Gun Control: RTC VS non-RTC crime rates

[Kejtar]

I know - but "what is right is not always popular, what is popular is not always right." Y'ask me, a military sidearm should chamber just about the largest round that can be handled easily - ammo gets heavy, but I'd rather shoot someone once or twice than six or eight times, if it comes to it.

Yup. I know of someone who is a coroner. He said that depending on how many are in a body he can tell you without looking at the holes the caliber used. The more holes the smaller the caliber and the number of holes in relation to the change in caliber rises logarithmically.

I'm not a huge fan of the .223/5.56x45m/m round for military work, either. The original AR concept was in .30-06, then in .308 - and that would have been fine. But, it was watered down into the 5.56x45, and that's pretty much the 9m/m of rifle rounds, when used with NATO ball.

Oh yeah! I agree: 30-06 and .308 just rocks

Speaking of which, I seem to recall that we're not "strictly limited" to FMJ ball ammo under the Geneva Convention and the Hague Accords (and, by extension, the Law of Land Warfare) - I may have to check into that again. Going to a soft allow or a hollowpoint for greater energy transfer makes the 9m/m border on useful - ditto the 5.56x45m/m.

I don't think you're right here. I believe it's a fairly strict restriction.

But, we're still better off just using a bigger pill.

Grenades Btw, you think I"m joking? Had an interesting conversation with someone who's father passed away couple years ago. He retired from the army as a general. Anyways, as the story goes, when they were clearing out his house, they found a grenade tucked in underneath the bed. He was the old school cold war soldier: believed in always being prepared and having a gun and a grenade handy. Even after he retired Now that's what I call preparadness. He also left behind a really nice 1911 collection. He joined up for WWII and from the sounds of it had one from each campaign till he retired (and he served in Korea and Vietnam too).

 

[5-90]

Yup. I know of someone who is a coroner. He said that depending on how many are in a body he can tell you without looking at the holes the caliber used. The more holes the smaller the caliber and the number of holes in relation to the change in caliber rises logarithmically.


Oh yeah! I agree: 30-06 and .308 just rocks


I don't think you're right here. I believe it's a fairly strict restriction.

Grenades Btw, you think I"m joking? Had an interesting conversation with someone who's father passed away couple years ago. He retired from the army as a general. Anyways, as the story goes, when they were clearing out his house, they found a grenade tucked in underneath the bed. He was the old school cold war soldier: believed in always being prepared and having a gun and a grenade handy. Even after he retired Now that's what I call preparadness. He also left behind a really nice 1911 collection. He joined up for WWII and from the sounds of it had one from each campaign till he retired (and he served in Korea and Vietnam too).

Outstanding - a field general!

As I said, I wasn't sure if we were actually limited or not. I have to reread the Law of Land Warfare (at the very least. I should still have a copy...)

I just find it funny that back in 1910 or so, we decided that the 9m/m wasn't worth the .38 Special we were replacing at the time - and we accepted the .45ACP instead. Now, we're taking the 9m/m because everyone else is using it. Just because it's popular doesn't make it right - the 9m/m sucked when it came out, and it's not improved. How many variations on the 9m/m do we have? Now, look at the .40 and .45. We've got two .40 calibre rounds (the 10m/m and the .40 S&W) that actually fill different niches, and the .45 has only recently spawned the .45 GAP (which I'm not so sure is a good idea - but I don't know enough about it yet. Seems like an answer in search of a question, tho...)

Frankly, I'd rather have a .22 with CB caps than a 9m/m - but I'm funny that way (I can do more with the .22, and that pill has a habit of increasing trauma through tumbling. The 9m/m doesn't - it just drills holes.)

 

[rockwerks]

I believe I found a dealer in the state that can get me a CZ-52 for a song. any thoughts?

 

[98XJSport]

I figure one of the reasons for switching to 9mm was to reduce the number of dead and increase the number of injured. Not an uncommon tactic.

