Pistol Penetration Thoughts

[Nightcrawler]

Many here wonder why militaries don't use JHP ammo. One answer is, of course, the Hague Accords, which forbids expanding ammo. Aside from that, though, in a combat context you WANT penetration. It's the reason that the military switched to SS109 5.56mm round (which doesn't fragment at any velocity) from the supposed death ray that the fragmenting 55 grain stuff was (according to some). A round that fragments in "soft media" will also fragment in trees, armor, and light cover; not good, as bad guys tend to hide behind things.

The same holds true for pistol and SMG rounds in a combat setting. You want to be able to nail the guy hiding behind the door, or the wall, or the tree. (Suddently those 5.56mm 40 grain hollowpoints that won't penetrate two layers of drywall, apparently, don't seem so good.) You want to be able to punch through as much stuff as possible. On the battlefield, armor piercing ammunition is almost always preferable to ball, as you're not really giving anything up and are gaining quite a bit (especially in terms of use against helicopters and thin-skinned vehicles, though I've heard that 7.62x51mm AP will cut through an M113's 4" of aluminum armor at close range, but I'm not sure).

Now, this doesn't apply so much to pistols, but pistols and SMGs are still seen on the battlefield. Armor is now more common than ever, though no pistol round (including FN's 5.7mm) is going to penetrate armor with steel or ceramic rifle plates. However, by "armor", many times in a military context you're talking about a simple flak jacket and/or helmet. The current US Kevlar helmet is rated only NIJ Level II; rifle rounds will sail right through it. As are the old NATO flak jakets, though the US forces in Iraq are now wearing what is apparently called the Interceptor vest, which indeed seems to have ceramic rifle plates fore and aft (a very good idea).

So, basically, you'd want to be able to punch through a flak jacket and, if possible, a kevlar helmet with your pistol and/or SMG.

When I was at Camp Grayling, I bought a book by T.J. Mullin entitled Special Operations Weapons and Tactics. A very interesting read, and the author seems to know his stuff (in addition to being blatantly pro-gun).

He professes an obvious preferance for the 9x19mm round in a military context, though he asserts repeatedly that he likes both the .45 round and 1911 pistols. However, he definately feels that .45ACP has little use on the battlefield. Observe this quote:

"Many military teams in the US seem to utilize modified M1911A1 .45ACP pistols. I believe this is because of the impact of Col. Jeff Cooper and his followers on such special units. Many of the people who are members of these units have been trained at places where Col. Cooper's influence is quite strong or ins ome cases they have even trained at Gunsite in Arizona, the Colonel's training center. His training program and the course of fire they shoot rewards emphasis on the single action .45 caliber pistol. As a consequence, some military Special Operations people have apparently gotten a mission confused with a match. The special expeditionary recon Marine unit, for example, has modified M1911A1 pistols to get a weapon that really would make a very nice ISPC match gun but is not really suitable for a military Special Operations team."

Then later:

"As with typical infantry units, the pistol in a Special Operations unit should only be used in the event the main weapon goes down. Accordingly it should be small and light-weight so you do not lose rifle ammunition or grenades to a seldom-used pistol. In the military context, it also must use ammunition acceptable to The Hague Convention and should be capable of penetrating ballistic vests that are more and more commonly encountered in the military field or pouches full of steel magazines filled with steel-cased ammunition. Standard .45ACP ammunition simply will not cut it when confronted with such tasks. Handguns that weigh 39 ounces (empty and are so big that they must be carried on the belt taking up space better filled by a spare magazine pouch holding 90 extra rifle rounds, a grenade, or pissible (and even more useful) a canteen of water) seem excessive to me- and I like .45 Government Model pistols. The Special Operations military handgun should be light, small and a vest penetrator. This in addition to the other typical requirements of dependability, safety and ease of shooting. Good examples of such weapons are the S&W M940 and 9M both of which will accept 9mm AP loads and yet can be carrie din the top pocket of a fatigue shirt easily. One would suppose other weapons might prove useful if proper ammunition was obtained like a PM (Makarov) with AP ammo, various .38 small-size revolvers or autoloader chambered for the newly developed FN Five-seveN x 28mm cartridge if made into a small, handy piece. The current FN Five-seveN pistol is light enough but is as big as an M1911A1 pistol so you gain some weight saving by using it but nothing else."

