Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin  

Home | Load data | Articles | Ballistic Calc | Energy Calc
Handguns
 Handloads.Com Forum : Handguns
Subject Topic: Shooting Holes in Wounding Theories Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message << Prev Topic | Next Topic >>
jski
Newcomer


Avatar

Joined: March 12 2017
Location: Florida
Posts: 25
Online Status: Offline
Posted: March 30 2017 at 4:32pm | IP Logged Quote jski

Rem1875, the 40 S&W in no way will ever compare with the M1
Carbine. Heck, a .357 Mag doesn't compare to an M1 Carbine. Just
check the ballistics.

Go get some Hornady Critical Defense .30 Carbine rounds and stick
with the M1 Carbine.

Edited by jski on March 30 2017 at 4:32pm
Back to Top View jski's Profile Search for other posts by jski
 
RT58
Senior Member




Joined: August 04 2009
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 334
Online Status: Offline
Posted: March 30 2017 at 7:25pm | IP Logged Quote RT58

jski wrote:
Rem1875, the 40 S&W in no way will ever compare with the M1
Carbine. Heck, a .357 Mag doesn't compare to an M1 Carbine. Just
check the ballistics.

Go get some Hornady Critical Defense .30 Carbine rounds and stick
with the M1 Carbine.

Ballistics tables and $1 bill will get you a cup of coffee. But neither one is worth a dang in a gunfight.

There's a lot of good men that died needlessly due to "administrators" that listened to armchair experts. Bottom line is, what you carry is second to how well you use it.
Back to Top View RT58's Profile Search for other posts by RT58
 
STCM(SW)
Senior Member


Avatar

Joined: February 17 2007
Location: Eastern Washington
Posts: 8879
Online Status: Offline
Posted: March 30 2017 at 9:36pm | IP Logged Quote STCM(SW)

Bullet placement overrides every thing else...

__________________
NRA Life Benefactor Member
USN MCPO Ret. 1960-1992
Si vis pacem, Para Bellum!
Back to Top View STCM(SW)'s Profile Search for other posts by STCM(SW)
 
jski
Newcomer


Avatar

Joined: March 12 2017
Location: Florida
Posts: 25
Online Status: Offline
Posted: March 30 2017 at 9:49pm | IP Logged Quote jski

Guys, bullet placement is a lot easier and more precise with an M1
Carbine than with any pistol. And I'm a BIG pistol fan.
Back to Top View jski's Profile Search for other posts by jski
 
REM1875
Senior Member


Avatar

Joined: November 13 2010
Location: Buffalo Springs, Clay County, TX
Posts: 362
Online Status: Online
Posted: March 30 2017 at 11:54pm | IP Logged Quote REM1875

STCM(SW) wrote:
Bullet placement overrides every thing
else...


The only thing better is pure dumb luck so I will work
on bullet placement CMC

__________________
USMC-US ARMY-US NAVY HMC -FMF
NRA -LIFE, TSRA -LIFE, DAV -LIFE, VFW-LIFE, Married- Life(?)

"If it killed em a 150 years ago, it kill em today" (answer to a comment about black powder weapons)
Back to Top View REM1875's Profile Search for other posts by REM1875
 
RT58
Senior Member




Joined: August 04 2009
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 334
Online Status: Offline
Posted: March 31 2017 at 7:32am | IP Logged Quote RT58

The Thompson/La Garde tests in 1904 recognized the benefit of shot placement in vital areas. But they must have also recognized the difficulty in hitting these areas under stress and suggested dumping the .38 Colt Long cartridge and going to a .45 caliber because they worked much better in non-vital areas.
Back to Top View RT58's Profile Search for other posts by RT58
 
REM1875
Senior Member


Avatar

Joined: November 13 2010
Location: Buffalo Springs, Clay County, TX
Posts: 362
Online Status: Online
Posted: March 31 2017 at 2:35pm | IP Logged Quote REM1875

From what I have heard from German, Korean and
American Vets I had the pleasure of talking to there
are more survivors of 30 caliber carbines then 45 ACP
and most would rather have someone (other than them it
seems) with a tommy on their side than a carbine.
My dad says the only time he saw a tommy fail on the
islands was when the armorer got a round in the
magazine in backwards - he did not have such glowing
respect for the carbine and preferred an M-1 Garand
when he could. His late twin brother who served with
him also detest the M-1 Carbine.
But dad loves the BAR
Of course the German vets seemed to be universally
impressed with the 7.62x25 whether it was the
automatic fire or the russians behind it I never knew
and didn't know a way to ask.

