[FerFAL]

I’m looking for a 32 S&W Long.
Yes, I already have a pretty complete collection so I was looking to add a .32, the cartridge seems like fun, and rather versatile if you reload.
For less than 200 bucks I can get any of these two. A Colt Police Positive or a S&W.
Both are used but in excellent condition.
My questions are:
Which one is more accurate? Which one would tolerate hotter loads better (stronger frame)?
Which would you buy and why?
http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/4408/coltpolicepositivec2402kw7.jpg
http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/5979/miranda3721zn2.jpg
Thanks in advance.

FerFAL

[wildfowl]

I am a fan of S&W so I would lean towards them. That is purely preference.

I think both are very well made, but the Smith might have a better value in the future.

[Old Fuff]

Both are excellent revolvers. In theory the Colt would be the more accurate, if (big "if") the lockup is perfect. The frame is slightly larger, which gives it a slightly better balance and a larger grip to hold on to.

On the negative side, repair parts are sometimes difficult to get, and experienced 'smiths are few and far between,

The Smith & Wesson is slightly smaller and lighter, but they generally have superior single-action trigger pulls. Smith & Wesson J-frame parts are much easier to find, as are qualified people to work on them. Generally speaking the S&W has a slightly higher resale value, all other things being equal.

For what it is worth (if anything) Colt Police Positive's have been successfully rechambered to .32 H&R Magnum.

At $200.00 or less I would snap both of them up. Smith & Wesson's in the condition pictured are selling at auction around $380 to $400. Colt's are not far behind.

[Brian Williams]

I prefer S&Ws, that's my vote.

[I'm3rd]

I have a 3" barrel model 30 Smith in .32 long in mint condition that my wife has appropriated for her house and car gun. She keeps it loaded with Magsafe fragmenting core rounds, which are no longer made in that caliber. We both realize that it's not an adequate caliber for self defense, but it's about the closest to it that she can handle with hands and wrists that were left weak as a kitten by botched carpal tunnel surgery. I considered getting her a .22 mag revolver but I decided there isn't enough difference between the two in a handgun to make it worthwhile, and rimfire cartridges are known to misfire far more often than centerfires. Anyway, I can safely handload some pretty stiff 85 grain hollow point loads for that little gun that are equal to factory .32 H&R magnums. The data came from an old Handloader's Digest and the author claims to have shot a great many of them in a similar gun with no problems. I have fired a lot of them just to make sure they're not too hot to be safe. The steel around the chambers in that gun is quite thick and it is a late enough gun to have been built with strong modern steel. Never the less, we keep it loaded with the Magsafes just to be on the safe side. They are claimed on the packaging to do 1350 fps from a 2" barrel, and even with their 50 grain bonded birdshot cores they are supposed to pack a fair amount of stopping power for that size gun. I just hope and pray that she never has to find out the hard way whether that's true or not.

The model 30 and 31 .32 Long revolvers are beautifully built little guns and are fun to shoot with either factory or normal pressure handloads. I wouldn't recommend them for defense purposes if the shooter can handle a cartridge with more power, but for fun shooting or for teaching kids gun safety they're just the right ticket IMHO. Of course the .22 rimfires are by far the most economical to shoot in that category, but if you handload standard pressure rounds with cast lead bullets and a fast powder like Bullseye or Red Dot you can shoot a .32 long for about 7 or 8 cents a round if you buy the bullets 1000 at a time and hoard your brass. IMHO a .32revolver is more fun to shoot than any .22 handgun I can think of, and over the last 52 years since I became old enough to buy my own guns I have owned quite a few quality .22 handguns of both types from various domestic and foreign manufacturers.

[I'm3rd]

BTW, I forgot to add that I also have a late 1930's vintage 4" Colt Police Positive Special in .38 Spl caliber. The Colt's PPs are also an excellent small/mid frame revolver, but it's a tad on the large size for the .32 cartridge IMHO. The famous Detective Special .38 was built on that same frame. I shoot my .38 PP with standard pressure WC handloads and it's just as accurate if not more so than the .32 S&W I wrote about in a previous post on this thread.

If I were you I would snatch up both of those revolvers so fast it would make the seller's head swim. For $200 apiece in VG or better condition as they appear to be in the photos you will never find a better bargain anywhere.

[Old Fuff]

There is difference between the Police Positive and Police Positive Special.

The former has a shorter frame and cylinder, and was usually chambered in .32 Colt New Police (aka .32 S&W Long) and .38 Colt New Police (aka .38 S&W). The Police Positive Special has a longer cylinder, and was usually chambered in .38 Special or .32-20 Winchester. When the Police Positive was discontinued following World War Two, the .32 S&W Long chambering was added to the Police Positive Special. The revolver in question is a Police Positive, not a Police Positive Special.

