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

[bricz75]

Originally Posted by Cosmodragoon

In the name of science, I recommend that you get together an assortment of water-filled jugs, bottles, and cans; expired food items and overripe produce; and various junk for simulated barriers. Take the appropriate safety measures and be sure to clean up when you're done.

This reminds me of me wondering who provides the windshield when the manufacturers show/claim their bullets will penetrate such and such amount after going through the windshield.

[bricz75]

Originally Posted by briandg

Even the lousy .25 acp blew open a lot of skulls in Katyn forest.

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.

Off Topic: I'm familiar with the Katyn tragedy and am a little surprised someone on this forum appears to know more about it than I. I thought it was Geco brand .32 that killed most there. They measured entrance wounds being a little or so less than 9mm. I think there was frequently, if not usually, an exit wound. My hunch is a .25 wouldn't be powerful enough for that...I know they started that mission using something more powerful than a .32 or .25. They stopped using it due to the recoil. Was it the Nagant with powerful ammo?...You probably heard of Vasily Blokhin. Brrr...

[tipoc]

Really, folks should go here some time and study some. They've shot many things over the years with many things.

https://www.theboxotruth.com/

tipoc

[Bill DeShivs]

Few pistol rounds will smash bone, and doing so requires more precision than a head shot.
Even if you do break a bone, it will cripple, but won't keep a determined attacker from shooting back.

[briandg]

Bric, the things that I am familiar with is that the brave and hearty Russian warriors did in fact resent having to use heavy guns. A lot of the dead, at least long before the complete excavation showed a lot of dead with stab and blunt trauma. Pretty much from the start they intended to blame the killings on the German army and to that end they used walther .25 acp pistols, you can be sure that they liberally scattered these "German"shell casings everywhere.

Off topic as well, but think about it. These soldiers didn't like shooting the nagant (97 grains at 1000 fps) and they used the .25. It left a lot of them alive and dying slowly, especially with the fact that many were found to have been shot at the base of the skull instead of into the brain.

[bricz75]

briandg, I guess they didn't like to lug heavy guns around. I didn't know many were killed with sharp and blunt instruments.

[Nanuk]

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.

A friend of mine shot a guy in the hip with a 45 ACP. It went in the buttock and out his front pocket. He stumbled into the Rio Grand, swam the river, flipped him off, limped to the hospital and lived to sue.

[tipoc]

Few pistol rounds will smash bone, and doing so requires more precision than a head shot.
Even if you do break a bone, it will cripple, but won't keep a determined attacker from shooting back.

This statement is not correct. I'm also not sure what the point of it is. It's been well known for a good long time that a pretty wide variety of handgun rounds will and do break, fracture and/or pierce bone. This in humans, hogs, cattle, etc.

I'm also not sure why a person would say "doing so requires more precision than a head shot". It implies that hits to bone are always intentional or should be. It also, well simply makes no sense.

By the way, a part of both police training and some military training has suggested that when facing opponents wearing body armor that shots to the pelvic girdle may be useful in stopping an opponent.

I say that because for two centuries handgun hunters, and those that have taken game with handguns have reported on rounds breaking bone. At times this has been discussed as a good quality to have in a handgun for defense against dangerous game or in simply hunting hogs, deer, etc.

Elmer Keith, Skeeter Skelton, and many others spoke decades ago about those guns and loads that could break bone.

When the Thompson LaGarde tests were conducted in 1904 a part of those tests was shooting at human and animal bone and reporting the results. (They preferred the calibers that smashed and fractured the bone to those that simply penetrated through).

Few pistol rounds will smash bone

. Here the writer may be using the word "smash" in a narrow sense. Using "smash" as distinct from break, fracture, penetrate, etc. Maybe.

But we know that routinely, bullets have been through various numbers of 1" pine board in many, many tests over the decades. If a bullet can penetrate through 6, 7, 10 or more 1" pine boards than it will significantly damage bone in it's way.

Tests during WWII conducted at 50 and more yards were conducted on steel combat helmets with 9mm and 45 caliber pistols. The 9mm ball did particularly well at 50 yards as I recall.

I'm wondering what this thread is actually about.

tipoc

[tipoc]

OK well here...

The general opinion is that penetration in a jug of water translates to about 2" in ballistic gelatin.

https://www.theboxotruth.com/the-box...e-box-o-truth/

How sometimes "more powerful" turns out not to be. Food for debate.

https://www.theboxotruth.com/the-box...-box-otruth-2/

One more...

https://www.theboxotruth.com/the-box...l-box-o-truth/

tipoc

[JoeSixpack]

Eh, Im not sure how the rest of the bones in your body compare in toughness to your skull.. but unless im mistaken wont a lowly 22lr go thru the human skull?

I seem to remember reading 22's was actually a hitmans favorite due to easy suppression or just outright more quiet even when not, a shot to the head was fatal and less messy then a larger caliber.

