Why no small viable DA revolver?


PDA






Onward Allusion
April 21, 2014, 12:58 PM
Read a couple of reviews on the Taurus View in the past few days. For those who are not aware, the view is a super light (9 oz empty and ~13 oz - 14 oz loaded) and small 5-shot 38 Special 1.4" barreled snub with a gimmicky see-thru Lexan (Polycarbonate) side plate and a stub of a grip. By all accounts, recoil is "very snappy" by almost all reviewers and "actually hurts" by a few (guys).

The View is probably the smallest & lightest modern production revolvers aside from the NAA's. The Airlite J-Frames are a close second, at 11 oz empty and ~ 15oz loaded. Then there were the S&W I-Frames and Rossi Lady Rossis, but neither is in current production.

There's got to be demand out there for a smaller alternative to the J-Frames and the gimmicky and painful View. Perhaps a 5-Shot chambered for 32 S&W/L or 32 ACP? Light recoil, simple to operate, and dependable. Perfect for those with weaker hands or sensitivity to recoil and follow-up shots are a breeze.

The reason I bring this up is that I bought a H&R Victor in 32 S&W a few weeks ago. Took it out to the range yesterday (dead as a doorknob due to Easter) and ran a couple of cylinders through it. Soft shooting, accurate for what it was meant for and above all, it is SMALL and LIGHT. Something like that could fit in the palm of a small size hand. Empty it weighs 9.2 oz. Fully loaded - 10.7 oz. That's the about the weight of an S&W Airlite empty but this H&R is smaller. About a good 1/3 smaller! I've attached a pic.

I know there's got to be a market for a small 32 S&W or 32 S&W Long in these days of conceal carry, otherwise, people would not be carrying NAA's in 22LR & 22 Mags or semi's in 25 ACP & 32 ACP. By the postings and articles I've read, there are quite a few folks who carry these calibers.

So, the question - Why did the manufacturers move away from these little revolvers? With modern steel and swing out cylinders, I think a double-action tiny revolver in 32 (32 SW, 32 SWL, or even 32 ACP) would be more than viable.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why no small viable DA revolver?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
460Kodiak
April 21, 2014, 01:12 PM
I'd say lack of potency of the cartridge has moved many revolver folks towards 38 special as a minimum. That means j frame or bigger. Also, many people who carry have a difficult time with the small size of j frame sized grips, and end up putting larger grips on. To be honest, I think you are an exception. That gun would be very small for a lot of people's hands.

Personally, in an age of drug fueled criminals, I want something more potent. That's JMO so feel how you like about it. I carry a minimum of 38 special+p in a revolver because I just don't want to lug a 44 special around, or .45 acp in a semi. I'm sure there would be a bit of a market for what you suggest, but it would probably be limited. I'm sure others will have different opinions.

I do actually think there are quite a few people who carry 32 H&R magnum revolvers, and some carry 327 fed, but the 32 S&W and longs are kind of poor choices I think.

BUT! It is still certainly a deadly weapon with good shot placement, so if your happy, carry on brother......

Sam1911
April 21, 2014, 01:13 PM
There's got to be demand out there for a smaller alternative to the J-Frames and the gimmicky and painful View
I guess that's the real question. Is there?

How many folks MUST have a revolver, but can't deal with the size of a J-frame? Let's face it, they're already almost too small to hold. The "View" is practically like wielding a disembodied big toe! Smaller? Ok...sure...I guess. Folks are easily convinced they need all sorts of things, so maybe there is a market, but none for me, thanks.

How many folks are willing to drop down to some level of power markedly reduced below that of .38 Spc?

I could see a dedicated 9mm wheelgun with shortened frame and cylinder, or just go with Taurus's M380:
http://www.americanrifleman.org/wp-content/uploads/Webcontent/images/2012-2/201221103817-taurus_m380ibrev1a_m.jpg

But neither of those would be an improvement to the most noticeable dimension -- the cylinder width.

460Kodiak
April 21, 2014, 01:16 PM
The "View" is practically like wielding a dis-embodied big toe!

LOL!!!!!!! That is one of the best comparisons I've ever heard! Seriously have to to the bathroom now!

WestKentucky
April 21, 2014, 01:17 PM
Taurus has a 380 revolver now that is quite small as well as that see through thing. Seems to be the same issues as with baby autos. Nothing wrong with them in actuality but they get the girly/wimpy/weakling stigma similar to 25acp and 32acp. They can go TINY. A naa guardian could take a 4 shot 25acp if they would do it, but due to the attached stigma the manufacturers look at them as a waste of resources. By a large margin the world has shifted to DAO autos for carry so the market is tiny, so to produce such a revolver we likely would see a 5-800 pricetag where we could buy multiple autos which are arguably better. I would love to see it though, or even a comeback of 38sw (380 rimmed) but resources are financially better used elsewhere. This coming from a guy planning to build a long barrel 25acp and who carries a 32 SWL

Sam1911
April 21, 2014, 01:21 PM
LOL!!!!!!! That is one of the best comparisons I've ever heard!It flashed into my mind the first time I picked one up.

I asked the Taurus rep if they'd made him fire it. He said, "Not yet. :uhoh:"

460Kodiak
April 21, 2014, 01:28 PM
I suspect it's painful.

I got rid of my 642 because I found the recoil unpleasant from the defense load I wanted to carry in it. I thought about putting a bigger grip on it, but that defeted the point of a small gun. I realized my hands were just not made for a j frame or smaller gun so why fight it, cuz I'm a large guy. My hands aren't going to shrink any. I picked up an XDs in.45 and never looked back. Even with a much sharper recoiling cartridge, it is more comfortable for me to shoot because it fits my hand proprerly. I get a more powerful cratridge, and 6 shots rather than 5. If I want to carry a revolver, I stick with my SP101 with a full sized grip. That has become more of an open carry gun for me though. The XDs carries better. BUT, back to the small revolver talk.

JERRY
April 21, 2014, 01:37 PM
the I frame S&Ws went out long ago.... they were passed by for bigger better cartridges. if people kept buying them they'd still be made... but profit is what drives the manufacturing market, not what a very few would like for themselves...

the .32S&W long hand ejectors came with a 3" bbl and were noticeably smaller than the J frames. people preferred 5 rounds of J frame .38spl over 6 rounds of I frame .32Long. it is just that simple...

Derry 1946
April 21, 2014, 01:41 PM
Maybe I missed a post here. What niche is the putative gun supposed to fill that the 642 and/or the DS fail to fill? 642 is light and corrosion resistant, and somewhat snappy. DS is heavier, about equally concealable (IMO) and shoots 6 versus 5.

Onward Allusion
April 21, 2014, 02:08 PM
Point?

Perfect backup piece that's pretty much 100% reliable or like I'd said - good for those who don't have the hand strength to rack a slide or handle recoil effectively. It beats the crap out of a NAA Mini as a backup piece.

I carry an Airlite 22LR or P11 on strong side with the H&R Victor in the front left pocket when I am not at the office. At the office I carry a LCP in the back pocket and a NAA 1 1/8 in the front.

Sam1911
April 21, 2014, 02:20 PM
SO a sub-back-up, back-up? Parsing a niche just a sliver more finely? Yeah, if enough folks decide they want such a thing, it will be made available.

I've not heard that the world has beaten a path to Taurus' door to buy that M380, though, and that's darned close to what you're talking about. If that isn't it, and the "View" isn't it, and the .32Mag/.327 didn't become it either?

Maybe it just isn't worth doing? Taurus is trying, nobody seems to be rewarding their efforts with sales...

460Kodiak
April 21, 2014, 02:41 PM
the .32S&W long hand ejectors came with a 3" bbl and were noticeably smaller thanJ frames

Some had different length barrels. I have a 3rd model Hand Ejector in 32 S&W long that has a 6" barrel. I'm pretty sure there were a lot of 4" guns too.

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=192486&d=1387235507

This is a 6 shooter. It looks large due to the barrel length, but if I hold it in my hand, the grip is barely visible, and my pincky wraps around the bottom. The frame size is very small, and I'd need a MUCH larger grip to make it any sort of a good defense gun. Again, it defeats the point of a small gun. I wear XL gloves, so I'm probably a tad over the average, but I think most people would find this gun inpractical. There is a reason the I frames were discontinued.

BSA1
April 21, 2014, 05:00 PM
I sincerely hope all gun manufacturers NOT make a handgun intended for S.D. In 32 S&W and 32 Long.

O.A., if you would test fire these mouse cartridges you are fond of your view would change in a hurry. I once shot a couple of Remington factory 32 Longs from a old revolver with a 3" barrel into a 3/4" pine board. Both bullets completely penetrated the board. One bullet bounced off the 2x4 behind it and was in such perfect shape in could be reloaded. The other bullet made a dent in the 2x4 about 1/8 - 1/4" deep and the nose of the bullet was slightly bent.

To be frank self-defense requires a commitment to proven tools and tactics. Peppermace and stun devices are proven to be be effective and would be a far better choice than what you are proposing.

However if you are truly committed to the 32 there are plenty of S&W top break revolvers in very good condition that meet your criteria.

hartcreek
April 21, 2014, 06:39 PM
My great nephew is six. He shoots a H&R 32 Magnum that I keep at the cabin by himself. How much of a firearms market do you really think that there is for a firearm that can be accurately shot by a six year old that weighs forty pounds?

Sam Cade
April 21, 2014, 07:10 PM
I asked the Taurus rep if they'd made him fire it. He said, "Not yet. :uhoh:"

Yeah, this thing is going to hurt with hot ammo and that tiny little grip.

Figure around 15 ft/lbs maybe? Ouch.

MCgunner
April 21, 2014, 07:29 PM
I really don't think my 17 ounce unloaded M85 Ultralite is that hard to carry and it's +P rated. Mine is accurate and has many thousands of rounds through it. I bought it in 1996. The View has titanium in it and isn't +P rated. One could likely improve it with a boot grip or something, but I'll pass. It's pricey and really offers me nothing my current ultralite doesn't offer better except for a few ounces that don't really bother me.

Before I'd go for a .32 S&W, heck, I'll carry my .22 mag NAA Black Widow with Hornady Critical Defense loads. It's a cannon by comparison...or at least AS potent. Energies are on the order of 100 ft lbs and it's amazingly accurate, one HECK of a muzzle blast. It has a folding grip on it, but even with that, it's quite light, 10 ounce range.

Onward Allusion
April 21, 2014, 11:40 PM
BSA1
I sincerely hope all gun manufacturers NOT make a handgun intended for S.D. In 32 S&W and 32 Long.

O.A., if you would test fire these mouse cartridges you are fond of your view would change in a hurry. I once shot a couple of Remington factory 32 Longs from a old revolver with a 3" barrel into a 3/4" pine board. Both bullets completely penetrated the board. One bullet bounced off the 2x4 behind it and was in such perfect shape in could be reloaded. The other bullet made a dent in the 2x4 about 1/8 - 1/4" deep and the nose of the bullet was slightly bent.

To be frank self-defense requires a commitment to proven tools and tactics. Peppermace and stun devices are proven to be be effective and would be a far better choice than what you are proposing.<SNIP>

BSA1 - Yes, I know what these mouse cartridges are capable of. I grew up in Chicago and spent a number of my adult years there. I know a thing or two about highly concealable handguns if you know what I mean. ;) People use 22LR for SD all the time and are usually successful against the BG. I think something a few steps up and in DA would not be a bad thing for grandma who can't rack a slide or handle recoil. Would you really take pepper spray over a 5 shot revolver chambered in 32 S&W? I would not.

hartcreek
My great nephew is six. He shoots a H&R 32 Magnum that I keep at the cabin by himself. How much of a firearms market do you really think that there is for a firearm that can be accurately shot by a six year old that weighs forty pounds?

Are you saying that you would not be comfortable in having a revolver chambered in H&R 32 Mag to be used for SD??? 200 to 300 ft lbs is not enough, eh? Yet like I keep on saying - people use 22LR, 25 ACP, 32 ACP, & 380 for SD. BTW, the 380 throws around 200 - 225 ft lb. Not quite 300 with the +P rounds. H&R 32 Mag Buffalo Bore gets mid-to-hi 300's. Just the facts... :rolleyes:

MCgunner
<SNIP>Before I'd go for a .32 S&W, heck, I'll carry my .22 mag NAA Black Widow with Hornady Critical Defense loads. It's a cannon by comparison...or at least AS potent. Energies are on the order of 100 ft lbs and it's amazingly accurate, one HECK of a muzzle blast. It has a folding grip on it, but even with that, it's quite light, 10 ounce range.

Yes. About the same energy for 32 S&W & 22 Mag from those kinds of barrel lengths. However, you're talking DA -vs- SA for SD. I would rather have DA. Yes, one heck of a muzzle blast with 22 Mag - which will blind you in darken settings.


Gentlemen - I'm not advocating that all y'all trade in your S&W 500's, 10mm's, or even 357's for guns chambered in 32 S&W. All I am saying is that I would like to see more options in mouse guns. Guns that can be hidden almost anywhere on the person. Something more substantial than a 22LR or 25 ACP. Something more reliable than semi's chambered in 22LR, 25 ACP, or 32 ACP. Something that can allow those lacking physical strength to rack a slide to defend themselves without resorting to a 22LR.

