Printable View
What was the reason that the German military switched over to the round nose bullet during the 1916 time period ? the truncated bullet having been standard up to that time, did it have anything to do with the C96 pistol in 9mm ?
truncated bullet in cartridge is a Winchester from the post WW1 period
the round nose bullet is German 1918Attachment 44474
The Germans thought that the truncated bullet would wound more severely than the round nose bullet. The slight shoulder was thought to act as sort of a semi-wadcutter, producing a larger wound channel. In 1916 the German military feared that the Allies might consider the truncated bullet a form of Dum-Dum bullet and retaliate, so production was changed to the round nose bullet.
Thanks to those that enjoyed the post.
You gotta love those almost lost and obscure tidbits of information. How long did it take to come back to truncated cone bullets...? The first I heard of them was .40 cal jacketed.
Seems like Lee Jurras used them (mostly in hollow point form) in the SuperVel ammo line starting in the mid to late '70s. At least as far as autoloaders are concerned. Nothing springs to mind as far as military pistols go.Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
The Germans made the truncated cone ammo in both 7.65 and 9mm. The Portuguese also manufactured the ammo in 7.65mm.
The ammo in both 7.65 and 9mm was used in the Thompson-Largarde wounding effect trials.
I have seen some late ww2 truncated cone German last ditch ammo made with sintered iron bullets.
The British „man-stopping“ , unjacketed lead bullet for the .455 Mk. III Webley revolver was (in the words of Sturgess/Görtz): „far more at risk of charges of contravention of the Hague Convention“, whereas the Prussian Rifle Testing Commisssion came to the conclusion in 1916 that „As the tests made by the Commission have established that the ballistic properties of the Pistol Bullet 08 (full metal jacket) with truncated cone are identical with the original pointed bullet, the Pistol Bullet 08 with the ogival point will be produced in future.“
No written evidence has yet come to light concerning any fear of war crimes with the use of truncated 08 bullets. It would thus seem that any such concern is one of the many self repeating myths (the Spandau, Danzig and SS Parabellum, the Black Widow etc. etc. )perpetrated by ambitious trans-Atlantic dealers and „collectors“.
According to Sturgess and Gortz (pg. 1514) it was the Prussian Ministry of War that made the decision to discontinue the production of the truncated cone bullet. Again according to Sturgess and Gortz the bullet had been successfully tested in 1904 for it's "better wounding capability".
It wasn't a discussion of which bullet had the better wounding capability, but why the Germans switched to the round nose bullet.
In the pic above, I notice the neat little broad arrow marking inside the reversed bullet cavity...first bullet. Neat detail...
I wonder if the switch to round nose was to facilitate better feeding...more reliable? Maybe allow for a heavier bullet? I think short of hollow points, the wound making capabilities of low velocity pistol ammo is all hot stove league? Hollow points aren't even that reliable in pistol ammo.
I use round-nose bullets in my LP08, and it can shoot as long as I like with perfect feeding from all magazines
I tried truncated cone bullets, and immediately had feeding hangups. Checked the magazine lips etc. etc, etc. The LP08 is perfect (as far as I can tell), but the front of the cone just does not run smoothly into the chamber. Not a scientific experiment, just my experience.
I wondered about that train of thought Patrick...
I had feeding troubles with other than the usual RN bullets, except with a Schmeisser magazine. It allowed the P08 shoot function perfectly with every 9x19 round tried with the exception of 90gr Federal JHPs. Those being just too short, I think.
The reason for the change would definitely seem to be easier feeding if the `traditional´ round nose bullet.
I'm still wondering...Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
Just look at the following pics made today with my LP08, which I carefully arranged so that the magazine had the same angle and vertical position as if it were inside the pistol.
Attachment 47161
The bullet is a copper-plated type (fairly soft), and in the close-up you can see how the nose was slightly crumpled after hitting the edge of the chamber.
Attachment 47162
As the bullet is pushed out of the stack, one imagines that any distortion of the magazine lips (or maybe just plain dynamics and manufacturing tolerances) might even allow the bullet to tip up a few degrees more. With an ogival nose this is hardly a problem, as there is always a curved surface to contact the chamber and lead the bullet in, never an edge.
So, for me, the suspicion remains that the reason put forward:
was a convenient face-saver.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Peppers
I.e.
"It worked fine, but others wouldn't let us"
was politically more acceptable than
"It didn't work so well, we got a lot of feeding problems".
Does anyone have documentation to indicate that there were feeding problems with the truncated cone ammunition?
This is a translated facsimile of the directive from the war department replacing the truncated bullet with the ogival bullet.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...1/wsqkxs-1.jpg
Thanks Johnny! It does indeed seem to be, in official language "It worked fine, but others wouldn't let us".
However, I remain sceptical that the Prussian War Ministry would give a hoot what some field units thought the enemy might think in 1916! The same people who had enthusiastically (see Wikipedia) approved the use of poison gas as a weapon more than a year before???
The most generous interpretation I can provide, based on the key words "ballistic properties....identical" is that it did not provide any advantage and so a change was pointless. And maybe the coned bullets were a touch more expensive?
History is history, but I guess we can always second guess it anyway.
Two unrelated comments here:
First, I have to wonder if the primary reason to go with the round ogive bullet might have been that it was easier to produce.
Secondly, and here I digress, I've been using Hornady's 125 gr. "FP-FMJ" bullets (read "Truncated Cone") for practice reloads for a variety of 9mm pistols, BHPs most frequently, since they replicate the feed dynamics of JHPs. I have had absolutely no feeding problems in the 10+ years I've been using them.
Not familiar with the Hornady bullet, but if you look at the original truncated cone bullet posted by RCS and the bullets posted by Patrick, the early bullet appears to have more angle to the "cone", which should improve feeding.
Very well observed Johnny! The original also seems to me to be a bit longer in the nose, a bit more pointed.
Speaking of 9mm, it's origins, etc; here is a useful link: http://cartridgecollectors.org/docum...Cartridges.pdf
Seems odd that the author would leave out the fact that the DWM 9mm cartridge was developed from the DWM 7.65 cartridge by opening it up to 9mm and shortening the case by 2mm.
Johnno,
I can only guess that since the article was written by a cartridge collector for other cartridge collectors (something I'm not) that he assumed that little tidbit about the 9 X19 mm origin to be common knowledge. His focus seems to be the cartridge's evolution and the varieties available to the collector.
If the information was for cartridge collectors only, anyone that would have known that the 9mm was developed from the 7.65mm would have know that it was developed by DWM.
What am I missing here, Mate?
The first sentence below "Origin of The 9mm Parabellum Cartridge" reads, "The 9mm Parabellum cartridge was originally developed by George Luger at the German Company D W M (DWM)". Admittedly, the man's name was Georg and not George, and DWM might more correctly be discribed as a "factory". None the less, Georg Luger is actually credited with the cartridge's design.
I don't have a clue as to what you are missing.
My musing as to why less than a dozen extra words would have explained the full story of the development of the 9mm cartridge was just that, and was not posed as an actual question that required an answer. I guess I didn't realize that only cartridge collectors would have been reading the scholarly chronicle of the 9mm cartridge.
Oh, I suppose a sarcastic twit, a smart-arse or a "know it all" could probably read it too, but then they might have a bit of trouble understanding that the author, fool that he is, might not have had anyone other than other collectors in mind as an audience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Peppers
That then gives free rein to those that answer unasked questions, who must assume themselves "know it all" and answer anyway.
I cast and shoot the Truncated bullets in my old S+W Model 39 9 mm, they always feed and never jam.