Would you like a Browning 1911 .32 ACP?

K

kannonk

New member
I was thinking if Browning made a 1911 pistol in .22 lr 75% of the size and .380 85% of the size, then why not a Browning 1911 in .32 ACP 80% of the size of a 1911? The reason I was thinking about a .32 ACP handgun with a reasonable size is because the .22 lr isn't enough to give you a "real gun feel" and the .380 is more dangerous if you accidentally shoot yourself or someone else (even if it's a ricochet). I still like the 1911-22 and 1911-380 because a lot of handguns in small calibers are too small for enjoyable practice.

What do I mean by less dangerous? I took a look at gel ballistics and statistics on actual shootings. Regardless of what some people assume about the .380 ACP, the statistics on gel and humans show it has about the same effectiveness as the .38 Special. This means they could both eliminate a threat. If someone wanted anything larger (but sacrifice shootability and accuracy because of the recoil), they could always go with the 9mm or .357 Magnum. I say the 9mm instead of the .40 S&W because you can load more in a magazine. The 1% or 2% percent difference between the two isn't enough for me to justify using the .40 S&W. That being said, in instances where penetration through a wall or car might be needed, a .357 SIG is interesting although you might still get good penetration but less recoil with a .327 Federal Magnum. This makes me wonder why no one has tried converting the .38 Special and .327 Federal Magnum cartridges for use in pistols. Why not? It would mean the ability to carry more cartridges and not spraying anyone next to you at the gun range.

One peculiar aspect of the .32 ACP might make it safer for shooting at a range. The failure rate (to kill a human) of the .32 ACP is 40%. That's a huge difference with the .380 and .38 Special which are both just above 15%. (I know this doesn't mean a .32 ACP can't kill a human being, even a 6.35mm pellet from an airgun at 900fps can show devastating penetration through gel.) The failure rate of the .22 lr is also about half that of the .32 ACP. Even the percentage of fatalities from a .32 ACP is much lower than the .22 lr. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/06/foghorn/ask-foghorn-22l-for-self-defense/

The .32 is also the caliber used by men in international pistol competitions (with the .22 used by women). For this reason, I wish the Canadian government would approve and make legal medium-sized handguns like the Beretta Cheetah 81 which is made for .32 ACP (although this model is only imported once in a while into the U.S.). (Yes Canada, why not APPROVE specific guns instead of BANNING all new guns in a particular caliber.) I wouldn't mind also seeing medium-sized revolvers, semi-auto rifles (like the Ruger SR-22) and even small sub-machine guns (similar to the HK SP5K) in .32 ACP (you'd need round FMJ rounds to avoid rim lock though).

An interesting fact about the .32 ACP, there's a video on Youtube with someone shooting .32 ACP cartridges from a Ruger SP101 made for .327 Federal Magnum. (There seems to be a ricochet bullet that passed behind the shooter's head although he never seemed to have noticed it or even acknowledged it during the video.) I can imagine the Ruger SP101 at that weight and size might be a pleasure to shoot .32 ACP at a firing range.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=188YNcVJLL8

For those who want to see gel tests, here's one (although I still prefer the idea of firing round full metal jackets): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lf-IF1emoJI

And finally, a quote from a message on a Youtube video: " I shoot rabbits with a cz 50 in 32 acp and most often if i dont hit vitals it just runs away never to be found". If that isn't an argument that the .32 ACP could be safer to shoot at a firing range then I don't know what is. :) (NOTE: I don't advocate shooting real people to find out. M'kay?)
 
Well for all the failure rates you quote, .32 ACP has a long history of being a lethal military and police caliber, for all practical purposes I don't think its any less dangerous than any other caliber in that you still don't treat it like a toy and point it at folks unless its for self defense.

As to the Browning question, if they made it with a metal frame I would buy one in .32. I'm still holding out, hoping they offer a metal framed .380, but I doubt it'll happen.
 
What I would like

I would like a 1911 w/ambi safety in 85% size and in 9 mm.
Same size as the Browning 380, but in 9mm.
I could even see it in an aluminum frame.
Maybe even a poly frame, but look like a std 1911.
If John Browning had wanted 1911's to have a light rail, he would have put one on.
 
and the .380 is more dangerous if you accidentally shoot yourself or someone else (even if it's a ricochet).
Click to expand...

I don't understand how the .380 is more dangerous than the 32acp. The 32acp has been killing people for well over a century and doing it with FMJ bullets. And if you are accidentally shooting yourself or other people I sorta feel you don't need to own a gun.

I like 32 caliber guns. I have a Walther/Manhurin PP made in 1957 in 32acp. It is in almost new condition. It works perfectly. I do wish I had a spare mag for it. But as far as a scaled down 1911, nope I don't want one. My buddy had a Llama scaled down 380 and it worked fine but I just prefer the double action of the PP style of gun.

I think the 32 is a forgotten and overlooked round. Not everyone needs or wants a full bore police/military round. The smaller bores have their place.
 
I would get one for home defense solely because it would be 15 Db quieter than a 9 or 45. I canjot imagine shooting 357 indoors without muffs
 
What is the frame made of? I have heard that many of the small caliber "1911's" are made of pot metal, which for me is less than worthless, same with plastic.
 
The Browning 1911-22 and 1911-380 are the same size. Both are 85% the size of a real 1911.

I stopped reading the rest of your post because it made no sense and made my head hurt.
 
Got a lot of time on your hands?
A bunch of research on a completely meaningless subject. No, I don't want a down sized 1911 in 32, and I seriously doubt that anyone else would. Especially for SD.
What are you going to do, advertise it as "this gun won't kill anybody"?:eek:
Or maybe "shoots just like a 22, only at four times the cost".:eek:
 
"... if you accidentally shoot yourself or someone else (even if it's a ricochet)"

If that is your main concern, I feel I must suggest that you buy/carry a "big stick"; you simply do not have the attitude necessary to go armed with a gun. Of course a gun is dangerous; they are made to be dangerous and a person who carries a gun must be ready to ensure that the danger is controlled and used only in a legal and valid manner, but that is not the same thing as wanting to buy a gun that will do no harm if used as a weapon - no such gun exists.

Jim
 
If you wish there was a small .32 1911 for importation purposes, just say so. That's perfectly fine.

Such a thing wouldn't appeal to American shooters.

As you even note yourself, Browning already makes a 1911-380. Why bother with a .32?

.32 ACP isn't popular with American shooters. .380 is cheaper, more powerful, and is significantly more reliable since it doesn't suffer from rimlock or SAAMI/CIP pressure mismatch. And in a pistol that size, 9mm is cheaper and more powerful still.

The argument for such a pistol seems a bit confused. It's a defense pistol. Arguing for less power in the case of an accidental shooting suggests a rather curious and profound lack of responsibility.

Furthermore, I'd argue that lower velocity cartridges are actually more dangerous since they have a greater risk of ricochet, as demonstrated in the video that you yourself posted.

I'm not sure those statistics are meaningful. They don't account for the type of pistol used, and the sample size for .32 is too small for statistical significance.
 
Well, let's see ... we already have 1911s in .50 caliber, .45 caliber, .40 S&W, .380 ACP (standard size by Imbel in Brazil, unfortunately not imported into the U.S., and scaled-down by Browning), and .22LR. Armscor reportedly has a 1911 in .22 WMR, although I haven't been able to get my hands on one for testing.

So there's definitely a gap in the 1911 spectrum. Clearly, the world needs a 1911 chambered in .32 ACP. (Maybe also in 9mm Makarov.)
 
I don't have time to individually address all of the fallacies in the original post but let me address a handful. :)
kannonk said:
For this reason, I wish the Canadian government would approve and make legal medium-sized handguns like the Beretta Cheetah 81 which is made for .32 ACP (although this model is only imported once in a while into the U.S.). (Yes Canada, why not APPROVE specific guns instead of BANNING all new guns in a particular caliber.)
Click to expand...
I would assume that the broad Canadian ban on the commercial sale of .25 and .32 caliber firearms—like many gun-control laws—is not necessarily based on science, logic, or reason. :rolleyes:

Additionally, AFAIK Canada generally bans the [EDIT: Carrying] of firearms [EDIT: For] self-defense (or defence to use the Canuck* spelling ;)) under almost all circumstances. Arguing that .32 ACP is somehow less lethal (which it really isn't), and therefore should be allowed, is IMHO a facile argument that's highly unlikely to change Canadian gun control laws in this respect.
kannonk said:
The .32 is also the caliber used by men in international pistol competitions (with the .22 used by women).
Click to expand...
Not exactly; both men and women use .22, and this is the cartridge used at the Olympics for both sexes. .32-caliber pistols are commonly used for the men's ISSF 25m Center Fire Pistol event (which is not contested at the Olympics), but this is by no means the ONLY caliber that may be used; the rules allow "Any center fire pistol or revolver, except a single shot pistol, chambered for cartridges in caliber 7.62 mm to 9.65 mm (.300” – .380”) that conforms to the specifications in 8.12 and 8.13..." (My emphasis in boldface.)

Additionally, almost all .32-caliber pistols traditionally used in the event are chambered in .32 S&W Long and not .32 ACP.

Speaking of which...
kannonk said:
An interesting fact about the .32 ACP, there's a video on Youtube with someone shooting .32 ACP cartridges from a Ruger SP101 made for .327 Federal Magnum... I can imagine the Ruger SP101 at that weight and size might be a pleasure to shoot .32 ACP at a firing range.
Click to expand...
Uh, have you heard of .32 S&W Long aka .32 Long? It's the parent cartridge of .32 H&R Magnum and, in turn, .327 Federal Magnum. It's the cartridge that SHOULD be used for low-recoil shooting in a .327 SP-101.

Although .32 ACP CAN physically be used safely in most revolvers chambered for these 3 cartridges, it's generally a poor idea, because accuracy usually suffers due to the long jump to the rifling and the (generally) sub-optimal barrel twist for 70-73 grain bullets, and it may have ejection difficulties due to the relatively small rim. In the real world, there's little that .32 ACP can do that .32 Long can't, other than work in small autoloading pistols. .32 Long, being a revolver cartridge, is more flexible because bullet shape isn't critical to feeding—but I digress.

