.32 S&W Long Effectiveness

Status
Not open for further replies.
mavracer said:
I didn't specify 38 special,
Click to expand...
No, but if anyone today would choose a .38 (you said "a 5 shot 38") it is natural to assume that you were referring to the .38 Special as would be most unlikely to be anything else.
If you intended to compare the two cartridges for which the Regulation Police revolvers were chambered, you should have said so.

mavracer said:
now you're not just changing diameter but adding length.
Click to expand...
Adding length to something that you may have had in mind, but did not mention? Come now!

Alrighty then: which do you think would have the advantage, a 5 shot .38 Special, or a 6 shot .32 S&W Long?

mavracer said:
Even so that's a mighty fine line you're walking on and while I believe you think you stay on it. I believe you're dancing on both sides.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about?
 
I have a Smith and Wesson Regulation Police revolver in .32 Long. My grandfather obtained it trade from an officer who was dissatisfied with its performance in a deadly force incident.

Il like to shoot it, but I would choose something else for defensive use if possible.

I remember when the .327 Magnum was announced: .357 Magnum energy, .38 Special recoil, and a sixth shot. I was impressed. I still thought in terms of "energy dump" in those days.

One of our members was far less impressed, d he spoke of muzzle blast.

The sound pressure dissuades me. And we now have small six shot .38 revolvers again. I prefer them.
 
327 Mags - I shoot them from a SW 632 3 inch comp'ed gun. It is not without a significant recoil and it does blast. I usually shoot 32 Longs in IDPA club matches. No sweat, easy to shoot. However, it wouldn't not knock down steel reliably. So I would plan out a speed loader with 327s when I got to the steel. First time I did it, the SO thought the gun blew up as did the other shooters. I got used to it as they did but new folks were always impressed by the wham!

For a carry J frame, a 432 with 32 HR mags works fine for when dress or other circumstances precludes my usual semi.

As I always said - I trained extensively with the Js, so not to be the 'guy' who just drops it into his pocket and thinks it is easy to shoot. 5 or 6 is not enough but sometimes you stuck with it.
 
Interestingly, the 8mm cartridge for the French Model 1892 service revolver had about as much power as the .32 S&W Long.
 
Kleanbore said:
Alrighty then: which do you think would have the advantage, a 5 shot .38 Special, or a 6 shot .32 S&W Long?
Click to expand...
Well the 38 special is going to have a huge advantage in availability and options.
The magnitude of the advantages a small change in power is going to allow a small advantage in damage and a small advantage in recoil. A slightly larger change will have slightly larger advantages.
This is going to hold true no matter where you are on the power range.
Now a person's individual recoil tolerance, recoil control and gun weight come into play.
It really comes down to compromise and best compromise is an oxymoron.
Kleanbore said:
The sound pressure dissuades me. And we now have small six shot .38 revolvers again. I prefer them.
Click to expand...
If they only made a K6 in 38 with an alloy frame that weighs 16ish oz loaded so it'd have a benefit over my Hellcat.
 
GeoDudeFlorida said:
IIRC there were numbers of transition guns made with I-Frames that had already been produced and numbered model markings, as was the new policy. I have seen - but been unable to purchase or trade for - numbered I-Frame in .38S&W. I have not seen one in .32S&W-L but would love to have one. The .38S&W I-Frame model 32's are very, very nice shooters.
Click to expand...

Howdy

Here is another photo for comparison of frame sizes. At the top is a J Frame, 38 Special, Flat Latch Model 36 Chiefs Special. In the middle is a Pre- Model 31, 32 Regulation Police (Postwar), built on the Improved I Frame. At the bottom is a Prewar 32 Regulation Police. Notice the trigger guard shape on the revolver in the middle. This is the Improved I frame, which had the same trigguard shape as a J frame, but still retained the shorter cylinder of an I frame. The one in the middle is actually very interesting. I have not dated it yet. It does have MOD 31 stamped on the frame under the yoke, so I have to assume it is a 'post' 1957 revolver. I got the original box with this revolver, and it is labeled 32 Regulation Police, Blued, 3 Inch, with the Serial Number hand written on the label.The label has been applied to the box, rather than being printed on the box. I suspect S&W used an old box, since the information printed inside on the lid is dated April 15, 1955. S&W never threw anything away, they used old boxes all the time and simply applied a new label. I really should get this one dated.

pmg4cvdWj.jpg



ThomasT said:
OK I measured the cylinder on my model 31-1 and according to Driftwood if its an I-Frame it would not be long enough to accommodate a 38 Special round. My cylinder measures 1.390" and a SWC load would just be able to fit. The bullet nose would be flush with the end of the cylinder. I am sure a Round Nose 38 Sp would be way too long. My model 34-1 22lr has a cylinder that measures 1.445 in length and a 38 SP would fit. Maybe even a RN load.
Click to expand...


