Interesting how many small and underpowered cartridges have been used over the years

[dverna]

Here in Finland we have had our share of school shootings and other similar craziness.

It's been a 22LR pistol used by a kid in most cases,causing many deaths. As a result,our gun laws are now so difficult I won't even start here. But the 22LR is being considered the worst killer of them all by many authorities.

Maybe just more readily available....but I fear your socialist friends will soon be addressing that.

[tazman]

I am not advocating using a small or underpowered round for self defense. I am just noting how many times in the past, what we now consider underpowerd, was regularly used and considered plenty adequate.
Opinions on what is considered underpowered are a rather personal issue. The only standard tests were conducted by the FBI and the Army and even there, opinions vary.

On four occasions, I have seen deer killed DRT by 22lr. All were head/brain shots. This is not what I would recommend but it is possible.
One of these was done with a short hollow point at about 40 yards nearly 50 years ago.

[Petander]

Maybe just more readily available....but I fear your socialist friends will soon be addressing that.

My socialist friends?

It's not even full moon yet,this board is acting funny

[W.R.Buchanan]

Yeah I always love the discussions about the underpowered or the dreaded "Obsolete" caliber not being effective any more.

I have a Beeman R1 Air Rifle that will shoot a JSB .22 cal. 25.4 gr pellet at 600 ish fps. It will kill you with a shot thru your eye. I have actually knocked down Rimfire Silhouette Rams at 100 Meters with that gun and you could see the pellets in the air on the way to the target! Probably not enough beans left to do major damage to a person unless you got really lucky, but it would certainly knock down small game. But the gun is accurate enough to place a kill shot on a person at <50 yards, so it could be useful.

The idea that a gun or cartridge that had killed literally thousands of people since its inception, is suddenly no longer able to perform that function,,, is ludicrous!

I believe that the .22 Short was the first self contained cartridge and that is what we are talking about here. .25acp, .32acp, .380acp have proven effective when used under the right circumstances for over 100 years, now they are useless? They are still selling lots of .380 auto pistols so they must have some use?

I would bet money that if it was able to be proven,,, the .22 Short has killed over 1,000,000 people since its invention.

The idea that the .75 Caliber Brown Bess Musket, which was the main battle weapon of the British Empire from 1720 to 1830 (110 years!) is no longer an effective weapon cuz it has been out of service for 200 years, is just as ludicrous. Being hit anywhere by a 650 gr round ball at any speed above what you could generate with a Slingshot would have a life altering effect on anyone.

Look what we can do with our shotguns now. They are simply Smokeless Powder Repeating Muskets.

I find that it good policy to "RESPECT" all Firearms regardless of the size of the hole in the barrel. All of them can kill you.

my .02

Randy

[USSR]

tazman,

Just prior to and during WW2, many Colt Pocket Hammerless Model 1903 General Officer’s Pistols in .32 ACP were issued to our high ranking officers. These were never intended to be a serious defensive weapon, but rather served as an accoutrement indicating high rank. This mentality is also prevalent to this day in many police forces overseas, in which officers are not expected to actually use the handgun they are issued, and in fact can face serious charges is they do use their issue handgun. I can tell you from personal experience this is true in Eastern Europe.

Don

[megasupermagnum]

President Abraham Lincoln was shot in the back of the head with a .44 caliber muzzle loading pistol, the bullet passed completely through his brain and stopped in the front of his skull. He survived 8 hours after the shot. I think John Wilkes Booth could have done better with a large rock.

And I've seen deer shot through only the intestines with a shotgun slug, stone dead after just a couple hours. Shot placement is king, but you can definitely get lucky with poor placement with a strong round. You just shouldn't rely on it.

On another side, if you compared 100 handgun hunters, half shooting a 357 magnum, and half a 44 magnum. I would lay money more deer are wounded with a 44 magnum. A man's got to know his limitations.

