.38 Spl effectiveness
M.C. Williams
During a 10 year period from the late 1980's to the early 90's I had
two S&W .38 revolvers that I shot 6 deer with. One was a 4inch M&P and
the other was a 3inch Chiefs Special, the ammo was Speer Lawman 125gr
JHP +P.
All shots were between 15 and 20 yards broadside except one that I
shot from a treestand and that one was at a down angle facing me and
hit on top of the back behind the shoulder and the bullet was recovered
under the belly skin, all other shots went through, the recovered bullet
was mushroomed perfectly.
Admittedly these were set up shots, the deer shot from the treestand
fell,got up took 1 step then fell again, got up took one step then fell
and was dead, The other 5 all did the same thing, ran about 35 yards in
the direction they came from and fell over dead, all were small weighing
about 110lbs.
Although they were small deer I think tis was pretty good performance
for a cartridge not known as a powerhouse, I believe a 3 or 4 inch
,38spl with +P jhp bullets is very under rated.
I haven't shot any deer with a handgun since and these were all shot
with ammo from the same box I bought in the early 1980s.
Today I carry a SR9 with 124gr Gold dots and don't feel in the least
under gunned.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.net
Win a Fulton Armory .308 SOCOM M14 rifle while helping the Cause!
Get your MPFO raffle tickets at http://myguns.org/
-----------------------------------------------------------------
M.C. Williams
The time perid was from the late 1970's to the early 90's.
nord...@yahoo.com
# shot from a treestand and that one was at a down angle facing me and
# hit on top of the back behind the shoulder and the bullet was recovered
# under the belly skin, all other shots went through, the recovered bullet
# was mushroomed perfectly.
# Admittedly these were set up shots, the deer shot from the treestand
# fell,got up took 1 step then fell again, got up took one step then fell
# and was dead, The other 5 all did the same thing, ran about 35 yards in
# the direction they came from and fell over dead, all were small weighing
# about 110lbs.
Yep, the key to success with deer seems to be hitting both lungs. The
only time whitetail have given me any extra tracking to do is when
only one lung was involved. This was true whether the freezer does
(same size you report or a little larger) were hit with a three blade
Muzzy, a .530 roundball, a 180 gr .357, or a 95 gr Nosler Partition .
243. This raises a question; if the wound path of a shot to a human
assailant does not involve both lungs should we anticipate a longer
fight? Another difference between game and human assailants is that
the deer don't know they're shot, only that they're scared. They run
because their startled, collapsing when the O2 runs out. A human
assailant may have a psychological response to being shot that further
decreases (or, on a really bad day, increases?) their inclination to
press home their attack. Interesting details M.C. Thanks!
Ralph Mowery
"M.C. Williams" <UNCLE...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:idu3sb$mts$1...@news.albasani.net...
#
# During a 10 year period from the late 1980's to the early 90's I had
# two S&W .38 revolvers that I shot 6 deer with. One was a 4inch M&P and
# the other was a 3inch Chiefs Special, the ammo was Speer Lawman 125gr
# JHP +P.
# All shots were between 15 and 20 yards broadside except one that I
# shot from a treestand and that one was at a down angle facing me and
# hit on top of the back behind the shoulder and the bullet was recovered
# under the belly skin, all other shots went through, the recovered bullet
# was mushroomed perfectly.
# fell,got up took 1 step then fell again, got up took one step then fell
# and was dead, The other 5 all did the same thing, ran about 35 yards in
# the direction they came from and fell over dead, all were small weighing
# about 110lbs.
As you said they were setup shots and the deer did run about 35 yards. The
deer tend to run away instead of staying and fighting. What do you think
would happen to the deer if you had to take a quick shot or two and hit them
in other places ? I would not want to do it just to see, but suppose you
hit them in the shoulder but did not break a bone or had to shoot them from
behind. Most deer do not have much fat on them like a lot a people. I know a
fellow that hunted deer with a 308 rifle and some 130 grain lightly
constructed bullets. They worked fine for lung shots. Similar to hitting a
deer with a 22/250. He got off of the lung area and hit a shoulder one day.
It did not put the deer down and he found it a week later with just a bad
shoulder. Had he been using a good 150 grain bullet with a better design,
the deer probably would have dropped where he shot it.
Problem with handguns is that you are usually shooting them at close ranges
and often at targets that are intending on doing you harm. If you shot
someone at a few feet that had a knife, he probably would have plenty of
time to cut you to pieces before he bled out or ran out of oxygen. Then he
dies.
However even a 22 in the hand is better than a 45 back home.
Gerald "Brick" Brickwood
Nice combination! Good hunting, good marksmanship and good ballistic
performance. Nearly impossible to ask for better!
Going back to the day when the .38 was being maligned as an inadequate
police round, I'm fairly confident that you would find the problem was not
the caliber or the revolver being used. But, the ammunition, particularly
the 158 gr. round nose solid "police load".
