Sgt York and Jeff Cooper

Kinda similar thing happened with the .41Mag. It was supposed to be a LE/SD cartridge that ran 200 something grain bullets at 1000 something fps. When the gun companies were done with it, it turned out to be nearly a twin of the .44Mag.
Click to expand...

That would be, primarily, REMINGTON. And, more specifically, the people making Remington's marketing decisions.

From 1950's on, Remington produced a lot of fine guns and excellent cartridges. Some of them were tremendous commercial successes, and some of them became commercial failures, or less successful than they might have been, solely due to Remington's marketing decisions of what to make and sell, when, and then later what to abandon....

Admittedly, other gunmakers and ammo makers made their own mistakes, but Remington's seem to stand head and shoulders above the rest, generally.

Specific to the .41 Magnum, it was a matter of Remington being "magnum crazy" in the mid 60s, along with an issue of timing concerning ammunition manufacture and availability.

Several of the respected gun writers of the era, with LEO experience felt and advocated for a 40/41 cal round, firing a 200gr-ish bullet around 1,000fps give or take a bit. Had they gotten that FIRST the story of the .41Mag round would have been different.

Remington saw the round as another magnum, and that's what they loaded it to, first. A 210 JHP/JSP in the 1300fps+ range. Later they began loading a lead bullet SWC at 1150fps for police use, (and that load was reduced later to 950fps as 1150fps was just too much)

When the majority of police depts were testing the new .41 Mag, about the only ammo available to nearly all of them was the hot magnum loading, and, predictably, police depts didn't want it. By the time the "police load" was readily available, the police market had already ruled thumbs down on the cartridge.

Interestingly, I've come across information indicating that the majority of the first year's production from S&W were model 58s, the fixed sight gun intended for the police market. SO, it seems that, from the beginning, S&W understood what the gun writers were going for, and made guns for the police market, until Remington's magnum vision killed that market.

S&W's model 57 sold, and still sells well enough to remain on the market, but model 58 sales are slim to none, especially these days.

SO, yes, what we eventually got as the 10mm was not exactly what Cooper and others envisioned, thanks to gun/ammo makers having their own ideas of what will sell, which, it turns out is often not what does sell well.
 
By the time the "police load" was readily available, the police market had already ruled thumbs down on the cartridge.
Click to expand...

The other concern I've heard was carrying the larger, heavy N-Frame. By the time the "light" load was available, the trade-off wasn't seen as worth it.
 
I recently read a post by one revolver era cop who thought the change from K frame to L frame was an unpleasant increase in his load.
 
The 4 in L frame 586 weighed the same as my 4in N frame Model 28.
And in this era, Police started carrying more and more weight on their duty belts.
I thought if S&W had made the L frame a lot closer in weight to the K frames, it may have been more successful as a Police gun. Like the weight of the original Moutain Gun.
 
long way

We've come a long way from hardball in the Argonne, but.....

The L-frame (4") with mag ammo was the last wheelgun I carried as a duty gun. No question it was heavier than any K-frame. Not surprised that it weighed as much as a M28. My .44 mag Mtn gun was listed as 1 oz lighter than the L-frame! The L-frame made shooting all up 125 gr mag ammo easier for all hands. The K-frames were mostly shot with +P+ .38/110gr, which was not demanding at all, but when the swap to mag ammo was made, the K-frames, many with long years of service, did not last long and were a problem for borderline shooters.

Seems like I recall reading that Bill Jordan had campaigned with S&W to introduce the Model 19/66 mag family to reduce the duty belt load of officers. With the L-frames, we ended up with the same load that had been carried 40 years before. Seems like I recall that my duty belt, at it's heaviest, was something like 16-18 lbs. That before tac-vests, tac-suspenders. When I retired and quit lugging all that stuff around on a daily basis my back pain eased considerably......but too late for my left hip, which was fully replaced about a year after I left.

In an attempt to get back on track, I find that any .45acp load, fired either from a 1911, or a even a lighter, alloy framed SIG P220 poly framed Glock 21, far more controllable/shootable than any .357 mag load in any revolver. The flash and blast of the 125 gr mag loads is quite severe.
 
jmr40 said:
By the end of WW-2 the military was disappointed with both the 45 and 1911.

…

The pistol and cartridge you choose is personal preference. The truth is that they all work, use what you like.
Click to expand...

