I honestlly would have a tough time making a head shot at any distance past 10 feet with any regularity with my 32 caliber seacamp. As there are no sights on it for a reason. That the pistol is only meant to be used as a last resort, firing at a moving target from distance, is out of the question IMO. On the other hand that would be no problem with a ppk's, or any weapon with a barrel, as the Seacamp's barrel is part of the solid steel block from which it is machined.I think it would require either putting their recommended laser attachment on it, which is ugly, and squares off the weapon like a wallett holster, or a lot of practice shooting silvertips at the range. Neither which is appealing to me. The last time I bought silvertips they were over $35.00 for a box of 50. That is too rich for my blood. I can hear the cash register ring after each shot. I cleaned it fired 4 or 5 clips, and put it in the safe. But I find his website to be informative. I have thought many times about selling that gun, but always find a reason not to, I think most of us have that problem.
A note on Calibers from Larry Seacamp
- Thread starter gym
- Start date
- Status
in the guts near the navel
The comment from Mr Rogers
Got me thinking about a quote I recently read:
Charles Gross claimed that Wild Bill Hickok said
I have several books about Wild Bill and because he was in numerous gunfights and shot and killed many men, I respect his opinion.
I also respect the opinion of Fairbairn & Sykes when they write
I also remember reading somewhere about (I think it was the original Texas Rangers) training to aim for the belt buckle, and because the Colts shot high the bullet would hit near the navel.
This got me thinking that maybe aiming for the navel might be just as effective or maybe better than aiming for the torso. Is there any other documentation about this?
The comment from Mr Rogers
Got me thinking about a quote I recently read:
Charles Gross claimed that Wild Bill Hickok said
I have several books about Wild Bill and because he was in numerous gunfights and shot and killed many men, I respect his opinion.
I also respect the opinion of Fairbairn & Sykes when they write
I also remember reading somewhere about (I think it was the original Texas Rangers) training to aim for the belt buckle, and because the Colts shot high the bullet would hit near the navel.
This got me thinking that maybe aiming for the navel might be just as effective or maybe better than aiming for the torso. Is there any other documentation about this?
Trickshot,
At some time in the 1940s Col. Frank Chamberlain was instructed to investigate gun shot wounds in order to recommend a new cartridge for the US military. He carried out extensive test under the most rigorously controlled testing conditions he could devise.
The Cols. findings are reported, in a non-technical article, in Volume 2 of Ackley's "Handbook for Shooter and Reloaders". The article is interesting, funny and opinionated. When read one must remember the research was into high-velocity rifle bullets but much of the research applies to any wounds. Particularly, the article makes it very plain that gathering data about gun shot wounds, even under controlled conditions, is very difficult.
One of his conclusions:
My personal opinion is that a higher energy bullet, not necessarily larger caliber, is to be preferred but that we can totally dump the idea that any particular existing round is the ONE answer to the stopping problem. There are just too many variables and (laws of physics) restrictions.
Try this link, a bit "medical"
http://www.rcsed.ac.uk/journal/vol43_4/4340004.htm
At some time in the 1940s Col. Frank Chamberlain was instructed to investigate gun shot wounds in order to recommend a new cartridge for the US military. He carried out extensive test under the most rigorously controlled testing conditions he could devise.
The Cols. findings are reported, in a non-technical article, in Volume 2 of Ackley's "Handbook for Shooter and Reloaders". The article is interesting, funny and opinionated. When read one must remember the research was into high-velocity rifle bullets but much of the research applies to any wounds. Particularly, the article makes it very plain that gathering data about gun shot wounds, even under controlled conditions, is very difficult.
One of his conclusions:
The Colonels italics and capitalization.
My personal opinion is that a higher energy bullet, not necessarily larger caliber, is to be preferred but that we can totally dump the idea that any particular existing round is the ONE answer to the stopping problem. There are just too many variables and (laws of physics) restrictions.
Try this link, a bit "medical"
http://www.rcsed.ac.uk/journal/vol43_4/4340004.htm
Brian Dale
Member
I don't agree with all of the points made in the original post, but I certainly agree with this:
Welcome to The High Road, griz!
I'll applaud griz312000's Post#29. It's one of the clearest, most succinct explanations of "use enough gun" that I've read. It also speaks directly to the material in the original post of this thread:gym said:
griz312000 said:
Welcome to The High Road, griz!
