[BHP9]

Back some years ago when the infamous Miami shoot out occured which resulted in a 9mm round that failed to penetrate to the heart because it had to pass through an arm and the main trunk of the body a great hue and cry went up for a better police type cartridge. Although the Gov't understood little of ballistics and still has not learned much the question remained , "Was there a better cartridge than the 9mm for police work.

Although the failure of the 9mm that day was in no way due to the caliber. The 9mm has more than enough penetration to have worked that day if a differently designed bullet would have been used the Government could never have been convinced of that fact. The bullet did exactly what it was designed to do. It expanded and did not over penetrate. Of course the Government like everyone else wanted the magic caliber that would never fail. It wanted a caliber that would never overpenetrate or never fail to expand and never fail to under penetrate. Of course no such round ever existed or will exist but one wonders if 1. There could be a better caliber and 2. If in fact the Government went the wrong way in the choosing a new caliber. In other words they went bigger in caliber rather than of all heresy smaller.

It has been well known amoung a few experts that as caliber gets smaller and velocity gets higher a tremendous increase in penetration occurs. Years ago P.O. Ackley after astounding the world in his Arisaka experiments in which he failed to deliberately blow them up stood the world on its ear yet another time by proving that very small high velocity projectiles like the .220 Swift penetrated armor plating while the traditional 30-06 armor piercing round actually failed to penetrate an armored half-track.

He was even laughed at but further astounded everyone when actually shooting 600 pound ferule burros with the .220 Swift which outperformed bigger calibers and killed like lightning compared to the heavier caliber weapons that were also used that day.

All this was not lost to some military arms developers which years later resulted in FN's new .22 caliber assault pistol that out penetrates any handgun caliber made and it does it without expensive and hard to make armor piercing bullets. All this was necessary because of the new bullet resistant materiels being used in military clothing and helmets.
.

Although civilians will never be alowed to use such weapons because of their penetration (at least not here in the U.S.) this all brings us to the queastion "What new caliber based on this theory would be a superior police and civilian round?

It was also proven even before Ackley's time that calibers that were small but of high velocity like the .30 Luger or even faster bullets fired out of the 30 Mauser could drop a 1,300 pould steer in less than 30 seconds and without the use of expanding bullets.

While thinking about the old .30 Mauser it is just too long to work through the actions of most existing auto loading pistols. But something like a wildcat caliber such as the 30/357 Sig. would work through such actions.

The advantages would be:

1. Superior penetration to what is currently being used.

2. Low recoil which gives faster recovery time between shots and factoring in the human element will enable the person to shoot it more accurately on a consistant basis.

3. Less wear and tear on the pistol itself giving much longer service life.

3. Excellent inherent accuracy becuase of its smaller caliber and lower recoil. Factory records show that standards for accuracy when building weapons decrease as caliber and velocity increases. Remington 40x factory records prove this.

4. High velocity and very flat trajectory making it easier to hit at unkown and much longer ranges.

5. When using expanding bullets, a caliber, because of its high velocity makes it easier to design bullets that will expand more violently and much more reliably than bigger heavier slower moving bullets.

6. A caliber because of its small diameter and high velocity will retain its high velocity better as the range increases than the bigger calibers which tend to slow down quicker because of their inferior ballistic coefficients.


Although all this goes completely against what has been taught over the years and the people who have been beating the big bore drums for years will never accept such different thinking the fact remains that people like P.O. Ackley never accepted any information on firearms that he could not prove or duplucate himself.

It was well known in Europe that small high velocity calibers like the .30 mauser with expanding bullets killed deer at pistol ranges very well indeed and the same thing was proven on this side of the Atlantic many years ago when people used .30 Luger carbines and even stadard barrel length .30 Mauser pistols with shoulder stocks attached.

Maybe its about time for someone to build such a new pistol cartridge like the 30/357 Sig.and give it a try with various weight and various brands of modern bullets that are now available because for years we may just have been throwing out the baby with the used bath water without even realizing it.

[Mike Irwin]

"ferule burros..."

He shot flat wooden donkeys?

Congratulations.

You've just reinvented the 7.62 Tokarev.

It should be as underwhelming as the original.

"6. A caliber because of its small diameter and high velocity will retain its high velocity better as the range increases than the bigger calibers which tend to slow down quicker because of their inferior ballistic coefficients."

Also, I really hate to break this to you, but the inferior ballistic coefficient of which you speak?

Let's see...

A .30 cal. bullet for such a cartridge would likely be along the lines of Hornady's 110-gr. lead round nose, the kind used in the .30 Carbine or .30 Herret.

It has a ballistic coefficient of .150.

The ballistic coefficient of Hornady's 125-gr. .357 Mag. Hollow Point XTP bullet? .151. That's right. Flat point.

.40 S&W? 180 gr. HP/XTP bullet? BC of .164.

45 ACP? 200 gr. HP/XTP? BC of .151.

Rule of ballistic thumb for you.

If two bullets of the same ballstic coefficient start, one heavy and fairly slow, and one high velocity and light, the lighter, smaller bullet will shed velocity MUCH faster than the heavier, larger diameter bullet.

[tex_n_cal]

Personally, I think necking the 10mm case would be better - keep the OAL closer to the 1.23" range, for proper feeding in a 1911. A little more capacity to boot, for more velocity.

That said...don't expect me to invest in any chambering reamers. Not much point to it, unless you're one of those types who wants to make super-small reloadable cartridges.

If I ever stumble across a .30 Luger 1911 barrel, I'd probably buy it for the hell of it, but make a project out of it? No.

One old hunting bud used to swear by his .22-250 for Texas deer...until you got a few beers in him. Then he'd start admitting to losing a few wounded animals. He finally switched to a .25-06 two years ago.:)

[Quartus]

600 pound ferule burros


:confused:

Did you mean "feral"?



Hmmm. Did I miss something? Or did we leave out the factor of sectional density?


At any rate, the underlying idea is correct - velocity penetrates. Ever seen a straw blown through a fence board by a tornado? Lousy ballistic coefficient, I'd bet.

Of coursse, you've got to deliver the velocity to the target. That's where ballistic coefficients come in to the equation.

[Tamara]

1. Superior penetration to what is currently being used.

...

5. When using expanding bullets, a caliber, because of its high velocity makes it easier to design bullets that will expand more violently and much more reliably than bigger heavier slower moving bullets.

"Violent expansion" and "superior penetration"? Sign me up!

Quick! Get on the phone with Marshall, Sanow, and Fackler, before someone steals your idea; you could be the next Burczynski!

[BHP9]

You've just reinvented the 7.62 Tokarev

You were not paying attention to what I was posting.

The Tokerov will not fit into many of the popular 9mm size pistols. The 30/357 Sig. would.

It would also be a plus if the producers of the new Cartridge would increase the velocity over that of the Tokerov even if only slightly. The point being that anything that is new is considered better by many people (not that it really is). But many people would not want a gun in the old, old Tokerov chambering but would be more than willing to try something that they perceived to be as new and differnet.

Case in point. Many of the new short magnums do absolutely nothing ballistically that the older cartridges have been doing for years but because they are new it increases gun sales. People think that a new design is better even though many times it is not. The Old, Old , 22-250 or the .220 Swift is more than capbable of shooting 5 shots into 1/2 inch and even slightly smaller groups at 100 yards, so is the new 22 WSM (short fat magnum) going to be any better. No it is not because when fired out of rifle actions that were originally designed for light sporter barrels they do not have the necessary stiffness to support big heavy weight varmint type barrels like the custom super heavy bench rest single shot actions do. But the public does not know this and believes the advertisments that the newer cartridge is superior and so they buy it and are happy with it.

The same princlple applies to the 30/357 Sig. Would it be any better than the .30 Mauser or .30 Tokerov. Well probably not unless the designers could get more velocity out of it and even then the advantage would be slight. But the point is people would buy it, try it , probably like it and when enough real life data was compiled in shootouts people would begin to see that it was indeed a deadly cartridge. Something that Winston Churchill could have told you over half a century ago or any of the Communist Chinese soldiers that used it to wipe out the Nationalist Chinese soliders in their civil war. No one told them the cartridge was supposed to be inferior and since they had confidence in it it worked for them because it proved not be inferior. Dead soldiers piled high proved it.

I like the super flat shooting .30 Mauser and I hit much targets way easier at 100 yards than the slower moving bigger calibers. The supersonic crack lets you know that the bullet is really screaming for a pistol cartridge. Getting up into the 1,600 fps range in the bigger calibers results in a behemouth of weapon that is impractical to carry and impractical to shoot much because of the recoil. Using a lighter made weapon in the bigger calibers that have that much velocity results in very short service life.

The point being that since few people use the high velocity .30 caliber pistol cartridges few are aware of its advantages. I for one would buy one just to see if it could beat out the old .30 Mauser by much , it probably would not beat it by much but it would be fun trying.

[Frohickey]

A 30/357Sig would have to start with either a 10mm or 10mm mag case.

The 357Sig case already has too short of a case neck, and the 40Short&Weak is even shorter, if you neck it down.

I've read that minimum case neck length is at least one caliber size. Preferably 1.5 times.

I would build it from a 45ACP, at least the prototype, just to get more case support.

So, when are you going to have it made? When are you going to have some terminal ballistics data?
When are you going to have reliability data?

:D

[Mike Irwin]

"Getting up into the 1,600 fps range in the bigger calibers results in a behemouth of weapon that is impractical to carry and impractical to shoot much because of the recoil."

Funny, 1,700 fps. true, and more, out of my 4" Model 28 is easily doable, and the recoil isn't harsh, either. For any one who's interested, that 800 ft. pounds of energy.

Same velocity out of my 4" Model 19. Certainly quite a bit snappier recoil, but still not bad at all. Not unlike a light-weight 40 S&W.

Neither handgun is a stretch to carry, either.

[George Hill]

*Heading out to buy another CZ-52*


:D

[Mike Irwin]

Oh, by the way, I was paying attention.

Here's your statement...

"While thinking about the old .30 Mauser it is just too long to work through the actions of most existing auto loading pistols."

Kind of a nebulous statement, don't you think?

MOST existing auto loading pistols?

You mean the 1911s, the Berettas, the Taurui, the S&Ws, the Rugers, the Glocks, etc. etc. etc.

All of the full-size models perfectly capable of handling the Tokarev round.

Even some of the smaller compact models should be more than capable of handling the Tokarev round. For example, the Glock compact in 10mm.

"But the public does not know this and believes the advertisments that the newer cartridge is superior and so they buy it and are happy with it."

I'm confused, with that statement you're talking about the .30-.357 Sig, right?

I will, however, agree with your broader assessment of the new series of short magnums. I'm not convinced of their utility or overall practicality of these cartridges.

