idiot gun writers

[.455_Hunter]

My basic training instructor did, as it happens, tell us the bullets tumbled.
I took it at the time to mean in flight (being young, un-educated, and unwilling to risk a thousand pushups by questioning it).
Took some time to figure out he probably meant on impact, which is more applicable.

Interesting. I guess it would not the first time such blather has spewed forth...

Someone can correct me If I am wrong, but I believe the only time M-16 bullets have "tumbled in flight" was when prototype rifles were being evaluated in the extreme winter cold of interior Alaska, and the high air density proved too much for the original 1/14 twist. This problem was corrected by going to a 1/12 twist, which remained standard until the M16A2 and the 62 gr steel core ammo was fielded.

 

[Rodentman]

At least he said gun "magazine" and not gun "clip."

 

[tark]

I stated in my OP that the pistol in question was a Colt pocket auto. The concept I an referring to can be very easily demonstrated to any one that owns a 9mm pistol and has a 45ACP empty case. Pretend that your 9MM pistol is a colt pocket auto in 32 ACP. Pretend that the 45ACP case is a 380 case. Now, try and slide that 45 ACP case up into firing position in that 9mm slide. Won't go , will it? Of course not, it is too wide. In the same manner, a 380 case won't enter the breech face cutout on a 32 ACP slide.

I use a 9mm pistol as an example because almost everybody has one. The size/difference/ratio on the 9mm/45ACP is about the same as that between a 32ACP and a 380.

I know all about the HK with interchangeable barrels and mags. That gun was designed from the ground up to have easily interchanged calibers. The Colt 1903 pocket auto wasn't.

Sarge....you sometimes had to change magazines? You can't get 380 rounds to enter a 32 magazine, and 32 rounds won't STAY in a 380 magazine. They pop back out as soon as you put them in......

 

[PapaG]

I won't call any of them idiots. They do make mistakes. I normally write a polite letter to the editor to point out serious errors. Nowadays, with email, I usually get a response quite soon. Some of the old timers relied on memory too much. Dick Metcalf was one who liked to "recall stuff" and was often wrong. He never responded to letters. A couple of the newer ones like to exaggerate ballistics figures. Those are easy enough to check but obviously they don't.
Some of the cheaper mags, especially with "backwoods" in the title print about anything and I've often called them to task for dangerous advice. Confusing grams, grains and drams is common. Not understanding the reason for five rounds in an old style single action and recommending they be carried with six are just two examples.
Editors earn their pay, most of the time. Some mags need one.
Stan

 

[lysanderxiii]

Sometimes I am so shocked by some of the stupid things I read in gun publications that I wonder if the writer has ever even touched the gun (s) that he is writing about. Just today I read a letter in A major (I will mention no names) publication asking if it was possible to convert a colt pocket pistol from .32 auto to .380. The reply was (again, no names) SURE! Just swap out the 32 barrel and mag and substitute the 380 parts and...... What is wrong with this picture?? A little something called the breech face cutout in the slide.... A .380 will not fit into the breech face cutout on a .32 slide. You would have to change the slide, also, not to mention the recoil spring..... At least an attempt to do as the writer suggested would result in a harmless failure to function.

Uhh, have you tried it?

The rim diameter of a .380 ACP case is .374", the rim diameter of .32 ACP is .358", a difference of .016" or .008" on each side (two sheets of paper). The breech face of most .32 ACPs is rather loose and all of them that I have seen will accept a .380 case.

Many .32 ACP designs have been rechambered to .380, such as the Walther PP and PPK with no change to the slide, so no change in breech weight. If you do the math and calculate the optimum spring rate, there is a slight difference in the "optimum", but either will still be within the "acceptable" range, certainly not enough to worry about.

I have converted several .32 ACP (MABs, HScs, Colts/FNs) pistols by swapping barrels from .32 to .380 they work just fine. Fixed barrels are not easily done, and I have tried that, but I see no reason it shouldn't work. If there is a problem it's with the magazine, but that is not usually the case in my experience.

Some of the advice is downright dangerous, like saying it is ok to convert a Webley Mk IV to 45 ACP. A nice way to invite disaster. The ACP round operates above proof levels for the Webley.

When was the last time anyone suggested that? 1970?

 

[lysanderxiii]

I stated in my OP that the pistol in question was a Colt pocket auto. The concept I an referring to can be very easily demonstrated to any one that owns a 9mm pistol and has a 45ACP empty case. Pretend that your 9MM pistol is a colt pocket auto in 32 ACP. Pretend that the 45ACP case is a 380 case. Now, try and slide that 45 ACP case up into firing position in that 9mm slide. Won't go , will it? Of course not, it is too wide. In the same manner, a 380 case won't enter the breech face cutout on a 32 ACP slide.

