Id be willing to bet they did lodge in the jacket. But i bet in was on the back side, after it went through the front of the jacket, and through the other tanker.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Sgt York and Jeff Cooper
- Thread starter JJ45
- Start date
highpower3006
New member
I always find these sort of discussions to be interesting if somewhat rhetorical. I don't think that anyone with an ounce of common sense could say that the .45acp isn't an impressive round. It is most certainly capable of putting a lot of hurt on anyone unfortunate enough to be on the receiving end of one.
However, let's use some logic here. The thing that determines how effective a handgun round is the amount of energy that is imparted to the target. It is simple physics and there in no way to get around it. This is where a properly designed hollow point bullet is going to be superior to ball ammo. Mostly the expansion of a particular bullet is going to be related to it's velocity, in other words if it isn't moving fast enough to expand, it isn't likely to be any more effective than a non expanding bullet of the same caliber. The fact that a .45 caliber bullet is already the size of most smaller caliber hollow point bullets after expansion is a point in it's favor.
But, if it goes all the way through and exits the body, the primary terminal effect is going to depend on any vitals hit and blood loss. The same can be said of a expanded hollow point, but there is the added factor of hydroscopic shock that increases the lethality. In other words, you might nick a lung with a non expanding bullet and there will be eventual death due to blood loss, but if there is a great deal more tissue damage due to hydroscopic shock, in my mind the greater damage is going to result in faster incapacitation.
There is a reason why hunting bullets are designed to expand inside game and cause faster death of the animal. No body in their right mind would opt to use ball ammo for hunting game over bullets designed to give quick and humane kills. In my mind that is the same logic that should be applied to the ammo used in your defensive handgun.
I realize that everyone has their own opinion of what is best for them, but due to concerns about over penetration and actual ability to stop an attack, I will always choose to use a proven design of hollow point ammo.
However, let's use some logic here. The thing that determines how effective a handgun round is the amount of energy that is imparted to the target. It is simple physics and there in no way to get around it. This is where a properly designed hollow point bullet is going to be superior to ball ammo. Mostly the expansion of a particular bullet is going to be related to it's velocity, in other words if it isn't moving fast enough to expand, it isn't likely to be any more effective than a non expanding bullet of the same caliber. The fact that a .45 caliber bullet is already the size of most smaller caliber hollow point bullets after expansion is a point in it's favor.
But, if it goes all the way through and exits the body, the primary terminal effect is going to depend on any vitals hit and blood loss. The same can be said of a expanded hollow point, but there is the added factor of hydroscopic shock that increases the lethality. In other words, you might nick a lung with a non expanding bullet and there will be eventual death due to blood loss, but if there is a great deal more tissue damage due to hydroscopic shock, in my mind the greater damage is going to result in faster incapacitation.
There is a reason why hunting bullets are designed to expand inside game and cause faster death of the animal. No body in their right mind would opt to use ball ammo for hunting game over bullets designed to give quick and humane kills. In my mind that is the same logic that should be applied to the ammo used in your defensive handgun.
I realize that everyone has their own opinion of what is best for them, but due to concerns about over penetration and actual ability to stop an attack, I will always choose to use a proven design of hollow point ammo.
I always find these sort of discussions to be interesting if somewhat rhetorical. I don't think that anyone with an ounce of common sense could say that the .45acp isn't an impressive round. It is most certainly capable of putting a lot of hurt on anyone unfortunate enough to be on the receiving end of one.
However, let's use some logic here. The thing that determines how effective a handgun round is the amount of energy that is imparted to the target. It is simple physics and there in no way to get around it. This is where a properly designed hollow point bullet is going to be superior to ball ammo. Mostly the expansion of a particular bullet is going to be related to it's velocity, in other words if it isn't moving fast enough to expand, it isn't likely to be any more effective than a non expanding bullet of the same caliber. The fact that a .45 caliber bullet is already the size of most smaller caliber hollow point bullets after expansion is a point in it's favor.
But, if it goes all the way through and exits the body, the primary terminal effect is going to depend on any vitals hit and blood loss. The same can be said of a expanded hollow point, but there is the added factor of hydroscopic shock that increases the lethality. In other words, you might nick a lung with a non expanding bullet and there will be eventual death due to blood loss, but if there is a great deal more tissue damage due to hydroscopic shock, in my mind the greater damage is going to result in faster incapacitation.
There is a reason why hunting bullets are designed to expand inside game and cause faster death of the animal. No body in their right mind would opt to use ball ammo for hunting game over bullets designed to give quick and humane kills. In my mind that is the same logic that should be applied to the ammo used in your defensive handgun.
