Using antiquated rounds for defense purposes

[Kleanbore]

Posted by West Kentucky: Kleanbore, I certainly hope your kidding about Jenrick kidding.

Certainly not. His question, "why not carry a gun that you find interesting, neat, or for that matter "cute", was put forth in the context of his contention "ANY gun is better then no gun, and if that's what it takes to carry then so be it. "

Well, "any gun" might well prove very ineffective, in the gravest extreme. There are all kinds of reasons to carry something effective. No one in his right mind would make an informed decision to carry a defensive weapon that would likely not serve its purpose.

Now, if one's effective weapon of choice happened to also be "interesting, neat, or cute", fine. But that was not what Jenrick implied.

I do not carry my grandfather's revolver each day. And if I did so due to nostalgia, there is the likelihood that others would determine after the fact that I had done the wrong thing. It was considered adequate in 1900, but people know better now.

There is absolutely no good objective reason for anyone with a choice to carry a defensive weapon that is likely to prove ineffective.

My everyday carry weapon is not "cute", and some people would not consider it "neat". Whether it is "interesting" is a matter of opinion. But none of those things have anything to do with my choice.

 

[Jenrick]

JohnKSa: If they don't have any hand to hand skills, they aren't going to get their gun in play either except by anything other then luck or providence. Either of which are just as effective in determining ballistic effect for antique cartridges.

-Jenrick

 

[Deaf Smith]

Kind of strange that there are so many modern guns in .25, .32, .380, 9mm mak yet you guys here poo poo .32 s&w and .38 s&w.

Lots if people use them quite successfully to defend themselves.

It's the skill of the shooter that matters the most, not the equipment.

Deaf

 

[Jenrick]

There is absolutely no good objective reason for anyone with a choice to carry a defensive weapon that is likely to prove ineffective.

Gathering data on what constitutes "effective" would be extremely difficult. I'd hazard a guess though that if we defined it as "caused the assailant to halt their criminal activity" that there would be very little difference between any caliber on a percentage basis. If we defined it as "caused the assailant to be incapable of continuing their criminal activity" I'd guess there would be a slight bias (maybe not even a statistically significant one) towards larger or more modern bullet designs on a percentage basis. On a numerical basis, I'd hazard that more psychological and physiological stops have been made by .38 spl and smaller calibers by an order of magnitude than larger pistol calibers.

Assuming that the only effective way to stop criminal activity that rises to the level of a deadly threat is via terminal effect I think discounts the pistols historical success in self defense. They are honestly horrible at it regardless of the caliber or capacity. HOWEVER it is a huge risk to take, to plan on anything other than potential terminal effects of a particular cartridge and delivery system. In this I believe we are in agreement.

-Jenrick

 

[JohnKSa]

If they don't have any hand to hand skills, they aren't going to get their gun in play either except by anything other than luck or providence.

It's not the ideal situation, and it does reduce one's chances of being able to successfully deploy a gun, but it does happen. More to the point, whether it's ideal or not, it's reality for most people who carry.

It's important not to let the "perfect world" syndrome blind us to reality. The fact that a particular situation isn't ideal doesn't mean we can ignore it.

 

[WestKentucky]

Never once have I heard an interview where anybody said "yeah, I heard him shoot and it sounded like a 22 or maybe a 25 so I just kept going right at him" psychology has a lot more at play than folks give credit. It's not all about the physical side of things.

