.32 v. .380?


PDA






casual
September 23, 2005, 06:52 PM
i've seen suggestions on the forum that little difference exists in the power between these calibers, particularly in a short barreled gun

does anyone have hard numbers for comparison between these calibers?

i have a kel-tec in .32, but i'm considering a .380 Seecamp

in addition, if anyone has personal experience with a .380 Seecamp, please post your opinion

i've seen very few posts by individuals with the Seecamp .380

i assume that is a result of the low output and relative expense

thanks

casual

If you enjoyed reading about ".32 v. .380?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
JShirley
September 23, 2005, 07:01 PM
Kel-Tec, IMO, killed the Seecamp for all practical purposes.

I have a .25 Seecamp, as well as .32 and .380 KTs. I like the .32 KT just because I can shoot it really rapidly, but for realistic self-defense, the .380 would probably be the best choice for even occasional shooters, as long as their
wrists are not damaged.

John

RyanM
September 23, 2005, 09:50 PM
.380 will make a bigger hole, and give you the option of using 90 gr. Hornady XTPs, which will penetrate around 11" and still expand reliably, just shy of the FBI's and IWBA's requirement.

I'd say go for an NAA Guardian over a Seecamp, though. Only a small bit bigger and heavier, and a lot more dependable IMO.

Basically, Seecamps are designed to be as small and light as possible, while NAAs are built to be as durable and reliable as possible, and Kel-tecs are made as cheap as possible. Some people have no problem with their Kel-Tecs, but really, if you can afford a Seecamp, there's no reason not to get an NAA.

My only first-hand experience with a Kel-Tec P3AT was watching a young lady at the range. She was banging all her shots into the 9 and 10 rings with some kinda .22 revolver, and with a GP-100 with .38s. Then she whipped out her concealed carry piece, a P3AT.

The first round didn't chamber right (I guess she doesn't carry it with one in the pipe). It took about 30 seconds for her to clear the jam and get it loaded. She took very careful aim, and squeezed the trigger verrrrrry slowly, and *pop*! No hole in the paper.

After re-gripping the gun, she once again aimed carefully and squeezed nice and slow... and nothing happened, since the slide was about 3/4s of an inch too far back. Another 30 seconds spent clearing a jam, and she tried once again. *pop*, a hole appeared in the very corner of the paper.

And on it went, almost every other shot jamming the slide open (failure to feed, round taking a nosedive into the feed ramp), with her just about missing the target completely when it did work. It wasn't an operator error, as far as I could tell. She was keeping her wrists and elbows locked, and taking the recoil with her shoulders. It wasn't overly dirty. I will admit that the poor accuracy may have been in part due to me shooting a .357 magnum snubby a few feet away with Winclean ammo, making a 12" fireball with each shot... (then again, it didn't mess up her groups too much with the .22 or .38)

I notice a lot of Kel-tec advocates say things like "what do you expect for the price" and "you just need to do a fluff-and-buff." Why is it so unreasonable to expect a $250 gun to work with 100% reliability out of the box, when a Bersa is capable of that kind of reliability in the same price range?

1 old 0311
September 24, 2005, 07:12 AM
Had a .32 Seecamp. WORST gun I ever owned. Customer service DOES NOT EXIST.They did not have a live person answer the phones,just a answering machine. They would not call back. 15 calls in 4 months, also would not respond to mail. Once they get your money you are on your own.
Bought a .380 Guardian 2 weeks ago. 250 rounds of 4 different types of ammo and it works every time.

Kevin

SouthpawShootr
September 24, 2005, 08:28 AM
Man, that kinda kills it. The price you pay for these guns, customer service should set the industry standard.

JohnBT
September 24, 2005, 09:16 AM
Sort of hard to limp wrist a 23 oz. Bersa .380 compared to a KT that weighs less than half as much. Heck, I didn't even know Bersa was still in business until I looked them up. Even so, I'm still not interested in a heavy .380.

I tinker with all my guns anyway so a little F & B isn't an issue.

