Using antiquated rounds for defense purposes

Status
Not open for further replies.
A few random thoughts:

1) Defensive fighting with a gun isn't for fun and nostalgia. If you ever have to use a gun to save your life, you want something that absolutely works as dead simply as possible, and works lots, and works well. No one trying to fight off a mugger, rapist, or killer (or multiples) ever said, "dang, this gun isn't old-school cool enough and I wish it held fewer rounds." Everything in about the use of force is deadly serious and deserves the very BEST we can do. Not whatever probably might work usually. Guns are universally not magic talismans that always produce the effect we wanted. Choosing any one aspect and "dumbing it down" so the deck is stacked just that much more against you is utter foolishness.

2) Choosing a defensive cartridge and gun must be a clear-headed considered balance between the most power you can handle and the speed/sureness with which you can deploy it. This isn't bullseye shooting and how well you can cut out the circle at 25 yds has almost nothing to do with whether you'll be able to stop the guy who's on top of you or running at you before he kills you. You need the greatest amount of structure-destroying power/penetration you can get and still deploy it at a high rate of fire, accurately, under any and all conditions/positions.

3) Modern guns are evolving, not devolving. Contrary to popular belief, things are vastly better now in the gun world than ever before. Guns of improved power are available, relatively inexpensively, which are lighter, slimmer, easier to maintain, far more likely to be reliable, and ergonomically more tuned to the shooter's ability to deploy and control them. It doesn't take more than a few days' pay to buy a modern sidearm that's optimized for defensive uses in many ways -- with designs educated by all the guns that have come before and excelling the old guns in important, useful ways. It is a very rare situation indeed where someone MUST choose an old iron mouse gun because they can't get a more capable weapon.

4) Practice! After training, practice is the very most important part of prevailing in a lethal encounter. The gun must be an extension of you. That takes lots of time spent building that "relationship" between you and the gun. Ammo, ammo, ammo. Sure, that .32 S&W Long is a neat-o cartridge, but are you REALLY going to buy 10,000 rounds of .32 S&W ammo and make that gun part of you? Is that neat old iron beauty even going to last through that kind of month-in, month-out workout? Are you going to be able to find carry gear and parts for your Orgies .32, and is there anything at all it could possibly do better than a new compact or subcompact Kahr, Glock, Shield, etc.?

So you're a cowboy action shooter and get 5,000 rounds a year through your .36 or .44 cap and ball guns? Well, that's great. Better keep a brace or more loaded up. Most folks who've survived lethal force events don't even recall that they shot 6+ rounds, they go by so fast. But you don't shoot to the point of mastery with your cool old antiques? What possible logic could there be for choosing to reach for that to protect your wife and children's lives? Pride? You want to be in the papers for pulling off a cool stunt, like defending the homestead with an old C&B revolver?

Any gun will do, if YOU are up to it. But look at your neat antiques and ask yourself if you really WILL put in the time and the ammo with that gun in realistic practice.

...


Lots of shooting can be GREAT fun. Fun and coolness can be the point of so much trigger time. That's wonderful! But when you're talking about taking the life of a person to prevent him from taking your life, or that of your loved ones, don't let (ahem) "craps & giggles" be the deciding factor in any choice you make.
 
Using antiquated rounds for defense purposes

Wild Bill used a .36 Navy Colt, power of a .380, to kill five men in a shootout in a horse stable.

Now cartridges like the .38 S&W are not cannons but if you can shoot, and shoot WELL, they will do the deed.

Why?

Cause stopping power is far more dependent on shot placement and adequate penetration than any other set of factors. Sure I pack a +p 9mm, hot .38, .45, .357 Sig, depending on the mood, but I know it's not the power of the cartridge, nor amount of ammo the gun holds that really matters. Its the skill to shoot strait combined with enough power to reach the vitals.

Yea I could pack my Webley Pocket Model .38 S&W six shooter, or my Colt Police Positive Bankers model in .38 S&W, but there are more modern rounds and guns so I pack them while my older guns sleep in the safe.

But if all you have a S&W 'Terrier' .38 S&W or Ivers Johnson top break .38, AND YOU CAN SHOOT 'EM FAST AND STRAIT, then use them.

Deaf
 
(groan) Another caliber debate.

