TargetTalk

This is my somewhat subjective opinion about .32 match automatic pistols. An evaluation made on the basis of 35 years of extensive use of many different models.

I wellcome your opinion, if it is the result of enduring use of one or more models. That is many years, and many, many thousands of rounds. Anything less does not count! Sorry.

FAS .32: Nice balance, nice looks. But the trigger unit will "wear out" in too short time. And the screw fixing the trigger unit to the frame will work loose. Yes, "locktite" will help a little, but not much. Feeding problems, the magazines was to blame, probably.

Walther GSP .32:Well. again the trigger units were not satisfying. These units have been reconstructed and (by the factory) claimed improved upon several times. But they are still not satisfactory in the long run, not even in the current models (got that, Walther?). Feeding reliability? Not the worst, but not 100%.

Haemmerli SP .32: The first models suffered ocasionally from broken parts. This has improved. But there is an odd top heavy balance to the gun. And I cannot digest the "plastics" frame.

Pardini .32: Early models suffered broken parts and fractured frames. This has improved. The trigger unit is not satisfactory in the (very) long run. Internal parts in the trigger unit wear easily. Some persistent feeding problems.

Bennelli .32: Severe feeding problems with the early models. Much improved by the later models. Trigger unit not satisfactory, parts wear too rapidly.

Morini CM .32: Never made it much beyond the prototype stage. Not in current production, according to my latest information. Some reconstruction is going on. Suffered severe feeding problems, some of which were blamed to the magazines. Frequent breackage of the firing pins. Extremely front heavy.

Matchguns .32: Only a few specimens have left the factory. Some functional problems reported.

Unique .32.: Broken frames occured with the first models. The newer models have reliable feeding. A gun favored by many of the CISM participants. But the gun have been discontinued. If you are offered a nice used specimen, then grab it, and dont let go.

So what is left? Not much. Why are not the .32s any better than this?
I have always wandered.
Maybe you know?

Well, I just bougth the one that reportedly "The trigger unit is not satisfactory in the (very) long run. Internal parts in the trigger unit wear easily. Some persistent feeding problems. "

Hopefully I wont' have too many problems.... but i do live close to the US importer so that should help

We did learn that the certain type of WC bullets that have the slightly protruding nose (and work fine in Zurek's Walther) don't fit in the pardini magazine....



may we ask.....

Tiger,

Who are you and where are you?

perhaps others know from your earlier posting, but I don't, and it seems you have a wealth of experience to share

Thanks,

Poole
http://arizona.rifleshooting.com/

Thanks for your analysis of .32 guns. It does sound like the observations were made from a depth of experience.

I don't mean to sound flippant, but your post does however remind me of similar experiences I have had with every vehicle I have ever owned. Some would have initial quality problems, some would wear out faster than I thought they should. I don't mean to compare the auto industry and its billon dollar R&D budgets with that of the gun manufacturers with typically 4 digit serial numbers, but sometimes I know I expect a lot from a gun that I paid a few thousand for.

How many rounds should a gun be capable of firing? If I think of the G-forces involved, chemical propellents, heat, friction and environmental conditions under which a gun is operated, I don't find it that surprising that they occasionally have problems.

Many serious shooters buy expensive equipment. Most probably spend many times more than the purchase price on their consumables.
I hope my equipment will last a lifetime. I know it shoots better than I do. The fact that most well cared for guns retain their value does speak to a good level of quality.
I certainly envy your experience of having direct knowledge with so many fine pieces of equipment.

Good luck in your quest.

Tiger:

Thanks for posting your personal findings. It's informative.

I noticed Hammerli 280 was missing from your list. I used the Hammerli 280 in both .22lr and .32 SW Long for 16 years now, very few problems ( very few, but not NONE ).

Actually I found them so good that I am currently on my second pair of the 280's.

Over the years I tried the Walther GSP, Sako Tri Ace, Pardini, and the Hammerli SP20 and did not like them. Just didn't feel right - a personal thing, I suppose.

The carbon fiber frame ( aka plastic ) did not bother me at all, especially when I don't have to worry about leaving finger-prints ( its the oil and acid I am referring to, not for any criminal purposes...:-) )

Thank you for your post "guest".

Yes, I omitted the Haemmerli 28o simply because I think I have not had enough experience with it in .32 caliber. But I have fired perhaps a thousand rounds through one in .38 Special WC caliber.

The 280 is a well made gun, no doubt. And accurate. Why it is not seen more often in the CF course in the major championships, I dont know. I would wellcome reports from any shooter with "a lifetime" of experience with the 280 in .32 caliber.

