Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: B@tfinkV on January 06, 2008, 07:59:02 PM
-
close combat weapons im talking rifles and side arms. thompsons, M1, enfield, gw3 whatever. i am not an expert but i have played medal of honor a bit. from my stupid virtual experiences i would say i like the M1 Garand rifle and that german MP submachine gun. the Garand seems like an absolute beast with its rate of fire and acuracy. must have been a huge advantage fighting any ill equiped enemy, well from these silly games i've played anyhow.
but what was it like in real life? im sure the best close combat weapons must have been made by either the Germans or the Americans.
who made the best weapons looking back with the hindsight we have now?
-
If those games are any indications, the M1, MP44 and FG42 or that russian drum-magazine PPSH to a lesser degree were those guns I'd most want in a WWII firefight..
-
Gonna boil down to what it's designed for and opinion.
I'm prejudiced toward American made arms, I freely admit. I like the Garand as a battle rifle, the M1A1 as a carbine, the Thompson as an SMG and the Colt 45 as a pistol ....
But the Germans made some rather awesome weapons ... including what most consider the first modern assault rifle. And the Brits made some special purpose weapons for the SAS that blow my mind.
-
For Close fighting I think a spamgun, otherwise known as a PPSH would be best.
-
Each has a specialized role. Comparing them too closely would be actually like comparing apples to oranges.
For CQB, there are a few to pick from. It's hard to argue with the pure power and destruction of the Tommy Gun. But, it does have a limited range and controllability. The M3 is similar, but not quite as good.
The PPSH doesn't have too much damage to it, but it does put quite a lot of rounds a good distance downrange.
-
i can never complete a level without the acuracy of a rifle. the rate of fire of the garand seems to have allowed almost 3-4 rounds/sec for 'firing from the hip' and still leaves you the option to take cover and take the distant headshot first time before setting the alarm off.
if you could only take one weapon and a pistol, would you take the spamgun and sacrifice the medium sniping range of the garand?
and as for apples and oranges, why wouldnt you compare them? hmm im hungry but also a bit dry, ill take an orange now. same with weapons of course, so the question is only a matter of your own opinions whatever your experience.
-
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.
-
Maybe not apples and oranges, but personal opinion. Overall, the Thompson and the PPSH were roughly equal. However, they both performed differently.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
The PPSH doesn't have too much damage to it, but it does put quite a lot of rounds a good distance downrange.
Right, that's why the German's cherished a captured one. So much so, they designated it the the MP41 when they converted them to 9mm (MP717's for the one's that weren't converted). Once they eliminated the drum and went to the box mag's, this was equipped Division wide and became tough to overcome in CQC.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Right, that's why the German's cherished a captured one. So much so, they designated it the MP717. Once they eliminated the drum and went to the box mag's, this was equipped Division wide and became tough to overcome in CQC.
They cherished a captured one because the Mp40 was merely mediocre. That doesn't say anything about the PPSH over the Thompson.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
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.
Get over yourself. It's on. Just because. :D
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
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.
As usual your knowledge is ... lacking (to use a polite term).
Edit: Both the .45 ACP and 7.62 Tokarev have 400+ foot pounds of muzzle energy with standard loads. The Tokarev however has a much higher muzzle velocity and greater penetration. The Tokarev is usually compared to the .357 round when talking about penetration and recoil.
-
Instead of the PPSh look at Suomi KP31 (or M/31):)
-
Personally, I thought the Gewehr 43 was a pretty interesting design. Sure, it didn't have the punch of an M1, but it was semi-auto. I'm not sure of the round it fired though. Anyone know?
Also, the Sten series was a cool looking gun. Pretty sure magazine was 32 rounds. Sorta like a Tommy gun, IMHO.
As for the best weapon, IMHO, M1 Garand. Good mix of accuracy, punch, and rate of fire.
The weapon the Germans made the most of is, IMHO, the MP40 or Karbiner 98k.
Also, the Soviets had a semi-auto rifle that fired the 7.62 round, can't think of the name though.
-
Originally posted by SuBWaYCH
Also, the Soviets had a semi-auto rifle that fired the 7.62 round, can't think of the name though.
Mosin-Nagant?
-
Johnson rifle
Johnson LMG
Johnson SMG
I wounder how many service men died while being hammed down on by germans after hearing that retarded "PING, im highly vulnerable now, shoot me while i reload" the garand had.
Retards.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Mosin-Nagant?
Maybe thats what i'm thinking of.
<---Having brain block, Sunday night, go back to school at 7:00 tomorrow :rolleyes:.
-
Originally posted by SuBWaYCH
Personally, I thought the Gewehr 43 was a pretty interesting design. Sure, it didn't have the punch of an M1, but it was semi-auto. I'm not sure of the round it fired though. Anyone know?
Also, the Sten series was a cool looking gun. Pretty sure magazine was 32 rounds. Sorta like a Tommy gun, IMHO.
As for the best weapon, IMHO, M1 Garand. Good mix of accuracy, punch, and rate of fire.
The weapon the Germans made the most of is, IMHO, the MP40 or Karbiner 98k.
Also, the Soviets had a semi-auto rifle that fired the 7.62 round, can't think of the name though.
It fired the 8mm (7.92x58mm). It packed a pretty good punch. However, the modern day 8mm is more powerful than the .30-06, but I once saw a source (and have been unable to find it again) that said the 8mm used in WW2 didn't move as fast, and was thus not as powerful.
The later stens were decent guns, but the early ones were abysmal failures.
The Soviet gun you're thinking of was the SVT-40. Also, the G43 was pretty good for regular battlefield, but it had accuracy issues that haunted it when they tried to make a sniper out of it.
-
Originally posted by BaDkaRmA158Th
Johnson rifle
Johnson LMG
Johnson SMG
I wounder how many service men died while being hammed down on by germans after hearing that retarded "PING, im highly vulnerable now, shoot me while i reload" the garand had.
Retards.
This might be quite possibly, the MOST CLASSLESS post I have ever seen on an Internet Forum.
-
B.A.R.
-
Originally posted by BaDkaRmA158Th
I wounder how many service men died while being hammed down on by germans after hearing that retarded "PING, im highly vulnerable now, shoot me while i reload" the garand had.
Retards.
I think that's a hyped up problem. The US soldier would have to be alone for it to be an advantage to the Germans. ALL the Americans in a squad wouldn't need to reload at the same time.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
B.A.R.
Another good one.
One hell of a gun on the Pacific front.
Fired .30 Cal, correct?
-
Originally posted by BaDkaRmA158Th
Johnson rifle
Johnson LMG
Johnson SMG
I wounder how many service men died while being hammed down on by germans after hearing that retarded "PING, im highly vulnerable now, shoot me while i reload" the garand had.
Retards.
None. It is a myth that service men were killed because of the clip ejection sound. First you have to take into account the volume of the clip compared to the rest of the battlefield. With no hearing protection, it would be pretty hard to pick up from more than 30-40 yards out.
Next you have to take into account the speed with which garands can be reloaded. The garand could be reloaded much faster than all other weapons on the battlefield.
Finally, you have to take into account that it is very easy to reproduce the ejection sound by hand. If this myth was valid (which it really isn't), it'd be easy enough to trick the enemy into thinking you are out.
-
I wounder how many service men died while being hammed down on by germans after hearing that retarded "PING, im highly vulnerable now, shoot me while i reload"
====
Based on the number of Krauts I have hammered in CoD after reloading my mighty Garand I would hazard a guess........
hmm.....................
ZERO
Now move along kid, yer buggin me.
-
The BAR was far too heavy. The Bren Gun was better, but still too heavy.
-
Bren gun was good for supporting infantry when you couldn't carry somethin' REALLY heavy, like a .30 cal.
As for most innovative design, i'd have to give it to the STG44/MP44. First assault rifle ever made.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Next you have to take into account the speed with which garands can be reloaded. The garand could be reloaded much faster than all other weapons on the battlefield.
Nonsense. A lot of other weapons were faster to reload than the M1 Garand. Even if we limit the selection to rifles the Enfield was fed by removable magazines and thus much faster to reload than clip or strip fed fixed magazines.
-
Remember, the gun may be heavy, but that means less recoil. On a machine gun, that's not such a bad thing. Especially since you wouldn't randomly assign it to the smallest guy in your squad.
The BAR was really cool, as were most of these weapons. But we're discussing SMG's.
Like I said, you can take your pick of Tommy and PPSH. It's all personal opinion from there.
Originally posted by Viking
Nonsense. A lot of other weapons were faster to reload than the M1 Garand. Even if we limit the selection to rifles the Enfield was fed by removable magazines and thus much faster to reload than clip or strip fed fixed magazines.
Remember, there is no magazine to take out in the garand. When you are empty, you only have to put bullets in.
And then when you place a new clip in the garand, it automatically closes itself. Sometimes, maybe 1/10 you have to help it along.
-
Originally posted by BaDkaRmA158Th
I wonder how many service men died while being hammered down on by Germans after hearing that retarded "PING, im highly vulnerable now, shoot me while i reload" the Garand had.
Retards.
Interesting observation. Hopefully there was another GI on one side or another (or both) that hadn't gone "ping" yet. But if one was to look for a singular weakness it surely had to be the archaic spring clips. Guess it was cheaper to manufacture that way. But it remains one of the most successful military rifles, worldwide, to date, even seeing limited use during the Vietnam conflict and still enjoys wide popularity amongst collectors.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
This might be quite possibly, the MOST CLASSLESS post I have ever seen on an Internet Forum.
If it is, you've lead a sheltered life. May not have been the smartest but I've seen both stupider and ruder. ;)
Just sayin.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Remember, there is no magazine to take out in the garand. When you are empty, you only have to put bullets in.
And then when you place a new clip in the garand, it automatically closes itself. Sometimes, maybe 1/10 you have to help it along.
All battle rifles of that era was clip/strip fed like that (except the Enfield).
-
I heard on the history channel (great source I know :rolleyes:) that some American soldiers would pick up one of their empty clips and throw it down to get that *ping* sound, then they'd shoot the Germans that popped up looking.
-
Originally posted by Viking
All battle rifles of that era was clip/strip fed like that (except the Enfield).
It's pretty safe to say that we can all tell that you've never done these things.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
It's pretty safe to say that we can all tell that you've never done these things.
You'd be wrong.
Don't get me wrong though, the Garand was great and its action was ingenious.
-
Here's how you load the Mauser K98:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW1aftznVKI
-
I can easily pick out the one action less that the garand has to do to reload.
What is it?
-
Number of actions is irrelevant. The total time of all actions required is what matters.
-
Originally posted by SuBWaYCH
Another good one.
One hell of a gun on the Pacific front.
Fired .30 Cal, correct?
Im sure it was a hell of a weapon on all fronts:D
Fired 30-06, same as the Garand and our .30 cal mgs at the time.
-
The difference being that in the garand, you don't have to close the bolt. The garand does it by itself. Because of that, the garand was the fastest to reload on the battlefield.
-
Loading Garand:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQe5zz3l8vc
-
Another one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvzZgjY8Ntg&NR=1
Not too lucky with that one though.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Nonsense. A lot of other weapons were faster to reload than the M1 Garand. Even if we limit the selection to rifles the Enfield was fed by removable magazines and thus much faster to reload than clip or strip fed fixed magazines.
Im not sure I would go much faster, if even faster at all.
-
Originally posted by BaDkaRmA158Th
Johnson rifle
Johnson LMG
Johnson SMG
I wounder how many service men died while being hammed down on by germans after hearing that retarded "PING, im highly vulnerable now, shoot me while i reload" the garand had.
Retards.
Tell you what, genius. My Dad used to keep those empty clips in his pocket and toss them so he could shoot people who charged him thinking he was reloading. And he wasn't alone in doing that, either.
As Patton said, the M1 Garand was quite possibly the finest battle implement ever devised by man.
The Thompson was pretty damned good as well, although extremely expensive and sort of heavy.
The Colt 1911 pistol, chambered in 45 ACP remained in service for some 70+ years, and in fact really never has been completely withdrawn from service.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
As Patton said, the M1 Garand was quite possibly the finest battle implement ever devised by man.
The Thompson was pretty damned good as well, although extremely expensive and sort of heavy.
The Colt 1911 pistol, chambered in 45 ACP remained in service for some 70+ years, and in fact really never has been completely withdrawn from service.
Seems we're fans of the same WWII personal arms hardware. ;)
Cod I love me some older Colt, though. :D
-
Originally posted by Viking
Loading Garand:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQe5zz3l8vc
I own garands. Notice the use of an "S". This signifies plural. Meaning more than one in the english language.
Besides just the action of reloading, the total time from shot to shot in reloading would be MUCH longer for the other bolt action rifles. Depending on the rifle and the settings, a bolt action rifle may even close the bolt on an empty gun. And then based on the K98k action (which I own several), it'll stay open when empty. However, that doesn't stop you from trying to close it, and wasting precious time til you actually start reloading.
This isn't a problem on the Garand.
-
Originally posted by Viking
The BAR was far too heavy. The Bren Gun was better, but still too heavy.
As a true light squad automatic weapon, the BAR was without peer. The BAR is not really all that heavy, unless of course you compare it to some of the modern weapons that are made of lighter materials, and also use smaller and less powerful ammunition.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Another one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvzZgjY8Ntg&NR=1
Not too lucky with that one though.
That's a springfield modern created Garand chambered in .308. There were several differences in the action. Namely pressing down on the follower on that new model DOES NOT release the bolt to close.
Any serviceman who has ever used a real Garand can tell you about "Garand Thumb." I in fact, caught my thumb once.
-
Originally posted by Viking
All battle rifles of that era was clip/strip fed like that (except the Enfield).
The MP44 seems more of a rifle than a "machine pistol" to me.
-
Originally posted by Slash27
The MP44 seems more of a rifle than a "machine pistol" to me.
Yes it was later renamed to StG44. It's not a battle rifle though. It's an assault rifle.
And to amend by previous posts, most Enfields had fixed magazines too, with strip loading.
-
Originally posted by Slash27
The MP44 seems more of a rifle than a "machine pistol" to me.
MP was merely a name, due to Hitler's proclamation that development should only be focused on SMG's. Upon actually testing it himself, he issued a new name of Sturmgewehr (Assault Rifle) STG-44.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Seems we're fans of the same WWII personal arms hardware. ;)
Cod I love me some older Colt, though. :D
They're not the only ones I'm a fan of, but for the most part, having handled a lot of the hardware available at the time, I find that in my opinion, those are among the most effective and reliable.
