Ideal rifle for ww2?

[The Basket]

If your shooting away with your weapon then you can be a bigger risk than the actual criminal.
Firing a weapon should be the absolute last resort and drawing a weapon doesn't mean you have to shoot.
A rifle round can go for miles so when I had my SA80 if was comforting to know I would never be put in that position since the rifle had a very small chance of actually firing.

 

[Shortround6]

You have been able to use

My answer would be move to 357 magnum hollow point and nowadays not all revolvers are 6 shooters..................
38 special lead bullet is always more effective to the head than the 44 magnum that misses.

The .38 Special is 120 years old this year and has gone through a number of changes over the years. There is no reason on earth to use the original design bullet at near original velocities (first loaded with black powder) for anything but sport shooting.
There were several attempts to improve effectiveness back in the 1920s/30s let alone in the 60s/70s. First was the use of a 200 grain bullet instead of the 158. The longer bullet tended to flop sideways (but by no means was this guaranteed) and this bullet design/idea was transplanted to the British .380/200 load. The 2nd improvement was to simply use more/different powder to achieve higher velocity. This was first used in a S & W revolver using a .44 caliber frame and was called the .38/44. Colt quickly followed with the announcement that their Official Police model could handle the same ammo. With "auto-mobile bandits" capturing the headlines of the day versions of this loading with metal cased or metal capped bullets were marketed as especially suitable for penetrating automobile bodies. The 150 grain load was supposed reach 1175fps from a 5 in barrel. (this is hotter than the .38+P+)Full metal jacket bullets weren't what was wanted for shooting human bodies however.
By 1972 a load was marketed called the "FBI" load that used a hollow point 158 grain lead bullet. This bullet gave the most reliable expansion over the greatest variety of velocities (2in to 6 in barrels) and was good for about 1000fps from a 6 in barrel (+P level)
In the late 60s and early 70s many jacketed hollow points showed very iffy expansion in the .38 special, the jackets were often too thick. Things have gotten better over the years since.
I would note that 7 or 8 shot revolvers are rather large beasts and not something most officers want to carry around on their hips all day.
I would also note that the Colt Official Police is the same frame as used on the Python and while not as big as a Smith N frame it is a substantial revolver compared to the Police Positive.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Is there a scientific study to clarify if a full sized man drops with a 9mm whereas he runs marathons and jet skis after been shot by a 380? I always take calibre flame wars with a pinch of salt.

Hello The Basket,
There have been numerous studies. The least faulty in my opinion are the "Computer Man" and conclusions drawn from the shooting statistics collected by Evan Marshall. There is probably a correct name for what I am calling the "Computer Man". It was an analysis of the parts of the human body that would be damaged by a bullet hit in a particular location as determined by typical penetration, fragmenting, etc.
The Evan Marshall statistics do have a few anomalies and must be qualified by noting that data collected is for single hits. I believe if a person is shot multiple times, the data point would not be included.
Oops. I see Shortfound6 has already given a summary of the Marshall statistics.

Regarding revolvers:
Just about every revolver in a reasonable defence caliber is either a 5 shot or 6 shot. There is occasionally a 7 shot but that is about it for modern stuff. I say bring back the old LeMat!
Although I like target shooting with a .357 and even a .44 Magnum to a lesser extent, I believe the muzzle blast and concussion to be a little too extreme. Another problem especially with the .357 Magnum is that in low light, the muzzle flash is pretty horrendous. I was doing some night firing tests with a friend of mine many years back to test his reloads and when we were done with his stuff, I fired a few .of my ..357 handloads. The fire ball was about 3-4 feet long and has a pretty serious effect on night vision.

- Ivan.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Makes me think a "what if"- If the Army Ordnance board planned on using the Garand along with the Springfield 1903 in combat theaters-both firing the same .30 cal round-- along with support from the BAR in the same cal.-- one advantage both the 1903 and the Garand have, the soldier can get in a closer to the ground prone position in combat, or from the lip of a foxhole, than he could with the 20 rd. box magazine and the bipod of the heavier BAR.

I have no experience with the BAR, but with the M14 with its 20 round magazine, there is essentially no difference firing from prone as compared to the M1 Garand. The toe of the stock is similar height from the sight line in both guns and is pretty low. Also, when firing from prone, even the toe of the stock is not on the ground.

Special Ops. combat units, like the Rangers and the OSS units could have 1903-A-3 Springfield scope sighted for sniper and counter-sniper usage, as the Springfield BA will accept a telescopic sight much easier than a Garand-- Also, stripper 5 rd. clips for the unscoped 1903's, and 8 rd. enbloc clips for the Garand are more "compact" and less likely to be lost than the 20 rd. box magazines for the BAR-- How many empty BAR magazines were recovered and refilled in a combat operation??Or, for that matter, for the Thompson SMG??

The scope sighted M1903 was the M1903A4. That would be for the Army. The obvious recognition feature is that it does not have a front sight.
I believe the Marines used a much longer and better scope (Unertl?) on a M1903A1 rifle. I have never played with a Unertl scope, but actually own one of the Lyman scopes of the same type that would have been mounted on the 03A4. The optics are lousy.
The M1C and M1D Garands are not as horrible as they look. The optics are not good in general, and they are awfully heavy and kinda goofy with the cheek pad, but from reports I have seen, the accuracy isn't bad, especially for the M1C.

I think of the movie "Saving Pvt. Ryan" and think, if I were the CO-- I'd ditch the Bar, and have that Ranger carry a Garand, ditto the First Sgt.- ditch the M-1 carbine, and also carry a Garand- You have to be in superb physical condition to serve in a Ranger unit, so carrying a 10.5 lb. Garand should NOT be an issue- and you can carry more ammo for a Garand than if you have to carry a BAR with bipod, and however many 20 rd. magazines you are issued. Just my concept of : (1) common ammo for all soldiers in the unit- and (2) common weapons with interchangeable parts- maybe not so much a deal in basic training and the rifle range, but more relevant in the mud, rain and gloom of a combat situation.

While I share your opinion that the Garand is a very good battle rifle, my belief is that the BAR is much more resistant to dirt and rain because less of the mechanism is exposed.

- Ivan.

 

[The Basket]

Not difficult.
Shot to the head with 44 magnum = fatal.
Shot to big toe = not fatal.
The old Dirty Harry thing is pulling out his cannon which can be intimidated all by itself. Imagine looking down a barrel of a model 29 and it be easy to realise the error of your ways.
Plenty of evidence that a guy has survived plenty of 9mm but also plenty of evidence that someone died from a 22. So certainly not convinced about stopping power or that 38 special is not good enough anymore. Each case would have to be taken on its own merit.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Not difficult.
Shot to the head with 44 magnum = fatal.
Shot to big toe = not fatal.
The old Dirty Harry thing is pulling out his cannon which can be intimidated all by itself. Imagine looking down a barrel of a model 29 and it be easy to realise the error of your ways.
Plenty of evidence that a guy has survived plenty of 9mm but also plenty of evidence that someone died from a 22. So certainly not convinced about stopping power or that 38 special is not good enough anymore. Each case would have to be taken on its own merit.

Hello The Basket,
There is no doubt that each case needs to be taken on a case by case basis.
The problem with that idea is that it gives no guidance as to weapons selection and caliber differences and we know there must be some differences.

That is the value of the Marshall statistics; When the results are collected from a significant number of shootings and compared, there are some noticeable differences.
When one caliber results in a one shot stop in 80% of known cases and another results in only a 50% one shot stop, one can be reasonably certain (assuming enough shooting cases) that the first caliber was superior.
When the result is a 65% to a 70% or one does not believe that there are "enough" cases to be meaningful, then the results are not as obviousl.
The raw data is useful. The conclusions are subject to debate especially if they are fairly close in percentages.

Regarding Movie Guns:
As I have always told my kids, Movie Guns are special.
In the hands of a bad guy, they usually miss. In the hands of the good guys, they often hit regardless of how unlikely or absurd that hit would be in real life. Movie Guns also have infinite magazine capacity and never run out of ammunition.
In Dirty Harry's case, the impact of a hit is often so powerful that it throws the victim backwards. Laws of Physics are irrelevant.
Dirty Harry's S&W Model 29 was special in yet another way: Unlike any gun I have ever seen, its barrel length changes depending on the scene and camera angle.to be even more intimidating when needed!

