[P11octo]

On Aug 9 2016, Jeremy S. posted his gel testing of .32 ACP Underwood 50 gr Cavitator (Standard Pressure) vs 60 gr Gold Dot vs unnamed 73 gr FMJ on Youtube. He never mentioned the brand of the FMJ but it appears to be S&B.
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lf-IF1emoJI[/ame]

Test Protocol
2 layers of tee-shirt barrier, 10% organic gel. (No mention of test BB penetration calibration.)
Beretta Tomcat 2.4" barrel. He called it a "new" gun and mentioned it needs more break-in.

Penetration Summary
- Underwood Cavitator: 4 rounds penetrated 13.8" - 14.5" Very consistent. Wound track 1.25"-1.5"and slightly larger than Gold Dot. He didn't quantify the length of the large wound track, but it appears to be ~7" before it gets small.
- Gold Dot: 2 rounds penetrated 8.25", 8.75" both expanded fully. Wound track slightly smaller than Cavitator.
- 73 gr FMJ: 18", 19.5" The usual tiny wound track.

Reliability Summary
- Underwood Cavitator: 2 stoppages in 40 rounds. He expressed optimism that with additional break-in of his Beretta, it would run reliably.
- Gold Dot: 0 failures in 20 rounds
- FMJ: 0 failures in 40 rounds

Comments
I'm somewhat skeptical of the absolute accuracy of his penetration numbers. I've collected the results of several other .32 ACP FMJ gel tests. None of them exceed 16" and most are with the slightly longer 2.7" barrel Keltec P32. He was trying to maintain calibration by keeping the gel at the proper temperature, but there was no mention of measuring penetration of a test BB.

Regardless of that, the comparison of the Underwood Cavitator to the Gold Dot in the same gel block is very useful information.

No chrono data was presented. Based on several other ammo tests, I think P32's 2.7" barrel will generate about 2% more velocity than the Beretta's 2.4" barrel and Seecamp's 2.1" barrel will generate about 8% less than the Beretta.

Over on the Seecamp forum, MRC recorded the following velocity results from his Seecamp for three brands of ammo with the Lehigh Cavitator bullet.
- Lehigh Xtreme Cavitator - average 943 fps, - standard deviation 29, -KE 99 ft-lbs
- Underwood Xtreme Cavitator Standard Pressure - average 998 fps, - standard deviation 30, -KE 111 ft-lbs
- Underwood Xtreme Cavitator +P - average 1062 fps, -standard deviation 25, -KE 125 ft-lbs
http://www.seecamp.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1467677415

It appears Underwood's loadings of the Lehigh Cavitator bullet truly offer a very significant increase in terminal ballistics performance for P32s, Seecamps, Beretta Tomcats, NAA Guardians and others. They generate wound channels wider than and longer than JHP's and then continue to penetrate almost as much as FMJ's.

Please let me know of any other gel test results for the .32 ACP Cavitator bullet you become aware of.

 

[darkwriter77]

WOOHOO! FINALLY someone did an independent gel test on these! Seems to be pretty close to exactly what I was hoping it would be: a happy medium between FMJ penetration and a JHP wound channel.

Now, if only I could find them in stock somewhere...

 

[cluznar]

I may get a box of Underwood Cavitator to try.

 

[P11octo]

Most people are getting the Underwood's directly through their website. They appear to still be available for ordering, but I didn't complete the final step of the order process.
https://www.underwoodammo.com/32-acp/

The Lehigh's seem to always be out of stock, even on their own website.

 

[darkwriter77]

Dunno why I never thought to check the manufacturer. Always just assumed they didn't sell directly to the public and only shipped to other distributors. Thanks for the link!

 

[gordon11]

Might be a good one for the pipe. Glad someone finally did an independent test.

 

[9inthepocket]

Does anyone have any comparative information for the +P version from Underwood?

 

[CJP32]

He listed the numbers for the +P version in the original post, 1062fps and 125ft lbs energy.

So far I'm impressed with this stuff and as much as I understand there is technically no +P in 32acp I think that would be my choice. If I remember correctly, 125ft lbs isn't excessive for the 32acp.

 

[P11octo]

There should be no problem running the Underwood +P in a P32, which Keltec spec's can handle up to 200 FPE.

The +P velocity of 1062 fps was measured from a Seecamp's, 2.06" barrel. The P32 typically generates 10% more velocity with its 2.7" barrel. So, one would expect this round from a P32 to achieve ~1170 fps / 152 FPE.

Underwood spec's the +P at 1100 fps / 134 FPE and that was from a P32.

Seecamp's and NAA Guardian's can handle that power, too.

Might be questionable for the Beretta Tomcat, which the manufacturer spec's at 130 FPE max. That gun had frame cracking problems in the past, even occasionally in the beefier Inox version. I don't know if that's been corrected in the newer models.

