CZ 50 .32 auto

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dibbs said:
I don't see a problem with a heavy DA pull at "get-off-me" range. You're confusing SD with competition shooting. At no point did I ever state that DA accuracy is a good as SA.

I'm not confusing SD and Competitive shooting. I was simply making the point that even very experienced shooters find the DA/SA transition a difficult barrier to get past. It won't be easier for a less proficient shooter using a CZ-50 or CZ-70. And in competitive shooting, the targets aren't shooting back or coming at you with a knife; the only thing at risk is your ranking or your ego. That's not the case with a home-defense or self-defense situation.

Just because you can pull the trigger when confronting a "get-off-me" attacker (i.e., you feel you don't really have to aim), that doesn't mean the bullet fired will STOP the attack. That was a point I tried to make earlier: STOPPING THE ATTACK IS THE KEY! If you don't stop the "threat" the "threat" may stop you.

If you think I confuse SD with Competitive shooting, I think you continue to ignore the fact that a more potent .380, 9x18 or 9x19 round fired from a more-congenial gun is likely to be far more effective in any self- or home-defense situation.

Do you really believe that a.32 a.c.p. round will penetrate as well as a 9x18 round from a Makarov or a CZ-82? Have you even looked at .32 a.c.p. tests in ballistic gel? Have you investigated the performance (or availability) of self-defense rounds for the .32?​

While there have been a lot of successful .32 stops over the years, the same is true of .22 stops -- but there's little evidence that the folks making the .32 stops were using older surplus-guns like the CZ-50 or CZ-70.

The CZ-50/-70 was designed as a POLICE weapon, and was as much a "badge of office" as a serious offensive or defensive weapon. The police using them were seldom involved in shoot outs. The same was true of the Walther PP or PPK that the 50/70 was based on. The German SS in WWII used their .32s to execute unarmed prisoners -- when they weren't using cyanide or machine guns. They were not combat weapons.​

Unless the shooter is very experienced and has practiced a lot with the gun, a .32 is not likely to be a tool the shooter can use to quickly STOP an attack. And when the 32 has a crappy DA trigger the odds of an attack-stopping shot don't improve for the shooter.

Having a CZ-50 or CZ-70 for fun at the range, for plinking, in the tackle box, or in a slide holster on your belt when you're hiking (if there's no REALLY dangerous critters lurking in the woods) might be a good thing -- even if it might be twice as expensive as shooting a 9mm round -- but I continue to believe that a .CZ-50 or CZ-70 in 32 a.c.p. is NOT really a suitable weapon for self- or home-defense.
 
Last edited:
Dibbs, my stating that the CZ70 could be carried "cocked-and-locked" was simply to correct an erroneous statement. It was not a recommendation.

That was context of the dialogue into which you jumped.
 
The police using them were seldom involved in shoot outs.

Well, there ya go. I'm also very seldom involved in shoot-outs. Live in a nice quiet neighborhood where I have lots of friends, and the love of God in my heart. It also doesn't hurt to stick the CZ-70 in my pocket.

But you're putting words in my mouth again. Where did I state that I don't take aim?
 
Dibbs said:
Well, there ya go. I'm also very seldom involved in shoot-outs.

It only takes one shoot-out to ruin your day. And you seemed to have missed the point, again.

As I said, the CZ-50 was arguably as much badge of office as a tool intended to be used as a serious offensive or defensive weapon. Most LEOs here in the U.S. are, like you, seldom involved in shoot-outs, but most of them carry 9mm, or .40 sidearms. The CZ-50 or CZ-70 and similar weapons were almost never used by the military in WWII, and it appears that the German SS generally only used their .32s when the target wasn't free to shoot back.

Dibbs said:
Live in a nice quiet neighborhood where I have lots of friends, and the love of God in my heart. It also doesn't hurt to stick the CZ-70 in my pocket.
Carrying a CZ-70 in your pocket may make you feel better, but if a dog attacks you as you walk in the neighborhood, the dog won't be intimidated by your CZ-70 -- and some larger critters won't, either. (We had a mail carrier attacked and badly mauled by a mean dogh ere in town last year; I hope I never have to deal with something like a pissed-off Rottweiler even if I'm carrying a .45!!)

Dibbs said:
But you're putting words in my mouth again. Where did I state that I don't take aim?
Sorry. That wasn't my intent. I guess I just misinterpreted what you meant when you said...