Severely overbore springs immediately to mind.

I'm also very interested in seeing what sort of barrel life will be realized out of these rounds. I'm suspecting that it's not going to be very good at all.

[Zak Smith]

1. Superior penetration to what is currently being used.
If you want more penetration now, just pick a poorly designed JHP (eg, one that clogs up with cloth) or a FMJ.

5. When using expanding bullets, a caliber, because of its high velocity makes it easier to design bullets that will expand more violently and much more reliably than bigger heavier slower moving bullets.

If this were true, one wouldn't expect to see big, fat, slow .45ACP JHP's that expand reliably. But we do. For example, from the FBI gel studies, the Remington Golden Saber expands about 55% (to ~ 0.7") in both bared and clothed gelatin, and it's only going 871fps. There are many more .45ACP JHP's that exhibit this behavior. See http://apollo.demigod.org/~zak/firearms/fbi-pistol.php?sort=grade1

A bullet desiged to run at 1300-1500 fps is going to have to resist expansion so that it won't over-expand and have limited penetration.

If you fire bullet designed to expand at about 1000fps at 1400-1600fps, it's going to "splat" and fragment instead of penetrating. This is what would happen if you use a varmint bullet on large game - similar to what people reported when they used the wrong Ballistic Tip bullets on deer a while back.

So if you have a bullet designed to expand properly to achieve the desired penetration (lots) at 1500fps, if it hits at 1000fps, there's a much smaller chance it will expand.

When we talk about game dropping "like it was hit by lightning", we're usually talking about hitting it with something like the canonical .270 load, which is going over 3000fps/

If you really think some sort of .30-caliber necked down cartridge has merit, it should be easy enough to evaluate: pick a platform you can launch them from (eg. Tok, some pistol with sabots, or a rifle loaded down a bunch), get the bullets you think would suit your scheme, and shoot it into calibrated ballistic gelatin.

-z

[ElAlumno]

It has been well known amoung a few experts that as caliber gets smaller and velocity gets higher a tremendous increase in penetration occurs.

Sorry, but that is incorrect. A 5.56 penetrates less than many 9mm, that is why many SWAT units are using it for CQB/engry guns. Goes through a vest but will not over penetrate on flesh.

All this was not lost to some military arms developers which years later resulted in FN's new .22 caliber assault pistol that out penetrates any handgun caliber

Again, incorrect. The round in question is the 5.7x28mm SS190 and was designed to penetrate body armor but not over penetrate a human. The SS190 has unique design, utilizing two metal inserts. The tip of the ogive has a steel penetrator followed by an aluminum core that is heavier than the forward tip. This causes the bullet to tumble in soft body tissue after 2 inches of penetration. This design virtually eliminates the risk of over penetration. This also creates a large wound cavity and quick incapacitation. The SS190 will perforate 48 layers of Kevlar up to 200 meters when fired from the P90 and achieve the same result up to 50 meters with the Five-seveN handgun.

I think your overall understanding is incorrect and thus your theory has some major flaws in it.

[s&w 24]

the problem I would see is that you would need to develope a new bullet. Current 30 cal pistol bulets anre all in the 10o grain catigory and I think that they are too light something in the 120 to 130 grain class would be better but then you need a longer case neck to support the bullet wich cuts back on powder capasity and you loose velocity.

P.S. ruger made a small run of p89's with an extra 30 luger barrel
+p+ 30 luger anyone ?

[Gewehr98]

P.S. ruger made a small run of p89's with an extra 30 luger barrel
+p+ 30 luger anyone ?

Sure! Czech CZ-52, 7.62x25 Tokarev Czech-specification handloads, Sierra 85gr RNSP, AA #7, 1700+ fps. Piece of cake! ;)

[BHP9]

Same velocity out of my 4" Model 19. Certainly quite a bit snappier recoil, but still not bad at all. Not unlike a light-weight 40 S&W.

It long been known that the model 19 even with the double heat treatment they recieve is not a gun you want to put a lot of rounds through. This is exactly why Smith developed the heavier model L frame. Gunsmiths of the past have told me it was not unusual to see Model 19's in for repair after firing only about 2,000 full power .357 magnum loads out of them.

I'm also very interested in seeing what sort of barrel life will be realized out of these rounds. I'm suspecting that it's not going to be very good at all.

I think you are confusing rifle barrel life with pistol barrel life. There is a tremedous difference. All one has to do is look at the barrel life of the .30 Tokerof or the .30 Mauser. I have shot .30 Mausers that were at least 80 years old which had untold thousands of rounds shot out of them and they were still giving accuracy that was sometimes better than brand new pistols that I had bought in larger calibers proving not only that the .30 Mauser was not hard on barrels but that it was an outstandingly accurate caliber.

I think the 30/357 Sig would be very similiar to the .30 Mauser ballistically and also have similiar barrel life.

I do not think the public often even gives a thought to barrel life anyway. If they did the market for magnum rifle cartridges would be 1/10 of what it is now. The public seldom thinks ahead as to what the cost actually is when they have to rebarrel a high power rifle and in the case of the new Remington Plastic 712 rifle you can only throw it into the trash because it is not rebarrelable both in mechanical terms and cost terms. So the public just is not going to consider it when purchasing the weapon.

Many of the public never even get around to shooting their weapons enough to wear the barrel out so for them the worry of barrel replacement is not a concern.

I think no matter how you look at it barrel life is not an issue. I think the barrel will last longer than most shooters will.

[BHP9]

All this was not lost to some military arms developers which years later resulted in FN's new .22 caliber assault pistol that out penetrates any handgun caliber

Again, incorrect. The round in question is the 5.7x28mm SS190 and was designed to penetrate body armor but not over penetrate a human.

I think you are contradicting yourself here. Since the 5.7x28mm does penetrate body armor and the other handgun calibers do not this only proves what I stated in the beginning.

Sorry, but that is incorrect. A 5.56 penetrates less than many 9mm, that is why many SWAT units are using it for CQB/engry guns. Goes through a vest but will not over penetrate on flesh

Here again the U.S. military proved the 5.56 mm with the newer heavier bullets and faster 1-7 twist penetrates old style steel helmets up to 400 meters while the 9mm only penetrates them up to 130 yards and the .45acp only at 30 yards.

I think you were referring to the use of expanding bullets or the use of the older 55 grain fmj military loading that often tumbled when hitting a human target.

[Frohickey]

You either have penetration, or you have expansion. You have to give up a little on one to get the other.

Or you change the bullet, make it one of those Barnes X solids, or Swift A-frames, or Nosler Partitions.

How about just chambering a semi-auto in the 22 Hornet. I bet that would give you penetration as well.

[Tamara]

You are still not describing the differences in effectiveness in penetrating hard targets, soft targets, and ballistic weave. Why not? They are governed by different mechanisms...

[Handy]

I don't understand why you're stopping at an arbitrary .30 caliber. If you use a .17 caliber bullet fired from a necked down .40 case you could get velocities in the mid 2500s. Provide expansion by the same method as a expanding/hinged broadhead.;)



BHP9, the .30 Mauser is not so much an accurate bullet as it is an accurate gun. The accuracy lies in barrel fixed to the sights. Even a .40 broomhandle would display outstanding accuracy. Give credit where it's due.

[BHP9]

So if you have a bullet designed to expand properly to achieve the desired penetration (lots) at 1500fps, if it hits at 1000fps, there's a much smaller chance it will expand.

You are absolutely correct and this is why people should not place so much faith in expanding bullets. For example you told of the .45acp bullet designed to expand at around 850 fps but as the range increase the expansion will go down or fail to expand at all. Penetration also suffers. Starting out with a caliber with tremendous penetration like the .30 caliber pistol cartridges you have a caliber that penetrate at ranges where other calibers fail because the other cartridges were marginal to begin with. This is not to say that the .30 caliber cartridges will always expand perfectly but at the longer ranges they still will penetrate better even though they too have slowed down in velocity. This was dramatically proven in the Thomson tests when they increased the range while using the slower .45 caliber revolver cartridges as compared to the faster .30 luger cartridge.

In a test with hard cast bullets I once conducted I took an old piece of sheet metal that was about the same thickness as the average 55 gallon steel drum. I shot the piece of sheet metal with hard cast bullets out of a .30 Mauser, 9mm Luger and a .45acp. As the range increased the first failure to penetrate was with the .45 acp the second failure as the range increased was with the 9mm and the last failure was with the .30 Mauser. Proving that the smaller faster pistol calibers do outpenetrate the slower bigger calibers as the range increases. Penetration would have been much better of course with all the calibers if I had used full metal jacketed bullets but the principle remains the same.

[BHP9]

BHP9, the .30 Mauser is not so much an accurate bullet as it is an accurate gun. The accuracy lies in barrel fixed to the sights. Even a .40 broomhandle would display outstanding accuracy. Give credit where it's due.

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I was giving the Mauser only as an example of how long the barrel lasted proving that the caliber was not hard on barrels.

[Mike Irwin]

"I think you are confusing rifle barrel life with pistol barrel life."

No, you took a seque over to talking about the new new series of rifle cartridges, and that's what I was talking about.

Overbore rifle cartridges have a very nasty habit of being very hard on the throat and leade, and these "short fat magnums" as you classify them are nothing if not overbore.

As for the Model 19, that's true, it's not known to be the strongest revolver around. What you gain in ergonomics you lose in overall strength.

That does not take away from the fact, though, that the 19 is perfectly capable of handling such loads.

Nor, for that matter, are the L frame or the similarly sized Rugers, none of which are the monsterous behemouths that you apparently think are necessary to fire larger bullets at higher velocities.


"I have shot .30 Mausers that were at least 80 years old which had untold thousands of rounds shot out of them and they were still giving accuracy that was sometimes better than brand new pistols that I had bought in larger calibers proving not only that the .30 Mauser was not hard on barrels but that it was an outstandingly accurate caliber."

Actually, the only thing that it really proves is that that particular Mauser wasn't shot a lot.

If there is one overriding truism about the vast majority of C96 Mausers it is that they come with barrels that are little more than sewer pipes.

Why?

Because corrosive ammunition, hotter powders, and softer steels.

Extensive shooting with European smokeless powders of that time, which were normally double based and high in nitroglycerine and consequently burned very hot as compared to single base powders, or even today's double based powders, led to a lot of washed out barrels, with the corrosive priming taking care of the rest.

[Mike Irwin]

Handy,

I personally think phonograph needles are the way to go.

[George Hill]

Read some William Gibson stories about Molly and her "Fletchet Pistol".


Other than that, this is one of the more silly threads I've read this week.

