Beretta M81

This is a hobby page for the Beretta M81 which is a 7.65mm calibre (32 ACP). Considering the difficulties that I had in procuring ammunition, information and reloading data, I thought I may as well save others the trouble in the future and write it in here.

Home Page | Firearms License Renewals | Firearms Competency Renewals

Where should you point a handgun when firing a warning shot?

I strongly believe in giving warning shots, but the problem is where to point the gun? Johannesburg has a lot of hard rock like quartz, so I am worried about firing into the ground in the event that a ricochet causes unwanted damage.

The internet has as many opinions as people about the dangers of bullets returning to earth. Unfortunately a lot of the info deals with large calibers of rifles which have substancially different bullet geometries to handguns.

My conclusion about direction is to fire directly upwards. There are 2 reasons for this:

  1. a 7.65mm handgun bullet returning to earth has very little energy and is unlikely to cause any damage.
  2. There is little chance of a bullet returning to earth actually striking anyone.

To explain in some detail:

1 - What damage could a 7.65mm calibre bullet do on returning to ground?

A bullet fired upwards will return to earth at its terminal velocity. I have no idea what the terminal velocity of a 7.65mm bullet is but I did a small calculation to get an estimate.terminal velocity of 7.65mm bullet

The result is that a 71 grain 7.65 (.32ACP) bullet has a terminal velocity of around 29m/s. The Kinetic energy of the bullet is roughly 2 joules, which is about half of what my electric fence delivers- which hurts but will not kill. The kinetic energy of the bullet on leaving the muzzle is about 167 Joules which is a calculation assuming that the bullet leaves at 270m/s which is a typical muzzle velocity for a 71gr bullet using a 4 inch barrel.

It is still difficult to estimate what damage 2 Joules of kinetic energy in a bullet will do, so I did an experiment. 29m/s would be achieved if a bullet fell from about 45m in vacuum. A caty can easily get a bullet to that height which means that a caty can deliver more than 2 Joules of energy to the bullet and has a "muzzle velocity" exceeding 29m/s. So the experiment was simple- shoot a 71grain 7.65mm bullet into a corrugated iron sheet and check if it penetrates. The reason for this is that corrugated iron is the weakest roofing material used, so if the bullet penetrates corrugated iron then it may be a menace. The results are that the bullet definitely could not penetrate corrugated iron sheeting when shot from a caty, thus a bullet falling cannot penetrate the weakest common roofing material and cause damage to a person. Would it cause damage if it struck someone on the head? read the next section to find out.

2 - chance of a bullet at terminal velocity causing damage to humans

I disected this problem in 2. At night the streets are completely empty in Johannesburg, so if I fired a warning shot at night there is no chance anyone will get injured from it since they will be under a roofs. During the day there are quite a few more people about so it becomes important to assess the problem.

Assuming worst case scenario where everyone in my suburb is standing in the street, then 1600 people each of surface area 0,1m squared (large man standing) in an area of 1 square kilometer (1000000m squared) then the chance of getting hit by a bullet returning to ground would be 1 in 6250. This is of course the worst case scenario, it will never happen that everyone is outside, and the bullet is extremely unlikely to cause damage unless it hits someone in the head, so 1 in 6250 is unlikely. Compare this to the chance of someone dying if I did not fire a warning shot and rather sent the bullet to the target (an attacker) - chance of causing a death is 1 in 4 for a random gunshot wound. I would say that it is better to take a 1 in 6250 chance of injuring someone than take a 1 in 4 chance of killing someone.

7.65mm Ammunition in Johannesburg

Ammunition comes in a variety of forms and prices. 7.65mm PMP (Pretoria Metal Pressings) ammunition is reliable and a good source of new cartridges. This can be bought at a variety of prices. I have found Sultan Arms in Mayfair, Johannesburg to be the cheapest. Last time I bought there in 2011 they were charging R100 for 25 rounds PMP. I have tried a few places for reloaded ammunition. The worst was Guthries in Midrand, I bought 50 reloads and got 3 stoppages in the first 10 rounds- so I asked for a refund. It was a serious pain to scrape out the lead deposits from the lead bullets so I promised that I would never use those again. Flora range is pretty good usually but once I bought 7.65mm reloads and got a mixed box of 9mm Short and 7.65mm so I returned that promptly.

I have heard some pretty bad stories with store bought reloaded ammunition but I won't repeat those because I was not actually there. Suffice to say that the stories I have heard combined with my experience convinced me that either I need to shoot new PMP ammunition or I need to reload it myself. My solution is to reload ammunition myself, but it is not the best solution for everyone.

Costs and benefits of reloading ammunition

Costs

At the time of writting a new round costs R4 each. A reloaded round costs R1.17 + 20 seconds of time + the setup costs. Over a long period of time it will be cheaper to reload ammo but if you only shoot 100 rounds every 6 months then rather buy new and donate the cases to me. I shoot between 150 to 600 rounds a month, so I save between R424.50 and R1698 per month if I reload. The reloading equipment costs upwards of R3000 new and the cases cost quite a lot because they should be bought new (as in PMP rounds).

Time

To start with it is very time consuming to reload. For a start, trying to find 7.65mm reloading dies is nearly impossible. The Lee turret press has a nice Auto Disk Powder Measure but the smallest setting will charge a 7.65mm round with too much powder, so I had to tweek the powder measure substancially to get the right loads. You could try to buy the Micro Disk from Lee but I could not find a supplier in South Africa and Lee will not ship here.

Once all the setup problems are dealt with then there is the issue of reloading each round. This is surprisingly fast with some experience. Currently I load 150 rounds in 50 minutes using the Lee Turret Press without the additional productivity extras. This means that I save about R2.83 per 20 seconds which works out to R509.40 saved per hour of reloading - my spare time is not worth that much so reloading is an obvious choice.

Quality

When calculating the savings I am comparing my reloads to new PMP ammunition, not retail reloads which are a lot cheaper. The problem is that I do not trust reloads from shops or ranges. At worst with retail reloads you will get a round firing but the bullet jamming in the barrel (I have heard of 2 such incidents in the space of 3 months), which is seriously dangerous if you fire another round immediately afterwards. In my experience I will get fewer stoppages with my reloads, considerably less cleaning and copper bullets which reduces my exposure to lead. In all I get a far superior quality round when reloading myself than buying retail reloads.

My reloads compared to new PMP do not fare so well. I keep a record of every stoppage so I can confidently say that my reloads have a 1.33% stoppage rate, so just over 1 stoppage per 100 rounds fired. Invariably the stoppage is due to incorrect loading, where the unfired round does not load into the chamber correctly- usually stopping the slide from going full forward. I am yet to get a stoppage on PMP ammunition so they score a perfect 0% stoppage rate. So it is fair to compare like quality rounds, 1.33% is comparable to 0% stoppage rate. In the extreme case of my experience at Guthries, I experienced a 30% stoppage rate which is in a class of its own - retail reloads.

Shields from robbers and practice ranges

Johannesburg is not a friendly place when it comes to armed robbers. While shopping at the local grocery store, which has been robbed a few times lately, I decided to figure out the best response to an armed attack.

I assumed that an attack comprised of 6 robbers in the store (2 cars, driver remains in the vehicle) armed with mainly handguns, 1 or 2 assault rifles (5.56mm Nato) and possibly a shotgun. My conclusion was that if I decided to fight, then I should take cover and shoot at threats. The only serious cover was the concrete structural pillars. Question is: will a concrete pillar stop a 5.56mm Nato bullet? The answer is yes, click here for details of 5.56mm penetration. In short, if the website is to be believed, it would take an entire R5 assault rifle magazine to get through a 200mm reinforced concrete pillar if every shot hit the pillar. Many pillars are larger than 200mm so that makes me feel that pillars make a good shield from the most dangerous weapons that I am likely to face.

The next issue is range. The store was roughly 35m from the back of the store to the tills. The rear pillar would obviously provide the best shield as this meant that I could not be flanked (narrow store) and was safe from assault rifle fire. The problem is that at 30m I only get a 60% hit rate on a static A4 sized target from standing supported position when calm. This is not great, and this also means that some rounds may hit innocent bystanders. The advantage of being at 30m is that if it is a hard shot for me it is also a hard shot for them. I suspect that a robber will stand little chance of hitting me with handgun ammo at 30m unsuported, very unlikely if I am behind a pillar.

I will have to check on the range what the spread is at 30m so that I can ascertain how far a bystanders needs to be to make a "safe" shot at 30m.

Update, 14aug2011, shooting from 30m is not practical. I did not ascertain what the spread of bullets was but I did fire 50 rounds from 30m in the prone position relaxed and the hit rate was very low. I assume that my hit rate will be lower for a pressure shot and lower still for a moving target, even if only moving slowly. I reckon that I may not get a single hit at 30m with a pressure shot on a moving target with a handgun with one magazine. I guess that is why a handgun is considered a defence weapon.

Gunfights

Thanks to YouTube. There is so much to be gained from other people's mistakes. A few videos of gunfights below.

These guys seem more scared of the noise that they are making than the opponent.

this Korean dude obviously has no military training. Not too good at taking cover. If he is going to shoot to miss then he may as well shoot vertically.

