US Military .45 Pistols

[bigdamnhero]

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

 

Interestingly, a study that I saw (but cannot link to, it was years ago) found that the .44 magnum was not a very good man-stopper, the bullet usually went right through. The .357 magnum came out best in that study, with the .41 magnum and the .45 auto next.

The 9mm luger didn't do well.

I've heard that too, the idea being that if the bullet goes right through then the target doesn't absorb the full impact of the round. Makes some sense; I believe part of the reason they redesigned the 5.56mm round to tumble more was so that it would be less likely to just exit the target. (Of course, tumbling does a lot of other things to increase damage as well.)

 

OTOH, a high-energy round like the .44M is definitely going to shatter anything it hits, so if you get anywhere near the spinal column call it a kill.

 

Heck' date=' there's been lots of studies that proved lots of things... [/quote']

But…I read it on the Internet! It must be true, right?

 

I just know shooting my .44 (in my S&W 629 V-comp) is fun

Oh yeah, right with ya there!

 

The most common wisdom I've read on handgun rounds for self-defense' date=' which I guess applies to combat as well, that made any sense to me was: shot placement counts for more than caliber. Sounds smart to me. [/quote']

Absolutely. I was always taught to aim for the central nervous system (brain or spinal column). Anything else, regardless of caliber, might kill the target eventually, but not right away. But since in combat shooting (unlike hunting) the goal is to prevent the target from shooting you, a delayed kill doesn’t do you much good.

 

In the meantime' date=' I like my .45, because it hits what I aim at [/quote']

Myself, I’ve always been prejudiced against the .45’s accuracy. But that’s because all the M1911s I shot in the Army were twice as old as I was and the parts rattled when you shook the gun. But I recognize that’s not a reflection on the round itself when fired from a new, well-maintained gun.

 

but the best would be to be hidden away somewhere nice and safe with a blanket' date=' some food, a pillow, a light, and something nice to read. [/quote']

Don’t forget your dice.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

 

The US adopted the 9mm because of NATO ammo standardization; just about all the other nations in NATO (at the time) used it.

Does anyone know if this has changed? I mean, are most other NATO armies still using 9mm, or have they switched to something else?

[Edsel]

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

 

I know that at the same time that the US was switching to the 9mm the British were seriously considering switching to the 45. They didn't and I think that was a pretty short-lived idea anyway. I haven't heard of any NATO nation that isn't using the 9mm. In fact the Russians (non-NATO) are now using a native-built pistol in 9mm Parabellum.

[tinman]

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

 

Best analagy I've heard about getting hit by a round that doesn't go through is to imagine being hit by a baseball bat swung by a pro baseball homerun hitter.

For that to be true the person firing the pistol would experience a similar impact to their hand from the recoil. Clearly that doesn't happen.

 

There's a huge body of superstitious hooplah floating around about firearms and the effects of bullets on the human body. For anyone who would like to learn about wound ballistics, here is an excellent starting place:

http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm

[Cancer]

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

 

For that to be true the person firing the pistol would experience a similar impact to their hand from the recoil. Clearly that doesn't happen.

 

It would happen if the gun wasn't coupled to the body at the moment of firing, though. Since a properly-held gun is well gripped, the whole hand-arm-shoulder mass absorbs the recoil momentum.

 

This isn't a pistol, I admit, but a friend of mine in high school tried firing a shotgun with the butt held a few inches off his shoulder. He lost his grip when the thing fired, of course. The recoil there, where only the gun mass was soaking up the momentum, just about broke his collarbone when it hit him.

[Remjin]

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

 

I've heard that too' date=' the idea being that if the bullet goes right through then the target doesn't absorb the full impact of the round. Makes some sense; I believe part of the reason they redesigned the 5.56mm round to tumble more was so that it would be less likely to just exit the target. (Of course, tumbling does a lot of other things to increase damage as well.)[/quote']

 

Okay, two things... remember, most of my "combat info" is derived from reading too many magazines rather than experience though. From my understanding, the whole staying in the body thing also has to do with dumping all the energy of the round into the target, thus doing the most damage, and thus... hollowpoints. Designed to stop inside the body, and contrary to popular belief, not tomake baseball sized holes on exit. As for the 5.56mm, I don't believe its designed to tumble... the main reason for it is simply lighter/smaller rounds, thus one can carry more ammunition. If it tumbled in the air, it would be horrible for accuracy.

