TargetTalk

Very interesting Dave. What is the difference between the two Douglas barrels? It looks like AA #2 is doing very well, is it a ball powder?

Greetings,

Accurate #2 is a Ball Powder. It is very fine and will jam the powder slide mechanism if there is any excess clearance. The small kernels get between the housing and powder slide.

The two Douglas barrels are identical except for the chambers. One has a chamber very close dimensionally to the PardiniUSA barrel. The other is a chamber that is about 0.003" tighter with similar leade and throat as the other barrels. Thus far, I cannot say one is better than the other.

Please note the velocity of the AA#2 test. It is 1000+ FPS. Might be a bit too snappy for Bullseye use.

Cheers,

Dave

So how much do the Douglas barrels cost? How do you get them into the barrel shroud?

Greetings,

From the Douglas website. Good folks to deal with.

http://www.douglasbarrels.net/pricelist/

I buy the BASIC unturned Chrome Moly blanks.

The PardiniUSA 32 ACP is glued in the shroud.

Cheers,

Dave

fc60 wrote:Greetings,

From the Douglas website. Good folks to deal with.

http://www.douglasbarrels.net/pricelist/

I buy the BASIC unturned Chrome Moly blanks.

The PardiniUSA 32 ACP is glued in the shroud.

Cheers,

Dave

So would I have to send my barrel assembly to Douglas for them to install it? How does it all work?

Greetings,

Douglas does no pistol work.

I misunderstood your post. I thought you were going to buy a barrel blank and make your own.

If you have a PardiniUSA 32ACP pistol, buy some Hornady 60 grain XTP bullets and load with VV N310. Use about 1.7-1.8 grains for best accuracy.

Cheers,

Dave

At this point in time, if you are just going to shoot jacketed bullets, you don't need a different barrel Even shooting lead bullets, quite a few here have been very successful. The problem lies in the fact that you have to rework the brass and dedicate them to lead bullets only. This requires a few things that aren't available from commercial entities. Some have been writing lately about different venues to buy expanders of the proper size but I don't personally know how well it is working. I along with most have made their own expanders or have gotten them made by friends. The only reason to buy a different barrel is the possibility that a smaller diameter barrel might enable a person to also shoot a smaller diameter lead bullet and consequently avoid the custom expanders and the overworking of the brass. In other words with a new smaller barrel, it might be possible to use standard reloading dies and still be successful with lead and jacketed without changing the method of loading between lead and jacketed plus interchange the brass. It might be worth it if someone starts making and changing these barrels but at this time I am not aware of anyone who has done this and can be sure that it will universally work. In the future, my expectations are that it will be proven and worthwhile. That way, even people who aren't experienced reloaders can be successful and with less problems.

Shooters:
Terrific sharing of data. I have updated the attached excel file and corrected mistakes in earlier versions. The yellow highlighted rows (except headings) note the better loads. For the loads with an OAL of 0.880 or greater, I am unable to eject a live round from the barrel (with 0.330 crimp) due to contact with lands; the case is ejected and the bullet sticks in the barrel. However, this has never been an issue for me (if it goes in the magazine, it comes out the barrel).

However, one shooter with whom I shared these data with was uncomfortable with disassembling the bullet (always carry a dowel in gun box). I am going to try the 0.885 OAL and the 0.325 crimp since these parameters yield terrific results. Kudos to FC60 (Dave) for excellent experimenting and to Oldcaster for developing the 62gr LSWC bullet.

Although I am shooting the 32 less these days (focusing on 45 in monthly 1800-matches), I love shooting the 32 even more than the 22. But you know I'm gonna pull it out for 2700s. Cheers, dipnet

Dipnet, this is an effort that has been successful mainly because all kinds of people with all kinds of abilities have chimed in. Even someone who has hardly worked with this caliber at all and has little experience loading in general might just mention something that furthers the process. I forget who it was but realizing that the magazines needed to be adjusted was very important and a big help and kudos to him.

When I designed the 62 grain lead bullet, it was pretty much just luck that I did it right. My thought was that it should look like the H&G 68 but it couldn't quite so the nose got shortened. All I knew from experimenting was that the base couldn't be too long because it would expand the brass where it is thicker and that wouldn't work well. If barrels start to be made that will allow brass that is not expanded to work, it would open opportunities for all kinds of bullet shapes.

After so many people getting such great accuracy I am not sure if it is necessary to design different bullets but just the fun of doing this makes it probable that it will happen. It is also interesting when going through your loads to realize how the powders I did better with are the same ones that you list as the best. One that interests me is how poorly Power Pistol did for both of us when I expected it to be one of the best. That is why extensive experimenting from a plethora of people make things work for everyone. How many times have we noticed phrases like, "One thing we know for sure is that 32 caliber guns just aren't good at the long line". Right!

