.32 for within a room defense?

[Kleanbore]

Posted by mavracer: Fact is psychology of BG is exponentionally more of a factor than the size of the hole.

Yes, particularly when you add in chemically induced behavior, including that involving adrenalin. The exponent varies greatly among individuals and their mental and physical state at the time of the incident.

Fact is placement has a great deal of effect on the amount of damage required.

Of course.

Frank Ettin likes to say that all things being equal, bigger holes are more effective than small ones, and more holes are more effective than fewer holes.

 

[willypete]

Let me elaborate on why .32 ACP sucks as a self-defense round:

If you actually need to depend on the immediate use of deadly force (i.e., you need to FIRE your gun), .32 ACP will not be as immediately effective as a stronger caliber.

As someone has already pointed out, if you just need to wave around a gun-like object as a deterrent, an airsoft pistol sans orange bits will be just as effective.

But when it comes to the application of lethal force, .32 ACP leaves much to be desired.

Those of you who continue to argue that any handgun is an effective means of deterrence regardless of caliber are missing the point. It has been established that the mere presence of a gun can and has stopped assailants from further misdeeds. However, if one has to employ deadly force, the .32 ACP has been demonstrated inadequate when compared to other available offerings.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Oh there are plenty of facts that justify my beliefs.
Fact is psychology of BG is exponentionally more of a factor than the size of the hole.
Fact is placement has a great deal of effect on the amount of damage required.

Those may be fact, but what real-world database of armed confrontations did you pull them from?

You feel your beliefs are justified. Believe it or not, I tend to agree with you. But I understand that my agreement is based on things I've come to believe, and is NOT based on any evidence that can be examined.

Saying that the BG's attitude is "exponentially more of a factor" than the gun's caliber seems true, but that claim is totally meaningless if the first shot (regardless of caliber) hits the BG's Central Nervous System. What's the likelihood of a first-shot CNS Hit? Darned if I know, but his bad luck could be your good luck, or vice versa.

This discussion is about a bunch of variables, and everyone seems to be using the best case or worst-case scenarios that make their position seem stronger. Nobody seems to be basing their claims on evidence from real world confrontations.

How do we move this discussion from beliefs to judgments based on meaningful evidence?

 

[Sergei Mosin]

Frank Ettin likes to say that all things being equal, bigger holes are more effective than small ones, and more holes are more effective than fewer holes.

As effective a summation of the caliber wars and capacity question as I've ever seen.

 

[mavracer]

Nobody seems to be basing their claims on evidence from real world confrontations.

If you could make a meaningful chart don't you think somebody would have done it by now?
Marshal and Sanow's data while flawed, shows trends big and fast is better than little and slow, and their writings and teachings are spot on "don't rely on one shot, shoot til threat is gone". These trends and teachings are supported even by people who say their data is meaningless.

 

[788Ham]

My little Beretta 34 might not be the biggest weapon I'd use, but if it was the only one I had on me, all 7 rounds will be pointed at the BG's head, let him be the judge on how it feels to be shot with the .32 auto.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by 788Ham: My little Beretta 34 might not be the biggest weapon I'd use, but if it was the only one I had on me, all 7 rounds will be pointed at the BG's head, let him be the judge on how it feels to be shot with the .32 auto.

Most experts advise against attempting head shots in a defensive situation. The head is difficult to hit when the assailant is charging, and the part of the head that lends itself to effective stops is very small indeed.

 

[Walkalong]

Center of mass.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Marshal and Sanow's data while flawed, shows trends big and fast is better than little and slow, and their writings and teachings are spot on "don't rely on one shot, shoot til threat is gone". These trends and teachings are supported even by people who say their data is meaningless.

The fact that trends and teachings are supported by people who say the M&S data is meaningless tells us only that there are lot of BELIEVERS out there, but it does not tell us WHY they believe as they do.

As I said, I generally agree that more and bigger is better than smaller and fewer. But, in many (perhaps MOST) self-defense situations where a weapon is actually fired, only a few rounds are used. And it would appear that in most cases, the time required to get off 6-7 well-aimed shots just isn't available. Given that, I'd like more than flawed data to help me make the best self-defense decisions.

I'd like to see someone use the techniques used in the TV Series "Deadliest Warrior" to evaluate some of these rounds and techniques. They had some specialists involved, including a trauma doctor who evaluated wounds in simulated human bodies and animal carcases... and did some interesting analysis of the physics involved in force transfer, based on photo analysis and sensors in the target bodies/carcases.