 

[Kejtar]

I believe I found a dealer in the state that can get me a CZ-52 for a song. any thoughts?

yikes, that's a bit of a small caliber. I really suggest going at the very least with a 9mm but preferrably with a .40 and .45.

CZ does make nice firearms. CZ 75 or CZ P01 woudl be my recomendation

 

[RichP]

I just find it funny that back in 1910 or so, we decided that the 9m/m wasn't worth the .38 Special we were replacing at the time - and we accepted the .45ACP instead. Now, we're taking the 9m/m because everyone else is using it. Just because it's popular doesn't make it right - the 9m/m sucked when it came out, and it's not improved. How many variations on the 9m/m do we have? Now, look at the .40 and .45. We've got two .40 calibre rounds (the 10m/m and the .40 S&W) that actually fill different niches, and the .45 has only recently spawned the .45 GAP (which I'm not so sure is a good idea - but I don't know enough about it yet. Seems like an answer in search of a question, tho...)

The decision to go with the 9mm M9 was political, NATO, it was a compromise and standardization of ammo as all the other NATO members used 9mm as their standard sidearm. NATO adopted our .223 and .308 so this was a trade off to appease the other members. While it can be argued that sidearms do not play that big a part in land warfare when they do get used it's usually desperation point. I remember seeing south viets carrying M-14's and M-1's, we ran out of M1 carbines, it was a relief to them when we adopted the 16.
I was going thru a small arms instructor refresher course when the M9 stuff went down. I will say one thing though, qualification scores went up alot on the officer and NCO qualifications when the 1911 went away and the M9's arrived, they were less 'strenuous' for the novice shooters which was about 90% of the corps. Back in the 90's qualification was a 2x a year event for them, while the line grunts shot weekly the officers and NCO's did not.
There are alot of people know that now regret not having the .45 round in the inventory which is one of the reasons the SF people have gone back to them, you can silence a .45, you can't silence a 9mm without special ammo unless the silencer slows it down to subsonic speed. My take on it anyway.

 

[5-90]

The decision to go with the 9mm M9 was political, NATO, it was a compromise and standardization of ammo as all the other NATO members used 9mm as their standard sidearm. NATO adopted our .223 and .308 so this was a trade off to appease the other members. While it can be argued that sidearms do not play that big a part in land warfare when they do get used it's usually desperation point. I remember seeing south viets carrying M-14's and M-1's, we ran out of M1 carbines, it was a relief to them when we adopted the 16.
I was going thru a small arms instructor refresher course when the M9 stuff went down. I will say one thing though, qualification scores went up alot on the officer and NCO qualifications when the 1911 went away and the M9's arrived, they were less 'strenuous' for the novice shooters which was about 90% of the corps. Back in the 90's qualification was a 2x a year event for them, while the line grunts shot weekly the officers and NCO's did not.
There are alot of people know that now regret not having the .45 round in the inventory which is one of the reasons the SF people have gone back to them, you can silence a .45, you can't silence a 9mm without special ammo unless the silencer slows it down to subsonic speed. My take on it anyway.

The suppressor doesn't "slow down" the pill - you have to down-load it slightly to get below Mach (~1050-1100fps. Suppressed loads typically have a MV of 950-1000fps, just to give some room. Mach speed varies with temperature.)

Reason? For the unitiated, a firearm suppressor works similar to the muffler under your vehicle. It will disperse the gas pulse behind the bullet, but it can't do anything about the "sonic boom" - which is why the projectile needs to exit the muzzle at less than Mach 1.

Most pistol calibres (9m/m and up) can be loaded down to subsonic speeds without great difficulty - but it's easier to do with the .45ACP (since most commercial loads run in the transsonic range anyhow - 1000-120fps) and it's big enough to have useful energy at low speeds anyhow. Rifles can also be loaded down to subsonic speeds - there are some commercial .22LR rounds available that make a bit less noise than popcorn (without a suppressor!) and look up the "Whisper" series - notably the .300 Whisper and .50 (or .500?) Whisper. They're meant as short-range precision suppressed rifle rounds.

