32acp or 380acp?

.380, there is much less difference between the .380 and 9mm than the ..380 and .32.

Paul7 said:

.380, there is much less difference between the .380 and 9mm than the ..380 and .32.

Click to expand...

I always thought it was closer from 32 to 380 than from 380 to 9mm.

Looking at Gold Dots as the closest apples to apples comparison I could quickly find:

32ACP in 60 grain is 960FPS and 123lbs of energy.

380 in 90 grain is 990FPS and 196lbs

9mm in 115 grain is 1200FPS and 335lbs

BuffaloBore

.32 ACP +P Ammo - 75 gr. Hardcast F.N. (1150fps/ M.E. 220 ft. lbs.)

380 Auto +P Ammo - 100 gr. Hardcast F.N. (1150fps/ M.E. 294 ft. lbs.)

9MM +P OUTDOORSMAN 147 gr. Hard Cast FN (1,100 fps/M.E. 395 ft. lbs.)

Wisco said:

BuffaloBore

.32 ACP +P Ammo - 75 gr. Hardcast F.N. (1150fps/ M.E. 220 ft. lbs.)

380 Auto +P Ammo - 100 gr. Hardcast F.N. (1150fps/ M.E. 294 ft. lbs.)

9MM +P OUTDOORSMAN 147 gr. Hard Cast FN (1,100 fps/M.E. 734 ft. lbs.)

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree with this.

I have micropistols (KelTec and Ruger) both .32 and a .380. My main reason for preferring the .380 is the potential of .32 rimlock when using hollowpoints or a hardcast flatpoint, even though it has only happened once in hundreds of rounds. I end up using S&B FMJ only in the .32, whereas the .380 can use a wider variety of ammo. But the additional round in the .32, plus the reduced recoil, does have its advantages.

BTW - there is no 9mm that is anywhere near as compact as the little .380/.32 pistols, and if there were I wouldn't want to touch it off - just look at the difference in those numbers! My hands ache just thinking about it.

Must be a typo there. 147 grain 9mm at 1100fps. I calculate it to 395 foot pounds. Buffalo bore starts the chart at 1500 fps. I am assuming a rifle barrel heading downhill for the chronograph. That being said. I wouldn't mind picking up some of the outdoors man 9mm and trying them out.

dodo bird said:

Must be a typo there. 147 grain 9mm at 1100fps. I calculate it to 395 foot pounds. Buffalo bore starts the chart at 1500 fps. I am assuming a rifle barrel heading downhill for the chronograph. That being said. I wouldn't mind picking up some of the outdoors man 9mm and trying them out.

Click to expand...

Definitely typo - I just saw Buffalo Bore listed the ammo out of pistols at 1100 FPS, but their first chart lists it at 1500FPS...following charts show less FPS levels...I just didn’t go far enough down.

Walkalong said:

Show some numbers?

Click to expand...

Stated here, https://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/article/when-does-a-380-beat-a-9mm/ I misquoted, it says there is less difference between .40 S&W than .32. In the real world, there isn't much difference in SD incidents between .380 and 9mm.

someguy2800 said:

Yeah the 32 unfortunately is pretty much dead except as a novelty or as an add on chambering for a gun designed to be a 380. Its unlikely I think we will ever see any more guns designed to be a 32. I think the decline of 380's will continue even faster if ammo companies ever start making reduced recoil 9mm ammo. Alot of people choose larger 380 sized guns like the bersa thunder because the micro 9mm's can be a bit of a handful to shoot, but downloaded 9mm ammo solves that problem. Of course the 380 will always have a home in LCP sized guns. A 9mm has no place in a 9 ounce gun!

Click to expand...

If you think 380 is going anywhere, I would not bet on it. If anything the 380 cartridge is developing more every day. And as far as mild Micro 9mm's? The Nano is a extremely mild shooter and very little muzzle Flip. A gun that is very easy to shoot Plus P ammo.
Yes, there will be more Micro 9mm's to come out. But unless your are ultra recoil sensitive there are some that do shoot like a Pussycat.

Wisco said:

I always thought it was closer from 32 to 380 than from 380 to 9mm.

Looking at Gold Dots as the closest apples to apples comparison I could quickly find:

32ACP in 60 grain is 960FPS and 123lbs of energy.

380 in 90 grain is 990FPS and 196lbs

9mm in 115 grain is 1200FPS and 335lbs

Click to expand...

.380 is carrying 59% more energy than the .32; the 9x19 quoted above has almost 71% more KE than the 9x17.

So, I guess that's a slightly bigger step, both in terms of pound feet, and percentage gain.

Until I actually divided the numbers out, I would have guessed they were closer.

chicharrones said:

The only logical reasons I can think of to carry a pocket .32 ACP over a pocket .380 is recoil and shootability, depending on the gun owner's ability.

Click to expand...

chicharrones, you must be talking about me; describes me to a T. Exactly why I carried the P-32 rather than the P3AT. I can handle the Glock 42 with ease, but not the P3AT. For me it's all about shootability. The little 380s are not for me.