Am I the ONLY one on the Forum thats in love with the .32 S&W Long?


PDA






gunfan
October 8, 2005, 09:03 PM
I have a deep and abiding love for this old round. It is in excellent "plinker," target round, (duh!) and not too shaby for quick multiple shots on an adversarial target. In it's most powerful configuration, it can crank out about 150 fpe with excellent accuracy (better than the factory .32 ACP loadings.)

The .32 S&W Long (.32 Colt New Police) is a great cartridge. Why it isn't more popular is beyond me. Any thoughts? :confused:

Scott

If you enjoyed reading about "Am I the ONLY one on the Forum thats in love with the .32 S&W Long?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Tokugawa
October 8, 2005, 09:28 PM
apparently.

Cortland
October 8, 2005, 09:35 PM
I like it just because it's so cheap to reload. I can buy swaged Hornady 32 LSWCs for next to nothing and of course they use next to no powder. I really want to get a 32 mag Ruger SP-101. I can't really comment on their utility beyond punching paper.

nero45acp
October 8, 2005, 09:37 PM
I've shot some .32 S&W Long through my 432PD and really enjoyed it. I think shooting .32 S&W Long in a S&W 4" J-frame with adjustable sights would be a blast.


nero

Old Fuff
October 8, 2005, 10:02 PM
gunfan:

No, you are a long way from being the only one, because of the reasons you stated. So far as guns go, the problem is that it's hard to find any new revolvers with anything but 2" barrels. As for myself, I go in for the older Smith & Wesson's and Colt's. Fortunately most of today's shooters look down their noses at the lowly .32, so prices for outstanding revolvers are often very inexpensive. They say ignorence is bliss, and I hope that the present situation continues.

Never give the others an even break ... :evil: :D

MDG1976
October 8, 2005, 10:18 PM
My mom has a J frame in .32. It's a great defensive round for people who are recoil sensitive.

mec
October 8, 2005, 10:22 PM
Nah, it's a great minority sort of cartridge

http://www.gunblast.com/Cumpston_32Colt.htm

kevin387
October 9, 2005, 12:31 AM
probably not

Turangi
October 9, 2005, 12:50 AM
Gunfan, I enjoy shooting the 32 Long also. Here is a S&W Regulation Police from about 1920 I shoot 32 in on a regular basis, a mild accurate round. John
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v520/jpilkin/IMG_2089.jpg

P. Plainsman
October 9, 2005, 01:10 AM
It gives me the willies as a potential defense cartridge. There's no denying it was so used long ago. You'd have to have a very recoil-adverse shooter before I'd recommend an 85-grain bullet going 650-700 fps for defense.

With that said, I'd love a minty old .32 Long target revolver, be it of the S&W or Colt persuasion. The round has a definite cult following as a target and small game cartridge. I believe the Europeans use it as a bullseye match round in specially designed semi-auto pistols -- funky, eh?

Terry Murbach has been known to sing the praises of the old .32 S&W Long here in the electronic ether to rousing effect, and that Cumpston article linked above is a good read too.

oweno
October 9, 2005, 08:30 AM
a bit of history ...

My Grandfather was, until his death in 1933, the Chief of Detectives of the Massachusetts State Police. His service revolver?

S&W Regulation Police in .32 S&W Long. My daughter now has this piece, it's in beautiful condition.

Old Fuff
October 9, 2005, 09:18 AM
oweno:

That was often the case, because many detectives (and some uniformed officers) in those days carried their revolver in a hip-pocket holster - something you seldom hear of today.

Edited to add: 48 Regulation Police revolvers were shipped to the Mass State Police in 1929 within the 508000 to 509000 serial number range. They are marked "State Police" on the backstrap, and worth extra bucks.

If the revolver your daughter has matches this description I'd write Roy Jinks in Springfield and pay the $30.00 fee to get a confirming letter from Smith & Wesson. Then you will have the whole history of the gun from an official source.

Old Fuff
October 9, 2005, 09:34 AM
Turangi:

You have a double winner! While the Regulation Police model was cataloged in barrel lengths of 3 1/4, 4 1/4 and 6 inches, relatively few were made with the longest length. Not only is the one you've got a good shooter, but one one with an extra collector's value as well.

mec
October 9, 2005, 09:56 AM
"Terry Murbach has been known to sing the praises of the old .32 S&W Long here in the electronic ether to rousing effect..."
Murbach is the one that inspired me toward the .32 Long. He always put a lot into his articles. I recall on in one of the G&A special books that had a whole page of .32 long handloads.

Ala Dan
October 9, 2005, 10:04 AM
I've got my late father's minty S&W 2" barrel model 30 in .32 S&W Long~! :)
It's of 1971 manufactuer, and only been fired a total of six times. :D

jondar
October 9, 2005, 11:04 AM
I'm paraphrasing Elmer Keith when he said, "it's one of the most accurate rounds in existence today."

Majic
October 9, 2005, 11:10 AM
Fortunately most of today's shooters look down their noses at the lowly .32, so prices for outstanding revolvers are often very inexpensive.
Oh if this were only true of all the models. I have a K32 and would like a Colt OMT for it's companion, but they are priced as if they were gold. I have a lead on one, it's just that I really don't want to spend that much money on it.

oweno
October 9, 2005, 12:45 PM
Old Fluff:

Thanks for your feedback!

>That was often the case, because many detectives (and some uniformed >officers) in those days carried their revolver in a hip-pocket holster - >something you seldom hear of today.