The SAKO Tri Ace. Same thing. Well made, expensive. Accurate. Nice balance. But a lot of feeding problems. And a trigger unit that is not the easiest to adjust. But my own experience with this gun is limited. And the gun has been discontinued for many years.
Again, please report from experience, anyone!

Regards,

The .32 caliber guest.

Thank You, Paul.

I agree with you.
You ask: how long should a gun be expected to last?: Well, a few (minor) problems are to be expected after say a few thousand rounds. From wear of the "wearing parts". Similar to the the wering parts in your car.
You will have to exchange the recoil spring, exchange the firing pin after thousands of rounds. Wear and perhaps slight deformation of the magazine lips demand exchange after some years.

But a frame that develops cracks from firing a few thousand rounds of weak powered .32 match wc ammo? No, I will not accept that. Not if the gun is maintained well. Some guns have rubber recoil buffer inserts. These will have to be exchanged when ever they show wear, e.g. in the FAS pistols. Otherwise problems will accure.

Some difficulties with the .32 are attributed to the flanged case design. And the power level of the cartridge, I think. Because of the moderate recoil, designs are simple blow-backs. With a relatively heavy slide hitting a recoil buffer at the end of the "recoil stroke".

Returning to your principal question: How long is a gun expected to last?

Should a very expencive match pistol last longer than a more moderately priced one. If both are maintained properly?
And should the expencive one function better than a cheaper one?
I would like to answer yes to both, but..

Let me put in a final comment: The frame of a match gun that costs more than say two thousand dollars should not crack from firing low power factory ammo. Period. Some problem of some models are caused by ingineering flaws, in my opinion. And some models are released for the market without (enough) thorough testing, it seems.

Hi!
I have owned a Unique .32 for about 4 years. I am afraid I haven't shot it very much... maybe five thousand rounds. During that time it has functioned flawlessly on reloads. Although I have experimented with it at 50 yds I shoot it mostly at 25. It is alot of fun.
If only I could figure out the trigger adjustments!
I also own an early Unique DES69 .22. I have shot it since I bought it in 1977. It has been the most faithful gun I have ever owned. It is a shame that Unique is now gone.

Guest again wrote:Yes, I omitted the Haemmerli 28o simply because I think I have not had enough experience with it in .32 caliber. But I have fired perhaps a thousand rounds through one in .38 Special WC caliber.

I think you may be slightly confused on this. The 280 was never made in .38


I had a FAS 603 for about 14 years and during that time fired approximately 50-60 thousand rounds through it. Apart from the normal consumable items I only replaced the slide and hammer box once.
It needed a bit more care than other top competitive guns but match reliability was brilliant. It was a delight to shoot.

Iv'e owned a Hammerli 280 in .22 and .32 for years. While I've normally shot it in .22, I've got enough work with it in .32 to have an opinion.

The gun is pretty durable - reportedly, the gun was specifically designed for .32 WC loads, instead of being a reworked .22 design. The problem is accuracy. The early 280s (and I have one of those) will throw flyers WAY out. Like 3-4 inches at 25 yards. I haven't tried it, but it is reported that the later production pistols had a revised design that corrected for this.

I've also heard that the P-240s are pretty nice.

That being said, if you are shooting CF, there is a strong case to be made for something like a S&W Model 52. Get a good set of grips on it, and you have a pretty nice setup.

David Levene wrote:

Guest again wrote:Yes, I omitted the Haemmerli 28o simply because I think I have not had enough experience with it in .32 caliber. But I have fired perhaps a thousand rounds through one in .38 Special WC caliber.

I think you may be slightly confused on this. The 280 was never made in .38

Perhaps he means the SIG-Haemmerli 240?

While I will agree wholheartedly about the FAS---if you are handy and can work with this gun--it is a winner. I have owned a Pardini HP for the better part of 5 years---the trigger is the finest---the gun is the most reliable and I must say that I shoot more than 2500 rounds through it in bullseye and ISU center fire events without a whimper---I love it. I had a DES69U and was about to buy the .32 when the company folded and I couldn't get one---that was an outstanding gun except for their use of slotted screws. The MG2 has issues---I know--I owned one and returned it--the .32 version like the CM .32 are around but they aren't ( if you get my drift). Hammerli & Walther make excellent guns---I don't know what your argument is with them---though I only own one Hammerli and that is a 160 Special FP.

Tiger wrote:
So what is left? Not much. Why are not the .32s any better than this?

One other semi-auto to add...

Tesro TS32 The new kid on the block. Haven’t heard anything about them yet. Reportedly designed by an ex-Walther design engineer (and it shows), looks like it could be front-heavy. Available in the EU and Potter Firearms appears to now be distributing them in Australia.

http://www.potfire.com.au/plist/p10295.htm
http://www.tesro.de/

I know Tiger that your review was initially just semi-auto's, but I feel like someone should fly the flag for the humble revolver - after all the .32 S&W Long was designed as a revolver cartridge. They can be ugly, but they are also where ISSF / UIT centrefire began and tend to be very reliable - something that is obviously a problem with semi's. So without any further ado...

TOZ 49M OK - strictly speaking not a true .32, but can easily be converted from the weird 7.62mm Russian tapered revolver cartridge it was designed for by a competent gunsmith. Roughly finished, rudimentary grips, utterly reliable, the Nagant gas-seal system actually works, unforgiving of poor technique. Limited trigger adjustment (crisp single stage, trigger weight adjustment only). Lasts forever, useful for hammering in tent-pegs in emergencies. Available in the EU via Frankonia Jagd, your friendly local Russian arms dealer in the East, plenty available 2nd hand in Australia, forget about the US. Due to the number floating around Eastern Europe / former USSR, it is probably the world's most common ISSF centrefire target pistol. Many shooters feel that it needs a barrel weight (myself included - though I've heard Russians tend not to use them, insisting the good technique is all that is needed).
http://toz.vpk.ru/eng/toz49.htm


Manurhin MR73 Match .32 Beautifully made, fantastic to shoot, superb grip, problems with supply and parts availability. Available in the EU and distributed in Australia. US does not currently have a distributor. Expensive, not much to go wrong, but could be problematic getting it repaired if it does.[/url]

Domino .32 Revolver Haven’t a clue. The latest theory that has been suggested to me is that these are NOS left over from before FAS bought out Domino. Happy to be corrected on this.

The factory test group that came with my mr73 manuhrin 32 measure's .426 inch's outside to outside for six shots. This pistol was made in 1960. It still shoots one hole groups today.
I shot the Tesro a couple of weeks ago with the the thought of buying one, but in the end decided that there were at least two better alternatives. The Tesro is very well made & feels great in the hand. It is very light, also the front sight is set back from the muzzle.
I keep going back to my pardini 32 as easiest to get good scores with & the best for the trigger adjustments. I thought that the Des69 32 cal had the best trigger, but for some reason it would wear on the trigger transfer bar.
Jeff Rol in Australia has thousands of dollars of spares for these pistols except for mags.

Thank You, "Fortitudo Dei"(?).
According to my mediocre latin it means something like "strenght of god". Maybe some of that is what we need to make those .32 semis work well?

Jokes side, I appreciate your post. And, yes, the .32 S&WL originated as a rev cartridge.
You mentioned a .32 Domino revolver. Never heard about that one. Was it a last try from Domino to make a functional gun? Their semis had a bad reputation for malfunctions. Please, bring information, someone.

Yes, some top shooters used, and still use revolvers for the CF course. "Eastern Block" top shooters used, and some still use, Nagant 7,65 mm (.32) revs. And they have achieved some impressive scores during the years. And revolvers re reliable, no doubt. No feeding problems!

The revolver has however a drawback in the duell course. The shooter has to cock the hammer vith his non-shooting hand before each shot.
And worse even, I think, the revolver does not have the trigger pull weight take-up ability of the two stage semiauto trigger. (Some aftermarket gadgets do overcome this, but..). So a revolver demands a better technique. I admire those who shoot near perfect scores in the duell course with a revolver!

Please, bring more of your experiences to us, "Strenght of God".

In an upcoming post I intend to bring my suggestions (to the manufacturers?) for constructional changes that in my opinion could make some existing .32 semiautos better. Some of the currently produced models could be made winners with some (minor) constructional changes, I think.

And I wellcome suggestions from the readers of this posts too. Maybe we together could "force" manufacturer(s) to make a (near) perfect .32 semiauto?

Thank you, SBOW. You are perfectly right.

Yes, it was of course not the 280, it was the 240. This gun was owned by a gun club, and I used it occasionally only. It was a .38 caliber.

Thank you too, David, for correcting me on my confusion about the 280 / 240. I have not had much experience with any of these models. Only about 1000 rounds with a 240. And that was in .38 caliber, yes.

