OT - Is the .32 Mag REALLY a good Defensive Gun?

[JohndeFresno]

I have read articles that espouse the .32 Mag as a good defensive gun without the kick, etc. But I haven't heard of any anecdotal accounts, only the same old engineering theoretical stats stuff that accompanies a small diameter, fast moving bullet.

Against the .357 125 gr. HP or the large bore calibers, on a scale of 1 to 45 (since I vote for the .45 as the best all around manstopper), how effective is this caliber in taking the fight out of an assailant?

I don't mean, "is it deadly?" because a .22 LR is a proven killer - sometimes a day or two later. But wlll a reasonably placed shot or two from a .32 Mag usually stop an attacker in his tracks like the .357 125 grainer, or most loads of .40 caliber or greater?

Are there any stats on it, or live animal tests, or -?

[1886]

Please do not shoot me! Thanks, 1886.

[JohndeFresno]

Please do not shoot me! Thanks, 1886.

er...OK. You're a pretty good feller!

[rjohns94]

never owned one but always thought it would make a near perfect woods walking gun. i sit by to see what the experts say.

[AJMD429]

I think # 1 is (as always) shot placement, facilitated by
a) shooter confidence, facilitated by
b) shooter practice, facilitated by
c) inexpensive ammunition, and
d) low recoil.

Any halfway decent gun will be accurate enough for self-defense uses.

#2 would be 'knock-down-power', facilitated by
mass, meplat, velocity

#3 would be repeat-shot-ability, facilitated by
a) low recoil, and
b) a very reliable firearm.

So with the right bullet, I think a .32 Mag could do pretty well. All else being equal not as good as a bigger cartridge, but some folks can probably shoot a .32 Mag better than a bigger gun.

I know I'm talking all 'theory' and you asked for 'real-world' data, but those are just some thoughts I had; even if real-world data don't show it as 'better' than a .45 ACP or other standard, there surely will be small-handed shooters or others who would be far more deadly with the .32 than anything else they could use.

The trick is how can an individual know his or her 'optimum' gun? I don't know that answer!

[Rifleman336]

I don't know how good it is in actual shootings (it's going to be a long time to wait on this one.), but the gun rags were trying say in bold headlines that it was as powerful as a .357 Mag.

As soon as I looked at the figures, only a neutered .357 Mag!! But it's in the .38 SPL / 9MM +P range for sure, where as the .32 H&R Magnum was as only powerful as a standard pressure .38 SPL.

Modren HP defense ammo has come a long way, but until enough actual self defense shootings occur with the cartridge it's a big question mark to say the least. I don't bet my life on a question mark. I wouldn't be turning in my Ruger SP101 in .357 Mag any time too soon. For it has an established track record.

Rifleman 336

[Tycer]

IMO, a handgun is a poor choice for self defense. That's why we train to shoot an assailant more than twice.

If a cartridge is considered to not be enough to reliably take an unsuspecting 200# deer, I would not choose to use it on an attacker unless it was all I had.

[FWiedner]

Normal folks seem to have a natural aversion to having daylight allowed into their innards.

Thus, I imagine, the traditional tendency to avoid being stabbed or impaled on a regular basis.

I can't speak to the .327 Federal Mag, but my Dad doesn't really like heavy recoiling hanguns and swears by the S&W .32 Long.

I'm guessing that's the draw. Light recoil and near .357 ballistics.

[Hobie]

I think some are confusing the .32 H&R which more closely approximates a .38 Special and the .327 Federal which bumps up power level to the .357 Mag level. I think that the recoil consideration is important to some folks. Very important. One can put 6 rounds in a 5-shot .38 Special cylinder. Some consider that worthwhile for the same energy level as the .38 Special. If it was what I had I'd use it.

I have a Single-Six .32 H&R and I like it. Seems to be a great "trail" gun.

[Nixterdemus]

Better than throwing rocks. I'm more inclined to use a 38 spl. especially w/all the ammo offerings available.

[Pete44ru]

My theory, regarding "stopping power" and "stopping in their tracks" is that

1) I don't feel threatened enough to shoot, unless "they" are close enough to do me bodily harm.

and

2) If "they" are close enough, as in #1 above, then one in the head will make them dead.

BT, DT, NTS.

.

[gak]

+1 to what Hobie said. In my Single Six, a great trail gun and all around popper. In the Smith Airweight, I do not feel undergunned carrying six 100 gr Georgia Arms HPs in a CCW or BUG role. Is it as "hot" in one-shot devastation as my .357? No. Never expected or billed to me as. Neither is the '57 as good as my .44 Mag...16 and 12 ga's...and so it goes. Great round and the guns that shoot it.

[Blaine]

One shot of .22LR is not a killer, but it's so easy to shoot, I believe I could get off at least 3 or 4 shots in under a second at close range into center of mass, or even the head. This is all theory, of course, never having done that. I would think that the .32 would be similar in a double action revolver.

