.32 S&W long vs. 38 Special

[Capt. William]

Centerfire competitors: which of these two cartridges do you prefer, and why?

Jim

[6string]

Hi!
I use 38 special in a Giles modified Colt 1911. This is a very popular cartridge and pistol in the U.S. Components are easy to get and inexpensive. It's extremely accurate with many loads. It is more easily adaptable to Bullseye (outdoors @ 50yd line) and International CF. I don't think recoil is a problem, especially in Int. CF where you don't have sustained fire stages in which recovery is an issue. On the down side, you don't have a user adjustable trigger, but once set up to your taste it will stay there. The 1911 is, of course, designed around the 45 ACP cartridge, so the 38 won't batter the gun. On the other hand, most 32s are adapted from their 22 counterparts so the potential for damage such as cracked frames and bolts is much higher. I would like to see a specifically designed 32 with the proper twist barrel to succeed at the 50 yd line. I did see a very interesting Ruger MK.I converted to 32. It had a huge weight added to the bolt so it was very heavy. The custom barrel was supposedly ideal for 50 yds but I did not have a chance to try it. Also, Dave Salyer, a gunsmith/competitor in SC did some very interesting work on the 1911 in which he converted to 30 Luger. This was specifically a bullseye gun. It did well at 50 yds with cast bullets. It would be suitable for Int. CF as well, I think.

[David Levene]

Centerfire competitors: which of these two cartridges do you prefer, and why?

Do you just want to shoot ISSF at 25m or do you want to shoot at longer distances.

[Capt. William]

Just at the shorter distance, 25 meters: but your question hints that the distance involved matters to your answer. (?) :-)

Jim

[David Levene]

Just at the shorter distance, 25 meters: but your question hints that the distance involved matters to your answer.

Only that if you wanted to shoot anything other than ISSF I wouldn't feel qualified to give an answer.

If you are only shooting ISSF then I think you should be choosing suitable guns first rather than trying to select the calibre first.

Whilst it is possible to have a .38 semi-auto built that is competitive in the ISSF match, it is much easier to find a suitable gun in .32.

My personal choice would be (and always was) a .32 semi-automatic. From a quality gun the cartridge is more than capable of x-ring grouping and semi-autos give you a much bigger choice of trigger set-up than do revolvers.

You will hear scare stories about how difficult it is to reload .32s; I never found it so. I found a set of quality components that gave good grouping in my gun and then just used reasonable care during the reloading process.

[JamesH]

My experience reloading 32swl is you need to hit the right combination for your gun - case, powder, bullet, dies.
Sometimes you get lucky, sometimes its a struggle.
Finding a powder measure to metre accurately so low can be troublesome.

.38spl is generally more forgiving to load but probably fundamentally slightly less accurate than 0.32.
With the extra recoil its slightly harder work to shoot.

Its a pity a proper auto cartridge was never developed as a target round, eg 0.32ACP.

Revolvers can work well, and they can be less trouble than an auto.
You are more limited in grips and trigger however.
I'm not much of a shot but have done 569 with a K32, 560 with a K38.

I like my Toz 49 revolver, and will stick with it for now.

[David M]

If you are just looking at the cartridge's as the argument, the 38 is the more accurate round.

Many years of testing shows only a small difference in total accuracy. The 38 has achieved a group down to 18mm (outside to outside, 5 or 10 shot groups) while the 32 is a little larger at 22mm. Both are well inside the x ring of a precision target.

What I have found to be a problem is the consistency. The 38 when shot in 100 round groups blows out to about 22-25mm, but the 32 will open up to over 28mm with 1 or 2 shots up to 40-50mm out of the group.

These fliers have been traced back to the case wall thickness of the 32 case (it is thinner than the 38), and its associated case release neck tension.
This is why the 32 is not as easy to reload as the 38, and things like crimp is so critical for good results.

Now complicate the argument with the available shooting iron's.
What guns are available, pistol or revolver, are they in current production, are parts available and in what calibres?

Generally the revolvers will out precision the auto's, but are harder to duel with. I can train to improve the duelling score but very little I can do to improve the precision accuracy of the pistol.

My handgun to the last 3 Commonwealth Games has been a .38 Manurhin Match revolver (and it was the only 38 on the line), with about 25% revolvers / 75% Auto's in .32 the rest.

[David Levene]

Generally the revolvers will out precision the auto's,

Any reason you can think of for that David.

In theory, with only one chamber and no "cylinder jump", the auto's should be more accurate. The revolver barrel can be effectively longer under ISSF but I cannot think of any other reason.

I personally feel that any perceived difference in precision when shot from the hand is more between the ears than anything else. When I was competing (averaging over 290 in the precision) with a semi-auto I certainly never felt at a disadvantage.

[jipe]

Generally the revolvers will out precision the auto's,

Any reason you can think of for that David.

In theory, with only one chamber and no "cylinder jump", the auto's should be more accurate. The revolver barrel can be effectively longer under ISSF but I cannot think of any other reason.

I personally feel that any perceived difference in precision when shot from the hand is more between the ears than anything else. When I was competing (averaging over 290 in the precision) with a semi-auto I certainly never felt at a disadvantage.

May be the moving barrel used to lock the barrel in most pistol shooting 38 ?

By the way is there any pistol in 38 in production, I know the very good SIG/Hammerli P240 based on the P210 design but it is not manufactured since a long time now.

[David Levene]

May be the moving barrel used to lock the barrel in most pistol shooting 38 ?

Maybe I mis-read David's comments but I thought he was referring to revolvers/semi-auto's in general, not just .38s.

[David M]

The revolvers in general (both in 32 and 38) are worth 2-4 points more in precision than the auto's. The 32 revolver with a roll crimped case will group tighter than a 32 auto, and in the 38's the auto's are a little unforgiving to poor trigger control.

To my knowledge the only 38 autos in 38 special still in production are some 1911 specalised gunsmith pistols. The last of the old P240's, M52's and Colts Officer Mid ranges are long out of production. The closest pistols to ISSF in production are the Pardini GT series in 9mm or the S&W 952. One interesting way to go would be into 38 super or 30 luger, both of these would need to be built on a locking action as the power level would not work on blowback.

All of the 32 auto's are ISSF after thoughts built on blowback 22 and are really pushing the limits with low power wadcutters. It would be a different story if Centrefire was an Olympic event you might see a lot more development happening.

The best 32 auto I have used was the Unique Des 32 (50yd groups very good) but it is also long out of production.

[Capt. William]

Generally the revolvers will out precision the auto's, but are harder to duel with. I can train to improve the duelling score but very little I can do to improve the precision accuracy of the pistol.

My handgun to the last 3 Commonwealth Games has been a .38 Manurhin Match revolver (and it was the only 38 on the line), with about 25% revolvers / 75% Auto's in .32 the rest.

I'm thinking that .32 revolver might be the way to go.

Revolvers are less trouble than autoloaders. If they're more inherently accurate on the precision stage: as you say, one can train to improve as a shooter on the dueling stage but there's little to be done to improve the inherent accuracy of the weapon.

And .32's have less recoil.

Jim

[jipe]

The revolvers in general (both in 32 and 38) are worth 2-4 points more in precision than the auto's. The 32 revolver with a roll crimped case will group tighter than a 32 auto, and in the 38's the auto's are a little unforgiving to poor trigger control.

To my knowledge the only 38 autos in 38 special still in production are some 1911 specalised gunsmith pistols. The last of the old P240's, M52's and Colts Officer Mid ranges are long out of production. The closest pistols to ISSF in production are the Pardini GT series in 9mm or the S&W 952. One interesting way to go would be into 38 super or 30 luger, both of these would need to be built on a locking action as the power level would not work on blowback.

All of the 32 auto's are ISSF after thoughts built on blowback 22 and are really pushing the limits with low power wadcutters. It would be a different story if Centrefire was an Olympic event you might see a lot more development happening.

The best 32 auto I have used was the Unique Des 32 (50yd groups very good) but it is also long out of production.

It would be possible to make an ISSF pistol with a fixed barrel even for higher power cartridge without locking action using gas retarding system like the HK P7, so no heavy slide or moving barrel to get a locking action. This would benefit even for low power cartridge like .32WC.

Then, the second possibility is to use a real pistol cartridge instead of revolver ones like the .38 and .32 that are always more difficult to use in a pistol. Tests have proven that 9mm luger and .30 luger can be quite accurate, both are real pistol cartridge.

The real question is why to use a high power cartridge that will always be more difficult to shoot due to higher recoil if lower power is allowed ?

And finally, whatever the cartridge, there is the issue of covering the development costs of a specific center fire ISSF pistol with very small quantities sold. This is the main reason for the current, cheaper approach, taken by almost all manufacturer, to make a .32WC derived from their .22lr pistol.

[Capt. William]

All of the 32 auto's are ISSF after thoughts built on blowback 22 and are really pushing the limits with low power wadcutters. It would be a different story if Centrefire was an Olympic event you might see a lot more development happening.

And finally, whatever the cartridge, there is the issue of covering the development costs of a specific center fire ISSF pistol with very small quantities sold. This is the main reason for the current, cheaper approach, taken by almost all manufacturer, to make a .32WC derived from their .22lr pistol.

Until centerfire pistol either becomes an Olympic event - or becomes popular in the US - you're right: there's just not likely to be much of a sales market.

[Mike M.]

FWIW, Hammerli literature on the 280 claimed that the gun had been originally designed around the .32 S&W. Might be true from a stress standpoint.

I wonder what it would take to persuade S&W to do a special run of M52-2s. Or K-32s. Get pre-orders and sell the guns by subscription. I'd sign up for either.

[6string]

Mike,
I like your idea about having S&W do a special run of .32s. They have done many short runs for various distributors, collector organizations, etc. They basically need some evidence that the run will sell. Someone like Jim Supica, who has written a number of books on S&W, would probably know how to begin the process. S&W seems to be much more open to accomodating custom model orders and special purpose models.
I'm not sure if the 52 is adaptable to the .32 cartridge. Is it not a delayed blow-back action somewhat like the Browning p-35? The k-frame revolver might be easier to do. It would almost certainly be about half the price of any current model 52 or 952. One trick will be not having it become some sort of multi-purpose pistol for, say, the .32 H&R mag intended to appeal to small game hunters. Having said that, perhaps reviving the k-32 in several guises, (ie. target model, concealed carry model, small game model) might make the idea more financially viable.
One request if this does happen: please get the barrel twist right for wadcutter loads at 50 yds. and match the groove diameter of the barrel to the throat diameter of the cylinder chambers!!

[Capt. William]

Mike,
perhaps reviving the k-32 in several guises, (ie. target model, concealed carry model, small game model) might make the idea more financially viable.

I'd purchase a 6" target model! I already have a .32 Colt New Police (2 inch), and the Ruger SA .32 Mag.

Jim

[Steve Swartz]

How hard would it be to re-barrel and re-chamber a K38? Then again, by the time you finish the trigger work etc. it might be cheaper to just buy something else?

Steve

[David M]

MR73 MATCH
Revolver Type MR73 Match-blued
Model MR73 M-6"
Caliber .32 S. & W. Long Wadcutter or .38 Special
Barrel Length 152 mm 6"
Line of Sight 210 mm 8.27"
Overall Length 276 mm 10.87"
Unloaded Weight 1,080 g 38 oz

[Capt. William]

MR73 MATCH
Revolver Type MR73 Match-blued
Model MR73 M-6"
Caliber .32 S. & W. Long Wadcutter or .38 Special
Barrel Length 152 mm 6"
Line of Sight 210 mm 8.27"
Overall Length 276 mm 10.87"
Unloaded Weight 1,080 g 38 oz

One important spec is missing: what's the price tag? :-)

Jim