TargetTalk

May I ask if anybody knows if any serious consideration has been given to using the .32 ACP for centerfire ISSF instead of the usual 32 Long ?
I assume that the 32 ACP is better suited for reliable feeding, but what about accuracy potential ?

Seasons greetings to everybody !

Schatz I dont have an answer but your question makes me wonder what gun/model you would be using to shoot the .32 acp. I dont know of a target gun ever built to chamber that cartridge.

My understanding of the original question is why is there no Centerfire pistol currently chambered in 32ACP. I'm personally thinking of a 32ACP case topped with a semi-wadcutter bullet being shot on a fixed-barrel pistol.

Well,
As far as I know there is no purpose built .32 ACP target pistol with the correct attributes; I am at the moment considering such a concept.
Before I embark on any practical steps, I thought I will ask to see if anybody has done this before or if there is any data concerning the .32 ACP as a target round for both 25 and 50 Yards.
I am particularly interested in bore parameters, like rifling details, bore diameter and twist rate.
That said, it would be an exercise in futility unless the .32ACP has at least as much accuracy potential as the 32 S&W long WC.
Guest, my idea was for a semi auto, but if you have already conducted tests in any other pistol type, i would be interested to hear of your results.

Rumours say that there were tests with the .32 ACP in Italy, years ago. Apparently, a .32 ACP with round nosed bullets outshoots a .32 S&W in every category, from a good barrel. From what I hear, a FAS 603 was converted at that time for the tests. I've never seen the pistol, and it was never confirmed by FAS. The source is quite good, though; and I'd be surprised if nobody had ever tried it out, so it could well be. Ballistically, there is no reason why it shouldn't work, and that the .32 S&W is crap is well known - it's more or less a mortar, throwing ashtrays. I guess the well known industrial complex was not interested in hearing this, and even the S&W is good enough for 25m CF, so nobody cared.

Every industry has its fair share of product anomalies; Sometimes an idea that barely works becomes normal fare because of particular reasons.

My understanding is that the case for 32 Long is one of tradition kept alive by an extremely limited and unchallenging market.
If it were Formula one motor racing, then one can rest assured that every little venue for a technical advantage will be looked into exhaustively; And the same for most sports.
(Anyone who has tried out fixed barrel alternatives for the Browning tipping barrel lock in the larger bores, will know exactly what I mean. A gas delayed blowback is well suited for a top notch target pistol for the heavier calibers, yet millions are spent every year to get barrel hoods, swinging links and bushings lock-up as they were never designed to, by some determined but skilled pistol smiths).

I have taken up this subject with one of the top persons in firearms manufacture and all I can say at the moment is that an undemanding market for CF demotivates these guys to no end.
The bottom line is that if top shooters are happy with the 32 Long (and tipping barrels in 45's :-), then the industry is unlikely to devote any serious interest in new target guns.

Anyway, histrionics apart, the FAS story is interesting; I wonder what really happened.

Anonymous wrote:....and that the .32 S&W is crap is well known - it's more or less a mortar, throwing ashtrays...

???
As long as it can hold the inner-10 ring, the rest is up to me

Yeah, that might be well and good in Oz, but try shooting 50 yard NRA with a normal .32 S&W load...

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, that might be well and good in Oz, but try shooting 50 yard NRA with a normal .32 S&W load...

The original question was about ISSF.

I always found the .32 S&W Long to be more than accurate enough for 25m.

Schatzperson,

A direct answer to your first question is that 32 ACP is not really a good choice.

The reasons I say that are as follows:

1. 32 ACP is a semi-rimless cartridge. The rim measures 0.358 inches and the body of the cartridge measures 0.337 inches. It is not enough rim to consistantly headspace on. The same situation is found in the .38 Automatic (.38 Super Automatic) cartridge. Many bullseye gunsmiths have found that headspacing the .38 Super on the case mouth like true rimless cartridges has a dramatic improvement in accuracy. So why use a semi-rimless cartridge in the first place? Either headspace on the rim like .32 S&W Long or .38 Special, or headspace on the case mouth like a .45 ACP if you desire match grade accuracy.

2. There is a custom gunsmith in the US who does make a .32 ACP conversion for the Colt 1911a1. However, there is not a readily available supply of match quality .32 ACP ammunition. So handloading is the only other option available. In my opinion, .32 is too small for me to easily reload. I prefer to reload .38 Special and .45 ACP.

3. I have thought about your question for many years now and I agree that a semi-auto pistol should shoot a round nose bullet of rimless design to enhanse feeding reliability. So, maybe .380 ACP, being a true rimless design is a better choice. But again, no quality match grade ammunition is available.

RJP, I guess I am with you regarding the lack of a "perfect" round for CF ( both Bullseye and ISSF).
Posts such as yours, I find reassuring- I am not the only one on this boat it seems !
Back to the original issue; One reason I went for the 32ACP was the minimal recoil and size. My thinking was that the case might be just long enough to accomodate some experimentation with bullet types and loads without it being too small like perhaps the 6.35mm.
The rim on the 32 is tiny and my thinking is that one can perhaps disregard it entirely and seat on the mouth.
Another possibility might be an entirely new, perhaps based on the 30 carbine case.
The 380 might also be a contender; I have even played with purpose loaded 9x19, but the extra bullet weight might be counterproductive to the original purpose of a low recoil CF combination.