Dictionary.
Caliber - Internal diameter of gun or any tube, diameter of bullet or shell.
Caliber, alone, has little effect on stopping power. If it did we would still be shooting 3/4 inch lead balls. Energy plus terminal bullet performance is what gets the job done.
Saying caliber is the important factor in bullet performance is like saying cubic capacity is the most important factor in an auto engine. May have been true years ago - but not now.
Caliber - Internal diameter of gun or any tube, diameter of bullet or shell.
Caliber, alone, has little effect on stopping power. If it did we would still be shooting 3/4 inch lead balls. Energy plus terminal bullet performance is what gets the job done.
Saying caliber is the important factor in bullet performance is like saying cubic capacity is the most important factor in an auto engine. May have been true years ago - but not now.
fletcher
Member
I'm seeing more of an "It's ok to carry a .32" message in the OP/supporting than a "Screw the larger rounds, .32 is all you need" message. Not sure what all the fuss is about.
JesseL
Member
Mr_Rogers said:
What you say is true, but it neglects the fact that when all else is equal, bigger bullets = better terminal performance.
3/4" lead balls would be (and were) great handgun projectiles if you could figure out how to make them work in a repeating gun. Being shot with a 600 grain .75" lead roundball at 250fps (for about 83ft-lbs of energy), doesn't sound any more appealing that being hit with a .25ACP with the same energy.
JesseL
Partially agreed and if you compare our posts we are not far apart. I said "Caliber, alone, has little effect on stopping power. You said "when all else is equal,". I agree that when all else is equal a larger caliber bullet can be an advantage.
Now, if I could perform magic and shrink the 223 into a pistol round, would you prefer the approx 1100 ft/lbs muzzle energy of the 223 or the approx 450 ft/lbs of the 45 Auto? I've shot 223 in an, admittedly heavy, XP100, no problems whatsoever. Would caliber be a problem for you then?
Your comments about being hit with a lead ball are in the right direction but you fail to fully acknowledge the practical problems of building the firearm and actually hitting any target at a reasonable range.
And yes Biker,
There seem to be a number of people out there that want to carry a hi-cap 17. I have no data on that round to make a comment but somebody seems to think it is a good idea.
I am not advocating any particular caliber or cartridge. All I am saying is that cartridge choice based on the one characteristic of caliber is not reasonable.
Partially agreed and if you compare our posts we are not far apart. I said "Caliber, alone, has little effect on stopping power. You said "when all else is equal,". I agree that when all else is equal a larger caliber bullet can be an advantage.
Now, if I could perform magic and shrink the 223 into a pistol round, would you prefer the approx 1100 ft/lbs muzzle energy of the 223 or the approx 450 ft/lbs of the 45 Auto? I've shot 223 in an, admittedly heavy, XP100, no problems whatsoever. Would caliber be a problem for you then?
Your comments about being hit with a lead ball are in the right direction but you fail to fully acknowledge the practical problems of building the firearm and actually hitting any target at a reasonable range.
And yes Biker,
There seem to be a number of people out there that want to carry a hi-cap 17. I have no data on that round to make a comment but somebody seems to think it is a good idea.
I am not advocating any particular caliber or cartridge. All I am saying is that cartridge choice based on the one characteristic of caliber is not reasonable.
JesseL
Member
Mr_Rogers said:
That wouldn't be a problem for me at all, but it almost would take magic. I had a lengthy paragraph about exactly this idea in my previous comment, that I decided to snip.
The combined aspects of the terminal effects of larger bullets, and the increased pressure working area provided by a larger bore really makes the current sweet spot for handgun calibers between .35" and .45" hard to escape.
Take a look at this thread for more detail:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=318851
If you run a 40gr .224" bullet in a sabot over a compressed load of Bullseye in a .454 Casull case, you might get rifle type ballistics in something resembling a handgun; but short of that it aint happening.
drgrenthum
Member
I understand that shot placement is paramount but i think i larger caliber is just the better overall choice.
If i am shooting at a target with .17 rimfire and miss right by .15" well that sucks but if i am using a 45acp and hit that exact same spot i have no longer missed the wider bullet would catch the target. It would put that paper straight out of its misery.