John...still looking for a hard chromed P3AT to replace my old HC P32.

nero45acp
September 24, 2005, 09:19 AM
My experience with Seecamp:

I have an older Seecamp .32 LWS it has never had a FTF/FTE (but I've only used the "older type" recommended winchester Silvertips in it). Also, I once emailed Seecamp (4/11/05) with a question about their new ammo recommendations. I received a prompt (4/12/05), informative/helpful, and friendly reply from Larry Seecamp himself.

nero

mtnbkr
September 24, 2005, 09:55 AM
I notice a lot of Kel-tec advocates say things like "what do you expect for the price" and "you just need to do a fluff-and-buff." Why is it so unreasonable to expect a $250 gun to work with 100% reliability out of the box, when a Bersa is capable of that kind of reliability in the same price range?
Not this one. Not only do I expect the gun to work, I expect not to have to work on it. With the two P32s I've had, that has been the case. The one I'm carrying right now hasn't had any work other than a cleaning, yet is perfectly reliable.

Chris

1 old 0311
September 24, 2005, 10:06 AM
Hi Nero,

My Seecamp was purchased 6-7 years ago. At that time there was a 2 year wait and the going price was $700-$800. As I said at that time they had NO customer service. Along came Kel Tec and the Guardian. Seecamps prices, and sales, fell like a rock. They MAY be doing service work on them now, but the quality of the gun, JUNK, and their give a crap attitude turned me off forever. They didn't have a problem sitting on me money for 2 years but they DID have a problem providing me a pistol that would shoot more than 3-4 rounds without a jam. It is your money spend it as you wish. Me? I spent mine with NAA.

Kevin

SouthpawShootr
September 24, 2005, 10:07 AM
I expect every gun I buy to do what it was designed to do without any trips back to the factory. I will allow for a couple hundred rounds of break in, but if it's not working reliably by 500 rounds (& I feel this is a generous allowance), I'm :cuss: and I'll send it back for repair. My KT 3AT had one stoppage the first 100 rounds, I still have to take it back to the range, but I suspect that after a good cleaning, all will be well.

I've never seen a Seecamp for sale in the flesh except for a .25ACP several years back and that was priced way out of what I consider reasonable for such a gun ($800 :what: ). Now, it's my understanding that the .25s are out of production and may generate a bit of collector interest, but with a gun like this I use it not collect it.

phantomak47
September 24, 2005, 10:08 AM
Do some research before you go and buy a 380.

Massad Ayoob has written several articles about how he has done some slaughter house testing with various 380 loads and that the round barely penetrates the smallest pigs skull. In some cases he reports that the 380 wouldnt penetrate the skull at all and this is why he had to stop testing the round on medium size animals.............just something to think about when it comes to defending yourself or your families lives....

nero45acp
September 24, 2005, 10:40 AM
Hi Kevin,

Sorry to hear of your troubles and frustration with Seecamp. Glad to hear you're happy with the NAA. I've heard good things about them. Their .32NAA pistol is intriguing.

http://www.naaminis.com/32NAA.html


nero

Chipperman
September 24, 2005, 11:00 AM
Sorry to hear about the customer service problem you had.

My service experience with Seecamp has been outstanding. I have spoken with Larry himself on the phone a couple of times.

RyanM
September 24, 2005, 03:40 PM
Not this one. Not only do I expect the gun to work, I expect not to have to work on it. With the two P32s I've had, that has been the case. The one I'm carrying right now hasn't had any work other than a cleaning, yet is perfectly reliable.

Yeah, I've noticed the P32 and P11 seem to have a much better track record than the P3AT. Too much power in too small a package (like the P40), apparently. And they're trying to make a 9x19mm in ith same frame size, too! Some people just never learn.

kokapelli
September 24, 2005, 08:24 PM
Yeah, I've noticed the P32 and P11 seem to have a much better track record than the P3AT. Too much power in too small a package (like the P40), apparently. And they're trying to make a 9x19mm in ith same frame size, too! Some people just never learn.
__________________

Could you please tell me where you got this piece of information about a KelTec 9mm in the P-3AT frame?



I have owned an NAA Guardian and had reliability problems with it.

I traded it and purchased a P-3AT. The P-3AT with it's locked breech action is a pleasure to shoot compared to the blowback action of the Guardian.

The KelTec P-3AT is lighter, thinner and dosen't have the brick like feel of the Guardian in my pocket.

