Opinions on H&R .32 revolvers

[TruthTellers]

I just became more aware of H&R revolvers, especially the .32's. They appear to be a very good value and also of decent quality. What thoughts do those here that have owned or shot them think? I'm not limiting the discussion to just the following models, but I'm specifically interested in hearing about the 632, 732, and top break models.

[Sarge]

My opinion of H&R revolvers in general is positive. While they aren't a Smith or Colt, they are good durable revolvers that can generally be counted upon to work and work a long time. I consider them more reliable than similar Taurus and post-2000 Charter Arms guns.

The only H&R I've fired much is a 'Lady Ultra' that belongs to a former employer. This is the 3" swing-out 32 Mag with adjustable sights and a rib. I like the gun and cartridge pretty well. You could do a lot worse for a combination woods and carry gun.

[75218ron]

The first revolver I ever bought was an H&R .32 revolver with removable cylinder in order to load it. I still have it and it has been fired very little....a very small gun. I bought it in the 60's for about $62. It is very good quality.

[Wyosmith]

I think the 32 H&R and the 327 Fed are both excellent shells that are being pitched to the wrong segment of the buying public.

Both are outstanding little outdoorsmans shells and would suit the role of hunters/trappers field revolver, but they are being marketed for personal defence purposes in small short barreled revolvers.
Such a sales pitch is in direct competition with small 9mm and 380 autos, both of which hold more rounds and both of which are smaller and kick less.

but if S&W or Ruger were to chamber their smallest frame revolves in one of these shells, in a gun with 4" 5" and 6" barrel and adjustable sights, the trappers and hunters would probably warm up to them very well.

Some folks (myself included ) would love to have something more powerful than a 22 LR that we could reload for, that was super cheep to shoot and had good accuracy and range, but in a small very light weight revolver for open carry in the field.

In small frame revolvers I can't see that either 32 does anything as well or better than a 38 special, especially if you load your own ammo.

But a 90 to 110 grain bullet at supersonic speeds out of a 5" barrel from a 1.8 to 2 pound gun with very light recoil is a very appealing combination for an outdoorsman as a carry gun.

[James K]

At one time, H&R revolvers were almost on a par with Colt or S&W, but at some point H&R opted for quantity rather than quality and chose to bypass the necessary investment and upgrade work needed to make real improvements. The result was a gradual but continuous decline in quality as their design became more and more obsolete, mainly in the lockwork.

I can't go into detail here,, but from c. 1920 on, H&R "marched in place" with few real changes to an obsolete system. Some of the design almost ensured excess wear, like the poorly designed hand and ratchet, the always troublesome cylinder stop system, and of course the use of fragile flat springs.

The "top of the line" for many years was the Model 999 breaktop, which looked good, and generally worked OK, but which whose quality manufacture required more precise equipment than H&R had or chose to invest in.

The revolver models mentioned are decent utilitarian designs, OK as "woods" guns as long as they are recognized as relatively short service guns. Bad? No, but not guns that will be expected to be working into the next century.

And, of course, the current maker of the H&R line is actually making few new guns, beyond using up leftover parts from 20th century production, so new gun (and parts) production is problematical.

Jim

[tallball]

I owned three. My FiL talked me out of one. I still have the other two.

All three work fine. The triggers are okay. The accuracy is pretty good. They have been 100% reliable.

All three were barely used when I got them. Since none of them have been shot very much, I would even use one for SD - if many of my other handguns disappeared for some reason. But I wouldn't expect them to hold up to many thousands of rounds without wearing out.

[ThomasT]

I think the 32 H&R and the 327 Fed are both excellent shells that are being pitched to the wrong segment of the buying public.

Both are outstanding little outdoorsmans shells and would suit the role of hunters/trappers field revolver, but they are being marketed for personal defence purposes in small short barreled revolvers.
Such a sales pitch is in direct competition with small 9mm and 380 autos, both of which hold more rounds and both of which are smaller and kick less.

but if S&W or Ruger were to chamber their smallest frame revolves in one of these shells, in a gun with 4" 5" and 6" barrel and adjustable sights, the trappers and hunters would probably warm up to them very well.

Wyosmith I could not have said it better myself. Thats why for years my holy grail gun was a S&W model 631 in 32 magnum. I finally found one I could justify the cost on. I have never regretted buying it either. Mine has adjustable sights and a 4" barrel. Its the perfect trail and woods gun for my use. It weighs 24oz so its no problem to carry.

