Platform
Modules
By sector
By sector
By standard
Blog
News
Events
AEP-98
Test facilities carrying out precision assessments of non-lethal kinetic-energy weapons and ammunition, and the National Authorities that oversee them
A NATO test procedure for assessing the precision of non-lethal kinetic-energy weapons and ammunition, run by a test facility under National Authority oversight, that sets no acceptance or rejection criteria of its own.
AEP-98, Precision Assessment of Non-Lethal Kinetic Energy Weapons and Ammunition, is a NATO Allied Engineering Publication, Edition B Version 1, promulgated in July 2021. It sets out a test procedure for assessing the precision of non-lethal (NL) kinetic-energy (KE) weapons, covering launchers with a smooth or rifled barrel, and their ammunition, covering both single projectiles and multiple-projectile (pellet) munitions. Its purpose is stated plainly: to give NATO and Partnership for Peace (PfP) countries test and analysis data that helps them appraise weapon and ammunition designs, using control weapons and ammunition for comparison where useful. It is covered by STANREC 4744, a NATO Standardization Recommendation, so nations are invited to use it rather than committed to it by ratification, and the document itself says it can equally be run as purely national testing against national criteria.
The document is addressed to the test facility that carries out the assessment and to the National Authority that oversees it, not to a manufacturer or a certification body. It sets no performance target of its own: it states that the tests "make no attempt to stipulate acceptance or rejection criteria" beyond a possible safety exception, so a result under this procedure is comparative data rather than a pass or fail on a design.
The test weapon or launcher has to be the original system, or as close to it as possible; where a proof barrel is substituted, the National Authority has to verify that impact conditions are equivalent to the original. The document also covers the support-weapon mounting, the choice of launcher-to-target distance (set from user requirements and the manufacturer's instructions), the projectile velocity measurement system and its method of correction, target sizing and marking, and instrumentation for wind on outdoor ranges. All equipment has to be checked as properly calibrated before testing starts, and a test facility may substitute its own in-house facilities, materials or equipment not specified by the document, provided it records the variation in its test report and can show the results would remain valid - the National Authority decides whether that modified procedure is acceptable.
Outdoor testing calls for the National Authority's judgement, because wind affects the flight of the projectile, and test cartridges and projectiles are conditioned before firing. Rounds may be fired continuously or in groups, provided the target system can reliably discriminate each impact, and where multiple targets are used a common reference axis is required. For single projectiles, the document calls for the mean point of impact and the horizontal and vertical spread of the shots to be calculated; for multiple-projectile munitions, it calls for the pellet pattern's spread to be measured and characterised. The National Authority chooses the statistical method used to turn these measurements into a precision result, and a minimum set of observations, from target and weapon identification to per-shot velocity and impact location, has to be recorded for every assessment.
AEP-98 describes no certification of an organisation or a product, and says so about itself: the tests "make no attempt to stipulate acceptance or rejection criteria" beyond a possible safety exception. What happens instead is oversight by a National Authority: verifying equivalence when a launch system is substituted, deciding whether a test facility's own equipment or a variation from the specified method is acceptable, exercising judgement over outdoor conditions, and computing and documenting the statistical results. The output is comparative precision data measured against a control, or against requirements agreed elsewhere, not a certificate.
AEP-98 is covered by STANREC 4744, the Standardization Recommendation nations use to record their agreement to use it. Annex A notes that this edition was brought into the same format as AEP-103 for consistency across AEPs, an editorial rather than a technical relationship. Chapter 4 also names two further NATO small-arms documents for background, the Manual of Proof and Inspection Procedures for NATO 5.56mm Ammunition and the Evaluation procedures for future NATO Small Arms Weapon Systems, neither of which is in our catalogue. As with all NATO documents, AEP-98 is free of charge and not sold; it is retrieved from the NATO Standardization Document Database or through a national standardization authority, never from a third-party copy.
AEP-98 is an operational and technical document: it governs how a precision test is set up, run and recorded, and that work happens on a range, not in software. A test facility or programme working to it has procedures, calibration records and a test report to control - the facility arrangement and any documented variation from the specified method, equipment calibration records, and the observation set the document requires for every assessment: target and weapon details, ammunition batch information, per-shot data, and the National Authority's own sign-off on equivalence and acceptability.
ComplyTrain is a place to hold that evidence trail as controlled, versioned documents and records, with training records for the people who run and review the tests, the same way it supports any other engineering or test procedure a contract or a National Authority demands. It does not run the ballistic test, calibrate the range equipment, or compute the precision statistics - that work belongs to the test facility and the National Authority overseeing it, and it stays theirs. Which test method a programme has to use is set by the contract and the customer's quality clause, not by us. The standards explorer shows what else sits alongside AEP-98, and our team is glad to talk through how you would evidence this kind of testing.
Tell us how you need to work with AEP-98 and what you need from it. We will come back to you about what ComplyTrain can do.
Thank you. Your list is on its way to your inbox, and we will come back to you on what working with these standards in ComplyTrain involves, usually within one business day.
No, not in the way a STANAG is. AEP-98 is covered by STANREC 4744, a NATO Standardization Recommendation, so nations are invited to use it rather than committed to it by ratification. It becomes relevant to a specific test when a NATO programme, a national programme, or a contract names this procedure.
No. The document states plainly that it sets no acceptance or rejection criteria beyond a possible safety exception, so there is no pass or fail against AEP-98 itself. It produces comparative precision data that a National Authority or programme uses against requirements agreed elsewhere.
A test facility, under the oversight of a National Authority. The National Authority verifies equivalence where the launch system is substituted, decides whether any variation from the specified method is acceptable, and computes and documents the resulting statistical results.
Yes. The document says its tests can be used for purely national testing against national criteria, as well as for NATO testing, so a national programme can adopt the same method for its own comparative purposes.
Directly from NATO. It is free of charge and retrieved from the NATO Standardization Document Database or through your national standardization authority, never as a paid or third-party copy.
One system for the whole compliance programme. Start with the module you need most.
Collect information the same way every time, and decide in advance what happens next.
Know whether your controls are operating, not just whether a policy says they exist.
Turn the compliance work you already know about into a plan with owners, dependencies and dates.
Know what you can offer, and hold the evidence behind every configuration you offer it in.
Eight built-in reports across every module, scheduled, delivered, and filed where the evidence lives.
The sector news that matters to your organisation - read and rated by AI, and delivered as a scheduled digest in your own language.
AI reads the tender pack and pulls out the requirements, deadlines and rules - then helps you draft the response from your own approved content, with you reviewing every step.
One current register of the suppliers and partners you depend on - each risk-assessed, re-assessing itself on schedule, and wired straight into your risk register.
See every requirement you face - across every standard, plus your own contracts and policies - traced to the documents, evidence and processes that satisfy it.
Identify, score, treat and review your risks in one place - with AI to help anyone run a proper assessment, and a defensible trail behind every decision.
Assign training, prove it was understood, and hold the competence records an auditor asks for.
Draft compliance documents with AI, keep every version under control, and export them beautifully branded - all in one place.
Audits, corrective actions, processes and approvals in one quality system, organised around ISO 9001.
Medical device manufacturers operate under more regulatory pressure than almost any other sector outside pharmaceuticals. The rules govern how you design a device, how you make it, how you track it after it ships, and how you respond when something goes wrong.
Learn how EU dual-use export controls apply to encryption, sensors, and software, how classification works under Annex I, and why sending source code by email can count as an export.
A practical way to turn in-your-head risk management into a register that survives staff turnover and answers the risk questions now showing up in tenders.