Interesting how many small and underpowered cartridges have been used over the years

[tazman]

Interesting how many small and underpowered cartridges have been used over the years. Anything from 22 caliber and 30 caliber through 32 and 38 short.
Many of these were the favored tools of assassins and in some cases, the military. Many more for self defense.
Certainly these cartridges are, for the most part, obsolete and have been replaced by more powerful rounds, but they were still capable of taking life.
You can't disrespect an old weak(by today's standards) cartridge because it can still kill.
Just as knives and spears, bows and arrows are still capable weapons in the right hands.

[Froogal]

Shooting my Ruger SR22 a few days ago. The target was a defunct pressure tank from the well. The first round made a mark on the tank. If I concentrated, eventually I could put a second round right on top of the first, which made a slightly deeper dent, and the third round made it all the way through. Under powered? Compared to a .38 special, maybe, but I still have no desire to ever be in the way of a .22.

[Winger Ed.]

[QUOTE=tazman;Many of these were the favored tools of assassins .[/QUOTE]

As easy as humans are to kill at short distances, it doesn't take much gun to do it.

Back in the 'Saturday Night Special' days, and folks were all concerned about ballistics on recovered projectiles-
it wasn't uncommon to see people murdered with a $25. RG-22 (short) used that had the barrel unscrewed.

Contacting the frame on the victims body made a decent suppressor, and no ballistics to trace.

[Texas by God]

A funny thing is that the same people who say a .25 ACP is useless for defense won"t volunteer to be shot by one to prove it.....

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[26Charlie]

My favorite story was a pawn broker(?) victimized by two thugs. He pulled out his .25 ACP and shot both in the heart at a range of about 6 inches. Both DRT.

[elmacgyver0]

I absolutely love small underpowered cartridges, almost as much as I like the big ones!

[tazman]

As easy as humans are to kill at short distances, it doesn't take much gun to do it.

Back in the 'Saturday Night Special' days, and folks were all concerned about ballistics on recovered projectiles-
it wasn't uncommon to see people murdered with a $25. RG-22 (short) used that had the barrel unscrewed.

Contacting the frame on the victims body made a decent suppressor, and no ballistics to trace.


I hadn't heard about that one. It would certainly work.



I absolutely love small underpowered cartridges, almost as much as I like the big ones!

I like them also. The biggest problem seems to be getting a quality firearm in those smaller calibers with the exception of the 22LR.

[Hickory]

Had a guy one time come to work with a big bandage over the bridge of his nose. I asked him what happened, he said he got mugged the night before and the mugger shot him between the eyes.
I thought he pulling my leg, but later in the shift someone said his nose began to bleed and when he blow his nose to clear it and a .22 bullet came out, which made the bleeding worse.

[Winger Ed.]

I hadn't heard about that one. It would certainly work.

My Mom was a ER Supervisor nurse. See told me one time they removed a .22 bullet
from someone that didn't have the usual rifling marks.
It caught her eye that there were powder burns from a gunshot, but no rifling marks on the slug.

A few years later, I was talking to a cop buddy and mentioned it to him.
He explained how it was done, and said they saw cases like that on occasion in the inner city.

[Mk42gunner]

I've said it before, but it bears repeating-- Many of these small caliber rounds were developed before antibiotics, and infection from even a small wound could kill a person.

Robert

[charlie b]

People use .22 rimfire to kill deer and people. Just put it in the right spot from the right range.

OTOH, I knew of some kids who decided to play russian roulette. The one that shot himself in the head with the .22 revolver was out of the hospital in a few days. The bullet skidded around the skull under the skin and came out on the other side of the head. He had a slight concussion and loss of blood but no other damage.

And no I would not want to be shot with one, but, I don't want to be shot by a BB gun (again) either :)

When carrying a pistol I'd rather know it has enough power to do what I need it to do and not have to fire at a very small spot from a very specific angle to ensure penetration to a vital organ.

[Don Purcell]

A funny thing is that the same people who say a .25 ACP is useless for defense won"t volunteer to be shot by one to prove it.....

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
I would also not like to have anyone shoot me with a slingshot either.

[jcren]

My wife is an RN. She was woorking a small town hospital when they had a guy come in that had been gut shot with a .22 pocket pistol during a drug deal. Thought he was tough and has his girl friend drive him around for an hour looking for the shooter before he went to the hospital. They medi-flighted him to the best hospital in the state and he died the next day. One round nosed slug from a 2" barreled, cheapo pistol.

[M-Tecs]

Hundreds of million head of cattle and pigs have been slaughtered with a 22 rimfire.

[stubshaft]

Both Garfield and McKinley were assassinated with .32 S&W shorts.

[edp2k]

Many people confuse killing with stopping an attack.
For example, dysentary can kill you, and kills may people around the world,
but infecting an attacker with it wont stop the attack.

A small caliber round can kill you, but odds are that death will occur 2 weeks later from
infection/complications.
Do you want to bet you life on that kind of defense?

[rintinglen]

What we are discussing are relatively slow, round-nosed projectiles that have minimal penetrative capabilities. My ex-wife’s Uncle John Smith shot a German Soldier with his Enfield 38 and the bullet barely penetrated the heavy overcoat and thick uniform clothing to inflict a minor wound that a Corpsman repaired by popping out the bullet from the wounded German’s chest, dusting the wound with sulfa and applying a bandage.
However, despite the insignificant injury, the gun and cartridge worked. Realizing he had been shot, unaware of the extent of his injuries and fearing the worst, he dropped his rifle clutched his chest and shouted “Kamerad.” The psychological effect of being shot destroyed his will to fight.
Uncle John had an abysmally low regard for handguns as a result.

[pworley1]

Shot placement is still more important than power and always will be.

[charlie b]

Yes, it is. Just with the smaller calibers there are fewer places where a shot will be immediately lethal.

[rfd]

Yes, it is. Just with the smaller calibers there are fewer places where a shot will be immediately lethal.

aye, and there's the rub. if defending with a .22lr, that means a head shot is the better target, and probably/maybe it will stop a threat.

in a civilian immediate life threatening situation, the crux of the matter is the defense weapon operator and their ability to quickly retrieve said weapon and make an accurate shot in or about 2 seconds. choose a firearm and cartridge carefully, and commit to regular practice with it. then there's the matter of how one can defensive firearm practice. unfortunately, i do believe that most ranges will not allow tactical weapon handling, use, and varied firing situations.

[wch]

The chamber pressure of the 22 LR cartridge is about 14,000 psi.
The chamber pressure of the 45 ACP cartridge is about 23,000 psi.
Never, ever, discount the destructive potential of the 22.

