Rounds failing to penetrate winter clothing

[Forgetful Coyote]

Found a pretty interesting article regarding the old tales from WW2 - Korea about how several instances occurred in which an enemy was shot multiple times with no effect, apparently due to the projectiles' failure to penetrate the enemy's thick winter clothing combined with diminished ballistics from the freezing climate:

https://www.theboxotruth.com/the-box...e-box-o-truth/

Now I realize the test was not perfect - author failed to take into account temperature of the test environment/ammo temp/etc and also IMO didnt test at a long enough range - I too believe this myth was just that. I believe that instead, the enemy's adrenaline combined with a FMJ's poor terminal performance combined with less-than-perfect shot placement due to facing high likelihood of being overrun by a million crazed screaming Japs or commies was the reason that many times a hit or hits seemingly had no effect..contributing to this idea that instead the bullets themselves werent penetrating deep enough to punch vitals or even break past the surface of their flesh.

 

[sirhrmechanic]

M1 carbine's were not exactly Howitzers.... And a lot of troops rushed into action in Korea and Bastogne were carrying carbines which were intended for support or second-line troops... or tankers, officers, etc. Who were not carrying the full battle rifle. As a result, you had troops whose marksmanship skills were pretty low... and popguns. So I can see how the myth got started.

Probably at longer ranges, heavy clothing might offer a bit of protection... if frozen solid. Then again... for anyone who works up here near the Arctic Circle, we know that if our clothes are frozen solid, so is the occupant. Anyone who works in cold weather environment.... knows your clothes don't freeze solid. When they do, it's because you are frozed like a popsicle... and incapable of reacting to getting shot... because you are dead. And frozen solid. Even if you are not dead.... want to try and move your arms and legs while swaddled in an inch of frozen cloth? It'd be better than the bikers in a Clint Eastwood Monkey movie after running under a tar machine (You're gonna pay for this, Bedoe).

Don't bother trying to stop a '06 with a frozen combat jacket. Or, frankly, a refrigerator full of Birdseye frozen dinners.

IMHO, pretty stupid test. But at least we now know that a frozen bath-towel in Texas provides concealment, not cover.

Perhaps we can point out to the ANTIFA that during their little November 4 uprising, they will be inured from bullets and safe from all assaults if they drink magic Faerie potions and wear frozen Che Guevara shirts. Because that would make things fun!

Thanks for posting... I needed the giggle!

Cheers,

Sirhr

 

[Forgetful Coyote]

M1 carbine's were not exactly Howitzers.... And a lot of troops rushed into action in Korea and Bastogne were carrying carbines which were intended for support or second-line troops... or tankers, officers, etc. Who were not carrying the full battle rifle. As a result, you had troops whose marksmanship skills were pretty low... and popguns. So I can see how the myth got started.

Probably at longer ranges, heavy clothing might offer a bit of protection... if frozen solid. Then again... for anyone who works up here near the Arctic Circle, we know that if our clothes are frozen solid, so is the occupant. Anyone who works in cold weather environment.... knows your clothes don't freeze solid. When they do, it's because you are frozed like a popsicle... and incapable of reacting to getting shot... because you are dead. And frozen solid. Even if you are not dead.... want to try and move your arms and legs while swaddled in an inch of frozen cloth? It'd be better than the bikers in a Clint Eastwood Monkey movie after running under a tar machine (You're gonna pay for this, Bedoe).

Don't bother trying to stop a '06 with a frozen combat jacket. Or, frankly, a refrigerator full of Birdseye frozen dinners.

IMHO, pretty stupid test. But at least we now know that a frozen bath-towel in Texas provides concealment, not cover.

Perhaps we can point out to the ANTIFA that during their little November 4 uprising, they will be inured from bullets and safe from all assaults if they drink magic Faerie potions and wear frozen Che Guevara shirts. Because that would make things fun!

Thanks for posting... I needed the giggle!

