Why we need more than 10 round mags !

turbobike

turbobike

.44 mag
Messages
911
Reaction score
1,791
Location
Leroy
10mm is effective SD round no doubt,... It's only real down fall is it's overall length in auto pistols, leads to feeding reliability issues. (As preached by Tom Sundle of Buffalo Bore)
That's were the physics of the short and fat 45 acp is superior, a lower percentage of failure when your life is in danger.
 
Steal2B

Steal2B

.700 Nitro Express
Messages
28,487
Reaction score
87,485
Location
Dutchess County
Robin said:
He was proven to be full of shit. You should read more, but then if id doesn't jive with your cockamamy views, coupled with the facts that you have no first hand experience in the arena, then you wouldn't believe it anyway.
Remember, stay in your lane.
Robin
Click to expand...
S.L.A. Marshall was a liar who pulled fake and impossible data out of his ass, lied about his WW1 service (he did not lead men in combat but was behind lines exclusively setting up delosing stations), and lied about his rank (he was enlisted and not a combat officer) and training. The quoted The "Ratio of Fire" Claim is bullshit.

Modern historians determined "Ratio under Fire" is a statistical fabrication, in fact after Marshall died, researchers confirmed (after inspecting his personal papers and field notes) that SLA Marshall had gathered no statistical data or written records that actually supported his famous conclusion and writing. The total number of infantry companies Marshall claimed to have interviewed also "shifted arbitrarily across his lectures and subsequent revisions of Men Against Fire."

Military analysts universally agree that "sustained tactical defense and unit survival would be mathematically impossible if 75% to 85% of a frontline force permanently refused to shoot back under heavy fire."

Historians "demonstrated that Marshall operated more as a dramatic combat journalist than an empirical researcher, inventing a convenient psychological myth."

Screenshot_20260728_114647_Chrome.jpg
Screenshot_20260728_114836_Chrome.jpg
 
F

fresch

.338 Win Mag
Messages
9,417
Reaction score
12,374
Location
Syracuse
If you are in a position where you are pulling a handgun in defense, how close are you to the person/people ?
Take a step towards them, place it under the chin and let her rip. Any caliber at that distance is better than your hand.
 
Steal2B

Steal2B

.700 Nitro Express
Messages
28,487
Reaction score
87,485
Location
Dutchess County
Zerex said:
I find you accusations about SLA
Click to expand...
Get over it. SLAM was a fake news reporter in a uniform.

It is widely known, understood, and accepted S.L.A. Marshall was also a liar and a shameless self-promoter. His best-known book, Men Against Fire, is almost wholly, a work of fiction.

According to Robert Bateman and Military History in 2007.

"It has been known for more than a decade now that Marshall made up “facts” to support his personal theories and pet ideas. The most famous (or infamous) of those was his fiction that “no more than 15 percent of the men in combat fired their weapons in World War Two.”

"Even more damning than Marshall’s inflation of the number of interviews he conducted is the fact that he never seems to have asked anyone, “Did you fire your weapon in combat?” In none of his notes, either in the Army’s possession or on deposit in El Paso, Texas, or in re-interviews is there any record of his ever asking that question. "

Zerex said:
none of which you list or claim as flawed or bogus.
Click to expand...
His two quasi-theoretical works, Men Against Fire and The Soldier’s Load and the Mobility of a Nation are works of fiction and there are several other works where the heros who SLAM embellished report SLAM made the shit up in order to create a captivating work of fiction sold as a historical account of battle. The most famous example is Marshall’s account of then-Major (now retired Colonel) David Hackworth (who was in fact a real hero who did not need to have shit made up about his heroism) from the work "Battles in the Monsoon."

Again from Military History


According to Colonel Hackworth ... “Throughout the time he was with the battalion doing his AAR [after-action report] we were not under fire. I think this ‘war story’ came from his urgent need to be a warrior. Something he probably never was.” Once again, Marshall created fiction to bolster his image and inserted it directly into the historical record."

"Despite all the lies and the fabricated statistics about the behavior of men in combat, is there anything in what Marshall wrote from which military scholars can learn today? Surely there are nuggets of wisdom embedded in his texts, but is it worth the trouble to go mining for them? It would likely prove impossible to determine what is true and what are merely Marshall’s personal pet theories in his two quasi-theoretical works, Men Against Fire and The Soldier’s Load and the Mobility of a Nation. "

To pay the devil his dues, SLAM was a talented writer and he could turn a phrase better than most. I find it dishonorable and distasteful, however, to sell fiction as history. I also find stolen honor and lying to bolster self promotion unforgivable.
 