That's EXACTLY the holster that's with the revolver. It's in nice condition, too. Always struck me as a good way to carry a piece - wonder why nobody makes them anymore?

>Edited to add: 48 Regulation Police revolvers were shipped to the Mass State >Police in 1929 within the 508000 to 509000 serial number range. They are >marked "State Police" on the backstrap, and worth extra bucks.

Yep, the exact markings on the backstrap. I'll check with my daughter to see what the serial number is.

>If the revolver your daughter has matches this description I'd write Roy Jinks >in Springfield and pay the $30.00 fee to get a confirming letter from Smith & >Wesson. Then you will have the whole history of the gun from an official >source.

Good suggestion, I'll do this.

regards,

Owen

Mannlicher
October 9, 2005, 12:56 PM
I have a nice little S&W Model 30, with three inch barrel. This is indeed, a nifty little plinker.
I would never entertain any use of this pop gun as a defensive weapon though.

Gordon
October 9, 2005, 01:04 PM
My father was a big time NRA competetor in the NJ area from the late 40's thru mid 70's. He gave me his Officer's Match .22 when I started around 60 in NRA matches. He gave me his National Match 1911 when I shot in the Services matches a few years later. He gave me his Officers .38 about 1965 when he bought from Colt, an Officers Match .32S&W which he had factory tuned. This was his "cheat" gun as he got older and which , with the help of a Merit Disc, kept him competitive thru most of the 70's. He shot Federal match ammo or Lapua, never being into reloading.
So I now own that .32S&W Long, along with a handfull of others, and they certainly are wonderfully accurate and delightfully mellow. While they certainly will kill, I don't RELY on one,as I KNOW BETTER! :)

Sam
October 9, 2005, 01:10 PM
Love the .32 S&W. I consider it the ideal small game round. I even built a rifle for it.
I make a habit of NOT advertising this too much. Too many folks would rush out to buy the things and then there wouldn't be any left for me. :D

Sam

AirForceShooter
October 9, 2005, 02:05 PM
Had a J frame .43 and sold it (hits self in the head).
It was incredibly accurate (Puts head in drawer and slams it shut).
Easy to shoot (drops weight on head from great height).
Girls loved it (Rams head into comcrete wall).

I want another one soo bad.

Also loved the .38 J frame.

AFS

mec
October 9, 2005, 02:24 PM
mention of the officer's match .32- Doc O'meara said they were an item with the Massachusetts state guard- reminded me of this:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_149_24/ai_65910636
it appeared in American Handgunner a few years ago. I didn't shoot the OMM as well as the k 32 and k38 but that's my usual experience. I have a lot more time in with the smiths.

Old Fuff
October 9, 2005, 04:20 PM
Majic:

Oh yes I know ... the Officers' Model Colts and K-32's are indeed out of sight, and I doubt that I will get one too. However they are about the only .32 S&W Long chambered revolvers that go for high bucks. Colt Police Positive and Police Positive Special's are often found for $250.00 and sometimes much less - and "I" frame Smith & Wessons are priced about the same or slightly higher. All are easy to pack and fun to shoot. :D

oweno
October 9, 2005, 04:26 PM
Old Fuff,

Just got off the phone with my daughter, the serial number is 509nnn.

Second shipment maybe?

thanks again for your input,

Owen

and sorry about spelling your on-line name wrong before :-)

Old Fuff
October 9, 2005, 04:26 PM
Oweno:

The problem with hip-pocket holsters is that they are unconfortable when you sit Apparently back then the either didn't do a lot of sitting, or removed the revolver from the holster when they did sit down. :uhoh: :D

Do contact Roy Jinks and get that revolver "lettered." With the holster and history behind it, it's worth considerably more then an ordinary gun of the same kind.

gunfan
October 11, 2005, 01:05 AM
"I" frame 1905 .32 Hand Ejector. The little revolver is so svelte, so concealable. While it has a 4.25" barrel, a similar revolver with S&W's 2.25" barrel could easily dissappear into a coat pocket or waistband.

By the same token, a Colt Pocket Positive with a 4" barrel could vanish as quickly on any person.

Damn, that is one sweet revolver! We need more!

Scott

Old Fuff
October 11, 2005, 09:15 AM
Point of order: The little I-frame is a 1903 hand ejector ... :D

Anyway, Taurus has come outwith a little short frame & cylinder snubbie called the Instant Backup (or IE for short). In size it's close the the old S&W I-frame, and suposedly it will eventually be offered in .32 H&R Magnum.

Write letters!! Send E-Mails!!!

gunfan
October 11, 2005, 01:00 PM
I believe that you meant, "IB" (for Instant Backup) in your last post. I have made more than one call to Smith and Wesson concerning the reintroduction of the "I" frame. It seems to fall upon "deaf ears" when it reaches their Research and Development Department.

The small frame is a true "money maker" when it comes to undercover narcotics agents and recoil sensitive individuals. As I said, the advances in modern metallurgy would permit the use of a, dare I say it, "+P type" loading for the .32 S&W Long. This would eliminate the need for moving up to a "J" sized frame with a cylinder window necessary to accomodate the .32 H&R Magnum (and .38 S&W Special) length of cartridges.

I think that this would be an excellent concept. Bringing original revolver specificarions to greater strengths, thus enhancing the perameters of the cartridge's performace levels without increasing the size of the launching platform.

