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

[Dannix]

Interesting thought! I always considered it an issue with the FMJs used. I'd never thought about the temperature sensitivity of the powder used. Thanks for posting

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.

[Dannix]

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.)

Well said. There's something to be said for inertia too though. Of course relative too -- we really only want to penetrate a foot and a bit. A cannon ball will easily do the trick too, even at a fairly low velocity, even though it has low sectional density.

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.

Again, well said. I am in full agreement that excessive penetration implies a waste of energy. It is desirous to transfer as much energy as possible to the target, albeit with also sufficient assurance the cartridge and load variables selected will also sufficiently penetrate. This is why I firmly believe it is possible to end up with too much sectional density for 2-footed applications. The .32 accommodates loads with more than sufficiently high sectional density imho.

The next question is terminal damage. As has already been discussed, the nervous system is the real target anyway, but a heavy boolited .327 Mag load could poke the same hole a .32ACP could poke, only the heavy and high sectional density .327 Mag projectile will keep on going...and going (a waste of energy and a greater potential harming bystanders).

With so much sectional density at your disposal, perhaps a Partition-like boolit would be ideal. A dual parter SWC with a 30:1 dish or shallow cup HP nose could be very interesting.

Edit:
One gel test I would really love to see is terminal damage for a given calibre with boolits with different sectional densities, each pushed at different speeds. And maybe even compare different meplats like 80% vs 50%. Hopefully the water jugs will yield some insight. I've seen plenty of gel tests, but they are all of HPs. I'd love to see how an FN would compare at the same velocity, or maybe a cup or dish nose. Oh, and different alloys would be nice too. ... I'd also like it for free and right now. The calibre selected would be too important to me, so long as higher sectional density loads are accommodated (Maybe .327 Mag would be ideal). It would be nice to be able to do some comparison.

[Dannix]

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.

As Molly mentioned, it's getting the energy into the target, and deep enough so that the vitals are directly influenced. You're find on this site a lot of guys using different loads specifically to knock over steel plates -- it's a different goal than defence loads.

COW? TFS? I don't get let out very much.

[Molly]

Hi Dannix

Well said. There's something to be said for inertia too though. Of course relative too -- we really only want to penetrate a foot and a bit. A cannon ball will easily do the trick too, even at a fairly low velocity, even though it has low sectional density.

Well, yes that's right. I recall reading of a fellow in the 'Not-so-Civil' war, several miles from the fighting who saw a cannon ball come rolling slowly across the ground toward his encampment. He decided to stop it, and stuck his foot out to block its path. The cannon ball took his foot off at the ankle. Don't undervalue the SD of a round ball, especially a large one. The volume of a sphere (cannon ball) goes up with the SQUARE of its diameter. A ball twice as big has four times the weight. Even a small cannon ball has a LOT of mass for its diameter.

But we're talking about bullets that may range from say 120 grains to 240 grains or so, and velocities from around 800 to 1000 FPS. I don't think the inertial effect really changes all that much within such limited parameters.

The next question is terminal damage. As has already been discussed, the nervous system is real target anyway, but a heavy boolited .327 Mag load could poke the same hole a .32ACP could poke, only the heavy and high sectional density .327 Mag projectile will keep on going...and going.

Don't have a 327 (yet), and am not familiar with it's offerings. I'm going to a 120g bullet in the .32 Long for adequate SD. Does the 327 use a heavier standard bullet than that?

With so much sectional density at your disposal, perhaps a Partition-like boolit would be ideal. A dual parter SWC with a 30:1 dish or shallow cup HP nose could be very interesting.

There are SO many interesting things to try that I know I'll never get around to all of them. One trick that especially appeals to me sounds like it would interest you too. It goes back to at least the days of the buffalo hunters. When casting your bullet, you just close the mold halves on a scrap of thin paper part way up from the nose, and preferably at some sort of joint like a crimping groove. I've done this, and it's as simple and easy as it sounds. I've also used aluminum foil, but it's less convenient to use. When your bullet has cooled, just trim the paper flashing with a sharp knife, and the result will look exactly like a standard cast bullet unless you're using a magnifying glass. The idea is sort of like the nosler partition bullet, with a front end that expands, leaving a solid base to bore on through. In this case, the two front halves separate and break off from the main body, to go flip-flopping through whatever lies to the side, while the remaining base (now a semi-pointed wadcutter) bores through pretty much on it's original pathway. Or at least that's the idea.