"Of course, there may be times when military Special Operations teams will use a handgun as their primary tool. An example might be some type of raid or snatch group where one or more people may find it difficult to use anything other than a handgun. When this occurs, then a more traditional sized handgun is called for, like the FN Five-seveN which gives high capacity AP penetrating capability and good stopping power. Even in those situations, the current response seen, especially in the US, of adoptin M1911A1 .45ACP -type pistols is wrong as it lacks the ability to penetrate ballistic vests or the variety of field gear confronted today."


Obviously, the author likes the 5.7mm round. However, he admits later that it might not be all that and a bag of chips.

"The new FN P90 which uses the unique 5.7x28mm cartridge is like an SMG in many ways and may offer new potential in that area. It is so new that few are out there. A few teams had them but more as an experiment than anything else. A friend related an experience with one on a recent raid that was quite disappointing, I am sorry to say. Too many shots, too many good hits and too few deaths for good taste. Time will tell."


Anyways, if after all that you're still reading, I ask you, what do you think? Agree/disagree? Are SpecOps teams misguided in their choice of the 1911 style pistol (I believe that Delta and others prefer the 1911, whereas the Navy SEALs seem to like the Sig P226 nowadays). Is the .45ACP FMJ round really so poor a penetrator that it won't go through a chest harness with magazines? If so, will 9x19mm?

What of this 9mm "Armor Piercing" ammunition? I wasn't aware that you could MAKE armor piercing ammo for conventional pistol rounds. I though it might be possible, but would still be only of limited effectiveness. In any case I imaged a .357 Magnum with a steel cored, very pointy bullet (the revolver, of course, not requiring a rounded nose for surest feeding).

 

[Zak Smith]

t's the reason that the military switched to SS109 5.56mm round (which doesn't fragment at any velocity)

False. M855/SS-109 does fragment, similarly to M193 in that over 2700fps is desirable.

See http://www.ammo-oracle.com/ for more cites.

-z

 

[Zak Smith]

As for the 5.7x28 vs. 9mm vs. .45, I think it comes down to application.

If you're shooting armored things, you need penetration over anything else. The 5.7 probably wins there.

If you're shooting "soft" people you want to stop RFN, it's basically the same question as "what do you want to carry for self-defense" with respect to caliber, with the exception that the military might be restricted to FMJ. In that case, .45 probably wins.

-z

 

[C.R.Sam]

Some thoughts.

On one of my jobs we had the option of using 9mm grease guns or .45 Thompsons. The Thompsons were the choice in spite of weight and clunkiness because they seemed to work better against quilted pajama armor.

In Korea, some recon folks used captured Thompsons instead of their issue carbines for the same reason...seemed to work better against quilted pajama armor.

I think few, if any, handgun rounds truly effective against modern armor. With the exception of the rarely seen true armor piercing bullets that came on the scene back around 70. (KTW)

If the mission is a special operation away from the major fighting, modern body armor far less likely to be worn by the bad guys.

That said...a gun that I trust implicitly is more important to me than the caliber....mission counts highly too.

