0.45" vs 9mm

the .45" pistol round to me seems to be one hell of a bullet, how effective really was it? I guess the test of time has seen the 9mm round become virually universal for hanfguns and SMG's.

Never fired a Thompson SMG and im never likely too, must admit im a bit in awe of such a weopen that can deliver such a weight of shot, you would think it a very highly effective weopen. Why did it it go out of favor to the 9mm pistol and SMG?

Kev

 

You can wobble about all the balistic mumbo jumbo all you want. Big heavy bullets make big holes and drop people to the ground.

The balance is how much weight in ammunition you want to carry. We used to carry 7.62mm we now carry 5.56mm. Pistols used to carry a mag of 7 .45 rounds and we changed to 13 9mm rounds. They aren't as good but you get a lot more of them.

 

You can wobble about all the balistic mumbo jumbo all you want. Big heavy bullets make big holes and drop people to the ground.

The balance is how much weight in ammunition you want to carry. We used to carry 7.62mm we now carry 5.56mm. Pistols used to carry a mag of 7 .45 rounds and we changed to 13 9mm rounds. They aren't as good but you get a lot more of them.

Pretty much what the article says.

 

We used to carry 7.62mm we now carry 5.56mm. Pistols used to carry a mag of 7 .45 rounds and we changed to 13 9mm rounds. They aren't as good but you get a lot more of them.

Isn't part of the reason, at least, the fact that bigger bullets Kill people, where as smaller bullets maim, and take up more resources in looking after said "Maimed" soldier.

 

Isn't part of the reason, at least, the fact that bigger bullets Kill people, where as smaller bullets maim, and take up more resources in looking after said "Maimed" soldier.

I think the general trend of the last 60 years, in fact I think WW2 was a major factor in this, is toward more of, smaller bulltets with more (proportion of ) propellent in an intermediiate cartridge for higher muzzle velocity. the higher speed having a few advantages, of a flatter trajactory and an unstable bullet mpreikely to tumble or shatter.

None of this seems to apply that much to pistol rounds which are a different kettle of fish, but then the pistol and the SMG are pretty much sidelined in favor of the intermediatte cartridge of assult rifles, which might explain the lack of real development in these areas.

off the poisnt a little its interesting to note thatin one of these links here is a passage that sorta says....

"these days that once the shooting really starts out come the GPMG's"

seems soldiers are less likely to whinge about the weight of a weopen and plumb for something they know has a proven record of stopping anything. Seems to be a bit of an unsaid undercurrent that the current new generation squad weopens just arnt up to it and lack the stopping power previously found out of the large calibre GPMG,Bren,BAR,MG42, etc

what does the forum think...

 

Soldiers love large caliber, belt fed machineguns. Not only does anybody hit actually go down and stay down, even if wearing CBA, but also it doesn't matter if they take cover behind big trees, brick walls or light prepared defences. It's a great moral booster and used properly is much better than having several LSW/SAW type small caliber weapons.

Since WW2 the trend was for light machine guns of smaller caliber. The argument being that they are lighter, you can carry more ammunition and can even have a couple per section. But the belt fed 7.62 (GPMG/M60) hasn't gone away because there is a need and the soldiers don't want it to. Soldiers are even still happy with the .5 inch as long as it's vehicle mounted. I've had a couple of .5s open up in support of me in Iraq, and I have to say it was comforting to know that no matter where the enemy was going to hide they weren't going to feel as safe as I was.

Let's just hope the decision makers don't forget that either.

 

There is no doubt that the 9mm is easier to shoot, but it is much less effective with military ball ammo in the real world. US Special Operations forces all have reverted back to the .45, and it looks like the Army-wide replacement for the M9 Berretta 9mm will also be a .45. The 9mm is a reasonable manstopper with softpoint ammo, but the military is prohibited from using that, so they have discovered something that those of us who have seen people shot told them 30 years ago-- the 9mm is ineffective in military pistols, whereas the .45 does what it is supposed to do--- make people stop what they are doing that you want them to stop. Doc

 

I have to agree with PP, Doc on this one. I can appreciate the positives that were thrown up in support of the SA 80, but I put my trust in the likes of the SLR's and the .5 Brownings. It was commented that the smaller calibres caused wounding to the effect of tying down troops getting their oppo out. If he is wounded he can still hold a weapon and fight back. If he is attacking in section or platoon strength, I wouldn't be content to say "right he's wounded I'll leave him" and turn to face another attacker. In my mind to do that would compromise you and your mates in your section.

As PP has said anybody hit actually go down and stay down. Anything getting hit with a .5 burst is not going anywhere. With keeping the gimpy commonsense is hanging in there. If they can/could produce a 5.56 with the stopping power of a 7.62, it might even the playing field. The only occasion where a 5.56 could produce a comparable amount of stopping would be if the rounds were dum-dums, but we don't lower ourselves to go down those avenues.

In a combat situation you have enough on your plate with the fear and adrenalin, and the uncertainty, without nasty surprises.