This sounds good, and I know it was really popular among hunters in the pre-jacketed bullet days, so it probably has some real merit. I don't know how consistent it is, especially at diferent velocities and with different alloy hardness. But it had a good reputation with BP velocities, so it might be worth playing with if someone out there has the time.

[Molly]

COW? TFS? I don't get let out very much.

A COW load uses a granulated cereal as a buffer between the powder and the bullet. I originally developed the technique using Cream of Wheat (IE, COW) as a filler when fireforming some big-bore cases. I was being impatient, and used some raw bullets without sizing or lube, and expected to get massive leading. But when I looked down the bore, it was as bright and shiny as if it had been scrubbed with chrome polish!

I got interested and ran some more tests of unlubricated bullets over COW, and got some really nice results in a variety of rifles and calibers, even without gas checks. But that's another story. One of the tests was to repeat the fireforming loads, because even without bullets, they made a pretty nice 'BANG', and I wondered if they would make good blanks. To see how far they might be dangerous, I set up a board in front of my bullet trap and walked the length of my house away. The idea was to fire at the board, take a step forward, fire, take a step etc until I saw some effect on the board.

First shot from the other side of the house put a hole through the board as neatly as if I'd drilled it with a brace and bit. I lost interest in blanks from COW, but I wrote up my results and they were published in TFS (The Fouling Shot), journal of the Cast Bullet Association.

All clear now?

[Von Dingo]

On the OP original subject, I read an interview in Smithsonian magazine in the '90's, of a gentleman who worked in the Marquis during WWII. The author mentioned the silence, and looks that were leveled at them in a busy high end restaurant, when the interviewee, now a man of very advanced years, made the comment "never shoot a man in the head with a small caliber handgun". At one point he came to be in the custody of a Vichy police officer, who when searching him found two pistols. The problem was, being a very wanted man by the Germans, he was constantly changing his appearance, and the gentleman always carried at least three pistols. Knowing the jig would be up if he was taken in, he shot the police officer several times in the head with a hide out gun (I have no idea the caliber was). This lead to pleading for mercy, and pushing him out of the car at a hospital.

The pistol in question, may have been a .32, but most likely a .25 ACP. I understand and respect your position Molly, and to say you are informed, is an understatement compared to the population at large. I hope you never again are in need leveling a firearm at someone else for protection.

[Molly]

Hello Von Dingo,

... a man of very advanced years, made the comment "never shoot a man in the head with a small caliber handgun". ... Knowing the jig would be up if he was taken in, he shot the police officer several times in the head with a hide out gun (no idea the caliber. This lead to pleading for mercy, and pushing him out of the car at a hospital. ... The pistol in question, may have been a .32, but most likely a .25 ACP.

Thank you. That's a very interesting post. I suspect you are right regarding the caliber of the pistol. In my younger years, a gunsmith once invited me to repair the magazine lips of a little pocket 25 ACP (I think he was trying to get me out of his hair.) At any rate, I reworked the lips until they looked about right, and he handed me some ammo and told me to test fire it for function. I asked him where to shoot, as we were well inside a city limits, and he told me to just shoot it into a plank that was leaning against the wall. I did, and the plank shot back! From a range of about 15 inches, the bullet buried itself about halfway, and then bounced back to strike me solidly in the ribs, but all it did was bruise: It didn't even break the skin. I'm not impressed by the 25 ACP as a manstopper. (BG)

I hope you never again are in need leveling a firearm at someone else for protection.

I'm a devoted Baptist, but a Jewish friend has an expression that seems most apropriate here: "From your lips to God's ear!"

[Von Dingo]

I'm a devoted Baptist, but a Jewish friend has an expression that seems most appropriate here: "From your lips to God's ear!"

In the same light, can't Christ be quoted "If a man doesn't have a sword, he should sell his robes to get one" to paraphrase. So you want to carry a dagger (the .32 S&W).

The loads you are proposing could penetrate a skull. I have to wonder about the penetration if the spinal column is hit. I hope nobody finds out.

Part of me is still wondering if you're just stirring the pot, and what's in it?

[Dannix]

In the same light, can't Christ be quoted "If a man doesn't have a sword, he should sell his robes to get one" to paraphrase. So you want to carry a dagger (the .32 S&W).

The context of that was so that he would be numbered with the transgressors. To say that the Christ was not a zealot would be an understatement.

Luke 22 And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: And he was numbered with the transgressors. For what is written about me has its fulfillment. 38 And they said, Look, Lord, here are two swords. And he said to them, It is enough.

Part of me is still wondering if you're just stirring the pot, and what's in it?

Just a little sprinkle of sawdust for fluxing. Really though, I like to refer to threads like this as "forging."

[Dannix]

Cream of Wheat and The Fouling Shot. Gotcha. For some reason I can't get the COW TLA (three letter acronym) to stick in my head as I know I've asked that question before.

[Dannix]

Hi Dannix

Well said. There's something to be said for inertia too though. Of course relative too -- we really only want to penetrate a foot and a bit. A cannon ball will easily do the trick too, even at a fairly low velocity, even though it has low sectional density.

Well, yes that's right. I recall reading of a fellow in the 'Not-so-Civil' war, several miles from the fighting who saw a cannon ball come rolling slowly across the ground toward his encampment. He decided to stop it, and stuck his foot out to block its path. The cannon ball took his foot off at the ankle. Don't undervalue the SD of a round ball, especially a large one. The volume of a sphere (cannon ball) goes up with the SQUARE of its diameter. A ball twice as big has four times the weight. Even a small cannon ball has a LOT of mass for its diameter.

My point was a ball has the smallest amount of mass for its diameter compared to the a cylinder of the same diameter.

But we're talking about bullets that may range from say 120 grains to 240 grains or so, and velocities from around 800 to 1000 FPS. I don't think the inertial effect really changes all that much within such limited parameters.

I think intertia has a tremendous part of it. I'd have to dig to get some numbers, but a two FNs of the same sectional density loaded to the same velocity, one in .32ACP and one in 9x19mm, the 9x19mm boolit will penetrate more. ...but of course as the 9mm has more energy. And just as much/little drag in medium...hum, I'm not sure on this one.

Ok...I'm thinking about this more. Two FNs of the same sectional density, one at .32 one at, say, .357. If the .32 load's velocity so that the momentum of the .32 load (remember, the .32 is a lighter boolit as the sectional density is held constant) equals the .357 load, would the penetration be identical in a perfectly uniform and consistent medium? Answer would be yes, but again, I assumed the drag causing the deceleration of the boolit is dependent only on sectional density, not frontal area and surface area ... surely a boolit of greater surface area (nose and sides) will have more parasitic drag. Grrr, need to reread some aerodynamics stuff.

Now the question comes up -- do the lube grooves cause interference drag...

The next question is terminal damage. As has already been discussed, the nervous system is real target anyway, but a heavy boolited .327 Mag load could poke the same hole a .32ACP could poke, only the heavy and high sectional density .327 Mag projectile will keep on going...and going.

Don't have a 327 (yet), and am not familiar with it's offerings. I'm going to a 120g bullet in the .32 Long for adequate SD. Does the 327 use a heavier standard bullet than that?

Not sure. I'd have to take a look at my reloading manual, and I'm out at the moment.

With so much sectional density at your disposal, perhaps a Partition-like boolit would be ideal. A dual parter SWC with a 30:1 dish or shallow cup HP nose could be very interesting.

There are SO many interesting things to try that I know I'll never get around to all of them. One trick that especially appeals to me sounds like it would interest you too. It goes back to at least the days of the buffalo hunters. When casting your bullet, you just close the mold halves on a scrap of thin paper part way up from the nose, and preferably at some sort of joint like a crimping groove. I've done this, and it's as simple and easy as it sounds. I've also used aluminum foil, but it's less convenient to use. When your bullet has cooled, just trim the paper flashing with a sharp knife, and the result will look exactly like a standard cast bullet unless you're using a magnifying glass. The idea is sort of like the nosler partition bullet, with a front end that expands, leaving a solid base to bore on through. In this case, the two front halves separate and break off from the main body, to go flip-flopping through whatever lies to the side, while the remaining base (now a semi-pointed wadcutter) bores through pretty much on it's original pathway. Or at least that's the idea.

