32 auto
Moderators: pilkguns, m1963, David Levene, Spencer, Richard H
Forum rules
If you wish to make a donation to this forum's operation , it would be greatly appreciated.
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/targettalk?yours=true
If you wish to make a donation to this forum's operation , it would be greatly appreciated.
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/targettalk?yours=true
-
- Posts: 794
- Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:22 pm
- Location: Cookeville, TN
32 auto
Are any International Olympic shooters switching to the 32 Auto from
the 32 S&W Long?
Especially with the results Bullseye shooters are getting with the Pardini.
If any one is using the 32 Auto, what loads or ammo are you using?
the 32 S&W Long?
Especially with the results Bullseye shooters are getting with the Pardini.
If any one is using the 32 Auto, what loads or ammo are you using?
- john bickar
- Posts: 618
- Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 3:58 am
- Location: Corner of Walk & Don't Walk
And jacketed bullets are not permitted in ISSF center fire. I don't know that any of the .32 ACP experimenters have had great success with lead bullets.
ISSF center fire is probably the simplest (note that I didn't say "easiest") of shooting disciplines.
Point gun. Squeeze trigger. Rinse and repeat.
Not much incentive to mess with wildcats, when working on technique will get you into the 590s.
ISSF center fire is probably the simplest (note that I didn't say "easiest") of shooting disciplines.
Point gun. Squeeze trigger. Rinse and repeat.
Not much incentive to mess with wildcats, when working on technique will get you into the 590s.
-
- Posts: 794
- Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:22 pm
- Location: Cookeville, TN
At 50 yards my Pardini 32 ACP shoots just over 1.5 inches,
At 25 yards it is one hole.
And that is with lead bullets.
Milder recoil than the 32 S&W long.
Better bullet design feeds better than wadcutter.
Right now we are working on a 60 grain lead semi wadcutter.
Commercial lead I use 75 grain flat points.
Some are reducing the weight of the 75 to 72 by drilling a hollow point.
And 32 ACP is not a wildcat, been around since before 1920.
Many bullseye shooters also shoot ISSF.
Is there any legal reason a European cannot own a 32 ACP
In Europe it's called 7.65 mm Browning.
Don't jump down my throat for being inquisitive.
At 25 yards it is one hole.
And that is with lead bullets.
Milder recoil than the 32 S&W long.
Better bullet design feeds better than wadcutter.
Right now we are working on a 60 grain lead semi wadcutter.
Commercial lead I use 75 grain flat points.
Some are reducing the weight of the 75 to 72 by drilling a hollow point.
And 32 ACP is not a wildcat, been around since before 1920.
Many bullseye shooters also shoot ISSF.
Is there any legal reason a European cannot own a 32 ACP
In Europe it's called 7.65 mm Browning.
Don't jump down my throat for being inquisitive.
-
- Posts: 5617
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: Ruislip, UK
My understanding is that in some countries, Italy is one, any caliber firearm used by the military or police cannot be sold/exported. This is why the Pardini .32ACP is only sold by PardiniUSA and the barrels are done here in the USA.Trooperjake wrote:At 50 yards my Pardini 32 ACP shoots just over 1.5 inches,
...
Many bullseye shooters also shoot ISSF.
Is there any legal reason a European cannot own a 32 ACP
In Europe it's called 7.65 mm Browning.
Don't jump down my throat for being inquisitive.
I don't know if .32ACP is not allowed in Italy, I doubt it.Italian gun laws pose restrictions to the kind of firearms and calibers available to civilians. Full-automatic/select-fire firearms (machineguns), grenade launchers, suppressors, destructive devices and all other kinds of military weapons and ammunition are forbidden; a prohibited caliber is expressly the 9mm Parabellum on pistols (but it is permitted on rifles). On the other hand, standard military calibers such as 5.56x45mm NATO and 7.62x51mm NATO are available in civilian loads and with civilian bullet. Semi-automatic firearms can be bought by licensees without additional restrictions.
Even if .32ACP is better, the likelihood of anyone switching over now is about as high as Betamax making a comeback.
One of the problems with the .32SWlong is that it will not "shoot X-ring 50s all day long".David Levene wrote:If a .32SWL can shoot X-ring 50s all day long, with very low recoil (not that it matters in a match comprising all single shots), and is reliable (given reasonable gun maintenance and reloading) then what makes .32ACP any better for the ISSF match?
The .32SWLong will shoot 22-25mm groups (measured outside to outside) most of the time but 3 or 4 in 100 will be 40-60mm out of the group.
Even factory ammo will not do it, the reason is the case design (wall thickness) and neck release tension.
The most accurate and easiest to load is still the .38 wadcutter (18mm group).
The 32 auto is a different case, it may work. Worth a try..........
(Or be brave and try shooting 9mm)
- john bickar
- Posts: 618
- Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 3:58 am
- Location: Corner of Walk & Don't Walk
Didn't mean to sound like I was jumping down your throat; that wasn't the intention.