Any of the most commonly issued pistols by the Allies during WWII has enough penetration potential with ball ammo to tickle the enemy's vital organs. The following penetration depths are derived from the expedient model presented in Charles Schwartz, 2012, Quantitative Ammunition Selection, iUniverse, Bloomington, IN. For each caliber the pistol, magazine capacity, FMJ bullet weight, bullet diameter, muzzle velocity, and muzzle energy are presented in addition to the expected depth of penetration in the human body:

• .25 Auto — FN Baby Browning, 6 rounds, 50 gr, 0.251 in, 794 ft/s, 70 ft•lb — 13.9 in
• .32 Auto — Colt M1903, 8 rounds, 71 gr, 0.313 in, 922 ft/s, 134 ft•lb — 14.1 in
• .380 Auto — Colt M1908, 10 rounds, 95 gr, 0.355 in, 951 ft/s, 191 ft• lb — 15.0 in
• 9 Luger — FN Hi-Power, 13 rounds, 124 gr, 0.355 in, 1,193 ft/s, 392 ft•lb — 23.1 in
• .45 Auto — Colt M1911A1, 7 rounds, 230 gr, 0.451 in, 835 ft/s, 356 ft•lb — 20.5 in.

Schwartz provides a formula to estimate the amount of tissue destroyed by a given bullet. Of course, the human body has a finite thickness less than each of the above penetration potentials. If we assume this thickness to be 12.0 in, each of the above has the potential to cause a through-and-through wound to an unarmored torso. The resulting tissue masses destroyed per 12.0-in wound path are:

• .25 Auto — 0.25 oz
• .32 Auto — 0.38 oz
• .380 Auto — 0.49 oz
• 9 Luger — 0.49 oz
• .45 Auto — 0.79 oz.

On a bullet-to-bullet basis, bigger is clearly better — .45 Auto reigns supreme. But, consider the wounding potential for a full magazine (under the extremely poor assumption that the shooter never misses):

• .25 Auto — 1.5 oz
• .32 Auto — 3.0 oz
• .380 Auto — 4.9 oz
• 9 Luger — 6.4 oz
• .45 Auto — 5.6 oz.

On a platform-to-platform basis the Hi-Power overtakes the M1911A1.

Duncan MacPherson, 1994, Bullet Penetration: Modeling the Dynamics and the Incapacitation Resulting from Wound Trauma, Ballistic Publications, El Segundo, CA, extrapolated from the Thompson-Legarde study to conclude 1.4 oz of non-vital human tissue should produce, on average, an involuntary incapacitation of an enemy. (1.4 oz of tissue is equivalent to 70% of a hot dog, when there are 8 hot dogs to a pound.) Thus, the reasonable worst case man-stopping capacity of each above platform magazine (again, unreasonably assuming no misses) is:

• .25 Auto — 1 man
• .32 Auto — 2 men
• .380 Auto — 3 men
• 9 Luger — 4 men
• .45 Auto — 3 men.

Of course, modern 1911s have magazine capacities increased from 7 to 8, but modern service pistols chambered in 9 Luger have mag capacities increased from the Hi-Power's 13 to the M17's 17 (with 21-round extended mags being issued). And, today's 9 NATO is a 9 Luger +P round.

On the modern battlefield, firepower quantity trumps big bullets, which is why our troops carry 9 NATO (0.355-in bullet) and 5.56 NATO (0.224-in bullet) instead of .45 Auto (0.451-in bullet) and .30-06 Springfield (0.308-in bullet). Even the desire for a rifle cartridge to reach out farther and have a higher probability of penetrating body armor, which brought about the upcoming M5 rifle chambered in 6.8×51 (0.278-in bullet), did not inspire a return to .30 caliber.
 
"the modern battlefield"

Though the conversation has drifted off to the battlefield given the reference to York and to some degree, Cooper, consider that the issue is not the battlefield ("firepower trumps big bullets") but personal self defense and possibly out into law enforcement. The shift to smaller cartridges hinged on increasing the number of rounds fired/available to the troops w/o increasing the load, and compatibility with our allies. High round counts and reloads are a rarity in citizen involved shootings. Please do not interpret that statement as a condemnation of hi cap magazines or black rifles.....I am not of such inclination. And I realize no one can predict what YOUR incident will look like, the ranges or the number of threats.