Dibbs said:
I don't see a problem with a heavy DA pull at "get-off-me" range. You're confusing SD with competition shooting. At no point did I ever state that DA accuracy is a good as SA.

My point was that well-placed shots are important regardless of caliber, and bad triggers can affect round placement. You agreed that the CZ-50/70's DA trigger is not as good as the CZ-50/70's SA trigger, but you apparently aren't concerned about a crapy trigger pull when the attacker is up close. My thinking was that accuracy (which is affected by a crappy trigger pull) is important at any distance, and especially important when the attacker is close -- as that means you've got less time for followup shots, and what you do has to be done right.

The situation is not made better when the round you are using is also somewhat anemic.

Re: anemic. Have you found any .32 self-defense rounds for short-barreled guns? Hornady has developed a .32 a.c.p. version of its Critical Defense round that may be your best bet. (I haven't found any others yet, but they may be out there.)

Some years ago I carried a Beretta Tomcat (.32 acp) that seemed to be a pretty good design; it was much smaller (and lighter) than the CZ-50/70. But when I started investigating round performance I gave it up. There was no Hornady Critical Defense back then.
 
Last edited:
I looked at the Tomcat, and was put off by the cracking frame issue. Not so much of a
problem with the beefier CZs.

Winston-Salem must be a awful neighborhood. Maybe you need to move. Sounds like you are
in a bad residential area, to say the least. But I think I'll be OK, had to carry a snake gun recently,
with all the Rattlers and Mocs moving around, with the weather. Shot a Canebrake, just up the road
from the house, the other day.
 
Dibbs said:
Winston-Salem must be a awful neighborhood. Maybe you need to move. Sounds like you are
in a bad residential area, to say the least. But I think I'll be OK, had to carry a snake gun recently,
with all the Rattlers and Mocs moving around, with the weather. Shot a Canebrake, just up the road
from the house, the other day.

We actually have a pretty low crime rate here in Winston-Salem, but all sorts of people have been known to keep mean dogs. I am more concerned about vicious dogs than vicious people in this part of the country.

BUT, if I had to deal with either type of varmint, I'd want something more robust (and easier to shoot well) than a .32 a.c.p. CZ-50 or CZ-70 (or a Walther PP, PPK, or SIG P230).

Winston-Salem has a pretty strict leash law and people are no longer allowed to keep dogs on long chains or ties. The dogs must be kenneled, fenced in, or kept inside when not on a leash. The dog that got the letter carrier escaped his fenced area. (The fact that the letter carrier was walking tells you it's a CITY issue, as you don't hear much about rural letter carries (who typically deliver the mail from the seat of their car) being attacked as they put the mail in the roadside mail box.) But... A surprising number of people in different parts of this country still fight dogs -- remember Michael Vick? It's an ugly thing. We adopted a "rescued" a boxer some years ago that had been acquired by some guys who fought dogs; they saved a bunch of dogs when that group was busted.

I'm curious... Did you get that Canebrake with the first shot from your CZ-70? If you did I'll bet it wasn't a DA shot

If snakes are you're main concern, a .32 is probably OK, but a small .22 might be as good a choice as a CZ-70, arguably would be cheaper to buy and shoot, and probably easier to shoot well. Or just take a sharpened hoe with you as you walk -- and use it as a walking stick when you are not cutting up snakes. If I spent much time walking where snakes are a concern, I'd probably carry my Kel-Tec PMR-30: (.22 winchester rimfire magnum).

The PMR-30 is far lighter than a CZ-50 or CZ-70, the ammo is cheaper (but still more costly than 9mm!!) and it comes with a warranty Mine shoots like a LASER! And if I missed my first shot (which won't be double-action), I'd still have 29 more.

After doing some research, I've wondered whether the PMR-30 (in .22 WMR) might not be better than a .32 (or as good as .380) ammo. Some of the ballistic gel test results I've seen (using .22 WMR self-defense ammo designed for shorter barrels) shows the rounds performing a lot like .380 ammo. Having owned many of the guns cited, I can tell you that the PMR-30 is a lot easier to shoot well than any of the .32 or .380 guns mentioned in this discussion, and it has almost no recoil. But any of these guns, shot INSIDE, call for hearing protection. I've got a couple of small 9mms, and that's what I'll use -- but my wife wants a SD/HD gun, and the PMR-30 is one she likes.​

Venomous snakes at "get-off-me" distances -- your standard, not mine -- may be a problem, too -- but unless you've stepped on the snake you can always get some distance before you use a weapon.

