P. Plainsman
Member
In a smaller 2" gun with factory loads, I think the .32M is outclassed by the .380.
However, with a longer barrel, a .32M can outclass a .380, which is what I said originally.
Just to be clear, all the .32 Mag ballistic info that I cited was from 2" snubby revolver barrels, not long barrels. The GA 100 grain rounds have been chronographed to produce almost 1000 fps from a snubby.
For example, a 2" Taurus .32M against a Firestorm or Bersa .380. Similar size and weight guns, but the .380 is going to be more potent with factory ammo, IMO.
No, the Taurus is several ounces lighter than those .380s. And if you pick a 13.5 oz S&W 431PD as your .32 revolver for the comparison, then it's much lighter. The Bersa weighs 23 oz empty; it is 70% heavier than the S&W revolver. A significant difference, especially for pocket or ankle carry.
That's what's intriguing about the lightweight .32 Magnum snubbies -- properly loaded, they offer the same (not less) bullet mass and velocity as a .380 pistol, plus the reliability of a revolver, for much less (not the same) weight than the .380 pistols.
On the other hand, the .380 pistol gives you two extra rounds to begin with and one extra round on the reload, it shoots a wider bullet, and good examples are typically easier to shoot well than a snubnosed revolver. A new Bersa is also a good deal cheaper than a S&W 431/432, and somewhat cheaper than a .32 Taurus snubby.