:
I was unable to measure water volume in a Federal 9mm case and one of the expended Quakemakers, as my measuring tools were inadequate to the challenge. Only thing I could do is measure interior depth, which in the Quakemaker, as measured by my old Frankford Arsenal calipers, was .54 inch. The Federal was .572 inch, roughly.I could not see or measure ANY difference in the bottom of the interior volume of either expended case, however, the tools available were not the most precise, to be certain. The secret must be in the powder, to make that 884 FPS personally measured velocity, with such a long bullet.
Click to expand...

Your numbers are similar to the ones at this link: https://www.ssusa.org/articles/2018/6/27/handloading-shell-shock-technologies-nas3-cases/

Powder is always the magic ingredient. :)
 
Seems pointless. The manufacturer/ marketer knows they can’t compete with the dozens of other standard ammo makers so you have people going for super lightweight and high velocity or these overweight bullets. Both options claim to be superior which defies logic.
 
"What is the average velocity of your 9mm 185gr?
The velocity typically ranges between 900-1,000 FPS depending on barrel length. We recommend using a full-size pistol or carbine for optimum expansion and performance."
Click to expand...

IIRC, the typical velocity for a 147 gr 9mm bullet is 900-1000 FPS, so you're telling me you can squeeze 25% more velocity out of even less case capacity?

Yeah, I'm going to step over this way while you shoot that thing...
 
reddog81 said:
That both light & fast and slow, unstable, & overweight are superior to the standard loading of 115, 124, and 147 loads that are actual proven preforms.
Click to expand...

That's not a 'logic' issue.

It's the notion that the 'new' bullets defy convention, i.e. that they might outperform what we currently accept as dogma. In fact, the new bullets might just do that. It remains to be demonstrated. Keep an open mind.

With all due respect to armoredman and his colleague, their experience is a sample of one. More testing will give us a better picture of how the bullets perform, good or bad. Stability issues might be due to the bullet's length having issues with rate of twist or type of barrel.

This is from seismic's website:
Will your 9mm 185gr work in my gun?
We have tested our 9mm in multiple platforms and have yet to find anything that will not fire the round and cycle the firearm. However, we do recommend that you use a full-size pistol or carbine for optimum performance and velocity. Also we do not recommend our 9mm 185gr ammo for H&K™ USP, P2000, P30, or VP9 platforms. The MP5 performs well using the ammo.
 
On the case capacity of the NAS3 case:

In the video I linked to earlier at about 1:30 minutes in the vid maker states that the case capacity of the NAS3 gives you 2% more case capacity over a standard 9mm brass case. He doesn't say how he arrives at that figure.

In the article here (by an author I don't care for usually) he says the following:

"Upon seeing the NAS3 cases, I first noticed that the inside bottom of the case was higher than regular brass cases. I measured the distance from the case mouth to the bottom of the powder chamber in new NAS3 cases and new Starline 9mm brass cases. The internal depth of the NAS3case was nine percent shorter than that of Starline cases.

This could mean that the NAS3 cases have less capacity than regular brass cases. They don’t. Shell Shock says that NAS3 cases have fractionally more capacity than a standard 9mm case. This was confirmed by measuring how much Accurate #7, a fine-grained powder, they would hold. The Starline brass held 13.9 grains, while the NAS3 case held 14 grains.

The case walls of both brands were the same .012-inch thickness when measured at the case mouth. As you go deeper in the case, the walls thicken, but the NAS3 wall thickens less. When I put my calipers in the case as deep as I could (which appear to be at essentially the same depth in both brands), the NAS3 wall thickness was .023-inch while the Starline wall measured .038-inch."

https://www.ssusa.org/articles/2018/6/27/handloading-shell-shock-technologies-nas3-cases/

So 1/10 of a grain of powder is the difference in case capacity the author says. The video says 2%. So there's a difference some where. Likely in the method of measurement.

The standard method is to fill a case with water and weigh it in grains. This will tell you case to case the capacity and the variation from one to the other. Any reloading manual will go through this and there are videos on the web.

The article does point to some challenges with the NAS3 cases.



This is not a bad article for this author and is worth reading as he seems to proceed carefully.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Taurus Mil Pro 9mm Question
Replies
3
Views
813
weregunner
weregunner
BoozeBaron
  • Locked
Does anyone mfg a .22 Cal that can be (factory!) upgraded to 9mm?
Replies
18
Views
1K
Thunderchicken
Thunderchicken
E
  • Locked
Reloading 9mm on a single-stage press
2
Replies
40
Views
10K
LiveLife
LiveLife
M
  • Locked
Modern ammo got self-defense calibers down to 9mm, why hasn't the same happened for wilderness?
2 3
Replies
70
Views
4K
Kleanbore
K
5
  • Locked
Underwood 9mm & .40 S&W Hard Cast in Clear Ballistics Gel
Replies
10
Views
4K
Climb14er
C
Back
Top