 

[mavracer]

The fact that trends and teachings are supported by people who say the M&S data is meaningless tells us only that there are lot of BELIEVERS out there, but it does not tell us WHY they believe as they do.

They believe what they do because they've done the only thing you can, look at 1000s of actual shootings and study the results.

I'd like to see someone use the techniques used in the TV Series "Deadliest Warrior" to evaluate some of these rounds and techniques. They had some specialists involved, including a trauma doctor who evaluated wounds in simulated human bodies and animal carcases...

LOL I've been hunting with a veterinarian my entire life, cleaning game turns into an autopsy.

 

[Bongo Boy]

Well, the original post never mentioned concealability being more important than functionality, and the OP asked "what is your take" (which to me means 'what is your opinion'), and asked "what is the minimum caliber you're comfortable with", not 'what do you know based on personal experience and authoritative data'.

What I know is that: 1) my take is 'no', .32 isn't sufficient (for anything at all), and 2) I'm not comfortable with anything less than 40SW. Fairly simple--those are my opinions and what I'm comfortable with. I have no reason to carry anything smaller than my Kahr K40, and feel just adequately armed with it. I don't carry with the hope of averting the need to shoot, I carry with the plan of stopping a lethal threat with gun I'm carrying.

There is almost certainly plenty of data available somewhere to show that people have been a) stopped without the defender firing, b) stopped with all calibers available including .22, c) NOT stopped with big bore revolver calibers, and d) not stopped with multiple hits from both rifle and handgun.

My personal objective is not to carry the smallest firearm that anyone has ever been successfully stopped with. Again, the ask was--what is your take on... and what are you comfortable with. Knowing assailants have taken multiple hits with .357 Mag and continued to attack, knowing they have taken multiple hits from 9mm and continued to attack, and knowing multiple hits are unlikely--I prefer to carry a weapon chambered in a caliber that I've seen ranks at or near the top in 1-shot and 2-shot wins.

Given I can conceal any weapon I carry adequately wearing anything I ever wear, and given the point of carrying a concealed weapon is not that it's concealable but that it's a useful weapon, I simply would not choose a .32ACP, or a .380 ACP, or a 9mm because for me there is no reason to.

If the OP wanted statistical data to validate a choice, then I'd suggest doing the research rather than ask for opinions. I've done my research and formed my opinions based on that AND on personal preference and comfort.

 

[C0untZer0]

I hope this doesn't become yet another contentious thread-locking argument about M&S.

My attraction to .32 has nothing to do with Marshall & Sanow's claims. It's a round that is capable of penetrating 14"-15" after denim (FMJ). Ya it's not gonna have the same effect as getting blasted with a .44 Magnum, a .45 +P or a 10mm, but it does perforate vital tissue.

I wish we had better reporting from coroners & crime reports. When the LE switch from 38 spl to 9mm happened decades ago - everyone was talking about how the weapon of choice for gangs was the "High Capacity 9mm". But A LOT of gang bangers get killed in Chicago with the 380 Auto and the .32 ACP.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by C0untZer0: Ya it's not gonna have the same effect as getting blasted with a .44 Magnum, a .45 +P or a 10mm, but it does perforate vital tissue.

Frankly, I would be more apt to choose a firearm with light recoil, reaonable capacity, a good trigger pull, and a decent grip than one with more recoil and a smaller capacity.

One should not confuse the boom and blast at the muzzle with defensive effectiveness.

I wish we had better reporting from coroners & crime reports. When the LE switch from 38 spl to 9mm happened decades ago - everyone was talking about how the weapon of choice for gangs was the "High Capacity 9mm". But A LOT of gang bangers get killed in Chicago with the 380 Auto and the .32 ACP.

Coroner reports will tell us why someone died. What the defensive shooter is interested in is how to stop someone quickly.

Many European police organizations carried .32 ACP (7.65MM) pistols for years, but I'm not aware of any that do so today. I surmise that the reason has to do with judgments concerning effectiveness.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

They believe what they do because they've done the only thing you can, look at 1000s of actual shootings and study the results.

If that were the case, I'd feel better about it. But, except for the Marshall & Sanow collection, I've not seen much, and that study has fallen into disfavor.