This sounds good, and I know it was really popular among hunters in the pre-jacketed bullet days, so it probably has some real merit. I don't know how consistent it is, especially at diferent velocities and with different alloy hardness. But it had a good reputation with BP velocities, so it might be worth playing with if someone out there has the time.

I'd never heard that. Thanks for posting!

[Molly]

In the same light, can't Christ be quoted "If a man doesn't have a sword, he should sell his robes to get one" to paraphrase. So you want to carry a dagger (the .32 S&W).

The loads you are proposing could penetrate a skull. I have to wonder about the penetration if the spinal column is hit. I hope nobody finds out.

Part of me is still wondering if you're just stirring the pot, and what's in it?

I have to agree with you wholeheartedly on the first two notes. As for stirring the pot, it seems to stir itself. Wait until the weather breaks and Dale53 and I run our tests: It'll come to a rapid boil, no matter what the results are! (BG)

[35remington]

Dannix, high sectional density means nothing without adequate speed. A slow bullet with high sectional density may still penetrate not all that well......look at Hatcher's 45 Colt results as proof.

Molly, somebody needed to point out the clearly contradictory nature of your praising the .32 long and denigrating the nine. The nine holds most of the cards; superior velocity, superior penetration, superior energy, greater frontal area, the availability of truncated cone shapes that have no less a "flat point" than a .32 SWC, and the greater "splash" effect and high speed tissue displacement of a higher velocity flatpoint in 9mm (truncated cone) over the .32's slower bullet.

If you're positing "improvements" to the .32 in praising it (handloads) I can do no less than point out the superiorities of the nine in defending it while noting that more efficiently shaped bullets are also available for it than just ball.

I don't think too many would feel better protected with a thirty two Long, even if souped up some, over a nine. Ask 'em and make your own poll.

Obvious.....very much so.

You'll proceed with this thread as you see fit, of course, but contradictory things often get my attention.

As here. Thus my comments. The nine don't deserve your contempt if the .32 gets your respect. That's way too contradictory.

[MakeMineA10mm]

Molly,
I was thumbing through some old magazines, looking for some information on something else, and ran across an article on the 32 Long by John Taffin in a 1995 American Handgunner magazine. If you want a copy of it (lots of load data in it), send me a PM with your address, and I'll make a copy of it and mail it to you.

[Molly]

Hi 35,

Molly, somebody needed to point out the clearly contradictory nature of your praising the .32 long and denigrating the nine. The nine holds most of the cards; superior velocity, superior penetration, superior energy, greater frontal area, the availability of truncated cone shapes that have no less a "flat point" than a .32 SWC, and the greater "splash" effect and high speed tissue displacement of a higher velocity flatpoint in 9mm (truncated cone) over the .32's slower bullet.

I guess I just haven't been clear enough. I haven't tried to praise the 32, nor intentionally denigrate the 9mm. I have TRIED to be coldly analytical in my evaluation of both.

Example: I've repeatedly pointed out that I consider factory loads in the 32 as clearly inadequate. I've also repeatedly pointed out that even with the (substantial) velocity improvement of handloads, it needs a heavy (preferably non-expanding) bullet for the necessary SD to be considered for self defense.

Further example: I've also pointed out that the factory 9mm is ALSO generally deficient in both SD and bullet contour. It can be given good penetration primarily by a rounded bullet that doesn't do well at imparting energy to disable the target. It can be given better 'energy transfer' qualities with a truncated cone bullet. But - IMHO - it is too limited in case capacity to do a good job with both. Given a high SD bullet, it essentially becomes a rimless 38 S&W. This is not predujiced opinorn, but verifiable fact: I’ve actually measured the capacity of both. Allowing for some very slight variation from case to case in both, they are absolutely identical.

If you're positing "improvements" to the .32 in praising it (handloads) I can do no less than point out the superiorities of the nine in defending it while noting that more efficiently shaped bullets are also available for it than just ball.

