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

[35remington]

Hatcher didn't supply the projectile mass. Just the energy. So you may calculate the projectile mass yourself, as I didn't want to go to that much work (typing is enough) although I can. Given the ft/lbs present you can just about figure the bullet weight in your head compared to those listed for factory loads, but some will take more work as they're oddball.

So for the above loads in ft/lbs:

Mauser 329
38/44 425
Super 417
30 Luger 290
9mm 320
38 260
45 Auto 340
Colt 320
32 ACP 140
380 170
32 Long 124
32 Smith 99
25 ACP 62

You may now whip out your handydandy pocket calculator and obtain all the help you desire by calculating the bullet weight given the velocity and energy figures.

Knock yourself out.

[9.3X62AL]

None of the formulae we commonly use to predict terminal performance are entirely reliable, since a target with a wide array of variables is the subject of the base calculation--and that's true even before the first bullet strikes home.

My personal preference for Hatcher's IRSP has two bases--1) all of these formulae rely upon the "squaring" of some equation element, and Hatcher's IRSP squares the element that is actually squared in real life--the bullet's frontal area. 2) Hatcher's IRSP tends to track most closely with actual street-level results of GSW reactions--though I caution that a "prediction" of an outcome is very unstable ground to build on.

Glock 23/40 S&W/180 grain Ranger SXT is my most common carry sidearm. CZ-75B in same caliber preceded it.

[Dannix]

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?

I'll echo MakeMineA10mm -- what they pick is not indicative of what is best. The Hague Convention limits expanding/riveting projectiles for example. (I'm not sure if we signed that convention, but we seem to abide by it, perhaps simply to avoid US-only NATO rounds). Remember that for military et al, a side arm is just a side arm. It's a backup. Like how we think of pocket guns -- something better than nothing.

For 9x19 in a primary, the SAS with the MP5 come to mind. I would suggest unneutered auto or burst capability changes things considerably. Even with presumably JRNs, hitting tangos with 9x19 automatic fire coordinated good guys sure worked well for the Iranian embassy incident. In fact it worked so well it was criticized as overkill, if I recall correctly. They didn't mess around. They didn't use semi-auto handguns.

I would recommend an auto PDW for self defense purposes, but we are at a time in our country where "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others," so that's why we have to work with the options we still have the freedom to utilize.

[Dannix]

You may now whip out your handydandy pocket calculator and obtain all the help you desire by calculating the bullet weight given the velocity and energy figures.

Thanks for posting the energy figures. I may just throw it into excel or calc.

[dualsport]

"Knock yourself out". That's funny, I haven't heard that one in a while. I've done that, in a variety of ways. Anyway, just wanted to share my choice of 'the perfect compact self defense handgun'. It's been around a long time and is well proven. The S&W J frame, now chambered for .357 mag. That's my baby. Reliable? C'mon man!? .357 in a J frame, think about the possibilities. Liked mine so much I gave my son one for a welcome home present from the sandbox. He loves his too. Talk about a fire breathing dragon in a small, light package. (I guess now days I should call it a 'platform). ((yuk)) Not disparaging a .32, just saying you can have your cake and eat it too in this department. Of course handloading is the order of the day. It's a beast with full power magnum loads. But that's the beauty of it. With that tiny gun you could shoot a load that will stop a Mack Truck or a charging Polar Bear. Humans? Child's play. The muzzle blast alone will stop a rhino.

[35remington]

No thanks.....a 357 like that may have the cake, but I must let someone else eat it. Shooting a lightie J frame 357 carrying concealable grips with full power loads is like getting a nuclear facial while someone tries to twist it out of your hands by smacking them with a crowbar.

Repeat fire sucks. Bad.

Flinchitis buggers up my accuracy beyond powder burn range. I start seeing spots in low light after it goes off.

Which starts to make a penetrative .32 look pretty attractive from a hittability standpoint.

[Molly]

Whew! Quite a post, but I'll try to make some relevant responses. I'll italicize your text to keep confusion down.

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.