I realize that everyone has their own opinion of what is best for them, but due to concerns about over penetration and actual ability to stop an attack, I will always choose to use a proven design of hollow point ammo.
“Hydroscopic” relates to observing objects under water. What exactly is hydroscopic shock?
I’m not trying to be pedantic. Over the years I have seen people apply scientific terms to firearms related discussions, seemingly to add authority to an argument, and when you look up the term it doesn’t seem to fit the discussion at all. I’ve been guilty of parroting these terms myself.
https://lambdageeks.com/hygroscopic-vs-hydroscopic/
Last edited:
Highpower3006
I would say energy is a big factor. But you have to look at what the bullet does with that energy. Or rather how it transfers the energy to the target to cause damage.
With ball ammo, or lead bullets diameter and bullet shape make a significant difference. With lead wide flat nose in revolvers is my go to. I have seen wide flat nose bullets do more damage than hollow points in 357 and 44mag. The same can apply to jacketed or plated bullets with truncated cones or wad cutters with flat points.
Expanding bullets arguable transfer energy exceptionally well. Whether they are hollow points, soft points, polymer tips, or others. But you can run into issues of failure to expand, or over expansion leading to poor penetration.
With ball ammo, especially in large cartridges, you dont have to worry about a bullet failing as the size of the bullet itself is the waybis transfers its energy to do damage.
The other advantage to ball type ammo, is that it is generally cheaper than Expanding bullets. And depending on your needs it might be a suitable choice.
I would say energy is a big factor. But you have to look at what the bullet does with that energy. Or rather how it transfers the energy to the target to cause damage.
With ball ammo, or lead bullets diameter and bullet shape make a significant difference. With lead wide flat nose in revolvers is my go to. I have seen wide flat nose bullets do more damage than hollow points in 357 and 44mag. The same can apply to jacketed or plated bullets with truncated cones or wad cutters with flat points.
Expanding bullets arguable transfer energy exceptionally well. Whether they are hollow points, soft points, polymer tips, or others. But you can run into issues of failure to expand, or over expansion leading to poor penetration.
With ball ammo, especially in large cartridges, you dont have to worry about a bullet failing as the size of the bullet itself is the waybis transfers its energy to do damage.
The other advantage to ball type ammo, is that it is generally cheaper than Expanding bullets. And depending on your needs it might be a suitable choice.
Jim Watson
New member
"He told the story of an argument between two Russian tankers that turned violent, not unusual for soldiers under a great deal of stress, etc. One of the Russians fired a burst from the Thompson and the slugs failed to penetrate the heavy, quilted jacket of the guy he shot. Bullets lodged in the heavy jacket! Had to be short range.
Obviously the same phenomenon that kept .30 carbine from penetrating Korean coats.
I once read that .45 ACP hardball penetrates less than logic and calculations predict, while the good old .38 RNL "widow maker" penetrates more.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
You are still asking a straw man question. Seriously -- in any situation, including war, what's the probability of one man -- armed only with a 1911 and 7 rounds of ammunition -- having to shoot seven (or even six) adversaries? That only happens in movies.JJ45 said:Points well taken. By "anyone have an equivalent" was not mean't to mean to reconfigure the exact scenario of Sargent York killing 7 German soldiers with a 1911 and mil issue 230 grain ball ammo.Aguila Blanca said:Sorry, but IMHO you are setting up a straw man argument. The U.S. military doesn't issue JHP .45 ACP ammunition, and there haven't been any German soldiers charging our soldiers since 1945. The likelihood of anyone carrying a 1911 loaded with hollow-point ammunition needing to shoot six or seven adversaries is so slight as to be insignificant.
Does anyone know of an incident where 7 bad guys were killed with 7 JHPs from a .45? Single hits, Seven shots, seven fatalities? This would be a comparison.
Beyond that, if (as was reported) York shot each of the Germans in the belly, if they died I'm sure it wasn't immediately. If they had had quick access to good medical care they probably wouldn't have died at all. If they did die it was probably some time later, from infection in the wounds, rather than immediately.
The thing that determines how effective a handgun round is the amount of energy that is imparted to the target.
I disagree. Energy is a factor, but energy alone does not determine how effective a bullet is, it is only a measure of how effective a bullet could be...
And not a great one, even for that...
