PDA

View Full Version : The Luger.



aly j
09-30-2008, 10:31 PM
What made this gun so popular with Allied soilders?
Was it the best pistol in ww2?

hi8ha
09-30-2008, 11:42 PM
Although I haven’t search the whole web, searching, I’ve noticed that for some reason,
regardless of the bad reputation the Nazis gave to Germany, the most or one of the most attractive, sought after, discussed, valued ($) topics, items, posts, etc. are related with WWII Germany; e.g. If you search for Militaria items you’ll notice the German items, uniforms, guns, medals, pictures, documents, badges, etc. are some of the most expensive and desired ones; the forums with the most posts are in relation with WWII Germany.
The Nazis were the bad guys but… Go figure.
This link may help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luger_P08_pistol


aly_j, I think the spelling should be Luger instead of Leuger.

bas
10-01-2008, 03:54 AM
What made this gun so popular with Allied soilders?
Was it the best pistol in ww2?

As far as as a military pistol goes, the P.08 Luger and other varients is a pretty poor design. It was expensive to manufacture, un-relaible and prone accidental discharge.

The main reason for its up-take by so many armies of the time was because there were so few other automatic designs available. But by the time WWII rolled round it was truely obsolete and on its way out.

The reason they were a popular souniver amongst allied soldiers was because of their mystique, and cosmetic appeal. They were a trophy to be taken home as a momento of the war, not a weapon to be used against its former owners.

Even today this holds true; the Luger is an iconic gun and has a value that is disproportunate to the number that were produced.

aly j
10-01-2008, 05:34 AM
Although I havenít search the whole web, searching, Iíve noticed that for some reason,
regardless of the bad reputation the Nazis gave to Germany, the most or one of the most attractive, sought after, discussed, valued ($) topics, items, posts, etc. are related with WWII Germany; e.g. If you search for Militaria items youíll notice the German items, uniforms, guns, medals, pictures, documents, badges, etc. are some of the most expensive and desired ones; the forums with the most posts are in relation with WWII Germany.
The Nazis were the bad guys butÖ Go figure.
This link may help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luger_P08_pistol


aly_j, I think the spelling should be Luger instead of Leuger.

I did have luger but got second opinion of some one else and told me to spell it leuger.I cant win.:roll:

Rytis
10-01-2008, 06:21 AM
Luger was wery comfortable, easy to aim, and compare to, for example french, spanish, and english service pistols relativlely poverful pistol. Its design made him an icon, comparing it vith Colt Gowerment (also superb pistol) is like compareing Ferari vith dump Truck

Nickdfresh
10-01-2008, 07:29 AM
Luger was wery comfortable, easy to aim, and compare to, for example french, spanish, and english service pistols relativlely poverful pistol. Its design made him an icon, comparing it vith Colt Gowerment (also superb pistol) is like compareing Ferari vith dump Truck

It was also extremely unreliable in things actually resembling field conditions...

Man of Stoat
10-01-2008, 08:06 AM
Luger was wery comfortable, easy to aim, and compare to, for example french, spanish, and english service pistols relativlely poverful pistol. Its design made him an icon, comparing it vith Colt Gowerment (also superb pistol) is like compareing Ferari vith dump Truck

I think that you will find that the British .455 revolver cartridge trumps 9 mm Para... the original chambering of .380/200 probably trumps it as well.

herman2
10-01-2008, 10:06 AM
German Luger 9mm Service Pistol (Mauser): The P-08 (Luger) was the primary German military service pistol throughout WW I and a supplemental service pistol during WW II. This Luger was manufactured in 1937. Many thousands were made between 1908 and the early 1940s. Lugers were made by several contractors, each with their own codes or markings. The example is marked s/42 on the toggle which indicates it was manufactured by Mauser. The example bears Nazi eagle acceptance markings, which indicates issue and service during WW II.......

The Luger was named the Luger because that was the name of the designer..and in case you have wondered...Mercedes Benz...is named after Mr.Benz's daughter, who had the name Mercedes....isn't that touching

aly j
10-01-2008, 11:01 AM
As far as as a military pistol goes, the P.08 Luger and other varients is a pretty poor design. It was expensive to manufacture, un-relaible and prone accidental discharge.

The main reason for its up-take by so many armies of the time was because there were so few other automatic designs available. But by the time WWII rolled round it was truely obsolete and on its way out.

The reason they were a popular souniver amongst allied soldiers was because of their mystique, and cosmetic appeal. They were a trophy to be taken home as a momento of the war, not a weapon to be used against its former owners.

Even today this holds true; the Luger is an iconic gun and has a value that is disproportunate to the number that were produced.


Luger was wery comfortable, easy to aim, and compare to, for example french, spanish, and english service pistols relativlely poverful pistol. Its design made him an icon, comparing it vith Colt Gowerment (also superb pistol) is like compareing Ferari vith dump Truck
Whats giong on here.
Why do i have too completely different answers.
You guys are confussing some times;)

herman2
10-01-2008, 11:58 AM
Aly J...to unconfuse you, just remember one thing about the Leuger....IT SUCKED!

Rytis
10-01-2008, 12:08 PM
British .455 revolver cartridge energy- 301 Joules
380/200 energy- 279 Joules
9x19mm Parabellum- 442 Joules minimum
7.65x22mm Parabellum 400 Joules
If that you cal trumping. Fact is that britan had some weakest pistol rounds douring WW tvo

bas
10-01-2008, 04:36 PM
Whats giong on here.
Why do i have too completely different answers.
You guys are confussing some times;)

Maybe you should go back to school and learn to read and write. Sorry if that sounds harsh but really there is no confussion at all.

What I said was that the Luger is poor military weapon because:
* it's expensive to manufacture
* unreliable in the conditions it's ment to be used (ie the battlefield)
* prone to firing when you don't want it to.

What Rytis said is that the Luger is:
* Comfortable to hold
* Easy to aim
* Fires powerful ammunition (I beg to differ on this but its mostly irrelevent anyway).

Rytis then makes the nice analogy with the Ferrari and the dumptruck. Which supports what we both say, the Farrari is a finely tuned precision machine that looks nice and is a pleasure to drive under optimal conditions. But as soon as it hits the dirt it stops. The dump truck may be un-impressive to eye, unpleasent to drive but it keeps going no matter the road conditions.

(Btw Rytis you're wrong on the 1911A1, very wrong. The very fact that the design is still going strong and has a very active following amongst the target shooting community (look up STIs sometime) is proof of this. Lugers on the other hand are now an antique from the past).

Rytis
10-01-2008, 05:19 PM
In USA thei stil make new Lugers (or made wel into nineties), in Germany the original manufacturer DWM also made Lugers in recent days. Thei were a real weapons, not the worthles replicas.
Colt Gowerment is my faworite pistol of them all, (I wrote that it is is Superb) I hold it in my hand once, and it felt superbly comfortable. I compare it with dump truck, because is ruged reliable and extreamly poverful.
Colts reliabilyti proves fact, that tehere is a lots of copies made vorldvide.

Man of Stoat
10-02-2008, 03:40 AM
British .455 revolver cartridge energy- 301 Joules
380/200 energy- 279 Joules
9x19mm Parabellum- 442 Joules minimum
7.65x22mm Parabellum 400 Joules
If that you cal trumping. Fact is that britan had some weakest pistol rounds douring WW tvo


Muzzle energy is not actually terribly relevant when discussing effectiveness. Tomes have been written on the subject, and it turns out that cross-sectional area and projectile design are the most important factors .