[Boats]

It's not officially ridiculous until I suggest that the 10mm be necked down to hold six one millimeter, 30 grain projectiles launched in a sabot traveling nearly 1700 fps. The projectiles would be made of barbed depleted uranium with a hollowpoint filled with 10mgs of concentrated nicotine resin.

Just think of pre-expanded superpenetrators capable of taking out a 602 pound mule sitting in a half-track with a steel pot on his head by heart attack if necessary!

[Zak Smith]

BHP9,

So what are you after, just penetration? For nonexpanding bullets, the one with the most velocity * sectional density will win. No argument there.


You are absolutely correct and this is why people should not place so much faith in expanding bullets. For example you told of the .45acp bullet designed to expand at around 850 fps but as the range increase the expansion will go down or fail to expand at all.
For two bullets with the same BC, the one that starts out at 2x the speed of the other will lose a larger percentage of its muzzle velocity at 100 yards than the one that starts out slower.

In particular, for a BC of 0.15, a bullet that starts at 800fps will only drop to 733fps at 100 yards, a loss of about 9%. Another bullet with BC of 0.15 shot at 1600fps will drop to 1231fps at 100 yards, for a loss of about 23%.

The point should be obvious: those bullets that rely on high terminal velocity for proper expansion & penetration (combined), so that they do not over-expand and under-penetrate at very close distances, will become more rapidly less effective as the distance increases.

In 5.56mm, M193 and M855 are prime examples: above about 2700fps terminal velocity, they dramatically fragment. Under somewhere in the range of 2200-2500fps, they more or less poke .22" diameter holes.


Contrast to the .45ACP, which is like the 800fps bullet in the example: it only loses 67fps and is probably still within the design range for expansion.

And what happens when these JHP's happen to not expand? They give you what you wanted in the first place: more penetration.


-z

[tex_n_cal]

Hmmm....a 10mm case necked to .17...


....hmmm...

I wonder if a .221 fireball would fit in a Desert Eagle?

[BHP9]

For two bullets with the same BC, the one that starts out at 2x the speed of the other will lose a larger percentage of its muzzle velocity at 100 yards than the one that starts out slower.

I think that you are now getting into a discussion that could be proved either way depending on what bullet, what velocity, what weight, what caliber etc. etc.

In a more down to earth experiment try shooting at unknown longer ranges as I have. At around 100 yards the .45 just barely makes it there providing you give it just the right elevation so you can connect with what you are shooting at. When using a fast stepping caliber like the .30 Mauser or 9mm luger it at 100yards is still traveling a lot faster and in the case of the .30 mauser really cracking. Hits a 100 yards are not difficult.

If none of this were true then the superior penetration of the .30 Mauser and 9mm Luger would not take place. Notice the tremedous difference in the U.S. military test trials of 1945 where the 9mm luger using fmj bullets blasted right through a steel helmet at 130 yards while the slower moving .45 bounced off at 30 yards.

Although it may be true that the higher velocity bullet does indeed lose a higher percentage of its velocity at 100 yards this does not mean that it is still not traveling faster and penetrating deeper than the example you quoted in the .45 acp that lost less velocity but was still traveling way slower.

If none of this were true than it would be the .45 not the 9mm or the .30 Mauser that would have the superior penetration way out yonder so to speak. Real tests proved all of this a half a century ago.

I hate to keep bringing up an old , old test I performed many years ago when I was just little more than a kid but when using a full power hard cast bullet in a .45 ACP at almost point blank range on a 55 gallon drum it only went through one side of the drum and fell down inside the drum when it bounced off the opposite wall of the steel drum. I then shot the same drum with a weak down loaded way less than full power load in 9mm again with the same hard cast bullet and it easily zipped through both sides of the drum and kept on going.

So in other words even though way back then before I had ever even heard of the U.S. military test trials I was in a way duplicating what they had already done and found out years earlier. That smaller high velocity bullets do indeed penetrate way better than bigger bullets traveling at less speed even though the bigger bullets are heavier and lose their velocity less they do indeed lose velocity and since it is low to begin with they cannot afford to lose the velocity like the much faster smaller bullet can. In other words even if the smaller bullet loses a higher percentage of velocity it still has more than enough velocity left over to penetrate and do the job and once again this was proven by U.S. military test trials and my own more humble tests years ago.

[BHP9]

In 5.56mm, M193 and M855 are prime examples: above about 2700fps terminal velocity, they dramatically fragment. Under somewhere in the range of 2200-2500fps, they more or less poke .22" diameter holes.

I do not know where you are getting your information but I have found that bullets fragment in the air while on the way to the target if the rifling twist to too fast for the thickness of the bullets jacket coupled with to fast a velocity.

You can take a military 55 grain .22 caliber bullet put it in a .220 swift and shoot it at 3,700 fps and it does not disentegrate on the way to the target and it does not desintegrate when passing through the target (a woodchuck) as long as bone is not hit which will cause it to tumble and deform or break apart. The swift with its 1 in 14 twist is slow enough not to destroy the bullets jacket. This same bullet fired out of a twist as fast as 1 in 10 as in my Mini-14 rifle at around 3,000 fps will also not disintegrate on the way to the target or when it passes through it. As a matter of fact we even fired these bullets through thick plate winshield glass in an old automobile and although a fair amount did break apart they did it after penetrating through the glass and some did not break apart and those that did, did not always totally disintegrate. I think for such a small light bullet this is outstanding performace considering how tough automobile glass is and one must also consider the fact that the windshields were at an angle , we did not take the windshield out of the car and stand it up vertically. If we had I think a very much larger percentage of the bullets would have made it through without breaking up.

The one big problem with the newer military loading that I believe is around 62 grains with a steel penetrator insert is that although it will penetrate an old style helmet at 400 meters it will usually not tumble as readily as the older 55 grain loading that would tumble if it encountered bone. Even the older 55 graind loading did not always tumble when stricking flesh if it did not encounter a solid object like bone or thick muscle to help deflect it.

[ElAlumno]

I think you are contradicting yourself here. Since the 5.7x28mm does penetrate body armor and the other handgun calibers do not this only proves what I stated in the beginning.

Penetration of body armor is a specialized application. I took your discussion to be penetration in the terminal ballistic sense since that was what you were discussing an alluded to with this question ” "What new caliber based on this theory would be a superior police and civilian round?“.

If you are talking about penetration against body armor only, then you are correct the FN 5.7x28mm does out penetrate pistol calibers.

Here again the U.S. military proved the 5.56 mm with the newer heavier bullets and faster 1-7 twist penetrates old style steel helmets up to 400 meters while the 9mm only penetrates them up to 130 yards and the .45acp only at 30 yards.

I guess I am confused here. Are we talking terminal ballistics against a human target or are we talking about performance against body armor?

You seem to allude to a new round that will offer superior terminal ballistics against human targets based on velocity.

I think you were referring to the use of expanding bullets or the use of the older 55 grain fmj military loading that often tumbled when hitting a human target.

I am talking about the use of the 5.56 for SD/HD and SWAT type operations, wherein the target is a human. In such a case, contrary to your claim, velocity does NOT give us a ”… tremendous increase in penetration…”. Very often it gives us the exact opposite.

Let me point out some further confusions.

Starting out with a caliber with tremendous penetration like the .30 caliber pistol cartridges

This is a statement that cannot be made accurately. Depending upon the construction of the bullet and the velocity it is launched at, you may have extremely deep penetration or extremely shallow penetration. Without stating what you are launching, claims to penetration are unsubstantiated.

Proving that the smaller faster pistol calibers do outpenetrate the slower bigger calibers as the range increases.

Are we talking shooting metal drums or people? Because such experiments as you describe really have no applicability if we are talking about terminal ballistics against humans.

BTW, the NATO test for the SS109/M855 penetration against a steel helmet were at 600 meters.

I believe is around 62 grains with a steel penetrator insert is that although it will penetrate an old style helmet at 400 meters it will usually not tumble as readily as the older 55 grain loading that would tumble if it encountered bone. Even the older 55 graind loading did not always tumble when stricking flesh if it did not encounter a solid object like bone or thick muscle to help deflect it.

Again, sorry but this is incorrect. The function of both rounds are more due to velocity than anything else. The “tumbling” is more like fragmenting and separation at the cannelure. It has been found that for the 5.56 to do this reliably it must have a velocity at least of 2700fps. Hence, the velocity is not giving it penetration but fragmentation and limited penetration.

See, BHP, I guess I am still confused at what you are looking for. Penetration against tissue? Penetration against body armor? Penetration against metal barriers? Terminal ballistics? They are not the same, just like velocity is not an insurer of penetration.

[ElAlumno]

A small example, based on the FBI Handgun Ammunition Tests of 1989-1995 you have the following results

FN 5.7X28mm 23.5gr., @ 2855fps

Penetration:

Bare gelatin = 9.40 inches

Steel = 4.9 inches

Auto glass = 0.7 inches

.45ACP, 230gr., @ 837fps

Penetration:

Bare gelatin = 39.5 inches

Steel = 31.3 inches

Auto glass = 14.9 inches

Yet the 5.7X28 will penetrate a ballistic vest while the .45ACP will not.

[Mikul]

I like the idea. There is a lot to be said for the 7.62x25 Tokarev round. The idea presented adresses the alleged size problem. Of course, the size of the case allows enough powder to push that 85 grain bullet to 1,900fps out of a handgun. Woo Hoo.

With today's metals and gunpowder, it seems reasonable to explore the possibility of achieving the same performance with a smaller round.

I would also like to see at least a 100 grain bullet, but that's a prejudice I have based on existing rounds. Play with the 85 grains and see what their performance is. I hope it's surprising.

[Zak Smith]

I said:

In 5.56mm, M193 and M855 are prime examples: above about 2700fps terminal velocity, they dramatically fragment. Under somewhere in the range of 2200-2500fps, they more or less poke .22" diameter holes.

Then you replied:


I do not know where you are getting your information but I have found that bullets fragment in the air while on the way to the target if the rifling twist to too fast for the thickness of the bullets jacket coupled with to fast a velocity.


ammo-oracle.com:


Q. So, velocity is a critical component for the wound profile. How fast must the bullet be traveling when it hits its target in order to fragment reliably?

Testing by combat surgeon Col. Martin L. Fackler, MD (USA Medical Corps, retired), determined that M193 and M855 bullets need to strike flesh at 2,700 feet per second in order to reliably fragment. Between 2,500 fps and 2,700 fps, the bullet may or may not fragment and below 2,500 fps, no significant fragmentation is likely to occur. If there isn't enough velocity to cause fragmentation, the result is a deep, 22 caliber hole, except an area where the yawing occurred, where the diameter of the hole grows briefly to the length of the bullet.


