Latest Win White label 100 round Target 9x19mm 115gr FMJ

Jus went threw a 100 round box of 9mm Luger Winchester white box Target Range ammo. The label says 115gr FMJ. Headstamp were a mix of commercial WIN 9mm Luger (Less than 1/2) and teh rest were ’ “Nato” WCC 11’ - some of tnhe WIN hst hdcrimped primers rest typical commercial primers. One roundisloaded with a blunt nose FMJ in the Nato HSt case. I haven’t had time top weigh it.

Since this is Winchesters “economy” line, I assume they are filing the boxewwith whatever loaded ammo tht fitsthe spec! The blunt nose is IMO a fluke!

Hs anyone elsenoted this pot pouri wth WIN White label???

Winchester is well known for using NATO stamped cases for their 115gr FMJ 9mm USA economy brand ammo in their 50 round boxes and the 100 round Value Pack. It has been going on for many years now but is becoming more and more common within the last few years. My guess is that Winchester is using excess NATO stamped cases to keep up with civilian shooter demands for basic target ammo.

As for your strange blunt nose bullet round, I can’t offer any explanation for that.

I find WCC 11 NATO cases (and earlier years) all the time at the ranges I frequent. Most reloaders don’t want them because of the primer crimp, so I toss them into the scrap bucket.


John - How about a picture of the box? Is it just plain white with black print like a contract box, or is it with full commercial “art?”

Some years back on one of my visits to Olin’s East Alton plant, I saw the 9X19 loading area. At that time Winchester was the sole source of the 9mm M882 for the US military, and may still be - I don,t know. They had, as I remember, one Manurhin loading machine which was used exclusively for both military M882 and commercial 9X19, according to their loading production schedule. I remember being told that the only significant difference between the contract M882 and the commercial 124 grain FMJ loads was a higher level of QA for the M882, and of course the headstamp. I don’t remember the primers being crimped in place at that time. I’ve reloaded a great many once fired GI 9mm NATO cases, and haven’t had any problems with primer removal or seating of new primers. They are merely tighter in seating, and it takes a little more force.

I think the Winchester White Box (WWB) is essentially the same design for all calibers in the Winchester “economy” line. They do (or did) have a slightly different box for their commercial “NATO Milspec” 124 grain fmj loads, but I’ve not seen that one for some time and don’t have one.

I have a box of Winchester (WCC 90) M882 and a box of Federal (FC 96) M882, which seems to indicate Olin is no longer the sole source.

The Winchester “Law Enforcement” M882 white box with red markings? I have one. Don’t recall the headstamp date, but I bought it about the same time as the brown box noted above, so it’s likely also 1990 or thereabouts.

My visits to Winchester were in the late 1990s- early 2000s. Regarding the “other” 9mm white box, it did not say anything about law enforcement use, but did say something about meeting NATO specs. 4 or 5 years ago, they were often seen on the gun show circuit. Sorry I don’t have one, but someone out there must have a box of these. I think it was essentially M882 packaged in a non-military style plain box for commercial sale.

Dennis is correct about the White Box Federal ammo from 1996. While the cartridge has a NATO standard headstamp, including the NATO mark, “FC” and a “96” date, and while the box has pretty much a standard military format on the printed top side ("50 Cartridges, 9MM, Ball M882, LOT FC-430291R190, the back side printing, of which there is none on the true Federal military boxes, is pure commercial, with safety warnings and Lead warnings. However, they violated Federal Law for commercial ammunition packaging, I believe, in that it the required “Keep out of reach of children” warning is not present. This ammunition appeared in 1996 and 1997 in gun shops and at gun shows for commercial sale.

There is an earlier white box, with black print, however. from 1984, which is military. The top label reads: 50 Cartridges, 9MM Ball NATO, XM882, LOT FC-84F001-001, Federal Cartridge Corp.
Headstamp is “FC” at about 7 o’clock and “84” at about 5 O’clock on the head. The NATO mark is not there, with the 12 o’clock position blank.

A box from 1986 is buff, more like we are used to in U.S. military boxes of the current era, and is printed the same as the XM882 box, except the designation is “M882” and lot number is FC-86A001-001. The headstamp format is the same as the 84 headstamp, except dated "86.

Note that these labels don’t have commas after the information. I have used the commas to denote separate lines of print for all three boxes mentioned. All three boxes are in my collection and are therefore confirmed (I have them sitting in front of me right now). Neither the 2nd nor the third box has any other label other than that shown here, on the top side.

I have seen no evidence that after 1986, Federal had any contract for military ball ammunition from the U.S. military. There were some contracts for seubsonic ammunition, however. Perhaps Lew would have more information on this.

John, I still have an unopened 500 round case of the Federal XM882 that I must have bought 20+ years ago. I guess I should open it and see what I have.

I have M882 (NATO) FC 96 with the 96 and 98 dates and know of a 97. I have been sadly remiss in picking up dates of M882. My latest date in WCC M882 is '96. I see some WCC 04 on GunBroker.