The thing that makes me giggle about the current .32 ACP craze is that the AMU trod that ground about 15 years ago. The kicker then was that there were no good lead bullet loads with it, and jacketed is not permitted for ISSF nor CISM. Hence why I called it a "wildcat".
If you look at the results from the major ISSF and CISM championships in center fire over the past 60? 70? years, the main trend is this: the guy who shoots the best score wins.
Sometimes he does it with a GSP, or a Manhurin (sp?), or something else, but it's a damn simple game. ISSF center fire is not an equipment race - you can shoot 590s with 1960s technology.
There are very few people in the world who shoot it enough - and care enough - to be like, "I'm averaging 594, but if I switched to .32ACP, I could average 596." The value proposition isn't there - those guys are trying to win Olympic medals.
Anyhow, that's just my point of view. I would rather shoot all day than spend an hour reloading :)
The thing that makes me giggle about the current .32 ACP craze is that the AMU trod that ground about 15 years ago. The kicker then was that there were no good lead bullet loads with it, and jacketed is not permitted for ISSF nor CISM. Hence why I called it a "wildcat".
If you look at the results from the major ISSF and CISM championships in center fire over the past 60? 70? years, the main trend is this: the guy who shoots the best score wins.
Sometimes he does it with a GSP, or a Manhurin (sp?), or something else, but it's a damn simple game. ISSF center fire is not an equipment race - you can shoot 590s with 1960s technology.
There are very few people in the world who shoot it enough - and care enough - to be like, "I'm averaging 594, but if I switched to .32ACP, I could average 596." The value proposition isn't there - those guys are trying to win Olympic medals.
Anyhow, that's just my point of view. I would rather shoot all day than spend an hour reloading :)
..Not to mention that CFP is not an Olympic event.john bickar wrote: There are very few people in the world who shoot it enough - and care enough - to be like, "I'm averaging 594, but if I switched to .32ACP, I could average 596." The value proposition isn't there - those guys are trying to win Olympic medals.
I'd hardly say Europe is so conservative, pretty well every high-end and remotely novel target pistol design in the last 50 years has come out of Europe, Europeans aren't still trying to get a pre-WW1 gun and cartridge to shoot accurately and reliably at the same time.Mike M. wrote:I think there's a certain inertia, especially in Europe where I understand reloading is much less common. If someone starts commercially loading an accurate .32 ACP Match load, it might get very popular. CF not being an Olympic event doesn't help.
Changing from a cartridge launched in 1896 to one released in 1899 is not exactly a radical and progressive step.
Having said that if a Pardini .32ACP were available here I would buy one for my next CF pistol - even thought there is no real recoil reduction, I've had a .32SWL auto and I don't want another, I guess we will see if its marketed here.
The value proposition should be better functioning and easier reloading.
There are many shooters like to try any new equipment coming on the market not necessary with improving their score as the prime motive. there are more than a few hoarders in our midst, how do I end up with 4 sets of .38 special dies ?
I sure would like to give the .32 acp a try but like other poster mentioned, suitable bullet are hard to find, I've been keeping my eyes open for a .32 target revolver for some time but so far no luck, good condition K32 are sought after by collectors and price accordingly.
I sure would like to give the .32 acp a try but like other poster mentioned, suitable bullet are hard to find, I've been keeping my eyes open for a .32 target revolver for some time but so far no luck, good condition K32 are sought after by collectors and price accordingly.
-
- Posts: 253
- Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 11:07 am
- Location: Mineola, TX
-
- Posts: 794
- Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:22 pm
- Location: Cookeville, TN
- deadeyedick
- Posts: 1191
- Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:55 pm
- Location: Australia
I find this very interesting . Have you found any case that works better than the rest ? Also have you observed the effects of crimp related to neck tension release.One of the problems with the .32SWlong is that it will not "shoot X-ring 50s all day long".
The .32SWLong will shoot 22-25mm groups (measured outside to outside) most of the time but 3 or 4 in 100 will be 40-60mm out of the group.
Even factory ammo will not do it, the reason is the case design (wall thickness) and neck release tension.
The most accurate and easiest to load is still the .38 wadcutter (18mm group).
The 32 auto is a different case, it may work. Worth a try..........
(Or be brave and try shooting 9mm)
While there is probably little likelihood of increasing one's score average by switching from a .32 S&W Long to a .32 ACP, it is intriguing. Bullseye shooters are inherently tinkerers and gadgeteers. There certainly is nothing wrong with building a better mousetrap, but as has been stated, anyone who is intent on climbing the ladder of bullseye excellence should probably stick with shooting two guns capable of hitting the 10 ring at the long line. Working on the fundamentals will get one to the top. That being said, training isn't nearly as much fun as tinkering with a new gun and working up new loads for a different cartridge.
- john bickar
- Posts: 618
- Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 3:58 am
- Location: Corner of Walk & Don't Walk
Heh, I couldn't be more opposite. Give me unlimited ammo that works; I'll be on the range.Misny wrote:That being said, training isn't nearly as much fun as tinkering with a new gun and working up new loads for a different cartridge.
I'll tell you what - you can be my official ammo loader and cartridge tinkerer. There won't be any money, but when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness.
:)