# Handguns from World Wars



## Douglas Jr. (Feb 22, 2005)

Hi folks!

This is too quiet... so let me post some pictures of handguns from World War II.

Hope you enjoy.!  

Douglas.

*Browning Automatic Rifle M1918A2* (USA)


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 22, 2005)

nce pics, what's the uniform?


----------



## Douglas Jr. (Feb 22, 2005)

*Thompson M1A1 *(USA)


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 22, 2005)

Okay, _now_ I'm jealous!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 23, 2005)

not exactly handguns though are they.............


----------



## Medvedya (Feb 23, 2005)

Are they deactivated or in full working order? Since the Dunblane massacre, the only thing you can legally own here is a shotgun or rifle. 

Handguns, and anything automatic are _strensten verboten_. I personally wouldn't want the responsiblity of having one in the house, but in my view, it was a knee-jerk bit of legislation in response to an appalling event which wasn't properly thought out.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 23, 2005)

did you know in the UK it's the right of every citizen to own a shotgun, if you want a shotgun they can't stop you having one unless you have some form of criminal record or illness that could lead to inproper use. you can get a shotgun licence at ANY age, and again they can't stop you, once you have the licence you can use other peoples guns if you're under 18 but once you're 18 you can buy your own..............


----------



## Medvedya (Feb 23, 2005)

It can also just as easily be revoked if you, or allow another person to, play the goat with it as well. I knew of that happening to someone at uni.


----------



## Douglas Jr. (Feb 24, 2005)

Medvedya said:


> Are they deactivated or in full working order? Since the Dunblane massacre, the only thing you can legally own here is a shotgun or rifle.
> 
> Handguns, and anything automatic are _strensten verboten_. I personally wouldn't want the responsiblity of having one in the house, but in my view, it was a knee-jerk bit of legislation in response to an appalling event which wasn't properly thought out.



I´m think it is a stupid law, but usually this kind of legislation is made only to calm down the general public cry. Collectors don´t hurt people. 

Well... let´s see a few more!

Here is the most successful selfloading rifle made by the germans: the *Gewehr 43 (G43)*. Chambered to fire the 8mm Mauser bullet, some were equiped with a 4X scope (ZF4). This one was made by Waffenfabrik Walther in 1945 (secret code "ac 45").


----------



## trackend (Feb 25, 2005)

It is possible to own other weapons apart from shot guns Black powder licences are still available, the local WW2 re-inactment club have a 25 pounder fully licenced and proofed Although obviously only blanks are used as lobbing the odd shell into the audience could cause some upset . Most checks regarding shot guns are not just on the persons past but also storage/security of the weapon and ammunition.
Air powered weapons are still obtainable but only under a certain power
(fps) once in the area of gas operated or atmosphere guns they then come under special fire arms legilastion.
As for deactivated weapons most are poorly done and can be reactivated without much effort ie bolt action rifles normally have the bolt chamfered
the firing pin ground off and the barrel slotted under the furniture.
None of this detracts from the overall appearance or feel of the fire arm. 
As for fully functioning firearms, although not deactivated having a weapon reproofed with the risk of destroying what are becoming valuable collectors items most are not fired anyway so are kept for display purposes only.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 25, 2005)

Nice pics, Douglas! 8)

I own 3 air guns (2 rifles one pistol) Well theyre really my dads but I use them more than him 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 25, 2005)

the current legal limmit for air rifles in the UK is 12lbs, mine's about 10lbs, rock on..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 25, 2005)

Is that in weight for the whole gun?


----------



## trackend (Feb 26, 2005)

I think you'll find it relates to spring compression however if you double spring it as long as the trigger sear is well machined too take the extra load it push the power way beyond legal limits.
Crossman is one manufacturer that make various gas operated/atmosphere weapons and some of these are in a different league indeed the Austrian army had a unit equipped with air guns. 
In the days of the flintlock atmosphere weapons could match or even better the power of black powder arms (1000 FPS) and in terms of rate of fire they where much quicker being able to fire 20 balls before the reservoir had to be pumped up again. unfortunately this took 100 + pumps so they tended to be used for initial assault units mixed with standard muskets.


----------



## Douglas Jr. (Feb 26, 2005)

Thanks for all the comments boys! Glad you enjoy!

*WALTHER P-38*

Here another WWII Classic: the double-action pistol P-38. This gun was designed to replace the legend called Luger as the standard German Army´s sidegun. It introduced the double action system for large/military caliber pistols - a revolution at that time.

This one was made by Waffenfabrik Walther (secret code "ac") in 1944. Late war gun with machine tools marks all over! It has red plastic grips.

Douglas.


----------



## Douglas Jr. (Feb 26, 2005)

Another P-38, this one with black grips. Also shown is the following Third Reich awards: Iron Cross 2nd Class, Panzer Assault Badge and Eastern Front Medal.

Douglas.


----------



## Douglas Jr. (Feb 26, 2005)

*Radom VIS-35*

Introduced in 1935, the 9mm Luger Radom VIS-35 was the standard pistol to the Polish Army. After the fall of Poland the Radom Arsenal was captured intact by the German forces and the production was reassumed. Lots of VIS35 pistols were delivered to german troops, where they were highly apreciated. Production went on until 1945.

Douglas.


----------



## Medvedya (Feb 26, 2005)

Not to mention the paybook! How else would a German soldier get his beer? 

Do you have anything else?


----------



## Douglas Jr. (Feb 26, 2005)

Medvedya said:


> Not to mention the paybook! How else would a German soldier get his beer?
> 
> Do you have anything else?



You mean guns or militaria (medals, soldbuch, etc...)? 8) 

Douglas.


----------



## Douglas Jr. (Feb 26, 2005)

*Mauser Model 1914*

Although a WWI design, the Mauser Model 1914 (chambered to 7,65mm Browning) was still very popular among German troopers during the WWII. This particular one, according to some papers, was taken from a Luftwaffe Officer, while he was being attended by Allied Medical Corp.

Also shown are the original holster (with the standard brown color), another Iron Cross and the beautiful Luftwaffe Anti-Aircraft Badge.

wishes,

Douglas.


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 27, 2005)

Nice pics!


----------



## Douglas Jr. (Feb 27, 2005)

*MAUSER HSc*

Issued in 1939 as the successor of the old Mauser 1914/34 series, the HSc was a very attractive (and eficient) pistol, with a highly modern design. Chambered mainly for 7,65mm, it was used by Army officers as well Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe soldiers. It was the Walter Nowotny´s sidearm.

This was was made very late in war (probably one of the last one made) and has a parkerized (phosphate) finish, which gives it a "greenish"-look!

Also shown are the Iron Cross 2nd Class and the Panzer Assault Badge in Bronze.

Douglas.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 27, 2005)

Nice!


----------



## Medvedya (Feb 27, 2005)

It's almost like a piece of Art Deco! Very, very Thirties design. Very nice!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 27, 2005)

it was a thirties design...........


----------



## Erich (Feb 27, 2005)

here is my own P-38


----------



## Erich (Feb 27, 2005)

a rarer piece the WW 1 Beholla. Still a fine shooter


----------



## Medvedya (Feb 28, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> it was a thirties design...........



I mean in the asthetic look of the pistol as well.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 28, 2005)

Very nice Erich! 8)


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 28, 2005)

Oh yes!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 28, 2005)

Id prefer me a good sturdy rifle to a pistol though 8)


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 28, 2005)

I'd prefer a Panzerfaust personally


----------



## Douglas Jr. (Mar 1, 2005)

Erich,

Nice P38!  I didn´t manage to see the maker´s code... what it it? cyq?

The Beholla is a very interesting pistol. Many officers carried it during WWI.

Douglas.


----------



## Erich (Mar 1, 2005)

yes it is a cyq with red grips. Maybe I'll just settle for my Panzerschreck 54


----------



## Medvedya (Mar 1, 2005)

Not a bad choice, as a weapon of war, what it lacks in finesse it makes up for in spectacle!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 1, 2005)

I can just imagine him, sitting in the rocking chair on the porch, holding that on his lap, pointing it at random people for fun


----------



## evangilder (Mar 1, 2005)

The schrek also makes an effective eliminator for those pesky yapping dogs in the middle of the night

YIP YIP YIP
WHOOSH....BOOM
Ah, peace and quiet!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 1, 2005)

Yeah. Right before the SWAT team shows up.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 1, 2005)

Well, that is one of the "less fortunate" side effects!


----------



## Erich (Mar 1, 2005)

CC I have done it........... !  for about an hr until a got some real scared looks from drivers going by. I made a quick exit into the back of the house and hid the "big pipe"


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 1, 2005)

Can you hear the sirens yet?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 1, 2005)

Colt 1911 cal .45ACP shooting tracers.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 2, 2005)

Erich said:


> CC I have done it........... !  for about an hr until a got some real scared looks from drivers going by. I made a quick exit into the back of the house and hid the "big pipe"



HAHA   Oh how id love to do that!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 2, 2005)

CharlesBronson said:


> Colt 1911 cal .45ACP shooting tracers.


Interesting. 
He paused long enough before firing, though.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 2, 2005)

Mauser K98K, here the guy handling this gun make a little mistake: He manually removeed the clip, but this is not needed because the forward movement of the bolt eject it.


