That would be pretty cool. Modern ammo makes mouse guns roar.

 

Once you get into that size, couldn't you just go to a 9mm?

 

Exactly what I was thinking. If you're going to make one that large, wouldn't most people choose a larger caliber?

 

You then get into the "locked breech" pistols (which are heavier.) The simplicity of the blowback pistols were well-known in longer barreled handguns. Beretta produced a 4.5 barreled .380 during the 1950's. The modern polymer-framed pistols would reduce the weight, yet permit the use of modern, high-powered ammunition.

Before you mention it, Kel-Tec produces the PF9 with a 3.1" barrel. You are, however, sacrificing performance with the shorter barrel. The straight, blowback 32's and .380's could possibly launch these hardcast bullets at 1200 fps. The .32 would generate 246 fpe and the .380 would churn out 319 fpe! Those are darned healthy figures for "little" blowback pieces. These are not being touted as "deep concealment" pieces, though they could be used as such.

Remember: the Ruger LCP and Kel-Tec are already rated for +P ammunition. These pistols would simply be a "back to the future" approach to the earlier european pistols. If desired, you could even stake adjustable sights upon them.

 

Remember: the Ruger LCP and Kel-Tec are already rated for +P ammunition. These pistols would simply be a "back to the future" approach to the earlier european pistols. If desired, you could even stake adjustable sights upon them.

:hand10:

I too am a fan of the .380 caliber. I think it's highly under rated, but to each his own I say. Great post on the possibilities for the rounds mentioned and I hope the research and manufacturing to add to the punch continues. It's nice to have such a small and easy to conceal pocket rocket available to the folks that just don't want to tote around a chunk all day without a huge compromise to SD.

One thing I did notice in the post that I'm fairly certain of though. :nono: The Ruger LCP isn't rated for +p ammo per the manual. I wish it was, but all the info I've come across say's no. JFYI

:bier: Cheers

 

Bear in mind that there is a large segment of the population that doesn't care for the recoil of the 9mm (as light as it may seem to most of the board members.) The longer barrels (and relatively high capacities) of these pistols will permit the "recoil sensitive" segment of the shooting population to repeatedly "burn off" a long string of these smaller caliber cartridge in rapid succession with impunity. This will increase the likelihood of hits on the agressor and facilitate the victim's escape.

 

For the past year Buffalo Bore has been producing +P loads for the .32 ACP and .380 ACP pistols. the ballistics for their Hardcast bullet loads are as follows:

.32 ACP (+p): a 77-grain hardcast @ 1150 fps/220fpe

.380 ACP (+P): a 100-grain hardcast @ 1150 fps/293 fpe

I propose that either Kel-Tec or Ruger could produce slightly longer barrel/slide pistols in these respective calibers (much as the europeans did during the early 20th century.) these polymer-framed pistols could still retain their "blowback" actions, but would STILL weigh less than their earlier counterparts. The longer slides barrels would produce reasonably higher velocities (with the high-performance ammunition) yet still be light enough for better hip-holster carry.

An example of this could be seen as a 4.5" barrel on a .32 ACP using the aforementioned ammunition would likely produce 1175 fps/236 fpe. A .380 of similar proportions would likely generate 1175 fps/306 fpe.

With a single-stack magazine, these pistols could be flat enough for concealed carry; a double-column magazine could still be concealed, but would be well suited to packing in a hip holster. Up to 19 rounds of "extra spicy" .380 or 21 rounds of the +P .32 loads wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility.

Isn't modern ballistic technology wonderful?

Both pistols are a locked breech design. I'll keep my P3AT just as is, thank you.

 

I propose that either Kel-Tec or Ruger could produce slightly longer barrel/slide pistols in these respective calibers (much as the europeans did during the early 20th century.) these polymer-framed pistols could still retain their "blowback" actions

I see a couple flaws in your plan;

* Both of the pistols you are re-engineering are already locked breech actions, they are not blowback.

* As already mentioned, the recoil would be greatly increased. Why not go to the 9mm

* The main reason people buy these guns is their small size and weight...which you just increased to 9mm size and weight. Bigger is bad.

* The NAA Guardian already has a souped-up .32 caliber pistol in the .32NAA.

When people buy a pocket gun, they do so with the realization that it's strickly a defensive gun. One doesn't expect to fight armies or hunt moose with it. They have limits and that's a fact. Changing the good qualities of a gun to make it something else lessens the desirability of that gun IMO.

 

I see a couple flaws in your plan;

* Both of the pistols you are re-engineering are already locked breech actions, they are not blowback.

