who made the best cc weapons in WW2?

[Viking]

From the wiki article on the .45 ACP round:


"Even in its non-expanding full metal jacket (FMJ) version, the .45 ACP cartridge has a reputation for effectiveness against human targets because its large diameter creates a deep and substantial permanent wound channel, although some writers, such as the published work of Marshall and Sanow, have cast the reputation of .45 ACP being the "best" at this task into doubt. Marshall & Sanow's work, while receiving heavy criticism from Dr. Fackler, still show the .45 ACP, loaded with the best hollowpoint bullets, to be a "one shot kill", somewhat better than the 9mm Luger, equal with the .40 S&W, and only a few percentage points behind the "King" of the Marshall and Sanow study - the .357 Magnum. It does not, however, match up to the 9mm Luger, the .40 S&W or the .357 Magnum without the best hollowpoint bullets. The .45 ACP averages 78.5% "one shot kill" while the 9mm Luger averages 87%, the .357 Magnum averages 89.5% with the .40 S&W on top with 91.5% average "one shot kill". The .45 ACP remains one of the top handgun cartridges for stopping power."

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Viking
From the wiki article on the .45 ACP round:


"Even in its non-expanding full metal jacket (FMJ) version, the .45 ACP cartridge has a reputation for effectiveness against human targets because its large diameter creates a deep and substantial permanent wound channel, although some writers, such as the published work of Marshall and Sanow, have cast the reputation of .45 ACP being the "best" at this task into doubt. Marshall & Sanow's work, while receiving heavy criticism from Dr. Fackler, still show the .45 ACP, loaded with the best hollowpoint bullets, to be a "one shot kill", somewhat better than the 9mm Luger, equal with the .40 S&W, and only a few percentage points behind the "King" of the Marshall and Sanow study - the .357 Magnum. It does not, however, match up to the 9mm Luger, the .40 S&W or the .357 Magnum without the best hollowpoint bullets. The .45 ACP averages 78.5% "one shot kill" while the 9mm Luger averages 87%, the .357 Magnum averages 89.5% with the .40 S&W on top with 91.5% average "one shot kill". The .45 ACP remains one of the top handgun cartridges for stopping power."

For crying out loud, wikipedia is NOT a reliable source for anything. Get some REAL books for pete's sake. Or at least take the trouble of actually looking up Fackler, Marshall and Sanow, or some of the other people who have done the studies. As opposed to quoting an easily altered and unverified Internet "public encyclopedia".

And if you think that the 40 Short and Weak is a better stopper than a 357 Magnum, you are sadly deluded, and far beyond hope.

By the way, a one shot kill means nothing, because all that means is a person shot once eventually died. It's how fast you stop them.

And a goat is by no means even close in comparison to a human being. The average human being that is shot is between 150 and 180 pounds, in reasonable shape, and full of adrenaline. A goat in a lab test is none of the above.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by GtoRA2
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.

And again, goats in no way replicate the average human involved in a shooting. Size, weight, height, and build are not even close. And tied up goats don't often have a whole lot of adrenaline pumping through them either.

[Viking]

I consider it a far more reliable source than YOU. Why don't you post some documentation that supports your opinion? I'm getting tired of your wind.

[Viking]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
And again, goats in no way replicate the average human involved in a shooting. Size, weight, height, and build are not even close. And tied up goats don't often have a whole lot of adrenaline pumping through them either.

Actually they chose goats because they in fact ARE very similar to humans in size, weight, height and build. You need to actually READ the test report.



"The animals selected for testing were French Alpine Goats. These animals were chosen
becauseth eir weight, lung capacitya nd thoracic cage dimensionsa re very similar to those
of man. All of the goats were of male gender. These were large, adult animals ranging in
weight from 156 to 164 pounds. To reduce the chance of adversely affecting the test
results, the goats were certified to be free of a number of serious diseases such as
tuberculosis and pneumonia prior to purchase. The health ofthe animals was continually
monitored throughout the tests by an in-house veterinarian."

[GtoRA2]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
And again, goats in no way replicate the average human involved in a shooting. Size, weight, height, and build are not even close. And tied up goats don't often have a whole lot of adrenaline pumping through them either.

Savage,
  I agree with you about the test not being the best example of how a human will be effected by these rounds. I agree with you in the real world you will get other results but I think this series of tests gives a pretty decent general info on the rounds they tested. I have read the other studies(over the years), the strasbourg test just happend to be the first one I found when I searched today.

I do think the data, is interesting, it shows what the rounds do to a goat, in a very controlled way when shot through the same type and size of animals lungs.

You are right in it totaly does not take into acount the damage done to the will of a person to fight when hit some where less critical then both lungs.

A .45 in the leg or arm is going to take the fight out of a person better then a 9MM.  

I do not think that Data is without value.


My take on the Data is ball ammo sucks and we should be giving our soldiers better ammo.

[Viking]

Ball ammo is the only legal ammo for military use. Expanding bullets are outlawed by international law.

[john9001]

henceforth, the 9mm parabellum shall be know as the goat killer.


what is called"ball ammo" by the military is a full metal jacket, FMJ, that is part of the Geneva conventions.

[Viking]

The .45 too. It was an amazing 4% better at killing goats.

[GtoRA2]

Originally posted by Viking
Ball ammo is the only legal ammo for military use. Expanding bullets are outlawed by international law.

Oh I know that.

I do not agree.

Why is wounding someone better then killing them in war? Our cops use JHP rounds on US citizens every day. If our government shoots us with them I see no reason why we should not give them to our troops as well. Especialy if it saves some of their lives.

[FrodeMk3]

Originally posted by Viking
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.

Okay, This is a rather long read, but-well worth the time, considering the subject.http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/ayoob93.html

There is one problem with ALL the data that we're putting up here. All of these tests' are being done using modern ammo, with better propellants' that were available during  WWII. To be fair, this should be compared with Ammo manufactured to the specs of that time (I.E. no +P loadings.) This conversation origanally started about WWII weapons, after all.

[Angus]

So what if a 9mm is 5% better or worse at killing some dummy at a given range with one round.
Why haven't you guys come around to thinking of the weapon and it's application.
My only WW2 ones tried were the M1 and the Tommy, and hell, there was no comparison if the barrel had to be turned swiftly. The Tommy absolutely rocks. And 2 bullets swiftly make up some % difference, say alone if they are 5!
Anyway, Isn't a .45 through your gut a roughly equal stopping power as a 9mm is? Did you all look at the cartridges? It's a murderous thing, many times as big as I normally use to pop a bull!
What I think that should be the debate is perhaps a comparison between..say the Tommy, The Smeisser, the StG (well a tad bigger) and perhaps the Sten? If you want to go into rifles you have the M1, and then bigger stuff like the Browning...or the Bren...etc...

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Viking
I consider it a far more reliable source than YOU. Why don't you post some documentation that supports your opinion? I'm getting tired of your wind.

And I tire of yours. Wikipedia is a joke, and yet despite being shown this in multiple threads, you are lazy enough to continue to parrot the drivel you find there.

[Angus]

Wikipedia = quick source for relatively reliable data.

[Viking]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
And I tire of yours. Wikipedia is a joke, and yet despite being shown this in multiple threads, you are lazy enough to continue to parrot the drivel you find there.

I still don't see any documentation supporting your opinion. Now, you may continue with your personal attacks and sly remarks. It's probably all you have left to offer.