FirearmsTactical.com:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs13.htm


You can take a military 55 grain .22 caliber bullet put it in a .220 swift and shoot it at 3,700 fps and it does not disentegrate on the way to the target and it does not desintegrate when passing through the target (a woodchuck) as


So your wonder-round is for woodchucks? I thought we were talking about humans.

-z

[Handy]

Hey Mike Irwin,

Back on page one, were you trying to say that most full sized guns, including the Beretta 92 and Glock 17, could be chambered in .30 Mauser/Tokarev?

I was under the impression that the round is too long for all 9mm based platforms, both in magazine length and slide travel.

[Tamara]

He didn't say the Beretta 92 or the Glock 17. He said:

Kind of a nebulous statement, don't you think?

MOST existing auto loading pistols?

You mean the 1911s, the Berettas, the Taurui, the S&Ws, the Rugers, the Glocks, etc. etc. etc.

All of the full-size models perfectly capable of handling the Tokarev round.

Even some of the smaller compact models should be more than capable of handling the Tokarev round. For example, the Glock compact in 10mm.

By his specific reference of the G29 rather than the G26, I took this to read that any gun sized for the .45ACP or 10mm Auto could handle 7.62x25 without too much work (although it is a smidgen longer in max OAL...)

[Handy]

Well, that's what I was asking.


"All of the full-size models..." you see.

[Dr.Rob]

aside from the need for a thicker case mouth to prevent bullet set back (which the 357 sig is notorious fro), and barrel throat erosion cause by pushing the velocity envelope.

So what I'm seeing is a 30 cal 165 spbt at say, 2000fps?

Sounds like it would kick like a 30-30 contender.

[BHP9]

See, BHP, I guess I am still confused at what you are looking for. Penetration against tissue? Penetration against body armor? Penetration against metal barriers? Terminal ballistics? They are not the same, just like velocity is not an insurer of penetration

I guess we totally agree to disagree. Penetration is paramount if incapacitation is the goal. A bullet that does not reach the vital organs does not incompacitate or terminate the target. When a round refuses to penetrate one materiel it usually fails to varying degrees in other materiels as well. In the real world human targets don't pose and stand around wainting to be shot, they hide behind barriers of, wood ,safety glass, steel doors etc. , wear protective body armor, wear thick winter clothing , I could go on and on. This is why penetration is often such an advantage in a handgun caliber that does so.

So your wonder-round is for woodchucks? I thought we were talking about humans.

The woodchuck is very relavent to the depate being that it is a living organism and it proves that the military 5.56mm bullet can not be counted on to perform in textbook like fashion according to the slide rule kids. Real life tests have proved this. I am not saying that the military 5.56 bullet has not disintegrated but that it can not in any way be counted on to do it consistantly. Most of the chucks I shot simply had a small hole drilled right through them. If the 5.56 mm behaved as the slide rule kids would have everyone believe the bullet would have at least yawed to some degree which would have been very evident as to the damage done to the chuck. It simply was not there most of the time .

ONe of the reaons I did this was because of the sensational news media reports that were published back in the late 1960's about the tumbling affects of the 5.56mm. Wild claims were made that it literally chopped people in two. I still have one news media report that claimed an enemy soldier was hit in the finger and died instantly from the shock. At the time it reminded me of the older, wilder stories about the .45 ACP spinning people around even if they were hit in the finger or arm.

I think the old test from the early part of this century that involved the .30 Luger dropping a 1,300 pound steer proved that you do not need expanding bullets to kill creatures many times larger than the handgun caliber was even meant to be used for and it proved that the smaller high velocity calibers have plenty of penetration to do the job and contrary to established beliefs over the the years are not the inferior calibers that many people have been led to believe.

P.O. Ackely's tests a half century ago proved that the pip squeak 48 grain bullet of the .220 Swift drilled right through armor plate when the hevier armor piercing 30-06 faild to do so. Seeing is believing and P.O. Ackley proved it. He also proved that it killed 600 pound burros quicker and faster than many of the much bigger and heavier calibers that were also used to dispatch the burros. Once again he proved all this with tests that had numerous witnesses. The info did not come out of a Government lab from Government people who we all know always tell the truth and are never incompetant.

[BHP9]

For those of you that think the 30 Mauser could be chambered in many of the more modern handguns I suggest you take a round and stick it in the 9mm magazine. I tried it on a Berretta and it in no way would be able to be chambered in this gun unless some serious enlarging of the frame took place which would weaken the frame seriously.

I think even if we were to do this it still misses my whole point. i.e. that people think newer is better and a new handgun round would capture a lot more interest than an old one even though there may be little difference between them. People would not realize this and there would be a big rush to buy and test the new round. Look at all the hoopla over the new short magnums in rifle calibers. If there ever was an example of useless duplication this is a prime example of it.

Something new generates interest and as I said before people would buy to try it and a lot of them would like it. They would be far less likely to try the same handgun chambered for an old, old caliber.

[Mike Irwin]

Handy,

Glock, Taurus, Ruger, Beretta, etc., all make guns chambered either for 10mm, .45 ACP, or both.


"Something new generates interest and as I said before people would buy to try it and a lot of them would like it."

.22 Jet

.256 Win. Mag.

.32 Magnum

9mm Ultra

.41 Action Express

10mm Magnum

.451 Dectonics

and, unless I badly miss my guess, the .45 Glock...

All new, all ballyhooed, all sank faster than lead bricks even though they were new, had lots to recommend them according to many pundits...

[BHP9]

All new, all ballyhooed, all sank faster than lead bricks even though they were new, had lots to recommend them according to many pundits...

You forgot the 40 S&W and it did not flop.

There is also the new .480 Ruger.

There is the new S&W 50.

But even more interesting to a lot bigger crowd of people is the new pocket pistol cartridges. There is a necked down 32/380 and a necked down 25/32acp, now this is the first big improvement in pocket pistol cartridges in about 100 years. These two new pocket calibers may be around long after the .480 Ruger and .50 S&W have turned to dust, and I might ad they are not something just dreamed up to promote gun sales like the .480 Ruger or .50 Smith was. Yes, they are more powerful than the .44 magnum but they are specialized cartridges that were ment for hunting and we all know each year the hunter is fast becoming a vanishing breed of American. On the other hand the new little pocket calibers appeal to a much wider market of gun owners and if given the right advertisement as to their worth they just could become extremely successfull.

Nothing is for certain in life and some very, very good cartridges got killed under some very unusual circumstances. How many people know what a superior cartridge the .222 Rem.Magnum was compared the inferior .223 Remington. Sound like crazed heresy. Any real rifle nut knows only how true that statement is but since the .223 was a military cartridge with all the ballyhoo and cheap penny a piece surplus brass the .222 Magnum never stood a ghost of a chance except amoung people who really new and understood rifles and cartridges and they unfortunately were not numerous enough to save it.

And how about the .280 Remnington, it was way better than the .270 ever was because of the wide variety of heavy weight bullets available for it over the years making it a much more versatile big game cartridge but did it knock off the .270? Nope, because their was no Jack O'Conner to promote it or sing its praises and only a few real rifleman new how good it really was compared to the .270 and the dearth of bullet weights that were available for it for so many years. Its only been in recent years that the selection of bullets for the .270 has expanded and we still don't have any really good heavy weights available for it. At least none that are readily available to the average Joe buying at the average gun shop.

And just one more. How about the forgotton .225 Winchester cartridge. If it had been made a commercial cartridge years sooner, today there is a very good possiblilty that the 22-250 would only be some obscure wildcat cartridge that was introduced commercially for a short while and then flopped and passed into obscurity.

Few people today ever heard of the .225 Winchester or realize how good a round it really was.

[Tamara]

There is a necked down 32/380 and a necked down 25/32acp, now this is the first big improvement in pocket pistol cartridges in about 100 years. These two new pocket calibers may be around long after the .480 Ruger and .50 S&W have turned to dust, and I might ad they are not something just dreamed up to promote gun sales like the .480 Ruger or .50 Smith was.

Thought you'd want to know that the .25 NAA was DOA and doesn't show up on Cor-Bon's price list any more. Unless people start chambering real guns in .32 NAA, it's likely to follow.

[Zak Smith]

BHP9,

You might take a look at .38Casull and Bill Caldwell's .224Zipper:

.38Casull http://www.casullarms.com/handguns1.htm has a bore size of .355", and fires a 124gr at over 1800fps, or a 147gr at over 1650 fps. I think those values are for a 6" barrel.

.224Zipper http://www.pistolsmith.com/viewtopic.php?t=6048 fires a 40gr bullet at 2200fps. He also said,

I've got a 308 running 110gr bullets way faster than a 30 Mauser. With a 125grHP/FN Sierra 2020, may rank with the deadliest of all defense loads. I have a 25(257) and am working on a 264.

These were all built in a 1911 platform. All realization takes is application of enough $$.

regards
Zak

[Zak Smith]

Another, cheaper, alternative for testing would be a .45ACP, 10mm, or 9x23 with the appropriate sabot.

-z

[Mike Irwin]

You're right, some pistol cartridges didn't flop at the starting gate.

Yet that wasn't the point of my comment, which was to put the truth to your statement that anything new and seemingly sparkly in the world of handguns and cartridges is an immediate, resounding success.

The .40 didn't flop for one reason, and one reason alone -- by the time it came out as a commercial product people in the gun world had been fed a steady diet for nearly 4 years about:

A) How horribly the 9mm failed in Miami.

B) How the 10mm was good, but that it just wasn't quite right.

and C) How this new, shortened 10mm, called the .40 S&W, was going to be the greatest thing since pre-lubed bullets.

There were numerous positively GLOWING write-ups in the gun magazines prior to the .40 being released to the public saying how wonderfully it performed in the FBI tests, how it would be the PERFECT fit between the 9mm and the .45, how it would give capacity almost to the level of the 9mm, fit in a handgun the size of the 9mm, but give ballistics close to the .45.

It was, quite literally, touted as the second coming of Christ, or John Moses Browning, which ever one fits.

Smith & Wesson, Sig, and Glock took ENORMOUS advance orders for the .40 S&W from their civilian distributors. The public was clamoring to get them, and the clamor increased as more and more police forces indicated that they were very, very interested in testing and/or adopting the .40 S&W.

In very rapid fashing the California Highway Patrol adopted the .40. The Pennsylvania State Police adopted the .40. Other, smaller, forces adopted the .40.

Some police forces even dropped the 9mms they had adopted less than 5 years before in the face of the "Wonder 9 movement" and adopted the .40.

Do you really think that with that kind of lead up the .40 had any chance of civilian failure?

The pump, as it was, was FULLY primed long before the first .40s ever hit the civilian market.

