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

[Von Dingo]

Layered Silk body armor was available prior to WW1, but not sure if it was contemporary to Wyatt Earp's lawman days. He may well have worn a Silk body armor in later years, these were popular though extremely expensive and only a few well heeled folk could afford one.
Steel vests were easier to get, many were manufactured during the Civil War era, and though they cost a fair amount they weren't beyond a lawman's pay grade.
An advancement in metalurgy of the late 19th century resulted in highly durable alloys. One of the first uses of these was a plowshare that wouldn't wear out like the older iron plows.
Reckless Ned Kelly having bounced a few bullets off such a plowshare had a blacksmith construct a 90 lb suit of armor from some stolen plows. Even Musket balls fired point blank bounced off his armor.

Not trying to play internet expert, I read some time ago (no I can't quot a source, but it wasn't the Interweb or a work of fiction), that Wyatt Earp was known to wear a piece of armor (some kind of ferrous metal) when he was expecting trouble.

[Dannix]

We have to be careful to not discount nose design. In a world of FMJ, I can completely understand a lot of smaller calibers not making the cut -- caliber's that are today considered effective with a proper projectile design.

Paraphrase of BOOM BOOM: "3. Go with the heaviest bullet in a given cal."
I'm sold on this for hunting albeit with a few caveats (e.g. 200grn in 30-30 seems unnecessarily heavy for deer, but probably prudent for bear). I'm not sold on it for antipersonnel loads though. Otherwise I'd be loading 160gr boolits in 9x19mm. For antipersonnel, I like heavy enough HP to ensure sufficient penetration, and stop there and enjoy a higher fps. Of course for some weaker cartridges the nose design has to played with a bit e.g. FN in .32ACP, low expanders in .380ACP i.e. Hornaday Critical Defense.


[Officially in thread hijack territory...]
One thing I've wondered about is how round ball would fair in .380ACP. Then controlled expansion to ensure penetration would not be an issue, and maybe it wouldn't penetrate quite as much as a FN would?

[Molly]

Hi Dannix,

>We have to be careful to not discount nose design. In a world of FMJ, I can completely understand a lot of smaller calibers not making the cut -- caliber's that are today considered effective with a proper projectile design.

That's an excellent point. In Elmer Keiths world, a 9mm was hardly worthy of contempt - and with good reason: It was invariably loaded with a smooth profile that tapered to a round nose to prevent feeding problems. The trouble was, it also slipped smoothly through flesh, with little damage resulting. Today's 9mm projectiles are much improved, with the truncated cone design being my favorite. But they are still too low in sectional density for really reliable penetration - IMHO.

>Paraphrase of BOOM BOOM: "3. Go with the heaviest bullet in a given cal." I'm sold on this for hunting albeit with a few caveats (e.g. 200grn in 30-30 seems unnecessarily heavy for deer, but probably prudent for bear). I'm not sold on it for antipersonnel loads though. Otherwise I'd be loading 160gr boolits in 9x19mm. For antipersonnel, I like heavy enough HP to ensure sufficient penetration, and stop there and enjoy a higher fps.

I'm not familiar with the source of your quote, but there seems to be a lot of good sense behind it. As for your specific example of a 160g 9mm bullet, it would indeed be a poor choice, but for reasons you do not list. A 160g 9mm is essentially a rimless 38 S&W. The sectional density is adequate, but the case can't provide adequate energy at reasonable pressures.

>Of course for some weaker cartridges the nose design has to played with a bit e.g. FN in .32ACP, low expanders in .380ACP i.e. Hornady Critical Defense.

