So has the .45 ACP. What's the difference?
Who Called Them "Assault Weapons"?
- Thread starter Howey
- Start date
So has the .45 ACP. What's the difference?
Yes, a .45 ACP is a similar bullet. Neither are guns. The difference? .45 is a bigger bullet, but has a similar amount of energy. That means the 9mm has a straighter shot, and can stack more bullets in the gun.
The .45 was invented to kill horses back in the days that cavalry was considered part of an army. 9mm was optimized to kill humans, and is less effective against horses. The only two problems with the 9mm is it is not great against body armor, and it has limited range.
The limited range does not sound like much of a problem, but the Israelis sometimes made the mistake of having military units armed with only 9mm Uzis. Such a military unit could easily be pinned down by Egyptian units with regular rifles, just so long as the Egyptian units stayed more than 100 meters/yards distant. Now the Israelis always have some rifles in their Uzi units, even down to the fire team level.
The body armor problem is a more recent problem. For many people carrying a rifle would be silly, so that is not the solution. Bullets with more energy than the 9mm are difficult to shoot from a pistol. There is not a straightforward solution right now.
Walt, you know nothing about bullets. I have a .45/.45 ACP that will shoot rings around a 9mm and is more accurate at longer range.
How do I know this? By reloading my own ammo and using a chronograph to measure velocities. Oh, and heavier bullets carry far more energy that a smaller bullet.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
The NFA of 1934 did not ban machine guns. It was a 'tax' designed to more than double the cost of the weapon, thereby destroying the ability of non wealthy people to obtain them. It was only decades later that the Hughes Amendment in FOPA 86 banned new ones from civilian ownership. It was able to be done after decades of brainwashing by tyrannical types that let civilians believe that they could be banned.
Kinetic energy is 1/2 x mass x velocity squared. So with the same amount of energy, a smaller bullet goes much faster, but has the same energy. You add in less weight that means the 9mm has less of an arc. That is why it was invented. A good shooter can compensate for the arc, but an average shooter will do better with the 9mm.
There are double stacked 45's, but double stacked clips were invented for the 9mm, and work best for the 9mm. In a real life situation, rate of fire is often important. For instance, two thirds of NYPD shots fired at someone two yards or less away missed completely. No one could miss a paper target two yards away, but a real life human, trying to stay alive, is just a harder shot. If you are going to miss two thirds or more of the time, you better be shooting a lot of bullets.
RB highlighted the need for more energy to get through body armor. Given that the 45 does not have the energy needed to get through body armor either, it really is not the solution. Also I should add, that a smaller bullet with more energy will do better against body armor.
A real life possible solution, which did not turn out well, was the FN 5.7×28mm. It has a bit more energy than a 9mm, or a standard .45, and is smaller. 9mm has a diameter of 9mm, .45 has a diameter of about 11.4mm, but a 5.7 has a diameter of only 5.7mm. It was supposed to punch through body armor. From my understanding, it did not turn out great.
A NATO 5.56 will get through body armor, and a 6.8 will get through body armor at a greater distance. Both are meant more for rifles, so would be silly to fire them from a pistol. There is currently not a straightforward answer to dealing with body armor.
What police around here are doing is carrying pistols, usually 9mm Glocks, on their person, and keeping assault weapons in their car. If they encounter someone with body armor, they have to return to their car to get their rifle.
Walt, admit you know nothing about bullets and ballistics.
I am beginning to think you know nothing about bullets and ballistics. Is all of this information really new to you? This should be old information to a real gun expert.
Walt, you don't want to get into a discussion about things you know nothing about. Especially when it comes to bullets, pressures, their coefficients, velocities and down range energy.
RB, I am sure you are a greater expert on the use of meth than I hopefully will ever be, but I still feel safe in telling you that it is not good for you.
Wow! What a deflection!
Walt, face it, you're not
the expert on very many
issues. Especially ballistics.
I bet you thought that response made sense. Think again.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
well, you don't have to like reality. yay freedom
Yep, the freedom to mow down people in a military fashion was what the founders wanted. They were intelligent people. They would not have allowed the people to live in fear.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
inability to understand what rights are?
which is why they believed in the right to defend yourself with whatever weapon suits you.
You cannot. The 2nd was absolutely not about allowing every man and woman a right to any weapon they choose. It was about a regulated militia to protect the state. We had no standing army then. If we got attacked by the Brits again, we were relying on citizen soldiers. You can see how well that worked out when the Brits burned down the Whitehouse in the war of 1812. Then we went to a standing army. That eliminated the need for people to have weapons. We would all be better off if every weapon was confiscated nd only those with real and serious reasons could have them. And no citizen should have military weapons.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
It is the absolute height of stupidity to believe that the founders would guarantee ONLY the government to have arms after they had just won indpendence from a government that tried to take their arms.
So you know what the founder thought. I know as well as you, therefore my contention that the founders would not sanction this carnage has a great base. I do not believe the founders would accept having active shooter drills in kids' schools. I do not think they would want mass shootings almost every day. You presume to speak for the founders when you cannot defend yourself in any respect. We live like this due to gun manufacturers, not patriots.
Gee dad, why do we have active shooter drills at school? Why would someone I don't know want to gun down me and the other kids? No reason? He can buy an assault weapon because he wanted it. He decided to do that and it is his right. You as a citizen have none.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
here's the thing, the founders direct words speak for themselves. I'm not speaking for them, however, YOU are doing that with absolutely nothing to back it up with. The founders believed liberty was more important than government provided safety. this is also proven by statements from them. Gun manufacturers are as responsible for todays 'carnage' as auto makers are for drunk driving deaths, which is to say that they are not. We, as a people, are doing a piss poor job of policing ourselves, but you have no faith in people, only government provided safety and look where that has gotten us. If anything, YOU are responsible for todays carnage
How wrong you are. Gun manufacturing lobbyists got the open hunting season on American children through according to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. They are responsible for all the gun deaths that followed. I don't need guns to survive.
Auto manufacturers have to follow a long litany of regulations to follow that make cars safer. They do a lot to save people's lives. Gun makers just keep making them more deadly.
So was every gun owning (now a) civilian. Some owned cannons.