From the first generation of the FN Model 1900 pistol until, perhaps, World War II, 32 ACP and .32-caliber revolver equivalents substantially outsold .38-caliber versions of same handguns. Why? And why have .32-caliber pocket pistols remained reasonably popular despite huge improvement of larger bore pocket or concealment pistols and revolvers?

When sepsis occurring after abdominal or thoracic penetrating wounds was nearly certain death, I can understand the threat of any caliber being a lethal caliber. But surgery and antimicrobial (not quite penicillin) chemicals improved during World War I. Successful repair of these types of wound had become a reasonable likelihood. But . . .

I wouldn't say that .32 calibers are all that popular outside of a niche audience who are typically much older in age.

IMHO, the popularity of 38spc in the civilian world came about for the same reason most other civilian firearms and calibers have become extremely popular. It's because civilians love to mimic what law enforcement and the military are carrying.

.32 pistols were popular because they worked (and they still do).

I have long held that the .32 ACP punches way above its weight class - maybe because its so easy to shoot, or because that little FMJ penetrates deeply and makes holes in things.

I suspect its also because nobody wants to get shot with anything, and if shot have a sudden change in plans.

I worked a lot of shootings, with all kinds of guns. I never had one where a person who was shot with anything, anywhere on their body, continued doing whatever caused them to get shot. I’m sure other guys can cite cases of drug crazed monsters swatting bullets away like swarming gnats and causing more mayhem, but I haven’t seen it.

I don’t think anyone takes advances in medical care into account when making the “should I get shot” decision. People just default to “hell no”.

I carry a .32 from time to time, without a bit of concern.

(The chart below is from a Greg Ellifritz article. Other studies have had similar findings.)

Attached Images

IMG_4650.jpeg (32.0 KB, 147 views)

__________________
“What you got, ain’t new.”

While I agree with the basic premise that most folks don't want to get shot, I've got some trouble with the 1 shot stop percentages. Especially when the sample sizes aren't given.

A long time ago I learned that the first thing you read in any "study" is the methodology section.

If Brad's selling I'm buying.

__________________
Music/Sports/Beer fan

Many years ago I read an extensive magazine article about the effectiveness of small caliber weapons for SD when shots are well placed with bullets that give deep penetration. There are wounds that are considered to be unsurvivable. It isn't a matter of antibiotics. A shot completely through the large vessels at the top of the heart cannot be surgically repaired fast enough to stop the person from bleeding to death. The heart will fill the chest cavity with blood, saturating the lungs and the victim drowns in their own blood before a surgeon could open the chest cavity and even attempt to repair the wound. There are many shootings that result in death before medics even get to the scene. Caliber is unimportant. Same old story. Shot placement and penetration.

Two separate matters! The .32 ACP was introduced in 1899, while the .380 ACP did not exist until 1908! The .32 was already well established before the .380 was available. Additionally many police forces and militaries believed the .32 to be adequate for their purposes. This situation existed clear into the 1950s!

The second is that what you hopefully meant was "peritonitis"! Peritonitis is a bacterial abdominal infection as a result, usually, of intestinal contents being released into the abdomen by an injury to the intestines.Peritonitis is treated by irrigation (washing out, flushing) of the abdomen and antibiotics.

Sepsis (septic infection) is a systemic infection that affects the internal organs of the entire body that prevents them from functioning properly. Sepsis does not usually entail any external or other obvious injury to the body. Sepsis is not effectively treated with antibiotics and is far too often fatal, no matter what treatment is received, as it can cause multiple failures of the heart, brain, and other vital organs. Sepsis is very common in women starting from urinary, vaginal and uterine infections.

__________________
Gunsmithing since 1961

The problem with the one-shot-stop scenario is if the perp deserved to be shot once he most certainly deserved to be shot twice. Colonel Cooper didn't teach the Mozambique drill for no reason!