Last edited:
Robin

Robin

.577 Tyrannosaur.
Messages
21,785
Reaction score
47,715
Location
Livingston County
Zerex said:
I find you accusations about SLA to be generally fabricated, and by sources out to grind an ax.



en.wikipedia.org

S. L. A. Marshall - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

He was a SGT in WWI and ended up as a General.
He wrote 30 books none of which you list or claim as flawed or bogus.


You just want 30 round mags...............
Click to expand...
Well, you have convinced me. You are a complete idiot.
Robin
 
Z

Zerex

.308 Win
Messages
3,745
Reaction score
2,830
Location
Rome, NY
I read all of Hackworths books, unlike you.

SLA was General Officer, and was no Fauci.

I can see how the Hochuls of the world, are intimidated by many gun owners that they read on line.
 
Z

Zerex

.308 Win
Messages
3,745
Reaction score
2,830
Location
Rome, NY
Hackworth was cashiered for his harsh big words about the Vietnam war.

His life afterwards, was generally tragic. His books are great reading, however.
 
Steal2B

Steal2B

.700 Nitro Express
Messages
28,487
Reaction score
87,485
Location
Dutchess County
Zerex said:
Hackworth was cashiered for his harsh big words about the Vietnam war.

His life afterwards, was generally tragic. His books are great reading, however.
Click to expand...
Cancer sucks.

I met Dave aka Hack (RIP) a few times and we even shared some sea stories. He was the real deal. He does not, however, share your love and admiration for SLAM who he has publically called out for multiple lies, some more stolen valor and SLAM's incessant self promotion.

Eilhys (RIP) was also amazing. (Take your time, she was the source of bigger words in his books.)

Their son Ben has had his success too but no longer lives in the United States, his other son David as well as his daughters have kept a low profile.

You may enjoy this from the Army War College (even though they too do not buy in to SLAMs bullshit but they love his prose.)

 
Last edited:
tirwin1

tirwin1

.577 Tyrannosaur.
Messages
20,283
Reaction score
56,734
Location
rochester
Steal2B said:
Get over it. SLAM was a fake news reporter in a uniform.

It is widely known, understood, and accepted S.L.A. Marshall was also a liar and a shameless self-promoter. His best-known book, Men Against Fire, is almost wholly, a work of fiction.

According to Robert Bateman and Military History in 2007.

"It has been known for more than a decade now that Marshall made up “facts” to support his personal theories and pet ideas. The most famous (or infamous) of those was his fiction that “no more than 15 percent of the men in combat fired their weapons in World War Two.”

"Even more damning than Marshall’s inflation of the number of interviews he conducted is the fact that he never seems to have asked anyone, “Did you fire your weapon in combat?” In none of his notes, either in the Army’s possession or on deposit in El Paso, Texas, or in re-interviews is there any record of his ever asking that question. "


His two quasi-theoretical works, Men Against Fire and The Soldier’s Load and the Mobility of a Nation are works of fiction and there are several other works where the heros who SLAM embellished report SLAM made the shit up in order to create a captivating work of fiction sold as a historical account of battle. The most famous example is Marshall’s account of then-Major (now retired Colonel) David Hackworth (who was in fact a real hero who did not need to have shit made up about his heroism) from the work "Battles in the Monsoon."

Again from Military History


According to Colonel Hackworth ... “Throughout the time he was with the battalion doing his AAR [after-action report] we were not under fire. I think this ‘war story’ came from his urgent need to be a warrior. Something he probably never was.” Once again, Marshall created fiction to bolster his image and inserted it directly into the historical record."

"Despite all the lies and the fabricated statistics about the behavior of men in combat, is there anything in what Marshall wrote from which military scholars can learn today? Surely there are nuggets of wisdom embedded in his texts, but is it worth the trouble to go mining for them? It would likely prove impossible to determine what is true and what are merely Marshall’s personal pet theories in his two quasi-theoretical works, Men Against Fire and The Soldier’s Load and the Mobility of a Nation. "

To pay the devil his dues, SLAM was a talented writer and he could turn a phrase better than most. I find it dishonorable and distasteful, however, to sell fiction as history. I also find stolen honor and lying to bolster self promotion unforgivable.
Click to expand...
It was many years ago but the first time I read about Marshall's "finding " I was skeptical. How on earth could we have won world war 2 if so many soldiers never fired their weapon in combat? It simply didn't make sense. Did the Russians the Germans have the same issue?
 
Steal2B

Steal2B

.700 Nitro Express
Messages
28,487
Reaction score
87,485
Location
Dutchess County
tirwin1 said:
It was many years ago but the first time I read about Marshall's "finding " I was skeptical. How on earth could we have won world war 2 if so many soldiers never fired their weapon in combat? It simply didn't make sense. Did the Russians the Germans have the same issue?
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's bullshit. Not one interviewee can be found who Marshall ever asked about firing their weapon.

