We just be bigger now!

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dr_2_B

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2006
Messages
1,850
Location
midwest
I'm going to introduce a topic about handgun rounds that's been on my mind. I believe it is pertinent when we talk about the effectiveness of different calibers to consider the fact that people in general, and Americans in particular, are just a heckuva lot bigger than they used to be.

Police did in fact use 32s in the past and John M. Browning did believe smaller calibers were good enough. But it must be considered that the average person didn't have nearly as much muscle or fat 80 to 100 years ago. Certainly during the lean days of the Great Depression people were undernourished and were smaller, but even before that - the average size of a human just wasn't so big.

Attribute the change to whatever you like - there are plenty of theories, and many of them have merit. But if we use an argument from the distant past, I think it loses some relevance.

I'm interested in your opinions on this. Be gentle:)
 
Maybe so. I was at a science museum that had real skeletons standing on display from over the years and models of hundred year old humans. There were also models of organs and circulatory systems. people were way smaller, even just 100 years ago. Even the ribcage looked really small. The ribcage was no bigger than a lampshade. It could be a factor, maybe not, but it was a recent observation of mine.
 
Agreed, between all those super-szied fast food places, steroid fed beef & chicken and even all those neighborhood gyms, people have evolved into bigger beings. That said, I would think it would require a larger caliber bullet to effectively put someone done effectively w/ the first shot.
 
Well, as a very fat person, I guess I can see what he is saying, but I don't know that the muscle part is true. From a physical standpoint, life was much harder 80-100 years ago, and it stands to reason that there was more, or at least denser, muscle. A perfect, though extreme, example of what I am talking about is the Roman legionnaire. Romans of the time were fairly short, but densely packed with muscle on account of having to haul around a fair amount of heavy stuff on long daily marches in addition to building fortified campsites everynight. Perhaps the muscle in the recent past wasn't as defined or as large as it is today, but certainly it was there in spades. You can find numerous examples of average people performing fairly impressive amounts of physical labor from back then, and that is nothing if not muscle.

Just a hypothesis, but I bet I am on the right track...
 
I'm with TimboKhan on this one.

Humans weren't evolutionarily (is that word?) smaller 100 years ago. It's impossible. Sure, the American diet full of chemically enhanced garbage and steroid-enhanced products might make those who follow that diet "bigger," but I've also seen my fair share of tiny-framed, skeleton-like people walking down the street. It's all about each individual's diet.

With that being said, I live in America and I personally know people at my gym that are on steroids and not only are they huge, but they seem a bit loopy upstairs if ya know what I'm saying. I'll take at least a 9mm +P to protect myself from the typical American Meathead:)
 
Using no real data, I believe people are bigger now than they were 100 years ago. Now we have better and more plentiful food. A century ago, people naturally got more exercise. Transportation included more walking, much fewer powered equipment, much fewer electrical gadgets (heck, most didn't have electricity). Who now thinks about walking one mile to work, much less 5 or 6. Anyone cut their grass with a non-powered mower? Who uses a wash board for clothes and actually walks outside and hangs them up. Has anyone done a major project using hand tools?

When I was a teenager 45 years ago, the big guys on the football team weighed 200 lbs. The big guys on the basketball team were 6'2" to 6'5". My daughter's high school line averaged 300 lbs and now a 6'2" point guard is one of the little guys on the basketball team. So, I'd say we are bigger now than we were 50 to 100 years ago.

I'm not sure what that says about the oomph people want in handguns. Better manufacturing technology allows us to make a larger variety of firearms sizes. More disposable income means you can buy (and they can sell) more choices. As for the .32's and .38's of years ago, some was driven by economics, it's what you could afford. Some of the increase in caliber by law enforcement was driven by the fact that the bad guys were using thompsons and the like. My dad's service gun 70 years ago was an S&W M&P .38 special. DSC02290.gif

Without starting the best caliber war, anyone want to take a couple from this one?
 
"Use of penicillin did not begin until the 1940s when Howard Florey and Ernst Chain isolated the active ingredient and developed a powdery form of the medicine."

Prior to the introduction of antibiotics, the thought of dying a miserable death from infection after being gut shot with any gun did a lot to deter folks.

FWIW, the men in my family are getting shorter because they keep marrying tiny women. I'm only 6' and 195. My grandfather was 6'3" and could stack barrels of apples 3-high in a boxcar by himself. Of course he had some practice, operating a 1500-tree orchard.

John
 
Certainly during the lean days of the Great Depression people were undernourished and were smaller, but even before that - the average size of a human just wasn't so big.
Click to expand...

It's also worth pointing out some problems with this statement. First of all, most people ate very well during the depression. Simply, but well. There are of course exceptions to the rule, but it's important to remember that the depression didn't nail everyone. At it's highest, the unemployment rate was around 25%. That means that 75 out of every 100 people had a job. Not great, but that still means that most of the country was working at the time.
 
I think it's SOCIETY that changed.
A 22lr is deadly at close range with good shot placement.
 
Gee whiz, during the Napoleonic Wars, the average height of a Scots Highlander was 5'2" -yet he carried the .75 (19mm) caliber Brown Bess...

While some of what you say is correct, the reason behind the profusion of small caliber handgun rounds of the 1880's-1930's was twofold, neither having to do with bodysize:

1. Technology. Gunmakers wanted to sell guns, and in the Age of Industrialization, "High Tech" sold guns (no different than today). Automatics shooting hi-velocity cartridges were amazing & sleek compared to big-bore black powder revolvers; however smaller bore handguns were easier to construct due to manufacturing limitations of steel, springs and controlling high pressure gas leakage in a semi. The first semis were actually very big in order to operate reliably.
No one complained about small cartridges because there was a 'mystique' about very small hi-vel auto rounds (such as 7.63x25 '.30' mauser @ 1500fps) that would penetrate and explode inside humans (sounds familiar to today's superguns and magic bullets?) Please read the writings of Fairbairn & Sykes and learn about how much they feared the '.30' Broomhandle Mauser because of how 'explosive' the bullet was. Famous people like Winston Churchill wrote about their war exploits and high regard for his Broomhandle Mauser.

2. Bicycle fad. Yes, bicycle fad. During this same timeframe, bicycles became the rage in USA and the rest of the world. Demands for bicycles can be compared to nowadays craze for PS3s and iPhones. It became very popular for Gentleman and ladies to take bicycle rides out of the cities and towns. Correspondingly, there grew a need for Gentlemen to carry a firearm to deter wild dogs and riffraff. Small caliber handguns that could fit inside a pocket, called "bicycle guns" became greatly popular, and began the trend towards concealed-carry (no gunbelt). Find a re-print of an old Sears Roebuck catalog and see how many pages of "bicycle guns" you will find for sale.

But don't forget the rise of the .45ACP cartridge during this same timeframe to fight Moro rebels in the Phillipines (these same Moros are still fighting today as Islamic terrorists with the help of Al Quaeda).
 
I tend to agree with much of what the OP hypothesized.

That's why one of my CCW guns (a S&W 442) is loaded with heavy Semi-Wadcutters. If I have to face a large adversary I want a plain simple bullet that will drive as deeply as possible and still have enough steam near the end of its travel. I cannot get that from a 110-gr +P hollow point which gets up to speed quickly but also slows down just as quickly.

I recently looked at my father's high school yearbook from 1955. Every single one of the young men were as skinny as their black neckties. Their legs were smaller than the arms I see on some people today. It wouldn't take much of a bullet to reach the giblets, compared to some guy today that looks like he just got out of state prison after pumping iron in the yard for the past seven years.
 
"it's important to remember that the depression didn't nail everyone."

Very true. Things were generally tough, but some had enough to feed themselves and others. My grandparents sold a $10,000 order of Albemarle Pippins to England every year during the Depression. The royalty really liked their apples and the Pippen was tariff free thanks to Queen Victoria. That was a huge amount of money back then - and they owned the farm outright. One year it was $20,000. We have the farm's books.

My other grandparents grew enough to be able to take folks in and feed them, and kept chickens and a milk cow to help make ends meet.
_________

From the Charlottesvile Daily Progress:

On the outside, the Pippin boasts a splotchy, mottled mix of yellows, reds and greens. Its shape is often lopsided and a bit pathetic looking. Many Pippins are pockmarked with imperfections.

On the inside, however, the Albemarle Pippin is considered one of the most delicious apples in the country. Thomas Jefferson grew Pippins... and Queen Victoria loved Pippins so much that she exempted the apple from import tariffs.

By 1900, barrels of Albemarle Pippins fetched a price that was twice that of its leading competitors.
 
I have to say, this has been a fairly enjoyable thread to read and participate in, because I have learned some interesting things, particularly about apples!

Matheath, you might be interested in reading a pretty popular book called "Guns, Germs and Steel" by a guy named Jared Diamond. It's a big book, but a very interesting read. Basically, it's an anthropology book that studies the causality of human technological and societal development. I make it sound boring as all get out I guess, but it is a very good read and I highly recommend it. It is not written in a boring academic style, and is very entertaining. Plus, you can find it just about anywhere. Check it out, and I think you will be glad you did.
 
Today I think the answer to the original question is crack, junk, oxycodone, pcp, meth and all the guys who spent their time in jail lifting weights.


albemarlepippins1.jpg


Albemarle Pippins won't sell on looks. They taste even better after a few months of storage and ship extremely well.

On a gun-related note, you'd think shooting in and around 1500 apple trees would be a blast. It was, sort of, but the rule was no shooting the apples on the trees, no eating the apples on the trees and no shooting at the trees. The ones on the trees were for the market, as were the nice ones that were newly fallen. IOW, eat and shoot the bad ones. :( There was however a huge apple slabwood woodpile (and 2 mountains) to shoot into. It was for fueling my grandmother's kitchen stove (she used the newfangled electric range for canning.)

John
 
Just the other night I went shopping, I saw a sheriff deputy come in, trying to see what's up at the store; some guy was causing trouble or something.
The deputy was huge, must say 6' 5" or something, 250-300 pounder, probably a size of typical footballers.

Then I'm starting to think, if that guy is huge, the bad guys, too can be that big. I started to think, I ain't gonna take down some bad guys 2-3 times bigger my size with a 22LR or 380, without the bad guys first incurring some injury on me!

I must be paranoid or something.
 
Good point. 100 years ago the average height and weight was quite a bit less than today. We have a much richer diet today which makes us fat and tall. It is richer in protiens and richer in fat. 100 years ago, people didn't eat meat with every meal like we do today.

Look at Japan now, with the new diet of McDonalds and milk, the average height has gone up 6" since WWII! Kids in Japon are half a foot taller now than their parent and grandparents were!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top