Seecamp vs. Keltec P-32
- Thread starter PATH
- Start date
Kentucky Rifle
New member
I have both and...
..although I like my light, thin, trouble free P-32 very much there is NOTHING like a Seecamp for complete reliability, beauty, and just plain tinyness (Is that a word?
) It is truly a work of art. Even though only a couple of types of ammunition will work in a Seecamp, when you hold that hand-fitted beauty in your paws for the first time you'll see what I mean. For a tiny .32ACP, it's pure poetry.
Kentucky Rifle
..although I like my light, thin, trouble free P-32 very much there is NOTHING like a Seecamp for complete reliability, beauty, and just plain tinyness (Is that a word?
) It is truly a work of art. Even though only a couple of types of ammunition will work in a Seecamp, when you hold that hand-fitted beauty in your paws for the first time you'll see what I mean. For a tiny .32ACP, it's pure poetry.Kentucky Rifle
David Scott
New member
I vote for the Kel-Tec, my wife's carry gun. Now, I've never owned or shot the Seecamp, and they may be wonderful guns, but as far as I can see the Kel-Tec is more bang for the buck. I love the belt clip. Ours has had zero problems since I sent it back to KT because the hammer wouldn't fall, and they replaced everything but the frame, no charge. Their service is great.
Walt Sherrill
New member
The Seecamp is, indeed, a thing of beauty to behold, but I find them brutal little beasts to shoot. I much prefer the Kel-Tec P-32.
And for the difference in price, you can buy another gun!
And for the difference in price, you can buy another gun!
Kentucky Rifle
New member
Walt....
You've said that before..a couple of times. When I took my new Seecamp to the range for the first time, I remembered every word you had said. I put on my motorcycle gloves before I fired my Seecamp because I thought about what you had posted. However, it wasn't bad at all. Maybe it's because I'm used to shooting my .40 caliber Glock 27. If you don't mind, what was the part that was brutal? (Please, no offense intended.) Maybe the "ringed expansion chamber" recoil management system was not working due to too much oil in it. Also, I do agree with you regarding the P-32 being a "softer shooter".
KR
You've said that before..a couple of times. When I took my new Seecamp to the range for the first time, I remembered every word you had said. I put on my motorcycle gloves before I fired my Seecamp because I thought about what you had posted. However, it wasn't bad at all. Maybe it's because I'm used to shooting my .40 caliber Glock 27. If you don't mind, what was the part that was brutal? (Please, no offense intended.) Maybe the "ringed expansion chamber" recoil management system was not working due to too much oil in it. Also, I do agree with you regarding the P-32 being a "softer shooter".
KR
I am one of the few that had a Seecamp with problems. I bought one 3.5 years ago put about 150 rounds thru it and had the slide jam open about once per magazine or so. Probably something that could have been easily repaired but a friend wanted it real bad so I sold it to him for my cost ($600).
With guns like the P-32, Guardian & Autauga readily available, it's hard to justify the long wait / expense to get one unless you get a great deal like KY Rifle.
I saw one at a shop a few months ago, I had forgotten though how nice they are & the size / weight difference vs. my Autauga which is still 2 ounces lighter than the Guardian.
With guns like the P-32, Guardian & Autauga readily available, it's hard to justify the long wait / expense to get one unless you get a great deal like KY Rifle.
I saw one at a shop a few months ago, I had forgotten though how nice they are & the size / weight difference vs. my Autauga which is still 2 ounces lighter than the Guardian.
I don't have a Seecamp, but I've shot an NAA Guardian and a P32 one after another at the range and find the P32 *much* more comfortable to shoot. The guardian seems harder to hold onto and tends to slam the web of my hand harder than the P32. Of course, the P32 is a lot lighter and seems to be a lot flatter so its even easier to conceal. From the looks of the Seecamp, I'm guessing it would be just as uncomfortable to shoot as the Guardian.