I do like the Mauser rifle a great deal (as well as the Enfield and especially the Springfield bolt actions that I find to be powerful as well), the Walther pistol, and the Luger too. Not too big a fan of the Japanese or Russian stuff. The German assault rifle was an innovation all unto itself.
-
First of all, are you meaning a Real-life comparison, or one made for Video games? There is quite some difference between RL and Video games.
For the most part, I'm kinda like Arlo, My bias tends' to American iron. I'd certainly pick a Garand for myself, It's got a great long-range cartridge (.30-06) and is very accurate, especially for a Mass-produced service rifle. There were Semi-automatic rifles' made by other countries and issued (The Soviet SVT-40 and the german G-41 come to mind) but not as widespread as the Garand.
For Sub-guns, it starts' to become more of a matter of application. The Thompson, in it's various forms, fired the .45 ACP cartridge, which gave each round very good stopping power. But many argue that the Thompson was Heavy and over-complicated for what it was; But having a heavier gun while firing full-auto would help control recoil, thus helping your aim. However, you can compare the Tommy with something like the MP-40, which fired the 9mm Para. There are a lot of accounts' that speak highly of the MP-40, which equipped quite a few of the Wehrmacht during WWII. The Brits' built the sten, which also fired the 9mm(Useful, you could use captured german ammo, If you were running short). The Sten was an emergency design, hashed out right after Dunkirk, but was succesful enough that it's improved versions' were used for some time after WWII.
The PPsH-41 was a good, sound, simple design, that was mass produced and issued in huge numbers. It did have a very high rate of fire(900-1100 rpm.) But it did fire a smaller cartridge, with somewhat less knockdown power than the 9mm or the .45ACP.
For Squad-Automatic weapons' and MMG's, There were so many used we could start a whole 'nother thread on this topic alone. But some have said that the Bren gun (UK) was one of the best LMG's used in the war, and the German MG-34 and MG-42 were two of the first, and best, GPMG's used.
Tell ya what, Bat, since my fingers' and wrists' are starting to get tired, I'll throw you some links' to sites to check out.
http://www.geocities.com/pizzatest/panzerfaust7.htm#mp38 (Good site on German infantry arms.)
http://www.secondworldwarhistory.com/worldwar2_weapons.asp (A general weapons' guide)
http://hk.geocities.com/guncobook/03.html (A lot of good color plates, showing different models, but not much hard info)
At this point, I can merely leave you to pick out the different models' you wish to research, and google them up yourself, Bat-There's quite a few there.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Any serviceman who has ever used a real Garand can tell you about "Garand Thumb." I in fact, caught my thumb once.
Musta slowed your reload/fire time. In what service? ;)
-
Originally posted by Viking
Yes it was later renamed to StG44. It's not a battle rifle though. It's an assault rifle.
ah, the first assault rifle isnt it?
-
Arguably, yes.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Musta slowed your reload/fire time. In what service? ;)
No service. I only ever did catch my thumb once though. After that, I was surely careful not to do it again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynDHWJO0dzc Sorry for the crappy lighting / production values. I'm involved with the development of a WW2 realism game, and wanted to show the action for animation development.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
They're not the only ones I'm a fan of, but for the most part, having handled a lot of the hardware available at the time, I find that in my opinion, those are among the most effective and reliable.
I do like the Mauser rifle a great deal (as well as the Enfield and especially the Springfield bolt actions that I find to be powerful as well), the Walther pistol, and the Luger too. Not too big a fan of the Japanese or Russian stuff. The German assault rifle was an innovation all unto itself.
I had a British .303 (modified sport stock) for awhile. Gave it back to Dad when I moved here. I liked it, fine. But I wouldn't wanna go up against a Garand armed soldier with it unless I had an advantage.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
No service. I only ever did catch my thumb once though. After that, I was surely careful not to do it again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynDHWJO0dzc Sorry for the crappy lighting / production values. I'm involved with the development of a WW2 realism game, and wanted to show the action for animation development.
What game didja help develop?
-
WWII "realism" game ... Is that anything like two weeks of ice cold rain, cleaning your equipment, keeping you feet dry, 20 minutes of sheer terror, two weeks of rain ... ;)
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
close combat weapons im talking rifles and side arms. thompsons, M1, enfield, gw3 whatever. i am not an expert but i have played medal of honor a bit. from my stupid virtual experiences i would say i like the M1 Garand rifle and that german MP submachine gun. the Garand seems like an absolute beast with its rate of fire and acuracy. must have been a huge advantage fighting any ill equiped enemy, well from these silly games i've played anyhow.
but what was it like in real life? im sure the best close combat weapons must have been made by either the Germans or the Americans.
who made the best weapons looking back with the hindsight we have now?
Currently on and off again reading the book "Brothers in Battle- best of Friends" Written by Bill "Wild Bill" guarnere, And edward "Babe" Heffron" The real life charactors of Band of Brothers fame.
According to Bill Guarneres first hand experience. He is of the opinion the German Weaponry was by far superior to anything we had on the battle feild. Particularly their automatic weapons, artillary and tanks.
-
I'm currently helping to develop The Third Reich, mostly suggesting ideas and Beta Testing. http://www.ttrgame.com/ It started off as a UT99 mod, with the standard USA vs. Germany gameplay, but with a realism slant. Currently they are porting all of the UT99 stuff into a new game engine (Torque), and have just released an internal Alpha.
It won't seem too lively, there's only 3-4 part time developers for it.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I'm currently helping to develop The Third Reich, mostly suggesting ideas and Beta Testing. http://www.ttrgame.com/ It started off as a UT99 mod, with the standard USA vs. Germany gameplay, but with a realism slant. Currently they are porting all of the UT99 stuff into a new game engine (Torque), and have just released an internal Alpha.
It won't seem too lively, there's only 3-4 part time developers for it.
As long as you're not working for Voss. When it get's fleshed out more share the pretties.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I wounder how many service men died while being hammed down on by germans after hearing that retarded "PING, im highly vulnerable now, shoot me while i reload"
====
Based on the number of Krauts I have hammered in CoD after reloading my mighty Garand I would hazard a guess........
hmm.....................
ZERO
Now move along kid, yer buggin me.
Dont wanna start a bich fit.
Okay so you would compare life to a video game, cute.
I bet your CoD game doesnt take into account how badly a mans hands will shake when he is in fear for his life.
Or how water makes a clip slip from your hands, how dirt can make the next mag impossible to "slap in"
Take those thing into consideration before making your accounts based on a piss poor xbox game, ahhhh thank you.
-
CQB - the PPSH, maybe the M1/M2 Carbine
med range - Garand, although I have a soft spot for the SMLE
Tronsky
-
lots of good stuff to read here thank you all. yes frodo i was meaning real life, my government wont let me play with these things apart from with a playstation controller. :(
lasersailor you say you own these guns would it be possible to unload a full magazine from the garand in 2 seconds? and how bad is the recoil for unsuported rapid fire?
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
lasersailor you say you own these guns would it be possible to unload a full magazine from the garand in 2 seconds? and how bad is the recoil for unsuported rapid fire?
You can unload as fast as you can pull the trigger Bat. Are talking about shooting from the hip refering to unsupported?
-
The M1 Garand was originally designed to have a 20 round magazine like the BAR. But the army insisted it have a top feeding clip.
Edit: Another variant that never saw duty was the T20E2. This variant is, at its simplest, a Garand modified to accept Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) magazines, and has selective fire capability, with semi- and fully-automatic modes.
The ultimate Garand I say.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Tell you what, genius. My Dad used to keep those empty clips in his pocket and toss them so he could shoot people who charged him thinking he was reloading. And he wasn't alone in doing that, either.
As Patton said, the M1 Garand was quite possibly the finest battle implement ever devised by man.
The Thompson was pretty damned good as well, although extremely expensive and sort of heavy.
The Colt 1911 pistol, chambered in 45 ACP remained in service for some 70+ years, and in fact really never has been completely withdrawn from service.
I can verify your fathers story. As I've read several accounts of the soldiers doing exactly what you just said.
Seems the germans did in fact rush our guys on hearing that "ping" till our guys got wise and did exactly as you said..
Again using Bill Guarnere as a refrence. claims, and I quote in his own words.
Page 121
"The Germans were technologically advanced. Perfecting their arsenal for decades. Think about it. Fighting since WWI. Their Tanks were superiour, And the MG-42 blew away any guns we had. the had alot of firepower. The bullets let go brrrrrrrrt! Four hundred bullets come out at once. American machine guns went Bap-bap-bap-bap-bap! "
Now Im sure we could argue Bills timeline to an extent.
And possiby the rounds fired from the 42. I dont know
But I dont think any of us now can argue with his opinion and experiences of facing the German weapons. their effectiveness. And compairing them to ours from actual combat experience up close and personal.
He after all has the scars. Both physically and mentally to prove it
-
For the most part, yes, the German tanks were superior to our stuff up to and including the Sherman. The advantages the Sherman held were mobility and reliability. Honestly, OTHER than the weapons fielded by the infantry, the U.S. did lag behind Germany. But I do not find the U.S. infantry weapons to be inferior in quality to the German issue stuff. The only place where the MG 42 was superior to U.S. machine guns was rate of fire and the ability to swap barrels, and that superior at inspiring fear, but not necessarily more effective at killing or incapacitating enemy soldiers.
I do respect the opinions of guys like Garnier and Heffron. I believe those are very honest opinions based on experiences in real life. And I completely understand what they said about the MG 42 and why. Honestly, when you face the enemy, and you come out on top by a very slim margin in a very hard fight, you are very likely to feel the enemy had weapons at least equal to yours if not superior. And understandably so.
-
Interesting subject... I would take the M1 garand for a battle rifle and the 45 1911 for a pistol... close running would be the p38 but the caliber is too weak.
I like both the M3 and the thompson for sub guns and the russian one.
Some myths flying around... The garrand is the fastest gun to reload of all semi autos.. even a little faster to reload than clip fed bolts since.. it is all one operation. You will notice pics of GI's with garand clips stuck all over them even on the sling.. they had an excellent web gear that held 10 clips but the gun loaded so fast that opening a pouch seemed too slow to em.
the 7.62 x 25 round myth.. it does have as much energy as a 45 auto round.. or very close depending on where it was manufactured.. but... all WWII ammo was ball ammo.. high velocity ball ammo that is small diameter is at a disadvantage over lower velocity heavy and big ammo. punch a small hole in someone and not hit bone and the bullets energy is mostly wasted.. the big 45 expends all it's energy into the target.
I could use about anything but those are the weapons I would prefer. I own or have owned about every WWII bolt and semi auto gun and have fired most of the sub guns. and these are my choices.
lazs
-
http://www.guns.connect.fi/gow/suomi1.html
-
Here is my 2nd favorite forum. I am sure you will all get much info from it.
Surplus Rifle Forum (http://www.surplusrifleforum.com/)
This forum is not dedicated to one type or one country. It has info for everything.
I would have to agree that the Garand would be my pick to go into battle with.
SMLE if very accurate and has a similar rate of fire as a semi-automatic rifle.
I love my Mosin Nagant M91/30 though. The most simple rifle I have ever had the pleasure to hold. 7.62x54 ammo not so easy to get though.
Regards,
Yank
-
Originally posted by Slash27
You can unload as fast as you can pull the trigger Bat. Are talking about shooting from the hip refering to unsupported?
rgr, say you are fighting house to house and using the weapon at close ranges where aiming is not so important.
by unaupported i mean firing standing up and not crouching or supporting the barrel in the prone possition.
from what lazs tells us, you could hit somebody through the belly with the garand round and they might not die for a few days, long enough to shoot back at you anyhow. the smaller calibre round needing to hit hard bone or vital organs to kill a man outright. the Garand's ability to fire so rapidly must have been a huge bonus for the US troops.
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
rgr, say you are fighting house to house and using the weapon at close ranges where aiming is not so important.
by unaupported i mean firing standing up and not crouching or supporting the barrel in the prone possition.
from what lazs tells us, you could hit somebody through the belly with the garand round and they might not die for a few days, long enough to shoot back at you anyhow. the smaller calibre round needing to hit hard bone or vital organs to kill a man outright. the Garand's ability to fire so rapidly must have been a huge bonus for the US troops.
The .30-06 ain't a small bullet. And recoil doesn't necessarily move the barrel directly up. Sure you can unload the gun as fast as possible, but most bullets besides the first won't be too accurate.
The M1 Garand was originally designed to have a 20 round magazine like the BAR. But the army insisted it have a top feeding clip.
Edit: Another variant that never saw duty was the T20E2. This variant is, at its simplest, a Garand modified to accept Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) magazines, and has selective fire capability, with semi- and fully-automatic modes.
The ultimate Garand I say.
Uh, it's called the M14.
I love my Mosin Nagant M91/30 though. The most simple rifle I have ever had the pleasure to hold. 7.62x54 ammo not so easy to get though.
Unless something has changed recently, 7.62x54r is very easy to get a hold of. It's cheap and you can buy a lot of them for very little money.
-
If I recall correctly, the M-14 is a .308 (7.62 NATO) version of the M1 Garand that was slightly shorter, and select fire.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
If I recall correctly, the M-14 is a .308 (7.62 NATO) version of the M1 Garand that was slightly shorter, and select fire.
Yes. But it's literally the same gun, the same action, even the same styling. The difference is that it accepts magazines and has selective fire. Everything he was talking about.
Many servicemen who had to upgrade from the Garand to the M14 were reluctant, but it quickly became their favorite gun of all time. Because of this, many were severely pissed when they had to downgrade to the M16.
-
im no experienced in these weapons but i 'know for sure' i would choose the M1G or the M16 over the M14 carbine.
but then i have always been the type to want to make kills from the longest possible range and with the most single shot accuracy.
i am not so fond of scoped weapons though. even with my piddly .22 or .177 air rifles i remove the scope and use the ironsights.
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
im no experienced in these weapons but i 'know for sure' i would choose the M1G or the M16 over the M14 carbine.
but then i have always been the type to want to make kills from the longest possible range and with the most single shot accuracy.
i am not so fond of scoped weapons though. even with my piddly .22 or .177 air rifles i remove the scope and use the ironsights.
The M14 is more powerful, has longer range and better accuracy than the M16. The M14 has a very slight advantage over the Garand, but only the best shooters would be able to notice it.
-
No way would I prefer an M-16 over an M-14.
