7.65 Browning vs. 32 ACP

Status
Not open for further replies.
I took a seated case with bullet that was over 1 OAL and dropped it in the chamber and tapped the case down to fully seat and then tapped it back out
measured at .9965 OAL
it would not drop back into the chamber, so I put a little crimp on it and it drops in but sticks and does not drop back out

dummy rounds, all between .965 and .9965 all behave the same (plunk in, but then stick), at .965 and lower they plunk in and out

going to try a .309 sizing die to see how that works if the OAL of cartridges that will plunk in and out changes or not. between .3125 and .311 it seemed to make no appreciable difference
 
I looked at Berry's data for their bullet and they list

Bullet O.A.L.: .423

Cartridge Name: .32 ACP
Cartridge O.A.L.: .978"
Max Velocity: 1250 fps
 
sized some bullets down to .309

.9915 - plunks but sticks, same with anything longer at this bullet size up to about 1.01 - didn't test over that
.9875 - plunks in and out, same with anything shorter at this bullet size

.965 was where it would start plunking in and out with .311 or .312 bullets

if I go with the sized down bullets, there is almost no case neck tension, so think I'll need a slightly smaller expander plug for the die, or I could just go with what I have and use the shorter OAL, but I kind of want to match the .980 OAL for the Fiocci factory rounds as a starting point.
 
You don’t have the factory projectiles.

Using your chosen projectiles, find the appropriate cartridge OAL for your gun, and work up your load to your desired level of performance.

if you insist on matching the factory ammo, then just buy and shoot the desired factory ammo and be done with it.

I am honestly not trying to be snarky with my suggestion. I hope you find the solution you are seeking.
 
anyone know if the RCBS expander plugs are the diameter listed or is the listed diameter for the bullet, meaning - for a .309 bullet, does one want a .309 expander, or a .308 expander plug?
 
you know it dawned on me that I have some dies for 30-30 and 30-06 … wonder if I could use the expander for those to get a little better neck tension.

no dice, the case is too short and the dies would not flair the case mouth before bottoming out … thinking maybe a die for 30 carbine could work.
 
Last edited:
I just looked at my .32 ACP die set. I am not using the RCBS expander that came with it, I am using a Lyman M-Die. It measures .308 on the 1st step and .314 on the 2nd step.

I barely let the second step go into the cases. That's all it needs.
 
My RCBS Expander measures .309 through the main body of the expander. I did end up ordering a Redding 30 Carbine expander die, hopefully I can get a little more neck tension, as it looks like I'll be sizing the bullets down to .309 - so, an expander for a .308 or .309 bullet should work.

Looking at a few youtube videos of 30 carbine reloading, I'll probably have the same issue with the 30 Carbine die that I have with the other rifle sizing dies, they will be too long for the small case, and it won't flair the case mouth.
 
Last edited:
.30 Carbine die, doesn't go down far enough in the die to expand the .32 ACP case, so - decent idea, no dice, doesn't work

I contacted RCBS and mentioned I was sizing the bullets down to .309 and the .32 ACP expander didn't leave any room for case tension, they actually sent me another expander to try, it says, 32-20 on it - which is .308 in diameter, and it ends up with .001 case tension as a measure of before and after seating bullet measuring case diameter, so - think that is about what is generally shot for, so that seemed good.

Challenge is the 32-20 expander is about 2+ times as long before it flairs the case mouth, so - what actually happens is the case will bulge and then the cartridge will not chamber. If I only put the expander die into the case far enough to seat the bullet, but don't flair it - all is good, but 3 out of 5 I tried this with mucked up the plating when seating the bullet.

I looked up the Lee universal flairing tool - and that seems like it could be a solution, but read a review where someone stated the die contacts the bottom of the .32 acp case and needs to be taken off for it to work; guess I could get one and find out.
 
Have you tried loading some of the larger diameter (> .309") bullets at their required OAL and firing them from your gun?
 