Walt Sherrill
New member
Kentucky Rifle:
I've seen several Seecamps sold soon after they were purchased because they were so darned uncomfortable to shoot. I've shot two -- and both were unpleasant. (Makarovs, which are notorious for their unexpectedly harsh recoil, seem gentle by comparison.)
I've got a lot of guns -- including several .45s, and had a snub- .357. I'd rather shoot any of them than the Seecamps I had experience with. (I think you've got to shoot a gun like that a lot to be really proficient, and I wasn't going to do it...)
If it hurts and its hard to shoot -- sights on a Seecamp are vestigal at best -- you're not going to hit what you need to hit when the stuff hits the fan. (That's one thing I've learned from shoting IDPA; hitting a paper target when you're relaxed and in a comfortable stance is a lot different from trying to shoot a gun well under stress, while moving (i.e., backing up, moving to cover, etc.) That's also why I got rid of my Kel-Tec P-11: I couldn't shoot it well in difficult situations. That is NOT the case with my little Star Firestar Plus, which is my preferred carry weapon.)
1911 Ford:
The Seecamp is, indeed, a beautifully-crafted weapon, but it hard to shoot well, is very picky in the ammo it will eat, and is a pain to strip and clean. Its sights are... Forget it: you better plan to point shooting, and you better be close to your target.
The Seecamp has great SNOB appeal, but that appeal is on the decline, as other viable alternatives become available. For getting the job done, the "toy"-like Kel-Tec is a much better gun.
Lots of plastic, there, and it seems too light. But it will do the job, day in and day out. Function, not appearances, is the key.
One plus -- if you load yourself or can find it -- the P-32, by virtue of its locked-breech design, can shoot +P ammo. Try that with a Seecamp. The P-32 is a much better design. Its just not as pretty. It doesn't look handmade.
(I like Lugers; have two. I think they are beautiful weapons. I don't think a SIG comes close to their aesthetic appeal, and most of the old Lugers were essentially hand-made weapons. Does that mean I'd reather shoot a Luger in a gunfight? Hardly.)
I've seen several Seecamps sold soon after they were purchased because they were so darned uncomfortable to shoot. I've shot two -- and both were unpleasant. (Makarovs, which are notorious for their unexpectedly harsh recoil, seem gentle by comparison.)
I've got a lot of guns -- including several .45s, and had a snub- .357. I'd rather shoot any of them than the Seecamps I had experience with. (I think you've got to shoot a gun like that a lot to be really proficient, and I wasn't going to do it...)
If it hurts and its hard to shoot -- sights on a Seecamp are vestigal at best -- you're not going to hit what you need to hit when the stuff hits the fan. (That's one thing I've learned from shoting IDPA; hitting a paper target when you're relaxed and in a comfortable stance is a lot different from trying to shoot a gun well under stress, while moving (i.e., backing up, moving to cover, etc.) That's also why I got rid of my Kel-Tec P-11: I couldn't shoot it well in difficult situations. That is NOT the case with my little Star Firestar Plus, which is my preferred carry weapon.)
1911 Ford:
The Seecamp is, indeed, a beautifully-crafted weapon, but it hard to shoot well, is very picky in the ammo it will eat, and is a pain to strip and clean. Its sights are... Forget it: you better plan to point shooting, and you better be close to your target.
The Seecamp has great SNOB appeal, but that appeal is on the decline, as other viable alternatives become available. For getting the job done, the "toy"-like Kel-Tec is a much better gun.
Lots of plastic, there, and it seems too light. But it will do the job, day in and day out. Function, not appearances, is the key.
One plus -- if you load yourself or can find it -- the P-32, by virtue of its locked-breech design, can shoot +P ammo. Try that with a Seecamp. The P-32 is a much better design. Its just not as pretty. It doesn't look handmade.
(I like Lugers; have two. I think they are beautiful weapons. I don't think a SIG comes close to their aesthetic appeal, and most of the old Lugers were essentially hand-made weapons. Does that mean I'd reather shoot a Luger in a gunfight? Hardly.)