The P-3AT has been so satisfactory as a concealed carry gun and so reliable that I have purchased two more and now own three of them.

If you wan't more felt recoil, than get one of the blowbacks.

greg531mi
September 24, 2005, 09:22 PM
I have a 32 acp and a 380 acp. One is a Autauga, and a Colt Pony. I have friends that have CCW's, and own 45's and full size 9mm, but hardly ever carry them, because they are big and hard to carry. These little pistols are easier to conceal and carry. I have mine in my front pocket right now, and had to feel it to be sure.
The 25 are the smallest, 32 a little bigger, and the 380 bigger yet, on the whole. The 9mm is larger yet, except for the Rohrbaugh 9mm.
We can get into that agruement about caliber's and such, and yes, the bigger caliber's do stop more times than small, but I think it is more of shot placement, than caliber. And with shot placement, it takes practice, practice, and more practice.......
So, argue all you want, wasting your time, while you should be at the range!

alamo
September 24, 2005, 09:36 PM
And they're trying to make a 9x19mm in ith same frame size, too! Some people just never learn.

While it is rumored (and hoped) that KT will make a single stack 9mm, there is no way it could be done on a P-3AT frame. It would have to be larger. RyanM is making that up or imagining it.

I finally got a Seecamp 8 years ago after waiting the obligatory 2+ years and paying $600. It was extremely unreliable after numerous cleanings/lube and 200 rounds of Silvertips. They're fine pistols but don't let anyone tell you they're all perfect.

That was back in the days when they felt no need to answer the phone or listen to their customers. I had been told from others that had experience, that repair service on a pistol took many months. That being the case, I sold it to a friend who was aware of the problems. Since they have competitors now, Seecamp actually answers their phone and talks / listens to their customers for a change.

I carry a P-3AT now. Great little pistol. I also have 2 P-32s and 2 Autauga .32s that replaced the Seecamp. All have been much more reliable than the Seecamp.

Onmilo
September 24, 2005, 10:30 PM
To try an answer the original question,
If one was to shoot a blindfolded person in the right arm with a .32acp and in the left arm with a .380acp and both cartridges were full metal jacket or Silvertip, it is doubtful the person shot could tell you which calber made which wound.

RyanM
September 25, 2005, 01:35 AM
Making it up or imagining it, right. :rolleyes: Some people... are real jerks when the stuff they "know" gets contradicted.

No, been hearing the same rumors from various sources (KTOG, this forum right here, etc.). Kel-Tec is supposedly developing a single-stack 9mm which will use a P3AT frame lengthened by a couple millimeters, with slightly heavier slide.

kokapelli
September 25, 2005, 10:14 AM
RyanM:
Making it up or imagining it, right. Some people... are real jerks when the stuff they "know" gets contradicted.

No, been hearing the same rumors from various sources (KTOG, this forum right here, etc.). Kel-Tec is supposedly developing a single-stack 9mm which will use a P3AT frame lengthened by a couple millimeters, with slightly heavier slide.

I remember that someone on the KTOG ng started the same rumor. It didn't last long, because there was no substance to it.

This is exactly how these rumors get started!

I'm not saying that KT isn't working on a small single stack 9mm, but no one knows about it if they are.

michiganfan
September 25, 2005, 03:23 PM
Got 3AT in my pocket right now. Had an engagement today where it would be hard to hide the Glock. My 3AT has been reliable out of the box and the accuracy from 5-7 yards has been more than acceptable.

RAD
September 25, 2005, 03:53 PM
Do some research before you go and buy a 380.

Massad Ayoob has written several articles about how he has done some slaughter house testing with various 380 loads and that the round barely penetrates the smallest pigs skull. In some cases he reports that the 380 wouldnt penetrate the skull at all and this is why he had to stop testing the round on medium size animals.............just something to think about when it comes to defending yourself or your families lives....

So if I defensively shoot someone in the head with my P3AT 380 it isn't going to penetrate with FMJ?
WOW!
I better move up to a 480.
:cool:

Double Naught Spy
September 25, 2005, 06:09 PM
Do some research before you go and buy a 380.