If any one has other M882 dates, please post them so at least I know what exists.

About a year ago I saw a two M882 boxes on GunBroker with a Lake City lot number, no indication of the headstamp. I bid on them but got a notice that the bidder had taken them down and I had not thought to copy the photo of the boxes. Has anyone seen a box of M882 with LC lot number. I suspect they may have had FC headstampeds since Federal operates the GOCO (Government Owned Contractor Operated) plant at Lake City. I’ve heard that some of the ammo coming out of the plant has FC headstamps. Does anyone know if this is true.

I don’t believe that Olin is a sole source supplier of M882 ammo. “Sole Source” means that they are the only contractor asked to bid on a government contract. The Competition in Contracting Act passed by Congress in the 1980s required “full and open competition” unless there was a specific exception as listed in the law. The only one that would apply to 9x19mm ammunition would be that Olin was the only qualified supplier which is clearly not true. Other laws passed by Congress often exclude foreign bidders but at least Federal (to include Speer) and Olin are qualified bidders in the US.

I believe that the government can direct a Government facility like the GOCO at Lake City to produce ammo without a competition, but I do not know for sure if that is true. There is an Arsenal Act in public law that establishes different rules for places like Lake City.

When I recently went to the FedBizOps website to look at recent US Govt contracts for 9x19mm, almost all were competitive procurements that required the submission of bid samples



I decided to dig a little deeper and went to Fed Biz Ops to look for a M882 procurement. This is what I found:

[quote]Justification and Approval to restrict the 9mm M882 Ball Cartridge Acquisition to the National Technology Industrial Base (NTIB).
Solicitation Number: W52P1J-10-R-0174
Agency: Department of the Army
Office: Army Contracting Command[/quote]

This is a document submitted by the Army seeking approval to limit the competition for M882 ammunition. Limiting the competition to the NTIB is basically a limitation to US manufacturers I believe. The J&A was approved in June 2010.

The contract is for the 2011-2015 buys of M882 ammunition and is for just over 100M rounds a year. The army asserts that there is only enough volume to support one production source for this contract. The document also states that multiple firms submitted orders for the last contract which completed in 2010, but the names of the companies that bid is redacted from the document which is typical. The space redacted is large enough to list at least two bidders. They also state that multiple firms have indicated an interest in bidding on the current contract (even a larger redacted space for names).

The procurement history states that Olin was the winner of the contract for M882 ammunition awarded in June 2006 (this would have been the contract for 2006 through 2010 production) and that Olin has held a contract since 1987. It further states that ATK/Federal held the contract prior to 1987. I think they are screwed up here since I have an 87 date (without NATO mark) and of course there are the 96-98 production items and these boxes have FC lot numbers. It is interesting that these boxes are white, not brown. They also have commercial style warnings on the back while the Olin box I looked at does not.

The model contract requires that 15,000 rounds be submitted for first article testing within 30 days of contract award. I couldn’t find a requirement for bid samples and suspect that failure of first artical test is sufficient for contract termination.

Anyway, it is clear that this contract has been competited between US companies a number of times and the 2011-2015 contract is probably about ready to award since Congress recently approved funds for 2011.



While on the topic of 9MM NATO round, the U.S. Technical Manual TM-43-0001-27 states that the bullet weight is 112 grains. We know that the current Winchester and past Federal NATO loads use a 124FMJ.

Does anyone have any actual U.S. made 112FMJ NATO stamped rounds? Do such rounds actually exist?

Leon, Very interesting! Clearly this data was compiled by someone who has never seen any of the 9mm Cartridges illustrated. The “Commercial” load on page 12-3 has a date that has never existed as far as I know. The only similar headstamp was a Vietnam war buy of 9mmP with a similar headstamp but dated “68”.

As you point out the M882 is shown claimed to have a 112gr bullet-Don’t think I have ever seen such a load. The drawing illustrates a fully enclosed bullet jacket with the base closed off. I have not heard that in a M885 bullet, particularly in 1994 (the date when this 9mmP information was published).

Also interesting is the M905 proof cartridge. The overall weight shown would indicate it is also has a 112gr-115gr bullet.

What is interesting is that these cartridges were type classified in April 1985. Back then and even today, most NATO 9x19mm used 115gr bullets. STANAG 4090 (which I can’t find a copy of online-can anyone help???) doesn’t require a particular bullet weight, but 115gr was pretty standard. Perhaps when these two cartridges were type classified, they thought they would be ~115gr??? I know almost nothing about the early development of the M882. Perhaps someone out there can help.

I did find the following info on STANAG 4090. It was ratified in 1962 and in 2007 it included:

[quote]STANAG 4090 – Small Arms Ammunition (9mm Parabellum)
– 5 Active Designs
– 13 Passive Designs
– 4 Obsolete Designs[/quote]


Just for fun, here is the notice to potential bidders for the 2006-2010 contract.

