Jan Libourel busts the .45 pistol/Moro Myth
browningh...@yahoo.com
writers and that's already giving most of them more praise then they
are worth simply by even referring to them as "writers" of any kind.
Many even to this day perpetuate the same old tired urban legend myths
i.e. that any caliber under .45 ACP is worthless or nearly so and that
every gun ever made is perfect in every way.
One of the few Gun writers that I enjoy reading is Jan libourel, as he
is not you're a-typical arrogant know it all gun writer. It's hard to
get mad a Jan even if you disagree with him. He "next door easy going
Neighbor" style of writing is pleasant to read and not meant to
impress people by the use of "$10.00 words" or the usual excuses for
guns that are not of quality or perform as 'Urban myth" dictates.
This month in "Gun World" Jan explores the "Moro Myth" which took
place after the U.S. invaded the Philippine Islands and resulted in
the "Moro uprising". His meticulous documentation parallels an
article that was printed in the 1980's in the "Gun Digest" that was
entitled "Holes in the Stopping Power Theory". Both Jan and the Gun
Digest rip apart the .45 acp myth that is often quoted to this very
day by people who never even owned a handgun in their life. Its
perhaps one of the greatest pieces of "believed" gun propaganda that
was ever launched. Even Joseph Goebbels would have turned green with
envy.
The "Myth" (for those that have only recently settled here on earth
from other worlds or have been living secluded in a cave for most of
their lives) was simply that the "powerful .45acp" would knock a man
down or spin him around or make him disappear in a red puff of mist.
#From both articles there emerges the facts that the .45 cal revolvers
used to replace the .38 caliber Colt revolvers did not stop Moro's any
better than the smaller caliber 38's did. The .45acp although it was
used very late in the war had little impact on the outcome of the
hostilities. It is well known that the invention of the .45acp
cartridge was based on the 'ballistics" of the earlier .45 caliber
military revolvers, in other words they wanted the same power range in
a new auto-loading pistol as they had in the older revolvers. This
they accomplished with the invention of the .45 acp cartridge but it
certainly was no more deadly than the .45 revolvers used in the war,
which failed to stop people during the insurrection or should we say
U.S. war of conquest.
Glorification of war, hero worship to the point of deification, and
tales of far off places filled with adventure never seem to die. Look
how many hundreds of years the feats of the ancient Greek Gods were
believed in by all who heard such fantastic tales of bravery and
adventure against mythical villains and monsters. How little the
gullibility of mankind has changed over the millenniums.
Am I immune from all this horse rubbish. Well I am ashamed to admit I
wish I could have made it to the Roman Collosseum before they finally
closed its doors so I could have seen the Gladiators fight it out.
Now the Roman Gladius would certainly have stopped a fight, as any
coward can pull a trigger on a modern gun but to slug it out with
spears and daggers and swords, now this is what I call heroic
fighting.
In conclusion don't miss this months article if you believe in a
little "real" education rather than the "standard heroic gun myths".
I only wish I could find my old unused tickets to the Collosseum,
rumor has it that it may reopen soon, I wonder if my old seat is still
there?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.net
Win a Fulton Armory Tactical Titan .308 while defending liberty. The
MPFO summer rifle raffle is now under way at http://www.myguns.net
--------------------------------------------------------------------
chasw
issue small arms. One of the "mythical" incidents with the Moros during the
Phillipines Insurrection was actually well documented in an after action
report by US Army officers on the scene. A certain 2nd Lt stood his ground
against a charging juramentado and emptied all 6 rounds of .38 Colt into
the Moro's chest at short range. The Moro kept right on coming and nearly
took the LT's head off with his machete before expiring. The LT didn't
survive either. The old soldiers in the PI at that time, who were veterans
of the Indian Wars, were quick to compare the .38's performance with the
effectiveness of their former .45 Colt revolvers. Somehow I trust the GI's
comparison of the two rounds, made on the scene, more than the analysis of a
latter day gun writer. - CW
snip.
#
# This month in "Gun World" Jan explores the "Moro Myth" which took
# place after the U.S. invaded the Philippine Islands and resulted in
# the "Moro uprising". His meticulous documentation parallels an
# article that was printed in the 1980's in the "Gun Digest" that was
# entitled "Holes in the Stopping Power Theory". Both Jan and the Gun
# Digest rip apart the .45 acp myth that is often quoted to this very
# day by people who never even owned a handgun in their life. Its
# perhaps one of the greatest pieces of "believed" gun propaganda that
# was ever launched. Even Joseph Goebbels would have turned green with
# envy.
#
snip
nick hull
browningh...@yahoo.com wrote:
# I only wish I could find my old unused tickets to the Collosseum,
# rumor has it that it may reopen soon, I wonder if my old seat is still
# there?
It has re-opened in Bagdad, the army will pay you $20,000 to go ;)
Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/
.
bruce...@gmail.com
wrote:
> ...
The Philippine "insurrection" took place in 1890's and early 1900's so
even writings in the 1980's must have referenced reports and\or other
writings and not been taken from actual interviews of individuals who
participated.
Thus the stories about shooting the Moro eleventeen times with the 38
pistol must have been hearsay. If you shoot a thin skinned animal
(and that is what a human is) six times in the center of his main body
mass with a .22 pistol he will fall down. On the other hand, if you
hit him once in the arm and once in the leg and 4 misses, then yes, he
may get to you with his knife.
My personal opinion is that these stories more, or less, justification
for the Army to develop a new sidearm and people have been repeating
them since 1902 as fact.
You can try it yourself. Go buy a pig, billy goat, or whatever, that
weighs about 130 lbs. and shoot it six times in the center of its body
mass, i.e., rib cage with a .38 colt revolver and see whether it falls
down or comes after you with a knife.
Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)
WillG
# GIs in combat have always been sensitive to the stopping power of their
# issue small arms. One of the "mythical" incidents with the Moros during the
# Phillipines Insurrection was actually well documented in an after action
# report by US Army officers on the scene. A certain 2nd Lt stood his ground
# against a charging juramentado and emptied all 6 rounds of .38 Colt into
# the Moro's chest at short range. The Moro kept right on coming and nearly
# took the LT's head off with his machete before expiring. The LT didn't
# survive either. The old soldiers in the PI at that time, who were veterans
# of the Indian Wars, were quick to compare the .38's performance with the
# effectiveness of their former .45 Colt revolvers. Somehow I trust the GI's
# comparison of the two rounds, made on the scene, more than the analysis of a
# latter day gun writer. - CW
#
#
I've been trying for years to locate a cite for the famous Moros story,
with no success. Would you please give your source for the above?
Bill
--
"In omnibus requiem quaesivi, et nusquam inveni nisi in angulo cum libro"
browningh...@yahoo.com
Research into U.S. military records show that the .45 caliber
revolvers failed to work any better. Any one can point to this or
that isolated incident to claim that the .45 is superior or that the .
38 or 9mm etc. is inferior but you can also find incidents where the
exact opposite was true. What matters it the accumulation of shooting
incidents and real life tests like those conducted by "Pistolero"
magazine in the 1980's on live animals that once again proved the .45
acp was only a myth and actually did not seem to kill as well as some
of the smaller calibers like the 9x19 even when modern expanding
bullets were used in the .45acp., now that was a real eye opener. Now
those tests really did bust the .45acp myth.
On Sep 6, 7:12 am, "chasw" <chas...@comcast.net> wrote:
> ...
Del
not a strong supporter of the old 38 colt, but the stories of the
screaming banshees painlessly absorbing 5 or 6 well placed thoracic
hits with the 150gr 38 slugs at close range, always made me cringe a
little. I don't care if the projectiles are "only" traveling at
600fps or so, or how drugged up the opponents are.
What has always bothered me, is the resulting trauma of multiple
impact, which noone ever seems to discuss. Our bodies react to
multiple wounds, differently than just one wound. 4 38cal holes, may
result in more trauma and quicker organ shut down, than 1 larger 45cal
hole, assuming they are placed well. Regardless of initial impact
energy.
In other words, a well placed double tap or tripple tap of a weaker
round, may indeed have the same impact result of a larger more
powerful round.
If proven, that alone would merit the larger round, just from a storge
point of veiw.
Imagine actual combat. Cannons firing, shells bursting, bullets
whizzing by, enemys screaming and charging wildley, commrades dying
around you.
You pull your service revolver out as your ranks are suddenly overan
by the enemy. Do you aim carefully, kneeling, preciselly? Hell no!
You start slinging lead as fast as you can with what training you
have. As your opponent nears, he's already taken 3 hits from your
38. One in the shoulder, one in the hip, and one in the lower
abdomen.
The 4th shot, up close and personal, hits him square in the throat
shattering his spine, as he raises his machette to remove your head.
Now it took 4 shots to kill that bastard. Thats how that story may
have started.
Could it have changed if the first 3 shots were center mass?
Speculate away.
Your partner two trenches over, nails an enemy with his 45, perfect
center mass. He folds like a lounge chair. Thats how that story may
have started.
Could that scenario change if the 45 slug hit him in the shoulder, hip
or lower abdomen? Speculate away.
I AM a big fan of large caliber weapons. I own several. Does a 45acp
hit harder than a low level 38? You can bet your ass it does. My
favorite target "quarrry" is frozen 2liter coke water bottles. Trust
me, the 230gr 45 hits much harder and does alot more damage than my
cowboy 158gr RNFP 38spl rounds. Plus, these 38s at around 700-750fps
or so, are a good bit more powerful than the older 38 colt! There is
no question which round Id rather have in close range combat.
My position is it was war. Memories blur under combat situations.
The mind has more to contend with, at the time, than taking snap shots
for future use. Also, as years go by, stories change. EVERY shot
fired beggins to hit its mark. EVERY hit, was in the heart. EVERY
assailant, was a iron-clad unstoppable demon. I mean no disrespect to
the soldiers who were in the blood and guts. Combat soldiers ARE and
always will be heros. I just think the actual accounts SOMETIMES tend
to get embelished, with no ill intent meant. Especially, as the
soldiers die off and writers take hold of their stories.
Del
Gunny_2007
"chasw" <cha...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:fbonb5$e0t$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
# GIs in combat have always been sensitive to the stopping power of their
# issue small arms. One of the "mythical" incidents with the Moros during
the
# Phillipines Insurrection was actually well documented in an after action
# report by US Army officers on the scene. A certain 2nd Lt stood his
ground
# against a charging juramentado and emptied all 6 rounds of .38 Colt into
# the Moro's chest at short range. The Moro kept right on coming and nearly
# took the LT's head off with his machete before expiring. The LT didn't
# survive either. The old soldiers in the PI at that time, who were
veterans
# of the Indian Wars, were quick to compare the .38's performance with the
# effectiveness of their former .45 Colt revolvers. Somehow I trust the
GI's
# comparison of the two rounds, made on the scene, more than the analysis of
a
# latter day gun writer. - CW
Sorry but your story is weak. A have heard others quote this. Cite
please. If it was "well documented", give us a cite where we can read it.
Otherwise it is just anecdotal. i.e. YOU heard it from a guy who heard if
from a guy who heard . . .
I have also heard anecdotes that some of the Moros were pretty worked up on
drugs during attacks. If true, then something like this may have happened.
There are similar stories about PCP junkies absorbing a lot of hits before
going down. Neither circumstance is valid as an indicator of the
performance of one bullet over another. There is no indication that the
Moro or the junkie would have gone down if the Lt or the police had used a
.45 instead of a .38. You imply that, but don't state it.
Giampingjack
--
Ciao
Giampingjack
jc
#Ive often had gunstore arguements about the "Moros" vs. the US. Im
#not a strong supporter of the old 38 colt, but the stories of the
#screaming banshees painlessly absorbing 5 or 6 well placed thoracic
#hits with the 150gr 38 slugs at close range, always made me cringe a
#little. I don't care if the projectiles are "only" traveling at
#600fps or so, or how drugged up the opponents are.
<snip>
Supposedly - I've no idea if any of it's true - the problem was not that the
natives were taking hits bare-chested, but that they were wearing thick rope (or
something similar) coiled around their bodies that the .38's couldn't penetrate
while the .45 Colt could.
Bottom line is, who cares? It's ancient history. I don't think there's anyone
that would believe that the old .38's were anywhere near as good at stopping
people as the .45 ACP, so it was a good move on the Army's part. The government
and the military are both notorious for making excuses after the fact for the
changes they make. I'd believe it was the Moro's just as quick as I'd believe
someone high up in the Army was married to the sister of someone at Colt who
wanted to make the US Army a gun...
The bottom line is, they're going to keep making changes based on B.S. just like
that, logic and what really works having nothing to do with it.
Cheers,
jc
Hank
#
# Bottom line is, who cares? It's ancient history. I don't think there's anyone
# that would believe that the old .38's were anywhere near as good at stopping
# people as the .45 ACP, so it was a good move on the Army's part.
Actually, there is one guy left who does believe that. He posts here
frequently. He backs up the above anecdotal argument with his story
about the .45 ACP failing to bring down larger game to his
satisfaction. Since he started this thread, he'll probably be along
with that second argument momentarily. Upon this foundation he
builds an extrapolation that shows our 45s are totally useless...
browningh...@yahoo.com
> ...
Supposedly - I've no idea if any of it's true - the problem was not
that the
natives were taking hits bare-chested, but that they were wearing
thick rope (or
something similar) coiled around their bodies that the .38's couldn't
penetrate
while the .45 Colt could.
Actually tests with smaller higher velocity bullets like the 9mm
proved that smaller calibers always penetrate better and even if
traveling at the same velocity as the bigger one. The .45acp is
notorious for very poor penetration. It will not even penetrate a
WWI or WWII German steel helmet at 25 yards compared to the 9mm that
does it easily.
> ...
oldpink
[...]
# This month in "Gun World" Jan explores the "Moro Myth" which took
# place after the U.S. invaded the Philippine Islands and resulted in
# the "Moro uprising". His meticulous documentation parallels an
# article that was printed in the 1980's in the "Gun Digest" that was
# entitled "Holes in the Stopping Power Theory". Both Jan and the Gun
# Digest rip apart the .45 acp myth that is often quoted to this very
# day by people who never even owned a handgun in their life. Its
# perhaps one of the greatest pieces of "believed" gun propaganda that
# was ever launched. Even Joseph Goebbels would have turned green with
# envy.
Actually, there is a perfectly reasonable answer to this.
FMJ ammo.
That's right.
In a handgun, being forced to use FMJ gives an inherent advantage on a
hostile target to the larger caliber .45 ACP over the even older .38
Special.