Since troops are normally limited to FMJ ammo, debating the great improvement of the smaller calibers with modern expanding ammo is a moot point in a discussion regards hardball. I would suggest that the big bores benefit from the boost in bullet technology as well.

The future of the 6.8 cartridges with the military seems murky. There is likely a large amount of 5.56mm and 7.62 NATO on hand even after our conflicts in the middle east. I suspect we will see the same attitude post WW I , pre WWII when the .276 as suggested by Garand, was bypassed because of existing stocks of .30 US Rifle.

As far as "reaching our and ....penetrating ", the old adage of bigger is better is reflected in the use of .300 mag, the .338 Lapua and even .50 BMG by the sniper community to gain distance and striking power. The 6.8 has appeared due to criticism of the 5.56mm in that regard. Again a bigger cartridge and projectile. Why is that line of thought disregared when the discussion concerns hanguns cartridges?
 
JJ45 said:
The pistol I favor as a carry piece lately is a Colt LW Commander .45 ACP

My carry ammo is 230 grain ball. Sometimes called range ammo or target practice rounds, I have come to this conclusion because it has been the most reliable in the three 1911s I have owned.

I think a lot of the JHP 45 recommendations are more sales hoopla and not necessarily better defense rounds than 230 ball.

Jeff Cooper said it was good enough defense ammo and York supposedly killed seven Germans in a fire fight in France, WWI with a 1911 and ball ammo. So who to believe, facts or hear say?
Click to expand...
Jacketed ball ammunition labeled as target ammo is a means for manufacturers to sell expensive hollow point ammunition.
 
jmr40 said:
Here is the truth. By the end of WW-2 the military was disappointed with both the 45 and 1911. My dad served in Europe during WW-2 and told me most of the troops didn't much care for the pistol.

After the war the military tested 9mm and 45 side by side using FMJ ammo and found no difference in lethality. Both were effective at one shot stops 65-70% of the time. They did find 9mm penetrated barriers much better. The 45 was bouncing off steel helmets at ranges over 10 yards while 9mm continued to penetrate at ranges over 100 yards.

That combined with greater mag capacity, less recoil, and better accuracy led the military to recommend changing to a hi-cap 9mm pistol in 1946. But with thousands of 1911's in inventory, budget cuts, and no war, the plan was delayed for 40 years.

Most of the 45 and 1911's legacy came about from the creative writing of Cooper and other gun writers long after the war ended. That doesn't mean that York didn't do what he is credited with. I have no reason to not believe it.

With modern HP ammo all of the common cartridges have proven to work around 90-95% of the time. It matters little if you're using 9mm, 40, 45, or 357 mag they all do about the same.

For the average person the difference between a round that is 70% effective and one that is 90% effective probably doesn't matter. Most of us will never shoot anyone, and only a handful will ever shoot more than one. But you do put the odds in your favor by choosing modern HP ammo.

The pistol and cartridge you choose is personal preference. The truth is that they all work, use what you like.
Click to expand...
Nearly everything you wrote is incorrect for the period after WW2. I knew the PM for the Army's selection of the 9mm pistol. The main reason the 9mm was procured was compatibility with NATO. Had it not been for that reason, the Army would have purchased new 1911s to replace its older inventory.
 
History clearly shows that in the decades immediately after WWII that the U.S. didn't care at all what NATO did, it was going its own way in terms of small arms and ammunition and it expected NATO to fall in line.

After WWII, NATO wanted an intermediate round in .280 but the U.S. ignored them and went with a rifle round in .308 about 10 years after the war. Then, after running roughshod over NATO and pushing them to the 7.62 NATO, after another 10 years, they switched again. Not to a medium caliber like NATO had wanted, or to the FAL that was the pretty much standard in NATO nations at the time, but to the 5.56 and a new rifle--again demonstrating that they didn't really care about NATO compatibility. They expected NATO to follow them whatever they did.

NOW, by the 1980s--around 4 decades after WWII--the U.S. military was starting to care about what NATO thought and about having U.S. ammo compatibility with NATO, but immediately after WWII, it's quite clear that absolutely no U.S. military decisions about small arms were being made based on NATO compatibility.
 
Things I've heard put a different emphasis on the story, but absolutely we decided we were going to the 7.62x51mm and, since we were both the "big stick" and the "bit pocketbook" in NATO, they were going to have to accept our round. To add some sweet with the bitter, we promised NATO that when we replaced our 1911A1 pistols the replacement would be in 9mm NATO.

