Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Kalessin, May 4, 2006.
I dont see how being less lethal is a pro for a pistol round.
Sure, which is why after extensive testing the United States' FBI, who are noted for being among the world's premier handgun marksmen settled on the 10mm auto, then once they realized the overpenetration lost killing power and also endangered bystanders and the round had entirely too much recoil for agents of smaller stature moved to .40 S&W which has about the killing efficiency of the .357 mag, the worlds most notable handgun round for pure overall effectiveness. Sure, .45ACP has a great record, but it is recoil heavy and the ballistics are worse than the .40cal with which it is tit for tat for in first shot kills. Oh, and .22 is damn near useless in a handgun except for plinking, that is unless you plan on walking up behind someone and executing them with a shot to the skull, which is the only situation it actually excels in since it tends to bounce around inside skulls like a pinball.
The 9mm was chosen for good ballistics, low recoil, lack of overpenatration (a round that follows completely through a body loses killing power as opposed to a round that stops inside the body and transfers all of its energy to the internal organs' tissue, also it poses a danger to people or objects that may be behind or near the engaged target), and large magazine capacity. Since fast follow up shots are demanded by militaries and are a huge part of their pistol requirements, 9mm is a natural choice... on paper. It's killing power is decent, though remarkably less than .40cal or .45cal. Also, the .45 is a very good round to use in a silenced weapon as the round is naturally sub-sonic.
As I stated before, there is good reason the 10mm auto is dying out, it's because the 10mm suffers from overpenetration, a longer case that makes a larger grip which requires a ham-fisted shooter, requires a very exacting made pistol to fire because it batters the hell out of guns, has too much recoil (bad for follow-up shots and smaller shooters), and is too expensive. The .40S&W has rightfully replaced it, you can keep the sorry attempt at an autopistol "magnum" round. The only area it shines is its ballistics, it has a very flat trajectory, which is nice, except that most handgun engagements are within 20 feet.
I'm still watching, but field use and various tests are quickly calling to attention it's lack of killing power. Wounding rounds are bullshit in my opinion, I don't want an opponent bleeding and dead in five minutes. I want them down and unable to return fire NOW.
Also, It's worth mentioning I traded in my Sig220 .45cal for a Sig229 .40 cal a long time ago. I haven't missed the .45 at all. Same killing power, better ballistics, more rounds to a magazine, less recoil, less noise, less expensive per bullet and to handload, and a slightly lighter pistol and thinner pistol with the same barrel length.
well, you've got to look at the general picture.
- the gun acts as if you're shooting .22 -> very low barrel rise, if at all
- the small rounds mean you have to aim better at the correct organs, but the near-zero recoil means you can easily place those shots
- 20 round capacity in the FiveseveN, which btw can be emptied at a stunning pace while keeping accuracy
- the round penetrates all normal armor
- the round has very few riccochets
- the round has no overpenetration at all (stops after first hit)
it is however never been intended for use against druggies or whatever (those do need excessive stoppingpower). it is not a copgun i'd say.
as for the wounding stuff: blame NATO (mostly the US anyway), they started with the "a wounded soldier takes more men out of the fight than a dead soldier"-thing, which is why we're stuck with pussy rounds à la 5.56mm NATO. (of which the 5.7 is a scaled down and powered up version)
The 9mm does have a tendency to overpenetrate... in fact that is one of its biggest flaws.
The exit wound from a 9mm shot can be brutal.
Can end up being up being as big round as a potato crisp can.