What a bullet needs to be effective is to go where it needs to do and do what it needs to do to stop the action of the target. With game, the object is to stop the animal by killing it, as humanely and quickly as possible. With defensive use against humans, the object it to stop them from harming you or others, and a bullet that does that, including ones that are "psychological stops", is effective. It got the job done.
Might it not be the "best possible choice"?? sure, but if it works, it works.
...but there is the added factor of hydroscopic shock that increases the lethality.
I believe the right term is hydrostatic shock. Hydrostatic shock, "temporary stretch cavity" and related terms have been explored, tested and discussed at length over the years and opinions vary widely about how important the effect is, but one commonly agreed to point is that the effect is negligible until bullet impact speed significantly exceeds what most common service and defensive handguns are capable of.
No body in their right mind would opt to use ball ammo for hunting game over bullets designed to give quick and humane kills.
This fails as a valid blanket statement, because, sometimes, the right bullet, the one intended to give quick and humane kills, is FMJ. People who hunt the largest, most dangerous game on the planet, using the most powerful rifles available most frequently prefer "solids" which ARE FMJ bullets, designed to penetrate, NOT expand.
In my mind that is the same logic that should be applied to the ammo used in your defensive handgun.
I understand the reasoning and the logic here, and generally agree, however, I would caution against the terminology used in reference to defensive shooting. Nuances and shades of language DO matter, and matter a lot if a defensive shooting goes to court. WE don't shoot to KILL, we shoot to STOP, and if the attacker dies as a result of being stopped, that's their bad luck.
The law recognizes deadly force and that death may well result from its use, but if it is believed that it is your intent to kill, not just stop an attacker, you could well find yourself facing criminal charges.
Likewise the other side of the coin, intentionally shooting to wound. Shooting to wound only, intentionally avoiding the risk of killing the attacker has been used as evidence that you did not believe deadly force was justified, and if deadly force is not justified (in your mind, at the time) then you do not have legal justification to shoot someone.
Its a game of words, but the law is funny like that.
You are still asking a straw man question. Seriously -- in any situation, including war, what's the probability of one man -- armed only with a 1911 and 7 rounds of ammunition -- having to shoot seven (or even six) adversaries? That only happens in movies.
Including war?? well, obviously it doesn't happen only in the movies. It has happened in real life. Sgt York is probably the most famous example going seven for seven in a well witnessed event, but there have been other times where people have had to shoot multiple attackers with just their handguns and did so successfully. As well as times when they failed. Its rare, even in war, but it does happen.
Beyond that, if (as was reported) York shot each of the Germans in the belly, if they died I'm sure it wasn't immediately. If they had had quick access to good medical care they probably wouldn't have died at all. If they did die it was probably some time later, from infection in the wounds, rather than immediately.
In York's own words, the didn't die immediately. "Quick" access to good medical care on the battlefield while the shooting is going on, under WW I conditions would not be something I think one could count on. Also, "good
medical care back then was no where near what it is today. I think it most likely that the men York shot did die, from shock and blood loss, either on the field, in, or on the way to, a field hospital.
Point here is that they were put down, and no longer capable of combat.
Mike Irwin
Staff
York killed more Germans with a rifle chambered in .30-06 than he did with the 1911.
Why aren't you carrying a .30-06 instead?
Why aren't you carrying a .30-06 instead?
Wonder if York employed the isosceles or weaver? Just kidding!!! Probably one handed given what seemed to be the chosen technique of the day. I don't know how much training with the service pistol they got back then?
That said, this "shot them all in the belly" seems a bit hard to swallow, probably meant center mass. We all know that even a heart shot man can live a considerable time given the nature of the wound. At least long enough to return fire.
That said, this "shot them all in the belly" seems a bit hard to swallow, probably meant center mass. We all know that even a heart shot man can live a considerable time given the nature of the wound. At least long enough to return fire.
Yes, York stopped the Germans, that is what a defensive handgun is meant to do.
The stories about the M-1 Carbine not penetrating Chinese winter uniforms in Korea.The Korean War was fought 70 years ago, has anyone read an genuine after action report with credible eye witnesses ? A groggy and exhausted and sleep deprived GI or Marine trying to fight Chinese hordes at 0200 with howling winds in zero degree temperatures.
Those 1918 vintage Germans would have been on the lean side, all those meagre Army rations kept them slim.
The stories about the M-1 Carbine not penetrating Chinese winter uniforms in Korea.The Korean War was fought 70 years ago, has anyone read an genuine after action report with credible eye witnesses ? A groggy and exhausted and sleep deprived GI or Marine trying to fight Chinese hordes at 0200 with howling winds in zero degree temperatures.