Now I do know some folks who have been shot. Some by accident and 2 intentionally. One accidental was through the butt and down through both legs with a 40sw xd that got tangled up on a belt going into a holster. He drove 25 minutes to the hospital himself and walked into the ER with no trouble. Another dropped a smith 38spl on the hammer spur and the bullet came up into the chest. He walked to the kitchen told his wife to turn off the stove and take him to the ER. Now these calibers are "known effective" and highly recommended and we're quite ineffective on the physical side in these situations. I won't expand on this but law enforcement is known to have a problem with "glock leg" in a variety of duty calibers...still doesn't do much other than get them to drive themselves to the ER. Now the 2 I know who were intentionally shot...one was a contact shot with a .380 in the chest mid-barfight. He fought the gun away and put a 4" dagger in the man's neck. That's a documented case, and was ruled as defense since the other guy shot him and kept fighting. The next was a guy who got caught by a husband in bed with a wife. 7 shots 25acp into a bare chest from the foot of the bed. That guy threw the husband that shot him through the bedroom window and called for an ambulance. All 4 guys I know personally realistically had very little damage done by a bullet. The 25acp bullets were between skin and ribs, the 38 was against but not in the heart or lungs and just had to be removed. The 380 broke a rib and stuck in a lung which would have killed the guy eventually maybe. The 40sw was dug out of the dirt after passing through a wallet, a buttcheek, and a thigh. It did not deform at all. The treatment for the 40 was to put pads over the wounds to keep it from getting infected. How can I possibly say any one was better or worse than the others? The 40 went further in meat...but all were pretty insignificant to stopping physical action. The psychological effect of getting shot at when not expecting it is a huge player. Possibly a bigger player than what a person is being shot at with.

 

[Sam1911]

Certainly. Of course, we don't ever, ever rely on that.

Any more than we buy into the old saw about racking the shotgun to scare away intruders.

Nice if you're lucky. Nothing to count on.

 

[WestKentucky]

Agreed 100% not to rely on it. If we could rely on it effectively I would suspect 99% of guns to be carried empty, but I think that it degrades the importance of caliber selection a great deal, especially for the civilian who is not involved with crime to give reason to be attacked by determined attackers. If most of us here were attacked for any reason it would most likely be a simple robbery. The robber wants a car to drive or money to spend. Those guys have a huge risk and little reward so they realistically will probably be turned by the sight of a gun let alone the use of one. I certainly would not say the same for LEO, military, or guys involved in criminal activity such as drug distribution. Those guys should expect to meet determined attackers and be ready with a whole bunch of decently powerful rounds.

 

[eastbank]

as i posted, my bisley 38-40 is not carried for defence and was ony brought up as a old cartige and stated you would not be under armed if used, true it only holds six rounds as most revolvers do and true its only single action,but if it was on my night stand and i heard a bump in the night i would be happy it was there. . a .401 dia.180gr bullet at 900-1000 fps is not far off a .40S&W with a 180gr bullet. so how far have we come, well the old 38-40 was brought out in 1874 and the .40S&W was brought out in 1990 as the so called perfect defence round. the only thing changed is the platform used to deliver the round. and as you can see i am not limited to the old colt. eastbank.

 

[Vodoun da Vinci]

From the original post:

From the colt pocket guns up through today's wondrously small 32 acp guns we have a wide variety of deep concealment guns available at incredible prices just because the naysayers want a bigger bullet.

So would a person be well served by carrying one of these guns that have proven extremely reliable in feed and function or is this just a fantasy?.......Does it take a 357 mag or 9mm to go through a t shirt, or a heavy winter coat?

So realistically, what should we look to for determining adequacy or inadequacy for carry purposes weighing the options at hand?

We have a number of pages of opinions and information now in this thread. Most of it credible and much of it contradictory. I wanted to add that I have no problem depending on antiquated cartridges for self defense. The .38 Special was designed back in 1898 and it *still* relied upon for SD daily and is carried by an awful lot of folks. The lowly .32 acp? I still depend on it in my Colt 1903's granted with "hot" rounds featuring 75 gr, flat nose hard cast lead running 1050+fps and getting over 200 fpe. My .32's get 15"+ of penetration on calibrated ballistic gelatine and produce a similar effect on test media (water jugs and such) as a .38 Special from a snubbie.

Are some of these antiquated rounds the best choice? Of course not...there has been a lot of progress in ammunition in the past few years. But are they washed up and a joke making those who carry them and who would depend on them to defend life and limb "fools" or delusional?

