Thoughts on .32ACP pocket pistols

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm still having ejection problems. About 1 in 7 rnds will jam. I've tried 2.3 gr Titegroup, 2.2 gr Bullseys, .980 OAL. ;; 2.3 gr Titegroup, and 2.4 gr 231 at .950 OAL. These are all 71 gr plated rnd nose (Berry's) . These loads are all in the high range of my Lyman manual. I'm gonna try the low range, but I don't hold out much hope. Maybe I'll start going a little over recommended max til I see over pressure issues. Any ideas ???
 
I always enjoy it when this topic resurfaces. It allows me to quote Ian Fleming, "Walther PPK. 7.65mm, with a delivery like a brick through a plate glass window. Takes a Braush silencer with very little reduction in muzzle velocity. The American CIA swears by them."
– Maj. Boothroyd, to 007, in "Dr. No"

"Maj. Boothroyd" - and by proxy, Ian Fleming's - opinions aside, the .32ACP at "sharp-stick" range is more effective than a .25ACP... or a sharp stick, for that matter. Abd it is true that use of a silencer on a pocket pistol in .32ACP results in very little reduction in muzzle velocity - mainly because it starts with very little muzzle velocity. Anything from very little will, by definition, be less than very little. A person with knowledge of anatomy, their personal firearm, with good reflexes and possessing a calm demeanor can use such a small pocket pistol to excellent effect. At least, that's what the FBI gel stats say. The 7.65mm Browning, a.k.a. .32ACP has some obvious benefits: it is found typically in small, easily concealed pistols, it has half the recoil of a "short" 9mm (.380ACP) in guns of similar sizes, many hold more rounds than the comparable .380ACP models, and there is a decent selection of ammunition to choose from. There are also downsides - including production costs, reliability, the engineering constraints on springs and triggers in small automatics, and the cost of ammunition. The component costs for both guns and ammo are relatively the same for .32ACP as for .380ACP - so why make a smaller, weaker, less-effective pistol? In my view, because .25ACP is underpowered for its potential and .380ACP has too much recoil when cut down to concealment size. .32ACP - or, maybe more accurate to say the CIP standard European police cartridge, 7.65mm - fits the niche between concealment and controllability pretty darned well.

JMDAO, YMMV, No deposit - No return, see your doctor for details. Some will disagree. They always do. :)

Reminds me of the ole saw about the Mafia hit-man, being questioned about his weapon of choice - a 3" Bbl'ed .22 LR revolver with a silencer:

"Are you kiddin'...?

...You can shoot'em practically anywhere... in da eye."

:D




GR
 
I always enjoy it when this topic resurfaces. It allows me to quote Ian Fleming, "Walther PPK. 7.65mm, with a delivery like a brick through a plate glass window. Takes a Braush silencer with very little reduction in muzzle velocity. The American CIA swears by them."
– Maj. Boothroyd, to 007, in "Dr. No"

"Maj. Boothroyd" - and by proxy, Ian Fleming's - opinions aside, the .32ACP at "sharp-stick" range is more effective than a .25ACP... or a sharp stick, for that matter. Abd it is true that use of a silencer on a pocket pistol in .32ACP results in very little reduction in muzzle velocity - mainly because it starts with very little muzzle velocity. Anything from very little will, by definition, be less than very little. A person with knowledge of anatomy, their personal firearm, with good reflexes and possessing a calm demeanor can use such a small pocket pistol to excellent effect. At least, that's what the FBI gel stats say. The 7.65mm Browning, a.k.a. .32ACP has some obvious benefits: it is found typically in small, easily concealed pistols, it has half the recoil of a "short" 9mm (.380ACP) in guns of similar sizes, many hold more rounds than the comparable .380ACP models, and there is a decent selection of ammunition to choose from. There are also downsides - including production costs, reliability, the engineering constraints on springs and triggers in small automatics, and the cost of ammunition. The component costs for both guns and ammo are relatively the same for .32ACP as for .380ACP - so why make a smaller, weaker, less-effective pistol? In my view, because .25ACP is underpowered for its potential and .380ACP has too much recoil when cut down to concealment size. .32ACP - or, maybe more accurate to say the CIP standard European police cartridge, 7.65mm - fits the niche between concealment and controllability pretty darned well.

JMDAO, YMMV, No deposit - No return, see your doctor for details. Some will disagree. They always do. :)
“the CIP standard European police cartridge, 7.65mm “

That right there is the whole secret to a good 32 ACP experience: go with 7.65 out of a longer barrel for very brick-like performance through plate glass windows, Japanese screens, or what have you.

But 7.65 isn’t only good for acts of vandalism — what about winning gunfights?

Never forget: that Fiocchi .380 and Fiocchi 7.65 list the exact same muzzle energy on the box: 205 ftlbs.

Moses Browning didn’t ask Pharaoh to download all 32ACP to sissy levels and save his Bobcats and his Keltecs from harm.

