Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Clone155 on November 29, 2009, 09:04:47 PM
-
We had an interesting debate today, and I thought I would bring it here.
So the question is, if a plane was loaded with 9mm pistol rounds, and fired at another plane, would the bullets bounce off of the plane?
-
More importantly, would they lose their energy so quickly that the pilot who fired them would have to fly through them? I just don't think a 9mm round would have enough power to even consider using in an aircraft.
I'm sure someone will come along soon and give you a nice muzzle velocity/energy comparison between a 9mm pistol round and a US .50 Caliber round. There is a huge difference in mass and power.
-
More importantly, would they lose their energy so quickly that the pilot who fired them would have to fly through them?
That made me smile.
:)
-
Representative muzzle energy....
BB gun.... 12 ft.lbs
9mm... 400 ft.lbs
50 Cal.... 11,000 ft.lbs
Obviously these are just average ratings, some individual loadings/gun combinations could be higher or lower.
Strip
-
Why do you ask?
Even standing still on the ground, pistols have extremely short ranges.
-
Why do you ask?
Even standing still on the ground, pistols have extremely short ranges.
If you ran really fast, and fired straight ahead, would the 9mm have an increased range?
-
:rofl Mtnman
9mm just don't have what it takes
-
If you ran really fast, and fired straight ahead, would the 9mm have an increased range?
LOL !!!!
-
9mm is no doubt a poor choice for an air to air gun ...
however i doubt many laughing here would like to sit in a 172 or even a hurricane down range a couple of hundred yards from 6 or 8 or 15 of these ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFL8saQRox8&feature=related
mounted as if on an aircraft for them to test their BBS bravado ...
i am thinking a bullet that is considered powerful enough to be effective for personal defense will probably do more than bounce off most parts of a plane within realistic WW-2 air to air gun ranges ...
BTW this is something pretty easy to test ...
for once
:D
-
:rofl, this is a awesome use of server space. but for some real applications of different bullet penetrations take a look at this sight.
i think it'll shed some light on how weak the 9mm really is in the broad spectrum of ballistics.
http://www.theboxotruth.com/
not shooting aircraft but I think you could correlate the damage and apply it to metal aircraft.
i am thinking a bullet that is considered powerful enough to be effective for personal defense will probably do more than bounce off most parts of a plane within realistic WW-2 air to air gun ranges ...
:headscratch:......um, no
-
:rofl, this is a awesome use of server space. but for some real applications of different bullet penetrations take a look at this sight.
i think it'll shed some light on how weak the 9mm really is in the broad spectrum of ballistics.
http://www.theboxotruth.com/
not shooting aircraft but I think you could correlate the damage and apply it to metal aircraft.
:headscratch:......um, no
umm aircraft skins are not usually made out of steel ...
even so i do not see where any 9mm "bounced off" of your car ...
max range of the mp5 is listed as 150 yards ...
i think a bunch of securely mounted longer barreled guns would probably make a mess of most aircraft skins at a couple of hundred yards ...
but hey go out and get a sheet of aircraft aluminum and a lawn chair and let us see what you get ...
:aok
-
A pistol round like a 9mm P or .45 ACP could do serious damage to an aircraft similar to a rifle round like the British .303 used in the early Spits and Hurris. The rifle round's primary advantage would be in ballistics: Range and time on target. Secondary the rifle round will have a better chance of penetrating cockpit armor. At pistol range (50-100 yards max) the pistol rounds would easily pierce the thin aluminum skin of WWII aircraft and damage the relatively flimsy structure, fuel/oil/coolant lines, radiators, unarmored parts of the cockpit and unprotected fuel tanks. A typical large caliber pistol round is also similar in volume to a rifle round, so it could carry the same amount of incendiary and/or other chemicals. It would still be very, very silly though.
-
The biggest problem with 9mm in aircraft is the relatively short time available to hit a target in WII. The whole reason 50 cals and cannons were brought into play were the short periods in which aircraft had to put hits on an adversary. A 9mm simply doesnt have the ability to damage a target enough in the short times available which is why the guns on the Hurr1 were changed from .303s to 20mm and why the faster movers like the 262 always had 30mm.
No one was afk in WWII.
-
Not AFK?
Some 85% (Estimated) actually never knew what hit them.
Obviously a better ranging weapon will allow that...better.
However, you'd need to really be a beliver to sit behind a cessna door and have somebody go at you from 100 yards with a 9 mm.....
-
That still doesnt meet the definition of AFK angus. A plane outfitted with 9mm isnt going to do enough damage unless the plane NEVER moves or cannot get out of the way at all. Its not about range at all its about destroying the target at firing time... period.
-
a plane moving however fast is not necessarily moving at all relative to another moving plane ...
200 yards is just not that far when discussing ballistics ...
period.
That still doesnt meet the definition of AFK angus. A plane outfitted with 9mm isnt going to do enough damage unless the plane NEVER moves or cannot get out of the way at all. Its not about range at all its about destroying the target at firing time... period.
-
Thorsim you are a luftwaffe flier mostly correct? Do you sit right behind a bomber and fire at it from 200 yards? I hope not because the luftwaffe planes were not designed for that but they were designed to drop bombers primarily or all they would have ever needed was 20mm cannons. Even if you dont accept that you should realise that in a fighting situation you are not very often going to have a con that is sitting there allowing you to shoot him from 200 yards as you please and when you do have a shot you want to knock him down quickly or his wingman is going to be shooting you.
(EDITed for obvious typo)
-
Not AFK?
Some 85% (Estimated) actually never knew what hit them.
Obviously a better ranging weapon will allow that...better.
However, you'd need to really be a beliver to sit behind a cessna door and have somebody go at you from 100 yards with a 9 mm.....
At 100 yards he's well out of effective range, and has a better chance of spitting at you than hitting you.
We're not talking 9mm RIFLES here, we're talking handguns.
Average effective range for revolvers is 30 feet, if I recall my old-west history (and these guns are normally more accurate than auto-loading pistols because the barrel does not move).
-
At 100 yards he's well out of effective range, and has a better chance of spitting at you than hitting you.
We're not talking 9mm RIFLES here, we're talking handguns.
Average effective range for revolvers is 30 feet, if I recall my old-west history (and these guns are normally more accurate than auto-loading pistols because the barrel does not move).
sorry krusty there was no mention of weapon type just ammo type 9mm i am assuming 9x19mm ...
Thorsim you are a luftwaffe flier mostly correct? Do you sit right behind a bomber and fire at it from 200 yards? I hope not because the luftwaffe planes were not designed for that but they were designed to drop bombers primarily or all they would have ever needed was 20mm cannons. Even if you dont accept that you should realise that in a fighting situation you are not very often going to have a con that is sitting there allowing you to shoot him from 200 yards as you please and when you do have a shot you want to knock him down quickly or his wingman is going to be shooting you.
(EDITed for obvious typo)
that is not the discussion chalenge the statement i took issue with was that a 9mm would just "bounce off" a plane skin, i think it would likely make a hole of some sort ...
as far as just sitting there, someone already pointed out that the vast majority of air to air kills were made on pilots who were unaware they were being targeted ...
BTW : some german planes were designed to "sit right behind a bomber and fire at it from 200 yards"
they are just not in the game.
nobody is saying the 9x19 MM is a good choice as an air to air weapon, but that is not the posters question.
a 9mm bullet will do harm of all sorts to an aircraft, that is all we are saying.
-
You're the only one talking about handguns Krusty.
