Oh, the things some people say...

[anglo-saxon]

I finally got around to reading Peter Ratcliffe's Eye of the Storm.

I've only read the first five chapters so far and was enjoying his apparent candour, especially as it pertained to his shortcomings as a youth. A decent way to establish some trust in the reader that he was being honest, I thought. Then I get to chapter five in which he describes his early days with the regiment and explains to the reader the unit's make-up, routines, etc. He also goes into having to deal with Walters as well as some common misconceptions among lay persons, esp. as it pertains to kit and weapons used.

Then, just when I was getting into the book, he says something in the same chapter that I thought was extraodinarily strange. While explaining the types of weapons the unit does use on page 91, he writes: "The handguns used by the SAS are always automatics because revolvers, although far less likely to jam, are both less powerful and less accurate."

"Hmmm," thinks I. "That is a rather odd thing to say!" Especially as it is said not only by someone who is supposed to have been a super soldier, but that it is published in print for perpetuity. Indeed, it is a statement with which anyone with little more than the most rudimentary knowledge of handguns would take issue. I would like to believe that this was either an honest mistake, or that Mr. Ratcliffe was only referring to "automatics" and "revolvers" commonly used by military and police. Even if it were the latter, though, he would still be grossly mistaken.

To say that one type of gun type is "more powerful" than another is about as sensible as stating that one brand of firearm is more powerful than another; "Smith and Wesson's are more powerful than H&Ks" for instance. Such a statement lacks sufficient information for the argument if only in that no caliber or barrel length is not mentioned.

My new Walther .22 pistol (automatic), for instance, is not only utterly puny compared to my .455 Webly revolver of 1915 vintage, it is actually less accurate, too. The .22 simply doesn't have the same mass and anergy as a .455. Not that a .455 Webly round as anything to shout about either, but you get the point.

Pistols used by the British Army and my own Canadian Army have of course been 9mm Brownings and, of late, Sigs (also in 9mm). Unless the SAS are using a higher caliber Sig than everyone else (perhaps such as a .40 cal S&W or a .45 ACP (originally used in the Colt 1911), then Mr. Ratcliffe is actually saying that a 9mm pistol is more powerful than a "revolver". Utter tosh! In fact, there are scads of revolvers produced that accommodate rounds that make the 9mm Parabelum (or 9mm Luger is it is known in civilian circles) look decidedly anaemic. And, yes, there are also some caibers of rounds used in revolvers that are less capable than the 9mm.

Without going too stupid and and talking about the .50 Action Express designed for the Israeli Magnum Research Desert Eagle (discussed on another thread here), which is well-powerful, but decidedly inacurate in all but the sturdiest and most capable of firers due to the huge working parts flying around, let's just look at, say, the biggest round that Glock produces a pistol to fire: The 10mm Auto. Out of a 5-inch test barrel, this round with a 174 grain bullet is 400 fps faster than a .45 ACP with a 230 grain bullet (900 fps v. 1300 fps) and produces 236 foot-pounds more energy (414 v. 650). (By the way, the 10mm Auto is the parent cartridge of the less impresive .40 Smith and Wesson (or the .40 "Short and Weak" as 10mm enthusiasts call it, but it is still more powerful than the 9mm)).

Compare the 10mm Auto performance with a .44 Remington magnum round which can launch a .300 grain bullet from a 5"-barrel revolver at 1500 fps with (concidentally) 1500 ft-pounds of energy. The ".44 Magnum", made famous by Clint Eastwood in his movie Dirty Harry, and fairly accurately (at the time) described by him as the most powerful in the world is capable of cleanly killing very large North American game such as Black Bear, Grizzly, and Elk. More than capable of slitting the avergae-size bad guy, then. However, it has long since been overshadowed by many more powerful revolver rounds, such as the .454 Casull (300 grain bullet, 1650 fps, with 1830 ft-pounds energy), the .480 Ruger, the .475 Linebaugh, and the now popular .500 S&W Magnum (300 gr bullet, 2075 fps, 2870 ft-pounds energy).

And the 9mm? 147 grain bullet, 980 fps, 326 ft-pounds of energy.

