Sgt York and Jeff Cooper

Originally Posted by Carmady
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
Click to expand...

The only one of those that matters at all to me is No 2.
My Commander is thus far reliable with XTPs but I would have to shoot some more to be as confident as with RN. I have not tried to qualify my P220, it is kept with a hollow point in the chamber and Ball in the magazine, just as I did with the USGI 1911 that was my first serious weapon.

Cost is not a major factor unless I wished to thoroughly test the Commander with a different bullet. But why bother?

Who cares what the Army used? They haven't used many .32s, .380s, .357 Magnums, .44 Specials, etc that all have a place in the Urban Arsenal.

I don't get much out of that video, he lost me when he fired the second (third, fourth) shot at the same watermelon.
 
Army and law enforcement as well creates much more testing and real world use data on the cartridges. Its adoption also creates a large supply chain and reduces cost. They dont always choose the best, and there is a lot of politics involved. But its not irrelevant imho.
 
JJ45 said:
He was a cool customer under duress.

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
Click to expand...

There are always outliers that can give a misleading impression. However...

All I can reasonably expect from a pistol bullet is that it will poke a hole. FMJ will do that. In calibers below 9mm, I only carry non-expanding bullets, to ensure adequate penetration. Even in .22LR, non-expanding bullets seem to work surprisingly well when the shooter is highly competent.

At and above 9mm, I don't really need the FMJ's 36"+ of gel penetration, and am willing to trade some of that for a slightly bigger, slightly more ragged hole. Because maybe there is an edge case where a slight bigger, more ragged hole could convert a non-stop into a stop. It's questionable, but I'm only trading excess penetration for it.

If reliability were in question, I wouldn't make the trade.

One man's opinion, anyway.
 
It really depends, I suppose, on what school of thought you belong to with regards to how handgun bullets work. On the one hand, there are some people which believe that the transfer of energy from the bullet to the target is one of, if not the primary, wounding mechanism and that an expanding bullet with more efficiently transfers its energy to the target will therefore create a more substantial wound and faster incapacitation.

On the other hand, others believe that only the tissue that the bullet physically crushes, tears, or otherwise displaces are significantly affected and thus only the diameter of the bullet, the depth of its penetration, and its trajectory are the only meaningful factors in the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of a particular bullet.

Really, regardless of which camp you're in, an expanding bullet should cause more tissue damage and thus incapacitate the target faster so long as penetration is adequate to reach the vital organs. If you view energy as a meaningful factor in handgun effectiveness then simple physics dictates that an expanding bullet is transferring more of it's energy to the target than one which does not deform. If you're a permanent crush cavity sort of person, an expanding bullet increases it's diameter and thus destroys more tissue than a non-expanding one (again, assuming adequate penetration).

Now, that's not to say that there aren't cases to be made against JHP ammo (though some cases are stronger than others). One might argue, as I think the OP is attempting to do, that the difference between FMJ and JHP is not large enough to justify the increased cost of JHP ammo, but that's really going to be, at best, difficult to quantify and I doubt too many people will find that argument convincing.

An argument could be made that the increased penetration of FMJ is beneficial in certain circumstances such as defense against large animals which I suppose is a valid point, but it doesn't seem to me that a 1911 in .45 is a particularly popular choice for Lions and Tigers and Bears, oh my.

Some would argue that, in certain calibers, JHP gives inadequate penetration and that penetration is more important than expansion so the non-expanding FMJ bullet is the "lesser of two evils" if you will. This argument has merit when talking about small calibers like .22 LR, .25 Auto, and .32 Auto, but finding .45 ACP JHP's with adequate penetration isn't all that difficult.

Some would argue that FMJ bullets are more feed-reliable in autoloading firearms and thus should be carried for reliability's sake. This is valid I suppose if all you have is an older or lower-quality gun that isn't reliable with JHP ammo, but most guns of even mediocre quality made in the last 30-40 years will be reliable with JHP ammo as that's what they were designed to use.

The final argument I can think of for FMJ over JHP is that, simply put, JHP is unavailable due to either supply or regulation/legality. This could be because you're in the Military and have to use the FMJ ammo you're issued, it could be because you're an LEO and your department mandates FMJ ammo, or it could be because you live somewhere where using JHP ammo is legally frowned upon if not outright prohibited. This could also be because your gun is in a caliber for which JHP ammo isn't commonly available. In that case you have to use what you can get and I'll agree that FMJ ammo that's available and/or legal is superior to JHP ammo that isn't.
 