-
Not AFK?
Some 85% (Estimated) actually never knew what hit them.
Obviously a better ranging weapon will allow that...better.
However, you'd need to really be a beliver to sit behind a cessna door and have somebody go at you from 100 yards with a 9 mm.....
That statistic is used to say things that it doesn't support. Not seeing your killer is not the same thing as flying along nice and level and not seeing your killer.
-
Everybody is falling over themselves to answer the original question....
I propose better question....WHY BOTHER?
Strip
-
lag
-
that is not the discussion chalenge the statement i took issue with was that a 9mm would just "bounce off" a plane skin, i think it would likely make a hole of some sort ...
Then why say this?
a plane moving however fast is not necessarily moving at all relative to another moving plane ...
But to answer the question: No one would be so foolhardy is to think it would be effective in warfare.
-
Pssssst....^^^^^^^
You're the only one talking about handguns Krusty.
-
I do have some aircraft skin laying around that I'll take to the range next time I go if I remember.
i'll shoot at it from different distances and angles.
:lol, cant believe we're arguing about this :D
Thorism,
I never said it would bounce off an aircraft skin, however, you wouldnt be shooting at it at 90 degree angles so deflection would become far more likely then penetration at the distances mentioned.
The car on the web site was pretty funny, but again, it was pretty close range and at right angles.
:cheers:
Z
-
because strip, even dumb questions can be fun to debate over. Look at congress :aok
-
Ahem... folks...?
The topic line of this thread says "9mm pistol round".....
-
Krusty,
Dont be to obvious ya know....
:headscratch:
-
Ahem... folks...?
The topic line of this thread says "9mm pistol round".....
the noun is round
-
the noun is round
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/wut.jpg)
-
the noun is round
So I'll ask the obvious and dim-witted question . . .
How much more velocity can be acheived firing a 9mm pistol round down a rifle-lengthed barrel vs. firing it from a run-of-the-mill 9mm handgun?
-
Where is Tony Williams when you need 'em....
-
9 mm pistol:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Pistol_Browning_SFS.jpg)
9 mm pistol round:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/9mmLuger.jpg)
-
So I'll ask the obvious and dim-witted question . . .
How much more velocity can be acheived firing a 9mm pistol round down a rifle-lengthed barrel vs. firing it from a run-of-the-mill 9mm handgun?
The H&K MP-5 has sights for up to 100 meters (~110 yards) and a practical maximum range of 150 meters (~165 yards).
-
I think the max range on a 9mm round is 1500 meters. Effective in a pistol is like 50 meters I believe. I think the velocity is around 1200 fps.
-
The H&K MP-5 has sights for up to 100 meters (~110 yards) and a practical maximum range of 150 meters (~165 yards).
This is true. I have successfully employed an MP-5 against personnel at 100-120 meters. Very accurate, very sweet weapon. Against a/c, the 9mm would probably need to be used in a mini-gun type weapon with a RoF high enough to create a buzzsaw effect. You'd really have to get right up on their butt too.
-
No. The important noun is PISTOL...
9mm rounds from rifles are light years ahead of 9mm PISTOLS (as in the subject line) and the talk was of a person shooting a 9mm pistol round at planes....
which implies USING a pistol!
(*how's that for obvious, Strip? :) *)
-
(*how's that for obvious, Strip? :) *)
I dont know if its obvious enough, you seem to have attracted a special breed in this thread.
Would have gone with large font and bright colors myself....
:P
-
You forget, I'm lazy. ;)
-
the 9MM(9x19) is a "pistol" round, you see there was this dude named Luger ...
it is also used in other guns that are not pistols ...
same round different guns, nobody calls it a 9mm SMG round when it comes out of a MP5 or an Uzi ...
fyi there are also other "9mm" rounds that range from 9x17ish to 9x30ish ...
mostly also called "pistol" rounds whatever they are fired out of ...
of course the OP could just clear this all up ...
No. The important noun is PISTOL...
9mm rounds from rifles are light years ahead of 9mm PISTOLS (as in the subject line) and the talk was of a person shooting a 9mm pistol round at planes....
which implies USING a pistol!
(*how's that for obvious, Strip? :) *)
-
So, when somebody says "9mm pistol round" you automatically jump to "a 20-foot barrel with a single action firing a 9mm bullet"?
Because... You say "9mm pistol round" to 99% of the world, they're going to think you ARE talking about pistols firing them. And all the ballistics inherrent with them.
And yes the question was about ballistics too... If it was 9mm rifle rounds fired from super long barrels with perfect trajectory.... well that's just not the case.
As opposed to the original post explicitly saying "MP5s" or "MP40s". Which he didn't.
-
Its often referred to as a 9mm Parabellum....
Strip
-
no i just understood him to mean the 9x19mm 9mm "luger" round instead of say the 9mm winchester magnum round ...
i made no assumptions about what was firing it and i assumed it would be some sort of MG "appropriate" to be mounted on an aircraft to shoot at other aircraft.
i understood the discussion to be about the rounds capabilities not the gun firing it ...
-
I'm familiar with the varried use of 9mm ammunition. My point stands. He said "pistol" and asked if the rounds would bounce off, implying pistol-based ballistics.
Pistols. Unless otherwise stated, the most obvious conclusion is pistols.
-
no i just understood him to mean the 9x19mm 9mm "luger" round instead of say the 9mm winchester magnum round ...
Come on...
Who wouldnt want to fire a 9mm Magnum through a pistol?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lzri8dn7p0
Okay...it wouldn't be quite this bad but fun to watch!
Strip
-
I think even if the 9mm was something like the .35 Remington round it would lack the knock down power need for a WWII era fighter. I think the classic formula for lethality is (weight of fire for one minute in pounds x muzzle velocity in ft/sec squared x 10 to the minus 8) or something close to that. Im guessing the 9mm would come out to 1.1 whereas the .30 cals are something like 1.7 and WWII era .50 cals are 6.5 (approximately). So a gatling gun version of the 9mm firing at 6000 rpm would be about the equivalent of the .50 cals but with 1/20 the effective range.
-
What Dave already said:
"More importantly, would they lose their energy so quickly that the pilot who fired them would have to fly through them? I just don't think a 9mm round would have enough power to even consider using in an aircraft.
I'm sure someone will come along soon and give you a nice muzzle velocity/energy comparison between a 9mm pistol round and a US .50 Caliber round. There is a huge difference in mass and power."
9mm Para W:9.5grams, MV:368m/s, E:643J
.303 W:12grams, MV:783m/s, E:3574J
.50BMG W: 52grams, MV: 883m/s, E:20,195J
Considering the added speed of the aircraft of, say, 300mph/480kmh/133m/s, the aerodynamic shape and how rapidly the bullet would lose speed after leaving the muzzle Dave's idea of running into your own bullets is not too far fetched at all. While you could punch a hole in aircraft skin from very close range the bullet simply would no have enough energy to do serious harm. As a defensive weapon it could do something since the attacking aircraft would "collide" with the bullet but even then the effect would be no more than a punctured radiator or a cut ignition cable etc.
In fact sometimes the observers in light bombers were armed with submachineguns, but that only had a function of a moral boost, at best. ;)
-C+
-
After running the numbers it seems I was a little off.
Converting the figures Charge gave the following.