[Buck Elliott]

ANY GUN BEATS NO GUN.

[oic0]

One shot of .22LR is not a killer, but it's so easy to shoot, I believe I could get off at least 3 or 4 shots in under a second at close range into center of mass, or even the head. This is all theory, of course, never having done that. I would think that the .32 would be similar in a double action revolver.

I n full auto I would take a .22. I wouldn't want to stake my life on my ability to work the trigger really fast though. I know I can do it even in high stress, but I don't know about deaths door super adrenaline stress levels.

Also, I think this would work on any animal which can be penetrated by a .22 ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKUZUXWRcns . A .22 probably wont kill a bear and if it does it wont do it right away. A hailstorm of them would though.

[JohndeFresno]

You were right, Hobie. I posted poorly - the topic should have been ".327 Federal Mag." I had forgotten entirely about the .32 H&R Magnum, since it is not as much of a "mainstream" caliber.

Good posts, all. My perspective is more from a truly defensive situation, where the aggressors don't necessarily stand still to give you an excellent target - such as we now see regularly in YouTube videos of store shootings. Those bad guys duck and run, hide and shoot; they don't cooperate much anymore like they did in the good old days on the the main street of Dodge City when Marshall Dillon faced them off (or at least what TV shows us)! And they're full of adrenalin before the confrontation takes place, which places the home defender or store defender at a distinct disadvantage.

But the point is well taken that some folks can't shoot worth beans with a heavier recoiling caliber. My question assumes that the gunowner is experienced and practiced enough with his chosen firearm that he can shoot under stress quickly with reasonable accuracy; e.g. most if not all of the regular posters to this forum.

So the thrust of my question goes back to my police training and perspective: How effective would two torso hits from the .327 Magnum be, allowing for anomalies, in stopping an aggressor's attacks so that you could stabilize the situation? By the way, I have seen only one defensive centered headshot in a handgun shootout between peace officer and agressor in my 38+ years of public service. I guess that there is just no data available, as noted above.

As an aside, I can hardly wait until those Grizzly Extreme all copper mega-expanders come out in the maximum concealment .380 ACP caliber, and even .38 Special for the snubbies. I believe that this will change the defensive landscape dramatically.

[COSteve]

I think some are confusing the .32 H&R which more closely approximates a .38 Special and the .327 Federal which bumps up power level to the .357 Mag level. I think that the recoil consideration is important to some folks. Very important. One can put 6 rounds in a 5-shot .38 Special cylinder. Some consider that worthwhile for the same energy level as the .38 Special. If it was what I had I'd use it.

I have a Single-Six .32 H&R and I like it. Seems to be a great "trail" gun.

Say Hobie, how does one, ". . . put 6 rounds in a 5-shot .38 Special cylinder. . . " anyway??

[AJMD429]

Say Hobie, how does one, ". . . put 6 rounds in a 5-shot .38 Special cylinder. . . " anyway??

It's a SPECIAL cylinder; Duhhhh!

[Pete44ru]

While I don't presume to speak for Hobie, I think he meant that 6 rounds of .32 cal would fit nicely in the same size cylinder as a 5-shot .38 Special cylinder - which they would.

.

[piller]

My wife has a Ruger SP101 in .327 Federal. It is accurate and she shoots it well. I have not seen any testing to show whether it is a stopper, but in her hands it is accurate and fast enough to do in a pinch.

[Barcelona Rick]

While it would not be my choice I believe that a well placed hit is much, much better than a loud powerful miss. The Air Marshal's of the IDF used suppressed .22 LR auto loader to great success (so I have read). A person should use what they are comfortable with and practice....FYI....a couple of years ago a crazy shot up the Smith County Texas Courthouse wounding several LEO's, killing his wife and a very well trained firearms instructor who engaged the bad guy with a 9 MM Colt....bad guy was using a SKS...several center mass hits did not work because badguy had on body armour. Cost the good guy his life....running gun battle with several LEO's ended with a fatal hit from an M4 Carbine....here they teach two center mass then head shot...I pray that none of us ever have to use deadly force....

jumbeaux

[Nixterdemus]

Oh, lawdy-lawdy! I must comment now on the intended cartridge.

Yes, it is a really good gun for a really big shoo.

I would imagine it is quite similar to the Model 60.

[buckeyeshooter]

Not my idea of a good defensive round, but I have to say that my grandfather killed his hog and his beef with a smith and wesson 32 long revolver every year. It was a single shot through the head, they always fell dead.

[L_Kilkenny]

I'm sure some won't agree with me...........

Like I've said before, IMO once you hit the "big enough" category it makes very little difference what you use. I had an acquaintance shoot his wife's boyfriend in the chest with a .22LR, one shot stop, dead. Saw 2 of Reagan's people drop on the spot when shot with a .22LR. I've seen multiple vids of people shot with 9mm's, .40's and .45's and live.