It turns out that the heavy and slow .455 is battle proven as a much better man-stopper than 9 x 19, which tends to over penetrate and not dump its momentum into the target. This was even more true during the First World War, when .455 bullets were cast from soft lead. By the second war this was considered "not cricket".

Nickdfresh
10-02-2008, 08:38 AM
Maybe you should go back to school and learn to read and write. Sorry if that sounds harsh but really there is no confussion at all.

What I said was that the Luger is poor military weapon because:
* it's expensive to manufacture
* unreliable in the conditions it's ment to be used (ie the battlefield)
* prone to firing when you don't want it to.

What Rytis said is that the Luger is:
* Comfortable to hold
* Easy to aim
* Fires powerful ammunition (I beg to differ on this but its mostly irrelevent anyway).

Rytis then makes the nice analogy with the Ferrari and the dumptruck. Which supports what we both say, the Farrari is a finely tuned precision machine that looks nice and is a pleasure to drive under optimal conditions. But as soon as it hits the dirt it stops. The dump truck may be un-impressive to eye, unpleasent to drive but it keeps going no matter the road conditions.

(Btw Rytis you're wrong on the 1911A1, very wrong. The very fact that the design is still going strong and has a very active following amongst the target shooting community (look up STIs sometime) is proof of this. Lugers on the other hand are now an antique from the past).

Correct. The Luger may have been a nice weapon for an (indoor) range or in a holster for a Wehrmacht officer on occupation duty in Paris. But there's a reason why the Heer phased them out in favor for the Walther P-38.

And incidentally, perhaps some do not realize that one of the Colt1911 .45's primary competitor was indeed a Luger in the caliber of .45 for the US Army service pistol. The Luger's dismal realistically in dust and mud made it complete inappropriate for anything other than garrison occupation duty by older officers, which was probably the extent of their service in WWII.

herman2
10-02-2008, 08:58 AM
I wonder if Adolf Hitler carried a luger?...I can't really say I have seen a picture of him holding a weapon.?Experts pls?

Nickdfresh
10-02-2008, 09:01 AM
What made this gun so popular with Allied soilders?
Was it the best pistol in ww2?

The reason why some American soldiers (as shown in the Luger "incident" in "Band of Brothers") held a fascination with "the infamous Luger" was because of its high tech, 'ray-gun' like appearance that would have been used as the basis for sidearms in some science fiction serials, or film shorts, during the period. (When I was a kid, a next door neighbor actually had a toy Luger/ray gun that was dated from the 1930s) And the fact that they didn't know that the Luger had mostly been phased out in favor of the more reliable Walther P-38. It would have made a nice trophy, but for an actual sidearm, most GIs with any sense would have preferred a .45, a .38 police revolver, or the Walther...

Nickdfresh
10-02-2008, 09:02 AM
I wonder if Adolf Hitler carried a luger?...I can't really say I have seen a picture of him holding a weapon.?Experts pls?


I think he owned a Walther PPK (James Bond's original gun), I have no idea beyond that...

aly j
10-02-2008, 09:14 AM
Maybe you should go back to school and learn to read and write. Sorry if that sounds harsh but really there is no confussion at all.

What I said was that the Luger is poor military weapon because:
* it's expensive to manufacture
* unreliable in the conditions it's ment to be used (ie the battlefield)
* prone to firing when you don't want it to.

What Rytis said is that the Luger is:
* Comfortable to hold
* Easy to aim
* Fires powerful ammunition (I beg to differ on this but its mostly irrelevent anyway).

Rytis then makes the nice analogy with the Ferrari and the dumptruck. Which supports what we both say, the Farrari is a finely tuned precision machine that looks nice and is a pleasure to drive under optimal conditions. But as soon as it hits the dirt it stops. The dump truck may be un-impressive to eye, unpleasent to drive but it keeps going no matter the road conditions.

(Btw Rytis you're wrong on the 1911A1, very wrong. The very fact that the design is still going strong and has a very active following amongst the target shooting community (look up STIs sometime) is proof of this. Lugers on the other hand are now an antique from the past).
Actually theres nothing wrong with my reading and writing.
Whats the point of having a gun that can fire powerful ammunition,when its prone to go off at any time and when you dont want it to, and its unreiable in some conditions. Think before you wright.:confused:Cheers

Rytis
10-02-2008, 01:09 PM
Prone to go of easily vas lugers, that vere manufaktured not in DWM, but in other factories, that can not ahieve such a high tolerancy betveen parts. Original and well manufactured Luger's had safety that hold just fine, dont believe anything that you sea on "band of brothers". Hihgh cost vas main problem on luger, therefore thei vere withdrawn from service.
About british round- what a point to have slow and weak, but big round that can nock the soldier dovn, but can not penetrate tin cans in his backpack. British rounds vas so "good" that SAS used colts or Brovnings HP instead of webley's, and Enfield's

pdf27
10-02-2008, 01:42 PM
British rounds vas so "good" that SAS used colts or Brovnings HP instead of webley's, and Enfield's
Umm... I think you're confusing the WW2 SAS with the mystique the regiment later achieved. During WW2 they used whatever they could lay their hands on, rather than whatever they wanted. Indeed, their first mission (before they ever attacked the Germans) was to steal a tented camp belonging to another Allied unit (IIRC from New Zealand) because they couldn't get any stores out of the Quartermaster branch themselves.

bas
10-02-2008, 03:38 PM
I think he owned a Walther PPK (James Bond's original gun), I have no idea beyond that...

Actually James Bond's original gun was a Beretta, I think a m1935 in .32acp but I'm not certain. Theres a scene in one of the old movies where M orders Bond to hand it over in favour of the PPK.

bas
10-02-2008, 03:51 PM
Prone to go of easily vas lugers, that vere manufaktured not in DWM, but in other factories, that can not ahieve such a high tolerancy betveen parts. Original and well manufactured Luger's had safety that hold just fine, dont believe anything that you sea on "band of brothers".

Rytis, have you ever handled a Luger?

I have one that was made at the Mauser factory in 1942. When I first pulled it apart I was shocked at how the mechanism works. They have a spring loaded internal striker that secured by an external catch that you can literally thumb press to fire the gun. If any dirt gets in between that catch and the pistol frame then it is impossible to have a positive lock and reliablity is compromised. I would never, ever, holster a Luger with a round in the chamber, safety or no safety.

This has nothing to do with who manufactured the gun, it's a fundimental design flaw.

bas
10-02-2008, 03:57 PM
Actually theres nothing wrong with my reading and writing.
Whats the point of having a gun that can fire powerful ammunition,when its prone to go off at any time and when you dont want it to, and its unreiable in some conditions.

I think I've already answered this;


The main reason for its up-take by so many armies of the time was because there were so few other automatic designs available.


Think before you wright.:confused:Cheers

:D

bas
10-02-2008, 04:00 PM
I wonder if Adolf Hitler carried a luger?...I can't really say I have seen a picture of him holding a weapon.?Experts pls?

Herman, I believe that Hitler carried on his person a Walter PPK most of the time (at least from the photo record we have). However he was often the recipeint of presentation pistols of various models so I am certain he had a selection to choose from.

Rytis
10-02-2008, 04:12 PM
Rytis, have you ever handled a Luger?

I have one that was made at the Mauser factory in 1942. When I first pulled it apart I was shocked at how the mechanism works. They have a spring loaded internal striker that secured by an external catch that you can literally thumb press to fire the gun. If any dirt gets in between that catch and the pistol frame then it is impossible to have a positive lock and reliablity is compromised. I would never, ever, holster a Luger with a round in the chamber, safety or no safety.