If i am shooting at a target with .17 rimfire and miss right by .15" well that sucks but if i am using a 45acp and hit that exact same spot i have no longer missed the wider bullet would catch the target. It would put that paper straight out of its misery.
Seenterman
Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2008
- Messages
- 192
I didnt read all the post but . . .
I think everyones missing one point. Its not only the caliber but its the type of ammo your using. I dont think a 115 grain FMG 9mm will have the same effect as a 147 grain hollow point or a frangible round would. We've all read about temporary wound cavities and how that does not stop an attacker but only massive blood loss / trama to major organs reliably stop and attacker. Dont get me wrong that a hollow point is not some magical bullet that will equals a one shot stop but in my opinion the top three factors in stopping a violent aggressor is Shot Placement, Caliber, and Type of Ammo. And I think everyone's forgetting number 3.
I think everyones missing one point. Its not only the caliber but its the type of ammo your using. I dont think a 115 grain FMG 9mm will have the same effect as a 147 grain hollow point or a frangible round would. We've all read about temporary wound cavities and how that does not stop an attacker but only massive blood loss / trama to major organs reliably stop and attacker. Dont get me wrong that a hollow point is not some magical bullet that will equals a one shot stop but in my opinion the top three factors in stopping a violent aggressor is Shot Placement, Caliber, and Type of Ammo. And I think everyone's forgetting number 3.
The caliber of a bullet influences its terminal effect. However, on the bullet side we must also consider impact velocity, amount of expansion (both inherent and by design) and stability. For example, a bullet that could be induced to tumble on impact may produce a larger wound channel than a larger caliber (but possibly shorter).
We must also consider the vast range of influences on the target side. Point of impact, impact on bones, the exact path the bullet follows etc.
Simply put, a larger diameter bullet contributes to satisfactory performance but caliber alone does not guarantee this performance. I bet most people here use hollow-points for SD, this is an example of design modifying terminal performance. The dirty secret is that a hollow-point can sometimes reduce terminal performance - it all relates to the impact velocity of the bullet relative to the design of the hollow-point.
dgrenthum,
The effect of any bullet wound contains a large element of luck. That is why you hit the target once, and then again and again and again, until the threat goes away. On paper, scoring the cut on the target ring may help you gain a point. You should be so lucky in combat.
Thanks Seenterman,
I have been trying to point out that caliber is not the only factor. Bullet design contributes as much to stopping power. Blood loss is not the only, or the best, way to stop an attacker. The correct level of nerve destruction is more effective. It is just much more difficult to accomplish nerve destruction because of the accuracy requirement. If you went for a COM shot, got the left and right perfect but hit 6 inches too high - bingo, spine, game over.
We must also consider the vast range of influences on the target side. Point of impact, impact on bones, the exact path the bullet follows etc.
Simply put, a larger diameter bullet contributes to satisfactory performance but caliber alone does not guarantee this performance. I bet most people here use hollow-points for SD, this is an example of design modifying terminal performance. The dirty secret is that a hollow-point can sometimes reduce terminal performance - it all relates to the impact velocity of the bullet relative to the design of the hollow-point.
dgrenthum,
Interestingly, that same argument was used by the FBI in the selection of the 40 S&W. It is difficult to defend though. You are shooting a pistol with which you normally make 4 inch groups under anything like realistic conditions and you hope that your neck will be saved by a few thou. more bullet diameter - Gulp!!!!
The effect of any bullet wound contains a large element of luck. That is why you hit the target once, and then again and again and again, until the threat goes away. On paper, scoring the cut on the target ring may help you gain a point. You should be so lucky in combat.
Thanks Seenterman,
I have been trying to point out that caliber is not the only factor. Bullet design contributes as much to stopping power. Blood loss is not the only, or the best, way to stop an attacker. The correct level of nerve destruction is more effective. It is just much more difficult to accomplish nerve destruction because of the accuracy requirement. If you went for a COM shot, got the left and right perfect but hit 6 inches too high - bingo, spine, game over.
Prince Yamato
Member
I'm largely of the opinion that European police carried the smaller calibers because in addition to being adequately lethal, there was also reduced chance of over-penetration, which one could see as being a big problem in the confined spaces of many European cities.
I also don't buy the whole "knock-down" power thing. Look, if you shoot most people, with anything, they're going to run away or fall down dead, because you produced a lethal shot.