[frkelly74]

I took the CPL class recently and took my Ruger MKII for the shooting part of the class. I knew I could hit the paper with it and I knew it was reliable and it holds 10 rounds and I can get them all fired in about 2 to 3 seconds if I need to. To me that seems lethal enough. God forbid I ever need to test it.

[tazman]

aye, and there's the rub. if defending with a .22lr, that means a head shot is the better target, and probably/maybe it will stop a threat.

in a civilian immediate life threatening situation, the crux of the matter is the defense weapon operator and their ability to quickly retrieve said weapon and make an accurate shot in or about 2 seconds. choose a firearm and cartridge carefully, and commit to regular practice with it. then there's the matter of how one can defensive firearm practice. unfortunately, i do believe that most ranges will not allow tactical weapon handling, use, and varied firing situations.

The indoor ranges around here don't allow practicing drawing from a holster. There is a section of he outdoor range where I can do that.

If the requirements for defensive use are drawing and firing in 2 seconds, I guess me carrying a handgun for self defense is a waste of time.
I will need more time than that, so I have to be sneaky about it.

[Bigslug]

There has been a lot of marketing Kool Aid served to shooters over the decades that tries to declare everybody else's offerings as "small and underpowered".

Back in the Civil War, the Navy was using revolvers shooting .36 caliber round balls because they were only likely to be shooting people, whereas the Army went with .44 caliber round balls because they might frequently need to shoot horses.

But when you start looking at the numbers and gel tests, that .44 round ball, considered good to kill a horse back in the day, looks an awful lot like a modern 9mm duty round.

Sufficient penetration to facilitate critical nerve damage or blood loss - that's really all this is. Once you get past the 1980's fad in which everything had to have a "Big Expansion, Maximum Energy Transfer" hollow point, the .32 and .380 auto both go right back to being capable of doing just that - exactly like they were capable of doing back in 1910.

Lotta marketing hype, like I say, and in the context of old military rounds, nationalism and practical logistics. Once you start looking at it in the context of numbers needed to do the job, a lot of cartridges look pretty much the same, or are generating way more recoil than they need to.

[bmortell]

my main criticism of the new way of guns is all the people going large game hunting at 50yds distance in the woods/brush and they're like, ah yes, I need my 120gr designed for ultra low drag at 1000 yds launched at 3300fps that blows up on the first twig. that's my pet peev of overpowered actually being worse. a musket would actually be better provided you can hit the thing

[M-Tecs]

The current philosophy for self defense is to stop the bad behavior as soon as possible thus move to more potent calibers. Best non-defense example would be shooting deer with double lung shots using 62 steel core 5.56 in a 7 twist barrel. Most if not all will die but how many are recoverable?

[dverna]

We each have to decide what we wish to use. We each have different abilities, recoil sensitivity, situations, and we come in different sizes.

I can comfortably carry a Glock 22, my fiancé cannot. I have no problem racking the slide to clear a gun, my fiancé has problems.

I am in the more is better camp, as long as one can use the caliber proficiently. Even if a .22 will work, why not carry something larger if you can use it?

I loved the comment about not wanting to be hit with a BB. It does put things into perspective.

[elmacgyver0]

I hadn't heard about that one. It would certainly work.




I like them also. The biggest problem seems to be getting a quality firearm in those smaller calibers with the exception of the 22LR.

Right now you can get a used .32 acp Beretta Model 81 for about $200
You can get a lot of good deals right now on foreign police turn ins. Don't wait too long those deals won't last forever.

[Froogal]

While a .22 caliber is deadly enough, a .45 has much more potential of knocking down and stopping the bad guy.

[TNsailorman]

The problem these days about "bad guys" is that quite a few of them may be on drugs of one sort or another. I heard a police shooting instructor say at a pistol match one day that when drugs are involved, you had better be able to break down the bone structure of a perp because the drugs will isolate a lot of his pain and he could otherwise live just long enough to kill you, even after being hit hard and in the right spot. He preferred a 12 gauge shotgun with heavy buckshot loads in such instances and carried one with him even on "domestic" calls. I have never been in a kill or be killed situation in many a year and hope I never have to face that again, but I do keep a 12 gauge handy, but not in the "concealed carry" mode. The smallest pistol that I own is a .357 magnum S&W Model 13 with a 3" barrel. In my home it is my backup to a 12 gauge Remington 870 3" magnum and a 19"cyclinder barrel. james

[Thundarstick]

It's very difficult to get shooters to understand that failing a CNS hit, blood loss is the only thing that causes one to lose consciousness. Being shot can psychologically stop a fight as can breaking down skeletal support, but shock from blood loss shuts off the machine. A knife can kill you just as fast as a 357 if the rite things are cut.
Having worked in a hospital my whole life I've seen more deaths from the 22lr than everything else combined, the difference is rifle and shotgun wounds usually come DOA, while hand gun wounds die in route or at the hospital. Btw, most knife fatalities are DOA as well, and are stabbings, cuttings just piss off the ER doctor who spends hours stitching them back up!

I have no problem using a 22lr if needed, but my tactics would be very different. O, and I've personally seen the ole bullet skirt the skull trick, but it was a 38 sp. round nose.

[dverna]

Right now you can get a used .32 acp Beretta Model 81 for about $200
You can get a lot of good deals right now on foreign police turn ins. Don't wait too long those deals won't last forever.

It is not a deal if it is useless. My “little” pistol is a Kahr CW. $100 more and 9mm.

[FergusonTO35]

Interesting how many small and underpowered cartridges have been used over the years. Anything from 22 caliber and 30 caliber through 32 and 38 short.
Many of these were the favored tools of assassins and in some cases, the military. Many more for self defense.
Certainly these cartridges are, for the most part, obsolete and have been replaced by more powerful rounds, but they were still capable of taking life.
You can't disrespect an old weak(by today's standards) cartridge because it can still kill.
Just as knives and spears, bows and arrows are still capable weapons in the right hands.

If we consider those cartridges within their historical context, I think they were pretty good. For example, the.38 S&W offered respectable performance for a small top break. It was about the biggest cartridge you could get in a pocket gun for a long time.

[tazman]

I seem to remember that the 22lr from a snubbie used to be the favored assassin's gun from the old gangster era. Two bullets to the back of the head at touching distance. Very quiet and usually DRT.
I realize this is a special case but it worked for some.

Nowadays, it seems the preferred method is to drive past in a car and spray the neighborhood with bullets. Not a very precise method.

[Jtarm]

A funny thing is that the same people who say a .25 ACP is useless for defense won"t volunteer to be shot by one to prove it.....

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

The most prolific handgun killer in history favored the .25 ACP.

Of course, he had a slight advantage in that all of his “opponents” were restrained while he placed a contact shot to the base of their skull.

I hope he and his boss Stalin are burning the the hottest part of hell.

