32acp or 380acp?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Having owned pistols in 9mm Makarov, and having owned Tokarev pistols....
If somebody were breaking in, and the Tok and the Mak were laying on the table, I’m grabbing the Tok.
 
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. :)

It was not inferior to TT. It just wasn't necessarily a better choice.

In the Soviet weapon procurement process, the two topmost and sometimes competing priorities were (a) the needs of the army and (b) standardization, low cost, ease of production, and ease of maintenance. The needs / wants of police were almost an afterthought. The Army got what it wanted, the state security services procured whatever weapons they wanted on an open market (e.g. they've bought large quantities of Lugers from Germany in the 1930s), and the police ("Militia") were given what was left over.

And the Army had always viewed handguns as officer's status symbol toys, not a real battlefield weapon. One of the main advantages of TT was that its round was interchangeable with submachine guns (which played a huge role in the Soviet battlefield tactics during WW2). However that round was a deep penetration round, that punched clear holes in targets, with a small wound channel and expending relatively little energy inside the body. An excellent round for a PPSh that had high rate of fire, not so great in a handgun. Also, TT was rather large and heavy.

During the war, the Soviets had really come to appreciate the power of 9x19mm Luger, the trophy German guns were very popular among the troops. After the war, the military decided to switch from submachine guns to assault rifles based on an upgraded German Kurtz round (what had become 7.62 x 39mm Kalashnikov). That meant that TT would no longer use an interchangeable standard round, and gave them an excuse to switch to a different pistol.

Initially they looked at using the Luger round. But two of the key requirements for the new gun were portability (neither the army officers nor the police wanted to carry a TT sized chunk of steel), low cost of production, and design for maximum reliability. And this meant a blowback pistol. The Soviets simply did not want to spend the money required to manufacture a more complex pistol, plus they didn't want to go through the effort required to work out quality control on a new design principle they've never produced before, all for a gun type that was a relatively low priority (as compared to AK). So blowback it was.

And you really don't want to use the 9x19 Luger in a blowback. It would be a very unpleasant shooting experience, with hard to do follow up shots. The 9x18mm Makarov round is about the most powerful that you can use in that kind of design.

So the Mak was kind of a compromise. It provided a somewhat better stopping power than TT, but not nearly as good as the Luger. And in the hands of very good shooters, TT was more deadly since it could easily penetrate many types of cover (e.g. cheap quality ballistic vests) that stopped Mak - but you needed a good shot placement to hit vital organs.

The Russians are very well aware of the shortcomings of Mak round, and had about a couple decades ago decided to switch to 9x19 Luger, but it's a long and drawn out process, mainly due to budget constraints and the huge quantities of perfectly functioning Makarovs still around.

Now, with all that, Mak is a very good round for SD, in my opinion. But then I also don't feel undergunned with .380ACP, and Mac is about halfway between it and Luger. But .380 is about the smaIlest I would go with.

My only issue with Mak is that none of the guns using this round are truly pocketable. Not as pocketable as my LCP. And if I have to carry a gun IWB or OWB, might as well go with a more powerful 9mm NATO.

That said, I would love to get me a Makarov one day.
 
Last edited:
Having owned pistols in 9mm Makarov, and having owned Tokarev pistols....
If somebody were breaking in, and the Tok and the Mak were laying on the table, I’m grabbing the Tok.

If you're a good shot and can reliably hit where it matters.

Otherwise, it punches a neat clean small hole all the way through.
 
The TT "big and heavy"? It weighs a big 4 ounces more than the Makarov. The Tok is very thin and the grip is short, making it one of the easiest full sized pistols to carry.
 
The TT "big and heavy"? It weighs a big 4 ounces more than the Makarov. The Tok is very thin and the grip is short, making it one of the easiest full sized pistols to carry.

The common complaint from Soviet army officers was that the TT was too big and heavy to carry around the entire day without really ever having a practical need to use it. Remember it came in a large OWB fully enclosed leather holster. And the Police also didn't like it's size and the propensity to punch small clear holes.

Makarovs are not that light, either. The earlier Walther P-38 was lighter than TT, just a tad heavier than Makarov, and used a more powerful round with better stopping ability.
 
The .32 has better capabilities than .22 or .25 does. I'd carry a P32 without hesitation because if I ever had to use it, I'm aiming for the head and it doesn't take 12 inches of penetration to dissuade somebody to knock it off when a bullet goes through their nose.
 
It was not inferior to TT. It just wasn't necessarily a better choice.

