Jump to content

Talk:.32 ACP

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 63.167.159.217 (talk) at 14:06, 3 August 2006 (Big .32 ACP bias here). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconMilitary history: Technology / Weaponry / European / French / World War I Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
Associated task forces:
Taskforce icon
Military science, technology, and theory task force
Taskforce icon
Weaponry task force
Taskforce icon
European military history task force
Taskforce icon
French military history task force
Taskforce icon
World War I task force


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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
That's an excellent idea.