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

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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, 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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
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
 
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
 
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.
 
.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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top