PDA

View Full Version : Who would like to see a 5 shot .32 caliber revolver?


Dragline45
August 16, 2011, 11:15 PM
I was wondering if anyone else including myself would like to see a 5 shot .32 caliber revolver, Smith & Wesson might call it an I frame. If made in .327 you would have the option of .32 mag and .32 long and if my thinking is right also .32 s&w if anyone can find it. Or perhaps an even smaller package than the .327 if made for .32 mag or .32 long. A step down below the J frame would be absolutely perfect for pocket carry with its slightly shorter length and slight smaller cylinder. Some can make the argument that a .32 long isn't adequate for self defense but when you have a revolver rivaling the size of pocket autos ill take 5 rounds of .32 long, .32 mag or .327 over say 7 rounds of .32 acp.

http://i55.tinypic.com/33e5u9i.jpg
http://www.reloadammo.com/32-327-4cu-200.jpg
.32 s&w, .32 long, .32 mag, .327 mag

ratshooter
August 16, 2011, 11:37 PM
It'll never happen. Besides I have a 431PD thats weighs less than 15oz and is a 6 shot gun. Its loaded and in my nightstand. The 327 never struck a chord with me. I have three 32 long revolvers and would't have any problem using one of them for SD with my handloads that shoot a 100gr bullet 850fps.

I do like 32s and anything that gets more of them on the market makes me happy. Good luck with your dream gun.

Dragline45
August 16, 2011, 11:40 PM
I wouldn't go as far as saying it would never happen, with the introduction of the .327 I could see Ruger one day making a 5 shot revolver built around it. Also if Smith & Wesson will step up and build the bigger X frame for larger calibers, why wouldn't they build a smaller frame for smaller calibers

Winchester_73
August 16, 2011, 11:41 PM
I was wondering if anyone else including myself would like to see a 5 shot .32 caliber revolver, Smith & Wesson might call it an I frame.

Hmm....well the I frame has been discontinued since the 50s, and the J frame is slightly longer for 38 special but otherwise the same...so....I think they would still want make it a J frame. The J frame can handle 6 shots in 32 cal, such as the models 30 and 31.

I suppose if you want smaller than a J frame for carry, you would be asking S&W to make an entirely new frame of which there is almost no demand for so I'm quite certain they would never make it. Most people think the J frame is small enough and with 32 cal, you get an extra shot compared to 38.

what you want would be comparable to the old 1 1/2 frame which was for the model 1 1/2 SA and the 32 DA.

Dragline45
August 16, 2011, 11:52 PM
you would be asking S&W to make an entirely new frame of which there is almost no demand for

I beg to differ. Small pocket pistols have always been big and just look at the recent introductions of Smith & Wesson's bodyguard 380 and Rugers LCR, LCP and LC9. There is most definitely a market and demand for small concealable guns so why wouldn't there be for the introduction of a brand new smaller framed revolver. Especially since many pocket autos are not as reliable as their full size counterparts, an ultra small revolver would be perfect. Like I said in a previous post, Smith and Wesson eventually made the X frame for larger calibers, why not make a smaller frame for smaller calibers?

Bill DeShivs
August 17, 2011, 12:02 AM
If the gun were made as a 5 shot .32 ACP, with a cylinder shortened commensurately, the gun would sell well. .32 ACP is more powerful than .32 Long.
The Long, Magnum, and .327 would make the cylinder-hence, the gun, longer.

Dragline45
August 17, 2011, 12:03 AM
32 ACP is more powerful than .32 Long.

Was not aware of that, looks can be deceiving

Winchester_73
August 17, 2011, 12:04 AM
I beg to differ. Small pocket pistols have always been big and just look at the recent introductions of Smith & Wesson's bodyguard 380 and Rugers LCR, LCP and LC9. There is most definitely a market and demand for small concealable guns so why wouldn't there be for the introduction of a brand new smaller framed revolver. Especially since many pocket autos are not as reliable as their full size counterparts, an ultra small revolver would be perfect.

