Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« More on ATF extending multiple sales reports to rifles | Main | Aaron Zelman passes on »

"Cop killer bullets" -- in 1936

Posted by David Hardy · 28 December 2010 10:57 AM

A research find, from the papers of Homer Cummings, FDR's Attorney General. J. Edgar Hoover (then signing as John Edgar Hoover), writes that S&W is going to produce a ".357 Magnum," a round plainly meant as a cop killer. It can't be meant to increase stopping power, he adds, because we all know that slow, heavy bullets are the key to stopping power. (This actually was a common belief at the time, that low velocity somehow increased stopping power).

UPDATE: zinc bullets were still an issue in the 1970s (i.e., before Super Vel brought out the first functional expanding pistol bullets). The idea was to cast a bullet out of zinc alloys that were of the right hardness to take the rifling without damaging it. Zinc is much less dense than lead, so they could be pushed to much higher velocities. In the days before Super Vel, a light nonexpanding bullet at high velocity had potential for increasing stopping power. I was surprised to find that this issue had been raised in the 1930s!

6 Comments | Leave a comment

James N. Gibson | December 28, 2010 11:56 AM | Reply

Interesting that the letter is also in regards to a Zinc bullet. If they mean a zinc plated bullet, one wonders why anyone would want to market something that would damage the rifling of the barrel of any pistol that fires it.

Also note that they knew of frangible ammunition but they wouldn't mention it because it involved rifle cartridges. One also wonders how the .357 magnum would penetrate automobile armor of the period when it (the armor) could stop non-armor piercing rifle rounds).

Joshua | December 28, 2010 12:02 PM | Reply

The "slow and heavy" statement doesn't seem totally bogus to me. The letter is specifically talking about avoiding shoot-through. This is the same thing that modern hollow-points accomplish, while allowing high muzzle velocity. It is also similar to criticism of the .223/5.56 round when fired at longer range, where the velocity is no longer sufficient to cause the bullet to tumble. It simply passes through, imparting little energy to the target, and making, essentially, a .22 caliber hole. From that perspective, it's plausible to argue that sufficient velocity so as to guarantee a shoot-through is not appropriate for self-defense, since the excess energy is wasted, and the bullet becomes a hazard to people and objects behind the target. This is the same reason we don't use .454 Casull or .50 S&W as a self defense round. Well, that's not the only reason, but it's one of them.

@James: I didn't interpret that section as talking about frangible ammo, but as talking about hydrostatic shock or temporary wound cavity.

CDR D | December 28, 2010 5:07 PM | Reply

This argument immediately made me think of an article in the 1951 Gun Digest in which Roy Weatherby argues for "High Velocity", and Elmer Keith argues for "Heavy Bullets".

"In Africa we learned that if we used smaller caliber high velocity bullets, the animal had to be close enough so that the bullet would not lose enough velocity to keep it from disintegrating within the animal's body... But if you can get that small caliber to disintegrate inside the animal, it will kill anything on the face of the earth." - Weatherby -

"Dangerous game is not really dangerous until it is in close proximity to the hunter, and when that is the case he doesn't need high velocity but rather a big caliber with a heavy bullet that will penetrate well and also deliver a heavy knockdown wallop." - Keith -


The argument will probably never go away...

denton | December 28, 2010 10:45 PM | Reply

Can't vouch for the accuracy of the claim, but it is said that the bad guys were having good luck avoiding serious harm when police bullets tried to reach them through a car door. The 38 just did not have enough juice to do the job. Allegedly, the 357 was designed so law enforcement could successfully shoot through a car door.

Dan Hamilton | December 29, 2010 7:25 AM | Reply

"the 357 was designed so law enforcement could successfully shoot through a car door"

Yes, back in the days when cars were made out of real metal.

Now days a .25 will go thru a car door.

J. Edger would have s87t a brick if he had seen a 50AE.

james N. Gibson | December 29, 2010 11:26 AM | Reply

[email protected] given that they emphasized it was rifle ammunition I couldn't think of anything else.

Leave a comment