32 ACP - "Flash in the Pan"?

[Shiloh]

Several years ago, there were numerous posts regarding the 32 ACP in the Pardini HP. That seems to have stopped. Why?

Did folks find the perfect load for the 32 ACP in the Pardini HP and quit posting/discussing as a result?

Or was it a effort in futility trying to replace the 45 in bullseye centerfire aggregates.

Have there been similar attempts of note with other barrels, stock or replacements, in other pistols such as the MG-4, Benelli, Hammerli, others?

Hornady appears to have stopped, at least temporarily, producing the 32 ACP XTP bullets in order to focus on production of other bullets in much greater demand. Was that because of a significantly small market for the XTP?

Did the results with lead bullets become so good that the XTP bullets were no longer a preferred bullet? Certainly lead bullets were and are much cheaper.

Or, was the 32 ACP for bullseye just another fad like the hula hoop, twist, locomotion, love-ins, sit-ins, yada, yada, yada?

Just wondering. Have cleaned and re-cleaned all my guns and sitting around on a cold, blustering day. Fortunately, I live very close to the White House, Congress, and Pentagon so a source of hot air is nearby to normally keep temperatures at reasonable levels.

[Jwhelan939@aol.com]

I still enjoy shooting my 32 acp. I have a load, or more importantly a loading strategy that works for me. My 32 shoots point for point with my sp.

[Shiloh]

Thanks for the response. Assuming from it that you have a Pardini HP. Was it obtained as an ACP or was it converted from a S&WL?

I wonder if there are other pistols that were ACP or have been converted from S&WL to ACP. The Matchguns MG4 is one other available.

About 20 years ago, David Sams discussed converting my Benelli to ACP. Didn't do it and I think that was probably a good decision at the time. Haven't read or heard of any Benelli's being converted, or if so, whether it was considered successful.

T&B and Brazos lead 78 grain RN, T&B 64 SWC, T&B 78 RN, and Hornady 85 XTP JHP appear to be readily available. The T&B and Brazos are lead and can be ordered in various sizes. The XTP is 0.312. It seems that some have had acceptable results for 50-yard matches.

If the results are acceptable when shooting a short course with the B-16 target at 25 yards for slow fire and the slow fire course of the National Match Course are a deciding factors, then any extra money spent on the ACP would seem for naught. The S&WL has shown to be just as accurate as the ACP at 25 yards.

Haven't tried the Speer 98 in ACP. Not sure that I will. Discussions with Earl's Repair years ago regarding my GSP's, he told me that trying to shoot the Speer 98 accurately at 50 yards was like trying to throw a beer can accurately at that distance - wasn't meant to be.

The Wilson targets posted seem to have proven that wrong but that is from using a fixed barrel setup and not from a pistol hanging from someone's arm according to any feedback that I have seen. Because I have not seen it doesn't indicate that it does not exist. Seeing an aggregate scorecard to demonstrate the 50-yard accuracy would conclusively settle that argument.

[Mark Freedman]

I'm still using mine. It's a SWLWC frame with an ACP top end. I bought it that way, used, from the original owner.

It's biggest problem is the magazine falling out in the middle of a string (seriously!).

I need to get a new Rink grip for it, then I'll be using it again.

[Shiloh]

Very interesting, indeed.

What kind of shooting do you participate? If bullseye, I imagine that it would be a real problem during sustained courses of fire. You would run out of refire opportunities real quick. If not bullseye, I guess it wouldn't really matter.

What kind of pistol is it? Is the magazine thing a magazine problem or a gun problem?

Getting a Rink grip would appear to be an expensive way of not fixing the problem.

[Shiloh]

I'm still using mine. It's a SWLWC frame with an ACP top end. I bought it that way, used, from the original owner.

It's biggest problem is the magazine falling out in the middle of a string (seriously!).

I need to get a new Rink grip for it, then I'll be using it again.

Having thought about these remarks, I wonder if the pistol is a Walther GSP C.

Earl at Earl's Repair (CarlwaltherUSA) once told me that frames and uppers can be interchanged if made after 1978. I have used several GSP 32 uppers on a GSP Expert 22 frame without any problems. The uppers were all manufactured after 1978.

Altho I can't find the reference, I also remember reading that "older" GSP 32 magazines are different from "newer". I don't remember the cognizant manufacturing dates that make a difference or what the difference in each is.