Colt should have named them the Police Positive Small and Police Positive Bigger... :D

[Steve C]

Get both, good .32's are getting harder to find. Either will withstand a much stouter load than the current factory or even most hand load data that's loaded to be safe in the old top break "suicide" specials. I load .32 S&W Long/Colt NP for my Colt using data from Speer No. 9. These 98gr LRN loads using 3.2 to 3.5grs of Unique chrono between 868 to 986 fps average from a 4" barrel.

[Dr.Rob]

I like the wasp-ish grip of the older Colts. Then again, I don't own a single S&W.

[Radagast]

My personal preference is for S&W revolvers, but, as this is to round out your collection, do you already have a Colt? If not then buy the Colt so you kill the calibre and the manufacturer shortage with one purchase.

[Stoney]

The Smith & Wesson gets my vote.

[The Lone Haranguer]

At $200 each, why not get both? :) If it is to be a "shooter," especially with "hotter loads" (for which you will have to handload, as factory .32s are pretty feeble), do most of it with the Smith.

Actually, if you recall, a .32 worked very well for Charles Bronson. :evil:

[FerFAL]

Thanks for the input everyone, keep it coming. :)
My personal preference is for S&W revolvers, but, as this is to round out your collection, do you already have a Colt?
I recently bought a Colt Pocket Hammerless 1908 380 ACP, 2” Detective Special and a Police Positive Special 3”, both in 38 Special. ( Paid about 200 USD or a bit less for each too)
Yes, I’m waiting for a nice Colt 1911. :)
http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/9070/1908gg3.jpg
http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/2492/santafe315817lo.jpg
http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/4769/miranda37613lw.jpg
I also have a 6” S&W 629-1. By the way, is it weaker than the 629-2 3 and 4?

FerFAL

[I'm3rd]

"The revolver in question is a Police Positive, not a Police Positive Special."
______________________________________________________________________
I realize that. I was simply commenting on the Colt small frame revolvers since the original question concerned a choice between a Smith and a Colt. The difference between the Police Positive and the Police Positive Special are so small that I think the features of the PP Special I have would be very similar to the features of the Colt which the original poster asked about. If my PP Special is accurate, and it is, then I imagine the .32 Long PP would be also.

[I'm3rd]

FerFal, that 1908 .380 is a beauty and I'm jealous. I had a nice clean one with about 90% original finish a few years ago but foolishly sold it to a friend who liked it more than I did at the time. I passed up a very nice 1903 .32acp recently because I thought the price was too high, but after checking around I found that it was actually priced about right. Those are neat little guns, I even used the .380 as my everyday carry gun for a while but decided that having to carry it with an empty chamber made it less practical than a DA semiauto or revolver that can be carried with a round under the hammer. I would still like to have another one though.

[FerFAL]

The slide has been refinished :o.
The frame is the original parkerized though. :cool:

FerFAL

[Old Fuff]

I'm3rd:

Not meaning to nit-pick, but...

BTW, I forgot to add that I also have a late 1930's vintage 4" Colt Police Positive Special in .38 Spl caliber. The Colt's PPs are also an excellent small/mid frame revolver, but it's a tad on the large size for the .32 cartridge

Not so. The Police Positive was designed around the .32 cartridge, where the Police Positive wasn't. The Police Positive Special is indeed larger then it needs to be for the .32 cartridge, but the Pollice Positive isn't.

The Smith & Wesson model 31 that was pictured is built on that company's J frame, which takes a .38 Special length cylinder - as does the Police Positive Special.

These are small, probably inconsequental points, but they may influence FerFAL in making a choice.

[ArchAngelCD]

There is something classic about the flat latch on older S&W revolvers. I like the look of the S&W better and I'm guessing the parts are easier to find if you ever need to do a repair.

[Radagast]

That pocket hammerless is lovely! Go with the S&W then. A more durable gun is always best if it's to be a shooter & not a safe queen.

[TimboKhan]

I will steal a common line from over in the autoloader section and say neither. Buy a Glock.:neener:

Anyway, if it were me, I would go Colt. I prefer S&W guns, and I am angry over what Colt has done with itself as a company, but long term, I think anything that says Colt on it is going to hold it's value somewhat better than the S&W. People more knowledgable that me might disagree.

[FerFAL]

THR was down for a while, so here’s the update.
I looked over the 32s and wasn’t very impressed, but I found a nice S&W 38 Special, M&P 1905 5” barrel.
Anyway, I liked it and 38 is a much more common round, easy to reload for too, so I bought it for 150 bucks… :D
http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/231/santafe31761qi3.jpg
I’ve been told to use only low pressure ammo, because of the lack of heat treatment.
I’ve read that the so called “long action” is the best revolver action ever.
Anyone has a similar revolver, experiences, comments?

FerFAL

[Old Fuff]

Smith & Wesson started heat-treating cylinders on .38 1905 Hand Ejectors in 1919 at approximately serial number 316,648. Even so, sticking for the most part with lighter loaded ammunition will reduce wear & tear. Accelerated wear over time could result in expensive repair bills because parts are becoming less available.

As the revolver you have lacks a positive hammer block safety, carry five rounds and rest the hammer on an empty chamber. There is no more reliable safety.

The "long action" is indeed famous for its smoothness. It can be improved by simply exchanging the stock mainspring with a current one. No gunsmithing or modifications to the gun is required, and the original spring can always be put back. The older revolvers had heavier mainsprings because of less sensitive primers at the time. The lighter mainspring will not reduce reliability when using current day ammunition.

[XavierBreath]

but I found a nice S&W 38 Special, M&P 1905 5” barrel.
Anyway, I liked it and 38 is a much more common round, easy to reload for too, so I bought it for 150 bucks…You have chosen wisely. :D

Old Fuff and I disagree with the carry five vs six issue of the pre-WWII M&Ps. I note that it took from 1905 to 1944 to have an accident that brought about the hammer block safety. That change was the result of a US Navy inquiry after a negligent discharge of a dropped revolver that killed a sailor. Most sailors know how naval investigations and boards of inquiry work to cover careers and make scapegoats.

On examination of your revolver, you will note that pushing forward on the hammer when it is at rest does not result in the firing pin reaching past the recoil plate. A part must break or malfunction for that to happen. The so called mechanical safety could malfunction just as easily. Safety is between the ears, not in gizmos slapped on fine firearms to satisfy a naval board of inquiry.

It is not often that I disagree with the Old Fuff. Lord knows he has the experience on my whippersnapper self. We usually go round and round on this issue when it comes up. I have to say though, it is indisputable that carrying five rather than six is "safer". Safer still, is to carry an empty gun, and have your ammunition locked in a safe in another state. The question is whether doing so is reasonable.

[GaryP]

Being partial to Colt I would have went with the Colt Police Positive over the S&W. :)


:evil:

[Old Fuff]

X-Breath:

Because I'm such a great guy I give you permission to disagree with me any time you you want. Of course you'll seldom be right... :rolleyes: :D

Anyway, judging from the style of the stocks, the revolver was made sometime between 1920 and 1930. The safety device you described was introduced around 1915 in K-frame .38's, but round butt models were being made without it as late as 1925 or 26.

Anyway, it was a leaf spring that was cammed back and forth by the hand pressing on a pin. All of this was, with the exception of the hand, mounted in the sideplate. The leaf spring/hammer block was known to break, and I have observed a number of broken ones while inspecting or serviceing older S&W's.

And occasionally I'd find where someone had removed the block, "to make the action smoother..." :cuss:

While I enjoy shooting these older guns, I seldom carry one as a serious weapon. When I do it's usually an early post-war Military & Police .38 with the modern (and still current) positive hammer block. I have found that during my more serious conflicts with tin cans and such, five rounds will get the job done... :neener:

Besides if one hand is holding the revolver, I can only count to five while using the other hand... Do you have six fingers???

[XavierBreath]

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=58598&stc=1&d=1180606602

Here is a photo of the action of a Victory Model. Note the ramp on the rear of the hand. This ramp camed the spring steel hammer block out of the way to allow the firing pin to reach the primer. It is thought that the Navy Victory Revolver in question was improperly maintained, using the standard lubricants available on ship (heavy oil, or grease). The resulting crud and corrosion from a life at sea caused the hammer block safety to stick in the sideplate. This created a situation where there was no hammer block. The US Navy inquiry found that the hammer block stuck because of preservative cosmoline in the sideplate. Still, though, the hammer pivot had to shear off for the hammer to reach the primer. The revolver was reported to have fallen to the deck and landed on the hammer. Or, perhaps some fool was playing around............

Anyway, it is odd that such a "dangerous" firearm never had a history of killing innocent bystanders until it wound up in Navy hands. It is odd, too, that the name, and hull number of the vessel is obscured by history, as well as the names of those involved. I find that odd, and this is coming from a Navy man.

Old Fuff is usually dead on concerning those dates. He will occasinally be wrong about dates in the 1907-1909 range. He was courting his high school sweetheart during those years and his mental acuity was clouded by love. Young whelps like myself don't have the advantage of having been there.......;)

[Brian Williams]

So Hammer block safety discussion aside, where are the other 2 to be found, I would love the S&W.

[Old Fuff]

X-Breath:

Old Fuff is usually dead on concerning those dates. He will occasinally be wrong about dates in the 1907-1909 range. He was courting his high school sweetheart during those years and his mental acuity was clouded by love.

Naw... I was busy trying to get Johnny Browning straightened out about what made box-magazine pistols work. That kid didn't know nothing... :scrutiny:

Young whelps like myself don't have the advantage of having been there.......

Ya' sure about that? :neener: :D