The Rohrbaugh Forum

Miscellaneous => Other Guns => Topic started by: rtw on March 14, 2005, 10:45:53 AM

Title: .32/.380 caliber performance in a "pocket&quo
Post by: rtw on March 14, 2005, 10:45:53 AM
In a different vein, I have read recently where concern has been expressed about the performance of these calibers in "small" pocket pistols. The Sig 232 size pistol was recommended over the "small" guns because the extra barrel length of the Sig results in higher velocity, which translates into better expansion (and ,thus, better terminal performance) compared to its smaller brothers like the Seecamp.

One writer considers the .380 too marginal in any length gun and so carries a S&W Snubby in 38 spl.as his BUG.

What testing has been conducted with a Seecamp, for example, and these caliber bullets to test for terminal performance and what did the results show?

Thanks.

Dick
Title: Re: .32/.380 caliber performance in a "pocket
Post by: logical on March 14, 2005, 01:42:30 PM
There will always be those (writers and others) who insist that this or that caliber are inadequate.  I tend to rank them .22, .25, .32, .380, .38, 9mm, all the rest.   None of them hold a candle to a good rifle or 12 gauge.  I say carry the biggest one you can.   Sometimes that means a small caliber.

I suppose the NAA revolvers are smallest in .22 or .22 mag.  Once you go above that it seems you may as well jump to some kind of .32...the .25s aren't any smaller guns.

If you can conceal a little bigger, then a .380 or .38 makes sense.   A short barreled .38 or .380 may not be as good as a long barrelled .38, but it no doubt beats any .22, .32 or .25.

There is plenty of data out there.  A .380 +P out of a NAA Guardian in my mind is a serious round.
Title: Re: .32/.380 caliber performance in a "pocket
Post by: BillinPittsburgh on March 14, 2005, 10:36:16 PM
A lot of gun writers and others whose occupation causes one to expect them to be armed all the time express such opinions.  Such people have no idea what it is like to have a REAL need to have your gun CONCEALED in order to be armed all the time, as the rest of us do.  We all know that .32 and .380 is less than ideal, but it beats the .45 that was left at home.
Title: Re: .32/.380 caliber performance in a "pocket
Post by: Newt on March 15, 2005, 08:53:41 AM
Amen to that!
Title: Re: .32/.380 caliber performance in a "pocket
Post by: Richard S on March 15, 2005, 09:23:22 PM
Back in the 1960s, I worked with a number of West European LEOs who managed to "keep the peace" quite effectively carrying .32s or .380s.  (Some of them referred to the .380 as the "9mm kurz.")  While with real estate it is all about "timing and location," with small-caliber defensive weapons it is all about "timing and placement."
Title: Re: .32/.380 caliber performance in a "pocket
Post by: flyandscuba on March 23, 2005, 05:21:32 AM
There are a few interesting articles with "informal" test data over at the KTrange.

Here is one such article with .380 performance data out of the small P-3AT.

http://www.ktrange.com/articles/a10/a10-14.html
Title: Re: .32/.380 caliber performance in a "pocket
Post by: rory on May 11, 2005, 03:22:06 PM
If you can't conceal a Kahr PM9 in your pants pocket, you must wear nothing more than a jockstrap.  So why settle for having 1/4-1/2 as much power?  The 9mm, loaded to the gills, with a 90 gr bullet, is a pretty serious blow. That can be proved on animals.  Lesser loads might as well be .22lr's. That can also be proven, on flesh and blood.
Title: Re: .32/.380 caliber performance in a "pocket
Post by: BillinPittsburgh on May 11, 2005, 10:28:44 PM
Quote
If you can't conceal a Kahr PM9 in your pants pocket, you must wear nothing more than a jockstrap.  So why settle for having 1/4-1/2 as much power?

The PM9 is only 0.1" thinner than my Glock 26, and that isn't enough to qualify it as a pocket gun, even though it might be possible for some to carry it in a pocket.

Quote
The 9mm, loaded to the gills, with a 90 gr bullet, is a pretty serious blow. That can be proved on animals.  Lesser loads might as well be .22lr's. That can also be proven, on flesh and blood.

Are you saying that a .32 or .380 might as well be a 22?  A simple energy comparison reveals the flaws in that statement.   ::)
Title: Re: .32/.380 caliber performance in a "pocket
Post by: FireBreather01 on May 11, 2005, 10:28:54 PM
About 20 years ago a BG in Milwaukee killed two police officers with a single shot each - he used a .25. It's a potent reminder that a small caliber firearm is still a gun, and any gun can kill. I know that is hardly a scientific test and I wouldn't generally recommend carry of a 'light weight' cartridge but, as has been said, any gun is better than no gun should you end up in harms way.

Carried strictly for close quarter defensive purposes I think a small caliber is fine. I would be greatly comforted by the thought that if my wife or daughters were assaulted they would have a Seecamp at their disposal to defend themselves.
Title: Re: .32/.380 caliber performance in a "pocket
Post by: theirishguard on May 12, 2005, 12:43:09 PM
Thats why Larry keeps making and selling his Seecamps.   Tom