The problem here is that since the 38 is the gold standard, and your new frame wouldn't hold 5 38s, this new gun, the model Z we will call it would only appeal to the 32 for SD crowd which is far from the majority on this issue. Many people who like the 32 for SD enjoy the 6th round from a J frame and many people's hands are just small enough for a J frame, and so you want a smaller frame? Even the guns you mention are 380, which would require a J frame to be 5 shot capacity. A better comparison / analogy would be your model Z compared to the demand for small 32 autos, and once again, very little demand. Most people refuse to carry smaller than a 380. Many say a 380 is too small anyways.

If you were right, S&W would have beat your mind to the punch and this thread wouldn't exist. All of these companies have people who try to come up with new models which will sell.

Dragline45
August 17, 2011, 12:06 AM
.327 magnum and .32 magnum are on par with a .380 and above a .32acp so it would still meet certain peoples needs for a true pocket revolver. Also by your logic since very little people carry a .32 its not profitable for any gun company to make them.

Winchester_73
August 17, 2011, 12:09 AM
If the gun were made as a 5 shot .32 ACP, with a cylinder shortened commensurately, the gun would sell well. .32 ACP is more powerful than .32 Long.

I disagree. How many people would want the smaller, harder to handle 5 shot 32 vs the 6 shot 32 thats already on the market? How many people want the reliability of a revolver with the power of a 32 acp? Not many...

I think the gun would need something special for it to sell, like buy one get one free or perhaps 22 compatibility, or a free case of ammo.....something more than this concept itself.

Dragline45
August 17, 2011, 12:12 AM
I think the gun would need something special for it to sell, like buy one get one free or perhaps 22 compatibility, or a free case of ammo.....something more than this concept itself.

Or the fact that it would be a small 5 shot compact revolver that sits comfortably in a front pocket. Plenty of people carry 2 shot derringers, why not a small 5 shot .32 revolver.

How many people want the reliability of a revolver with the power of a 32 acp? Not many

Is that a trick question?

Bill DeShivs
August 17, 2011, 12:46 AM
I would think if the 5 shot .32 acp were available, LOTS of people would buy them-for themselves and for others. A woman (and lots of men)would probably carry the little revolver over any auto. an awful lot of people carry NAA mini revolvers, and they are single action. I would buy one just to have it.
All the "minimum caliber" stuff notwithstanding- having a simple to operate, very small, D/A revolver in .32 acp sure beats not carrying a gun at all.

If the gun were chambered in H&R mag or that .327 super long thing, you might as well carry a "J" frame .38.

mj246
August 17, 2011, 01:34 AM
If the gun were chambered in H&R mag or that .327 super long thing, you might as well carry a "J" frame .38.
-Bill DeShivs

I disagree. For a lot of people the trouble in concealing the j-frame is width, not length. If they could make a 5 shot 32 mag or 327 with a smaller cylinder (and therefore less maximum width), I think it might provide for a decent niche of shooters/CCWers, including those who want a 32 for recoil purposes. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't work well with 327 though because it is high pressure (therefore needing thicker cylinders) and from what I've heard only really light on recoil compared to 357, not 38, but a 32 mag has similar ballistics to 380 and a bare minimum sized 5 shot 32 mag revolver would probably compete well with the pocket 380s IMO.

I highly doubt it would happen though, because the 32mag is not a common and popular enough caliber today to make it take off the necessary amount to make short term profits.

jmr40
August 17, 2011, 05:10 AM
I wouldn't buy one.

Maxem0815
August 17, 2011, 05:40 AM
Not to sure that the .32 S&W is all that popular. I have a small collection of .32's anything from .32 RF up to .32 H&R Mag. The 327 is just another long 32 guys I know who have them want to get rid of them. I would carry my .32acp for self defense and home defense a shotgun and .45 now to hunt rabbit, squirrel, and fun plink a 32/20.
Just my two cents.
Mace

FrankenMauser
August 17, 2011, 06:00 AM
.32 ACP is more powerful than .32 Long.
Apples to oranges. You're comparing a high pressure cartridge that is typically loaded with 60 to 71 grain projectiles, to a low pressure cartridge that is typically loaded with 80 to 100 grain projectiles.


