close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Jeff Cooper 9mm and 223 not cutting it.

Discussion in 'The Powder Keg' started by Doglips, Aug 8, 2002.

  1. Doglips

    Doglips G&G Newbie

    Ill post the part that Jeff Cooper put in his Aug. 2002 Comentaries below. What do you all think? 9mm wimpy? 223 wimpy? or is this just bad press for these 2 cartriges? Should we all go to 45acp? 45 Colt? 454 ?(I cant hit beans with mine but when I do it smokes a soda can)
    Should we stock up on AKs? G-3?
    This should kick off some debates.


    Pistolcraft has been attracting a great deal of attention over there in the Afghan War. We have much information in these matters from people on the ground, and it seems that most of the material that we have assembled and analyzed during the twentieth century still holds true. Specifically a puny cartridge is a second rate choice, and our combat people up front are scrambling for the old faithful 1911 as best they can.

    According to Peckworth, who should know, the M9 pistol is not only underpowered but unreliable in heavy service, especially vulnerable to sand in the action. One special forces sergeant reports that it always takes two or more hits from the Parabellum cartridge to incapacitate a man. His report states, "Hitting with a 9 is like firing paint balls. I had to hit one al Qaeda who was coming at me four times before he dropped."

    Nor is the M16 doing well, either in stopping power or in functional reliability - to no one's surprise. We fought World War I with the 03, and we fought World War II with the Garand - whether that was wisdom and forethought, or simply chance, is a matter for history to decide - but the M16 is a step backward.

    :confused:
     
  2. wes

    wes G&G Newbie

    Well,I have to agree with Mr. Cooper.
     

  3. 7mmag6

    7mmag6 G&G Newbie

    6,049
    10
    I dont want no teenage queen I just want my M-14
     
  4. Rock

    Rock G&G Newbie

    Were is the suprise! I would not own a 9mm, and the 223rem is a good round for varment but not for a fire fight...I got to go with 7mm, just give me my M1-A and you will not walk away...
     
  5. i'll take my 7.92mm Mauser anyday over an M-16, if i want semi-auto fire i'll bring out the Garand or the AK.
    -Jesse
     
  6. In Defense of 9mm...

    I will go on record for the 8th-million-time and say that I have always understood the 9mm round as a "killing" round. "Knockdown," etc. are not in its vocabulary. It really shines as a subgun round. In handguns, it represents an attempt to give a sense of security through its relative capacity. 9mm is not exactly the round I would choose "on paper."

    That said, I buck "conventional wisdom" and have chosen the hi-cap 9mm (full-size even) for my preferred handgun. If anyone is really interested, I will give the various reasons...

    Bigger IS better on the ultra-modern landscape. I think the M-16 was a terrible design that cost my father and a lot of other GIs a lot of pain, or the ultimate price, in the end. At the time, it made a lot of sense "on paper."

    I'm not the sort who is in a hurry to appoint blame or smell conspiracy. People are far too greedy and short-sighted to form the sort of pervasive covens that some imagine. .223 and 9mm are "giant steps bacwards." When we look back at the turn of the 19th/20th centuries, we see that a massive shake-up occured (largely due to smokeless powder). In the 20th century, there was a fundamental shift toward smaller/faster.

    Currently, there have been some attempts at so-called paradigm shifts, but these have amounted to nothing. The technological "wonders" of polymer construction, caseless cartridges, etc. do not alter the physics of projectiles!

    Bigger IS better. It does NOT mean it is efficient from a military viewpoint. What is now clear is that smaller/faster cannot replace mass from the INDIVIDUAL'S viewpoint.

    Even though I rely on a 9mm, I would not advocate that others do so on principle. .40 or .45 are much safer bets.
     
  7. I really believe that the reaseon the M-16 was adapted to the U.S. military services is because bottomline its a h ell of a lot less exspensive to produce millions of .223 than it is .30-06 or .308. I think thought hat over all the government missed the boat by doing this.
     
  8. jerry

    jerry Since 2002 Forum Contributor

    20,560
    3,965
    USA
    The person who takes the brunt of whatever wrong was or was not done is the GI who is forced to use this equipment without a choice in the matter. Darn right the .45, 06 & 308 configurations were better fight stoppers. You can bet the almighty $ and some politics had a hand in it. IMO, If someone had to actually use a pistol in a fighting situation thay SHOULD have had one of the better available pistols ie. H&K in .45. Pistol toters are commonly security forces, couriers, officers, pilots, etc.
     
  9. BattleRifleG3

    BattleRifleG3 G&G Evangelist

    Should we stock up on AKs or G3s? I think so. Not just because of the 223's drawbacks, but because if the SHTF, the 223s are the ones that will be plentiful, while the others won't be. I say G3, M14, or FAL first, and get mags for it, because they won't be very common. Then an AK, and get a few mags since there aren't any domestic sources. After all that, then maybe a 223. Me, I started with G3, then went to SKS-D (AK mags), and some day will get an AR. I also think there may be a place for my M1 Garand, as AP ammo is readily available in 30-06 and illegal in 308 or 7.62x39mm.

