Are criminals just built better these days?

O

old_yout

New member
I've been looking around at some older pistols and have noticed that many of them are in .32 or .38 S&W and that many of those appear to have been manufactured for police use. Now, I'll grant you that the police have upgraded since then, but how is it that at the time it seemed as though the rounds were effective enough to do the job. My research on the subject has been, to say the least, not thorough (in fact, this is it right now), but it all seems sort of odd to me. .32, .38 S&W, the venerable Makarovs all used to serve and protect and yet nobody takes these calibers seriously today. I do hope someone can shed some light on this. Thanks.
 
I think a lot of it is 'sales pitch'...bigger, more expensive toys. :)

News article last week on this board [I think bout an 'anti' being converted the hard way. Woman kills attacker with a .22 semi-handgun.

It's bullet placement.

------------------
Satanta, the Whitebear
Sat's Realm: <A HREF="http://SatantasRealm.tripod.com/Entrypage/entrypage.html

My" TARGET=_blank>http://SatantasRealm.tripod.com/Entrypage/entrypage.html

My</A> Disability petition: http://www.PetitionOnline.com/DisbHelp/petition.html
 
Many of the older rounds weren't effective. Literature from the 19th century discusses the ineffectiveness of many of the rimfire rounds; the .38 Colt's failure in the Phillipines is legendary; and the .38 Special round nose load became known as the widowmaker because of the number of police officers who died when it failed to stop the crooks.

Older pistols were in smaller calibers because people were physically smaller, technology hadn't advanced enough for lightwieght big-bore weapons, and because of the public perception that heavy weapons weren't needed (the same reason some cops were prohibited from carrying magnums for years).
 
It isn't about killing, it's about stopping and the ability of the shooter. Years ago, more gunowners had an interest in the sport of shooting whether it was hunting or whatever. Today, most people buys guns for the purpose of self defense and rarely even practice with the gun after the first few range sessions. This is even true for police officiers as a recent study indicated that a majority of today's LEO's do not even lists guns or shooting as one of their hobbies. Less interest translates into less practice which translates into poorer shooting ability. I don't know if I believe this but I remember reading on TFL that a DOJ study showed that LEOs missed 92% of the time in actually street shootings.

If your placement is not that good, then a hit with a bigger caliber is better than a hit with a smaller caliber. For example, a hit to the shoulder with a .45ACP will do more damage than a hit to the EXACT SAME area with a .25ACP.

Other factors to consider is the mental state of criminals. Years ago it was ... "I've been shot (I'm already at a disadvantage). I better give up now before I am shot again or even killed" ... while now it's more like ... "If I go, I'm taking everybody with me" ... meaning that criminals do not give up so easily now a days out of fear of being shot. At to that the fact that some have their minds clouded by drugs and might not feel any pain when a bullet strikes them translates into stronger firepower being required to get the job done that was previous done by a weaker caliber.

Finally, each generation is bigger & stronger (physically speaking) than the generation that came before it due to advances in medicine, exercise, lifestyle, etc. and let's not forget that serious criminals are resorting more & more to bullet proof vests and similar things.
 
Also remember medical science was not exactly a science back then. A .32 to the chest could spell your doom, even if not immediately. Then there were rifles, something often on or near a person at all times. How often did they come into play?
 
Check old threads of the effectiveness of .32 -- we had a lively discussion basically centering on the improvements in medical science, increase in body size, decrease in barrel length for some common calibers (1.5" barrel for .32 vs. 4" on a 1908 Colt Vest Pocket).
 
Actually the US population in general is taller and heavier than in the past. Nutrition, especially protein intake, is largely responsible for this. You also need to remember that the hardened criminals, those that have spent time in jail, tend to be more muscular. Therefore while a 32 may have worked well against a 5.7 160 pounds individual it may or may not work as well against one with a boady mass of 5.11 215 pounds.

------------------
"Get yourself a Lorcin and lose that nickel plated sissy pistol."
 
Oleg is right, that was an excellent thread.

If I remember right it came down to:

1. Increased average physical size over the suceeding generations.
2. Proliferation of drugs.
3. In the old days you didn't get to go to a sanitary emergency room and get fixed, back then you tried really hard not to get shot because you would probably die of an infection anyway.
4. Like Oleg said, barrels where usually longer in the pocket rockets of those days.