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
from what lazs tells us, you could hit somebody through the belly with the garand round and they might not die for a few days, long enough to shoot back at you anyhow. the smaller calibre round needing to hit hard bone or vital organs to kill a man outright. the Garand's ability to fire so rapidly must have been a huge bonus for the US troops.
It could if hit in the right place. My dad told me a few stories of guys hit in Nam where the round passed through some body with out causing catastrophic damage. That being said, no way in hell I would want to be shot with a 30-06. The odds of you living a few days are not in your favor.:D
The Garand was a huge bonus to US troops no doubt. Well built and designed semi-auto vs a bolt action. I'll take the Garand. Like Arlo said, it even saw service up to Vietnam and its Garand inspired successor is another awsome rifle thats still in service today.
(http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h300/shacklord/LiveLeak-dot-com-26108-Me__M14_snip.jpg)
(http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/6899/070127a1474p0163ni9.jpg)
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
im no experienced in these weapons but i 'know for sure' i would choose the M1G or the M16 over the M14 carbine.
I think you are getting the M1 carbine confused with the M14. The M14 is the ****.:D
-
(http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Firearms/Auto-Rifles/M-1_Carbine.jpg)
M1 carbines
(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g111/bgrigry/000_1210.jpg)
M1 Garand and some M1As ( semi-auto only version of the M14)
They are not literally the same gun, but obviously very closely related.
-
very nice! the top one in the 2nd pic is the one i considered the M1 Garand correct?
that is the one i love. the others all look shorter and more modern.
just look at it! its a piece of crafting perfection.
-
You may also be confusing the M-14 with the M-4, the M-4 is a version of the M-16.
Yes, the Garand is on the far left in that photo.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Unless something has changed recently, 7.62x54r is very easy to get a hold of. It's cheap and you can buy a lot of them for very little money.
The surplus stuff is easy to find online and cheap but sometimes scary. Thin walled steel casings with dents everywhere and SUPER dirty to shoot too!
-
Some really good reading here guys. Thanks for all of the input.
-
You should be cleaning the gun anyway. But I've never had a problem with any of the surplus ammo.
-
Originally posted by yankedudel
The surplus stuff is easy to find online and cheap but sometimes scary. Thin walled steel casings with dents everywhere and SUPER dirty to shoot too!
And old. I had some surplus .303 that I shot through my #4 SMLE, that would split the casing's up the middle from about 1/3 of the way up the base to almost the neck. Keep that in mind, when firing old surplus ammo...
-
I never understood the point of the M1A1 carbine. It seems to be more of an airsoft gun. What advantages did it have over other guns mentionned in the thread?
-
From what I understood it was more for the Airborne units for portability reasons.
-
Originally posted by moot
I never understood the point of the M1A1 carbine. It seems to be more of an airsoft gun. What advantages did it have over other guns mentionned in the thread?
It was small, light and ammo was light.
Other then that it was a pistol replacement originaly from what I read somewhere.
-
I don't really consider a battle rifle a "close range weapon". 400 yards isn't all that close. :)
If you wanna look at stuff that made for vicious close combat, go no further than the german entrenching tool. Nobody wants to take a hit from one of these things..
(http://www.militaryantiquesmuseum.com/img/Thumb3048.jpg)
-
Originally posted by moot
I never understood the point of the M1A1 carbine. It seems to be more of an airsoft gun. What advantages did it have over other guns mentionned in the thread?
It was originally created as a support role replacement of the 1911. However it did rather well. It was light, easy to shoot, and easy to maintain. I argue (though many contend with the STG44) that it was the first assault rifle, being a (light) intermediate cartridge.
However, it was a love - hate gun. You either loved it, or hated it.
-
The M1 Carbine was intended to replace the .45 pistol for support troops. Apparently they needed something more capable than a pistol but less than the main Garand armament.
The Carbine become popular with many front line troops and can be seen often in combat footage. The M1 Carbine round is not an earth shattering round ballistically but I assume it is not a pleasant experience to be shot by one.
-
Suomi kp + flamethrower attachment. We have a winner!
(http://www.pkymasehist.fi/sotam_17.jpg)
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
It was originally created as a support role replacement of the 1911. However it did rather well. It was light, easy to shoot, and easy to maintain. I argue (though many contend with the STG44) that it was the first assault rifle, being a (light) intermediate cartridge.
However, it was a love - hate gun. You either loved it, or hated it.
In it's M2 form, yes, since you would have selective fire with Full-auto capability. IMHO, that should have been what they produced the most of.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Suomi kp + flamethrower attachment. We have a winner!
(http://www.pkymasehist.fi/sotam_17.jpg)
screw that!:D
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
In it's M2 form, yes, since you would have selective fire with Full-auto capability. IMHO, that should have been what they produced the most of.
The M2 really wasn't produced til late in the end of the pacific war.
-
Originally posted by indy007
I don't really consider a battle rifle a "close range weapon". 400 yards isn't all that close. :)
If you wanna look at stuff that made for vicious close combat, go no further than the german entrenching tool. Nobody wants to take a hit from one of these things..
(http://www.militaryantiquesmuseum.com/img/Thumb3048.jpg)
yup ok i swap that for my pistol. take the m1 garand with a sling and the german light battle axe
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
yup ok i swap that for my pistol. take the m1 garand with a sling and the german light battle axe
I have some suposedly russian Spetnaz throwing fighting shovel like that, I use it as my jeep trail shovel..
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
The M2 really wasn't produced til late in the end of the pacific war.
Which makes the MP43/StG44 the first assault rifle since the M1 Carbine was only semi-auto.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Which makes the MP43/StG44 the first assault rifle since the M1 Carbine was only semi-auto.
No, it really makes the Federov Automat the first assault rifle.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Which makes the MP43/StG44 the first assault rifle since the M1 Carbine was only semi-auto.
Agreed, and besides, the 30 carbine round is not really powerful enough to qualify. The 30 carbine is a neat little weapon, more powerful and accurate than most military handgun type side arms, yet light, and user friendly. But even the select fire version isn't really an assault rifle.
Few would argue that the German weapon was NOT the first really functional and useful "assault weapon", in the true modern sense of the term. The U.S. didn't have a true "assault weapon" until the advent of the AR series of rifles, which were actually originally intended as survival rifles for the USAF, and eventually became the M-16 series.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
No, it really makes the Federov Automat the first assault rifle.
The Fedorov Avtomat is sometimes mentioned as the first assault rifle, but in reality it was a selective fire battle rifle like the M-14, FN-FAL, G-3 etc. While somewhat smaller than other rifle rounds at the time, the Avtomat's 6.5x50SR Arisaka round is still too large and powerful to be considered an intermediate round.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Agreed, and besides, the 30 carbine round is not really powerful enough to qualify. The 30 carbine is a neat little weapon, more powerful and accurate than most military handgun type side arms, yet light, and user friendly. But even the select fire version isn't really an assault rifle.
Few would argue that the German weapon was NOT the first really functional and useful "assault weapon", in the true modern sense of the term. The U.S. didn't have a true "assault weapon" until the advent of the AR series of rifles, which were actually originally intended as survival rifles for the USAF, and eventually became the M-16 series.
I'm not sure I can agree with you that the .30 Carbine round is too weak to be considered an intermediate round. It is on the weak side sure, but... It's arguable.
-
Originally posted by Viking
I'm not sure I can agree with you that the .30 Carbine round is too weak to be considered an intermediate round. It is on the weak side sure, but... It's arguable.
There are common hand gun rounds that easily exceed the 30 carbine round in power. It just doesn't make the cut as an intermediate rifle round. It is a lot on the weak side.
-
The .30 Carbine round has more than twice the muzzle energy of the .357 magnum round, and more than half the energy of the 7.62x39R round. It is arguable if it is an intermediate round or not, but I tend to think it is one.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Agreed, and besides, the 30 carbine round is not really powerful enough to qualify. The 30 carbine is a neat little weapon, more powerful and accurate than most military handgun type side arms, yet light, and user friendly. But even the select fire version isn't really an assault rifle.
Few would argue that the German weapon was NOT the first really functional and useful "assault weapon", in the true modern sense of the term. The U.S. didn't have a true "assault weapon" until the advent of the AR series of rifles, which were actually originally intended as survival rifles for the USAF, and eventually became the M-16 series.
The only way this argument stands is if you analyze the frailty of the STG 44. The STG was an assault rifle, just as much as the AK47 is.
I argue that the full automatic selection is a plight on the standard infantry weapon, and is thus moot as to whether or not an rifle needs to be fully automatic to classify as an Assault Rifle. Since you argue that the Automat had too big of a round, that means that the M1 Carbine is the first assault rifle (IMO).
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
The only way this argument stands is if you analyze the frailty of the STG 44. The STG was an assault rifle, just as much as the AK47 is.
I argue that the full automatic selection is a plight on the standard infantry weapon, and is thus moot as to whether or not an rifle needs to be fully automatic to classify as an Assault Rifle. Since you argue that the Automat had too big of a round, that means that the M1 Carbine is the first assault rifle (IMO).
I argue that the Automat shoots too large a cartridge? Where? I never mentioned the Automat.
You can argue that select fire full auto is a Blight on the infantry weapon if you want. The fact remains that the ACCEPTED definition includes full auto select fire.
As to other arguments:
When compared in equal barrels (around 18"), the 30 Carbine fires a 110 grain bullet at around 2000 FPS, and a 357 Magnum fires a 110 grain bullet at around 2400 FPS, and a 125 grain bullet at around 2200 FPS. So I don't agree that the 30 Carbine has twice the power of a 357 Magnum.
Now, HALF the power of 7.62x39 is not what I'd call an acceptable intermediate rifle cartridge.
-
The you wasn't necessarily directed at you. I should have been more clear.
Anyway, we're getting into personal opinions here, and won't advance much farther.
-
You do not get to redefine the definition of an assault rifle. Sorry.
-
Originally posted by Viking
You do not get to redefine the definition of an assault rifle. Sorry.
But when the use of fully automatic fire of a standard infantry rifle has failed compared to semi auto, I think it's definitely up for contention.
-
No. The use of fully automatic fire from assault rifles and submachineguns is very effective and an important element of urban combat. There is a reason why your soldiers are preferring to use the M-4 and Iraqi AK-47's in urban combat in Iraq instead of the M-16. The whole purpose of the assault rifle was to have a single weapon capable of being used as both a battle rifle (semi-auto) and as a submachinegun (full-auto), thus removing the need for dedicated assault troops armed with submachineguns. I think your lack of experience in these matters have led you make the wrong conclusions.
-
Originally posted by Viking
No. The use of fully automatic fire from assault rifles and submachineguns is very effective and an important element of urban combat. There is a reason why your soldiers are preferring to use the M-4 and Iraqi AK-47's in urban combat in Iraq instead of the M-16. The whole purpose of the assault rifle was to have a single weapon capable of being used as both a battle rifle (semi-auto) and as a submachinegun (full-auto), thus removing the need for dedicated assault troops armed with submachineguns. I think your lack of experience in these matters have led you make the wrong conclusions.
It's actually because the shorter overall length of both the M-4 and the AK-47 make them easier to use, thus better suited, to House-to-house (Urban) fighting. A longer weapon like the M-16A2 can be used, but is a little more likely to get 'hung up' on something like a vehicle door, Or get snagged on something, etc.
-
Battle Rifle -- M1 I would trade the ping over feeding stripper clips in a bolt gun any day. The Enfield would be second on the list. Talk about stripper clips though, the Enfield clips are a royal pain to use.
Pistol -- .45 1911. More stopping power with the same relative ammo capacity of the 9mm of the day (exception Browning Hi Point) Really a great, reliable pistol. Browning HP second.
SMG -- I'll go with the PPSh 41. Buzz saw up close, but with more velocity/penetrating power for shooting through cover and maybe more midrange accuracy than a .45 smg. More battlefield useful, perhaps. The real winner would have been a more widely used select fire M2 Carbine which is the perfect WW2 weapon for the traditional SMG role -- room clearing to 200 yard ranges.
LMG -- Mg42/Bren Gun depending on tactical doctrine.
Grenade -- US Pineapple over Potato Masher, though don't know enough about the British Mills Bomb or the Russian grenades.
Sniper Rifle -- MN 91/30 PU. Why, because it is the only one I could afford to buy and still shoot :) Also, it may not be the absolute best, but it was widely deployed as part of a "squad marksman" concept of soviet battle doctrine. Good, solid, reliable scope and rifle combo. On a side note, the turned down bolt vs the standard straight bolt eliminates the only major flaw of the 91/30, IMO. Easy as butter to work with that change in leverage.
Personal ATW -- Panzerfaust.
Weapons that changed the post war world -- MG42, Bazooka/Panzerfaust and StG 44.
-
Meh, why everyone goes with the crappy and cheap PPSh 41 instead of Suomi KP31 :rolleyes:
-
Meh, why everyone goes with the crappy and cheap PPSh 41 instead of Suomi KP31
I considered it :) What were the major real world differences between the two?
Charon
-
Originally posted by Charon
I considered it :) What were the major real world differences between the two?
Charon
The Soumi's chambers' the 9mm, right? Probably the major one right there.
-
Funny that you spend so much time discussing the calibers and muzzle velocities. You should look at battle records instead.
The Suomi kp was extremely rugged and reliable with 9mm ammo which everyone here seem to diss completely. Yet the patrols wielding it were nicknamed the white death by the russians. The weapon had a low recoil, relatively high fire rate with a high ammo capacity and it was accurate for what it was. And it proved extremely effective in combat.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Funny that you spend so much time discussing the calibers and muzzle velocities. You should look at battle records instead.
The Suomi kp was extremely rugged and reliable with 9mm ammo which everyone here seem to diss completely. Yet the patrols wielding it were nicknamed the white death by the russians. The weapon had a low recoil, relatively high fire rate with a high ammo capacity and it was accurate for what it was. And it proved extremely effective in combat.
Tactics' get to be another discussion entirely, MrRipley. They tend to get left out in a discussion based solely on the technical aspects' of the gun itself.
Battle records' should really reflect the soldiers themselves, in that case. For example something technically obsolete like a P-40 suddenly becomes a war-winning weapon when you go by unit merit, such as the American AVG.
-
The Soumi's chambers' the 9mm, right? Probably the major one right there.
I had thought it was also 7.62 x 25.
In any case, the SMG category seems to be one where you had the greatest parity among weapons, with all sides but the Japanese fielding some reliable and effective weapons. The Russians and Germans making the most use of them it would seem.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Charon
I had thought it was also 7.62 x 25.