This is why the I frames were never chambered for 38 Special. The cylinder in the revolver at the top is 1.250 long, the cylinder in the revolver at the bottom is 1.252 long. Clearly a standard 38 Special police load would never fit in either one.

pmvAbSfSj.jpg
 
In terms of effectiveness, I think the necessary clarification is “on what?” We all know that on a man, it’s going to be “possibly effective but certainly less ideal than the 21st century standard service calibers.” The attractiveness of .32 long, as far as I can see it, comes from the relatively svelte guns it is chambered in (I’d much rather have a 4” I frame pencil barrel on my hip all day vs a 4” heavy barrel K frame, for example) and the reputation of the cartridge for fine accuracy.

No matter how much any of us may wish it otherwise, we will never change the fact that handguns are marginal stoppers. For every caliber there is a little bit of hard data and a whole lot of anecdote about one shot stops, and a couple other cases where a bad guy takes a full cylinder or mag of the caliber in question, and is undeterred. So answering the question about if a caliber is “good enough” is very much going to come down to individual ideals, preferences, and circumstances.

I like .32 long because it’s quiet, for a centerfire handgun cartridge. It’s also cheap to reload, doesn’t make you hunt for brass, is accurate, and has more punch than .22 for shooting things with four legs, which makes it a great outdoors gun. I’d feel entirely safe with one, in part because I’ve never encountered anything in the wild more frightening than a cottonmouth. If I thought it was probable (or even reasonably possible) that I’d run into bad-tempered drug smugglers or psychopaths, I’d carry something bigger (and find a different piece of woods to explore.) Most guns will get the job done if you know their limitations and act within them. A .32 is certainly capable of stopping man or beast with proper shot placement. A .45acp will surely give a greater margin of error. A .30-06 will make a .45 look puny. Etc etc.
 
Very good note, M77.

I'llm add to the "proper shot placement" comment. If I were facing a man wearing light clothing head on and good score several good hits, I would have some hope. The issue, as I see it, arises if the target is situated obliquely, his arm is out stretched, and he is wearinf heavier clothing. That could require a lot more penetration.
 
Driftwood Johnson said:
Howdy

Here is another photo for comparison of frame sizes. At the top is a J Frame, 38 Special, Flat Latch Model 36 Chiefs Special. In the middle is a Pre- Model 31, 32 Regulation Police (Postwar), built on the Improved I Frame. At the bottom is a Prewar 32 Regulation Police. Notice the trigger guard shape on the revolver in the middle. This is the Improved I frame, which had the same trigguard shape as a J frame, but still retained the shorter cylinder of an I frame. The one in the middle is actually very interesting. I have not dated it yet. It does have MOD 31 stamped on the frame under the yoke, so I have to assume it is a 'post' 1957 revolver. I got the original box with this revolver, and it is labeled 32 Regulation Police, Blued, 3 Inch, with the Serial Number hand written on the label.The label has been applied to the box, rather than being printed on the box. I suspect S&W used an old box, since the information printed inside on the lid is dated April 15, 1955. S&W never threw anything away, they used old boxes all the time and simply applied a new label. I really should get this one dated.

View attachment 1005150

Great pictures and overview. Thanks for taking the time to do that. Just looked at my copy of the Standard Catalog of Smith and Wesson and the pictures show that is a revolver that they began making in 1957. They just renamed it from Regulation Police to Model 31. Nice collection.




This is why the I frames were never chambered for 38 Special. The cylinder in the revolver at the top is 1.250 long, the cylinder in the revolver at the bottom is 1.252 long. Clearly a standard 38 Special police load would never fit in either one.

View attachment 1005151
Click to expand...
 
Everybody,

Does it really matter about the .32 S&W Long being the NYPD cartridge? NYPD dropped it and went to the .38 Special, so they must not have been satisfied with the .32. Als,o just about everyone has heard the horror stories about "FAILURE TO STOP" with the old .38 Special police load, the 158 grain round nose lead that NYPD and many, many other departments used.

I cannot think of any reason that the .32 S&W Long using 98 grain lead round nose bullets would be more effective than a .38 Special using 158 grain round nose lead bullets. Ramping up the velocity and getting at least some expansion is what has made the .38 Special +P loadings viable for self defense, not penetration.