[Michael J. Spangler]

A friend and mentor of mine runs security at a hospital. He was called down to see all kinds of things and keep an eye on people that might be a danger to others or themselves. One guy had attempted suicide with I believe a 32 ACP presses into the roof of his mouth. He was sitting upright on a stretcher in pain but wide awake and alert. He had a little 32 ACP bullet lodged into his pallet.

I also knew an RO that was meeting a guy at his farm to sell a 22 short Beretta. He jokingly said it was very accurate and pointed it at a cow about 150 yards away. When he pulled the trigger he said a second or two later the cow dropped.
He ran over and as he got there the cow stumbled to its feet. He said that it was hit behind the ear in just the right spot and knocked it out. He though he was going to have to buy the farmer a new cow.

I guess it’s all about shot placement right?

[bmortell]

i have no idea why people say shot placement is king. its implying that your choosing between a small weak gun that's easy to get shot placement. or a larger more powerful gun that's harder to aim. but that's not how it works, being bigger is better for everything except for concealability

[M-Tecs]

i have no idea why people say shot placement is king. its implying that your choosing between a small weak gun that's easy to get shot placement. or a larger more powerful gun that's harder to aim. but that's not how it works, being bigger is better for everything except for concealability

Because shot placement is king regardless if it's self defense or hunting. Marginal calibers are still effective when properly placed, however, a 50 Cal. BMG with a marginal hit or a miss doesn't get it done. A friend of mine lost part of a finger to a friendly fire 50 BMG. It did stop the suicide bomber he was struggling with before the bomber could detonate but he was unaware that he lost part of his finger until later. He did state that the impact from a 50 BMG is impressive when you are holding onto the target.

Same for hunting. When I was a kid a buddies dad had medical issues. They mostly lived of deer they shot on their own land. They lived on a prime river bottom that had lots of deer. They used a 22LR as they feed in the garden or the feed lot. They never lost any. Much later I hunted on land with a guy that used a 300 Weatherby. He lost lots due to poor shot placement.

Also larger firearms are generally easier to aim and shoot accurately. Heavy recoil does induct flinching for some and it magnified poor position. My 10 ounce Airweight is much harder to shoot accurately than my 686. Same for my 4 pound carbon fiber barreled 17 Mach II compared to the same setup with a steel bull barrel at double the weight.

[bmortell]

Also larger firearms are generally easier to aim and shoot accurately. My 10 ounce Airweight is much harder to shoot accurately than my 686
your saying the same thing I am.

how people use the shot placement argument is like saying theres no point of bringing a mustang to a race instead of your minivan because it makes no difference if you wreck in a ditch. that don't mean a minivan is a good racecar


if you said you carry your 10oz snub nose, and defend its usefullness with shot placement argument, saying a hit with this is better than a miss with a 50 bmg, you said yourself your 686 is more accurate and its more powerfull. so it makes no sense to use shot placement as the argument of why your carrying it. saying I like it because its smaller but im sacrificing power and accuracy is whats actually happening

[Petander]

Here in Finland we have had our share of school shootings and other similar craziness.

It's been a 22LR pistol used by a kid in most cases,causing many deaths. As a result,our gun laws are now so difficult I won't even start here. But the 22LR is being considered the worst killer of them all by many authorities.

[dverna]

Here in Finland we have had our share of school shootings and other similar craziness.

It's been a 22LR pistol used by a kid in most cases,causing many deaths. As a result,our gun laws are now so difficult I won't even start here. But the 22LR is being considered the worst killer of them all by many authorities.

Maybe just more readily available....but I fear your socialist friends will soon be addressing that.

[tazman]

I am not advocating using a small or underpowered round for self defense. I am just noting how many times in the past, what we now consider underpowerd, was regularly used and considered plenty adequate.
Opinions on what is considered underpowered are a rather personal issue. The only standard tests were conducted by the FBI and the Army and even there, opinions vary.

On four occasions, I have seen deer killed DRT by 22lr. All were head/brain shots. This is not what I would recommend but it is possible.
One of these was done with a short hollow point at about 40 yards nearly 50 years ago.

[Petander]

Maybe just more readily available....but I fear your socialist friends will soon be addressing that.

My socialist friends?

It's not even full moon yet,this board is acting funny

[W.R.Buchanan]

Yeah I always love the discussions about the underpowered or the dreaded "Obsolete" caliber not being effective any more.

I have a Beeman R1 Air Rifle that will shoot a JSB .22 cal. 25.4 gr pellet at 600 ish fps. It will kill you with a shot thru your eye. I have actually knocked down Rimfire Silhouette Rams at 100 Meters with that gun and you could see the pellets in the air on the way to the target! Probably not enough beans left to do major damage to a person unless you got really lucky, but it would certainly knock down small game. But the gun is accurate enough to place a kill shot on a person at <50 yards, so it could be useful.

The idea that a gun or cartridge that had killed literally thousands of people since its inception, is suddenly no longer able to perform that function,,, is ludicrous!

I believe that the .22 Short was the first self contained cartridge and that is what we are talking about here. .25acp, .32acp, .380acp have proven effective when used under the right circumstances for over 100 years, now they are useless? They are still selling lots of .380 auto pistols so they must have some use?

I would bet money that if it was able to be proven,,, the .22 Short has killed over 1,000,000 people since its invention.

The idea that the .75 Caliber Brown Bess Musket, which was the main battle weapon of the British Empire from 1720 to 1830 (110 years!) is no longer an effective weapon cuz it has been out of service for 200 years, is just as ludicrous. Being hit anywhere by a 650 gr round ball at any speed above what you could generate with a Slingshot would have a life altering effect on anyone.

Look what we can do with our shotguns now. They are simply Smokeless Powder Repeating Muskets.

I find that it good policy to "RESPECT" all Firearms regardless of the size of the hole in the barrel. All of them can kill you.

my .02

Randy

[USSR]

tazman,

Just prior to and during WW2, many Colt Pocket Hammerless Model 1903 General Officer’s Pistols in .32 ACP were issued to our high ranking officers. These were never intended to be a serious defensive weapon, but rather served as an accoutrement indicating high rank. This mentality is also prevalent to this day in many police forces overseas, in which officers are not expected to actually use the handgun they are issued, and in fact can face serious charges is they do use their issue handgun. I can tell you from personal experience this is true in Eastern Europe.

Don

[megasupermagnum]

President Abraham Lincoln was shot in the back of the head with a .44 caliber muzzle loading pistol, the bullet passed completely through his brain and stopped in the front of his skull. He survived 8 hours after the shot. I think John Wilkes Booth could have done better with a large rock.

And I've seen deer shot through only the intestines with a shotgun slug, stone dead after just a couple hours. Shot placement is king, but you can definitely get lucky with poor placement with a strong round. You just shouldn't rely on it.