This has nothing to do with who manufactured the gun, it's a fundimental design flaw.

I dont handle luger so i wil take your words for true, but if it was so unsafe, why thei dont try to improve it, thei even throw out the handle back safety, when thei go to 9 milimeter caliber

bas
10-02-2008, 05:08 PM
I dont handle luger so i wil take your words for true, but if it was so unsafe, why thei dont try to improve it, thei even throw out the handle back safety, when thei go to 9 milimeter caliber

Maybe the grip safety was equally ineffective? I haven't pulled one apart so couldn't tell you for certain. But a re-design would have been out of the question because its a major overhaul of the pistol.

Also pistols were more of a status symbol than a serious combat weapon, so maybe it wasn't that big of a concern to the Armies that used the Luger.

Nickdfresh
10-02-2008, 10:43 PM
Actually James Bond's original gun was a Beretta, I think a m1935 in .32acp but I'm not certain. Theres a scene in one of the old movies where M orders Bond to hand it over in favour of the PPK.


You are correct sir! I recall that as I read the book ("From Russia With Love?"), M sent in an armourer and he judged Bond's 7.65mm Beretta to be a gun fit for a "woman." He was then told to carry the 9mm short version of the Walther as the round was like a "brick through a plate glass window."

aly j
10-02-2008, 10:51 PM
I think I've already answered this;





:D

Im talking about two different post giving two different discriptions of the pistol.:D

GregP
10-02-2008, 11:25 PM
I own a Luger 9mm, a Berretta 9mm, a Glock 9mm, and a Colt 45 in addition to other guns.

All the automatics except the Luger have floating barrels. Theya re OK from 25 - 35 yards in, but are pretty much uselss from 35 yards out. The Luger has a barrel fixed to the frame and is quite accurate at longer distances.

It has issues, and is not easy to operate in some circumstances that come up only infequently.

But, it is balanced, fits comfortably in the hand, is natural to point, and is generally VERY confortable to use and operate.

The Colt 45 is heavier and hits a bit harder but is less accurate beyond 25 - 35 yards. It holds one bullet in the chanber and seven in the magazine. It is relaible and can be a VERY good unit.

The luger holds one in the chanber and 10 in the magazine.

For that matter, the Berratta holds one in the chamber and 15 in the magazine.

Let's face it; it YOU are in the military and if you are reduced to using a pistol, then you have expended your rifle ammunition and are in a last-ditch defense of your position just before being overrun. There is almost no other excuse to use a pistol in a military situation. Personally, I want more shots, not better stopping power.

That means I live about 30 seconds longer.

aly j
10-03-2008, 12:15 AM
I own a Luger 9mm, a Berretta 9mm, a Glock 9mm, and a Colt 45 in addition to other guns.

All the automatics except the Luger have floating barrels. Theya re OK from 25 - 35 yards in, but are pretty much uselss from 35 yards out. The Luger has a barrel fixed to the frame and is quite accurate at longer distances.

It has issues, and is not easy to operate in some circumstances that come up only infequently.

But, it is balanced, fits comfortably in the hand, is natural to point, and is generally VERY confortable to use and operate.

The Colt 45 is heavier and hits a bit harder but is less accurate beyond 25 - 35 yards. It holds one bullet in the chanber and seven in the magazine. It is relaible and can be a VERY good unit.

The luger holds one in the chanber and 10 in the magazine.

For that matter, the Berratta holds one in the chamber and 15 in the magazine.

Let's face it; it YOU are in the military and if you are reduced to using a pistol, then you have expended your rifle ammunition and are in a last-ditch defense of your position just before being overrun. There is almost no other excuse to use a pistol in a military situation. Personally, I want more shots, not better stopping power.

That means I live about 30 seconds longer.
So the lugar is great but also bad at the same time?

bas
10-03-2008, 12:35 AM
So the lugar is great but also bad at the same time?

I wouldn't take GregP's post too seriously. Lugers are not significantly more accurate than most other service pistols. Sure they may point a bit better, feel a bit more comfortable but their sights are terrible.

Most non regular shooters still couldn't hit shit with one at 25m (applies to most pistols).

(oh and the magazine capacity is 8+1 not 10+1)

As for your question let me re-phrase it this way, hopefully you'll get it then:
Lugers are a neat gun to shoot on the range when no-one is shooting back at you, built in a time when quality ment something. However because of some serious design flaws, the Luger is a less that ideal gun when used on the battlefield. Because it is near impossible to keep mud out of everything you run the very real risk of the gun not operating when you might actually need it.

aly j
10-03-2008, 01:49 AM
I wouldn't take GregP's post too seriously. Lugers are not significantly more accurate than most other service pistols. Sure they may point a bit better, feel a bit more comfortable but their sights are terrible.

Most non regular shooters still couldn't hit shit with one at 25m (applies to most pistols).

(oh and the magazine capacity is 8+1 not 10+1)

As for your question let me re-phrase it this way, hopefully you'll get it then:
Lugers are a neat gun to shoot on the range when no-one is shooting back at you, built in a time when quality ment something. However because of some serious design flaws, the Luger is a less that ideal gun when used on the battlefield. Because it is near impossible to keep mud out of everything you run the very real risk of the gun not operating when you might actually need it.
I get it-Its a great gun with bad points.:D

bas
10-03-2008, 02:27 AM
I get it-Its a great gun with bad points.:D

Except the bad points are very bad for a pistol thats ment for combat.

Nickdfresh
10-03-2008, 09:22 AM
I get it-Its a great gun with bad points.:D


Here's an easy summarization for you:

It's a nice gun to shoot at a range, but will get officers killed in combat as it more easy jams than nearly any other service pistol in history...

Splinter54
10-03-2008, 12:18 PM
I did have luger but got second opinion of some one else and told me to spell it leuger.I cant win.:roll:

Hi aly_j.

We spell it like the weapon is written.

English speaking persons would spell it like 'Looger', the german letter 'u' in Luger like the 'oo's in 'to loose', just spelled a bit shorter ;)

aly j
10-03-2008, 08:04 PM
Hi aly_j.

We spell it like the weapon is written.

English speaking persons would spell it like 'Looger', the german letter 'u' in Luger like the 'oo's in 'to loose', just spelled a bit shorter ;)

Thanks for the spelling lesson on the looger;)

GregP
10-03-2008, 08:21 PM
From your replies, I take it you aren't Luger owners or Luger shooters. That's OK. Not sure about your accuracy, but mine is fine; better than most ... I don't have any trouble with the sights. Maybe the one you shot had issues with the sights; mine doesn't.

Personally, I've been in two military services (Army and Air Force) and have shot a lot of weapons including WWII German, Japanese, and Allied machine guns as well as modern weapons. While not exactly a gun fanatic, I do enjoy occasional shooting.

As for the Luger, I don't particularly like the operation of the safety (though it works reliably), but the function, accuracy, and quality are superior to most more modern handguns. I'm not too fond of the old German holsters with the solid leather flap either but, then again, it isn't a Western "fast draw" weapon. At least the flap keeps out the mud mostly. The P-08 is an officers pistol intended for use as such. It works well in that role, as does the P-38, which I prefer to the P-08 Luger.

Most people who shoot a Luger either like it or don't. There are very few people with a middle opinion. My opinion of it is good, as is the experience I have had with it. My groups are tight and accurate with no "fliers."

If yours aren't, it may be the particular weapon or your technique. Only YOU know if you are shooting with proper technique and if you are experienced shooters. Maybe you should try out another Luger to see if the one you complain about above (sights) was simply atypical of the type.