The biggest problem with the .32 S&W Long is that the velocity is so low, it is almost impossible to get any expansion. If I were to carry my .32 S&W Long revolvers, I would load with the full wad-cutter loads and shoot a failure to stop drill (one to the center mass and one to the head). My agency adopted this technique and we were using 9m.m. Golden Sabre ammo at the time which is much, much more effective than a .32 S&W Long load.

The .32 S&W Long is a great cartridge to shoot at paper targets, tin cans and gophers or rabbits. Even in small frame revolvers, it has low recoil and is pleasant to shoot, but that is as far as I would go.
I would go with the posters suggesting a .32ACP like the WALTHER PPK before I would consider a .32 revolver like the .32 S&W Long. More shots, quicker reloading!

Jim
 
Driftwood. I noticed that my '51 pure postwar early improved HE has a significantly easier trigger pull in DA than my '81 31-5. Perhaps it is because it has been around and cycled for many more years? Whatever the reason, I like it :) But just curious if that is the case with your pre-war HE vs. your newer J-frames? Maybe the earlier models had a more efficient mechanism.
 
Mr_Flintstone said:
Is that a published load, and if so where might I find that data?
Click to expand...

The highest load for Bullseye powder I found was 3.5grs. My load was either 3 or 3.2grs of BE powder. And those loads are for modern 32 longs with heat treated cylinders not turn of the 20th century swing outs or top break guns. And I found the data online somewhere.

golden said:
Does it really matter about the .32 S&W Long being the NYPD cartridge? NYPD dropped it and went to the .38 Special, so they must not have been satisfied with the .32. Als,o just about everyone has heard the horror stories about "FAILURE TO STOP" with the old .38 Special police load, the 158 grain round nose lead that NYPD and many, many other departments used.
Click to expand...

The reason that the 32 was dropped was not because it wasn't effective against people but because it wasn't effective against the new invention of automobiles. But neither was the 38 special. Thats why the 357 mag was brought out. And against early thick metal cars the 45 ACP didn't do so well either.

Ted Hinton and Sheriff Smoot Schimd shot at Clyde and Bonnie with a couple of Thompson machine guns and the rounds didn't penetrate the bodies of the cars but did go through the glass and drew blood from someone. They found the car abandoned later and decided they wanted nothing else to do with the "Tinny Thompson". Ted and Bob Alcorn were given a couple of BARs like Clyde used.
 
Last edited:
ThomasT said:
The reason that the 32 was dropped was not because it wasn't effective against people but because it wasn't effective against the new invention of automobiles. But neither was the 38 special. Thats why the 357 mag was brought out. And against early thick metal cars the 45 ACP didn't do so well either.
Click to expand...

The 357 Magnum cartridge was developed for handgun hunting. Not to go through car bodies. There is an old legend that the 38 Special could not disable a car, specifically that it could not penetrate the engine block of a car. Prior to the development of the 357 Magnum cartridges, Smith and Wesson built some 38 Special revolvers on the heavy N frame for the 38/44 High Velocity police loads. The revolvers were built on the larger N frame instead of the traditional K frame because the larger cylinder of a N frame revolver would leave more metal between the chambers. Since the N frame Smiths had traditionally been reserved for 44 caliber revolvers, the new 38s were called the 38/44 Revolvers. There were two versions, the 38/44 Heavy Duty, which had fixed sights, like this:

polRVbMxj.jpg




And the 38/44 Outdoorsman, which had adjustable sights, like this:

poLVKDC8j.jpg




The 38/44 Heavy Duty was introduced in 1930, the Outdoorsman in 1931. But because the 38/44 high velocity police loads could be loaded into a standard K frame 38, possibly with disastrous results, a new cartridge, called the 357 Magnum was developed in 1935. The cartridge was about 1/8" longer than a 38 Special, so it could not be loaded into the chambers of a conventional 38.

The first 5,500 357 Magnum revolvers were part of the Registered Magnum marketing campaign, where each revolver was custom built to the specifications of the owner, and stamped with a registration number. The buyer received a certificate that factory registered the revolver to him. By 1938 S&W was overwhelmed with orders, the Registered Magnum program was discontinued.

To help with sales, Douglas Wesson, Daniel Wesson's grandson, went on a big game hunting trip around the world to promote the new revolver.

pn3ZJnyPp.png




Yes, the 357 Magnum was a very effective police round, but it was developed for handgun hunting.
 
ThomasT said:
The reason that the 32 was dropped was not because it wasn't effective against people but because it wasn't effective against the new invention of automobiles. But neither was the 38 special.
Click to expand...
That cannot explain why police departments replaced their .32 revolvers with .38 Specials.
 
