Would you like a Browning 1911 .32 ACP?

[Cheapshooter]

Well, in case anyone's forgotten, or it got lost in the clutter, Kannonk already mentioned this:

Be assured it has not been forgotten, or lost.
I just think we're all amazed at the expertise of someone that argues like a ten year old, and has never fired a real gun!

[kannonk]

"A 380 barrel could be sleeved I imagine, but I am also sure there would be feed ramp, magazine, and recoil spring issues to deal with."

Do you know if there would be any issues if manufacturers decided to change the .32 ACP to a rimless casing?

"Do you find 9mm recoil to be particularly excessive?"

Well, I only fired a .22 revolver once. So I don't know. However, my original post was probably largely influenced by the fact I read a number of messages saying the .32 ACP was pleasant to shoot. And also partly because it has more flexibility than the .22 (like ammo with energy levels going up to 177 ft/lbs and being able to use Xtreme Cavitator ammo from Underwood).

"Because it's very obvious from this thread and others that you don't know what you don't know and stuff like felt recoil is very subjective."

Well since my opinions are based on other people's comments or Youtube videos (from people who actually shot guns), what exactly is annoying or dumb about my comments?

OK, I was answering comments up to post #89, more later I guess.

[TailGator]

I just think we're all amazed at the expertise of someone that argues like a ten year old, and has never fired a real gun!

I personally am dazzled beyond words. And since I have no more words, I will offer no more words.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by kannonk

Do you know if there would be any issues if manufacturers decided to change the .32 ACP to a rimless casing?

The breech face would be smaller than the breech face for .380 ACP. Consequently, a ".32 Rimless" pistol probably could not use the same slide and extractor as the .380 model, as is done with most modern .32 ACP pistols.

Also, for pistols that share magazines between .32 ACP and .380, the ".32 Rimless" will most likely need its own magazine because the feed lips would need to be closer together.

The cost of the tooling for the dedicated parts is likely to dissuade manufacturers from even considering such a project.

[micromontenegro]

Wow, I can't believe we've got six pages of this.

I don't want a scaled-down 1911 in 32 ACP, but one in .22 Flea would be a hoot.

[kannonk]

"Making .327 work in an autoloader would be quite difficult..."

You mean even by changing the casing?

" Then increase the bullet diameter by a couple thousandths of an inch. For absolutely no reason at all."

Well, actually if the .32 ACP was modified and called 8mm, it would be partly a marketing thing because the 9mm is so popular. Right now, I can only think of Charter Arms that makes a .32 magnum revolver. And .32 revolver ammo is now pretty difficult to find (from what I saw). So what closes the gap between the .22 and .38 Special? I mean the same may happen to the .32 ACP if people don't care about it.

[Cheapshooter]

Well, actually if the .32 ACP was modified and called 8mm, it would be partly a marketing thing because the 9mm is so popular.

LOL, Proves you know even less about marketing than you do guns. That's saying a lot!
Nobody is going to completely remake a cartridge to advertise it as less, smaller, lower powered.

So what closes the gap between the .22 and .38 Special?

327 Federal Magnum. But again "only" being a 32 it hasn't caught on very well. But with Ruger now chambering the LCR IN 327 Federal it could gain new life.
There are also some 380 acp revolvers targeted to those handicapped with recoil sensitivity syndrome.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by kannonk

Well, I only fired a .22 revolver once. So I don't know. However, my original post was probably largely influenced by the fact I read a number of messages saying the .32 ACP was pleasant to shoot. And also partly because it has more flexibility than the .22 (like ammo with energy levels going up to 177 ft/lbs and being able to use Xtreme Cavitator ammo from Underwood).

The first part of your statement is reductio ad absurdum -- 9mm is more pleasant to shoot than .45 ACP, 380 ACP is more pleasant to shoot than 9mm, 32 ACP is more pleasant to shoot than .380 ACP, .25 ACP is more pleasant to shoot than .32 ACP, .22LR is more pleasant to shoot than .25 ACP, and .22 Short is more pleasant to shoot than .22 LR. Stop wherever along the spectrum you feel comfortable.

As for flexibility -- you think the .32 ACP is more flexible than the .22? Seriously? Just in .22 LR you can buy everything from CB caps (basically just primer, no powder), to colibris (not much more powerful than CB caps), to "quiet", to subsonic and "sniper" rounds, to standard velocity, and then on to high velocity and hyper-velocity. Many of these are available in both solid point and hollow point. How much more flexibility do you want?

