Quote:
Originally Posted by Rock185
I would not have thought RN or FP in 9MM would make much difference, but apparently the Army did. According to the American Rifleman, one of the RFP requirements for a new ball ammo was "increased lethality". Further, that "The Ball cartridge is intended for use against enemy personnel, for training, and for force protection".
I don't know, the Army likely spent a lot of taxpayer money to have Winchester develop and supply the M1152 FP ammo. Could it actually perform significantly better than 124 grain RN NATO Ball?
|
A lot of people don't know that when the 9mm Luger was first introduced in 1902, it was loaded with a 124 grain, flat point FMJ Truncated Cone bullet. That bullet proved very effective as a man stopper in WW1, but early in the war was changed to a less efective FMJ RN design. I have read that the reason for the change was that the British and French considered the TCFN bullet to be a "dum dum" bullet, and that German soldiers who used it were often executed when taken prisoner. I guess it was OK to drop an artillery shell on someones head, or gas them, but a flat nose pistol bullet wasn't "sporting"...
Larry