Inaccuracies from Gun Author - Martin J. Dougherty

[jdgabbard]

So as I sometimes do, while drinking my morning coffee I pulled a book from the bookshelf to read. Today's book is one that I haven't flipped through in nearly 20 years: Small Arms: From the Civil War to the Present Day (c) 2005, ISBN 0-7607-6329-1, by Martin J. Dougherty.

Flipping through the pages, I decided to gander at the section of the book dedicated to handguns. While flipping from page to page, occassionally stopping to read an excerpt about a particular pistol, I land on a page with commentary on the Tokarev TT30 and the Makarov. Reading through the text of this section I was somewhat amazed by what I read:

...chambered for the standard 7.62x25mm round, it was based on the 1911 mechanism. The Russian military has never considered the pistol to be particularly useful, and as a rule they are not as effictive as their Western equivalents...The Tokarev was underpowered by handgun standards, but it could be relied upon to fire in snow, mud, or dusty and dry conditions.

Then where it concerns the Makarov:

...Built around a 9x18mm round, which is slightly less powerful than the standard 9x19mm Parabellum or 'Luger' round used elsewhere, the Makarov is more powerful than its predecessor and just as reliable...

Then under the pictures of the pistols themselves he does give some accurate but incomplete information on ballistics, i.e. just the velocity of the handgun rounds.

I'll be honest, this sort of rubbed me wrong. Be it fanboy syndrome, or just my typical distaste for "gun writers" who don't know what they're actually talking about. Thank goodness for the internet, which for all of it's downsides has at least allowed us to fact check writers. But I take issue with both points made by this author, granted this was his opinion as of 2005.

First, in my opinion, I doubt anyone truly considers the Tokarev round to be underpowered. An 85gr bullet traveling at 1380fps (author's suggested velocity) generates 359ft/lb of energy. If we compare this to the 9mm and 45acp loadings of the day, the 9mm would have been in the area of 355ft/lb of energy and the 45acp in the neighborhood of 470ft/lb of energy (230gr at 950fps). In reality, I have seen many chrono results of surplus ammo over 1450fps, bringing the energy up to nearly 400ft/lb of energy. Ok, if we're talking mass and diameter, maybe we're on the light side. But penetration and energy isn't an issue. From all accounts I have seen the Tokarev round was generally considered to be more than adequate, or even over powered for a handgun. And the real reason why the Soviets wanted a change in handgun was for modernization to a newer design, the realization that the handgun wasn't an accurate weapon in conscript hands, to reduce felt recoil, and lastly due to some safety concerns with the TT33 and negligent discharges.

Where it concerns the Makarov, I am a fan. But the idea that the 9x18mm at 230ft/lb of energy (95gr @ 1050fps) would have been more powerful than the Tokarev, or slightly less powerful than the 9x19 Luger, is bonkers to me. We're talking a third less energy than the 9x19, and up to nearly half the energy of the Tokarev. The reality is that most of the 9x18 ammo wasn't loaded to this velocity. A lot of testing I have seen shows that much of the surplus Russian ammo was loaded down to around 950-1000 fps. Resulting in between 190-210ft/lb of energy depending on the exact loading. Certainly most commercial loadings are in the 1050fps range. But this wasn't always the case. In fact, the data I have seen suggests many of the satellite countries only loaded to the 850-950fps range. See info here: https://www.makarov.com/AmmoData.html

Is it just me, or was this guy smoking the devil's lettuce when he was writing this book? I know this isn't exactly a new issue with gun authors. I am just amazed by some of the nonsense I read when I pick up these older books.

[Winger Ed.]

Is it just me, or was this guy smoking the devil's lettuce when he was writing this book? I know this isn't exactly a new issue with gun authors. I am just amazed by some of the nonsense I read when I pick up these older books.

Then, as now, I think a lot of these writers just repeat or expand on what was 'common knowledge' of the day
rather than doing any real research on their own.

[czgunner]

Then, as now, I think a lot of these writers just repeat or expand on what was 'common knowledge' of the day
rather than doing any real research on their own.