You might as well be comparing 9mm to .45 Auto. We know where that debate ends up. ;)

With handloads in modern revolvers, it's a completely different subject. The .32 S&W Long can be pushed substantially beyond SAAMI's ridiculously conservative limitations. (Handloads in SD firearms is its own debate, and doesn't belong in this thread; but the cartridge is worth far more than it is being given credit for.)


I would think if the 5 shot .32 acp were available, LOTS of people would buy them-for themselves and for others.

I wouldn't, and don't know anyone that would. .32 S&W Long would be an absolute minimum, to get any kind of attention on the market. Even then... it's questionable.

If the gun were chambered in H&R mag or that .327 super long thing, you might as well carry a "J" frame .38.
I have exactly that, as well as a .327 Blackhawk. I'd rather carry a 5-shot .327 "I" frame, than the 5 shot .38 J-frame. A 1,500 fps Hydra-Shok or Gold Dot vs a 900 fps Hydra-Shok or Gold Dot (that was actually designed for 1,100 fps)..?.. I'll take 1,500. Hydrostatic Shock does incredibly nasty things to mammals. ;)

Magnum Wheel Man
August 17, 2011, 06:41 AM
1st off... I carry alot of these 5 shot 32's already... but mine are antiques... ;) I also do have a S&W 6 shot J frame air weight in 32 H&R magnum

BTW... IMO, litterally no CCW gun fires a bullet fast enough to really use the word "hydrosatatic shock"... even a 125 grain 357 mag is not got the snot a 45-70 does out of a carbine & my expirience, shows the 45-70 doesn't get much actual hydrostatic bruising

... I got the chore as "the new guy" of field dressing all the deer the 1st 2 years I joined my father in laws hunting party ( many many years ago ) but while doing dressing duty for two years, I learned alot about hydrostatic "blood shot" around different cartridges wound channels... 243, 30-06 had similar bruising, 300 win mag, had much more than the 243 or 30-06... 45-70 from a carbine & 357 maximum ( from a 6" revolver ) exhibited almost no "blood shot" or bruising from hydrostatic shock... in the 2 deer I field dressed that had been shot with a 6" 357 maximum both exhibited nearly no bruising... I can't imagine the 327 from a carry length revolver ( especially a snubbie as was the topic of discussion ) would get any hydrostatic bruising

I'm not sure at what velocity ( or energy ) is needed to effectively get hydrostatic shock, but would suspect over 2000 fps is needed since the 45-70 was just under 2000 fps & showed little to no hydrostatic bruising

2damnold4this
August 17, 2011, 06:57 AM
Why not just carry an old six shot .32 I frame if that's what you want?

357 Terms
August 17, 2011, 07:15 AM
With the way the 327 took off I doubt any handgun manufacturer is gonna make any special platform for the .32 cal.

micromontenegro
August 17, 2011, 07:29 AM
Since the NAA mini revolvers sell like hotcakes, I think a quality, DA revolver substantially smaller than a J frame would sell even better- no matter what caliber it came in.

Myself, I am looking high and low for an I frame in .32 S&W Long (not easy to find here). If they made a smaller one, I'd stand in line to get one. Would also get it in .32 ACP, or even .22 LR. I'd love to have a tiny DA revolver- and I don't think I am alone.

Magnum Wheel Man
August 17, 2011, 07:32 AM
yep... I'd buy one if I could get it in stainless

... & actually the 32 ACP version would be very interesting if the frame were sized short so the cylinder was just over the 32 ACP cartridge length not much longer

however if someone were to make a "shorter frame" they'd likely do it in a size that could shoot 9mm since that would be much more popular

micromontenegro
August 17, 2011, 07:41 AM
however if someone were to make a "shorter frame" they'd likely do it in a size that could shoot 9mm since that would be much more popular

I still can't believe no one makes one.

CajunBass
August 17, 2011, 07:50 AM
Just because you think it's a good idea, doesn't mean anybody else does.

micromontenegro
August 17, 2011, 08:27 AM
Just because you think it's a good idea, doesn't mean anybody else does.