Scott

Old Fuff
October 11, 2005, 02:10 PM
The Old Fuff stands corrected ... :o :D

I don't think we'll see a +P loading for the .32 S&W Long - too many old H&R and IJ top-breaks floating around, and relatively little demand. That is why H&R was forced to go to the Magnum concept rather then a "hot" .32 S&W Long load.

Generally speaking S&W doesnít want to add additional revolver frames, but if the Taurus IB is successful they may have to re-think the issue. Taurus expects the big seller in their line will be the 9mm x 19.

I agree with what you are saying, although the .32 H&R Magnum can be fitted into the 1.25" long I-frame cylinder, and for that matter Colt's Police/Pocket Positive line of revolvers. Numrich offered converted cylinders for the Colt's for a while, but I understand that they are now out of stock.

The new Taurus is a near dimensional equivalent of the above Colt and Smith & Wesson's, and I hope they do chamber some in .32 H&R Magnum. I doubt that any will be seen in .32 S&W Long.

gunfan
October 11, 2005, 09:33 PM
This is my simple proposition:

Take a 98 grain bullet (preferably WC or SWCHP configuration) load it into a .32 S&W long case to a velocity of 1000 fps, (from a 4" barrel) and denote it as a .32 S&W Long (+P) loading. Emblazon the box with a red sticker as did IMI on some .38 S&W Special loadings "only for use in revolvers chambered for .357 S&W Magnum." Said sticker would read "only for use in revolvers cambered for .32 H&R Magnum or as stated by the manufacturer."

Such a load would yield 217 fpe from a 4" barrel and from a 2 1/2" barrel should squeeze out 925 fps and 186 fpe. This should be more than adequate for self defense applications. Works for me!

Would that work for you?

Scott

Gordon
October 11, 2005, 09:48 PM
Old Fuff, I've finally got you! "too many old H&R and IJ top-breaks floating around, and relatively little demand. "
I don't believe there were any top break IJs or H&Rs ever made in .32 S&W LONG. In fact I don't think S&W ever produced any either- all I've seen or heard are .32S&W. Please educate me if I am wrong!

gunfan
October 11, 2005, 09:58 PM
You are correct insofar as either Iver Johnson or Harrington & Richardson chambering either of their top-break revolvers in .32 S&W Long. I have seen a number in .38 S&W and .32 S&W, but not in the .32 S&W Long (.32 Colt New Police) cartridge.

What do YOU think of my idea?

Scott

Old Fuff
October 11, 2005, 10:43 PM
Old Fuff, I've finally got you! "too many old H&R and IJ top-breaks floating around, and relatively little demand. "

I don't believe there were any top break IJs or H&Rs ever made in .32 S&W LONG. In fact I don't think S&W ever produced any either- all I've seen or heard are .32S&W. Please educate me if I am wrong! (Gordon)

You are correct insofar as (n)either Iver Johnson or Harrington & Richardson chambering either of their top-break revolvers in .32 S&W Long. I have seen a number in .38 S&W and .32 S&W, but not in the .32 S&W Long (.32 Colt New Police) cartridge. (Gunfan).

Harrington & Richardson produced top-break revolvers in both hammer and hammerless styles in two frame sizes. The smaller size was offered in .22 RF and .32 .S&W (5 shot) The larger framed guns were offered in .32 S&W Long (6) shot, and .38 S&W (5 shot).

I just happenen to have one of the H&R models in the large frame, chambered as a 6-shot .32 S&W Long.

Iver Johnson did much the same, with a small frame 22 and .32, and a larger frame in .38 S&W (5-shot) and although there is some question, I believe a 6-shot .32 S&W Long.

In all cases the .32 S&W Long revolvers were 6-shot, where the .32 S&W ones were 5-shot.

Smith & Wesson never offered a top-break in a 6-shot, .32 S&W Long. They had several smaller top-breaks in both single action and double action models chambered in .32 S&W, but their larger frame pocket models were all .38's (.38 S&W of course.)

The .32 S&W Long cartridge was introduced along with S&W's first Hand Ejector, in 1896, and by that time the era of the top-break was largely over. The last .32 S&W top-break was the small-frame Safety Hammerless in .32 S&W, which was discontinued about 1937.

In his authorative book, "Cartridges of the World," Frank C. Barnes says about the .32 S&W Long:

"Colt, Harrington & Richardson, Iver Johnson and Smith & Wesson were the principal companies making revolvers of this caliber in the United States. Many Spanish and other European revolvers such as the Bayard and Pickert chambered the round."

Professor Fuff will now retire to his study ... :D

Old Fuff
October 11, 2005, 11:04 PM
Gunfan:

>> This is my simple proposition: <<

Many years ago Parker O. Ackley listed the following .32 S&W Long load:

95-98 grain bullet 4.3 grains/Unique M.V.=1010 FPS.

He didn't specify the barrel length, and don't try to duplicate it with the above data because Unique powder has changed over the years, and he was probably using balloon head cases.

Anyway, back when - H&R tried to talk the ammunition companies into making a +P .32 Long. They all turned them down because the bean-counters couldn't see enough sales, and the attorneys' had a cow. Your basic idea is O.K., but I don't think you are going to see it in a factory load unless one of the smaller outfits come out with it. Handloading is something else.

Most folks today will simply buy the Magnum round. The very word is a sure seller ... :rolleyes:

Oh, and yes - it would work for me.

gunfan
October 12, 2005, 02:15 AM
I believe that most knowledgeable shooters would realize that the old "top-break" revolvers are old and fragile. Aging metal and high pressures don't mix. Modern revolvers, (1961 and newer) are still relatively strong, and can take higher-pressure loads. Even the Federal Wadcutters in .32 S&W Long that yield 780 fps and 130 fpe from a 4" tube are not too stout for most of the revolvers that were manufactured before 1905 (black powder vintage revolvers.)