__________________
Come and take it!!

He taught the mozambique drill because, the one shot stop is a myth. Its also why a certain product is sold in packages of 3, 5, 10, 12, and 24.

The one-shot stop was nonsense because they deliberately ignored situations where one shot was fired and failed to produce a stop requiring additional shots to be fired.

The one shot stop is a myth? Do you actually believe this? Countless people have been shot DRT by a single round from any handgun caliber from the .22 Short on up. Many people have been shot in the chest by a single round of the often disparaged .25 ACP FMJ and were pronounced at the scene by first responders. This is reality vs myth.

Look closely at that study. It uses bad methodology. Bad methodology or bad design leads to an inaccurate and invalid study and conclusion.

The author of that study, Gregg Ellifritz, is an amazing resource on defensive issues. He is a great teacher with a strong background in Law enforcement and training, and has written some of the best things that I have read on a wide variety of topics. I can appreciate the amount of time and effort he put into this. However, the theory and methodology behind the study is deeply flawed.

By his own description, the author of the study tried to record every shooting he could find. By definition this includes situations where an armed person shot an unarmed person, or shot someone who was not interested in fighting him in the first place, or not very serious about posing a threat. By his own admission the study includes victims shot by criminals. Unarmed victims who are terrified of their attacker are not a usable litmus. All of those fall into the heading of "every shooting he could find."

The author of the report "scoured the newspapers, magazines, and Internet for any reliable accounts of what happened to the human body when it was shot."

This is a huge problem because you often don't get accurate information about the gun or caliber used, number of shots fired or hit, where they hit, circumstances of the shooting, etc. You absolutely cannot include these accounts in any statistical study,

Further, even if the data were accurate, the premise of this study is flawed in the way it compares dissimilar shootings.

Shooting someone who isn't a serious attacker, who may not be armed, and is afraid of you isn't the same as shooting an of objective driven violent criminal attacker.

If you look at this author's logic, if two drunks at a bar get into a pushing match and one pulls out a .25 auto and shoots the other once and the man who was shot backs off, it counts as a one shot stop.

But if a police officer draws his 9mm loaded with Federal HST JHPs and as fires multiple quick shots at an attacker—in the manner in which he was likely trained--it counts as a one-shot failure, or a situation where multiple shots were required to stop someone.

I submit, would you rather rely on a .25 auto for self defense or the 9mm loaded with Federal HSTs?

I think it is admirable what the person who wrote this study tried to do, but I am afraid the methodology and theory wasn't there. I would not try to extrapolate any of his results on what would work for me if confronted by a violent criminal.

I don't need to look very hard to find instances of criminals shot with a variety of weapons who did not run off but instead kept fighting or even returned fire:

"A 75-year-old woman opened fire on two intruders who broke into her Oakland home and came under fire herself, authorities said. ": 75-year-old woman shoots at home intruders in Oakland

Another one: "Jenneiahn ultimately made the decision that it was “now or never” and drew her gun and “engaged Condon (the home invader) , striking him with both her shots.” Officials told EastIdahoNews.com she shot him in the area of his chest.

Condon (the home invader) returned fire and emptied a 9mm pistol, hitting her multiple times in her abdomen, leg, arm and chest.

An 85-year-old woman was handcuffed to a chair during an armed home invasion. She killed the robber and survived. - East Idaho News

"Man robs Dallas game room of $10K, then kills customer who shot at him, police say." Man robs Dallas game room of $10K, then kills customer who shot at him, police say

Personally I'd not use either for SD! The 380acp is probably a bit better than the .32 but neither instills much confidence in me! If I had to choose, the 380 would be the one.

Back 100 years ago, it was quite common for officers to carry small caliber handguns. I guess back then the smaller, lighter pistols were not available in larger calibers. For a military officer is was less important as a pistol is only a back up gun and not their main firearm.

Foreign law enforcement officers also carried relatively small caliber handguns but that changed when they saw that 38 special, 9mm and 45 acp was a vast improvement.