Driftwood Johnson said:
The 357 Magnum cartridge was developed for handgun hunting. Not to go through car bodies.
Click to expand...

"The .357 Magnum was collaboratively developed over a period in the early to mid-1930s by a group of individuals in a direct response to Colt's .38 Super Automatic. At the time, the .38 Super was the only American pistol cartridge capable of defeating automobile cover and the early ballistic vests that were just beginning to emerge in the post-World War I "Gangster Era".[citation needed] Tests at the time revealed that those vests defeated any handgun bullet traveling less than about 1,000 feet per second (300 m/s). Colt's .38 Super Automatic just edged over that velocity and was able to penetrate car doors and vests that bootleggers and gangsters were employing as cover."[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.357_Magnum

The use of the 357 as a hunting round ins't mentioned until you get to the heading "Performance". And I'm sure the 357 was used by its owners for anything and everything.
 
ThomasT said:
"The .357 Magnum was collaboratively developed over a period in the early to mid-1930s by a group of individuals in a direct response to Colt's .38 Super Automatic. At the time, the .38 Super was the only American pistol cartridge capable of defeating automobile cover and the early ballistic vests that were just beginning to emerge in the post-World War I "Gangster Era".[citation needed] Tests at the time revealed that those vests defeated any handgun bullet traveling less than about 1,000 feet per second (300 m/s). Colt's .38 Super Automatic just edged over that velocity and was able to penetrate car doors and vests that bootleggers and gangsters were employing as cover."[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.357_Magnum

The use of the 357 as a hunting round ins't mentioned until.....
Click to expand...
When one reads articles on wikipedia, one must consider who contributed them and when, refer to the footnotes, and study the original source material.

The order in which the reference to hunting appears in the write-up tells us nothing.

We know that some police departments used .38-44 .38 Special loads as early as 1928, shortly after the appearance of the .38 Super. There were loads with metal piercing bullets sold for it.

Later, when Phil Sharpe invented the .357 Magnum, his loads contained hollow point cast bullets--ideal for the taking of game, but not for piercing the car bodies of the day.

When the .357 became commercially available, there were metal piercing bullets available for it.

The first examples of the Registered Magnum were given to J; Edgar Hoover. According to Keith, they were a real handful, agents did not like them, and they were not issued for ordinary carry.
 
Kleanbore said:
When one reads articles on wikipedia, one must consider who contributed them and when, refer to the footnotes, and study the original source material.
Click to expand...

I know what the footnotes are for and thats why I left the number 7 in the quote I posted because the information for that statement came from an article by Massad Ayoob in Guns Magazine. And not many will argue with his knowledge of the history of guns.

I am sure the round and the gun appealed to lawmen and sportsmen alike all at the same time.
 
Last edited:
Ayoob said correctly that a need had materialized for metal piercing capability; that the .38 Super had come out; and that the .357 Magnum was the result of an extended collaborative developmental effort.

He did not say that the .357 Magnum was developed to defeat car bodies. One could attribute that purpose to the .38 Super and to the .38-44 .38 Special load in the .38-44 Heavy Duty.

The .357 Magnum was developed to further increase the performance of the .38-44. Elmer Keith had been using hot .38 loads and .44 loads fo hunting. Phil sharpe obtained higher velocity than Keith, by using lighter cast bullets.

Although the first examplet of the Registered Magnum went to J. Edgar Hoover, all of the prewar publicity and advertising for the gun were focussed on big game hunting.

According to Keith, the Bureau kept their guns in reserve for special duty.

The .357 Magnum started to make its way into a number of law enforcement armories some time after WWII.
 
Thomas,

We will have to agree to disagree. If the .32 S&W Long was considered effective, why did nearly all law enforcement agencies drop it? We are talking about 80 years ago and the .32 was on the way out in the U.S.
The .38 S&W (not the .38 Special), an even older cartridge that started out as a black powder round also died a slow death. Some departments still issued them into the 50 and maybe the 60's, but they were not buying new ones, except for maybe INDIA, which bought RUGER Security Six revolvers in the .38 S&W caliber.


Nearly every agency went to the .38 Special and stayed with it long after the .38 Super, .38-44 and.357 magnum were developed and released for general sale. The .38 Special 158 grain lrn load in a medium size gun like the S&W M&P or COLT Official Police were considered ideal by many agencies. After all, their officers qualified, that is assuming they did qualifications. Also, my own experience with my favorite range gun, a S&W model 15 is that it is easy to shoot and shoot's accurately with standard pressure rounds..