Massad Ayoob has written several articles about how he has done some slaughter house testing with various 380 loads and that the round barely penetrates the smallest pigs skull. In some cases he reports that the 380 wouldnt penetrate the skull at all and this is why he had to stop testing the round on medium size animals.............just something to think about when it comes to defending yourself or your families lives....

Ayoob's 'testing' seems more dubious than M&S and a lot more anecdotal. While pigs and pig skulls are not quite the myth many hunters make them out to be, the fact remains that there are definitely portions of the pig's skull that are more robust than that found in humans. It has to be in order to support the stressors inflicted on it such as the massive jaw musculature and actual use of the head as a rooting tool.

If Ayoob's tests were side shots with an attempt to penetrate the brain, then his rounds would likely have to pass through some of the heavy jaw muscles before getting to the brain.

Then there is the aspect of unsupported expanses. The human cranium is largely like a hollow ball. There are few folds, angles, ridges on the exteior or interior to really provide any sort of structural support. A pig's cranium has a much smaller area available that is unsupported. I base this on the fact that I have a pig skull with me right now from a male pig that was just reaching adulthood based on eruption of the 3rd molars.

Compare this with a human skull, particularly the cranium (brain compartment). Generally the thickness of a healthy adult cranium will be about 1/4 to just under 1/2 of an inch. The majority of this bone is not solid. Instead, it consists of an interior and exterior thin cortical surface between which is located spongy bone. The spongy bone isn't actually spongy. It just looks like a sponge. You get the same spongy bone at the ends of the long bones where the bone walls are thinnest. Spongy bone provides for excellent lightweight support, but isn't horrible difficult to penetrate with point impacts.

So, the human skull protects the brain, but it isn't terribly thick or tough. Moreover, most isn't covered with heavy musculature or even very thick skin. Folks with hair get a lot more protection to their skulls from the hair than they get from their skull.

Where all this is going is that there is really no legitimate comparison between pig and human skulls when it comes to protection against ballistic impacts in the living animals. To suggest otherwise would be naive.

-----

Getting back to the original query, neither .32 or .380 are at the high end of defensive performance. If you can't handle anything bigger then you go with what you can handle. Otherwise, you will be much better off with larger calibers.

106rr
September 26, 2005, 02:24 AM
In the 1930's, the Italian Armed Services set up two commisions to study the difference between 32 and 380. Pistols tested were exactly the same make and type, berreta blowback. The Naval Commission came to the conclusion that the 32 was the clear winner without question. They cited greater reliability based on case shape and design, greater accuracy and higher magazine capacity.
The Army Commission came to the conclusion that the 380 was the clear winner without question. They cited adequate accuracy, more power and adequate reliability and disregarded magazine capacity.
The Italian Navy adopted the 32 and the Italian Army adopted the 380, both were certain of the facts! Good Luck

copaup
September 26, 2005, 03:14 AM
Oddly, I typed a rather lengthy reply to this that seems to have vanished. The short gist of it is that I have seen people who have been shot in the head with the 380. It did penetrate the skull from a frontal shot and they were quite dead. I have also seen one person still moving after taking a headshot from a 45 acp. Pistol rounds all pretty much suck and people can occasionally survive some truly horrific injuries. I trust the 380 as a close range backup weapon and that is about it, but I do believe that 6 rounds of 380 in the other guys chest should serve nicely to end hostilities.

Optical Serenity
September 26, 2005, 04:36 AM
I am thinking about a switch myself from a P32 to P3AT. I find its much easier to find .380 ammo, plus evidently they have better (i.e. more reliable) expansion than .32acp.

JShirley
September 26, 2005, 08:54 AM
My P-32 (SN under 150, btw) would fire rounds that the NAA consistently would malfunction with, until the NAA had its throat/chamber polished. :) The P-32 started having a few malfs as it got dirty, over 50 rounds. I think I've had one more malf through the '32, somewhere around round 200, again as it was getting dirty from my 3rd range session. No malfs since.

I've had no malfs through my P-3AT.

John

Dr.Rob
September 26, 2005, 03:16 PM
Never heard of 'rimlock' in a .380... and while you are talking of micro sized pistols, a longer barrel like found on Colt's 1903 model 32 and 380 certainly make the rounds more lethal.

