The .32 S&W Long as a man-stopper

[Dannix]

No problem. I'll be interested in testing results regardless, whenever you may be able to perform them and post.

While not required, pictures and indeed be nice and video a very nice bonus indeed. I think both and particularly the latter would help to more clearly communicate the testing results.

Indeed they would. But I'm not able to provide them. All I can do is record the length of travel through water-filled jugs, and the last jug to exhibit pressure splitting.

Surely we have other forum members in your area. Maybe if you started a new thread in the Cast Boolits subforum you may be able to find a volunteer with these skill sets. Maybe worth a try?

I've never made a secret of my location, but (except for Dale53) only one person from the area has ever contacted me, and he wasn't exactly close at hand.

[Dannix]

Nowhere have I stated that my objective was a 38 Special.

Nor do I recall expressing a desire for a specific given sectional density, though I have commented on the desirablility of a high SD for enhanced penetration

You were above using ".38 Special with normal pressures" to compare to. I thought your posts indicated the .38 Special Police load was your standard for sectional density and penetration (and why you consider 9x19 undesirable), and while your desire was certainly not a .32 of equal energy, your goal was equal penetration. My mistake.

I think a .32 at .32ACP velocities but with a ~160% heavier projectile than .32ACP weight will surely penetrate in a sufficiently dependable fashion for your purposes.

The typical 32 ACP bullet is some 60 grains,and velocity is about 855 fps (Win silvertip) so you're saying that a (60*1.6=) 96 grain bullet at 855 fps will give all the penetration I will need???? That just about duplicates the .32 S&W Long!! You may not feel a need for more than that, but _I_ do!

My fault for inadequate communication. It was my impression a typical .32ACP bullet was a FMJ 71-73grn based on this. In other words with more than a 60% increase in mass, I would image your 120grn weight choice would be satisfactory. I thought basically no one who did any research in the matter used hollow points in .32ACP due to serious penetration concerns. Again my mistake.

Higher SD does indeed enhance penetration, all else being equal. But there ARE some practical limitations. The reason nobody offers (or even suggests) a 500g bullet for the .32 Long is that the 32 long doesn't have the powder capacity to move a 500g bullet at useful velocities.

I don't know of any actual studies that establish a firm relationship between caliber, case capacity and SD, but I will express my opinion that when the SD is so great that the case cannot propel it at least as well as it can propel somewhat lighter bullets, you have reached and passed the point of diminishing returns for useful SD.

I agree wholeheartedly. This is where the desire for near maximum achievable momentum for a given cartridge comes into play.


We seem to be talking past each other. I hope I'm not doing more harm than good, and I hope your tests go well once you guys have sufficient time and opportunity to do them.


Interesting post MakeMineA10mm! I want to avoid hijacking Molly's thread though, so PM en route.

Best Regards

[pjh421]

Hope to read this thread in its entirety some day. I would certainly carry a 32 and feel safe with it. My instructor for the Iowa Carry Law training I attended quoted many statistics but the one that stuck with me was that about 12 out of 13 times when a criminal looking to assault you sees your pistola and recognizes you have the means to defend yourself, he breaks off the attack.

This, however, is no ringing endorsement for the 32. They simply don't throw enough lead. My carry gun, and I fully recognize that I may be completely wrong, is the Smith 329PD. This is a superb little gun, though, carried in a Galco Summer Comfort IWB holster. When I took it to the range the first time last fall I shot a couple of cylinders full of the 310 grain Lee over 18 grains of AA#9. This is a little much for daily carry and so this will change to the 44-250-K at around 1000fps when I get time to tweak it . I am anything but qualified to say what works but I am more than willing to stake my life on this combination.

If my adversary is firing at me from cover, the 32 does not inspire confidence in me whereas the 44 will in all likelihood better fill the bill. But, yes, I would carry a 32 if I had too. Its really more about practice, practice, practice.