It was fascinating to sit behind my desk at American Rifleman magazine and talk to the representatives of the firearms and ammo companies about how they had never, ever seen anything like the run up to the .40, and how it largely had everything to do with the attention that the gun press had given it.

Do you really think that a .30/.357 cartridge would get that kind of run up? If the .357 Sig couldn't get that kind of run up, what makes you think a subwildcat would?

"These two new pocket calibers may be around long after the .480 Ruger and .50 S&W have turned to dust..."

You're JOKING, right? Christ, have you even been following what's going on with these two rounds, or other, similar rounds that have been introduced?

So far the result has been a large, industry- and public-wide, collective YAWN. I give the .32 NAA no more than another year before it quietly dies for lack of the wild public acclaim for something new.

As Tamara notes, the .25 NAA is already dog food. That may well have been one of the fastest birth-to-death announcements in the history of the handgun world. It might even rival the 9mm Federal, which had a birth to death of less than a year.


"They weren't dreamed up just to promote gun sales."

Now that's one of the most foolish statements I've ever heard in all of my life. That should go into the thread in General about some of the truly ludicrous things that people have said about guns.

Here's a little hint for you. NO company would go through the hassle and expense of research and development if it didn't think that it would result in a salable product.

To think otherwise is the heighth of stupidity. These companies are first and foremost in the business of selling products. If they don't sell products, they don't suceed as a business.

NAA introduced its two new cartridges with the expectation that they would sell. It spent a lot of good money developing the cartridges with the expectation that people would believe that they had something to offer.

Do you really think that NAA brought these cartridges to market, spending quite possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars in total, in some sort of esoteric Zen-based experiment?

There are many other handgun cartridges that also rest on modern scrap heap. Why? Because the massive public infatuation with something "new" just wasn't there, and yet ALL were brought to market in an attempt to gain market share.

To think otherwise is to admit to the world that you possess no working knowledge of how business operates.

Finally, given the widespread availability of small to very small handguns firing recognized rounds like the 9mm, .357 Sig., .40 S&W, and even the .45, all service rounds, there's even less serious expectation that a sub-caliber round such as this would catch on.

Oh well, as Zak says. All you need is money. I recommend that you sell your home and all of your possessions to raise working capital, and go on a crusade to develop this round.

See where it gets you.

As if most of us couldn't tell you that already.

[George Hill]

The Miami event wasn't an indictment of the 9MM, but of the loads used. And if I recall there was only 1 or 2 FBI agents armed with 9MM pistols wasn't there? I thought most were armed with .38s.

[Mike Irwin]

Oh, and the .270 Winchester vs. the .280 Remington?

Given that they both have virtually the exact same range of bullet weights, from about 100 grains to about 170 grains, any perceived advantage of one over the other is purely fairy tale.

But what could be the TRUE reason for the .270s pre-eminence in the mid-caliber field over Remington?

Could it be that the .270 is truly a superior cartridge? Nope, the .270 and .280 are virtual ballistic twins.

Could be simply be that Jack O'Connor latched onto the .270 in some sort of payola deal with Winchester? Nope, that's not it, either...

Oh, I know!

It's the simple fact that Remington gave Winchester a THIRTY-TWO year head start!

Winchester brought out the .270 in 1925. Remington didn't even bother investigating the mid-caliber market until after World War II, and FINALLY chimed in with the .280 in 1957.

The only reason that the .280 didn't beat the .270 is because the .270 was well established. Rifle shooters looked at the .280 and said what everyone who really knows the truth about these two cartridges said -- the .280 offers no true advantage over the .270, so why should I switch?

Remington has a LONG history of flubbing cartridge introductions by either hitting the market way too late, or hitting the market with the wrong thing at the wrong time by totally messing up what the consumer is looking for.

A good example of this is the .243 Winchester vs. the .244 Remington. For once Remington was there at the ground floor. Both cartridges were announced in 1955, but once again, Remington screwed the pooch.

Winchester correctly saw that the .243 would need to be a versatile round, capable of taking both varmints and medium-sized game, so it not only offered a range of bullet weights suitable for varmints through deer-sized game, it offered rifles with the correct barrel twist to stabilize the full range.

Remington, on the other hand, just didn't grasp that concept, and totally flubbed the .244's introducting by trying to pawn it off as a purely varmint rifle.

The 1 in 12 twist on the .244 just simply wouldn't stabilize the heavier bullets that hunters wanted for deer-sized game, so that was a no brainer which cartridge they would turn to.

The .243 and .244 both sold well in the initial year, but sales of the .244 quickly dropped off as people realized that it wasn't a deer rifle, and wasn't capable of stabilizing heavier bullets.

What did Remington do? Correct the mistake immediately?

Nope, waited 8 years to do anything about it, by which time the .243 was SOLIDLY established as the pacesetter in this caliber range.

The 6.5 Rem. Mag., the .350 Rem. Mag., the 8mm Rem. Mag., the .244/6mm Rem., and the .280/7mm Rem.

All decent cartridges, yet all failures for one reason or another that are largely attributable to Remington's piss poor timing or lousy reading of the consumer market.

The only TRUE success story in Remington's commercial cartridge development efforts since World War II?

The 7mm Remington Magnum.

But yet, in its own way, another failure, only this time a failure of what MIGHT have been.

Remington brought out a single cartridge, whereas Winchester brought out a family of magnum cartridges based on a magnum case -- .264, .300, and .338 magnums, nicely bracketing the range of calibers that the post war shooter was most interested in, and gaining the market share that Remington could have had a piece of had they had the foresight to actually play in the market.

All of it really goes to a single point.

Failure, even if it's cloaked in the aura of moderate success, is not an original concept.

[Mike Irwin]

George,

That's very true.

But that's also NOT the perception that the average gunowner came away with after reading the hundreds of thousands of words that were written in the popular gun press about the Miami fiasco.

The overriding impression that most people got was that the 9mm failed.

Not that the 9mm Winchester Silvertip performed almost exactly as it was designed to do.

But that the 9mm, as a complete package, failed to perform.

Package that with the "obvious" implication given by FBI's investigation into, and later adoption of, the 10mm and the development of the .40 S&W, and the mad rush away from the 9mm by many police forces that had madly rushed to the 9mm only a few years before, and the implication for many people was very, very clear -- the 9mm sucks. It's worthless as a round if you have to actually shoot someone with it.

It didn't matter that FBI's training, tactics, preparation, and apprehension methods likely would have given the same results even if the agents had been armed with bazookas.

It all boiled down to one conclusion in the public's eye -- the 9mm sucks -- which was spoon-fed to them by the popular gun press.

[KPersimmon]

Look out, Ma!
Here comes another "best pistol cartridge!"

:rolleyes:

[Gewehr98]

I kinda liked the 9mm Federal. No moon clips in a J-Frame. I was gonna get a bunch of the brass, and a Model 940. Then I got a Jones for the Model 547, the K-frame 9mm with the goofy extractor...:(

[BHP9]

Your way off the mark in regards to the 25/32 and 32/380. If you were paying attention to what I was saying you would have realized that given the right promotion along with a weapon that the people perceive to be of quality (notice I said perceive) that these cartridges have a lot to offer in performace over what has been available previously. Are you going to tell me that the original 25 acp. and original .32acp are better cartridges? I think not! The only problem with the newer cartidges is that people do not know they exist or how good they are and without the proper promotion they will never know. Without the proper payolay going to the Gun magazines the public never will know.

As I said before, just because a cartridge has a lot of merit like the .222 Magnum did, is no guarentee it will be accepted, largely because of the lack of education in the general public.

You are also almost 100 per cent wrong about the .270/280. While I will concede the .270 did have a big jump on the .280 nothing would have prevented an educated public from switching over to something way more versitile like the .280 because of all the heavy weight bullets that were readily available for it (notice I said readily available). And of course the 7x57 Mauser was available even before the .270 was but it did not and never has had the sensational press coverage the .270 got.

While the really knowledgeable riflemen who were few in number were using the 7x57, like Jim Corbett, who killed the most dangerous beasts of prey on earth , the' Man Eating Tigers of Kumaon' and W.D.M. Bell who blasted hundreds of the largest animal on earth off its feet with the 7x57 , the African Elephant ,neither man would have chosen to use the .270 if it had been available to them at the time and for a very good reason, it was way inferior to the 7mm because of the lack of heavy bullet weights available for it back then and even today.

So as you can see you were wrong Mike , History has proven you wrong. Perhaps you should read some of the classic books on hunting to find out how good and superior the 7mm's really were with their very long and heavy weight bullets.

So once again it is not how great a cartridge really is, its what kind of sensational press it gets and what kind of weapons it happens to be chambered in. Every wonder how far the .223 would have got if it had not become a military cartridge, it would have died on the drawing room floor.

And lets not forget what a failure the .264 Winchester magnum was. Not that is wan't a very good cartridge but it just never caught on.


And Mike if you think Remington dropped the ball when they brought out the 7mm Remington Magnum one of the most successful magnum cartridges of all time then you are not the gun writer you imagine yourself to be.

Ever hear of Warren Page Mike? Although he was not the charasmatic gun writer that old "Jack" was he was far more knowledegable about rifles than Jack could have ever hoped to have been. Not to knock Jack, he was one of my very favorites but Warren was the one that contributed most to the world of rifles both in the bench rest game and hunting fields. Rather than promote the inferior .270 he promoted the then wildcat 7mm Mashburn Magnum that eventually prodded Remington into bringing out their own 7mm Magnum.

And what did Warren use in bullet weights , he sure as hell did not use the 130 grain bullet or 140 grain bullet in the 7mm. He used a 175 grain bullet at a thundering 3,000 fps out of a 22 inch barrel. In other words he knew what Jack and you did not know and that was when shooting really big game the heavier weight bullets were the way to go. Thats exactly why he also did not choose the inferior light bullet shooting .270.

I am not knocking the .270 as a deer cartridge. Its probably one of the best, but it has not been and certainly is not even today the all round rifle the 7mm's are. Any gun writer that knows anything at all will tell you that and its no big secret even to non-gun writers as well.

And by the way Mike I own several .270's but I use them for deer size animals, not for hunting the really big game. I use the 7mm's for that.

[Tamara]

BHP9 said:

There is a necked down 32/380 and a necked down 25/32acp, now this is the first big improvement in pocket pistol cartridges in about 100 years. These two new pocket calibers may be around long after the .480 Ruger and .50 S&W have turned to dust, and I might ad they are not something just dreamed up to promote gun sales

Then he said:

these cartridges have a lot to offer in performace over what has been available previously. Are you going to tell me that the original 25 acp. and original .32acp are better cartridges? I think not! The only problem with the newer cartidges is that people do not know they exist or how good they are and without the proper promotion they will never know. Without the proper payolay going to the Gun magazines the public never will know.