I don't recall that I did question it. I simply reported a couple of admittedly unusual observations, and I reported them as such. But you can look up the u-tube video for yourself, and I can provide you with my son's phone number if you doubt the remainder of my observation.

The 9mm doesn't impress me as a defensive round unless the shooter can handle it with surgical precision in very stressful circumstances. The round bullet that provides the penetration you cite is also responsible for a terrible reputation for lacking shock and associated tissue damage. Keith wrote about it in the most contemptuous terms. Without digging his book out, I recall one incident he reported where a fellow had a 9mm emptied into his back, and was still able to turn and kill his assailant and then settle his business affairs before he died.

Stand a 9mm Luger round and a 38 S&W on the table side by side. Their cases are all but identical. The 9mm uses a light bullet at high speed, the 38 S&W uses a heavy bullet at low speed. That said, I also have to comment that I have very little personal experience with the 9mm, but quite a bit with the 38 S&W. I've even loaded it with 9mm data. I never got anything out of it that impressed me. I nearly blew up a 38 S&W revolver with 9mm data, trying to get it to penetrate a sheet of galvanized trailer siding. Heck, for that matter, there was a rimmed 9mm a while back that was usable in old breaktop 38's. Not recommended, but usable.

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:

(Sigh) Do you know why board penetration tests were abandoned? Because they were absolutely unreliable. Results chanced with the moisture content of the boards, with the climate where the tree grew, how long the board air dried before the test and a host of other factors. You can look it up. It's been a LONG time since I concerned myself with them, but IIRC, results would vary 25 or 30% despite the greatest care!

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.

I'm afraid you haven't proven your case at all. How many of those rounds used softpoints? Hollowpoints? Truncated cone? How many had hard jackets, and which used soft lead? Which were RN, and which were SWC or even full wadcutter? (I'd be very surprised indeed if the .32 Long wasn't soft lead, and the 9m wasn't jacketed RN.) I suspect that if you research it, you'll find that your comparisons weren't very balanced, even if you discount the board variables.

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.

(VBG) Our shooting wasn't intended to be a scientific examination, nor did I report it as such. But if you think the 9mm seriously weakened those huge slabs of ice, I invite you to try it sometime. When you do, give me an explanation for all the slabs of ice that my 44 brought down without the pre-weakening from the 9mm.

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 out-penetrate an expanding 22 magnum bullet. Not completely unlike your ice shooting, in a way.

I think you're arguing against yourself. I don't doubt for a moment that a high speed bullet has a greater brisance effect than a low speed but heavier bullet. But shouldn't the speedy 9mm have been more effective on the sheets of ice than my slow speed 44?

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 don't own a 9mm (other than a dinky little 380, which will be included) and I don't think Dale53 owns one either.

I would presume this would be wet phone books/newspaper of some sort or something like that.

Never assume. I was quite explicit a few posts back that the tests would consist of penetration of water filled containers.

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.

Oh, they do indeed have their merits - until one fails to expand due to a plugged HP. It's just my personal preference to depend on ammunition that seems more reliable and consistent, if less spectacular.

Me, I'm not so sure to what degree that is true. ... 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.

Now there, we're on the same page!

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.

Still agreeing

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.

Actually, I might be more than a trifle uneasy if relying on factory ammo in the .32 S&W Long. I've tried to be very clear that my comments are in the context of loads well over SAAMI recommendations.

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.

How does that go?
"Shot Placement is KING
Penetration is QUEEN
Everything else is just Angel's dancing on the head of a pin."

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.

Let me suggest you talk to some competitive shooters who have used ball ammo in a 1911 in a leg match. Stovepipes, failures to feed, failures to eject, magazine malfunctions, all and more have been the cause of much anguish. The 1911, fine design as it is, is far from infallible. And it requires good maintenance for the admirable record it has established. Fail to clean and lubricate it, use crummy clips, and it will make it's displeasure known. Trust me. Once upon a time, I was a competitive shooter too.

