Joined
·
42 Posts
If the 32 acp is such a mild round in terms of knockdown power, why did so many foreign military and police use pistols in that caliber?
32 acp pistol question?
1 - 20 of 89 Posts
because europeans are not REAL MEN, and a fly can knock them down. not like us americans where it takes the mighty 45 to knock us down.
but seriously, they found that .32 killed guys just fine, no need to carry around a bigger, more expensive gun.
same reason deer hunters now buy mostly .300 win mags.... not because deer got tougher, but because its cooler and more sexy then like a 30/30
but seriously, they found that .32 killed guys just fine, no need to carry around a bigger, more expensive gun.
same reason deer hunters now buy mostly .300 win mags.... not because deer got tougher, but because its cooler and more sexy then like a 30/30
Several reasons.
1) Back then (1900-1940) people were smaller. That time period also correspond to refrigeration becoming common household technology in the form of refrigerator. Consider for the moment what foods you have in your fridge and how long it will last without fridge. Back then, if you lived in the country, you would have an ice box and you can keep food from spoiling, but in the city? Only rich could afford a place for ice box, so the rest eat what they had otherwise food spoiled. So the limits in the long term storage lead to limits in nutrition which in turn lead to limits in the size of the people. If you want more recent example, there are studies in Japan to the similar effect. Better nutrition is leading to average Japanese to be bigger today then a century ago. Smaller people can be damaged with smaller bullet so the need for large bullet is smaller.
2) A lot of these guns were for police. Police work back then required a bit of running and a lot of walking. Smaller guns allowed officers to be more responsive.
3) Police work, in general, is about helping people resolve their problems without violence. Army work, in general, is to kill people. The guns that went to police were more about stopping few really dangerous persons and not about killing everybody who did something wrong.
1) Back then (1900-1940) people were smaller. That time period also correspond to refrigeration becoming common household technology in the form of refrigerator. Consider for the moment what foods you have in your fridge and how long it will last without fridge. Back then, if you lived in the country, you would have an ice box and you can keep food from spoiling, but in the city? Only rich could afford a place for ice box, so the rest eat what they had otherwise food spoiled. So the limits in the long term storage lead to limits in nutrition which in turn lead to limits in the size of the people. If you want more recent example, there are studies in Japan to the similar effect. Better nutrition is leading to average Japanese to be bigger today then a century ago. Smaller people can be damaged with smaller bullet so the need for large bullet is smaller.
2) A lot of these guns were for police. Police work back then required a bit of running and a lot of walking. Smaller guns allowed officers to be more responsive.
3) Police work, in general, is about helping people resolve their problems without violence. Army work, in general, is to kill people. The guns that went to police were more about stopping few really dangerous persons and not about killing everybody who did something wrong.
Joined
·
2,909 Posts
1) Is not likely to be a huge effect- i want to see numbers on how much more massive people are today. Last i checked they are slightly larger but that would mean bumping up to .380 not .45. People are larger and healthier but shooting them still hurts.
2) This is probably true.
3) This is definitely true.
I think it is in large part that people want bigger and more powerful guns. Understandable, as no one wants to be under-armed, but .32 acp kills people just as any caliber would. The fact that it is rimmed, has fewer bullet options and more expensive than 9x19 means i pick 9mm as a target weapon and probably carry weapon when i am old enough.
http://www.chuckhawks.com/825_magnum.htm sums up my feeling exactly.
Joined
·
4,357 Posts
I disagree with point 3, in that army work is not to kill people, it is to disable combatants, this can include killing them, but it was learned long ago that if you wounded your enemy, it would take several more of your enemy to care for the wounded, but if you killed him, there was very little that needed to be done.
Most pistols were designed for officers, and were more of a symbol of rank, and were sometimes used to encourage the soldier to move forward. Pistols used in trench raids did not need to be overly deadly, as the point was to bring the prisoners back alive so information could be gained.
Best wihses
Gus
Joined
·
5,862 Posts
I just don't buy that .32 is so worthless. Its not a 45 or 9mm, but its still a bullet. Reagan was almost killed by a what? Thats right, .22. Just shows that anything can be deadly. I am still torn between a beretta model 84bb, feg .32, or another tokarev. I really want another tokarev, but am still leaning towards the beretta or .32. I don't own a .32 right now, so it is just another round to stock.....Although I do already have a beretta 84BB, and so already have .380......
