Oh, the things some people say...
Posted: Sun 20 Apr, 2008 7:20 am
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
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
