Vern Humphrey
Member
"Thrice armed is he
Whose cause is just
And six times he
Who gets a good hit fust."
A note on Calibers from Larry Seacamp
- Thread starter gym
- Start date
- Status
"Thrice armed is he
Whose cause is just
And six times he
Who gets a good hit fust."
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
The question isn't one of lethality, as a good many men have been killed with .32s and smaller calibers. It's a matter of hitting someone hard enough to make him stop what he's doing quickly enough to stop him from doing it in spite of being shot. Sometimes they don't stop immediately...or even quickly.
A man can absorb a fatal hit, and still continue what he was doing right up until he drops from blood loss. Sometimes that can take a while. Sometimes it can take several hours. If he doesn't drop for 3 minutes, that's more than enough time to wreck your day.
No caliber can guarantee a timely end to hostilities...but a heavy caliber will provide better odds of that than a light one. That a police agency chooses a given caliber is no proof that it's a wise choice.
"Never hit a man unless you must...but if you must hit him, don't be gentle. Put him to sleep."
--Teddy Roosevelt--
A man can absorb a fatal hit, and still continue what he was doing right up until he drops from blood loss. Sometimes that can take a while. Sometimes it can take several hours. If he doesn't drop for 3 minutes, that's more than enough time to wreck your day.
No caliber can guarantee a timely end to hostilities...but a heavy caliber will provide better odds of that than a light one. That a police agency chooses a given caliber is no proof that it's a wise choice.
"Never hit a man unless you must...but if you must hit him, don't be gentle. Put him to sleep."
--Teddy Roosevelt--
griz312000
Member
This is an argument that is nearly as old as handguns themselves, and will probably continue as long as they exist. As a young rookie police officer I was issued an old Colt .38 that I carried until I could afford a new Ruger .357 mag. I carried that until I went to a department that allowed the carry of auto pistols, where I promptly went to the 1911, that I continued to carry in one variation or another until retirement. And to this day, I carry a Kimber Ultra CDP II in .45 almost on a daily basis. I have always been a believer in carrying the biggest handgun you can control and shoot well, and put lots of "nines" in the hands of officers who handled them well and flinched and closed their eyes when shooting anything bigger. SO....Carry what you can handle, practice, practice, practice, but most of all, keep your head up, eyes open and stay out of situations where you need the gun in the first place!!!
The OP makes some pretty spurious claims and then this statement:
That is misleading and you all chased the wrong rabbit. The author started with discussion about the 32 but then went on to discuss other calibers.The discussion should be whether shot placement trumps "energy" not caliber. For example, are you saying a pip-squeak 223 pistol would not have stopping power?
All you have to agree about now is what "stopping power" is.
That is misleading and you all chased the wrong rabbit. The author started with discussion about the 32 but then went on to discuss other calibers.The discussion should be whether shot placement trumps "energy" not caliber. For example, are you saying a pip-squeak 223 pistol would not have stopping power?
All you have to agree about now is what "stopping power" is.
Aguila Blanca
Member
Do you see any irony, whatsoever, in allowing your forum-standard signature to immediately follow the above diatribe?
My usual training routine does not include practicing to shoot assailants in the foot ...
siglite
Member
At that point, I might have dismissed the man's opinions altogether, for he presumes to own his wife.
sm
member
There are no Magic Talismans, no Holy Grails, and when it is your time to die, you die.
Re: Use Enough Gun.
1. Physical Limits.
i.e. Just like our own Preacherman has been through;, I currently know of a Marine, that is limited to .22 caliber, due to back, neck injuries and surgeries, sustained in the current conflicts going on. He also detached a retina.
No recoil orders, by his Doctors and Physical Therapists.
2. Environment.
Young lady works as a private contractor for a Utility company.
Her job is door to door.
Her job does not allow CCW, entering a residence of a client and other restrictions.
She was late for her appointment with me.
She was about 10 yards away, with the appointment scheduled before mine, when her personal vehicle, was attacked.
Just her plain, simple older car, that gets good gas mileage, she uses for this work.
Shots rang out just few doors down in this Apt complex. So there she is, speaking to a elderly lady, when shots rang out over a boy/girl situation, and the friends of the girl, attacked her car thinking it was a car of the guy.
