00 Buck or 32 ACP ?

[orionz06]

Orion:

I see. You are saying that the .380 has better penetration - more comparable to the buckshot in question.
If that is so, I stand corrected.
Seems, though, (could be wrong) that the fatter .362 bullet would transfer more energy to the target than the .356 bullet. Is penetration a good measure of energy dump? (Not arguing....just thinking and typing.) Neither, of course, is the equal of all those buckshot pellets.
I wonder how effective the Stechkin automatic pistol was/is; it fits right with the OP's theoretical firearm - fully auto in one mode. Lots of bullets fast. Hmmm....maybe it would be the equal. (cyclic = 600rpm/ 20 round magazine)
http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg22-e.htm
Pete

Energy and diameter are not The best measure for many reasons. Energy is measured at the muzzle, does not account for energy lost due to drag, energy lost due to wind, and energy lost deforming the round upon penetration. It is a great way to measure potential, but I feel penetration and expansion are most useful. Digging deeper just starts fights and allows too much to be lost. Also using penetration, expanded size, and weight retained is the simplest because that it all we really care about.

Just my thoughts based on how I think at my job.

[ungawa]

Every time you double the velocity of a given projectile, you quadruple the kinetic energy - which any person with even just a 1st grade education could tell you it will penetrate further.

Although it's probably true in this case, that's a very poor rule of thumb.

The most notable exceptions being softpoints and some types of FMJ, Most of the hollowpoints and FMJs people generally use will penetrate less when pushed to higher velocities. Due to early/extreme opening for JHP and early disruption for the most common FMJs.

[Rodolfo Fierro]

00 buck has 13-15" of penetration, exceeding the magic number of 12", .32 is lucky to get 8". I would think the reduced number of shots to place the buckshot would be better. I would also note that .32 should be better than a sharp stick or knife right away as it provides distance that the edged weapon cannot.

Unless we are being invaded by a bear, wouldn't 13" of penetration be overpenetration ?

[NikeBauer21]

Unless we are being invaded by a bear, wouldn't 13" of penetration be overpenetration ?

Depends what you're shooting at. If you are shooting through a sheet of plywood or gypsum board, then yes, it would definitely be too much. If you're trying to punch through metal or another high-density object, then it may be appropriate. In some instances where one's life may be at stake, under-penetration can be more dangerous than over-penetration.

[orionz06]

Unless we are being invaded by a bear, wouldn't 13" of penetration be overpenetration ?

Depends, how thick is a torso? Remember we are measuring penetration into a homogeneous gel that only approximates human tissue. Add clothes, bones, variations between muscle and fat, organ density, etc to the equation and there is no clue where we end up.

[ungawa]

Unless we are being invaded by a bear, wouldn't 13" of penetration be overpenetration ?

Well, here goes some really argumentative stuff again...

FBI says 18" is optimal, and 12" is minimal. That's against a human.

And, the resistance of skin to an exit wound equals an additional 4" from the skin itself.

Plus, I plan to miss a whole lot. Less than cops, but still quite a bit. So I'm more worried about where missed rounds go than whether or not a round comes out the back of somebody with little energy left.

[rikilii]

If you truly mean center mass, then the difference is most likely a dead guy with 9 holes in him on the one hand, and a dead guy with 9 holes in the front of him and big bloody mess on the back of him, on the other hand.