.32 ACP FMJ vs. 40 S&W hollow point

[JoeSixpack]

Originally Posted by tipoc

If I stab a fella in the spine with a stiletto and another in the spine with a broadsword, it's all the same since both opponents will collapse. To be fair let's replace broadsword with a Ka-Bar.

Left out of that picture is the messy fighting part. It's when we include that that we see a difference between the .32. 9mm and 40 S&W.

We could play this game for awhile but we all know, you carry the tool for the job.

The stiletto and the 22 l.r., .32 or .380 have their place. Each is deadly. Punching someone in the spleen, or heart with a knitting needle, or screwdriver is deadly. It's not likely you'd knowingly go into a fight with a screwdriver if better options are available. Same for the .22 and 32.

tipoc

+1

32 is no doubt deadly but that does not mean it's power is equal to a .40
It has other advantages you'd have to talk about but power ain't one of them.

[briandg]

Remington is made in America where our robust legal system prevents any business whatsoever from getting away with any shenanigans. I'm sure that sb is not as concerned.

Think about this. Your fmj .32 will hit with much less power than a compound bow with a reasonably similar diameter.

Did you know that the pointy little target points can't even reliably kill a rabbit? You will almost certainly fail to disable an opponent with that round. Even a hit
to lungs or heart will not disable, all it will do is poke a hole in them.

On a scale of 1 to 10 rating defensive handguns, from .44 magnum as 10, I'm having a hard time placing .32 fmj above 1, but I must. I put the .25 cap at maybe 1. .22 magnum may be better than the .25.

To me, the .40 most be at least a five. Smaller diameter, lighter bullet,lower velocity than the .44 magnum, obviously but where do we find that line that defines when we are simply wasting extra disabling power?

[Cheapshooter]

If you want to take out a barrier would you rather use a Smart Car, or a 3/4T Pickup?
Yes, a CNS hit is most likely going to result in an instant stop. That is if the bullet hits that small area of a running, punching fighting, attacking person. If the tiny .32 bullet actually reaches a vital part of the CNS with enough energy left to significantly damage it. But it is not going to expand enough to do a lot of damage to anything it does not hit directly.
A larger bullet, at the same, or more velocity, that expands to make an even larger wound, and delivers significantly more shock to the body could possibly disrupt the CNC without directly hitting it. Cause more damage to organs. Create a larger wound with more blood loss, and cause a more intense, and most often fight stopping amount of pain.

[Bill DeShivs]

Briandg-
Shoot the rabbit with a .45 Colt in the same spot, and you will likely get the same result.
No handgun has the power to simply immediately disable without a CNS shot.
Your rating scale is accurate- with the exception that the .25 and .32 have been working for well over 100 years. 1 &2 may be low, but they work!


Cheapshooter-
You just like to argue.

No handgun round damages tissue that it does not hit directly.

Why would you think a .32 acp hollow point would not expand?

There is no hydrostatic shock from handgun rounds. That requires 2000+FPS.
Anyone who could stand the pain of being shot with a .32 could withstand the pain of being shot with a .45 in the same spot.

Blood loss has little to do with stopping a fight. If it becomes an issue, it was a LONG fight!
As far

As I have said- if I knew I was going to have to shoot someone I would carry the biggest gun that I could.

[briandg]

There just isn't anything to offer by the .32. Even a hit to the spine has a reasonably good chance of deflection. That round shape won't do enough damage at that velocity to incapacitate a strong and focused individual. Does a hard core gang banger feel pain the same way as a choir boy does? That .32 ball, unless it hits somewhere that will positively paralyze the target, you can't remotely count on it to disable a human being. It's an awful risk to take.

[WyMark]

I'm willing to wager that many, many more people have been killed by a .32acp than by a .40s&w over the last 100 or so years.

[Bill DeShivs]

Brian- You can't count on ANY handgun to disable a human.

[Model12Win]

This is an armadillos to optometrists comparison. No way they are even remotely comparable.

[JoeSixpack]

I doubt 32acp has been involved in more shooting fatal or not then .40S&W.
32acp is not a particular common round imo.. but I have no hard numbers to show you.

I'd suspect 22lr has been involved in more shooting then either of the two above combined.
It's cheap & common.

Because its likely been involved in more shotings it's probably also resulted in more deaths just due to sheer numbers.

But I wouldn't consider it superior because of that.

[briandg]

Joe tells the truth.

Do you want to know what cartridge has killed the most people?

It would probably be the 9mms. Maybe the nagant. Millions of murders during the last century. Even the lousy .25 acp blew open a lot of skulls in Katyn forest.

Honestly, what bearing does the body count have on whether one of the worst rounds in common use today is as good at killing people as one of the best?

For that matter, in Katyn, for example, many prisoners were first bayonetted, then shot in the back of the head, and then dropped into the pit to bleed out. Don't waste time arguing that the number of killings matters even a tiny bit, why would it? Maybe more people died in huppmobiles than pintos, but what does that matter? Pintos were better at keeping people alive.

Bill, your point about no pistol being guaranteed is completely irrelevant in a discussion about whether a pistol caliber probably will, or probably won't be capable of ending hostilities.

