Why no 32 Super Auto?

bersaguy said:

Did anything other than the Roth Styer 1907 use the 8mm Roth Styer cartridge? That sure seems to be a pretty respectable offering in its own right, especially for 1907.

Click to expand...

No, at least nothing that ever got close to production that I know of. There are always obscure prototypes lurking around, so I'm not going to be more definite than that.

Kleanbore said:

Probably so.

The Wehrmacht abandoned the 7.65 Luger a longue, longue time ago.

I don't see any future in a 'super' .32 ACP derivative.

Click to expand...

Pfft, you don't see a future in .32 caliber handguns at all.

Germany wasn't alone in leaving behind that old 19th Century bottleneck for their sidearms as the Soviets did the same with the Tokarev, however that seemed to be more driven by wanting a cheaper to make and smaller/lighter sidearm in the Makarov and not a failure of performance of the 7.62x25. Why both chose something in the 9mm instead of 8mm IDK, you'd think a .32 in the Makarov would have been even smaller, lighter, cheaper, etc. than the 9x18 and with hardball ammo there's effectively no difference in performance.

But they didn't exactly have the stuff we have now to know that in the 1930s and 40s.

Black rifles said:

I bought an NAA Guardian in .32 acp many years ago because it was the smallest centerfire pistol around at the time. (Perhaps there were some .25's that were even smaller, don't or care.) Seecamp was available, but would only chamber the Winchester Silvertip. Then Kel-Tec bought out their tiny little 32. With the fixed barrel and one fingered grip of the Guardian, you knew you had shot a gun. If anyone one the receiving end it was probably more an issue of surprise.

Now you have manageable .380's like the Sig P238 and 9mm guns by Kahr, Glock, and others that are good shooters and very small. Not much point in packing a .32. As for plinking or what have you, .32's used to be pretty cheap and .22's were hard to find. The .32's would kick up more dust so you could say they provided more fun, but the prices have changed. 32's are twice what they were -- or more. I can find all the .22's I want around here so I don't see point in the .32 unless you like them for your own reasons.

Click to expand...

Last I checked .32 centerfire is a lot more reliable than .22 rimfire, but you raise a point that people don't want to acknowledge for some reason in terms of choosing a .22 over a .32 and that's price, more so the ammo than the guns. When you could buy 500 rds of .22 for $25 vs 100 rounds of .32 for the same amount of money people would rather have the less reliable, less effective caliber because it's cheaper or if they are going to spend more money on ammo they want the most bang for their buck and if it's bigger, like .380 is compared to .32, then it's of course "better."

I won't bring up 9mm in the discussion, people like to stretch the truth and say that some 9mm's are "almost as small as .380's" and they're not. People buy the .380s today not because they're as small as a 9mm, but because they're smaller.

bersaguy said:

There you go...that's whats up. Lengthen that cartridge out a couple of millimeters, push a 115ish grain 32 caliber projectile at around 1300-1400fps. I get it, it would probably flop. It would be 10mm in 32 caliber. And in a small pocket pistol, it would probably be pretty snappy. But wait, hear me out. Introduce a Colt 1908ish type pocket pistol chambered in the "new" 32 Super Automatic. Now the 1908 would have to be completely revamped, locked breech, double stack mag. The weight would help with the recoil. I suppose there are those that would say an all steel pistol the size of the 1903/1908 meant for pocket carry would be too large and too heavy to have any commercial success. I say those folks are no fun

Click to expand...

You're pretty much asking for a .327 in a semi auto if you want a 115gr going 1300 fps. Further, do you know how much blast and flash that's going to be out of a short barrel? The closest thing that comes to this today is the Tokarev and that's only an 85gr bullet, but it's going 1500+ fps out of a 5 inch barrel.

I mean, I agree it would be great to have a .32 that's got more oompf than the 32 ACP, but the semi auto equivalent to .327 isn't it. What would be is something equivalent to .32 H&R Mag, which is exactly what the .32 NAA is in terms of performance.

Taurus is still making a medium-framed revolver with adjustable sights in 32 S&W long, FWIW. I don't think they're imported to this country much, but I see them NiB occasionally.

I also used to have a small-framed Taurus in 32 H&R magnum, which was unfortunately my only Taurus that never would run correctly.

I don' think that a super 32acp would matter. It wouldn't give you significantly more shots than a 380 in the same pistol.