----------



## Douglas Jr. (Mar 4, 2005)

*MAUSER C96 - "Austrian Contract"*

The Wartime Commercial Mauser C96 (termed 1896/12) was manufactured by Waffenfabrik Mauser at Oberndorf from 1915-1918 for the German Army. These are found in the 280000 to 430000 serial range. Almost all these pistols (with or without the Army acceptance stamp) were intended for Army service or for officer self purchase. This one was chambered to fire the 9mm Luger (aka Parabellum) cartridge.

A few of these Wartime Commercial pistols, mostly in the 360000 to 430000 serial range, bear Austrian military acceptance stamps in the form of a W-n Austrian Eagle and a date. Most of these bear a German Army acceptance stamp. Almost all are Austrian dated 17. 

Douglas.


----------



## Douglas Jr. (Mar 4, 2005)

Here are some more pictures of the same Mauser... The WWI/Freikorps medal bar shown brings the following medals: Iron Cross 2nd Class (1914), Lippe-Detmond Military Service Cross 2nd Class, Anhalt War Service Cross, Hindenburg Cross with Swords, Silesian Eagle 2nd Class, Austrian World War I Veteran Medal (with Swords), Hungarian 1914-1918 Service Medal.

Hope you enjoy it.

Douglas.


----------



## john (Mar 5, 2005)

Do you also got some good pics of the FG42?
Thats my favourite of all handguns.


----------



## Douglas Jr. (Mar 5, 2005)

john said:


> Do you also got some good pics of the FG42?
> Thats my favourite of all handguns.



Hi John,

I don´t have much pictures of the great (and extremely rare) FG42. But here it is.

Hope you enjoy!

Douglas.

FG42
The Fallschimjägergewehr 42 was introduced in 1942 as a special project to be issued to German Paratroopers. It was very well done but expensive, and it was produced for a very short time, with only around 7,000 - 10,000 units made. Some consider it as a ancestor of the Assault Rifle. There were two basic versions, and the main differences are the stock and hand grip.


----------



## Douglas Jr. (Mar 5, 2005)

Hi John,

I found another one in my files!

Douglas.


----------



## john (Mar 6, 2005)

thx
great pictures. Some in action would be nice 

Read a lot about that special weapon. The sound was sad to be very horrifed. Not as the Mg42 but direct after that.

MfG
john


----------



## Douglas Jr. (Mar 6, 2005)

It´s time to start to talke about... Luger!

*1914 NAVY LUGER*

The Navy was the first German Armed Force to adopt the famou Luger pistol, in 1904. Calling the new weapon as Pistole 04, the Kaiserliche Marine bought around 35,000 pistols for its ships and Marines until 1918. 

As very few survived, the Navy Luger is one of the most sought after model among the collectors. Also, many experts consider the most well-balanced Parabellum.

All Navy Lugers have 15cm (6") barrels and adjustable sight for 100 and 200 meters. The so-called 1914 Navy Luger was the first to eliminate the grip safety to make it similar to the Army model (P-08). However the 1914 model still used the long frame. Authors Görtz and Walter estimates that only 8,000 1914 Navy Lugers were made between late-1914 and mid-1916, when the short frame was also adopted for Navy Lugers.


Douglas.


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 7, 2005)

These really are cool pictures, and the two videos I am downloading now. I shall have to come back and add these to my private picture collection at some stage.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 8, 2005)

Nice pictures! 8)


----------



## Douglas Jr. (Mar 13, 2005)

Hi,

I took these two pictures this morning while trying to improve my habilities as a ditigal photographer! It´s getting better, I think... it is the same Navy Luger 1914 with a Imperial Militarpass, a saxon sailor´s medal bar and mützenband for Marineschule Kiel...

Hope you enjoy.

Douglas.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 14, 2005)

Nice photography work. 8)


----------



## Yeomanz (Mar 14, 2005)

Douglas Jr. said:


> Hi John,
> 
> I found another one in my files!
> 
> Douglas.



nice pics , the FG42 was a beast , pitty they only made 5000


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 14, 2005)

More great pics, Douglas! 
They turned out really well!


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 26, 2005)

*Ballester-Molina Cal. 45*






Type: Self Loading Locked Breech Semiautomatic Pistol 
System of Operation: Recoil 
Caliber: 11.43x23mm (.45 ACP) 
Capacity: 7+1 rounds 
Sights: Fixed blade front, notch rear drift adjustable for windage

The history of the Ballester-Molina dates back to 1929 when two enterprising Spaniards, Arturo Ballester and Eugenio Molina established a company for producing Hispano-Suiza automotive products in Buenos Aires. The name of this company was Hispano Argentina Fabrica de Automoviles Sociedad Anonima (HAFDASA), or Spanish-Argentine Automobile Factory, Incorporated. Several years later, HAFDASA hired a pair of engineers, the frenchman Rorice Rigaud, and Carlos Ballester Molina (a member of both the Ballester and Molina families). Rigaud eventually became HAFDASA's chief design engineer, while Ballester Molina, originally responsible for metallurgy, heat treatment, and production methodologies, became HAFDASA's Chief Executive Officer (CEO). 

HAFDASA won a contract with the Direccion General del Material del Ejercito (DGME), or General Directorate for Army Materiel, to supply the Argentine military with trucks, buses, and engines. The DGME later commissioned HAFDASA to investigate the potential manufacture of small arms. 

In 1936, in response to the DGME request, HAFDASA began to design and manufacture small arms. There was nothing revolutionary about HAFDASA's work. The factory established a pattern of adapting existing designs to satisfy the requirements of the Argentine military and police forces using indigenous materials within HAFDASA's production capabilities. To this end, in 1936, HAFDASA unveiled a semiautomatic carbine based on the Beretta M1918/30 in calibers 9x19mm and .45 ACP. 

Following the introduction of the two carbines, the DGME requested HAFDASA to produce a pistol chambered for the .45 ACP cartridge to serve as an (indigenously produced) replacement for the .45 ACP pistols then in service with the Argentine military and police forces. The contract required HAFDASA to produce a pistol along the general lines of the Modelo 1916 and 1927 Colt pistols then in service and to have barrels and magazines that were interchangeable with those pistols. 

The HAFDASA engineers began work on this contract in late 1936/early 1937. The decision was taken modify the original Browning design to facilitate and economize production along the same lines as two Spanish companies Bonifacio Echeverria, S.A. (Star) and Gabilondo y Cia, S.A (Llama). The main changes introduced by these companies were the elimination of the grip safety, a backstrap integral to the frame, and a pivoting trigger with a side mounted sear bar and disconnector. These changes, as applied to the Star Model B pistol were of particular influence to HAFDASA's designers. 

Consequently, while the completed HAFDASA design bore a strong external similarity to the Colt M1911A1, only the barrel and magazine are interchangeable with the Colt pistol. Note: Barrels and magazines made by HAFDASA are identifiable by the marking "HA" inside a diamond. The following is a list of differnces between the HAFDASA pistol and the M1911A1: 

a) The hammer strut on the HAFDASA pistol is much shorter than that of the M1911A1. 
b) The firing pin stop on the HAFDASA pistol is not recessed on the side as it is on the M1911A1. 
c) The safety lock on the HAFDASA pistol is redesigned with a larger diameter pin, and it can be applied with the hammer cocked or fully down. 
d) The mainspring housing on the HAFDASA pistol is an integeral part of the frame. 
e) The HAFDASA pistol has a pivoting trigger with a single extension along the right side that cams the side mounted disconnector and engages the sear. 
f) The magazine catch on the HAFDASA pistol is assembled differently. 
g) The HAFDASA pistol has no slide stop disassembly notch.



The HAFDASA pistol was adopted as the Argentine Army service pistol in 1938. Early pistols were marked "Pistola Automatica Calibre .45 Ballester-Rigaud, Modelo DGME 1938." These early pistols have checkering on the grips and backstrap, and there are twenty fine slide retraction grooves, as on the M1911A1. The slide right side is marked with the Argentine crest and the text "Ejercito Argentino." 

The next iteration of the HAFDASA pistol were modified to speed up and economize on production accordingly: The backstrap checkering was replaced by horizontal serrations, the wooden grips had long vertical serrations, and the fine slide retraction grooves were replaced by groups of vertical grooves separated by wide gaps. Additionally, the Modelo 1938 designation was dropped, and the pistol was now known as the "Pistola Ballester-Rigaud." 

At some point between 1940 and 1942, HAFDASA changed the trademark name of the pistol from "Ballester-Rigaud" to "Ballester-Molina," with the change reflected in the markings on the slide of the pistol. At the same time HAFDASA began to use plastic, instead of wooden, grips on the pistol. It was also around this time that HAFDASA received an order from the British government for between 8,000 and 10,000 .45 caliber pistols. Payment for these pistols was made, in part, with steel supplied by the British government. Due to the scarcity of raw materials in Argentina due to the Second World War, it is highly likely that the steel was of U.S. origin supplied to England via Lend-Lease, and consequently not prior to March 11, 1941. According to Alejandro Gherovici, noted expert on Argentine service pistols, no steel salvaged from the pocket battleship Graf Spee or any other warships was used to produce the British contract or any other HAFDASA pistols. Production of the British Contract pistols started in 1942 and continued until mid-1944. British Contract pistols are easy to identify as they bear a serial number prefixed by a "B," between the 12000 and 21000 serial number range. 

After the end of the of the British Contract, HAFDASA continued to produce pistols for Argentine government and commercial usage until 1953. Starting in 1947, the HAFDASA pistols had been supplanted in Argentine use by the DGFM Sistema Colt M1927 pistol, a clone of the M1911A1. While the HAFDASA pistols began to be withdrawn from Argentine service in the 1960's, many served until the mid-1980's when they were finally replaced and sold as surplus on the US market. It is believed that HAFDASA produced between 80,000 and 90,000 .45 caliber pistols. 