9mm in pounds = 0.020943
.303 in pounds = 0.026455
.50 in pounds = 0.114640
9mm cyclic rate 650 rds/min
Browning .303 cyclic rate 1140 rd/min
Browning .50 cyclic rate 750 rds/min
Muzzle Velocity Squared
9mm 368m/s = 1207.3490813648293 ft/s : 1457691.804272497201286847018 1385
.303 783m/s = 2568.8976377952754 ft/s : 6599235.073470145961280922561 8452
.50 BMG 883m/s = 2896.9816272965877 ft/s : 8392502.548893985364476340063 7913
Weight of fire (one minute):
9mm = 13.61295
.303 = 30.1587
.50 = 85.98
Therefore lethality falls like this:
9mm = .19
.303 = 1.99
.50 = 7.2
Fantasy 9mm Gatling gun: 1.8
Therefore a single .303 is better than a 9mm Gatling gun.
-
some one please :pray lock this thread before they talk hitech into spears and catapults for base defense. ;)
Z
-
At 100 yards he's well out of effective range, and has a better chance of spitting at you than hitting you.
We're not talking 9mm RIFLES here, we're talking handguns.
Average effective range for revolvers is 30 feet, if I recall my old-west history (and these guns are normally more accurate than auto-loading pistols because the barrel does not move).
I would not even sit behind a cessna door if the shooter had a .22. A barrel would do though. And guess how I know :D
Where is Tony Williams these days?
-
Oh, here is a cool link
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot17.htm
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot15_2.htm
Not all rounds are the same though...
-
I'm familiar with the varried use of 9mm ammunition. My point stands. He said "pistol" and asked if the rounds would bounce off, implying pistol-based ballistics.
No such implication to people who actually knows what "pistol round" means. You're only displaying your own ignorance.
-
9 mm round. Fired from a pistol. Same weight, same fuel. Just less spin perhaps, and may be slower due to the barrel being that much shorter.
But...vastly more kinetic energy than a 22. or even a .22 magnum which will easily penetrate something much thicker than an aircraft coating at....200 yards.
I know that because I tried it :devil
-
Even if the barrel were longer it would peak the muzzle velocity at 1320 fps and even if you upped the cyclic rate to 800 rpm the weight of fire would peak at 16.75 lbs which translates to a lethality of .28 and even the Gatling gun idea lethality would peak at 2.1 which is only slightly better than the .303s. The reduced range of the 9mm over rifle cartridges just makes it useless though and it would never knock down a heavy bomber (except in very odd circumstances where the bomber is almost dead already and without defensive weapons).
-
A 4.5mm round out of a PDW can penetrade a kevlar vest.
A 5.7mm out of a P90 can punch through TWO kevlar vests...
It's not the diameter. Pulling in ".22 magums" is a false argument. Same difference between rifle rounds and pistol rounds of the same diameter.
He's talking standard casing PISTOL rounds here. Not magnums. NOT rifle rounds. NOT armor piercing. Never said anything about long-barrel rifles firing pistol rounds. Never said anything other than implying PISTOL ROUNDS...
Okay, let that sink in folks.
PISTOL
Once more for effect....
PISTOL
Doesn't matter if you want to compare it to .303 rifle rounds all day long, or .22 magnum rifle rounds, or ANY other round you want. That's a false argument.
You put a guy with a 9mm pistol on one end of a football field, and put a man at the opposite goal post. There's almost no chance in hell you can hit him. Only expert marksman snipers in the best of conditions might come close. 30 FEET is the average effective range for pistols, and you're all talking about hundreds of YARDS trying to shoot moving aircraft while flying (creating a headwind causing drag on bullets) of many hundreds of miles per hour.
Get real :rolleyes:
-
We had an interesting debate today, and I thought I would bring it here.
So the question is, if a plane was loaded with 9mm pistol rounds, and fired at another plane, would the bullets bounce off of the plane?
9mm pistol rounds do not indicate what type of weapon is used. In an aircraft it is only natural to assume that long barrelled guns of a mchine-gun type would be used. I cant see Lugers mounted on the wings at all.
Either way the lethality posts I have made above handles either situation.
-
We had an interesting debate today, and I thought I would bring it here.
So the question is, if a plane was loaded with 9mm pistol rounds, and fired at another plane, would the bullets bounce off of the plane?
krusty the round has to hit something before it bounces off or penetrates in the first place ...
hitting is already assumed by the question, so sir the discussion is all about what would happen when the rounds hit the plane not if they can be made to hit the plane.
you are the one off discussion sir, there never was anyone asking if you could hit a plane from another plane with a 9mm handgun.
as to the question ...
the answer is obvious, since no conditions were stated about distance or gun type, then the only evaluation is whether or not a 9mm Luger bullet is capable of penetrating the skin of an aircraft. the answer is of course "yes absolutely" ...
angle of impact, distance between gun and target, airflow forces, and all the other factors involved in air to air gunnery will all effect that answer as it effects every other similar discussion about any other type of ammunition you wish to consider.
yes there are better choices in air to air gun armament but a 9mm would damage an aircraft, and most likely can be made to damage an aircraft out to a few hundred yards if not more.
-
No...
It's not at all natural to assume some sort of frankenstein concoction where 9mm pistol rounds are fired through long barrels mounted on aircraft wings.
It's ENTIRELY natural to assume the pilot is flying holding a pistol and firing it. Especially considering that's how things all started in WW1 (recon planes taking potshots at each other).
As for thorsim: You're trying to deflect the conversation back to your own comments. I and several others first off questioned the ludicrous situation from the beginning of this thread. The answer is "the bullets would never get to the target, or if they did have no power to bounce let alone do damage"
You can put all these what-ifs up if you enjoy it, but you're no more on topic than anybody else. I could ask who would destroy the Statue of Liberty faster, Superman or The Flash, and you could all go off on the structural composition of the statue, of the strength required, the different strategies of taking it down, and how fast they would take.....
But you'd still be wrong, because it's a ludicrous question, and shouldn't be taken as seriously as some of you have (indeed) taken it.
-
I have actually hit a raven, - sitting on a fence-post, - from 100 yards, one-handed, with a single shot from a .22. Not 22 magnum, which I state again does not come close to the kinetic energy of a 9mm.
BTW, the danger-zone of a fired 9mm is rated higher than of a .22. And the slug is quite impressively bigger.
My .22 mag once gave me a goose for dinner. Shot through the heart at the range of some odd 200 yards.
So, shooting a glock at Krusty from some odd 100 yards would make crap...
-
Angus a 9mm is no where near as stable as a .22 in flight and it will drop in a much shorter distance. A 9mm can group at 10" at 100 yards and you cannot group it at 200 yards (they dont make enough paper). A .22 at 200 yards can group at 2" so forget that as vindication.
If we go with Krusty on the hand-held 9mm luger... 0 hits possible at all... ever. Its all fantasy Krusty. :D
One might have gotten into the spirit a little better. At least I tried to apply a little science to it. :neener:
-
Lotta experts in here on bullets, their stats, and penetration abilities. I wonder how many have actually shot a 9MM for any amount of time??
-
That still doesnt meet the definition of AFK angus. A plane outfitted with 9mm isnt going to do enough damage unless the plane NEVER moves or cannot get out of the way at all. Its not about range at all its about destroying the target at firing time... period.
