.32ACP or .380


PDA






tech30528
December 14, 2012, 05:00 PM
OK, I'm sure this has been addressed before so I'll narrow it down a bit.

Looking for a pocket carry. I have a model 33 Glock. It's small, but not pocket small. Looking at the KelTec or Ruger snagless (recessed hammer) style pistols. I've looked at ballistics, obviously the .380 has a slight edge there. I have a Walther P22 and love it. I know they make a .380 is very similiar to it, but again, not pocket small, and in that size I would just get another 9mm. I want TINY and light.

Capacity on the .32 is +1, and from what I have been told the itty bitty frame is prone to muzzle flip in .380 and so .32 is easier to put more rounds on target. What I'm looking for here is EXPERIENCED responses, not "I wouldn't carry smaller than a Howitzer" or "My cousin's girlfriend's brother's best friend once killed an elephant with a Cricket rifle". I'm looking for people who have shot both. Since neither has a marked advantage in ballistics I'm looking at ease of use and follow up shots. Ammo availability is not an issue either, whichever I choose will get a big friggin box to go with it.

If you enjoyed reading about ".32ACP or .380" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
rcmodel
December 14, 2012, 05:08 PM
I have a Kel-Tec P3AT (.380).

Yes, it kicks.
But it is not as hard to shoot fast as an airweight .38 Spl revolver.

The locked-breach action soaks up a lot of recoil snap you get with a revolver or blow-back semi-auto weighing twice as much.

My P3AT is actually more comfortable to shoot then the all steel Walther PPK/s I used to have.

I believe the .380 does offer a marked advantage in that JHP ammo for the caliber is now available for it that offers "enough" penetration, Plus good expansion.

The .32 ACP, not so much.

rc

Shadow 7D
December 14, 2012, 05:35 PM
Comparing the P32 to the P3AT, I find that the P32 is easier for me to shoot, as it's lighter round in a REALLY damn small gun

it comes to trade off's, you get good performance with FMJ ammo out of a .32, BUT run into rimlock issues with short COAL JHP, and not reliable expansion.

But trade that for a slightly larger gun that is more difficult to shoot.
Really in pocket mouses, it's something you need to go out and shoot and see how you do with the different guns.

A pocket mouse is a different gun, it's the gun you got, not the one you bring to the OK corral
it's for 'social' distance, and that's what it is good for. How you use it is different than say a service pistol with twice the barrel and more powerful round.

firesky101
December 14, 2012, 05:38 PM
The only reason to go .32 is for the thinness of the p-32 or a pistol of a similar width. Otherwise go .380.

Kahr33556
December 14, 2012, 05:43 PM
:) :) :) :)

481
December 14, 2012, 05:57 PM
I'd go with the P3AT.

It's small and thin (0.77") and ought to serve well as a pocket gun.

The Kahr P380 is also of similar size and might be an option, too.

Shadow 7D
December 14, 2012, 06:01 PM
The only reason to go .32 is for the thinness of the p-32 or a pistol of a similar width. Otherwise go .380.
No, there are a number of reasons
it's smaller and lighter than my wallet
it's faster and easier to shoot, and I am MORE accurate with it (close is OK in horseshoes and handgrenades....)

It's a trade off, you have to decide if it's enough to get the job done, and I carry FMJ's and accept it's limitations. Why I said go shoot them and decide for yourself.

Onward Allusion
December 14, 2012, 06:13 PM
Got both. Carry pretty much only the P-32. The extra 1 round makes a difference for me. Quicker follow-up shots, too. In my mind, it's kind of like the Glock 17 -vs- Glock 22 comparison. While I don't plan on spraying and praying, I rather have 2 extra rounds, especially when a 9mm can do just as good of a job if I do my part.

J_McLeod
December 14, 2012, 06:19 PM
It's not exactly what you're looking for, but I do one both calibers. I own a Ruger LCP and Beretta Tomcat. The Tomcat is a safe queen and hardly gets carried. The recoil on both seems similar, but the .380 is more powerful and easier to find and reload.

Kymasabe
December 14, 2012, 06:20 PM
I had a Kel-Tec P3AT years ago and shooting it was like trying to hang onto an exploding credit card. Not the gun for me. Didn't help that I bought it during a time when there were some quality issues and the fluff-n-buff was the standard thing to do to make the gun work. 2 trips back to Kel-Tec and I gave up. But, a year or so later I bought the P32. MUCH better gun to shoot, less recoil, can get back on target easier, you get one extra round and bolt-hold-open on last round. I've had that P32 now for over 5 years, have had hundreds of rounds thru it and never had a single problem with it.
If I were looking for a .380, I'd be looking at Kahr instead.
EDIT: wanted to ad this...I'm more accurate with the P32 than I was with the P3AT. I carry it everyday with Winchester FMJ. I'd rather know I have one extra round and can get on target.

Water-Man
December 14, 2012, 06:26 PM
.380 using Hard Cast or Flat Point FMJ ammo.

tech30528
December 14, 2012, 06:34 PM
I had a Kel-Tec P3AT years ago and shooting it was like trying to hang onto an exploding credit card. Not the gun for me. Didn't help that I bought it during a time when there were some quality issues and the fluff-n-buff was the standard thing to do to make the gun work. 2 trips back to Kel-Tec and I gave up. But, a year or so later I bought the P32. MUCH better gun to shoot, less recoil, can get back on target easier, you get one extra round and bolt-hold-open on last round. I've had that P32 now for over 5 years, have had hundreds of rounds thru it and never had a single problem with it.
If I were looking for a .380, I'd be looking at Kahr instead.
EDIT: wanted to ad this...I'm more accurate with the P32 than I was with the P3AT. I carry it everyday with Winchester FMJ. I'd rather know I have one extra round and can get on target.
That's the kind of advice I'm looking for. Getting follow up shots on target is important to me, but these things are not always intuitive. Recently had a pistol shoot out at my place with a bunch of my wife's friends who are all medical professionals. I was surprised when I fired a .45 Glock for the first time. My 33 had the 9mm barrel in it at the time, we were shooting the standard 115 grains with it. I would have thought the .45 would be harder to get back on target, but it wasn't. The 9mm SNAPS while the .45 THUDS and follow us shots were surprisingly easy. So I thought I'd ask. Keep 'em coming guys, lot's of good info here.

Shadow 7D
December 14, 2012, 06:45 PM
Go look up mouseguns.com
they have TONNES of stuff on this
Oh, and the Tomcat is NOT a locked design, so it's comparing apples to oranges
a locked design has a drastically different recoil than a blowback, go shoot a glock .40 then shoot a Hi Point JSP .40.....

481
December 14, 2012, 07:03 PM
I had a Kel-Tec P3AT years ago and shooting it was like trying to hang onto an exploding credit card.

That's an awfully good (and funny) description of firing a diminuitive auto-pistol in .380. I am always surprised by how much recoil a .380 can dish out- even though I've worked out the physics of it for myself many times- using a .380 95 gr FMJ @ 900fps their "snappiness" is attributable to a free recoil velocity of ~21 fps..

IdahoSkies
December 14, 2012, 07:33 PM
I went through the same weighing a while back, and it really depends on the size and weight of the pistol. If you are looking at 12 oz or less, lock breached designs, (LCP, TCP, P3AT), .380 can be a real serious handful, and aimed rapid fire action is pretty tough.

In a slightly heavier pistol, like the sig p238, the .380 is a dream. (the sig weighs in at about 16 oz.s if I recall correctly).

I ended up with a .32 p32, after trying out the Beretta in tomcat in .32 (which is a great gun, but a bad design, google cracked frame, I didn't believe it until it happened to me). with the p32 I get an extra round more than the .380, and the recoil is more manageable.

