Author Topic: who made the best cc weapons in WW2? (Read 8988 times)

moot · « **Reply #180 on:** January 08, 2008, 01:13:38 PM »

Viking, 9mm's a smaller round. It seems to be pretty simple physics that the larger round will have both a larger area of contact and more mass to impact through it. Even more so if the charge is consequent...

Charge · « **Reply #181 on:** January 08, 2008, 01:27:35 PM »

"Are you sure those 9 mm rounds didn't just tickle the Russians so they fell down laughing?"

I don't know really. I may well be that they died of laughter...

However, the setting leads me to think that the distance was such that they could not initially spot the shooter and could not think of taking him out by assault.

AFAIK the M31 design was based on a specification defining a cavalry carabine capable of accurate firing up to 200 meters (~200yds).

-C+

Viking · « **Reply #182 on:** January 08, 2008, 03:23:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by moot
Viking, 9mm's a smaller round. It seems to be pretty simple physics that the larger round will have both a larger area of contact and more mass to impact through it. Even more so if the charge is consequent...

Yes, but the 9 mm has significantly higher muzzle velocity than the .45 which makes up for the lack of mass. Just look at GtoRA2 post; in military ball ammunition there is little to chose between the 9 mm and .45 with regard to stopping power, but the 9 mm has better penetration, less recoil and you can carry more of it. It just simply is better for military application, and the "carry more" advantage goes all the way up the logistics chain.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #183 on:** January 08, 2008, 03:39:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
Yes, but the 9 mm has significantly higher muzzle velocity than the .45 which makes up for the lack of mass. Just look at GtoRA2 post; in military ball ammunition there is little to chose between the 9 mm and .45 with regard to stopping power, but the 9 mm has better penetration, less recoil and you can carry more of it. It just simply is better for military application, and the "carry more" advantage goes all the way up the logistics chain.

The "Carry More" school of thought was a direct reason for many deaths of US soldiers during Vietnam.

Viking · « **Reply #184 on:** January 08, 2008, 03:55:44 PM »

Or so you say.

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #185 on:** January 08, 2008, 04:03:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
Yes, but the 9 mm has significantly higher muzzle velocity than the .45 which makes up for the lack of mass. Just look at GtoRA2 post; in military ball ammunition there is little to chose between the 9 mm and .45 with regard to stopping power, but the 9 mm has better penetration, less recoil and you can carry more of it. It just simply is better for military application, and the "carry more" advantage goes all the way up the logistics chain.

No, velocity DOES NOT make up for a lack of size and mass when it comes to projectiles. Diameter is a HUGE factor, ESPECIALLY when dealing with bullets that do not expand. You should look into Taylor's knockout factor. Larger, heavier, slower moving bullets do more damage and stop the target faster, especially when dealing with bullets that do not expand.

Carrying more ammunition is NOT a good option. If you NEED more ammunition because you have to shoot your opponent more times, then the ammunition is not good ammunition. If the first round you hit your opponent with doesn't stop him, he gets another chance to kill you. If he succeeds, you won't be needing the extra ammunition.

Viking · « **Reply #186 on:** January 08, 2008, 04:27:26 PM »

Why don't you just read GtoRA2's post? The two cartridges have virtually identical energy at the muzzle and stopping power. .45 ball took 13.84 seconds to incapacitate the animal, 9 mm ball took 14.40 seconds. A 4% difference in stopping power. The facts refute your argument.

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #187 on:** January 08, 2008, 04:46:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
Why don't you just read GtoRA2's post? The two cartridges have virtually identical energy at the muzzle and stopping power. .45 ball took 13.84 seconds to incapacitate the animal, 9 mm P took 14.40 seconds. A 4% difference in stopping power. The facts refute your argument.

I DID read it. I've read it before. You're looking at tests under laboratory conditions. That's not real world testing. It leaves out all sorts of factors.

The energy factor you're quoting is just ONE mathematical theory, and one that hasn't been proven infallible. Ignoring the diameter of the bullet is ignoring a major factor in determining how much damage is actually done.

In the REAL world, especially on human targets (war happens between humans mostly, and not too much between restrained animals), it has been shown that 35 caliber bullets need to exceed 1400 feet per second to equal the stopping power of 45 caliber bullets at 850 feet per second. The fact is, 9MM can't do that. The 357 Magnum can, but the 9MM can not, nor can the 38 Special. Real world evidence from human on human shooting shows your "facts" can not be supported by real shooting evidence.

You seem to want to discount law enforcement and civilian evidence, when in fact, if you are dealing with either hand guns or SMG's, you're dealing with VERY similar scenarios and environments between law enforcement/civilian and military. Hand guns and SMG's come in to play mostly in CQB, under 20 yards, and mostly under 25 feet, as well as restricted areas such as urban areas. In that arena, 9MM has been found wanting, and that is why the 10MM and 40 Short and Weak came about. More bullet diameter, and more bullet weight, to stop your opponent more quickly. And even the 40 Short and Weak has been found marginal.

Sorry, carrying more smaller less effective bullets is NOT a good solution. By the way, 5.56 was originally developed as a cartridge for a light weight survival rifle for the USAF, not as a main battle rifle. It was adopted for the most part by a man who is not at all well respected when it comes to military weapons. Robert McNamara, and his group of "whiz kids" chosen by Kennedy, were more responsible for adopting the 5.56 NATO round and the M-16 that fired it than were the Army and experienced infantry soldiers. It didn't really work all that well either.

Viking · « **Reply #188 on:** January 08, 2008, 04:55:26 PM »

I'm afraid I simply don't believe you. The facts do not support your argument and the armies of the world do not agree with you. If I shot you in the chest with either a 9 mm or .45 pistol you would go down really quick. Negligible difference.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #189 on:** January 08, 2008, 04:55:54 PM »

And this is why I wrote

Quote

No. Nothing besides the .50 calibers are as powerful as .45's under 50 yards. Don't bother replying to this, it's not up for argument.

In the first couple of posts.

I KNEW that logic and the real world wouldn't sway anyone who thought otherwise. So I decided not to bother arguing it. You could go on for pages, Viking will never want to pull his head out of his ass.

john9001 · « **Reply #190 on:** January 08, 2008, 04:59:18 PM »

Robert McNamara is the antichrist, he should be tried for treason.

Viking · « **Reply #191 on:** January 08, 2008, 05:02:38 PM »

I'm afraid your opinions are not enough to sway mine. Show me one piece of documentation, demonstration or other evidence that the .45 FMJ is significantly more powerful than the 9 mm FMJ. GtoRA2 provided convincing documentation that the difference is negligible.

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #192 on:** January 08, 2008, 05:04:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
I'm afraid I simply don't believe you. The facts do not support your argument and the armies of the world do not agree with you. If I shot you in the chest with either a 9 mm or .45 pistol you would go down really quick. Negligible difference.

Sorry, that is NOT necessarily a fact at all. You need to educate yourself with regards to the statistics regarding stopping power (as you seem to be fond of statistics). The 9MM is NOT noted for one shot stops, and the 45 is, in fact the 45 is rated behind only the 357 Magnum when it comes to one shot stops, among commonly used cartridges.

The facts from Iraq (that is war, with a military involved, is it not?) do not support your position. The troops constantly complain that the 9MM is not effective against insurgents in CQB. They do in fact support my position that the 9MM is NOT really effective, not nearly so much as many like you would like to believe.

The armies of the world make a lot of choices in the name of economy and expedience. They DO NOT ALWAYS choose the best or most effective weapon or component. It is not uncommon for troops to be sent into battle with less than adequate equipment and weapons. Not at all. And history proves that statement out.

Viking · « **Reply #193 on:** January 08, 2008, 05:06:31 PM »

Show me some documentation. Show me the facts. Prove me wrong.

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #194 on:** January 08, 2008, 05:11:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
And this is why I wrote

In the first couple of posts.

I KNEW that logic and the real world wouldn't sway anyone who thought otherwise. So I decided not to bother arguing it. You could go on for pages, Viking will never want to pull his head out of his ass.

From that site I linked

.357 Mag 158-gr JSP 1224 FPS 12.80 AIT 525.75 FT/LBS .8591 LB.Sec

Thats the worst .357 tested. IT is far better then the .45ACP FMJ

The best JHPs in .357 are fastee at putting a goat down then both the .45 ACP and 9MM and by a larger margen then the .45 from the 9MM.