This topic comes up non-stop on a gun forum I occasionally visit and there’s always tons of differing, dissenting opinions… In the end, shot placement is what matters. Hell, even the recent school shooting in Finland resulted in 9 people dead and what was the killer using? A .22-caliber handgun. One of the Virginia Tech shooter’s guns was also a .22-caliber handgun and I think we remember how terrible that situation ended up being. Although I do agree that the firearm you’re going to carry, regardless of caliber, is always better than the one you leave at home because it’s too bulky or inconvenient…
You got it backwards. It’s not that .32 ACP was so popular half century ago. It’s that .45 and 9mm para wasn’t popular then.
Colt .45 or Browning GP are big, heavy and pricey weapons designed for military use - or at least they were when they were introduced. Also they kick like hell (when compared to smaller guns) and you can’t literally put them into pocket - or you end with ripped pocket pretty soon. Also remember, that 99% of policemen never have to use their duty weapon - and all of them have to carry all the time. Ask any law enforcement officer about his/her problems with his/her back, and you’ll see why weight is important. Also note, that prior to discovery of ballistic gelatin we knew jackshit about performance of various calibers - it was all hearsay without any statistical analysis. For the time, .32 ACP was rational choice of caliber for weapon to carry daily. Now we are smarter, hence popularity of full power calibers.
Depending on the load and barrel length, you’ll get muzzle energy between 100 and 130 footpounds from the .32 acp. The American fmj loads from the major manufacturers tend toward the lower end of that spectrum. If you can get ahold of European ammo manufactured to CIP, not SAAMI, specs it tends toward the higher end of the spectrum. Ammo manufactured to SAAMI specs for sale in the US will duplicate American-made ammo performance. Rather than seeking out European ammo for a .32, it’s easier to just buy some “high performance” ammo from one of the boutique manufacturers.
In the past, the lack of effective medical care would have made a small gun a lot more intimidating. Sammy the Edwardian Scumbag would have been wary even of one of the pipsqueak rounds because he knew getting shot with one carried darn good chance of blood poisoning or gas-gangrene…both of which gave lingering and very unpleasant deaths. Sammy the 21st Century Scumbag doesn’t want to get shot because it would be painful, but he quite likely knows more than one other scumbag who got shot and lived to brag about it.
Actually, I’ve seen no cites that prove this is the case. Who was carrying 32’s in 1948?
You’re kidding right? Right? This is a joke, right? Right?
In 1948, the .38 Special, .38 S&W, .32 S&W, .38 Police Positive, and .32 Police Positive would all have been commonly encountered self-defense cartridges used in revolvers. Except for the .38 Special, all of these are ballistically in the same neighborhood as the .32 acp. So, keep in mind that .32 acp ballistics were not considered unacceptable.
In 1948, automatic pistols were still comparatively rare in the US. Colt, of course, made their 1911 in .45 acp and .38 Super. Colt and High Standard made .22 automatics. Ruger would bring one to market a year later. Smith & Wesson had developed the prototypes for what would become the model 39, but did not bring it to market until 1955. Other 9mm autos would have been almost entirely WWI and WWII bringbacks with a smattering of commercial Lugers. There were .25’s, .32’s, and .380’s from American makers and European imports around. IOW, in 1948 (and previous years) if you were an American and carrying an automatic for self-defense it was almost certainly in one of the “pipsqueak” calibers.
In the US, people shied away from autoloaders because of their reputation for jamming moreso than inadequate cartridges. Read through American gun articles and you’ll find that remained the case until the early to mid-1980’s. When I was a teenager, the real, true, serious fightin’ handgun meant a Colt or Smith & Wesson revolver in .38 Special or .357 Magnum.
So, to answer your question, just the sheer number of old .32’s out there shows that lots of people were using them. The even greater number of revolvers in equivalent calibers shows that the round itself was considered sufficiently powerful.
People, yes. But I specifically was asking about police which was more or less inferred by the OP. What police forces were issuing .32’s as recently as 1948?
Remember you are not a police officer. Thus, most of the cases where LEO would need “stopping power” you could simply walk/run away.
