Popularity versus utility in concealable EDC?

[Brian Parrish]

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.

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

 

[Erich]

reflecting modern thinking

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

 

[Doug M.]

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.

 

[Kanewpadle]

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

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

 

[smoothshooter]

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.

 

[smoothshooter]

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!

But did those underperforming hollow points stop the fight?

 

[smoothshooter]

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.

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.

 

[tlawler]

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

 

[Echo40]

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!

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

 

[Llance]

I'm in the .32 / .380 / 9mm / .45 crowd. I carry for the location and what I think I might encounter. Most of the time I'm only carrying a .32. For me it's not so much the caliber as it is the style of my pistol. All of my EDC pistols are M-1911 style, and the reason for that is they are what I prefer to carry. I'm very familiar with the platform, I trust the platform, and most of all the platform has never failed me on the range or elsewhere. They are made by different makers but they all function the same. Cocked and locked, if I need 'em after drawing and as I present my thumb drops the safety if present on the slide. The only exception is my M-39 and M-59 which I have practiced with enough that it's reflex to squeeze the trigger first after charging the chamber at home. If you have one you know the drill.

 

[Model 15-4ever]

I carry this quite frequently, with nary a concern...

 

[BB57]

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.

Marshall and Sanow looked at multiple hits in their later work.

—-

But you are also missing the larger point that any research relying on field reported data will have methodological flaws from things like a failure to have a common report form, resulting in different elements being reported or failed to be reported by different agencies.

But again, when you have a sufficient body of data, common threads do emerge and accurate conclusions can be made from the aggregate data.

And those conclusions are where the FBI’s ballistic gelatin standards came from. Ballistic gel just allows for a reliable test media to see if individual loads and load and pistol combinations achieve established standards. But those standards were derived from field performance data.

Was there cherry-picking of the field data used? Absolutely. That’s also where a lot of the mud got thrown at various researchers when arguments and debates about different incapacitation theories were being promoted and argued. It’s worst noting the FBI also got it incredibly wrong, not once but twice, first with a shallow penetration energy dump approach and then with an opposite end of the pendulum swing penetration approach that resulted in an extremely ineffective 147 gr 9mm load.

In each case it was field results and field data that prompted the corrections.

 

[Erich]

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

No, they don't.

 

[Erich]

But did those underperforming hollow points stop the fight?

In each case, not until one eventually hit a vital target on a follow-up shot. In three of the cases I'm remembering (without digging out my boxes of notes), a single ball round would have ended the situation on the first shot.

 

[WR Moore]

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.

While caliber isn't as important as shot placement and penetration, bigger is generally better so long as it doesn't seriously degrade accuracy and speed. Speed faster than one well placed shot per second allegedly isn't that important.

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.

While there are literally millions of people who do risk/reward analysis that generally supports your assumption, your less than logical assumption (nobody) ignores numerous documented cases of folks who are both goal driven and highly motivated. Check out post #26 at 9mm vs 45. M&P 2.0

 

[WR Moore]

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."

It was the National Institute of Justice's Relative Incapacitation Index, not the DOJ's. The DOJ funded the research looking for how to improve incapacitation. The study was flawed on the effect of the temporary wound cavity, something what should have been obvious to anyone who'd ever viewed an actual wound track. Apparently, that didn't include anyone on the medical panel.

Still, there was actually a lot of outstanding information that came out of that study if anything but the RII rankings were read. Maybe if they'd put the ranking charts at the end of the report instead of the beginning? But different ammo was an easier way to "be doing something".

The bullet in question that took all the blame actually severed the right brachial artery in the chest. Mattix was a dead man walking-and shooting-before Agent Mirales killed him with a revolver. Ammunition type unknown, but it worked. BTW, the Silvertip was already in production to have been tested by the NIJ. So, unless the design or the velocity was changed, it wasn't "the bullet they wanted" after the testing.

I know people who were involved in the development of the later FBI ammunition testing system. One outstanding thing that came out of it was the determination that 10% ordnance gelatin better simulated human tissue than 20%. Being very careful here, the standards are not entirely objective. However, the test methods are. But, if you don't feel a need to shoot through car bodies, windshields or various other chance barricades, you don't need ammunition that passes those tests.

 

[Echo40]

No, they don't.

They have in every FBI Spec Gel Test I've seen on YouTube. The only times I've ever seen them fail are in tests with that cheapo Clear Ballistics stuff, otherwise in proper tests they always get full expansion, between 12"-18" in organic ballistics gel through heavy denim.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOwCXXpEP50[/ame]

 

[BC38]

...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.

FWIW, just one person's anecdotal experience, but i carried an LC9 for quite a few years and was very comfortable with my choice.

Until it fired out of battery, causing a case-head separation, that turned my EDC into a paperweight - since Ruger not longer had the parts to replace the extractor that got launched into low-earth orbit.

FWIW, I replaced it with a P365 and was pleasantly surprised to discover that it shot softer than the LC9, I shoot better with it than I did with the LC9, PLUS there is the added advantage of it having 50% more capacity than the LC9.

So now I'm a P365 fan. It would take something pretty special to be good enough to replace it in my EDC rotation.

All that being said, when I need even more discreet carry than my P365 in an IWB holster, I don't feel out-gunned carrying a Keltec P3AT in a pocket holster, and I choose the P3AT over the P32. They are the exact same size and I have nothing against the P32, but IMO the 380 is a better SD choice than the 32ACP.

I have a few guns chambered in 32ACP, a Beretta Tomcat, a Keltec P32, a Colt 1903. Nothing wrong with any of them, I just feel like the 380 is a better choice - especially since there are a lot more options for good SD ammo in 380 vs. 32ACP.

JMO and YMMV...

 

[BC38]

Actually last time i saw the use of that pistol mentioned in historical documentation. The pistol was not meant to be used as an offensive weapon. it was meant to be used to prevent the officer from being captured. It was meant to be used by inserting the muzzle into the mouth, up against the base of the tonsils and rapidly pulling the trigger.

Hmmn, well, in that role and used in that manner there is no doubt in my mind that it would be quite effective...

 

[edl]

Marshall and Sanow looked at multiple hits in their later work.

Their methodology is nonsensical. They deliberately failed to count situations where one shot was fired and it failed to stop someone so that more shots needed to be fired.

How can they possibly claim to calculate one-shot stops when you deliberately exclude situations where one shot was not enough to effect a stop so that additional shots needed to be fired?

How can you arrive at the percentage of successes without factoring in the number of failures?

But you are also missing the larger point that any research relying on field reported data will have methodological flaws from things like a failure to have a common report form, resulting in different elements being reported or failed to be reported by different agencies.

It is beyond that. They are completely discredited. They were discredited in the 1990s.

Many agencies who Marshall and Sanow claim to have gotten their shootings from have come forward and said that not only did they not provide any information to Marshall & Sanow, and that the shootings that Marshall and Sanow have attributed to them do not match any of the shootings that they have on record.

Marshall and Sanow have zero credibility.

Here are some examples:

The July 1992 Law and Order Magazine has several letters to the editor, as well as a statement by the magazines’ editor, further illustrating the lack of truth and serious errors in the Marshall and Sanow's “data”. Several papers have been published in the peer reviewed IWBA Wound Ballistics Review which have discussed the lack of credibility of Marshall and Sanow. The review wrote that "It was clear in our review and in from the investigations by others that Marshall & Sanow had lied, fabricated data, and did not follow scientific protocols. Their information is fraudulent and meaningless. Please do not stake your life on this garbage.”

In response to Sanow’s criticism of the 9mm WW 147 grain JHP bullet, SGT Mike Dunlap, Rangemaster at Amarillo, TX, PD contacted every department for which Sanow claimed poor results with this bullet in his “anti-subsonic” articles. Mike submitted his results to Law and Order: they showed that Sanow had misrepresented what these departments found.

In the November 1992 issue, Law and Order published three letters contradicting Sanow’s “data” (p. 90). SGT William Porter, head of the Michigan State Police Marksmanship Unit wrote, “I hope that those who read this article will not be influenced by what Sanow wrote about what happened in the Michigan State Police shooting, because it didn’t happen that way.” In a note introducing these letters, Bruce Cameron, Editorial Director of Law and Order wrote, concerning Sanow’s article, “...we do apologize for printing information that has proven to be in error.”

Their work has been refuted by the International Wound Ballistics Association.

Go to Update your browser to use Google Drive, Docs, Sheets, Sites, Slides, and Forms - Google Drive Help

and download download the 1997 issue, volume 3 number 1 and read pages 26-35 which contain the articles:
Fackler, Martin L., MD.: "Book Review: Street Stoppers: The Latest Handgun Stopping Power Street Results." Wound Ballistics Review, 3(1); 26-31: 1997.
MacPherson, Duncan: "Sanow Strikes (Out) Again." Wound Ballistics Review, 3(1): 32-35; 1997.

and download 1999 volume 4 no 2 which contains the following articles:
Van Maanen, Maarten: "Discrepancies in the Marshall & Sanow 'Data Base': An Evaluation Over Time." Wound Ballistics Review, 4(2); 9-13: Fall, 1999.

Fackler, Martin L., MD.: "Undeniable Evidence." Wound Ballistics Review, 4(2); 14-15: Fall, 1999.
MacPherson, Duncan: "The Marshall & Sanow 'Data' - Statistical Analysis Tells the Ugly Story." Wound Ballistics Review, 4(2); 16-21: Fall, 1999.

Their methodology is nonsensical and their data is grossly inaccurate and made-up.

Marshall and Sanow's work is useless. Utterly, unredeemingly useless.