Semi-auto function ponderings

[barnetmill]

https://www.oldammo.com/july06.htm
interesting, so - there already was use of a .32 ACP cartridge that produced over 200 foot pounds of nrg.

I never did the math, but the frommer design people did apparently up the velocity and of course the energy of the 32 ACP. But to what end. There were better guns around at that time at least my opinion.

 

[film495]

I never did the math, but the frommer design people did apparently up the velocity and of course the energy of the 32 ACP. But to what end. There were better guns around at that time at least my opinion.

that was the end apparently, nobody ever made another pistol with that type of action as far as I can tell, but it is interesting there is another type of action - I didn't know it ever existed in a pistol. same type as in my AL-48, it is just interesting …

http://www.hungariae.com/FromStop.htm

 

[barnetmill]

that was the end apparently, nobody ever made another pistol with that type of action as far as I can tell, but it is interesting there is another type of action - I didn't know it ever existed in a pistol. same type as in my AL-48, it is just interesting …

http://www.hungariae.com/FromStop.htm

The MARS while having a different feeding system IIRC correctly did use a long recoil system also for special high velocity cartridges. Never go past the prototype stage IIRC with 80 being made

The Mars Automatic Pistol is noted for being available in a variety of 8.5 mm, 9 mm and .45 calibres. These were all bottlenecked cartridges with a large charge of powder, making the .45 version the most powerful handgun in the world for a time. It used a unique long recoil rotating bolt action which ejected spent cartridges straight to the rear, and the feed mechanism is unusual in that it pulls cartridges backwards out of the magazine and then lifts them up into the breech face.

The Mars Automatic Pistol was rejected by the British War Office as a possible replacement for the Webley & Scott revolver, then in service with the British Army, because of the unacceptably large recoil, considerable muzzle flash, and mechanical complexity. The captain in charge of tests of the Mars at the Naval Gunnery School in 1902 observed, "No one who fired once with the pistol wished to shoot it again". Shooting the Mars pistol was described as "singularly unpleasant and alarming".[2] It has since become a collectors' item because of its rarity and as an example of the earliest developments in semi-automatic pistols.

 

[barnetmill]

that was the end apparently, nobody ever made another pistol with that type of action as far as I can tell, but it is interesting there is another type of action - I didn't know it ever existed in a pistol. same type as in my AL-48, it is just interesting …

http://www.hungariae.com/FromStop.htm

The one that I fired functioned ok with factory FMJ years ago.

 

[lysanderxiii]

What would the risk be and what would the signs be of over pressure?

A ruptured case would likely be both the sign and the result.

The limiting factor on these little .32s is the unsupported portion of the case.

 

[94045]

Just buy S&B. It's loaded to CIP Specs and is hotter than the US Spec stuff.

 

[TonyAngel]

Film, if you're new to reloading, I'd say you're starting off on the wrong foot. Really not trying to offend, but reloading is an inherently dangerous activity that requires attention to detail.
The short answer to your question is that in many instances, a particular model of firearm is able to withstand more pressure than the caliber they are chambered for. Look at the Glocks. Same configuration of slide and frame for 9mm, .40 and .357 sig.

What the gun can take isn't going to be the limiting factor. The bullet casing is going to have a lot to do with what maximum safe pressure is for any particular round. You start trying to hot rod a .32 and you're gonna start seeing blown out primers and blown out cases and a face full of gas and metal is no fun, nor is it fun to have the mag blown out of the bottom of your gun. If/when the primer blows out or the case ruptures all of that gas and pressure is going to be looking for the path of least resistance for a way out and that way out isn't going to be out of the front of the barrel because that's gonna be clogged with a projectile.

If you're reloading, it's a good idea for get a chronograph too. That way you can start working up your loads until you get to the velocity where you want to be, while watching for signs of pressure. I've had several firearms where I started seeing signs of pressure before I reached the maximum published load. If you find a load that won't get to your desired velocity with a particular projectile, then go to a slower powder.

 

[film495]

Film, if you're new to reloading, I'd say you're starting off on the wrong foot. Really not trying to offend, but reloading is an inherently dangerous activity that requires attention to detail.
The short answer to your question is that in many instances, a particular model of firearm is able to withstand more pressure than the caliber they are chambered for. Look at the Glocks. Same configuration of slide and frame for 9mm, .40 and .357 sig.

What the gun can take isn't going to be the limiting factor. The bullet casing is going to have a lot to do with what maximum safe pressure is for any particular round. You start trying to hot rod a .32 and you're gonna start seeing blown out primers and blown out cases and a face full of gas and metal is no fun, nor is it fun to have the mag blown out of the bottom of your gun. If/when the primer blows out or the case ruptures all of that gas and pressure is going to be looking for the path of least resistance for a way out and that way out isn't going to be out of the front of the barrel because that's gonna be clogged with a projectile.