Do I have any of that wrong?

[briandg]

Tipoc, you are just kidding yourself if you believe that you will ever be able to locate and shoot the hip in the second or two that you will have. Be realistic a floppy t shirt, long jacket, add movement, looking at the face,stress and worry, The actual area of bone is only a few inches. Shooting at the hip when the alternative is chest is a foolish risk. A person is better able to see the head.

Now are you really wanting to waste even a second looking for that perfect mass of bone when you have already decided that shooting at the guy, drawn your weapon,and put the finger on the trigger?

When and if you actually draw your weapon and fire at an opponent under stress, I don't believe that you will. Send me credible proof that you did so and effectively shut down the fight in a matter of a few seconds, say two seconds, which is about the time that almost anyone can accomplish a chest shot ill send you money.

There was a very extensive thread that even massad ayoob got involved in.

When people pass on questionable information it puts other people in danger. Doesn't matter if it's reloading data or medical advice, they endanger the lives and well being of everyone who reads it it and acts on it.

[briandg]

Joe, that is pretty much true. When a SMART person chooses to murder from ambush, the .22 is a great weapon.

A guy here defrauded an old couple out of enormous amounts of money, when they threatened him with the police. He waited in the house one day, and as they came in the Door he shot them both in the head with a .22. I think that he shot both of them multiple times.

I don't think that it is as common as we expect but it is a common method among the careful planner. I've read about it numerous times.

It's also somewhat common in home defense. The old guy with a squirrel gun may not own a glock.

[Bill DeShivs]

I was talking about INTENTIONALLY shooting to break a particular bone. My point was-that breaking a leg will not prevent someone shooting back at you.

As far as the .22 penetrating the skull-it certainly will, under most circumstances.
But there are many instances of much larger calibers glancing off of the human skull-it's tougher than you may think.

[briandg]

Bill, I wasn't really referring to you because I agree. Hitting a bone is a bad thing, but like every other hit, there is no certainty about even taxes.

Do you remember a woman being shot twice with I believe a .45, in Florida, and both bullets slid off?

Believe in God? An inch further in towards center would likely have let one of those rounds punch through.

"impossible" stuff happens every day.

[tipoc]

Tipoc, you are just kidding yourself if you believe that you will ever be able to locate and shoot the hip in the second or two that you will have. Be realistic a floppy t shirt, long jacket, add movement, looking at the face,stress and worry, The actual area of bone is only a few inches. Shooting at the hip when the alternative is chest is a foolish risk. A person is better able to see the head.

This is a good example of a fella not listening to whats being said, or written rather.

First, Bill said that bullets do not break bone. Which is not true. Second he said that aiming at bone requires more precision than a head shot. To that I said:

"I'm also not sure why a person would say "doing so requires more precision than a head shot". It implies that hits to bone are always intentional or should be. It also, well simply makes no sense."

So right there I said that I don't see the point of aiming at bone. That includes the hip bones, femur, etc.

As Massad Ayoob (I only mention him because he was mentioned) as well as others have said, if a person is wearing body armor, a shot to the pelvic girdle may be one option for a stop or severe damage. What's the pelvic girdle? Well there is a good deal of bone there to which locomotive muscles are attached. A good deal of gut, reproductive organs, some major arteries, etc. Google the term and see for yourself.

So when a fella says:

you are just kidding yourself if you believe that you will ever be able to locate and shoot the hip in the second or two that you will have.

Since the area of the pelvic girdle is just about as large as the area of the chest that we want to get at in a com shot, then are you advocating that we all just give up hitting anything that's moving? I don't think Briang is advocating that.

I also said that it's better to have a round that will damage bone and penetrate cartilage and still have some potential for further damage. What's behind the sternum, or the scapula? If a fella has their forearm up to protect themselves isn't there bone in the arm? yes we know that in gunfights hits to bone are common.

Sometimes to get to where you want the bullet to go, bone is in the way. It's useful to have a bullet and caliber with enough power to penetrate through that bone, or break it for self defense work.

The .22 l.r., 25acp, 32acp and the 380 can all be used for self defense and have useful results. A small hideout piece has a role. They are bullets and put holes in things.

There is also overlap in rounds. Some 32 acp rounds do better than some 9mm rounds in penetrating (some ball ammo vs. some jhp in particular). The 9mm Mak ball penetrates very well.

tipoc

[briandg]

I mistook what you said, mea culpa,but it's all still applicable. Deliberately trying to find the pelvis, not just the area, but the actual bones, is a chore, and a terrible risk when the need to pull the trigger is now.

I've seen video of people in armor hit, and it's pretty harsh. I suspect that a person wearing armor, not a hardened guy, but a more ordinary guy, will be shut down for a few seconds, a double tap in the chest even with armor could take a moment to recover from. Four rounds of pretty much anything should delay the shooter long enough to get under the armor.