Cheers,

Sirhr

No doubt. Thanks for replying sir, as I also said I agree with ya: this "test" aint anything approaching scientific. But theres been some otherwise credible and BTDT types Ive seen make claims similar to said myth and I figured would make for decent discussion. For instance, I cant remember the name of the man, but he had a memoir published which told the story of his experience as a Wermacht sniper on the Eastern front and afterward fighting with the Lithuanian resistance against the Soviets. Apparently racked up a good number of commie corpses with his 98k and transitioned to guerrilla tactics to carry on fighting, disagreeing with the fight being over/lost. In the memoir he(or atleast the translator/publisher) recalls that at one point occurred a standoff between him and a Soviet sniper. He knew the general area said enemy sniper was in, a few hundred yards away, but not the exact position. So in order to find him, he stood straight up out in the open to allow the enemy to shoot him, knowing the bullet would not penetrate his thick clothing in such cold weather. After being shot and finding the enemy's hide, he proceeded to then take aim and touch em off. I call big time BS on a 7.62x54R not penetrating a winter uniform/jacket, under any circumstances...needless to say

 

[Dan M]

I suggest you read "US Infantry Weapons in Combat" subtitled "Personal Experiences from WWII and Korea" by Mark G. Goodson...anecdotal reports of US infantry small arms. There are a couple of reports about Chinese quilted uniforms and the Carbine... there is a good report starting on Page 82 where a veteran soldier opines on weapons he used...about the chinese soldiers he shot with the .30 carbine wearing chinese quilted jackets, the rounds went through and through as evidenced by searching the bodies for S-2 material. Between 100-150 meters the carbine was "bad news" for the enemy.

 

[sandwarrior]

One of the things the test does not show is "flexibility. Yes, an outer layer of a multi-layered jacked can freeze, but it actually has little bearing on whether a light bullet will penetrate it or not. If it acts like kevlar where it catches it like a net then it may or may not stop it, but it has vastly reduced the energy the bullet is transferring at that point. So, it's really more a case of the jacket construction and lack of initial energy than a layer of ice preventing the bullet from doing mortal damage. There is also a range factor in which the lower energy and not very sleek 110 gr. .30 M1 Carbine bullet is losing energy. Where the .3006 (M1 Garand) is no where near down that low in energy.

That said, I read on here of someone callng BS to this type of myth before and tested a frozen turkey at 300 yds. with a .22 LR. The .22LR bullet started just over the speed of sound and penetrated the turkey enough that it could be deemed a killing shot out to 300 yds. My nephew thought this was BS and tested it himself. About 8 ft. of drop but the bullet penetrated to the center of the turkey. Now picture a bullet more than twice as heavy. Starting at about 500 fps faster than the .22LR. I don't think it would have done that bad.

So, all told, I think the first problem was marksmanship. Then, I've heard a lot of old-timers and myth-makers say the 5.56 had "zero" killing power. Then once that was disproven, it's, "Well, I meant past 100....uuhhh, I meant 200 yds." When in fact it will penetrate and kill as far out as the bullet remains stable, 700 yds. The .30 carbine has the ability to penetrate, but never had great terminal ballistics. So if in any way the bullet meets an obstacle to it's intended victim it will just make the terminal ballistics that much less effective. I've read numerous accounts of .30 cal carbine bullets having hit between 100-200 yds and not knocking down the intended victim. What probably happened was either the victim died when reaching cover or was wounded enough, that either way he was out of the fight. It just helps to know it when you pull the trigger the bullet has done enough damage to knock the intended victim out of the fight right then and there.

 

[cplnorton]

My mom's 1st cousin was a Marine at the Chosen Reservoir and he carried a M2 Carbine. I asked him if the .30 carbine had any trouble penetrating the winter coats.

He actually laughed, he's like everyone I shot with one, there wasn't a problem. In fact he said he actually loved the M2. But he said he didn't fire it in the normal shoulder fashion because of the climb. He said he actually shot it on full auto sideways. Because he said there were so many damn Chinese running at you, you really didn't have to aim much because anywhere you fired you hit one of them. But he said he shot his sideways so the climb was still making hits, as the bullets were going sideways instead of up in the air.