If you go to a firearms training class, you'll hear a number of anecdotal stories -- and most folks can cite a story they've heard. A lot of folks seem to think the data is out there and suggest, as you do above, that thoughtful analysis has been done. You may all be correct, but I don't think that is the case.

If you are correct, I'll happily be proved wrong and try to get some copies of this useful information for my own use.

.

 

[Old Fuff]

If you are correct, I'll happily be proved wrong and try to get some copies of this useful information for my own use.

I also know of about 6 or 8 instances where a .32 pistol or revolver was brought into play, but no shots had to be fired - which i believe is what happens most of the time.

If you can, see if you can find a stack of American Rifleman magazines from the 1950's and backwards. Then read The Armed Citizen feature that is a collection of newspaper reports where someone used a firearm is self defense. .32 pistols were in more common use back then, and you may find something.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

I've been reading The Armed Citizen feature for several years, now. It's interesting. A surprising number of the stories presented are home invasions or robberies on the job. When shots are fired, it's often a small rifle pulled out of a closet; in the businesses, it's often a larger semi-auto. There are seldom a lot of shots fired -- but there are exceptions.

 

[Old Fuff]

Many European police organizations carried .32 ACP (7.65MM) pistols for years, but I'm not aware of any that do so today. I surmise that the reason has to do with judgments concerning effectiveness

Not really. They switched to 9mm x 19 Parabellum in most cases to have a cartridge that was the same as used in the sub-machine guns they commonly issued,

I once knew a UK military officer that was assigned to the SAS. This was in the early 1980's and he could shoot and hit with most any handgun you might name, size and cartridge caliber not withstanding. One of his favorite pistols was what he called, "the Model M" and we would know as the Colt .32 Pocket Automatic. This of course was in the context of a concealed weapon.

As an aside: One of the things he mentioned was that when these were used in hot/humid climates they were nickel plated and fitted with ivory stocks.

When carried in a white leather shoulder holster they were less likely to show through the fabric of a light/white linen suit coat commonly worn by gentlemen in the Tropics.

 

[mavracer]

Frankly, I would be more apt to choose a firearm with light recoil, reaonable capacity, a good trigger pull, and a decent grip than one with more recoil and a smaller capacity.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. bigger deeper holes require more momentum, more momentum equals more recoil. Finding a balance between recoil and control is an important consideration.
The 32 is a very light recoiling cartridge and will reliably penetrate 12+"

 

[Old Fuff]

I've been reading The Armed Citizen feature for several years, now.

As I also have.

But in 1968 the government cut off most if not all, .32 pistol imports; and by that time the major U.S. manufacturers had dropped them. As a consequense you won't often find them in more recent news accounts.

 

[Walkalong]

My CZ 83 and my Beretta 81 are both police trade ins. I would be comfortable defending my self with either, as I shoot them both well. I don't carry them, because my 1911 in .45 and my EMP in 9MM are just as easy to carry, and I shoot them very well.

I am much more worried about recognizing the threat, drawing the gun in time, and keeping my wits about me enough to properly place a shot or two, than I am the caliber.

I like the .32, and got rid of my .380s in favor of them for playing at the range, but I would also rather defend myself with them vs the .380.

 

[PRM]

I like the .32, and got rid of my .380s in favor of them for playing at the range, but I would also rather defend myself with them vs the .380.

+1 on that. Over the years I have owned five different Walther PP series guns. My first two, were a German Walther PPK/S in .380 and a French Manurhin Walther PP in .380. I have also owned two Manurhin PPs in .32 and an Interarms SS PPK/S in .32. My current EDC is either a Manurhin PP in .32. or the Interarms. I tend to favor the longer slide on the Model PP.

The .380 in the blowback design is a snappy round and definitely slower to bring back on target for follow up shots. There has been a lot of discussion on the Walther Forums about the PP design. Originally the gun was built for the 7.65/.32 ACP cartridge. Most agree that the guns perform a little better with the .32 over the .380. I will have to say that has also been my experience. With both of my .380s, I would have an occasional hiccup. Not enough to be a major consideration, but they did exist. Probably around one shot every hundred rounds would either not eject or feed properly. All of my .32s have been flawless performers. My current Model PP was a police trade-in, and I have no idea of the round count before I bought the gun. It is a mid 1970s production firearm. After I had put somewhere around 5K rounds through it, I started having failure to feed issues. I am very meticulous about my guns so being properly cleaned was not a consideration. I replaced the recoil spring (about a year ago) and it has run perfect ever since.

