Talk:.32 ACP

Hunting rifle uses

Do we really need this section? Maybe it should be moved to a different article.

As it only pertains to 32 ACP, I'm not sure what other section would be more appropriate. It is not unique to any of the .30-caliber-class rifles. It is, however, unique to 32 caliber bullets, as no other bullets are of the proper diameter to function properly in .30-caliber rifle bores. This is an alternative and common use of .32 ACP cartridges. What other article would you propose as being more appropriate? Yaf 02:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of a new article. There are other cartridges that have been used in .30 bore (e.g. .30 Carbine in a larger rifles, Pederson device, etc.). There are also other sleaving devices fro different bores (.22, etc.). Why not have a seperate article about such devices.

Sounds like a good idea. Have created a new caliber conversion sleeve article, with a redirect from supplemental chamber. Also moved the hunting rifle use to a single sentence under Performance section. So, we now have a separate article about such devices. Thanks. Yaf 18:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Big .32 ACP bias here

By the tone of this article, it seems rather clear that the author hails from anywhere but the USA. I'll be the first to admit that the .32 ACP, or 7.65mm Browning, so as to not offend non-American sensibilities ;) is quite "popular" in Europe, and perhaps elsewhere in the world. However, the question as to how popular something can be in a region of the world where personal ownership (much less use) of firearms for self-defense is in large part absent, remains. In The Gun Digest Book of Combat Handgunnery, 5th Edition, preeminent US firearms instructor, police officer, competitor and gunfight survivor Massad Ayoob, indicates on pgs. 99-100 that the majority of shootings with the .32 Auto, as studied by Evan Marshall and Edwin Sanow, whereas they indicate a "surprisingly high" number of one-shot stops, also involve a disproportionately high number of "disparity of force" cases. In other words, those individuals using a .32 pistol for self defense were attacked by individuals wielding knives, bats, clubs, even bare fists; as a result, they "may have simply given up after realizing they were up against a gun and had been already shot once."

Truly enough, Gavrilo Princip used a .32 ACP pistol to assassinate Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie. However, one must note this was an assassination, not a self-defense scenario. The Archduke and his wife were not armed, determined criminals pumped up on adrenaline, bent on attacking Princip. They themselves were the victims of a violent surprise attack. This example, therefore, has no relevance to the .32 ACP cartridge as pertains to its adequacy for self-defense use. The author's subsequent assertion implies that this "maligned" cartridge is in fact so powerful, it can spark a World War. Absurd.

Forgot my sig. Thank you.

-Mark

I wasn't the author, so can't comment on that point. I think it would be good to try to keep this NPOV. On one hand, the cartridge almost totally panned in the USA. On the other, while it is simply not in the same league with service cartridges such as a 9mm and .45ACP, the .32 ACP has a long history as a military (mainly European, but some US), police and civilian cartridge. One could make the assertion that some of the condemnation is overly so; particularily with our American penchant for "magnum mania."

I suggest be bold and highlight the fact this isn't a regarded as a "man stopper," but be fair considering it's history. Some authorities actually do consider the .32 ACP as the smallest advisable defense cartridge rather than the standard .380ACP or 9mm Parabellum.

FWIW, I agree with you that the Archduke reference doesn't really fit. Perhaps as a historical sidebar it would be of interest.

I would say that the merits of this or any other round, caliber, load etc as usable for self-defense (or effective militarily) only justify one sentence at most in the article on the particular round - there should be a separate article on the terminal effects of all small arm rounds. Riddley 23:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea.

I think the .32 ACP gives better results for Europeans for two reasons: (1) European police and military .32 ACP pistols are not "pocket pistols," typically having barrels from 3.5 to 4 inches; (2) Europeans load the cartridge to higher pressures than most American manufacturers. These things make a big difference, and put the .32 ACP nearly on par with a .380 ACP. I handload the .32 ACP, and using published loads from Lyman (not madcap stuff I came up with myself) get muzzle energies of 200 ft-lb from a Beretta M81, and 170 from a Beretta M1935 (with a somewhat shorter barrel). No doubt I could load it hotter.

Of course, if you fire under-powered American .32 ACP ammunition from a pocket pistol with a 2.5" barrel, you will get indifferent results. This is the usual scenario in the U.S., but not in Europe.

TwoGunChuck (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

USA Today

I added a reference to a USA Today story which offsets the Hitler/WWI stories a bit I think. :-) --BillyTFried 20:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Guns list

The Guns section is starting to get out of control. Is it really helpful to list every single gun everywhere the was chambered in a particular cartridge? Arthurrh 19:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Specifications template

I think there is something wrong with the Specifications template. On the article page the bullet diameter is shown as .984 in (25.0 mm) which is the same figure given for overall length. When I click on edit the template shows the diameter as .309, which I assume is correct.