With a .32 you have to decide do you want expansion or penetration, you can't have both. You have to be comfortable to have one instead of the other. If you are not comfortable with a .32 I encourage you to pick up something a bit bigger than a 10 oz .380 pocket wonder. It makes for a bit more of a pocketful, but its easier to put lead down range with it.

Hope this helps and is simply not more of the same.

firesky101
December 14, 2012, 08:18 PM
To be fair Shadow, I wasn't particularly responding to you. Your post was not there when I started viewing the thread. Still you are correct, If you can shoot the .32 better then that is a good reason. I don't notice a whole lot of difference between recoil in the LCP and the P32 (don't have a p3at to compare), but some might.

groundhog34
December 14, 2012, 09:04 PM
Get off some green and get a Rohrbraugh 9mm. It is as small as any 380 or 32.

PRM
December 14, 2012, 09:29 PM
I personally carry a Walther PP in 32. ACP. Never felt disadvantaged a bit - and that's after carry and shooting one for over 35 years.

Lot of folks bash the .32, but its had a following since 1899 (112 years and counting). Guess you have to decide what works for you and what your comfortable with.

heeler
December 14, 2012, 09:44 PM
I own both the LCP (two actually) as well as a KT P32 and I can honestly state that I can keep the P32 on target much easier than my LCP.
All that being said I do not think the recoil is excessive at all in the LCP and I carry it more than my P32.
You want excessive recoil in a small compact handgun then try a snub .38 Special Airweight.
You will see the difference for sure.
No more for me.

commygun
December 14, 2012, 10:29 PM
After many different pocket guns I carry and really like the LCP. I don't find the recoil particularly abusive either. If you don't mind the weight and size I think the Walther PP in .32 is a great gun too. It's just one of those pistols that seems like a lot more gun than it's caliber suggests. That doesn't make sense even to me.

351 WINCHESTER
December 14, 2012, 10:38 PM
I like the k/t p32's. They are thin and work just fine. I have the Ruger lcp which works fine too, but it's heavier and more bulky. I carry both. I know k/t had problems with their p3at's and I don't know if they worked out the bugs. I had a friend that had one that was a jam o matic, sent it back to k/t twice and it still jammed. He sold it and got a revolver. He actually sold his p32 (which worked) and bought the p3at. I don't like the new extractors on k/t's. I much prefer the original ones. If you decide on the .380 you need to get the lcp. They are much better made than k/t's.

MedWheeler
December 14, 2012, 10:47 PM
The below is my "initial-impression/range report" from June of 2011, regarding my just-acquired Kel-Tec P32. It includes my reasoning for choosing it over the P3-AT.


Due to the somewhat increasing frequency of occasions in which belt carrying of my PF-9 is not practical, I've decided to get a pocket-carry-capable piece. After much thought, I settled on the KT-P32. Though I considered the P-3AT, I went with this one for the following reason: less snappy (the recoil of my early Grendel P-10, and of my PF-9 push my abilities for quick re-acquisition for follow-up shots), the presence of a slide-lock, and the addition of one round in capacity. Also, in a pinch, my wife, a markedly diminutive lady, could be armed with it.

Today, I headed to an all-day-pay outdoor range with this gun, my other two carry guns (PF-9 and Bersa Thunder 380), and ammunition. For the P-32, I had only 100 rounds of WWB 71-grain FMJ-FN ammo (the last two WM had in stock.)
I arrived to find the range closed for a special event, and went instead to an hourly-pay indoor range. Because of the time constraints there, I was now not going to shoot the other guns I also had brought along (two revolvers, and two .22LR autos.)


Once posted on the line, I loaded up the new KT, and ran a casual-fire session on a silhouette target at a range of 21 feet (7 yards.)
I found the P-32 to be not entirely without snappish-ness, but it is easily handled. I might have had more issue with it at the outdoor range, as temperatures were well north of ninety degrees,a nd my hands would have been quite sweaty. I could feel the grip on this little scale-tickler wanting to work upward in my hand from time to time.
About half my shooting was done with one hand. I actually found that to be fairly easy to keep on target, something that I previously had a harder time with on my PF-9. All my rounds were easy to keep in an area suitable for defensive use during offhand fire, about the size of my closed fist if I tried, and the size of my open hand if I didn't.

