Why are the major manufacturers not making new 32ACP's anymore

[benEzra]

If a new .32 gun was developed I would like to see one with a double stack magazine for a high round count rather than as thin as possible. I think many concealed carry guns are already as thin as it is possible to get without substantially sacrificing shootabilty. A .32 roughly the size of a LCP but thicker and holding at least ten rounds or so of .32 instead of 6 380 rounds might actually have a market.

I agree. A locked-breech .32 holding 10 (or, heck, 15) rounds and rated for +P would be a neat little gun.

The .32 ACP Beretta Tomcat is one of my favorite small handguns, and the grip seems just about wide enough for a double stack magazine, if the grips were made a little thinner. Sort of like a scaled-down full-sized 9mm.

 

[cocojo]

I love my tomcats. Never thought of a double stack tomcat. Good idea and even at 10 rounds would be something. The grip is big enough to handle a slightly wider magazine. I too like the 32 acp but this is America where everything has to be big. If it's not big it won't work just like the old big block engines. In the European cars a four cylinder turbo changed engines work very well and save gas to boot, but remember it's America bigger is better. Have you ever seen the commercial with little kids around a table and the guy says to them, what's better a bigger "XYZ" or a smaller one and the kids respond by yelling "BIGGER". It's just us American's doing what we been taught for years. I still like the 32 acp but I also like the 9mm and way back when the 9mm was a wussy caliber and not so cool, I loved it. I will keep my 32's , 380,s and 9mm guns and have fun for the rest of my life. They are lots of fun and great calibers to practice with, and more practice means better shot placement and that's what really matters. John Browning had his act together when he invented the 32 acp and it was his favorite caliber and he invented the 45 acp but he still loved the 32 according to history. Long Live the 32 acp!

 

[Nom de Forum]

No matter how small the percentage of possibility, using a semi-rimmed cartridge in a SD semiautomatic is an invitation to a feeding disaster that many people do not see as worth taking. Manufactures realize that .380 is a more popular and safer option in a similar size package.

 

[USAF_Vet]

I'm probably in the minority, but I too would like a .32 auto pistol in something larger thannthntypocal, modern .32 platform. Micro pocket guns have their place, and I do have an eye open for a KT p32, but a ultra high capacity .32 full sized pistol would be an interesting beast. 20+ rounds in the mag for a gun the size of a 92 FS? Yes please.

 

[SFsc616171]

Here's my two and a half cents:

1. The folks at Glock didn't make one in that caliber, therefore, it doesn't exist.

2. The folks that really know what .32ACP/7.65mm is all about, are of The Cold War generation, i.e., anyone existing as an adult, as of the time of The Berlin Wall coming down.

3. I agree that it is a caliber that may someday show up on the shelves in Walmart, but not for the present. (Mindset of WM employees fitting the post-era of #2, above.)

4. Were I to attempt to obtain a .32, I believe that I would obtain a "J-Frame style" revolver. Enough bullet, with enough control ability, in .32 H&R Magnum. Still enough gun for CCW distances, I believe.

 

[saturno_v]

Simple market demand...the micro 9mm got so good and small that there is really not need for anything smaller....well the .380s still is hanging on for the recoil sensitive person or if you need really extreme concealement...and even about the last point you can get a Rohrbaugh R9....

Cost of ammo...a box of 32 ACP cost more on average than a box of 9mm last time I check.

 

[kilibreaux]

Because Americans believe "bigger is better" with all things.
The .380 is fatter, therefore it must be better.
I personally like the .32ACP. The round has higher chambering reliability over the .380 due to length-width, and, European loadings of the .32ACP (7.65) produce kinetic energies equal to domestically produced .380ACP.
I have a Beretta Tomcat that has NEVER malfunctioned since shot number one.
I have a Kahr Arms P380 that cost even more than the Beretta that started out malfunctioning with EVERY shot and only after I gave up on the "200 round break-in" drivel and did some reliability work on it myself did it start to deliver decent reliability, but it still isn't anywhere close to the Beretta .32ACP.
Also, modern .380 designs are increasingly using locked breech like the big boys which means hotter rounds are safer. Most .32 ACP pistols are straight blowback which limits "hotness" of loads.
Also not widely appreciated is the fact that most subcompact .32ACP pistols carry one round more than their .380 cousins...one round is one round, and equates to 13% more capacity, and, as I stated in before, if one opts to use Euro-spec ammo, the .32 is equal to the .380...plus it tends to penetrate BETTER due to smaller frontal area.