Now he made an interesting comment I never heard. He carried a M2, but often operated the 1919 in defensive positions and carried a BAR on patrol sometimes. But he said the first few waves of Chinese they didn't usually even have coats, or even weapons for that matter. He said their whole job was to run directly at the Machine guns, and he said their bodies will get so piled up in front of the 1919, they either had to send someone out to clear the field of fire, or they would literally pick up the 1919 and put it on top of the pile of bodies and keep firing.

He will talk some about Korea with me, but won't talk about it all. This is the few things I have got out of him over the years.

I also know another Marine that was there, his name is Red. He carried two M2's. One he was issued, and one he said he "Liberated" out of a Army jeep, while an Army officer left it unattended. lol

He said the same thing, no issues at all with penetration.

I think this is just one of those urban legends, just like the whole hearing the Garand Ping in combat.

 

[ZG47A]

Interesting comments. I have Greenhill Books' 1988 edition of Infantry Operations & Weapons Usage in Korea by S.L.A. Marshall. It covers a great deal more than the M2 carbine controversy and contains lessons attributable to any undertaking. If you see it in a secondhand bookshop, grab it!

 

[Dan M]

Take everything SLA Marshall said with a grain of salt...his methodology was suspect.

It is funny how the carbine was subject to the myth of failing to penetrate chinese quilted uniform jackets but the same comment was not made for the terminal performance of the chinese type 50 which fires a cartridge of decided inferior performance in comparison to the .30 carbine.

 

[Hairy Biker]

Worth dwelling on a different conflict in a different climate. The M1 carbine was used in the Malaya Emergency as one of the grab bag of rifles available to the British Army at the time. In one jungle ambush, an officer using an M1 carbine shot a Bandit five or six times at close range as the enemy was seeking to disengage. The post-mortem review found 5 carbine bullets lodged in the backpack and one in the back of the head.

A .303 Jungle Carbine would have not been stopped by the equipment, but the chance of getting 6 shots on target with a bolt rifle is low. The other alternative was a STEN in 9mm so the results would have been similar I suspect.

 

[pmclaine]

Worth dwelling on a different conflict in a different climate. The M1 carbine was used in the Malaya Emergency as one of the grab bag of rifles available to the British Army at the time. In one jungle ambush, an officer using an M1 carbine shot a Bandit five or six times at close range as the enemy was seeking to disengage. The post-mortem review found 5 carbine bullets lodged in the backpack and one in the back of the head.

A .303 Jungle Carbine would have not been stopped by the equipment, but the chance of getting 6 shots on target with a bolt rifle is low. The other alternative was a STEN in 9mm so the results would have been similar I suspect.

Well than, just aim at the head.

 

[sandwarrior]

Worth dwelling on a different conflict in a different climate. The M1 carbine was used in the Malaya Emergency as one of the grab bag of rifles available to the British Army at the time. In one jungle ambush, an officer using an M1 carbine shot a Bandit five or six times at close range as the enemy was seeking to disengage. The post-mortem review found 5 carbine bullets lodged in the backpack and one in the back of the head.

A .303 Jungle Carbine would have not been stopped by the equipment, but the chance of getting 6 shots on target with a bolt rifle is low. The other alternative was a STEN in 9mm so the results would have been similar I suspect.

The big difference obviously is terminal ballistics. The .30 Cal 150 gr. at a high velocity did a ton of damage. The 110 gr. Worked. The 55 gr. M193 had all kinds of hate and discontent for damage. The M855 on the other hand has all the terminal ballistics of an icepick. Poke...done.

 

[pmclaine]

The Army got rid of the .38 because it wouldn't kill Moros but it seems in crime stats more people are killed by .38 caliber guns and Im thinking in war .38 has done its share of death dealing.

The crime stat is likely a result of availability more so than the criminal supply system deciding .38 is going to provide them greatest lethality.

Lots of Americans survived 8mm and 6.5mm battle rifle woundings as well the other side had guys drilled with 30-06 that lived to tell about it.

Like every other caliber shot placement and using it within the parameters of its design mattered.

If you read of Hector Cafferatas one man war at Chosin he speaks of Chinese at distance silhouetted by the snow background like advancing targets. It was Space Invaders Chinese style.

He ran his M1 Garand and likely killed 200 or so Chinese to earn the MOH and save his unit.

