As anyone that has ever shot a jug of water with a high-power handgun will tell you, yes. They absolutely do. A more appropriate question is, ‘Does it matter?‘ The answer to that is complicated and more than a little ambiguous.

Now, just so we all know where I am coming from I’m a layman. I’m not a forensic scientist, a trauma surgeon or a medical researcher of any kind. I have made no scientific study of wounds or terminal ballistics. I’ve read a lot, and seen a lot, and am basing my opinion on that. It’s arguably an informed opinion, but it’s no more than that, so take it for what it’s worth and if you’re curious do your own research.

Watching a water bottle explode or high-speed footage of the temporary cavity produced by a high-power pistol bullet is impressive. These are consistent media that respond in a consistent fashion, and can be informative. It is accepted, both in the medical community and gun communities, that bullets travelling over 2200 fps. can create a temporary cavity that exceeds the elastic limits of human tissue, and actually cause permanent damage in tissue that the bullet never actually touches (technically this is Hydraulic shock.) They also reliably create hydrostatic (neural) shock. But after thirty years of study the FBI has determined that this effect either does not occur with standard pistol bullets, or does not do so reliably enough to to be counted when evaluating the potential performance of a pistol bullet.

The thing is that unlike water or ballistic gel, a human body is very much not a consistent media. It’s full of tissues and organs of varying density and elasticity that each respond individually to shock. Some of these organs are full of in-compressible fluids, some have air in them, which changes how they respond to compression. Then there’s bone, which is a whole ‘nuther story. Regardless the FBI has decided that only the permanent wound cavity is a reliable predictor of a bullet’s potential effectiveness.

A survey of the medical literature shows that nerve damage can and does occur at a distance from the bullet’s permanent wound track even with pistol bullets, and it is very likely that the size of the temporary cavity has an affect on this. Small diameter, low velocity bullets that do not expand (.22, .25 & .32) are unlikely to produce this effect. Larger diameter bullets and higher-velocity bullets are more likely to, especially if they expand significantly. This damage is usually mild and often, but not always, temporary. Whether or not this affects whether a person is ‘stopped’ has not been evaluated, but as stated before the FBI has determined that this is not a reliable predictor of a bullets effectiveness.

There are a lot of variables; the exact bullet placement, the individual’s body type. health, weight, body fat, mental preparedness… all of these things and many more come into play.

So in answer to the question ‘Does it matter?’ the answers are, ‘Yes, unless it doesn’t’ and ‘Maybe sometimes.’ Not a very satisfactory resolution, but it’s an honest one, and it’s the one supported by the available data.

On the balance, speaking of defensive handguns, if given a choice between a high-velocity hollow-point with adequate penetration and a bullet that doesn’t expand and/or is low velocity, it would seem prudent to go with the former. The advice to carry the most potent handgun you shoot well and can carry comfortably seems to be well-advised. If hydrostatic shock is going to be a factor, the available information seems to indicate that it will most likely occur with a powerful cartridge, and an expanding bullet will enhance this effect. Probably.

As a caveat, with handguns the most important and reliable predictors of effectiveness are still, in order, Penetration, Shot Placement and Permanent Wound Cavity… but it doesn’t hurt to stack the deck. If you can achieve those three things, adding a large temporary wound cavity certainly isn’t going to make it less effective! In a defensive shooting any advantage is worthwhile, as long as it doesn’t degrade the three factors listed above.

Micahel Tinker Pearce, 1 September 2020

If you like what you see here, please consider clicking the link above and supporting me on Patreon.

In 1871 Frank Wesson joined Gilbert Harrington in establishing a firearms manufacturing company, Wesson & Harrington. In 1874 Gilbert bought Frank out, and Harrington and Richardson was established. They made their fame in the 19th C. by producing an extensive line of top-break revolvers. These guns were not of the highest quality, but they were inexpensive and generally good, serviceable weapons.

By the dawn of the 20th C. they had expanded into shotguns, and then into semi-automatic pistols and solid-frame revolvers. In the post-WW2 period they became best known for their single-shot shotguns, single shot rifles and solid-frame revolvers. All of these weapons were basic, inexpensive and robust, and put meat on the table in many a rural home.

In the latter half of the 20th C. their solid-frame revolvers in .22LR, .22 Magnum and .32 S&W Long were the quintessential ‘Truck’ or ‘Tackle-box’ gun. Good enough to do the job, cheap enough you didn’t so much mind if you lost them. Double-action triggers were rather famously heavy, but for casual use and plinking most people thumb-cocked them anyway, so that wasn’t much of an issue for most people..

The economically-priced .32s were a popular choice for self defense among the financially challenged, though I knew at least one police officer that carried a Sidekick as a back-up. .32 S&W Long is a mild-shooting and very accurate round, and the longer-barreled .32s were sometimes used as an entry-level target pistols, for small game hunting or, of course, home defense.

