.32 ACP: A thought? FN Model 1922

[GunXpatriot]

So I've been looking at those FN Model 1922's, or 1910/22's, whatever people are calling them.

The gun was chambered in .32acp and .380acp, but in lesser numbers, or so I've heard.

How I found out about this gun... I was looking at those CZ-70's, but people were saying that availability of magazines wasn't great and it wasn't the most reliable gun, and that a gun like the FN 1922 would be a better option, just as a suggestion. So I looked at the thing, watched a couple videos, and overall, I like what I see...

So out of curiosity, I looked up ballistic gel tests of the .32 with a few different bullets, looked around at availability online. Seems good enough for what it is.

What I see a lot of people complaining about is the .32's stopping power. The general consensus is, it will work, but will not be the most reliable stopper, along with certain issues like rimlock, make it a less viable option for self-defense.

By no means would I want the 1922 for such a role, as it would be more for fun. The thing is though, what got me is, from what I gathered, many police agencies in Europe were carrying the CZ-70 (and it's predecessor), apparently as their primary duty weapons for decades. What I haven't found is any account of these guns being ineffective in shootings.

Maybe I just haven't looked hard enough, but what if the .32 really was working well?

I keep hearing statistics quoted like "the .32acp has a 67% chance of a one shot stop", or something like that. I'm aware that there was some kind of study done that had percentages for stop ratings in real life shootings, but what was the study called and where can it be found?

But I guess my main question is, if the .32acp was that bad, would police agencies and military groups around the world really have used them for so many years?

Or is it just because we have a 300 pound methhead epidemic here, in the U.S.?

I guess this is more of a rant, but whatever...

Now does anyone here have a 1922, while we're on the subject? It really does look like a cool, pretty affordable little gun, and it seems great for the money. Reliable, fairly compact, shoots a "mouse gun" caliber. Seems like a nice novelty/fun piece. What do you think of yours?

Also, any specific order/make I'm looking for? Seems some have checkered wood grips, others have plastic "FN" grips, etc.

 

[rs97]

Here you go:

http://www.handloads.com/misc/stoppingpower.asp?Caliber=4&Weight=All

 

[James K]

The first .32 auto was the FN (Browning) Model 1900, an odd looking gun by today's standards but very reliable. But by 1910, it was considered old fashioned and Browning designed the Model 1910 which was very successful. (In the meantime, Browning had developed the Model 1903 in 9mm Browning Long, which was not very successful, but which he scaled down to produce the Colt Model 1903 in .32 ACP, a very successful pistol.)

The Model 1910 was adopted by police agencies* but military forces wanted more magazine capacity and a longer barrel. FN achieved those goals by making slight modifications to the slide of the Model 1910 and adding to the length of the grip. The result was the Model 1922, which was sold to a number of small armies and police forces in Europe and elsewhere, though not in North and South America, which was Colt territory under an agreement with FN.

At that time, .32 was considered an acceptable police caliber; the first NYPD revolver was a .32 Colt adopted by then-commissioner Theodore Roosevelt, who seemed to consider the caliber adequate.

So why did knowledgeable people (no one could accuse TR of being ignorant about guns) consider the .32 good enough? While it sounds like a joke, people really were less tough at the time. The average person was shorter, smaller, and less likely to be "high" on some illegal substance. Also, police had less incentive to kill. A live victim of a police shooting would not automatically get hours of TV time, sympathetic interviews on TV and in the press, and whole legions of lawyers eager to sue the city. Crooks were considered scum, not heroes, and the general populace figured that anyone shot by a cop or an honest citizen got what he deserved.

*And also by "terrorists"; Model 1910's, in 9mm Browning Short (.380 ACP) were used in the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the event that led to WWI.

Jim

 

[Pico]

FN 1922

I toyed with buying one of these because they are cool looking guns but passed. Now I wish I had but TBH I couldn't hit anything with the one I was looking at. I would love to find one in .380 or get a .380 barrel and shoot both. ( I think you can barrel swap them pretty easily.)

Trivia here, but in Dr. No, Bond uses one of these with a silencer to kill Dr. No's hit man in the bungalow. It was funny seeing Bond shoot the bad guy and watch the "mighty" .32 ACP almost break the guy in two. It was also used in the print ads for Bond in the early films.

Pico

 

[James K]

The reason the 1910 was a favorite for "silenced" guns in the movies is that the extra inch or so of barrel to accommodate the (fake) can could be obtained simply by installing a M1922 barrel. IIRC, in that movie, Bond was carrying a .32 Walther PPK, and much was made of the Walther's "smashing power". Connery is shot at, drops behind the couch with a Walther PPK, and comes up with the 1910 Browning. I can't make a trade that fast at my local gun shop!!

Oddly enough, the same thing could have been achieved by putting a PPK slide on a PP frame, but maybe the Browning swap was easier or the gun rental outfit already had the Browning set up.

Jim

 

[Pico]

Not that scene

I'm talking about the scene when he is behind the door sitting and the bad guy comes in, shoots the bed pillows and Bond shoots him. There is a bad mistake in the film because the bad guy clearly has a 1911 and Bond lets him regain his gun saying "that was a Smith and Wesson and you had your six" as the bad guy clicks the empty gun. The gun Bond kills him with is a 1910 or 1922 with a silencer. The last shot almost breaks the guys back from that monster .32 round. Then he removes the silencer and blows through it. Something like that.

Pico

 

[carguychris]

So why did knowledgeable people (no one could accuse TR of being ignorant about guns) consider the .32 good enough? While it sounds like a joke, people really were less tough at the time. The average person was shorter, smaller, and less likely to be "high" on some illegal substance.

Another factor was the state of medical technology at the time.

Nowadays, knowledgeable people fear being shot with a powerful handgun, because one may die right away rather than making it to the hospital and surviving. 100 years ago, the opposite was often true; people dreaded the prospect of surviving the shot, because one was likely to die anyway, only after 2-4 weeks of intense misery and suffering.

Today, you hear stories about gang members boasting about having been shot, and showing off the scars. 100 years ago, people often didn't live long enough to brag. If they survived, instead of displaying scars, they often spent the rest of their life explaining why one of their limbs had to be amputated.

Consequently, in the old days, the presentation of ANY gun was more likely to prompt a perpetrator to run away, thus ending the confrontation.

 

[9x19]

This one was my mother-in-law's bedside gun, and now belongs to my wife.

They are a nice piece from a long gone world of fine individual craftsmanship vs injection molding and CNC.

 

[Pico]

Nice photo

Thanks for the view, 9 x 19. One thing I like about this gun is the disassembly procedure. Also this has to be one of the lowest bore axis designs ever.

Pico

 

[Mrgunsngear]

But I guess my main question is, if the .32acp was that bad, would police agencies and military groups around the world really have used them for so many years?

One reason for the 9x18, 380ACP, and 32ACP being used by so many mil/le agencies was popular firearm designs of the time; mostly straight blowbacks. For the 9mm and up a locked breach type design was required, and while it was around, it wasn't seen as necessary since militaries viewed handguns as mostly ceremonial and rifles were the primary arm of the worlds' soldiers.

One thing the 32ACP lacks is intermediate barrier penetration capability. Not the most important factor in defensive shootings but more than one bad guy has fired at a good guy from around a corner so it's wroth considering. I tested a bunch of rounds on a highly scientific intermediate barrier (i.e. a frying pan) and the 32ACP, 380 (Gold Dots and FMJ), and 45ACP FMJ rounds failed to penetrate while others busted through.

My super duper scientific barrier penetration test HD video link

 

[PetahW]

The thing is though, what got me is, from what I gathered, many police agencies in Europe were carrying the CZ-70 (and it's predecessor), apparently as their primary duty weapons for decades.
What I haven't found is any account of these guns being ineffective in shootings.

Maybe I just haven't looked hard enough, but what if the .32 really was working well ?

But I guess my main question is, if the .32acp was that bad, would police agencies and military groups around the world really have used them for so many years ?

What folks need to keep in mind is the vast difference between modern medicine & the medical treatmant available prior to WWII - why getting shot with even the lowly .22RF meant death, either sooner from a killshot, or later from infection.

Anyone can rationalize pretty much anything - but I would advise that you use enough gun.



.

 

[Cosmodragoon]

My CZ-70 has functioned flawlessly for years. It is older than me and it was a refurbished police gun if that says anything. It is a surprisingly good shooter but that's probably true of most guns with a little weight in this caliber. It is just a pleasant round to shoot. I hear that hollow points might not feed properly in the 50s and 70s but I've never actually tried. That said, my local shop always has the Winchester Silvertips in stock and I know Corbon makes +p ammo in this caliber.

On the caliber, .32acp is no death-ray but what small caliber is? I mean, how much deadlier is a .380 or even 9mm when it really comes down to it? I know that a .40 or .45 hits much harder and makes a bigger hole but for its place, the .32 is alright. If nothing else, it is a mighty step up from the .22s a lot of people carry!

 

[ricko]

Model 1910's, in 9mm Browning Short (.380 ACP) were used in the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the event that led to WWI

Actually, I think the FN1910 that killed the Archduke was a .32.... which I guess makes the .32ACP the deadliest cartridge in history, 8,000,000 killed by a single shot.

I have a 1910 in .380, it's a pretty neat little pistol.

One more bit of movie trivia - I think Peter Lorre used a 1910 when he killed Mr. Miller in the wartime Bogart movie "All Through the Night". Certainly looks like one, to the extent I can tell on the screen.

 

[James K]

Nope on the Sarajevo guns. There were four of them, all in .380, provided to Prinzip's group by the Serbian secret police. Prinzip's gun, the one that fired the fatal shots, was serial number 19074.

Sometime in the early 1940's, an American writer described the gun as a .32 caliber FN Model 1900. No one knows where he came up with that error, but it has stuck around.

