Detailed thread, bro.
I'm down with no balance, just realistic damage, etc.
Looks like that's what we'll see, h
I'm down with no balance, just realistic damage, etc.
Looks like that's what we'll see, h
Upvote
0
Please Don't Balance Weapon Damage
- Thread starter Imminent
- Start date
Hardly more penetration then a .45 acp. That seemingly little 2.47mm difference between the rounds makes a difference.
And exactly of what use is it to post pictures in different scales ?
Fact is that the 9mm Parabellum will penetrate thicker material in its' std. loading than the .45 ACP, and the amount of tissue damage they inflict is very similar.
Hence why the 9mm became the NATO standard.
Upvote
0
The .45 acp makes a larger permanent cavity then a 9mm so I wouldn't say they are the same in terms of damage in a FMJ loading. In hollow point form, they are pretty much equal.
Upvote
0
So the .45 ACP FMJ is 62% larger in area than the 9mm.
That's fact.
Why does this not seem to make any difference in terms of incapacitating someone?
Out of ~1150 recorded shootings to the torso, .45 ACP 230gr FMJ has a ~63% chance of incapacitating. Same story with 9mm 115gr FMJ, where it is listed as ~63% as well.
Because there have been so many shootings with these rounds means that percentage is well-defined and less subject to being inaccurate.
If .45 ACP have a 62% greater area, and therefore greater chance to hit a vital organ that you would not have with a 9mm, then why does this not seem to have affected recorded shooting statistics even slightly?
The answer is because it's very rare to hit in EXACTLY those locations where the 9mm will miss a vital organ and the .45 will hit. The area is roughly 0.06 inches squared from a vital organ. That is 1.5mm. How often do you think you're going to land a 9mm 1.5mm away from a vital organ? It clearly does not happen very often.
Psychological factors in terms of incapacitation should be disregarded when it comes to comparing bullets. Nobody is going to get shot and say "OH **** DID YOU SHOOT ME WITH A 9mm OR A .45?" When you've been shot, your mind doesn't really care what you've been shot with.
Not too long ago was I under the impression that .45 ACP FMJ was the god-all of Handgun cartridges. Only recently have I been presented with plenty of information that suggests otherwise - that while it does have an advantage, 9mm is almost entirely as capable in FMJ configuration, and is of course considerably better for the Soldier to carry since it's much lighter and magazine capacity can be larger.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Not to mention that the 9mm has a flatter trajectory and slightly higher penetration performance, which can become important against thickly clothed targets.
There's a reason the 9mm was chosen over the rest, it's a perfect blend between the small and fast pistol cartridges such as the 7.65mm Mauser & 7.62mm Tokarev (that feature relatively flat trajectories and high penetration), and the larger but slower pistol cartridges such as the .45 ACP (that dump energy slightly faster inside tissue).
Upvote
0
No. Tokarev is flat out superior.
In addition to penetrating kevlar, which is positively critical in a modern military or even to serious police raids at this point, the Tokarev also creates a more significant wound channel in FMJ, which is also of high priority to the military because they're barred from using rapid expansion calibers.
If anything, from what I've seen, the world's militaries should be using something like the 7.62 Tokarev or the 5.7, which both have flat trajectories, low recoil, good initial penetration, and favorable terminal ballistics in FMJ.
The 9mm is not even remotely a perfect blend, it leaves an unremarkable permanent wound channel in FMJ and it doesn't penetrate kevlar.
Upvote
0
Care to elaborate? What type/class of bodyarmor are you speaking of?
Are you aware that even flakvests are made of kevlar or other aramid fibers and 9mm FMJ penetrates them?
Upvote
0
I've seen the std. 9mm FMJ (not P+) reliably penetrate certain kevlar vests, so I know it can do it. But there's no doubt that the 7.63mm Mauser & 7.62 Tokarev are better at it, but in their WW2 loadings the difference is absolutely minimal.
Today however 7.62mm Tokarev is loaded to much higher pressures for use by the Russian police and special forces, in order to more reliably penetrate body armor at close ranges. You have to be careful comparing this ammunition to that used during WW2 however, as there are even improved overpressure versions of the 9mm (P+) these days as-well for the exact same reasons.
Today however 7.62mm Tokarev is loaded to much higher pressures for use by the Russian police and special forces, in order to more reliably penetrate body armor at close ranges. You have to be careful comparing this ammunition to that used during WW2 however, as there are even improved overpressure versions of the 9mm (P+) these days as-well for the exact same reasons.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
http://policevehicletech.com/downloads/ballistic_charts.pdf[url]http://policevehicletech.com/downloads/ballistic_charts.pdf[/URL]
http://www.bulletproofme.com/Ballistic_Protection_Levels.shtml[url]http://www.bulletproofme.com/Ballistic_Protection_Levels.shtml[/URL]
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot29.htm[url]http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot29.htm[/URL]
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot16_2.htm[url]http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot16_2.htm[/URL]
http://www.brassfetcher.com/index_files/Page1242.htm[url]http://www.brassfetcher.com/index_files/Page1242.htm[/URL]
Perhaps what I should have said is that 7.62 Tokarev is simply a better kinetic energy penetrator than 9x19 in standard ball because of better bullet design and a greater portion of the kinetic energy being contributed by velocity relative to 9x19
Unfortunately I'm having trouble finding Tokarev tests per body armor level,
however, it does indeed seem that 9x19 does have loadings that can pierce II-A. I'll say generally, though, a caliber that relies on brute force for penetration rather than projectile design is just a straight up bad design. The 9x19 is much like the 7.62x39mm of the pistol world, it can penetrate by brute force, not with any particular grace.
I don't see what merits such attention for 9x19 considering it doesn't exactly have a spectacular reputation as far as terminal ballistics and its penetration capabilities certainly aren't exceptional. Neither does it really have exceptionally flat trajectories. Granted the way that kevlar catches rounder tipped bullets, dispersing their kinetic energy, it seems to me that bullet designs whichever way should lean towards 5.7 or rifle style bullet design. Round nose bullets are so stupid in a military setting.
http://www.bulletproofme.com/Ballistic_Protection_Levels.shtml[url]http://www.bulletproofme.com/Ballistic_Protection_Levels.shtml[/URL]
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot29.htm[url]http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot29.htm[/URL]
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot16_2.htm[url]http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot16_2.htm[/URL]
http://www.brassfetcher.com/index_files/Page1242.htm[url]http://www.brassfetcher.com/index_files/Page1242.htm[/URL]
Perhaps what I should have said is that 7.62 Tokarev is simply a better kinetic energy penetrator than 9x19 in standard ball because of better bullet design and a greater portion of the kinetic energy being contributed by velocity relative to 9x19
Unfortunately I'm having trouble finding Tokarev tests per body armor level,
however, it does indeed seem that 9x19 does have loadings that can pierce II-A. I'll say generally, though, a caliber that relies on brute force for penetration rather than projectile design is just a straight up bad design. The 9x19 is much like the 7.62x39mm of the pistol world, it can penetrate by brute force, not with any particular grace.
I don't see what merits such attention for 9x19 considering it doesn't exactly have a spectacular reputation as far as terminal ballistics and its penetration capabilities certainly aren't exceptional. Neither does it really have exceptionally flat trajectories. Granted the way that kevlar catches rounder tipped bullets, dispersing their kinetic energy, it seems to me that bullet designs whichever way should lean towards 5.7 or rifle style bullet design. Round nose bullets are so stupid in a military setting.
Upvote
0
While 5.7mm may have no problem defeating lower-level body armour, the actual round produces relatively low (albeit acceptable) tissue penetration (~25cm) and minimal yawing. Once it gets through that armour it's not going to be more reliable than a low-velocity 5.56mm, which in many soldier's opinions is not fantastic. And, there are certain angles when shooting at targets in which more than 30cm of penetration is needed to reach vital organs.
So, how many Taliban are wearing Level II Body Armour? Let's have a poll.
'Cause right now there are no wars against Combatants that do use body armour. Insurgents are just scrawny lightly-clothed men. Most rifle-type rounds fail to yaw effectively in this type of enemy because they are so thin the bullet has already exited them before turning sideways. It's a big problem with 5.56mm and even more powerful cartridges such as 7.62mm and .50 BMG.
We don't need armour penetration against our current enemies. We need long projectiles that yaw very early in tissue to produce the best results against our immediate threat.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
http://www.brassfetcher.com/Hollowpoint Versus FMJ.html[url]http://www.brassfetcher.com/Hollowpoint%20Versus%20FMJ.html[/URL]
http://www.brassfetcher.com/FN SS195 lead-free FMJ.html[url]http://www.brassfetcher.com/FN%20SS195%20lead-free%20FMJ.html[/URL]
Judging from the above tests, 9mm does indeed offer superior penetration depth, however, the idea that the 5.7 does not yaw in tissue is not accurate. The 5.7, even out of a pistol, yawed and spit out the core section, leaving a significant sized channel.
That's why the War on Terror is not a real war. It's a !@#$ing waste of time, money, and people's lives. If there's ever a situation where we have to engage a first-rate military power, then we'll have some serious issues.
Dressing a first rate military for battle against a bunch of unarmored insurgents living in the boondocks in a joke, but I digress (and so do you). Winning the war in Iraq is not a matter of equipping our soldiers with pistol calibers with superior terminal effects, it's actually a matter of getting up and leaving the country.
The purpose of a military should ideally not be to waste money and time, but instead to prepare for legitimate threats, and scrawny insurgents planting roadside bombs in a place where our soldiers don't even need to be is not a legitimate threat.
If our army is arming for a confrontation against people that could evidently be defeated by your average gun nut hillbilly living in the boondocks at the expense of its capacity to engage a real threat, I suggest that it is making the wrong course of action. So let's just pretend the war on terror doesn't exist. Particularly considering that civilian police and civilian gun owners tend to use hollow point over FMJ, something the military can not do.
And the fact of the matter is if all you're interested in is terminal performance, full metal jacket isn't a wise choice over hollow point. Differences between rounds in FMJ that don't fragment or tumble reliably are pretty academic. The only reason anyone would sensibly use an FMJ outside of the Hague conventions, e.g. in a civilian or police setting, is when you require greater penetration, which incidentally, a real military will if it is ever engaged in a legitimate war with a first rate military force. If you cannot penetrate kevlar, you literally cannot even get into the chinks of body armor. You've already lost that confrontation. I personally feel that should be the highest priority rather than all this other stuff, such as penetration depth, how big of a hole does it make, etcetera.
In fact, when the US military was deliberating on the round to use for their intermediate cartridge, one of their criteria was whether the round would penetrate a steel helmet at 100 meters. It should be top of the list, period. If it doesn't pierce the shell of the target, you're talking about blunt force trauma, which is where bullets are basically useless, unless we're talking about something insane like a shotgun slug.
Upvote
0
If we weren't down there kicking the *** of these insurgents, blowing their training camps and weapon deposits to smithereens, and making sure they don't terrorize and convert the whole populace in their area, then we'd see a whole lot more acts of terror in our own countries. Remember who started the whole thing, a little fella called Osama.
Appreciate what our boys are doing down there right now, cause they're keeping our asses safe while we're sitting down enjoying our coffee or what'ever.
Appreciate what our boys are doing down there right now, cause they're keeping our asses safe while we're sitting down enjoying our coffee or what'ever.
Upvote
0
If I can be allowed by the mods one more subtle digression, I'd like to say the issue is so much more nuanced than that and leave it there.
A topic better left to the OT or history forumsz but whatevs.
Upvote
0
Just remember that nomatter who started the whole thing, we're down there in the sh*t right now, and if we leave we're just gonna make things worse. In short you can't just invade a country and then leave straight away, we have to stabilize the region first.
But you're right, this is getting waaay OT, so we should probably continue this discussion in the OT section of the forum.
But you're right, this is getting waaay OT, so we should probably continue this discussion in the OT section of the forum.
Upvote
0