The modern revolvers (the Colt Detective Specials and Modern "J" frames) can take much higher pressures than the original .32 S&W Long loadings dish out on a regular basis. A new run of high-strength "I" frame revolvers could breathe new life into the concept of a +P version of the .32 S&W Long.

This is an idea that will increase the versatility of the.32 H&R Magnum even further. For those that either don't handload, or that wish to use a more potent .32 S&W Long for personal defense would prove itself to be an excellent choice.

Scott

BluesBear
October 12, 2005, 02:32 AM
I believe that most knowledgeable shooters would realize that the old "top-break" revolvers are old and fragile. Most knowledgeable people realize that using a hairdryer in the shower is a bad idea.
But they still put that label on there telling you not to.
Most knowledgeable people realize that the top of a ladder is not a step.
Yet many people fall off of them every year?


Today's world is fashioned around people of a bovine intelligence. Those big velvet ropes at the bank are just a form of corral telling you which way to moove.

Old Fuff
October 12, 2005, 10:00 AM
Gunfan:

Most "knowledgeable" revolver fans know that you don't carry an older design Colt Single Action (or clone) with a loaded round in front of the hammer. But this didn't stop lawyers from successfully suing Ruger into the ground after some "accidental" shooting. In one case the shooter was a 14-year-old kid who wasn't supposed to have access to the gun in the first place. Made no difference. It was all Ruger's fault because their gun was unsafe.

The result of this was the new model Ruger single actions with a transfer bar safety, which reduced but didn't end the suits.

From the ammunition companies' point of view, a +P loading in .32 S&W Long would be asking for trouble, without the prospects of making substantial profits, and they are in business to make money. It might also be noted that warning labels on cigarettes has never stopped people from suing the tobacco companies.

Your idea of a 1000FPS load for use in later-day hand ejectors is not a bad one; itís just that it isn't very commercial in today's world, especially since the .32 H&R Magnum is available. The remaining option is to load your own.

Dr.Rob
October 12, 2005, 02:56 PM
One of the neatest .32's I ever saw was a Colt Pocket Positive with a Fitz job and a skeleton t-grip.

Obviously someone's 'business' piece at one time.

BluesBear
October 12, 2005, 07:20 PM
One of the guns that has long resided in my "I wish they made that" catagory is a Ruger Super Single-Six in .32.

However that was before learning about the Super Single-Six conversions to .41 Special ! :evil:

Cortland
October 12, 2005, 07:27 PM
What's a Super Single-Six?

Here's my .32 Single-Six:
http://www.vbrpc.org/range/farewell/previews/27.jpg

BluesBear
October 12, 2005, 07:33 PM
Super Single-Six has the micrometer adjustable sights like the Blackhawk.

The original Single-Six had a drift adjustable rear sight and a round blade front.

Nowadays the Single-Six has fixed sights like a Colt SAA or a Vaquero.

I'd like to be able to adjust the sights on a .32 so I could use it for a small varmint/pest gun.

A .32 wadcutter makes a better squirrel load than a .22. :D

gunfan
October 12, 2005, 09:04 PM
You can pick up amny of the H&R 732 revolvers with either a 2 1/2" barrel (fixed sights) or a 4" barrel version with sights that are adjustable for windage.

The latter can be found in .32 S&W and .32 S&W Long. Everything on both revolvers are identical, save for the longer chambers (in the .32 S&W Long.) I know, for a fact, that you can either purchase an extra 732 H&R cylinder already chambered for the .32 S&W Long cartridge You could also have the existing chambers reamed out to accept the .32 S&W Long without any ill effects.

These later revolvers (manufactured between 1960 and 1984) are of robust construction. I can state, with certainty, that these handguns can handle relatively stout loads (in the +P realm) for a good amount of time.

Seeing that H&R was the first manufacturer to release the .32 H&R Magnum loadings, bouncing an 85-grain bullet out the barrel at a fierce 1250 fps, I think that the modern steel frames can handle the peppier "+P" type of loading without any great difficulty.

These are modern arms, not fragile "black powder era" antiques. We can safely load them as such, without exceeding the boundaries of prudence and reason.

Scott

Old Fuff
October 12, 2005, 10:00 PM
Gunfan:

Are you sure ... :confused:

I am aware of a number of H&R post World War Two revolvers, both "pull-pin" and "swing out" hand ejectors, that were chambered in .32 S&W Long (6-shot) and .32 H&R Magnum (5-shot) - but I've never seen nor heard of one that was chambered in .32 S&W only. One exception would be .32 blank guns that were made to start athletic events such as track races, but these couldn't fire bulleted ammo because they had solid barrels.

I can't think of why any buyer would purchase a revolver that could be had in .32 S&W Long or even .32 H&R Magnum, but was limited to the little .32 S&W only. That cartridge was, and to a degree still is, popular in very small-frame/5-shot revolvers that are easy to conceal.

gunfan
October 12, 2005, 10:08 PM
Here's the link to Gunsamaerica's H&R 732 in .32 S&W for sale.

http://www.gunsamerica.com/guns/976597883.htm

Insane, but true.


Scott

Old Fuff
October 12, 2005, 11:00 PM
I looked at the link ...

I think the seller is in error, and that the revolver is chambered in .32 S&W Long. Some people don't realize that there is a .32 S&W "Short" because it isn't called "short," Just .32 S&W. Hence they refer to the "long" cartridge as .32 S&W without knowing any better.

It is always possible that H&R - for some unknown reason - made a special run of .32 S&W revolvers, but if so the fact has been well hidden, and that revolver on GunsAmerica is worth a lot more then the asking price.

But I think not. At least so far I haven't found a single listing of any revolvers made by H&R after World War Two that were in .32 S&W.

Incidentally they did sell some pocket revolvers in that caliber to the O.S.S. during the war, and they bought full-jacketed .32 S&W ammunition from Remington to use in them.

It is interesting that this little round, that is almost totally rejected by Internet Commandos, was accepted by the real-life O.S.S., and in a top-break revolver yet ... :scrutiny: :D

gunfan
October 13, 2005, 01:25 AM
I bought one of these (in .32 S&W Long, of course) for my wife, Shelley. These are stout handguns that will tolerate stout loadings of the .32 S&W Long. These, along with the Colt Detective Specials and S&W Model(s) 30 and 31 (Regulation Police) are well made revolvers. The Smith and Wessons chambered in .32 S&W Long (after 1961) were built on their "J" frame. The Colt's "Det. Spls" and Agent revolvers were also bult on their .38 Special frame. These certainly are capable of handling a "+P" loading of the cartridge

This is my reasoning for a stout commercial loading for the .32 S&W Long (.32 Colt New Police) cartridge.

Make sense? :D :scrutiny:

Scott

Moonclip
October 13, 2005, 04:09 AM
I like the 32S&W long cartridge for some reason, why I don't know because a 38spl probably does everything it can do as well or better except the 32S&W long can be chambered in a smaller gun I suppose but rarely is.

I just like owning a variety of guns in different calibers and 32mag/32 S&W Long has been a later trend for me. I regret missing a year or two ago a Charter Arms DA revolver in 32 S&W long for $170.

I justify buying guns in this caliber as a "trail" gun I suppose though I rarely need such a piece. I did luck out and get a adj sighted 32mag Single Six though for $225 recently, 98-99% and 4 3/4" barrel. Adj sighted 32mag single sixes seem to be kind of rare and command a premium. I'd like to have the Ruger that came chambered in 32mag with the 32-20 extra cylinder and I've entertained looking for a old S&W DA revolver in 32-20 to go with the 32S&W longs I'm looking for. No 32-20's made since like 1940 unfortunately.

Old Fuff
October 13, 2005, 09:17 AM
In the context you are putting forth a 98 grain bullet/1000 FPS load is fine in any of the guns you specified, but I don't think the ammunitional companies will touch it because of liability concerns and probable lack of enough sales to justify it.

I prefer both the S&W I-frame and Colt Police Positive/Pocket Positive revolvers over the larger J-frame and Police Positive Special/Detective Special models because the longer cylinder is unnecessary and only increases the bullet's travel to he bore. There use came about because of financial rather then practical considerations - neither company wanted to continue making the smaller frame when the larger one would do. Any of the Colt and Smith & Wesson revolvers listed above that were made from the middle 1920's forward will easily handle the specified loading, and earlier ones probably could too.

From my point of view, I would be in no hurry to buy a made-today revolver (other then a snubby) with a street price of $400.00 or higher (which is reasonable) when I can find Colt Police Positive's and I-frame Smith & Wesson's that are in mint condition and were made during the Golden Age of the 1920's and 30's for under $300.00, and sometimes much less. The negative view that most folks have toward anything .32 has resulted in buying opportunities for me and others that feel the same.

And I intend to take full advantage of that ... :eek: :evil: :D

gunfan
October 13, 2005, 11:43 AM
If you go the Gunbroker, you can find 2 Colt Detective Special revolvers chambered in .32 S&W Long as well as 2 Colt Pocket Positives in the identical chambering. These are in the 90-98% NRA condition ratings. These are outstanding revolvers that have a great deal of service left in them!

They are priced between $350-$400 each, and well worth it! Unfortunately, I am broke! :( :cuss: :mad:

Scott

Old Fuff
October 13, 2005, 01:16 PM
>> Unfortunately, I am broke! <<

I understand the condition ... Aren't we all? :)

I don't necessarily require 90 to 99 percent condition so long as the mechanics are O.K. and the bore and chambers aren't pitted.

While I have found good buys, I think that asking prices at GunBroker are bit high much of the time. I've had better luck at local gunshops, gun shows, and even smaller auctions. Generally speaking, .32 revolvers are not great sellers, and you can sometimes wheel & deal. Also unlike Internet auctions, dealers sometimes take trades. :D

Also check out (www.armchairgunshow.com) I've found it to be a very good and reliable source, and if you don't have to have a perfect collectable (which will understandably have a high price tag) revolvers in lesser condition but still serviceable cost less - sometimes much less.

gunfan
October 13, 2005, 03:30 PM
While on the subject ot maximum pressures, the .32 S&W Long is rated at 12,000 CUP and the .32 H&R Magnum is rated at 21,000 CUP respectively.

In your estimation, would a .32 Long load at a MAP of 14,500 CUP be considered excessive (for revolvers of modern manufacture?)