Yep. Garbage in, garbage out.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[Recycled bullet]

How many differences are there in 762x25 ammunition? I read somewhere that the ammunition ought to be segregated between the pistols and the PPSh and that the submachine gun carbine was designed with higher pressure ammunition that could possibly be dangerous out of a Tokarev.

[WRideout]

I have been reading Hatcher's Textbook of Pistols and Revolvers, which I got for Christmas. As knowledgeable as he was, there are some rather extraordinary statements based on his beliefs (and not much else). Overall a good read, just have to take into consideration that it was written in the 1930's.

Wayne

[jdgabbard]

Then, as now, I think a lot of these writers just repeat or expand on what was 'common knowledge' of the day
rather than doing any real research on their own.

Sounds about right. This does seem to happen quite a bit, stuff just being regurgitated over and over....

How many differences are there in 762x25 ammunition? I read somewhere that the ammunition ought to be segregated between the pistols and the PPSh and that the submachine gun carbine was designed with higher pressure ammunition that could possibly be dangerous out of a Tokarev.

Well, each country did have it's own loadings. But the whole different ammo for pistols and sub-guns have been disproven several times over. There were a few batches of bad ammo that got out into the wild, which as I understand it may be responsible for this rumor due to speculation. But as for loadings, they were all meant to be used in pistols or sub-guns alike.

I have been reading Hatcher's Textbook of Pistols and Revolvers, which I got for Christmas. As knowledgeable as he was, there are some rather extraordinary statements based on his beliefs (and not much else). Overall a good read, just have to take into consideration that it was written in the 1930's.

I mean, I could see this being the case with OLD authors. They didn't have the wealth of knowledge, technology, or ways of testing that we have today. But for any author in the past 20-30 years, to me it just seems lazy to not do your research.

Wayne

[Bigslug]

I'm about out of patience with books, documentaries, whatever, that attempt to cover the entire field of firearms development from the Crucifixion to the first Mars landing. While there's sometimes useful stuff in there, a lot of it may well be an effort to do a little haphazard research and dupe a publisher into a book deal. . .and a lot of the information is probably pulled from some other third-grade primer-level book that attempted to cover the entire field of firearm development from the Crucifixion to the first Mars landing.

I will grant several problems:

1. Language barrier. Pre-Internet, if there were no translations of original source material, your option for writing the above cheesy compilation book was first try to find original source material and then hire and pay a translator an impractical sum for what would probably amount to a two-paragraph entry. . . OR you could wing it and hope your editor wasn't subject-saavy enough to catch your ignorance and Bidenistic plagiarisms.

2. Nationalistic bias. An American writer of an American-market book may have served in the American military or grew up at the feet of one who did, was more intimately familiar with American equipment and doctrine, and so on. Wherever they came from, a lot of authors may have drunk the patriotic Kool Aid and were blind to the fact that everybody was using competitive equipment and ammo that practically differed only in having a "we made it here at home" stamp on it. Good luck finding a kind word written about the Japanese service rifles in American publications anywhere in the four decades following WWII, when in reality, they were some of the solid small arms ever made.

(And once you study doctrine and accept that the typical target of the TT-33 Tokarev was probably on their knees in front of a hole with their hands tied behind their back, you suddenly realize that its otherwise horrible, downward-pointing grip angle makes a lot of sense in context )

3. Old "science". The concept of "stopping power" had a lot of its origins in how far a bullet would swing a steel plate or a suspended cadaver, and we didn't really have any proper scientific method process applied and published on what actually makes people stop fighting and fall down until comparatively recently. To address the OP, anybody heavily steeped in the lore of the Thompson-Lagarde tests would probably discount the 7.62x25mm, while those more versed in the post-1986-Miami research will tend to regard one sub-2000fps, .25" to .50" diameter projectile as being just about as good as the next.

At any rate, give me an author that's chosen a narrow field of study and pulled his information from period sources. Extra points if they go back and publish following editions with corrections.

[Winger Ed.]

I'm about out of patience with books, documentaries, whatever, that attempt to cover the entire field of firearms development from the Crucifixion to the first Mars landing.

Ohhh....
Then you'll never want to watch the 'experts' on youtube.

As laid back as I am, I feel the urge to shoot the computer screen when I see some of them.

You'll be subjected to stuff like a guy loading a .50BMG round into a 12ga. shotgun and firing it.
All the guns that have served so well for 100 years that are now 'worthless'.
A few 'Darwin' bowling ball mortars, it goes on and on.

[gc45]

Many who write about guns and sporting equipment never use them or intended to use them. I had such a friend whom many have read one time or another, his garage was full of new unused products sent from manufacturers who paid for his writings and product support. I would paw through the stuff asking for something I liked and his reponse was, let me know what you think and don't say where it came from. Other than Shooting Times and Handloader, I seldom bought magazines.

[rintinglen]

Bear in mind that Mr. Daugherty is a UK citizen and almost certainly has no "hands-on" access to firearms. He seems to be an arm-chair warrior sort whose sole source of information is what he reads.

[Walkingwolf]

Hey, at least he did not claim he killed a snake by missing the snake with a 357 sig...

[Walkingwolf]

Many who write about guns and sporting equipment never use them or intended to use them. I had such a friend whom many have read one time or another, his garage was full of new unused products sent from manufacturers who paid for his writings and product support. I would paw through the stuff asking for something I liked and his reponse was, let me know what you think and don't say where it came from. Other than Shooting Times and Handloader, I seldom bought magazines.

I bought a lot of magazines in the 70's, mostly to read articles from the greats. Skeeter had to be my favorite author.

[charlie b]

I used to subscribe to several mags, guns, cars, motorcycles. There were some notable writers in the old days. There were also a few blowhards. I loved Skeeter's writing.

I remember one car writer who was let go from the car mag and showed up in a motorcycle mag. He started in on how one bike was better than the rest. Contributed several ride reviews with opinions on handling and long distance riding. Couple months later he took a riding course and let everyone know how many really basic riding skills he was lacking. Turns out he'd never even owned a bike before he was hired. Needless to say I dropped that subscription.

As the internet took over I found less and less in the mags worthwhile. I haven't bought a gun, bike, or car mag in almost 20 years.

[Thumbcocker]

It does get tiresome when writers plug their favorites by slamming others. I think 950 is a bit optimistic for vintage .45 acp but I get your point. As to the Tokerov round, I have always suspected that the designers took the climate the Red Army would be fighting in into consideration. The person you are shooting at could well be wearing a heavy great coat or lots of layers. Penetration would be important. Also the .30 Mauser cartridge was popular with the Bolshevicks. Then there is the fact that Soviet industry was already making barrels of the same or very close bore for Nagant revolvers and Mosin rifles. Soviet weapons were often different but pretty much did what they were designed to do and met the requirements set for them.

[jdgabbard]

To address the OP, anybody heavily steeped in the lore of the Thompson-Lagarde tests would probably discount the 7.62x25mm, while those more versed in the post-1986-Miami research will tend to regard one sub-2000fps, .25" to .50" diameter projectile as being just about as good as the next.

I, like probably most of the people who have read the Thompson-Lagarde findings, found them to be very unscientific. Not to mention very inhumane... Moreover, I also see a big difference in the 30 Luger vs the 30 Tokarev. 1200fps in the Luger (probably closer to 1100fps in reality) with at 85gr bullet loses some punch compared to 1450-1500 fps. On order of about 25% of the energy. Sure, mass and diameter has an effect on tissue. But we've determined that a lot of the shock imparted on a target is a result of the energy imparted as well as the speed of the projectile (the former also being reliant on the latter).

I also find rounds tested to be rather anemic in comparison to the 45 Colt. Obviously the Colt wins out. The same results would have happened if compared with the 45acp. But you substitute the 45acp for Colt, and have the tests at a later time when we have better methods of measuring potential effectiveness, and know what other considerations need to be looked at, such as penetration, and I think most would find that there are several good options. Not just a .45cal handgun. But...the science of the times...