Double Naught Spy
New member
None of the little guns like the Seecamp, NAA Guardian, or P32 are really much in the way of guns where you would really try to be using your sights. I guess you could, but for what these little guns are best for are very close range or contact type shooting, or point shooting. Notice nobody makes scope attachments for any of these guns.
As far as being uncomfortable to shoot, guns aren't supposed to be comfortable, but comforting. The Seecamp is made to be a gun that is carried a lot, will survive the abuse of pocket crud, and still shoot on demand when the situation requires it. It is not meant as a plinking gun really. So if you are looking for a tiny gun that is fun to shoot, then get something like an NAA Revolver.
Value for the $, the P32 might have it. You could buy two or three P32s for the cost of a Seecamp and even if one P32 was crap, you would still be ahead of the game financially. I still think I would prefer the Seecamp, however.
As far as being uncomfortable to shoot, guns aren't supposed to be comfortable, but comforting. The Seecamp is made to be a gun that is carried a lot, will survive the abuse of pocket crud, and still shoot on demand when the situation requires it. It is not meant as a plinking gun really. So if you are looking for a tiny gun that is fun to shoot, then get something like an NAA Revolver.
Value for the $, the P32 might have it. You could buy two or three P32s for the cost of a Seecamp and even if one P32 was crap, you would still be ahead of the game financially. I still think I would prefer the Seecamp, however.
I much prefer the Keltec P-32 for the following reason.
1. Locked breech design.
2. Not ammo sensitive, will shoot any .32acps.
3. Lighter, flatter and more easily concealed.
4. Much better buy than the others, you can by two P-32s plus a large pile of ammo for the difference in prices.
5. Outstanding factory support for the product.
I have never bought anything in my life, inorder to keep up with the Jones' and at this late date, I am not about to base that decision on what the yuppies are buying. I am NOT about to spend my hard earned money for a defensive handgun, based on the criteria that some of the Seecamp buyers seem to be basing their purchases on and that is: SNOB appeal!!!
Performance, reliability, the capacity to shoot diverse ammunition, ease of concealibility and value are much more valuable IMNSHO.
7th
1. Locked breech design.
2. Not ammo sensitive, will shoot any .32acps.
3. Lighter, flatter and more easily concealed.
4. Much better buy than the others, you can by two P-32s plus a large pile of ammo for the difference in prices.
5. Outstanding factory support for the product.
I have never bought anything in my life, inorder to keep up with the Jones' and at this late date, I am not about to base that decision on what the yuppies are buying. I am NOT about to spend my hard earned money for a defensive handgun, based on the criteria that some of the Seecamp buyers seem to be basing their purchases on and that is: SNOB appeal!!!
Performance, reliability, the capacity to shoot diverse ammunition, ease of concealibility and value are much more valuable IMNSHO.
7th
Kentucky Rifle
New member
Walt...
I just don't mind shooting my Seecamp, and I can do head shots at about 15 feet every time. (Even with no sights.) I don't think the recoil is bad at all. On the other hand, the .357 snub that you didn't mind at all just KILLED my hand. The one and only occasion that I fired a .357 snub, I vowed it would be my last! (I do have a touch of arthritis in my hands though.)
I'd really like to shoot your Lugars! It so happens that, on the History Channel's "Tales of the Gun" a couple of nights ago, they did a piece on German Lugars. I think we're all pretty used to 9MM cartridges, but the closeups of the German soldiers who were shooting Lugars were pretty amazing to me. There appeared to be VERY LITTLE RECOIL! These guys had NO problems with very quick follow up shots. Even firing the mag completely empty (in seconds!) it looked like those beautiful Lugars had only a tiny bit of recoil. The narrator stated that the Lugars shown were the 9MM version rather than the 7MM. Was it just the photography, or is the recoil really that light? Oddly, the narrator also stated that the P38 was actually a better, more modern pistol. For my tastes, a Lugar has it all over the newer P-38. To me, it's just the looks. Lugars are beautiful!