I also have two ruger single sixes with 5.5" barrels and they were also bought to be trail and woods guns. I shoot a lot of lead loads with a 94gr Lee bullet at around 900-1000fps. Thats some cheap shooting.

I do have 3 of the 32 caliber guns for SD uses. A S&W model 431PD in 32 mag and two model 30-1s in 32 long. My 32 long chambered guns are newer and I load the 94gr bullet to around 850fps. Both of those guns have 2" and 3" barrels. I do have a model 31-1 with a 4" barrel. That was my first 32 and it turned me into a real fan of 32 caliber guns.

I do wish S&W would make an aluminum framed 32 like the 431PD but with a 4" barrel and adjustable sights. I bet it wouldn't weigh more than 18-19 ounces. I would buy the first one I found for sale.

I think the problem is that the gun buying public is more concerned with SD than just getting out in the woods and exploring. Maybe folks are just too busy or don't have a public access forest nearby.

[ThomasT]

The OP asked about H&R revolvers and I did own one of the 32 mag versions when that round first came out. The gun itself was fine. But it shot about 6-8" left when shooting at 20 yards. I had to file the sight groove on the right side to move the point of impact. That got it on target. My buddy talked me out of the gun.

But if I found another for a good price I would buy it. Nice truck guns.

[smee78]

I have handled a few of the H&R guns and some were ok others were worn out so be sure to check them over fully. I also am a fan of the little 32 and it started with a Ruger birds head Single Six I picked up, makes a great light weight woods carry gun and started me on my way to looking for other 32's. I have been able to add a SP101 32H&R and a S&W 30 3" gun, I always have my eyes open for a little 32.

[James K]

Not to get bogged down on the subject, but the problem with a modern .32 revolver is that most have been marketed purely as defense guns, thus competing with the .38 Special and the .357 snubbies, both of which outclass the .32. The .327 is a lot better, but again the .38/.357's are better and one of the .327's markets, a light police caliber for women officers, has been pre-empted by the 9mm.

An overlooked market might be a woods gun with a longer barrel and adjustable sights (think K-32) but again the .38/.357 will do a better job at the same or even less recoil and blast.

Jim

[Arizona Fusilier]

I had longed for something in H&R 32. Magnum, until .327 Federal came on the scene. Don't want to start controversy, but that thread kind of put me off, with Ruger's virtual monopoly on that........and users issues with quality control on something as basic as a revolver.

Having said that, I have a H&R 969 on semi-permanent loan to my FIL. It's only a .22, but a good gun for rattlers around the trailer park.

[TruthTellers]

I think the 32 H&R and the 327 Fed are both excellent shells that are being pitched to the wrong segment of the buying public.

Both are outstanding little outdoorsmans shells and would suit the role of hunters/trappers field revolver, but they are being marketed for personal defence purposes in small short barreled revolvers.
Such a sales pitch is in direct competition with small 9mm and 380 autos, both of which hold more rounds and both of which are smaller and kick less.

but if S&W or Ruger were to chamber their smallest frame revolves in one of these shells, in a gun with 4" 5" and 6" barrel and adjustable sights, the trappers and hunters would probably warm up to them very well.

Some folks (myself included ) would love to have something more powerful than a 22 LR that we could reload for, that was super cheep to shoot and had good accuracy and range, but in a small very light weight revolver for open carry in the field.

In small frame revolvers I can't see that either 32 does anything as well or better than a 38 special, especially if you load your own ammo.

But a 90 to 110 grain bullet at supersonic speeds out of a 5" barrel from a 1.8 to 2 pound gun with very light recoil is a very appealing combination for an outdoorsman as a carry gun.

A little off topic, but I agree with you to a certain extent. .327 is a good defense cartridge as it has greater energy than .38 Special, 9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP, less recoil than .357 Magnum, and great penetration. .327 Magnum can do it all and like you said about .32, it's reloadable.

If Ruger made a version of the LCRx with a 6 inch barrel and it was in .327, that would be the greatest revolver of the 21st century.

[TruthTellers]

Originally Posted by James K

At one time, H&R revolvers were almost on a par with Colt or S&W, but at some point H&R opted for quantity rather than quality and chose to bypass the necessary investment and upgrade work needed to make real improvements. The result was a gradual but continuous decline in quality as their design became more and more obsolete, mainly in the lockwork.

