|
|
|
|
|
#1
05-20-2015, 11:12 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
http://forum.juhlin.com/showpost.php...9&postcount=10 Last edited by kato13; 05-20-2015 at 11:26 AM. Reason: changed to higher calibers. 
|
|
#2
05-20-2015, 11:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#4
05-20-2015, 04:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Pro tip: You should never "resist" recoil (try to hold down the muzzle during recoil) or "lock" your wrist against recoil. You should hold your weapon as firmly as you would hold a hammer when driving nails. Firm enough to prevent "side to side squirm" but not with a "death grip." You should allow a pistol to "ride up" through it's recoil and concentrate on returning your wrists/hands to their "prefiring position." By not resisting the recoil and focusing on the return of your hands (and the weapon) to your initial "point of aim," you will suffer less "discomfort" in your hands and recover from shot to shot faster.
|
|
#6
05-20-2015, 04:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#7
05-20-2015, 07:06 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
All very interesting. I have no experience with the .40 caliber or the .357 SIG. I have some experience with the M1911, and I find it very manageable. I had a girlfriend who went shooting with me and found the M1911 very manageable once I showed her how to hold it properly. She was a little lady, too. She struggled with .357 Magnum, even though my large frame revolver has a fair amount of inertia. Her feedback was that she felt she could fire an M1911 all day, whereas after 7 rounds of .357 Magnum from a revolver she was done.
In any event, I would not care to try to provide the security of a free state with any handgun as my primary weapon.
__________________
“We’re not innovating. We’re selectively imitating.” June Bernstein, Acting President of the University of Arizona in Tucson, November 15, 1998.
|
|
#8
05-20-2015, 04:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I have produced an Energy Dump chart for Twilight2000 that uses the caliber's Energy Ratings (determined by bullet weight in grains multiplied by Velocity, then by velocity again, then by the constant 0.000002218) to determine the number of Damage Dice per Range Band in game. I have yet to type it up (It's my trucking co's busy season since we haul pipe). I'll try to post it for your use. All you have to do is look up a round's Energy (both the Shooters Bible and Gun Digest have printed charts in their books for my fellow "Old Schoolers"). You can find these at all of the ammo manufacturers' websites. You then compare the round in question's Energy at a given Range Band to the chart. This tells you the number of damage dice that round does in a given range band. I have ONE set of Energies for pistol and SMG rounds and a second for rifles. Be prepared to be surprised by the chart AND the Energies listed for various rounds. Preparing the chart was an "eye-opener" for me.
|
|
#9
05-20-2015, 03:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The 9mm verses, .40 S&W, verses .45ACP has a couple of issues that cause 9mm dominance. First is the size and weight of the weapon's frame. The 9mm has the smallest frame, lightest weight, and highest capacity (13 to 15) of the three primary police calibers. The .40 falls in the middle with an 11 to 13 round capacity, and the .45 has the largest and heaviest frame for an average round count of just 7 to 8 rounds. Here is the real mindblower in the debate though. The average Energy of a 9mm (no matter the bullet weight) is between 340 ft/lbs and 380 ft/lbs. The average Energy of a 180 grain (but NOT a 165 grain) .40 S&W is just over 400 ft/lbs. The average Energy of a .45ACP in a 230 grain loading is just 360 ft/lbs on average. As you can see from those numbers; There is only about a 50 ft/lb variation between the three calibers. If your getting the same Energy dump from all three calibers; You are better off picking the lightest weapon you can easily shoot. The smaller calibers will cost you less in firearms (initial costs and maintenance) and ammo costs. The fact that 9mmP also recoils less doesn't hurt either. My County adopted the .40 in the 165 grain HP loading because we upped our Energy Dump to 480 ft/lbs out of our Glock 23's and SIG 229's. This round had significant recoil compared to the lighter 180 grain loads though (especially in the Glock). We then upgraded to the .357 SIG round which increased our Energy Dump to well above 500 ft/lbs (depending on whether the 125 or 135 grain bullets were used). There were deputies who had significant issues qualifying with the .357 SIG (especially since we used an older qualification that had a 30 meter target in it). This prompted the sheriff to authorize both the .357 SIG and the .40 S&W. Last edited by swaghauler; 05-20-2015 at 04:24 PM.
|
|
#10
05-24-2015, 04:43 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Several females and a few males qualified on M10s because the M1911A1s grips were to large. The 70 round MP quals has stages with one handed firing.
|
|
#11
05-24-2015, 06:42 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
When I was a SP in the Air Force in the mid-90's it was primarily M-16A1's and later A2's with the dog handlers getting CAR-15's and everyone having an assigned M9. The Armory had other weapons available but unless you worked in there you never saw them. I know we had a few AK's, some Shotguns, and a locker full of M1911's that no one ever shot.
|
|
#12
05-25-2015, 11:47 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#13
05-25-2015, 08:06 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 I'm curious, what were they doing with AK's in the SP armory? Were they for OPFOR exercises?