Sam

 

[Zak Smith]

I think few, if any, handgun rounds truly effective against modern armor. With the exception of the rarely seen true armor piercing bullets that came on the scene back around 70. (KTW)

Here's the story on KTW:

From the rec.guns FAQ:

The History

There has been, since at least 1982, a lot of hype about "cop killer" bullets; that is handgun ammunition that is supposed to be able to penetrate the sort of soft body armor commonly worn by American police officers. The ammo which was pointed to most often by shameless politicians like Rep. Mario Biaggi was the teflon coated KTW round. A few states, like South Carolina, even define banned ammo in terms of it having a Teflon coating (S.C. Code sec. 16-23-250), without regard to its ability to penetrate body armor, or the materials used in constructing the bullet. In 1986, with P.L. 99-408, and subsequent revisions, Congress banned the further making of bullets with cores made out of most metals other than lead, for use in a handgun, for civilian sale. But what is already out there may continue to be owned, state law permitting.

At some point in 1981, or perhaps 1979, Congressman Mario Biaggi (D-N.Y.), a very highly decorated retired NYC police officer, and a Congressman from the Bronx, N.Y., got wind of this ammo, and the fact that in some calibers it could penetrate the level II vest worn by some police officers as protection against handgun shooting. He, in concert with NBC, began in 1981, a campaign to publicize the existence of the ammo, and to whip up public outrage against this threat. He claimed that the Teflon coating permitted 20% greater penetration than a bullet without it, and that the coating assisted in penetrating body armor. He was assisted by Mr. Arthur Kassel, the then owner of the Beverly Hills (CA) Gun Club, who helped whip up media interest in California in the KTW round, and the dangerousness of its civilian availability.

Congressman Biaggi also claimed that according to Dennis Grey, of the Broward County, FL, Sheriff's Department, at least two police officers had been killed with the KTW round; a Florida State Highway Patrolman, and a visiting Canadian policeman, both in 1976 in Broward County, FL. Neither was wearing body armor. Congressman Biaggi also got Du Pont to refuse to sell Teflon to KTW. In 1986 he finally got his wish and the current federal restrictions were enacted, as well as a host of state laws banning various bullets and ammunition types. In the late 1980's Congressman Biaggi was sent to jail, as part of the "Wedtech" defense procurement scandal, and became, to my understanding, a felon, unable to lawfully possess either firearms or ammunition.

The NRA opposed Rep. Biaggi's initial (1982) legislation because it used a performance standard, any handgun ammunition which would penetrate 18 layers of the Kevlar material used to make soft body armor would be covered by the law. This would have had the effect of banning nearly all rifle rounds for which handguns were made, as soft body armor cannot, in general, resist rifle ammunition. In the end, the NRA helped draft the current law, which is based on the construction of the bullet, without regard to its ability to penetrate body armor. Thus some pistol rounds which do penetrate some soft body armor are not affected, while rounds which do not penetrate body armor are regulated. And the problem of a law meant to apply to handgun ammunition also regulating rifle ammunition, including 7.62x51 and 7.62x39, was not solved by the re-write.

The Ammunition

KTW stands for the initials of the last names of the three men who came up with the round, Dr. Paul J. Kopsch, Dan Turcus, and Don Ward. All three were from Lorain, OH, and in the late 1960's saw a need for pistol ammunition that would enable police to engage suspects inside motor vehicles; much conventional handgun ammunition, especially at that time, would not penetrate the car's steel body. In 1968, they created KTW, Inc., and began marketing the ammo, and by 1979 had sold over 232,000 rounds. In 1980 they entered into a marketing agreement with North American Ordnance Corp. (NAOC) to make and sell their ammunition. At all times KTW (and NAOC) had a policy of only selling the ammo to police officers, or departments, or overseas.

The sample of KTW ammunition I had access to was .380 ACP caliber, it also came in 9mm para, .38 special, .357 magnum, and .45 ACP. It is in an MTM plastic case, holding 12 rounds of the ammunition. It is apparently reloads; with silver colored primers, and mixed headstamps (W-W, R-P and S&W) in the same box which was factory sealed before I opened it. It has a silver foil sticker wrapped around the box, sealing it. On the front side it says:

ktw
metal piercing ammunition
WARNING
Keep out of reach of children

On the sides of the box it has a second sticker with the caliber inside typewritten on it.