    As far as pistols go, I see 9mm as just fine for keeping heads down. I also think bullet selection is a big factor. With military being restricted to FMJ, the military 9mm will obviously be less potent than the less "humane" bullets that are designed to expand. If the 9mm were to widen to 45 cal, it would go just as deep as the 45 since they have roughly the same kinetic energy, all in theory of course.
    Me, I'll still go for a 45, but I wouldn't count on a second chance after being hit by a 9mm either.
     
  10. NRAJOE

    NRAJOE YOU TALKIN' TO ME!? Forum Contributor

    Col. Cooper is old school, big bullet, big wound cavity. The good old days!
     
  11. Logansdad

    Logansdad Guest

    :eek: Okay..lemme get this straight.. it's the caliber...not poor shooting ? :rolleyes:
     
  12. NRAJOE

    NRAJOE YOU TALKIN' TO ME!? Forum Contributor

    It was a proven fact that .45 and .308 had a better percentage of keeping people down for the final count better than 9mm and .223. Of course placement counts, but awhole lot of people wouldn't have gotten back up to fight another day with the big boy calibers.
     
  13. Logansdad

    Logansdad Guest

    I can understand stacking the deck in your favor...but I don't think people are shrugging off hits from the 9mm and .223/5.56mm
     
  14. 7mmag6

    7mmag6 G&G Newbie

    6,049
    10
    the m-14 is ok with better range and accuracy. Ive have had lot of trigger time with the m-14 and m-16, but there is no way to controll an m-14 on auto, you will put the first 3 rounds down range and then you will shooting at the sky, thats where the m-16 is nice, you can put a h-ell of a lot of fire power accuratly, the cartridge is weak compared to the 7.65x54 round, but man can you pour it on
     
  15. Gyrene

    Gyrene G&G Newbie

    886
    0
    CA
    The aimed shot hits and does the job! Spray and pray dumps far too much of the ". . . but they can carry more ammo with the 5.56 x 45 mm.", extra ammo that can be carried.

    The 7.62 x 51 was to permit the soldier to carry more ammo than the .30-06. The 7.62 x 51 mm and the .30-06 can shoot through or break down barriers that the 5.56 x 45 mm barely marks. While the 5.56 x 45 mm will probably kill just as well, and maybe injure more, the 7.62 x 51 and the .30-06 will also break through barriers. This is a necessary feature for a main battle rifle to have. With the 7.62 x 51 and the .30-06 you can shoot the enemy through his barricade.

    The 9mm was a cave-in to the NATO wimps. To them the .45 is far too brutal, and the 9mm is a gentlemans' weapon. Well in a Miami shoot out between 2 DEA Agents and a Drug dealer, the Drug Dealer was shot through the heart by one of the DEA Agents' 9mm; in the next 5 minutes the Drug Dealer shot both of them to death, and finally fell down dead from loss of blood. If he was hit with a .45, the Drug Dealer would have gone down, with the fight taken out of him, and the DEA Agents would still be alive.

    When the SHTF and it has, the people doing the shooting want the 7.62 x 51 or .30-06, and the .45 Cal. The .45 can be in any configuration .45 ACP, .45 Long Colt, or whatever, as long as it is a .45.
     
  16. 7mmag6

    7mmag6 G&G Newbie

    6,049
    10
    ive carried these weapons in the swamps of vietnam the .223 is great, the m-14 is not so great, its heavy and the ammo is heavy, and the m-14 is, really heavy, you cannot shoot the m-14 on full automatic trust me, you cant hit anything with it, the 5.56 X45 is the ak-47 replacement round for the7.62x 39. round, the 7.62 x54r round is the nato round commemly used in the g3 cetme or l1a1 rifle, put one one on full auto, you cant hit crap
     
  17. Logansdad

    Logansdad Guest

    7.62 x51 Nato is.308 Winchester...that 54r is a rimmed Russian round..the 5.45x45 is the AK-74 round that replaced the 7.62x39...Respectfully submitted...
     
  18. Logansdad

    Logansdad Guest

    by the way Gyrene I disagree...Mike Platt was not a drug dealer he was a bank robber...he wasn't hit in the heart...he was really mad and soaked up alot of lead before he was killed...it wasn't hits from a sidearm he succumbed to.. it was repeated hits from a Remington 870 12 gauge at almost point blank range...
     
  19. 7mmag6

    7mmag6 G&G Newbie

    6,049
    10
    man you guys are good, cant get anything by you
     
  20. 7mmag6

    7mmag6 G&G Newbie

    6,049
    10
    by the way, call me leatherneck or jar head