I can't go into detail here,, but from c. 1920 on, H&R "marched in place" with few real changes to an obsolete system. Some of the design almost ensured excess wear, like the poorly designed hand and ratchet, the always troublesome cylinder stop system, and of course the use of fragile flat springs.

The "top of the line" for many years was the Model 999 breaktop, which looked good, and generally worked OK, but which whose quality manufacture required more precise equipment than H&R had or chose to invest in.

The revolver models mentioned are decent utilitarian designs, OK as "woods" guns as long as they are recognized as relatively short service guns. Bad? No, but not guns that will be expected to be working into the next century.

And, of course, the current maker of the H&R line is actually making few new guns, beyond using up leftover parts from 20th century production, so new gun (and parts) production is problematical.

While it's regrettable that H&R went that direction, I'm not looking at getting an H&R for long term plinking. They interest me for their utilitarian value, low price, and general performance, the same as those who bought them decades ago.

If I really wanted a top of the line .32 revolver, I'd buy a Colt Police Positive or a S&W.

[ThomasT]

If I really wanted a top of the line .32 revolver, I'd buy a Colt Police Positive or a S&W.

No where is it more true than with firearms, you get what you pay for.

[roashooter]

"No where is it more true than with firearms, you get what you pay for."

100% correct....

[Cheapshooter]

but if S&W or Ruger were to chamber their smallest frame revolves in one of these shells, in a gun with 4" 5" and 6" barrel and adjustable sights, the trappers and hunters would probably warm up to them very well.

LCRx 4" 327 Federal!!! Are you listening Ruger, please?

[Guv]

I had a 732 2" 32S&W Long and a 2 1/2" NEF 32 H&R and really liked both of them. The 732 was surprisingly accurate and I would love to pick up one with a 4 or 6 inch barrel. They both left me in a trade for a 642 S&W, no regrets.

[lowercase]

I have a 732 (I think) with a 2" barrel.

It is an accurate and fun little revolver that I picked up for cheap.

[TruthTellers]

Seeing as how I made this thread and I have a question about the top break H&R revolvers, I'd ask this question.

I'm very interested in buying a top break H&R in .32 S&W, but it appears that a lot of them were made for black powder loads, not smokeless. Were any of the top break's that H&R made designed to shoot smokeless .32 and if yes, how common were they and how do I determine which are okay to shoot smokeless so I don't buy a black powder model?

[Sarge]

TT-

The only reference I found, complete with photos, of an H&R 32 Top break manufactured well into the 20th century is here.

This seems to be a 32 caliber take on the 'Defender' line of 38 S&W revolvers produced between the late 1940's to mid 1960s.

[McShooty]

TruthTellers: The production of H&R top breaks continued well into the twentieth century and many are safe to shoot with smokeless loads, either factory or handloads. It is generally believed that an H&R that is safe with smokeless powder will have the caliber designation marked on the left side of the barrel,for instance, "AUTO EJECTING 32 S&W CTGE." I have an Auto Ejecting Third Model so marked and it is chambered for the 32 S&W Long. Third models were made from 1905 - 1940 and all were made for smokeless powder. If you find a top break that does not have the caliber designation on the left side of the barrel it is earlier and is for black powder only.

There is a smaller frame version called the "Premier" that fires the shorter 32 S&W round. The H&R Premier Second Model was made 1905 - 1941, is marked 32 S&W CTGE on the left side of the barrel, and is safe with smokeless rounds. Again, there is an earlier model of this arm (First Model) that does not have the caliber marking and is safe only with black powder.

[TruthTellers]

Mcshooty, what H&R top break models were chambered in .32 S&W Long? I'd prefer one in .32 S&W Long as the ammo is much easier to find that .32 S&W. I wouldn't be opposed to buying one in .32 S&W, but only if they can shoot current factory manufactured .32 S&W.

I surmise that if I were to go with a .32 Long H&R top break, it would be able to fire any factory .32 S&W Long ammo.

[McShooty]

This is the H&R Auto Ejecting Third Model chambered in 32 S&W Long.

They made a lot of these and they are fairly common on the used market, good ones usually going for less than $200. This is your best bet if you want a top break 32 Long and they are safe with all factory ammo. The ammo availability is good. A good example will group 2 inches or less at 7 yards. Such guns will also fire the 32 S&W (the shorter one) and often they group as well as the long.

There were also first and second models of this arm but they are black powder guns. They will not have the caliber designation on the left side if the barrel.

[smee78]

+1 "LCRx 4" 327 Federal!!! Are you listening Ruger, please?" That would be a nice addition.