On another side, if you compared 100 handgun hunters, half shooting a 357 magnum, and half a 44 magnum. I would lay money more deer are wounded with a 44 magnum. A man's got to know his limitations.

[tazman]

USSR----Probably something similar going on with officer's dress swords in our own military.

Megasupermagnum---------per your last paragraph. That's why I don't own or shoot a 44 magnum(or larger). I found out what my limitations were and stay inside them.

[dverna]

My socialist friends?

It's not even full moon yet,this board is acting funny

It was a joke....

BTW, used to work for Partek. Spent some time in Finland. Good people.

[charlie b]

Don't forget James Bond. He was forced to give up his 7.62 (.32acp) Beretta for the 9mm (.380acp) Walther. :) And we know how many one shot kills he had :)

[Texas by God]

I thought Lincoln was killed with a .41 caliber Philadelphia Deringer and I thought 007 had to trade his .25 Beretta for the .380 PPK? This concludes my thoughts.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[USSR]

...I thought 007 had to trade his .25 Beretta for the .380 PPK?

Definitely a .25 Beretta, but I believe the PPK was a 7.65mm (.32 ACP).

Don

[ofitg]

Don't forget the Israeli Mossad with their .22 Berettas -

https://www.tactical-life.com/firearms/israeli-mossad-22-lrs/

[charlie b]

I will have to go back and watch but I am pretty sure the Walther was a 9mm.

PS Wiki to the rescue. You guys are right. .25 Beretta and 7.62 PPK.

Makes my point even more. You too can get longer range one shot kills with mouse guns :)

[Gray Fox]

Yes, but the gun Bond carried in the secret compartment in his Bentley was a .45 Colt SAA. GF

[Thumbcocker]

I have thought about this topic a lot and have a theory of my own. My theory is tha in the U.S. the benchmark for handgun power in the 19th century was the revolvers used in the civil war. The .36 Colt Navy was considered a viable self defense gun in that conflict. I believe that the .36 was essentially. 380 auto ballistics. With that as a baseline self defense rounds for at least a generation would have been measured by that standard. When Theodore Roosevelt was police commissioner of NYC he adopted a .32 revolver supposedly because it had similar power. Just my thoughts.

[Billythepoet]

I have thought about this topic a lot and have a theory of my own. My theory is tha in the U.S. the benchmark for handgun power in the 19th century was the revolvers used in the civil war. The .36 Colt Navy was considered a viable self defense gun in that conflict. I believe that the .36 was essentially. 380 auto ballistics. With that as a baseline self defense rounds for at least a generation would have been measured by that standard. When Theodore Roosevelt was police commissioner of NYC he adopted a .32 revolver supposedly because it had similar power. Just my thoughts.

Yep. Look at how successful the Paterson was in the early Texas-Indian War. I've read stories of buffalo being killed with them. Of course they were happy to step up to the Walker with it's heavier bullets and larger powder load, lol.

[drac0nic]

The big thing in my mind is the idea that infection and complications of infections are horrible things to die from and medical tech wasn't near as good. I wouldn't be surprised if people took that into account when they considered they may get shot by someone with a "small" gun.

In times of war obviously things were different. I wouldn't be surprised if efficacy was slightly different because of the unavailability of HP ammo. (not that it seems to matter at times due to rounds like 32 ACP HP not expanding consistently.) The fact they use ball with what amount to under penetrating rounds (38S&W, 32 Long, 32 ACP and a myriad of obsolete calibers like 8mm whatever in a pistol round. I wouldn't be surprised if a 32 or 380 that stays in vs a 9mm ball round that zips through isn't exactly a huge difference in wounding.

I also think it has to do with the dynamics of black powder vs smokeless powder rounds. I mean think about the Walker Colt. It was supposedly one of the most powerful handguns until the advent of the .357 magnum. (even that's considered under powered now by some at least for hunting.) It was an utter monster of a handgun size wise for the power. You're talking a round ball coming it at 141gr going at 1350fps top speed according to wiki which is 571 fps mv at best. You're also talking about a 4.5lb gun that was known for blowing up cylinders. The low end is 1000FPS

A Navy pistol is an 80grish ball at 840ish fps. ~120 ft-lbs or so. When you look at a .32 ACP mouse gun (even some of the larger guns) that were making 160 ft-lbs and could hold more rounds (say 7ish typically and as many as 10 in the case of a Savage 1907) I would think it considered pretty remarkable at the time you could have a tiny gun that would have more power and capacity than a Navy Pistol. That doesn't even begin to talk about 9mm which obviously has significantly more energy by its self. Nor does it include any thought into sectional density of the bullets. The 32 ACP makes more energy and applies it to a smaller frontal area which means it's probably going to penetrate way better than that Navy Pistol does.

We perceive the world through the lens of the materials and manufacturing techniques/quality of our time vs theirs. That makes a huge difference. We've made rounds that they would have thought impossible back in the day. I mean think about the 327 Federal, it's what 65K PSI? That's mind blowing in a handgun that size. That says nothing about the cost. Don't forget that things like gun frames etc. weren't poured from polymer they were machined. By hand typically. How much would a nice C96 or a 1911 made in their times cost today? Blowback would have likely saved a lot of complexity and therefore machining/cost but limited firepower.

[JoeJames]

Seems like Elmer Keith said the caliber that folks were most scared of in the old days in the West was the 41 rimfire derringer cartridge. Sure wasn't a man stopper, but it was never and through and through round, and they knew a feller would eventually die from it; might take a few days for infection to set in, but usually fatal.

[tazman]

Yep. Look at how successful the Paterson was in the early Texas-Indian War. I've read stories of buffalo being killed with them. Of course they were happy to step up to the Walker with it's heavier bullets and larger powder load, lol.

People are still happy to step up to larger and more powerful cartridges. Look at what is available now.
We have any number of perfectly adequate cartridges available now. What to use is always a matter of personal preference.

Those older cartridges certainly served the purpose in their time.

[charlie b]

I have thought about this topic a lot and have a theory of my own. My theory is tha in the U.S. the benchmark for handgun power in the 19th century was the revolvers used in the civil war. The .36 Colt Navy was considered a viable self defense gun in that conflict. I believe that the .36 was essentially. 380 auto ballistics. With that as a baseline self defense rounds for at least a generation would have been measured by that standard. When Theodore Roosevelt was police commissioner of NYC he adopted a .32 revolver supposedly because it had similar power. Just my thoughts.