Tough decision....
Then again, if I get the .32, its mainly going to be for pocket carry. Not a constant shooter. So no real need to stock a lot of ammo. Just a couple of boxes to run through it, then a couple to make sure I have it.
Tough decision....
Then again, if I get the .32, its mainly going to be for pocket carry. Not a constant shooter. So no real need to stock a lot of ammo. Just a couple of boxes to run through it, then a couple to make sure I have it.
Sorry friend, but you obviously do not know history in general and military history in particular. Once upon a time, in the day of single shot muzzleloader, some soldiers carried three or four pistols. There even was a tactic where cavalry would charge infantry, shoot them up with their pistols and then retreat and reload, caracole it was called, not the most heroic tactic
but then that is cavalry for you Look at how much more "user friendly" firearms, especially handguns, have gotten
over the last 100 years or so. I own a Mauser M1914 and a CZ27, both are well made
sturdy firearms, but both have design quirks that make them less than optimum for defense
use. The same with cartridges. The US went back to the 45 after the disastrous detour with the 38 Long Colt in the Moro War and then the Thompson-Lagarde tests. IIRC Herbert
MacBride in his WWI memoirs said the Germans' 9MM Parabellum "lacked wallop". Like so many things, firearms have required a lot of trial and error-mostly the latter-to find out what is truly effective.
over the last 100 years or so. I own a Mauser M1914 and a CZ27, both are well made
sturdy firearms, but both have design quirks that make them less than optimum for defense
use. The same with cartridges. The US went back to the 45 after the disastrous detour with the 38 Long Colt in the Moro War and then the Thompson-Lagarde tests. IIRC Herbert
MacBride in his WWI memoirs said the Germans' 9MM Parabellum "lacked wallop". Like so many things, firearms have required a lot of trial and error-mostly the latter-to find out what is truly effective.
Cost was a reason; Blowback pistols cost significantly less than locked breech pistols of the day. "Badge of Office" sufficiency is not a joke, it is another reason. "Good enough" was another reason, that is, good enough for shooting prisoners and administering justice to one's own. These are not made up, these are real reasons such a cartridge was used. "Better than a riding crop" is another reason.
As for it's lethality, it will kill, but it is a poor penetrator of barriers and wounds inflicted by .32 FMJ bullets look almost like they were put there by an ice pick, with very little trauma to surrounding tissue.
For years I have used service pistols to kill butcher stock. Almost all are shot with FMJ bullets. I no longer own a .32 but it was such a poor performer I quit using it for that purpose even when I did own one.
On butcher stock {lambs, goats and mutton sheep to 250 lbs or so} the 9x19, .45 ACP and .357 SIG, all loaded with hardball, perform very similarly and produce similar reactions to the shot, which is to say not much on body shots and a drop at the shot when CNS is struck. I can see no difference in reaction to the shot between any of those three when hardball is used. I have shot many dozens of critters with these pistols over the years. I have also shot quite a number of stray, stock-chasing dogs and trapped coyotes and dogs over the years with service pistols.
In handguns, I've used the .22LR, .32 ACP, 7.62x25, 9x18, 9x19, .357 SIG, .38 Special, .45 ACP, .41 Magnum, .45 Colt and .44 Magnum for butcher stock killing. I may have forgotten one, but if so it wasn't used on many.
Incidentally, the Thompson-LaGarde Tests were a joke. If you can get a copy, read them. I have read them and I myself have shot many times more animals than they ever shot. And shooting beef steers with service pistols proves nothing except that over time even a steer can be killed with a pistol, or a hammer as many of them were, in the end.
Eventually, as mentioned above, the T-L tests resulted in the acceptance of a .45 pistol. But even it is no lightning bolt. And even Hatcher who in general believed their conclusions admitted that the .45 ACP was not the round they in Ordnance wanted it to be, primarily due to the RN FMJ bullet required and loaded in service ammo. What the .45 did have going for it in those days was the 1911 pistol which was/is reliable, unlike the dubious options then available. The cartridge is generally, for a pistol round, as good as anything else, and better than some. It lacks barrier penetration and the guy hiding behind a heavy door might get a hole in him with a 9mm but run away when shot at with a .45, but under other circumstances it might do better than the 9x19. One thing T-L did notice is that the heavier calibers may on occaision break a bone that a smaller caliber might hole. In each case, anyhow, the target is, so-to-speak, going to hurt badly.