My NAA is not as accurate as my Walther(s), but when you want something small, it definitely has it's place. It's small enough, there is no reason to ever be unarmed (where you can legally carry). Built on the Seecamp design this little gun has a lot of positives. There is a pretty good review of the NAA on You Tube linked below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzZXmhnHId0

 

[Vodoun da Vinci]

I have to interject something in this thread again despite the direction it has gone...which was kind of predictable.

Theories in gun fighting and lethality and which calibers are the best are just that - theories. I am often put off by internet experts who tout the same tired chest thumping "bigger is better and the only choice" because they "read it in a report on the Internet". I have pistols in .32 ACP and shoot them well and *very* accurately and *very* quickly. I have 9mm, .45, .357/.38, 12 gauge, etc at my disposal and shoot them well and fast and accurately. Just not as fast or as accurately as my .32's. I have tried and tried to out shoot myself and the best, fastest and most accurate pistol in my hand is my Colt 1903 Model M.

For reference I am not intimidated that the .32 will bounce off a bone, not penetrate, not kill. I have converesed at length with 2 ER doctors who worked at major hospitals in Chicago, Detroit and other nasty places and have conferred with other ER doctors in seminars from around thew world.

One of these guys carries a Walther PP detailed and optimized in .32 ACP because he has pulled the sheet over many dead peoples faces who have been killed and stopped with .32 ACP, .25 ACP, and .22 Long. The caliber, according to these experienced surgeons is *way* down the list in human stopping criteria. The thing that stops an attacker is precision hits to a specific area - a .32 that hits these areas stops as well as a .45. The only place a larger caliber is better is is marginal hits to non critical "shut down" zones. All things being equal (and they never are in a confrontation involving firearms) it doesn't matter what caliber penetrates the base of the throat and lodges in the spine. If you miss a critical shut down target you will *not* stop an individual no matter what caliber you use. Will he die quicker from bleeding/shocking out from a .45? Sure he will....10 minutes after the life or death confrontation is over and done.

The key is accuracy, combat and situational awareness, tactics, attitude, rapid follow ups.....when deciding to shut down an attacker you have to *move* laterally and preferably to cover while delivering rapid, accurate fire to the upper chest (between the armpits) and to the base of the throat. If you are sucessful a .22 is as good as a .45 - if you are not successful in penetrating these areas a .32 is as good as a .40 or as bad as a .45 depending on your perspective.

Bullet caliber is *way* down the list in needs in a gunfight. Rapid deployment of a pistol (complete surprise), and accurate rapid follow ups to vital/critical areas while moving to cover and maintaining situational awareness are the tactical criteria. If you can do that with a high capacity .40 (I can't) you should do that. If you can do that with an 8 shot .32 then you should do that.

My perspective is not theory based on Internet Chest Thumpers - it comes from guys who have seen more dead folks from gunshots than most of us will ever see outside of a video game and have evaluated medically what killed them and how. *All* handguns are wimps at stopping an attacker. My perspective comes from 20 years of training in the dojo with cops (military and City/County LEO) and defense against knife attacks with hand guns. Your only hope is critical, rapid hits to specific, small, and potentially impossible targets on the human that needs to be shut down. Whether you tap these points with a .22 or a .45 is irrelevant. Tap them you must or he may not stop until he bleeds out or goes shocky.

Pick the caliber and weapon platform and practice, practice, practice all aspects of self defense. Get fit (mentally, physically, spiritually) and get prepared and knowledgeable about what works in your hands and what platform you can shoot without thought, sights, and while scared and distracted. In a fight all things go out the window except those things that are subconscious and "bone deep" and that means training. Not 500 times - not 5000 times. Millions of repeated perfect actions done perfectly over and over until you can do it without thought. And if that's with a .32 or a .22 or a .45 then that's what you use in a life or death struggle. I trained with cops and military police who have seen action. At 10' combat distances a good knife and the skills to use it will shut an attacker down *way* faster than a handgun. If it comes to grappling over a pistol beat him with it or cut every tendon and vessel he has in his upper body with your back up which would be a knife given my training and skill levels.