The only gun I can recall Peter Lorre using in the movies was a Mauser 1914. Every time he pulled the trigger I was sure a couple of springs would break.

Jim

 

[ricko]

Thanks for the correction - I'd seen it accounted both ways, and for some reason had taken the .32 version as being correct. Wikipedia calls it a .32 FN1910, and it does indeed date its sources back to the 1940s. Makes my .380 seem even more historic.....

 

[44 AMP]

James K and Carguychris hit the nail pretty well as to why the .32 was considered a fully adequate police gun in the past.

A couple of additional factors for police use were, beat cops walked their beats. Bigger heavier guns (like .38s) didn't find a lot of popularity until later, when more police were motorized, as were the bad guys.

Also, along with the general feeling that the bad guys "deserved what they got" was the general tactic of beating the bad guys who resisted arrest until they were subdued. Cops in those days were chosen primarily from bigger men, who had the physical capacity of winning a fight with most people. The early 1900s beat cop's primary weapons were his nightstick, and his physical capacity. The gun was (mostly) a backup when more force was needed.

Prior to modern antibiotics and germ theory, which basically began in the 1920s, if you were shot anywhere, and didn't die outright, your odds seemed to be 50/50. You lived, or you didn't. A lot of people didn't live (infection), and a lot lived only because enough was cut off, soon enough.

Much better to take a few wacks from the stick then do something that would cause the cop to shoot you. Of course, there are always the "you'll never take me alive, Copper!" types, and generally, they aren't.

Re: mistakes in Bond films; Several of the errors in Bond films are the result of using the dialog from the books, and not having the prop gun on film matching the dialog. But not all of them. One famous Bond film line is the one about the Beretta .32, "hitting like a brick through a plate glass window".

Which we all know is Q's version of typical British understatement, right? People hear that line and think, "BS, the .32 isn't that much..." Not realizing that the line about the .32's power is in comparison to what Bond was carrying, which was a .25!

re: Peter Lorre;
As Joel Cairo, in the Maltese Falcon, Lorre carried a tiny little auto, I think a .25 Baby Browning (or Colt), probably perfumed. Will have to watch close next time I run the film. Can't say he used it, Bogie took it from him.

I just recently sold a .32, a Savage 1919. I have kept my carry .32, a WWII WaA pruf Mauser HSc.

Not the smalles, lightest .32 on the market today, but a neat gun, and one with some utility as an impact weapon, should all else fail.

 

[James K]

One other possible reason for issuing the .32 to police was that in the c. 1900 era, city police normally wore long coats and carried their guns under them, usually in belt holsters. It was not considered "proper" for an officer to be seen to be armed; ladies (many of whom had guns in their purses) might be offended at the sight of a police officer's gun. So the slimmer .32 revolver fit better into that concept than a larger .38 or .44/.45 revolver.

Jim

 

[Bill DeShivs]

I will add my thoughts-
The only instant, sure stop is a CNS shot. If you have a good CNS shot, it doesn't matter if it is a .22 short or a .454 magnum.

If you don't have a CNS shot, caliber might matter a little, but not very much.

 

[ricko]

Back to the Peter Lorre trivia: here are a couple of screen grabs from the scene in All Through the Night. Can't guarantee that it's an FN1910, but it's definitely not a Mauser 1914:

 

[GunXpatriot]

So you know, I'm looking at BrassFetcher's test of the CCI Blazer .32 FMJ. I think it's ability to tumble is impressive, and apparently, it's a trend with .32's from what I've seen in other tests. Also, in that test, it was shot from a Kel-Tec P-32, which has a pretty short barrel compared to the FN 1922, which I think would help, ballistically...

I keep trying to justify the .32's stopping power, but in all seriousness, the tumbling can't hurt, because of course, you end up with a much bigger hole. The problem is, (and I can't discount him for this, because his tests are great, as well as tnoutdoors9, etc) but there is no simulated bone, and it would be good to know how that would effect tumbling or expansion of a hollow point, but I have to agree that .32HP's are a little short on penetration. If that "stopping power" database that was posted before is correct, hollow points don't seem to make much of a difference, so I don't know.



I'm about to start making my own ballistics gel to test this stuff out and maybe try to put things up that no one else has. Kind of annoying not being able to find almost every load you want to see with a test. Does anyone here do their own tests? Actually, I just realized something... Brass's tests are with 20% gel... I believe he had said the general rule for penetration with 20% to 10% was about 1.35, but not sure if that would affect a HP in the same way, as the amount of "drag" on the bullet may significantly change expansion.

Either way, it can only be good for a tumbling FMJ. Maybe the .32 really is more effective than meets the eye.

Anyway, here's the test I'm talking about. There's one with the Hydra-Shok as well, which is why I mentioned that.

Blazer 71gr FMJ (unmodified)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx-APtfWivQ



The Hydra-Shok

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piCUNVFJU5E


And some sort of "Spoon" FMJ where he cut a little crater, which seemed to work well also, better than both, it would seem. This was a Blazer 71gr as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3b5Qoxu1l4