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

[Molly]

WARNING! Long Post!!

We all know that shooters, particularly enthusiasts of the cast boolit, are calm, dispassionate and impartial individuals for the most part, never given to playing favorites or giving way to wild emotional reactions. They can generally be counted on to review the evidence for or against a given argument, and render a carefully considered judgment. (Huh? What’s getting deep? Anyhow, on with the show!)

I would like to present arguments for and against the .32 S&W Long as a defensive man-stopping round, and invite discussion on these points, as well as points that you might wish to bring up that I have overlooked.

The first point is that the .32 S&W Long has a fairly respectable history as a police round, particularly in the form of the flat-nosed .32 Colt New Police. The flat nosed bullet is generally credited with superior stopping power over the round nose bullet.

The next point of course is that the .32 S&W Long was found deficient as a police round, and was replaced by larger, more powerful rounds. While true, this is a rather curious turn of events, as the typical rational person who finds himself wounded with even a .22 finds that obtaining medical attention quickly takes precedent over whatever had occupied his attention prior to the wounding. Unfortunately, events and personal reactions typical of police encounters and shootings are frequently not well described as rational. High levels of adrenalin and excitement can sometimes even preclude the victim being aware of having been shot until blood loss results in incapacity. Larger and more powerful rounds are the usually recommended means to deal with this phenomenon.

But are larger and more powerful rounds the only or even the best approach to the problem of adrenalin and excitement induced lack of reaction to being wounded? There is good reason to think that is not the case. Few arenas can produce higher levels of excitement and adrenalin than military combat. Yet some very ‘anemic’ rounds have been found effective in such situations. The US employed the .30 Carbine with considerable satisfaction in both WWII and later in Viet Nam, where the smaller carbine was much favored by the Vietnamese troops who were of typically smaller stature.

The French have long used such pipsqueaks as the 32 Lebel in their revolvers, and found it sufficiently satisfactory that they reproduced it in the .32 French Long as their favored military auto pistol round. The .32 French is so like the .32 S&W Long that cases for it can be made by nothing more than turning the rim off and making an extractor groove. The French military has a LOT of combat experience!! In fact, very similar rounds were almost standard military issue throughout Europe up to and including WWII. And some of them were notably less powerful than the .32 S&W Long factory loading. I wonder why the combined military expertese of so many nations over so many years, and with so much combat experience could have been so woefully wrong as to think such rounds could be effective man-stoppers? Or could it be that we Americans are just a trifle big-bore crazy?

Once I got to thinking about it, I realized that most of the power of rounds like the 45 ACP (which I dearly love) and even the Dirty Harry 44 Mag invariably waste most of their power on whatever is on the far side of whoever gets hit by them. I couldn’t say how much power is necessary for their unquestionable effectiveness, but it’s pretty obvious that it’s only a small fraction of what they deliver at the muzzle.

“Triggernometry - Home Bullet Penetration Tests” is the title of an article in the free e-zine GunsAmerica Magazine. You can access it here: http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/triggernometry-home-bullet-penetration/. The author recommends using penetration in / through jugs of water – specifically two liter pop bottles and milk jugs – as a way to gauge the effectiveness of a given round. In his tests, a standard 45 ACP just did make it through the length of one bottle.

Today, I took a milk jug full of water to the range with me. I laid it on its side, and shot through the bottom at a measured range of 25 yards with a .32 S&W Long handload. The load was 7.0g of H-110 under a hard cast 115g Lyman 311008, sized to 0.313” and seated to crimp in the top lube groove. Primer was CCI small pistol. Fired primers were flattened, but not excessively, and extraction from my S&W M30-1 was easy. It did shoot about 2" high from the fixed sights, and required a 6 o'clock hold, but it grouped well: ~ 2" at 25 yards.

I consider this a top load. It is well over factory load pressures and velocities, and definitely is NOT for older 32 pistols, particularly breaktop revolvers. The load data is for your information only. It is NOT a recomendation. It may well be execssive in your gun, with your components, and in warmer environments, and if you use it, it will be entirely at your own risk.

But the bullet not only penetrated the full length of the water column in the jug, it had sufficient pizzazz left at the far end to generate ruptures in the jug as it exited that were up to an inch and a half long. I don't think it would have any problem fully transiting a torso, and the 45 ACP wouldn't do a whole lot more.

Now I know very well that some men have taken torso hits with 45's and 44 mags and continuted to fight. NOTHING is 100 % reliable / effective. In particular, I know that .32 S&W Long factory loadings will not produce such results. It takes a special handload like the one I described above. But we bullet casters put up special combinations all the time, and we seldom restrict ourselves to factory ballistics. So the question I would like to put up for discussion is this: Do you think that the .32 S&W Long – suitably handloaded – can be a reasonable choice for a CCW gun that may well be required to stop a man full of excitement and adrenalin? If so, I’d be interested in why. If not, I’d be even more interested in why not.

[Landric]

I don't think this is one of those questions that really has an answer, or if it does, the answer is "it depends". There really is no way to determine with 100% accuracy whether or not a .32 S&W Long or a .30-06 Springfield, or anything in between, will be effective against a specific target.

Would I feel comfortable carrying a .32 S&W Long with a heavy handload? Probably not, but that isn't because I know something you don't, I'm just guessing on what will be effective and what won't be. I have been known to carry a .32 H&R Magnum revolver from time to time, but I'm not nearly as sure of it as I am of the .38 Special +P out of a revolver of the same size.

I can't see any reason not to carry a .32 S&W Long with high end handloads if that makes one comfortable. I'm sure it can be effective if the shooter does his job, just as the .50 AE can be ineffective if the shooter doesn't do his job.

[bhn22]

I think it could be a reasonable choice if you followed the usual "small caliber enhancement protocols". I just made that up, so feel free to use it. First of all, you need a properly designed bullet profile. Perhaps something like an LBT LFN, or a really maximized Keith style SWC. You'll need something with sharp corners, and clean lines. And of course- no hollowpoint. For a mouse gun, I'd prefer to see something that with maximum penetration capabilities. Hollowpoints lose a lot of energy deforming the bullet. I think this energy would be better utilized in penetration. Remember, we're not talking about 1500 FPS velocities here, closer to half that. I'd like to see that bullet a bit on the heavy side. To use this on a full-size man under normal conditions would be optimistic. To use it on someone on drugs would be nearly futile unless you can make a solid hit on the central nervous system. However, I would rate such a load as a better choice that the current rimfires, 32 ACP, or possibly 380 ball. Personally, I'd only do this if I had no better choice available.

[S.R.Custom]

I can say with certainty that the .32 would be better than a .25...

That said, adequate man-stopping ability is in the eye of the beholder. Some men are of such confidence and self-assuredness (or should I say, lack thereof) in their own ability that they have to have a .45, and anything else is lacking. On the other hand, some men are effective at dropping an enemy combatant armed with no more than a sharp stick. Fortunately, there are enough of both to go around.

[Guesser]

I carry revolvers chambered in 32 Long from time to time. I have confidence in them and in the ammunition in them, they are my guns that I have become proficient with and loads that I have developed. I like the little revolvers, they are light and very accurate, if accuracy matters at clothes closet ranges. I sometimes carry a 38, Detective Special or S&W 37 but never with +P, just my preference. I also have a 50 year old Walther PP in 32 Auto that I have confidence in. All in all; 32 is good.

[NoZombies]

I'll keep an eye on this thread, Always interested in the .32 threads.

[imashooter2]

Here is an opinion that I've been mulling over for a long time. It goes back to a time when I was thinking about the anemic rim fire cartridges used in vest pocket pistols in the later part of the 19th century...

Once upon a time, medical science was not what it is today. People had a real fear of being shot and dieing from infection a month later. Any pistol had a real deterrent effect. As time moved on and medical science improved, the fear of being shot lessened and so firearms carriers began to move to cartridges that had a better chance of actually stopping a determined adversary.

Now for sure, some serious shooters always carried as big a ball as they could find. But the general perception of "adequate" keeps drifting higher...

[9.3X62AL]

Interesting thread. I like Ima's text concerning the dissuasion effects of ANY pistol due to the early historical medical after-effects of gunshot wounds (hereinafter "GSW"), and consider that to be a very valid observation.

Let's take that observation a bit further. These days, modern medicine can save many GSW victims that in past times would not have survived. This is general knowledge throughout our society, and the criminal element is keenly aware of these facts. I would submit that criminals rather stupidly believe that sustaining a GSW is not that serious an issue, assuming they consciously consider the possibility as a part of their threat assessment prior to an attack. No one said that crooks were very smart. This impression was gained from having interviewed hundreds of criminals over my 28 years of cop work, many of whom had sustained and survived GSWs.

One other paradigm shift that has occurred during the last century goes almost unmentioned, but I believe it to be critical to the discussion of defensive shooting preparation and training. When the state laws related to use of force to stop criminal activity/attacks were initially drafted in our country, it was generally believed that the interests of justice were well served by having both private citizens and public officers fire upon fleeing suspects believed to have committed felonious acts, irrespective of the fleeing suspects' status as being armed or not. This mindset prevailed well into the 20th Century. In effect, the citizen's or officer's firearm in such instances became little more than a marking pellet launcher, which would if accurately placed label the fleeing subject as the person sought for the crime in question. It is in these sorts of circumstances that the 32 S&W Long or 38 S&W did their best work. They identified culprits (well, sort of.....), and occasionally produced disabling or fatal results. Since many--perhaps most felons engaged in this fashion were going away from the shooters, the calibers' weak stopping abilities only came to the fore in cases where the felon was in your face and pressing an armed attack. In these instances, the weak-sistered handgun rounds of the day were largely ineffective in stopping attacks.

As times went on, the practice of firing upon fleeing unarmed felons became frowned upon by the legal system--whether the firing was done by citizens or by cops. Dead suspects don't generate revenue for lawyers, and defense attorneys hate having their rice bowls broken. What emerged is a rule of engagement that only allows citizens and cops to use deadly force when confronted with deadly force or force likely to produce great bodily harm. What this means--YOU WILL BE SQUARELY IN HARM'S WAY AT THE TIME YOU COMMENCE SELF-PROTECTIVE FIRING. Then and only then will you be justified in projecting lethal force. This means the attacker(s) will be in your face exchanging finality with you at close quarters. For these circumstances, most people want as large a caliber--as heavy a bullet--going as fast as possible--in a compact platform that carries as many rounds as can be stuffed into a cylinder or magazine. You choose what to carry, and what to feed it. Ya still think that 32 is "all that and a bag of chips?"

This isn't fly fishing, where light tackle and prowess with same on large species is praised and rewarded. 2nd place award ceremonies for gunfights get held in churches and at gravesides. God knows I've attended enough of them.

[Dale53]

As I see it, the people that we need to stop, are often high on drugs. Some drugs mask nearly all pain and you need to "break bone" or hit the central nervous system regardless of what you are shooting.

Jim Cirillo, the famous and colorful New York law man who headed up the New York Stakeout Squad had a LOT of real world experience gun fighting. I talked to Jim several times over the years and particularly remember one fight he was in that he related to me. It took place during a robbery of a Super Market. Jim and the bad guy were chasing each other around the store. They both rounded a corner and came face to face. Jim was armed with a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with Breneke slugs. Jim fired first (from the hip) and shot the armed robber in the torso at point blank range. The robber dropped his arms at the shot but did NOT drop his gun. Jim gave him a second round in the torso. This time the man dropped his gun, turned and ran for the door. When he got to the door, it was an "IN" door and he couldn't get out. As he pushed against the door, he suddenly slumped to the floor. As Jim pointed out there is NO SUCH THING as 100% stopping power, except - as he so colorfully put it, a .38 wadcutter to the left eye!

At the time, the Stake Out Squad was armed with .38 revolvers with full power wad cutters in addition to their often preferred shot guns.

All of that said, If I were a police officer, I would carry a 1911 with .45 ACP 230 grs Federal Hydra Shok ammo. However, as I am a civilian and hopefully have much less exposure to a "need" for self protection, my daily carry is an S&W 642 with .38 Plus P FBI load (158 gr lead hollow point). I have a snub nose .32, but see no reason to settle for less than the .38 as there is no benefit in doing so (guns are the same size, etc and I would rather have five relatively powerful rounds rather than six much less effective loads).

One thing that MUST be said, that first shot PLACEMENT is ALL IMPORTANT. If you shoot something as small as a squirrel "around the edges" it becomes almost bullet proof. That same things applies to people. Once they get full of adrenaline, they are almost unstoppable, and a shot around the edges will certainly cause the adrenaline to flow...

Dale53

[imashooter2]

Some great food for thought there 9.3X62AL.

[Piedmont]

The .30 Carbine reference muddies the water. Most think that worked OK so a .30 cal 110 gr. bullet at 1800 fps working somehow means a .32 long with a lighter bullet at less than half the velocity will work?

Those militaries and police gave up the .32s for a reason. Conversely the militaries of the world are holding onto their 9mms which should tell us all something. World wars are good testing grounds and the 9mm with ball has just gotten more popular.

Unless one goes to something like a .44 mag, handgun rounds just aren't very powerful. Handguns also are not easy to shoot well. There is always a balancing act of power, gun weight, recoil, and marksmanship.

[Bass Ackward]

I don't know about psychology. And nobody understands physiology completely. And that's why my defense guns go bang more than once.

I own a lot of stuff and theorize about none anymore. The best defense gun is one that you HOPE you will have with you when the need arises. With the best ammo being that which you HOPE is in the gun.

Beat him with the gun when you are out of shells and hope this isn't the way God means for you to go out. If it is your time, don't matter what caliber it was.

[Bret4207]

You can shoot one BG loaded up on drugs with a 22 short from a little auto gun and he'll drop like a rock. The next one you could hit multiple times with a 500 S+W and he'll walk over and choke you to death. Nothing is certain. For 99% of us using what we're comfortable with or have handy is more important than someones elses theory.

Personally, if I could find a nice little J frame 32 I'd be fine with it.

[Hickory]

You can shoot one BG loaded up on drugs with a 22 short from a little auto gun and he'll drop like a rock. The next one you could hit multiple times with a 500 S+W and he'll walk over and choke you to death. Nothing is certain. For 99% of us using what we're comfortable with or have handy is more important than someones elses theory.

Personally, if I could find a nice little J frame 32 I'd be fine with it.

I have killed a lot of deer in my life and learned early on that if you want to put them down quick to hit them in one of two places.

The first and I think is the best is to traumatize the nerves system ie; the spine or the brain. But both are risky shots at a distance.

Next is a shot to break down the skeletial structure of the animal, with the front shoulder being the best, because if you "Miss" you could very well hit the heart and or lungs. which may mean some tracking to retrieve the deer.

What I'm getting at, is, if you intend to shoot a person who may be armed and is able to shoot back you need to try to disrupt his abaility to strike back at you and do it as quickly as possible.
A quick expanding boolit at a high velocity (950-1200fps ) should help nutralize any threat.

[Molly]

Thanks for some really thoughtful responses, particularly from 9.3X62AL and Dale53. And some of the other comments suggest that I might mention that MY favorite CCW and bedside companion is a Charter Arms 'Bulldog' in 44 Special.

I wasn't necessarily trying to espouse the .32 S&W Long as a manstopper (particularly in the factory loading, which cannot be improved on because of all the old BP and breaktop revolvers that are still around for it). But when my handload gave more penetration than the articles author got with a 45 ACP in his milk jug test, it set me to thinking.

Dr. Martin Fackler (President of the International Wound Ballistics Assoc.) has long championed permanent cavity volume as the only reliable indicator of 'stopping power'. He has stated (words to the effect) that the temporary wound cavity so often dramaticly photographed is without value in incapacitation unless it infringes the heart or central nervous system. He has also said that expanding bullets waste a lot of energy in generating the expansion that produce the temporary wound cavity. I suspect a lot of people here will disagree with that, but I also suspect nobody here will have a tenth of the experience that Dr. Fackler brings to his opinions. He has international acclaim and respect in this field that few men can match.

I mention this so that you will know that I was not simply trying to generate smoke and fire with my question. And so you can know that there are legitimate reasons to question the typical '.32 pipsqueak' knee-jerk reaction of many big-bore enthusiasts - a class that I consider myself member of.

It is a simple matter of factual historical record that rounds very similar to the factory loading for the .32 S&W Long were considered satisfactory for generations in European armies and police forces. Logic suggests that anyone denigrating the .32 long for similar purposes be required to account for the huge historical record that disagrees with their opinion, if they want to be taken seriously.

[Molly]

Hi Piedmont
>The .30 Carbine reference muddies the water. Most think that worked OK so a .30 cal 110 gr. bullet at 1800 fps working somehow means a .32 long with a lighter bullet at less than half the velocity will work?

Actually, I have a data base of about 1500 loads for the .32 S&W Long, many of which report velocities considerably higher than 900 fps. I haven't chronographed my load (yet), but would be surprised if it isn't producing 1200 fps or more. 9.2g of 2400 has been reported as delivering ~ 1350 fps with a 313631 bullet.

>Those militaries and police gave up the .32s for a reason. Conversely the militaries of the world are holding onto their 9mms which should tell us all something. World wars are good testing grounds and the 9mm with ball has just gotten more popular.

You are correct in what you say, but not in your implication that they finally found out how ignorant and misled they had been. Most (if not all) of them adopted the 9mm because it was REQUIRED for compliance with treaty obligation with (IE) NATO. It is noteworthy that despite its notably higher energy, 9mm ball ammo has garnered such a poor reputation for stopping power that it touched off an arms race to improve the 9mm with expanding and truncated nose bullets.

>Unless one goes to something like a .44 mag, handgun rounds just aren't very powerful.

Handgun rounds generally 'lack power' only when compared to rifle rounds or shotgun slugs. Handgun rounds from the .357 Mag and up are considered powerful enough and controlable enough for deer hunting in almost all states. This usually includes non-magnum rounds like the .45 Colt.

[Molly]

Here is an opinion that I've been mulling over for a long time. It goes back to a time when I was thinking about the anemic rim fire cartridges used in vest pocket pistols in the later part of the 19th century...

Once upon a time, medical science was not what it is today. People had a real fear of being shot and dieing from infection a month later. Any pistol had a real deterrent effect. As time moved on and medical science improved, the fear of being shot lessened and so firearms carriers began to move to cartridges that had a better chance of actually stopping a determined adversary.

Now for sure, some serious shooters always carried as big a ball as they could find. But the general perception of "adequate" keeps drifting higher...

Very true! I was always told that the major threat of the Rem. .41 Derringer was NOT the power / penetration of the bullet. (Elmer Keith said that it was barely capable of penetrating its own length into a telephone pole!) The major threat was that it would carry fragments of (unwashed) clothing into the wound. In the days before modern antibiotics, the wounds would fester and kill slowly and ungracefully.

[scrapcan]

Good discussion so far. I will be watching also.

I would like to mention that one of our best carry weapons is our brain. Keep that thing working and try to keep ourselves out of situations where one might need the big tools.

Having said that, we now face a situation in our society where the bad side of town is much muddied and it may not be possible to keep ones self out of potential situations.

and if you are in a profession that requires you to insert your self (law enforcement, military, etc...) into potentially hazardous environments, you might want to have the best tool for the job at hand. You get to choose what is the best tool for the job at hand.

[smkummer]

But in reality you are doing a little more than putting fangs on a mouse and maybe added legal issues with reloaded ammuntion. If you are carrying the gun for a situation that requires armed deadly force for one to save ones own life, be aware that mass body hits may not have any effect at close quarter combat ranges. If have chronographed factory 32 S&W long and 32 Colt New Police that gives about 700 FPS out of a 2 1/2 pocket positve Colt. That is the same energy as a 22 Long Rifle fired from a rifle. Remember that Pres. Reagan didn't even know that he was shot (22 from a pistol) Body mass hits will most likely not stop any determined attacker so you are now left with the remaining rounds hopefully causing cranial or ocular damage from head shots. Be ready to continue the fight after all six chambers are empty.

Its important to have a gun when the situation arrives so if the size means that it will be carried, then that is so much better than being without. I say this because I too carry a mouse gun (S&W 61 escort in 22LR) mainly because its so easily carried as its always in one of my favorite jacket's inside pocket. I do pratice head shots at 10 yards or less. I am aware that the fight will most likely continue but I am carrying a gun. I would NEVER choose a 32 over a 38 especially since alloy 38 revolvers are very light..

[Jack Stanley]

Not that I understand the whys and wherewithalls that armies do what they do . I am curious though how many of those armies use a handgun no matter what it is as a badge of office ? I don't know as it will make a bit of difference in the outcome of the discussion .

One thing that WILL make a difference , all you guys talking about thirty-two caliber handguns and such . Don't be a bit surprized if you see NoZombie necking down a thirty-two ACP to twenty-two caliber and chambering it in something belt-fed .

Jack

[bob208]

a self defense shooting will most likely be up close. like stick that .32 right in their face and let go. you will not be shooting across the room across the street. i used to say you needed a big gun. then i grew up and found out shot is shot.

[Bass Ackward]

Dr. Martin Fackler (President of the International Wound Ballistics Assoc.) has long championed permanent cavity volume as the only reliable indicator of 'stopping power'. He has stated (words to the effect) that the temporary wound cavity so often dramaticly photographed is without value in incapacitation unless it infringes the heart or central nervous system. He has also said that expanding bullets waste a lot of energy in generating the expansion that produce the temporary wound cavity. I suspect a lot of people here will disagree with that, but I also suspect nobody here will have a tenth of the experience that Dr. Fackler brings to his opinions. He has international acclaim and respect in this field that few men can match.


Uh huh.


1. Power levels are for pre-event, feel good, discussions designed to build confidence based upon a single shot event.

2. Wound channels are for after event explanations of the "WHY" the single shot either worked or it did not.

The doctor's expertise is that he "guesses" that he can create and then tell you a successful 2 will provide stoppage under any and all circumstances.

How do you remove the heart from a body and have that animal still run for 200 yards? Or have an animals liver fall out of a it's body and still go for 150 yards?

No body understands death, certainly not in emotional charged states. And any number of uneducated and limited experienced members of this board can tell you that having created these "perfect" wound channels.

The question that arises is: In that totally unique, emotional state that is the self preservation (self defense) act that occurs between item 1. and item 2.:

A. Did you trust the Doctor's vast expertise of perfect wound channel stoppage?

B. Did you throw that garbage out the window and do what was necessary to survive?

[Molly]

I'm a bit surprised that nobody has mentioned one of the most potent aspects of man-stopping handguns; The simple fact that they are HANDGUNS. The simple presence of ANY handgun is an unmistakable, multi-lingual, cross-cultural and cross generational announcement that the fun and games are over, because things are likely to get REAL serious if they don't stop.

My wife and I had gone to bed one evening, when there was a pounding on the door, and one of the sisters who lived next door was screaming for help. My wife let her in while I put on some jeans and dropped a .38 revolver in my pocket just on general principles.

Seems three drunks had run out of interesting things to do, when one of them announced that he knew where there were a couple of girls they could have some fun with. When they knocked on the door, one of the sisters thought she'd met one of them at a party, and let them in. It didn't take long for their true nature to manifest itself, and the girls had a few rough minutes until the fiance of the other girl showed up for a visit. His reaction provided enough distraction for the other girl to get away and call on me for help.

The fiance was having a rough going-over from all three drunks, but when I walked in, they backed off of him to assess me. One of them noticed the 38 grip sticking out of my pocket, and sneered something to the effect of "What do you think you're going to do with that, buddy?"

I told him that I thought I'd do any damned thing I wanted to with it, and that anything I wanted to happen had better happen DAMNED fast, and the first thing that had better happen was for him to go to the far wall, sit down with his back against it, legs spread, followed in a hurry by his buddies.

There was an instantaneous realignment of attitudes. Some of the nastiest drunks you could never want to meet became real gentlemen, sober as a judge, and said 'yessir' & 'nosir' when I addressed them. The fiance then went to each one in turn and carefully searched them for anything dangerous. Then I put them back against the wall, legs spread and sitting on their hands, mouths shut. I told them that the first one to try to get off his hands would die. They didn't seem interested in following up to see if I was serious. I was, and they knew it.

We discussed several options to deal with the situation, but decided to simply turn them over to the police. When the police got there, I simply dropped the pistol a little further into my pocket, so that the grip didn't show. I noticed one LEO staring at my pocket, but he didn't say anything.

End of story. The point of the story is that in this (and in a couple other incidents I could relate), the mere presence of a handgun (of ANY caliber) was able to restore order and prevent the further commission of a crime. A strong, self-assured attitude on my part undoubtedly contributed to the effect, AND THE HANDGUN WAS NEVER PULLED OR PRESENTED. My hand never touched it after I'd dropped in in my pocket at home until the police arrived. Its presence contributed to my self-assured attitude, and there would not have been any difference in outcome if it had been a 45 or a 22.

