Using antiquated rounds for defense purposes

[HexHead]

A cop buddy said recently he'd seen more people killed with .32 and .380 in the 'hood where he works than any other caliber. Apparently they're still effective.

 

[Panzerschwein]

I think if one puts in the time, and has a caliber effective enough to penetrate deeply to reach vitals, than no... they are not antiquated. Why do you think I use my Colt Navy for home defense? It's plenty lethal, that little .36 pure soft lead ball moving at 1000 FPS or more isn't anything to sneeze at. It will do the job, you can rest assure. No for my end of the baragin, it's the gun I shoot the most and it's the gun I can hit best with. When properly loaded the gun hasn't failed me yet. I can get off all six shots in less than three seconds and put them in a fist-sized group at 15 yards offhand standing.

Works for me. And just for the record, I haven't any wives or children to look after. If I did, I might have to break out the ol' 1860 Henry repeating rifle to keep next to the bed.

 

[WestKentucky]

Cooldill your touching dangerously near taking this to a caliber and platform discussion...I'm certainly not going to ask what's more effective, that slow shooting big bore Henry or an ar15 in its tacticool setup....my defense long gun is a marlin 336 so I think we're on the same page...

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by HexHead: A cop buddy said recently he'd seen more people killed with .32 and .380 in the 'hood where he works than any other caliber. Apparently they're still effective.

Do not confuse lethality with effectiveness.

 

[WestKentucky]

Kleanbore, please expand upon your comment concerning lethality vs effectiveness. I am assuming you are referring to bleed - out time but I'm not sure of that.

 

[MIL-DOT]

.25acp surprisingly fast though still weak. If your looking for energy look elsewhere, otherwise it's actually impressive based solely on numbers.http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.25_ACP

An old shootin' buddy of mine recently got a minty old Beretta made in the 50's that shoots .25acp. He said he'd always thought of .25 as a rinky-dink little round, but while shooting it recently at various objects, he was very surprised at the penetration it delivered, and said he'd be happy using it for occasional SD pocket-carry.

 

[MIL-DOT]

Do not confuse lethality with effectiveness.

Why not? If the goal in shooting something is to kill it, and a particular round does that, as stated by Hexhead's cop buddy, then "effectiveness" and "lethality" are essentially synonymous, in the context we'd be using the terms.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by WestKentucky: Kleanbore, please expand upon your comment concerning lethality vs effectiveness. I am assuming you are referring to bleed - out time but I'm not sure of that.

Certainly.

What the armed defender needs is something to stop an attacker right now before he can shoot, stab, slash, or bludgeon. The "stop" may result fom psychological effects, pain, or debilitating injury.

No one shot is likely to do it--it will likely take several--but the point is, the objective is not to kill the attacker, but to stop him effectively.

Lethality refers to the likelihood that someone will ultimately die, no matter how long that might take.

So, while one or two .22LR bullets, for example, may prove inoperable and fatal in the long run, an attacker who has been hit by them may still be able to do great harm before succumbing.

These days some five out of six persons hit by handgun bullets survive, IIRC, due to rapid response, effective trauma treatment , and modern antibiotics.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by MIL-DOT: Why not? If the goal in shooting something is to kill it, and a particular round does that, as stated by Hexhead's cop buddy, then "effectiveness" and "lethality" are essentially synonymous, in the context we'd be using the terms.

The context of the question was for defense purposes, and the goal is therefore not to kill it, by definition.

In hunting, the goal is to kill quickly.

 

[Sam1911]

Exactly what I would say. The point of shooting a defensive round is NOT to kill anything, but to break up enough stuff right this split second to stop someone from killing you in the next split second.

The attacker is rather quite likely to survive these days, and that's a fine thing. Use the most compelling round you can control in a delivery package that is foolproof reliable and fast, and will be amenable to developing proficiency.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Cooldill: I can get off all six shots in less than three seconds and put them in a fist-sized group at 15 yards offhand standing.

That's good target shooting.

For the defensive scenario, the question is how quickly you can achieve combat accuracy while firing quite a bit faster and probably at one-third that distance.

Not to suggest that you cannot--but shooting a group at 15 yards offhand while standing does not prepare one well for the ultimate defensive scenario.