Those 1918 vintage Germans would have been on the lean side, all those meagre Army rations kept them slim.
Right, it's sort of a measure of the potential amount of work that could be done by the bullet. There are lots of things that might prevent the bullet from living up to its potential, here are a few:Energy is a factor, but energy alone does not determine how effective a bullet is, it is only a measure of how effective a bullet could be...
It might miss everything important. The best bullet in the world can't do anything if it doesn't hit something important.
It might go right through and come out the back of the target with most of the energy it started with unused. This is an issue with typical round nose pistol bullets. For example, both 124gr 9mm and 230gr .45ACP FMJ bullets will penetrate about 2 FEET if no bone is hit.
It might hit something and dissipate a lot of energy without penetrating to something important. Body armor is an example of this.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"The stories about the M-1 Carbine not penetrating Chinese winter uniforms in Korea."
I've never heard that the quilted winter uniforms would stop M1 bullets, but I have read multiple accounts that the heavy uniforms seemed to reduce the effectiveness of the carbine's bullets, especially at longer ranges.
That makes a LOT more sense.
I've never heard that the quilted winter uniforms would stop M1 bullets, but I have read multiple accounts that the heavy uniforms seemed to reduce the effectiveness of the carbine's bullets, especially at longer ranges.
That makes a LOT more sense.
I'm pretty confident that a .45acp will poke a hole through vital organs, if aimed correctly. Much like any other.
However, if we're looking at world record exploits of pistol combat, South African 2nd Lieutenant van Vuuren and his Star BM (9mm) has to be mentioned: https://www.firearmsnews.com/editorial/star-bm-pistol-saves-day-bridge-14/392580
However, if we're looking at world record exploits of pistol combat, South African 2nd Lieutenant van Vuuren and his Star BM (9mm) has to be mentioned: https://www.firearmsnews.com/editorial/star-bm-pistol-saves-day-bridge-14/392580
Drawing his 9mm Star BM pistol from its holster, the plucky South African began killing Communists from his turret hatch. When his slide locked back he reloaded and went back to work. 7.62x39mm bullets kicked up sparks around him but he continued on. He shot down five Cubans. Then seven, and finally ran out of 9mm ammunition after killing a total of 11 Communists with his Star BM pistol.
Bill DeShivs
New member
A 9mm hollow point would have to work hard to be .45 caliber.
He was a cool customer under duress.I'm pretty confident that a .45acp will poke a hole through vital organs, if aimed correctly. Much like any other.
However, if we're looking at world record exploits of pistol combat, South African 2nd Lieutenant van Vuuren and his Star BM (9mm) has to be mentioned: https://www.firearmsnews.com/editorial/star-bm-pistol-saves-day-bridge-14/392580
Then getting back to the effectiveness of .45 230 FMJs. The Lieutenant's Star was most certainly loaded with 9mm ball, unless I'm missing something as I didn't read the story.
My OP was an endorsement of 45 ball as good enough SD ammo compared to 45 hollow points. Does the Lieutenant's feat also support the use of 9mm ball for SD?
In America, somebody is always trying to sell you something you don't really need...JJ
My OP was an endorsement of 45 ball as good enough SD ammo compared to 45 hollow points. Does the Lieutenant's feat also support the use of 9mm ball for SD?
In America, somebody is always trying to sell you something you don't really need...JJ
The idea that you can still use ball ammunition to stop a threat seems pretty obvious to me, and frankly I don’t recall an honest claim that suggests differently. The marketing behind hollow point ammunition isn’t that ball ammunition can’t cause a disabling wound, but that hollow points might have other advantages in terms of the nature of the wound inflicted or reducing “over penetration”.
A few reasons I decided on 230gr FMJ for SD
1) cost
2) best odds of reliable feeding
3) the Army used it
4) this video; the 45 FMJ part starts around 20:00
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gtTEEm1-1A
1) cost
2) best odds of reliable feeding
3) the Army used it
4) this video; the 45 FMJ part starts around 20:00
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gtTEEm1-1A
My list would look about like yours.A few reasons I decided on 230gr FMJ for SD
1) cost
2) best odds of reliable feeding
3) the Army used it
4) this video; the 45 FMJ part starts around 20:00
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gtTEEm1-1A
I watched the vid. Some will say only one test, not definitive, medium don't conform, etc, etc. and we all know that. Still, a good endorsement of 230 ball because there were comparisons with other bullets.
stagpanther
New member
SEALS apparently see some purpose in the 45acp--somebody should tell them what's what.