I have said many times on THR that a person should test their gun with their ammunition of choice by shooting things. In the past I have mentioned shooting through multiple layers of demin back by water jugs.

I conducted one such test with Remington 32 Long ammunition from a antique revolver stamped American Double Action with a 3" barrel in 32 Long chambering. My test media was a pine board 3/4" thick back by pine 2" x 4" boards. The distance from the muzzle of the gun to the first board was about 2'.

I fired two rounds into the board. Both rounds completely penetrated through the 3/4" pine. When I removed the 3/4" board I discovered both bullets had failed to penetrate into the 2" x 4" backer board.

One bullet was laying trapped between the boards. It was undamaged and not deformed. The backer board has a very slight dent showing where it hit. It was in perfect condition and could be reloaded.

Bullet #2 was lodged nose first less than 1/4" into the 2" x 4". It easily fell out when I touched it. The lead nose was slightly deformed and had not expanded. I believe the bullet was only lodged into the backer board was because it was trapped between the boards. If there had been a air space between the boards I believe it would have fell to the ground.

By any reasonable objective standard the 32 Long fired from 3" barrel lacks enough penetration into the human body and lacks enough stopping to physically damage the body enough to cause a person to stop their attack. I don't believe it has enough power to be effective against the human head and would be easily deflected by the skull. The only parts of the human head that the 32 Long might reach the brain would be through the eye socket and maybe the nose. A gunshot into the mouth would not be lethal as it would encounter teeth and jaw bones and is not in line with the brain.

There is role for small calibers in self-defense but it is under vey, very limited circumstances. The most recent incident I have read about use of 32 to stop the attacker was the Doctor in Pennsylvania who shot a mental health patient in his office after the patient shot and killed his case worker. The Doctor used a Seecamp 32 LWS. According to news report the Doctor shot the attacker three times and at close range.

Lots of shooting can be GREAT fun. Fun and coolness can be the point of so much trigger time. That's wonderful! But when you're talking about taking the life of a person to prevent him from taking your life, or that of your loved ones, don't let (ahem) "craps & giggles" be the deciding factor in any choice you make.

Exactly. In todays gun marker there simply isn't any reason to use antique firearms or weak underpowered cartridges. I have seen and read many times that many gun owners simply have not come to terms with killing another human. That is why we keep reading and hearing about shooting them to wound in the arm or leg or use a small weak caliber/cartridge just to stop the attack.

http://articles.philly.com/2014-07-27/news/52062381_1_whelan-hospital-campus-own-gun
 
Last edited:
I conducted one such test with Remington 32 Long ammunition from a antique revolver stamped American Double Action with a 3" barrel in 32 Long chambering.

And I can totally circumvent the caliber/cartridge debate with one simple question: WILL YOU gear up and hit the range with that American Double Action antique and run 10,000 rounds (or whatever your number is ... it isn't 100 and isn't 1,000) of obsolete ammo through it so that you master your defensive tool and tune your skills with that weapon?

It doesn't matter whether that cartridge might have penetrated a horse lengthwise, twice, if you aren't going to work that trigger, work those sights, and get lead on target fast and repeatedly -- enough thousands of repetitions to develop the ability to FIGHT proficiently with that weapon.

I've yet to see anyone with an Iver Johnson top-break or really any other antique out there on the range doing that.

The accomplished SASS guys probably do, but I doubt even most of them choose to hamstring themselves with low capacity, slow to reload weapons when not dressed to impress.
 
And I can totally circumvent the caliber/cartridge debate with one simple question: WILL YOU gear up and hit the range with that American Double Action antique and run 10,000 rounds (or whatever your number is ... it isn't 100 and isn't 1,000) of obsolete ammo through it so that you master your defensive tool and tune your skills with that weapon?
].



No offense but it's utter fantasy if you think 99.99% of ccw holders or shooters do even a tenth of that much with modern guns and ammo.

Your assertion is utterly moot
 
Holy cow...you think the converse makes your point acceptable?

Hey, I wasn't really going to practice enough with a modern, ergonomic, reliable, decently powerful weapon, so it's a whole lot better that I choose a low capacity, relatively weak, less ergonomic, fragile, difficult to service antique...!