Lest I sound like a know it all, understand that I am having difficulty avoiding falling into the trap of square range practice and shooting at a target in front of me.

 

[Nom de Forum]

I think most people are using "antiquated rounds" for defense purposes because the .22LR, .25ACP, .32ACP, 9mmK, 9mmP, .38Spl, .357Mag, and .45ACP are all antiques from more than 75 years ago.

 

[pendennis]

In my mind, the biggest thing that has changed in defensive calibers in the last 100 years is the invention of anti-biotic drugs like penicillin.

Back in 1900, getting gut shot with a lead bullet .32 was a slow death sentence from infection, if you were not lucky enough it outright killed you DRT.

I have read that old gun fighters feared the little outside grease lubed .32's and .41 RF's getting stuck in their innerds more then a relatively 'clean' through & through shot with a more powerful gun.

True or not?
I don't know?

But I would rather bleed out on the spot from a .45 Colt, then linger in agony from blood poisoning and die two weeks later from a slow little 'dirty' bullet left inside me.

I think before modern medicine, EMP's, Life Flights, and Free Health Care for 'Everyone'?

Getting gut-shot with those Little guns would scare the crap out of me!

Might even make me decide to go somewhere else, and do something different.
That might have been a lot of common thinking 114 years ago too?

rc

The bullet itself, and as hot as it was when penetrating flesh, was probably not the cause of the resulting infection. Despite the bleeding, the bullet probably cauterized the flesh until it cooled.

The resulting infections from old GSW's came about as a result of dirty clothing fragments, and other debris that entered the wound channel. The doctors of the day also did a lot of damage by probing the wounds with less-than-sterile surgical instruments. Probing wounds forced bacteria deeper into the body, and made it easier (dark, warm, and wet) for infections to grow. Sepsis sets in very quickly, and kills you in days, sometimes hours.

GS victims today get pumped full of antibiotics immediately, as you rightly noted. And x-rays and MRI's locate bullets to within millimeters, making removal much safer (relatively) than before.

 

[BSA1]

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.

We are 62 posts into this caliber debate and no one that claims that the small bore antique cartridges and guns are adequate for self-defense have posted any of their actual test results.

Here is the photograph of the two 32 Long bullets I fired into a 3/4" pine board;



And the gun they were fired from;



I await any documented tests that contradicts my statement that the 32 Long is inadequate for self-defense.

Deaf Smith and R.W. Dale the ball is in your court.

 

[Deaf Smith]

BSA1,

That photo reminds me of an article written by a G&A writer who used to be a Rhodesian policeman (he died years ago if anyone here remembers who he was), and he wrote about being issued the British Webley with the military British 380 Mk II 174 gr FMJ load and how it bounced off a fence post he shot at.

Now yes, if you use old ammo or under loaded ammo expect poor results, but when I wrote about using the .38 S&W (or any other round) I presumed one would TEST IT, to make sure it was adequate.

Buffalo Bore does make some effective .38 S&W ammo, but it's for swing out cylinder guns (like my Colt Police Positive bankers model or my RAAF issue S&W Victory),
or Webleys (I have one) and such.125gr at 874 fps from a S&W 2 inch.

Hence I mentioned the .38 Terrier pistol.

And for the .32 S&W Long BB makes a 100 gr lead WC at 872 fps from a S&W model 30 Hand Ejector, 3 inch. Also a 115 gr. flatnose at 840 fps from a S&W 1st model Hand Ejector, 4 inch (which I have one!)

So those two loads might fill the bill (like I said, shot placement and adequate penetration.)

But regardless of what one carries, they are responsible for testing ALL their equipment.

Deaf

 

[WestKentucky]

I would disagree nom. You are correct in your data on the cases but those particular rounds have been kept current by the ammunition companies through development of bullets. I would certainly not put a .357 mag with a jacketed hollow point designed for extreme expansion into the same realm as the 38s&w which has in effect not changed at all since it's creation. The age of the case design has nothing to do with the cartridge being modern or antiquated.

