History and effect of small arms

[old_pop2000]

I was just at our gunsmith and dealer doing the transfer paperwork on my German Walther P-38 that my son bought me for my birthday, and I wondered if an interesting discussion of small arms in military history would not be interesting.

Please stick to the history of small arms in military history, not the politics of gun ownership.

Anyway, I thought we could discuss the basic types used throughout history, effects of new technology, effects of weapons on tactics. I don't know where the upper limit is, but anti-tank weapons are not included.

[keschofield]

I was just at our gunsmith and dealer doing the transfer paperwork on my German Walther P-38 that my son bought me for my birthday, and I wondered if an interesting discussion of small arms in military history would not be interesting.

Please stick to the history of small arms in military history, not the politics of gun ownership.

Anyway, I thought we could discuss the basic types used throughout history, effects of new technology, effects of weapons on tactics. I don't know where the upper limit is, but anti-tank weapons are not included.


Dennis,

I think you'll enjoy shooting your P-38. It has a smooth, crisp action and is a delight to handle. Let us know your impressions.

On to the topic, the most dramatic effect on history from small arms comes when the technology changes. If I recall correctly the Dreyse gave the Prussians a distinct advantage over the Danes in 1864 (?) and the Austrians in 1866.

Sometimes however, the advanced technology isn't enough to offset command, supply, and other factors. The Chassepot was a full generation ahead of the Dreyse in 1871, but the French still foundered. The 1895 Mauser gave the Spanish a huge advantage over the Trapdoor Springfield in 1898 and a slighter one over the Krag, but the US prevailed anyway.

Just some tidbits from memory to start things rolling.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis,

I think you'll enjoy shooting your P-38. It has a smooth, crisp action and is a delight to handle. Let us know your impressions.

On to the topic, the most dramatic effect on history from small arms comes when the technology changes. If I recall correctly the Dreyse gave the Prussians a distinct advantage over the Danes in 1864 (?) and the Austrians in 1866.

Sometimes however, the advanced technology isn't enough to offset command, supply, and other factors. The Chassepot was a full generation ahead of the Dreyse in 1871, but the French still foundered. The 1895 Mauser gave the Spanish a huge advantage over the Trapdoor Springfield in 1898 and a slighter one over the Krag, but the US prevailed anyway.

Just some tidbits from memory to start things rolling.
Yes, I am eagerly awaiting my pickup date. However, I leave on a cruise within a few days, so I won't be able to get to the range to shoot it. But my son will, then he will clean it again.

Now, as to the topic. It is absolutely true that techology does not always win battles or campaigns. The weapon must be integrated into the doctrine and tactics. It is not a substitute for good planning, logistics and of course; command and control.

[Smiffy]

I think the single biggest technological development in the history of firearms, on the battlefield, was the bayonet. Before the bayonet, armies still required pike-men to protect the musketeers while loading and to provide a shock capability. With bayonets, everyone could shoulder a musket. Other than that, the musket simply did the same job on the battlefield as the longbow had done before. The longbow was more accurate, had a much higher rate of fire and a longer range than any musket. The only advantage the musket had over the bow was, it didn't take twenty years of training to become proficient. Battle maps of the Hundred Years War look little different from those of the Napoleonic Wars. It was the rifle that changed everything. Some armies took a long time to realise that.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I think the single biggest technological development in the history of firearms, on the battlefield, was the bayonet. Before the bayonet, armies still required pike-men to protect the musketeers while loading and to provide a shock capability. With bayonets, everyone could shoulder a musket. Other than that, the musket simply did the same job on the battlefield as the longbow had done before. The longbow was more accurate, had a much higher rate of fire and a longer range than any musket. The only advantage the musket had over the bow was, it didn't take twenty years of training to become proficient. Battle maps of the Hundred Years War look little different from those of the Napoleonic Wars. It was the rifle that changed everything. Some armies took a long time to realise that.

Smiffy:

I will agree with you to a point here. Yes the bayonet allowed the infantry to field more firearms by depleting the need for the pike. Still I would hazard that the metallic cartridge allowed for faster fire and evenutally full automatic weapons which changed the entire dynamic of battle. Armies still fought in tight formations until the advent of rifles and explosive artillery shells.

[old_pop2000]

Smiffy:

I will agree with you to a point here. Yes the bayonet allowed the infantry to field more firearms by depleting the need for the pike. Still I would hazard that the metallic cartridge allowed for faster fire and evenutally full automatic weapons which changed the entire dynamic of battle. Armies still fought in tight formations until the advent of rifles and explosive artillery shells.

I agree about the metallic cartridge, but what about the effect of the conical bullet- the Minie ball. It dramatically improved accuracy and range?

How does the fact that the paper cartridge can be produced with non-skilled labor whereas a metallic cartridge requires raw materials in the form of copper, machine tool skills and a much more sophisticated logistical system to handle its production and dispensing.

[Smiffy]

To my mind,the big breakthrough was machine tools that allowed rifled weapons to be produced cheaply. The military rifle, even if a muzzle loading flintlock, brought in the idea that you could actually aim at a target and hit it, the skirmish line began to replace the formed battalion line. Better shaped bullets, metal cartridges, smokeless powder and magazines all added to the deadly effect of the individual rifleman. Add good training and discipline and warfare changes almost beyond recognition. The shovel becomes as important as the rifle.

[old_pop2000]

Something to consider in this discussion, if you are the South, short of natural resources that are developed, lacking adequate machining capability, is it prudent to move to the metallic cartridge? It requires all of those functions you don't have, but you have lots of trees for paper and you don't need skilled labor to assemble the paper cartridges. The rifles and carbines are also easier to manufacture than the more complicated repeaters.

What would you do?

[Smiffy]

You do need skilled labour to make the powder and also the cartridge paper but the assembly can be done by unskilled people, also they can cast the bullets individually, as the paper cartridge doesn't have such precise tolerances as the metal one. So, over all I go for what I can most easily produce. It also has a dispersion effect; as a cottage industry is not vulnerable to a few well executed cavalry raids and, or. coastal raids, which can take out my few factories.

[old_pop2000]

You do need skilled labour to make the powder and also the cartridge paper but the assembly can be done by unskilled people, also they can cast the bullets individually, as the paper cartridge doesn't have such precise tolerances as the metal one. So, over all I go for what I can most easily produce. It also has a dispersion effect; as a cottage industry is not vulnerable to a few well executed cavalry raids and, or. coastal raids, which can take out my few factories.

No, you actually don't need skilled labor to make gunpowder. A cottage industry using charcoal, sulfur and potassium nitrate can make it easily. Potassium nitrate or saltpeter can be made with urine and manure in a bag, then dry it. Note:


"Saltpeter, the chemical that produces the oxygen for the other ingredients when lit off, can he made by putting urine and manure of any kind in a big cement tank mixed with water until you have about three hundred gallons mixed up. Then you put on a tight lid and let it sit for about ten months. You have to have a drain pipe and valve at the bottom, and a stainless steel filter screen installed beforehand or you'll have one big mess on your hands. At the end of that time, you run the liquid that drains off through ashes into shallow wooden trays lined with plastic sheeting and let them stand for evaporation in the sun. When the water evaporates, potassium nitrate crystals (saltpeter) will form in the bottom of the trays."


Interesting article on Confederacy Saltpeter mines in Virginia. http://www.dmme.virginia.gov/DMR3/dmrpdfs/vamin/VAMIN_VOL47_NO04.pdf

[Smiffy]

Okay, I'll rephrase that, you need skilled labour to make gunpowder "safely" and of good quality. I understand that the skill comes in when you refine the powder by milling, it has to be fine, but too fine is very dangerous.

It was Napoleon's need for saltpeter that led to the rise of the public urinal in French towns.

[old_pop2000]

Okay, I'll rephrase that, you need skilled labour to make gunpowder "safely" and of good quality. I understand that the skill comes in when you refine the powder by milling, it has to be fine, but too fine is very dangerous.

