Popularity versus utility in concealable EDC?

[Naphtali]

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 . . .

 

[Well Armed]

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.

 

[sigp220.45]

.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.)

 

[WR Moore]

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.

 

[Rustyt1953]

If Brad's selling I'm buying.

 

[alwslate]

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.

 

[Alk8944]

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?

When sepsis occurring after abdominal or thoracic penetrating wounds was nearly certain death,

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.

 

[ISCS Yoda]

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!

 

[edl]

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!

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.

 

[alwslate]

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 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.

 

[edl]

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.)

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.

 

[edl]

.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 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

 

[chief38]

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.

 

[hardluk1]

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 .

 

[WR Moore]

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.

 

[murphydog]

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.

 

[Well Armed]

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.

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.

 

[Erich]

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.

 

[cd228]

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.

 

[WR Moore]

I think Erich just settled the discussion.