[usnavymasterchief]

I'm told that THR is dedicated to educating firearm lovers on various aspects of their passion. Every so often I get a need to demonstrate my ignorance to my fellow handgunners, so here goes:
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the ACP, as in .32 ACP, stand for Automatic Colt Pistol? Why then do so many semi autos chambered for .32ACP have feed problems?
I believe it is the only auto pistol cartridge that has a rimmed shell casing which when in JHP form can cause rim lock in most Kel-Tecs, Seecamps and other fine .32ACP pistols. Why then don't manufacturers of these neat handguns offer optional magazines specifically designed for JHP's for those who prefer JHP over FMJ? Or better yet, why don't ammo manufacturers design and build their product so that .32ACP JHP's have the same LOA as .32ACP FMJ's? Wouldn't that forever solve the rim lock problem?
Given that it is a rimmed cartridge why are there no modern revos made in .32ACP? Seems to me that it would make a fairly decent small CCW revo for those who don't care for bottom feeders. The .32ACP seems to work well in short barreled guns so it should be a natural for a snubby revo.
See what happens when you get old and have so much time on your hands. You get to dream up dumb questions like these. But I'll wager that you folks out there will have the answers.

[mete]

Yes it's auto colt pistol, no it's not rimmed but semirimmed. But if you think it's appropriate for saving your life you're in a dream world, even if you use jhp. 380 is substantially better but 9mm is better yet.

[Mike Irwin]

As mete says, it's semi-rimmed.

But it's not the only Browning-designed ACP cartridge to be semi-rimmed...

The .25, the .380, and the .38 ACP/.38 Super are also semi-rimmed.

[Gary A]

On the revolver point, I always hoped that North American Arms would make a version of their mini chambered for .32 acp. I would have been single-action and bigger than their .22s but still small and would have been a nice 4 or 5 shot "derringer" as opposed to a 2 shot Davis. Alas, once NAA began production and marketing of the .32 Guardian the chances of a .32 revolver diminished. I still would like one.

[C.R.Sam]

Have played with partner's Kel Tec .32, all sorts of ammo, and no feed problems. Lucky ?

Myownself works around the potential problem by using Smith, early, I frame in .32 S&W Long. Punchier cartridge, gun is much smaller than a J frame and holds 6 rounds.

Sam.

"Don't tick off the crusty ol man with a wheelgun, he might dot your eyes."

[Marko Kloos]

But if you think it's appropriate for saving your life you're in a dream world, even if you use jhp.

Never underestimate the lethality of a cartridge. If they could, Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife would tell you about the lack of killing power of the .32ACP FMJ.

Plenty of people carry guns in .32, because you can squeeze the cartridge into very small frames suitable for backup and pocket carry. I'd rather have a .32 in my pocket when I cannot carry anything bigger (like at work), than not have a gun at all. I'm pretty sure that I don't live in a dream world.

[22luvr]

I think not carrying any gun, even when it is very legal to do so, is really-really living in a dream world. A .32 in the hand is worth two .45's left at home!

There are places many of us go where deep concealment cannot be compromised. We've all heard the disparaging comments about mousegun stopping power. Thanks for the well-meaning advice.

Don't worry; it's called "assumption of risk."

[RON in PA]

Supossedly this was JMB's favorite cartridge. I have often wondered why the Europeans considered it ok for self-defense and police work until recently. Maybe it's more lethal than we Americans would like to think.

Question: Do you think that the JHP versions of the 32 ACP are that more effective than the FMJ? Isn't it better to have penetration in a mouse caliber?

Re: Rimlock, If you are having problems take the extra time and effort and load the mag so the rim is always in front of the rim of the cartridge below it. Just like loading an Enfield rifle.

380 is rimless.

[mete]

My comments about the 32 are directed to the many new to carrying . The ones who know little about guns. The problems of 22/32/25 have been know for many years. One of the first serious studies of stopping power was made by J Hatcher "Textbook of Pistols and Revolvers" His comments are still valid today in fact he was shot with a 32 and hardly inconvenienced.