I would disagree with the Civil War theory. Some may have considered the Navy to be a viable battlefield weapon but the Army did not issue it. The Army contracted first for Colt Pattersons (.36) and quickly changed to a string of .44's as soon as they became available. Dragoon, 1860 and Remington were some. So if your standard is Civil War usage the north used .44's. Yes, there were .36's used by some on both sides. Why? Don't know. Maybe it was what was available to the common person or to the South who tended to buy up anything they could get. Remember that a lot of militia's relied on locals to arm their companies. So, would they choose a caliber of pistol based on caliber, availability or cost? Or did the people who had a .36 in the closet take it with them rather than be only armed with a musket. Did they choose the .36 over a .44 or did they use it cause it was all they could get? And how did it perform compared to the .44's? Have not seen any convincing data one way or the other.

The Army then bought some Schofields in .45 Schofield. Then the SAA .45LC. If the .36 had performed well enough to be a 'standard' then why did they not contract for .36's or .38's for the SAA or Schofield? The Army did enter 1900 issued with the .38spl revolver. There was quite a bit of conflict over that decision and IIRC it came down to having a reliable double action revolver over the caliber. That ended when it performed poorly against the Moro's. Then back to .45's for a long time.

It would be interesting to see what people bought back in those days and why. All we have today is production statistics, which may indicate sales choices and may just be what the mfgs decided to produce regardless of sales. I also wonder how the sales differed in the larger cities and in the country. Cost would be a big factor for most. Unless they really needed a pistol most in the country would own a rifle and/or shotgun first.

[tazman]

During the time of the Civil War, weapon design was changing rapidly. I suspect many guns were made and discarded because a new design came out that was better than what was made even just short years or months before.
As was suggested, a lot may have depended on location. News of new developments and the manufacture and transportation of such would be problematic and take considerable time and resources. Even now, many people use what is available rather than wait for"the perfect weapon".
I many cases, all a particular weapon had to be was available and at least marginally adequate, with the emphasis on available. Like has been said many times on this site, the weapon you carry is far better than the perfect weapon sitting in the safe at home.
Wars tend to force development of weapons. This is often why civilians tend to buy weapons that the militaries have used. They must have been considered adequate since the army was using them. They also tend to be available.
That said, there is always a push for something new. Maybe the next super small weapon will be the deadliest thing ever created.

[M-Tecs]

Yes, there were .36's used by some on both sides. Why? Don't know. Maybe it was what was available to the common person or to the South who tended to buy up anything they could get. Remember that a lot of militia's relied on locals to arm their companies. So, would they choose a caliber of pistol based on caliber, availability or cost? Or did the people who had a .36 in the closet take it with them rather than be only armed with a musket. Did they choose the .36 over a .44 or did they use it cause it was all they could get?

Cost and availability. Lots of soldiers could not afford a revolver of any type. Calvary carried as many as they could afford. I have read accounts of some having as many as 8.

http://www.civilwar.com/history/weapons-44543/small-arms-94493.html

[USSR]

The Army then bought some Schofields in .45 Schofield. Then the SAA .45LC. If the .36 had performed well enough to be a 'standard' then why did they not contract for .36's or .38's for the SAA or Schofield? The Army did enter 1900 issued with the .38spl revolver. There was quite a bit of conflict over that decision and IIRC it came down to having a reliable double action revolver over the caliber. That ended when it performed poorly against the Moro's. Then back to .45's for a long time.

Some misperceptions here. "The Army then bought some Schofields in .45 Schofield. Then the SAA .45LC". Actually, the other way around. The 1873 SAA in .45 Colt came first, followed by the Smith & Wesson firing the shorter .45 Schofield round. And, "The Army did enter 1900 issued with the .38spl revolver". Uh, no, in 1892 the Army adopted the Colt New Army M1892 Revolver in .38 Long Colt. It was this revolver in .38 Long Colt cartridge that failed miserably against the Moro's in the Philippines.

Don

[charlie b]

Thanks for the corrections. My point remains the same. Did you find any other reason why the Army went with the .38 revolvers?

[JoeJames]

From my reading over the years, it looks a though even going back to the era of single shot muzzle loading pistols, the three main calibers were - 30/32, 36/38, and 44/45. IIRC the Colt Patterson was in @ 32 caliber (this is without double checking so I am prepared to be corrected also), the the Walker 44/45 caliber, and in 1851 the 36 caliber Navy Colt. Those categories continued of course. I think that just as at present (45acp vs. 9mm, or 10mmm vs. 40 caliber) the military was caught between the idea of a perfect man-stopper and a lower caliber round that new and perhaps smaller recruits could handle and be accurate with. I figure based on that the US Military went with the weak 38 Long Colt prior to the Spanish American War, and the resultant Philippine insurrection - and during which they ordered up a slew of 45's.

[USSR]

Did you find any other reason why the Army went with the .38 revolvers?

Must have been the great grandfathers of the army guys who replaced the .45 ACP with the 9mm.:smile:

Don

[dverna]

What was used in "the good old days" is interesting but immaterial. If what they had was so darn effective, why did they change?

If those guys in the late 1800's had our current choices, none of them would keep what they were using...well none of the smart ones.

We can use numbers and data to support almost any conclusion we want. Yes, the .22 (or whatever small caliber you choose) has killed thousands...if that works for you, go for it. No amount of data will change my opinion of its effectiveness. With the right bullet, bigger is always better if you can handle it.

There is a thread currently about killing deer with a cast bullet out of a handgun. Seems the poor fellow nearly lost the deer after making a decent shot. Lots of good stuff in that thread. Yes, a deer is a lot tougher, more tenacious, and has a greater will to live than most thugs we need to worry about. But when Bambi can run 25-100 yards after a good hit, it makes me wonder if my 9mm is enough gun.

[Gray Fox]

I remember reading in the American Rifleman's "Armed Citizen" column over 25 years ago where a bad guy was shot through the heart with a .357 mag and ran over a hundred yards before he fell down. What if he had been coming at the shooter with a gun in his hand? Of course back then the round was probably either a round nose or a SWC, not a current whiz bang HP.

As far as the historical use of the 1851 .36 and its period clones, one must consider the availability of the guns and ammo components, as well as what people earned then and how much income it took to buy the gun. At the start of the Civil War that pistol was only 10 years old and probably hard to find in many rural areas. How many people right now could find ammo for a .327 or even .44 special? GF

[Battis]

this is without double checking so I am prepared to be corrected
Alrighty then. I'll bite. The Colt PaTerson was in .36.

[tazman]

If you want to talk about deer running a long ways when shot well, listen to this. I shot a spike buck with a bow and arrow. Broadhead went through the heart and lungs leaving a three cornered hole an inch and one half wide(1.5") through everything and exited on the other side.
The deer bled out within 70 yards but didn't stop running until it was 100 yards away.
Animals and humans are capable of doing remarkable things under the right circumstances. No matter what you are using, if you don't stop the nervous system on the first shot, the animal or man may continue to function long enough to do you damage.
Even with those old, small, and underpowered weapons, lots of people were killed during various wars and other fighting.
Even our current round, the 5.56, wasn't designed as a killer. It was designed to wound and therefore take more men off the field of battle than if it had killed. The fact that it does kill isn't due to it's superiority over any other round or anything special about it.
People often die from the shock of a wound rather than the damage done by the projectile. Much depends on the individual.

