Blkhrt13
Member
An elegant weapon for a more civilized age...
.32 Short, yes Short for pocket guns?
- Thread starter whm1974
- Start date
- Status
Case lengths as follows:
32 short........ .6"
32 long.......... .920"
32 H&R.......... 1.075"
327 Mag........ 1.20"
The reason the long looks huge is its 50% longer than the short.
Even going from the short to 327 mag you're only looking a .59", about 9/16". Okay add a little more for the heavier bullet and make the gun 3/4" longer. The gun would have the same width. 3/4" longer doesn't make a difference in the ability to carry the gun. It might make a difference if you had to make the gun fit in a specific size box. Not a big sales point IMO.
Jim Watson
Member
I agree with MTP on the Safety Hammerless.
Heck, a tool steel cylinder in a 1909-1940 frame might be adequate.
Heck, a tool steel cylinder in a 1909-1940 frame might be adequate.
TTv2
Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 4,997
I'm still wondering why NAA doesn't make more than just rimfire revolvers. Their quality is great and the only reason I can think as to why they don't is they don't have the space in the factory or the money to buy more equipment to get a double action revolver line going.
If I had the option tho, I'd rather buy a DA NAA revolver than one of their antiquated Guardian pistols.
Jim Watson
Member
NAA made a few (530) large frame revolvers in .450 Express (.45 Win Mag Long) in the 1980s.
So they could obviously make anything they thought would sell.
The article I found said they junked the tooling, which seems shortsighted.
So they could obviously make anything they thought would sell.
The article I found said they junked the tooling, which seems shortsighted.
Driftwood Johnson
Member
Howdy
Your Sears catalog may not list everything.
According to the Standard Catalog of Colt Firearms, by Rick Sapp, Colt manufactured 49,500 32 New Police revolvers between 1896 and1907.
The 32 Colt New Police cartridge and the 32 S&W Long are almost identical. The Colt round has a 100 grain bullet with a flat nose. The S&W round has a 98 grain bullet with a rounded nose. I did some measuring and the case dimensions for both cartridges are within a couple of thousandths of each other.
I don't have a Colt 32 New Police revolver, but this Smith and Wesson 32 Hand Ejector, 1st Model (Model of 1896) left the factory in 1899. This is the revolver that S&W developed the 32 S&W Long cartridge for. It may be difficult to see in this photo, but the 32 S&W Long rounds on the left and the 32 Colt New Police rounds on the right both chamber perfectly in it. Sap mentions that the New Police revolver was chambered for 32 Colt, 32 Colt New Police, and 32 S&W Long. Most of the photos I have found of the Colt revolver show they are marked COLT NEW POLICE 32 on the barrel. So I am betting that just like my Smith, the Colt would chamber either round. I have two of the Smith & Wesson revolvers and there is actually no caliber marking on them. Probably a holdover from Top Break days when caliber marking was often omitted. Since both revolvers were released the same year, I can't say which cartridge came first, but it is interesting that both companies, cut throat competitors, released revolvers chambered for almost identical cartridges in the same year.
chicharrones
needs more ammo
The size gap between the NAA minis and J-frame is filled by relatively inexpensive polymer framed pocket auto loaders. Well built revolvers are expensive to make with almost no regard to their size.
The currently made Ruger Bearcat is an example of that, with suggested retail prices starting at $639.00 and local new pricing starting at $529.00. Even the NAA break open Ranger goes for $515.00 (new) locally here. And neither one of them are DA.
I do believe that us small revolver fans would pay that kind of money for guns in this size range firing the shorter .32 cartridges out there. I just don't know if the sales quantities would be enough for gun makers to do anything about it. Which means we get J-Frame or Ruger Single Seven sized guns right now.
I can dream about this Bearcat in .327 while I'm at it. https://www.gunsinternational.com/g...27-federal-ruger-bearcat.cfm?gun_id=101282698
Can you imagine that Bearcat with a shorter cylinder and frame in .32 ACP? The proportions would look weird, but it sure would be fun to have and shoot.
chicharrones
needs more ammo
Yep. $1000.00. That would be hard for me to justify, no matter how much I'd like one.
kBob
Member
Just for giggles I dropped .32 ACP in two topbreaks made for .32 S&W. Both fit....no way in hell would I shoot them but they fit and the cylinder turned. The ejector stars did not push them back enough to clear the case mouths but did push them back about 15mm only at that point did they fall under the star and cause much anguish in removing them from under it on both a little H&R Premier five shot and a Forehand six shot.
If the cylinders and ejector were 3mm longer I believe they would clear even with those tiny rims.
Yes I checked repeatedly to see both guns are empty and now locked away and that the box of .32 ACP has the same number of them it started with.
-kBob
If the cylinders and ejector were 3mm longer I believe they would clear even with those tiny rims.
Yes I checked repeatedly to see both guns are empty and now locked away and that the box of .32 ACP has the same number of them it started with.
