Does this theoretical revolver interest you?

[TruthTellers]

-.32 H&R Magnum
-5 shot cylinder
-fitted onto a revolver frame smaller than the the S&W J frame or Ruger LCR frame
-weighs less than 12 ounces
-cylinder diameter is smaller than that of the Ruger LCR or Smith J frame
-Will hold up to a steady diet of full power .32 H&R loads

Basically a .32 H&R Mag revolver built on a special, smaller frame dedicated for nothing larger than the .32 caliber and quality built, not like the junk H&R .32 Magnum revolvers that destroyed the .32 H&R Mag's potential as a serious defense cartridge thanks to weak factory loads.

[roashooter]

not in the least...and it will just be a theoretical piece

[CajunBass]

Nope. You lost me at "32." Then it just went downhill.

[Dragline45]

Posted this exact thing here a couple years back and didn't see much interest. I think it would make for the ultimate pocket gun. Most of the responses were somehwhere along the lines of don't need smaller than a J frame, or why don't you get an I frame.

[Carmady]

I think a 3-shot 9mm would be a more likely candidate for success.

Shorter and thinner cylinder
Ammo - cheaper, more variety, available everywhere
150% capacity of a derringer (said with high enthusiasm!)
DAO like a mini-Centennial

[Kreyzhorse]

Nope. There are simply better choices in roughly the same package.

[Screwball]

No... same reason, not interested in .32.

[Bill DeShivs]

If one were going to produce a pocket revolver in .32, the H&R magnum and even the .32 S&W long cartridges are far too long.
The gun should be chambered in .32 ACP.
You can't thin a revolver too much going from .38 to .32, but you can certainly shorten the cylinder and frame quite a bit.

[Wyosmith]

I like 32. But only in field revolvers. There is NO reason I can see to use a 32 revolver when a 380 or 9MM auto will do everything better for self defense, as a concealed carry gun. More ammo, more power, small package and faster to reload.

The strong suit of the 32 is a field revolver. Ruger's GP101 with a long slim barrel on it instead of the bulky 'full-underlug" atrocity they make.

5 or 6 shot, small frame, slender 4", 5", and 6" barrels offered. High quality Adjustable sights. Very well made action capable of firing regularly for decades. Nothing that's tinny or light duty. Guns made to be shot hundreds of thousands of rounds!
Think of the K-32s that Smith and Wesson made. Or even the 4" J frames that made at one time. These were outdoorsmens dream guns.
It did all the 22 LR or 22 mag does and more, and cost less to fire then 22 mag in that you can load your own ammo.

If you cast your own bullets you get about 70 to a pound, so a 10 pound pot yields about 700 bullets. Cast from early morning to lunch and you have about 1400 bullets and that keeps you going for many months of shooting. Shot at speeds of 1200 fps and less you'd never need gas checks. Powder charges go in the 3.5 grain range, and accuracy was one ragged hole at 25 yards. In a standard load, the primer was the most expensive component.

I had a K-32 and a Colt Officers, both in 32. One was a 32 S&W and the Colt was a 32-20. I never should have let anyone beat me out of them. For walks in the high desert or along the ditch banks of the ranch they were wonderful.

[tallball]

I would be interested in one. I am just fine with 32 magnum for SD. I prefer revolvers. Something like a hammerless alloy I-frame snubby would be a great pocket revolver. It would be easier to carry than the snub 38's I often carry.

[Driftwood Johnson]

Not in the slightest.

[Mike Irwin]

Yes.

3" barrel

But, it won't be much smaller than the J frame, at least frame window length wise, because the .32 Magnum isn't that much shorter than the .38 Special.

[jackmoser65]

As you will see, there are a lot of narrow minded shooters who have disdain for any 32 caliber cartridge and that is unfortunate.

I would be all over a modern I frame in 32 H&R.

[Screwball]

Originally Posted by jackmoser65

As you will see, there are a lot of narrow minded shooters who have disdain for any 32 caliber cartridge and that is unfortunate.

You do realize some agencies have minimum calibers for off duty carry... most being .380/.38. .32 might be all well and good, but might want to back off on the "narrow minded" comment...

[ligonierbill]

Yes, interested. Buy one? No. I like my 32s, and the H&R is a neat little round. My loading experience shows it to be equivalent to a pretty warm .380. But 32 H&R defensive revolvers already exist (I'm presuming that to be the OP target).

Now, for field use, I'm with Wyosmith. His spec revolver I'd buy, if I wanted a new one. Right now, the old ones do fine for me.

[jackmoser65]

You do realize some agencies have minimum calibers for off duty carry... most being .380/.38. .32 might be all well and good, but might want to back off on the "narrow minded" comment...

Not backing off. You didn't say you couldn't due to policy. You said "no interest". Besides, I was speaking in general. Didn't single out any one in particular. Don't be so sensitive.

Unless I've stumbed into Cop Talk, I really don't care about law enforcement agency regulations.

[JoeSixpack]

Not that into revolvers for carry and not interested in .32

But that's just me personally.

[Nathan]

Im all in.
DAO trigger
Hidden hammer
32 H&R mag
Fixed sights
2.5-3" barrel
Black Cerakote finish
Wood grips

[FITASC]

Sure - especially if you could use something like the old S&W "I" frame - I have 32's on the I frame - REAL sleek, almost toy like in their size, but fun to shoot!

[Cheapshooter]

Did you say 327 Federal Magnum?
Not 32 H&R non-magnum.

[natman]

Did you say 327 Federal Magnum?
Not 32 H&R non-magnum.

The 327 Fed Mag is nearly as long as a 38 Special. This would contradict the OP's requirement of "fitted onto a revolver frame smaller than the the S&W J frame or Ruger LCR frame". That's going to be a tight fit even for the 32 H&R.

[Screwball]

Originally Posted by jackmoser65

Not backing off. You didn't say you couldn't due to policy. You said "no interest". Besides, I was speaking in general. Didn't single out any one in particular. Don't be so sensitive.



Unless I've stumbed into Cop Talk, I really don't care about law enforcement agency regulations.

Why would I buy something that is smaller than a J-frame, in .32, that I cannot carry? Doesn't matter what my reasons are, it is a valid reason of why I have no interest... because of it being a .32.

Sorry, but that is a thought out reason for why a person would not buy it. Doesn't have to be Cop Talk, but let's point out something that there is no argument on... how many of such revolvers are currently being produced?

[pete2]

Not interested at all but I plan to buy one of the new Ruger .327, 3-1/2" Single Sevens.

[chaim]

Like Screwball, I live in a state where legal CCW is quite difficult (some people get permits, but few normal people can). However, I do like carry type guns. I spend a lot of time in carry states where I can carry on my UT non-resident permit, and even if I didn't, like I said, I like carry type guns.

That said, I'd have no interest. I do like to maximize capacity for size. I also want more power than .32H&R mag gives and that is where .327mag (not .32H&R mag) has me interested. I like that they put 6 rounds instead of 5 into a small frame revolver. I also like a 3" revolver as the Goldilocks "just right" of concealability and velocity/ballistics. If Ruger would make the .327mag SP101 in a 3" revolver again, it would probably be my next purchase. That said, I'd be thrilled if S&W did the same thing with the K-frame. If the SP101 can hold 6, I'm sure a K-frame could hold 7 .327mag. A 7 shot, 3", K-frame with the power of .38+P, and a little smaller than the 686 Plus, I'd be all over that immediately (even if I didn't have the cash, that's what credit cards, or trading guns is for).

[Mike Irwin]

"You do realize some agencies"

I'll remember that if I'm ever part of "an agency."