In the Soviet weapon procurement process, the two topmost and sometimes competing priorities were (a) the needs of the army and (b) standardization, low cost, ease of production, and ease of maintenance. The needs / wants of police were almost an afterthought. The Army got what it wanted, the state security services procured whatever weapons they wanted on an open market (e.g. they've bought large quantities of Lugers from Germany in the 1930s), and the police ("Militia") were given what was left over.

And the Army had always viewed handguns as officer's status symbol toys, not a real battlefield weapon. One of the main advantages of TT was that its round was interchangeable with submachine guns (which played a huge role in the Soviet battlefield tactics during WW2). However that round was a deep penetration round, that punched clear holes in targets, with a small wound channel and expending relatively little energy inside the body. An excellent round for a PPSh that had high rate of fire, not so great in a handgun. Also, TT was rather large and heavy.

During the war, the Soviets had really come to appreciate the power of 9x19mm Luger, the trophy German guns were very popular among the troops. After the war, the military decided to switch from submachine guns to assault rifles based on an upgraded German Kurtz round (what had become 7.62 x 39mm Kalashnikov). That meant that TT would no longer use an interchangeable standard round, and gave them an excuse to switch to a different pistol.

Initially they looked at using the Luger round. But two of the key requirements for the new gun were portability (neither the army officers nor the police wanted to carry a TT sized chunk of steel), low cost of production, and design for maximum reliability. And this meant a blowback pistol. The Soviets simply did not want to spend the money required to manufacture a more complex pistol, plus they didn't want to go through the effort required to work out quality control on a new design principle they've never produced before, all for a gun type that was a relatively low priority (as compared to AK). So blowback it was.

And you really don't want to use the 9x19 Luger in a blowback. It would be a very unpleasant shooting experience, with hard to do follow up shots. The 9x18mm Makarov round is about the most powerful that you can use in that kind of design.

So the Mak was kind of a compromise. It provided a somewhat better stopping power than TT, but not nearly as good as the Luger. And in the hands of very good shooters, TT was more deadly since it could easily penetrate many types of cover (e.g. cheap quality ballistic vests) that stopped Mak - but you needed a good shot placement to hit vital organs.

The Russians are very well aware of the shortcomings of Mak round, and had about a couple decades ago decided to switch to 9x19 Luger, but it's a long and drawn out process, mainly due to budget constraints and the huge quantities of perfectly functioning Makarovs still around.

Now, with all that, Mak is a very good round for SD, in my opinion. But then I also don't feel undergunned with .380ACP, and Mac is about halfway between it and Luger. But .380 is about the smaIlest I would go with.

My only issue with Mak is that none of the guns using this round are truly pocketable. Not as pocketable as my LCP. And if I have to carry a gun IWB or OWB, might as well go with a more powerful 9mm NATO.

That said, I would love to get me a Makarov one day.

I wouldn't wait! There are Bulgarian military surplus in like new condition Maks on the market as we speak, going for $300 with duty holster and all accessories. I've bought FOUR (yes, 4) of them in the past year and they're phenomenal!
 
  • Like
Reactions: RPZ
If you're a good shot and can reliably hit where it matters.

Otherwise, it punches a neat clean small hole all the way through.
It will also shatter bone. The spine although not an overly large target, does run the whole way top to bottom. One of those "little" ball peen hammers hits the spine incapacitation, if not complete, is going to be instantaneous. Likewise a good face/skull cracker, and at the bottom end the pelvis.
 
Sometimes the caliber you carry is the result of what you can conceal given the conditions or what you are willing to carry.

I've related this story before and don't remember if I have on this forum so I will repeat it. Many years ago two buddies and I were headed to a major IPSC match when Bob the driver, who rep'ed medical supplies lamented his Suburban had been broken in to down in Louisiana a while back and his Commander was stolen. He went on to say he didn't know what to do since he felt better with a pistol around but being in and out of doctor's offices in varying types of clothing. My other buddy Jack reached into his pocket and produced a Seecamp .25 and I produced a NAA .22LR revolver. The look on Bob's face was priceless. Bob was a FFL at the time and said he might just have to have a Seecamp. I asked if he would order me one too and that's how I have a .32acp Seecamp.

I have a .22LR NAA revolver, a .32 Seecamp, a .380 LCP, a .380 PPK, and a 9mm P290RS for micro pistols. Each one, when properly applied, is better than a sharp stick and all, IMO, serve a purpose.
 
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.
Well, there ya' go. First time for everything...

...don't know if it's a trend, don't care to find out. Fixed the pistol and sold it.

edit: .Bringing this back to the .32 vs. .380 topic, I remember hearing that there was one particular .32 ACP round that was especially effevective (for its caliber) as an SD round. Think it was Winchester Silvertip???
 