Pardini 32 conversions are not always compatible with SP frames. It is probably a good idea to call PardiniUSA and ask if what you are thinking about doing will work before actually buying the frame or conversion. I had a fairly new SP and they told me that a 32 conversion would not fit. I ended up getting a HP.

[rmca]

Pardini 32 conversions are not always compatible with SP frames. It is probably a good idea to call PardiniUSA and ask if what you are thinking about doing will work before actually buying the frame or conversion. I had a fairly new SP and they told me that a 32 conversion would not fit. I ended up getting a HP.

Only after 2016 did Pardinis SP and HP became interchangeable.

[Jwhelan939@aol.com]

My frame was purchased as a complete hp. I load the t&b lswc. I have a lengthy loading process, but it has proven to work well. I shoot the hp point for point with my sp. shooting a national match short course I normally shoot them both in the 94-95% area. With that said, I recently stopped shooting them and went with a conversion. Shooting the Pardini well is great, but I am struggling to get my 45 scores on par. I’m hoping that using a conversion and the 1911 for cf and 45 will help round me out. Shooting low to mid 90d is great. Shooting high 70s in 45 is the downside for me.

[Shiloh]

Thanks for the clarification of your earlier post with specifics. Obviously, the T&B 64 SWC is working well for you. Good luck with the conversion.

[Shiloh]

Now have a MatchGuns MG-4 insert for my Ransom Rest. The weather this week looks great. Starting tomorrow, I will begin testing.

The MG-4, initially a 32 S&W L, has an ACP conversion system (Shilen 0.311 barrel and different extractor) designed and built by Jon Eulette.

I have several loads that I will be testing with various powders (N310 initially) and amounts and various bullets (T&B 64 SWC 0.312 with 1.3 and 1.5 N310), T&B 1100 RNFP resized to 0.311 with 1.3 N310), Brazos 78 RN .0.312 and resized to 0.311 with 1.6 N310, and T&B 78 RN 0.312 and resized to 0.311). These will be the initial tests. Sizings will be 0.311, 0.312, 0.313, and 0.314.

Earlier function tests of these and others performed perfectly.

Have several different bullets as received and re-sized and various powders (N310, TiteGroup, WST, 231, 700X, and Clays).

Will report results as they occur.

Be advised that these results are for the above and will be reported as such with specifics.

Most 32 ACP results posted on various sites have been from using a Pardini HP 32 ACP pistol or just the barrel. Accordingly, any interpretation provided here must take into account that caveat.

I do not know if Mr. Eulette is making the conversion kit. Mine came used and installed in the MG-4.

If anyone wants any info or details regarding the conversion, contact him at:

EulettePrecision@hotmail.com

[Shiloh]

Bad day at the range. Ransom Rest insert caused problems with feeding and pistol kept doubling. Everything worked great last week with the same ammo. ??? Chrono shot craps. Ordered a new one and will go with the old Hoppe's pistol rest (model 3000?). Will try again Saturday.

[Shiloh]

Date: 17MAR24
Location: Fairfax Rod and Gun Club, Walsh Range (Bullseye range) (in what would be called a “holler” in Kentucky) (https://www.fxrgc.org/)
Temp: 68, no wind, partly cloudy
Time: noonish
Pistol: MatchGuns MG-4 (32 S&WL) with a Eulette 32 ACP conversion barrel (Shilen .311) and extractor.
Ammo: New Starline. 64 SWC T&B and Brazos 78 both sized to .311 and T&B 100 RNFP .314, & 85 XTP JHP .312.
Hoppe’s pistol rest (Vintage – 2 part Model 3001 or 2?)
Velocities were in the 700 – 900 range. Given the feeding issues, didn’t concentrate on velocity. Measured with a Garmin Zero C1 Pro.

Initial test loads are from various sources listing posted parameters used with the Pardini. As such, variations are expected.

- 64 SWC OAL 0.845 too short – wouldn’t feed altho it did before. OAL of 0.885 fed fine. Did surprisingly well at 50 yards with most in the outer region of the 10 ring with 1.8 N310. Will pursue with various OAL.
- 78 Brazos was too long @ 0.915. Wouldn’t feed unless I lifted the rear of the cartridge with small screwdriver. Bullet stopped at chamber entry. Powder range 1.4 to 1.7. Will try shorter OAL.
- 85 XTP @ 0.915 OAL too long – wouldn’t feed. Same as above.