 

[Nom de Forum]

I would disagree nom. You are correct in your data on the cases but those particular rounds have been kept current by the ammunition companies through development of bullets. I would certainly not put a .357 mag with a jacketed hollow point designed for extreme expansion into the same realm as the 38s&w which has in effect not changed at all since it's creation. The age of the case design has nothing to do with the cartridge being modern or antiquated.

Of course you are correct, I was just having fun while enjoying the fireworks of this thread. I do think there are many people out there still using FMJ and LRN in the cartridges I listed that our grandfathers 70 years ago would find indistinguishable from the loads they were using.

 

[duanebuck.schultz]

I have a Colt Dragoon replica cap& ball and I love it. Slow to reload but very powerful. They call it a .44 but it actually takes a .457 ball. It is very accurate.
The Texas Rangers and US Calvary used them in the 1800's.

 

[WestKentucky]

Your right about folks using inadequate rounds in cases known to be adequate. Lots of ball 9mm and 45acp being toted daily along with bulk pack 22lr, 25acp, and I'm guilty of carrying some really weak 32swl in a RG of all things. I have carried 22lr 38sw and 25acp at times in recent history too, but I do rely on my grandma's RG way too much. It is getting past the heat of summer though so bigger guns will be concealable under more clothes soon at which time I swing the other way to a 6" 44 mag.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Of course you are correct, I was just having fun while enjoying the fireworks of this thread. I do think there are many people out there still using FMJ and LRN in the cartridges I listed that our grandfathers 70 years ago would find indistinguishable from the loads they were using.

Yea with the price of ammo today, especially 'premium' ammo, I have no doubt there are people using older guns and rnl/fmj ammo for self-defense.

Deaf

 

[MIL-DOT]

Exactly what I would say. The point of shooting a defensive round is NOT to kill anything, but to break up enough stuff right this split second to stop someone from killing you in the next split second.

The attacker is rather quite likely to survive these days, and that's a fine thing. Use the most compelling round you can control in a delivery package that is foolproof reliable and fast, and will be amenable to developing proficiency.

What a load of nonsense, from both of you. The widely acknowledged FIRST rule of firearm handling is "never point a gun at anything you don't intend to destroy". If you shoot someone in a SD situation, it is ONLY because you consider them a mortal threat to you or someone else. By wounding someone, you have NOT fully eliminated that threat, as even a mortally would person (or animal) can still do great harm.
If you shoot someone/thing, then you're shooting to kill, and do so immediately. As I said, (in the SD context we're using the terms) a round that isn't lethal, isn't "effective". A lethal round is by definition, effective. One can nit-pick tiny distinctions in almost anything, they're always going to exist, but in this context, the two terms are largely interchangable.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by MIL-DOT: If you shoot someone in a SD situation, it is ONLY because you consider them a mortal threat to you or someone else.

Very true indeed. But that's just about the extent of the truth in your post.

By wounding someone, you have NOT fully eliminated that threat, as even a mortally would person (or animal) can still do great harm.

You may or may not have. Depends upon the wound, the attacker, and the circumstances.

If you shoot someone/thing, then you're shooting to kill, and do so immediately.

ABSOLUTELY NOT!

You are shooting to prevent the attacker from causing harm, at that moment and only at that moment.

If you succeed in doing so, but the attacker survives, fine. And he may succumb to those wounds. But if you shoot again to ensure his demise, you will fail in your defense of justification.

As I said, (in the SD context we're using the terms) a round that isn't lethal, isn't "effective".

Probably so...

A lethal round is by definition, effective.

Not necessarily. Many people die, or have died, from wounds from the .22 Short. .22 Long, .22 LR, .30 RF, .32 Short or Long (CF or RF). .25 ACP, .41 RF--I could go on and on. They are therefore, by definition, lethal.

Bur most of us know better than to rely upon them for self-reservation, if we have a choice.

...in this context, the two terms are largely interchangable.

Obviously not.

 

[WestKentucky]

Kleanbore is right. If you put a round into an attackers forehead or if you put it into your own foot really makes no difference. If the attack stops then so does the shooting. If the shooting doesn't stop it's not defense anymore...it's retaliation for the attack and no matter how you slice it, that's murder.

