32acp or 380acp?

Status
Not open for further replies.
A common principle that I believe is, “you should carry the most powerful round that you are accurate with.” So I’m not knocking the .32acp, or even smaller calibers if that’s what an individual chooses. I admit that I occasionally carry a NAA mini revolver with .22magnum when the dress code limits me.

With that said, since the OP shoots the P3AT accurately, chose the .380acp. I too own a couple of P3AT’s and one P32. Since I also shoot the .380 accurately enough, I’m find that I’m not ever carrying the .32; so I’m trying to sell it rather than have it languish in the safe. And when you sell it, that $ can go toward another range gun!!
 
I love the logic in these threads.

Everything is essentially just marginally better or worse than the next step up or down.

You can play that game across the entire spectrum of calibers.
You can, but most people tend to draw a line at the threshold of what they consider marginal.

Mine is at the .380 line. I wouldn't want to shoot a 200 lb deer with one only because you will get just one shot at which point an animal is going to bolt.

When dealing with two legged predators one does not have to think "humane" - 2, 3, 4 or more shots as needed. If they bolt at the first shot you have still accomplished your goal.
 
(snip)
Having said that, I would really like to get my hands on a Beretta tip-up barrel in .32, or even .22.

Had one of those, the little 950, or or whatever they're called... not only was it chambered in .22 short, the POS gun broke when slapping a magazine home.

IMO, just a toy, and not even is particularly satisfying one at that
 
Just my 2 cents here, something's better than nothing in a case like this. I carry a 9mm KT PF-9 daily-daily, but in the past I've tucked my P22 in my waistband when necessary, such as when I cracked my connector in the PF9. If for some reason I chose to get another compact, it would probably be in .380 just because it can share some projos with my nines.
 
Keep in mind the EuroCops™ used .32 ACP (7,65x17mm) for many years as a service round. It'll do the job if you can!
 
Had one of those, the little 950, or or whatever they're called... not only was it chambered in .22 short, the POS gun broke when slapping a magazine home.

IMO, just a toy, and not even is particularly satisfying one at that
First complaint I've ever read about a 950. And I have not read of any durability problems with Beretta's more recent tip-barrel pistols.
 
Last edited:
I have both a Kel-Tec P-32 and P3AT and for deep cover, I prefer to carry the P-32. The 32 ACP is easier to shoot and a hit with 32 ACP trumps a miss from anything else, even a 460 S&W Magnum. My P3AT shoots well but I shoot it all over the place.

But, when you get down to that small a pistol, I do not feel that it makes much difference between 380 ACP or 32 ACP.

I have some larger 32 ACP pistols (Colt 1903, Beretta M81, Walther PP, Savage 1907) which are great to shoot for fun, but I'd rather carry something with a more effective cartridge than a 32 ACP in the same size pistol.
 
I have had a few .32s but all of them where in more of a medium size frame format, like a Walther PP, Beretta Model 70, and a Beretta Model 90 (my favorite). Other than that I have pretty much gone with .380s with a SIG P238, a Colt Mustang, and a KelTec P3AT. All of them are reliable and the SIG and Colt are very comfortable to shoot and capable of some very decent accuracy.
 
Last edited:
I have the Taurus TCP .380 and the Keltec P32. I have about worn the P32 out carrying it for over 15 yrs. because the recoil is less than the Taurus and it is a fairly accurate piece. I carry FMJ's and figure shot placement is the key with a mouse gun.
 
im in the “weak caliber in hand beats strong caliber in drawer” camp. i’m familiar with both cartridges as i have a 32acp naa guardian, and 380s in a makarov and bersa. the mak especially is a sweet shooter, the bersa less so, but quite ok.

i have to ccw discreetly, even with my ccw permits, given most places that i frequent. what do i most often carry? a 22lr naa survival mini and a 25acp taurus pt poly, because they work, i’m accurate with them at personal defense ranges and they drop into a pocket. i would ccw the guardian more if i could get slightly beefier grips for it, to give it a profile akin to the taurus.

my brother had a 380 ruger lcp and we both agreed that it was too much bullet for that platform. a 32acp ruger lcp would be ideal. a ruger sr32 would be too big to serve as a pocket handgun, but would be nice too. with more recoil averse women and seniors getting ccw permits i would hope that there would be more common and value priced 32 revolvers and pistols coming to market to give them a softer shooting yet credible centerfire ccw.
 
