Indians For Guns

Hi,

Govind here.

What has more destructive energy, a round from a .32 IOF Ashani pistol or one from a .32 IOF revolver.

not looking at accuracy, just muzzle energy

cheers

govind

.32 ACP Cartridge can be anything between 60 to 75 Grains, with a Velocity of 1,100 Ft./S and Energy of 160 to 180 Ft./Lbf.
.32 S&W Cartridge is generally between 85 to 100 Grains, with a Velocity of 700 Ft./S and Energy of 90 to 115 Ft./Lbf.
(All figures are within the approximate range).
Hence the .32 S&W Cartridge is Heavier, however it is lower in Velocity and Energy as compared to a .32 ACP Cartridge.
Both are different and I would not discount One for the Other.
It is pure preference/choice between a Pistol or Revolver, in the Indian self-defence context.

Regards,
Jr.

buy 2!

If you are a rookie then i'd rather you went for a Revolver as its pretty much less complicating piece of shooting iron.(compared to a Pistol)

Marksman

From close range it will be revolver as higher grain and uncovered bullet can lead to ore spraying of lead up to 10 yards or 8 and half meters from further distance pistol will be more destructive as its has clean hit and revolver have deformed hit .But new bullet of IOF of revolver have more destructive power than pistol despite better grooving than revolver bullet had more destrction force.

What new bullet of .32 has IOF produced?

There is too much cylinder/barrel gap in iof revolver resulting in too much energy loss. So between iof .32 revolver and pistol, pistol round will have more energy.

Vineet wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 21, 2019 3:21 pm

There is too much cylinder/barrel gap in iof revolver resulting in too much energy loss. So between iof .32 revolver and pistol, pistol round will have more energy.

but revolver dont care about good quality or not ammo
one click - one shot

See penetration power of .32 ACP vs .22 LR

A very interesting test on the car hood: 22 LR versus 32 Auto. I doubt that anyone would be surprised to see that the 32 Auto's performance was superior. Even if all other variables were the same for this test, it would be predicted that the full metal jacket bullet would have performance superior to a lead bullet of any shape. The only thing I could think of that would be less predictable is if the test was full metal jacket performance compared to a very hard cast lead bullet, say, out of linotype or some such alloy. It would be interesting to see how a hard cast bullet performed on that metal hood.

I think that the test would have been more interesting if it compared the 32 Auto with the 32 S&W Long.

Regarding the weapons tested, one might observe that 22 LR out of a short barrel like these would be at the ragged edge of penetrating 300 mm of ballistic gel, while the 32 Auto (depending on the brand of ammo used) should reliably penetrate more than 300 mm.

Also, it should be noted that rimfire ammo is not as reliable as centerfire ammo, but on the other hand, it is usually easier to deal with a misfire in a revolver than in a semiauto. Of course, there's still a time penalty with a misfire that could be critical.

The idea that revolvers never jam is false. Like any other mechanical device, they fail too. If a primer backs out of a case after firing, that can jam the cylinder, preventing or slowing a follow up shot.

Also, depending on how the revolver is carried, lint or other debris can interfere with the mechanism. Still, if there's any question about a semiauto's feed process (bent magazine lips or weak magazine spring, for instance), a revolver is generally more reliable.

The way the gun is made, with respect to maintaining a proper cylinder gap, is a very valid observation, and certainly affects performance.

It would have been interesting if the test had included testing at various angles of obliquity to the hood, and also what sort of penetration, if any, can be achieved when shooting through a windshield.

But still, I found the test interesting.

timmy wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 17, 2021 3:16 am

A very interesting test on the car hood: 22 LR versus 32 Auto. I doubt that anyone would be surprised to see that the 32 Auto's performance was superior. Even if all other variables were the same for this test, it would be predicted that the full metal jacket bullet would have performance superior to a lead bullet of any shape. The only thing I could think of that would be less predictable is if the test was full metal jacket performance compared to a very hard cast lead bullet, say, out of linotype or some such alloy. It would be interesting to see how a hard cast bullet performed on that metal hood.

I think that the test would have been more interesting if it compared the 32 Auto with the 32 S&W Long.

Regarding the weapons tested, one might observe that 22 LR out of a short barrel like these would be at the ragged edge of penetrating 300 mm of ballistic gel, while the 32 Auto (depending on the brand of ammo used) should reliably penetrate more than 300 mm.

Also, it should be noted that rimfire ammo is not as reliable as centerfire ammo, but on the other hand, it is usually easier to deal with a misfire in a revolver than in a semiauto. Of course, there's still a time penalty with a misfire that could be critical.

The idea that revolvers never jam is false. Like any other mechanical device, they fail too. If a primer backs out of a case after firing, that can jam the cylinder, preventing or slowing a follow up shot.

Also, depending on how the revolver is carried, lint or other debris can interfere with the mechanism. Still, if there's any question about a semiauto's feed process (bent magazine lips or weak magazine spring, for instance), a revolver is generally more reliable.

The way the gun is made, with respect to maintaining a proper cylinder gap, is a very valid observation, and certainly affects performance.

It would have been interesting if the test had included testing at various angles of obliquity to the hood, and also what sort of penetration, if any, can be achieved when shooting through a windshield.

But still, I found the test interesting.

Thank you sir, for your in-depth analysis and educating comment.

Will surely make test video of .32 ACP Vs S&W.

Pls have a look at other videos on my channel, it's a small effort for increasing gun awareness and weapon training basics.

Thank you and Regards.

gwattal wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 05, 2019 8:07 am

Hi,

Govind here.