No doubt David, you are an experienced .32 auto shooter. 60 - 70 thousand rounds surely is a lot through one gun.
But then you had to change the slide "only" once. And the "hammerbox" once. This is the "unit" that is fixed to the frame with a screw that always will come loose. How did you make your "hammerbox"-fixing screw stay put, David?
I had a FAS .32, and I would have had to exchange the hammerbox every few thousand round, if the gun should be a reliable performer. But I never managed to ruin the slide on my .32 FAS ( but I have ruined the slide on my .22 FAS.)
I have seen one broken .32 FAS frame. Cracks had developed in the rear part of fram, in the lower corner of the recoil buffer. The rear part of the frame broke completely off . This happened after many years of use, though. The factory supplied a new frame.

The .32 guest wrote: You mentioned a .32 Domino revolver. Never heard about that one. Was it a last try from Domino to make a functional gun? Their semis had a bad reputation for malfunctions. Please, bring information, someone.

They are for sale at...
http://www.dominoguns.com/prod_revolver1.htm

The theory that was suggested to me that they were NOS guns of the former pre-FAS Domino is now I realise, incorrect. However I think I have at last solved the mystery.
After drawing a blank, I did what I should have done in the first place and that was to crank the website through a machine translator. If my interpretation is correct, these are a re-branded .32 match revolver manufactured by Alfa-Proj in the Czech Republic. Following the noble tradition of diversification in East European arms manufacturers, they also make very nice looking sewing machines!

Their website is at http://www.alfa-proj.cz/

Their range of guns is extraordinary. They seem to be building a selection of different calibre barrels onto a set range of different frame designs and materials.
Check (Czech? :) these out...

http://www.alfa-proj.cz/podstr/ostre/frostre.html
http://www.alfa-proj.cz/podstr/volne/frplyvolne.html

Fortitudo Dei, Great Job on finding out where they're made. Do you or any one else have any idea how they shoot?

I too have had a great experience with my Pardini HP ... which I recently sold to Bill Poole ... great trigger ... perfectly reliable with my home loaded ammo ... very soft rounds of 1.2 gms of VV N310 ... with 100 grm H&N Match WC bullets

.32 guest wrote:No doubt David, you are an experienced .32 auto shooter. 60 - 70 thousand rounds surely is a lot through one gun.
But then you had to change the slide "only" once. And the "hammerbox" once. This is the "unit" that is fixed to the frame with a screw that always will come loose. How did you make your "hammerbox"-fixing screw stay put, David?

I realised within a very short time of buying the gun that the screw was a potential problem. Because of the domed head on the factory fitted screw you had to use a smaller sized Allen wrench to the one you would normally use on an M3 threaded screw. This meant that it was too easy to round off either the wrench or the screw socket head corners.
My solution was change the screw for a normal socket headed screw which allowed for a larger sized Allen wrench and consequently a higher tightening torque. The problem with this solution was that this style of screw head was too high and jammed the under-side of the slide. A few strokes with a good quality file reduced the height of the head sufficiently to give clearence.
I have installed these modified screws in the guns of all 603s used by members of the GB C/F pistol team for the last 19 years with no (so far as I can remember) "mid-match loosenings". A quick check/tweak of the screw is suggested whenever the receiver is removed.

.32 guest wrote:I have seen one broken .32 FAS frame. Cracks had developed in the rear part of fram, in the lower corner of the recoil buffer. The rear part of the frame broke completely off . This happened after many years of use, though. The factory supplied a new frame.

The recoil buffer is actually fitted inside the receiver, not on the frame. I believe that you are referring to the receiver fixing lug at the back of the frame. I have only ever seen that break once, on that occassion indirectly caused by recoil buffer.
One of the biggest fears with the 603 is if the recoil buffer clip legs both break and the front of the clip falls down onto the frame/hammer box. When this happens there is a high probability of it jamming the receiver. The only way of removing it is to hit the back of the receiver, very hard and many times. After a while, with a bit of luck, the broken piece of the buffer clip will bend, allowing the receiver to be removed.
On the one gun I have seen with the broken fixing lug I know that the buffer clip had broken at least twice during its life and we believe that some "less-than-careful" hitting on the second occassion (not by me) had cracked the frame. Having looked after this gun since it was built in 1984 I know that it had shot many tens of thousands of rounds more than mine, so it could just have been old age.

This buffer clip breakage is the reason why I always recomend a quick inspection whenever the receiver is removed and automatic replacement every 6 months.

Hope this helps.