Actually, nose design is the cutting edge of ALL handgun bullet technology. The deficiencies of older round nosed bullets are now well recognized. As I understand it - and I've been wrong before - current projectile research has limited penetration as one of its primary goals. The ideal is roughly 16 to 20 inches of penetration, no more. The idea is to discharge a minimum of the projectile energy into the far wall (or innocent bystander) while still assuring complete penetration of an aggressors’ body (transiting the vitals) from a number of angles. A bullet from a prone defenders handgun will need to penetrate more flesh to reach an aggressor’s vitals than if the defender is standing and facing his attacker. Likewise if the aggressor is sideways to the defender, attacking another person: The bullet will have to penetrate the arm (and possibly bone) before reaching the chest and vitals.

The twin objective is to deliver as much damage (energy) to the vitals as possible without the usually accompanying over penetration. This has led to the use of low sectional density hollow points to try to achieve both high energy and low penetration. The 125 HP 357 is a prime example, and is both popular and effective - if the HP performs as it should. Unfortunately, the HP design is not reliable (see above post) and I believe some police and defense situations have ended tragically as a result. I have read a number of recommendations for a return to the 158g soft point 357 loads as a result. The soft point is not subject to plugging like a hollow point, and is far more reliable. I continue to prefer the hard, heavy flat point for my own use, but the soft point is admittedly a viable – and reliable – option.

>[Officially in thread hijack territory...] One thing I've wondered about is how round ball would fair in .380ACP. Then controlled expansion to ensure penetration would not be an issue, and maybe it wouldn't penetrate quite as much as a FN would?

I can’t respond to a round ball in a 380 per se, but I have experience with a round ball (000 buckshot) in a 9mm Parabellum which may be of interest. It is not a good choice from quite a number of perspectives.

Such rounds will not feed reliably from the clip, at least in the gun I used, even if manually operated. They lack the mass to operate the action smoothly, not even ejecting the fired case until or unless exceedingly high pressures are used. In such a load, primer expansion limits case life to one shot. Even from such high pressure loads, penetration (in wet clay) is limited to about three inches because of the low sectional density.

The soft lead is not properly gripped and spun by the rifling, and accuracy is non-existent in all but the lightest loads. Leading is impressive, even from lighter loads.

If you seek only inexpensive popgun level power for tin cans or mice, and are willing to feed and extract manually, they may have some utility, but do not shoot at vertical surfaces. The ball has essentially no penetration, and will bounce if it has half a chance. “You’ll shoot your eye out.” Or maybe a tooth, or ....

The round ball option is quite another matter for a revolver. The action does not require a given level of recoil to open the gun, eject the shell and feed another one. All these operations are performed manually. Also, the leading problem can be dealt with easily: Simply seat the round ball slightly below the edge of the rim, forming a shallow circular trough between the case mouth and the ball ogive. This can be filled with almost any manner of grease to prevent leading. As a youngster, I used my mother's cooking Crisco with complete satisfaction. When she put a stop to that, automotive greases worked just as well. Revolvers generally have deeper rifling too, giving reasonably decent accuracy from a variety of loads with useful velocities. The major drawback to these loads is a LACK of recoil: Revolver sights are invariably regulated to compensate for the recoil of factory ammunition. Round ball squib loads have no recoil, and will shoot very low at all distances. You can deal with this by either stapling two targets, one over the other. You shoot at the top target, and get your group on the bottom target. Or, you can just use some kentucky windage and learn how much of the front sight to hold up by experience, by guess and by gosh.

[9.3X62AL]

32 S&W Long as a defensive caliber......can it work? Sure. No one wants to get shot with ANY caliber, though some of our meth-addled predators might not immediately perceive of a victim being armed or having fired upon them.

Is it a valid choice for SD? Nowadays, not so much. There are very compact 38 Special and 357 Magnum revolvers available for this purpose, though the 357 Magnums may be a bit too much of a good thing. Ultra-compact 9mm Para and 40 S&W pistols are common, too.

My own prejudices enter into this equation, surely. I can't shoot ultra-small handguns well, at all. The Walther PP is about the smallest pistol I can run accurately, while a S&W Kit Gun needs aftermarket grips if I'm not going to embarrass myself with it downrange. Better yet is a K-frame S&W or a Commander-sized autopistol, and those are my usual social attire--conscientiously concealed. Most of the time, a Glock 23 gets the nod with 180 grain Ranger SXTs.