[Deepdiver]

Hey Chief! I can't answer your "why don't?" questions, but I can tell you that I have fired my CZ70 into enough different materials to know that I would not want to be shot by one - FMJ's or not.

I normally carry a 45 or a snubnosed 38, but the CZ70 occasionally ends up being the pick of the day.

It may not have the stopping power of a 45, but 2-3 well placed shots would be one helluva distraction to a BG with malicious intent.

[Mike Irwin]

"380 is rimless."

Not according to Cartridges of the World.

Case head diameter - .373

Rim diameter -- .374

.001 rim! :D


Yeah, you're right. .380 is rimless. The 9mm Browning Long in semi-rimmed.


"I have often wondered why the Europeans considered it ok for self-defense and police work until recently."

I really think it's more because the Europeans don't have the depth and breadth of handgun usage experience that we in the United States had/have, or even those in Britain had.

Britain and the United States both adopted heavy-caliber military revolvers, I think in large part because of our colonial experiences in dealing with natives that tended not to fall down when shot repeatedly with smaller calibers.

[Kentucky Rifle]

I would bet that my Seecamp will never have a rim-lock problem. I also doubt that my NAA Guardian will ever rimlock either. However, I use the longer Fiocchi 73gr FMJ's in my P-32. I have fired several Gold Dot hollow points from my P-32 without problems however, from the posts I've read, I chose the longer Fiocchis.
Hey, I like them anyway so why chance a rim-lock?
By the way~My Seecamp and Guardian are not loaded with hollow points. .32ACP RBCD's all the way! (Right Jeff? :) )

KR

[tbeb]

I once owned a .32 ACP Walther PP. I never experienced any rimlock with FMJ, or Win./Corbon/Speer hollowpoints.

A .32 ACP may be a decent snub revolver caliber for self defense. We do have a .32 magnum though. I would choose a .38 special over either.

Manufacturers of semi-auto pistols should build them to be reliable with FMJ's and hollowpoints. A short break-period is all that should be necessary. Some semi-auto's need custom work or at least one trip back to the factory. That's why I'm awful picky when it comes to buying one.

[TheeBadOne]

Real World use of the .32 Silvertip has shown it to be as effective as the .380 auto. I don't know how the other newer .32 hollowpoints stack up.

[RandyB]

My .32 kel-tec feed flawlessly (so far...) Do I trust it to end an attacker? Nope, but it beats having nothing and it just might get me to a better weapon or get me out of harms way, or slow BG down, etc.

[Sunray]

"Why then do so many semi autos chambered for .32ACP have feed problems?" Because it gets put into pistols of inferior quality. Try it in a Walther and see how it feeds. There are so many junk pistols chambered in .32 ACP it has gotten a reputation for not feeding.

[Dain Bramage]

Don't forget, stopping power and lethality, especially in pre-antibiotic days, are two different things.

Franz Ferdinand supposedly lived long enough to urge his wife to "live for the children", speaking after being shot in the throat (!).

Your results on PCP-laced, knife-wielders may vary.

[coldshot03/04]

Never had a problem with the 32acp nor the 380acp.

I know a little old lady that stopped a 200+ lb attacker in his tracks with a 22short to the chest.:p

[Gordon]

AS long as we are here, can I use .32 ACP in my model 31 32S&W long revolver? Why NOT?:confused:

[firestar]

People lump the .32acp with the .22 and the .25 too often. I think the .32acp is much more powerful a cartridge than the other two. It is no 9mm but it is surely better than a .22lr or a .25acp. The .32 is a little powerhouse. At close range out of a short bbl, it still has enough power to penetrate quite a few wood planks.

I have tested the .32acp and the .22lr side by side and not only does the .32 throw a bullet that is almost twice the weight and much larger caliber (relatively) but it also penetrates at LEAST twice as deep in wood. My tests are not scientific, I did them to know how the .32 would compare to the .22lr that I am very familier with.