As for combat handguns, they are pretty much useless in combat. The Colt 45 ACP and Berretta 92F are pretty good as handguns, as are the Glock and the Sigs and others, but military situations are not usually able to be solved with handguns. They usually call for aircraft, missiles, smart weapons, tanks, artillery, or soldiers armed with a variety of long distance rifles and automatic weapons for closer in work. As I stated above, if you are in a military situation and need a handgun, you are in serious trouble.

gunner-B
10-03-2008, 09:18 PM
I would have thought that the Browning P35 "Hi-Power" 'trumped' just about every other semi-automatic pistol of WW2, the Germans & allies 'especially the para units, couldn't get enough of them. The Luger was just a souvenir must have item.

GregP
10-04-2008, 03:05 AM
Browning is a great gun! Love it.

Makes it one of at least 50 guns I love! I should have mentioned it, but the reply for ALL the great guns would have been VERY long. If I missed your favorite, sorry ... I probably like it and have shot it. Very few BAD guns ever made producion, but I suppose there WERE a few. Some Russian rifles come to mind immediately, but even THEY can be rescued with some reasonable gunsmithing skills. A file can make a very BAD trigger into a good one easily.

Consider the AK-47.

Nothing impressive except it shoots even with sand poured into the breach. All in all, a pretty damned GOOD rifle for combat unless you want finely finshed wood and superb fit above utility. If you DO, I submit that you may not be a viable military force and should not attack anyone without some reinforcements since most idiots with effective AK-47's may beat you in a war, simply due to reliable armament.

Rytis
10-04-2008, 03:30 AM
I would have thought that the Browning P35 "Hi-Power" 'trumped' just about every other semi-automatic pistol of WW2, the Germans & allies 'especially the para units, couldn't get enough of them. The Luger was just a souvenir must have item.

Lugers was in short suply over the WW2, not like in WW1 just one company made them. Germans thinked that thei are obsolete, and mede them just because the shortage of guns. Oficers prefered Walthers, Sauers and other pistols, Lugers were isued for the MG gunners, radio operators ETC. Luger was sovenir because it was quaite rare at the time

ww11freak34
10-06-2008, 09:21 PM
the m1911 colt .45 acp was better it was reliable wasnt prone to jaming. and the claiber was better

bas
10-06-2008, 10:40 PM
and the claiber was better

Of course this is the very reason that the US armed forces (plus nearly every army in the West) now uses 9mm over .45acp.

..... oh wait.

Nickdfresh
10-06-2008, 10:53 PM
Of course this is the very reason that the US armed forces (plus nearly every army in the West) now uses 9mm over .45acp.

..... oh wait.

The US Army adopted the caliber only because nearly every other army in the West (NATO) uses it...

And its M1911s were getting old. But some special operations units have returned to the .45ACP, ironically using a German H&K...

bas
10-07-2008, 12:01 AM
The US Army adopted the caliber only because nearly every other army in the West (NATO) uses it...


Of course nearly every army in the West adopted 9mm after WWII because .45acp is so superior......

Keep in mind that the US had enough clout with NATO small arms standisation to force through 7.62nato against the better judgement of many countries and then get them to adopt 5.56x45 in a stunning reversal of the earlier decision. So its a bit unusual for the US to adopt the stance of "everyone else is using it so we might as well" unless it actually, really makes sense.

GregP
10-07-2008, 12:41 AM
Let's be factual here.

The 45 caliber ACP has more muzzle energy than the 9 mm Parabellum round. It is also heavier and slower.

The main reason the 9 mm Parabellum was adopted is simple, the pistol can hold 15 rounds instead of 7, with 1 in the chamber.

So, the typical 9 mm Parabellum modern autoloader holds 16 rounds when ready to fire and the typical 45 holds 8.

16 is better than 8 in the minds of most people, partcularly when most lethal shootings in the world are committed with the ubiquitous .22 caliber long rifle round. If a 22 will kill someone, as it does frequently, then a 9 mm MUST be OK as a pistol round.

By and large, the people who think this way are right.

Rytis
10-07-2008, 04:14 AM
All world use 9mm because in this case thei had same round four smg and pistols. When USA get rid of thompsons, thei had to use two calibers instead of one, that mean that 45 had to go.
It is beter because the gun, that uses 9mm is lighter than the gun with 45 when thei had same ammo capacity.
9 mm is easier to get in the batlefield or in the combat situatin than 45, because it is comon rouond, legal almos everywhere

Clave
10-14-2008, 04:38 AM
The Luger is an icon.

http://www.clavework-graphics.co.uk/weapons/DWM_Luger_1912.png

http://www.clavework-graphics.co.uk/weapons/DWM_Luger_1917_Artillery.png

http://www.clavework-graphics.co.uk/weapons/DWM_Luger_1917_Navy.png

GregP
10-15-2008, 10:38 PM
Great pics! Thanks!

Nickdfresh
10-15-2008, 11:21 PM
Of course nearly every army in the West adopted 9mm after WWII because .45acp is so superior......

I didn't say that. As Ian Hogg once wrote, 9X19mm bullets have killed more people than the .45ACP has...

But some have found the round to lack stopping power, including the US FBI Agents that were sadly murdered by rampaging bastards in Florida:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout


Keep in mind that the US had enough clout with NATO small arms standisation to force through 7.62nato against the better judgement of many countries and then get them to adopt 5.56x45 in a stunning reversal of the earlier decision. So its a bit unusual for the US to adopt the stance of "everyone else is using it so we might as well" unless it actually, really makes sense.

Well, I'm unaware of the exact circumstance of the adoption of the 7.62X51mm NATO round. Why didn't the US 'force' the .30-06 on everyone then? But I AM aware of how contentious and bitter the conflict was within the US military when the "Whiz Kids" like McNamara decided that a small caliber weapon in the incarnation of Eugene Stoner's M-16 was needed to counter the Soviet AK-47. So, the the decisions were "monolithicly" from the US I'm guessing? As far as the inner conflicts within the US military it was so contentious that certain generals told Stoner that (parenthetically) "your going to get our boys killed!" and to the point that they attempted to rig tests by removing the sights from the M-16s during cold weather firing tests in Alaska!

The M-16 was really saved by (USAF) Gen. Curtis LeMay who wanted a weapon that was light to guard his precious nuclear armed babies. (He adopted the rifle after shooting it at watermelons during a 4th of July party/barbecue). And another, more important (to the adoption by ground forces) US Army general whose name escapes me, that had seen heavy combat in Korea and longed for more firepower for his infantrymen (as a junior officer) against the Red Chinese hordes...Yearning for sort of a cross between the range and stopping power of the M-1 Garand and the lightweight firepower offered by the fully automatic M-2 Carbine...

The Soviet 7.62X39mm "reduced" round was as probably as much the cause of the adoption of the M-16, and its overall success in Vietnam, and the US solely ramming it down the guts of other poor, little NATO countries.

And seeing as the Soviets themselves later adopted a "small caliber," (5.45mm) the US couldn't have been all wrong...

Which caliber rifle rounds did other NATO nations favor? I'm aware of only one. but I'm only asking, not trying to dispute your statement...

As far as the 9mm parabellum, I think I have also read (via Ian Hogg, if memory serves correct) that there seemed to be no rational, logical reason as to why the 9X19mm should have been as popular as it has become in modern pistols other than the fact that the Germans used it for the Luger, so it somehow became the "standard" pistol cartridge.

Nickdfresh
10-15-2008, 11:23 PM
Let's be factual here.

The 45 caliber ACP has more muzzle energy than the 9 mm Parabellum round. It is also heavier and slower.