This in no way makes me believe that a .22LR is a great man stopper or that .45's suck. I'm just not that dumb. But at the same time I don't think that in 99% of the cases a perp is gonna act any differently if hit COM with a .32M (H&R or .327), a .357 or a .45acp. It's that "once you reach the big enough category" thing with me.

Looking at the ballistics and having experience with the .32H&R, I wouldn't feel the least bit under gunned with any of the .32M's. Is it a .357? No, but man ain't bullet proof either.

LK

[horsesoldier03]

http://www.handloads.com/loaddata/defau ... er&Source=

Ballistic charts for Bullet weight/Velocity put it right in the catagory of a .380.

Of course we all know a .380 wont kill anything!

IMO its all about placement.

I would rather have someone shooting at me with a .44 mag that never practiced and had little inclination of how to use a pistol, than to have someone highly determined to master their firearm fire even ONE SHOT at me!

[JohndeFresno]

...I would rather have someone shooting at me with a .44 mag that never practiced and had little inclination of how to use a pistol, than to have someone highly determined to master their firearm fire even ONE SHOT at me!

I'd rather have a V-8!

[gundownunder]

In the opinion of someone who is not allowed to defend himself, by Australian law.

I think I would have to disagree with BlaineG, a heck of a lot of people have died as a result of a single shot from a .22, just not usually straight away.

Buck Elliot is probably on the money, any caliber is better than none at all.

The more shock you can impart to the target, the quicker you will shut him down, so a hit with a .32 is worth more than a miss with a .50 cal

Even the humble .32 acp has seen use as a police caliber in some countries.

[SFRanger7GP]

Any reliable, accessible firearm that you can hit your target with at close range is a good defensive firearm and much better than rocks or all the mixed martial arts skills in the UFC. When the scenario changes to the often imagined, but seldom encountered (by the civilian) gunfight or combat scenario that caliber, bullet, firearm type, etc. make a difference.

[JohndeFresno]

Okay. I guess it's time to set the record straight. I apologize in advance for those who might take some offense to this post. But every time the word "defense" is used, somebody always feels it necessary to post that "accuracy counts" and that "a hit with a xxx" is better than "a miss with a xxx" and so on. And somebody else insists that since a .22 LR kills, it is a defense arm. There are probably hundreds of similar postings. Wrong!

I recall a situation in Fresno where a rebuffed ex-boyfriend assaulted a young lady while she was serving him as a carhop (several years ago - Fonzie days). She had been threatened and was armed. She shot him. He got out of the car and knifed her to death. He made it home, but became quite ill. The next day, he visited a local hospital after complaining of chest pain. Neither he nor his doctors knew, until they examined his chest, that he had been shot in the heart with a .22 LR hollowpoint. He died either two or three days after he had been shot.

Friends, that is NOT what I would call a defensive firearm. That's just a killing shot. It did the young lady no good at all - she was still stone cold dead from the grisly assault.

Have y'all NOT seen the many YouTube videos of convenience store shootouts as caught on the videocameras? Do the gangstas stand still, like the proverbial deer that can be brought down with a small caliber, well placed shot? Or do they weave and bob and use the limited mentality they have to avoid return fire?

My point is: There are many great hunters here who pride themselves on accuracy, and who don't need the highly incapacitating effect of a large bore round to bring down their prey. They don't need massive wound channels (and in fact that would spoil the meat) to shock the target and debilitate the muscle groups. They don't need a big hole to instantly drop the blood pressure. They generally aren't firing at an adrenalin charged animal - they ambush an unsuspecting one. If the animal IS charging - the wise hunter goes to a large bore, or a bullet that makes a big hole, which nullifies the argument that a .22 LR is fine for defensive uses.

For those who insist that accuracy is the key: How many of you shoot your prey while it is bobbing and weaving, or even leaping in the air? That pinpoint stand-still accuracy evaporates when you are thrust into a life-and-death situation, the adrenalin is pumping as much or more than in any hunt, the adversary is shooting at you, and he is using any available cover and trickery to avoid return fire. And although European police may have used .32 caliber rounds, how many have seen the light and moved up to the larger calibers, such as 9mm. You see, these days, the thugs are actually attacking cops in Europe, just like here.

Along these lines, if accuracy is the only thing that matters, how many armies arm their soldiers with a .22 LR? It is cheap, has a good range, allows you to carry lots of rounds, is proven as accurate. There is probably some reason why they have opted for using at least a .22 round that has enough energy to penetrate deeply, or make a substantial wound channel. And that is another subject, since many (me included) believe that this was a very, very bad choice, anyway, given the previous use of .308 rifles.

