9mm - why only the millitary and likes ? ? ?

[smsguitarist]

I'm guessing your not familiar with tactics of war. Bullets from military used guns are designed to wound. Yes they kill when shot in the right places but their actual design is to wound. This started in the 70's i believe for the following reasons.

 

If you kill one man out of fifty with one bullet there are 49 men left to kill. If you wound a man it takes at least one to see to the wounded. It's the same as the Russians idea to bomb every RAF camp in England years back with Hallucinogenics. Look it up and you should be able to find some info about it. Their reasoning was the same... to 'wound'. In other words occupy others to make their own forces jobs easier.

[Harnser]

I'm guessing your not familiar with tactics of war. Bullets from military used guns are designed to wound. Yes they kill when shot in the right places but their actual design is to wound. This started in the 70's i believe for the following reasons.

 

If you kill one man out of fifty with one bullet there are 49 men left to kill. If you wound a man it takes at least one to see to the wounded. It's the same as the Russians idea to bomb every RAF camp in England years back with Hallucinogenics. Look it up and you should be able to find some info about it. Their reasoning was the same... to 'wound'. In other words occupy others to make their own forces jobs easier.

 

Please mods take this one off it carnt go on any longer . Tell me how you shoot to wound some body with a 7.62 general purpose or a 50 cal snipers rifle . Harnser .

[Jonno243]

NATO countries do not have an idealistic "wound, not kill" policy which dictates the design of ammunition, if they did they would be running round in the field using rubber baton rounds.

 

They use non-expanding ammunition as a result of the Hague Convention of 1899 (not the Geneva Convention as commonly perceived, and certainly not in the 1970's) when it was decided that expanding ammunition was "inhumane", ref below:

 

 

 

Declaration on the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body; July 29, 1899

 

The Undersigned, Plenipotentiaries of the Powers represented at the International Peace Conference at The Hague, duly authorized to that effect by their Governments,

 

Inspired by the sentiments which found expression in the Declaration of St. Petersburg of the 29th November (11th December), 1868,

 

Declare as follows:

 

The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions.

 

The present Declaration is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them.

 

It shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between the Contracting Parties, one of the belligerents is joined by a non-Contracting Power.

 

The present Declaration shall be ratified as soon as possible.

 

The ratification shall be deposited at The Hague.

 

A proces-verbal shall be drawn up on the receipt of each ratification, a copy of which, duly certified, shall be sent through the diplomatic channel to all the Contracting Powers.

 

The non-Signatory Powers may adhere to the present Declaration. For this purpose they must make their adhesion known to the Contracting Powers by means of a written notification addressed to the Netherlands Government, and by it communicated to all the other Contracting Powers.

 

In the event of one of the High Contracting Parties denouncing the present Declaration, such denunciation shall not take effect until a year after the notification made in writing to the Netherlands Government, and forthwith communicated by it to all the other Contracting Powers.

 

This denunciation shall only affect the notifying Power.

 

In faith of which the Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Declaration, and have affixed their seals thereto.

 

Done at The Hague the 29th July, 1899, in a single copy, which shall be kept in the archives of the Netherlands Government, and of which copies, duly certified, shall be sent through the diplomatic channel to the Contracting Powers.

 

[signatures]

[Zapp]

I'm guessing your not familiar with tactics of war. Bullets from military used guns are designed to wound. Yes they kill when shot in the right places but their actual design is to wound. This started in the 70's i believe for the following reasons.

 

If you kill one man out of fifty with one bullet there are 49 men left to kill. If you wound a man it takes at least one to see to the wounded. It's the same as the Russians idea to bomb every RAF camp in England years back with Hallucinogenics. Look it up and you should be able to find some info about it. Their reasoning was the same... to 'wound'. In other words occupy others to make their own forces jobs easier.

 

I'm guessing that you dont actually know your onions either.

 

9mm parabellum was designed long before any of the "shoot to wound" myths surfaced and therefore does not mesh with your argument. The reasons behind the adoption of smaller calibre rounds for combat arms was to reduce weight and thereby allow the soldier to carry more ammunition. The long held and oft quoted rubbish about smaller bullets being designed to wound surfaced in the 70's.

 

The "thinking" behind it is utter ****. What a wonderful idea it would be to hose a load of enemy soldiers and then close with their "corpses" only to find that they are still able to fire their weapons, just at the point you are right on top of them.