I also don't buy the whole "knock-down" power thing. Look, if you shoot most people, with anything, they're going to run away or fall down dead, because you produced a lethal shot.
C96
Member
Last week in Huston a policeman interrupted an early morning robbery. Bad guy thought shooting it out was the way to go. He managed to shoot the LEO in the thigh, LEO got 4 to 6 rounds in BG, BG then ran across the street and tried to hide.
LEO is OK, BG in critical condition, both were using 45 ACP for those interested.
Use as much gun as you can, they are not magic.
Links if you are interested in this event:
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=6158751
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5796219.html
LEO is OK, BG in critical condition, both were using 45 ACP for those interested.
Use as much gun as you can, they are not magic.
Links if you are interested in this event:
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=6158751
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5796219.html
JesseL
Member
Mr_Rogers said:
Nope, you are hoping to gain an advantage by having a significantly larger volume of tissue disrupted thanks to a significant increase in bullet area.
An unexpanded .45 has more than seven times the area of a .17, and more than 1.6 times the area of a 9mm. I certainly wouldn't turn up my nose at a 60% improvement in the odds of hitting something vital.
Poor East Texan
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2008
- Messages
- 366
I carry a nine with Federal PD loads in my truck.
But I find it MUCH more satisfying to shoot .45!!!!
If I had CCL the most I could hope to carry would be a pocket gun due to the way I dress.
But I find it MUCH more satisfying to shoot .45!!!!
If I had CCL the most I could hope to carry would be a pocket gun due to the way I dress.
The Annoyed Man
Member
Another possibility regarding gut shots...
At the time my dad shot that Japanese soldier I mentioned in a previous post, my dad had already been wounded. He was hit in the solar plexus (high abdomen, below the chest) by a Japanese rifle bullet. He said the blow knocked the wind out of him and left him incapacitated for a minute or two. Now, I'm not advocating for belly shooting; I believe chest shots to be more effective; but isn't it possible that this instant incapacitation that people refer to when hitting someone in the stomach is simply a case of the BG getting the wind knocked out him? If a blow like that is hard enough, it will most definitely drop a man, even if it doesn't give him a mortal wound.
At the time my dad shot that Japanese soldier I mentioned in a previous post, my dad had already been wounded. He was hit in the solar plexus (high abdomen, below the chest) by a Japanese rifle bullet. He said the blow knocked the wind out of him and left him incapacitated for a minute or two. Now, I'm not advocating for belly shooting; I believe chest shots to be more effective; but isn't it possible that this instant incapacitation that people refer to when hitting someone in the stomach is simply a case of the BG getting the wind knocked out him? If a blow like that is hard enough, it will most definitely drop a man, even if it doesn't give him a mortal wound.
IJesseL
I think we have about beaten this idea to death but I need to point out one fallacy in your calculation because it is significant. It is a simple matter of logic.
Granted the 45 has 7 times the AREA of a 17. That is somewhat significant in the area of the wound channel assuming the 17 does not cause any hydrostatic damage (I do not know whether the damage actually occurs but it is likely at the velocities involved - just something I picked up in another post). However, the AREA of the bullet does not help if you are thinking in terms of cutting an artery etc instead of missing it with the smaller bullet. The RADIUS of the bullet is what is important in that case. Imagine the axis of the bullet follows the same path in both cases. The 45 will touch anything 0.225 inches away from that axis. The 17 will touch anything 0.085 inches away from that axis. The "reach out and touch something" advantage of the 45 bullet is 0.140 inches. Worthwhile, but not a factor of 7.
The Annoyed Man - quite likely a possible factor.
I think we have about beaten this idea to death but I need to point out one fallacy in your calculation because it is significant. It is a simple matter of logic.
Granted the 45 has 7 times the AREA of a 17. That is somewhat significant in the area of the wound channel assuming the 17 does not cause any hydrostatic damage (I do not know whether the damage actually occurs but it is likely at the velocities involved - just something I picked up in another post). However, the AREA of the bullet does not help if you are thinking in terms of cutting an artery etc instead of missing it with the smaller bullet. The RADIUS of the bullet is what is important in that case. Imagine the axis of the bullet follows the same path in both cases. The 45 will touch anything 0.225 inches away from that axis. The 17 will touch anything 0.085 inches away from that axis. The "reach out and touch something" advantage of the 45 bullet is 0.140 inches. Worthwhile, but not a factor of 7.
