I wrote this on Veteran’s Day 2016 and thought I would share it here.

We were young. We joined because we wanted to serve, because we were idealists. We joined because we wanted help paying for college. To help insure the safety of our nation, our friends, families and loved ones. We joined because we were bored. To run away from home. To see the world. To give something back to our country. To provide for the people we care about. For adventure. To stay out of jail. Because we just didn’t know what the hell else to do with our lives. We served because we could, and so that the rest of you wouldn’t have to.

Whatever our reasons we served our country. We put our lives at risk for our people, our government, our way of life. We served alongside people of all races, all backgrounds, from all different parts of our nation. We met people from other countries and learned what it meant to be a foreigner. We met people who hated us, who loved us, who needed us. Who were glad we were there even while they resented our presence. It changes how you see people, your country, your world.

We learned things. How to survive. How to try as hard as we can, how to push ourselves beyond our limits. Learned to have each other’s backs, even if we didn’t like or understand each other. We learned what we were capable of, and what we could do together. How to live, how to die, even how to kill. That changes a person.

Then we came back. Some of us came back stronger, prouder, more complete. Some of us came back broken in body, in spirit, in soul; with wounds that never quite stop bleeding. Now you look us in the eye, shake our hand and thank us for our service, and you have no idea what that means… and what it cost.

Which is as it should be. Because in the end, no matter why we joined, we served so that you wouldn’t have to know. So that our world would not become your world.

Today, on Veteran’s Day, I say this to my fellow veterans- and I say it as someone that does know- Thank you for your service.

It’s no secret to readers of this blog that I have a ‘thing’ for antique revolvers, and unsurprisingly, antique revolvers often fire antique cartridges. Most of these cartridges started as black powder and are now loaded with smokeless powders. The question that intrigues me is this: are these cartridges still genuinely useful for self-defense in accordance with our modern understanding of terminal ballistics?

For some cartridges the answer, which we already know, is a resounding ‘no,’ because they were viewed as inadequate when they were at their height of use. Things like .22 Short, .32 Colt etc. were acknowledged to be less than marginal in their period of use.

Others like .45 Colt, .44-40, .38-40 etc. are known to be effective and some are still in use today; .45 Colt can even be had in state-of-the-art modern defensive ammunition. We don’t need to wonder about these cartridges either.

By the turn of the 20th Century .32 S&W (the short one) was considered the lower threshold for a self-defense cartridge, and had largely passed from the scene in that role by the end of WW2. .32 S&W Long and .38 S&W persisted in the role into the 1970s before largely fading from the scene. .32-20, once a popular cartridge for Police, was designed to be fired in both rifles and revolvers, and there are still rifles available in this caliber. With rifle-only loads it is still used for hunting small to medium game. These loads are far too high-pressure to fire in an old revolver of course, but many loads from older manuals and reloading data are in the same power range as .32 H&R magnum out of a 4″ revolver, and that cartridge is viewed by many as viable for modern self-defense. What might this venerable cartridge achieve with a modern hollow-point?

What I propose to do is test some of these obsolete cartridges by accepted modern standards and see how they fare. I want to test them both with loads approximating their original configuration and using modern bullets and smokeless powder. I’ve done some limited testing already with .38 S&W, but nothing with the scientific rigor of an FBI standard test. I want to change that; get the gel, do the tests and see what can be achieved.

This does not mean I will be hot-loading these cartridges. I’m going to be firing the loads out of my own, mostly antique, revolvers and I am not keen on breaking them. I may push them a very small amount beyond loads that I would consider appropriate for extensive target shooting, but since these are my babies I am not going to put them unduly at risk. Whenever possible I will use loads I have already developed and fired extensively.

So, what cartridges do I intend to test? To start with no rimfires. They are problematic to reload, and the workarounds are not genuine approximations of their performance. No loads that are still in widespread use and are mass produced in modern variants. No loads developed to use a heel-base bullet, largely because their foibles and deficiencies are already pretty well understood.

So what does that leave us with? .32 S&W, the first centerfire cartridge broadly used in American pocket revolvers, .38 S&W which followed close on it’s heels, .32 S&W Long, .32-20 Winchester and .450 Adams. The first four of these will be tested with black powder that approximates the original cartridge, modern factory ammunition and whatever loads I can devise. .450 Adams is a bit of a special case (so to speak.) While it was held to be underpowered for military use it was quite popular in compact ‘bulldog’ revolvers until around WW1. I’ll try to approximate the original black powder loading and try my hand at modern loads, but the only factory ammunition currently available has a reputation for blowing up guns, so I’ll pass.

.38 S&W testing will be limited to loads typically used in small defensive revolvers; testing will not include military cartridges which use the same case, like .38-200 or later variants used in Enfield or Webley military revolvers. These loads are too robust for use in the sort of top-break pocket revolvers where it was most commonly employed in the U.S.

Other cartridges will not be tested because they too closely approximate modern cartridges. .38 ACP for example spans the gap between 9×18 Makarov and 9mm Parabellum; it would not be difficult to develop an effective modern self-defense load for this cartridge. Likewise 9mm Largo, .30 Mauser and .30 Luger are pretty well understood, and .25 ACP is still in production and is available in modern loadings.