Oldcaster,
I suspect the accuracy of the 32 ACP stems from case efficiency, e.g., more like a tiny 45, and the fact it shoots a small 60gr bullet, which is likely less vulnerable to wind drift, and finally the twist rate is right. I forget what it is, but somebody has worked it out. The long line is where the 32 GSP shooting 32 S&WL suffers, and that has been shown due to twist rate. I owned one and tried using the 98gr bullets at slightly higher velocities to make it work, but only got mediocre results. I kept having issues with the 22 magazines falling out and new ones didn't solve the issue. At my first Dixie Match, it let me down big time, after I had spent a lot to time trying to sleuth and fix problems. That is when my wife said "Why don't you get one of those Pardini pistols"? God I love that woman.

You are right that the magazine cure has helped everyone shooting this gun. I don't know what problems Beeser was having with his; it may have stemmed from using a 650 for reloading? I hated to see him give up instead of working it out. I love shooting mine and shoot it better than I do the 22 (lately). I think this is one of the most informative discussions on TT.

I have a question for you. I am thinking of taking my powder drop tube (Dillion 550) to a machine shop and having the end portion that slides into the case (before belling) lengthened about 0.1 inches. The idea is trying to make seating more uniform. The shallow belling with the 32ACP seems to facilitate bullet cant? In many of my loaded rounds, there is an ever so tiny bulge in the case where the base of the bullet is not perfectly centered in the case. The problem may stem from the #8 locater pin, which at the bullet seating station, does not hold the case perfectly upright (often, the case is slightly canted, unless you hand-seat the bullet centered and raise the loading platform slowly). I use a D-550, resize and wet-clean brass with steel brads, hand load primers, and then load the rounds.

I do have ransom for testing, but that process is a time intensive pain. My very carefully fired shots off my home made rest (a modified HySkore Parallax Pistol Vise Shooting Rest) nearly equal ransom accuracy at 25 yards (had to replicate at 50 though). But if the rounds group well at 25, they usually group well at 50. I am tempted to get a handgun scope like you for testing accuracy.

Any rate, do you think mucking around with the powder funnel is worth while? Thanks, dipnet

It would be pretty much a guess as to whether it would make a difference at all. If a device was made that was so strong that the case was held solidly so it couldn't veer off center, maybe it would help but I think the problem is that brass is not exact in either it's hardness or thickness a 1/4 inch or so into the case and consequently it moves to the side. I was going to start marking the cases that were the worst in the bunch and see if they repeat which would pretty much prove or disprove this idea. If this is wrong, I thought of making a custom expander that would have the same taper as the entire case so it would go to the bottom and maybe make them straighter. I don't know how consistent cases are even from one manufacturer and one lot so I don't know if this will work.

Another thing to try is annealing the cases to see if making them uniform hardness will help. In 2010 I was actively shooting F class .308 at 600 yards and learned without a doubt that annealing was necessary every time the cases were reloaded. Turning necks on the ACP might matter too but good cases are quite close to exact and you may not be able to improve them much or maybe any.

As I read posts from everywhere I see some people take the removable insert on a 550 and tighten it down with set screws while someone else has moved to a Forester press that allows the die to move.

It is kind of like when fishing from shore, it is necessary to throw the bait as far from shore as possible while people fishing from a boat cast as close to shore as possible.

Greetings,

I load with a Star. My expander measures 0.308". It only flares the case mouth.

I use several Carbide sizing dies to size the brass to suit the bullet.

Example. I use R-P brass, thin walled, for the 0.314" Lead bullets sizing the cases to 0.333"

For the Hornady 0.311"/0.312", yes they do vary, I use thicker walled cases. Hornady, Frontier, W-W.

I sort the brass by head stamp and cull out all the ones measuring less than 0.670", since the cartridge head spaces on the case mouth.

My Star has the "O" (1/4" thick) powder slide in which I use interchangeable bushings. Powder drops with suitable powder is very uniform. I always throw ten charges and divide by 10 to get my "average charge weight". Ten charges need to weigh within +/- 0.2 grains. i.e, a target load of 1.60 grains must balance the scale at 15.8-16.2 grains for all ten charges.

With such small charges of powder, it is very important to use the same cadence when loading. Vibrations tend to alter the charge weights. Again, keep everything uniform.

I was very pleased to see that DipNet's testing results paralleled my testing. It leads one to believe the loads are not a fluke.

When I catch up with other projects, I will return to testing the 32 ACP.