[tazman]

USSR----Probably something similar going on with officer's dress swords in our own military.

Megasupermagnum---------per your last paragraph. That's why I don't own or shoot a 44 magnum(or larger). I found out what my limitations were and stay inside them.

[dverna]

My socialist friends?

It's not even full moon yet,this board is acting funny

It was a joke....

BTW, used to work for Partek. Spent some time in Finland. Good people.

[charlie b]

Don't forget James Bond. He was forced to give up his 7.62 (.32acp) Beretta for the 9mm (.380acp) Walther. And we know how many one shot kills he had

[Texas by God]

I thought Lincoln was killed with a .41 caliber Philadelphia Deringer and I thought 007 had to trade his .25 Beretta for the .380 PPK? This concludes my thoughts.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[USSR]

...I thought 007 had to trade his .25 Beretta for the .380 PPK?

Definitely a .25 Beretta, but I believe the PPK was a 7.65mm (.32 ACP).

Don

[ofitg]

Don't forget the Israeli Mossad with their .22 Berettas -

https://www.tactical-life.com/firear...mossad-22-lrs/

[charlie b]

I will have to go back and watch but I am pretty sure the Walther was a 9mm.

PS Wiki to the rescue. You guys are right. .25 Beretta and 7.62 PPK.

Makes my point even more. You too can get longer range one shot kills with mouse guns

[Gray Fox]

Yes, but the gun Bond carried in the secret compartment in his Bentley was a .45 Colt SAA. GF

[Thumbcocker]

I have thought about this topic a lot and have a theory of my own. My theory is tha in the U.S. the benchmark for handgun power in the 19th century was the revolvers used in the civil war. The .36 Colt Navy was considered a viable self defense gun in that conflict. I believe that the .36 was essentially. 380 auto ballistics. With that as a baseline self defense rounds for at least a generation would have been measured by that standard. When Theodore Roosevelt was police commissioner of NYC he adopted a .32 revolver supposedly because it had similar power. Just my thoughts.

[Billythepoet]

I have thought about this topic a lot and have a theory of my own. My theory is tha in the U.S. the benchmark for handgun power in the 19th century was the revolvers used in the civil war. The .36 Colt Navy was considered a viable self defense gun in that conflict. I believe that the .36 was essentially. 380 auto ballistics. With that as a baseline self defense rounds for at least a generation would have been measured by that standard. When Theodore Roosevelt was police commissioner of NYC he adopted a .32 revolver supposedly because it had similar power. Just my thoughts.

Yep. Look at how successful the Paterson was in the early Texas-Indian War. I've read stories of buffalo being killed with them. Of course they were happy to step up to the Walker with it's heavier bullets and larger powder load, lol.

[drac0nic]

The big thing in my mind is the idea that infection and complications of infections are horrible things to die from and medical tech wasn't near as good. I wouldn't be surprised if people took that into account when they considered they may get shot by someone with a "small" gun.

In times of war obviously things were different. I wouldn't be surprised if efficacy was slightly different because of the unavailability of HP ammo. (not that it seems to matter at times due to rounds like 32 ACP HP not expanding consistently.) The fact they use ball with what amount to under penetrating rounds (38S&W, 32 Long, 32 ACP and a myriad of obsolete calibers like 8mm whatever in a pistol round. I wouldn't be surprised if a 32 or 380 that stays in vs a 9mm ball round that zips through isn't exactly a huge difference in wounding.

