32 acp for self defense?

[RyanM]

I really don't buy those numbers. Those penetration depths sound like the guy used regular jello. Or maybe it was actual 10% gelatin, but he left it out in the sun for a few hours. Maybe he chilled it just barely long enough for it to gel, instead of waiting for it to reach 40 degrees F internally?

You'll notice there's no calibration data. There's a reason for that.

With actual, calibrated gelatin, you'll get about 9-11", corrected, on any 60 gr .32 JHP which expands.

For instance:

http://www.firearmstactical.com/test_data/32acp/win32-60st-b3032.htm

Notice that the round which expanded to .35" penetrated only 8.7". Their jello calibrated shallow, though (but within the +/- 10% standard). Corrected to "perfect" jello, that's 9.35".

 

[JR47]

Actually, very few of the calibrations are shown in any tests. What is proposed to have "happened" is really pushing the envelope.

The correlation between "perfect" and "theirs" really means nothing, either.

While the facts may not stand out as correct in one's opinion, unless they've actually done testing, they are a little shy on results to show us.

FYI, some people are still using the old military standard of 20% ballistics gel for testing.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Let's not forget that the cartridge was designed by John M. Browning for small defensive pistols, and was used by police in many European countries for many years.

It does not matter who designed it. While it may have been used by the police in many European countries for many years, plus Hong Kong, note that they have abandoned it...and for good reason.

 

[RyanM]

Actually, very few of the calibrations are shown in any tests.

If it's not calibrated, the information is not valid. Period. I could shoot regular jello recipe gelatin, without calibration. Is that a valid test? I could shoot 10% vegetarian gelatin (made from agar or something). Is that valid?

FYI, some people are still using the old military standard of 20% ballistics gel for testing.

Some people also use potting clay, modeling clay, dirt, wet phone books, etc. Those are not valid tests. No usable information can be drawn from them, other than the performance of bullets in that one media.

Properly calibrated 10% gelatin at a specific internal temperature, however, has been correlated to living swine tissue. But protocols must be followed for the information to be of any value. A very specific type of gelatin under very specific conditions, with very specific calibration, behaves close enough to living tissue for government work.

Change any of those variables, and it no longer correlates to animal tissue. It's just gelatin again.

 

[JR47]

May 23rd, 2006, 12:27 AM
Projectiles fired were Hornady 85 grain XTP JHPs, trimmed down to 71 grains and 76 grains. This was done in the interest of finding an FBI-compliant load for the .32ACP 'mousegun'.

Firearm was 2.75" barrel Kel-Tec P32.

Block calibrated at 10.1cm and 588 ft/sec impact velocity.

71 grains

Shot 1 - 1.9 grains of N310 powder, WSPP. Bullet penetrated 12.6", average expanded diameter was 0.356". Shot impacted at 851 ft/sec.

Shot 2 - 2.0 grains of N310 powder, WSPP. Bullet penetrated 13.3", average expanded diameter was 0.379". Shot impacted at 872 ft/sec.

Shot 3 - Somehow walked out of the ammunition box amidst all of the excitement. It is probably doing its 'landmine' impression right now on the ground of the facility where the testing took place.

Shot 4 - 2.2 grains of N310 powder, WSPP. Bullet penetrated 13.3", average expanded diameter was 0.398". Shot impacted at 930 ft/sec.

Shot 5 - 2.3 grains of N310 powder, not fired at the block, but chronographed. (Primer was starting to flatten out). Velocity = 970 ft/sec.

76 grain bullets

Shot 1 - chronographed only, velocity = 828 ft/sec.

Shot 2 - 1.9 grains of N310 powder, WSPP. Bullet penetrated 13.1", average expanded diameter was 0.363". Shot impacted at 848 ft/sec.

Shot 3 - 2.0 grains of N310 powder, WSPP. Bullet penetrated 14.4", average expanded diameter was 0.360". Shot impacted at 922 ft/sec.

I cut the bullets down using a 5/16" collet to hold the bullet in the lathe and a standard carbide cutter tool. The feed rate was 0.2mm/rev. I found that coming in about 0.068" off of the rearward face of the bullet will take away enough material to transform a 85 grain XTP into a 71 grain XTP.

Here's pics of the block and bullets.

.32 ACP Ammo Test Results
Load Velocity Penetration Expansion
Federal Hydra-Shok 65 gr. 826 fps 13.5" 0.31"
Hornady XTP 60 gr 827 fps 10.0" 0.41"
Speer Gold Dot 60 gr. 823 fps 11.5" 0.31"
WW Silvertip 60 gr. 812 fps 12.5" 0.38"
Results are the overage of 3 shots fired
at ID feet into ballistic gelatin.

http://www.brassfetcher.com/Handloaded 85gr Hornady XTP (5-shot test).html

http://www.brassfetcher.com/Various .32ACP (Kel-Tec P32).html

http://www.brassfetcher.com/32ACP60grWinSilvertip.html

http://www.brassfetcher.com/32ACP71grMagtechJHP.html

These should meet the criterion presumed.

Swine flesh is only an approximation of human tissue. So, the bullets would be able to perform for comparison only in that medium. The fact that neither swine, nor humans, have 13" of homogenous tissue available should be evidence that these are, at best, the equivalent of the Thompson-Legarde tests of 1904, with better instrumentation.

However, it should be noted that quite a few of the samples handily exceeded the 13" FBI standard for penetration that so often gets bandied about.

