Getting back in the 32 caliber game

[JWFilips]

Fiver,
I have a JA -32 in my jeep It is a pretty dependable weapon! The 32 barrel bore is way over size and needs a .314 Ranch Dog Projectile!
Knowing this; It shoots very well at 12 yards and is dependable! However the Zmack Frame is way to heavy for my liking!
Would like a lighter carry gun! Michael Remy ( Ranch Dog) seemed to like these!

 

[JustJim]

And don't forget Raven Arms. Yugos of the firearms world, all of those pot metal contraptions. The stories about that "Ring Of Fire" bunch would curl your hair.

Ravens. . . . I once got hit twice in a drive-by by a shooter using a Raven .25. I'm still amazed the kid got the gun to work for 6 shots. Oh, for the good ol' days when the kids used guns that let you walk away from hits!

 

[fiver]

dependability is what counts.
if you wanted some brass knuckles you'd have bought them instead of a firearm.

 

[PED1945]

While many European police and some militaries once believed the 32 Auto was an adequate defense cartridge, many modern shooters hold it to be be a "wounder" and not quite powerful enough to use for personal defense or concealed carry. My personal interest is in their entertainment value; 32s are fun to shoot, easy to reload and easy on the lead supply (311252 castings only weigh 75 grains).

 

[JWFilips]

The JA-32 was very cheap ( and is a very cheaply made gun) I paid $139 for it and didn't expect much.
As I got it, it sucked...The bore & chamber was rough, and I did a bunch of honing and polishing on it! The bore was over size for a 32 ACP! Jimenez people just took their JA -380 frame and stuck what they thought was a 32 caliber barrel in it! Not!
It could not shoot any factory Ammunition in it & it was like a shot gun at 7 yards!
After I fine tuned it and Started using unsized 75 gr. Ranch Dog bullets @ .314" in it became a decent shooter at self defense ranges. Also the faulty reliability issue with bullet feed went away!
I always look at it as I do my 3 Mil Surplus rifles that were about to be trashed.....If you work your behind off working on their problems they become good shooters!
Now I'm not saying it will be a very good target gun, like my German Ortgies ( very accurate at 25 yards) And It's weight is very heavy for its size with it's Zmack frame; but it works well now, is dependable so that Is the gun that rides in my Jeep and on my belt whenever I feel the need it in a not too dangerous situation. Any where worse.... it would be my S&W mod 15!

 

[CZ93X62]

Wound ballistics......everything evolves over time. The time period 1890-1910 was in fast-forward, if firearms technology is being discussed. Black powder was being relegated to 2nd tier status by new smokeless fuels that provided more gas volume/pressure per grain, enabling higher velocities that prompted jacketing of bullets. In handguns, self-loading pistols were coming along, though not yet supplanting revolvers in civilian venues. By the end of WWII, the tech was 95% 'built-out' to where we sit in the present day.

This begs the question--why izzit that the 25 ACP, 32 ACP, 32 S&W Long, and other less intense mid-caliber chamberings fell from favor? Again--'everything evolves over time'. But what evolved that caused this loss of favor?

Laws evolved. Medicine evolved.

Law--La Ley de Fuga--Si tu fugas, mi fuego (The Law of Flight--If you flee, I fire)--In the USA and much of the civilized world, this was how armed encounters were assessed. If a suspected felon could not otherwise be brought to justice in some reasonable fashion, it was legal to project lethal force to reduce him/her to custody--armed or not.

Medicine--A gunshot wound didn't need to be immediately fatal to cause death in the time before antibiotics and advaned life-saving medical procedures. Infection and other medical complications caused all manner of horrific deaths to wound recipients throughout history, whether via gunshot, edged weapons, blunt force, you name it. Specific to gunshot wounds, someone hit by a police or citizen gunshot was very likely to show up at some point at an aid station, emergency room, etc. to seel treatment. Laws have existed for decades that require immediate notification to the authorities by medicos of any person seeking treatment for gunshot wounds (and other similar trauma). Most GSW victims get reported to the cops, so the cops can start inquiries into the occurences. On account of our advancing medical tech and antibiotics, many GSWs that would have been ultimately fatal in years past are now survivable. I am one such victim myself.