I'll list all of my guns
- .177 cal air rifle, we call them slug guns in NZ (BSA Metor)
- .22 cal lever action rifle, iron sites
- 7.62 x 39 Bolt Action hunting Rifle
- Some Black powder muzzle loader
- Another Black Powder Rifle
The Black Powder Rifles wre my Dad's but his licence expired so he gave them to me. He was kind of ticked off that his 'life time gun licence' expired after the govt changed the rules again and said you have to re apply every ten years so he gave me his guns. The 7.62 was his hunting rifle as well. My favorite has to be the lever action, I use iron sites because scopes are for ladies, mainly used to shoot rabits and Hairs with the ocasional possum, I also go goat hunting some times. The .22 is more than suficent to drop a wild goat provided you hit the chest and not the gut, same goes for hairs, gut shots and they run for a hundred metres before they drop, chest shot and they dont run. i normally use Winchester High velocity Hollow points for my ammo, I tried some CCI stinger rounds and they pack a lot more punch (they actaully give a .22 a mild ammount of kick and make a wonderful 'crack' sound when fired). Anyway your normal power points will have enough power to go through a wild goats chest, though we did find a couple of rounds under the hide on the other sides when skining a goat once.
Best Shot - From a rocking boat at a goat over 100 metres up a cliff on the first shot
SuAside - As far as I am concerned from what I've heard and read (I admit I have never personally fired it), the 5.7 round is far too specialized to be practical. It's performance seems largely talked up and is almost always referancing body-armored opponents. It's come under critisism for its lacking performance against unarmored targets and often requires multiple shots, which in my opinion makes the mag capacity arguement far less valid. If an opponent has body armor or if I am likely to encounter an armored assailant, I have no damn business carrying anything less than a rifle anyway.
Hmmm... I haven't heard that nor ever seen one overpenetrate, though to be honest, I don't make a habit of using them. I just remember that being listed as one of its selling points by the range sargeant while I was qualifying on the M9. I didn't bother to research 9mm at all when I was selecting and purchasing a carry weapon for my own personal protection as I don't much care for the round from my time in the service and the stories and reports I've heard from any other serviceman. The ones I tested and researched were .357 sig, .40S&W, 10mm Auto, .45acp, and .45gap.
The overpenetration is why most LE officers are switching to .40
i'm hearing that 90% of the fights involving a FiveseveN were ended with a single shot fired.
i've heard of a single riccochet accident though.
well, the FiveseveN is the sidekick for the P90. originally it wasnt meant to be issued without a primary weapon. however the FiveseveN is also very popular amongst pilots. light, easy to aim (no advanced training necessary), virtually no recoil and very small (easy to stash and carry) ammo.
personally, i'd never use it as a primary. but it looks like some armored transport personel are using them overhere (afaik no use in the police, except perhaps for the SIE who have P90's). kinda weird, since armored transports get attacked with AKs. wouldnt want to use a pistol against those...
I think the 5.56 is a good round. Another reason why they introduced it is because it's easy to fire and everyone in service could handle it ok. And the killing mechanism in the 5.56 is quite clear... the high velocity outweighs the fact that it's a small bullet, and it actually will spiral around while in mid-flight (that is fact), and when it hits someone it tumbles and generally won't go right through unless it hits somewhere easily penetrable.
Yeah there has been speculation of the stopping power, but it clearly has been successful. And no, what I'm saying about the 5.56 has no relevance to what I think about the 9mm. Pistol loads are more important when you consider stopping power. And also, the 5.56 was also intended to pierce light body armor (by light I mean anything less than the 7.62 capable plates)
Yes, I think the 9mm is a stupid round personally, I'm not saying everyone who owns/uses 9mm pistols is totally wrong, but I will say that it has nothing to do with recoil. I really don't see why someone would think the .45 has a lot of recoil compared to 9mm, .40 ect (unless you're really small or you don't know how to fire handguns). I've fired all 3 and to me, the 9mm is worse because it has SNAPPY KICK. The .40 cal is sort of the same, but more controllable actually. I really prefer the .45 because even though it has more force behind it, it doesn't "SNAP" like the 9mm does.
When a .45 goes into someone, it stays there (usually).
Recoil (up to a point) can be solved by learning how to fire your weapon correctly.
Although I haven't gotten the chance to buy a .45, someone I know owns when and I've fired it on several occasions (1911)... even with little instruction and experience, and weighing about 140 lbs., I managed to hit a dinner plate-sized object at about 45-50 yds. several times, and all the while controlling it fine by leaning in slightly, locking in the elbows and keeping a firm (but balanced) grip, pulling back slightly (just positioning my hand that way, not actually moving it though because you won't hit shit) with the left support hand, and with the right hand pulling forward so I can CONTROL IT. Yes the 1911 was a Loaded Springfield (I think he paid around $800 for it), but the owner was actually able to hit the same sized object at about 85-90 yds. several times.
Yes, the .45 may be slow. Yes, it has a shorter range than the 9mm. But no, it is not necessarily less accurate, that obviously depends on the shooter, ammo, and yes what handgun your firing. No shit.
Let's not forget, we're talking about HANDGUNS. The range is not very important.
Guess what. If I wanted something less-lethal, or more "collateral damage" avoidant, I would use a completely NON-LETHAL or LESS-LETHAL specific weapon, like a taser, Duplex rounds, 12GA rubbers ect.
Yes, exactly. Ballistics don't matter that much. That's why choosing the 9mm because of ballistics is sort of pointless. And those "ballistics" also include the energy the round has at a given range. And since most handgun engagements occur within 20 feet I assume, the pure stopping power of it must be very high on the list when choosing a pistol.
The 10mm is obviously superior, however I did not say it would be applicable in a law enforcement scenario or somewhere that is relatively heavily populated. Ballistics... including energy, bullet path, ect. is why the 10mm is superior. It would really, in my opinion, be suitable for a military force. And you can't really complain about overpenetration if the military uses .308s which will go through several thick walls and other objects very easily.
Edit. Oh yeah, sorry but when I said power of rifle rounds doesn't matter as much as pistols, I meant that rifle rounds don't vary as much in the real-world stopping power they have within 300 meters or so, as pistol rounds do within their respective range.
5.56mm is a crapass round... useless over longer range (as illustrated in Iraq), is unreliable for a takedown, often won't even penetrate light cover at all, etc...
i also hate the "maim rather than kill"-attitude to developing the 5.56mm.
in the .308's case, overpenetration is a good thing (as an army/war cartridge).
As someone who has used 5.56 in a defensive situation in Iraq, I thoroughly hate the round and the M16. The "sniper" (an idiot with a scope on an AK at about 200 yards) got back up the first two times I shot him, stayed up through another, and finally dropped for good on the fourth hit. After that and one other incident I couldn't look at the M16 without cursing up a storm, my supervisor finally convinced my CO to send me to qualify and carry a M60 (Good old Army hand-downs to the AirForce...) in hopes of getting some actual firepower at our rather remote position and hoping a 30 pound weapon would shut me up about pansy weapons, but I was more than happy with it and it served our small AC&W radar installation well.
My personal opinion is that 5.56 is pure shit for anything bigger than a cayote and that there is no excuse to be using anything lsmaller than a .30 caliber in a rifle or a .38 in a pistol or SMG against human targets. People don't go down reliably. One person might fall to a .22LR in the gut while another will keep coming after three .45 rounds in the chest, I've heard it all and I've seen many strange cases myself. The safest route is the best, accuracy and first hit kills should be a priority.
No M240 for you Phred? (although it'd be a bitch to carry around)
Didn't you run into reliability problems with the M60?
It *might* not be necessary to kill everyone you might have to shoot at. Especially if you are a German policeman.
You all scare me. Boy, am _I_ glad I live in Germany and don't have to fear meeting any of you gun wielding psychos
germany doesnt have stricter laws then we have overhere (belgium), B666. your sense of safety is strictly imaginary.
Thats what rubber bullets, bean bags, mace, and tasers are for
I also own an 18cm calibre penis.
Seriously, I'm pretty sure it would be _real_ trouble to get anything like this in Germany.
@ B666: did you fail to notice the site from which the picture is taken is a German gunselling website?
'that' is also just a semi-automatic magazine fed 12 gauge shotgun. nothing special, just more efficient than the standard tubefed shotty. it can be used for skeet, hunting, parcoursshooting etc.
@ jeebz: calibre isn't the length, you fucking nuubian. i sure hope your penis' urethra isn't 18cm wide...