Quantcast

7.65 Browning vs. 32 ACP

Discussion in 'Handloading and Reloading' started by film495, Jan 18, 2020.

  1. film495

    film495 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2019
    Messages:
    480
    CIP 7.65 Browning
    https://bobp.cip-bobp.org/uploads/tdcc/tab-iv/tabivcal-en-page12.pdf

    SAMMI 32 ACP
    https://saami.org/wp-content/upload...FP-and-R-Approved-2015-12-14-Posting-Copy.pdf

    I have an old CZ-70 marked for 7.65 Browning. I finally found a reference shown above for 7.65 Browning, not 32 ACP. They actually show a .309 bullet diameter, not the .3125 shown in the SAMMI specs.

    I actually ordered some Berry's that are .312 and 71 grain to try reloading for this, and not sure they are the correct spec, since everyone on the net seems to say 32 Auto and 7.65 Browning are the same, these references seem to show different. I haven't looked through all the other dimensions to look for variations, but I anticipate there are other variances. The bullet diameter seems to be a big one.

    I'll have to pull out some factory ammo and do some measurements. .0025 over in bullet diameter seems like a lot. I'm pretty new to reloading, but if the spec is .001 over to bore for standard bullet sizing, the excess diameter to bore spec, then would be 250% additional diameter than the .001, and that seems like a lot when I look at it that way.

    CIP chamber mouth H2 1) = 8.55/.336
    SAMMI Chamber mouth 8.61/.338

    Yea, the chamber dimensions also show a .002 difference. So, what impact would using a bullet that is .0025 larger than the correct spec cause?

    Is there a source for .309 bullets for this at 71 or 73 grains? I haven't been able to find any.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2020
  2. AZAndy
    • Contributing Member

    AZAndy Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,809
    Location:
    Prescott, AZ, USA
    I thought I knew .32, but I guess not, because this is news to me. I have some GECO European cartridges and will do some measuring. I always thought 7.65mm and .32ACP were synonymous.
     
  3. Rudolph31

    Rudolph31 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2014
    Messages:
    295
    Location:
    Missouri
    John Browning designed the cartridge, and it was the same in Europe and the United States. But that was long before SAAMI and CIP, and in 120+ years they may have developed differently. For what it’s worth, I use European and American ammunition in my Walther PP’s and have never seen any signs of over pressure.
     
    Heir Kommt Die Sonne and GRIZ22 like this.
  4. GarrettJ

    GarrettJ Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Messages:
    501
    Location:
    Michigan
    Before going very far with this, I would slug my barrel and see what it measures.
     
    Hondo 60, Demi-human, AJC1 and 5 others like this.
  5. fxvr5

    fxvr5 Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2017
    Messages:
    945
    From Lyman's 50th Edition loading manual for 32 Auto (also known as the 7.65 Browning), page 385:

    "The loads listed may be used with 0.312" jacketed bullets in pistols which have a groove diameter as small as 0.309 inches. Groove diameter variations are extensive in handguns chambered for this cartridge. Chamber limits make it unsafe to attempt to use larger diameter bullets, regardless of groove diameter measurement."

    Note the last sentence says 'chamber limits', and this refers to how the loaded rounds fit in the chamber. If they fit too tight in the chamber with large diameter bullets, they should not be used in the gun no matter what the barrel groove diameter is.

    But, if the round with oversize bullets (0.312") fit okay in the chamber, you can use the 0.312" bullets even if your groove diameter measures as small as 0.309".

    For another example, Vihtavuori used 0.312" bullets for loading their 7.62X25 Tokarev ammo in a barrel that measured 0.309".
     
  6. film495

    film495 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2019
    Messages:
    480
    Thanks for posting that from the Lyman manual. I have 5 reloading manuals and a team of reference materials and only 1 has anything for 32 ACP, and no mention of 7.65 Browning. I ordered a small manual specific to 25 and 32 ACP, to see what they collected there for info. I still haven't been able to find anyone who makes a basic drop in case gauge for this cartridge; guess using the firearm's chamber should work.
     
  7. fxvr5

    fxvr5 Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2017
    Messages:
    945

    Yes, and the gun's barrel is the best tool for that purpose.
     
    Hondo 60, Demi-human and mdi like this.
  8. MZ5

    MZ5 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    42
    Location:
    Arizona, USA
    If you look at both SAAMI's and CIP's tolerances, you'll see that the dimensions overlap at least some. SAAMI in particular has a very wide tolerance for bullet diameter. They say .3125 -.006. While it is not completely unreasonable to say that 32 Auto and 7.65mm Browning aren't _quite_ the same thing, I think it _is_ reasonable to recognize that they're close enough that ammunition labeled either way can be fired in a gun marked either way, so long as the ammo fits the chamber (as was previously written here).
     