 

I was always taught to aim for the central nervous system (brain or spinal column).

 

Wow... I'd love to think I would be calm enough in a gun-fight to think that way, but I assume I'd be more the "hope I can put one into them somewhere while I'm peeing myself and hopefully not screaming like a little girl" camp. But, I was just taught center-mass hits, and that the head was a bit too wiley for my simpleton ways. =)

 

As for the .45 and its accuracy... competitors seem to do nicely with it, and I do okay, but like you mentioned.. my gun is a bit tighter thanthe old army ones. =)

 

Don’t forget your dice.

 

NEVER!

[tinman]

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

 

It would happen if the gun wasn't coupled to the body at the moment of firing, though. Since a properly-held gun is well gripped, the whole hand-arm-shoulder mass absorbs the recoil momentum.

 

This isn't a pistol, I admit, but a friend of mine in high school tried firing a shotgun with the butt held a few inches off his shoulder. He lost his grip when the thing fired, of course. The recoil there, where only the gun mass was soaking up the momentum, just about broke his collarbone when it hit him.

The amount of energy generated by a (12g) shotgun going off vs a (.45 ACP) pistol is night and day. The former launches a ~0.03kg object at ~450m/s while the latter fires a ~0.015kg object ~270m/s.

 

If you held a shotgun tightly against your collarbone and fired it, I'm sure you'd have a similar experience as your friend. Long arms are intended to be held against the soft pocket of the shoulder. I doubt very much the few inches of distance was much of a factor.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

 

For anyone who would like to learn about wound ballistics, here is an excellent starting place:

http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm

Nice collection of articles! [i'm out of rep for the day, so you'll have to wait `til tomorrow.]

 

It would happen if the gun wasn't coupled to the body at the moment of firing, though. Since a properly-held gun is well gripped, the whole hand-arm-shoulder mass absorbs the recoil momentum.

 

This isn't a pistol, I admit, but a friend of mine in high school tried firing a shotgun with the butt held a few inches off his shoulder. He lost his grip when the thing fired, of course. The recoil there, where only the gun mass was soaking up the momentum, just about broke his collarbone when it hit him.

I've fired shotguns, and yeah that's about right. But even so, that's a far cry from Barry Bonds swinging for the bleachers and hitting you in the collarbone instead. Imagine, for example, trying to block Barry's bat in mid-swing with your hand-arm-shoulder; even if you do it perfectly, the impact is going to have a lot more force than the recoil from a .45.

 

From my understanding' date=' the whole staying in the body thing also has to do with dumping all the energy of the round into the target, thus doing the most damage[/quote']

Right. That's what I was trying to say, but you said it more clearly.

 

As for the 5.56mm' date=' I don't believe its designed to tumble... the main reason for it is simply lighter/smaller rounds, thus one can carry more ammunition. If it tumbled in the air, it would be horrible for accuracy.[/quote']

Sorry, I was being unclear again. The round is designed to break into fragments and tumble after it enters the target. Acheives much the same effect as hollowpoints.

 

Wow... I'd love to think I would be calm enough in a gun-fight to think that way, but I assume I'd be more the "hope I can put one into them somewhere while I'm peeing myself and hopefully not screaming like a little girl" camp. But, I was just taught center-mass hits, and that the head was a bit too wiley for my simpleton ways. =)

If I gave you the impression that I could consistantly hit the CNS on the range, let alone in a real fight...I exaggerated. But that's the goal you're supposed to aim for.

[Yansuf]

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

 

Sorry' date=' I was being unclear again. The round is designed to break into fragments and tumble [u']after[/u] it enters the target. Acheives much the same effect as hollowpoints.