Well, which is it? :confused:

[Mike Irwin]

You're right, I haven't been paying attention to what you're saying.

Repetitive, blathering nonsensical farcical stupidity isn't my cup of tea.

Given the "right promotion" a turd stuffed into an empty soda can could be successfully marketed as the best manstopper on the market (oh wait, Magsafe's already on the market).

That dastardly .32 NAA spews a 60-gr. bullet at 1,200 fps for 192 ft. lbs. of energy.

Wow. They've reinvented the .32 Magnum.

Yawn.

As for the .270/.280, christ, you just don't have a conceptual clue, due you? More versatility?

5 to 10 grains of bullet weight is not a stunning leap in versatility.

.007" gain in bullet diameter doesn't give a stunning leap in versatility.

Case capacity that is virtually identical doesn't give a stunning leap in versatility.

Do you REALLY know why the .280 never caught on with the shooting public, other than the reasons you don't seem to be able to comprehend?

Because the big names in gun writing when it came out took a look at it, said, this is nothing more than the .270 by any other name, realized that it offered NO great advantage over the .270, NO great leaps in performance over the .270, and filled EXACTLY the same niche as the .270, and simply yawned.

No wonder they yawned, given the "spectacular benefits" .280 over the .270, as demonstrated by this chart from Remington's website...

Crud, I can't get it to link in.

For anyone who is interested in how VASTLY superior the .280 is to the .270, take a look here...

Remember what 15 grains in bullet weight for the .280 get you...

Identical trajectories out to 250 yards, slightly over 200 ft. lbs. more energy at the muzzle, pretty much the same at 300 yards, and virtually identical velocity out to 300 yards.

http://www.remington.com/ammo/ballistics/centerfire/print_comp_ballistics.asp?

GOD! A whole THREE TENTHS OF ONE INCH of trajectory at 300 yards! Stop the presses! The new Cartridge Messiah is here!

Oh, wait. Pity the poor .280. The 7mm Remington Magnum blows its socks off. I guess it's the new cartridge messiah.

Ooops, shouldn't have blinked. Here's the 7mm Weatherby.

Yawn.

You know, you may want to get your dictionary out and look up the word versatility.

Duplicating the results of a cartridge over a quarter century older isn't versatility.

It's futility.

First you were telling us that something that is good will win out on its own merits.

Now you're telling us that something good can't win out without a rah rah crowd behind it.

Next you'll be telling us that the only way something can win out is if aliens from Rigel 4 use it in their war against the creatures from the Crab Nebula.

Give it a rest.

You've proposed nothing new or interesting, or quite frankly, anything with any great leap in performance.

You've managed to continually contradict yourself.

Your bandying about of the names of men like Jim Corbett, and Karamajo Bell doesn't win you any points, either.

Know why?

Because you don't have a clue as to exactly why someone like Bell chose cartridges like the 6.5x54 Mannlicher for elephant culling.

They weren't after bullet weight. Bullet weight was inconsequential to why Bell sought out the military cartridges of the day. Weight was a BY PRODUCT of the desirable attribute.

But I'm sure that you don't have a single clue why it was a by product of the desirable attribute that Bell wanted.

I'll give you a hint. It hinges on the word "military."

Had these rounds not been available in MILITARY fodder, none of these people would have been using them.

The .270 wasn't "inferior" to these other rounds, either (unless, of course, you also consider the .280 to have been inferior to them, as well). It was DIFFERENT, made for AMERICAN conditions. Even a fool can see that American hunting conditions and African hunting conditions are vastly different.

I'll give you high marks for one thing -- your ability to parrot back information without understanding the consequences behind it.

Quite humorous, actually.

Oh, by the way. To kill the big cats? Corbett used, IIRC, a .275 Rigby. That was Rigby's version of the 7x57.

And the ONLY bullet weight that Rigby offered in the .275?

Want to guess?

140 grains.

That's right. Lighter than a common loading in the .270.

Well over 100 fps. SLOWER than the same bullet weight in the .270.

What do you know.

Jim Corbett picked an inferior cartridge to do the job...

[Mike Irwin]

Skip it, Tams.

He doesn't know.

A parrot can spew back what it learns, but that doesn't make it capable of understanding what it's saying...

Oh well, at least a pig learns something when you try to teach it to sing... :rolleyes:

[Mike Irwin]

You know, come to think of it, I think Corbett also used a .450 Express rifle to kill some of his cats.

Or was that Patterson at Tsavo?

But if Corbett used a .275 Rigby, and Patterson used a .450, which one was the superior hunter?

Would one have qualified for master hunter of the universe had he used a rifle chambered in .30/357 Sig?

Or would they simply have scraped what was left of him into a canvas bag and shipped him parcel post back to England?

And had he used a .270, would the natives simply stoned him to death the second he stepped off the train?

How about a .577? Could he just have dropped a loaded cartridge on the cat's head and given it a fatal subdural hematoma and saved on the cost of the ammunition as well as having to clean his rifle right afterwards?

Could it actually be that these stupid bastards had the audacity to use rifles that they were most familiar with simply because they were comfortable with them and their capabilities, as opposed to picking them for some fantasy ballistic ju-ju superiority drivel dreamed up 100 years after the fact?

Or were they really armed with Snorkian death rays, and simply told the natives that they were armed with common day rifles to keep the panic to a minimum?

The world will never....

care?

[cratz2]

Maybe a dumb question, but then, I'm probably pretty dumb in your book Wild Romanian... but why would it be called the 30/357 SIG if the 357 SIG is based on the 40S&W case?

Should the .25-06 be called the .25 Whelen?

Should the .260 have been called the 6.5-243?

[Gewehr98]

the .260 Remington started out in wildcat circles as the 6.5-.308. It also was named the 6.5 American for a while. But you're right, BHP9, just for the sake of stirring the pot, would probably call it the 6.5-.243, or the 6.5-7mm-08. ;)

[tex_n_cal]

Cratz2, ya know I was just about to ask BHP9 if he's from Romania:evil:

[Mike Irwin]

Back in the early 1990s when I was running with the NRA metallic silhouette crowd I knew several shooters who used the 6.5 American, or their personal iterations of it.

[BHP9]

Well, which is it?

The two quotes you quoted have nothing to do with each other.

What I was saying is that why would anyone condemn the new necked down pocket pistol cartridges when the originals the .25acp and .32acp are lower velocity rounds?

Why anyone wouldn't want one of the two newer cartridges is as compared to the originals is hard to fathom. I am not saying discontinue the original .25acp and original .32acp but in the world of pocket pistols you do not have a whole lot of choice in calibers. Something like this was needed for a long time. I don't think anyone can deny that the two newer cartridges are not indeed an improvement. So why all the blind conservatism of lets get rid of them because they are not 50 caliber and the do not go over 2,000 fps and they are not yet chambered in a plastic and sheet metal pistols.

[Andrew Wyatt]

a 10mm necked down to .30 caliber has some merit, IMHO.

make the bullet diameter .308, to take advantage of the relatively wide array of bullets available, and load it with a 120 grain JHP at 2000 or so fps.


if you want to get really trick, you can use sabots, and launch a 100 grain .223 bullet at 2400? fps, or a 55 grain projectile at 2800?.

the OAL would be a tad long for a normal sized pistol, though.

would a .45 ACP case neck to .30 very well?

i have not read the rest of this thread, and i don't really care about the rest of the discussion. i just wanted to respond and throw my idea out there, FYI.

[Tamara]

What I was saying is that why would anyone condemn the new necked down pocket pistol cartridges when the originals the .25acp and .32acp are lower velocity rounds?

You said that the .25 NAA & .32 NAA would be around long after the .480 Ruger and .500 S&W Magnum had faded to dust.

I pointed out that the .25 NAA was dead and the .32 NAA was at death's door.

Then you mumbled something about the gun press and folks only buying new things except new things that maybe hadn't gotten enough exposure or maybe they had because these cartridges are just being shilled to sell guns or something...



If these cartridges are going to be around after the .480 and .500 are gone, why is one of them already dead and the other one having its toe tag written?

Are people into new stuff or aren't they? Make up your mind... :scrutiny:

[Tamara]

a 10mm necked down to .30 caliber has some merit, IMHO.

It's been done. Do a web search on the .30 Armco... (It died a premature death for much the same reason 9x25 Dillon did...)

[BHP9]

Wow. They've reinvented the .32 Magnum

Come on Mike, even your smarter than that , the .32 Magnum would not fit in a pocket pistol.


Oh, wait. Pity the poor .280. The 7mm Remington Magnum blows its socks off. I guess it's the new cartridge messiah.

Well Mike if you were a real hunter with practical experience and not a person who hunts from a computer key board you would have discovered the following years ago. Although the 7mm Magnum is a good cartridge, to get its full potential you have to lug around a long barrel rifle that catches on brush and gives a lot more muzzle blast and kicks harder. REAL Hunters know that at real life hunting ranges that are usually way less than even 100 yards the 7x57 and .280 Remington have more than enough velocity and penetration (even out to 200 yards) to shoot right through even big animals like Moose. The choice of 7mm is largely one of personal choice not one of any real need. Practical experiece has taught real hunters that. True at extremely long range the Magnums to have a slight advantage but under field conditions shooting much beyond 200 yards is way beyond the capability of all but the very best of shots and even that is under ideal conditions something that often rarely happens in the field. Any real big game hunter that did not have a ego a mile high would level with you and admit that.

Because you don't have a clue as to exactly why someone like Bell chose cartridges like the 6.5x54 Mannlicher for elephant culling.

It was not culling it was market hunting for money which even back then was against the law. Bell used the smaller calibers because he did not like recoil and because of their phenominal penetration. A .270 with the same long heavy weight bullets would have worked just as well but that has been my point all along, that the .270 never had these bullet weights and still does not today.

The .270 wasn't "inferior" to these other rounds, either (unless, of course, you also consider the .280 to have been inferior to them, as well). It was DIFFERENT, made for AMERICAN conditions. Even a fool can see that American hunting conditions and African hunting conditions are vastly different.

Once again I refer you to a real Hunter, Jack O'Conner who laughed at such statements. He found through real experiece that African game was no tougher to kill than American game no matter what caliber he happened to be using and although he liked the .270 guess what caliber they took to Africa , his other favorite the 7x57.

Oh, by the way. To kill the big cats? Corbett used, IIRC, a .275 Rigby. That was Rigby's version of the 7x57.

I just knew you were going to make that rediculous statement and for those souls who may not have heard of Rigby it was the ballistic twin of the 7x57 with an English name on it. There was no difference between them, none.