I also think it has to do with the dynamics of black powder vs smokeless powder rounds. I mean think about the Walker Colt. It was supposedly one of the most powerful handguns until the advent of the .357 magnum. (even that's considered under powered now by some at least for hunting.) It was an utter monster of a handgun size wise for the power. You're talking a round ball coming it at 141gr going at 1350fps top speed according to wiki which is 571 fps mv at best. You're also talking about a 4.5lb gun that was known for blowing up cylinders. The low end is 1000FPS

A Navy pistol is an 80grish ball at 840ish fps. ~120 ft-lbs or so. When you look at a .32 ACP mouse gun (even some of the larger guns) that were making 160 ft-lbs and could hold more rounds (say 7ish typically and as many as 10 in the case of a Savage 1907) I would think it considered pretty remarkable at the time you could have a tiny gun that would have more power and capacity than a Navy Pistol. That doesn't even begin to talk about 9mm which obviously has significantly more energy by its self. Nor does it include any thought into sectional density of the bullets. The 32 ACP makes more energy and applies it to a smaller frontal area which means it's probably going to penetrate way better than that Navy Pistol does.

We perceive the world through the lens of the materials and manufacturing techniques/quality of our time vs theirs. That makes a huge difference. We've made rounds that they would have thought impossible back in the day. I mean think about the 327 Federal, it's what 65K PSI? That's mind blowing in a handgun that size. That says nothing about the cost. Don't forget that things like gun frames etc. weren't poured from polymer they were machined. By hand typically. How much would a nice C96 or a 1911 made in their times cost today? Blowback would have likely saved a lot of complexity and therefore machining/cost but limited firepower.

[JoeJames]

Seems like Elmer Keith said the caliber that folks were most scared of in the old days in the West was the 41 rimfire derringer cartridge. Sure wasn't a man stopper, but it was never and through and through round, and they knew a feller would eventually die from it; might take a few days for infection to set in, but usually fatal.

[tazman]

Yep. Look at how successful the Paterson was in the early Texas-Indian War. I've read stories of buffalo being killed with them. Of course they were happy to step up to the Walker with it's heavier bullets and larger powder load, lol.

People are still happy to step up to larger and more powerful cartridges. Look at what is available now.
We have any number of perfectly adequate cartridges available now. What to use is always a matter of personal preference.

Those older cartridges certainly served the purpose in their time.

[charlie b]

I have thought about this topic a lot and have a theory of my own. My theory is tha in the U.S. the benchmark for handgun power in the 19th century was the revolvers used in the civil war. The .36 Colt Navy was considered a viable self defense gun in that conflict. I believe that the .36 was essentially. 380 auto ballistics. With that as a baseline self defense rounds for at least a generation would have been measured by that standard. When Theodore Roosevelt was police commissioner of NYC he adopted a .32 revolver supposedly because it had similar power. Just my thoughts.

I would disagree with the Civil War theory. Some may have considered the Navy to be a viable battlefield weapon but the Army did not issue it. The Army contracted first for Colt Pattersons (.36) and quickly changed to a string of .44's as soon as they became available. Dragoon, 1860 and Remington were some. So if your standard is Civil War usage the north used .44's. Yes, there were .36's used by some on both sides. Why? Don't know. Maybe it was what was available to the common person or to the South who tended to buy up anything they could get. Remember that a lot of militia's relied on locals to arm their companies. So, would they choose a caliber of pistol based on caliber, availability or cost? Or did the people who had a .36 in the closet take it with them rather than be only armed with a musket. Did they choose the .36 over a .44 or did they use it cause it was all they could get? And how did it perform compared to the .44's? Have not seen any convincing data one way or the other.

The Army then bought some Schofields in .45 Schofield. Then the SAA .45LC. If the .36 had performed well enough to be a 'standard' then why did they not contract for .36's or .38's for the SAA or Schofield? The Army did enter 1900 issued with the .38spl revolver. There was quite a bit of conflict over that decision and IIRC it came down to having a reliable double action revolver over the caliber. That ended when it performed poorly against the Moro's. Then back to .45's for a long time.

It would be interesting to see what people bought back in those days and why. All we have today is production statistics, which may indicate sales choices and may just be what the mfgs decided to produce regardless of sales. I also wonder how the sales differed in the larger cities and in the country. Cost would be a big factor for most. Unless they really needed a pistol most in the country would own a rifle and/or shotgun first.