My posts here and elsewhere are about making a pelvis or head shot as a first line. I find that to be just crazy, reckless. When circumstances leave no option, either one becomes the next best alternative.

Trained professional "shootists' can't even get a body hit wore than 15%of the time, give or take, and far too many people believe that they will rise above and beyond expectations.

So, I apparently took out my irritation on you and I should not have, so I apologize, and I need to drop out and let this thread go back to the original intent

[tipoc]

I'm leaving too. It's run it's course. I'll leave it to Bill.

tipoc

[reynolds357]

I would say SWAT are the "trained professional shootists." Most of the non SWAT officers I worked with could barely qualify. As SWAT team, we regularly trained shooting the head of a moving target. We had a guy on the team who had in his past life contracted for Israeli special forces. (As I understood it was basically a legal way of joining Israeli military) He is the one who loved the femur, hip joint shots. It was my understanding that he might have shot a terrorist or two in his day.

[Big Shrek]

.32acp has a slightly more robust twin brother,
known as 7.65mm Browning.
Basically I'd call 7.65 Browning ".32acp +P"
Which is to say it's loaded slightly hotter than
standard .32acp

It's STILL a very widely used round, more in EU/etc
than in the USA, but there are more .32acp pistols
being made in the USA than 10mm. So there you are.

For the better part of 50 years it was James Bond's favorite
caliber...take that as you will. It simply underlines the benefits
of low recoil and quick follow-up shots.

It's still very popular as a police round in the EU & other countries,
as they are NOT allowed to use any caliber that the Military uses...
and that's fairly important.

Same for self-defense, it's small, lightweight, popular, and ALLOWED.
Again, really important in the EU and other countries.
Great for dog defense as well...which is why most folks say they carry.

I've seen the result of a big aggro redneck being shot in the stomach by
a .22lr from a mini-revolver. It worked, the guy stopped attacking
the other guy at that point, sat down, and his buddy called an ambulance.
Granted, the guy who shot him was fully prepared to follow it up,
but since the guy stopped his attack, he stopped shooting him. Nice & legal.
Also seen quite a few corpses done in by a .22lr, and if it can leave a trail
of DB's, .32acp/7.65 Browning can do it too.

It's the gun you have, and shoot WELL, that makes the difference.
The Miami FBI shootout clarified that real well.
Long story short, an FBI Pistoleer with special training managed to
get ONE hit from 3 mags of 9mm. The bad guy did a whole lot better.
Bad guys finished off by an Agent firing a shotgun one-handed because
his other had a big hole and broken bones from bad guy rifle bullets.
What did everyone learn from that shootout??
9mm sux. Shotguns are GREAT. Rifles will jack you up.
Bring your glasses to the gunfight...
Wear the blooming VEST.

And ANYTHING can happen on any given day,
at any given shootout...
including a 73-yr old woman killing a World Record Grizzly
with a little bitty .22, because her aim was TRUE.

[Deaf Smith]

All that said, just how much better is the .40 S&W hollow point at ending a threat against a bad guy? Assume all other things are equal like ability to place a good shot. Again, less assume the .32 pistol being used has a 3.5" or 4" barrel and is firing European spec ammo as mentioned above.

There is no 'formula' to give an exact answer. But one can summarize that a .32 would cause a much less significant wound channel than the .40. Thus the .40 is the better bet.

Or as Damon Runyon said, "The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet."

Deaf

[Terminatorret]

1. Firearm Dependability
2. Shot placement
3. Penetration

After working 15 years in a large hospital ER (all my shifts were night shifts), only a dozen or so "memorable" gunshot wounds made impressions on me. My personal observations:
- Shotguns are very, very, very bad hombres
- 30/30 to to the pelvis sends you to ICU
- .45 to hand/arm might get you admitted overnight for observation
- .380 FMJ to the sternum gets you into the morgue
- .22LR probably produces the most difficult wound channel to trace..."I see the entrance wound but where the hell did that bullet end up?"
- I never heard the trauma surgeon yell, "Hey guys, that wound was made by a .40 cal! We're in big trouble tonight!" Or, "Yep, it did hit a major artery, but don't worry about bleeding out...it was only a .22LR." or even,"Everybody just slow down! Let's find out what caliber made this hole before we label this patient as seriously injured!"
No apples. No oranges. No orangutans. A GSW is a GSW.

1. Firearm Dependability
2. Shot placement
3. Penetration

[rodfac]

There is no 'formula' to give an exact answer. But one can summarize that a .32 would cause a much less significant wound channel than the .40. Thus the .40 is the better bet.

Well said, Deaf, and should be patently obvious to most of us. Our instructors out at Front Sight, most all with Orange Co. or LAPD backgrounds, told us to carry the biggest caliber, in a handgun with which we could reliably get center mass hits.

Rod