It cracks me up that the mention of an uncommon round to be used for SD strikes such a nerve. :confused:

Nick Burkhardt
April 21, 2014, 11:51 PM
What Ruger LCR .38 with a boot grip not small and light enough for you?

scotjute
April 22, 2014, 12:07 AM
Charter Arms makes 5 shot revolvers in .32 H&R Magnum. They will weigh between 12-16 oz.

460Kodiak
April 22, 2014, 12:18 AM
Well to be fair man, you originally asked....

Why did the manufacturers move away from these little revolvers?

And I think a concise answer is that guns in the size you are talking about are easy to conceal, as you said. However, they are difficult for many people to shoot due to their small grips/size and recoil impulse. Sooooo, the market demand is not high enough for the major manufacturers to warrant spending the money to make them. On top of that, most people consider the pocket autos, LCR, and JFrame sized guns to be small enough, and they come in a more effective cartridge chamberings.

So, if All I am saying is that I would like to see more options in mouse guns.

Then I guess we can't give you a good response other than, "Well..... Bummer man. Maybe someone will make one." Hope you get your wish.

Dr.Rob
April 22, 2014, 05:03 AM
Wanted: 2 inch Police Positive in .32-20. That's a serious .32 ;) Colt made a bunchof 4 and 6 inch guns but I haven't seen a factory snubby in that caliber. I'd love one, just because.

Old Fuff
April 22, 2014, 02:01 PM
I'm with Onward Allusion on this one:

First of all, cartridges such as the .32 S&W, .32 S&W Long and .38 S&W are intentionally downloaded because of the number of 19th and early 20th century pocket revolvers that are still in circulation. However in a more modern gun that can be changed – by hand loading if nothing else.

Back in the day… before World War Two, Smith & Wesson advertised their little .32 Safety Hammerless with a 2” barrel as being a better choice then Colt’s .25 Vest Pocket Model. Both were what some call “mouse guns,” but the .32 S&W was much less of a mouse then the .25 ACP. On rare occasions I carried a .32 “Safety,” and I still might do so under some circumstances. One advantage of this 5-shot revolver is the much smaller diameter of the cylinder, that make a small revolver in the first place seem even smaller.

Colt’s Police Positive had a short cylinder (1.25” long) and was chambered in Colt’s version of the S&W .32 Long or .38 S&W. These are found on the used market at sometimes very attractive prices because next too no one is interested in the cartridges they are chambered in. Because of its design one can shorten the butt substantially and set it up with the stocks Colt used to use on their Agent model. On the other end the barrel and ejector rod can be shortened to as little as 1 ¾ inches. The only real disadvantage is the weight of all-steel construction and the diameter of a 6-shot cylinder. On the other hand some may see these factors as not being any kind of a negative at all.

I have two neighbors, both ladies, that would like to see S&W’s 1903 Hand Ejector (built on the I frame) back in production. Unfortunately collector prices on excellent condition original ones is more then they can handle.

Last but not least, I am giving the Taurus 380 model some serious consideration, and if I were going to make something along the lines of the View (which I’m not) I would use the .380 for the platform. I would also jump very quickly if a quality manufacturer introduced a hand ejector with a .32/5-shot cylinder, approximately the same size as the 32 Safety Hammerless.

Given the number of ordinary people that have a CCW license and aren’t particularly interested in being “tactically correct,” I think they’re would be a market.

Old Fuff
April 22, 2014, 02:08 PM
Ah... Dr. Rob.

With it's short cylinder the Police Positive was never chambered in .32-20 Win. What you are thinking of is the Police Positive Special.

That said, Should you find a .32 Police Positive you can hand load the .32 S&W Long (.32 Colt New Police) to where it will duplicate the .32-20 when that round is used in a handgun. ;)

PRM
April 22, 2014, 02:12 PM
I've become quite fond of my NAA Black Widow .22 Magnum/.22LR.

The magnum frame is larger than the standard NAA mini. It has a two inch heavy barrel, enhanced sights and over-sized grips.

Pretty sweet and accurate little revolver. I originally bought one for myself. Before I got it in the door, my wife saw it and laid claim. I promptly went back and bought another :-)

Vodoun da Vinci
April 22, 2014, 02:22 PM
I'm with Onward Allusion and Old Fuff on this....I know there is no market but there is nothing wrong with these older .32 revolvers or the .32 auto pistols. No one thinks they are competing with .38 Specials and .44's but a modern gun with modern ammunition could give an excellent accounting of itself for SD and be small enough to actually have on one's person.

We won't see new guns in these configurations/calibers but I still think they'd sell if introduced *if* we didn't have the bigger-is-better macho thing rearing it's head every time the discussion comes up.

There would be a market....maybe not huge but enough to make it profitable for a .32 revolver, well built, reliable, and modern.

VooDoo

AirForceShooter
April 22, 2014, 03:12 PM
Look for the snubby .327 mags.
Light with six rounds in a J frame sized gun.
You can shoot: 327, 32 mag. 32 long. 32 short.


The 327 mag stacks up quite nicely alongside the 357 mag.

It's an amazing all around revolver

AFS

BSA1
April 22, 2014, 03:16 PM
O.A.,

Having seen my fair share of gunshot wounds I would choose Peppermace and a stun device over the 32 S&W and 32 Long.

Simply put neither cartridge is even remotely close to bring adequate for self/defense. They might present a psychological deterrence but a airsoft gun would do the same w/o the need of a conceal carry permit.

Reloading these mouse cartridges does not gain you anything. The 32 S&W does not have enough case capacity and the 32 Long will not push a JHP fast enough to expand. If you are bound and determined to choose to handicap your life a full wad cutter seated in the 32 Long would be the best poor choice. At least it will cut a round hole.

It is a serious lack of judgement to assume someone is going to break off their attack just because they are shot. There are many folks that when attacked fight rather than running away. I am the biggest coward on the Internet and will walk, no run, away from trouble but being shot is a game changer.

What does Chicago have to do with this discussion?

Onward Allusion
April 22, 2014, 03:20 PM
I might just be crazy enough to invest in a small CNC machine and make myself one just to prove a point. However, steep learning curve = time... :(

Sam1911
April 22, 2014, 03:21 PM
OA, do you consider the Taurs M380 to be close enough to what you're asking for? If not, why not? And by how much is it "not close enough?"



And why aren't they selling a million of them?
(I think you could insert ".327" into those questions, too, if you're inclined.)

460Kodiak
April 22, 2014, 04:06 PM
This discussion is no different than when someone asks about using .22lr for SD. There are better options, especially given the sensory dulling effects of drugs that many criminals seem to enjoy, but a 32 S&W or a Long is still a deadly weapon with good shooting. And if your living situation tells you "That's all the gun you need." Then I hope you find one to your liking.

Having seen my fair share of gunshot wounds I would choose Peppermace and a stun device over the 32 S&W and 32 Long.


While I have never seen a gunshot wound, I personally feel that the above statement is..... ummmm, well.... pretty silly. Sorry man. I mean no disrespect, but I disagree totally. If someone told me I had a choice of pepper spraying, tazing, or getting shot with any firearm, I would choose the pepperspray or stun device. I'm not bulletproof, and I personally would rather deal with the potential negative repercussions of the first two, rather than the possibility of uncontrolled bleeding and/or internal organ piercing. Just curious, are you a doctor, nurse, or EMT? I assume so given your comment.

If the market demands it, it will be built by someone. If not, it will be a pipe dream, or a relic of the past.

Hey OA, many people have brought up NAA mini revolvers. Have you considered pitching the idea to them? They may be looking for a big brother concept to go with their rimfire guns, and they make cool stuff. Just a thought. Maybe you could write up a proposal and email them about it.

mavracer
April 22, 2014, 04:28 PM
I've thought many times about getting 32s, I always talk myself out of it quickly.

jimbo555
April 22, 2014, 04:41 PM
Back in the old days the 32s&w long and 32colt new police were considered more effective than the 32acp. The s&w chiefs special killed the old I-frame but a little airweight I-frame 6 shot 32 would be a easy carrying revolver if they made one!

Onward Allusion
April 22, 2014, 04:51 PM
Sam -

At 15.5 oz, the Taurus is about 5 oz too heavy. It is also only 5 shots of .380. It's really no advantage compared to the J-Frames, aside from the ammo availability. I think it is a tiny bit shorter, though.

The closest thing I've found that is fairly modern was the S&W Airlite 331-2. 10.5 oz unloaded and holding 6 shouts of 32 H&R mag. Aside from the +1 factor, there is really no other advantage of the 331-2 compared to a standard Airlite or Airweight J-Frame.

This might be the same argument for the .327 Fed Mag. Heck, I got 2 of the Taurus 327 snubs. I like 'em but it seems that not many did. These days those snubs are going for $500 to $600. I picked mine up for $229 a piece at a fire sale. Too bad they stopped making 'em 'cause if Taurus would have waited it out, they would have seen the market. New Rugers in 327 are going for $900 to $1,000. Those are the 3" models, too. It took years, but some people are finally seeing the advantage of the 327 cartridge. 6 or 7 327's are better than 5 38's or 357's.

Why am I so keen on the 32 platform? Well, a gun chambered in 327 Fed Mag can shoot 32 S&W, 32 S&W L, 32 H&R, 327 Fed Mag, AND .32 ACP. That and it shoots 6.

Onward Allusion
April 22, 2014, 05:09 PM
460Kodiak
<SNIP>
If the market demands it, it will be built by someone. If not, it will be a pipe dream, or a relic of the past.

Hey OA, many people have brought up NAA mini revolvers. Have you considered pitching the idea to them? They may be looking for a big brother concept to go with their rimfire guns, and they make cool stuff. Just a thought. Maybe you could write up a proposal and email them about it.

Well, this country was built on a pipe dream. :)

I have thought of dropping NAA a line. From my understanding, they will produce special runs of one of their models. However, this would be a completely different direction and I have heard that their primary focus will always be single action highly concealable last ditch guns.

A couple of thoughts... People want; capacity, "knock down power" (yeah yeah no such thing), and reliability all in a small concealable light weight package. How about a 8 round J-Frame sized revolver in +P+ 25 ACP? :eek:

Or, wait . . . a 10 round K-Frame sized revolver in +P+ 25 ACP for HD? :D
_________

Vern Humphrey
April 22, 2014, 05:25 PM
I shoot my carry guns, and nothing smaller than a Colt Detective Special is comfortable to shoot with full-charge .38 specials -- and I have a Tyler T-Grip on that gun.

460Kodiak
April 22, 2014, 05:29 PM
If ammo was more readily available, I'd buy a 10 shot N-frame in 327 fed mag if one was made. That would be quite a blaster, and with a 5 inch bbl, it would have some power for home defense, and as a woods gun.

Well, a gun chambered in 327 Fed Mag can shoot 32 S&W, 32 S&W L, 32 H&R, 327 Fed Mag, AND .32 ACP. That and it shoots 6.

That's exactly why I love revolvers in general and really like the 460mag. Since you can shoot ...... well you know. I actually was going to buy a SP101 in 327 mag as my first handgun, but when I went and looked at the ammo shelf and saw one box of 327 mag and one box of 32 H&R mag, and the 200 or so boxes of assorted .357's and 38's, I decided to go that route. I don't regret it, but I do think it is a shame the 327 never really took off. It was already dwindling when I got into shooting.

BSA1
April 22, 2014, 05:36 PM
460Kodiak,

If you have ever been Peppermaced or Tazed then you know the effect they on most people,

Peppermace, the good stuff with 10% O.C., on most people causes intense burning and tearing in the eyes and sinuses. The resulting blindness gives the potential victim plenty of opportunity to flee or do a #6 on the attacker. There is a small minority of people that Peppermace will not affect along with people with mental issues or on certain drugs like p c. p. I have been involved in 2 or 3 such incidents in 30+ years. O.C. is very easy to use by young and old, disabled, weak alike with very little training. Depending on weather conditions it is effective at 7 yds.

Stun devices for civilians are for CQB. It typically lasts at least 8 seconds with recovery taking longer. I have yet to see someone that was not disabled. Again enough time to flee or do a #6.

Contrast that to shooting a small 32 S&W or Long. Shot placement is EVERYTHING which means training and a lot of practice on the range. It is also a very short range gun. The closer the distance the more I want the attacker to stop RIGHT NOW!

We are in the golden age of self-defense guns and very effective self-defense ammunition within the budget of almost all folks.

Some things really do deserve to be retired and as a conversation piece or a range toy such as SASS matcthes.

460Kodiak
April 22, 2014, 08:56 PM
Ok, I see your point BSA1, and I withdraw my "silly" comment. So your point is that while the 32 S&W and 32 long have more potential for lethality, pepper spray and stun devices have greater potential for faster incapacitation of an attacker. Which of course, is the point of self defense. Not to end life.

And I agree with retirement of the cartridges for SD purposes. Way better options. But I still maintain a person should carry what they're comfortable with. It may not be a good decision in other's eyes, and that's ok because ultimately, it's a personal choice.

This is an interesting thread.

Old Fuff
April 22, 2014, 10:36 PM
OA, do you consider the Taurs M380 to be close enough to what you're asking for? If not, why not? And by how much is it "not close enough?"

