M-1 Garand vs. Mauser K98

[marcelo_malara]

The .45 ACP is about the same KE as the 9mm Luger, the .45's heavier bullet being balanced by the 9mm´s higher muzle velocity. For this reason (lighter bulllet and higher velocity) the 9mm has better medium range performance. Regarding lethality, it is a matter of a long controversy between them, there are very well documented stopping power failure of the .45.
For the weapon itself, the MP-40 showed the way to the future: it was the first SMG made entirely of metal with some plastic parts and the first with folding butt. On the other side, the Thomson is almost as heavy as the Garand, what denies one advantage of a SMG over a rifle.

[lwd]

.... For this reason (lighter bulllet and higher velocity) the 9mm has better medium range performance....

The lighter faster bullet should loose energy faster (although the larger diameter of the 45 might affect this). The 45 would tend to drop a bit more. The Thompson could also be easily fired from the shoulder. I'm not sure about the MP40. Was told that it was a bad idea with the M3.

[Bgile]

The .45 ACP is about the same KE as the 9mm Luger, the .45's heavier bullet being balanced by the 9mm´s higher muzle velocity. For this reason (lighter bulllet and higher velocity) the 9mm has better medium range performance. Regarding lethality, it is a matter of a long controversy between them, there are very well documented stopping power failure of the .45.
For the weapon itself, the MP-40 showed the way to the future: it was the first SMG made entirely of metal with some plastic parts and the first with folding butt. On the other side, the Thomson is almost as heavy as the Garand, what denies one advantage of a SMG over a rifle.

I know about the KE thing, but in practice it just doesn't work that way. For whatever reason, the .45 tends to transfer all of it's KE to the target's body and the 9mm doesn't. For one thing, the 9mm is more likely to pass through the target and expend a lot of it's KE on the wall behind it. I don't care about "medium" range. In a pistol you want something that will disable someone at point blank range ... often 10m or less. The US military has been complaining about the 9mm ever since we started using it to be common with NATO, and our special forces still use the .45. Not the 1911 but still the .45 ACP. Admittedly the special forces have another reason. Since the .45 ACP is subsonic it can be silenced without having to use a special low velocity round and it retains it's stopping power.

Obviously we differ in our opinions and everyone has their favorite round for self defense. Of course in many countries people aren't allowed to have pistols at all. It's much different here.

By the way, the M16 is also criticized. Lots of KE, but it sometimes goes through the target seemingly without leaving a hole. You can carry lots more ammunition, but you need it.

[Bgile]

Coincidentally another discussion going on:

http://www.bobhenneman.info/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1794

[marcelo_malara]

The "KE deposit" theory has proven wrong over the years. The stopping power is based on central nervous system injury or blood loss, and both calibers have good chances here, the 45 with a little advantange due to its largest diameter (remember tissue is elastic and 50% more frontal area doesn´t mean 50% more bleeding)
For military use, you don´t need an instant disabling shot, a wounded soldier would not go on fighting for long. As the 9mm packs a good punch for its size, it is natural that an army would prefer it for SMG work, the .45 cartridge weighing about the double than a 9mm. Its logical then that once you have chosen a SMG calibre, you use the same for pistols, a logistic issue.

[tommy303]

I think the chosing of the calibre was more the other way around--you were wise to adopt your pistol calibre for the SMG. Both the MP40 and the Thompson used the already existing pistol calibres of their respective armies.

[marcelo_malara]

Yes, I know that Tommy. I was thinking about the post-war US. Once they had widely adopted the 9mm for SMG (MP-5, Ingram 10, etc..) then the natural move was to adopt 9mm for the sidearms.

[Bgile]

For military use, you don´t need an instant disabling shot, a wounded soldier would not go on fighting for long.

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. If I'm in a room with enemies and "he won't go on fighting for long" he will fight long enough to kill me.

I knew an ex tunnel rat and there was no way he was carrying anything but a 45, but I realize that's just anecdotal.

I've also had an army surgeon tell me that 45 wounds tend to be much worse than 9mm. Again, no proof.

Everyone has their opinion about this. If I'm carrying an mp5, maybe I prefer a pistol with the same ammo. That isn't a very good battle rifle though.

[marcelo_malara]

Fighting in the same room with a foe (basically a police scenario) is very rare in the military, you can´t tool up an army for it. I dídn´t say that a .45 wound wasn´t worst than a 9mm one, but that the diference (according to what I have read, I am not a surgeon) doesn´t deserve doubling the round weight. Moreover, was there any complaints in the German army about lack of stopping power of its ammo?

[Bgile]

Fighting in the same room with a foe (basically a police scenario) is very rare in the military, you can´t tool up an army for it. I dídn´t say that a .45 wound wasn´t worst than a 9mm one, but that the diference (according to what I have read, I am not a surgeon) doesn´t deserve doubling the round weight. Moreover, was there any complaints in the German army about lack of stopping power of its ammo?

I suspect the German position was that the pistol really wasn't very important, and for the most part they were correct. Still, in my mind the debate is not whether you need one, but which one is best.

Room clearance has been a really big deal in Iraq. Some units have spent a lot of time searching homes, and our soldiers spend quite a bit of time training for it. They've had to throw out some of the conventional wisdom about how to do it. They now have training structures with walls that can absorb M-16 rounds so they can practice firing live ammo in close proximity to their fellow soldiers. Of course, they don't plan to use pistols. They use the M-4, which is basically a "cut down" M-16.

Now that Iraq is winding down, it probably won't be emphasized as much. Afghanistan is more of an open country fight, and they will probably wish they had M-14s. At least I would, and there has definitely been some debate in the Army.

[marcelo_malara]

The pistol is more a social symbol in the army than a practical weapon. In fact some armies used pistols that were close to useless: the Japanese with their Nambus for example. I think that an army can do without them.

[lwd]

The "KE deposit" theory has proven wrong over the years. The stopping power is based on central nervous system injury or blood loss, and both calibers have good chances here, the 45 with a little advantange due to its largest diameter (remember tissue is elastic and 50% more frontal area doesn´t mean 50% more bleeding)....

I'm sorry but no it hasn't been proven wrong. There are several theories of what causes a wound to be serious the ones I know of are:
KE deposit
Hydrostatic shock
Momentum deposit
Wound channel.

Problem is they are probably all pertinent to some extent and in some cases so there is both supporting and contradictory evidence for all of them. Note that the 45 has an advantage in most of the above. Indeed 50% more frontal area probably means more than 50% bleading in many cases (obviously if you blow out an aorta it can be a 22 short or 12.7 and it's not going to make much difference.

[lwd]

I think the chosing of the calibre was more the other way around--you were wise to adopt your pistol calibre for the SMG. Both the MP40 and the Thompson used the already existing pistol calibres of their respective armies.

The problem with this is as I understand it the Germans only sort of did this. They adopted the same caliber but the bullets for use in SMGs were hotter than the pistol cartridges. Indeed I believe the Luger had problems with some of the pistol cartiridges.

[marcelo_malara]

I am sorry but the KE deposit IS wrong. The prove is that to this theory, back in the 80s, many police agencies in the US (even the FBI) adopted high speed, light weight, hollow-point bullets, in the believe that the high KE of this bullets, caused mostly by the high-speed, would be fully transferred to the target, in a very short time, due to the mushrooming of the bullet stopping the projectile very quickly. The consecuence was that they lacked penetration to reach internal organs. This was demostrated in the FBI´s Miami shootout in 1986, the fellons failing to stop shooting even if hit repetedly in the torso.

There are just two causes for a wound to be serious: the bullet passing directly thru the tissue (called permanent cavity) or the energy transferred by the bullet to the tissue exceding the elastic limit and damaging them (temporary cavity). The temporary cavity damage works if the bullet travels in excess of 600m/s (2000 fps), is the main mechanism in a rifle bullet. For pistols, the damage to the tissues are caused only by the permanent cavity (despite what the ballistic gelatin high speed video shows).

Now, once you have hit and make the damage, what stops your foe from going on fighting is CNS damage (instantly) and blood loss. Other mechanisms, like KE transfer, has not been proven.

[lwd]

If the bullet hits bone the KE transfer can be important although the rate of transfer can also be important (impulse). Another way of looking at it is KE transfer to critical components is important transfer to perifial ones is less so. Shock and pain can also incpacitate. Now this may not produce a serious wound but it's enough to win a fire fight TASERS are a classic modern example. Essentially no wound almost never serious physical damage but they work and are very effective in some circumstances.