Platform
Modules
By sector
By sector
By standard
Blog
News
Events
STANAG 4823
Manufacturers of NATO small arms ammunition working to a nation's AEP-97 implementation
STANAG 4823 is the NATO agreement committing ratifying nations to implement AEP-97, the manual of proof and inspection for small arms ammunition.
STANAG 4823 is the NATO Standardization Agreement that commits ratifying nations to implement AEP-97, the Multi-Calibre Manual of Proof and Inspection (M-CMOPI) for NATO small arms ammunition, Edition A. The STANAG itself is short: it is the ratification vehicle, not the technical specification. AEP-97 carries the actual proof and inspection procedures; this agreement is what makes nations commit to using them.
Nations that ratify STANAG 4823 agree to three things: to comply with the standardization drawings and technical specifications referenced within AEP-97, to comply with the implementation procedures the STANAG sets out, and to adhere to the rules governing use of the NATO symbol of interchangeability. Participating nations agree to implement AEP-97, Edition A, specifically; the STANAG does not restate any of AEP-97's own content.
The STANAG sets a demanding bar for what "implemented" actually means: a nation is only considered to have implemented it once its armed forces have introduced ammunition, or linked ammunition, that has met AEP-97's requirements. That has to be evidenced in the nation's own National Implementing Document. Citing the STANAG by name is explicitly not enough - the text notes that reference to the STANAG alone as the National Implementing Document does not meet this intent. Partner nations outside the alliance are separately invited to adopt the STANAG, without the ratification step full members go through.
Nations are invited to report on their effective implementation, and partner nations on their adoption, in accordance with AAP-03. Review runs the same way: the STANAG is reviewed per AAP-03, and the result is recorded in the NSDD. A nation or NATO body can propose changes at any time, through the tasking authority, and the review cycle is where they get processed. None of this is described as mandatory reporting; it is framed as an invitation.
STANAG 4823 sits alongside a family of calibre-specific interchangeability agreements: STANAG 2310 for 7.62 mm x 51 ammunition, STANAG 4090 for 9 mm x 19, STANAG 4172 for 5.56 mm x 45, and STANAG 4383 for 12.7 mm x 99, plus STANAG 2953 on ammunition identification and AAP-06, NATO's glossary of terms. These inform the STANAG; only AEP-97 is what ratifying nations actually commit to implementing.
This document does not itself set out design or production requirements, an assessment scheme, or a certification route - those questions either sit in AEP-97 or are outside what a STANAG cover agreement addresses at all. It is administered under CNAD's AC/225 NAAG land capability group on dismounted systems (LCGDSS), with the United States as custodian, but it names no accredited body and no certificate. Whatever a supplier is actually assessed against - a customer's quality clause, a national inspection - is set by the contract that brings AEP-97 in, not by this STANAG.
STANAG 4823 is not something software implements. AEP-97's proof and inspection procedures are physical testing carried out on ammunition lots, by people qualified to run them, and the STANAG's own test of being "implemented" is whether that has actually happened, not whether anyone holds a certificate.
What ComplyTrain does is hold the paper trail that work generates: the written proof and inspection procedure a lot is tested against, the training and qualification records for the staff who run the tests, the inspection record for each lot, and the corrective actions raised when one fails. It gives a defence supplier one controlled place to keep that evidence current and produce it when a customer or a national authority asks for it, rather than chasing it across spreadsheets and shared drives when an audit lands.
What it does not do: it does not perform proof and inspection of ammunition itself, and it does not certify anyone against STANAG 4823 or AEP-97 - no such certificate exists for us, or anyone else, to issue. The tier that applies to a given contract, and the standards that come with it, are set by the customer's quality clause. If you want to see what else sits alongside STANAG 4823, the standards explorer is the place to start, and we're glad to talk through what a specific contract actually requires.
Tell us how you need to work with STANAG 4823 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.
Only if a nation has ratified it and a contract or national specification brings AEP-97 in. A STANAG binds the nation that ratifies it, not a supplier directly, so whether it is mandatory for a given piece of work depends on the tender or contract in front of you, not on the STANAG existing.
STANAG 4823 is the agreement by which NATO nations commit to using AEP-97. AEP-97, the Multi-Calibre Manual of Proof and Inspection, Edition A, is the technical publication that actually sets out the proof and inspection procedures. Ratifying the STANAG is what brings AEP-97 into force for that nation.
No. The STANAG itself says that reference to the STANAG alone as the National Implementing Document does not meet the intent of implementation. What is asked for is documentation showing that AEP-97-compliant ammunition has actually been fielded.
No accredited certification scheme is named in the document. Implementation is evidenced through a nation's own National Implementing Document and recorded in NATO's Standardization Document Database, not through a third-party certificate.
It is supervised under CNAD's AC/225 NAAG land capability group on dismounted systems (LCGDSS), with the United States as the custodian nation.
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.