Mouseguns separated at birth?: S&W 432PD vs. .32 NAA Guardian

[P. Plainsman]

Two renditions of the "warm .32" mousegun, one a revolver, one a shell-shucker, thus ensuring that those members of either of the major handgun religions who are into "energy" have something little and inconspicuous to slip in the pocket.

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/...d=10001&productId=14786&langId=-1&isFirearm=Y

http://www.naaminis.com/32NAA.html

Consider:

S&W 432PD (.32 H&R Magnum):
- DAO
- 6 round capacity
- fits in a pocket
- 1 7/8" barrel
- 13.5 oz unloaded
- 6.5 inches overall length
- will throw a 100 gr slug at c. 975 fps (Georgia Arms JHP) or an 85 gr slug at probably c. 1050 fps (again, Georgia Arms JHP)
- MSRP $469

North American Arms Guardian (.32 NAA)
- DAO
- 6+1 round capacity
- fits in a pocket
- 2.5" barrel
- 18.7 oz unloaded
- 4.75 inches overall length
- will throw a 60 gr slug at c. 1220 fps (Cor-Bon JHP)
- MSRP $ 449

The S&W is lighter, the Guardian is more compact. Good defense ammo (by mousegun standards) for the S&W is cheaper, and HKS 32-J speedloaders cost $8 vs. $25 for spare Guardian mags. The Guardian carries an additional round up the spout.

Otherwise we have basically the same gun in two different forms. Me, I'd prefer to carry a .38 Special or .357 Magnum. The comparison is still interesting. A side-by-side test might make for a good gunzine article. ("REVOLVER VS. AUTO: .32 MOUSEGUN SHOWDOWN!!")

 

[nero45acp]

Great thread!

I'm currently using a S&W 432PD as a CCW (though I sometimes carry a S&W 640 or a Seecamp LWS .32), and I've been intrigued by the .32 NAA Guardian since they first came out. I'm still contemplating getting a .32 NAA Guardian and a Hedley rear pocket holster for it.

I'd love to see a side by side function and ballistic gelatin comparison of these two pistols and their cartridges.

Not to hijack the thread, but I'd appreciate any info/opinions concerning the .32 NAA Guardian from anyone who owns one, or has any experience with them.


nero

 

[MICHAEL T]

Why did you not compair the S&W to a regular 32 auto round instead of the 32NAA which is a 380 case necked down to a 32. Would seem a better match I belive NAA is still makeing 32Auto Guardians. Or compair to a Seecamp in 32.
Corbon 32auto is a 60grJHP at 1050fps and 147ftlbs
Corbon 32 NAA is a 60grjhp at1200fps and 192ftlbs
Both loose to a 380 Corbon 90grHP at 1050 and 220ftlbs
380 Corbon powerball 70gr at 1250fps and 243ftlbs
380 Corbon DPX 80gr at 1050 fps and 196ftlbs The DPX numbers from a 380 KelTec. A PPK/S or Bersa would give better numbers. for the DPX.
I can buy lots of 32 auto in my area have not found anyone with the 32NAA ammo.

 

[P. Plainsman]

Why did you not compair the S&W to a regular 32 auto round instead of the 32NAA which is a 380 case necked down to a 32. Would seem a better match I belive NAA is still makeing 32Auto Guardians.

I respectfully disagree. The .32 H&R Magnum (particularly in the Georgia Arms loads, which exploit more of the cartridge's potential) clearly outclasses the .32 ACP, so that wouldn't be as close, or interesting, a comparison as the one I've presented.

The .32 NAA is a rough ballistic match for the .32 Magnum. Both rounds have a similar history and reflect a similar theory. The .32 NAA can be seen as North American Arms's attempt to sell more pocket guns by creating an updated, "hot" version of an old underpowered autoloader cartridge, the .32 ACP, just as the .32 Magnum was H&R's attempt to sell more pocket guns by creating an updated, "hot" version of an old underpowered (but fun and accurate) revolver cartridge, the .32 S&W Long.

 

[MCgunner]

In energy, the .32 Mag, if I remember right and I don't load it so I might not be spot on, is pretty close to standard pressure .38 special or .380 auto. But, unless the new gun is very compact, more so than the J frames, why bother? Hopefully, it'll be a very pocketable gun. It has to be considerably larger than a NAA .22 mini revolver. I'm just not real sure how small they'll be able to make it.

This is another thing I don't quite understand, why is a .32 NAA more useful than a .38? It's not any more powerful. It has more velocity, but less bullet mass and size. I'm not really getting why it is an improvement over a pocket .380. Is the gun that much more handy in size?

Just asking for opinions 'cause since I've read about the .32 NAA, it just seemed they were trying to reinvent the wheel or something.

 

[P. Plainsman]

The 432PD, which has been on the market for a couple of years now, is an ordinary-sized J-frame with the Centennial DAO design.

The perceived advantages of its .32 Mag chambering are: (1) you can fit 6 shots instead of 5 in a J-frame; (2) good .32 Mag ammo moves at a higher velocity than either .380 ACP or standard .38 Special, which may produce more reliable hollowpoint expansion; and (3) some prefer the recoil characteristics of the .32 Mag to the other two rounds just named. It is typically a lighter-kicking, but louder round than the .38 Special.

I lack experience with the .32 NAA round, but I imagine it would come with a similar set of advantages and disadvantages. Like I said, I prefer a S&W 642 or similar .38+P snubby for CCW to either of the guns under discussion here, but they are interesting guns in their own right.

 

[gunfan]

This is precisely why S&W needs to ressurect the "I" frame!

The "I" frame can have the barrel's forcing cone abbreviated to the frame (a la H&R) and have a revolver that is 15% smaller than the "J" frame. Manufacture them with a Scandium frame and you will handily supersede the .32 NAA with the reliability of an 8-ounce, six-shot, double action revolver!

Think, S&W... Think! :banghead:

This analysis presented by the no $#!t division of The High Road.

Scott