The Small Arms Thread, Part 8: 2018; ICSR to be replaced by US Army with interim 15mm Revolver Cannon.

[D.E. Watters]

It sounds like older barrels are still in the system.  I do remember seeing TACOM-Rock Island orders for M249 monobloc barrels coming in bulk.  FN Manufacturing also has a single port gas regulator for the M240 family.

[Sturgeon]

Makes sense, 240 crews are typically much better trained.

[D.E. Watters]

PS Magazine #689 from April 2010 mentions that all M240B and M240H barrels will ultimately be equipped with single port regulator.  A three port regulator can be retained until it fails inspection.

[Tied]

 

 

[Tied]

 

 

 

 

[Tied]

[Tied]

 

[Tied]

[Tied]

 

[Alex C.]

PS Magazine #689 from April 2010 mentions that all M240B and M240H barrels will ultimately be equipped with single port regulator.  A three port regulator can be retained until it fails inspection.

I believe mine had a 240g barrel, but the gun was papered as a 240b.

[D.E. Watters]

I believe mine had a 240g barrel, but the gun was papered as a 240b.

TM 9-1005-313-10 (Change 5 - May 8, 2009) indicates that only the single port regulator is authorized for the M240B, M240H, and M240L. Everything else is authorized the three port regulator.

[Sturgeon]

A strange thing has happened - I have found something on which I disagree with Massad Ayoob:

"It’s become popular on the Internet to claim that there is no difference between chamberings. That the 9mm, for instance, is equal to the .40 S&W or .45 ACP, bullet type for bullet type, in terms of “stopping power.” That is an argument that simply defies logic. A 9mm-diameter bullet weighing 147 grains is the same as a 10mm-diameter .40 bullet weighing 180 grains, or an 11.25mm-diameter .45 ACP +P bullet weighing 230 grains, when they’re all going within 50 feet per second of each other? Really? History, common sense and logic say otherwise."

 

If they all expand to more or less the same diameter and have the same consistency against ribs, clothing, and other common barriers, then yeah buddy they will perform pretty much exactly the same. The bullet being heavier doesn't have much to do with it.

[Tied]

Or maybe that 99.9999% of handun lethal gun battles are decided by one shot and not peppering the bastard with half a magazine of 9×18mm Makarov

 

 

yessir, if there is one thing the army told us about sidearms is to carefully place one shot middle mass, observed if the stopping power has infact stopped the Fascist HATO Dog, regret that you were firing a 12% larger bullet, and line up your sights to put another round downrange

[Sturgeon]

I have no idea how the Soviet Army expected you to carefully aim any shot with a Makarov, given how shitty Russian pistol ammo is.

[Donward]

Yeah. I saw that same Ayoob article a day or two ago and found it wanting.

I'll Fisk it later after my guests leave late tonight.

[Tied]

I have no idea how the Soviet Army expected you to carefully aim any shot with a Makarov, given how shitty Russian pistol ammo is.

 

dude for less than 30 meter engagement ranges in the 80s, it got the job done just fucking fine, plus you would have to try really hard to break the Makarov 

 

 

plus it helps that we werent using rounds kept 40 years in storage and sold in bulk to 20 gallon hicks 

[Sturgeon]

dude for less than 30 meter engagement ranges in the 80s, it got the job done just fucking fine, plus you would have to try really hard to break the Makarov 

 

 

plus it helps that we werent using rounds kept 40 years in storage and sold in bulk to 20 gallon hicks 

 

Actually, in my experience with the stuff, it's atrocious for anything but muzzle-to-chest ranges.

[Donward]

A strange thing has happened - I have found something on which I disagree with Massad Ayoob:

"It’s become popular on the Internet to claim that there is no difference between chamberings. That the 9mm, for instance, is equal to the .40 S&W or .45 ACP, bullet type for bullet type, in terms of “stopping power.” That is an argument that simply defies logic. A 9mm-diameter bullet weighing 147 grains is the same as a 10mm-diameter .40 bullet weighing 180 grains, or an 11.25mm-diameter .45 ACP +P bullet weighing 230 grains, when they’re all going within 50 feet per second of each other? Really? History, common sense and logic say otherwise."