I noticed that you still haven't addressed any of my questions about .32 a.c.p. performance. I'd argue that THAT IS something you must consider if you're concerned about bigger varmints than snakes. I will note, too, that your comments thus far have not made much of a case FOR using the CZ-50 or CZ-70 in self-defense or home-defense situations when the attacker is bigger than a snake. But, it is clear that you like the gun.
 
No, the 32 isn't a Snake Gun, I said "I had to carry a Snake Gun". Different gun entirely, you probably
wouldn't like that either, because some boob on the internet made a U-tube about it a while back.

The PMR30 has mag issues, for starters. Got one, it's not even "military surplus" CZ quality, IMO.
And 22WMR isn't 32ACP, not even close, no cigar. Don't believe that hype about 22WMR gel tests
and 5.7 being the same. They are not even in the same ball park.
 
Dibbs said:
The PMR30 has mag issues, for starters. Got one, it's not even "military surplus" CZ quality, IMO.
And 22WMR isn't 32ACP, not even close, no cigar. Don't believe that hype about 22WMR gel tests
and 5.7 being the same. They are not even in the same ball park.

The PMR only has mag issues IF YOU DON'T READ THE MANUAL! If you load the mags properly, the mags are trouble-free. (I didn't read the manual where that was exlained when I first got mine, and as a result I didn't load the mags properly -- and had feed issues. Its not a MAG issue, it's a SHOOTER issue!!) After I finally got around to reading the manual where it was explained HOW to load the mags, I quit having mag problems.)

I didn't (and wouldn't) compare the PMR-30 to an FN 5.7 -- I've only seen that argument made once on YouTube (where the CMR-30 was compared to a 5.7 semi-auto assault weapon) -- and I agree with you that such a comparison is so much BS. The FN 5.7 is a very powerful weapon using a powerful, high-velocity round. The .22 WRM is not even close -- but neither is the .32 a.c.p. round.

I did compare the PMR-30's performance favorably to some .380 handguns and loads,. I would argue that even if you're using the best 32 caliber self-defense ammo available, the PMR-30 shooting good self-defense ammo, will outperform the .32 handgun.

The only place I'd really favor a .32 over other guns is if I needed a very, very small and light gun for deep concealment -- and then I'd probably use a Keltec P32. The CZ-50/70 is neither small nor light. I do know of several LEOs who carry a P32 as an unobtrusive backup gun. One friend, not an LEO, carries his P32 on a necklace that he wears almost everywhere -- but all of these little .32s are used as LAST RESORT/BACKUP GUNS -- not as primary carry weapons. (I keep thinking I'm going to pick up a .P32 one of these days.)

My son is a NC State Trooper,and the smallest weapon he carries when he is off-duty is a Glock 43 [9mm], and he wishes it was available in .357 SIG. His duty handgun is a SIG P226 in .357 SIG. The Glock 43 weighs 5 oz less loaded (with six 9mm rounds) than the CZ-70 does empty! It's also shorter and easier to conceal. Then, too, I'll take 6 rounds of 9mm (SD) ammo over 8- round of .32 any day.​

Were I concerned about human critters trying to do me harm, I'd probably grab the PMR-30 before I reached for any of the .32 or .38o we've talked about. A CZ-82/83 or a Makarov shooting 9x18 would be a step up from the PMR-30. While I've had both CZ-82s and Makarovs, I don't have any of them at the moment. .For everyday carry, I'd probably be using my Glock 38, which is 45 GAP; it's basically the same size as the Glock 19, and a comfortable carry weapon. For home defense, I'd use the Glock 38, or my XDm Competition in .45 a.c.p., which came with five 13-round mags. I shoot both the Glock 38 and the XDm .45 about as well as I shoot 9mm guns.

All this said, I'm still waiting for you to make a convincing argument that using the CZ-50 or CZ-70 as a self-defense or home-defense weapon makes more sense than using a larger caliber (sometimes smaller and lighter) .380, 9x18, or 9mm handgun.. You should make your case!
 
Last edited:
Yes, I read the manual, know all about tapping the mag as you load. Leave that "properly loaded"mag sit for about a
week, and see how it shoots. This isn't my first barbecue, I know crap mag springs, when I see them, and the feeding issues are helped by
settling the cartridges down, but the mag springs are still crap. The icing on this fine cake is you can't get
decent replacement springs, either.