Apparently a number of Europeans expected us to replace the 1911A1 in a few years, 10 or so at the outside. We didn't. That upset some folks over there. And, (thank you Mr MacNamara) a few years later we adopted the 5.56mm, which didn't make NATO countries very happy due to the money they had spent on their own 7.62x51 rifles. Topping the cake with the fact that we didn't replace our 1911A1s until the 80s, I understand a lot of NATO folks felt poorly done by, and weren't very happy about it.

Its absolutely true that a higher number of effective rounds matters in modern combat. Doesn't change history one bit though, and normally isn't a factor in civilian personal self defense.

I fully believe Sgt York did what he did. There are "embellished" accounts, including the movie, but that doesn't mean he didn't do what he got official credit, and THE medal, for...
 
To add some sweet with the bitter, we promised NATO that when we replaced our 1911A1 pistols the replacement would be in 9mm NATO.
Click to expand...
I'd like to learn more about this. Do you remember where you heard/read that claim?

1. It seems contradictory that we would promise something like that to prove we cared and then a decade later unilaterally make a rifle ammo change that categorically proved that we didn't.

2. I'm not sure why NATO would be mollified by such a promise anyway--the cost of changing over rifle ammo is likely more than 10x the cost of changing over pistol ammo. For example, only about 10% of the U.S. Military's small arms are handguns. Seems like it wouldn't be any consolation to take $10 from someone and then try to make them happy by promising to give them $1 at some point down the road.

3. Most importantly, NATO never adopted the .45ACP to any significant extent, which makes it seem unlikely that they would have significant incentive to pressure the U.S. to switch away from it.
 
And, when the too-big, and too-hard-to-shoot M1911A1 was replaced, it was with an even bigger, and harder to shoot (DA/SA) 9mm!
 
As I understand it, we agreed almost immediately upon formation of NATO that our next service pistol would be 9mm. That generated the Colt Commander, S&W M39, and several prototypes that did not make it to commercial production when the program just faded out and we bought 1911 parts and .38 revolvers.

We think of the pistol as a minor weapon hardly worth formalizing the US as a major provider of ammunition, but in those days the submachine gun was still in common use. Jac Weller wrote that the then Italian infantry squad armament was two Garands, balance Beretta SMGs.

I agree that the Old Indian Fighters once more held up progress, holding out for the .30-06 Short instead of an assault rifle or intermediate.
 
The further back one goes the murkier things get, and generally either one does not have as much valid information as one would like, or one is swamped with so much information that determining valid material is difficult.

And there are a lot of "facts" involving peoples decisions and attitudes that were never written down, and one also has to doubt some of the honesty of what was written down. People's opinions, even sometimes actions can make it into the "unofficial" history, the "backstory" that "everybody knows", without any actual written records to cite, particularly half a century and more, later.

Some of them may be true, some certainly aren't, some easy to believe, some rather difficult to accept at face value. And actual factual things get embellished (or denigrated), as the stories get told, over and over, fact becomes story, story becomes legend, legend becomes myth, and the myth can become "fact" that "everybody knows". What point in the cycle something is seems to be dependent on the amount of time and retelling that has gone on since the origin event.

Did a lttle checking using the all knowing Internet and the infallible Wikipedia. Feel free to verify any of this on your own:D

NATO was officially formed in 1949. NATO adopted the 7.62x51mm (.308) rifle round in 1954. The US adopted the 5.56mm M16 in 1964. NATO officially adopted the 5.56mm in 1980. The US adopted the (Beretta) 9mm pistol in 1985.

All kinds of rhetoric has flown back and forth, some true, some not in all those years. I personally find it amusing that while there were studies after WWII recommending the 9mm over the .45 for military use, and apparently at least a "gentleman's agreement" that we would adopt the 9mm for our next service pistol way back then, but we didn't replace our .45s for another 30+ years. I've heard a number of Europeans were unhappy we took so long...:rolleyes:

I know of one person who actually used both a .45 and a 9mm in combat and shot an enemy with each. His opinion of them was "they both worked. I shot the guy twice and he fell down, and I moved on. Both times,"

York did his famous work with what he had, a .45 pistol and a .30-06 bolt action rifle. I think if he had other guns instead of those, he stil would have done what he did. Details might be a little different, but I think the overall result would be the same.

Men fight. Guns and their cartridges are tools.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top