handgun ammo in war

[Loyalist Dave]

all ammo used in war has to be fmj or of a non expanding design.

I thought sniper ammunition for many years was 168 grain spitzer, boat tail, hollow point, in .308 or 7.62 Nato, while machine gun ammunition is 147 grain FMJ?

Back in WWI they used the best pistol round they had - .45 ACP. However, these days they use the superior 9MM. That's just the way it is!

Um, no I was around the USMC at Quantico when the debate over the .45 acp to the 9mm was going on, and it was all about logistics, NOT "superiority". In fact I made some high ranking enemies when I pointed out that the real reason was our NATO allies had switched from 7.62 NATO rounds to 5.56mm in their rifles, and they didn't want to foot the bill for the handguns and subguns too (they having so much sub-gun ammo stockpiled), so the USA ate the bill when it came time for handguns. FYI it was the Beretta shooting "superior" 9mm rounds that kept blowing up when using "hot" 9mm ammunition, and the NATO specs for their subgun ammo was above SAAMI specs for 9mm rounds. The Marine Corps pistols were literally 45+ years old, and they were comparing them to new, out-of-the-box Berettas..., not very "fair", and a fallacy when I demonstrated what could be done with my new out-of-the-box 1911A1. (I didn't make friends doing that either..., or when I pointed out that lots of the high rankers suddenly started showing up at skeet and trap ranges with very nice Beretta shotguns... I wondered about that out loud a bit too loud )

SO..., IF it's so "superior" then why are we switching back to .45 acp in many units?

Lets avoid the traditional .45 vs 9mm debate?

FYI the British SAS has had wonderful success with the Browning Hipower in 9mm in the past for many decades, as have the Israeli's unto this day. Neither round trumps the other; there are pros and cons to both depending on the mission, especially if you are only discussing the FMJ bullets.

In answer to the original question..., the .45 acp got a good rep in the trenches of WWI, as did the 12 ga shotgun. Stock "GI" 1911's don't like any other bullets than FMJ (im-ex). The original purpose in The Great War for the 1911 was to arm cavalry soldiers (and officers), and later it was used as a backup gun for crew served weapons such as machine gunners. Americans do have the tradition of officers carrying pistols, BUT the majority of handguns used by American soldiers in the field is as a backup to their primary arm. Europeans have a much stronger tradition of only officers carrying side arms, and they are not as much for shooting the enemy as they are for keeping discipline among their own troops. Rommel only mentions pulling his pistol once in his book (iirc), and he points it at his own machinegun squad and orders them to kill the French (who were at that time charging with bayonets). Otherwise Rommel mentions carrying a rifle. The Germans put the 9mm round in their subguns, and the MP40 made it really famous. A great gun. The British used Tommy Guns for a long while before going to the Sten in 9mm, and other 9mm subguns in the future.

Military questions often are impacted by tradition as well. Think about the Spaniards use of 7mm Mausers vs the USA and trap door Springfields.

LD

 

[HB]

Yep! Too bad the 9x19 cartridge was not around then.

Te he te he te he

 

[GRIZ22]

I thought sniper ammunition for many years was 168 grain spitzer, boat tail, hollow point, in .308 or 7.62 Nato, while machine gun ammunition is 147 grain FMJ?


The HP on the sniper ammo is there for ballistic reasons not for expansion. US Army JAG considered this question and agreed it was okay to use.

 

[hinton03]

I know this off subject, but lawyers have a unique role in todays military operations. During the Kosovo conflict lawyers were an integral part of the target selection teams; they helped determined whether a targets military value out weighed its potential for collateral damage. In many cases a lawyers recommendation removed targets from the list or caused intensive planning by weaponeers and engineers to develop alternate methods of attack to reduce collateral damage.

I admit it was different kind of war, in the invasion of Iraq (full ground combat) it was clear that they were pervasive.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Not helped, hindered. Targeting in the Kosovo conflict was notoriously bad.

Elsewhere, such as in Afghanistan, targets have disappeared while lawyers dithered trying to make up their minds.

 

[Noveldoc]

One thing to note. When the .45 auto case was designed, we already had the 30-06 military round. 45 case head has exactly same dimensions as the 30 06.

So might have been a commonality money saving thing.

Tom

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Browning produced the .45 ACP for Colt in 1904, while the .30-06 was not developed until 1906. The .30-03 (from which the .30-06 was developed) was essentially the 7X57 Mauser, with the neck expanded to 7.62mm and the case lengthened 6 mm.

The more likely scenario is that Browning used the 7X57 case, because the geometry of the extraction groove had been worked out and was known to be effective.

 

[DMK]

A little off-topic but didn't the British originally use a 200 grain bullet in their .38 S&W cartridge?

And wasn't that 200 grain bullet outlawed by the Geneva Convention because it caused draconian wounds?

They did use a 200gr bullet at first. I remember reading somewhere that they thought it was quite effective too. Something did happen along the way and it was switched to a 158ish gr bullet.

Before WWII, the Brits were quite enamored with heavy bullets moving relatively slow. Another, possible more famous round is the .455 which is slightly heavier and slightly slower than 45ACP.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

And wasn't that 200 grain bullet outlawed by the Geneva Convention because it caused draconian wounds?

No. The British used a huge hollowpoint with the .455 cartridge, known as "the manstopper." It was that hollowpoint bullet that ran afoul of the Hague (not the Geneva) convention.

 

[Logos]

The big walker .45 caliber horse pistol could indeed stop a horse reliably.....but only if held by the barrel and then clubbing the butt into the space between the eyes of the horse.

Anything else was less reliable as not many could consistently put a bullet into the same place.

 

[5knives]

Loyalist Dave's comments are 100% on the money.

Might just add that the U.S had first forced the NATO transition to 7.62 and THEN almost immediately demanded the switch to 5.56, no way were the NATO Allies going to drop the 9x19 (which was quite satisfactory for their use) without an argument.

That is how the U.S got the 9mm, as Dave has stated..

True also that in the European model, handguns are essentially badges of rank, and the only real combat the cartridge sees is in the various SMG's, where the 9mm is a fine performer. 9mm makes all the sense in the world from their viewpoint.

The attitude of the chairborne brass is that handguns are more a comfort factor for the troops with very little utility in modern warfare. So it wasn't worth arguing about.

As always, JMO, others may and will disagree Machts Nicht to me, I am not emotionally invested in the discussion!

Regards,

 

[Logos]

In America, the M1 Carbine must have been a badge of rank, since a lot of officers carried them.

They were nice and light and pleasant to shoot.

 

[5knives]

Logos,

Essentially correct, the Carbine was designed to replace the pistols. That applied to junior Officers, and NCO's Senior Officers as usual armed themselves with T/O weapons they considered appropriate.

The intent was to give a little better hit probability, in a small lightweight package. Which role the Carbines fulfilled well. Being light and handy 'everyone' wanted one or thought they did. Survivors of a fire fight or two tended to have differing opinions and chose M-1's.

Experienced junior Officers tended to carry M-1's in combat. That was the situation from the introduction of the Carbine, through Korea.

The Marine Corps dumped the Carbines after Korea, and went back to M-1's and 1911's, Army kept them a while longer.

Inadequate performance on target and reliability issues were the only reasons I ever heard given.

Regards,

 

[Logos]

Yeah......"nice and light and pleasant to shoot" usually means trouble if you need to stop something dangerous from harming you.

Heavy and big and noisy and unpleasant is usually better.

 

[9mmepiphany]

the restriction of handgun ammo to FMJ isn't specific....it just trickled down from rifle bullet specifications

 

[friscolatchi]

I'd rather take 3 guys out with a 9mm then one with a 45. Shooting and wounding in war can be preferable to killing. One wounded soldier means that 3 are not shooting at you.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Take it from an old infantryman, a wounded man can kill you. It doesn't do you much good to put your enemy into the hospital if he puts you into your grave before he goes.

 

[Tim the student]

One wounded soldier means that 3 are not shooting at you.

How do you figure that?

 

[Logos]

I suppose he means that two have to tend to the one wounded.

This was the theory behind adopting the .223, but I'm not sure it applies with handguns.

With the handgun you're often within spitting distance of your adversary......so just wounding him may be a big problem.

 

[Tim the student]

I suppose he means that two have to tend to the one wounded.

Medics treat only "you're gonna die in like 2 minutes" type wounds immediately now, and return fire, as per combat casualty care course - it is "new", but has been the standard for a couple of years now. (http://www.naemt.org/education/PHTLS/TCCC.aspx, http://www.dmrti.army.mil/courses.html) Even disregarding that, who has two medics out with them to work on one guy when in contact? And after that, at least in Iraq and Afghanistan, the enemy doesn't have medics.

With the handgun you're often within spitting distance of your adversary......so just wounding him may be a big problem.

Indeed, Vern Humphrey spoke the truth when he said that a wounded man can still kill you - so why possibly risk it? I would rather have one guy that is dead, and not a threat anymore, than 3 that are still threats with holes in them.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

This was the theory behind adopting the .223, but I'm not sure it applies with handguns.

The theory behind adopting the .223 and the M16 (which had been tested and rejected by the Army) was that it would boost the economy in New England, especially among union workers.

 

[Logos]

Awww.....those nasty old unions.



Maybe the people who rejected the .223 were idiots. Seems to have done well for forty years or so.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Maybe the people who rejected the .223 were idiots. Seems to have done well for forty years or so.

I was there. I commanded an Infantry company (A-1/61 IN) in Northern I Corps. The people who rejected the .223 were right on the money.

 

[Logos]

How strange that it has done so well for forty years or so.

Wonder if they were just union-bashers like you?



Probably should discuss the .223 somewhere else, though.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

How strange that it has done so well for forty years or so.

Actually, it hasn't -- there have been over 3,000 engineering changes in the M16. The current version is ultra-refined. And troops still complain about stopping power and ammunition.

May I ask if you've personally shot anyone with the M16?