.32 or .38

[Tony C.]

Having a friendly discuussion the other day with my pistol shooting friends, someone said .32 S&W is a very accurate round for CF match, while I always though .32 was picked in that role mainly due to the fact its a low pressure cartridge can function well in a stright blow back pistol, unlike .38 spl. require some kind of delay lock work since most .32 target pistol were scale up version of its .22 twins. With a bullet wt. of 100 gr. and a powder charge of 1.3 gr. or so its recoil is softer than a .38. that of course makes it popular for CF match.

I belive if one is willing to spend enough time and effort, any cal. of gun & ammo can be make to shoot accurately, while .38 cal have many many tried and proven component for handloaders, .32 have rather few, and reading some other thread quite a few .32 handloader have problem with keyhole shots.

My question is; disregarding its recoil, and all things being equal, is .32 more or less accurate than .38? Or put it another way, is it possible one cal. of cartridge more accurate than another? The question had to be look at in the context of CF target pistol, I don't own a .32 but plan to stick with my S&W Mod. 52 for a while. Ladies and gents, what do you think?

[Guest]

Stick with your 52!! Recoil is not an issue (within reason!) for CF since there is no sustained fire strings, unlike timed and rapid in conventional BE.
The 38 has a greater practical accuracy potential ovr the 32. I believe this is due, in part, to the dimensional variables of a cartridge originating in one system of measure (imperial) and being adopted to another (metric). The non-standardized bullet diameter is a clear indicator. Another problem is the surprising reality that manufacturers still haven't settled on a successful rate of twist for WC loads at target velocity. A third issue may have to do with the sensitivity of the diminutive cartridge to consistency of loading practices, although I think this is a minor consideration.
Success with the 32, and other small bores, is possible by using a custom barrel (preferably made to specs in thousands per inch), with a fast enough twist, and a matching bullet. I have seen it done with a Ruger Mk I .22 converted to .32. I have seen it done with the 30 luger adopted to various 1911s using either a 38 super slide or 9mm slide and custom barrel (I forget if it was a Kart or a Barsto). For all that trouble, you should just stick to the 38. Some countries can't use this cartridge as it is considered a police/military cartridge and is thus banned for civilian ownership. Perhaps this is another factor leading to the adoption of the 32WC, in spite of its many inherent frustrations.
Best wishes for your shooting success!!

[Guest]

At 25 meters I think the difference between the inherent accuracy of a .32 and the .38 is negligble assuming you have done the necessary work to develop a custom load. Out to 50 yards (where bullseye shooting takes place) I think the .32 becomes more problematic but is still capable of shooting excellent groups with the right load.

After many years of trying to master my 52, I have not not been able to do so. I doubt it has anything to do with the caliber per se. It's just that the 52 is an extremely difficult gun to shoot well. Some have described it as "unforgiving"

I had far more sustained success when I replaced my 52 with a Pardini .32 For whatever reason, I found the .32 so much easier to shoot well.

[JamesH]

According to the Yur'yev book the higher the recoil the harder it is to be consistent.
Shot to shot, match to match variations in grip and body position will result in different points of impact. The higher the recoil the worse the effect.

I believe 0.32 can be an inherently more accurate cartridge than 0.38, if loaded right and with the right barrel, but it certainly seems harder to get there with 0.32. The aspect ratio of the bullets is different, and the aspect ratio wrt the rotational moment of inertia is very different.

BTW if HBWCs are so great why are they not loaded in 0.22lr?

[Steve Swartz]

HBWCs are not made for .22LR because (off the top of my head):

1) Strength of materials and skirt deformation. The lead would shred.
2) Finite precision in tooling; 0.001" deformations are a smaller percentage of 0.32" than 0.22" so tradeoff between accuracy gained and lost would result in net loss
3) Current legacy engineering on existing .22LR bullet/barrel combinations might need to change; optimum twist rate for HBWC might be different- necessitating firearm redesign
4) Ditto for feeding/chambering issues- legacy designs would not support reliable feeding of HBWC- necessitating firearm redesign
5) Manufacturing costs would soar; and the costs would not be recoverable in the market for .22LR ammo

Steve Swartz

[Tycho]

I have a Manurhin MR38 that will consistently shoot 1" - 1.5" at 50 meters. The day you bring me a .32 that will do that (not that there was any use for this, as it only has to shoot 25m), I'm going to buy you a beer. There's no way a .32 is going to outshoot a .38 in the precision department, but for rapid fire, you can't beat lighter bullets and less powder. It's like the old RFP - we traded away precision for shootability, as long as precision was good enough. And there is a "good enough", as the targets at 25m are big enough. No need to have .5 MOA groups.

[Nicole Hamilton]

I'm only shooting my Pardini HP at 25 yards, not 50m, and I'm just shooting it the way I would in a match, standing there, one-handed, not out of a rest. But at that distance and under those conditions, I can't see any difference whatsoever between my HP (shooting Fiocci) and my SP (shooting Federal GM) in terms of group size. It seems totally capable (if I do my part) of keeping all the rounds nicely inside the 10-ring. When I miss the 10-ring, I think the only thing I can blame is me.

Is that really any less accurate than your .38?

[xtreme]

For ISSF C/F, the .32 has an added 'plus' in scoring, as the gauge for .32 has the outer ring at .38. Handy if the shot is close to the higher scoring ring. Shots close, but not touching the scoring ring, must be gauged to verify the value of that shot. A point here and there can make a difference in a competion.
Mark

[Tycho]

Nicole - read the second part of my posting again. IMHO, you can have too much precision, or at least so much that it's of no use. The factory group of my MR38 is one hole, slightly larger than bullet diameter. It can do as well as that at least out to 50m. That's great - to brag about. Shot off the hand, it doesn't matter at all. If we are talking 25m, the whole discussion is academic, as nearly every .32 can be made to shoot well at that distance - and every good shot a solid 10, that's well enough. It's at least as important not to kill the gun (and everyone putting a 1.6grs Bullseye load into a Pardini or so is doing that) and/or your elbow (dito, best regards from low barrel axis' and shallow grip angles). So, for the files - there is no way any .32 S&W long WC can be made to shoot as well from the rest as a .38, but it doesn't matter in our real lives. I'm happy when I walk out with 285 in precision.

[James Way]

I know this is an older thread, but have a question related to it.

there is no way any .32 S&W long WC can be made to shoot as well from the rest as a .38

On the website of a Canadian company that is trying to improve the performance of the .32, they wrote, "the long wadcutter bullet with its poor ballistic coefficient slows down and starts to wobble" somewhere after 25 meters. That sounds logical enough, but why isn't this worse with the .38 special, given that it has a larger frontal area?

There is a ballistics table from Lapua where they list the .32 as starting out faster (240 m/s or 787 ft/s) than the .38 special (230 m/s or 754 ft/s). Why does the .32 slow down so much more quickly, and do worse at the longer distances?

After pondering this, I realized that the .38 has between 50% to 75% more weight, depending on the load, but only about 30% more frontal area (assuming I am computing the area of a circle correctly). No wonder it retains its velocity better.

I have also read that wadcutters don't do well at fast velocities, and thought the limit was 750 ft/s (230 m/s). Surprisingly, the Lapua load goes beyond this.

Anyone know why wadcutters don't work as well when they are pushed to higher velocities?

Thanks.

[GOVTMODEL]

BTW if HBWCs are so great why are they not loaded in 0.22lr?

It's a heeled bullet, i.e., the rotating band is the same diameter as the OD of the case. The heel of the bullet is smaller by the case thickness. A HBWC can't expand that much.

My pistol, with the right ammo, shoots 0.9" at 50 meters. That's well within the 10 ring, so the 9's and 8's that I deliver aren't from underperforming bullets:-(

[James Hurr]

It's a heeled bullet, i.e., the rotating band is the same diameter as the OD of the case. The heel of the bullet is smaller by the case thickness. A HBWC can't expand that much.