"Cost is not a major factor unless I wished to thoroughly test the Commander with a different bullet. But why bother?

Who cares what the Army used? They haven't used many .32s, .380s, .357 Magnums, .44 Specials, etc that all have a place in the Urban Arsenal.

I don't get much out of that video, he lost me when he fired the second (third, fourth) shot at the same watermelon."

I would say cost is a factor in two ways. If someone buys the more expensive non-FMJ .45 ACP SD ammo not only does it cost more per round, but it will likely be less reliable than FMJ. At best it will function 100%, but still cost more.

Who cares what the Army used? The cartridge was developed for combat, and if it wasn't up to the task the Army wouldn't have used it as long as it did. If it's good enough for combat it's good enough for civilian SD, imo.

I don't know how much of the video you watched, but after testing a few different types of rounds he concluded, "...at least in today's application (cougar and bear defense), in .45ACP ammunition, hardball is hard to beat."
 
I can come up with tests that conclusively “prove” any one round is better than any other round.

Then change a couple criteria and “prove” the other round is better.

The Silvertip 9mm was the “best” at the time of the Miami shootout. A 115 gr ball round would likely have fully penetrated the bad guys thorax. Stopping him.

I’ve grown weary of most of the next greatest ammo. At $1.25 a round. I want ammo I can shoot hundreds of rounds of. In my carry gun. Not one magazines worth for $25 one time and, assume it’s good.

Poke a hole. Poke the biggest hole you can. Poke it all the way through.

I bought two cases of the Federal 9mm RCMP contract 115 gr HP. Very close, ballistically, to slightly downloaded 9BPLE. That’s what I carry when I carry a 9mn. And, I’ve shot a lot of it.

I bought 2 cases of the Gold Dot 357 SIG. That’s what I carry when I carry that caliber.

There will always be a round marketed as new. And the best. There will always be a gun oil marketed as the best and newest.

I’ve seen quite a few people get shot and, who were shot. Neither they, nor I, knew what bullet it was. Some tipped over. Others didn’t seem phased. Unless you break something important inside, they don’t really care, until it hurts, or all the hydraulic fluid leaks out.
 
Sgt127 said:
Some tipped over. Others didn’t seem phased. Unless you break something important inside, they don’t really care, until it hurts, or all the hydraulic fluid leaks out.
Click to expand...

Yep. Psychological stops are nice when they happen. Unfortunately, they're mostly out of our control.

For a near-instant physiological stop, there is simply no substitute for putting a hole through something the badguy desperately needs to be functioning "right now, this very moment." And if you can do that, the bullet isn't likely to matter too much.

Of course there are always going to be edge cases where X would have produced a stop where Y didn't (and vice versa). But, if you look at the Ellifritz study, you basically cannot tell the difference between handgun caliber -- differences are small enough to be buried in the noise. If it's almost impossible to tease apart the difference between .380acp and .44 magnum, I'm going to have some serious doubts about the importance of bullet design.
 
Lets think about how a threat is stopped.

1, neurological. Brain or spine, things instantly stop working
2, skeletal, pelvic girdle shot will put somone on the ground instantly, but they can still be a threat.
3 blood. Stopping blood flow to the brain. Heart stops the pump, lungs stop oxygen fom being absorbed. Leaks reduce volume and pressure in the supply line but can be slow to stop a threat.

Many cartridges can do these things effectively in many different bullet styles. But without proper shot placement, even large handgun rounds like the 45 can fail to stop somone.

Heres a cool shooting break down titled, "Why one cop carries 145 rounds on the job" the attacker was shot 14 times with a 45 auto, 6 times on the vitals and kept going until a shot to the head stopped the fight instantly. https://www.police1.com/officer-shootings/articles/why-one-cop-carries-145-rounds-of-ammo-on-the-job-clGBbLYpnqqHxwMq/

Heres a youtube video covering it as well if you dont feel like reading https://youtu.be/pdjcYjSsIok
 
Last edited:
I'm a fan of hardball in alloy-framed guns, but have also carried the plastic-tipped "Critical" rounds.
After marksmanship, the most important concern is penetration, and you get that with hardball.
 
York....