Scott

Old Fuff
October 13, 2005, 03:48 PM
The 12,000 CUP number is conservative, and takes into consideration the cartridge's possible use in black powder era revolvers, many of which were made from questionable materials. If we are going to limit this to later-day, I-frame Smith & Wesson's and Colt Police Positive/Pocket Positive's from the same era, or recent H&R revolvers I don't think that 14,500 CUP would be excessive. Any problem wouldn't likely be related to blowing the gun up so much as it developing cylinder end shake.

gunfan
October 13, 2005, 08:33 PM
The only thing that really concerns me, is the possiblilty of "shooting a revolver loose" causing a handgun to age long before their time. I want to turn the S&W .32 Long into a viable defense cartridge as well as the excellent "pest control machine" that it already is.

I have considered the possibility of truncating .32 H&R Magnum cases down to .32 S&W Long dimensions so as to avoid case splitting and further abusing the revolver.

What say you?

Scott

Old Fuff
October 13, 2005, 09:21 PM
I don't think the cartridge cases in themselves would be a problem. For that matter I don't think there would be a problem at all. Colt Police Positives have been converted (rechambered) to shoot the .32 H&R Magnum, and I haven't heard of any ill effects.

The most likely "potential" problem would be cylinder end-shake, caused by the relatively heavy cylinder battering the end of the yoke barrel (on a S&W, or "crane" on a Colt) which it the part the cylinder rotates on. Eventually this allows the cylinder to move back and forth until the face of the cylinder can press against the end of the barrel. You can also get mis-fires because the firing pin blow is softened. But this is something that isn't hard to fix, and not likely unless you shoot a whole lot of those extra-heavy loads.

The real reason the .32 S&W Long is factory loaded to 12,000 CUP is because of the black-powder top-break and "pull-pin" revolvers that the cartridge might be used in.

gunfan
October 13, 2005, 10:10 PM
I owned an H&R "pull-pin" revolver chambered in .22 Long Rifle. It was manufactured, (as nearly as I could determine) in 1979. A button was depressed to release the shaft from the frame. It appeared to be of the same robust construction as were it's "siblings" chambered in .32 S&W Long. The removable cylinder spindle (or shaft) seemed reasonably stout. Why would these be any less robust than those manufactured with a "swing-out" cylinder?

Could you expound and clarify, Old Fuff? It would be deeply appreciated.

Scott

Old Fuff
October 14, 2005, 12:09 AM
It isn't the "pull-pin" design that makes the revolver more or less safe to shoot modern loads in, it's exactly what it is and when it was made.

The basic pattern goes back to the 19th century and some were made on smaller, lighter frames with cylinders turned out of low-carbon steel barstock that sometimes had seams in it, and were never heat-treated.

The later-day H&R guns you are referring to were made on heavier frames and modern steel, and so far as strength was concerned were equal to similar ones with swing-out cylinders.

The basic problem is that the ammunition makers have no idea what kind of a revolver the cartridges are going to be used in. They can, and do put a warning on the box, but bitter experience has taught them that they can be sued anyway.

gunfan
October 14, 2005, 01:20 AM
Wasn't that the reason that one of the reasons that the "frivolous lawsuit" legislation was passed? When warnings are clearly posted upon a product, how can anyone (unless they cannot read) place onus for the misuse (use outside the product's design perameters, and thus plainly displayed upon the product's commercial container) directly upon the shoulders of the manufacturer?

I believe that the changes in the civil law has preempted the problems associated with such lawsuits.

Scott

gunfan
October 14, 2005, 01:25 AM
I believe that I shall embark on a handloading adventure for the .32 S&W Long that shall lead me into a realm of a powerful handgun that will be small enough to conceal, yet powerful enough to accomplish the "task" at hand. I'll let you know how it turns out!

Wish me all the best

Scott

Old Fuff
October 14, 2005, 09:38 AM
gunfan:

>> I believe that the changes in the civil law has preempted the problems associated with such lawsuits. <<

No such luck. I believe the law you are referring to is still a bill, passed by the Senate, but not yet by the House, and not yet signed by the President.

Even so, it only covers "shotgun suits" in which every company in the industry is sued simply because criminals use guns. It is enough to say that (a) criminals use guns, and (b) gunmakers make guns. Therefore (c) it is the gunmakers' responsibility to see that guns are marketed so that criminals can't get them - don't ask me how ...

In any case gun and ammunition makers can still be sued if a "defective" product causes someone injury (or so they claim). Concerning the .32 S&W Long, the lawyer would claim that the cartridge should have been made so that it coundn't hurt his client's old black powder revolver, or designed so it wouldn't fit into it. So we have the .32 H&R Magnum.

Concerning handloads, just work carefully, and start low and work your way up.

Always keep in mind that at best, the .32 revolver is not going to be a powerhouse. But to be viable it doesn't need to be. The purpose of self-defense is to stop an unwarranted attack. Regardless of the size/power of the handgun just making a hit somewhere isn't always going to do the trick.

What ends the attack is a hit that stops a vital organ from functioning, and a large bullet isn't necessary too do this. But precise accuracy is. So the key is bullet placement, and that is were the little .32 comes in - not only for the first shot but also fast follow-up ones that are still placed where it matters.

A lot of first-time CCW holders are going out and buying ultra-light .357's - with which they cannot make precise first-shot hits, let alone following ones. They would be better served with the same gun chambered in .32 H&R Magnum or even .32 S&W Long. But this runs counter to most of today's thinking, so I suspect I just started a flame war ....

gunfan
October 14, 2005, 12:22 PM
If you just started a "flame war," let me be the first to step up to the plate with a napalm-source thrower! :D:evil:

Rest assured, I am NOT looking to turn my .32 S&W Long H&R revolver into a "powerhouse." That just isn't in the cards. As "seasoned shooters" you and I have the perspicacity to realize that bullet placement is not simply important, it is the imperative.