Paul

[DIRT Farmer]

As promised, the result of shooting hogs for butchering. All were shot shot at a range of 3 to 5 feet which is the distance of most defensive police shootings. The shot was from the side at a 45 degree angle as I feel this is the best shot and I have no desire of chasing hogs after they have been shot. The load was the 313-249, 85 grn rn and a 85 grn SWC that I do not rember the number, cast from WW. Gun was a S&W 31 4 inch barrel.load was published at 750 fps. A 1911 45 ACP was carried in case anything went South. The result was 4 dead 220 to 250 lb hogs. There was a differance in the effect with the shot, the SWC had a more apperent shock value. The RN the hogs droped, but just seemed to fold. The SWC the hogs stiffened and were ridged on the ground. Just info on the results. Next time I will give up on this high power stuff and go back to my 22 that has already been dropped in a hog lot.
In my humble opine, If you hit where you are shooting, what you are shooting doesn't matter. If you don't make exelant hits, things get worse. Bullet design matters. Noise don't kill.
As I posted earlier, I have witnessed 125 357s at a range of powder burns through the shirt on the chest, The can bounce off, although the shootee was feeling poorly. As EMS types will notice, the save looked good on the run report, but I diden't have to work to hard.
Molly If I had a chance, I would drive the 200 miles but due to caregiver status, I am basicly home bound.

[Multigunner]

So, this brings up another concern that ties back in with the momentum/penetration question: The skull. The human skull has some very weak points, and some incredibly strong points. I once was at an autopsy where a 32ACP bullet had been fired at a range of inches into the side of a person's head. The bullet turned as soon as it got under the skin and hit the skull, and travelled under the skin, all the way around the OUTSIDE of the skull, until it came to rest above his ear on the other side. When we saw the location of the bullet and it's entry during the external examination, we were certain it went through the head (and brain) in a straight line, but X-rays and careful dissection showed it did not. The skull is actually REALLY thick and strong above the ear.

Funny thing, I'd thought of recounting a near identical shooting that happened here back around 1970.
The victim was an off duty cop who was a bit drunk and showing out at a pool hall run by a local mobsters niece.
He had one of the patrons pinned on a pool table when the young lady walked over and stuck a .25 auto to his head and pulled the trigger.
The bullet did exactly the same thing as in the incident you described. The victim survived with no serious injury, just a very bad headache.
The mobbed up uncle saw to it no charges were filed. He is rumoured to have had his brother killed, and left he did leave his own estate to the niece when he passed away.

[Molly]

Hi Dirt Farmer,

Molly If I had a chance, I would drive the 200 miles but due to caregiver status, I am basicly home bound.

Sorry to hear that, Farmer. I've enjoyed your posts, on this and other threads. You'd sure be welcome.

[LouisianaMan]

Molly,

LouisianaMan here, just letting you know that I'm very glad you found my 2009 testing of heavyweight .32 and .38 loads of value to your study of the .32. (See pg. 5 of this thread.)

Soon I'll run some of my water-filled jug "tests" with .32ACP pistols of modern and classic vintages, and ditto for .380ACP. I also got a 200g LSWC mold for use with my .38 S&W and .38SPL revolvers, and hope to test these bullets and compare to other bullets I've shot thru these calibers. FWIW, will also run thru some 9mm loads: 115g JHP, 115g and 124g FMJ, 147g JFP.

No particular expertise claimed, but a 115-120g LSWC in .32SWL would be acceptable to me for CCW/SD, as are .38 S&W or .38 SPL 200g FN or SWC at 650-ish, +/- 50 fps. As many have noted on this interesting thread, there are a myriad of factors that account for whether a bullet "stops" somebody in a crisis. I summarize my views with the following comments:

1. I really like the penetration of heavy-for-caliber .38s and .32's for SD

2. Expansion is a huge benefit as long as the bullet penetrates deeply enough, but I note the possibility of failure to expand on one end of the HP spectrum, along with a failure to penetrate on the opposite end of that spectrum. When I mull over these possibilities, I figure that the near-certainty of deep penetration & bone-crushing capability of heavy .38s is very comforting & perhaps a satisfactory trade-off against hollowpoint designs. In .32's, I don't see any load that gives a balance of weight/penetration and expansion that is offered by the famous .38 SPL "FBI Load," the 158g +P LSWC-HP, so in a .32 I'd want a heavy LSWC of 115-120g. For the same reason, my .38 S&W guns are loaded with 200g large-meplat bullets, as I see little likelihood of HP designs expanding at velocities obtainable in this caliber, except with a bullet far too light for my tastes.