 

[RichP]

The suppressor doesn't "slow down" the pill - you have to down-load it slightly to get below Mach (~1050-1100fps. Suppressed loads typically have a MV of 950-1000fps, just to give some room. Mach speed varies with temperature.)

Reason? For the unitiated, a firearm suppressor works similar to the muffler under your vehicle. It will disperse the gas pulse behind the bullet, but it can't do anything about the "sonic boom" - which is why the projectile needs to exit the muzzle at less than Mach 1.

Most pistol calibres (9m/m and up) can be loaded down to subsonic speeds without great difficulty - but it's easier to do with the .45ACP (since most commercial loads run in the transsonic range anyhow - 1000-120fps) and it's big enough to have useful energy at low speeds anyhow. Rifles can also be loaded down to subsonic speeds - there are some commercial .22LR rounds available that make a bit less noise than popcorn (without a suppressor!) and look up the "Whisper" series - notably the .300 Whisper and .50 (or .500?) Whisper. They're meant as short-range precision suppressed rifle rounds.

Depends on the suppressor and whether it is part of the barrel or not. There are ones that will bleed off the gases and slow the round down, the trick is to get the action to cycle or not cycle depending on use. High Standard had one that fired 22LR, had to be manually cycled depending on the spring you used, it was the barrel. Another one was developed for the Bren10 that worked well, for 10 rounds anyway.

 

[5-90]

Depends on the suppressor and whether it is part of the barrel or not. There are ones that will bleed off the gases and slow the round down, the trick is to get the action to cycle or not cycle depending on use. High Standard had one that fired 22LR, had to be manually cycled depending on the spring you used, it was the barrel. Another one was developed for the Bren10 that worked well, for 10 rounds anyway.

Hm - I'd forgotten about those. Still, the best round to be suppressed would be loaded to subsonic MV anyhow - less work for the suppressor, so it lasts longer.

And, if you want to really suppress a firearm, you're better off keeping the breech closed anyhow. Not too many rounds will tolerate cycling and stay quiet (there's still the expulsion of gas from the open breech,) and a bolt-action rifle works great for suppressed rounds! That's why the DeLisle Bulldog carbine used the bolt-action Enfield action and a .45ACP cartridge. Damn, but that thing is quiet with issue ammo!

 

[rockwerks]

yikes, that's a bit of a small caliber. I really suggest going at the very least with a 9mm but preferrably with a .40 and .45.

CZ does make nice firearms. CZ 75 or CZ P01 woudl be my recomendation

with the velocity of the smaller round it has nearly the same stopping power of a .40 SW and able to defeat class 2 body armour

 

[Kejtar]

with the velocity of the smaller round it has nearly the same stopping power of a .40 SW

ummm no.

and able to defeat class 2 body armour

Not too sure about that one either.

 

[rockwerks]

ummm no.

Not too sure about that one either.

read it all in one of the online gun mags, and saw a video on U tube of the penetration, this round and the .223 where the need for nato to update their body armor

 

[Kejtar]

read it all in one of the online gun mags, and saw a video on U tube of the penetration, this round and the .223 where the need for nato to update their body armor

hmm so if that was the ned to upgrade armor then that means it was already upgraded?
There is a reason why no LE agency carries for example FN57 handguns. The high velocity in a small caliber means penetration but it does not pack the same punch. Also there is a problem.with how far will the round go after it passes though your intended target.
Also quite a few LE agencies have a requiremnt for their officers to carry at least a 9mm for their off duty firearms because of studies they have conducted as to caliber efficiency. There is an FBI doc out there someplace that covers the caliber to efficiency fratio.

 

[JohnX]

I have seen ballistic testing done which shows 9mm to have just as much or more muzzle energy than a .40. Only problem is, if the round goes through the intended target, most of that energy is not transferred. With a heavier round at a slower velocity, the round stops in the target and transfers 100% of available energy.