I'm not a fan of "light" bullets, I tend to prefer the heaviest bullet I can
get in any particular caliber, so I would be looking for a 158 gr lead
hollow point (round nose, semi-wadcutter or truncated cone) or a half-jacket
hollow point of the same shape that I can push along at 850 to 900 fps. I
don't want "through & through" shots, I want a decent wound channel and all
of the bullet's energy transferred to the target.
MNmineiro
You make me think of the old Michigan farmer who told me he always
used .22 LR, but only a hollow point!! He said he sat in behind the
gate to the woods where the deer always travelled and shot them in the
head, just behind the ear when they went through the gate.
Tom
"Ralph Mowery" <rmower...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ie0u07$p0n$1...@news.albasani.net...
#
# "M.C. Williams" <UNCLE...@webtv.net> wrote in message
# news:idu3sb$mts$1...@news.albasani.net...
# #
# # During a 10 year period from the late 1980's to the early 90's I had
# # two S&W .38 revolvers that I shot 6 deer with. One was a 4inch M&P and
# # the other was a 3inch Chiefs Special, the ammo was Speer Lawman 125gr
# # JHP +P.
# # All shots were between 15 and 20 yards broadside except one that I
# # shot from a treestand and that one was at a down angle facing me and
# # hit on top of the back behind the shoulder and the bullet was recovered
# # under the belly skin, all other shots went through, the recovered bullet
# # was mushroomed perfectly.
# # Admittedly these were set up shots, the deer shot from the treestand
# # fell,got up took 1 step then fell again, got up took one step then fell
# # and was dead, The other 5 all did the same thing, ran about 35 yards in
# # the direction they came from and fell over dead, all were small weighing
# # about 110lbs.
#
# As you said they were setup shots and the deer did run about 35 yards.
# The
# deer tend to run away instead of staying and fighting. What do you think
# would happen to the deer if you had to take a quick shot or two and hit
# them
# in other places ? I would not want to do it just to see, but suppose you
# hit them in the shoulder but did not break a bone or had to shoot them
# from
# behind. Most deer do not have much fat on them like a lot a people. I know
# a
# fellow that hunted deer with a 308 rifle and some 130 grain lightly
# constructed bullets. They worked fine for lung shots. Similar to hitting
# a
# deer with a 22/250. He got off of the lung area and hit a shoulder one
# day.
# It did not put the deer down and he found it a week later with just a bad
# shoulder. Had he been using a good 150 grain bullet with a better design,
# the deer probably would have dropped where he shot it.
# Problem with handguns is that you are usually shooting them at close
# ranges
# and often at targets that are intending on doing you harm. If you shot
# someone at a few feet that had a knife, he probably would have plenty of
# time to cut you to pieces before he bled out or ran out of oxygen. Then he
# dies.
# However even a 22 in the hand is better than a 45 back home.
#
#
Hmm, let's see.
I shot an Aoudad through both lungs at about 80 yards with a
300 gr SP in .45-70. It ran about 60 yards and died.
Maybe if I had used a 350 gr SP it would not have run off.
Is that what you are trying to say here?
I don't understand your point.
Please explain.
Tom
Tom
Hmm, let's see.
I shot an Aoudad through both lungs at about 80 yards with a
300 gr SP in .45-70. It ran about 60 yards and died.
Maybe if I had used a 350 gr SP it would not have run off.
Is that what you are trying to say here?
I don't understand your point.
Please explain.
Tom
Ralph Mowery
"Tom" <t...@hctc.net> wrote in message news:ie16k9$50d$1...@news.albasani.net...
#
#
# Hmm, let's see.
# 300 gr SP in .45-70. It ran about 60 yards and died.
# Maybe if I had used a 350 gr SP it would not have run off.
# Is that what you are trying to say here?
#
# I don't understand your point.
# Please explain.
#
# Tom
#
The point is there is a big difference in shooting most animals and shooting
at a person that means to harm you. Had that been say a mountain lion or
bear that is ready to attack you, you would not want to shoot it just one
time in the lungs to kill it after it has gone 80 yards. You want to stop
it before it can get to you . If that aoudad had been about 10 yards away
from you and was attacking you, I am sure you would not want to shoot for
the lungs and wait for it to grind you into the ground.
Also many times you can pick the place on the animal to put your shot while
hunting. You usually want to go for a lung shot or other place that does
not mess up too much meat when hunting. If you want to stop a deer in its
tracks, you go for the shoulder or neck or maybe some other place. The
small calibers may not penetrate enough for a deadly hit in those places.
It is easy to kill, but difficult to stop the threat before it can harm you.
It does you no good if you shoot someone and they live long enought to kill
you before they die.
Martin Eastburn
talk of sitting up a tree and dropping them between 100 and 200 yards.
This is typically on lease lands and pickups of hunters later in the
day. Often a pig or two is also taken while awaiting transport.