The 380 isn't much of a penetrator (with hps) when hitting heavy bone. At contact range it can do plenty... at 20 +feet you likely want an FMJ in either caliber.

GlenJ
September 26, 2005, 07:13 PM
[COLOR=Red]Massad Ayoob has written several articles about how he has done some slaughter house testing with various 380 loads and that the round barely penetrates the smallest pigs skull. In some cases he reports that the 380 wouldnt penetrate the skull at all and this is why he had to stop testing the round on medium size animals.............just something to think about when it comes to defending yourself or your families lives....

Wow hope I never get attacked by a bunch of little pigs :neener:

ruger357
September 27, 2005, 11:02 AM
I also own an older 32 Seecamp. Bought it used over a year ago for $350 with an extra mag. Never had any problems shooting it, even with the newer Silvertips. They have a web site, www.seecamp.com.

Bob79
September 27, 2005, 01:18 PM
Between the two, the .380 is a little better, but not by very much. It also depends greatly on the platform its packaged in (which gun). Some would argue that you should carry FMJ in both these smaller calibers, but most agree that you should carry FMJ in .32ACP.

If you can find a .380 that works for you and you can conceal get it, if not look at the guns chambered for .32ACP. I personally owned a Seecamp 32 that jammed too much, about 10-12 in about 200-300 rounds, and you can ONLY fire HP ammo. Also I know the Seecamp is only 11.5 ozs unloaded, but loaded its about 13.5 ozs and thats fairly heavy for something so small.

I also had a KT .380 that was very unreliable, and the .380 recoil was fairly significant for such a small and light gun.

I now have a KT P-32 that has only jammed once in about 300 rounds, and that was at the beginning. It carries 8 rounds, has little recoil even with the hot S&B FMJ I carry and practice with. If I was the type of person who didn't mind the weight/size of a walther PPK/Guardian/Bersa in .380 then I'd go with that instead. But the P-32 fills a need.

If I want to go bigger I go with my P-11, and am currently waiting for a good deal on a S&W airweight in .38 special. Find out how much size/bulk you can deal with, and then see what gun/caliber you can find that will fit the bill, because it you go too big you won't carry it, and that defeats the point.

MachIVshooter
September 27, 2005, 10:49 PM
To try an answer the original question,
If one was to shoot a blindfolded person in the right arm with a .32acp and in the left arm with a .380acp and both cartridges were full metal jacket or Silvertip, it is doubtful the person shot could tell you which calber made which wound.

And shoot one leg with a 9x19 and the other with a .40 short&weak and my guess is the only thing he'll know is that he is in a great deal of pain.

And you can cross the ocean in a 14' sail boat. That does not mean it is the best too for the job.

Within reason, the larger and more powerful the cartridge, the more effectively it will stop the threat. Any gun is better than no gun, but a .380 is definitely preferable to a .25 or .32 for obvious reasons. It has double the power and considerably more diameter. To argue that the .32 is as effective as the .380 would be akin to saying a .243 is as good an elk killer as a .300 win mag. IMO, .380 should be considered the minimum caliber for SD. With .380's now available in packages that are only marginally larger than .32's, I suspect the only thing that will keep the 7.65 Browning afloat is nostalgia or good marketing.

Just to preempt the inevitable, no one has forgotten the importance of shot placement. :neener:

axmurderer
September 28, 2005, 02:31 PM
.380 is what I consider to be the minimum caliber I would trust as a self defense gun. And usually it is in a backup role to my .40 cal hi power.

I'd certainly take a .380 over a .32 as a self defense gun. I've owned a couple .380s: a Bersa Thunder, a Keltec P3AT and a Walther PPK/S. The P3AT is unbeatable for concealability, and I've had good reliability from mine. I'd recommend it.

Newton
September 28, 2005, 05:53 PM
I carry a nickel P-3AT loaded with hot Santa Barbara truncated cone FMJs, I consider it to be more than adequate for its intended purpose.

It is reliable, combat accurate at 10 yards, and a pleasure to carry in a front pocket wrapped in an Uncle Mike's #1 holster.

I switched from Golden Sabers to FMJ, they were just too weak to give any confidence of adequate penetration with reliable expansion.

Even out of the P-3AT the Santa Barbara rounds should give me through and through penetration, there's something very comforting about that. Seven of them are enough to deal with the majority of threats.