3. I buy into Fairbairn & Sykes / Applegate when it comes to point-shooting in close-range self defense. I strongly suspect this style is what I'd revert to in a crisis, as I find their argument very persuasive in its claims that gross motor movements, target focus (vice sights), etc. will assert themselves instinctively in most cases, making precise, sighted aiming problematic. In their view, a rapid burst of shots into the middle of a target is a pretty good way to win a gunfight. I'm depending on them being correct, and I find the low recoil, flash & blast of these heavy-bullet .32 and esp. .38 loads to be a great advantage. It's encouraging to be able to depend upon their thorough penetration regardless of raised hands, interposed arms & shoulders, etc.

4. Fairbairn, Sykes & Applegate were big-bore fans, which I find persuasive. I find .32s far more carry-friendly, however, and .38s perhaps the best compromise of size and power.

5. After all of the above, you're not surprised to learn that I sometimes carry a .38 S&W with 200g LSWC/LFP. You may be surprised, however, to learn that I usually carry a Remington 51 .380 loaded with Hornady Critical Defense ammo--because it's so concealable & comfortable for me, with a lousy back that limits my ability to carry something bulkier and heavier--just like your hands are becoming a factor that makes the .32 increasingly attractive to you.

6. At home, my primary HD sidearm is a Beretta M-9 in 9mm, because I have a rather large house & property in a rural area, and I find it a major advantage to have a hi-cap gun that's less likely to run dry on me at a point where I may have trouble getting to more ammo. Also, the threat here has been burglars working in groups of 2-3, so ammo capacity assumes more importance.

Final note: in WWII, Applegate's OSS equipped its agents with .38 revolvers firing a 125g bullet at a MV of less than 700fps. I suspect that means two things: (1) some lack of confidence in hastily-trained agents to handle big-bore weapons; (2) a conviction that 2-3 rapidly fired bullets into center mass are generally a recipe for winning. The former isn't a big issue for most reading these posts, but the latter is certainly food for thought. And yes, even though I'm duly alarmed about the modern-day likelihood of a drug-crazed opponent, I rarely read of a defensive encounter in which the good guy loses because of the gun he's using. I know it happens, of course, but odds are that aggressive employment of a quality gun & ammo will win most times when it comes to civilian use of firearms for purely defensive purposes. (For LEOs required to go on the offensive against drug gangs & the like, the odds are far tougher.)

[DIRT Farmer]

Molly I like to think that taking care of Dad is my insurance policy that when I get old, (older than I am) my kids will have learned by example as from Proverbs, As the twig is bent the tree shal grow. This time will pass before I am ready then I plan on traveling and shooting some.
L'man, for some reason the Brits seemed to like heavy slow slugs, most likely because they worked. In one of the late African wars after they went to the 9mm the sten guns were ineffective in winter because the coats the insurgents were packed with feathers for insulation and stopped/slowed the bullets enough to make them ineffective. The farmers in the same action tended to like the heavy caliber revolvers which penetrated the feathers.
As I type this I have my Grandfathers 1903 Colt .32 acp on my desk. It was bought for him by his father during some family "troubles"when he was 12 years old,each son got a pistol at the same time, and a 32 was for a boys gun. He carried it in the bibs of his overalls constantly and as he got older it traveled with him as he worked as a union carpenter, carring it during union troubles and dealing with a few shady types. He never felt under guned but was dissapointed that it was hard to hit squrills with it. My point is he could hit what he wanted with it and had full confidence in it. The bore is goog, considering he carried it and shot corrosive ammo, he must have taken care of it, considering the gun is 101 years old this year. He owened 3 guns, a 12 ga double and a 22 pump that served his needs. All 3 guns show a lot of wear from being shot a lot.
The size of the gun has less to do with the situation than the atitude of the man behind it.

[Molly]

Hello, LouisianaMan

LouisianaMan here, just letting you know that I'm very glad you found my 2009 testing of heavyweight .32 and .38 loads of value to your study of the .32. (See pg. 5 of this thread.)

It was a surprise and a delight to see your post here. I'm glad you approve of my copying your report, but I wasn't a member there, and had no way to contact you for permission.