I don't bother to train, but at least I'm only shooting a .22 Short. If the shot placement is perfect, he might die eventually, but I don't even put a few thousand rounds through the gun to develop the sort of skills I'd need to make that perfect shot.

:uhoh:


I guess looking at it another way, maybe it IS better. That .32 Short Colt or .44 Bulldog won't go quite as far into the background when our hero yanks the trigger on that old top break he doesn't practice with.
 
Last edited:
Holy cow...you think the converse makes your point acceptable?

Hey, I wasn't really going to practice enough with a modern, ergonomic, reliable, decently powerful weapon, so it's a whole lot better that I choose a low capacity, relatively weak, less ergonomic, fragile, antique...!

:uhoh:


No not at all

I just wanted to inject a little reality into the conversation. With all due respect competitive shooters like yourself tend to live in an echo chamber which leads you to believe that what you are doing is the "norm" with regards to round count and time spent.

Well it's not the norm, it's not even riding the same bus as the norm, it's not even rolling down the same interstate going the same direction as the norm it is in fact a far far extreme.

I'd say from my personal observation that the average is between 3 to 5 boxes a year for a ccw piece. Making getting the "obsolete" ammo in quantity much less of a factor in the decision making process
 
I guess I'm seeing that the basic premise here that I think we're all in agreement on is that these antiquated choices are antiquated for a reason and we understand that we're making a choice with serious (if relative) drawbacks if we decide to carry or rely on one.

I can't see how that's a refutable position, so I'll assume we all are together there.

So what would be a plus that overcomes those drawbacks? Serious dedication to learning that pistol and making it serve you would indeed be one way to overcome those drawbacks.

We've got at least one member here (who's name eludes me for the moment) who really LOVES Colt 1903s. He invests in them good new finishes, reliability work, action jobs, etc. Makes them as good a 1903 as they can be, and then goes and practices with them. Hey, would I feel undergunned with a 1903? Not if I was going to put that kind of personal investment of time and development into the platform.

Might it be possible to do with same good work with something more obsolete? I don't know. Maybe.

The alternative view seems to be (with apologies all around), "Well, I'm not going to be a rock star with any handgun, so any old gun will do. At my proficiency level, I might as well be shooting an old .32 top break ... won't be any better or worse than anything else." Seems like defeatism, to me.
 
I'm with R.W. Dale on this one, most ordinary folks will be lucky to shoot 5 boxes of ammo through their CCW firarm in a year. This is mostly due to ammo availibilty and cost. I personally don't see anything wrong with some of the older antiquated cartridges such as the .45 Colt, 44-40, .44 Russian, and 38-40. If you take a guy that knows his way around these antiquated fireams and is very proficient with them such as Youtube celebrity hickok45 then one would be well armed indeed. As most here are aware what that man is capable of doing with these antiquated firearms (in design at least) is very enlightening to say the least. I for one certainly wouldn't want to run into someone as skilled as he.

As for the cartridges I wouldn't pick any of the diminutive rounds.
 
Last edited:
I don't see it as Defeatism Sam

Merely having a gun and possessing a basic level of proficiency with CCW puts you LIGHTYEARS ahead of where the perp thought you were in terms if defense. For them that's a bad place to be.

Everything past that while important is of diminishing importance compared to having a gun in the first place
 
Agreed, there. So all that leaves to answer is WHY? In this most life-and-death of questions, why would you make a poorer choice than you must?

Some have said, "Well, if that's what you have/all you have...." but really not a single one of us is in such circumstances that an odd antique heater is "all we have." That means this is discretionary.
 
And I can totally circumvent the caliber/cartridge debate with one simple question: WILL YOU gear up and hit the range with that American Double Action antique and run 10,000 rounds (or whatever your number is ... it isn't 100 and isn't 1,000) of obsolete ammo through it so that you master your defensive tool and tune your skills with that weapon?

It doesn't matter whether that cartridge might have penetrated a horse lengthwise, twice, if you aren't going to work that trigger, work those sights, and get lead on target fast and repeatedly -- enough thousands of repetitions to develop the ability to FIGHT proficiently with that weapon.

I've yet to see anyone with an Iver Johnson top-break or really any other antique out there on the range doing that.

The accomplished SASS guys probably do, but I doubt even most of them choose to hamstring themselves with low capacity, slow to reload weapons when not dressed to impress.
I'm going to point out a conundrum that you missed...

