TargetTalk

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?

Why would 25m shooters switch? You can only buy the Pardini .32 ACP in USA and accuracy with the .32 WC is no issue at 25m!

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.

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.

There's no reason not to use .32ACP, its a much better cartridge for autoloaders, I have no idea why anyone would have thought to make an auto for .32SWL

Europeans use .32SWL for target shooting when it doesn't make a lot of sense, just as Americans use .45ACP which makes even less sense :P

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?

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.

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.

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.

I don't know if .32ACP is not allowed in Italy, I doubt it.

Even if .32ACP is better, the likelihood of anyone switching over now is about as high as Betamax making a comeback.

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?

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)

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.

Trooper
What load are you using for 32 ACP?
I would really like to try this round, the Pardini 32 ACP conversions are apparently available in Canada, but there's no really good cast lead 32 cal bullets. Shooting Hornady jacketed is cost prohibitive.

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 :)

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.

..Not to mention that CFP is not an Olympic event.

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.

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.

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.

TrooperJake-

Keep us filled in with the progression of this 60gr SWC mold you speak of!

Thanks, Dan.

It's in a posting in bullseye.
Look for Pardini.

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)

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.

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.

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.

Heh, I couldn't be more opposite. Give me unlimited ammo that works; I'll be on the range.

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.

:)