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

[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.

[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. 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? 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. 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 )

[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? 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? 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 )

You mean like this?

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! 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.