The larger bullet has substantially greater frontal area, and thus
leaves a larger wound channel, period.
What type of slug do the guys who hunt Grizzly Bears use?
Usually, it is a revolver chambered in .44 Remington Magnums or .454
Casull pushing heavy hard cast lead semi-wadcutters.
No, humans are not Grizzlies, but since the military is forbidden to use
hollowpoint or other expanding projectiles, the only way to maximize
tissue damage at handgun velocities is to use larger, heavier projectiles.
Might this not be part of the reason that the Defense Department has
been having second thoughts of late with their Beretta M9 (9mm
Parabellum) that replaced the...bah du du dah!...1911A1 in .45 ACP?
[...]
--
And what exactly is a joke?
.
penultimate
> ...
Generally to all of the above:
First, the "Phillipine Insurrection" is distinct from the "Moro
Rebellion," though blurred by being commonly lumped together as the
"Phillipine campaigns." The former was a political and anti-colonial
Phillipine Independence movement that began against the Spanish and
viewed the Americans as heros when they ousted the Spanish. But, we
did not satisfy their desire for immediate independence, did some
pretty dumb things, acted like imperialistic jackasses (which in
degree we the were) and armed conflict against us began in 1899. The
"Phillipine Insurrection" was crushed by 1901. Except in it being in
the Phillipines, it never had anything to do with the "Moro
Rebellion."
The "Moro Rebellion" also began against the Spanish and was a
completely separate movement, concentrated in the Southern Phillipine
islands and was an Islamic revolution aimed at establishing a Caliphic
State ($10 word for the benefit of BHP) operating under Sharia law
something that the remainder of the Phillipine poplulation (majority
Catholic) would never have accepted. Though it continues as armed
conflict in the Islamic Southern Phillipines to this day (and we
currently have American Special Forces there in the same capacity they
served from 1912 - 1916), that period called the "Moro Rebellion" was
pretty much suppressed by 1916 with major involvement of American
troops pretty much wrapped up by1913. Though "officered" and
"advised" by Americans, most anti Moro activities from 1913 onwards
were conducted by Phillipine Army units and the Phillipine
Constabulary forces.
Now, as to the "military issue" handguns actually used in the
Phillipines, certainly the Spanish American war "issue" American
sidearm was one of several variations on the Colt 1889 DA revolver
chambered in 38 long colt. But this was still in the era when Field
Grade officers could usually get away with carrying anything they
wanted and General Officers surely did. But for the most part, that
portion of US forces armed with pistols showed up with a six shot DA
revolver in 38 Long Colt (there really was a 38 Short Colt!).
Ballistically, this cartridge is about as powerful in relationship to
the 38 Special as the 38 Special is in relation to the 357 Magnum.
Think 38 special with the lightest possible target load you have ever
fired. The 38 Colt (long or short) is less.
Shortly after arrival, troops were literally screaming for a more
powerful handgun. In the face of demand, the 45 Colt Single Action
Army was quickly re-issued and by 1902 about everything still stored
in the US inventory had been shipped to the Phillipines. Most had
been arsenal rebuilt with barrels shortened to 5 1/2", whiuch is
pretty much the reason why "original" military issue SAAs with 7 1/2"
barrels are so rare. Strangely enough, as usuable SAA's in storage
were depleted, the newly formed territorial (?) govenment of the
Phillipines placed a substantial order for pistols with Colt. Those
deliverd on this contract are known as the M1902 Colt "Phillipine
Constabulary Contract, the M1902 being basically a M1887 DA
"Thunderer" variation in 45 Colt. Though in theory intended for use
to arm the Phillipine Constabulary force, this also used Phillipine
funds to arm lots of US forces with handguns of choice. And, of
course, the M1911 in 45ACP was in use from at least early 1912
onwards. The army did not mess around in getting field experience
with the 1911 in the place and used for the purpose that justified its
specifications.
A pretty good "history" of the 1911 with reference to the Phillipine
experience can be found at http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/history/background.htm.
This same reference provides the 1904 Ordinance Test results
(equivocal results) that BHP alludes to.
The point here is simply "Moro Myth" or no "Moro Myth", 45's replaced
38's in the Phillipines about as fast as the army could get their
hands on the 45's. This would be an example of "truth on the ground,"
always more valid than theory and BS.
So, myth or not, I guess BHP in cahoots with a writer that, miracle of
miracles, he actually likes, wants us to believe that those that were
there did not know what they were talking about. The fact is that the
38 Long Colt was perceived as a serious problem by the people that
were using it at the time they were using it, the generals agreed, a
45 was commonly accepted to a solution to the problem, the generals
agreed, 45's were obtained, AND ABSOLUTELY NO ONE ASKED FOR THE 38
LONG COLT BACK!!!!
And just why might this be? Almost all the general officers in the
Phillipines had first hand experience with the 45 Colt in active
campaign during the Indian war. And almost all officers ranked Major
or above (and more than a few Captains) had carried a Shoenfield or
Colt SAA in 45 caliber as an issue firearm. And certainly, anyone
given a chance to fire one of the 45's in comparison to the 38 notes
one hell of a difference.
Adding my two cents worth, it happens that I own or have owned an
example of every one of these pistols and in fact hunted with both a
38 long colt (in M1895 DA "as originally issued" configuration) and 45
Colt SAA (in modified government(5/1/2" barrel) configuration. As the
phrase goes, you can eat a rabbit pretty much up to the hole if you
shoot it with the 38 long colt and not much worry about where you
hit. If you shoot a rabbit with the 45 and you are hungry and prefer
not to eat rabbit burger with fur, it pays to make a head-shot.
Though with a more recent than period model, I have shot deer with 45
colt and would not hesitate to take an elk given a suitable shot. The
38 colt makes a half decent rabbit gun. But so does a 22. So there
is my experience and my opinion.
"Stopping Power Myth" or not, anyone who chooses a 38 colt over a 45
colt (or acp or S&W) after having shot both guns, seeing what they
did, and knowing they might need to kill someone coming at them with a
machete is an absolute idiot. And certainly that opinion is one that
would have jibed with that of British colonial forces of the same era
- a group that had probably more field experience "stopping" mad
natives with handguns than any other. Now, anyone who thinks a chest
hit with a 45 causes a backflip or red mist is similarly impaired.
But "stopping power" in comparison to a 38 colt? Jeez.
penultimate
> ...
If you would care to name the place, date, and time and bring your
original, collector grade, WWI and WWII German helmets, I am sure
several of us will show up with our 45's and ammo to put your
assertion to empirical test.
If our bullets bounce off, we will buy the beer afterwards.
And, after you prove your 9mm rounds will penetrate, we'll probably
buy two rounds.
Personally, If allowed three, 7 round, clips, I expect about 15 rounds
will penetrate. Six rounds will miss using my 1911 and me as the
shooter. But we aren't talking about accuracy, are we?
And either way, I'm pretty sure I'll leave with a smile on my face.
Del
# Bottom line is, who cares? It's ancient history.
Oh I don't know,....ME! I love history, and still mistakenly believe
it can teach us something if documented properly.
Del
oldpink
# # Bottom line is, who cares? It's ancient history. I don't think there's anyone
# # people as the .45 ACP, so it was a good move on the Army's part.
#
#
# Actually, there is one guy left who does believe that. He posts here
# frequently. He backs up the above anecdotal argument with his story
# about the .45 ACP failing to bring down larger game to his
# satisfaction. Since he started this thread, he'll probably be along
# with that second argument momentarily. Upon this foundation he
# builds an extrapolation that shows our 45s are totally useless...
Would that be the same guy who extrapolates that a .22 rimfire is
adequate for African Elephant?
--
And what exactly is a joke?
.
Del
# Actually tests with smaller higher velocity bullets like the 9mm
# proved that smaller calibers always penetrate better and even if
# traveling at the same velocity as the bigger one.
Im not sure I would ever say "always" with ballistics. Although, I
have to concede, the smaller the projectile, the less surface area to
be affected by resistance. ie: body. The lower the velocity, and the
larger the projectile, the more this affect multiplies. Thats where
heavier bullets come in. Since the velocity is low, more mass is
needed to continue penetration over this resistance. Ex. A cement
truck moving at 30mph, may penetrate a brick home better or the same
as a VW traveling at 90mph.
In otherwords, an icepick is thinner, and will take less energy to
pierce meat than say a large butchers knife. Even though, the
butchers knife would result in a larger wound, they both "could"
result in quick kills if used as a weapon. (Bear in mind though, the
human organs are less than 4" deep on average so much of these
arguments on penetration are a bit over worry). It needs to be
mentioned though, there is more required of bullet performance, than
simply penetration.
The .45acp is
# notorious for very poor penetration. It will not even penetrate a
# WWI or WWII German steel helmet at 25 yards compared to the 9mm that
# does it easily.
#
# > ...
#
Which exact loading of the 9mm are you talking about? This one?
#>snip from wikepedia on the 9mm:
To conserve lead during World War II in Germany, the lead core was
replaced by an iron core encased with lead. This bullet, identified by
a black bullet jacket, was designated as the 08 mE (mit Eisenkern -
"with iron core"). By 1944, the black jacket of the 08 mE bullet was
dropped and these bullets were produced with normal copper-colored
jackets. Another wartime variation was designated the 08SE bullet and
identified by its dark gray jacket, and was created by compressing
iron powder at high temperature into a solid material (Sintereisen -
"sintered iron").
The 45 was not designed to penetrate steel, but then again, neither
was the 9mm. At 25yds, I doubt the source of that info.
Just impact angle makes a huge difference on penetration on steel with
handgun bullets. 3 bullets might richochette away, and the 4th might
go in. Anyone that has shot at junk car bodys or steel drums has seen
that.
My brother owns a WWII german infantry helmet, that my great uncle
brought back from WWII along with a 1922 FN browning(that I own). I
can't see either round with a lead core penetrating that helmet at
25yds easily.
Del
jc
#On Sep 7, 6:36 am, jc <crk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
#
##
## Bottom line is, who cares? It's ancient history. I don't think there's anyone
## that would believe that the old .38's were anywhere near as good at stopping
## people as the .45 ACP, so it was a good move on the Army's part.
#
#
#Actually, there is one guy left who does believe that. He posts here
#frequently. He backs up the above anecdotal argument with his story
#about the .45 ACP failing to bring down larger game to his
#satisfaction. Since he started this thread, he'll probably be along
#with that second argument momentarily. Upon this foundation he
#builds an extrapolation that shows our 45s are totally useless...
While it may be a bit surprising that I joined in this thread, I have BHP
killfiled. While his opinions are as valid as anyone else's, his presentation
is a bit too off the wall for my tastes. I replied to others that replied to
the original post, which I did not see. Nor will I see any reply he might make
to this thread. Ain't Agent wonderful?
There's no handgun cartridge that's 100% and that's a fact. It's also a fact
that a 30-30 has as much or more muzzle energy at 100 yards as does the .44 Mag
at the muzzle. That generally makes the 30-30 more effective than the .44 Mag
and would be the logical choice, if one had a choice. Just like a .45 ACP is
the logical choice over a .38. The Army decided the .45 was better than the .38
and I agree with their choice - no matter what their reasons.
I suppose some would argue about that and that's fine, everyone is entitled to
their own opinions. But then, we all know about opinions, and how everyone has
one and how they all.... well, you know.
Cheers,
jc
TimR
# On Sep 5, 5:54 pm, browninghighpow...@yahoo.com wrote:
#
# Now, as to the "military issue" handguns actually used in the
# Phillipines, certainly the Spanish American war "issue" American
# sidearm was one of several variations on the Colt 1889 DA revolver
# chambered in 38 long colt. But this was still in the era when Field
# Grade officers could usually get away with carrying anything they
# wanted and General Officers surely did.
I think we might want to consider that the majority of soldiers would
not have been field grade or company grade officers. (not disagreeing
with anything else in your post)
The line soldiers in these two conflicts were neither experienced or
well trained. That fact alone makes comparison of weapons somewhat
difficult. Like any infantry, their primary weapons were rifles. I
looked it up once but it was long ago - best I recall it was a mix of .
45/70 and .30 Krag or equivalent. Either would have been enormously
more effective than the largest handgun one could carry.
Officers would have had revolvers, but should have been involved in
relatively few shootouts with them. I'm just not sure there was
enough data from these conflicts to make any judgement at all about
weapons, though we're still arguing about it 100 years later!
TimR
# Actually, there is a perfectly reasonable answer to this.
# FMJ ammo.
# That's right.
# In a handgun, being forced to use FMJ gives an inherent advantage on a
# hostile target to the larger caliber .45 ACP over the even older .38
# Special.
I agree. However, the inherent advantage is only one of 0.094
inches. I suppose there were times when that extra .09 inches nicked
an artery when the smaller round missed, but I have to think it was
rare.
Given similar sized projectiles in FMJ, I would be more concerned that
the lower velocity round didn't penetrate deep enough.
Curiously the situation is reversed for rifles. No one doubts that
soft nosed .308 would be substantially more lethal than soft nosed .
223, but with FMJ the .223 has a clear and significant advantage in
lethality. (because it yaws faster)
browningh...@yahoo.com
> ...
With all due respect Dell I suggest you read Clive's book on the
Ingles High Power. In the book it describes a U.S. Govt test that was
done with both 9mm and .45acp using Winchester ball ammunition. The .
45 acp bounced off helmets at 25 yards while the 9mm penetrated at an
astonishing 125 yards.
Recently on the History Channel it showed a Govt. training film
showing the .45cp bouncing off of a German Helmet. Seeing is
believing and it was quite shocking and dramatic
browningh...@yahoo.com
Quote: Now, as to the "military issue" handguns actually used in the
Phillipines, certainly the Spanish American war "issue" American
sidearm was one of several variations on the Colt 1889 DA revolver
chambered in 38 long colt. But this was still in the era when Field
Grade officers could usually get away with carrying anything they
wanted and General Officers surely did. But for the most part, that
portion of US forces armed with pistols showed up with a six shot DA
revolver in 38 Long Colt (there really was a 38 Short Colt!).
Ballistically, this cartridge is about as powerful in relationship to
the 38 Special as the 38 Special is in relation to the 357 Magnum.
Think 38 special with the lightest possible target load you have ever
fired. The 38 Colt (long or short) is less.
I think you had better go back and review some ballistic tables. Phil
Sharpe's book written way back in the 40's shows loads for the 38 long
colt that reached 930 fps, the exact same velocity as the .38 special
and even the 38 short colt reached 700 fps and that's far faster than
the .38 wad cutter target loads that you refer to.