In reference to good old cap & ball revolvers and other blackpowder weapons...
the reason some folks have to use them is simple...some are Convicted Felons who have served their time...
yet do not have the Right to use modern weaponry anymore...or at least until they have their rights re-instated.
Blackpowder/Antique weapons are not considered Firearms in most states and not at all by the BATF.
Hence the popular use as home defense tools by those who have made errors in the past.
Their only other options are bows/crossbows/martial arts weaponry...

Most states allow them to apply for right re-instatement after their Parole is complete,
or five years have passed...varies by state...check your local laws...
most often requires a lawyer and a few grand to do as well...

Until then, they can use a Flintlock to hunt with, a cap & ball revolver to cover the home...etc...
Heck, there are even some nifty old blackpowder derringers & Holdouts great for Concealed Carry...

Primitive they may be, but still effective for all of that :evil:
 
Uh...ok, yeah. You're going to want to check your state laws REALLY carefully about that, though. It might not be a "firearm" according to state law but it very well is still a deadly weapon and being a felon found carrying a deadly weapon may be bad news.
 
Agreed, there. So all that leaves to answer is WHY? In this most life-and-death of questions, why would you make a poorer choice than you must?

Some have said, "Well, if that's what you have/all you have...." but really not a single one of us is in such circumstances that an odd antique heater is "all we have." That means this is discretionary.


Why doesn't everyone drive a Prius? Or have a timex on their wrist?

Some folks just like different objects and after all a gun is an object. One that hopefully is carried much much more than used.

You do drive a really sensible top of its class for safety automobile don't you?
 
I don't see it as Defeatism Sam

Merely having a gun and possessing a basic level of proficiency with CCW puts you LIGHTYEARS ahead of where the perp thought you were in terms if defense. For them that's a bad place to be.

Everything past that while important is of diminishing importance compared to having a gun in the first place

That's the reason Keltec sells the living heck out of the P-32 (.32acp) & P3-AT (.380)...
they work...they do the job...conceals exceptionally easily...weighs less than most wallets...

In Southern States, usually not a lot of heavy clothing...winter doesn't last long...
so a .32acp or .380 will do just fine...low recoil = great follow-up shots...

If one feels that .32ap isn't quite enough, load it with 7.65 Browning rounds...
more or less the +P option ;)

Shove it up the left nostril of the attacker and fire away. :evil:
 
The Buffalo Bore loads for .32 S&W Long and .38 S&W are far from anemic.
 
Why doesn't everyone drive a Prius?
Of course, but that brings a matter of life and death under the sway of the very, very trivial. Kind of like choosing a life jacket stuffed with straw, or the burlap parachute, because you really like the pretty buckle on it. :scrutiny:

You can choose to drive a Prius instead of a Mercedes, and you'll still get where you are going 99.9999% as well and with other benefits as well.

But not that many folks are driving a Stanley Steamer to work any more. Still will get you there. But sure might really let you down, and a hassle to feed and maintain. And in the most desperate of emergencies, is it going to be capable of protecting your life? If you're very lucky, maybe.
 
On the Prius issue, there are few cars that pollute more than the Prius...
sadly, an H3 Hummer diesel pollutes less over its lifetime than the Prius does.
 
Posted by Sam1911: these antiquated choices are antiquated for a reason and we understand that we're making a choice with serious (if relative) drawbacks if we decide to carry or rely on one.
Absolutely. The .38 S&W came out in 1877. It, and the .38 Long Colt, were essentially obsolescent as soon as the .38 Smith and Wesson Special was introduced. There was a reason why the Centennial supplanted the Safety Hammerless sixty-plus years ago. And both were superior to the .32 cartridges. If
for some reason we should believe they are fine, we now have the problem of acquiring enough ammunition to maintain proficiency in a skill that is perishable.

1) Defensive fighting with a gun isn't for fun and nostalgia. If you ever have to use a gun to save your life, you want something that absolutely works as dead simply as possible, and works lots, and works well. No one trying to fight off a mugger, rapist, or killer (or multiples) ever said, "dang, this gun isn't old-school cool enough and I wish it held fewer rounds." Everything in about the use of force is deadly serious and deserves the very BEST we can do. Not whatever probably might work usually. Guns are universally not magic talismans that always produce the effect we wanted. Choosing any one aspect and "dumbing it down" so the deck is stacked just that much more against you is utter foolishness.

