45Acp fails and 9mm saves the day in shoot out in Ohio

[Tamara]

BHP9,

Seriously no matter what evidence I would present

Were you planning on presenting some?

You have referenced an apocryphal police shooting. One that never even made the papers of the town it allegedly occured in. Part of the data was an extraordinary claim of underpenetration by .45. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and you can't provide any proof other than "a guy told me..."

You have misrepresented the results of the Thompson-LaGarde tests and been forced to backpedal from there.

Your constant references to shooting through steel pots or drums, terming JHPs "softpoints" and insisting that hollowpoint technology hasn't changed since '84 except for advertising hype betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of both the mechanisms of penetration and expansion and the difference between hard- and soft-target penetration. For instance, a green tip .223 will penetrate armour plate, yet a hard-cast Garrett Hammerhead will shoot clean through most game animals on this planet. Why is that? What of the various types of hollowpoints that have sprung from rigorous FBI and other testing since that time? A Gold Dot, Ranger or Golden Saber is a long way from the old "FMJ-with-a-hole-in-the-tip" days.

Your best piece of evidence is a 19 year old magazine article that involved shooting pigs with different bullets. You claim that the piggies died just as fast with the 9mm as with the .45. I can buy that, although the "squealed louder and jumped higher" bit is amusing. (Did they use a squealometer and a jump gauge to verify this? ) I suppose I should just be grateful that the "Strasbourg Tests" weren't cited and drive on.

What causes the brouhaha is not stating that the 9mm is an adequate self defense round; I agree completely, and if I didn't I certainly wouldn't carry one as often as I do. I'm perfectly comfortable carrying a nine. Heck, I'm perfectly comfortable carrying a .38 Special. No, the flap is caused when you feel compelled to support this stance with anecdotal tales of .45 only penetrating one inch in the bad guy as though it's an indictment of the caliber on scientific grounds. That doesn't even pass the "Ha ha" test, much less the smell test.

So, in conclusion, if you wish to present evidence to support your original contention of 9mm as the superior defense round due to superior penetration vis a vis the dismal penetration of .45 ACP, please do so, but you ain't done it yet.

 

[Dain Bramage]

I don't have a lot of time, but I just want to comment on two of BHP9's remarks about the 7.62x25mm round.

1. I have a CZ-52 and a Norinco Tok. I like the guns and the cartridge, but killing efficiency is not why the Soviet Union kept the round. Rather, it was manufacturing efficiency, or what of it they could eke out of their Communist system.

All of their small-arms mills and lathes were geared toward constructing 7.62mm barrels. Everything from pistols to light machine guns were constructed in that caliber (7.62x25, 7.62x54R, and later, 7.62x39). They even manufactured two Ppsh barrels, in the darkest days, by cutting Mosin-Nagant barrels in half.

Battlefield efficiency would not, and could not, have changed their minds. How would they have known anyway? Training, tactics, or pistol cartridges? Who cares. The standard response was always to throw more men and material into the breach.

And if anyone thinks I am impugning the Soviet Army, I am not. They caused the vast majority of German battlefield casualties during WWII, but even at the end, at the Battle of Berlin, they were taking a 4/1 ratio of casualties to the Germans.

2. Taking someone out back and capping them is a poor test for a pistol. I would expect every cartridge to perform adequately, except perhaps the .22 short.

 

[Mike Irwin]

And now, for a dissection of the Wild Romanian's latest misunderstandings, misstatements, and flat out erroneous information, with a real gem at the end...

I disagree. The Russians used this cartridge in both their pistols and more importantly in their sub-guns.

Disagree all you want, the 7.62 Tok round was considered to be distinctly lacking in, as I noted, man stopping ability by the Germans and Americans during their combat experience facing it.

Could a man be killed by a 7.62 Tok round? Of course. No one has said that they couldn’t be, but the fact remains that the 7.62, like the .30 Luger, punched small holes through its target. A hit in a lung or stomach could, as Thompson LaGarde noted with the .30 Luger 40 years before, leave little visible or physiological evidence and allow the individual so wounded to operate relatively effectively for a long period of time.

There are several military monographs on the effectiveness of small arms ammunition, written post Korea, that discuss the performance of the 7.62 round as a combat round and find it to be distinctly lacking in much the same way that the .30 Carbine round (same diameter bullet, but roughly the double the energy) was found to be lacking in stopping determined adversaries.

As with the .30 carbine round, the 7.62 relied mainly on multiple hits on target in order to produce effective results. When you start hosing the target with upwards 900 rounds a minute, you’re more likely to get multiple hits on the target – multiplying the effect of the rounds that do strike.