Will
I just don't mind shooting my Seecamp, and I can do head shots at about 15 feet every time. (Even with no sights.) I don't think the recoil is bad at all. On the other hand, the .357 snub that you didn't mind at all just KILLED my hand. The one and only occasion that I fired a .357 snub, I vowed it would be my last! (I do have a touch of arthritis in my hands though.)
I'd really like to shoot your Lugars! It so happens that, on the History Channel's "Tales of the Gun" a couple of nights ago, they did a piece on German Lugars. I think we're all pretty used to 9MM cartridges, but the closeups of the German soldiers who were shooting Lugars were pretty amazing to me. There appeared to be VERY LITTLE RECOIL! These guys had NO problems with very quick follow up shots. Even firing the mag completely empty (in seconds!) it looked like those beautiful Lugars had only a tiny bit of recoil. The narrator stated that the Lugars shown were the 9MM version rather than the 7MM. Was it just the photography, or is the recoil really that light? Oddly, the narrator also stated that the P38 was actually a better, more modern pistol. For my tastes, a Lugar has it all over the newer P-38. To me, it's just the looks. Lugars are beautiful!
Will
private_idaho
New member
1911Ford - re Camaro/Ferrari: Exactly. And how many of us own Ferrari's? Price *is* a factor, as is practicality. A Ferrari is beautiful to behold, but is fussier about fuel and maintenance, and is not the car I would choose for a daily driver even if I did have the money. The Camaro, on the other hand, does a basic job well, and has tremendous bang-for-buck.
Keltec: light, dependable, inexpensive, and I don't worry about scratching it. Not the perfect gun, but it does a basic job well, and has great bang-for-buck.
Keltec: light, dependable, inexpensive, and I don't worry about scratching it. Not the perfect gun, but it does a basic job well, and has great bang-for-buck.
I like the look of the Seecamp, but I don't have the funds for such an investment. They seem heavy, but I have never shot one. I can tell you, a customer of ours at the Cat shop purchased 2 Seecamps with consecutive serial numbers. He waited the better part of 3 years to get them.
I own and carry a KelTec P-32. It is my always gun, and although the .32 is not a powerhouse, like they say, I don't want shot with one. It has performed without event.
I bought the P-32 after the great performance I had with my
P-11. I know some cannot say they have had stellar performance with their KelTec products, and yes I have had some problems. I gave KelTec the benefit of the doubt, and they made things right. These two pistols are my carry pieces.
I own and carry a KelTec P-32. It is my always gun, and although the .32 is not a powerhouse, like they say, I don't want shot with one. It has performed without event.
I bought the P-32 after the great performance I had with my
P-11. I know some cannot say they have had stellar performance with their KelTec products, and yes I have had some problems. I gave KelTec the benefit of the doubt, and they made things right. These two pistols are my carry pieces.
Walt Sherrill
New member
Kentucky Rifle:
The Luger is an interesting pistol. I think the show was right: the P-38 is a better service weapon. Easier to maintain, less susceptible of malfunction due to dirt, etc., and a true modern military gun in that the parts were essentially interchangeable (or, more correctly, far more interchangeable than a Luger.) I have a P-38, too.
My Lugers don't feel that much different than other 9mms. (I said I had two Lugers, and I do -- but only one is a shooter. The other is a collectible. I have shot a number of them, though. Mine has a very nice trigger and is very, very accurate. The only bad part is that the sights are very small and hard to use.) Recoil is noticeable, but seems to be more BACK than up, at least with my gun, my hand, and the ammo I use.
A friend who is a nationally-ranked IDPA shooter (came in 2nd in the Nationals in the Stock Service Revolver Class last year) used his Luger in a match a couple of years ago and won it -- and he wasn't shooting against rank beginners, either.
Properly maintained, the guns will SHOOT! They do tend to need a lot maintenance, though -- and some parts are very hard to find.
With regard to the .357 snub-nosed. Mine had good grips and fit my hand well. The Seecamp just seemed to rest on nerves in my hand. (I had a Tomcat, too, and while I like it a LOT more, it proved to be very unreliable.) I also have a CZ-50 in .32, and while its larger, it surprisingly accurate and reliable. And it cost about $100. I've got a small slide holster for it, and I would seriously consider it as a small carry weapon if the situation demanded it.
The Luger is an interesting pistol. I think the show was right: the P-38 is a better service weapon. Easier to maintain, less susceptible of malfunction due to dirt, etc., and a true modern military gun in that the parts were essentially interchangeable (or, more correctly, far more interchangeable than a Luger.) I have a P-38, too.
My Lugers don't feel that much different than other 9mms. (I said I had two Lugers, and I do -- but only one is a shooter. The other is a collectible. I have shot a number of them, though. Mine has a very nice trigger and is very, very accurate. The only bad part is that the sights are very small and hard to use.) Recoil is noticeable, but seems to be more BACK than up, at least with my gun, my hand, and the ammo I use.
A friend who is a nationally-ranked IDPA shooter (came in 2nd in the Nationals in the Stock Service Revolver Class last year) used his Luger in a match a couple of years ago and won it -- and he wasn't shooting against rank beginners, either.
Properly maintained, the guns will SHOOT! They do tend to need a lot maintenance, though -- and some parts are very hard to find.
With regard to the .357 snub-nosed. Mine had good grips and fit my hand well. The Seecamp just seemed to rest on nerves in my hand. (I had a Tomcat, too, and while I like it a LOT more, it proved to be very unreliable.) I also have a CZ-50 in .32, and while its larger, it surprisingly accurate and reliable. And it cost about $100. I've got a small slide holster for it, and I would seriously consider it as a small carry weapon if the situation demanded it.
Kentucky Rifle
New member
Walt. Another thing I noticed about...
.. the Lugar's trigger was that (unless my eyes were playing tricks on me) it seemed to be a half-circle. When the soldiers pulled the back part of the trigger, a front part also came rearward. True?? What is the purpose of this?
KR
.. the Lugar's trigger was that (unless my eyes were playing tricks on me) it seemed to be a half-circle. When the soldiers pulled the back part of the trigger, a front part also came rearward. True?? What is the purpose of this?
KR
Walt Sherrill
New member
KR:
Nope. The trigger pivots on a pin (its an integral pin), so it rocks back like a lot of guns.
The top of the trigger assembly connects to a lever which presses and and releases the sear. This is one of the many parts that must be hand-fitted to work properly. Its a clever design.
(I tried replacing the side plate on my shooter -- as it was mismatched. Boy, was that a job! It wasn't a "swap and shoot." It took a lot of work.)
I had mine worked on once, and when I got back to the range it went full auto! Scared the crap out of me, and luckily I had mistakenly put in one of my bad magazines.
I pulled the magazine out, cleared the weapon. Examined it for something obviously wrong, and facing the end of the range (indoor), pushed a new mag in, and let the toggle go. It slam fired! The little spring-loaded detent (its really a lever extension) on the end of the sear assembly had a burr, and was not retracting when fired. There's a nice big chip in the concrete block wall of the range, about 15 feet down that I can point to with some mixed emotions...
Nope. The trigger pivots on a pin (its an integral pin), so it rocks back like a lot of guns.
The top of the trigger assembly connects to a lever which presses and and releases the sear. This is one of the many parts that must be hand-fitted to work properly. Its a clever design.
(I tried replacing the side plate on my shooter -- as it was mismatched. Boy, was that a job! It wasn't a "swap and shoot." It took a lot of work.)
I had mine worked on once, and when I got back to the range it went full auto! Scared the crap out of me, and luckily I had mistakenly put in one of my bad magazines.
I pulled the magazine out, cleared the weapon. Examined it for something obviously wrong, and facing the end of the range (indoor), pushed a new mag in, and let the toggle go. It slam fired! The little spring-loaded detent (its really a lever extension) on the end of the sear assembly had a burr, and was not retracting when fired. There's a nice big chip in the concrete block wall of the range, about 15 feet down that I can point to with some mixed emotions...