New (to me) 32ACP/7.65 Pistols

[Moonpie]

+2 on Buffalo Bore.

Good stuff.

 

[satx78247]

motorcarman

There is NO criminal or civil case at law in any jurisdiction in the USA wherein a court found against ANY lawful self-defense shooting based on the KIND of ammo used by the person, who fired in lawful self-defense.

My advice: Do NOT believe the URBAN MYTH about "too cruel or too powerful" IF you are a CIVILIAN firing to protect an innocent person or one's self. = Shootings are either JUSTIFIED & LAWFUL or NOT.
(Rules for LEOs MAY differ in certain States.)

yours, satx

 

[benenglish]

There is NO criminal or civil case at law in any jurisdiction in the USA wherein a court found against ANY lawful self-defense shooting based on the KIND of ammo used by the person, who fired in lawful self-defense.

There are too many disclaimers in that sentence for anyone to poke holes in it.

However, the urban myth to which you refer is, in fact, quite real. The power or configuration of the firearm used in self-defense can be a contributing factor to whether or not a prosecution happens and how the case is presented to a jury.

The most famous such case is Arizona v. Harold Fish. According to Fish, he shot two loose dogs that attacked him; then the person walking the dogs charged him and Fish killed that man, too. The original investigator believed it was self-defense but the county attorney disagreed and pursued charges. At trial, it became very clear that the prosecutor's office had a real bug up their butt about the fact that Fish used a Kimber chambered in 10mm. The prosecution laid it on thick about how that was too much gun and was evidence of malice. Post-trial jury interviews showed that the jurors bought into that line of thinking. Fish was convicted.

No, that's not a case where a court found against a lawful self-defense shooting based on the kind of ammo used. That's because the jury decided that the shooting was not lawful self-defense. However, it's distinctly possible, based on their actions, that the prosecution might not have proceeded if they hadn't been all hyped up about the super-gun used.

The Fish case is far from the only one where the weapon or ammo used was a contributing factor. No, it's never the sole basis for a finding (as your language requires) but it can be something with which a defense must deal.

 

[satx78247]

benenglish,

Fyi, I used to work for Henry Hudson, former US Attorney for the Eastern District of VA & later Director of the US Marshal's Service .
Director Hudson said that what I posted was 100% correct, as of the date that I left his employment, to include the FISH case.
(Btw, did you check out the stated reason that the Jury Foreman said that they voted for conviction? = Presuming that the Foreman was TRUTHFUL, the jury's decision had NOTHING whatever to do with the sort of firearm/ammo used. Instead, the jury thought that the defendant was arrogant, did not believe that he acted in self-defense & "acted like a vigilante".)

A search of criminal/civil cases summarized in WESTLAW states that there were NO such cases as of 31DEC18.

SORRY but you cannot "poke holes in" my comment, as it has NONE. = Once more, my advice is: Do NOT believe the URBAN MYTH.

yours,satx

 

[benenglish]

SORRY but you cannot "poke holes in" my comment, as it has NONE.

Yeah. I know. You constructed it that way.

Look at it again:

There is NO criminal or civil case at law in any jurisdiction in the USA wherein a court found against ANY lawful self-defense shooting based on the KIND of ammo used by the person, who fired in lawful self-defense.

Of course no jury has made a finding against someone on the basis of weapon or ammo used in a lawful shooting. If it was found to be a lawful shooting then the jury, by definition, did not find against the shooter!

The logical closed loop you present with that statement, however, does nothing to back up your admonition:

Do NOT believe the URBAN MYTH about "too cruel or too powerful"

Neither statement follows from the other.

Simply put, you have provided no evidence or logical argument that "Your choice of self-defense firearm/ammo can cause you trouble, even in a righteous shooting" is an urban myth. It isn't. Unless, of course, the Gary Fadden case (and many more like it) never happened.

 

[satx78247]

benenglish,

PARDON ME for TRUSTING the legal opinion of Henry Hudson over yours. = He personally told me that what the MYTH is nothing more than that: "HH" actually said that the myth was a steaming pile of horse manure.

Are you an attorney & member of the bar??
(I'm not only NOT a lawyer but I don't even play one on TV. = Just a longtime investigator & Mike Papa; nonetheless, I listen well to those who know a great deal more than I ever would otherwise about the law.)

yours, satx

 

[motorcarman]

When I carry a firearm I carry whatever the local LEOs carry or advertised CARRY ammo from major manufacturers. You can carry hollow point filled fulminate of mercury exploding rocket launched GYRO JET TROUNDS if you want.

This is not supposed to be a MY DICK IS BIGGER THAN YOURS response to this post.

I simply carry what I want and you can carry what you want. I like Buffalo Bore for my 32 ACP carry guns.

Next will come the argument that the 32 ACP is NOT ENOUGH GUN to even carry as a defensive weapon. The Colt 1851 was quite the weapon for it's time and yet it is not very powerful by today's standards? (ask wild Bill about his pair)

I like all my 32s and my Buffalo Bore. I even carry my 7.62×38R Nagant just because.

 

[benenglish]

Oh, my. Lessee, here. You start by using circular reasoning to shore up an unproven argument based mostly on a poorly presented bit of personal incredulity. When called on that, you choose to discount or ignore solid, factual counter-examples and, instead, ...