Rather, Moses Browning freed the slaves by using .380 energy levels to drive a .3125 bullet to astounding levels of penetration.

A double-bakers-dozen of precision icepicks ready to run dead nuts out to 50 yards?

That, my plateglassbricking friends, is the 7.65 Moses Browning, chambered in Beretta 81BB with NYC reload.
 
Never forget: that Fiocchi .380 and Fiocchi 7.65 list the exact same muzzle energy on the box: 205 ftlbs.

That sounds like a typographical error to me. Is there some kind of calculator that would say how fast the 7.65mm bullet would have to be going to achieve 205 ft/lbs, assuming it is the standard 71 grains?
 
This looks like a ray-gun. Savage 1907, and on my bucket list:

View attachment 967236
I had a 1917 come into my possession when I was a kid. Although the sights were miniscule.
I recall shooting a magazine full of ancient ammo.
Into the loop handle of a metal trash can.
If I were to walk it off. I'd say 15 yards.
Just off hand. What a sweet little piece.
Ah regrets. I've had a few.
 
I'm brand spanking new. To handloading.
About to try my hand at .32 acp.
I've got some bullseye. And want to charge up some empties.
71 gr RN cast and
75 gr. cast SWCFN.
The reloading dope I'm finding is scarce.
I'll be feeding a beretta 81. I have a 1914 ruby as well. Thats relegated as a novelty. For newbies and friends that want to shoot it.
The B81 I'm starting to take out for walks and such. Handy having the new 14rd mags.
Also have Universal and Universal Clays for propellant choices. As I said. I'm finding data is scarce . Input and 2 cents...would be gratefully appreciated. BTW. I'm also new to the High Road.
Thanks for the admission.
 
Last edited:
The .32 ACP is lots more effective when loaded with heavier bullets. I won't post my loads here as the mods may not approve, but if you search my threads over on Cast Boolits, in holster - sized pistols ( not KelTec or Tomcats) you can equal .380 ACP payload and velocity with decent expansion and adequate penetration. Full details in back issues of The Fouling Shot.
 
That sounds like a typographical error to me. Is there some kind of calculator that would say how fast the 7.65mm bullet would have to be going to achieve 205 ft/lbs, assuming it is the standard 71 grains?

WW2 German Geco and WRA plain brown wrapper heavy (74 to 77 grain) ball chronographed over 1000 fps in my 1914 Colt M1903 Type III Pocket Hammerless, Czech 93-grain heavy ball for the Scorpion machine pistol 930 fps, and the S-B 72 grain steel core 1200 fps, defeating a IIA vest.
 
My wife bought a Seecamp 32 the other day. So far, not a fan. I took it apart to get it cleaned and lubed up. Took about half an hour just to get it done. Then I remembered how "toolless assembly" was a firearm product feature that wasn't on everything.
 
WW2 German Geco and WRA plain brown wrapper heavy (74 to 77 grain) ball chronographed over 1000 fps in my 1914 Colt M1903 Type III Pocket Hammerless, Czech 93-grain heavy ball for the Scorpion machine pistol 930 fps, and the S-B 72 grain steel core 1200 fps, defeating a IIA vest.

Sure. Are any of those things the Fiocchi ammunition pairof44sp was writing about?

Look, I am not arguing it is NOT possible to make a 32 ACP load that produces 205 ft/lbs. And it would seem to be fairly easy to push a 380 ACP load to 205 ft/lbs. What seems odd to me is that Fiocchi would load both of those rounds to 205 ft/lbs. They certainly are not now. According to their website, their hottest 32 ACP load is 60 grains at 1,100 ft/sec for 161 ft/lbs. To get to 205 ft/lbs from 32 ACP, you need to push a 73 grain bullet to 1,125 ft/sec, or 60 grains to 1,240 ft/sec. Maybe they used to. It still seems more likely to be a typo to me.
 
I'm brand spanking new. To handloading.
About to try my hand at .32 acp.
I've got some bullseye. And want to charge up some empties.
71 gr RN cast and
75 gr. cast SWCFN.
The reloading dope I'm finding is scarce.
I'll be feeding a beretta 81. I have a 1914 ruby as well. Thats relegated as a novelty. For newbies and friends that want to shoot it.
The B81 I'm starting to take out for walks and such. Handy having the new 14rd mags.
Also have Universal and Universal Clays for propellant choices. As I said. I'm finding data is scarce . Input and 2 cents...would be gratefully appreciated. BTW. I'm also new to the High Road.
Thanks for the admission.
14 round mags? Where?

I’ve using Brazos round nose over 1.9g T
The .32 ACP is lots more effective when loaded with heavier bullets. I won't post my loads here as the mods may not approve, but if you search my threads over on Cast Boolits, in holster - sized pistols ( not KelTec or Tomcats) you can equal .380 ACP payload and velocity with decent expansion and adequate penetration. Full details in back issues of The Fouling Shot.
thank you for this comment

I made my comments about 32acp to draw people like you, who have actual knowledge, out of the woodwork.
 