[MT Gianni]

I did do some work with the 32 long case in a 32 H&R Single Six. I got this from an old manual which loaded 31118 over 7.0 gr 2400. It was too windy to run a chronograph but I got good groups with that amount of powder over a Lee 113Fp which I have removed the gas check shank from. It weighs about 118 gr or what the 3118 non-HP does.

[35remington]

Molly, not quite sure why the penetration of the 9mm doesn't make much sense to you. It's pretty well settled; Jeff Cooper acknowledged it, and I'm not sure it deserves much downgrading, given that this topic is about the 32 Long. Given any equivalency in testing that you wish, the nine penetrates a whole lot. That much we can settle.

The "balance" of Hatcher's testing isn't a real concern as it was presented as his findings and nothing more was read into it. All these cartridges can be loaded with hard bullets, but this will not result in big changes in penetration for the low velocity small or large caliber rounds. Soft pine is not hugely traumatic to low velocity bullets even if of relatively soft lead. It is doubtful if jacketed hollowpoints were available in Hatcher's time. It is equally easy to posit that the standard, most commonly available ammo of the period was used (the velocity/energy figures suggest this is the case) but I don't know as it wasn't my test.

I'm not too worried about the varied density of boards and what not. No matter the media, the cartridges that penetrated a lot in Hatchers's tests......really DO penetrate a lot.

We also said the .32 can do well if loaded to its potential; its low power in the test was noted by me, and I missed thinking about none of your contrary points in posting Hatcher's findings, which are what they are. Similar thoughts occurred to me but I cannot control what the findings were.They have a degree of usefulness in any discussion about this sort of thing. The test is certainly not worthless.

If we can posit the the 32 Long is effective due to its penetration, and I most surely agree, then the 9mm doesn't deserve quite the downgrading you're giving it. It should be no less effective than a 32 given any efficiently shaped bullet, expanding or no. Obvious.

It's not my choice, either, but a fella that sees the merits of the .32 ought to see the nine would be at least as good if not better, and it is. Makes both formidable, does it not?

Keith may not have liked it, but many do. Don't make it a bit less or more effective than it is. If the ball shape is a problem substitute Hornady's truncated cone or some such. Still penetrates.

Have at it with the water filled jugs if that is your preference. Remembered you had a test planned but didn't remember with what.....saved some time instead of going back to read and verifying, but no matter. The nine will do well there too if you give it a chance.

Shattering ice? Can't see how that relates to penetration any more than my "concrete" test did. The nine has more penetration than your pocket 44 Special with equally hard bullets, and its smaller diameter and higher velocity is the reason. Wouldn't argue that it is a more effective manstopper, surely (I would also prefer the .44 over the nine for my own admittedly unsubstantiated notion of its effectiveness) but penetration makes the nine as useful as your .32 at the barest minimum.

Can't help your friends and their jamming 1911's. Been there, done that, and now know exactly how to avoid it. Such is experience, and my explicit preference in how to avoid it has been stated. Ball runs, and JMB showed me the path of least resistance.
I'm a National Guard Armory pistol shooter myself. A lot of that was clunky old grey worn mismatched 1911's and ball.

(Having fun with the whole conversation, BTW, so let's keep it going.........and I wasn't figuring you would use 32 Long factory ammo either).

[Dannix]

35remington, from what I've read, penetration is not about velocity but about mass (An extreme example), so if you value penetration only second to placement, the 147grainers seem to be the way to go. You using the 147gr FNs in your 9mm? Just curious.

Some interesting info here. I disagree with the author here though -- the .357Sig wound channel looks far more significant than the standard 9mm load. The info here got me wondering though -- I wonder how fast a 10mm necked down could push a .30. Could require a flash hider though.

I was thinking about the PX4 today. I bet it's rotating barrel lock could allow for significantly larger meplat FNs.

[Molly]

Molly, not quite sure why the penetration of the 9mm doesn't make much sense to you. It's pretty well settled; Jeff Cooper acknowledged it, and I'm not sure it deserves much downgrading, given that this topic is about the 32 Long. Given any equivalency in testing that you wish, the nine penetrates a whole lot. That much we can settle.

You throw so much into one posting that it's a real chore to respond adequately. For your next post, how about only one or two areas of disagreement?

The 9mm IS noted for penetration in flesh. That much we can agree on. But not much more. Penetration is not the topic of this thread, nor is the performance of the 9mm, but just to keep the record straight, penetration of ANY projectile is quantifiable, at least in relative terms. It depends not on whether it's a 9mm, a 32, a 44 or a 45. Penetration is dependent on projectile sectional density, not mass per se. Penetration is also dependent on frontal area (which is dependent in turn on expansion or not) and configuration (blunt, expanding, round, tapered, etc.). Penetration is also dependent on the nature of the material being penetrated: hard, soft, ductile, etc. Penetration is also dependent on the ability of the projectile to maintain form and orientation (not shatter, flatten, expand, or be diverted from its initial trajectory.)

The "balance" of Hatcher's testing isn't a real concern as it was presented as his findings and nothing more was read into it.

You presented the tests as indicative of supporting your argument in favor of the 9mm. I simply pointed out that it didn't provide such support.

I'm not too worried about the varied density of boards and what not. No matter the media, the cartridges that penetrated a lot in Hatcher's tests......really DO penetrate a lot.

Yes, you can make that as a general statement, but you can't use the test to compare relative performances. It's an apples and oranges test.

The test is certainly not worthless.

Not entirely, no. But it comes pretty close in my estimation.

If we can posit the 32 Long is effective due to its penetration, and I most surely agree, then the 9mm doesn't deserve quite the downgrading you're giving it. It should be no less effective than a 32 given any efficiently shaped bullet, expanding or no. Obvious.

Not obvious at all! All else being equal, penetration is primarily dependent on sectional density and a form factor describing the rate of energy loss as penetration is achieved. The 9mm's penetration isn't due to any inherent merit in sectional density, because that's pretty low. The 9mm's penetration is due to an inherently poor energy transfer to the target. I rank it as a sorry performer on both counts.

It's not my choice, either, but a fella that sees the merits of the .32 ought to see the nine would be at least as good if not better, and it is. Makes both formidable, does it not?

Both may be formidable, but not equally so. The hot loaded 32 with a heavy SWC bullet is not only superior to the 9mm in sectional density, it is fully equal to (and can surpass) the 158g 38 Special police load. The 32 caliber SWC is also superior to the 9mm tapered RN bullet in rate of energy transfer to the target (shocking effect).

Don't make it a bit less or more effective than it is. If the ball shape is a problem substitute Hornady's truncated cone or some such. Still penetrates.

Excellent advice. I recommend it to you. Substituting bullets may increase the rate of energy transfer, but at the cost of reduced penetration. This is a simple fact of physics for all projectiles.

Have at it with the water filled jugs if that is your preference. The nine will do well there too if you give it a chance.

As I said, I don't own one, nor do I want one. I've owned enough of them. And I'm not going to buy another to satisfy your curiosity. If you'd like to bring your own to the test, I'll let you know exactly when and where. But be advised: Note will be taken of not only penetration but of energy transfer (i.e., splitting of the water jugs) in each test.

Shattering ice? Can't see how that relates to penetration any more than my "concrete" test did. The nine has more penetration than your pocket 44 Special with equally hard bullets, and its smaller diameter and higher velocity is the reason. Wouldn't argue that it is a more effective manstopper, surely (I would also prefer the .44 over the nine for my own admittedly unsubstantiated notion of its effectiveness) but penetration makes the nine as useful as your .32 at the barest minimum.

(Sigh) Once again, penetration is NOT dependent on diameter, and only marginally by velocity. Sectional density, form factor and velocity retention (lack of energy transfer) control penetration.

(Having fun with the whole conversation, BTW, so let's keep it going.........and I wasn't figuring you would use 32 Long factory ammo either.)

I don't mind keeping the discussion going, but perhaps we should make a new thread, as I suspect we're losing a lot of readers by not sticking a bit more closely to the thread topic. I invite you to start a thread more to your taste and define its topic, and to announce it here.