All that I have in mind is to simply "mirror" the performance of the .38 Special's "FBI" or "Metro" load (read: 158-grain SWCHP @ 1000 fps) on the .32 S&W Long's "platform." This would permit the accuracy of the .32 S&W long to exemplify itself, as well as provide ample terminal ballistic performance to "place a crimp" on the bad guy's "style." I believe that a maximum velocity for the 98-grain bullet (in the .32 S&W Long) can approach 875-900 fps without any signs of excessive pressure. If this can be accomplished, the "Magnum" moniker can be, and in court best, avoided. What attorney on this planet is going to tout the lethality of the .32 S&W Long?

Additionally, since the .32 S&W Long can be fired from an even smaller package than S&W's "J" frame, the concealability factor is enhanced, so as not to frighten the "sheeple" of the community.

If anyone has an argument with this concept, FLAME ON!

Thanks, Old Fuff.

Scott

gunfan
October 14, 2005, 03:52 PM
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=38422457

Good stuff, Maynard! :evil: :D

Too bad that I'm broke! :cuss: :banghead: :cuss: :banghead: :mad:

Scott

BluesBear
October 15, 2005, 04:01 AM
so I suspect I just started a flame war The easiest way to get BS to combust is to ignite it with logic and common sense.

Rain_Man
October 17, 2005, 06:09 AM
I don't think this has any real relevance to the thread but... I have an old(and I mean old) iver johnson topbreak 32 S&W(short) revolver. It is the first model and can be classified as an antique. I have cleaned up the old dog and have shot it quite a few times... yep, I know I shouldn't but what could happen? I keep it loaded in the glove compartment of my old pick up , again, I know I shouldn't but I don't have very many options... I love the gun but can't get over the caliber power, I cringe when i look at a ballistic chart for the round, an 85 gr bullet at 680... I have never seen such a slow bullet, it's like throwing rocks, what can this do compared to a .22lr or 25 ACP?

Old Fuff
October 17, 2005, 09:47 AM
Rain_Man:

What it can do is split or expand a chamber wall and tie up the gun at a critical moment. This probably won't happen, but if it does it's your neck, not mine.

The little cartridge is no barn-burner, but it beats both the .22 LR and .25 ACP, and since it was introduced in 1878 it has protected a of of people, and for the record the OSS bought some new Iver Johnson .32 S&W revolvers during World War Two, and had Remington furnish special ammunition loaded with a 71-grain full-jacketed bullets.

Obviously people still carry guns made for this cartridge. It remains available although no new revolvers designed to use it have been made since the middle 1940's. However if you carry one as a weapon I strongly advise you get one of later manufacture then what you are now using.

Rain_Man
October 17, 2005, 07:27 PM
Hm, well i'd like to... But if I had something else to throw in that old car I doubt I would use an iver johnson. One look at the revolver will tell you it's been used quite a bit, and yet it still feels strong... I doubt it's original owners cared enough to use blackpowder ammo in it... As a matter of fact, the trigger return spring is broken, and the cylinders and barrel were incrusted with some sort of red crud and oil when I got it, so I would guess the gun was shot to hell... But seeing as you are the expert here, I'd like to get some questions answered... First off, here is a picture of the gun.

http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/8146/iverjohnson6rk.jpg

It's a poor quality pic, but it's all I have for now until I get a new card reader... Anyway, the thing I am most concerned about is that the revolver seems to move slightly at three points when locked, I'm not sure if this is normal, but the cylinder is not completely stiff, I can still turn it from side to side and front and back only slightly, I also notice that the front part of the gun can move a bit at the latch. A gun dealer told me a lot of old, used revolvers are a bit loose and that it wasn't much of an issue, but i'm still a bit uneasy about it, I am not so much worried about the cylinder cracking as I am about lead spitting from the cylinder gap or the latch giving way and breaking the gun open.

Old Fuff
October 17, 2005, 09:19 PM
That's not a bad picture at all ... :) and a lot better then none.

I can see what I need to see. At the moment I'm pressed for time, but I'll get back to you with more information.

Richard2003
October 17, 2005, 09:42 PM
I also have one that I bought for $200 last year.
It is my most accurate revolver and the most fun to shoot.
It is neat to shoot an almost 100 year old gun.

Richard


"I" frame 1905 .32 Hand Ejector. The little revolver is so svelte, so concealable. While it has a 4.25" barrel, a similar revolver with S&W's 2.25" barrel could easily dissappear into a coat pocket or waistband.

By the same token, a Colt Pocket Positive with a 4" barrel could vanish as quickly on any person.

Damn, that is one sweet revolver! We need more!

Scott

gunfan
October 18, 2005, 01:16 AM
I also have one that I bought for $200 last year.
It is my most accurate revolver and the most fun to shoot.
It is neat to shoot an almost 100 year old gun.

Richard



Quote:
Originally Posted by gunfan
"I" frame 1905 .32 Hand Ejector. The little revolver is so svelte, so concealable. While it has a 4.25" barrel, a similar revolver with S&W's 2.25" barrel could easily dissappear into a coat pocket or waistband.

By the same token, a Colt Pocket Positive with a 4" barrel could vanish as quickly on any person.

Damn, that is one sweet revolver! We need more!

Scott


Well, there's something to be said for CALLING SMITH & WESSON AND CALLING FOR THE RESUMING PRODUCTION OF THE "I" FRAMED REVOLVERS!!!