* As already mentioned, the recoil would be greatly increased. Why not go to the 9mm

Bigger is bad.

When people buy a pocket gun, they do so with the realization that it's strickly a defensive gun. One doesn't expect to fight armies or hunt moose with it. They have limits and that's a fact. Changing the good qualities of a gun to make it something else lessens the desirability of that gun IMO.

Beretta built the same sized handguns during the 1950's. they were NOT sold as "pocket guns" but were engineered for holster guns for the European police and for civilian consumption. With the increased perfromace ammunition, it is a concept worth revisiting.

A lighweight holster-sized autoloader with .32 ACP perfromance running up into the .32 H&R Magnum ranges and the .380 ACP that has power reaching well into 9 X 18 Makarov territory should sell quite well.

 

The Ruger LCP isn't rated for +p ammo per the manual. I wish it was, but all the info I've come across say's no. JFYI

The LCP manual does say NO +P. No ambiguity there.

 

Unless you are an undercover cop or a lifeguard you need to carry at least
a J frame or a compact 9mm. :yup:

If you want a mousegun as a BUG , fine - in that case it just has to go bang
and be able to punch holes in eyes, eardrums, and foreheads.

:wave:

 

Since when does a stock 71-grain .32 ACP load form a 3.5" barrel generating an average of 129 fpe suddenly become LESS efficient when it is replaced by a 77-grain hardcast bullet, and is generating 220fpe from the SAME barrel?

There is a distinct difference between desire and "need." If someone can accomplish the same task with a lighter handgun, who is to say that you are right and they are wrong?

Providing different tools for the marketplace is a decision best made by the individual. If it fills their need, the market should fill that need.

You'd better check your argument, (oops) your prejudice is showing!

Welcome to the free market system. (Ain't that America?)

 

why not call Kel-Tec and insist to them that they have some obligation to fill this "niche market".... and if you have enough clout, while you have their ear, also insist they build the "P22" (the long sought after KelTec .22 cal pistol on the P32 frame). KelTec pistols were designed for a specific purpose.... close up self defense, and being extremely concealable. It's obvious that they sacrifice velocity, thus energy, in order to be as compact (the original purpose for the design) as possible. Some folks (I am one) often carry a snubbie for the ease of concealment, knowing full well that there is a sacrifice in delivered energy.

surv

 

I agree! These markets were served quite well by Beretta until the '68 GCA made problems. Kel-Tec and Ruger are the obvious sources for these handguns. Perhaps Cocoa, FL. and Prescott AZ. need some "whispering in their ears". (Remember, Ruger WAS the first handgun manufacturer to develop a revolver for the .327 Federal Magnum Cartridge; S&W has their 3' barreled version on the market as well as Taurus (a 2" barrel) and Charter Arms (in both 2.5" and 4" Patriot models.)

I'll make some phone calls tomorrow morning and see if I can shake "the leaves in the trees" and see what falls out.

 

no one that I am aware of has ever considered the yet to be made KT P22 a defensive weapon. The idea is that it be in the same grip/frame size as the P32 and P3AT...only for inexpensive "cross training" purposes. And, for what it's worth, the KT pistols do NOT have second strike capabilities...they require a short slide stroke to reset the trigger. These guns are made for the sole purpose of deep concealment, whether pocket carried, IWB with belt clip or holster, boot top (my method) or other. Any lengthening of the barrel/slide would defeat George Kelgren's original intent for designing the smallest, lightest and most compact (at the time of release) handguns on the market. Even though there are a lot of us kelteckies around that have begged for KT to design a super subcompact 22 cal in the standard KT locked breach frame, we know that the design constraints just would not allow it to function with rimfire ammunition. We have also begged for KT to build a line of defensive shotguns...but that ain't likely in the forseeable future. Their factory is running full bore producing the highly concealable handguns that the public seem to currently demand. There are parts of the country where a PF9 is priced by the dealers $100-150 over list, just due to inability of supply being able to meet current demand. Even the long awaited KT "bullpup" style .308 has been delayed, I would assume in part due to the demand for the extremely compact pistols taking precidence on the production line.

Maybe, at some point in time after the current demand cycle subsides, and no substantial degenerative changes in firearms laws are inacted, KT, Ruger and probably others may revisit the ballistics of .32 acp and .380 with the same zeal that has taken place with the various 9mm offerings in the past 10 years or so.

You do have to keep in mind that the many different offerings in 9mm ammunition will allow one to find a handgun of the size you are proposing for a .380 with no more percieved recoil than the subcompact .380's available now. The Sig P232 (.380acp) and Bersa Thunder are probably along the size handguns you are considering. If KT or Ruger tried to retool their subcompact designs, they would probably lose a fair share of their market.


surv

 

These loads should, if nothing else, provide for increased level of pentration for the "pocket gun" rounds. This is VERY important, because these "lesser" rounds rely soley upon penetration to accomplish their respective defensive assgnments. In this thread, it has been stated that these rounds are limited in their performance levels due to their inadequate loadings. I'm taking ANY level of improvement in performance that I can obtain.

I own three handguns chambered for these rounds:

a) A Beretta "Tomcat" (chambered in .32 ACP, of course);

b) a Crvena Zastava M70 of Yugoslavia, which is now Serbia (also in .32 ACP);

c) a Bersa Model 95 (chambered for the .380 ACP).

The Tomcat is a pistol that I rarely shoot. The Crvena Zastava is carried every week as my "take out the trash" pistol. "Cocked and unlocked" I slip it into my back pocket. It's 3.75" barrel will benefit from the Buffalo Bore loads. It SHOULD provide a substansial increase in power over the Privi Partizan ammunition that I currently use for defensive purposes. (Bear in mind that American .32 ACP loads won't reliably cycle the action). I am counting on the increased recoil impulse to enhance every aspect of this pistol's performance!

The Bersa Model 95 is an extremely well-built and reliable autoloader. I can't help but believe that using the Buffalo Bore ammunition will provide a ballistic "edge" when needed!

I use these pistols for personal defense only when it is inconvenient to make arrangements to carry either my Charter Bulldog (in a shoulder holster) or my Crvena Zastava M88A (in 9mm Luger). While the Serbian 9mm Tokarev "clone" is more powerful, it doesn't lend itself to readily being slipped into my back pocket for short, but important work outside our apartment.

Our neighborhood is fraught with the dangers that accompany most lower-income areas (drugs and unruly, truant teenagers). The smaller pistols are, by no means, my main form of armament. They are, however, expedient for short jaunts to the local "stop & rob" for milk, bread or some other necessity.

Vancouver, Washington is a "bedroom community" to Portland, Oregon. From city center to city center, is a maximum of 10 miles (using both freeway and arterial access). Vancouver is somewhat relegated to a status of Portland's "poorer relation". We live but 1.75 miles from the Oregon/Washington State Line (.25 miles from the northern end of the I-5 Interstate Bridge). This results in a lot of transient traffic and the sociocultural probems associated with it.

We cope with these complications as best we can. Being armed and vigilant at all times is one of them.

 

As bad as the .380 stings in the LCP mode and I am sure the P3AT does the same. I don't know how you could shoot a Buffalo Bore round without a terrible flinch. Hydra-Shocks in my LCP are just fine. If I need more umph I will carry something bigger.

fknipfer1

 

You're right. The hot .380 load would be abusive to the "little" Kel-Tec and Ruger pistols, making them downright abusive to shoot. I am virtually certain that many smaller-framed shooters feel that "sting" with even more intensely. While both you and I can handle recoil with consummate aplomb, not all shooters are recoil tolerant. That "sting" may discourage those that most need to carry a handgun. I have a friend that can no longer shoot a .380, because he is unable to cycle the slide. (The man is 92 years old). He has since resorted to carrying a double-action .38 Special revolver.

This is precisely why I am suggesting that Kel-Tec manufacture a larger-framed .380 ACP. The longer barrel/slide combination will allow smaller shooters to control the hotter .380 loads and increase the efficacity of their chosen arm.

 

I am trying to get my head around all this. I will focus on the .380 since that is the smallest carry caliber I have.

You want a .380 that is bigger and more powerful than what is currently on the market. You don't mind going to a 4 inch or there about barrel for the gun and stuffing more powder into the case to make it move faster. You want more rounds possibly even a double stack magazine.

Here is where the thought pattern splits. Everyone says just go to a 9mm. as Landric has said, your not going to get any more .380 than 9mm rounds into the same size package. So why not just pick up one of the smaller 9mm pistols and use an anemic round in it if you can't handle the recoil of a full on 9mm load or a defenisve load for a 9mm.

The other thing is, are you using at least a pocket holster when your drop these pistols into your pocket for work outside the apartment? I certainly hope so.

Many here put their pistol on in the morning when they get dressed and take it off when they get home or get ready for bed, so there isn't the need to get the gun when you want to go to the stop and rob, we already have the gun with us. But if that is what your looking for there are numerous paddle or other type holsters that are easily taken off and put on if you want something quick.