The Russians learned early in the war that the people who were issued the sub-guns actually fired their weapons in combat when they were in isolated positions out of sight of their comrades. As a consequence of this many more were issued to front line troops than the bolt action Mosins.

Uh.... Uh.... Heh. I’ve NO clue where you come up with this, but again it shows complete lack of understanding as to how the Soviet military structure operated, or the obstacles it was up against.

First, the submachine gun became the primary Soviet weapon for a number of reasons, primarily because the PPsH (and other submachine guns in Soviet use) could be produced in roughly 1/3rd the time that it took to make a Moisin Nagant rifle. The same machinery that made Nagant barrels was employed to make subgun barrels – a finished barrel was then cut in two to give two subgun barrels. That step alone significantly increased production.

Also, as the Soviets learned in Finland in 1939, the submachine was an EXTREMELY effective weapon when used either by or against massed infantry formations. When used by a massed infantry formation, the level of short-range fire that could be laid down by a unit was staggering. When used against a massed infantry formation, the Suomi subgun helped the Finns kill nearly 8 times as many Russians as Finnish losses.

Given their propensity for massed infantry tactics, then, the submachine gun was a natural integration into the Soviet military structure. The North Koreans and Chinese, being modeled after the Soviet system, and also favored massed infantry tactics and use of the submachine gun.

If the cartridge was a dud (which it cerainly was not) the Russians would not have killed so many Germans with it and would have withdrawn it from service very quickly.

Please note that NOWHERE have I used the word “dud†in reference to the 7.62 Tokarev round, or in reference to the .30 Luger round. You’re the one who has continually attempted to claim performance levels for these cartridges far above what is factually known by continuing to misrepresent information that is available, placed your faith in completely anecdotal (and quite frankly, since you won’t provide any more information on the event, likely completely fraudulent) “evidence,†made illogical leaps of so-called logic, and drawn spurious and unsupportable conclusions.

As for how long the 7.62 Tokarev round was in Soviet service, in handguns until roughly 1957, or whenever the Makarov (a 9mm, adopted interestingly enough because it was recognized that the larger bullet would provide better terminal ballistics), or slightly over 20 years, and in submachine guns? Slightly over a decade. The first Soviet issue subguns chambering the 7.62 round were adopted around 1938/1939, and were largely withdrawn from active military service by 1953, to be replaced by the SKS and the AK-47 – certainly not the decades that you claim.

WWII on the Russian front proved otherwise when it was used there successfully by one of the largest armies in the world, the Russian Army. This cartridge would never have remained in service for the many decades that it did if it was as the "Myth claims" that it is an ineffectual and very aenimic non- lethal round. History has not bore this out.

As I’ve noted above, the term of service of the 7.62 Tok round in the Soviet army was comparatively short, and was adopted out of EXPEDIENCY.

And, once again, you mischaracterize what has actually been stated when you say “very anemic non-lethal round.†You KNOW I never said that, and your attempt to characterize previous comments as such are nothing but more bald-faced LIES on your part, with more fanciful leaps of illogic not borne out by the statements previously made.

Please tell me where you get the assessment of “non-lethal round†from any of the previous comments? Ah, I know where you got it, yet another fanciful leap of illogic coupled with a lie. How quaint.

She used her pistol and he dropped with one shot. I would not call this caliber a poor man killer.

And now, for the final fanciful leap, brought to you by the Wild Romanian, who actually managed to find an apocryphal pearl that SUPPORTS the findings of the Thompson LaGarde tests (which we know you don’t believe now, do you?), we have the above statement.

What does this actually prove? Perhaps that this woman also works on a police force in Ohio?

If you can, think about this for a little bit...

If you’re going to execute someone, how are you going to do it?

You’re going to shoot the person in the HEAD.

And what did the Thompson LaGarde tests tell us about small-caliber, high-velocity rounds when they hit the head?

That they cause damage all out of proportion to their size!

Without your realizing it, you’ve just stumbled into JUSTIFICATION of the findings of the Thompson LaGarde tests! Congratulations!

 

[Mike Irwin]

"Contrary to popular belief all the so called advances in ammo since 1900 has been more advertisement hoopla than any real improvement in performance. Bullets made today are largely the same in the expanding type as they were in the early part of the last century."

Ok, your credibility meter is now absolutely ZERO.

If you believe this, you'll believe anything...

Here's one for you...

Did you know that a police officer in another small town in Ohio shot a man with a rocket propelled grenade, which detonated on his winter coat, and only left him scorched?