On the back it says:

FOR POLICE USE ONLY

These cartridges are high velocity, high intensity rounds for use
in arms of new or excellent condition originally designed and
chambered specifically for this cartridge. We warrant the exercise
of reasonable care in the manufacture of these cartridges but
assume no further responsibility expressed or implied.
NORTH AMERICAN ORDNANCE CORPORATION
Pontiac, Mighigan 48057, U.S.A.

The bullet itself is a flat head, truncated cone shape, with a solid, not hollow, point. The bullets are covered with green Teflon, which appears to be painted on, and does not seem to adhere particularly well to the bullet. The bullets are not attracted to a magnet, they are made out of brass or bronze. This ammunition is now a collector's item, and I did not attempt to fire any.

References:

Hearings on Armor-Piercing and Exploding Bullets, Subcommitte on Crime, House Judiciary Committee, Serial No. 123, 97th Cong. 2d sess., US GPO 1983. [fiche CIS 83 H521-69]

1986 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News, Legislative History on P.L. 99- 408, Armor Piercing Ammunition, pp. 1992-2008.

 

[Nightcrawler]

I stand corrected. It would seem that SS109 has the same shortcomings when it comes to penetrating cover as any other military issue 5.56mm round.

Unless, of course, you're going to try to tell me that it ONLY fragments in human bodies but will slide through everything else, as some have. "No magic bullets", right?

 

[clubsoda22]

my aluminum aguila rounds are far superior to the KTW, and completely legal...like the KTW, they don't penetrate body armor, but will go through a car door with ease, and unlike the KTW, they fragment in human bodies.

 

[Zak Smith]

Unless, of course, you're going to try to tell me that it ONLY fragments in human bodies but will slide through everything else, as some have. "No magic bullets", right?

Well, M855 does penetrate steel better than M193. You can try it for yourself. Get some 3/4" thick mild steel plate and have at it with both. Even at AR500 "armor plating", M855 makes deeper pock marks than M193 (which isn't much on AR500).

I have no idea what they'll look like after penetrating though. That might be an interesting experiment. Put a piece of cardboard a foot or two behind a 1/4" steel plate and see if you get one hole or a bunch of fragments.

-z

 

[CWL]

clubsoda22,

You are going to be awfully disappointed if you ever have to shoot any BGs with those Aguilla IQ aluminum bullets.

They have performed dismally while tested in ballistic gelatin with 9mm underpenetrating from 2.5-9.3 inches
http://ammolab.com/9mm_section2.htm

And .45ACP underperforming @ 6.3-7.3 inches. (and this is a bullet chrono'd ~1500fps!)
http://www.firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/volume3/number2/article2.htm

 

[John Ross]

Tim Mullin is a good friend. I have supplied many of the weapons he has tested in his books, and wrote the Introduction to his Handbook of Handguns.

Tim is very thorough, and he never forgets that different missions dictate different equipment.

He has always "liked" the .45 more than the 9mm, for civilian situations. The fact is that soldiers wear stuff that badguys never do: Harnesses and web belts laden with loaded magazines, canteens, helmets, grenades, and other bullet-stopping gear, even if they don't use actual body armor.

That is why he always asks me to save the defective MG magazines I'd otherwise throw away. He fills them with surplus ammo and SHOOTS them with various ammo that a soldier might carry in his pistol, to see what happens. Ditto with surplus helmets he buys in quantity from Charley Steen. I even donated an old Zippo for a test.

The results of these experiments are the basis for his assertion that the 9mm is superior to the .45 for a soldier in a modern military. I'd take his advice seriously.

JR

 

[Nightcrawler]

Hmm...

I was not aware that .45 FMJ was so poor at penetrating cover. I, personally, once shot an old steel pot helmet with a 4" 1911; punched a nice big hole in the close side and put an outward dent in the far side. Range was only about 10 feet, though.

I wonder if 230 grain FMJ, loaded to +P velocities, say, about 950 to 1000 feet per second, would fare much better? Heavy bullets have a lot of momentum, which makes them harder to stop. However, those big fat .45 bullets have a lot of frontal area, too, and that creates a lot of "drag" as they go through stuff.

If 9mm is good, then, I'll bet 10mm is better. I wonder what a 200 grain, round (or preferably, pointy nosed, if it could feed reliably) FMJ bullet going about 1200 feet per second would do?

See, you want penetration, but you also want the bullet to do some damage when it gets there. From what little data I've been able to find, the FN 5.7x28mm SS190 round penetrates like all get out but seems to wound like a .22 Magnum; drills a hole clean through, but little in the way of permanent or temporary wound cavities, etc. (From what little I've heard.)

Quick, somebody PayPal me a few thousand dollars so I can buy a Glock 20, a 9mm pistol, a bunch of target test media, and a reloading setup so I can tailor handloads for the experiment!

Waiting...

John Ross, this is probably a dumb question, but are you the JR that wrote "Unintended Consequences" or is that just your nickname?

 

[Zak Smith]

As a rough back-of-the-envelope comparison of penetration, assuming similar bullet construction, you can use:

bullet momentum / sectional area,

or put another way,

velocity * sectional density.

A 124gr 9mm at 1250fps is about 1.56e6 "grain feet per second per square inch".

A 200gr 10mm at 1150fps is about 1.83e6 "grain feet per second per square inch".

A 230gr .45 at 840fps is about 1.2e6 "grain feet per second per square inch".

A 31gr 5.7mm at 2345fps is about 1.84e6 "grain feet per second per sqin".

A 55gr 5.7mm at 984fps is about 1.37e6.

(note that bullet construction is not the same)

-z

 

[Nightcrawler]

What exactly is sectional density? I know it greatly affects penetration, but that's about it.

 

[Zak Smith]

Sectional density in this context is a measure of the bullet's mass divided by the cross-sectional area of the bullet at its widest point.

For example, the sectional density of a 124gr 9mm is 124gr divided by the area Pi*(0.355/2)^2 = 1252 grains per square inch.

You can think of sectional density like pressure, except instread of "force per area" it's "mass per area".

The idea behind the "grain feet per second per square inch" is that something that has more sectional density going faster will be able to "punch through" better than something that is either wider (flying pie-plate) or slower (100fps bb). Think of it in terms of a 200lb man stepping on your foot with his size 12 shoe, or a 130lb woman stepping on yours with her spiked high-heel. The heel is more likely to leave a hole in your foot.

(The foot would be about 200lb force per 40 sqin or 5 lb/sqin, while the heel would be about 150lb force per 0.09 sqin, or 1666 lb/sqin.)

-z

 

[Mikul]

Sectional density is a ratio of the bullet's weight to it's width squared.

It's a way to put a number on the amount of force available at the tip when it contacts something. What is being said is that long, narrow bullets penetrate better than short, fat bullets. A knitting needle pentrates better than an acorn, for example.

The 9mm's narrow front surface area gives it a physical advantage in cutting through things. The wider .45 has to generate a lot more force to cut as well. It's the same thing that gives the 7.62x25 round better pentration than the 9mm. Of course, none of them compare to long pointy rifle bullets.

 

[Zak Smith]

It's a way to put a number on the amount of force available at the tip when it contacts something. What is being said is that long, narrow bullets penetrate better than short, fat bullets. A knitting needle pentrates better than an acorn, for example.

It's also why tanks generally shoot APFSDS rounds to kill other tanks: dense, very very long, thin penetrators going very fast (over 4000fps).

-z

 

[Nightcrawler]

Ah, I see now. So one of those long, heavy 200 grain 10mm bullets would probably penetrate pretty well (which is why they use them in bear loads, I would imagine). Now, bears don't wear chest harnesses full of mags (exept undead ninja bears), so instead of a lead bullet you'd want a steel-cored FMJ, with as pointy a tip as you can get to feed reliably in a pistol/SMG.