I wish I had a Movie Gun. I may not be a hero, but I think I am a good guy.
I would never need to practice or even to aim. Heck, I would not even have to have ammunition!

- Ivan.

 

[The Basket]

Dirty Harry ran out of ammunition.
Because you had to feel lucky if he shot 5 or 6 because in all the excitement he forgot himself. Well....do ya?
I trust statistics not one jot. 38 special? Which brand which weight, what jacket and so on. Where did it hit and was body armour worn and the guy is he short or tall male or female? On drugs? Steroid warrior? So many variations and variables so who know.
What was the ambient temperature? What altitude? There can be different m/s from the same ammo in the same box! Was the person shot in good shape? Or very poor condition? Ad infinitum. 4 inch barrel? Snub? 7 yards? 7 meters? 7 kilometres?

 

[Shortround6]

Plenty of evidence that a guy has survived plenty of 9mm but also plenty of evidence that someone died from a 22. .

You keep focusing on the "died" part and ignoring the "how quickly" or was 'incapable of further offensive action' part. Yes plenty of people have died from .22 hits, some of them instantly, but then more people have been shot with the .22 (non military) than practically any other cartridge (.22 dates back to before American civil war).

introduced in 1857, first Smith & Wesson cartridge revolver.

Sooo, percentage wise it is a bit like going to the casino, playing roulette and betting odd/even or black/red. you may win, you may lose, and with the zero/s, the odds are less than 50/50. you are betting lives, not money.
Me, I would choose something other than a .22 if given the choice and even something other than a round nose .38 special standard velocity if given the choice.

 

[Shortround6]

Dirty Harry ran out of ammunition.
Because you had to feel lucky if he shot 5 or 6 because in all the excitement he forgot himself. Well....do ya?
I trust statistics not one jot. 38 special? Which brand which weight, what jacket and so on. Where did it hit and was body armour worn and the guy is he short or tall male or female? On drugs? Steroid warrior? So many variations and variables so who know.
What was the ambient temperature? What altitude? There can be different m/s from the same ammo in the same box! Was the person shot in good shape? Or very poor condition? Ad infinitum. 4 inch barrel? Snub? 7 yards? 7 meters? 7 kilometres?

Why don't you read the report before trashing it? or at least a few reviews of it. Some of your criticisms were covered.

One should be critical of statistics but to ignore them completely dooms us to a rather ignorant view of things. We could be having a similar argument about seat belts, I come up with an anecdote about about someone saved by a seat belt and you come up with an anecdote about someone who was pinned in place or could not escape a burning car because of one. However, the much loathed statistics tell us we are much safer using them on average. Maybe you have disabled yours, I don't know.

 

[Hansie Bloeckmann]

I have no experience with the BAR, but with the M14 with its 20 round magazine, there is essentially no difference firing from prone as compared to the M1 Garand. The toe of the stock is similar height from the sight line in both guns and is pretty low. Also, when firing from prone, even the toe of the stock is not on the ground.



The scope sighted M1903 was the M1903A4. That would be for the Army. The obvious recognition feature is that it does not have a front sight.
I believe the Marines used a much longer and better scope (Unertl?) on a M1903A1 rifle. I have never played with a Unertl scope, but actually own one of the Lyman scopes of the same type that would have been mounted on the 03A4. The optics are lousy.
The M1C and M1D Garands are not as horrible as they look. The optics are not good in general, and they are awfully heavy and kinda goofy with the cheek pad, but from reports I have seen, the accuracy isn't bad, especially for the M1C.



While I share your opinion that the Garand is a very good battle rifle, my belief is that the BAR is much more resistant to dirt and rain because less of the mechanism is exposed.

- Ivan.

Thanks for the clarification on the nomenclature of the M1903A4 and the M1903A1-- I infer that as far as gas operated semi-auto rifles and those that can fire in full automatic mode- The BAR and the M-14 with selector switch installed- the exposed mechanism of the Garand could be factor in harsh weather conditions- Not "apples to oranges" but aren't BA rifles, such as The Mauser, Enfield and Springfield series used in WW1 and WW11 have somewhat exposed breech mechanism-especially when the bolt is cycled reward??