 

The US military normally uses "hardball" ammo, it does not break up. Fragmenting ammo (which is available commercially) violates the Geneva Convention.

Stories of the 5.56x45mm US ammo "tumbling" are generally untrue; it can happen if the round hits something hard at the right angle, but it is quite rare.

Hollowpoints are designed to expand and thus present more frontal area to the target, resulting in more energy transfer. There are special rounds available such as the glasser that actually fragment in the target.

Within the past year there has been discussion about a new "blended metal" technology that supposedly expands rapidly in flesh (at living body temperature) but will not expand when it his anything else. If so (and I have seen credible reports that it does work, although I find it hard to believe) it would seem to be an ideal round, except for the minor fact that it definitely does violate the Geneva Convention.

The US military has banned troops from buying them.

[Edsel]

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

 

I keep my pistols at home loaded with glazer bullets. They are called safety slugs since they will break up rather than richochet or penetrate a wall. Therefore you have less chance of hitting the wrong target. However if you are hit directly you are in real trouble since they will fragment upon penetrating you. I can keep my guns loaded since I have no minors in the home (I'm a bachelor) so the only one who I could accidentally shoot is me and I'm willing to live with that remote risk.

 

I have seen the "blended metal" rounds on film (TLC, Military Channel or some such show) and they do seem very impressive and very deadly.

[Inu]

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

 

It would happen if the gun wasn't coupled to the body at the moment of firing, though. Since a properly-held gun is well gripped, the whole hand-arm-shoulder mass absorbs the recoil momentum.

 

This isn't a pistol, I admit, but a friend of mine in high school tried firing a shotgun with the butt held a few inches off his shoulder. He lost his grip when the thing fired, of course. The recoil there, where only the gun mass was soaking up the momentum, just about broke his collarbone when it hit him.

As well as the points already made, keep in mind that the impact in that case was over the space of the buttstock. In the case of a shot that hits armour, the impact is spread out over the whole armour. So it's (from what I've heard) more like being hit by a really high-velocity pillow. Might take your wind out if you're not expecting it, but it's more likely to just throw your aim off... or spook you out and make you find cover.

[Inu]

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

 

Okay' date=' two things... remember, most of my "combat info" is derived from reading too many magazines rather than experience though. From my understanding, the whole staying in the body thing also has to do with dumping all the energy of the round into the target, thus doing the most damage, and thus... hollowpoints. Designed to stop inside the body, and contrary to popular belief, not tomake baseball sized holes on exit. As for the 5.56mm, I don't believe its designed to tumble... the main reason for it is simply lighter/smaller rounds, thus one can carry more ammunition. If it tumbled in the air, it would be horrible for accuracy.[/quote']

The 'dump energy into the body' theory has some merit, but only by mistake. It's been fairly thoroughly discredited. What matters is what the bullet passes through -- so calibre matters, and any expansion you may see from it, and where the shot hits. Overpenetration doesn't matter, UNLESS it's caused by the bullet not expanding or hitting anything important. Bullets that dump all their energy into the first couple of inches, like glasers, are more likely to cause death through infection than any ballistic cause.

 

I second the call to check out firearmstactical.com -- it's excellent.

[Edsel]

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

 

I have always been in the camp that believes larger caliber (and therefore bigger hole) means more damage.

[Dog Soldier]

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

 

The wound mechanism for handguns is to let air in and let juice out. The deeper that air can get in and the faster the juice can drain the more effective the round.

[Remjin]

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

 

The wound mechanism for handguns is to let air in and let juice out. The deeper that air can get in and the faster the juice can drain the more effective the round.

