Ballistic gelatin test results - .32NAA

[Brass Fetcher]

Various .32 North American Arms cartridges

Block calibrated at 9.3cm penetration and 600 ft/sec (assumed).

Shot 1 - Handloaded 85 grain Hornady XTP, 2.8 grains of N310, 15.1" penetration, 0.383" average diameter. Velocity at impact unknown - chronograph did not function in the cloudy/rainy weather at the test site.

Shot 2 - Handloaded 85 grain Hornady XTP, 2.8 grains of N310, 16" penetration, 0.389" average diameter.

Shot 3 - Cor-Bon 60 grain JHP, fragmented upon entrance, 6.5" penetration. Track outlined in green in second photograph.

Shot 4 - Cor-Bon 60 grain JHP, exited side of block at 13.4". From the wound track and fragmentation found in the track, it appears that this bullet expanded, but was not recovered. Track outlined in red in second photograph.

Shot 5 - Cor-Bon 71 grain FMJ, penetrated 16" + and lodged in the wooden backing behind the block.

Firearm was a locked-breach gun with 2.75" barrel.

Thank you.

 

[mfree]

That's darned impressive, IMHO.

 

[cocojo]

How about testing the 32 H&R magnum from a S&W 2 incher.
Federal, Blackhill and Georgia Arms ammo. I would love to see what you get for the 85 HP compaired to the 100HP, from a snubbie.

 

[Brass Fetcher]

cocojo,

I test bullets for myself and friends, then post the results here so that someone else will benefit from the knowledge.

My .32NAA barrel has propelled 60 grain bullets to 1200 ft/sec with a maximum pressure handload. Using momentum as a guide, 60*1200 = 72 000 units of momentum. Dividing this number by 85 grains gives a velocity of 847 ft/sec, which should be a low figure for the impact velocity of the XTP bullet.

Please note that I am a private citizen and not a business. If you would like to see the .32H&R magnum results, please send me the gun (through an FFL), the ammunition and 150 dollars. As an alternative, send me 65 dollars and I will send you a block - you pay shipping.

Thank you.
JE223

 

[cocojo]

JE223 sorry I asked. I was aware you are not a buisness, but I thought that if you had some data, would have loved to see it. You could have easily run a 85 grain load through the 32NAA at 950 or so for the same results. But since were not friends good luck with your data. Your data is really meaningless unless we all live in a nudist camp. Try using some denim or clothing over your blocks for some real results. By the way, sorry again for asking, it won't happen again.

 

[Biker]

JE223...

Your tests are informative and appreciated. *cough 45LC Silvertips cough*

Really, thanks.
Biker

 

[Brass Fetcher]

"Your tests are informative and appreciated. *cough 45LC Silvertips cough* Really, thanks. Biker"

Thanks Biker, and everyone who appreciates seeing the test results. Your thanks means a lot to me.

Hmmm... Now for the part about the 45LC silvertips ... Are these the 225 grain HPs? Looking at the data for this cartridge provided by Winchester, it appears that the ballistics of the round are very close to that of a .45ACP. Because of this, it is not unreasonable to say that if the expanded diameter of the 45LC bullet is close to that of a .45ACP bullet that you have gelatin information for (and the impact velocities are close), the listed penetration depth of the .45ACP should give you a good idea of the performance to expect in ballistic gelatin. Information on water testing your bullets and making the info on my site work for you is available at:

http://www.brassfetcher.com/gpage.html1.html

Also listed there is a brief explanation of what I do when someone asks (and compensates) me to test bullets for them. I don't want to have to charge for custom gelatin testing, but I, like everyone else, have bills to pay and work to work at.

I originally bought one lot of gelatin powder and the required equipment just for fun, to see what my few guns would do. After a short while of testing, pistols especially, it became obvious that the difference between different types/brands of ammo in the same gun gave widely different results in a standard testing medium. Out of a typical concealed carry pistol, bullet penetration of various bullets can vary anywhere from 5.5" to 16"+. The situation is much worse for pocket-sized pistols - and the only way I have found to see what your chosen bullet will do is to test it in a valid test medium.

What has me confused is the situation where people will spend hundreds of dollars on a top-of-the-line CCW firearm and then will blindly assume that their chosen ammunition will be effective enough to stop a determined attacker. Out of a Glock 22, during a test that I did once, a WWB JHP out-expanded and out-penetrated a premium (1$ per round) defensive JHP. I believe that careful preparation negates a lot of 'bad luck'.

Thanks. JE223

 

[Car Knocker]

I, too, appreciate you posting your results here. Lot of good information at your website, including the FAQ that apparantly doesn't get read often enough.

 

[MartinS]

Thanks for your work. Good tests and good photography.

 

[Brass Fetcher]

Thank you again for the nice comments.

What do you all think of the .32NAA?

I am working on this cartridge mostly because it seems to outperform the .380ACPs that I have tested in a 'mouse-gun' sized firearm.

Looking at a previous post of maximum pressure handloaded .380 XTP bullets:

"Shot 3 was Hornady 90 grain XTP with 3.0gr N310 powder. Penetrated 10.3 ± 0.031”. 0.465 ± 0.0005” average diameter. Impact velocity = 1004 ± 0.500 ft/sec."

And getting the volume of this wound channel (looking only at the bullet area times the penetration depth) as : pi * 0.233 inches * 0.233 inches * 10.3 inches = 1.75 cubic inches of bullet hole. This is only for comparison purposes.

Taking the .32NAA as

"Shot 2 - Handloaded 85 grain Hornady XTP, 2.8 grains of N310, 16" penetration, 0.389" average diameter."

I get: pi * 0.195 inches * 0.195 inches * 16 inches = 1.91 cubic inches of penetration.

So, what I see here is an improvement over the .380ACP for pocket guns - about an 8 percent improvement using a .32NAA bullet that could have expanded much more.

Please tell me what you think.

Thanks. JE223

 

[Car Knocker]

JE223,

I've been giving some thought to getting one of NAA's pocket-guns for occasional carry. I was unaware of the .32NAA until about a month ago and was considering the .380. Then the development of their .32 H&R Mag mini-revolver seemed to pick up speed and that held my interest until I saw the size and weight of the prototype which, to my way of thinking, seems to be excessively large and heavy for my intended use. So I'm back looking at the autos and your report definitely has me leaning towards the .32NAA.

The easy to chamber bottleneck shape is, to me, preferable to the straight-sided .380 (less chance of a jam). The disadvantage to me as a reloader is that the .32 NAA would be slightly more difficult to reload.

So, thanks to you, more food for thought!

 

[AtomSphere]

Many Thankies for the pic. For a noob like me, i am learning something!

Thanks again

 

[B36]

JE223, not to complain, as I understand the work involved in buying, mixing, the jello, but why not chronograph your test BB?

 

[Brass Fetcher]

Hi B36,

I'm really not as touchy as my above post in this thread may make me seem ... (hopefully ). Thank you for the question - I attempted to chrono the calibration BB just before the bullets were fired, but this did not work out as the sky was clearer one minute, then raining in a downpour the next. When it wasn't raining, the sky was apparently too overcast to allow the chrono to work.

JE223