I had one case of rimlock. This occurred at probably the 24th round or so (into the fourth magazine.) I've never experienced this before so, of course, the TRB drill didn't work. I removed the magazine, and still could not push the round forward. After manipulating the round downward some, and giving the magazine some firm slaps in my hand, the round was able to be freed. I shot out the rest of the mag, reloaded that round into it, chambered it, and fired it without further issue. The remainder of the session was finished without any other malfunctions.

I fired a total of 92 rounds, keeping eight left left over for carry use until I can stop back in somewhere and get a more suitable round. I was amazed at how fast I went through them. After searching here for "rimlock", I will likely go with a hot FMJ load such as the Fiocchi, or maybe a S&B one.

I found the gun to be quite a little delight to shoot, kind of reminding me of my old Jennings J-22 in handling, though I haven't shot that thing in maybe two decades. I had no trouble fully re-setting the trigger (never did on my PF-9, either), even in rapid-fire. I can see this piece being a viable carry option as a pocket-holster gun, and I do already have a PH for it. As with many new Kel-Tec pieces, it has some little burrs and other marks of "unfinishedness" about it, but nothing that hampered function or carry. My PF-9 is much more "finished", but I'm not the original owner of that, so someone may have done a F&B on it before.

Incidentally, I switched to the PF-9 after shooting the new P-32. The PF-9 is remarkably small but, after spending time with its little sister, it feels like a service weapon, filling my hand and actually showing some heft it was never known to possess before. I also learned during the session that I can actually shoot this thing better than I thought I could. The last two times I shot the 9, I was at the outdoor range, with sweat running into my eyes and all over my hands, and just didn't feel I did as well, coming away with the impression that this is not a "range-time" piece. Not anymore. I really enjoyed it today, even one-handed shooting (something I'd not done before with it.) Rapid-fire, one-handed shooting was even more than just manageable.

So, that's that. The PF-9 will remain my first carry gun. It has done so since I proofed it more than a year ago when I got it, being on me pretty much any time I am out of bed. But, I am pleased that the P-32 will make an exceptional second option for "shirt-tucked-in" occasions, and maybe even as a BUG or "NY-reload" when the PF-9 is carried, such as during my once-per-week pizza delivery job.
I will source another magazine for it, though, as that is the fastest way to alleviate a rimlock situation (something I plan to insure doesn't happen again.)

weblance
December 15, 2012, 02:23 AM
Ive had my P32 long enough now to make a couple comments about it. I have 2 LCPs that I dont trust because every time I take them to the range, I have a feed or eject malfunction. After a Fluff and Buff of the P32, its been perfect through 350 rounds. Im not recoil shy, but the LCP is a handfull. I am a pocket carry Person, and find the weight, size, and performance of the P32 to be perfect. I think 8 rounds of 32 FMJ will get me to safety if I would ever need it. I also like the longer 10 round, full grip magazine that is available for the P32, that the LCP doesnt have. Im happy with my P32.

Weevil
December 15, 2012, 03:30 AM
Another vote for the P32.

Great little pistol one of the best of the mouseguns and probably the best reputation of all the Kel-Tec offerings.

Yeah .380 has a bit more power than the .32 but honestly I wouldn't use anything but FMJ anyway. And if you use FMJ regular rround nose none of the flatpoint stuff like Winchester, you don't have to worry about rim-lock.

Rim-lock is only an issue with hollow-points or flat point bullets that allow the cartridges to move forward in the mag.

Snowdog
December 15, 2012, 04:04 AM
I've only owned the P32 (still do) and must say that though it is indeed a mouse gun, the cartridge is deceptive in that it provides much more penetration than the size of the round would suggest.

I have done quite a bit of informal plinking with my P32 and have been quite impressed at what it's 73gr FMJ can punch through. For me, that provided confidence that it would punch through the skull of an assailant... which is convenient as I consider my P32 a last ditch "face gun".