In the case of a mugger/rapist/armed robber, even a .22/.25 will often dissuade them from their attack upon your person, allowing you to get away. As Una said “*And I agree wholeheartedly with GaryM above - a .32 carried is infinitely better than a .45 at home, and folks should ignore the macho online tough-guy posturing of “that’s dumb, you may as well have a BB gun”. Not every defensive use of a firearm comes down to stopping a PCP-crazed 6’8” ex-Sumo wrestler in their tracks. I’ve known folks shot by .22s who said that even though they were reasonably sure they would live, it was a tremendously demoralizing and scary experience, and from a psychological standpoint “definitely made them want to run away as fast as possible.” *
When I carried a duty weapon, that gun was either a .357 or a .45 auto. But when I carried with a CCW, my .25 Beretta was my weapon of choice. When you carry a duty weapon you may have to “take a stand” to “protect the public safety” against that “PCP-crazed 6’8” ex-Sumo wrestler ".
When you carry a CCW it is solely to protect *your own ass *(and maybe your companion’s). Running away from that *PCP-crazed 6’8" ex-Sumo wrestler * is the proper choice in that case.
Issuing? I couldn’t say. However, many police forces and sheriff’s offices still had a buy-yer-own-gun policy in those days. I’d suspect there were more than a few .32 caliber autos and revolvers carried by virtue of being the gun the new cop already owned. Just a guess, though.
This is a remarkable insight. Thank you.
Related question: if the only benefit of the PPK is concealability, why would Bond (or anyone else) have carried one? Maybe I’m getting too much from cop movies, but I get the impression that detectives always keep their sidearms in an over-the-shoulder chest holster- surely the length of the pistol makes little to no difference, relative to the width?
Shoulder holsters have always been less common than belt holsters. With good reason too; most of them are pretty uncomfortable for day-long wear.
The detectives and plainclothes officers I’ve known favored inside-the-waistband holsters if they felt the need to really conceal the weapon; outside-the-waistband if not. Their suitcoat or sportsjacket concealed the gun enough, I guess.
When you are concealing a handgun, weight is as much an issue as size. Compared to other guns from Ian Flemming’s heyday, the PPK was a real dilly. Flat, relatively light, and with that way cool DA/SA lockwork. Flemming wasn’t all that conversant on firearms, but I can see why he’d want cool-guy Bond to have a cool gun.
From the thirties to the early seventies the PP and PPK were the law enforcement workhorses in Germany. Later huge stocks were sold off and to this day former goverment PP(K) guns with markings of all kinds of state and federal agencies are ubiquitous on the market. As late as 1968 Heckler & Koch tried to break into the German law enforcement market with their HK 4.
Although its just one bit of trivia, the fact that our most famous police shooting was commited with a PPK in 1967 illustrates that the guns were definitely used in real life.
(The situation in 1948 specifically is a bit more complicated because that was in the early phase of post-war occupation and the new German law enforcement was still in its infancy.)
-
James Bond is spy, so concealability is everything
-
He is supposedly extremely good marksman - so he can make up for lack of power with good shot placement
-
Easy to suppress
-
Commonly used all around the world, so it’s hard to identify user as well as determine exact specimen of weapon
Pretty much, but not completely, glad to see you have a sense of humor… But…
It was said:
So it always is permanent loss of hearing? Who knew? Cite please.
Me shooting a hole in my floor or into a sand bucket in my own home will be prosecuted if someone who is on my property hears it and complains? Who knew? The police will get a search warrant and come in my house to look for bullet holes. What a neat way to hurrass someone you don’t like. Just make a complaint that you heard a shot in their house. Cool.
A sand bucket or my floor? You are saying that I do not know what is under my floor? Who knew? Cite please. 
Seems the law professionals here on the SDMB are saying that is okay to do what they say here and that people do not need to question or check out their local laws and actual police officers and DA’s … Who knew? I think it strange to believe ANYTHING on the net when it comes to real honest to god life and death reality in my life. Two different police chiefs in places where I have lived have personally told me that I can shoot all the holes in my floor I want. He did not care, his officers did not care and the judges did not care. But you all know better? Who knew? I will let them know that you say they are liars. I’m sure they will be impressed… Bawahaaha
I have also heard that there is a real problem with police officers who put their weapons back in their holsters after shooting two shots because that is what they always are told to do during training… Kind of a bad idea in a shoot out. Sorry, no cite but I play a cop on TV at Holiday Inn Express. Does that count?