A parrot can spew back what it learns, but that doesn't make it capable of understanding what it's saying...

The shoe fits both ways Mike. Quoting all that ballistic dribble about the great superiority of the 7mm Magnum does not reflect real hunter field experiece. Ever notice how many real hunters, even real gun writer hunters that hunt ,often hunt with non-magnum calibers like the 7x57, 280 etc. You do not see many of them going after Moose or Elk with the .270. Do they know something you do not know Mike. I think they do.

[BHP9]

Maybe a dumb question, but then, I'm probably pretty dumb in your book Wild Romanian... but why would it be called the 30/357 SIG if the 357 SIG is based on the 40S&W case?

Good Question Mr. Cratz. There was a good reason I called it the 30/357 and not the 30/40S&W. As of late there has been a lot of bad press about the 40 S&W. To sell a new cartridge you must present it in the most favorable light and not only has there been not as much bad press about the .357 Sig , people also associate the .357 Sig with high velocity and power. By using this name instead of the .40 S&W it generates much more interest and advertisement sensationalism. All of which are needed to sell anything from soap to automobiles.

[BHP9]

I think what is needed is help from a very charismatic, good looking and sensationalistic gun writer none other than "Chucky Boy".

Chuck could give us a big write up on the cartridge. He could claim a 170,000 round service life (a very tough test considering he would still be waitning with baited breadth for the U.P.S. brown truck to arrive with prototype No. 1 and his name engraved on it.

He could claim spectacular velocity and killing power. One shot spinning people around and even knocking them off their feet.

He could claim to have found a page lost from the original turn of the century Thompson Tests that showed that a prototype cartridge much like it gave exactly the same deadly results blowing 1,300 pound steers half way across the slaughter house floor and then bouncing them off the wall.

He could claim one hole groups at 50 yards with any bullet weight or gun powder that was dumped into the cartridged case.

He could claim that his local Police department was seriously testing the new caliber population 22 people with one horse living with them in town.

And to top it off he would invite you to be sure and get the next issue of "Super Blaster Magazine" where he will reveal his actual war time experience with an almost identical super secret prototype that he had to use to save his life from a Viet-Namese man eating tiger.

Now folks tell me people would not rip the doors off of their closest gun shop to buy this new gun. To think any other wise is to be very naive.

[Tacblack]

I have been telling Faustulus for years we all need to carry 9by25 Dillon's. The .357sig is really just a 9by25 Dillon kurz:D

[cratz2]

I've long considered myself a 45ACP guy... while keeping an eye out for new stuff as well. But I honestly don't know why the 9x23 isn't more popular than it is. Should be consistantly more effective on solid and soft tissue than the 9x19 ++P++ , feeds slicker than snot in a tuned 1911, noticably less recoil than the 45ACP esp comparing the safest hot loads in the 9x23 to 230 Gr +P loads. Decent practice ammo and defensive loads available on the shelf of many well-stocked gunshops though it would be nice if Winchester would release their Rangers in 9x23 and some 9x23 Gold Dots at 125 would be nice... essentially a 10 shot 357 Magnum with premium bullets in the best platform to come along in the last 100 years or so.

I guess a stumbling block is that most of the bullets that could be used for the 9x23 are at their best in the 9x19 +P or +P+ loads and you would see minimal benefits, other than feeding, from making the jump to 9x23.

[ElAlumno]

I guess we totally agree to disagree. Penetration is paramount if incapacitation is the goal.

So does that mean you are talking about penetration in the terminal ballistic sense, i.e. against human tissue?

If so, then you are incorrect that velocity is the key.

A bullet that does not reach the vital organs does not incompacitate or terminate the target.

Agreed, and a bullet that is being driven at such a high velocity that it disintegrates is basically ineffective. Hence, again, velocity is not a guarantee of penetration.

When a round refuses to penetrate one materiel it usually fails to varying degrees in other materiels as well.

Completely incorrect and demonstrated by a comparison of the comparison of the 9mm vs. the 5.56. One penetrates a ballistic vest with ease the other fails. Yet both offer deep penetration in flesh.

In the real world human targets don't pose and stand around wainting to be shot, they hide behind barriers of, wood , safety glass, steel doors etc. , wear protective body armor, wear thick winter clothing , I could go on and on. This is why penetration is often such an advantage in a handgun caliber that does so.

Yet you once again seem to confuse the issue. Penetration against what? Everything? Then don’t pick a handgun. If you pick a handgun, pick only AP ammo. Of course you then have a bullet that is abysmal with terminal ballistics.

BTW, I have been involved in shootings and have reviewed dozens upon dozens of shootings first hand as well as reviewed hundreds of shooting reports. Few have been what you describe.

I’m sorry, but every assessment you have made has been incorrect. Neither a woodchuck or a steer are good test mediums for terminal ballistics for human compairisons.

[cratz2]

By the way, thanks for that reply, WR. I think it's been the only decent and honest reply I've got from you in the 2 years I've been, sometimes regretfully, reading your posts. :p

[ElAlumno]

BTW, an icepick demonstrates great penetration against a kevlar vest. Does that make it a great "caliber"?:rolleyes:

[BHP9]

Completely incorrect and demonstrated by a comparison of the comparison of the 9mm vs. the 5.56. One penetrates a ballistic vest with ease the other fails. Yet both offer deep penetration in flesh.

Correct but very misleading. You are attempting to compare a high velocity rifle bullet with a much slower and bigger moving handgun bullet. Not only is this not comparing apples to apples and unfair but also proving what I have been saying all along, i.e. that smaller high velocity rounds outpenetrate slower bigger moving projectiles.

With all due respect to your credentials two people (you and I) can both look at the same shooting incident and come to completely different conclusions.

My conclusion of the failure the 9mm round in the infamous Miami shootout was not one of caliber failure at all but one of choice of bullet styles and even the design of the particular 9mm expanding bullet used in that incident.

1. If a slower expanding bullet had been used with a much thicker jacket the 9mm would probably of penetrated to the heart of the bad guy and stopped the fight.

2. A solid full metal jacketed bullet would have most certainly reached the heart , destroyed it and kept right on going right out of the body and in that particular case proved that in that particular shot the full metal jacket was superior to the brand of expanding bullet that was used that day

On the other hand I believe other people who looked at the same incident would have concluded that a new and bigger handgun caliber was needed.

I think were you and I differ is that I think that the smaller high velocity hand gun bullet can be just as deadly as the slower moving bigger bullet. I also believe that the expanding bullet should not be so heavily relied on or have as much faith placed in it as the general public seems wont to do.

In reviewing many testimonies of German soldiers who fought on the Eastern Front in WWII I have yet to talk to or read about even one report to date that claimed the 9mm with solid bullets did not work and work very well. There were many, many incidents were Russian soldiers literally swarmed over German crews manning self-propelled guns and the Germans using 9mm pistols gunned them all down before they were able to get even close enough to lob in a grenade. Because they did survive and live to tell about it is more than proof enough and their complete lack of critism of both the caliber and the full metal jackted bullets used prove at least to me that they do work very well.

There has been many documented civlian cases of people dropping dead instantly from a hit through the heart from a solid .177 caliber projectile shot out of an air rifle. Now if this is not proof that solid bullets are very lethal I ask you what is?

No one can deny that when expanding bullets do penetrate correctly and expand correctly that they are not indeed better killers but that is the big if. And once again as I have stated over and over again expanding bullets are not the best bullets to use when the subject being shot at is hiding behind barriers of wood , glass or metal proving once again expanding bullets can sometimes be as much of a liablity as an asset in a gunfight.

In short and in conclusion there is no perfect bullet in a gun fight. Maybe one hombre's solution might have said it all. He loaded his automatic with both solids and expanding bullets in every other round loaded.

[BHP9]

I’m sorry, but every assessment you have made has been incorrect. Neither a woodchuck or a steer are good test mediums for terminal ballistics for human compairisons.

I both agree and disagree with you. 1. The woodchuck and the steer are much better test mediums than non-living objects such as ballistic gelatin. 2. That there are other creatures such as pigs that are much closer to humans in size and internal organ similarity. No pun intended.

[Dave R]

So, what about a .45/50AE? I'll bet Desert Eagle owners would love it.

[Tamara]

There has been many documented civlian cases of people dropping dead instantly from a hit through the heart from a solid .177 caliber projectile shot out of an air rifle. Now if this is not proof that solid bullets are very lethal I ask you what is?

Got one handy? I'd be interested to see it...

[Gewehr98]

I hope so, because it's already out there, commercially. It's called the .440 Cor-Bon, and it's a doozy! :D

http://www.cor-bon.com/440240_219x.jpg


http://www.cor-bon.com/store440corbon.htm

(Thinking about getting my Desert Eagle rebarreled for this, woo-hoo!)

[Tamara]

Maybe I should CCW a Contender chambered in .40-454 JDJ? ;) :D

[Gewehr98]

1. I doubt there'd be much left of the attacker for the coroner to identify.

2. BHP9/Wild Romanian would probably argue that it's exterior ballistics are worthless. ;)
3. Speaking of CCW, I shot a .45-70 American Arms derringer once. Once. :what:

[Tamara]

3. Speaking of CCW, I shot a .45-70 American Arms derringer once. Once.

I always figured the point behind those things was when you were faced with the choice of a broken wrist or becoming grizzly chow. :eek:

[Mike Irwin]

I've heard that claim before too, Tams.

I've been able to find two bona fide instances of fatal heart shootings.

Neither was "instantly fatal."

The first is recounted in the 4th edition of Cartridges of the World, pg. 368 in which a 5-year-old boy was killed by a pellet from a spring air gun. He died approximately 40 minutes after being wounded while undergoing surgery to repair the damage.

The second incident was forwarded to me by a coworker when I was with American Rifleman magazine. It was an accidental shooting involving alcohol.

Unfortunately I no longer have the write up, but as best as I can recall the individual was hit in the chest with a pellet from a Crossman air rifle.

In his alcohol fueled state he shrugged it off and continued to recreate with his friends.

The next morning he was found dead.

Autopsy revealed that the pellet had penetrated the front side of the heart and lodged in the heart tissue at the rear of the heart. Death was the result of slow seepage of blood into the pericardial sac interfering with the heart's ability to pump.

Estimated time of shooting to death was some hours.

I'd be interested in hearing of any other documented instances in which a .177 pellet to the heart was a death laser, but I have a very funny feeling that it's a short list.

[BHP9]

Got one handy? I'd be interested to see it...