Or killing the pilot. Or punching into the fuel tank. Bear in mind that in a matter of months, the RAF brought down some 1.200+ German aircraft with .303 rounds, as well as damaging a vast number of aircraft as well as killing and wounding a lot of crew. A lot of that was done with inadequate firing power, from overly much range, and with poor ammunition. (A lot of ball stuff from WWI and there was a complete revolution when there was the DeWilde and AP which was coming on with the battle as it went...on)
Don't get me wrong, I'd say the .303 is a lot better than a 9 mill. But hiding behind a sheet of aluminum or canvas while some guys with 9 mill glocks hose at you and spend 1000 bullets would not be my cup of tea. I'd put my money on that if I had the gun and Krusty was behind the "door", the only thing that would save him would be me...not being that bad, but....having compassion. Maybe some leg wounds :D
BTW, at 100 yds, I was shooting caps of bottles with a .22 mag. 200 would mean more like hitting an upheld hand. So, no Wilhelm Tell at that range. But you will punch a bullet through metal many times as thick as an aircraft skin. And only 1/6th of the speed of the (already tumbling and flattened out distorted) bullet will punch into a human body like a balloon of water.
Me betting on killing a person hiding behind a cessna door with 1000 rounds in ...a Glock...= me wins :devil
-
I own one. Its a small light-weight handgun (Colt in this case) that lacks much knock down power. Beyond about 75 feet I would list it as useless although if you did manage a hit on soft fleshy humans it would have an affect. A 9mm is a backup gun in my opinion and a .45 is a good primary but I also think you have to be big enough to manage one and Im thinking a lot of people are not.
I also have an MP 5 which I suggest is useless beyond 100 yards but if you can manage a hit on soft fleshy humans it will have an affect. I would still prefer the Garand at anything over 100 yards or some other .30 cal rifle.
-
Ridiculous Angus your not going to have 1000 rounds in a Glock. :huh
-
Oh here we go....lets turn this into a self defense debate.
This thread has more crooks than the White House....
-
Would there be anyone allow me to take pot-shots at their body from one hundred yards with a .22, say alone something bigger like 9 mills.
I never shot 9 mills, but both smaller and bigger. FYI, the 9 mills will have twice the energy of a .22 mag, while the .22 mag has a flatter trajectory.
.22 is what I actually use to kill bulls with. From point blank, but it will do the job. From 100 yards it will still penetrate a fencepost.
Darwin award claims. And I'd have my 1000 bullets in a crate :devil
-
Reasonable effective range for a 9mm is about 75 ft or so. I can fire about a 5" double tap at that range consistently. This could be lowered with a tuned weapon considerably. The 9mm is an interesting trade off vs a .45 in this area. The 9mm is generally easier to control and site recovery is much quicker...basically why delta force/SAS preferred them for so long. At close ranges (15-21') double taps in the 1" 1 1/2" grouping are much much easier then with a .45. When looking at real "gun fight" data. The initial poor success % for 1st shot conversion combined with the difficulty in actually requiring a site picture under stress create a minuscule hit % even at ranges of 10 ft or less on many occasions. So talking about shooting at the range vs shooting in a combat setting is not possible unless the shooter has actually been in combat. I'd agree with the 10" group for the 9mm at 100 yds. I've actually hit the 300 yd steel target at my home range (1 ft steel square) as many as 4 times in a row (offhand not on a rest) with my browning...but also can miss it with an entire clip. From the sound I'd say its still packing a pretty good wallup at 300 yds....
-
even so i do not see where any 9mm "bounced off" of your car ...
Joining late - didnt read entire thread.
A standard load 9mm FMJ does not possess sufficient energy to pass through a typical car windshield. They deflect off quite easily; in part due to the angle, obviously, but a 0.50 wouldn't have that problem, for comparison.
-
A standard load 9mm FMJ does not possess sufficient energy to pass through a typical car windshield.
:rofl
-
To simply answer the question.
If you walked up to normal ww2 aircraft (51/109/spit) and shot it with a 9mm, if it hit nothing but skin, it would go in one side and out the other. if you hit ribbing or any guts, it would just go in.
either way damage would be minimal unless you got really lucky.
-
I have a car wreck that's just about to go. Maybe I invite the local police for target practice?, oh, or do it myself :D
-
Like Angus I've made some 100 yard shots against small targets with a pistol.
Like him they were made with a .22 with 6" barrel.
But, the ballistics for a .22 are actually pretty good compared to your average 9mm out of a short barrel.
Would I want to be the guy at the other end of the ball field? Only if I can stand behind the goal post.
As to the original question, would they bounce, No. Neither would they do any significant damage. Even at 100 yards, they won't have enough energy left to sever control cables, break Hydraulic lines, or rupture fuel tanks.
Its a stupid question really.
After all a .303 rifle round can kill a deer at ranges over 400 yards.
I'm not sure a 9mm pistol could even hit one past 50- 75 yards, much less again, do significant damage.
They are designed for one thing, and one thing only, killing soft skinned targets at close ranges. Namely us, people.
-
I have a friend who spent a number of years as a special investigator for the AZ attorney generals office. He was a 3 tour Vietnam vet with multiple decorations and purple hearts and was later involved in multiple shoot outs as a police officer. So we're dealing with someone who is composed enough that things slow down under pressure. He once pulled up to a search and seizure and no one knew that a suspect was outside the controlled area "in the weeds". Bottom line the guy grabbed Johns car since it was last in line...John unloaded his entire clip into the car as it backed up and not one round did in fact penetrate the windshield...and this was with police loads. Now the car was moving in reverse and the angles were bad...especially since John was shooting from a crouch out of habit. Bottom line is he got written up on some technicalities and the guy got away....This was with a .40 cal if I remember correctly.
-
I broke a windshield once by driving into a little bird :D
Anyway, a .22 LONG (not magnum) much weaker than a 9 mm. If I remember right it has half the kinetic energy or less, and less range as well.
-
:rofl
Not sure why you're laughing.
John unloaded his entire clip into the car as it backed up and not one round did in fact penetrate the windshield...and this was with police loads.
-
sloped armour rocks :devil
-
I'm laughing because I've shot through the windscreen of an old junker with a BB air rifle. Anyone who claims a normal (i.e. unarmored) car windshield or door panels will stop a 9mm P is seriously full of toejam.
-
I'm laughing because I've shot through the windscreen of an old junker with a BB air rifle. Anyone who claims a normal (i.e. unarmored) car windshield or door panels will stop a 9mm P is seriously full of soup.
You've got a second-hand account from a LEO above, which I quoted. Ive got several similar accounts; both first and second hand.
Not sure what sort of BB gun you were using and whether or not it may have been equipped with the rare "Lightspeed Muzzle Velocity" option but, under real world conditions, a 9x19 is insufficient to reliably expect windshield penetration unless you care to stand on the hood and fire straight on at a distance of three feet.
This is one of the primary reasons that the .40 is adopted by most law enforcement agencies.
No soup here. What have I to gain?
-
The Buick of truth:
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/thebuickotruth.htm
-
:devil :aok
Just about what I'd expect. So I guess I won't have to shoot my Volvo.
Wait a sec though, it's all about the 100 m.....
BTW weren't some WWI rounds (Spandau?) 9mm, or were they heavier?
-
The Buick of truth:
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/thebuickotruth.htm
Blocked for me at work.
Cliff notes?
-
Blocked for me at work.
Cliff notes?
Firearms tests against a car.
#1 - Windshields Inside/Out
#2 - Windshields Outside/In
#3 - Pistols and Car Doors
#4 - Rifles and Car Doors
#5 - Shotguns and Car Doors
#6 - Concrete Blocks
#7 - Engine
Check it out when you get home.