Some kind of super duper 25 caliber would be the thing. That magazine would hold a lotta rounds. Kinda somewhere between 25acp and 223 Remington?

bersaguy said:

I didn't realize that's where 327mag was at in ballistics. I have some 115 9mm Gold Dots that move out at 1260fps. So, yeah I suppose it would need to be either lighter or slower than that. So, really, looks like I just want something chambered for 8mm Roth Steyr. And a hellcat loaded with 8x19 as opposed to 9x19 would realistically only net, what, 2 maybe 3 extra rounds. Ahhh, stupid physics...always ruining a good time....pfffffft....don't even get me started on gravity....

Click to expand...

Out of a 3 inch barrel, yeah, which I assume is what you would want this .32 Super Auto to have and not the usual 4 or 5 inch barrel.

It would be another compromise in a world of compromises. IMHO you should be able to get 110/115gr bullets to 1150/1200 fps without nuclear pressure levels. In a Hellcat size gun it makes sense for someone who has trouble controlling +p 9mm in a Hellcat size gun.

7.5 FK BRNO?

Kleanbore said:

Probably so.

The Wehrmacht abandoned the 7.65 Luger a longue, longue time ago.

I don't see any future in a 'super' .32 ACP derivative.

Click to expand...

Did the Germans ever use 7.65 at all? Their first use of Lugers I know of was the 1904 Navy 9mm.

sequins said:

I think because you need a 9mm sized frame to get the benefits of 9mm pressures. For 327 fed its unique in that it buys you a 6th shot vs 357, but would 32 auto the size of a hellcat or p365 with 14-15rd flush and 16-17rd extended pinky really sell vs. Smaller 380 or larger 9mm?

Click to expand...

There are like five people on this forum who KEEP bringing up 32 Super. There are four or five more on a competing forum that I won’t mention in here, but the initials of which are “GlockTalk.”

I am one of those people.


You write:

“32 auto the size of a hellcat or p365 with 14-15rd flush and 16-17rd extended pinky really sell vs. Smaller 380 or larger 9mm?”

everything you wrote is true, except for one thing:

“vs.”

(ie vs 9mm etc)

where’s the versus?

Already owning a 9mm doesn’t send a signal to the brain to stop buying guns. On the contrary, guns such as the Hellcat trigger the firearms center of the amygdaloid process to release

gun buying

hormones into the bloodstream.

After you already had your 9 mm bought and lubed up and you were all good to go, did you ever, ever buy another firearm after that?

Another angle: it’s 2017 and Kimber drops the brand new…. Kimber snub nose revolver !!

does it succeed?

It’s 2016 and Chiappa drops the brand new…. Chiappa sun nose revolver!!

does it succeed?

Gun buying hormones are powerful.

The 16-round plastic microcompact 32 Super, if it worked as imagined, would sell fast.

TTv2 said:

You're pretty much asking for a .327 in a semi auto if you want a 115gr going 1300 fps. Further, do you know how much blast and flash that's going to be out of a short barrel? The closest thing that comes to this today is the Tokarev and that's only an 85gr bullet, but it's going 1500+ fps out of a 5 inch barrel.

I mean, I agree it would be great to have a .32 that's got more oompf than the 32 ACP, but the semi auto equivalent to .327 isn't it. What would be is something equivalent to .32 H&R Mag, which is exactly what the .32 NAA is in terms of performance.

Click to expand...

Totally.

In my 32 Super dreams, the R and D team sets 100/1000/222 as the goal: 100g at 1000ft/sec for muzzle energy of 222 ft lbs.

Just a hair more energy than 380, and preserves the “fun gun” traits you’d lose with a high pressure screamer.

pairof44sp said:

7.65x20 French Long

Click to expand...

Maybe, but not with that moniker.
I, will be shooting a 32 Super, out of its proper 1911 host.
And with a longer case length of 22mm to avoid any confusion.
I don’t get sillymeters. Is that different enough? Slang could be the 32 Double Deuce. Getting your hands on some,…never mind, let’s end that.

Regardless, I’m not shooting a 32 French. It’s not about what is or has been, or is just like, but what might be, what could be.
With a 100grn bullet there would be a good deal of neck for tension, enough case capacity to make 1000fps, and a single stack magazine in a polymer striker pistol is elongated in the proper dimension for my perfect pistol to hand fit.
And a double or stack-and-half magazine would be perfect for different size classes. Hopefully the 1.5 is the same size as a government model 1911. Holding 18+1 with a flush mag.