No. I don't think so. As always it's not a panacea but there is a place yet in the 21st century for 19th century SD rounds in my opinion and experience. My primary carry guns are 9mm. But I have no problem carrying a .32 auto, .380 auto, .38 Special etc in the right gun with the right load.

As always, someone else might have a different perspective and that's just fine.

VooDoo

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by West Kentucky: The 380 broke a rib and stuck in a lung which would have killed the guy eventually maybe. The 40sw was dug out of the dirt after passing through a wallet, a buttcheek, and a thigh. It did not deform at all. The treatment for the 40 was to put pads over the wounds to keep it from getting infected. How can I possibly say any one was better or worse than the others?

Very simply, by comparing the penetration. The .380 did not deliver, but the .40 did.

Of course, you also have to hit something that will stop the perp, and that is why trainers train people to shot more than once. A shot in a lung or thigh that does not break anything or destroy something necessary for the fight is unlikely to prove effective.

But one that does not penetrate adequately has little or no chance at all.

The psychological effect of getting shot at when not expecting it is a huge player. Possibly a bigger player than what a person is being shot at with.

Sometimes, and sometimes not. If it works. great, but I would never count on it.

This is worth reading carefully, thoughtfully, and more than once.

 

[BSA1]

Kind of strange that there are so many modern guns in .25, .32, .380, 9mm mak yet you guys here poo poo .32 s&w and .38 s&w.

Please cite examples of what you consider to be modern guns in 25, 32 S&W and 38 S&W.

The only modern 32 Auto that comes to mind is the Seecamp LWS and clones.
This is a specially pistol made for deep concealment. Seecamp doesn't put sights on it for the very reason.

Lots if people use them quite successfully to defend themselves.

Which leads to the question is how many people have ended up in the hospital or morgue because they staked their life on the illusion of having enough gun to successfully save their lives.

It's the skill of the shooter that matters the most, not the equipment

These folks have a lot to say on that topic including;

"Determined individuals can sustain many gunshot wounds in areas that produce great pain and continue to fight a long time, even without the aid of drugs or alcohol."

http://concealedcarryholsters.org/wp-content/files/FBI-Analysis-on-PA-Police-Shootout.pdf

 

[eastbank]

well you do have to hit your target, the police have all the fire power they want up to and including full auto and training, along with pratice. yet we read about 75-100 shots fired by the police at purp,s with no deaths involved. the police have glock,s- mp-5,s or m-16,s and yet have to fire many,many shots with out getting the job done,but may hit bystanders, fire power by its self is not the only answer. putting that bullet where it needs to go is a big part of it. eastbank.

 

[WestKentucky]

There are a handful of relatively new 32 acp guns out. Keltec has one that sells well. NAA has one that is impressively small but I'm not sure how it's sales numbers look. I believe a couple other companies have put out 32s similar to keltec as well. Diamondback? Ruger? I'm not sure. Can't discount the Walther guns either if they are still in existence.

The only 25s I am aware of are phoenix arms, taurus, and a fond derringer. NAA should have one if they don't already.

32sw and 38sw I know of no new guns. 32 can be shot in 32h&r or 327fed but that doesn't count. A NAA revolver in 32sw would be nice but I don't see them super sizing and going centerfire.

 

[jrdolall]

I'm still driving my 1948 Chevy.

And I bet it looks and drives great! I have a 57 that I drive and have had completely restored. It is a stunner and a head turner.
I do not drive it and leave it at the airport when I travel nor do we take it on most trips to the beach. Not because it isn't capable but because I have better cars for those purposes.
I have two revolvers in 32-20 and 32 long that I shoot on a regular basis. I reload for both and just about always run a box of shells through them when out shooting because everyone wants to try the "old guns" and both are from around 1900. If I was holding one at the range and a coyote attacked then I would certainly use it for defense but I don't carry one with the intent of shooting coyotes. I have other guns for that purpose.
If all you have is a 1905 revolver then by all means carry it and it will probably serve you just as well as a $5k 1911 or a $150 Hi Point 9 mm. If you have all three then I imagine the choice would be the 1911 for most people.