-
Your issues here are pretty simple. He's right on top of the car firing at a slight downward angle. Great for a "test" but not very realistic...1st if the car was coming at him he'd be roadkill. From a more realistic perspective your going to seek to make yourself smaller if you sense the possibility of return fire. I'm not a LEO but I've shot with enough of them and trust me the natural "shooters crouch" is second nature to all of them. So if you increase the range slightly and alter the angles what you'll get is a combination of spalling on the inside of the glass and grooves on the outside as the projectile slides up the windshield. Now if in fact your close enough to be firing down on the glass you'll punch thru....but at 25 ft in a combat crouch it's much more likely you'll just scar the glass...
-
I don't believe so. Show me some proof if you can.
-
I don't really care what you believe but next time you see a police officer ask him what his training is with the regard to the subject. Shooting at a car is an almost verboten reality. If you shoot low at the tire you get ricochets off the road surface. If you aim at the bulk of the vehicle you get ricochets of the glass and potentially the bodywork...either way generally bad news in an urban setting. Going further you can reference the FBI shootings in Miami that really sparked the move to a heavier cartridge. The ballistic realities are what they are, I love my 9mm and my concealed carry weapon is a .380 Sig P230 but neither is going to punch thru a car windshield or frame...
-
No one ever took pictures of pistol bullet "scars" on a windshield?
You may love your 9mm, but you are underestimating it.
-
A few years back the Atlanta PD had a run in with a suspect that tried to run down officers with a SUV. The suspect was fired upon over fifty times with 9mm and none of them penetrated the vehicle. The SWAT team used .40 (medium velocity) for another 40-50 shots and .223s and only 2 or 3 fragmented bullets hit the suspect. Finally the suspect was hit five times (on foot) with 9mm and made an escape anyway on foot. A .45 killed him with one hit.
Make what you will out of that. :old:
-
Still no pictures or first hand accounts, only second hand stories... or more like tenth hand.
-
a plane moving however fast is not necessarily moving at all relative to another moving plane ...
200 yards is just not that far when discussing ballistics ...
period.
For a pistol round out of a 4" barrel; 200 yards is a very long range. Not much energy left. You would be fortunate to penetrate the aircraft skin. Ball ammo would likely do little more than dimple the aluminum if there was any understructure.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Most police BBS cycle off old posts so you cannot always find things you have read before. Here is one from St. Louis (and you can find this same type of thing in any city not just St. Louis). This does not actually support either side of the argument but...
St. Louis -- The pistol in every St. Louis police officer's duty holster is a 9 mm Beretta 92F semiautomatic. It will dispense 16 slugs the diameter of a good-sized pen with as many pulls on the trigger.
Those bullets fly with the power to punch through eight sheets of drywall. But in today's tough crime environment, is it enough wallop to overpower an armed threat?
The St. Louis Police Officers Association is raising the question with a suggestion that the department switch to .40-caliber pistols, which experts say have more stopping power plus less tendency to pass through the target and on to unintended consequences.
It is a transition already made by many other large departments in the region, although city officers clearly find themselves most often under fire. That fire, some of them say, is increasingly heavy-caliber.
"We want to be able to compete with what's out on the street," said Sgt. Gary Wiegert, the association president. "Right now we can't. There's so much violence going on out on the street right now. ... How do you contain someone if you're outgunned?"
But Sgt. William Kiphart, who heads the department's firearms training, said the issue is not as simple as it might sound. He insisted police most often face criminals with common-caliber handguns, meaning officers are rarely outgunned.
Kiphart said the department will run exhaustive tests in about three years on what the next generation of weapons should be. "We're not closing our mind to anything," he said. "It's a big puzzle, and I objectively compare each piece."
The city has used 9 mm Berettas for about 16 years, with each weapon in use about 10 years.
The 9 mm versus .40-caliber debate is "like splitting hairs," Kiphart said. "It comes down to accuracy, reliability of the equipment ... and the skills of the person using the weapon."
He said the 9 mm Berettas have less recoil than .40-caliber weapons, and the smaller 9 mm projectile is more accurate.
The concept of stopping power is a myth -- "There is no such thing," he said. The issue is where an officer places shots and the degree they penetrate.
Officers "want a magic bullet," Kiphart said. "There is no magic bullet."
Wiegert's concern is about how many hits it takes to incapacitate an adversary. Police studies show that some people can withstand grievous injuries and keep firing.
David Klinger, a professor of criminology at University of Missouri-St. Louis and former police officer, said, "All else equal, most people want to have a bigger round."
Caliber is a decimal of an inch; a .40-caliber bullet is four-tenths of an inch in diameter, about one-ninth larger than a 9 mm. While the hole sizes are close, the energy delivered by the larger bullet is significantly greater. Specifications from one ammunition maker, Winchester, show a 27.5 percent difference (408 foot-pounds, a standard measurement of force, compared with 320).
Wiegert also expressed concern that city police issued 9 mm rifles, which use the same ammunition as the pistols, when shotguns were phased out of patrol cars about 3 1/2 years ago. He said that's not enough, either.
Kiphart said the Beretta CX4 Storm Carbines, equipped with holographic scopes, allow for a high level of accuracy from a long distance.
Many other area departments still carry 12-gauge shotguns, often the Remington Model 870 pump-action. Some, like Maryland Heights, Florissant and St. Peters, equip at least some cars with military-style rifles, which they say offer long-range punch with less chance of collateral damage than a shotgun.
In the city, police can call for the Hostage Response Team to get heavier firepower.
Long guns aside, police rely most heavily on their sidearms. For the Missouri Highway Patrol, Illinois State Police, St. Louis County police, Madison County Sheriff's Department, FBI and others, that means one brand or another of .40-caliber. Some, like University City and Creve Coeur, use 9 mm.
"It's going to depend a lot on who you talk to and what experience they have in the field," said Officer John Bozarth, armorer for the St. Louis County Police Department, which has used .40-calibers since 1991.
"With the .40-caliber, ... most officers feel more comfortable with their ability to stop an assailant because of the bigger caliber, the bigger bullet," Bozarth said.
But it doesn't end with that, he noted. He prefers the feel and accuracy of the Beretta to the widely used .40-caliber Glock, noting that a 9 mm shot that hits its target is more valuable than a .40-caliber that doesn't. The county uses Sig Sauer brand .40-caliber pistols.
In testing with standard ammunition two years ago, Bozarth found that the 9 mm round had more penetrating power in building materials; it got through eight sheets of drywall, while the .40-caliber did not.
Too much penetration is a concern in police work, with fears that a slug may pass through a criminal or a wall and hit bystanders.
"The 9 mm goes through a whole lot more things that you don't want it to go through than the .40," Bozarth said.
At Maryland Heights, Officer Kevin Stewart said that was a consideration in his department's recent switch from 9 mm. He explained, "The .40-caliber is going to knock them down but not go through and hit somebody else."
-
A pistol round like a 9mm P or .45 ACP could do serious damage to an aircraft similar to a rifle round like the British .303 used in the early Spits and Hurris.
You just said damage and .303 in the same sentence.... :rofl
You'd be there all day shooting nything other than an A6M or D3A with .303s, and .45 pistol rounds don't have nearly the speed or stability that the .303s do, considering the increased wind resistance, I wouldn't think a .45 round would go much farther than about 50-75 yds, and even then with that small round it wouldn't be very accurate.
-
Average effective range for revolvers is 30 feet, if I recall my old-west history (and these guns are normally more accurate than auto-loading pistols because the barrel does not move).