Sure. Are any of those things the Fiocchi ammunition pairof44sp was writing about?

Look, I am not arguing it is NOT possible to make a 32 ACP load that produces 205 ft/lbs. And it would seem to be fairly easy to push a 380 ACP load to 205 ft/lbs. What seems odd to me is that Fiocchi would load both of those rounds to 205 ft/lbs. They certainly are not now. According to their website, their hottest 32 ACP load is 60 grains at 1,100 ft/sec for 161 ft/lbs. To get to 205 ft/lbs from 32 ACP, you need to push a 73 grain bullet to 1,125 ft/sec, or 60 grains to 1,240 ft/sec. Maybe they used to. It still seems more likely to be a typo to me.
Every website I checked lists 205 ftlb for Fiocchi APHP 60g

upload_2021-4-16_12-37-56.png
 
Every website I checked lists 205 ftlb for Fiocchi APHP 60g

View attachment 992472

A) Boy, am I sorry I opened my mouth on this subject.

B) The only website I checked was Fiocchi's own website. It lists a velocity of 1,100 feet per second for the 32 ACP 60 grain APHP: https://www.fiocchiusa.com/centerfire-pistol/defense-dynamics/

C) I also found a calculator for converting a weight in grains and a velocity in feet per second into foot / pounds of kinetic energy: https://www.larrywillis.com/bullet-energy.html According to it, a 60 grain bullet moving at 1,200 feet per second possesses 191.8 foot / pounds. A figure of 205 ft / lbs is just wrong for that combo.

A 65 grain bullet at 1,200 ft/sec would be much closer at 207.8 ft/lbs, which could be rounded to 205 if you wanted to be conservative. But Fiocchi does not offer a 65 grain bullet in 32 ACP.

I still think a typo somewhere is the most reasonable explanation. It simply does not make sense to offer 380 and 32 ACP ammunition of the same kinetic energy. I know it could be done if you load your 380 light and your 32 heavy, but I don't see why an ammunition maker would do it.

D) As for Outpost75's point ("I believe you have an apples and oranges comparison between an industrial test barrel of 10cm length and minimum bore and groove dimensions vs. a functional pistol barrel of 8cm length and mean production tolerance"), I don't see how that would result in 380 and 32 ACP ammunition of the same kinetic energy, which has always been what I have been talking about. I have never denied that 32 ACP can be loaded to 205 ft/lbs if desired. My point has been that for an ammunition manufacturer to load BOTH their 380 and 32 to 205 ft/lbs makes no sense and is very unlikely. I am ready for someone to enlighten me about that.
 
Sig lists their 380 at 195. Fiocchi list their 60 grain 32 ACP JHP at 163.
 
Last edited:
Every website I checked lists 205 ftlb for Fiocchi APHP 60g

Which websites?

Some websites have bad information.

Go to Fiocchi's websites and check their catalogs. They don't list their 32 ACP any bullet going that fast. i.e. the information at whatever sites you're looking at is wrong. It certainly is not consistent with Fiocchi's catalogs.

https://www.fiocchiusa.com/
32APHP 32 Auto 60 JHP Shooting Dynamics 1100 fps, 161 ft. lbs

https://www.fiocchi.com/it
does not list a 60 grain bullet.

it is correctly listed here:
https://www.targetsportsusa.com/fio...in-jacketed-hollow-point-32aphp-p-109087.aspx
 
The hollow point bullet is loaded here for the US market, as it is not permitted for civilian sale in Europe.
 
So, Beretta says don't go over 130 ft lbs. What happens if you do? That Tomcat looks at least as sturdy as an LCP. 200 ft lbs in an all metal gun doesen't seem too radical to me. Although, I ain't done it yet.
 
So, Beretta says don't go over 130 ft lbs. What happens if you do? That Tomcat looks at least as sturdy as an LCP. 200 ft lbs in an all metal gun doesen't seem too radical to me. Although, I ain't done it yet.


Tomcat is straight blowback. Frame cracks through thin section above the trigger pivot after about 1000 rounds. Some people continue shooting after they crack, but not recommended.

KelTec is locked breech like the LCP, but with heavy loads frame spreads and takedown pin dislodges and gun disassembles. Ruger has no plans to offer LCP in .32 ACP. So, get a sturdy steel-framed pistol designed to digest a steady diet of CIP ammo, or consider your Tomcat or KelTec as "disposable".
 
Last edited:
The Fiocchi USA loads are wimpy compared to the real Made In Italy CIP-Euro stuff

Not based on Fiocchi's catalog listings.

Italy made: 73 gr, 984 fps = 157 ft. lbs.

USA made: 73 gr, 1,000 fps = 161 ft. lbs.
 
Not based on Fiocchi's catalog listings.

Italy made: 73 gr, 984 fps = 157 ft. lbs.

USA made: 73 gr, 1,000 fps = 161 ft. lbs.

Those numbers mean absolutely nothing. Never assume factory listed velocities will be correct or even remotely accurate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top