I have no combat experience but based on my experience shooting butcher critters, I am no believer in "Stopping Power" or "Knockdown Power". Even so, my opinion of the .32 ACP is that it is at the bottom of the heap when it comes to service pistol calibers for the work we do here on the ranch.
In the critters I've shot, a .22 with HP's produced more serious wounds than a .32 ACP with FMJ's.
As for it's lethality, it will kill, but it is a poor penetrator of barriers and wounds inflicted by .32 FMJ bullets look almost like they were put there by an ice pick, with very little trauma to surrounding tissue.
For years I have used service pistols to kill butcher stock. Almost all are shot with FMJ bullets. I no longer own a .32 but it was such a poor performer I quit using it for that purpose even when I did own one.
On butcher stock {lambs, goats and mutton sheep to 250 lbs or so} the 9x19, .45 ACP and .357 SIG, all loaded with hardball, perform very similarly and produce similar reactions to the shot, which is to say not much on body shots and a drop at the shot when CNS is struck. I can see no difference in reaction to the shot between any of those three when hardball is used. I have shot many dozens of critters with these pistols over the years. I have also shot quite a number of stray, stock-chasing dogs and trapped coyotes and dogs over the years with service pistols.
In handguns, I've used the .22LR, .32 ACP, 7.62x25, 9x18, 9x19, .357 SIG, .38 Special, .45 ACP, .41 Magnum, .45 Colt and .44 Magnum for butcher stock killing. I may have forgotten one, but if so it wasn't used on many.
Incidentally, the Thompson-LaGarde Tests were a joke. If you can get a copy, read them. I have read them and I myself have shot many times more animals than they ever shot. And shooting beef steers with service pistols proves nothing except that over time even a steer can be killed with a pistol, or a hammer as many of them were, in the end.
Eventually, as mentioned above, the T-L tests resulted in the acceptance of a .45 pistol. But even it is no lightning bolt. And even Hatcher who in general believed their conclusions admitted that the .45 ACP was not the round they in Ordnance wanted it to be, primarily due to the RN FMJ bullet required and loaded in service ammo. What the .45 did have going for it in those days was the 1911 pistol which was/is reliable, unlike the dubious options then available. The cartridge is generally, for a pistol round, as good as anything else, and better than some. It lacks barrier penetration and the guy hiding behind a heavy door might get a hole in him with a 9mm but run away when shot at with a .45, but under other circumstances it might do better than the 9x19. One thing T-L did notice is that the heavier calibers may on occaision break a bone that a smaller caliber might hole. In each case, anyhow, the target is, so-to-speak, going to hurt badly.
I have no combat experience but based on my experience shooting butcher critters, I am no believer in "Stopping Power" or "Knockdown Power". Even so, my opinion of the .32 ACP is that it is at the bottom of the heap when it comes to service pistol calibers for the work we do here on the ranch.
In the critters I've shot, a .22 with HP's produced more serious wounds than a .32 ACP with FMJ's.
Joined
·
4,337 Posts
The European military and police have always viewed handguns more as badges of rank and authority than fighting weapons. They believed that if the handgun was ever used it would be for one or two last ditch desperate shots so why bother lugging aound a heavy, large caliber weapon.
They began adopting 7.5mm revolvers in the 1880s and were quite happy with them. When the 7.65mm Browning came along...chambered in small, light pistols...there was no doubt it would be popular and remained so well into the 1990s.
They began adopting 7.5mm revolvers in the 1880s and were quite happy with them. When the 7.65mm Browning came along...chambered in small, light pistols...there was no doubt it would be popular and remained so well into the 1990s.
Joined
·
269 Posts
Brady was shot in the head with a .22, and it "changed" him from a conservative to a liberal.
Seriously, I read where the .32 is most effective with solid jacketed bullets; the article stated that hollow points will not penetrate enough with a .32.
Seriously, I read where the .32 is most effective with solid jacketed bullets; the article stated that hollow points will not penetrate enough with a .32.
Joined
·
5,142 Posts
i bought a browning 1922 nazie marked in the holster with two magazines fully loaded with german HB ammo. the pistol was a vet bring back and was not fired since it was brought home(no papers,were lost in a move) i fired two shots out of it and it worked as expected. by the shape this pistol is in,it was carried and used. the man who carried it took care of it as the bore is in ex con, but the finish is worn 65-75 percent and the holster is also worn, much more so than if it was just carried as a badge of rank by some officer. i would sooner have a walther pp or ppk but this gun is completly servicable for its intended use. eastbank.