Awww, and I always thought oterwise! Please don't tell me about the tooth fairy now, or I'll blow an aneurism. :D

woad_yurt
August 17, 2011, 08:30 AM
This is mostly a copy and paste from a 5-minutes'-old post of mine in another thread on this site lamenting the passing of H&R revolvers. I thought it would fit well in this one, too. I apologize up front for the 90% redundancy. Anyway....

Below is an old hammerless .32 made by H&R. It's very small, very light and works perfectly. It's a regular pocket carry of mine when the weather is boiling and I'm in shorts and a t-shirt.

I'd be overjoyed if some modern manufacturer would seriously take a look at this design type. It doesn't seem like it'd be too difficult or costly to use some modern steel and elongate the cylinder a bit to accommodate .32 magnum ammo. If the top-break design is too weak for .32 magnum, then they could go solid-frame with a drop-out-to-reload cylinder, a la the old H&R 922s. It'd be a little screamer. Something like that would make me finally leave the used gun pool to buy something new.

http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee150/woad_yurt/DSC00987-1.jpg

JerryM
August 17, 2011, 08:31 AM
I would not be interested. I am perfectly content with .38 Spl and .357 Mag in my revolvers.
Jerry

oneounceload
August 17, 2011, 08:36 AM
If the gun were made as a 5 shot .32 ACP, with a cylinder shortened commensurately, the gun would sell well. .32 ACP is more powerful than .32 Long.
The Long, Magnum, and .327 would make the cylinder-hence, the gun, longer.

The issue with the shortened cylinder become barrel/cylinder gap and your fingers and hot gasses......

There was an older Colt 32 for sale in one of the big box stores - should have grabbed it - while looking at it, it was thinner than the standard J frame 38

Personally, a 32 "I" frame or whatever name you call it, chambered for all 4 32 cartridges and easily hidden in a pocket or purse, would be a great idea. There are a lot of older folks, some females and younger folks, who are either just learning or have physical limitations making a gun that can shoot mild medium and hot loads desirable

I'd buy one or two in a heartbeat if they're not priced at $1K

madcratebuilder
August 17, 2011, 09:42 AM
I was wondering if anyone else including myself would like to see a 5 shot .32 caliber revolver, Smith & Wesson might call it an I frame.

Model 30, the .32 hand ejector,
Model 31, the .32 Regulation police
Model 32 Terrier, .38 or .32,
Model 032, .32mag 92 only.
Model 34 and 35 kit guns.

Terrier
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d37/madcratebuilder/holster3.jpg

Opinated
August 17, 2011, 11:02 AM
I do not know about the velocity of the .32ACP from the revolver that I had. In 1962, I bought a well-used Iver Johnson 5-shot top-break 32 revolver for a few dollars. Fellow handed it to me loaded and I fired all 5 with no apparent problem. He gave me the partial box of ammo- 32 ACP! Eventually I fired all of them with the only problem being poor extraction in the revolver. No apparent damage to the revolver. I later sold it when cash ran low. The correct cartridge was .32 S&W. It was a really neat carry piece. Would I buy a .327 5-shot? Not sure.

Glenn E. Meyer
August 17, 2011, 11:15 AM
NAA attempted a 32 revolver but failed. The prototypes looked ugly. They have had bad luck with such. Their top break 22 mag never made it to full production.

Yeah, a small five shot 32 ACP revolver with moon clips might be fun but why is it better than a Seecamp, for instance.

That being said, I'm part of the J frame 32 HR mag club and it is a fine light weight gun. I also have a 632 in 327 and it's neat but not my EDC. The J is one of those.

Mello2u
August 17, 2011, 12:12 PM
Dragline45

Who would like to see a 5 shot .32 caliber revolver?
An interesting mental exercise.