Another Law--The Law of Unintended Consequences--comes to the fore when we start breaking these two above Laws into the modern milieu. The Law has evolved--the shooting of fleeing unarmed suspected felons is pretty much a thing of the past. Just don't. OK, so the unarmed baddies shouldn't be engaged--CHECK. Can fleeing armed baddies be shot at? Maybe. If they are engaging you or others unlawfully, that's better. No guarantees, though.

So who gets shot lawfully? Violent offenders in the process of projecting lethal force/threats and/or great bodily harm upon self or others. Basically, people attacking us in aggravated fashion. Such folks need to be stopped and turned off MUI PRONTO. And they are attacking, not fleeing. THIS IS WHY THE 25 ACP, 32 ACP, 32 S&W Long, et al are no longer popular as felon repellant. Marking pellets won't save your life.

Not the first time I've mentioned this, but there are new folks on board now so......enjoy.

 

[Petrol & Powder]

While I don't disagree with what CZ93x62 wrote, there's a little more to the story.

The law concerning the use of deadly force has changed over time. The landmark case concerning the use of deadly force against fleeing felons was Tennessee v. Garner (1985). The resulting case law didn’t completely forbid the use of deadly force against fleeing felons, but it did severely restrict it. There are still some rare circumstances when it is permissible to use deadly force to stop an armed, dangerous, fleeing felon if his/her escape would present a real danger. The classic scenario would be confronting a mass murderer that flees with a weapon towards additional victims. That scenario is extraordinarily unlikely, but it still exists.

But not all criminals flee, even the ones encountered over 100 years ago. There have always been evil people and there will always be evil people. So even in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s there would have been times when it was necessary to stop an adversary that was attacking, not retreating. The use of small-bore guns for self-defense wasn’t solely due the to the need to “mark” fleeing criminals for future identification but rather because the small-bore guns were simply acceptable tools in those days. As time went by, it became more and more clear that there was a need to stop attackers far more than there was a need to shoot fleeing subjects. A failure to stop a fleeing subject will not cost you your life but the failure to stop an attacking subject may prove to be fatal. While shooting fleeing subjects is generally unacceptable now, the need to stop attackers has never changed. The tools used to stop those attackers is what changed.

 

[RicinYakima]

I really don't like to step into this discussion, but here goes.

There are two types of attackers I have had to deal with: the drug fueled one that wants to kill you and the one that want to intimidate you to rob you. The first needs a 12 gauge with three shots of 00 buck, nothing is better. The second is the most common, in my experience, just wants to intimidate you into giving him your "stuff".

The second class will stop when you show them the gun and training enough to be able to hit them with it. Standing in the Weaver stance and looking like you will shoot them will make them leave. A small group, of usually young bangers, will make you fire a shot. Then they will run. USUALLY, at least where I live, the police are never called and no report is ever made.

In case number one, accuracy is the most important. Don't shot to "stop" them, shot to kill them. Little gun? Shots to the lower abdomen to bounce the bullets off the pelvis and cut up the arteries and kidneys. If they grab you, keep the gun in the center of your chest, stick it in their nose and fire two round into the head. Yes, you are going to get hurt. Yes, it will be a very bad thing. But you will likely live. "Stop them" shots center of mass will get you to beaten to death. A 32ACP used well is better than a 9MM used poorly, expecting it to work.

Twenty eight years firefighter/medic, through two major drug wars and in a city with 40% illegal immigrants.

 

[oscarflytyer]

"Little gun? Shots to the lower abdomen to bounce the bullets off the pelvis and cut up the arteries and kidneys."

Don't think I have ever seen this before, but makes GREAT sense. More hard bone to bounce things off of than skinny ribs.

"If they grab you, keep the gun in the center of your chest, stick it in their nose and fire two round into the head. Yes, you are going to get hurt. Yes, it will be a very bad thing. But you will likely live."

This is Gold! again, not sure I have ever heard it stated like this, but...

"Stop them" shots center of mass will get you to beaten to death."