I truly believe that if one remains realistic and expects to use at P32 at melee ranges rather than a running gun battle through a vacant parking lot, the .32acp has plenty of potential to save one's bacon.

Onmilo
December 15, 2012, 05:25 AM
I have always preferred the .32 acp to the .380 acp.
Most .32s offer a larger capacity, lighter recoil, a lower muzzle report at the trade off of very little in actual bullet performance.

If you have access to pistols in both calibers try the good old fashioned phone book test.
You will find the .32 acp FMJ driven at 900 fps will actually outpenetrate a .380 fmj driven to similar velocity while the .380 hollowpoint bullets will penetrate a bit deeper than the .current .32 hollowpoint offerings though the .32 FMJ will outpenetrate both hollowpoints.
I am not a fan of hollowpoint bullets in small caliber pocket pistols preferring penetration capability to expansion capability and am a firm believer that if you must use a smaller caliber as a defense weapon, hitting the target with multiple rounds is the way to go.

My current favorite if I must use this as a defense weapon choice is a fine 15 shot .32 acp CZ83
My actual choice for a defense weapon is a Glock 26 9mm using 15 shot G19 magazines

rskent
December 15, 2012, 07:02 AM
The KT and baby Rugers are to small for me to hang on to. They are great guns if they fit you. They don't work with the chubby little stubs I call fingers. I ended up with a Tomcat and a Sig 238.
The Tomcat is a good little shooter and carries great in a Don Hume pocket holster. Just like its not there. The Sig is what I carry mostly. I use a OWB holster mostly. It hides under a T shirt very
well and shoots like a dream.

In the end you gotta get what fits you, not me.

Shawn Dodson
December 15, 2012, 09:50 AM
I routinely carry a Seecamp .32. I chose it because I wanted a small. lightweight pistol that I could slip into my pocket just before I left the house to run a quick errand. It also had to be easy to draw quickly from my pocket.

While Seecamp also offers the same pistol chambered for .380 ACP I determined it would be a challenge to shoot quickly and accurately.

Weight and bulk were big factors in selecting the Seecamp .32. I really don't like things in my front pockets, especially on hot days when I'm sweaty. I've been very pleased with the Seecamp since I started carrying it about a year ago.

I also considered the NAA Guardian .32 (which is also available in .380). I was surprised that the few extra ounces of weight made THAT much difference.

There's fine line between "carry-ability" and "shoot-ability" when it comes to small pistols. For me the Seecamp .32 is BOTH easy to carry and easy to draw quickly and shoot accurately without having to re-adjust my grip after each shot.

Good luck!

JR47
December 15, 2012, 10:22 AM
I own both. The P32 just slips into a pocket almost unnoticed. I can hold it into the A target area at 15 yards, as well, in rapid fire. The gun has been flawless in performance.

Rim-lock with short OAL can be avoided by using the Kel-Tec adapter designed to avoid that. Rim-lock with FMJ is a loading error by the operator. Ask the British about that, and their .303 rounds. Or the Russians and the 7.62x54R.

My P3AT is a tiny bit larger, and prints in the same wear as the P32, perhaps due to the weight increase. It is a bit more snappy, as it should be when firing a round that is 50% heavier in the bullet, at the same velocities. I have no trouble shooting it, nor have I had any troubles with the function, but it just isn't as easy to hide in my chosen location.

The P32 is actually a bit more accurate.

Ruger LCP 2.75" barrel, 5.16" long, 3.60" high, and 0.82" wide. 9.4 oz empty.

P3AT 2.7" barre;. 5.2" long, 3.5" high, and .77" wide. 8.3 oz empty.

P32 2.7" barrel. 5.10" long, 3.50" high, and .77" wide. 6.6 oz. empty.

LCP 6+1 .380 ACP

P3AT 6+1 .380 ACP

P32 7+1 .32 ACP

Armchair Bronco
December 15, 2012, 05:02 PM
What about something like a Polish P-64 instead? Then you can go with a a ballistically superior 9x18. These are very small guns but like everything from the Iron Curtain built like a tank.

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/9373/img0011mty.jpg

jmace57
December 15, 2012, 07:07 PM
Me too PRM - my carry gun is a Walther PP in .32. (Although I just bought a Bersa Thunder in .380 to try out)

Weevil
December 16, 2012, 01:35 AM
The P32 is quite a bit smaller and much lighter than the all steel Makarov and similiar type pistols like the P64, CZs or Walther PPs.

http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n200/srebough/makp32.jpg

It's a true pocket pistol that's not only smaller and lighter but much thinner.


It's not a blowback action and does not require the big heavy slide they do.

MedWheeler
December 16, 2012, 02:37 PM
The P-64 is also substantially heavier than the pocket-pistols being discussed here, and that's a deal-breaker for many due to their carry requisites.

That being said, that one pictured is quite handsome. I wouldn't mind having one, but it would too closely duplicate my Bersa Thunder .380.

fastbolt
December 16, 2012, 04:06 PM
I try not to weigh in on recommending specific makes/models/calibers to folks looking to buy diminutive off-duty, secondary/backup or CCW weapons. I prefer to encourage them to try and find examples of whatever interests them, and then try them out on a range with some representative defensive ammunition.

Choosing between .32 & .380 can produce pro's & con's for each caliber.

Since neither has a marked advantage in ballistics I'm looking at ease of use and follow up shots.

I'd not be so quick to dismiss the "ballistics" of each caliber quite so quickly, myself.

I tend to prefer the bullet weight and more modern hollowpoint designs available in the .380, myself ... as long as the particular pistol & ammunition selection exhibits optimal feeding & functioning in any particular shooter's hand.

Reliability is critical. (This includes being able to safely grasp and manipulate the little pistol under stressful situations, without causing any shooter-related functioning issues to occur.)

The ability of the shooter/owner to make consistently accurate, controllable & effective hits on the intended target is critical.

Mindset is critical.

Caliber? Well, this is where I'd prefer to try and make the most out of the diminutive pocket pistol offerings ... and lean more toward the .380 ACP.

I just did that recently, myself, BTW.

After years of using one or another of my growing number of 5-shot J-frames as my preferred "minimum caliber" off-duty weapons, I found there were times when I wasn't able to fit a snub into some shorter pockets (pocket holstered) of some of my jeans. Being retired, I no longer feel like letting my cover garment & daily clothing selection be dictated by my need to conceal a weapon. That's me.

Having handled a Bodyguard .380 belonging to another instructor, I didn't quite like the extra frame size incorporated for the integral laser (nor did I want the added fuss of laser operation, battery replacement, etc). I decided to look further.

After having seen and heard of some good owner reports regarding the little Ruger LCP, I took another instructor up on his offer of borrowing his LCP for a little while. It slipped into the small jeans pockets with ease, and it was easier to forget I was carrying it than even my lightest J-frames.

I picked one up for myself and ran some different defensive ammunition through it. I tried Rem 102gr BJHP, Speer 90gr GDHP and Win 95gr RA380T (T-Series). All fed & fired just fine. The Rem BJHP resulted in a few hat-bouncing empty cases (the Win & Speer didn't).

Practical accuracy was pleasantly surprising. All 3 loads produced tightly clustered cloverleaf groups at close ranges (3-7 yds), and respectable groups out to 15 yards. Naturally, the rudimentary front sight (fixed, blued, machined into the slide) was hard to pick up and distinguish against the rear notch in the night/low light conditions in which I was shooting, but when I took the time to pick up & align the sights, the little gun produced impressive inherent accuracy. Indexed shooting at close ranges was also good (for me), too.

I decided the little .380 was a keeper ... and it became the first .380 I've owned and carried in about 25 years, since I got rid of a Beretta M84.

When I'm not carrying one of my snubs or smallish 9's, .40's or .45's, of course.

