Help me out on understanding calibre, 7.65 vs 32
I moved this topic here realizing after I posted on the G.D that it was more appropriate for this forum.
I just received a CZ-70 in 32acp cal. (I thought, I was told it was) I bought some 32 acp ammo and went and fired 12 rounds through it to get the feel of the pistol. Then, being the idiot I am I happend to look on the slide. There I found stamped 7.65 cal. What gives.
A 7.65 cal. is .301 inches. How can you shoot a 32 cal acp through it? Is this a bad thing? Seems like 8mm would be closer to .32. What about a 9mm, can you shoot .357 through it or .38???
I'm just the village idiot. Don't know nothing about these newer firearms.
When you wrestle a 'gator, there ain't no good end!!
"Molon Labe!" Spartan General-King Leonidas
http://www.whyemier.1accesshost.com/
I just received a CZ-70 in 32acp cal. (I thought, I was told it was) I bought some 32 acp ammo and went and fired 12 rounds through it to get the feel of the pistol. Then, being the idiot I am I happend to look on the slide. There I found stamped 7.65 cal. What gives.
A 7.65 cal. is .301 inches. How can you shoot a 32 cal acp through it? Is this a bad thing? Seems like 8mm would be closer to .32. What about a 9mm, can you shoot .357 through it or .38???
I'm just the village idiot. Don't know nothing about these newer firearms.
When you wrestle a 'gator, there ain't no good end!!
"Molon Labe!" Spartan General-King Leonidas
http://www.whyemier.1accesshost.com/
0
-
Not a problem. 7.65 (mm) is just the European designation for what we call .32 auto; they are the same. (Metric vs. decimal systems.)
.357 mag, no, won't chamber in a 9mm or a .38 special; if it did, it would likely be disasterous. These things aren't intuitive; you learn by reading & asking questions.
Neal0 -
Part of the problem is that some cartridge numbers are designations of the bore, some are of the groove, some make very little sense at all- for example, a 44 is really a 43, or precisely, the groove is .429; then depending on the type of rifling, the bore will be in the area of .42; so the 44 could actually be called a 42. In some situations the number has seemingly nothing to do with the measured size- it's more than just a straight conversion between SAE & Metric. So it shouldn't be considered part of the test for how acute someone is. 0 -
Actually, the ".32" is at least as inaccurate as the "7.65" and while I don't know the history on the latter, perhaps I can help explain the former.
You may have seen the story (spoof or historical analysis?) making the rounds roughly four years ago explaining why the size of the space shuttle body corresponds to width of the butts of Roman horses? A somewhat analagous situation pertains here.
Many of our .32 & .38 caliber revolver rounds are descended from the early Colt .31 and .36 cap and ball revolvers. As S&W rimfire firearms came on the market, they paralleled those bore sizes, but S&W chose to create cartridge names which would differentiate the new high tech loadings from the earlier designs. And when the Colt firearms were converted to self-contained ammunition, obviously the bore size did not change. As newer versions designed for self-contained ammunition came on the market, the makers did not re-invent the wheel, but used the same ammunition and nomenclature. S&W did try to put the genie back in the bottle with the first offerings of the .38 S&W round - the first production firearms and ammunition were labeled .36/38 S&W. This didn't fly, so they reverted to the ".38" terminology. The mislabeling continued as we moved into the modern era and was carried over to the pistol cartridges - hence .32 ACP and .38 ACP which are really .31 and .36 just as the .38 Special is really a .36 . . . .
"There is nothing lower than the human race - except the french." (Mark Twain) ". . . And liberals / demoMAGGOTS" (me)0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
3 comments