I have only so much money and time! I want it all!
Someday I will build this mutant thing and be in heaven!
(Hopefully before I’m actually there…)

Demi-human said:

Regardless, I’m not shooting a 32 French

Click to expand...

What if it was labeled ".32pedersen" ? []

bersaguy said:

And a hellcat loaded with 8x19 as opposed to 9x19 would realistically only net, what, 2 maybe 3 extra rounds. Ahhh, stupid physics...always ruining a good time....

Click to expand...

No lie, physics is a meanie.
Hmm, double stack of 12 is probably 5x5 necking to two at the top, so, that's eight increments of 1mm. Oops looks like you only get 1 more 8x19 over 9x19.
Harumph.
So, maybe "the answer" is the other way: 7x20. Eight increments of 2mm is 16mm, so, maybe plus two or three rounds. But, you'd have a hard time getting anything much bigger than 70-80 gr up to 1000fps in those dimensions. Hmm, maybe you could "break" 100gr in a 22 or 23mm long case and still have room for powder to get you to a grand or 1100 fps.
Dunno. Physics is a meanie. Pushed me down at recess and dun stole my lunch money.

>Calling it .32 Super Auto when ".32 Automag" rolls off the tongue so much better.

I like this idea, fwiw. Has anyone attempted a reliable quad-stack magazine in a pistol yet? Because the thought of a Glock 19 sized pistol holding 40+ rounds of this is stimulating.

DarkswordDX said:

Has anyone attempted a reliable quad-stack magazine in a pistol yet?

Click to expand...

That's a magazine that s going to want to be 34-36mm wide--or 1.41" at 36mm.
Basically, you'd have a magazine as thick as a 2x2, which is not going to suggest an easy grip dimension.

The other issue with quads is that they take the neck constriction problem of double-stack, single-feed, and double it. A mag loader is no longer optional, but mandatory. And, the tapered neck really reduces capacity at the top while being ugly to load.

If you put the taper below the grip that might work, but, it would probably be as bulky as a 32 round stick mag already is.

ALL the .32 caliber handguns have the same problem. The bullets are too light to get any real momentum and putting them into anything else with a locked breech negates the size and weight that makes .32 ACP handy.

Magically put a 'Super .32' in a locked breech pistol the size of a model M or 1903 Pocket Hammerless or perhaps a S&W (auto) M&P. Ideally a muzzle velocity of 1200 fps. (That's about 800 fps less than the .30 Carbine.) That will really be fun to shoot. (You go first.) Anything realistically to pep up the .32 caliber size results in either something along the lines of a .30 Carbine or .32-20.

It may appeal to those who think 'energy' (velocity based kinetic energy) is the end all and be all will probably rejoice until it gets used. By careful editing of information, it will appear to be death on deer and feral hogs but has a weak track record.

I remember some years ago the late Jeff Cooper reported on a test cartridge and pistol out of Europe. Supposedly fired a .25 caliber bullet (weight unspecified) at 2500 fps. Wowzers! I've never heard of it since.

Archie said:

ALL the .32 caliber handguns have the same problem. The bullets are too light to get any real momentum and putting them into anything else with a locked breech negates the size and weight that makes .32 ACP handy.

Magically put a 'Super .32' in a locked breech pistol the size of a model M or 1903 Pocket Hammerless or perhaps a S&W (auto) M&P. Ideally a muzzle velocity of 1200 fps. (That's about 800 fps less than the .30 Carbine.) That will really be fun to shoot. (You go first.) Anything realistically to pep up the .32 caliber size results in either something along the lines of a .30 Carbine or .32-20.

It may appeal to those who think 'energy' (velocity based kinetic energy) is the end all and be all will probably rejoice until it gets used. By careful editing of information, it will appear to be death on deer and feral hogs but has a weak track record.

I remember some years ago the late Jeff Cooper reported on a test cartridge and pistol out of Europe. Supposedly fired a .25 caliber bullet (weight unspecified) at 2500 fps. Wowzers! I've never heard of it since.

Click to expand...

There has to be some reason handguns settled on .3125 for such a long time. I’m wondering if it was simply a more effective cartridge back when the average man was 130 pounds. Now that 200 pounds is more common, things have settled on 9mm

pairof44sp said:

There has to be some reason handguns settled on .3125 for such a long time. I’m wondering if it was simply a more effective cartridge back when the average man was 130 pounds. Now that 200 pounds is more common, things have settled on 9mm

Click to expand...