I use a 9mm pistol as an example because almost everybody has one. The size/difference/ratio on the 9mm/45ACP is about the same as that between a 32ACP and a 380.

I know all about the HK with interchangeable barrels and mags. That gun was designed from the ground up to have easily interchanged calibers. The Colt 1903 pocket auto wasn't.

Sarge....you sometimes had to change magazines? You can't get 380 rounds to enter a 32 magazine, and 32 rounds won't STAY in a 380 magazine. They pop back out as soon as you put them in......

As stated above .374 to .358 (.380 ACP to .32 ACP = .016") is no where near .473 to .392 (.45 ACP to 9mm Para = .081")....

You forget that .32 ACP is a semi-rimmed case.

And .311/.355 = .876 and .355/.451 = .787, proportionally, 9mm is much smaller compared to .45 than .32 compared to .380.

Again, have you tried it? I have and, NO, they don't 'pop out'...

Gun magazine writers are sometimes more informed than Internet forum writers....

 

[lysanderxiii]

.....

I'll bet you are a Missouri type-of-guy so here you go...

I chose a Sauer 38h magazine because these were never made in .380 ACP (9mm Kurtz)...

Here the magazine in holding a sized, ready for loading .32 ACP case:


Here it has a full 7 round load of .380 ACP.


And now a P-12 .380 ACP magazine with the same sized, ready-for-loading .32 ACP case



The breech face, the extractor is holding the .380 ACP case nice and flat against the breech block:

 

[lysanderxiii]

Interesting. I guess it would not the first time such blather has spewed forth...

Someone can correct me If I am wrong, but I believe the only time M-16 bullets have "tumbled in flight" was when prototype rifles were being evaluated in the extreme winter cold of interior Alaska, and the high air density proved too much for the original 1/14 twist. This problem was corrected by going to a 1/12 twist, which remained standard until the M16A2 and the 62 gr steel core ammo was fielded.

A 55 grain FMJ-BT at 3300 fps fired in 72 F degree air has a SG right at 1.00

A 55 grain FMJ-BT at 3300 fps fired in 72 F degree air has a SG right at 1.30

So, you can see that the 1-14 twist has no margin. When combat tested in the hot humid jungles of Vietnam, it was OK, not so good in Alaska.

The 1-12 twist gives SG above 1.00 all the way down to -60 F.

 

[lysanderxiii]

Here is another classic example that anyone with half a brain would immediately recognize as a little suspect.... A large article on sub-machine guns with specs listed below each gun. Each gun was listed with the magazines capacity, "Plus 1". They all fired from the open bolt. Somebody want to explain to me how this "plus 1" thing works with a gun that fires from the open bolt?? I read in an article where the M-60 machine gun had a real problem with "cooking off rounds" No M-60 ever "cooked off a round" The CAN and DO sometimes run away, but an open bolt gun does not cook off a round.

There are a number of submachineguns that fired from a closed bolt, the Riesing M50 and M55, the Italian M4, the Mendoza, are examples.

As to "cooking off" in an M-60....Yes, an M60 can cook-off, but it is very rare thankfully, almost theoretical in nature.

One, is a failure of the primer or firing pin leaving a live round in the hot chamber, or two, the really bad way, and very, very rare: the barrel get so hot the round cooks-off and fires before the bolt locks.... You ought to notice, (or your assistant gunner should at any rate) the white hot barrel and break the belt before a cook-off happens.

 

[DPris]

Our instructor put quite a bit of emphasis on barrel changes, along with that cook-off subject.

And I recall the smell of burned palm when one guy forgot the mitten....
Denis

 

[tark]

don't have a 1903 Colt pocket auto, so no, I haven't tried it, but I have a friend in California who DOES have one. It didn't work for him. The 380 rounds fit so tightly in the .32 mag they wouldn't feed. But in all fairness, they DID go in. And he WAS able to squeeze the 380 rounds up into firing position, albeit with considerable force being required. With his pistol, it would not have worked without some tuning. But....

With a bit of minor, and judicious filing, and deburring....yes it would have worked.

So here I am looking like an idiot with my only defense being this; I think the writer should have mentioned that not all guns will accept the swap without a little work.

At Les's shop, we ordered only one kind of 9mm/38 Super slide; with a .395 breechface cutout. The 38 Super, with its semi rim, measured .405 and I had to open up every one that was going on a Super with a small file. Took about ten minutes, but the supers would NOT enter the 9mm slide without some work on the slide. The difference was only ten thousands, but that was enough.

My Cartridges of the world lists the 32 at .354 and the 380 at .374. Twenty thousands is quite a difference.

Apologies are now in order. Sarge, I am sorry that I insinuated that you were telling a fib when you said you converted a 32 to a 380. It is possible and if you say you did it, then you did it!

As I said in an earlier post, I have looked stupid in the past and probably will again.... But I learn. Now, I'm gonna go and find myself a 1903 and a 1908 Colt pocket auto, and start swapping barrels and mags. And if it doesn't work, I'll be back.

And LysanderXIII, Im not from Missouri, I'm from Iowa...That's even worse:

 

[tark]

I"m back. Just enough time to put in my last word. After doing much research and actually trying it on a couple of actual colt pistols, a 1903 and a 1908< I can report;

It doesn't work. At least not on the two pistols I had in front of me.

Colt apparently DID use the same slide for both pistols. And had an assembly man that spent all day, apparently, opening up breech faces with a file, for the 380s, exactly the way I did at Les Baer custom. The ejector for the 380 is different from the 32. The 380 used a stronger recoil spring.

A 380 case would not enter the breech face of the 32 slide I tried it on, not even with considerable force. The 380 rounds would not enter the 32 magazine at all. The rim of a 380 might only be 16 thousands larger than a 32, but the case body is 40 thousands larger, and that's a lot. The 380 mag barely entered the 32 frame, but refused to lock in place. The 32 mag rattled around a bit in the 380 frame, but did lock in place. Both of the guns I had to look at were collector grade and attempting to fire them was out of the question. I think the 380-32 MIGHT have worked, the 32-380 at least on these two, was out of the question.

Still, there are those who have done it. It is possible. But not likely, in the majority of cases, I am convinced. And I still think it should have been made clear in Shotgun News, that this conversion may require some gunsmithing.

 

[Reloadron]

I have to give you credit for follow through. Seriously, nice job.

Ron

 

[AKElroy]

Only the Almighty gets true information. The rest of us have to manage with approximations. Some of those approximations are better than others.

Thank you for this. I grew up listening to the exact type of misinformation this OP decries here from my father, grandfather, uncles, cousins, etc. Campfire talk is filled with misinformation. I love every bit of it. Many of the "gun writers" being referenced are offering opinions based on their experience. Opinions are by definition subjective, and while they may be factually inaccurate, they are the honest views of the author. Stating them does not make the "idiots", any more than my campfire mates are "idiots".

As long as those authors continue to be human, I will continue to give them a pass. These writings are for our enjoyment. Now, if dangerous information is being given in a reloading manual, then by all means, be a friend and point it out.

 

[cheygriz]

Does anyone think that most of these writers actually BELIEVE the garbage they shovel??

I don't. They shovel whatever garbage their editor tells them will help sell the advertiser's product.

They aren't stupid, IMHO. Just dishonest.

 

[AKElroy]

Does anyone think that most of these writers actually BELIEVE the garbage they shovel??

I don't. They shovel whatever garbage their editor tells them will help sell the advertiser's product.

They aren't stupid, IMHO. Just dishonest.

Too broad a brush. Some are simply selling a product, many others tell what they see from the perspective they see it. You may disagree, but that makes either them or you wrong, not dishonest. Craig Boddington is not dishonest IMO. Cooper was not dishonest IMO. Alex Hamilton, my neighbor and my FFL is not dishonest IMO. Mas Ayoob is not dishonest IMO. I could list names for another hour if you like.

 

[Sam1911]

cheygriz, you may not realize that you're talking to (at least) one professional gun writer in this thread, and it would be highly improper to accuse him of the things you said.

Seems to me that your brush is indeed far too broad, at best.

If you actually care what gun writers really do with their time, and how they put articles together read some threads like these:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=9960420
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=639569

Input from at least one pro gun writer on how the thing is done...

 

[zb338]

A man shot in the chest with a .45 may not go down. My guess is that he
would be looking for a place to rest his weary head.

Zeke

 

[HankB]

I received my CMP surplus M-1 today, and it shot 1/2 inch groups right out of the box!

Riiiiight!

Well, when you do your testing at 15 yards rather than 100 . . .

Using USGI milsurp ammo, my CMP M1 Garand will do about 2.5 - 3 inch groups at 100 yards for 8 rounds off a rest; I'm happy with that, although a master shooter with better eyes than mine could probably improve on that a bit.

But a CMP M1 is no more capable of producing 1/2" groups at 100 yards on demand than an S&W M29 using Elmer Keith's loads will do 1" groups at the same distance. (Shoot enough groups, and eventually you'll get a statistical outlier that's really good. But it won't be representative.)