.32 Short, yes Short for pocket guns?

[whm1974]

So reading the Wikipedia Entry for the .32 S&W Short:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.32_S&W
Does better then .22LR out of Sub 3" barrels, such as snubnose revolvers. And higher reliability then rimfires have due to being centerfire.

Yes I'm aware that they those Caliber pocket guns were hugely popular for a time... Time to bring it back?

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

Naaaaa.....380 has subsumed that role pretty well by now.

 

[Zendude]

I like 32 caliber revolvers. The recoil of a 32 long or even 32 H&R is so light that I would question whether 32 short has any benefit. For something like a tiny derringer style gun, then 32 short might work well.

 

[whm1974]

I like 32 caliber revolvers. The recoil of a 32 long or even 32 H&R is so light that I would question whether 32 short has any benefit. For something like a tiny derringer style gun, then 32 short might work well.

Basically that as well as a NAA Mini Revolver?

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

My Dad has one of these (in even better condition)- Harrington and Richardson Vest Pocket in .32 S&W. Probably as small as you can possibly make a centerfire revolver. No sights at all, very heavy DA trigger pull, though it is possible to cock it for a single action shot if you use both hands.
While workable, it just isnt anywhere near as effective as, say, an LCP or Beretta Pico and is actually much harder to acheive hits with beyond fistfight range.

Honestly, if you cant conceal an LCP, or even a Chiefs Special, then you probably cant conceal anything.

 

[GRIZ22]

If you have a 32 Short you make the frame and cylinder a wee bit bigger and you get a 32 Long. A little bigger you get a 32 H&R Magnum. A little more it's a 327 Magnum.

I will admit to carrying a Model 31 Smith in 32 S&W Long and a Taurus 327 at times. The only advantage a gun made in 32 Short would be it would be a little shorter.

 

[whm1974]

If you have a 32 Short you make the frame and cylinder a wee bit bigger and you get a 32 Long. A little bigger you get a 32 H&R Magnum. A little more it's a 327 Magnum.

I will admit to carrying a Model 31 Smith in 32 S&W Long and a Taurus 327 at times. The only advantage a gun made in 32 Short would be it would be a little shorter.

The .32 S&W is more then just bit wee bit longer... Looks huge right next to .32 S&W.

 

[Ohen Cepel]

It could be worth a look IF it was done from the ground up as a new round loaded hot and put into a revolver designed for the higher pressures. However, that is not likely to happen as people will blow up old guns and so I don't think SAAMI will accept it which would make it still harder to sell.

I keep dreaming of someone making a smaller pistol designed around .38 wadutters to make it as short as possible with the cylinder cut to wadcutter length and the frame made to fit that. At least it wouldn't have the SAAMI issue and wouldn't damage other firearms which would chamber a std. .38 wadcutter.

 

[chicharrones]

The semi-rimmed .32 ACP would be my choice over a .32 short in a specialty sized small revolver.

I wish a gun company made a short cylinder revolver for the .32 ACP specifically. I figure a few dozen folks would stand in line to buy it. And I'd be one of the few standing in line.

I can dream.

 

[Monac]

The semi-rimmed .32 ACP would be my choice over a .32 short in a specialty sized small revolver. I wish a gun company made a short cylinder revolver for the .32 ACP specifically. I figure a few dozen folks would stand in line to buy it. And I'd be one of the few standing in line.

I can dream.

I feel just like chicharrones. I also think the rim on the 32 ACP is too small to get good extraction from a star-type extractor, so you are looking a a rod-ejector gun. And to be the absolute minimum size, it would have to be a single action, like the NAA mini-revolvers. And once I have thought of that, I mentally compare it to a Kel-Tec P-32, and I cannot see why any sensible person would want the revolver.

Maybe 32 S&W has some kind of advantage over 22 rimfire from a three inch barrel, but I would rather have the 22. 32 S&W is powerless. If it had anything going for it, 25 ACP automatics would not have replaced 32 S&W revolvers, IMO.

