Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 35 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
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?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,765 Posts
Once you get into that size, couldn't you just go to a 9mm?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,104 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,036 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,670 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,421 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,670 Posts
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.

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 two pistols you mentioned are definitely marketed as pocket pistols. There are already many pistols available for the .32 or .380acp enthusiast that are "holster' type guns, I own a number of them. I just disagree with the concept of turning a pocket gun into a duty weapon. They are two different animals and should not mate, as the offsdpring adds nothing to the gene pool that doesn't already exist in better form.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
809 Posts
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.
There is no standard for +P ammunition in either .32 ACP or .380 ACP, IIRC the only official +P cartridges are .38 Special, 9x19mm, .45 ACP, and .257 Roberts. Anything else marked +P is either a marketing ploy of some kind, possibly wildly overpressure, or both.

No matter how fast you push a 77 grain bullet, its still a 77 grain bullet. It might penetrate enough, it might do the job, or it might not. The same, of course, goes for anything, everything just seems to get less sure the lighter and smaller the bullet.

The reason mouse guns exist is they are small, light, and easy to carry. Bumping the size up of the gun makes them makes less sense, since the same number of 9x19 or .380 cartridges will fit in a magaine, they both shoot .355 bullets and the 9x19 is only 2mm longer than the .380. The reason the 9x19 offers such a performance boost is higher pressure and longer OAL, allowing for heavier bullets. If one increases the size of the gun, one might as well go with the 9x19mm.

Perhaps there is a nitch market for flat polymer pistols with service barrels, but if there is, there is no reason not to chamber said guns in 9x19.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,387 Posts
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:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
The two pistols you mentioned are definitely marketed as pocket pistols. There are already many pistols available for the .32 or .380acp enthusiast that are "holster' type guns, I own a number of them. I just disagree with the concept of turning a pocket gun into a duty weapon. They are two different animals and should not mate, as the offsdpring adds nothing to the gene pool that doesn't already exist in better form.
If this is/was the case, why were these pistols made in less than "pocket friendly" barrel lengths? If the cartridges mentioned didn't provided enhanced perfomance in longer barrels, why were they manufactured? This alone brings your theory into question.

If these pistols didn't fulfill their intended role, why did they sell well until the enaction of the 1968 Gun Control Act? This also raises the question, "Why are pistols of this type (in excellent condition) still commanding premium prices"?

Take a long, hard look at ballistics by the inch. Then bump up the velocities for the Buffalo Bore offerings. After that, you can deride my proposition all you wish.

Don Quixote, mount your steed!

P.S. According to my calculations, a Walther PPK/S will get the 1150 fps/ 293 fpe figures. A 4.00" barreled Beretta "Cheetah" will gain approximately another 37 fps (1187 fps) and generate a minimum of 312 fpe. Such an increase over most American .380 loads is quite substansial!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
If one increases the size of the gun, one might as well go with the 9x19mm.

Perhaps there is a nitch market for flat polymer pistols with service barrels, but if there is, there is no reason not to chamber said guns in 9x19.
What is the individual does not desire the extra recoil of the 9X19
cartridge? While it may be a "niche" market, it should be filled, not ignored.

They are already making all of the 9X19 pistols in every configuration possible. If another market is available why not fill it? Ther is no reason to deny anyone that wants one of these handguns such an opportunity. A single stack type of pistol would be nice.

The Skorpion (a semiautomatic version of a machine pistol chambered for the .32 ACP) seems to sell very well, depite its extra size and weight. Are you going to turn a blind eye to this fact as well? If so, Why? Your logic seems flawed.

Can you explain the lack of consistancy in your argument?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
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?)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,149 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
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.

surv
While I like the idea of a .22 l.r. self-defense pistol, the barrel would need to be at least 4" long to obtain ANY appreciable velocities/energies to make it viable for self-defense applications. The only real reservation that I have with the 22 l.r. is its lack of consistent ignition. In an SD situation, if you hear a "click" instead of a "bang" the miscreant-at-large may try to "feed" you your pistol!

The ONLY "saving grace" of the Kel-Tec design is the ability to pull the trigger again. maybe you'll be lucky enough to discharge the piece... But then again, maybe not!

I think that when if comes to plinking, the .22 l.r. is fine... For personal defense... not so much.
 
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
Top