This is what is mostly taught. 45/44 ok. Smaller others, I am really liking the advice above.

 

[KeithB]

Once read a story by Masaad Ayoob about a female cop faced with an advancing perp armed with a knife while she had a .38 spcl revolver. She shot him in the hip area and broke his pelvis which dropped him to the ground right quick. Take the story and source for what it's worth, but it makes sense to me.

 

[RicinYakima]

Once read a story by Masaad Ayoob about a female cop faced with an advancing perp armed with a knife while she had a .38 spcl revolver. She shot him in the hip area and broke his pelvis which dropped him to the ground right quick. Take the story and source for what it's worth, but it makes sense to me.

I have treated maybe 10 patients with a fractured pelvis, not a one could stand up and all were screaming in pain. FWIW

 

[KeithB]

While the statement "Grandpa fell down and broke his hip" may well be true in a lot of cases, there is plenty of evidence that "Grandpa's hip broke and he fell down" may be the true story in many cases.

 

[RicinYakima]

While the statement "Grandpa fell down and broke his hip" may well be true in a lot of cases, there is plenty of evidence that "Grandpa's hip broke and he fell down" may be the true story in many cases.

That is more likely than the fall.

 

[Rick H]

I have always thought the "failure drill" of two shots to center of mass followed by one to the head was wrong. If the two shots to the chest failed on a vest the lower abdomen, pelvis area is a much easier to hit target than a bobbing moving head.

I did run into a drug gang enforcer who had a custom vest built that included lower ab and groin protection. When we took him down we carried rifles. We expected trouble but he was meek as a lamb. It is amazing how cooperative one can be when faced with half a dozen 7.62's and 5.56's. Yes, he was well armed and wearing that custom vest. Go figure.

 

[L Ross]

This is interesting because I always wondered why the pelvic girdle wasn't an approved target. My suspicion is lawyers and politicians are involved. When street fighting with bad guys started to get regulated by the afore mentioned nuisances, we were saddled with DAAT. Defensive Arrest And Tactics. Being a cop started to lose its luster after that. Desk jockeys and jockeyettes who had never been in a desperate fight in their lives, were now telling us how to fight in a defensive manner. The problem was the defense in mind was in a court room. Playing pattycake with people who are trying to hurt you and/or resist arrest is a surefire recipe for injured cops.

I think the lawyers probably soiled themselves with the concept of trying to defend a cop in litigation resulting from shooting some miscreant, "in the junk", and the cop being able to say he was trained to do so. In the unfortunate event that such a "low blow" should land, it behooves the officer to only qualify by the necessary minimum standard. Why? Because in today's litigious environment I can see some F. Lee Buttmunch wannbe subpoenaing your training records and point out the the jury that you are Batt Masterson, Wyatt Earp, and Marshall Dillon all rolled into one, and wherever you managed to hit, you were aiming at intentionally. Probably better to say you "pulled one."

 

[Petrol & Powder]

There are three methods to use a handgun to rapidly incapacitate an attacker. (Note the word incapacitate is not the same as kill).

• A hit that damages the central nervous system such as damage to the spinal cord or brain stem.
• A disruption of the flow of oxygenated blood to the brain.
• A hit that breaks a large bone needed for mobility, such as the pelvis or femur.

Damage to the central nervous system high enough on the spinal cord to prevent use of the hands will always be effective. If the damage is lower and the person maintains control of a firearm, they can still pose a danger. Damage to the brain stem will cause near instantaneous death and end the threat.

A hit that fractures the pelvis or upper femur will “anchor” the person but if they still control a firearm, they can still present a danger.

Damage to the circulatory system that disrupts the flow of oxygenated blood to the brain will result in a rapid, but not instantaneous, loss of consciousness; and therefore end the threat.

The spinal cord and brain stem are small targets that are well protected by bone.

The large bones of the pelvis and femur require a great deal of energy to shatter.

And damage to the heart or major blood vessel is the easiest (most likely to succeed under stress) method to rapidly incapacitate an attacker.

The bottom line, once you’ve crossed the threshold to where deadly force is required and there is no alternative – that is no time to hold back. There is no legal or moral half-way point at the stage.