who made the best cc weapons in WW2?

[FrodeMk3]

Originally posted by Angus
Wikipedia = quick source for relatively reliable data.

Uhhh....no. It's main drawback is that with open-editing, Information in it is usually compromised or biased, particularly where an Agenda is concerned. Marshall's suspect because he was getting paid to do testing from ammo manufacturers. The Strasbourg tests' themselves are highly suspect. Alot of this probably needs to be re-argued with better data than what Wiki provided.

[GtoRA2]

Originally posted by 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...

The 45 is a better man stopper then the 9MM period. In ball the difference is small though.

The 9 really needs plus p loadings to keep up and I personally wouldn't shoot Plus P In a gun I wanted to last.

The only thing being debated at this point I think what is better for Military use.  

I think the way you want the debate is how this thread started. It degenerated into a battle about what caliber hand Gun cartridge is superior.

Viking saying it has to be the 9MM because thats what everyone uses.

(only as a pistol round. I don't think most armies use SMGs for anything but to equip vehicle crews and some special forces under some conditions) (( though it is a much easier round to teach someone to shoot, and since its a rarely used secondary weapon why spend money on extra training?)) ((theses are my opinions, Viking can clarify his position on his own))

Savage saying everyone using the 9MM doesn't mean it is good.  ( I agree)


My understanding was, we went to the 9MM because of pressure from other nato nations to standardize, and because it was hard to train new recruits who have never shot a gun how to handle a 1911. Plus most 1911s the government had were worn out.

In a handgun, the .45ACP round is a better man stopper.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

From Dr. Martin Fackler's review of Marshall and Sanow's book "Street Stoppers":


Comments Related To Specific Chapters

    CHAPTER 4 -- "Strasbourg Goat Tests." Here Marshall and Sanow reproduced the aforementioned anonymous "Strasbourg Tests." In analyzing these purported test results, Marshall and Sanow found an "extremely high rank correlation" with their very own "actual street results." Interestingly, if we compare the shot trajectories in the purported "Strasbourg Tests" with that of the most common shots in humans, we find:

        *

          A bullet fired into a goat from side to side, above the heart and behind the shoulder, will pass through or very near the major pulmonary vessels at a penetration depth of three to five inches, and must pass through the mediastinum, either near or through other very large blood vessels.
        *

          Conversely, with a shot passing front to back in the human torso, most bullets do not pass near or through the aorta or vena cava until more than six inches of penetration depth in a small slender person and at greater penetration depth in a larger person, or if penetrating at a significant angle.
        *

          Due to human anatomy, most shots from the front do not come near major blood vessels. Most go through perforating just lungs near their periphery or just loops of bowel.

    Given these facts, the near perfect correlation of Marshall's random torso "one-shot stops" with the purported goat shot results is strong evidence that the anonymous "Strasbourg Test" results have been fabricated or doctored; or the "one-shot stop" results have, or both have.

    Some might argue that the "Strasbourg Test" results could be from a real experiment; but one planned with incredible incompetence.5 A few things, however, do not ring true: for example, they mention great difficulty in finding enough goats for the study. Yet, strangely, each of the more than 600 goats found purportedly weighed within four pounds of 160 pounds. Anybody familiar with large animal experimentation realizes that here Marshall and Sanow apparently fell into another "too good to be true" trap.[/I]

[Viking]

GtoRA2, many armies use SMG's, especially those that still use battle rifles (like our army). The fact that everyone is using the 9 mm DOES mean it is good. Perhaps not the BEST, but definitely good. Saying that every army in the world are wrong and have been wrong for the better part of a century is beyond arrogant.

Modern 9 mm and .45 loads with advanced expanding bullets and over powered charges are completely irrelevant to this discussion. We are discussing military ball ammunition and preferably WWII vintage.





US Navy SEAL's with 9 mm MP-5 SMG's.

[GtoRA2]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
From Dr. Martin Fackler's review of Marshall and Sanow's book "Street Stoppers":


Comments Related To Specific Chapters

    CHAPTER 4 -- "Strasbourg Goat Tests." Here Marshall and Sanow reproduced the aforementioned anonymous "Strasbourg Tests." In analyzing these purported test results, Marshall and Sanow found an "extremely high rank correlation" with their very own "actual street results." Interestingly, if we compare the shot trajectories in the purported "Strasbourg Tests" with that of the most common shots in humans, we find:

        *

          A bullet fired into a goat from side to side, above the heart and behind the shoulder, will pass through or very near the major pulmonary vessels at a penetration depth of three to five inches, and must pass through the mediastinum, either near or through other very large blood vessels.
        *

          Conversely, with a shot passing front to back in the human torso, most bullets do not pass near or through the aorta or vena cava until more than six inches of penetration depth in a small slender person and at greater penetration depth in a larger person, or if penetrating at a significant angle.
        *

          Due to human anatomy, most shots from the front do not come near major blood vessels. Most go through perforating just lungs near their periphery or just loops of bowel.