[Multigunner]

Hi Dannix,

>We have to be careful to not discount nose design. In a world of FMJ, I can completely understand a lot of smaller calibers not making the cut -- caliber's that are today considered effective with a proper projectile design.

That's an excellent point. In Elmer Keiths world, a 9mm was hardly worthy of contempt - and with good reason: It was invariably loaded with a smooth profile that tapered to a round nose to prevent feeding problems. The trouble was, it also slipped smoothly through flesh, with little damage resulting. Today's 9mm projectiles are much improved, with the truncated cone design being my favorite. But they are still too low in sectional density for really reliable penetration - IMHO.

The 9mm Luger was originally loaded with a trucated cone FMJ bullet. The Hague convention resulted in Germany switching to the rounded nose bullets.

The switch from the trucated cone bullet is why the Luger developed a reputation for misfeeding.
So long as the magazine had no wear to the cut out where the mag latch button engages the pistol worked fine, but when wear allowed the mag to seat a hair too far below its proper position the new round nose bullet with ogive did not feed as well as the original truncated cone bullets had.

When I carried a P-35 I prefered the SuperVel truncated cone hollow point.
I once ran across some SMG loads which had a truncated cone bullet, which I believe to have been the Italian loads used with the Beretta model 38 SMG.
These required several strikes of the hammer to go off, due to hard primers suited to a blowback SMG bolt, but when they did go off the recoil and effects on the bank behind the target suggested that the power level was far higher than the standard pistol cartridge, close to .357 energy levels.
I don't doubt those would quickly damage a pistol less robust than the Brownings.

[Molly]

The 9mm Luger was originally loaded with a trucated cone FMJ bullet. The Hague convention resulted in Germany switching to the rounded nose bullets.

Wasn't aware of that. Every reference I have read described the 9mm Luger as having a RN until the last 5 or ten years or so. I appreciate the information. Do you know how long the original TCFMJ was made before the switch?

[Multigunner]

Wasn't aware of that. Every reference I have read described the 9mm Luger as having a RN until the last 5 or ten years or so. I appreciate the information. Do you know how long the original TCFMJ was made before the switch?

The truncated cone bullet was phased out between 1915 and 1916, probably existing stocks of older milspec ammo were used up during that time frame. The cartridge as loaded for civilian use and possibly export to other military users continued to use the truncated cone bullet for some years afterwards.

Only reason I learned of this was when looking into why the Luger had a reputation for jamming. So long as the magazine latch notch is not worn the round nose feeds just fine, and a slightly worn notch won't usually result in jams if the original truncated cone bullet style is used.

PS
The Italian SMG loads I mentioned were nominally 9mm Glisenti, but would have blown the slide off the Italian Glisenti auto pistol. The Germans liked to use the Italian SMG ammo in their MP40s, it being dimensionally interchangable with the 9X19 Parabellum. I don't doubt many Lugers were damaged by this Italian SMG load.
Some SMG loads aren't high pressure rounds, those use a slower powder to obtain higher velocity in the longer barrel of an SMG.

[Dannix]

Like these? Just earlier today I was wondering why on earth are military is using JRNs instead of JFNs. How is the FN "bad" as per the Hague convention? We didn't sign it iirc, but perhaps now that we are using HP match in rifles the JFNs will be OKed too?

Pic attached, should the link ever go down.

[Dannix]

Good point Molly about 000 buckshot round balls being so light.

Maybe I can build a .69 cal lever gun. I imagine it's quite a headache getting something approved as a not destructive device though. Hum, maybe a shotgun chamber would be the way to go, and then get some particularly strong shotgun brass custom made. Essentially a lever slug gun, only shooting ball. Bah, at that point, may as just well use shotgun cases.