The Annoyed Man - quite likely a possible factor.
Anonymous Coward
Member
Seecamp said:
Feh. He also bit down on a cyanide capsule.
Apparently he didn't have as much as much confidence in the .32 as does Mr. Seecamp.
Regardless, I think the Seecamp is a great gun and if I ever had to deploy one in a Serious Social Encounter, I would aim as carefully as I could and pull the trigger as fast as I was able, but I would not give myself even odds that I would survive, even if I were able to make the other guy eventually die as well.
There's just not enough fight in those little calibers. You might fill a guy with your bullets and he wouldn't know he was shot until he figured out that HE was bleeding, and that it wasn't just YOUR blood all over his clothes.
usp9
Member
Funny, those were Robert Kennedy's last words, just before he died from a well placed .22lr round.
Anonymous Coward
Member
usp9 said:
If you're going to shoot someone in the back of head, any caliber will do.
That's not what I would call a "self-defense" situation.
Everything else I said stands. If you're in a fight, you don't want a caliber that "might" work.
Unless you're going to be shooting unarmed people, you're going to be outgunned by whatever your attacker is packing.
Jim Watson
Member
Isn't it Mr Seecamp who said you don't need sights on a self defense gun? (And does not provide them.)
Gonna take a lot of work on bullet placement without a means of aiming.
The European police went from .32 ACP to 9mm P when they had to start dealing with hardened criminals and terrorists like the Baader-Meinhof Gang.
As said, a smallbore was more of a deterrent back before antibiotics could save you from wound infection.
Gonna take a lot of work on bullet placement without a means of aiming.
The European police went from .32 ACP to 9mm P when they had to start dealing with hardened criminals and terrorists like the Baader-Meinhof Gang.
As said, a smallbore was more of a deterrent back before antibiotics could save you from wound infection.
Sport45
Member
PremiumSauces said:
In case he ran afoul of a grizzly bear?
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
tipoc
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,563
A link to Seecamps site.
http://www.seecamp.com/companyhistory.htm
http://www.seecamp.com/ammunition.htm
Ludwig Seecamp's carry gun was one of his modified Colt Commanders in .45 acp.
He built his famous .25 and .32 acp pistols to fill a niche in the market, a niche he so successfully filled that others, NAA for example, have sought to follow and compete with Seecamps in.
The niche was for a small, reliable and effective hideout gun. The gun was intended to be used at conversation distances. No sights were needed for this Seecamp reasoned. The gun was, and is, small and smooth all over. It is an always gun. One you can have on you always. A back up and hideout. That's it's niche. It was not meant to take the place of a duty gun in a service caliber.
Seecamp never argued that the .25 or .32 is a stopping round. He carried his 1911 for that. He also never argued that the .32 is as effective a stopper as the 9mm, .38 pl. .357, .45acp, etc. He did believe that there was a niche for a good, well built hideout gun so he built one of the best to ever be made. His son, Larry is still making them. In a caliber that can be effective if the shot is well placed and if not can buy you the time to get out the vacinity.
A Seecamp .32 (borrowed from their site).
A Seecamp Conversion.
tipoc
http://www.seecamp.com/companyhistory.htm
http://www.seecamp.com/ammunition.htm
Ludwig Seecamp's carry gun was one of his modified Colt Commanders in .45 acp.
He built his famous .25 and .32 acp pistols to fill a niche in the market, a niche he so successfully filled that others, NAA for example, have sought to follow and compete with Seecamps in.
The niche was for a small, reliable and effective hideout gun. The gun was intended to be used at conversation distances. No sights were needed for this Seecamp reasoned. The gun was, and is, small and smooth all over. It is an always gun. One you can have on you always. A back up and hideout. That's it's niche. It was not meant to take the place of a duty gun in a service caliber.
Seecamp never argued that the .25 or .32 is a stopping round. He carried his 1911 for that. He also never argued that the .32 is as effective a stopper as the 9mm, .38 pl. .357, .45acp, etc. He did believe that there was a niche for a good, well built hideout gun so he built one of the best to ever be made. His son, Larry is still making them. In a caliber that can be effective if the shot is well placed and if not can buy you the time to get out the vacinity.
A Seecamp .32 (borrowed from their site).
A Seecamp Conversion.
tipoc
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