The 32 may kill but I sure hope I do not have to wait to find out . Thats why I carry a 40sw or 45 with HST or ranger t series bullets and like other I practice two hits to center of mass and one to the head and more if still needed all at a variety of distances but mainly at 15 yards +. Nooo 32cals in the house .

While the conversation seems to have become focused on lethality, the basic idea of self defense is stopping the aggression/threat.

I'll also point out that quite some time ago the "drill" mentioned above was relabeled to the "stopping failure/failure to stop" drill. Where the aggressor has a contact weapon, the second target is the pelvis.

With so many variables and subjective factors involved in self-defense encounters, there is no good way to measure "effectiveness". Especially when you get down to the 1% of situations when shots are fired.

Related to the OP's first statement - the .32 caliber was popular here but much more so in Europe. And .38 Double Action and Safety Hammerless revolvers far outsold the .32s. More is always better here in the USA.

__________________
Alan
SWCA LM 2023, SWHF 220

Also, we have always had much more options with easier access to obtain different firearm platforms and calibers than in Europe and other countries at affordable prices. Civilians in other countries don't really have the freedom and choices in what they can carry like Americans have enjoyed even still to this day.

I don't have time to find a citation (and certainly not to re-fight the caliber wars ), but understand that the WWII-ish German military felt the 7.65 would outpenetrate the 9mm Kurz. (I'd expect they had rather more experience killing people than some of the folks most loudly banging pots in online debates about such. Me, I haven't seen enough .32 killings to say that: I've worked on a couple hundred handgun shootings/killings over my career, and also some long gun ones.)

(And isn't the purpose of shooting someone with a handgun to effect a stop, not to eliminate all possibility of repair and recuperation? How are considerations of antibacterials and sepsis even relevant to handgun caliber discussions?)

As I first said on The Firing Line around the turn of the century regarding handgun caliber wars:
Shot placement is king.
Adequate penetration is queen.
Everything else is just angels dancing on the heads of pins.

__________________
Now go make God proud...

Looking at things like the Velo Dog revolver and Lipituian semi-auto, I'd say small size, light weight and ease of concealment is probably what drove the pistol and cartridge selection. IIRC the Colt 1903 was the US Army General Officer's Pistol for a very long time.

I think Erich just settled the discussion.

We could argue the effectiveness of the 32 or any other caliber for that matter. It the end it’s up to the individual.

As for one shot stops, I have yet to see accurate, reliable, truthful, and repeatable methods of gathering information.

Marshall and Sanow’s work proved this as their work was proven to be greatly flawed.

__________________
Life Is A Gift. Defend it!

The theory behind that research is logically valid, if the methodology was flawed.

If the "caliber wars" have any merit at all, something ought to show somehow in some kind of data somewhere. If it does NOT show in the data, which is what everyone seems to be saying, then quit advocating for one caliber over another at all.

If the 45ACP is a better man-stopper than a 9mm it ought to show in the data. Not in one shooting or a dozen, but over time with enough data something ought to show. Gunfights are complex messy affairs. But if so complex and so messy that there is no way to see how any caliber is better than any other, then on what must we focus instead?

Shot placement?
Shot placement?
How do you get the bad guy to hold still so that your shot goes just where you want it to? It is a mere happenstance if your bullet slices an artery or misses by a millimeter. Those who say "shot placement" do not seem to realize how much luck is involved. If shot placement is THE decisive factor in these fights, then do you mean LUCK is the decisive factor?

I really enjoyed the thread, so thanks everyone.
Kind Regards All
BrianD

__________________
696-6906-457-38-3913-CS40-411

I've never been involved in a gunfight. Its likely that I never will, and that is fine with me. Despite practice, and some training, I wonder how well I would do in a real life situation with my shot placement? Those who think that they will stay cool and collected and focus on their skill in accurate shooting are likely fooling themselves. So knowing that I might be lucky just to hit the attacked ANYWHERE on his body makes me more comfotable with a 38+p or a 9mm+ or a 45acp than a 22, 32, or even 380.