[NoZombies]

Still watching and enjoying the thread

[dualsport]

Re-reading the OP and determining the specific question asked, ..."do you think the .32 S&W Long... reasonable choice....". My answer is no. The key to the whole post hinges on the word 'reasonable'. Now I know that's subject to interpretation, but I think it would be more reasonable to use a more powerful cartridge, given a choice. That's probably why those old .32 cartridges were replaced by bigger ones in police work. If you knew you were going to a fight and you had a .38 Special and a .32 S&W Long, both loaded to their best, which would you take? I know in the very few times I've raised a gun for real I was thinking "I wish I had a bigger gun right now". Like a 12 ga.

[Zim]

Interesting discussion. Glad everyone is civil.

Regarding the 30 Carbine, in WWII the fighting was tropical - hot. Everyone was wearing thin clothing. In Korea, everyone was freezing. Including the ammo. I presume the same loadings were used and I'm just pointing out the temperature sensitivity of some powders and primers. When I was looking at the 30 Carbine, this issue did repeatedly come up. The temperature was blamed for the 'failures' of the round. I have no idea, but can understand this argument.

The RN profile, unreliable ignition and the heavy clothing leads to failure. I believe the 45 ACP had similar issues. 30-06 - not so much.

Thanks for the read!

[Molly]

Re-reading the OP and determining the specific question asked, ..."do you think the .32 S&W Long... reasonable choice....". My answer is no. The key to the whole post hinges on the word 'reasonable'. Now I know that's subject to interpretation, but I think it would be more reasonable to use a more powerful cartridge, given a choice. That's probably why those old .32 cartridges were replaced by bigger ones in police work. If you knew you were going to a fight and you had a .38 Special and a .32 S&W Long, both loaded to their best, which would you take? I know in the very few times I've raised a gun for real I was thinking "I wish I had a bigger gun right now". Like a 12 ga.

Hi dualsport, Nice post, and no arguments from me. I have a different answer though, because I'm forced to consider some factors that may not pertain to you. I'm pushing 70 years old, and have begun to experience problems with my hands. I can see the day coming when I may not be able to deliver a timely second shot with my Bulldog. So that pushes the decision lever WAY over toward Yes for me. Also, the Bulldog has become sort of burdensome to pack: No matter where I put it, it pulls my clothing down like an 8 year old kid who is scared of the dark. And I like my clothing neat, and my gun concealed. As it is, I might as well be toting a 12 gauge pump for all the subtlety I get now. The .32 is lighter, doesn't pull my clothing so much, but still offers considerable 'STOP RIGHT NOW' if and when I may need it. Not as much as my 44, but still a considerable amount.

The bible says that in many heads, there is wisdom. (Proverbs somewhere). I bought the little hand ejector 32 as a fun gun for plinking and small game. But when I realized just how potent some of the handloads were, I got to wondering about more serious use for it. So I opened this thread to see what other experienced shooters might have to say about the idea.

I got the dichotomy of big bore buffs and small bore enthusiasts that I expected, but I also got some great leads to read on the topic of stopping power. I grow more and more convinced that a hot loaded 32 isn't a bad choice, particularly if aimed coolly. After all, any round that can equal or exceed the section density and energy of the 158g 38 Special police load with less recoil is nothing to sneer at, no matter what other opinions there might be.

I think the REAL reason the .32s were abandoned for police work is because the ammo companies couldn't update the loadings for fear of blowing up the thousands of old black powder pocket revolvers and breaktops out there. I find support for that by the development of the 32 H&R Mag and the 327 rounds, which are essentially hot loaded 32 Longs (with a bit more potential because of longer cases). I find it interesting that they can be / are recommended for personal defense when the 32 Long, loaded to very nearly equal them, is considered an abysmally poor choice.

>If you knew you were going to a fight and you had a .38 Special and a .32 S&W Long, both loaded to their best, which would you take? I know in the very few times I've raised a gun for real I was thinking "I wish I had a bigger gun right now".