Originally Posted by kannonk

Well, actually if the .32 ACP was modified and called 8mm, it would be partly a marketing thing because the 9mm is so popular. Right now, I can only think of Charter Arms that makes a .32 magnum revolver. And .32 revolver ammo is now pretty difficult to find (from what I saw). So what closes the gap between the .22 and .38 Special? I mean the same may happen to the .32 ACP if people don't care about it.

What's between .22 and .38 Special? Ignoring .25 ACP, there are several .32 caliber rounds that fall into that gap: .32-20 WCF, .32 H&R Magnum, .32 Long COlt, .32 S&W, .32 S&W Long, and .327 Magnum. Flexibility? Revolvers chambered for .327 Magnum can also fire 32 S&W, .32 S&W Long, and .32 H&R Magnum. How's that for flexibility?

[kannonk]

"But you made the statement that a 32 would be better to accidentally shoot yourself with than a 380?"

I'm going on ballistics gel tests that show a much smoother cavity channel for the .32 ACP (especially the FMJ). By the way, for all the times some of you wanted to laugh my comment about accidental shootings, I read recently about a member of the NRA recently shot shot himself during a demonstration. I also read in the revolver forum that revolvers are not only easier to train on but also that there are fewer misfires with a revolver. (That of course implies there are misfires from guns.)

"He made the point many years ago that the 32 and 380 were two peas in a pod. What one would do the other would do."

Is this the case, why are there so many who want to rag on the .32 ACP?

"Sounds like you need some experience before you make assumptions about what people want."

Actually, I'm not the one who posted messages that after trying to introduce guns to their female partners, they didn't even want to shoot either a .38 Special or .380 ACP. So I'm assuming the only rational choices are either a medium-sized .32 ACP pistol or .327 federal magnum revolver and load .32 H&R magnum ammo in it. (Actually, I tried researching this for revolvers and the solution isn't easy. The other ammo you can put in a .327 revolver don't have enough velocity and the .32 H&R magnum has about the same energy levels as a .38 Special. This means someone could make a .32 ACP revolver to fill in that 126 to 177 ft/lbs of energy gap between the .22 and .38 Special.)

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by kannonk

Actually, I'm not the one who posted messages that after trying to introduce guns to their female partners, they didn't even want to shoot either a .38 Special or .380 ACP. So I'm assuming the only rational choices are either a medium-sized .32 ACP pistol or .327 federal magnum revolver and load .32 H&R magnum ammo in it.

But you started this love fest asking specifically about a 1911 in .32 ACP. You can't have read any articles or Interewbz posts about people whose wives or girlfriends don't like 1911s in .380 ACP, because they don't exists (except in Brazil, where Imbel makes a .380 version -- but that's not imported to the United States). I've downloaded 9mm cases using 95-grain .380 ACP bullets and getting .380 ACP power levels. Shot through a 9mm 1911, I had to cut the recoil spring down to (IIRC) about 8 pounds before the gun would cycle, and there was NO recoil. Articles you've been reading most likely apply to shooting .380 ACP out of small, lightweight polymer pocket pistols such as Kel-Tec.

That's just not a valid comparison.

[ThomasT]

Aquila Blanca Llama did make a scaled down 1911 in 380. A buddy bought one many years ago at the gunshow. It was all steel. It was a neat little gun but not only would I not buy one in 380 I wouldn't buy on in 32acp either. And so fas as I know they never made a 32. I doubt anyone wanted one.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Semi-Auto-P...ords=Llama+380

[reddog81]

Anybody that concerned about filling the gap between .22 and 38 caliber (.380 or 38 special) can reload light 38 special or light .380 ACP rounds. For the price of a new gun you can go get a decent reloading setup and supplies. When looking between the lighest 38 special loads up to the hottest 38 Special +P loads, 38 special can do just about everything your beginner to average handgunner needs to do. Even light 9mm loads in a full size frame feel like something that's barely a step above .22lr.

[Bill DeShivs]

Both Llama and Star made small 1911-style guns in .32 and .380.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by ratshooter

Aquila Blanca Llama did make a scaled down 1911 in 380. A buddy bought one many years ago at the gunshow. It was all steel. It was a neat little gun but not only would I not buy one in 380 I wouldn't buy on in 32acp either. And so fas as I know they never made a 32. I doubt anyone wanted one.

But the OP asked about a 1911 in .32 ACP. A scaled down Llama isn't considered to be a 1911 by anyone I know. In fact, Armscor has revived that design (or something very similar) as the "Baby Rock." We don't consider those to be 1911s, either.