In general, how good are they?

Had a .32 for a little while

They are tiny but on the heavy side as they are all metal. They are very ammo sensitive and will not reliably feed ammo with a longer OAL. There are ZERO sights on them, they are a point and shoot gun. The .32 beat my hand up after a while, I cannot imagine how the .380 was as they are a blowback type gun.

TBH I think there are better choices now for small pocket pistols.

THANK YOU

My experience with them is from some time back. Back in the mid 80s, a friend of mine had one. Neat little gun, I shot it a bit and really liked it.

So, I bought one for myself. Mine never worked. Got rid of it within a month.

Have not looked at them again as I don't have a need for a gun that size, my J frame Airweight or Glock 42 fill my "I'm not carrying a gun" gun role.

I had one, .32 ACP. The pistol was very well made and functioned fine with JHP ammunition, but it was very uncomfortable to shoot. I sold it.

Very nicely made little gun with high quality craftsmanship.

Heavy for what it is, with no sights whatsoever.

Very ammo picky...in fact, there's a list of approved cartridges. Some of which aren't produced anymore.

Weird magazine safety that locks the slide closed if a mag is not inserted. This makes it impossible to clear the gun without inserting and empty magazine, which is not only unintuitive but also contrary to the manual of arms for pretty much any other semi-auto on the market.

IMO a very cool little piece for a collector. Not terribly practical for anything else. I'd rather carry a Keltec P32, and my opinion of that gun is pretty poor as well.

I have a first or second year one in .32 ACP. When they were impossible to find. I actually modified a handcuff case and carried it as a last ditch bug at work for years. It’s always run fine with Silvertip. I’ve tried it a few times with some other recommended Hollow points and, seems fine.

It is heavy. The workmanship is great. The recoil is acceptable. I think in .380, it exceeds the design envelope.

I also have a Seecamp .25. Runs with any ammo that fits in the mag (usually ball) and I actually prefer it as a deep concealment gun. Extra round, no recoil.

I have a NAA Guardian also. Something about the ergonomics makes the trigger guard smack my trigger finger enough to be really unpleasant after a few mags.

I also had a Keltec .32. It was honestly superior, in carry and shooting, to the Seecamp. Being locked breach, recoil was severely diminished.

I traded it in on the all new, at the time, Keltec P380. That was a mistake. It’s a POS compared to the .32.

I had a 380 and shot two mags then put it away and later sold it, the recoil on the small grip pistol was much more than I wanted. That said, they are very well made and I might try one in 32 someday. I shoot and carry LCP's so I'm not against the 380.

I have the .380- It's probably 15-18 years old now.
I love it. They don't really lose value. Granted, mine's the stainless version, and I don't know about the ceracoat ones.

It's heavy, but it's all steel, not an alloy. A little finnicky when it comes to ammo; as stated, there's a list of recommended cartridges for the gun.

It's not uncomfortable to shoot- at least for me. It's also IIRC, not meant to be shot a whole lot.

If you're looking for a mouse gun / pocket pistol, there's others out there that are less expensive and lighter:
Kel-tec, NAA and Ruger LCP are the first that come to mind.

The Seecamp- Think Rolex
Ruger & Kel-Tec - Think Timex

I also have the NAA Guardian in .32
Not half bad. If you want, you can polish it up. Heavy, more of a less expensive knock-off of the Seecamps. It works well.

I had 4 Seecamps 2 in 32 and 2 in 380. All from before they moved from Connecticut to Massachusetts.

I bought the 32s to practice with at the range and carry when I wanted something really compact. I only ever use WWB 4255 32acp, Gold Dots and Silver Tips. Never a single problem. Pointless (no pun intended) to aim since...no sights, but I got very good at point and shoot from the hip inside 7 yds with either hand. Snappy but not painful to shoot.

The 380 were not friendly to my hands. I hated shooting them, the MPA and North American Arms "clones" that were out there or any of the tiny 380s that were popular in the early 2000s.

Still have one of the 32 Seecamps but all of the little 380s are gone.

I found the .380 extremely unpleasant to shoot. Bashed the hell out of my trigger finger on the trigger guard. One mag was enough for me.

I see them from time to time, including a .32 and .380 side by side. The .380 was maybe a quarter inch longer, but was otherwise identical in size. Beautiful machining, fit & finish. The comparison of a Rolex to a Timex is very apt. I could see myself getting the .32, but not the .380. My LCP .380 has some "sting" to it when I shoot it. I can't imagine it in an even smaller gun with less grip to hold onto. In addition, there's this: Over-lubricating the .380 can cause the slide to come off I think .380 is just too much cartridge.

In addition, the .32 is designed to feed only 60- or 65-grain hollow-points. It was originally designed around the Winchester Silvertip. The typical 71-grain FMJ is longer and does not even fit in the magazine. Seecamp has an "approved list" of ammo, more of a list of ammo known to work in it. .32 JHP is not rare or scarce, but is not at every gun shop either and is a little pricey.

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:

My LCP .380 has some "sting" to it when I shoot it. I can't imagine it in an even smaller gun with less grip to hold onto.

And add to it that the Seecamp is blowback which makes the felt recoil much stronger than the locked breech design of the LCP which helps soak some of that up.

quote:

Originally posted by CPD SIG:
I have the .380- It's probably 15-18 years old now.
I love it. They don't really lose value. Granted, mine's the stainless version, and I don't know about the ceracoat ones.

It's heavy, but it's all steel, not an alloy. A little finnicky when it comes to ammo; as stated, there's a list of recommended cartridges for the gun.

It's not uncomfortable to shoot- at least for me. It's also IIRC, not meant to be shot a whole lot.

If you're looking for a mouse gun / pocket pistol, there's others out there that are less expensive and lighter:
Kel-tec, NAA and Ruger LCP are the first that come to mind.

