.32 S&W Long Effectiveness

Very well reasoned question. I've never owned a 32 long chambered gun, but the only caliber I am interested in adding to my current assortment would be a 32. Not interested in 327, but 32 H&R or 32 Long would be great. I would think 32 long should be effective against run of the mill bad guys or rabid wild animals.
Way too many folks have magnumitis, which is fine with me. I love a revolver chambered for 38 Spl.
I think I might start the search for a 32 now.

I think this gets back to the whole "any gun is a deterrent" vs. "any gun that has enough penetration to reach something vital" vs. "a cartridge that has the power to do real damage without hitting something vital" and so on ad infinitum. 32 S&W Long is more effective than 32 S&W, I guess. But it's still very low in power. If that's all you want to carry, why not carry a 22? Much cheaper to practice with, maybe more shots in the gun, and so on. Or a nice small flat 32 ACP pistol? More shots, with more power per shot, and and a faster reload. And there seems to be more 32 ACP ammo for sale than 32 Long. (Maybe I'm out of date about that, though.)

If I was going to carry a gun, I would not want to rely on deterrent effect or a well placed shot; I would want it to have enough power to have some effect with any center-of- mass hit. I don't really know where that puts the line, but I am pretty sure 32 Long is below it.

BTW, I love 32 Long as a target and plinking cartridge, and have several pistols in it. For that reason, I know very well how it compares in power to other cartridges. It's a real pleasure to shoot, but I don't think I'd want to tackle a angry medium sized dog with it.

I think the post above explains the issue very well. For concealed carry, I believe it would be effective based on two assumptions: 1. The attacker is probably not expecting the intended target to pull a gun and get shot at, and 2. The attacker probably doesn’t want to get hurt and will retreat if hit. Not all situations fall into this category, but everything has its limitations.

32 Long was, for decades, considered completely adequate for self defense against human-sized targets. Come to that, it was considered adequate for offense too, in a law-enforcement role.
It was popular on into the 1960s, well after the 38 Special was King of the Hill, especially for plainclothes and concealed.

Just as the case with 32 Auto, it seems to be more effective than the math would indicate. I personally believe that has to do with penetration, more than anything else.

Given the choice of a 6-shot 32 Long or an 8-shot 32 Auto, I'm going with the Auto in a carry situation.

However, if someone had difficulty racking a slide, or otherwise manipulating the Auto, I would not hesitate to substitute a 32 Long revolver.

If ammo was on shelves in something like a soft lead hollow point or good sharp shouldered semi wad cutter I would have no problem carrying one in a old Colt or J Frame type of snub. I don’t have one for the above reason. I am an avid reloader but don’t carry my own reloads, I belong to that frame of mind. Yes bigger is always better in some ways, but, you could do a lot worse than a good .32 revolver.

I love my 32SWLS - cheap to reload, easy to shoot. Remember, when that round was developed, the average height was about 5'6 and the average about 125 pounds - so trying to compare its capability against today's 6-3, 250 built-like-a-linebacker guy is moot. Take a modern made 32 and you can juice up the loads to hotter level than the factory stuff designed for those 100+ year old revolvers.

I have a couple of revolvers in 32 long, and several more 32 magnums that I usually shoot longs out of. 32 S&W long is an accurate and fun cartridge.

At this point I don't prefer 32 S&W long for SD. My CC and HD arms are all in more powerful calibers.

However, the day will come when I'm not able to handle more powerful calibers.

I'm guessing that I'll be able to handle a 32 S&W long revolver long after I'm unable to fire 1911's or Model 10's.

I'll go down to 22lr if I ever have to, but 32 long is so mild that I hope to avoid it.

With this in mind, I've already prepared my future old person arsenal for (respectively) HD, poaching small game when the pension check is late, BUG.

Interesting

The GunSam video posted above is good. I think I have watched every video he has made.

OP I hope this is a direct answer to your question. Its an article from Gunblast on the 32 mag round. The answer is in the very last paragraph about the lawman from the early 20th century who used a 32 long revolver. And you can bet it was loaded with RNL bullets and not some exotic high speed HP ammo.

https://gunblast.com/WBell_SW32s.htm

If .32 S&W "short" was considered adequate 100 years ago, then the .32 S&W L. was as adequate and, if fired from revolver that minimize the bullet jump thus improving velocity and penetration, both are still fine today, but as we know they're not better than other options, not unless you're looking to minimize the size and weight and you go with something like the H&R Young America, which at one time was the second most popular revolver in American history with over 1.5 million produced.