The following is a loose serial number to year correlation: 


Serial Number Range Date Range 
1 - 12,000 1938 - 1942 
12,000 - 23,000 1942 - 1944 
23,000 - 108,000 1944 - 1953 


HAFDASA exported pistols to Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Gherovici, Alex, Military Pistols of Argentina, (Self Published, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1994)


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Aug 15, 2005)

Nice pics! Anyone got any of the following?

Herman Goerings gold Lugers

Fedorov Avtomat

Chinese .45 ACP Mauser C96


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 2, 2005)

Check this beautifully engraved Astra 600/43. 

This pistol was one of the 10.350 pieces that this spanish factory send to the occupied France between april and July of 1944. Seems that is a presentation issue for some waffen SS commander.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 2, 2005)

Definitely different.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 2, 2005)

But cool as hell...¡¡¡ 8)


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 2, 2005)

Really? Hell is said to be quite warm. 

HA-HA-HA-HA! Boy, I'm funny!


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 2, 2005)

All right funny boy.  Aniway the look of the pistol is terrific, beside the sinister looking swastica in the grip.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Dec 3, 2005)

That is the Ugliest god forsaken pea shooter I have ever seen, Its supposed to be a weapon, a weapon meant for killing, not a peice of alluminum to carve beatiful art work on.

No this is a Cool as Hell Side Arm,


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 3, 2005)

yeah that pistol looks stupid, i'd be too embarresed to shoot anyone with it........

now this's a handgun!!






source on right click, and yes, that's actually a picture of a BB gun


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 3, 2005)

102first_hussars said:


> That is the Ugliest god forsaken pea shooter I have ever seen, Its supposed to be a weapon, a weapon meant for killing, not a peice of alluminum to carve



Huhummm...is steel not aluminium.

You like GP-35 pics...fine, it is still produced by the goverment factory right here:






.40 S&W







Model deluxe nickel and gold plated.


----------



## trackend (Dec 3, 2005)

Heres a couple for the thread the RAF issued Webley semiauto and the rare Webley Fosbrey . 455 one of the very few automatic revolvers ever developed


----------



## P38 Pilot (Dec 3, 2005)

Like that M95. Looks awesome and would seem like a good weapon to kill someone with.


----------



## trackend (Dec 3, 2005)

P38 Pilot said:


> Like that M95. Looks awesome and would seem like a good weapon to kill someone with.



Id rather have a rifle any day P38 you have to be far to close with a pistol.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Dec 3, 2005)

I know. A Rifle is a soldier's best friend. But his little buddy is also a pistol.


----------



## Soren (Dec 3, 2005)

While absolutely being the best sniper-rifle of WW2, the K98k is also arguably the best bolt action rifle of the war: (Here you can see some of the different sniper versions of the K98k, fitted with 4x to 6x scopes)


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 3, 2005)

Good pics guys.

Soren: I stil prefer the Enfield MK4...


----------



## Soren (Dec 3, 2005)

Gnomey said:


> Soren: I stil prefer the Enfield MK4...



Well I can definitely understand you, as the Lee Enfield is a great rifle, one of my personal favorites along with the K98k.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Dec 3, 2005)

CharlesBronson said:


> 102first_hussars said:
> 
> 
> > That is the Ugliest god forsaken pea shooter I have ever seen, Its supposed to be a weapon, a weapon meant for killing, not a peice of alluminum to carve
> ...



That was a Browning High Power that I posted, is Gp-35 the same weapon with different designation?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 3, 2005)

HP= High Power

GP= Grand Puissance

The same thing but in english and french, rememer that it was first manufactured by FN Belgium.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Dec 3, 2005)

Actually it was first manufactured by Browning then Browning merged with Fabrique National


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 4, 2005)

As long as no one posts any pics of M9 Barrettas and talks about how good they are, they suck, trust me I know.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 5, 2005)

> As long as no one posts any pics of M9 Barrettas and talks about how good they are, they suck, trust me I know.




Any reason in particular for that ?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 5, 2005)

Mmmm sniper rifles...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 5, 2005)

CharlesBronson said:


> > As long as no one posts any pics of M9 Barrettas and talks about how good they are, they suck, trust me I know.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes it sucks. I know from first hand, it is my personal weapon. It has no stopping power and they are not very accurate. They also jam all the time no matter how well you keep them up.


----------



## Soren (Dec 5, 2005)

Adler is right, the M9 Berretta is not a particularly good pistol, unless you want to spray bullets everywhere as fast as possible. (That its good at)

It has never stopped puzzling me why the U.S. made it their #1 sidearm. The Browning High Power would've been a much better choice.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 5, 2005)

> They also jam all the time no matter how well you keep them up.



That REALLY sucks, the reability must be the major caracteristic in a military/police pistol.

So I have to get alone with mi Bersa.


----------



## Soren (Dec 5, 2005)

DerAdlerIsGelandet said:


> It has no stopping power



The 9mm has plenty of stopping power if you know how to use it  Usually, in the army, they teach you to always aim for the head, and if you do that the 9mm is just as effective as a .45 or a .50 caliber bullet.

Special forces usually prefer the 9mm, as it shoots faster, is more accurate, and also has better penetrative performance.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 5, 2005)

Soren said:


> It has never stopped puzzling me why the U.S. made it their #1 sidearm. The Browning High Power would've been a much better choice.



The .45 is much better and it is probably what the US Army is going back to.



Soren said:


> The 9mm has plenty of stopping power if you know how to use it Usually, in the army, they teach you to always aim for the head, and if you do that the 9mm is just as effective as a .45 or a .50 caliber bullet.



No it does not. That is the chief complain by the forces in our military (including myself) that use the M9 Baretta. 

Also the Army *does not teach *you to shoot at the head. It teaches you to shoot at the torso because you are more likely to hit the person that way. The head is a smaller target to aim at and with the shitty accuracy of the 9mm you are less likely to hit.


----------



## Soren (Dec 5, 2005)

> The .45 is much better and it is probably what the US Army is going back to.



I disagree, its too heavy, inaccurate, and it shoots all over the place.



> No it does not. That is the chief complain by the forces in our military (including myself) that use the M9 Baretta.



Yes it does Adler, trust me, I know. I've seen what happens to a man shot in the head by a 9mm, and I can tell you he drops immediately and he doesnt get back up again.



> Also the Army *does not teach *you to shoot at the head. It teaches you to shoot at the torso because you are more likely to hit the person that way. The head is a smaller target to aim at and with the sh*tty accuracy of the 9mm you are less likely to hit.



I was instructed to aim for the head, and for good reasons. Sidearms are supposed to be used up close, they're not supposed to be a sharpshooters weapon, and up close a 9mm pistol is accurate enough to do the job very effectively. 

Btw the 9mm is alot more accurate than the .45 ACP, its just the M9 thats a shitty weapon.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 5, 2005)

Soren said:


> Yes it does Adler, trust me, I know. I've seen what happens to a man shot in the head by a 9mm, and I can tell you he drops immediately and he doesnt get back up again.



How often have you used it in combat. I have used it. TRUST ME I KNOW, when I say I have experience with a 9mm.

Also think about what you just said. You shoot anyone in the head with anything and they are not getting back up.  



Soren said:


> I was instructed to aim for the head, and for good reasons. Sidearms are supposed to be used up close, they're not supposed to be a shrapshooters weapon, and up close a 9mm pistol is accurate enough to do the job very effectively.



Yes and the M9 is a terrible shot even up close. I am an expert shooter when it comes to side arms. I have plenty of time shooting them and the M9 sucks! 



Soren said:


> Btw the 9mm is alot more accurate than the .45 ACP, its just the M9 thats a sh*tty weapon.



I can not speak for other 9mm however the .45 is more accurate than the M9 once you get used to shooting it.


----------



## Soren (Dec 5, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> How often have you used it in combat. I have used it. TRUST ME I KNOW, when I say I have experience with a 9mm.



I have never used the M9 in actual combat, and i would refuse ever to do so, but its not the round it fires which is the problem, its the gun itself. 



> Also think about what you just said. You shoot anyone in the head with anything and they are not getting back up.



Yes, and thats exactly why you don't need to be armed with a bloody 'cannon' to be effective up close. The 9mm is ideal for combat up close, its got low recoil and its accurate, what more do you need ?

Im not saying you could use a .22LR of-cause, as its only effective when your REALLY close, AKA too close  



> Yes and the M9 is a terrible shot even up close. I am an expert shooter when it comes to side arms. I have plenty of time shooting them and the M9 sucks!



I fully agree.



> I can not speak for other 9mm however the .45 is more accurate than the M9 once you get used to shooting it.



Try the Browning High Power, I'm sure you'll love it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 5, 2005)

Soren said:


> I have never used the M9 in actual combat, and i would refuse ever to do so, but its not the round it fires which is the problem, its the gun itself.



That is my point exactly, I know the M9 and I know how bad it sucks. Why you wish to argue with me about my experiences with the weapon, I shall never understand.  



Soren said:


> The 9mm is ideal for combat up close, its got low recoil and its accurate, what more do you need ?



And again I am saying that the M9 (why you keep talking about other 9mm, I do not know) is not accurate and you have a good chance of missing your target even at close range. I know this from experience, and why you wish to argue with me about it, I shall never understand.