The MP5/10, with proper loads, seems like it'd be a pretty damned good PDW. Too bad HK discontinued it.

 

[Zak Smith]

The main problem with "pointy" pistol bullets is that the max overall length (OAL) of the cartridges is too short to allow them and still allow enough volume for powder (and to keep initial combustion pressures down).

-z

 

[Zak Smith]

For example, let's assume you have a 0.5" of bullet length available, limited by minimum internal combustion volume and the max OAL that will feed through the mag. In 10mm.

If you have a solid lead bullet the shape of a perfect hemisphere with radius 0.2" on top of a solid cylinder 0.3" high (with radius 0.2" again), then the volume is 5.45e-2.

If you change the configuration to be a perfect cone (point "up") of height 0.3" on top of a cylinder of height 0.2", then the volume is 3.77e-2. This gives an angle from the bullet's axis to the sides of the cone of about 33 degrees.

So the "pointy" bullet only has about 69% of the volume enclosed vs. the round-nose, and thus if constructed from the same material, will have only 69% of the sectional density.

These numbers are all rough and somewhat arbitrary, but I think the relative volume & mass calculations are correct.

-z

 

[Gordon]

I don't know about all the jaw jacking BUT the one time I had to shoot a .45 at a sapper running toward me from 30 feet two rounds to chest skidded the guy to a stop in about 10 feet exposeing the even today non bullet proof FACE

 

[Lone_Gunman]

The ability to penetrate body armor would seem more important if we were fighting people wearing body armor.

How many Afghan fighters, Al qaeda terrorists, and Iraqi soldiers actually have body armor?

I dont know, but it seems to me that if no one is wearing armor, then it doesnt matter much how well your bullet performs against it.

Maybe the author quoted is applying his theory that 9mm is better than 45 to an enemy that is equipped similarly to our own soldiers, where body armor would be a consideration. I am just not sure how much body armor is in use by our enemies.

I don't think it matters too much, statistically speaking at least, whether 9 or 45 is used, but I still think I would pick the 45.

 

[Jeff White]

Nightcrawler,

A round that fragments in "soft media" will also fragment in trees, armor, and light cover; not good, as bad guys tend to hide behind things.

You're a 12B right? Have you ever seen the FM entitled Survivablity I'll dig mine out tomorrow and give you the number. If you haven't looked at it yet, next time you're at the armory, find a copy and look up what different types of construction are considered cover against a small arms threat. I think you'll be surprised. While there is a lot that will deflect all small arms rounds, it takes something pretty substantial to stop them. For instance you need a minimum of 18 inches of tamped soil to be proof against most small arms rounds. Another thing you aren't taking into consideration here is the damage done by secondary missiles. Plenty of soldiers have been killed and wounded badly enough to take them out of the fight by rock fragments and tree splinters. I have personally fired M193 out of an M16A1 through the door of an M35A2 duece and a half that we got out of the can point and put on a range. M193, M855 and M80 will all mow the lawn so to speak. I don't know if you've ever been downrange, but if you get a chance to go on a target detail or something in the buffer zone of the impact area, look around at the trees, you'll get a good idea what ball ammunition will do. I had about a 9 inch shagbark hickory tree on my range that was eventually cut down with M193. Sure it took hundreds of rounds, but it fell (Before anyone reports me to the tree police, it was near the berm behind a target stand. Eventually it caught enough rounds that went on through the cardboard and went down)

Armor is now more common than ever, though no pistol round (including FN's 5.7mm) is going to penetrate armor with steel or ceramic rifle plates. However, by "armor", many times in a military context you're talking about a simple flak jacket and/or helmet. The current US Kevlar helmet is rated only NIJ Level II; rifle rounds will sail right through it. As are the old NATO flak jakets, though the US forces in Iraq are now wearing what is apparently called the Interceptor vest, which indeed seems to have ceramic rifle plates fore and aft (a very good idea).