She went inside that Apt, for safety reasons, and had a Beretta Tomcat in 32ACP on her person.
Now as far her employer is concerned, she does not carry a gun, nor enter residences, and it was stated on the call back by the elderly lady she did not enter the residence.
I know this lady, through her Dad, a Doctor.
This daughter on her own time, carries a Colt Combat Commander with Hardball, as her choice of CCW
On the family property, she totes a .44 magnum , most often.
Her dad and mom are shooters, and one uncle of hers, Army Ranger, mentors her, and started when she was quite young.
Enough Gun might be dictated by physical limitation, regulations, and environment.
How many folks have to use a shotgun to deer hunt?
They might have a 30-30, or .308, or 30-06.
Shotgun only Zones dictate what is Enough Gun.
Re: Use Enough Gun.
1. Physical Limits.
i.e. Just like our own Preacherman has been through;, I currently know of a Marine, that is limited to .22 caliber, due to back, neck injuries and surgeries, sustained in the current conflicts going on. He also detached a retina.
No recoil orders, by his Doctors and Physical Therapists.
2. Environment.
Young lady works as a private contractor for a Utility company.
Her job is door to door.
Her job does not allow CCW, entering a residence of a client and other restrictions.
She was late for her appointment with me.
She was about 10 yards away, with the appointment scheduled before mine, when her personal vehicle, was attacked.
Just her plain, simple older car, that gets good gas mileage, she uses for this work.
Shots rang out just few doors down in this Apt complex. So there she is, speaking to a elderly lady, when shots rang out over a boy/girl situation, and the friends of the girl, attacked her car thinking it was a car of the guy.
She went inside that Apt, for safety reasons, and had a Beretta Tomcat in 32ACP on her person.
Now as far her employer is concerned, she does not carry a gun, nor enter residences, and it was stated on the call back by the elderly lady she did not enter the residence.
I know this lady, through her Dad, a Doctor.
This daughter on her own time, carries a Colt Combat Commander with Hardball, as her choice of CCW
On the family property, she totes a .44 magnum , most often.
Her dad and mom are shooters, and one uncle of hers, Army Ranger, mentors her, and started when she was quite young.
Enough Gun might be dictated by physical limitation, regulations, and environment.
How many folks have to use a shotgun to deer hunt?
They might have a 30-30, or .308, or 30-06.
Shotgun only Zones dictate what is Enough Gun.
sacp81170a
Member
Exactly. After that comes knowing the limitations of your weapon. I would not attempt to shoot through a car door with a .32 unless there were no other option. I advise my students that if they plan to carry a .22 for personal defense that they should look into a .22 revolver since the malfunction drill for it is to simply pull the trigger again. If you're physically limited in your ability to use a firearm, you might think about choosing the one that's simplest and requires the least manipulation. A .22 mag is nothing to sneeze at, and with revolvers that hold 8-9 rounds, you get a nice, concealable package that's more reliable than any autoloader.
Use the tool that fits the situation best. You don't eat your oatmeal with a shovel, but then it's pretty hard to dig a ditch with a spoon. All else is secondary.
gbran
Member
I sure get tired of this argument. It pre-assumes that a larger caliber isn't capable of shot placement. While I understand that a 44 mag may be more difficult on follow-ups, I'd bet my 1911's generally have better first and follow-up shots than most .32 small guns.
Is shot placement guaranteed?
If it were, then nobody would need to pack anything but a .22
Larger calibers disrupt more tissue and are likely to be more incapacitating with a non fatal hit.
I'm thinking Mr. Seecamp is just trying to sell his latest widget. I'm certain the .32 will work fine for some folks. I wouldn't feel comfortable relying on one.
If it were, then nobody would need to pack anything but a .22
Larger calibers disrupt more tissue and are likely to be more incapacitating with a non fatal hit.
I'm thinking Mr. Seecamp is just trying to sell his latest widget. I'm certain the .32 will work fine for some folks. I wouldn't feel comfortable relying on one.
