mayse@cs.uiuc.edu (Chip Mayse) (01/08/90)
From: Chip Mayse <mayse@cs.uiuc.edu>
Someone (OK, Anthony Lee at U. of Queensland) asked what the advantage of
the Beretta would be over the venerable M1911. Obviously the 9mm round
used by the Beretta is flatter-shooting than the old .45; I've stood behind
shooters using .45's in pistol matches, and the bullets in flight were easy
to see, describing trajectories not much flatter than that of a well-thrown
rock or a good slingshot. These were target loads, possibly weaker than
standard ball cartridges.
However, ballistics probably aren't a major concern in a sidearm load,
given that the major problem with pistols is hitting the target at all. I
recall hearing that the Army wanted to adopt a new pistol that would fire
a NATO-standard cartridge, as the M-14 and M-16 do, and that the 9mm
widely used in Europe is a good choice from this standpoint. I don't know
whether it's the same as the 9mm Parabellum used (I think) in old German
military pistols such as the Luger and the Walther P-38. I've seen some
9mm cartridges which weren't that long.
Chip Mayse
cmayse@ncsa.uiuc.edu
[mod.note: 9mm NATO is 9x19mm Parabellum, or 9mm Luger. .380-cal
is a shorter cartridge 9mm. - Bill ]military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (01/11/90)
From: att!utzoo!henry >From: Chip Mayse <mayse@cs.uiuc.edu> >... Obviously the 9mm round >used by the Beretta is flatter-shooting than the old .45; I've stood behind >shooters using .45's in pistol matches, and the bullets in flight were easy >to see, describing trajectories not much flatter than that of a well-thrown >rock or a good slingshot... Looking from behind, what you mostly see is the bullet drop from gravity. Gravity drop is exactly the same, per second, for rocks, slingshots, and bullets. The 9mm's advantage here is simply shorter time of flight, and numerically the advantage isn't enormous. As I recall, the 9mm round is about 50% faster. (In return for which it sacrifices bullet mass.) >However, ballistics probably aren't a major concern in a sidearm load, >given that the major problem with pistols is hitting the target at all... Well, the major problem with Army-trained pistol *shooters* is hitting the target at all. Well-made pistols are quite accurate weapons, as witness what most any IPSC competitor can do with a stock M1911A1 on request. The problem is that high-quality pistol training takes a fair bit of time, uses up a lot of ammunition, and has to be followed up with frequent practice to maintain proficiency... and the Army has never felt like paying for all this. >... hearing that the Army wanted to adopt a new pistol that would fire >a NATO-standard cartridge, as the M-14 and M-16 do, and that the 9mm >widely used in Europe is a good choice from this standpoint... 9mm *is* the NATO standard pistol cartridge, and that's indeed why the change was made. It was basically a political maneuver; there was nothing especially wrong with the M1911A1. The US has -- rightly -- been criticized for a "standardize NATO equipment -- buy American" attitude, and getting the US into step on pistol caliber seemed like a good PR move. It's a way to reduce the pressure to do something utterly unthinkable like buying the Tornado off the shelf instead of developing the inferior (but American) F-15E. Better pistols than aircraft; the US pistol manufacturers don't have that big a lobby. (Since we're supposed to be technological here, I suppose I should justify insulting the F-15E... :-) The F-15, designed as a bastard cross between an air-superiority fighter and a high-altitude interceptor, has much too much wing to make a good low-level bomber. Whereas the Tornado was designed for it and does it very well.) Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
deej@bellcore.bellcore.com (David Lewis) (01/23/90)
From: nvuxr!deej@bellcore.bellcore.com (David Lewis)
{references to the accuracy of pistols, and the need for good,
comprehensive, long-term training to achieve this accuracy, deleted.}
I had heard, when the first fighting in Rumania started, that a
detachment of Securitate' forces had gotten into a firefight with the
Rumanian Olympic pistol team.
The Olympic team easily won the firefight.
Which either demonstrates the potential for pistol accuracy in the hands
of trained shooters, or the lack of ability of political state security
forces... but in either case indicates that weapons are significantly
less important than the people using them.
[mod.note: I heard this, as well, but I've never seen it
confirmed that the Olympic team was using pistols, as opposed
to long guns. Nonetheless, the point is well made. - Bill ]
--
David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej
(@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center)
"If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."