 

[saturno_v]

Because Americans believe "bigger is better" with all things.
The .380 is fatter, therefore it must be better.
I personally like the .32ACP. The round has higher chambering reliability over the .380 due to length-width, and, European loadings of the .32ACP (7.65) produce kinetic energies equal to domestically produced .380ACP.
I have a Beretta Tomcat that has NEVER malfunctioned since shot number one.
I have a Kahr Arms P380 that cost even more than the Beretta that started out malfunctioning with EVERY shot and only after I gave up on the "200 round break-in" drivel and did some reliability work on it myself did it start to deliver decent reliability, but it still isn't anywhere close to the Beretta .32ACP.
Also, modern .380 designs are increasingly using locked breech like the big boys which means hotter rounds are safer. Most .32 ACP pistols are straight blowback which limits "hotness" of loads.
Also not widely appreciated is the fact that most subcompact .32ACP pistols carry one round more than their .380 cousins...one round is one round, and equates to 13% more capacity, and, as I stated in before, if one opts to use Euro-spec ammo, the .32 is equal to the .380...plus it tends to penetrate BETTER due to smaller frontal area.

I just checked the Italian Fiocchi website and their 380 loading delivers up to 50% more energy than their 32 ACP ammo (they did not mention barrel length) so no, the 32 ACP is not that close to a 380 ACP.

You can pretty much use the same platform for the 2 chambering so no space saving going for the 32 ACP.

 

[tnelson31]

i'm probably in the minority, but i too would like a .32 auto pistol in something larger thannthntypocal, modern .32 platform. Micro pocket guns have their place, and i do have an eye open for a kt p32, but a ultra high capacity .32 full sized pistol would be an interesting beast. 20+ rounds in the mag for a gun the size of a 92 fs? Yes please.

fn 5.7?

 

[gym]

The 5.7 is an interesting round, also much interest in the 10mm for powerhouse guns, seems to be making a strong comeback. the ammo makers really have to get on board firth though. Maybe a small 5.7 pistol, a few more 22 magnums, and 10mm loaded to original specs. would spice things up a bit. That 17 mini mag also could be a little tiger in a small 10-15 round pistol. It might make a fun plinker.

 

[Skribs]

Sam, I disagree with your assessment. I know there are several things that many people on here have discussed wanting, but no manufacturer makes it. Part of the problem is until someone starts making it (or making it again, in the case of .32 ACP), nobody is willing to take the risk.

I've not much experience with .32, but I am interested in the Kel Tec P32 as a smaller option than my Ruger LCP. Some of the stuff that I've read I can understand why people don't like it:

1. As you go smaller, less people believe the round is capable of doing the job. I want to say the majority believe the minimum is 9mm or .380. Some won't carry anything under .40 or even .45, or want something with more velocity and go revolver. .32 is well below all of those thresholds.

2. .32 underpenetrates with JHPs, meaning you are limited to FMJs.

3. The semi-rim on the .32 can lead to feeding problems.

4. Most of the research lately has gone into making .380s and 9mms better. That research can be applied to .32, but there isn't as much out there for it yet.

5. The .380 does the pocket job very well, so as long as .380s are selling, there's no point spending R&D on a .32.

 

[Sam1911]

You disagree with my assessment...and then list five reasons why my assessment is perfectly true?

Well, by that standard, I disagree with you completely as well ... uh, what?

I know there are several things that many people on here have discussed wanting, but no manufacturer makes it.