But that an office armed with a 2.7mm Kolibri shot the guy, and it not only penetrated all the way through, but turned around and came back again, killing him deader than a door nail?

And that when PistolPumper magazine shot squirrels (which are, statistically, even MORE closely related to human anatomy than steers or pigs!) with the 2.7mm Kolibri it was found that it was its lethality was SO great that the CIA, FBI, INS, and KGB came in and shut the testing down and confiscated every Kolibri pistol aroudn the world?

And that's why you never see 2.7mm Kolibri pistols?




Given your inability to understand even the basic tenets of this discussion, it's not surprising that you'd fail to understand the great leaps in the design and manufacture of hollow-point/expanding bullets over the past 15 to 20 years, and how for the first time in the history of jacketed bullets we actually have bullets that will RELIABLY and REPEATABLY expand even at low velocities -- reliability and repeatability that was unobtainable 20 years ago.

I'm not certain what fantasy world you inhabit where the known technological advances in bullet design are "advertising hoopla," but it's not even a distant neighbor of reality.

I spent 3.5 years on staff at American Rifleman magazine, following the advances in bullet design, talking with the men and women who were designing and manufacturing these bullets, and TESTING the products they were brining to market.

You are, without a doubt, the single most unknowledgable "gun" person I have ever come across -- the only probem is I just can't figure out whether it's real, or whether it's an act.

If it's real, it's shameful and disheartening that anyone who professes to own and like firearms could be so unknowledgable about them.

If it's an act, then you should be banned from this board for the simple act of continued trolling.

 

[cratz2]

Your post is not even valid for a variety of reasons.

How can you say that Wild Romanian? Coming from someone with such credibility as yourself, it almost makes me want to cry. After all the forums we've been together on and you've been banned from.

Are you honestly going to tell me that in 1984, 147 Gr 9mm ammo existed that was equilavent to todays 147 Gr Ranger? That's ridiculous. Even the most pro-9mm writers, testers and data gatherers faulted the 147 Gr as among the very worst choice available. Today, the 147 Gr Ranger is a very valid choice. Seems like you aren't following your beloved gun rag authors, Marshall and Sanow or David DiFabio. (No offense to Mr DiFabio, I respect and trust his work).

1. With the ammo tested the 9mm worked just as well as the .45 and Pistolero seemed to think it worked better than the .45acp.

You just don't get it, do you? You're still relying on and testifying on behalf of a test you didn't see written by people you've never met. I just don't see how you can have this argument and honestly believe it. If we were in court, if you chose your words as poorly as you have in this thread, you'd be in jail my friend. Then maybe you could talk to some folks that have experience shooting people with various cartridges.

 

[Intune]

Did the Thompson LaGarde tests include quirts and equines? The flogging continues, "long live the beast!" One must admire the fighter who, despite the foregone conclusion as to the outcome of the bout, continues to stagger from his corner in response to the bell. At some point though the sight of a fluttering towel sailing in from the corner brings welcome relief to all.

 

[DeltaElite]

No evidence has been presented to show that the 9mm is superior to the 45acp.
A story from some cop, which sounds like a tall tale.
Some magazine that shot pigs, I feel bad for the pigs, since I am one.
Other claims that are unsubstantiated.

I do know this, a 9mm may expand to .45 or above, but 45acp starts out there.

 

[Island Beretta]

Guys, thanks for the entertainment!! I am only now recovering from the stitches obtained from laughing so hard...

The killer line which came from Tamara and pertained to evidence was' Where you planning on providing some'


So long, until the next 9mm vs. 45ACP debate!!!

 

[Double Maduro]

Island

There is already one started but this time they included the .40, and somebody tried to sneak in the 10mm. LOL

It goes on and on.

 

[Safety First]

Lordy, Lordy

Will the.. " this is the best hand-gun bullet, no it's not, this is the best bullet "debate ever end? I mean for crying out loud,shoot what you want. I mean a .45 makes a bigger hole than a 9mm,right? Ok but then some will say sure it does if it can penetrate...Some say they would rather have more 9mm rounds than fewer .45 rounds..Some say" placement is the key".. I mean jeeees louise,pick your bullet and live or die with it. Or I guess you could load up with a .45 in the summer,a 9mm in the winter,and Oh yes, don't forget the laser for "placement is the key" Well, I know I feel better now...Thanks for letting me vent (and oh yes, I do my venting with a 9mm)

 

[BHP9]

You have referenced an apocryphal police shooting. One that never even made the papers of the town it allegedly occured in. Part of the data was an extraordinary claim of underpenetration by .45. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and you can't provide any proof other than "a guy told

You cetrainly did not pay attention to or read the U.S. military test trials that I posted severl times showing the phenominal penetration of the 9mm over the .45.

