is the .32 good enough?

Discussion in 'CCW & Open Carry' started by Bertus, Mar 24, 2019.

  1. ajole

    ajole Supporting Member

    34,507
    10,727
    NE Utah
    We better be...we usually have less rounds on tap...:D
     
  2. lklawson

    lklawson Staff Member

    IMS, rounds on target. And, also IMS, only head or torso hits counted, not extremities. But you'd have to follow the link and read it.

    Peace favor your sword,
    Kirk
     

  3. lklawson

    lklawson Staff Member

    Did he buy it at an oriental massage parlor? ;)

    Peace favor your sword,
    Kirk
     
  4. ajole

    ajole Supporting Member

    34,507
    10,727
    NE Utah
    If he did it in Florida, they probably have video....
     
  5. How very crafty of you...
     
    Greg B. likes this.
  6. greg_r

    greg_r Lifetime Supporter

    8,912
    6,412
    I need to go and look at this report again. If it’s the one I think it is, it’s a favorite, but I think the results are skewed. This was a report on actual shootings, and the smaller calibers seem to have a pretty impressive stopping rate. But the numbers are skewed, the 380 for example examined 50 some shootings, the 9mm was over 100. It’s a math thing.
     
    lklawson likes this.
  7. ajole

    ajole Supporting Member

    34,507
    10,727
    NE Utah
    The number of reports don’t change the validity of the stats, unless they are so few and spread out that the data spread isn’t within the standard deviations, or are so few as to be meaningless.

    50 vs over 100 is still a viable statistical comparison, until someone does more and comes up with a very different set of values.

    Comparing different numbers of data points is totally acceptable, if done correctly. It’s a math thing.;)
     
    Rerun likes this.
  8. greg_r

    greg_r Lifetime Supporter

    8,912
    6,412
    We run analytics on our road tractors. I can look at the same tractor over different time periods that have different miles covered and the reports will always be different.

    Example tractor #1234 on trip #1 ran 1200 miles and ran 2800 miles on trip #2. Fuel economy, hard braking, top gear, idling, etc. etc. are always different. The advantage across the board usually go to the trip with the lowest number of miles. I attribute his to the fact that the larger number of miles allow for a greater number of variables.

    I would think that comparing 50 of this to 100 of that would be skewed by the same chance of a greater number of variables?

    But here we are comparing a 32 vs a 380 vs a 9mm, they have different power levels.

    The tractors are the same. We are comparing Cummings vs PACCAR vs Mack, they have different power levels as well.

    In the tractors, what are the fuel levels, the stress on the equipment, the loaded weight, etc, etc.

    In the sopping level charts, was the organ full of body fluids,what were the stress levels, what did the bullet have to penetrate before it hit something important, etc,etc.

    I don’t know the answer, I am not programmer or a mathematician. But I do know that I have even taught, by the programmers / supplier of the analytics system to disregard the lower counts to get a more accurate picture of reality. A glaring example of the 1200 vs 2800 miles I noted above is fuel economy. The lower mileage trip will almost always have better fuel mileage, usually by a quarter to a third of a gallon.
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2019
  9. ajole

    ajole Supporting Member

    34,507
    10,727
    NE Utah
    Yes. But trucks and fuel use and braking numbers aren't the same as gun uses for SD. Different variables, different interaction of the variables, etc.

    All a smaller sample size does is give a larger margin of error. But a larger margin doesn't invalidate the data or the results, it just gives more wiggle room.

    Your 1200 vs 2800 miles must be lots of city use? Out here, it would more likely be the other way, lots of highway use, and the long trips would be more efficient. But then, the east west routes are all over a pass, while the north south routes are usually flatter. So more variables.
     
  10. Bertus

    Bertus Member

    2,780
    1,070
    Maine
    I was looking on line for other stuff and ran across this add, it shows the p32 and p3at next to each other. Noticeable difference in size, and if anyone wants one they have them in stock.
    p32.png
     
  11. SWAGA

    SWAGA No longer broke... Lifetime Supporter

    No, it shows two different pictures at different zoom levels.
    The .32 is NOT that much smaller.
     
    ajole and Bertus like this.
  12. Dave4903

    Dave4903 My other car is a M60A3 Supporting Member

    So, the question is whether a 32 will stop the Killer Rabbit.
     
    Bertus and Think1st like this.
  13. Bertus

    Bertus Member

    2,780
    1,070
    Maine
    only if you hit it:)! haha
     
  14. Think1st

    Think1st Supporting Member

    8,757
    2,234
    Florida
    You'll need a shotgun for that. The damn Killer Rabbit is friggin' fast and jumps high! That thing'll put clay rabbits to shame.
     
    Bertus likes this.
  15. Rob4095

    Rob4095 Member

    34
    27
    If you want power and versatility in a .32 caliber firearm, try the .327 Federal Magnum
     
  16. That depends on the rabbit, Doc!
    [​IMG]
     
    Think1st, histed and lklawson like this.
  17. ajole

    ajole Supporting Member

    34,507
    10,727
    NE Utah
    Obviously not. You need a Holy Hand Grenade for that. Didn't you watch the documentary?

    "....lobbest thou thy holy hand grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it....
     
    Dubar, Bertus, lklawson and 2 others like this.
  18. wganz

    wganz Supporting Member

    Still think that a JHP frame sized pistol in .32ACP/7.65 Browning with a 20 round magazine would be the ZHIT!
     
  19. SWAGA

    SWAGA No longer broke... Lifetime Supporter

    Nah, they’ve made a better option

    [​IMG]
     
    Bertus and wganz like this.