I also like the idea of 22 tcm. I have the carbine, I would like to see pistol offerings in something other than just the 1911. The CZ clone was dropped from the 22tcm line-up. That leads to the next problem with 22 tcm, much like the 32 naa, there is only a single manufacturer. I would like to see more manufacturers jumping on both of these cartridges. At that point, they can be fairly judged.
Having arbitrarily cut the field off just below the commonly accepted minimum optimal defensive cartridge, obviously the least underpowered cartridge still in consideration is the least underpowered.EDIT: Please no discussion on 9mm.
It wasn't arbitrary, it was because there are no 9mm's as small as a micro .380 or .32 or .25 out there. I ask the question because when there's a situation where carrying a larger 9mm is impractical over a smaller pistol, what caliber .380 and under is the better option when not factoring in gun and ammo price/availability?Having arbitrarily cut the field off just below the commonly accepted minimum optimal defensive cartridge, obviously the least underpowered cartridge still in consideration is the least underpowered.
So far no one has given me one argument that makes me believe that .380 ACP is superior to .32 NAA ballistics or even .32 ACP for practicality. The answers I'm continuing to get are either "a small 9mm is best" or ".380 is best because of price/availability" which are criteria I wanted to exclude from the topic.
So far no one has given me one argument that makes me believe that .380 ACP is superior to .32 NAA ballistics or even .32 ACP for practicality. The answers I'm continuing to get are either "a small 9mm is best" or ".380 is best because of price/availability" which are criteria I wanted to exclude from the topic.
I think you have your answer. You answered it yourself. You posted raw data comparing the two and mathematically your data shows an advantage. The disconnect is that the .32 naa can be a better pocket caliber from a ballistic point of view, but if one does not find a 20 oz gun to be a viable to be a good carry piece, it's a moot point. I love NAA. I have 4 of their revolvers. My Blackwidow is the only gun I keep on my person 98% of the time because I can carry it in any kind of attire. I love the fit and finish of the Guardian. Very old school and I would like to own one one day.
However, for my needs, a pocket gun needs to be under 16oz and super flat to fit in my pocket. An empty Guardian weighs more than my .38 +P revolver loaded with ARX ammo.
So, I think you have your mathematical answer. However, as I have wondered, why are there not more guns chambered in it? Im willing to wager someone has looked at it. Even the Pico was supposed to have a .32 acp version at some point that was ultimately scrapped. I would think a .32 naa would be ideal out of a well put together stainless slide pistol if the gun could handle it. Im not sure about what kind of pressure it puts out.
I'm honestly curious about the recoil, pressures, etc. The .32 naa can beat the pants off .380, but i don't want to carry the vessel that fires it in my pocket. I'd be all for a harder hitting cartridge in the sub 16oz range of pocket guns if it didn't recoil like a 9mm.
I've said this multiple times, if you could get a .32 NAA chambered gun, not an NAA Guardian in .32 NAA, in any current .380 pistol, which would you rather have in that pistol: .380 or .32 NAA?he disconnect is that the .32 naa can be a better pocket caliber from a ballistic point of view, but if one does not find a 20 oz gun to be a viable to be a good carry piece, it's a moot point. I love NAA. I have 4 of their revolvers. My Blackwidow is the only gun I keep on my person 98% of the time because I can carry it in any kind of attire. I love the fit and finish of the Guardian. Very old school and I would like to own one one day.
However, for my needs, a pocket gun needs to be under 16oz and super flat to fit in my pocket. An empty Guardian weighs more than my .38 +P revolver loaded with ARX ammo.
The pressure is higher than .380, I think it's something around 26k PSI while .380 is 21,500 PSI. So, about a 20% increase in max pressure.So, I think you have your mathematical answer. However, as I have wondered, why are there not more guns chambered in it? Im willing to wager someone has looked at it. Even the Pico was supposed to have a .32 acp version at some point that was ultimately scrapped. I would think a .32 naa would be ideal out of a well put together stainless slide pistol if the gun could handle it. Im not sure about what kind of pressure it puts out.
I'm honestly curious about the recoil, pressures, etc. The .32 naa can beat the pants off .380, but i don't want to carry the vessel that fires it in my pocket. I'd be all for a harder hitting cartridge in the sub 16oz range of pocket guns if it didn't recoil like a 9mm.
Well, I said in my first post that I would rather have a .32 NAA over a .380, but I wanted to hear from others to see what their thoughts were under the criteria I set. If they still felt .380 was better than .32 NAA and why or if they felt .32 ACP was better because of the lower recoil or maybe something else that's slipping my mind.The OP is clearly jonesing for a .32NAA, and wants us to tell him that it’s ballistically without par in the realm of really small guns. This thread isn’t about .380, it’s about .32NAA. The problem is, the one gun that shoots it ....isn’t really small.
That said, .32NAA would be awesome, and I’d probably buy one, if Ruger and/or KelTec would chamber their tiny polymer wonderpistols in it. I can get behind a 10oz gun in my pants pocket (barely.) I can’t get behind the 14oz Kahr, still less the 20oz NAA. I once thought in my younger and more foolish days, that I’d like to pocket carry a stainless PPK. After all, if Uncle Mikes made a holster for it..... Doing that for one day was enough to convince me of the folly of my ways. Just because it fits, doesn’t mean it’s a great idea.
That's why I keep saying, and apparently nobody seems to understand, excluding gun AND ammo price/availability/variety. Basically if you could get a Ruger, S&W, Colt pocket whatever, Bersa Thunder, etc. etc. in .32 NAA and .380 ACP and had as many ammo options in .32 NAA, which would you choose?
G9..380, using newer designed non-hollow point bullets, as ARX(56gr), Lehigh ED(65), and a new company that-I can't recall the name-calls it's bullet an ExternatHollowPoint or an EHP. I've been using Lehigh in 65gr for several years now.
[B said:The pressure is higher than .380, I think it's something around 26k PSI while .380 is 21,500 PSI. So, about a 20% increase in max pressure.[/B]
IDK how much impact that has on being able to shoot them from polymer frame micro .380's or gun life. One thing I can tell you is, neither do any manufacturer's outside of Diamondback, who once made .32 NAA for their .380 pistol.
Curious as to how many folks here considered .380 under powered for self defense until Keltec and Ruger came out with the P3AT and the LCP and people found out what a joy it was to carry them?
In what way?while I concur .32 revolvers are superior,
As I understood it, the main argument of LuckyGunner in favor of .32 revolvers was that you can chamber 4 different cartridges (.32 S&W/short, .32 S&W Long, .32 H&R Mag, and .327 Federal Mag + even .32acp in a pinch) in the available .327 snubbies.
This is true, on paper. In practice it means you have a revolver that shoots 4 different obscure/obsolete rounds. You do, however, also get an extra round compared to .38/.357 snubnose revolvers.
I reckon I’d rather have the .32 snub than the .38 snub, but I’m not too sure I want any of them.
I have a Kimber K6s that will shoot .39 Long Colt. .38 Special, or .357 Magnum. It holds six rounds. I prefer the .38 Special.