    Given these facts, the near perfect correlation of Marshall's random torso "one-shot stops" with the purported goat shot results is strong evidence that the anonymous "Strasbourg Test" results have been fabricated or doctored; or the "one-shot stop" results have, or both have.

    Some might argue that the "Strasbourg Test" results could be from a real experiment; but one planned with incredible incompetence.5 A few things, however, do not ring true: for example, they mention great difficulty in finding enough goats for the study. Yet, strangely, each of the more than 600 goats found purportedly weighed within four pounds of 160 pounds. Anybody familiar with large animal experimentation realizes that here Marshall and Sanow apparently fell into another "too good to be true" trap.[/I]

LOL you gotta love the internet.

I wonder how cheap I can pick up that book lol.

[Viking]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
From Dr. Martin Fackler's review of Marshall and Sanow's book "Street Stoppers":


Comments Related To Specific Chapters

    CHAPTER 4 -- "Strasbourg Goat Tests." Here Marshall and Sanow reproduced the aforementioned anonymous "Strasbourg Tests." In analyzing these purported test results, Marshall and Sanow found an "extremely high rank correlation" with their very own "actual street results." Interestingly, if we compare the shot trajectories in the purported "Strasbourg Tests" with that of the most common shots in humans, we find:

        *

          A bullet fired into a goat from side to side, above the heart and behind the shoulder, will pass through or very near the major pulmonary vessels at a penetration depth of three to five inches, and must pass through the mediastinum, either near or through other very large blood vessels.
        *

          Conversely, with a shot passing front to back in the human torso, most bullets do not pass near or through the aorta or vena cava until more than six inches of penetration depth in a small slender person and at greater penetration depth in a larger person, or if penetrating at a significant angle.
        *

          Due to human anatomy, most shots from the front do not come near major blood vessels. Most go through perforating just lungs near their periphery or just loops of bowel.

    Given these facts, the near perfect correlation of Marshall's random torso "one-shot stops" with the purported goat shot results is strong evidence that the anonymous "Strasbourg Test" results have been fabricated or doctored; or the "one-shot stop" results have, or both have.

    Some might argue that the "Strasbourg Test" results could be from a real experiment; but one planned with incredible incompetence.5 A few things, however, do not ring true: for example, they mention great difficulty in finding enough goats for the study. Yet, strangely, each of the more than 600 goats found purportedly weighed within four pounds of 160 pounds. Anybody familiar with large animal experimentation realizes that here Marshall and Sanow apparently fell into another "too good to be true" trap.[/I]

We have already established that Dr. Fackler was very critical to the test results. However he does not present any evidence of his own, only his own conjecture, "interestingly" and "apparently". He also shows great lack of logic in his criticism, especially with regard to the 600 goats. How in ANY WAY does your post support your opinion that .45 ball ammunition is significantly better than 9 mm ball? It doesn't. Try again.

Good night Gentlemen.

[GtoRA2]

Originally posted by Viking
GtoRA2, many armies use SMG's, especially those that still use battle rifles (like our army). The fact that everyone is using the 9 mm DOES mean it is good. Perhaps not the BEST, but definitely good. Saying that every army in the world are wrong and have been wrong for the better part of a century is beyond arrogant.

Modern 9 mm and .45 loads with advanced expanding bullets and over powered charges are completely irrelevant to this discussion. We are discussing military ball ammunition and preferably WWII vintage.





US Navy SEAL's with 9 mm MP-5 SMG's.

(only as a pistol round. I don't think most armies use SMGs for anything but to equip vehicle crews and some special forces under some conditions)

I will qoute myself to make things clear.

See, I said "Most armies" "Vehicle crews"  and "some special forces under some conditions"

“Most armies” mean, well most, but not all, if I had meant ALL armies I would have said that, then you would have read it instead of pulling it out of your ass.  Hell I could be wrong here as well, so let me amend, replace “most” with ”many” just to be safe.

I also have not said every army in the world is wrong.  I am not an expert on the needs of anyone’s military including my own. I don’t think 9MM sub guns are bad weapons, though they are not going to be good at going through body armor. The 9MM round is fine, with that limitation in a machine gun because, well you shoot a guy with more then one round with a machine gun, hell if you need to you can shoot him 10 or 15 maybe even 20 rounds.

You can't do that with a pistol. Hell MOST WW2 9MM pistols didn't have more then 8 rounds making the 1911 the KING of WW2 handguns.

But that’s with the limitations of a handgun.  I do not think I gave my opinion on what weapon I thought was better of the WW2 SMGs. If I had to I would say the Tommy gun, because most of the 9MMs were stamped steel and the Thompson wasn't.

Now I will admit, I didn't know there were still armies out there equipping infantry with SMGs other then I thought probably the Israelis did. That is interesting, why does your nation chose to do this? (honestly curious here, if you don’t want to pollute the thread more feel free to PM )

And on a final note, I did again say, “Some Special forces under some conditions”.

SEALs are indeed “special Forces” They do use SMGs under some conditions, so you were just illustrating my point for me? Or do you think they only use SMGs?