What has more destructive energy, a round from a .32 IOF Ashani pistol or one from a .32 IOF revolver.

not looking at accuracy, just muzzle energy

cheers

govind

.32 S & W Long cartridge has lower penetration but BEST IN CLASS STOPPING POWER!!!!!!!!!

Main reason is difference in Muzzle Velocity, S&W Long has MV of 750 Feet per sec, fps, when fired from 4 inch Barrel, and 630 fps from 3 inch Barrel. Whereas .22 LR has MV of 1050fps from 4 inch Barrel and 915 fps from 3 inch Barrel.

Kinetic energy of bullet is 1/2 M x V x V.

So muzzle velocity has major play in penetration, combined with shape of bullet, .32 has blunter front profile than .22.

But but but, .32 S&W Long is very very lethal against human target, more than .32 ACP or .22 LR, Because it instantaneously transfers all its energy into Flesh and Bones, causing heavy cavitation.

It's Stopping Power is best in class!!!!!!!

I must confess, I don't much hold with metrics that people come up with to compare cartridges, bullets, and guns. They all ignore the fact that damage to vital parts is what accomplishes the task, not a bunch of numbers on a calculator or printed on the page. No doubt, before Galileo dropped those balls from the Leaning Tower of Pisa, the experts of that era had all sorts of calculations to prove that heavy things fell faster than lighter ones, just as they had calculations proving that the earth was the center of the Universe and all other heavenly bodies orbited it.

I've posted at length about 32 Auto and its capabilities in several threads, which can be found by searching this site. However, I'll quote one of my posts here, as repeating it is germane to this thread:

timmy wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 19, 2021 12:41 pm

You may ask what data I used to make these decisions. Firstly, on the required penetration of handgun bullets, I have gone by the now widely accepted United States FBI paper "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness":

http://gundata.org/images/fbi-handgun-ballistics.pdf

For performance data of various loads, I used the following data, which is no longer on the web, but is available as an archive here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20111218193 ... l32acp.htm

A quick search of the web produced a number of links, of which these seem to be helpful:

https://www.luckygunner.com/lounge/the- ... f-defense/
https://www.shootingillustrated.com/art ... f-defense/
https://rangehot.com/32-automatic-ballistic-test/

The data collected on these last three sites somewhat agrees with me and the site I originally used, but as might be expected, different tests came up with different figures. I know what satisfies me, but I don't know what satisfies you. By posting your question here, you've started your own research into the matter. All I can do is tell you my choices and why I've made them. Now, it's up to you to decide.

The FBI document is the first link in this quote, and establishes the baseline for minimum performance: what "work" needs to be accomplished on the target and how that can be achieved.

The last four links are to tests of various ammunition. Surprisingly, it can be seen that lower velocity bullets sometimes penetrate more deeply than higher velocity bullets. This tells me that the shape of the bullet is at least as important as the the bullet's energy. It's well known that a flat faced bullet (a bullet with a "meplat" to be exact) will destroy more tissue in penetrating a target, but that "work" of creating a wider wound channel comes at the price of penetration. The interplay between wound channel, penetration, and destruction of vital tissue is much more complex than just calculating a metric. Angle of penetration, outer layers before entering the target, striking bone, and who knows how many other factors come into play. Recall that US President Teddy Roosevelt's life was spared when an assassin's bullet struck his speech notes and eye glass case. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempted ... _Roosevelt)

I mentioned another factor in stopping a threat here:

(Here, you need to see that your assumption that an attacker will stop when shot, even if it is a non-lethal wound, is not justified by reality. Many times, attackers are not stopped by just being shot. The prevalence of drug use in modern culture is one example of the fallacious nature of this assumption. in fact, the accounts of Zulu and Moro warriors should give pause to accepting such an idea.)

and here:

the 38 Long Colt New Army revolvers were found to sadly lack "stopping power" during the Philippine revolts. Especially, Moro tribesmen from Mindanao would charge American Army troops with long bolo knives, and the 38 Long Colt did not have enough power to stop them. (The Moro tribesmen often bound their arms and legs with tourniquets and sometimes used drugs to power their charges: they might die of wounds obtained in their fearless charges, but not before slicing a number of US Army troops with gruesome wounds. These actions also led to American massacre atrocities, but that is another story.)

The Army began to pull 45 Colt Single Action Army revolvers out of stock and issue them to troops serving in the Philippines. This led to the Army conducting the Thompson-LaGarde tests to determine what cartridge would be effective in combat. The result of their work was the development of the 45 Automatic cartridge, which was essentially a 45 Colt adapted to a semi-automatic pistol using modern smokeless powders, rather than black powder.

"Stopping power" is nothing more than the ability to destroy vital tissue or cause the target to "bleed out". Some cartridges, bullets, and guns are more effective at doing this than others.

The real issue facing someone who is contemplating the choice between an IOF 32 revolver and the IOF Ashani is carrying a revolver that doesn't safely allow carrying all six chambers loaded and carrying a semiauto that doesn't allow safely carrying with a live round in the chamber, the comparative workmanship of the two, and whether the Ashani is reliable for repeated firing with the ammunition being used (i.e, does it feed ammunition reliably or not).

A down to earth conclusion is-

"The study of tactics and human behavior is more important than the weapon, caliber and loading used in combat.

Marksmanship can be proven to be the most important component of handgun
effectiveness."
Quoted from:
HANDGUN STOPPING POWER
by Bob Campbell

Maybe the choice would be a shotgun for novice going down to 22 for the sharp shooter. 32/22 will be equally useless for novice and equally effective for an expert.

Weight X Velocity - All depends on the Projectile and the load.