Realistically, the two main reasons people fire .32 ACP in revolvers are simple ignorance or an inability to find .32 Long at their local big-box sporting goods store. The latter problem is easily addressed by the concept of mail-order. :rolleyes:
kannonk said:
And finally, a quote from a message on a Youtube video: " I shoot rabbits with a cz 50 in 32 acp and most often if i dont hit vitals it just runs away never to be found".
Click to expand...
Did it occur to you that the rabbit probably died anyway—just in a location where the hunter couldn't find it? :rolleyes:

OTOH if you kill a PERSON with a firearm, it doesn't matter to the law whether they die at the scene or a week later in the hospital (OK, "in hospital" for you Canucks*). Even if the person survives, you still have to deal with the legal consequences of having TRIED to kill them.

*I reserve the right to make fun of Canadians because I am one. ;)
 
Last edited:
Id rather they make a fullsize 1911 in .45 ACP. IMO, theres no need for them to make one in .32 ACP.
Theyve got a .22 for plinking, the 380 ACP for people who want a bigger gun with light recoil and the Hi-Power for those who want the real deal. I feel like they have their bases pretty well covered.
 
"....32 ACP has a long history of being a lethal military and police caliber..." More of being a European police calibre than lethal. Military pistols in .32 ACP are primarily issues to General Officers as personal SD firearms.
The broad Canadian ban on the commercial sale of .25 and .32 caliber firearms had one purpose and one purpose only. It wiped out an entire class of firearm with one law(Ditto for the under 4" barrel nonsense.). Then the Canadian Olympic Committee said, "Um, excuse us, but we use expensive .32 calibre pistols regularly." Whereupon our idiot government said, "Ok. No .32's except high end target pistols on our list." So Canada does approve "specific" guns.
Anyway, the .32 ACP is physically too small for use in a regular size 1911A1 without a major redesign .to the pistol. And Browning made .32 ACP pistols for eons, as well. So did other manufacturers. Llama, for example. And a horde of others. Falls under "Been done.".
"...a Youtube video..." YouTube is not a source of reliable, accurate, info.
 
OK, time for two more...

kannonk said:
I was thinking if Browning made a 1911... .380 85% of the size, then why not a Browning 1911 in .32 ACP 80% of the size of a 1911?
Click to expand...
I think you would find that, for practical purposes, this theoretical .32 pistol would be almost exactly the same size as the .380 version, because the .32 ACP case head is semi-rimmed and thus almost exactly the same size as a .380 case head. Similarly, the loaded cartridges are almost exactly the same length. This generally means that the breech face, slide (or bolt), and magazines will be near-identical; in fact, for many pistols, they ARE identical.

This overwhelming dimensional similarity is the reason why the vast majority of .32 pistols have also been offered in a .380 version. Historic exceptions usually involve a pistol that started out as a .32, together with a perceived lack of market demand for a similar .380 and/or a design shortcoming making the pistol incapable of operating properly with the added recoil force. These factors don't apply to the 1911-380.
kannonk said:
This makes me wonder why no one has tried converting the .38 Special and .327 Federal Magnum cartridges for use in pistols. Why not?
Click to expand...
Long, rimmed, and straight-walled cartridges inherently don't feed well in autoloaders.

The rims make it difficult to design a practical and reliable box magazine that fits within a comfortable pistol grip, particularly in a double-stack configuration. Some real-world examples: The Coonan .357 has a notoriously large grip frame. The S&W Model 52 had to use a 5-round magazine instead of the 8-rounder used in the similarly-sized 9mm M39. Similarly, the .32 ACP Beretta 81 (.32 ACP is semi-rimmed) only takes 12 rounds in the magazine whereas the .380 Beretta 84 takes 13 rounds. Lastly, most .32 Long target pistols have to use a magazine located forward of the pistol grip.

More importantly, most gun designers have viewed the concept of a .38 Special autoloading pistol as a solution in search of a problem. :rolleyes: 9mm works well enough for most real-world practical defensive applications and is physically much easier to design a pistol around. This argument would also apply to any proposal for a .327 autoloader.
 
Last edited:
I'd buy a newly made Colt M1903-with a steel frame. A 32 ACP with the simpler Browning HP takedown makes sense.
 
T. O'Heir said:
The broad Canadian ban on the commercial sale of .25 and .32 caliber firearms had one purpose and one purpose only. It wiped out an entire class of firearm with one law(Ditto for the under 4" barrel nonsense.).
Click to expand...
Precisely.

The basic scenario was that many voters were upset by rising crime and supported gun control, so the politicians wanted to ban SOMETHING, but their constituents wouldn't support a broad ban on all pistols because some Fine Upstanding Law-Abiding Citizens like those. Ergo, the politicians picked small concealable pistols, because such pistols were seen as a tool of criminals and other social undesirables.

This is the very same political calculation that created the ATF handgun import points system and much of the NFA in the United States.

Lethality—or lack thereof—was never a serious consideration. The idea was to take guns away from unpopular constituencies who are too small or insufficiently determined to vote the politicians out of office over it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top