These guns have yet to get any real interest from collectors and remain affordable to this day, with decent examples available from $120-$200. I’ve wanted one for some time, but there was always a higher priority. When one came across the counter at McCallen Defense Chris knew just who to call, and in fact he made me a very nice deal on it. When I went in to pick it up I brought a box of target wadcutters to try it out at the attached indoor range. We’ll get to that shortly.

The Guardian has a 4″ Barrel, a rear sight that is adjustable for windage, a solid frame with a swing-out cylinder and a square butt with black plastic grips. There is no removable side-plate; all the internals are inserted into the frame through the hammer-slot or from underneath after the trigger guard is removed. The gun may be fired either single or double action. The small lever at the back of the trigger guard is actually the single-action trigger; when the gun is fully cocked the trigger rests against the lever, and pulling the trigger rotates the lever to release the hammer from the full-cocked position. Earlier guns (like this one) are equipped with a rebounding hammer. When the trigger is released the hammer is held back about 0.10″, preventing it from striking the firing pin if the gun is dropped. Later models were equipped with a transfer-bar safety. The cylinder is opened by pulling the cylinder pin forward, and once the cylinder has swung out this also serves to push out the ejector star. The back of the cylinder is relieved to accommodate the cartridge rims.

The left side of the barrel is marked ‘Model 732′ and ’32 S&W,’ though the gun is actually chambered in .32 S&W Long. The left side of the frame is marked simple ‘H&R INC. U.S.A.’ The serial number is located at the bottom of the grip-frame.

The grip provides a secure two-finger grip; I have large hands and my pinky finger does not fit on the grip, but it’s actually comfortable. The sights are square and give a good sight picture. The trigger pull is heavy, but decently smooth and breaks cleanly. The single action trigger is decently crisp and clean, though again it is not light.

These were a low-priced gun, and the finish reflects that. They are not without flaws, either; the plastic seat for the mainspring is prone to breakage. They are readily available and fairly simple to replace. I haven’t checked this one yet; if it has the plastic seat I will probably fabricate a new one from aluminum, after which the gun will certainly outlast me by a significant margin.

If abused they can go out of time, and internal springs can break. They are not hard to disassemble, but reassembly is a right pain in the posterior. Ask me how I know… then duck.

This gun is in remarkably good condition, with only a small amount of rust pitting on the bottom of the grip frame. Other than that it could be showroom new; the cylinder is unlined and there is no holster wear. Quite remarkable, given that this particular gun was manufactured in 1965!

Shooting the Model 732

As I stated above I went straight to the indoor range at Champion Arms (which shares a building with McCallen Tactical) to try the gun out. I had some 90gr. HBWCs loaded over 2.5gr. of Unique, a fairly typical target load, which gets around 780 fps. from this gun’s 4″ barrel. Recoil was very mild, and the gun was quite pleasant to fire. While the double-action trigger is heavy it was smooth enough to make it easy to shoot good groups at seven yards.

I rolled a target out to 25 yards and, mindful that the gun was shooting high at seven yards, used a 6-o’clock hold, essentially setting the paper on top of the front sight. The results were gratifying- firing single-action, standing/unsupported produced a 1.9″ group (measured edge-to-edge.)

This is a straight-shooting little gun, capable of very respectable accuracy. Overall I’m quite delighted with it; it’s a solid, honest little revolver, and never mind if the finish and looks are a bit rough. It does what it needs to do, and does it well. I expect this gun to get a lot of range time, and might well put some bunnies in the bag as well.

Michael Tinker Pearce, 30 August 2020

If you like what you see here, please consider clicking the link above and supporting me on Patreon.

…but if you can’t find a Clerke First it will do. OK, that’s a bit unfair. The D32 is not what you’d call good, but it’s not dreadful either.

In the 1960s a lot of folks were getting very concerned that cheap firearms were available to the ‘wrong sort of people.’ Criminals? No. Poor people? Nope- it was even worse than that. Black people were getting them. Something had to be done, so they pretended criminals liked these small, inexpensive guns. They didn’t of course; criminals preferred full-sized, more intimidating handguns.

So, with the entirely spurious claim that they were trying to prevent crime, politicians and the NRA pushed through the Gun Control Act of 1968, which, among other things, forbade the importation of small, inexpensive European pistols. Weirdly, since criminals weren’t enamored of these guns, this aspect of the bill did nothing to prevent crime. It did, however, make it more expensive and thus harder for the ‘wrong people’ to arm themselves.

George Jennings, a machinist and engineer, saw an opportunity. In 1970 he formed Raven Arms and made the P-25. This was a .25 ACP semi-auto made largely out of injection-molded zinc-alloy, with the barrel and critical components made of steel. It was simple, it worked and it was very, very inexpensive.