Have you tried loading some of the larger diameter (> .309") bullets at their required OAL and firing them from your gun?
I haven't. For some reason (I think the rim of the case hits the lead, but not sure) anything longer than .965 won't chamber correctly at .311 or .3125 - I could go with the .965 OAL - it is still in spec for the cartridge, but I know factory rounds at .980 feel through the magazines, feed, and eject correctly - so, with the .309 bullets - they'll chamber at the OAL spec Berry's gives for the bullet - at .978 - most of the load data is at the longer OAL, a lot of it at the max at .984, so - I just think the OAL I use should come closer to matching the load data OAL or the one listed by the bullet manufacturer. I slugged the bore at .309 and the .309 bullets seem to allow for correct chambering at the listed OAL and they plunk in and out no problems.
 
I haven't.

You're waaaaay overthinking this. This is what I posted in post #5:

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".


Just load up some ammo and go shoot it.
 
following the load data, the .3125 and ones I sized down to .311 - do not chamber correctly. something has to be adjusted from the load data to make it work/fit. I can shorten the OAL down to .965 or I can size the bullets down to .309 // I'm not an experienced hand loader, but from what I've read, the .309 bullet and longer OAL will create less pressure, so I'm leaning in that direction.
 
following the load data, the .3125 and ones I sized down to .311 - do not chamber correctly. something has to be adjusted from the load data to make it work/fit. I can shorten the OAL down to .965 or I can size the bullets down to .309 // I'm not an experienced hand loader, but from what I've read, the .309 bullet and longer OAL will create less pressure, so I'm leaning in that direction.

What do you mean by 'do not chamber correctly"?? Are you judging this based only on their required OAL to fit your chamber?? If so, that's not a criteria for chambering correctly. Different bullets require different OALs to fit different chambers. You can't force all bullets to fit in a chamber only at a single OAL.

A longer OAL will reduce pressure. But the question is by how much pressure. With some loads it's only a little pressure, and if you're loading below max in the first place, the small change might not put you at max pressure.

If you want to keep pressure low, lower your powder charge weight. If you require a shorter OAL than is published for the bullet you're using, reduce the charge weight and work up. That's what the rest of the planet is doing, so there's no reason you can't do it too.

I see this as you've created a problem in your mind and have spent a lot of time and effort and money to 'correct' a problem that doesn't exist. Re-read the quote from the Lyman manual. Oversize bullets in many cases don't produce a problem. They are the experts. They have pressure tested data.

I contacted bullet and powder companies some years back and asked about oversize bullets. They advised me to not do it because it raises pressure. I asked them how much the pressure would increase. They didn't know, they never tested it (all of them said this - they hadn't tested it and had zero data). Yet the Lyman manual says it's not a problem. Hornady loaded 0.004" oversize bullets in their 32-20 and say they experienced no problem (.308" bore, .312" jacketed bullets). I already cited the Vihtavuori source. There are examples of data produced by and tested by the people who we trust to get it right.
 
The limitation on bullet diameter is that the loaded round chamber freely and the case neck can expand to let the bullet go. That great experimenter Clark said "bullet pinch" was the worst thing to do.

Not a .32 auto, but I get best accuracy with .411" bullets for my .40-65 with nominal .408" groove diameter because that is what fits the chamber throat and lines up straight to the bore. The chamber neck is big enough.
 
I don't know really, so - that's why I'm not in a huge hurry to make any live rounds until I get things worked out and figure out what is or isn't an issue. By not chambering correctly, I mean at the Bullet manufacturer's listed OAL, and the load data listed OAL, they either don't drop fully into the chamber - just won't chamber, or they'll drop in and stick and not drop back out. at the factory diameter of .3125 and sized down to .311 - same behavior. So, from my understanding that is a no go.

To get them to chamber, I've found 2 possible solutions. I can either shorten the OAL down 2+ hundredths to .965 or shorter (which is still in spec for the cartridge), which seems like a lot, or size the bullets down to .309; this allows for the OAL of the manufacturer or publisher of the load data to be used. I would have tried .310, but didn't find any bullet sizers at that dimension.

