Rebirth of the 32 ACP?

[Kleanbore]

I think it had more to do with wanting a rimless case to reduce issues with loading the magazine and also to get a bigger bullet into a blowback pistol.

Bigger bullet, yes, but had leading a semi-rimmed case been a major issue, the .32 would have died out a long time ago.

they certainly didn't have the equipment to be able to test ballistics like we do today.

They measured velocity and could therefore calculate energy.

What more would one want or need from a 7oz pocket pistol?

More effective ammunition.

The .380 is generally considered minimal, and the .32, below acceptable.

 

[gobsauce]

I don't care, I just like the round man. It goes boom and bang when I pull the trigger, it's for fun at this point.

 

[Kleanbore]

I don't care, I just like the round man. It goes boom and bang when I pull the trigger, it's for fun at this point.

Can't fault that.

 

[TTv2]

More effective ammunition.

The .380 is generally considered minimal, and the .32, below acceptable.

What makes the .380 more effective than .32 tho? The extra 20 grains of lead and .05" larger in diameter with an expanded bullet? Between both .380 and .32 you either get a bullet that expands 1.5x, but fails to go 12 inches in gel or you get bullets that expand a little and they go past 12 inches.

The .380 has a larger variety of ammo, but .32 has some decent options and from all I see there's little difference in effect on target between the two, but there is a big difference in the guns and how people shoot them.

Or are we gonna rely on whatever police and other LE orgs say is good because they're the final say on what's good/bad for self defense now?

 

[Walkalong]

I shoot my Beretta 81 .32 ACP very well, as I do my Taurus PT-132 Pro, and one wouldn't want me shooting at them with either one, but my P-365 is smaller, and holds ten rounds of 9MM, so that makes the .32 a secondary choice. Almost all of the little .32 ACP pocket pistols became available in .380, and many people traded in the .32s for .380s. Same package, more power, a simple enough choice.

I don't think the .32 ACP is under powered for carry, but there are certainly better choices, and I am in the minority thinking that the .32 is adequate for carry, if not optimal.

 

[Kleanbore]

Or are we gonna rely on whatever police and other LE orgs say is good because they're the final say on what's good/bad for self defense now?

I do not know of any LE organizations who recommend anything smaller than the service calibers.

I know that the .380 Auto is not among those, that it is generally considered the minimum for SD, and that it is marginal at that.

While some writers citing observed penetration numbers opine that the .32 ACP is not "that bad", or words to that effect, I am aware of no one who actually responsibly recommends the .32 ACP for primary carry, if at all, for SD.

For LE use, the conclusions of users and departments specify certain minimum and maximum penetration performance through specified media and barriers; they state a preference for about 50% expansion, starting with an unexpanded bullet size of .356 or more.

There are loads that are advertised to meet those standards. To my knowledge, they include some premium JHP loads for the .38 Special and 9mm, and for the larger service calibers.

I would not want to bet my life on some internet demos of any cartridges, or on any lay person's conclusion that the .32 ACP seems to be about as good as the .380 Auto.

I carry a .380 Auto for backup. I consider it marginal, and I carry it only because the much lighter weight and smaller size allow me to carry it in addition to a service caliber handgun. It's a judgment call.

I can see choosing a .380 Auto when a very light, small handgun is needed. There are 9mm pistols in that size range, but I would not want to try one in realistic defensive shooting drills in a class, because the recoil slows the rate of controlled fire.

There are those who choose the .32 ACP for that purpose. I am not one of them. My LCP Max is small enough and light enough for me. I do not expect to ever have to use it, but if I do, it would probably be at a very short distance indeed--say, inside an automobile, and without metal or glass barriers.

 

[CDW4ME]

Or are we gonna rely on whatever police and other LE orgs say is good because they're the final say on what's good/bad for self defense now?

Oh no, of course not.
The new simplified standard for ammo selection is ... "Does anybody volunteer to get shot with it? / Nobody volunteer to get shot with it."
Take bullet question, 32 acp FMJ, just ask a few people if they will volunteer to get shot with it. If there are no takers, ammo is GTG for carry.
Standard of at least 12'' penetration and consistent expansion tends to eliminate anything less than the best performing 380, especially from pocket gun.
In order to rationalize carrying ammo that fails common and desirable performance standard for LE is a simple two step process:
1. Just say, I'm not LE so their standard doesn't apply to me, especially in a "good area". (LE encounters criminals tougher to stop than civilians do)
2. Invoke "Nobody volunteer to get shot with it" as this rationalizes whatever one might choose to carry including BBs, pellets, darts, 32 acp.

 

[fxvr5]

Or are we gonna rely on whatever police and other LE orgs say is good because they're the final say on what's good/bad for self defense now?

 

[Kleanbore]

As long as someone has bought up that "study" without saying about it.....

It is a fancy well produced piece that illustrates the following, and more, which we knew beforehand:

• A person may be stopped after having been hit twice by a .38 Special
• Six shots from a .38 may not do the trick
• A couple of .380 Autos may work
• ...as may one .32 ACP
• For the 9mm, it may take anywhere from one to twelve

We do not need a "study" to tell us any of that.

None of it has anything to do with wounding effectiveness. It is all a matter of chance.

What did each bullet hit internally, and when, after having penetrated in what place and at what angle....and through what did each bullet pass on its way to the target?

 

[Derek Wildstar]

.32acp is a great close quarters carry option regardless of the projectile.

A volley of 75-100 grain projectiles to the stomach, or the neck and face is no day at the spa

However, with the Lehigh and Underwood copper monolithic xtp and xd projectiles center mass defensive shots are now a viable and effective option even in a mouse gun caliber like 32acp.