We have a 500 yard range and it is very busy the month before hunting
season. These old vets out shoot the young vets and non-vets out here.
But then they also were raised up on shooting squirrel for the stew
pots. So many now talk of the hunt and fewer venture out.
Martin
M.C. Williams
There is no guarentee that a .357 or .44mag will drop a deer or a man
instently, unless you are using a really powerful rifle or a shotgun
with buckshot at close range instant stops are rare unless you hit the
spine or brain.
The point of my story is that .38spl is a much more effective ctg than
before SuperVel forced major companies to improve their ammo back in the
late 1960s.
TimR
<bric...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
I
# don't want "through & through" shots, I want a decent wound channel and all
# of the bullet's energy transferred to the target.
#
I think that this "all of the energy transferred" business is just a
myth.
What kills them is damage.
What gives the projectile the ability to do damage is energy, true.
But the energy is used to do work, force over distance, to shear the
walls of the wound channel.
If it takes 10 footpounds of energy to push the projectile through a
torso, then a 10 footpound bullet will dump all its energy and may not
exit. A 20 footpound bullet will dump 10 footpounds of energy and
have 10 left for the hillside. A 100 footpound bullet will dump 10
footpounds of energy and have 90 left for the hillside. All three do
the same damage, but the latter two leave two holes for a blood trail,
which I tend to think is an advantage. Of course, YMMV.
Larry
says...
# Although they were small deer I think tis was pretty good
performance
# for a cartridge not known as a powerhouse, I believe a 3 or 4 inch
# ,38spl with +P jhp bullets is very under rated.
By whom? I took a woman I know shopping for a self defense carry piece.
I recommended a .38 snubby. We got to the gun shop, and the off-duty
cop behind the counter recommended a .38 snubby with a laser grip.
Check the ankle of any duty cop, and what do you find? Probably a .38
snubby in an ankle holster.
Martin Eastburn
post WWII. Around here the .32 ACP is to small. They want something
bigger. Can't qualify for a carry gun with a .32 but .38, 7, 9, 10 and
..45 are popular.
Martin
Ledgewalker
with a Ruger Super Blackhawk 10 1/2" barrel in .44 mag w/ hard cast
loads over the last 20 years than most other calibers I own. Shot
placement is key, but knowing your own, and your weapon’s limitation
also is a factor some hunters don’t take into consideration. I’ve seen
a fair share of hunters lose deer ever after shot with .308 and 30 06
only because they didn’t do their part correctly. Kill an animal with
a .22lr, sure, its done on farms everyday, but in the field its
another story. Giving deer a steady diet of 38 special, well like I
said, I know my limitations, so I’d have to sit that one out on the
bench...
Ray, aka RMR
(Si vis pacem
para bellum)
Rubaiyat of Omar Bradley
wrote:
# The .32 which was the mainstay of Europe for years - pre, during and
# post WWII. Around here the .32 ACP is to small.
There is a reason for that, especially for LEOs - they have the
posibility of having to deal with people who are on drugs such as PCP,
which make them very resistant to shock. Thus the need for calibers
which will actually incapacitate the targets.
Steve B
"Ledgewalker" <para.n...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ie4vpa$igu$1...@news.albasani.net...
#I think its safe to say I've taken more animals (mostly hog & dear)
# with a Ruger Super Blackhawk 10 1/2" barrel in .44 mag w/ hard cast
# loads over the last 20 years than most other calibers I own. Shot
# placement is key, but knowing your own, and your weapon's limitation
# also is a factor some hunters don't take into consideration. I've seen
# a fair share of hunters lose deer ever after shot with .308 and 30 06
# only because they didn't do their part correctly. Kill an animal with
# a .22lr, sure, its done on farms everyday, but in the field its
# another story. Giving deer a steady diet of 38 special, well like I
# said, I know my limitations, so I'd have to sit that one out on the
# bench...
#
# Ray, aka RMR
IIRC, ancient Indians killed lots of deer with .32 cal. shafts with a pointy
rock on the end. ALMOST anyone can kill a deer within killing range with
most any weapon provided they 1. have good aim, or 2. are lucky. Things
haven't really changed a lot in thousands of years. Except that today's
lazy paunchy hunters can kill things at greater distances. Imagine doing
that with a home made bow and arrows after stalking the animal or ambushing
it using woodsman techniques. Those ancients were something. I have
arrowheads that are just exquisite in workmanship.
Steve
nord...@yahoo.com
# # post WWII. Around here the .32 ACP is to small.
#
# There is a reason for that, especially for LEOs - they have the
# posibility of having to deal with people who are on drugs such as PCP,
# which make them very resistant to shock. Thus the need for calibers
# which will actually incapacitate the targets.
Before modern antibiotics peripheral wounds frequently resulted in
amputation, and all penetrating wounds to the abdomen were a death
sentence. The 32 ACP and other pocket pistol and small revolver
cartridges date from that era. Then, as now, one supposes the
presentation of any pistol was likely to induce the thoughtful
miscreant to cooperate or flee. For the insensible assailant there
are two incapacitation mechanisms which do not depend upon his
psychological state - CNS damage and extravasation. These days the
latter is estimated by measuring minimum penetration and the volume of
the permanent crush cavity. So, except for CNS hits, as long as the
hole is deep enough, wider is better.
