Am I the ONLY one on the Forum thats in love with the .32 S&W Long?

[Old Fuff]

>> Unfortunately, I am broke! <<

I understand the condition ... Aren't we all?

I don't necessarily require 90 to 99 percent condition so long as the mechanics are O.K. and the bore and chambers aren't pitted.

While I have found good buys, I think that asking prices at GunBroker are bit high much of the time. I've had better luck at local gunshops, gun shows, and even smaller auctions. Generally speaking, .32 revolvers are not great sellers, and you can sometimes wheel & deal. Also unlike Internet auctions, dealers sometimes take trades.

Also check out (www.armchairgunshow.com) I've found it to be a very good and reliable source, and if you don't have to have a perfect collectable (which will understandably have a high price tag) revolvers in lesser condition but still serviceable cost less - sometimes much less.

 

[gunfan]

Old Fuff:

While on the subject ot maximum pressures, the .32 S&W Long is rated at 12,000 CUP and the .32 H&R Magnum is rated at 21,000 CUP respectively.

In your estimation, would a .32 Long load at a MAP of 14,500 CUP be considered excessive (for revolvers of modern manufacture?)

Scott

 

[Old Fuff]

The 12,000 CUP number is conservative, and takes into consideration the cartridge's possible use in black powder era revolvers, many of which were made from questionable materials. If we are going to limit this to later-day, I-frame Smith & Wesson's and Colt Police Positive/Pocket Positive's from the same era, or recent H&R revolvers I don't think that 14,500 CUP would be excessive. Any problem wouldn't likely be related to blowing the gun up so much as it developing cylinder end shake.

 

[gunfan]

Old Fuff:

The only thing that really concerns me, is the possiblilty of "shooting a revolver loose" causing a handgun to age long before their time. I want to turn the S&W .32 Long into a viable defense cartridge as well as the excellent "pest control machine" that it already is.

I have considered the possibility of truncating .32 H&R Magnum cases down to .32 S&W Long dimensions so as to avoid case splitting and further abusing the revolver.

What say you?

Scott

 

[Old Fuff]

I don't think the cartridge cases in themselves would be a problem. For that matter I don't think there would be a problem at all. Colt Police Positives have been converted (rechambered) to shoot the .32 H&R Magnum, and I haven't heard of any ill effects.

The most likely "potential" problem would be cylinder end-shake, caused by the relatively heavy cylinder battering the end of the yoke barrel (on a S&W, or "crane" on a Colt) which it the part the cylinder rotates on. Eventually this allows the cylinder to move back and forth until the face of the cylinder can press against the end of the barrel. You can also get mis-fires because the firing pin blow is softened. But this is something that isn't hard to fix, and not likely unless you shoot a whole lot of those extra-heavy loads.

The real reason the .32 S&W Long is factory loaded to 12,000 CUP is because of the black-powder top-break and "pull-pin" revolvers that the cartridge might be used in.

 

[gunfan]

Habia una vez... (once upon a time)

I owned an H&R "pull-pin" revolver chambered in .22 Long Rifle. It was manufactured, (as nearly as I could determine) in 1979. A button was depressed to release the shaft from the frame. It appeared to be of the same robust construction as were it's "siblings" chambered in .32 S&W Long. The removable cylinder spindle (or shaft) seemed reasonably stout. Why would these be any less robust than those manufactured with a "swing-out" cylinder?

Could you expound and clarify, Old Fuff? It would be deeply appreciated.

Scott

 

[Old Fuff]

It isn't the "pull-pin" design that makes the revolver more or less safe to shoot modern loads in, it's exactly what it is and when it was made.

The basic pattern goes back to the 19th century and some were made on smaller, lighter frames with cylinders turned out of low-carbon steel barstock that sometimes had seams in it, and were never heat-treated.

The later-day H&R guns you are referring to were made on heavier frames and modern steel, and so far as strength was concerned were equal to similar ones with swing-out cylinders.

The basic problem is that the ammunition makers have no idea what kind of a revolver the cartridges are going to be used in. They can, and do put a warning on the box, but bitter experience has taught them that they can be sued anyway.

 

[gunfan]

Dear friend:

Wasn't that the reason that one of the reasons that the "frivolous lawsuit" legislation was passed? When warnings are clearly posted upon a product, how can anyone (unless they cannot read) place onus for the misuse (use outside the product's design perameters, and thus plainly displayed upon the product's commercial container) directly upon the shoulders of the manufacturer?

I believe that the changes in the civil law has preempted the problems associated with such lawsuits.

Scott

 

[gunfan]

Dear Old Fuff:

I believe that I shall embark on a handloading adventure for the .32 S&W Long that shall lead me into a realm of a powerful handgun that will be small enough to conceal, yet powerful enough to accomplish the "task" at hand. I'll let you know how it turns out!

