Historical question--why the downshift in handgun ammo after smokeless powder?

[Cosmoline]

I've noticed what appears to have been a trend in military and police handguns after the introduction of smokeless powder in the 1890's. They get *smaller* and *less* powerful. The US military apparently switched from .45 Colt to the .38 Long Colt. The Russians switched from the .44 Russian to the 7.62 Nagant. Police switched from .44-40's and .45 Colts to .32 ACP's and .38 S&W's. The 9x19, 45 ACP and .38 Special were slight improvements, but were still considered "high power" rounds of the day. It seems to be across the board, with no really dramatic upsurge in power until the .357 Magnum came out in the 1930's. In fact IIRC the .45 Colt was still the most potent handgun cartridge right up until the .357 Mag. was introduced.

So why did this happen? In rifle cartridges, the power went up--way up--after smokeless came into use. From 1890 to 1914 most of the modern high-power rifle cartridges had been created. Since then we've just been fiddling with them. Yet there are all these low-power handgun cartridges that dominated most military and law enforcement organizations until after WWII.

 

[Old Fuff]

The introduction of smokeless powder did many things, one of which was to make semi-automatic pistols practical. At the same time the world's major military powers decided they didn't need large-bore small arms and downsized the bullets in both pistols and rifles. As rimmed revolver cartridges didn't feed well out of box magazines, and the large capacity of revolver cases was no longer necessary, we see the introduction of a whole bunch of new pistol cartridges at the end of the 19th and start of the 20 centuries.

 

[unspellable]

smaller caliber

There was a fad in some circles for small caliber high velocity stuff. This would apply to the 7.63 Mauser and the two Parabellum cartridges, but not the 38 Colt. DWM used to show the cavities made in clay by the 44 Russian vs the 7.65 or 9 mm Parabellum cartridges, the latter making the bigger cavity of course. (Not slamming the competition either, DWM made the S&W pattern 44 Russian revolver under license to S&W. The DWM clones are said to be every bit as good as the S&W built ones.)

Reason does not rule here.

There were horror stories out of the Philippine insurrection about how the 38 Colt wouldn't stop the Moros. What you never hear is that the 30-40 Krag and the 45 Colt didn't stop them either.

There are a number of mysteries. Why did S&W lengthen the 44 Russian case to make the 44 Special but at the same time didn't boost the velocity? You would have to put a filler in the 44 Special black powder load (It was a transitional round intended for both black and smokeless powder.) to keep the velocity down to 44 Russian levels.

The brits switched from the 455 Webley to the 38-200 (More or less identical to the 38 S&W.) round between WWI and WWII. Supposedly for a more compact revolver with "equal" stopping power. I've done plenty of shooting with 455 Webleys and they were probably the most pleasant of all the big bores to shoot as far as recoil and noise are concerned. (Unless you are a masochist.)

 

[Jim Watson]

It wasn't just the transition to smokeless, the .38 Government/Long Colt was a black powder cartridge.

I think there was a lot of wishful thinking going on. I see signs of several factors.

The bigbores were meant to stop a savage enemy (or his horse) who would not stop fighting until physically broken down. A smaller, more manageable caliber would hurt a civilized enemy enough to cause him to seek medical aid; the psychological stop, as it has been called lately.

There was a worship of velocity and penetration as smokeless powder and jacketed bullets came in. Only the US Army and the British had enough institutional memory of fighting savages to want to keep such stopping power as possible in a handgun. Most others downsized. As Jan Stevenson said, "The French had no doubts. The new rifle was 8mm, the pistol would be the same."

The German Staff Theory led to the notion of officers as managers. They were - are - expected to direct their troops instead of leading them into battle. So the sidearm was more a badge of rank than a weapon. A lot of .32s in Higher Ranks. But they insisted on the 9mm Luger to get more effectiveness than the original 7.65, so there was some conflict there.

It is not hard to see what was done. Why is difficult.

 

[Preacherman]

Personally, I have a pet theory about this. If you recall, in the days of black-powder ammo, military rifles were large-caliber (.45-70 in the USA, 11mm., etc. in Europe, .577 Snider in England, etc.). When smokeless powder came along, calibers became dramatically smaller, almost everyone standardizing on something in the 6.5mm. to 8mm. range, but with dramatically higher velocities than the old black-powder rounds. I rather suspect that the same thinking influenced those purchasing handguns - "If we've downsized our rifle calibers due to the greater efficiency of smokeless powders, why not do the same to our handgun calibers?" Of course, the fact that handgun velocities are way, way lower than rifle velocities was not taken into consideration...

Anyway, that's my theory. YMMV!

 

[Majic]

There's been autopistol ammo that offered 2200+ fps for decades now.

And the cartridge would be......???
A wild guess would mean either a very small lightweight bullet or using what would equal a barrel the length of a rifle.
Either way velocity isn't the only factor. You compared it's velocity against moderately heavy rifle bullets doing the same velocity. That is the working combination. Just raising bullet speed without having much mass results in poor terminal performance. You have to balance the 2.

Another consideration in the lowering of handgun power was that society was beginning to frown on the law enforcment as they on a lot of the occasions killed the suspects. The gunfighter was no longer wanted as a law officer. Society was looking to bring criminals to trial for punishment. Taking the heavy, powerful handguns and replacing them with lesser powered models could have been one answer. There were 2 different trains of thought on handgun power between the people who lived in large cities and those of the more open rural areas, and in a democracy the larger number wins.

 

[Jim Watson]

I think it took a few decades after the introduction of smokeless powder to get to that level. I think it will take a few more decades for the concept of a 2200 fps pistol bullet with an effective range of 10m to be accepted.

 

[Majic]

to include the9x19, .45 ACP, 357 Sig, 10mm, 9x23 Win, 9x25 Dillion, 38 Casull,and others, and it can be done with 4" barrels, too.

ok, for the sake of curiosity, it can and has been done by whom and when?

A .45 has 4x the frontal area of a 223, and with the same wt bullet as the 223, that greater frontal area means that you don't need to have as high a velocity as the 223 has (initially)

And what .45 caliber bullet weighs in the 55 to 70 grain range?

Furthermore, when using softpoints, the 223 still packs one helluva blow out where it "only" has 2200 fps, say,with the 70 gr Speer softpoint.

As long as your target is say a 35 lb. groundhog. Move up to larger animals with heavier bones, thicker bodies, and the bullet becomes miminal at the least.

A 12 ga hollowpoint slug will blow apart a 5 gallon can of water, just like a 308 softpoint will do. If you have enough greater frontal area with the bullet, you dont need to match the velocity,in order to have the same effect with your temporary gas cavity

It's not just the frontal area, it's the amount of mass behind it that drives the slug deeply for it's explosive power. That 12 gauge slug will weigh around 500 to 750 grains. Without that mass the cavity it creates would be very shallow.

In theroy a lot of things on paper looks good, but the real world shows some of them have no practical application. Large frontal area projectiles aren't driven at high speeds because they are made with a greater mass to achieve the penetration. The lower mass of the small frontal area projectiles is supplied with a higher velocity to achieve the same result. To destroy the vital organs the projectile must penetrate to their level.

 

[grendelbane]

In fact IIRC the .45 Colt was still the most potent handgun cartridge right up until the .357 Mag. was introduced.

Oh! How quickly we forget. The .38 Super was introduced in 1929. As long as you use kinetic energy as your yardstick it is more "powerful" than the .45 Colt.

I understand that there were people who had Single Action Colts chambered for the .38 Super. The .38-44 and then the .357 Magnum put an end to this practice.

Consider the effect that the Great Depression, (which hit botttom with the birth of Ralph Nader), had on handgun thinking. In WWI the handgun was well regarded. In WWII it was not. A generation had grown up deprived of recreational handgun shooting. Of course, advances in long guns that were big improvements in close range combat also occurred. Seldom is there ever a single factor at work.

 

[Cosmoline]

Yes, I did forget that one. I also forget the broomhandle Mauser pistol cartridge, which IIRC was a "magnum" in its day.

 

[The_Antibubba]

The fog of war

Once smokeless powder came into general use, the way a battle was fought began to change. Not only could a sniper hit a target 300 yards away, but the target could actually be seen-a lot less smoke and haze. But haze was also concealment, and a cavalry or infantry charge didn't make a good target until they got close.

If you have to fight at HTH range, or near to it, just to know that you've hit something, a revolver (or two or three) with six balls or cartridges, and a sword are a lot more useful than a cumbersome rifle, even considering a bayonet. But if the smoke is not present, then ranged shooting becomes the norm, and a handgun becomes a last-ditch weapon, or, as others have said, a symbol of status to an officer.

 

[Hal]

They get *smaller* and *less* powerful.

hehe,
Cos ole buddy - you're looking at it from a gunnie's point of view.

(LE- I'll let someone else speculate on the military side)

They get *lighter too not just smaller. Remember, those old timey city Johnny Laws didn't have partrol cars or DARE SUV's to cruise their beats with. Weight plays a real important part when it comes to pounding the streets via the shoeleather express for long hours day after day.

More often than not back in those days, the people making the decisions were members or past members of the regular rank and file, not some ivory tower deskrider/bean counter. They'd been where the regular Joe was, and knew what mattered and what didn't.

Lot's of things have changed over the years - lots of things have stayed the same - coppers carry guns a lot, and use them very little. In a lot of ways, turn-of-last-centruy coppers thought a lot like today's CCW holder.
Scan thread after thread, and notice the "trend" here for CCW carry. The overwheming choice is small - lightweight - caliber is not as critical as carry-ability.

 

[Jim K]

Nice ideas, but the answer is really simple. You can kill a man with a slow moving bullet if the bullet is large and heavy. Or you can kill a man with a light bullet if it is moving fast.

Since black powder could not get even a light bullet moving very fast, a heavy bullet was needed to provide the necessary degree of lethality. But smokeless powder had more power and could move a bullet faster, so the bullet could be made lighter and other advantages gained.

Other factors entered, like the difficulty of cleaning small bore guns shot with black powder, but lethality was the name of the game.

Jim

 

[jc2]

Don't forget the the .25-20 and .32-20 were both small calibre black powder rounds. The .32-20 was also available in handguns. If you drop back to the percussion era, there plenty of .32s and .36s in long guns, and the Colt Navy in .36 was quite popular west of the Mississippi.

 

[cratz2]

Well, assuming FMJ ammo is used, I still believe that a 9mm, 38 Super, 38/44 etc... will zip right through a man as easily as a 45ACP if not a bit easier. Not so much to say they are the equal to 45ACP/45Colt as much as they have equal killing ability.

If we discount preconceived notions or the 'bigger is always better' mentality, smaller ammo is cheaper to produce, cheaper to ship easier to carry, easier to shoot... Lots of advantages.

 

[grendelbane]

Not so much to say they are the equal to 45ACP/45Colt as much as they have equal killing ability

The smaller, higher velocity cartridges of the 9mm family may actually have greater killing ability. "Stopping power" and lethality are not the same thing.

A good example would be the difference between a hard swung baseball bat and a fencing foil. The bat might stop some one quicker, while the foil might kill them, but leave them active for a few minutes before they do succumb.

The advantage of soft point and hollow point bullets was well recognized in the late 19th century. Young Winston Churchill, among others, preferred them. The early examples were not terribly reliable, however.