There have been some comments made regards Yorks Medal of Honor action which I feel very strongly need clarification. There have been comments made early in this post stating the York story is "legend" and "not all it appears" and that others in the story are "written out". There are also comments made regards details of the action that are incorrect. To any desiring details on that action, or a good read on York prior and after his military service, I suggest reading "Alvin York, ....a biography on the hero of the Argonne" written by Douglas V. MASTRIANO. published in 2014. I got my copy that same year when I visited the Alvin York state park in Pall Mall TN. That site is dedicated to York and his post war farm and nearby gravesite in the local cemetery.

I dispute the use of the word "legend" in referring to the York action. This seems to imply (to me anyhow) that in some manner York's actions are suspect or fabricated. At least one author has included the word "legend" in their title concerning York, and the New York Times has claimed him "legendary" in a review of another biography, but there are simply better words and phrasing available. Sasquatch and Robin Hood are legends. Alvin York and his combat record were real.

In repelling the bayonet attack, York probably did not kill 6 German soldiers with 7 shots. After enfilading the machine gun trench on the hillside, York descended from the slope and noted the advance of one Lt. ENDRISS (not a Sargent) and perhaps as many as 12 soldiers closing on him. York assumed a position adjacent a Pvt BARDSLEY and engaged this assault. BEARDSLEY also was armed with a .45 pistol, and with BOTH men firing, dropped 7 attackers, including ENDRISS mere feet away. The remaining German soldiers retreated back to their trench. It is possible that not all the bayonet men were even aware of York/Beardsley's position as they advanced. MASTRIANO states that he believes that between York and Beardsley, 24 .45 acp rounds were fired by the pair. Each GI likely reloaded their pistol at least once.

MASTIANO has conducted extensive battlefield archeology and forensic analysis of spent cases and artifacts from what he believes is the actual location of the fight. After reading and noting the totality of the archeologic finds and analysis, I'm inclined to believe him. The clincher is that GERMAN insignia and ID tags recovered match the units that YORK and his men captured that day. The clustered .45acp cases are from two different pistols. Thirty-six spent '06 cases are from the same P17 rifle, from a position enfilading a section of German MG positions were found nearby. The complete picture painted by the forensics is hard to deny.

Beardsley never sought recognition for his action with York. Two others Sgts. EARLY and CUTTING did and were medaled, but not with the MOH. Interestingly, CUTTING was not named Cutting at all, he had enlisted under a false name and his credibility is thus at least questionable. Most all of the rest of the unit were shot up pretty badly.

Final comments: I wanted YORK to be armed with a Springfield. Hollywood portrayed him that way, and I like the rifle. The "Rifleman" magazine carried a good article supporting the claim that he did, despite the fact his unit was issued Enfields. York's family claimed he used a Springfield or thought he did anyhow, because Alving did not like the peep sight on the Enfield and the blade and bead on the '03 was similar to rifles he used at home. If MASTIRANO is right, it was an ENFIELD.

Hollywood had York using a Luger for heaven's sake, I've read because they could not find a blank firing 1911. The entire "gobble gobble "scene and " shooting turkeys front to rear back home" I think is indeed so much hoopla. I've shot a lot of turkeys, and occasionally if more than one is present at the shot, they get a bit flustered. But turkeys see EVERYTHING and do not linger long when under fire. It was a good scene in the movies and went with Coopers hayseed character. York's war diary is coarse and hard to read and must be taken with a grain of salt I believe. I suspect he came under the influence of his publisher and editor.

I've been out of town and missed the start of this thread. More on Cooper and hardball later.
 
bamaranger said:
There have been some comments made regards Yorks Medal of Honor action which I feel very strongly need clarification. There have been comments made early in this post stating the York story is "legend" and "not all it appears" and that others in the story are "written out". There are also comments made regards details of the action that are incorrect. To any desiring details on that action, or a good read on York prior and after his military service, I suggest reading "Alvin York, ....a biography on the hero of the Argonne" written by Douglas V. MASTRIANO. published in 2014. I got my copy that same year when I visited the Alvin York state park in Pall Mall TN. That site is dedicated to York and his post war farm and nearby gravesite in the local cemetery.

I dispute the use of the word "legend" in referring to the York action. This seems to imply (to me anyhow) that in some manner York's actions are suspect or fabricated. At least one author has included the word "legend" in their title concerning York, and the New York Times has claimed him "legendary" in a review of another biography, but there are simply better words and phrasing available. Sasquatch and Robin Hood are legends. Alvin York and his combat record were real.