 

[Deaf Smith]

"Determined individuals can sustain many gunshot wounds in areas that produce great pain and continue to fight a long time, even without the aid of drugs or alcohol."

What was this 'areas what produce great pain' kemosabe?

Brain? Spinal column? Heart?

You do know shots the foot cause 'great pain', as those to the elbow.

Deaf

 

[Deaf Smith]

Certainly. Of course, we don't ever, ever rely on that.

Any more than we buy into the old saw about racking the shotgun to scare away intruders.

Nice if you're lucky. Nothing to count on.

I do know from a good friend where he did, late at night, rack a shotgun as intruders crossed his yard, and that did make the freeze. And then he said to them, "Boys.. I don't want to see you come through my yard again at night" and they left in great haste.

It IS kind of strange people think a racking shotgun won't do anything but they do expect the words, "Freeze" to have a positive effect.

Deaf

 

[Kleanbore]

Historically Speaking...

The .380 ACP, or 9MM Kurz, is very popular today. For years it has been rated by the scribes as the minimum for self defense, and several years ago I knew a very well informed police officer who was dubious about the number of his subordinates who were choosing them for back-up. However, there have been considerable advances in ammunition since that time.

I do not carry one. My 9MM is compact enough.

The .380 was once popular among police forces in Europe, and it was even used by some military forces, but no more.

The .38 S&W, which dates back to 1877, was considered more effective than the .32 S&W Long, but there have been no advances in ammunition for it for 75 years. Why anyone would choose to carry an obsolete round for which modern defensive ammunition is not available is beyond me.

The 9MM Kurz generally supplanted the 7.65 Browning (.32 ACP) in Europe in the years following WWII. In its heyday, the .32 ACP was quite popular. among civilians around the world and among police and military forces in Europe. In terms of penetration, it outperformed the .32 S&W Long.

The .32S&W Long or .32 Colt New Police was at one time considered adequate as a police and defensive round. That was more than a century ago, and there have been no improvements in ammunition since, nor can there be, considering the pressure limitations of the guns chambered for it. And the .32 Long, however anemic, was far superior to the earlier .32 S&W. There is a reason why firearms have not been produced for the .32 S&W for so long.

The .32-20, of course, is a much different story.

 

[19-3Ben]

It IS kind of strange people think a racking shotgun won't do anything but they do expect the words, "Freeze" to have a positive effect.

You're confusing two things.
1) discounting the possibility that it will be effective,
2) not counting on/assuming it will be effective.

Racking the gun MAY scare off an attacker, but it would be unwise to assume or count on it doing so.

 

[jimbo555]

I would have no problem carrying a s&w model 30 in 32 long loaded with buffalobore hard cast 115gr bullets. I would trust it more than a keltec p-32.

 

[BSA1]

The .38 Special was designed back in 1898 and it *still* relied upon for SD daily and is carried by an awful lot of folks

The original load for the 38 Special is a 158 gr. Round Nose Lead bullet pushed at 750 fps. It’s nickname the “widow maker” was well earned through it’s poor performance in many gunfights. It kept getting LEO's killed through the 1960's. The Super Vel was the first serious commercial round that substantially improved the performance of the 38 Special.

Although the 158 gr. RNL bullet is still produced and sold only the most ignorant gun owners will choose it for self defense over the many vastly superior bullets and loads for the 38 Special.

Are some of these antiquated rounds the best choice? Of course not...there has been a lot of progress in ammunition in the past few years. But are they washed up and a joke making those who carry them and who would depend on them to defend life and limb "fools" or delusional?

I think this is more a reliable indicator that folks that carry them have not come to terms with the possibility of killing another human being. This is why we hear about only shooting to wound and using a weak, small caliber with the belief it will stop their attacker without killing him.