 

[chrismc410]

All I have to say on it is this a .32 did help start one world war, and ended another, in Europe anyway. The last one was self inflicted, but showed the round does work in both instances.

 

[357reloading]

agree with 357 magnum. . 32 acp is a back up gun not for main carry. 380 is a bit better. My main gun is a Ruger sp101 with 158 grain cast bullets

It is heavy but seems to fit in the front pocket of my slacks. NOT jeans. Also have an elsastic waist band.

 

[Nushif]

My wife carries a .32 and I don't at all feel like she's under gunned. One round taken in a vacuum may not be the equivalent of HAMMER OF THOR! .45 ACP, but she can crank an entire magazine out as quick as I can crank out two controlled pairs.

Keep carrying your HAMMEROFTHOOOOOOOR! .45 ACP though. It's by no means a bad round.

 

[Ledgehammer]

Just read an article today about a 14 yo girl who shot a guy dead during a robbery attempt with a .32 revolver. One shot - it grazed off of one victims head and hit the other dead center of his forehead rendering him brain dead upon arrival to the hospital.

I trust my .32 acp with good shot placement all day.

 

[LawofThirds]

Close range.....

So within the 25 yards that's about the maximum useable distance for a .32's usually minuscule sights?

Honestly, it gets the penetration needed and it sure as hell beats the .22 LR, .22 Mag and most of the 5.7 offerings out there.

 

[Guns and more]

I, too, am torn. I'd like a Seecamp (don't bother telling me why I shouldn't).
I can get a new .380 on Gunbroker for about $950, or a new .32 for $430.
That's a big difference! It would be for strictly pocket carry, and for that, It can't be beat.
Also, being that small, the .380 has a reputation of having a very snappy (painful) recoil.
The two are the same size.
So, for pocket carry, would you go the extra $500?

I have lots of other guns. I'm only interested in the Seecamp.

 

[mjb]

If mighty mouse decided to become a criminal and break in your home then it might be a good caliber.

It is like a .25 to me. It is good for deep concealment but nothing else.

 

[pezo]

All you posters saying things like the .32 acp can't kill a man or it will only get him mad are making me laugh. How do you know for sure every time how a high velocity piece of lead is going to do when it strikes flesh. Take one thru the eye, in the spine or thru the aorta. Yes a .32 acp IS a defensive weapon just like a taser, a .45 acp, mace, .38special etc...etc. There is always an unpredictable element involve in sef defense issues.

 

[Nushif]

Pshaw!

Clearly not in the HAMMEROFTHOOOOOR .45 or the Planetkiller .40 and 10mm.

 

[Shadow 7D]

No you just need to up your killing power,

So we need the new caliber of .32 / 10mm, it a .32 with the Thermo-Nuclear Warhead from you standard 10mm grafted on......

 

[Justin Holder]

If I ever come across a CZ 83 32 acp I'll snatch it up. I think it would make a neat little woods carry piece that is far superior to any 22.

And loaded with Buffalo Bore hard cast ammo it would sting something fierce.

 

[redbullitt]

I am assuming you intend to carry the weapon, otherwise something that small would probably not even be in consideration. For a home defense etc I would opt for a larger framed piece.

It will work if you can shoot it. Afterall, it is going to be small, which means you will carry it easily. That is THE most important part. If all you will carry is a 22, then so be it as long as its on you. Catch my drift?

Honestly though, there really is no reason aside from preference to go with the 32. There are numerous other guns in very small sizes that run a ballistically superior round. Have you seen the sub compact 9mms on the market? maybe the kahr?

 

[redbullitt]

All that said, I can probably do a good job of ruining a Bg's day with my ruger mk 3, but I would rather have something with the odds more on my side... Nothing wrong with the smaller weaker calibers, but I like to have every advantage I can in a situation like that.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

Anyone else notice that when someone asks about carrying a Colt 1903 .32 they bring up the incident where a well known gun writer accidently dropped one and it discharged, killing him? The point was that the early 1903's didn't have a half-cock notch to catch a dislodged cocked hammer. Then we get the .32 bashed because it won't stop anyone. Somewhere in the middle is the truth, and probability. No matter what you decide to carry, you should know the limitations, and be prepared to operate within them. I like big guns, and respect them for what they will do. I also have a fondness for a couple of .32's, and occasionally carry them. Mine are deadly accurate, though, and I DO know their limitations. On a side note, backup mags for the .32's certainly are easier to carry than most anything else.

 

[GLOOB]

My wife carries a .32 and I don't at all feel like she's under gunned. One round taken in a vacuum may not be the equivalent of HAMMER OF THOR! .45 ACP, but she can crank an entire magazine out as quick as I can crank out two controlled pairs.

I would suggest against this particular strategy. I often read accounts where an entire revolver or magazine of a small caliber is emptied into someone without a stop. After a couple shots, reassess. If the threat continues, keep shooting. But aim better!

A BG that has been shot 5-7 times with a small caliber handgun might have more injuries than someone that has taken 2. But if none of them are stoppers, he might be encouraged to turn the tables on you when your little mouse gun starts to go "click, click."

 

[Nushif]

We are talking hypothetical rates of fire here.
She's a single aimed shot kinda girl, where I am more of a two shotter.

But head to head that's the outcome.

 

[Guns and more]

Have you seen the sub compact 9mms on the market? maybe the kahr?

Sure, I have one. It's orders of magnitude larger than the Seecamp.

My theory is that it would be so easy to carry, there would be no excuse to NOT carry it.