Cannonball888
Member
Or cars. He thought they could fly.
sacp81170a
Member
My reasoning on the revolver is that .22's sometimes have gaps in the primer. Everyone who's ever shot a .22 for very long will have had the experience of a round that simply fails to go bang, even though there was a good strike on the round. You put it back the mag, pull the trigger on it again, and bang. It has less to do with magazine capacity than with the inherent reliability of rimfire ammo. Of course, you can use only match grade ammo to help relieve this problem, but centerfire ammo is generally more reliable than rimfire, especially in the personal defense/LE loadings.
If you have a failure to fire in a revolver, no big deal, pull the trigger again. If you have a failure to fire in a semi-auto, it could be a very big deal. YMMV, I prefer maximum reliability. Extruded primers can have gaps. Pulling the trigger again and hitting the rim in the same place doesn't cure the cause of the malfunction in the first place. With a revolver, you get a new round in the chamber every time you pull the trigger.
That statement is far too simplistic. See the volumes of work on gunshot wound assessment. Unfortunately, despite all the theoretical work it has still proved impossible to relate the theory and the practice in civilian shootings, including police use, because there is not enough carefully recorded data to compare with the theory.
As you say, it is likely, or reasonable, to think, that a high energy round will provide the best stopping power. However, two exactly similar bullets impacting 1/8 of an inch apart can have totally different results if one cuts nerves or a critical blood vessel and the other does not. This can happen with shots that we would judge, externally, to both be perfectly placed.
Disrupting tissue is important but it still has to be the right tissue. When you get down to the relatively small areas of the body where tissue disruption becomes a factor in the "stopping" equation the critical disruption can be a matter of fractions of an inch in bullet track rather than bullet energy. Bullet penetration may be more important than tissue disruption. Quite literally - it's the luck of the draw. You are dealing with a whole bunch of variables, bullet energy is just one.
Thanks SAC
I get your point now. That, of course, could also apply to centerfire cartridges which is why FTF drills always assume a bad round.
Last edited:
Strange how fashion in shot placement changes.
At one time a gut shot was considered effective because it caused some sort of debilitating nervous reaction.
And the old standby for "stopping" someone, if you mean physical movement, was a pelvis or kneecap shot.
Perhaps these would be cases where the high energy bullet would be very effective.
At one time a gut shot was considered effective because it caused some sort of debilitating nervous reaction.
And the old standby for "stopping" someone, if you mean physical movement, was a pelvis or kneecap shot.
Perhaps these would be cases where the high energy bullet would be very effective.
1 old 0311
member
Gee someone who SELLS .32's is PUSHING .32's? Now what are the odds of that?
Anyone show me where those who actually USED a handgun in defense, Jeff Cooper, Skeeter Shelton, Jin Cirello, Bill Jordan, etc. favored these?
Bring a GUN to a gunfight.
Anyone show me where those who actually USED a handgun in defense, Jeff Cooper, Skeeter Shelton, Jin Cirello, Bill Jordan, etc. favored these?Bring a GUN to a gunfight.
Bighouse Doc
Member
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2007
- Messages
- 56
Pistols kill by either destroying a CNS target or by causing severe exanguination. Unlike high power rifles, even a 44 magnum does not cause multi-organ hydrostatic shock trauma.
Pistols do not blast organs into pulp like rifles. They do not pick people off their feet and throw them several meters(like in the movies) or any other effects attributed to large bore handguns.
A 32 that clips an aorta or spinal cord will drop a bad guy faster than a 45acp through the(largely empty) lung.
What advantage do big bore pistols offer? Mostly the fact they can penetrate to vital targets more reliably.
I would not assume small calibers can't penetrate. I read of an AD of a 380 that penetrated clean through the man's thigh, car seat, and into the under body of the vehicle.
In the James Bond novels, Bond carries a Beretta 25 acp until Dr. No. Due to his Beretta hanging up and almost causing his death in "From Russia with Love," M orders him to carry a larger gun. He is issued and PPK 32 and A S&W 38 snub nose revolver (for long range shots) by the armorer.
Fleming knew little about firearms. He was issued a 25 while he worked for the Secret Service. His friend Geoffery Bothroyd (after whom Q was later modeled in the movies) wrote to him and told him the 25 was all the wrong weapon for his character.