 

slick. skip the first 35 seconds. Looks like they target the soldier for his equipment. Notice that they get into all round defence almost instantly. Difficult to say how long it took, but definitely less than 20 seconds for the whole engagement.
   
not too sure what is happening here. Seems like a leaderless group. Clearly no men in the prone position taking aimed shots.
 

 

Killed by your own gun

It occured to me that there is a danger of a criminal taking possesion of my gun and shooting me with it. What are the chances? Pretty slim one would think.

Check out the article here. In short: "... the FBI says that of the 616 law enforcement officers killed on duty by criminals from 1994 through 2003, 52 were killed with their own weapon, amounting to 8 percent." That is not a lot but enough to consider some sort of action.

Hollow point versus Full Metal Jackets

Nomenclature: hollow point bullet refers to a bullet which is designed to expand on striking a person thus expending more of the bullet's energy per cm of penetration into a person. A Full Metal Jacket has a copper coating to, among other reasons, hold the bullet together to increase penetrating depth. For some or other reason the Full Metal Jacket in South Africa is called a CMJ- Copper Metal Jacket.

A lot of people seem eager to carry the most damaging ammunition available like hollow points but I do not think this is a good idea. The reason is that in my view there are 3 uses of a firearm:

  1. Use the appearance of the gun as a deterent - in the event that a situation is getting out of control and someone may get hurt but the use of force in not justified. An example would be 3 guys with metal pipes surrounding someone in a street.
  2. Warning shot - in the event that there is an imminent threat that is avoidable. An example is where the 3 guys surrounding the victim in the street has just struck the victim in the foot (the attacker did not use lethal force).
  3. Lethal force - in the event of immediate threat to life. Here the gun is used to shoot at the attacker, we must assume that if the bullet hits the attacker that it will cause serious harm.

In two of the three cases above the type of ammunition does not matter, in the 3rd case we want to stop the attacker as soon as possible. It is true that a hollow point does more damage in general than a CMJ but the only way to stop a determined attacker is a well placed shot to the brain or spine. I do not have experience in this but I should think that a CMJ to the brain will stop an attacker just as quick as a hollow point, the difference being the mess it makes. Same applies to a shot to the spine, as long as the bullet has enough energy to penetrate to the spine then it is good enough. I suspect that for my caliber (.32 ACP) it is better to have a CMJ because the bullet is already underpowered and a hollow point may not penetrate far enough into the chest from the front to hit the spine.

There is also the issue of being shot by your own gun (and ammunition). Assuming that in general a person, after being shot, is as likely to die from ones own gun then by another persons', then roughly 8 percent of people who get shot are done so with their own ammo. As far as I understand it is easier to remove and fix a wound from a CMJ than a hollow point. If this is true then it is another reason to use CMJ ammo rather than hollow point.

Lessons from a short shooting course 29 September 2011

  1. It is the opinion of the instructor that the more "meat" on the pistol grip the better. Not sure that I agree with this but it may be worth trying out. It is my opinion that the position of the hands should create a stable platform, which is easier to achieve on a small hadgun when the weak hand is positioned as close to the front as possible.
  2. The instructor made the point that the stoppage where an improperly ejected case blocks the slide may be caused by a weak grip of the handgun. I might want to test this.
  3. It is a good idea to paint the foresight BPP - Binne Poes Pink (for those not fluent in afrikaans: Inside Pussy Pink), which is done by first painting white tipex, then a bright pink nail polish.
  4. Shooting from ranges of less than a metre has quite a different dynamic than shooting from far. I wonder whether very close shooting can be used to blind an opponent without shooting them with the bullet.
  5. Blackened brass cases can be cleaned by immersing them in a mixture of 2 teaspoons Cream of Tartar and a squirt of dish washing liquid in hot water. Shake around and then dry in the oven or leave in the sun to dry.
  6. I need to practice shooting for close range fights. The one practised was shooting from a metre with the left arm defensively covering the head and the right hand shooting while pressed against the ribcage.

Reloading and the quality of cases

I bought 150 new PMP rounds which I have used for reloading. The number of stoppages of those is very low - in the region of 1 percent, even though they have been fired at least 10 times each. To supplement those cases I have introduced "factory reload cases" which are proving to be a real nuissance. There are a lot of jams which cannot be easily fixed due to the seating of the bullet bulging the cases. The jams are where the round is chambered but will not go in to the point of the slide being fully forward (thus cannot fire) and the slide cannot be drawn back because it is stuck. The only way that I can clear this is to press the gun hard onto a steel bar, which pushes the slide back with force.

Learning to draw - one or two hands

For concealed carry there is the issue of how to draw a weapon. As I see it there are 2 main schools of thought:

  1. Prepare for the worst case scenario- practice drawing with one hand. If you are in an incident and you are able to draw using 2 hands then it will be so much easier.
  2. Practice the most reliable drill. There is no doubt that drawing a concealed weapon with 2 hands is faster and less prone to problems so train to create the situation which allows you to do so.