Joined
·
90 Posts
I adore the .32 round ACP or rimmed. It will kill. It will kill with accuracy better than most big bang guns.
![]()
![]()
Colt Cobra in .32 New Police. Very very deadly and accurate. Makes me feel very safe.
Colt Cobra in .32 New Police. Very very deadly and accurate. Makes me feel very safe.
When the pocket autoloader appeared it was in the form of the browning 1900 wich fired the 32acp or 7.65mm there were other autoloaders before like broomhandle.borchardt etc. but they weren't considerd pocket per say and the 1900 was the first succesfull pocket or "carry gun" Browning himself has been reported to have carried the prototype around till he got it right in dimensions etc. By the way the 1900 was used to assisanate Archduke Ferdinand that startded WW1. Other desighns in the pocket 32 soon followed etc. etc. and most of them were of "blowback" desighn and not locked breach. The technology of the time dictated that more powerful cartridges for example 9mm luger wouldn't operate well in "blowback" desighns like the 32 acp would. The 32 was a common ground for size and wieght in pocket pistols as well as magazine capacity. The .380 came a little later and was offered in most of the same desighns that the 32 started the same could be said of the 25acp to certain degree,though usually they were chambered in scaled down versions of .32 and .380 weapons. Look at the ppk's,mauser 1910 and 1914/34 even the colt pocket autos etc. etc. Not to say there were succesfull blowback desighns chambering 9mm luger class cartridges like astras etc. but the 400 wasn't a pocket pistol. I could go on and on but the "meat of this is smaller cartridge as in power+blowback=pocket pistol makes for easier carry.
Over 6000 Polish officers and associated persons were shot dead in Katyn by the GRU, using a 32ACP/7.65mm calibre pistol.
OT, but for many years my back-up pistol was my dad's Walther PP in 9mmK/.380ACP. Loaded with 90gr Winchester Silvertip HP, it was going to be used at distances across a car, from my seat to the window, and it would have done the job VERY well, of that I am certain.
My choice of a small CCW would be a SIG-Sauer P230 stainless in this calibre.
Second choice, a Mauser HSc.
tac
I hope you mean NKVD. Somehow I doubt they had GRU back then.
Joined
·
36,347 Posts
Europeans had a wierd inverse status symbol with pistol size.
Common soldiers carried rifles.
Officers carried firearms - usually 9mm
High rank officers who weren't expected to ever use them carried smaller firearms, .32 or .25
For non-military use the 32 cals were mostly simple blowback designs, cheap, considered OK for police since nobody expected much in the way of gun battles with armed criminals anyway. For that they had police and civil/military units armed with carbines. And the size/status business and lowely position of police officers eliminated any internal desire for more firepower, left them happy with what they had.
Plus they'd never had to fight Indians or Filipino insurgents, people who wouldn't fall over dead from fright if they heard a bang.
Common soldiers carried rifles.
Officers carried firearms - usually 9mm
High rank officers who weren't expected to ever use them carried smaller firearms, .32 or .25
For non-military use the 32 cals were mostly simple blowback designs, cheap, considered OK for police since nobody expected much in the way of gun battles with armed criminals anyway. For that they had police and civil/military units armed with carbines. And the size/status business and lowely position of police officers eliminated any internal desire for more firepower, left them happy with what they had.
Plus they'd never had to fight Indians or Filipino insurgents, people who wouldn't fall over dead from fright if they heard a bang.
jjk308 is on to something.
I really like the feel of many of the .32 autos I've handled and found the handling of my 1922 Browning as comfortable as any pistol I've ever shot. But based on my experience killing stuff with the cartridge, I am plum amazed that anyone would choose it as a personal defense cartridge if, that is, they actually wanted to minimize their opponent's ability to shoot back...
I really like the feel of many of the .32 autos I've handled and found the handling of my 1922 Browning as comfortable as any pistol I've ever shot. But based on my experience killing stuff with the cartridge, I am plum amazed that anyone would choose it as a personal defense cartridge if, that is, they actually wanted to minimize their opponent's ability to shoot back...
1 - 20 of 89 Posts