At about 2 pounds, a mid size .38 Specialit is not a lead weight on your hip, unlike S&W L-frame or RUGER GP-100 or even back in the 1930's, a S&W N-frame or COLT New Service. These were large, bulky and heavy guns with stronger recoil. If a department did not specify what to carry, an officer would want to carry a gun that is comfortable to carry all day. The same thing happened when semi-autoes were adopted. Full size, steel framed guns were not as popular as mid size guns like the aluminum and polymer framed guns.

Just my opinion,

Jim
 
ThomasT said:
Some good reading and load data. http://www.lasc.us/FryxellThe32S-WLong.htm
Click to expand...
LASC is a good source for many things, including some potential starting-load data, and very interesting reading.

The .32Long, for as long as I can remember and from what I've read of its long history, has been admired more for its accuracy than its "stopping power" - a phrase that came out following the Moro rebellion. TR made it pretty clear - but not crystal clear in words any modern TLDR netizen might understand - if you read the recommendations and newsy articles of the time, that marksmanship was about the only objective criteria the early organizers of New York's metropolitan police departments had for making hiring decisions at the time (late 19th Century). Remember the time: paper records were sparse and unreliable; reputations by-word-of-mouth could be bought or created from whyole cloth; penicillin was 30 years and an entire ocean away; good, fresh, healthy foods were virtually unknown in the big cities (thus how Henry Heinz got his fortune) diets were poor at best; foreign immigrant organized crime mobs were still cloistered in small neighborhoods preying mostly upon each other; automobiles were barely faster than a man could run (top speeds of the Rambler and Oldsmobile were less than 14MPH) and roads were designed for horses and foot-traffic, not tires.

A .32Long in that era, under those conditions, aimed professionally and accurately by a Constable backed up by ten or fifteen more of his kind, was a good enough weapon against street criminals. I've found no records to indicate otherwise until the Prohibition Era. The Colts and S&W service revolvers in .32 and .38 were easily very good weapons for urban civilians until the post-Great War era. Today, if you live in a rural area where rabies-inflicted wild animals of less than 50 pounds are the most common concern, its still a good weapon. A good carry-size .38S&W or .38Special is better but, not by magnitudes. A single-action .357Magnum load with a heavy, slow lead projectile, or a medium-framed .44Special loaded similarly, is about the top of the range. There's just no need for more power unless you're out in the pastures where a wild boar hog might decide to turn the tables - and that's real uncommon! - or maybe you're thinking Yogi and Booboo might drop in unexpectedly for dinner - and that's what rifles are for.
 
GeoDude covers it well, with a little nostalgia. Ah for the good old days.

None of us today can remember the actual timelines, but we read that the Colt Police Positive Special ( in .38 Special) had been adopted by numerous US police departments and was popular in Canada and Latin America by 1916, but that doesn't change any of the substance.
 
golden said:
We will have to agree to disagree. If the .32 S&W Long was considered effective, why did nearly all law enforcement agencies drop it? We are talking about 80 years ago and the .32 was on the way out in the U.S.
Click to expand...

I'm fine with disagreeing. Except I do agree the 32 long was replaced. And it was replaced for the same reasons other rounds get replaced. Something better came along. Going to the 38 Special gave you double the energy for nothing more than a new gun in a new round. Same reason the cops have abandoned the 40S&W and the military has for the most part abandoned the 45acp. Something better came along in the form of the 9mm.

I really like the 9mm round. Its just a hot loaded 38 Special with the ability to carry a lot of rounds. But I don't necessarily think getting rid of the 40 S&W for LE use was a great idea. I thought it gave the LE guys one of the best rounds they could get. A 10mm light with double the capacity of a revolver. And the military dropping the 45 for a 9mm? I don't know about that one either. If you are going to use a FMJ bullet I would much prefer the bigger diameter and double the weight. But I guess politics plays as much in gun decisions as logic does.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Levergunevan
  • Locked
32 s&w long ?
2 3 4
Replies
83
Views
5K
Geldarr
Geldarr
F
  • Locked
Future .32 Snub Revolvers
2 3 4 5
Replies
111
Views
5K
GeoDudeFlorida
GeoDudeFlorida
U
  • Locked
.32 S&W Long?
Replies
12
Views
3K
gunfan
G
S
Performance of .32 S&W Long in a .327?
2
Replies
45
Views
2K
TTv2
TTv2
M
  • Locked
32 S&W Long in a 32 S&W?
Replies
7
Views
1K
ArchAngelCD
ArchAngelCD
Back
Top