lets discuss--

[williamlayton]

There seems to be some disagreement hereabouts over the issues concerning slow and heavy and speed and penetration.
I have begun to alter my thoughts somewhat on this issue. I will still say there is a good reason to want slow and heavy, mainly cause I like a .45, but have been taking a second look at my own thought pattern and trying to come to terms with a new thought.
This new thought goes back to some study, not recently, and understanding of problems in this area. It was the Korean police action, trying too be politically correct here :-) , and the problems the army had fighting the heavily clothed North Korean and Chinese. It seems as though there were some problems penetrating this heavy clothing and stopping the human wave that came upon them.
I am thinking in terms of penetration being a sound arguement.
That being said I guess a feller should check the temperature and check out the latest in fashion before he straps on his piece.
What are your thoughts?
Blessings

[Bikenut]

I'm not sure about this..... but if my admittedly poor memory serves the problems you mentioned in penetrating the heavy coats the enemy wore during that particular war were with .30 caliber (.308?) rifle rounds? Specificly from the M1 carbine? And weren't from pistol rounds at all? I'm trying to remember exactly what the problem was just going on what I remember from a not too recent episode on the History Channel........ so I might be totally wrong in this.

I still think there isn't any one bullet, be it small or large caliber... or light and fast... or heavy and slow... or any combination thereof... that is universally perfect. There are too many variables involved with the size and weight and physical condition and/or presence of drugs in the body of the assailant plus the state of mind of that assailant. Then there is the added factor of the shooter's ability to control the firearm's recoil to allow accurate follow up shots. Which leads me to believe that "fast and light or slow and heavy" is a moot point. What I believe to be the most vital component is the shooter's ability to place multiple accurate shots in the assailant. If that means a shooter can only handle the recoil of a .22LR but not a .32 ACP for multiple accurate shots the most effective and best caliber/round for that shooter is the .22LR. The same holds true for larger calibers....... if a shooter can make multiple accurate shots with a light and fast round but not a slow and heavy round then the light/fast is the best round......... and vice versa. And there is a difference in shootability of a gun and the accuracy of a shooter depending on the ammunition (slow/heavy or light/fast) being used in a given caliber. For example: there is a big difference between shooting factory ammo and shooting a +P+ round regardless of the caliber or bullet weight.

Quite frankly I think that worrying about which one is inherently better or worse is pointless if the shooter can't reliably hit the target many times with the round being used.

Those are my thoughts on the "fast/light vs slow/heavy" controversy but please bear in mind I'm not an expert and am merely giving my opinion.

[Dusty Miller]

This argument has been going on for as long I've been on the planet.  Do you really think there's anything to be gained by rehashing it again?

[williamlayton]

Well it has been slow around here, but that was not the point of the question.
Really, what has got me to thinking, and I guess it is a military thought, is the growth of use of body armor, and well that got to the thought of heavy clothing--sooo I thought I thought it would be a good thing to put it all in one place and hash it around some.
Maybe I should have asked if tha folks considered the use of body armor  enough to reconsider what is used.
Blessings

[New Hampshire]

I'm not sure about this..... but if my admittedly poor memory serves the problems you mentioned in penetrating the heavy coats the enemy wore during that particular war were with .30 caliber (.308?) rifle rounds? Specificly from the M1 carbine? And weren't from pistol rounds at all? .

.

Has to be what he is talking about.  A 147gr FMJ coming out of an M1 garand at around 3000 fps is pure evil on a body sure as heck out hundreds of yards, no matter what is worn.  The M1 carbine, however, even in rifle form, has always been complained about as being anemic.  Its funny that, even though this round was specifically developed as a Rifle/Carbine round many people consider it a pistol round.  But a true rifle round, be it the 06, 306 or 223 is always hands down better than any pistol caliber.  The Marines at the Frozen Chosin had no complaints.  And this is just another example of why handguns are almost completely useless on the battlefied.
Brian M.

[Flash]

If I could ask my enemy to wear what I prefer and don't approach any closer than a certain distance, stand upright and don't shoot back, bullet choice wouldn't be an issue. I much prefer the truncated cone over the round nose for a pistol bullet and both are full metal jacket. I agree that the 30 carbine was like using a toy against men with high powwered rifles but in jungle warfare, it served better than the Garrand. It's introduction (1942) was when the south pacific islands were being overtaken and even though it made it to Europe, I feel safe to say that it's design was for jungle combat.

[williamlayton]

Well, the carbine was designed for rear line use. Those fellows whose job was not front line but those other necessary jobs that kept the war moving.
But the main point was aimed, poor pun, at the service or personal defense weapon, the sidearm.
No sidearm will ever take the place of a rifle in a front line situation. In close quarters, urban situations, the pistol does have some benefits. In a personal self-defense situation at home or on the streets, it is often the only means of self protection.
The question had to do with penetration, or should penetration take more of a front seat in one's personal choice of pistols. In the woods/fields it does because of the four legged critters one may encounter where knockdown is not the primary consideration but penetration is considered more valuable. Black bears as an example.
With the proliferation of body armor, and with the understanding of its use, is penetration worthy of taking a front seat over large and slow?
Now the question was not to knock the .45 or such but to question the choices and see if the other options brought fourth were worthy of more consideration.
Blessings

[Bikenut]

Ok, I'll play along even though I think fast/light vs slow/heavy is a moot point.

Penetration depth isn't dependent on bullet speed or weight but the medium the bullet encounters is more important in determining effectiveness. A fast/light bullet will generally penetrate further than a slow/heavy one. But that still doesn't determine effectiveness as there are always other factors.

Such as the body armor already mentioned stopping a pistol round. Or just heavy clothing over body fat reducing the amount of penetration by absorbing some of the bullet momentum. Or clothing plugging up the bullet hollow point effectively making it into ball ammo and preventing bullet expansion. Or a fast/light bullet hitting a bone and glancing off canceling any further penetration where a slow/heavy bullet would smash on through but lose momentum and not penetrate much further past the bone. Or a fast/light bullet poking right on through (over penetration) and not staying inside, or expanding inside, the target. Or a slow/heavy bullet stopping before hitting vital organs. Or a slow/heavy bullet also going right on through the lung area because there wasn't much in there to hit and momentum carried the heavy bullet all the way through and out the other side.

I don't think the amount of penetration, while important, should be the main factor in choosing self defense ammunition. Aside from choosing hollow point over ball ammo.....the shooter's ability to hit the target repeatedly with the ammo to be carried should be the first consideration. Perhaps it should be the ONLY consideration since even if there were a "magic bullet" guaranteed to stop a crazed assailant every time with one shot...... and it even actually did work........ that "magic bullet" won't stop a darn thing if it doesn't hit the assailant.

Ok... now let's supponse a person has the skills to repeatedly hit the target. And I suspect there are many people who post in Greybeard's that do have that ability. Which would be the best round... fast/light or slow/heavy? I think even here it boils down to which round the shooter can shoot the most accurately. While sticking multuple rounds into an 8 inch area in center of mass reliably with fast/light bullets will do the job it will still be better if that shooter can stick those rounds into a 4 inch area with slow/heavy bullets.............. or vice versa. So it still comes down to the shooter's compatibility with the ammunition....... and neither fast/light or slow/heavy is inherently better, or worse, than the other.

So it all comes down to a person going to the range with a selection of ammo of different bullet weights and powder loads........ shooting them all and keeping track of accuracy results and ease plus quickness of recoil recovery allowing fast and accurate multiple shots....... and then using the one that worked best for that individual shooter.

Again I'll say that fast/light or slow/heavy is a moot point because it will be the bullet that actually hits the target that has an effect. It really isn't about the bullet speed/weight (it isn't even about the caliber) used but is all about the shooter's ability to hit the target very often as reliably and as accurately as they are able.

[michbob]

A bit off topic, but I understand that the Nazi's were happy to use any US M1 Carbines that they could capture, due to their (the rifle's) compactness and handy nature.  But then, the Germans considered the squad machine gun to be the soul of the infantries' striking power, while the rifles were used to support the MG.

Michbob.

[Dragon31]

I should stay out of this discussion but... hear goes.  In the early 60's before the build up in Viet Nam the Military Assistance Group was active in South Viet Nam.  Along with a Radio Research Group.  Most of us were issued M-2's, the full auto version of the M1 30 carbine.  The 30 carbine round worked OK. but my carbine had to be cleaned oiled and well cared for and was difficult to field strip (it doesn't not break down like the M-1 or M-14).  Mine was for ever stove piping the round or failing to eject.  In the dark I also had trouble putting in a new magizine and clearing the jam.  Thus I found that having a hand gun real important to my well being.  I'm glad that I didn't know that I was a second line, rear echelon trooper.  That would have hurt my feelings.  I did on many occasions want to know what fool planned the operations that put me in harms way.  I spent the next 30+ years shaving the face of that fool each morning as he planned the next operation.
I would not recommend the round or rifle as a main battle rifle, for that matter I never really liked the M16 and 5.56.

[unspellable]

This is an old question.  The Soviets adopted the 7.62x25 Tokerov as a psitol round on the grounds that they needed a lot of penetration against heavy clothing a log and packed snow barricades.  In the US a lot of poeple used to belittle this choice on grounds it lacked stopping power, not realizing that penetration was the goal.

[Mikey]

Dragon31:  I know how you feel about using the M1/M2 Carbine.  I had a bunch of them that were difficult to deal with.  Most often our Mountainyard troops carried them, but only if they worked.  Whenever we got the chance we would reclaim the battlefield losses of the other guy and use his AKs.  

There were times when we would go through half a dozen M1s and a buncha magazines to make certain everything worked properly but ours too needed cleaning or they would begin to fail.  That's what made the AK so attractive to many of us - that and the M16 that would either not work or the round would not do its job well enough for our purposes.  

After a while, that is when we had a sufficient number of AKs and SKSs to outfit our 'Yards' and didn't have to worry about replacements or ammo, a few of us starting cutting down the barrels of our M2s to use for 'hooch clearing'.  Found out you could cut the barrel down to about an inch in front of the gas port so they would still work and you would have an easy to pack (over your back) sub-gun length carbine in a caliber better than the 9mm used in our Swedish Ks or S&W 76s.  A couple of our guys even found old Schmissers (? sp) that worked but would also find some older PPSH41s or 43s.  Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrp!  Mikey.

[Savage]

William,
My man, the answer is obvious! BIG and FAST is the answer. Let's load up our 10mms with 200gr SWC at about 1250fps and call the problem solved!
Savage

[williamlayton]

YUP!
Blessings