Your question is rendered meaningless by the context you give it. If I KNEW I was going to be in a gunfight, I would prefer not to depend on either one, but on the biggest mob of family members, state police and Marines I could raise in the time available. I don't mean to make light of your question, because it's a reasonable inquiry. But the unconscious assumption that my only available response would be to choose between two handguns is not reasonable.

Frankly, I've been in a number of situations where it has been necessary to resort to firearms. I've faced down a small mob of violently aggressive drunks. They sobered up bloody fast, sat quietly on their hands, said no sir and yes sir when addressed, and spent their time wishing the cops would HURRY. When Atlanta (or sections of it) was being burnt to the ground in the civil unrest of the 1960's, I had to drive through some of the worst sections -and back - twice a day. I laid an 870 on my dash and a 357 on the passenger seat, and never had the first trace of trouble. I've stopped a minimum of three rape / assault attempts - one on my wife - with an efficiency you would be proud of.

And never once have I found myself wishing for a bigger gun. My thoughts have been too busy controlling my anger, anticipating what my aggressors might do next, and deciding how to respond to their next move. I have found that an angry man's invitation to make some more trouble and give me an excuse to shoot them is almost as effective a control device as having a gun in the first place.

I consider myself a peaceful man. I have yet to shed a drop of innocent OR guilty blood. But I'm told I'm quite intimidating when angry, and I suppose it's true. But that's not due to the the caliber of the pistol I'm holding. It's due to the fact that I'm holding a pistol, and am obviously ready, willing and perhaps even eager to use it. To date, that fact has made it unnecessary to actually use it.

[9.3X62AL]

Molly--

You've touched on a subject in your last post that may be the most important factor in a lethal threat management scenario--communicating to the aggressor(s) the willingness to project lethal force effectively. This can be another "chasing ghosts" example, because it too depends upon the opposite party to receive and react to stimulus--but there can be no doubt that you were able to prevent violence via presence and projection of potential menace. Avoidance of bloodshed, even that of the guilty, is always a positive outcome.

Another subject you mention that has merit is recoil management by shooters whose abilities have been compromised by aging and/or physical challenges. The 32 Magnum or 327 Federal may indeed be a godsend for such folks. Are these "capable" stoppers? I suspect so, with decent shot placement. I helped handle a murder case in 2003 in which the drug-dealing victim was relieved of his H&R 32 Magnum pocket revo by his customers and was abruptly retired from further such activity with 3 shots from same. Penetration? Yes--1 of the 3 bullets went through-and-through the 300#+ recipient, apparently was caught by the offside garments, and fell out on the pavement. This bullet was identical in all respects to the Hornady 85 grain XTPs I had on my reloading bench, excepting rifling striations. It showed no evidence of expansion. In fact, from all appearances it could have been reloaded again.

My prior comments concerning the 32 S&W Long had much to do with its 1903 ballistics--the 98 grain LRN @ 700 FPS. I'm not certain that a meth monster in attack mode would perceive of ANY handgun being deployed against him, or if upon contact with its bullets that a cessation of hostilities would ensue--barring CNS interruption. It is THOSE sorts of scenarios that give me pause when it comes to smaller-caliber sidearms for self-protection. That said--ANY firearm under such circumstances is better than NO firearm. Just be prepared to take out eyes and brain housing group. Eye socket = brain funnel for bullets, and "lights out" gives the victim a large psychological and tactical advantage.

My apologies for the graphic content, but this is serious business.

[dualsport]

Well maybe we should ask Larry Potter. He seems to have all the answers and has rated all the popular handgun cartridges as to relative usefulness, just watch his show. It's occurred to me a new test may be in order, something besides all the usual mediums and formulas. If we want to measure knockdown power, let's knock something down. In the meantime I'll be watching for some .32 SW L COW loads. You've made a believer out of me. I just re-read your old article in TFS about trouble with COW blanks in a long gun.

[Molly]

Hi 9.3X62AL

First of all:

My apologies for the graphic content, but this is serious business.

No apologies necessary at all. I'm a big boy, and I understand the violence potential implied by the very subject matter under discussion. I’ve come to terms with it, and understand the possible need to injure someone who is determined to injure me or mine.