The main reason the 9 mm Parabellum was adopted is simple, the pistol can hold 15 rounds instead of 7, with 1 in the chamber.

So, the typical 9 mm Parabellum modern autoloader holds 16 rounds when ready to fire and the typical 45 holds 8.

16 is better than 8 in the minds of most people, partcularly when most lethal shootings in the world are committed with the ubiquitous .22 caliber long rifle round. If a 22 will kill someone, as it does frequently, then a 9 mm MUST be OK as a pistol round.

By and large, the people who think this way are right.


Very true! I recall the M-9 (M-92 Beretta) was adopted as many US police departments were casting aside their .38 Special service revolvers for the greater firepower offered by 9mm pistols.

But many have since gone to the .40ACP caliber is a nice medium between the .45 and the 9mm...

herman2
10-16-2008, 03:18 PM
I think he owned a Walther PPK (James Bond's original gun), I have no idea beyond that...

Hey Nick, Your right!..and the gun is now in Canada...go figure!

The 7.65mm Walther pistol presented to Adolf Hitler on his 50th birthday by the Walther Waffenfabrik Weapon Factory is now owned by Andrew Wright of the Wright Historical Museum at Swift Current in Canada.

Dixie Devil
12-08-2008, 02:15 PM
Of course this is the very reason that the US armed forces (plus nearly every army in the West) now uses 9mm over .45acp.

..... oh wait.


The U.S. Military originally adopted the .45 ACP (or .45 Colt at the time) as a primary armament for officers, not a status symbol and last ditch weapon as the European armies did. With the introduction of the M-16 as a light weight primary firearm the role of the pistol in the U.S. Military shifted from an offensive primary armament (which was actually outdated by WW II) to a defensive last ditch weapon. As a defensive firearm a 9mm handgun is better suited because the soldier can carry more ammo for less weight. However, units that still use the pistol as an offensive weapon (i.e. Marine Force Recon, U.S. Special Forces, etc) almost exclusively use pistols chambered in .45 ACP. If one round from a .45 takes out your enemy but it takes three rounds from a 9mm the fact that the 9mm holds twice the ammo is negated.

bas
12-08-2008, 03:42 PM
The U.S. Military originally adopted the .45 ACP (or .45 Colt at the time) .

.45 ACP and .45 Colt are two different calibres. What is now commonly called .45 Long Colt actually started out as .45 Colt, .45 ACP has always been called that.


as a primary armament for officers, not a status symbol and last ditch weapon as the European armies did.

General Patton did not carry his famous two pistols for any reason other than image and status. The issuing of pistols to officers as a status symbol is universal to all armies. Senior officers don't fight at the front line so don't need a weapon at all. Junior officers at the front during WWII were armed with SMGs or m1 carbines.

During WWI the situation was different due the lack of choice, a junior officer either carried a standard rifle or his pistol, since he had other things to occupy him, the pistol was a logical choice. This was relevant for all armies.

In the German army the whole pistol/status thing went further with staff officers not even being issued their pistols, instead they were expected to purchase them. Popular choices were pocket pistols like the Walther PP and Mauser HSc. Standard issue pistols like the P.08 and P.38 were reserved for issue to junior officers and the rank and file. The German army actually issued more pistols to its soldiers than the American army.


However, units that still use the pistol as an offensive weapon (i.e. Marine Force Recon, U.S. Special Forces, etc) almost exclusively use pistols chambered in .45 ACP.

Personally I don't know how much of this statement is fact, urban myth or boys in specalist areas getting to play with different toys. And even then the pistol is still a back-up to their M4 or other rifle.

I can point out that the 9mm P.08 and C96 were favoured choices for German trench raiders during WWI. That is about the only historic semi-standard offensive application of a pistol I can think of, unless we go back to the times of horse back cavalry.

Of course there are other times where a pistol is a useful offensive weapon, like the tunnel rats in Vietnam but that is far from standard.

On special forces, I was under the impression that the SMG in 9mm was the preferred weapon. If they are so concerned with knock-down why not use .45 acp in a SMG? The US has several suitable choices available there, or even in 10mm.


If one round from a .45 takes out your enemy but it takes three rounds from a 9mm the fact that the 9mm holds twice the ammo is negated.

This is a myth. Stories of .45's knocking people of their feet are just that; stories. It's simple physics: for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. So if a calibre is powerful enough to knock the target down, the recoil will knock the shooter down.

Where the .45 has an advantage is that its slightly larger diameter increases the likelyhood of hitting a vital organ or the central nervious system to quickly take your target out. But the three to one ratio you mention is quite frankly rubbish.

Dixie Devil
12-08-2008, 05:22 PM
.45 ACP and .45 Colt are two different calibres. What is now commonly called .45 Long Colt actually started out as .45 Colt, .45 ACP has always been called that.

The round now known as the .45 ACP started out as the .45 Automatic Colt. You are correct that the rimmed .45 Long Colt is a different round. I should have included the full original title, my bad. Though technically we are both incorrect because they have started calling them .45 Auto instead of .45 ACP now.



General Patton did not carry his famous two pistols for any reason other than image and status. The issuing of pistols to officers as a status symbol is universal to all armies. Senior officers don't fight at the front line so don't need a weapon at all. Junior officers at the front during WWII were armed with SMGs or m1 carbines.
During WWI the situation was different due the lack of choice, a junior officer either carried a standard rifle or his pistol, since he had other things to occupy him, the pistol was a logical choice. This was relevant for all armies.
In the German army the whole pistol/status thing went further with staff officers not even being issued their pistols, instead they were expected to purchase them. Popular choices were pocket pistols like the Walther PP and Mauser HSc. Standard issue pistols like the P.08 and P.38 were reserved for issue to junior officers and the rank and file. The German army actually issued more pistols to its soldiers than the American army.

I did state that the concept of carrying a pistol as a primary weapon was outdated by the time of World War II however with the issuance of pistols the view was still observed. Originally the only weapon issued to men such as mortarmen and other troops that were at the front lines but not riflemen was a pistol. The inadequacies of the pistol was one of the reasons that weapons like the M1 Carbine were developed.


Personally I don't know how much of this statement is fact, urban myth or boys in specalist areas getting to play with different toys. And even then the pistol is still a back-up to their M4 or other rifle.

I can point out that the 9mm P.08 and C96 were favoured choices for German trench raiders during WWI. That is about the only historic semi-standard offensive application of a pistol I can think of, unless we go back to the times of horse back cavalry.

Of course there are other times where a pistol is a useful offensive weapon, like the tunnel rats in Vietnam but that is far from standard.

On special forces, I was under the impression that the SMG in 9mm was the preferred weapon. If they are so concerned with knock-down why not use .45 acp in a SMG? The US has several suitable choices available there, or even in 10mm.

Marine Force Recon have been issued the MEU pistol since 1985 which is just an updated 1911A1. H&K also supplies a number of .45 caliber pistols for Special Forces. True the M16 type rifles are still the primary firearm but the pistols are not issued as purely defensive weapons. As for a SMG, H&K developed the UMP 45 however the lack of knockdown of the 9mm compared to the .45 is not as big of an issue when dealing with fully automatic weapons.


This is a myth. Stories of .45's knocking people of their feet are just that; stories. It's simple physics: for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. So if a calibre is powerful enough to knock the target down, the recoil will knock the shooter down.

Where the .45 has an advantage is that its slightly larger diameter increases the likelyhood of hitting a vital organ or the central nervious system to quickly take your target out. But the three to one ratio you mention is quite frankly rubbish.