__________________
"The use of force is always an answer to problems. Whether or not it's a satisfactory answer depends on a number of things, not least the personality of the person making the determination. Force isn't an attractive answer, though. I would not be true to myself or to the people I served with in 1970 if I did not make that realization clear." — David Drake
|
|
#14
05-26-2015, 09:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Last edited by .45cultist; 05-27-2015 at 03:40 AM.
|
|
#15
05-26-2015, 02:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Since this thread is already all over the place...
On the caliber wars, particularly concerning pistol and revolver calibers: I will be the first one to admit that I am an armchair general on this issue as I have not used pistols in real combat (or been in real combat for that matter. I hope that remains the case in the future as well.) but I have read my share of studies and "studies" on "stopping power." The fact is that all the studies have to rely on guesswork or make up parameters since it is impossible to study the effectiveness of weapons on humans in laboratory quality experiments. Perhaps if we had Josef Mengele to help things would be different, but as it is we have to use material that is less relevant to real battle. Still, the impression that I have gotten (and I admit that I may be wrong) is that hit location is the most important factor and honestly the differences in energy between 9mmPara, .40 S&W, .45ACP and the other most common calibers is quite small. With modern hollowpoints most values that can be measured are not that far from each other (with recoil and magazine capacity having some differences but modern pistols do have fairly large magazines for each caliber available.) In the end, I seem to have the impression that the hit location is the number one deciding factor on the effect on live target and penetration comes in second. Everything else falls far behind (at least with pistols and revolvers.) There are stories from shootouts where certain "gun" failed to stop a hostile person while another had a "one shot stop" but even then the location and ammo seem to be the factor in these. If I had to choose one pistol to defend myself with I would pick one in 9mm caliber but that has more to do with the cheap ammo and large capacity magazines available than the actual "stopping power" in the gun. With cheap ammo I could afford to train more and with more training I would be better with the gun. I still wouldn't trust myself to shoot perfectly in a high stress situation so bigger magazine is a bonus and a manageable recoil means better followup shots. These advantages (in my opinion) outweigh any improvement in stopping power that other cartridges might offer. 10mm hole in the wall beside the attacker is not guaranteed to stop him. (and if a warning shot or merely revealing the gun does the trick the 9mm will work just as well.)
|
|
#16
05-29-2015, 07:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#17
05-26-2015, 05:18 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
For on-base exercises we were using spray painted orange cheap airsoft guns and rubber training aids. Remember because we used them for three months, someone complained and they were all shipped out except the rubber pistols which we still used.
|
|
#18
05-27-2015, 03:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#19
05-27-2015, 04:06 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Thanks for that great feedback, swaghauler. Your commentary aligns with my research on the subject and the very little shotgun training I have received.
While I intended to cover my ideas on classifying firearms by type such that firearms optimized for self-defense, hunting, and combat could be separated, I think I will go into a different direction for right now. The 800lb gorilla in the room is rebellion against domestic tyranny. In my experience, this is where arguments about the Second Amendment tend to break down. Would-be patriot revolutionaries (WBPR, or “Whoppers” as I like to call them) insist that they have a right to resort to arms to protect their rights against domestic tyranny. Moreover, they claim, the Second Amendment enshrines their right to have unfettered access to the tools for the job. Going further, Whoppers often maintain that having their names appear on any sort of government list associated with gun ownership would violate their right to resort to armed violence against the State by allowing the State, often denigrated at Big Brother, to round them up at will and/or confiscate their weapons of revolution. Safety and efficacy, the argument goes, are to be found in anonymity. Hidden from the agents of Big Brother during the time leading up to revolution, true patriots will come together like salt crystals in a saturated fluid when the circumstances mandate action by true patriots. There are two issues that have to be addressed in order to expose the Whopper argument as part logical fallacy and part self-serving myth. The first, the logical fallacy, is the idea that the State can guarantee the citizenry access to the tools needed to behave in a way the State considers a) illegal and b) unjustified. The second item is the myth that the Framers might think masses of anonymous and otherwise unrecognizant armed civilians would be a better guarantee of republican liberties than an organized, trained, and (hopefully) disciplined force of reservists operating under the command of a popularly elected chief executive. In both cases, the question is what the Framers could be expected to believe, not what individual citizens in modern America might prefer to believe. Whopper ideas about rising up against Big Brother beg the question of conditions. When is it okay for a private citizen to engage in offensive killing of police and soldiers? By “offensive killing”, I mean use of lethal force (whether anybody dies or not) when the citizen’s physical well-being is not under imminent threat. We may argue about the so-called natural right to overthrow a tyrannical government by force of arms. I happen to think that people have a right to overthrow tyranny by force of arms. However, the Second Amendment is part of the US Constitution. Whatever