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Viking
GtoRA2, many armies use SMG's, especially those that still use battle rifles (like our army). The fact that everyone is using the 9 mm DOES mean it is good. Perhaps not the BEST, but definitely good. Saying that every army in the world are wrong and have been wrong for the better part of a century is beyond arrogant.

Modern 9 mm and .45 loads with advanced expanding bullets and over powered charges are completely irrelevant to this discussion. We are discussing military ball ammunition and preferably WWII vintage.





US Navy SEAL's with 9 mm MP-5 SMG's.

No one uses the common ball ammo loads from World War II. What is used now is entirely different. Even the ball ammo, both civilian, and military. And during World War II, if you really want to go there, 9MM ball was weaker than it is now, where as 45 ball remains pretty much the same.

Besides, a 0.355" diameter bullet is less likely to hit vital organs or major blood vessels than a 0.452" diameter bullet, given the same basic penetration depth. Especially with non expanding ball ammunition.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by GtoRA2
LOL you gotta love the internet.

I wonder how cheap I can pick up that book lol.

As much as Marshall and Sanow have been discredited, the question is, why would anyone want to buy a copy of their book.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Viking
We have already established that Dr. Fackler was very critical to the test results. However he does not present any evidence of his own, only his own conjecture, "interestingly" and "apparently". He also shows great lack of logic in his criticism, especially with regard to the 600 goats. How in ANY WAY does your post support your opinion that .45 ball ammunition is significantly better than 9 mm ball? It doesn't. Try again.

Good night Gentlemen.

You have no idea who Fackler is, do you?

And if you read what Fackler says, he states that the permanent wound cavity is larger for the 45ACP, and that the difference in penetration is marginal (less than 1"). A larger permanent wound cavity with relatively equal penetration means the 45ACP is superior. Further, unless the 9MM bullet yaws, the temporary wound cavity is the same or larger with the 45ACP, meaning it is more disruptive instantly as well.

The 9MM bullet is also much more easily deflected off path by bone and clothing.

[GtoRA2]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
As much as Marshall and Sanow have been discredited, the question is, why would anyone want to buy a copy of their book.

Who would you recommend?

[GtoRA2]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
No one uses the common ball ammo loads from World War II. What is used now is entirely different. Even the ball ammo, both civilian, and military. And during World War II, if you really want to go there, 9MM ball was weaker than it is now, where as 45 ball remains pretty much the same.

Besides, a 0.355" diameter bullet is less likely to hit vital organs or major blood vessels than a 0.452" diameter bullet, given the same basic penetration depth. Especially with non expanding ball ammunition.

I knew Rifle ball rounds have changed, but I always assumed a 230 grain round nose copper jacket round from 1945 would be basically the same other then maybe a smaller amount of powder from having better powder so needing less.

If thats not the case, I guess I learned something today.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by GtoRA2
Who would you recommend?

Try Fackler. Unless you just want to buy the books, you can get most of it online with a few searches. You can even find some of the FBI and U.S. Army stuff, with relative ease.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by GtoRA2
I knew Rifle ball rounds have changed, but I always assumed a 230 grain round nose copper jacket round from 1945 would be basically the same other then maybe a smaller amount of powder from having better powder so needing less.

If thats not the case, I guess I learned something today.

You'd be amazed how little smokeless powder has changed. Most of the formulas are the same. Having reloaded ammo for close to 30 years, I'm pretty familiar with powder. Hodgdons got their start selling surplus 4831 powder that was used for 30-06 military stuff. They still sell 4831, and it's still pretty much the same, as are most other powders.

Modern ammunition often is getting higher velocity from the same pressure by changing the pressure curve slightly. The volume or amount of powder may be more or less (most often more, because the fuller the case, the more efficient and consistent the burn), to get greater velocity. But the 45ACP stuff hasn't needed to be "jacked up".

Bullets have changed as well, even the simple ball ammo for pistols, because bullet construction has changed. Further, modern 9MM NATO is most often pretty damned hot. Modern 5.56 NATO can be as well. A lot of people are not aware of the differences between mil spec and SAAMI standards, both for ammo pressure and chambers. Beware of using surplus ammo in your firearms, I've seen some nasty stuff happen, particularly with 5.56MM and 9MM. The older 308 and 30-06 stuff seems to be safe, as does the 45ACP stuff. Mostly because all three were plenty hot, even in civilian form, and because the weapons haven't changed.

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Viking
For close quarters combat I'd say the Russian bone-saw (PPSH) was the best, and contrary to Lasersailor's comment the 7.62x25 mm Tokarev round is about as powerful as the .45 ACP, but with better penetration. For medium range/assault the MP43/StG44 Sturmgewehr would be my choice. The best battle rifle was the M1 Garand IMHO.

PPSh-41/Suomi (a PPD clone for 9mm 08 with a drum magazine), StG43, SVT/AVT-40 or Garand M1.

StG-43 was a most revolutionary weapon.

Technologically the winners are PPSh-41 and SVT-40: first one was as simple as an iron, second one was 2 times cheaper then a bolt-action 91/30 3-line rifle.

What really made a War won were M-30 howitzers. 122mm.