In my view we should be looking at a hand ejector revolver that is substantially smaller then the S&W J-frame. Since it is available in a number of versions from Smith & Wesson, as well as similar sized examples from Taurus and Ruger, further improvement in those platforms is unlikely. Those that are available in .32 caliber also have 6-shot cylinders. If that is what is wanted availability is not a serious roadblock.

Looking backwards at a time period running from the late 1890’s to about 1937 S&W, Iver Johnson and Harrington Richardson made smaller 5-shot top-break’s chambered in .32 S&W, and they literally sold by the hundreds-of-thousands. The last of the IJ snubbies were sold to the U.S. Army’s O.S.S. who used some of them as hide-out guns issued to agents who were dropped behind German lines in Europe. While the .32 cartridge they were chambered for unquestionably left something to be desired, the O.S.S. was obviously satisfied that they would do the job if that became necessary.

As I pointed out before, if you pick up and handle a S&W .32 Safety Hammerless with a barrel length as short as 1 ¾ inches you will quickly see that what you are holding is in terms of size is only slightly larger then many of the “baby” .25 pistols, and the 5 (not 6) shot cylinder is not much wider then a pistol’s slide.

Late production revolvers of this kind are available on the used market that usually feature collectables. The best can still be used, but a new hand ejector of about the same size, perhaps chambered to use a combination of moon clips and .32 ACP rounds would be – in my opinion – a welcome addition to what is already available.

Onward Allusion
April 22, 2014, 11:44 PM
Old Fluff -

You mean like these? The pic is of a restored H&R Bicycle Top Break in 32 S&W compared to a Colt 1908 Vest Pocket 25 ACP; both over a One Dollar bill for perspective.

I seriously believe that there is a market for something like this old H&R - - - BUT made from modern metals, chambered in high pressure +P+ 25 ACP or +P 32 ACP and maybe 10% to 15% smaller and lighter.

The key factors are reliability, simplicity of DA, and a bit more "omph" than a 22LR. Hey, even if there isn't a market - it's an interesting discussion.

rswartsell
April 23, 2014, 12:47 AM
I think it is a highly questionable assumption that there are a significant number of revolver carriers that desire something smaller/lighter than a lightweight J frame,

I'm a revolver carrier that stopped at the Colt DS. Lightweight J frames are a step too far!

BSA1
April 23, 2014, 11:11 AM
You mean like these? The pic is of a restored H&R Bicycle Top Break in 32 S&W compared to a Colt 1908 Vest Pocket 25 ACP; both over a One Dollar bill for perspective.

I seriously believe that there is a market for something like this old H&R - - - BUT made from modern metals, chambered in high pressure +P+ 25 ACP or +P 32 ACP and maybe 10% to 15% smaller and lighter.

The key factors are reliability, simplicity of DA, and a bit more "omph" than a 22LR. Hey, even if there isn't a market - it's an interesting discussion.


O.A.,

In previous threads you have complained about the recoil of larger calibers, the lack of stopping power with the 22 LR while citing the need for deep concealment when working on your office.

Your desire for "high pressure +P+ 25 ACP or +P 32 ACP and maybe 10% to 15% smaller and lighter" will create exactly the factors you are seeking to avoid such as greater recoil not to mention the difficulty in gripping and controlling mini gun with the increased recoil.

There are already guns on the market that meet your criteria.

The first are used Smith & Wesson top break revolvers in 32 S&W. They are as small as is practical for a centerfire revolver. I don't not believe a +P+ 25 acp is even possible.

The second is the excellent Seacamp 32 ACP. It best meets all of your needs; very high quality, flat design disappears in front pant pocket for deep concealed carry, rust free stainless steel, no tell-tell cylinder bulge, double action only trigger pull and shoots high performance 32 ACPs such as Silvertips.

The market has spoken many times over. People want a handgun cartridge that offers a higher degree of power.

strambo
April 23, 2014, 11:28 AM
I think the bigger than NAA, but smaller than a J frame market is more interested in buying Keltec P3ATs and similar, not a revolver.

I don't get it myself, I'm on the opposite side of the spectum. I want to carry the largest gun (in practical terms, not a DE). I typically carry a P226. Other times a Kahr K9, which is still an all metal 9mm with a full grip. A pocket gun would have its place on rare occasions, but I think 380 with the best of the modern loads is the minimum.

GEM
April 23, 2014, 11:57 AM
NAA had a prototype 32 HR revolver - it was a horror. They mention revisiting it and haven't yet.

I have a 432. Six shots, very light - got it for a great price. It's standard snubby J size but easy to carry.

The reviews of that transparent Taurus 38 say it's a bear to shoot and inaccurate.

Onward Allusion
April 23, 2014, 12:24 PM
The market has spoken many times over. People want a handgun cartridge that offers a higher degree of power.

+P+ 25 ACP is possible. Recoil is not great due to the weight of the bullet. "+P" in 32 ACP from a Keltec P32 is milder than a 38 Special Wadcutter from a J-Frame. I know. I have done both.

I would have disagree with you regarding the market's demand. Case in point, NAA Mini's in 22LR and 22 Mag. The biggest downside to them is that they are single action and way on the small side to grip comfortably. On top of that, they are rimfire. If they were DA, grip would be less of an issue. It would be easier to just pull the trigger on something that sized than to cock the hammer and pull the trigger.

Also, keep in mind - For my purposes, this would be a backup piece or on some occasions a primary piece. For others, it would be a step up from 22LR.

Old Fuff
April 23, 2014, 12:29 PM
I think it is a highly questionable assumption that there are a significant number of revolver carriers that desire something smaller/lighter than a lightweight J frame,

If there is a market, and I suspect they're might be, members on this forum are unlikely to be representative of it.

The more likely buyer would be someone who had recently obtained a CCW permit, or simply wants a small, easily carried handgun and definitely isn’t “into guns.” In years past they were part of a market that bought smaller, lower powered revolvers or .25 pistols. Cartridge performance was way down on their list, and small size was at the top. Many of these individuals were women, or men buying for a lady in their life.

They were also popular with men who wanted a weapon that was small enough to drop into a pocket and not be detected and presented a minimum of hassle while doing so and/or being carried.

Today they’re isn’t much between the ultra-small single action/spur trigger .22/.22 Magnum revolvers and much larger S&W J-frame size snubbies. While these may satisfy the needs of some, it doesn’t mean that they are the ideal for everyone. Also the recent introduction of very compact pistols chambered in .380 or 9mm aren’t the answer for those who are wary of them because they are too complicated, or find the recoil to be too much for confort.

Dain Bramage
April 23, 2014, 12:54 PM
However if you are truly committed to the 32 there are plenty of S&W top break revolvers in very good condition that meet your criteria.

This.

I just bought an S&W 3rd Model DA in .38 S&W. The gun has a worn nickel finish, but is functionally tight. The gun shoots 3" groups at 25 yards with Magtech 146 gr. LRN, which is amazing considering the vestigial sights. The grip basically disappears in my hand, and even with the 3-1/2" barrel is not difficult to conceal. Bicycle gun versions with even shorter barrels are available. The gun is a joy to shoot, and the action has a familial feel connecting it to my modern J-Frames. I could carry it if I chose to, and not feel under-armed.

Old Fuff
April 23, 2014, 01:40 PM
Do be careful. Most of those S&W top-break pocket revolvers were made for black powder cartridges, and not proofed for smokeless ammunition.

Also the internal lockwork contains a lot of small parts and delicate springs, and if anything breaks you may have a hard and expensive time getting it fixed. The internals were mostly hand fitted to each individual gun, and “drop in” assembly was unknown.

Last but not least, if they are still intact the hard rubber stocks are valuable in themselves, but with age prone to easily crack or chip.

Onward Allusion
April 23, 2014, 01:54 PM
The internals were mostly hand fitted to each individual gun, and “drop in” assembly was unknown.

You ain't kidding! Even GRIPS needed fitting!!! A different cylinder or hand? Forget about it unless you have a tiny diamond file set on hand.

Old Fuff
April 23, 2014, 04:10 PM
Today this may be hard to believe, but until fairly recently (looking at the long picture) both Smith & Wesson and Colt individually fitted the stocks on each revolver and serial numbered them to be sure that a particular set of stocks got back on the right gun during final assembly.

Nope... Neither do that anymore. :(

Except possibly Colt's Single Action Army.

Dain Bramage
April 24, 2014, 01:29 PM
Do be careful. Most of those S&W top-break pocket revolvers were made for black powder cartridges, and not proofed for smokeless ammunition.

I am aware of that. There is an ongoing discussion on the S&W forum. I'm on the side that says black-powder era survivors have almost suredly been fired most of their lives with smokeless powder. Fortunately, most commercial loads are downloaded for the lowest common denominator (top-breaks). I don't plan on shooting any .38/200 or Buffalo Bore.

And on the cynical side, the old gal's value has not gone above her selling price in over 120 years. The $10-$12 selling price in the 1880's adjusts to well over the $200 I paid this year. I might work up a black powder load for a pristine or rare version, but I think a low-round commercial diet will be fine for the DA.

Old Fuff
April 24, 2014, 04:50 PM
It’s your revolver, and you can do as you wish, but I will point this out for the benefit of others.

The cylinders in those old pocket revolvers was made from low-carbon steel. The round bars they were machined from were made in open-hearth furnaces and particles of slag often was impressed or mixed into the steel. Over time the material can be degraded by this, and there is no way to discover flaws, including seams by using eyeball inspection. The finished cylinders were not heat treated, nor were the revolvers proofed for use with smokeless ammunition.

While most factory ammunition is made to reflect lower pressures that doesn't exceed those black powder produced, the burning rate of smokeless powder usually places more stress on the chamber, then does black powder. If you look at most current boxes of ammunition you will likely find a disclaimer to the effect that: “To be used only in modern firearms, designed and intended to be fired with these cartridges.”

As for prior use, most of these top-breaks were hardly fired at all. They were for the most part kept in a drawer or “carried much, but fired little.”

Last but not least, simply cocking and dropping the hammer can cause a small part or spring to fail. Should this happen you will find that most gunsmiths are not interested in fixing it nor competent to do so if they are. Then what you have is a box filled with whatever useable parts remain.

chicharrones
April 24, 2014, 06:57 PM
NAA had a prototype 32 HR revolver - it was a horror. They mention revisiting it and haven't yet.

Wow. I didn't know of that. Is this it? http://www.lesjones.com/2006/02/03/picture-of-naas-mini-32-prototype/

Before reading your post I was just thinking that the whole reason I never got a NAA mini revolver was due to them being single action. If they made a decent 6-shot small double action revolver in .22 Magnum, that would be interesting indeed.

I do like single action revolvers, just not in pocket guns that might be used in OMG panic self defense.

Derry 1946
April 24, 2014, 07:47 PM
I think it is a highly questionable assumption that there are a significant number of revolver carriers that desire something smaller/lighter than a lightweight J frame,



I'm a revolver carrier that stopped at the Colt DS. Lightweight J frames are a step too far!


Me too.

antiquus
April 24, 2014, 10:08 PM
Love .32's.

The .32acp in a revolver is poor performer. The interesting thing is that it works at all, but it does. However it needs all the oomph it can get out of the tiny case capacity to work well, and revolver gaps seem to bleed too much for them.

If you notice all the old pocket .32's from back in the day were 3" barrels. IMO that 3" is important for .32's, they need to get up some speed to be effective.

Current .32 S&W Long loadings are wimps. Once upon a time there were factory loads over 200ft/lbs - which is huge for a bullet of this tiny cross section. That would be a round that would penetrate well and be quite effective.

The .32 H&R suffers from the same mentality by ammunition companies. The ammo is wimpy. I believe this is because there are so many old weak production models out there and a small market so why risk it.

Buffalo Bore makes a load in .32S&W Long supposed to be good in any solid frame gun that packs about 170ft/lbs. They make a .32 H&R +P load (don't use it in a real H&R revolver) that is over 300ft/lbs from a 3" barrel.

Old Fuff
April 24, 2014, 10:32 PM
If you notice all the old pocket .32's from back in the day were 3" barrels. IMO that 3" is important for .32's, they need to get up some speed to be effective.

Very true with black powder. However later they offered 2" (and on special order even shorter) barrels. Todays these draw extra bucks from both collectors and users.

If you measure the cylinder/barrel gap in most pocket top-breaks you may faint dead away. :eek: "Gap" is indeed the right word. However this shouldn't hold true in a current day hand-ejector.

tactikel
April 25, 2014, 12:48 AM
I would buy a .32HR 5 shot DAO revolver, alloy frame, 2" barrel, right now. Light, easily concealable, 100% reliable (no limp wristing issues), plenty accurate, and expanded reloading options over a semiauto.

A Pause for the Coz
April 26, 2014, 05:52 PM
SO a sub-back-up, back-up? Parsing a niche just a sliver more finely? Yeah, if enough folks decide they want such a thing, it will be made available.

I've not heard that the world has beaten a path to Taurus' door to buy that M380, though, and that's darned close to what you're talking about. If that isn't it, and the "View" isn't it, and the .32Mag/.327 didn't become it either?

Maybe it just isn't worth doing? Taurus is trying, nobody seems to be rewarding their efforts with sales...
Well I tried... Seems that there are not too many people out there who think like me.
Too bad too the 327 magnum has some real good upside as a small game cartridge in a lever gun.

I carry this one in a ankle holster. Most of its duty is as my wife's bed side gun. Real easy to train her up on some S&W longs then moved her up to the H&R mag then the 327 stuff. Worked great she is some what proficient with it.
Glad I got mine when I did.

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d66/Kelly2215/Taurusloads.jpg

Gaucho Gringo
April 26, 2014, 10:54 PM
Read a couple of reviews on the Taurus View in the past few days. For those who are not aware, the view is a super light (9 oz empty and ~13 oz - 14 oz loaded) and small 5-shot 38 Special 1.4" barreled snub with a gimmicky see-thru Lexan (Polycarbonate) side plate and a stub of a grip. By all accounts, recoil is "very snappy" by almost all reviewers and "actually hurts" by a few (guys).

The View is probably the smallest & lightest modern production revolvers aside from the NAA's. The Airlite J-Frames are a close second, at 11 oz empty and ~ 15oz loaded. Then there were the S&W I-Frames and Rossi Lady Rossis, but neither is in current production.

There's got to be demand out there for a smaller alternative to the J-Frames and the gimmicky and painful View. Perhaps a 5-Shot chambered for 32 S&W/L or 32 ACP? Light recoil, simple to operate, and dependable. Perfect for those with weaker hands or sensitivity to recoil and follow-up shots are a breeze.

The reason I bring this up is that I bought a H&R Victor in 32 S&W a few weeks ago. Took it out to the range yesterday (dead as a doorknob due to Easter) and ran a couple of cylinders through it. Soft shooting, accurate for what it was meant for and above all, it is SMALL and LIGHT. Something like that could fit in the palm of a small size hand. Empty it weighs 9.2 oz. Fully loaded - 10.7 oz. That's the about the weight of an S&W Airlite empty but this H&R is smaller. About a good 1/3 smaller! I've attached a pic.

I know there's got to be a market for a small 32 S&W or 32 S&W Long in these days of conceal carry, otherwise, people would not be carrying NAA's in 22LR & 22 Mags or semi's in 25 ACP & 32 ACP. By the postings and articles I've read, there are quite a few folks who carry these calibers.

So, the question - Why did the manufacturers move away from these little revolvers? With modern steel and swing out cylinders, I think a double-action tiny revolver in 32 (32 SW, 32 SWL, or even 32 ACP) would be more than viable.
I have the same revolver as my desk-nightstand gun. Although being over 100 years old it looks almost new. I have no reservations about using it to defend myself.

antiquus
April 27, 2014, 04:33 AM
Very true with black powder. However later they offered 2" (and on special order even shorter) barrels. Todays these draw extra bucks from both collectors and users.

If you measure the cylinder/barrel gap in most pocket top-breaks you may faint dead away. :eek: "Gap" is indeed the right word. However this shouldn't hold true in a current day hand-ejector.
I have a Model of 1896 in .32 S&W Long which is the gun that introduced the cartridge. This thing hasn't been shot 10 times. The gap is holy crap scarry but the cylinder lockup would make you faint.

BSA1
April 27, 2014, 09:31 AM
Well I tried... Seems that there are not too many people out there who think like me.
Too bad too the 327 magnum has some real good upside as a small game cartridge in a lever gun.

I carry this one in a ankle holster. Most of its duty is as my wife's bed side gun. Real easy to train her up on some S&W longs then moved her up to the H&R mag then the 327 stuff. Worked great she is some what proficient with it.
Glad I got mine when I did.

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d66/Kelly2215/Taurusloads.jpg



Oh that's sweet. It would fill the gap between my M-941 and M-85 and give me a very nice set of triplets.

TRX
May 2, 2014, 06:52 AM
> Why did the manufacturers move away from these little revolvers?

Various "Saturday Night Special" crusades demonized them. GCA '68 limited import of small pistols, and the way manufacturing works, the cost to make a .32 is about the same as a .357, so the profit margins on the little guns was narrower. With the politicking and low profits, it was simpler to just concentrate on the more profitable models. Actually, most US manufacturers had abandoned the small revolver market to the imports long before GCA '68.

Drail
May 2, 2014, 10:26 AM
Because while many people today seem to believe that a gun should be as light and small as a cell phone at some point you're going to actually have to shoot the thing. Small featherweight guns are not easy or pleasant to shoot. And you really need to practice with it.

CMC
May 2, 2014, 11:13 AM
NAA makes a sidewinder/swing out cylinder

http://northamericanarms.com/firearms/sidewinder/naa-sidewinder.html

RealGun
May 2, 2014, 11:35 AM
I think the essential answer is close to the same for any sort of gun that is generally not offered. Why aren't there [.44 Special only DA 5 shot 3 inch] or [mid size .38 Spl only DA with medium length barrels]. Why the old police models instead of something designed more for concealed carry?

Perhaps the most immediate answer is that little guns are not to be considered serious protection. Even a backup is going to be a 38 Spl.

Old Fuff
May 2, 2014, 12:44 PM
Perhaps the most immediate answer is that little guns are not to be considered serious protection. Even a backup is going to be a 38 Spl.

If you are looking at a sub-set of members of this forum, and maybe the law enforcement community in general, I think you are probably right. A possible exception might be one of the sub-compact .380 pistols that are becoming increasingly popular.

However if you look a this country's population, and the makeup of those who have gone to the trouble to obtain a concealed weapons license, you might find a different attitude. Right or wrong, it hard to confirm the question when they're very few (if any) modern revolvers that are smaller then a S&W J-frame, and chambered to use a cartridge larger then .22 RF/.22 MAG.

During the 1930's Colt and S&W cataloged 2" snubbies built on frames slightly smaller then today's S&W J-frame, and chambered in .32 S&W Long or .38 S&W. Iver Johnson and Harrington & Richardson still offered top-break revolvers that were smaller, particularily those that were chambered in .32 S&W (5 shots). These top-breaks enjoyed reasonably strong sales, partly because of their lower price, and partly because of their smaller size. However I doubt that most buyers were "serious handguners" or associated with law enforcement. In 1942 the army's OSS bought up the last of the ultra-small .32 Iver Johnson's because they needed a very small gun for a last ditch hideout.

RealGun
May 2, 2014, 01:04 PM
If you are looking at a sub-set of members of this forum, and maybe the law enforcement community in general, I think you are probably right. A possible exception might be one of the sub-compact .380 pistols that are becoming increasingly popular.

I agree that younger shooters, who don't/won't dress to conceal, are looking at lightweight, small semi-autos. I think selling them such a gun is a real disservice, but know that what buyers do with their guns is up to them and not to be prejudged by a salesman or store policy.

I disagree on the 9mm Short (.380). Again I fear a false sense of security and bravado when carrying such a gun but would certainly concede that it would be better than none.

What about the idea of top break derringers that are available in serious (performance test) calibers and lack the bulk of a cylinder?. Would it not be better to be limited to two shots than to have to empty a cylinder just to get a perpetrator's attention?

Onward Allusion
May 2, 2014, 02:00 PM
If you are looking at a sub-set of members of this forum, and maybe the law enforcement community in general, I think you are probably right. A possible exception might be one of the sub-compact .380 pistols that are becoming increasingly popular.

That's the thing. Most people are not "gun people".

A small & light revolver in something more powerful than a 22LR would go a long way for them. Most people who currently want a revolver for carry purposes are relegated to J-Frames, Taurus 85's, CA UC's. If they want to spend the extra few bucks, a J-Frame Airlite.

The truth is that most folks don't wander the streets at 3 AM, expect to be in gunfights, or need to fight off a gang of BG's. As the old sayings go - "any gun is better than no gun" or "a 22LR on you is better than the 45 in your safe at home".

Right now, there is no small lightweight DA revolver chambered in anything outside of 22LR/Mag or 38 Special. You either have 8/7/6 rounds of .22 or 5/6 rounds of 38. I don't think there's anything wrong with 5 or 6 rounds of 32 Short/Long/H&R/327/ACP that weighs less and in a smaller package.

Old Fuff
May 2, 2014, 02:01 PM
What about the idea of top break derringers that are available in serious (performance test) calibers and lack the bulk of a cylinder? Would it not be better to be limited to two shots than to have to empty a cylinder just to get a perpetrator's attention?

The ones I am aware of are for the most part of questionable quality, are limited to single-action cocking and spur trigger design, have safeties that are slow to engage and disengage, and in meaningful chambering well on the heavy side.

To add to the negatives, any relationship to point-of-aim/point-of-impact is improbable. In terms of thickness they are close (or maybe more) then the diameter of a 5-shot/.32 cylinder.

A meaningful cartridge is not particularly useful if you can’t place the shot in exactly the right place.

Onward Allusion
May 2, 2014, 02:07 PM
What about the idea of top break derringers that are available in serious (performance test) calibers and lack the bulk of a cylinder?. Would it not be better to be limited to two shots than to have to empty a cylinder just to get a perpetrator's attention?

Ouch! Before my wife became a "gun person", I tried to get her to shoot various 38 Special snubs. After the first few cylinders, I thought she was going to pistol whip me with the gun because her hand was stinging from the recoil. A two shot derringer in 38/9/45 would not only be even more painful but way less of a SD gun than a LCP/P3AT/P32 for so many reasons.

460Kodiak
May 2, 2014, 02:39 PM
What about the idea of top break derringers that are available in serious (performance test) calibers and lack the bulk of a cylinder?. Would it not be better to be limited to two shots than to have to empty a cylinder just to get a perpetrator's attention? Eh...... no thanks

The ones I am aware of are for the most part of questionable quality
I'd disagree. I can't vouch for all, but I carried a Bond arms deringer for a few years in summer. The gun was of excellent quality, fit, and finish. It shot 3" 410 shells all day. My hand though, would not. However.......

are limited to single-action cocking and spur trigger design, have safeties that are slow to engage and disengage, and in meaningful chambering well on the heavy side.
I would whole heartedly agree with all of this. It was for my use, totally inpractical, and really no fun to shoot. The worst part was how slow it was to deploy, especially with that big spur hammer. So, I ditched it for a 642 J frame.

I later ditched the J for an XDs and am very happy. But between the Bond, or say a small 5 shot revolver in 32 H&R mag, I'd agree with you guys that I'd want the small revolver. I'm still not sold on the 32 S&W or S&W Long idea though. H&R mag or 327 fed mag for me please. Though the .327 would probably hurt like heck in a gun that small.

To add to the negatives, any relationship to point-of-aim/point-of-impact is improbableAnd boy oh boy Fuff, you ain't kidding. Shooting any derringer is very challenging to become proficient enough to use it effectively for SD. One tends to aim low or high based on which barrel is being fired. I know.... I know.... they are meant to be a belly/close range/last ditch gun. Well, personally, I don't want an attacker close enough to me to know my gun will be effective. I want effectivness at range should I need it.

Give me a .32 over any derringer.

Vern Humphrey
May 2, 2014, 04:04 PM
The ones I am aware of are for the most part of questionable quality, are limited to single-action cocking and spur trigger design, have safeties that are slow to engage and disengage, and in meaningful chambering well on the heavy side.
This reminds me of what John Donne said, "For a man to find a good wyfe is like to grope an eel out of a bag full of serpents. If he succeed, what hath he but a wet eel by the tayle?"

And if he finds a quality derringer, what hath he but a lousy derringer?:D

460Kodiak
May 2, 2014, 04:54 PM
Yep, a high quality derringer is still a derringer, and an inferior weapon in almost every way to a revolver.

RealGun
May 2, 2014, 07:47 PM
A two shot derringer in 38/9/45 would not only be even more painful but way less of a SD gun than a LCP/P3AT/P32 for so many reasons.

About every trip to the range I see someone struggling with an unreliable small, second tier semi-auto. It would seem that some of these guns are better options only in theory.

Vern Humphrey
May 2, 2014, 09:13 PM
Well, yes. But the fact there are guns as bad as a derringer doesn't make the derringer any bit more effective.

antiquus
May 2, 2014, 09:23 PM
I never struggle with my LCP, it's solid. But my LCR is touch better.

I got curious, and it turns out you could make a .32 5 shot with a cylinder just 1.183" in diameter, and reduce the height to something like 3.9".

Back in the day, there were loads for .32 New Police pushing 200ft/lbs, but nowadays you have trouble finding anything over 120ft/lbs unless you roll your own. Even 150ft/lbs with such a small cross section would give plenty of penetration.

StrawHat
May 3, 2014, 07:49 AM
I have a S&W "I" frame chambered for the 32 Long cartridge. I bought it because it absolutely looked tiny and still managed to hold six rounds of something other than rimfire cartridges. While not the most powerful handgun in the world, it is still comfortable to carry. Side by side with my 36-1 you can see there is a bit of size difference.

RealGun
May 3, 2014, 08:39 AM
Well, yes. But the fact there are guns as bad as a derringer doesn't make the derringer any bit more effective.

Does anything we're discussing here win any awards in the "effective" category?

BSA1
May 3, 2014, 10:33 AM
Does anything we're discussing here win any awards in the "effective" category?

It's actually scary that some folks carry them for S.D. I can't help but wonder if they have come to fully grasp the fact that by shooting a attacker they may be responsible for the attackers death.

I have said repeatedly that everyone should test the ammunition they carry by shooting things like demin cloth, into water jugs, wood, sheetrock, etc. While not the same as hitting the human body it does give you some sense of bullet performance.

For example in my testing Remington factory 32 Long will only penetrate a 3/4" pine board with very little deformation of the bullet.

Compared that to Hornady Critical Defense 38 Special from a 2" barrel J-Frame that fired through 4 layers of demin jeans and 4 layers of cotton shirt covering a water barrel not only expanded 100% of the time but the force of the bullet hitting the water split the plastic 30 gallon water barrel open.

Unlike a century ago we are living in the golden age of firearms and ammunition manufacturing. There is simply no reason to carry ammunition that was too weak 100 years ago.

Vern Humphrey
May 3, 2014, 11:19 AM
Does anything we're discussing here win any awards in the "effective" category?
Nope. But that shouldn't lead us to wander farther down that path.;)

RealGun
May 3, 2014, 11:41 AM
Now I think we're being argumentative. The "derringer" I had inmind was the Bond Arms Texas Ranger with a barrel for the caliber of your choice. The premise of the whole line is supporting larger than conventional derringer calibers, but they do actually have some smaller caliber options like 32 and 22.

Bond Arms Texas Ranger (http://bondarms.com/bond-arms-handguns/texas-defender/)

I picked this model because of the trigger guard and the optional caliber barrels. It offers calibers I would pick like 45 ACP or 44 S&W Special. No, I never shot or handled one. I have my 637 Performance Center 38 Spl +p DAO as a backup, kit, or pajama gun, so I'm good.

AFDavis11
May 3, 2014, 12:27 PM
I once read a very unpopular concept about the development of a four shot .44 J/K-frame revolver, as a bug. Although quite outside the box, I've always kind of liked the ideas originality.

Sam1911
May 3, 2014, 12:31 PM
A long time ago someone did an article on the use of derringers in self-defense. The upshot of it was they were limited to one particular presentation:

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=195257&stc=1&d=1393027397

Would I take 5 .32 Longs in a tiny wheelgun, over 2 .44 Spcs in a derringer? Honestly, yeah, I think I would. Not a great choice in either case, but I think I favor my chances of hitting something important with a DA revolver than a double-barrel derringer, and I know I'd rather grab for something with a DA trigger if I find myself in a "bad-breath" (or closer) engagement.

The SA trigger is simply a deal-killer.

chicharrones
May 3, 2014, 12:37 PM
. . . and I know I'd rather grab for something with a DA trigger if I find myself in a "bad-breath" (or closer) engagement.

The SA trigger is simply a deal-killer.

Me, too.

I guess the modern poly pocket auto-loaders have fully replaced the old metal smaller sized DA revolvers.

As much as I would love to own a small DA revolver, they might cost more than I'd be willing to pay in the 21st century.

Old Fuff
May 3, 2014, 12:40 PM
I don’t advocate carrying handguns chambered in what some call “ineffective cartridges,” when something better is available, but the fact is people have been doing so since before the First World War to present, and I see no evidence of them being mass slaughtered. If these cartridges (most of which have been in use for decades, and often in large numbers) had a substantial record of failure they would have disappeared long ago.

Anyway, what I do support is more availability of modern cartridges and handguns (revolvers in particular) that fit into a space between the size of S&W J-frames and the very small, usually single-action options chambered in .22 RF.

Unfortunately it is unlikely that a handgun meeting the above description could be chambered to use any cartridge that meets the standards of those that worry about what is, or isn’t effective, according to their perspectives. If something did the recoil in so small an arm would likely be excessive for most potential users.

Years ago I had the good fortune to meet an officer in the United Kingdom’s SAS, which should need no further introduction here. In the area of gun fighting his experience and credentials far exceeded anyone posting on this thread. He had been there and done that on many occasions while working in undercover missions. One of his favorite concealed carry handguns was a Colt 1903 Pocket Model, chambered in .32 ACP. If anyone had told him he was underguned he would have laughed in their face.

BSA1
May 3, 2014, 01:39 PM
Old Fuff.

100 years ago 32 Longs and Auto WERE state of art for concealed carry in a small gun. IMHO the Colt's 1903 and 1908 are and still are great designs for c.c. I would love to see the 1908 in 380 reintroduced.

But I regress. My point is 100 years round nose lead and jacketed bullets in weak cartridges were the only choices. I suspect most of the old guns chamber in 32 are socked away in drawers by owners who only know they have a gun without a clue about it's effectiveness.

Old Fuff
May 3, 2014, 03:27 PM
I suspect most of the old guns chamber in 32 are socked away in drawers by owners who only know they have a gun without a clue about it's effectiveness.

Very likely true, and unlike some members on this thread, they really don't give a hoot. A good example might be an elderly friend of mine who is begging me to find him a small .25 pistol for a "carry around" gun.

And there is an older neighbor - a lady, who would kill to get an older I-frame S&W in .32 S&W Long. If not that, a .32 Beretta pistol. A much younger man just left here, and his "carry around" was a N. American Arms mini-revolver loaded with .22 WRM.

Note that I proposed a possible solution:

Anyway, what I do support is more availability of modern cartridges and handguns (revolvers in particular) that fit into a space between the size of S&W J-frames and the very small, usually single-action options chambered in .22 RF.

But then I also observed that:

Unfortunately it is unlikely that a handgun meeting the above description could be chambered to use any cartridge that meets the standards of those that worry about what is, or isn’t effective, according to their perspectives. If something did the recoil in so small an arm would likely be excessive for most potential users.

As always I am open to suggestions. ;)

hardknocks!
May 3, 2014, 06:58 PM
making something like this but only half the weight.
20 ounce S&W terrier I frame in 38 S&W caliber. I been known to tote this around some with buffalo bore hard cast 125 grain. 875 fps. made in 1953.
http://i1325.photobucket.com/albums/u625/hardknocks2/SAM_1770_zpsd4d281ae.jpg (http://s1325.photobucket.com/user/hardknocks2/media/SAM_1770_zpsd4d281ae.jpg.html)

Vern Humphrey
May 3, 2014, 07:03 PM
Remember, M1 X V1 = M2 X V2.

You should always strive to have the mass of the gun (M2) greater than the mass of the bulled (M1).

Onward Allusion
May 3, 2014, 07:06 PM
And there is an older neighbor - a lady, who would kill to get an older I-frame S&W in .32 S&W Long.

I'm still banging my head against the wall for not buying an Airlite 331 (32 H&R Mag x 6) when I ran across one for $900 on Gunbroker. Less than 11 oz and 6 shots of real ammo.

Old Fuff
May 3, 2014, 08:36 PM
I agree with your observations, but unfortunately the elderly lady is on Social Security and Medicare and I doubt could come up with $900. For that matter I know another similar lady, which makes me think they're is a potential market.

A common thread among these people is that they aren't particularily concerned about "meaningful cartridges," or power. They may (or may not) be right or wrong, but they don't follow gun forums so the haven't any representation here.

In his book, No Second Place Winner, Bill Jordan recommended S&W's then recently introduced Lightweight J-frame chambered in .22 WRM as an ideal back-up gun for law enforcement officers. This caused a lot of comment in some places, but most of his critics couldn't touch his credentials. Later I ask him about all that. He replied, with a grin, "That issue had generated a lot of flack." But he explained his reasons and made a pretty good case.

Old Fuff
May 3, 2014, 08:52 PM
how about making something like this but only half the weight.
20 ounce S&W terrier I frame in 38 S&W caliber. I been known to tote this around some with buffalo bore hard cast 125 grain. 875 fps. made in 1953.

The Tarrier is a neat revolver, but still close to the size of the current J-frame, that is different from the Terrier's I-frame only in being slightly longer so they could squeeze in .38 Special Ammunition, plus 1/8" more added to the length of the butt. The J-magnum is longer still.

But keep thinking... :)

Sam1911
May 3, 2014, 09:06 PM
Jeez...the Terrier is already SMALLER than his hand. I know the question is probably moot, but how much smaller does a firearm need to be? :scrutiny:

Yeah, yeah...smaller.

USGuns
May 3, 2014, 11:46 PM
...
So, the question - Why did the manufacturers move away from these little revolvers? With modern steel and swing out cylinders, I think a double-action tiny revolver in 32 (32 SW, 32 SWL, or even 32 ACP) would be more than viable.
I know exactly what you mean. I asked for something similar from NAA awhile back:
http://naaminis.com/smf/index.php?topic=4337.msg68634#msg68634

hartcreek
May 4, 2014, 12:24 AM
My six year old great nephew shoots my .32 H&R with my hot hand loads by himself. How much of a market do you really think that there is for a hand gun for people with less strength then a forty pound six year old?

Old Fuff
May 4, 2014, 02:41 AM
How much of a market do you really think that there is for a hand gun for people with less strength then a forty pound six year old?

More then you might think, because while hand strength is an issue with some, yesteryear’s small top-break revolvers didn’t have particularly light double-action trigger pulls.

The potential market I’m looking at will never be found at any combat competition or reading the fine print in ballistic charts. They don’t agonize for a minute about what the secondary channel in a block of jelly looks like.

What they want in a weapon is something that’s small, less powerful, (they aren’t going to practice much), and easily and effortlessly concealed in a pocket or purse. Most of the time – although they are entitled too in most cases – they won’t bother to carry at all, but they will buy a handgun because they want to have the choice when they decided to. For example the young man I mentioned previously is approaching his mid-twenties, and healthy as a horse; but today his “carry around” was a tiny North American Arms .22 WRM.

Some members here may hold them in contempt. The problem is that they simply don’t belong to any tactical or combat culture. Never have and never will. But they’re money is just as good as anyone else’s.

Radagast
May 4, 2014, 07:45 AM
Having tried a Bond Arms Derringer in .45, I would never bother to carry one for self defense. Hands down the worst trigger I have ever tried. Bad enough that I would need to stabilize the muzzle in an assailants belly button to have any hope of hitting him.
An I frame or similar gun in any caliber would be preferable - I could guarantee hits. A pocket knife would actually be of more use.

Stainz
May 4, 2014, 08:05 AM
Well, this has been interesting. As an observation, Ruger and Federal's collaborative effort - the .327 Federal Magnum - was once made available in caliber offerings from Charter, Ruger, S&W, and Taurus. They are all gone now, the last to be listed in a catalog (2012) being S&W's original 3" 632 Carry Comp and the 2 1/8" 632 Pro. The only new .32 I've seen available recently is Charter's .32 H&RM 'Undercoverette', which is even available in pink. S&W finally released their last offering, the 2 1/8" DAO 632 Pro 8/11 - too little & too late. As stated, it didn't make it into their post-2012 catalogs. Of course, I had to have one:

http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u307/Stainz_2007/002-1.jpg

It's J-frame size and SS (23 oz) construction make it heavily do-able in pocket carry, while some of it's loads in .327 Magnum hit 500 ft-lbs, making it a 'substantial' defender. It's ability to chamber and fire .32 ACP, .32 S&W, .32 S&WL, & .32 H&RM, too, make it 'adaptable'... if gone now. But - the .38 S&W Special in a J-frame - like my venerable 642 - persists. Pack it hot with +P 158gr LHPSWC's - lighter with 135gr GDJHP's - or even lighter with 148gr full wadcutters (target ammo) - and it is effective and dependable - and a lot easier to find ammo for, as well.

While we are at it, some folks have trouble holding even an Airweight revolver up, my slow to heal torn rotator cuff still exemplifying that here. My last revolver purchase (1/13) was a 351PD - a 7-shot .22 WMR - 10.8 oz empty. I am not delusional - the Hornady FTX 45gr Critical Defense ammo, although made for that gun, won't be as effective as my lightest loads in the .38 Spcl 642. Of course, .22 WMR ammo is all but impossible to find now as well. Odd - it hasn't been that long since I pocket carried my 296 (5 x .44 Spcl)... time has a way of catching up with us (I guess that explains my Medicare card - and the SS Retirement deposit in my account last week! When did I get this old??).

Years ago, my first reaction to holding a NAA and an I-frame, were alike: those grips are for the wee folk. Seriously - not for my medium+ mitts... and certainly not a SA firearm for protection. I guess starting out carrying a 2.5" AirLite-Ti - an L-frame - in a pocket holster simply made J-frames seem quite small - and an acceptable minimal size. Perspective. YMMV.

Stainz

chicharrones
May 4, 2014, 11:08 AM
More then you might think, because while hand strength is an issue with some, yesteryear’s small top-break revolvers didn’t have particularly light double-action trigger pulls.

The potential market I’m looking at will never be found at any combat competition or reading the fine print in ballistic charts. They don’t agonize for a minute about what the secondary channel in a block of jelly looks like.

What they want in a weapon is something that’s small, less powerful, (they aren’t going to practice much), and easily and effortlessly concealed in a pocket or purse. Most of the time – although they are entitled too in most cases – they won’t bother to carry at all, but they will buy a handgun because they want to have the choice when they decided to. For example the young man I mentioned previously is approaching his mid-twenties, and healthy as a horse; but today his “carry around” was a tiny North American Arms .22 WRM.

Some members here may hold them in contempt. The problem is that they simply don’t belong to any tactical or combat culture. Never have and never will. But they’re money is just as good as anyone else’s.