 

ZB

[jcbruno]

i can speak from the other side of the pond, there are few carbines legal for hunting and few people buy them for hunting i guess like others have stated why would you but over here it is being done and of course some handgun hunters like the challange but a carbine rifle in 9mm could take a deer at 100 m, not realy my thing though

[Harnser]

How the hell can you say that a bullet is designed to wound . If you shoot some body with a 9mm the chances are that you are going to kill them . How can you be sure that you dont hit a vital organ .Are you surgesting that law enforcement officers shoot for the legs or the arm just to wound somebody . I can assure you that they shoot to kill . Obviously you did not read my other post about muzzel velocity .The 9mm round exits the barrel at about 12 hundred feet per second ,that well in excess of the speed of sound which is about 750 feet per second . I have loaded thousands of rounds of 9mm ammo and do have an idea of what they are capable of . I think you are trying to wind us up . Harnser .

 

speed of sound is actually ~1100fps, but otherwise carry on

 

you are absolutly correct ,i was thinking miles per hour . Harnser .

[Jim McArthur]

From a hunting application, there's nothing you would use 9x19mm for where there isn't a better existing (and legal) alternative in terms of ballistics, cost and overall accuracy. In a military context, the 9mm isn't ideal, when you consider what a 230gr .45ACP round (or even 10mm or .40 S&W) offers you.

 

Very true. The American police are commonly replacing their 9mm's with .40's, and I was told by a US Marine who served with a tank crew in Iraq that he his mates regarded their 9mm's as back-up pistols to .45's, if they were able to wangle one of the latter from ordinance.

 

Jim

[elkrout2007]

hi point 9mm carbine will shoot thru empty 55gal steel drum and you can cover ten shot group with your palm .At 100yds

Edited September 12, 2008 by elkrout2007

[neil smith]

In IPSC pistol competition some competitors have developed "major" loads for the 9mm that make 1400 fps using a 125g bullet, giving them equal power factor of the .45

 

I had a glock 17 in the good old days & all the talk about 9mm bouncing off you at 100yds is total ****, it is designed as a close range round but still deadly at longer ranges it just becomes less accurate.

 

N

[Harnser]

In IPSC pistol competition some competitors have developed "major" loads for the 9mm that make 1400 fps using a 125g bullet, giving them equal power factor of the .45

 

I had a glock 17 in the good old days & all the talk about 9mm bouncing off you at 100yds is total ****, it is designed as a close range round but still deadly at longer ranges it just becomes less accurate.

 

N

Thank god for some sense at last . Harnser .

[Vegeta]

In IPSC pistol competition some competitors have developed "major" loads for the 9mm that make 1400 fps using a 125g bullet, giving them equal power factor of the .45

 

I had a glock 17 in the good old days & all the talk about 9mm bouncing off you at 100yds is total ****, it is designed as a close range round but still deadly at longer ranges it just becomes less accurate.

 

N

Thank god for some sense at last . Harnser .

 

Here here

 

That kind of rubbish, a 9mm round will bounce off a jacket at 100 yards , breeds ignorance and needs to be stamped out. Troll or not. It really shows when a person has no real life experience with the subject matter.

[kingo]

I'm guessing your not familiar with tactics of war. Bullets from military used guns are designed to wound. Yes they kill when shot in the right places but their actual design is to wound. This started in the 70's i believe for the following reasons.

 

If you kill one man out of fifty with one bullet there are 49 men left to kill. If you wound a man it takes at least one to see to the wounded. It's the same as the Russians idea to bomb every RAF camp in England years back with Hallucinogenics. Look it up and you should be able to find some info about it. Their reasoning was the same... to 'wound'. In other words occupy others to make their own forces jobs easier.

 

I'm guessing that you dont actually know your onions either.

 

9mm parabellum was designed long before any of the "shoot to wound" myths surfaced and therefore does not mesh with your argument. The reasons behind the adoption of smaller calibre rounds for combat arms was to reduce weight and thereby allow the soldier to carry more ammunition. The long held and oft quoted rubbish about smaller bullets being designed to wound surfaced in the 70's.

 

The "thinking" behind it is utter ****. What a wonderful idea it would be to hose a load of enemy soldiers and then close with their "corpses" only to find that they are still able to fire their weapons, just at the point you are right on top of them.

 

ZB

Actually the thinking is corect as an ex infantry soldier you are told in training the reasons behind the lower calibre round firstly its weight we can carry more ammo, u will be supprised but we only carry 4 charged mags and they can go in minutes in a firefight so we carry bandaliers of ammo and 5.56 is much lighter than 7.62 and secondly the wounding is correct 1 wounded man can take upto and over 5 other to deal with him and then there is all the back up that is needed in medical supplies helicopters and so on...

[Trussman]

Zapp also served in the army

[smsguitarist]

finally Kingo! A man who has been taught by the right people! I understand what everyone else has been saying and often they are not referring to your average 9mm pistol.