Lightweight and solid metal = increased velocity and ft lbs of energy on target what you end up with is a 55gr projectile thar will break through bone and keep on driving-- deep enough to satisfy FBI specs for penetration AND cavitation..

 

[Kleanbore]

A volley of 75-100 grain projectiles to the neck and face is no day at the spa

that does not represent realistic defensive shooting.

However, with the Lehigh and Underwood copper monolithic xtp and xd projectiles center mass defensive shots are now a viable and effective option even in a mouse gun caliber like 32acp

Their permanent wound channels are no larger than that of conventional FMJ bullets.

what you end up with is a 55gr projectile that will break through bone and keep on driving-- deep enough to satisfy FBI specs for penetration AND cavitation..

No. FBI measurements start with duty-sized projectiles and address expanded diameter.

 

[Derek Wildstar]

Just what exactly, then, is realistic defensive shooting for someone who chooses or whose only option is a pocket pistol in .32 acp?

Also, FBI standard for penetration is 12-18 inches. Underwood/Lehigh .32 acp projectiles achieve this with a high degree of reliability. As well the unique projectile design was specifically engineered to match or closely mimic the cavitation properties of many duty-sized projectiles.

Is the FBI now considering the .32acp for duty carry? NO. That wasn't the point.

The point is that the Underwood and Lehigh .32 acp projectiles still satisfy the requirements for penetration and cavitation-- and they do so more reliably than many duty-worthy HP/JHP projectiles.

 

[Kleanbore]

As well the unique projectile design was specifically engineered to match or closely mimic the cavitation properties of many duty-sized projectiles.

That has to do with the temporary cavity.

 

[Derek Wildstar]

For the Lehigh and Underwood .32 projectiles, the near 100% reliability of penetration - 14"-14.5" every time is, IMHO, the most telling result. Not even most duty rounds are that reliable.

 

[Derek Wildstar]

Also, conceal carrying a full-sized, compact, or sub compact in 9mm in 90°F+ temperatures in shorts and a tank top is simply not an ideal situation -- neither for carrying or concealing.

My Seacamp .32 or my Beretta 3032 are.

 

[Kleanbore]

....satisfy the requirements for penetration and cavitation

There are no requirements for cavitation.

 

[Derek Wildstar]

There are no requirements for cavitation.

Well. there we have it then.

 

[Kleanbore]

Well. there we have it then.

Eh?

The Underwood and Lehigh projectiles do little or nothing more in terms of wounding than do conventional FMJ bullets.

FMJ bullets have not been recommended for civilian defensive use for years.

I cannot recall any US agencies having issued FMJ ammunition smaller than 9mm for anything other than carry by General Officers. That was over sixty five years ago.

 

[Derek Wildstar]

Not everyone who carries for protection is planning for prolonged firefights at extended distances through multiple barriers. In many situations it's better to keep your firearm holstered and create separation by fleeing.

For this reason, .32 acp remains a viable option for the overwhelming majority of conditions which the average citizen encounters where a firearm might come in handy-- especially at close quarters as a means of creating enough distance to flee to safety.

Not everyone who concealed carries is expecting to be a hero. Many of us just aim to survive. And, contrary to popular sentiment on many CC forums, ending someone's life isn't main idea behind Concealed Carry.

 

[Derek Wildstar]

Eh

FMJ bullets have not been recommended for civilian defensive use for years.

And, yet, many still use FMJ and/or .32 acp for their concealed carry options and home defense firearms... in real life.

 

[Kleanbore]

And, yet, many still use FMJ and/or .32 acp for their concealed carry options and home defense firearms... in real life

Yes.

As I said before, "There are those who choose the .32 ACP for that purpose{for backup or when extremely small, light pistol is needed]. I am not one of them. My LCP Max is small enough and light enough for me. I do not expect to ever have to use it, but if I do, it would probably be at a very short distance indeed--say, inside an automobile, and without metal or glass barriers".

 

[TTv2]

I think Derek did bring up a good point about the questionable nature of hollow point expansion in .380's. Most of the gel results I see with .380 are bullets that have been shot out of barrels over 3 inches, not the 2.8" that the LCP and LCP Max have. There are few loads I've seen that perform okay, but still, it's not a guarantee and that's one reason for the .380 and smaller calibers I prefer a solid bullet.

And in that vain the .380 has the same solid copper bullets the .32 has, but that doesn't mean they're more effective they're just .05" bigger and is that enough difference to make a difference? I doubt it.

 

[film495]

And, yet, many still use FMJ and/or .32 acp for their concealed carry options and home defense firearms... in real life.

I've seen it recommended here many times for .32 ACP .. from people who carry .32 ACP.

 

[Kleanbore]

I've seen it recommended here many times for .32 ACP .. from people who carry .32 ACP.

Heh!

 

[CapnMac]

That was my question: what were Browning and the pistol producers thinking?

It's probably the nub of the question, too. And one we'd likely need a time machine to riddle out.

Now, it may be a factor, that, at the time, virtually all pistol ammo was Ball, either RNL or FMJ in one way or another.
The hollow point does not become much of a "thing" until the 50s, and really that was mostly in revolvers. Contentious, too, in that use up to the 70s as I remember.
HP and expanding ammo for autos 'blossomed' in the 70s, and really did not kick in until the mid 80s.

I have to admit to a reflex, of sorts, about the "specialty" defense ammo. If it costs 6x the price, I'm not using it, as there's no way to afford enough to practice with And, there's no way I'm just trusting that the $6 apeice wonder ammo is going to shoot where the practice ammo does.
I bought some Silvertip .32acp, back in the day, mostly to see if it were more reliable than the discount FMJ I was getting. It was, a little. But, my standard was the one posted above: "Does it go bang?" Which why I have like 5 of the STs left in the pistol carry bag.