As to depending on a PMR30, sorry, I've simply had too many mis-feeds, hang-fires, and misfires to ever trust 22WMR or a PMR30 with my life. Say what you want about that little CZ, but it's dependable, jam free,
and on target. I have to admit to personally being surprised that the 60+ year old CZ functions faultlessly,
compared to the brand spanking new Duck Dodgers Space Blaster, my little 30 round wonder, which, I'm trying to remember,
(tap the mags and all) of all the times I've had it to the range, did it ever make it all the way thru 3 mags
without a feed issue? Yeah, maybe once.

As to Kel-Tec in general, they couldn't try to be CZ on their best day. If the PMR30 is an example of their standards of quality, which I must consider they are, I've bought my last one.

I don't have to
make a case for the CZ 70, It makes it's own case for itself. It's got a great CC
DA trigger pull, a good hammer, doesn't jam, and shoots accurately. Not to mention
the safety hammer de-cocker which was leading edge when it was designed, and is
still state of the art today. It's a little big and heavy? Yeah, because Kel-Tec's shown
us what we get, when we go with smaller and lighter, haven't they?
 
Last edited:
Dibbs said:
As to depending on a PMR30, sorry, I've simply had too many mis-feeds, hang-fires, and misfires to ever trust 22WMR or a PMR30 with my life. Say what you want about that little CZ, but it's dependable, jam free,
and on target.

I've not had the problems you've had with the PMR-30, and most of the folks now shooting PMR-30s and CMR-30s seem to have had a much better experience than you. Have you talked with Kel-Tec? Pushing the rounds straight down into the mag (and not shifting them to one side or the other was) the key to success for me. Once I learned how to load the magazine the problems went away. And I've had ONE .22 WRM misfire over the years (and that one recently), and I've had several .22 WRM handguns -- including a Ruger Single Six . (If you really want to get rid of that PRM-30, let me know -- maybe we can work out a trade...)

Dibbs said:
I have to admit to personally being surprised that the 60+ year old CZ functions faultlessly, compared to the brand spanking new Duck Dodgers Space Blaster, my little 30 round wonder, which, I'm trying to remember,(tap the mags and all) of all the times I've had it to the range, did it ever make it all the way thru 3 mags without a feed issue? Yeah, maybe once.

I had a P-09 (military Luger) that was made in 1941 that also functioned perfectly, and when a couple of parts wore out, it was easy to get replacement parts. And it was one of the most accurate 9mm. This one had been captured by the Soviets and then served for a number of years with the East German police. It saw a lot more service than any CZ-50 or CZ-70.

You better hope the CZ-50/70 continues to function well, because parts -- including magazines -- are hard to find. And if something breaks, it may stay broken (I think, Wolff now makes mag springs for the gun, and springs are the most cause of feeding issues.) More than one CZ-50 and CZ-70 has become a paperweight because of the owner's inability to find magazines.

Dibbs said:
I don't have to make a case for the CZ 70, It makes it's own case for itself. It's got a great CC DA trigger pull, a good hammer, doesn't jam, and shoots accurately. Not to mention the safety hammer de-cocker which was leading edge when it was designed, and is still state of the art today. It's a little big and heavy? Yeah, because Kel-Tec's shown us what we get, when we go with smaller and lighter, haven't they?

The self-made CZ-70 case you cite won't convince many here who are concerned about things like ROUND PERFORMANCE.

While my CZ-50 outperformed a friends Walther PPK, that's a bit like comparing the rate of acceleration of economy cars and feeling better because your gas-miser did can do 0-60 mph in 20 seconds when mine could only do it in 25 seconds -- because neither one of those performance levels will make you comfortable if you're trying to merge into an active interstate from a short on ramp.

I will continue to argue that the 32 a.c.p. round isn't a good self-defense or home-defense round, and it becomes an even-poorer choice when you realize that there are so many alternatives that are equally small (or smaller), lighter, and shoot more potent rounds and often cost about the same. I say this WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT USING THE CZ-50 OR CZ-70 FOR HOME OR SELF DEFENSE -- and not when you talk about using it at the range, for fun.

I suspect you understand all of this too, and that's why you refuse to address questions or comments about round performance. You remain silent on that part of the CZ-50/70 story. A CZ-50 or 70 is certainly OK for punching holes in paper, but so is a 9mm semi-auto, which uses less costly ammo. I'd certainly prefer the 9mm round o a .32 around if I was under attack by a person or an animal.

