Does this theoretical revolver interest you?

[Screwball]

Originally Posted by Mike Irwin

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

Likewise, I'll remember that having a different need equates to being "narrow-minded" when talking to people that love the .32 projectile... guess it is like the 10mm or .357 SIG.

By the way, no disrespect towards anyone... everyone should shoot whatever makes them happy.

[Mike Irwin]

"Likewise, I'll remember that having a different need equates to being "narrow-minded" when talking to people that love the .32 projectile.."

Ok, great! We're all on the same page, then.

[TruthTellers]

Just want to say my idea behind this revolver isn't to make the frame shorter and OAL shorter, but to make the width thinner.

.327 would be a no go in this revolver, I don't think I'd want to shoot a 12 oz .327 in this.

[FITASC]

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.

As a backpacking/camp gun with a payload bigger than a .22 but lighter/smaller/thinner than a 38

[FITASC]

Just want to say my idea behind this revolver isn't to make the frame shorter and OAL shorter, but to make the width thinner.

See if the I frame would fit your criteria.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

You know that NAA prototype of such didn't work out. Whether they are working on a new one is rumored.

BTW, the J frames in 32 HR magnum are pretty neat and not junk.

It's a question of marketability, with the new semis - would folks buy such. The J frame sized guns have a historic constitutency. The 22 NAA minis are so small as to be a paradigm shift in size. I don't see this one being super popular to be worth tooling up for.

[Strafer Gott]

Does the Judge come in this caliber? Why all the interest in under-powered 5-shots?

[FITASC]

Not everyone wants to carry a cannon.......

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Interest would be as a BUG or NPE hideaway. The 32 mag isn't a bad round. But it ain't going to happen.

Let's not start another Judge discussion - please!!

[deserted]

A Bearcat in .327 Federal would interest me. Have two Single Sevens, 7 1/2" and 4 5/8" (My edc)...they have a 3.5" too, now? And a Marlin rifle in .327FM, and a Single Six in .32 H&R. I like those .32s. Also, an old Iver Johnson Safety Hammerless in .32 S&W and a Keltech .32 Auto (which will fire in the revolvers). Hehehe...I even have a mini-Hawken plains rifle in .32, which, BTW, shoots all the bullets I have for the other .32s, 77gr, 85gr, 95gr, 100gr, 115, 125, and a new 130gr I've yet to try.
Yeah, I like .32s.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I have a SW 632 SS 3 inch comped 327 (with the hammer). It's a great J frame and if revolvers were the only carry gun , it would be one of my choices.

But, a smaller NAA type - probably pass on it. The 22 Mag is my little tiny pocket gun.

[Bill DeShivs]

A .32 revolver could only be made about 1/8 inch thinner than a .38. That's not much difference at all.
I doubt an I frame would hold up to .32 H&R mag.

[briandg]

Of course I would price is a thing, and functionalities

[FITASC]

I doubt an I frame would hold up to .32 H&R mag.

A scandium one might

[PatientWolf]

Nope. For me, the advantage of a .32 H&R Magnum would be to get 6 shots from a cylinder the size that only gives you 5 rds of .357.

[James K]

Since the main advantage of .32 over a .38 is cartridge diameter, why would you go to .32 H&R Magnum and not .327? The latter has a lot more power for just about the same bulk and weight.

Jim

[the Black Spot]

Add 12 to 32 and then i am interested...

[Bob Wright]

Originally Posted by the Black Spot

Add 12 to 32 and then i am interested...

My sentiments, exactly!

[Bob Wright]

I fail to see the attraction of such a diminutive little revolver? I am not enthralled with pocket carry in the first place.

Bob Wright

[seeker_two]

Originally Posted by 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.

I second this idea. If someone could do a top-break revolver in the style of the old .32 blackpowder pocket revolvers--but in .32ACP, you could generate some excitement in the traditional revolver crowd as well as the cowboy-action shooters. Think S&W #3 revolver.....

Sent from my HTC Desire Eye using Tapatalk

[Dave T]

I voted no because the J-frame is too small for my hand size. Something smaller would be un-usable.

I hope that's sufficient justification for saying "no" to not be slammed by those getting defensive about their love for 32s, since I didn't even mention caliber.

Dave

[DaleA]

Just want to say my idea behind this revolver isn't to make the frame shorter and OAL shorter, but to make the width thinner.

I'm a big fan of 'thinner' but the poor revolver is handicapped in this regard compared to semi-autos so put me down as interested but very unlikely to buy one.

[Cheapshooter]

Didn't Taurus try, and fail, at some kind of tiny revolver?

[Reader850]

I would rather have a shorter cylinder 5 shot .380 or 9 mm revolver. The LCR in 9mm could be shorter in length, but is built on the .357 frame I think.

[heyjoe]

im in, im also in for a 32 acp break top revolver