PARDON ME for TRUSTING the legal opinion of Henry Hudson over yours. ... Are you an attorney & member of the bar??

... shift to an appeal to authority.

Keep going. With this much effort again, you could check off pretty much every intellectually dishonest debate tactic in existence.

I trust that the members of TGT can look up the Fish and Gary Fadden cases, read about them, compare them to the unsupported-in-this-thread pronouncements made by you and Mr. Hudson, and make up their own minds.

The stupid thing about this exchange is that we probably agree vastly more than we disagree. I'm sure that 99-point-something percent of the time, a good shoot is a good shoot without regard to the tools. Those edge cases, though? They exist. You, Mr. Hudson, and I have apparently never had to deal with one but at least I'm willing to acknowledge they exist. They're so rare that they really shouldn't influence anyone's reasonable choice of tools but they still exist.

 

[diesel1959]

When I carry a firearm I carry whatever the local LEOs carry or advertised CARRY ammo from major manufacturers. You can carry hollow point filled fulminate of mercury exploding rocket launched GYRO JET TROUNDS if you want.

This is not supposed to be a MY DICK IS BIGGER THAN YOURS response to this post.

I simply carry what I want and you can carry what you want. I like Buffalo Bore for my 32 ACP carry guns.

Next will come the argument that the 32 ACP is NOT ENOUGH GUN to even carry as a defensive weapon. The Colt 1851 was quite the weapon for it's time and yet it is not very powerful by today's standards? (ask wild Bill about his pair)

I like all my 32s and my Buffalo Bore. I even carry my 7.62×38R Nagant just because.

With all my .32ACP pistols, I load the mags using good European FMJ except for the top round in the mag. For that round, and for the round in the chamber, I use Underwood 55gr solid copper extreme penetrator ammo.

The reason I use FMJ for all the other rounds is that with .32ACP there's a thing known as "rim lock" as a consequence of the fact that the .32ACP is not a rimless design. The rim sticks out just enough that it can prevent proper function from a pistol's magazine if the top round's rim is behind the rim of the round beneath it, hence rim-lock. This is most likely to occur when you use rounds that are less than the total length of an FMJ round. At least, that's been my experience.

So, for me, when it comes to .32ACP pistols, the top round in the mag can be whatever hollowpoint/solid/whatever, but all the rounds beneath it are FMJ.

 

[skfullgun]

I pretty much do the same.

 

[satx78247]

motorcarman,

Fwiw, MG Joe Wheeler, Commanding General of all Cavalry Troops in Cuba during the S-A War killed a total of 5 enemy soldiers (including a German Artillery Captain, who was "in theory" a Military Observer but was actually "directing direct & indirect fires" of the Spanish Army from San Juan Hill. = Inserting himself into the battle as a combatant cost him his life as MG Wheeler shot him through the head with one of his pair of Colt's Model 1851 fully-engraved revolvers.)

Note: Throughout the campaign in Cuba MG "Fighting Joe" Wheeler was armed with a Colt's Model of 1862 Pocket Police in his right coat pocket, the pair of engraved Model 1851 AND 2 pairs of Colt's Model of 1860 Army revolvers (One pair in holsters on each side of his saddle's pommel) & reportedly yet another Model 1860 Army in his saddlebags.
""VERY well armed" was "The War Child", during service in the CSA Cavalry & in the S-A War.

STEVEN CRANE (the author of THE RED BADGE OF COURAGE) was a war correspondent during the campaign in Cuba & asked MG Wheeler WHY he was "- - - - carrying those old obsolete guns."
MG Wheeler responded, "These Colt's revolvers served well enough for killing Yankees, so I'm sure that they will be adequate for killing Spaniels".
(Wheeler always referred to the Spanish Army's personnel as "Spaniels".)

Note: MG Joe Wheeler is one of my main heroes.

yours, satx

 

[jar]

Wasn't the topic something about 32ACP/7.65 Pistols?

 

[skfullgun]

Wasn't the topic something about 32ACP/7.65 Pistols?

That was days ago...

BTW, I stepped outside and fired another 13 flawless rounds of fmj through my 81 this morning. It shoots a bit high, but what a pleasure!

 

[Moonpie]

This thread needs pics of .32 guns.

 

[skfullgun]

Moonpie,
Is that .32 gun in your pocket for fun?

Nice collection!

 

[jar]

This thread needs pics of .32 guns.

Little brothers to the 81s:

 

[SQLGeek]

Yep, I need a Tomcat. Damn gun list is getting long.

 

[motorcarman]

Moonpie,
Is that .32 gun in your pocket for fun?

Nice collection!

He's also got a razor in his shoe!!!

 

[Moonpie]

Moonpie,
Is that .32 gun in your pocket for fun?

Nice collection!

and a razor in my shoe.

 

[satx78247]

Little brothers to the 81s:

View attachment 182885

View attachment 182886​

jar,

Is that Model 34 either Condor Legion or WWII Luftwaffe marked, perchance?
(Have you removed the grip panels & looked for military markings?)

The Beretta 34 & the PPK in .32ACP were the FAVORITE handguns of the Condor Legion & Luftwaffe pilots.

yours, satx