Somebody-, with combat experience and being familiar with the Garand once commented that many soldiers carried 2 toothbrushes in their field packs, one for the obvious, the other for removing the mud and debris from the breech of their Garand rifle.

As far as scopes, I have a Unertl scope on a BSA single shot drop lever action target barreled .22LR- heavy, 26" barrel, full target stock, but deadly on woodchucks out to 75 yards with the proper loads. Also a great squirrel rifle, if you are sitting down and can find a field rest for the forearm. Sweet trigger, no designed safety lever, you have to drop down the lever to set it on "safe"--

 

[Shortround6]

I would note that the Unertl scopes came with a rather astonishing variety of front lenses, like 1", 1 1/4", 1 1/2" and even 2". most of these were post war and post war scopes got better lens coatings.
The Lyman scope also came in several varieties.

This is a Lyman target spot Junior. There was a target spot with a bigger objective lens and finally (post war?) the super targetspot with an even bigger objective lens.

I would note, as far as military use goes, none of these scopes were "sealed" and it is quite possible to unscrew both the front objective lens and rear eye piece from the main tube. These scopes have a limited field of view and and are not the brightest scopes to look through. A 6-8 power scope with a small front lens will never be particularly bright.
I used 6 and 8 power Lyman Juniors for indoor 50 ft shooting for over 30 years and never had a problem and my scores were as good or better than many people using 15-20 power scopes.
That said they do have a few more problems for military use, Please note the spring on the scope in the lower picture. It returns to the scope to the rearward position after each shot for consistency. Even on a 13-14lb .22 I had to manually pull back the scope every shot or two on the Juniors like the top scope without springs as the gun would recoil out from under the scope. On high power rifles this being independent of the rifle saved crosshairs and lenses from damage on high recoil guns. On a high power rifle without the spring the scope can move several inches under the right conditions making rapid repeat shots a bit of a problem. They can, however be removed from the gun and be replaced fairly quickly and with no change in zero.

 

[The Basket]

Wearing seat belts is mandatory in my country and was before I started driving so becomes part of the procedure. My car also chimes when I don't wear it so becomes very distracting. Didn't wear a seatbelt on my motorcycle though. I have cutter in my car for the seat belt although what are the statistics for a car catching fire in a crash?
As mentioned before I am trained so know more than the usual internet jockey and statistics can prove whatever you want them to prove.

 

[Shortround6]

Please look up the study in question before criticizing it. Unfortunately many internet sites take great delight in trashing it without going into any of the details.

It is not the gospel as handed down from the Temple Mount but on the other had it was a large and rather inclusive study and has never been repeated so it is all we have to go on.

It only counted hits to the torso.
It listed the recorded average diameters of recovered bullets.
It gave the average depth of penetration.
It sorted by barrel length when applicable.
for instance for the .38 special +P using 158 grain bullets it listed 7 "loads" used in a total of 1644 shootings. Some of the "loads" were duplicated but separated by 2in and 4in barrel lengths.
Number of shootings with each load are given so the reader can attach his own significance to each listing such as one bullet/load used out of a 4in barrel was used 401 times. A different bullet weight and brand was used 10 times so a thinking person might well wonder at the percentage given to it. The standard 158 grain round nose was used in 592 shootings from a 4 in barrel and another 421 times from a 2 in barrel.

Now readers that seize on the percentage alone and disregard the number of shootings that generate that percentage are like some of the people who talk about WW II aircraft and cherry pick the facts they use to support their opinion. It is like picking one test flight to claim performance for all models/versions of an aircraft.

It has often been misused as internet warriors have argued about a 2-3% difference among loads that don't have a large number of shootings and other internet warriors have made fun of them (and rightly so) but that does not invalidate the basic study.