I tried carrying a compact in an IWB and it's just too much like hard work. The P-3AT is perfect.

5string_dean
September 28, 2005, 06:50 PM
I'll second (third, fourth...?) the recommendation of a Kel-Tec P3AT.... I've got a 2nd generation P3AT with the hard chromed slide and it's been absolutely flawless in terms of reliability through about 400-500 rounds --- both FMJ and JHP ammo of various sorts. I've gotten the impression that the 2nd generation P3ATs (with funky exteranl Franken-bolt extractor) are in general more reliable than the earlier ones.

Despite it's small size it is easier to shoot (less recoil) than my larger Kel-Tec P11 9mm. My only gripe is that out at 25 yards I have to aim about 8" to the right of the bullseye, but at the intended range it's accurate enough. And it's so very easy to conceal!

akanotken
September 28, 2005, 11:21 PM
However, the arguments that I've heard for the 32 ACP revolved around penetration. I don't know which penetrates better (I hear the 32?), but I do subscribe to the idea that a 10 inch .32 caliber hole has more stopping potential than a 6 inch deep .35 caliber hole, given the same shot placement. Note, I made those depths up.

The decision must be debatable, else the introduction of the the p3-AT would have killed the p32 (the sizes are indistiguishable, so if one cartrige was clearly superior the other would suffer tremendously!).

As for a pistol working 100% from the factory, I wouldn't know about that. I do know that if that's all it took for a superior solution to pocket carry, I wouldn't hesitate to work with it (by 5 and keep the most reliable, F&B, factory work, whatever). If there was a similar weight pistol that worked flawlessly, I'd be all over it. There's not, that's the reality. I'm not goint to teach them a lesson by getting something else less optimal. Keltecs keep my business because I can't stand anything in my pockets, and they are the closest thing to that.

gunfan
September 30, 2005, 11:28 AM
The .32 ACP is a better penetrator. Shot placement, of course, is the prime directive! A poorly placed shot by any handgun will serve to do little but exacerbate the situation and irritate the object of the exercise!

That said, either cartridge will work when judiciously (and appropriately) applied.

Scott

Headless Thompson Gunner
September 30, 2005, 12:02 PM
The .32 ACP is a better penetrator. Any documentation for this?

It seems to me that the heavier .380 bullet penetrate better. I'm curious to know whether this is true.

gunfan
September 30, 2005, 02:05 PM
that was a CIA operative in Central America. He employed a suppressed Mauser chambered in .32 ACP. The narrow FMJ projectile may not be a powerhouse, but it did penetrate a skull with consummate alacrity. This was due to a longer projectile concentrating it's energy in an area of only .312 inches.

While this was an "assassin's" application, it never failed to achieve the desired results. Death was generally instantaneous and there was limited time to struggle. With the appropriate suppressor, the pistol's report was that of a "handclap."

This speaks well of the .32 ACP FMJ's performance in capable hands.

Scott

imas
October 1, 2005, 08:10 AM
Man, that kinda kills it. The price you pay for these guns, customer service should set the industry standard.

North American Arms does.

RyanM
October 1, 2005, 01:08 PM
71/7000/.311^2 = 0.105 sectional density for .32 FMJ
95/7000/.355^2 = 0.108 sectional density for .380 FMJ

Probably close enough that whichever one goes faster will penetrate better.

45crittergitter
October 6, 2005, 01:48 PM
Since the .32 is semi-rimmed and the .380 is rimless, I suggest that all other things being equal, the .380 would likely be a bit more reliable in functioning.

Texfire
October 6, 2005, 03:10 PM
Just to confuse the issue. Wasn't there a manuafacturer that designed a pistol around a .380 cartridge necked down to .32? Maybe NAA?

kokapelli
October 6, 2005, 04:05 PM
Texfire, if I remember correctly, the 32NAA was devloped by NAA and CorBon together.

The round uses a light 60gr bullet at over 1200fps.

Expansion is very good, but penetration is IMO, poor!

In a gelatin test that I read about,, the 32NAA penetrated only 6-1/2"!

IMO, the FBI and many gun experts, 6-1/2' is just not enough penetration.

Bobo
October 6, 2005, 04:22 PM
Texfire,Just to confuse the issue. Wasn't there a manuafacturer that designed a pistol around a .380 cartridge necked down to .32? Maybe NAA? Some info on the 32NAA cartridge. (http://makarov.com/32naa/)

MachIVshooter
October 7, 2005, 12:01 AM
The decision must be debatable, else the introduction of the the p3-AT would have killed the p32 (the sizes are indistiguishable, so if one cartrige was clearly superior the other would suffer tremendously!).

According to the gunshops I frequent, it nearly did. They all said that P32 sales fell to a fraction of what they were when the P3 came out. It is still outselling the P32 10 to 1 around here.

106rr
October 7, 2005, 02:38 AM
45crittergitter;
The semi-rim case shape was developed specifically for reliable feeding and extraction. Early ammo was of low quality and much of the powder was "dirty". The semi-rim is far more reliable than a straight case from the time it leaves the magazine until the time it leaves the chamber. The firing cycle is the most critical parameter of cartridge performance.

45crittergitter
October 7, 2005, 04:44 PM
Well, the .32 sometimes has "rim-lock" in the mag, according to various shooters, while the .380 doesn't. Kel-Tec even has a part you can buy to "fix" this. Apparently it's not an issue to feed the last round, but sometimes the rims hang on each other when a mag has more than one round in it; one reason why you don't see too many .357 Mag or .38 Special autos. Earlier .32 Silvertips had a special rim design to minimize this (I think the current ones are more conventional), which is why some .32 pistol manufacturers recommended the Silvertip exclusively.

106rr
October 8, 2005, 12:30 AM
You might have confused feed reliability with substandard ammo. If you make ammo with the wrong overall length it might jam. This is not peculiar to the 32 ACP. Witness the feed problems of a 380 ACP Grendel or Walther PP, PPK, PPKs. The legendary H&K P9S feeds perfectly with the short OAL 45ACP 185gr Silvertips. It will not feed well with 230gr HydraShock. The OAL is significant but has little to do with the cartridge.
Both 380 ACP and 45 ACP are good cartridges but bad ammo is bad ammo. Rimlock can happen in some designs (like 32ACP) if you use substandard length ammo. But substandard length ammo will stop many guns.
The 32 ACp Silvertip didn't have a different case, it had a different projectile profile. The case shape is set by SAMMI etc. There certainly is a difference between old and new Silvertips.

kokapelli
October 8, 2005, 10:10 AM
106rr, Rim lock can not happen with most auto loading cartridges, but it will and does happen with the full rimmed 32cal cartridge when there is enough room in the magazine for the cartridges to move forward and back.

If a 32 cal cartridge moves back and the protruding rim rides over the rim of the cartridge below, you have rim lock!

This can not happen with other auto pistol cartridges (380, 9mm, 45acp etc) because they do not have protruding rims.

If you are familiar with the 32cal Seacamp pistol, you know that it was designed to use only one cartridge, the silvertip.

The Seacamp 32cal magazine is designed with very limited space that only the short OAL silvertip cartridge would fit into thus preventing forward and back cartridge movement in an attempt to prevent "rim lock"!

KelTec came out with a spacer for their P-32 pistol's magazine to prevent forward and back movement of short OAL jhp ammo.

Problem is, when the spacer is installed, you could no longer fit fmj ammo with a longer OAL into the KelTec magazine and like with the Seacamp you are than limited to jhp ammo which usually has a short OAL.

Newton
October 8, 2005, 10:44 AM
Rim lock can not happen with most auto loading cartridges, but it will and does happen with the full rimmed 32cal cartridge

I believe it's semi-rimmed.

kokapelli
October 8, 2005, 02:45 PM
Thank you Newton. I stand corrected.

106rr
October 9, 2005, 02:59 AM
I think we all have a good understanding of rimlock and of substandard ammo. If the ammo is substandard in OAL and is semrimmed you can induce rimlock. If the ammo is substandard in any dimension you can induce feed failures in any caliber. The rimlock is caused by the substandard dimension.
For instance you never hear of rimlock in the 9MM Browning Long. I know the burning question in your mind is "Why don't we hear of rimlock in the 9MM Browning Long, 106rr" It's because the ammo was not produced in substandard dimensions. The 9MM Browning Long is of course a semirimmed cartridge.
In modern firearms of good quality and design you will have very few feed failures with good quality ammo. The CZ 83 for instance is produced in both 32 ACP and 380 ACP. It feeds and functions beautifully with either load. With substandard ammo, you can jam anything even a Glock!

kokapelli
October 9, 2005, 10:37 AM
106rr,
The quality of the ammo has nothing to do with rim lock!

Rim lock can and will occur with the finest semi rimmed ammo.

I can direct you to a site that will give you a very clear explanation of what rim lock is and why it happens.

Below is picture of an actual rim lock.

Click on the picture of the actual rim lock to get a clear and precise explanation.
http://www.1bad69.com/gallery/GunStuff/kel-tec/rimlock/dcp01853.jpg (http://www.1bad69.com/keltec/rimlock.htm)

106rr
October 9, 2005, 09:53 PM
kokopelli;
No one is wondering what rimlock is - we all know what rimlock is - we all know it can happen if the OAL is substandard. The photo shows the cartridges unrestrained by a magazine. It is the OAL of the cartridge and the inside of the mag that prevents rimlock. The substandard ammo dimension would be the OAL. If the OAL is correct the ammo will not rimlock. The forward wall of the mag prevents it. Please note that other sem-rimmed ammo (9MM Browning Long etc ) does not rimlock.

kokapelli
October 10, 2005, 09:41 AM
106rr, are you saying that there is a standard OAL? And that 32 acp rounds that are at a specific OAL will not rim lock? If that is what your saying, than I really don't think you understand what rim lock is.

OAL Varies all over the board on all sizes of ammo. FMJ is almost always longer than JHP!

It's the "rim" that causes "Rim Lock", not OAL variations.

According to you, all but maybe one or two of these brands are substndard since they all have different OALs !

Glaser Blue- .974

CoBon jhp- .900

HYDRA sHOK- .908

Fiocchi jhp- .922

Hornady jhp- .908

MagTech jhp- .961

Gold Dot- .900

Blazer fmj- .965

Fiocchi fmj- .973

MagTech- .962

Remington fmj- .970

Winchester fmj- .974

denfoote
October 10, 2005, 03:07 PM
I would say that if I were looking for a 7.65mm HP that most closely resembled FMJ, then I would have to go with the Magtechs!!

kokapelli
October 10, 2005, 04:40 PM
Denfoot,
I agree.

Except for Glasser blue, it has the closest OAL to fmj of all the jhp.

The only thing is, in goldenloki's gelatin test from a P-32, only 2/3 of the Magtech jhp expaned from and those that did had very little expansion.

MachIVshooter
October 12, 2005, 03:05 AM
It's the "rim" that causes "Rim Lock", not OAL variations

And semi-rimmed cartridges should not rimlock for one simple reason:

The rim of the upper cartridge falls into the extractor groove of the lower, and under spring pressure will not go anywhere else. The magazines for .25 and 32 ACP magazines are designed with angles so that the cartridges stack this way. So regardless of OAL, this is how they will stack. They were designed from the get go to function this way. To suggest that the rim of one sitting in the beveled extractor groove of the next creates enough resistance to be problematic in feeding would be to assume that JMB did not know what he was doing. This is not, however, to account for the various poorly-manufactured .25's and .32's abound. But don't blame cartridge design for the failures of junk guns.

.

BluesBear
October 12, 2005, 03:25 AM
Rimlock most commonly occurs after the magazine is half empty.
The reduced tension on the magazine spring can allow the cartridges to bounce or shift in the magazine, under recoil, just enough to reposition the rim relationships.

Sean O'Brian
October 12, 2005, 03:42 AM
Anyone who knows me won't need to hear me 'fess up to the fact that I am a 1911 enthusiast, and my preferred carry concept is the 3" barrel "Officer's" size 1911, preferably by Kimber.

When I hear someone saying that they need something more concealable than a Walther PPK or 1911 Officer's, I wonder at what nudist colony they are spending time.

Unless you need something to wear under your cocktail dress...

cheers,

-Sean

If you enjoyed reading about ".32 v. .380?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!