Talk me out of it... .32 Tomcat

Infi-del said:
True enough. But at PB Distances I would still rather have a 380 or preferably a 9mm than a 32. A Kahr PM9 can be deployed the same way (Close range get off me gun) and it's bite is a lot worse. And if you know how to properly carry a gun there is no carry benefit to the Tomcat over the Kahr. But to each his own. Seems like Kel-tecs and Kahrs have been mentioned in this thread a lot. Of the three my preference would be Kahr first, Kel-Tec Second, and the Tomcat last if there was just nothing else to get.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. My point was there was alot of talk about using all these weapons at a distance, aka the headshot comments. Small caliber weapons are not really the first line of defense nor are they intended to be. Granted alot of people carry them as a primary weapon and if we knew that we were going to have a gunfight the next time we make a run for a pack of smokes or a burger, I think we all agree we would load up the shotgun or AR.
 
Infi-del said:
The PM9 is about the same size as the Kel-Tec PF-9... those are the comparable models from each brand. I owned a PF-9 and sold it after getting my PM9... which I sold after getting my MK9. The Kahr really is superior to the Kel-Tec in every way. Especially shooting actual defense ammo. Some +P ammo in the Kel-Tec was not a good outing for the weapon. It nearly beat itself to death. There were actual metal shavings inside the gun where the slide was pounding against the frame in the rearward position. The Kahr eats +P+ just fine. As I said earlier if you are well versed in carrying a weapon properly... all these sub compacts are about the same carry wise. I don't find a P3AT any easier to conceal than an MK9. The MK9 is heavier... but we're only talking ounces here.

Plus I like the fact that the Kahr can take night sights. IMHO a carry gun without night sights is a bad idea. Some disagree. I have night sights on every firearm I own.
Click to expand...
I mostly agree with you but the P3at sure is light and slim. If money was no issue believe me I would have a PM-9. As far as night sights go, I have that covered with a crimson trace laser. It even puts out enough light to identify a target in pitch black. :thumbup:
 
I wouldn't use a 32 or 25 unless I had too. Seacamp makes a nice 380.
Product380-Large.jpg

http://www.seecamp.com/products.htm
So does Sig - P232
P232-detail-L.jpg

I like the Kahr as well. A 9mm yet the size of a 380.
kahrpm9.jpg
 
hoopster said:
I mostly agree with you but the P3at sure is light and slim. If money was no issue believe me I would have a PM-9. As far as night sights go, I have that covered with a crimson trace laser. It even puts out enough light to identify a target in pitch black. :thumbup:
Click to expand...

Batteries die when you need them most. Tritium doesn't. Personally I see lasers as a crutch. At least for me... I don't want to learn a method of aiming my weapon that doesn't involve using the sights in some manner or tons of muscle memory such as point shooting at close range. Aiming devices can crap out without warning and if I haven't practiced proper speed sight aquisition to the point of muscle memory with a firearm, I personally believe it's gonna cost me seconds I can't afford to spare.
 
imho there aint a lotta difference between a .32 and .380, regardless of ammo, while eithert one will work, probably, i sure wouldnt expect a big jump in performance from going from .32 to .380, now going from .32 or .380 to 9MM or .40, now ya are getting somewhere, i'm fine with my keltec P32 FWIW, for what it is, its 100% reliable and fairly good in the accuracy dept, i see no reason to ditch the P32 and get a P3AT, 6 of 1, 1/2 dozen of another, the P32 is a bit smaller and liter and holds another round to boot, but if i already had a P3AT, and it was reliable and fairly accurate, i'd stick with it, just not a lotta difference between the 2, imho anyway, both of 'em are what they are and i dont think one is any better (or worse) than the other, on those 2 reliability is the biggest issue.

i do think either one is quite a bit better than a .22 or a .25 though, i have had a lotta reliability issues with small .22s and .25s just dont cut it imho,
 
Infi-del said:
Batteries die when you need them most. Tritium doesn't. Personally I see lasers as a crutch. At least for me... I don't want to learn a method of aiming my weapon that doesn't involve using the sights in some manner or tons of muscle memory such as point shooting at close range. Aiming devices can crap out without warning and if I haven't practiced proper speed sight aquisition to the point of muscle memory with a firearm, I personally believe it's gonna cost me seconds I can't afford to spare.
Click to expand...