The Underwood +P's ~150 FPE is comparable to Corbon and Buffalo Bore loadings, but since the Cavitator bullet is lighter (only 50 grain), the perceived recoil will probably be a bit less. But I haven't shot this ammo yet.

Please post the results of your experience with this new ammo.
- Did you experience any failures with it?
- Accuracy?
- How's the recoil compare to other ammo?
- Any velocity readings?
- Any penetration tests in water, wet pack, or gel?

Thanks,
Al

 

[darkwriter77]

FWIW, my Underwood Xtreme Cavitator ammo arrived the other day. Hand-cycles just dandy through my Gen1 P32's (and my girlfriend's Gen2), although I know that hand-cycling doesn't count for a whole lot in reality.

 

[P11octo]

darkwriter77,

Look forward to hearing about your experience with this ammo at the range.

I'm mostly concerned about rimlock, but if it occurs, it can probably be solved with the FlyerWire spacer.

I've only seen about a dozen user reports of how the Lehigh .32 Cavitator bullets run in any gun.

There are a couple brief comments about the Underwood +P running well in P32's.

No reports at all about the Underwood Standard Pressure and the P32, although that's one of the guns Underwood tests their .32 ammo.

And I've seen one report of rimlock with the Lehigh standard pressure in the P32 and a few reports that it ran well in it.

 

[9inthepocket]

I'll most likely be using the +P in my P32 providing it feeds well. Was just curious if the wound channel and penetration distance could be somehow estimated by the results of the standard pressure rounds.

By the way, I also have a Tomcat and a FEG in .32. Always take care when loading the mags but have never had rimlock. I believe it is a non issue with .32 acp.

 

[P11octo]

9inthepocket,

I'm not an expert, but I've read that gel penetration is generally proportional to the velocity (recoil, too).

I don't have any concrete info on wound channel width, but the +P's channel width should be somewhat wider than the 1.25" - 1.5" Jeremy observed in his test. If anyone has better info, please chime in. I'd like to know more about this.

So, since the +P velocity is 7-8% faster than standard pressure, it should generate 7-8% deeper penetration, which is ~15" compared to the ~14" Jeremy observed.

These are all in the ballpark of the manufacturers' specs.

Lehigh specs their Cavitator ammo at: 925 fps / 95 FPE / 13.5" in bare gel / 1.5" max wound channel width
Underwood specs their standard ammo at: 1000 fps / 111 FPE / 14" in bare gel / no wound channel data
Underwood specs their +P ammo at: 1100 fps / 134 FPE / 14.75" in bare gel / no wound channel data

Lehigh also specs 12" gel penetration and 1" wound channel with a barrier of 4 layers of heavy denim. Data and photos on that and four other barriers' performance are available at:
http://www.lehighdefense.com/products/32-acp-50gr-xtreme-cavitator-ammunition?variant=13337135428

Jeremy conducted his test with the 2.4" barrel Beretta Tomcat. Bullet velocity from it is typically 1-2% less than the 2.7" P32, which is negligible in this case.

The Seecamp's 2.06" barrel typically gets 8% slower velocity than the Tomcat, so it seems it should get ~13" bare gel penetration from the Underwood standard pressure and ~14" from the +P.

 

[9inthepocket]

Thanks P11octo! Just what I was looking for.

 

[P11octo]

9inthepocket,

I recently read a user report from someone who owned both the FEG and P32.

He perceived greater recoil from the FEG's blowback design than the P32's locked breech, despite the FEG being much heavier (~19 oz vs ~7 oz unloaded) and much longer (6.7" vs 5.1").

What's your take on that?

Thanks,
Al (P11octo)

 

[darkwriter77]

Since I don't have any ballistic gel laying around, nor do I have anywhere I could take it to go shoot it for testing purposes, I can't really offer much in the way of feedback in that regard. All I can say is whether or not it actually cycles in my Gen1 P32 (and my gal's Gen2). I'd wager the ballistics are going to be pretty much identical to what were shown in the video with the Beretta Tomcat, though, being that they have pretty similar barrel lengths and all that.

 

[P11octo]

darkwriter77,

Yeah, I can't do gel testing or even take chrono readings at any of my local ranges.

But any info you can provide about perceived recoil or accuracy relative to other ammo or any malfunctions would be very useful.

 

[9inthepocket]

9inthepocket,

I recently read a user report from someone who owned both the FEG and P32.

He perceived greater recoil from the FEG's blowback design than the P32's locked breech, despite the FEG being much heavier (~19 oz vs ~7 oz unloaded) and much longer (6.7" vs 5.1").

What's your take on that?

Thanks,
Al (P11octo)

Absolutely. I haven't got the P32 yet and haven't shot one. but the little FEG feels about like my SAR B6PC 9mm as far as recoil goes.

 

[cluznar]

For a small, thin gun, the P-32 has very little recoil. :rayof:

 

[michael t]

P-32 lot softer than the 32 NAA or 32 Seecamp also. P-32 is a little kitty cat on recoil .