question re: mp40 mp44 (not just CM related)

[PawBroon]

Home...

If some of you are willing and not put off by some sternuous medical reading I got a WHOLE bibliography here.

Wouldn't change a thing in your CM way of playing but at least you'd know when to run TO or when to run AWAY depending on the type of weapon.

------------------

Either he's dead or my watch has stopped

[PawBroon]

Home...

If some of you are willing and not put off by some sternuous medical reading I got a WHOLE bibliography here.

Wouldn't change a thing in your CM way of playing but at least you'd know when to run TO or when to run AWAY depending on the type of weapon.

------------------

Either he's dead or my watch has stopped

[PawBroon]

Double trouble.

Sorry for the double post.

It does even make up for the one I lost previously.

------------------

Either he's dead or my watch has stopped

[Mark IV]

I really enjoyed the movie "Three Kings".

One of its contributions to cinematography was an internal (I mean, inside the organ cavity) shot of a round entering a person, with a wound channel like you see in gelatin block tests. Wow. Peckinpah would have loved it.

Forgotmypassword: I keep forgetting to add http://www.lssah.com/LAH%20WEAPONS.html for a quick look at various toys.

[This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 06-09-2000).]

[aka_tom_w]

This thread is just facsinating!

Thanks all for contributing....

The first thing that came to my mind is all that ballistics talk is bound to get noticed by some nosey law enforcement officials somewhere.

I say this because the pruchase and ownership of any kind of firearm is VERY restrictivly legislated in Cananda and it seems to me that the RCMP would come and pay you a visit JUST becuase they would fear any private citizen that knows about all that ballistics and weapons info as well as all of you here that have contributed to this wonderful thread do, might be worth investigating as a terrorist.

(Oh, I'm sure that word registered on someone's cyber scope, web snooping radar screen somwhere!)

I despise canada's gun laws and just wanted to state that here.

But KEEP up the good work, all that Ballistics detail info was really VERY interesting to read.

The ONLY thing I (might) know about this topic is that the Swiss military have spend a great deal of time money and energy researching the "IDEAL" infantry weapon. Can anyone hear remind me about what they actually determined to be the best weapon and round/bullet/projectile to take down enemy soldiers with?

thanks

-tom w

------------------

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[PawBroon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

The ONLY thing I (might) know about this topic is that the Swiss military have spend a great deal of time money and energy researching the "IDEAL" infantry weapon. Can anyone hear remind me about what they actually determined to be the best weapon and round/bullet/projectile to take down enemy soldiers with? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They clean the target to death.

It's so daring...

------------------

Either he's dead or my watch has stopped

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Can anyone hear remind me about what they actually determined to be the best weapon and round/bullet/projectile to take down enemy soldiers with?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interest rates?

[Formerly Babra]

I know this part of the topic is closed, but if FAL is for Fusil Automatique Legere, that makes it the equivalent of our former FNC2, a squad auto weapon with bipod and thirty round mag. Pretty similar in use to the BAR.

Okay, thanks for clearing that up.

EDIT: psst... aka_tom: It may interest you to know that at least one RCMP officer plays CM and frequents this board (no, not me) I'm annoyed with the gun laws too, but as fond as my memories of the FNC1 are, do I really need one? My 1888 Mauser 71/84 works just as well for sport and hunting.

------------------

When I die I want to go peacefully, like my grandfather, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car

[This message has been edited by Formerly Babra (edited 06-09-2000).]

[forgotmypassword]

I love this forum.

Great posts, knowledgable people and the occasional flame war are some reasons there are 50000+ posts.

That and the fact that CM is so mind blowing cool as to prompt these types of conversations.

thanks for the info and discussion. I have learned a lot and so it is a good day today

[Zamo]

Formerly Babra, et al.

I hunted deer this last fall with a DSArms SA-58 FAL carbine. I have a large collection of civilianified military rifles and always will (hint hint). Did I "need" a military style auto-loader to slay bambi? No, but it sure was fun, and that is the single biggest reason I hunt...and collect arms. I only wish I lived in a less pink-o state where I could get a full-auto. Alas, Washington must be too close to Canada...

