Mauser/Interarms HSC 380

[BB57]

I read once that the OSS agents preferred 32s over 380s because they were (1) more accurate and (2) more reliable.

As far as the Walther PP and PPK are concerned, they were designed around the 7.65mm Browning (.32 ACP) round, and they are very sweet shooting little pistols in that caliber.

The are not nearly as pleasant to shoot in 9mm Kurz/.380 ACP.

Reliability however is often more of a challenge for a pistol in .32 ACP as it uses a semi-rimmed case and can be subject to rim lock if the user isn't careful to ensure the rim of the cartridge is in front of the one below it in the magazine. Although to be fair this is usually only an issue with rounds that have a shorter than normal OAL.

---

In terms of performance, the .32 ACP is out of favor in the US, where we barely accept the lowly .380 ACP.

But in a PP where you can launch a 60 gr XTP at around 1000-1050 fps, it actually performs as well as the .380 ACP, with 12" penetration in gel and relabel hollow point expansion. It just don't expand as large as a .380 ACP hollow point and I don't feel any more under gunned with a PP in .32 ACP than I do with a PPK/S in .380 ACP. With a 73 gr FMJ, the .32 ACP also penetrates adequately. And in a PP series pistol you get one more round in the magazine with .32 ACP compared to .380 ACP.

With either the .380 ACP or .32 ACP, the three things that count most in stopping an assailant are:
1) shot placement;
2) shot placement; and
3) shot placement.

The major shortcoming of the .32 ACP, IMHO, is that it takes an even larger hit than the .380 ACP in short barrels, so you really need to stay with the 3.9" barrel of a PP, or at worst, the 3.4" barrel of a PPK or PPK/S rather than going with one of the shorter sub micro .32 ACP pistols.

 

[rcortesvargas]

I think I read that it was originally designed for the .32 auto cartridge.
Some say the .380 version did not function as well as the .32.
I can't vouch for this being accurate or true, but wanted to put it out there for you to investigate if you care.

I just purchased a mauser model HSc 380 acp. I tried it on the field and was surprised by its good aim and firing cycle. Of course I'll load it with fmj.
First shooting 10 yards double single action. . (Cry «Havoc!», and let slip the dogs of war).

 

[ColbyBruce]

A Sig P230/232 would likely make your wife just as happy, unless she wants a basket full of spare magazines. Spare mags are pricey. The two Mauser HSc pistols I owned were .32 a.c.p. WWII era guns that only fed hardball ammo reliably.

The Sig P230 I gave my son.

The Sig P232 I bought myself when I realized I made a mistake giving away the P230.

 

[diceman3]

I read once that the OSS agents preferred 32s over 380s because they were (1) more accurate and (2) more reliable.

Seems so true with most 32’s vs 380’s. More accurate, and more pleasant at the shooting range. Makes sense.

 

[nutsforsmiths]

I used to own a nickel Interarms HSc in 380. It had some ammo cycling issues, and the extractor flew off while shooting it once. so I returned it to the store adn exchanged it for something else.

I also once owned the Italian made Gamba Mauser HSc Super in 380. It was fine, but never really like the double stack magazine, so sold it off at some point.

Currently I have a 1946 HSc built by the French when they occupied the Mauser plant for their troops in Indochina (Vietnam). It is in 32 ACP. I have had zero problems with it.

If I were you I would stay away from the 380 caliber and look for a 32 ACP one. The HSC was designed for 32 and they seem to run much better in that cartridge than 380.

Just my experience.

 

[lrrifleman]

I realize that this is now a zombie thread.

I took my HSc out last year to try it, and I had a bad experience. Seems a prior owner didn't know how to properly disassemble the slide, and they "armstronged" the firing pin. Needless to say, it fired out of battery and blew the extractor out, along with the detente pins and extractor spring.

I have rebuilt the slide, and look forward to test firing it with less excitement.