A brief history of the 9mm

[Billy Shears]

Sure: where's your support that it was made up?

See above. It is up to you to provide evidence that to support your assertion.

Actually it does. You have made an assertion (that someone made it up), so you have just as much burden to prove your theory, as I have to prove mine.

No this is wrong. See "Russel's Teapot," which is a reductio ad absurdum example of why this is wrong. Bertrand Russell wrote that if he claimed that a teapot were orbiting the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it would be nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they could not prove him wrong.

This is how real historians work too. King Arthur, for example, has yet to be acknowledged as a real historical figure, because there is no solid evidence that he ever existed, and reputable scholars don't get to say he "did so" exist, because no one can prove he didn't.

This is no different. You have no evidence for your assertion. If you want to believe it, fine, you're perfectly free to do so. But until you provide evidence that supports your claim, no one else is obliged to believe it too.

Asked and answered.

Actually, you didn't.

 

[Loosedhorse]

No this is wrong.

No, you are wrong.

If one hasn't proven that x=y, we cannot therefore assume that x≠y. It simply means that x=y and x≠y are both unproven. So, although my theory is unproven, we cannot assume that your theory is correct.

But if x≠y IS proven, that simultaneously shows that x=y is false. So, as soon as you prove your theories, I'll admit that mine is false.

Stick that in your Bertrand Russell and smoke it.

Actually, you didn't.

Actually, I did. That you haven't looked, or looked and couldn't find, or found but didn't accept? Doesn't change a thing.

 

[Owen Sparks]

As I understand it, in some countries the military still used the same bore diamiter for pistol and rifle until very recently. The Russian 7.62 is an example. This was obviously a traditional hold over from the days of muzzle loaders when the army only wanted to use the same size ball for everything.
Tradition dies hard in the military.

 

[Billy Shears]

No, you are wrong.

If one hasn't proven that x=y, we cannot therefore assume that x≠y. It simply means that x=y and x≠y are both unproven. So, although my theory is unproven, we cannot assume that your theory is correct.

But if x≠y IS proven, that simultaneously shows that x=y is false. So, as soon as you prove your theories, I'll admit that mine is false.

Stick that in your Bertrand Russell and smoke it.

Look, I'll make it real simple for you. You made an assertion which, as lawyers say, "assumes facts not in evidence."

You made the assertion. There is no evidence to support you claim. I don't know how to state it any plainer than that. There's no evidence for it. The rational course of action is to withhold belief from any proposition until there is evidence to support it. This is how scientists do it. This is how historians do it. This is how criminal investigators do it. Until you have evidence, there's is no reason to believe it.

At this point I'm repeating myself, so that's all I have to say on the matter.

 

[Wanderling]

Probably from reality.

There is, for example, the WWII German S-Mine ("Bouncing Betty"), which had a reputation for maiming rather than killing (whether it was designed with that in mind, who can tell). Contemporary documentation suggested that it was lethal within 60 ft, but caused injury out to 450 ft away. Because the genitalia were particularly at risk, I am told that the knowledge that one was in or near a German minefield had quite a psychological effect.

There is the (now well recognized) terrorist bombing technique of following up an initial maiming bomb (causing injuries and an influx of rescuers) with a secondary bomb of higher lethality, to target the rescuers.

There is the idea that a wounded soldier will take one or two more soldiers out of action as he is cared for or transported; whereas a clearly dead soldier does not command that effort.

There is simple economics: it is just plain easier to wound someone than kill them, as the smaller "lethal radius" and larger "woudning radius" of many munitions demonstrate, as does the small A-Zone on an IPSC target.I undertand this is a generic "you", but no, I don't want anyone dead.Actually, this statement supports the "wounding" theory.

The reason (I think you'll agree) that a gunshot wound is less likely to be fatal today is because the available care is more effective. A 1900 soldier dying in hospital a day or four days after being transported from the field by ambulance, evac'd away from the front to a hospital has consumed far more resources than a soldier who was killed immediately on the field.

And for those who are with 1911Tuner, that sequence still results in the same thing: a dead soldier, just as he desired. But a more expensive dead soldier.

In that way, an arm that kills a soldier outright can be less valuable (that is, less consuming of enemy resources and morale) than an arm that "ends up killing" the soldier many days later.

So there is nothing in the "it is better to wound" theory that is at all inconsistent with an arm causing a wound serious enough to cause eventual death (as long as it is delayed a few hours or days).Well, again, one way is that they may be true, so that's how they got started.

If anyone here has definitive proof (I'll take for example a signed note from Georg Luger that says, "This cartridge is designed to kill, not wound" ) of their theory that the 9mm was not designed with wounding in mind, I'm interested. Otherwise, rhetorical statements such as the two "I wonder"s above do not advance the case.You usually say stop or I'll kill you? Okay.

