What is the future of the .32NAA?

[Brass Fetcher]

What is your opinion of the destiny of the .32NAA? Will it catch on or fade into the 'wildcats that didn't catch on category' and why?

I ask this because I have done some load development with this cartridge, and I see it as offering good advantages for short-barreled pistols popular for CCW. What I am running into, though, is problems with finding suitable bullets and to a lesser extent, finding someone who will make a barrel chambered for .32NAA for a Kel-Tec P3AT.

Basically, being a .380ACP case necked down to fire .32 caliber bullets, the .32NAA from a mousegun provides the ballistics of a full-sized .32ACP handgun or a .32 H&R magnum short-barreled revolver, either of which perform respectably. The advantage of this caliber in a CCW-size pistol is that you can easily get adequate penetration and full bullet expansion, while with the pocket-size .32ACP or .380ACP, you can usually only get one or the other.

In gelatin, I got a 85 grain Hornady XTP JHP to penetrate 16"+ and expand to 0.39" diameter. Using a bullet of about the same weight that expands to the lower 0.40" range, it should still be possible to penetrate to the FBI minimum depth of 12". My take on this is that the caliber would allow ammo manufacturers to make a 'robust' design - that is, something that had a wide enough velocity window to work well in almost any gun with any barrel length (much as what usually happens with heavy JHPs in the 'major' calibers). So with the .32NAA, mousegun performance could be brought up to the larger calibers in terms of reliability of expansion and penetration.

Please tell us what you think.

JE223

 

[gripper]

A couple of years back,the Makarovniks over at Makarov.com made up a conversion barrel to shoot this caliber in the Mak PM;as I recall,the ballistics in a 3.9 inch PM barrel were pretty good.I always considered that to be a good third-barrel conversion option for those folks that had/have the barrel press to swap out barrels between 9x19 and .380.And ,if that 5.45x18 ever becomes widely availble here;there's the fourth barrel to get for the rig.

 

[seeker_two]

If another gunmaker (Kel-Tec, SIG, Walther, etc) were to chamber it, it may take off like gangbusters...

Until then, it's just a proprietary cartridge for a proprietary pistol....

 

[cidirkona]

As a weekend shooter and daily carryier on the light end of the budget spectrum (college student), I'm not apt to jump into new calibers. The GAP scares me... not because it's new... just because it hasn't taken off yet. I have plenty of firearms with calibers that have proven useful and plentiful over many many years that they're affordable to shoot... but I still tend to stay away from 303 brit and 30 carbine just because they dont' seem that prevalent. 5.7, 500mag and 45GAP haven't been around long enough to be readily available and affordable.

If 32naa takes off, great! More peace through superior firepower. Unfortunately, I can't see myself jumping into anything until it's been around for quite some time. I won't buy it yet... now chamber a p3at for 357sig or 9mm and you've got a customer!

 

[Brass Fetcher]

The .32NAA has proven a little bit 'weaker' than the .32 H&R magnum (no more than 50 ft/sec slower) in the tests that I have ran, at least in terms of propelling the same bullet weight to the same velocity out of the same barrel lengths.

This may be because I am using a test barrel - I understand that test barrels generate higher chamber pressures for a given load than a chamber that is cut somewhat looser? Additionally, not being a machinist, I believe that I may have reamed the chamber a little bit too deeply - the round may have some play in the chamber (not greater than ~0.002"), but that appears to be enough to let the primers push out a little bit on the mild-to-hot loads.

I think that if this cartridge takes off in auto pistols, then folks will test the upper limits. But I will leave that to them!

 

[Manedwolf]

If Skyy Industries' new micro 9mm coming out this summer works well, (small as the Rohrbach, but $600 less!), 12oz, .8" thick, it kind of becomes redundant, doesn't it?

You can't get much smaller than that, and well, that's a full-sized 9mm round, you can get ammo anywhere. Speer has also started making 9mm Short Barrel gold dots specifically for the new classes of micro-9's.

Seem to me like the .32NAA was a temporary proprietary solution to the problem of too-small calibers and stopping power, but with the new-tech micro 9mms coming out, that problem has an answer with a much longer ammo legacy behind it.

I think it might become a curiosity in a few years. If the market becomes full of affordeable same-size-as-Rohrbach 9mms, I would think more people would trust a 9mm for stopping power than a 32-necked-380 in a pistol of the same size.

 

[MICHAEL T]

Corbon says the following
32NAA 60grhp 1200 fps 192ftlbs
32Naa 71grFMJ 1000fps 158ftlbs both from 2.5" barrel.

380 90grhp 1050fps 220ftlbs
380 70gr powerball 1250fps 243 ft lbs both from 3"

I choose 380 every time it will still be here when other round is history.
Bigger bullet ,bigger hole and more Ftlbs Why mess with the 32 It has to be in a 380 size gun to start with.

 

[MCgunner]

I fail to see an advantage over the .380 ACP, personally. Similar energy levels, lighter bullet, higher velocity. The .380 penetration is minimal, don't think I'd drop to .32 and shoot 60 grain bullets and if you were shooting 90 grainers, heck, you couldn't push 'em any faster than a .380 does.

When it came out, it was DOA with me and I figure it'll die on the vine. JMHO of course.

 

[Wilson 17&26]

A couple of years ago, Kel-Tec made a few NAA .32 barrels for it’s first-generation P-3AT. These were offered to select individuals who played with them for a while. From time to time they pop up in the Sale/Trade areas of various forums. Kel-Tec now has so much on their plate, I doubt they will ever do real production.

 

[Brass Fetcher]

The advantage of the .32NAA over the .380ACP (in pocket pistols) is a big one, but it is not an advantage that is readily apparent at first glance. It is not like saying that the .308WIN holds an advantage over the .223REM for deer hunting - one round is bigger than the other and most people would agree with that.

Using good bullets, the .32NAA combines bullet expansion with FBI-compliant penetration. Essentially, what a bullet does to a determined attacker in the first few inches of penetration does not really matter - their vital organs are usually deeper within their bodies, which is why the FBI standard requires at least 12" of penetration into muscle tissue. Most expanding .380ACPs from short barrels will go not much deeper than 10", although they have created a rather large expanded diameter up to that point. 10" may or may not be deep enough to stop a determined attacker.

Using the same barrel length, but shooting a good .32NAA, will produce a hole slightly smaller than the .380ACP HP, but larger than that made by a .380ACP FMJ. So basically, the .32NAA puts a larger hole where it counts - at penetration depths of 12" and greater.

 

[MCgunner]

The advantage of the .32NAA over the .380ACP (in pocket pistols) is a big one, but it is not an advantage that is readily apparent at first glance. It is not like saying that the .308WIN holds an advantage over the .223REM for deer hunting - one round is bigger than the other and most people would agree with that.

Using good bullets, the .32NAA combines bullet expansion with FBI-compliant penetration. Essentially, what a bullet does to a determined attacker in the first few inches of penetration does not really matter - their vital organs are usually deeper within their bodies, which is why the FBI standard requires at least 12" of penetration into muscle tissue. Most expanding .380ACPs from short barrels will go not much deeper than 10", although they have created a rather large expanded diameter up to that point. 10" may or may not be deep enough to stop a determined attacker.

Using the same barrel length, but shooting a good .32NAA, will produce a hole slightly smaller than the .380ACP HP, but larger than that made by a .380ACP FMJ. So basically, the .32NAA puts a larger hole where it counts - at penetration depths of 12" and greater.
__________________

All of that is highly speculative. The two loads make about 200 ft lbs. The .32 is faster than the .380 and has a smaller bullet. I fail to see how they could differ much at all in the real world other than the heavier .380 would actually, I'd speculate, penetrate better.

I ain't really into jello, but you'd think your statement about bullet performance would be highly dependent on bullet construction, too, and bullet selection in .32NAA....where do you buy those, anyway? I could handload it I guess, but I'll pass. Just ain't worth all the hassle considering. I mean, if the .32NAA was a 9mm in performance, yeah, but if it out performs the .380 at all, I'd be surprised and doubt that it could be adequately measured without lots of rounds, enough for statistical analysis of the results to tell which one is "better". I think we're nit picking with these two loads, that's why I think the NAA round will flop. There's just not enough, if any, advantage to switching. The only real advantage I can think of is that bottle necked rounds are supposed to feed a little more reliably, not that my .380 has ever jammed on bullets it likes.

 

[Brass Fetcher]

All of that is highly speculative. The two loads make about 200 ft lbs. The .32 is faster than the .380 and has a smaller bullet. I fail to see how they could differ much at all in the real world other than the heavier .380 would actually, I'd speculate, penetrate better.

Speculation and gumption are either verified or discarded by scientific inquiry (can be as simple as shooting a block of gelatin or a milk carton of water). Any bullet that can be used for the .32ACP can be loaded into a .32NAA case, I use Hornady XTP in 85 grain primarily. I find this bullet penetrates further than I would like it to (16"+) even when fully expanded. All that is needed is for manufacturers to add a little bit of weight to their existing .32ACP bullets and load them into .32NAA cases. A 70 grain Federal Hydra-Shok or a 70 grain Speer Gold-Dot should be outstanding performers.

but you'd think your statement about bullet performance would be highly dependent on bullet construction,

I agree. But this is the case too with the .380ACP. I have a load that will meet FBI standards and expand when fired from a short-barreled .380ACP that I own. My friends pistol, the same make and model as mine, fires this cartridge at such a velocity that the bullet does not expand in ballistic gelatin. The amount of 'play' available with the .32NAA is considerable with regards to velocity.

I mean, if the .32NAA was a 9mm in performance,

If only my VW Rabbit were a brand new Audi. What this is about is balancing one need against the other. A round has to penetrate to a certain distance to be effective, but it also should produce as large a hole as possible on its way there.

 

[Hypnogator]

Oblivion.

Combines all the disadvantages of the .380 with all the disadvantages of the .32.

 

[RyanM]

I really think you should try Power Pistol. Actually, running some numbers through a very rudimentary internal ballistics calculator (it assumes there's no barrel friction and that the powder all burns instantaneously, etc.), if you use Alliant's book load for a 90 gr XTP, with a 90 gr .32 cal JHP, you may be able to get about 1025 fps from a 2.75" barrel. 1050 with an 85 gr bullet. That would be quite an improvement, if accurate. Even if it's not, Power Pistol is a really good powder anyway.

 

[Sylvan-Forge]

Seems like a nifty little cartridge.

Stick it in something flat, compact, and light with maybe a polygonal 3" barrel.
Maybe a 60 grain plated soft-lead fmj (rainier/berry) at 1350-1450 Ft/s

Dang, I need a machine shop ...