Krusty, I can shoot 2" to 3" groups at 25 yards with the S&W Model 29 and Beretta 96D, off hand. This is not a great accomplishment, either. Revolvers are not more accurate than most semi-autos. Revolvers have to deal with cylinder/barrel alignment. Even a minor misalignment (a few thousandths of an inch) will result in reduced accuracy. Not every pistol has a Browning type tipping/link action. Some are simple blowback designs. Some have actual rotating bolts (like rifles). You can't pigeonhole handguns.
By the way, this entire thread is dumber than a sack of dead cats.....
My regards,
Widewing
-
You just said damage and .303 in the same sentence.... :rofl
You'd be there all day shooting nything other than an A6M or D3A with .303s, and .45 pistol rounds don't have nearly the speed or stability that the .303s do, considering the increased wind resistance, I wouldn't think a .45 round would go much farther than about 50-75 yds, and even then with that small round it wouldn't be very accurate.
Most 9mm loads are supersonic at the muzzle. That means they're going more than 750 mph. The added speed of the aircraft will not affect the ballistics that much.
For a pistol round out of a 4" barrel; 200 yards is a very long range. Not much energy left. You would be fortunate to penetrate the aircraft skin. Ball ammo would likely do little more than dimple the aluminum if there was any understructure.
My regards,
Widewing
At 200 yards a typical 9mm has lost about half its energy.
(http://www.mouseguns.com/sub2000/ballist.gif)
-
The effective difference of common pistol calibers is... limited.
(http://intrencik.com/357sig_files/Handgun_gel_comparison.jpg)
-
At 200 yards a typical 9mm has lost about half its energy.
. . . if fired from a stationary position at a stationary target.
Fired from a plane at another plane 200 yards away, both moving at 300mph, the distance traveled by the bullet from muzzle to target is longer than 200 yards, and the initial deceleration out of the muzzle is increased vs. firing from a stationary position.
The force of impact of the hypothetical 9mm round fired plane to plane from a dead 6 position is therefore much less than half.
-
Most 9mm loads are supersonic at the muzzle. That means they're going more than 750 mph. The added speed of the aircraft will not affect the ballistics that much.
At 200 yards a typical 9mm has lost about half its energy.
(http://www.mouseguns.com/sub2000/ballist.gif)
This chart is for rounds fired from a carbine type 16" barrel. From a 4" pistol barrel, the 9mm will barely carry 140 ft/lbs out to 200 yards... Making it nearly useless, along with an accuracy that could be described as barely above random.
My 9mm carbine is a great little rifle, but quite ineffective beyond 100 yards. On the other hand, my .357 Mag chambered Winchester 1892 is quite lethal out to 200 yards, but I'm shooting hand loads that generate over 2,000 fps at the muzzle.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Silly as this thread topic is... Would you put a 4" pistol barrel on an aircraft weapon or a 16" SMG/carbine barrel?
-
. . . if fired from a stationary position at a stationary target.
Fired from a plane at another plane 200 yards away, both moving at 300mph, the distance traveled by the bullet from muzzle to target is longer than 200 yards, and the initial deceleration out of the muzzle is increased vs. firing from a stationary position.
If both aircraft are flying at the same speed and direction the relative distance is the same as if they were stationary. The only variable is the increased drag. However, altitude is also an important factor when considering drag. Time of flight for a 9mm to 200 yards is less than a second.
-
Still no pictures or first hand accounts, only second hand stories... or more like tenth hand.
Well, if 2nd (or 10th) hand experience is insufficient for you, and ignoring military service, I worked my way through college at a then local range as an NRA-certified pistol instructer. We got into all sorts of mischievous testing after hours. What sort of first-hand accounts would you like?
Granted, this was pre-digital camera so I dont have any video proof for you, sorry.
As a caveat, regardless, I should mention that the offer stands under the assumption that you might actually consider alternative viewpoints rather than follow your usual MO and argue for the sake of argument. Should that be the case, please let me know and I'll pass. Whether or not you 'believe' my statement has not the slightest impact on my day.
Cheers.
-
If both aircraft are flying at the same speed and direction the relative distance is the same as if they were stationary. The only variable is the increased drag. However, altitude is also an important factor when considering drag. Time of flight for a 9mm to 200 yards is less than a second.
.... and at 300 MPH that's about 150 yard in about a second. IIRC
-
If both aircraft are flying at the same speed and direction the relative distance is the same as if they were stationary. The only variable is the increased drag. However, altitude is also an important factor when considering drag. Time of flight for a 9mm to 200 yards is less than a second.
A plane traveling 300mph is the same as 440 feet per second, correct?
Your muzzle velocity on one of your charts states 1181f/s. 440f/s added to this is an increase of 37% to the muzzle velocity. Since drag increases with the square of velocity, this equates to roughly 88% increase in drag at the muzzle. So although your planes remain at a constant relative distance, the drag on the bullet is nearly twice as much given similar air densities. Its hitting power once it reaches the target will therefore be much less than the stationary shooter / stationary target scenario.
Now if you want to muddy the water by bringing altitude into it so you don't have to admit to being wrong, I'm OK with that.
-
Just do a test how many bailed pilots with a .45 does it take to kill one A6M??? Well were about to find out as the first bailed pilot walks to the zero... :rofl :rofl
-
A plane traveling 300mph is the same as 440 feet per second, correct?
Your muzzle velocity on one of your charts states 1181f/s. 440f/s added to this is an increase of 37% to the muzzle velocity. Since drag increases with the square of velocity, this equates to roughly 88% increase in drag at the muzzle. So although your planes remain at a constant relative distance, the drag on the bullet is nearly twice as much given similar air densities. Its hitting power once it reaches the target will therefore be much less than the stationary shooter / stationary target scenario.
Now if you want to muddy the water by bringing altitude into it so you don't have to admit to being wrong, I'm OK with that.
Honestly, he's on the right track here. I really wasn't kidding in my first post when I asked if the shooting plane would have to fly through his own bullets...
-
don't some of those police records show people being killed from celebration gunfire
(pointing guns up in the air and firing them) coming back down from very far (miles) away?
how much harder to penetrate are aircraft skins vs. human skulls and other body parts.
i still think some here are not having the same discussion. i have yet to see anyone suggest the 9x19 Luger round would be a good choice to build an air to air gun around.
i also seen no serious argument that you could not damage a plane with that round even if it hit from a couple of hundred yards away, either from a pistol, or a longer barreled MG.
-
I didn't get to read all the posts but at least in the game I've stood at the end of an enemy runway and wounded the pilot before takeoff or been able to get his engine smoking so it clearly does more than bounce off at very close range.
-
.... and at 300 MPH that's about 150 yard in about a second. IIRC
Whether the two aircraft are flying 200 yards apart at 300 mph, or stationary 200 yards apart in a 300 mph wind tunnel... the result will be the same. (Assuming air density is the same in both cases.) Distance traveled by the aircraft is irrelevant as long as the relative distance is the same. The only factor is the increase in drag due to the speed of the airflow being added to the bullet.
An 88% increase in drag at the muzzle would mean that the 9mm has lost half its energy at about 130-150 yards. Drag is reduced by the square of the loss of speed so it is not a linear increase in drag, and will affect the speed of the bullet mostly in the first 50 yards or so.