As an instructor, I've seen a fair number of itty bitty .22's & .25's not function so well for owners, as well as owners who couldn't shoot them very well under just the minimal stress of a qualification courses-of-fire (even when they did feed & function normally).

The .32's and .380's have done better, but as has been mentioned, rim-lock is an issue of which to be aware in the .32 pistols.

Overall, I think the newer .380's and some of the better designed .380 HP's are giving the .380 a renewed interest by users.

Something else to perhaps consider is that PD's create policies about such things as off-duty & secondary/backup weapons, it's not uncommon to sometimes see them restrict the authorized/issued calibers for such weapons to either .380 ACP or .38 S&W Special. Listening to their reasons (and sometimes just reading between the lines), it seems those 2 calibers are considered more "minimally adequate" than the .32 ACP (or .22's/.25's).

Just something to think about ...

I don't give the same thought to "nostalgic influences" as some owners seem inclined to do, but it seems to be a factor among some folks.

JR47
December 16, 2012, 06:38 PM
It's also quite apparent, listening to may expert instructors that both the .380 and .32 cartridges are split almost evenly between those who recommend FMJ, and those who say that JHP is the way to go. So, type of JHP may be considered, at leadst 50% of the time, to be of no consequence.

I'm afraid that many PDs regard the .32 ACP as a "foreign cartridge", much like the 9x19 in the 40's and 60's. They are happy with an American cartridge, and that's the .380 ACP.

I grew up in Maryland. The police there stuck with the .38 Special revolver for years after the "big switch", especially municipal police. Back-up to them was whatever they wanted to carry. Off-duty was, if regulated, some sort of revolver.

You'd have been surprised at the number of BUGS that were Ravens, Baby Colts, and some small framed .32 S&W Long, or 38 S&W revolvers. Pay in the 50's and 60's wasn't going to make you rich, and guns were expensive at that salary. Somehow, they managed to survive, and win, against some spirited opposition.

To me, the worries that we spend hours imagining ever more catastrophically, are easily dealt with. YOU are the answer, not the gun, and not the caliber. Becoming proficient in whatever you decide to carry will get you though the fight. Even better, using your awareness can usually serve to KEEP you from a fight. How anyone with a lick of common sense would put themselves in some of these scenarios is hard to believe. Nor are they representative of the average situation where a civilian will have to defend themselves.

Personally, I don't intend to argue with an entire Chapter of Hells' Angels, or call out the local MS13 for a fight. Not prudent. :)

the_skunk
December 16, 2012, 07:32 PM
Guns are all about "What will you carry". I always carry my Seecamp 32. Sometimes I carry my Sig 232 (380).

As for my Browning HP, Kimber, Sig 226 .... I have never carried them.

MICHAEL T
December 16, 2012, 10:18 PM
Their 3 P-32 in my house and 1 P3AT The women like the 32 I like the 380. I do carry one of the 32s now and then.

Snowdog
December 18, 2012, 01:13 PM
Armchair Bronco, I'm with you on the P64. Mine was received in near mint condition and I love the thing. It's considerably heavier and larger than my P32, but if I ever did have to draw in an emergency situation, I'd sure rather have the P64 over the P32.

Those things are scary accurate in SA!

mojo357
December 19, 2012, 02:53 PM
I too own a P64 and it's a nifty little gun but I wouldn't trust mine for carry. Sometimes it shoots all day, other times it flakes out. No matter how much "forensic" testing I give it, the reasons for its failures are a mystery.

And be aware that the P-32 also has a history of cracked frames. Like the Beretta Tomcat, the problem was supposedly fixed in newer models, but if you're considering buying a used one you might get a lemon. At least Beretta switched to an inox frame so it's easy to know it's the improved version.

If you want a smooth shooting, accurate .380 the Beretta 84 series can't be beat, but of course they aren't the size of a credit card. They hold 10-13 rounds though, and are good collectible pistols.
______________________________________

https://www.createspace.com/4094773

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