In any case, the SMG category seems to be one where you had the greatest parity among weapons, with all sides but the Japanese fielding some reliable and effective weapons. The Russians and Germans making the most use of them it would seem.
Charon
The first iterations of the Sten gun (british) we're not at all reliable nor effective.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
The first iterations of the Sten gun (british) we're not at all reliable nor effective.
The Sten gun was a panic response to the lack of SMGs. In 1940 only the royal navy of the british armed forces used SMG's, namely Thompsons. There wasn't enough SMG's for the army and Thompsons were too expensive and bulky, which also were the only choice after germans had invaded most of the Europe. Instead of buying bulky Thompsons for a high price the brits quickly came up with the Sten gun - Which initially had alot of problems due to the brits inexperience with SMG's and lack of time. However it was inexpensive and it could be manufactured with simplier machinery, which meant a quick retooling of the factories. The production costs and the complexity of the machinery are important in a war, especially for an isolated country.
Thompson is actually quite a poor SMG, even after the introduction of the less bulkier M1A1 which was to be more suitable for the battle conditions. It was still expensive to manufacture, heavy, not as accurate as 7.62mm and 9mm SMG's and had a bigger recoil.
-
They didn't take the Thompson to the 1000 yard matches at Camp Perry for ****s and giggles. That's not what it's meant for. Under 50 yards, where it had all of it's power, it had no problems with accuracy.
Yes, it was expensive. It being heavy meant the recoil wasn't as bad. The recoil was a little heavy, but manageable. That is unless you were a limp wristed European.
Very few people could get up from a .45 with a smile on their face. No one was getting up after getting clipped by several .45's or more. The same can't be said for the 7.62x25 or 9mm.
The Thompson was one of the best SMG's to cross that war. But of course, since it was American ingenuity, it sucks in your eyes. Especially since it helped to win that war.
-
The Thompson is anything but poor. It is still one of the finest and most effective SMG's ever produced. It also remains VERY desirable, and very collectible. Thompsons command a premium price, and are sought after by collectors every where.
As to recoil and accuracy, I find the Thompson to be accurate, powerful, and manageable.
-
they didnt call brit infantry 'tommy' for no reason :D
-
Lets not forget that the M1 Garand has the gas port at nearly the end of the barrel, making it have less muzzle jump than other similar calibered rifles. This makes it extremely accurate.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
The Thompson was one of the best SMG's to cross that war. But of course, since it was American ingenuity, it sucks in your eyes. Especially since it helped to win that war.
Wow, that's quite an argument, it gives a whole new perspective to the definition of a best weapon.
By the new definition I choose the fist of homo sapiens as the best weapon, because it helped to win that war. The bare fist weapon was utilized by the russians and it was the best because, by the definition, they helped to win that war.
Anyway, I'd like to see you guys haul around a tommy gun instead of PPSh for couple of years in a war. Not to mention that due to the price, your division will have less SMG's than the enemy.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Wow, that's quite an argument, it gives a whole new perspective to the definition of a best weapon.
By the new definition I choose the fist of homo sapiens as the best weapon, because it helped to win that war. The bare fist weapon was utilized by the russians and it was the best because, by the definition, they helped to win that war.
Anyway, I'd like to see you guys haul around a tommy gun instead of PPSh for couple of years in a war. Not to mention that due to the price, your division will have less SMG's than the enemy.
I'll see your fist, and raise you the backs' and brains' of American Industry-outproducing the Axis' is what ultimately won the conflict.
The Thompson was heavy-But when being fired on Full-auto, that weight works to advantage, in helping to dampen the recoil.
America could afford the Thomson's-And whoever didn't get one, got the excellent M1 Garand, so that's a win-win right there. :aok
-
I read an account of a soldier on D-day, after disembarking from his landing craft in chest deep water, who went to fire his Thompson. He pulled the trigger but nothing happened. The magazine had fallen out of the gun on its own due to a design flaw!
-
Our all time favorite Gunny compares the Thomson to the Schmeisser:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuhQdvkORu4
Can't argue with that conclusion! ;)
But however good the Thomson and the MP40 was, neither can match the PPSh-41 in sheer volume of fire (and look how stable it is):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VQpJj1TF7M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggS-UZIpezs&NR=1
Can't argue with that.
-
Tommy guns had drum magazines too.
-
Sure, but not that rate of fire. And not that controllability.
-
PPSh-41 Rate of fire 900 rounds/min
Thompson submachine gun Rate of fire 600-1200 rpm, depending upon
model
The Tommy gun was originally made in 9mm. Super high rate of fire, low recoil in this caliber. It only began having teething problems in .45 caliber.
-
Close quarters....hmm....Tommygun is cool. But the PPs has a bigger load.
Still, Tompson has up to 40 rounds, and sounds good too ;)
-
(http://i2.tinypic.com/711x4c8.jpg)
(http://i16.tinypic.com/6o5lxrl.jpg)
^^^weapon of choice in close quarters fight.:D
-
I wouldn't recommend using such big mags in Thompson. The big mags/drums getting in the way was one of major complaints with SMG's in general, besides the rattling.
-
I put 2 models, i'd rather have both with me =D I love fire power, and the move I got the happier I am.:noid :aok
-
Oddly enough I marched around with a Thompson in my hands for some 3 weeks. (That also included a lot of jumping, running and crawling).
I found it extremely comfortable to carry, and NP with the 40 round mag nor the 32 round one.
It was somewhat heavier than a Garand, but the Garand was more cumbersome on your back.
Tommy was also very quick in pointing. Very very nice.
Aghhh, and the sound ;)
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
PPSh-41 Rate of fire 900 rounds/min
Thompson submachine gun Rate of fire 600-1200 rpm, depending upon
model
The Tommy gun was originally made in 9mm. Super high rate of fire, low recoil in this caliber. It only began having teething problems in .45 caliber.
Well ... it was the .45 ACP M1(A1) model that was used in WWII, 700 rpm with a 20 or 30 round box magazine. And the action of the M1 was a simple blowback action, quite different from the earlier Thompson guns.
-
The thompson is very well made and accurate. both the thompson and the m3 grease gun are very easy to control unless you are a very small, weak man who is very sensitive to noise and recoil.
For subguns.. for what they are for.. All the majors made some good ones... if you had a handgun that was the same caliber you were set and there.. the tommy gun and grease gun get the nod since no other sub gun had a handgun match that was as good as the 1911 browning or the colt or smith revolvers chambered for 45 acp.
When you got down to a revolver or pistol... the 45 was the king in ball ammo military form.
That is the deal breaker for sub guns
lazs
-
I see no mention of the Ozzie Owen smg, the British Lanchester smg and the American UD M42 smg.
Any comments on these three?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
When you got down to a revolver or pistol... the 45 was the king in ball ammo military form.
Then why is the .45 not the preferred ammo of military submachineguns and pistols today? Why hasn't other nation tried to copy the .45 ACP cartridge for their own post-WWII weapons?
The reason is the .45 is not the ideal pistol cartridge for military use. It has virtually no penetrating power compared to 9 mm Parabellum and other military pistol cartridges. The .45 ACP's only redeeming feature is that is is somewhat better in suppressed weapons since the bullet is already almost sub-sonic and thus keeps more of its energy compared to higher velocity rounds like the 9mm P. The 9 mm Parabellum has a very good balance of stopping power, penetration and low recoil. Perfect for military application the 9mm is almost in universal use throughout the world ... including America.
As for handgun match the Germans had their P38 pistol, widely regarded as the finest pistol of WWII, and it fired the same 9 mm round as their MP38 and MP40 submachineguns. The Russians matched their Tokarev pistols (Browning clone) with their submachineguns.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Then why is the .45 not the preferred ammo of military submachineguns and pistols today? Why hasn't other nation tried to copy the .45 ACP cartridge for their own post-WWII weapons?
The reason is the .45 is not the ideal pistol cartridge for military use. It has virtually no penetrating power compared to 9 mm Parabellum and other military pistol cartridges. The .45 ACP's only redeeming feature is that is is somewhat better in suppressed weapons since the bullet is already almost sub-sonic and thus keeps more of its energy compared to higher velocity rounds like the 9mm P. The 9 mm Parabellum has a very good balance of stopping power, penetration and low recoil. Perfect for military application the 9mm is almost in universal use throughout the world ... including America.
As for handgun match the Germans had their P38 pistol, widely regarded as the finest pistol of WWII, and it fired the same 9 mm round as their MP38 and MP40 submachineguns. The Russians matched their Tokarev pistols (Browning clone) with their submachineguns.
There are .45acp SMG's. But the general caliber swing has (until very recently) been to pick the 9mm. This has very little to do with the 9mm being better, but an attempt of Standardization throughout NATO and Allied countries. It was foolish of us to limit ourselves to the weaknesses of European countries.
Even with this, there has been a "Back to the Roots" movement of the US forces of a desire of .45 over 9mm in handguns. Would the SMG's be popular among the standard infantry, I believe we'd be seeing the same kind of sentiment for 9mm.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Then why is the .45 not the preferred ammo of military submachineguns and pistols today? Why hasn't other nation tried to copy the .45 ACP cartridge for their own post-WWII weapons?
The reason is the .45 is not the ideal pistol cartridge for military use. It has virtually no penetrating power compared to 9 mm Parabellum and other military pistol cartridges. The .45 ACP's only redeeming feature is that is is somewhat better in suppressed weapons since the bullet is already almost sub-sonic and thus keeps more of its energy compared to higher velocity rounds like the 9mm P. The 9 mm Parabellum has a very good balance of stopping power, penetration and low recoil. Perfect for military application the 9mm is almost in universal use throughout the world ... including America.
As for handgun match the Germans had their P38 pistol, widely regarded as the finest pistol of WWII, and it fired the same 9 mm round as their MP38 and MP40 submachineguns. The Russians matched their Tokarev pistols (Browning clone) with their submachineguns.
Viking, you should be aware that the biggest reason for going to 9MM in the U.S. military is to streamline the NATO ammunition supply. You should also be aware that 9MM, especially in the 115 grain ball style ammunition, has a nasty reputation for failure to stop combatants. Further, the 45ACP has been retained by some of the elite military units because of the various problems with 9MM.
-
Beat you by one minute!
-
Tell me, what army has adopted the .45 besides the US Army? Has any other army adopted a similar pistol/SMG round? If not, why do you think that is? Why would the ammo of the LOSING nation of WWII become NATO's standard round?
-
Originally posted by Viking
Tell me, what army has adopted the .45 besides the US Army? Has any other army adopted a similar pistol/SMG round? If not, why do you think that is? Why would the ammo of the LOSING nation of WWII become NATO's standard round?
I counter with this: Which country has the best army in the world?
You don't look for solutions from the third rate armies, but those from the best.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I counter with this: Which country has the best army in the world?
Israel. And they use the 9 mm Parabellum.
-
Well, the British, of course!
:D
-
They would be my second choice. Germans third. USA fourth. After that it becomes blurry.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Tell me, what army has adopted the .45 besides the US Army? Has any other army adopted a similar pistol/SMG round? If not, why do you think that is? Why would the ammo of the LOSING nation of WWII become NATO's standard round?
Why was the 45ACP the caliber of choice of the WINNING military for almost eighty years?
Why did the 45ACP REMAIN the caliber of choice for OVER forty years AFTER World War II?
Why does the 45ACP REMAIN the caliber of choice for some of the most elite military units to this day?
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Why was the 45ACP the caliber of choice of the WINNING military for almost eighty years?
I honestly don't know. Why did your nation chose the .45 ACP?
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Why did the 45ACP REMAIN the caliber of choice for OVER forty years AFTER World War II?
Because you're stubborn and nationalistic? I don't know. In any case you came around eventually.
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Why does the 45ACP REMAIN the caliber of choice for some of the most elite military units to this day?
Because the .45 round is better for suppressed weapons, like I explained earlier. That's why the H&K Mk. 23 is chambered in 45. ACP instead of the standard 9 mm P.
Now ... why don't you answer my questions?
-
Originally posted by Viking
They would be my second choice. Germans third. USA fourth. After that it becomes blurry.
So who is the first? Israelis....or NORSE :D
-
Originally posted by Angus
So who is the first? Israelis....or NORSE :D
I answered that on the previous page. (Israel)
-
blehhhh...........I think the weapons of war that win wars are superior to those weapon that lose wars. Russian and american weapons tend to be superior, more or less, all things considered.
-
Wars are not won or lost by weapons, but by men and statistics.
-
The 45ACP became the caliber of choice because it had considerable stopping power, when most calibers around 0.35" fail.
The 45ACP remained the caliber of choice because it WORKED, and the right people were in charge and they didn't give a damn about what NATO liked.
The 45ACP remains in use by elite units because it offers much more reliable stopping power, the use of suppressors has nothing to do with it. Elite units MUST stop their opponents quickly and surely, with as few shots as possible, because of their mission and the fact that they rely on swift application of overwhelming force.
You talk about penetration. The only thing the 9MM penetrates better than 45ACP is helmets. Got any idea how few soldiers can actually MAKE head shots in combat conditions? Got any idea how much better a 230 grain 45ACP bullet penetrates flesh, clothing, and breaks bone? Got any idea how much difference 115 grains of weight and 0.100" of diameter makes in stopping power and damage done, when you're dealing with bullets that do not expand?
The answers to your questions are:
Who cares?
Who cares?
Popularity and expedience.
-
Wars are not won or lost by weapons, but by men and statistics.
====
Dont make me bust a move on you......:rolleyes:
-
Viking
There is alot of info out there on why the 9MM sucks. Facts and figures on energy and time to stop a person after they are shot.
9MM ball sucks.
The only people I know who WANT to own a 9MM are idiots who think glock 17s are the best gun ever cause gang bangers like them and chicks(cause they cant deal with the .45 recoil).
-
Originally posted by BaDkaRmA158Th
Johnson rifle
Johnson LMG
Johnson SMG
I wounder how many service men died while being hammed down on by germans after hearing that retarded "PING, im highly vulnerable now, shoot me while i reload" the garand had.
Retards.
Wonder how many Germans were close enough to hear that ping in a
firefight? I also wonder how many Germans died because some GI
"pinged" an empty clip off a rock or his helmet. :aok
-
Originally posted by Rino
Wonder how many Germans were close enough to hear that ping in a
firefight? I also wonder how many Germans died because some GI
"pinged" an empty clip off a rock or his helmet. :aok
If you have ever shot with no ear protection ( Dont do it ), you would know that the ping story is a bunch of bull****. You would have to be withen 20 feet to hear that ping with your ears ringing from lots of gunfire.