----------



## Soren (Dec 5, 2005)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 5, 2005)

Sorry its true.


----------



## Soren (Dec 5, 2005)

I was arguing the fact that you said it had no stopping power, which it has. (Too bad one just can't hit with the M9  )


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 5, 2005)

No sorry but 75 percent of the US Army and myself cant be wrong when we all say it does not have stopping power.


----------



## Soren (Dec 5, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No sorry but 75 percent of the US Army and myself cant be wrong when we all say it does not have stopping power.



The M9 shoots the 9mm parabellum round, and that round is more than enough up close, you can easily stop a man with it, EASILY. That the M9 can't hit a 9 foot barn door at point blank is another matter entirely.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Dec 5, 2005)

I agree with Alder, .45 is better than 9mm. Better stopping power.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Dec 6, 2005)

How would you know?

Anyway having used the Beretta I can agree with Adler its a peice of shit, but lets remeber that sidearms are really just a decorative acessory for officers, now pilots and SF are a different story however.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2005)

Soren said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > No sorry but 75 percent of the US Army and myself cant be wrong when we all say it does not have stopping power.
> ...



Yes Soren you are correct. I am wrong. All of my experiences are invalid based on your book knowledge. I am sorry that I use a 9mm M9 as my primary weapon, however do not know my weapon or the effectiveness of it. I bow down to you and your infininate wisdom.


----------



## Medvedya (Dec 6, 2005)

Ah well, I'm thinking about getting one of these bad boys (deactivated one)


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 6, 2005)

Sweet!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2005)

Ive got a .38 Special Snubnose just like the one below. I love the thing. It reminds me of the old Cop movies.


----------



## Soren (Dec 6, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Soren said:
> 
> 
> > DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> ...



 

Adler I'm not saying your wrong about the M9 being a shitty pistol, infact if you look back abit you'll see I actually agree with you.

However I know from first hand experience (And not from reading a book) that the 9mm parabellum is more than enough up close, and is alot more accurate than the .45 ACP. (Hence why special forces prefer the 9mm)

Whenever going inside a building to take out the bad guys, we had been instructed always to aim for the head, and the reason is simple; There's always the likelyhood that the enemy is wearing a bullet-proof vest, so if we were to go in and aim for the torso, we would be foolishly playing with our lives, as there's a very good chance we would then be shot in return. 

Inside buildings we always used pistols simply because you can maneuver better that way. 

And as to the stopping power of the .45 .... well if your unfortunate enough get hit by it, its not going to make you skip across the floor as some believe, not even if it hits bone. Infact its more likely to just go straight through you, as is the 9mm. (Unless it hits bone of-cause)

The kinetic energy of the two rounds:

125gr 9mm Parabellum at 381m/s = 434 ft.lbs.

200gr .45 Auto at 297m/s = 422 ft.lbs.


Btw nice .38 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2005)

It does not matter to me Soren, I am not going to argue with you on my personal experiences. I know from personal experience and so does many others the opposite of what you are saying.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 6, 2005)

Going back to the WW2, some pics of a rare .45:






This pistol manufactured by Hispano-Argentina Fabricas de Automoviles SA in Buenos Aires, Argentina in 1939-1940. This is one of the pistols ordered by the British Purchasing Agency in 1939-1940. The Ballester-Molina pistols were issued to the SOE (Strategic Operations Executive) and other British clandestine organizations fighting the Nazis in occupied Europe. Correct for the British contract pistols "B" prefixed serial number. Marked on the right side of slide and frame with British proofs, "Crown over P". The barrel displays British pressure test proofs and the caliber designation. Left side of the slide is marked: "PISTOLA AUTOMATICA C. 11.25 mm FABRICADA POR 'HAFDASA' PATENTES INTERNACIONALES 'BALLESTER-MOLINA' INDUSTRIA ARGENTINA" (in three lines). 5" barrel. 7 shots magazine. The design closely follows the lines of Colt M1911 A1, except:


a) The hammer strut on the HAFDASA pistol is much shorter than that of the M1911A1. 
b) The firing pin stop on the HAFDASA pistol is not recessed on the side as it is on the M1911A1. 
c) The safety lock on the HAFDASA pistol is redesigned with a larger diameter pin, and it can be applied with the hammer cocked or fully down. 
d) The mainspring housing on the HAFDASA pistol is an integeral part of the frame. 
e) The HAFDASA pistol has a pivoting trigger with a single extension along the right side that cams the side mounted disconnector and engages the sear. 
f) The magazine catch on the HAFDASA pistol is assembled differently. 
g) The HAFDASA pistol has no slide stop disassembly notch


----------



## Soren (Dec 6, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> It does not matter to me Soren, I am not going to argue with you on my personal experiences. I know from personal experience and so does many others the opposite of what you are saying.



We are not argueing Adler, atleast Im not. Just telling you how I was instructed on sidearms and how we used them. 

Don't let it get to you Adler, its just a debate.

---------------------

Nice pictures there Charls 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2005)

Good pics and info up there CB. That is a nice .45.



Soren said:


> Don't let it get to you Adler, its just a debate.



I am not letting it get to me, but it is not a debate when you basically are telling me that my personal experiences are wrong and the personal experiences of the people that use the weapon are wrong, based off of someone who has never used, except maybe on paper targets.


----------



## Soren (Dec 7, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I am not letting it get to me, but it is not a debate when you basically are telling me that my personal experiences are wrong and the personal experiences of the people that use the weapon are wrong, based off of someone who has never used, except maybe on paper targets.



Again I didn't say you or the people you've talked to were wrong about the M9 being a lousy pistol, infact I totally agree with that. Also I've used a 9mm in actual combat, just not the M9, so I would appreciate it if you wouldn't come with such comments as these again:_ the personal experiences of the people that use the weapon are wrong, based off of someone who has never used, except maybe on paper targets_

But the 9mm parabellum doesn't lack 'so called' stopping power, I've seen how it acts on live flesh. 

But maybe where we missunderstand each other is on how we define "stopping power" - I define stopping power as the ability of the round to take down a human target quickly and efficiently, others (Like you I suspect) define stopping power as the power of the round to literally stop a crazed man running towards you dead in his tracks by a shot to the upper torso. And of-cause in this last department the .45 is superior, although not by a whole lot, and not even the .45 will actually stop a man running towards you, however he 'will' drop.

But Adler please don't take it as me trying to say that your experiences are wrong, cause Im not, just telling you what "I" know. I'm sure you know something I don't, Im not trying to dispute that. 

I don't want this little debate to create a bad vibe between us, so if anything I've said sounds offensive to you then I'll let you know it definitely wasn't meant that way.


----------



## Soren (Dec 8, 2005)

Adler,

Talked to one of my old buddies yesterday who's got alot of experience with the M9, and surprisingly his opinion is strictly the opposite of what you and I think of the M9. 

Here's what he thinks:

_The reasons the 9mm M9 has replaced the old M1911 are ever so simple. In the early 80's the U.S. was the only NATO country not using a 9mm as the standard issue sidearm, and that was a real disadvantage logistically. Also the M9 has a 15 round clip, whereas the M1911 only has a 7 round clip, and that is a 'really' big disadvantage for the M1911, as running out of ammo is the very last thing you want to happen in a combat situation. 

Another reason is the ammunition - the M9 fires the 9mm parabellum round which is generally a more accurate round than the .45 ACP (Especially under rapid fire), and has considerably lighter recoil. However the M9 itself isn't amongst the more accurate of 9mm pistols, and some .45's are just as accurate, but it 'is' accurate enough however. Also there's the fact that the fast-moving 9mm round is more likely to penetrate soft body armor. Also, the larger number of rounds carried inside the M9 and replacement magazines means that the soldier can stay in the fight longer before having to perfect his/her pistol throwing skills. A typical issue rig includes the pistol with magazine, holster, belt, and mag pouch containing two spare magazines. This gives the soldier carrying an M9 rig a 45-round capacity, as opposed to only 21 for a similar ensemble using an M1911. It has also been documented that the average recruit can be trained to shoot and hit targets with the softer-recoiling 9mm much more easily than with the .45 ACP

Another crucial reason is that the difference in actual stopping power is relatively small between the two rounds - The FBI concluded in tests that the 9x19mm round was a better choice than the .45 ACP.(And no, these following test results are not based on how high a % each round will have of actually stopping a man running towards you right in his tracks, but on how quickly he drops dead) The FBI's tests concluded that the .45 ACP normally had a 78-94 One-Shot-Stop percentage, while the 9mm normally had a 83-91 One-Shot-Stop percentage. This is the reason why the FBI choose the 9mm as their standard round for sidearms.

Now after hearing this, again take into account that the M9 has 15 highly effective rounds in its clip, compared to the M1911's only 7 equally effective rounds. I know which one I would pick...._

Additionally he provided me with this link to the FBI's Gelatine test results: http://www.firearmstactical.com/ammo_data/ammodata.htm 

I can't say I agree with him on all accounts, but I have however never detected any real different behavior of a target being hit by .45 ACP compared to being hit by a 9mm, and the similar kinetic energy of the two rounds seem to confirm this to be the case as-well.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 9, 2005)

No you are correct, a person hit with .45 and a 9mm is going to drop depending on where you hit them. I have never used a .45 in combat so I can not compare them in actuallity. I do however say and so does the majority of the US Army that it does not have a very good stopping power, and I will never change my opinion of this.