You also really missed Jan's main point and that was that the Moro's
were not stopped any better with the .45 caliber hand guns which would
make the .45 caliber an even worse caliber considering that it was
(according to your erroneous ballistics) traveling faster than the 38
long colt.
I might point out that even the famous Thompson tests actually proved
the "opposite" of what they set out to prove i.e. that the .45 caliber
hand guns were more lethal. For reference read the 1983 Gun Digest
article "Holes in the Stopping power theory".
An even much more dramatic test was conducted by "Pistolero Magazine"
back in the 1980's on pigs which have an internal anatomy much like
humans. The real life shooting tests with modern expanding ammo again
proved the .45acp was a "complete myth" killing no better than the .38
special and 9x19. As matter of fact Pistolero Magazine stated the
pigs actually jumped higher and squealed louder when hit by the 9x19
than when hit by the .45acp. I think you can no more solid proof than
this.
oldpink
# On Sep 8, 3:05 am, oldpink <oldp...@nltc.net> wrote:
# # Actually, there is a perfectly reasonable answer to this.
# # FMJ ammo.
# # That's right.
# # In a handgun, being forced to use FMJ gives an inherent advantage on a
# # hostile target to the larger caliber .45 ACP over the even older .38
# # Special.
#
# I agree. However, the inherent advantage is only one of 0.094
# inches. I suppose there were times when that extra .09 inches nicked
# an artery when the smaller round missed, but I have to think it was
# rare.
Actually, that factor is nearly meaningless.
I am referring to the total volume of the wound channel.
As both the .45 ACP and .38 Long Colt (which was the round the .45
replaced, not the significantly more powerful .38 Special) penetrate
roughly equal depths into living soft skinned targets, the real factor
is not wound diameter, but wound VOLUME.
A .45 ACP penetrating six inches will produce a wound channel volume of
8.52 cubic inches, whereas the .38 Long Colt would produce a wound
channel volume of 6.72 cubic inches, a significant advantage when it
comes to tissue damage and likelihood of catastrophic blood pressure drop.
# Given similar sized projectiles in FMJ, I would be more concerned that
# the lower velocity round didn't penetrate deep enough.
Unless you have this fascination that BHP seems to have with penetrating
steel helmets, one seldom hears gripes about the .45 ACP and its
supposed lack of penetrative ability.
# Curiously the situation is reversed for rifles. No one doubts that
# soft nosed .308 would be substantially more lethal than soft nosed .
# 223, but with FMJ the .223 has a clear and significant advantage in
# lethality. (because it yaws faster)
Sorry, no.
The so called "super deadly tumbling 5.56" myth is just that, a myth.
It is, however, founded in a nugget of truth, that being that some of
the heavier bullets used in the older slower rifling twist barreled
M-16s did indeed have a greater likelihood of keyholing, but that was
not nor should it be considered positive.
In fact, the Defense Department set about to resolving this issue by
increasing the twist rate of the rifled bores of the newer M-16 to
prevent the keyholing.
Unstable bullets are far less accurate than ones that fly true and straight.
Additionally, bullets that tumble behave unpredictably upon impact,
sometimes veering into a vital organ with a badly placed shot, while
other times either making a perfectly placed shot veer into fatty tissue
or preventing penetration to a vital organ.
The man behind the trigger does not need wildcards; he needs dependability.
You don't see hunters buying ammo or handloading bullets designed
deliberately to tumble, and for good reason.
Further, the M-16 vs. the M-14 in terms of stopping power is still being
hotly debated, but allow me to inject one objective observation: Which
caliber is used routinely on elk and moose, and which is routinely used
on nothing larger than coyotes?
--
And what exactly is a joke?
.
oldpink
[...]
# "Stopping Power Myth" or not, anyone who chooses a 38 colt over a 45
# colt (or acp or S&W) after having shot both guns, seeing what they
# did, and knowing they might need to kill someone coming at them with a
# machete is an absolute idiot. And certainly that opinion is one that
# would have jibed with that of British colonial forces of the same era
# - a group that had probably more field experience "stopping" mad
# natives with handguns than any other. Now, anyone who thinks a chest
Yep, and interestingly enough, they created their own competing solution
in a double action revolver chambered in a near (although slightly less
powerful) ballistic twin of the .45 ACP/.45 Colt, that being the .455
Webley.
# hit with a 45 causes a backflip or red mist is similarly impaired.
# But "stopping power" in comparison to a 38 colt? Jeez.
It really is amusing, isn't it?
I would love these twits, who think a well placed shot with ANY caliber
on ANY type of living target is sufficient, to put their money where
their mouth is by going forth into the field with a .22 short against a
pissed off Alaskan Grizzly.
THEN let them discuss their excellent shot placement.
--
And what exactly is a joke?
.
Del
# I think you had better go back and review some ballistic tables. Phil
# Sharpe's book written way back in the 40's shows loads for the 38 long
# colt that reached 930 fps, the exact same velocity as the .38 special
# and even the 38 short colt reached 700 fps and that's far faster than
# the .38 wad cutter target loads that you refer to.
I did a little re-reading last night in some of my old magazines and
loading books.
I read in the making of the 38spl, the 38lc case was used, drawn out,
and capacity increased approx 16% over the lc. Approx 21grains of
black powder.
Black powder velocities of this new load(higher on avg than period
smokeless), was 960fps with a 158gr pure lead bullet, from a 6"
barrel.
150gr hollowbase lc bullet was used, with the extra 8gr supposedly
coming from filling in the hollow base.
Subtract 16% volume, add a 5% lighter bullet and play away. Bottom
line, the 38lc is not the wimpy purse gun cartridge its made out to be
or confused with.
Which is what I have argued with fellow gun buffs for years on deaf
ears. I'll never say it bests the 45acp,(because I have too much
experience shooting the 45 and 38spl in the field). But will surely
rally around that fact that the 38lc was more a more than capable
round. Quite a bit more powerful than the old .36cal 1851's often
held with romantic notions.
I have to agree to the early poster though, the 38lc IS to the
special, what the 38spl is the to 357, in factory form, by very
definition. Shorter case, less capacity, same bullet. Regardless if
it can be handloaded to equal or slightly better velocities as the
larger factory rounds.
My oldest loading manual, is Lyman 1951. It does not list the LC, but
shows the 158gr special at 920-1000fps from a 6" barrel with cast
bullets and various powders(Bullseye,unique.etc,). This is in itself,
hotter than many factory loadings of 158gr specials.
One thing that always bothered me about the old loadings though, was
the "pure lead" bullets of the times. If so soft, they could deform
badly or flatten out very easily on impact, and fail to penetrate near
as deep as jacketed or just hardcast ammo at similiar(or even LESS
velocity). Ive seen this myself with swaged lead 38special handloads
in the field.
Del
penultimate
> ...
Generally, I would say a sensible person will assume my comparison is
arsenal loads of the 38 Long Colt as they actually were in the time
period as opposed to a hopped up load from Phil Sharpe over 40 years
later. You may recall he was involving shoving a lot of extra powder
in various 38 caliber cases of the time. And that your budfdy Elmer
Keith was overloading the 44 Special too.
However, I will concede that I got a little carried away. Someone who
set out to prove me wrong easily could produce "Target Loads" for the
38 Special more anemic than period arsenal loads for the 38 LC. But
these certainly would be abnormally light target loads.
And in the mean time, I am sure several of us would eagerly shoot
holes in your collector grade WWI and WWII German helmets using 45 acp
loads. However, you may note that I did not say I was going to use
Ball loads, or even that my 1911 would cycle what I used reliably.
But just so you won't think I ignore everything you say, I promise to
use a 9mm the next time I am attacked by a pig wearing a German
helmet. I just hope I am not laughing so hard I miss.
penultimate
> ...
Del:
A 100 % sensible reply to my comments, always made a little more wound
up that would be best by reaction to BHP.
Importantly, you make explicit the point of period loads, which is
always something I assume in replying to issues of this nature. And
in the period and in the Phillipines, the folks on the ground were
strongly of the opinion that the 38 LC was not near as good a choice
as the 45 Colt.
Having shot both revolvers with period BP loads, I'd sure pick the 45
Colt over the 38 LC. The difference in "power" is as plain as the
nose on your face. And I would be especially inclined to do so if I
was told war stories about the 38 LC not being up to the job and much
dis-inclined to beliee someone that told me the difference I saw and
felt did not matter. Of course, this begs the question of whether many
might not shoot the lighter round more accurately. But perception is
reality and all that really matters is that troops, knowing the 45 was
more "powerful" (kicked harder and shot a bigger bullet), believed
that it was more deadly. Belief is a powerful thing in combat, in the
category of pistols probably more important that actual ballistics.
TimR
# Further, the M-16 vs. the M-14 in terms of stopping power is still being
# hotly debated, but allow me to inject one objective observation: Which
# caliber is used routinely on elk and moose, and which is routinely used
# on nothing larger than coyotes?
# --
# --------------------------------------------------------------------
I really don't think there's much debate. In actual combat with FMJ
the M-16 has been overwhelmingly superior.
Yes, I'll use .308 over .223 if I ever get a chance to hunt moose, but
- not with FMJ. Nor would I use FMJ in .223 for coyotes, as there are
better options.
jc
#
## Bottom line is, who cares? It's ancient history.
#
#
#Oh I don't know,....ME! I love history, and still mistakenly believe
#it can teach us something if documented properly.
#
#
#Del
"Them who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. Them who do will find
other ways to screw things up."
I think it was Robert Heinlein that said that, or something close to it.
History *is* fun and interesting, I'll grant you that. Thing is, how it gets
disseminated down to us, that is, the general population, have had it filtered
through the coffee filters of A. The Winners; B. The Politicians; C. The
Author of whatever Book we're reading; and D. Some huge conspiracy group, the
Illuminati, the New World Orderers, or mayabe some group we don't even know
about.
I suspect it should all be taken with a grain of salt and bottle of beer. Or
two.
Cheers,
jc
Billy Ford
army helmet with various different rounds and observing the helmets
reaction.
A .22 RF at 10 yards put a fairly deep dent in the helmet but didn't move
it.
B. 38 special Wadcutter put a wide shallow dent in the helmet and moved
the helmet about 2 inches. The bullet was recovered and was about the
diameter of a quarter.
C. .45 auto put a shallow dent in the helmet but rolled it about 10 yards.
The bullet was not recovered.
D. .30-06 WWII black tiped AP round zipped through both sides of the helmet
and didn't move it a hair. (steel core of bullet was recovered in a sand
bank)
The 45 won't penitrate a helmet, but I was left with the impression that it
might break you neck.
bruce...@gmail.com
wrote:
> ...
Or to quote someone else, "History is written by the winners".
Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)
Del
#
# I suspect it should all be taken with a grain of salt and bottle of beer. Or
# two.
# Cheers,
# jc
#
# --------------------------------------------------------------------
Well put indeed.
Del
TimR
# Actually, that factor is nearly meaningless.
# I am referring to the total volume of the wound channel.
# As both the .45 ACP and .38 Long Colt (which was the round the .45
# replaced, not the significantly more powerful .38 Special) penetrate
# roughly equal depths into living soft skinned targets, the real factor
# is not wound diameter, but wound VOLUME.
# A .45 ACP penetrating six inches will produce a wound channel volume of
# 8.52 cubic inches, whereas the .38 Long Colt would produce a wound
# channel volume of 6.72 cubic inches, a significant advantage when it
# comes to tissue damage and likelihood of catastrophic blood pressure drop.
#
# --------------------------------------------------------------------
Interestingly enough you and I have both made math errors, although
mine was worse.
I subtracted the diameters and concluded the larger round would be a
tiny bit closer to a vital structure. Actually I should have
subtracted the radii, and my difference would have been only half as
big.
You claim to have calculated channel volume in cubic inches. Actually
you appear to have correctly calculated surface area of the wound
channel in square inches.
I tend to think your basic idea is correct. The bleeding should come
from the edge of the hole, and the more edge area the better. I think
because the hole is crushed instead of cleanly cut your predicted 26%
advantage does not fully materialize.
I have to admit most of my opinions on wound channels comes from
airgun hunting, and in my experience penetration (and placement, of
course) outweighs everything else.
browningh...@yahoo.com
The heart stops whether it is hit with a .177 cal. pellet gun or hit
with a 20mm cannon. Result, death. Pellet guns kill hundreds of
people each year because people believe A. a small pellet cannot do
much damgae and b. the high power pellet gun is not a gun but a toy.
On Sep 8, 11:20 pm, oldpink <oldp...@nltc.net> wrote:
> ...
browningh...@yahoo.com
> ...
The pigs weren't laughing either when they got killed with the 9mm
and .38 special. Again Pistolero Magazine even provided dramatic
pictures of the animals being shot with the .45acp/vs the 9mm and .38
spl. RESULTS: NO DIFFERENCE IN KILLING POWER. NOW HOW CAN ANYONE
WITH A NON-PREJUDICED MIND SET IGNORE SUCH OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE.
DEAD IS DEAD,NOT DEADER,AND THE PISTOLERO TEST PROVED IT ONCE AND FOR
ALL WAY BACK IN THE 1980'S AND WE ARE STILL ARGUING OVER FANTACY
STORIES ABOUT THE 45ACP.
browningh...@yahoo.com
Down through the years the gun writers have often passed on erroneous
information again and again until those in the future take it all as
fact.
NOW MY QUESTION IS THIS:
During the Philippine insurrections and later Moro uprising which was
the result of blatant imperialism by the U.S. the U.S used weapons to
conquer the newly subjugated peoples with what then Modern Weapons.
Now everyone knows that by this time period the army's of the world
were using modern smokeless powder in their weapons for many years.
Witness the 1891 7.62 Belgian Mauser, followed by 1895 German 7x57
Mauser cartridge. The U.S. had the 30/40 Kraig loaded with smokeless
powder by this late date and it used the .12 ga. Shotgun also loaded
with smokeless powder.
The gun writers down through the years have given us the impression
that we were using black powder in the 38 long Colt, which I find
very hard to believe. Lets face facts, ammo does not last very long
in the heat of the tropics and the large quantities needed of it
during the 13 year war in the Philippine islands would have resulted
in the newest and freshest manufactured ammo being shipped to the
Philippine islands. Now I hardly think the new ammo would have been
loaded with old style black powder with its corresponding lower
velocities which meant the low velocity figures often quoted by some
gun writers may have been done to exonerate the .45 cal. Cartridges
and denigrate the .38 long Colt when both were being used in the same
time period. Loading one caliber with black powder and another with
the more modern smokeless seems at least to me to be a little hard to
believe.