A kid near here tried to commit suicide and shot himself through the heart with a .44 magnum. he lived through that, he probably would have survived a .32, but it doesn't make a lot of difference. until whatever handgun a person is using carries a payload of high explosives that can vaporize eighty pounds of flesh, it can be taken as a simple fact. every shooter h as to just accept that the human body isn't really tough, it's kind of soft and squishy, and you can literally vaporize a half pound of flesh without injury to areas a few inches away.

[briandg]

Bill, I've shot rabbits and squirrels with all sorts of things. There are many cartridges out there that don't care about our misconceptions or beliefs. A person who hits a rabbit with a needle profile arrow had better pin it to the ground. A blunt club point will smash bones and damage organs, it's like being hit by a car.

Can you tell me what part of the rabbit I should aim my .45 at if I just want to hurt him a little?

[Cheapshooter]

No handgun round damages tissue that it does not hit directly.

You have facts to back that up?
The best thing we have available for standardized testing is ballistic gel. In every test I have seen there is a cavity larger than the expanded bullet diameter.
Actually in animal flesh (and bone) I have skinned deer shot with handguns, and muzzle loaders far below 2000 fps. In every one the damaged area was much larger than the diameter of the projectile.
If you believe presenting facts is arguing I guess you're right. I wonder what presenting unsubstantiated conjecture is?

[reynolds357]

Why is everyone a fan of ballistic gel?
If I want to test a bullet, I go shoot me a hog in the shoulder. 1. Cheaper 2. I get to see what a bullet will do in a realistic winter clothing, bone, flesh stimulant. 3. The nasty vermin need shot anyway.

[reynolds357]

Cheapshooter, I would have to agree with you. There is a definite energy transfer outside the area in direct contact with the projectile.

[Cheapshooter]

^
Yup, as you know from actual experience in your previous post. In real flesh and bone.

[Bill DeShivs]

Brian-
Your arrow analogy is irrelevant. The arrow is travelling much slower than a bullet anyway.
What part? The same part you hit with the arrow.

[Bill DeShivs]

Cheapshooter-
Bruising is not "damage" in the sense it will stop any activity. And that's what you see-bruising. A hematoma.
Because you have seen it, and don't know what it is or how it relates to the subject at hand-doesn't make it a fact.
That cavity closes right back up in tissue. It's what the bullet actually cuts through that matters. That temporary cavity is not nearly as big as it is in the gel and it has little or no effect on stopping a determined attacker.

[Cheapshooter]

Torn, and destroyed tissue is what I see. Yes, there is also black "blood shot" areas which you call bruising. But there has also been tissue damage beyond bruising. Skinned out a 12 gauge slug shot deer and the entire front leg came off with the hide. The normal muscle where the joint is held together looked like a pile of hamburger.

[Deaf Smith]

I'm willing to wager that many, many more people have been killed by a .32acp than by a .40s&w over the last 100 or so years.

Well if you count the Nazis, yea. But then the .32 has been here for, oh, 100 or so years. I guess you could say the .25 acp has killed more to. Even rocks have killed more!

Deaf

[briandg]

Give the forty fifty more years of peacetime use and it will still never catch up with century old rounds.

A lot of action happened between now and then,with the 32. As a preliminary weapon. The nine, however, has probably killed tens of thousands between now and wartime. Look at the use of them in world wide law enforcement, as well as the thousands used in criminal affairs. Still, look at the special,a serious contender in those times as well.

Again the numbers don't mean much. I've heard from reliable sources that the .22 killed a disproportionate number of people before gang violence. A medical examiner in Atlanta told me that more people died of that round during his tenure. A lot of those deaths were very slow and unpleasant.

Lincoln took two shots to the brain with a gun about like the cap, but again, using a single shooting is meaningless.

[Bill DeShivs]

Brian- Lincoln was shot once with a .41 caliber Henry Deringer pistol.
Henry had not yet developed the 2 shot semi-automatic cap and ball gun.

[briandg]

You are right. I was thinking about something else.

But, it was not a .41, the national archives and library of congress both report it as being a 44.

No need to throw out the ridiculous comment about the semiautomatic. Plenty of people carried a brace of pistols.

[tipoc]

No handgun round damages tissue that it does not hit directly.

This is not true. It's also of little relevance to this discussion. But, it's been found, some years back, that from many service handgun rounds there is an area of tissue as deep as 3-5" adjacent to the permanent wound cavity where tissue is damaged from the stretch and pressure of the temporary wound cavity. The amount of damage varies and is inconsistent depending on a number of factors. But it is damage none the less and sometimes significant.

If you had said that the only damage you can count on to have an effect on stopping an aggressor or game is the direct damage done by the bullet a person would be correct.

tipoc

[briandg]

It's been mentioned that the nasty looking gooey bloody mess isn't damage. That nasty gooey bloody mess is internal bleeding. That's kinda like damage.

[reynolds357]

Everyone seems to forget that there are several hits other than CNS that will instantmy put down an attacker. Hips, and femurs are instant stoppers if they are hit with a bullet that will smash them. .25 and .32 won't smash them.