In another area, I do think that popularity certainly affects the choice of the gun that is carried by many people. Years ago the rage was S&W Shield. Then a lot of folks jumped on the Sig 365 bandwagon. And no doubt there will be some new gun at some point capturing a lot of attention and a boatload of sales. FWIW, my EDC is a Ruger LC9s that I have confidence in, is easy to carry, and with 7+1 enough rounds to make me feel comfortable.

Is luck how one gets to Carnegie Hall?

Well, it's part of it, but mastery of your instrument and your artistry (as well as "who you know" - but that's not part of our equation) are what one controls, so it's what one focuses on.

When we look at "effectiveness," we're comparing results, and we're looking for factors that appear consistently. My experience has shown that the results of handgun caliber effectiveness corrolate positively with two things: shot placement (did the bullet strike where it would hit a vital structure that requires cessation of aggressive action by the target?) and adequate penetration (was bullet actually impacting/damaging those vitals). Other things (expansion, caliber, the phase of the moon, the psychological reaction of the target, who's president, the price of tea in China . . . and yes, luck) are those angels dancing on the head of a pin.

I've never worked on a case in which a person struck by a handgun bullet in the heart/aorta or brain/spinal cord continued aggressive action. Didn't matter whether it was a .22 or a .45, whether it was a wadcutter or a hollowpoint. Getting to hit those structures might have taken some luck, but it also might have reflected mastery of the weapon involved.

I've worked on several cases in which stops were effected by rounds hitting other than in those area. The one common factor there appears to be luck.

I can control my level of mastery with a given weapon, but luck is trickier. Practice/pray/hope however you want - your life/your call.

__________________
Now go make God proud...

You're right to pick a gun that fits you and that you operate and shoot well, and that is adequately powerful enough to "get to the good stuff" should you need to use it. And you're certainly right to practice and get training - and to be concerned about what happens if you should miss.

Too many people appear to think they'll rise to the occasion and not default to their level of training (which is why we all incorporate training under stress, right? ), in the same way some people appear to think that having a deadly weapon on their person protects them in some talismanic way.

And that doesn't even begin to get into the legal consequences attached to each bullet you launch. I can assure you that it makes sense to realize there's no certainty there, either.

Good we're all talking and thinking about this - it underscores what a dreadful thing it is to be involved in the use of deadly force. God forbid it ever enters our lives.

__________________
Now go make God proud...

I like my defense .32 launched in groups of 9...... think 0 buckshot!



A .32 can be a very effective manstopper

Several years ago I did a lot of penetration tests with FMJ handgun rounds in landscape timbers, the yellow pine construction lumber sold at home improvement stores and cedar mail box posts. Also some in water soaked tightly bound newspapers. In similar sized guns like 1934 and 1935 Berettas, S&B .32 ACP achieved higher velocity than .380 ACP and penetrated deeper if that matters to anyone. Something most might not realize is that all RN FMJ bullets yaw to some extent when passing through soft material like the wet newsprint. This was confirmed by backing the news print with 2x12s. The result is an oblong hole that is larger than bullet dia and surely is the result of those "little" bullets being more effect than people assume.

There is always controversy in methodology when studies using field data are involved.

The critics like to nit pick the details and largely miss the point that the goal with a big data study is to find the general performance factors that tend to come out in the wash after all of the uncontrollable variables more or less concrete themselves out.

There can however still be some cartridges with small Ns that have to be considered with an eye to any limits that might come from the small numbers.


