Maybe they have a bit more experience in the real world.
I seriously doubt that many people, individually, have nearly enough experience shooting other people with a variety of handgun calibers to make up a statistically valid number of samples.
Maybe they have fired a P32 and a P3AT back to back (as I have) and noted the approximate twofold difference in foot-lbs recoil.
Just because one caliber has a lot more recoil than another does not necessarily mean that there is a vast difference between their abilities to stop or kill. Diminishing returns are involved when you have to start trading overpenetration for a small amount of bullet expansion, as in this instance. There is also widespread doubt as to whether even a much larger amount of kinetic energy would more effectively wound a target, at least until one reaches the level of moderately powerful rifle calibers. It is very easy to waste what might seem like a lot of power in a small amount of meaningless tissue stretching and ultimately an even smaller amount of heat.
This relates to Newton's Third Law, and is irrefutable.
It's just a bunch of numbers at this level--the reality of gunshot wounding is far more complex.
If you want to trust your life to a .32, understand and accept the fact (not opinion) that it is a weak cartridge.
Indeed it is a weak cartridge, relative to some others by the numbers, but if it can poke a deep enough hole, then that's most of the battle right there. Everything beyond that, within the range of service pistol calibers, is an incremental improvement, relatively speaking--enough to be worthwhile, to be sure, but not enough to simply dismiss .32 ACP, in my opinion.
Is the .32 capable of killing someone? Yes, absolutely...sooner or later, if all goes perfectly.
If that is "good enough" for you, then carry on.
Sorry to rain on your parade.
All handguns are a compromise that may or may not be "good enough" for a given situation, and even the largest ones can only hit a single narrow spot. Given the option, I'd much rather use a shotgun loaded with buckshot for close quarters self-defense, but there are other considerations beyond wounding potential. Everybody who chooses to use a handgun for self-defense under some circumstances, even in .45 ACP, must have decided that it is "good enough" but in reality they're all weak cartridges. Looks like there's plenty of rain to go around.
I certainly do not want to discourage anyone from carrying whatever they want to carry and I don't expect everyone to carry what I choose to carry. However, I think it is prudent to point out the fact that the particular round in question is very marginal when one's life may depend on its use. There are a number of other rounds that are more appropriate and with a wider selection of self-defense loads that can be carried in very small guns.
Admittedly, it is a marginal caliber, but instead of simply dismissing it, I've tried to characterize how it relates to other calibers, which would also be marginal on somebody else's scale of firearm effectiveness. Personally, I wouldn't be all that comfortable with anything less than 9mm, but honestly, isn't it also kind of marginal in a way? If the darn thing expands too much, like to 0.75" as some modern Speer Gold Dots and Federal HSTs are apt to do, then it may actually penetrate
less than .32 ACP!
What would happen if the bad guy is really thick in the middle and the bullet doesn't reach his descending aorta, while a .32 ACP FMJ round would have?
So what now, is 9mm not good enough using the latest, most effective JHP bullet technology? Well, I guess that James Bond was right all along
--with the proper shot placement, you don't need more than .32 ACP (more than .22 LR is very significant, but more than .32 ACP is not quite as important, perhaps).
So am I doing a disservice by providing so many little details and an abundance of my own little opinions and observations as opposed to making more conservative recommendations, such as 9mm (which doesn't always penetrate more deeply than .32 ACP and won't always penetrate enough)? I think not because I want to explore these issues in detail and for people to understand what's going on rather than base a caliber's effectiveness on how hard it kicks and letting Isaac Newton lay down the law on which caliber is "good enough" on that basis.
