From Handloads.com "Experiences with a .32".

[Outpost75]

... And here's the predicted penetration and wound mass for one of Outpost75's loads:

Attachment 262971

I would be very interested to see comparisons of predictions for non-expanding, full-hemispherical nosed FMJRN and ogival flatnosed hard-cast bullets all launched at similar velocity, assuming approximately 940 fps with 3 grains of AutoComp when fired from the Beretta 81 with 3.8" barrel:

93-grain Remington .308" FMJ, (.30 Luger bullet) with full-radius blunt hemispherical nose profile.
In water-jug tests does not "flip" but perforates in a straight line with no sign of tumbling and exits a 1 metre stack of water jugs. Also perforates/exits car door broadside with window rolled down.

Cast bullet of similar profile and weight to .30 Luger FMJ is Accurate 31-094H
Attachment 262978

Attachment 262973 90-grain ogival flatnose of profile similar to Buffalo Bore having a meplat diameter of 0.20", producing 30-40 inches of water jug penetration with no yaw.

Attachment 262972 95-grain ogival wadcutter flatnose having a meplat diameter of 0.25", producing 30 inches of water jug penetration with no yaw. Most blunt profile which feeds reliably in Colt M1903 Pocket, Beretta M1935, CZ27 and Beretta 81. Also bullet of choice for .32 S&W Long revolvers in standard pressure loads.

[onelight]

You guys may have seen this but here are some gel tests with 32 auto.

[Outpost75]

You guys may have seen this but here are some gel tests with 32 auto.

Your link didn't come through, so here are some others I've bookmarked:

https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/poc...results/#32ACP

https://rangehot.com/32-automatic-ballistic-test/

http://www.brassfetcher.com/Handguns.../32%20ACP.html

http://mousegunaddict.blogspot.com/2...g-sellier.html

https://general-cartridge.com/category/32-acp/

If anyone has additional .32 ACP gel test links beyond these, please post them!

[pettypace]

I would be very interested to see comparisons of predictions for non-expanding, full-hemispherical nosed FMJRN and ogival flatnosed hard-cast bullets all launched at similar velocity, assuming approximately 940 fps with 3 grains of AutoComp when fired from the Beretta 81 with 3.8" barrel:

The Schwartz can speak to this question with more knowledge and authority. He's actually built a predictive penetration model. I just tinker with them.

The models of both Schwartz and MacPherson use different parameters for different nose shapes -- wadcutters, round nose, truncated cone, semi-wadcutter, conical, round ball, and expanded hollow points. But beyond these broad categories, there's no fine distinctions between, say, a full-hemispherical nosed FMJRN and a "pointier" bullet like the Luger FMJRN, or between a SWC like the H&G 68 and a Keith style SWC.

Given that, about the best I could do is plug in the same diameter (say, 0.31"), weight (95 grains), and velocity (940 ft/s) with each of those general nose shape parameters. The penetration equation I'm using has been tuned to more or less match MacPherson's curves. The Schwartz Q-model would predict slightly different penetrations. So, here goes...

Wadcutter:



Truncated Cone:



Semi-Wadcutter:



Round-Nose:



Expanded JPH:




The most thought-provoking of these is the last one, for the expanded JHP. It's unusual to use the expanded JHP nose parameter without having some "expanded" diameter to go with it. In that case, the expanded diameter lowers the predicted penetration. But when you keep the unexpanded diameter, as I have above, the model predicts more penetration than any other nose shape would give with same weight and velocity. Is that predicted extra penetration real? Or just a mathematical curiosity? I don't know the answer to that. But I have wondered whether something like that Accurate 31-095T might be the magic shape to give the crush of a wadcutter with the full penetration of a truncated cone.

I'm thinking it will take some actual gel testing to sort this out.

[Outpost75]

Thanks for posting the additional explanations. Lots of info to chew on for a long time.

[jonp]

Great article. I was the first Treasurer of our Universities chapter of The Wildlife Society when it was formed and the first Committee Chairman.

[Wayne Dobbs]

Thanks for posting the additional explanations. Lots of info to chew on for a long time.

Outpost75,

Is there an equivalent .380 ogival wadcutter available?

[Outpost75]

Outpost75,

Is there an equivalent .380 ogival wadcutter available?

These are the bullets I use in the .380 ACP, velocity is 760 fps with 2.5 grains of Bullseye from the Ruger LCP, and 830 fps in the SIG P230. The blunt, heavy bullets give straight-through deep penetration 30 inches+ in water jugs, with no "flip."

Attachment 263146Attachment 263147
.380 ACP 122-grain FN at 760 fps from Ruger LCP, using the SWC form factor rather than RN.
Attachment 263150

[pettypace]

How about a .380 equivalent of this one?

[Crow_Eater]

Just some gun porn.
Clockwise from 1 o'clock - a Model 31 4" S&W Long, a 90s Model 16-4 4" H&R Magnum K-frame, a Davis Industries D-32 .32 ACP derringer, a Tanfoglio EA-32 .32 ACP, and a pre-1974 Charter Arms Undercoverette in .32 S&W Long.
The Model 31 has a Safariland plastic grip with a nice palm swell, the Model 16 factory wooden grips from a Model 66. The D-32 is a brutal little kicker, and at 20 feet, the two barrels make two 3" groups about 10" apart. The Tanfoglio is a very accurate pistol capable of consistent X-ring accuracy at 25 yds with Fiocchi FMJ ammo (no kidding). The Undercoverette has an old aluminum Tyler T-Grip made for a J-frame Smith, which pretty much fits it; sights are much better than the M-31.
In 1913 my grandfather was going to be sent to the Amazon rainforest to buy rubber from the plantations there for an American rubber company. His associates didn't think he should be sent there without some means of defending himself, so as a joke, they bought him the revolver in the bottom photo. It's a 5-shot 3" .32 S&W Hammerless (internal hammer) ie, a lemon squeezer (note grip safety). I think it went for the princely sum of $3.50 at the time. The trip ended up being cancelled, but he kept the gun. When my father was in North Africa and Italy in WW2, my mother kept it for protection. When I was a kid on rare occasions I was allowed to handle it, unloaded of course. As near as we can tell it has never been fired.
That tiny little pistol is the reason I am still fascinated by .32 handguns to this day.

[Outpost75]

Crow Eater, you really should gently shoot that S&W Lemon Squeezer and report back to us. Factory loads would be best, but if you are already set to load .32 ACP you could load your .32 ACP lead bullets in .32 S&W cases with about 1.5 grains of Bullseye. A target fired double-action at 7 yards holding center-of-mass on a silhouette would tell the tale. Please!@

[Outpost75]

How about a .380 equivalent of this one?

Only heavy-bullet .380 ACP jacketed load which I found that expanded from a short-barrel pistol like the Ruger LCP is the Remington 102-grain Golden Saber Ultimate Defense.

Attachment 263213Attachment 263212

Problem with jacketed bullets is their greater bore drag limits potential velocity attainable within safe pressures. My experience has been that .380 jacketed bullets which are fragile enough to expand from a short barrel like the Ruger LCP fail to reach the desired 12 inches of penetration. Most bullets over 100 grains are of stouter construction to withstand higher velocity from the 9mm Parabellum. A lubricated-lead bullet is "slicker" and more forgiving. I spent many hours trying to come up with a cast bullet load which would work, but with mixed results, so concentrated by efforts on heavy, blunt solids. Here is a graph of the Accurate 35-122 bullet hollow-pointed and shot from the Ruger LCP.

Attachment 263210Attachment 263206Attachment 263207Attachment 263211

[Outpost75]

OK, so help me out here...

I see a table of test data that expresses penetration in 10% ordnance gelatin (assuming it is not the clear ballistics stuff?) and water jugs (in attached thumbnails) used to test these rounds? Are you actually testing in 10% ordnance gelatin or converting water test results to their equivalent using a model? If using a model to convert water test data, which one are you using?

I'm using an evaluation copy of a program obtained from Pettypace, plugging in my water expansion values and chronographed velocity. The waterjug penetration figures don't enter into it it except for curiosity as I'm using the water only to measure expansion.

[pettypace]

... Are you actually testing in 10% ordnance gelatin or converting water test results to their equivalent using a model? If using a model to convert water test data, which one are you using?

Chuck: The "model" behind the blue and red graphs is the same as you and I discussed via PMs about a month ago -- a simplified THOR equation with parameters "tuned" (with Gnuplot's "fit" function) to MacPherson's penetration graphs.