To date, I have put an abrupt end to at least four attempted rapes / assults, and have apparently been functional in restoring order in a number of situations that held promise of becoming quite unpleasant. And to date, I have not had to shoot anyone. The closest I have needed to come to that involved a hoodlum trying to force a car driven by a pretty girl off the road on a desolate stretch of road. He didn't know I was asleep in the back seat, and that the girl was my wife. I will leave his reaction to seeing me sit up and cock a loaded .357 at him to your imagination. But peace and order was quickly restored, and it was not necessary to shoot him.

[S.R.Custom]

Dr. Martin Fackler ... has also said that expanding bullets waste a lot of energy in generating the expansion that produce the temporary wound cavity. I suspect a lot of people here will disagree with that...

Well, that's a "depends" statement. He's correct in that it takes a fair amount of energy to expand a bullet. Whether or not that energy is a waste is another matter.

In the case of the 9mm, without expansion the bullet will penetrate 21" of ballistic goo. That pretty much guarantees over penetration. Any energy the bullet takes with it out the other side is the waste. With a hollow point, any energy expended in expansion which keeps the bullet in the body is a wise investment. Enhanced wound channel is a bonus.

On the other hand, the .32 ACP ball round barely has enough **** to penetrate 9" of goo. A functioning hollow point would waste precious energy in a scenario where penetration is paramount. In other words, some calibers should utilize hollow points. Others, not so much.




...When the state laws related to use of force to stop criminal activity/attacks were initially drafted in our country, it was generally believed that the interests of justice were well served by having both private citizens and public officers fire upon fleeing suspects believed to have committed felonious acts, irrespective of the fleeing suspects' status as being armed or not. This mindset prevailed well into the 20th Century...

Ah, the good ol' days... Do I take this as agitating for the return of law enforcement fundamentalism? If so, good on ya...

[Molly]

>1. Power levels are for pre-event, feel good, discussions designed to build confidence based upon a single shot event.
>2. Wound channels are for after event explanations of the "WHY" the single shot either worked or it did not.
>The doctor's expertise is that he "guesses" that he can create and then tell you a successful 2 will provide stoppage under any and all circumstances.

I recommend you read some of Dr. Fackler's numerous articles. They are readily available on the web if you just search on his name. I particularly recommend "What is wrong with wound ballistics and why". Dr. Fackler is careful that your elements 1 & 2 above do not affect his conclusions. You should also read his statistical analysis of some currently popular 'handgun effectiveness' tables, wherein he demonstrates that the information in them is statistically almost certain to be the result of doctored data. Wanna bet your life on it?

>How do you remove the heart from a body and have that animal still run for 200 yards? Or have an animals liver fall out of a it's body and still go for 150 yards?

A simple postulation that the animals involved were high on adrenalin and excitement could account for what you report. A liver is not necessary for the IMMEDIATE functioning of leg muscles, and for that matter, neither is a heart: Under the influence of powerful stimulants, the animal could continue to run until the supply of oxygen in its muscles was exhausted. My grandfather once shot a doe and physically removed two of her spinal vertebrae (?SP), yet she ran for about a hundred yards before folding. How she managed to run without any nerve communication between her brain and her hind legs is still a mystery to me, but it was done.

>The question that arises is: In that totally unique, emotional state that is the self preservation (self defense) act that occurs between item 1. and item 2.: A. Did you trust the Doctor's vast expertise of perfect wound channel stoppage? B. Did you throw that garbage out the window and do what was necessary to survive?

We are not talking about mathematical or geometric precision here. The examples that both of us provided above are good evidence that there will ALWAYS be exceptions to any explanation that our current levels of knowledge will permit us to formulate. The best we can do is to examine the explanations and their justifications, and play the odds that seem to favor us best.

You will note that I have not abandoned my .44 Special in favor of the .32 S&W Long, or suggested that anyone consider doing that. The reason? It's simply because Dr. Fackler's explanations concerning temporary and permanent wound channels make a lot of sense to me. They certainly suggest that the through-the-torso wound produced by a .32 flat nosed bullet could be an effective man-stopper, but there is NO suggestion that a through-the-torso wound produced by a .44 Keith slug would not be even more effective at producing a large permanent wound channel.

I still play the odds that seem to favor me best. But I will no longer sneer at a .32 revolver as I might have once done. I have long held that I didn't want to be shot with ANYTHING if I could avoid it, even a 150fps Daisy BB gun. But like all of us, I would consider injury by some guns as less distressing than by others. Given the necessity and a choice, I would rather be shot with a .177 pellet rifle than with a .22 LR rifle. That's just common sense. I also consider it common sense that I no longer rank a .32 S&W Long handload that out-penetrates a 45 ACP as one of the less distressing options.

[armed_partisan]

I have given a great deal of thought as to why certain early metallic cartridge loads were so underpowered by modern standards and I have come to several conclusions which I would like to present to you all. I would like to point out something that I don't think anyone has noted yet: Guns are loud. REALLY Loud. At the end of the 19th and dawn of the 20th century, nobody wore hearing protection when they shot guns. Really loud guns existed, but were NOT popular for recreation. Smaller caliber, high velocity rounds were decidedly unpopular, compared to similar rounds in larger calibers. Most people who carried handguns did not shoot with hearing protection, but they probably wanted to preserve their hearing as well.

People didn't hunt with handguns, even small game, because hunting was done as a way to put food on the table during a time when even the wealthier Americans would be considered middle class by todays standards. Hunting was not sport, it was survival. This meant that the ownership of handguns was centered primarily in urban areas and cities, where carrying a rifle would have been illegal, or at the very least, impractical. Most places that allowed the carrying of arms would prohibit open carrying. Back then, the only Semi-Automatic handguns that were available were large, expensive, and unreliable. The ammo for "Automatics" was expensive too, since it had to use smokeless powder AND it had to use that new fangled jacketed ammo. All primers were corrosive, so nobody cared if Black Powder loads were corrosive. Everybody knew that you had to clean your gun after you shot it, even if you only fired once! A revolver could fire Black or Smokeless powder with ease.

Since Semi-Autos were not yet popular, most people carried revolvers, and the size of the cylinder on a revolver is directly tied to the size of the caliber and the number of rounds which was almost always 5 or 6 for serious cartridges. People wanted something they could carry in their pocket that would be safe and reliable, and a revolver fit the bill for a great many. This meant that thin and powerful guns, like a modern semi-auto, were not commonplace.

Clothing was heavier, as it was intended to be more durable and last longer than clothes do today. Also, a great many places were poorly insulated and not well heated, so more layers of clothing would have been worn even in moderate temperatures. This meant that all that was necessary for concealment was that the gun not be so heavy that it caused your coat to sag on one side. Printing would be pretty unlikely if you had a gun in your vest pocket and a coat over that, and then perhaps an overcoat on top of that in winter.

Small towns were much smaller then, and if there was some outsider wandering around, people would know who it was that mugged you. People in more rural areas would just use their hunting guns for defense, should the need for defense arise. Nobody picks a Handgun when a Shotgun is present, as true now as it was then.

Everybody knew veterans of the War Between the States, and you could always tell which ones had seen action, because they were almost always nearly deaf. America was a society that had come to abhor violence as pointless and futile, as a great many of those veterans were horribly disfigured and many of them were missing limbs and appendages.

The main way that the power of cartridges were tested were penetration into Pine Wood Planks. Penetration was all that mattered, expansion likely being without consideration of any kind. By the standards of penetration, even a .32 S&W Long will out penetrate a .36 Navy Caliber Cap and Ball pistol and will usually perform as well or better than a .44 Army Caliber C&B Pistol. Again, since almost everybody knew someone who'd been on the receiving end of Percussion Revolvers in the War Between the States, there was no doubt to there efficacy.

All that being said, I would state the following about late 19th and early 20th century handguns:
1. Guns that were not excessively loud were more popular with everyone.
2. Handgun hunting was not popular, since hunting was done more for sustenance than sport back then.
3. Mostly city dwellers had to worry about crime, and they were the ones most likely to carry handguns.
4. They were considered powerful enough because they were as powerful as Cap and Ball Pistols.
5. Violence was probably considered far less acceptable to most people, so the idea of carrying a “Man Killing” caliber was probably considered barbarous. They didn't have the knowledge or the wealth of statistics that we enjoy now, nor did they have the variety of calibers to choose from.

[NoZombies]

This thread is getting interesting... And I was thinking that the 32 ACP would probably be a better candidate for a .17 caliber bullet and a box magazine.... I wonder how a 1903 colt in 17/32 ACP would do?

:D

I tend to agree with a lot of what's being said here, especially the comments that say that having any handgun is better than none at all. I tend to carry a .45 with handloads, but I've thought about a .32 revolver as a light carry piece for hotter weather months here in FL. I've got loads for the .32 long that shoot at 1100 FPS from my 3" revolver, and I'd bet that they'd put quite a hurt on a bad guy, especially since I practice head shots at 15 yards with any pistol I might carry. If I can't empty the cylinder or magazine in quick order into the 4" head circle of a silhouette target at that range, I find a load that I can, or don't carry the gun.

If I can find a stainless 32 snubbie for a price I can justify, I'll probably carry one in the summer when I'm wearing shorts and flip-flops.

[HammerMTB]

I will say this about the subject:
I have seen enough terminal ballistics to know there are some cartridges that deliver significantly more stopping power than others, this should be self-evident. I have been in altercations where deadly force was justified. Why would I deliberately handicap myself and put my loved ones at greater risk by carrying a less powerful round? I want the biggest cartridge that I can handle well, meaning put rounds on target efficiently. Tho I have a .32 (Auto) I don't think of it as a carry weapon, it is a curio (1903 Colt)
It has been said by those who have studied the matter at length, that if the caliber starts with a 4, it's enough. That is my standard.
Those that want to carry something small, put themselves at risk, not me. If your life is only worth a .32, you'd know better than I. :veryconfu

[Wayne Smith]

Facinating thread. Thank you for starting it, Molly. About the only thing I can add is how common carring a firearm was around the turn of the last century. There was a prize fight in New York City and John Jones (? I know the last name was Jones) was fighting. It was announced that all weapons would be confiscated at the doors prior to the fight. This was in all the advertisements for the fight, I understand. When all was done and over they discovered that they had confiscated more firearms than there were people attending the fight!

This basically means that everybody carried, men and women, and some carried more than one gun that they were willing to loose.

[Bullshop]

Think about this when you think about how effective the gambler guns were.
In the old days before modern medicine it was common to die from infection. If you took a lil 32 in the guts you were in big trouble. The death you would die would be very painful and slow. I believe that was the terror of the little gambler type guns, the thought of a very slow very painful death. Some of the guns that were used then to deter conflict we may laugh at now like a tiny derringer shooting a 22 short.
Take the 22 short in the middle today and as long as you can get some medical attention before too long your likely going to be OK. The same 22 short in 1870 and even with a doctor sitting in at the poker table wouldn't do you much good. After a couple days you may be begging for someone to finish you off.
That thought would surely make a person not want to look down the business end of one of those.
For today they wouldn't get much respect though. That said I do carry a single six in 32 mag when I go to town, that or a single six 22 ccm. My back up is a Bond arms 45/410.

[9.3X62AL]

I'm no Facklerite. If Doctor Death's idea of an effective self-defense round is the 9 x 19 with a 147 grain JHP @ 950 FPS.......he spends too much time in front of a computer and too little in E.R.s and morgues.

I shoot a whole lot of 30-32 caliber handguns. Several thousand rounds per year. Love 'em! They are primarily recreational devices for me, though--paper, steel, and smaller varmints absorb their hits. None of them--from the 32 S&W Long through the 7.62 x 25--are my idea of an ideal carry sidearm caliber.

My most frequent sideiron is a Glock 23 in 40 S&W. S&W Model 19 x 2.5" and 686 x 4" get a lot of carry time also, with 357 Mags on board. Soon to be added is a Commander- or compact-sized 45 ACP. Those 4 units will handle it for me--urban, rural, back-country, vehicle.

[EMC45]

I have a Smith Model 30 3 inch nickle. I have wrote about it here. I paid 140 for it and took some time cleaning it up. I got dies and brass from some kind folks here and have been loading and shooting it since. I have a Lee TL SWC mold and an RCBS RNFP 98gr. mold, also a Lee RN mold too. I have shot several different bullet types through this gun and almost all of my outings with this pistol have been enjoyable and accurate. I would not feel under gunned carrying this for defense at all. If I can put all 6 in the center mass region I am ok. A couple in the eye sockets and it's done. It is light handy and accurate. I have all manner of handguns, from .22 to 44Mag and 45 ACP. 38 specials, 9MM, .357 etc. I have no lack of options. If I chose to carry the .32 Long I will be ok...

[NickSS]

I have owned a lot of hand guns and have tested most of them (at least caliber wise) on live targets. I used to live near and open dump where you could hunt rats to your harts content. I used to do this at night with a handgun and a flashlight. When cought in the light a rat would freeze and look into the light. I would then shoot the critter. I started using a 22 ruger auto with HP ammo. I quickly found out that unless my shot was a head shot it would not necessarily stop the rat and it would run away and might or might not die before finding a hole to hide in. So I tried pistols and revolvers in 25 auto, 32 auto, 32 S&W long, 380 auto, 38 spl, 357 mag, 45 auto, and 44 mag to and kept records of solid body hits to one shot stops. Now this was not very scientific and I had to find my old note book to refreash my memory. But the results were as follows: 22 RF with 37 gr CCI HP bullets one shot stops 35%, 25 auto with FMJ winchester ammo one shot stops 35%, 32 ACP with cast 77 gr hand loads one shot stops 41%, 380 ACP using 120 gr cast LRN one shot stops 42%, 38 spl with LSWC at 900 fps one shot stops 50%, 357 mag loaded with same bullet at 38 but at 1200 fps 60%, 45 auto with 230 gr LRN at 850 fps 61% one shot stops and 44 mag laded with 240 gr LSWC at 1200 fps 71% one shot stops. I only counted rats that I was sure I hit in the body. Some shot with the bigger calibers were actually flipped away and they came down running. From all of this I decided that anything smaller than 38 caliber was not worth carrying for self defense. Now as to all the small 30 and 32 caliber revolvers used by foreign armys they were mostly issued to officers who used them more as a badge of rank than a combat weapon. They were nice and light and when adopted originally most of the nations had not fought a real war in many years. You will note that the US and British armies who did fight wars during the late 1800s bought 45 caliber guns.

[Molly]

>You will note that the US and British armies who did fight wars during the late 1800s bought 45 caliber guns.

True for the US, but the Brits traded in their 455 Webleys for 38/200 revolvers (that's a 38 S&W with a 200g bullet) - a mistake in my opinion, but historical fact nonetheless. Nor did the Brits consider going back to the 45 caliber after their experience with the 38/200 during WWII. It would give American big bore types the galloping shudders, but they seemed to consider it quite adequate.

Are there any British military types out there who could comment on this?

[Piedmont]

Don't know if I'm a British military type but I would like to comment. NickSS is right because of the time frame he referenced. Brits and Americans used .45s until the .38/200 was adopted in 1928 (I think). Of course it would take a while to get the .45s replaced and, make no mistake, .455s were also used in WWII.

Unfortunately there was a transition to the 178 gr. ball ammo before WWII began. I suspect these still tumbled because I saw a picture of a fired bullet that was a hollow base. If the ball 178 was hollow based it would be quite long and would likely still tumble with it's round nose. Unfortunately the jacketed bullet made a slow round even slower. Occasionally they would stick in the barrel! From my reading it appears the concensus on the .38/178 was that it was a poor performer.

I just finished a good book. It is a Samworth publication from the late 1940s called With British Snipers to the Reich. The reason I bring it up is because the author carried a S&W in .380R and as far as he was concerned it and the .38 Enfields were the best WWII handguns and he got to shoot them all because he was a gun nut and got access to toys in 1944, 45 and 46 in Europe. I should also mention he never had to shoot anyone with his handgun. Still he thought these .38 revolvers were rugged, reliable, pointed well, and were powerful enough.

[Bullshop]

I recently read an article about ww1 trench fighters. These men volunteered for the duty of cleaning out trenches behind enemy lines. They would sneak into the enemy trench and take out troops one at a time as they worked thier way through the trench.
For volunteering for this job they were relieved of all other duties. Life expectancy of volunteers was usually short. The thing I found interesting was the choice of weapons. The dagger was the most used weapon and second was a French made 32 auto.

[Piedmont]

Bullshop reminded me of something I read in a WWI book a couple of years ago. The Brits found the men who volunteered for hazardous duty like that tended to be older and married. This puzzled them. Captured papers from the Germans later confirmed that the same was the case for their men. It was concluded the older men were somewhat disillusioned with life, whereas the younger men had these dreams of the family and job and everything would be wonderful.

Doesn't say much for matrimony, does it?

[Molly]

Hmmm. Are we drifting just a bit from the topic of the .32 S&W Long as a man-stopper?

[EDK]

The military primarily uses a handgun for MPs, a badge of rank for officers, and a secondary weapon for crew served weapons.

Military theory is that a wounded person requires assistance...wound someone and take other personnel who are caring for them out of the fight also. A body is a sanitation problem, but requires minimal care.

Jeff Cooper made some remarks about the difference between STOPPING and KILLING someone...think about what you wish to achieve.

My limited personal experience was several individuals who had minor wounds from 22 LR or 22 Magnum revolvers. One individual was shot several times in the torso with a 22 LR...didn't kill him, but pretty much ruined his health...never was 100% afterwards and died of generally poor health several years later. The 22 Magnum incident was a bullet in the leg....beat the h*** out of the estranged wife who caught him "honky tonking" and shot him...then went to hospital. Permanent limp and an expensive divorce.

The Europeans have a tradition of small caliber guns for police forces. The British used big bores when they had an empire and dealt with the Afghans, Zulus, etc. in situations like US forces dealing with the Moros in the Phillipines.

:Fire::cbpour::redneck:

[NoZombies]

:popcorn:

[Bass Ackward]

I'm no Facklerite. If Doctor Death's idea of an effective self-defense round is the 9 x 19 with a 147 grain JHP @ 950 FPS.......he spends too much time in front of a computer and too little in E.R.s and morgues.


Yep. Me either.

Dr Fackler's work comes down to one thing where he talks of a man being shot twice at point plank range in the torso with a shotgun. The attacker never dropped his gun and he turned and walked until he hit an entry door that prevented him from leaving until he eventually slumped down and died. Said he couldn't explain it.

Well I can. First mistake was the defender shooting at the wrong body part because he trusted his shotgun. Then the defender stopped at two shots when he should have launched three. If he was out at two, he should have fed him the gun. It's just that simple.

And no handgun has the stopping power of a 12 ga. So you need to be prepared and not simply educated. Odds are for hunting, NOT self preservation. And just because a guy does eventually end up in the morgue, doesn't mean that he wasn't able to send you there too.

Self defense isn't a gun, it isn't a caliber, it ain't a load, it's an attitude. The willingness to use a gun to places and enough times with the desire to survive.

That's my point. That's why that 32 will work. That's why any gun you have can save you because you aren't trying for a power level or a wound channel, you are going for God's guarantee, NOT Dr Fackler's opinion.

Research like Dr Fackler's is valuable if kept in perspective but it can also give the inexperienced a false sense of security that will get people killed.

[Bret4207]

To follow up on Bass's post above- this argument is another case of "clothes make the man" or "he with the most toys wins". Gear, no matter how tacticool or expensive or big in caliber is not a replacement for attitude. Carry what you want, trust your instincts and stay away from trouble spots.

[Frosty Boolit]

Maybe the trend of smaller calibers in modern miltaries is purely economical. Less lead equals less cost.

[9.3X62AL]

Maybe the trend of smaller calibers in modern miltaries is purely economical. Less lead equals less cost.

Bean counters are everywhere. Sometimes administrative thinking on subjects like caliber/platform selection by using services or police departments is indiscernable. Few better examples of that trait exist than Imperial Russia's adoption in 1895 of the Nagant revolver in 7.62 x 38R. What a contraption, in a ludicrous system, with a lukewarm cartridge.

Bass hit on a fine thought. Attitude is EVERYTHING. 31 caliber bullets that go K5 are a lot better than 45s into the background.

[imashooter2]

Maybe the trend of smaller calibers in modern miltaries is purely economical. Less lead equals less cost.

I've long held the opinion that a lot of that is supply chain driven. You can transport a lot more .223 in a given cargo plane than .308...

[MtGun44]

Foreign militaries NEVER took pistols seriously. They were and are badges of office more
than weapons. Taking what the European armies did with handguns at all seriously is to
waste your time. If they used them at all it was for shooting prisoners and wounded,
in the head at close range.

I support most of what Al has said, and my personal CCW choices overlap somewhat. .45 ACP
LW Commander most of the time, a PF9 Keltech 9mm when I just can't quite conceal the
Commander, and the Keltech P3AT for the times when I "can't conceal a gun at all".

230 Gold dots, 124 Gold dots and 95 gr Gold Dots.

I think the .380 JHPs loaded today are FAR ahead of any of the .32s, and I sincerely hope
that I never have to use the .380 for serious social work. I am, however, firmly convinced
that it will be well ahead of my Swiss Army knife.

I especially like the point of "marking" fleeing felons with a .32 or .38. Excellent point.

Bret is right, too. Avoid places where you think you may need a gun if you can.

Bill

[Molly]

I've been collecting pop bottles and milk jugs to do a little more comparing with. After I get my granddaughters & grandson back home after new years, I plan to do a bit more testing. I'll find out how far the hot loaded .32 Long will penetrate into water, and compare it with the 380, and perhaps the old Keith load for the 38 Spl that roughly duplicates the .357 with 358429 - a real favorite of mine. It'll be a few days though, so wait for it, but don't hold your breath.

[DIRT Farmer]

Just some observations from being required to attend a few social functions.
.25 acp to upper thigh, subject ticked off, worried his soon to be ex wife almost hit his junk. The smacking around stopped.
Several 12 ga. to the head (self inflicted) effective.
22 RF ( most self inflicted ) generaly effective. Hollow points may not penatrate the skull but generaly will knock the person out.
I worked one shooting involving a 45 acp to the torso. Pt lived.
A few shootings with 9mm. one died
Deer hunting accident, gun dropped from stand, firing on impact with ground. 12 ga slug penetrated the buttock, through abd. stopping in shoulder, pt lived.
357 125grn HP range 2 ft one round to sternum, deflected, found in abd. 2nd round glanced off 6th rib between sternum and nipple exited hitting the bicep, lodging aginst the bone.
The only stopping hit that I would count on is the hip/pelvis area. There is heavy mass of bone and muscle to transfur energy, and I never heard of a broken hip being able to walk. There is a lot of empty space in the head with a small area of incapation, Take out the legs and at least they are immobile. I helped work one where a 38 spl through the temple had no real effect other than intence pain.
Just some strange things from 30 + years in EMS, my guess it does not matter what they are hit with, but where they are hit and how many times.

[Rick Hodges]

Jan. 1977 a man with an autoloading rifle pointed it at a fellow officer. He immediately took 7 torso hits from two .357 mags 4 supervel rounds (not mine) and 3 158gr. R/P JHP's all from a range of about 10'. He didn't even blink, managed to point the rifle at my chest before collapsing dead on the floor. His rifle was empty or both of us wouldn't be here today. After a long talk with the medical examiner, he informed me that without a direct hit to the spinal column or brain box an immediately incapacitating shot was not guaranteed by any caliber handgun. The ME was Werner Spitz, he wrote the book on forensic pathology.

Any handgun is better than a sharp stick, me.......I carried a .45 from that day forward. I am a student of Jeff Cooper. 25 yrs. policing in the Detroit Metropolitan area has convinced me that the large caliber is much more likely to stop someone quickly.

[paul s]

.32 will work fine, stick .32 into bad guys ear and pull trigger, should drop him 99% of the time!

[Molly]

Just some observations from being required to attend a few social functions.
.25 acp to upper thigh, subject ticked off, worried his soon to be ex wife almost hit his junk. The smacking around stopped.
Several 12 ga. to the head (self inflicted) effective.
22 RF ( most self inflicted ) generaly effective. Hollow points may not penatrate the skull but generaly will knock the person out.
I worked one shooting involving a 45 acp to the torso. Pt lived.
A few shootings with 9mm. one died
Deer hunting accident, gun dropped from stand, firing on impact with ground. 12 ga slug penetrated the buttock, through abd. stopping in shoulder, pt lived.
357 125grn HP range 2 ft one round to sternum, deflected, found in abd. 2nd round glanced off 6th rib between sternum and nipple exited hitting the bicep, lodging aginst the bone.
The only stopping hit that I would count on is the hip/pelvis area. There is heavy mass of bone and muscle to transfur energy, and I never heard of a broken hip being able to walk. There is a lot of empty space in the head with a small area of incapation, Take out the legs and at least they are immobile. I helped work one where a 38 spl through the temple had no real effect other than intence pain.
Just some strange things from 30 + years in EMS, my guess it does not matter what they are hit with, but where they are hit and how many times.

Thanks Farmer, I particularly value input from actual experiences, and your contribution sure fills that bill.

A couple of notes, if I may. I once read a similar commentary from an intern in a big city hospital ER. I was struck with his note that if someone came in who'd been shot with a 9mm, the staff could generally save them. If they'd been shot with a 38 special, they generally couldn't. He then commented that he carried the .38 special.

And while I recognize that any caliber will produce ocassional failures that are hard to understand, I have to scratch my head when people who advocate loads like the 125g 357 you reported on, but sneer at a .312 bullet only 5 or 10 grains lighter at about the same speed, but having better sectional density (read: better penetration) due to a meager (0.357 - 0.312 =) 0.045 inch diameter difference. I can see that the larger slug could average better stopping power than the .32, but I don't see that the difference is likely to be as large as some folks seem to think.

Thanks too, for the comment that wounds to the head from the .22 LR are generally effective via knockouts. I've still got a lot of Big Bore mentality, and will have to think on that one. I do not doubt your word, but I suppose I lack confidence in myself to be calm and cool enough to aim for the forehead when TSHTF and someone is threatening or actively trying to harm me or mine.

[1Shirt]

A most interesting thread, with very interesting comments. If I were on the receiving end, of being shot, would think that even a BB gun would cause damage (could put an eye out) and that would sure be painful. Dirt farmers comments point out a number of things, the most improtant being that there are just no positives regarding this issue.
Recall a group of deer poachers who were caught who jacklighted deer using 22's, and was told, but can't varify that they were shorts. Think that the little 32 would be a lot of fun, and if it were all I had for defense, it would of course be adequate. That said, I like my bedside 357, and my side by side 20g. cyl & cyl, and 1 oz loads of #7 1/2 Shot. This has made for some good reading however, and like most of the things on this forum that are written, there is something to learn from those who write their thoughts.
1Shirt!:coffeecom

[9.3X62AL]

Good point, Molly--concerning the 357 x 125 vs. the 327 Federal. My own thoughts are......I'd rather not be shot at with EITHER ONE! :) Or, better yet--NONE OF THE ABOVE!

What is "best".......very tough question. Lotta choices out there, and many more good ones than 30 years ago thanks to advances in bullet technology and the addition of the 40 S&W. But I agree with with Dr. Spitz wholeheartedly, that reliable handgun stopping ability is elusive as h--l, like trying to nail Jello to a wall.

I am greatly influenced by both Cooper and Hatcher, so there are my prejudices out front. As far as "calculations" are concerned, I favor Hatcher's Index over the others. All of these formulae rely on the "squaring" of some ballistic function (velocity, bullet weight, or bullet diameter) to arrive at a finding. Hatcher's IRSP squares the element (bullet diameter) that is actually "squared" naturally, and not artifically/on faith. Thus, it strikes me as a more reliable constant. The Index also provides for bullet shape function to some degree. In my experience in dealing with hundreds of GSW cases as an investigating officer, Hatcher's Index and its predictions track fairly well with street realities, but by no means would I call the formula conclusive or scientifically reliable.

I view Hatcher Scale in the same context as a long-range weather forecast--it provides guidelines for how to pack for a trip, but won't always keep you dry in a cloudburst. Caliber choice.......same story. Bring the raincoat, but seek shelter whenever possible.

[45 2.1]

Dr. Martin Fackler (President of the International Wound Ballistics Assoc.) has long championed permanent cavity volume as the only reliable indicator of 'stopping power'. He has stated (words to the effect) that the temporary wound cavity so often dramaticly photographed is without value in incapacitation unless it infringes the heart or central nervous system. He has also said that expanding bullets waste a lot of energy in generating the expansion that produce the temporary wound cavity. I suspect a lot of people here will disagree with that.

Most assuredly................. It seems like he doesn't get out in the real world. I use the 32 ACP extensively and have hollow point molds for it. The difference in "effect" on hitting an animal is astounding. I presume the good doctor would like the energy lost to be used in full penetration so it can be "wasted" in the hillside behind the human or animal. I much prefer it wasted in the animal.

[9.3X62AL]

Most assuredly................. It seems like he doesn't get out in the real world. I use the 32 ACP extensively and have hollow point molds for it. The difference in "effect" on hitting an animal is astounding. I presume the good doctor would like the energy lost to be used in full penetration so it can be "wasted" in the hillside behind the human or animal. I much prefer it wasted in the animal.

+1 to 45-2.1's statement, concerning the 32 ACP or S&W Long. The 71 FMJ or 98 LRN aren't real decisive on jackrabbits, but a Truncated Cone or SWC really changes the game. I haven't used HPs very much in either caliber, apart from some 60 grain Gold Dots @ 1000 FPS from my Walther PP. DEVASTATING on little critters. Even the old Silvertips @ 875-900 FPS from the PP did a lot better than the ball ammo. I would imagine a cast HP would be at least as good as the Gold Dots.

Terminal ballistics remains a lot more art than science, though we have a better handle on it now than 30 yards ago. That does NOT mean we have it "handled"--but we are a few baby-steps closer to that goal.

[DIRT Farmer]

Things to consider, And remember, 1, I ditched my notes when HIPPA came in, as they could have been considered Pt records. 2 the second part is as told to me by another officer.
I again almost all self inflicted so the range was close. The only stopper from my obersverations is a shot load. People regularly kill them selves with anything, some are amazingly enterprising, but most use motor vehicles. I only had one scene where the subject didnot move from the place they were when they used small shot, and #9s are not unusual to be used but IIRC, the range was 4s to 9s. the exception was 00 buck to the head, contact on the chin. Nasty and groady, but not fatal.
The other was an officer who I shot with who worked in the combat zone in Baltimore, He told me they used #9s for entry, always fatal, never kill the people in the next room.
As for my carry, the PPK 380 is the most common with Gold Dot. House gun is a 870 deer gun with 4 buck after a high brass 6.
As Molly stated above, the presence of a fire arm and the determination to use it is generaly more effective than the size of the bore.
Officers who regularly tick off bad guys by serving them warrents do seem to prefur the 45acp with light weight hollow points. My 1911 or Sig 220 are noticable most of the time, although they are carried.
To the point, will a 32 stop an attack, in my guess, yes if the shot is put into a heavy joint. I have helped x-ray pts with slugs in the head who were still combative. The comments on head shots, unless you can hit a walnut and know where the top of the brain stem is, and can make the shot repetabley, pick a big heavy target area, then the caliber will not much matter.

[Dannix]

Dr Fackler's work comes down to one thing where he talks of a man being shot twice at point plank range in the torso with a shotgun. The attacker never dropped his gun and he turned and walked until he hit an entry door that prevented him from leaving until he eventually slumped down and died. Said he couldn't explain it.
Perhaps that was bird shot? Maybe even if it was something heavier, it may have been from a longer barrel and had no chance to spread at all? You know for sure that it was 12ga?


I think the .380 JHPs loaded today are FAR ahead of any of the .32s, and I sincerely hope that I never have to use the .380 for serious social work. I am, however, firmly convinced that it will be well ahead of my Swiss Army knife.
From what I researched when looking for a BUG, that's right on the money. HPs in 32ACP is not a prudent route. It's an FN boolit gun, and the only thing I'd recommend for 32ACP is the BulletBore FN, unless you cast your own. Last I checked, Hornaday's Critical Defense for .380ACP is the best thing going for .380ACP by a significant margin. It was really hard to come by during "the great scare" a little while ago, as was the LCP.

[Piedmont]

My fear with the little rounds is that they won't penetrate enough with expanding bullets. In the Miami shootout in the '80s didn't a Silvertip (from a .357 if I remember right) stop just short of the heart? You read about bullets that penetrate lots of gelatin being stopped in 2.5-3" in a shoulder. What if you hit the guy's hand or arm that is shooting at you?

So expansion is great if you get a clear path into the ribcage, but when I see these bullet failures I think, "hardball probably would have killed that guy". You only know after the fact if the extra penetration was wasted. There is a fellow on several of the internet forums named Eric and he has a signature line to his posts that goes something like: "Placement is king. Penetration is queen, and everything else is how many angels can dance on the head of a pin." That always struck me as a smart way of looking at gunfights.

[Molly]

This post is not only a ripoff from some recent correspondence, but is slightly off topic as well: Has nothing to do with the .32 Long, but it does bear on stopping power, and I thought it would interest folks here too.

Here goes: You know, there is another option that could be worth considering. An arrow does its worst damage via penetration too, and it really excells at penetration. So much so that no practical armor was ever devised to protect a soldier against an arrow strike. Anything heavy enough to stop an arrow was too heavy to walk around with.

But they DID come up with a way to sharply reduce the damage from an arrow: A simple heavy silk undershirt. The silk was so strong that the arrow point simply couldn't pierce it. The silk was pulled into the wound along with the arrow, but it quickly stopped the arrow after an inch or two of penetration. Wrapped around the edges of the arrowhead too, and stopped the cutting action. The result was a very sore soldier, but one that lived to fight another day instead of bleeding to death in a few minutes.

That is historical fact, and I see no reason that the basic idea couldn't be put to use today. Buy a genuine silk scarf for the lady in your life, and get a couple more for yourself. Use safety pins to attach them to the inside of your undershirt. For that matter, you should be able to come up with a bit of Kevlar cloth today, to serve the same purpose. Wouldn't be as good as a Kevlar vest, but wouldn't be as expensive or hot to wear either. Wouldn't hurt, and might help a lot! Ought to be fairly decent protection against knife thrusts too.

[Molly]

"Placement is king. Penetration is queen, and everything else is how many angels can dance on the head of a pin."

Amen!

[Dannix]

I see no reason that the basic idea couldn't be put to use today. Buy a genuine silk scarf for the lady in your life, and get a couple more for yourself. Use safety pins to attach them to the inside of your undershirt. For that matter, you should be able to come up with a bit of Kevlar cloth today, to serve the same purpose. Wouldn't be as good as a Kevlar vest, but wouldn't be as expensive or hot to wear either. Wouldn't hurt, and might help a lot! Ought to be fairly decent protection against knife thrusts too.
That's a really intriguing idea. It's so simply that it's brilliant. I wonder if this would be a more effective defense against larger, slower moving calibers, than smaller, faster ones, and if there is a difference in effectiveness just how great it would be. Or if the greater inertia of a heavier bullet choice would help the bullet punch through. Maybe FN's could be honed to crisp, sharp edge could counter it though. Maybe a dual layer shirt would be idea, silk as the inside layer, kevlar as the outside.

[9.3X62AL]

"Placement is king. Penetration is queen, and everything else is how many angels can dance on the head of a pin."

Succint and accurate summation. I like it!

One of the rationale points for the Soviets/Russians to adopt the 5.45 x 18 PSM pistol caliber over the 9mm Makarov was the smaller caliber's enhanced potential to defeat layered clothing--assisted by steel-cored penetrator-equipped bullets. And, again we see the use of same caliber pistol barrels as the using services' rifle rounds--presumably to expedite and simplify manufacturing. This is another example of a pistol caliber that likely does its best work on targets going away rather than oncoming.......but those in charge of such choice-makings seldom have to live (or die) with the results of those selections.

[Molly]

>those in charge of such choice-makings seldom have to live (or die) with the results of those selections.

Yet another "Succinct and accurate summation!" I like it!!!!

You know, it occurs to me what that I've done is to open up yet another chapter in the unending argument of bullet velocity vs bullet weight. With seemingly endless permutations of bullet nose shape, flat point vs hollow point vs diameter (and on and on and on). It is fascinating to reflect on, but sometimes one side is defended with more enthusiasm than with facts.

Sometimes it helps to run an argument out to the point of absurdity. You can frequently learn something. At the very least, it can make you re-evaluate the accuracy of your position. In this case, I wonder what choices we would make if we had to choose between an adversary armed with guns that shoot sewing needles at say 5,000 fps or with guns that fired 45 ACP? The needle will have almost no point or diameter. It wouldn’t be slowed much by the impact, so it shouldn’t leave much energy behind as it passes, but what it leaves could be traumatic. The 45 ACP could be stopped by a Kevlar vest, and impart ALL of its energy, but without penetration.

Would the needles generate massive systemic disruption from velocity induced cavitations, or would they just punch a pinpoint hole through the Kevlar vest (and you) that would hardly bleed? We see this every day with hypodermic needles that penetrate with little injury, but they are admittedly a poor comparison because they are not supersonic. Best I can think of though...

Assuming the 45 ACP is stopped on the Kevlar vest, would it just leave you with a sore chest, or could it still cause shock and fatality through the transmitted impact? A baseball bat might produce a fatality from transmitted impact without any penetration.

Absurd? You betcha! So park reality in the garage, and decide which foe would you rather face. Would you rather receive penetration without impact, or impact without penetration, and why?

[Molly]

That's a really intriguing idea. ... I wonder if this would be a more effective defense against larger, slower moving calibers, than smaller, faster ones, and if there is a difference in effectiveness just how great it would be. Or if the greater inertia of a heavier bullet choice would help the bullet punch through. Maybe FN's could be honed to crisp, sharp edge could counter it though. Maybe a dual layer shirt would be idea, silk as the inside layer, kevlar as the outside.

Hi Dannix,

Remember, this is all speculation. I think it's REASONABLE speculation, but it's still just speculation. It's the sort of thing one might select if real trouble is a remote possibility, but not a serious probability.

If real trouble is a serious possibility, I'd recommend a full Kevlar vest, the full staff of the local police and hospital ER departments, and a squad of husky marines to suppliment the M1 Garand you take just because it feels so comforting.

That said, I have to add that it seems such a logical and reasonable measure, and would be so easy and cheap to impliment, that I can see no real reason not to give it a try. It won't give you the protection of the kevlar vest with the police and marines, but it should be a lot better than your shiny pink and precious hide at turning or minimizing antisocial manifestations.

[geargnasher]

To follow up on Bass's post above- this argument is another case of "clothes make the man" or "he with the most toys wins". Gear, no matter how tacticool or expensive or big in caliber is not a replacement for attitude. Carry what you want, trust your instincts and stay away from trouble spots.

Whh, What? I didn't say nuthin' here!

But since you drug me into it ;-) here's my approach. I can kill you with my bare hands in the right situation and if I had the will to do it. I can do the same with a knife, stick, rock or gun. If, god forbid, I find myself fighting for my life, I hope that I have sufficient mental preparation to instinctively use the best weapon available to me, but who knows. I've only been in one serious self-defense situation and I emptied my Kimber into the face and chest of a 120lb dog at point-blank range. I learned two things: One, when in total freak-out mode I was able to effectively deploy and fire my gun, not always what happens with people who carry. I didn't know I'd run it dry until the trigger stopped responding, at which point I thought it jammed so I did a tap, rack, OH! and quickly reloaded. I didn't come back to reality until I dropped the slide again, and still have no memory of actually shooting. The other thing I learned, a .45 ACP has enough energy to halt the forward progress and, in midair, reverse the direction of a lunging 120lb mass. If that had been a human lunging at me with a knife, he wouldn't have made it because he would have been flipped over backwards, even if it took him six months to die from the gunshot wounds. Being able to physcially reverse forward momentum or knock an attacker flat on his back is paramount to me. While any trained person can use a .22 rimfire pistol to great effect, that effect may not be as immediate as needed, but is a heck of a lot better than a bare fist. You carry what you like, I'll pack a .45.

Gear

[MtGun44]

Physically impossible to 'stop and reverse direction of 120 lb mass'. If you set up a 120
lb log and shoot it with a .45 ACP it will not move more than 1/4". Sorry, but the laws
of physics will be strictly enforced. The recoil would knock you down if the impact could
do that.

Bill

[DIRT Farmer]

When Kevelar was first brought out for general issue we were tought to treat as a penetrating wound. The hydrolic wave from an impact from a poor fitting or loose fiting vest was the fear. I can see when the wave passes through fluid filled or solid organs fractures or ruptures could result. A properly fitted and worn vest supports itself.

One place where the vest has saved the most lives is in crashes. The reason bull riders wear vests is to spread impacts to the torso.

Molly, we will be butchering again in a few weeks, in the interest of research, I think I will use the S&W 30-1 with the standard bullet. It will most likely not prove anything on a head shot. I do know that a LR HP 22 will not penatrate a hogs skull while a standard short will.

[45 2.1]

For that matter, you should be able to come up with a bit of Kevlar cloth today, to serve the same purpose. Wouldn't be as good as a Kevlar vest, but wouldn't be as expensive or hot to wear either. Wouldn't hurt, and might help a lot! Ought to be fairly decent protection against knife thrusts too.

I have lots of Cop friends.......... during the introduction of the new Kevlar vests, they all had samples and some vests they wanted tested. Due to the advertising hype, a lot of bets were made as to nothing could get thru their vests. One afternoon they all got a drastic lesson in penetration capabilities of various things and lost their money. Don't believe all you read.......... some very simple ideas do nasty things.

[Molly]

I have lots of Cop friends.......... during the introduction of the new Kevlar vests, they all had samples and some vests they wanted tested. Due to the advertising hype, a lot of bets were made as to nothing could get thru their vests. One afternoon they all got a drastic lesson in penetration capabilities of various things and lost their money. Don't believe all you read.......... some very simple ideas do nasty things.

Well 45 2.1,

It sounds like you have information that a lot of us would like to hear. Write us a magazine article.

[Bret4207]

Whh, What? I didn't say nuthin' here!

But since you drug me into it

BASS as in Bassackwards.

[Bret4207]

Well 45 2.1,

It sounds like you have information that a lot of us would like to hear. Write us a magazine article.

No, that just lets the bad guys in on more ideas. It's pretty well known these days what will go through street level body armor. No need to put more ideas in the heads of those who would do harm.


Way OT, but that's one of the things I hate most about TV shows, Nobody ever wears a vest till they go on a raid. Then they wear it on the outside. To anyone with common sense that just screams "SHOOT ME IN THE HEAD!!!!" Even a dumb hick cop like me could figure that out.

[gray wolf]

Well there has been quite a lot said here but I am still stuck on page one.
Can't get my mind off that 45 ACP that only went through one milk jug ?????????
I have done many Milk jug tests and have gotten penetration through Three (3) jugs every time, and thats with the jugs standing up rite.
If my math is correct that's about 18" penetration.
Three jugs with a 45 ACP MiHeck HP and a big dent in the wood behind the last jug.
The slug could cover a 25 cent piece. I had the Pic. posted here some time ago.
That said, my choice is a 45 ACP, and that was way before I shot milk jugs.
All of the comments and post have been very interesting. I enjoyed all the input.
I hinted to Julie that if she has to go to her 32 ACP backup gun
She might consider emptying the mag.

[Doc1]

Thanks Farmer, I particularly value input from actual experiences, and your contribution sure fills that bill.

A couple of notes, if I may. I once read a similar commentary from an intern in a big city hospital ER. I was struck with his note that if someone came in who'd been shot with a 9mm, the staff could generally save them. If they'd been shot with a 38 special, they generally couldn't. He then commented that he carried the .38 special.

And while I recognize that any caliber will produce ocassional failures that are hard to understand, I have to scratch my head when people who advocate loads like the 125g 357 you reported on, but sneer at a .312 bullet only 5 or 10 grains lighter at about the same speed, but having better sectional density (read: better penetration) due to a meager (0.357 - 0.312 =) 0.045 inch diameter difference. I can see that the larger slug could average better stopping power than the .32, but I don't see that the difference is likely to be as large as some folks seem to think.

Thanks too, for the comment that wounds to the head from the .22 LR are generally effective via knockouts. I've still got a lot of Big Bore mentality, and will have to think on that one. I do not doubt your word, but I suppose I lack confidence in myself to be calm and cool enough to aim for the forehead when TSHTF and someone is threatening or actively trying to harm me or mine.



I would note that medical staff - to include ER staff - are not often the best people to glean firearms knowledge from. From my experience, an awful lot of these people simply have little or no real firearms expertise and it seems an unusually high percentage are anti-gun. Further, I suspect ERs have their own folklore and mythology, as does virtually any working environment.

Other than possibly identifying .22 entrance wounds, I'd suspect no doctors or nurses would be able to tell the difference between .38 Spl and 9mm wounds...or any other handgun caliber...in the ER environment. This usually requires significant forensics or autopsy examination.

Further complicating the picture is that a surprising number of police officers aren't very knowledgeable about firearms, either. I can easily imagine scenarios where, for example, a victim is shot with any caliber revolver. Cops on the scene - and in the immediate confusion - see a revolver. This is translated into "a .38." One cop is talking shop with an ER nurse or doctor - who is completely clueless - and mentions that the victim was shot with a .38 and this becomes incorporated into the ER mythology. It would not matter if the actual wound was caused by a .32, .44 Spl. or a .44 Mag!

Similarly, how on Earth is an ER Doc going to tell the difference between a 9mm wound and a .40 S&W wound, especially if the bullet isn't in the patient's body? Even assuming the bullet is found in the ER, I suspect few doctors are going to be able to immediately identify it.

The ER docs are concerned with saving the patient. Their interests in what bullet caused the trauma would be tangential at best.

Best regards
Doc

[Bass Ackward]

Perhaps that was bird shot? Maybe even if it was something heavier, it may have been from a longer barrel and had no chance to spread at all? You know for sure that it was 12ga?


Does it really matter?

No one wants to visit the ugliness of this type of scenario in their mind. The images are so terrible that we pay others to provide our safety and have since long ago. This "warm fuzzy" will put "your" mind at ease (in an unprepared state) so that you can avoid the nasty reality of REALITY of addressing / planning for what it takes from you for self preservation.

Want to trust a big gun? Fine, entirely natural. Is it with you now? Will it be with you then? Then what good is it? Better to have a small gun in your pocket and do the mean, terrible, and nasty things required to make it work. Then if you have the bigger one, you are ready huh?

[45 2.1]

Well 45 2.1, It sounds like you have information that a lot of us would like to hear. Write us a magazine article.

No................................




No, that just lets the bad guys in on more ideas. It's pretty well known these days what will go through street level body armor. No need to put more ideas in the heads of those who would do harm.

I would have to agree with Bret here.

[Molly]

Can't get my mind off that 45 ACP that only went through one milk jug ????????? I have done many Milk jug tests and have gotten penetration through Three (3) jugs every time, and thats with the jugs standing up rite. If my math is correct that's about 18" penetration.

Hi Wolf,

I have to admit raising my eyebrows when I read that, but I took it at face value because I'd never run that test. But it's what the article reports. I dunno. Maybe he had some old WWI ammo, or maybe his milk jugs have inch thick walls and bottoms.

FWIW, Dale53 and I are accumulating pop bottles and milk jugs for our own tests as soon as the weather is decent. (It may be a month or two. Dale suffers badly from serious freezophobia!) I'm sure he will want to include one of his 45's in the test, and I'll post our results when we get them done.

[MakeMineA10mm]

This seems to be a polite and intelligent stopping power discussion disguised as a thread about the 32 Long! :mrgreen:

As far as stopping power goes, a lot of people have made a LOT of really good points so far. Not much in the way of bad information or mis-information that I can see. That's impressive for a stopping power thread that's made it to four pages!

I've been a Dpty Coroner now for 11 years, and have seen my fair share of shootings. The majority are self-inflicted, but a significant number have not been. I've also attended the autopsies and had the benefit of our lead forensic pathologist being a gun-guy, resulting in a lot of educational discussions and deeper investigation into the GSWs we had on the morgue table than is probably given by the usual pathologist.

That all said, I can tell you a few principles that I've learned:

1) It's the rare person who has anywhere near enough experience with real shootings to have this all figured out. I sure don't, and I suggest you regard with a strong dose of skepticism and suspicion anyone who does.

(That said, my opinion of Dr. Fackler is that he WAS on the right track. When he started, he identified three principles about stopping power: 1-shot placement - hits to CNS = instant incapacitation, hits to heart/aorta/vena cava/carotid = near-instant incapacitation, hits anywhere else equals whatever time it takes for that wound to bleed; 2-psychological factors - he cited an incident from the old west where a person was hit in the leg with a survivable wound but died soon thereafter due to believing he would die as well as several other incidents where people did not give up, even though they had devastating wounds and lived; 3-Bleed-out - based on the third aspect of the shot-placement issue, he started measuring bullets' permanent wound channels and penetration distances. Because shot placement is beyond his control [in the control of the shooter] and psychological effects were beyond his control [in the control of the shootee] or quantification [because no one can quantify it], he focused only on what he could quantify, which is wound ballistics. In turn this has become so overblown that the other two principles have been lost out of sight, and all anyone talks about is wound cavity... I still respect his work and his opinions, but their not the be-all, end-all "gospel" of stopping power.)

2) Because of all the unknowns, I don't believe 100% in any of the current standards of measuring stopping power. Permanent Wound Channel, Energy transfer, etc., all have some basis in fact and are measurable, but witness enough shootings, and it won't take long to learn that these "principles" don't apply almost as much as they seem to apply. Not very good statistical proof, is it?