Granted 20 feet inst all that far in a jungle or forest.
-
Golly, Gscholtz doesn't like US weapons..well now, THAT'S a shocker! :D
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
If you have ever shot with no ear protection ( Dont do it ), you would know that the ping story is a bunch of bull****. You would have to be withen 20 feet to hear that ping with your ears ringing from lots of gunfire.
Granted 20 feet inst all that far in a jungle or forest.
Actually I did make that mistake with a .45 auto once.. riiiinnnn..
nnnnn.nnnn.nng :D I was being sarcastic about the ping thing...
it's something the History Channel likes to mention :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
If you have ever shot with no ear protection ( Dont do it ), you would know that the ping story is a bunch of bull****. You would have to be withen 20 feet to hear that ping with your ears ringing from lots of gunfire.
Granted 20 feet inst all that far in a jungle or forest.
You need to look up "auditory exclusion". Because under stressful situations you'd be amazed at how good your hearing is and how often your ears DON'T ring despite either firing a very loud weapon or being close to one being fired. That DOES NOT mean you won't suffer damage to your hearing if it happens continually. It DOES mean your ears will not necessarily ring, nor will you suffer hearing loss at the time. When it becomes a matter of life and death things are a lot different.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
You need to look up "auditory exclusion". Because under stressful situations you'd be amazed at how good your hearing is and how often your ears DON'T ring despite either firing a very loud weapon or being close to one being fired. That DOES NOT mean you won't suffer damage to your hearing if it happens continually. It DOES mean your ears will not necessarily ring, nor will you suffer hearing loss at the time. When it becomes a matter of life and death things are a lot different.
I can see that being the case.
I still don't think the tell tale ping is a big deal, you can barely hear it standing behind the firing line if the guy on the Garand is 20 or 30 feet away, and thats without hearing prortection.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
I can see that being the case.
I still don't think the tell tale ping is a big deal, you can barely hear it standing behind the firing line if the guy on the Garand is 20 or 30 feet away, and thats without hearing prortection.
I agree. The ping is NOT a big deal. And yes, it is true that soldiers tossed empties they kept in their pocket to make the enemy think they were out of ammo and reloading.
-
Originally posted by Rino
Golly, Gscholtz doesn't like US weapons..well now, THAT'S a shocker! :D
What makes you say that?
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Viking
There is alot of info out there on why the 9MM sucks. Facts and figures on energy and time to stop a person after they are shot.
9MM ball sucks.
It does not suck for military purposes. The 5.56mm round is not known for its stopping power, but then again stopping power is not very important for military application compared to self defense and law enforcement where the enemy usually are much closer.
If I shoot you centre mass with a 9 mm ... you WILL go down.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
You talk about penetration. The only thing the 9MM penetrates better than 45ACP is helmets. Blah blah blah...
And doors, walls, brush, snow, sand etc. etc. etc. You know ... the usual stuff an enemy soldier takes cover behind.
The 9 mm vs. .45 ACP debate has been going on since the two cartridges were introduced and certainly won't end with this thread. However it seems your military and those of just about every army in the world agrees with me that the 9 mm is the best round for military application.
-
The truth is, 9MM has been adopted for much the same reason as 5.56MM. It's light, has a little less recoil, and you can carry a whole lot of it. Effectiveness is not really why it was adopted.
NOTHING penetrates brush, that's an old myth. The 230 grain 45ACP ball ammo penetrates farther through most doors, walls, clothes, and flesh, than 115 grain 9MM.
Stopping power is not as important in military weapons? I can assure you most soldiers will strongly disagree with that statement. Like any combat, you want the guy to go down quickly, with as few shots as possible. The NUMBER ONE COMPLAINT with 5.56 NATO is FAILURE TO STOP. The same applies to 9MM. You know why U.S. soldiers like to pick up AK's? Because 7.62 stops better and faster than 5.56 NATO. When your opponent is shooting at you the first thing you want to do is STOP him from shooting at you. And you sure as Hell don't want to have to shoot him several times to make him stop, either.
By the way, "blah, blah, blah" is just a chump's way of saying he can't refute the text he replaces with "blah, blah, blah." If that crap is all you've got, I've got no more time for you.
-
Temper, temper ... Why can't you just accept that my opinion differs from yours? It is clear we won't agree on this issue. Accept it.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Temper, temper ... Why can't you just accept that my opinion differs from yours? It is clear we won't agree on this issue. Accept it.
You assume I've lost my temper. False assumption. I've lost neither my temper, nor even my patience. I have lost more respect for you, since you attempt to cheapen the discussion with "blah, blah, blah" and ill founded assumptions.
I can accept that your poorly based opinion differs from mine.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
I can accept that your poorly based opinion differs from mine.
Lol, yeah. Why do I find that hard to believe. (Don't answer that; it was a rhetorical question.)
If you get offended by "blah, blah" then please ... have no more time for me.
-
"There is alot of info out there on why the 9MM sucks. Facts and figures on energy and time to stop a person after they are shot. 9MM ball sucks."
And then there was half a company of Russian soldiers who might not agree with you.. if they were still alive after meeting Mr Viljam Pylkäs and his M31 "Suomi" submachinegun. 1 man with 1 gun in a single incident.
Oh, but maybe you could -nearly twenty presumably survived the incident. 80 remained on the field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suomi_M-31_SMG
That would be my choice.
-C+
-
Lets suppose you are very soon going to get shot. The shooter asks you to choose 9mm or .45 to get shot with........
Is there really a difference?
I understand why some people are down on the 9mm......those that prefer the .50 are down on the .45
I sometimes choose to carry a .380 Auto with me depending........
In a pinch I will use .22 rimfire, a pellet gun or even a garden variety rock.
Whatever.......
All this blathering about best weapons is really so much nonsense. I dont want to get shot by anything, and if I need to do any shooting I will use whatever is available to me.......typically .308, 5.56, 9mm, .380 and if Im really hurting .490 cal lead musket ball.......
-
Really Charge? Are you sure those 9 mm rounds didn't just tickle the Russians so they fell down laughing? Hard to believe the 9 mm ever killed anyone if you listen to some people in this thread.
-
Well, I decided to look up stopping power data, and was surprised.
I found a link to the Strasbourg goat tests Link to the test site (http://www.thegunzone.com/strasbourg.html)
The tests used large French goats that come close to humans in weight. Read the test controls, they are pretty interesting. They are Peta’s worst nightmare lol.
The results show, basically ball ammo in both the .45 ACP and 9MM suck pretty bad.
Load FPS AIT(average incapacitation time) FT/LBS LB.Sec
.45 ACP Fed 230-Gr. FMJ 839 13.84 359.59 .8572
.45 ACP Fed 230-gr Hydrashock 847 8.40 366.48 .8654
9MM W-W 115-gr. FMJ 1163 14.40 345.47 .5941
9MM ECC 115-gr. Starfire 1181 9.02 356.25 .6033
I am surprised the results were not further apart. All in all I would say Ball ammo sucks pretty bad, byt the dif between .45ACP and 9MM Nato are really not all that great. BUT the .45ACP is marginally better in stopping power in all loads.
-
Suomi KP in my choice as well... naturally :cool:
It is legendary, it is cool... and because I own one of them :D
-
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...
-
"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+
-
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.
-
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.
-
Or so you say.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
And this is why I wrote
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.
-
Robert McNamara is the antichrist, he should be tried for treason.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Show me some documentation. Show me the facts. Prove me wrong.
-
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.
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
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.
-
Ball ammo is the only legal ammo for military use. Expanding bullets are outlawed by international law.
-
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.
-
The .45 too. It was an amazing 4% better at killing goats.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
Wikipedia = quick source for relatively reliable data.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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]
-
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.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/07/US_Navy_SEALs_in_from_water.jpg/300px-US_Navy_SEALs_in_from_water.jpg)
US Navy SEAL's with 9 mm MP-5 SMG's.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/07/US_Navy_SEALs_in_from_water.jpg/300px-US_Navy_SEALs_in_from_water.jpg)
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?
-
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.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/07/US_Navy_SEALs_in_from_water.jpg/300px-US_Navy_SEALs_in_from_water.jpg)
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.
-
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.
-
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?:rolleyes:
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
.45 is 11.43 mm right?
BTW, I forgot to mention the PPs. What was the caliber again? Anyway, good ROF and a big clip ;)
And, as a sidenote, the last murder victim in my country fell for a single .22
The killer used another .22 successfully to kill himself.
-
A needle in the right place will kill you too.
-
forgetting to breath for 10 mins can too.
perfect murder weapon has got to be an icicle. stab them through the heart with a 10" icicle and let the evidence melt away.
sorry, i didnt mean to type that out loud.
-
the thing about 9mm ball is that it is a notoriously poor stopper.. WWII and.. later conflicts used ball ammo.
Marshals study is very important as was the one of the autopsy guy.. real life always beats out the theory.
I believe that there is a velocity level where caliber is not as important.. say a 45 at 850 fps compared to a .308 at 2800 fps.. the velocity of the .308 is just overwhelming in most cases.. but..
A few hundred fps one way or the other don't make much difference.. not near the difference size make.. a 9mm for instance at 1100 fps compared to a 45 at 850.. a good big man always beats a good small man.. or nearly always.
Best to bet on the good big man.
Once exotic bullet shapes and designs are put into the mix.. things change around a bit but.. a good bullet design in 45 is still better than a good one in 9mm.
a bad 45 (say ball) is not as good... most of the time.. as a really good 9mm round.
lazs
-
see its amazing lazs. for a heathen like me being shot is being shot. a bullet that hits you is a bullet that hits you. if you get my meaning.
i geuss its the difference between a nice round hole in your shoulder (9mm) and a nice stump where your shoulder used to be(45).
i dont plan to get shot by or shoot at people so hopefully my ignorance will go unpunished.
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
see its amazing lazs. for a heathen like me being shot is being shot. a bullet that hits you is a bullet that hits you. if you get my meaning.
i geuss its the difference between a nice round hole in your shoulder (9mm) and a nice stump where your shoulder used to be(45).
i dont plan to get shot by or shoot at people so hopefully my ignorance will go unpunished.
God willing, Bat...
But there's quite a bit of science to ballistics-One which is followed avidly by shooter's in the U.S. Especially since the purchase of a firearm anymore involves' the expenditure of several hundred U.S. dollars, so people tend to get picky over caliber in the same way that motorists' buying a car get picky over engine, transmission, etc.
-
"so sir will you be intending to blow people's heads clean off or are you only looking in the 'maim for life' range or lower calibres?"
surely a true expert and marksman would be just as deadly - if not more so - with a small calibre round as a large one?
-
Lazs:
"A few hundred fps one way or the other don't make much difference.. not near the difference size make.. a 9mm for instance at 1100 fps compared to a 45 at 850.. a good big man always beats a good small man.. or nearly always."
Not quite. You have energy which is weight vs speed, and then diameter.
Sort of like electrics, - Volts and ampers into watts....
Anyway, the sheer speed of the bullet usually makes a lot of damage. A recent survey (don't have a link no more) indicated that a lot of damage around a "hole" was done sheerly by the shock of the speed rather than diameter alone. So in your example I might think the 9 mm would be more effective, especially if getting into the gut, since I don't know the weight.
-
angus.. I am aware of all the theory. the truth of the matter is tho that in real life situation.. studies of hundreds of cases.. all else being equal.. the small fast bullet doesn't have the knock down power of the slightly slower big bullet even if the energy is the same.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
angus.. I am aware of all the theory. the truth of the matter is tho that in real life situation.. studies of hundreds of cases.. all else being equal.. the small fast bullet doesn't have the knock down power of the slightly slower big bullet even if the energy is the same.
lazs
For a good reason I think. A faster but smaller bullet with the same energy as a slower larger bullet is more likely to completely penetrate the target therefore transferring less of it's energy to that target.
-
Well it boils down to the weight as well, now doesn't it?
A heavier bullet will slow down..slower.
And I don't have the weight comparison. 9mm to 0.45 however don't have a big difference in diameter, and btw, why have modern forces taken up the usage of what, 5.6 mm high velocity rounds?
You see, penetration is also an issue.... a stabbing issue ;)
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
"so sir will you be intending to blow people's heads clean off or are you only looking in the 'maim for life' range or lower calibres?"
surely a true expert and marksman would be just as deadly - if not more so - with a small calibre round as a large one?
We could talk about expert marksman etc, but thats not who the average gun owner is in the US.
The average gun owners are the people on this board who own guns. Like myself, or Laz, or Charon or so many others.
Now I know Laz is a better shot then I am. I am competent, but not as good as I feel I should be cause I do not have the time and money to spend on ammo to shoot once a week, so at best I go once a month.
With no stress I don't miss the target.
Stress changes things. We can not assume we will be able to take a nice aimed head shot. Life doesn't work that way and when the adrenaline is running your not going to be at your best for fine motor control. For that reason people want stopping power, you don't want to have to shoot a guy 3 times to stop him when hitting him one time under stress is hard enough.
If you think maybe then we shouldn't have guns, keep in mind on average I would be willing to bet, your average gun enthusiast is a better shot then your average cop.
If your going to depend on something for keeping you alive, don't you think you would want to know that the tool is going to do the job well, not just ok?
-
Originally posted by Viking
The BAR was far too heavy. The Bren Gun was better, but still too heavy.
One would not want to shoot the .30-06 round full auto from a lightweight gun.
SIG 220
-
Originally posted by BaDkaRmA158Th
Johnson rifle
Johnson LMG
Johnson SMG
I wounder how many service men died while being hammed down on by germans after hearing that retarded "PING, im highly vulnerable now, shoot me while i reload" the garand had.
Retards.
Do you actually think that really could have ever happened, in all the noise and stress of combat?
SIG 220
-
Originally posted by Angus
Well it boils down to the weight as well, now doesn't it?
A heavier bullet will slow down..slower.
And I don't have the weight comparison. 9mm to 0.45 however don't have a big difference in diameter, and btw, why have modern forces taken up the usage of what, 5.6 mm high velocity rounds?
You see, penetration is also an issue.... a stabbing issue ;)
Bullet weight, measured in grains, comes into play here.
Most early and standard 9mm. ball, or FMJ, rounds are around 115-125 grains. The .45 ACP FMJ weighs 230 grains, about twice as much. That extra weight translates' into more 'carry through' energy on-target.