Soon I'll run some of my water-filled jug "tests" with .32ACP pistols of modern and classic vintages, and ditto for .380ACP. I also got a 200g LSWC mold for use with my .38 S&W and .38SPL revolvers, and hope to test these bullets and compare to other bullets I've shot thru these calibers. FWIW, will also run thru some 9mm loads: 115g JHP, 115g and 124g FMJ, 147g JFP.

Any chance of getting your procedure? It would be nice if there were some degree of comparability between our results. I know one thing we’re going to do different from your tests: If we run out of jugs before we run out of ammo, I’m planning to re-use some of the less damaged jugs by sealing bullet holes with tape or putty to enable them to hold water again. We're currently planning to run:
32 Long, 98g factory load
32 Long, 98g SWC with a hefty charge of H-110
32 Long, cast 118g (Lyman 3118) with similar hefty charge of H-110
380 Speer factory JHP
380 Factory JRN
38 Special, 148g factory full wadcutter
357 Mag, 158g factory JFN
357 Mag, 158g JHP
44 Special, cast 240g Keith SWC over 7g Herco
44 Special, cast 240g Keith SWC over 4.5g W231
44 Mag, 240g factory JHP
44 Mag, 240g factory JFP
45 ACP cast ball LRN
45 ACP cast Ball LRNHP
44 Mag, 240gKeith SWC over 17.5g AL-8

No particular expertise claimed, but a 115-120g LSWC in .32SWL would be acceptable to me for CCW/SD, as are .38 S&W or .38 SPL 200g FN or SWC at 650-ish, +/- 50 fps.

That's both gratifying, and still somewhat surprising. I would have expected higher velocity requirements. Any particular reasons for your selection?

As many have noted on this interesting thread, there are a myriad of factors that account for whether a bullet "stops" somebody in a crisis. I summarize my views with the following comments:

1. I really like the penetration of heavy-for-caliber .38s and .32's for SD

2. Expansion is a huge benefit as long as the bullet penetrates deeply enough, but I note the possibility of failure to expand on one end of the HP spectrum, along with a failure to penetrate on the opposite end of that spectrum. When I mull over these possibilities, I figure that the near-certainty of deep penetration & bone-crushing capability of heavy .38s is very comforting & perhaps a satisfactory trade-off against hollowpoint designs. In .32's, I don't see any load that gives a balance of weight/penetration and expansion that is offered by the famous .38 SPL "FBI Load," the 158g +P LSWC-HP, so in a .32 I'd want a heavy LSWC of 115-120g.

That's pretty much where I've come out, but my calculations indicate that the 120g .32 SWC at 950 fps should be a match for the 158g 38 special police load. Have I goofed my calculations somewhere?

For the same reason, my .38 S&W guns are loaded with 200g large-meplat bullets, as I see little likelihood of HP designs expanding at velocities obtainable in this caliber, except with a bullet far too light for my tastes.

We see eye-to-eye on that too.

3. I buy into Fairbairn & Sykes / Applegate when it comes to point-shooting in close-range self defense. I strongly suspect this style is what I'd revert to in a crisis, as I find their argument very persuasive in its claims that gross motor movements, target focus (vice sights), etc. will assert themselves instinctively in most cases, making precise, sighted aiming problematic.

Frankly, the possibility that under duress, I might revert to a "shoot them in the big part so you won't miss" is a real concern to me. When warmer weather comes, I plan to do some eye/muscle training the bring the gun up to the shoulders and above. In an emergency, one is most likely to revert to training.

In their view, a rapid burst of shots into the middle of a target is a pretty good way to win a gunfight. I'm depending on them being correct, and I find the low recoil, flash & blast of these heavy-bullet .32 and esp. .38 loads to be a great advantage. It's encouraging to be able to depend upon their thorough penetration regardless of raised hands, interposed arms & shoulders, etc.

I don't know: I'm about the furthest thing you will find from an experienced gunfighter. But I've been doing a lot of reading lately by men who DO know what they are talking about in that field, and I seem to see a consensus that while body hits will take a man out, they are sometimes distressingly slow to do it.

Our local news channel has repeatedly run the surveillance video of a police station where some guy walks in and just starts shooting. I've watched this action very closely several times. There are (at various times) at least 4 and perhaps 5 officers shooting at this guy at a range from 3 to perhaps 8 feet. While I can't testify regarding every shot, I did notice that when the police handguns go off, they are generally being held well below the line of sight. That means that the cops were in a panicked "spray and pray" mode, eyes fixed firmly on their assailent, and NOT on their sights. Completely understandable I believe, but also demonstrably ineffective at putting their assailant down before he could do more damage.