Now, I'd rather go with something like the P-32 or a .32 LCP II, but if I really wanted the ultimate in lightweight, small size, reliability of a revolver, an updated Young America with an aluminum frame, steel lined barrel, just completely lighted as much as possible and it weighed 4 or 5oz empty, yeah, I'd go for it.

Tallball said:

However, the day will come when I'm not able to handle more powerful calibers.

I'm guessing that I'll be able to handle a 32 S&W long revolver long after I'm unable to fire 1911's or Model 10's.

Click to expand...

This has been my reasoning as well, since none of us are getting any younger. Figure that if I find myself confined to a wheelchair that a 30-1 tucked in next to my leg might provide some comfort in my dotage.

I think the .32 long is a great round for the woods… excellent for small critters, good for slightly bigger ones, adequate for poaching a deer in a pinch (bonus that it seems to be a very accurate round) and most likely effective against two legged pests too. I would not feel undergunned with one as my only revolver. I would, however, also not make it my first choice for my home defense gun, or combat.

The biggest downside to the round in my opinion is the primarily older guns it is chambered in. My .32 S&W revolver from the ‘20s is a lovely and handy little gun, but is blessed with sights almost too tiny for me to see, and my eyes aren’t even 40.

I’d love a repeating rifle or rolling block in .32. Preferably with adjustable irons and provision for a scope.

I read in one of the gun mags some years ago that more people have been killed with a .32 caliber pistol than any other caliber. While not a powerhouse, I believe it would get the job done if the shooter did his part.

>What I’m really asking is whether the .32 S&W Long of yesteryear was or is an effective self defense weapon

I guess that really comes down to what we mean by 'effective'.

> just because one is better doesn’t necessarily mean the other is ineffective.

The easy way to describe effectiveness is by comparison; better than a pointed stick, worse than a .45, sure.

I'm struggling to define it any other way. If it turns away an attack half the time, is it effective? Is a vaccine that works half the time effective? Most people would say 'no' about the vaccine, but they are comparing it to other vaccines. If the very first vaccine worked half the time, what would people have said then?

I'll answer it like this - seeing a gun often works to discourage violence, and getting shot, even by the smallest gun, often works too. This is the baseline, the level that any gun can reach.

When we ask about the effectiveness of a specific caliber, I think we are asking how well they do above that baseline - how well they deter a determined attacker by wounding, rather than by intimidation. By that standard, I think a 32 Long is very ineffective. In a case where someone did not even realize that they were shot - where effectiveness is measured by wounding alone - I think it would have very little likelihood of having any useful effect, at least within the required timeframe.

One could argue that this applies to many pistol rounds, and it might well be true. Bigger rounds have a higher likelihood (how high? we don't really know) and that's all we can say.

I like 32 S&W Wadcutters ….

I have a 31-1 and I've shot it a lot. I would say it would be about as effective as a .380 for self defense. I've seen where they will penetrate about 12" of ballistic gel. Bottom line I wouldn't have any issues carrying a snub if that's all I had. They can't reach a velocity that will expand a hollow point so wad cutters would be the best choice. I use mine for a range toy.

If you get shot in the liver with a 32 long you're going to know it. May take a second or two to register and may even be more painful than a 9mm because the bullet will probably stay there. Just hurts thinking about it.

I like all 32s. I wish they were made in j frames again. I wish they were made in K frames again. I wish most small 380s were 32ACP. Hell, Leroy Brown carried one in his pocket! What more do you need! LOL

Considering the .30 Carbine has nearly 10 times as much muzzle energy as a .32 S&W Long, and people consider the .30 Carbine cartridge obsolete and ineffective compared to the modern choices we have now (check out my recent M1 carbine thread for more), then I can’t imagine what these same folks would think of this round.

Mosin77 said:

I’d love a repeating rifle or rolling block in .32. Preferably with adjustable irons and provision for a scope.

Click to expand...

Me too !

JCooperfan1911 said:

Considering the .30 Carbine has nearly 10 times as much muzzle energy as a .32 S&W Long, and people consider the .30 Carbine cartridge obsolete and ineffective compared to the modern choices we have now (check out my recent M1 carbine thread for more), then I can’t imagine what these same folks would think of this round.

Click to expand...

My Uncles choice of weapon in Europe in WW2 was a 30 Carbine … he had some great stories… gruesome . But great stories

I have to stop reading all of these 32 caliber revolver threads. It's making me want a 32 H&R Magnum revolver even more.

12Bravo20 said:

I have to stop reading all of these 32 caliber revolver threads. It's making me want a 32 H&R Magnum revolver even more.

Click to expand...

Hope this helps