Picture of the day

bearhunter said:
I've seen them used under stressful conditions and I can personally attest to their effectiveness. I saw to very large individuals put out of action very quickly with a well worn, but serviceable Nagant revolver.

One was hit in the upper chest. The bullet lodged in the top of his lung, which quickly started filling with blood, he lived but was instantly out of the fray. The second fellow was hit just below the heart. The bullet penetrated the diaphragm, separating the chest cavity from the abdomen. The fellow was dead within a 5 minutes. No exit wounds on either of them and very little external bleeding.

Back in the day that excellent pistol was designed, the purpose was to disable an enemy with a weapon that was light and easily controlled. That's why there was such a proliferation of 22/25/32/9mm pocket pistols back in the day. If the recipient of the bullet didn't die from the initial impact, given the poor sanitary conditions of the time, gangrene and other nasty biological factors finished the job.
Click to expand...

I like how people call certain cartridges anemic or under powered and mostly not suitable for defence (American sites) but then you hear real world stories touting the effectiveness of them, honestly it seems to me if they wouldn't have done the job well enough they wouldn't have mass produced them and continue to...
 
IMG-0027-zps2dc6505a.jpg
 
Last edited:
rempel429 said:
I like how people call certain cartridges anemic or under powered and mostly not suitable for defence (American sites) but then you hear real world stories touting the effectiveness of them, honestly it seems to me if they wouldn't have done the job well enough they wouldn't have mass produced them and continue to...
Click to expand...

And if .25 and .32 cartridges weren't effective, our government wouldn't have had to ban them. Would it?
 
T remember reading somewhere that the caliber of the Russian Nagant 7.62mm revolver, and the French 1892 8mm revolver were designed to use the same rifling machinery as their countries new smokeless powder rifles.

Economics played a part in their development.
 
Ganderite said:
I heard that the Russians found the revolver inadequate in punching through heavy winter gear. The replacement round - 7.62x25 had lots more zip.

Probably a cheap gun to make, too.
Click to expand...

They found it inadequate for punching through great coats embedded with ice. It seems that the heavy, insulating under garments provided a backing that was flexible enough to slow or help deflect the bullet.

The two individuals I spoke of, were clad in issue fatigues. One had an AK multi magazine pouch across his chest. One of the bullets fired at him hit a full magazine and didn't do much damage, other than to break through the orange plastic and mangle a couple of cases. Left a hell of a bruise though. It was the next one, that was fired very quickly after the first, that penetrated into to the upper lung cavity, that put the fellow down.

The second individual was shot by the same pistol, wielded by the same fellow. One shot, that tore his diaphragm all the way back to his spine went down instantly.

I'm not going to try it out for effect but I'm willing to bet that any combatant wearing a frozen greatcoat didn't enjoy the impact of the bullet one bit.
 
I seem to recall reading that the US Army's issue of sidearm stopping power at the turn of the century was really to stop Calvary horses. Of course they had little idea what the machine gun and trenches would do to calvary tactics in just a few short years..
 
Last edited:
Stopping power against men is one thing. Stopping power against horses is another. But tigers? You want something particularly thumpy for that business.

Here, King George V (known to his underworld associates as "Georgie Nickles") prepares for a happy day afield in Nepal atop an elephant. He is armed, doubtless, with a pretty decent rifle.

M169423_King-George-V-hunting-in-Nepal-1912.jpg


Not sure what he's aiming at here - the driver seems unconcerned re: muzzle blast, and no one's leaping about screaming "SHOOT THE BLOODY TIGER, YOUR MAJESTY!"

2EBC66BA00000578-0-image-a-20_1448363433725.jpg


Pretty damned rough sport, that. Sometimes the tiger gets a few licks in, or starts thinking he'd like to climb an elephant today and comprehensively ruin a Royal Personage.

royalty-on-tour-the-prince-of-waless-elephant-charged-by-tiger-india-ET5C2R.jpg


Howdah-2.jpg


"I say! Steady on, dusky chap, and hold the elephant steady! I'am attempting to not shoot you and our striped friend together just now!"
 
diopter said:
I seem to recall reading that the US Army's issue of sidearm stopping power at the turn of the century was really to stop Calvary horses. Of course they had little idea what the machine gun and trenches would do to calvary tactics in just a few short years..
Click to expand...

I always thought it was the fanatical Philippine Moros, the Moslem suicide bombers of their day. :confused:

Grizz
 
If I understand it correctly, the pistol was for that terribly exciting moment when the tiger got into the howdah with you.

Some years ago there was a fellow at the Edmonton Gun Show with a Colt lightning rifle in some great monstrous caliber - 50-95 or the like. It had a 16" barrel. According to the Colt factory letter, it left the nest in that condition and was shipped to India. Someone likely wanted repeating shots for tiger work up close. Perhaps he'd been scared (or scarred) at some point and felt more secure with four quick shots of "chug-chug-chug-chug" tiger-dissuading-power.

The fellow with the gun at the show told me he'd bought it from an old English guy who'd come to Canada as a "remittance man". One imagines the youngest son, someone with a roving eye and a penchant for "the help", being driven to the train by Father, handed the Colt in a case, being cautioned against "wild Indians" and wished luck.

"You shall see a cheque deposited in your account monthly. Do try to make something of yourself in Canada, and be less of a scoundrel. Fresh starts and all that. You may write your mother at Christmas and her birthday, but you are under NO circumstances to come home..."
 
Grizzly Adams said:
Think the argument was guns in those calibers are too easy to conceal. Nothing to do with efficacy. :)

Grizz
Click to expand...

I recall that being the argument, too. But if they were totally ineffective, they wouldn't have had to ban them. They haven't banned airsoft (yet). After all, legislation is evidence-based, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom