chicharrones
needs more ammo
I find the size difference between my Kel-tec P3AT and my CZ 83 to be quite different.
Just a bit.
I find the size difference between my Kel-tec P3AT and my CZ 83 to be quite different.
I always enjoy it when this topic resurfaces. It allows me to quote Ian Fleming, "Walther PPK. 7.65mm, with a delivery like a brick through a plate glass window. Takes a Braush silencer with very little reduction in muzzle velocity. The American CIA swears by them."
– Maj. Boothroyd, to 007, in "Dr. No"
"Maj. Boothroyd" - and by proxy, Ian Fleming's - opinions aside, the .32ACP at "sharp-stick" range is more effective than a .25ACP... or a sharp stick, for that matter. Abd it is true that use of a silencer on a pocket pistol in .32ACP results in very little reduction in muzzle velocity - mainly because it starts with very little muzzle velocity. Anything from very little will, by definition, be less than very little. A person with knowledge of anatomy, their personal firearm, with good reflexes and possessing a calm demeanor can use such a small pocket pistol to excellent effect. At least, that's what the FBI gel stats say. The 7.65mm Browning, a.k.a. .32ACP has some obvious benefits: it is found typically in small, easily concealed pistols, it has half the recoil of a "short" 9mm (.380ACP) in guns of similar sizes, many hold more rounds than the comparable .380ACP models, and there is a decent selection of ammunition to choose from. There are also downsides - including production costs, reliability, the engineering constraints on springs and triggers in small automatics, and the cost of ammunition. The component costs for both guns and ammo are relatively the same for .32ACP as for .380ACP - so why make a smaller, weaker, less-effective pistol? In my view, because .25ACP is underpowered for its potential and .380ACP has too much recoil when cut down to concealment size. .32ACP - or, maybe more accurate to say the CIP standard European police cartridge, 7.65mm - fits the niche between concealment and controllability pretty darned well.
JMDAO, YMMV, No deposit - No return, see your doctor for details. Some will disagree. They always do.
“the CIP standard European police cartridge, 7.65mm “I always enjoy it when this topic resurfaces. It allows me to quote Ian Fleming, "Walther PPK. 7.65mm, with a delivery like a brick through a plate glass window. Takes a Braush silencer with very little reduction in muzzle velocity. The American CIA swears by them."
– Maj. Boothroyd, to 007, in "Dr. No"
"Maj. Boothroyd" - and by proxy, Ian Fleming's - opinions aside, the .32ACP at "sharp-stick" range is more effective than a .25ACP... or a sharp stick, for that matter. Abd it is true that use of a silencer on a pocket pistol in .32ACP results in very little reduction in muzzle velocity - mainly because it starts with very little muzzle velocity. Anything from very little will, by definition, be less than very little. A person with knowledge of anatomy, their personal firearm, with good reflexes and possessing a calm demeanor can use such a small pocket pistol to excellent effect. At least, that's what the FBI gel stats say. The 7.65mm Browning, a.k.a. .32ACP has some obvious benefits: it is found typically in small, easily concealed pistols, it has half the recoil of a "short" 9mm (.380ACP) in guns of similar sizes, many hold more rounds than the comparable .380ACP models, and there is a decent selection of ammunition to choose from. There are also downsides - including production costs, reliability, the engineering constraints on springs and triggers in small automatics, and the cost of ammunition. The component costs for both guns and ammo are relatively the same for .32ACP as for .380ACP - so why make a smaller, weaker, less-effective pistol? In my view, because .25ACP is underpowered for its potential and .380ACP has too much recoil when cut down to concealment size. .32ACP - or, maybe more accurate to say the CIP standard European police cartridge, 7.65mm - fits the niche between concealment and controllability pretty darned well.
JMDAO, YMMV, No deposit - No return, see your doctor for details. Some will disagree. They always do.
Never forget: that Fiocchi .380 and Fiocchi 7.65 list the exact same muzzle energy on the box: 205 ftlbs.
I had a 1917 come into my possession when I was a kid. Although the sights were miniscule.
That sounds like a typographical error to me. Is there some kind of calculator that would say how fast the 7.65mm bullet would have to be going to achieve 205 ft/lbs, assuming it is the standard 71 grains?
WW2 German Geco and WRA plain brown wrapper heavy (74 to 77 grain) ball chronographed over 1000 fps in my 1914 Colt M1903 Type III Pocket Hammerless, Czech 93-grain heavy ball for the Scorpion machine pistol 930 fps, and the S-B 72 grain steel core 1200 fps, defeating a IIA vest.
14 round mags? Where?I'm brand spanking new. To handloading.
About to try my hand at .32 acp.
I've got some bullseye. And want to charge up some empties.
71 gr RN cast and
75 gr. cast SWCFN.
The reloading dope I'm finding is scarce.
I'll be feeding a beretta 81. I have a 1914 ruby as well. Thats relegated as a novelty. For newbies and friends that want to shoot it.
The B81 I'm starting to take out for walks and such. Handy having the new 14rd mags.
Also have Universal and Universal Clays for propellant choices. As I said. I'm finding data is scarce . Input and 2 cents...would be gratefully appreciated. BTW. I'm also new to the High Road.
Thanks for the admission.
thank you for this commentThe .32 ACP is lots more effective when loaded with heavier bullets. I won't post my loads here as the mods may not approve, but if you search my threads over on Cast Boolits, in holster - sized pistols ( not KelTec or Tomcats) you can equal .380 ACP payload and velocity with decent expansion and adequate penetration. Full details in back issues of The Fouling Shot.
Every website I checked lists 205 ftlb for Fiocchi APHP 60gSure. Are any of those things the Fiocchi ammunition pairof44sp was writing about?
Look, I am not arguing it is NOT possible to make a 32 ACP load that produces 205 ft/lbs. And it would seem to be fairly easy to push a 380 ACP load to 205 ft/lbs. What seems odd to me is that Fiocchi would load both of those rounds to 205 ft/lbs. They certainly are not now. According to their website, their hottest 32 ACP load is 60 grains at 1,100 ft/sec for 161 ft/lbs. To get to 205 ft/lbs from 32 ACP, you need to push a 73 grain bullet to 1,125 ft/sec, or 60 grains to 1,240 ft/sec. Maybe they used to. It still seems more likely to be a typo to me.
Every website I checked lists 205 ftlb for Fiocchi APHP 60g
So, Beretta says don't go over 130 ft lbs. What happens if you do? That Tomcat looks at least as sturdy as an LCP. 200 ft lbs in an all metal gun doesen't seem too radical to me. Although, I ain't done it yet.
The hollow point bullet is loaded here for the US market, as it is not permitted for civilian sale in Europe.
Therefore...?
The Fiocchi USA loads are wimpy compared to the real Made In Italy CIP-Euro stuff
Not based on Fiocchi's catalog listings.
Italy made: 73 gr, 984 fps = 157 ft. lbs.
USA made: 73 gr, 1,000 fps = 161 ft. lbs.
The Fiocchi USA loads are wimpy compared to the real Made In Italy CIP-Euro stuff