32ACP vs 22RF for SD

unclenunzie said:
The one-shot incapacitation chart is useful - but not as useful or telling as the failure to stop data. It shows that 380 ACP and above fail to stop much, much less often than the traditional mouse gun calibers.

https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power
Click to expand...
Your chart is dated. All he way back to 2011. Many advancements along the way. Especially 380. which has come a long way and improving all the time. Regardless, I fear we are getting into a caliber war again. This thread is about 22.cal vs 32.Acp. Hopefully we do not to far off course.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cv6PxB2TqLM
 
Last edited:
Metric said:
Caliber itself is not as important as we have been lead to believe.

Ellifritz_OneShot_Percent.png
Click to expand...

32 acp performed better than 9mm/40/357/45 :rolleyes:
Guess I should quit carrying my Glock 23 or 35, and carry a P32 instead.
gjx1b.jpg
 
Carl the Floor Walker said:
Regardless, I fear we are getting into a caliber war again. This thread is about 22.cal vs 32.Acp. Hopefully we do not to far off course.
Click to expand...

How does one differentiate between caliber war versus caliber discussion?
If limited to two calibers presented that is a discussion not a war?
So, if 22 versus 32 ain't "caliber war" then 9mm versus 45 can't be either.;)
57rv0v.jpg
 
A point was raised in this thread based on data collected ten or so years ago. I merely pointed out that other findings from the same data highlighted failure rates higher in the mouse calibers when compared to service calibers (and 380). That's not a caliber war - its pointing out useful information in context. Also, it's not my chart or report.
 
Statistics can easily be skewed by uneven sample sizes. Up until roughly the late 1980s, many police agencies in Europe were issued .32 ACP pistols, and in North America most police agencies issued .38 Special, .357 Magnum, and occasionally .45 ACP, ergo depending on how far back the compiled data goes, it's no surprise that much.32 ACP has a higher successive rate than 9mm Luger due to a greatly skewed sample size resulting in significantly higher numbers.
 
unclenunzie said:
The one-shot incapacitation chart is useful - but not as useful or telling as the failure to stop data. It shows that 380 ACP and above fail to stop much, much less often than the traditional mouse gun calibers.

https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power
Click to expand...

I agree that 22 aren't 32 aren't *exactly the same* as the common service calibers. But they're much, much closer than one would naively expect. The comparison charts tend to look like statistical noise, meaning that factors other than caliber are dominant.

The "failed to stop" statistic is interesting, though. What happens just as one goes below 380? My hypothesis is that it becomes much easier to buy ammo that lacks sufficient penetration (converting a potential "stop" into a "failed to stop") -- and "premium" ammo is often the worst performer.

The overall picture sure looks to me like there is very little difference, as soon as adequate penetration is assured -- until one reaches rifle and shotgun levels of energy.

https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/pocket-pistol-caliber-gel-test-results/#380ACP
 
As pointed out, without knowing the relative sample sizes (and more beyond that) charts of "percent of stops" are meaningless.

If you've got one shooting with caliber X and it worked, your stopping percentage is 100%. But if you've got two shooting and only one worked, then you rate is 50%. Get 10 and have 2 fails your rate is 80%. That's math.

BUT it tells you nothing beyond math, and the math alone isn't enough. Our ability to collect meaningful data is limited. "one random torso or head hit" only tells us the person was hit, not where or how. The statistics also include, but cannot compensate for psychological stops.

If you are trying to compare the physical capabilities of different calibers, psychological stops skew the data all to hell.
If one random hit from a .32 grazes the bad guy's cheek and he decides, "whoa, I'm shot, I'm outta here!" that can get counted the same as a CNS shutdown stop in the statistics. It all depends on the available data and who is doing the analysis, and what conclusions they draw.

As to .32ACP vs. 22LR, the .32 has a larger, heavier bullet, so it gets the nod there, but the most important thing is that the round feeds and fires with as high a degree of reliability as possible.
Rimfires have a lower rate of reliable ignition than centerfires, and my experience is that a semi auto .22LR pistol is the most finicky of handguns. Some run great, some only run well with certain brands of ammo.