Will work on finding a proper OAL for each bullet type on hand: T&B 64 SWC .314, 78 RN .312, & 100 RNFP.313, Brazos 78 .312 & .314.
Weather is going to be cooler this week so will experiment with other powders.

Watching the MG-4, and MG-2 cycle is like watching a Remington 870, 1000, Winchester 92, and Marlin 39A cycle with their loading gates. The MG’s and 1100 are semi-automatics, the 870 is a pump action and the 92 and 39 are lever action. That might be part of the problem with the OAL/feeding issues today.

Will concentrate on a specific load rather than several as was done today.

GSP and Pardini HP 32 S&WL worked best with a roll crimp but that was using WC bullets (Speer, H&N, Hornady). Using a taper crimp for the MG-4.

(An interesting aside regarding the T&B 64 SWC is that it works well in the Walther GSP 32 S&WL (1990 stock barrel) with an OAL of .973, Starline brass, and 1.5 of Clays (ragged hole @ 25 and in and around the 9 & 10 ring at 50). I haven’t measured the velocity but I would imagine that it is “motoring”. It looks weird with the SWC shoulder inserted well into the brass. Roll crimp facilitates feeding.)

[sparky]

I think it can be effective, but I think Pardini's approach is compromised. I'm guessing they just take their regular .32swl barrel blanks and run a .32acp chamber reamer through them, resulting in a larger than normal bore.
What I'd like to see is someone build a .32acp blowback conversion for a 1911...sort of like a Nelson or Marvel conversion. The magazines could be based on Nighthawk Custom's .30 super carry mags (hopefully someone starts copying them, since Nighthawk wants a ton of money for them).

[Shiloh]

"What I'd like to see is someone build a .32acp blowback conversion for a 1911...sort of like a Nelson or Marvel conversion. The magazines could be based on Nighthawk Custom's .30 super carry mags (hopefully someone starts copying them, since Nighthawk wants a ton of money for them)."

Perhaps several already have, but not in 32 ACP. The 38 Super is a very accurate flat-shooting round. Colt, Baer, and Clark Sr have made them. I have a Clark Sr 1994 "Recoil Master" Colt 80 with a coned compensator. Works very well for bullseye centerfire.

I have no reliable documented source but have read that Nelson tried and decided that it wasn't economically viable. Don't know if that is in fact true.

38 Super brass seems to be more popular in action pistol and more available than 32 ACP. Starline is now producing 32 ACP brass in quantity as well as 38 Super.

[sparky]

"What I'd like to see is someone build a .32acp blowback conversion for a 1911...sort of like a Nelson or Marvel conversion. The magazines could be based on Nighthawk Custom's .30 super carry mags (hopefully someone starts copying them, since Nighthawk wants a ton of money for them)."

Perhaps several already have, but not in 32 ACP. The 38 Super is a very accurate flat-shooting round. Colt, Baer, and Clark Sr have made them. I have a Clark Sr 1994 "Recoil Master" Colt 80 with a coned compensator. Works very well for bullseye centerfire.

I have no reliable documented source but have read that Nelson tried and decided that it wasn't economically viable. Don't know if that is in fact true.

38 Super brass seems to be more popular in action pistol and more available than 32 ACP. Starline is now producing 32 ACP brass in quantity as well as 38 Super.

Everyone already knows about .38super. .32acp has significantly less recoil than .38 super...much closer to a .22lr.

[Shiloh]

I suppose if there was a chart that listed felt recoil of all calibers in all pistols that included all possible variations (grip types, compensators, loads, competitor body mass, etc.), then 38 Super would probably be listed as having more felt recoil than the 32 ACP. How much more? Certainly not significantly more if the pistol and load are for bullseye and not for action pistol. Bullseye doesn't care about a load other than that it be safe. There is no power factor requirement to meet as in some action pistol disciplines.

If recoil is a primary consideration, then shooting "22 Only" in either NRA or CMP events might be an alternative. If you concentrate on recoil, then a 22 has some as does an air pistol.

Focusing on technique rather than recoil might be better approach.

