Well all that comes into play only if they choose the weapon.
Handguns from World Wars
- Thread starter Douglas Jr.
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
schwarzpanzer
Senior Airman
- 662
- Aug 8, 2005
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)
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)
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
Senior Airman
- 662
- Aug 8, 2005
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.
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
Senior Airman
- 662
- Aug 8, 2005
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.
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.
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.
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
Senior Airman
- 662
- Aug 8, 2005
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.
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
Senior Master Sergeant
Soldiers of a SS pz Div in the Ardennes, the gun is a pistole 640(b) , FN High power in german use.
Matt308
Glock Perfection
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
Senior Master Sergeant
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
I dont have time for that either, so do as you please. However I should have worded my post slightly differently.
bananafoothead
Airman
- 22
- Dec 23, 2006
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.
trackend
Chief Master Sergeant
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.
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
Glock Perfection
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.
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.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