 

If they all expand to more or less the same diameter and have the same consistency against ribs, clothing, and other common barriers, then yeah buddy they will perform pretty much exactly the same. The bullet being heavier doesn't have much to do with it.

 

I respect Massad Ayoob very much and have been reading his columns since I was a teenager in the 1990s. I'm sure the man has collected and collated every instance of a law enforcement or civilian shooting in self defense and broken down the engagement before and during the shooting along with its legal aftermath.

 

With that said, there are several glaring inconsistencies in this article. Now as someone who has written for a living myself, not everything you write is good or consistent. And since Ayoob has been writing for - what - four or five decades now, I'm willing to give him a lot of leeway.

 

The instance about pistol calibers that start with the number four being so much superior to - say - a 9mm not only flies in the face of current ballistics science, but also the anecdote in his own story about a police officer who was shot point blank in the face and then six more times with a .45 ACP (presumably from a 1911) and then not only survived the shooting but then killed his assailant. 

 

Ayoob seems to bash revolvers and low capacity semi-autos for not having enough ammunition by trying to bring up the Wild Bill Hickock vs Bill Tuttle shootout of all things when, no, Wild Bill didn't need more than one shot. With the Gunfight at the OK Corral, the individuals in the shooting were law enforcement officers who geared up for a conflict by grabbing shotguns and extra weapons in order to make an arrest. An average civilian going to and from work rarely has the opportunity to tote around a shotgun, or modern battle rifle. The individual who emptied his nine round 9mm handgun into an assailant didn't need anymore ammunition because the assailant died. So it didn't matter if his gun was empty since the likelihood then of being attacked by ninjas or a zombie biker gang at that instance was infinitely low. And if for some reason he saw that the assailant's homeboys were approaching, there is always the option of running.

 

Finally, there is the same old, tired story about the legendary Rich Davis who was responsible for essentially inventing body armor for police and civilians who got shot while shooting six shots into three assailants, one of whom shot him twice in return. I hate to break it to Mr. Ayoob but if you are going mano y mano versus multiple armed assailants, you might as well resign yourself to the fact that you will be shot in return.

 

Which is the damnable and contemptible lie that so many so-called tactical courses instill in people when they pretend like one person, armed with a handgun of all weapons, is going to go "Die Hard" on a group of armed men and those guys will all conveniently miss you while you coolly and coldly gun them down with precise ease by two shots in the chest and one in the head. 

 

It's twaddle. It's complete and utter nonsense. It doesn't matter if you have a revolver or a 17-round Glock, you're probably going to be shot in that scenario.

 

Furthermore, the fact that Mr. Ayoob has to dredge up a story that is literally four decades old as an example of an ordinary civilian engaging multiple attackers and needing more ammunition is very telling about just how often those incidents occur.

 

He talks about the error in aiming for center mass which is debatable as well. If you are pouring rounds from your 9mm, .40 Short and Weak or .45 ACP indiscriminately into an individuals center mass, there is a good chance that it will take awhile for that individual to perish and - with modern first aid and emergency room techniques - there's a damn good chance he'll survive. Which brings up the startling realization that instead of carrying a gun with multiple 9mm, .40S&W or .45 ACP, perhaps individuals in the gunfighting business who aim at center mass ought to be carrying instead a Magnum caliber revolver either in .357 Magnum or .41 Magnum which are demonstrably able to hit and damage an individual with rifle-like effect given the wound cavity those rounds cause. And since this is the 21st Century, I would be an idiot not to point out that in all actuality, the best round for "man stopping" is probably a 10mm in a high capacity semi auto. 

 

I'm also curious to see him making a myth out of "He who shoots first, wins" since the vast majority of the time, there is only one individual who fires a round and by shooting - or even presenting a handgun - this ends the engagement. Most people when they have a gun pulled on them stop. Most people when they are shot, stop. And if you shoot them and they die, then they too generally stop. This is true whether they are the good guy or the bad guy. The instances of an individual being shot and then effectively returning fire is rare, and these are generally law enforcement offices who are often wearing body armor. 

 

I'm not really sure what Mr. Ayoob was trying to prove here but - like I said - everyone has a bad day.

[Belesarius]

I respect Massad Ayoob very much and have been reading his columns since I was a teenager in the 1990s. I'm sure the man has collected and collated every instance of a law enforcement or civilian shooting in self defense and broken down the engagement before and during the shooting along with its legal aftermath.