Edited by REM1875 on March 31 2017 at 2:39pm


__________________
USMC-US ARMY-US NAVY HMC -FMF
NRA -LIFE, TSRA -LIFE, DAV -LIFE, VFW-LIFE, Married- Life(?)

"If it killed em a 150 years ago, it kill em today" (answer to a comment about black powder weapons)
Back to Top View REM1875's Profile Search for other posts by REM1875
 
jski
Newcomer


Avatar

Joined: March 12 2017
Location: Florida
Posts: 25
Online Status: Offline
Posted: March 31 2017 at 9:43pm | IP Logged Quote jski

And Audie Murphy preferred the M1 Carbine to the M1 Garand. And he
was the most highly decorated soldier in WWII.

Back to Top View jski's Profile Search for other posts by jski
 
STCM(SW)
Senior Member


Avatar

Joined: February 17 2007
Location: Eastern Washington
Posts: 8879
Online Status: Offline
Posted: March 31 2017 at 11:14pm | IP Logged Quote STCM(SW)

jski wrote:
And Audie Murphy preferred the M1 Carbine to the M1 Garand. And he
was the most highly decorated soldier in WWII.


And that means what? He killed many Germans with a Browning 50 caliber MG.


__________________
NRA Life Benefactor Member
USN MCPO Ret. 1960-1992
Si vis pacem, Para Bellum!
Back to Top View STCM(SW)'s Profile Search for other posts by STCM(SW)
 
jski
Newcomer


Avatar

Joined: March 12 2017
Location: Florida
Posts: 25
Online Status: Offline
Posted: April 01 2017 at 3:28am | IP Logged Quote jski

Precisely, that means what?

When I hear others relay anecdotes about this rifle or that handgun,
this cartridge or that type of bullet, they may or may not be interesting
... but they prove nothing.
Back to Top View jski's Profile Search for other posts by jski
 
REM1875
Senior Member


Avatar

Joined: November 13 2010
Location: Buffalo Springs, Clay County, TX
Posts: 362
Online Status: Online
Posted: April 01 2017 at 3:51am | IP Logged Quote REM1875

Actual combat accounts of vets who were there may have
some discrepancies but appear to be of more value that
ballistic jell as to how I base my judgments.
I have actual experience with treating GSW (gun shot
wounds) so I might be a bit prejudice.

"To each their own"

__________________
USMC-US ARMY-US NAVY HMC -FMF
NRA -LIFE, TSRA -LIFE, DAV -LIFE, VFW-LIFE, Married- Life(?)

"If it killed em a 150 years ago, it kill em today" (answer to a comment about black powder weapons)
Back to Top View REM1875's Profile Search for other posts by REM1875
 
BAGTIC
Senior Member




Joined: December 24 2006
Posts: 162
Online Status: Offline
Posted: April 01 2017 at 5:38am | IP Logged Quote BAGTIC

"From what I have heard from German, Korean and
American Vets I had the pleasure of talking to there
are more survivors of 30 caliber carbines then 45 ACP..."

Well, duh! I should hope so as there were probably far more people shot with the carbine than with the .45.
Back to Top View BAGTIC's Profile Search for other posts by BAGTIC
 
REM1875
Senior Member


Avatar

Joined: November 13 2010
Location: Buffalo Springs, Clay County, TX
Posts: 362
Online Status: Online
Posted: April 01 2017 at 5:58am | IP Logged Quote REM1875

I guess I worded that wrong- the point was those who
were hit by the carbine tended to live longer than those
hit by the 45- does that help?

__________________
USMC-US ARMY-US NAVY HMC -FMF
NRA -LIFE, TSRA -LIFE, DAV -LIFE, VFW-LIFE, Married- Life(?)

"If it killed em a 150 years ago, it kill em today" (answer to a comment about black powder weapons)
Back to Top View REM1875's Profile Search for other posts by REM1875
 
RT58
Senior Member




Joined: August 04 2009
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 334
Online Status: Offline
Posted: April 01 2017 at 9:07am | IP Logged Quote RT58

jski wrote:
Precisely, that means what?

When I hear others relay anecdotes about this rifle or that handgun,
this cartridge or that type of bullet, they may or may not be interesting
... but they prove nothing.

I'm confused, isn't that what this thread is about? And actual terminal results are far more informative than a piece of paper with exterior ballistic data on it.

From what I'd read, the M1 Carbine wasn't adopted as a main battle rifle, but as a substitute for the 1911 and intended for non-combatant troops. True of not, the cartridge is in the same class as handgun ammunition.