I have no doubts that a .22lr will kill a man if shot in the right place so I can only assume that the .32 is just as good or better. I carry a .22lr now but I have had several .32acp pistols.

I never had a rimlock problem in any .32 I have had, I think the problem is blown out of proportion. It would be better if it were rimless but that is not a deterent for me. The real problem with the semi-rimmed cartridge may be that it is less reliable out of small pistols. The .22lr seems to have the same problem but to a greater extant.

Hollow points in a .32acp may be a waste of time. I doubt that a .32 has enough power to go in and out of a torso so why limit the penetration anymore?

[C.R.Sam]

Gordon....
It might work in your individual gun.
Couple of mine too big in the rear to properly headspace the auto ctg, and the one that does won't properly extract consistantly.

Just not quite enough rim.

Sam

[Hypnogator]

Everyone disparages the .32 ACP as a "mouse" cartridge, but nobody wants to get shot with one. Including bad guys.

[mtnbkr]

Regarding rimlock, I had it happen once, while at the range. After dropping the mag and trying to "unlock" the round, I put the mag back into the gun, jammed the slide forward with the palm of my hand and resumed shooting. In my mind, it's an easier failure to recover from than a stovepipe, FTE, etc.

Chris

[yzguy]

I would not reccomend that method of clearing a rim locked round.... it will probably dammage the rim and could lead to an unchamberable (is that a word ?? ) round you are tring to push in.... (same goes for the next round in the mag)

[rolltide]

The 32ACP has nearly identical One Shot Stop numbers as the 380 and the 38 special from a snubnose revolver. It is in the 22/25 class in size and in the 380/38 class in performance. A triple tap from a 32 is likely to stop almost anyone except the most wasted PCP user, but nothing except a Central Nervous System shot is going to stop the most wasted PCP user because they are not going to feel anything. One shot stops for 32 Silvertips is 67% and OSS for 32 FMJ is 50%. I carry the silvertips.

The Seecamps, NAA, and apparently the Walthers are designed specifically to feed reliably with either hollow points or FMJ. I have never had a rimlock on my NAA 32 Guardian. I carry it everyday.

[SkunkApe]

Rolltide,

Welcome to the forums.

The figures you sited for "one shot stops" presumably come from Marshall and Sanow's so-called "research".

These data have been widely discredited due to Marshall and Sanow's appallingly poor understanding of statistics, as well as their unwillingness to disclose source material.

I wouldn't bet a dollar on their numbers, let alone my life.

[rolltide]

Thanks for the welcome.

I have read the so called "discrediting arguments" (i.e. firearmstactical.com) and find it mostly bias nit picking by those attemping to secure financial gain through discrediting Marshall and Sanow. I admit that Marshall and Sanow are not academic statisticians and are thereby open to criticism by those who are, but I consider the firearmstactical position even less credible. I have come to the conclusion that the One Shot Stop figures are statistically significant and a reliable tool for comparing loads and calibers. Many share that opinion. To each his own. While I think the numbers are limited to the point where you cannot count on the 357 125gr JHP working with one shot 96% of the time (it may actually be 90% or 97%), I think the OSS numbers are accurate as a comparison of loads because they evaluate all the loads on the same basis (all the blow and bluster of firearmstactical not withstanding.) The actual working numbers of the 32, 380, and 38snubnose may be different than 67% to 71%, but whatever the actual working numbers are, all three will almost certainly be nearly equal for those 3 calibers. That is the very valid and useable point that the Marshall/Sanow numbers establish and that firearmstactical ignores for their own purposes.

You have to evaluate all the facts and believe what you like. I'll stick with the one shot stop numbers until something more credible comes along. As far as many, many pepole are concerned, Marshall and Sanow are still the numbers to count on. To throw out the Marshall/Sanow numbers entirely because they may be flawed to some extent (and they are almost certainly flawed to some extent), you are throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Not trying to be argumentative. Just my $.02.