 

With that said, there are several glaring inconsistencies in this article. Now as someone who has written for a living myself, not everything you write is good or consistent. And since Ayoob has been writing for - what - four or five decades now, I'm willing to give him a lot of leeway.

 

The instance about pistol calibers that start with the number for being so much superior to - say - a 9mm not only flies in the face of current ballistics science, but also the anecdote in his own story about a police officer who was shot point blank in the face and then six more times with a .45 ACP (presumably from a 1911) and then not only survived the shooting but then killed his assailant. 

 

Ayoob seems to bash revolvers and low capacity semi-autos for not having enough ammunition by trying to bring up the Wild Bill Hickock vs Bill Tuttle shootout of all things when, no, Wild Bill didn't need more than one shot. With the Gunfight at the OK Corral, the individuals in the shooting were law enforcement officers who geared up for a conflict by grabbing shotguns and extra weapons in order to make an arrest. An average civilian going to and from work rarely has the opportunity to tote around a shotgun, or modern battle rifle. The individual who emptied his nine round 9mm handgun into an assailant didn't need anymore ammunition because the assailant died. So it didn't matter if his gun was empty since the likelihood then of being attacked by ninjas or a zombie biker gang at that instance was infinitely low. And if for some reason he saw that the assailants homeboys were approaching, there is always the option of running.

 

Finally, there is the same old, tired story about the legendary Rich Davis who was responsible for essentially inventing body armor for police and civilians who got shot while shooting six shots into three assailants, one of whom shot him twice in return. I hate to break it to Mr. Ayoob but if you are going mano y mano versus multiple armed assailants, you might as well resign yourself to the fact that you will be shot in return.

 

Which is the damnable and contemptible lie that so many so-called tactical courses instill in people when they pretend like one person, armed with a handgun of all weapons, is going to go "Die Hard" on a group of armed men and those guys will all conveniently miss you while you coolly and coldly gun them down with precise ease by two shots in the chest and one in the head. 

 

It's twaddle. It's complete and utter nonsense. It doesn't matter if you have a revolver or a 17-round Glock, you're probably going to be shot in that scenario.

 

Furthermore, the fact that Mr. Ayoob has to dredge up a story that is literally a four decades old as an example of an ordinary civilian engaging multiple attackers and needing more ammunition is very telling about just how often those incidents occur.

 

He talks about the error in aiming for center mass which is debatable as well. If you are pouring rounds from your 9mm, .40 Short and Weak or .45 ACP indiscriminately into an individuals center mass, there is a good chance that it will take awhile for that individual to perish and - with modern first aid and emergency room techniques - there's a damn good chance he'll survive. Which brings up the startling realization that instead of carrying a gun with multiple 9mm, .40S&W or .45 ACP, perhaps individuals in the gunfighting business who aim at center mass ought to be carrying instead a Magnum caliber revolver either in .357 Magnum or .41 Magnum which are demonstrably able to hit and damage an individual with rifle-like effect given the wound cavity those rounds cause. And since this is the 21st Century, I would be an idiot not to point out that in all actuality, the best round for "man stopping" is probably a 10mm in a high capacity semi auto. 

 

I'm also curious to see him making a myth out of "He who shoots first, wins" since the vast majority of the time, there is only one individual who fires a round and by shooting - or even presenting a handgun - this ends the engagement. Most people when they have a gun pulled on them stop. Most people when they are shot, stop. And if you shoot them and they die, then too they generally stop. This is true whether they are the good guy or the bad guy. The instances of an individual being shot and then effectively returning fire is rare, and these are generally law enforcement offices who are often wearing body armor. 

 

I'm not really sure what Mr. Ayoob was trying to prove here but - like I said - everyone has a bad day.

Welp. As a member of the nobility, I'm tossing this one in the hall of fame.

 

 

Well fucking said sir.

