I saw a program on the television about a difference between 9mm and .45 ammunition. What they were saying was that the United States had a leg up over Germany in WWII because our .45 thompsons were firing slower rounds which lost more kinetic energy inside the body of the target, causing more damage. This versus the 9mm mp40 whose rounds travelled faster, all too commonly travelling through the target and not causing the same amount of damage.

Was this due to the types of ammunition issued by each army in these calibers, or is the by and large true of each caliber in general?

I simplify it.

Ever hear someone after a gunfight say, "Wow, I wish I had had smaller bullets"?

A good read on this topic of ballistics is Hornady their ballistic section. On this exact topic, it's terminal ballistics.

Tj

As I just mentioned in another post, the energy dump theory does has never been proven, and many attempts to prove it have never produced any evidence to support the theory. Bullets kill by either disrupting the central nervous system (brain or spine hit, for instance) or by making holes that leak. The larger the hole, the faster the leak, and the more chance that something that bleeds very fast will be hit.

Even when we look at expanding bullets, we need to be aware that the best bullets expand between 40% and 60% of the time. This can depending on factors like whether the bullet hits between two ribs or center-punches a rib. So, while effective bullets make the 9mm way more effective, if a 9mm bullet expands .45", great, but if it may fail to expand. A .45 starts out at .45", so it is already making as large a hole as many expanded 9mm bullets. Expansion is a bonus.

The way I see it, both are fine. You may just have to shoot the guy a couple more times with a 9mm.

I like to look at it this way....

Are you comfortable standing down range catching 9mm rounds? If not, then why talk so much shat about it?

If you are a terrible shot, go with the biggest round possible, if not a shotgun.

If you are a good shot, go with what is readily available, and provides plenty of capacity.

If a Navy Seal carries one, why should you feel incomplete carrying one?

Oh, I go 9mm all the way. .45 jumps too much for my tastes, and I prefer a higher capacity.

I hear ya bud.

Keep in mind my post was meant to open your horizons.

I own both .45 ACP and 9mm Luger.

I carry one of my .45's daily.

That being said, I understand that my potential for lethality is more involved with my proficiency rather than my caliber choice.

All handguns suck.

bc

well, it's hard to carry a shotgun in your shorts

That's not what she said.

This post has been edited by SSGN_Doc: November 7th 2009 3:04 PM

Too many fators to really say why the Thompson was possibly better than the MP40.

The Thompsons were heavy, the cyclic rate was slow. Both of these add up to better controlability, and better hit probability. Hitting your target is job number one.

The Mp40 could be made, faster, and more cheaply.

Both armies were in compliance with the Hague Accords that prohibited expanding ammo. The .45 is a low pressure round in comparison to the 9mm, but it fires a slow, heavy, larger diameter bullet (2.5 mm or .10 inch). When your ammo isn't expanding the extra weight and diameter may be better but they aren't the only producers of tissue damage. By comparison to carbine and rifle rounds of the time both are marginal performers.

The SMG in both armies added effectiveness to both cartridges mostly by increasing hit potential over the use of a handgun, because it is easier to hit a target with a short fast handling carbine than with a pistol. Longer barrels, mean a longer sight radius further increasing accurate shot placement. Longer barrrelsalso mean possible velocity boost to the ammo.

During the war both armies tried mild steel jacketing on bullets due to the expense and availability of copper during the war. this may have alos had effects on bullet performance and penetration.

When documentaries get to talk about small arms they do a lot of summarizing, and it's easy to say the winners weapon was better.

The German MG42 was superior to the Browning .30 for it's portability, barrel changing ability, and rate of fire. It didn't win them the war, and we adopted and adapted the design into the M-60 and further evolved it into todays Squad Automatic Weapon systems.

Yep.

oh hell, this thread is gonna go downhill quick, fast, and in a hurry.

Well it's a good thing we're talking about sub-machineguns then.

The Thompson and MP40 really from an application sense were to be used totally differently. The Thompson from an application standpoint a short automatic rifle while the MP40 a long automatic pistol, though of course both weapons could be used both ways. From a design standpoint, its how much emphasis was place on spray and pray as we call it now or one shot one kill. You can see this in their design with the Thompson having a much better stock for shoulder firing.

In full trigger depressed mode, its kind of hard to equate these classics today. These obviously were not stock buffered weapons and muzzle climb more of an issue to deal with. On this front besides the higher terminal ballistics of the .45, its higher recoil gave the Thompson a distinct physiological advantage. Their users would be less prone to choose the spray and pray option over controlled fire. When talking in the scheme of things of how many people fought in that war, that would equate to a lot more kills from shot placement.

Of course, what both guns were intended was close in combat and a role of close fire suppression as another role which is why they are often compared. In actual use or as a way to describe them using today's weapons, its closer to comparing an Uzi to a MP5. To your point on barrel length, rather than .45 vs 9mm this comparison from an application would be muzzle velocity.

I think a very good read on this differing in gun philosophies that is applicable to this is the M1 vs K98 and how they were to be used in combat. When you look at weapons development, actually the Germans were some of the best in the world and offering a semi-automatic main battle rifle would not have been a technical challenge for them. That was a conscious decision based on many things including logistics but foremost was tactical philosophy. The K98 was considered one of the most reliable and accurate rifles of its day and that hasn't changed much really either. To put this simply, the Germans were more dedicated to a shot placement philosophy for the main battle rifle and separate roles for squad weapons. Of course, battle has a way equal things out and the US Army adjusted by simply adding more squad weapon, one up man ship.

Just as interesting is how the Mp40 with its application led to the G3 or first assault rifle as its application limitations and advantages addressed, however once again the German tactical philosophy was different than the US and instead of the G3 being the main battle rifle was used more in a squad weapon role replacing the Mp40. That of course probably would have changed if the war would have went on.

I was very lucky as a young man to know three men who had extensive experience with the Thompson in combat. One was "Mouse" Thomson mentioned in Darby's "We led the way" and was a Ranger, another a close friends father, and the third a neighbor. My cousin who was in the 101st carried an M1. One of them actually had two he brought back from the war. Watching that guy shoot those guns was an education in a half. He was a major trigger control to muzzle rise advocate and could make that gun sing.

Anyway, I totally enjoyed your post and not in disagreement with any of it, just adding to it. This obviously something I really enjoy discussing.

I find it just a fantastic topic of how board design, small arms tactics, and actual field application influence weapon design.

Tj

I think its funny when ever ppl talk about hunting deer with a 223 its always" sure with the proper bullet placement but there is so many better choices out there" but when it comes to the 9mm for defense "all you need is proper bullet placement"

Well it's a good thing that submachine guns use rifle calibers then, isn't it?

bc

You have to follow the gun world trends. lol Yep there's enough ironies in the gun world to make one laugh.

My favorite is the 5.56mm is perfect for killing men but not a deer.

Another is it takes more than one shot on a 9mm to stop a man.

That one is especially funny to older folks for this spray and pray shooting philosophy with handguns if fairly recent and multiple shots per kill actually rare when one looks at shooting deaths over the years (even recent years).

I have both calibers and more than one gun both. When someone asks preference, my natural leaning is for what? To me it always comes down to your odds of only getting one shot vs not, not necessarily which one does more with one shot.

Tj

Yup.

Also didnt Thompson slow down the tommy gun for military use?

The sub in submachine gun means sub-rifle caliber.


Which has a lot to do with the fact that they are being generally replaced with rifle-caliber carbines.

This post has been edited by 762precision: November 7th 2009 6:11 PM

Edited.

bc