User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 1:52:02 PM EDT
[#1]
I think sidearms back then were thought of more as of a badge of status than a legitimate weapon.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 1:52:49 PM EDT
[#2]
In before 9mm
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 1:52:59 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted: French 11mm, Mauser 7.63, etc. Why were so many pistol rounds of the pre WWI era so anemic? Was it some concession to metallurgy or did they just not grasp the lack of lethality of these small pistol cartridges? I would say part metallurgy and part weak designs. Look at the early Colt/Browning autos, the .38 ACP was (is) a weak cartridge. Then when the 1911 came out Colt realized that the design could handle more pressure. So the .38 Super was born. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 1:53:48 PM EDT
[#4]
The 7.63 Mauser isn't all that anemic, especially in the military loading. The Soviets amped it up and turned it into the 7.62x25 Tokarev.
The Euros generally considered pistols to be more of a badge of rank than an actual fighting weapon. Even still, you had exceptions - 9mm Largo and 9mm Steyr aren't really low-power cartridges. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 1:54:30 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think sidearms back then were thought of more as of a badge of status than a legitimate weapon. Possibly in Europe, but not in the U.S. American history is full of large bore handguns and their use. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 1:55:40 PM EDT
[#6]
The Mauser pistol cartridge was considered quite powerful for its time. They didn't have ballistic gelatin back then and bullets were tested against pine planks.
Also, in fighting against a civilised foe, all you needed to do was to render him h'ors d' combat and if he is an officer, to apologize to him and get him medical care. Like yourself, he is a gentleman and should be treated as one. Now, when you're up against a Filipino Moro or a Fuzzy Wuzzy, you'd better have a 45 caliber sidearm. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 1:56:16 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Possibly in Europe, but not in the U.S. American history is full of large bore handguns and their use. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I think sidearms back then were thought of more as of a badge of status than a legitimate weapon. Possibly in Europe, but not in the U.S. American history is full of large bore handguns and their use. Yes that's what I was referring to. Europeans seem to have had that attitude regarding sidearms. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 1:58:28 PM EDT
[#8]
Seriously, take a look at some of the old black powder revolver cartridges. Most of those were quite anemic, but did the job with a good hit.
Churchill took out something like 6 for ten shots from his Broomhandle, at Omdurman. For the Brits, anyway, officers mostly purchased their own sidearms and ammunition, so there wasn't any logistical support, so the smaller and cheaper the ammo, the more they could buy and carry. But to a large degree, the pistol was a badge of rank. Even higher-ups in the U.S. Army were often issued 1903 Brownings, and similar, in .32 ACP. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 1:59:32 PM EDT
[#9]
Also, it isn't like things got better after WWI. Both of these were the primary service pistols of major powers (England and France, respectively) and they're both chambered in what were weak cartridges even then.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 2:00:09 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Mauser pistol cartridge was considered quite powerful for its time. They didn't have ballistic gelatin back then and bullets were tested against pine planks. Also, in fighting against a civilised foe, all you needed to do was to render him h'ors d' combat and if he is an officer, to apologize to him and get him medical care. Like yourself, he is a gentleman and should be treated as one. Now, when you're up against a Filipino Moro or a Fuzzy Wuzzy, you'd better have a 45 caliber sidearm. Some truth to this. And besides the 'Badge of rank' status pistols had, the nature of the pistol was more for officers to maintain order among their own men. Something small, quick, and maneuverable to stick the muzzle in their ear if they didn't feel like getting out of the trench and running or marching into enemy fire like honorable soldiers doing their duty. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 2:08:00 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Some truth to this. And besides the 'Badge of rank' status pistols had, the nature of the pistol was more for officers to maintain order among their own men. Something small, quick, and maneuverable to stick the muzzle in their ear if they didn't feel like getting out of the trench and running or marching into enemy fire like honorable soldiers doing their duty. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The Mauser pistol cartridge was considered quite powerful for its time. They didn't have ballistic gelatin back then and bullets were tested against pine planks. Also, in fighting against a civilised foe, all you needed to do was to render him h'ors d' combat and if he is an officer, to apologize to him and get him medical care. Like yourself, he is a gentleman and should be treated as one. Now, when you're up against a Filipino Moro or a Fuzzy Wuzzy, you'd better have a 45 caliber sidearm. Some truth to this. And besides the 'Badge of rank' status pistols had, the nature of the pistol was more for officers to maintain order among their own men. Something small, quick, and maneuverable to stick the muzzle in their ear if they didn't feel like getting out of the trench and running or marching into enemy fire like honorable soldiers doing their duty. Badge of rank is valid as is to maintain order. However, when designed the cartridges weren't for encouraging reluctant men to go over the top. Trench warfare was not anticipated in 1914. Everyone thought it would be a quick war ala 1870 Franco-Prussian War. The US and Brits got it right with the big bore handguns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2015 2:38:51 PM EDT
[#12]
45acp
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 12:16:02 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think sidearms back then were thought of more as of a badge of status than a legitimate weapon. Probably the case. I was looking for a technical reason, but this very well could explain it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 12:19:14 AM EDT
[#14]
I may be remembering this incorrectly, but I'm pretty sure I read an article once about some obscure French pistol cartridge from that era that clocked in at something like 400 FPS.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 12:21:45 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I may be remembering this incorrectly, but I'm pretty sure I read an article once about some obscure French pistol cartridge from that era that clocked in at something like 400 FPS. I think that's the 11mm MAS revolver. I have one from 1874. Will never shoot it, but I might get better results putting it in a sock and swinging it than loading it and shooting someone with it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 12:25:09 AM EDT
[#16]
Keep in mind that at that time the person you were shooting at was unlikely to be a 300lb tub of goo.