It's small size, light recoil and box magazine made it popular with smaller soldiers and those not familiar with firearms, which may explain why Audie Murphy carried one.

Personally, I love the M1 Carbine. To me it's like a .22 LR on steroids, but reloadable, just like the .32 family of handgun cartridges, but I'd never take one into battle if I had a choice. And if I had to be near a battle, but not in it, and needed a gun for "just in case" circumstances, it wouldn't be an M1 Carbine.
Back to Top View RT58's Profile Search for other posts by RT58
 
jski
Newcomer


Avatar

Joined: March 12 2017
Location: Florida
Posts: 25
Online Status: Offline
Posted: April 01 2017 at 6:46pm | IP Logged Quote jski

1st, this article started off as a discussion of a study/analysis of
ballistics v. actual wound data.

2nd, as I pointed out in another posting, the .30 Carbine is ballistically
superior to the .327 Fed Mag and I believe the 327 qualities as
"handgun ammunition".

Quote:
With a case capacity of 21 v. 19 gr of H2O, the .30 Carbine
simply has more space for more powder. And when you take into
consideration the space available after seating comparable bullets, the
disparity is even greater.


Edited by jski on April 01 2017 at 6:49pm
Back to Top View jski's Profile Search for other posts by jski
 
M700
Senior Member


Avatar

Joined: June 12 2004
Location: Washington
Posts: 5836
Online Status: Offline
Posted: April 01 2017 at 9:22pm | IP Logged Quote M700

STCM(SW) wrote:
Bullet placement overrides every thing else...


On people, I've seen the .22 rimfire kill just fine.

Might have heard of someone feeding their family with venison, via the .22 long rifle as well.

Guy
Back to Top View M700's Profile Search for other posts by M700
 
REM1875
Senior Member


Avatar

Joined: November 13 2010
Location: Buffalo Springs, Clay County, TX
Posts: 362
Online Status: Online
Posted: April 02 2017 at 2:58am | IP Logged Quote REM1875

327 federal mag -45,000 psi

30 carb-38,500 psi

Another 32 Spl vs the 30 WCF?
Venison brought in by either taste about the same and
usually has just as many holes in the carcase

Seriously- Let me know which bullets are comparable
between the 2 as I haven't seen any and I really
really want to do some testing - no joke. I am being
serious here and can use your help.
Cause I been researching this before this thread.

Edited by REM1875 on April 02 2017 at 3:21am


__________________
USMC-US ARMY-US NAVY HMC -FMF
NRA -LIFE, TSRA -LIFE, DAV -LIFE, VFW-LIFE, Married- Life(?)

"If it killed em a 150 years ago, it kill em today" (answer to a comment about black powder weapons)
Back to Top View REM1875's Profile Search for other posts by REM1875
 
RT58
Senior Member




Joined: August 04 2009
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 334
Online Status: Offline
Posted: April 02 2017 at 6:33am | IP Logged Quote RT58

jski wrote:
1st, this article started off as a discussion of a study/analysis of
ballistics v. actual wound data.

2nd, as I pointed out in another posting, the .30 Carbine is ballistically
superior to the .327 Fed Mag and I believe the 327 qualities as
"handgun ammunition".

Quote:
With a case capacity of 21 v. 19 gr of H2O, the .30 Carbine
simply has more space for more powder. And when you take into
consideration the space available after seating comparable bullets, the
disparity is even greater.


The "study/analysis" in question is highly questionable and is not much more than hearsay, like the situations in the discussion.

And the result of most ballistics vs. actual wounds studies is that the numbers from exterior ballistics data does not mean anything in actual terminal ballistics. The truth has been polluted by those who desire to sell guns and ammunition to those who will believe them, but that doesn't change the facts. The capacity of a case to hold water means nothing when replaced with powder because powders vary and the way individual powders act in different cases will vary also. Bullets are also different and must be taken into consideration. Just because two bullets weigh the same does not make them comparable. You can believe anything you want and post it as many different ways that you want, but it doesn't change the real facts. Increasing kinetic energy doesn't make a cartridge "better". A bullet that performs properly is key and if it can do it with less recoil, that is preferable to a cartridge that recoils so bad you have to re-grip the handgun between shots. Just because two different handgun cartridges show different numbers on paper doesn't mean the target will be able to tell the difference, regardless of what you might find on the internet to back up your argument.

Back to Top View RT58's Profile Search for other posts by RT58
 
BAGTIC
Senior Member




Joined: December 24 2006
Posts: 162
Online Status: Offline
Posted: April 02 2017 at 6:36am | IP Logged Quote BAGTIC

REM1875 wrote:
I guess I worded that wrong- the point was those who
were hit by the carbine tended to live longer than those
hit by the 45- does that help?