Can we agree to disagree over the merits of the 9mm? I've had several over the years. I've tried ball ammo, truncated cone ammo (a lot better than ball) and a variety of HP and specialty shot-filled bullets in them. I was not impressed. Even with handloads that I think marginally endangered the integrity of the gun. I've tried the 9mm with light bullets, and I've tried the 9mm with heavy bullets up over 170g.

I don't think too many would feel better protected with a thirty two Long, even if souped up some, over a nine.

Well, it's your neck, your call and your right. For that matter, I would be surprised if you aren't right. But I've had a deal of experience with both. And I've dug an awful lot of bullets out of clay banks and compared their penetration and the size of the hole they made in the clay (think of it as permanent wound volume). No, these weren't scientific tests. The clay banks varied all over the place in consistency. But so did the guns. And after a while, you develop a feel for how the guns compare to one another.

Frankly, I'm not anxious to be shot with either, but all else being equal, I'd rather be shot with a factory 9mm than with a 32 at H&R Mag or 327 performance levels. I know it's an apples and oranges comparison, but that's really what we're arguing about here. I long ago conceded the inadequacy of the factory 32 Long loads.

You'll proceed with this thread as you see fit, of course, but contradictory things often get my attention. As here. Thus my comments. The nine don't deserve your contempt if the .32 gets your respect. That's way too contradictory.

Actually, if you'll review a few posts back, I explained that my goal for this thread was to gather both pro and con comments on the hot loaded 32 for self defense. I wanted to be sure I wasn't overlooking anything in my evaluation of the 32. I didn't open the thread to debate the adequacy or otherwise of other rounds, nor to compare them directly with the .32, but that's what has happened.

When I get a response that doesn't seem accurate, I try to respond accordingly. For example, I pointed out that handloading (which is all I ever posited) could give the .32 Long a SD and energy at least equal to that of a 38 police load, which should be good enough for it to be taken seriously. And I personally consider that 38 police load vastly superior to the 9mm. I pointed out that HP and fragmenting bullets are not - IMHO - reliable enough for serious consideration when it's MY hide at stake. If you think otherwise, well, your neck, your hide and your right.

I invite you to make specific ACCURATE criticism of the handloaded .32. Please feel free to voice them. But understand that I'm looking for opinions and information on the 32, not the 9mm. I'm not trying to be a smart Alec, but I don't have (or want) a 9mm, I have a .32 (actualy, several, along with a safe full of other handguns.) I don't (currently) have a 45, I have a 32. Only comments on the strengths and weaknesses of the handloaded 32 will be of any use to me.

(Although the above paragraph notwithstanding, if you have a handload for the 9mm that does anywhere nearly as well as the 38 Special police load, I'd sure like to hear it.)

[9.3X62AL]

Apples to oranges isn't a "valid" comparison, I agree. How about Jonathans to Red Delicious, though?

By this I mean the 32-20 revolver. In its factory trim, it runs a 115 grain flat-point boolit about 875-900 FPS from a 4" barrel. Judicious handloading in the heavier-built platforms can safely get that to 975-1000 FPS. (I'd keep those OUT of the D-frame Police Positive Specials).

I would say the 115 grainer at standard 900 FPS is every bit as good--possibly better--than the 38 Special and its RN 158 grain slug that barely makes 800 FPS in a 4" barrel.

Can the 32 S&W Long get to 900 FPS safely with 115 grain boolits? Dunno if an older I/J-frame S&W would be up to the task, or a D-frame Colt of similar vintage. The 32 Magnum could certainly achieve it, with a wide safety margin. I've done it. Recoil of such loads is at or under that felt with standard 38 Specials.

[Dannix]

Given a high SD bullet, [9x19mm] essentially becomes a rimless 38 S&W. This is not predujiced opinorn, but verifiable fact: I’ve actually measured the capacity of both. Allowing for some very slight variation from case to case in both, they are absolutely identical.

I meant to mention this earlier when you made a comment like this previously, but in my Lyman 49th (the only manual I checked just now) the 9x19 listed loads are well more than twice as hot as 38 S&W loads. Am I missing something? If the 9mm's case capacity is the same with a high SD bullet (and ergo OAL is irrelevant), I would imagine the higher pressure tolerant would be more capable, right?