4. Fairbairn, Sykes & Applegate were big-bore fans, which I find persuasive. I find .32s far more carry-friendly, however, and .38s perhaps the best compromise of size and power.
5. After all of the above, you're not surprised to learn that I sometimes carry a .38 S&W with 200g LSWC/LFP.

Well, I’ve always believed that in a fight between a good little man and a good big man, the big guy is where to lay your money. That’s why I’ve been a fan of the big bore revolver since I earned my pocket money delivering newspapers. But I DO find myself drifting toward the hot loaded 32’s. I do have a question for you though. When I was a youngster, black powder 38 revolvers seemed as common as gravel on the road. I blew up a couple of them (and damaged more) trying to get them up to the .38 special in power. That was decades ago, and I have no idea what the loads were, but I recall that as soon as I got much above factory equivalent in power, the headstamp on the cases began to flatten out. So I’d be really curious what your favorite 38 S&W load was, and what you shot it in.

6. At home, my primary HD sidearm is a Beretta M-9 in 9mm, because I have a rather large house & property in a rural area, and I find it a major advantage to have a hi-cap gun that's less likely to run dry on me at a point where I may have trouble getting to more ammo. Also, the threat here has been burglars working in groups of 2-3, so ammo capacity assumes more importance.

The possibility of being confronted by multiples does make a larger capacity desirable, but I think I’d go with a lightly loaded 45. Frankly, the reason I don’t go that route is a personal quirk: While Uncle Sam was paying for the ammo, I didn’t care, and got to love the 1911 dearly. But once a civilian and buying my own ammo, it got rather vexing to shoot 50 times, and after a long and diligent search, come up with 30 or 35 recovered cases. I went to revolvers, never lost another case, and never looked back. My personal preferences are the .357 Mag and / or the 44 Special. I played with the 44 Mag for a while, and still have one, but it’s simply more gun than I need. (Sure have had some fun shooting at impossible target with it though. I got into a FRIENDLY shooting match with a cop in our old home town once. He showed up with a sack full of soup cans. I was there early with my 44, and was cutting weeds on the other side of the river, calling my shots. Not a very wide river, but still …

Final note: in WWII, Applegate's OSS equipped its agents with .38 revolvers firing a 125g bullet at a MV of less than 700fps. I suspect that means two things: (1) some lack of confidence in hastily-trained agents to handle big-bore weapons; (2) a conviction that 2-3 rapidly fired bullets into center mass are generally a recipe for winning. The former isn't a big issue for most reading these posts, but the latter is certainly food for thought. And yes, even though I'm duly alarmed about the modern-day likelihood of a drug-crazed opponent, I rarely read of a defensive encounter in which the good guy loses because of the gun he's using. I know it happens, of course, but odds are that aggressive employment of a quality gun & ammo will win most times when it comes to civilian use of firearms for purely defensive purposes. (For LEOs required to go on the offensive against drug gangs & the like, the odds are far tougher.

There’s a LOT of food for thought in your post. Thanks for joining us. Speaking of which, you’d be welcome to come and observe our own jug tests.

[Dannix]

L'man, for some reason the Brits seemed to like heavy slow slugs, most likely because they worked. In one of the late African wars after they went to the 9mm the sten guns were ineffective in winter because the coats the insurgents were packed with feathers for insulation and stopped/slowed the bullets enough to make them ineffective. The farmers in the same action tended to like the heavy caliber revolvers which penetrated the feathers.

I'm not sure if it was this thread or another, but I saw someone recently comment that perhaps the disappointment with the .30Carbine in Korea was connected powder temperature sensitivity. Perhaps that was the issue there too, with the heavy calibre revolvers simply having a much greater margin of effectiveness such that while still handicapped with powder temperature sensitivity, it performed sufficiently well unlike the 9mm automatic stens.

The size of the gun has less to do with the situation than the atitude of the man behind it.

A hearty here here.

[Dannix]

Wow a lot of good testing in the wings here!

In their view, a rapid burst of shots into the middle of a target is a pretty good way to win a gunfight.