If you do intend to do battle with someone wearing body armor....I would suggest something slightly more powerful than the average Handgun round (and yes, then velocity matters)

 

[rockwerks]

I have seen ballistic testing done which shows 9mm to have just as much or more muzzle energy than a .40. Only problem is, if the round goes through the intended target, most of that energy is not transferred. With a heavier round at a slower velocity, the round stops in the target and transfers 100% of available energy.

If you do intend to do battle with someone wearing body armor....I would suggest something slightly more powerful than the average Handgun round (and yes, then velocity matters)

the round used in the CZ52 is actually a machine gun round, used in the bren and other machine guns

 

[Kejtar]

the round used in the CZ52 is actually a machine gun round, used in the bren and other machine guns

Yes.. but there you got something else going for you: multiple rounds impacting same target at a high rate of fire.

I think the rule of a thumb in a concealed carry community is that self defense calibers start with 4 or bigger numbers. 9mm is acceptable but not recommended.

 

[5-90]

Yes.. but there you got something else going for you: multiple rounds impacting same target at a high rate of fire.

I think the rule of a thumb in a concealed carry community is that self defense calibers start with 4 or bigger numbers. 9mm is acceptable but not recommended.

9m/m borders on acceptable, but it's got a history of overpenetration. That's its problem - it's got useful energy, but doesn't transfer it well.

A key element in "terminal ballistic effectiveness" isn't the energy that the projectile has, it's the energy that it transfers to the target. That's why larger rounds tend to be better for defensive use - because the larger pill transfers more of its energy.

The .40 S&W and .45ACP transfer more of their energy (as well as various incarnations of the .38 revolver - S&W Short, Special, .357 Magnum, .357 Maximum, ...) which is what makes them more useful from a defensive standpoint.

The 9m/m becomes closer to acceptable when used with a soft alloy hollowpoint, or something else that will expand to 1.75 calibres or better.

Think of it this way - if you were going to be punched by a rather large man; would you rather he hit you squarely? Or glanced off of you? The glancing blow transfers much less energy - so it won't affect you as much as the square hit will.

Same thing with ballistic performance - if the round overpenetrates and leaves the target, it did not transfer all of its energy (probably not even most of it...) and that means that most of it was wasted. If I'm going to shoot someone who intends me harm, I'd rather get his full and undivided attention immediately, rather than have to shoot him six or eight times. The .40, .45, and various .38s will usually serve that purpose neatly (the .38 Special may not have as much energy as the 9m/m, but you have a wider choice of usable bullet profiles - and I'd rather use a .38 Spl. LWC or SWC than a 9m/m round of any particular flavour, any day.)

 

[Capt. Nemo]

I think it's ironic that two of the most outspoken and seemingly knowledgeable people on this subject (Kejtar and 5-90) are from a state that makes it nearly IMPOSSIBLE to obtain a CCW permit. Not knocking anyone, just an observation...

More to the topic, it's great to talk about calibers and stopping power, but it doesn't mean a thing if you can't hit anything with it. In addition, access to your weapon at a moments notice is very important as well. How/where you carry might dictate the caliber because of the size of the gun and what you're comfortable with.

 

[JohnX]

the round used in the CZ52 is actually a machine gun round, used in the bren and other machine guns

My post wasn't directed towards that round specifically...just the fact that overpenetration (be it 9mm or otherwise) is not the optimal way to transfer available energy.

 

[Kejtar]

I think it's ironic that two of the most outspoken and seemingly knowledgeable people on this subject (Kejtar and 5-90) are from a state that makes it nearly IMPOSSIBLE to obtain a CCW permit. Not knocking anyone, just an observation...

I wouldn't be too sure about that if I was you

More to the topic, it's great to talk about calibers and stopping power, but it doesn't mean a thing if you can't hit anything with it. In addition, access to your weapon at a moments notice is very important as well. How/where you carry might dictate the caliber because of the size of the gun and what you're comfortable with.

Agreed. That's why couple times the recommendation was to try different guns before choosing one from the web or buying one just for the sake of a great price