------------------
Ordering deadline for TFL shirts & hats is July 29, don't miss out. www.thefiringline.com:8080/forums/showthread.php?threadid=37865
 
Actually barrels were about the same length. The most popular pistols, the so-called dog revolvers, had very short barrels. They were made to right in pocket vests. Autos were slightly larger, such as the Browning 32, but revolvers were much more popular.

------------------
"Get yourself a Lorcin and lose that nickel plated sissy pistol."
 
In addition to the other comments, I want to underscore what Fud and Correira said:

Drugs, drugs, drugs.

It's amazing how many bad guys and gals out there are stoked on drugs. Poke one of those people, and you'd better put out his headlights, because he'll still keep coming at you.

I dial Colt .45 ACP. FWIW. J.B.
 
I notice a lot of these older pistol also use a "Pocket" theme. Being a fan of older B&W movies, I notice a lot of the Police in the movies never used a holster. Most had a smaller frame pistol in the pocket of their coats. I tried this with my Model 66 snub nose and it was like a giant rick in the pocket of my overcoat. Now that sweet little Police Positive in .32-20 circa 1923,,,how was it Goldilocks said? Just right!
 
Its like the home run race you have 2nd baseman hitting 30 dingers. People are in better shape and live longer look at all the gray hair people. Medical care is much better. And of course drugs drugs drugs...
 
So criminals are often more resilient. Hm. For today's world then, the best thing would be bullet placement and or larger calibers then?
 
About 6 years ago, a LEO friend of mine and I were oohing and aahing over a gemlike .32 Pocket Police at the shop. I was struck by the same question, and asked him how he'd like to go up against criminals with such a popgun instead of his P7M13.

He said: "Back then? Not a problem. Back then the cops were the cops and the robbers knew they could be 'shot while resisting arrest'. This wasn't a gun, it was a badge of authority. It signified "The police are here, time's up, tag- you're it."".

I found it an interesting viewpoint. Only the most hardened bad guys would actually shoot at the police back then. Now any shoplifter seems ready to give it a whirl...

------------------
"..but never ever Fear. Fear is for the enemy. Fear and Bullets."
10mm: It's not the size of the Dawg in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog!
 
Tamara hit it on the head! My second cousin on my mother's side retired after twenty years on the force and during that entire time never had to fire his weapon while on duty and only had to draw it from his holster twice. His son (my third cousin) is now following in his father's footsteps and after being on the force less than half a dozen years, has already been involved in several shootings.
 
We have had many posts that confirm Fud's information regarding most LEOs' disinterest -- and inabilities -- with their sidearms. The simple fact is, most contemporary LEOs are not interested in firearms, they do not practice frequently, they do not achieve real skill, and they do not even maintain their weapons with care (please, no offense is intended to the many -- and TFL members, too -- who are handgun experts).

This leads to very unfortunate situations with "spray and pray" being the dominant tactical mode. Recent experiences in New York City and Philadelphia with police having an approximate -- and disgraceful -- ten percent hit rate are examples of this phenomenon. Therefore, I addition to the valid points re drugs and bigger BGs raised earlier in this thread, may I respectfully suggest less accurate shot placement is also a fundamental cause.
 
Not only less accurate placement, but pre- "Onion Field" far fewer cop killers survived the arrest, and it was accepted as a fact of life. So you didn't shoot cops.

Even with the general population I suspect that sentiment was to hold off on firing longer, but once started, stop firing when the gun was empty. Make sure the threat was neutralized with a couple extra hits just to make sure. If the BG died, he started the sequence of events, and got what he deserved. Not as today when miscreants regularly sue civilly for excessive force.

This would fit with poorer knockdown power of nonexpanding bullets of the time, and the entrance and exit wounds made by them were more likely to cause hyperextravasion in an era where IV blood expanders weren't available on the scene.
 
Even a century ago there were some who thought a bad guy was worth some serious stoppin. Some carried the .44 Russian, then the .44special. And the .45Colt. I am not very big at all and have no trouble carring a conceiled .44spec. The drunk, drugged or dumb all too often require good placement and hard hit to stop them quickly. The .22 long rifle will kill very well but how long does it require the bad guy to stop?

Sam...my favorite 9mm is the 9X32R
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top