-kBob
Paul R Zartman
Contributing Member
Nice 32, love that grip...
chicharrones
needs more ammo
Yeah, my H&R 999 and Charter Arms Pocket Target will do the same thing if I don't let the extractors on those guns operate at proper speed. And those are .22 LR revolvers with the proper length ammo with more rim to push on. That's what I get for going slow and easy sometimes. Arrrgh.
Gordon
Member
I have a conversion cylinder in my 1849 Uberti "Wells Fargo ",it's the cutest thing. I shoot alot of .32 S&W in numerous guns. My favorite is my Stevens Favorite. 
TTv2
Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 4,997
Wrangler aside, Ruger revolvers aren't "cheap" with the .38 LCR being the least expensive at $350 online when there's a sale. The reason the .38 LCR is available at that price is the materials and the 5 round cylinder taking less time to manufacture vs 6 or 8 round cylinders.
I could see the Bearcat in a 5 shot .32, but Ruger seems averse to any .32 cartridge that's not .327
Monac
Member
I think you have hit the nail on the head, MTP.
I'm not sure why it would cost $1,000, since the .32 ACP isn't all that powerful at all.
Monac
Member
The cost of tooling spread over a low-sales gun, IMO.
bannockburn
Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 26,307
I was going through some of my ammo and came across some "oldie but not quite yet moldy" Remington .32 and .38 cartridges.
From left to right: .32 ACP, .32 S&W, .32 Colt New Police, and .38 S&W.
From left to right: .32 ACP, .32 S&W, .32 Colt New Police, and .38 S&W.
Driftwood Johnson
Member
It has little to do with how powerful the cartridge is.
Revolvers are simply more expensive to make than semi-auto pistols. More parts, and more mechanical issues to solve. Up the ante by making it a double action revolver, and the cost to manufacture goes up.
Look how much a quality 22 revolver costs some time. At the risk of offending a lot of shooters, I am not including the single action revolvers made by Heritage. Most of the posts in this thread have been about making a quality revolver with top quality steel. Price a new S&W Model 17 some time.
Without going into a long explanation, check out this post, and go to the 3rd page and see what I have to say about costs to make a new revolver:
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/why-did-we-move-away-from-top-break-revolvers.868833/
Last edited:
kBob
Member
This might give you an idea of how small a DA .32 S&W cartridge pistol can be.
This is the H&R Premier from around 1900.
Not sure when it got the ginuene Franzite grips
It needs work and I may give it a hand polish with Mother’s for giggles.
Five shot, up hill all the way trigger pull, and the rear sight is sort of an after thought on the latch.
many of my Grandfathers Cohorts in the late 1950’s and Kennedy years carried one like this of one brand or another in a trouser pocket most everywhere. Some moved to a coat pocket for church or in cold weather.
I attended a funeral for one of these “uncles of no relation“ with Grand daddy in1978 and several of the old codgers still had them ... and wanted to show them too me.
-kBob
This is the H&R Premier from around 1900.
Not sure when it got the ginuene Franzite grips
It needs work and I may give it a hand polish with Mother’s for giggles.
Five shot, up hill all the way trigger pull, and the rear sight is sort of an after thought on the latch.
many of my Grandfathers Cohorts in the late 1950’s and Kennedy years carried one like this of one brand or another in a trouser pocket most everywhere. Some moved to a coat pocket for church or in cold weather.
I attended a funeral for one of these “uncles of no relation“ with Grand daddy in1978 and several of the old codgers still had them ... and wanted to show them too me.
-kBob
What size are your hands? Is that a five shot? That barrel looks kind of long for a pocket gun.
Monac
Member
It is odd that when S&W dropped their small frame 32 S&W top break, the solid-frame, swing-out cylinder gun that replaced it - the M-frame "Ladysmith" - was offered only as a 7-shot 22 Long and not as a 5-shot 32 S&W. I would have preferred 22 Long Rifle, but otherwise I think S&W was right. I would rather have 7 rounds of 22 than 5 32 S&Ws. That is, of course, a matter of personal preference since I can think of no way to prove the superiority of one over the other.
chicharrones
needs more ammo
Look at the trigger guard and trigger size in relation to the rest of the gun. Anytime the trigger guard and trigger looks oversized, the rest of the gun is usually smaller than a modern J-Frame.
Also, since we are talking about a modern repro of a gun like that in .32, a gun like that could easily have a shorter barrel.
BTW, if you look at the cylinder flutes, only 2 are visible from the side. Which typically indicates that a revolver is a 5-shot, since a 6-shot would have 3 flutes visible from the side.
Last edited:
Jim Watson
Member
I don't consider the M frame "Ladysmith" to be a replacement for the .32 top breaks, even though it lasted until 1921. By the time Smith dropped the .32 DA in 1919 they had made well over 300,000 guns vs 24,000 Ladysmiths. Add in the 240,000 Safety Hammerless .32s, in the catalog until 1937, and you have over half a million top break .32s from S&W alone.
The Ladysmith was dinky and fragile. A friend has one that looks good, but it has a cracked forcing cone, no doubt from firing smokeless .22 LR, a common fate.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