2) Choosing a defensive cartridge and gun must be a clear-headed considered balance between the most power you can handle and the speed/sureness with which you can deploy it. This isn't bullseye shooting and how well you can cut out the circle at 25 yds has almost nothing to do with whether you'll be able to stop the guy who's on top of you or running at you before he kills you. You need the greatest amount of structure-destroying power/penetration you can get and still deploy it at a high rate of fire, accurately, under any and all conditions/positions.

3) Modern guns are evolving, not devolving. Contrary to popular belief, things are vastly better now in the gun world than ever before. Guns of improved power are available, relatively inexpensively, which are lighter, slimmer, easier to maintain, far more likely to be reliable, and ergonomically more tuned to the shooter's ability to deploy and control them. It doesn't take more than a few days' pay to buy a modern sidearm that's optimized for defensive uses in many ways -- with designs educated by all the guns that have come before and excelling the old guns in important, useful ways. It is a very rare situation indeed where someone MUST choose an old iron mouse gun because they can't get a more capable weapon.

4) Practice! After training, practice is the very most important part of prevailing in a lethal encounter. The gun must be an extension of you. That takes lots of time spent building that "relationship" between you and the gun. Ammo, ammo, ammo. Sure, that .32 S&W Long is a neat-o cartridge, but are you REALLY going to buy 10,000 rounds of .32 S&W ammo and make that gun part of you? Is that neat old iron beauty even going to last through that kind of month-in, month-out workout? Are you going to be able to find carry gear and parts for your Orgies .32, and is there anything at all it could possibly do better than a new compact or subcompact Kahr, Glock, Shield, etc.?

So you're a cowboy action shooter and get 5,000 rounds a year through your .36 or .44 cap and ball guns? Well, that's great. Better keep a brace or more loaded up. Most folks who've survived lethal force events don't even recall that they shot 6+ rounds, they go by so fast. But you don't shoot to the point of mastery with your cool old antiques? What possible logic could there be for choosing to reach for that to protect your wife and children's lives? Pride? You want to be in the papers for pulling off a cool stunt, like defending the homestead with an old C&B revolver?

Any gun will do, if YOU are up to it. But look at your neat antiques and ask yourself if you really WILL put in the time and the ammo with that gun in realistic practice.
Very good points, all of them.

I suggest that those who enjoy shooting some of the older firearms, whether an Iver Johnson, a Colt 1903, a Beretta M1935, etc. continue to do so--but that before they decide to use one for self preservation, they avail themselves of some good defensive pistol training. I am confident that they well select something different for defensive carry.
 
Agreed, there. So all that leaves to answer is WHY? In this most life-and-death of questions, why would you make a poorer choice than you must?

Some have said, "Well, if that's what you have/all you have...." but really not a single one of us is in such circumstances that an odd antique heater is "all we have." That means this is discretionary.
Well Sam, if you have reached a high level of skill with modern guns then going back to a antique cartridge/gun like the .38 S&W is no biggie.

And you don't have to practice much with the old stuff if you have a good bit of the more available stuff.

So now one ask, WHY?

Why did Miyamoto Musashi use a wooden sword to kill the last 30 men he fight in one-to-one duels?

Why did Hickok keep to the old .36 cap-n-ball when more modern guns were around?

Why did some Texas Rangers keep using the old Colt SAA when far more modern guns were available?

Answer: Cause they felt they had reached a level of proficiency where the actual weapon used didn't matter so much.

But for most of us mere morals... yes, best to get a more efficient modern weapon and still practice often.

Deaf
 
Posted by Deaf Smith: Well Sam, if you have reached a high level of skill with modern guns then going back to a antique cartridge/gun like the .38 S&W is no biggie.

And you don't have to practice much with the old stuff if you have a good bit of the more available stuff.
Do you really, really want to trust your life to muscle memory and other learning gained via practice with something that has a grip, trigger pull, trigger reset, sight picture, recoil, and point of impact different from those of you defensive weapon?

Not I.

Are you aware of Col. Rex Applegate's experience with the .38 S&W in the New Safety Hammerless, and how that led to the introduction of the Centennial?