I once had a conversation with a Mr. Allan Bell (or "Jim Bridges" as he was coloquially named). Formerly of the SAS and president of Globe Risk in Ontario. He told me that during the so-called "Shoot to kill" policy in NI (or "vigorous arrest" as the official term apparently was), he once emptied a 9mm Browning into the back of an escaping suspect who still had to be pursued for some time, cornered and then shot in the head. The suspect had been wearing a donkey jacket, thick sweater, and a wool shirt. The auatopsy that followed apparenty revealed that of the bullets fired at his back, some damaged soft tissue and broke ribs, while others didn't even break the skin.

As I said, quite an odd thing for Mr. Ratcliffe to say.

A final word on the topic. Generally speaking, revolver actions are stronger overall than semi-autos, esp. when handguns of either type of the same or similar caliber are compared. For instance, there are several revolvers that are capable of firing very powerful rifle ammunition that would simply not be possible in a semi-auto handgun. One of them is Magnum Research's BFR (I'll let you work out what that stands for). The BFR is chambered for (among other calibers) the .45-70 Winchester. This round is the oldest continually manaufactured round still in use. It remains very popular in lever action rifles. I own a Marlin 1895 Guide Gun in .45-70 and it is a beast to fire (but a lot of fun). With hot loads, you just about have to check your fillings are still in your head afterwards. The designation ".45-70" eminates from the fact that back in the 1800's when it was first devleoped as a .45 caliber rifle round, it took a charge of 70 grains of black powder. It is now using modern smokeless powder of course. Check out this amateur vid from Youtube. A couple of "good ol' boys getting their jollies". The BFR is nota typical revolver of course. The .45-70 weighs around 5 pounds and I wouldn't want to have to pack that thing around in the bush.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D83tzCMeLPo

[anglo-saxon]

Not for the feint of heart.

1000 grain bullet. 2,500 feet per second muzzle velocity. 14,300 ft-pounds of energy. And that's out of a bolt action hunting rifle.

Compare with the .50 BMG at 700 gr bullet. 2900 fps mv. And 13,900 ft-pounds of energy.

That is one hell of an elephant gun! Rounds are made to order and cost about US$100 each.

Check out the vid. The only firers who don't actually drop the damned rifle upon pulling the trigger are the ones leaning into it. The bell ends that have the butt sticking up above the shoulder or balanced precariously on the upper bicep all suffer the same fate. Damned funny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cnk5pl6VPoM

[Alfa]

Maybe the book was actually written by a ghost writer and Peter Ratcliffe never spotted that particular statement.

[mutter1]

I don't know, just because he was in the SAS, doesn't mean he know's everything about weapons, didn't "Mcnabb" say that in his book (or somewhere?) the weapon is a tool, and he couldn't really give a shit what make/model/type it was as long as it worked.?

[harry hackedoff]

I don't know, .?

Correct

[mutter1]

I don't know, .?

Correct

Oh your very mean

[Sully]

Hmmm... you don't need to know that stuff to be a good soldier A-S. Fair shout that it's obviously an interest of yours and good effort for sharing your expertise but when I was doing weapon training we weren't told and (I think I can speak for the rest of the troop on this) weren't interested in what made the various weapons tick. We needed to know how to look after them, how to fire them and where to get a resup of ammunition from.

Hours on the range getting a proper feel for a weapon was worth more than years of theory and at the end of the day the weapon and the round may not have been perfect but it was all we were going to get. There's the old Spartan maxim that if your sword is too short then stand closer.

PW's in the Corps probably knocked out all kinds of BS but it didn't matter. One of the instructors was from the Det and certainly knew how to use a Browning (amongst other things) effectively but he couldn't tell us what all the bits were and probably had no interest in specifications. I think that kind of thing is for procurement people.

That said if the 'shh...you-know-who' do courses on that stuff then he should know. It does sound a bit odd though mate - what surprises me is him trying to write about stuff he knows nothing about. I wouldn't assume that all soldiers, no matter how super, have a particular interest in weapons though. They are a tool at the end of the day and they're one that you're given.