[tazman]

Alrighty then. I'll bite. The Colt PaTerson was in .36.

This from Wikipedia,,,,,,
The Colt Paterson is a revolver. It was the first commercial repeating firearm employing a revolving cylinder with multiple chambers aligned with a single, stationary barrel. Its design was patented by Samuel Colt on February 25, 1836, in the United States, France, and England, and it derived its name from being produced in Paterson, New Jersey. Initially this 5-shot revolver was produced in .28 caliber, with a .36 caliber model following a year later. As originally designed and produced, no loading lever was included with the revolver; a user had to disassemble the revolver partially to re-load it. Starting in 1839, however, a reloading lever and a capping window were incorporated into the design, allowing reloading without requiring partial disassembly of the revolver. This loading lever and capping window design change was also incorporated after the fact into most Colt Paterson revolvers that had been produced from 1836 until 1839.[1] Unlike later revolvers, a folding trigger was incorporated into the Colt Paterson. The trigger became visible only upon cocking the hammer.

A subsequent patent renewal in 1849, and aggressive litigation against infringements, gave Colt a domestic monopoly on revolver development until the middle 1850s.

[rintinglen]

Alrighty then. I'll bite. The Colt PaTerson was in .36.
Actually, Colt Patersons came in 28, 31, and 36 calibers. The Autry Museum has several on display. They have a sort of un-finished, “Rube Goldberg” look to them, with the folding trigger.

[Battis]

Well, dang, I put it on the table and it got slapped. But, actually, I was correct in saying that it was .36. I never said exclusively .36. I just neglected to say that it also came in .28 and .31. Never .32.
Damn, I sound like a liberal.

[Thumbcocker]

Another theory I have is that from the mid to late 1860's to 1900 or so the United State's was unique in the world on it's doctrine regarding handguns. In the United State's, especially for mounted troops, the handgun was an OFFENSIVE weapon. That is a weapon to take the fight to the enemy. Elsewhere in the world handguns were badges of rank or a last ditch weapon for officers. If anyone has additional information on this I would be interested. So a handgun adopted by the U.S. military in this period would have been bigger than a DEFENSIVE handgun. The old joke about the Texas ranger carrying a Colt .45 because Colt didn't make a .46 comes to mind.

There were, according to wikipedia, 215,000 1851 Colt navy revolvers produced in the U.S. with more made in London. That would seem to indicate that they were pretty popular and well known. It also stands to reason that a cartridge handgun with similar power would be a known quantity. Elmer mentioned in Sixguns that a cap and ball .36 loaded with roundballs was considered on a par with a .38 special.

Note I am not a fan of .36 cap and ball pistols or colt cap and ball pistols. My personal opinion is that the Remington Beals, 1863 Remington or a .45 Adams would beat the socks off any cap and ball colt as a combat handgun. Had I been a grunt in the 1860's I would have grabbed onto a .44 Remington if humanly possible.

[charlie b]

I think you may be right in very limited times and venues. And cavalry went away about the same time automatic weapons came to be. During WWI and WWII you also saw a change in small unit officer arms. Many went to battle rifles, carbines or submachineguns rather than pistols when they were involved in front line fighting.

Why did the Army stick with the 1911 for so long when it was not a primary fighting weapon and it was so difficult for some to shoot? Probably cause when they really needed it, like the tunnel rats, they wanted as much gun as they could get. Kinda the same reason some in the US military are reverting back to the .45.

But, I still remember a conversation with an ex-SAS one day. When asked he said next to his bed he still had his Fairbairn Sykes knife. He did not want the bad guys to know where he was before he killed them. When asked about the 9mm he said he still liked the Browning High Power but admitted that he was trained to use multiple shots on an opponent.

[rintinglen]

The Remington’s had a reputation for crudding up, but were much cheaper than the Colts were. The 44 Colts were higher cost, but were reported to go longer between cleanings. It is interesting to note that while Colt made some 200,000 1860 44’s, during the same time frame they made 250,000 + 36 cal navy pistols, but 325,000 31 cal Baby Dragoon’s and 1849 pocket revolvers. Small, light, easy to carry fire arms had a following 150 years ago, just as they have today.

[Hickory]

No matter what your opinion is on low powered handguns are, even a 22 short will take some of the starch out of a person and dissuade them in some cases from further action.
If not, you'll either have to fight them or try to our run them.

[Thumbcocker]

Skeeter mentioned, in one of his articles, that in the old west strapping on a full sized holster gun was telling the world you were ready to face trouble head on. (bad paraphrase. if I could write like Skeeter I would have a different job) where as other folks shop keepers, business people , townsfolk, etc. preferred a smaller gun that was not displayed. Seems logical to me.

Remingtons did crud up a bit but then Colts often had cap fragments jam up the innards. By the end of the war Colt had dropped the price on the
army model. There were a lot of Remingtons made in a fairly sort time and then Colt had a fire at the factory which cost them production. I regard the solid topstrap with better sight as a big plus as well as not having to fiddle with that wedge but that's just my opinion.

[Green Frog]

My favorite story was a pawn broker(?) victimized by two thugs. He pulled out his .25 ACP and shot both in the heart at a range of about 6 inches. Both DRT.

OTOH a pair of brothers of the lumberjack variety living not too far from me were having an argument after consuming an excessive amount of adult beverage. One pulled out a 25 auto and shot the other.. who became so enraged at that insult he took the gun away from his brother and nearly beat him to death with it. Gotta love those good old boys! :bigsmyl2:

Froggie

PS If you can't shoot him with a 44, just shoot him twice with your 22! ;)

[tazman]

One of the things you get taught in certain martial arts classes is how long a certain wound takes to incapacitate or kill someone.
For instance, getting stabbed or shot in the heart doesn't necessarily kill you immediately. You may have a few seconds of function giving you enough time to do some damage if you have enough willpower. Granted that it won't be long but it doesn't take long to pull a trigger of your own.
People have been killed with black powder guns long before cartridge guns were invented and with spears, arrows, clubs, and rocks before that.
You don't necessarily need the newest whizzbang gun to get the job done. I will grant that it makes the job easier.

[W.R.Buchanan]

Thanks for the corrections. My point remains the same. Did you find any other reason why the Army went with the .38 revolvers?

The Army only ever downgrades it's ordinance for two reasons. Lack of a serious threat, and costs of the Guns and more properly the Ammo, and this always comes back to Politics and their perceived ideas on what is needed Right Now. The concept of "tomorrow" is totally foreign to them, that's why every time there has been a major conflict, our Military's Ordinance Stockpile has always been behind the curve.