Did I say it sufficiently loud enough to get someone's attention? I hope so.

Scott

Old Fuff
October 18, 2005, 09:12 AM
Watch to see if Taurus expands their line of Instant Backup (IB) revolvers. If that happens it will have far more effect on Smith & Wesson's thinking then all of the e-mails we might send, (which is not to say we shouldn't do it). :evil:

Hammerdown
October 18, 2005, 10:00 AM
Hello Gun Fan
I too, am a fan of the old but sweet .32 S&W Long. Here is a picture of my 31-1 Circa 1967 that I play with. Best regards, Hammerdown.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/hammerdown-7/DSCF5436.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/hammerdown-7/da752ebe.jpg

gunfan
October 19, 2005, 05:50 PM
I love the little "J" frames! I still miss the little truly POCKETABLE "I" frame!

Scott

BluesBear
October 19, 2005, 10:41 PM
Does .125" really make one gun more pocketable than another? :confused:

I just don't see one eighth of an inch being such a big deal. :scrutiny:

Old Fuff
October 19, 2005, 11:09 PM
I just don't see one eighth of an inch being such a big deal.


Actually it is, or at least seems to be. Part of this is because the cylinder is only 1 1/4" long, which makes the revolver seem even more compact. The I-frame also had a butt that was about 1/8" shorter the the current J-frames.

All of this doesn't seem like much until you drop the smaller gun into a pocket. Then you notice that it's concealed better because the butt is just enough lower in the pocket and somehow the shorter butt is easier to get out of the pocket as you draw the gun. What it comes down to is; Are you willing to go to a smaller cartridge to get the smaller gun? But what happens if the smaller one is chambered in 9mm x 19 ... :evil:

On the other hand I would be equally satisfied with the same gun in .32 H&R Magnum or even .32 S&W Long - with handloaded ammunition. This would be especially so if it had an aluminum frame.

Taurus is now building a similar-to-the-I-frame gun in 9mm, with .22LR, .22WRM, and .32 H&R Magnum waiting for the future - if the future comes. The Old Fuff is waiting ...

Rain_Man
October 19, 2005, 11:41 PM
That's not a bad picture at all ... :) and a lot better then none.

I can see what I need to see. At the moment I'm pressed for time, but I'll get back to you with more information.

... Well? :D

I have cleaned the thing twice and it's still dirty as hell... right now it's soaking in a bath of ballistol down in the garage, I'll leave it there a few days and see if it doesn't loosen the dirt, the bore and cylinder are in great condition, rifling is sharp, but it still has specks of crud peppering it, been trying all day with patches and still can't get it clean :banghead:. Think I might need some bronze brushes.

I am preparing to use the gun as an official plinker, hunter, and home defence revolver. Currently looking for a good place to buy ammo... Give it a week and i'll turn this old junker into something I can use.

gunfan
October 20, 2005, 03:15 AM
Does .125" really make one gun more pocketable than another? :confused:

I just don't see one eighth of an inch being such a big deal. :scrutiny:

The smaller, the better! Modern heat-treatment and metallurgy, smaller cylinder diameter, ligher weight along with the ability to handle higher pressures add to the "I" frame "attraction." Ever since I found Shelley's .32 S&W Hand Ejector, I can't think of a better frame for either the .32 H&R Magnum, .32 S&W Long and .22 WMRF cartridges.

As they said in the Old Milwaukee beer advertisement... "It doesn't get any better than this!"

Scott

BluesBear
October 20, 2005, 08:21 AM
But the I-frame and J-frame have the same diameter cylinders.

The only size reduction is in length and as Fuff mentioned reduction in grip size.

gunfan
October 20, 2005, 01:05 PM
But the I-frame and J-frame have the same diameter cylinders.

The only size reduction is in length and as Fuff mentioned reduction in grip size.

Every reduction in size will have a corresponding reduction in weight. With modern metallurgic technology, the accompanying loss will lessen "carry fatigue."

Evidently, Freedom Arms agrees with this concept. Their Casull CA-2000 is now chambered in .32 H&R Magnum. It is an 8-ounce, double-action, folding trigger, 5-shot revolver, of forged stainless steel construction.

If someone else is doing this, S&W shouldn't be far behind. In days of yore, S&W was at the forefront of concealble handgun development. Today, they suffer from "me too-ism." A day late, and a dollar short.

Scott

gunfan
October 21, 2005, 12:05 PM
If the "every ounce saved is important" isn't relevant, why is S&W working so hard to produce their 1911-pattern pistols in Scandium alloy frames? These are hot sellers. It seems that S&W can't keep them on local gun dealer's shelves. These pistols are light, durable, and well manufactured. Their revolvers are also of robust construction.

Since the firearms industry is built on the "expand or die" principle, it makes perfect sense for S&W to "resurrect" (at least temporarily) this concept. These revolvers have a better chance of protecting undercover police officers, women and apartment dwellers. This is a practical set of revolvers, not just a "novelty."

Remember when they were in the "flavor of the year" mode? Why should this be any less profitable? :confused:

Scott

gunfan
October 21, 2005, 07:30 PM
Blues Bear: No comment at all? You had said something to the effect that you, "didn't know where start" concerning a comment that I had made on another thread.

Would you care to illuminate? I am willing to listen with an open mind.

Scott

If you enjoyed reading about "Am I the ONLY one on the Forum thats in love with the .32 S&W Long?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!