BTW, a 9mm projectile measured in standard english measurement is about .357 of an inch. (So is a .38 special projectile; The reason for that goes' back to black-powder days). It may not seem like much, but when you increase the diameter of a .35 round circle by an extra .10 inch, it makes quite a difference.
As to the 5.56mm., In SAE measurement, it is known as a .223, or .22 if you don't want to be so picky with the micrometer. The theory behind the 5.56mm, ever since It wa introduced in the late '50's, is that a 55-grain bullet travelling at 3,500-4,000 FPS would cause wounding, without necessarily killing, Enemy soldiers. DoD studies' had come to the conclusion that a wounded Man was better than a dead one, because wounds' required battlefield medics, Doctors, and nurses to care for him. It was theorized that the logistics' of manpower dedicated to medical support for enemy forces' would be an enormous advantage. Plus, It was also estimated that the average combat-load per soldier could be tripled with the smaller, lighter ammo; Soldiers' that had previously carried about 100 rounds of 7.62mm NATO could now carry something like 300 rounds' of 5.56mm, which also helped improve the logistical situation in the field. It turned out that there were quite a few reasons' to switch.
-
Originally posted by mensa180
I heard on the history channel (great source I know :rolleyes:) that some American soldiers would pick up one of their empty clips and throw it down to get that *ping* sound, then they'd shoot the Germans that popped up looking.
Since when does metal go "ping" when it lands on either grass or dirt???
This subject is so over-hyped.
SIG 220
-
Originally posted by SIG220
One would not want to shoot the .30-06 round full auto from a lightweight gun.
SIG 220
Way too true-The same could be said about the .303, though. The Bren was no lightweight, but It cooled a little better, and it did have a 30-round mag, versus' the 20-rounder in the BAR. It helped the Bren out in the fire-support role.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
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.
And that is exactly why many police SWAT teams are now moving away from pistol caliber submachine guns in favor of the 5.56mm???
You seem to have forgotten the formula for kinetic energy. It is velocity that gets squared, not mass.
SIG 220
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
The M1 Garand was originally designed to have a 20 round magazine like the BAR. But the army insisted it have a top feeding clip.
Edit: Another variant that never saw duty was the T20E2. This variant is, at its simplest, a Garand modified to accept Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) magazines, and has selective fire capability, with semi- and fully-automatic modes.
The ultimate Garand I say.
There were some practical reasons for going with a clip instead of a magazine. The thinking was that these magazines would get lost on the battlefield, and would thus have to be constantly replaced. No small cost, when you are using so many rifles.
Inventor John Pedersen designed the Garand clip, to meet the army's needs. There was never any serious consideration given to making a Garand with a removable magazine.
The truly ULTIMATE Garand would have been if the Army had kept the design that actually won the Army trials, which was chambered in the .276 Pedersen round ( also designed by John Pedersen ). This design proved much more effective in the trials. It allowed the Garand to have a 10 round clip instead of only 8. And the .276 Pedersen had substantially less recoil than a .30-06, and thus proved easier for the average infantryman to shoot well. It still retained decent terminal performance out to as far as the typical soldier could effectively shoot with iron sights.
It was Douglas MacArthur himself ( he was Army Chief of Staff at the time ), who overruled the recommendation, and insisted that the Garand use the .30-06 His reasoning was that it made logistics eaiser, to have one standardized caliber. In addition, the US had a large stock of .30-06 ammo at that time.
So a .276 Pedersen Garand would have been a much better weapon. It had a 25% increase in clip capacity, and was much easier to rapidly fire accurately. And out to 300 m, it would have been just as effective in killing soldiers.
The new 6.8mm Remington SPC round that the Army has recently experimented with is a realization that a .27 caliber round is indeed about the ideal compromise. Of course, many hunters who shoot the .270 Winchester round already know that.
SIG 220
-
Originally posted by SIG220
Since when does metal go "ping" when it lands on either grass or dirt???
This subject is so over-hyped.
SIG 220
If you've shot a Garand, you know that it pings when the clip comes out.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Well it boils down to the weight as well, now doesn't it?
A heavier bullet will slow down..slower.
And I don't have the weight comparison. 9mm to 0.45 however don't have a big difference in diameter, and btw, why have modern forces taken up the usage of what, 5.6 mm high velocity rounds?
You see, penetration is also an issue.... a stabbing issue ;)
The 5.56MM NATO round was adopted because it is small and light, so a soldier can carry more of it (and he'll need more since 5.56 NATO is not as reliable a stopper as 7.62 NATO, or even 7.62 x 39).
-
Originally posted by Slash27
(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g111/bgrigry/000_1210.jpg)
M1 Garand and some M1As ( semi-auto only version of the M14)
They are not literally the same gun, but obviously very closely related.
Are these rifles yours? They have gorgeous stocks on them. Very nice looking wood indeed.
You seem to be well prepared for the next World War. :D :D :D
SIG 220
-
Originally posted by Yeager
The M1 Carbine was intended to replace the .45 pistol for support troops. Apparently they needed something more capable than a pistol but less than the main Garand armament.
The Carbine become popular with many front line troops and can be seen often in combat footage. The M1 Carbine round is not an earth shattering round ballistically but I assume it is not a pleasant experience to be shot by one.
The kinetic energy of a .30 Carbine round eaxily exceeds that of a .45 ACP It had a muzzle velocity of 1,970 fps, instead of the slow 920 fps of the .45 ACP
Bullet drop was not anywhere near as bad as the .45 either, making hits at longer ranges much easier than with the Thompson.
The .30 Carbine was issued to many combat troops, especially to those who would benefit from it's much lighter weight and compact size. Airborne and Tank soldiers were just some of the troops it was popular with.
I shot a .30 carbine once as a young 13 yr old kid, and I had no problem at hitting a 4 ft metal disk that the range had at 200 yards. It was so much fun to hear the pings, and the nearly non-existent recoil made the shooting so very easy.
SIG 220
-
Originally posted by Viking
They would be my second choice. Germans third. USA fourth. After that it becomes blurry.
Except that the modern German Army is totally untested. There is no combat record to suggest that it can fight as effectively as it used to.
The British, however, did kick major butt in the Falklands War against the Argentine Military. As well as their participation in the two wars in Iraq, and Korea too.
Even the German effort in Afghanistan is limited and very meek in nature. Their troops are mainly providing police type security inside Kabul. They are not going out into the countryside to fight the Taliban, as US and UK troops have been.
Almost 30 German soldiers have died fighting in Afghanistan, though, mainly through IED bombs. Germany is certainly doing far more than most nations to try to help bring peace and stability to that troubled nation.
The last mention I heard in the news about the German troops was back in September. Reports then said that anti-war groups were pressuring the government to withdraw all German troops, while US commanders were asking them to send soldiers to help fight the Taliban in the southern part of the country.
I guess that never happened, though, as I see now in today's news that the US is sending more Marines to Afghanistan, to increase the American forces combating the Taliban.
SIG 220
-
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.
The other factor in this debate is the .40 S&W cartridge, which no one has mentioned.
It offers both larger caliber than a 9mm, but close to the same capacity. A gun that carries 17 rounds in 9mm will typically hold 15 .40 S&W rounds.
Police forces here in the USA are overwhelmingly going with the .40 S&W, since the FBI adopted it as their standard.
The .40 S&W offers the best of both worlds, in my opinion.
Only extremely manly men like myself shoot the .45 ACP. However, even I now own a .40 S&W also, since you get can much more compact and lighter guns in that caliber to carry.
SIG 220
-
Originally posted by Viking
Ball ammo is the only legal ammo for military use. Expanding bullets are outlawed by international law.
Fortunately, here in the USA, we do not have to obey International law. :D :D :D
Here is my main argument in favor of the .45, a photo of the ammo that I have loaded in my SIG 220:
(http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s272/lanceJOregon/guns/corbon.jpg)
That hole also looks very big when you see it in person, too.
SIG 220
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
see its amazing lazs. for a heathen like me being shot is being shot. a bullet that hits you is a bullet that hits you. if you get my meaning.
i geuss its the difference between a nice round hole in your shoulder (9mm) and a nice stump where your shoulder used to be(45).
i dont plan to get shot by or shoot at people so hopefully my ignorance will go unpunished.
You can only say that because you live in England.
The latest fad here in America is being Tased, instead of being shot. However, since that is almost always done by the authorities, it is generally done with justification.
Here where I live, an automobile thief was brought into a hospital emergency room this past weekend by the local police. The owner of the stolen car had witnessed the theft, and had taken chase in another car. After the thief crashed and totaled his car during the chase, the owner caught him and beat him up pretty badly. So that was why he was taken to the hospital, to be checked over. Police did not show up for 15 minutes, and the guy was pretty well worked over by the really pissed off owner by then.
Well, in the Emergency room, the thief jumped on the doctor that was treating his injuries, and then grabbed him by the throat with both hands, and started choking him very violently. The doctor was in danger of being strangled.
The officer who escorted the thief to the hospital then tased him, which made him immediately release his hold on the poor doctor's throat. So the unlucky criminal ended up being in a violent car crash, then badly beat up, and then shot with a Taser in the same day.
I believe that a well place Taser shot can incapacitate faster than either the .45, the 9mm, or anything else. Unfortunately, though, guns are still needed in society. 25% of Americans are estimated to own them, and the number of guns in civilian hands is now almost 200 million, far more than all of America's military and police forces combined.
SIG 220
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
If you've shot a Garand, you know that it pings when the clip comes out.
That was not my point. He was claiming that throwing the empty clips could make a ping sound, which is ridiculous.
SIG 220
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Mosin-Nagant?
that is bolt action
-
Originally posted by SIG220
That was not my point. He was claiming that throwing the empty clips could make a ping sound, which is ridiculous.
SIG 220
Pinching the two sides together and letting it pop out replicated the sound.
-
Originally posted by SIG220
That was not my point. He was claiming that throwing the empty clips could make a ping sound, which is ridiculous.
SIG 220
No, it is NOT ridiculous. My Dad did exactly that, in World War II and Korea. It's all in HOW you throw the clip. And it DOES work. You snap the clip from your fingers.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
No, it is NOT ridiculous. My Dad did exactly that, in World War II and Korea. It's all in HOW you throw the clip. And it DOES work. You snap the clip from your fingers.
OK, point taken. I've only had experience with the M14, and admit that I have never shot a Garand.
I still find it amazing that soldiers would even attempt to do this. Battles are not fought one on one.
SIG 220
-
Originally posted by SIG220
The other factor in this debate is the .40 S&W cartridge, which no one has mentioned.
It offers both larger caliber than a 9mm, but close to the same capacity. A gun that carries 17 rounds in 9mm will typically hold 15 .40 S&W rounds.
Police forces here in the USA are overwhelmingly going with the .40 S&W, since the FBI adopted it as their standard.
The .40 S&W offers the best of both worlds, in my opinion.
Only extremely manly men like myself shoot the .45 ACP. However, even I now own a .40 S&W also, since you get can much more compact and lighter guns in that caliber to carry.
SIG 220
Just speaking for myself, I sidestepped the .40 S&W in this because It was originally an argument about two of the main Pistol/Sub-machine gun rounds' of WWII- the .45ACP, and the 9mm Parabellum.
The .30 carbine round is a welcome inclusion, though. And somebody was asking for ballistics' on the 7.62x25 Tokarev round, as was used in the TT30, M-N revolver, and I believe all of the Soviet burp-guns.
7.62mm Tokarev (7.62x25mm) -- 85 gr FMJ, 1550 fps, 453 ftlbs. Sellier & Bellot
It's modern commercial western manufacture, I don't know if that load data is the same for a WWII Russian manufactured round. BTW, that round is not used in the Nagant revolver, it uses a 7.62x38.
This guy has some interesting data on quite a few different ammunition types:http://www.geocities.com/alancook.geo/ammo.htm
This ones' all in Metric, but pretty comprehensive:http://scottgs.dynip.com/pictures/Firearms/Reloading/General%20Cartridge%20Information%20and%20Metric%20Ballistics.htm
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Bullet weight, measured in grains, comes into play here.
Most early and standard 9mm. ball, or FMJ, rounds are around 115-125 grains. The .45 ACP FMJ weighs 230 grains, about twice as much. That extra weight translates' into more 'carry through' energy on-target.
BTW, a 9mm projectile measured in standard english measurement is about .357 of an inch. (So is a .38 special projectile; The reason for that goes' back to black-powder days). It may not seem like much, but when you increase the diameter of a .35 round circle by an extra .10 inch, it makes quite a difference.
As to the 5.56mm., In SAE measurement, it is known as a .223, or .22 if you don't want to be so picky with the micrometer. The theory behind the 5.56mm, ever since It wa introduced in the late '50's, is that a 55-grain bullet travelling at 3,500-4,000 FPS would cause wounding, without necessarily killing, Enemy soldiers. DoD studies' had come to the conclusion that a wounded Man was better than a dead one, because wounds' required battlefield medics, Doctors, and nurses to care for him. It was theorized that the logistics' of manpower dedicated to medical support for enemy forces' would be an enormous advantage. Plus, It was also estimated that the average combat-load per soldier could be tripled with the smaller, lighter ammo; Soldiers' that had previously carried about 100 rounds of 7.62mm NATO could now carry something like 300 rounds' of 5.56mm, which also helped improve the logistical situation in the field. It turned out that there were quite a few reasons' to switch.
That made sense! And the 45's quite a bit heavier, never thought it would be so much! So it is a king of total energy. That will also help with penetration even with slower speed. Theory holds.
So, my Tommygun goes on top of the list :D
And BTW, M1 Garand does make a ping when the clip goes out.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Bullet weight, measured in grains, comes into play here.
Most early and standard 9mm. ball, or FMJ, rounds are around 115-125 grains. The .45 ACP FMJ weighs 230 grains, about twice as much. That extra weight translates' into more 'carry through' energy on-target.
It's interesting how in these discussions concerning the favorite calibers of americans turns into arguments that keep turning around. Now it's suddenly the weight that wins. When it's about the .50 caliber versus 20mm argument it's about the velocity. Funny. I don't know about your stand over the .50 vs. 20mm argument, but that was my general observation based on the replies to this thread of the .45 vs. 9mm.
the "carry through energy" is also dependant on the diameter and velocity of the round. The diameter that "might not seem much" does also apply to the "carry through energy". The velocity of 9mm round (*pay attention to velocities - bullets could been loaded for SMG or pistol in mind) is considerably higher than .45's.