[w30wcf]

Interesting topic. I would think that a full h.b. wadcutter in the .32 Long would do more damage than the older .38 Special Police cartridge that used a flat point 158 gr. bullet. The same may be true for the RCBS 98 SWC since the meplat is a bit larger than the meplat on the Police bullet.



w30wcf

[Molly]

Interesting topic. I would think that a full h.b. wadcutter in the .32 Long would do more damage than the older .38 Special Police cartridge that used a flat point 158 gr. bullet. The same may be true for the RCBS 98 SWC since the meplat is a bit larger than the meplat on the Police bullet. w30wcf

Hi w30wcf,

The RCBS .32-98-SWC Bullet is a fine design, no question about it. But it's just a bit light in sectional density at 0.1438 (Wt in pounds / Dia^2). The 158g .357 bullet will have a SD of 0.1771, and (all else being equal) will give better penetration. However, there is a GB going down for a very similar .32 cal SWC that I expect to come in at about 120g (for a plain base version) with a SD of 0.1761, which will put the .32 on a nearly equal footing with the .357 dia bullet, and much better than the 100g HB .32 WC (SD 0.1468).

(As an aside, there is loading data for 120g bullets in the .32 Long that exceed 1000 FPS. But it only takes 950 FPS for the 120g .321 bullet to fully equal the 240 FP energy of the 158g .38 police load at 826 FPS. The guys that disparage the .32 Long (in handloads) need to explain why the 120g .32 slug with equal sectional density and energy is so inferior to the 158g 38 police bullet.)

The full wadcutter is well known for imparting maximum shock, but it's equally well known for erratic, unstable flight. Even at 25 yards, target prints are often visibly keyholing. I've read that accurcy past 50 yards is terrible, though I haven't tried it myself. But I HAVE tried the SWC design fairly extensively, and know it to be accurate just about as far as the bullet will reach. Even in the smaller .357 dia, they're still accurate enough to hit a man at 500 and 600 yards if the guy on the trigger is up to the job.

Now man-stopping isn't target shooting, but there are similarities. Flesh resistance and other effects can be viewed as simply exaggerated air resistance, but please don't ask me how many yards of air equate to a foot of flesh. I don't know. But I'd expect the full wadcutter to be as erratic in flesh as it is in air. And I'd expect the SWC to be as stable in flesh as it is in air.

While I'm willing to consider a full wadcutter in larger calibers, I'm more comfortable with a SWC design, especially in smaller calibers: I want my bullets to penetrate and go where they are aimed, not skid off of a tough bit of muscle or cartilage and end up coming out his knee.

[Dannix]

I'd expect the full wadcutter to be as erratic in flesh as it is in air. And I'd expect the SWC to be as stable in flesh as it is in air.

Now that is a very intriguing thought. I've always thought of FWC as great for terminal damage, but getting it to the target accurately and precisely was the challenge. Makes some sense that even if it was stable to the target, it could be come very unpredictable once in the target.

Perhaps a Gates Extreme for the .32 is the ideal route.

[Molly]

>Perhaps a Gates Extreme for the .32 is the ideal route.

Hi again Dannix,

I dunno. I don't have any experience with very wide meplat bullets, and haven't read any reports on their 'real-life' performance. I could argue it either way: either the very wide meplat increases the shock, or it is a move too far toward the full wadcutter, and makes it prone to skid. Or both. Is anyone out there in a position to commment?

[35remington]

While a 9mm ball bullet may be light for caliber compared to the other projectiles of similar diameter, speed makes up for the difference. I would consider 9mm ball to have more than adequate penetration, and far more than those normally given a free pass as to adequacy in that particular requirement.

I have noticed quite considerably more penetration for 9mm ball of 115 to 124 grains as opposed to heavier, slower .357 and .45 caliber projectiles carrying more sectional density. This on targets ranging from game to wet phone books to old telephone poles and old heavy wood parking boundary posts.