Finally, those who live or have lived in large urban areas with gang shootings and frequent shootouts (like Los Angeles and Fresno, California to name two) - know full well that you don't have to be a soldier or cop to face the possibility of defending yourself in a very bad situation. If that time comes, you won't be wanting a .22 or .32 ACP to save your life, because the other guy will not always stand still while you place that perfect shot.

Yes, accuracy is the most important. But by "Defensive Round," please, let's all agree in the future that, given the admonition that one should strive to be as accurate as possible with the weapon of choice, the term would apply to a caliber and powder charge and bullet configuration that allows a reasonable amount of shock and incapacitation to stop an opponent without it necessarily being a perfect Boone & Crockett bullet placement. It rarely happens that way in a shootout.

So when I am asking, "Is such and such a good defensive round", eliciting the opinions of those who might know something about the round either through experience or research, I can't agree with an answer like "a Daisy BB gun is a great defensive round, if that's all the recoil that you can stand." Wrong - it only gets the assailant mad, even if he dies 15 days later of blood poisoning from the BB that embeds itself in his flesh.

If a person does not hit dead center with a hollowpoint .45, he still slows down an assailant most of the time where he can at least get off another shot and end any further onslaught. The same is rarely true with a pipsqueak round. As for the Reagan thing and the .22's doing the job, it is a rare thing that one gets a perfect headshot in an assault or shootout. That was a lying in wait situation.

And, yes, I have been both a soldier and a peace officer, and know what it's like to be in a shootout. Whether it's a personal attack, a carjacking, a street shootout or a home invasion robbery - the bad guy does not stand still. Only the subject of a sniping situation, or deer other other game animal in a hunt presents that perfect situation. That is not using a firearm defensively.

The reason I decided to post this was not just to argue. It is out of concern. Unless you are using some super expanding rounds like one type I just now have seen that has come out this year (touted elsewhere on this forum): If you are carrying a .22 LR or .32 ACP and you think that you have a defensive firearm that will stop an attacker, you are seriously deluding yourself and the results could be fatal. To paraphrase the overworked analogy, "If I had to take a knife attack or a shot from a .32 ACP, I'd rather take the .32 ACP."

Again, that statement applies to the standard ammo out there, not the new stuff developed by one of our Leverguns members.

[KirkD]

Just based on my experience of shooting Whitetail deer that usually weigh in the neighbourhood of 200 pounds, they don't always go down on the spot, no matter what I shoot them with. That is why I'm a little skeptical of centre of mass shots on an adrenaline-charged gangbanger, with a 32 caliber gun. If he's real close, then a face shot is almost the only thing that will stop the problem immediately. If he 20 or 30 feet away, taking shots at you, and dancing around while doing it, then a centre of mass shot would be more practical and that is where I'd want a 45 caliber bullet over a 32 caliber. However, what do I know. I tend not to think in terms of speed of follow up shots/compensating for recoil, as I do in terms of making the first shot count, and then I have more time to take that second shot. If the recoil from the first shot is a bit heavier from a 45, so is the punch from a 45, giving me a bit more time to take that follow-up shot to the face (much as I hope I never have to get involved in a shooting). So that's my 2 cents, coming from a fellow with zero experience in shoot-outs, but lots of experience (unfortunately) in fist fights in my younger days (i.e., In the heat of the moment, I'm not sure a fellow can always tell between taking a wicked fist to the chest, and taking a bullet to the chest, so you'd better make sure that bullet is fat and heavy). Sure, if vitals have been hit, the felon is going to die, but will he die fast enough to keep him from doing me harm? Again, I want a big fat bullet. But, as I said before, I've zero experience pumping lead into people so what do I know. All I know is that if they react anything like deer do, I don't want a 32 caliber pistol bullet, I want a 45 caliber one .... and forget about recoil.

P.S. I made my post before reading John's post above. For what it is worth, coming from me with zero experience, I agree with John.

Another P.S.: I do own one modern gun, and it is a Springfield Armory 'Loaded' 45 ACP with tritium sights. The choice of a 45 caliber was deliberate, and my wife can shoot it just fine.

[gundownunder]

JohnDeFresno says

The reason I decided to post this was not just to argue.

He puts up a question on a levergun forum about defensive handguns,
and then proceeds to give us a full page dressing down about how wrong our opinions are.

I don't know about the rest of you guys but I'm impressed by his style

[KirkD]

Well, I still think it is an interesting discussion, and I'm glad John threw out the question. In spite of my uninformed opinions on the matter, I still find myself curious as to how such a cartridge would actually perform in the real world and enjoy reading what others think about it. Just to hedge my bets, however, I'll stick with the good old 45.

[AJMD429]

FWIW, I have liked this thread, and realized from the start that it was 'one of those topics' and that of course there would not be a 'consensus statement' developed to be formally issued under the Leverguns banner.