But that's not the 1900 mindset. As someone already pointed out, the gases, the machine guns, the jumbo artillery pieces, the sniper rifles, the flame throwers - all of this was designed to kill. You didn't fight to wound the enemy. Besides, not a single nation went into WWI expecting a prolonged conflict (where the number of wounded becomes important). The army always fights the last big war, in that case the war that everybody studied was the 1870 Franco-Prussian war that was very mobile and quick. The WWI started in August with every major combatant expecting to have it over with by Xmas.

And another thing - the pistol was never a "real" weapon in any European army. The officer's job - in theory - was to command his troops in battle. The actual fighting was left to the unwashed masses with rifles. The handgun was intended for self-defense if any of the opposing forces got too close. In case of a close quarter fighting, the soldiers were supposed to charge with bayonets and the officer was supposed to use his sword and pistol to protect himself.

Now, if you read accounts of the actual WWI fighting, that whole set up went out the window pretty soon. The lines of infantry charging with bayonets were mowed down by machine guns, the officers' swords were absolutely useless, the rifles were great at a distance but cumbersome in a close quarter trench combat. From what I read, the German troops experienced in trench fighting preferred to arm themselves with a bunch of hand grenades and sharpened small shovels (a terribly effective close quarters weapon), and their officers armed in the same way. The pistol was not a primary weapon, and it was pretty effective as a secondary one.

The American army only went to the .45 because the Cavalry encountered Philippino warriors high on drugs who literally didn't feel being shot, so they needed a cartridge that had high stopping power. I assume that US Cavalry was using handguns much more than any European cavalry, most of the Euro cavalry units in WWI were basically a mounted infantry anyway, used horses for transport but fought on foot like a regular infantry unit.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Look, I'll make it real simple for you.

Look. I'll also make it real simple for you: you have also made an assertion which, as lawyers say, "assumes facts not in evidence."

Oh, wait: I already made it that simple for you. I guess, since I can't make it any simpler, I accept that you simply can't understand that you are still wrong.

I accept that the theory that the 9mm was designed around producing wounds (including wounds that are lethal within days) is unproven. That does not prove it was designed around producing instantaneous death. Nor does it prove or rule out the theory that it was simply designed to cause casulaties, no matter wether they are immediate death, death delayed by a few days, or non-fatal wounds.

But that's not the 1900 mindset.

Actually, Capt. Crozier tells us about the mindset; we don't have to use your interpretation of what flamethrowers meant.

I've already talked about artillery and machineguns. Gas? It too was better at wounding than killing; for example:

Germany used chemical weapons on the eastern front in an attack at Rawka, south of Warsaw. The Russian army took 9,000 casualties, with more than 1,000 fatalities.

Sorry, but your insistence that the new weapons seen in WWI (more than a decade after the 9mm was introduced) were all about killing, or establish a killing mindset in Georg Luger, doesn't hold.

 

[Wanderling]

Also, the whole idea of "shooting to wound & take up resources" is a very recent, modern thing, and I highly doubt that any modern military actually operates on that doctrine. AFAIK that concept was developed by some armchair strategists when the major armies started downsizing their standard rounds from 7.62mm to 5.45mm (or similar). In reality this round was never intended to "wound" but merely to take up less space and weight, while maintaining lethality. It lacks the penetration ability of the 7.62mm, but when it does hit someone, the wounds are much worse because the light weight high speed bullet starts tumbling about in the body, ricocheting off the bones, and creating a much greater path of destruction. So that smaller bullet is more likely to kill you while the older bullet is more likely to leave a clean thru hole. But the theory lives on on the 'nets.

 

[hso]

It has been said that Georg Luger designed the 9mm Parabellum with an eye to wounding, not killing soldiers.

Provide some proof of this radical statement.

Prior to the 9mm parabellum the various revolvers in ~.38 caliber were common. No one in their right mind claims they were designed "with an eye to wounding". The 9mm was an evolutionary outgrowth and to say the evolution of the various .30 caliber revolver rounds to a semiauto was to wound is indefensible.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Provide some proof of this radical statement.

Why are you rudely ordering me around? How about YOU provide some proof that my statement is "radical"?

BTW, my statement--you copied it so I assume you read it--is

It has been said that...

NOT it has been proven that... NOT I hereby state definitively that...

You REALLY want me to provide some proof that "It has been said..."? Okay, let's start with this:

First off, the 9mm round, just like any military round ( other than russia and china) is designed as a "ball" round because in war it is supposed to wound and not kill whenever possible. Politics aside, they did that because they knew that a wounded soldier would require the assistance of at least two other soldiers to render aide and get him off the battle field. This effectively removed 3 combatants with one shot.

So, I guess it's "been said"--as I stated. Not proof that it's true (which is not what I said), but proof that it's been said. Get it?

Now: provide some PROOF of your claim my statement is "radical".

No one in their right mind claims they were designed "with an eye to wounding".

Please prove your statement. It will require your finding everyone who claims it, and proving that all of them are insane. I'll wait.

If you are going to force me to "prove" any statement I make, hold yourself to the same standard.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Enough.



Loosedhorse I suggest you voluntarily take a break from the place for a while, before the suggestion becomes involuntary.