I was recently reading an article from Lucky Gunner's blog related to their lab test series (which I use as a reference for which brand and type of defensive ammo to use for my pistols and calibers) and happened across a premier article from another series regarding pocket pistols that shed their light on thoughts of the pocket calibers that go with those guns. My favorite line from that is the one that flies in the face of staunch apologists for larger caliber rounds who try to claim, typically from anecdotal evidence, that use of .32 caliber or below would be more dangerous to whomever carries it for defense because it will only enrage an assailant who would then turn the gun on the victim. Transcribed here: "I can document more failures of service pistols in the hands of law enforcement officers than I can small pistols in the hands of private citizens…" -Claude Werner, "The Tactical Professor"
I my previous post about .30 caliber military pistol rounds (of which it is worth noting that .30 Tokarev in fact uses what technically-qualifies as a .32 caliber bullet) I made the point of how what they offer is not superior to that which is offered by their role replacements 9x19mm and 7.62x39mm; I should have been clear enough the point was NOT that any of those rounds were ineffective for defensive use. In my more recent post about the Springfield SA-35 I touched on why I am not a fan of 9x19mm and shall elaborate further now on reasons why. Already said is that when it comes to full-size or smaller service-size pistols made for 9mm Parabellum, in the same size package better potential capability can come from .40 S&W and .357 SIG: that is my personal perspective and renders no judgment on those who have considered the opposite to be so thus prefer 9x19mm in full service-size handguns for larger magazine capacity and lower recoil relative to larger rounds.
At the opposite side of the coin is smaller handguns, the type traditionally-carried for personal defense by civilians ever since the earliest days of single-shot pocket pistols being a thing. A top point to note in this regard is how much crossover there has been between these categories throughout the years. For the sake of simplicity the following historical discussion will only start close enough to the dawn of the repeating pistol era.
Samuel Colt's perfection of the revolver is rightly-remembered as the most revolutionary occurrence in the world of handguns, but what brought them to the forefront equally for civilians and otherwise was replacement of cap-and-ball loading of the chambers (a hazardous setup that too many times resulted in cook-off of multiple chambers at once) with self-contained metallic cartridge technology that likewise-enabled magazine-fed repeating rifles to work effectively. Military and police developments tended to focus on bigger bores such as .38, .44 and .45 caliber because such personnel had no cause for concern about openly-carrying a full-size pistol. Civilians could use any of the above wherever open carry was not an issue, but many people opted to have a trim .22 or .32 caliber round in a much smaller weapon that offered little relative power but made up for such with the ability to be well-concealed. The smaller calibers remained popular through the point that John Moses Browning produced autoloading rounds equivalent to these popular small-bore revolvers: .32 ACP for the .32s and .25 ACP for the .22s (the latter were rimfire thus unreliable in autoloaders of the time hence a new centerfire caliber).
In the 21st century the trend has been to fit the bigger bores into smaller packages. Somewhere in the process the smaller bores developed a reputation of insufficient stopping power in absolute rather than just relative terms, and the result today is .38/9mm is considered the minimum for effective defense and such chamberings are being squeezed into handguns that in the century prior would have been a .32 or smaller instead. In all fairness it would be one thing if that could be done well without excessive price in recoil, and there may be a few models out there which have succeeded in doing just that. But the laws of physics are a pesky constant so in general there is no getting around the fact the smaller and lighter the pistol the more brutal it will be to handle in a caliber such as 9x19mm that was designed for larger service-size weapons.
The blog article cited at the end elaborates further, but my own thoughts about effectiveness of smaller calibers are based on the logic that 1) no sweeping generalization can be made because there are many different loadings and 2) though ammunition technology has favored .38 caliber more than .32 that has no bearing because a change in relative terms still does not change absolute terms. In other words, if it is ineffective today it must also be considered ineffective back then, yet the historical evidence available does not bear that presumption out. That .30 Tokarev was accepted for the Soviet military (which replaced 7.62x38R Nagant, another .32) is one thing because that is clearly a power cartridge for a full-size weapon, but what may be more telling is how .32 S&W Long (at least a variant thereof) became a police standard for a time on order of none less than Teddy Roosevelt.
So that brings us now to how my caliber "fetish" is hovering along that range of bullets more-or-less .31 inches in diameter (if less than that it is a .30, if more a .32, but as in the case with Tokarev that standard is not applied consistently). Time and practicality have passed by the older .32 Colt cartridges as well as the original .32 S&W, which leaves in rough order of power: .32 S&W Long, .32 ACP, .32 H&R Magnum & .327 Federal Magnum, all of which the modern loadings are intended for snub-nose revolvers and other "pocket" pistols. Of these, the defensive viability of .327 is without question but it has 2 major issues: 1) it has a power and shot profile so close to that of .357 Magnum that those many who cannot handle .357 in a compact should not attempt to do so with .327 either; 2) .327 was not all that successful and today is only available in a few Ruger models which may not remain the case indefinitely.
7.65x23mm, generally-known by its original American name .32 Smith & Wesson Long, was a lengthened power version of their defensive .32 caliber pocket pistol round (the latter often referred to as .32 Short to distinguish from its successor). While .32 Short was intended to remain on the market for individual short-range defense, .32 Long was designed as a full-size service pistol round, and both complemented each other well as revolvers for the latter were backwards compatible with the former. Snub-nose pistols were less common back then in regard to their modern form of full-bore strong-frame designs with short barrels, and even when that changed the easier-to-manage .32 caliber rounds remained popular as long as recoil proved much easier to manage than a .38 while sacrificing little (under half a caliber since .38s actually used bullets less than .36 inches in diameter) in equivalent power.