I enjoy hearing EVERYONE'S opinion on the matter, from the self-admitted inexperienced backyard plinker, to the hunter, and military or police with acknowledged expertise.

Deep down, I think we all have our favorites, and our own guns we'd consider ok for CCW or home defense, and perhaps sort of a 'sliding scale' of others that trade some power for convenience or ease of carry. It's hard to say if trading off 5% in effectiveness for a 60% decrease in weight is sensible when you're in an environment you feel is 75% less likely to be dangerous, and other such tradeoffs.

[JohndeFresno]

...He puts up a question on a levergun forum about defensive handguns, and then proceeds to give us a full page dressing down about how wrong our opinions are...

No, it really wasn't like that, but I laughed my head off at your post! Well done, GunDownUnder!

But actually, I really DON'T know how effective the .327 Magnum (hope I got it right, this time) is in stopping (repeat, stopping) an attack as compared to other known fight-stoppers, like the .357 Magnum 125 grain HP round.

In all candor, these types of questions frequently get side-tracked by somebody who insists that a killing round is a defensive, fight-stopping round - such as a .17 caliber bullet coated with U-238 that will kill you in six months with radiation poisoning - shades of KGB!

I was just making a statement that the title of the question was defensive round instead of lethal round.

Nonetheless, your post was very clever - boffo!

[gak]

I view my S&W Airweight .32 H&R Mag as my BUG to my K/65 .357 and .40 auto. That said, I would not have confidence in its BUG role if I didn't also think it could (and does) suffice as occasional. "primary" such as a CCW and/or "light" carry/traveling companion. Would I rather "always" be prepared with one of the heavier hitters? Of course. But it is not always practical or comfortable--my judgment for me, not judging others--to have those larger caliber guns handy...the various .357 SPs and Model 60s aside, I still like the J/6 shot. I've made a judgment that for that BUG/lighter travel/CCW duty, I like the 6 shots of 100 gr JHP and quick follow-up versus the risk assessment/likelihood of stationary COM single shot stop with a heavier gun/round. Again, strictly my call. I don't disparage others' theirs. THAT said, for my daily SD/HD, my choice is the larger, more powerful rounds for reasons so many others have articulated well--and "just because I can"; doesn't diminish the appeal to me of the .32__s in the slightist.


I notice S&W finally (just) came out with a J frame .327 stainless sans porting. Lofty price (msrp) aside, I'm pretty stoked about that.

[gundownunder]

OK
If my research on the net is correct, the .357 is statistically "the best one shot fight stopper" on the planet. It surpasses all, from .17, to .45, and those in between.

The reasons for this are probably a combination of factors incorporating, power, accuracy, ability to control the weapon, and a number of other factors.
I have not seen any data about the .327, but if it can impart the same energy to the target as the .357 and with the same accuracy, and blah, blah, blah, it will probably be good.

Here in Oz its all academic anyway, but if we could carry I'd probably be happy with either of my handguns. With the Ruger single six I'd go for the face "cause the mongrel can't get what he can't see", and my (new to me) security six .357 would go straight through the middle.

[Hobie]

MANY years ago some european power, the Brits I do believe, needed to arm their African soldiers but had only obsolete .577 rifles and equally obsolete .450 ammo (necked down .577). The soldiers aim was so bad that when rearmed in this way (instead of being armed with .450 rifles and the correct ammo) their hit ratio apparently/reportedly went up noticeably... Combat ain't the target range.

[madman4570]

.32 Mag with some Grizzly Extreme Ammo for CCW(Yep,that would work)

[BigSky56]

When the tailgate drops the BS walks the underlying problem citizens and leo have is spray and pray syndrome, what was the last brouhaha 81 shots and 3 hits that is because the shooters cant manage recoil therefore their target acquisition is dung. One of the problems that happens to people and that includes leo that have not been to combat or are accomplished big game hunters is one shot lock, they fire one shot and cant believe the target didnt stop or drop happens to first time deer or elk hunters too, you shoot till the target drops and if a torso hit dont work you head shoot. Nothing wrong with a 22 for SD use solids though not HP's. danny

[tman]

the man who was hit with a .22 and didn't drop right now, probablly won't have with a similar hit from a 357. i've seen this on game, where game ran ,after a solid hit from a .300 mag. under similar shots, the game drops right now from a hit from a .32-20. if you hunt enough, you will see this. i've read enough about failures of a man to stop after a solid hit from a 12 gauge shotgun. i've read enough about drn shots from a .25acp and vice a versa. can't explain it.whatever you got, keep shooting till it stops. some game/man doesn't know it's dead, some do. no such thing as a guarrented one stop drn ,less your are using a 20mm cannon.

