Would you like a Browning 1911 .32 ACP?

^^^ Lessee if I've got this straight... your initial assertion is that there's very little difference between .32 and .380, although .32 is smaller in diameter and less powerful, albeit not by much.

Then you assert that .32 is decidedly superior, based on tests of ONE type of novelty ammunition?!

Ever heard of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy? (It has less to do with actual shooting than you may initially think. ;))
kannonk said:
And since the .32 ACP can be used in competition pistols that means as they said in My Cousin Vinny it can be "dead-on-balls accurate".
Click to expand...
Scroll back to my very first post in this thread. I believe you are confusing .32 ACP with .32 S&W Long. :rolleyes: The two rounds are totally incompatible in an autoloader.

More importantly, IMHO competition-grade accuracy is superfluous in a defensive pistol. That, and any observed accuracy difference between similar pistols in .32 and .380 (such as a Beretta 81 and 84) is more likely due to differing production tolerances than any inherent quality of either cartridge.

Just as an aside, the main reason for the superior accuracy of .32 S&W Long is the ability to use soft lead semi-wadcutter or hollow-base wadcutter bullets, which cannot be used in a standard .32 ACP pistol.
mavracer said:
...willfully sticking to your uninformed opinions raises serious questions and has us wondering if our time wouldn't be equally well spent informing the doorknob
Click to expand...
I've been more tolerant than most here, but I'm just about ready to check out as well. :rolleyes:
 
Ever heard of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy? (It has less to do with actual shooting than you may initially think. )
Click to expand...

I had not until now, it would seem to be the cornerstone of any good caliber debate in which someone declares a clear winner.
 
If .32 ACP is superior to .380 due to its lack of penetration I'm assuming you believe it is also superior to every other caliber?

I feel like I'm in a high school debate class where one side knows he has a losing argument but can't let it go.

Sure I'd like a 1911 in 32 ACP, but there's no way i'd pay what it'd cost to make it and i'd probably be more likely to buy it than 95% of people on this forum. I'd like a 1911 in every caliber possible, but that doesn't mean you'll have any luck getting them manufactured for a reasonable price.
 
Last edited:
Just like my scientific point of view is "dead-on-balls accurate". "Ideal" penetration with a .32 ACP Xtreme Cavitator without excessive over-penetration with a .32 ACP FJM round nose. It's that simple.
Click to expand...
So, is that what you carry?
 
So, is that what you carry?
Click to expand...

Well, in case anyone's forgotten, or it got lost in the clutter, Kannonk already mentioned this:

I'll confess I only shot air guns years ago and only shot a .22 revolver once.
Click to expand...

I said I'm Canadian. This means I have to take two courses just to handle a handgun and I said in a previous message that my situation is complicated.
Click to expand...
 
Well, in case anyone's forgotten, or it got lost in the clutter, Kannonk already mentioned this:
Click to expand...
Be assured it has not been forgotten, or lost.
I just think we're all amazed at the expertise of someone that argues like a ten year old, and has never fired a real gun!:eek::rolleyes:
 
"A 380 barrel could be sleeved I imagine, but I am also sure there would be feed ramp, magazine, and recoil spring issues to deal with."
Click to expand...
Do you know if there would be any issues if manufacturers decided to change the .32 ACP to a rimless casing?

"Do you find 9mm recoil to be particularly excessive?"
Click to expand...
Well, I only fired a .22 revolver once. :) So I don't know. However, my original post was probably largely influenced by the fact I read a number of messages saying the .32 ACP was pleasant to shoot. And also partly because it has more flexibility than the .22 (like ammo with energy levels going up to 177 ft/lbs and being able to use Xtreme Cavitator ammo from Underwood).

"Because it's very obvious from this thread and others that you don't know what you don't know and stuff like felt recoil is very subjective."
Click to expand...
Well since my opinions are based on other people's comments or Youtube videos (from people who actually shot guns), what exactly is annoying or dumb about my comments?

OK, I was answering comments up to post #89, more later I guess. :)
 
I just think we're all amazed at the expertise of someone that argues like a ten year old, and has never fired a real gun!
Click to expand...

I personally am dazzled beyond words. And since I have no more words, I will offer no more words.
 
kannonk said:
Do you know if there would be any issues if manufacturers decided to change the .32 ACP to a rimless casing?
Click to expand...
The breech face would be smaller than the breech face for .380 ACP. Consequently, a ".32 Rimless" pistol probably could not use the same slide and extractor as the .380 model, as is done with most modern .32 ACP pistols.

Also, for pistols that share magazines between .32 ACP and .380, the ".32 Rimless" will most likely need its own magazine because the feed lips would need to be closer together.

The cost of the tooling for the dedicated parts is likely to dissuade manufacturers from even considering such a project.
 
"Making .327 work in an autoloader would be quite difficult..."
Click to expand...
You mean even by changing the casing?

" Then increase the bullet diameter by a couple thousandths of an inch. For absolutely no reason at all."
Click to expand...
Well, actually if the .32 ACP was modified and called 8mm, it would be partly a marketing thing because the 9mm is so popular. Right now, I can only think of Charter Arms that makes a .32 magnum revolver. And .32 revolver ammo is now pretty difficult to find (from what I saw). So what closes the gap between the .22 and .38 Special? I mean the same may happen to the .32 ACP if people don't care about it.
 