Acute combat stress ( shows symptoms like uncontrollable Trembling, freezing, panic, hyperventilation, or even temporary disorientation) is usually trained out of most combat soldiers.

In the real world of a volunteer combat force, most of those who are untrainable to fight or have no survival instinct would eventually be weeded out of a combat group. During WW2 some weeds were relegated to non-combat (but often still dangerous in theater) duties.

Even during WW2 conscription, long before battle our soldiers were trained and tested to fight through stress-induced loss of fine motor control. Hazing and stress during training has a purpose.

Firing, reloading and clearing weapon jams under stress are repeated thousands of times until they become automatic muscle memory, bypassing the cognitive brain during stress.

We are trained to exercise the Vegus nerve with controlled box breathing, and other techniques to lower heart rates and force the nervous system to regain trigger control and composure during high-intensity situations.

If that fails we are trained to rely on gross motor skill replacement that uses large-muscle, open-hand movements such as using a whole palm to slap a magazine release or rack a slide which works when adrenaline spikes if we lose fingers dexterity.

Military psychologists are also well aware that even if a fighter's flight instinct kicks in, they will usually find the will to fight to protect their brothers in arms.
 
Last edited:
Robin

Robin

.577 Tyrannosaur.
Messages
21,785
Reaction score
47,715
Location
Livingston County
Never met Hackworth but served with protege's that were in the Tiger Force. My neighbor served with him at Fort Campbell. The man is legendary.
Robin
 
Steal2B

Steal2B

.700 Nitro Express
Messages
28,487
Reaction score
87,485
Location
Dutchess County
Last edited:
spat

spat

.950 JDJ
Messages
31,950
Reaction score
67,721
Location
Formerly Geneseo, NY. Now free in AZ
The fact of the matter is that in WWII, it's not unreasonable for 85% of the soldiers to have never fired their rifle at the enemy.

Because the vast majority of troops were in support roles not direct combat.

For every guy storming a beach, there were 5 or 10 others doing logistics or supply or administrative work.

The guys running the red ball express were every bit as critical as the guys shooting Germans, but it's not at all unreasonable for one of them to have gone the whole war without having a German to shoot at, whether he wanted to or not.

For every gunner on a B17 there's half a dozen mechanics and ground crew keeping them flying.

None of those guys even saw a German who wasn't a prisoner or a civilian.
 
VietnamEraVet

VietnamEraVet

.308 Win
U.S. Military
Messages
4,407
Reaction score
9,311
Location
Ex WNY as of 08/2018. Screw FUAC & FUKH too!
spat said:
The fact of the matter is that in WWII, it's not unreasonable for 85% of the soldiers to have never fired their rifle at the enemy.

Because the vast majority of troops were in support roles not direct combat.

For every guy storming a beach, there were 5 or 10 others doing logistics or supply or administrative work.

The guys running the red ball express were every bit as critical as the guys shooting Germans, but it's not at all unreasonable for one of them to have gone the whole war without having a German to shoot at, whether he wanted to or not.

For every gunner on a B17 there's half a dozen mechanics and ground crew keeping them flying.

None of those guys even saw a German who wasn't a prisoner or a civilian.
Click to expand...
My dad did his duty in WWII without complaint. He was a Navigator on a B-29 that flew 25 bombing runs over Japan, including the March (5th?) night raid that firebombed Tokyo, and where his plane was shot up and forced to a belly landing on IwoJima among piles and piles of dead Japanese soldiers.

He was a lifelong pacifist who would literally turn his cheek and walk away from any conflict. A truly kind and gentile man in all respects.

When he was discharged in 1946, he turned in his 1911 handgun (I really wish he had kept it),- Oh Well!

After he died, I found his war photo album. I still get a big smile when I look at a picture of him with a Bowie knife holstered on his belt, and his 1911 in a chest slung holster while in a native village on Guam.

To my knowledge, he never ever fired it. I miss you dad.
 
dsdmmat

dsdmmat

Donut Master
Moderator
Messages
11,686
Reaction score
26,732
Location
Alpha Quadrant, Sector 001
Zerex said:
In Vietnam, stats say it took 50,000 M16 rounds to mask one kill.

Many experts believe that in combat only 60% ever shoot their weapons.

AI:
Historical research shows that in many wars, only about 15–25% of soldiers actually fired their weapons at an enemy, even when directly engaged American Heritage+1. This phenomenon, often called the “ratio of fire,” was first documented by U.S. Army historian S.L.A. Marshall after World War II, when he interviewed thousands of infantrymen in Europe American Heritage.

You need 30 round mags??
Refer to the above stats.
Click to expand...
We have been over this before. War stats do not equal truth on the street. And thankfully it is a bill of rights not needs.
 