Given all of the above, the 32 ACP remains an attractive choice, especially for an 1800 tournament or match. If shooting an entire 2700, then the 45 remains for that 3rd aggregate. The 32 ACP is better than the 32 S&WL stock barrels for 50-yard accuracy, but the 32 S&WL was never meant for 50 yards.

The cost to make various pistol types for such a very small market is not economically feasible. If it were, they would be available.

[croesler]

According to Larry Nelson the Nelson Conversion team is still planning to introduce a .32 ACP conversion for standard 1911 frames, and has the new unit figured out down to final testing and sourcing. They were stymied by a vendor closure for the .22 conversion last year, and had to work their way back to production, but the .32 ACP is still coming. This as of March, 2024.

[Shiloh]

It would be great IF Nelson figures it all out and ultimately produces a 1911 32 ACP conversion.

It would require a different magazine like some of those for the other 1911 variations such as the 9mm/38 Super. Don't know about the 38 Special version. Never had or seen one. Have read that there were magazine issues with it.

Whatever is produced, it will have to be reliable if intended for the bullseye crowd.

It appears that the 22 conversions satisfy a large audience in that they allow the user an economical way to practice with 22 ammo to learn the trigger of the same frame used for 45. A 32 ACP conversion won't share that attraction.

A 32 ACP 1911 conversion may attract initial interest because it will be a novelty. That won't last long. A good many calibers such those called "wildcat", niche pistols, conversions, and components have come and gone through the years.

The Hornady XTP 60 JHP production was stopped to produce other bullets in greater demand. Will they restart production? Likely depends on demand and if people are willing to spend the money. That will always be the bottomline, not the mechanics in perfecting another 1911 caliber conversion.

[Dcforman]

I know of several 32 acp shooters (bullseye) who stopped shooting 32 due to scores plateauing. They found that while their CF scores went up, their 45 scores dropped more. I think this mostly had to do with grip angle vs recoil. Because of this, a lot of the guys I shoot with (especially ex-military shooters) have spread the message that if you're serious about advancing as a bullseye shooter, you don't shoot 32. You learn to shoot 45.

IF Nelson comes out with a functional conversion, I can see it being more popular because it's a 1911 frame. Of course, you can already get a 1911 in 38 special, which probably has about the same recoil as a blowback 32 acp, but the nature of the build means its gonna be EXPENSIVE! So, a conversion would be a LOT cheaper than a Pardini or MG or 38 spec 1911, especially if you already have a lower or 3.

Anyway, I have an MG2 and a wadgun built by Jon, curious to see the results of your accuracy testing.

Dave

[Shiloh]

You raise excellent and very valid points. The best argument for the type of pistol for bullseye competition has become, and will likely remain, the 1911 frame.

With a 1911 22 conversion for the Rimfire aggregate and the .45 for both the centerfire and 45 aggregates, the competitor has essentially the same gun for all with the only difference being the caliber for one aggregate.

The proof is certainly in the pudding for that argument as well as that the large number of competitors who have adopted this strategy.

I couldn’t get use to the angle/rack/whatever of the Pardini’s or Benelli’s. The MG4, like the FWB 93, is very close to the 1911. Neither, however, offer a 32 ACP version. Apparently, grips can be found that allow other brands to mimic the 1911 as well.

A 1911 32 ACP conversion does not appear viable. The bullseye market is very, very small and wouldn’t appear to be a wise investment for a company to produce such a conversion. It will certainly be expensive as noted. I had a Kimber Rimfire Pistol 17 Mach II. Neat pistol and a lot of fun but having fired it a few times, I didn’t think that it was suitable for much and sold it. Pardini has pretty much saturated the 32 ACP market for competitive shooting.

Continue to work on 32 ACP loads for the MatchGuns MG4. So far testing remains very basic but initial results indicate that the T&B 64 SWC at 50 yards appears to do extremely well using Clays (1.5) and/or BE (1.6). Weather and pistol issues have limited efforts. Seems that the “MG” of the MG4 sometimes stands for “machine gun”. Groups very well when you are ready for it but some match directors would probably poo-poo the idea of it doing so in a match or tournament.

Will post detailed results when I have worked out gun issues and the weather improves and with the caveat that I am using a 32 ACP conversion built by Eulette Precision, not MatchGuns.