The 9mm Baretta is a crappy weapon, that is not accurate and the stopping power sucks. Yes Soren as you said if you hit a guy in the head with it, yes it will take you down (name me a bullet that will hit someone in the head and not take them down), however hitting someone in the arm, chest, or leg is not going to take them down with a 9mm Baretta, it does not have the stopping power to take them down there. In the heat of a real battle you are not going to get very many head shots with a 9mm, you are going to get the chest, arms, and legs and it does not have the stopping power for that.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 9, 2005)

It is my understanding that the FBI has gone at least as an option to a .40 calibre round because the 9mm did not stop perps consistently without several additional rounds. The other reason was that they would not admit they were wrong about the .45/9mm after they publicly announced the 9mm was enough. One of the reasons the FBI helped develop the .40 was several instances where people were shot in the head with a 9mm and the round traveled under the skin and exited the skin on the other side without severly damaging the perp.

It is also my understanding the .45 was developed after the Phillipeno campain in the early part of the century because the .38 (essentialy 9mm) would not put down a Phillipeno tribesman. While the kinetic energy may be close the .45 transfers that energy much better than the smaller round.

I'm not an expert but thats what I've picked up from my interest in the .45 in particular. 

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 9, 2005)

Thankyou for that post. You have just confirmed everything that I have stated about the 9mm.

Soren here is report on a study being done by the US Army at Fort Benning.

_Fort Benning tests current M-9 sidearm, future alternatives
By Spc. Nikki St. Amant 
January 28, 2005 


FORT BENNING, Ga. (Army News Service, Jan. 28, 2005) - The Directorate of Combat Developments and Soldier Battle Lab began an experiment Jan. 24 analyzing the current-issue M-9 handgun and possible alternative weapons.

"I want to make it clear, this is not a selection of a new pistol," said Charley Pavlick, project officer with DCD's Small Arms Division. *"We are responding to concerns we have from (Soldiers deployed for Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom) that report a lack of confidence in the M-9 for several reasons. This is an analysis of different features and characteristics that are available with other weapons platforms."

Some of the concerns with the M-9 include many stoppages, uncomfortable function control and the low lethality of the 9mm ball round, Pavlick said.*
The Army hasn't made an official decision to make a move from the M-9 to a new sidearm, Pavlick said. DCD will rewrite the draft requirements documents after the experiment is complete, and then officials will make a decision.

Army officials decided to switch from a .45-caliber sidearm to the 9mm in 1954, but that change wasn't fully implemented until 1984, Pavlick said. It was only when the supply of rebuilt .45s began running out that the Army finally started the 9mm Personal Defense Weapon program.

"The decision to switch was strictly logistical," he said. "The United States was trying to move toward NATO joint operability, and we were fighting the Cold War. Target effect wasn't a factor in that decision. Now it is."

The performance of better sights, larger calibers and double-action-only firing mechanisms are what DCD analysts will be taking a look at.

The test firers for the experiment are representative of the force, Pavlick said. Soldiers of varying rank, military-occupation specialty and gender are included.

The testing started this week with a baseline qualification to assess the basic marksmanship of the firers with the M-9 and familiarization fires with alternative weapons.

Staff Sgt. Michael Morten is one of the test firers. He fired the .45-caliber version of the Smith and Wesson 99.

"You can really feel the difference," he said of the Smith and Wesson. "It fits better in my hand. The sights are easier. I thought it would have more kick being a .45, but the recoil is the same as the 9mm. I thought it was excellent."

(Editor's note: Spc. Nikki St. Amant is assigned to the Fort Benning Public Affairs Office.)_

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2005/01/mil-050128-arnews02.htm

And another report:

_The push for more pistol punch
Army tests new ammo, technology in search for future handgun

By Matthew Cox
Times staff writer


The Army is testing potent pistol ammo, including .45-caliber rounds, as a possible alternative for 9mm, the M9 pistol round often criticized for its lack of stopping power.
Since World War I, the 9mm cartridge has seen action in conflicts all over the world and is the standard pistol caliber for NATO forces. Still, soldiers have questioned the performance of the lightweight ammunition since the Army chose it as a replacement for the combat-proven .45 two decades ago.

Continued complaints from soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan since the war on terrorism began prompted officials at the Infantry Center at Fort Benning, Ga., to take a serious look at alternatives to the M9 pistol.

“The feeling is that we need to assess a caliber beyond the 9mm,” said Maj. Glenn Dean, chief of the small arms division at Benning, citing the most common complaint from soldiers: “We’d like more stopping power.”

;Complaints about reliability and a lack of accessories also prompted Dean’s office, the Army’s proponent for small arms, to scour the commercial pistol market last summer for off-the-shelf options for a Future Handgun System. “We are assessing the current technology to define what a future handgun should do, and send it to the Army,” Dean said.

As a combat developer, Dean’s job is to stay on top of the needs of soldiers and turn them into future small-arms requirements for the Army.

Since the U.S. military began operations in Afghanistan in 2001, small-arms officials at Benning have talked to soldiers who say they have little confidence in the M9 9mm in the combat zone, Dean said.

Under the Soldier Enhancement Program, Benning officials began looking for solutions on the commercial market. They started out with about 85 different semi-automatic handguns from major manufacturers such as Glock, Sigarms Inc. and Smith Wesson. 

The goal, though, was not to find a perfect pistol, Dean said. Instead, 14 pistols, in a mix of 9mm, .40 and .45 calibers, were selected for soldiers to shoot, so small-arms officials could study how individual features such as calibers and safety devices performed, Dean said.

Ten soldiers participated in two weeks of shooting tests. They were men and women, commissioned and noncommissioned officers. Their job specialties ranged from infantrymen and military police to drill sergeants and signal soldiers.

Officials examined collected data such as shot placement, qualification scores, reliability and safety, Dean said. Other factors studied included how fast soldiers could recover from the shot recoil, aim and shoot again.

Some of the features examined in the test that could show up in the Future Handgun System proposal are based on past complaints about the M9, Dean said. Some of these include magazine releases that can be operated easier while wearing cold-weather gloves and safeties and decocking devices mounted on the pistol frame rather than the slide for simpler, one-handed operation. 

The test also looked at pistols like the M9 that feature double-action/single-action operation versus single- and double-action-only models.

The M9 allows soldiers to shoot in double-action mode — pulling the trigger with the hammer in the down position — and in single-action mode, in which the hammer is cocked to the rear before the first shot to make the trigger easier to pull. Revolutionary improvements in triggers over the past five years could fix this, Dean said.

In both modes, the hammer remains in the rear position after each shot and requires a decocking device that lets the soldier drop the hammer safely while a round is in the chamber when the shooting is over. 

A double-action-only operation eliminates the need for a decocker since the hammer remains in the down position after each shot, Dean said.

The data gathered from the experiment will likely be ready sometime in March, Dean said. If his office decides to make a recommendation, Dean said it could go before the senior leadership by this summer.

If the Army decides to move forward, weapons developers hope to invite commercial pistol makers to participate in an open competition to select a new service pistol.

“We do expect to release a [request for proposal] by late summer for a Future Handgun System,” said Col. Michael Smith, the head of Army’s Project Manager Soldier Weapons. “It really is an exciting time.”

Dean remains optimistic but knows that the program will have to compete against other expensive programs, including an effort to replace the Army’s M16s and M249 squad automatic weapons.

“The challenge is actually getting the requirement approved,” Dean said. “To be realistic, no army has won a war based on a pistol.”

Many see fewer pistols in the Army’s future, Dean said, describing how ultralight, compact carbines may replace pistols for tank crewmen and other soldiers who operate in tight places.

On the other hand, carrying a pistol as a backup weapon has always been a top priority among American soldiers.

“Ever since the Revolutionary War, all the soldiers have wanted a pistol and a big knife,” said Charlie Pavlick, project officer for individual and special purpose weapons. “Soldiers have found ways to get them whether they were authorized them or not.”

But the Army’s current pistol has never truly won the confidence of soldiers since the Army chose it as a replacement for the M1911A1 .45 automatic pistol in 1985.

The lighter 9mm round gave soldiers 15 rounds, compared to the seven-round capacity of the 1911. But it came at a cost of knock-down power.

The Army adopted the M1911A1 to fill the need for greater stopping power after the .38 service revolver often failed to put down determined Moro warriors during the Philippine Insurrection at the turn of the century.

Soldier complaints about the M9 often deal with unreliable magazines and a lack of mountable accessories such as some type of integrated laser sight system, Dean said.

Special operations soldiers are the ones using pistols most often in combat, but a desire for more hitting power, Dean said, is a common complaint his office could not ignore.

“There is a certain percentage of those comments, we think are echoing other comments, but we have heard it enough from folks that are actually operators,” Dean said. _

http://www.armytimes.com/print.php?f=0-ARMYPAPER-705222.php


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 10, 2005)

Your Welcome Adler. I don't think the 9mm is a bad gun/round but it will never be a 1911A1 and I've heard very few are happy with the change.

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 11, 2005)

Exactly, but what do I know? Ive actually used the gun!


----------



## Soren (Dec 12, 2005)

wmaxt,

The reason the FBI are beginning to favor the .40 S&W round is not at all because they don't want to admit being wrong about anything. The reason is simply that the .40 S&W will stop man more consistently than either the 9mm or the .45, as the wound cavity of the .40 is much larger. FBI gelatine tests have confirmed this, as-well as proving that the most effective man-stopper to date is the .357. 