[JohndeFresno]

C'mon, gang. There ya go again. I would be a rich man if I had a nickel for every time I have heard those old saws in defense of using a small caliber, low powder charge round for self-defnse:
1) Accounts of game and two-legged critters being hit by a .22 LR and folding immediately;
2) Accounts of folks being hit by a 155 HE round (or whatever) and coming back to the mess tent to have lunch with their buddies. And on and on ad nauseum.

If one is locked in with a small caliber weapon and feels the need to justify it, that's fine. To each their own, and may God protect you. But I hate to see some well meaning and gun-ignorant citizen taking this stuff as gospel.

As a deputy and sanctioned by our Department Rangemaster and other police organizations, I have encouraged dozens of ladies, when asked (we used to call them housewives before political correctness was the hustle): The .22 for home defense is the last thing that they should consider. Learn to use a shotgun or the largest caliber handgun that they could control with reasonable accuracy. As a last resort, they should be extremely accurate if they carry a diminutive caliber; the type of accuracy that requires the sacrifice of monthly if not weekly target practice (which the majority of Americans don't have the time nor inclination to do).

Here is something to think about: If the .22 is totally adequate most of the time, or at least portrayed as being sufficient enough as to dismiss using a larger bore as being unnecessary, then why are there so many 9's, .38's, .40's and .45's out there? Why don't cops and professional hunters use them for their tools and backups? And are those gun buyers all just throwing away their money?

Anyway, as I said earlier, this thread was frankly hijacked, since I was asking about the .327 Magnum (although I said .32 Mag, and those answers would have also been appropriate); not somebody's pet .22 handgun.

If you read the first posting of this thread, you should note this proviso:

"I don't mean, 'is it deadly?' because a .22 LR is a proven killer - sometimes a day or two later. But wlll a reasonably placed shot or two from a .32 Mag usually stop an attacker in his tracks like the .357 125 grainer, or most loads of .40 caliber or greater?"

Yes, it was already on the table that a .22 is a killer, as far as the meaning of that word goes. Yet it seems that every time somebody asks about a DEFENSIVE round, somebody has to justify his under-30-caliber as being a giant killer. Looking at it from my side of the table, don't some of you think that this is a bit annoying?

But love and hugs to y'all; it's still fun to read the posts and learn from others!

[tman]

C'mon, gang. There ya go again. I would be a rich man if I had a nickel for every time I have heard those old saws in defense of using a small caliber, low powder charge round for self-defnse:
1) Accounts of game and two-legged critters being hit by a .22 LR and folding immediately;
2) Accounts of folks being hit by a 155 HE round (or whatever) and coming back to the mess tent to have lunch with their buddies. And on and on ad nauseum.

If one is locked in with a small caliber weapon and feels the need to justify it, that's fine. To each their own, and may God protect you. But I hate to see some well meaning and gun-ignorant citizen taking this stuff as gospel.

As a deputy and sanctioned by our Department Rangemaster and other police organizations, I have encouraged dozens of ladies, when asked (we used to call them housewives before political correctness was the hustle): The .22 for home defense is the last thing that they should consider. Learn to use a shotgun or the largest caliber handgun that the could control with reasonable accuracy. As a last resort, they should be extremely accurate if they carry a diminutive caliber; the type of accuracy that requires the sacrifice of monthly if not weekly target practice (which the majority of Americans don't have time to do).

Here is something to think about: If the .22 is totally adequate most of the time, or at least portrayed as being sufficient enough as to dismiss using a larger bore as unnecessary, then why are there so many 9's, .38's, .40's and .45's out there? Are those gun buyers all just throwing away their money?

Anyway, as I said earlier, this thread was frankly hijacked, since I was asking about the .327 Magnum (although I said .32 Mag, and those answers would have also been appropriate); not somebody's pet load in a .22. And it seems that every time somebody asks about a DEFENSIVE round, somebody has to justify his under-30-caliber as being a giant killer. Looking at it from my side of the table, don't some of you think that this is a bit annoying?

But love and hugs to y'all; it's still fun to read the posts and learn from others!

good advice. use the biggest round you can shoot accurately. i don't see a big argument there. yet, brownbear have dropped to a single .22lr. small deer have run hundreds of yards after a solid hit from a 300 weatherby. i'll repeat it. whether you got a .380 or a 500 , you can't predict the outcome. whatever you got, aim for the brain and KEEP SHOOTING, till it dies.

[AJMD429]

Here is something to think about: If the .22 is totally adequate most of the time, or at least portrayed as being sufficient enough as to dismiss using a larger bore as being unnecessary, then why are there so many 9's, .38's, .40's and .45's out there? . . . And are those gun buyers all just throwing away their money?

Personally, I know I'd never throw away money buying a gun I didn't absolutely need...!






...at least that's what I tell my wife!

[madman4570]

The .327 Federal ??? An excellent CCW weapon,but I would not switch a .357 mag for it though.