3) Due to all of these experiences, I fall into agreement with most tactical (real life law enforcement, not tacticool) trainers I've worked with in law-enforcement: shoot as big a caliber as you can carry and shoot well, watch the front site and keep it on the center of mass (because bad hits are always better than fast/unaimed misses), keep shooting until the threat is gone. These do not solve every problem, but they come as close as we can with a handgun, which leads to point number 4:

4) If I know I'm going into a fight, I use: at close range, a shotgun with medium-sized buckshot (#1); or at long-range, a rifle. Handguns need not apply. They are compromises we carry, because we can't always have a long-gun on us. (And, that leads me back to the "alleged" real point of this thread... :mrgreen: )


As far as the 32 Long goes, there have been numerous posts already that make really good sense, including the mentality of getting shot back in those days (fear of being shot and dying a slow death from infection was more important than actual incapacitation value, at least in civilized nations), the purpose of marking "fleeing felons," and a few others. There are a few points I'd make that I haven't seen so far (but I read this long thread kind-of quickly, so apologies if I missed it):

A) People were smaller way back when. I remember my granpa and great uncles and aunts all being smaller than my dad and later generations. I've seen some good data correlating this to modern changes in health care and quality of food (inherently, storage, and preparation) which happened to occur around WWII. Smaller people means a smaller caliber is just as effective. 32s back in the 10s and 20s were probably ubiquitous for the same reason 38s were in the 50s and 60s in law enforcement work... (Note that 38s became more popular with the rise of organized crime during prohibition and the depression. That's when the firepower war started between LE and bad-guys. That transition from victorian era to gangster era is also why the early gangsters wore suits and tried real hard to look like businessmen -- they were still trying to fit into the waning victorian convictions, because "lying low" was smart then, just as today...)

B) My wife and I both have past relatives who were in law enforcement in that time period, and the mentality of law enforcement was different back then too. Nowadays people call us because the neighbor's dog is barking and annoying them. Back in the old days, people would go over and talk to the neighbor. (What a concept!!) Not to mention this was the Victorian era when societally people were much more concerned with behaving in a "civilized" manner. In that society and law enforcement atmosphere, police had a more laissez faire attitude and only got involved when really needed. Somebody was fighting down at the bar? Well, as long as it wasn't an ambush and the people weren't hurting others or each other too bad, it was hands off... Kind of like a referee at a hockey game; only stepping in when it was really needed. In that kind of atmosphere, police attitudes were not as equipment oriented or intervention oriented as things are today. Therefore, the need for a "cannon" wasn't seen as very necessary.

C) Most police agencies which carried 32s were Eastern-US, which also feeds into the point above, as the eastern US was seen as "civilized" and not needing the strong interventionism... In addition, one cannot discount the factor the powers-in-charge would think about their troops opening fire with large-caliber weapons in a city. Wouldn't want the officers shooting at a bad guy hitting two kids in the tennament across the way because that big ol' 45 bullet just keeps on plowing through... This is in contrast to a lot of the Western US, where it was the tail-end of the "wild west" and a lot of officers still carried 45 SAAs. (See Elmer Keith's "Hell, I was there" for a good description of a shoot-out in Montana in the late 1800s.)

D) In addition to a lot of the ballistics comments already made by others, I would pull you back to thinking about the effect of a soft-lead bullet. That was the JHP of the 1800s and early 1900s. Still would expand, even at slow velocities. This made the 32 Long from back then more like a 38 Short w/ hardcast bullets we might shoot today -- both would cut about the same path in a body... (But of course, the 38 Short was loaded with soft bullets back in those days, too...) So, there is some genuine stopping power benefits to the 32 there that go beyond what we might think considering most of shoot fairly hard WW boolits today (hard enough at least that they won't expand without HPs at the slow velocities of 800fps or less).


In conclusion, I think the 32 Long was a good cartridge for it's application (Eastern US, metropolitan police and self-defense work) and it's day (when people were smaller and attitudes were different - both as far as being civilized and the fear of being shot and dying a horribly slow death from infection). Today, so many of these factors are gone that it's not as good a choice. No doubt, the 32 Long can be compared and contrasted with any modern caliber, based on measurable/quantifiable data, however, the question then becomes how effective are these comparisons to correlate to real stopping power effectiveness? Unquestionably, I don't want to be shot, even by a 22 CB cap, but if I'm getting shot no matter what, I'd choose to be shot with the weakest cartridge possible...

In my opinion, I'd carry the biggest thing you can. If I was planning on going into a close-range fight, it would be a 12ga to 20ga medium to small buckshot load (velocity is not important, so "tactical buck" is OK), Long range fight, a rifle, probably something 6.5 to 30 caliber, though my preference would be an intermediate cartridge, like the 6.8SPC or 7.62x39. Carrying a handgun is, IMO, a compromise. It is carried because you can't take a shotgun or rifle to the Friday night football game... Therefore, it depends on what you can conceal. I carry a range of firearms from a 45ACP Glock 21 or 10mm Glock 20 down to a Ruger LCP in 380. Just my opinion again, but I can get a 9mm Glock 26 in the same space as I can a 32 revolver, so I'd choose the G26 over that 32, but that's just me. If you have extra-confidence with your 32 which gives you an advantage in hitting the target, than there's nothing wrong with that choice. Again, I'd carry very soft bullets, perhaps 1 in 25 tin to lead, in a design as heavy as possibly with still being able to get to 750fps, and with a flat point.

Whew! I gotta go lie down now... :coffee: :mrgreen:

[fecmech]

Hi Wolf,

I have to admit raising my eyebrows when I read that, but I took it at face value because I'd never run that test. But it's what the article reports. I dunno. Maybe he had some old WWI ammo, or maybe his milk jugs have inch thick walls and bottoms.

FWIW, Dale53 and I are accumulating pop bottles and milk jugs for our own tests as soon as the weather is decent. (It may be a month or two. Dale suffers badly from serious freezophobia!) I'm sure he will want to include one of his 45's in the test, and I'll post our results when we get them done.

Molly--Many years ago a friend let me use his Lyman "Devastator" 185 gr .45 mold. It has a huge cavity and unknown to me was designed as I understand it for WW metal. I cast some HP's out of 30/1 lead/tin and loaded them over a stiff charge of Unique that the manual said was about 1000 fps. I shot them through plastic gallon jug with a piece of cardboard a couple feet behind to get an idea of the expansion due to bullet hole size. Shot 2 jugs cause I did not believe the first. I found both bullets about an inch in diameter on the ground a couple feet behind the cardboard. It appears they just had enough oomph after exiting the jug to go through 1 layer of cardboard!

[9.3X62AL]

Heckuva post, MMA10mm! Full agreement here.

[rintinglen]

In the Civil war, perhaps people were smaller, my Great Grandfather was 5'5 1/2" tall when he enlisted in the Wisconsin 2nd Cavalry. But the avaerage height of the american enlistee during WW I was 5 ' 9", almost exactly the same as it was for the average draftee during the Vietnam War. Americans have gotten fatter, not taller, at least during the 20th century.
And I'm certainly proof of that.

[mroliver77]

In the Civil war, perhaps people were smaller, my Great Grandfather was 5'5 1/2" tall when he enlisted in the Wisconsin 2nd Cavalry. But the avaerage height of the american enlistee during WW I was 5 ' 9", almost exactly the same as it was for the average draftee during the Vietnam War. Americans have gotten fatter, not taller, at least during the 20th century.
And I'm certainly proof of that.
Hmmm, I was looking through some naturalisation forms from the local courthouse circa 1900. Most of these were men in there 20s to late 30s. "I was surprised that while saome went 6 foot most were 5' 6"ish and 130 -150 lbs. That was me in 5th grade!
Back on topic. I have drained the life ou5t of my share of animals and have been paying attention to detail for the past couple decades. MakeMineA10 most closely reflects my feelings.
Jay

[Dannix]

Again, I'd carry very soft bullets, perhaps 1 in 25 tin to lead, in a design as heavy as possibly with still being able to get to 750fps, and with a flat point.
750 fps. That's an interesting number and a lower fps / heavier boolit combination that I would expect. What convinced you to go heavy and slow for "social purposes"? I understand the rational for game, but my impression was heavy and slow is just asking for overpenetration for social purposes. Are you an advocate of 147gr 9mm loads? Just curious.

My impression was somewhere in the ball park of 1200fps is the target speed for loads for social purposes.

[MakeMineA10mm]

Good question, Dannix. The reason I picked that speed is two-fold:

First, revolvers in 32 Long are frequently (but not always) older and weaker designs. In deferrence to that, I'd not push the velocity envelope. If it's a stronger revolver, we could certainly bump the speed up, but look at my next point first.

Second, with the soft lead bullets I'm advocating (something at or softer than 1/2 & 1/2 WW & Pure lead), we don't want to push velocities either. I'd say, if higher velocity is warranted, I'd bump it up to 850fps or so, but I'd not go above 900fps, due to the potential for leading.

As far as stopping power theories go, like I said, I'm not convinced any of them are 100% right, or even a significant percentage...

That is why I like the 10mm. It's not heavy-slow, or fast-light. It attempts to cover all the bases in a conventional-sized pistol with reasonable recoil. I look at the 10mm as a medium-weight & bore dia. plus high velocity, but it keeps recoil below what you'd get with a 41Mag, 44Mag, or even a 357Mag (marginally, mainly because of the benefits of a semi-auto's recoil-softening, rather than inherent recoil of the cartridges themselves).

Shooting heavy JHP bullets at high velocity in say a 32 Federal would be very interesting to compare to a 10mm, but it does have an inherent bore-diameter weakness, compared to a 10mm. But, for anyone recoil sensitive, that may be the next best thing to a 10mm... And, it's difficult to go much bigger than the 10mm, because if you step up to something like, say, the 45 Super, the recoil starts to really degrade rapidity of accurate, aimed fire.

I really think the 10mm is the ideal balance, as did Jeff Cooper, and so would, I think, Elmer Keith, Bill Jordan, and Skeeter Skelton. Those are four names in handgunning/law enforcement that are difficult to ignore. But, the 10mm is still a pistol, so I'd still rather have a 12ga w/ buckshot! ;)

[Dannix]

with the soft lead bullets I'm advocating (something at or softer than 1/2 & 1/2 WW & Pure lead), we don't want to push velocities either.
Why not just cast up some 2-parters, with the top section at maybe 95%Pb5%Sn, and just use 1-parters for pinking?

There is indeed something nice about an inherent large metplat, rather than having to rely on HP expansion. This is one reason I've decided to not try .327Mag. Sometimes I think I may convert to to 40/10mm, but for social purposes I'm too convinced a good 124gr 9x19mm load is as good as any. One thing I'm very interested in testing is the penetration of a 1200fps FN .45ACP load, where the low weight required to safely reach 1200fps would result in a very low sectional density FN and thereby decreasing penetration. Not sure if it would be a stable projectile though. So many options, so little time.

[9.3X62AL]

Dannix, I share your 9mm preference for the 120-125 grain expanding bullet, driven at 1200-1250 FPS. THAT was my usual carry load until a couple years ago, when my authorizing agency tightened ammo requirements after they signed on for H.R. 218. 9mm carry now requires the 147 sub-sonic, and those d--n rounds aren't even humane for jackrabbit strafing. Hence the Glock 23 and 180 grain SXTs these days.

I only WISH the 10mm was authorized. A more perfect service pistol caliber has yet to be birthed. The Forty Short & Weak gets close, but not quite.

[MakeMineA10mm]

I forgot to mention my other preferrences. As you can infer from what I said (generally in the direction of Molly) about carrying, sometimes I use a 380 or 9mm, due to size/concealment. My thought is, if I am carrying concealed, 999 times out of 1000 I'm off-duty, and I can choose if/when to get involved.

In the 9mm, I really like the Triton Quik-Shok 135gr +P+ going about 1175-1225fps. It's a very wicked load. Core comes apart into three banana-shaped chunks which divert into about a 4" patter from the center of the previous path, and they twist as they go, due to the centrifugal forces from the spin of the bullet. I haven't seen anyone shot by these, but after talking it over with my former chief pathologist and looking at some gelatin data, it appears these are the ultimate loads in terms of shredding flesh and encouraging bleeding. The dispersion also gives one a better chance of hitting something vital, if one's shot is a little off. The developer of the Quik-Shok says it imparts severe shok to the nervous system, but I'm not sure what that means... Don't discount it, just don't know if I believe it's a huge factor in incapacitation. (Again, notice this is a medium-weight, fast-velocity load for the caliber... That is kind-of my thing. -- In 45, I like the 200gr loads, but my agency requires the 230s. Picked properly they're not bad, but I'd like a 200 @ 1000fps instead...)

In the 380, my other primary concealed-carry, I use the Hornady Critical Defense. Those loads have penetration like all get-out AND they still expand, even through barriers. AWFULLY good for such a low-powered round. When it gets down to rounds this weak, penetration becomes more predominate in my mind in order to assure barrier penetration and reasonable body penetration. (Had a guy on the morgue table once who was shot my a 25ACP in the temple, and the bullet went in right above his ear, and then skidded outside his skull but under his skin, all the way around to the other side of his head, coming to rest almost in-line with the entrance wound. He was killed by a subsequent shot that went in the back of his head, just above the neck right into the medulla. But this goes to show you some of the down-sides of the ultra-small calibers.

[Molly]

I don’t think it’s plagiarism if I give full credit, and this sure fits into the topic of this thread, so here goes:

Posted on Graybear Outdoors forum by: LouisianaMan

Quote: Milk jug penetration test results with snubbie .32 SWL and .38 SPL
« on: June 07, 2009, 08:21:31 PM »
Just ran a penetration test on water-filled milk jugs, with caps screwed on, and the 6 jugs taped together with two wraps of duct tape. Range from muzzle to first jug was 10 feet. Temp was about 82 degrees. No attempt was made to tilt guns to seat powder against either primer or bullet.
#1: Colt Detective Special .38 SPL, 2" bbl, with 200g Mt. Baldy LSWC-K, meplat .280 (I think) seated deep and crimped over front shoulder, with 3.4g Win231. (This load and gun previously chrono'ed at 718 fps, thereby trying to ensure similarity to original factory ballistics of 770 fps from 6" bbl. It is modified from "Mikey's load" of 3.8g of the same powder.)
RESULTS: penetrated all 6 jugs and struck nose-first into a 2" x 12" placed behind the last jug, knocking a hole in the board up to the bullet shoulder, then falling out onto the ground while knocking down the 15" long board. Bullet path was arrow-straight, exiting through the tape on the back side of the sixth jug at same relative location as it struck the first jug. All caps remained intact. First two jugs failed at the circular "dimple" molded in the side; all others bulged the dimple outward without causing it to fail. After impact, the row of taped-together jugs toppled over and fell off the two 2"x4" boards I'd placed them upon.

#2: S&W Mod. 30-1, .32 S&W Long, 2" bbl., with 115-grain Hunter's Supply LFP .313 bullet, meplat .220 (I think), seated to crimp groove, with 2.8g Win 231. (This load is based on Ed Harris's loads recommended for strong, modern S&W heat-treated revolvers, keeping sample average at/below 850 fps from 4" bbl. From my 2" bbl., this load chrono's at 770 fps.)
RESULTS: penetrated all 6 jugs and struck nose-first into a 2" x 12" placed behind the last jug, knocking a shallow 1/8" dent in the board, then falling out onto the ground without knocking down the 15" long board. Bullet path was straight until it exited the 5th jug and entered the 6th, deviating about 2" by the time it exited the last jug. This may or may not have been a result of me failing to align my jugs & the shot as exactly as I did with the .38. After impact, the jugs remained atop the two 2"x4" boards they were placed upon. Perhaps that was due to lesser impact force, or perhaps it was because I had shimmed the rather unstable boards before this shot.

Using the "Ballisticians' Corner" formulas provided at Beartooth Bullets website, here is additional info about these loads:
1. Permanent Wound Channel (vel x meplat): .38 is .503"; .32 is .424"
2. Relative Penetration Index (wt. x meplat): .38 is 49.6; .32 is 33.94
3. Thornily Relative Stopping Power (wt. x diameter x vel.): .38 is 35; .32 is 20
4. Taylor Knock-out Power (wt. x vel. x diameter): .38 is 7; .32 is 4.
Also, I calculated the foot-pounds of energy as 229 ft-lbs. for this .38 load, and 151 ft-lbs. for this .32 load.
After we drink some more milk, I'll try the same tests with some other loads. Happy shooting!

End of quote.

[unclebill]

Physically impossible to 'stop and reverse direction of 120 lb mass'. If you set up a 120
lb log and shoot it with a .45 ACP it will not move more than 1/4". Sorry, but the laws
of physics will be strictly enforced. The recoil would knock you down if the impact could
do that.

Bill

i agree

[Molly]

>Originally Posted by MtGun44
>Physically impossible to 'stop and reverse direction of 120 lb mass'. If you set up a 120 lb log and shoot it with a .45 ACP it will not move more than 1/4". Sorry, but the laws of physics will be strictly enforced. The recoil would knock you down if the impact could do that.

This is absolutely correct from the perspective of hard science and physics. But you have misunderstood my use of the term 'manstopper'. I didn't intend it in the sense that a concrete wall is a manstopper, nor in the sense that a howitzer is a manstopper. What I was trying to convey was the notion of a handgun round capable of inflicting sufficient pain and / or physical damage to render the recipient unwilling or incapable of continuing the actions that were sufficiently distressing that you were willing to shoot him rather than allow him to continue.

To me, a 'manstopper' in this context is a round with a sufficiently high combination of factors (energy / mass / penetration / momentum / expansion / fragmentation) to have a reasonably high potential for success in this objective.

Different rounds will provide different combinations of those factors, and can change rankings due to external factors like heavy clothing and adrenaline levels in the recipient. There is thus no firmly quantifiable evaluation possible. Judgment based on logic / experience / prejudice and empirical testing such as wet newspaper, water filled containers and / or ballistic gelatin plays a large role in the very personal decision of what is - or is not - acceptable as a manstopper in a defensive situation.

Are we all clear now?

[MakeMineA10mm]

This is absolutely correct from the perspective of hard science and physics. But you have misunderstood my use of the term 'manstopper'. I didn't intend it in the sense that a concrete wall is a manstopper, nor in the sense that a howitzer is a manstopper. What I was trying to convey was the notion of a handgun round capable of inflicting sufficient pain and / or physical damage to render the recipient unwilling or incapable of continuing the actions that were sufficiently distressing that you were willing to shoot him rather than allow him to continue.
To me, a 'manstopper' in this context is a round with a sufficiently high combination of factors (energy / mass / penetration / momentum / expansion / fragmentation) to have a reasonably high potential for success in this objective.

Different rounds will provide different combinations of those factors, and can change rankings due to external factors like heavy clothing and adrenaline levels in the recipient. There is thus no firmly quantifiable evaluation possible. Judgment based on logic / experience / prejudice and empirical testing such as wet newspaper, water filled containers and / or ballistic gelatin plays a large role in the very personal decision of what is - or is not - acceptable as a manstopper in a defensive situation.

Are we all clear now?

With this you are trying to quantify something that has eluded all persons who have put their mind to the question.

Dr. Fackler pointed out that this IS a factor. First is shot placement - hit the Central Nervous System and the threat stops. Second, is this amorphous, impossible-to-quantify issue of a person just deciding to quit/stop. Third is the bleed-out factor, which Dr. Fackler has glommed onto, because it's relatively easy to quantify.

Is the 32 Long effective for those second-classification "stoppers"?? Sure, just as much as any other caliber, 22 Short to 105mm Howitzer. It kind of falls into the area of, if you like it, USE IT!! [smilie=w:

[Molly]

>With this you are trying to quantify something that has eluded all persons who have put their mind to the question.

If 'stopping power' were quantifiable, this discussion would be pointless. I could just measure or calculate the appropriate value for any given round, and give it an impartial pass / fail grade.

>First is shot placement - hit the Central Nervous System and the threat stops. Second, is this amorphous, impossible-to-quantify issue of a person just deciding to quit/stop. Third is the bleed-out factor, which Dr. Fackler has glommed onto, because it's relatively easy to quantify.

Yeah, I suspect the second factor you list is the biggest ambiguity in any such assessment. "To me, a 'manstopper' in this context is a round with a sufficiently high combination of factors (energy / mass / penetration / momentum / expansion / fragmentation) to have a reasonably high potential for success in this objective." The problem lies in the disagreement of what constitutes a reasonably high potential for success, particularly when handloaded to its full potential.

>Is the 32 Long effective for those second-classification "stoppers"?? Sure, just as much as any other caliber, 22 Short to 105mm Howitzer. It kind of falls into the area of, if you like it, USE IT!!

And here we fall into the same problem of defining reasonable. There are practical limits. Elephants have been recorded as killed with a single shot from a .22 LR handgun ... but I suspect that very few knowlegable hunters would consider a .22 handgun as effective, or as having a 'reasonably high potential for success', no matter how much you might like the .22 LR and/or handguns.

The M1 Carbine was cited in my initial post, just to point out the obvious fact that small caliber rounds still have considerable utility as man stoppers. The M1 carbine has gathered a lot of contempt, but not among WWII pacific theater veterans, where it was quite popular. Except for initial MV, it's quite comparable to the .32 long in diameter and bullet shape and weight. Published velocities for it are: Velocity: Muzzle 1580; 100 yd. 1293; 200 yd. 1093; 300 yd. 976; 400 yd. 896; 500 yd. 832 fps.

Many commercial 32 long loads are rather anemic due to ancient handguns, but Speer reports a 100 g commercial JHP factory load for the .32 Long developing a velocity of 1245 fps. Nor is it difficult to find handloading data for similar loads.

To me, this strongly suggests that a point blank shot from this factory .32 Long (and comparable handloads) is quite similar to a shot by an M1 carbine at about 100 yards. The M1 carbine round has gathered a lot of contempt, but not among veterans of the WWII Pacific theater, where it was quite popular. It also has a certain popularity with police; A magazine article quoted an un-named oficer, (questioned about its lack of power), who reportedly replied 'I ain't had to shoot nobody twice yet.'

This sort of comparison left me wondering why the .32 Long garnered such contempt, while the 30 Carbine was a success with only about a 100 yard advantage. This was the motivation behind starting this thread. I've heard a lot of opinion, smoke and dust, but very little in the way of solid comparisons or even historical records of effectiveness of the 32 long in the hands of police. Perhaps such records no longer exist, if they ever did. Rereading the Thompson/LaGard reports of early -and very unsophisticated - animal trials don't seem to provide any real justification for large calibers, though that was their recomendation.

OK, lots more to say, but this is already too long. Soapbox mode OFF.

[MakeMineA10mm]

In my attempt at brevity, I'm afraid I didn't make the key factor about the second quality of stopping power very clear.

The most important aspect about the "getting someone to quit" factor has nothing to do with what caliber you aim or shoot at them. It has everything to do with their mental state, certain physiological factors, and their belief/perception/fear about getting shot. That's why it matters not whether you use a .22 or a 375H&H.

If a person is in an adrenaline rush (physiological) they may not realize they are shot or being shot at, and so not react, even though it may be a big caliber. Likewise the PCP (and other drugs). LEOs get trained to never quit fighting and that being shot is rarely fatal. It is a way of training the mind to minimize a badguy's chance of winning a fight due to the pre-concieved notions each LEO brings with them to the job as a human. Another example is the great volume of examples where the mere presentation of a gun stops unwanted behavior. The people backing down in those instances are those who would very likely give up in a fight when hit in the little toe by a .22 LR.

So, out of the three factors, the first has to do with your accuracy (shot placement for a CNS shot), especially referrence shooting accurately while under stress.

The second factor has mostly to do with the other party's perception (or lack thereof) of getting shot, shot at, or intimidated by a weapon. The one factor here you DO have control of is that you must have a gun (any gun).

Third is the bleed-out factor which Dr. Fackler has studied thoroughly.

And, I believe, these are listed in their order of importance in stopping a threat. Naturally, mental, physical, and shooting under stress training are also key ingredients we have under our control. A final important aspect of a defensive shooting is multiple hits, which also connects directly to training.

Note that caliber is fairly unimportant in the first two, so if you have superior confidence in the 32 Long so that you shoot it better, by all means use it! Don't forget to train and shoot multiple shots in center of mass in order to overcome any minor deficiency of the 32's blood loss abilities vs. the 38 or 45.

I happen to be a 30 Carbine fan too, but you are underestimating velocities by a pretty big margin. Factory loads go around 1970 fps published muzzle velocity with reality being 1850-1950 fps mostly, from the M-1 carbine. (Perhaps you were quoting pistol velocities from the Blackhawk? If so, that's not a good comparison for the WWII track record of the round, because our troops never used the 30 Carbine Blackhawk.). Where the Carbine's reputation got sullied was really Korea, where it had some epic failures to stop. Many of those stories sound a lot like some of the factors I pointed out above in the second factor of stopping power (psychological/physiological).

[bhn22]

Seriously guys, if it's all that's available then it's what I'll use. It is much more effective than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick :) , and certainly more effective that a .22 rimfire, 25 ACP, and the like. Factory ammo is a serious drawback to the caliber, and I'm not convinced that handloads are a good idea for self-defense. I certainly wouldn't buy a .32 with the express plan of using it for self-defense. One thing to remember too, take two almost identical revolvers, one chambered in .32 long and the other in 38 Spl. The .32 revolver will weigh more than the 38 will anyway. The bore is larger and the chambers are larger. There's simply less steel to carry around. In some instances, you may get an extra shot with the 32 (6 round cylinder vs 5 round cylinder), but you're going to have to do some looking to find one.