Maybe this potential market is lost because these people would never wander into a gun store. Back in the day someone could let their interest wander into purchasing a gun in a "general" store or hardware store while picking up faucet washers.

What I mean is that most casual gun owners I know today do not like going to gun stores. They have acquired their guns through family members, usually by being handed down to them after the owner didn't need it anymore.

460Kodiak
May 4, 2014, 11:16 AM
This thread has been interesting but it seems to have hit kind of a wall.

"There is a bigger market for a gun like this than you think!"

"No there isn't."

It'll never be tested unless one of the manufacturers makes one and sees if it sells. I'm guessing that the lack of success of the .327 fed mag has the manufacturers pretty well convinced a small .32 cal revolver isn't going to make enough profit to warrant the investment in production.

Old Fuff
May 4, 2014, 12:37 PM
What I mean is that most casual gun owners I know today do not like going to gun stores.

Yes and no... :confused:

Generally, if someone has gone to the trouble and expense to obtain a CCW they have either purchased (or already had) a handgun. If not, or if what they have doesn't meet their need for concealed carry they will probably be in the market to buy a handgun that will. At this time the sales-person in a well stocked store might show them a selection of the following:

1. A North American .22/.22 WRM mini-revolver or similar Derringer.
2. A Polymer framed pocket pistol chambered in .380 ACP or 9mm Para.
3. A .38 Special or .357 Magnum built on a small-frame platform.

Now they may or may not be especially satisfied with any of the above, but they will likely be told that these represents what they have to choose from.

In the less likely event that they should go to a large gun show where the greater number of guns are older used ones they may discover a number of not previously presented options – that may be good or bad depending on one’s point of view. These might include:

A mixed selection of .25 and .32 pistols.

A number of older small-frame, solid or top-break revolvers made by the likes of Iver Johnson or Harrington & Richardson. These would be mostly, if not entirely chambered in .32 S&W, .32 S&W Long or .38 S&W.

If these were not priced out of sight (as they sometimes are) some of them might go home with somebody, but I can safely say that most if not all of the buyers would have never heard of an Internet forum called The High Road.

Now we might all agree that these pistols and revolvers, the newest ones being at least 60 years old, and probably much older are not a very good choice for the intended purpose. Thus the question, “What if they were duplicated in new modern platforms using improved ammunition, with an option to use the less powerful rounds if that was desired.

Our more tactical-minded members would probably dismiss them out-of-hand, but I don’t think the casual CCW person would hold the same views.

I am playing devil’s advocate here because not many others on this forum will. :evil:

Vodoun da Vinci
May 4, 2014, 12:59 PM
If these were not priced out of sight (as they sometimes are) some of them might go home with somebody, but I can safely say that most if not all of the buyers would have never heard of an Internet forum called The High Road.

I am playing devil’s advocate here because not many others on this forum will. :evil:

One of the thngs I like about you, Fuff...you do it without being snotty nor controlling. You play Devils Advocate to incite discussion about things which is why many of us are here...to discuss and look at the possibilities and less to be "told" how it really is and must be. :D

Off topic but there it is... :cool:

90% of my contact with shooting enthusiasts and other hand gunners is on the range and at the LGS. Most of my opinions and observations about what people want and need and are actually shooting, buying, collecting, and thinking about buying, shooting, collecting come from people who are actively doing these things and not "discussing" them via a discussion forum that specializes in gun aficionado discussion.

I was shocked the other day when I dropped the names "The High Road" and other online forum names and got puzzled looks. Apparently in a group of avid shooters and gun owners who were actually present at the range and actively discussing "what works and what doesn't" not one other of over 35 people hangs out on any discussion forum about shooting sports or handguns.

I'm starting to think (actually I now believe) that gun discussion forums, in general, are not at all in touch with the associated sports and are generally populated by specialized interests associated with guns and not representative of shooting, gun owners, and the like at all. Like we used to say at the Dojo, "Less Chat - More Mat" meaning "less discussion online and more time on the mat doing it" leads to a greater understanding of what it all really means.

Off topic some more - I don't think the opinions of folks on gun discussion forums has much if anything to do with what the general shooting public knows or thinks. 21st Century gun marketing is not at all about what will sell - it's about what is for sale and the sellers. Nothing will sell there are none to sell as it is with the smaller .32 caliber revolvers. They don't exist because an executive at S&W, Ruger, Colt, Glock, etc says they are not gonna make one. Whether it would sell or not makes no difference. There are none to sell so the answer is that they will not sell.

VooDoo

chicharrones
May 4, 2014, 06:32 PM
Good points from both of you, Fuff and Voodoo.

Ed Ames
May 4, 2014, 06:53 PM
They don't exist because an executive at S&W, Ruger, Colt, Glock, etc says they are not gonna make one. Whether it would sell or not makes no difference.

Would those exectives be thinking something like, "People can buy a 6-7-shot .32 today for under $500. Some are small enough to need a one-finger grip, others are a bit larger, but they are all pocketable. Most are 10-16 ounces loaded. The issue you are addressing is that they aren't revolvers. How much does being a revolver matter?"

I have a safety hammerless and a 1-1/2 in .32s&w so I think a modern petit revolver would be neat...but would I pay current revolver prices for one when I can get a p32 for $220?

GEM
May 4, 2014, 07:48 PM
I got a SW 432 for $330. It meets the criteria - light, 6 shots with a reasonable round. If a J frame is too big, sorry.

Onward Allusion
May 4, 2014, 08:00 PM
When I want to learn what non-gun people want in a self-defense weapon, I don't ask you guys. I ask my wife, ladies in the office, & guys who don't shoot much. Many of you will be surprised at their responses.

Very few will want anything chambered in 357 Mag, 44 Mag, 45 ACP, or 40 S&W. The guys usually answer some with kind of 9mm and the ladies will usually just tell you something small and easy to use. Really, I kid you not.

Us gun-people need to understand that non-gun people want convenience and ease of use over "knock-down power".

Ed Ames
May 4, 2014, 08:18 PM
When I want to learn what non-gun people want in a self-defense weapon, I don't ask you guys.

Yup, the phrase "selection bias" has relevance here. :)

Old Fuff
May 4, 2014, 09:40 PM
Well one problem I have with my current Taurus LW-85 (S&W J-frame size) is when it's dropped into the side pocket of some pants I own; the grip sticks up high enough so that someone standing behind me might spot the butt. My usual solution is to buy pants with deeper pockets, but I will say then when I dropped a smaller .32 S&W top-break Safety Hammerless into the same holster it totally disappeared. Concealed means… well concealed.

Most of the folks I've been talking about don't want to buy clothes to match their gun, but a gun that will fit in the clothes they buy - or a small lady's handbag as the case may be.

The revolvers vs. pistols argument will undoubtedly go on forever, but my experience tells me that those who have little experience with handguns tend to distrust pistols. This brings to mind a lady I know that bought one of the very small polymer .380 pistols. She shot it a few times and promptly sold it. Thought the recoil was too much. Perhaps rather then introducing a whole new model the makers should consider offering an optional .32 barrel.

Vodoun da Vinci
May 4, 2014, 10:05 PM
The revolvers vs. pistols argument will undoubtedly go on forever, but my experience tells me that those who have little experience with handguns tend to distrust pistols. This brings to mind a lady I know that bought one of the very small polymer .380 pistols. She shot it a few times and promptly sold it. Thought the recoil was too much. Perhaps rather then introducing a whole new model the makers should consider offering an optional .32 barrel.

With my Wife we tried it all...closest we came was the Colt 1903 in .32 with my hot hand loads but she has a problem feeling comfortable and always has to be reminded which is the mag release, which is the safety and which lever is the slide lock. She has since gotten very familiar with her Ruger LCR but to manage it I hand load 110 gr. bullets. Between the Colt and the LCR the effectiveness of the rounds is about equal....200 fpe. In a fight for survival she gets 8 rounds of .32 vs the 5 rounds out of the revolver. A .32 six shot DA revolver might have been her favorite but we didn't try that. She shoots a full size (S&W model 19 with .38 Specials) just fine and hammers a target in DA rapid fire but it's too big to conceal and have on her person if the need arises.

Nobody makes a small .32 revolver and the older examples we had access to she would not likely carry due to age and condition.

Then we found the Glock 42 and she is in heaven. Another gun nobody wanted. But she's a revolver lover from childhood and shoots best and feels most comfortable with a revolver as do many women in our group. Revolvers appeal because they are simple and easy to remember and operate. Not to mention easier to load for small arthritic fingers unlike pushing rounds into a magazine. I think a small .32 revolver would sell and appeal as already noted. I'd buy one. Maybe two.

VooDoo

BSA1
May 4, 2014, 10:57 PM
Has anyone tested Hornady Critical Defense in 32 Magnum for expansion and penetration?

I have a couple of 32 mag. revolver but have never got around to testing Hornady's in them.

MICHAEL T
May 4, 2014, 11:25 PM
Get some one to make it at a reasonable price and I will take one . I have a couple Pre WWI S&W 32 revolvers and would carry a modern day one . I carry a P-32 KelTec a lot as do my the women in my family.

RealGun
May 5, 2014, 06:30 AM
OldFuff in part: Thought the recoil was too much. Perhaps rather then introducing a whole new model the makers should consider offering an optional .32 barrel.

Maybe they should stop offering "cute" guns or discourage salespeople from selling backups for primary carry. We don't need any gun fascists, but we do seem to have a large population of people carrying/owning guns that impart a false sense of security and bravado. Sometimes it isn't the caliber that causes recoil but the lack of mass in a little gun.

JSH1
May 5, 2014, 07:25 AM
The revolvers vs. pistols argument will undoubtedly go on forever, but my experience tells me that those who have little experience with handguns tend to distrust pistols. This brings to mind a lady I know that bought one of the very small polymer .380 pistols. She shot it a few times and promptly sold it. Thought the recoil was too much. Perhaps rather then introducing a whole new model the makers should consider offering an optional .32 barrel.

I agree that .32 ACP would be a good round for many people and much easier to shoot in a small pistol. However, for that caliber to sell things would need to change at the gun counter. Many salesmen will tell you that anything less than 9mm can't stop an attacker and you hear the same thing at concealed carry classes. The class that my mother took doesn't even allow anything less than 380 Auto and recommend nothing less than 9mm. Manufacturers did offer .32's at one time but don't anymore. That tells me the 32 version wasn't a good seller. (The Bersa Thunder in .32 ACP comes to mind)

I have an six shot H&R 732 in .32 S&W long that was handed down to me in almost new condition. The original owner worked as a security guard and needed a gun but never shot it. It is a little bit smaller than my Ruger SP101 but all steel and heavy.

Vodoun da Vinci
May 5, 2014, 07:47 AM
However, for that caliber to sell things would need to change at the gun counter. Many salesmen will tell you that anything less than 9mm can't stop an attacker and you hear the same thing at concealed carry classes. The class that my mother took doesn't even allow anything less than 380 Auto and recommend nothing less than 9mm.

Agreed.

This is the whole reason our local support group was formed. Here in Illinois people got the word that we would be the final state to be allowed concealed carry and droves of folks pursued that option. The local guns stores and trainers quickly became very busy...unfortunately it took only weeks for many prospective CCL candidates, many of them smaller folks and less experienced gunners, to realize they cannot become proficient with larger calibers in carry sized guns.

My Wife was observed shooting our 2 Colt 1903's and *hammering* targets in triple tap rapid fire at 21'.....5' tall 110 lbs recoil sensitive cancer survivor at 56. People took notice and asked...and we answered and let them shoot our guns with our ammo. They are learning that it's better to have a .32 gun that they can carry and shoot often enough to become confident and proficient than to throw their hands in the air and quit because they *cannot* and will never do that with a Ruger LCP or LCR and an XD-S in 9mm or .45 nor a pocket 9mm of any make or model. Give 'em a .32 gun and watch them learn. Nurture them and *stop* telling folks to "go big or go home" and bring others into the CCL fold.

Most folks, most average normal folks, who wanna learn to carryt concealed and be able to protect their family are never gonna become gunfighters. They need tools that fit them and their needs. A .32 is not optimal but it *will* do for SD as will a .22 if the shooter is experienced and confident thru lots a practice and nurturing. A gun, any gun that they can have in their moment of need and be confident, is necessary at a gun fight. I'd rather they have 9mm's as well but they simply will never be able to do that in a real world. Not average folks at my LGS.

VooDoo

BSA1
May 5, 2014, 08:40 AM
This brings to mind a lady I know that bought one of the very small polymer .380 pistols. She shot it a few times and promptly sold it

This doesn’t mean a smaller caliber is the right answer. My daughter brought a Taurus TCP in .380. That thing is painful to shoot. She shot six rounds said this thing hurts to much and I don’t want to keep it. I told her to shoot 6more rounds to get use to it. She did and said she was done with it. I then shot 12 rounds and she was right. The thing is just plain painful (the way the gun recoils cause the inside of the trigger guard to hit the finger). I also am done with it.

As we were talking about the gun when said she doesn’t like the .380. I quickly corrected her and told her she doesn’t like the 380 in that particular gun. I pointed to her that the .380 in a different size gun would be comfortable to shoot.

