Posted on 07/28/2014 9:57:54 AM PDT by SLB
This week, the U.S. Army will brief arms manufacturers on the design requirements for a new standard-issue handgun. Several gun makers will compete for the lucrative contract, developing weapons that are more reliable and more powerful than those currently in service. Officials say the upgrade is overdue—it’s been nearly 30 years since the Army adopted the Beretta M9. But the last time the military challenged the industry to make a better handgun, all the innovations intended for the battlefield also ended up in the consumer market, and the severity of civilian shootings soared.
Studying gunshot injuries in the D.C. area in the 1980s, Daniel Webster of Johns Hopkins University noticed an alarming trend—as time went on, more and more patients were arriving at the emergency room with multiple bullet wounds. In 1983, at the beginning of the study period, only about a quarter of gunshot patients had multiple injuries, but in the last two years of the study, that proportion had risen to 43 percent. Over the same period, semiautomatic pistols with a capacity of 15-rounds (or more) were replacing six-shot revolvers as the most popular firearms in the country. It’s not difficult to see the correlation—more bullets in the guns, more bullets in the victims. But why had guns changed so radically in such a short period of time?
(Excerpt) Read more at govexec.com ...
She’s got me convinced. I need to go back and use older, less lethal technology, like the 1911 and the M-14.
You’re an arms control freak. ;-)
Complete B.S.The study was done in the 1980s, and gunshot victims have dropped radically since that time. Pure data picking and speculation.
Numerous other studies debunk this pile.
Will be interesting for sure .... In my old age, soon to be second retirement I’m a fan of the 357 Sig caliber in Sig or Glock launchers. My BBQ gun is still a Clarke 1911A1 meltdown stainless I’ve had for a few decades.....
DOD needs to go to anything Sig, 357 caliber and or up to 45 ....
Just my two cents ....stay safe y’all !
Even if the industry were to overcome the technological hurdles, though, the Army isn’t likely to adopt smart-gun technology now or any time soon—why would they?
Why indeed? In the Army you are likely to have to shoot another soldier's weapon at short notice. Making that impossible is not going to increase anyone's combat effectiveness. A flashing "unauthorized access" light is not going to impress many opponents - the thing needs to go "bang".
If I had to speculate about a new caliber it would probably be a relatively cautious choice such as the .40 S&W, just because the government already owns so many of them and so much ammunition. I'd prefer the .45 ACP or the .357 SiG, personally, at least as far as wound capacity. I also think that the U.S. military needs to go to expanding ammunition for these platforms. The U.S. never signed the Hague Convention that forbids them anyway. We did sign this (from the GunZone article):
Where the U.S. did sign on, however, was with the Hague Convention IV of 1907, Article 23(e) of which Annex states: "…it is especially forbidden -
To employ arms, projectiles, or material{sic} calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;"
The purpose of expanding ammunition is not to cause suffering, but to prevent it. I think that might make a bigger difference than simply switching calibers.
The problem with nukes is that, per adaptation of Cooper’s Four Rules, and short of storage in many square miles of cordoned-off rank wilderness, a nuke is “pointed at” a whole lotta people all the time, and actual use risks a whole lotta people “beyond your target”. Hence, short of complete elimination, we delegate the right thereto.
“Perhaps the relatively wimpy 9mm cartridge also contributes to victim survival.
The purpose of a military firearm is to incapacitate, not necessarily kill. A victim with multiple 9mm holes in him is much more likely to survive to get to the ER than one who has multiple 45 caliber holes.
Also, the man with only six shots available to him is much more likely to place his shots where he wants them, the high-capacity shooter tends to “spray and pray”, hoping to hit something. ...”
Author Valentine knows even less about the topic than many forum members might suspect.
JSSAP was run by USAF, not US Army: a departure from prior DoD practice, as US Army was the formally designated “executive agent” for small arms development and acquisition, starting in 1903 or so. Reasons for this change in executive agency were never made clear, but many in the community have speculated that it had something to do with the decidedly odd behavior displayed by US Army Ordnance Corps personnel during test and evaluation of the M-14, and subsequent testing to compare the original AR-15 with the M-14.
JSSAP did bring together personnel from every service dept, but tests were conducted at Eglin AFB in Florida’s panhandle, using facilities and personnel of what is now USAF’s Armament Lab.
The 9x19 NATO cartridge actually develops more kinetic energy than the 45 ACP. 9mm penetration of soft body armor is superior to the 45, and the 9mm’s effective range is greater. The latter means little to US military users, as the max effective range for all handguns was officially set decades ago at 20m (about 65 ft).