Cheers,

Dave

Dave,
I wish I had a star, but the 550 does a decent job. Knowing that small variations in tiny loads can cause significant variation in results with small bullets like the 32 ACP, I weigh each powder drop and make adjustments to the Unique-Tek Micrometer powder bar until 1.60grs are consistently dropped (usually takes about 10 loaded bullets). I find I have to add powder to the reservoir when it goes down about 1/2 of an inch to maintain consistent powder throws. Powder weights are checked using an analytic balance (+ or - 0.02gr accuracy), and bullets are sorted into 0.3gr lots (e.g., 61.7-62.0, 62.1-62.4, & 62.5-62.8 covers about 90% of Travis' bullets). I use R-P brass for nearly all loads since I stumbled onto a bunch of it when starting with the 32 ACP and am an habitual user of Federal primers. This is the only caliber I'm that fussy with but the results can't be argued with. I've had guys at my range look at my test targets and just shake their heads. If it ain't accurate, it ain't interesting.

I don't have a dedicated 550 for each caliber (Dillion wishes), so when I switch back to loading 32s, it is a small pain getting everything right again.

Thanks for your great contributions. Cheers, dipnet

I also do not use an expander as I found that they tend to expand the brass more on one side than the other making the finished cartridge projectile center line not the same as the case center line. (out of round) I have not found brass that is the same hardness and thickness from one side to the other that allows me to use an expander. I have 20 different manufactures of brass and none are good enough to expand evenly. I do bell the case mouth so I can start the projectile. Care must be taken when placing the projectile so it starts straight into the case. When I crimp the case I just take out the bell.

I like to use brass that has been fired in my gun at least once when I am shooting lead bullets as new brass is too small a diameter so the sizing die I use does nothing. The Pardini chamber is pretty large this gives the sizing die something to size down.

I choose my sizing die the following way. I want to have the inside diameter of the brass to be 0.001” smaller than the projectile I am loading. I also like my lead projectiles to be 0.0005” to 0.0010” larger in diameter than the bore of the gun my projectiles are 0.0008” larger. In my experience this has all but eliminated bore leading.

I have a custom set of sizing dies that are in 0.001” increments bigger than each other so I can use different brass/projectile combinations and still get that 0.001” “press fit” when I seat the projectile. I just size 10 cases and measure the inside diameter until a get the size I want. Some brass brands springs back more or less than other brands so this is a trial and error means to an end.

I use Accurate mold 31-065Z to make slugs for swaging. This way I can change my alloy rather than just using pure lead wire.
These swaged bullets are much more accurate than anything I’ve casted. They shoot as well as the Hornady XTP.

I’ve tried VV N-310 and it works great at higher velocities more than 900’/sec. It is very consistent when you get to 1000’/sec loading the Hornady XTP bullet. The extreme spread in velocities is pretty low usually less than 35’/sec. from fastest to slowest in the string. I just can not get it to work with lead bullets going 750’/sec. I get extreme spreads in velocities of 100’/sec. I’ve also tried TightGroup and it reacts similar to VV N-310 at lower velocities. I’m guessing that the pressures generated in the case at these slow speeds do not get the powder into its sweet spot for burning.
I’ve worked with TiteWad and this powder is not recommended for metallic cases so I’m not recommending you use it, but I get great results with it and very consistent velocities. I chose this powder because in shotguns it is very happy at low pressures. When I get my bullets going about 750’/sec it get extreme spreads of 30’/sec. or less.

I’ve tried Winchester primers which is what Pardini recommends because the AMU uses them and got good results. I’ve also used Federal both regular and match primers. Right now I’m using Federal Match primers because I have them. They were on sale for less than the regular primers.

I have both a Star Universal and a Dillon 1050 to load the 32acp. I get more accurate ammo out of the Star so I stopped using the 1050. The Dillon has a micrometer powder measure and a complete set of custom dies just like the Star. I do not know why the Star is better nor am I going to spend the time figuring out why. The 1050 does a great job on 45’s.

When shooting a 64 gr. lead bullet at 750’/sec I had to do the following to make my Pardini HP reliable: These changes work with the following bullets SWC, Hollow base SWC, Hollow Point SWC, Hollow Base / Hollow Point SCW, and Hornady XTP. (You need a hard alloy for the hollow base bullets.) I’ve also made full wadcutters they feed find but shoot poorly.