We haven't had a serious threat to our Military since Vietnam. Then politics got involved and gave a contract to Beretta for a 9MM pistol to appease NATO. The .45 ACP was gone as was the most effective side arm in History which served for 75+ years. The Beretta was not better, it was cheaper, as was the ammo. Simple as that.

The unproven Sig 320 was priced at $207,,, the proven Glock 17/19 was priced at $270 and so Sig got the contract. They both were 9MM cuz it is the Cheapest Centerfire Pistol Ammo there is.

When the numbers come out on how many rounds were fired versus enemy kills we will finally see the difference between the 9MM .40 S&W and .45 ACP and very predictably the .45 will have the least rounds fired per kill, with the .40 second, and the 9MM having the most rounds fired per kill.

That alone makes this move more dangerous for our soldiers. And it's all about the "Benjamins!" And "Acceptable Losses" and as long as you can stay inside those "acceptable losses" for less $,,,, then that's what they'll do.... Everytime!

my .02

Randy

[tazman]

Bean counter decisions are always suspect when it comes to weapons.
It will be interesting to see the numbers you mention.

[charlie b]

Yep, I was in service (R&D) when they changed to the 9mm. It was simply a political decision.

I was really asking what the reason was for going with the .38 in double action revolvers just before 1900. I understood it to be that the Army wanted to move to a DA revolver, but, the .44 and .45 DA versions were not as reliable as the .38 so they went with the .38. Yes, that may have been a 'cover' reason and the real reason was cost or political influence by the mfgs. It would be interesting to know the real story.

[pettypace]

Seems like Elmer Keith said the caliber that folks were most scared of in the old days in the West was the 41 rimfire derringer cartridge. Sure wasn't a man stopper, but it was never and through and through round, and they knew a feller would eventually die from it; might take a few days for infection to set in, but usually fatal.

Last year a shooting buddy brought an original Remington .41 rimfire derringer to Snubbyfest for penetration testing. He only brought eight rounds of ammo and it took me three rounds just to find the face of the 5" x 5" block of Clear Ballistic gel from embarrassingly close range. But to everyone's eventual surprise, the slug ended up base-forward after penetrating 14.5" of C-B gel.

At the time of that test, I thought there was an inch-to-inch correspondence between the Clear Ballistic gel and validated 10% ordnance gelatin. I've since learned that ain't so. My best guess now is that instead of tumbling its way into the FBI "ideal" penetration distance, the .41 rimfire slug probably would have penetrated just short of the FBI minimum required distance -- say, 11.5" -- in real ballistic gelatin. Although that wouldn't pass muster with the FBI, certainly peritonitis wasn't the only thing to worry about from a .41 rimfire derringer.

For what it's worth, on that same day my two JHP "calibration" rounds -- a 90 grain Hornady Critical Defense Lite and a 110 grain Silvertip fired from a S&W snubby -- each expanded to about .50 caliber and only penetrated to about 10" and 8" in that same Clear Ballistic gel.

[35remington]

I have done considerable penetration testing with rounds such as the 38 S & W, 32 Long, 32 ACP, and some others that get the “low powered” description applied to them. With solid bullets of standard weight and standard power in their respective cartridges, the idea that these rounds under penetrate or are underpenetrative on a scale applicable to humans is quite false.

Most penetrate as well as, or better than, hollow point bullets in the calibers considered as the currently popular more suitable choices.

[woodbutcher]

:grin: This thread brings to mind what happened to a lady friend of my family.She was assalted in her front yard on returning home from work one night.She pulled her S&W .22 from her purse and the first two rounds went"South of the border".Bad guy grabbed his crotch and backed up bent over.Round # 3 went through the top of his skull.
End of attack.
Good luck.Have fun.Be safe.
Leo

[pettypace]

I have done considerable penetration testing with rounds such as the 38 S & W, 32 Long, 32 ACP, and some others that get the “low powered” description applied to them. With solid bullets of standard weight and standard power in their respective cartridges, the idea that these rounds under penetrate or are underpenetrative on a scale applicable to humans is quite false.

Most penetrate as well as, or better than, hollow point bullets in the calibers considered as the currently popular more suitable choices.

Yes, indeed!

The "standard load" for a .38 S&W was a 146 grain round nose bullet at about 730 ft/s. MacPherson pegs that combination at about 25 inches of penetration in 10% ordnance gelatin with 16 grams of wound mass. But trade the round nose bullets for wadcutters and you get about 19 inches of penetration and 24 grams of wound mass. That puts a 100 year old, top-break, S&W Safety Hammerless in some pretty lethal company -- more effective than a lot of the .38 Special +P JHPs shown on the Lucky Gunner site.

[tazman]

That is one of the reasons I do a lot of shooting with full power wadcutters in my 38 special. I like the idea of that flat nose.

[35remington]

While not drawing the scrutiny the subject does these days, the users of the “weak” rounds of the past had opportunity to discern if they were “underpenetrative” or not. They were quite aware that they penetrated very adequately.

With more information readily available now, it is remarkable that some opine their penetration is inadequate with standard ammunition. We ought to know better.

The 32 Long with 98 grain wadcutter at 720 odd fps gets it done as well.

[Earlwb]

I think the most odd underpowered round was when the French military decided to go with the .30L cartridge (7.65 Longue or 7.65x20) which was a identical copy version of the rather week .30 Pederson round developed for making bolt action 30-06 Springfields into semiautomatic rifles. For some odd reason the French really liked it. They made quite a few handguns and a bunch of submachine guns that used it.

[drac0nic]

I think the most odd underpowered round was when the French military decided to go with the .30L cartridge (7.65 Longue or 7.65x20) which was a identical copy version of the rather week .30 Pederson round developed for making bolt action 30-06 Springfields into semiautomatic rifles. For some odd reason the French really liked it. They made quite a few handguns and a bunch of submachine guns that used it.

It would have been slightly hotter than the 32 ACP they used en masse during WWI, so likely seen as an improvement. Something like a 20-25% increase in energy. Definitely not a 9mm luger though.

I also wonder if resource availability and cost have been taken into account in this. I wonder how copper and lead prices would compare after inflation. The ability to put say 2 million rounds instead of 1.5 million or 1.8 million rounds on the front line could have been a motivation we're not accounting for as well. Cartridge weight of a 32 ACP is slightly over half that of a 9mm Luger round. That's a lot of extra ammo!

[Earlwb]

It would have been slightly hotter than the 32 ACP they used en masse during WWI, so likely seen as an improvement. Something like a 20-25% increase in energy. Definitely not a 9mm luger though.