There are similar problems with (at least) the .380 ACP, .38 Special, .357 Magnum, .44 Magnum, and .50 Action_Express articles. I don't know how to fix this but maybe someone could take a look?--Boreas 21:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This is fixed now. Thanks to whoever did so. --Boreas 17:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

See also section

The purpose of the "See also" section is to link readers to other articles that may be related to the topic but weren't covered directly. In this case, having links to the list of handguns cartridges does that, as well as the link to the specific cartridges in the same diameter (IE the 7 mm caliber page). The list is short enough as it stands I don't think it's in desperate need of trimming. Arthurrh 02:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

škorpion vz. 61

The škorpion vz. 61 was on the Prominent firearms chambered in .32 ACP' list, but it was removed. No reason was given. I believe it should be there for two reaons: a.) It is one of the few machine pistols and/or submachine guns in this chambering. b.) It was employed by a number of terrorist groups of the 1970s and 80s [1]. GSG-9 even trains their operatives on its usage [2].

I understand we will want to keep that list fairly short, but I believe this someone unique weapon may merit inclusion. 128.241.110.113 17:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This was a niche weapon employed by very, very few. That it's been featured in video games is its major claim to fame. --Asams10 17:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The Sauer 38H is on the list, but only served with one military in a secondary role, was produced in smaller numbers than the vz 61 and is not currently in production. The vz 61, on the other hand, is currently employed by nine different militaries, at least one militia faction in Lebanon, and several terrorist cells. At least one variant is still in production.

I would agree with you that it being featured in video games is totally unimportant, but that isn't a reason cited. Either way, your objection has been noted and it will have to be left to Wiki consensus. 128.241.110.113 20:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, the Sauer 38H was produced in equal numbers to the Walther PPK and, again from memory, the Scorpion was produced in units less than 10,000 for a minor country and was withdrawn from service as being inadequate. --Asams10 21:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The Sauer had a production run of about 200,000, while the škorpion vz. 61 has a run of approx. 210,000 and one variant is still in production [3]. It was produced in at least two countries (Czech. and Yugoslavia), is currently in service with nine countries (Czech Republic, Slovakia, Angola, Croatia, Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Mozambique and Uganda), is used by the Lebanese Forces (Maronite Kataeb) militia [4] and has been found in use by terrorist operatives. Other sources and photographic evidence indicates it has shown up elsewhere in E. Europe, N. Africa and the Middle East. A semi-automatic only variant was imported into the US at one point [5].

I think having it listed would be of some interest, though agree we need to keep the list trim as some can get too long (see .45 ACP for an example). 128.241.110.113 22:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The latest Janes guide describes the Skorpion as something that is likely to turn up in the "wrong hands" for years to come. It is also arguably one of the best known 7.65 mm pistols out there. DickClarkMises (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, it's not a pistol? Also, you're not quoting, you're paraphrasing. What did it ACTUALLY say. --Asams10 (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The practical upshot of this discussion appears to be that the Skorpion remains in the article; User:Asams10 left the project in August 2008. The lesson for future editors is that the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Angola, Croatia, Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Mozambique and Uganda are not just farms and poor people; the bits of the map outside the US are often actual functioning nations in their own right. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 13:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. Referencingand appropriate inline citation guidelines not met. --dashiellx (talk) 11:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Origin US or Belgium

the article describes that the round was developed for the FN Herstal M1910 by Browning. And where the pistol's origin is "Belgium" the round's origin is "United States"

To me that doesn't make sense, Browning was in Belgium, working for FN Herstal. He wasn't in the US, or am i missing something here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.118.140.11 (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

7.65mm redirects here why?

There are far more "7.65mm" cartridges than the .32 ACP and this redirect is not appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.152.206 (talk) 10:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

.32 ACP NOT the same as a .32 Auto

The .32 ACP and the .32 Auto are two different cartridges, but in your article you refer to the .32 Auto as a synonym for the .32 ACP. Have you personally ever held a .32ACP next to a .32 Auto? They are extremely different and one can see this by simply holding them next to each other or by measuring rim thickness or any other case dimension of there choosing. You should do more research and re-edit your article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.229.44.105 (talk) 03:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

To elaborate on this point: 7.65 Browning and 32 Auto/ACP are not the same cartridges. There are small but significant differences once one compares the CIP specs for 7.65 Browning and SAAMI 32 ACP. These differences include pressure standard, rim thickness, case dimensions, bullet diameter and most noticeable the headspacing. While the 7.65 chambers on the mouth like most straight walled rounds the 32 ACP chambers on the rim. And while they are generally compatible there are enough differences to justify separate articles for these two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.251.144.178 (talk) 14:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Both major specification standards groups list them as synonymous. Now, I've read reports that European-made and US-made ammo might have slightly different tolerances, but they're still both within the standards. oknazevad (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

To original poster: Here is a link to the CIP specs for 7.65mm Browning. Note that CIP states alternative names as both .32 Auto and .32 ACP. Also, at the bottom of the page you can see that CIP states that these cartridges headspace on the rim.<ref> 72.192.250.249 (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

What's likely here is that the original poster confused .32 Auto and .32 ACP being similarly named cartridges which significantly differ dimensionally (incorrect, one is has been an accepted name for the other for many years), with the case of .38 ACP and .380 ACP. There, the lesser-known cartridge of .38 Auto does significantly differ dimensionally from the much more common .380 ACP. 107.77.210.27 (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

References

7.94 mm ?

I think the infobox is wrong. Indeed, we can read "Bullet diameter .3125 in (7.94 mm)" on it... 7.94 mm? How is that? shouldn't this be 7.65 mm? Kintaro (talk) 08:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)