So there, I am going to get off the pulpit and drink beer with my friend Steve (the other one)who sez "hi".

Have a good weekend you bastards, and let's hope CM is in our hands by this time next...

Zamo

[Schrullenhaft]

Hmmm... almost no knowledge whatsoever on ballistics.

As for the question about the Swiss developing the "ideal" small firearm...

I read an article a year or two ago that dealt with the subject. Apparently the Swiss had developed a very effective round (with the attribute of causing severe flesh wounds). However there was a public outcry about such an "inhumane" developement in small arms that further developement and deployment of such weapons was stopped in favor of something that caused more "clean" wounds.

Admittedly I forget where I read the article... it primarily dealt with the lead scientist who was developing the "clean" round.

[Formerly Babra]

Zamo, since the "Squamish Five" who detonated a vanload of explosives at the Litton plant (Cruise Missile Guidance manufacturer) purchased their M-14s and assorted other semi-auto military surplus over the counter, there has been a steadily increasing ban on military arms. Really, it makes no sense. My brother just bought a beautiful semi-auto H&K "sporting" rifle, but the FN (which operates exactly the same way) is banned due to its military heritage.

They started by limiting the size of magazines and have been getting tighter and tighter ever since over the past twenty years. My bolt action Mauser, post Franco-Prussian War, has a bigger internal mag than anything that can be bought over the counter today I won't even mention the new licensing requirements...

Ah well. I do agree with control (especially handguns), but they do go a bit far.

------------------

When I die I want to go peacefully, like my grandfather, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car

[EScurlock]

My 2 cents:

1) No the M16 ammo doesn't have a ball in it. Why they call it ball ammunition I don't know, but that's the designation.

2) The M16 bullet in and of itself does not have a tendency to wobble any more or less than any other ammo. All ammo wants to wobble. That's why groves i.e. rifleing are cut into the inside of the barrells of guns. The twist (turn rate) on the F16 barrell is not suficient to give the bullet a good flight path. The bullet first wobles slightly and by 460 yards goes pretty much out of control. This wobble gives it a greater tendancy to do weird things when it hits a target also.

3) Kinetic energy is much more important to knock down power than bullet diameter. This has been covered very well but please bare with me as I add my thoughts to this. I think the 30 cal (7.62mm) round of the MP44 will pass as much or more kenetic energy to the target than a 9mm PB at any range. Even though the 7.62 may pass through the target and keep on going the overall destructive energy transmitted will be greater than the 9mm. The size of the hole isn't that important. That's only a small part of the tissue rupture equation. It's the violent energy transfer (and subsequent tissue rupture)that causes the combination of shock and blood loss to knock down the target. If it wasn't for the violent energy transfer bullets would be very ineficient killing tools becouse they tend to carterize(SP) the wound. Now if bullets were efficient blood letters like a nice sharp arrow is (requires a fraction of the kenetic energy for a quick kill), kenetic energy wouldn't be an issue, but as thing are I'd say the MP44 packs a much more leathal punch.

------------------

He who gets there the fastest with the mostest wins.

[Formerly Babra]

If someone can give me a projectile weight and velocity at any given range for the two rounds, I'll do those calcs...

------------------

When I die I want to go peacefully, like my grandfather, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car

[Murx]

Hi I'm not that informed on weapons as some (most?) of you are but I would like to contribute some things to this discussion:

G11: As far as I know this weapon was not introduced as the main German weapon of only one reason: Its caliber is 4.45 caseless ammo. No other nation of the NATO use this so there could always be the problem of supplying this type of ammo in a conflict. There is the fact that it uses very high velocity rounds but not different in behavior then the standard 5.56mm rounds of the M16 or the like. The pro for this caseless ammo is that a soldier could carry three times the ammo others could(At my military training i had 120 rounds with me...). Second this weapon burst mode fires at such a high rof that the backbeat happens after the third round had left the barrel (so effectly at 100m three rounds would hit within 10cm!).

