A lot of modern, informed discussion on terminal ballistics is based on LE or mil testing / AAR / data. LE/mil pistol applications are not going to accommodate a .32 anything in anyone's lifetime, so that complicates things. Results from hunting data is another, but also kind of complicated because deer don't often smoke bath salts and rob someone in the parking lot of a Wal-Mart. (
Squirrels sure. But not larger game. Well, not
usually.)
".36 bullets suck." So, therefore, .31 bullets must suck "more" to some degree or another. When it comes to a hit to the brain or spine with a hardcast .32 wadcutter going fast enough to make an exit wound, does it
actually suck less than a .36" bullet? I don't know. I suspect the lower recoil, leading to better hits under stress, leading to more shots getting in the CNS holy land has some value. It does to me, intuitively. But I can't articulate that in a way that makes sense, much less is persuasive, to anyone else. And what's more, I'm not an objective authority on the matter and there's a 100% chance I was wrong about
something today. This could be one of those things.
I think the .32 magnum version of these guns is best reserved for people who either can't currently manage the .38 version with one of the handful of rounds that pass muster (Crit Def 110gr, Gold Dot 135gr, Various 148gr wadcutter) or acknowledge that time is coming. (Eventually that's everyone.) So anyone looking at either the Old Man Gun as a current or eventual need should probably think about it. For the 20-somethings among us who can make the .38 work, then the .38 is probably the smarter choice. Losing a round sucks. But the objective data on the .38 special is more comprehensive. Meanwhile, as a dude in his early 40s that's starting to feel the ravages of time... yeah. A .32 magnum wadcutter is singing a siren's song.
Originally Posted by Hansohn Brothers
Reply With Quote