But as you agreed to earlier a .22 is a very deadly round well placed(which is not always easy)
At my Uncle's ranch,the only gun that was used to kill the BIG beef was a .22LONG(not Long Rifle)
All the many I have seen him dispatch was with 1 shot to the forehead.Never ever did one not drop like a frieght train hit them,so that did indeed up my respect for the .22

To each their own and they take the risk! Good Post!

[4t5]

My idea of a stopper is ...If I got shot in the face with it would I continue my malicious act or turn tail and run,in this instance I think it is an adaquate stopper.Many so called gunwriters say that a 22 mag is not a good stopper,yet no one will prove their point by standing in front of one,if I ever have to use my revolvers to defend friend or family,I'm not worried about ONE SHOT STOPPING POWER,as I don't plan on stopping after just one shot.

[tube_ee]

When we're taking about the suitability of a cartridge for self-defense, there's really a bunch of stuff going on, and it all needs to be considered.

Lo, these many years ago, before I spent some time living by Uncle Samuel's rules, I lived and acted in places and ways that I would not now consider doing. In all of those experiences, I never once heard anyone even notice the caliber of the gun pointed at them. The only determining factor was "gun" vs "not-gun". In almost every situation, "gun" lead to "run away", and in those few situations where that didn't happen, "I just got shot" overruled ballistics. People that get shot with anything tend to have their priorities realigned immediately. The other side of the coin was that "not-gun" usually equaled "victim".

And if someone is determined to kill you, even if they die in the attempt, the size of the bullet you put into them is fairly unlikely to save your life. Even if they die 1 second later, if you die, you still lose. It's about staying alive, and hopefully, unvictimized.

So what are we left with?

The biggest gun that you can shoot well and carry comfortably is the one you should buy. Because if the ballistic difference between any two handgun calibers matters at all, you've likely already lost. If you present, and they run, you win. If they don't, and you shoot them, and they stop attacking you, you win. If you shoot them and they keep attacking... you lose. And there isn't a handgun round in existence that will guarantee that that won't happen. All you can do is all you can do.

Bottom line, I've not seen a situation on the streets where the caliber of any gun in use made a difference to any of the participants. Once the lead starts flying, all bets are off.

--Shannon

[KirkD]

As I stated earlier, I've got zero experience shooting people with handguns, so I read quite a few shooting reports about 17 years ago. Two things still stand out to me:

1. I recall being surprised at the number of people who were shot with smaller caliber handguns who did not realize they were shot

2. I remember reading some statistics on 1-shot stops between the 45 ACP and the 9 mm. That particular report, (and I'm just telling you what it said) indicated that the 45 ACP for the same bullet, had significantly more 1-shot stops than the 9 mm. I cannot recall exactly what the difference was in terms of numbers, but I do recall that it was a lot.

So it seems to me that you want a gun that is powerful enough such that the other person doesn't have to guess whether they've been shot or not, and that will more likely cause them to stop shooting at you with only 1 hit rather than 2 or 3.

I wouldn't count on hitting them in the face real easy when they are bobbing and dancing around 20 feet away while blasting away at you. A center of mass shot might be a bit easier, so I'd want something that wouldn't leave any doubt in their minds that they've been hit in a major way.

[Hankster]

Interesting stuff from all fronts..... but things to ponder.... were we talking "defensive"?? Most defensive shootings take place at less than 21 feet. 7 yards folks.... if you can't hit at that range... there are other issues to consider!!! Also, it you can't hit joe dopehead as he bobs and weaves, he most likely won't hit YOU either!!! Also, if he is 30 or more feet away, and spraying lead, it's not a "defensive" shoot.... it's a WAR ZONE!! LOL!!! You'll find most of your CCW instructors will tell you shooting a guy 30 or more feet away and claiming "self defense" can be a tough sell in court..... if he is inside the "3 second zone" it's a different story! Tests have shown an attacker can cover 21 feet in less than 3 seconds.. thus within the 21 foot zone...an armed assailant shot in that range is "explainable" with little skepticism from LEO's or Juries.. should it go that far. Sure, bigger punch is better...but as Lever gun shooters, I think we all can relate to the "magnumitis" we see in OTHER shooters!! We shoot and kill deer with guns of far lessor power than a lot of "nimrods" we've seen... 7mm mag is great, but I'll bet for every guy who has one.. many here have piled up WAY more "kills" with much lesser powered leverguns... and felt no disadvantage doing it either!! But then again, we wouldn't plan a hunt with a .22 when we KNOW a 30-30, 45-70, .375 or whatever would be BETTER suited.... yet we can all say, it COULD be done if.... and so.. the debate goes on. One thing to bear in mind.. some posters here have said, and correctly so... if you are using a smaller caliber... shoot till the target STOPS! Next.....

[JohndeFresno]

...Also, it you can't hit joe dopehead as he bobs and weaves, he most likely won't hit YOU either!!!...