And as for your argument that the .45 was developed after the Phillipeno campaign because the .38 would not effectively put down a Phillipeno tribesman, true, but saying that therefore a 9mm would probably neither is stretching reality quite abit.... I'm sure you'll agree that there's a considerable difference between the 9mm's up to 445 ft/lbs of energy and the .38's 230 ft/lbs of energy. So saying that the .38 is essentially a 9mm is very far from the truth indeed. 

--------------------------------------------

Adler,

I wonder how many of those who complain about the 'Stopping power' of the 9mm and want to switch to the .45 have actually seen the difference between the two on live flesh. I can safely say that spec ops soldiers have no complaints over the 9mm, it works just fine for them.. Switching over to the .45 won't change anything.



> Yes Soren as you said if you hit a guy in the head with it, yes it will take you down (name me a bullet that will hit someone in the head and not take them down), however hitting someone in the arm, chest, or leg is not going to take them down with a 9mm Baretta, it does not have the stopping power to take them down there. In the heat of a real battle you are not going to get very many head shots with a 9mm, you are going to get the chest, arms, and legs and it does not have the stopping power for that.



Adler in the heat of battle it is relatively easy to hit a man in the head, as long as your properly trained to do so, and as long as your enemy is neither to far or to close to you. However 'if' the enemy is to close or to far away, then yes it will be a problem, and hitting the torso or the limbs is much more likely, and a 9mm pistol round does lack so called 'stopping power' here, but here comes the the point, "So does a .45". 

Hitting a man in the arm with a .45 as apposed to a 9mm won't change matters in any real way, and the guy hit will be just as pissed at you as if hit by a 9mm. Hitting a guy in the chest with a .45 won't change matters significantly either, as the wound cavity of the .45 and 9mm are about the same, the .45's being a little larger of-cause. I will however agree that the .45 ACP will transfer its energy into the target more efficiently, but the .45 also generally has a little less energy work with than the 9mm, and this could be a problem if the bad guys are wearing kevlar. 

Its popular belief that hitting a man with a .45 will make him skip across the floor, or stop a man midflight jumping at you. All of this is of-cause untrue, and insulting to our intelligence. Hitting a man in the chest with a .45 will not litterally "knock him down", it will usually stop him however, but by him collapsing to the ground, and its the exact same story with the 9mm. 

So does this mean that the .45 is ineffective ? NO, certainly not, its very effective at bringing down a man, but so is the 9mm, and the people who say it isn't haven't tried both in similar conditions.

What people need to understand is that Pistol rounds won't knock a mans body to the floor, but hit a man in the middle of his chest with a 9mm, and it will shatter his spinal column, and he's both incapacitated and killed instantly. Its all about knowing where to aim. 

If one wants to make sure that he/she can bring down a man instantly with the first shot nomatter where one hits him, then go buy a shotgun and fill it with slugs, cause pistols don't work that way.

-------------------------------------------

Over to the issue of the M9, yes Adler I fully agree, my experiences with it also tells me it is a gun inadequate for its role, but switching it with the Browning High Power I think would change matters significantly as its not the round that's the problem. 

However there are those who are satisfied with the M9, even after using it in actual combat, so what do ya know...


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 12, 2005)

Guys, from a Special Ops point of view, both work effectively... Ive used both in combat and never had a jam or misfire from either... I have knocked a Skinny backwards several feet from a .45 at close range to the chest, so I dont know where ur comin up with that one Soren... One minute he's 5 feet from the wall, the next he's lying against it... It may be inertia that does that, but it still happens...

Unless it is an intelligence gathering op, u go into an enemy position looking for headshots as Soren stated.... The 9mm and .45 both work in this aspect, but it is a secondary weapon, not primary.... 

That being said, I preferred to carry the .45 simply due the damage the .45 round does... U hit a baddie in the shoulder with a 9mm, he might go down... U do it with a .45 and he IS down, with major damage and blood loss... He is no longer a problem...

But still, the 9mm is a fine weapon to use as a personal firearm... JUST AS LONG AS U KEEP IT CLEAN!!!



> If one wants to make sure that he/she can bring down a man instantly with the first shot nomatter where one hits him, then go buy a shotgun and fill it with slugs.


That is a fact, and I can attest to the validity of that statement..


----------



## Soren (Dec 12, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> I have knocked a Skinny backwards several feet from a .45 at close range to the chest, so I dont know where ur comin up with that one Soren... One minute he's 5 feet from the wall, the next he's lying against it... It may be inertia that does that, but it still happens...



Yes thats partly due to the inertia, chok, and most likely also because skinny's don't have alot of weight to put up against the round, if you know what I mean.  I do think you actually hit bone on that though, which would explain the 5 ft.

A 9mm would have done much the same.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 12, 2005)

Soren I am not going to discuss this with you anymore. I have used a 9mm in combat, so I know how it works and how it will take some one down or not. You telling me how a 9mm works in combat is pointless because I have used it, you on the other hand I seriously doubt.


----------



## Soren (Dec 13, 2005)

> I have used a 9mm in combat, so I know how it works and how it will take some one down or not.



So have I, as-well as the .45, and they collaps to the ground. They are not thrown down, and I'm sure you'll agree with that.

A man shot 'point blank' where the bullet either expands or hits bone, will because of the chock and energy step backwards and fall, as the bullet shifts his point of balance backwards. This is what Les experienced first hand, unless he can prove he actually flew those 5 ft.  

And here, for anyone who's interested, the internal ballistics of the 9mm and .45 ACP FMJ rounds: (Bare in mind the pics are not identical in scale)










And a expanding 185gr .45 JHP silvertip:







> You telling me how a 9mm works in combat is pointless because I have used it, you on the other hand I seriously doubt.



Doesn't mean anything to me Adler, I know what I've experienced. Its just a shame you absolutely want to be so hostile in this discussion.

Anyway, I've forgotten this by the end of the week so it means nothing to me... Just hope you've lost your grudge by then  

Be cool pal 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 13, 2005)

I have no grudge and I have not gotten hostile at all. I am just tired of someone basically telling me that I have no clue what I am talking about. Are you next going to tell me how fast a Blackhawk helicopter can really fly? I am sure you know better about that subject than me, I just work and fly on them everday, I dont know anything.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 13, 2005)

To keep this going, I have shot several individuals with a 9mm round and they did nothing but either keep coming, slump forward or spin and drop where they were hit.... With a .45, the individual does not keep coming, he's either knocked backwards or spins and drops... I dont think I need to get anymore graphic than this....

Compared to my experience with the .45, and the experiences of my Teammates, the 9mm does not possess the same stopping power, or inflict the same damage...

BUT....... The point is, all the baddies that I've had the displeasure of firing a sidearm at, never got back up, and never had the need for a Corpseman...

But again, the .45 stops people better than a 9mm does, charts and graphs aside... Everyone I served with would agree with this statement...


----------



## Erich (Dec 13, 2005)

without giving to much of my former background away, it is range and ammo supplied. The old 45 was a heavy weapon till new tech materails came out. Ever try firing the .45 full auto. wow, about broke my arm off trying to keep the thing down stright in-line, but yes it has superiror stopping ability, all the 11mm's do. personally because of my size and stature I preferred the 7.62mm, handy, quite small and that was the point..........stealth, you could hide and pull this thing out easily and at 5 yds or less range unload at your intended target. who gives a rats ass if the person is down on the face or on their back, as long as the are pure and simple dead ! The 9mm is the weapon of chopoice first starting in Europe and now the invasion the last 6-7 years it is here in the states again made of very light alloys, and that really is the name of the game, superior lightness, and optics, plus effective and terrific ammunition to stop your opponent at close range. Idealy what we wanted back in the early 70's were rounds that could tear a guys face off and I mean tear it off. We made up our own rounds and this was a prerequisite in the field.

v/r El


----------



## Soren (Dec 14, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> To keep this going, I have shot several individuals with a 9mm round and they did nothing but either keep coming, slump forward or spin and drop where they were hit.... With a .45, the individual does not keep coming, he's either knocked backwards or spins and drops... I dont think I need to get anymore graphic than this....
> 
> Compared to my experience with the .45, and the experiences of my Teammates, the 9mm does not possess the same stopping power, or inflict the same damage...
> 
> ...



The .45 stops a man better, yes, research shows this as-well, however the 9mm isnt to far behind and doesn't lack so called 'stopping power', and the fact that its better against softly armored enemy's compensates for any ground lost to the .45 in the first department. Like you Les, none of the guys I've shot at with either round has gotten back up again, this may partly be attributed to my aiming technique, but nonetheless it works... 

Btw have you shot the 9mm Corbon round Les ? I guarantee you, it will do some serius damage to a person, just as serious as any .45 round.


Now Adler, I think this is all one big missunderstanding, I never said the .45 was less of a round than the 9mm, just that the 9mm is atleast as effective in its role. A man hit with either a 9mm or .45 projectile won't feel much difference, as long as the FF's of the two rounds are the same.(Cause thats not always the case with these two rounds) 

There's a reason why the 9mm is so popular with spec ops soldiers, SWAT units etc etc... 

But as Les said a pistol is usually not your primary weapon, its a last ditch defense weapon which you'd rather not 'have' to use, as that usually means something has gone seriously wrong. (Although in buildings with no long hallways and such, pistols are preferred normally)

The absolute best weapon we had was infact a 9mm weapon, the MP-5, an excellent weapon which in most urban settings is even more effective than the very popular M4.