You did not believe me when I gave you a simple test that anyone can perform on 55 gallon drums , it does not get much simplier or more credible than that.



Anyone that has studied WWII knows that this info has published years ago and it was in fact the driving concept behind the modern assault rifle i.e. that the modern assault rifle had all the psycholocial effects of the sub-gun but an increased range over the pistol chambered sub-gun.

[ .[/B]

QUOTE]Please note that NOWHERE have I used the word “dud†in reference to the 7.62 Tokarev round, or in reference to the .30 Luger round.

Now your playing absolutely nothing but word games and looking for wiggle room. It has been posted and once again read the copy of my quote by simply scrolling up that the 30 caliber pistol cartridges were------------

QUOTE]While I don't know the basis for Barnes comments, it's very interesting to note that two other, MORE powerful rounds, the 7.62 Tokarev and the 7.63 Mauser, also had fairly poor reputations as man stoppers. [/QUOTE

There is no difference in all in the interpretation simply a game you are playing with words

She used her pistol and he dropped with one shot. I would not call this caliber a poor man killer.

And now, for the final fanciful leap, brought to you by the Wild Romanian, who actually managed to find an apocryphal pearl that SUPPORTS the findings of the Thompson LaGarde tests (which we know you don’t believe now, do you?), we have the above statement.

Once again you did not slow down and comprehend what I posted. 1. The womand was a Russian Soldier not a police officer but I am glad you mentioned the word "Police" because------------------- About 6 months ago in Massillon, Ohio a man refused to stop in a traffic check. He shot a police officer with a Tokerov and the Police officer was killed instantly. Now what kind of wiggle room is there in this one. Once again, proving that it is easy to call a person a lier, I will not result to such tatics as you do , its childish, but I refer you to the news accounts that went nationalwide on this one.]

If you’re going to execute someone, how are you going to do it?

You’re going to shoot the person in the HEAD.

Speculation, you were not there so you cannot make this statement. A more valid statement would be to look at the Police officer than was killed in Massillon with the Tokerov and he was not shot in the head.

 

[Double Maduro]

lol@ Safety First

I am still ignoring bhp9.
I just wish he could spell better. LOL

I think we have upset the boy and that makes his fingers disconnect from his brain.

This did get a lot of posts though.

 

[Handy]

Wow. You kids have certainly been at it.

So, for defense, would I be better off with a .68 caliber, 2000 grain wadcutter traveling at 30 fps or the 5 grain flechette going Mach 8?

What do the pigs think?





Does anyone else think that anecdotal evidence is somewhat worthless when the wound victim is more complicated internally than an earthworm? Does it maybe matter if the bullet goes through the liver rather than heart?

 

[Double Maduro]

Handy,

You are right, anecdotal evidence is amusing but worthless and should not be called evidence.

Of the 2 rounds you mention for defense I guess it would depend.

But that 5 grain would make a heck of a mosquito gun. The only thing faster would be speed of light weaponry. I want one. Does it come in a rifle?

 

[Handy]

Double,

Your best bet for portability and knockdown come from the X-Ray laser class of weapons. Immense directed energy for the size package.

The down side is that it's a single shot.






And you'll be incinerated along with the gun upon firing.

 

[BHP9]

"Contrary to popular belief all the so called advances in ammo since 1900 has been more advertisement hoopla than any real improvement in performance. Bullets made today are largely the same in the expanding type as they were in the early part of the last century."

.

Ok, your credibility meter is now absolutely ZERO.

I stand by my statment when refering to rapidly expanding bullets. Examples of these bullets included the Sierra which still makes bullets for hunting or even the non-bonded bullets that Hornady or Speer or other manufactures make.

They still contain plain lead surrouded by a thin copper jacket. They made them this exact way back at the turn of the century and from reading acccounts of these bullets they too expanded very rapidly and also had the problem many of todays bullets do that are not bonded and that is that they often do not penetrate enough or hold together well enough when shot at very close ranges.

My statement was much more valid than you thought

 

[Tamara]

Handy,

I would, but I can't figure out what the best material for the focussing rods would be. Maybe someone in the reloading forum could help?

 

[Tamara]

BHP9,

I stand by by statment when refering to rapidly expanding bullets. Examples of these bullets included the Sierra which still makes bullets for hunting or even the non-bonded bullets that Hornady or Speer or other manufactures make.