The King of Battle is still the biggest killer on the modern battlefield. Most body armor issued to soldiers is going to be proof against fragments. The new MICH helmet is level III IIRC. I know of at least two instances where they have stopped 7.62x39 in Aghanistan. Intercepter is level III kevlar with composite SAPI (Small Arms Protective Inserts) that will take multiple 7.62 hits.

The 5.7 will penetrate soft body armor but it has such poor terminal effects once it gets into tissue that it is a very poor choice for combat use. You can read Dr. Gary Roberts on the 5.7mm here:

http://64.177.53.248/ubb/Forum78/HTML/000050.html

The special expeditionary recon Marine unit, for example, has modified M1911A1 pistols to get a weapon that really would make a very nice ISPC match gun but is not really suitable for a military Special Operations team."

Hmm...I've never looked at the MEUSOC pistol as a race gun. I'll ask Pat Rogers to comment on this.

"As with typical infantry units, the pistol in a Special Operations unit should only be used in the event the main weapon goes down. Accordingly it should be small and light-weight so you do not lose rifle ammunition or grenades to a seldom-used pistol. In the military context, it also must use ammunition acceptable to The Hague Convention and should be capable of penetrating ballistic vests that are more and more commonly encountered in the military field or pouches full of steel magazines filled with steel-cased ammunition. Standard .45ACP ammunition simply will not cut it when confronted with such tasks.

In either a conventional Infantry or an SOF unit a pistol has limited utility. But there are some tasks you simply can't efficiently accomplish with a rifle. Working in tight spaces, attics, crawlspaces, tunnels.....Body armor, even the old type good only against relatively low velocity shell fragments is usuall only encountered among the wealthier western armed forces. A pistol is a limited use weapon even for SOF and I would disagree that you need to have one capable of penetrating body armor. As for AK mags in a chest pouch, a lot of rifle rounds have trouble penetrating them. echosixmike helped Dr. Roberts with some tests involving AK loaded mags in chest pouches. Perhaps he'll post the results here for us. I don't want to put it up without his permission.

The Special Operations military handgun should be light, small and a vest penetrator. This in addition to the other typical requirements of dependability, safety and ease of shooting. Good examples of such weapons are the S&W M940 and 9M both of which will accept 9mm AP loads and yet can be carrie din the top pocket of a fatigue shirt easily. One would suppose other weapons might prove useful if proper ammunition was obtained like a PM (Makarov) with AP ammo, various .38 small-size revolvers or autoloader chambered for the newly developed FN Five-seveN x 28mm cartridge if made into a small, handy piece. The current FN Five-seveN pistol is light enough but is as big as an M1911A1 pistol so you gain some weight saving by using it but nothing else."

"Of course, there may be times when military Special Operations teams will use a handgun as their primary tool. An example might be some type of raid or snatch group where one or more people may find it difficult to use anything other than a handgun. When this occurs, then a more traditional sized handgun is called for, like the FN Five-seveN which gives high capacity AP penetrating capability and good stopping power. Even in those situations, the current response seen, especially in the US, of adoptin M1911A1 .45ACP -type pistols is wrong as it lacks the ability to penetrate ballistic vests or the variety of field gear confronted today."

Again, I will have to disagree with all of this. The special operations handgun needs to be reliable and in a caliber that has the best terminal effects in the target. Armor piercing is not a criteria. The advent of the M4A1, HK G36 and other submachine gun sized 5.56mm carbines give our operators all the armor penetration they need. If they go to a handgun, they are either operating in a place where even the carbine proves too unwieldy or their primary weapon has gone TU and they are staying in the fight with the secondary. Either way, or operators are trained to such a standard that a failure drill or NSR (non standard response) will give the operator what he needs. It does little good to shoot through the body armor or all the BGs field equipment and not be able to deliver a disabling punch once you get through. There is suitable ammunition in about any caliber .38 special and bigger. So the choice really boils down to absolute reliability under all conditions it could conceivably be used under, the ability to be easily and quickly reloaded and other ergonomics, and the operators confidence in his ability to use it. Ergonoomics pretty much eliminate revolvers (I know there are some people who can reload a revolver faster then others can an auto), but there are sutiable weapons in .38 through 10mm.