Caliber is way down the list. Use the biggest caliber you can deliver with and to ascertain that you have to have shot with a lot of guns, in a lot of circumstances, under a lot of pressure, in many calibers. Never shot a .32 ACP or a .357 Sig or a .38 special or a .45 ACP?

You need to do that before you decide it can't work/won't work based on Internet theory. In this thread, yes I will grab my .32 Colt and fight my way to my 12 gauge or get to the 12 and use the .32 as back up which would be my preference. My 2 cents. Thanks for reading my diatribe.

VooDoo

 

[PRM]

VooDoo - I was not going to go there, but since you opened the ball.

One of the reasons I am not concerned with using smaller calibers like the .32 is mainly because of personal experience. I grew up un the rural South in the 60s. Back then, just about every farmer had a .22 rifle or pistol in their pick-up. Rabbits and squirrels were a given, so were ground hogs, beavers, raccoons in the garden, feral dogs and coyotes bothering livestock, they all got taken care of with the lowly .22. A lot of beef was put in the freezer along with sausage and ham at hog killing time. I realize none of these were a human, giant, meth-crazed, homicidal maniacs. But, we shot everything that needed shooting with the smallest caliber available, a .22. Mainly because it's what we had, and it always worked.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Vodoun da Vinci: Theories in gun fighting and lethality and which calibers are the best are just that - theories.

First, the question has little at all to do with lethality; one can kill any human being with a well placed shot from a .22 Long Rifle.

Second, people who want to study the subject have more than "theory" to research. This is an authoritative study based on scientific analysis and the medical realities of human physiology.

I have tried and tried to out shoot myself and the best, fastest and most accurate pistol in my hand is my Colt 1903 Model M.

I don't know what you mean when you say that you have tried to outshoot yourself, but I too like the Colt, the Savage, and the Beretta Model 1934. My problem with them is the operation of the safeties.

I prefer them all to a tiny six shot .32 with a small grip frame and a long trigger pull.

For reference I am not intimidated that the .32 will bounce off a bone, not penetrate, not kill. I have converesed at length with 2 ER doctors who worked at major hospitals in Chicago, Detroit and other nasty places and have conferred with other ER doctors in seminars from around thew world.

That the .32 ACP will penetrate is both demonstrable and undeniable. The problem with basing conclusions on the observations of a few doctors who have seen the damage caused by projectiles, as opposed to evidence of the defensive effectiveness per se, is that they simply have not seen enough to conclude much of anything.

As the report linked above explains quite well, the subject of physiological injury by penetration is a very complex one, and the relevant actual data are sparse indeed. There are just too many equations, and too few "unknowns". Anyone who has even a cursory understanding of the scientific method will understand that.

The only place a larger caliber is better is is marginal hits to non critical "shut down" zones. All things being equal (and they never are in a confrontation involving firearms) it doesn't matter what caliber penetrates the base of the throat and lodges in the spine.

That makes sense, but the question of how much better remains unanswered.

The key is accuracy, combat and situational awareness, tactics, attitude, rapid follow ups...

I don't think that "accuracy" is quite the most applicable word; the question is what one damages inside the assailant. If he's charging, luck is as great a determinant as accuracy per se.

And of course it is his attitude, and not yours, that will determine when the and how quickly he stops.

...when deciding to shut down an attacker you have to *move* laterally and preferably to cover while delivering rapid, accurate fire to the upper chest (between the armpits) and to the base of the throat.

Good tactics.

If you are sucessful a .22 is as good as a .45 -

I really don't think so. The .22 is very lacking in terms of penetration and in terms of its ability to damage catastrophically whatever it hits.

Bullet caliber is *way* down the list in needs in a gunfight. Rapid deployment of a pistol (complete surprise), and accurate rapid follow ups to vital/critical areas while moving to cover and maintaining situational awareness are the tactical criteria. If you can do that with a high capacity .40 (I can't) you should do that. If you can do that with an 8 shot .32 then you should do that.

Excellent advice!

My perspective is not theory based on Internet Chest Thumpers - it comes from guys who have seen more dead folks from gunshots than most of us will ever see outside of a video game and have evaluated medically what killed them and how.

Again, there's the little matter of trying to analyze a complex subject with a very small data sample.

 

[jimbo555]

Hey Vodoun. What do those military cops and law enforcement guys you train with carry? 32's? I doubt it!