In all of the novels, exotic weapons and gadgets are seriously lacking. Strange how I like them better than the films.
Pistols do not blast organs into pulp like rifles. They do not pick people off their feet and throw them several meters(like in the movies) or any other effects attributed to large bore handguns.
A 32 that clips an aorta or spinal cord will drop a bad guy faster than a 45acp through the(largely empty) lung.
What advantage do big bore pistols offer? Mostly the fact they can penetrate to vital targets more reliably.
I would not assume small calibers can't penetrate. I read of an AD of a 380 that penetrated clean through the man's thigh, car seat, and into the under body of the vehicle.
In the James Bond novels, Bond carries a Beretta 25 acp until Dr. No. Due to his Beretta hanging up and almost causing his death in "From Russia with Love," M orders him to carry a larger gun. He is issued and PPK 32 and A S&W 38 snub nose revolver (for long range shots) by the armorer.
Fleming knew little about firearms. He was issued a 25 while he worked for the Secret Service. His friend Geoffery Bothroyd (after whom Q was later modeled in the movies) wrote to him and told him the 25 was all the wrong weapon for his character.
In all of the novels, exotic weapons and gadgets are seriously lacking. Strange how I like them better than the films.
The Annoyed Man
Member
Re: Shot Placement:
I usually carry a 3" 1911 in .45 ACP. I also sometimes carry a 1-7/8" revolver in .38 Special, and I shoot way more accurately with the .45 than with the .38. Of the pistols that I own, I shoot the least accurately with my Colt Government in .380. Also of the pistols that I own, I shoot most accurately with my .44 magnum revolver (which is just too dang big for a daily concealed carry weapon). I have no personal experience from which to pull the conclusion that I would shoot more accurately with a .32.
Given the above - for me - caliber size seems to be directly proportional to how well I shoot the pistol, why would I want to take a step down to a tiny caliber when I can shoot a larger caliber more effectively? I too have had a number of years in an ER setting treating gunshot patients. It is true that most of the people that I have seen shot dead were killed with .22s. It is equally true that most of them absorbed multiple rounds before dying. It is also true that the people I've seen shot dead with larger calibers typically absorbed fewer rounds before dying. Since I was not at the time and place of the shooting, I have no idea in actuality how many seconds or minutes it took for the guy to expire before he got to us; but I DO know that guys shot dead with 9mm bullets tend to need fewer hits than those shot with .22s; and those shot with .45s tend to need fewer hits than those shot with 9mms.
Since A) I can shoot my .45 fairly well; and B) since my own real life anecdotal observations lend favor to that particular caliber in terms of overall effectiveness as compared to smaller calibers; and C) since I only have one life here on this earth to live and I don't think it worth risking on a possibly inferior caliber; then why would I want to rely on Mr. Seacamp's somewhat self serving statements for any other reason than he makes a nifty little pistol, and it would be cool to own one? Other than concealability, there is no tactical advantage to it, and there just might be some tactical disadvantages.
Also, it is admittedly true that incapacitation from a gunshot wound may boil down to a matter of scant millimeters to the left or right or up or down. But since that is the case, and given otherwise identical bullet placement, isn't the bullet that has a pre-expansion diameter of 11.43mm (.45 ACP) going to be a better bet than one that has a pre-expansion diameter of 7.65mm (.32 ACP) - even more so once you factor in post-expansion diameter? A .32 caliber bullet could blow right past a descending aorta or other critical structure, missing it by as much as a couple of mm, whereas a .45 caliber bullet on the same internal trajectory might tear it apart.
On Iwo Jima, my dad shot an attacking Japanese soldier from less than 10 ft away, using his 1911A1, hitting the unfortunate sod in the stomach. I asked my dad what happened next. No, his bullet did not knock the guy down, or push him backwards. But, it did cause his legs to instantly buckle underneath him, and he (as my father put it) "sat down abruptly." He never moved after that. I have no idea whether or not he was dead, but he was for certain out of the fight. As a Texas CHL holder, if I am pushed into the extreme of having to deploy my weapon, my goal is not to kill my opponent, but to stop his attack. If "stopping" results in his dying, then so be it. I am absolutely certain that I can kill a man with a .32 if I can fire enough rounds and hit him well, but I would have no confidence that I could stop him in the time necessary before he can do harm to me.