If someone designed a 5 shot .32 revolver from scratch with the objective of creating the smallest dimension commensurate with balancing reliability and cost. Using the S&W J-frame as a reference point:
Capacity: 5 (.38 Special) 6 (.327 Federal Magnum Model 632)
Barrel/Overall Length: 3.47 (incl. cyl.)/6.31”
Height: 4.16”
Width: 1.28”
Weight Empty: 14.25 oz - 23 oz

http://www.mouseguns.com/PocketAutoComparison.pdf

.327 Fed. Mag. OL = 1.47" Rim diameter = .375"
.38 Special OL = 1.55" Rim diameter = .44"
.357 Magnum OL = 1.59 Rim diameter = .44"

A new design might be able to reduce the length of the frame by about 0.10".
If the diameter of the rim is the critical dimension, then:
A new design might be able to reduce the height of the frame by about 0.13" to accommodate a cylinder that has a smaller diameter (the sum of the difference between the Rim diameter of a .38/.357 cartridge and a .327 cartridge, two times)
A new design might be able to reduce the diameter of the cylinder by about 0.13".

If correct this would make the width 1.15". This width is still greater than some 9mm, .40 S&W and .45ACP autos (but very close).

Winchester_73
August 17, 2011, 12:26 PM
I'd rather carry a 5-shot .327 "I" frame, than the 5 shot .38 J-frame.

People people people: The S&W I frame held 5 shots of 38 S&W, but nothing bigger. The cylinder was later in the 50s ELONGATED for 38 special but the WIDTH is the same. This new 32 cal 5 shot revolver would NOT be an I frame, it would be smaller yet. Perhaps like a S&W M frame, but that only came in 22 long. It would be close in size to the old S&W 1 1/2 frame which was top break, 5 shot, 32.

I was wondering if anyone else including myself would like to see a 5 shot .32 caliber revolver, Smith & Wesson might call it an I frame.

Model 30, the .32 hand ejector, from 48 to 76.
Model 31, the .32 Regulation police, from 48 to 91. Just picked one up for $200 in nice shape.
Model 32 Terrier, .38 or .32, 48 to 74.
Model 032, .32mag 92 only.
Model 34 and 35 kit guns.

Terrier

Those models are actually all J frame because the I frame was discontinued before the model numbers came about. Also, I thought all of those models were 6 shot guns?

Models 34 and 35 are 22 LR.

If you're saying why would anyone want a smaller gun with 1 less shot, I agree. They are available J frame, and J frame airweight, 6 shots, DA. Good enough for me.

Mello2u,

Great post. Hopefully that will make some people think. Based on your measurements, the concept is even less good than I had thought.

Bill DeShivs
August 17, 2011, 12:59 PM
I have seen .32 acp revolvers, made 100 years ago, that were very small. It could be done today with modern materials.
When you get into H&R mag and .327, the gun becomes too big.
People buy guns from .22 short mini revolvers, to .410 shotshell revolvers, and they buy a lot of them.
A pocketable (purseable??) small revolver in .32 acp would sell well.
It would not need moon clips

BTW- Taurus has introduced a revolver in .380 acp that has a shortened cylinder.

Magnum Wheel Man
August 17, 2011, 01:01 PM
alot of the appeal of my S&W 1.5 & 2 are that they are spur vtrigger single actions... removing the trigger guard cuts down the already small size so much...

would I buy / carry a similar gun in modern metals & with double action... you bet...

but the 1.5 is nearly the same size as my NAA mini only fires the 32 S&W short round, which for carry use I rod up a little ( carries more energy than a 22 or 25 ACP though ) my 38 carry loads are similar in power ( actually just under ) the 380... these both in mouse gun sized packages

BTW... I also have a couple Hopkins & Allen Safety Police snubbies, as well as the Iver "bicycle" snubbies... these are both top break, but I have both double action only * double / single action models... if they were made with a swing out cylinder, ( so they could be chambered in hotter cartridges ) & made of modern steels, I'd think there would be a market...

my DAO Safety Police in 32 S&W... thats a J frame holster, which will barely retain the gun with the adjustment tightened all the way

http://thefiringline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=56274&d=1264427204

Onward Allusion
August 17, 2011, 01:09 PM
Dragline45
Who would like to see a 5 shot .32 caliber revolver?

I personally would like to see it happen, but it probably won't happen.

First the .327 FED is a niche cartridge. It had A LOT of potential but it just never took off. This is coming from someone who has TWO revolvers in .327 FED! Second, in this day of hi-cap pistols or tiny semis that you can carry in your front shirt pocket or fit in a cell phone holster, revolvers are definitely losing ground.

Heck, I'd be happy if they made a double-action revolver chambered in 22LR and is near the size of a NAA, and that's for a cartridge that everyone loves! I doubt that will happen as well.

overkill0084
August 17, 2011, 01:39 PM
Seems to me like your fighting for a couple tenths of an inch here and there. I'm probably wierd, but I'd be more interested in a 8 to 10 shot N-frame in the spirit of the 627 or 327. (Ha, a 327 chambered for .327 mag ;) )

FrankenMauser
August 17, 2011, 01:53 PM
I'd rather carry a 5-shot .327 "I" frame, than the 5 shot .38 J-frame.People people people: The S&W I frame held 5 shots of 38 S&W, but nothing bigger. The cylinder was later in the 50s ELONGATED for 38 special but the WIDTH is the same. This new 32 cal 5 shot revolver would NOT be an I frame, it would be smaller yet. Perhaps like a S&W M frame, but that only came in 22 long. It would be close in size to the old S&W 1 1/2 frame which was top break, 5 shot, 32.

Note the quotation marks around the "I" in "'I' frame", but the lack, thereof, in "J-frame". ;) I was suggesting a hypothetical similarity (to go along with the thread discussion), not the actual resurrection of the previous I-frame.

Mello2u -
I think your dimensions are on the high side. With the pentagonal arangement in the cylinder, a little more could be trimmed off the diameter of the cylinder. That, of course, should result in further reduction of height and width.

Ha, a 327 chambered for .327 mag
I don't want to ruin your day.....
But that's exactly what Taurus designated their .327 snubbie: "327". If S&W followed suit with their own .327 327, things would be a little awkward... :o

heyjoe
August 17, 2011, 09:43 PM
or this shorter barrel H&R 32 S&W hammerless breaktop i have, which fits very nicely in a front pocket. with modern materials and in 32 acp i would buy something similiar in a hearbeat.

Newton24b
August 17, 2011, 10:15 PM
J frame is a descendant of the 6 shot, 32 caliber I frame. that was also offered in 38 sw as the terrier.

thing is the market is there to some extent. for a while the rage was snubnosed 9 shot 22lr or 22 magnum revolvers. then taurus brought out a snubnosed 8 or 9 shot revolver in 17hmr that went no wheres due to low demand.

when people get a 3s they expect fun easy recoil shooting. not a cartridge similar to an 13 ounce gun firing full power 357.

they went with high pressure, rather low weight bullets. there are some very impressive cast lead handloads for revolvers with a 6 inch barrel, but the ammunition companies are going a low recoil route now, so its pretty much a 32 mag. and people are off that wagon again sadly.

federali
August 18, 2011, 07:00 AM
I've fired the .327 Mag and it's a snappy number. This round would be rather unpleasant to shoot in a lightweight ultra small frame revolver.

madcratebuilder
August 18, 2011, 07:46 AM
Terrier
Those models are actually all J frame because the I frame was discontinued before the model numbers came about. Also, I thought all of those models were 6 shot guns?

Models 34 and 35 are 22 LR.


The M32 Terrier (5 round) did not go to the J frame until the -1 variation and you are correct on the 34&35, .22lr.

People people people: The S&W I frame held 5 shots of 38 S&W, but nothing bigger.