I can't help but think this 9x19mm would penetrate quite well indeed (if they are using canaster powder, I bet they are using VV powder). How shootable it is compared to a .32 of equal penetration could be quite different I'm sure. Let me also go on record in stating the 9x19mm in my considered opinion is not an "awesome" round. I'd rather have a 9x23 for "awesomeness" -- on the maybe-someday-list I'm thinking about making a 9x23-eqsue handgun bespoke for cut down .223 cases.

Edit: Here's DoubleTap's 158gr SWC .38 Special for comparison

All that said, .32 (particularly the .327 Mag. I believe it's at around 9x19mm pressures and without the OAL constrains) seems like a great way to go if you want the penetration of the heaviest .38 Special loads in a lower-energy, easier to shoot package. I can't help but wonder if all that penetration is really needed for non-game loads though.


I'm looking forward to the tests results once you guys thaw out.

[35remington]

Fair enough, Molly.

One last comment, to summarize:

"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 (and also clearly due to its high velocity....my addition here). I rank it as a sorry performer on both counts." (Yet it penetrates well with the "poor" sectional density, so it's a sorry performer on only one count).

Penetration is one half of the equation, energy transfer the other. Hey....at least we're batting .500! It could be worse. Both penetration and energy transfer could suck; 25 Auto maybe?

Lower sectional density didn't matter all that much with the despised 9mm ball. Penetration was good anyway.

Where I thought you departed from the "coldly analytical" was in attributing the characteristics of a bullet (FMJ) to a cartridge (9mm).

Further, a 9 does not need high sectional density. Speed makes up for it extremely well; penetration is good as a result. Let's get off the extreme reliance on high section density as the criteria for penetration. It's clearly not the sole difference maker in penetration and may not even be the major player so long as it's not extremely low. In most pistol cartridges, it isn't.

I'm done with that, finally. (Molly breathes a sigh of relief).

Velocity as the other half of momentum (weight times velocity) also explains deep penetration. A deficit in sectional density can be made up with speed.

Speed is a key component of penetration not often mentioned in this thread.....the 38 Super created a bit of a sensation in the 20's and 30's because of it, and despite its sort of poor sectional density.

Pistol users are fond of pointing out how nondeforming pistol bullets regularly outpenetrate rifle rounds and are "reliable" (I'm borrowing Mr. Brian Pearce's terms) in terms performance on game.

"Reliable" don't mean "quickly effective." Wounds from moderate velocity pistol cartridges are small, and their wounding effects may be "reliable" but they also take longer to take effect and could be called "reliably slow killing." Elmer Keith frequently noted that he had to shoot game multiple times with his deep penetrating big bore revolver bullets before they gave up. Some took a half dozen shots or more!

In evaluating the effectiveness of the pistol cartridges, where does one draw the line? If we were to shoot a deer through the chest with a nonexpanding (even SWC) bullet from a .32, 9mm, or 200 grain .38 "Police" load, we can already predict the results.....the deer will run a long ways before keeling over.

Since a deer is comparable in size, weight, and vital tissue area to a human being, does this make any of the calibers listed above acceptable?

In truth, we're all settling for some level of performance in our self defense pistols that, in any sense of the word, is completely inadequate. We hope to hit something immediately vital and repeat fire really matters.

There is probably no "enough." Just degrees of inadequacy.

Save for a two inch Colt revolver in .32 Long that produces the strangely bulged cases common to this caliber, my only experience with pistol .32's is in the .32 Auto. The bullet is small, light, fairly slow, has poor sectional density, and pretty much has to be nondeforming and poor in energy transfer to feed reliably and penetrate adequately....and it does, actually.

Enough and not enough in the very same package. I guess that summarizes most self defense calibers in pistols.

[Molly]

Hi again, 35remington.

Where I thought you departed from the "coldly analytical" was in attributing the characteristics of a bullet (FMJ) to a cartridge (9mm).

That's legit. I was speaking carelessly.

Further, a 9 does not need high sectional density. Speed makes up for it extremely well; penetration is good as a result. Let's get off the extreme reliance on high section density as the criteria for penetration.

We disagree yet, my friend. NASA has run some tests on low sectional density projectiles to predict the result of micrometeorite impact with space craft. Don't hold me to details, but IIRC, one of the setups involved a Rem 700 smoothbore 22-250, a case full of Bullseye, a nylon ball and an evacuated bore. Range was in inches. Don't recall the resultant velocities, but they were flat out impressive. ... Penetration wasn't impressive.