  • Like
Reactions: RPZ
The .32 has better capabilities than .22 or .25 does. I'd carry a P32 without hesitation because if I ever had to use it, I'm aiming for the head and it doesn't take 12 inches of penetration to dissuade somebody to knock it off when a bullet goes through their nose.
That's essentially my take on the P32 when I carry mine (to the mailbox and back, etc). If the pill misses the braincase on the first attempt, you still have 7 more attempts.
 
That's essentially my take on the P32 when I carry mine (to the mailbox and back, etc). If the pill misses the braincase on the first attempt, you still have 7 more attempts.
And if a torso shot is all that you can get, it will perform better than .22 or .25 will in that regard. Yeah, it just punches a hole, but at least it's a slightly bigger and deeper hole.
 
LoL Walkalong! I was following that pistol, too. It looked like a nice one. Fortunately or unfortunately, I already have so many 32acp pistols that I let it go. I'm glad that you got it! Please let us know how it shoots. :)
 
I appreciate it. I put in a bid and left it alone until this AM when I checked it to see what happened. :)

Congrats Walkalong. I Personally think that is a odd caliber for a gun that size. Bet it is one very mild shooter. The gun has a cool look. I have heard nothing but good thinks from the Present models. Do not know much about your new gun. Let us know how well it shoots. Looks like it is about the size of a Ruger LC9. Here are the specs.

http://www.genitron.com/Handgun/Taurus/Pistol/Millennium-Pro-PT-132/32-Auto/Variant-1
 
Last edited:
Wanderling's post is interesting, and makes some good points, but some of it just seems wrong to me:

1) "they've bought large quantities of Lugers from Germany in the 1930s". I have never heard of Russia buying Lugers, other than for test or purchases by individuals. In fact, I haven't heard of them importing pistols in significant quantities since World War 1.

2) Wanderling seems to think the use of 7.62mm Mauser ammunition in Soviet submachine guns drove its use as a pistol cartridge. It was actually the other way around. They initially adopted the Tokarev and its round in 1930, whereas they did not get any submachine guns into service until at 4 or 5 years later. The Tokarev cartridge was not a good choice for a submachine gun because it was bottlenecked. Submachine guns are all blowback, and bottlenecked cartridges and blowback mechanisms are not a good match.

3) When the war ended, as Wanderling says, the Soviets wanted to get away from submachine guns and adopt an assault rifle. But the Makarov was not the planned replacement for the Tokarev. A large, complex, and expensive pistol called the Stechkin was. This pistol was bulky, but had a high capacity magazine and a detachable shoulder stock. With the shoulder stock attached, the gun could fire full auto. This is a big part of the reason why the Soviets wanted a pistol cartridge less powerful than the Tokarev or the Luger; in order to make this proto-"personal defence weapon" work while remaining a practical size for a sidearm.

The Makarov was intended to be for officers, air crewmen, maybe tank crewmen, and others who needed a really compact weapon. I am not sure that it was simpler than a Tokarev. The Tokarev was a locked breeched weapon, true, but it was designed to be brutally simple and easy to make. That is why it had NO really safety mechanisms. The Makarov, on the other hand, had a double action trigger mechanism, a decocking safety, and Walther PP style takedown.

It was only because the Stechkin turned out to be what the British call "a quart in a pint pot" - too awkward to carry conveniently, too complicated for convenient mass production, and apparently not reliable enough early on, that the Makarov became the standard service pistol. (I believe I have read that the Stechkin redeemed itself in the Soviet war in Afghanistan, where it proved popular with people who actually had to fight with a pistol.)

I am sorry if much of this seems like nitpicking, but on the other hand, I am interested in finding out if things I think I know are actually correct. Thanks!
 
Having owned pistols in 9mm Makarov, and having owned Tokarev pistols....
If somebody were breaking in, and the Tok and the Mak were laying on the table, I’m grabbing the Tok.

Is hollow point ammunition as readily available in 7.62mm Tokarev as it is for 9mm Makarov? A quick Google search seemed to turn up very little, but maybe I am doing it wrong. This article:

https://www.alloutdoor.com/2015/04/06/7-62x25-self-defense/

shows a picture of PPU 7.62mm Tokarev ammo with a JHP, but the design looks archaic to me. Has anyone tried it out, or any other kind of Tokarev HP?

(Actually, I should ask if JHP is still readily available for 9mm Mak. It was in the heyday of communist bloc Makarovs coming in, but is it still?)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top