Yup. The only center fire 6 shot I frame was in .32.

chewie146
August 18, 2011, 08:48 AM
I voted yes on this one, because I'd like to see some gun companies come up with some new ideas and refresh some old ones. The revolver world is getting stale. They wonder why people don't want revolvers as much as autos. Think about all the new stuff that comes out in the auto world every year. Personally, I think an ultra-compact .22 magnum 5-shot, double-action revolver would be great. Something that is a little larger than an NAA, but much smaller than a J-frame. The revolver would allow for the occasional rimfire misfire (which has never happened with my magnums.) This would be my ideal trail gun. Something with 2"-5" barrel options would give some good variety. But, I'm a strange duck in the modern market. I like my fantastic plastic, but I'd like to see some new steel revolvers come out.

overkill0084
August 18, 2011, 09:13 AM
I don't want to ruin your day.....
My day is GTG. Taurus isn't really on my radar. Too many question marks regarding quality and customer support.

gak
August 18, 2011, 11:01 AM
I'd like to see everyone get what they want, so on that basis alone I'll vote for the OP's proposal...but I too don't think it'll happen. As for me, my Airweight (J) 431 .32 Mag six-shooter is as close to a perfect CCW as I could ask, save for the stupid lock that is.

FrankenMauser
August 18, 2011, 03:42 PM
As for me, my Airweight (J) 431 .32 Mag six-shooter is as close to a perfect CCW as I could ask, save for the stupid lock that is.
Remove or disable it. Note the conspicuous small hole behind the lock on this J-frame:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=72846&stc=1&d=1313393748

This 642 has no flag. ;) I considered filing the lock tang off the flag, but decided to keep it intact. That way, I can put the unmodified flag back in the revolver, if I ever sell it.

I'm with you... I would very much prefer to have no lock, whatsoever. But, I got a great deal on the pistol, and did what I had to, for peace of mind.

NightSleeper
August 18, 2011, 04:08 PM
a 5-shot .32acp revolver for pocket carry? That's not a bad idea, I wouldn't complain about owning one, but personally I don't need it.

I have a choice between:

8-shot .22 magnum DA revolver
5-shot .38spl DA revolver
8-shot .32 acp Beretta Tomcat pocket pistol

I think with today's emphasis on caliber and capacity, it might be out of style for most people. Especially with all the pocket pistols in .32 and .380acp with 7-8 round capacity.

zxcvbob
August 18, 2011, 04:15 PM
a 5-shot .32acp revolver for pocket carry? That's not a bad idea, I wouldn't complain about owning one, but personally I don't need it.


I'd like a 6-shot .32ACP version of the old S&W "New Departure" topbreaks. It should be strong enough with modern steel. Extra points if it's cut to work with or without moon clips.

Joe the Redneck
August 18, 2011, 06:58 PM
Personally, I'm not marred to the 32 as a self defense round. I think what killed the 327 was just how nasty it was to shoot. Loud, lots os blast, usually in a lightweight gun. Not for me, thanks. I'm a sissy.

I would like to see something like the 32 mag in a "1940s style" revolver. Like the old Police Positive. No heavy barrey. No space age metals. Just a nice 4 inch tube, decent target sights. big handfilling stocks, double action, all steel construction.

I think it would make a great woods gun or a fun plinker. In a pinch, you could use it for defese (better than a 22) but not going to set the world on fire.

ratshooter
August 19, 2011, 07:01 PM
Personally, I'm not marred to the 32 as a self defense round. I think what killed the 327 was just how nasty it was to shoot. Loud, lots os blast, usually in a lightweight gun. Not for me, thanks. I'm a sissy.

I would like to see something like the 32 mag in a "1940s style" revolver. Like the old Police Positive. No heavy barrey. No space age metals. Just a nice 4 inch tube, decent target sights. big handfilling stocks, double action, all steel construction.

I think it would make a great woods gun or a fun plinker. In a pinch, you could use it for defese (better than a 22) but not going to set the world on fire.

Joe S&W made just the gun you describe. I just got mine yesterday. Its called a model 631. A 4" barreled J Frame 32 mag in stainless steel with adjustable sights and a houge rubber grip. It has been my "Holy Grail" of guns for many years but I could never find one for sale at a price I could afford. This one wasn't cheap at $670 but it was $230 less than the last one I found for sale.