Jonathan Spencer
browningh...@yahoo.com writes
#
#Research into U.S. military records
What research? Citations please so we can see it too.
#What matters it the accumulation of shooting
#incidents and real life tests like those conducted by "Pistolero"
#magazine in the 1980's on live animals
Citations please. I'd like to read it for myself. No offence.
--
Jonathan
Remember: Marriage is the number one cause of divorce.
Jonathan Spencer
browningh...@yahoo.com writes
#You also really missed Jan's main point and that was that the Moro's
#were not stopped any better with the .45 caliber hand guns
It isn't clear cut one way or another, not from this discussion anyway.
But it is interesting to note what Hatcher has to say on the subject of
'stopping power' and the effectiveness or otherwise of the .45 v smaller
calibres at pp315+ of his 1927 book "Pistols and Revolvers and their
use". Clue: he was shot in the hand by a .32 at a distance of about two
feet. I think we can all agree that at this distance, the bullet would
have been at its maximum velocity i.e. a worst case scenario. The
bullet passing through his third finger and the handle of the revolver
he was holding at the time and embedded itself in the wrist. In his
words, "... it did not inconvenience me in the slightest nor put my arm
out of action. If the gun with which I had been shot had been a .45
instead of a .32, it would not have paralysed my right arm but would
have passed entirely through my wrist and entered my body, inflicting a
fatal wound."
OK, not a .38 v .45 anecdote, but interesting to see his view of the
.45. He says (p193+) that the "Philippine campaign" revealed that the
.38 had insufficient "stopping power" but doesn't elaborate.
Anyway, anyone who wants to know more about gunshot wounds and bullet
performance could do worse than read:
Bullet Penetration by Duncan MacPherson, and
Gunshot Wounds by Vincent J Di Maio
Gunshot Injuries by Co. Luis La Garde
Wound Ballistics by Karl Sellier and Beat Kneubuehl
or join the IWBA and that's just for starters.
#I might point out that even the famous Thompson tests actually proved
#the "opposite" of what they set out to prove i.e. that the .45 caliber
#hand guns were more lethal. For reference read the 1983 Gun Digest
#article "Holes in the Stopping power theory".
I've read it. It doesn't show that the .45 calibre handguns were more
lethal, that's complete rubbish on your part. For the record, it says
that
.476 Eley - beast was shot multiple times, eventually killed with a
hammer
.455 Man Stopper - ditto
.45 Colt - beast died from multiple gunshots
.45 Colt (different bullet) - beast was shot multiple times, eventually
killed with a hammer
.38 ACP - beast was shot multiple times, eventually killed with a hammer
.38 Long Colt - beast shot multiple times, died from severed aorta
.30 Luger - beast shot multiple times, died from severed aorta
More tests next day
.476 Eley - beast dropped after 6 shots to lungs
.445 Man Stopper - beast dropped after 5 shots to lungs
.45 Colt - beast dropped after 6 shots to lungs
9mm Luger - beast shot multiple times, eventually killed with hammer
.30 Luger - ditto
The tests were not scientific - they were not reproducible. In many
cases, a beast would be shot in the chest and, when it hadn't collapsed
after a minute or two, it was shot in the guts. No one should draw any
conclusions from these tests and results, least of all that they
demonstrated the .45 "were more lethal".
#An even much more dramatic test was conducted by "Pistolero Magazine"
#back in the 1980's on pigs which have an internal anatomy much like
#humans. The real life shooting tests with modern expanding ammo again
#proved the .45acp was a "complete myth" killing no better than the .38
#special and 9x19.
Reference please, I'd like to read that
#As matter of fact Pistolero Magazine stated the
#pigs actually jumped higher and squealed louder when hit by the 9x19
#than when hit by the .45acp. I think you can no more solid proof than
#this.
"Solid proof"? Proof of what, exactly, that some pigs object louder to
being shot than others? Interesting as it may be, the pigs jumping I
mean, it's no indicator of lethality.
Gunny_2007
"oldpink" <old...@nltc.net> wrote in message
news:fbsshb$cuo$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
# browningh...@yahoo.com wrote:
# [...]
# # This month in "Gun World" Jan explores the "Moro Myth" which took
# # place after the U.S. invaded the Philippine Islands and resulted in
# # the "Moro uprising". His meticulous documentation parallels an
# # article that was printed in the 1980's in the "Gun Digest" that was
# # entitled "Holes in the Stopping Power Theory". Both Jan and the Gun
# # Digest rip apart the .45 acp myth that is often quoted to this very
# # day by people who never even owned a handgun in their life. Its
# # perhaps one of the greatest pieces of "believed" gun propaganda that
# # was ever launched. Even Joseph Goebbels would have turned green with
# # envy.
#
# Actually, there is a perfectly reasonable answer to this.
# That's right.
# In a handgun, being forced to use FMJ gives an inherent advantage on a
# hostile target to the larger caliber .45 ACP over the even older .38
# The larger bullet has substantially greater frontal area, and thus
# leaves a larger wound channel, period.
# What type of slug do the guys who hunt Grizzly Bears use?
# Usually, it is a revolver chambered in .44 Remington Magnums or .454
# Casull pushing heavy hard cast lead semi-wadcutters.
# No, humans are not Grizzlies, but since the military is forbidden to use
# hollowpoint or other expanding projectiles, the only way to maximize
# tissue damage at handgun velocities is to use larger, heavier projectiles.
# Might this not be part of the reason that the Defense Department has
# been having second thoughts of late with their Beretta M9 (9mm
# Parabellum) that replaced the...bah du du dah!...1911A1 in .45 ACP?
Most of what you say seems logical. The larger bullet has more frontal
area. Minor point though, our military is NOT prohibited from using
hollowpoints or expanding projectiles. That is one of the oldest common
urban myths. We actually do use that ammo when it suits us and it isn't
illegal. Contrary to popular belief, the Geneva Convention doesn't prohibit
this ammo. It was the Hague Conventions, and the U.S. declined to sign
those provisions (along with the prohibitions against using aircraft to
deliver weapons in combat). Even today, some of our combat forces use
softnosed ammo in the Middle East. We've beaten this topic to death in
this newsgroup in the past few months. But, do some research. It's a great
way to win a bar bet from someone who spouts off about "illegal dum dum
bullets" at the bar. Ha Ha.
Natman
wrote:
#
#
#Down through the years the gun writers have often passed on erroneous
#information again and again until those in the future take it all as
#fact.
#
#NOW MY QUESTION IS THIS:
#
#During the Philippine insurrections and later Moro uprising which was
#the result of blatant imperialism by the U.S. the U.S used weapons to
#conquer the newly subjugated peoples with what then Modern Weapons.
#Now everyone knows that by this time period the army's of the world
#were using modern smokeless powder in their weapons for many years.
#Witness the 1891 7.62 Belgian Mauser, followed by 1895 German 7x57
#Mauser cartridge. The U.S. had the 30/40 Kraig loaded with smokeless
#powder by this late date and it used the .12 ga. Shotgun also loaded
#with smokeless powder.
#
# The gun writers down through the years have given us the impression
#that we were using black powder in the 38 long Colt, which I find
#very hard to believe. Lets face facts, ammo does not last very long
#in the heat of the tropics and the large quantities needed of it
#during the 13 year war in the Philippine islands would have resulted
#in the newest and freshest manufactured ammo being shipped to the
#Philippine islands. Now I hardly think the new ammo would have been
#loaded with old style black powder with its corresponding lower
#velocities which meant the low velocity figures often quoted by some
#gun writers may have been done to exonerate the .45 cal. Cartridges
#and denigrate the .38 long Colt when both were being used in the same
#time period. Loading one caliber with black powder and another with
#the more modern smokeless seems at least to me to be a little hard to
#believe.
#
The 38 Long Colt was orignally loaded with black powder. According to
cartridge historian "The Old Ammo Guy":
"In late 1899, a cannelure was added to the case, about .370" to .380"
from the case mouth, against which the bullet was seated in loading.
At about this same time, the change was made from black powder to
smokeless."
http://www.oldammo.com/august04.htm
So in the beginning of the Moro uprising in 1900 the 38 LC loads were
most likely black powder. It's certainly possible that smokeless
powder loads had made it into the supply chain, although it really
doesn't matter much.
The important point is that even if the 38 LC loads were smokeless,
they were found to be inadequate and were replaced by *big bore* 45
LCs thus proving the superiority of the larger bore.
QED.
browningh...@yahoo.com
Pistolero was published quarterly: See Spring 1984, Article "Hogs v/s
Bullets" page 22.
On Sep 10, 6:07 pm, Jonathan Spencer <j...@jonathan-spencer.co.uk>
wrote:
> ...
browningh...@yahoo.com
This reference proves absolutely nothing. It A. does not say or
prove if any of the manufacturers or suppliers did not switched over
to smokeless powder nor does it B. prove how many company's may have
supplied ammo to the U.S. military during the war.
Down through the years the U.S. military has bought ammo from private
companies as well as making it in there own arsenals as in time of war
the inept bureaucracy of Gov't always seems not to be able to provide
enough weapons or ammo to the Army. This is exactly why the 1917
Enfield (turkey that the gun was) was produced by private enterprise
to supplement the woefully inadequate supply of Springfield rifles in
WWI.
On Sep 11, 5:40 am, Natman <nat_m...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...
penultimate
Quoting BHP:
" Pellet guns kill hundreds of people each year because people
believe A. a small pellet cannot do
" much damgae and b. the high power pellet gun is not a gun but a
toy.
REALLY?
I DOUBT YOU CAN PROVIDE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE OF FIVE DEATHS (5) AROUND
THE ENTIRE WORLD IN A YEAR.
JLG
The debate over 9mm vs. 45 will always rage and no one will ever
win. Certainl BHP will not change anyone's mind with his arguments
(start with the conclusion and then spew anecdotal "facts" about
articles not currently available and "some guy at the gun range".)
Bottom line is that no one will ever win, because there are two many
variables. Yes, a smaller object travelling faster will penetrate
more than a a larger heavier slower object, eg, a 9mm will generally
penetrate more than a 45 acp. For proof of this, see
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot1.htm (This website rocks, BTW, I
highly recommend the buick of truth tests for fun reading, you can
learn a lot more about what works and what doesn't than you ever will
from BHP's ramblings - thanks George in Las Vegas for turning me on to
this site)
But that is not the only variable responsible for making animals or
people fall down when shot. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.
Wound channel can make a lot of difference as any bowhunter can tell
you and we all know shot placement is king.
For example, when you shoot a deer broadside with a 30.06 and the
bullet goes through and through, the deer did not absorb all the
energy of the bullet. I have done this on a small hill country white
tail that walked practically underthe tree stand I was in, and he ran
about 70 yards. Same goes for a bad guy. That rapid release of energy
is a big contributor to neurological shock. When you shoot a deer
quartering toward you with a 30-30, and you recover the bullet inside
the animal, as I have also done on a white tail, you know he got all
the energy there was. That's a lot. You can tell it's the shock that
killed them when they drop instantly like a switch flipped off,
straight down.
Me? I am partial to 45's. I shoot them well, they have plenty of
energy and make big wound channels, and I am comfortable with the
penetration of a round that goes through seven 3/4 inch pine boards.
(See above cite to box o' truth URL) I don't think that the one extra
board that the 9mm gets through is enough to worry about, or means
that the nine will penetrate a helmet at 125 yards that a 45 won't at
25 yards- sorry BHP, I don't buy it, I call BS on that one. That
said, I would also be comfortable relying on a partner with a 9mm if
he shoots it well. If we ever need to kill the eighth board, I'll let
him take the shot.
JLG
penultimate
Natman speaks to the cartidge issue and black powder loads quite
adequately for the 38 LC.
As to your claims about "modern weapons," at the onset of the Spanish
American war, the entire Regular Army was about 25,000. Only it,
Marines, and NY State regiments were armed with Krags. Rough Rider
volunteerss were armed with Krags because TR arranged private
procurement.
State/Volunteer militia units provided probably 75% of those that saw
combat in the Spanish American War and the Phillipine Insurrection
were at least initially armed with trapdoor Springfields shooting
black powder 45/70 loads. As an example, the Oregon Volunteers, one
of the first contingents to show up in support of Dewey's fleet and
provide garrison forces in the Phillipines, was armed with
Springfields. Phillipine indepence forces had taken and controlled
Manila by the time they got there. American ground forces played
almost no role in the Phillipines during the Spanish American war.
And even over the entire period from the beginning of occupation
through the Moro Rebellion to WWI, only about1300 US personnel
succombed to wounds sustained in battle.
Krag production was greatly cranked up in response to the Spanish
American conflict. But it is hard to say exactly when Krags fully
replaced Springfields in the Phillipines in the hands of Americans.
At least I knoiw of no clear point of reference that might decide
between 1898 (not), 1899 (probably not), 1900 (probably), and 1901
(certainly by then). Certainly, trapdoors were passed along to
Phillipine Army/Constablulary forces as American weaponry was updated
and persisted in use far longer.
In light of the above, and in further consideration of the Army's
limited budget and parsimonious tendancies of the era, your premise
that fresh supplies of 38 LC would have been regularly rushed to the
Phillipines is laughable in its naivite. What we would call "large
quantities" of pistol ammunition were probably never needed and, to
the extent to which they were, it was not apparent until after the
insurrection was underway and the anemic nature of the 38 LC was well
established. It is entirely realistic to assume that all the 38 LC
which was used there arrived with the intitial supplies. What was
needed were relatively few rounds that did the job. And resurrected
SAA's (and new 45 DAs "for the Phillipine Constabulary") were in fact
rushed there for that very purpose.
In the meantime, and probably by accident, you do raise an interesting
point. 45 Colt loads (black powder!) were likely "fresh" because the
army had not had reason to maintain 45 ammo for several years. 38 LC
loads were probably "oldest in inventory" simply because a frugal and
underfunded military would have done that. So maybe the 38 LC took a
bit of a hit because of stale ammo well humidifed in the tropics.
That aside, you have a very optimistic view of America's prowess at
making and understanding smokeless powder circa 1900. Europe was
ahead of us and first the French and then the Germans were not helping
us catch up. Whereas with 100 year old Krags in good condition, we
might load a 220 grain projectile to 2200 fps with todays powders, the
standard of the time was 1950 fps or so. In no small part, this is
because early day smokeless (as opposed to black powder) was
incredibly temperature sensitive.
And here once again we have your inane crap about "gunwriters"
distorting the truth to mislead readers. While you may be trying to
say something else, it seems like you are saying that gunwriters are/
were comparing black 38 Long Colt loads (about 18 g Black behind 150
grain lead RN) to 45 Colt smokeless loads. Loads for the latter
shipped to the Phillipines in this era would have been black (40
grains black behind 250 g lead RN).
But the real point is that the data and impressions of the day came
from people that were there in letters home, newspaper accounts, and
after-action reports, not gunwriters. They bitched about the 38 LC.
When they got their hands on 45 Colt revolvers they quite bitching
(about pistol inadequacy). The army believed that this represented
truly important differences in field performance. The 1911 in 45 ACP
a few years later honored this field experience in Browning's
automatic. And about 100 years of history since have confirmed the
sensibility of the Army's decision. To the contrary, we have another
axe grinding whine from you.
TimR
# For example, when you shoot a deer broadside with a 30.06 and the
# bullet goes through and through, the deer did not absorb all the
# energy of the bullet. I have done this on a small hill country white
# tail that walked practically underthe tree stand I was in, and he ran
# about 70 yards. Same goes for a bad guy. That rapid release of energy
# is a big contributor to neurological shock. When you shoot a deer
# quartering toward you with a 30-30, and you recover the bullet inside
# the animal, as I have also done on a white tail, you know he got all
# the energy there was.
No, I can't agree.
If it takes 10 footpounds of energy to penetrate a deer, and you shoot
him with a 10 footpound projectile, it'll go to the opposite side and
stop. If you shoot him with a 30 footpound projectile, he'll absorb
10 footpounds of energy and the other 20 go into the hillside. The 10
footpound projectile does not kill him any faster just because it
"dumped all the energy inside." The 30 footpound (or 300, or 3000)
doesn't not kill any slower because it went through. The energy
dumped is that energy necessary to overcome sheer strength of the
flesh at the edge of the wound channel. It doesn't heat him up nor
injure him. Damage to the flesh at the edge of the wound channel
kills him.
I don't ever want a bullet to stop just under the skin on the other
side, I want a through and through. Otherwise, I am so marginal on
energy that a hit at a different angle might not have penetrated far
enough.
As far as .45 vs .38 LC vs 9mm, the debate will not end because
ultimately nothing you can hold in one hand has enough power to be a
reliable stopper. But in combat you need something to believe in, as
one of the other posters correctly pointed out.
bob
I DOUBT YOU CAN PROVIDE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE OF FIVE DEATHS (5) AROUND
THE ENTIRE WORLD IN A YEAR.''
go here for a start...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/07/earlyshow/main659652.shtml
yeah yeah...lib newsies, but take it from there...
partial quote:
''According to a new study published in the medical journal Pediatrics, as
many as five children die every year as a result of non-powder guns, and
about 21,000 are injured.
Dr. Danielle Laraque of Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York was one of
the authors of the study. ''
Don Lampson
pellet guns "every year"? HawHawHaw!
Someone is telling a "big windy" about the "menace" of pellet guns
among us! HawHawHaw!
Don
Del
# No, I can't agree.
#
# If it takes 10 footpounds of energy to penetrate a deer, and you shoot
# him with a 10 footpound projectile, it'll go to the opposite side and
# stop. If you shoot him with a 30 footpound projectile, he'll absorb
# 10 footpounds of energy and the other 20 go into the hillside. The 10
# footpound projectile does not kill him any faster just because it
# "dumped all the energy inside." The 30 footpound (or 300, or 3000)
# doesn't not kill any slower because it went through. The energy ..
For solids, that could be argued. If the bullet is designed for quick
expansion on impact, the "release" of energy will be different.
In other words, a 270 140gr Ballistic tip, will have a different
energy release on the target, than a 270 140gr solid.
The debate over which type of bullet is best for hunting, is about as
bad as which caliber. :)
Del
browningh...@yahoo.com
FROM JLG
Quote: I don't think that the one extra
board that the 9mm gets through is enough to worry about, or means
that the nine will penetrate a helmet at 125 yards that a 45 won't at
25 yards- sorry BHP, I don't buy it, I call BS on that one.
Well, well, well, please wake up and re-read my post and the source of
my info, which if you had not been asleep at the switch, would have
told you that it came from U.S.Army tests, are you calling the U.S.
army info B.S.? The info is found in Clive's excellent documented
book on the Ingles High Power. You know the old saying you can lead a
horse to water but you cannot make him drink. I have an excerpt from
the book that follows.
You really missed the boat on your box of truth penetration tests as
well as the bullets did not expand and acted more like full metal
jacketed bullets. Now lets take a look at a different type of media
i.e. the phone book tests where the .45acp failed miserably when it
did indeed expand. Remember people use expanding bullets for defense
more than they do fmj ammo. Take a look at this test and also the
information on the Ingles tests.
I think the "box of truth test" and other tests I have given, simply
prove that what media you shoot iinto, plus the brand of ammo you
use, and the type of bullet you use, all introduce so many variables
that we have often very different end results and the 3 tests shown
here really prove that beyond any doubt.
TAKE A LOOK AT THIS:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=196065&page=2
ALSO HERE IS AN EXCERPT FOR THE BOOK: INGLIS DIAMOND
Here's the entire previous post:
I just HAD to respond to this thread by quoting a 1948 Springfield
Armory report on some penetration tests they conducted using an Inglis
HP, with a Colt .45 1911A1 as a sort of "control" pistol. The report
is quoted below (verbatim) from pp. 178-9 of Clive Law's new book,
"INGLIS DIAMOND: The Canadian High Power Pistol". Sorry about the
resulting length of this post, but I trust many of you will find it
absolutely fascinating. (Now I know that "penetration" does not equate
with "stopping power", but I certainly found the comparative
performance of the military .45 Ball ammo surprising!)
Here goes:
SPRINGFIELD ARMORY
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
MEMORANDUM REPORT SA-MR 20-2100
L O Spaulding/lv
24 August 1948
SUBJECT:
Effective Penetration Range of 9mm Parabellum Ammunition.
OBJECT:
To determine the greatest range at which the subject ammunition will
penetrate the M1 helmet.
SUMMARY:
M1 helmets were fired at using different 9mm ammunition to determine
the greatest penetration range. A Canadian 9mm Parabellum ammunition
having a velocity of 1250 f/s penetrated the M1 helmet at 130 yards,
which was further than any of the other ammunition tested.
REFERENCE:
Project TS2-7875-2024 J O 7875-6160
MATERIAL:
1. Weapons
a. Browning FN 9mm Pistol, HP Inglis-Canada, Serial Number 8T2367
b. Colt Automatic Pistol, Cal .45, 1911A1, Serial Number 1651407
2. Ammunition
a. Special 9mm Parabellum cases and Cal .38 S&W Special Bullets (Metal
clad, 158 grains) and loaded to a velocity of 850 f/s.
b. Winchester 9mm Parabellum, 116 grain bullet, Lot WRA22026, 1,150 f/
s instrumental velocity at 53 feet.
c. Cartridges, Ball, 9mm M1, 116 grain bullet (Parabellum) (Code
T2CAB) Lot DIL- 617 (Canadian) 1,250 f/s instrumental velocity at 53
feet.
d. Pistol Ball Cal .45 M1911, Lot E C S25250.
3. M1 Helmets
4. Outdoor range facilities
PROCEDURE:
An M1 helmet was placed on top of a stake, back of which a target was
set up to facilitate aiming and to lend support to the helmet. The 9mm
Canadian pistol was then fired from a muzzle and elbow rest at the
helmet. In the event the helmet was pierced, it was moved away from
the shooter 10 yards and the procedure repeated until failure to
pierce the helmet resulted. This procedure was followed with the
special 9mm ammunition and with the high and low velocity 9mm
ammunition. A similar test was run using a Colt Cal .45.
RESULTS:
1. The special 9mm Parabellum case with a Cal 38 S&W bullet penetrated
the M1 helmet at 50 yards, but not 60 yards.
2. The Winchester 9mm Parabellum (1,150 f/s velocity) penetrated the
M1 helmet at 120 yards, but not at 130 yards.
3. The Canadian 9mm Parabellum (1,250 f/s velocity) penetrated the M1
helmet at 130 yards, but due to lack of longer range facilities was
not fired beyond this point.
4. The Cal .45 ammunition penetrated the helmet at 30 yards, but not
at 35 yards.
CONCLUSION:
It is concluded that the Canadian 9mm Parabellum ammunition with the
1250 f/s velocity, had a longer range penetration power than any of
the other ammunition tested.
Prepared By: L O Spaulding, Ordnance Engineer
H F Hawthorne, Ordnance Engineer
E W Hopkins, Head Ordnance Engineer
bruce...@gmail.com
wrote:
> ...
Interesting what you say about the American build Enfield as when I
was working in the trade (1960's) it was considered one of the
strongest of the surplus military actions and only the problem of
milling off the rear sight ears seemed to present any problem to
custom gunsmiths.
What was the "turkey" reference meant to apply to?
Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)
Doug T
# ''REALLY?
#
# I DOUBT YOU CAN PROVIDE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE OF FIVE DEATHS (5) AROUND
# THE ENTIRE WORLD IN A YEAR.''
#
# go here for a start...
#
#
# http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/07/earlyshow/main659652.shtml
#
# yeah yeah...lib newsies, but take it from there...
#
# partial quote:
#
# ''According to a new study published in the medical journal Pediatrics, as
# many as five children die every year as a result of non-powder guns, and
# about 21,000 are injured.
#
# Dr. Danielle Laraque of Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York was one of
# the authors of the study. ''
As many as five a year, or what they don't say is as few as none.
Doug T
browningh...@yahoo.com
Lets review how the "45acp myth" really got started and "persists out
of 'all reason' to this very day"
The "infamous" Thomson-Lagarde tests "hoodwinked" the U.S. Gov't into
adopting the .45acp. Actual testing was so one sided as to make this
testing an absolute joke. Yet down through the years gun writers have
solemnly quoted "these tests" as the "ultimate proof" of the
superiority of the .45acp.
In the Gun Digest Article "Shooting Holes in the Stopping Power
Theory" the author shows us that Thompson only shot one steer with the
9mm as opposed to about dozen with the .45 revolver cartridges. After
only shooting one steer with the 9mm he pronounced it a dude
cartridge. He only shot two steers with the .30 Luger and one of the
steers was floored and died almost instantly. This so shocked
Thompson he quite testing the .30 Luger because his own testing was
starting to prove the opposite of what he was trying to promote i.e.
that the .45 pistol cartridges were the 8th wonder of the world.
When Thompson used the .45 revolver rounds they proved such a big
failure that he panicked and then ran out and bought "expanding ammo"
which by the way did not work out like he thought either. Despite all
these cold hard facts he then went to the U.S. Army board and
proclaimed that an auto loading pistol shooting a .45 caliber bullet
would be the "ultimate man stopper" and the board fell for it hook
line and sinker because it sounded so logical.
After the War in the Philippine Islands Colt Manufacturing made good
use of "lurid advertisements" for the new Colt 1911 pistol and its
cartridge which promoted "totally absurd" stories that the .45acp
would knock a man off his feet, or spin him around like a top etc.
etc. which is still believed by many people to this very day.
I think one of the most ridiculous arguments is that the .45 leaves a
"gigantic wound channel" as opposed to the smaller 9mm but simple math
will show you the difference in diameter is only 1/10 of an inch. So
small a difference that it makes one wonder why people even use this
argument.
Today with modern expanding bullets the 9mm with its higher velocity
and smaller diameter will often penetrate deeper and expand much more
violently than any of the slower moving .45acp ammo.
The milder recoil of the 9mm and higher capacity enable most people to
get off at least two shots to every one that a .45 acp user would.
Lower recoil also translates into much more accurate shooting enabling
the shooter to put the bullet where he wants it rather than flinch and
miss with the harder kicking .45acp
Again, graphic pictures in the Pistolero Tests in the 1980's proved
how deadly the 9mm was and still is when using modern ammo and it does
not in any way take a back seat to any .45acp loading today.
oldpink
# On Sep 9, 5:20 am, oldpink <oldp...@nltc.net> wrote:
# # Further, the M-16 vs. the M-14 in terms of stopping power is still being
# # hotly debated, but allow me to inject one objective observation: Which
# # caliber is used routinely on elk and moose, and which is routinely used
# # on nothing larger than coyotes?
# # --
#
# # --------------------------------------------------------------------
#
# I really don't think there's much debate. In actual combat with FMJ
# the M-16 has been overwhelmingly superior.
How so?
Kindly provide attribution.
# Yes, I'll use .308 over .223 if I ever get a chance to hunt moose, but
# - not with FMJ. Nor would I use FMJ in .223 for coyotes, as there are
# better options.
I find it interesting that Carlos Hathcock's partner didn't carry an
M-16 out in the field.
Nope, it was an M-14.
Hathcock used a Winchester Model 70 in .30-06 for his first tour and a
Remington 700 in .308 for his second tour...neither one of which was
chambered in .223, of course.
Now, isn't it just possible that Hathcock and his buddy knew something
that you do not?
Humans are not groundhogs or prairie dogs.
I'm not saying that the M-16 doesn't have some areas in which it has a
small advantage, such as a lighter rifle and ammo, but the M-14 has an
indisputable advantage at distance, plus I would just love to watch how
much you love the 16 when you get a stove pipe, which I have to say I
have seen SCORES of times.
The only option you have when you get one of those pesky stove pipe jams
with the M-16 is to disassemble it, due to the fully enclosed receiver.
All that would be required with the M-14 would be to grab the action
handle and pull it rearward, thereby clearing the action...were it to
ever happen.
The M-14 has an open-topped receiver.
Yes, I know that part of the reason for the closed receiver for the
smaller rifle was to attempt to keep debris out of the action, but it
also makes it nearly impossible to clear an action, plus it makes it far
more likely that a round will jam.
Speaking as someone who has fired both, I can say that I have fired a
couple of hundred rounds through about a dozen M-16s, each of which
jammed more than once, and this was with clean rifles in excellent
condition firing mil-spec ammo.
Contrast that with the M-14, which I have fired THOUSANDS of times,
using over two dozen different rifles, all without a SINGLE jam or even
misfire.
We even went two months using de-linked M-60 ammo in our M-14s when the
Navy recalled all of our M-14 ammo due to a few lots that had been
loaded dangerously overpressure.
Even with these de-linked M-60 regular and tracer rounds in our M-14s,
we had not even a single misfire or jam.
I know that the military had some reasons for retiring the older rifle,
but I lament its loss.
--
And what exactly is a joke?
oldpink
# .
# # No, I can't agree.
# #
# # If it takes 10 footpounds of energy to penetrate a deer, and you shoot
# # stop. If you shoot him with a 30 footpound projectile, he'll absorb
# # 10 footpounds of energy and the other 20 go into the hillside. The 10
# # footpound projectile does not kill him any faster just because it
# # "dumped all the energy inside." The 30 footpound (or 300, or 3000)
# # doesn't not kill any slower because it went through. The energy ..
#
#
# For solids, that could be argued. If the bullet is designed for quick
# expansion on impact, the "release" of energy will be different.
# In other words, a 270 140gr Ballistic tip, will have a different
# energy release on the target, than a 270 140gr solid.
That goes without saying.
What he was trying to say was that the bullet that fully penetrates a
deer has not failed, as long as it strikes vital organs and sheds most
of its energy before exiting.
Keep in mind that, when it comes to big game hunting, that it is ALWAYS
preferable to have an exit wound, as that causes considerably more rapid
blood loss, along with making tracking easier.
Also, the exit wound nearly always will bleed more than the entry wound.
Put simply, the perfect big game bullet is one that is able to penetrate
through the vitals, even through heavy bone or at unusual angles,
expanding and releasing as much of its energy into the target as
possible, having just enough forward momentum to exit.
Also, you want a bullet that is a good compromise between softness and
toughness to the point that it expands more or less uniformly, be it
fired at high velocity or low velocity, distant or near.
The quest for the ideal bullet is specifically the reason for the
invention of the Nosler Partition and the Barnes X.
# The debate over which type of bullet is best for hunting, is about as
# bad as which caliber. :)
The FMJ actually might have some merit if that .270 were the only thing
you had available to prevent yourself from a charge from an African
Elephant.
;-)
--
And what exactly is a joke?
.
oldpink
[...]
# I think one of the most ridiculous arguments is that the .45 leaves a
# "gigantic wound channel" as opposed to the smaller 9mm but simple math
# will show you the difference in diameter is only 1/10 of an inch. So
# small a difference that it makes one wonder why people even use this
# argument.
So bullet mass has just no bearing on the matter at all, right?
How many revolver carrying handgun hunters seeking Grizzly Bear use .357
Magnum or 9mm?
Now, how many use .44 Magnum, .45 Colt, ,454 Casull, or .500 S&W Magnum?
This is not hard to figure out, you know.
# Today with modern expanding bullets the 9mm with its higher velocity
# and smaller diameter will often penetrate deeper and expand much more
# violently than any of the slower moving .45acp ammo.
Expanding bullets do even up the odds a bit, but Marshall and Sanow
still show an advantage for the .45 ACP over the 9mm, both with their
respective expanding bullets.
In fact, the old ACP compares favorably to the handgun round listed at
the very top for one shot stops, the .357 Magnum.
In fact, the ACP also outdoes the .44 Magnum.
That is empirical evidence, not some yahoo out spouting anecdotal
stories or outright whoppers.
# The milder recoil of the 9mm and higher capacity enable most people to
# get off at least two shots to every one that a .45 acp user would.
I am completely satisfied with one well placed round vs. spray and pray.
Also, I find myself entirely puzzled by all the claims that no one could
possibly get off more than one .45 ACP round at a time.
Bull, I can get all 10 rounds out the barrel of my S&W 1006 chambered in
a REAL thumper, 10mm Auto, in seconds into a torso sized target, and
that is using SERIOUS loads, not the so called FBI loads.
I suppose the ability to get off a second round faster is essential for
the 9mm, seeing how it has a terminal ballistics disadvantage.
# Lower recoil also translates into much more accurate shooting enabling
Recoil has zip to do with accuracy.
# the shooter to put the bullet where he wants it rather than flinch and
# miss with the harder kicking .45acp
Flinch is a SHOOTER problem, not an ammo problem.
It is the duty of the SHOOTER to train to overcome his flinch.
Also, I have fired tens of thousands of rounds of military hardball out
of military issue 1911A1s, and I had not even a hint of a flinch.
The recoil is simply not that bad, and to claim otherwise is an outright
lie.
# Again, graphic pictures in the Pistolero Tests in the 1980's proved
# how deadly the 9mm was and still is when using modern ammo and it does
# not in any way take a back seat to any .45acp loading today.
The 9mm is better than nothing at all, but real world statistics STILL
give the nod to the larger round.
This is all documented exhaustively in "Manstoppers."
Now, disprove THAT.
--
And what exactly is a joke?
.
oldpink
# On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 01:07:29 +0000 (UTC), browningh...@yahoo.com
# wrote:
#
# > ...
#
#
# Interesting what you say about the American build Enfield as when I
# was working in the trade (1960's) it was considered one of the
# strongest of the surplus military actions and only the problem of
# milling off the rear sight ears seemed to present any problem to
# custom gunsmiths.
My brother has a Winchester manufactured Enfield that had been
sporterized and converted from .303 British to .30-06 Springfield, and I
find myself really liking the action.
It has controlled round feed and a mechanical ejector.
--
And what exactly is a joke?
.
bruce...@gmail.com
wrote:
> ...
You know? I've been messing about with guns since the late 1940's. My
father, grandfather and uncles were all shooters and took the usual
hunting magazines . I have been reading about which caliber was the
best since I was 12 years old. Elmer Keath advocated a .44 special
loaded up as hot as the case would stand, even killed an elk at 600
yards with one. Another guy said the .357 Magnum was the best - shoot
a hole through a car engine block. Another guy said that all pistols
were just for show and the best gun for a gunfight was a 12 bore
shotgun and on and on and on.
I've been reading this stuff for 60 years now and no one has ever made
a case that convinced the other guy. I wonder if, God willing, I live
another 60 years I'll be reading the same thing?
Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)
Jonathan Spencer
browningh...@yahoo.com writes
#
#
#
#Lets review how the "45acp myth" really got started and "persists out
#of 'all reason' to this very day"
#
#The "infamous" Thomson-Lagarde tests "hoodwinked" the U.S. Gov't into
#adopting the .45acp.
Seeing as the tests were inconclusive, not to mention unscientific, how
exactly was the US Government hoodwinked? Do you have access to the
official records reporting upon those tests? If so, let's see them.
Otherwise, well, you're just expressing an opinion based on nothing much
at all.
In any case, only a couple of days ago you said,
#I might point out that even the famous Thompson tests actually proved
#the "opposite" of what they set out to prove i.e. that the .45 caliber
#hand guns were more lethal. For reference read the 1983 Gun Digest
#article "Holes in the Stopping power theory".
So which is it: either it's a myth and the US Govt was hoodwinked or the
test proved that the .45 calibre guns were more lethal. You can't have
it both ways.
#Actual testing was so one sided as to make this
#testing an absolute joke. Yet down through the years gun writers have
#solemnly quoted "these tests" as the "ultimate proof" of the
#superiority of the .45acp.
Really?? That's a new one to me. Citations please to works which used
that kind of language. Who and where, exactly, quoted the tests as
"ultimate proof" of the superiority of these test?
#In the Gun Digest Article "Shooting Holes in the Stopping Power
#Theory" the author shows us that Thompson only shot one steer with the
#9mm as opposed to about dozen with the .45 revolver cartridges.
About a dozen, eh? How imprecise can one be? For the record, the
article you cite says that the tests involved
.476 Eley
.455 Man Stopper
.45 Colt
.38 ACP
.38 Long Colt
.30 Luger
9mm Luger
Which was probably fairly representative of what was available at the
time but, more to the point, representative of the cartridges under
consideration for military service.
The tests were not scientific. No one should draw any firm conclusions
from these tests and results.
#After
#only shooting one steer with the 9mm he pronounced it a dude
#cartridge. He only shot two steers with the .30 Luger and one of the
#steers was floored and died almost instantly. This so shocked
#Thompson he quite testing the .30 Luger because his own testing was
#starting to prove the opposite of what he was trying to promote i.e.
#that the .45 pistol cartridges were the 8th wonder of the world.
Even if you have the facts correct, the conclusion is just your
supposition. What authoritative source do you have to demonstrate what
Thompson was trying to prove?
#I think one of the most ridiculous arguments is that the .45 leaves a
#"gigantic wound channel" as opposed to the smaller 9mm but simple math
#will show you the difference in diameter is only 1/10 of an inch.
Ah, if it were that simple we wouldn't even be discussing the subject.
You really should read Duncan MacPherson's book. But that would require
you to lift your head out of the sand.
#Today with modern expanding bullets the 9mm with its higher velocity
#and smaller diameter will often penetrate deeper and expand much more
#violently than any of the slower moving .45acp ammo.
Actually, in general, they fail to expand. What they do is collect
trace material (glass, plaster board, clothing) which makes shooting
incident reconstruction much easier for people like me.
#The milder recoil of the 9mm and higher capacity enable most people to
#get off at least two shots to every one that a .45 acp user would.
Two misses aren't worth as much as one hit. :o)
--
Jonathan
Remember: Marriage is the number one cause of divorce.
penultimate
> ...
Thank you.
BHP claimed hundreds die from pellet guns.
I said I doubt that verifiable evidence can be provided that five a
year die.
You reference CBS that references statistical extrapolation from a
pediatric study that indeed had a couple of real deaths from pellet
gun fire and estimated that perhaps maybe possibly as many as five a
year really do die.
About the same number of children die each year drowning in public
fountains.
I take that as a sincere attempt to provide verifiable evidence and
find that it completely confirms what I said.
In the meantime, my point is not that pellet guns are harmless, but
that BHP's exaggeration and hyperbole is tiresome.
penultimate
Thank you for providing data showing that your own foolish earlier
claim that a 45 ACP would not penetrate a helmet at 25 yards was in
error, And with issue ballistics and ball as well! If you read and
verified more of what you posted beforehand, I would be less inclined
to offer challenge.
And as to this thread, your might remember that no one but you is
bringing up the topic of the 9mm parabellum cartridge versus the 45.
While I'd take a 45, sensible people can argue the merits of a 9mm.
And the thread (which you started) was on the 38 LC, not the 9mm,
While it was non-responsive to the US army cartridge specifications,
had the 9 mm been tested in a Browning design semitauto (rather than a
POS Lugar design that jams frequently) it might have been picked by
the US in 1911.
In the meantime, you might claim you were referencing German WW1 and
WW2 helmets, not M1s. Here I can only point out that an unusually
hard German helmet would be a clear case of gilding the lily and, if
you provide the collector grade helmets, I will be glad to try to
punch holes in them at 25 yards.
browningh...@yahoo.com
foolish earlier
claim that a 45 ACP would not penetrate a helmet at 25 yards was in
error, And with issue ballistics and ball as well! If you read and
verified more of what you posted beforehand, I would be less inclined
to offer challenge.
I think the data proves the vast difference in penetration between
the .45acp and the 9mm. Nit picking on a couple of yards is assinine
on your part to say the least as you still do not see the forest for
the trees.
To recap the 9mm penetrated a steel helmet with regular ammo not armor
piercing ammo out to 130 yards as opposed to the 45acp that failed
even at 35 yards. Now if this is not significant in relation to the
effectiveness of a combat pistol round I fail to see what would be.
Now we know why the worlds militaries chose the 9mm over the 45acp for
the last 100 years. I think this says it all.
browningh...@yahoo.com
Penultimate wrote:
Thank you for providing data showing that your own foolish earlier
claim that a 45 ACP would not penetrate a helmet at 25 yards was in
error, And with issue ballistics and ball as well! If you read and
verified more of what you posted beforehand, I would be less inclined
to offer challenge.
I forgot also to mention that you also completely ignored the phone
book tests that also showed the lack of penetration even with heavy
"expanding" bullets in the .45acp. The pictures are worth 1,000
words.
oldpink
# Penultimate wrote:
# Thank you for providing data showing that your own foolish earlier
# claim that a 45 ACP would not penetrate a helmet at 25 yards was in
# error, And with issue ballistics and ball as well! If you read and
# verified more of what you posted beforehand, I would be less inclined
# to offer challenge.
#
# I forgot also to mention that you also completely ignored the phone
# book tests that also showed the lack of penetration even with heavy
# "expanding" bullets in the .45acp. The pictures are worth 1,000
# words.
Good grief!
Last time I checked, expanding bullets traded off penetration for
producing a larger projectile upon impact.
You really have outdone yourself on this one, and that takes some doing,
as our resident crackpot.
Congrats, I guess.
--
And what exactly is a joke?
.
Michael Medley
--
G-Guns -- PG - Plenty of Guns -- PG-13 more than 12 guns
penultimate
> ...
And would you like to ad some equivalent wisdom about your "hundreds
of deaths a year from pellet gun wounds" comment?
Or your countless other mostly little factual errors, misquotes, and
misattributions, telling as they are, mostly trivial and worthy of
being ignored, if not ecapsulated in such bombast? I think the most
amusing was one of your antigunwriter rants where you attacked one
gunwriter, using an incorrect first name, for an article that in fact
another gunwriter actually wrote, all the while totally missing (or
intentionally distorting) the point that he was making. Just so you
know, it is Dave Scovill that wrote "I never read Jack O'Connor."
And you might recall that the topic of this thread started by YOU,
such as it was, was the 38 LC versus, IN FACT, the 45 Colt (NOT 45
ACP) in the Phillipines. The army, meaning troops on the ground,
decided the 38 LC was not worth crap relative to the 45 Colt (both in
FACT BEING BP LOADS AT THE TIME) about a decade before the army
adopted the 45 ACP/M1911 combo. If the "Myth of the Moro" was in some
way invented to justify the 45 acp, you sure have to credit those that
"invented it" with remarkable ability to foretell the future.
Personally, I give more credit to the opinions of those that actually
go in harms way (and have their life depend upon the weapon they
advocate) than those that shoot the bull (or read about how many times
a pig oinked before it died after being shot). And I actually have
owned, loaded for it in both BP and smokeless, carried, and shot an
issue M1895 38 LC, including killing a few rabbits with it. I suppose
I could have shot a few pigs and Moros and helmets (or maybe a Moro
wearing a helmet riding a pig) to confirm the validity of my own
conclusions. But all are a rarity in my neighborhood. Anyone that
actually shot a 38 LC in an issue revolver next to a 45 Colt in an
issue revolver (both with period loads) would have a pretty hard time
thinking of the 38 LC as more than anemic in comparison. But I do
admit to not having read Phil Sharpe's 1940's book containing a hopped
up load for the 38 LC, failing, as anyone with half a brain would, to
see any relevance to the performance of issue BP (or smokeless) loads
in the Phillipines four (4) decades earlier.
None of which has squat to do with the adequacy of 9mm in a military
context and against which I have not said one word. Indeed, I can't
recall a single post in this entire thread that (other than your own)
that was more than agnostic on the question of 45 acp vs 9mm
parabellum. But most that consider the 9 mm a better military choice
do so because of greater clip capacity, more rounds with less weight,
ballistic adequacy, and the simple fact that more people can handle
the weapon, more often than not actually being able to at least wing a
human being at 5 to maybe 25 yards, not because it will punch a hole
in a WWII helmet at 110 yards.
The 38 LC was adopted to replace the 45 for close to the same reasons,
substituting the quicker reloading of a swing-out cylinder (versus the
gated Colt SAA but not the break-top S&W Schofied) for clip capacity.
The 38 LC was a poor choice because, at least in the eyes of those
that actually used it in combat and had experience comparing it to
experience with the 45, it was a little too light in the loafers.
And, if your namesake had been made available by Browning for the 1910
trials, perhaps the grand history of the M1911 might have been
associated with 9mm. But Browning was American, (and really American,
not just a temporary visitor like Santayana) not German and German
Lugars jammed. Strangely enough, and made up mostly of those that can
and do shoot the 45 acp well, there are more than a few going in harms
way today that prefer to carry a 45.
As to nitpicking, what you might have said is simply "I'm sorry I got
carried away" rather than engage in meaningless deflection. I would
ignore your numerous errors in details if only you were less
authoritative in asserting them and they less often surrounded a
central point of bombast or personal attack. So if you wish to
continue engaging in bombast, you would be wise to work at making your
posts a less target rich environment.
Billy Ford
did not penetrate it. No need for further debate.
I found the old experiment that I submitted to a Science and Engineering
Fair on April 5, 1975. I actually recieved an award from the Army (little
certificate) for my experiment.
I shot a helmet with a .22 rifle from 25 feet. The .22 rifle put a small
but deep dent in the helmet and moved the helmet about 2 inches and the
bullet was not recovered.
Next I shot the helmet from 25 feet with a 38 special. This was a target
soft lead wadcutter load fired from a 4 inch model 10 smith & wesson
handgun. The velocity was about 770 fps. and the helmet moved 27.5 inches
and the bullet was recovered. The helmet was dented ( large and shallow) and
the recovered slug was flattened to about the 75 percent the size of a
quarter. ( Yeah, I know that this was a weak, underpowered load.)
Next up was the .45auto. This too was fired from 25 feet (not yards). I
used military issue hard ball ammo . The estimated velocity wad 850 fps. The
helmet moved a measured 45 inches and the bullet was not recovered. There
was a shallow copper colored dent in the helmet.
All the above shots were preformed in the family garden spot on soft,
loose, freshly tilled soil which is not the ideal medium to quantify
relative movement, and there might be a difference in penetration had the
helmet been strapped to something instead of just lying on the ground.
Although I did not have a 9mm to test that day, I do know that the
Swedish Lahti in 9mm was designed to penetrate helmets at 50 yards if you
care to do a google search on the subject. (and I would assume any full size
9mm with standard military hard-ball would do the same.) I once put a 9mm
hardball round through a section of discarded utility pole at about 10 feet.
For police work, it might be better for shooting at people wearing thick
winter clothes or someone in a car.
No hardball ammo, or roundnose lead ammo for that matter, is a good
manstopper load. But 45 auto might be a little better than 9mm. A 9mm
softnose would be a lot better than a 45 hardball. A .45 soft nose would be
some better than a 9mm softnose. By manstopper, I'm saying, one shot and the
target goes down. With hardball ammo the target is much more likely fight
on even with a mortal wound.
Since we don't often shoot at helmets in self defence situations, the
.45 with a softnose bullet would be a better choice because there is less of
a chance of over penetration and hitting a secondary or unintended target.
WaltBJ
100 yards - not from a leisured 'slow fire' stance but in a fire
fight?
Next - the 45 AC was chosen to replace the 38 because the latter was
found wanting in the Phillipines - couldn't stop a charging Moro
swinging a bolo. That sounds like a hell of a lot less than 100 yards
to me.
The M1911 was desired in WW2 and Korea as a night backup by the troops
in their foxholes where an M1 was just too unwieldy.
I took my M1911A1 to SEA - didn't figure on any long-distance pistol
shots in triple-canopy jungle. Never had to use it which was okay by
me because I preferred to fly home versus walking.
Now its loaded with 165 grain pure copper hollow points. . .
Walt BJ
Del
didn't say(or at least I didnt see) if they were shiny new, or old
WWII combat "lids". If combat issued, and a GI decided to heat up
some water for a foot soak, the "pot" used for the 9mm could have been
fatiqued from the heating. Also, steel wasn't always of highest
quality and consistency during those times to begin with. This make
me ask, did the same helmet the 9mm zinged through, get shot at by the
45?
Those are just some factors that should be looked at.
Del
penultimate
#> I have actually shot a US military steel pot helmet with a .45 auto
and it
#> did not penetrate it. No need for further debate.
You report that a 45 acp did not penetrate a military steel pot helmet
and BHP graciously referenced controlled tests showing with ball that
an evidently similar helmet was penetrated at ranges up to 30 yards.
There is absolutely no reason for believing that either you or the
other source is being less than truthful.
Certainly, issues arise in testing and measurement where false
conclusions can be drawn simply because the measurement is subject to
artifact or misinterpretation. But certainly there is no ambiguity
regarding the measurement of when a helmet has in fact been penetrated
or merely dented.
The only rational assumption is that both you and the other source are
absolutely correct in reporting results.
But in interpreting them, it really does not take much logic to
realize that the other source is proof positive that a 45 CAN
penetrate a US steel pot helmet. There is absolutely no doubt. Your
result simply suggests that obtaining this result is subject to
boundary conditions as, of course, was shown by the first report that
clearly reported ammunition used, distance at which the helmet was and
was not penetrated, how the helmet was oriented, how the helmet was
supported, etc.
So I would suggest that your "test", rather than settling the matter
of whether or not a 45 can penetrate a helmet, instead raises the
question of why your particular test failed. Whether or not answering
this question would usefully advance our understanding of helmet vs.
45 acp is presently conjectural. But a physicist would probably
suggest that rigid support on a pole (as in the first test) versus
allowing the helmet to skitter on the ground made some difference.
In the meantime, the matter should be considered settled simply
because it does not matter much. I for one would take as much
pleasure from putting a dent in one of BHP's helmets as a hole.
A point that I have tried to make in this debate about "Stopping bolo
armed charging Moros" is that if the question is viewed as one of
military effectiveness, perception probably matters more than
reality. A soldier with faith in his firearm's ability to do the job
will stand his ground, aim and fire. One lacking that faith is likely
to turn and run, shooting wildly, under the same conditions. So it
really does not matter whether or not the 38 LC suffered a bum rap.
The soldier's perception of its effectiveness rendered it ineffective,
even if it was not already. And the buck and roar of a 45 Colt in
comparison was a pretty solid source of confidence.
So if you don't think a 9mm can do the job, you would be wise to carry
a 45. And if you carry something less, it would probably be wise to
inflate your view of its effectivenss. The biggest impact of
"stopping power" may be that it gives steady backbone to the
shooter.
Mikko Nahkola
# Although I did not have a 9mm to test that day, I do know that the
# Swedish Lahti in 9mm was designed to penetrate helmets at 50 yards if you
# care to do a google search on the subject. (and I would assume any full size
# 9mm with standard military hard-ball would do the same.) I once put a 9mm
# hardball round through a section of discarded utility pole at about 10 feet.
# For police work, it might be better for shooting at people wearing thick
# winter clothes or someone in a car.
Don't trust all you find on Google - the "Swedish Lahti" made by
Husqvarna was designed to be a reduced-cost version of the original
Finnish Lahti L-35, nothing more. Nothing less either, though...
There were some problems when higher-velocity 9x19 rounds, which _were_
designed to penetrate _something_ at least from a SMG's longer barrel,
started to be used in these pistols. Replacement slides were noticeably
thicker in certain places than the original design.
So take care when shooting hot loads out of the Lahti pistols. Plenty of
original slides out there.
TimR
# I am curious - just how many pistol shooters can hit a GI helmet at
# 100 yards - not from a leisured 'slow fire' stance but in a fire
# fight?
I am not sure this line of reasoning is allowed. Attempting to inject
common sense without warning is probably a violation of the Terms of
Use of this newsgroup.
It is probably also true that anyone skilled and cool enough to make
head shots under combat conditions at ANY range is okay with .38 LC.
Or .45. Or even, sigh, 9mm.
However, here's an interesting article. http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0702/0702107.pdf
If this is valid, then some of my theories are simply wrong.
Russ
# However, here's an interesting article. http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0702/0702107.pdf
# If this is valid, then some of my theories are simply wrong.
Interesting article. Thanks for that link.
--
©Russ
"Our doubts are traitors and make us lose the good we oft might win by
fearing to attempt."
Billy Ford
without a helmet.
I sure that the Moro warriors knew that they were going to die and were
determined to take someone with them. I don't think that even a 44 magnum is
powerful enough to knock someone down. The slow moving bullets in use during
that time would not have produced much hydrostatic either.
The oldtimers thought the bigger the bore the better. Elmer Keith liked
to hunt big game with a 45 colt revolver (before the 44 mag) and he thought
that it was a good killer because the wound would be larger and that would
let more blood out and more cold air in. Death would come quicker, but not
necessarily right away.
When I was growing up, my father was a highway patrolman. At that time,
the state of the art man stopper was the 357 magnum. I think he carried 125
grain hollowpoints. ( He never had to shoot anyone) That load is still one
of the best.
10 or 15 years back, they used to talk about 1 shot stops. One of the
gun writers had compiled a list of actual shooting and rated different
loadings based on their percentage of one shot stops. In his data base, the
357 mag was tops, but soft point 45 auto and soft point 9mm were close. No
loads were 100% and the best ones were in the 80% range. Hardball was in the
30-40% range. I haven't kept up with this area, but I would guess that there
are good loads available in 40s&w and .357 sig also.
It wasn't that the Moros were bullet proof, they just kept hacking and
slashing till they bled out. I understand that they bound themselves to
minimize the bleeding. Even when shot with the krag they didn't always die
in their tracks. Anyone for a shotgun with slugs or buckshot?
Rubaiyat of Omar Bradley
another forum? Aparently BHP is a big believer in recycling...
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=18606
browningh...@yahoo.com
wrote:
# Billy Ford kirjoitti:
QUOTE:
# So take care when shooting hot loads out of the Lahti pistols. Plenty of
Ř original slides out there.
Actually the Lahti is a very rugged pistol and the problem you refer
to is the accelerator that was added to the pistol for us in extreme
Artic conditions. One simply has to remove this when firing in normal
climates and the breakage problem is then eliminated.
browningh...@yahoo.com
On Sep 17, 7:41 am, TimR <timothy...@aol.com> wrote:
# On Sep 16, 1:23 pm, WaltBJ <waltb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Quote:
# # I am curious - just how many pistol shooters can hit a GI helmet at
# # 100 yards - not from a leisured 'slow fire' stance but in a fire
# # fight?
#
# I am not sure this line of reasoning is allowed. Attempting to inject
# common sense without warning is probably a violation of the Terms of
# Use of this newsgroup.
I think that people sometimes become so myopic in there response to
the "Helmet tests" that they fail to see "the bigger picture". Helmet
tests prove that the penetration is superior with the 9mm and this was
given serious consideration when the U.S. military finally decided to
dump the .45 in favor of the 9mm. The reasoning at that time was that
the 9mm also penetrated soft body armor much better, as well as, also
being able to penetrate other mediums in combat conditions, NOT JUST
HELEMETS. We must be able to look at the "bigger picture here" and
not get fixated on one tree in a forest of hundreds.
As a matter of fact, the new FN .5.7mm pistol came about because of
even newer and tougher personal body armor. With the 5.7mm using
armor piercing military ammo it now even exceeds that which is
possible with the 9mm with armor piercing ammo.
All this is nothing new as many, many decades ago it took the great
Gun Smith P.O. Ackley to prove that smaller diameter bullets traveling
at high velocities gave superior penetration. Penultimate would do
well to study the tests Ackley made as he seems to actually think the .
45acp being bigger in diameter and slower moving penetrates as well as
the small and higher velocity calibers. This of course is impossible.
As far as the deer tests with black powder. Although much can be
learned from shooting live animals these tests were really flawed from
beginning to end despite all the hype and rhetoric of these tests.
First of all black powder gives much different ballistic results, than
smokeless powder, despite the testers rhetoric. A much more valid
test would have been to use actual combat smokeless powder loads.
Second. The tests should have been conducted at point blank range as
this is where most combat takes place.
Third: The animals used for testing should have been domestic swine
because their internal organs are much more like humans than are deer.
Fourth: The "wild deer" also would not of been all of the same sex,
size and weight and they would have been standing at slightly
different angles when shot despite what the testers attempt to make
you believe that they were all standing at exactly the same angle.
browningh...@yahoo.com
I just got done watching one of the "blood and guts" hunting shows, I
beleive it was Guns & Blammo, have patients I watched 3 different gun
shows this morning after being up all night at work.
It showed the "latest and greatest" new cartrige the TC .308. They
shot a deer with this round that is a short round with 30-06
ballistics of 3,000 fps with a 150 grain expanding bullet. They of
course huffed and puffed at how powerful this "new miracle" round was
and then blasted a deer with it (probably a tame one on a game farm).
The deer was feeding out in the open no where near any cover as he
would have been if totally wild.
Well what happend you ask.? The "Dopes" that filmed this even made the
mistake of going ahead and using the footage, as horrific as it was ,
it became even worse because when the Deer was hit he simply jumped up
and shook his back and took off running. Cut scene immediately and
you were never shown what happened to the Deer, but I rather surmise
he got away.
Now the moral of the story is if a Deer can absorb a tremendous shock
from this "high velocity" rifle round and only give a little shake
what would you think of a man who weighed as much as this Deer, or
even more, would feel if hit with any slow moving "anemic" pistol
caliber. He might not know for a short while that he was even shot.