Here are a number of of the charts from the book online, judge for yourself.
Handloads.Com - Stopping Power

 

[fastmongrel]

For when you want your opponent to sit down and lose interest in killing you. The .577 Tranter revolver. Of course if you miss with the first round

A .577 next to a 9mm

.577 caliber Tranter Revolver

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Thanks for the clarification on the nomenclature of the M1903A4 and the M1903A1-- I infer that as far as gas operated semi-auto rifles and those that can fire in full automatic mode- The BAR and the M-14 with selector switch installed- the exposed mechanism of the Garand could be factor in harsh weather conditions- Not "apples to oranges" but aren't BA rifles, such as The Mauser, Enfield and Springfield series used in WW1 and WW11 have somewhat exposed breech mechanism-especially when the bolt is cycled reward??

Somebody-, with combat experience and being familiar with the Garand once commented that many soldiers carried 2 toothbrushes in their field packs, one for the obvious, the other for removing the mud and debris from the breech of their Garand rifle.

As far as scopes, I have a Unertl scope on a BSA single shot drop lever action target barreled .22LR- heavy, 26" barrel, full target stock, but deadly on woodchucks out to 75 yards with the proper loads. Also a great squirrel rifle, if you are sitting down and can find a field rest for the forearm. Sweet trigger, no designed safety lever, you have to drop down the lever to set it on "safe"--

Hello Hansie Bloeckmann,
The only real difference between the M1903 and M1903A1 is that the M1903A1 has a full pistol grip stock while the M1903 has a straight stock. Later 03s had a stock with a very rounded off pistol grip called a "scant" stock. Personally I think those are kind of ugly.
The M1903A4 was not really an ideal sniper rifle.
The action was the same as the M1903A3 which I believe was nickel steel and a bit "gummy" in operation. It can be cycled fast, but doesn't feel as smooth as earlier guns. As mentioned before, the optics are poor. I believe that the two groove barrels were the standard when the 03A4 was in production. This was intended as a simplification to speed manufacturing. The 2 groove barrels were supposedly less accurate than the regular 4 groove barrels. (The same thing was done to some No.4 Mk.I and Mk.I* rifles produced in North America by Savage and Long Branch.) I have shot similar rifles in 2 groove and 4/5 groove and can't tell the difference but maybe a better marksman could.

Regarding the M1 / M14 exposed mechanisms:
Every gun is vulnerable to dirt and foreign matter in certain places as you know. Even the "reliable" revolver can get hung up by just a few grains of unburned powder under the extractor star. Some self loaders try to address this by putting a larger gas port to increase the power to the gas system. There is also the idea that a very heavy bolt carrier mass in relation to bolt mass will improve reliability.
The AK-47 uses both these features. I believe that the M1 / M14 uses neither.
The biggest problem was that a prolonged rain would wash the grease out from between the operating rod and bolt. This would cause the bolt to bind and gall and not cycle semi automatically. This was partially addressed during the war by improved lubricants such as Lubriplate (130 ?) grease that would resist being washed away by rain. The consistency is about the same as automotive wheel bearing grease.
The situation was improved yet again by adding a roller to the bolt where it is cammed open and closed by the Operating Rod. Although the situation was improved, it was not eliminated.
I believe that the big advantage in reliability with bolt actions is that manual operation allows a lot more force to open and close the action if it is not operating smoothly.

Is that BSA .22 on a Martini action? We had something like that at the range when I was in college. It was a personal gun so I never had a chance to try it out.


Hello The Basket,
I believe that Shortround6 is giving you a pretty good summary of what the Evan Marshall statistics are about.
It is hard to dispute the data that has been recorded. As I commented earlier, not everyone comes to the same conclusion based on this data or even accepts the data as being entirely representative of all factors.
For Example, Does the lack of inclusion of multiple hits skew the data against certain calibers?

As a medical person, you know that it matters where the target gets hit, but as the person holding the pistol, can you really tell what organ you are shooting at or what you actually hit? All you really know is that the target was moving around and you fired one shot and hit 'em in the torso and either the target fell down or didn't. It would be really cool if we were great marksmen and the targets were cooperative enough to stand still and let us choose where to shoot, but such is not reality.

Marshall's statistics are an extensive summary of shootings of this type along with the equipment used and the outcomes.
It may not be perfect information but it is the best information we currently have.
You need to determine whether the information is useful to you or whether you would prefer to go with something else.

- Ivan.