In repelling the bayonet attack, York probably did not kill 6 German soldiers with 7 shots. After enfilading the machine gun trench on the hillside, York descended from the slope and noted the advance of one Lt. ENDRISS (not a Sargent) and perhaps as many as 12 soldiers closing on him. York assumed a position adjacent a Pvt BARDSLEY and engaged this assault. BEARDSLEY also was armed with a .45 pistol, and with BOTH men firing, dropped 7 attackers, including ENDRISS mere feet away. The remaining German soldiers retreated back to their trench. It is possible that not all the bayonet men were even aware of York/Beardsley's position as they advanced. MASTRIANO states that he believes that between York and Beardsley, 24 .45 acp rounds were fired by the pair. Each GI likely reloaded their pistol at least once.

MASTIANO has conducted extensive battlefield archeology and forensic analysis of spent cases and artifacts from what he believes is the actual location of the fight. After reading and noting the totality of the archeologic finds and analysis, I'm inclined to believe him. The clincher is that GERMAN insignia and ID tags recovered match the units that YORK and his men captured that day. The clustered .45acp cases are from two different pistols. Thirty-six spent '06 cases are from the same P17 rifle, from a position enfilading a section of German MG positions were found nearby. The complete picture painted by the forensics is hard to deny.

Beardsley never sought recognition for his action with York. Two others Sgts. EARLY and CUTTING did and were medaled, but not with the MOH. Interestingly, CUTTING was not named Cutting at all, he had enlisted under a false name and his credibility is thus at least questionable. Most all of the rest of the unit were shot up pretty badly.

Final comments: I wanted YORK to be armed with a Springfield. Hollywood portrayed him that way, and I like the rifle. The "Rifleman" magazine carried a good article supporting the claim that he did, despite the fact his unit was issued Enfields. York's family claimed he used a Springfield or thought he did anyhow, because Alving did not like the peep sight on the Enfield and the blade and bead on the '03 was similar to rifles he used at home. If MASTIRANO is right, it was an ENFIELD.

Hollywood had York using a Luger for heaven's sake, I've read because they could not find a blank firing 1911. The entire "gobble gobble "scene and " shooting turkeys front to rear back home" I think is indeed so much hoopla. I've shot a lot of turkeys, and occasionally if more than one is present at the shot, they get a bit flustered. But turkeys see EVERYTHING and do not linger long when under fire. It was a good scene in the movies and went with Coopers hayseed character. York's war diary is coarse and hard to read and must be taken with a grain of salt I believe. I suspect he came under the influence of his publisher and editor.

I've been out of town and missed the start of this thread. More on Cooper and hardball later.
Click to expand...
Good post as usual Bama, I'd like to hear your take on Cooper and ball.
 
Sasquatch and Robin Hood are legends. Alvin York and his combat record were real.
Click to expand...

I agree. But real feats, told and retold (accurately and inaccurately) for generations until they become "institutional memory" turns the figures into "legends", and in that regard, Sgt York is absolutely "legendary".

MASTIANO has conducted extensive battlefield archeology and forensic analysis of spent cases and artifacts from what he believes is the actual location of the fight. After reading and noting the totality of the archeologic finds and analysis, I'm inclined to believe him. The clincher is that GERMAN insignia and ID tags recovered match the units that YORK and his men captured that day. The clustered .45acp cases are from two different pistols. Thirty-six spent '06 cases are from the same P17 rifle, from a position enfilading a section of German MG positions were found nearby. The complete picture painted by the forensics is hard to deny.
Click to expand...

There is no question the forensics of the brass seem compelling, but, is this the actual location, undisturbed and un-corrupted since the fight took place, or is this a case of somewhere in the right area, and the findings seem to support the story?
" what he believes is the actual location of the fight." This alone produces doubt. Unlike Little Big Horn, this is not a remote location in the badlands, essentially untrafficed and unspoiled since the fight. More than a few people were in that area, before, during and after the fight, and more in the century plus since, and there is no one alive today who can say "I was there, and this IS the place it happened".

As to this,
If MASTIRANO is right, it was an ENFIELD.
Click to expand...

I'd agree that the rifle York would have been issued would have been an Enfield. However, there are sources which claim that York got permission from his Battalion Commander to use a Springfield, and depending on who is telling the tale, either the Bn CO obtained a Springfield for him to use, or allowed York to trade his Enfield to another unit for a Springfield. There is, of course, no concrete proof at this late date, but either of those is well within the realms of possibility.

