People used to carry shit like .32 rimfire blackpowder and it was fine

>why is a cap and ball revolver not as good as 9x25 dillon

Attached: 1529466075836.gif (200x200, 3.89M)

So he is implying that carrying is only for kids?

.32 a cute, ill tell ya that much.
What are the best CURRENT production guns? This is now a "we love .32acp" thread.

Just bought that gun and I fucking love it so much. It's smaller than my Shield.

Attached: 20181106_194349.jpg (4640x3480, 3.53M)

Not a clue. Reminder that a 50 grain .32 caliber round ball traveling at 730 FPS is enough to penetrate a bit over 11" into ballistics gel, almost reaching the FBI minimum.

guns.com/news/review/3043473-2

>then why have so many users abandoned it for harder recoiling larger firearms
The same reason people insist that 7.62x39mm is more powerful than 5.56x45mm, despite 7.62x39mm ammunition always having shit terminal performance. They believe a larger bullet and more recoil must mean more damage down range, even if reality is that the bullets will icepick for most of their travel and tumble for a very brief distance before exiting the body if they tumble at all. People are terrible at trying to judge shit that they aren't knowledgable of, which leads to things like fuddlore on the extreme end and paper spec chasers who obsess over numbers without actually knowing how much of a difference those numbers will make.

>Why is it not considered "adequate" for serious use by any ballistics experts of merit?
Because they'd be out of a job if they just threw up their hands and said, "Fuck, almost everything these days works well when it comes to handguns."

This proves OPs point

Because cops worry more about things like shooting through auto glass and magazine capacity and body armor than concealability.

it's not that it's not going to protect you, you can just get something better
like, carrying a 22 revolver will probably stop an attacker, but if you're going to carry a gun you might as well carry one that does it more effectively

How many of the muggers of those days have been hopped up on highly potent designer drugs, bath salts and whathaveyou?
The threat has evolved, so has the means to defend against it.

I've thought about this. My theory is that back in the day, violence was a more accepted part of human life. A poker game could easily turn into a brawl or even a knife fight, and it was just an accepted part of life that a night out could end in a black eye or a broken rib or even a knife wound. It was just the risk you you took. To that extent, guns were just seen as a more advanced level of the typical barroom brawl or knife fight; it was just a more effective way of hurting someone and ending a fight, and sure there was a risk of death but death was never the intended consequence. Even if you were mugged by a stranger it was understood that you might come out of it a bit worse for wear but the chances were it wasn't a life or death situation unless something went very wrong.

Nowadays the social contract is much more stringently enforced and expectations are much different. People generally don't go around initiating violent encounters with eachother, and if they do it's automatically assumed that it's for a good reason and they mean business, thus violent encounters are much more readily assumed to be life or death situations compared to how they were viewed in the 19th century. That's why in the modern day self-defense situations involve an expectation of ending a threat immediately and decisively, not entering into a brawl with a thug and hoping you win. For the latter low-power cartridges like .32 were more than sufficient. For the former anything less than a full-power pistol cartridge like 9mm is seen as insufficient and reckless.

First, failing to understand that people's standards change as technology improves isn't a point, it's a mistake.

Second how does it "prove" it?

>omg why do you want actual evidence for somebody making a claim?!?!?!? you havent even proved him wrong!
hwhat?
>he actually thinks that 7.62x39 isn't more powerful than 5.45 when comparing shit loads to shit loads or good loads to good loads
Bigger wound cavities, more energy, better post barrier performance, etc, case closed. Thats why units with the choice between the two continue to opt for 7.62x39 for any close range or urban ops. What are you even on about, honestly? Is your argument really "you can't trust real world results from rounds, what you really need to trust are baseless platitudes from people on Jow Forums"?
>Because they'd be out of a job if they just threw up their hands and said, "Fuck, almost everything these days works well when it comes to handguns."
So your claim is that they're effectively lying or misleading people about .32acp's effectiveness? what exactly is the factual basis you are drawing this from? surely you have real world confirmable facts for this opinion other than a combination of muh jello and "i like .32 so its gud"?
I don't know about you but last i checked i own a car which i spend a fair amount of time in or around let alone other peoples cars i frequently am around, you may or may not have heard of these things called parking lots.. Also cops don't really use AP ammo at all in their sidearms AFAIK in the US.

No, they don't. I wasn't saying they do, and my choice of words kind of got mangled there, I should've said "heavy clothing and suspects on drugs". I dunno why I mentally swapped that to body armor. It is a concern, and 9mm will do better due to simply energy transfer, but that's not relevant to this discussion.

Also, not sure how explaining that you're often around cars negates the fact that bigger, heavier bullets will naturally perform better against the type of barrier auto glass presents.

My point is that cops have no need to conceal their pistols and every need to get the best mixture of ballistic performance and shootability possible. That mix is not going to be found in a mouse gun, in a mouse gun cartridge.

That's why a .380 subcompact is a good or even great carry gun but a shitty duty pistol. Make more sense that way?

A lot of those black powder pistols also fired unjacketed lead rounds at lower velocities. A problem I have seen with the modern variants of those bullets is little to no expansion/fragmentation. Remember, what kills you is the loss of blood and a single projectile breaking apart or getting bigger while moving through your body will likely cause more bleeding than one that just makes a neat and narrow cavity.

>Also, not sure how explaining that you're often around cars negates the fact that bigger, heavier bullets will naturally perform better against the type of barrier auto glass presents.
What? i literally brought that up as an example of why myself and others might opt from something more "adequate" than .32 acp. not really sure what you mean here.
>That's why a .380 subcompact is a good or even great carry gun but a shitty duty pistol. Make more sense that way?
It makes about 50% more sense which leaves you waaaaay short of any sort of actual evidence regarding .32's great adequacy as a defensive caliber in general for civilian or LEO use. Why would i opt to disregard the opinions of literally any organization or expert with serious experience regarding handgun usage because a person on Jow Forums says that ammo they wouldn't trust is "totally adequate"? I'm not a huge fan of the idea of an ammo/caliber that suddenly becomes less lethal if it's used on somebody trying to carjack me while i'm inside my vehicle instead of outside it.

Let me rephrase: my only point was that going solely on what LEO uses for duty guns is a bad metric for what makes a good carry gun.

.32 is great for a mouse or back up gun. Maybe not a general purpose CCW, but it has a really solid niche for deep concealment.

Then it seems you butted into a thread about an entirely different matter in a misleading fashion. .32 is certainly better than a point stick or knife as a backup weapon but acting like it's "perfectly adequate" and anybody disputing this is silly because(and i paraphrase) ".32 rimfire was totes fine in the 1800s" is just fucking silly. It clearly isn't "perfectly adequate" for general usage and there's no evidence to suggest it is so, as was rather clearly my point throughout this thread.

I personally think that .32 ACP, and .380 are adequate, as long as you don't plan on shooting through auto glass. My only point was that trying to discredit the caliber on the basis of LEO selection doesn't make sense because they have an entirely different set of concerns from an average carrier