Pistol_Pete
Not exactly true. "A 20 footpound bullet will dump 10 footpounds of
energy and have 10 left for the hillside", but if that bullet expanded
it would transfer more of its energy to the target in the form of
greater tissue damage. In other words: energy transfer EQUALS damage.
Murff
# [ ... ]
# All three do
# the same damage, but the latter two leave two holes for a blood trail,
# which I tend to think is an advantage. Of course, YMMV.
Well, yes, but that analysis is greatly simplified. It ignores the
tendency of bullets to deform (and, if over-driven or they hit something
particularly solid, to shatter). The level of damage is not a constant,
and nor does it consume a fixed amount of energy.
Murff...
Rubaiyat of Omar Bradley
# "A 20 footpound bullet will dump 10 footpounds of
# energy and have 10 left for the hillside", but if that bullet expanded
# it would transfer more of its energy to the target in the form of
# greater tissue damage.
Not necessarily - it takes a considerable amount of energy just to
deform a bullet, and that energy is not available to transfer to the
target, except as a small amount of excess heat.
Doug White
For a bit of historical perspective, I just got my great-grandfather's
Smith & Wesson Model 1 2nd Issue revolver for safe keeping. It was
extremely popular as a pocket sized personal protection pistol around the
Civil War period. They made 117,000 of them, and Samuel Clemens wrote
about his in "Roughing It". It is a single action, 7 shot, and fired a
..22 black powder rimfire cartridge the size of a .22 short!
I haven't tracked down the ballistics of this round, but I suspect it is
a bit anemic by today's standard's...
Doug White
Martin Eastburn
in the Philippines when the opposing forces were up on drugs and
charging. It would physically knock them down.
Martin
Robert Scott
"Doug White" <gwh...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:ie6iog$vdi$1...@news.albasani.net...
#
# For a bit of historical perspective, I just got my great-grandfather's
# Smith & Wesson Model 1 2nd Issue revolver for safe keeping. It was
# extremely popular as a pocket sized personal protection pistol around the
# Civil War period. They made 117,000 of them, and Samuel Clemens wrote
# about his in "Roughing It". It is a single action, 7 shot, and fired a
# ..22 black powder rimfire cartridge the size of a .22 short!
#
# I haven't tracked down the ballistics of this round, but I suspect it is
# a bit anemic by today's standard's...
You've given me a reason to re-read that wonderful book! I read it many
years ago and loved it, but I don't remember the S&W reference.
Too many books, not enough time,
desmobob
Petey
# Good point. The 1911 was invented just for that for combat troops
# in the Philippines when the opposing forces were up on drugs and
# charging. It would physically knock them down.
Are you totally sure about that? I thought the 1911 (based on the old .45
Colt black powder round) was used (like the .45 Colt cartridge that preceded
it) for it's ability in the hands of Cavalry troopers to take down a
charging horse at (I think?) 200 yards.
The fact that it worked so well to dispatch charging drug-crazed Moro
tribesmen was jut a discovered added bonus of both cartridges. ;-)
M.C. Williams
Where does this stuff about handguns actually knocking people down
come from, it just doesn't work that way. A bullet has done it work in
around 1-1000th of a second and people are soft and don't offer a lot of
resistance so get penetrated, tissue damage and blood loss is what
incapacitated,not being shoved.
Many people are shot and don't even know it right away often after
someone tells them they are bleeding. Try this yourself, balance a 1+8
board about 3 feet long on that ground and shoot it with a .45, it
usually takes awhile to fall down and might not even fall at all.
If a person falls down instantly after being shot with a handgun his
nervous system has been damaged or it is psychological.
Martin Eastburn
Marines. Not mounted with revolvers.
Needed to blow them over backwards as the lighter 38's
put holes in them but with drugs they kept coming with knives and
whatnot.
Look to the right of the picture of General Crozier - states the .38
pistol was not good enough tried some older .45's but went with the
single action .45s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1911_pistol
Martin
Brian Goralczyk
First and foremost, a gun shot will actually knock a person down. To
only think about the time of interaction is missing other factors. Go
look at a slow motion ballistics gel shot. You can see what is called
"shock" flowing through the gel, much as it does a body. Bigger
bullets will cause that to happen. So will flatter bullets. To try
shooting a piece of wood and compare it to a human body is flawed,
almost to the point of being ridiculous. Why not make a large jello
mold and shoot that and see what happens. Heck, just shoot a
watermelon.
I would suggest you are not so set in your way of thinking and be open
to realizing there are holes in your logic. Almost like that piece of
wood you shoot.
M.C. Williams
Watch some WWII film of Japs being shot with M1's in .30-06 as they
run out of caves, they all fall forward and aren't knocked anywhere,
30-06 even fmj beats any service pistol.
nord...@yahoo.com
# # in the Philippines when the opposing forces were up on drugs and
# # charging. �
#
# Are you totally sure about that? �I thought the 1911 (based on the old .45
# Colt black powder round) was used (like the .45 Colt cartridge that preceded
# it)
The performance of the 45 ACP exceeds somewhat the power of the 45
Schofield cartridge used in Colt and S&W revolvers of the "Indian
Wars" era. As the story goes when the 38 Long Colt revolver failed to
impress the Moros the old timers among our troops in the Phillipines
asked for their 45s back. Thus evolved the M1909 revolver in 45
Colt. When the 1911 selfloading pistol was being developed these
lessons were not forgotten and the Army decided to stick with a .45
starting a 230 @ 850. Hooray for our side.
Petey
# Yes.
#
# Marines. Not mounted with revolvers.
#
# Needed to blow them over backwards as the lighter 38's
# put holes in them but with drugs they kept coming with knives and
# whatnot.
#
# Look to the right of the picture of General Crozier - states the .38
# pistol was not good enough tried some older .45's but went with the
# single action .45s.
#
# http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1911_pistol
I think they "skipped" a bit of the 1911's history there. ;-)
My sources say John M. Browning developed the 1911 in response to what the
mounted horse Cavalry needed originally at the beginning of the century.
I guess that's Wikipedia dissertations are not allowed as evidence in any
court room in the United States. ;-)
TimR
# First and foremost, a gun shot will actually knock a person down. To
Take a look at the school board shooting video all over the tv. No
sign of the shooter being knocked down after being hit several times
by the security guard. He pretty much just sits down.
Larry
says...
# Where does this stuff about handguns actually knocking people down
# come from, it just doesn't work that way. A bullet has done it work in
# around 1-1000th of a second and people are soft and don't offer a lot of
# resistance so get penetrated, tissue damage and blood loss is what
# incapacitated,not being shoved.
I have a friend who took a .45ACP in the gut at point blank range on the
street in front of his house. The perp ran off, so he walked into the
house, called 911, locked the house up and sat on the front steps to
wait for the ambulance.
If you have to shoot someone, keep shooting until there is nobody
standing in front of you.
Tom Line
Did Moros wrap themselves in a primitive bamboo body armor?
ste...@sbcglobal.net
On 22-Dec-2010, Tom Line <tl...@iglou.com> wrote:
# Did Moros wrap themselves in a primitive bamboo body armor?
And breastplates and helmets made from boar's tusks !
TimR
# Did Moros wrap themselves in a primitive bamboo body armor?
#
You could go and ask one.
That war started in 1898 or so, and it's still going on.
Rick Heeke
# Martin Eastburn wrote:
#
# # Good point. The 1911 was invented just for that for combat troops
# # in the Philippines when the opposing forces were up on drugs and
# # charging. It would physically knock them down.
#
# Are you totally sure about that? I thought the 1911 (based on the old .45
# Colt black powder round) was used (like the .45 Colt cartridge that preceded
# it) for it's ability in the hands of Cavalry troopers to take down a
# charging horse at (I think?) 200 yards.
#
# The fact that it worked so well to dispatch charging drug-crazed Moro
# tribesmen was jut a discovered added bonus of both cartridges. ;-)
See this article to get the story straight.
http://www.morolandhistory.com/Related%20Articles/Legend%20of%20Colt%2045.pdf
If that isn't enough, see this book:
MOROLAND: The History of Uncle Sam and the Moros 1899 - 1920
Robert A. Fulton is the author of both.
--
Rick
Petey
# On 2010-12-14 19:34:28 -0600, Petey said:
#
# # Martin Eastburn wrote:
# #
# # # Good point. The 1911 was invented just for that for combat troops
# # # in the Philippines when the opposing forces were up on drugs and
# # # charging. It would physically knock them down.
#
# See this article to get the story straight.
#
#
http://www.morolandhistory.com/Related%20Articles/Legend%20of%20Colt%2045.pdf
#
# If that isn't enough, see this book:
#
# MOROLAND: The History of Uncle Sam and the Moros 1899 - 1920
# Robert A. Fulton is the author of both.
#
Yeah, very interesting (but somewhat long and rambling read).
Still doesn't change the fact that John M. Browning originally designed the
1911 auto pistol for the Cavalry, *NOT* because of the shortcomings of the
..38 Long cartridge in the Philippines.
John Lemke
I love first hand anecdotal evidence. Can't be beat.