The Hollywood movie changed a lot of details, some to make a "better" story, and some, like the Luger, because of "technical issues". It's a movie, "based on real events", not a documentary....
 
I have wondered just how Sgt York employed the 1903 sight, assuming he was able to get one. That is a complicated device with the "battle sight" showing when the "ladder" is down, and an aperture and two open notches when the "ladder" is up. Doctrine was to set the aperture at the desired range and aim with it even though farther away from the eye than best for the type. The USMC had their own sights with a thicker, undercut front blade and only an aperture in the "drift slide."
 
locations and legends

The choice of words in referring to York is up to the writer. Legend is not one I choose, but others have. Purely me I suppose, but is seems a small step from legend to myth and from myth to tall tale. The inference in the OP was the event was not all that it was claimed (or words to that effect) and I am opposed to massaging history when there is enough evidence to support the original story. York's action was witnessed by many from both sides and much written material exists concerning same. MASTRIANO'S work puts much of it together in one package.

The location and evidence were compelling enough for the French authorities to allow the construction of the Sgt York Historical Trail. It is indeed a case of the evidence supporting the claim, but....... it is the TOTALITY of the evidence, the brass, the insignia, German ID tags and uniform minutia, MG belt material, spent and unspent cases both German and US, even a German officers whistle and the terrain which allows the conclusion to be reached. There have been other searches and claims to success, but MASTRIANO's efforts paint the best picture. To use the reference to Little Big Horn.......there is debate as to whether or not they actually recovered Custer's body, and not just some enlisted man, even though the location of the battle is well known and the effort was done only about a year later.

My point? Recreating history involves some speculation. I want to believe that they now have the York site correct and "Hero of the Argonne" connects enough dots for me to believe. All others suit themselves:). I do encourage all interested to read the book.

Hollywood and Gary Cooper gave us the movie and it is entertaining and of course certainly not fact. I've enjoyed this discourse on York. Not long after visiting his gravesite in Pall Mall, I mentioned some to a certain educated and bright person of my acquaintance that I had done same. I was confounded when they did not know the Alvin York story. About to the same degree when a young man at the range asked what kind of rifle was my M-1 Garand:eek::eek:!
 
Some people manage their entire lives without learning much history, some of us find it a passion.

What concerns me more than someone not knowing about Sgt York is watching "cops" on TV (the real ones) and seeing a couple of young officers have to call their shift Sgt to get someone to the scene who knew how to unload a revolver! :eek::rolleyes:
 
bamaranger said:
I dispute the use of the word "legend" in referring to the York action. This seems to imply (to me anyhow) that in some manner York's actions are suspect or fabricated. At least one author has included the word "legend" in their title concerning York, and the New York Times has claimed him "legendary" in a review of another biography, but there are simply better words and phrasing available. Sasquatch and Robin Hood are legends. Alvin York and his combat record were real.
Click to expand...
There's a difference between "legend" and "myth." York's accomplishments are legendary. Thor's accomplishments are mythical.
 
Now back to your original broadcast.

Reading Jeff Cooper's columns and articles real time in the 1970s, I recall that he was not enamoured of "frangible" pistol bullets. That does not mean he stopped at hardball.
He shot a good bit of 200-215 gr SWCs with LOTS of Unique, and plugged the Adams bullet, kind of a hybrid RN-SWC.
He also liked the .45 version of the Hornady/USAF 9mm flat point FMJ.
 
Regarding Sgt York, I really need to find the article that I read. I believe it was about a book that was written about the fight. Sgt York's role in the fight is not in dispute but rather there were other men who were equally involved and just as responsible for the outcome but didn't get credit. I take no position in the matter since I'm far from an authority on the subject.

Regarding Jeff Cooper I've been re-reading my books by him. I think it's important to note that Cooper's thoughts and experiences reflect the knowledge that was available at the time and he had no knowledge about anything that came after him. He was very progressive and helped move firearms and tactics in the right direction and during his time they were probably the best available. However, decades have passed since Cooper's time and in that time firearms, ammunition, and tactics have made significant strides forward thanks in no small part to twenty years of war.

I would be very interested to know what Cooper would think if he were alive today to see it. Would he change his opinion on 9mm with modern hollow points? How would he feel about weapon mounted lights, quality optics, or modern AR15's and AR10's, and many other subjects? We'll never know but I like to think that a forward thinking man like Cooper would have embraced some of the change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top