It had a 40rounds mag (btw a funny thing on this weapon: Military demanded a full auto mode, with the 50round mag it always jamed after some 40 shots, they never found a way to fix that - so they cut the mag to 40 shots).

40 round mag? Not quit right, in fact there are 2 mags build together, at the top of the barrel are three guide rails, so you just switch the mag one rail to the side and have a fresh mag .

One thing on ammo: There is the clear tendence that nowaday soldiers need much more shots to hit a target! I read someday (might not be accurate) That in WWII the average European soldier needed 20 rounds per hit, the US approx 200, not to mention the Vietnam war with several thousand.

I don't really understand this fact. Even in 'nowadays' crimes in US both police and criminal fire whole mags at distances much shorter then 50m at each other with very few hits. I have trained with the UZI and G3 and even the P1 (which is said to be the worsed pistol in the world, chances are that you hit better if you throw it) and never got problems homing in. I'm not that strong and the backbeat from the G3 or even our MG2 gave me problems but I can't understand whats so hard hitting a target ...

(BTW there are [as far as I know] only two differences between the MG2 and the MG42 ask me if you want to know them)

There was a long discussion on caliber. In my opinion this 'new' 5.56 (now Germany got its G36 with 5.56) is bull**** !

I read in a German army manual on field fortyfications that you need 110 cm of sandsack barricade to make sure that medium MGs and assaultrifles with 7.62 won't hurt you. I guess with those lightweight 5.56 you need less then a third (correct me if I'm wrong). Maybe most buildings in the world aren't build like they are in Europe but there is no way a 5.56 will go through 20-30cm of brick. But when you got a G3 (I think there is a M16 variant that uses 7.62 too) and you see a son of a bitch hiding in a house you don't mind and punch a hole in the place you think where that guy is (and probably punch a hole in him too).

And light armored vehicles ... heck with a good rifle you can penetrate the back armor of a BMP-2!

Uh, ok, its late gotta go

murx

[Lee]

You guys are speaking my language.

The M-16 bullet is of a boat tail design, IIRC. And those sorts of

bullets aren't very stable when they hit things, thus they tend to yaw

after impact potentially causing a more serious wound. This is what

people are referring to (whether they realize it or not) when they talk

of hearing about "tumbling bullets".

As far as the firepower ratings in CM go, the MP-40 is an extremely effective

weapon and is quick to bring into action, especially in the hands of

a skilled operator. This, coupled with the fact that assault rifles on

full auto can be very tricky to control (especially in a close-in desperate

firefight), alone could well account for the

higher firepower rating

in close quarters. Because firepower measures *effective* destructive

force that can be brought to bear. And that advantage doesn't always

go to the bigger firearm.

And Steve is right about the reputation of the .45 ACP caliber Browning

pistol and Thompson SMG. They were both renowned for their stopping

power when compared to smaller handgun calibers and M1 carbine rounds.

There is much to be said for a big fat bullet traveling at fairly modest

velocities. A very large percentage of serious gun enthusiasts

here in the U.S. carry .45 ACP Colt's (or other makes of the same

basic design as our soldiers carried for 75 years in this country)

exclusively on their person for security, and for very good reason.

I collect and shoot a wide variety of military firearms and I certainly

feel for the decent citizens of Canada (and England and Australia) who

have had their right to own and shoot guns freely stripped from them by

their kindly socialist governments. I hope those God-given rights

are soon restored to them. In the mean time, keep up your spirits and

the good fight.

[Guest aaronb]

Since Canadian gun-control keeps coming up, this is (slightly) on-topic, especially given the parallels to pre-WWII gun control in Germany (started by the Weimar Republic in 1928). For the curious, and especially Canadians who think the current regime is no big deal, have a look at http://www.nfa.ca/ and http://www.cila.org/ . I could go on a long rant here, but these two organizations do it better. For balance, see http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/Default-en.html , the governments (propaganda) site.

With regards to 'stopping power', after reading the interesting FBI report referenced earlier in the thread, I'm more liable to believe that a big slow bullet is as good or better than a light fast one (at close range).