Wish me all the best

Scott

 

[Old Fuff]

gunfan:

>> I believe that the changes in the civil law has preempted the problems associated with such lawsuits. <<

No such luck. I believe the law you are referring to is still a bill, passed by the Senate, but not yet by the House, and not yet signed by the President.

Even so, it only covers "shotgun suits" in which every company in the industry is sued simply because criminals use guns. It is enough to say that (a) criminals use guns, and (b) gunmakers make guns. Therefore (c) it is the gunmakers' responsibility to see that guns are marketed so that criminals can't get them - don't ask me how ...

In any case gun and ammunition makers can still be sued if a "defective" product causes someone injury (or so they claim). Concerning the .32 S&W Long, the lawyer would claim that the cartridge should have been made so that it coundn't hurt his client's old black powder revolver, or designed so it wouldn't fit into it. So we have the .32 H&R Magnum.

Concerning handloads, just work carefully, and start low and work your way up.

Always keep in mind that at best, the .32 revolver is not going to be a powerhouse. But to be viable it doesn't need to be. The purpose of self-defense is to stop an unwarranted attack. Regardless of the size/power of the handgun just making a hit somewhere isn't always going to do the trick.

What ends the attack is a hit that stops a vital organ from functioning, and a large bullet isn't necessary too do this. But precise accuracy is. So the key is bullet placement, and that is were the little .32 comes in - not only for the first shot but also fast follow-up ones that are still placed where it matters.

A lot of first-time CCW holders are going out and buying ultra-light .357's - with which they cannot make precise first-shot hits, let alone following ones. They would be better served with the same gun chambered in .32 H&R Magnum or even .32 S&W Long. But this runs counter to most of today's thinking, so I suspect I just started a flame war ....

 

[gunfan]

Dear Old Fuff:

If you just started a "flame war," let me be the first to step up to the plate with a napalm-source thrower!

Rest assured, I am NOT looking to turn my .32 S&W Long H&R revolver into a "powerhouse." That just isn't in the cards. As "seasoned shooters" you and I have the perspicacity to realize that bullet placement is not simply important, it is the imperative.

All that I have in mind is to simply "mirror" the performance of the .38 Special's "FBI" or "Metro" load (read: 158-grain SWCHP @ 1000 fps) on the .32 S&W Long's "platform." This would permit the accuracy of the .32 S&W long to exemplify itself, as well as provide ample terminal ballistic performance to "place a crimp" on the bad guy's "style." I believe that a maximum velocity for the 98-grain bullet (in the .32 S&W Long) can approach 875-900 fps without any signs of excessive pressure. If this can be accomplished, the "Magnum" moniker can be, and in court best, avoided. What attorney on this planet is going to tout the lethality of the .32 S&W Long?

Additionally, since the .32 S&W Long can be fired from an even smaller package than S&W's "J" frame, the concealability factor is enhanced, so as not to frighten the "sheeple" of the community.

If anyone has an argument with this concept, FLAME ON!

Thanks, Old Fuff.

Scott

 

[gunfan]

Here's a 4" (?) Model 30-1 on Gunbroker!

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=38422457

Good stuff, Maynard!

Too bad that I'm broke! :banghead: :banghead:

Scott

 

[BluesBear]

so I suspect I just started a flame war

The easiest way to get BS to combust is to ignite it with logic and common sense.

 

[Rain_Man]

I don't think this has any real relevance to the thread but... I have an old(and I mean old) iver johnson topbreak 32 S&W(short) revolver. It is the first model and can be classified as an antique. I have cleaned up the old dog and have shot it quite a few times... yep, I know I shouldn't but what could happen? I keep it loaded in the glove compartment of my old pick up , again, I know I shouldn't but I don't have very many options... I love the gun but can't get over the caliber power, I cringe when i look at a ballistic chart for the round, an 85 gr bullet at 680... I have never seen such a slow bullet, it's like throwing rocks, what can this do compared to a .22lr or 25 ACP?

 

[Old Fuff]

Rain_Man:

What it can do is split or expand a chamber wall and tie up the gun at a critical moment. This probably won't happen, but if it does it's your neck, not mine.

The little cartridge is no barn-burner, but it beats both the .22 LR and .25 ACP, and since it was introduced in 1878 it has protected a of of people, and for the record the OSS bought some new Iver Johnson .32 S&W revolvers during World War Two, and had Remington furnish special ammunition loaded with a 71-grain full-jacketed bullets.

Obviously people still carry guns made for this cartridge. It remains available although no new revolvers designed to use it have been made since the middle 1940's. However if you carry one as a weapon I strongly advise you get one of later manufacture then what you are now using.