I think we can begin to see how ridiculous the 9mm v/s .45acp argument
really is, and as I have mentioned a million times, Pisolero Magazine
found out the same with live shooting tests of hogs at point blank
range with both calibers using modern expanding handgun ammo. RESULT
WITH REAL LIVE ANIMLAL TESTS, ZERO, ZERO, ZERO, DIFFERENCE.
bruce...@gmail.com
wrote:
> ...
Just out of idle curiosity what is the difference in ballistic results
between black and smokeless powder?
Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)
Jonathan Spencer
browningh...@yahoo.com writes
#I think that people sometimes become so myopic in there response to
#the "Helmet tests" that they fail to see "the bigger picture". Helmet
#tests prove that the penetration is superior with the 9mm and this was
#given serious consideration when the U.S. military finally decided to
#dump the .45 in favor of the 9mm. The reasoning at that time was that
#the 9mm also penetrated soft body armor much better,
Balls. Decent body armour easily stops 9mm FMJ.
#As a matter of fact, the new FN .5.7mm pistol came about because of
#even newer and tougher personal body armor.
It came about because FN wanted to find some marketing (read
advertising) edge at a time when sales were slumping, post Cold War.
#All this is nothing new as many, many decades ago it took the great
#Gun Smith P.O. Ackley to prove that smaller diameter bullets traveling
#at high velocities gave superior penetration.
Really. So a .224 50gn FMJ from an M16 will penetrate (what exactly?)
better .50" 700gn FMJ from an M2?
#As far as the deer tests with black powder. Although much can be
#learned from shooting live animals these tests were really flawed from
#beginning to end despite all the hype and rhetoric of these tests.
Odd that. Only last week or so you were trumpeting how one pig
squealing louder and jumper higher than another somehow demonstrated
that one cartridge was "more lethal" (note proper use of inverted
commas) than another. You change position with every tide.
--
Jonathan
Remember: Marriage is the number one cause of divorce.
Jonathan Spencer
browningh...@yahoo.com writes
[snip]
#and then blasted a deer with it
Blasted? Were they using explosives?
#(probably a tame one on a game farm).
#The deer was feeding out in the open no where near any cover as he
#would have been if totally wild.
Now *that* is interesting, amusing even. Shows that you are no observer
of wild deer, that's for sure.
#Well what happend you ask.? The "Dopes" that filmed this even made the
#mistake of going ahead and using the footage, as horrific as it was ,
#it became even worse because when the Deer was hit he simply jumped up
#and shook his back and took off running. Cut scene immediately and
#you were never shown what happened to the Deer, but I rather surmise
#he got away.
Probably not. What you describe is a fairly typical response to a heart
shot.
#Now the moral of the story is if a Deer can absorb a tremendous shock
#from this "high velocity" rifle round and only give a little shake
#what would you think of a man who weighed as much as this Deer, or
#even more, would feel if hit with any slow moving "anemic" pistol
#caliber. He might not know for a short while that he was even shot.
No. The lesson from your post is that, once again, you don't know what
you're talking about. But don't let that stop you. It hasn't so far.
#I think we can begin to see how ridiculous the 9mm v/s .45acp argument
#really is, and as I have mentioned a million times, Pisolero Magazine
#found out the same with live shooting tests of hogs at point blank
#range with both calibers using modern expanding handgun ammo.
Well, well, well. The tide must have changed, because now you quote the
shooting of animals as meaning something. Or is it that shooting pigs
produces reliable data, whilst the shooting of deer doesn't?
--
Jonathan
Remember: Marriage is the number one cause of divorce.
penultimate
" All this is nothing new as many, many decades ago it took the great
Gun Smith P.O. Ackley to prove that smaller diameter bullets traveling
at high velocities gave superior penetration. Penultimate would do
well to study the tests Ackley made as he seems to actually think
the .
45acp being bigger in diameter and slower moving penetrates as well as
the small and higher velocity calibers. This of course is
impossible."
In reply Penultimate would say that he said absolutely nothing of the
sort, and further, the BHP will be unable to point to any post where
this was said by Penultimate. So the question is whether BHP suffers
a reading disability or an integrity disability.
I really don't mind BHP disagreeing. But if you are unable to be for
whatever reason correct or truthful, please let people judge my
opinions by what I actually say, rather than what you make up.
What I did say, in contrast to your blather, is that a 45 acp (or 45
LC) will penetrate a helmet at 25 yards, after you stupidly said it
would not. No more or no less. You provided test data confirming
that very fact, which you probably never read and appear not ot have
understood and then had the audacity to denigrate when I pointed it
out after the fact.
I also said that a 38 LC did not cut it in comparison to a 45 LC,
which, in fact, is what was being compared in your own post. Now you
cite Ackley as if it is even relevant to the discussion. For the
record, given loads of the time, the 38 LC had about the same velocity
as the 45 LC, but pushed a 100 grain lesser bullet. If you think
lighter bullets penetrate better than heavier bullets traveling at the
same velocity, you are indeed an idiot. And for all your
pontificating about penetration and helmets, you seem to overlook the
fact that the US Army did not wear helmets during the Spanish American
ware or period of the Phillipine Insurrection or period of the Moro
Rebelion.
As further astounding evidence of BHP's loss of contact with reality,
he says
"First of all black powder gives much different ballistic results,
than
smokeless powder, despite the testers rhetoric. A much more valid
test would have been to use actual combat smokeless powder loads"
I would love to see you explain how a particular, identified,
projectile traveling at point of impact at a particular velocity
coulld care less (in terms of the damage it does) if it obtained that
velocity from a charge of black powder or a charge of smokeless
powder.
The authors explained exactly why they did not use combat smokeless
powder loads, given that they wanted to test on deer. These reasons
any idiot should have understood and boiled down to the fact that they
couldn't reliably hit deer with a pistol (because they could not get
close enough --- so much for penetrating helmets at 100 yards) and,
that if they did, that round velocity would have slowed beneath that
expected at combat ranges. In this context, saboting the rounds in a
black powder rifle, which could be shot very accurately, and shooting
at a carefully determined range where the bullet would have slowed to
pistol velocity at normal combat distance was evidently clever enough
to be beyond your grasp. As was probably the point they were making
about bullet design.
And, in favor of black powder, with it they could shoot lots of deer
for the cost of a hunting license and tags in surrounding states. It
probably never dawned on you that most states allow active duty
military personnel in state hunting licenses. Or how genuinely clever
these folks were in conducting a half decent and interesting study,
that, strangely enough, required convincing a CO that deer hunting was
a good use of their duty time. If the military had had to cough up
for pigs, I doubt the authors would have been able to do the study, or
have near as enjoyable an experience in the process.
But I guess that we live in a world where the clever people will never
be understood and appreciated by those that evidently prefer to get up
close and personal with pigs. As a friend says, "Swinehood hath no
remedy."
bruce...@gmail.com
<misass...@yahoo.com> wrote:
#bruce...@gmail.com wrote:
## On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:02:31 +0000 (UTC), browningh...@yahoo.com
## wrote:
##
## > ...
##
##
## Just out of idle curiosity what is the difference in ballistic results
## between black and smokeless powder?
#
#Oh, well, smokeless sprinkles fairy dust on the projectile, resulting in
#considerably improved downrange performance, even if fired at the same
#velocity as one fired with black,
#Silly
Oh! Thanks. Good to learn something new every day :-)
browningh...@yahoo.com
I did some testing years ago by firing into empty 55 gal drums
which by the way were and still are encountered on yesterdays and
today's battle fields. The .45 was loaded to FULL POWER while the 9mm
WAS ACTUALLY LOADED DOWN TO LESS THAN FULL VELOCITY. The 45acp only
penetrated one side of the 55 gal drum and that was almost at point
blank range. The 9mm at that range easily penetrated through both
sided of the drum.
Conclusion: in a combat situation even an empty 55
gal drum makes very good protection against the anemic .45acp while
the 9mm would take a person out hiding behind one
oldpink
# I did some testing years ago by firing into empty 55 gal drums
# which by the way were and still are encountered on yesterdays and
# today's battle fields. The .45 was loaded to FULL POWER while the 9mm
# WAS ACTUALLY LOADED DOWN TO LESS THAN FULL VELOCITY. The 45acp only
# penetrated one side of the 55 gal drum and that was almost at point
# blank range. The 9mm at that range easily penetrated through both
# sided of the drum.
#
# Conclusion: in a combat situation even an empty 55
# gal drum makes very good protection against the anemic .45acp while
# the 9mm would take a person out hiding behind one
Time for that smug little bubble to burst, yet again.
No bullet flies very straight after striking one hard obstacle, let
alone two in quick succession.
Oh, and that bullet would be badly mutilated, carrying MAYBE 1/4 of its
original forward velocity after it made it through that second layer.
Good luck to you with that.
--
And what exactly is a joke?
.
bruce...@gmail.com
<misass...@yahoo.com> wrote:
#browningh...@yahoo.com wrote:
## I did some testing years ago by firing into empty 55 gal drums
## which by the way were and still are encountered on yesterdays
and
## today's battle fields. The .45 was loaded to FULL POWER while
the 9mm
## WAS ACTUALLY LOADED DOWN TO LESS THAN FULL VELOCITY. The
45acp only
## penetrated one side of the 55 gal drum and that was almost at point
## blank range. The 9mm at that range easily penetrated through both
## sided of the drum.
##
## Conclusion: in a combat situation even an empty 55
## gal drum makes very good protection against the anemic .45acp while
## the 9mm would take a person out hiding behind one
#
#Time for that smug little bubble to burst, yet again.
#No bullet flies very straight after striking one hard obstacle, let
#alone two in quick succession.
#Oh, and that bullet would be badly mutilated, carrying MAYBE 1/4 of
its
#original forward velocity after it made it through that second layer.
#Good luck to you with that.
Many years ago I built a crossbow using a cut down auto spring for the
bow. The bow was strong enough that it required a lever to cock it.
Using 1/4 or 5/16 inch steel arrows it would shoot through both sides
of a 55 gal. barrel -- does this mean that my cross bow more powerful
then a .45 ACP ?
Or is it possible that penetration is based more on PSI force applied
to the projectile.
As an addendum, the cross bow would also shoot straight through a
critter up to and including white tail deer making a nice clean 1/4 or
5/16 inch hole with almost no collateral damage.
Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)
MR
Snip
# Using 1/4 or 5/16 inch steel arrows it would shoot through both sides
# of a 55 gal. barrel -- does this mean that my cross bow more powerful
# then a .45 ACP ?
#
# Or is it possible that penetration is based more on PSI force applied
# to the projectile.
Snip
Oh are you going to hear from the physics dudes on this one.<bg>
MR
.
bruce...@gmail.com
wrote:
> ...
Yes, I probably should have gone into further detail about penetration
but I'd rather (at least) try to make some people wonder why a
projectile penetrates -- it is not simply a matter of velocity or ft.
lbs. of energy. We'll see...
Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)
Misifus
# On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 09:31:04 -0400, <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote:
# Snip
# # Using 1/4 or 5/16 inch steel arrows it would shoot through both sides
# # of a 55 gal. barrel -- does this mean that my cross bow more powerful
# # then a .45 ACP ?
# #
# # Or is it possible that penetration is based more on PSI force applied
# Snip
#
# Oh are you going to hear from the physics dudes on this one.<bg>
# MR
# .
#
I am curious, how much did those bolts weigh, and, any idea how fast
they were going? I've no idea of what that speed might be, but the bolt
was probably a whole lot heavier than 230 grains. That would impart a
whole bunch of momentum.
Would you rather be hit with a bb or a bowling ball? - my question to
thoroughly disinterested freshmen.
-Raf
--
Misifus-
Rafael Seibert
mailto:rafse...@suddenlink.net
blog: http://rafsrincon.blogspot.com/
Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rafiii
home: http://www.rafandsioux.com
bruce...@gmail.com
<rafse...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
#MR wrote:
## On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 09:31:04 -0400, <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote:
## Snip
## # Using 1/4 or 5/16 inch steel arrows it would shoot through both sides
## # of a 55 gal. barrel -- does this mean that my cross bow more powerful
## # then a .45 ACP ?
## #
## # Or is it possible that penetration is based more on PSI force applied
## # to the projectile.
## Snip
##
## Oh are you going to hear from the physics dudes on this one.<bg>
## MR
## .
##
#
#I am curious, how much did those bolts weigh, and, any idea how fast
#they were going? I've no idea of what that speed might be, but the bolt
#was probably a whole lot heavier than 230 grains. That would impart a
#whole bunch of momentum.
#
#Would you rather be hit with a bb or a bowling ball? - my question to
#thoroughly disinterested freshmen.
#
# -Raf
As I remember we were shooting 5/16" X 8 inch bolts (arrows) and I
have no idea how fast they would have been traveling. I checked the
weight of 5/16" steel rod and the bolts would weighed about 1,214
grains or ~79 grams.
They would easily penetrate both sides of a steel drum. I also shot a
smallish, say 70 lbs., white tail deer with it. The bolt went
completely through the rib cage and seemed to have little effect on
the deer. I tracked it for about a mile (hard to judge distance in the
woods) and it eventually died. I suspect that it might have drowned on
its own blood as the lung cavity had a lot of blood in it. I decided
that arrows were not the best method of killing deer.
My point though was that penetration alone is a poor indication of
stopping power.
Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)
oldpink
[...]
# They would easily penetrate both sides of a steel drum. I also shot a
# smallish, say 70 lbs., white tail deer with it. The bolt went
# completely through the rib cage and seemed to have little effect on
# the deer. I tracked it for about a mile (hard to judge distance in the
# woods) and it eventually died. I suspect that it might have drowned on
# its own blood as the lung cavity had a lot of blood in it. I decided
# that arrows were not the best method of killing deer.
Not true at all.
Fred Bear took about any big game animal you could imagine with a bow,
including coastal Alaskan Grizzlies, Yukon Moose, Cape Buffalo,
Rhinoceros, and African Elephant.
My hunch is that you were either using an ineffective broadhead
arrowhead, or you were using a target point.
Also, paradoxically, when it comes to arrows, there really is such a
thing as TOO much penetration.
Why, you ask?
Because an arrow that penetrates to the vitals continues to do damage,
especially as the deer gallops off, as they all do.
The arrow shaft smacks into saplings, brush, and sticks, each time,
making that razor sharp broadhead takes out the organs that weren't
initially struck, plus does more catastrophic damage to those it struck
at first.
# My point though was that penetration alone is a poor indication of
# stopping power.
Completely true.
If BHP were right, then everyone would be out using black-tipped armor
penetrating ammo in the woods.
--
And what exactly is a joke?
.