There is also a difference between rapid incapacitation, and lethality. I used to know a trauma surgeon from a couple mutual cases. With about 1500 cases under his knife, he felt strongly that the most lethal handgun round was the .230 gr RN .45 ACP. However, there’s some experiential bias and some survivorship bias in his observation. As a thoracic surgeon who originally came from South Africa, he had a great deal of experience with people shot with FMJ rounds, and he found .45 ACP was more likely to kill on a shot for shot basis than 9mm or 7.62x25.

In the US, where gun shot victims were often shot with hollow points, the victims had to survive long enough to reach his OR. The fact that he saw fewer hollow point victims, and regarded the .45 ACP FMJ as the most lethal speaks to the potential that people shot multiple times with hollow points didn’t live long enough to make it to his OR.

He also commented that the biggest predictor of lethality was number of wound tracts. The more wound tracts, the more organs and systems, compromised and the less likely the damage could be repaired before the victim expired. His view as it didn’t matter whether that would track was made with a .22 or a .45.

——

When I look at the Ellifritz data or the Marshall answer Sanow data, one of the things I note is the percentage that did not stop. That percentage doesn’t get materially smaller with larger or more powerful handgun rounds. Those are the assailants where you have to shoot until they no longer exhibit a threat, even if it’s to slide lock.

I also note that even the worst of the one shot stop percentages are usually over 50 percent. That strongly suggests that about half the assailants who are shot are going to stop when shot as they don’t wand to get shot anymore. In that half, handgun cartridge doesn’t matter.

Handgun cartridge also doesn’t matter in the far larger number of handgun self defense uses where the assailant flees before being hit, or flees before the hand gun is even fired, or in some cases before the draw is even complete. Knowing they are about to get shot is enough to end the assault. In those cases the cartridge they are about to get shot with doesn’t matter.

——-

The folks who denigrate the field report data and related studies also seem to forget that the FBIs ballistic gelatin standards were in fact based on the performance in ballistic gelatin of rounds that demonstrated good results in the field.

Bullets are not magically effective because they expand at least 1.5 times their original data and penetrate 12-18”. Those performance metrics were adopted because rounds that were effective in the field for the most part and on average also demonstrated that performance in ballistic gelatin.

In that regard the .32 ACP can meet those standards with a 60 gr XTP at 1000-1050 fps, as can the 90 gr XTP in .380 ACP at the same velocities.

But there’s also a great deal of value in number of wound tracks and each wound track creates another opportunity for the cardio vascular or CNS hit needed to get rapid incapacitation.

In that regard, a .32 ACP usually offers another round in the magazine in the same model pistol compared to .380 ACP, and it’s always lighter recoiling, with the ability for much faster accurate follow up shots.

I regard the two as equal as the extra wound track and ability to deliver rounds accurately on target faster erases any minor advantage the .380 has in wound track diameter.

It was a mainstay in Europe as a law enforcement caliber for over 50 years, and it obviously worked well enough for the job.

Two other things people do not take into consideration, is the shooters ability to put hits on target and second, the willingness to put hits on target. The "Fight or Flight Response".

You are not going to be able to note the percentage that did not stop from Marshall and Sanow because they deliberately excluded situations where one shot was not enough and additional shots had to be fired.

They have been debunked since the mid to late 1990s. Many departments where they claimed they got their shooting date from came forward and said that either Marshall and Sanow grossly misrepresented the information they provided, or that shootings that Marshall and Sanow attributed to their department never took place.

Their methodology as well as Ellifritz are so flawed that you cannot draw anything useful useful from them.

Hence my post above about 12 gauge and buckshot............

Since we've moved on to actual studies.....I'm going to bring up a study that dovetails nicely into Erich's points: the widely disparaged "computer man" study or NIJ report 100-83 on Incapacitation. (101-83 is the methodology and boring, but educational)

First off, the study had two flaws: the worst one being the belief/theory that tissue in the temporary wound cavity was destroyed. The other-and almost as bad- was that it provided "effectiveness" ranking of all the commercially available handgun ammunition. The result was that very few people actually read the study, they just looked at the rankings and then the pro/con screaming began. That's very unfortunate.

