No, 32 ACP is no better today than 100 years ago. It doesn't have enough power or sectional density to both expand and penetrate effectively, meaning the ONLY choice is non expanding, with hollow points for the caliber serving the purposes of maybe shooting rats and small varmis at point blank ranges. It is an example of where the ammunition industry will produce something just because they can, just because people will buy it, not because there is any valid reason anyone should ever in any circumstances carry it in self defense.

.380 and regular pressure 38 Special are considered to be base minimum consideration and recommendation by most for very good reasons, and there are very valid arguments for carrying non expanding ammunition in THESE loads, much less 32 ACP and 25 ACP, for which the poor performance of expanding bullets make them an instant, unarguable no no. Your pocket pistol caliber doesn't magically become a 9mm, 40, or 45 the second you want to believe it can achieve high end expanding bullet performance from them. Also the mantra that "expanding bullets are always better" applies to the standard service pistol calibers, which are in a completely different league of performance from mouse guns.

Just think about what you are shooting. How much weight, sectional density, velocity, and total power do you have? How much does a 32 FMJ or solid lead bullet punch through without a hollow point? How good of a penetrator is the non expanding bullet before we even consider reducing its penetrating capabilities? Do we even have any penetration to sacrifice before we lessen it with an expanding bullet? Are we going to ensure we will drop from subpar penetration with a non expanding to absolutely certainty of failure with a hollow point?

Firearms may be extremely refined, with weapons of incredibly tight tolerances, incredible accuracy, ect., but remember terminal ballistic wise we are just throwing chunks of metal at things at high velocities. We kill through physics, not engineering. Today's expanding bullet 32's have about the same anemic power of the original loads, something that has not changed since its inception. Engineers can't magically pull the same anemic penetration from a bullet AND make it magically expand at the same time. That isn't the thinking o scientific advancement, its the magical thinking of "inevitable progress", which isn't always inevitable.

Expanding takes energy, and pushing a larger diameter bullet through tissue takes energy, both things the 32 ACP does not have. No magical engineer with his magical lab coat, and his magical laboratory, is going to change the laws of physics. Its like telling an engineer to build a bridge across San Fransisco bay using pine 2x4's and cheap bolts. The engineer could build the bridge, but not with the materials and conditions you demanded of him. The limitations of the cartridge are beyond solving, no matter what industry "experts" (marketing people) tell you.

As for Marshall and Sannow, their work is worthless at best, with such poor methodology, and their conclusions were nothing more than "conclusions" they drew before doing their work to fit popular ideas at the time.

Sorry if I went on longer than usual even, but I find this whole "have things changed about 32" to be a good question with some really poor answers, because "NO" is the only one that can be given. You're not going to be towing a 12,000 pound trailer with your Geo Metro, pound in posts with your 12 oz claw hammer, or magically get expanding bullets for a 32 ACP that work.