-
Well, if 2nd (or 10th) hand experience is insufficient for you, and ignoring military service, I worked my way through college at a then local range as an NRA-certified pistol instructer. We got into all sorts of mischievous testing after hours. What sort of first-hand accounts would you like?
Shooting a 9mm at the windshield of a car and not penetrating. That's the only experience that actually matters in this case.
-
Shooting a 9mm at the windshield of a car and not penetrating. That's the only experience that actually matters in this case.
Then you may refer to my previous post(s).
If you disagree with my statement, you may ignore it at your leisure. Alternatively, what is it you would expect me to do for you? Commission a second party to handle the cinematography while I shoot up my cars in the driveway after work tonight?
-
Have you actually shot a 9mm at a windshield and not penetrated?
-
I have fired at the front windshield, more than once in fact, had them go out the back windshield afterward once or twice.
CZ75 firing standard FMJ....
Strip
-
don't some of those police records show people being killed from celebration gunfire
(pointing guns up in the air and firing them) coming back down from very far (miles) away?
Myth.
-
Myth.
when Mythbusters tried this the bullets tumbled down at terminal velocity, more likely to give you a headache than kill you.
Rats, I wasn't going to get involved in this thread. :mad:
-
"A study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that 80% of celebratory gunfire-related injuries are to the head, feet, and shoulders.[6] In the U.S. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, about two people die and about 25 more are injured each year from celebratory gunfire on New Year's Eve, the CDC says.[3] Between the years 1985 and 1992, doctors at the King/Drew Medical Center in Los Angeles, California, treated some 118 people for random falling-bullet injuries. Thirty-eight of them died.[7] Kuwaitis celebrating in 1991 at the end of the Gulf War by firing weapons into the air caused 20 deaths from falling bullets.[7]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebratory_gunfire
not according to the CDC, and LAPD ...
Myth.
they fired perfectly straight up on myth-busters, which is somewhat different ballistically, and not pertinent to our discussion about how much energy a bullet carries at distances longer than it's optimal range. as i recall they also stated that such injuries were documented fact and that firing at an angle off of pure vertical would allow the bullet to carry much more of its energy through the entire flight ...
http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/04/episode_50_bullets_fired_up_vo_1.html
when Mythbusters tried this the bullets tumbled down at terminal velocity, more likely to give you a headache than kill you.
Rats, I wasn't going to get involved in this thread. :mad:
-
Myth.
-
I have fired at the front windshield, more than once in fact, had them go out the back windshield afterward once or twice.
CZ75 firing standard FMJ....
Strip
another two payments and it yours. :cheers:
-
Myth.
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/4084756/detail.html
-
That was an SKS rifle that was not fired anything like 'up' but whats weird about it is that the man that was killed was also planning on celebratory firing of a gun he bought just for the occasion. Its pretty weird reading a news report where the reporter is against guns at all but then says something like 'he never got the chance to fire his gun in celebration.'
Guns are dangerous and celebratory fire is stupid. Hundreds are injured in the Philippines every year but it is still a myth that firing 'up' is lethal but you have to be careful how you define 'up' and that brings in the stupid part.
I was always told dont shoot at anything you dont intend to kill and dont shoot unless you know whats down range.
-
another two payments and it yours. :cheers:
I dont follow...
:confused:
-
i agree on all counts below ...
however my point is that bullets, all bullets, carry a certain amount of energy while in flight and i still think that in the case of the 9x19, within a few hundred yards, that energy would still be sufficient to penetrate most aircraft skins, not bounce off.
That was an SKS rifle that was not fired anything like 'up' but whats weird about it is that the man that was killed was also planning on celebratory firing of a gun he bought just for the occasion. Its pretty weird reading a news report where the reporter is against guns at all but then says something like 'he never got the chance to fire his gun in celebration.'
Guns are dangerous and celebratory fire is stupid. Hundreds are injured in the Philippines every year but it is still a myth that firing 'up' is lethal but you have to be careful how you define 'up' and that brings in the stupid part.
I was always told dont shoot at anything you dont intend to kill and dont shoot unless you know whats down range.
-
I have fired at the front windshield, more than once in fact, had them go out the back windshield afterward once or twice.
CZ75 firing standard FMJ....
Strip
Thank you for clearing up this little issue. :aok
-
The estimated speed for a bullet to enter your body is about 216 km/h. Now it would be interesting to know what the terminal velocity is for a bullet, but I wager it is more then the terminal velocity of a draggy human body, which happens to be about 200 km/h
So, a 9 mill falling from a couple of thousand feet will indeed hurt you...
-
Define hurt...
Mythbusters calculated the terminal velocity of a 9mm FMJ at 150 ft/sec. When fired at a similar speed at a pig the bullet failed to break the skin. A similar test showed a 30-06 barely broke the skin before falling to the ground. While not exactly hard science their results are at least representative. Pain perhaps, injury would be unlikely unless if caught you in the eye.
Strip
-
Or while sunbathing :D
Anyway, this 9 mill is...impressive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyKMz3tYx-M&feature=PlayList&p=E705B374440291BE&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=48
-
as they stated in the show and as was stated before in this thread there is a big difference between shooting a bullet out of a gun and dropping one from a balloon ...
the TV would be very different from a bullet that never stopped flying compared one shot straight up so that it reaches 0 speed and then tumbles no longer stabilized by it's rotation or dropped out of a ballon never having been fired out of a gun in the first place.
under those conditions even some peoples beloved .50cal would fair little better than the Luger TV wise ...
Define hurt...
Mythbusters calculated the terminal velocity of a 9mm FMJ at 150 ft/sec. When fired at a similar speed at a pig the bullet failed to break the skin. A similar test showed a 30-06 barely broke the skin before falling to the ground. While not exactly hard science their results are at least representative. Pain perhaps, injury would be unlikely unless if caught you in the eye.
Strip
-
Have you actually shot a 9mm at a windshield and not penetrated?
Yes. I thought that would have been clear from my statement.
-
Well, it wasn't.
While I don't want to imply that you're lying, I still find that I have a hard time believing that a 9mm FMJ won't penetrate every time at normal pistol ranges. Perhaps a HP will expand when hitting the laminated glass and fail to penetrate. I don't know.
-
Everybody is falling over themselves to answer the original question....
I propose better question....WHY BOTHER?
Strip
thats the problem with all these "experts"
They always over analyze things on here. :rolleyes:
-
I dont follow...
:confused:
from the simpsons.
Nelsons dad had a shooting car in the yard that Nelson and Bart were shooting and Nelson said. "Thats Dads shooting car, another two payments and its ours."
-
Lotta experts in here on bullets, their stats, and penetration abilities. I wonder how many have actually shot a 9MM for any amount of time??
everyone in here is an expert. :rolleyes:
-
Bodhi,
I reloaded and fired over 10,000 9mm Luger rounds in a month when I was only 15. At the time I was shooting ISPC and IDPA with a ported Glock 24C. I was hot loading 115 grain bullets with Accurate 7 powder. I forget how many grains I was loading at the time, it was a lot though. Did the same thing with .40 S&W, firing 140 grain hollow points with around 10 grains of Accurate 9. The .40 S&W through the ported barrel was like a .45 firing +P loads. When that went off you knew it, ton of concussion on your face. Would shoot smoke stacks from the slow burning powder, muzzle didn't flip an ounce. At the indoor range we shot at people could tell it was me running the course.
Good times....