CF needs a deserving round, free of the inherent problems of the 32 S&W case. Thus free, perhaps then we might then see purpose built CF pistols instead of souped up RF guns.

David, yes certainly the 32 S&W Long is accurate enough for 25. Nobody will contest that fact.
My point is that one has to bend over backwards to design suitable pistols for this round and even then, top manufactureres still struggle with reliability issues.

.32 S&W was picked as a CF target round mainly because it operate at fairly low pressure, perfect for a sraight blow back design, so most target pistol maker just scale up their .22 mechanism, mate it to the smae frame and there you have it a .32 CF pistol.

As other posters pointed out already, there us no reason why .32 ACP or .380 (9 mm short) purpose built pistol can't shoot as good or better than .32 S&W, .380 case are shorter than .32 S&W, I find them a bit of pain to reload. then there's the bullet issue, hard to find quality lead bullets around 100gr. or so if one doesn't cast their own.

There don't seems too many choices in terms of CF target pistol if one wants something other than a .45 ACP, of couse the S&W Model 52 and 952 is an option, other than that, can't think of any small cal. CF target pistols other than .32 S&W.

Schatzperson,

Shortening a .30 Carbine cartridge is a interesting idea. Please note that .30 carbine case is tapered and will be more difficult to chamber than a semi-rimless case.

I have been experimenting with .38 Special loads using 95 grain bullets. They recoil like a .32 S&W Long.

380 ACP is a straight wall case and bullets of 90 grains are available. Loaded to target velocities, it should produce recoil similar to the .32 S&W Long. The biggest disadvantage is the larger caliber. It will be difficult to find a current model .22 LR pistol that will fit the larger diameter cartridge.


BTW, recoil is not a factor in International Center Fire. It is just more pleasant for me to shoot a mild recoiling firearm.

I don't think recoil is the issue here. My MG4 runs on .32 S&W with 1.1grs N310 and a 83grs Lapua, muzzle flip is about as high as the MG2 with a Fiocchi M320. But the .32 S&W is huge, and the ACP would be almost the same size as a .22lr, so I really don't see why nobody ever bothers to try it out, and builds larger pistols instead.

Some time ago I experimented with a shortened .32 SW long, in a attempt to solve the thin wall/variable neck tension problem that was causing the odd flyer in the .32.
It was shortened by .125" to allow a cast button nose wad cutter to be rolled crimped into a crimp groove and still retain the same lenght overall to fit any .32 s&w long magazine.

A improvement in feeding, group,as well as a reduction of the out of group flyers was found, but after a couple of hundred rounds a lead build up was occuring at the mouth of the chamber into the rifiling spoiling the group.
The next stage was to build a barrel with a short chamber to take this shortened case and allow the button nose to touch the rifiling.

I chose a .38 revolver instead, but the idea still a lot of merit.

schatzperson wrote:May I ask if anybody knows if any serious consideration has been given to using the .32 ACP for centerfire ISSF instead of the usual 32 Long ?
I assume that the 32 ACP is better suited for reliable feeding, but what about accuracy potential ?

Seasons greetings to everybody !

Two questions:
- is there any perceived or expected improvement in 25M accuracy from the ACP over the S&W long case?
- is there any perceived or expected advantage in reliable feeding?

For 50M/yards there can be an accuracy advantage with RN projectiles - certainly this was my experience with .32 revolver loads; 98gr 2r projectiles grouped far better and consistently at 50 yards.
For .32 calibre, at 25M, the 98gr HBWC seems to be the way to go

0.32 ACP should be functionally better than 0.32SWL, I don't know of a reason why it should be less accurate.

I don't know the history but suspect 0.32SWL in an auto is a quirk due to the early target revolvers using that caliber.

If I were to start from scratch designing a CF target auto I'd pick 0.32ACP.

Also .22LR doesn't use HBWC bullets (in fact I find BNWC work better) and seems accurate enough, scaling .22LR to .32LR shouldn't be any less accurate.

The 32 ACP , or some other low power auto round, should be better suited in autos rather than a rimmed revolver round. Accuracy is bound to be as good also; Look up the post by fc60, in the bullseye section, under 32ACP- Results with a converted Pardini HP.

The general impression with ISSF CF pistols is that nobody really ever bothered to better the status quo, not even manufacturers. Perhaps everybody is waiting for CF to die a lingering natural death.

I mean here we are 20 odd posts down the line, and hardly doubting the practicality of a rimmed revolver round in an auto.
Consider the tons of laments collected over the years- Dedicated ( I mean from concept day one), CF pistols take on distilled snakeoil for profusion.
Makers have simply used 22 frames as their starting point . In some cases beefed them up a little, or added knobs as charging thingies to add some weight to the slide.......give me a break! We are talking about the ne-plus-ultra of center fire pistol events and this is the best there is!

Oh and for you guys who shoot bullseye and would rather not use a 45 for midrange, all it takes is the same concept with perhaps a faster twist rate.

So lets look forward and keep this technical.
Dont get me wrong guys, I love tradition, I have a vaultfull of blue steel and solid walnut, but when it comes to performance I prefer logic over fetish.
The post by fc60 is encouraging and constructive, well done.

schatzperson wrote:Dont get me wrong guys, I love tradition, I have a vaultfull of blue steel and solid walnut, but when it comes to performance I prefer logic over fetish.

Well my logic tells me that if a gun/ammunition combination was capable of shooting a good inner 10 ring whenever I did my job correctly then there can't have been too much wrong with it.