Ammo Test: 147gr Winchester Ranger "T" Series - RA9T

[backupr9]

I mostly carry my Rohrbaugh R9, but depending on weather and dress often have my LWS .32 as primary.  At expected self defense ranges I can place rounds freehand in lethal areas predictably while realizing that a  32 is unlikely to put an aggressor on the ground before he can get off a shot....better than nothing.  Remember the psychiatrist who put 3 rounds in the man who murdered a co-worker with his LWS .32...didn't kill the purp but discouraged him from further aggression.

Appreciate the expert ballistic info posted tho well beyond my meager capabilities.  My old GD's work fine but I do believe I will be using more HST 124gr in the near future.

[tracker]

I understand the Seecamp lovers and also that any round can be lethal, including a .22LR. As mentioned previously here a friend of mine in his 20s was murdered with a single shot .25 placed between his eyes. All I am saying is that I consider the .380 to be a minimum for carry purposes. Some of the new .380 ammo made by Precision One has much better ballistics than the .32. Why go lower if it isn't necessary?

[backupr9]

For the times when dress requires a truly tiny pistol the Seecamp is IMO the smallest quality pocket pistol out there, but in .380 it is too painful to shoot for me...follow-up shots are nearly impossible.  Hence the role of the .32.  All of the other reasonably trustworthy .380's out there are so large that you might as well carry the R9...as you say why go lower if it isn't necessary?

[tracker]

At the risk of being blasphemous on one of the high road forums in the gun world I suggest the Kel Tec P3AT as a better carry alternative than the LWS .32. At 8.3 oz. unloaded and 11.1 oz loaded with a locked breech design it is truly a lightweight and controllable, reliable .380. I bought one on the recommendation of my pistol smith although I was still somewhat dubious and thought it looked like it came out of a cracker jack box. To assuage my concerns he installed a new extractor, a hard chrome slide, and fluffed and buffed it. After many successful trips to the range with it I am now a converted believer, especially with the more effective .380 ammo now available. If one has the room there are also 8 round magazines available. I would not consider switching it to a .32 as a backup carry piece, no matter who makes it.

[backupr9]

P3AT sounds like a nice piece.  I had a Keltec PF9 a few years ago that had a terrible trigger pull and was a jam-Omatic even after a trip to the factory...traded it and have never considered a Keltec pistol since.  Sounds like they may have improved although I agree they look like they come in crackerjack boxes and mine actually rattled when shaken.

[MRC]

I bought a Keltec P32 at a gun show when they first came out for under $200.  I just bought it to see if it would really work.  I had no problems at all with it and ran my own reloads through it 100% of the time.

When the P3AT came out I bought a used one for next to nothing.  Ran reloads through it and had zero troubles, even with cast bullets.

I agree with you guys, it looks like Keltec tries to make ugly guns.  I never understood that.

I really like Seecamps for what they are, but as far as protection, the LWS32 has to be in the "better than nothing" class with all the other choices we now have,  My first carry weapon was a LWS32 and it was replaced with a Colt Pony Pocketlite as soon as they came out.

[JoshA]

This debate (which took place in my skull at the time) ended me up with a CW380.

It has the exact footprint of the R9, but weighs in at 10 oz before mag and ammo 

It's no R9, but it's a decent little pistol. I needed it when I was waiting for the R9 repairs.

I love the light weight. I just don't pocket carry well. I imagine if I was forced to I would consider the CW 380, or the SC. The Seecamp is tiny and beautiful. I think the .32 is pretty reliable too from what I've heard. My 380 self destructed in about 10 mags. Talk about carry much and shoot little.

I have a 380 and 32. That 380 is a handful. I hope the new mag extension helps. I MAY fire an entire mags worth of it does.

Maybe MRC can do some of his engineer Magic tricks and stack these or something. Anyway here is the data on the 3 pistols mentioned.

[tracker]

Thanks for the comparison photos. As most here know the primary reason for the LWS cherry bomb in your hand is the retarded blow back action as opposed to a locked breech.

[JoshA]

Is that system named after the inventor?

Just kidding. I couldn't resist.

Their are some retarded blow back systems that aren't too bad to shoot aren't there? Isn't the sig 230/232, or am I wrong?

[tracker]

Yes, but at a weight of 18.5 oz. incl. magazine. and larger dimensions to spread the kick.

[MRC]

Overlays from the Seecamp Website

http://www.seecamp.com/overlays.htm

[tracker]

Seecamp is a very high quality firearm, without a doubt, and the legend will live on for its enthusiasts.

[MRC]

Here is a VERY early LWS380 I watched today but decided not to bid.  This was in Larry's safe and the new owners sold it at auction.

The LWS380's really did not hit the street until 2004. 


http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=457298369

[MRC]

Is that system named after the inventor?

Just kidding. I couldn't resist.

Their are some retarded blow back systems that aren't too bad to shoot aren't there? Isn't the sig 230/232, or am I wrong?

I would think the slide is heavy enough in conjunction with the spring that the 232 is straight blowback and does not need to be retarded.  Is similar to the PPK.

The HK P7's retarded blowback system is very unique in my opinion.

[tracker]

Now, I recall that I was looking at the LWS .380 in 2004 when the R9 was introduced. I flipped for a couple of pups and never looked back. Our dear departed friend, Tom Watson, of Irish Guard Firearms, was also a Seecamp dealer and quietly eased me into the R9 decision when he described the LWS .380 recoil.