[anglo-saxon]

Hmmm... you don't need to know that stuff to be a good soldier A-S. Fair shout that it's obviously an interest of yours and good effort for sharing your expertise but when I was doing weapon training we weren't told and (I think I can speak for the rest of the troop on this) weren't interested in what made the various weapons tick. We needed to know how to look after them, how to fire them and where to get a resup of ammunition from.

Hours on the range getting a proper feel for a weapon was worth more than years of theory and at the end of the day the weapon and the round may not have been perfect but it was all we were going to get. There's the old Spartan maxim that if your sword is too short then stand closer.

PW's in the Corps probably knocked out all kinds of BS but it didn't matter. One of the instructors was from the Det and certainly knew how to use a Browning (amongst other things) effectively but he couldn't tell us what all the bits were and probably had no interest in specifications. I think that kind of thing is for procurement people.

That said if the 'shh...you-know-who' do courses on that stuff then he should know. It does sound a bit odd though mate - what surprises me is him trying to write about stuff he knows nothing about. I wouldn't assume that all soldiers, no matter how super, have a particular interest in weapons though. They are a tool at the end of the day and they're one that you're given.

Agreed on all points. My only issue was that he said it in the first place. Seemed very odd to me.

[harry hackedoff]

Can we all quote each other by the way?
It fills the bandwidth up, real quick

if your sword is too short then stand closer

First Mrs Aitch made the mistake of saying that to me once
I gave her a right kicking.

[Skeav]

Can we all quote each other by the way?
It fills the bandwidth up, real quick

if your sword is too short then stand closer

First Mrs Aitch made the mistake of saying that to me once
I gave her a right kicking.

Funny enough she said the opposite to me!

Gave her a kicking anyway

As for the origional topic, it does seem a bit vague for a Regiment bloke your right.

You'll have to keep us posted as to how the rest of the story pans out!

Cheers

Skeav

[anglo-saxon]

Subsequent chapters thus far not a bad read, although he is scathingly critical of his former regimental comrades.

Sceav, is the "Whores Bed" still on Friar Street? Some fun (and some rather stranger) memories of that dive!

[Alfa]

I read the book a while back and I thought it was pretty decent, it's a good no nonsense book which is worth a read if you get chance.

[Rogue Chef]

When the Browning was about to be replaced in the SF, I had the privilege to serve on a range course with a gentleman from Hereford (Jim) who was equipped with a Sig Sauer P226.

After continual stoppages with the Browning on the range that day, Jim was scathing, held up his Sig and stated that this was the future.
Shortly after it was commissioned for the 'boys'.

I was subsequently trained on the Sig Sauer P228 which was replaced by the P229.
We also used the Walther PPK (7.65mm) which was replaced by the P230.

All the Sig weapons were 9mm, but we used a more powerful version of the 9mm parabellum ammunition (the name escapes me now 2Z??) that was normally used in the submachine gun type weapons eg H&K MP5K. We used a cheaper manufactured version for range training.

The Sig Sauer P230 carried a 9mm short. The ammo we were issued for it was .38 auto.

I find it difficult to believe that our PIRA cousin escaped with soft tissue wounds after several hits from a 9mm weapon. In skilled hands the round is good for well over 100m. Of course that is referring to accuracy. The round travels a lot further and would do severe damage

[Saxon]

I don't know, just because he was in the SAS, doesn't mean he know's everything about weapons, didn't "Mcnabb" say that in his book (or somewhere?) the weapon is a tool, and he couldn't really give a shit what make/model/type it was as long as it worked.?

Then if he had no interest what's the point in making statements like he did? If you're an author you have a responsibility to make any information in your novel accurate, no matter how boring you think the research is because you're not interested in the specific topic. You've chosen to mention it, you should make it make sense.
It seems he can write and sell books which people will read very much based on the fact that he was a 'supersoldier', I think whatever your past, if you're an author you have a responsibility but if he can sell books so easily, maybe he doesn't need to bother in his eyes.
Many authors of historical novels spend months, even a couple of years researching their books prior to, and during writing, and they make for a much more satisfying read.

[Tab]

A cricket commentator "The batsman is Holden the bowlers Willie"