I bought an M70 zastava. It's nice - 22-23 ounces, all steel construction. No recoil to speak of - like my .22lr's.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3206.JPG
    IMG_3206.JPG
    150.7 KB · Views: 19
A lot of people have died after being shot with a 22LR.

My theory is if you can shoot reasonably well at 10 feet with whatever gun you have that is better than shooting and missing with a 44 magnum.
 
I forgot that I could have made another apples to apples comparison. I have three nice FEG pistols (a defunct Hungarian company that made some pretty decent stuff). One is a nice High Power "clone" that I've had since the late 1980's. The other two are "Walther PP inspired" pistols, one in 32acp and one in 380acp. They are both good shooters and I got them for ridiculous prices, around $150 apiece IIRC. I haven't shot them for a while, since they are a bit large for CC, and kind of small for shooting at the range from 15 yards with my FiL (he always wants to shoot at that distance). The 32 and the 380 didn't really feel that different to me when I shot them one right after the other. It's much more noticeable in tiny polymer pistols.


 
Last edited:
Classic has them for 250. A bit pricy, but hey, you can't take it with you, and I'd rather spend it than have my kids spend it.
 
I know one thing. I have a LCR22 revolver. Have become pretty proficient with it. Bought it as a trainer for the LCR9mm. Very reliable. I know one thing, I would not want to get hit in the face with 8 fast rounds of any 22.cal. Or any of my 22.cal guns which all can be very accurate. Some will say a 22.cal is not a weapon. Yea, right.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RPZ
Keep in mind the EuroCops™ used .32 ACP (7,65x17mm) for many years as a service round. It'll do the job if you can!

It was not really considered a powerful enough round. It's biggest advantages were that it allowed for a smaller, easier to conceal weapon, and didn't overpenetrate and hit innocent bystanders.

The EuroCops™ rarely engaged in firefights anyway, and when they did, they came in numbers.

Besides, while most European police forces fielded one or another flavor of 7.62mm (.32") round, many were much more powerful than .32 ACP.

Many preferred 7.63 x 25 Mauser that packed a far bigger punch. The Soviets started with a 7.62 x 38mm Nagant, which was also much more powerful, then switched to their version of Mauser cartridge. The Swedes and the Norwegians used a proprietary 7.5mm cartridge, similar to Nagant, and AFAIK so did the Swiss. The Poles used Nagant as well, AFAIK. The French were all over the map, including .32ACP but also many revolvers. The British police were largely unarmed but those who did carry guns mainly had revolvers. The .32 ACP was primarily popular with a few Central European countries... again, AFAIK.

One of the main reasons the Soviets switched from 7.62x25 TT (Mauser) round - which was much more powerful than .32 ACP - was that it lacked stopping power. It was able to punch clear through a BG, though. They still came a bit short by adapting the 9x18mm Makarov, which is about halfway between .380ACP and 9x19mm Luger. Their police are now in the very extended process of switching to Luger round.
 
Last edited:
It was not really considered a powerful enough round. It's biggest advantages were that it allowed for a smaller, easier to conceal weapon, and didn't overpenetrate and hit innocent bystanders.

The EuroCops™ rarely engaged in firefights anyway, and when they did, they came in numbers.

Besides, while most European police forces fielded one or another flavor of 7.62mm (.32") round, many were much more powerful than .32 ACP.

Many preferred 7.63 x 25 Mauser that packed a far bigger punch. The Soviets started with a 7.62 x 38mm Nagant, which was also much more powerful, then switched to their version of Mauser cartridge. The Swedes and the Norwegians used a proprietary 7.5mm cartridge, similar to Nagant, and AFAIK so did the Swiss. The Poles used Nagant as well, AFAIK. The French were all over the map, including .32ACP but also many revolvers. The British police were largely unarmed but those who did carry guns mainly had revolvers. The .32 ACP was primarily popular with a few Central European countries... again, AFAIK.

One of the main reasons the Soviets switched from 7.62x25 TT (Mauser) round - which was much more powerful than .32 ACP - was that it lacked stopping power. It was able to punch clear through a BG, though. They still came a bit short by adapting the 9x18mm Makarov, which is about halfway between .380ACP and 9x19mm Luger. Their police are now in the very extended process of switching to Luger round.

I agree, but they weren't so short on going from 7.62x25mm to 9x18mm. They new what they were doing, and in their tests, they found no difference in stopping power over the 7.62x25mm (smaller caliber but faster) and the 9x18mm (larger caliber but slower). Do you seriously believe they would have switched if it was so inferior?? Sorry, I'm a Mak fan and thought I'd speak up. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top