I was in the best gun shop in my region once, helping someone look for
a snubbie for his wife. The idea was to get her the heaviest, best
built .38 revolver we could. The idea being using .38 +P for a self-
defense load exclusively. Amongst consideration was a 2"barrelled
.357 magnum revolver.
It's hard to communicate your intentions to sales people sometimes.
No, I'm not wanting her to shoot full .357 loads in a small handgun.
I'm looking for something well built that will help her best control
recoil
when using .38 +P.
In the process of getting that understood the salesman I was talking
with told me, "Hey, there's nothing wrong with a .38 special. They
hurt really, really bad. They'll ruin your day. I know, I've been
shot
with one."
You'll never get a better endorsement than that from any gun magazine.
He also told me, by the way, that I'd never find any .38 Hydra-shoks
on their racks. He bought 'em up as soon as they came in the store.
crai...@yahoo.com
deer hunting. One of our group is extremely recoil sensitive (medical
reasons) and uses lightly loaded 125gr .357 that I would put at a
similar performance to a +P .38. I'm always amazed at the solid
performance that he experiences. We are in heavy brush country and
shots tend to be close distance, so this adds to his likely success.
I would add though, I believe a responsible hunter should be truly
proficient, well practiced and willing to wait for proper shots for
good placement to be hunting with minimal firepower like this. The
fellow mentioned above is a very capable shooter who competed at a
national level (that's what finally wrecked his wrist joints via
20,000 annual rounds in practice). High lung seems to be effective
for us... A shot that stuns the vertebrae (either by touching or via
tissue shock) seems ideal as it puts the deer down and they die before
regaining their ability to recover from the shock and their lungs
fill.
#From our 30 years and normally 10 of us hunting from the cabin, we've
seen enough results to reach some general conclusions.... It really
seems to come down to wound-channel performance. Bullets moving at a
velocity that allows them to stay together without over-expansion,
perforating both sides of the deer with decent placement are
guaranteed clean, ethical kills. A bullet that has seen success for
us but is little written of in recent years is the old half-jacket
style Speer JHP in 140gr .357 and 200gr in .41. It's very liberating
to go for a walk with a light handgun holstered and not be wrestling
with a long gun all of the time!
TimR
# #http://www.morolandhistory.com/Related%20Articles/Legend%20of%20Colt%...
# #
# # If that isn't enough, see this book:
# #
# # MOROLAND: The History of Uncle Sam and the Moros 1899 - 1920
# # Robert A. Fulton is the author of both.
# #
#
# Yeah, very interesting (but somewhat long and rambling read).
#
# Still doesn't change the fact that John M. Browning originally designed the
# 1911 auto pistol for the Cavalry, *NOT* because of the shortcomings of the
# ..38 Long cartridge in the Philippines.
#
It is indeed an interesting read and it is nice not to see the old
racial canard of drugged up troops repeated; without seeing the
sources it is hard to tell what other details are correct. Some of it
reads as likely myth.
The legends about the development of the 1911 are too entrenched to
ever die regardless of research and facts, I think.
No man portable weapon can be a guaranteed stopper. No handgun can
compare to the .45/70s and .30 Krags carried by the troops, all of
which fail to stop instantly depending on placement. The claims that
the .38 was seen to fail are probably true, the claims that .45 Colt
always stopped are of course bogus. Somebody who saw one failure and
one stop would be forever convinced of the superiority of the stopping
caliber, regardless of the facts.
It is claimed that the .45 ACP used by US Army caused more friendly
fire casualties than enemy over the history of its use. Probably so,
given the rarity of a handgun in actual combat.
Rick Heeke
while for the pistol and its cartridge to evolve.
Around 1900:
The pistol that you are describing, is the Browning designed Colt
M1900, which was in .38 ACP. and in spite of its name, has a.357
caliber bullet. It was not adopted. Browning had been working on
semi-auto pistol design since around 1890. The United States War
Department solicited designs of semiautomatic pistols in 1899 for the
cavalry, and the M1900, which had not yet reached production, was the
Colt submission, which was rejected.
Instead, the Army decided to purchase 1,000 of the Deutsche Waffen und
Munitionsfabriken (DWM) pistols, Lugers in 7.65mm bottleneck. I
believe that these were later converted to 9mm.
Browning continued to refine and develop his designs for Colt,
resulting in the following:
Model 1902 Sporting
Model 1902 Military
Model 1903 Pocket
and the M1905, which introduced the .45 ACP.
In November 1901 William Crozier was appointed brigadier-general and
succeeded General Buffington as Chief of Ordnance of the United States
Army.
In 1902, BGEN Crozier initiated work to find a suitable caliber
replacement for the old .38, based on cavalry concerns regarding the
Moros .
#From Wikipedia:
"The U.S. Cavalry had been buying and testing various handguns in the
late 1890s and early 20th century. The .45 Colt Single Action Army had
largely been replaced, even by some double action versions of the same.
The Cavalry had fielded some double action revolvers in .38 Long Colt.