Hehe, "juice," that killed me.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

 

The US military normally uses "hardball" ammo' date=' it does not break up. Fragmenting ammo (which is available commercially) violates the Geneva Convention.[/quote']

Yes, as I understand it, the Geneva Convention and related agreements do ban fragmenting or expanding rounds. But tumbling rounds are something of a "loophole" as they didn't exist when the Conventions were drafted and they haven't been updated to include them. And I believe the official line on the 5.56mm round it that it wasn't deliberately designed to fragment, it just has a tendancy to break apart sometimes. (I'm not commenting on whether or not this is a valid legal distinction, or a good or bad idea - I'm just reporting.)

 

However, I did a little catch-up reading and it appears my dyslexic memory did it to me again. The original 5.56mm rounds did tend to tumble & break apart. But the new version (adopted with the switch to the M16A2) is more stable and therefore less likely to tumble +/or fragment. I had remembered it the other way around - sorry.

 

From GlobalSecurity.org

(Note that the author is arguing the lethality of the 5.56 compared to the 7.62)

The lethality of the original M193 5.56mm projectile is awesome, at ranges under 200 meters, due to the tendency of the marginally stable 55-grain bullet to tumble or shatter on impact with any target. Lethality of the M193 5.56mm projectile beyond 200 meters, however, falls very sharply as range increases and velocity decreases. The lethality of the new SS109 5.56mm projectile on the battlefield is questionable. The SS109 projectile is longer and heavier than the M193 projectile and is more stabilized in flight with the faster rifling twist used in second generation assault rifles. The emphasis, in the development of te SS109 projectile, was to increase stability and therefore penetration at longer ranges. The increased flight stability of the new SS109 projectile does effectively enhance penetration at longer ranges, but this same stability reduces the projectile's tendency to tumble or shatter upon target impact. As a result, the emphasis on penetration in the new SS109 projectile may result in a sharp decrease in lethality, as compared to its predecessor M193 cartridge.

 

I keep my pistols at home loaded with glazer bullets.

Again, I make no claims to be an expert. But you might want to read the FBI Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness study that Tinman previously linked to at firearmstactical.com. They're not glazer fans, to say the least:

 

Since the highest handgun velocities generally do not exceed 1400-1500 feet per second (fps) at the muzzle, reliable fragmentation could only be acheived by constructing a bullet so frangible as to eliminate any reasonable penetration. Unfortunately, such a bullet will break up too fast to penetrate to vital organs. The best example is the Glazer Safety Slug, a projectile designed to break up on impact and generate a large but shallow temporary cavity. Fackler, when asked to estimate the survival time of someone shot in the front mid-abdomen with a Glaser slug, responded, "About three days, and the cause of death would be peritonitis."14

[Remjin]

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

 

....ow. That sounds terribly painful, if not quick.

 

*shrug* I just use hollowpoints. All that fancy ammo is for people with more money to spend on it than me. If you've ever bought any of that stuff (which I have), its terribly expensive, even more so than your usual high grade ammunition (gold dots and the like).

 

So... until they actually come up with a "magic bullet" I'm gonna stickwith hollowpoints, mostly because it doesn't seem to hurt the lethality of any given round, and if it works as advertised, its gotta be a little bit better than a FMJ unless you just want 2 holes for them to bleed from.. er, sorry, let the "juice" come out of. hehe.

 

Besides, you're always responsible for what you shoot, and you should always be aware of what's behind your target in case it goes through. Especially if you're gonna be shooting magnums and the like.

[Edsel]

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

 

If you get right down to it about the best home defense, close quarters, weapon is a 12-gauge loaded with buckshot and as short a barrel as is legal in your area.

 

My M1911A1 has glazers in it but they are getting kinda old so I probably should expend them anyway. The .44 Magnum (Colt Anaconda) has jacketed hollow points.

[Toadmaster]

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

 

(On the other hand' date=' in the late 1970's or early 1980's an article in Armor Magazine (US) did (tongue in cheek?) suggest removing the HMG from the commander's hatch on platoon leader's tanks, and issueing them sabers so that they would concentrate on leading their platoons rather than using the MG.)[/quote']

 

Actually the Germans and later the Soviets (the Soviets took a beating initially then learned alot from the Germans) put the machineguns on the Loaders hatch, pretty much for that reason, they wanted the Commanders to Command not shoot. The Israeli's took the large cupolas with machineguns off their M60 tanks since they felt the machinegun didn't add much and the large cuploas encouraged the Commanders to stay buttoned up, the Israeli's train their Commanders to keep the hatch open so they can actually see whats going on, it gives them much better situation awareness but does result in a high casualty rate among their tank commanders.