 

[Rain_Man]

Hm, well i'd like to... But if I had something else to throw in that old car I doubt I would use an iver johnson. One look at the revolver will tell you it's been used quite a bit, and yet it still feels strong... I doubt it's original owners cared enough to use blackpowder ammo in it... As a matter of fact, the trigger return spring is broken, and the cylinders and barrel were incrusted with some sort of red crud and oil when I got it, so I would guess the gun was shot to hell... But seeing as you are the expert here, I'd like to get some questions answered... First off, here is a picture of the gun.

http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/8146/iverjohnson6rk.jpg

It's a poor quality pic, but it's all I have for now until I get a new card reader... Anyway, the thing I am most concerned about is that the revolver seems to move slightly at three points when locked, I'm not sure if this is normal, but the cylinder is not completely stiff, I can still turn it from side to side and front and back only slightly, I also notice that the front part of the gun can move a bit at the latch. A gun dealer told me a lot of old, used revolvers are a bit loose and that it wasn't much of an issue, but i'm still a bit uneasy about it, I am not so much worried about the cylinder cracking as I am about lead spitting from the cylinder gap or the latch giving way and breaking the gun open.

 

[Old Fuff]

That's not a bad picture at all ... and a lot better then none.

I can see what I need to see. At the moment I'm pressed for time, but I'll get back to you with more information.

 

[Richard2003]

I also have one that I bought for $200 last year.
It is my most accurate revolver and the most fun to shoot.
It is neat to shoot an almost 100 year old gun.

Richard

"I" frame 1905 .32 Hand Ejector. The little revolver is so svelte, so concealable. While it has a 4.25" barrel, a similar revolver with S&W's 2.25" barrel could easily dissappear into a coat pocket or waistband.

By the same token, a Colt Pocket Positive with a 4" barrel could vanish as quickly on any person.

Damn, that is one sweet revolver! We need more!

Scott

 

[gunfan]

I also have one that I bought for $200 last year.
It is my most accurate revolver and the most fun to shoot.
It is neat to shoot an almost 100 year old gun.

Richard



Quote:
Originally Posted by gunfan
"I" frame 1905 .32 Hand Ejector. The little revolver is so svelte, so concealable. While it has a 4.25" barrel, a similar revolver with S&W's 2.25" barrel could easily dissappear into a coat pocket or waistband.

By the same token, a Colt Pocket Positive with a 4" barrel could vanish as quickly on any person.

Damn, that is one sweet revolver! We need more!

Scott


Well, there's something to be said for CALLING SMITH & WESSON AND CALLING FOR THE RESUMING PRODUCTION OF THE "I" FRAMED REVOLVERS!!!

Did I say it sufficiently loud enough to get someone's attention? I hope so.

Scott

 

[Old Fuff]

Watch to see if Taurus expands their line of Instant Backup (IB) revolvers. If that happens it will have far more effect on Smith & Wesson's thinking then all of the e-mails we might send, (which is not to say we shouldn't do it).

 

[Hammerdown]

.32 S&W Long

Hello Gun Fan
I too, am a fan of the old but sweet .32 S&W Long. Here is a picture of my 31-1 Circa 1967 that I play with. Best regards, Hammerdown.

 

[gunfan]

Those "J" frames are nice!

I love the little "J" frames! I still miss the little truly POCKETABLE "I" frame!

Scott

 

[BluesBear]

Does .125" really make one gun more pocketable than another?

I just don't see one eighth of an inch being such a big deal.

 

[Old Fuff]

I just don't see one eighth of an inch being such a big deal.

Actually it is, or at least seems to be. Part of this is because the cylinder is only 1 1/4" long, which makes the revolver seem even more compact. The I-frame also had a butt that was about 1/8" shorter the the current J-frames.

All of this doesn't seem like much until you drop the smaller gun into a pocket. Then you notice that it's concealed better because the butt is just enough lower in the pocket and somehow the shorter butt is easier to get out of the pocket as you draw the gun. What it comes down to is; Are you willing to go to a smaller cartridge to get the smaller gun? But what happens if the smaller one is chambered in 9mm x 19 ...

On the other hand I would be equally satisfied with the same gun in .32 H&R Magnum or even .32 S&W Long - with handloaded ammunition. This would be especially so if it had an aluminum frame.

Taurus is now building a similar-to-the-I-frame gun in 9mm, with .22LR, .22WRM, and .32 H&R Magnum waiting for the future - if the future comes. The Old Fuff is waiting ...

 

[Rain_Man]

That's not a bad picture at all ... and a lot better then none.

I can see what I need to see. At the moment I'm pressed for time, but I'll get back to you with more information.

... Well?

I have cleaned the thing twice and it's still dirty as hell... right now it's soaking in a bath of ballistol down in the garage, I'll leave it there a few days and see if it doesn't loosen the dirt, the bore and cylinder are in great condition, rifling is sharp, but it still has specks of crud peppering it, been trying all day with patches and still can't get it clean :banghead:. Think I might need some bronze brushes.

I am preparing to use the gun as an official plinker, hunter, and home defence revolver. Currently looking for a good place to buy ammo... Give it a week and i'll turn this old junker into something I can use.