Good point - and the crux of the matter.

You hit the bobbing felon (or one who has just broken in and awakened you in darkness at night) with a .22 in the shoulder. He hits you in the shoulder with a .45.

Which one do you think will recover quickly enough to get off the final shot?

[KirkD]

One other thing I have done, since I have no experience in shooting people with handguns, in addition to reading quite a few written reports, I also watched more than a dozen videos of actual shootings and shoot-outs, caught on camera. It is not a pleasant task, and leaves me feeling a bit sick, but I thought it necessary to study them carefully to educate myself as to what actually goes on in a shooting, and what action the 'good guy/woman' should have taken. The idea is that I want to avoid getting my education in an actual shootout.

Studying actual shoot outs, they can be divided into different categories, one of which definitely includes the shooter bobbing up and down, dancing back and forth, etc. while shooting at the 'good guy'. Also, don't underestimate the bandana head shooting at you. One report I read less than a year ago found that quite a few gangsta's tended to perform better in a shootout than the police, primarily because the shooter had already been involved in quite a few other shootings or shoot outs. Of course, a lot of the pot-heads are bozos who couldn't hit the broad side of the barn door, but you do not know that. So my point is, don't lull yourself into a false sense of security thinking that only inept bone-heads are going to be shooting at you. Maybe, maybe not, but you'd better be prepared for the 'maybe not'.

I think some of the posters on this thread would find it educational to carefully study about a dozen actual shoot outs caught on tape. It might also be useful to try to hit a fellow in the face at 30 feet with a paintball gun, while he is bobbing, jumping, and weaving back and forth, shooting at you. Of course, you won't have the problems with adrenalin you would have to deal with in a real shoot out, but, still, it's better than nothing. That, too, might be an education. I've practiced this with one of my boys and I'm not going to assume I'll be able to do it in an actual shoot out under the 'bobbing, jerking, and weaving conditions with him pouring lead into me. You've got to hit him in the face before he hits you, and that is a bit of a dicey thing sometimes.

Another principle I hold to is this ..... don't assume you will be in top form when a shoot out is about to break out, or is in process. Massive doses of adrenaline impair ones fine motor control, you may already be hit and feeling sick or can't breath. Your strong arm may not be available and when all this is happening, you have maybe one or two seconds to neutralize the threat. If you are defending your wife or children, you may only get one hit in before your brains are blown out, and, despite your armchair plans of a one-shot to the face hit with a small caliber weapon, what if that one hit is in the shooter's torso just before your brains are all over the wall behind you. At that moment the question will be, is that one hit going to persuade him to leave your wife and kids alone, or will he not even know he's hit?

As for me, I am not going to assume that I'll be in top form when a shoot-out breaks out, so I must plan accordingly. So if the shooter is bobbing and dancing and jerking about all over the place while pouring lead in my direction, I believe that I can momentarily slow him down and distract him with a center of mass hit with a big, heavy, fat .45 bullet long enough (about 1 second) for a more calm and collected second, third, etc. shot. So the first hit is designed to slow him down for 1 second and distract him long enough so that during that one second I can forget about him actually being able to hit me and I can 100% focus on making a much better series of follow up shots. Even if the gangsta is wearing body armour, a chest hit with a 45 will distract him long enough to give me an opportunity for a more well placed second shot. (I say this on the basis of watching a couple videos where a LEO takes a hit in the chest and, though not hurt, does take a surprise step back.) So the plan is to go for the biggest target first with the hope that I'll actually be able to hit it, and cause a momentary distraction giving me at least a half second to carry out a more well-aimed shot at hopefully the head, or at the very least, to allow for a series of better aimed shots at the torso if time, injury or lack of ability doesn't permit me a head shot.

Another thing, whether a shooter is 18 feet away, or 40 feet away, if he is shooting at me, then I can shoot back and defend it in court as self defence. Having discussed this with a friend of mine who is a LEO here in Canada, the key thing is that I must be able to articulate why it was I felt I was in danger of grievous physical harm or death. Bullets whizzing by, makes it an open and shut case.

Having said all this, I will admit that I'm nothing more than an armchair commentator. But I will say that my armchair opinions are based on the thoughtful reading of quite a few police reports, the careful analysis of more than a dozen videos of actual shootings, and actually trying head shots at 30 feet with paintball guns, while my son is bobbing and weaving and dancing around, and shooting at me, where the rule he and I play be is one hit and your down. In other words, I cannot keep soaking up lead while I try a series of unsuccessful head shots.

Bottom line: if in the worst case scenario where I am only able to get one hit on the shooter before my brains are blown out the back of my head, and that one hit does not turn out to be a face shot or a spine shot, then I want that one hit to count for as much as it can ..... therefore, I prefer a big, fat, heavy bullet over something lighter that permits the shooter to finish off my wife and kids after I have departed this mortal coil.