I find that your (plural) implication that I am advocating shooting blindly through walls, doors, out side at passing cars etc. is most dishonest and deliberate. I wonder why?
Why are you saying that I advocate doing that to lost children who knock at the door when you know that I am talking about someone who is destroying your door in an attempt to get into your house and do you harm? I only said into the floor or a sand bucket.
You are advocating that people who have not really fired a weapon a lot should never see what it is like to actually fire one in their own home? Slow timed firing with ear protection, safety glasses, supervision, an approved range with all appropriate safety gear is the best way to learn in 10 shots or less what to do? Or am I implying something that you did not say? Ya think? Oh, wait, the adrenaline for a real event will protect the intended victim, allow them to not be surprised and frightened in case they have not yet achieved the training level that very few actual law enforcement officers ever really achieve? So they should have their weapons locked down at the range until they meet your qualifications?
DA’s that will prosecute me for shooting a hole in my own floor are the same kind that let my daughters murderer go free because he was a lazy corrupt politician.
I’m sure YMMV …
How many of your children have been murdered? My daughter was. Tell me again about why she was smart to depend on getting a 911 call off and that letting her attacker get into her apartment before doing ANYTHING in her own defense except running to the bathroom and locking the door was the correct plan. I’d be pleased to have your answer to that. Being in trouble for shooting a hole in her floor sure would not be preferable or legal and would have made her danger worse in your opinion. Oh, I am so impressed.
Your policies and opinions have not cost you anything yet have they? What personal attack on you or a member of your family has been made worse by doing any of the things that I SUGGESTED doing? Did you tell them that it was their fault for doing that and not doing what you say to do?
No job it too hard for the person who does not have to do it.
Have a nice day.
I was with you on this right up until the end.
Every time he gets captured and searched there’s always a scene where the villain holds his gun and says, “Ah, your famous Walther PPK.”
In fact, there’s a scene in You Only Live Twice where the subvillain X-rays him while he’s sitting in his office and sees the outline of the holstered gun… and after he leaves, says, “Walther PPK… only one man we know carries such a weapon” or something like that.
By “easy to suppress”, do you mean that silencers are more effective because it’s a little round?
Sorry for the loss of your daughter. That loss gives you no claim to expertise in this matter, however. None. Your advice is still bad.
Curiously, while the above may be true (and in general, professional espionage agents tend to regard weapons as more of a liability than a benefit), Fleming has Maj. Boothroyd (the Armorer and head of Q Branch) describes the 7.65mm PPK as having “delivery like a brick through a plate glass window.” (I suppose in comparison to the .25 ACP he carried that might be true, but it’s a pretty marginal round nonetheless.)
Stranger
No idea, but from here
it wouldn’t surprise me if a few backward/underfunded deparments were still handing out well-worn .32 Police Positives after WW2. OTOH, I would have thought that war surplus .38 revolvers, 1911s and 9mm Brownings (and ammo) would have been cheap as chips, so perhaps that was the final nail in the coffin for the .32?
But again, it shows how things move on - would any police force in the US issue something like the .38 Official Police Revolver in this day and age?
I saw a city of Chicago police officer carrying a s&w model 10 at O’hare just 3 months ago. No idea if it was issued or if he’s allowed to pick his own weapon.
2 years ago while at a rest stop in Northern Mississippi I observed a Sheriffs Deputy carrying a revolver. May have been a .357 though. Once again, no idea if the department issued it or if it was just his choice. Some departments allow for officers to pick their own.
And there’s nothing wrong with a revolver. I can’t cite it but I’ve been told in training several times that statistically most police shootings fall into the rule of three: 3 rounds or less fired, 3 seconds or less and it’s done, 3 yards or less. So a five or six shot revolver is fine in most cases. And if loaded with the right ammo the .38 is an adequate defensive round.
Nothing at all wrong with a large frame .38 revolver, one that can digest a lot of
.38+p+ ammo. Speedloaders make the reload problem almost moot.
I was thinking of European police forces when I wrote the OP. As I said in post #11, ‘In the U.S. police departments traditionally relied on the .38 Special, so I doubt any .32s were ever issued here.’
kellner’s answer is the one I would have given if I got here sooner, but is more complete than mine would have been.
GusNSpot: I’m sorry to hear about your daughter.