My Wife was observed shooting our 2 Colt 1903's and *hammering* targets in triple tap rapid fire at 21'.....5' tall 110 lbs recoil sensitive cancer survivor at 56. People took notice and asked...and we answered and let them shoot our guns with our ammo. They are learning that it's better to have a .32 gun that they can carry and shoot often enough to become confident and proficient than to throw their hands in the air and quit because they *cannot* and will never do that with a Ruger LCP or LCR and an XD-S in 9mm or .45 nor a pocket 9mm of any make or model. Give 'em a .32 gun and watch them learn.

Was it really because of the smaller caliber or because the gun fit their hand better? The only way to know the answer is to shoot the same model in both calibers.

A .32 is not optimal but it *will* do for SD as will a .22 if the shooter is experienced and confident thru lots a practice and nurturing

This is "if the shooter is experienced and confident thru lots a practice and nurturing" a big IF. We as shooters often forget that most folks are not as interested in learning to shoot well as we are.

460Kodiak
May 5, 2014, 09:27 AM
Most folks, most average normal folks, who wanna learn to carryt concealed and be able to protect their family are never gonna become gunfighters.

We as shooters often forget that most folks are not as interested in learning to shoot well as we are.
Very true. I sold my dad a gun because he wanted one for HD, and I had one I was looking to move on out. He shoots it accurately, but not fast. He has little interest in practice. I think it is more of a talisman to him, and he doesn't realize how difficult making good shots will be under intense stress. I encourage him to practice, and take him to the range every chance I get. I think the world has a lot more of him, than us. I'm not calling myself a gun fighter or anything, just a well practiced carrier.

Many people I know make excuses not to practice. Other than cost, I don't understand why.

I think mastering one of the small guns being discussed would be a tough challenge for a lot of folks. It would further limit the market, but certainly not eliminate it.

Vodoun da Vinci
May 5, 2014, 09:55 AM
This is "if the shooter is experienced and confident thru lots a practice and nurturing" a big IF. We as shooters often forget that most folks are not as interested in learning to shoot well as we are.

We have done all that....the whole key is to actually shoot the caliber and gun we choose to depend on. And as you saw with your girl, they are not gonna shoot things that sterilize them.

My Wife has settled on her Glock 42 which even with hot hand loads in .380 is mild in recoil - as mild as our Colt .32 acp with hot hand loads. So, that's the ticket. The stepping stone was a hot .32 load because when we started this journey there was not locked breech, low bore axis polymer framed .380 like the G42. Attempts to use the LCP and small .380 pistols were not pretty...these guns generally kick like a mule with factory .380.

My group loves the LCR .38 revolver with my 110 gr. hand loads but to be fair the down loaded .38 Special has no advantage over the hot .380's being loaded for the G42. We use the biggest thing we can get results in and the G42 now is the "go to" gun as the hot .380's are not much under a 9mm 115 gr. load. and superior to a downloaded .38 Special out of an LCR size revolver :)

A .32 revolver...a modern .32 revolver with 6 shots would be well received. More so in the absence of a G42. The LCR and small S&W .38's work great *but* even with 125 gr. factory they are too hard on the shooters of smaller stature and less experience. I'd love to add a .32 revolver to the mix for our group. But there ain't any. Revolvers in general appeal to many shooters who have been put off by other guns because they are simple to load and operate/understand. We need something between a .22 lr and a .38 Special. And we need to get trainers and Caliber Bullies and LGS salesmen on board...many of our group *have* their CCL's and passed the training and proficiencies but have come to our group because they now have a license but not the confidence. They are not comfortable with their pocket 9mm's and .45's and .38 Specials that were pushed on them by their mentors and teachers and the guys at the LGS. We are actually getting these folks to carry and shoot and become confident and proficient...and we are doing it by nurturing them that being confident and skilled (and actually carrying) a .380, 32, or even .22 beats leaving the "Death Ray" pocket 9mm that they *know* is gonna hurt them when they pull the trigger sitting in the safe at home.

There is room for a .32 revolver in say .32 S&W Long in this mix but it is DOA because of "Prevailing Wisdom" that anything that dun't start with .45 is no good/useless and frowned upon by the trainers and "folks in the know".

VooDoo

Old Fuff
May 5, 2014, 12:06 PM
This doesn’t mean a smaller caliber is the right answer. My daughter brought a Taurus TCP in .380. That thing is painful to shoot. She shot six rounds said this thing hurts to much and I don’t want to keep it. I told her to shoot 6more rounds to get use to it. She did and said she was done with it. I then shot 12 rounds and she was right. The thing is just plain painful (the way the gun recoils cause the inside of the trigger guard to hit the finger). I also am done with it. As we were talking about the gun when said she doesn’t like the .380. I quickly corrected her and told her she doesn’t like the 380 in that particular gun. I pointed to her that the .380 in a different size gun would be comfortable to shoot.

In the example I previously cited I believe the lady had a Ruger .380, but I have no idea about which model. It doesn’t matter because she dumped it because of the recoil and is unlikely to go in that direction again. I doubt that she would be interested in the new Glock model 42, or for that matter a Colt 1903 Pocket Model – or any other pistol of that size because they are much larger then she’s willing to carry. What she wants is a much smaller gun with an amount of recoil she’s comfortable with, and she isn’t going to buy anything until she finds what she wants, other “more expert” opinions not withstand. Her past choices make me believe that in an overview she might prefer revolvers, but this is speculation.

To my knowledge she doesn’t have a CCW because in Arizona one isn’t required to carry concealed, either on the person or in a vehicle. When (if) she finds what she wants I expect it be fired occasionally, but not extensively, because of ammunition prices.

Ah me…. Welcome to the real world outside of The High Road. :banghead:

Old Fuff
May 5, 2014, 12:15 PM
As aside, keep in mind that a .32 6-shot cylinder is usually the same size (and bulk) as a 5-shot .38 one. This brings us back to the J-frame or Ruger LCR size. A 5-shot .32 cylinder can be slightly larger in diameter then a 25-cent coin. This allows a much smaller cylinder window in the frame, and respesents the best possibility for making a smaller revolver, all other things being equal.

JSH1
May 5, 2014, 12:27 PM
VooDoo: A modern, DA, 6-shot revolver was recently released to the market and then pulled a couple of years later due to lack of sales. I'm speaking of the Ruger, S&W, and Taurus DA revolvers offered in .327 Federal Magnum.

I think the gun your group is looking for is the Ruger SP101 in 32 H&R Mag. I purchased a 4" model last week and love it. You can start new shooter with 32 S&W, then S&W long and finally H&R mag. I paid $450 out the door for mine and it is in excellent shape. You can get the same gun in 327 Mag but they go for about $1000.

BSA1
May 5, 2014, 12:29 PM
There is room for a .32 revolver in say .32 S&W Long in this mix but it is DOA because of "Prevailing Wisdom" that anything that dun't start with .45 is no good/useless and frowned upon by the trainers and "folks in the know".

Alas we have come full circle on this topic.

I am far from an expert but I will not carry a 32 Long for self-defense period. A round that will only penetrate through a soft ¾” pine board just doesn’t cut it. Pepper Mace and Tazer are far better choices for quick “stopping power.”

The 32 Magnum seems to have promise. My favorite cartridge is the 32-20 and the 32 Magnum is merely a straight wall cartridge version. (A Grail Gun for me is a Police Positive in 32-20 and yes, I would carry it). But a modern double action 6 shot revolver has proven to be a market flop.

The Single Six has been a good seller for Ruger but it’s market is mainly Cowboy Action Shooters. However there must be enough 32 Magnums for Hornady to justify developing and market their Critical Defense for it.

With the J-Frame 32 Magnums out there no one has come for forward with their experiences with it.

What is needed is a time warp to the 24th Century for a Phaser.

Vodoun da Vinci
May 5, 2014, 12:45 PM
I'll have to look at that Ruger!! :)

A bit larger and heavier maybe if it's the same size as the SP101 in .38 Special but worth the lookie see none the less...thank you for the suggestion.

VooDoo

mavracer
May 5, 2014, 02:18 PM
Part of the problem with 32s popularity is the internet reading gun counter commando and their percieved ineffectiveness. Doesn't make it right but it's there. If somebody comes in and asks for advice they are told 380 or 38 special is minimum.
Also many want to make that sale today so if they don't have a 32 in stock, then they are somehow even less effective than what ever they do have in stock.

In the example I previously cited I believe the lady had a Ruger .380, but I have no idea about which model. It doesn’t matter because she dumped it because of the recoil and is unlikely to go in that direction again. I doubt that she would be interested in the new Glock model 42, or for that matter a Colt 1903 Pocket Model – or any other pistol of that size because they are much larger then she’s willing to carry. What she wants is a much smaller gun with an amount of recoil she’s comfortable with, and she isn’t going to buy anything until she finds what she wants, other “more expert” opinions not withstand. Her past choices make me believe that in an overview she might prefer revolvers, but this is speculation.
You might have her look at a Beretta Tomcat, it has a pretty wide little backstrap and is pretty comfortable to shoot also the tip up barrel makes it easy to manipulate for artheritic hands.
Just a FYI

RealGun
May 5, 2014, 02:45 PM
When I want to learn what non-gun people want in a self-defense weapon, I don't ask you guys. I ask my wife, ladies in the office, & guys who don't shoot much. Many of you will be surprised at their responses.

Very few will want anything chambered in 357 Mag, 44 Mag, 45 ACP, or 40 S&W. The guys usually answer some with kind of 9mm and the ladies will usually just tell you something small and easy to use. Really, I kid you not.

Us gun-people need to understand that non-gun people want convenience and ease of use over "knock-down power".

Why would we allow that they are somehow qualified to pick a gun? There is some discussion and range time with samples that needs to take place to make a "no-gun person" into a more savvy gun person.

Old Fuff
May 5, 2014, 03:08 PM
Most of the "no gun" folks that I know (or come to me) looking for advise don't necessarily want to be directed or dictated to. They are much more interested in finding out where to go to find what they want! :uhoh:

RealGun
May 5, 2014, 03:18 PM
They need to be led more than "dictated to", which I don't believe anyone proposed. They know what they want, maybe, but probably not what they need for the application they had in mind.

Stainz
May 5, 2014, 03:43 PM
Here is a rather contrary example - an NEF Model R73, a 3" barrel 5-shot .32 H&RM. Considerably clunkier - and heavier - than my 2 1/8" 632 Pro, a 6-shot .327Federal Magnum, shown with it:

http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u307/Stainz_2007/004-3-1.jpg

It looks and feels like it was made in a HS shop class. Only an idiot would buy one - yeah, it's mine! It's an example of the kind of .32 H&RM that was made for the lower end of the .32 market, the S&W 631 & 632 holding down the fort on the upper quality end. None were really 'small', although the J-frame 331, 431, & 432 were better examples. Still, that cartridge, introduced in 1984, was on life support when the .327 Fed Magnum was introduced. While the newer cartridge seems to be dead, the .32 H&RM still lingers - at least in the CA Undercoverette - still not a teeny revolver.

My wife wanted something more potent than the .25 ACP Beretta her dad had given her. She decided a .32 ACP would suffice - despite my pleas for her own 642. Several relatives and 'friends' loaned her their K-T .32's - none would fire, save one - and it stovepiped. She is a healthy 5' 10" gal - but doesn't want to 'carry' a revolver, due to their thick cylinders, so I bought her a new Seecamp .32 - 100% reliable with three ammo's. Neither of us could hit a bg torso at 7yd reliably. She finally found a belt holster gun she wants - and could shoot well - a Walther PPK/S LE (Yeah, she picked it out - fancy carving & engraving.). Post break-in (and cleaning) it is 100% reliable. Her house and car gun remain my beloved 2" 10, with which she is an unreal shooter, plinking away with my +P FBI loads. I mention her - a non-gun person - for a reason. She would never pocket carry anything larger than that .32 Seecamp - and tired of it's inaccuracy, she sold it. I don't think a teeny .32 revolver would entice her at all. A resingled gf of hers carried a .22 WMR NAA for years in her car - for 'protection'. She was shocked when it ftf at the range. Cleaned and with fresh ammo, she couldn't hit a bg target sheet at 4-5 yd. She loved my wife's 2" 10, of course... a steal for $280 new 9/03 from CDNN (A 10-11.). I wish I had bought several!

My wife - and her gf - are typical 'non-gun' types. Their previous exposure to firearms was limited - and they would forgo caliber and effectiveness for relative size.

Vodoun da Vinci
May 5, 2014, 03:44 PM
The problem here locally is that the people that "non gun folks" would normally go to for leadership tell them emphatically that a .380 is absolute minimum and anything smaller is intolerable as it is simply not going to be effective.

90% of the LGS counter guys will tell them that, 90% of the folks at the range shooting will tell them that, and the local range/CCL instructors will tell them that. It is "Common Wisdom" kinda like the "Law of Supply and Demand".

So they buy/try a small Ruger LCR in .38 Special because they find them everywhere and .38 Special is the way to go for a pocket gun....they go to the range with a more knowledgeable friend and stoke that gun with whatever is on the shelf and available. They shoot 5 rounds and give up on ever learning to use a handgun for self defense.