Without question there is a reason. I'm not sure I know it all, but there are three - to me - rather obvious factors:
The .32 ACP was one of the earliest smokeless powder cartridges available. (There were .32 revolver cartridges prior, mostly black powder.) So the .32 ACP (the first cartridge of J. M. Browning, by the way) was not just 'new and novel', but cleaner and simpler than many of the previous handguns. I rather think most folks recognized .45 Colt was a better arm as a defensive means, but it was heavy and smokey and such.
Also, anti-infection drugs did not exist until the Second World War era. So every wound was potentially fatal.
The .32 ACP was quite small and light compared to extant guns of the era and previous.

As a bonus, perhaps folks would shoot seriously at that time. Not could, but were ready and willing to defend hearth and kindred.

I had one of the French 1935 pistols. It was given to me with out a mag or ammo. After looking at gun shows a couple of years I finally found a magazine. More years looking I never found any ammo and I sure wanted to shoot that gun. I finally sold it to someone at the GS for $50 and was glad to see it gone from my life.

I for one don't yearn for a 32 Super. I just wish Ruger would make an LCP in 32acp. When Ruger announced they coming out with a new gun I had my fingers crossed it was a 32 LCP. Nope. A double stack LCP 380. Oh well, maybe next time.

Archie said:

ALL the .32 caliber handguns have the same problem. The bullets are too light to get any real momentum and putting them into anything else with a locked breech negates the size and weight that makes .32 ACP handy.

Click to expand...

The Kel Tec .32 is a locked breech and I believe is the lightest .32 semi auto pistol ever made, if not lightest semi auto pistol ever.

The problem that .32 ACP has is only with hollow points and the bullets either not expanding due to poor design or lack of velocity and when they do expand not penetrating enough. Solid bullets don't have the penetration problem that hollow points do, so there's a reason many use FMJ in .32 ACP. I would think the Lehigh Xtreme whatever would be better given it's not a round projectile it should do more damage internally.

Magically put a 'Super .32' in a locked breech pistol the size of a model M or 1903 Pocket Hammerless or perhaps a S&W (auto) M&P. Ideally a muzzle velocity of 1200 fps. (That's about 800 fps less than the .30 Carbine.) That will really be fun to shoot. (You go first.) Anything realistically to pep up the .32 caliber size results in either something along the lines of a .30 Carbine or .32-20.

Click to expand...

Maybe with regard to the .327, but for a semi auto the .32 NAA would give you that ideal 1200 fps and do it with an 85 grain bullet, but it would have to come out of a 5 inch barrel to do it. Out of a 3 inch barrel it'd be right around 1000 fps and that's enough to get expansion, maybe not 50% more, but close to it and really you don't want a ton of expansion with .32 because it saps penetration.

The answer is .32 NAA, people just can't seem to accept it because it's a bottlenecked .380 and they can't get that precious extra capacity in the magazine.

BERSAGUY,

At the end of the 19th century, their was a number of powerful .30/.32/7.62 and 7.63 mm rounds developed for the MAUSER 96 broomhandle and LUGER pistols. Later the FRENCH adopted a "LONG" .32ACP and later replaced it with the 9m.m. PARABELLUM. The RUSSIAN'S went with the 7.63 TORKAREV round and kept it till the developed the much less powerful 9m.m. MAKAROV round and pistol.
So their have been quite a few powerful or "SUPER" versions of the .32ACP, but I do not see any of them selling past the surplus gun market.

If you want a really small semi-auto, you go to the .32ACP. If you want a powerful round, you really have to go to a bigger gun, chambered for a least the .380ACP..

If you follow COLT'S lead and make a .32 Super, you need to almost certainly redesign the gun you are using in .32ACP or go to a bigger gun and that may conflict with going to a small gun like the .32ACP in the first place.

If you want .32 Super performance, get a BERETTA 81 or CZ 83 in .32ACP and load some of the "boutique" ammo company's ammunition. COR BON makes a hot .32ACP load. It should get over 1100 fps out of the large .32ACP pistols that I mentioned.

Jim

While Europe had .32 auto in use in police and military, this country tended to go big. Everybody wanted a ,45 since that's what our military used.

Getting military and police here to use 9mm took forever.

Good luck pushing a ".30".