Some hundred year ago, when choosing the bullet type for the US army, a test was conducted between .45, 9mm and 7.65mm calibers. The "carry through energy" was from the worst to the best respectively. (IIRC they favored the 9mm, but in the end the .45 was chosen over the recommendation.)
If you want to punch through a bullet vest, you'll go with the 9mm. I'd rather use .40 or .357 though.
Anyway, that's my take just on the "carry through energy".
-
My Uncle was a Royal Marine Commando through the war. When asked he always said his favourite weapon of choice by far was the Thompson.
Followed by this.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v449/davest/Tool.jpg)
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
My Uncle was a Royal Marine Commando through the war. When asked he always said his favourite weapon of choice by far was the Thompson.
Not much of a choice there, when the competitor is the Sten gun :D
-
Originally posted by Fishu
It's interesting how in these discussions concerning the favorite calibers of americans turns into arguments that keep turning around. Now it's suddenly the weight that wins. When it's about the .50 caliber versus 20mm argument it's about the velocity. Funny. I don't know about your stand over the .50 vs. 20mm argument, but that was my general observation based on the replies to this thread of the .45 vs. 9mm.
the "carry through energy" is also dependant on the diameter and velocity of the round. The diameter that "might not seem much" does also apply to the "carry through energy". The velocity of 9mm round (*pay attention to velocities - bullets could been loaded for SMG or pistol in mind) is considerably higher than .45's.
Some hundred year ago, when choosing the bullet type for the US army, a test was conducted between .45, 9mm and 7.65mm calibers. The "carry through energy" was from the worst to the best respectively. (IIRC they favored the 9mm, but in the end the .45 was chosen over the recommendation.)
If you want to punch through a bullet vest, you'll go with the 9mm. I'd rather use .40 or .357 though.
Anyway, that's my take just on the "carry through energy".
I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings here, but neither 9MM, 40 Short and Weak, nor 357 Magnum, will reliably penetrate even a IIA (pronounced two A)vest, especially not with a trauma plate. There is a slim chance that a hot +P+ 357 Magnum may penetrate. A level IIIA vest will stop a 240 grain 44 Magnum round. A level IIIA is standard issue for law enforcement. Standard issue for the military is IV, rated to stop a 30-06.
The vest ratings are from the NIJ (National Institute of Justice) and are pretty reliable.
You can up the bullet weight and get penetration in some cases. For example, IF you can find a 147 grain load hot enough, you MIGHT get 9MM to go through a IIA. You can now buy 44 Magnum ammunition that will penetrate IIIA, since some companies now load 300 grain bullets. In STANDARD carry guns, 10MM is the most likely to defeat body armor. The rating standard is a 100% stop, and the rounds are fired over a chronograph. Note that it is rare, unless dealing with true custom high end loads, to get a standard store bought weapon to reach the velocity ratings found on a box of ammunition. Most are around 100 feet per second short, if not more.
-
yep.. we are getting all mixed up here with WWII and military ammo in general and what is used out on the mean ol streets of the USA and what myths are flying around.
There was nothing but ball ammo in WWII.. on the street.. mostly hollow points, some good some bad in design rein. The only thing that they have in common is that you mostly were/are lucky to hit any part of the person you shot at.
In WWII it was best to have 2800 fps with a 30 caliber or better or... if you got down to the 1,000 fps range.. the bigger the bullet the better.. in the small bullets you wanted to create hydrostatic shock.. that ALMOST always happens in a huge way at speed near 2000 fps or so.. not so much at the lower speeds..
for pistols and sub guns.. you will be better off.... 9 times out of ten.. with the bigger, slower round.
on the street.. not so much. We have gotten exotic. expansion that is fairly reliable fairly being the operative word.. you still only get to hit whatever you are lucky enough to hit.. with a small round.. 22, 32, 9mm.. it may or may not expand. if it doesn't.. it will make a small hole and.. most likely just keep going into a car or a wall or whatever..
The big round.. the 44 or 45.. no matter what.. even if it fails to expand... it makes a big hole and expends most of it's energy in the target.. Target makes it sound to easy tho.. like some paper shooting match.. the "target" is normally not even being sighted in at.. snap shots.
The advantage to the big bullet is.. any hit makes a big hole and sucks up energy.. the advantage to the small bullet is that fast recovery from recoil and quick follow up shots.
I have loaded 44 mags to penetrate level II and III vests.. it is not difficult but.. they don't expand.. they are solids. follow up shots are not easy for the average person.
lazs
-
but.. I have shot the garand and the smle and the 98 mauser and nagant rifles a lot.. own em... I would chose the garand over all of em without hesitation.
The smle is the least accurate of all of em to me. Also one of the easiest to work the bolt.
sig.. the clip "Pings" when it leaves the gun not when it hits the ground.
I believe that the clip was not a problem with the garand.. you can load a clip at least twice as fast as you can change a mag.. the problem with the clip was that it was 8 rounds instead of ten say and that it was difficult to top off...
If you shoot a few rounds and then have a break.. what do you do? do you dump the whole clip and load another and now have a bunch of loose rounds or.. do you just go into battle with less rounds or.. try to load loose ammo into the gun to top it off?
Still... for sustained fire the clip is extremely fast to reload.. nothing is faster from last shot to first new shot. as it fires the last shot the clip ejects... the bolt stays open on the last shot.. you don't do anything but jam a new fat clip into a large opening.. have you seen the slot for the "clips" for bolt guns? tiny. and.. you have to open the bolt on the last shot yourself.
As you jam home the garand clip... it seats and... the bolt stays back until you take your hand off the loaded clip.. quickly... or you will get hit with the bolt (m1 thumb). mostly.. ya gotta give the operating rod a slap to make sure the first round is chambered and you are good to go with 8 more as fast as you can squeeze the trigger.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Fishu
It's interesting how in these discussions concerning the favorite calibers of americans turns into arguments that keep turning around. Now it's suddenly the weight that wins. When it's about the .50 caliber versus 20mm argument it's about the velocity. Funny. I don't know about your stand over the .50 vs. 20mm argument, but that was my general observation based on the replies to this thread of the .45 vs. 9mm.
the "carry through energy" is also dependant on the diameter and velocity of the round. The diameter that "might not seem much" does also apply to the "carry through energy". The velocity of 9mm round (*pay attention to velocities - bullets could been loaded for SMG or pistol in mind) is considerably higher than .45's.
Some hundred year ago, when choosing the bullet type for the US army, a test was conducted between .45, 9mm and 7.65mm calibers. The "carry through energy" was from the worst to the best respectively. (IIRC they favored the 9mm, but in the end the .45 was chosen over the recommendation.)
If you want to punch through a bullet vest, you'll go with the 9mm. I'd rather use .40 or .357 though.
Anyway, that's my take just on the "carry through energy".
.45 wasn't chosen on a whim, nor a Manly "Bigger is better" spiel.
.45 was chosen because it WOULD knock down and kill coked out Filipinos. All those rounds you espouse didn't even tickle them.
-
Dont know if its the best cc weapon, but the MP44 is by far the best and most effective looking weapon.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
You have no idea who Fackler is, do you?:rolleyes:
I have a passing knowledge of the man, and while I don’t doubt his expertise as a military doctor I must question his knowledge on nannying European legislation and the intricacies of the French cheese industry. However since Dr. Fackler isn’t European that is not surprising. Now, some might think that statement is a bit weird so I will explain it in more detail: Let’s review Dr. Fackler’s criticisms of the Strasbourg Tests:
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.
Dr. Fackler seems to be criticizing that the goats were shot from the side and trough both lungs, and also that the bullet would pass through or near major pulmonary vessels. According to the test document one of the main purposes of the test was to observe the effect of systemic shock to the cardiac/vascular system obviously requiring the bullet to pass through or near major blood vessels.
Secondly, he seems to be ignorant of European nannying laws regulating how animals may be killed with firearms. Shooting through both lungs is in fact the only legal way to shoot medium and large sized animals in Europe, requiring a side or front quarter shot. This is of course to minimize the risk of having wounded game animals wandering around the wilderness for hours or days before succumbing to their wounds. Unless the testing company got special legal dispensations (unlikely), the test was done in the only way it could have been done legally.
Thirdly the tests were not done to find the absolute stopping power of a cartridge, but the relative stopping power. In other words the test result for one cartridge is meaningless by itself. The result is only relevant relative to the results of the other cartridges. In this context it is really irrelevant how the animal is shot as long as all shots are made in a scientifically consistent way. The bullet that does more tissue damage to the goat’s lungs will cause the animal to drown in its own blood faster. No correlation to human targets were done in the tests except for the choice of animal (goats are popular as human analogues in military testing).
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.
Here I suspect Dr. Fackler is deliberately being obtuse or misleading. France is the world’s biggest cheese producer and has hundreds of thousands of registered dairy goats in milk production; the total goat population may very well be in the millions. The testing body set a number of strict parameters on the acceptable attributes of the test animals (size, weight, deceases etc.) to ensure minimal variances in test results from different animals. They did apparently have difficulty in finding 600 goats that fit the parameters. However, Dr. Fackler turns this around and wants us to believe that the testing body had problems finding 600 goats in all of France (lol), and that it is “strange” that they all weighed within four pounds of 160 pounds.
Authors are often very competitive, and sometimes takes great offence when a rival author publishes data that conflicts with theirs. Unfortunately this seems to be the case with Dr. Fackler as well since he goes to great lengths to insinuate that his rivals are liars and frauds. Dr. Fackler is rude and unprofessional in his comments and criticisms…
The only people who think the "Strasbourg Tests" are real are the usual crowd of crackpot "magic bullet" believers and the pathetically incompetent editors of consumer gun magazines like Guns & Ammo. I suppose we'll soon see anonomous{sic} reports "proving: that Elvis is alive and conducting one shot stop experiments on unicorns. And, of course, someone will believe that too.”
- Dr. Fackler
… and obviously cannot refute the Strasbourg tests without resorting to irrelevancies and insults.
Dr. Martin Fackler immediately started crying "Fraud!" and issuing encyclicals about "bullet salesmen." He and his IWBA minions had been heaping scorn and derision upon Evan Marshall and Edwin Sanow since they had had the temerity to publish the first of three successful volumes about Handgun Stopping Power.
What was especially ironic was that Dr. Fackler, with a high level of access, never once allowed as how goat testing was popular in the military community, nor mentioned that this was the type of thing which might have been done at the Institut Saint Louis near Strasbourg, France. He preferred, it seems, to huff and puff, posture and rattle sabers.”
- Dean Speir, author of over 600 articles in periodicals such as Guns Magazine, Combat Handguns, Petersen's Handguns, American Handgunner, The New Gun Week, Gun & Shooter, Guns & Weapons for Law Enforcement, Shooting Industry, American Firearms Industry, Machine Gun News, Practical Shooting International, Law Enforcement Technology, Police Product News, the late lamented The American Guardian, The Shotgun News, Germany's Visier, various DBI Books, and, in a misguided moment, even Women & Guns.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
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 )Gs?
The Norwegian army’s primary infantry weapon is the AG-3 (Norwegian version of the H&K G-3). The AG-3 is chambered for the 7.62 NATO round and although it is selective fire the recoil of full auto fire is excessive. Over penetration of the 7.62 round is also a problem in urban combat and a hazard to friendly forces. The Ag-3 also only has a 20 round magazine and is over a metre long. In what we call “sharp missions” or better translated as “live fire missions” the AG-3 is supplemented with MP-5’s in units that operate in urban areas.
(http://www.norvetnet.no/fotobase/mypics/Admin/153/7205532.jpg)
Norwegian soldier with MP-5 in Kosovo.
(http://www.norvetnet.no/fotobase/mypics/Admin/238/_U1Z7426-rs.jpg)
Norwegian soldier with AG-3 in Afghanistan.
The AG-3 is on its way out of service with our army, soon being replaced with the H&K 416 in 5.56N. This will reduce if not eliminate the use of the MP-5 in the infantry. As you mentioned, It will of course continue to be used by vehicle crews, military police and in other support roles.
-
Originally posted by SIG220
One would not want to shoot the .30-06 round full auto from a lightweight gun.
SIG 220
That depends on your definition of “lightweight” in this context. The .30-06 and its replacement the 7.62 NATO are fully controllable from a full auto battle rifle in a prone position with a bipod. The Germans even made machinegun versions of the G-3 battle rifle.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Way too true-The same could be said about the .303, though. The Bren was no lightweight, but It cooled a little better, and it did have a 30-round mag, versus' the 20-rounder in the BAR. It helped the Bren out in the fire-support role.
Yes the Bren Gun was actually heavier than the BAR. However the BAR was built and shaped as an automatic rifle, not as a light machinegun, and its performance suffered for it. The Bren Gun has a pistol grip, a properly centered machinegun stock, carrying handle, and a top loading magazine feed which makes it much faster to reload from a prone position, especially with the aid of a loader. Compared with other weapons of this type the BAR was relatively clumsy and impractical. IMHO of course.
-
Originally posted by SIG220
Except that the modern German Army is totally untested. There is no combat record to suggest that it can fight as effectively as it used to.
It is hardly untested. The Germans regularly beat US forces in NATO exercises, to the point that one US commander noted “the Germans must have warfare written in their genetic code”. Since 1992 more than 200.000 German troops have served in international operations, most notably in the Balkans, Sudan, Cambodia and now Afghanistan and Iraq.
The British army is more battle tested that the German army, and that is the only reason I consider them better. The German army is actually bigger than the British and much better equipped. The German army is perhaps the best equipped army in the world at the moment. I’m sorry if this offends some people here, but the only reason I place the US Army 4th and not umpteenth is because of its large size.
-
Originally posted by SIG220
The other factor in this debate is the .40 S&W cartridge, which no one has mentioned.
I did mention it indirectly in an earlier post. I’ve never owned a pistol in .40 S&W, but I’ve shot a friend’s .40 S&W Glock on many occasions at the range. I liked the .40 S&W. I’m more comfortable with 9 mm and .45 though.
-
Originally posted by SIG220
Fortunately, here in the USA, we do not have to obey International law. :D :D :D
Actually you do, since the US government has ratified most international law and your constitution demands you honor international treaties. However I do understand that your comment was tongue-in-cheek. ;)
-
Originally posted by Angus
That made sense! And the 45's quite a bit heavier, never thought it would be so much! So it is a king of total energy. That will also help with penetration even with slower speed. Theory holds.