The test will be performed on Clear Ballistics gel with four layers of 16oz. cotton denim in an approximation of the FBI’s standardized testing. Clear ballistics clear gel is slightly denser than traditional ballistics gel, but is less temperature sensitive, easier to handle and more reusable than the old formulas. Desired performance is 12-18″ of penetration. Expansion is a plus, but realistically is only likely with the .32-20; in the lower-powered cartridges expansion is either unavailable due to low velocity or will limit penetration too much if it occurs. I will test the old standard of a 148gr. hollow-base wadcutter loaded backwards in .38 S&W; I am pretty sure it will under-penetrate, but what the hell, it’ll be fun.

All rounds will be fired from guns of a size to be suitable for civilian self-defense, meaning a barrel-length of 4″ or less.

This is not going to happen quickly; there needs to be some capital investment in equipment. I’ll need a chronograph, and the Clear Ballistics products do not come cheap. It’s all coming out of my pocket, and I’m a self-employed, partially disabled veteran. In a good month we scrape the lower-edge of middle-class, so squeezing things into the budget can be… challenging.

If anyone cares to donate factory ammunition in any of these calibers it would be appreciated- the more so if it is less than fifty years old.

This is going to be fun!

Michael Tinker Pearce, 1 November 2019

We got an early start on the second day and headed for the rough country north of Odessa. We had a few fits and starts trying to find the area Jake was seeking, and as we drove past a sideroad a group of five deer were crossing. I saw the leading couple, both does, but Jake spotted a couple of bucks as they moved off.

“I think one of those is a four-point,” he said. We stopped and Jake broke out the binoculars while I got my rifle and loaded it. I walked out after them and they stopped a hundred, maybe a hundred-twenty five yards out. I cranked the scope to max and looked them over. There were two bucks and I located the one with the largest antlers- still not large, mind you- and took aim. It would have been easy to drop him, but I just wasn’t sure he had the required three points. When they are small like this those damn big ears of theirs get in the way.

These were none of them particularly large deer; maybe 200-250lbs. In the end I lowered the rifle and watched them. The big one turned and gave me a better angle and I looked him over through the scope again, and about the time I decided he wasn’t a three-point I heard Jake calling, “Don’t shoot!” I lowered the rifle as he approached and we agreed that he might not be legal. We watched, not without regret, as they moved off. In the distance they joined another herd, so there were about twenty of them as they moved out of sight. Back in the truck, then, and we moved along.

We found ourselves at the gates of the Twin lakes Recreation Center on BLM land and went in to have a look. Lots of rugged, arid prairie or perhaps desert, no deer. We stopped at one of the lakes to avail ourselves of the outhouse, chatted with a fisherman who was camping on the edge of a lake and couple other hunters before moving on. Plenty of vehicle accessible trails, but rough going.

We stopped at one point and looked over a pair of forelegs from a muley, cut off at the knees and left. The meat was still fresh at the joints, so likely it had been taken earlier that morning. Leaving Twin Lakes we headed northwest and found the BLM land we had been looking for. Perfect deer country, but by then it was late for the morning hunt, so after exploring a bit we headed back to Soap Lake to pick up our overnight gear and head home. Good timing- we weren’t on the road long after lunch before a storm blew in and things were pretty nasty across the pass and into Seattle.

So, no mule deer for me this year, but the Blacktail season is still on west of the mountains, so I’ll try much luck on those. If I don’t get one of those there’s Whitetail out towards Spokane next month… We’ll just have to see what happens.

I learned a lot on this trip, not just the general method for hunting Muleys in that area- because I am sure it’s different in other places- but about what to take and how to equip for the hunt.

Since it might well have been freezing I took my winter boots. I found that while these were more than warm enough and are great for tromping through the snow they suck on rough ground. They just don’t have the flexibility to work well in the rough. Next time I’ll wear combat boots and insulated socks.

I also had decided against taking my .44 Magnum revolver, but having seen deer at less than twenty yards I think that was a mistake. If you get down into the sage it is perfectly possible to encounter deer at very close range, and if I am in better condition next year (and that’s the plan) it’s likely I’ll be getting into the brush.

I had a handgun but it was a EDC piece, and completely unsuited to taking an animal this size. Jake was carrying a four-inch .357 with heavy game loads in a chest holster, which would have done well enough. Myself I would be more comfortable with a .41 or .44 Magnum; I think a 4-5/8″ single action would be an excellent compromise between packability and game-getting power, so I’ll be on the lookout. I am not going to shorten the Abilene; with the long barrel and an optic it has it’s own place in my hunting arsenal, so it’s going to stay just as it is.

A handgun has another advantage; it’s illegal to have your rifle loaded in the vehicle, but a holstered handgun can be loaded. If you have a concealed-carry permit there’s not much anyone can say about it, and it could be genuinely useful.

Layers are good. I was OK in a long-sleeve T-shirt with a flannel shirt and my hunting vest, but I had a couple more layers with me to add on at need. Of course this is a pretty good general rule for the Pacific Northwest; the weathermen are better than they used to be, but they still have a way to go before you can trust them without a ‘just-in-case’ plan.

A 4×4 vehicle, as I mentioned last time, is non-negotiable. So is having a hunting partner. Also while it is sometimes fun to camp out an RV or hotel room is real nice to return to at the end of a long day. Camping in autumn in eastern Washington is not a casual affair; weather can be beautiful or hellish, and can flip from one to the other with surprising speed.

I have an invite to accompany Jake again next year, and I am damn sure going to take him up on it. We had a great time and saw some awesome scenery, and with a little luck next time we’ll find something to shoot.