[Molly]

... I happen to be a 30 Carbine fan too, but you are underestimating velocities by a pretty big margin. Factory loads go around 1970 fps published muzzle velocity with reality being 1850-1950 fps mostly, from the M-1 carbine. (Perhaps you were quoting pistol velocities from the Blackhawk? If so, that's not a good comparison for the WWII track record of the round, because our troops never used the 30 Carbine Blackhawk.). Where the Carbine's reputation got sullied was really Korea, where it had some epic failures to stop. Many of those stories sound a lot like some of the factors I pointed out above in the second factor of stopping power (psychological/physiological)

I got the M1 Carbine data from The High Road website, where it was published in response to a question from a reader. There was no suggestion that it was anything but standard ballistics from the carbine.

There is no doubt that you are correct regarding the influence of adrennalin and medication on the reactions of shooter and shootee. Attitude is also a powerful factor: I've been involved in a number of situations where powder would have burnt had I not made it VERY clear to all concerned that the fun and games were over, and that baring a very sudden cessation of antisocial behavior, powder WOULD be burning in a matter of seconds. While I do not (dare not) rely on it, the fact is that the unexpected apearance of almost any handgun in the hands of an angry opponent has to date been 100 % effective, even prevailing against a small band of hostile drunken thugs. But while true, this doesn't address the thread theme of whether a hot factory load or handloaded 32 S&W Long will handle the rare individual who is sufficiently angry or irrational to try to press an attack against an armed foe.

The more I study this issue, the more convinced I become that the .32 Long in a hot load would be 'reasonably effectve' at stopping such attacks, particularly with a heavier bullet weight that features a large flat meplat. Dale53 and I are accumulating plastic bottles to fill with water and conduct some semi-scientific tests in this regard with a number of calibers. We will post the results here sometime after the weather breaks.

[dualsport]

Interesting stuff. What I'm wondering is what is the official definition of 'manstopper'? Seems people see it many ways, from a stong deterrent approach to actually physically incapacitating a drug crazed assailant. That's a pretty broad spectrum. The concept of a 'manstopper' is irrelevant until actual mortal combat is underway. Deterrent isn't part of the equation, we're past deterring when a manstopper is needed. 'Manstopper' to me means the instant incapacitation effect, which is based a lot more on where you hit them than with what. For me, a high capacity anything is the berries. I'm gonna shoot that sucker as many times as possible and then run like hell. A .32 Long well loaded and well shot is probably going to be about as good as a lot of things people rely on. But it wouldn't be my first choice.

[9.3X62AL]

The more I study this issue, the more convinced I become that the .32 Long in a hot load would be 'reasonably effectve' at stopping such attacks, particularly with a heavier bullet weight that features a large flat meplat. Dale53 and I are accumulating plastic bottles to fill with water and conduct some semi-scientific tests in this regard with a number of calibers. We will post the results here sometime after the weather breaks.

THAT information is anticipated with enthusiasm, gentlemen. I hold you both in high esteem, both for your knowledge and your objectivity.

[unclebill]

as an adrenalin/drug crazed manstopper.
maybe we should treat it like dangerous game hunting?
shatter the pelvis ,femur,spine,skull etc.

[EDK]

Molly's comment made me remember something I read previously.

IIRC, allegedly Wyatt Earp was noted to wear a coat of some sort in even the hottest weather. He had a heavy silk vest that he also wore constantly. It was suggested that the vest functioned as body armor and that Earp also vigorously discouraged people discussing his attire, When you consider the more popular calibers of the day and the people Earp would be coming in contact with, it ties in nicely with Molly's ideas.

:Fire::cbpour::redneck:

[NoZombies]

My brother used to manage a pizza place while he was in college. He recounts the stories from the 2 times he was robbed at gun point:

"I was standing there behind the register when the guy came into the store yelling 'Get down on the ground, or I'll shoot you!' I saw the gun as he pointed it at me and told me to empty the register, and I honestly felt like I could have been shot by that and not been hurt, it looked like a toy, but company policy said that I was to give a robber what they asked for to prevent violence."

And the second story:

"I was in the back when I heard the commotion up front and went out to investigate. Everybody had their hands up and the robber was behind the counter emptying the cash drawer. I wanted him to leave quickly. I was afraid he might shoot someone if we didn't cooperate."

My brother isn't much of a gun guy, and didn't recognize either gun during the incidents, but both crooks were caught, and my brother testified in both court cases. The gun in the first instance was a Belgian copy of the Colt .25 pocket pistol. The "gun" in the second instance was a crosman pellet gun that was modeled after the colt python revolvers. It's funny that the gun that looked like a toy wasn't and the one that was more like a toy was seen as more of a menace in my brothers eyes.

The psychological difference in the mind of my brother was directly related to the size of the gun, and not the caliber of the gun.

I don't think I'd feel comfortable trying to CC a desert eagle, so I carry a 1911 of some flavor, most of the time. I hope I never need to fire my carry gun at anything other than paper targets.

I have a large .32 revolver that a friend who's not a gunny looked at and said "ooh, like Dirty Harry" and I'm sure that psychologically it would be as effective as pointing a .357 of the same size at someone. But if I have to pull the trigger, I'd rather it was a .357.

I would still hate to be shot by a .32, especially one with good handloads.

I love the .32 long cartridge, and I will continue to shoot one for a long time. It will never be my first choice as a defensive caliber, but in the instances when I'm wearing such clothing that I can't carry my compact 1911, I'll carry something else and not be worried about it, even if it's "just" a .32.

[Molly]

Gentlemen, here's a link to one of the most carefully reasoned (and rational) considerations of stopping power in the self defense context that I've seen in many a moon. He discusses the concepts with almost no references to the 'best' caliber or cartridge. Great reading, and a great site too:

http://grantcunningham.com/blog_files/stopping_power_series.html

[unclebill]

Gentlemen, here's a link to one of the most carefully reasoned (and rational) considerations of stopping power in the self defense context that I've seen in many a moon. He discusses the concepts with almost no references to the 'best' caliber or cartridge. Great reading, and a great site too:

http://grantcunningham.com/blog_files/stopping_power_series.html

thank you.
very informative.
i like this quote: A good friend gave me a first-hand account of a battle incident wherein a fellow absorbed several very large caliber, solid torso hits, and was still able to jump from his vehicle and cross a road before finally collapsing.

The gun in question? A .50 caliber heavy machine gun.

Yes, you read that correctly. Sometimes, folks, nothing works.

[9.3X62AL]

thank you.
very informative.
i like this quote: A good friend gave me a first-hand account of a battle incident wherein a fellow absorbed several very large caliber, solid torso hits, and was still able to jump from his vehicle and cross a road before finally collapsing.

The gun in question? A .50 caliber heavy machine gun.

Yes, you read that correctly. Sometimes, folks, nothing works.

Farking nightmare.

[dualsport]

What a coincidence! I've been thinking of building a .50 BMG CCW gun, probably a single shot. CBs only, of course. :mrgreen:

[Molly]

Farking nightmare.

If you think THAT's bad, consider this one that I read years ago in a SOF (I think) magazine. An African fellow had suposedly taken an artillery round through his chest and lived to tell it. I wouldn't have given it any credence whatoever, except that the story was backed up with photo evidence. Most massive scarring _I_ EVER saw, but the guy was walking!

Supposedly, the shell was at the extreme far end of its trajectory, with virtually no velocity remaining, but still ...

They make 'em tough over there in Africa!

[Shooter6br]

32 S&W Long is a great target round ( See my post in revlover section.)

[Shooter6br]

If you can smell the bad breath of your aggressor you are within affective 32 S&W Long range(with a break open model pistol loads)

[Molly]

If you can smell the bad breath of your aggressor you are within affective 32 S&W Long range(with a break open model pistol loads)

I've been reading a number of serious studies on handgun stopping power, and believe it or not, range hasn't even been mentioned as a factor by a single author.

There seems to be a growing consensus that there are three major factors that determine stopping power:

1. Psychological reaction of the recipient. The physics of handgun and projectile have almost no bearing on this. It is strictly determined by the way the recipient feels about getting shot, which will vary widely from man to man and from situation to situation. You can take a man who would fall down and scream for an ambulance when shot in the hand by a pellet gun one day, but on another day, he might not even notice several torso shots with a 45 ACP if high on adrenalin or narcotics. From this perspective, a BB pistol is about as effective as a .357 Mag.

2. The physiological reaction of the recipient. This is a fancy way of saying ‘the way his body flesh reacts to the shot.’ In turn, this breaks down into several sub-factors that depend largely on the choice of the bullet, but the differences are surprisingly small. Lightweight HP and other expanding or fragmenting designs will produce impressively large entrance wounds, but tend to have relatively shallow penetration. Bullets with higher sectional density and less expansion tend to provide greater penetration and a narrow but longer permanent cavity. Unless the skeletal or central nervous systems are impacted, incapacitation of the recipient is generally slow, and primarily dependent on blood loss. Even the destruction of vital organs will not immediately incapacitate the recipient of a bullet. A 44 magnum HP that shreds the heart into fragments will not provide an immediate cessation of activity for the simple reason that the cranium will already have sufficient oxygen to keep the brain alive and directing the body’s activity for 12 to 15 seconds. Fifteen seconds is a VERY long time in a gunfight.

Many shooters disparage Fackler’s ‘permanent wound cavity volume’ hypothesis. However, it seems a viable way to establish the surface area of the torn and bleeding tissue that results from a handgun wound, and therefore a way to determine the relative rate of blood loss. It is the loss of blood that will cause unconsciousness. It seems intuitive that a wound with eight square inches of bleeding tissue will lose blood twice as fast as a similar wound with only four square inches of bleeding tissue, and will produce unconsciousness twice as quickly.

3. The only factor in handgun effectiveness that offers a realistic chance of immediate incapacitation of the recipient seems to be destruction of the integrity of the skeletal or central nervous systems. A bullet with sufficient energy and mass to penetrate clothing and body tissue to shatter major bones or any part of the central nervous system will put a man down almost instantly, regardless of narcotics or adrenalin. (Note that putting a man down is not the same as incapacitating him: A man with a broken leg bone or pelvis can still shoot quite effectively. The advice to continue shooting until your aggressor is either disarmed or apparently unconscious is well founded.)

This is where the big-heavy bullet advocates stand up and shout ‘Ah HA! Told you so!
Not so. A solid copper bullet from a .22 Hornet that happens to strike the spine will do the job as well as mushroomed 44 or 45 caliber bullets.

A great deal of handgun legend has been built around the LaGrange / Thompson tests on slaughterhouse steers. Their report recommending at least a 45 caliber bullet was directly responsible for the adoption of the 45 ACP as America’s primary combat pistol, but if you read the original text of their report, there seems to be very little to justify that recommendation. Their tests seem to have consisted primarily of walking up to the pen holding the subject animal and pumping a variety of shots into its chest and waiting to see how long it would take for it to fall down. Almost none of the subjects were so obliging, so they frequently received another cylinder or clip full to sort of speed things along, generally also without noticeable effect. Calibers ranged from .30 to .45 at least, and IIRC, a few slightly larger rounds. They were remarkably unremarkable in their ability to down a captive animal.

The slaughterhouse axe was by far the most effective ‘weapon’ tested on live steers, but for some reason, an axe was not recommended for US military adoption. Actually, their recommendation appears to have been based on subjective impressions of how much sway a bullet could impart to a cadaver that was supported by rope. In other words, it was strictly a function of the relative momentum of the cadaver and the bullet, which could have been easily calculated without all the gruesomeness.

This legend of the big, heavy bullet was subsequently built up to semi-mythical status by men like Elmer Keith. Now don’t jump to the conclusion that I intend to disparage Mr. Keith in any manner, shape or form. I have an enormous respect for him and his recommendations. But there were REASONS that the big, heavy bullet recommendations were so successful. You will do well to understand them.

The LaGrange / Thompson experiments simply served to confirm that flesh wounds that don’t intersect a major skeleton bone or central nervous system may kill a steer (or a man), but will take its own sweet time in getting the job done, as discussed in part two above. But all else being equal, it seems intuitive that a 44/45 caliber slug is about 50% more likely to impact a bone or the central nervous system that a 30/32 caliber bullet just manages to miss, simply because of its greater diameter. Yes, one can go to an expanding .32 bullet, but then again, one can also go to an expanding .45 bullet: There is no inherent advantage there. The only thing that counts here is impacting the central nervous system or a major bone with sufficient energy. And the larger caliber guns have the advantage there --- in all respects but one: Penetration to REACH that bone or central nervous system doesn’t require a big heavy bullet. It requires a bullet with sufficient sectional density to get there, and sufficient residual energy to do the work. Smaller calibers offer greater sectional density for a given bullet weight. Rephrased, they can match the sectional density of the larger calibers with lighter bullets and less subjective recoil. While they cannot match the frontal area of the bigger bullets, they offer sufficient energy and penetration to get the job done when they do hit a vital area. And less recoil could mean better marksmanship, and a greater chance to hit that vital area. Is that enough to equal or overcome the big caliber advantage of diameter? I don’t know.

But I do know this:
1. I will take advantage of the bigger caliber’s diameter advantage as long as my hands will take their recoil. But when and if the time comes that I have to stop using them, I’m not going to feel extraordinarily handicapped with the smaller round, loaded hot with blunt, heavy bullets.

2. Shooting at the center of mass may give a perp a new and interesting belly button, but it is most unlikely to to put an abrupt end to his antisocial conduct. Even spinal hits below the chest area cannot be relied on to do more than put him down - still able to shoot.

3. If I ever have to shoot someone in self defense, I am going to aim to intersect the the neck and head area if at all possible. Lacking that, the spine and pelvis. Note that this target area can be defined by drawing a line from between his eyes straight down to his pelvis.

4. They have been improved in recent years, but HP bulets are notorious for erratic failure to expand. The HP can be plugged and rendered ineffective by clothing, a shirt pocket writting pad or innumerable real world factors seldom encountered in the pretty gelatin expansions so popular in the magazine advertisements. This expansion - and whether it occurs or not - is rendered irrelevant by my choice of target areas: A bullet in the head or neck won't need to rely on expansion for effectiveness.

For my part, I am most likely to chose a bullet with a very high sectional density and blunt nose over hollowpoints or fragmenting bullets for the very simple reason that this is the bullet most able to overcome chance encounters with a coat button, an outstretched hand, arm or rib bone and continue on in its intended pathway to the vitals described above.

[Von Dingo]

Two cents from my corner. As for stopping a man, there are three variables that can make it happen. Hydraulic stop, may not be so fast, hydraulic pressure may hold for long enough for damage to happen to you. Electrical stop, eliminate the wiring, you have a bag of rocks falling. Lastly, psychological stop, "I'm shot, I need medical attention, I'm gonna die", and they go into shock.

I hadn't gotten to molly's above post, before I started typing.

[dualsport]

The absence of consideration of distance is curious. Of course anything will be more impressive at point blank compared to 35 yds. Another element that you don't see discussed much is weather, or what season of the year it is. Seems to me a guy carrying for self defense might want to factor in the heavy clothing issue in his choice of bullet type, maybe have one load for winter and another for warmer times. There are other issues besides the load you carry that are at least as important. If you don't have a copy, get Jordan's "No Second Place Winner". It's an old book, but the guy makes some good points and has real world experience to back them up. Pick a reasonably sensible gun/load combo, then practice a lot. Learn to draw and shoot from the hip, trouble often comes real close. Thanks Molly for a great thread.

[Markbo]

Seems to me it is going to be hard to defend yourself for shooting someone if you have 35yds of space in which to run and hide first. ;)

[451whitworth]

delete

[Multigunner]

Molly's comment made me remember something I read previously.

IIRC, allegedly Wyatt Earp was noted to wear a coat of some sort in even the hottest weather. He had a heavy silk vest that he also wore constantly. It was suggested that the vest functioned as body armor and that Earp also vigorously discouraged people discussing his attire, When you consider the more popular calibers of the day and the people Earp would be coming in contact with, it ties in nicely with Molly's ideas.

:Fire::cbpour::redneck:

Layered Silk body armor was available prior to WW1, but not sure if it was contemporary to Wyatt Earp's lawman days. He may well have worn a Silk body armor in later years, these were popular though extremely expensive and only a few well heeled folk could afford one.
The standard vest was only good against pocket pistols, but WW1 era silk vests could stop a .45 ACP at a distance. Coupled with a light nickel or manganese steel breastplate the combined armor could stop some rifle bullets.

The Russians used body armor for officers during their war with Japan. Japanese officers wore similar breastplates at times, and Japanese Air Comandos had a fairly effective vest.

One reason for popularity of the M1 Carbine was that it could penetrate Japanese body armor when a .45 ACP from pistol or SMG wouldn't.

Steel vests were easier to get, many were manufactured during the Civil War era, and though they cost a fair amount they weren't beyond a lawman's pay grade.
An advancement in metalurgy of the late 19th century resulted in highly durable alloys. One of the first uses of these was a plowshare that wouldn't wear out like the older iron plows.
Reckless Ned Kelly having bounced a few bullets off such a plowshare had a blacksmith construct a 90 lb suit of armor from some stolen plows. Even Musket balls fired point blank bounced off his armor.

As for stopping power. The only certain way of putting a man down instantly is to sever the spine above the collar bones, a .32 can do that.
Men have continued shooting after a bullet in the brain, (I've met a couple of survivors of bullets through the brain, neither suffered profound disability from the experiance) and a heart shot isn't always lethal. If a man can dial 911 while having a heart attack he can certainly pull a trigger after a wound to the heart.

Energy of a .32 S&W Long is very close to that of the .36 Colt, from similar barrel lengths, but the .36 has a better rep for stopping power, at least when used with round ball over a maximum charge.
The Conical .36 had a poor rep due to it making through and through torso wounds. The conical bullet penetrated but did not dump much energy into the flesh.
Light round balls dump their energy quickly, which is one reason buck shot is so deadly.

[pmeisel]

The slaughterhouse axe was by far the most effective ‘weapon’ tested on live steers, but for some reason, an axe was not recommended for US military adoption.

Actually, I wouldn't mind having one handy for a fight. But it would be a lot heavier to carry than, as Jim Croce says, "a 32 gun in his pocket for fun".

[ChuckS1]

anyone need any 32 S&W Long brass? i have 500 new cases from my uncle's estate that i have no use for.

Sure, I can use them. How much?

[Molly]

anyone need any 32 S&W Long brass? i have 500 new cases from my uncle's estate that i have no use for.

Boy, I sure do! PM to follow.

[Molly]

Seems to me it is going to be hard to defend yourself for shooting someone if you have 35yds of space in which to run and hide first. ;)

I'm told that in the old west, a card shark once opened fire at a distance of about 100 yards with a derringer on a cowboy armed with 'a Winchester'. The coronor's vedict was 'Suicide'.

[dualsport]

Seems to me it is going to be hard to defend yourself for shooting someone if you have 35yds of space in which to run and hide first. ;)

Wouldn't that depend on what Mr. Bad Guy is doing? My point was just that range is bound to be a factor in 'stopping power'. Something like a .32 S&W Long will be less impressive at longer ranges than say a .44 Magnum. If a bad guy pulls out a weapon at 35 yds. and says "I'm going to kill you..." it's probably ok to open fire, even in California. Then run.

[Dannix]

Wow. Now that's an irrational response!

I'm told that in the old west, a card shark once opened fire at a distance of about 100 yards with a derringer on a cowboy armed with 'a Winchester'. The coronor's vedict was 'Suicide'.

[BOOM BOOM]

HI,
IFIR correctly the NRA did exhaustive research on this matter of handgun cal. man-stopping effectiveness in 1974, in same issue as the GREEN PAPERS,
reviewed & did statical analysis all police & military shooting reports with handguns up that time.
Very good basic reading in this area.
Yes, I realize much time has passed since then.
Lots of bullet improvements etc.
BUT THERE IS STILL A LOT OF GOOD REASONS THE 32 LONG IS CONSIDERED AN OBSOLETE CARTRIDGE.
For self defense there are a few overriding things you should consider.
1. COST, for some is a factor.
HOW MUCH IS YOUR & YOUR LOVED ONE'S LIFE WORTH?
Go with the highest quality you can get is my choice.
2. No cal. bullet is effective if you can not hit with it.
Practice a lot, make it second nature, stress destroys fine motor control . THIS IS NOT BULLS-EYE SHOOTING, BUT IT BETTER NOT BE SPRAY & PRAY ETHER!
3. Go with the biggest & heaviest cal.( & bullet in that cal.) you can shoot accurately. THIS HAS PROVED TO BE EFFECTIVE.
4. No gun is useful if left behind or unloaded when the human fecal matter hits the rotary air impeller. IF YOU ARE NOT COMFORTABLE CARRYING IT , THAN IT MIGHT NOT BE THE RIGHT CHOICE.
WHAT CAL. I CHOOSE IS A SUBJECTIVE INDIVIDUAL CHOICE THAT FITS ME, NOT YOU.
I LIKE THE 44MAG. & I AM JUST FINE WITH 250GR. FN HP.:Fire::Fire:

[Shooter6br]

Handloadin [smilie=b: even a 32 S&W in a break open is close to 380 in energy at the muzzle. About 160 or so. Not great but people love the 380 as a defence round

[Von Dingo]

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


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

[Dannix]

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

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


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

[Molly]

Hi Dannix,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[9.3X62AL]

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

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

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

[Multigunner]

Hi Dannix,

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

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

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

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

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

[Molly]

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

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

[Multigunner]

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

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

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

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

[Dannix]

Like these? (http://www.municion.org/9glisenti/9glisenti.htm) Just earlier today I was wondering why on earth are military is using JRNs instead of JFNs. How is the FN "bad" as per the Hague convention? We didn't sign it iirc, but perhaps now that we are using HP match in rifles the JFNs will be OKed too?

Pic attached, should the link ever go down.

[Dannix]

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

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

[w30wcf]

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

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o25/w30wcf/Vintage%20cartridge%20boxes/38PoliceServicejpg.jpg

w30wcf

[Molly]

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

Hi w30wcf,

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

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

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

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

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

[Dannix]

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

Perhaps a Gates Extreme (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=48098) for the .32 is the ideal route.

[Molly]

>Perhaps a Gates Extreme (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=48098) for the .32 is the ideal route.

Hi again Dannix,

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

[35remington]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nor one shot stops.

[dualsport]

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

[9.3X62AL]

Good question, Dualsport. Perhaps they use 45 ACP.

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

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

[Molly]

HI 35remington,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[MakeMineA10mm]

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

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

[35remington]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It will.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dannix]

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

[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 (http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Misc_Images/DocGKR/slow_vs_fast.jpg)), 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 (http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm). I disagree with the author here (http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm#PISTOL%20AMMUNITION) though -- the .357Sig wound channel looks far more significant than the standard 9mm load. The info here (http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm#OVERPENETRATION) 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]

:popcorn:

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.

[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. :mrgreen: 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. :mrgreen:

[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. :mrgreen:

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. :mrgreen: 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... :mrgreen:




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. :shock: 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 (http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=21_37&products_id=385) 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 (http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=21_57&products_id=470)

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. :shock: 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!

[dualsport]

I'm going sideways again here, but since the Charter Arms Bulldog has been mentioned I thought I'd share something I read in an old Fouling Shot magazine by Paco Kelly. Seems he got the unusual assignment to test the strength of the Bulldog .44 Special which his agency was considering for something. The loads it withstood before malfunctioning would ruin a good .44 mag. It was odd, but they wanted to know how it would hold up I guess. It never did come apart, just the lockwork got jammed up to uselessness. I know, what does this have to do with a .32 for self defense? Nothing. But if you want a very light compact .38 I can vouch for the Charter Arms Undercover. Mine's 26 years old and been shot a lot, still tight. Not that I'm trying to talk anybody out of using a .32. [smilie=1:

[Molly]

You don't need to convince me about the Charter Bulldog. Mine will put five consecutive on a pie plate at 50 yards, using the fixed sights. And I've got a Target Bulldog in 44 Special that will outshoot some nice S&W's I've had. But either I'm turning weak in my old age, or my Bulldog is getting nasty in its old age. It could always growl pretty well, but now it snaps at my knuckles pretty bad too. But I just stuck a grip filler on it, and we'll see what that does. (Just to stay on topic) I've thought about buying one of the Charter .32 revolvers too, but darn it, I've already got three!

[MakeMineA10mm]

Just to make an anecdotal point, but one that made an impression on me:

I don't remember now if it was 35 Remington or Dannix making the point, but I liked the angle of all handguns are weak compromises, and it's just the degree of compromise we're each willing to accept. I really like that and agree with it, as you can tell from my earliest posts on this thread.