Even that depends on where they hit and how often. Would probably find that a greater percentage of carbine hits were at longer ranges than Thompson. Carbine was designed for aimed fire and shots were fired singly. Thompson was designed as a close range weapon using burst fire. Are you saying it is fair to compare someone hit by carbine at 100 yards or more with someone hit at 20 feet with a full burst. That is what is wrong with comparisons based on anecdotes. One ends up comparing proverbial apples and oranges.
Back to Top View BAGTIC's Profile Search for other posts by BAGTIC
 
Ham Gunner
Senior Member


Avatar

Joined: August 12 2007
Location: Ozark, Missouri
Posts: 5280
Online Status: Offline
Posted: April 02 2017 at 9:04am | IP Logged Quote Ham Gunner

I will give a couple of examples of real life problems during hunting that I will attribute to underweight and too fast a velocity in the bullets. Undoubtedly, in both cases the amount of expended energy into the deer was complete, but that did not help a whole lot in these cases. Granted, the velocities were not what one would get out of the higher powered rifles so the hydraulic factor of higher velocity might have made a difference.

The first one was using a 215gr. Sierra JHC in my 6 1/2" .44 Mag. Flattop Blackhawk with a max. load of Win. 296 for likely a velocity in excess of 1,500 fps. I did not have a chronograph at that time. It struck the 8 point buck at the top of his heart resulting it the heart just hanging by about 1/2 of one artery and the rest of the top of it's heart was destroyed. The buck ran straight up a very steep hillside for at least 150 yards without leaving more than a drop or two of blood for tracking. I found him by tracking his disturbance of the dirt and rocks as he clawed his way up the hill. The brush was so thick that I had lost sight of him in less than about 40 yards but it did help me climb the steep hill by clinging to the brush as I climbed. It was an extremely steep hill. I recovered the perfectly mushroomed bullet inside the hide on the far side of his chest. How can a deer run so far in such steep terrain without a heart? This influenced my decision to switch to heavier and slower bullets and I was happy there after with the revolver. My ending choice was the 250gr. Lyman cast 429421 Keith.

The other case was using a .44 Mag. chambered 94 Win. carbine. I had worked up a very accurate load using the Hornady 240gr. XTP handgun bullet with a max. charge of Win. 296 for 1,850 fps. I read later that this handgun bullet was designed for expansion at the lower handgun velocities and I think Hornady now has both a handgun and rifle version of this bullet.

This shot was at another 8-10 point buck broadside at around 50-60 yards. I aimed for and it appeared that I stuck the buck square in the shoulder as he pulled up that leg and ran off on three legs. He ran out of sight down a dry rocky South slope thick with scrub black jack oaks. Not a single drop of blood was found and the ground was so hard and dry that tracks were not to be found either. I searched for over two hours and likely over 80 acres of timber but turned up nothing. Needless to say I was sick about wounding an animal and certainly unhappy about not recovering the buck that I had been working on for several days.

Moral of both stories was apparently high velocity and too light a bullet construction to give best penetration and possibly in the case of the carbine, certainly an overly fast expanding bullet for the velocity. No blood trails, which certainly would have been favorable in the rough and thick brush terrain that I usually hunt in S. Missouri was also an undesirable result. I now shoot the 225gr. Lyman 429215gc cast bullet at 1,900 fps using AA-#9 in that 94 Win. and have never lost another deer.

The only cast bullet that I have ever recovered in a deer was one that I recovered in the hide in the back of a bucks head after I shot him half way between his nose and his eyes as he was starring me down. It takes a lot to stop a hard cast bullet.

I am confident that the second deer had been killed with the higher velocity quick expanding bullet and had the terrain not been a factor in the recovery I would have bagged him, but therein lies the problem. Complete penetration is normally desirable for hunting. Perhaps not in an urban self defense situation.

Edited by Ham Gunner on April 02 2017 at 9:48am


__________________
73 de n0ubx Rick - NRA BENEFACTOR LIFE MEMBER/VFW LIFE MEMBER - A government big enough to GIVE you
everything you want, is strong enough to TAKE everything you have. - Thomas Jefferson

Back to Top View Ham Gunner's Profile Search for other posts by Ham Gunner
 

Home | Load data | Articles | Ballistic Calc | Energy Calc

<< Prev Page of 3 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You can vote in polls in this forum

Powered by Web Wiz Forums version
Copyright ©2001-2008 Web Wiz Guide

This page was generated in 0.1563 seconds.