Im sure guys armed with carbines taking shots at distance that night were discouraged when their beautiful distant targets didn't fall like Hectors targets.

The carbine was intended as a replacement for the pistol. asking it to do its job at 100s of yards is asking a lot.

I don't think clothing, frozen or otherwise, was an issue from point blank to 100 yards and Id give it lots of respect out to 300 yards and Im still taking cover beyond that.

 

[Hairy Biker]

I had a love hate relationship with the M1 carbine for years. The Government doesn't trust us with them anymore so I would really like to have one again (pig hunters took them into the dense undergrowth back in the day). However, the ones I played with struggled beyond 100 metres for centre of the seeing mass accuracy. 110 FMJs are ballistically brick-like and work more in a surpressing fire mode at any distance. They increase the range of a pistol but they were never meant to be more than that. A STEN/Sterling can do much the same as a M1 carbine - just a different way to solve the same problem.

Time marches on and now we have the 300BLK filling the same role only better.

 

[sirhrmechanic]

When I was growing up, a guy I hunted with (we were both teenagers... he was about 3 years younger than me) had an M1 carbine for deer hunting. He was a small kid. Did not do well with recoil. His dad got him an M1 carbine and to make the magazine legal, put a couple of sheetmetal screws through the mag to keep it from loading more than 5 rounds (requirement here in VT). Gun was accurate, easy to handle and had no kick whatsoever.

Kid killed a lot of deer with that rifle. All close-up. Nothing more than 50 yards. But a shot or two to the boilerworks and the deer died. Period. By the time he graduated from HS to join the Army, he had put at least a dozen deer on the meat pole. Probably closer to 20 with doe tags. They were from a family that depended on venison, too. That rifle provided.

I had a Winchester 94 at the time and I used to think of that as a 100 yard rifle. I think of the Carbine the same way.

BTW, for anyone who hasn't seen the Jimmy Stewart movie about Carbine Williams... it's worth watching. Great old flick about an amazing American!

Cheers,

Sirhr

 

[Anchor Zero Six]

+1 the movie is fantastic! Keep trying to find a new copy on Amazon but they only seem to have used.

 

[Forgetful Coyote]

Kinda off topic really but say sandwarrior - I didnt realize the French actually ran with a lathe turned brass solid in the early smokeless days for one of their service rounds, Im pretty sure the solid was used in 8mm lebel tho it may/couldve been 7.5x54 also,.. I cant quite remember the exact time/rifle that was running it; just thought it was an interesting thing to note. Never knew that ANY military ran solids but when thinking about it I aint too sure why more didnt go with a brass, copper, etc solid projo. Seems to be easier to make a/more conducive for, long range high BC form factor rounds - not to mention lighter weight for a given BC. And if industrialized, certainly turning solids on a lathe involves less complexity/expense than jacketed lead..? A downside would likely be that solids pretty much never have terminal ballistics that are as good as jacketed lead projos(unless designed for it ala Barnes) but FMJ's are largely sh!t in this regard anyway and solids seem like theyd have better barrier penetration characteristics than FMJ's as well so on paper theres several potential advantages to using solids vs FMJ projos.. strange they didnt catch on more than they did..

 

[sandwarrior]

Kinda off topic really but say sandwarrior - I didnt realize the French actually ran with a lathe turned brass solid in the early smokeless days for one of their service rounds, Im pretty sure the solid was used in 8mm lebel tho it may/couldve been 7.5x54 also,.. I cant quite remember the exact time/rifle that was running it; just thought it was an interesting thing to note. Never knew that ANY military ran solids but when thinking about it I aint too sure why more didnt go with a brass, copper, etc solid projo. Seems to be easier to make a/more conducive for, long range high BC form factor rounds - not to mention lighter weight for a given BC. And if industrialized, certainly turning solids on a lathe involves less complexity/expense than jacketed lead..? A downside would likely be that solids pretty much never have terminal ballistics that are as good as jacketed lead projos(unless designed for it ala Barnes) but FMJ's are largely sh!t in this regard anyway and solids seem like theyd have better barrier penetration characteristics than FMJ's as well so on paper theres several potential advantages to using solids vs FMJ projos.. strange they didnt catch on more than they did..