[starlight32]

The 9mm round has been around for along while.... 9mm was used in the various arms by allies and axis armies during the second world war. I do however and have never found any reference to 'wounding' calibers from that and this era... It has been aforementioned many times of the more effective colt .45 by American combat troops has having the necessary stopping power for the job over 9mm.

 

I believe where one or two members are getting the wounding issue from is the application of 9mm by special forces troops in hostage siege situations were in fact the 9mm round is downpowered so to prevent rounds passing through the intended target and into innocent personel.

 

Wounding in battlefield ethics does exist in ordanance application though-- Landmines and booby traps.

 

I have used 9mm on many an occasion in the past......

 

And as for the other bit about 9mm bouncing off clothing at 100 yards then I fail to see that when I zero in a .22 at 80 yards against a farm scarecrow with an old donkey jacket on... And they pass clean through even when soaking wet.

 

Harnser..... You have now replaced Bob as the wise old man of Pigeonwatch..

 

Regards

Edited September 20, 2008 by starlight32

[kingo]

The 9mm round has been around for along while.... 9mm was used in the various arms by allies and axis armies during the second world war. I do however and have never found any reference to 'wounding' calibers from that and this era... It has been aforementioned many times of the more effective colt .45 by American combat troops has having the necessary stopping power for the job over 9mm.

 

I believe where one or two members are getting the wounding issue from is the application of 9mm by special forces troops in hostage siege situations were in fact the 9mm round is downpowered so to prevent rounds passing through the intended target and into innocent personel.

 

Wounding in battlefield ethics does exist in ordanance application though-- Landmines and booby traps.

 

I have used 9mm on many an occasion in the past......

 

And as for the other bit about 9mm bouncing off clothing at 100 yards then I fail to see that when I zero in a .22 at 80 yards against a farm scarecrow with an old donkey jacket on... And they pass clean through even when soaking wet.

 

Harnser..... You have now replaced Bob as the wise old man of Pigeonwatch..

 

Regards

You are talking about special forces situations, yes in those circumstances you will want to have a weapon that will put people down and stay down hence the americans like the colt 1911 which uses the .45 round which will kill you all day long less velocity and bigger round than the 9mm and causes a much bigger wound, the 9mm at close range could pass straight through people as it travels at a much higher speed.

 

when we are talking about using ammunition for wounding thats in general the average infantry soldier and the bigger picture of resources needed to sustain a battle ie ammunition supplies medical supplies the use of helicopters and so on all of which when you are fighting a major battle inpacts on your abbility to do so. you could argue in these days with the likes of the taliban you need a round that will hit hard and keep them down like a 7.62 which we used in the old belgium FN, luckily we still have that power in the good old gpmg my fav weapon and like mad sod I always volunteered to carry that big heavy son of a bitch which didnt seem to bother the others as its a real heavy mutha lol

[Zapp]

I'm guessing your not familiar with tactics of war. Bullets from military used guns are designed to wound. Yes they kill when shot in the right places but their actual design is to wound. This started in the 70's i believe for the following reasons.

 

If you kill one man out of fifty with one bullet there are 49 men left to kill. If you wound a man it takes at least one to see to the wounded. It's the same as the Russians idea to bomb every RAF camp in England years back with Hallucinogenics. Look it up and you should be able to find some info about it. Their reasoning was the same... to 'wound'. In other words occupy others to make their own forces jobs easier.

 

I'm guessing that you dont actually know your onions either.

 

9mm parabellum was designed long before any of the "shoot to wound" myths surfaced and therefore does not mesh with your argument. The reasons behind the adoption of smaller calibre rounds for combat arms was to reduce weight and thereby allow the soldier to carry more ammunition. The long held and oft quoted rubbish about smaller bullets being designed to wound surfaced in the 70's.

 

The "thinking" behind it is utter ****. What a wonderful idea it would be to hose a load of enemy soldiers and then close with their "corpses" only to find that they are still able to fire their weapons, just at the point you are right on top of them. :blink:

 

ZB

Actually the thinking is corect as an ex infantry soldier you are told in training the reasons behind the lower calibre round firstly its weight we can carry more ammo, u will be supprised but we only carry 4 charged mags and they can go in minutes in a firefight so we carry bandaliers of ammo and 5.56 is much lighter than 7.62 and secondly the wounding is correct 1 wounded man can take upto and over 5 other to deal with him and then there is all the back up that is needed in medical supplies helicopters and so on...

 

I wouldnt be surprised at all about the amount of ammo carried, as Trussman says I am ex army.

 

As far as the wounding effect of small calibre rounds is correct, the adoption of smaller calibre rounds was not driven by this, now where they designed specifically to have this effect.