[Matt Frisbee]

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

 

While I can take or leave most pistols -- I've fired a few -- I have to admit a fetish for the AMT Hardballer Long Slide (.45 ACP). The thing just looks so cool, even if it takes forever to clear a holster in a hurry.

 

Matt "My-DC-Heroes-character-Gray-Ghost-carried-a-matched-pair" Frisbee

[Toadmaster]

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

 

While I can take or leave most pistols -- I've fired a few -- I have to admit a fetish for the AMT Hardballer Long Slide (.45 ACP). The thing just looks so cool, even if it takes forever to clear a holster in a hurry.

 

Matt "My-DC-Heroes-character-Gray-Ghost-carried-a-matched-pair" Frisbee

 

I'm sure it doesn't hurt that Ahhhhrnold used one in the Terminator.

 

"Phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range"

 

"I only got what you see Pal"

[gewing]

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

 

Stupid question (no point or sarcasm intended here) -- how effective is a .45 ACP round from an M1911 against body armor? Does it have any knockdown power again Kevlar, given that it's a big, slow-moving slug?

 

Matt "Just-asking" Frisbee

 

 

IT is relatively ineffective versus body armor, but that is the situation with almost all pistol rounds.

 

The Russians are making some interesting hard core pistol rounds that shed their outer jacket on impacting hard targets, allowing the smaller diameter core to penetrate better, while still allowing a full diameter bullet for soft targets.

 

Personally I think that proper bullet design can solve a lot of the problems, but I think the 10mm would probably be a better compromise. Higher magazine capacity than a .45, higher velocity for better trajectory and armor penetration.

 

Loaded with something along the lines of a solid copper 110-125grain truncated cone bullet at 1400+ fps, it would probably give about the maximum stopping power possible from a conventional non expanding pistol bullet. Making the bullet even lighter, with a core of high grade aluminum or aluminum with a steel tip, and a copper jacket or plating to engage the rifling would allow the weight to be reduced even further, say to 60 or 70 grains. Velocity in this case could approach 2000fps, at a rough guess (I don't have the references with me to compare). This would probably penetrate body armor as well as most options at shorter ranges, and though it would lose velocity too fast for really long range engagements it would probably be adequately effective at up to 100 meters.

 

If It was up to ME, I would make a total of three different loads.

 

One would be a fairly standard lead free ball load for cheap training.

 

One would be a discarding sabot armor piercing load, using a roughly .20-.25 caliber tungsten penetrator. The math would be done to design it in terms of length to diameter ratio so that it would be just stable from the issue barrels, and thus more likely to tumble in the target, increasing damage as much as possible without expansion or other illegal mechanism for such a small projectile.

 

The third round would be a derivative of the old PMC "Ultramax" ammunition. This was aiui stopped from US sales by the BATF, under the stupid laws passed on "armor piercing bullets." The way the laws were written, bullets were prohibited based on what they were made of, not whether or not they could penetrate armor in actual usage. OTOH, iirc the law was written that way because the NRA and other pointed out the the proposed language that was based on penetration would, if strictly applied, have outlawed nearly every type of rifle ammunition available, from the old .30-30 to the hottest magnum rifles.

 

okay, back on topic... (sorry:o ) the Ultramax bullet was a solid bronze "ring" bullet. It was extremely lightweight, and thus very high velocity. It looked somewhat like a short copper hollowpoint, but the hollowpoint went all the way through the bullet. There was a pusher plate that acted like a sabot to push the bullet down the bore, then falls away. The ring shaped bullet had very low aerodynamic drag, and so it maintained its high velocity for long range shooting.

 

Its on target behavior included punching a hole, actually cutting loose a core of tissue roughly the diameter of the core hole. At some point it then tumbles, causing a "knuckle" in the ballistic medium, and then travels base first for a while, again separating a core of tissue.

 

Even in the original brass, it did not have significant capability to penetrate body armor, but it would have about the best stopping power in unarmored targets of any pistol style "Land Warfare legal" bullet. It could be made out of the copper alloy that Barnes uses in their Copper X-bullets, or potentially even formed from steel or aluminum and then copper plated to prevent bore erosion.

 

 

 

The APDS round and the "ring" bullet should have about the same recoil and trajectory, making them easy to alternate in use.

 

 

 

 

NOT thatI dislike the .45, I just suspect the 10mm might provide a better military pistol overall.

 

 

Another option is to have separate designs for the "operators" in SOCOM for instance, and another one for the more average troops.

 

Most troops do not put in enough firearms training to be truly profficient with pistols.

[gewing]

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

 

Does anyone know if this has changed? I mean' date=' are most other NATO armies still using 9mm, or have they switched to something else?[/quote']

 

 

THere have been discussions about rplacing the 9mm with one of the various "PDW" weapons like the P-90, but afaik no-one has taken that step yet.

 

Another couple interesting cartridges are the 9x23 Winchester(very high performance, high pressure round) and the .357 sig. The 9x23 iirc is more powerful, and it would be possible to fit more in the magazine. The .357 sig, however, would be more reliable in its feeding due to the bottlenecked case design.

 

Then there are the .45 Super , .40 Super, and the .460 Rowland.

[gewing]

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

 

I keep my pistols at home loaded with glazer bullets. They are called safety slugs since they will break up rather than richochet or penetrate a wall. Therefore you have less chance of hitting the wrong target. However if you are hit directly you are in real trouble since they will fragment upon penetrating you. I can keep my guns loaded since I have no minors in the home (I'm a bachelor) so the only one who I could accidentally shoot is me and I'm willing to live with that remote risk.

 

I have seen the "blended metal" rounds on film (TLC, Military Channel or some such show) and they do seem very impressive and very deadly.

 

 

I'm torn on them. I have met the guys responsible, and they seem like realy serious fellows, and give me vibes like they may have BTDT.

 

On the other hand, some of the early claims in particular sounded like snake oil.

 

still, there are those who poo poo the whole notion based on an analysis of what was apparently a first generation bullet, there are supposedly much newer versions.

[gewing]

Re: US Military .45 Pistols

 

Yes' date=' as I understand it, the Geneva Convention and related agreements [u']do[/u] ban fragmenting or expanding rounds. But tumbling rounds are something of a "loophole" as they didn't exist when the Conventions were drafted and they haven't been updated to include them. And I believe the official line on the 5.56mm round it that it wasn't deliberately designed to fragment, it just has a tendancy to break apart sometimes. (I'm not commenting on whether or not this is a valid legal distinction, or a good or bad idea - I'm just reporting.)

 

However, I did a little catch-up reading and it appears my dyslexic memory did it to me again. The original 5.56mm rounds did tend to tumble & break apart. But the new version (adopted with the switch to the M16A2) is more stable and therefore less likely to tumble +/or fragment. I had remembered it the other way around - sorry.

 

From GlobalSecurity.org

(Note that the author is arguing the lethality of the 5.56 compared to the 7.62)

 

 

 

Again, I make no claims to be an expert. But you might want to read the FBI Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness study that Tinman previously linked to at firearmstactical.com. They're not glazer fans, to say the least:

 

 

 

The Triton Quickshock iirc had both fragmentation and adequate penetration, unless one absolutely requires some extremely deep standard. I would have bought them, but they went out of business.

 

I like the CorBon Powerball and DPX bullets. I wish the .45 ACP DPX was loaded to a higher velocity, like the Powerball are, just on general principles.

 

Though the Powerball load is a 165 gr. bullet at 1200 fps, so:eg: