Monarch 9mm

[dodo bird]

I tested some more ammo through the chronograph today. Monarch 9mm 115 grain from Academy. As many of you know this is cheap Russian ammo with a steel case. I got this ammo recently and I had to test it as I thought the box ballistics that we’re printed had to be hogwash. The box says 1329 FPS with energy ft lb 453. Well the chrony said 1105 average with 312 ft lb. This was out of a Springfield xds with a 4 inch barrel. Not exactly a short barrel. I am guessing the marketing dept thought let’s use a 9mm rifle stats. Anyway I tried to find a website for them and no luck. The ammo is fine I just don’t like the false advertising.

 

[WestTexShooter]

I have been pleasantly surprised by there Brass case 9mm.

 

[Fiv3r]

I like Monarch for range ammo. I never look at the fps on a sub $10 box of ammo. I realize that the trade off for being inexpensive is being inconsistent in empirical power. Luckily it seems to be reliable in most of my pistols. At the distances I am able to practice at, the fps doesn't seem to affect my accuracy (or admitted lack there of).

 

[WVsig]

IIRC Steel cased Monarch is made by Branaul and the brass used to be made by PPU. The brass case recently switched to Amscor based on the head stamp on the brass. I have only shot the brass cased Amrscor and it was ok range fodder.

I think most test barrels are 5” long so you can add about 50 FPS for the shorter barrel. If the round functioned and you are not using it for self defense what does it matter?

Also you should have known it was not correct given that NATO 9MM which most consider to be a +P round is 1230 +/- FPS.

 

[Charlie98]

with a 4 inch barrel. Not exactly a short barrel.

I think most test barrels are 5” long

Actually, I think 4" is still pretty short... it is not what you think of as a 'full-sized' pistol, in the same vein as a 1911 or something like a Beretta 92, et al.

I have been working up loads for my Kahr 9mm's... 3.6" and 3.1" barrels. This past weekend I got a chance to compare them to my FIL's Taurus PT92 (4.8" barrel) and the difference was fairly significant. I do agree, however, 1329fps is a little... uh... optimistic!

 

[dodo bird]

I like Monarch for range ammo. I never look at the fps on a sub $10 box of ammo. I realize that the trade off for being inexpensive is being inconsistent in empirical power. Luckily it seems to be reliable in most of my pistols. At the distances I am able to practice at, the fps doesn't seem to affect my accuracy (or admitted lack there of).

I agree it’s fine range ammo and that’s it. I was thinking somebody is buying this ammo and using it as a “bear defense round”. Then convincing themselves it about as good as buffalo bore. False advertising from Monarch if you ask me. Buffalo Bore does a good job on their website. I have never shot any of their ammo as I have a Monarch budget at the time.https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=224

 

[Fiv3r]

I agree it’s fine range ammo and that’s it. I was thinking somebody is buying this ammo and using it as a “bear defense round”. Then convincing themselves it about as good as buffalo bore. False advertising from Monarch if you ask me. https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=224

I can totally see your point.

 

[Rock185]

That difference is way more than I would expect. That is, unless the manufacturer is using something like a 16" barrel for testing, which would be pretty odd IMHO. FWIW, I have seen 1100+ FPS 9MM tested in a 4" barrel, reach just over 1300 FPS in a 16" barrel. Don't know why they would even bother putting the inflated velocity claim on the box, since they know the ammo is just competing on price, not performance?

BTW, I bought some ammo a few months ago advertised as having a similar velocity, the Winchester 115 JFP "Active Duty". I was Highly dubious of the claimed 1320 FPS. Turned out the chronographed velocity was consistent with Winchester's published velocity, at least in 5" or longer barrels. You never know.

 

[dodo bird]

BTW, I bought some ammo a few months ago advertised as having a similar velocity, the Winchester 115 JFP "Active Duty". I was Highly dubious of the claimed 1320 FPS. Turned out the chronographed velocity was consistent with Winchester's published velocity, at least in 5" or longer barrels. You never know.

I have tested many manufacturers data that is published. I have found most to be very close to published if not spot on. The Monarch ammo is way off.

 

[Waveski]

Inflated performance claims ?

It's some of the cheapest 9mm on the market - and it's from RUSSIA.
What should one expect?

 

[briansmithwins]

They might have held the ammo they used for testing in an oven to get that velocity, as well as rounding up on the m/s to FPS conversion.

BSW

 

[Speedo66]

Inflated performance claims ?

It's some of the cheapest 9mm on the market - and it's from RUSSIA.
What should one expect?

Flooding the market with false news?