It was Napoleon's need for saltpeter that led to the rise of the public urinal in French towns.
I agree, but the issue is that you can disperse your production, if you are being invaded. You might produce that raw product then use the cake and mill it somewhere else. Mass production along with milling, is better and more economical, but with the exigencies of war, you might have to take an alternative course

[Smiffy]

I agree, but the issue is that you can disperse your production, if you are being invaded. You might produce that raw product then use the cake and mill it somewhere else. Mass production along with milling, is better and more economical, but with the exigencies of war, you might have to take an alternative course

Agreed, in wartime Health & Safety goes out the window.

[old_pop2000]

Agreed, in wartime Health & Safety goes out the window.

Here's more to the equation to consider. As we moved to conical bullets, metallic cartridges, and smokeless powders along with repeating rifles, what happens to the country moving to those new technological developments?

First, it has to have raw materials and processing ability to create the new smokeless powders. It needs a chemical industry, no more cottage industry.

Second, it needs a major metal working industry to produce the metallic cartridges along with smelting and machining.

Third, smokeless powders produce higher chamber pressures so you have to have steel production capability and the high grade machining tools.

Fourth, you need highly skilled manpower to operate those industries, economic planning to develop and manage them, and now we are getting into a centralized planned economy.

fifth, we need a much better transportation system to move the raw materials and finished parts to the assembly plant and to move the finished weapons to depot storage.

Sixth, Armies now have to have dedicated logistics management to requisition, manage and move large quantities of ammunition to the armies because repeaters will use over 5 times the ammunition that a rifle muzzle loader will.

Now, with this whole economic infrastructure in place, we now have a vulnerability that an opponent can attack, your industrialized areas.

What say all?;)

[Smiffy]

I visited the Springfield Armoury National Park site a couple of years ago. The guide explained that the site had been chosen because of its proximity to good waterways to provide transportation, yet far enough inland to be safe from a boat raid by the Royal Navy.

On the same trip, a few days later, a Ranger at Minute Man National Park gave the best and most unbiased historical lecture that I have ever heard, about Lexington and Concord. I thanked him and we got into conversation. He said, that in his opinion, the greatest technical advantage that the regulars had over the locals was their cartridge boxes. 60 rounds kept neat and tidy and easily withdrawn have to beat keeping you cartridges in your pockets. Seemingly little things like that can make a big difference.

[old_pop2000]

I visited the Springfield Armoury National Park site a couple of years ago. The guide explained that the site had been chosen because of its proximity to good waterways to provide transportation, yet far enough inland to be safe from a boat raid by the Royal Navy.

On the same trip, a few days later, a Ranger at Minute Man National Park gave the best and most unbiased historical lecture that I have ever heard, about Lexington and Concord. I thanked him and we got into conversation. He said, that in his opinion, the greatest technical advantage that the regulars had over the locals was their cartridge boxes. 60 rounds kept neat and tidy and easily withdrawn have to beat keeping you cartridges in your pockets. Seemingly little things like that can make a big difference.
That is true and they were probably kept dry also. There are many small, insignificant items that can help.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Dennis,

I think you'll enjoy shooting your P-38. It has a smooth, crisp action and is a delight to handle. Let us know your impressions.

On to the topic, the most dramatic effect on history from small arms comes when the technology changes. If I recall correctly the Dreyse gave the Prussians a distinct advantage over the Danes in 1864 (?) and the Austrians in 1866.

Sometimes however, the advanced technology isn't enough to offset command, supply, and other factors. The Chassepot was a full generation ahead of the Dreyse in 1871, but the French still foundered. The 1895 Mauser gave the Spanish a huge advantage over the Trapdoor Springfield in 1898 and a slighter one over the Krag, but the US prevailed anyway.

Just some tidbits from memory to start things rolling.

Kurt and Dennis:

Was the P-38 the first double action semi-auto, or was it simlpy the first to be adopted by a major power?

[Ed Rotondaro]

I agree about the metallic cartridge, but what about the effect of the conical bullet- the Minie ball. It dramatically improved accuracy and range?

How does the fact that the paper cartridge can be produced with non-skilled labor whereas a metallic cartridge requires raw materials in the form of copper, machine tool skills and a much more sophisticated logistical system to handle its production and dispensing.

Dennis:

When did bullets start being copper jacketed? I know why it is done, especially with semi-automatic and full automatic weapons, but bolt action weapons and revolvers were less likely to jam with a lead nosed projectile. Was jacketing done when smokeless powders came into use?

[Ed Rotondaro]

To my mind,the big breakthrough was machine tools that allowed rifled weapons to be produced cheaply. The military rifle, even if a muzzle loading flintlock, brought in the idea that you could actually aim at a target and hit it, the skirmish line began to replace the formed battalion line. Better shaped bullets, metal cartridges, smokeless powder and magazines all added to the deadly effect of the individual rifleman. Add good training and discipline and warfare changes almost beyond recognition. The shovel becomes as important as the rifle.

Smiffy:

The ability to interchange parts that was developed by Eli Whitney really made this possible.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Here's more to the equation to consider. As we moved to conical bullets, metallic cartridges, and smokeless powders along with repeating rifles, what happens to the country moving to those new technological developments?

First, it has to have raw materials and processing ability to create the new smokeless powders. It needs a chemical industry, no more cottage industry.

Second, it needs a major metal working industry to produce the metallic cartridges along with smelting and machining.

Third, smokeless powders produce higher chamber pressures so you have to have steel production capability and the high grade machining tools.

Fourth, you need highly skilled manpower to operate those industries, economic planning to develop and manage them, and now we are getting into a centralized planned economy.

fifth, we need a much better transportation system to move the raw materials and finished parts to the assembly plant and to move the finished weapons to depot storage.

Sixth, Armies now have to have dedicated logistics management to requisition, manage and move large quantities of ammunition to the armies because repeaters will use over 5 times the ammunition that a rifle muzzle loader will.

Now, with this whole economic infrastructure in place, we now have a vulnerability that an opponent can attack, your industrialized areas.

What say all?;)

Dennis:

You're pretty much describing conditions in mid-19th century in the US, the UK, France and the soon to be united Germany.

[old_pop2000]

I am not certain, the lugar was a double action, you simply cocked the piece and pulled the trigger. I am not certain who the first was.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

When did bullets start being copper jacketed? I know why it is done, especially with semi-automatic and full automatic weapons, but bolt action weapons and revolvers were less likely to jam with a lead nosed projectile. Was jacketing done when smokeless powders came into use?

Copper jacketing was developed in 1883 by a Swiss engineer working at Thun.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Kurt and Dennis:

Was the P-38 the first double action semi-auto, or was it simlpy the first to be adopted by a major power?

Hi Guys,

The first successful double action semi auto pistol was the Walther PP introduced in 1929. The P-38 may well have been the first major military double action semi auto with the exception of the Soviet Makarov, an upscaled version of the Walther PP. Hogg listed no year of introduction for the Makarov in Soviet service, but it did see action in WW II.

[Mike Malanaphy]

I am not certain, the lugar was a double action, you simply cocked the piece and pulled the trigger. I am not certain who the first was.

Hi Dennis,

The Luger was a single action semi auto requiring the firer to cock the weapon by working the toggle mechanism.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Copper jacketing was developed in 1883 by a Swiss engineer working at Thun.

Hi Dennis,

A brief perusal of Hogg led to his statement that with the exception of low velocity pistol bullets, rifle and machine gun ammunition was uniformly copper jacketed by WW I. Not only did the jacketed rounds function better in the weapon, no lead deposits were left in the barrel. The post WW I Geneva Convention required bullets to be jacketed as more humane than soft lead bullets which would leave a larger wound cavity.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi Dennis,

The Luger was a single action semi auto requiring the firer to cock the weapon by working the toggle mechanism.

