calzoom
Member
Thus far no one has convinced me to throw away my P32 and go buy a P3AT or PF9. 
Dang!
Dang!
Ballistic difference - 380 vs 32 in mouseguns
- Thread starter carpediem
- Start date
- Status
GunNut
Member
calzoom,
If your P32 is reliable then you should just hold on to it, you are not gaining that much by "upgrading" to the P3AT.
Now the PF9 is definitely going to give you a bunch more power, but at the expensive of concealibility.
A PF9 for a primary and your P32 for BUG would be a nice combo though, if the PF9 proves itself reliable with quality defensive ammo.
Steve
If your P32 is reliable then you should just hold on to it, you are not gaining that much by "upgrading" to the P3AT.
Now the PF9 is definitely going to give you a bunch more power, but at the expensive of concealibility.
A PF9 for a primary and your P32 for BUG would be a nice combo though, if the PF9 proves itself reliable with quality defensive ammo.
Steve
GunNut
Member
kokapelli, that's great. I had heard some of the first batch were having problems.
Knowing Kel-Tec they will make it right or quit making it(ie: P40).
I'm intrigued by the PF9, i'm just not sure it could replace my Glock 26 for CCW.
Is the gun pocketable? Do you have a P32 or P3AT to compare it too?
Steve
Knowing Kel-Tec they will make it right or quit making it(ie: P40).
I'm intrigued by the PF9, i'm just not sure it could replace my Glock 26 for CCW.
Is the gun pocketable? Do you have a P32 or P3AT to compare it too?
Steve
MCgunner
Member
Kel Tec P3AT would be my choice. I saw a P32 at a recent gun show for 200 and passed. There weren't any P3ATs there. Had there been for that price, I would have probably bought it. I have a Grendel P12 that is a decent gun and carries 12 rounds, but it's bigger, about half way between a P3AT and my P11 9mm Kel Tec. I don't often need to carry the .380, though, can almost always carry the P11 now days and I feel a lot more comfortable with it or a snubbie .38 than the .380.
I've thought a lot about the .380 lately, what with the warnings of insufficient penetration on this site for hollow points. I've always carried a 90 grain Hornady XTP, but penetration is a good point in this wimpy caliber. It doesn't have the bullet weight of a standard .38 which makes about the same energy, but which should penetrate a lot better. I cast a 105 grain SWC that is very flat point sharp shouldered, yet feeds 100 percent. It's actually a .38 bullet, .358", which I size and fire in 9mm and .380 because it's reliable, free, and very accurate. I worked up a pretty hot load for it in .380 making about 220 ft lbs that shoots really well in the Grendel. I'm thinkin' it might be the perfect compromise between ball and hollowpoint for the gun. I might load some more of 'em up as the ones I have on hand are rather old. I don't know when I'll carry that gun next, though. Don't often tote it. It sure is easy to hide, though.
I got no use for the .32. To me, it's not much more than a .25. I'm not real comfortable with the .380, but I understand the need for it in the carry battery. It fits a concealment niche. There's really no need for the .32 since it's no smaller a platform than the P3AT and even if there is one out there smaller, if you can't conceal the P3AT, you're naked.
And, BTW, regards to the P40, it's my understanding that it was a good gun that too many people couldn't shoot without limp wristing it. I have no personal experience, though. It got dropped because KT wasn't willing to suffer the bad rep from the folks that couldn't handle it is the grape vine on it, though. I'm sure the PF9 will be fantastic. It's P11 upper and P3AT trigger group, known entities.
GunNut, here is the PF-9 on the left and the P-3AT on the right.
I find that the PF-9 although much more powerfull is easier to shoot than the P-3AT.
The thiness (.88") of the PF-9 and it's light weight (12.7 oz) makes it easy to carry.
The PF-9 looks bigger than it is, because it has an accessory rail under the muzzle.
I find that the PF-9 although much more powerfull is easier to shoot than the P-3AT.
The thiness (.88") of the PF-9 and it's light weight (12.7 oz) makes it easy to carry.
The PF-9 looks bigger than it is, because it has an accessory rail under the muzzle.
GunNut
Member
kokapelli,
Thanks for the pictures, the PF9 still looks like a gun that needs to be carried on the belt. Where the P3AT is definitely a pocket gun.
I'll probably just stick with my Glock 26 and deal with the extra .25" of width.
Steve
Thanks for the pictures, the PF9 still looks like a gun that needs to be carried on the belt. Where the P3AT is definitely a pocket gun.
