The Resurgence Of The .32 ACP

American Handgunner, May, 2000 by Charles E. Petty

There was a time when the .32 ACP (7.65 Browning) was the primary cartridge of European law enforcement, and American manufacturers such as Colt, H&R, Savage and Remington, to name most of them, manufactured pistols chambered for the diminutive little cartridge. From the 1920s to the time of World War II, the .32 ACP was a popular choice for defense.

But the .380 ACP began to erode sales and, other than some surplus pistols that came back after the war, almost all American manufacture of .32 pistols was finished by the start of World War II.

New introductions of American guns chambered for the .32 ACP were gone from the scene until 1984 when the late Louis Seecamp began production of the tiny LWS .32 for which his name is now synonymous.

Seecamp had been making a small .25 ACP pistol, and it was a significant engineering feat to adapt it to the .32. The little pistol acquired an immediate following and probably became too successful. Demand far exceeded Seecamp's ability to produce guns, which meant that two things happened.

First, since the little guns were scarce, they achieved almost cult status and, second, prices skyrocketed as more than a few dealers took advantage of the demand.

Surprisingly, the rest of the marketplace seemed content to let Seecamp have his niche. Finally, Beretta came along with a competitor--the Tomcat--which is considerably larger.

We saw the brief appearance of the Autauga Arms. .32 and now from North American Arms comes the Guardian. It is a very close copy of the Seecamp, both mechanically and aesthetically, but there are some differences. Not insignificantly, the Guardian is slightly larger and heavier.

When Seecamp built his gun there was only one hollowpoint loading, the Winchester 60 gr. Silvertip. It was a marriage of convenience because the cartridge was about .010" shorter than conventional ball ammunition and Seecamp needed the room to make his gun so small.

By restricting the size of the magazine, he eliminated the shooter's choice of ammo, but that was okay. The Silvertip was just fine.

Actually, that wasn't always so.

Ammo Surprise

Shortly after I got my LWS .32, I had the opportunity to visit Winchester's East Alton, Ill., plant. I took the .32 along and when we had a spare minute, I asked to shoot some gelatin with the .32. Guess what? The little Silvertip expanded not at all.

Henry Halverson, the designer of the Silvertip, took a couple of rounds and left the room. He came back a few minutes later and showed me where he had cut some skiving grooves in the jacket nose. When fired into gelatin, those rounds expanded nicely.

Winchester apparently took the experience to heart, for several years later I was able to repeat the test with some new ammo and expansion was very good.

New Defense Loads

The little Seecamp created a demand for a good .32 ACP defense load. With the Seecamp acquiring cult status and other .32s coming along, the ammo companies went to work.

Federal announced they would make a 65 gr. Hydra-Shok; however, someone didn't get the word that the Seecamp magazine was shorter than standard and the first .32 Hydra-Shoks were too long. That has since been corrected.

Then along came a 60 gr. Gold Dot from Speer and, more recently, a 60 gr. XTP from Hornady. One of the reasons the Guardian is slightly larger is that it will accept standard length .32 ACP ammo, although all the new ".32 Short" loads will work in either gun.

The four different .32 hollowpoint loads were fired into calibrated 10 percent ballistic gelatin from a distance of 10 feet. Ten rounds from each were chronographed. The new North American Arms Guardian was used as the test weapon.

Three rounds were fired into each gelatin block to minimize waste, but with loads that produce relatively small wound profiles, this was not a concern. In fact, I was a little surprised at the small amount of expansion observed.

Ballistic Tests

We have to acknowledge that we are testing the ammo under just about the worst possible conditions. The Guardian's 2.2" barrel doesn't give the little bullets much room to accelerate and if we had tested the ammo in, something with just another inch of barrel, the results would have been different.

The velocities were remarkably consistent, but apparently not quite fast enough to promote the best expansion. This is more than just suspicion since the factory ballistics list a velocity of 950 fps from a 4" barrel.

Since expansion was irregular, I measured the bullet at the widest point and it is important to note that, although the Hydra-Shok did not expand beyond the nominal dimension, it was almost a perfect cylinder where the ogive area had opened up slightly.

This experience also points out a variable that is impossible to quantify. A few months prior to this test I did some preliminary shooting using my Seecamp as the test pistol. Even though it has a barrel that is 0.1" shorter, expansion was better.

This isn't a criticism of anybody's ammo or gun, it is simply a fact of life when you do this type of test. The results are not cast in stone. And I know it's not helping you decide what to put in your gun-- or is it?