I use the term "model" cautiously. As a well-established Enrico Fermi once told the up-and-coming Freeman Dyson: "I'm not very impressed with what you've been doing... Either you should have a clear physical model in mind, or you should have a rigorous mathematical basis. You have neither." Like Dyson, I have neither.

On the other hand, when Dyson persisted, pointing out the close agreement between his mathematical plots and Fermi's experimental data, Fermi quoted the famous mathematician John von Neumann as saying that "With four parameters I can fit an elephant and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk." Bullet penetration graphs are easier to "fit" than elephants, even without their wiggling trunks.

The blue and red graphs give a reasonable "fit" to MacPherson's experimental data. Fermi wouldn't have been impressed, but I think they're good enough to show, for example, that in the absence of barriers, Outpost75's "kick-butt" .32 ACP JHP load...



...should be every bit as effective for civilian self-defense as the .38 Special Federal Gold Medal wadcutters Brassfetcher tested here:

[Crow_Eater]

Crow Eater, you really should gently shoot that S&W Lemon Squeezer and report back to us. Factory loads would be best, but if you are already set to load .32 ACP you could load your .32 ACP lead bullets in .32 S&W cases with about 1.5 grains of Bullseye. A target fired double-action at 7 yards holding center-of-mass on a silhouette would tell the tale. Please!@

Sorry all, but never going to happen. It's a heirloom and as far as the family is concerned, priceless. You can see it's in near-new condition.
Some years back I did load some ammo for it, or guns like it, based on Ken Waters' Pet Loads article from May 1992. I loaded the Hornady 90 gr LSWC over 2.2 gr of AA-5 (his best load for older guns), over 1.7 gr of SR-7625 (second best), and over 1.4 gr of AA-2 Imp. Push come to shove I could not bring myself to risk the old thing, tempted though I was.
BTW, he listed 1.3 gr of Bullseye as maximum for these older guns; I would not have gone higher. I also found a fragment of an old Lyman manual listing the 77 gr cast LRN (#311252) over 1.4 gr of Red Dot as a possible load for these guns. I have most of a box of the RP 88 gr LRN factory load sitting around also.
If I were to come across a similar revolver I would definitely try these loads in it. But not my grandfather's.

[Crow_Eater]

All that nice, symmetric expansion is pretty impressive until you run the numbers for the meat and potatoes. :

Not to troll you, but the .32 Silvertip did pretty well in actual shootings, based on Even Marshall's information in _ "Stopping Power_ . From his data, the STHP was effective about 59% out of a sample size of 61 documented incidents.
That compared to about 50% for standard FMJ, with 96 total cases.
FWIW. At least it is actual data.

[35remington]

Marshall and Sanow’s data was controversial to say the least. It is rather a flash point and provokes considerable discussion about the validity of their information.

The “percentages of stops” are particularly doubted in some circles if not most of them these days. The “actual data” part is debated.

For whatever that’s worth.

[Crow_Eater]

I followed the evolution of Marshall's writing, as well as the criticisms of it, for several years before that book was published. His book didn't come out of nowhere, and it wasn't put together in a day. It seemed to me a lot of the criticism of it was from people who did not understand his method or assumptions (which he made very clear) -- or possibly had not even read much of it, ie was based on hearsay. If there is a more definitive study from anyone I'd be pleased to be directed to it (I've read U. W. Patrick's "Handgun Effectiveness" lecture, which is nowhere near as comprehensive or rigorous).
I don't intend to either hijack this thread or open up this whole topic, which in general very quickly devolves into people arguing their opinions, mostly based on little or no experience, and which has already run 33 or so tedious and repetitive pages on another thread (see above).

[35remington]

The contentious part was awarding high “stopping percentages” to certain calibers while using a screening of data that appeared to unrealistically influence what data was included and what was not.

You will notice that those who discuss the topic today avoid mentioning certainty in areas where certainty cannot be found. M and S discussed “stopping percentages” as if they were more confident in the validity of their data than was justified, which was certainly the case.

[35remington]

Here’s an alternative that attempts to include things M and S clearly missed. Note the outrageously high percentage of “one shot stops” that M and S promulgate is clearly refuted. This seems a lot more believable.

https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alte...stopping-power