Well, actually if the .32 ACP was modified and called 8mm, it would be partly a marketing thing because the 9mm is so popular.
Click to expand...
LOL, Proves you know even less about marketing than you do guns. That's saying a lot!
Nobody is going to completely remake a cartridge to advertise it as less, smaller, lower powered.
So what closes the gap between the .22 and .38 Special?
Click to expand...
327 Federal Magnum. But again "only" being a 32 it hasn't caught on very well. But with Ruger now chambering the LCR IN 327 Federal it could gain new life.
There are also some 380 acp revolvers targeted to those handicapped with recoil sensitivity syndrome.
 
kannonk said:
Well, I only fired a .22 revolver once. So I don't know. However, my original post was probably largely influenced by the fact I read a number of messages saying the .32 ACP was pleasant to shoot. And also partly because it has more flexibility than the .22 (like ammo with energy levels going up to 177 ft/lbs and being able to use Xtreme Cavitator ammo from Underwood).
Click to expand...
The first part of your statement is reductio ad absurdum -- 9mm is more pleasant to shoot than .45 ACP, 380 ACP is more pleasant to shoot than 9mm, 32 ACP is more pleasant to shoot than .380 ACP, .25 ACP is more pleasant to shoot than .32 ACP, .22LR is more pleasant to shoot than .25 ACP, and .22 Short is more pleasant to shoot than .22 LR. Stop wherever along the spectrum you feel comfortable.

As for flexibility -- you think the .32 ACP is more flexible than the .22? Seriously? Just in .22 LR you can buy everything from CB caps (basically just primer, no powder), to colibris (not much more powerful than CB caps), to "quiet", to subsonic and "sniper" rounds, to standard velocity, and then on to high velocity and hyper-velocity. Many of these are available in both solid point and hollow point. How much more flexibility do you want?


kannonk said:
Well, actually if the .32 ACP was modified and called 8mm, it would be partly a marketing thing because the 9mm is so popular. Right now, I can only think of Charter Arms that makes a .32 magnum revolver. And .32 revolver ammo is now pretty difficult to find (from what I saw). So what closes the gap between the .22 and .38 Special? I mean the same may happen to the .32 ACP if people don't care about it.
Click to expand...
What's between .22 and .38 Special? Ignoring .25 ACP, there are several .32 caliber rounds that fall into that gap: .32-20 WCF, .32 H&R Magnum, .32 Long COlt, .32 S&W, .32 S&W Long, and .327 Magnum. Flexibility? Revolvers chambered for .327 Magnum can also fire 32 S&W, .32 S&W Long, and .32 H&R Magnum. How's that for flexibility?
 
Last edited:
"But you made the statement that a 32 would be better to accidentally shoot yourself with than a 380?"
Click to expand...
I'm going on ballistics gel tests that show a much smoother cavity channel for the .32 ACP (especially the FMJ). By the way, for all the times some of you wanted to laugh my comment about accidental shootings, I read recently about a member of the NRA recently shot shot himself during a demonstration. I also read in the revolver forum that revolvers are not only easier to train on but also that there are fewer misfires with a revolver. (That of course implies there are misfires from guns.)

"He made the point many years ago that the 32 and 380 were two peas in a pod. What one would do the other would do."
Click to expand...
Is this the case, why are there so many who want to rag on the .32 ACP?

"Sounds like you need some experience before you make assumptions about what people want."
Click to expand...
Actually, I'm not the one who posted messages that after trying to introduce guns to their female partners, they didn't even want to shoot either a .38 Special or .380 ACP. So I'm assuming the only rational choices are either a medium-sized .32 ACP pistol or .327 federal magnum revolver and load .32 H&R magnum ammo in it. (Actually, I tried researching this for revolvers and the solution isn't easy. The other ammo you can put in a .327 revolver don't have enough velocity and the .32 H&R magnum has about the same energy levels as a .38 Special. This means someone could make a .32 ACP revolver to fill in that 126 to 177 ft/lbs of energy gap between the .22 and .38 Special.) :)
 
kannonk said:
Actually, I'm not the one who posted messages that after trying to introduce guns to their female partners, they didn't even want to shoot either a .38 Special or .380 ACP. So I'm assuming the only rational choices are either a medium-sized .32 ACP pistol or .327 federal magnum revolver and load .32 H&R magnum ammo in it.
Click to expand...
But you started this love fest asking specifically about a 1911 in .32 ACP. You can't have read any articles or Interewbz posts about people whose wives or girlfriends don't like 1911s in .380 ACP, because they don't exists (except in Brazil, where Imbel makes a .380 version -- but that's not imported to the United States). I've downloaded 9mm cases using 95-grain .380 ACP bullets and getting .380 ACP power levels. Shot through a 9mm 1911, I had to cut the recoil spring down to (IIRC) about 8 pounds before the gun would cycle, and there was NO recoil. Articles you've been reading most likely apply to shooting .380 ACP out of small, lightweight polymer pocket pistols such as Kel-Tec.

That's just not a valid comparison.
 
Anybody that concerned about filling the gap between .22 and 38 caliber (.380 or 38 special) can reload light 38 special or light .380 ACP rounds. For the price of a new gun you can go get a decent reloading setup and supplies. When looking between the lighest 38 special loads up to the hottest 38 Special +P loads, 38 special can do just about everything your beginner to average handgunner needs to do. Even light 9mm loads in a full size frame feel like something that's barely a step above .22lr.
 
ratshooter said:
Aquila Blanca Llama did make a scaled down 1911 in 380. A buddy bought one many years ago at the gunshow. It was all steel. It was a neat little gun but not only would I not buy one in 380 I wouldn't buy on in 32acp either. And so fas as I know they never made a 32. I doubt anyone wanted one.
Click to expand...
But the OP asked about a 1911 in .32 ACP. A scaled down Llama isn't considered to be a 1911 by anyone I know. In fact, Armscor has revived that design (or something very similar) as the "Baby Rock." We don't consider those to be 1911s, either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top