They determined that the .38-caliber round was significantly less
effective against determined opponents, such as the warriors
encountered in the Moro Rebellion of the Philippine–American War, than
the .45 Colt. The current issue rifle at the time, the .30-40 Krag, had
also failed to stop Moro warriors effectively"
In 1904, after the Thompson-LaGarde pistol round effectiveness tests,
Colonel John T. Thompson said that the new pistol "should not be of
less than .45 caliber and would preferably be semi-automatic in
operation."
Browning designed the .45 ACP cartridge, in 1904, in response to the
above information, and then converted a .41 caliber semi-auto pistol
that he had been developing, to .45 ACP, the M1905 prototype.
In 1906, in yet another set of trials, (originally with six candidate
pistols) Ordnance tested an M1905 against a .45 ACP Luger. For reasons
not entirely clear, the DMW Luger dropped out of the competition,
after one of the 2 pistols failed, and the field was reduced to Savage
and Colt, with its Browning M1905. The surviving .45 ACP Luger is said
to be the most valuable pistol in the world.
There was another series of field tests, in 1907 thru 1911, between the
finalists, and their evolving designs.
In a test in late 1910, the Colt-Browning M1905 fired 6,000 rounds in
two days, without any malfunction, The Savage had about 37 malfunctions
in the same test.
With the final modifications, the Colt pistol was formally adopted by
the Army on March 29, 1911, as the M1911. The USMC adopted it in 1913.
Sorry this is so wordy. You can see that the genealogy of the M1911 is
a bit convoluted. This is my timeline, based on conflicted source
material.
And I think you can see that Browning designed the M1911 pistol for
the cavalry *because* of the Moros.
If you have any contradictory or tangential evidence or information,
I'd be delighted if you'd refer it to me.
--
Rick
Rubaiyat of Omar Bradley
revolvers of that time, when used with mil-spec ammo:
One of the most graphic references about lack of stopping power comes
from Colonel Louis A. LaGarde, M.D. in his classic text, Gunshot
Injuries, published in 1916.
LaGarde writes the following:
Antonio Caspi a prisoner on the Island of Samar, P.I. attempted to
escape on Oct. 26, 1905. He was shot four times at close range in a
hand-to-hand encounter by a .38 Colt's revolver loaded with U.S. Army
regulation ammunition. He was finally stunned by a blow on the
forehead from the butt end of a Springfield carbine. 1. Bullet entered
chest near right nipple, passed upward, backwards and outwards,
perforated lung and escaped through back passing through edge of right
scapula. 2. Bullet entered chest through left nipple, passed upwards,
backwards and inwards, perforating lung and lodging in subcutaneous
tissues. 3. Bullet entered chest near left shoulder, passing downwards
and backwards, perforating lung and lodged in back. 4. Bullet entered
through palm of left hand and passed through subcutaneous tissues and
escaped through wound on anterior surface of forearm. Treated at
military hospital, Borongan, Samar. Turned over to civil authorities
cured, Nov. 23, 1905.
Petey
#
# And I think you can see that Browning designed the M1911 pistol for
# the cavalry *because* of the Moros.
#
# If you have any contradictory or tangential evidence or information,
# I'd be delighted if you'd refer it to me.
No, he didn't.
The .45 ACP was designed specifically for it's ability to take down a
charging horse (at 200 yards?) by the Cavalry (the preeminent fighting force
of the U.S. Army at the turn of the last century), *NOT* because of it's
effectiveness on drug-crazed Moros.
As a matter of fact, the Phillipine American insurrection was almost over
(1913) when the 1911 was finally adopted by the U.S. Military. The fact
that it might have seen slight action against the Moros is ancillary to the
argument here.
Read Patrick Sweeney's "Big Book of the .45 ACP" for the real scoop. That's
one of the places (in my foggy memory banks) where I remember reading
something about this.
TimR
wrote:
1. Bullet entered
# chest near right nipple, passed upward, backwards and outwards,
# perforated lung and escaped through back passing through edge of right
# scapula.
Actually, not bad performance, from the old .38 (low power than the .
38 Special developed later.)
Sufficient penetration to reach the vitals, and in fact exited the
body after hitting shoulder bone.
2. Bullet entered chest through left nipple, passed upwards,
# backwards and inwards, perforating lung and lodging in subcutaneous
# tissues. 3. Bullet entered chest near left shoulder, passing downwards
# and backwards, perforating lung and lodged in back.
Two more lung shots that failed to exit the body. Still not bad, for
such low powered ammo, and certainly fatal without medical
intervention (or on a deer.)
But despite 3 of 4 shots being potentially fatal, none was an
immediate stop. And that is what all the research shows we can expect
of a handgun unless you hit CNS.
D. Staples
..22rf.
Rick Heeke
# Rick Heeke wrote:
# #
# # And I think you can see that Browning designed the M1911 pistol for
# # the cavalry *because* of the Moros.
# #
# # If you have any contradictory or tangential evidence or information,
# # I'd be delighted if you'd refer it to me.
#
# No, he didn't.
#
# The .45 ACP was designed specifically for it's ability to take down a
# charging horse (at 200 yards?) by the Cavalry (the preeminent fighting force
# of the U.S. Army at the turn of the last century), *NOT* because of it's
# effectiveness on drug-crazed Moros.
No, sir. It is an historical fact that the .45 ACP was designed by
John M Browning in 1904, in direct response to a request from the
Ordnance department, which resulted from two distinct events, 1.) the
Thompson-LaGarde tests, and 2.) the Moro .38 inefficacies.
Besides, the cavalry went to the .38 in 1873, because they did not
think that they would be facing mounted opponents any longer.
#
# As a matter of fact, the Phillipine American insurrection was almost over
# (1913) when the 1911 was finally adopted by the U.S. Military.
The Philippine Insurrection was from 1899 to 1902. The M1911 was
adopted nine years afterwards.
# The fact
# that it might have seen slight action against the Moros is ancillary to the
# argument here.
Not possible, since the cartridge wasn't designed until two years after
the Moro problem ended.
#
# Read Patrick Sweeney's "Big Book of the .45 ACP" for the real scoop.
Perhaps you are referring to the "Gun Digest Big Fat Book of the .45
ACP" by Patrick Sweeney.
Sorry, but it's not in there. The book is about 500 pages. Perhaps
you could identify which page you saw this information on.
# That's
# one of the places (in my foggy memory banks) where I remember reading
# something about this.
Gray Ghost
A charging horse at 200 yards over 4" military sights? What movie did you see
that in?
Petey
#
# A charging horse at 200 yards over 4" military sights? What movie did you
# see that in?
Well, maybe that was a bit of a stretch. The fact is that Thompson, Sharpe,
and LaGarde (I think it was?) used live cattle at a Chicago stock yard
(*NOT* live charging Moros) to test the effectiveness of the .45 ACP
cartridge should kind of point at the performance they were aiming for with
it.
Rick Heeke
# Gray Ghost wrote:
#
# #
# # A charging horse at 200 yards over 4" military sights? What movie did you
# # see that in?
#
# Well, maybe that was a bit of a stretch.
That is an egregious understatement.
# The fact is that Thompson, Sharpe,
# and LaGarde (I think it was?) used live cattle at a Chicago stock yard
# (*NOT* live charging Moros) to test the effectiveness of the .45 ACP
# cartridge should kind of point at the performance they were aiming for with
# it.
No, those tests were conducted in 1903, and the report came out in
March 1904, prior to the design of the .45 ACP. The .45 calber ammo
used in the test was .45 Colt, and .455 Webley. It was fired from
revolvers. They did use the .38 ACP in these tests.
Thompson did give Browning/Colt the requirements of the new .45 round,
around February, 1904.
At the time of the tests, Browning and Colt were working on a .41
caliber cartridge. They totally shifted their efforts to developing
the new .45 cartridge in February 1904.
The Thompson LaGarde Report
http://unblinkingeye.com/Guns/TLGR/tlgr.html
There was a thread some 6 years ago, about the ascientific aspects of
the tests.
I found it.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=19554
Make that 8 years ago.
And also, from Guns magazine, March 2007:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_3_53/ai_n27126481/
#
--
Rick
Rick Heeke
Errata
#
# Besides, the cavalry went to the .38 in 1873, because they did not
# think that they would be facing mounted opponents any longer.
Should read: "Besides, the cavalry went to the .38 in 1892, because
they did not
think that they would be facing mounted opponents any longer."
Army went to Colt SAA revolvers in .45 Colt (black powder) in 1873.
Interestingly, the trials that lead to this adoption used Colt SAAs
chambered in .44 American, which was an S&W cartridge.
--
Rick
Petey
# On 2010-12-28 20:27:35 -0600, Petey said:
#
# # Gray Ghost wrote:
# #
# # #
# # # A charging horse at 200 yards over 4" military sights? What movie did
# # # you see that in?
# #
# # Well, maybe that was a bit of a stretch.
#
# That is an egregious understatement.
So, you were there then, I assume?
The only reason I let this go (and stopped responding to you) was that
information found on the Internet on development of the .45 ACP cartridge
was different on each Web page you checked. Some backed up your
information, some mine. I hate using Wiki as a source, but as you can see
here, cattle were used as a media to test the effectiveness of the .45 ACP
at the behest of the U.S. Cavalry.
Cite from another site:
#John Moses Browning designed the .45 ACP round to meet the requirements of
#the US Cavalry which had been using .45 Colt. The cavalry wanted a round
#that could kill a horse, so that was the requirement, or so I have been
#told. Also I'm told, that his original design was a 200 gr. round, but the
#Army wanted a 230 gr ball bullet as its standard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.45_ACP