I'll probably just stick with my Glock 26 and deal with the extra .25" of width.
Steve
I'm opting for the P32 for recoil reasons. If it's entirely unpleasant to shoot, I won't practice with it as much as I should if it's my CCW gun, and my wife especially won't. Just my reasoning. I'm sure there are differences between .32 ACP & .380 ACP, but I don't think they're large enough differences to warrant one over the other solely for ballistics.
The bottom line is they're both relatively small calibers with .06" difference in diameter. They're optimal for 24/7 CCW. They're not going to perform like a .357 magnum with any load, JHP or FMJ. Remember, rule # 1 is have a gun! If it takes a .32 ACP to get my wife to CCW, then that's fine with me. I'd rather have her armed with a .32 than not armed with a .380 b/c of the recoil bothering her.
The bottom line is they're both relatively small calibers with .06" difference in diameter. They're optimal for 24/7 CCW. They're not going to perform like a .357 magnum with any load, JHP or FMJ. Remember, rule # 1 is have a gun! If it takes a .32 ACP to get my wife to CCW, then that's fine with me. I'd rather have her armed with a .32 than not armed with a .380 b/c of the recoil bothering her.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
For those who like whole size, but suggest that there isn't much difference between the .32 and .380, consider it this way. The .32 is a 7.62 mm round that is 1.38 mm less than a .380 that is a 9mm. So, the .32 has a cross section of 45.58 sq mm. The .380 is 63.59. In other words, the whole of the .380 is 40% larger than that of the .32.
To me it's simply.... The best carry gun is the one you carry the most.... If that's a 380, great. If it's the .32, super. The point, the best gun is the one that’s so comfortable you like to carry it which means you'll be armed more often than not. 
380 vs 32
Historical Note
In the years before WWII this was a hot topic in Europe. Italy did the definitive study on the effectiveness of the two rounds. After a detailed study the Italian Army concluded that the 380 was better. After an equally detailed study the Italian Navy concluded that the 32 was better. The platform was the same blowback operated Berreta. They wound up adopting both calibers, 380 for the Army and 32 for the Navy.
My opinion is that the biggest problem with mouse guns is the inability to hit anything. I do not wish to give up any accuracy so I prefer the 32. This assumes the platform is the same. A CZ 83 in 32 ACP with a 13 round mag would be far superior to a P3at. The difference in caliber is very small.
I also suspect that cultural preference is a bigger factor than the bullet diameter. Notice that the French champion the 32 while the Hungarians do the same for the 380. There is no other rational explanantion.
Historical Note
In the years before WWII this was a hot topic in Europe. Italy did the definitive study on the effectiveness of the two rounds. After a detailed study the Italian Army concluded that the 380 was better. After an equally detailed study the Italian Navy concluded that the 32 was better. The platform was the same blowback operated Berreta. They wound up adopting both calibers, 380 for the Army and 32 for the Navy.
My opinion is that the biggest problem with mouse guns is the inability to hit anything. I do not wish to give up any accuracy so I prefer the 32. This assumes the platform is the same. A CZ 83 in 32 ACP with a 13 round mag would be far superior to a P3at. The difference in caliber is very small.
I also suspect that cultural preference is a bigger factor than the bullet diameter. Notice that the French champion the 32 while the Hungarians do the same for the 380. There is no other rational explanantion.
To help the case for the .32, I might point out that a 60-grain .32 ACP bullet
is pretty similar to a 00-buck pellet, except for being oblong instead of rounded. Velocities are probably a bit lower for the ACP, but it makes sense that it should penetrate somewhat better than the 00 buck.
Of course, I don't own a .32, but I have made this observation about it.
Anyway, it's also pretty obvious that with this round the need for shooting until the threat has stopped is underscored.
is pretty similar to a 00-buck pellet, except for being oblong instead of rounded. Velocities are probably a bit lower for the ACP, but it makes sense that it should penetrate somewhat better than the 00 buck.
Of course, I don't own a .32, but I have made this observation about it.
Anyway, it's also pretty obvious that with this round the need for shooting until the threat has stopped is underscored.
Whirlwind06
Member
Had the KT .380 could never shoot more then 50 rounds at one time and my groups looked like a shotgun pattern. Sold it and got the KT .32, can shoot 100+ rounds at a time with no problem. And at 15-20 feet I have 4 inch groups. I'll take the a slightly smaller caliper that I can hit with over one that I'm all over the target with. Add to that with the extend mag I have 11 shots and a longer grip.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked