NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/rec/guns/16045

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-16 | 3.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!pmafire!mica.inel.gov!ux1!news.byu.edu!gatech!darwin.sura.net!ra!mimsy!convex.com
From: [e-mail] (Peter Cash)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Need info on small .25 semi-auto handgun
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Nov 92 16:45:22 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: The Instrumentality
Lines: 58
Approved: [e-mail]


#    In fact, in any barrel length, 2.5"+, even .32 ACP doesn't seem
#    like it could be much better.  While the diameter is greater, the
#    ke figures are about the same or less than Stingers.  Is this
#    wrong?  I am not praising CCI stingers, so much as denegrating .32
#    ACP.   Did Marshall collect any info on CCI stingers or other .22lr?

First of all, diameter _is_ relevant. It's an inescapable fact that having
a bigger hole through you is worse than a smaller hole; thus, I'd prefer
the .32 to any .22. Another consideration against .22 rimfire is that the
heel-based bullet design makes it more likely that contaminants will enter
the case, thus possibly rendering it inert. (If you depend on a .22 for
defense, you'd do well to keep the magazine free of oil.)

Also, there's always reloads (something impossible with a rimfire).
Commercial .32 ACP is definitely loaded on the wimpy side--about 900 fps
with a 71 grain bullet. I get 1170 fps out of my .32 Walther PP with 71
grain winchester FMJ, and I'm sure I could push that another 100 fps easy.
That's definitely better than any 30-40 grain .22 can do. Furthermore, I'm
shooting FMJ (ball) ammo--and in calibers below 9mm or .38 special, that's
a decided advantage. In this league, your main problem is penetration--you
don't want expansion, so hollowpoints (like the Stingers) are actually a
dumb idea; they'll just flatten out near the surface of your target.

Finally, if you think the .32 is essentially in the same class as the .22,
then I see no reason why the .380 shouldn't also be put in this class.
Look at the published stats for commerical .380 ammo. Winchester, for
example, claims 1,000 feet per second for their 85 grain Silvertip
.380--and that's supposed to be a hot load. Again, that's a hollowpoint;
you'd be better off with a more traditional load consisting of a 90 grain
FMJ going at about 900 fps. Is that so much better than even the standard
loading for .32 ACP (71 grain @ 900 fps)?

To summarize:

1. I disagree with Jim's contention that there's no difference between the
.22 and a .32 ACP; I think the .32 is preferable because it's liable to
cause more damage even in its standard loading, and because it's more
reliable.

2. Furthermore, the .32 (like any centerfire round) is more versatile
because it can be custom-loaded to higher than standard velocities. (And
puleeze don't lecture me about the potential legal liabilities of using
reloads in self defense. I am aware of these arguments.)

3. I do think that despite their differences, the .22 and .32--as well as
.380--belong in the same class.  In this class, solids are better than
hollowpoints (so avoid hollowpoint .22 loads, and loads like the Winchester
Silvertip for any cartridge in this class).

4. If you have the option, go to a higher class. There's a _big_ difference
between 9mm parabellum or .38 +p and .22.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |[e-mail]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~