my natural rights might be, the Constitution is a contract between the State and the citizenry. Access to arms is guaranteed by the Constitution, not God or natural law or any other force. This distinction is all-important. Whether God has decreed that any American should have access to an AR-15 is a matter for clergy to decide. The State is bound by the Constitution, which is a contract written by men describing a legally binding arrangement between the State and its citizenry. The Constitution has established means by which individual citizens may find redress for their grievances. The judiciary interprets law. The legislature, in whose selection a citizen has a voice, creates the laws. The creation of laws or their repealing is accomplished by convincing the legislature of the virtue of said creation or repeal or by simple electoral power at the ballot box. Representative government being what it is, one could argue that the legislature of a republic can become a tyranny of the majority. For this reason, the judiciary exists to rule on challenges to the law or whether charges by the People that an individual has broken the law are valid. In short, there is a process by which individuals or even groups may influence the corpus of law and may seek redress of unjust laws. These means logically preclude the legitimacy of resort to violence by aggrieved individuals or groups. As a practical matter, violence is always an option. As a matter of law, the State is under no obligation to make provision or allowances for citizens to resort to violence when and if their options for legal redress of grievances haven’t panned out for them. At the risk of belaboring the point, the Second Amendment is part of the corpus of law of the United States. Therefore, it cannot be interpreted as making allowances for citizens to take the law into their own hands (such as launching a revolution on whatever scale) on their own initiative and on their own recognizance or to guarantee access to arms designed for the purpose of engaging in combat with professional forces (law enforcement, soldiers) pursuant to taking the law into their own hands or launching a revolution on whatever scale. Looping this back to what kinds of arms are covered by the Second Amendment, the fact that the State doesn’t protect private ownership for the purposes of executing violent revolution in the name of redress for individuals or groups doesn’t impact free access to arms for the purpose of self-defense. Arms for self-defense certainly may be misused, but they are not designed to make a citizen[-soldier] the equal of a professional soldier. At this point one could be forgiven for asking whether the issue of revolution has not become a conundrum. I assert that the State isn’t obliged to tolerate either the equipping of civilians for revolution by arms or the act of revolution by whatever means comes to hand. Yet without a doubt the Founding Fathers believed in violent revolution as the vehicle of reform of the last measure. I agree with their position. How are these two ideas to be correlated? The answer, I believe, comes back to the militia. Operating under the command of an elected chief executive and regulated by the elected legislature, formations of citizen-soldiers derive their authority to execute violence from the electorate. The will of the electorate is the basis of authority in the republic. Individuals legally may not take it upon themselves to execute violence against agents of the State except under extraordinary circumstances. They certainly are not authorized to take up arms against the State based on their personal beliefs about violations of their rights. They may do so, but they will be considered common criminals at best and traitors at worst in the eyes of the law. The militia, on the other hand, may take to the field against agents of the State—the federal republic—imbued with the authority delegated them by the electorate of the state republic through the chief executive. In other words, the taking up of arms against the federal government must be an act executed by the state chief executive and state legislature on behalf of the body politic of the state. Presumably, this bold act will signify a systemic violation of the rights of the citizenry by the federal government such that violent overthrow of the federal government by the militia manifests the will of the electorate. Where the electorate of a single state or a few states put their troops into the field against the federal government, the federal government is sure to triumph. Thus the systemic violation of rights causing one electorate to call its troops into action for redress may not be as systematically systemic as the citizens of the state in question believe. See again: the US Civil War. The matter of efficacy requires a good deal more attention. I’ll come back to it later. Before leaving off, I want to look at why efficacy matters. The question is simply whether one believes the Framers of the Constitution cared about success. Was the next revolution going to work or not? If we believe the Framers cared about success, then we must ask whether they cared about cost. Revolution can take many different paths. I argue that the Framers wanted revolution, when it came, to be quick and decisive. Indeed, moral men and patriots could hardly desire anything else. The Whoppers of the nation believe that the Framers would have been enthusiastic supporters of something along the lines of Red Dawn or what the Taliban are doing in Afghanistan currently. I propose that the Founding Fathers would have seen Red Dawn as a modus operendi of last resort. They would have wanted a coup de main—a swift and decisive blow executed by an overwhelming mass of organized, trained, and disciplined citizen-soldiers rising up more-or-less simultaneously to execute the will of the citizenry to overthrow a despot and his followers among the professional military. It should go without saying that only a real militia can accomplish this, not anonymous gunmen in any number.
__________________
“We’re not innovating. We’re selectively imitating.” June Bernstein, Acting President of the University of Arizona in Tucson, November 15, 1998.
|
 |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