The Seecamp- Think Rolex
Ruger & Kel-Tec - Think Timex

I also have the NAA Guardian in .32
Not half bad. If you want, you can polish it up. Heavy, more of a less expensive knock-off of the Seecamps. It works well.

I've also got one of the early (2008) LWS380s and find it pleasant enough to shoot. Mostly, I use the recommended Federal Hydrashok ammunition and have used the Winchester Silverpoints too, without problems. I did once try to use the Winchester PDX rounds and never used them again. They ruined a magazine and could have done more damage to the pistol. Unlike more currently made .380s like the offerings from Ruger and Sig, the Seecamp is specifically designed for a very narrow set of specs, both OAL and pressures. Stick with the recommended ammo and you'll be fine...and YES: These are like Rolex watches!

My .32 is from back in the day before they moved, in fact I got a custom serial number. For the time, and its intended use, it works great as long as you use ammo from “the list”. Regarding no sights, that wasn’t really needed for its primary purpose.

I have two .32 Seecamps that are from the original factory in the 90's. They are a sequential serial number pair I got from the personal collection of an LGS owner. They work fine with .32 Gold Dots.

I had a new .380 a few years ago and it threw the slide off twice at its first range session. I sent it back, they replaced the slide I think, and I traded it back to the LGS.

Seecamps are not quite straight blowback. They have a circumferential undercut in the chamber that the casing expands into which then retards the blowback a bit.

I love mine.

I got the .32 years ago when Seecamps were fashionable, before the G10 grips were offered. I got the G10s last year or the year before, and I would recommend using G10s.

I like the weight, because I carry it in a "back pocket" holster when I'm just running a quick errand, and the weight reminds me of its presence.

It does have its quirks. The 'no sights' thing is not an issue, at least in my opinion, but the manual of arms is tough (in a PPK sort of way), because of the weapon's small size and tight springs. I do not like how the slide cannot be racked without a mag in there, but I understand why it was designed that way. I use pinky (ring-finger?) extensions on most mags. Ammo options are limited.. for years, I used the recommended Silvertips, but they are so darned expensive (non-obtainable now?) that I went nuts for a while trying to find reliable alternatives. For a short while I used a razor blade to cut the rubber tips off Critical Defense rounds. In the past couple years, though, I found some Underwoods that work great.

The build quality is top-notch.

It is not a fun range gun, but was never meant to be. Which is ironic, because Seecamp somewhat aggressively encourages range time with the pistol using the insanely expensive Silvertips. I agree practice is important, but, sheesh.

quote:

also have a Seecamp .25. Runs with any ammo that fits in the mag (usually ball) and I actually prefer it as a deep concealment gun. Extra round, no recoil.

My experience is the same. I had heard scary stories about the .32 being snappy and ammo-sensitive, so I went for the .25 instead. It is a bit heavy for its size. The lack of sights doesn't really bother me -- I'm OK with "point and shoot" at defensive distances.

Also, the manual of arms is tricky, as others have said. To clear the pistol, you can't just drop the mag and then eject the round in the chamber because the slide won't cycle without a magazine in the pistol. You have to either rack all the rounds out one-by-one or drop slide a tiny bit -- just enough so that it won't pick up the next round when it comes back but not enough to activate the slide-lock feature -- and then rack to slide to eject the round in the chamber. Then you can go ahead and remove the magazine. It's harder then it sounds on such a tiny pistol.

I have a Milford, CT produced Seecamp .32ACP.
It runs flawlessly with the recommended Speer Gold Dot ammo.
I also have shot it with the Winchester White Box truncated cone ball ammo which is good for holding down costs when doing range practice. Round nose ball ammo is not recommended.
At the time I purchased it, I was a Seecamp Forum member. When Larry Seecamp sold the business to the present owner in Massachusetts, the Seecamp Forum disappeared.
Seecamp Forum members with some advanced planning/communication could tour the Milford, CT Seecamp production facility.
So I did the factory tour and met Larry Seecamp at the factory.

One of my additional magazines was signed by Larry with an electro-pen.
My Seecamp has a custom serial number, it is my understanding custom serial numbers are not available from the new Seecamp Company in Massachusetts.
My Seecamp serial number is my initials XXX and then the caliber.
Maximum of eight characters due to physical space constraints, and at least one number and one letter in the string. (XXX32ACP)
At that time, a custom serial number cost an additional $30 or $35.

I prefer to carry a Seecamp in a leather pocket holster in my right rear pants pocket.
It is designed to "look like" a wallet in your back pocket.
It's great for when you are running out for a quick errand, and just drop the holstered Seecamp in your back pocket.
The spare magazine is also in a leather magazine sleeve, and goes in the other rear pants pocket.

I have zero complaints about my Seecamp. It is a significant option for concealed carry under a narrow set of circumstances.
It's much better to have a Seecamp in your pants pocket, than to have left your concealed carry weapon home because it was inconvenient to carry something else.

Back when I got my Seecamp, the gun range where I was a member at that time had steel IPSC gong targets. AR500 steel cutouts exactly the same size as a cardboard IPSC target.
It was easy to hit the steel gong target at 50 yards with almost every shot.
You sight across the top of the barrel and 50 yard hits were no problem at all.

Yes, a Seecamp is a bit heavy for a pistol of that size compared to Keltec & Ruger offerings. The difference in weight is ounces, not pounds.
Me personally, I have never regretted buying my Seecamp.
When a HK P2000sk is too large or bulky or heavy, the Seecamp goes in the pocket.

An elegant and elegantly obsolete design from an era when reliable microguns were few and far between.

Made for serious and professionals who were willing to drop serious coinage.

Now reliable micro pistols are everywhere and it offers nothing that a Glock 42 won’t do.