Small .22s seem to be the worst, though many can say with absolute truthfullness that their pistol is reliable. TO this I say, sure, SO FAR...

The .22LR is long for its diameter, and has a soft bullet not well secured in the case (compared to jacketed) with its heel type design. THis works tolerably well most of the time, but I wouldn't count on it for a self defense choice.

THat said, I would certainly use a .22LR if the need arose, but its not what I would pick for a carry gun.
 
For Self-Defense? Neither! Pick .380ACP or 9x19mm at the low end. They are the calibers that have enough energy to reliably expand hollowpoints. Neither .32ACP or .22LR reliably expand out of short barrels.

That said, if those were your only choices, I'd pick .32ACP. It delivers more energy and makes a bigger hole. Both calibers are easy to shoot, so follow up shot speed isn't that different.
 
I would be interested in where it was that it was so definitely determined that .32 ACP was inadequate for self-defense and that bullets consistently underpenetrate, because it's strange how it managed to last so long as a popular cartridge for self-defense and even duty if it were truly so unreliable as folks assert that it is.

I theorize that the cartridge is not in fact an inadequate self-defense cartridge which consistently fails to penetrate deeply enough, but rather that like so many other cartridges, that it historically wasn't a reliable performer with Jacketed Hollowpoint Ammunition, and requires more careful ammo selection. Furthermore, I believe that the persistent modern sentiment that it makes no sense to carry one cartridge if you can carry a more powerful cartridge in a gun of similar size killed the popularity of .32 ACP once .380 ACP pistols started being chambered in pistols of similar size in the past decade or so, similarly to how .380 ACP has lost some ground to 9mm Luger in recent years for the same reason, or how up until the FBI switched back to 9mm Luger, the prevailing sentiment dictated that it made more sense to carry .40 S&W over 9mm Luger since the guns were roughly equal in size.

Factually speaking, the field of firearms is one of the slowest evolving fields in terms of technological advancement, with most firearms designs being minor variations of designs which came out a century ago or even older.
Medicine, electronics, telecommunications, vehicles, even household appliances have grown by leaps and bounds. In fact, just about the only thing that has seen as little advancement as ballistic weaponry is waste management/disposal.
Heck, the most praised accomplishment in the field of firearms in recent years is finally getting Jacketed Hollowpoint Bullets to perform consistently and with adequate results in handgun cartridges. Which is not very impressive at all in the greater scheme of things, yet folks are so dazzled by the mere achievement that is getting 9mm JHPs to function reliability/adequately that it has suddenly been crowned the best all around cartridge because it appears to be roughly equivalent to more powerful cartridges when fired into blocks of gelatin. Just let that sink in for a moment... We're currently ranking the performance/effectiveness of cartridges based on what we can see with the naked eye when shooting inanimate blocks of tissue simulate. What do you suppose they used to rank the effectiveness of cartridges on? Why actual flesh and blood creatures. So yeah, I more apt to trust what folks of the past learned to trust based on actual observed capabilities in incapacitating live organisms than high-tech *tongue firmly in cheek* blocks of gelatin.

In conclusion, I don't believe that .32 ACP is inadequate for self-defense, nor even .22LR for that matter, merely that arguably better options exist, but those options become irrelevant in instances such as this when someone has already made the the decision to carry such cartridges, and thus muddying the waters with hearsay over the presumed effectiveness of such cartridges is entirely unhelpful.
 
Forte S+W said:
I would be interested in where it was that it was so definitely determined that .32 ACP was inadequate for self-defense and that bullets consistently underpenetrate, because it's strange how it managed to last so long as a popular cartridge for self-defense and even duty if it were truly so unreliable as folks assert that it is.