Again, I hope your using a holster with your pocket guns. I just don't see the need to try to beef up a .380 when you would be better off with a light 9mm to get your reduced recoil.

With the current demand for the guns on the market today, I really don't see any manufacturer picking up and running with this idea.

 

I'm not trying to suggest that Buffalo Bore .32 ACP or .380 ACP isn't higher performance than most or all other ammunition in those chamberings, just that its not possible to make the .380 ACP have 9x19mm performance safely. Even if one was to design ammunition for locked breech only pistols, it still couldn't be done due to the lower powder capacity of the case and the strength of the brass.

If I were to carry a .32 ACP or .380 ACP pistol, I'd probably carry Buffalo Bore ammunition, but I wouldn't try to fool myself into thinking that either was a 9x19mm.

 

By no stretch of imagination do I believe that carrying either a .32 or .380 is as effective as carrying a 9mm. I simply was thinking of others that have an aversion to recoil and need an alternative to carrying a 9mm while diminishing the shortcomings of the lesser cartridge(s). The idea for a larger .32 and .380 are an idea that will allow those that can't (or won't) use a larger 9mm cartridge a hand-filling alternative than attempting to grip a mini-pistol of the same caliber.


I am NOT using a holster with the larger .32 ACP, because the grip's frontstrap (at the base of the trigger guard) sits atop the corner of my back pocket. This is quite convenient, as it allows for a quick, yet safe, draw from my slacks or jeans. This is done with three fingers, placing both the thumb and index finger in the proper positions to grip the pistol and access the trigger. The trigger remains covered until the pistol is drawn, and my finger isn't placed on the trigger until I am ready to fire the handgun. This is my "taking out the trash" mode of carry, and is only used for four to five minutes at a time, and I NEVER sit down or compromise my vertical position. (This means that the pistol never changes it's position at all).

At all other times I generally use my shoulder holster rig to ensure the safety of the public and myself.

 

Incidentally, Buffalo Bore's .380 load DOES eclipse (and supersede) the 9X18 Makarov in power. This places current .380 in a far better position than before, giving them an increased chance of stopping the agressor.

 

Don't get me wrong, but my Crvena Zastava M88A (in 9mm Luger). While the Serbian 9mm Tokarev "clone" is more powerful, it doesn't lend itself to readily being slipped into my back pocket for short, but important, work outside our apartment. In order to carry it, I would have to install a strap on the holster that I use to carry my Charter Arms "Bulldog". These are long, tedious and time consuming. While I have considered digging out my 2nd "West Supreme" (made by Jim Noble Inc. of Vancouver, WA.) it would also require a "stretching out" of the nylon straps and personal readjustment in Jim's shop to begin carrying my large autoloading pistols.

I keep thinking about packing either my Glock Model 20, or my Dan Wesson Razorback in the shoulder holster, but they begin to cause the strap under my right arm to chafe. After a day of packing that much weight with an offside strap that rides up under your right armpit you begin to wonder about carrying a lighter piece! The Crvena Zastava M88A is great, but after a day of packing it around, I am required to either wax the blue-steel pistol, or carefully rub it down with a silicone cloth. This relatively inexpensive 9mm is still a very nice piece, and I'd like to keep it that way.

OTOH, the 3" Charter Arms is well made and is crafted of stainless steel. I occasionally give it the "once over" and have yet to see any corosion. This is a 1991-vintage revolver of excellent construction. It continues to provide "yeoman" service, and is far more potent than a "snub-nosed" .38 Special. The Pachmyer "Compac" grips mitigate the revolver's recoil, and come in handy when a situation that generates sweaty palms arises!

In the interim, I'll keep packing the "Bulldog" and keep looking for an alternative.

 

A useful website for this discussion. Longer barrels would help, even without using +P. Jumping from a 5 to a 6" barrel seem to give between 30-50FPS

Ballistics by the inch

 

The answer to my question: A Sig P238 with a ether a 4" or 5" barrel with the appropriate slide, guide rod and spring arrangement. This would provide the needed "runway" to permit the Buffalo Bore ammunition to reach it's maximum velocity! Voila, quandary solved!

In the immortal words of the "Staples" big, red button... "That was easy"!

 

good luck with that modification


just get the Sig P232 and call it good

 

To what end? Please explain.

 

I looked up the Sig P232. Since I already have a Bersa Model 95, I can't see what advantage it woild have. I like the single-action aspect of the P238; the barrel/slide needs to be longer, that's all. It could be retrofitted to accomodate this modification.