No approved statement of need nor operational requirements document in US DoD documentation has ever contained any language requiring a small arms projectile to incapacitate in preference to killing. It’s conceded that any opposing unit loses total military effectiveness in a more serious fashion if a combatant is wounded and not killed (greater expense and logistic/organizational effort needed for recovering, treating, evacuating, rehabilitating combat-wounded troops, as opposed to simply shoveling the bodies under) but the difficulty lies in determining just what amount of energy the projectile must transfer to the target to cause serious injury, yet not cause death. Humans vary a lot, not merely in size/shape/organ location, but in their energy state and motivational level, especially on the battlefield. Thus, no short-of-death results can be assured.
In practice, this means that attributes of size, weight, usability, and the like constrain the size, mass, and velocity of any bullet fired from a small arm. If one wants a rifle that the average solider can carry, pack into the trenches, and fire effectively, one must give up the really speedy, really big bullet. Further constraints are laid on the situation by stuff like raw materials availability, ease of manufacture, anticipated service life, ease of repair. Someone has to make the gun that could handle that big fast bullet, and make it tough enough to fire more than a couple times. Yet more money.
“Spray and pray” - shots per minute - has been official US Army doctrine since the 1950s. Interested forum members might research Project Salvo, S.L.A. Marshall, and related items to gain a better picture of the situation.
No study of the psychology of combat (ref S.L.A. Marshall) supports the notion that a troop armed with a revolver will take any greater care in aiming than with any other (mostly higher capacity) small arm.
Revolvers (as implied by “only six shots”) began to go out of fashion for military issue circa 1905, partly because of their limited capacity, but also because they cost much more to make and are much more likely to malfunction when exposed to weather, mud, and rough handling. A unit needs highly skilled armorers to keep revolvers functioning and accurate in the field, compared to semi-auto pistols, most of which are now easily serviced by unskilled personnel.
Going back to the “tried and true” Colt’s Government Model autoloader (US M1911 pistol) might break the bank today, and would not improve things anyway. The design was very good for the year 1911, but is tied to manufacturing methods of that era, which would cost more now. And the arm retains features added expressly for the horse cavalry, which make no sense now (grip safety is one). And - questions of bullet diameter aside - the gun is inferior to more modern designs. New-made Government Models were tested by JSSAP, and found to be less reliable and less safe than the newer guns.
when I said "six shots" I was making the point that the man with limited firepower is more likely to know where each bullet is going to go before he squeezes the trigger. The guy with "unlimited firepower" does not have to know, he just hopes he hits something
I do agree that the first few seconds of a firefight are critical and lots of lead in the air can make the opposing force keep their heads down.
“First, kinetic energy is basically non-existent in a handgun round. The 45 starts out with a larger hole. It lets more air in and more blood out. Unless you hit the central nervous system, that is all you got.”
The JSSAP team senior analyst (I forget his formal title; he was interviewed by Soldier of Fortune magazine after the pistol selection decision caused such a stir in the gun enthusiast community) declared that after they studied the test data, and every bit of archival data they could scrape up, they concluded that energy transfer to the target was the best predictor of terminal effectiveness. In turn, energy transfer correlated to bullet mass and velocity, and bullet shape.
“Stopping power” - a term often thrown about by gun enthusiasts, as if they knew what they were talking about - was found to have no quantifiable definition and was in consequence of no use in predicting terminal effectiveness.
“when I said “six shots” I was making the point that the man with limited firepower is more likely to know where each bullet is going to go before he squeezes the trigger. The guy with “unlimited firepower” does not have to know, he just hopes he hits something”
“fewer ready rounds equals a surer aim for each round” expresses a hope, not any phenomenon measurable in action. Or at least, none yet identified. Natural abilities, training states, and mindset cannot help but vary for each individual. We’d like to see all troops getting serious about marksmanship, but once adversaries engage, most bets are off.
“I do agree that the first few seconds of a firefight are critical and lots of lead in the air can make the opposing force keep their heads down.”
I was merely citing US Army doctrine, which is based very tightly on the work of S.L.A. Marshall during WWII. I do not necessarily agree with it. Some have begun questioning the validity of his approach.
USMC doctrine is quite different: they believe hits per minute is the proper measure of firepower.
