Limnophile
New member
Did you use JHPs or FMJs? It seems that mags designed for .32 Auto work fine with FMJs, but need to be modified to work reliably with JHPs.
P32 rimlock
- Thread starter publius
- Start date
Did you use JHPs or FMJs? It seems that mags designed for .32 Auto work fine with FMJs, but need to be modified to work reliably with JHPs.
I think it's more accurate to say the Seecamps, (Father and son), designed the magazine , (which came with a rubber spacer in the tube to keep the rounds from moving), around the .32 WST. This spacer was later made of steel. The pistol itself will operate with non hollowpoint ammo, but this is not advised. The old mags were a real pain. The new mags are works of art compared to the old.
zbird, Seecamp designed his gun for 32 Silvertips because he didn't think hardball was any good for self defense. At that time Silvertips were the only "hot " .( at that time ) ,32 self defense type cartridges on the market., or at least that is what he is quoted as saying and was written in all the gun rags write ups.. That fact turned a lot of people off, they wanted to practice with cheap hardball and carry Silvertips, but not to be limited to one brand of ammo. It had nothing to do with rim lock, as I mentioned rim lock was not even a subject of discussion back then.
I beg to differ.
This from the Seecamp web site.
"The LWS .32 was designed around the Silvertip cartridge. Initially, we tried to get the pistol to shoot everything, including ball ammo.
We quickly learned, however, that the problem of potential jams caused by random shuffling of rounds within a magazine because of excess play, now popularly referred to as rim lock, was something we had to take seriously. Rather than to have a pistol that marginally functioned with a variety of ammo, we opted to produce one that was maximally reliable with Silvertips ~ the only hollow point available to us at the time. For this reason, we provided spacers for our magazines. (Contrary to popular myth, we did not choose to limit our pistols to hollow points because of any space constrictions.)"
http://www.seecamp.com/ammunition.htm
I've never been to the Seecamp's site, but I was around when the both the 25 and 32 Seecamp were introduced. The story may change now with history, it does sound better, but at the time Seecamp stated that they designed the gun with malice foresight, to fine only Silver tips. Go back to the old American rifleman, Guns and Ammo, Shooting times and Gun Digest, No misprint, Seecamp stated he wanted a gun that would only chamber Silver Tips. Why would it be so hard to make a gun that would fire any type of .32 ACP cartridge? heck, the Belgium's and Germans did better than that 75 years ago and NAA did on the first try. They ( NAA ) offered to team up with Seecamp but no go. since Seecamp's gun had nothing new or patented NAA made a couple of minor changes to ease production changes ( easier take down for one ) and produced a same size gun, Seecamp, then cast holy water over the gun and lo and behold, his gun now would fire any cartridge. I guess the fact that the NAA was selling very well, thank you while the Seecamp sales were in the dump had nothing to do with it. That he couldn't make a 32 caliber gun that would shoot different makers cartridges is simply not kosher with his past statements published facts.
Rjay you obviously dont like seecamps which is ok but your post is full of inaccuracies. the NAA Guardian is larger and heavier than the Seecamp. Sales of the Seecamp were not in the dumps when the NAA Guardian came out. Quite the opposite there was a long waiting list and they were being sold for over $1000 used by people who had them. NAA never offered to team up with Seecamp. They have their own very successful business. There was no malice involved in putting a spacer in the magazine. That claim is ridiculous. Why would Larry Seecamp care what you fire in the gun unless there could be a functioning problem? Or the particular round would potentially cause damage to the gun.
Quote: Why would Larry Seecamp care what you fire in the gun unless there could be a functioning problem? Or the particular round would potentially cause damage to the gun.
Hard to refute this bit of logic. And, as heyjoe opined, I've never seen anywhere where NAA "offered to team up with Seecamp". If they did, I'd be interested in seeing the evidence of same. Facts, not hearsay or internet hyperbole, are the only things germane to discussions exploring the truth of a matter.
Hard to refute this bit of logic. And, as heyjoe opined, I've never seen anywhere where NAA "offered to team up with Seecamp". If they did, I'd be interested in seeing the evidence of same. Facts, not hearsay or internet hyperbole, are the only things germane to discussions exploring the truth of a matter.
There is no mystery about the round Louis Seecamp chose.
* They believed a hollow point was better than round nosed for a defensive bullet. Winchester made the only readily available quality hollow point, at that time.
*Goal number one was reliability. The Seecamp pistol was born at the request of LEOs desiring a reliable, yet small, back-up gun. First a .25acp then the .32acp. Now amazingly, also in .380acp. All in the same tiny sized pistol. Incredible design.
* Reliability was maximized by eliminating as many potential problems as possible, including rimlock.
* Hence, the mag was designed around the WST. Other ammo has since been introduced that fits the mag, about six or so brands these days.
Careful loading has nothing to do with rimlock. Is there a magazine you can un-carefully load?
* They believed a hollow point was better than round nosed for a defensive bullet. Winchester made the only readily available quality hollow point, at that time.
*Goal number one was reliability. The Seecamp pistol was born at the request of LEOs desiring a reliable, yet small, back-up gun. First a .25acp then the .32acp. Now amazingly, also in .380acp. All in the same tiny sized pistol. Incredible design.
* Reliability was maximized by eliminating as many potential problems as possible, including rimlock.
* Hence, the mag was designed around the WST. Other ammo has since been introduced that fits the mag, about six or so brands these days.
Careful loading has nothing to do with rimlock. Is there a magazine you can un-carefully load?
Bill DeShivs
New member
The "innovative" Seecamp design directly copies the CZ 45 .25 auto.
PSP said:
I agree. Even if you load the magazine carefully, the rounds can still shift around while you're carrying the pistol especially if you're being physically active (jogging, etc.).
BTW I've been using Magtech 71gr JHP in my P-32 without issues, as it's one of the few JHP rounds that is loaded as long as a FMJ cartridge.
Regarding 22LR rimlock
All the 22 pistol mags you normally see have a steep angle that helps insure the cartridge above has its rim in front of the one below. Also the case has no groove to catch a rim, and the cartridges are relatively uniform in length.
I think that you could cause rimlock in a 22 by purposely getting the rims the wrong way when you load, but you would have to work at it.
I suspect that the Ruger rotary mag works by controlling the "stacking" of the rims. The KelTec PMR30 mag has a really clever design to prevent rimlock.
All the 22 pistol mags you normally see have a steep angle that helps insure the cartridge above has its rim in front of the one below. Also the case has no groove to catch a rim, and the cartridges are relatively uniform in length.
I think that you could cause rimlock in a 22 by purposely getting the rims the wrong way when you load, but you would have to work at it.
I suspect that the Ruger rotary mag works by controlling the "stacking" of the rims. The KelTec PMR30 mag has a really clever design to prevent rimlock.