I also wonder if resource availability and cost have been taken into account in this. I wonder how copper and lead prices would compare after inflation. The ability to put say 2 million rounds instead of 1.5 million or 1.8 million rounds on the front line could have been a motivation we're not accounting for as well. Cartridge weight of a 32 ACP is slightly over half that of a 9mm Luger round. That's a lot of extra ammo!

That is a interesting thought about it. That might have been their logical reasoning at the time.

[nikonuser]

The Remington’s had a reputation for crudding up, but were much cheaper than the Colts were. The 44 Colts were higher cost, but were reported to go longer between cleanings. It is interesting to note that while Colt made some 200,000 1860 44’s, during the same time frame they made 250,000 + 36 cal navy pistols, but 325,000 31 cal Baby Dragoon’s and 1849 pocket revolvers. Small, light, easy to carry fire arms had a following 150 years ago, just as they have today.

the remingtons weren't CHEAPER at all to make. The Remington company charged the government for the cost to make the gun and a profit margin. COLT on the other hand was charging the us government hand over fist for colt revolvers, and they cut many corners in production, especially not giving a rats *** if the chambers were ROUND..

have seen good articles on collecting colt percussion guns that talk about the oddly shaped, out of round chamber mouths on war production guns.

The ONLY reason COLT lowered the price they charge the federal government for a colt revolver during the war was because the federal government complained about it, and REMINGTON decided to make themselves look better by making a quality COLT 1860 navy and only charging the US Gov the standard pre war colt price. Colt suddenly lowered their price.

44 henry created the 44 henry rimfire. that was used in the first colt conversions, wasn't the greatest.. so then the center fire 44 henry flat came out. That was stretched out to creat the 44 colt, that was then stretched out for another 10 graisn of powder to create the 44 long colt. the army liked the result but demanded a bullet to be inside the case. they enlarged the case to create the 45 long colt.

45 long colt, yes its real Virginia, was reduced in length and given a larger rim diameter and lighter bullet to create a more recoil friendly cartridge. when the schofield was taken out of service, they kept the schofield case length, powder charge, and bullet weight but reduced the rim back to 45 long diameter and created the final service round. However the colt DA revolver was the last government made revolver to have the original cartridge in it.

[LawrenceA]

Has anyone mentioned 5.5mm Velodog or the anemic to beat them all "2mm Kolibri" in a semi auto no less.

[Earlwb]

the .22 Velodog was primarily used by the French and Belgian cyclists in the early 1900's to discourage dogs. The rounds used a FMJ bullet. I don't think they really intended to kill dogs as much as dissuade them from attacking them. Its power was about the same as a .22 Long Rimfire at the time. I think they loaded it with the cordite strands like the British were using. Thus it needed a longer cartridge case. Anyway it actually had a purpose and function at the time and it fit that niche quite well. The little revolvers had folding triggers, no trigger guard and were designed to work with a gloved hand too. it took me a long time to figure out about the gloves being used with them. The guns feel awkward and ungainly until you try them with a glove (vintage style cycling) on.

[nikonuser]

don't forget the 25acp velo dog guns. Nothing much, nothing great.

was once said a needle going fast enough will kill you, but a bus going 2mph does it better and faster

[Biggin]

I've returned to the big and slow camp. A YouTube channel I watch that runs police body camera footage ran an interesting video yesterday. Short version is the officer shot a perp with 13 or 14 rounds center mass. The guy was still walking and dangerous for at least 14 seconds after being shot. Not sure of the caliber used but I'm willing to bet it wasn't a 45.

[Goldstar225]

A .45 is not a bolt of lightning. Ask Tim Grahams. (And for the record I like .45)

https://www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/why-one-cop-carries-145-rounds-of-ammo-on-the-job-clGBbLYpnqqHxwMq/

[GSP7]

38/55 - - 255 gr (17 g) 1,321 ft/s 988 ft⋅lbf

Wow! that bullet is flyin' :Fire:

https://cdn2.bigcommerce.com/server2100/8521b/products/12627/images/20858/38_55_winchester_hsm_ammo_240gr_lead_dp__90578.143 8986145.1280.1280.jpg?c=2

[nikonuser]

remember, the 50-60 government, and 45-70 in the original loadings are considered in sufficient these days.

[tazman]

Hard to think of the 45-70 as being insufficient for anything on this continent, even with it's original loads.
This only happens when you compare it to modern magnum cartridges.
There was a time when a 50 caliber round ball over black powder was considered adequate for anything you were going to shoot.
Everything is subjective.

[nikonuser]

Hard to think of the 45-70 as being insufficient for anything on this continent, even with it's original loads.
This only happens when you compare it to modern magnum cartridges.
There was a time when a 50 caliber round ball over black powder was considered adequate for anything you were going to shoot.
Everything is subjective.

if the old 45-70 was still considered good as is, on the same animals as it was in 1880. Then they would not have 3 power levels in the reloading books for it.

[nikonuser]

most handguns were sold for dog defense, and most men who rode a horse had one in the case they were getting drug by a horse they could try to blow its brains out, and ive they were busted up to much their own. Same for wagon drivers

[roadie]

if the old 45-70 was still considered good as is, on the same animals as it was in 1880. Then they would not have 3 power levels in the reloading books for it.



Strange, I would have thought a .45 caliber hole in the 1880's was still a .45 caliber hole now........and most times there's 2 holes.

The 3 power levels apply to differing strengths of firearms, it's still a big hole, no matter how you look at it.

I don't think modern game animals are able to shrug off a hole that big, especially with a solid hit, any better than they did in 1880.

A bad hit with any cartridge is still a bad hit, no matter if it's an "insufficient" 45-70, or a highly overrated Magnum.

[tazman]

if the old 45-70 was still considered good as is, on the same animals as it was in 1880. Then they would not have 3 power levels in the reloading books for it.

Everyone tries to "improve" a cartridge. How many cartridges did Ackley "improve"? How many people blow guns up every year trying to get more performance out of them just because they can?
The 45-70 was adequate the way it was. Someone wanted a more powerful cartridge. I used to be that way. Now I just want accurate and pleasant to shoot.

[Traffer]

My Mom was a ER Supervisor nurse. See told me one time they removed a .22 bullet
from someone that didn't have the usual rifling marks.
It caught her eye that there were powder burns from a gunshot, but no rifling marks on the slug.

A few years later, I was talking to a cop buddy and mentioned it to him.
He explained how it was done, and said they saw cases like that on occasion in the inner city.

We used to make zip guns out of car antenna's. They were common in the cities. No rifling marks.

[woodbutcher]

:-D Something that worked even better than the antennas was a SBC pushrod.Saw many .22 rf chambers repaired using a piece of one to reline a bad chamber.
Good luck.Have fun.Be safe.
Leo