Military doctrine is not holy writ set in stone. It was defined by the late I.B. Holley Jr as the most current expression of what is believed to be the best way for a military force to prepare for and accomplish its mission. It is always in a state of flux, because technology impacts the state of things. So do political constraints, and the possible array of adversaries, and even shifting interpretations of historical events.
Suitably stunning example of not only Sam Colt’s design genius, but his artistic sense as well.
Critics with far greater understanding of art have termed Sam’s last three revolvers (of which the M1860 is the biggest) as the ultimate expression of streamlining in firearms design produced during the 19th century. I happen to agree, but my vote is not adding much weight.
They don’t merely look good, they handle just as well. It’s as if they aim themselves.
This looks like a non-firing replica. Might devolve care to tell us more about its origin, and share any additional detail?
- I believe that is an actual authentic antique Colt revolver -
- Sam Colt was quite stubborn and resisted updating to a much stronger one-piece full frame with the barrel firmly screwed into to frame.
- Sam Colt died in 1862 - early in the War between the States.
- The US Army brass was demanding a full frame and after the ‘72-’72 Colt Richards, Richards-Mason, and Model 1872 Open-Top (I have M1872 grip frames and the original walnut one-piece grips on my circa 1898 Colt FSS .44-40 right now)
- Frank Henninger and Charles Mason designed the full-frame Colt Single Action Army in 1872 and Colt has manufactured the Colt SAA fom 1873 until today; the US Army finally got it’s way.
- Well-balanced but slow to load and remove cartridge brass and reload - Custer could have used the Smith & Wesson “.45 Scofield” on his last day; a hinged two-piece revolver that automatically ejected the six .45 Scofile brass and you could quickly reloaded - later with “moon-clips” you could load all 4 new cartridges at once, flip the barrel down and forward to lock the revolver in place and start firing at the Indians who had Civil War repeating Henrys, Spencers, and even the still made and sold lever-action repeaters: Winchester Model 1873 .44-40 carbines and rifles
- I am build several black powder cap & ball revolvers now using Pietta and Uberti revolver frames and parts and some conversion to cartridge cylinders (types used by Remington in 1860-1874) in the Model 1858 and in 1872 when S&W’s bored-thru cylinder patent ran out - the Colts
- “Pale Rider” type 1858 Remington Navy .38 conversion
- ‘’Good, Bad, Ugly” 1851 Colt Navy .38 conversion
- I am also doing some conversions to .22lr for Colts and Remingtons - Italian made clones and originals with the early frames and parts - these remain cap & ball percussion handguns -
- Ivory often is cracked as on that Colt revolver - morons now are going to ban elephant ivory and walrus ivory - mammoth ivory will still be legal.
- Millions will no longer be allowed to sell or give away their 600 year old carved ivory while countless tons of ivory sits in Africa and Russia - the Hell with the Africans who live their and are kept like monkeys in a zoo by the crazy environmental lefties.
-
- PS -
That is likely to be a stainless steel or nickel-plated Model of 1850 Colt New Army revolver - likely a 1960’s-80’s 2nd or 3rd Generation Colt Black Powder Series (made for Colt by Uberti of Italy) or colt Signature Series - fitted with a drop-in cartridge conversion in .22lr
- Antique Colts are great - but can cost up to $75,000 or more in mint condition
- You can find one from $699 to $4,000 - to $25,000
- Unlike gold or silver they go up in value - not ever down -
- sources :
http://Taylors.com
http://KirstKonversions.com
Your post inherently assumes a right to resist government,
and you’ve just cause brain aneurysms and wet panties in any libs that read it.
-
- example :
- $14,600
- http://www.gunsinternational.com/Rare-Colt-London-1860-Army-C9746-.cfm?gun_id=100453870
-
- nice on a Colt .36 Navy revolver - I built one for my daughter… for a circa 1859 Colt .36 Model of 1851 Navy
- I am now using a circa 1862 Confederate Colt .36 Navy round .36 barrel fitted to an antique Colt .36 Navy steel frame with mother-of-pearl grips hand-fitted on antique Colt hand-engraved brass grip frames converted to modern smokeless powder .38 special Cowboy Loads
- http://www.kirstkonverter.com/22-caliber-conversion-kits.html (and more)
Thankyou and it was a pleasure.
“- I believe that is an actual authentic antique Colt revolver...”
If that is so, the pictured gun has been the subject of extensive rework. Refinish is either nickel or chrome plate: difficult to differentiate in a photo, easier in person. But the rounded edges and dished-out holes where the three screws come through give it away. The placement of the stop notches in relation to the nipple recesses does not match an original, and there aren’t any nipples.