Z

Zerex

.308 Win
Messages
3,745
Reaction score
2,830
Location
Rome, NY
Having stood in long, pre induction draft physicals, several times in the 1960's ------------Patriotism was not the overriding opinion of the draftees by far.

It was "HTF do I get out of this?"
Pretending to be gay, insane and affecting a limp was common.

Non shooters?
 
Steal2B

Steal2B

.700 Nitro Express
Messages
28,487
Reaction score
87,485
Location
Dutchess County
Robin said:
Which one did you choose?
Robin
Click to expand...
Three hilarious attempts I saw used at the AFEES in Buffalo (before DoDMERB then all Officer Candidates from NYS had screening physicals with draftees at either Brooklyn, Albany, or Buffalo) were 1) some moron had his teeth extracted (he was culled out for his fucked up feet before they even looked in his mouth) and 2) a long haired soy boy swapped his diabetic girl friend's urine for his (in a filled holding room maybe an hour after fluids were collected someone called out that his urine reacted with the lambs blood so he's likely pregnant and they'll help him provide a fresh confirmatory sample), 3) when someone claimed they could not see they demanded his driving license. Looks like a few of those guys got a chance to legally have more than 10 rounds issued in standard loadout mags provided by the taxpayers of this republic.
 
Last edited:
Criticalt

Criticalt

.338 Win Mag
Messages
8,932
Reaction score
17,029
Location
WNY
spat said:
That's primarily because for every guy shot 14 times by a 10mm there's probably 1000 guys shot 14 times by a 9mm.

The odds it was caught on video are just higher for the 9mm.

You're not going to find a video of someone getting hit 14 times and surviving from .32NAA either, but it's not because of it's incredible stopping power.

Now, certainly 10mm is better than 9, nobody serious would argue with that. But it's not *that* much better
Click to expand...
I completely agree, that's why my $100 is pretty safe. :)
But, ive shot many animals with many rounds. Good 10mm rounds do a lot more damage than 9mm, not just a little, a LOT. Its just a bigger hole, goes deeper generally, and cares less about bone, muscle and tendons.
Where a 9mm may be stopped or deflected, 10mm just pushes through...generally.
Its kind of like magic. Ive shot gel with both many times, at the same time. They seem very similar in Clear Ballistic Gel. But in a deer or a hog, they are very different.
I know you know, but Clear Ballistic Gel isnt meant to show what a round will do to a living creature. Clear Ballistic is a more user friendly form of 10% Ballistic gel. Meant to show how bullets preform, that's it. Even the CB gel busts with fake bones do NOT show what a round will do in a real human. Its really more for "fun" and youtube videos. But many people point to Clear Ballistic tests to "prove" that 9mm is "just as good" as 10mm. Heck, 9mm and 44 magnum go about as deep in gel depending on round choice. But very few people would say 9mm is "just as good" as 44 magnum. Ive seen 44 mag make an entire white tail shoulder disappear!!
My point is, a full power 10mm just has more FPE and size, so they are MORE LIKELY to reach, or hit vital organs.
This is why ive become good with my 10mm handguns, I want every advantage, even if small. If im only going to get 2-3 rounds off with a handgun, its going to be 180 grain BB XTP.
 
Last edited:
F

fresch

.338 Win Mag
Messages
9,417
Reaction score
12,374
Location
Syracuse
Criticalt said:
I completely agree, that's why my $100 is pretty safe. :)
But, ive shot many animals with many rounds. Good 10mm rounds do a lot more damage than 9mm, not just a little, a LOT. Its just a bigger hole, goes deeper generally, and cares less about bone, muscle and tendons.
Where a 9mm may be stopped or deflected, 10mm just pushes through...generally.
Its kind of like magic. Ive shot gel with both many times, at the same time. They seem very similar in Clear Ballistic Gel. But in a deer or a hog, they are very different.
I know you know, but Clear Ballistic Gel isnt meant to show what a round will do to a living creature. Clear Ballistic is a more user friendly form of 10% Ballistic gel. Meant to show how bullets react, that's it. Even the CB gel busts with fake bones do NOT show what a round will do in a real human. Its really more for "fun" and youtube videos. But many people point to Clear Ballistic tests to "prove" that 9mm is "just as good" as 10mm. Heck, 9mm and 44 magnum go about as deep in gel depending on round choice. But very few people would say 9mm is "just as good" as 44 magnum. Ive seen 44 mag make an entire white tail shoulder disappear!!
My point is, a full power 10mm just has more FPE and size, so they are MORE LIKELY to reach, or hit vital organs.
This is why ive become good with my 10mm handguns, I want every advantage, even if small. If im only going to get 2-3 rounds off with a handgun, its going to be 180 grain BB XTP.
Click to expand...
Just a silly mm wider. 41 mag is 10.4mm approximately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top