 

[WestKentucky]

To avoid the pressure issues, the only realistic option for a 32 is 7.65 French longue, or 32naa. I’m all for the 32naa and firmly believe that a revolver can be designed to function with bottlenecks provided that people are willing to move away from the most basic j frame design. Tight spot when lined up with the barrel, back off everywhere else to avoid friction based action lockup.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

I feel just like chicharrones. I also think the rim on the 32 ACP is too small to get good extraction from a star-type extractor, so you are looking a a rod-ejector gun. And to be the absolute minimum size, it would have to be a single action, like the NAA mini-revolvers. And once I have thought of that, I mentally compare it to a Kel-Tec P-32, and I cannot see why any sensible person would want the revolver.

Maybe 32 S&W has some kind of advantage over 22 rimfire from a three inch barrel, but I would rather have the 22. 32 S&W is powerless. If it had anything going for it, 25 ACP automatics would not have replaced 32 S&W revolvers, IMO.

Or moon clips

 

[Blkhrt13]

I feel just like chicharrones. I also think the rim on the 32 ACP is too small to get good extraction from a star-type extractor, so you are looking a a rod-ejector gun. And to be the absolute minimum size, it would have to be a single action, like the NAA mini-revolvers. And once I have thought of that, I mentally compare it to a Kel-Tec P-32, and I cannot see why any sensible person would want the revolver.

Maybe 32 S&W has some kind of advantage over 22 rimfire from a three inch barrel, but I would rather have the 22. 32 S&W is powerless. If it had anything going for it, 25 ACP automatics would not have replaced 32 S&W revolvers, IMO.

with a no hammer or spurless you could fire it inside a pocket. there is your sell

 

[Monac]

Or moon clips

Sure, or an S&W Model 547 extractor system, which I think is the cream of the crop in revolver extractors for rimless cartridges, but which no one has ever copied. And which may not even fit in a tiny gun. I am not personally familiar with Charter Arms' rimless extractor system, but what I have read seems kind of dubious.

 

[Monac]

with a no hammer or spurless you could fire it inside a pocket. there is your sell

Good point, Blkhrt13. Then it needs to be DA or DAO too, which adds to the bulk but is not unthinkable.

 

[JTHunter]

So reading the Wikipedia Entry for the .32 S&W Short:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.32_S&W
Does better then .22LR out of Sub 3" barrels, such as snubnose revolvers. And higher reliability then rimfires have due to being centerfire.

Yes I'm aware that they those Caliber pocket guns were hugely popular for a time... Time to bring it back?

Same diameter bullet, slightly longer brass, 50% faster bullet (1,043 vs. 705 fps) partly because it is about 25% lighter (73 vs. 98 grains) for the .32 ACP. Your .32 S&W vs. the ACP is like comparing a .22 Short to a .22 Mag.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.32_ACP
And the .380 is about 275 fps faster with a nearly identical bullet (95 gr.).

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

First off, let's get the name right. It is 32 S&W. Period. 32 S&W Short does not exist, despite what you may hear, and despite what Wikipedia says.

Second, I don't know what makes you think centerfire cartridges are more reliable than rimfire cartridges. Modern 22 Rimfire cartridges are pretty doggone reliable.

Here are a couple of Smith and Wesson 32 Safety Hammerless revolvers. Both are chambered for 32 S&W. Notice I have lain a cartridge on the frame of each of them to illustrated how the cylinders are just long enough for the cartridges. The rounds over on the left are 32 S&W Long. The nickel plated one with the 3 1/2" barrel left the factory around 1905. The blued one with the 2" barrel left the factory in 1909.






The short barreled revolver is what is known as a Bicycle Revolver. Bicycle riding was a nationwide craze at the turn of the Century (1900). Mostly a sport for city dwellers, these little revolvers were easily concealed, and could be used to ward off bipedal or quadrupedal ruffians to protect Daisy on her bicycle built for two.






I am a righty, but I put the little Bicycle Revolver in my left hand so I could operate the camera with my right hand.






The 32 S&W cartridge was not deemed an effective man stopper.

32 S&W Long was used by many police departments until most standardized on 38 Special. In 1896, Theodore Roosevelt was the Police Commissioner in New York City and he ordered 4,500 32 Colt New Police revolvers for the NYC Police department. The 32 Colt New Police cartridge was essentially the same as the 32 S&W Long, the only difference being a slightly different bullet shape.

 

[Jim Watson]

But Smith only introduced the .32 Hand Ejector in .32 S&W Long in 1896.
I have nothing that says Colt offered it immediately. It's not in my 1901 Sears catalog, only .32 LC.

 

[Michael Tinker Pearce]

.32 S&W is a pretty marginal cartridge. Yes, it might be an improvement over .22 LR or .25 Auto, but not by a great deal. Given all the old, often fragile revolvers chambered for it I don't think there is much room for improvement. I also think .32 ACP would be a better candidate for a modern tiny revolver.

 

[TTv2]

A year ago I would have said no, that a 5 shot .32 ACP revolver built on an aluminum and/or polymer I frame would be better, but when I see how small and light the 5 shot H&R Young America and top break revolvers were, the short .32 S&W is fine. The only problem is that nobody is ever going to make a non magnum .32 revolver because by in large people have a pre-concieved notion that .32 is weak, even the magnums are suspect, but make it a non magnum and forget it, they'd rather have a .22 because of cost.

What I don't understand is why there is a gap in current production revolvers between the NAA mini revolvers and the LCR or J frame. We know DA revolvers can be made smaller than a J frame, they were made 100 years ago, so why not now? Like, even in 1907 H&R had enough sense to make the Young America revolver in both .22 and .32 figuring the .22 would get more sales, but the .32 would be there for people who wanted something better for defense.

 

[TTv2]

I feel just like chicharrones. I also think the rim on the 32 ACP is too small to get good extraction from a star-type extractor, so you are looking a a rod-ejector gun. And to be the absolute minimum size, it would have to be a single action, like the NAA mini-revolvers. And once I have thought of that, I mentally compare it to a Kel-Tec P-32, and I cannot see why any sensible person would want the revolver.

Funny thing with snub revolvers is they can be shot out to 50 yards pretty easily, but the small micro pistols become a struggle to hit anything past 15 yds.

.32 ACP in a revolver can work, I've shot it in a few revolvers with a swing out cylinder and haven't had issues with extraction due to the rim. That said, for such a small revolver I don't think a swing out cylinder would work and the solution would be to keep it a DA revolver, but make it like the old H&R solid frame double actions of the early 20th Century in having the cylinder be removable after pulling the cylinder pin, similar to the original NAA design, but larger and a double action.

I've long thought that style revolver increases the strength and makes for a more accurate gun.

 

[Monac]

OK, I don't know how to respond to TTv2's post. He suggests out that revolvers can be fired accurately to a longer range than .25/.32/.380 mini-automatics, and that revolvers are perhaps inherently easier to shoot accurately than automatics. After some thought, I'm not touching those cans of worms.

As to whether 32 ACP can work in star-extractor revolvers, I don't know. Other people have said the same thing TTv2 has said. And how does the protrusion of the rim on 32 ACP compare to that of the 45 Colt? Bigger or smaller? I don't have a cartridge book with dimensions here.

Finally, from what I have seen at my local indoor range, not many people seem to be trying to hit anything at 25 yards with a pistol, let alone 50. Five to 10 yards seems much more common there. I think these people are just kidding themselves if they actually have to shoot in anger, but A) what the heck do I know about it, and B) at least they are practicing.

 

[.455_Hunter]

I still have not figured out why NAA couldn't take their .22 short Mini Revolver and directly scale it up to .32. Make it a two cylinder convertible- .32 S&W for traditionalists & .32 acp for more power and easier ammo supply. It would definitely fill a serious gap in the carry revolver market.

 

[Michael Tinker Pearce]

I think it would be entirely possible, using modern steels and heat treat, to make something like this S&W .32 Double Action (4th Model) in .32 ACP, and it would make a decent alternative to a micro-auto. I also think it would cost about $1000, and very few people would buy one.

 

[WestKentucky]

I still have not figured out why NAA couldn't take their .22 short Mini Revolver and directly scale it up to .32. Make it a two cylinder convertible- .32 S&W for traditionalists & .32 acp for more power and easier ammo supply. It would definitely fill a serious gap in the carry revolver market.

Agreed, but make it for 32 long since ammo is easier to find and it’s still very tolerable in recoil. It wouldn’t take much more length to get 32 long.