The equivalence factor in this equation is one of the more important factors to understand. When snub-nose revolvers established their own standard for concealed carry in the 20th century .38 was for strong hands and holsters while .32 and below was for pockets and more manageable recoil. As .32 S&W Long became a snub-nose choice what set it apart was similar power to standard pressure .38 S&W Special in the same package with an easier shot profile for the shooter plus (usually) an additional round since .32 is slimmer than .38. Understanding that the market for such remained even if as a sizable niche, the .32 Harrington & Richardson Magnum round that offered the same .32 caliber equivalence to .38 Special +P. Then the same idea was had another couple decades later in making .327 Federal Magnum the .32 caliber equivalent to .357 Smith & Wesson Magnum. Revolvers built for each more powerful round are backwards compatible with all their predecessors, making versatility another strong consideration.
In the middle of all this was Browning's semiautomatic contribution, .32 ACP. Developed alongside .38 ACP which was intended to offer a more powerful smokeless successor to the then-standard .38 caliber military revolvers in both American and British service at the time, .32 released shortly before .38 as the companion round for compact pistols both in official service and civilian defense roles. While .32 ACP is comparable in power to .32 S&W Long the former has never deviated from its design place as compact pistol round only. It was adopted by numerous police and military organizations, including the US with the Colt Pocket Hammerless issued to general officers through both world wars, but was always treated as a means of deterrence rather than something viable for combat which is really how it (and its rimless sibling .380 ACP) should be.
If .32 ACP is like .32 S&W Long then likewise is .380 ACP like .38 Special and can be weighed in similar consideration. Both rounds are purpose-designed for compact rather than full-size platforms and this shows in their general popularity for smaller self-defense pistols, however in the United States similar factors that displaced .32 caliber revolver rounds in favor of .38 Special snubs likewise have succeeded in nearly replacing .32 ACP with .380 ACP and 9x19mm. Even acknowledging this turn of events, I question the reasons why and will point out that, regardless of theoretical and practical factors, .32 caliber rounds are still selling well enough and this proves they still have a viable place.
One probable factor is that technology has marched on and compact pistol designs are stronger and better-handled than what was available back in Browning's day, but it would be remiss to point that out about the pistols themselves without acknowledging the same has happened regarding ammunition. If a general recommendation is to be made (as many writers and "experts" try to do) it must be under the banner of "all things being equal" which makes historical recommendations just as viable today as back then. Even if that was not the case, chronograph and ballistic gel testing has verified the trend of the lighter and faster .32/7.65mm rounds to offer power equivalent to similarly-loaded .38/9mm (.25 and .22 caliber are not the same equivalence in power but still have some pistol loads that can be viable for self-defense).
Nevertheless, as said already .38/9mm is considered the minimum necessary in most circles today which has driven market trends accordingly. On the semi-auto front few truly modern options exist, but those that do set out to take advantage of the .32 ACP round in either its original Browning load or the hotter European loading. The Beretta Tomcat, while it is only rated for the original lower pressures, is a key example of a true modern pocket pistol that offers a great balance of factors for its profile (plus has a companion line, the Bobcat, which is nearly the same size but in .22 LR or .25 ACP thus is a weaker but higher capacity option). Many of the better choices will be older pistols no longer produced, mostly originating from Europe where the round was most popular, and may only be reliable with full metal jacket bullets; that last issue is not as huge as some may make it out to be because even among modern .32 ACP bullet designs there are probably no options providing the necessary consistency of expansion with penetration thus FMJ is the only viable choice for sufficient penetration to do any real damage.
For the revolver rounds options are somewhat greater. Side note: it is said from multiple sources that a .32 caliber revolver is able to safely load and fire .32 ACP rounds. Technically this may be true, however it is NOT a supported design feature and should only be attempted as a last resort due to the likelihood of stuck cases from dimensional differences and poor accuracy from the bullet not being stabilized. Not only is there the backwards compatibility feature, but a simple matter of the fact that several modern pistols are made in that chambering. Only Ruger offers any .327s but that is in its favor as the added frame strength makes them the lightest shooters for .32 Magnum which is probably the best choice for general defense. For more sensitive hands .32 S&W Long is less expensive, a fact that makes it great for range practice in something that would be carried defensively with magnum rounds.
That is the prime factor worth repeating: for those who can handle compact or smaller in .38/9mm just fine that ought to be the choice for them, but for those who cannot or need to go as small as able for whatever reason .32/7.65mm is still a far more decisive asset than going unarmed. It can protect people and has done so well long before the day full service caliber pocket pistols became a mainstream idea. There is no contest that, all things being equal, .38/9mm protects better, but the claim that smaller cannot be relied on for self-defense should be considered a bridge too far. Too many "experts" grind axes to justify their own relevance (a problem far more extensive in society than is found in gun culture), but that is why it is so important to think freely for yourself because no one can understand your unique needs and situation better than you.
Lucky Gunner Pocket Pistol Blog Post: https://www.luckygunner.com/lounge/wrong-about-pocket-pistols/
Commenti