Interesting caliber conversion.
“- Sam Colt was quite stubborn and resisted updating to a much stronger one-piece full frame with the barrel firmly screwed into to frame.
- Sam Colt died in 1862 - early in the War between the States. ...”
Sam might not be so highly regarded had he lived. As devolve has noted, he resisted every innovation that made the revolver such a success in the last 1/3 of the 19th century (metallic cartridges, solid frames, double action).
His cap-and-ball configurations (frame, cylinder arbor, barrel wedged on the front) were indeed less stout, but they are easier to clean and maintain than any competing design. And any arm firing black powder simply *must* be taken to bits for thorough cleaning, if the owner wants it to remain reliable and to last.
The Smith & Wesson hinged frame was another amazing innovation for its time, but total strength was scarcely any better than the barrel-wedge configuration of the original Colts. Henninger and Mason’s solid frame Single Action Army was a better bet for strength and durability - key attributes for the Ordnance Corps. Annoyingly, the latch is the weakest point of the Nr 3 and all smaller S&W top-break revolvers; only a little wear loosens the joint to the point where the arm will pop open on firing, with serious results. Far better was the Webley configuration (present on earlier British revolvers I think), reversing S&W’s arrangement by mounting the latch on the standing breech. Revolver buffs will recall that the Nr 3 variant modified by George Schofield for the Ordnance Corps bears a latch quite different from other S&W hinged frames.
With deference to devolve’s historical research, my memory of what I read tells me that on 25 June 1876 George Armstrong Custer was not carrying the latest issue revolver (Colt Single Action). He was carrying a brace of revolvers gifted to him by some notable personage: S&W Old Model 1-1/2 or Old Model 2, chambered in 32 rimfire. They were hinged frame but not auto-ejecting. The Nr 3 Schofield had not yet been taken into US Army service.
In fairness to all involved, I cannot dispel serious doubts about the 7th Cavalry Regiment’s chances, even if they had been armed with Schofields. The odds were not in their favor.
And even the most talented commander can have a bad day.
“- I believe that is an actual authentic antique Colt revolver...”
If that is so, the pictured gun has been the subject of extensive rework. Refinish is either nickel or chrome plate: difficult to differentiate in a photo, easier in person. But the rounded edges and dished-out holes where the three screws come through give it away. The placement of the stop notches in relation to the nipple recesses does not match an original, and there aren’t any nipples.
Interesting caliber conversion.
“- Sam Colt was quite stubborn and resisted updating to a much stronger one-piece full frame with the barrel firmly screwed into to frame.
- Sam Colt died in 1862 - early in the War between the States. ...”
Sam might not be so highly regarded had he lived. As devolve has noted, he resisted every innovation that made the revolver such a success in the last 1/3 of the 19th century (metallic cartridges, solid frames, double action).
His cap-and-ball configurations (frame, cylinder arbor, barrel wedged on the front) were indeed less stout, but they are easier to clean and maintain than any competing design. And any arm firing black powder simply *must* be taken to bits for thorough cleaning, if the owner wants it to remain reliable and to last.
The Smith & Wesson hinged frame was another amazing innovation for its time, but total strength was scarcely any better than the barrel-wedge configuration of the original Colts. Henninger and Mason’s solid frame Single Action Army was a better bet for strength and durability - key attributes for the Ordnance Corps. Annoyingly, the latch is the weakest point of the Nr 3 and all smaller S&W top-break revolvers; only a little wear loosens the joint to the point where the arm will pop open on firing, with serious results. Far better was the Webley configuration (present on earlier British revolvers I think), reversing S&W’s arrangement by mounting the latch on the standing breech. Revolver buffs will recall that the Nr 3 variant modified by George Schofield for the Ordnance Corps bears a latch quite different from other S&W hinged frames.
With deference to devolve’s historical research, my memory of what I read tells me that on 25 June 1876 George Armstrong Custer was not carrying the latest issue revolver (Colt Single Action). He was carrying a brace of revolvers gifted to him by some notable personage: S&W Old Model 1-1/2 or Old Model 2, chambered in 32 rimfire. They were hinged frame but not auto-ejecting. The Nr 3 Schofield had not yet been taken into US Army service.
In fairness to all involved, I cannot dispel serious doubts about the 7th Cavalry Regiment’s chances, even if they had been armed with Schofields. The odds were not in their favor.
And even the most talented commander can have a bad day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.