I theorize that the cartridge is not in fact an inadequate self-defense cartridge which consistently fails to penetrate deeply enough, but rather that like so many other cartridges, that it historically wasn't a reliable performer with Jacketed Hollowpoint Ammunition, and requires more careful ammo selection. Furthermore, I believe that the persistent modern sentiment that it makes no sense to carry one cartridge if you can carry a more powerful cartridge in a gun of similar size killed the popularity of .32 ACP once .380 ACP pistols started being chambered in pistols of similar size in the past decade or so, similarly to how .380 ACP has lost some ground to 9mm Luger in recent years for the same reason, or how up until the FBI switched back to 9mm Luger, the prevailing sentiment dictated that it made more sense to carry .40 S&W over 9mm Luger since the guns were roughly equal in size.

Factually speaking, the field of firearms is one of the slowest evolving fields in terms of technological advancement, with most firearms designs being minor variations of designs which came out a century ago or even older.
Medicine, electronics, telecommunications, vehicles, even household appliances have grown by leaps and bounds. In fact, just about the only thing that has seen as little advancement as ballistic weaponry is waste management/disposal.
Heck, the most praised accomplishment in the field of firearms in recent years is finally getting Jacketed Hollowpoint Bullets to perform consistently and with adequate results in handgun cartridges. Which is not very impressive at all in the greater scheme of things, yet folks are so dazzled by the mere achievement that is getting 9mm JHPs to function reliability/adequately that it has suddenly been crowned the best all around cartridge because it appears to be roughly equivalent to more powerful cartridges when fired into blocks of gelatin. Just let that sink in for a moment... We're currently ranking the performance/effectiveness of cartridges based on what we can see with the naked eye when shooting inanimate blocks of tissue simulate. What do you suppose they used to rank the effectiveness of cartridges on? Why actual flesh and blood creatures. So yeah, I more apt to trust what folks of the past learned to trust based on actual observed capabilities in incapacitating live organisms than high-tech *tongue firmly in cheek* blocks of gelatin.

In conclusion, I don't believe that .32 ACP is inadequate for self-defense, nor even .22LR for that matter, merely that arguably better options exist, but those options become irrelevant in instances such as this when someone has already made the the decision to carry such cartridges, and thus muddying the waters with hearsay over the presumed effectiveness of such cartridges is entirely unhelpful.
Click to expand...
Well said. Could not agree more. I never thought much about 22.cal as a example for self defense until shooting a Ruger LCR and thousands of rounds down range for years now since the gun first came out. In fact it is one of the most enjoyable 22.cals I own or have shot. Because 22.cal is cheap, a user can develop some very serious skills with the gun for fast and precise shooting, not to mention no recoil etc. etc. Simple to use. And 8 fast rounds. And as far as reliability? It defies the norm normally attributed to the rimfire cartridge. Using good quality ammo there is very seldom a misfire and then it is such a simple procedure do just pull the trigger again and continue.
On one day of shooting as rapidly as I could pull the trigger and shooting clay Pigeon shards, I stopped and thought, God, I would hate to be shot in the face, and throat and chest with those rounds. Like Ice picks quickly piercing those vital areas. Lol, it would sure be enough to stop me if attacked by one. I would imagine it would ruin a bad guys day as well.
I personally do not carry a 22.cal for self defense. I shoot the small 380's and Micro 9mms as well as snubbies, but I do know of ladies at my club that do carry a 22.cal and they train often and do very well with them. For some folks racking a slide of any kind can be hard or some people just recoil sensitive. No matter how you cut it, a 22.cal is a defensive weapon. And one thing also for sure, is many people have been killed from that round.
Personally I will not carry a large gun for EDC. If it comes to having to carry a full size gun every day, I will not do it. Too damn big and heavy to tote around every day, all day. There may come a time in the future of old age, I will have to resort to a 22.cal. If so, I will go with the flow and shoot it well.
And a far as the 32.cal with modern ammo. I have no problem with the Keltec P32 during summer carry as I mentioned. The Underwood Plus P is fine with me. And it has proven to be totally reliable. I cannot imagine anyone that would not take that round seriously if they were going to be shot by one.
And the truth of the matter, while I love my Micro 9mm's, the majority of the time I am leaving the house with a Beretta Pico 380.
 
Last edited:
I'll take a .32 over .22 anyday, pistol or revolver. In semi autos the .22 LR hangs up so easy and heeled bullet designs were never meant to be used in an autoloader.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top