Strip
-
I've reloaded many thousands of 9mm, 38 SPL and .357 Mag. Testing shot counters for the INS, we put 12,000 Remington Golden Saber +P .40 S&W through two Berettas in less than a week (that really wasn't fun at all). Both suffered failures (broken slide and a front sight fell off). We fired at a local indoor range. The owner was stunned when a truck pulled up and delivered a pallet of ammo. He wasn't completely unhappy... We let him keep the brass.
I like the 9mm cartridge for plinking, but I believe it to be marginal as a people stopper. I prefer the .357 Mag for revolvers and .45 ACP for semi-autos. In between those and the 9mm, I would not be unhappy with the .40 S&W, it is a stellar round. I also like the .38 Super. It doesn't like me though... I collected a .38 Super ricochet at a match. It hit steel, came almost straight back and hit me just above my lower right rib. The mangled round cut through my flannel shirt, t-shirt and penetrated flesh to the rib. One rib was fractured, another badly bruised. A trip to the hospital and a police report later, I was sent home. I was sore for a few weeks, as one could imagine. Another time, a ricochet whacked my ankle. Badly bruised.... Limped for a week. I'm sure Strip has seen his share of dings occurring at the range. Spend enough time on an indoor a pistol range, and you'll get dinged a few times. That's why shooting glasses are a must.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Among wife's many odd jobs was an armored car driver--they were specifically prohibited from using 9's as their sidearm, had to be either 10mm, .40, or 3fitty7 (she went with the .40 Glock (model 22 I think), an admirable fashion accessory if ever there was one :aok)
-
I'm still scratching my head about our armed forces going to the M9 Baretta and not keeping the .45 ACP as their preferred sidearm.
-
Somehow I get the feeling that many here think the 9mm is a toy and you're safe from it in a 50 yards sprint. And still, I drop 1000 lb's bulls with a shot through NOT the thinnest part of the skull with a mere .22.
Shoot a lot at targets and say a lot, but from my odd years of killing stock with a total plinker I'd not like to be on the receiving end of a Luger....even a minute away.
-
I'm still scratching my head about our armed forces going to the M9 Baretta and not keeping the .45 ACP as their preferred sidearm.
Well...military has been using a rifle for some 40+ years that often fails to knock an opponent down, makes sense they be issued a sidearm with similar ability
-
I'm sure Strip has seen his share of dings occurring at the range. Spend enough time on an indoor a pistol range, and you'll get dinged a few times. That's why shooting glasses are a must.
My regards,
Widewing
Your not kidding, I actually shot my mom! Well, okay not quite but it was extremely funny.
:D
I was shooting ISPC style at a local indoor range with an outdated backstop, nothing big but better systems were out there. I was shooting away with my mom about 20 ft behind and the left of me. Of course single woman, bunch of old rich guys, she was not lonely. As we score my run I noticed she had four or five guys standing around her. When we are done I asked her what was that all about? She says,"You shot me!", my reply was wtf? I guess one of the rounds bounced back and hit her in the collar bone. The back stop was 40 feet beyond me, it hit her enough to leave a red mark. The funny part, shes sees a complete round and declares to them that I shot her. One of the more observant fellows saw the lead hit the ground afterwards. It was the size of a silver dollar and nearly perfectly flat. To this day she still gives me a hard time about that one. Thankfully we wear safety glasses, I dont wish to think about what could have happened.
Strip
-
My personal favorite, not to make light out of somebody in pain but you will love this.
Every now and then a girl friend or wife would tag along with one of the shooters. Some being rather attractive would wear low cut tops and show a little cleavage. Well, quite often the guys would give them a hard time about not shooting and they would make a run. Now if an attractive blonde wearing three mags and a speed holster doesnt get you going what will? Of course most weren't the best shooters but I wouldn't wanna be downrange from them non the less. Sometimes they would have us start close to a wall were hot brass would hit the wall. Well, a perfect ricochet later, you guessed it, the hot boob dance. Brass down the front of the shirt, which isnt on common even for guys wearing full T-shirts. So here they are holding a gun in one hand, the other digging around the bra area. Needless to say the smart ones came back with turtlenecks, much to the chagrin of the other shooters.
Another favorite...the ole hot brass down the top of the safety glasses. Only took me once to cure that one.....
Strip
-
The best bounce-back I've experienced so far...
I built this cannon that shot 1" lead balls. A miniature replica of a 6# civil war gun, with a 40# barrel and 18" diameter wheels. Pretty sweet little toy. A friend built one too, but his was bigger, and shot concrete-filled beer cans. One day a bunch of us were shooting pumpkins on a rifle range, and he had a can that he'd filled with rubber instead of concrete. Shooting at 100 yards, he hit the berm which was constructed of railroad ties. The empty aluminum husk fell off the berm, and the rubber can flew back about 4-5ft above our heads, hit the ground behind us, and bounced over the spectators and family members behind us. Pretty spectacular! We never saw it coming back, but the people behind us did. Made us really think about what materials we use for projectiles. The rubber can was barely scuffed. I have a few friends that fire cannons using golf balls; I don't even want to be around when they do that. I can imagine those bouncing very well...
-
Well, it wasn't.
Why would anyone make a near-absolute statement without having experienced the subject matter? If one has not experienced the subject matter, who is he to comment on it? If one does not know, the only reason to be claiming expertise, so far as I can tell, is an unfortunate marriage of stupidity and self-perceived inferiority.
While I don't want to imply that you're lying, I still find that I have a hard time believing that a 9mm FMJ won't penetrate every time at normal pistol ranges.
You have, and may at your leisure, imply that I am lying. As previously stated, whether or not you accept my statement as accurate has not the slightest impact on my day.
Perhaps a HP will expand when hitting the laminated glass and fail to penetrate. I don't know.
I don't know, either. I don't know because I have not fired partially-jacketed ammunition at vehicle windshields. I am therefore unfit to comment on the issue; noting the lack of experience.
I have, however, fired fully-jacketed ammunition at vehicle windshields. Noting the corresponding lack of ignorance with respect to the subject matter, I feel qualified to make the statement; at the height of a typical human shoulder, both while standing and while crouching, the flight path of a standard-load 9x19 FMJ round, from a distance of approximately 50 yards, when fired at the windshield(s) of typical, four-door American sedans from the late 1960's, mid-1970's and early 1980's will result, more often that not, in the subject bullet ricocheting off the windshield without penetrating the glass.
In consideration of this, I re-read the final three words of your post. Those words being the case, I recommend that you consider re-reading the first three sentences of mine.
-
Just to toss in my .02 on the matter... I also have had an opportunity to fire at a car windshield. I also have experienced ricochet rather then penetraion with 9mm and .380 Auto...
Windshields are a very tough.
-
Saurdaukar,
At 50 yards from a kneeling shooting height the angle of the window is great with respect to the flight path. I fired from 20 yards standing at a passenger vehicle with a rather steep window. The angle of shooting can make or break both sides of this story, heck even the window manufacture can influence this. Most of the windows I shot through or at were older models out of the junk yard. A newer windshield is actually factored into the structural integrity of crash calculations.
(Of course all of this was done at a safe and secure firing range.....nothing malicous.)
Strip
-
No disagreement at all. I think the angle probably is the most important variable.
This is why I have attempted to make very clear to Mr. Hard that my statements assume one is not standing on the hood and firing straight into the windshield from a distance of three feet. In that sort of situation, my expectation of penetration is greatly increased. However, since a significant portion of the discussion involved "real world" circumstances, I think thatthe corresponding flight paths, distances and angles would make a failure to penetrate far more likely.