Handguns and Ammunition Forum banner
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,053 Posts
While I could be persuaded that we only *need* 3 handgun calibers; .22 lr, .45 ACP and .45 Colt(in the hot handloaded version), I think the variety is certainly nice to have.

The .40 is nice to put something marginally effective (as opposed to something less effective) in the "short" magazine format in which several nice guns come.

True enough, modern ammo advances close the gap but the .40 will always start bigger than the 9 and for me the .357 Sig is a non-starter (since is does not gain that much on the 9 for its cost in capacity).

This does not mean I think the 9 is useless, far from it. I admit, I do not know how to measure effectiveness (having tried for several decades) but whatever scale there is, the .40 is still between the 9 and .45. If you cannot have a .45 then the .40 will do :)

Jim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,053 Posts
I keep hearing this repeated about Tactics vs Ammo. Sometimes by folks I greatly respect.

However, I must respectfully disagree. When you make two "million $ shots" (on a track for the heart) and one stops short by 1" and one stops short by 6", neither of them striking bone and penetrating less than 9" each then ammunition had a bearing. There were 4 other pistol hits that failed to penetrate to vitals also even though they were fairly well directed. Of course it was a tactical failure to take a handgun to a rifle fight, but one can certainly speculate pretty fairly that just a couple of inches more penetration probably (nothing is a sure thing) changed the outcome somewhat for the better for the good guys. OTOH, one can be thankful that Platt only had a .223!

I have looked at this thing in detail, and used it in many training sessions. The problem is Planning AND Tactics AND Ammo the three are not mutually exclusive...all three had a bearing and there were failures in all.

Cordially,
Jim H.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,053 Posts
The best I can tell, according to Dr. French Andersons excellent drawings from the autopsy. One of the two (most people only know about 1) 9mm Silvertips which strick Platt in the chest penetrated approximately 6" into the chest cavity. It also pentrated approximately 3" of flesh in the bicep (no bone). The other 9mm S.T. penetrated 2" of chest wall and approximately 4 to 5" of flesh in the forearm.

None of those measurements are exact because none were given in the text that I can recall and have to be estimated. But we have good drawings and actual pictures which we can go by.

I could be mistaken but at the time the Silver Tip was designed there was no standard of penetration they were trying to design to. This incident actually precipitated minimum penetration recomendations.

As an aside, 4 of the +P .38s penetrated less than 4" total!!!!

The one thing we learn from this that is very valuable - though it should have been obvious - is that bullets do not damage what they don't reach!

Jim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,053 Posts
On a lighter note...

Of course we need the .40 S&W. Otherwise, where would we get the .40 Hi Power frame and slide so we can swap out barrels and have a .357Sig Hi Power?


elb
On an even lighter note I always liked to refer to the P-35 as a "Half-Power" and the .40 as a "3/4 Power" but I don't know what to call a .357 Sig in a Browning... "5/8 power" just does not seem to "sing"


My buddy Tom dubbed the .41 AE we did back in the early 80s as the "Higher Power"...higher than 9 I guess :-/

Jim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,053 Posts
Jim:

I stand by my statement that it was a failure of tactics. Not to have local backup, not to bring long guns to a shoot out with people known to use long guns and then to jam the cars together were the major problems. Also, the BGs had decided that they were not going to die without a good fight. Something, thankfully, most BGs do not attempt to do.

<snippage>
.
My appologies for allowing the thread to drift (causing the thread to drift?) but I don't understand this.

I agree that there was a failure of tactics...I thought I said that?

That does not mean that there were not other failures *also*.

That would be like arguing that a fighter pilot who got "bounced" and had his plane damaged beyond repair and who bailed out to find his 'chute failed to open as does his reserve 'chute, died due to a failure in tactics *only*.

To be sure, he got surprised, that is a tactical failure and certainly started this whole thing but in all likelihood he would have survived if his parachutes had not failed.

Jerry Dove and Ron Risner both achieved well placed hits under difficult conditions... Some 4 minutes later the guy they shot killed agents Dove and Grogan *after* being shot.

It is very difficult to say that ballistics has nothing to do with this, I don't care how much tactics had to do with it also (and to be sure they did).

Of course then I guess we could go back and say that all the failures to stop thorughout history have been a tactical failure....it is probably a the poorest of tactics to select a 9mm pistol to begin with ::) (toungue in cheek :))

Cordially,
Jim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,053 Posts
Would a .40, a .45, a 10mm have done any better against people who had decided to survive the firefight, come what may? <snip>
It would be irresponsible of me to opine that any of the above would have automatically "done better" given the same placement. I do think it safe to say that the likelihood is there but only because I think that any bullet - even a 9mm - that put a hole in the heart instead of stopping just short of putting a hole in the heart would have resulted in a loss of mobility quicker than 4 minutes!

Heart shots are not necessarily fatal (we have a trauma surgeon who has attended most of our classes, that is his opinion not my personal one but I accept his).

The conclusion of this surgeon and, the implied opinion of Dr. Anderson is that the lack of penetration had a decided impact on especially the fatal woundings of Grogan and Dove since they happened so deep into the fight.

I also do not accept the "blame game" argument because I use the very After Action Report that the FBI distribute in which they criticized themselves for all of the tactical blunders and planning errors in classes I teach...in fact I will start one tomorrow. Their video produced in 1986 will be part of that class...it is decidedly not "easy" on the FBI.

Again, there is room for opinion here and I am certainly no appologist but I hate to see the wrong impressions repeated by folks who simply don't have all the information (that is by no means a criticism of anyone, just a wish to provide as much info as possible without getting "down in the weeds").

Cordially,
Jim H.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,053 Posts
ELB,

While I don't blindly accept anyone's opinion, I am pretty well prepared to step out on the range with a 1911 and a scout rifle and compare them to anything out there in any practical test.

I would probably tend to beleive (until someone proves me wrong) that the peak of the fighting rifle is either the M-14, the FN-Fal or the G3, all of which came before the Scout so I guess the latest great development in rifles is probably the Scout. I have not noticed anything really significant since 1976 or so. Unless you count minor midifications to old systems.

That does not seem to be a minority postion as the military services are clammoring to find all of the available M-14s and the remaining old line M-14 instructors to send to the front!

But I am always willing to listen - makes for interesting conversations!

Onward,
Jim
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top