A few people saying, "Hey, I'd buy one..." or even, "hey, I REALLY want one," does not equal a profitable MARKET for that product. How many sales, over how many years, does a manufacturer need to cover the costs to bring something to market? I don't know, and you don't, but the manufacturers have a pretty good idea, and they work really hard to make actual money at this.

Folks have been BEGGING S&W to make a 5-shot smaller framed .44 for decades. They just this very year have determined that enough of a market exists to actually make a production model. And what do folks say? "Well...it's good, but not EXACTLY what I wanted..." Just one example...

That's what I meant by:

But there isn't a huge untapped sales potential there.

Manufacturers constantly try to figure out what will sell and how they can get people to buy it. The fact that they've not seen fit to expand their .32 lines is very solid evidence that there are not a whole lot of frustrated potential .32 Auto buyers out there.

 

[Skribs]

I specifically disagreed with the "if there was a market, it would be made." Granted, I don't know what the actual market for a lot of things are, or how many would have to sell to make up for the R&D, but I know there are people who would want...

I know there's risk and reward. The risk is not enough people would want it. The reward is that if people want it, you corner the market until others jump on the bandwagon. The problem is that the companies that DO make the risk are typically low-QC companies...
Taurus made the Judge, and many people balked simply because it was a Taurus. That one caught on enough that S&W made the Governor.
Companies that nobody has ever heard of made alternative 5.7x28mm pistols to the FN Five-seveN. Those were the test run, and they were uglier than I am and didn't gain much widespread use.
I wish Ruger made a LC32, but they don't. The model I could get is made by kel-tec, and I've heard mixed reviews there.

I think if a major company like Ruger made a .32 pocket pistol, it would sell well enough for them to make their R&D money back. However, because their only data on airweight 32 sales is coming from a company with a bad reputation on the internets, they are not likely to jump on that bandwagon.

 

[Old Fuff]

Few people have noticed, but most of the currently popular .380 pocket pistols could become .32's with nothing more then a barrel, magazine and (maybe) recoil spring change. This could make some new introductions relatively inexpensive to make.

But the current demand for .380's combined with ammunition shortages that have impacted the smaller round could put such developments on the back burner.

Even so, it's no crime to lobby key manufacturers.

 

[Skribs]

Old Fluff, one of the big advantages of the .32 is that it can be had in a smaller frame, similar to how the .380 can be had in a smaller frame than 9mm. Getting a .32 in a .380 frame would be counter-productive, at least for that purpose.

 

[Old Fuff]

... one of the big advantages of the .32 is that it can be had in a smaller frame, similar to how the .380 can be had in a smaller frame than 9mm.

While this is so, it isn't necessarily true. The very popular Colt Pocket Model, as well as others - including Walther's PP and PPK as well as Fabrique Nationale's Browning designed pistols - and I could name many others - were offered in either .32 or .380 versions made on identical platforms.

From a manufacturer's point of view, it is very advantageous when they can offer models that are only different in barrels, magazines, and recoil springs.

None of this prevents a company from making an even smaller .32 if that's what they propose to do, but I think an even greater market is out there that would be interested in .380 sized pistols chambered in .32 AP. The object would be less recoil, and one or more additional cartridges in the magazine.

 

[Hunter2011]

Even a double stack 17 round 32ACP could be made rather compact. I would certainly buy something like that, if I were recoil sensitive.

 

[Sergei Mosin]

I'd put a .32 gun in my pocket for fun. But when I can pocket any number of guns chambered in more powerful cartridges just as easily for defensive purposes...

Sort of feel like I missed an opportunity though, not buying one for my 32nd birthday. Those old Colt and FN .32 autos are neat guns.

 

[Skribs]

Old Fluff, I see your point. If I were running a firearms company, my thoughts would be along those lines for duty sized weapons - make it so the .40 and the 9 are an easy change, and so on. However, with the goal of a pocket pistol being to be as small as possible (I'm talking the ones that really emphasize the size, like Ruger and Kel Tec), I would want each pocket pistol to have its own frame and go smaller with each.