Come on Tamar get serious. You have a TV set don't you. If not just call NBC, ABC or CBS they could probably give you a list a mile long. Where do you think I saw this, right on TV. AS a matter of fact I just suddenly rememberd yet another one right in the Cleveland area. A young boy was picking fruit and was killed in a drive by thrill shooting at what I would consider long range for a pellet rifle. In that case however I do not recall if he dropped dead instantly but he did die.

The silly argument that you and Mike will now make is how many seconds did so and so take to expire and never mind that the same thing happens even with powerful large bore handguns and never mind that the person drops over and cannot even function. If the person the drops over and lives one second longer than the one that is hit with the handgun then you will say , Ah Ha, see how much more powerful the .50 S&W is, it killed someone in 1/4 of second and the pellet gun took 1/5 of a second.

Some of your replys seem to now border on the rediculous. I suppose next you will claim that I do not have a tv or that such incidents never could have taken place. Anyone with a TV though will remember at least a half a dozen such incidents over even the last couple of years. I beleive one of the news programs like 60 minutes or 20/20 may also have done a special on high power pellet guns. Anti-gun , well of course but it does point out that they do kill and they are a lot more lethal than many parents can even imagine especially suburbanites that seem to know little or nothing about weapons but that seems also to include you too.

And by the way I too was once shot by a low powered pellet gun, not the high powered kind many years ago when I was a kid. I was shot right in the back and don't give me any of your bull that a person is not instantly incompacitated even by being hit by even a low powered pellet gun. It happened to me and I can tell you it was not any fun and I could not even catch my breath for several minutes let alone do any one any return harm.

[Marko Kloos]

Come on Tamar get serious. You have a TV set don't you. If not just call NBC, ABC or CBS they could probably give you a list a mile long. Where do you think I saw this, right on TV.

Hey...you said "documented cases". Hard as it may be to accept, "I done saw it on the teevee" does not constitute verifiable documentation. Do not shift the burden of proof for your assertion. You made the assertion, now you have to supply the proof. Telling someone to "look it up elsewhere" is sloppy debating technique. Every time someone asks you for proof to back up your claims, you shrug it off and say "everybody knows, it was in XYZ magazine/the TV a while back". Next time you post an assertion like that, please furnish the verifiable source for your claims.

Some of your replys seem to now border on the rediculous.

I am getting very tired of your continued belittling of other posters, just because they (rightfully) doubt your unverified claims. There are some statements in your threads that "border on the rediculous (sic)", but they're usually preceded by your user name.

To recap: Extraordinary assertions require extraordinary proof, not nebulous redirections to unspecified magazines or TV broadcasts. Also, you will keep a civil tongue in your head in future debates on this board. This is supposed to be a serious pool of knowledge populated by mature individuals, so I advise you to adjust your contributions accordingly. So far, they have done little except the addition of some warm yellow stream into said pool.

[buzz_knox]

I was shot right in the back and don't give me any of your bull that a person is not instantly incompacitated even by being hit by even a low powered pellet gun. It happened to me and I can tell you it was not any fun and I could not even catch my breath for several minutes let alone do any one any return harm.

I tried to stay out of this because the Wild Pomeranian does enough to undermine his own posts. But I couldn't help responding to this one as I just had a conversation about getting shot on the orbital bone (eye socket) with a pellet gun. Hurt like crazy but I was functional. I've also had injuries far more severe than being hit with pellets and remained functional enough to double tap a target if it had been necessary. So, I absolutely doubt that this is a true statement [edited to get the point across without making stopping to WP's level of ad hominem attacks].

[ElAlumno]

Correct but very misleading. You are attempting to compare a high velocity rifle bullet with a much slower and bigger moving handgun bullet.

No. it goes directly to proving that your claims are incorrect.

Not only is this not comparing apples to apples and unfair but also proving what I have been saying all along, i.e. that smaller high velocity rounds outpenetrate slower bigger moving projectiles.

See, this is a good example of the continued contradiction of what you say. Unfair but proves you correct. Once again, you are wrong. The cite goes directly to disproving what you stated and demonstrates that you are not being consistent in what you state. Once again, and you may continue to ignore it if you wish, velocity does not guarantee penetration. Penetration in a ballistic barrier is not the same as penetration in human flesh.

With all due respect to your credentials two people (you and I) can both look at the same shooting incident and come to completely different conclusions.

You may, but I will stick to the facts. If there is not barrier involved, it is not a matter of opinion. That IS simple fact.

I think were you and I differ is that I think that the smaller high velocity hand gun bullet can be just as deadly as the slower moving bigger bullet.

Nope, I disagree with you on the actual and factual issues such as velocity equates to penetration, smaller is better, and the confusion of penetration against a barrier vs. human tissue.

Because they did survive and live to tell about….

Anecdotal “evidence” is not evidence.

The woodchuck and the steer are much better test mediums than non-living objects such as ballistic gelatin.

Not even close to reality.

Come on Tamar get serious. You have a TV set don't you. If not just call NBC, ABC or CBS they could probably give you a list a mile long.

In other words you have no proof to your claims. This seems very standard with you.

Sorry BHP, but your whole point is ridiculous. You continue to post contradictory arguments, change the subject, insult posters, make specious comparisons (i.e. woodchuck to human), make claims of “documented cases” and refuse to submit them, etc.

Penetration is not based on velocity. Smaller is not necessarily better. Woodchucks, metal plates and 55 gallon drums are not adequate test mediums for terminal ballistics. Claiming you saw it on TV is not documentation.

[Mike Irwin]

You know, I believe that this is exactly the same sort of thing that led to this individual's early exit from The Firing Line -- very high static to substance ratio -- mostly static, little actual substance.

Countless assertions with absolutely no factual basis to back them up, despite repeated requests for such information. I hesitate to use the term lies (but am increasingly less inclined to do so), but at this point, given the vast load of claims vs. the absolute refusal to provide any sort of supporting material, I can only conclude that at best much of this "information" is flights of fancy.

Here's a little more first hand factual information.

In the summer of 1981 I was shot in the thigh with a .177 projectile, which penetrated roughly 1.5" into the heavy muscle.

Not only did it not incapacitate me, it actually proved to be QUITE animating in giving me the extra rage-induced edge while I beat the living snot out of the kid who shot me.

[Tamara]

In the summer of 1981 I was shot in the thigh with a .177 projectile, which penetrated roughly 1.5" into the heavy muscle.

See? This is what the "Three Pump Rule" was intended to prevent! ;)

(It's a thousand wonders that me or any of my friends survived to adulthood with both eyes intact. :eek: :p )

[Mike Irwin]

Tams,

Did you know that it's a well documented fact that over 1 million people a year are instantly killed by stern looks that stop their hearts?

For all intransient porpoises, this makes stern looks much more effective than any projectile-based man stopper.

I know this to be true because I saw it on TV. It was reported on a show hosted by Jonathan Frakes... :)

[Mike Irwin]

"Come on Tamar get serious. You have a TV set don't you. If not just call NBC, ABC or CBS they could probably give you a list a mile long. Where do you think I saw this, right on TV."

I've got a TV, and I spend quite a bit of time both watching and listening to the news on the major networks, both air and cable.

Given what's been happening at the New York Times over the past couple of weeks, though, and other such high-profile "news" scandals such as the GM "pickup truck of fireball death" and the Food Lion "we'll serve rotted food to anyone," I'd be disinclined to view any "news" reports on such events with anything other than an extremely biased eye.

Add to that the fact that the major news organs can't seem to get the most basic facts about firearms straight, and in fact often go out of the way to spin articles involving firearms in the most unpositive light possible, I find it to be rather humorous that anyone would rely on these organizations for any meaningful information on the topic.

I've done your research for you, which once again isn't surprising.

And once again, your claims don't hold water. Which again isn't surprising.

[BHP9]

Penetration is not based on velocity. Smaller is not necessarily better. Woodchucks, metal plates and 55 gallon drums are not adequate test mediums for terminal ballistics. Claiming you saw it on TV is not documentation

Sir you seem to be a highly intelligent person so I would like to hear your views and explanations of the tests that P.O.Ackley conducted with the .220 Swift.

As we all know it was a .22 caliber projectile weighing 48 grains traveling at about 4,100 fps or even a little less than that being as factory quoted velocities over the years have often proved to be somewhat less when actually chronographed. At any rat the bullet was going very fast, far faster than the weapon tested against it which happened to be a 30-06 armor piercing round.

Now the Swift penetrated the armor and the 30-06 armor piercing round did not.

I would be very interested in hearing your explantion as to this phenomina as it seems to be at odds with your above quote. Am I missing something here. Please explain your views on this matter. Thank You vey much.


I would also recommend you read back issues of the Cleveland Plane dealer as to the death of the boy in question. I did not quote this in the past because in that particular shooting (one of many that I heard about or read about) I do not remember how fast the boy expired. I would image for those that are really interested even a police and autopsy report would be available. I do not have time to do the leg work for anyone but it is available for those who want it.

In the past I have seen woodchucks drop dead from a .22 rimfire and never even move except for a tail twich and I have seen the same size chuck run 50 yards and almost make it to its burrow when hit with a 30-06 in the exact same spot. So in all sincerity does anyone really blame me for getting upset when the accusation is made or inferred that a human when hit by a high power pellet gun would not or could not expire immedieately?

And as I said before I remember seeing a special on TV about this happening. True, the news media often gets things wrong and is not above exaggurating but to infer that they always lie is not fair to them either. One could always get the police report when seeing something on the news media but to say automatically that is must not be true because it might not fit in with ones philosphy is not to give both sides of the arguement a fair investigation.

I have seen deer when hit at a measured 200 yards at my friends farm with the .223 run about 25 yards and fall down just as dead as when hit with the 3006. The deer hit with the 3006 ran no farther and did not fall down any faster or die any sooner. If the deer was hit through the heart or lungs with either caliber it did not seem to make a wit of difference as to how far they ran or how quick they dropped. Now it seems to me that if the bigger caliber caused faster blood loss or more shock surely we would have been able to observe this.

Now I realize that my 40 years of experience in hunting counts for nothing because I did not have a video camera with me at the time and did not have 100 eye witnesses to sign a document to verify all this.

It also seems strange to me that I seem to be the only one that is constantly asked for documentation when others seem never to have the same question asked of them as long as they take the accepted traditional view of things. It almost reminds me of Galileo when he tried to prove the world was not flat. Since it was not according to the thinking of the times he was considered somewhat of a heretic.

[Andrew Wyatt]

BHP: you seem to be incapable of understanding that penetration in steel has little or no bearing on penetration or effectiveness in people.

[Mike Irwin]

Face it, Andrew, that's the LEAST of what our good friend apparently isn't capable of comprehending.

[Marko Kloos]

And with that, let's put this one to rest. The horse started out pretty dead, and its flagellation did not improve upon it.