Now I just gotta find the time to go shoot it. I have 6 new handguns I have bought in the last couple of months that haven't been shot yet. Its time to get busy.

madcratebuilder
August 20, 2011, 07:04 AM
I would like to see something like the 32 mag in a "1940s style" revolver. Like the old Police Positive. No heavy barrey. No space age metals. Just a nice 4 inch tube, decent target sights. big handfilling stocks, double action, all steel construction.

If you well settle for a .32Long S&W has been offering it for years.

.32 hand ejector 5th change from 1917. 4.25 barrel, round butt, fixed sights, J frame size.

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d37/madcratebuilder/Iframe01.jpg

Waiting for the correct grips to show up. Ammo has surprising cheap, $15 per 50. If you want bigger grips any J frame grip can be fit to this frame.

UtopiaTexasG19
August 20, 2011, 08:17 AM
I have a Colt Cobra in .32 S&W Long and consider it the perfect pocket carry pistol in .32 for myself when I consider size, weight and very little kick when shooting. Also have a matching Colt Cobra in .22 that is really fun to shoot especially when teaching someone new about gun safety and shooting in general. I started my wife out on the Cobra in .22 and then we worked our way up to the .32, .38 Special and then .357 Magnum. She won't shoot my Ruger Blackhawk in .44 Magnum and I don't blame her.

bikerbill
August 20, 2011, 02:00 PM
mmmm not me ...

LockedBreech
August 20, 2011, 02:09 PM
There are significantly more potent rounds in comparably sized packages. No interest here. I'll take a more potent round with a touch more weight and size.

8shot357
August 21, 2011, 01:26 AM
For people with small hands, it's not a bad idea.

Super Sneaky Steve
August 21, 2011, 10:57 AM
Yeah, i think there's a market for something between my NAA revolver and my J-frame.

A frame in that size could be chambered for 5 shots of .32 or a 6 rounds of .22 mag.

Kinda like this, but shorter barrel and double action.
http://gunsgunsguns.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Ruger-John-Wayne-Single-Six-300x192.jpg

batjka
August 22, 2011, 08:29 AM
Well, as I have read on THR, Ruger is about to introduce just that - a "mini-revolver" in .22 mag. I haven't seen any announcements on the company website, but apparently some gun show host had seen and held a prototype. I believe it will be a double-action and significantly smaller than a J-frame, but bigger than an NAA. Wait and see. Maybe they will make a .32 ACP version based on the same frame as well

Hook686
August 22, 2011, 10:10 AM
I'd not be interested. I am very content with my S&W M&P 340 J-Frame.

8shot357
August 22, 2011, 10:54 AM
#56

Well, as I have read on THR, Ruger is about to introduce just that - a "mini-revolver" in .22 mag. I haven't seen any announcements on the company website, but apparently some gun show host had seen and held a prototype. I believe it will be a double-action and significantly smaller than a J-frame, but bigger than an NAA. Wait and see. Maybe they will make a .32 ACP version based on the same frame as well

Sounds like a winner to me.

Cheapshooter
August 22, 2011, 11:46 AM
I would be the first one at my LGS door if they had a Ruger LCR in 327 Federal Magnum!!!:D:D:D
Not necessarily for CC. I'm happy with my Elsie Pea, and Springer XD40 Subcompact. The LCR in 327 would be one of those "just cause" guns I keep buying!:eek::D

PetahW
August 22, 2011, 12:22 PM
Sized between an NAA Mini and a S&W J-Frame, These are Boge Quinn's custom 5-shot .32H&R Ruger Super Bearcats, done by Alan Harton.

http://i606.photobucket.com/albums/tt145/peyton197/01.jpg

.

batjka
August 22, 2011, 12:57 PM
These are nice! Maybe that's what they were talking about? With 2" barrels and bird's head grips they would make a real nice carry pieces. The ejector rod would have to go, but it would further reduce the weight. How do they compare in size to a J-frame? Can you take a side by side photo and post?

johnbt
August 22, 2011, 01:36 PM
I've seen a 5 shot .32 caliber revolver. It belonged to my grandfather and isn't much bigger than a P-32.

http://www.hunt101.com/watermark.php?file=303472&size=1

Iver Johnson.