I wouldn't stand by that statement, were I you.

Other examples (of which your statement seems unaware) would be the Gold Dot, Hydra-Shok, Golden Saber, and Ranger SXT.

To hold up the utterly conventional Speer and Hornady JHPs as cutting-edge examples of the breed makes you look like you've just been thawed from a twenty-year cryonic sleep.

 

[DeltaElite]

Well, I interviewed this pig and he prefers the 45acp and 10mm over the 9mm.
It seems that the pig has spoken and settled this debate.

 

[Double Maduro]

Lol @ the pig,

Has anyone tried the new copper expanders from Taurus yet?

I am thinking of them as a defense round.

 

[Mike Irwin]

Ah...

I'm playing wiggle room... Cute... And not a chance.

Because YOU'RE the one who is playing word games by simply choosing to IGNORE what the word "dud" means in the common vernacular.

Dud, in common talk, means something that abjectly fails to perform in all ways.

As I've already noted, the 7.62/.30 is a poor man stopper, but it's not totally a dud.

Why?

Because as Thompson LaGarde noted, a hit to the head with the .30 Luger would produce pretty spectacular wounds, and given its higher velocity, it's very easy to postulate that the 7.62/7.63 would provide similar results.


That's not a dud.

Then we have 2 war's worth of experience in a WIDE variety of wounds caused by the 7.62 Tok. round, where multiple hits were often required to stop a determined attacker, simply because of the relatively small amount of damage that the small bullet would inflict.

That said, though, the Soviets and Chinese killed many Germans and Americans with the 7.62.

Does that make the round a dud?

Nope, but there are likely a lot of people who were wounded with the 7.62 who are alive today simply because it was a 7.62.

Once again your ability to mischaracterize, misinterpret, misunderstand, and misrepresent is second to none.


"Once again you did not slow down and comprehend what I posted"

Oh, I comprehended QUITE well what you posted.

It was an attempt to again MISCHARACTERIZE and MISREPRESENT the effectiveness of a cartridge based on a SINGLE incident.

You ask how we know that the woman soldier shot the German in the head.

Well, we don't. But we can certainly make some educated guesses.

Such as, if you're shooting someone, and you wish to kill him quickly, do you shoot him in the foot?

Or do you shoot him in the one place virtually guaranteed to cause INSTANT death? (hint, that's the head. Even a heart shot can result in the person living for a considerable amount of time).

We also have a whole body of evidence that shows the Soviet military's preferred method of killing prisoners...

Do you know how they it?

With a shot to the HEAD!

Over 4,000 bodies excavated from the Katyn Woods in Poland show that quite dramatically -- the bodies of over 4,000 Polish Army Officers who were executed by the Soviets in 1940 -- all by a single shot to the head with a handgun.

But, you're right, Officer Eric Taylor wasn't shot in the head. We also do NOT know how long he lived or the true nature of his wounds.

What ALSO must be recognized, though, is that a SINGLE incident, does not constitute the entire body of experience with any item.

If it did, however, then I would simply refute your 9mm story with a single example of my own -- the Miami Shootout of 1986, in which one of your highly penetrating laserbeam 9mms failed to reach the heart of either Platt or Maddix (can't remember which one), allowing him to live for at least 5 more minutes and cause unbelievable mayhem and carnage.

MY GOD! Based on that, the 9mm IS THE WORST round ever!

See how it works?

Now, scuttle on to your next misrepresentation, misinterpretation, etc.

 

[Mannlicher]

Personally, I think the story is apocryphal. I flat don't believe it.

 

[HKcenterMass]

Just use a .22 like a 9mm, its smaller than a .45, but faster than both a 9 and .45, hence, like a 9, smaller and faster, easier to control = better man stopper

 

[zpo]

Probably not the best way to start out here but, 50 Cent was shot in the face 9 times with a 9mm and lives to rap about it, so, does that count as proof that the 9 really can't kill anyone and all the stories we here are just propaganda by ammo manufacturers to sell us bad rounds. Maybe we really need the 45 messiah foretold by the ancient wisdom. But I still like my 10mm.

 

[Double Maduro]

zpo,

Welcome to the board. I think You'll like it here.

The 9 vs .45 argument will never be satisfied, it is akin to arguing religion.

There are those who think that it is all about penetration and number of rounds and there are those who feel it is about transferred energy and mass destruction and shot placement. And those who believe in every combination of the above.

I hope you don't judge us by the contents of this one thread.

DM