[Abrams]

Murx,

You mention the 7.62mm (.308 cal fur us non-metric folk )The gun is the AR10,

developed by Eugene Stoner after WWII.

Made it into limited production in the mid 50's . I have 2 of them babies---

SWEET !! (now to different AR10 rifles are being made today...

I used to own and service full auto weapons

and have played with most of these toys,other than the FG 42 .

Anyone near Knob Creek , Kentucky must go to the MG shoot , or go to the Sold of Fort convention on 'Vegas ...

Anyways -- back to the "_ORIGINAL_" start of this thread ... the MP/StG43-44 weapon was another example of over-engineering with machinework. For a country being pounded to pieces and running out of supplies, and also considering the poor training the last recruits were getting ... the MP40 made more sense in the last days of the Third Reich.

The StG45 was the best of the light auto weapons , time ran out ... the german G3

owes its basic design to the StG45.

Abrams

[PawBroon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EScurlock:

My 2 cents:

1) No the M16 ammo doesn't have a ball in it. Why they call it ball ammunition I don't know, but that's the designation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess that one appeared quite a few time I first came up with that one.

I'm FRENCH, not in the US military and thus NOT refering to the M16.

The ball at the tip of the bullet is (as far as I know) not implemented (not with our FAMAS with you must have heard of) but EXIST since it had been part of a design to make new weapons and/or new ammos.

Pardon my english if you had the impression it was used in the M16.

------------------

Either he's dead or my watch has stopped

[Moon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And Steve is right about the reputation of the .45 ACP caliber Browning

pistol and Thompson SMG. They were both renowned for their stopping

power when compared to smaller handgun calibers and M1 carbine rounds.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed, there was a discussion about a similar topic wayyyy back, and it appears (and perfectly makes sense) that a slow moving big bullet is able to transmit more of its knietic energy to its target (i.e. human body) than a small fast moving bullet - UNLESS the slower one hits a bone. Uh - I might have completely screwed this up, but I am sure that some of the Doc's visiting this board can clear it up...

---

Have I mentioned my CM website yet?

http://www.gamesofwar.de

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moon:

it appears (and perfectly makes sense) that a slow moving big bullet is able to transmit more of its knietic energy to its target (i.e. human body) than a small fast moving bullet - UNLESS the slower one hits a bone<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is at least half true; bigger is usually better, in handgun ammunition. But if a slow-moving big bullet is good, a fast-moving big bullet is better, 'cause energy is the name of the game.

The fact is that all handguns are weak. The .45 ACP military load (Europeans call it the 11.43x23mm in their quaint system)

is a 230 grain, round nose, full metal jacket, which is always called "ball" ammunition (probably because guns used to shoot literal round balls; also why bullets are called "rounds"). The .45 creates about 351 foot/pounds of energy at the muzzle.

If the .45 was a rifle you would throw it away. Rifles have energy to spare. All the debate and effort and study over stopping power in handguns is necessary, because handguns are a compromise. The #1 handgun man-stopper is .357 Magnum, not a military load, because it offers the "right" combination of bullet weight and velocity (and exceeds .44 mag according to many). It still sucks compared to almost all rifles (I've killed 2 deer with .357 mag, many with military rifles, and take a ghoulish interest in post-mortem wound ballistics. I always eat my subjects).

The 9mm is pretty lame in the "stopping power" category, but has less recoil than the biggies. The philosophy again: all a military round has to do, in addition to feeding properly and flying straight, is get a solid hit on a guy, and he is basically done for. The 9 will do that out to the 40m dividing line that CM uses, and would retain some effectiveness out to 90+m. For these purposes, 9 and .45 are quite equal. As man-stopping handguns go (police-style), .45 would be much better.

I thought the G11 was on hold due to corrosion problems with the caseless ammo?

[Moon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This is at least half true; bigger is usually better, in handgun ammunition. But if a slow-moving big bullet is good, a fast-moving big bullet is better, 'cause energy is the name of the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hm... actually I am not sure about this. The way I understood the whole issue was that from a certain speed on, the bullet will pass through the human body too quickly (with too much excess energy), so although it's a bigger bullet moving faster, only a smaller portion of energy is transferred to the body. This means: unless the bullet hits something harder (a bone) you'll get a nice clean shot-through, and the victim might still be standing.

But then I am just trying to repeat what I have heard myself on this forum here, so I might be completely wrong...

[Moon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This is at least half true; bigger is usually better, in handgun ammunition. But if a slow-moving big bullet is good, a fast-moving big bullet is better, 'cause energy is the name of the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hm... actually I am not sure about this. The way I understood the whole issue was that from a certain speed on, the bullet will pass through the human body too quickly (with too much excess energy), so although it's a bigger bullet moving faster, only a smaller portion of energy is transferred to the body. This means: unless the bullet hits something harder (a bone) you'll get a nice clean shot-through, and the victim might still be standing.

But then I am just trying to repeat what I have heard myself on this forum here, so I might be completely wrong...

---

Have I mentioned my Combat Mission website yet?

www.gamesofwar.de

[John Kettler]

This thread is just too interesting to let pass. There are several issues I'd like to clarify.

M-16 bullet tumbling

The cartridge for the M-16 traces its ancestry to a varmint (woodchuck, gopher, etc.) round, featuring a light, very fast moving bullet designed to instantly disable a varmint, but only in the open or light cover. As noted, the bullet is stable enough to reach the target, but is easily diverted and upset from its trajectory when it hits something not much larger than a twig. Because of this, the bullet acts somewhat like a saw blade when it hits people, becoming unstable at entry, tumbling in the wound and giving up its kinetic energy very quickly, producing great tissue trauma and shock effect in the process.

There is another aspect to M-16 wounding most aren't aware of. At close range (under 30m) the bullet is traveling so fast that hitting someone causes it to usually break up in the wound, creating one entry wound but as many as three wound paths within the victim's body. I have personally read the anguished reports of Panamanian physicians who treated those hit by M-16 fire during Operation Just Cause at close range. They thought that we were using some inhumane, prohibited weapon, when what was really happening was that the bullet was simply failing under stress loads it was never designed for. Typically the bullet failed at the cannelure (where the casing gets crimped on).

AK-74 tumbling

The Russians get the same basic result, but through an entirely different approach. Their bullet is designed such that the lead core doesn't fill the entire projectile jacket. Instead, there is a space deliberately left at the front, and the core is inserted in such a way that a strong shock (hitting someone) will free it and let it move forward. This instantly imbalances the bullet, causing it to yaw violently through the victim, causing such severe shock and trauma that the Mujahideen dubbed it "the poisoned bullet."

Finally, since someone brought up the progressive disarmament of citizens by their governments, I thought I'd drop a bombshell here.

A group called Jews for the Protection of Firearms Ownership has uncovered damning evidence that the fundamental U.S. gun control law, the 1968 Gun Control Act, is practically a verbatim translation of the original Nazi gun control decree. That evidence includes documentation that the author of the bill requested and borrowed from the National Archive a translation of the Nazi gun control decree only days before offering his gun control bill in the Senate.

Just think! In these oh-so-PC times, those who would disarm us use Hitler's laws (which led to genocide for several groups, not just the Jews) to advance their cause, while the survivors/descendants of the last "benefactors" of gun control, try to warn everyone of the mortal danger we all face.

Not only can this group show that gun control led to genocide in Germany, but in nearly a dozen other countries as well. The sordid tale is there for all who have the courage to read it. The URL is www.jfpo.org

Thought you should know.

Regards,

John Kettler

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Kettler:

Not only can this group show that gun control led to genocide in Germany, but in nearly a dozen other countries as well.

Thought you should know.

Regards,

John Kettler

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am sorry John, but that is ridiculous. Everything else you said before this may or may not be true, I could not tell, but this is a ridiculous statement to make. Whoever made it has no clue of the social fabric of European societies and how they differ from the US.

------------------

Andreas

The powers of accurate perception are often called cynicism by those who do not possess them. (forgot who said it)