Best Regards,

Roll Tide

[SkunkApe]

Marshall and Sanow's data are flaw far more than "to some extent". They are fundamentally flawed. Marshall and Sanow excluded all shooting incidents in their study in which more than one shot was fired, thereby artificially representing the effectiveness of all loads, and making all loads appear to be much closer in performance than they are in reality.

Look at it this way:

I want to test the effectiveness of three different types of drills. I develop a test where I determine how many parts I can make with one drill.

Three tests with drill "A":

Test 1: The drill breaks on the first part
Test 2: The drill breaks on the first part
Test 3: The drill makes 60 parts, then gets dull.

Three tests with drill "B":

Test 1: The drill makes 58 parts, then gets dull.
Test 2: The drill makes 62 parts, then get dull.
Test 3: The drill makes 60 parts, the get dull.

A logical man would say drill "A" makes an average of 20 parts per drill, and drill "B" makes an average of 60 parts per drill.

Marshall and Sanow would discard the first two tests with drill A (because the couldn't finish the job) and say both drills average 60 parts.

If presented a study like that, I'd be laughed out of the industry.

Marshall and Sanow did it, and they sold a lot of books.

[9x19]

I have never experienced rimlock in any of my .32 or .38 Super chambered pistols using (shorter than FMJ) JHP ammo either.

The .32 is and adequate round, the pistols chambered for it make it an ideal package at times when anything larger would be untenable.

As far as the Marshall vs Fackler bit of silliness, I see it this way:

One day, Evan Marshall went looking for apples, and he found quite a few… then he came out and told everyone… “There are red apples, green apples and yellow apples.”

Martin Fackler saw Evan’s report on apples and said: “I like oranges. You won’t tell us where you found your apples, or let us eat your apples, but since none of your apples look like any of my oranges, I’ve decided your apples aren’t as good as my oranges.”

Which leaves it up to us to decide whether we prefer apples or oranges.

Make mine apples, please.

[rolltide]

Skunkape,
That is not exactly what they did. That is a vastly oversimplified version of what they did. There were many more variables to be considered other than a bit gets dull. While some of the incidents where multiple shots were fired were certainly one shot stop failures, many many others may have been because the shooter double or triple tapped or because under the stress of the moment they just emptied the gun. Those are all very common occurences but they can certainly not be construed as one shot stop failures. The firearmstactical people treat all multiple shots as one shot stop failures or "guess" that a substantial number are. Marshall and Sanow did count failures, otherwise everything would have been 100%. To prove that there numbers are fundamentally flawed someone would have to prove how many of the multiple shots incidents were one shot stop failures, and not just naively assume they all were like the firearmstactical people do. I have not seen anyone who has proved how many of those multiple shot incidents were actually one shot stop failures. I have only seen guesses, and most of those were not even good guesses. So no one that I have read has presented any basis is fact to prove the data is fundementally flawed, only conjecture. Marshall/Sanow excluded those incidents for precisely that reason, to avoid groundless conjecture. Marshall and Sanow made it very clear how they counted the incidents and made it very clear from the start that they did not include any multiple shot incidents. What they did do was count how many times a single shot of a particular caliber ended the incident. That is significant. They evaluate all the loads by the same standard. That is significant. They established that actual results defied conventional wisdom and that is where they collected a lot of critics. Both Marshall/Sanow and Firearmstactical are trying to make money off there information so everything they say has to viewed in that context, but in order for firearmstactical to make any money on their data, they first had to discredit Marshall/Sanow because it conflicted with their data. It seems that the gist of what the firearmstactical people are saying is that the only reliable way to stop someone is to compromise their CNS or for their blood pressure to drop until they loose control. While those 2 conditions will certainly end a fight, reality shows that many if not most fights are stopped long before either of those 2 things occur and that is where Marshall and Sanow numbers shine. They give us a point of reference for when a certain load brings the myriad of physiological, psychological, and circumstancial variables to the place where the fight is ended by a single shot. That is significant. To throw away all that significance because they did not include data which could never be accurately accounted for seems a little silly to me, no offense.