Delusional is defined as having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions.

I think anyone that goes to the training and expense of getting a concealed carry permit and then chooses one of these rounds and old guns a fool.

I think any informed gun owner on the THR that chooses the 25, 32 S&W and 32 Long with the expectation of it incapacitating their attacker quickly enough to end the attack before they are injured or killed very well fit the description of delusional or ignorant or just plain is foolish. Ignorance we can fix with education. The other two, well, life is cruel and hard teacher.

Illusion of security can get a person seriously injured or killed. Hence my choice of choosing a cast iron skillet over the 32 S&W. It is highly unlikely the 32 S&W (and 25 acp) will inflict enough damage to stop a attack before the frying pan connects with the same of the human head. I think everyone knows that the frying pan is going to cause serious human injury and the person lights are going out pretty fast. You have to be a pretty cool customer to actually place one of these rounds in a area of the attackers face that is going to cause him to end his attack instantly.

.

 

[BSA1]

I would have no problem carrying a s&w model 30 in 32 long loaded with buffalobore hard cast 115gr bullets. I would trust it more than a keltec p-32.

Please conduct the same board test I have and report with the results. I am not convinced that a 115 gr. hard cast lead bullet at 781 fps (S&W model 30 Hand Ejector, 3 inch) makes it a good self-defense round. Even with their claim of 20 to 30 inches of straight line penetration that does not directly translate into how much energy is transferred and tissue damage is caused.

It will be interesting to see how much the performance of the 32 Long can be improved.

 

[jimbo555]

I don't own a 32. My point is a lot of people carry and trust 32acp's. The buffalo bore 32 long load should be just as effective as the 32 acp. If it does have the penetration as claimed.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by BSA1: I think any informed gun owner on the THR that chooses the 25, 32 S&W and 32 Long with the expectation of it incapacitating their attacker quickly enough to end the attack before they are injured or killed very well fit the description of delusional or ignorant or just plain is foolish. Ignorance we can fix with education. The other two, well, life is cruel and hard teacher.

I'm not sure why one would include the words "on THR".

I have friends who carry the .380 ACP. I have other friends who recommend against it.

I am not an expert on the subject, but I would assume that the now-obsolete .38 S&W was superior to the .32 Long. But not everyone was happy with it. See this.

The .38 S&W Special was introduced a long time ago, but today's ammo is much improved over the original. I occasionally carry one as a backup.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Please cite examples of what you consider to be modern guns in 25, 32 S&W and 38 S&W.

BSA1,

Modern? If it works well, then any 7 shot .25 IS modern. And any 6 shot .32/.38 S&W, like a Colt Dick Special or S&W I frame 'Terrier' is just about as modern any any revolver now made.

The only modern 32 Auto that comes to mind is the Seecamp LWS and clones.
This is a specially pistol made for deep concealment. Seecamp doesn't put sights on it for the very reason.

Clearly you never knew SIG made the 230 in .32 ACP nor Bersa. Not Kel-Tecs P32. And Beretta Tomcat.

You're confusing two things.
1) discounting the possibility that it will be effective,
2) not counting on/assuming it will be effective.

Well usually 19 when one racks the shotgun they DO have it pointed in the direction of the threat. So it isn't 'effective' then the buckshot that follows will be.

Please conduct the same board test I have and report with the results.

BSA1,

To paraphrase Brice Lee, "Boards don't shoot back".

Better yet use a gelatin test for penetration.

But alot of this has already been done.

LouisianaMan on S&W forum did a bunch of real good testing using handloaded 200 grain slugs as well as British military ammo and factory stuff.

http://smith-wessonforum.com/reloading/98749-38-s-w-load-devopment-pt-1-a.html

It's a fascinating thread. Apparently American 146gr stuff is way UNDERLOADED. I have no doubt the Buffalo Bore 125 gr. SWC load at 900 fps is a much better load for SD.

Deaf