When I talk about concealed weapon I obviously mean that it is hidden in some way, presumably under clothes. Drawing with one hand is not difficult but there is definitely a higher chance of clothes snagging on the firearm and the draw speed is somewhat slower than with 2 hands.

Obviously one must practice with one handed draws and two handed draws but assuming that there is limited time for training, which is always the case, then which one should a gun owner focus on?

Changing the environment to suit your tactical advantage

There are more possible situations than one can think of where a firearm is needed but it is fair to say that the critical situations where one or two handed draws make a difference are limited to:

To handle the fist situation, when an attacker is very close, it is my opinion that it is better to first improve the tactical situation to your advantage. If the attacker is so close that your one hand is preoccupied with him, then he is close enough to take your weapon as you draw. Rather push the attaker away, even if it is only to put him off balance, then draw with two hands.

The next situation, when the attacker is on top of you, really depends on exactly how they are on top of you. In many ground positions it simply is not possible to draw with two hands. It is also questionable if drawing when the attacker is on top will yield any advantage to you; as again it becomes very easy for the attacker to take your weapon.

When one arm is injured there is no option, clearly this is where a little one hand drawing will be useful.

If you are so hardcore that hanging off a bridge one handed Rambo style is no problem then you should be able to kill the enemy with a well aimed throat clearing spit oyster missile.

If holding something vital and you need to draw your weapon then maybe what you are holding is not that vital and you should drop it. A torch often works better for you opponent than for you. They can ALWAYS see where you are but you might not be able to see them. If you need a tazer to back up your firearm then you should do more range work to become more confident with your firearm and then stick the tazer in your pocket.

Another bad analogy:

I know that people don't like my analogies but I think they make decision making more clear for the more pragmatic amongst us. Think of teaching someone to drive a car one handed and using the reasoning that it is highly likely that once driving there may be the need to change the radio station, send a text message or an urgent need to get some chewing gum. Although many people multi task when driving it does not make sense to teach someone to drive with only one hand as it is not the most reliable drill.

Conclusion on drawing with one or two hands:

I cannot think of any clear situations where one handed drawing of a concealed weapon is a good idea other than when injured. I think that it is much more likely that two hands can be used to draw and will be more reliable in aa critical situation.

Taking a gun from an attacker

I thought that this is pretty good:

 

 

Lethality comparison of different calibers

This may seem like a silly topic, we all know that it is not what you hit them with, but where that matters. Anyway, it is pretty interesting reading. I draw all this from one source http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7866 (click here for a copy).

In short the .32 caliber fares quite well. This may be due to the specifics of the fight- one can argue that women are perceived as easy target. Women tend to carry smaller caliber weapons like .32, so in a situation where a weasel attacker goes for a woman because she is an "easy target" and she pulls out a .32, then even a warning shot can be considered an "incapacitating shot". Either that or people who carry .32 tend to carry it conceiled, so when an attacher is shot there is a greater sense of surprise than an altercation where a 357 is clearly visible.

One graph that the .32 did badly in is "failure to incapacitate". for a .32 it shows that 40% of attackers were not incapacitated by the .32. I have no comment on this. I would love to see the raw data to fully understand this.

Gun ownership and its relation to violent crime

Ask any gun owner and they will tell you that gun ownership keeps violent crime in check, ask a non-gun owner and they will tell you the opposite. Reason? Probably because a gun is just a tool, it does not cause violence in itself any more than spanners make cars. To ask the question "is there a correlation between violent crime and gun ownership" is just as absurd as "is there a correlation between the cars and spanner ownership".

This is an interesting piece of pro-gun propaganda:http://americangunfacts.com/ and a PDF version of this page: PDF ameriangunfacts.com

In any event, if there was a correlation between gun ownership and violent crime then Finland and Switzerland (both in top 5 gun ownership countries in the world) would be ravaged by epidemic levels of violence. They are not, thus there is no correlation.

The counter argument is that guns enable violent people to cause violent crime more easily. True, but they would not do it with a legal firearm because that is like putting your fingerprint and business card on the victim. The fact is that criminals do not abide by the law and it does not make any difference if guns are legalised in their country, they are still going to use an illegal firearm to perpetrate crime. The difference is that in countries where guns are illegal, violent criminals with guns run rampant because there are no responsible legal gun owner to stop them. If we ban guns on the basis on enabling violent criminals then we must also ban kitchen knives, wood axes, virtually every workshop tool, every garden implement, scissors, sharp pencils and utility knives to name but a few. Removing the tool does not remove the intent of a disturbed individual to do harm.