 

Does it not strike everybody as more than a little bit of a coincidence that the change from the 7.62 to smaller calibres like 5.56 and 5.45 happened right about the same time as those countries adopted assault rifles with the capacity to fire on full auto? (I'll grant you that the Russians stuck with 7.62 for a while but then they are mental)

 

Full auto= Potential for more rounds to be fired = Requirement for lighter ammo.

 

As for SMS guitarists comments about being "taught by the right people", I was taught by instructors at my army training regiment, as well as the Small Arms School Corps staff, exactly the same as Kingo I suspect (depending on when he joined). Aside from having a "mate" who keeps telling you things which you then regurgitate on here, what exactly is your pedigree which allows you to be so condescending?

 

ZB

[LXX73]

but we only carry 4 charged mags .

This might be true on a peace keeping tour i.e. Northern Ireland but if war fighting you'd get hold of all the extra mags you can.

[smsguitarist]

I'm guessing your not familiar with tactics of war. Bullets from military used guns are designed to wound. Yes they kill when shot in the right places but their actual design is to wound. This started in the 70's i believe for the following reasons.

 

If you kill one man out of fifty with one bullet there are 49 men left to kill. If you wound a man it takes at least one to see to the wounded. It's the same as the Russians idea to bomb every RAF camp in England years back with Hallucinogenics. Look it up and you should be able to find some info about it. Their reasoning was the same... to 'wound'. In other words occupy others to make their own forces jobs easier.

 

I'm guessing that you dont actually know your onions either.

 

9mm parabellum was designed long before any of the "shoot to wound" myths surfaced and therefore does not mesh with your argument. The reasons behind the adoption of smaller calibre rounds for combat arms was to reduce weight and thereby allow the soldier to carry more ammunition. The long held and oft quoted rubbish about smaller bullets being designed to wound surfaced in the 70's.

 

The "thinking" behind it is utter ****. What a wonderful idea it would be to hose a load of enemy soldiers and then close with their "corpses" only to find that they are still able to fire their weapons, just at the point you are right on top of them. :blink:

 

ZB

Actually the thinking is corect as an ex infantry soldier you are told in training the reasons behind the lower calibre round firstly its weight we can carry more ammo, u will be supprised but we only carry 4 charged mags and they can go in minutes in a firefight so we carry bandaliers of ammo and 5.56 is much lighter than 7.62 and secondly the wounding is correct 1 wounded man can take upto and over 5 other to deal with him and then there is all the back up that is needed in medical supplies helicopters and so on...

 

I wouldnt be surprised at all about the amount of ammo carried, as Trussman says I am ex army.

 

As far as the wounding effect of small calibre rounds is correct, the adoption of smaller calibre rounds was not driven by this, now where they designed specifically to have this effect.

 

Does it not strike everybody as more than a little bit of a coincidence that the change from the 7.62 to smaller calibres like 5.56 and 5.45 happened right about the same time as those countries adopted assault rifles with the capacity to fire on full auto? (I'll grant you that the Russians stuck with 7.62 for a while but then they are mental)

 

Full auto= Potential for more rounds to be fired = Requirement for lighter ammo.

 

As for SMS guitarists comments about being "taught by the right people", I was taught by instructors at my army training regiment, as well as the Small Arms School Corps staff, exactly the same as Kingo I suspect (depending on when he joined). Aside from having a "mate" who keeps telling you things which you then regurgitate on here, what exactly is your pedigree which allows you to be so condescending?

 

ZB

 

I posted that comment late last night when i was tired and only realised this morning how condescending it sounded. So for that i apologise.

[Zapp]

I posted that comment late last night when i was tired and only realised this morning how condescending it sounded. So for that i apologise.

 

Fair enough, I have been known to do that from time to time aswell. :blink:

 

ZB

[kingo]

but we only carry 4 charged mags .

This might be true on a peace keeping tour i.e. Northern Ireland but if war fighting you'd get hold of all the extra mags you can.

 

your right there, I had an extra 5 but they were aquired over the years by different means , they may now issue more, that I wouldnt know things change but certainly when I was a puddle jumper 4 was your lot hence on excercise we were given bandoliers to carry the extra usual 480 rounds.

[DaveK]

Very true. The American police are commonly replacing their 9mm's with .40's, and I was told by a US Marine who served with a tank crew in Iraq that he his mates regarded their 9mm's as back-up pistols to .45's, if they were able to wangle one of the latter from ordinance.

 

Jim

 

9mm Para (Luger) was considered by US law enforcement as ineffective at short distances. An enraged perpetrator full of adrenaline coming towards an officer would keep coming as 9mm rounds went straight through at close quarters. This is why the .40 was developed as it has the stopping power that the 9mm hasn't.

 

Similarly the .357 magnum was developed to replace the .38spl.