Mike:

That's what I thought too. Dennis are you having a senior moment again? :rolleyes: Ahh he's getting ready to go sailing so we will forgive him.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi Dennis,

A brief perusal of Hogg led to his statement that with the exception of low velocity pistol bullets, rifle and machine gun ammunition was uniformly copper jacketed by WW I. Not only did the jacketed rounds function better in the weapon, no lead deposits were left in the barrel. The post WW I Geneva Convention required bullets to be jacketed as more humane than soft lead bullets which would leave a larger wound cavity.

Mike:

That's the part I missed, lead deposits! Good catch Mike! Thanks.

[old_pop2000]

Hi Dennis,

The Luger was a single action semi auto requiring the firer to cock the weapon by working the toggle mechanism.

That's right, on a SA you can't fire the weapon when the hammer is down, once you cock it, then fire it, the hammer is cocked again. The M1911 is another SA design, so is the Browning Hi power and the Russian Tokarev.

Like the man said, another senior moment.

[old_pop2000]

Mike:

That's what I thought too. Dennis are you having a senior moment again? :rolleyes: Ahh he's getting ready to go sailing so we will forgive him.
I certainly am getting ready. I may not have any time to shoot my new gun. I've decided to replace the old plastic handles with wooden grips. I may eventually replace the firing pin spring to a new one but I will wait until I've put enough rounds through it.

From what the blogs and forum's say about the gun, it is a sweet weapon to fire.

Anyone know anything about the S & W .40 cal automatic?

[Mike Malanaphy]

I certainly am getting ready. I may not have any time to shoot my new gun. I've decided to replace the old plastic handles with wooden grips. I may eventually replace the firing pin spring to a new one but I will wait until I've put enough rounds through it.

From what the blogs and forum's say about the gun, it is a sweet weapon to fire.

Anyone know anything about the S & W .40 cal automatic?

Hi Dennis,

The first pistol I bought was a 1944 vintage P-38 built by Spree Werke. Shot fairly well though the double action trigger pull was very stiff and made first round hits problematic at beyond 6 or 7 yards. Is yours a WW II vintage gun or a post war P-1 as used by the German police in the 50s or 60s? Seems to me that I put wood grips on mine as well though I sold it in the 70s.

My favorite is still my Colt government model I bought in 1977 and have never found a pistol I have shot better with. I think primarily it is the right combination of weight and balnace for me. At work, we use Glocks which are fine, but too light for me. My other favorite is my H&K P-7 9mm, my summer gun. : )

Have fun on your cruise.

[old_pop2000]

Hi Dennis,

The first pistol I bought was a 1944 vintage P-38 built by Spree Werke. Shot fairly well though the double action trigger pull was very stiff and made first round hits problematic at beyond 6 or 7 yards. Is yours a WW II vintage gun or a post war P-1 as used by the German police in the 50s or 60s? Seems to me that I put wood grips on mine as well though I sold it in the 70s.

My favorite is still my Colt government model I bought in 1977 and have never found a pistol I have shot better with. I think primarily it is the right combination of weight and balnace for me. At work, we use Glocks which are fine, but too light for me. My other favorite is my H&K P-7 9mm, my summer gun. : )

Have fun on your cruise.
My P-38 was built in 1961, I think. I haven't received the pistol yet, I am in the 10 day waiting period.

My son likes his M1911 .45 that he uses for match shooting. This weekend is the Marine corps matches at Camp Pendleton, then later in the year, he wants to go to Camp Perry to shoot. I like his Kimber .45 and his M1911, both shoot well. My son also has a Glock, nice weapon. I am not too familiar with it. Next time we go shooting, I am going to try it.

How's the H & K shoot?

Can't wait to get my S & W. .40 cal auto, not sure of the model.

I am really looking forward to the cruise, great visuals in your area. Green and lush, something we aren't used to in semi-arid San Diego.

[Smiffy]

Although handguns are illegal in my country, unless you are military or police, while visiting friends in Minnesota I got to try a Colt M1911. In my time in the Royal Navy I had been trained on the Browning 9mm, but that was 20 years ago. My first impression of the Colt was, it's bloody heavy! When I fired it, it was a delight. I had always been told that it kicked like a mule and although the Browning lacked something called "stopping power" its higher rate of fire negated that. Yet, the Colt's weight overcame the up and away pull of the lighter Browning and I found it quite easy to put rounds down range and on target, even after 20 years without using a firearm.

Until that day in Minesota my favourite had been the Bren Gun. An LMG is was too accurate to be a good LMG because its effective beaten zone was too small. But, on that day, I got to try the M1 Carbine, a beauty, light, accurate and easy.

[old_pop2000]

Although handguns are illegal in my country, unless you are military or police, while visiting friends in Minnesota I got to try a Colt M1911. In my time in the Royal Navy I had been trained on the Browning 9mm, but that was 20 years ago. My first impression of the Colt was, it's bloody heavy! When I fired it, it was a delight. I had always been told that it kicked like a mule and although the Browning lacked something called "stopping power" its higher rate of fire negated that. Yet, the Colt's weight overcame the up and away pull of the lighter Browning and I found it quite easy to put rounds down range and on target, even after 20 years without using a firearm.

Until that day in Minesota my favourite had been the Bren Gun. An LMG is was too accurate to be a good LMG because its effective beaten zone was too small. But, on that day, I got to try the M1 Carbine, a beauty, light, accurate and easy.

Yea, once you've fired the M1911, you are hooked. You can work on the trigger and get the pull lighter, makes it much easier to shoot. My son has an M1 carbine. One of nicest weapons I've fired is the Russian SKS that he and I have. Easy to shoot, great feel. Accuracy leaves a little bit to be desired, but in the hands of an old man, no problem.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi Dennis,

The first pistol I bought was a 1944 vintage P-38 built by Spree Werke. Shot fairly well though the double action trigger pull was very stiff and made first round hits problematic at beyond 6 or 7 yards. Is yours a WW II vintage gun or a post war P-1 as used by the German police in the 50s or 60s? Seems to me that I put wood grips on mine as well though I sold it in the 70s.

My favorite is still my Colt government model I bought in 1977 and have never found a pistol I have shot better with. I think primarily it is the right combination of weight and balnace for me. At work, we use Glocks which are fine, but too light for me. My other favorite is my H&K P-7 9mm, my summer gun. : )

Have fun on your cruise.

Mike:

Are you in law enforcement? The NYS Police carry Glocks as do police in the city of Albany where I work.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Yea, once you've fired the M1911, you are hooked. You can work on the trigger and get the pull lighter, makes it much easier to shoot. My son has an M1 carbine. One of nicest weapons I've fired is the Russian SKS that he and I have. Easy to shoot, great feel. Accuracy leaves a little bit to be desired, but in the hands of an old man, no problem.

Dennis:

Does the SKS have a ten round magazine?

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

Does the SKS have a ten round magazine?
Yes, it does. 10 rd internal box magazine loaded individually or from a stripper clip.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Yes, it does. 10 rd internal box magazine loaded individually or from a stripper clip.

Dennis:

Just like the old SMLE rifle the British used. I have a question for you. Of all the major powers using bolt action rifles, only the British had one with more than 5 or 6 rounds of magazine capacity. Because of this and due to rigorous training, their soldiers could put down a good deal of accurate fire in battle. Any thoughts on why Germany or the US didn't opt for a larger internal magazine on their rifles?

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

Just like the old SMLE rifle the British used. I have a question for you. Of all the major powers using bolt action rifles, only the British had one with more than 5 or 6 rounds of magazine capacity. Because of this and due to rigorous training, their soldiers could put down a good deal of accurate fire in battle. Any thoughts on why Germany or the US didn't opt for a larger internal magazine on their rifles?
Well, it's a good question, but it appears to be doctrine. It might have something to do with economics and not wasting ammunition. This might be an excellent topic for a new thread, maybe our English brethren can answer this question, especially those who might have been in the British Army.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Yea, once you've fired the M1911, you are hooked. You can work on the trigger and get the pull lighter, makes it much easier to shoot. My son has an M1 carbine. One of nicest weapons I've fired is the Russian SKS that he and I have. Easy to shoot, great feel. Accuracy leaves a little bit to be desired, but in the hands of an old man, no problem.

Hi Dennis,

I bought a .22 cal conversion kit for mine back in the 80s which is reasonably accurate and much cheaper to shoot. There are very few places here where you can shoot safely and most ranges want you to use theit non lead bullets. I used to reload a lot when I shot more in the 90s which made the hobby relatively cheap. Minus my time, I could produce .45 or 9mm for about 2 cents apiece.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Mike:

Are you in law enforcement? The NYS Police carry Glocks as do police in the city of Albany where I work.

Hi Ed,

Yes, since 1987. Have carried S&W Wesson Model 66 revolver, Sig Sauer 9mm, Glock 21, and now Glock 17. Glocks are great guns, just prefer the weight of an all steel gun.

[Mike Malanaphy]

My P-38 was built in 1961, I think. I haven't received the pistol yet, I am in the 10 day waiting period.

My son likes his M1911 .45 that he uses for match shooting. This weekend is the Marine corps matches at Camp Pendleton, then later in the year, he wants to go to Camp Perry to shoot. I like his Kimber .45 and his M1911, both shoot well. My son also has a Glock, nice weapon. I am not too familiar with it. Next time we go shooting, I am going to try it.

How's the H & K shoot?

Can't wait to get my S & W. .40 cal auto, not sure of the model.

I am really looking forward to the cruise, great visuals in your area. Green and lush, something we aren't used to in semi-arid San Diego.


Hi Dennis,

The H&K is a great little gun. The gas system lessens the recoiol consideralbly and it shoots very well for sucha compact gum. We fire 50 rounds for qualification and the gas tube under the barrel can get quite warm and heats up the area around the trigger.

The .40 caliber became quite popular in the mid 90s for law enforcenment as a compromise between the 9mm and .45 ACP after the much more powerful 10mm failed to catch on. There are lots of pros and cons for all those calibers, but confidence in the weaepon which leads to good bullet placement is probably the most important compaonent for effectiveness.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi Dennis,

The H&K is a great little gun. The gas system lessens the recoiol consideralbly and it shoots very well for sucha compact gum. We fire 50 rounds for qualification and the gas tube under the barrel can get quite warm and heats up the area around the trigger.

The .40 caliber became quite popular in the mid 90s for law enforcenment as a compromise between the 9mm and .45 ACP after the much more powerful 10mm failed to catch on. There are lots of pros and cons for all those calibers, but confidence in the weaepon which leads to good bullet placement is probably the most important compaonent for effectiveness.

Mike:

Has the 10mm completely fallen by the wayside? Or does it just remain a niche market for some shooters? I remember when Jeff Cooper had touted the caliber and the Bren 10 semi-auto pistol back in the '80s. I know the Bren never caught on, but I seem to recall several popular handguns being offered in 10mm for awhile. I think even the Glock.

[old_pop2000]

Hi Dennis,

The H&K is a great little gun. The gas system lessens the recoiol consideralbly and it shoots very well for sucha compact gum. We fire 50 rounds for qualification and the gas tube under the barrel can get quite warm and heats up the area around the trigger.

The .40 caliber became quite popular in the mid 90s for law enforcenment as a compromise between the 9mm and .45 ACP after the much more powerful 10mm failed to catch on. There are lots of pros and cons for all those calibers, but confidence in the weaepon which leads to good bullet placement is probably the most important compaonent for effectiveness.
Well, the P-38 was sort of a nostaglia weapon for me, I had one on consignment just prior to leaving for the AF in 1968. This was a WWII, SS pistol but my mother and dad did not want to take care of it for me, so I had to get my money back. My son heard the story and bought this weapon at auction for my last birthday. I like what I hear about the H & K, might have to look at it. I am just a plinker and target shooter, not even competition. I do it mostly to have a common interest besides computers, with my son. It gives us some father and son time together. Actually, the whole family does it, even my daughter and her husband when they are here. He is an army NCO.

I don't know much about the .40 cal S & W. My son bought that for me for christmas. Next month, we will transfer ownership, so I can give you more details.

It is funny you should mention confidence in your weapon. My son is having difficulty with the M1911, but no problems with the Ruger .22 cal. target pistol. I think it is just in his mind. However, all the rest of the shooters use fancy devices and head gear, my son uses standard iron sights and a ball cap. In time, I believe he will become a much better shooter than the gents that use the fancy red dot gear. Hopefully. What's your opinion as a professional.

[john964]

Mike:

Has the 10mm completely fallen by the wayside? Or does it just remain a niche market for some shooters? I remember when Jeff Cooper had touted the caliber and the Bren 10 semi-auto pistol back in the '80s. I know the Bren never caught on, but I seem to recall several popular handguns being offered in 10mm for awhile. I think even the Glock.
Ed, It depends in WA the 10 largest city and county PD and SD. 7 use S&W 10mm 6 use Glock 9mm, 3 use .45 ACP(1 PD has M1911 as standard carry weapon) the rest use various other calibers.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Mike:

Has the 10mm completely fallen by the wayside? Or does it just remain a niche market for some shooters? I remember when Jeff Cooper had touted the caliber and the Bren 10 semi-auto pistol back in the '80s. I know the Bren never caught on, but I seem to recall several popular handguns being offered in 10mm for awhile. I think even the Glock.

Hi Ed,

I don't follow handguns as much as I used too. I bought a S&W 10mm when they came out. I didn't particularly care for for it due to the recoil and risk of overpenetration and ammunition was dreadfully expensive. If I recall, the S&W .40 cal was a cut down version of teh 10mm cartridge and has seen some commercial success.

Military handguns use ball, jacketed lead slugs designed to penetrate not expand when they hit. In ball, 9mm, .40 cal, and ball would usually produce through and through gunshots. .45 ACP in ball is travelling at about 750 fps, several hundred feet per second than the others and will usually not produce a through and through wound.

In law enforcement, bullets that overpenetrate risk injuring others and whatever residual energy the bullet retains as it exits is energy not used against the target. For expanding bullets, the rule of thumb is that 1,000 fps is the bottom end of where the bullet will expand reliably when it hits the target. As we know, energy is calculated as 1/2MV squared, so theoretically you get more bag for your buck by raising velocity. The problem is velocity usually means more flash and noise and a smaller bullet as chamber pressures are pretty much fixed in semi autos. High speed may limnit penetration when you need it. The .45 ACP has a nice balance of both. Instead of a 230 grain jacketed byllet at 750 fps, my favorite round, the Remington Plus P used a 185 grain bullet travelling at an honest 1150 fps. This is opposed to a 9mm 115 grain bullet travelling at about 1250. As most things are equal, I would prefer the bigger bullet. At Portland Police Bureau we are limited to Federal hydra shocks which are nice bullets, but I'd rather have my Remingtons.

For a while I carried Glaser safety slugs as the round in the chamber and first round in the magazine. Glaser safety slugs were frangible rounds that looked liked regular ball, but were hollow and contained #12 shot. The bullet would rupture on penetrating and deliver a devastating pattern of shot to the vitals. Devasting hitting power and no chance of overpentration or ricochet. After the first two rounds, I figured the bad guy would be going to cover and timne for the 185 grain plus Ps.

I don't know if he is still writing, but there was a Detroit PD homocide dedtective that wrote for the American Handgunner about 10 years ago. He kept a real world database of shooting to evaluate hand gun rounds. .45 ACP was usually near the top.

There are so many imponderables in these situations that confidence in your weapon and the ability to place your shot accurately is probably the most important as well as practice.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Well, the P-38 was sort of a nostaglia weapon for me, I had one on consignment just prior to leaving for the AF in 1968. This was a WWII, SS pistol but my mother and dad did not want to take care of it for me, so I had to get my money back. My son heard the story and bought this weapon at auction for my last birthday. I like what I hear about the H & K, might have to look at it. I am just a plinker and target shooter, not even competition. I do it mostly to have a common interest besides computers, with my son. It gives us some father and son time together. Actually, the whole family does it, even my daughter and her husband when they are here. He is an army NCO.

I don't know much about the .40 cal S & W. My son bought that for me for christmas. Next month, we will transfer ownership, so I can give you more details.

It is funny you should mention confidence in your weapon. My son is having difficulty with the M1911, but no problems with the Ruger .22 cal. target pistol. I think it is just in his mind. However, all the rest of the shooters use fancy devices and head gear, my son uses standard iron sights and a ball cap. In time, I believe he will become a much better shooter than the gents that use the fancy red dot gear. Hopefully. What's your opinion as a professional.

Hi Dennis,

I would agree completely. Like any other sport, better equipment may help those at the very highest performance levels. I would not care to be shot with a .22 cal especially by someone who could shoot well with it. My .45 ACP is pretty much stock with the exception of an adjustable trigger and Millet target sights which I think I'm going to replace with lower profile fixed ones. As my close in vision has deteriorated over the years I bought a set of "geezer sights" that use a large white ball on the front sight to align over the white stick of the rear one as I can no longer distinguish the front sight for regular iron sights. For real world shooting, all I have to do is place the dot on center of mass.

Interestingly enough, when we qualify we use the sights, but in simulators you keep both eyes open and reference off the front sight alone. That's how you will shoot for real.

I used to shoot a lot more than I do now. There are only a couple of places to shoot here locally and using their ammo can be expensive. That's the saving grace of my .22 cal conversion unit. I had A Ruger MK II with the bull barrel that I loved to shoot, but I sweated ny hand guns down to three. I would highly recommend the .22 cal conversion unit if you can still get one. All you do is swap slides so your weapon feel and trigger pull are always the same. As far as equipment in competitive shooting, depends on what he is shooting. Bullseye will require a better trigger and sights than on a standard governemnt for him top be competitve. If he is shooting combat type matches, they are often dominated by people shooting gimmick guns such as the Colt .38 super with barely enough oomph to cycle the slide. Not terribly realistic.

"End of the Trail" competiton with western style firearms are very popuar as well. I love my H&K and was lucky to get a used one for trading two other guns. They are very expensive and hardly what I would call a plinker. For me the .22/.45 combination is great for camping and plinking...especially against the two legged varmint. : )

Egads, what is with this time out thing that interrupts your typing and posting?

[old_pop2000]

Hi Dennis,

I would agree completely. Like any other sport, better equipment may help those at the very highest performance levels. I would not care to be shot with a .22 cal especially by someone who could shoot well with it. My .45 ACP is pretty much stock with the exception of an adjustable trigger and Millet target sights which I think I'm going to replace with lower profile fixed ones. As my close in vision has deteriorated over the years I bought a set of "geezer sights" that use a large white ball on the front sight to align over the white stick of the rear one as I can no longer distinguish the front sight for regular iron sights. For real world shooting, all I have to do is place the dot on center of mass.

Interestingly enough, when we qualify we use the sights, but in simulators you keep both eyes open and reference off the front sight alone. That's how you will shoot for real.

I used to shoot a lot more than I do now. There are only a couple of places to shoot here locally and using their ammo can be expensive. That's the saving grace of my .22 cal conversion unit. I had A Ruger MK II with the bull barrel that I loved to shoot, but I sweated ny hand guns down to three. I would highly recommend the .22 cal conversion unit if you can still get one. All you do is swap slides so your weapon feel and trigger pull are always the same. As far as equipment in competitive shooting, depends on what he is shooting. Bullseye will require a better trigger and sights than on a standard governemnt for him top be competitve. If he is shooting combat type matches, they are often dominated by people shooting gimmick guns such as the Colt .38 super with barely enough oomph to cycle the slide. Not terribly realistic.

"End of the Trail" competiton with western style firearms are very popuar as well. I love my H&K and was lucky to get a used one for trading two other guns. They are very expensive and hardly what I would call a plinker. For me the .22/.45 combination is great for camping and plinking...especially against the two legged varmint. : )

Egads, what is with this time out thing that interrupts your typing and posting?
Yea, I have attempted to tell Chris about the time out problem. It is getting annoying.

I guess my son is doing it correctly, I just have a different philosophy about shooting firearms. I am curious about the eyes open and shooting off of the front sight. I will have to practice that.

[Mike Malanaphy]

[QUOTE=old_pop2000;2665]Yea, I have attempted to tell Chris about the time out problem. It is getting annoying.

I guess my son is doing it correctly, I just have a different philosophy about shooting firearms. I am curious about the eyes open and shooting off of the front sight. I will have to practice that.[/QUOTE

Hi Dennis,

That is one of the difficulties with our firearms training. If you have an opportunity to go to one of these simulators you will soon see the difference between stationary target shooting and what you would do for real. One of the effects of adrenaline is "tunnel vision" and we are taught to keep both eyes open a look over our sights to compensate when scanning an area. When a threat is detected you will automatically point your firearm at center of mass and fire, using the front sight as a frame of reference in the lower portion of your field of view. My new sights are optimized for that type of engagement. Laser sights show promise, but you can have problems identifying which red dot is yours when moere than one gun is pointing in that direction and they badly refract and flare off of wet surfaces like car windows.

[old_pop2000]

[QUOTE=old_pop2000;2665]Yea, I have attempted to tell Chris about the time out problem. It is getting annoying.

I guess my son is doing it correctly, I just have a different philosophy about shooting firearms. I am curious about the eyes open and shooting off of the front sight. I will have to practice that.[/QUOTE

Hi Dennis,

That is one of the difficulties with our firearms training. If you have an opportunity to go to one of these simulators you will soon see the difference between stationary target shooting and what you would do for real. One of the effects of adrenaline is "tunnel vision" and we are taught to keep both eyes open a look over our sights to compensate when scanning an area. When a threat is detected you will automatically point your firearm at center of mass and fire, using the front sight as a frame of reference in the lower portion of your field of view. My new sights are optimized for that type of engagement. Laser sights show promise, but you can have problems identifying which red dot is yours when moere than one gun is pointing in that direction and they badly refract and flare off of wet surfaces like car windows.
Fascinating, so you can get sights designed to help you with that kind of shooting. I imagine it takes training to learn to look but not get the tunnel vision while focusing on the target. So, basically, there is a difference between combat shooting and target practice. I like the idea of pointing at the center of mass and firing, that was the way I was originally taught to shoot. I imagine that I shouldn't ask the famous question; do you shoot to kill, or wound. I was taught to shoot to kill.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Ed, It depends in WA the 10 largest city and county PD and SD. 7 use S&W 10mm 6 use Glock 9mm, 3 use .45 ACP(1 PD has M1911 as standard carry weapon) the rest use various other calibers.

John:

The police in the town I grew up switched over from .357 magnum revolvers to Colt .45s sometime in the 1980s. I'm not sure what the sherriff's department in my current county of residence uses. Probably Glocks in 9mm. My town doesn't have a police force even though its huge. We rely on the county sherriff and state police.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi Ed,

I don't follow handguns as much as I used too. I bought a S&W 10mm when they came out. I didn't particularly care for for it due to the recoil and risk of overpenetration and ammunition was dreadfully expensive. If I recall, the S&W .40 cal was a cut down version of teh 10mm cartridge and has seen some commercial success.

Military handguns use ball, jacketed lead slugs designed to penetrate not expand when they hit. In ball, 9mm, .40 cal, and ball would usually produce through and through gunshots. .45 ACP in ball is travelling at about 750 fps, several hundred feet per second than the others and will usually not produce a through and through wound.

In law enforcement, bullets that overpenetrate risk injuring others and whatever residual energy the bullet retains as it exits is energy not used against the target. For expanding bullets, the rule of thumb is that 1,000 fps is the bottom end of where the bullet will expand reliably when it hits the target. As we know, energy is calculated as 1/2MV squared, so theoretically you get more bag for your buck by raising velocity. The problem is velocity usually means more flash and noise and a smaller bullet as chamber pressures are pretty much fixed in semi autos. High speed may limnit penetration when you need it. The .45 ACP has a nice balance of both. Instead of a 230 grain jacketed byllet at 750 fps, my favorite round, the Remington Plus P used a 185 grain bullet travelling at an honest 1150 fps. This is opposed to a 9mm 115 grain bullet travelling at about 1250. As most things are equal, I would prefer the bigger bullet. At Portland Police Bureau we are limited to Federal hydra shocks which are nice bullets, but I'd rather have my Remingtons.

For a while I carried Glaser safety slugs as the round in the chamber and first round in the magazine. Glaser safety slugs were frangible rounds that looked liked regular ball, but were hollow and contained #12 shot. The bullet would rupture on penetrating and deliver a devastating pattern of shot to the vitals. Devasting hitting power and no chance of overpentration or ricochet. After the first two rounds, I figured the bad guy would be going to cover and timne for the 185 grain plus Ps.

I don't know if he is still writing, but there was a Detroit PD homocide dedtective that wrote for the American Handgunner about 10 years ago. He kept a real world database of shooting to evaluate hand gun rounds. .45 ACP was usually near the top.

There are so many imponderables in these situations that confidence in your weapon and the ability to place your shot accurately is probably the most important as well as practice.

Mike:

Back in the 1980s, I used read extensively on handguns and military firearms and I recall reading about the Glaser Safety Slug. I guess the only knock against it was it would be effective against hard cover.

I glad you mentioned overpenetration. People don't realize that a bullet moving at high speed is going to penetrate lots of materials. Imagine shooting at an intruder in your home and missing him? The bullet is going to go right thru your sheetrock walls and unless you have a brick house, right thru you aluminum/vinyl siding and keep on going possibly into your neighbor's home.

One of the articles I had read showed how many layers of sheetrock or plywood could be penetrated by a pistol round. It also showed what even birdshot from a .12 gauge shotgun could do, let alone buckshot. Gun safety starts between the ears, not on the firearm.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Mike:

Back in the 1980s, I used read extensively on handguns and military firearms and I recall reading about the Glaser Safety Slug. I guess the only knock against it was it would be effective against hard cover.

I glad you mentioned overpenetration. People don't realize that a bullet moving at high speed is going to penetrate lots of materials. Imagine shooting at an intruder in your home and missing him? The bullet is going to go right thru your sheetrock walls and unless you have a brick house, right thru you aluminum/vinyl siding and keep on going possibly into your neighbor's home.

One of the articles I had read showed how many layers of sheetrock or plywood could be penetrated by a pistol round. It also showed what even birdshot from a .12 gauge shotgun could do, let alone buckshot. Gun safety starts between the ears, not on the firearm.

Hi Ed,

Your quite right about overpenetration. One of the early authors about this was a gentleman named Masaad Ayoob. He often wrote for American Handgunner Magazine and spoke extensively about your liability as a gun owner when you fire your weapon. That's one of the reasons I'm not a fan of lighter, faster bullets as they may not expand rapidly enough when hitting walls or other objects they might hit. Where ever your bullet ends up, it's still yours.

I get asked a lot about those types of situations and gently remind them of the consequences of such an action. I would never tell anyone they shouldn't defend themselves, but you have to be smart about the outcome. Bullet choice is a good place to start. You want something you can shoot accurately under stress that will deliver an effective blow. Should you miss, you want a bullet that will not endanger others. A sobering subject for most not aware of what they have to lose in these situations. A criminal investigation and a civil suit. If you have a home, ask your agent about an umbreall policy to expand your coverage. They are not expensive and will cover your legal costs. One of the best things going for you is that juries are very sympathetic to people in those cases, but teh stress and financial burden can be large.

[old_pop2000]

Excellent information about consideration when firing a gun. My hope is that the weapons we have for home defense will never be used and only as a deterent. If someone sees you have a gun, they, hopefully, will turn around and leave or just stop and give up. However, if they, I will shoot and I won't miss. However, I will talk to AAA about my home owners insurance because that is very important.

Just a note about the Colt .45 cal conversion kits that you alluded to. My son said Mr. Bob Marvel is now teamed up with another company to produce those kits again. They have been upgraded and modified to eliminate problems with the slides. My son's friend is in contact with Mr. Marvel to get two kits for their weapons. He also said that he does shoot with both eyes open during combat shooting. On the twenty-sixth and seventh, he will be at Camp Pendleton for their combat shooting competition.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi Ed,

Your quite right about overpenetration. One of the early authors about this was a gentleman named Masaad Ayoob. He often wrote for American Handgunner Magazine and spoke extensively about your liability as a gun owner when you fire your weapon. That's one of the reasons I'm not a fan of lighter, faster bullets as they may not expand rapidly enough when hitting walls or other objects they might hit. Where ever your bullet ends up, it's still yours.

I get asked a lot about those types of situations and gently remind them of the consequences of such an action. I would never tell anyone they shouldn't defend themselves, but you have to be smart about the outcome. Bullet choice is a good place to start. You want something you can shoot accurately under stress that will deliver an effective blow. Should you miss, you want a bullet that will not endanger others. A sobering subject for most not aware of what they have to lose in these situations. A criminal investigation and a civil suit. If you have a home, ask your agent about an umbreall policy to expand your coverage. They are not expensive and will cover your legal costs. One of the best things going for you is that juries are very sympathetic to people in those cases, but teh stress and financial burden can be large.

Mike:

I remember reading Ayoob religiously and thought he was one of the better writers on the subject. He did state that as soon as you legally own a gun, have homeowners insurance policy overhauled. There will almost always be a lawsuit and unscrupulous lawyers can get their scumbag clients ridiculous settlements even though they broke in and attacked the homeowner.

I think Ayoob only liked lighter bullets if they were jacketed hollowpoints that would expand rapidly. The trouble is feed reliability. In your experience have semi-automatics with hollow points proved reliable enough in service? In other words, low instances of jamming or other feed problems?

[keschofield]

[QUOTE=Mike Malanaphy;2670]
Fascinating, so you can get sights designed to help you with that kind of shooting. I imagine it takes training to learn to look but not get the tunnel vision while focusing on the target. So, basically, there is a difference between combat shooting and target practice. I like the idea of pointing at the center of mass and firing, that was the way I was originally taught to shoot. I imagine that I shouldn't ask the famous question; do you shoot to kill, or wound. I was taught to shoot to kill.

As many of you know, I grew up around guns. Gun safety and a realistic appreciation of what a gun is for, and can do, were early parts of my education. I have no patience whatsoever with idiots who go buy a gun, shoot at the range a few times and then think they are going to defend their home or hunt safely. I was almost killed when a drunken hunter fired at deer in the woods surrounding the Croton Reservoir in Westchester County, NY. A nice, tight pattern of OO buckshot tore up a one foot diameter circle in the stucco of my parents home. That circle was about 2 feet from the window, behind which I was sitting studying biology. We called the game warden and the NYS troopers. They caught the moron and were none too gentle with him.

As Mike has correctly pointed out, there is a whole lot more to shooting. One of the things that most people forget about is the psychological cost to you after you have shot someone, whether the incident is justified or not. I believe Mike or any other service man / law enforcement officer can attest to this. For me personally (and only for me) I have decided that I will not allow myself to be in that position. That's why I got rid of my guns. Thank goodness there are folks out there, like Mike and others, who are willing to risk this cost and defend us. Because of them, I have the luxury to make the above decision.

Regarding shooting at center mass, as far as I'm concerned "shooting to wound" only happens on TV and in the movies. I've been a shooter from the time I was 8 or 9 until just a few years ago. I was trained that handguns exist for one purpose, killing to defend yourself and/or others. Some of my fondest memories are of shooting at a range with a NY State police friend in the 70's and at the Danbury, CT police range with my best friend in the 80's. Both men reinforced the lesson that you shoot to kill and aim at the largest part of the target, the center mass.

I wish more people who own guns had the same sober ideas about firearms as the several posters on this forum do.

[Ed Rotondaro]

[QUOTE=old_pop2000;2672]

As many of you know, I grew up around guns. Gun safety and a realistic appreciation of what a gun is for, and can do, were early parts of my education. I have no patience whatsoever with idiots who go buy a gun, shoot at the range a few times and then think they are going to defend their home or hunt safely. I was almost killed when a drunken hunter fired at deer in the woods surrounding the Croton Reservoir in Westchester County, NY. A nice, tight pattern of OO buckshot tore up a one foot diameter circle in the stucco of my parents home. That circle was about 2 feet from the window, behind which I was sitting studying biology. We called the game warden and the NYS troopers. They caught the moron and were none too gentle with him.

As Mike has correctly pointed out, there is a whole lot more to shooting. One of the things that most people forget about is the psychological cost to you after you have shot someone, whether the incident is justified or not. I believe Mike or any other service man / law enforcement officer can attest to this. For me personally (and only for me) I have decided that I will not allow myself to be in that position. That's why I got rid of my guns. Thank goodness there are folks out there, like Mike and others, who are willing to risk this cost and defend us. Because of them, I have the luxury to make the above decision.

Regarding shooting at center mass, as far as I'm concerned "shooting to wound" only happens on TV and in the movies. I've been a shooter from the time I was 8 or 9 until just a few years ago. I was trained that handguns exist for one purpose, killing to defend yourself and/or others. Some of my fondest memories are of shooting at a range with a NY State police friend in the 70's and at the Danbury, CT police range with my best friend in the 80's. Both men reinforced the lesson that you shoot to kill and aim at the largest part of the target, the center mass.

I wish more people who own guns had the same sober ideas about firearms as the several posters on this forum do.

Kurt:

Should that idiot have been that close to a house? Was he hunting on public land? The county I live in is pretty rural except for my hometown and the city of Saratoga Springs. Still a lot the existing farm land is posted against hunting. Usually there is one hunting accident or two per year here in NYS. And in many cases these involve experienced hunters. I give you credit for giving up the gun. I suppose you could have kept a rifle or two for target shooting, but then you could still find yourself using it in self defense and having to deal with all the issues that you mentioned. My wife has an ironclad policy of no firearms in the house. She would kick me out if I tried to own one. But the funny thing is, my boys are very interested in firearms mainly due to the show "Future Weapons" on the Discovery Channel.

[keschofield]

[QUOTE=keschofield;2691]

Kurt:

Should that idiot have been that close to a house? Was he hunting on public land? The county I live in is pretty rural except for my hometown and the city of Saratoga Springs. Still a lot the existing farm land is posted against hunting. Usually there is one hunting accident or two per year here in NYS. And in many cases these involve experienced hunters. I give you credit for giving up the gun. I suppose you could have kept a rifle or two for target shooting, but then you could still find yourself using it in self defense and having to deal with all the issues that you mentioned. My wife has an ironclad policy of no firearms in the house. She would kick me out if I tried to own one. But the funny thing is, my boys are very interested in firearms mainly due to the show "Future Weapons" on the Discovery Channel.


Ed,

No he shouldn't, but since he couldn't see the house he was clueless. The land around the reservoirs is not supposed to be used for hunting but many do anyway.

[old_pop2000]

[QUOTE=old_pop2000;2672]

As many of you know, I grew up around guns. Gun safety and a realistic appreciation of what a gun is for, and can do, were early parts of my education. I have no patience whatsoever with idiots who go buy a gun, shoot at the range a few times and then think they are going to defend their home or hunt safely. I was almost killed when a drunken hunter fired at deer in the woods surrounding the Croton Reservoir in Westchester County, NY. A nice, tight pattern of OO buckshot tore up a one foot diameter circle in the stucco of my parents home. That circle was about 2 feet from the window, behind which I was sitting studying biology. We called the game warden and the NYS troopers. They caught the moron and were none too gentle with him.

As Mike has correctly pointed out, there is a whole lot more to shooting. One of the things that most people forget about is the psychological cost to you after you have shot someone, whether the incident is justified or not. I believe Mike or any other service man / law enforcement officer can attest to this. For me personally (and only for me) I have decided that I will not allow myself to be in that position. That's why I got rid of my guns. Thank goodness there are folks out there, like Mike and others, who are willing to risk this cost and defend us. Because of them, I have the luxury to make the above decision.

Regarding shooting at center mass, as far as I'm concerned "shooting to wound" only happens on TV and in the movies. I've been a shooter from the time I was 8 or 9 until just a few years ago. I was trained that handguns exist for one purpose, killing to defend yourself and/or others. Some of my fondest memories are of shooting at a range with a NY State police friend in the 70's and at the Danbury, CT police range with my best friend in the 80's. Both men reinforced the lesson that you shoot to kill and aim at the largest part of the target, the center mass.

I wish more people who own guns had the same sober ideas about firearms as the several posters on this forum do.

I hope we can all get back to the history of small arms in history and warfare. I am sorry this got off on the wrong tract, it is my fault, but unintentional.

So, a question to all.

How effective has a personal sidearm been in combat, on the whole. Yes, we can all think of situations where a personal sidearm could save your life, but, in general situations, how really effective can it be. Think of the Civil War, Spanish American, WWI or WWII. Was a personal sidearm anything more than an extra weight?

[Smiffy]

[quote=keschofield;2691]

I hope we can all get back to the history of small arms in history and warfare. I am sorry this got off on the wrong tract, it is my fault, but unintentional.

So, a question to all.

How effective has a personal sidearm been in combat, on the whole. Yes, we can all think of situations where a personal sidearm could save your life, but, in general situations, how really effective can it be. Think of the Civil War, Spanish American, WWI or WWII. Was a personal sidearm anything more than an extra weight?

Field Marshal Bill Slim said, that in two world wars he had seen 20 men hit by pistol fire and 19 of those had been friendlies.

I read somewhere that the USMC is withdrawing pistols from all ranks under full colonel, is that correct?

[Ed Rotondaro]

[QUOTE=keschofield;2691]

I hope we can all get back to the history of small arms in history and warfare. I am sorry this got off on the wrong tract, it is my fault, but unintentional.

So, a question to all.

How effective has a personal sidearm been in combat, on the whole. Yes, we can all think of situations where a personal sidearm could save your life, but, in general situations, how really effective can it be. Think of the Civil War, Spanish American, WWI or WWII. Was a personal sidearm anything more than an extra weight?

Dennis:

Some firearms authorities argue that all small arms including rifles, submachine guns and pistols probably accounted for at best 2% of battlefield casualties in WWII. Artillery, mortars, crew served machine guns and bombs were the real killers.

Yet in close combat pistols still have their worth. Jungles and possible urban areas, although with smgs and the new personal defense weapons out there, pistols just might be obsolete for military usage.

I would say that in the days of single shot black powder flintlocks, pistols were probably a good choice for cavalry and ship board use. Once rifled weapons and smokeless powder became the norm, pistols were hopelessly outranged.

[Ed Rotondaro]

[quote=old_pop2000;2696]

Field Marshal Bill Slim said, that in two world wars he had seen 20 men hit by pistol fire and 19 of those had been friendlies.

I read somewhere that the USMC is withdrawing pistols from all ranks under full colonel, is that correct?

Smiffy:

He also noted that the one enemy he had seen shot with a pistol had to be finished off with a machine gun LOL!

[old_pop2000]

[QUOTE=old_pop2000;2696]

Dennis:

Some firearms authorities argue that all small arms including rifles, submachine guns and pistols probably accounted for at best 2% of battlefield casualties in WWII. Artillery, mortars, crew served machine guns and bombs were the real killers.

Yet in close combat pistols still have their worth. Jungles and possible urban areas, although with smgs and the new personal defense weapons out there, pistols just might be obsolete for military usage.

I would say that in the days of single shot black powder flintlocks, pistols were probably a good choice for cavalry and ship board use. Once rifled weapons and smokeless powder became the norm, pistols were hopelessly outranged.

I agree but was anyone under the impression that the pistol was anything but a short range, last resort weapon. Are there situations, where the pistol is still the best weapon?

[Mike Malanaphy]

[QUOTE=old_pop2000;2672]

As many of you know, I grew up around guns. Gun safety and a realistic appreciation of what a gun is for, and can do, were early parts of my education. I have no patience whatsoever with idiots who go buy a gun, shoot at the range a few times and then think they are going to defend their home or hunt safely. I was almost killed when a drunken hunter fired at deer in the woods surrounding the Croton Reservoir in Westchester County, NY. A nice, tight pattern of OO buckshot tore up a one foot diameter circle in the stucco of my parents home. That circle was about 2 feet from the window, behind which I was sitting studying biology. We called the game warden and the NYS troopers. They caught the moron and were none too gentle with him.

As Mike has correctly pointed out, there is a whole lot more to shooting. One of the things that most people forget about is the psychological cost to you after you have shot someone, whether the incident is justified or not. I believe Mike or any other service man / law enforcement officer can attest to this. For me personally (and only for me) I have decided that I will not allow myself to be in that position. That's why I got rid of my guns. Thank goodness there are folks out there, like Mike and others, who are willing to risk this cost and defend us. Because of them, I have the luxury to make the above decision.

Regarding shooting at center mass, as far as I'm concerned "shooting to wound" only happens on TV and in the movies. I've been a shooter from the time I was 8 or 9 until just a few years ago. I was trained that handguns exist for one purpose, killing to defend yourself and/or others. Some of my fondest memories are of shooting at a range with a NY State police friend in the 70's and at the Danbury, CT police range with my best friend in the 80's. Both men reinforced the lesson that you shoot to kill and aim at the largest part of the target, the center mass.

I wish more people who own guns had the same sober ideas about firearms as the several posters on this forum do.


Hi Kurt,

Your exactly right about the psychological imapct of being in a shooting. Nation wide only 2 out of 3 officers involved in deadly force incidents return to work. Kurt is also correct about the less than accurate portrayals of firearms in TV shows. Most of us know how difficult it is to hit a bullseye on a target range consistently when under no pressure or stress. Imagine that bullseye transferred to spots on a moving body you are trying to hit while you are both moving and shooting at each other, such as a hand, leg, or gun being held. For combat shooting center of mass makes sense to improve your potential of hitting. We are taught to shoot until the threat is "neutralized". Also forgotten in that equation is how damaging modern pistol rounds are. They cause tremendous damage to soft tissue, bones, joints, and nerves. They are not like the "remote controlled punches" you see on TV as well.

I have been in a few close calls, but several of my friends have been in deadly force incidents. All have come back to work and are comforable with the outcome.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Mike:

I remember reading Ayoob religiously and thought he was one of the better writers on the subject. He did state that as soon as you legally own a gun, have homeowners insurance policy overhauled. There will almost always be a lawsuit and unscrupulous lawyers can get their scumbag clients ridiculous settlements even though they broke in and attacked the homeowner.

I think Ayoob only liked lighter bullets if they were jacketed hollowpoints that would expand rapidly. The trouble is feed reliability. In your experience have semi-automatics with hollow points proved reliable enough in service? In other words, low instances of jamming or other feed problems?

Hi Ed,

Initally there were problems as most semi autos were of military origin and their feed ramps were milled to use ball ammunition, a rounded, metal jacketed surface. Many of the early hollow points were sharply pointed and featured exposed lead at the edge of the cavity in teh nose which could catch on the feed ramps. Those problems are pretty much a thing of the past. My experience with Sigs, Glocks, and my Colt and H&K over the last 20 years is no failures to feed whatsoever. They can be finicky about low powered ammunition used in training as there is not enough energy to reliably function the slide in some cases.

[Mike Malanaphy]

[QUOTE=Ed Rotondaro;2710]

I agree but was anyone under the impression that the pistol was anything but a short range, last resort weapon. Are there situations, where the pistol is still the best weapon?


Hi Dennis,

True and I wonder if the proliferation of body armor will make them less useful for self defense on the battlefield. A lot of the "tail" in a combat organization is actually doing physical tasks such as vehicle maintenace or logistics that make carrying anything bulkier than a pistol difficult. In the two units I commanded, I was a stickler for weapons security, because I didn't want to lose one (You'd be surprised at how many do get "lost") and it taught the soldier to get comfortable with carrying it. Had M-16 mounts in all the admin vehicles and when you went to eat, have it with you. We had racks in the maintenance truck for M-16s as well so mechanics had them secure and close, but not on their person.

[old_pop2000]

[QUOTE=old_pop2000;2713]


Hi Dennis,

True and I wonder if the proliferation of body armor will make them less useful for self defense on the battlefield. A lot of the "tail" in a combat organization is actually doing physical tasks such as vehicle maintenace or logistics that make carrying anything bulkier than a pistol difficult. In the two units I commanded, I was a stickler for weapons security, because I didn't want to lose one (You'd be surprised at how many do get "lost") and it taught the soldier to get comfortable with carrying it. Had M-16 mounts in all the admin vehicles and when you went to eat, have it with you. We had racks in the maintenance truck for M-16s as well so mechanics had them secure and close, but not on their person.

I would tend to agree that with body armor, pistols are beginning to be an anomoly. If I can build a weapon, the size of a micro-UZI which is about a 1.5 pounds using 9mm and a range of 30 meters, why not use that, instead of 9 mm pistol. Although they use the same size cartridge. Any ideas? Are smaller, lighter Sub-machine guns better as a side arm for the non-combat or rear area troops? Maybe go to a micro-UZI type at a .40 cal or 10 mm. with an AP or incendiary type round, carried in a holster or something else.

Interesting personal sidearm from FN: http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg13-e.htm

[Ed Rotondaro]

[QUOTE=Ed Rotondaro;2710]

I agree but was anyone under the impression that the pistol was anything but a short range, last resort weapon. Are there situations, where the pistol is still the best weapon?

Dennis:

Well if you were a "tunnel rat" in Viet Nam, I would say a pistol was the way to go. Also I know that airborne troopers in the 101st. got their hands on as many psitols as they could because it was the only weapon they could use quickly as they were floating down. Ambrose mentions this in his book "Band of Brothers". But I agree that pistols in this day and age really are a weapon of last resort. If I'm going to fight and the range is close I'll take a shotgun anyday.

[Ed Rotondaro]

[QUOTE=keschofield;2691]


Hi Kurt,

Your exactly right about the psychological imapct of being in a shooting. Nation wide only 2 out of 3 officers involved in deadly force incidents return to work. Kurt is also correct about the less than accurate portrayals of firearms in TV shows. Most of us know how difficult it is to hit a bullseye on a target range consistently when under no pressure or stress. Imagine that bullseye transferred to spots on a moving body you are trying to hit while you are both moving and shooting at each other, such as a hand, leg, or gun being held. For combat shooting center of mass makes sense to improve your potential of hitting. We are taught to shoot until the threat is "neutralized". Also forgotten in that equation is how damaging modern pistol rounds are. They cause tremendous damage to soft tissue, bones, joints, and nerves. They are not like the "remote controlled punches" you see on TV as well.

I have been in a few close calls, but several of my friends have been in deadly force incidents. All have come back to work and are comforable with the outcome.

Mike:

That totally clicks with my understanding of the real world of shooting. Look how many times shots are fired and the suspect is only hit once or twice.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi Ed,

Initally there were problems as most semi autos were of military origin and their feed ramps were milled to use ball ammunition, a rounded, metal jacketed surface. Many of the early hollow points were sharply pointed and featured exposed lead at the edge of the cavity in teh nose which could catch on the feed ramps. Those problems are pretty much a thing of the past. My experience with Sigs, Glocks, and my Colt and H&K over the last 20 years is no failures to feed whatsoever. They can be finicky about low powered ammunition used in training as there is not enough energy to reliably function the slide in some cases.

Mike:

Thanks for the insights. I seem to recall from my readings that many custom pistols had the feed ramps smoothed to ensure against jams, at least in match shooting. SIGs seem to have been considered the most reliable right out of the box.