The first thing determined, before the actual testing began, was that our point of aim training is/was deeply flawed. As Erich notes, ya gotta hit the important stuff. This is an open forum and there's no control on who reads this, so I'm not going further. We'll just say that full value areas of most widely available targets are entirely too generous. Accuracy also matters, so you hit the important stuff you're aiming at.

The second point was that adequate penetration to reach vital organs was necessary. Velocity and bullet construction figure in here. More velocity is more better.

For the hardware junkies: the lead hollow point was found to be most effective, followed by the JHP. JHP bullet design has come a long, long way since then.

Finally one caution on depending upon ballistic test results. The test medium is uniform, the bodies of living creatures are not. All the test results I've ever read note that the results aren't predictive of real world performance.

Gawd I do so love these threads. Even sigp220.45 weighed in! Between he and Eric's posts the issue has pretty much been resolved. Common sense people, shoot with something you can hit with (shot placement) and the rest will take care of itself. Most lethal calibre I have seen in my 32 years of pouring over autopsy reports in my quixotic quest to do the right thing is the lowly .22 based on the amount of times it pops up in the final report. It's cheap easy to get and like sigp220.45 most people do NOT want to be shot with one.

__________________
Forum consigliere

All I'm trying to do with my EDC is to make that other fella' quickly decide that he's got something better to do at the moment than direct his anger at me. As others have pointed out, especially my esteemed federal retiree colleague, there are many ways to accomplish that without a chronometer, slide rule, and ballistic gel . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

Up here in scrub country we call this "sagacious". In the old AFSC code days they called it "5 level thinking".🎓

__________________
Music/Sports/Beer fan

Handguns are tricky in the way that practically any of them will suffice in a defensive role with proper shot placement and the right bullet construction.

Even .22LR or .25 ACP is capable of delivering an incapacitating or otherwise lethal wound out of a handgun, albeit if only with round-nosed, non-expanding bullets.

I think what made the .32 ACP less popular is the fact that it's intermediate performance makes it somewhat risky to use in the modern era due to the fact that JHPs consistently under-penetrate, yet FMJ consistently over-penetrates, ergo you have to use FMJ for it to be effective, yet in so doing you run the risk of causing collateral damage.

.380 ACP edges out .32 ACP because there are a selection of JHPs which will consistently expand yet penetrate deeply.

Ultimately, I think that folks are best served carrying whatever it is that they are the most confident with based on their own individual performance with it in their own individual hands.
Many folks have invested an excessive amount of time, effort, and thought in persuit of an illusive ideal, one-size-fits-all solution to self-defense, despite the fact that it's evidently a fundamentally flawed concept.
After all, if no two people are alike, then how can a single solution be ideal for everyone? So if you're seeking a firearm for personal protection, then why worry about what works best for everyone, and why not focus on seeking what works best for you personally?

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.

How does sepsis come into play in a self-defense discussion? Is the goal to kill (eventually) or to stop? Maybe I don't understand the original post.

Isn't this the study that led to the DOJ's "Relative Incapacitance Index?"

High velocity fast expanding bullets maximizing the temporary wound cavity, even at the expense of penetration, that allegedly blamed in the debacle of the "Miami Shootout."

Winchester's engineers built the bullet they said they wanted, the 115 grain Silvertip."

On the other hand, Paul Kersey used a 32 caliber revolver.

While I think you're dead-on correct in saying that each individual should choose what makes best sense for his circumstances, I never once saw a real world case in which the .380 hollowpoints used demonstrated reliable penetration to the targeted vital structures.

There are some new ones now, so . . . who knows? But after seeing so many failures (and after consulting with Martin Fackler (PBUH) on wound channels/calibers/hollow points on a case where it was relevant, my advice has been to not put "brakes" on a very light, slow bullet - whether it be .32, .380 or 9Mak. (FWIW, one of the reasons I insist on HPs is to protect against overpenetration into that school bus full of nuns: I've only seen a single overpenetration with .380 ball, and that was a round that hit a guy in the calf.)

As you say, though, to each his own!

__________________
Now go make God proud...

I probably shouldn't answer for the OP, but here goes.
Lethality enters the discussion of handgun wound effectiveness, when people as a culture generally believe that if shot with anything at all, including a 32 caliber, they will die. In 1924 this was a common and reasonable belief in part because of sepsis. In 2024 most people believe that in all probability they will survive a gunshot. Never mind the truth, what matters is what you and your enemy believe about what will happen, and how this belief affects your fighting ability and fighting determination.

The OP is reflecting modern thinking (I assume) as I think you are, when he asks about this caliber. If I asked your question of say my grandfather in 1924, he would wonder if I was asking whether we had a moral responsibility to shoot the legs or something. He would scoff at this as foolhardy. What you mean however, once you explained it, would utterly mystify him. "You want to fill his chest with lead, but not kill him??" You would be required to describe to him our modern society and what prosecutors do to someone who makes a claim of self-defense in a court of law.

I think a 32 is fine if you can fight with it.
A gunfight is more FIGHT than gun!

Kind Regards,
BrianD

__________________
696-6906-457-38-3913-CS40-411

You raise a great point. As far as reflecting modern thinking goes, I prefer my pocket pistols to throw bullets that are wider than .313" . . . but modern guns throw .355"s that are a lot heavier and faster than the old 9x17 that St. JMB came up with so long ago.
Some 9mm Luger pocket pistols that just happened to be on my bench today

__________________
Now go make God proud...

I have in several posts cited to the Hall and Patrick text "In defense of Self and others", 3rd edition. While mostly targeted to a LE audience, there are many principals that will translate to civilian self-defense. If you have not bought a copy and read it (repeatedly), you are wrong, and need to overcome your shortcomings in the manner of R. Lee Ermey.

Chapter 4 has a good discussion of ballistics and performance on offenders. Simplified takeaway: the differences between most pistol rounds are not all that great, and generally they are not as good as we would like, even after the decades of research since the 1986 FBI shootout. If you have the ability to predict a violent confrontation, make arrangements to be elsewhere. Elective hangnail surgery is a better choice. If you can't be elsewhere and aren't taking a real fighting rifle or shotgun, you are not very smart.

I am not a cop anymore, so I don't have to hunt for or engage bad guys. That is true of most of us. Don't buy/carry a pistol because they work for someone else. Buy/carry/train with one that works for you in terms of ergonomics, recoil control, and shooting proficiency under all foreseeable circumstances, and that you will ALWAYS carry when lawful.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.

Yes but he eventually invited his friend Wildey which was far more effective.

__________________
Life Is A Gift. Defend it!

For an EDC gun and caliber, lethality is not the issue. STOPPING the aggressor IS. It matters not if the perpetrator dies sooner or later or ever.
European police forces like the easier to shoot and hit with calibers because they are not “handgun” shooting cultures, and training people with no firearms background is the norm.
Since most of the criminals they deal with are similarly armed, I guess it all evens out.

But did those underperforming hollow points stop the fight?

I always figured that if the intended victim can shoot the attacker at least twice, the caliber used is immaterial.
Even one hit seems to change the situation for the better, according to my informal research.
I feel about as well-armed carrying a .22LR revolver for defense against humans as I do carrying a .38. because nobody wants to get shot with ANYTHING.
Or, perhaps I am delusional.

My EDC is a .32 caliber revolver. I have no doubt about it’s effectiveness.

Attached Images

IMG_1916.jpg (68.7 KB, 22 views)

__________________
USS Brewton FF1086
SWCA#3597

Hornady XTP, Federal Punch, and Hydrashok Deep, .380 ACP JHPs all meet FBI Specifications in Ballistics Gel Testing.

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.