Alternatives?

The Ruger LC9s has a much better trigger, includes a trigger safety (which makes it drop safe), and weighs a half-pound less than the CZ-70. A new one has a warranty. I think the LC9s is slightly smaller, It holds 7+1 rounds of 9mm vs the CZ-50/70's 8+1 of .32; The LC9s can generally be purchased for about the same (or fewer) dollars as the CZ-50/70. Several are available on Gunbroker for under $225, and used for maybe $40 less.

J have a Ruger SR9c, which is about the same size and weight as the CZ-70, is very comfortable to shoot, and bought used, can be had for about the same price. The SR9c can hold either holds 10+1 rounds of 9mm. or 17+1 if you want to add a larger magazine with a grip extension, and it can be purchased new in the $250-$275 range. A used one that looked new recently sold on Gunbroker for $188.

There are other small 9mms, but they tend to be more costly. Some of Kel-Tec 9mm are less costly, but they're not for everybody... (A point that is addressed below.)

While the .32 a.c.p round CAN stop a bad guy, .a 22 LR can too, as can a knife, a pointed stick, a rock, or a baseball bat!

There are darned few self-defense rounds available for .32 handguns, And while you may like a decocker -- I learned long ago how to decock a cocked semi-auto -- I'd much rather have a safety that allows a cocked & locked start so that all trigger pulls are the same (AND BETTER!) And that decocker is a technical feature that once may have been state of the art, that was the case 60 years ago, but it isn't the case now! (Little things like drop-proof safety or a hammer block safety are newer technical features that are much more important.)

For the weight, price and performance, there are far better choices for self- or home-defense than the CZ-70. For a fun(?) plinking gun it's OK, but if something really dangerous is coming at you, (i.e., the typical self-defense or home-defense situation) I would argue you need more than a small .32 semi-auto in your hand.. Those are some of the points you must deal with if you want to convince OTHERS that the CZ-70 is a good home- or self-defense weapon. Until you do that, it's hard to convince anyone that the CZ-50/70 is a good gun for home or self defense was among your earlier statements.

Re: Kel-Tecs.

Over the years, I've had a Kel-Tec P3AT, a P-11, a PF9, a Sub-2000 in 9mm, a Sub-2000 in .40 -- and the PMR-30. All of them have been flawless performers, but I moved UP from .380 to smaller 9mms for self-defense. didn't like the P11 trigger, found the PF9, while functionally great, a pain (literally) to shoot. I loved the Sub-2000 in 9mm (very accurate and reliable), but someone made me a trade offer I couldn't refuse. I didn't care for the Sub-2000 in .40 -- found it unpleasant to shoot. The PMR-30 has been the best of the Kel-Tecs for me, and if the CMR-30 wasn't so darned expensive I'd get one of them. Maybe I'll find a used one one of these days. For the price they're asking, you can get a low-end AR. I also have a Glock 38 that I carry, which is .45 GAP -- It's generally my home defense gun, too, but have other options if I need them.

A few years ago, a friend who is a wizard when shooting a 1911s, bought a P3AT and quickly called it the biggest piece of crap ever made; he quickly got rid of it. I let him try mine at the range and not only could he not hit the broad side of the barn, he couldn't even find the barn! I reloaded and rapidly shot a 3": group at about 20 feet. With other guns he's a superior shot.

Kel-Tecs seem to just NOT FIT some people.
 
Last edited:
32ACP ammo performance is what it is. The only difference here, is you're making some big deal out of it.
I carry .357, 9MM, and sometimes even 45, and feel perfectly comfortable, whenever I put the CZ70
into the rotation.

As to the PMR30, it had it's chance to "prove the performance" of 22WMR ammo, putting down
pests in live traps. It performs marginally better than 22LR, from a pistol, which isn't much. Even
22LR from a rifle works better than pistol 22WMR, for me. I get about one bad round of WMR
per box or two. I guess if your 22WMR has been regularly dependable, you've been fortunate, or lucky.

You want to trust it, or any Kel-Tec,
be my guest. For me, it's a great looking gun, paper puncher, and conversation piece. If Kel-Tec
wanted my repeat business, they should have put about 65 cents more into the quality of
their mag springs, dang. All that gun design pissed away, because they decided to get all chincy
with the mag springs. Maybe one of these fine decades Wolff will start making springs for it,
and I'll have a world class shooter on my hands.
 