According to your logic a .50 BMG would be impossible to fire, that or it isn't capable of knocking down a person either. ;)

When the U.S. military submitted the requirements that resulted in the adoption of what eventually became the 1911 one of the requirements was for a lot of knockdown. Subsequently they tested the .45 ACP on cattle and the round reportedly had the energy to knock down a cow. Now I have never tested my .45 on cattle and would think that something vital would have to be hit to bring down an animal that large but there is no doubt that the .45 has much greater knock down than a 9mm. The three to on ratio was just an example-I have no studies to back it up-but the fact that one .45 round has a better chance of stopping an individual than a single 9mm round is certainly not rubbish.

Dixie Devil
12-08-2008, 05:36 PM
Oh I forgot to mention there were still field grade officers that only carried a 1911A1 up into the 1960s. They found out rather quickly that Viet Cong and NVA snipers would target anyone not carrying a rifle first because it showed that they were officers so it wasn’t long before even they began carrying M16s if nothing else to hide the fact that they were officers from the enemy.

pdf27
12-08-2008, 05:45 PM
M2 muzzle velocity is quoted as 2810 fps for a 720 grain bullet. In sensible units, that's a 47 g bullet travelling at 856 m/sec. That's a momentum of 40 kg m/sec. Assuming that the bullet penetrates a the body of an adult male at that speed but doesn't go out the far side (extraordinarily unlikely, but bear with me) then they will suddenly be moving backwards at about 0.5 m/sec (a bit over 1 ft/sec). That's equivalent to a hard shove, and won't knock anyone off their feet unless they're unbalanced at the time.
If the bullet comes out the far side at say half the original speed (much more likely) the magnitude of the shove is halved. In other words, even .50 BMG is pretty unlikely to bowl someone over. Blow them in two and scatter them over a wide area maybe, but not knock them over.

Dixie Devil
12-08-2008, 05:59 PM
Oh it will blow parts of them over:army:

However if a person was somehow able to have say a bullet proof vest that would stop a .50 BMG round the sheer impact of that heavy of a bullet would knock them over, probably a few times.

I guess I should have used a deer hunting story to better illustrate my point earlier though. Using a 20 ga shotgun i shot a 120lbs deer at about 30 feet and knocked it over on its back but being that i only weighed about 100lbs (10 years old) the recoil should have been enough to knock me clean out of the tree given the example put forth earlier. Granted that didn't happen.

bas
12-08-2008, 06:38 PM
According to your logic a .50 BMG would be impossible to fire, that or it isn't capable of knocking down a person either. ;)

It's not my logic its simple physics as pdf27 has pointed out. Your anicdotal stories are just that; stories. They have no relevance in debating well established laws of nature.

Also for the record why do you think rifles in those calibres have muzzle breaks? Its to re-direct that opposite energy away from the shooter. But even then it is to make it less painful to shoot rather than anything else (think of the early anti-tank rifles of WWI, they had no muzzle breaks or padding for the shooter).


The three to on ratio was just an example-I have no studies to back it up-but the fact that one .45 round has a better chance of stopping an individual than a single 9mm round is certainly not rubbish.

So it's just a figure you pulled out of your arse and presented as fact? But yes according to FBI studies (the same ones that said knock down is a myth) .45 has a better chance of stopping an individual than a 9mm, not because of knock down but because of that 2.5mm extra chance of hitting something vital.

pdf27
12-08-2008, 06:41 PM
I guess I should have used a deer hunting story to better illustrate my point earlier though. Using a 20 ga shotgun i shot a 120lbs deer at about 30 feet and knocked it over on its back but being that i only weighed about 100lbs (10 years old) the recoil should have been enough to knock me clean out of the tree given the example put forth earlier. Granted that didn't happen.
That deer wasn't knocked over by the force of the shot. It fell over as a reaction to the pain and blood loss from being shot.

bas
12-08-2008, 06:44 PM
For the record, I've seen footage of people take multiple hits from an AK47 at close range (execution footage in Bosnia :( ) and they didn't fly all over the place, they just stood there, shook a couple of times and collapsed.

People flying all over the place from bullet wounds is for Hollywood.

pdf27
12-08-2008, 06:47 PM
But yes according to FBI studies (the same ones that said knock down is a myth) .45 has a better chance of stopping an individual than a 9mm, not because of knock down but because of that 2.5mm extra chance of hitting something vital.
Almost - remember that the area of a circle is related to the diameter squared, giving you a 60% better chance of hitting something vital. In addition, the area of the wound channel will be directly proportional to diameter - so someone hit with a .45 will also bleed out 30% faster.

Panzerknacker
12-08-2008, 06:47 PM
A shotgun slug transfered a lot more energy to the target than a 7,62mm round.

http://www.grurifrasca.net/Sito/dpa/Images/brenneke1.jpg

bas
12-08-2008, 06:57 PM
Almost - remember that the area of a circle is related to the diameter squared, giving you a 60% better chance of hitting something vital. In addition, the area of the wound channel will be directly proportional to diameter - so someone hit with a .45 will also bleed out 30% faster.

True, was just thinking of a way to put it in simple terms. Made it too simple :)

bas
12-08-2008, 07:02 PM
A shotgun slug transfered a lot more energy to the target than a 7,62mm round.


I don't have the figures to hand Panzer but I think you'll be surprised. A shotgun is slow and heavy while a rifle round is very fast. There is a lot of energy in fast rounds.

Nickdfresh
12-08-2008, 09:36 PM
Oh I forgot to mention there were still field grade officers that only carried a 1911A1 up into the 1960s. They found out rather quickly that Viet Cong and NVA snipers would target anyone not carrying a rifle first because it showed that they were officers so it wasnít long before even they began carrying M16s if nothing else to hide the fact that they were officers from the enemy.

US officers were already carrying long arms to "blend-in" with their troops in WWII, they were probably doing so as early as the American Civil War...

Nickdfresh
12-08-2008, 09:43 PM
...
So it's just a figure you pulled out of your arse and presented as fact? But yes according to FBI studies (the same ones that said knock down is a myth) .45 has a better chance of stopping an individual than a 9mm, not because of knock down but because of that 2.5mm extra chance of hitting something vital.


Um, the FBI abandoned the 9mm long ago, after the 1986 Florida bank shootout in the link I provided. It was discovered during the autopsy that one of the gunmen had been shot numerous times with a 9mm parabellum and .38 special and they were able to keep going...

They stopped forcing agents to carry 9mm precisely because because it lacked "knockdown" power...

Also, could you explain why the British Army deemed the .455 Webley revolver to be too cruel to use against their fellow Europeans (even if they were Huns!), as the weapon was devised as a large caliber sidearm specifically to deal with "savages" in their colonial sphere...

Nickdfresh
12-08-2008, 09:46 PM
For the record, I've seen footage of people take multiple hits from an AK47 at close range (execution footage in Bosnia :( ) and they didn't fly all over the place, they just stood there, shook a couple of times and collapsed.

People flying all over the place from bullet wounds is for Hollywood.


Very true.

bas
12-08-2008, 09:58 PM
Um, the FBI abandoned the 9mm long ago, after the 1986 Florida bank shootout in the link I provided. It was discovered during the autopsy that one of the gunmen had been shot numerous times with a 9mm parabellum and .38 special and they were able to keep going...


Correct, it concluded that "knock down" does not happen in the real world and the only way to quickly incapacitate an opponent with a pistol was to hit a vital organ like the heart or brain, or the central nervious system.

The best way to improve your chances of such a hit was to use a bigger bore calibre, ergo they dropped 9mm.


Also, could you explain why the British Army deemed the .455 Webley revolver to be too cruel to use against their fellow Europeans (even if they were Huns!), as the weapon was devised as a large caliber sidearm specifically to deal with "savages" in their colonial sphere...

Hmm I gave up trying to understand the actions of the militaries a long time ago. That's like asking why the British Army entered WWI with the lowest number of Machineguns of any modern army. Or asking why the Russians valued their Maxims more then their men, refusing to commit them to battle properly for fear of loosing them and as a result loosing the battles.

Or why the British officer class was originally reserved to the upper class that purchased commissions.

<shrug> lots of fun ideas and misconceptions out there.

tankgeezer
12-08-2008, 10:56 PM
A shotgun slug transfered a lot more energy to the target than a 7,62mm round.

http://www.grurifrasca.net/Sito/dpa/Images/brenneke1.jpg
You are correct Sir!

bas
12-08-2008, 11:02 PM
You are correct Sir!

Another quality post. How do you know he's correct? He doesn't even state which 7.62 round he's using. Is it 7.62x25? How about 7.62x39 or x51 or 54r or .30-06? Could he be using .308 norma magnum? or maybe .300 winchester magnum....

tankgeezer
12-09-2008, 01:10 AM
Another quality post. How do you know he's correct? He doesn't even state which 7.62 round he's using. Is it 7.62x25? How about 7.62x39 or x51 or 54r or .30-06? Could he be using .308 norma magnum? or maybe .300 winchester magnum....
Gee bas,Entertaining as always. I think for such "quality" yours is the benchmark,, mine pales in comparison.:rolleyes:

pdf27
12-09-2008, 02:47 AM
7.62mm NATO - 9.5 g, 852 m/sec, 8.1 kg m/sec
3" Magnum rifled shotgun slug - 28g, 536 m/sec, 15 kg m/sec

Hence, the most powerful rifled shotgun slug I can find has about double the momentum at the muzzle of a 7.62mm NATO cartridge. Since as a cartridge this is 50% longer and weighs about three times as much, I am mildly peturbed that anyone would find this a massive surprise.

It should also be noted that a rifled shotgun slug is only travelling at 298 m/sec at 100 yards, giving it a momentum of 8.3 kg m/sec - the NATO round in comparison will barely have slowed down at this range. In other words, the improved momentum transfer of a rifled shotgun slug is only valid out to about 100m.

I've no idea why anyone cares though - it's completely irrelevant outside a coconut shy!

Man of Stoat
12-09-2008, 03:35 AM
PDF, they are confusing energy and momentum again. I guess it is just too difficult concept to grasp that energy is not directly transferred in a collision, but is transferred "via" momentum.

It was this kind of woolly thinking that got the British Army interested in the ridiculous 4.85 mm, since they decided that the only important thing was projectile energy at the target. on a related note, I have my suspicions that the terminal ballistics of the HK 4.6 mm PDW cartridge is going to be rather poor when they finally have to shoot someone with it. Of course, any hole is better than no hole at all (fnar fnar) through body armour, but is it going to match 9 mm when dealing with an unarmed target?

bas
12-09-2008, 06:35 AM
Since as a cartridge this is 50% longer and weighs about three times as much, I am mildly peturbed that anyone would find this a massive surprise.


My point was more that Panzer's post was totally lacking of any relevant data to do a comparison against. At no time did he mention the range of the target or the actual calibres he's shooting.

So it's impossible to verify the truth of his post without making some serious assumptions like you illustrated (i.e. that he's firing 7.62x51nato vs a 3" magnum slug).

Using your example and my .308win hunting ammo (Handloaded 180gr Noslers @ 2600fps*) at 100m they would be close to equal if not the .308win hitting harder.

*I may have the MV wrong, it could be 2500fps (but not less) it has been a while since I put them over a crynograph but they are hot and the 26" barrel helps too.

Dixie Devil
12-09-2008, 09:30 AM
It's not my logic its simple physics as pdf27 has pointed out. Your anicdotal stories are just that; stories. They have no relevance in debating well established laws of nature.

Also for the record why do you think rifles in those calibres have muzzle breaks? Its to re-direct that opposite energy away from the shooter. But even then it is to make it less painful to shoot rather than anything else (think of the early anti-tank rifles of WWI, they had no muzzle breaks or padding for the shooter).

The law of physics that states that for ever action there is an equal reaction is a true law, however, that just means that when a charge of powder in a round is ignighted there is equal force aplied inside the round. By enclosing the round inside a chamber and having the breech block behind the round the only direction the expanding gasses can be released is through the barrel behind the bullet so the energy while equal at the point of ignition in all directions is forced down the barrel. The recoil felt by the shooter is the fraction of the detonation that is forced backwards by the resistance of the bullet traveling down the barrel. That is why a round can have high foot pounds of energy but not knock the shooter down.

Dixie Devil
12-09-2008, 09:36 AM
US officers were already carrying long arms to "blend-in" with their troops in WWII, they were probably doing so as early as the American Civil War...

Yes there were many officers even in the American Civil War that were carrying long arms to blend in with the troops, I was just pointing out that there were also *some* field grade officers that viewed the 1911 as their primary firearm into the 1960s. Certainly an outdated view well before the '60s for anyone that had been in combat but it was still a view held by some.

Man of Stoat
12-09-2008, 11:01 AM
The law of physics that states that for ever action there is an equal reaction is a true law, however, that just means that when a charge of powder in a round is ignighted there is equal force aplied inside the round. By enclosing the round inside a chamber and having the breech block behind the round the only direction the expanding gasses can be released is through the barrel behind the bullet so the energy while equal at the point of ignition in all directions is forced down the barrel. The recoil felt by the shooter is the fraction of the detonation that is forced backwards by the resistance of the bullet traveling down the barrel. That is why a round can have high foot pounds of energy but not knock the shooter down.


Now you are confusing energy, momentum, force AND pressure.

I wonder if you can also get acceleration and mass into the mix with your next reply ;)

pdf27
12-09-2008, 11:15 AM
The law of physics that states that for ever action there is an equal reaction is a true law, however, that just means that when a charge of powder in a round is ignighted there is equal force aplied inside the round. By enclosing the round inside a chamber and having the breech block behind the round the only direction the expanding gasses can be released is through the barrel behind the bullet
Correct so far, even if it's a statement of the blindingly obvious.


so the energy while equal at the point of ignition in all directions is forced down the barrel.
Confuses energy, pressure and high pressure gas. High pressure gas is forced down the barrel, pressure (ignoring dynamic effects) is equal in all directions at all points, and energy is a property of the gas.


The recoil felt by the shooter is the fraction of the detonation that is forced backwards by the resistance of the bullet traveling down the barrel.
Total unremitting nonsense. The felt recoil is an application of the law of conservation of momentum in a system (i.e. the total mass multiplied by velocity of a system is the same before and after the rifle is fired). The burning of the charge has nothing to do with the recoil, except for some tiny effect of the momentum of the expanding gases (the reason a muzzle brake does actually do some good). The frictional resistance of the bullet travelling down the barrel is of no relevance whatsoever, since the bullet and barrel form a closed system and all it does is stretch the barrel slightly.


That is why a round can have high foot pounds of energy but not knock the shooter down.
As our small furry Dutch friend mentions, this demonstrates an inability to distinguish between momentum (which causes the felt recoil) and energy (of which foot-pounds is a rather awkward unit).