The energy is generated by the gunpowder charge, not the bullet. ;) The gun itself helps shape and focus that energy trough different chamber and barrel designs, and may also bleed off some of the energy to work other functions (like cycling the action). In pistol applications the 9 mm and .45 ACP are usually very similar in energy at the muzzle, .45 usually being a little more powerful. However the size, weight and shape of the bullet determine how the energy imparted in the bullet is transferred to the target. Two bullets with the same energy imparted in them, but of different size will affect the target differently; the bigger, slower bullet will transfer the energy more quickly at the expense of penetration (i.e. it will not travel so deeply into the body). The smaller, faster bullet will transfer the energy over longer time and penetrate deeper into the body. If the bullet exits the back of the target (called over penetration) the energy it retains is lost and ineffective. That is why smaller faster bullets often need to be of an expanding design (hollow point, soft tip etc.) to prevent over penetration. I hope this makes sense. :)
-
*phew*
-
Originally posted by Viking
The Norwegian army’s primary infantry weapon is the AG-3 (Norwegian version of the H&K G-3). The AG-3 is chambered for the 7.62 NATO round and although it is selective fire the recoil of full auto fire is excessive. Over penetration of the 7.62 round is also a problem in urban combat and a hazard to friendly forces. The Ag-3 also only has a 20 round magazine and is over a metre long. In what we call “sharp missions” or better translated as “live fire missions” the AG-3 is supplemented with MP-5’s in units that operate in urban areas.
(http://www.norvetnet.no/fotobase/mypics/Admin/153/7205532.jpg)
Norwegian soldier with MP-5 in Kosovo.
(http://www.norvetnet.no/fotobase/mypics/Admin/238/_U1Z7426-rs.jpg)
Norwegian soldier with AG-3 in Afghanistan.
The AG-3 is on its way out of service with our army, soon being replaced with the H&K 416 in 5.56N. This will reduce if not eliminate the use of the MP-5 in the infantry. As you mentioned, It will of course continue to be used by vehicle crews, military police and in other support roles.
Your helms need horns :D
Why has it taken Norway so long to go to an rifle using 5.56 nato?
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Your helms need horns :D
Why has it taken Norway so long to go to an rifle using 5.56 nato?
I'd hazard a guess; With longer, more open spaces, or mountainous terrain where firefights might wind up at fixed distances(I.E. Your on one peak/hilltop, the Enemy's on another, 200 yards' away) You might want something like the .308 to cover that distance. Kinda the same way that some U.S. forces' in Iraq and Afghanistan have been using M-14's, because of the ranges' involved being too far for accurate 5.56mm fire. There might be other reasons, though, like economic or logistic's.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Actually you do, since the US government has ratified most international law and your constitution demands you honor international treaties. However I do understand that your comment was tongue-in-cheek. ;)
As far as our military is concerned, yes, they abide by the Geneva convention. But for civilian or Law-enforcement inside the territorial U.S., a Gun owner is legally free to load his weapon with hollowpoints' if he so chooses.
-
Originally posted by Viking
That depends on your definition of “lightweight” in this context. The .30-06 and its replacement the 7.62 NATO are fully controllable from a full auto battle rifle in a prone position with a bipod. The Germans even made machinegun versions of the G-3 battle rifle.
I think what SIG didn't point out, but what he had on his mind, was that not every battlefield situation allowed for prone firing from a bipod or rest. In situation's like house-to-house fighting, you are going to be running from cover to cover, crouched over, around a corner, etc. This is where the 5.56mm's lesser recoil would be a boon, because you would be firing alot in close quarters, most likely in Full-auto.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Yes the Bren Gun was actually heavier than the BAR. However the BAR was built and shaped as an automatic rifle, not as a light machinegun, and its performance suffered for it. The Bren Gun has a pistol grip, a properly centered machinegun stock, carrying handle, and a top loading magazine feed which makes it much faster to reload from a prone position, especially with the aid of a loader. Compared with other weapons of this type the BAR was relatively clumsy and impractical. IMHO of course.
You forgot to add, that the B.A.R. M1918 was not originally designed to be a Squad Automatic weapon, or a true LMG. It was origanally designed to be an infantryman's standard-issue weapon. The concept was that the infantry, advancing across the no-man's-land of WWI, would be their own fire support, each man capable of wielding' automatic firepower.
During WWII, the B.A.R. had the advantage over other squad automatic weapons, in that one man could operate the B.A.R. You did not need to assign someone out of the squad to be the gun's No.2, thereby you had an extra man freed up for tactical maneuver with the squad. This was viewed as an acceptable trade-off for the 20-round mag.
-
viking.. energy has nothing to do with powder charge... it is a function of bullet weight and velocity.. for instance.. a charge of 45 grains of IMR4895 powder does not have more "energy" than say 40 grains of IMR3031.
dia. is not the same as bullet weight either.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Viking
It is hardly untested. The Germans regularly beat US forces in NATO exercises, to the point that one US commander noted “the Germans must have warfare written in their genetic code”. Since 1992 more than 200.000 German troops have served in international operations, most notably in the Balkans, Sudan, Cambodia and now Afghanistan and Iraq.
The British army is more battle tested that the German army, and that is the only reason I consider them better. The German army is actually bigger than the British and much better equipped. The German army is perhaps the best equipped army in the world at the moment. I’m sorry if this offends some people here, but the only reason I place the US Army 4th and not umpteenth is because of its large size.
German combat units in Iraq?? That never, ever happened. Please offer actual evidence of it if you insist that it did. There has been a lot of debate in Germany in recent years over helping in Iraq, and the decision has always been to avoid military involvement there.
Even their troops in Afghanistan are relegated to only police type security operations, mainly in the capital of Kabul. That is not truly combat experience either.
I have no doubt that their army is well equipped and trained. But the fact remains is that it is totally untested in combat. Policing type work does not count.
SIG 220
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Your helms need horns :D
Why has it taken Norway so long to go to an rifle using 5.56 nato?
Lol, yeah, I bet the Irish, Scots and French would be thrilled with that idea. ;)
We have kept the AG-3 for more than 30 years now mostly for the reasons stated by FrodeMk3. In addition the AG-3 is very rugged and rivals the AK-47 in reliability and simplicity. For a conscript army those are important factors. However now that our army is in the process of reorganizing from the classical land defense against a Russian invasion to an expeditionary force for international operations a 5.56N assault rifle is the logical choice.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
As far as our military is concerned, yes, they abide by the Geneva convention. But for civilian or Law-enforcement inside the territorial U.S., a Gun owner is legally free to load his weapon with hollowpoints' if he so chooses.
You are right of course, the context of my original post was for military use, not civilian.
Originally posted by Viking
Ball ammo is the only legal ammo for military use. Expanding bullets are outlawed by international law.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
I think what SIG didn't point out, but what he had on his mind, was that not every battlefield situation allowed for prone firing from a bipod or rest. In situation's like house-to-house fighting, you are going to be running from cover to cover, crouched over, around a corner, etc. This is where the 5.56mm's lesser recoil would be a boon, because you would be firing alot in close quarters, most likely in Full-auto.
That is true. 5.56N is a much better round for a squad automatic weapon. However we were discussing the WWII era Browning Automatic Rifle; a time where there was only one intermediate round suitable for a SAW type weapon. Unfortunately that round was German.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
You forgot to add, that the B.A.R. M1918 was not originally designed to be a Squad Automatic weapon, or a true LMG. It was origanally designed to be an infantryman's standard-issue weapon.
Perhaps my post was ambiguous, but I believe that's what I said:
"However the BAR was built and shaped as an automatic rifle, not as a light machinegun..."
I'm sorry for any misunderstanding.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
viking.. energy has nothing to do with powder charge... it is a function of bullet weight and velocity.. for instance.. a charge of 45 grains of IMR4895 powder does not have more "energy" than say 40 grains of IMR3031.
dia. is not the same as bullet weight either.
lazs
The bullet gets its energy from the gunpowder charge. The gunpowder is the propellant, the fuel. Without the gunpowder charge you'd have to throw the bullet to get any velocity at all.
This is elementary physics Lazs.
-
Originally posted by SIG220
German combat units in Iraq?? That never, ever happened.
You are absolutely right. Brain fart on my part.
Originally posted by SIG220
I have no doubt that their army is well equipped and trained. But the fact remains is that it is totally untested in combat. Policing type work does not count.
SIG 220
The US Army was totally untested in combat when they invaded Iraq in 1991. 10 years later when you invaded Afghanistan in 2001 much of the personnel in your army had been replaced with new soldiers untested in combat. An army is only as good as its training, leadership and equipment.
The US Army no more proved itself in combat by invading Afghanistan or Iraq than the German army proved itself by crushing Poland under its heel in '39. The US Army of today has never met an equal or even close to equal in combat, and probably never will. If anything the US Army has proved itself ... and I apologize for being blunt ... less capable in securing Iraq than one would expect from a nation as preeminent as yours.
-
the US army was untested in combat when they invaded France in WW2. Just a bunch of farm boys and store clerks.
-
Yes! Exactly :) And they sure proved themselves facing the Germans and Japanese.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
.45 was chosen because it WOULD knock down and kill coked out Filipinos. All those rounds you espouse didn't even tickle them.
Lol, you remind me of the dude with the six-shooter in his belt:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RHBOfM9CFQ
:lol
-
Originally posted by Viking
Yes! Exactly :) And they sure proved themselves facing the Germans and Japanese.
what just happened? did viking and me just agree on something? :O
-
I believe so. :)
-
Originally posted by Viking
The US Army was totally untested in combat when they invaded Iraq in 1991. 10 years later when you invaded Afghanistan in 2001 much of the personnel in your army had been replaced with new soldiers untested in combat. An army is only as good as its training, leadership and equipment.
The US Army no more proved itself in combat by invading Afghanistan or Iraq than the German army proved itself by crushing Poland under its heel in '39. The US Army of today has never met an equal or even close to equal in combat, and probably never will. If anything the US Army has proved itself ... and I apologize for being blunt ... less capable in securing Iraq than one would expect from a nation as preeminent as yours.
The problems with the performance of American Troops in Iraq and Afghanistan stem entirely from wussy Rules of Engagement, and the desire to please rather than the desire to win.
I believe that the clip was not a problem with the garand.. you can load a clip at least twice as fast as you can change a mag.. the problem with the clip was that it was 8 rounds instead of ten say and that it was difficult to top off...
If you shoot a few rounds and then have a break.. what do you do? do you dump the whole clip and load another and now have a bunch of loose rounds or.. do you just go into battle with less rounds or.. try to load loose ammo into the gun to top it off?
It's not difficult to Top Off the garand clip in-gun up to 7 rounds. With a little practice, it's pretty easy. BUT, it's almost impossible to load it up to 8.
-
PPSH, M1, MP44
.
Also that one German gun with the scope on it, looks like it's got a box atached to it for it's ammo holder.
I play COD1 and use the M1 the most.
-
Originally posted by SpikesX
PPSH, M1, MP44
.
Also that one German gun with the scope on it, looks like it's got a box atached to it for it's ammo holder.
I play COD1 and use the M1 the most.
The German rifle would be the G-43. That "box attached to it for it's ammo holder" is called a 'Magazine'.
-
viking.. it doesn't matter if you throw the bullet or shoot it out of a slingshot or drop it from an airplane or use gunpowder to propel it.
energy is a function of that bullets weight and velocity.
energy is not the most important factor in stopping power although it is very important.
lazs
-
Lazs, we are talking about two different things. I was trying to explain the physics of how a gun works. You're talking gun nomenclature, i.e. muzzle energy , target energy etc. I was just explaining where the bullet gets its energy from: The propellant charge. Just as a car gets its energy from the gasoline it burns. And I was trying to keep it simple.
-
oh... when talking about ballistics or ammo the accepted defenition of energy is as I have said.. it seems that instead of making things simple you have complicated them.
and.. just to make it even worse.. it is not so much the powder as the pressure. Powder exploding without pressure would create no energy that the bullet could use.
lazs
-
No, you are complicating this with your inane posturing. It is physically impossible for something to explode without creating pressure. Stop being so damned pedantic Lazs.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
oh... when talking about ballistics or ammo the accepted defenition of energy is as I have said.. it seems that instead of making things simple you have complicated them.
and.. just to make it even worse.. it is not so much the powder as the pressure. Powder exploding without pressure would create no energy that the bullet could use.
lazs
Nothing can explode without generating pressure.
-
yes. that is correct. the more pressure the more energy exerted. If the pressure is contained in a closed brass case with a bullet crimped in one end then the case is contained in a breech of some sort with only an opening for the bullet then you will get the energy of the powder exerted (mostly) on the bullet.
bullet energy is strictly a function of weight and velocity.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Viking
The energy is generated by the gunpowder charge, not the bullet. ;) The gun itself helps shape and focus that energy trough different chamber and barrel designs, and may also bleed off some of the energy to work other functions (like cycling the action). In pistol applications the 9 mm and .45 ACP are usually very similar in energy at the muzzle, .45 usually being a little more powerful. However the size, weight and shape of the bullet determine how the energy imparted in the bullet is transferred to the target. Two bullets with the same energy imparted in them, but of different size will affect the target differently; the bigger, slower bullet will transfer the energy more quickly at the expense of penetration (i.e. it will not travel so deeply into the body). The smaller, faster bullet will transfer the energy over longer time and penetrate deeper into the body. If the bullet exits the back of the target (called over penetration) the energy it retains is lost and ineffective. That is why smaller faster bullets often need to be of an expanding design (hollow point, soft tip etc.) to prevent over penetration. I hope this makes sense. :)
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
We could talk about expert marksman etc, but thats not who the average gun owner is in the US.
The average gun owners are the people on this board who own guns. Like myself, or Laz, or Charon or so many others.
Now I know Laz is a better shot then I am. I am competent, but not as good as I feel I should be cause I do not have the time and money to spend on ammo to shoot once a week, so at best I go once a month.
With no stress I don't miss the target.
Stress changes things. We can not assume we will be able to take a nice aimed head shot. Life doesn't work that way and when the adrenaline is running your not going to be at your best for fine motor control. For that reason people want stopping power, you don't want to have to shoot a guy 3 times to stop him when hitting him one time under stress is hard enough.
If you think maybe then we shouldn't have guns, keep in mind on average I would be willing to bet, your average gun enthusiast is a better shot then your average cop.
If your going to depend on something for keeping you alive, don't you think you would want to know that the tool is going to do the job well, not just ok?
yes i would want something to do the job best not just 'ok'. good point, it makes alot of sense for the average citizen. thanks.