 

[Hansie Bloeckmann]

Hello Hansie Bloeckmann,
The only real difference between the M1903 and M1903A1 is that the M1903A1 has a full pistol grip stock while the M1903 has a straight stock. Later 03s had a stock with a very rounded off pistol grip called a "scant" stock. Personally I think those are kind of ugly.
The M1903A4 was not really an ideal sniper rifle.
The action was the same as the M1903A3 which I believe was nickel steel and a bit "gummy" in operation. It can be cycled fast, but doesn't feel as smooth as earlier guns. As mentioned before, the optics are poor. I believe that the two groove barrels were the standard when the 03A4 was in production. This was intended as a simplification to speed manufacturing. The 2 groove barrels were supposedly less accurate than the regular 4 groove barrels. (The same thing was done to some No.4 Mk.I and Mk.I* rifles produced in North America by Savage and Long Branch.) I have shot similar rifles in 2 groove and 4/5 groove and can't tell the difference but maybe a better marksman could.

Regarding the M1 / M14 exposed mechanisms:
Every gun is vulnerable to dirt and foreign matter in certain places as you know. Even the "reliable" revolver can get hung up by just a few grains of unburned powder under the extractor star. Some self loaders try to address this by putting a larger gas port to increase the power to the gas system. There is also the idea that a very heavy bolt carrier mass in relation to bolt mass will improve reliability.
The AK-47 uses both these features. I believe that the M1 / M14 uses neither.
The biggest problem was that a prolonged rain would wash the grease out from between the operating rod and bolt. This would cause the bolt to bind and gall and not cycle semi automatically. This was partially addressed during the war by improved lubricants such as Lubriplate (130 ?) grease that would resist being washed away by rain. The consistency is about the same as automotive wheel bearing grease.
The situation was improved yet again by adding a roller to the bolt where it is cammed open and closed by the Operating Rod. Although the situation was improved, it was not eliminated.
I believe that the big advantage in reliability with bolt actions is that manual operation allows a lot more force to open and close the action if it is not operating smoothly.

Is that BSA .22 on a Martini action? We had something like that at the range when I was in college. It was a personal gun so I never had a chance to try it out.


Hello The Basket,
I believe that Shortround6 is giving you a pretty good summary of what the Evan Marshall statistics are about.
It is hard to dispute the data that has been recorded. As I commented earlier, not everyone comes to the same conclusion based on this data or even accepts the data as being entirely representative of all factors.
For Example, Does the lack of inclusion of multiple hits skew the data against certain calibers?

As a medical person, you know that it matters where the target gets hit, but as the person holding the pistol, can you really tell what organ you are shooting at or what you actually hit? All you really know is that the target was moving around and you fired one shot and hit 'em in the torso and either the target fell down or didn't. It would be really cool if we were great marksmen and the targets were cooperative enough to stand still and let us choose where to shoot, but such is not reality.

Marshall's statistics are an extensive summary of shootings of this type along with the equipment used and the outcomes.
It may not be perfect information but it is the best information we currently have.
You need to determine whether the information is useful to you or whether you would prefer to go with something else.

- Ivan.

Thanks Ivan, for your insightful analysis of the military weapons we have been discussing. My 30-06 was built from Remington 1903 -- you can barely see the lower section of the serial number, due to the Buehler scope mounts the gunsmith installed- the front sight was removed, and the barrel was lathe turned to a sporter configuration, and it is a 4 groove barrel, with a Star stamped just behind the front sight ramp- gunsmith took photos to document this for me. It has a Timney Match trigger, releases at an even 3.25 lbs. every time, and the Buehler "mauser modifed" safety- as the original "paddle wing" would interfere with the scope mounting.Custom walnut stock with the Paul Wundhammer shaped pg, and a Pachmayr solid recoil pad, and std. QD swivels for the sling- weight unloaded is 8.75 lbs. with scope-- would not want it any lighter. It shoots 165 grain Federal Premium factory loads like "Gangbusters"--But this is a civilian sporter built on a fine and dependable controlled feed military rifle. I think one reason for the accuracy is the 4 groove barrel with the std. 1/12 twist. My feeling is, that if such a rifle worked well in a combat scenario, as it did, with the right "modifications", it should also work well for sporting/hunting scenarios as well. I prefer the 30-06 over other popular CF cartridges, as you can find ammo for this caliber world wide- same can be said for a 12 gauge shotgun, FWIW. I have gained a great deal of knowledge from reading your posts and replies here, very much appreciated.Oh--before I close- Yes, you are right- The BSA is a Martini action- drop lever to open the breech block- close lever to lock- This is more accurate with the scope than my Target model Winchester M75 .22 Hansie