It's even worse here locally - they go to a CCL class and ask the instructor who tells them "minimum .380 auto or .38 Special revolver" and they rent a Ruger LCP or LCR as this is the smallest gun (it is concealable) in the minimal caliber allowed. They shoot it, it hurts and frightens them, and they are done. Lot's of them. Luckily I have friends at the local LGS and they recommend them to our support group and we save them by nurturing them and informing them and giving them more options in CCL pieces than "go big or stay home on the porch".

I find that once we establish some credibility with many of these folks we can convert and enlighten them and help them....more than many times my Wife and I have watched a Husband/Boyfriend introducing his significant other to shooting/SD/CCL with a large caliber gun. Usually his carry piece or a similar "mans" gun. She gets knocked around and frustrated and watches my Wife hammering targets and makes eye contact. Kelly introduces her to a smaller caliber gun and gives her options and ammunition and invites her to a meeting where we discuss this stuff. More than once we have used range credit that we have paid for to allow others to shoot our guns. We supply the ammunition and targets and let them experience something they may not have been given as an option. You can't believe the number of new shooters we have saved with a 97 year old Colt 1903 and half a box of hand loads after they have been alienated by shooting a rented Springer XD-S in .45! :eek:.

In fact, my Wife is today at the range with her G42 and one of our Colt Model M's and her Ruger LCR with a new friend who actually *has* her CCL but does not carry because she is afraid of the gun she qualified with. She won't /can't carry it and saw Kelly shooting he G42 2 weeks ago at the range. They talked for a bit as she is a petite female like my Wife.

She has her CCL...now we'll introduce her to guns she can handle and actually carry for the day she needs it. With confidence and not fear about what the recoil will do to her. I guess I'm dragging this off topic so I'll leave this line now. I just think there needs to be more options in smaller revolvers in calibers other than .38 Special. I'd think .32 revolvers would be the ticket for many even if they had to go to 5 rounds.

VooDoo

Old Fuff
May 5, 2014, 04:25 PM
Smith & Wesson's little .32 Safety hammerless (5-shot/.32 S&W) is noticeably smaller then anything proposed or illustrated so far. In terms of size, rather then design that's what I am proposing. Iver Johnson's and Harrington Richardson's made during the same time period (1905 - 1941) are about the same size, with either conventional or enclosed hammers. Most had 3" or longer barrels, but if one with a shorter length - original or converted - comes up up at a gun show or in a retailer's used gun counter they go fast, even if overpriced.

I don't believe that anyone can make a 6-shot .32 revolver that is enough smaller then a J-frame to make a meaningful difference. With a 5-shot cylinder they could.

Next time any of you go to a larger gun show make a point to look for and at these little guns - not because you want one, but simply to get an idea of the size.

And maybe you shouldn't bring any ladies along... :uhoh:

Hoppes Love Potion
May 5, 2014, 04:56 PM
It seems like too wide of a gap between .22 cal and .32 cal as far as ammo suitable for defensive purposes. Why isn't there a centerfire handgun cartridge in the .26 - .28 caliber range? Call it a .27 Special. You could have a cylinder and frame smaller than a J-frame yet still have 5 shots in a DA revolver. Or fit 6 or 7 of them in a J-frame cylinder.

I looked at options and ended up with the NAA Black Widow. Not ideal by any means, but it's a lot of firepower in a small package, and with regular practice, is pretty darn accurate. Carries like a dream, of course, and no wardrobe change needed.

Old Fuff
May 5, 2014, 06:22 PM
It seems like too wide of a gap between .22 cal and .32 cal as far as ammo suitable for defensive purposes. Why isn't there a centerfire handgun cartridge in the .26 - .28 caliber range?

The cartridge you propose would be entirely new and require a case and bullets that don't now exist. I don't think any manufacturer would take the risk and investment involved without a sure market.

If the E&A (Experts & Authorities) condemn anything below .380/9mm/.38 Special, what would they have to say about a .27 Special?

The real question here is between .380/9mm/.38 Special platforms vs. .22 RF/.22 WRM ones.

Again notice the thread title:

Why no small viable DA revolver?

Jim Watson
May 5, 2014, 07:22 PM
I guess it has all been said, but just for some data points...
I am prone to dropping a Keltec .32 (Mine works.) or an elderly S&W Model 38 Airweight Bodyguard in a pocket for casual carry. I feel no need for a pocket .380 or a dwarf .357. If I want more power, I put on a holster, as I did yesterday.

A friend's husband considerately provided her with a small .38 revolver, I think a S&W 642, so as to not burden her pretty little head with the complexities of an automatic. She turned it in on a Ruger .380 and considers herself better off. She is now shooting IDPA with us, using a full size steel 9mm P.

Another friend is a member of the gun of the month club and may be found with about anything. But he will always be found with his NAA .22 WMR mini-revolver, either as backup or as his "twenty foot switchblade." And he can get hits with it. He practices, though.

Re post #109, I got out my .32 Colt auto and looked and looked. I do not know where Mrs da Vinci is finding a slide lock lever to be confused by; and my magazine catch is way down on the bottom of the butt out of the way. No other external control but the safety catch.

Re post #102, the gunboards are not as well traveled as we would think from the volume of posts. There are relatively few of us putting up a lot of stuff. But I do sometimes hear "I saw your post on Thus&Such.com." But then I am one of the very few to post under his own name.

To paraphrase Jeff Cooper, a tool steel Safety Hammerless would seem to be the optimum pocket revolver. S&W thought so, and kept them on the market from the 1880s til WWII. But I doubt they would find a strong market now, however updated with better materials and night sights.

Maybe the Glock 42 is The Answer.
It isn't a DA revolver, which may be the reason it is catching on.
Everybody seems to like it except the experts clamoring for a Glock Single Stack 9mm.

GEM
May 5, 2014, 07:36 PM
Experience with 32 Mags?

I have a 632 SS Comp'ed version. I put fiber optics on it. It's a sweetheart to shoot with SW Long for practice and easy with 32 HR Mags. It's not a pocket gun but I load it with Buffalo Bore HPs for carry (which is rare) but that should do it for most evil.

It's J frame grip is fine for folks with small hands. I missed the 632 Pro's that Stainz has and don't want to pay the premium now.

Swing
May 5, 2014, 07:49 PM
Maybe this potential market is lost because these people would never wander into a gun store.

....

What I mean is that most casual gun owners I know today do not like going to gun stores.

I suspect there is a lot of truth to that.

JSH1
May 6, 2014, 07:28 AM
It seems like too wide of a gap between .22 cal and .32 cal as far as ammo suitable for defensive purposes. Why isn't there a centerfire handgun cartridge in the .26 - .28 caliber range? Call it a .27 Special. You could have a cylinder and frame smaller than a J-frame yet still have 5 shots in a DA revolver. Or fit 6 or 7 of them in a J-frame cylinder.

NAA made something for that purpose but not quite what you imagine. The .25 NAA is a .32 ACP necked down for a .25 ACP bullet. It didn't really take off, their 32 NAA has done better.

I really think we need more guns between .22 LR and 380 / 38 spl. While many don't like 32's for self defense the lack of guns in these calibers leads to people carrying .22's. Manufactures market these .22's as trainers for the larger calibers but many people carry them. I'm thinking of guns like the Ruger LCR in 22, Ruger SR22, and Sig Mosquito.

I'll have to look at that Ruger!!

A bit larger and heavier maybe if it's the same size as the SP101 in .38 Special but worth the lookie see none the less...thank you for the suggestion.

VooDoo

Ruger made the .32 H&R Mag version of the SP101 with a 4" or 3" barrel. They are the same size as the .38 special version but weigh a little bit more. The .327 Fed Mag version was only offered with a 3" barrel.

I took my SP101 to the range again yesterday and fired 6 different types of ammo. There was a noticeable step up in recoil as I went from:

1. Fiocchi .32 S&W Long (LWC)
2. Magtech .32 S&W long (SJHP)
3. Hornady .32 H&R Mag Critical Defense

I loaded two each into the cylinder so I could compare. The Magtech SJHP surprised me the most. It is noticeably hotter than the other types of .32 S&W Long I have tried. (Magtech LRN, Magtech LWC, Aguila LRN, PPU LRN, and Fiocchi LWC)

StrawHat
May 6, 2014, 05:03 PM
Here is a solo shot of the 32 S&W Hand Ejector. A 6 shot revolver on the old I frame.

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc194/StrawHat/001_zps4bc4b50a.jpg (http://s214.photobucket.com/user/StrawHat/media/001_zps4bc4b50a.jpg.html)

I bought it because it looked tiny sitting in the case next to the K frames and the Detective Special. Tomorrow I will get a shot of it next to my 36-1.

Will I carry it? That is a definite maybe. First I have to work up suitable loads for it and that reqires a new bullet mold.

ZVP
May 6, 2014, 07:47 PM
you can only have the revolver so small to maintain control of an adequate cartrige
ZVP

RealGun
May 7, 2014, 08:36 AM
you can only have the revolver so small to maintain control of an adequate cartridge

That quote should hang above every gun sales counter and in every men's casual clothing department.

RealGun
May 7, 2014, 08:39 AM
I am prone to dropping a Keltec .32 (Mine works.) or an elderly S&W Model 38 Airweight Bodyguard in a pocket for casual carry. I feel no need for a pocket .380 or a dwarf .357. If I want more power, I put on a holster, as I did yesterday.

Whatever works for you, man, but I am thinking that you can't do that in the middle of a gunfight.

BSA1
May 7, 2014, 10:39 AM
Having a little spare time last night I ran some numbers;

22 Magnum;

Speer Gold Dot 40 gr. 1150 fps 99 foot lbs

Hornady 45 GR. Flex-Tip Expanding; 843 fps 70 foot lbs


25 AUTO;

American Eagle 50 gr. TMJ; 753 fps 65 foot lbs

Winchester 45 gr. Expanding Point: 816 fps 70 foot lbs


32 S&W:

Magtech 85gr. LRN 680 fps 87 foot lbs


32 LONG:

Magtech 98gr. LRN; 705 fps 108 foot lbs



32 AUTO;

Cor-Bon 60 gr. JHP; 944 fps 120 foot lbs

Federal 65 gr. Hydra-Shok 805 fps 98 foot lbs

Winchester 60 gr.Silver Tip 787 fps 80 foot lbs



32 MAGNUM;

Federal 85 gr. JHP; 845 fps 135 foot lbs

Hornady 80 gr. Critical Defense; 1150 fps 235 foot lbs


380 AUTO:

Buffalo Bore 90 gr. JHP +P; 1052 fps 220 foot lbs

Cor-Bon 90 gr. JHP; 926 fps 170 foot lbs

Winchester 85 gr.Silver Tip 813 fps 130 foot lbs


9 x 18 MAK;

Hornady 95 gr. JHP 831 fps 145 foot lbs


I based my numbers out if 2" barrel as much as possible. It is clear that with the exception of the 32 Magnum there is little difference in their foot pounds. In fact the 22 Magnum compares very favorability with them.

JSH1
May 7, 2014, 01:35 PM
Ammo's muzzle energy can vary quite a bit even from the same manufacturer. As an example Magtech loads 3 different types of bullet for .32 S&W Long:

LRN - 98 gr - 705 fps - 108 ft-lbf
LWC - 98 gr - 741 fps - 119 ft-lbf
SJHP - 98 gr - 778 fps - 132 ft-lbf

I have shot all of the above and can feel the difference in recoil

When comparing the same type of ammo in different calibers from the same manufacturer there is a clear difference in energy.

For Hornady Critical Defense:

22 WMR - 45 gr - 1000 fps - 100 ft-lbf
25 ACP* - 35 gr - 900 fps - 63 ft-lbf
32 ACP* - 60 gr - 1000 fps - 133 ft-lbf
32 NAA - 80 gr - 1000 fps - 178 ft-lbf
32 H&R - 80 gr - 1150 fps - 235 ft-lbf
380 ACP - 90 gr - 1000 fps - 200 ft-lbf
38 spl - 110 gr - 1010 fps - 249 ft-lbf
9mm - 115 gr - 1140 fps - 332 ft-lbf

*25 ACP and 32 ACP are Hornady XTP

BSA1
May 7, 2014, 07:52 PM
Thanks GEM for affirming what I suspected about lack of recoil with J-frame 32 Magnums.

JSH1 thank you for your data. I tried to publish the weakest and strongest loads in each caliber. As our data shows there is no "gap" in power amoung the small rounds. In fact there is a lot of overlap eliminating the need for a "27 Special."

PistolPete45
May 7, 2014, 08:11 PM
OK I love my revolvers carry a heavy gun compared to a lot of people ..I bought a Taurus 441 back in the 90's 5 shot 44 special >> made well in the mid 90's then ... Quality seemed to drop like a rock >>> 3 inch barrel steel revolver . The light guns today kick Or the PC term snappy . This gun is a pleasure to shoot and yea a 200 Gr bullet at about 950 fps hits things hard . I worry a bit less about a criminal jacked on crack or whatever with a 200 grain 44 instead of a 124 9MM . I do hit what I aim at and 5 of these will stop a threat ..If not I have a NA 22 mini mag for a get off me gun .

Anmut
May 7, 2014, 08:42 PM
I carry and shoot (weekly) my 642 - I absolutely love it. And I can shoot it as accurate as any of my glocks.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why no small viable DA revolver?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!