[Sturgeon]

He talks about the error in aiming for center mass which is debatable as well. If you are pouring rounds from your 9mm, .40 Short and Weak or .45 ACP indiscriminately into an individuals center mass, there is a good chance that it will take awhile for that individual to perish and - with modern first aid and emergency room techniques - there's a damn good chance he'll survive. Which brings up the startling realization that instead of carrying a gun with multiple 9mm, .40S&W or .45 ACP, perhaps individuals in the gunfighting business who aim at center mass ought to be carrying instead a Magnum caliber revolver either in .357 Magnum or .41 Magnum which are demonstrably able to hit and damage an individual with rifle-like effect given the wound cavity those rounds cause. And since this is the 21st Century, I would be an idiot not to point out that in all actuality, the best round for "man stopping" is probably a 10mm in a high capacity semi auto. 

 

Unless you've got a shooting iron the size of the Joker's comedy flag gun, .357 Magnum is just a hair more powerful than 9mm, so no you're not getting "rifle-like" ballistics out of it, you're getting virtually identical ballistics because that additional modicum of velocity is doing exactly jack to make your permanent wound channel bigger.

10mm has a similar relationship to .40 S&W, which in turn is hardly measurably more effective than 9mm, so yeah, just carry something in 9 or if you really need something more concealable, .380.

[Donward]

Unless you've got a shooting iron the size of the Joker's comedy flag gun, .357 Magnum is just a hair more powerful than 9mm, so no you're not getting "rifle-like" ballistics out of it, you're getting virtually identical ballistics because that additional modicum of velocity is doing exactly jack to make your permanent wound channel bigger.

10mm has a similar relationship to .40 S&W, which in turn is hardly measurably more effective than 9mm, so yeah, just carry something in 9 or if you really need something more concealable, .380.

 

Gotta disagree. With ballistics gel testing - which is imperfect - starting at .357 Magnum you start getting wound cavity effect which causes actual destruction to tissue.

 

 

 

Brasscatcher apparently doesn't have .41 Magnum but here's .44 as a comparison.

 

 

 

And yeah, there are multiple different types of rounds, styles, weights, and whatnot, I just used those Youtubes as a quick representation.

 

Obviously .357 Magnum, or any pistol cartridge, aren't one-shot derp-and-forget, death rays. And a pistol is always a compromise when it comes to a self defense weapon. It's just kind of interesting that the civilian world has opted for the Many-Bullitz-Many-Chances-To-Hit style of shooting when in reality if they are ever in a self defense shooting, they will be facing one opponent and one opponent at very close range. So why not make the first - and perhaps only - one or two shots that you fire count?

 

Just me being a Fudd Sturgeon. Not trying to throw down.

[Bronezhilet]

As a member of the nobility

I feel oppressed.

[Donward]

I feel oppressed.

You only get to feel oppressed around here if someone fires a 128mm Jagdtiger machine gun at you.

[Khand-e]

Unless you've got a shooting iron the size of the Joker's comedy flag gun, .357 Magnum is just a hair more powerful than 9mm, so no you're not getting "rifle-like" ballistics out of it, you're getting virtually identical ballistics because that additional modicum of velocity is doing exactly jack to make your permanent wound channel bigger.

10mm has a similar relationship to .40 S&W, which in turn is hardly measurably more effective than 9mm, so yeah, just carry something in 9 or if you really need something more concealable, .380.

 

Erm.... max loaded 10mm beats the shit out of .40 S&W performance wise, mainly out of longer barrels.

 

I know you have some strange urge to to defend the honor of 9mm Luger as the only possible defensive caliber, but really, come on man.

[Sturgeon]

First, none of those videos demonstrate remote wounding effects, and none of those rounds are moving fast enough to generate them to a significant degree. That's really what "rifle-like" effect means, that a bullet can break a bone or rupture an organ without actually hitting it. This is caused so far as I know by the speed of the expanding temporary cavity, and slow rounds (below about 1,500 ft/s) regardless of their power simply do not cause it.

 

NONE of those rounds come anywhere close to that impact velocity, so what matters is expanded diameter, sectional density, bullet toughness, and how clogproof the bullet is. If you've got a round that's reasonably resistant to denim and ribs clogging the hollow point that expands to 0.7", it doesn't really matter whether it's moving 1,100 ft/s or 1,300 ft/s, or what caliber it started at, OR its weight.

 

And by the way, that 158gr .357 Mag clocking over 1,300 ft/s? Compare it against this chart from BallisticsByTheInch:

 

Note that you need well over a 6" revolver barrel to attain that velocity. So we're back again to the Joker's BANG pistol...