Couldn't that philosophy run a small revolver dry pretty quick though, potentially still with an unassuaged situation?

I’m planning to re-use some of the less damaged jugs by sealing bullet holes with tape or putty to enable them to hold water again.

If you use duct tape, be sure to avoid trying to shoot through it. I'm told a single layer will stop .475.

Our local news channel has repeatedly run the surveillance video of a police station where some guy walks in and just starts shooting. I've watched this action very closely several times. There are (at various times) at least 4 and perhaps 5 officers shooting at this guy at a range from 3 to perhaps 8 feet. While I can't testify regarding every shot, I did notice that when the police handguns go off, they are generally being held well below the line of sight. That means that the cops were in a panicked "spray and pray" mode, eyes fixed firmly on their assailent, and NOT on their sights. Completely understandable I believe, but also demonstrably ineffective at putting their assailant down before he could do more damage.

That's really painful to hear. I hope they have a few shotguns or carbines tucked away but handy now so they're more likely to hit a bad guy even if in panicked "spray and pray" mode.


they are generally being held well below the line of sight
Out of curiosity, do you have information on what handguns where used by the officers? It is my theory that the more the grip angle approach 90 degrees, the more an unpractised shooter is likely to shoot below line of sight.

[dualsport]

You guys are making way too much sense. Can we get back to the B-52 strikes? Ok, seriously, between Molly and L'man there's a lot of sensible stuff to cogitate. I would add that being first to make a good hit in a gunfight counts for something. That's why I push reading Jordan's book. Practice shooting from the hip. They do teach it at cop school. Lastly, is there a standard that says 'X' number of 1 gal. water jugs indicates 'so and so'? I know none of this is written in red ink, just wondering what number of jugs penetrated implies what relatively speaking. I've been drinking a lot of milk and have saved up a bunch of jugs. Usually I add food color and let the youngsters shoot them. I have a .32 H&R Ruger and some .32 SWL brass, cast boolits, and a nice selection of jacketed too for the .32. Auxilliary test? EDIT: Actually I have two, Sierra 90 gr. JHC and Hornady 85 gr HP/XTP.

[DIRT Farmer]

Till the end of my career, we were taugh to shoot center mass, low gun 3yds point shoulder 7 yards. Training will kick in in any stressful event. This was found to be even when the FBI agents on a warrent team (shooting revolvers) had their empties in their pockets, even wounded they still reverted to shucking the empties in their hand and pocketeting them as in training they had to account for their empties.

In the departments I worked for, we qulified one time a year, old school, 60 rounds 3 to 50 yds, current 48 rounds 3 to 25 yds. Studies show well trained officers will shoot 30% of qulifing in a gun fight, something about bullets wizzing by being distracting. The percentage goes down from there depending on training.

Just a few things to think about, but when practicing at least some of the time dump the empties on the ground and keep your eyes on the target. Some day you might not want the delay of hunting for where your target has gone.

A houmerous note, a well placed 22 short from a el cheepo i'm not sure I would have risked shooting a short in style gun solved an unschulded romantic event one night, and I had to endure the constant complaining of I cant believe she shot me in the ----, as I treated the idiot. Apperently you will shoot what you are focused on.

[Von Dingo]

The one time I was involved with training with Simunitions, one of the Blue team and I both ended up shooting each other in the support hand at close range. By that I mean under ten feet. They were doing surveillance, and I snuck up behind them. I don't believe any sights were used. This meager experience, and various accounts of gunfights where folks had their primary weapon, or hands shot reinforces to me, personally that you shoot what you are focusing on. When you are staring down the business end of a rifled hole, that is the CENTER of the universe, at that moment.

[MakeMineA10mm]

The one time I was involved with training with Simunitions, one of the Blue team and I both ended up shooting each other in the support hand at close range. By that I mean under ten feet. They were doing surveillance, and I snuck up behind them. I don't believe any sights were used. This meager experience, and various accounts of gunfights where folks had their primary weapon, or hands shot reinforces to me, personally that you shoot what you are focusing on. When you are staring down the business end of a rifled hole, that is the CENTER of the universe, at that moment.

Agree 100%. In the situations where they really develop high stress on us during training, I tend to shoot the pistol/hands holding it in the picture targets we use.

Also, when I did simunitions training, it took serious concentration to use the sights. Sometimes I did; sometimes I didn't. Hits were easier when I did...

[Von Dingo]

Agree 100%. In the situations where they really develop high stress on us during training, I tend to shoot the pistol/hands holding it in the picture targets we use.

Also, when I did simunitions training, it took serious concentration to use the sights. Sometimes I did; sometimes I didn't. Hits were easier when I did...

My limited experiences mirror yours. In real world, with real ammo in the magazine, I can think of four times that a I presented deadly force. Two in garrison, two on deployment overseas. Two and a half times I had a clear sight picture (the half was an M-60 GPMG with the rear sight folded down, leveled at a large truck).

The stories of the empty brass in pockets rings true in my mind as well. After taking a doe a few years ago, I realized that the bolt had been cycled to allow me retrieve the brass, like at the range. Back to training as Col. Cooper suggested, work the bolt like your life depends on it in training.

[Molly]

Out of curiosity, do you have information on what handguns where used by the officers? It is my theory that the more the grip angle approach 90 degrees, the more an unpractised shooter is likely to shoot below line of sight.

Nope. The film was pretty grainy, and I couldn't make out such fine details.

[Molly]

From dualsport

I would add that being first to make a good hit in a gunfight counts for something. That's why I push reading Jordan's book. Practice shooting from the hip. They do teach it at cop school.

I've done a lot of it for fun over the years, mostly at ranges leke 25 - 50 yeards, way too far. I'm going to have to shorten that up a bit. It's amazing how good you can get with some practice, but it's also amazing how far off you can be even with lots of practice. I've noticed that the first shot generally goes wide, but if you can see it hit, the rest of them are pretty well on target.

Lastly, is there a standard that says 'X' number of 1 gal. water jugs indicates 'so and so'? I know none of this is written in red ink, just wondering what number of jugs penetrated implies what relatively speaking.

Not that I know of Dualsport. I HAVE read that - as a VERY rough guide - penetration in ballistic gelatin will be about 2/3 of the penetrtion in water. I've also read that the IDEAL level of penetration in a man will be somethng on the order of 18 inches, to allow for odd angles such as shooting up from the floor on a diagonal. I have no firm information about what 18 inches in a man translates into in terms of penetration in water. However, I think ballistic gelatin is supposed to be more or less representative of flesh, if everything is done right. IF THAT IS TRUE, one might extrapolate to say that penetration in water roughly on the order of 27 inches would be a reasonable objective. Note that this information comes with a free and very large salt block of ignorance on my part. Rely on and use at your own risk.

I've been drinking a lot of milk and have saved up a bunch of jugs. Usually I add food color and let the youngsters shoot them. I have a .32 H&R Ruger and some .32 SWL brass, cast boolits, and a nice selection of jacketed too for the .32. Auxilliary test? EDIT: Actually I have two, Sierra 90 gr. JHC and Hornady 85 gr HP/XTP.

By all means! And please post your results here for comparison.

[Molly]

Not much to do today, so I went fishing for data on the internet. Found some great sites, if you want to take the trouble to look at them. They're based on ballistic gelatin testing, with and without a fold of demim cloth. The results indicate that a single fold of denim is enough to prevent HP expansion, at least in the rounds I looked at. And pretty uniformly too. SWC's for ME!

http://sherdognet.craveonline.com/in...m/tactical.htm

http://sherdognet.craveonline.com/in...l.php?sort=wv2

http://www.gun-tests.com/performance/ammotest.html
(Note: These guys recommend trying for only ~ 18 inches of water penetration, and other sites recommend a 12 inch water penetration. I guess you make your best guess and live with it.)

Here's a couple of excellent considerations of stopping power:

http://www.chucktayloramericansmalla...pingpower.html

http://grantcunningham.com/blog_file...er_series.html

There! That should keep you out of your wife's hair for a little while.

[MakeMineA10mm]

Hey Molly,
Did you see this one?

http://www.gunsandammo.com/content/loading-32-sw-long

It's three pages, but there's a data chart at the bottom of the first page.

3.4grs VV 3N37 with the 115gr SWC gave them 800fps, good accuracy, hit to point of aim. Not bad, and right in line with my earlier suggestions.