With a .45, I am fairly certain that, even if I don't kill him, I can probably rid him of the desire to pursue his attack to its conclusion; and that is why I carry a pistol in the first place.
I usually carry a 3" 1911 in .45 ACP. I also sometimes carry a 1-7/8" revolver in .38 Special, and I shoot way more accurately with the .45 than with the .38. Of the pistols that I own, I shoot the least accurately with my Colt Government in .380. Also of the pistols that I own, I shoot most accurately with my .44 magnum revolver (which is just too dang big for a daily concealed carry weapon). I have no personal experience from which to pull the conclusion that I would shoot more accurately with a .32.
Given the above - for me - caliber size seems to be directly proportional to how well I shoot the pistol, why would I want to take a step down to a tiny caliber when I can shoot a larger caliber more effectively? I too have had a number of years in an ER setting treating gunshot patients. It is true that most of the people that I have seen shot dead were killed with .22s. It is equally true that most of them absorbed multiple rounds before dying. It is also true that the people I've seen shot dead with larger calibers typically absorbed fewer rounds before dying. Since I was not at the time and place of the shooting, I have no idea in actuality how many seconds or minutes it took for the guy to expire before he got to us; but I DO know that guys shot dead with 9mm bullets tend to need fewer hits than those shot with .22s; and those shot with .45s tend to need fewer hits than those shot with 9mms.
Since A) I can shoot my .45 fairly well; and B) since my own real life anecdotal observations lend favor to that particular caliber in terms of overall effectiveness as compared to smaller calibers; and C) since I only have one life here on this earth to live and I don't think it worth risking on a possibly inferior caliber; then why would I want to rely on Mr. Seacamp's somewhat self serving statements for any other reason than he makes a nifty little pistol, and it would be cool to own one? Other than concealability, there is no tactical advantage to it, and there just might be some tactical disadvantages.
Also, it is admittedly true that incapacitation from a gunshot wound may boil down to a matter of scant millimeters to the left or right or up or down. But since that is the case, and given otherwise identical bullet placement, isn't the bullet that has a pre-expansion diameter of 11.43mm (.45 ACP) going to be a better bet than one that has a pre-expansion diameter of 7.65mm (.32 ACP) - even more so once you factor in post-expansion diameter? A .32 caliber bullet could blow right past a descending aorta or other critical structure, missing it by as much as a couple of mm, whereas a .45 caliber bullet on the same internal trajectory might tear it apart.
On Iwo Jima, my dad shot an attacking Japanese soldier from less than 10 ft away, using his 1911A1, hitting the unfortunate sod in the stomach. I asked my dad what happened next. No, his bullet did not knock the guy down, or push him backwards. But, it did cause his legs to instantly buckle underneath him, and he (as my father put it) "sat down abruptly." He never moved after that. I have no idea whether or not he was dead, but he was for certain out of the fight. As a Texas CHL holder, if I am pushed into the extreme of having to deploy my weapon, my goal is not to kill my opponent, but to stop his attack. If "stopping" results in his dying, then so be it. I am absolutely certain that I can kill a man with a .32 if I can fire enough rounds and hit him well, but I would have no confidence that I could stop him in the time necessary before he can do harm to me.
With a .45, I am fairly certain that, even if I don't kill him, I can probably rid him of the desire to pursue his attack to its conclusion; and that is why I carry a pistol in the first place.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Nope.
Lower abdominal wounds used to be highly fatal because if the lower bowels were punctured, fecal matter could leak into the body cavity, resulting in a massive and fatal infection called peritonitis.
This is a very painful death, so the legend arose that if you shoot a man low in the belly, he dies in agony. In the days before antibiotics, that was true -- but the wound was not necessarily immediately disabling.
People have repeated this urban legend so long that they have come to belive that death is immediate as well as painful.
The Annoyed Man
Member
OTH, a belly wound can mean a perforated descending aorta, which means almost instantaneous incapacitation followed a fairly rapid death due to exsanguination.
Vern Humphrey
Member
But a perforated intestine is more likely -- bigger target.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
