Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/1/2002 9:16:36 AM EDT
I am trying to find me a new backup weapon. I have been carrying the Glock 27, but it is a little to big and bulky. Trying to find me a little .380 or the .32, and I ran across the North American Arms guardian. Any input would greatly be appreciated.
Link Posted: 10/1/2002 12:01:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/1/2002 12:03:34 PM EDT by DScott]
While I can offer nothing from a personal point-of-view, Doc Roberts has commented on this issue. He said:
Many small, easily concealed semi-automatic pistols which are recommended for law enforcement backup or concealed carry use fire .380 ACP or smaller bullets. While these small caliber handgun bullets can produce fatal wounds,they are less likely to produce the rapid incapacitation necessary in law enforcement or self-defence situations. Handguns chambered in .380 ACP are small, compact, and generally easy to carry. Unfortunately, testing has shown that they offer inadequate performance for self-defense and for law enforcement use whether on duty as a back-up weapon or for off duty carry. The terminal performance of .380 ACP jacketed hollow point (JHP) bullets is often erratic, with inadequate penetration and inconsistent expansion being common problems, while .380 ACP full metal jacket (FMJ) bullets offer adequate penetration, but no expansion. All of the .380 ACP JHP loads we have tested, including CorBon, Hornady, Federal, Remington, Speer, and Winchester exhibited inconsistent, unacceptable terminal performance for law enforcement back-up and off duty self-defense use due to inadequate penetration or inadequate expansion. The use of .380 ACP and smaller caliber weapons is not acceptable for law enforcement use and most knowledgable agencies prohibit their use--based on past experience, to my knowledge none of the agencies you mention currently use .380's.
View Quote
See this thread here for that comment: [url]http://64.177.53.248/ubb/Forum78/HTML/000037.html[/url] See this forum for more discussion of wound ballistics: [url]http://64.177.53.248/cgi-bin/tacticalubb/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&number=78&forum=The+Terminal+Effects+Forum&DaysPrune=60&startpoint=0[/url] I think the bottom line is, don't carry something that small for backup. Others may differ in opinion... [:D]
Link Posted: 10/1/2002 1:11:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/2/2002 9:45:56 AM EDT by sven]
Thanks for the input on the .380. Any suggestions on a smaller backup than the glock 27, but still with a decent caliber. I know Kahr makes the k40 which would be ideal, but it does not seem much smaller than the 27. Forgot to post the link to the article. [URL]http://naaminis.com/32NAArel.html[/URL]
Link Posted: 10/1/2002 1:39:31 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/1/2002 2:42:56 PM EDT
I don't mean to send you away from here with your question, but I think you'd do well to at least read as many of the posts on the forum I referenced as possible. They suggest a minimum of .38 cal. is needed for adequate performance, and a snubby revolver is the smallest package able to deliver that round. I'm sure a compact 9mm can deliver acceptable performance. Too bad about that thin-grip Glock! I think the G26 or G27 would be very hard to wear on an ankle or in a vest holster all day. It ain't light OR tiny! Again, I just read about it on the internet. I don't have to deal with it on a professional basis. There is an emerging science of wound ballistics that more and more dictates what calibers and which bullets have the, uh, impact you need (sorry! [:)] ). Try this website as well, for more info. about wound ballistics. I'm pretty sure you'll find it educational. [url]http://firearmstactical.com/[/url]
Link Posted: 10/1/2002 3:31:11 PM EDT
[img]http://www.naaminis.com/pix/32NAAbox.jpg[/img] [url=http://www.naaminis.com/32NAArel.html]NAA's 32NAA looks kinda cool to me...[/url] [img]http://www.naaminis.com/pix/32NAAgelatin.jpg[/img] fwiw Scott
Link Posted: 10/1/2002 3:46:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/1/2002 4:12:09 PM EDT by DScott]
The little .32's are pretty cool, and the Seecamps have been a preferred back-up for a while, apparently. A review of the Firearms Tactical website shows some older gel. penetration data that suggests acceptable performance of the Win. Silvertips- maybe there is a role for this caliber? Oops! Edited to add, I see you're referring to a bottle-necked NAA .32ACP rather than the standard Win .32 round. I wonder how different this round really is?
Link Posted: 10/1/2002 3:50:46 PM EDT
I'm having the same problem.ive got a 27 that I carry on a vest holster but it is just uncomfotable.one of the guys in the department bought a Kel Tec in 40 S&W when I bought my 27 and it was the same size as my glock.we went to the range at the same time to try them out and the Kel Tec jammed with every kind of ammo we tried in it and my Glock performed perfectly.ive not had any other experience with Kel Tec other than this but I didn't like it.im looking into a Taurus 38 titanium ultralite.that is my next purchase.another officer here has one and I really like it.just my 2 cents [USA]
Link Posted: 10/2/2002 9:40:50 AM EDT
Well according the the NAA website they say their .32NAA is shoots at 1225fps and 199 ft lbs from the 2.5" barrel of the guardian. They also state that it has more velocity, energy, and stopping power than the .32ACP, and the .380. I am going to look into these a little more and try to find one I can shoot. Maybe it will do okay as a backup gun, at the very least I could use it as a gut gun.
Link Posted: 10/2/2002 3:23:41 PM EDT
The owner of NAA is quoted on their website as saying:
"Almost everything I've learned about the science of ballistics has come from reading "Street Stoppers" : The Latest Handgun Stopping Power Street Results written collaboratively by Sanow and his co-author, Evan Marshall - Copyright ©1996, published by Paladin Press), said Chisholm.
View Quote
Consider this info. in evaluating the latest high velocity, minimally penetrating "wonder bullet": [url=http://firearmstactical.com/streetstoppers.htm]A review of the methods and conclusions of gun-writers Marshall and Sanow. It ain't pretty![/url] [url=http://firearmstactical.com/wound.htm]A basic discussion of scientically based wound ballistics for law enforcement applications.[/url]
Top Top