I started out changing the recoil spring to the 22 one but I now went back to the factory 32 spring. I do need the lighter spring if I am shooting lighter bullets at lower velocities.
I replaced the magazine springs also with the ones for the 22.
This really is not necessary if you do the rest of the magazine modifications. This was originally done to lessen the problem of the cartridge in the magazine knocking the case being ejected off the extractor prematurely, but it is easier to load the magazine with the weaker springs.
When I had the magazines apart I changed the angle of the followers. They were 76 degrees from the factory and I made them 81.5 degrees this makes the cartridge more parallel to the bore axis. The tip was pointing up too much and the case that was being ejected was hitting the case in the magazine. This knocks the fired case off the extractor and stops the case from getting to the ejector so it stops in the way of the bolt when it comes back to battery and jams the case in there.
I also made the magazine lips to be 9/32” apart this lowers the cartridge a little lower in the gun so that it does not knock the case off the extractor. If the case comes off the extractor before it hits the ejector on the magazine there is a good chance for a jammed gun.

My Pardini 32acp is now very accurate and reliable.

pistol champ wrote: ............
My Pardini 32acp is now very accurate and reliable.

Yikes! The Pardini is a beautiful and accurate gun but this is exactly why I didn't buy the Pardini 22lr .32acp combo and decided to go with a dedicated lower on my conversion and just learn to shoot my .45 well. When I get to Master I may reconsider the Pardini 22lr.

- Dave

Dave,
This was a new loading that Pardini brought out in 2013/2014, primarily due to a number of issues American shooters have with 32 SWL at 50 yards (these have been rectified by custom barrels), but kudos to Pardini for the acp solution. Who would have thought the little bullet would be fun to shoot and so very accurate at 50 yards? That aside, I've gone back to shooting the 45 in 1800 matches (my typical monthly NRA match), but pull out the middle caliber for 2700s. There has been one heck of a lot of testing with other calibers, e.g., 9mm and 38, especially 148 gr wadcutters. There wasn't even a 3 ACP LSWC bullet until Oldcaster invented it and he nailed it on the first effort! Interest in this is akin to cartridge wildcat loading, which is an American shooting tradition.

I haven't yet range tested the 1.60 gr VV N310 load yet, but will chromo and see how my results compare to others. The 1.20 gr TiteWad load is very good too. Beats golf. dipnet

Greetings,

The first Pardini 32 ACP barrel may have been made by me.

I did the work, under protest, for a High Master on the East Coast.

I believe this took place around October 2009.

My first 32 ACP conversion was done on special request for a local High Master based on an ERMA 85A. He still shoots that pistol today. This project dates prior to October 2009 as the same reamer chambered both barrels.

The previous shooter did converse with PardiniUSA about malfunction issues. PardiniUSA then came out with a properly dimensioned bolt which removed the safety issue I was concerned about. The early conversions used a 32 S&W Long bolt and a 32 S&W Long "could" chamber and fire in the 32 ACP barrel creating a bad experience. The 32 ACP bolt has a smaller rim cutout and the 32 S&W Long will not fit.

Kudos to PardiniUSA for offering a complete package. Now, if only they could convince Pardini Italy to offer barrels of 0.311" groove diameter...

Cheers,

Dave

Dave, Dronning, One of the Bullseye shooters in my group who typically shoots above 2600 and was using a 41 for the rimfire section bought a Pardini 22 and called it his backup gun. After a year, it is no longer his backup gun but #1. I haven't seen him for a while but have heard that he is going to get an ACP if he hasn't gotten it already.



Dave Wilson, We can only hope that a .311 barrel will become available or at least that they would experiment with one. -- Bill --

oldcaster wrote:Dave, Dronning, One of the Bullseye shooters in my group who typically shoots above 2600 and was using a 41 for the rimfire section bought a Pardini 22 and called it his backup gun. After a year, it is no longer his backup gun but #1. I haven't seen him for a while but have heard that he is going to get an ACP if he hasn't gotten it already.
Dave Wilson, We can only hope that a .311 barrel will become available or at least that they would experiment with one. -- Bill --

I will be getting a Pardini 22 but only after I make Master (goal setting). The 32acp intrigues me but I'm going to continue with the 1911's for CF at least for now.

- Dave

Dave, I really don't know how much difference it might make for you to shoot a 1911 or a 32 Pardini and I think it is quite possible you might do better with the 45. It is all about fit for an individual and whether recoil actually bothers you. If you shoot in 50 foot competitions I think the 45 is a real advantage because of the size of the bullet across those small rings on the slowfire target. For me the Pardini is now easier mainly because I am old and weaker than I was and am bothered by recoil especially in rapid fire so I don't recover properly but too I hardly practice anymore either. The Pardini can be made to be about 50% more accurate but both are so good that it doesn't matter. In inches it isn't enough to get exited about and may be offset by the size of the bullets. I just wish I could have had any of these guns that we now use in 1965 when I was shooting in the AMU in the Army. What will we come up with in the next 50 years. -- Bill --