As in a whole lot more. A 158 to 200 grain projectile any any speed in the .38, standard to Plus P, does not hold a candle to it. Nor does the 45 ACP. Or the .45 Colt in loads safe for old revolvers, or the military equivalents doled out to the soldiers from Custer's time to the dust up with the Moros. Any of the old .32's would also be far to the rear of what the 9mm can do with any solid bullet and near standard speed of approximately 1200 fps.

I suppose what started the caliber wars in the first place was the simple acknowledgement that nearly all pistol calibers have adequate penetration using a solid bullet of almost any reasonable weight.

Maybe all these calibers, .32's to .45's, are more adequate and closer together in performance than we would like to admit, but using something smaller when something bigger can be had is not in our nature as shooters.

The question then became one of obvious implications......if all penetrate enough, just how big is the hole?

Molly, FWIW, my security blanket is a 1911, and most often it's loaded with a ball equivalent cast bullet. 230 grains at 850 fps. And because I don't believe in hollowpoints all that much either.

Nor one shot stops.

[dualsport]

Well I'm going sideways with this thread, But.. is there any members here with firsthand knowledge of Nato type 9mm ball ammo in actual use? What do the SEALS use? Or other SF types or troops issued 9mm sidearms? That ought to say a lot about what works, those guys don't *&%$ around. I know, I know, sadly they can't cast their own, but they pick something. Round nose? TC?

[9.3X62AL]

Good question, Dualsport. Perhaps they use 45 ACP.

38 Special wadcutters tend to fly true for me to 60 yards or so, then tumble at some point past that distance. This happens with both hollow-based and solid-core bullets/boolits. By 75 yards, just about all of them are tumbling, and I've fired on targets enough to prove it to myself pretty certainly. Up to the 50 yard point, they are SUPERBLY accurate--esp. the factory target ammo.

In view of these observations, 25 years ago I converted to semi-wadcutter boolits for all of my critter-shooting with rollerpistols, since jackrabbits and other quarry tend to put distance between myself and themselves rather readily. They often exceed that 60 yard wadcutter cut-off range while so engaged, park at 70-80 yards--then smirk and make obscene gestures, laboring under the assumption that I'm using some rimfire or wadcutter handgun arrangement. Curing them of such notions permanently gives me great joy, and the semi-wadcutter assists in these pursuits in no small way.

[Molly]

HI 35remington,

>While a 9mm ball bullet may be light for caliber compared to the other projectiles of similar diameter, speed makes up for the difference. I would consider 9mm ball to have more than adequate penetration, and far more than those normally given a free pass as to adequacy in that particular requirement.

Well, my experiences with the 9mm luger round haven't been as satisfying as yours. Somewhere on U-tube, there's a video of some guys shooting 9mm's at a sheet of ice (nearly straight down, near their feet!) The bullets are throwing a few chips of ice and then just setting there on top of the ice, spinning like tops. Penetration was about the length of the bullet. I found it interesting, but not impressive.

When my oldest son was coming up, he was really recoil shy. When he was old enough for his own gun, he bought a 9mm, which he considered the be-all and end-all of handgun rounds. That winter, I took him up in the cliffs where water coming out of cracks in the rock had frozen into vast sheets of ice. I pointed one of them out to him, and suggested he knock it down with his pistol. He went 'bang, bang, bang, bang' and the ice went 'chip, chip, chip, chip'. I said "Let me try." One shot from my carry gun (a 44 special Bulldog) and the entire sheet of ice came crashing down. We repeated this a few times, and he got mad and quit. He has learned though: Now he shoots 45 ACP reasonably well, and is badgering me to give him one of my 44's.

>Maybe all these calibers, .32's to .45's, are more adequate and closer together in performance than we would like to admit, but using something smaller when something bigger can be had is not in our nature as shooters.

Now I think you've hit on something there. Mankind - especially men - is highly competitive. I've been down that road myself. I've shot some real busters. Even a 45-70 revolver with 500g bullets pales in comparison to a sawed-off 12 gauge with rifled slugs. (This was long before sawing them off became illegal) The sawed off shotgun had its butt stock cut down to a pirate-pistol grip that was impossible to hold onto, and the barrel didn't extend but about 3 or 4 inches from the chamber. Few men wanted to shoot it twice, and not too many wanted to shoot it the first time. It was king of the hill in the 'Me big tough guy" competition, but not really very useful.

>The question then became one of obvious implications......if all penetrate enough, just how big is the hole?

I've heard a lot of guys recommend the big bores because 'they make a bigger hole, and he / it will bleed out faster.' It sounds reasonable, but I wonder: Body tissues are VERY extensible, and contain large cavities like the stomach that can contain quite a bit of blood loss with very little showing outside. It DOES sound reasonable, but I wonder just how much influence a large bleed hole really has on incapacitating an aggressor. I'm not arguing either way, understand. I just wonder because I really don't know.

So far, I've been fortunate enough that I've never had to shoot anyone, so I have no experience at all in that area. (But be it known that I'm VERY sure that on several occasions, the only reason I've not had to shoot someone is because I made it very plain that if some antisocial behavior didn't stop instantly, I WOULD!) (The view from the muzzle end of a large bore revolver is multi-lingual, multi-cultural, unequivocal and unmistakeable!)

>Molly, FWIW, my security blanket is a 1911, and most often it's loaded with a ball equivalent cast bullet. 230 grains at 850 fps. And because I don't believe in hollowpoints all that much either. Nor one shot stops.

I've got no argument at all with that choice. It's a good one, if a bit harder to carry than some others. (My britches keep falling off.) I used to have a callous on the web of my right hand from the hammer of a 1911, and the slide had worn a groove in my thumb at the first knuckle. I went to the big revolvers only because I got tired of losing 30 to 40% of my cases every time I went shooting. When Uncle Sam quit supplying my ammo, that became important rather quickly.

My argument is not that the big bores are poor choices. My argument is that smaller bores can ALSO be very good choices if you're a reloader. As I pointed out a post or two back, there is loading data for the .32 S&W Long that makes it the equal -and more!- of a 38 special 158g police load for both sectional density and energy. No, it's not within SAAMI limits, but these loads still function and extract easily. They offer reduced recoil to more than compensate for the fact that their bullet is 0.045 inches smaller in diameter, and might miss a bone that the larger caliber just manages to nick. That's only 25% of the diameter of a BB! When the time comes that I can't handle the recoil of my Bulldog any more, I'll take that trade and never look back.

[MakeMineA10mm]

Well I'm going sideways with this thread, But.. is there any members here with firsthand knowledge of Nato type 9mm ball ammo in actual use? What do the SEALS use? Or other SF types or troops issued 9mm sidearms? That ought to say a lot about what works, those guys don't *&%$ around. I know, I know, sadly they can't cast their own, but they pick something. Round nose? TC?

They tailor the load for the mission a lot (but not 100%) of the time. For example, Winchester developed the 147gr subsonic JHP for use in MP5SD for the airline hi-jackers take-down mission. SEALs were the instigators of the modifications to the Beretta M9, because some of their super-hot "special contract" loads were cracking slides. (Of course, then they adopted Sigs, but they also have Glocks for underwater missions...). So, you see, there is no one answer to that question. In addition of course, just because they use something doesn't mean it's "the best" either. They continuously look around for something better and switch to what they percieve that is. In the Army SF, I know they're generally using straight issue M852 Ball, FWIW.

[35remington]

The penetrative abilities of the 9mm cartridge using standard ball ammunition are a matter of very long record, and can't be called into credible question here.

For example, Hatcher's Textbook of Pistols and Revolvers, on page 321, has a "Table of Penetration."