The reason as far as I am aware, for certain units using 9mm was the rounds were going through the intended target and taking out or injuring innocent/third parties whatever, as well. The intention was to stop the attacker and not take out parties behind him. Horses for courses

The fact that the gimpy and browning are still in service shows that they still have a valid role in this day and age. They give a feeling of reassurance. When the 80 and the like came into service, there were faults galore. Bits falling off, jams etc. I don't know what the current wisdom is as to the 80 and the like, but if I had to carry a weapon on which millions had been spent on research and it did that I wouldn't be a happy bunny. At the end of the day, I want the rifle at my side to stop the enemy, the front line soldier has enough on his plate without wandering will my rifle fire, will it stop the enemy. Excuses are no good to you when you're playing the harp.

Saying that the Steyr AUG and the like are supposed to be a quality item - price to match. I am not genned up on the modern stuff - a benchmark for 5.56 design. It's supposedly got stopping power.

 

I still call my L85A2 my 'Bob Marley' because that's what I always called my L85A1 and old habbits are hard to break. Having said that, in Kuwait/Iraq I had a nigglig problem with my A2. The safety catch used to sieze on or off without warning which called for some very interesting weapon drills (Check safety, mag off, SMACK, mag on, change lever...... :mellow I survived.... but not with a nervous twitch!

Why 'Bob Marley'? Simple....... always Jamin'. Of course I used to call my SLR 'friend'.

 

I know the SLR was only single shot, and must admit in this instance the 80 has something going for it from the sense of being able to put down more covering fire. Appreciate the SLR's were worn out and the 80 is an accurate weapon.
The 80's good in confined space, house clearing etc due to the shortness and the bull pup. Once I heard the stoppages, falling to bits in the field from those in the know - the squaddie I thought, - I am glad I had an SLR. It might not have been the best in the eyes of some but it was reliable and it did the job. They say the faults have been corrected, and they say the 80 is perhaps the best weapon in the world of the current crop. I was wary when the 80 was being slated at grass roots but the top brass would hear nothing of it - then a load of r and d was put into it and now it is the dogs. Any rifle where you are told to push magazine in until it clicks and DON'T smack it in - leaves me a cynic. They will be saying next don't scratch it.I'm still wary of it.

 

It's not just the magazine click saga (although the HK magazines are an improvement), what about rather than just allowing the working parts to fly forward as they were designed to and as you'd expect would be all that was required, having as part of your drills to 'forward assist' to prevent that nasty 'click' when the trigger's pulled and the breech isn't fully closed? Having the option for full auto (even if it is only 5.56) and being a short weapon are advantages in some situations, but the short barrel also brings with it accuracy and safety issues so it's not all good news and they could have been coverd by any of the other tried and tested weapons on the market at the time.

And remeber the original arguments that told us that 15% of people are left handed so would have difficulty with the weapon. They were put down with the answer that very few British people get any training on weapons so would always be learning from scratch, thus avoiding the problem. I always said, sod the 15% of leftys it's a weapon that means 100% of the firers can't use 50% of the cover! An opposition can second guess which side of cover you are coming up on, and if he's wrong, it's okay you can't shoot back at him anyway. On a patrol you can't have alternate left and fight pointing weapons so can only cover half your arcs and actions on involves barrel sweeping most of the section in almost 50% of contacts! All just as valid for the A2 as it was with the A1.

If it wasn't British made, we wouldn't have wasted our money on it. The expensive upgrade improved reliability (except my F***ing safety catch!) but did nothing to improve the fact that it's not a very good infantry weapon and we could have spent the money buying much better. At least they've binned the LSWs for the infantry and replaced them with the 'Minimi' or SAW as it's known in the US (It's an FN, surprise!).

 

Obviously not having you chaps experience (enjoying and not wanting to interrupt your chat) It still seems to me that this would have been a more sensible purchase when SLR's replacement was being chosen, politics is a funny thing though..:

pic from:
http://pages.infinit.net/thrill/ak74.jpg

Has a much better reputation than id deserves. Cheap, rugged, reliable and ubiquitous, but not as accurate as many of the just as rugged and reliable other alternatives that wouldn't be as politicaly controversial.

 

I think we could fill a whole forum on the SA80 but its very interesting to hear what guys have to say about it and the 5.56 round. Of course another option would be to have gone with the M16 which wouls enjoy a lot of benefits not leasy that the Britsh army already uses them... Need that scope though....



Getting back to the 9mm round sounds like what im reading onthei nternet is true and that modern firearms (like the Glock) offer the best of both worlds with 45" round and a lightweight reliable handgun and the opinion is turning back toward the .45....

BTW Im cack handard (Left hander) so cant shoot the SA80 anyway, my little go on the simulator had the sergent give me a bollocking for putting it on my left shoulder, oops!!

 

You can fire it in the left shoulder if you want to..... you'll just have a close encounter with the cocking handle that may just leave you with a difficulty whistling.

What would it have taken to have a 'floating' cocking handle like the SLR, Bren or M16.... that's right, not a lot and it would have made much too much sense wouldn't it?