I tried responding earlier, but I guess computers and phones aren't working with me today.

Anyhow, if you consider the time frame of moving from black powder to smokeless and vast increase in velocity, the initial option was to go to a hard cast lead, i.e. adding antimony. But, when we (the French and Swiss) really got going on smokeless they found bullets of lead not able to hold up under heat, pressure and velocity. Neither did paper patching. So, they started using guilding metal. At the same time, it was considered easy to just make the bullets out of brass or bronze, to extend the sources of copper. Cutting pure copper on a lathe was considered but, it dug into the resource too much. Copper wasn't rare, but it still took a bit to get out of the ground and milled until it was usable. As processes were adopted to make the jackets more concentric, it became more reasonable to go to a lead core, copper jacketed bullet.

 

[Forgetful Coyote]

Very interesting. Also, just a random question, do you think the Winchester .351 and/or Remington Model 8(in .35 Rem specifically) shouldve had a place in our arsenal in WW1? If our men were gonna get sent in suicide runs into opposing trenches, it seems like putting some nice semi autos in their hands wouldve atleast increased the chances of actually taking said trenches..I realize these two used short range brush hunting rounds, but .35 Rem in particular aint exactly weak, its just not designed to reach out quite like a .30-06 or 8x57.. I wouldnt feel undergunned at all to ~250yd tho!!

 

[pmclaine]

Very interesting. Also, just a random question, do you think the Winchester .351 and/or Remington Model 8(in .35 Rem specifically) shouldve had a place in our arsenal in WW1? If our men were gonna get sent in suicide runs into opposing trenches, it seems like putting some nice semi autos in their hands wouldve atleast increased the chances of actually taking said trenches..I realize these two used short range brush hunting rounds, but .35 Rem in particular aint exactly weak, its just not designed to reach out quite like a .30-06 or 8x57.. I wouldnt feel undergunned at all to ~250yd tho!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedersen_device

 

[sandwarrior]

Very interesting. Also, just a random question, do you think the Winchester .351 and/or Remington Model 8(in .35 Rem specifically) shouldve had a place in our arsenal in WW1? If our men were gonna get sent in suicide runs into opposing trenches, it seems like putting some nice semi autos in their hands wouldve atleast increased the chances of actually taking said trenches..I realize these two used short range brush hunting rounds, but .35 Rem in particular aint exactly weak, its just not designed to reach out quite like a .30-06 or 8x57.. I wouldnt feel undergunned at all to ~250yd tho!!

Actually no. While the rounds serve a short range purpose, so did the .30 Cal. U.S. (30-06). It would have therefor been redundant.

In the case of shotguns that were used as "trench sweepers", the hit probability goes up from any rifle. The actions (pump, lever and semi-auto {Think A-5) were faster to manipulate than a bolt action rifle. There were two problems with shotguns though.
1. complete ineffectiveness in 'no mans land,; or your own trenches.
2. The ammunition was very heavy and nothing made to make it a quick loader. .30 cal came on stripper clips loaded in bandoleers. Shotguns at best had civilian style single round bandoleers. And, as mentioned, it's quick to dump five rounds into a Springfield 1903,German Mauser, or British SMLE

 

[sirhrmechanic]

But the shotguns came into their own in 1918 when the American push began and the Germans begun to be rolled back.

The shotguns were, as you say, all but useless in no-man's land. But when the war went more mechanized and it went from trenches to maneuver again in the latter days, the '97's came into their own.

The Germans were so appalled by the use of the '97's that they cried foul, tried to have them banned from warfare (gee... like your gas, Fritz???) and even went so far as to issue an edict that any American caught with a shotgun would be executed on the spot.

Lot of good it did them. The '97's were phenomenal for a very specific and fairly grisly task. That was clearing trenches from above. in that role it excelled.

BTW, it also provided an impetus for a certain Col. Thompson (it's always the Colonels...) to come up with an idea for a new 'Trench Broom.' In this case, it was the Thompson Submachine Gun... Which was a bit too late for WW1... but was most useful in bootlegger wars and in cleaning out Japanese snipers from palm trees in WW2.

But since the Ordnance Dept. wasn't buying after the "War to end all Wars" put an end to warfare (HA!)... Col. Thompson did have to find other outlets for his marvelous invention. Including law enforcement...

Oh to have a time machine.... Back when the tax stamp cost as much as the gun....

Cheers,

Sirhr

 

[sandwarrior]

sirhr,

This is true that the one area where shotguns were devastating was clearing trenches. I didn't expand on that enough.

One thing we don't talk about is how 'teams' we're formed and would work to cover the shotgunner while he was in reloading mode. He went from devastating to near helpless. But, with rifle cover fire he could reload and continue his path of destruction.

And also agreed on the Thompson gun. It won many a close quarter shooting match with it's dominant amount of firepower. Nothing really of it's day could compete with what it could do. At least out to it's maximum effective range. If not providing mass CQ fire, it was providing a viable amount of suppressive fire. Which allowed for effective fire and manoeuver tactics to work.

 

[Forgetful Coyote]

Actually no. While the rounds serve a short range purpose, so did the .30 Cal. U.S. (30-06). It would have therefor been redundant.

In the case of shotguns that were used as "trench sweepers", the hit probability goes up from any rifle. The actions (pump, lever and semi-auto {Think A-5) were faster to manipulate than a bolt action rifle. There were two problems with shotguns though.
1. complete ineffectiveness in 'no mans land,; or your own trenches.
2. The ammunition was very heavy and nothing made to make it a quick loader. .30 cal came on stripper clips loaded in bandoleers. Shotguns at best had civilian style single round bandoleers. And, as mentioned, it's quick to dump five rounds into a Springfield 1903,German Mauser, or British SMLE

True, I see your point. And now that you mention the A5, it makes me think of the Remington's similar operating system - in a tough trench environment, I could see the barrel's shroud taking some punishment and if dented in bad enough, potentially binding against the barrel/spring and locking it up/shutting the weapon down. Like his A5, Mr Browning used a similar long recoil system for his semi auto rifle design in the Model 8 as well, with the barrel being surrounded by a recoil spring and jacket and recoiling with the bolt all the way to back of the action. I cant think of a simple method that would counteract the potential of locking up the action if the barrel jacket was dented hard so very likely would be looking at a fairly fragile weapon in that regard. I never personally handled a Model 8 so no idea how tough that metal jacket is..

Otherwise though, I think it wouldve been a very highly favored weapon in the hands of some of our troops. A "Police Special" model would outperform a shotgun in most situation and circumstance if talking about one of the more powerful options ie.35 Rem and/or.300 Savage.....JMHO!!! Wonder if the NRA museum or someone else has been able to find/get hold of the exact model that lit up Bonnie and Clyde??
https://youtu.be/QpYIX5bPtcA

 

[kraigWY]

My father fought in the Pacific (Burma) and Korea. He loved the carbine. in Burma he said you could seldom see past 25 yards anyway.

I love my CMP Underwood, and shooting it in the CMPs carbine matches I find them to be quite accurate.

My father told me that the difference in weight of the Carbine and the Garand, met you could carry a lot more ammo. I found the same could be said for the M14 and the M16A1. I'm probably in the minority but I totally loved the 'A1. As a grunt who carried one, I found it to be both reliable and accurate. Shooting the old MIlitary Combat course it worked well, but we only shot 100, 200, 300 & 400 yards. At the HP 600 yards the front sight adjustments were a limiting factor.

I love my Model 97 trench gun, but like everything else it has its faults. I found that out trying to shoot a 3-gun match with it. I wasnt use to the "non-resetting" trigger. I ran out of ammo half way through the stage. But I was able to get 3-4 hits on the targets in a pair of seconds.

 

[pmclaine]

Oh to have a time machine.... Back when the tax stamp cost as much as the gun....

Cheers,

Sirhr

SSSHHHHH!

That was the idea of the tax stamp, make it so costly no one could buy the NFA item.

Tax stamps are probably the one item in the modern world that hasn't been hit by inflation.

$200 than equals $3660 today.