    Rule3 likes this.
  9. fxvr5

    fxvr5 Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2017
    Messages:
    945
    Demi-human and Rule3 like this.
  10. film495

    film495 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2019
    Messages:
    480
    in additional to the different spec for bullet diameter and chamber, also it appears pressure and the cartridge rim are notable variances.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.32_ACP
    "In Europe, where the round is commonly known as the 7.65 mm Browning, and features different rimsizing from the American .32 ACPs"

    the maximum average pressure - as measured by a transducer on the test barrel - is 20,500 psi (1,410 bar) according to SAAMI, while CIP allows up to 1,600 bar (23,000 psi)

    I guess this goes back to basics. If your firearm says 32 ACP stamped on it, use that - and if your firearm says 7.65 Browning - make sure the box actually says that. There's endless threads out there of people shooting old Euro guns, that don't work well at all with 32 ACP, so with that - they are not interchangeable, certainly not in actual application. Guns labeled 32 ACP, you may end up shooting ammo that is over the pressure rating if you load it with 7.65 Browning.

    So, they are the same - sort of. At least the cartridge only uses like 2.2 grains of Win 231, so - the power there is relatively small compared to other cartridges.
     
  11. fxvr5

    fxvr5 Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2017
    Messages:
    945
    Demi-human likes this.
  12. fxvr5

    fxvr5 Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2017
    Messages:
    945
    I think that trying to make the case that they are two different cartridges is an over-reaction.

    Speer's manual indicates it has 2 names, but does not warn that one has more/less pressure. They say the some guns loaded Speer's 60 grain bullets might not run reliably in some European guns, as that they are designed for heavier bullets - so a difference in recoil impulse and how the guns are sprung.

    Hornady and Sierra recognize 2 names for the same round. Nothing else. No separate load data. No separate pressure limits indicated.

    I think if there was a difference, they would say so.

    In other words, don't make stuff up. This is how BS internet rumors start. Unless you have specific information from folks in the firearm/ammo industry, be quiet.
     
    Bfh_auto and Demi-human like this.
  13. film495

    film495 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2019
    Messages:
    480
    I'm not making anything up, you can look at the measurement published by the standards organizations; the links are posted above.

    All I'm trying to do is figure out what components I can use to make hand loads for a CZ-70 marked 7.65 Browning. I don't know where to find reloading components that meet or are based on the CIP Specs the firearm was designed for. I have 3 Speer Manuals and a couple other major name reloading manuals and only one of them, an old Hodgdon's even references 32 ACP, none of them make any reference I can find at all to 7.65 Browning.

    Now I'm thinking I should just hit e-bay and try to find European reloading manuals and component distributors, looking at US sources of info seems to be pretty much a fail so far as I can tell, and I'm pretty good at doing research. My understanding is the cartridge was vastly more popular across the pond, so - seems like a good next step.
     
  14. fxvr5

    fxvr5 Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2017
    Messages:
    945
    Geez. . .

    Do a Google search for Lovex powders and Vectan powders. Their load data is available on the web and they have load data for 32 ACP, oops, I mean 7.65 Browning. (same thing, as you'll note in those manuals, too).

    Vectan and Lovex powders are available at Grafs (look for Shooters World as the equivalents of Lovex).

    But you might have a tough time coming up with the same brand of bullets.
     
    Demi-human and Highland Lofts like this.
  15. Highland Lofts

    Highland Lofts Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2019
    Messages:
    655
    I will be buying a 32acp for my eight year old grandson. So I boughtca set of 32acp dies and have been picking up 32acp, 32 S&W short, 32S&W long cases to reload ( I have four 327 Federal Magnum revolvers).
    Yesterday I picked up some brass and low & behold three pieces of this old brass had beridian primers.
     
  16. JERRY

    JERRY Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2003
    Messages:
    2,714
    9mm kurz vs. .380acp vs. 9mm corto vs. 9mm Browning court. and to complicate matters even more lets toss in the 9x17mm.
     
    Rule3 likes this.
  17. somethingbenign

    somethingbenign Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2017
    Messages:
    578
    Glad to see the firearm community being as helpful and supportive as ever....

    Really interesting there is such a variance between continents. Kudos to you for being so diligent in your research before reloading, I know I wouldn't have considered looking that hard. I would not be too concerned though as the 32 ACP and CZ 50 have been loaded for so many years that if there was a problem it would be widely known by now. Well at least I would hope so.
     
  18. Havok7416
    • Contributing Member

    Havok7416 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2012
    Messages:
    2,968
    Location:
    Kentucky
    OP, you are over thinking this in a big way. Whatever you care to call the cartridge, it has made it over 100 years without an issue, both as a factory offering and as reloads. In fact, I'm pretty sure I have factory boxes marked both 7.65 and .32 ACP.
     
    Bfh_auto, Demi-human and Walkalong like this.
  19. rfwobbly

    rfwobbly Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2008
    Messages:
    4,574
    Location:
    Cornelia, GA
    The "32" may be old enough nomenclature that it refers to the outer diameter of the brass, and not the bullet or barrel as in modern firearms. This is how 38Spcl got to be 0.357"diameter.
     
    milemaker13 likes this.
  20. Swampman

    Swampman Old Fart

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,672
    Location:
    East Texas
    I recommend you do as GarrettJ said and slug your bore.
    If it measures .309, just get one of these...

    https://www.amazon.com/Lee-Precision-90038-SIZING-309/dp/B00162UK4M

    ...and size .312" .32 ACP bullets down to .309".
    Plated or coated cast bullets would probably be best so you don't run into possible problems with jackets getting loose on the cores.
     