 

[The Basket]

Ok.
Seatbelts were mentioned so i do a study of a thousand car crashes near me in which a seatbelt may have saved lives or serious injury.
And I run into problems. Different cars different speeds old people young people and it's nonsense because statistics is based on repeated data but this is not repeated data. Even if I could get a good sample of the same car they would be going different speeds and so on.
If I found 100 cases of when 25 ACP was fatal I can say statistics proves that in the 100 cases 25 ACP is fatal 100%. Which is true based on my sample.
The best way to prove something is to do something repeated so a human analogue like ballistics gel or a pig will prove more than an actual shooting. That's a scientific method and can be repeated by anyone else.
The Euro NCAP safety rating is a good example. Each car is crashed in exactly the same way at exactly the same speed and so I am comparing like for like using the same test dummies. All the variables are removed and I can come to a conclusion.

 

[Shortround6]

Thanks Ivan, for your insightful analysis of the military weapons we have been discussing. My 30-06 was built from Remington 1903 -- you can barely see the lower section of the serial number, due to the Buehler scope mounts the gunsmith installed- the front sight was removed, and the barrel was lathe turned to a sporter configuration, and it is a 4 groove barrel, with a Star stamped just behind the front sight ramp- gunsmith took photos to document this for me. It has a Timney Match trigger, releases at an even 3.25 lbs. every time, and the Buehler "mauser modifed" safety- as the original "paddle wing" would interfere with the scope mounting.Custom walnut stock with the Paul Wundhammer shaped pg, and a Pachmayr solid recoil pad, and std. QD swivels for the sling- weight unloaded is 8.75 lbs. with scope-- would not want it any lighter. It shoots 165 grain Federal Premium factory loads like "Gangbusters"--But this is a civilian sporter built on a fine and dependable controlled feed military rifle. I think one reason for the accuracy is the 4 groove barrel with the std. 1/12 twist. My feeling is, that if such a rifle worked well in a combat scenario, as it did, with the right "modifications", it should also work well for sporting/hunting scenarios as well. I prefer the 30-06 over other popular CF cartridges, as you can find ammo for this caliber world wide- same can be said for a 12 gauge shotgun, FWIW. I have gained a great deal of knowledge from reading your posts and replies here, very much appreciated.Oh--before I close- Yes, you are right- The BSA is a Martini action- drop lever to open the breech block- close lever to lock- This is more accurate with the scope than my Target model Winchester M75 .22 Hansie

Sounds like you have a nice sporter there. As long as it shoots all is good
The Winchester 75 was sort of a high school gun, back when high schools had rifle teams. It is pretty much a model 69 with a longer, heavier barrel and bigger stock. .22s are all over the place as far as accuracy goes, so much depends on ammo, get a batch of ammo that barrel likes and it will put more expensive rifles to shame. But a batch of expensive ammo the barrel doesn't like? might as well throw rocks.
Knew a few people with .22 BSA Martini's, mostly left handers who didn't want to fool with right bolt actions. Saw at least one bolt handle the extended down and under the gun so a left hander could operate the bolt with the gun fired from the left shoulder. Germans coming out with left handed guns was a godsend to lefties

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Ok.
Seatbelts were mentioned so i do a study of a thousand car crashes near me in which a seatbelt may have saved lives or serious injury.
And I run into problems. Different cars different speeds old people young people and it's nonsense because statistics is based on repeated data but this is not repeated data. Even if I could get a good sample of the same car they would be going different speeds and so on.
If I found 100 cases of when 25 ACP was fatal I can say statistics proves that in the 100 cases 25 ACP is fatal 100%. Which is true based on my sample.
The best way to prove something is to do something repeated so a human analogue like ballistics gel or a pig will prove more than an actual shooting. That's a scientific method and can be repeated by anyone else.
The Euro NCAP safety rating is a good example. Each car is crashed in exactly the same way at exactly the same speed and so I am comparing like for like using the same test dummies. All the variables are removed and I can come to a conclusion.