In any case I imaged a .357 Magnum with a steel cored, very pointy bullet (the revolver, of course, not requiring a rounded nose for surest feeding).

In it's early days, SEAL Team 6 used S&W Model 66s (or was it 686s?) for waterborne ops. I don't know if they still do, but I don't think so.

Jeff

 

[Zak Smith]

has modified M1911A1 pistols to get a weapon that really would make a very nice ISPC match gun but is not really suitable for a military Special Operations team.

I've been thinking about this comment. I don't know anything about "special operations", but I've shot some IPSC. First and foremost, an IPSC pistol has got to run. An IPSC pistol that is unreliable is near worthless until fixed. If you're shooting a stage in 8-9 seconds at "warp speed", taking 2-3 seconds to clear a malfunction can take you out of the running.

I do like all my pistols to have a functional purpose. So in considering to buy a full-on IPSC "Limited" gun (full dustcover SVI, 20+1 rounds of .40 in a 140mm mag), I've been thinking about its usefulness for any defense purpose. Why not? Just make sure there is enough clearance in the critical areas for it to put up with dirt - which I'll get anyway crawling around on the ground shooting 3Gun.

Back to the MEUSOC (or whatever it's called), from what I've read, it's spec'd more or less like your standard modern commercial 1911... which is basically a series 70 design with a upswept beavertail, big safety lever, and new sights. What's getting me is that that's the basic 1911 that's seen combat for 90 years, and it's all you need for a "nice IPSC match gun" (in Limited-10 anyway). Am I wrong?

-z

 

[Nightcrawler]

Jeff, I agree. I've seen 5.56mm rounds go through all sorts of things.

So what's the story with the fragmentation? Is it some kind of magical force that only happens in human bodies and ballistic gelatin? Because I'm a little confused on how one type of bullet can penetrate trees, car doors, helmets, armor, etc. and yet fragment and "overpenetrate less than a pistol round", as has oft been repeated, and not go through multiple layers of drywall, sheetrock, etc.

Is the key to defeating incoming 5.56mm gelatin? Should soliders in future start filling their sandbags with Jell-O instead of sand?

 

[Old Fuff]

So far much of this discussion has centered around the issue of penetration, and I think it’s a given that a smaller diameter (full jacketed) bullet going at relatively greater velocity will out-penetrate a larger diameter one going slower. However if neither is capable of penetrating a “protected†target (body armor, field gear, extra magazine pouches, etc.) the next question might be, which of the two cartridges is likely to inflict the most disabling blow? Information contained in reports given by some who have been shot and survived because they were wearing body armor suggests that the slower-moving/bigger bullet delivers a greater blow, somewhat like the difference between a fist vs. a finger jab (although this example is a vast understatement).

Ballistic performance of any handgun is limited by its size and barrel length, and meaningful comparisons cannot be made between rifles vs. pistols. In recent years major European makers have tried to develop pistol cartridges featuring very small diameter bullets (under 5mm.) ultra-light weight (under 40 grains) at very high velocity that can defeat conventional body armor. This they may do, but in other contexts they may not work so well.

C.R. Sam’s experience on the battlefield is based on experience rather then theory. A friend of mine who was in Korea during the “Police Action†described a test where a flak vest of that day was mounted on a fencepost. A 7.62mm Tokarev round would penetrate where a .45ACP wouldn’t. But the .45 had a much better reputation as a manstopper.

Obviously penetration isn’t everything.