 

[Sam1911]

What a load of nonsense, from both of you. The widely acknowledged FIRST rule of firearm handling is "never point a gun at anything you don't intend to destroy".

I've never said that. I've said many times, "anything you aren't WILLING to destroy." In a defensive shooting, you are WILLING to destroy the attacker, if that's what happens. IF he dies, that's not on your conscience. But his death is NOT your INTENT.

If it is, and you shoot him, and he falls down and cannot harm you -- DO YOU KEEP SHOOTING AT HIM UNTIL HE'S DEAD? Clearly no! You would become a murderer yourself.

Therefore, your intent CANNOT be to kill him. Only, and ever to STOP the threat from harming you.

The state does not extend to any one man, under any circumstance, ever, the right to decide that someone dies. Self defense law is centered around the idea that the most effective means of stopping a threat from hurting/killing an innocent person often do involve the grave risk of death. And the law says that the state has the ability to forgive the defender from the guilt of killing his attacker -- SO LONG AS it was an effect of stopping a lethal threat.

If you shoot someone in a SD situation, it is ONLY because you consider them a mortal threat to you or someone else.

Of course. And the only reason you can shoot them is to stop what they're about to do to you.

By wounding someone, you have NOT fully eliminated that threat, as even a mortally would person (or animal) can still do great harm.

You do not have the right to "fully eliminate" someone. If they die during the course of stopping the action they were about to commit, the state may forgive that guilt on your part, but if they've STOPPED harming you or trying to harm you right now, then your justification for continuing to harm them is utterly gone.

Revenge is not a legitimate self-defense purpose. Stopping someone from hurting you some time in the future is not a legitimate self-defense purpose.

If the attacker has stopped trying to harm you (because he ran or because he gave up or because he CAN'T physically harm you) then you MUST stop using lethal force on him.

Now, if he's still got a gun and he's still trying to shoot you, the threat is not stopped. If he's got his hands up, dropped the gun, turned and ran, or fallen unconscious -- STOP!

If you shoot someone/thing, then you're shooting to kill, and do so immediately.

No, you aren't. That's a wrongheaded way to look at it, with dangerous repercussions in the real world.

Look, your only reason to be allowed to shoot a human is to try and STOP him from hurting you. Your act may indeed kill him, but if he survives, that's just fine, so long as he STOPPED hurting you.

As I said, (in the SD context we're using the terms) a round that isn't lethal, isn't "effective".

Lethal meaning "able to cause death?" Yes, that's somewhat true. Though tasers are effective and they aren't (generally) able to cause death. OC spray can be effective and doesn't cause death. But bullets do need to be able to break enough stuff to stop someone from hurting you and that means they can kill.

A lethal round is by definition, effective.

Not even sort of. One easy example: A guy jumps you with a knife. You put two rounds of .22LR into his chest. He continues to stab you until you die, bleeding. 5 minutes later, he dies of his wounds. Your bullets were lethal, without any question. They also were completely ineffective.

One can nit-pick tiny distinctions in almost anything, they're always going to exist, but in this context, the two terms are largely interchangable.

Sometimes folks say others are "nitpicking" when others see that they were wrong. This is one of those cases.

Whoever taught you that you need to KILL to defend yourself was very foolish. Whoever has built in you the idea that your attacker must DIE to be stopped from hurting you is dangerously wrong.

 

[Sam1911]

A quote from another thread:

The lawful defender does not have the right to kill. Killing is a possible, and acceptable, by-product of an action taken to stop the death or grievous injury of self or another (or one of a small handful of other forcible felonies depending on local laws).

Society, in a few fairly rare instances in some states, may decide that a person must DIE as punishment for especially heinous acts. But an individual person NEVER has the authority or right to pass judgment and execute someone for any act, ever.

If it becomes necessary to shoot someone in order to make them cease attacking me or harming me or another person I am responsible for, then I may use deadly force. Using deadly force does not mean I am allowed to pursue their death, only that the force I am allowed to use MAY cause death.

80% of gunshot victims survive. That includes cases where someone shoots another in what is later ruled a justifiable act. In those 80% of cases, death was not required to stop the attack and/or save a life. Pursuing death beyond the point of cessation of the attack would have been unlawful homicide = manslaughter or murder.