If you're reloading, it's a good idea for get a chronograph too. That way you can start working up your loads until you get to the velocity where you want to be, while watching for signs of pressure. I've had several firearms where I started seeing signs of pressure before I reached the maximum published load. If you find a load that won't get to your desired velocity with a particular projectile, then go to a slower powder.

I'd say the most dangerous thing I've seen in learning about this cartridge, that's isn't discussed much in threads is the different chamber dimensions between CIP and SAMMI for the cartridge. In the CIP Specs there are several measurements that say to check them carefully due to safety - several of my dummy rounds did not meet those measurements. The other side note - is there are some reloading books that make reference to dangers with US dimension bullets .311 and .312 , and smaller chambers and bores in CIP manufactured firearms .308 .309

The stock bullets I ordered, put into a couple different cases, come close - but end up slightly larger than the max case dimension in the CIP specification - so, going to slug the barrel and size the bullets down.

They don't say what the risk is - blown out cases or sudden detonation … who knows. We're only talking about a cartridge that has like 2.2 grains of Win 231 - but, the differences aren't unlike ones commonly known for .223 vs 5.56 Nato - the same, but not quite - exactly the same.

It would be very easy for someone to collect some reloading supplies, some components, load up some cartridges - follow all the direction, and if they don't study the CIP specs, and put the cartridges in a firearm labeled for 7.65 Browning, and be outside of known and documented safety specs; irrespective of how much powder is or isn't in the cartridge.

 

[Walkalong]

I'd say the most dangerous thing I've seen in learning about this cartridge, that's isn't discussed much in threads is the different chamber dimensions between CIP and SAMMI for the cartridge.

Because it is a non issue, and certainly not dangerous. You load the same for both, there is not separate data for .32 ACP /7.65. You're still way over thinking that.

From the Western Powders 6.0 PDF:

32 AUTO (32 ACP, 7.65MM BROWNING)
Barrel: 4” ¦ Twist: 1-16” ¦ Primer: WIN WSP ¦ Bullet Diameter: 0.312”
Case: REM ¦ Max Case Length: 0.680” ¦ Trim Length: 0.675”
ACCURATE NO. 2
71 SIERRA FMJ 2.0 572 2.2 650 19,300 0.955
85 HDY XTP 1.6 612 1.8 695 18,800 0.940
ACCURATE NO. 5
71 SIERRA FMJ 2.9 619 3.2 703 19,700 0.955
85 HDY XTP 2.2 615 2.4 699 19,100 0.940

Most data just says .32 ACP though, and folks use it in their guns whether they are marked .32 ACP or 7.65. That's what I do. I have them marked both ways, and one isn't marked either way, it simply isn't marked.

 

[film495]

Because it is a non issue, and certainly not dangerous. You load the same for both, there is not separate data for .32 ACP /7.65. You're still way over thinking that.

From the Western Powders 6.0 PDF:


Most data just says .32 ACP though, and folks use it in their guns whether they are marked .32 ACP or 7.65. That's what I do. I have them marked both ways, and one isn't marked either way, it simply isn't marked.

*CIP lists safety concerns directly in their specifications, as do Lyman manual, and my .32 ACP Load book. Your ignoring published safety information from respected and authoritative sources, really is no influence on me at all to do the same. Please stop recommending for me to ignore published safety data in reloading manuals. Simply for the sake of your own liability, it seems like such a bad idea, and risky to anyone who might listen to you.

Why people say it is the same and there is no risk is beyond me. Maybe you are just lucky. If you are not a more authoritative source of information than SAMMI, CIP, Lyman, and Loadbook - where does your information that they are the exact same come from? Those organizations disagree with you!

 

[Demi-human]

CIP lists safety concerns directly in their specifications, as do Lyman manual, and my .32 ACP Load book. Your ignoring published safety information from respected and authoritative sources, really is no influence on me at all to do the same. Please stop recommending for me to ignore published safety data in reloading manuals. Simply for the sake of your own liability, it seems like such a bad idea, and risky to anyone who might listen to you.

You have got to be kidding me.
That’s what you got out of that?

Those organizations disagree with you!

You have a fundamental lack of understanding in these organizations and their measurement systems.

Please be careful. And away from others when you find understanding...

 

[Demi-human]

You’ve gone from hot loading the .32 to pistol design to standards of cartridge compliance.

If there is something in this bush you’re beating about, out with it...

 

[film495]

You have got to be kidding me.
That’s what you got out of that?




You have a fundamental lack of understanding in these organizations and their measurement systems.

Please be careful. And away from others when you find understanding...

Demi-human
Walkalong

Do you guys have any more personal attacks at me you need to get out of your system? Are you just mad because it might turn out that I did some research and learned something that you didn't know and posted it here? Really?

If you have some actual knowledge of anything your criticizing me about, particularly your suggestions to ignore published safety data from reloading sources, please do share this information and explain why this is your recommendation! I'm going to guess that you can't and that is why your posts just attack me, so - add something to the discussion that is of value - or please do move along - and stop flaming and trolling me.