Maybe I'll end up trying both options and seeing which one performs better if there is any difference at all.
 
I don't know really, so - that's why I'm not in a huge hurry to make any live rounds until I get things worked out and figure out what is or isn't an issue. By not chambering correctly, I mean at the Bullet manufacturer's listed OAL, and the load data listed OAL, they either don't drop fully into the chamber - just won't chamber, or they'll drop in and stick and not drop back out. at the factory diameter of .3125 and sized down to .311 - same behavior. So, from my understanding that is a no go.

To get them to chamber, I've found 2 possible solutions. I can either shorten the OAL down 2+ hundredths to .965 or shorter (which is still in spec for the cartridge), which seems like a lot, or size the bullets down to .309; this allows for the OAL of the manufacturer or publisher of the load data to be used. I would have tried .310, but didn't find any bullet sizers at that dimension.

Maybe I'll end up trying both options and seeing which one performs better if there is any difference at all.
 
I don't know really, so - that's why I'm not in a huge hurry to make any live rounds until I get things worked out and figure out what is or isn't an issue. By not chambering correctly, I mean at the Bullet manufacturer's listed OAL, and the load data listed OAL, they either don't drop fully into the chamber - just won't chamber, or they'll drop in and stick and not drop back out. at the factory diameter of .3125 and sized down to .311 - same behavior. So, from my understanding that is a no go.


No, that doesn't mean it's a no go. NOT ALL CHAMBERS ARE THE SAME!!!!!!!!! It only means that you have to seat them deeper to fit your chamber. We handloaders have to deal with this for every bullet and every gun we load for.

We correct for it by seating the bullet deeper and reducing the powder charge weight. It's that simple.

The bullet manufacturer's OAL is the OAL they used for their testing. It does not mean you have to use their EXACT OAL.

As handloaders, we can set the OAL to any length we want. Really. We can exceed SAAMI specs if we want. No problem. All we have to do to ensure our safety is to adjust the powder weight charge as required. It's that simple.
 
all very interesting and good input for me - thank you. this is my first semi-auto cartridge and the only other one I've loaded at all is .38 Special, which was just really very easy and nothing came up.
 
I reload a horrid mix of .32 range brass. My Lee sizer would not give adequate neck tension so I bought an RCBS .32 ACP die set and that solved the problem with the thin brass/Lee sizer issue. I am using a Lyman M-Die expander instead of the RCBS expander.

From my Load Log (Excel): "Notes: Have gone to Lyman 2 step expander now. Seats bullets much straighter!"

I have loaded various 71 Gr RN, Berrys plated, Hornady FMJ, "Blem" 71 Gr FMJ, 60 Gr XTPs (Most accurate), and "Blem" 60 Gr JHPs that look like XTPs. .312 to 3125.

Some of the blems were under sized in diameter (.3085), and would not work. Not enough neck tension.

I have run these loads through a CZ, a Beretta, an FN, a Taurus, and a Llama while I still had it. Some marked 7.62, some marked .32 ACP, the FN not marked at all.

No load book I know of has both 7.62 & .32 ACP data. They have one, or the other, but not both. These are pretty much considered interchangeable.

The only issue I have ever had is neck tension. Solved that with a tighter sizer, then culling the undersized blems. Again, in a horrid mix of multiple headstamp/wall thickness range brass.

I am running the 60 Gr XTP @ .920 +/- & the 71 Gr FMJ (Hornadys in the pics) @ .955 +/-. (Wasn't happy with the Berrys)

.32 ACP Pic 1.JPG
.32 ACP Pic 2 @ 37%.JPG
.32 ACP Pic 3 @ 32%.JPG
.32 ACP Pic 4 @ 33%.JPG
 
What did you not like about the Berry's - that's what I have currently. They seem good, but I haven't shot them yet.
The Lee universal flair die works fine for 32 ACP, where I read that it was too tall was not accurate, not for the cases I have and the expander I got.

So, having learned what I've learned I'll probably make some at .309 and go shoot them and see how it goes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top