However, the discussion then turned to emphasizing velocity at the expense of bullet weight when considering the factor of momentum. While the point is technically correct insofar as the measurement of momentum, we cannot discount the target medium. What I'm trying to say is that there IS a certain bottom point to momentum which should be considered acceptable, based on the target medium, and momentum, in and of itself, is not a reliable measure of EFFECTIVENESS, any more than energy or any of the other stopping power measurements which have been attempted over the years.

Molly has said several times that because of his compromise on the power-level of his chosen caliber, he has made the conscience decision to target what he perceives as a more lucrative spot to stop an opponent: the head. Well, this is both good and bad. Two problems with targeting the head are: It is smaller than the torso, and it is at the end of the human body, which means it moves more and sooner than the center of the body. Assuming an attacker is not standing still, we must think of how an opponent will be looking around, moving, possibly even ducking-and-weaving. The head will be one of the most-moving parts of the body and a good shot will be difficult. In addition, strange-angle shots may be presented, because the person may look to the side (an opportune moment to spring to your defense) so you may not have a shot at the eye sockets or nasal cartiledge area.

So, this brings up another concern that ties back in with the momentum/penetration question: The skull. The human skull has some very weak points, and some incredibly strong points. I once was at an autopsy where a 32ACP bullet had been fired at a range of inches into the side of a person's head. The bullet turned as soon as it got under the skin and hit the skull, and travelled under the skin, all the way around the OUTSIDE of the skull, until it came to rest above his ear on the other side. When we saw the location of the bullet and it's entry during the external examination, we were certain it went through the head (and brain) in a straight line, but X-rays and careful dissection showed it did not. The skull is actually REALLY thick and strong above the ear. When the executor saw the guy reach up and grab the side of his head and yell, "OWW!" he walked around behind him and put the gun at the base of his skull just above the spine (right in the medulla) and shot again, which killed the guy.

This is an example of how at 32-level we're starting to get to that marginal performance level (in penetration as well as wound diameter), which threshold I won't go below. Whether you're using head-shots or torso shots doesn't matter to me. I want something that will at least penetrate, and in using a revolver (or a small "pocket" auto-pistol) with limited number of shots, I can't afford for any of my shots to be too little-penetrating. (For me, the minimum is .35-cal., in the 38 or 9mm, but certain 380s will also work, such as the Hornady Critical Defense, which has proven penetration capability.) That's why I'd say, if Molly is going to use the 32, to stick with 100gr bullets at a minimum (115gr would be much better, IMO), and to stick with a nose design that will grab and penetrate without sacrificing penetration, such as a medium to hard SWC. (RNs will skid or turn in the liquid medium of a body and not give straight penetration, and HPs will reduce penetration due to their frontal diameter increasing as they expand.)

As far as 22s, they can be the best thing ever or the worst, and it seems there's little in the way of being able to predict how they'll perform. I've seen some underpenetrate or blow up, but in the solid-noses, I've seen some of them penetrate the thoracic cavity and then "bounce" back through the vitals off the inside of the far side of the rib cage, making awful, nasty wounds. Trouble is, this can't be reliably repeated. I want something I can count on, so it needs to be reliable and repeatable, IMO.

[Molly]

Hi MakeMineA10mm

As usual, you make some excellent points in your post. there's not much to disagree with, but I do have a few comments.

Just to make an anecdotal point, but one that made an impression on me: I don't remember now if it was 35 Remington or Dannix making the point, but I liked the angle of all handguns are weak compromises, and it's just the degree of compromise we're each willing to accept. I really like that and agree with it, as you can tell from my earliest posts on this thread.

… there IS a certain bottom point to momentum which should be considered acceptable, based on the target medium, and momentum, in and of itself, is not a reliable measure of EFFECTIVENESS, any more than energy or any of the other stopping power measurements which have been attempted over the years.

Amen!

Molly has said several times that because of his compromise on the power-level of his chosen caliber, he has made the decision to target what he perceives as a more lucrative spot to stop an opponent: the head. Well, this is both good and bad. Two problems with targeting the head are: It is smaller than the torso, and it is at the end of the human body, which means it moves more and sooner than the center of the body. Assuming an attacker is not standing still, we must think of how an opponent will be looking around, moving, possibly even ducking-and-weaving. The head will be one of the most-moving parts of the body and a good shot will be difficult. In addition, strange-angle shots may be presented, because the person may look to the side (an opportune moment to spring to your defense) so you may not have a shot at the eye sockets or nasal cartilage area.

You make some good points, but your initial premise wasn’t quite right. I selected the head as PART of my primary target area, which would include the neck and shoulder area down to about the nipples. A central shot through any of this has an excellent chance of interrupting the CNS, and missing those, of at least disrupting the circulatory system.

So, this brings up another concern that ties back in with the momentum / penetration question: The skull. The human skull has some very weak points, and some incredibly strong points. I want something that will at least penetrate, and in using a revolver (or a small "pocket" auto-pistol) with limited number of shots, I can't afford for any of my shots to be too little-penetrating.

Quite right. I recognize that considerable penetrative power will be essential to successful engagement of these areas. A side shot may entail engagement of the arm bones, and still have to traverse the chest cavity. That’s why I settled on a high SD SWC projectile for my handloads.

That's why I'd say, if Molly is going to use the 32, to stick with 100gr bullets at a minimum (115gr would be much better, IMO), and to stick with a nose design that will grab and penetrate without sacrificing penetration, such as a medium to hard SWC.

That’s excellent advice. Actually, I’m expecting to use a 120g hard SWC.

As far as 22s, they can be the best thing ever or the worst, and it seems there's little in the way of being able to predict how they'll perform.

In the exceedingly unlikely case of finding myself in a hazardous situation with nothing but a 22, shooting an aggressor with it would be my very last option, to be employed only when he's coming at me with a hatchet. I think it would be far better employed to fire a shot into the ceiling or floor as the first option. The noise will draw the attention of the aggressor, who will be forced to recognize that a handgun is now involved. Nobody wants to get shot, and there is an excellent chance that this shot alone will be adequate to precipitate a retreat, thus salvaging my hide and hopefuly that of any others involved.

Of course, the possibility exists that my aggressor will be intoxicated by chemical agents to the point he cannot recognize any danger to himself. In that case, I'd deliver the remaining shots to the primary target area and pray.

[Black Prince]

What a GREAT thread. All of you are to be commended for the way this has been conducted, and for some very good information that has been presented. I throughly enjoyed reading all of it.

[bowfin]

The energy of larger and more powerful cartridges is not "wasted" when it keeps going through a target, it's just not "needed". Ask any deer hunter how important an exit wound is, and 99.9% would say very much so.

No one in his or her right mind ever worried about his weapon of choice in an upcoming engagement being "too lethal". The prime example that comes to mind is the soldier who called in not one but TWO 500 lb. smart bombs on Al-Zarqawi in Iraq.

How would he have explained it if Public Enemy to the World #1 got away because he erred on the side of modesty by calling in only a single 500 lb. bomb? (By the way, Al-Zarqawi lived several hours after being dinged by both bombs. That's why I favor only B-52 Arc Light missions doing a whole dump of 108 750 pounders!).

As for legal ramifications of handloads, exotic calibers and bullets, etc., the most important part of a trial or lawsuit where one is the defendant is getting to it alive and intact.

[dualsport]

WHEW!! This is my kind of post. From .32s to 108 750 lb. bombs! Now you're talking. Somehow I get the feeling you don't want to mess with bowfin. I'm picturing Mad Max(Mel Gibson) when he was dumping all his weapons on the counter in Bartertown. It's all fun and games 'til TSHTF, then you will wish your handy hideout was a Remington 870. I know this from personal experience. Grenades would be good too, easy to carry, fairly compact. Of course I know that we can't walk around with riot guns over our shoulder, there's issues and such.

[35remington]

Now about the low or lower sectional density and our earlier disagreement about same in terms of relevance to pistol projectiles.

Low sectional density isn't a problem IF the projectile is made of material resistant to deformation and is moving at a speed such that the bullet is not deformed by the impact. And if said speed is not so great that it does not produce dramatic deceleration in and of itself (remember the axiom that the faster a projectile travels, the more violent its deceleration and rapid its energy dump when it hits an object).

Steel buckshot has rotten sectional density. Because it doesn't deform, penetration may exceed that of lead buckshot in resistant material. Such as, perhaps, metal car doors. The FBI concluded this to their satisfaction some time ago. If the lead buckshot does not deform whatsoever, the softer lead material will penetrate more in tissue than the steel buckshot as long as velocities are somewhat similar. If the steel buckshot is quite a bit faster it may have the edge.

I have no doubt a nylon projectile shot by NASA at 11,000 fps penetrates relatively poorly in some instances and in some media; but then few projectiles not made of tungsten will. Even steel experiences dramatic deformation at such speeds.

High speed impact is counterproductive at some point. Linebaught et. al seemed to prove penetration is maximized (in phone books, at least) at around 1500 to 1600 fps. At higher speeds deformation of the bullet occurred that lowered penetration, but by the same token more damage occurred to the books, so killing power increased while penetration decreased.

But more damage wasn't what they were after, just more penetration. Which seems to be a nonsensical pursuit when penetration goes beyond what is needed.

That same speedy low sectional density NASA projectile will, even if made of nylon, pierce solid armor plate that a harder, higher sectional density projectile at lower velocity will not even dent. If it hit wet phone books it would look like a bomb went off within. Such speeds are clearly beyond the scope of discussion of a thread devoted to pistol rounds, so pardon me if I don't continue the discussion using it for an example. It's clearly too different from what's relevant here.

Give me a bullet of poor sectional density with enough speed to allow it to penetrate well, yet below the speed at which the bullet starts to deform and it will be quite adequately penetrative, if not overly so.

If one had to choose between a low sectional density projectile that deforms not all all, versus a projectile with higher sectional density that deforms considerably, the low sectional density projectile will prevail. Its sectional density remains intact throughout its penetration.

Which explains why the 9mm excels in penetration....given a hard, nondeforming bullet of whatever shape you wish, its momentum (mass times velocity) combined with its small frontal area result in good penetration. No matter what its sectional density numbers read out to be.

I have trouble with any statement that claims a projectile is lacking in sectional density (and therefore penetration) absent any recognition that its ability to retain its original shape is equally important. Actually, it's probably more so to much more so.

SD also works only to the point that the extra length of a high SD bullet does not result in any precession of the bullet at close range. This near the muzzle wobble often reduces penetration rather than increases it as the SD calculations will claim. In shooting a 475 grain Saeco cast bullet out of my 45-70 (1200 fps, relevant to pistol speeds) the SD calculations and eyeballing its adequate meplat would perhaps advise that penetration will be excellent and better than the lighter Lee 405 plainbase with a similar meplat at similar speeds or energy levels.

In actual practice, the longer Saeco bullet had considerably less penetration at close range because the bullet would tumble during penetration. The shorter Lee bullet would not. The difference was probably due to the fact that the longer bullet was more wobbly near the muzzle and struck the media (wet newspapers) not quite point on.

So it's not advisable to automatically assume that the heavier, higher SD bullet will win a penetration contest, especially at pistol ranges where the bullet may not yet have "gone to sleep" and spun true around its axis.

Lower SD may well prove superior to higher SD in this case. One can only try it to see for oneself, and an adjustment in velocity may well be needed with the heavier bullet before any penetration advantage assumed to be present will occur. It is possible the long heavy bullet may be a step backward in a slow twist (1-18.75 Smith?) revolver in terms of penetration at pistol shootout ranges, and the velocity potential of the revolver may be exceeded before the heavy bullet will stabilize to give true flight and deepest penetration.

As I said, SD ain't everything. And I doubt, within a reasonable range, that for instance a 125 grain bullet will give substantially worse performance than a 158 of similar shape when both are shot to their potential in the same cartridge. Both will penetrate quite adequately, and the lighter bullet will be far ahead of what is actually needed.

Probably the same for, say, a 90 grain versus 115 grain in the .32, for instance. When all the factors influencing penetration are called into play. Going to a nonstandard or extra heavy weight may not be worth the effort.

I'd say it's high time for that testing, the cold weather notwithstanding.

[Molly]

Hi 35remington

I read and reread your latest post with surprise, and then with astonishment.

Low sectional density isn't a problem IF the projectile is made of material resistant to deformation and is moving at a speed such that the bullet is not deformed by the impact.

So a bit of #12 birdshot from a rubber band is the ultimate self defense projectile? It's resistant to deformation and would be moving at velocities such that it wouldn't be deformed by impact.

I grant you that a deforming projectile will lose its aerodynamic profile, drop more energy and penetrate less, if that's what you are trying to say.

High speed impact is counterproductive at some point. Linebaught et. al seemed to prove penetration is maximized (in phone books, at least) at around 1500 to 1600 fps. At higher speeds deformation of the bullet occurred that lowered penetration, but by the same token more damage occurred to the books, so killing power increased while penetration decreased.

I'm not shooting phone books, and phone books can't be killed. Phone books differ from flesh in a number of important ways, including density, nature of the connective material, elastic rebound and the presence (or lack) of bone. I've shot enough phone books to know they form a very poor basis for predicting projectile performance in flesh. (And newspapers and magazines and wooden boards and clay banks and sand banks and gravel pits and car bodies and tree limbs and you name its. With everything from 22 CB caps in revolvers to 500g 45-70 rifles. I have SOME knowledge of what I'm talking about)

Give me a bullet of poor sectional density with enough speed to allow it to penetrate well, yet below the speed at which the bullet starts to deform and it will be quite adequately penetrative, if not overly so.

If one had to choose between a low sectional density projectile that deforms not all all, versus a projectile with higher sectional density that deforms considerably, the low sectional density projectile will prevail. Its sectional density remains intact throughout its penetration.

All right. Here's a steel air rifle BB. Load it in a sabot to any velocity you like, and pop it into any test media you prefer against a factory 357 FMJ and report back with your results.

I have trouble with any statement that claims a projectile is lacking in sectional density (and therefore penetration) absent any recognition that its ability to retain its original shape is equally important.

I predict you won't have so much trouble with it once you've conducted the above test. Not only are you taking a stand against elementary laws of physics, but when I was a kid, I actually DID such stunts as I recomended to you. Believe me bub, the BB will lose every time. I KNOW!

SD also works only to the point that the extra length of a high SD bullet does not result in any precession of the bullet at close range. This near the muzzle wobble often reduces penetration rather than increases it as the SD calculations will claim.

You're correct in principle here: All elongated bullets will precess to some degree near the muzzle, but "go to sleep" and fly true thereafter. For example, a 30-06 AP slug will actually tip over and fly sideways if it hits an obstruction
like wood in the first 50 to 75 yards. It will tear up a lot of wod, but it won't get very deep into the wood before it stops. Hoowever, let it hit the same wood barrier after it goes to sleep and its penetration will be many times greater. What you are not taking into consideration is the first part of this paragraph: "All elongated bullets will precess to some degree near the muzzle" All of them. Every single one. (Do you need / want an exposition of why this is true?) It makes no difference if it's a 22, a 32, a 9mm, a 30-06 or a 45-70. It's as true of your precious 9mm as it is of 'my '32', so you gain no points from me with that arguement.

In actual practice, the longer Saeco bullet had considerably less penetration at close range because the bullet would tumble during penetration. The shorter Lee bullet would not. The difference was probably due to the fact that the longer bullet was more wobbly near the muzzle and struck the media (wet newspapers) not quite point on.

I don't have the time or inclination to pursue the factors in wobble, tumble or precession (whatever term you prefer) to continue responding to this part of your post. I suggest you do some research on the topic. If I'm wrong, it will do you a world of good to correct me - as it would do me a world of good to be corrected.

I believe it was either Albert Einstein or Carl Sagan who once observed "Yes, you are entitled to your own opinion. But you are NOT entitled to your own set of physical laws."

I'd say it's high time for that testing, the cold weather notwithstanding

As a matter of fact, they are currently TENTATIVELY scheduled for next week. Bringing your 9mm?

[dualsport]

Molly, maybe you could video some of the tests, go Youtube? Anybody remember the 'box o'truth' videos? Very entertaining and informative too.

[Dannix]

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. :shock: 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.
Well go figure. Maybe the case capacity comparison you made wasn't as equal as you thought?




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.
I'm not really quite sure. If I remain rational (and tight financially), I very well may never do so. .223 brass is attractive as it is cheap and plentiful. Jeff Copper did something like this apparently, referred to as the Super Cooper. This may be a an interesting read for you: 9x23 - Where Are We? (http://www.burnscustom.com/showarticle.php3?article=9x23/9x23WhereAreWe.php3) I think a "9x.223 Kurtz" could be a particularly interesting cartridge for .357 Mag performance -- with heavy .357 Mag projectiles -- in a semiauto. With standard 9x19mm projectile weights, I imagine the flash bang could be quite unattractive for defence purposes.




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 completely with you. I understand your desire for something softer shooting. I still don't quite understand your desire for particularly high (for pistols) sectional density though. I can help but think an equally soft shooting .38 Special load could be more effective and obviously just as soft shooting. I will say I certainly feel I'm gleaning far more from you than I feel I'm contributing though. :) At the very least this is starting to gel in my mind. I never thought about inertia distinctly from sectional density until this discussion.




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 my desire to be discrete I was unclear. I meant anti-personal loads. I can't help but think, albeit based on the comparatively little research I've done and that being limited to online resources, that a not quite so high sectional density boolit would suffice.

The Buffalo Bore +P 75gr .32ACP reportedly penetrated 15" at GoldenLoki (http://www.goldenloki.com/ammo/gel/32acp/gel32acp.htm). I'm not at all suggesting I would recommend you replicating this load for your larger .32. I'm suggesting the sectional density may be sufficient. Utilizing the additional mass your .32 cartridge and chamber accommodates is most certainly recommended to gain inertia as otherwise deflection MakeMineA10mm mentioned is more possible, but now we're talking about mass/inertia, and not sectional density.

[Dannix]

Just to make an anecdotal point, but one that made an impression on me:

I don't remember now if it was 35 Remington or Dannix making the point, but I liked the angle of all handguns are weak compromises, and it's just the degree of compromise we're each willing to accept. I really like that and agree with it, as you can tell from my earliest posts on this thread.

However, the discussion then turned to emphasizing velocity at the expense of bullet weight when considering the factor of momentum. While the point is technically correct insofar as the measurement of momentum, we cannot discount the target medium. What I'm trying to say is that there IS a certain bottom point to momentum which should be considered acceptable, based on the target medium, and momentum, in and of itself, is not a reliable measure of EFFECTIVENESS, any more than energy or any of the other stopping power measurements which have been attempted over the years.
That was 35 Remington.

Concerning momentum, the optimal projectile weight range a cartridge can accommodate is the real factor in choosing mass and velocity if maximum (or near maximum) momentum is desired. If velocity cannot be gained directly proportional to the sacrifice of mass, or mass gained directly proportional to the sacrifice of velocity, then momentum is lost.

So 35 Remington was right -- except if you're only working with a constant given cartridge, there's not a lot of wiggle room to play with. Take that nylon ball in 22-250 -- good luck trying to recoup the loss of mass with velocity to maintain near maximum momentum. (Of course nasa's goal was to test space craft, not to try to compete with a rail gun design). And of course the medium must be considered, as mentioned. A faster moving ligher weight may have the same momentum, but will be more likely to be deflected, sending that momentum where you don't want it. Also lower sectional density projectiles are draggier, which will manifests itself more at both faster speeds and bleed off speed more quickly on the way to the target and once in the target.




So, this brings up another concern that ties back in with the momentum/penetration question: The skull. The human skull has some very weak points, and some incredibly strong points. I once was at an autopsy where a 32ACP bullet had been fired at a range of inches into the side of a person's head. The bullet turned as soon as it got under the skin and hit the skull, and travelled under the skin, all the way around the OUTSIDE of the skull, until it came to rest above his ear on the other side. When we saw the location of the bullet and it's entry during the external examination, we were certain it went through the head (and brain) in a straight line, but X-rays and careful dissection showed it did not. The skull is actually REALLY thick and strong above the ear. When the executor saw the guy reach up and grab the side of his head and yell, "OWW!" he walked around behind him and put the gun at the base of his skull just above the spine (right in the medulla) and shot again, which killed the guy.

This is an example of how at 32-level we're starting to get to that marginal performance level (in penetration as well as wound diameter), which threshold I won't go below.
I'm willing to guess that was a JRN. I wonder that if the projectile was a FN it would have penetrated rather than deflected. That said, if the projectile was a good deal heavier than .32ACP spec, as Molly is planning, I would postulate that even with the same deflecting force encountered the heavier boolit would penetrate, particularly with a FN, simply due to inertia.

Concerning .32ACP as a minimum for consistency, I would concur except perhaps with a very unusual, unconventional design. (I couldn't help but dream up a .308x10mm :mrgreen:)

[Molly]

>>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.

>Well go figure. Maybe the case capacity comparison you made wasn't as equal as you thought?

????? The 38 S&W and the 9mm are exactly equal in case capacity. Neither one could be loaded to sufficient pressure to enable it to equal a moderate 38 special. What's unequal about that??????

Now could we return to the thread topic?

[Molly]

Molly, maybe you could video some of the tests, go Youtube? Anybody remember the 'box o'truth' videos? Very entertaining and informative too.

Yeah, and the Box 'o Truth videos are on U-tube too. But you vastly over-rate my cinematic skills. I'm barely competent to operate a digital camera, and my wife lost ours last month on a trip for her medical condition (She requires regular treatments for severe grandchild deprivation). You'll have to be content with an un-illustrated report unless someone wants to drive to Cincinnati (Actually, Hamilton, Ohio) with his camera. Volunteers anyone?

[MakeMineA10mm]

I'm not really quite sure. If I remain rational (and tight financially), I very well may never do so. .223 brass is attractive as it is cheap and plentiful. Jeff Copper did something like this apparently, referred to as the Super Cooper. This may be a an interesting read for you: 9x23 - Where Are We? (http://www.burnscustom.com/showarticle.php3?article=9x23/9x23WhereAreWe.php3) I think a "9x.223 Kurtz" could be a particularly interesting cartridge for .357 Mag performance -- with heavy .357 Mag projectiles -- in a semiauto. With standard 9x19mm projectile weights, I imagine the flash bang could be quite unattractive for defence purposes.



Slightly off-topic, but I've played with several wildcat to semi-wildcat rounds in pistol calibers, and in my experience, you'd lose much more case capacity than any gain you'd get from the thicker brass from this type of cartridge. (This is assuming you're using 223 to get a thicker web to load it to higher pressures, and that you're still going for a case length and OALL the same as 9x23 Win.) The 9x23 Win had case engineering maximizing the head (over the less-supported feed-ramp area) while keeping the case as big in capacity as possible to maximize effective internal capacity. With using the appropriate powders, I highly doubt you'd be able to out-perform the original 9x23 case. You would have to go to a faster powder to fit a max (pressure) charge in the smaller space, and then you're driving the pressure curve to be spikey and early. Sure, the thicker case will be able to handle it, but I doubt the velocities achieved would be much different and the higher and/or quicker pressures will be harder on the gun system.

Now, one of the ideas I had been toying with is cutting back 223s to the same length as a 357 Mag case and swaging the head (above the rim) so that they'll fit in a 357 Revolver. I would probably ream some of the case to give me better case capacity (because I'm not looking for all-out power and won't need the thicker walls also), and then converting an old Winchester 1907 from 351 WSL to that new caliber. Then, the ammo would be interchangeable between the carbine and the revolver, and the carbine would take .358" bullets/boolits, instead of .352" (so they'd actually shoot well in the revolver). I'm hoping the rim on the 223, after swaging down the head, will be enough to engage the extractor, but only testing will tell... In the mean time, I can say that it won't work in the revolver anyway, because the rim on the 223 is so thin that it effects the headspace. Basically the case sits farther forward in the cylinder and the hammer's firing pin nose does not project through far enough for reliable ignition... So, Back to the drawing board... These projects often don't work out, so I try to do as much as I can without getting any custom tooling or gunsmithing done to see if there are any glaring problems that can't be easily overcome.


That was 35 Remington. Well, you'd both made some excellent points, so I couldn't remember, and I was just too lazy to go back and look...

Concerning momentum, the optimal projectile weight range a cartridge can accommodate is the real factor in choosing mass and velocity if maximum (or near maximum) momentum is desired. If velocity cannot be gained directly proportional to the sacrifice of mass, or mass gained directly proportional to the sacrifice of velocity, then momentum is lost. Except, let me re-emphasize one point I made above, plus make a new one:

First, this is assuming you think Momentum is the deciding factor in stopping power. I do not. I used to think it was the best of the flawed methods out there, but once I started seeing real gunshot wounds and read some of Fackler's work, I tossed Momentum on the trash heap with all the other comparitive measurements.

Second, when it comes to momentum, the part that I found most objectionable / least consistent with real life, is that I've found bullet construction / deformation / interaction-with-target-medium to be of greater significance to overall penetration than velocity. I would say somewhere between 1.5 to 2 times more important, but that is only an average, meaning there are cases where it would be above or below that range as well, so it's not predictable. (Again, why we don't have a meaningful and proveable stopping power LAW -- only theories.)

So 35 Remington was right -- except if you're only working with a constant given cartridge, there's not a lot of wiggle room to play with. Take that nylon ball in 22-250 -- good luck trying to recoup the loss of mass with velocity to maintain near maximum momentum. (Of course nasa's goal was to test space craft, not to try to compete with a rail gun design). And of course the medium must be considered, as mentioned. A faster moving ligher weight may have the same momentum, but will be more likely to be deflected, sending that momentum where you don't want it. Also lower sectional density projectiles are draggier, which will manifests itself more at both faster speeds and bleed off speed more quickly on the way to the target and once in the target.
All of this is correct. But, first, take into consideration what I said above to the detriment of Momentum as a stopping power theory, and then take into consideration that we're talking strictly within the confines of the 32 S&W Long (which I think you are doing with your comment I bolded directly above). That's why I said at least a 100gr and better-still a 115gr ("or heavier" was implied) for Molly's uses. There DOES come a point where we go so heavy in weight that a reasonable velocity just isn't there as well. This is particularly a problem with a small capacity case or a case which is chambered in older firearms and so has pressure limitations. -- And, our poor 32 Long we're working with is saddled with BOTH...


I'm willing to guess that was a JRN. It may have been, but I can't remember, and I'm too lazy to go find the photos, and I won't put out speculation on it. I wonder that if the projectile was a FN it would have penetrated rather than deflected. That said, if the projectile was a good deal heavier than .32ACP spec, as Molly is planning, I would postulate that even with the same deflecting force encountered the heavier boolit would penetrate, particularly with a FN, simply due to inertia.

Concerning .32ACP as a minimum for consistency, I would concur except perhaps with a very unusual, unconventional design. Did I say that? :mrgreen: What I really said is that 32 is marginal. What I meant by that is that sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. That's why I said, for me, the minimum is 35-cal. (because I want something that reliably always works), and I want the velocity combined with bullet SD that is provided by 9mm and 38Spl., but I also said that with certain proven-effective specialty bullet designs (such as the Hornady Critical Def.), I'd go with lower-velocity and lighter bullets (lower SD) to the point of a 380. Luckily, there have recently been some really small pocket autos in 380 that really make 32ACPs hard to argue for, IMO.

However, our friend, Molly, has a revolver, and that changes things a little. For example, you can get MUCH superior sectional density bullets compared to the 32 ACP. Personally, I think he's sacrificing some, because the gun-size is large enough with a 32 DA Rev., that he could go with a 380 and be better-served as far as defense, but in the same size and weight package. But, if he REALLY likes those 32 Longs and can shoot them well, there's something to be said for that too. (Hitting with less-effective bullets always trumps missing with a cannon...)
(I couldn't help but dream up a .308x10mm :mrgreen:)

You mean like this? http://www.armco-guns.com/images/Text%20Pics/30armco1.jpg

I was ready to buy, but they didn't make Glock barrels... :( I was going to load it with 224" bullets in 30-cal sabots to see just how fast we could go with a case full of Bullseye... (Bullseye used for shock value only. I never worked up the load.) We debated getting this going over at GlockTalk pretty hard, as a substitute for the 224 Boz. The lack of Glock barrels really put a hamper on it. He could've sold 20-25 of them to the guys over at GT.

I liked the 30 Armco with 30-cal bullets too, but do to COAL considerations we were pretty much stuck with 30-Luger to 7.63 Mauser bullets. A 90-gr XTP at 2500 fps probably wouldn't hold together too well! :mrgreen: It would be interesting to see how fast a 71gr FMJ would go. Lino 98gr RNFP would be interesting too...

[Dannix]

High speed impact is counterproductive at some point. Linebaught et. al seemed to prove penetration is maximized (in phone books, at least) at around 1500 to 1600 fps. At higher speeds deformation of the bullet occurred that lowered penetration, but by the same token more damage occurred to the books, so killing power increased while penetration decreased.
I'm not shooting phone books, and phone books can't be killed. Phone books differ from flesh in a number of important ways, including density, nature of the connective material, elastic rebound and the presence (or lack) of bone. I've shot enough phone books to know they form a very poor basis for predicting projectile performance in flesh. (And newspapers and magazines and wooden boards and clay banks and sand banks and gravel pits and car bodies and tree limbs and you name its. With everything from 22 CB caps in revolvers to 500g 45-70 rifles. I have SOME knowledge of what I'm talking about)
Thanks for point this out! For some reason I tucked that 1500-1600fps figure into the back of my head without the utterly important caveat that the info was only applicable to dropping phone books.



All right. Here's a steel air rifle BB. Load it in a sabot to any velocity you like, and pop it into any test media you prefer against a factory 357 FMJ and report back with your results.
I think you're on the money here. Your experience testifies it I'm sure, and the poster overlooked drag, both on the way to the target, and in the target medium.





I'd say it's high time for that testing, the cold weather notwithstanding
As a matter of fact, they are currently TENTATIVELY scheduled for next week. Bringing your 9mm?
Whenever, if ever, you can do the testing Molly and when/if you choose to share the results, that's completely fine as you have absolutely no obligation to do so. If it was me, I'd probably do something warmer for now! :)

I don't know about 35remingon, but I would love to bring a 9x19 for comparison, particularly with equally soft loads of equal mass and equal chronoed velocity, so the only differing factors would be a larger meplat and lower sectional density. I'm curious at to what extent the draggier 9mm projectile would penetrate less. I think it would also be neat to do the same with a .40 and a .308 to see the difference there do. Sadly I'd love to meet up with you Molly in person, I don't have the resources to do so.

[Dannix]

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.


Well go figure. Maybe the case capacity comparison you made wasn't as equal as you thought?
????? The 38 S&W and the 9mm are exactly equal in case capacity. Neither one could be loaded to sufficient pressure to enable it to equal a moderate 38 special. What's unequal about that??????
Ah! It clicked. For some reason it didn't sink in right off. 9x19 may have been closer than 38S&W towards you're 38Special goal, but it also was not your chosen .38 Special load's equal. Me and my hard head. Maybe it will serve me well if I get hit broadside with a .32ACP JRN though. :)



Now could we return to the thread topic?
My apologies. I thought I was as I thought the sectional density you desired was part of the topic. I think a .32 at .32ACP velocities but with a ~160% heavier projectile than .32ACP weight will surely penetrate in a sufficiently dependable fashion for your purposes.

[Dannix]

Molly,
While not required, pictures and indeed be nice and video a very nice bonus indeed. I think both and particularly the latter would help to more clearly communicate the testing results. Surely we have other forum members in your area. Maybe if you started a new thread in the Cast Boolits subforum you may be able to find a volunteer with these skill sets. Maybe worth a try?

[Molly]

While not required, pictures and indeed be nice and video a very nice bonus indeed. I think both and particularly the latter would help to more clearly communicate the testing results.

Indeed they would. But I'm not able to provide them. All I can do is record the length of travel through water-filled jugs, and the last jug to exhibit pressure splitting.

Surely we have other forum members in your area. Maybe if you started a new thread in the Cast Boolits subforum you may be able to find a volunteer with these skill sets. Maybe worth a try?

I've never made a secret of my location, but (except for Dale53) only one person from the area has ever contacted me, and he wasn't exactly close at hand.

[Molly]

[QUOTE=Dannix;1157900]Ah! It clicked. For some reason it didn't sink in right off. 9x19 may have been closer than 38S&W towards you're 38Special goal, but it also was not your chosen .38 Special load's equal. Me and my hard head. Maybe it will serve me well if I get hit broadside with a .32ACP JRN though. :)

Nowhere have I stated that my objective was a 38 Special.

My apologies. I thought I was as I thought the sectional density you desired was part of the topic.
Nor do I recall expressing a desire for a specific given sectional density, though I have commented on the desirablility of a high SD for enhanced penetration

I think a .32 at .32ACP velocities but with a ~160% heavier projectile than .32ACP weight will surely penetrate in a sufficiently dependable fashion for your purposes.

The typical 32 ACP bullet is some 60 grains,and velocity is about 855 fps (Win silvertip) so you're saying that a (60*1.6=) 96 grain bullet at 855 fps will give all the penetration I will need???? That just about duplicates the .32 S&W Long!! You may not feel a need for more than that, but _I_ do!

Higher SD does indeed enhance penetration, all else being equal. But there ARE some practical limitations. The reason nobody offers (or even suggests) a 500g bullet for the .32 Long is that the 32 long doesn't have the powder capacity to move a 500g bullet at useful velocities.

I don't know of any actual studies that establish a firm relationship between caliber, case capacity and SD, but I will express my opinion that when the SD is so great that the case cannot propel it at least as well as it can propel somewhat lighter bullets, you have reached and passed the point of diminishing returns for useful SD.

[Dannix]

No problem. I'll be interested in testing results regardless, whenever you may be able to perform them and post.


While not required, pictures and indeed be nice and video a very nice bonus indeed. I think both and particularly the latter would help to more clearly communicate the testing results.

Indeed they would. But I'm not able to provide them. All I can do is record the length of travel through water-filled jugs, and the last jug to exhibit pressure splitting.

Surely we have other forum members in your area. Maybe if you started a new thread in the Cast Boolits subforum you may be able to find a volunteer with these skill sets. Maybe worth a try?

I've never made a secret of my location, but (except for Dale53) only one person from the area has ever contacted me, and he wasn't exactly close at hand.

[Dannix]

Nowhere have I stated that my objective was a 38 Special.

Nor do I recall expressing a desire for a specific given sectional density, though I have commented on the desirablility of a high SD for enhanced penetration
You were above using ".38 Special with normal pressures" to compare to. I thought your posts indicated the .38 Special Police load was your standard for sectional density and penetration (and why you consider 9x19 undesirable), and while your desire was certainly not a .32 of equal energy, your goal was equal penetration. My mistake. :-(




I think a .32 at .32ACP velocities but with a ~160% heavier projectile than .32ACP weight will surely penetrate in a sufficiently dependable fashion for your purposes.
The typical 32 ACP bullet is some 60 grains,and velocity is about 855 fps (Win silvertip) so you're saying that a (60*1.6=) 96 grain bullet at 855 fps will give all the penetration I will need???? That just about duplicates the .32 S&W Long!! You may not feel a need for more than that, but _I_ do!
My fault for inadequate communication. It was my impression a typical .32ACP bullet was a FMJ 71-73grn based on this (http://www.goldenloki.com/ammo/gel/32acp/gel32acp.htm). In other words with more than a 60% increase in mass, I would image your 120grn weight choice would be satisfactory. I thought basically no one who did any research in the matter used hollow points in .32ACP due to serious penetration concerns. Again my mistake.



Higher SD does indeed enhance penetration, all else being equal. But there ARE some practical limitations. The reason nobody offers (or even suggests) a 500g bullet for the .32 Long is that the 32 long doesn't have the powder capacity to move a 500g bullet at useful velocities.

I don't know of any actual studies that establish a firm relationship between caliber, case capacity and SD, but I will express my opinion that when the SD is so great that the case cannot propel it at least as well as it can propel somewhat lighter bullets, you have reached and passed the point of diminishing returns for useful SD.
I agree wholeheartedly. This is where the desire for near maximum achievable momentum for a given cartridge comes into play.


We seem to be talking past each other. :oops: I hope I'm not doing more harm than good, and I hope your tests go well once you guys have sufficient time and opportunity to do them.


Interesting post MakeMineA10mm! I want to avoid hijacking Molly's thread though, so PM en route.

Best Regards

[pjh421]

Hope to read this thread in its entirety some day. I would certainly carry a 32 and feel safe with it. My instructor for the Iowa Carry Law training I attended quoted many statistics but the one that stuck with me was that about 12 out of 13 times when a criminal looking to assault you sees your pistola and recognizes you have the means to defend yourself, he breaks off the attack.

This, however, is no ringing endorsement for the 32. They simply don't throw enough lead. My carry gun, and I fully recognize that I may be completely wrong, is the Smith 329PD. This is a superb little gun, though, carried in a Galco Summer Comfort IWB holster. When I took it to the range the first time last fall I shot a couple of cylinders full of the 310 grain Lee over 18 grains of AA#9. This is a little much for daily carry and so this will change to the 44-250-K at around 1000fps when I get time to tweak it . I am anything but qualified to say what works but I am more than willing to stake my life on this combination.

If my adversary is firing at me from cover, the 32 does not inspire confidence in me whereas the 44 will in all likelihood better fill the bill. But, yes, I would carry a 32 if I had too. Its really more about practice, practice, practice.

Paul

[DIRT Farmer]

As promised, the result of shooting hogs for butchering. All were shot shot at a range of 3 to 5 feet which is the distance of most defensive police shootings. The shot was from the side at a 45 degree angle as I feel this is the best shot and I have no desire of chasing hogs after they have been shot. The load was the 313-249, 85 grn rn and a 85 grn SWC that I do not rember the number, cast from WW. Gun was a S&W 31 4 inch barrel.load was published at 750 fps. A 1911 45 ACP was carried in case anything went South. The result was 4 dead 220 to 250 lb hogs. There was a differance in the effect with the shot, the SWC had a more apperent shock value. The RN the hogs droped, but just seemed to fold. The SWC the hogs stiffened and were ridged on the ground. Just info on the results. Next time I will give up on this high power stuff and go back to my 22 that has already been dropped in a hog lot.
In my humble opine, If you hit where you are shooting, what you are shooting doesn't matter. If you don't make exelant hits, things get worse. Bullet design matters. Noise don't kill.
As I posted earlier, I have witnessed 125 357s at a range of powder burns through the shirt on the chest, The can bounce off, although the shootee was feeling poorly. As EMS types will notice, the save looked good on the run report, but I diden't have to work to hard.
Molly If I had a chance, I would drive the 200 miles but due to caregiver status, I am basicly home bound.

[Multigunner]

So, this brings up another concern that ties back in with the momentum/penetration question: The skull. The human skull has some very weak points, and some incredibly strong points. I once was at an autopsy where a 32ACP bullet had been fired at a range of inches into the side of a person's head. The bullet turned as soon as it got under the skin and hit the skull, and travelled under the skin, all the way around the OUTSIDE of the skull, until it came to rest above his ear on the other side. When we saw the location of the bullet and it's entry during the external examination, we were certain it went through the head (and brain) in a straight line, but X-rays and careful dissection showed it did not. The skull is actually REALLY thick and strong above the ear.

Funny thing, I'd thought of recounting a near identical shooting that happened here back around 1970.
The victim was an off duty cop who was a bit drunk and showing out at a pool hall run by a local mobsters niece.
He had one of the patrons pinned on a pool table when the young lady walked over and stuck a .25 auto to his head and pulled the trigger.
The bullet did exactly the same thing as in the incident you described. The victim survived with no serious injury, just a very bad headache.
The mobbed up uncle saw to it no charges were filed. He is rumoured to have had his brother killed, and left he did leave his own estate to the niece when he passed away.

[Molly]

Hi Dirt Farmer,

Molly If I had a chance, I would drive the 200 miles but due to caregiver status, I am basicly home bound.

Sorry to hear that, Farmer. I've enjoyed your posts, on this and other threads. You'd sure be welcome.

[LouisianaMan]

Molly,

LouisianaMan here, just letting you know that I'm very glad you found my 2009 testing of heavyweight .32 and .38 loads of value to your study of the .32. (See pg. 5 of this thread.)

Soon I'll run some of my water-filled jug "tests" with .32ACP pistols of modern and classic vintages, and ditto for .380ACP. I also got a 200g LSWC mold for use with my .38 S&W and .38SPL revolvers, and hope to test these bullets and compare to other bullets I've shot thru these calibers. FWIW, will also run thru some 9mm loads: 115g JHP, 115g and 124g FMJ, 147g JFP.

No particular expertise claimed, but a 115-120g LSWC in .32SWL would be acceptable to me for CCW/SD, as are .38 S&W or .38 SPL 200g FN or SWC at 650-ish, +/- 50 fps. As many have noted on this interesting thread, there are a myriad of factors that account for whether a bullet "stops" somebody in a crisis. I summarize my views with the following comments:

1. I really like the penetration of heavy-for-caliber .38s and .32's for SD

2. Expansion is a huge benefit as long as the bullet penetrates deeply enough, but I note the possibility of failure to expand on one end of the HP spectrum, along with a failure to penetrate on the opposite end of that spectrum. When I mull over these possibilities, I figure that the near-certainty of deep penetration & bone-crushing capability of heavy .38s is very comforting & perhaps a satisfactory trade-off against hollowpoint designs. In .32's, I don't see any load that gives a balance of weight/penetration and expansion that is offered by the famous .38 SPL "FBI Load," the 158g +P LSWC-HP, so in a .32 I'd want a heavy LSWC of 115-120g. For the same reason, my .38 S&W guns are loaded with 200g large-meplat bullets, as I see little likelihood of HP designs expanding at velocities obtainable in this caliber, except with a bullet far too light for my tastes.

3. I buy into Fairbairn & Sykes / Applegate when it comes to point-shooting in close-range self defense. I strongly suspect this style is what I'd revert to in a crisis, as I find their argument very persuasive in its claims that gross motor movements, target focus (vice sights), etc. will assert themselves instinctively in most cases, making precise, sighted aiming problematic. In their view, a rapid burst of shots into the middle of a target is a pretty good way to win a gunfight. I'm depending on them being correct, and I find the low recoil, flash & blast of these heavy-bullet .32 and esp. .38 loads to be a great advantage. It's encouraging to be able to depend upon their thorough penetration regardless of raised hands, interposed arms & shoulders, etc.

4. Fairbairn, Sykes & Applegate were big-bore fans, which I find persuasive. I find .32s far more carry-friendly, however, and .38s perhaps the best compromise of size and power.

5. After all of the above, you're not surprised to learn that I sometimes carry a .38 S&W with 200g LSWC/LFP. You may be surprised, however, to learn that I usually carry a Remington 51 .380 loaded with Hornady Critical Defense ammo--because it's so concealable & comfortable for me, with a lousy back that limits my ability to carry something bulkier and heavier--just like your hands are becoming a factor that makes the .32 increasingly attractive to you.

6. At home, my primary HD sidearm is a Beretta M-9 in 9mm, because I have a rather large house & property in a rural area, and I find it a major advantage to have a hi-cap gun that's less likely to run dry on me at a point where I may have trouble getting to more ammo. Also, the threat here has been burglars working in groups of 2-3, so ammo capacity assumes more importance.

Final note: in WWII, Applegate's OSS equipped its agents with .38 revolvers firing a 125g bullet at a MV of less than 700fps. I suspect that means two things: (1) some lack of confidence in hastily-trained agents to handle big-bore weapons; (2) a conviction that 2-3 rapidly fired bullets into center mass are generally a recipe for winning. The former isn't a big issue for most reading these posts, but the latter is certainly food for thought. And yes, even though I'm duly alarmed about the modern-day likelihood of a drug-crazed opponent, I rarely read of a defensive encounter in which the good guy loses because of the gun he's using. I know it happens, of course, but odds are that aggressive employment of a quality gun & ammo will win most times when it comes to civilian use of firearms for purely defensive purposes. (For LEOs required to go on the offensive against drug gangs & the like, the odds are far tougher.)

[DIRT Farmer]

Molly I like to think that taking care of Dad is my insurance policy that when I get old, (older than I am) my kids will have learned by example as from Proverbs, As the twig is bent the tree shal grow. This time will pass before I am ready then I plan on traveling and shooting some.
L'man, for some reason the Brits seemed to like heavy slow slugs, most likely because they worked. In one of the late African wars after they went to the 9mm the sten guns were ineffective in winter because the coats the insurgents were packed with feathers for insulation and stopped/slowed the bullets enough to make them ineffective. The farmers in the same action tended to like the heavy caliber revolvers which penetrated the feathers.
As I type this I have my Grandfathers 1903 Colt .32 acp on my desk. It was bought for him by his father during some family "troubles"when he was 12 years old,each son got a pistol at the same time, and a 32 was for a boys gun. He carried it in the bibs of his overalls constantly and as he got older it traveled with him as he worked as a union carpenter, carring it during union troubles and dealing with a few shady types. He never felt under guned but was dissapointed that it was hard to hit squrills with it. My point is he could hit what he wanted with it and had full confidence in it. The bore is goog, considering he carried it and shot corrosive ammo, he must have taken care of it, considering the gun is 101 years old this year. He owened 3 guns, a 12 ga double and a 22 pump that served his needs. All 3 guns show a lot of wear from being shot a lot.
The size of the gun has less to do with the situation than the atitude of the man behind it.

[Molly]

Hello, LouisianaMan

LouisianaMan here, just letting you know that I'm very glad you found my 2009 testing of heavyweight .32 and .38 loads of value to your study of the .32. (See pg. 5 of this thread.)

It was a surprise and a delight to see your post here. I'm glad you approve of my copying your report, but I wasn't a member there, and had no way to contact you for permission.

Soon I'll run some of my water-filled jug "tests" with .32ACP pistols of modern and classic vintages, and ditto for .380ACP. I also got a 200g LSWC mold for use with my .38 S&W and .38SPL revolvers, and hope to test these bullets and compare to other bullets I've shot thru these calibers. FWIW, will also run thru some 9mm loads: 115g JHP, 115g and 124g FMJ, 147g JFP.

Any chance of getting your procedure? It would be nice if there were some degree of comparability between our results. I know one thing we’re going to do different from your tests: If we run out of jugs before we run out of ammo, I’m planning to re-use some of the less damaged jugs by sealing bullet holes with tape or putty to enable them to hold water again. We're currently planning to run:
32 Long, 98g factory load
32 Long, 98g SWC with a hefty charge of H-110
32 Long, cast 118g (Lyman 3118) with similar hefty charge of H-110
380 Speer factory JHP
380 Factory JRN
38 Special, 148g factory full wadcutter
357 Mag, 158g factory JFN
357 Mag, 158g JHP
44 Special, cast 240g Keith SWC over 7g Herco
44 Special, cast 240g Keith SWC over 4.5g W231
44 Mag, 240g factory JHP
44 Mag, 240g factory JFP
45 ACP cast ball LRN
45 ACP cast Ball LRNHP
44 Mag, 240gKeith SWC over 17.5g AL-8

No particular expertise claimed, but a 115-120g LSWC in .32SWL would be acceptable to me for CCW/SD, as are .38 S&W or .38 SPL 200g FN or SWC at 650-ish, +/- 50 fps.

That's both gratifying, and still somewhat surprising. I would have expected higher velocity requirements. Any particular reasons for your selection?

As many have noted on this interesting thread, there are a myriad of factors that account for whether a bullet "stops" somebody in a crisis. I summarize my views with the following comments:

1. I really like the penetration of heavy-for-caliber .38s and .32's for SD

2. Expansion is a huge benefit as long as the bullet penetrates deeply enough, but I note the possibility of failure to expand on one end of the HP spectrum, along with a failure to penetrate on the opposite end of that spectrum. When I mull over these possibilities, I figure that the near-certainty of deep penetration & bone-crushing capability of heavy .38s is very comforting & perhaps a satisfactory trade-off against hollowpoint designs. In .32's, I don't see any load that gives a balance of weight/penetration and expansion that is offered by the famous .38 SPL "FBI Load," the 158g +P LSWC-HP, so in a .32 I'd want a heavy LSWC of 115-120g.

That's pretty much where I've come out, but my calculations indicate that the 120g .32 SWC at 950 fps should be a match for the 158g 38 special police load. Have I goofed my calculations somewhere?

For the same reason, my .38 S&W guns are loaded with 200g large-meplat bullets, as I see little likelihood of HP designs expanding at velocities obtainable in this caliber, except with a bullet far too light for my tastes.

We see eye-to-eye on that too.

3. I buy into Fairbairn & Sykes / Applegate when it comes to point-shooting in close-range self defense. I strongly suspect this style is what I'd revert to in a crisis, as I find their argument very persuasive in its claims that gross motor movements, target focus (vice sights), etc. will assert themselves instinctively in most cases, making precise, sighted aiming problematic.

Frankly, the possibility that under duress, I might revert to a "shoot them in the big part so you won't miss" is a real concern to me. When warmer weather comes, I plan to do some eye/muscle training the bring the gun up to the shoulders and above. In an emergency, one is most likely to revert to training.

In their view, a rapid burst of shots into the middle of a target is a pretty good way to win a gunfight. I'm depending on them being correct, and I find the low recoil, flash & blast of these heavy-bullet .32 and esp. .38 loads to be a great advantage. It's encouraging to be able to depend upon their thorough penetration regardless of raised hands, interposed arms & shoulders, etc.

I don't know: I'm about the furthest thing you will find from an experienced gunfighter. But I've been doing a lot of reading lately by men who DO know what they are talking about in that field, and I seem to see a consensus that while body hits will take a man out, they are sometimes distressingly slow to do it.

Our local news channel has repeatedly run the surveillance video of a police station where some guy walks in and just starts shooting. I've watched this action very closely several times. There are (at various times) at least 4 and perhaps 5 officers shooting at this guy at a range from 3 to perhaps 8 feet. While I can't testify regarding every shot, I did notice that when the police handguns go off, they are generally being held well below the line of sight. That means that the cops were in a panicked "spray and pray" mode, eyes fixed firmly on their assailent, and NOT on their sights. Completely understandable I believe, but also demonstrably ineffective at putting their assailant down before he could do more damage.

4. Fairbairn, Sykes & Applegate were big-bore fans, which I find persuasive. I find .32s far more carry-friendly, however, and .38s perhaps the best compromise of size and power.
5. After all of the above, you're not surprised to learn that I sometimes carry a .38 S&W with 200g LSWC/LFP.

Well, I’ve always believed that in a fight between a good little man and a good big man, the big guy is where to lay your money. That’s why I’ve been a fan of the big bore revolver since I earned my pocket money delivering newspapers. But I DO find myself drifting toward the hot loaded 32’s. I do have a question for you though. When I was a youngster, black powder 38 revolvers seemed as common as gravel on the road. I blew up a couple of them (and damaged more) trying to get them up to the .38 special in power. That was decades ago, and I have no idea what the loads were, but I recall that as soon as I got much above factory equivalent in power, the headstamp on the cases began to flatten out. So I’d be really curious what your favorite 38 S&W load was, and what you shot it in.

6. At home, my primary HD sidearm is a Beretta M-9 in 9mm, because I have a rather large house & property in a rural area, and I find it a major advantage to have a hi-cap gun that's less likely to run dry on me at a point where I may have trouble getting to more ammo. Also, the threat here has been burglars working in groups of 2-3, so ammo capacity assumes more importance.

The possibility of being confronted by multiples does make a larger capacity desirable, but I think I’d go with a lightly loaded 45. Frankly, the reason I don’t go that route is a personal quirk: While Uncle Sam was paying for the ammo, I didn’t care, and got to love the 1911 dearly. But once a civilian and buying my own ammo, it got rather vexing to shoot 50 times, and after a long and diligent search, come up with 30 or 35 recovered cases. I went to revolvers, never lost another case, and never looked back. My personal preferences are the .357 Mag and / or the 44 Special. I played with the 44 Mag for a while, and still have one, but it’s simply more gun than I need. (Sure have had some fun shooting at impossible target with it though. I got into a FRIENDLY shooting match with a cop in our old home town once. He showed up with a sack full of soup cans. I was there early with my 44, and was cutting weeds on the other side of the river, calling my shots. Not a very wide river, but still …

Final note: in WWII, Applegate's OSS equipped its agents with .38 revolvers firing a 125g bullet at a MV of less than 700fps. I suspect that means two things: (1) some lack of confidence in hastily-trained agents to handle big-bore weapons; (2) a conviction that 2-3 rapidly fired bullets into center mass are generally a recipe for winning. The former isn't a big issue for most reading these posts, but the latter is certainly food for thought. And yes, even though I'm duly alarmed about the modern-day likelihood of a drug-crazed opponent, I rarely read of a defensive encounter in which the good guy loses because of the gun he's using. I know it happens, of course, but odds are that aggressive employment of a quality gun & ammo will win most times when it comes to civilian use of firearms for purely defensive purposes. (For LEOs required to go on the offensive against drug gangs & the like, the odds are far tougher.

There’s a LOT of food for thought in your post. Thanks for joining us. Speaking of which, you’d be welcome to come and observe our own jug tests.

[Dannix]

L'man, for some reason the Brits seemed to like heavy slow slugs, most likely because they worked. In one of the late African wars after they went to the 9mm the sten guns were ineffective in winter because the coats the insurgents were packed with feathers for insulation and stopped/slowed the bullets enough to make them ineffective. The farmers in the same action tended to like the heavy caliber revolvers which penetrated the feathers.
I'm not sure if it was this thread or another, but I saw someone recently comment that perhaps the disappointment with the .30Carbine in Korea was connected powder temperature sensitivity. Perhaps that was the issue there too, with the heavy calibre revolvers simply having a much greater margin of effectiveness such that while still handicapped with powder temperature sensitivity, it performed sufficiently well unlike the 9mm automatic stens.


The size of the gun has less to do with the situation than the atitude of the man behind it.
A hearty here here.

[Dannix]

Wow a lot of good testing in the wings here!



In their view, a rapid burst of shots into the middle of a target is a pretty good way to win a gunfight.
Couldn't that philosophy run a small revolver dry pretty quick though, potentially still with an unassuaged situation?



I’m planning to re-use some of the less damaged jugs by sealing bullet holes with tape or putty to enable them to hold water again.
If you use duct tape, be sure to avoid trying to shoot through it. I'm told a single layer will stop .475. :bigsmyl2:




Our local news channel has repeatedly run the surveillance video of a police station where some guy walks in and just starts shooting. I've watched this action very closely several times. There are (at various times) at least 4 and perhaps 5 officers shooting at this guy at a range from 3 to perhaps 8 feet. While I can't testify regarding every shot, I did notice that when the police handguns go off, they are generally being held well below the line of sight. That means that the cops were in a panicked "spray and pray" mode, eyes fixed firmly on their assailent, and NOT on their sights. Completely understandable I believe, but also demonstrably ineffective at putting their assailant down before he could do more damage.
That's really painful to hear. I hope they have a few shotguns or carbines tucked away but handy now so they're more likely to hit a bad guy even if in panicked "spray and pray" mode.


they are generally being held well below the line of sight
Out of curiosity, do you have information on what handguns where used by the officers? It is my theory that the more the grip angle approach 90 degrees, the more an unpractised shooter is likely to shoot below line of sight.

[dualsport]

You guys are making way too much sense. Can we get back to the B-52 strikes? Ok, seriously, between Molly and L'man there's a lot of sensible stuff to cogitate. I would add that being first to make a good hit in a gunfight counts for something. That's why I push reading Jordan's book. Practice shooting from the hip. They do teach it at cop school. Lastly, is there a standard that says 'X' number of 1 gal. water jugs indicates 'so and so'? I know none of this is written in red ink, just wondering what number of jugs penetrated implies what relatively speaking. I've been drinking a lot of milk and have saved up a bunch of jugs. Usually I add food color and let the youngsters shoot them. I have a .32 H&R Ruger and some .32 SWL brass, cast boolits, and a nice selection of jacketed too for the .32. Auxilliary test? EDIT: Actually I have two, Sierra 90 gr. JHC and Hornady 85 gr HP/XTP.

[DIRT Farmer]

Till the end of my career, we were taugh to shoot center mass, low gun 3yds point shoulder 7 yards. Training will kick in in any stressful event. This was found to be even when the FBI agents on a warrent team (shooting revolvers) had their empties in their pockets, even wounded they still reverted to shucking the empties in their hand and pocketeting them as in training they had to account for their empties.

In the departments I worked for, we qulified one time a year, old school, 60 rounds 3 to 50 yds, current 48 rounds 3 to 25 yds. Studies show well trained officers will shoot 30% of qulifing in a gun fight, something about bullets wizzing by being distracting. The percentage goes down from there depending on training.

Just a few things to think about, but when practicing at least some of the time dump the empties on the ground and keep your eyes on the target. Some day you might not want the delay of hunting for where your target has gone.

A houmerous note, a well placed 22 short from a el cheepo i'm not sure I would have risked shooting a short in style gun solved an unschulded romantic event one night, and I had to endure the constant complaining of I cant believe she shot me in the ----, as I treated the idiot. Apperently you will shoot what you are focused on.

[Von Dingo]

The one time I was involved with training with Simunitions, one of the Blue team and I both ended up shooting each other in the support hand at close range. By that I mean under ten feet. They were doing surveillance, and I snuck up behind them. I don't believe any sights were used. This meager experience, and various accounts of gunfights where folks had their primary weapon, or hands shot reinforces to me, personally that you shoot what you are focusing on. When you are staring down the business end of a rifled hole, that is the CENTER of the universe, at that moment.

[MakeMineA10mm]

The one time I was involved with training with Simunitions, one of the Blue team and I both ended up shooting each other in the support hand at close range. By that I mean under ten feet. They were doing surveillance, and I snuck up behind them. I don't believe any sights were used. This meager experience, and various accounts of gunfights where folks had their primary weapon, or hands shot reinforces to me, personally that you shoot what you are focusing on. When you are staring down the business end of a rifled hole, that is the CENTER of the universe, at that moment.

Agree 100%. In the situations where they really develop high stress on us during training, I tend to shoot the pistol/hands holding it in the picture targets we use.

Also, when I did simunitions training, it took serious concentration to use the sights. Sometimes I did; sometimes I didn't. Hits were easier when I did...

[Von Dingo]

Agree 100%. In the situations where they really develop high stress on us during training, I tend to shoot the pistol/hands holding it in the picture targets we use.

Also, when I did simunitions training, it took serious concentration to use the sights. Sometimes I did; sometimes I didn't. Hits were easier when I did...

My limited experiences mirror yours. In real world, with real ammo in the magazine, I can think of four times that a I presented deadly force. Two in garrison, two on deployment overseas. Two and a half times I had a clear sight picture (the half was an M-60 GPMG with the rear sight folded down, leveled at a large truck).

The stories of the empty brass in pockets rings true in my mind as well. After taking a doe a few years ago, I realized that the bolt had been cycled to allow me retrieve the brass, like at the range. Back to training as Col. Cooper suggested, work the bolt like your life depends on it in training.

[Molly]

Out of curiosity, do you have information on what handguns where used by the officers? It is my theory that the more the grip angle approach 90 degrees, the more an unpractised shooter is likely to shoot below line of sight.

Nope. The film was pretty grainy, and I couldn't make out such fine details.

[Molly]

From dualsport

I would add that being first to make a good hit in a gunfight counts for something. That's why I push reading Jordan's book. Practice shooting from the hip. They do teach it at cop school.

I've done a lot of it for fun over the years, mostly at ranges leke 25 - 50 yeards, way too far. I'm going to have to shorten that up a bit. It's amazing how good you can get with some practice, but it's also amazing how far off you can be even with lots of practice. I've noticed that the first shot generally goes wide, but if you can see it hit, the rest of them are pretty well on target.

Lastly, is there a standard that says 'X' number of 1 gal. water jugs indicates 'so and so'? I know none of this is written in red ink, just wondering what number of jugs penetrated implies what relatively speaking.

Not that I know of Dualsport. I HAVE read that - as a VERY rough guide - penetration in ballistic gelatin will be about 2/3 of the penetrtion in water. I've also read that the IDEAL level of penetration in a man will be somethng on the order of 18 inches, to allow for odd angles such as shooting up from the floor on a diagonal. I have no firm information about what 18 inches in a man translates into in terms of penetration in water. However, I think ballistic gelatin is supposed to be more or less representative of flesh, if everything is done right. IF THAT IS TRUE, one might extrapolate to say that penetration in water roughly on the order of 27 inches would be a reasonable objective. Note that this information comes with a free and very large salt block of ignorance on my part. Rely on and use at your own risk.

I've been drinking a lot of milk and have saved up a bunch of jugs. Usually I add food color and let the youngsters shoot them. I have a .32 H&R Ruger and some .32 SWL brass, cast boolits, and a nice selection of jacketed too for the .32. Auxilliary test? EDIT: Actually I have two, Sierra 90 gr. JHC and Hornady 85 gr HP/XTP.

By all means! And please post your results here for comparison.

[Molly]

Not much to do today, so I went fishing for data on the internet. Found some great sites, if you want to take the trouble to look at them. They're based on ballistic gelatin testing, with and without a fold of demim cloth. The results indicate that a single fold of denim is enough to prevent HP expansion, at least in the rounds I looked at. And pretty uniformly too. SWC's for ME!

http://sherdognet.craveonline.com/index.php#http://www.firearmstactical.com/tactical.htm

http://sherdognet.craveonline.com/index.php#http://demigodllc.com/~zak/firearms/fbi-pistol.php?sort=wv2

http://www.gun-tests.com/performance/ammotest.html
(Note: These guys recommend trying for only ~ 18 inches of water penetration, and other sites recommend a 12 inch water penetration. I guess you make your best guess and live with it.)

Here's a couple of excellent considerations of stopping power:

http://www.chucktayloramericansmallarmsacademy.com/stoppingpower.html

http://grantcunningham.com/blog_files/stopping_power_series.html

There! That should keep you out of your wife's hair for a little while.

[MakeMineA10mm]

Hey Molly,
Did you see this one?

http://www.gunsandammo.com/content/loading-32-sw-long

It's three pages, but there's a data chart at the bottom of the first page.

3.4grs VV 3N37 with the 115gr SWC gave them 800fps, good accuracy, hit to point of aim. Not bad, and right in line with my earlier suggestions.

[Molly]

Hey Molly,
Did you see this one?


Yeah, I picked it up earlier, but thanks. I really appreciate the thought.

I now have 1433 entries in my .32 (Short, Long, H&R & 327) reloading data base, so it's not too often I pick up one that is new. (BG)

[Molly]

Well, this was to be the day of the milk jug tests. The snow's all gone, and it's warm enough for shirtsleeves - if they're warm and thick. (BG)

But as Burns said, 'The best laid plans of mice and men gang oft agley!" It's also warm enough to defrost the ground, which was showing some signs of becoming permafrost there for a while. Now it more resembles permamud. Dale 53 called to tell me that if we drive down to the range right now, he has serious doubts about getting a vehicle back out. So . . . . mice and men will have to wait until the ground dries out a bit. But it's only delayed, not cancelled. Stay tuned to this station for more late-breaking news developments.

[Swede44mag]

I didn't take time to read all of the posts but I have considered buying a S&W .327mag so I could shoot the Longs .32 mags & .327 mags I think it would be an excellent carry conceal.

Isn't a .32 what Charles Bronson used in Death Wish?

[dualsport]

I'm ready to load up some JHPs in the .32 S&W Long, to be fired in a Ruger SSM. They're going to be shot at jugs of water for penetration test and comparison to lead loads. To be consistent with this thread the loads need to be safe in non-magnum handguns. The bullets I have are the Hornady 85 gr JHP and the Sierra 90 gr. JHP.

[lebrew]

I cast my LEE SWC tl 314 out of pure lead, they will expand some and deform when they make impact with bone and tissue, they will cross the ribcage of a deer and lodge in the opposite side, or penetrate depending on the angle of impact with the ribs. I am working on more effective lead BOOLITS for my mouse guns. LEAD FLAT points are the way to go. Dont make them too hard. I will be done and publish my work in another month or so. The pictures and video clips dont lie.
LEBREW

[dualsport]

LB. sounds interesting, looking forward to a report. That little Lee TL is a versatile little thing.

[Molly]

I'm ready to load up some JHPs in the .32 S&W Long, to be fired in a Ruger SSM. They're going to be shot at jugs of water for penetration test and comparison to lead loads. To be consistent with this thread the loads need to be safe in non-magnum handguns. The bullets I have are the Hornady 85 gr JHP and the Sierra 90 gr. JHP.

Dualsport, I owe you an apology: Your heading asking for 32 load suggestions just caught my eye. I'm sorry I didn't respond earlier.

Unfortunately, the litigatious nature of our society prevents me from giving you a really satisfactory reply: If your gun comes apart under a load that my gun handles perfectly, the consequences could be bad from several perspectives.

However, I will give you the following information for your consideration and guidance only, and emphaticly NOT as a recommendation. I have found that eight grains of H-110 over a CCI SP primer and under a 115g hard cast SWC bullet, heavily crimped in a 32 S&W Long case will provide energy and velocities considerably enhanced over a factory 32 Long round, and the cases will still extract easily from the chambers of my Ruger SP101 (in 32 H&R Mag) used to fire it. I have gotten similar results from slightly higher powder charges, but am uncomfortable with the degree of primer flattening. I consider the above load a useful and practical maximum for use in the Ruger 32 H&R Magnum.

Note that I would consider it unwise and very reckless to try to simply assemble such ammunition to be fired in a revolver chambered for the smaller .32 S&W Long round. I will drop down to 6.5 grains of H-110 and work up to find the maximum for use in a high quality modern revolver chambered for the .32 S&W Long. I expect to find that the maximum load for use in MY 32 S&W Long revolvers is between 7.0 and 7.5 grains, but I also expect pressures to still be well in excess of SAAMI standards.

Handguns are highly individualistic in their response to handloads, especially high pressure loads. These loads FAR exceed SAAMI recomended pressures for the .32 S&W Long, and are likely to damage or destroy older handguns, possibly resulting in personal injury to people present when they are fired. Considering the variability inherent in different batches of powder & primers, the improbability of having exactly the same case hardeness and volume and the essentially impossible duplication of my crimp and bullet alloy hardness, you would be very wise to drop my charges by at least 15% and working up from there, watching carefully for signs of excessive pressure.

I hope you find this interesting and useful.

[dualsport]

Thanks molly. It is interesting but I don't have any H-110 in the stash. I'm going to go with Lyman and Hornady book loads recommended for solid frame revolvers. My thinking is it's likely someone who chose to use these light weight JHPs might do the same. It's only for a comparison to your test results with the heavy cbs. Top velocities with this combo only reach 900 fps using AA#2, but I may try Bullseye and Red Dot. All the 'book' loads I've found use fast powders. Just for fun I'll fire a few of these loads in a Russian MN 91/30 using a chamber adapter. With that set up I've gotten very good accuracy at 25 yds using the Lee TL 314 and Bullseye. I'm gonna need a lot more milk jugs.

[MakeMineA10mm]

Hey Molly, I was delayed in getting that article out to you, but it got in the mail earlier this week. Did you receive it yet?

I also picked up that almost-full box of 32 Longs. They sure look like scaled-down 38 Spls to my eye.

A gal at work has two early 1900s revolvers her grandfather carried on duty as a Chicago cop, and I'm betting those 32 factory loads will get turned into brass when she brings them in. (But as of now, I have no idea what caliber they, I'm just speculating.)

[Molly]

Hey Molly, I was delayed in getting that article out to you, but it got in the mail earlier this week. Did you receive it yet?

Yes thanks. It looks great, but I haven't read it yet. (Daughter in law is having some health problems, and will need some TLC for a few weeks while she recovers)

Check your PMs for a note from me.

[dualsport]

I've got the neighbors saving milk jugs for me, so I'll have a bunch soon. What's a SWAG for the number of jugs needed in a row to stop a Hornady 85 gr. XTP/HP going about 900 fps?

[Love Life]

"So the question I would like to put up for discussion is this: Do you think that the .32 S&W Long – suitably handloaded – can be a reasonable choice for a CCW gun that may well be required to stop a man full of excitement and adrenalin? If so, I’d be interested in why. If not, I’d be even more interested in why not. "

My answer to the question posed is YES. I believe the 32 S&W long suitably loaded can be a viable manstopper. The reason behind this is that the target (an aggressive human) is a complete wild card. In my experience I have seen grown men take multiple hits from 7.62X51 out of a M240G and still go a substantial distance before falling to their wounds. Same thing with multiple hits from 5.56. I have also seen men drop in their tracks from a single hit from both rounds. The same can more than likely be said for 45 ACP and 9x19, but I have not witnessed it.
Shot placement is a huge factor along with ME so on and so forth, but the mindset, adrenalin, possible drug or alcohol influence all factor in as well. IMO carry the caliber you are proficient and cofident in using. Like they say a hit with a 22 is better than a miss with a 45. Personally I feel very adequately armed when I carry any caliber, but my CCW of choice is the glock 26 loaded with 147gr hydra shoks. As has been said before in this thread people have a serious aversion to being shot.

[Molly]

I've got the neighbors saving milk jugs for me, so I'll have a bunch soon. What's a SWAG for the number of jugs needed in a row to stop a Hornady 85 gr. XTP/HP going about 900 fps?

Take a look at post #87, which isn't mine, but will give you as much as I know until I am able to run my own tests.

[Dark Helmet]

Start with 8- and a good backstop for insurance

[Molly]

Here is some interesting information re water jug testing:

http://ingunowners.com/forums/accessories_and_gear/4919-water_denim_bonded_golden_saber_report.html

And here's some EXTENSIVE testing, not only with water jugs, but with wet newspapers, mud & other test media, for a variety of calibers. Don't click on this one unless you seriously need to burn up some time.

http://usrange.org/smf/index.php?PHPSESSID=1cae712585cd3552ae9a54f66d0aae 62&board=39.0

Turns out there's a LOT of similar testing data available. Just do a search on the internet. The key words I used were "gallon water denim"

[Molly]

The weather is beginning to moderate. It's pouring rain at the moment, but every so often we get a rainless day now, so maybe in a few weeks we can get to the water jug penetration tests.

Meanwhile, Makeminea10mm sent me a copy of the 'Taffin Tests" article of Sept / Oct 1955 entitled "The .32 Long" that made some mighty interesting reading. In particular, while discussing reloads for the 32 Long, he makes the comment that "2.5g of Bullseye under a 98g Speer HBWC at 901 FPS was ... not all that bad as a defensive round ..."

If so, my own offering of a case almost full of H-110 under a 115g SWC may not be as inadequate as some have suggested. It does have some significant pizzaz (I've GOT to get it chronographed!), and strikes about a foot+ high at 50 yards from my fixed sight S&W M31-1. At defensive ranges, that amounts to exactly dead on point of aim.

And that load puts it's shots into the same slightly enlarged hole from a nice little Rook rifle in 32 H&R Mag. Trouble is, I suspect that any squirrel I shot with it would convert into a pink mist, floating gently in the breeze ...

[EMC45]

Seeing how my newly sized (to .314) bullets are firing to POA/POI, and also I am getting some Tuff Products speed strips, I think the little Smith Model 30 will start riding on my hip real soon. The weather is real sunny and nice here to, so I will break out the chronograph (maiden voyage) and see what my FPS is. I feel that if a good many folks carry the .25 and .32 ACP and the .22LR for defense why should I feel "under-gunned" carrying the .32 S&W-L? The FPE is pretty impressive when you do the calculations. And the RCBS bullet is real nice and also accurate. Now it's time to stitch up a nice IWB strong side hip holster.....

[dualsport]

In case anybody interested in this thread missed it there's a GB underway for a 115 gr. RNFP that should be just the ticket for these .32s. I'm on the list. In the mean time a friend sent me some .32s from a previous GB here, I think it was a Lee mold. I'll try a shot at the milk jugs with that too.

[Matt_G]

In case anybody interested in this thread missed it there's a GB underway for a 115 gr. RNFP that should be just the ticket for these .32s.
Looks like that buy is here:
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=108987

Too bad Swede can't do brass. They tried it and had problems so brass isn't on the table anymore.
Details here:
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=109535

[EMC45]

Finally loaded up the chronograph and shot some rounds over it. I was using the RCBS 32-098 and 2.3gr. Bullseye with a CCI SP primer. The 5 shot AVG. was 677 FPS. definitely not a screamer. Very accurate load though. It is generating 101 FPE. These were shot through a Smith Mod 30 3in. I shot at a pressure treated 2X6 at about 7 yds and it passed straight through.I know it is not tissue or bodily fluid, but I was impressed with that.I will do some more testing soon.........

[EMC45]

I believe this would make a great "new shooter" load and gun combo.

[EMC45]

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm243/Evansguns/100_3600.jpg

I think it will do.

[Catshooter]

That's cute as hell EMC.


Cat

[EMC45]

I am fond of it.

[EMC45]

The hammer had about 1/4 inch nipped off the spur, the trigger has had the serrations on the face ground off and polished. The grips were oversized for a square butt J frame. I cut them down for a RB J frame. This is an I frame so they are a little proud on the butt. Don't bother me none. It shoots very well. Even with the bulge in the barrel. This is definitely not a collector's piece so I took my liberties to do the abovementioned mods to it. It was frosty and dull in the finish so I took some Flitz to it and got it looking better. The Tuff Products Speed Strips work great. 18 rounds of .32 S&W-L will deter someone/thing quite nicely....Pretty sure.

[Char-Gar]

I didn't take the effort to read all the pages of replies and this has probably said over and over, but "32 Long" and "man stopper" should not be used in the same sentence.

[Bret4207]

Nice piece EMC. I'm still looking for a 30 or 31 or 631. Everything I find is either busted up, priced like it's made of gold or both.

[EMC45]

Thanks guys! I bought this pistol from a member here for $140. What a fine fellow.

[koyote]

Wow, this has been a read. I'm a fan of some oddball caliber choices and ahve been looking for a good S&W .32SWL for a while. But I carry .44 special --- yet another bulldog owner, and one of a few .32ACP pistols. Out in the desert I'll often carry the .38 K frame since the 6 inch barrel is a useful thing if you run across one of any number of varmints in the high desert or basin.

I've been looking to get a decent .32SWL revolver for a while for - my son, my wife, reloading cost savings, and for a trail gun.

Lovely thread, and my wife has shot the .32 and agrees that it's a great starter level caliber, powerful enough to do a job, but not like what she experiences shooting my bulldog!

[Dannix]

I don't understand the "starter level caliber" statements. Could you guys enlighten me? We're all reloaders here and can make .357Mag cat sneeze loads, for example, as the situation may require.