The P32 is 1.7 oz lighter (loaded), 0.1" shorter (length), same height, 0.02" thinner, and has 1 more round in the chamber than the P-3AT. This is the model I like for pocket pistols - as you compromise on power, you improve on carryability. Yes, I made that word up.

 

[hartcreek]

There is no reason for a company to reintroduce a 1905 Savage SPW1 it already has been done. If someone wants one they just have to search for a bit...I myself have had four of them.

 

[Old Fuff]

However, with the goal of a pocket pistol being to be as small as possible (I'm talking the ones that really emphasize the size, like Ruger and Kel Tec), I would want each pocket pistol to have its own frame and go smaller with each.

If one is looking for a pocket-piece (see, I can invent words too ) small may be better unless the combination of platform and cartridge results in potential injury in the wrist and hands, and causes a case of excessive flinching.

But anyway, while I agree that a downsized .32 pistol has a place, I'll also point out that a larger pistol chambered for the same round may also be attractive to others. A look at past history might provide a clue.

Colt introduced Browning's .32 Pocket Pistol in 1903. In 1908 they added an identical option in .380 ACP. Production of both continued for the commercial market until January, 1942. During the 1908 - 1941 time period they made approximately 490,000+ .32's and 134,000 .380's. Keep in mind that all those who bought .32's could have bought .380's if they believed the larger round was better. I conclude that the .32 market was made up of buyers that didn't particularly care about the .380's supposed advantages. Less recoil and magazine capacity might be part of the reason.

 

[CZ9shooter]

Its a shame that .32 auto isnt popular enough for it to be mainstream. I was rececntly looking for a handgun chambered in the caliber for my fiance. She wanted a range gun with just a little more power than a 22lr. Finding a gun at all is tough, let alone one that she likes and that fits her well, and that is reasonably priced. Ammo scaricity is a problem too. Ended up buying a Bersa Thunder 380 last week instead. It still has quite a snap to it. More than I was expecting. But so far she doesnt hate it and I can currently find ammo. Might even be able to reload some wimpy rounds for it soon.

 

[Girodin]

Why don't manufactures make _______?


The answer to that question is almost always because they don't think that the will sell them at a profit. I they thought they would sale at a profit, then they would make them irrespective of the items true utility. See for example the Judge and its progeny.

 

[Vodoun da Vinci]

But anyway, while I agree that a downsized .32 pistol has a place, I'll also point out that a larger pistol chambered for the same round may also be attractive to others. A look at past history might provide a clue.

Colt introduced Browning's .32 Pocket Pistol in 1903. In 1908 they added an identical option in .380 ACP. Production of both continued for the commercial market until January, 1942. During the 1908 - 1941 time period they made approximately 490,000+ .32's and 134,000 .380's. Keep in mind that all those who bought .32's could have bought .380's if they believed the larger round was better. I conclude that the .32 market was made up of buyers that didn't particularly care about the .380's supposed advantages. Less recoil and magazine capacity might be part of the reason.

Exactly my point of view....What did folks know 80 years ago that we have forgotten or feel is irrelevant? The .32 is no power house but as mission capable as it ever was. Part of the reason for it's lack of power is that we only find teeny tiny toys chambered in .32 - you lose some with the very short barrels. As well, domestic .32 is simply not as hot as it was in Europe.

Add a hotter round and a longer barrel and suddenly something insignificant comes into the realm of maybe not the best SD pistol but significantly better than it is presently. Lot's of old time gangsters and generals (rumor has it that the Colt 1903 in .32 was in Wyatt Earp's pocket in the 1930's) carried a Model M in .32 I disagree that "there are none" because "it's not profitable" to make one.

I think a compact size 10 - 13 round .32 ACP with a 3 1/2" barrel and killer ergonomics would sell a bunch of pistols. We won't see one so I'll keep running my Colt 1903's until I'm done needing a gun in .32.

VooDoo

 

[Sam1911]

I disagree that "there are none" because "it's not profitable" to make one.

Ok, there are none (or few) because the manufacturers THINK (due to their analysis and perception of consumer demand) that it will not be more profitable to make one than it will be to devote their limited resources to making other things.

Better?