Dibbs said:
32ACP ammo performance is what it is. The only difference here, is you're making some big deal out of it. I carry .357, 9MM, and sometimes even 45, and feel perfectly comfortable, whenever I put the CZ70
into the rotation.

22 LR ammo performance is what it is, too, but that doesn't mean I'd be wise to carry my Ruger MKII when I could carry a .45 or a 9mm with which I'm proficient. I make a big deal out of .32 performance because it's simply not a good self-defense or home-defense round. You may feel perfectly comfortable with that gun/ammo combination in your carry rotation, but I wouldn't. There are times when a very small .32 might be your best choice, but having it in one's regular rotation is increasing the likelihood of unanticipated problems.

Dibbs said:
As to the PMR30, it had it's chance to "prove the performance" of 22WMR ammo, putting downpests in live traps. It performs marginally better than 22LR, from a pistol, which isn't much. Even
22LR from a rifle works better than pistol 22WMR, for me. I get about one bad round of WMR per box or two. I guess if your 22WMR has been regularly dependable, you've been fortunate, or lucky.

Most handguns don't do that well with .22 ammo -- primarily because nearly all .22 ammo is designed for rifles, not handguns. In the rifle, the slower-burning powder (I know "burning" isn't the proper term, as its really a chemical reaction) allows most of the powder burn to take place before the bullet leaves the longer rifle barrel. It's only when you get 22 or .22 WRM ammo designed with faster powder that more of the chemical reaction takes place BEFORE the bullet leaves the shorter handgun barrel that you start to get better performance. That's why I mentioned Hornady Critical Defense, a line of handgun ammo designed for shorter barrels. (Hornady does offer .32 ammo in that line. (I was surprised to see that Speer doesn't have a .32 round in their Gold Dot catalog.) If you're using standard rifle ammo, and are just shooting the cheapest .22 WRM you can find, you are going to have performance issues (both in terms of reliability and penetration.) But it's clear that even Critical Defense doesn't burn quickly enough -- as you'll still see a fiery ring when shooting it in the PMR-30. Its just not as big as other .22 WRM rounds. If the PMR-30 barrel were an inch or two longer it would likely perform even better. (I haven't had a chance to see or shoot a CMR-30 yet, but suspect that FIREBALL is noticeably smaller. I've not seen this discussed on the forums.)

You're convinced that springs are why the PMR-30 mag gives you problems. That may be the case with your gun, but most other PMR owners don't seem to be having your problems. (A bunch of them had the problem and then just sold the guns, and never really worked out what was going on.) Have you contacted Kel-Tec about your unhappiness with the mag springs?

I would imagine that leaving the mags fully loaded could also be an issue with the PMR-30s mag design -- because if mag springs are kept nearly fully compressed for long periods (and IF the spring material is at or near its elastic limit when the mag is fully loaded), that can lead to spring degradation much more quickly than just cycling the weapon.

Cycling a spring will only cause significant spring degradation if, at maximum compression, the spring is near or beyond its elastic (i.e. design) limit. Compressing a spring part-way has almost no effect on spring wear or spring life. Most mags when the mag is fully loaded DON'T push the spring material near that limit, but a few do. That's why 7-round 1911 mag springs almost never wear out, and why some hi-cap mags (20+ rounds of 9mm or 15+ rounds of ,40) wear out more quickly. As Wolff Springs suggests in their site's FAQ area, if you download a mag a round or two before you store it you can lengthen mag spring life substantially.
 
Last edited:
My CZ 32 was unused when I got it. The handgun proved accurate and reliable. The only shortfall was the horrendous double action trigger pull. I always wondered what the CZ folks were thinking. To me gun was not usable in that condition. Passed it along to a friend who was an accumulator who took in stray pistols. He rarely shot any of those guns..
 
It took Kel-Tec a couple days, but those of you having spring issues may be happy to know they have, I am given to understand, upgraded their springs.

Will follow up, when they arrive.
 
Last edited:
Dibbs said:
Just for the record attempted to contact Kel-Tec regarding mag spring issue. It's been 4 days,
still waiting. How long did it take them to respond to you, Walt?

Never had a reason to contact them about problems, but did call once with questions about parts -- and got through fairly quickly by phone.

Have sometimes ordered parts (like the "hanger" that lets you carry the PF9 inside the wasteband without a holster), but that's a different type of communication and not PROBLEM-related like your situation. I don't think they have springs shown in their online store.