I am.

Have you seen anyone participating in advanced defensive pistol shooting training with such a thing?

I haven't.

I bought a Centennial Airweight about six year ago.

It now serves only for backup.
 
On the Prius issue, there are few cars that pollute more than the Prius...
sadly, an H3 Hummer diesel pollutes less over its lifetime than the Prius does.

Comparing vehicles to guns. Driving head on into a Prius and driving head on into a Tractor Trailer Rig....while both can easily be lethal, survival from the bigger vehicle collision is not as likely.

With those odds and comparing small hand gun/big hand gun stuff I think a shot center mass with a 44mag is more likely to make more damage than a 25 or 32. I need odds on my side. Just my thought.
 
A lot of what I have seen is strictly speculation which is summed up as hogwash. Antiquated weaponry is one matter, but antiquated caliber weapons is a whole nuther topic. If a man buys a new production charter arms 32swl or a old IJ Safety Auto in the same caliber is really irrelevant aside from the standpoint one may be more reliable than the other. Lead on target is lead in a badguy. I recently saw some stats on caliber with respect to incapacitating the bad guy with one round. Whoopty-friggin-doo. Nobody carries a front - stuffing flinter or a TC contender for defense (muzzle flash and deafening noise might do the trick to turn the assailant around) so that point invalidates itself. With common choices for carry we have lots of options. I think we can all agree (hopefully) that we are looking for a window from x caliber to y caliber because sub x isn't enough and excess of y is overkill and asking to injure someone else with a passthrough or miss. Most would agree that any autoloader short of a desert eagle isn't overkill with the possible exception of 10mm. Wheel guns run much higher in power so there is an upper end on it too in the 45 colt or 44 mag range being an accepted top of that window. We are looking at the other end though...with modern loads in old cases. Is 32swl not a good choice with heavy defense rounds as made by buffalo bore? Likewise 32 short, 38sw etc. Are we looking for a magic number on energy, penetration, whatever... do I want to rip a man's torso open or poke a nasty hole in one side or a clean hole through both sides? Does that really even matter? Does it really matter that someone MIGHT be on PCP and MIGHT attack me affect my decision? Fact of the matter is that the most important tool is your brain, second your hand, and third what's in your hand. Past that results are diminishing quickly. So in 99.99% of the cases where deadly force is necessary what is the minimal round that can be justified. It still needs to be enough to stop a threat either by killing or seriously wounding the badguy but not be a risk for the guy 2 houses over if a shot does not hit home in the frantic situation that will no doubt be the case. What is the bottom end of the acceptable realm. It will be an antiquated round because pressures were low and velocities were too, so which one.
 
Posted by WestKentucky: A lot of what I have seen is strictly speculation which is summed up as hogwash.
.And there is a lot of it going around.

I think we can all agree (hopefully) that we are looking for a window from x caliber to y caliber because sub x isn't enough and excess of y is overkill and asking to injure someone else with a passthrough or miss.
I agree with that.

Is 32swl not a good choice with heavy defense rounds as made by buffalo bore? Likewise 32 short, 38sw etc.
I don't think the .32 S&W Long is at all sufficient. That means that the .32 S&W and .32 Short Colt wouldn't be, either.

Are we looking for a magic number on energy, penetration, whatever...
No magic numbers, but the key is penetration. After that comes permanent wound channel.

What is the bottom end of the acceptable realm. It will be an antiquated round because pressures were low and velocities were too, so which one.
Low pressures and low velocities are likely to disappoint.

But most people agree that the .38 Smith and Wesson Special (1898) and 9MM Parabellum (1902), with modern ammunition, will suffice.

Study this, carefully. I reflects a lot more than unsubstantiated speculation.

We have been discussing only the chambering. When one takes into count that multiple hits will likely be required, and that fewer hits than shots fired will be counted, capacity becomes a very important consideration also.
 
But most people agree that the .38 Smith and Wesson Special (1898) and 9MM Parabellum (1902), with modern ammunition, will suffice.

I think that's the key. The advances in modern defensive ammo have been so great, even in the last couple of decades, that using anything else seems foolish. If one could get ammo in the "antiquated calibers" with the updated features, I suspect the difference may not be as great. That said, most of those calibers seem to be limited to various target type loads.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top