I have a confession to make about .32 ACP
- Thread starter Rothdel
- Start date
HighValleyRanch
New member
Just chronographed a couple of loads today through the seecamp.
Gold dots were mild at 924 fps with 60 grain hollowpoints yielding 114 foot pounds ME.
But the Winchester FMJ 71 grains flat nose were just a wee bit hotter at 1028 and 995 for around 155 foot pounds ME. Probably what I should carry, and forget about expansion from the Speer gold dots.
Have some Fiocchi I will test later. These should be be hotter.
Gold dots were mild at 924 fps with 60 grain hollowpoints yielding 114 foot pounds ME.
But the Winchester FMJ 71 grains flat nose were just a wee bit hotter at 1028 and 995 for around 155 foot pounds ME. Probably what I should carry, and forget about expansion from the Speer gold dots.
Have some Fiocchi I will test later. These should be be hotter.
HighValleyRanch
New member
Hi, yes factory loads.
HisSoldier
New member
There was a time, especially in Europe, when the .32 ACP reigned as the leader in handgun sales. I'm not to sure why but just before WW1 the .32 came on very strong and they were used in great quantities in the trenches by the French.
I have a few, almost all from that era, and because of Europe's love affair with the .32 auto handgun, and the availability of ammo anywhere during about a 40 year period we have many available for collectors today here in America.
I'd be willing to bet that many people shot with .32's in the first half of the last century survived to later add to the gene pool, who wouldn't have had they been shot with a .45 ACP, though it'd be hard to prove either way. But the .32 and the .25 are great collector guns because they were so popular.
I have a few, almost all from that era, and because of Europe's love affair with the .32 auto handgun, and the availability of ammo anywhere during about a 40 year period we have many available for collectors today here in America.
I'd be willing to bet that many people shot with .32's in the first half of the last century survived to later add to the gene pool, who wouldn't have had they been shot with a .45 ACP, though it'd be hard to prove either way. But the .32 and the .25 are great collector guns because they were so popular.
HighValleyRanch
New member
I did in the SECOND POST!
__________________
Smith and Wesson revolvers are another option (although I realize this a semi-auto forum).
Model 30 and 31 in J frames. Plus a bunch of pre-war older 32 revolvers.
Model 16 K frames.
Newer Airweight and Air lite revolvers like 331, 332,431,432.
Plus a couple models of 327 Federal revolvers that are hard to find.
You may need a bigger safe.
Model 30 and 31 in J frames. Plus a bunch of pre-war older 32 revolvers.
Model 16 K frames.
Newer Airweight and Air lite revolvers like 331, 332,431,432.
Plus a couple models of 327 Federal revolvers that are hard to find.
You may need a bigger safe.
Why was .32acp/7.65 Browning so popular pre-WW2?
Because people actually AIMED back then, as opposed to the "spray & pray" that is so popular now.
Head shots are dead shots.
They were easily concealable, and lighter than .380 & larger caliber pistols.
Being shot with a .32acp will still kill a human if the person aims properly, just like any other pistol.
Fits in well with the other "Mouse Calibers", .25acp, .380acp, 9mm Makarov, & 9mm NATO.
Because people actually AIMED back then, as opposed to the "spray & pray" that is so popular now.
Head shots are dead shots.
They were easily concealable, and lighter than .380 & larger caliber pistols.
Being shot with a .32acp will still kill a human if the person aims properly, just like any other pistol.
Fits in well with the other "Mouse Calibers", .25acp, .380acp, 9mm Makarov, & 9mm NATO.
Why was .32acp/7.65 Browning so popular pre-WW2?
Because people actually AIMED back then, as opposed to the "spray & pray" that is so popular now.
Head shots are dead shots.
Yea, has nothing to do with early pistol designs, or the fact that blow-back is one of the simplest ways to build a semi-auto pistol...
HisSoldier
New member
I missed where anyone said it had to do with design, my point was that in Europe people have always had more confidence in smaller calibers than we did (Until recently).
Even after the .380 ACP became common the .32 was the handgun of choice in Europe, and I doubt it had anything to do with accuracy either, I mean, we are talking about Europeans here (By which I just mean Europe has never had the gun culture America has, and target shooting begets accurate shooting, all else being equal).
So, with the choices of blowback pistols being .25, .32 and .380 I believe the .32's sold more by a huge majority. It may have to do with ammunition costs in Europe in that era, but I think it was just the fad cartridge of it's day.
If you are used to hunting animals when on the move with a pistol, it's a whole lot better practice
than standing about at a target range. You quite often have to be quick on the draw
and quick to fire...point shooting more often than careful aiming, depending on range.
Same thing as is done by the faster shooters at SASS meets...knowing your weapon and body
as well as being able to quickly estimate range in your head equals winning times.
Ain't nobody got time for slow, careful aiming at an SASS meet. Sure ain't gonna have
time for it on the street.
than standing about at a target range. You quite often have to be quick on the draw
and quick to fire...point shooting more often than careful aiming, depending on range.
Same thing as is done by the faster shooters at SASS meets...knowing your weapon and body
as well as being able to quickly estimate range in your head equals winning times.
Ain't nobody got time for slow, careful aiming at an SASS meet. Sure ain't gonna have
time for it on the street.
Sorry, but wasn’t sure on your post, so posting this for clarification/expanding my original post.
It was stated that was why .32s were so popular prior to World War Two... I disagree that it had any reason for shooter proficiency at that time verses now.
Smaller caliber guns were popular back then due to what could be done when companies started to consider things other than revolvers. First, ammo was very inconsistent back then. Blowback is more forgiving for that type of ammo source, especially in what we would call smaller calibers (under 9mm).
Blowback is very simple, so that was widely used. Designs for handguns at the turn of that century also weren’t narrowed down to what would become standard (look at the Luger and C96, and compare them to what is commonly produced today). Until locking systems were standardized/proven, you really couldn’t go too far past .380 in blowback, unless you made the slide/recoil spring so heavy that it wasn’t a marketable pistol. That is what made these guns so popular, which includes the ability to make them affordable. While we had the 1911, what smaller reliable pistol was out there that didn’t use a blowback action? Even a good number of full size pistols were finicky up to somewhat recent times.
While I don’t mind discussing history like this, I can’t really leave a comment that people were better shooters at such time, so guns were produced to fit that. If that was the case, we likely wouldn’t have moved away from revolvers. Proficiency may have stemmed from .32 pistols, but I am pretty sure Browning didn’t go, “all these people out there are such awesome shots... maybe I should design a blowback pistol in .32 to utilize that proficiency.” It was probably along the lines, “hey, I can make a .32 autoloader that could be somewhat smaller than common revolvers, and allow for quicker reloads from a magazine.” Accuracy is a standard that all manufacturers set out to do better than their competition, so it is hard for me to accept the original inference that I quoted.
For people that are interested in this, go on YouTube and look up C&Rsenal. They are currently doing videos on World War I firearms, but to warn you, some are pretty long (just shy of two hours; one of the Pedersen Device is probably one of the best videos ever done on them). I bring that channel up because a lot of .32s were produced at that time, as well as used in that war. They have a few videos, such as the Ruby pistol (also did a few Browning .32 designs, and a few European models), which also goes into the specifics on why these guns were produced, which I feel is definitely a better way to answer that question than a subjective statement about practical accuracy. They also do a good job with giving enough background regarding the competition, and do point out main differences between what we look for in a carry gun today and what people looked for in the early 20th century.