Lastly I have a good exercise you could try, which involves a dead 'pig'(Yes a Pig) or maybe a deer you've shot yourself(Thats if you hunt), and a robe or string to hold it up. When it hangs freely you can pump a couple of 9mm and .45 rounds into it and see what happens...... Yup it hardly moves when hit by either round...

So no-more arguments, just proof.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 16, 2005)

Soren to be quite frank I dont care to discuss this with you anymore because I feel like I am talking to a brick wall. It is rather annoying actually.


----------



## Soren (Dec 16, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Soren to be quite frank I dont care to discuss this with you anymore because I feel like I am talking to a brick wall. It is rather annoying actually.



Thats fine with me Adler, but try that little 'test' in practice and see the results.

If not, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

There's no reason for us both to get annoyed with each other, so lets move on shall we.

-------------------------------------------

The Mauser C96 with the holster/shoulder stock being used in combat:


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 16, 2005)

Agreed lets agree to disagree here.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Dec 20, 2005)

Soren said:


> There's a reason why the 9mm is so popular with spec ops soldiers, SWAT units etc etc...




Internal affairs allows 'dum-dums', these units usually use hollow-point Hydra-shock rounds, my guess is DerAdler uses FMJ Parabellums?

NB: The RoF and magazine capacity are usually higher with a 9-milly.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Dec 20, 2005)

> To keep this going, I have shot several individuals with a 9mm round and they did nothing but either keep coming, slump forward or spin and drop where they were hit....



But what kind of pistol were you using? because I can assure you that that would not happen with a FN High Power


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2005)

Considering he is in the US military it was probably a Baretta 9mm which sucks! But him being Spec Ops who knows because they use different weapons then we do.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Dec 21, 2005)

*There are actually 3 rounds (or 4) being discussed here, not 2:*

1. 9mm PB (Army NATO)

2. 9mm dum-dum (Police Special Forces)

3. .45 ACP (All)

(4. .45 dum-dum? (Police Special Forces)

Basically the 9mm PB's wound channels can seal up (stopping the bleeding) and the hole is/was 9mm and little energy is transferred to the target.

However with dum-dums the round flattens transferring all energy (can cause instant heart failure due to shock) the wound is much bigger than 9mm and does not seal back up.


*DerAdler:*

Hk USP is now the standard US Army pistol, maybe you will be updated?

BTW: You get your M240 yet? 8) 



wmaxt said:


> It is also my understanding the .45 was developed after the Phillipeno campain in the early part of the century because the .38 (essentialy 9mm) would not put down a Phillipeno tribesman.





Soren said:


> I'm sure you'll agree that there's a considerable difference between the 9mm's up to 445 ft/lbs of energy and the .38's 230 ft/lbs of energy. So saying that the .38 is essentially a 9mm is very far from the truth indeed.



The .38 special (or DOT 380) is actually a bit better than the 9mm (.35) and is really .357 (like the 77mm was actually 76mm, PlanD) hence the Ingrams MAC10 and MAC11.

I think there is confusion between this and the old .38?



Soren said:


> The reason the FBI are beginning to favor the .40 S&W round is not at all because they don't want to admit being wrong about anything. The reason is simply that the .40 S&W will stop man more consistently than either the 9mm or the .45, as the wound cavity of the .40 is much larger. FBI gelatine tests have confirmed this, as-well as proving that the most effective man-stopper to date is the .357.



I think you are neglecting the .44 and .50 AE there. I know the .44 mag is more lethal than the .357 mag.


*Erich:*



> Ever try firing the .45 full auto. wow, about broke my arm off trying to keep the thing down stright in-line



Yes, it's good for big and/or well-trained soldiers, what weapon is full-auto and .45 you are talking about?



> I preferred the 7.62mm, handy, quite small and that was the point



I've (almost) heard nothing but bad things about the 7.62's stopping power except for it's compactness, recoil and range.



> that really is the name of the game, superior lightness



I've (almost) heard nothing but bad things about the Glock17, it's lightness makes for a bad recoil.



> We made up our own rounds and this was a prerequisite in the field.



Highly illegal, don't let the hippies get wind of that! :hippy:

i.e stripping the bullet's jacket off the lead core? naughty, naughty!  

*Soron:*



> Btw have you shot the 9mm Corbon round Les ? I guarantee you, it will do some serius damage to a person, just as serious as any .45 round.



But not as much as a .45 Corbon.

Aren't 5.56 Corbons replacing the SS109 (5.56 NATO) now?



> The absolute best weapon we had was infact a 9mm weapon, the MP-5, an excellent weapon which in most urban settings is even more effective than the very popular M4.



The MP5-10 (10mm) is better, as is the G33K(?) (5.56mm) to some who served in Northern Ireland (though I can't see why?)

Full metal jacket 9mm MP5 vs 5.56mm M4?

- I reckon the 9mm would be better, but my knowledge of the 5.56 is confused.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Dec 22, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Considering he is in the US military it was probably a Baretta 9mm which sucks! But him being Spec Ops who knows because they use different weapons then we do.



I was actually expecting him to say Beretta,Anyway I think its about time the Canadian Military gets a new sidearm, I have heard good things about the Glock.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 22, 2005)

What about the SIG-Sauer P-225 9mm? Not good enough? I've only ever practiced with it, so I couldn't tell you how it actually rates in a combat situation, but I've had it with me on several boardings. Fortunately I've never had to shoot anyone.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Dec 22, 2005)

I really wouldnt know, I just know that the RCMP swear by Glock 9mm and swear the Beretta is a peice of shit.


----------



## Soren (Dec 22, 2005)

> Basically the 9mm PB's wound channels can seal up (stopping the bleeding) and the hole is/was 9mm and little energy is transferred to the target.



Schwarzpanzer, the 9mm military M882 Ball round will tumble once inside you, causing considerable 'internal' damage and bleeding. And no, you might not bleed alot from the entry-hole, but from the exit-hole on your back you will. (Except if shot point blank, where the round just exits you cleanly, however internal damage is still considerable)



> The .38 special (or DOT 380) is actually a bit better than the 9mm (.35) and is really .357 (like the 77mm was actually 76mm, PlanD) hence the Ingrams MAC10 and MAC11.
> 
> I think there is confusion between this and the old .38?



Schwartspanzer the .38 special is normally a 110gr round at 901 fps, so NO it is not as powerful as the 9mm parabellum.

The 9mm parabellum will propelle a 147gr bullet at 1300fps, so you see there's a considerable difference there.

And I don't know where you got the idea that the .38 spec is a .357 mag.



> I think you are neglecting the .44 and .50 AE there. I know the .44 mag is more lethal than the .357 mag.



No, the wound cavity of the .357 mag is massive, more than either the .44 or .50 AE actually, cause they just penetrate. 



> But not as much as a .45 Corbon.



There's nearly no difference between the two Schwarzpanzer, other than the 9mm being more accurate.



> The MP5-10 (10mm) is better, as is the G33K(?)



No.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Dec 23, 2005)

102first_hussars said:


> I really wouldnt know, I just know that the RCMP swear by Glock 9mm and swear the Beretta is a peice of sh*t.



I have a friend in Norwegian special forces, he has a Glock and hates it.

IMHO the Beretta M9(2FS) is a good 9mm handgun, as is the Sig-Sauer P229.

I suppose for Army use, the best gun would be the Hk USP.


*Soren:*



> Schwarzpanzer, the 9mm military M882 Ball round will tumble once inside you, causing considerable 'internal' damage and bleeding.



Well, I've seen plenty who have survived 9mm PB (including headshots).

Though once a dude got shot in the roof of the mouth - nasty!  



> And I don't know where you got the idea that the .38 spec is a .357 mag.



I didn't say mag, just .357.

The Ingram MAC11 (.38) is more powerful than the MAC10 (9mm) I'm sure?



> No, the wound cavity of the .357 mag is massive, more than either the .44 or .50 AE actually, cause they just penetrate.



Yes, for energy transfer the .44 mag is more destructive.



> There's nearly no difference between the two Schwarzpanzer, other than the 9mm being more accurate.



The .45 is subsonic and is more powerful "like being hit with a spade".



> The MP5-10 (10mm) is better, as is the G33K(?)



Yes it is, the FBI and SAS know this, the 10mm is probably the best round (better than .357 mag - proven) but is hardly better than 9mm when firing FMJ's.


----------



## Soren (Dec 23, 2005)

> Well, I've seen plenty who have survived 9mm PB (including headshots).



I've seen a man survive a .357 mag to the head, so that comment bares no merit at all.



> Though once a dude got shot in the roof of the mouth - nasty!



Shoot yourself in the roof of the mouth and your guaranteed to die, no'one survives that. 



> I didn't say mag, just .357.



 



> The Ingram MAC11 (.38) is more powerful than the MAC10 (9mm) I'm sure?



No.



> Yes, for energy transfer the .44 mag is more destructive.



The .357 mag is the most destructive pistol round in terms of internal damage caused to the person hit, and thats a fact Schwarzpanzer.



> The .45 is subsonic and is more powerful "like being hit with a spade".



No, the 9mm is just as effective in its role.

And for future reference, the .45 has an average velocity of 860 fps, the 9mm 1300 fps.



> Yes it is, the FBI and SAS know this, the 10mm is probably the best round (better than .357 mag - proven) but is hardly better than 9mm when firing FMJ's.



Thats untrue Schwarzpanzer ! Where have you heard all this ?


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Dec 23, 2005)

I can get the info for my last point (10mm).

The rolling eyes is unfair, the .38 spesh actually measures .375 and can be used in the Colt Python etc.

(Though I wouldn't use a .357 mag in a .38 spesh  )


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 26, 2005)

schwarzpanzer said:


> Hk USP is now the standard US Army pistol, maybe you will be updated?
> 
> BTW: You get your M240 yet? 8)



What are your sources on this because we have not been told anything about that. Our Armorer is pretty up to date on these things and he has said nothing about a replacement for the 9mm being found yet. I did a search at the Official Army's website and found nothing on it.

As for the M240-G, no and we are not sure when we are getting them either.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Dec 28, 2005)

I know special forces are using it, heard it is replacing the M9, then again I also heard the G36 is replacing the SA80 and the XM8 is replacing the M16/M4A1/M249...  

Pity you're not getting your Gimpy yet.  



> I did a search at the Official Army's website and found nothing on it.



Yeah, theres an article on the M9 that's gone down there.  

Pity you're not getting your 'Gimp' (  ) yet.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 28, 2005)

Yes the article about the 9mm at the official Armys website says they are still looking for a replacement for it. The HK is one of the possibilities but it has not been decided yet.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Dec 31, 2005)

Saw something the other day that looked like a USP with a compensator.

Are there any reasons why military weapons can't have compensators?
Cost I guess, but are there other reasons?

The only military weapon with a compensator that spring to mind is the M1928A1, which was not strictly a military design and had it's compensator dropped for it's Army redesign.

Anyway the main problem of the .45 in Army service (recoil) would then be solved.

BTW I'd ditch the threaded barrel on the USP for Army usage, daft move?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 31, 2005)

Well all that comes into play only if they choose the weapon.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Jan 4, 2006)

There was a documentary on UK TV called 9mm or something, had John McAlise in it. It was on about the nature/history of the 9mm and a debate on if it will be replaced by NATO.

Perhaps the US has thought it would be pointless re-equiping with .45's if the new NATO round is, say .40.
 
Who is in charge of NATO now anyway? 
- If it's France, then maybe they'll be awkward just to annoy the US?  

Anyway, a few soldiers have aparently been retro-issued 1911A1's.

How would you feel about that DerAdler? (less than half the ammo)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2006)

I would rather wait and see what comes out of the Joint Combat Pistol program. It is also a .45, however I dont know what is going to come about it or what weapon will be chosen for it.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Jan 10, 2006)

That sounds like the HK USP/Mk23 to me, I'm pretty certain that's the JCP gun.

You sure it'll be .45? Seems logical, but won't all NATO have to adopt it then? - I can't see that being accepted in Europe.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Jan 10, 2006)

That sounds like the HK USP/Mk23 to me, I'm pretty certain that's the JCP gun.

You sure it'll be .45? Seems logical, but won't all NATO have to adopt it then? - I can't see that being accepted in Europe.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 11, 2006)

Well that is what they are telling us and that is also what they are telling us on the DoD websites and so forth. My buddy who is the armorer just came back from another armorer course and that is what they are talking about.

NOw the Joint Combat Pistol is still up for grabs. There is not just one gun being decided for it. They are testing several guns.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Feb 10, 2006)

It's going to be a dilemma:

Good armour penetration (e.g. 5.7mm FN57) or lethality (.45 ACP)?  

Is the Corbon good at both Soren? Is it OK for Army usage?


This link should sort the 9mm vs .45 ACP lethality debate:

http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/history/background.htm#test

NB: The 9mm PB 7.6mm-ish Soviet German bullets have better armour penetration, that this test doesn't consider. USA-type .45 and .30 pistol (M1 Carbine) bullets perform very poorly against even thick clothing.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 14, 2007)

Soldiers of a SS pz Div in the Ardennes, the gun is a pistole 640(b) , FN High power in german use.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 16, 2007)

I find this ballistics debate amusing. As the misinformation is flying back and forth. I wish that I had noted this thread back at its origination.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 9, 2007)

S&W 38/200, this was a british request gun, the cartrigde was the 38 S&W(short variant not the special) with a 200 grain bullet...result, a reaaally slow muzzle velocity.


----------



## Jank (Feb 10, 2007)

"_I find this ballistics debate amusing. As the misinformation is flying back and forth. I wish that I had noted this thread back at its origination._"

Agreed Matt 308.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 10, 2007)

Then correct what you see wrong or dont bother posting in it. Simple...

You have a habit of doing that. You go into a thread and say this ****** up, but dont say why or correct it. You just comment on it being that way and dont post your 2 cents.


----------



## Jank (Feb 10, 2007)

"_You have a habit of doing that. You go into a thread and say this ****** up, but dont say why or correct it._"

Excuse me? A habit? Examples please?

I just discovered this 11 page thread last night and am not going to go back and pick apart poster's comments from last year. As indicated, Iwouldn't even know where to start in correcting it all. You will also notice that I echoed Matt 308's comment.

Go back and look at my last 50 posts and show me this so called 'habit" of just criticising without saying why or correcting the points I am refuting. My 2 cents are all over this forum with, I might add, citations to sources.

At any rate, I have removed the offensive part at the end of my comment. Only the upper portion of the post remains.


----------



## Jank (Feb 11, 2007)

Soren is correct in his assertion that a .45 will not knock you back several feet. (Not even one foot for that matter) Hit with a .45, one might display a jerking movemement on impact from the shock to the nervous system but will not be carried or otherwise pushed by the force of the impact.

That is a myth perpetuated largely by Hollywood.

Now I have never shot a person but I have shot literally dozens of hogs and deer with handguns and rifles. I have shot a few hogs with a .45acp. They were over 100lbs but less than 200lbs. One just dropped and flinched a bit and the two others ran off only to collapse less than 100 feet away. I think one was a neck shot and the two others were broadside to the chest area. All three shots had no exit as I was using hollow point ammunition. That means that all of the energy was transferred into the target. They were hot loads out of a 5" Springfield. None of them were pushed or otherwise moved by the force of the impact.

I have shot hogs with rifles as powerful as a .338 Winchester Magnum and never seen one knocked over by the impact.

In an attempt to dispel the myth that one might be knocked back by the force of a projectile from a gun, I once made a bet with a friend that a 12 gauge with buckshot wouldn't blow a man up against a wall (which he thought would be the case) from a direct blast at close range to the chest. 

I took a six foot long piece of 4x4 with nicely squared ends so that it would stand on end on the flat ground. I assume it weighed about 25 or so pounds. I took a 3" large birdshot load and from a distance of less than three feet, put that load directly into the center of that 4x4 at about one foot from the top. The entire load was captured by the 4x4 with none of the pellets exiting. All of the energy of that blast was immediately stopped and was thus transferred into that 25 or so pound piece of wood. It fell over quite hard but the bottom of that 4x4 was not carried more than 15" or so. 

Needless to say, I won the bet. (He welched by the way.)

Now that 12 gauge load probably had over 2,000 foot pounds of energy which is about five times that of a .45 acp. That piece of wood was only about 25 pounds.

As far as the effect on even a 100 pound human (4x the weight) from a .45acp (20% the impact energy), you do the math.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 11, 2007)

Jank said:


> "_You have a habit of doing that. You go into a thread and say this ****** up, but dont say why or correct it._"
> 
> Excuse me? A habit? Examples please?
> 
> ...



I dont have time for that either, so do as you please. However I should have worded my post slightly differently.


----------



## bananafoothead (Feb 19, 2007)

If you were to be knocked over by the impact of a bullet, would it not make sense that the person firing that bullet would be knocked over as well? That bullet didnt CREATE energy on the way...


----------



## Soren (Feb 19, 2007)

bananafoothead said:


> If you were to be knocked over by the impact of a bullet, would it not make sense that the person firing that bullet would be knocked over as well? That bullet didnt CREATE energy on the way...



Exactly.


----------



## Jank (Feb 20, 2007)

"_If you were to be knocked over by the impact of a bullet, would it not make sense that the person firing that bullet would be knocked over as well?_"

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.


----------



## trackend (Feb 20, 2007)

Just a thought (I may Be wrong)
But if you hit a pointed object into say a door with a sledge hammer it penetrates right through the door but if you hit the door with just the sledge hammer the door comes off its hinges, does not something like a dum dum round create the same effect as just the sledge hammer. both times the motive force is the same but delivered in a different form, one penetrative the other bludgeoning.


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 24, 2007)

Very good trackend. You just hit upon the great bullet debate.

Do you design your bullet to harness the most amount of energy that is possible only to have it fully penetrate its intended target (ie thus carrying energy with it beyond). Or do you design the bullet to expend all of its energy within the body of the target. These debates continue to this day with those claiming maximum energy absorption is most important versus those who claim that a higher velocity bullet will create a larger wound cavity thus incapacitating the target sooner.

Shoot 'em with a flying ashtray or pierce 'em with a needle. A legitimate debate.


----------



## Jank (Feb 24, 2007)

To bring the "great bullet debate" back to the issue at hand, neither ball nor hyper expansive bullets are going to knock even a 100lb person back a couple of feet by virtue of the energy imparted into the body.

Last year my brother hit a small pig (maybe 70lbs or so) broadside with a .243 Winchester at less than 100 yards. There was no exit as the bullet desintegrated upon impact with a rib.

That bullet, at 100 yards was packing 1,550 foot pounds of energy. A hot .45 ACP load will develop about 400 foot pounds at the muzzle. 

To make a long story short, that little pig just dropped like a brick in its tracks. She made for tasty sauage as I recall.


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 25, 2007)




----------