For a pistol the size of these I don't see the need for sights at all. Most likely it will be used under 20 feet in a hasty pull the trigger as fast as you can drill. Check out crimson traces video only imagine the same drill only no sights or laser. It would work the same. The laser is nice because if you had to you could actually aim from an awkward position where you can't get sight alignment.
IMO night sights have their limits since your target could still be blacked out. At least a laser illuminates the target. I guess a laser or light in conjunction with night sights would be best.
 
hoopster said:
For a pistol the size of these I don't see the need for sights at all. Most likely it will be used under 20 feet in a hasty pull the trigger as fast as you can drill. Check out crimson traces video only imagine the same drill only no sights or laser. It would work the same. The laser is nice because if you had to you could actually aim from an awkward position where you can't get sight alignment.
IMO night sights have their limits since your target could still be blacked out. At least a laser illuminates the target. I guess a laser or light in conjunction with night sights would be best.
Click to expand...

To each his own. I wouldn't care for a weapon without sights. And I would never shoot at anything I couldn't identify. I've seen all the adverts on lasers. They just seem to be a solution looking for a problem IMHO. Good sights and excessive shooting training is what I feel works best for me.
 
i put a medium size red shotgun bead on my keltec P32 to act as a front site and it did make it easier to hit with, had to drill the slide of course, and my 'smith was concerned it might break off, but thats been almost 10 yrs now and its still there.

if i had a P32/P3AT i would sure think about it, they dont have much in the way of sites,
 
Have ya checked out an airweight J-frame, I'd take .38+p over .380 or .32 anyday, not to mention that smaller semi-autos tend to have reliability issues, unless you get a really good one. If you don't mind the weight of steel, a Ruger SP101 or steel J-frame is also worth a look. At the size/price the OP mentioned I'd take a Sig P232 or CZ83, I just don't trust the ultra small semi autos.
 
An article on crimson trace lasergrips by Larry Vickers. Obviously everything doesn't work the same for everyone, but when someone with as much real world experience as Larry Vickers is a proponent of a product, it pays to give that product consideration.

To the OP, I would only carry a .32 if I had to choose between that and a pointy stick. With as many small .380s and 9mms as there are now I find it hard to have a valid reason to carry a .380, much less a .32.
 
POS. Had one for the wife. spring way too hard for here to pull the slide. Look for j frame s+w revolver.
 
I like our 32 Tomcat :thumbup: And I sure wouldn't like to stand in front of it!
 
high desert said:
POS. Had one for the wife. spring way too hard for here to pull the slide. Look for j frame s+w revolver.
Click to expand...

The cool thing about the Tomcat is you don't have to pull the slide. That's what the tip-up barrel is for. The Tomcat (and it's smaller brothers) are great pistols for folks with limited hand/ arm strength, precisely because of the tip-up barrel.

I have a Beretta 21A Bobcat, which is very similar to the Tomcat, but in .22 LR. I like the gun very much. It is a bit too bulky and heavy to carry though, I have it as a collector piece and a plinker. If I found myself in a life-or-death situation and had the gun on me, I'd be damned glad I had it. Given the choice between .22 and .32, I'll take .22 every time. .32 is relatively hard to find and expensive. .22 is everywhere, and dirt cheap.
 
I have been carrying a Taurus TCP .380 everyday for 6 months. It's made in America, stainless slide, feels better in my rear right pocket than my wallet, and is under $300! I can shoot well with it and actually like the trigger (I don't like the trigger on the very similar Ruger LCP that my brother-in-law owns). Reliability has been good (one FTF in the first 100 rounds [I blame it on a limp wristed shot]), and accuracy is as good as I could ever expect from a 4" sight plane and very low sights.
 
TexAg10 said:
I wouldn't want to stand in front of a .22 short. Doesn't change the fact that it is a horrible choice for a defensive round.
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about it being a good defensive round. I do however think a nice little 357 would work ok. Sorry if you read something that wasn't there.
 
wackafew said:
I didn't say anything about it being a good defensive round. I do however think a nice little 357 would work ok. Sorry if you read something that wasn't there.
Click to expand...

Then what meaning did you intend to convey by saying you wouldn't stand in front of it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top