  21. film495

    film495 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2019
    Messages:
    480
    What brass to use outside of factory European brass is one of my major concerns. Factory ammo labeled 32 ACP, with no mention of 7.65 browning seems to nosedive every 4th or 5th round, and stovepipe once every couple magazines. The nosedive as I've discovered seems to be the cut of the extractor groove being different, and with the semi-rim sitting in the extractor groove, simply seems to not sit correctly in the magazines resulting in nosedives and FTF issues. Boxes marked both 32 ACP and 7.65 Browning seem not to do this.

    There are plenty of threads out there where people have issues running 32 ACP ammo in European produced surplus guns, and the common refrain is to use Fiocci, Geco, or S&B factory ammo as it is a little hotter which seems true, but I don't think from my experience - this is the actual root of the problem with running 32 ACP ammo in a firearm labeled for 7.65 Browning. The bullet size and chamber are also slightly different, and the extractor slot being a little different, also kind of a big deal in how the rounds sit and ride in the magazines.

    So, it is pretty well documented that there are issues that can come up with the little variances between the standards (on the internet, but not in any reloading manuals I've seen) - and it is a pretty easy solution to run Fiocci or another box of factory ammo that says 7.65 browning on it, pretty easy.

    What reloading brass, bullets, dies etc. This is where it seems to get dicey to me. I'm going to anticipate the dies will work, I actually think the Lee ones say 7.65 as well as 32 ACP, I got the RCBS ones - with no mention of 7.65, but I'll bet they work. Some brass will not really work for my application and find no source of brass referencing 7.65 Browning for sale. I see on the Fiocci website they appear to package unprimed brass for this cartridge, but I don't actually find it through a distributor.

    For someone new to reloading, the firearms industry seems kind of challenged - in terms of producing data that is consistent and makes sense. You kind of have to play, put all the pieces together and then use your own judgement to make sense out of difficult and jumbled information - and there is contradictory information from various sources - not even for just this cartridge, for one as common as .38 Special. For .38 Special, one can look up a load on a powder manufacturer's website - and a bullet manufacturer's website, for the same bullet weight and type - and no matter how you look at it, the ranges are so different in the load data - you're 100% going to be either loading too high or too low, as the specs on load data have such a wide range. For someone new to reloading, that seems insane and honestly kind of dangerous, for all the times safety is reference in the manuals. If you follow all the load data, and safety precautions, you can't load the cartridge ever - because there is a current reference published today - right now, that says no matter what load data your using, it is outside of the safe range from another reference. Not very impressed with the "firearms industry" for that little bit of fun.
     
  22. fxvr5

    fxvr5 Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2017
    Messages:
    945
    The data in loading manuals makes perfect sense. You're confused by it because you're new to this and you have no clue about how all this works. You have zero experience and yet somehow, you seem to know more about loading ammo than the people in the firearms industry who test and measure pressure.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 19, 2020
    Demi-human likes this.
  23. film495

    film495 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2019
    Messages:
    480
    So, feel free to share how you select from two sources of data that do not align with one another. Are they both right, both wrong, do you do an average between them or 3 or 4 if there are multiple sources of data, start with the lowest load data published? I certainly don't know.
     
  24. GooseGestapo

    GooseGestapo Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2003
    Messages:
    4,184
    As always, the devil is in the details.

    First; from what is the data derived from?
    An actual firearm, as is the norm now; or a universal receiver with an industry minimum spec test barrel, and how long is the barrel?

    Many .32’s have been made and spec’s are all over the place.
    I’ve been fortunate. All my .32’s have been fine with .311-.312” bullets. Even my .327mag (Ruger Single 7) is “ok” with .311” cast bullets but is happier with .314’s.

    Look closely at the data source. Lyman lab tested their data with a Universal receiver, but function tests in actual firearms.

    With the .32, you’ll find that as actual loads will depend on the firearm. A Savage Mod 11 (large, all steel, heavy but a .309”bore will tolerate heavier loads and need more “umph” to cycle the action whereas a Beretta TomCat will crack slides and frames running max loads (duplicating Fiocchi factory loads). Stick with minimum to cycle with the TomCat. BTDT, but did get a new gun from Betetta. They don’t replace them now. (Was 20yrs ago).

    So, slug YOUR barrel, Use brass from ammo that functions well in YOUR gun. Start with starting loads, and go chute’em!!! And see what happens. Like we did 45yrs ago when I started reloading.
     
    Demi-human, Walkalong and Havok7416 like this.
  25. Havok7416
    • Contributing Member

    Havok7416 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2012
    Messages:
    2,968
    Location:
    Kentucky
    Published data merely represents what the testing person or company tested at that given time using the components they list. Different tests often use different length barrels, individual components and even different atmospheric conditions.

    It may well be that both, all or none of the given data points/load data you reference are correct for your gun. Generally a wide range of available load data is actually correct, even when the numbers don't line up. It's up to you to use the information you feel comfortable with. Ideally this is combined with the feedback given to you by your firearm and target.

    ETA: See previous post
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2020
    Demi-human and Walkalong like this.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice