Many gun enthusiasts scoff at the idea of carrying a .32 Auto or .380 Auto. They’ll claim the rounds don’t have as much knockdown power as larger, more powerful ones. While those claims are accurate, they overlook the benefits of smaller pistols.
That’s why we’re going to compare the 32 ACP and 380 ACP objectively, giving each cartridge a fair evaluation. After you’ve finished this article, you’ll know which is better for defense.
.32 ACP vs .380 ACP Pros and Cons
| Performance Aspect |
Better Choice |
Why |
| Recoil |
32 ACP |
The 32 ACP has less recoil, though neither cartridge is known to have excessive recoil. |
| undefined |
---- |
:—: |
| Home/self-defense |
380 ACP |
The 380 ACP has more stopping power and is better suited for most defense situations. |
| undefined |
---- |
:—: |
| Ammo availability and selection |
380 ACP |
380 ACP ammo is readily available and much easier to find than 32 ACP ammo. |
| undefined |
---- |
:—: |
| Magazine capacity |
32 ACP |
32 ACP magazines generally hold one or two more rounds than 380 ACP mags. |
| undefined |
---- |
:—: |
| Firearm availability |
380 ACP |
It’s much easier to find 380 ACP firearms for sale over ones chambered for 32 ACP. |
| undefined |
---- |
:—: |
.32 ACP vs .380 ACP for Beginners
Cartridge Specs
These cartridges are very similar in size, hence why they’re often compared and contrasted. You can see how similar their dimensions are in the table above.
|
32 ACP |
380 ACP |
| Bullet Diameter |
0.3125" |
0.355" |
| undefined |
---- |
:—: |
| Neck Diameter |
0.3365" |
0.373" |
| undefined |
---- |
:—: |
| Base Diameter |
0.337" |
0.374" |
| undefined |
---- |
:—: |
| Case Length |
0.680" |
0.680" |
| undefined |
---- |
:—: |
| Overall Length |
0.984" |
0.984" |
| undefined |
---- |
:—: |
| Case Capacity |
9.25 grains H₂O |
11.80 grains H₂O |
| undefined |
---- |
:—: |
| Max Pressure (SAAMI) |
20,500 psi |
21,500 psi |
| undefined |
---- |
:—: |
.380 vs. .32: Recoil
The .32 and .380 are both designed for small pocket pistols. Neither packs a hard punch, which is why shooters of advanced age and who have smaller frames often favor one or the other.
I love firing my 9mm Smith & Wesson M&P Shield. However, my wife finds it to have too much recoil. We bought her a .380 Auto pistol, and she loves it.
Comparing the recoil of these two cartridges is nothing like comparing 9mm vs. .45 ACP. The recoil difference between the .380 ACP and .32 ACP is minimal. That said, the .32 ACP has slightly less recoil than the .380 ACP overall.
Continue reading 32 ACP vs. 380 ACP: The Automatic Colt Pistol Rivalry on Ammo.com
4 Likes
Historically we seem to have evolved from smaller to larger calibre handguns. I suppose this is natural, as people explored the limits of contemporary steel. For instance, 1st gen Colt SAA;s, aside from their collectible value, should never be fired with smokeless powder charges. It is far too volumetrically powerful for the steel of the era, especially since the SAA of the time was meant to fire the .45 Colt round, a black powder round. While the round was no slouch in performance, the loads were radically different. The max .45 Colt black load was pretty much most of the case, even allowing for some charge compression when seating the bullet (a whopping 255 gr lead bullet!). The max smokeless I loaded was a measly 6.5 gr - so little that you could easily double or even triple load if you weren’t careful. It is a round where putting filler over the top of the charge actually makes sense. Now, of course, there is Cowboy SASS powder (Trail Boss), so lots of these kinds of issues are cleared away. These were serious considerations of the times. Consider the Walker Colt, or the Dragoon. Neither was intended to be belt-worn but were “saddle pistols” instead, and quite heavy. Hitting an unarmored man, they would put a world of hurt on them. These were both steel strength considerations for the loads they fired.
Remington was, I believe, the first patent holder for the break top pistol with through-and-through cylinder boring. They sold the patent to S&W, who proceeded to make the break top pistols we are familiar with . Initially, these fired .32 cal rounds that were rimfire, IIRC. Later, as they developed more potent cartridges, they became center-fire, a new concept of the time. Their big chance came when the Russian Tzar ordered a bunch of them, in .45 Russian. Schofield was the one who improved their performance, making them highly useful to a galloping cavalry man (you could one handed unload them of spents, then simply reload - much easier than the Colt SAA). Because procurement was then, as now, highly political, the Army ordered both Colts and Schofields, but. then ordered Schofield .45 ammo, since it was shorter, so worked in Colts, while vice versa did not. For many years the Colt Peacemaker and the .45 Colt round were the most powerful handgun in America, only superseded by the .357 Mag when it came out.
But for many years the well-dressed gentleman carried a S&W break top in .32 Cal. It was intended for up-close-and-personal fights (knife distance); more serious killing usually called for a Greener SXS 10ga. MOST of the outlaws of the Wild West were buried by a local sheriff with a Greener 10 ga at across-the-street distances.
3 Likes
I’ve never owned either caliber but see both as a very concealable option.
3 Likes
They are. As bullets have evolved, the .380 of today ought to be fired from a locked breach weapon. Many have come on the market. But the older ones were direct blowback, and with today’s loads that is really insufficient IMM. The locked breach models began with the Rugers (LCP) and Glocks (G42). No such requirement is needed for a .32 - only the ever present “shot placement”.
1 Like