Hello The Basket,
Handgun tests on "Human Analogues" were conducted back in 1904 by the US Army before settling on the .45 caliber for the service handgun.
These are the (in)famous Thompson-LaGarde tests. Targets were live cattle and dead human bodies.

Regarding seat belt testing:
It is nice to have repeatable results, but what happens when an actual car is crashed in a manner different from the method tested (perhaps an oblique angle)? How do you determine if the speed you have selected to crash the cars is representative of the kinds of crashes that actually occur? Does it matter WHAT the car crashes into and whether it moves under impact?
How many different ways can a car roll over or spin as a result of the crash?
You really can't say "All the variables are removed".

I suppose this is the kind of test you meant when you suggested ballistic gelatin.
Ballistic gelatin tests have been conducted pretty exhaustively and yet the suggested results often don't tally with the results in actual shootings. When the results in the lab and the results in the field do not agree, which do you go with?

One of the main objections to ballistic gelatin is that it is not representative of actual targets because unless your assailants are on a beach or at a swimming pool, there is probably some clothing in the way.
Another objection is that ballistic gelatin tends to over emphasize the temporary wound cavity which does not seem to correspond with the severity of wounds which are more represented by the permanent wound cavity.

- Ivan.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Thanks Ivan, for your insightful analysis of the military weapons we have been discussing. My 30-06 was built from Remington 1903 -- you can barely see the lower section of the serial number, due to the Buehler scope mounts the gunsmith installed- the front sight was removed, and the barrel was lathe turned to a sporter configuration, and it is a 4 groove barrel, with a Star stamped just behind the front sight ramp- gunsmith took photos to document this for me. It has a Timney Match trigger, releases at an even 3.25 lbs. every time, and the Buehler "mauser modifed" safety- as the original "paddle wing" would interfere with the scope mounting.Custom walnut stock with the Paul Wundhammer shaped pg, and a Pachmayr solid recoil pad, and std. QD swivels for the sling- weight unloaded is 8.75 lbs. with scope-- would not want it any lighter. It shoots 165 grain Federal Premium factory loads like "Gangbusters"--But this is a civilian sporter built on a fine and dependable controlled feed military rifle. I think one reason for the accuracy is the 4 groove barrel with the std. 1/12 twist. My feeling is, that if such a rifle worked well in a combat scenario, as it did, with the right "modifications", it should also work well for sporting/hunting scenarios as well. I prefer the 30-06 over other popular CF cartridges, as you can find ammo for this caliber world wide- same can be said for a 12 gauge shotgun, FWIW. I have gained a great deal of knowledge from reading your posts and replies here, very much appreciated.Oh--before I close- Yes, you are right- The BSA is a Martini action- drop lever to open the breech block- close lever to lock- This is more accurate with the scope than my Target model Winchester M75 .22 Hansie

Hello Hansie Bloeckmann,
It sounds like you have a beautiful classic sporterized Springfield circa about the mid 1950's or so. I am no expert or even particularly knowledgeable on sporting rifles but everything except the Timney trigger sounds like it is from that era. Are you sure your barrel is a 1-12 inch twist? It sounds from the description that it was a star gauged military barrel and I thought those were 1-10 inch twist. I also thought that the star stamp was just in front of the front sight.

If this is a star gauged barrel, then it might explain the accuracy. Barrels were tested by running a gauge shaped like a "star" to fit into the rifling grooves through the barrel. Air was pumped through the gauge and variations in flow were noted as the gauge moved down the barrel.
Barrels that did particularly well were stamped with a star near the muzzle.
This is just from written descriptions. I obviously have never seen this done because most of this testing happened before my parents were even old enough to walk.

Regarding the BSA-Martini:
I do remember comments from the fellow at the school range who told me that this was a "Left handed" rifle and that the spent cases were ejected to left side of the gun. I have had a lot of success with .22 pistols but never had much luck with .22 rifles.

- Ivan.