[quote]ITEM: 9mm Ball, DODIC A363, NSN 1305-01-172-9558
General Information

Document Type: SRCSGT
Posted Date: May 03, 2005
Category: Ammunition and Explosives
Set Aside: N/A

Contracting Office Address

U.S. Army Field Support Command, ATTN: AMSFS-CCA, Rock Island, IL 61299-6500


MARKET SURVEY AND REQUEST FOR INFORMATION: Information is being collected for market survey purposes and not as a request for proposal or as an obligation on part of the Government (USG). The USG does not intend to award a contract on the basis of t his survey and will not pay for information solicited. Please identify proprietary information. All submitted information will be retained in the Contract Office as market research but will not be released to the public. ITEM: 9mm Ball, DODIC A363, NSN 1305-01-172-9558. This round has a 124 grain Full Metal Jacket (FMJ) projectile used for anti-personnel and training. The cartridges are packed in 50 round cardboard cartons, M2A1 ammunition boxes, then wire bound boxes. While there are no firm require ments at this time, the requirement could be for approximately 239,000,000 rounds over five years. The USG has no intention of waiving any technical data package requirements and does not intend to provide any GFM (Government Furnished Materials). The Arm y Field Support Command is seeking sources capable of meeting subject requirements. Interested sources should submit concept papers outlining its capabilities to meet the Armys potential requirements. Concept papers should identify business structure, s ize and status, production capabilities (equipment, technical, production rate capabilities identifying minimum and maximums, quality system utilized, etc.) and past experience with same or similar items. NLT COB 16 May 2005, interested sources should E-M ail concept papers to, or mailed to SFSJM-LGI, Attention of Bruce Kellums, 1 Rock Island Arsenal, Building 350, 5th Floor, Pillar E12, Rock Island, IL 61299-6000. Direct all questions to Bruce Kellums (309) 782-0089, FAX (309) 78 2-2083. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS SURVEY.

Original Point of Contact

Place of Performance

U.S. Army Field Support Command ATTN: AMSFS-CCA-F Rock Island IL
61299-6500, US"


I also tried at one time to run down a copy of the NATO STANAG without any luck. I also understood that there was no specific bullet weight established in it, but a 115 grain bullet was typical, at least outside the USA.

Following is information about the M882 I obtained from Olin-Winchester in 2007:
9mm NATO 124 MC M882 from MIL-C-70508
Velocity = 1230+/-49 fps average @ 52.5’ from muzzle. (7.848" test barrel)
Chamber Pressure = 34,519 psi max. average (this would be at room temperature)
Winchester Lot Acceptance Test (LAT) Data:
Velocity average over the last 5 lots = 1249 fps max. Avg chamber pressure 32,783 psi max

I found a copy of MIL-C-70508 on the internet at one time, perhaps it’s still there.

I have no idea why the test barrel length specified is used, rather than the 5" barrel length of the Beretta M9. Maybe it is based on some SMG barrel length? My own chronograph data of the M882 from a 5" barrel gives an average MV (@5’) of about 1170 fps. (At maybe 80 degrees F., not at temperature extremes)

STANAG 4090 is dated 1982 and the drawing they are referring to is dated 1959.

Regarding the crimp on the WIN 9MM LUGER-headstamped cases. I found three 50-round WWB boxes from the same January 2010 lot with about 50% WIN-headstamped cases, about 25% (+) WCC 10-headstamped cases with crimp, and about 25% WIN-headstamped cases with crimp. Also I have both Federal M882 black/white boxes with Federal stock number/Nato cases from 2003, and (+) FC 03-headstamped cases in black/white boxes probably intended for civilian sales (with standard Federal lot number).

EOD was kind enough to send me a copy of STANAG 4090 on 9x19mm and I have posted it as a free download on my website. I have also posted a briefing describing the NATO standardization program.



Thank you EOD for providing the info to Lew, and thank you Lew for making it available to us via your website.

Newest wrinkle, I found (+) WCC 11 cases without the crimp. Not crimp removed. The crimp was never there.

Winchester “Ranger” Loads in 9mm Para – for Air Marshall Use…Frangible Bullet, Open Point – “W” stamp in flat Point cap. “Sealed Base” ( anti-lead) and Non-lead priming, are all headstamped WCC 01-10 dates, NO Nato mark, NO Crimp…but a clear varnish is used to seal in the primer…our Customs service (ACS) uses them for Qualification and Training Purposes ( Glock Pistols).

WE recycle thousands of them (Cases) to the General Pistol shooting community ( Dillon RL1050), and they go well for reloaders.

So called “Crimped” primers in 9mm cases are virtually a “No brainer”…either a built-in Decrimper (swager) such as in a Dillon RL1050 or Super 1050 will take it out without hassles. The ordinary dedicated Dillon Swager does also, But we have found that the crimp is so minimal, that why bother removing it, anyway.? ( WCC and WIN cases.).

Doc AV
AV Ballistics