Velocity as the other half of momentum (weight times velocity) also explains deep penetration. A deficit in sectional density can be made up with speed.

I wasn't trying to ignore momentum. Momentum is a function of mass, which I thought I dealt with in considering Sectional Density.

Speed is a key component of penetration not often mentioned in this thread.....the 38 Super created a bit of a sensation in the 20's and 30's because of it, and despite its sort of poor sectional density.

Yes, and today, it's almost as obsolete as the Italian Bodeo revolver - with which I also have some experience.

"Reliable" don't mean "quickly effective." Wounds from moderate velocity pistol cartridges are small, and their wounding effects may be "reliable" but they also take longer to take effect and could be called "reliably slow killing." Elmer Keith frequently noted that he had to shoot game multiple times with his deep penetrating big bore revolver bullets before they gave up. Some took a half dozen shots or more!

Very true

In truth, we're all settling for some level of performance in our self defense pistols that, in any sense of the word, is completely inadequate. We hope to hit something immediately vital and repeat fire really matters. There is probably no "enough." Just degrees of inadequacy. Enough and not enough in the very same package. I guess that summarizes most self defense calibers in pistols.

We do indeed agree there, but we seem to part ways in selection of the degree of inadequacy we are willing to accept. In all frankness, given the area I intend to target if necessary, even a .22 LR would have a decent chance to put a man down. But I think the handloaded 32 is an even better choice when the time comes that I am forced to make that choice. You disagree in favor of the 9mm. Others have disagreed in favor of the 45 ACP, etc, etc, etc. That's fine. When it's your hide, you get to make the choice. When it's MY hide, _I_ get to make the choice.

Save for a two inch Colt revolver in .32 Long that produces the strangely bulged cases common to this caliber,

Your phrasing reminded me of an experience I had many years ago. I traded something to my school bus driver for a little Colt 32 caliber revolver. (It was a different world then) The next day, I went to a store near school and bought a box of .32 Colt ammo for it. I figured a colt would shoot Colt ammo, but it didn't. It shot 32 S&W ammo. The Colt cases bulged like balloons. I wonder if you haven't made the same mistake.

[Molly]

[QUOTE=Dannix;1154549]

I meant to mention this earlier when you made a comment like this previously, but in my Lyman 49th (the only manual I checked just now) the 9x19 listed loads are well more than twice as hot as 38 S&W loads. Am I missing something? If the 9mm's case capacity is the same with a high SD bullet (and ergo OAL is irrelevant), I would imagine the higher pressure tolerant would be more capable, right?

In principle, yes. I've tried to load the 9mm to higher pressures until my loads were flattening out the headstamp. That's high enough for me. I happened to have a 357 with chambers large enough to take 38 S&W cases, so I loaded it similarly. Neither one was impressive beside a 38 special with normal pressures.

I can't help but think this 9x19mm[/url] would penetrate quite well indeed ... -- on the maybe-someday-list I'm thinking about making a 9x23-eqsue handgun bespoke for cut down .223 cases.

For heavens sake, why? Just use the 357. If you need a rimless case, turn them off with a lathe.

All that said, .32 (particularly the .327 Mag. I believe it's at around 9x19mm pressures and without the OAL constrains) seems like a great way to go if you want the penetration of the heaviest .38 Special loads in a lower-energy, easier to shoot package.

NOW I'm getting through to you. But I'm looking forward to the day when I can't handle snubnosed 44's, not 38's. But barring Altzheimer's, drunk drivers and other imponderables, I intend to do as good a job as I can keeping this carcass functional. I do NOT intend to permit some punk who sees easy money in the cash register of the restaruant I'm in defunctionalize it.

I can't help but wonder if all that penetration is really needed for non-game loads though

Of course not! I find myself settling on two loads for most of my .32 shooting. The first is a hefty charge of H-110 under a 120g bullet to entertain unexpected guests, and the other is the smallest charge of HP-38 that my Dillon press will throw (2.2g) to deal with vicious tin cans, rabbits and the like.

I'm looking forward to the tests results once you guys thaw out.
Me too!