kannonk said:
Does anyone know why there's a peculiar muzzle energy number for the Herter's .32 ACP?... It shows 176 ft/lbs of energy while other manufacturers like Federal, Aguila and PPU have either 128 or 129 ft/lbs of energy.
- It is made by S&B and this company tends to load their ammo hot.
FWIW American ammo companies are notorious for loading .32 ACP on the soft side. Aguila is Mexican, but they may be doing the same thing.
- Ballistic claims are just that—claims. There is no industry-wide consensus standard for testing ballistics of most cartridges, and differing barrel lengths and barrel profiles can yield very different results.
carguychris said:
...the resultant cartridge would be nearly identical in capabilities to .380 ACP, and there isn't much market demand for a cartridge to fill this tiny niche.
kannonk said:
I don't want to sound argumentative but I have the impression the .32 ACP cartridge modified to eliminate rim lock with bullet diameter rounded out to 8mm would be more similar to a .32 ACP, not a .380 ACP.
You're failing to account for the underlying premise that most folks view .32 ACP as sub-marginal as a defensive cartridge, and therefore wouldn't be interested in a modified version of it.
Rim lock is not a major problem in a pistol that has good mag springs and has been loaded properly. You'll hear rim lock stories about some older pistols, but keep in mind that many of those shooters are using >50-year-old mag springs, which oftentimes can't be replaced because nobody makes them, due to lack of market demand.
carguychris said:
A couple of such cartridges already exist: the 7.65 Parabellum aka .30 Luger—the parent cartridge of 9mm Luger—and the 7.62x25 Tokarev.
kannonk said:
Thank you for that feedback but these cartridges look altered like the bottom bulges out then tapers down to the bullet area. The .327 Federal Magnum is a straight cartridge.
Who cares if 7.65 Para and 7.62x25 look altered?
BTW this shape is known as a "bottleneck." It's common in rifle cartridges, but not so much in pistol cartridges, since pistols generally don't have the barrel length to allow large powder loads to really work their magic.
The important factors are that these cartridges are designed to work in an auto pistol and are easily adapted to existing designs. (7.65 Para conversions of 9mm pistols are reportedly commonplace in countries where "military" calibers are outlawed, e.g. Mexico, and Italy until recently as I understand it.)
Making .327 work in an autoloader would be quite difficult and would probably require a dedicated platform, and it simply won't be physically possible to get as much magazine capacity in an equal-size pistol.
kannonk said:
I might be concerned about would be the metal warping inside after several thousand rounds as someone here said.
carguychris said:
What you talking 'bout, Willis?
kannonk said:
The Firing Line
https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...7&postcount=18 quote from that post: "...There are some Beretta Series 81 specific tips in the following linked thread. Take note of what I wrote about the frame-battering problem at high round counts. (There's a link to another thread in that post.)
Battering and warping are two very different things. Considering that
I wrote the excerpt you copied, and that you didn't link to the source thread, perhaps this is a clue that your assertion was hard to understand.
BTW the key thing to understand about the problem is that
it occurs at very high round counts, as in many thousands of rounds fired. MANY pistols develop problems under these conditions, and the Series 81 problem IMHO isn't that serious in comparison, as it's easily repairable; other alloy-frame types tend to crack frames, which usually results in the pistol being junked.
I consider the Series 81 pistol to be excellent designs overall.
)