If you don't get an answer, try creating a TICKET, here: https://www.keltecweapons.com/support

If you haven't watched the following, see if it helps -- its a much more efficient method than what I originally was doing -- and quicker, too: https://www.keltecweapons.com/faq-knowledge-center/index/view/id/20
 
Last edited:
A friend of mine picked one up in Germany in the early 90's at a rod & gun club (back when such purchases were allowed). It functions just fine. He carries it when he is riding his motorcycle.
 
I know this thread is about the Cz50, but I see some comments on the .32acp being an anemic round, and it is. However, of all the complaints of the 71-73gr FMJs, penetration is usually not one of them.

On occasion, I'll slip one of my two Keltec P32s (a gen 1 & 2) into a pocket with a Desantis Nemesis or a generic ankle holster (they disappear there) while doing yard work or heading out to the mail box and feel perfectly content.
Though I've settled on a 9mm as the bare minimum for away-from-home carry (a Sig P365 is my current choice), scoring a couple rapid hits with a .32 acp FMJ into the braincase of an assailant or dog should have a decisively detrimental effect that will almost certainly "change the channel" if not turn off the unit. A couple follow-up pairs are usually available if needed. The P32 is a 7+1 affair.

Practice is essential with all carry pieces, but this holds especially true with the smaller pistols and even more so when chambered in mild-yet-capable cartridges such as the .32 acp / 7.65 Browning.
 
Last edited:
Snowdog said:
I know this thread is about the Cz50, but I see some comments on the .32acp being an anemic round, and it is. However, of all the complaints of the 71-73gr FMJs, penetration is usually not one of them.

I was one of those talking about .32 acp being anemic -- and as you say, it is. But I also said there may be times with a small .32 -- like your Keltec P32 -- may be the ONLY gun that offers reasonable (if anemic) firepower when deep concealment (or a "last resort" backup) weapon is called for. (I know that a number of LEOs carry the P-32 as a backup.) I've even considered picking up a P-32 myself, for those unusual times when a very small, light .32 may be almost the only thing that will fit the need.

My main argument in this discussion was that .32 acp is NOT a good home or self defense weapon when paired with the CZ-50 or CZ-70 or other small small, heavy, military-surplus-type weapons.. The CZ-50/70 is a large, heavy gun with a crappy DA trigger, that can't be practically started from cocked and locked. For the money (gun and ammo), there are simply better choices for normal carry and home defense uses. But for Deep Carry, or as a backup gun if everything else fails, a P-32 makes a lot of sense.

In an earlier discussion on this forum about .32 acp round tests, we see that penetration is OK with some rounds, but only through bare gelatin. Other rounds do better, but as one of the folks offering data reminds us, we're talking bout .32 acp. For the same money (when VERY DEEP CONCELMENT is not an issue, there are better choices in terms of size, weight, and performance than the CZ-50 or any other small, military-surplus type weapon.

Here's the link to that discussion: https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...ts-32acp-85gr-hornady-xtp-kel-tec-p32.312403/
 
Last edited:
I agree with Walt Sherrill - by today's standards, the CZ-50 is obsolescent, since the same firepower can be had in much smaller and lighter guns, with trigger mechanisms more in line with today's preferences.

Of course, you could argue that the same thing could be said about a Smith & Wesson Model 10. But I would say that a Model 10 can handle 38 Special +P, which, with the right bullets, is considered by many to be an adequate self-defense round. Whereas the current niche for 32 ACP is improving the punch of the vest-pocket category of pistols. Say what you like about 32 ACP, it's a big step up from 25 ACP or 22 LR from a 2-inch barrel.

(I guess I should say I am pretty tired now, so I hope I have not misunderstood Walt Sherrill's point, or the general direction this thread has taken.)
 
Have you watched any demonstrations by Paul Harrell? "Concealed Carry Is .32 ACP Enough?"

He used large soft drink bottles for .22LR vs. .32 ACP, 25 vs. .32 vs. .380 etc. One or two tests are with fmj, at least one incudes jhp.
Even a layer of pig's ear, oranges with more raw meat (having ribs) are used.

I'm beginning to conclude that the very concealable P-64--though only six rds. are in the mag, and I Don't enjoy shooting most 64s--could be a better choice for fairly tight clothing than the CZ 70/50 with nine rds., because the typical 9x18 Mak round has power very similar to a typical .380 ACP, both of which trump .32 ACP.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top