You've touched on a subject in your last post that may be the most important factor in a lethal threat management scenario--communicating to the aggressor(s) the willingness to project lethal force effectively. This can be another "chasing ghosts" example, because it too depends upon the opposite party to receive and react to stimulus--

Well, I suppose you're right. No aggressor is likely to stop just because you come on the scene without some indication that you represent a change in the balance of power. But as for the opposite party receiving and reacting to stimulus ... the way I look at it, my mere presence should be stimulus enough to dissuade them from continuing any antisocial conduct. If it isn't, I suspect they will find that receiving a bullet will be sufficiently stimulating ...

Another subject you mention that has merit is recoil management by shooters whose abilities have been compromised by aging and/or physical challenges. The 32 Magnum or 327 Federal may indeed be a godsend for such folks. Are these "capable" stoppers? I suspect so, with decent shot placement.

We do indeed agree here. The inability to use big bore weapons does not curtail the right to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' in any way. The presence of a handgun - any handgun - is a powerful deterrent to sociopaths, particularly when in the hands of a person determined to defend themselves. A 22 revolver in the hands of a chronically ill, 70 year old semi-invalid lady can put her on equal footing with a 25 year old dockworker.

I helped handle a murder case in 2003 in which the drug-dealing victim was relieved of his H&R 32 Magnum pocket revo by his customers and was abruptly retired from further such activity with 3 shots from same. Penetration? Yes--1 of the 3 bullets went through-and-through the 300#+ recipient, apparently was caught by the offside garments, and fell out on the pavement. This bullet was identical in all respects to the Hornady 85 grain XTPs I had on my reloading bench, excepting rifling striations. It showed no evidence of expansion. In fact, from all appearances it could have been reloaded again.

Just another example of the unreliability of HP bullets. They can be spectacular when they work, but tragic when they don't.

I'm not certain that a meth monster in attack mode would perceive of ANY handgun being deployed against him, or if upon contact with its bullets that a cessation of hostilities would ensue--barring CNS interruption. It is THOSE sorts of scenarios that give me pause when it comes to smaller-caliber sidearms for self-protection.

You're quite right. But even large calibers cannot be relied on under those circumstances. That's why I have shifted my personal emphasis from "the center of the big part" where it would have been if I had not been motivated by this thread to read some serious evaluations of stopping power. If I am so unfortunate as to be involved in a future shooting incident, I will focus on the center of the shoulders to the center of the forehead area, no matter what I am carrying.

That said--ANY firearm under such circumstances is better than NO firearm. Just be prepared to take out eyes and brain housing group. Eye socket = brain funnel for bullets, and "lights out" gives the victim a large psychological and tactical advantage.

Excellent advice for anyone who is forced to defend themselves from aggressors.

[Molly]

Hi Dualsport,

It's occurred to me a new test may be in order, something besides all the usual mediums and formulas. If we want to measure knockdown power, let's knock something down.

Unfortunately, that's not necessary. Relative momentum will define 'knockdown' quite well.

In the meantime I'll be watching for some .32 SW L COW loads. You've made a believer out of me. I just re-read your old article in TFS about trouble with COW blanks in a long gun.

ROFL! I have read of some impressive results using COW in revolvers which were prone to severe leading. It reportedly not only removed every trace of leading in the bore, but also prevented more leading from occurring. Personally I have never found it necessary to use COW in a handgun load, but since that's what it does in rifles, I believe it did just that in the pistols too.

And while COW did indeed make a formidable projectile in that rifle, I'm embarrassed to say that I never followed up to determine the proper techniques to tackle say, elephants or lions with a COW load. Particularly from a handgun. (VBG) ROFL!! Thanks for the memories.

[9.3X62AL]

But even large calibers cannot be relied on under those circumstances. That's why I have shifted my personal emphasis from "the center of the big part" where it would have been if I had not been motivated by this thread to read some serious evaluations of stopping power. If I am so unfortunate as to be involved in a future shooting incident, I will focus on the center of the shoulders to the center of the forehead area, no matter what I am carrying.

Full agreement here. God forbid the necessity.