Basically I think you have a point, but I personally think it is overstated. I think firearmstactical has overstated it for purely financial reasons and they have not proven much. Thats just the way I see it, but I have been wrong before.

Roll Tide

[rolltide]

9X19,
I think you hit the nail on the head (while I was hitting all around it). I am afraid that is typical of my real carpentry skills too.

Roll Tide

[9x19]

rolltide,

I just find it funny the lengths some people will go to try and refute Evan's data.... yet none will do the ONLY thing that really could.... conduct their own study using the same methodology as Evan and come up with different numbers! Anything else is oranges against apples.

Besides which, I don't think Evan expects you to draw conclusions of "better" or "best" from his data. I think he just expects you to look at his findings and go "hmmmm".

Personally, given the coice between 85% and 95%, I'd take which ever one proved most reliable/accurate in my chosen pistols, as I don't think there is enough difference between the two to worry about.

For me its just food for thought, not proof of absolutes... I like to believe that's all Evan ever intended as well.

[mtnbkr]

I would not reccomend that method of clearing a rim locked round.... it will probably dammage the rim and could lead to an unchamberable (is that a word ?? ) round you are tring to push in.... (same goes for the next round in the mag)

For the Range: how would you clear it? Removing the cartridge manually is a pain. Since I'm at the range anyway, I don't care if I tweak a couple rounds and have to put them in the dud box.

For real life: Ok, short of having another loaded mag on hand to swap out, how would you clear this jam? Let's say I do this and I end up damaging the first cartridge, so it won't fire. I immediately cycle the slide and find the second cartridge damaged. All I have to do is cycle again and I should have a fuctional cartridge ready. That's assuming I have time to cycle the slide twice. Of course, that assumes I do the damage you describe.

What's more likely is that I might damage the first cartridge, but the second one would be fine, so only one manual cycle of the slide. This is after I've already fired one shot, so hopefully, the threat is moving a little slower.

A second, loaded mag would be a better solution, but if I could carry that much, then I would probably be carrying a j-frame revolver and speed loader instead.

Chris

[yzguy]

I was thinking another mag...

yeah, I guess if your not at the range and don't have a spare mag, then jamming the slide forward is better than throwing the gun at him...

at the range I'd probably manually remove it from the mag as I tend to like not to force things if I don't have to.

but on the other hand you COULD avoid this possibility all together!!

some required rim lock reading:
http://www.1bad69.com/keltec/rimlock.htm

http://www.1bad69.com/keltec/fmjvshp.htm

http://www.1bad69.com/keltec/flyerwire.htm

if I were to carry HP's in my P-32, there would be a flyer wire installed in the mag, and this would be a moot point. currently I am carrying a mag of FMJ with one Corbon HP on top and in the chamber, both to prevent rim lock and because this is what I choose.

[mtnbkr]

I've read those links before. Since I use FMJ (the rimlock was with Dynamit Nobel FMJ), I thought I couldn't use the Flyer Wire. I've been toying around with the idea of making a spacer myself though.

Chris

[Snake Eyes]

I just use .32 ACP in the gun JMB designed for it--the Colt Model M.

http://members.cox.net/storep/ModelMs

He did a good job. I have no problems.

[yzguy]

ooh, I did not catch that.... (that you got it with FMJ's)

They must be one of the shorter FMJ's

If you have 1/16 inch forward and back movement of the rounds in the mag a 1/16 inch wire (flyer wire) will take up this slack.

This usually does not happen with FMJ's, but can happen with ANY round that is short enought to allow them to move forward and back...

[mtnbkr]

ooh, I did not catch that.... (that you got it with FMJ's)

You didn't catch it because I failed to mention it. Sorry about that. I'll check to see how much space I have. This is my standard carry load, I may have to make up a spacer or get a Flyer Wire.

Chris