Dixie Devil
12-09-2008, 11:21 AM
:D Given the fact that they are all related when discussing the workings of a firearm i am not getting them confused, rather just pointing out how a bullet that has 350 ftēlbf doesn't have that same amount of recoil back on the shooter as was stated earlier...But this has gotten way off the original topic and I guess a large portion of that is my fault:neutral:

Dixie Devil
12-09-2008, 12:02 PM
Guess Iíll have to type faster if I want to keep up here. :( I wasnít trying to give a lesson in Physics, actually Dynamics; rather I was attempting to keep everything in laymanís terms to keep the reply shorter. And the short reply that would probably alleviated the need for the past wasted page would be that the .45 ACP or Auto moving a heavier bullet at a slower velocity has more stopping power than a 9mm round with a lighter bullet moving at a higher velocity. Perhaps the concept of referring to stopping power as knock down in the States rather muddled my original comment. I was never attempting to claim that a .45 would blow someone across a room or anything ridiculous like that, simply that a single .45 round has a better chance of putting an individual down than a single 9mm round.

RicemanCDN
12-14-2008, 04:47 PM
it was so populatr because it was only issued to higher ranking men because it was so expensive to produce.it is a very pretty pistol but when it comes to combat it would jam a lot! and u would be medalling with the chamber rather then shooting down range.all in all great pistol my favorite one ever !

Nickdfresh
04-16-2009, 11:58 PM
Eh, are you just posting 'cut-and-paste' stuff you find on the web from sites like Wikipedia?

That's kind of not acceptable here...

flamethrowerguy
04-17-2009, 12:48 AM
Besides,
http://ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7555&highlight=luger

Panzerknacker
04-17-2009, 06:30 PM
Walther P-38, replacement of the Luger.

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/1654/waltherp38jd5.jpg

The Walther P38 pistol was developed as a military pistol for the German army (Wehrmacht) during the late 1930s. It first appeared in 1938, and small numbers of the original HP (Heeres Pistole Ė army pistol) were bought by Sweden before the Wehrmacht adopted it as the Pistole 38 and took over all production guns. During the war, P38 pistols were made by a number of factories, including the Walther itself. After the war, most of the ex-Walther machinery ended up in France as war reparations, and many of the post-war P38 pistols were actually built in France, by the Manurhin factory.
P-38 first appeared as prototype as Heeres Pistole in 1936, it used a internal hammer changer to external under requeriment of the german army.

The gun is operated by a linear short recoil with a double sliding lock below the barrel. It have 8 rounds magazine, loaded chamber indicator and the decocker/safety introduced in the PP series.

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/2953/cortep38it2.jpg


Nearly 1,450.000 P-38s were manufactured by Walther in Zella Mehlis, Spreewerke near Berlin and some small factories in France up to 1945.

Production continued after the war and was adopted by the Bundeswehr in 1957.

Holster.

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/499/pistolerafb9.jpg


Guarding US prisoners in the Battle of the Bulge.

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/6766/mirandop38po8.jpg

Cuts
04-18-2009, 08:56 AM
Eh, are you just posting 'cut-and-paste' stuff you find on the web from sites like Wikipedia?

That's kind of not acceptable here...

Agree wholeheartedly.
It delivers no extra information that cannot be gleaned from a simple search, wastes bandwidth and shows only that the poster can use the cut-and-paste facility.

It's a shame the same criteria isn't applied to all members, but then certain post counts would fall dramatically.



http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg68-e.htm
http://news.webshots.com/photo/1342319619060623851QYSzeH
http://www.sstotenkopf.net/weaponsammo.htm
http://www.the-dirtiest.com/ballistics.htm


Edited for examples.

peopleselbow
04-19-2009, 05:08 PM
the luger was very popular with allied soldiers especially the commandos

Nickdfresh
04-19-2009, 05:47 PM
Agree wholeheartedly.
It delivers no extra information that cannot be gleaned from a simple search, wastes bandwidth and shows only that the poster can use the cut-and-paste facility.

It's a shame the same criteria isn't applied to all members, but then certain post counts would fall dramatically.



http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg68-e.htm
http://news.webshots.com/photo/1342319619060623851QYSzeH
http://www.sstotenkopf.net/weaponsammo.htm
http://www.the-dirtiest.com/ballistics.htm


Edited for examples.

I don't have a problem with snippets quoted from other sources. But complete articles should be used sparingly, and certainly links should be provided for proper accreditation...

In any case, there have been several "Luger" and handgun threads here that could have been found with a search...

Nickdfresh
04-19-2009, 05:48 PM
the luger was very popular with allied soldiers especially the commandos

What makes you think this? The Luger is the last sidearm I'd want if I were behind enemy lines on a special mission, unless it was in a city with no dirt around whatsoever...

Panzerknacker
04-19-2009, 09:47 PM
To cuts :I copy an small extract of the first site, yet all images are scans by me of a magazine in spanish I own, if the images are repated in other site I dont know and I dont care, you will not going to direct my post or forbiding me of using some website for fast information.

Do I need to say always the same ? Do you love to be insulted ?

Insult you has became boring so I will not going to do it this time.
Ah, other thing I will continue to post here about other models of pistols used by the wehrmacht so If you are too annoyed by my post get ready to be more annoyed.

Cuts
04-27-2009, 01:55 PM
To cuts :I copy an small extract of the first site, yet all images are scans by me of a magazine in spanish I own, if the images are repated in other site I dont know and I dont care, you will not going to direct my post or forbiding me of using some website for fast information.

Do I need to say always the same ? Do you love to be insulted ?

Insult you has became boring so I will not going to do it this time.
Ah, other thing I will continue to post here about other models of pistols used by the wehrmacht so If you are too annoyed by my post get ready to be more annoyed.


Calm down petal.
As it happens I was addressing Nick who always manages to answer very well for himself thanks. It's not all about you, laddie.

But to address your petulant little outburst, you've given more than adequate proof of your callow regard for the opinions of others, both in your bouts of puerile hysteria during your megalomanic sojourn as a moderator and in jejune statements after you were sent back down the level of the proles.

Unfortunately these paroxysms and piqued stamping of your foot at any real or imagined criticism are particularly indicative of some sort of deep-seated repression. Have you considered taking a bit more counselling to develop your maturity ?

pdf27
04-27-2009, 02:33 PM
Cuts,
Swallowed a thesaurus today?

Panzerknacker
04-27-2009, 06:05 PM
But to address your petulant little outburst, you've given more than adequate proof of your callow regard for the opinions of others, both in your bouts of puerile hysteria during your megalomanic sojourn as a moderator and in jejune statements after you were sent back down the level of the proles
Not quite sute what means "jejune", "sojourn" and "callow" tough.

Next time he should try to undermine me in a simpler language.

Cuts
04-28-2009, 08:11 AM
Cuts,
Swallowed a thesaurus today?

No pal, I'm trying to give them up. :D

Actually I don't think I've introduced any words that haven't been used in these fora previously. Jejune is probably not on every thread but then that would be repetitious - if sadly accurate. ;)

Rising Sun*
04-28-2009, 08:37 AM
Cuts,
Swallowed a thesaurus today?

It was rather literary, and rather good, wasn't it?

tankgeezer
04-28-2009, 08:42 AM
Cuts,
Medicus, vigoratus Vestri.

Rising Sun*
04-28-2009, 09:35 AM
Not quite sute what means "jejune", "sojourn" and "callow" tough.

'Jejune' and 'callow' both mean immature.

'Sojourn' means spending a temporary time in a place or position.

Cuts
04-28-2009, 07:13 PM
Cuts,
Medicus, vigoratus Vestri.

The quack will vigorously do WHAT to my vestibule ? :shock:


;)