Stay with me here, this is relevant.

In time George’s children formed their own companies, making similarly inexpensive arms. One was Jennings, and the other was Davis. Jennings started with a small .22 semi-auto that was mechanically identical to the Raven (though it was cosmetically different,) and Davis started with a line of derringers in .22lr, .22 magnum, .25 ACP and .32 ACP. Davis was in operation from 1982 to 1999, and eventually produced semi-autos (again based on the Raven) in calibers up to .380 ACP. They weren’t very durable in the long term, but they were cheap and they worked.

I bought a Davis D32 in 1985 or so for the princely sum of $40, and it was a constant companion while I was on duty, riding in my right front pants pocket. It was a back-up to my back-up; less a lest resort than a ‘Hail Mary.’ When I cocked the hammer and pulled the trigger it went ‘bang,’ and for a contact-distance weapon that was sufficient. Of course the point of aim and the point of impact weren’t never but similar (to paraphrase one of my favorite movies,) but I learned to work with it.

The gun went away at some long-ago point, and I spared them little thought until recently… we’ll get back to that. When a buddy offered me an H&R 732 revolver, and offered to throw in this D32 as a sweetener, I was happy to take him up on it.

So, What is This Marvel of Engineering?

The D32 is essentially a smaller version of Remington’s iconic over-and-under derringer. Mostly. Sort of. Like the Raven P25 the barrels and frame are injection-molded Zamac (a zinc alloy) with steel barrel-liners and internals.

To load the gun you must pull the hammer back to the half-cock notch. Then you rotate the lever on the right side of the frame 180 degrees forward, which allows the barrels to tip up and gives access to the chambers. Once the chambers are loaded you cannot lower the hammer or it will press the firing pin against the primer. If you wish to lower the hammer you will need to set the safety. If the hammer is down on the safety, you cannot disengage the safety without at least half-cocking the hammer.

Like it’s distant forebear, the D32 is single-action. Cocking the hammer fires one chamber, and repeating this fires the other. Pretty simple. Open the mechanism, slide the extractor out to get the shells started then pluck them from the chambers and you’re ready to reload. The cross-bolt safety blocks the hammer from striking the firing pin, and you cannot drop the hammer from half-cock by pulling the trigger. If loaded the gun should be carried on half-cock with the safety engaged for maximum… well, safety.

You would probably be perfectly safe with the hammer set to the half-cock notch, but I’m not sure I’d chance it. When drawing mine I would disengage the safety with my thumb, then shift to the hammer and cock the weapon, aim (with more optimism than confidence ) and fire.

Shooting the Wee Beasty

Down at Champion Arms I bought a silhouette target and ran it out to three yards, aimed and fired. The trigger isn’t great, but I have shot some very expensive derringers that were worse. Likewise the sights are surprisingly usable. Even more surprising the sights actually bear some resemblance to where the bullets hit.

One barrel shot to point of aim, the other about four inches higher, but both are centered. I was actually quite pleased with this; my previous D32 were not well centered. In what I can only describe as a fit of optimism I taped the holes and ran the target out to seven yards, with a significantly less happy result.

OK, let’s call three yards ‘maximum effective range.’ In fairness that’s what the gun was designed for- table-top distances, and it will do the job. Honestly for a gun with a 2″ sight radius and a less than awesome trigger I have to say it does alright.

I don’t actually think the gun is inherently inaccurate, mind you. Both barrels put the bullets in pretty much the same place every time; the spread is due entirely to the operator at this range. Sure, each barrel groups in a different place… but the problems here are the operator and the fact that it’s not an easy gun to wring accuracy out of.

After twenty rounds I was ready to move on, and it was less due to the gun than to the fact that I shoved a Craftsman work-bench into my van last night. I had other guns to shoot, and my back was registering it’s displeasure already.

So, My New EDC?

Not hardly. It’s a fun little trip down memory lane, but it’s about as big and heavy as my Seecamp LWS32, which holds three times as many cartridges and delivers them with significantly greater ease, speed and accuracy… and even that isn’t my primary EDC. Not to mention that while this gun works it’s not all that well-made, and doesn’t offer up much in the way of aesthetics to attract interest.

That’s not to say I don’t have plans for this gun… which mostly involve taking it apart and copying the mechanism to make an over-and-under derringer from scratch. Maybe chambered in .251 TCR…

Anyway, I’ve always considered a derringer of this type to be a fairly dubious proposition for self-defense, but they’re fun and carry a sense of history. Sometimes that’s all a gun needs.

Michael Tinker Pearce, 28 August 2020

If you like what you see here, please consider clocking the link above and supporting me on Patreon.