The barrel would be designed for the geometry of the cartridge and vice versa. HBWC don't generally expand, the bullet is sized to the grooves. I guess it may seal better due to the lateral pressure inside the skirt.

My point really is if round nose shoots OK in .22, and a one hole group should not be a problem at 25m, why do we go to the extra trouble of loading HBWC in .32 and .38?

[sillymike]

After many years of trying to master my 52, I have not not been able to do so. I doubt it has anything to do with the caliber per se. It's just that the 52 is an extremely difficult gun to shoot well. Some have described it as "unforgiving"

Not really related to the 32 vs 38... But I found that by opening up the rear sight on my 52, it became more forgiving.

[IPshooter]

I know this is an older thread, but have a question related to it.

I have also read that wadcutters don't do well at fast velocities, and thought the limit was 750 ft/s (230 m/s). Surprisingly, the Lapua load goes beyond this.

Anyone know why wadcutters don't work as well when they are pushed to higher velocities?

Thanks.

James,

A couple of people I talked with, who have a bunch of experience with full wadcutters, think the Euro barrels have a twist rate that is too slow. That slow rate of spin creates instability, e.g. tipping.

Their opinion is that one way to compensate for the slow twist is to drive the bullet faster and gain more spin. I can't say that I can confirm this. Just passing along their opinion.

Stan

[Bill A]

Maybe a little beside the point of this discussion, but in fact NOT all .38's fire from a locked breech. The Mark III Gold Cup (like the 52 chambered for flush-seated .38 WC, is a blow back.

Bill

[Tycho]

There's another point to consider - you definitely don't want to shoot .32s at 240m/sec out of a Pardini, a FAS, a 280/SP20 or something similar. Those are upgraded .22s. They won't stand that sort of recoil. 220m/sec is the limit, and less is more - my load does 220 with the light and 210 with the heavy bullet, good enough. This is past believing - I've seen enough cracked slides, frames and trigger housings. A Hammerli 240 or a GSP or a revolver might take the abuse, but that's about it.

[Tor]

I would also throw in the Sako Triace on your list Tycho. I consider it a bit stronger than the GSP.

Tor

[Tycho]

Possible - steel is always a better way to go with a .32 than alu or plastics... on the other hand, spare parts for the Sako pistols are getting pretty rare, aren't they?

[Axel]

There's another point to consider - you definitely don't want to shoot .32s at 240m/sec out of a Pardini, a FAS, a 280/SP20 or something similar. Those are upgraded .22s. They won't stand that sort of recoil. 220m/sec is the limit, and less is more - my load does 220 with the light and 210 with the heavy bullet, good enough. This is past believing - I've seen enough cracked slides, frames and trigger housings. A Hammerli 240 or a GSP or a revolver might take the abuse, but that's about it.

Lapua/Norma factory ammunition reaches around 240m/sec from my Pardini HP. No problem for it to handle the recoil. 280 is known to be able handle the use (abuse?) from CISM shooters. CISM World record holder Yusuf Dikec, which holds an absolutely incredible record of 597 points, uses an 280.

(CISM is military CFP, same rules, 30 shots precision and 30 shots duello)

[dnovo]

I would tend to agree that the real-world difference in accuracy between the 32 SW Long WC and the 38WC is not that great. I came to this conclusion shooting several guns that are not a 'souped up 22s' as several have termed the Walther/Pardini etc versions of rim fire pistols.

Using the 'grown up' pistols intended for this caliber, granted none of which are intended for rapid fire work, the recoil differences are not pronunced nor is the accuracy that different. I am fortunate to have two Hammerli P240s, one in 32 and one in 38. Given that we are now comparing these two different rounds out of the same shooting platform, which one shoots better off hand is not something I can call one way or the other. I got into this debate with a friend who shoots 32 in a variety of guns and like me, has and loves his Model 52 and owns and shoots a Colt Mid Range as well.

Working off a rest, it seems that depending on the loading, the 38 is more accurate, until the next time we tried, and the 32 came out on top.

I guess that means a) we are rather poor at comparison shooting or b) the difference is not that easy to measure. One thing for sure, they are both fun to shoot.
Dave