A widely diverse listing of cartridges are found. Acknowledging that the 357 and 44 magnum rounds were not available at the time, the following incomplete ranking of cartridges as to actual penetrative effect in 7/8 inch pine boards is as follows:

30 Mauser (1323 fps) 11 boards
38/44 (1100 fps) 11 boards
38 Super (1200 fps) 11 boards
30 Luger (1180 fps) 10 boards
9mm Luger (1075 fps) 9 boards.......the velocity is rather low compared to what the cartridge is capable of, which is more in the 1150 to 1200 fps vicinity. Modern loads approximating that velocity should be between 10 and 11 boards in penetration.

Further down the list:
38 Special 860 fps 7 boards
45 Automatic Gov't 810 fps 7 boards
45 Colt 770 fps 5 boards (admittedly low velocity for this round, but this approximates old Gov't ammo for military service; current conical shaped 255 factory loads should be more like 7-8 boards.....your 44 Bulldog loads should rank in the six to seven board vicinity, most likely)
32 ACP 950 fps 5 boards
380 ACP 900 fps 5 boards
32 SW Long 750 fps 4.5 boards (admittedly low speed; should be more like 6-7 boards for 900-950 fps loads)
32 SW 725 fps 3.5 boards
25 ACP 745 fps 3 boards

Point is, should you judge the 32 S&W Long to be an adequate to even slightly above average penetrator, you will also come to the conclusion that, using an appropriate analysis, that the 9mm is unquestionably above average. Very much so.

Frozen water is brittle, and few bullets penetrate it well; fracturing is the usual effect. Fracturing of ice relates not particularly well to penetration, especially if the 9mm weakened and fractured it with several shots before another shot from a different caliber gun broke the ice sheet.

Interesting and possibly not unrelated aside: I notice that factory loaded 45 ACP FMJ will simply leave a lead smear on a concrete post, while the sharp blow of a 22 magnum hollowpoint from a rifle at 1900 fps will fracture and bust it up. In all other media 230 FMJ will outpenetrate an expanding 22 magnum bullet. Not completely unlike your ice shooting, in a way.

I see you and Dale53 are planning a penetrative test. I invite you to include 9mm ball of 115 to 124 grains weight, and judge for yourself. I would presume this would be wet phone books/newspaper of some sort or something like that. I stand confident that the 9mm will do well, and have a standing offer here to buy your "after shoot" dinner if it does not do well in that department.

It will.

The "bigger hole" business is why so many proselytize for hollowpoints, and adequate penetration with that larger hole is why so many claim they are much better for manstopping use.

Me, I'm not so sure to what degree that is true. I do know that small game runs further after being hit with a RN bullet than a wacutter, semiwadcutter or hollowpoint, but I am also not sure how that relates to a 200+ pound target. I would opine the differences narrow somewhat due to the greater velocity loss of even RN ammo in the larger human body. All handgun rounds make a fairly small hole through human tissue, and I base that finding on game I have shot, including deer with 185 grain hollowpoints and 245 grain SWC's from a 45 Auto Rim revolver, velocity 1250 and 970 fps respectively.

At some point it may be that a bigger hole produces more rapid incapacitation due to faster blood loss, but as also has been pointed out here, we don't know what the threshold is, and we also know that it is not to be counted on.

Which brings us back to your points about the 32 Long being adequate far more often than not (probably). I happen to agree with your position there and would not feel unarmed with one myself.

And of course I also agree with others here that penetration is the single most important factor for a pistol round to have. I would never, ever call a decently loaded 32 inadequate in that department and that is very relevant.

The ball profile lead bullet in tapered lip, true USGI pattern magazines in the 1911 is a personal preference for probably the most important reason of all.....reliability is at its highest level with this combination of ammo, magazine and gun. I'm feeding the gun exactly the ammo it was meant to feed, using exactly the magazines that were intended to feed it.

When I get a misfeed I'll sure let you know, but I suspect we'll have both passed on by then. Which meant it never happened.

[Dannix]

No offence to you or the author, but that data isn't very helpful without a notation of the projectile mass.