 

[Demi-human]

Friendly advice that your headed down a dangerous, nowhere road of overloading small cartridges is not trolling you.
You are conflating measuring systems and getting instruction to the opposite that you reject, acting as though we are foolish or malicious for doing so.

You are wrong and reject correction, while refusing to consider the evidence to the contrary.
Have you researched CIP and where and how they arrive at their measurements and how they contrast with SAAMI standards?

Must I do this for you?

That some houses load for maximum and some don’t is of no regard.

I had thought you had a question that you could not word out. Clearly it is I who have been trolled, as you have done all this research already, yet have asked the question...

 

[Walkalong]

Do you guys have any more personal attacks at me

It wasn't personal. Sorry you took it that way, and the only one here that sounds upset is you. I'll be happy to leave you alone to sort it out for yourself, but you are way overthinking this.

 

[film495]

Demi-human
Walkalong

So you guys have absolutely no explanation of why your suggesting I or others disregard published safety information at all? Yea, I find that kind of upsetting that there's a lot of personal criticism in your posts, but no discussion of validating the suggestion I do something that's documented as being dangerous.

Do you want to explain or do you want me to go back and quote all of your personal attacks and insults? There's a lot of people who took the time to post actual information in this thread, and instead of discussing the topics of the thread - I'm defending myself from you guys criticizing me personally.

I'll just go with this one as one of many examples - "You are wrong and reject correction, while refusing to consider the evidence to the contrary."

 

[film495]

To anyone who participated and thought the thread was interesting - thanks for posting. There is a lot of information here that is particularly interesting to me, and this is a discussion of theory only - and a hypothetically hot loaded .32 to .380 pressure, for the purpose of discussing cartridge and semi auto firearm design and functioning. I didn't know a hot .32 actually existed in the Frommer cartrdige, kind of find that fascinating, and a 3rd type of action I certainly didn't know was ever put into a handgun. Lots of info on what to look for to identify high or low pressure cartridges. Cool stuff to learn about for me, appreciate it. Hopefully, some others will find this and take some value from it as well.

I'm not loading hot cartridges, didn't say I was, nor have I suggested anyone else do so. Actually, don't ever - follow the published loading data and never vary from it at all, do a lot of research and compare multiple sources of information to compare. This thread is just a conversation point on theory to draw out people's experiences and knowledge about firearm design, and how they function, or possibly fail - so, I and others can gain a better understanding of how their firearms work and why, and how they are designed, and different things to look for to identify if they are or possibly are not working correctly and associated risks.

For additional information on the .32 ACP cartridge I suggest The Complete Reloading Manual for the 25 ACP and 32 ACP, it isn't all the information available, but contains a compilation of data from 10 sources of reloading .32 ACP and discusses some of the safety concerns with the differences between 32 ACP and 7.65 Browning, or SAMMI and CIP specifications, however you want to look at it. Yes Yes, they are the same - but, particularly if you're firearm says 7.65 Browning on the side of it, really - you should know how the cartridges, chambers, and barrels are different and read the safety info about it in the manual and CIP specs.

Demi-human
Walkalong
If either of you guys ever come up with a resource or source of information that justifies suggesting to ignore published safety data in firearms industry publications and handloading manuals, feel free to share it - but, I'm guessing it doesn't exist and that is why you have not shared said information and can't justify the viewpoint that the published safety information is wrong. You've both clearly stated several times that you think the information is wrong, so I'm sort of at a loss that you have that viewpoint. I'm no expert, so - if that information contradicting the sources I've sited does actually exist I really would like to see it - and others may benefit from it as well if it is real and you'd care to share it. or maybe you are just trolling me which seems far more likely.

 

[sgt127]

http://www.brassfetcher.com/Handguns/32 NAA/32 NAA.html

Here’s the best of both worlds. A screaming hot .32 auto.

 

[Demi-human]

What is the case capacity of .32 ACP? With modern technology, one would think a gun that could handle a little larger loads would be easy to design into a +P loading for this,

I read. A lot.

I'll just go with this one as one of many examples - "You are wrong and reject correction, while refusing to consider the evidence to the contrary."

That is not an insult or personal attack. It is an observation of fact.

So you guys have absolutely no explanation of why your suggesting I or others disregard published safety information at all?

Where did I say this? You have to help me out if your going to place words in my mouth.


And if you’d like to talk to me, please quote me. I have no reservations about anything I say in public. I have answered all but your demands for links, in earnest.
And, since I am less so versed in computers than steel, I will not provide them. It would seem an interesting research topic for someone interested in it.


One thing I will say before I leave you.
After firing damn near all the ammo brands made for my little .32, European, American and Asian, you are looking for distinction without difference.
But, as my single experience is merely anecdotal, it will not suffice for your empirical standards.