testtest

Does the Cartridge Still Matter?

Thorgrim said:
Just some food for thought:

During the 18th century, most pistols were .62 caliber or larger. They worked well, but were single shot muzzleloaders so those who "used them in their trade" be it military or law enforcement (usually one and the same back then) carried them in pairs, then termed "a brace of pistols". It wasn't uncommon for a cavalry soldier to carry two or more braces, and that's pretty unsuitable for walking-about-guns.

Then the Texas Rangers, very lightly staffed, were in a running war with principally the Comanche. Along comes Colt's "Patterson" revolver, and the Rangers were pleased. After the Comanche overcame the shock of a Ranger having more than a couple of shots at hand, even more than one Patterson (and they were too scarce for many to have more than one) wasn't enough to reliably for one Ranger or two to stop a group of Comanche warriors. The Texas Rangers were professional soldiers, but there weren't enough of them for them to commonly go out in groups.

Along comes the .45 Long Colt. Solves the lack of "stopping power" the .36 sometimes had, and it can kill a horse if it runs away with the rider's foot stuck in the stirrup (which I've read was a major selling point, although I doubt many riders pulled that off).

Double-action pistols become common and the Army adopted the .38 (I think that was the .38 Long Colt, but am unsure). They're pleased that they no longer have to cock the gun and so can shoot faster and load faster (starting to sound familiar?), but in the Moro War in the southern Philippines they again find a poor record of stops, resulting in many U.S. soldiers getting decapitated by the Moros' favorite long knives after they'd shot the Moro, often more than once. They need something that will stop a fervent opponent's hostile actions because the .38 isn't cutting it.

Along comes the .45 A.C.P. and the 1911 pistol. Those made two big improvements, larger caliber and faster reloading (and arguably faster shooting for the average G.I.). This pistol and cartridge is the armed forces' staple for many years.

The military, though, wants higher magazine capacity since it had turned to deploying smaller numbers of professional soldiers instead of many thousands of draftees. Enter the 9mm, and that's where we are now.

Anyone else notice a pattern here?
Click to expand...
Dunno; I know a couple guys that actually have used sidearms in our overseas endeavors during the past 20 years that had no issues with the 9mm, and 124gr ball ammo, at that.

I’ll take their word on it, m’self.
 
HansGruber said:
Dunno; I know a couple guys that actually have used sidearms in our overseas endeavors during the past 20 years that had no issues with the 9mm, and 124gr ball ammo, at that.

I’ll take their word on it, m’self.
Click to expand...

Given that shot placement is King, I'd bet that much of that is due to the Beretta 92's accuracy. The Taurus 92-like pistol is also very accurate right out of the box (at least, mine was), and I prefer it over the Beretta due to the changes they made - the safety is mounted on the frame instead of the slide making it easier to reach with a shooting grip, and "down is fire, up is safe" as God and John Moses Browning intended.

Back to chosing a cartridge, there's a very detailed and interesting study titled "2016/17 JOINT AGENCY BALLISTICS TEST FOR DEFENSIVE HANDGUN AMMUNITION" (their all caps, not mine) that has been made public and is available here:

I thought their pronouncements on caliber and bullet weight to be especially interesting. I'm off to reread it, it's too much information for me to digest at one sitting, that's a side effect of not dying sooner - I turn 70 this year, and I've had too many TBIs, I suspect.
 
It's a 51-page document with no bullet points? ...or is it all bullet points? : P
 
Thorgrim said:
Given that shot placement is King, I'd bet that much of that is due to the Beretta 92's accuracy. The Taurus 92-like pistol is also very accurate right out of the box (at least, mine was), and I prefer it over the Beretta due to the changes they made - the safety is mounted on the frame instead of the slide making it easier to reach with a shooting grip, and "down is fire, up is safe" as God and John Moses Browning intended.

Back to chosing a cartridge, there's a very detailed and interesting study titled "2016/17 JOINT AGENCY BALLISTICS TEST FOR DEFENSIVE HANDGUN AMMUNITION" (their all caps, not mine) that has been made public and is available here:

I thought their pronouncements on caliber and bullet weight to be especially interesting. I'm off to reread it, it's too much information for me to digest at one sitting, that's a side effect of not dying sooner - I turn 70 this year, and I've had too many TBIs, I suspect.
Click to expand...
The weapons used were a Sig 226 and a Glock 19, respectively…both accurate…and the shooters had more than a little skill as well.

Either way, only hits count, and it’s easier to train to get good, rapid hits with a 9mm than it is with heavier calibers, all things being equal.
 
USS Callister said:
It's a 51-page document with no bullet points? ...or is it all bullet points? : P
Click to expand...

It is, as a friend would say, "informationally dense".

I'd give it a bit more credit than other such tests I've read in the past, chiefly because they used a better simulation of the human animal than is ballistic gel. You do get some uncontrollable variation due to the beef briskets being organic and thus not completely consistent throughout, but they did a sufficient number of repetitions to minimize that issue; often science is not as neat as we would like, but it's more important to be factual than to be tidy.

The results suggest that much of what is measured as "temporary wound cavity" in gel and thus discounted as not having much of a wounding effect, turns into a permanent wound cavity in human/animal tissue and thus the difference in caliber, velocity and bullet design is much more important than has recently been accepted as fact.

I was most surprised at what turned out to be the consistent top performer, the Underwood XD bullet. I had mentally grouped it with the other monolithic, fluted and other non-traditional and "unleaded" rounds as probably more salesmanship than performance, and I was in at least the XD's case, wrong.
 
Thorgrim said:
It is, as a friend would say, "informationally dense".

I'd give it a bit more credit than other such tests I've read in the past, chiefly because they used a better simulation of the human animal than is ballistic gel. You do get some uncontrollable variation due to the beef briskets being organic and thus not completely consistent throughout, but they did a sufficient number of repetitions to minimize that issue; often science is not as neat as we would like, but it's more important to be factual than to be tidy.

The results suggest that much of what is measured as "temporary wound cavity" in gel and thus discounted as not having much of a wounding effect, turns into a permanent wound cavity in human/animal tissue and thus the difference in caliber, velocity and bullet design is much more important than has recently been accepted as fact.

I was most surprised at what turned out to be the consistent top performer, the Underwood XD bullet. I had mentally grouped it with the other monolithic, fluted and other non-traditional and "unleaded" rounds as probably more salesmanship than performance, and I was in at least the XD's case, wrong.
Click to expand...
That document is bogus; I remember when it came out, and it was discredited.

It’s basically an ammo advertisement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top