Most people were of short statue and of thin framed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 12:33:36 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Keep in mind that at that time the person you were shooting at was unlikely to be a 300lb tub of goo. Most people were of short statue and of thin framed. Yep, on average people were smaller then. The reality is that even today, any of the cartridges listed in this thread would be quite lethal to the biggest baddest soldier on the field if they were shot with a FMJ in the upper chest or head. Might not be immediate, but no one is bullet proof. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 12:37:20 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Possibly in Europe, but not in the U.S. American history is full of large bore handguns and their use. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I think sidearms back then were thought of more as of a badge of status than a legitimate weapon. Possibly in Europe, but not in the U.S. American history is full of large bore handguns and their use. up until the 1920's 32's where used by a lot of PD's and as self defense weaapons |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 12:38:58 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Keep in mind that at that time the person you were shooting at was unlikely to be a 300lb tub of goo. Most people were of short statue and of thin framed. I thought they were shorter but more stout. Europeans are now very tall and lanky (thin framed). |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 12:39:27 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The 7.63 Mauser isn't all that anemic, especially in the military loading. The Soviets amped it up and turned it into the 7.62x25 Tokarev. The Euros generally considered pistols to be more of a badge of rank than an actual fighting weapon. Even still, you had exceptions - 9mm Largo and 9mm Steyr aren't really low-power cartridges. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 12:59:29 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think that's the 11mm MAS revolver. I have one from 1874. Will never shoot it, but I might get better results putting it in a sock and swinging it than loading it and shooting someone with it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I may be remembering this incorrectly, but I'm pretty sure I read an article once about some obscure French pistol cartridge from that era that clocked in at something like 400 FPS. I think that's the 11mm MAS revolver. I have one from 1874. Will never shoot it, but I might get better results putting it in a sock and swinging it than loading it and shooting someone with it. No kidding! 11.7 g (181 gr)
Model 1873 0.65 g powder charge130 m/s (430 ft/s)98.1 J (72.4 ft·lbf) WTF OVER |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 1:08:23 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I thought they were shorter but more stout. Europeans are now very tall and lanky (thin framed). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Keep in mind that at that time the person you were shooting at was unlikely to be a 300lb tub of goo. Most people were of short statue and of thin framed. I thought they were shorter but more stout. Europeans are now very tall and lanky (thin framed). Data for WWII U.S. inductees: Data compiled for millions of inductees shows the following to be the actual measurements of the "average" newcomer to the Army as he appears at the clothing counter of a reception center: 5' 8" tall; 144 pounds in weight; 33 ¼" chest measurement; 31" waist measurement. From the tariff tables showing the frequency of size issues it is found that the sizes most frequently issued are a 7 to 7½ hat, number 9 gloves, a 15 shirt with a 33" sleeve, a 36 regular jacket, a pair of trousers with a 32" waist and a 32" leg length, size 11 socks, and size 9-D shoes. These figures may be taken to indicate the size of the "average American young man. I believe that European soldiers of that era were about the same size or smaller. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 1:39:26 AM EDT
[#23]
I suspect it was mostly bad thinking. The 45 colt rounds were certainly powerful, and revolvers were valuable and useful cavalry weapons and not just badges of rank. The non Brit Europeans were not making good weapons or rounds until 9mm. The us went to the 38 for a while until the Moro insurrection.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 2:05:00 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
up until the 1920's 32's where used by a lot of PD's and as self defense weapons Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think sidearms back then were thought of more as of a badge of status than a legitimate weapon. Possibly in Europe, but not in the U.S. American history is full of large bore handguns and their use. up until the 1920's 32's where used by a lot of PD's and as self defense weapons The police in my home town (Hampton, VA) used 32 S&W until about 1950. The police in most European countries used 32 ACP (7.65 Browning) well into the 1980s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 12:07:20 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryI think sidearms back then were thought of more as of a badge of status than a legitimate weapon. The real badges of status were swords. It's perplexing, because cavalry was still considered a decisive arm at the time, and the US Civil War had shown that horsemen armed with pistols were very effective on the battlefield. Which would you rather use, three or four six shot revolvers strapped to the saddle, which allowed you to shoot an enemy from several yards away, or a lance or a sword, which required you to go over there and poke them? The militaries at the time were also trying to have a common rifle and pistol bullet caliber so barrel making equipment could be shared in the factories. In the end I think it was inertia. The prior generation of pistols from an era of even spottier metallurgy were anemic as well, and they simply carried that over. It took a while for the realization that smokeless powder enabled the use of faster bullets to take hold. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 12:13:17 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Possibly in Europe, but not in the U.S. American history is full of large bore handguns and their use. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I think sidearms back then were thought of more as of a badge of status than a legitimate weapon. Possibly in Europe, but not in the U.S. American history is full of large bore handguns and their use. Good point, Officers in the civil war had powerful pistols, and used them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 12:15:36 PM EDT
[#27]
The French used pinfires along with tools in the u.s. civil war.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 12:19:45 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Possibly in Europe, but not in the U.S. American history is full of large bore handguns and their use. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I think sidearms back then were thought of more as of a badge of status than a legitimate weapon. Possibly in Europe, but not in the U.S. American history is full of large bore handguns and their use. We had injuns. Notice when the Europeans ran up against "savages" they often upgraded their mousedick peashooters to things like .455 webley. Big difference between pistols used for combat and pistols used for suicide or popping recalcitrant underlings in the head. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 12:24:41 PM EDT
[#29]
Weren't a lot of ww1 era revolvers developed during black powder era, too? The bodeo and its 10.4 cartridge, the French thing that Brendan Fraser carries in the mummy movie... Big bore diameter, black powder. Makes for an anemic round.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 12:27:14 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Also, it isn't like things got better after WWI. Both of these were the primary service pistols of major powers (England and France, respectively) and they're both chambered in what were weak cartridges even then. <a href="http://s747.photobucket.com/user/MVolkJ1975/media/Milsurps/EnfieldNo2.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i747.photobucket.com/albums/xx116/MVolkJ1975/Milsurps/EnfieldNo2.jpg</a> <a href="http://s747.photobucket.com/user/MVolkJ1975/media/Indochine/PA35.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i747.photobucket.com/albums/xx116/MVolkJ1975/Indochine/PA35.jpg</a> I've always gotten the impression that the opinions of the time held the .38/200 to be a rather effective round. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 12:31:33 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Weren't a lot of ww1 era revolvers developed during black powder era, too? The bodeo and its 10.4 cartridge, the French thing that Brendan Fraser carries in the mummy movie... Big bore diameter, black powder. Makes for an anemic round. Careful with such a blanket statement. Take the .45 Long Colt for instance, which propelled a 255 grain bullet at around 900 fps with black powder. Even by today's standards, that's hardly anemic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 12:35:31 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We had injuns. Notice when the Europeans ran up against "savages" they often upgraded their mousedick peashooters to things like .455 webley. Big difference between pistols used for combat and pistols used for suicide or popping recalcitrant underlings in the head. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think sidearms back then were thought of more as of a badge of status than a legitimate weapon. Possibly in Europe, but not in the U.S. American history is full of large bore handguns and their use. We had injuns. Notice when the Europeans ran up against "savages" they often upgraded their mousedick peashooters to things like .455 webley. Big difference between pistols used for combat and pistols used for suicide or popping recalcitrant underlings in the head. A new favorite ARFline. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 5:39:38 PM EDT
[#33]
A lot of it had to do with thoughts on 'stopping power' of the time.
It was felt if a bullet completely passed through the target energy was wasted. If the bullet stayed in the body, then all of its energy was transferred to the target. So, you'll note the .455 Webley has a velocity of only 660 fps. This was done for a reason. Not because black powder was weak....... The previously mentioned .45 Colt was an impressive cartridge, but it needs to be remembered it was expressly designed to be able to drop both rider AND horse as needed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 6:26:14 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
French 11mm, Mauser 7.63, etc. Why were so many pistol rounds of the pre WWI era so anemic? Was it some concession to metallurgy or did they just not grasp the lack of lethality of these small pistol cartridges? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Interesting point on metallurgy but in the case of the Mle 1873 11mm, you'll note it was produced from steel, not iron. It's actually a very strong revolver, and I know of examples which have been converted to .45 ACP. So fault lies simply with the French Army and their sedate load. It was improved around 1886, but still nothing like it could have been. The 7.63x25mm Mauser, as has been previously noted, was no slouch at 1,400+ fps Most of the small bore European cartridges were fielded when the big change from large caliber rifle cartridges to small bores took place. Most of these fielded by countries with no colonial combat or experience. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 6:43:22 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Careful with such a blanket statement. Take the .45 Long Colt for instance, which propelled a 255 grain bullet at around 900 fps with black powder. Even by today's standards, that's hardly anemic. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Weren't a lot of ww1 era revolvers developed during black powder era, too? The bodeo and its 10.4 cartridge, the French thing that Brendan Fraser carries in the mummy movie... Big bore diameter, black powder. Makes for an anemic round. Careful with such a blanket statement. Take the .45 Long Colt for instance, which propelled a 255 grain bullet at around 900 fps with black powder. Even by today's standards, that's hardly anemic. If I recall correctly, the original specification was that the .45 Colt pass through a horse, with enough energy left to kill a man, at 25 paces. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 6:57:27 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
French 11mm, Mauser 7.63, etc. Why were so many pistol rounds of the pre WWI era so anemic? Was it some concession to metallurgy or did they just not grasp the lack of lethality of these small pistol cartridges? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Better ask Winston Churchill if he believes the 7.63Mauser to be underpowered. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 7:06:22 PM EDT
[#37]
.45 ACP...............................
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 7:18:21 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We had injuns. Notice when the Europeans ran up against "savages" they often upgraded their mousedick peashooters to things like .455 webley. Big difference between pistols used for combat and pistols used for suicide or popping recalcitrant underlings in the head. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think sidearms back then were thought of more as of a badge of status than a legitimate weapon. Possibly in Europe, but not in the U.S. American history is full of large bore handguns and their use. We had injuns. Notice when the Europeans ran up against "savages" they often upgraded their mousedick peashooters to things like .455 webley. Big difference between pistols used for combat and pistols used for suicide or popping recalcitrant underlings in the head. True. As far as ".38-200" being weak, that's not the case. The original 200 grain LRN going some mild speed (600fps?) was found to be plenty lethal and lots easier for conscripts to shoot well, than .455 Webley. But critics objected to unjacketed lead bullets as violating Hague(?), so they went to the 178 grain FMJ bullet, which WAS far too ineffective in actual practice. Further, I never heard 7.63Mauser ammo described as "weak" before. Period "weak" police pistol cartridges weren't too much of an issue in an era before penicillin. Shoot the fleeing felon in the back with your small and slow lead bullet, catch him in the hospital or morgue next week. Easy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 7:21:40 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No kidding! WTF OVER Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I may be remembering this incorrectly, but I'm pretty sure I read an article once about some obscure French pistol cartridge from that era that clocked in at something like 400 FPS. I think that's the 11mm MAS revolver. I have one from 1874. Will never shoot it, but I might get better results putting it in a sock and swinging it than loading it and shooting someone with it. No kidding! 11.7 g (181 gr) Model 1873 0.65 g powder charge130 m/s (430 ft/s)98.1 J (72.4 ft·lbf) WTF OVER It's a very handsome pistol in that late 1800s over engineered kind of way. Definitely lacks in the lethality department, though.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 7:24:38 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep, on average people were smaller then. The reality is that even today, any of the cartridges listed in this thread would be quite lethal to the biggest baddest soldier on the field if they were shot with a FMJ in the upper chest or head. Might not be immediate, but no one is bullet proof. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Keep in mind that at that time the person you were shooting at was unlikely to be a 300lb tub of goo. Most people were of short statue and of thin framed. Yep, on average people were smaller then. The reality is that even today, any of the cartridges listed in this thread would be quite lethal to the biggest baddest soldier on the field if they were shot with a FMJ in the upper chest or head. Might not be immediate, but no one is bullet proof. Well, I was once. Random drive-by, bullet "bounced off" leaving only a small scar. I have no rational explanation, as the car was less than 20 yards away, and the wound was not a grazing injury. I figure that was my one supernaturally-granted mulligan in the getting shot game, and I'm not inclined to have another go.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 7:38:01 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I suspect it was mostly bad thinking. The 45 colt and casull rounds were certainly powerful, and revolvers were valuable and useful cavalry weapons and not just badges of rank. The non Brit Europeans were not making good weapons or rounds until 9mm. The us went to the 38 for a while until the Moro insurrection. Not sure what round you're thinking of, but .45 Casull never existed during the time period being discussed. the .454 Casull Magnum was designed in the late '50s, for decades it was only chambered in one brand of revolver, and has never been a military caliber. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 7:38:55 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Better ask Winston Churchill if he believes the 7.63Mauser to be underpowered. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: French 11mm, Mauser 7.63, etc. Why were so many pistol rounds of the pre WWI era so anemic? Was it some concession to metallurgy or did they just not grasp the lack of lethality of these small pistol cartridges? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Better ask Winston Churchill if he believes the 7.63Mauser to be underpowered. He's dead. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 7:40:14 PM EDT
[#43]
The 1942 Colt Police Positive in .38 S&W went to England and made it back. It's even fitted to a Webly-type holster.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 9:11:58 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He's dead. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
French 11mm, Mauser 7.63, etc. Why were so many pistol rounds of the pre WWI era so anemic? Was it some concession to metallurgy or did they just not grasp the lack of lethality of these small pistol cartridges? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Better ask Winston Churchill if he believes the 7.63Mauser to be underpowered. He's dead. Everyone hit with that round has died or will die at some point after being shot. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 9:34:05 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Everyone hit with that round has died or will die at some point after being shot.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
French 11mm, Mauser 7.63, etc. Why were so many pistol rounds of the pre WWI era so anemic? Was it some concession to metallurgy or did they just not grasp the lack of lethality of these small pistol cartridges? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Better ask Winston Churchill if he believes the 7.63Mauser to be underpowered. He's dead. Everyone hit with that round has died or will die at some point after being shot.
I carried one in my pocket once and I'm not feeling too hot right now. I thought it was allergies… 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 12:20:04 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not sure what round you're thinking of, but .45 Casull never existed during the time period being discussed. Whoops, I was thinking 455 Webley but typed Casull. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 12:25:29 AM EDT
[#47]
The French 1935A and 1935S are so little and handy, it's a shame they are in such an obscure cartridge.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 12:55:53 AM EDT
[#48]
Don't forget the Colt 38 Long Colt cartridge, that's the caliber the Colt revolvers were in that was so famous for not stopping the Moro warriors in the Philippine campaign, the Army switched back to 45 Long Colt in the single action Army, which was an excellent man stopper.
"The .38 Special was introduced in 1898 as an improvement over the .38 Long Colt which, as a military service cartridge, was found to have inadequate stopping power against the frenzied charges of Moro warriors during the Philippine-American War." |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 12:59:42 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not sure what round you're thinking of, but .45 Casull never existed during the time period being discussed. the .454 Casull Magnum was designed in the late '50s, for decades it was only chambered in one brand of revolver, and has never been a military caliber. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I suspect it was mostly bad thinking. The 45 colt and casull rounds were certainly powerful, and revolvers were valuable and useful cavalry weapons and not just badges of rank. The non Brit Europeans were not making good weapons or rounds until 9mm. The us went to the 38 for a while until the Moro insurrection. Not sure what round you're thinking of, but .45 Casull never existed during the time period being discussed. the .454 Casull Magnum was designed in the late '50s, for decades it was only chambered in one brand of revolver, and has never been a military caliber. He might be thinking of the .45 Schofield. The army used it because it worked in both S&Ws and Colts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 1:02:34 AM EDT
[#50]
Perhaps because they were tested without barriers common in modern warfare?
A 9mm FMJ at 800FPS is gonna do the same as a 9mm FMJ at 1200FPS if there are no barriers.. I assume it was more economical, easier to control, easier on the pistol, etc. to just have a bullet that can penetrate deeply enough; and that's all they cared about. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
