New S&W 632: Smith gets back into .32 kit-guns

[MatthewVanitas]

This is pretty cool news for a niche following: Smith unveiled a .327 J-frame 3" at this SHOT Show.

I recall folks were really fond of the 30, 31, and 631 as trail guns, but by the time I'd read articles praising them, and turned 21, the 631 was already up to $800 or so as a sought-after OOP revolver.

So kinda neat to see it come back, and wondering what it bodes for the future of the .32 diameter. Here's a basic summary from a blog:

http://www.gunsholstersandgear.com/...on-model-632-in-327-magnum-first-impressions/


I just hope Ruger gets back into the .32 SA game. I understand .327 is a bit long for the Single Six, but it'd be great in the small "Anniversary" Blackhawk frame, long barrel, adjustable sights.

NOTE: A couple other revolver observations from SHOT 2009 coverage that maybe don't rate a whole new thread: S&W 310 (lightweight snubby 10mm revo), Freedom Arms .224-32 wildcat SA. S&W brought back the S&W 57. Oh, and Lispey's got Ruger to do a limited run of .44 Spl Flattop Blackhawks. Covered here (and the preceding Day 2 page): http://www.gunblast.com/SHOT_2009_3.htm

 

[RJM]

Can't wait to get one. This thing beats that plastic monstrosity that ruger puked out this shot show by a mile.

 

[Old Fuff]

Having taken notice that the new .327 Magnum is rated at 40,000 PSI, the Old Fuff will wait and let others test it out in S&W's J-frame.

No, it isn't that the gun won't take it, but...

 

[oneounceload]

Maybe so, but those of us with 32 swl will appreciate the ability to use a variety of ammo

 

[Old Fuff]

Oh, the Old Fuff loves .32 revolvers.

But the .32 H&R Magnum is long enough to do what's needed, especially when handloaded. What he would dislike is scrubbing out those long .327 Magnum chambers after he got done shooting something with a shorter length. One could of course download the .327, but I see little reason to do this. But with that In mind I'll wait and see if some of the J-frame .327 Magnums don't show up on the used market for attractive prices.

 

[mnrivrat]

I'm going to stay with my .32 H&R mag. gun . I'm also no fan of the high pressure put out by the .327 mag and the possibley annoying muzzle blast from a short barrel.

That said, I can keep an open mind, and perhaps when I get a chance to fire one I will change my mind ?

 

[Stainz]

Gotta wonder about the model number, as previous 332/432/632 models were enclosed hammer J-frame .32 H&RM, while the regular hammer variants were 331/431/631. The reviewer had to pontificate re the IL - who cares? I want info on the model. According to the S&W site, the 632 Carry Comp Pro Series, SKU #170329, weighs 24.5 oz and has an MSRP of $980. To put that in perspective, it's $419 more than a 442 or 642 - and 9 oz more, too - not to mention that exposed hammer to snag. I won't be replacing my 642, even with it's IL, anytime soon - it's the most appropriate self-protector I know of. Of course, .38 Special rounds are everywhere - as are proper protection choices. Try to find .32 anything!

I had two 'proper' .32 H&RM revolvers - Ruger 4.6" SS SSN and a 4" SP101 - made lots of ammo. They were fun plinkers, once you learned 'where they hit', as the SSM was a fixed sight, while the SP101 had a windage-only sight. But - the oversized Ruger chambers worked the brass - and made the low-pressure rounds more difficult to extract than they should have been. Add this to the simple fact that .32 bullets are harder to find than .38s - and at least as expensive as those larger/heavier bullets, too - and you'll know why my 'mini' centerfire caliber is .357. The .32 H&RM - or it's extended new '.327 Magnum' version might just be fun in a properly made 4" target type gun, no comp, preferably in a K-frame to get the better lockwork. The new 632 won't draw much more attention from me... especially at that price. I like the idea of folks buying them, however... some may appear in a more affordable price range with few rounds through them... Naw, I've had the .32 kool-aid... I like the .38-flavored better!

Stainz

 

[Old Fuff]

Prior to World War Two both Colt and Smith & Wesson made mid-frame revolvers chambered in either .32 S&W Long (Colt New Police) or .32-20 (.32 WCF). They were generally offered in barrel lengths that ran from 3 1/4" to 6 inches. The revolvers in .32 S&W Long were popular because of they're compact size, low recoil and exceptional accuracy. Those in .32 WCF were noted for both low recoil and a flat trajectory that allowed one to reach out and touch.

Most of these were owned and used by men and women that weren't especially worried about getting into gunfights. There were exceptions of course.

Unfortunately both Ruger and Smith & Wesson seem determined to focus their attention on using the newer generation of .32 revolver cartridges in snub-nose revolvers. The argument is made that in the smallest size frames you can have 6 rather then 5 chambers. While this is true, my Colt Detective Special has 6 chambers, and they are bored to .38 size.

If Ruger should decide to put the .327 Magnum in 6 or 7 shot versions on their mid-size Blackhawk or GP-100 with something between a 4 to 6 inch barrel I might find it to be interesting. Or if Smith & Wesson did the same with a 6-shot K-frame or 7-shot L-frame with similar barrel lengths I might find that to be attractive too, the lock not withstanding.

But I would see all of these in a context of being field guns for the outdoorsman, and not as something to conduct gunfights with.

My old Daddy, who was very wise told me to avoid gunfights, as the can be very hazardous to one's health. Others may do whatever they want.

 

[GEM]

That's pretty step in price but it is a fancy gun. Perhaps a more mundance SS gun would be more attractive.

I got a 432 for $335 a few years ago when they were being discontinued. Hey, maybe that will - not that I want to wish ill to a gun.

 

[krs]

40,000 psi's gotta' make for one snappy recoiling little revolver.

I'm wondering what makes them think it'll be popular enough to swoop down into the first timer CCW market and win with people who can't imagine letting their gun ruffle their clothing. Do they also assume that those same people will seldom if ever actually shoot their gun?

Small is good for pocket carriers. There's much concern over power though with people who want small also wanting power.

On paper this is a solution - it's small and it's powerful. Unless they're right in that most pocket pistols are not fired wouldn't the recoil potential seem to be beyond the limits we've seen expressed here so often by people who find their airweight .38s hard to adjust to because of their kick?

Or is smaller projectile going to equate to lower recoil regardless the energy exerted onto the projectile?

 

[RJM]

Actually, a 3" barreled J frame with the round butt is a pretty decent sized gun and comfortable to shoot if you have smaller hands, especially when it is made out of stainless steel.

All I know, is that I have both the Ruger SP101 in .357 mag and .327 mag and shooting the .327 is downright pleasant. Its actually a very balanced gun with a very useful sight radius. I prefer shooting the .327 over the .357 loads, but .38s are very comfortable too.

I actually think the sp101,( and probably the J frame I will have to see,) with a 3" barrel is the perfect sized frame and weight for the .327. Its not a pocket revolver, but rather an IWB/OWB belt gun that is perfectly sized(plus it has 6 shots). The sp101 is smaller than a K frame, but larger than the J frame, about perfect for this round in my opinion.

Frankly, I would like to see a 5" barreled J frame or sp101 chambered for this cartridge. It would be great for the target range.

I wouldn't buy a lightweight gun made of some alloy for this round, to me that is not what it is designed for, plus the .38 special has that field covered pretty well. To me the round is an alternative to the .357 magnum in smaller than L framed revolvers, which I never really liked shooting all that much. Shooting .357mag loads out of my 2.5" model 60 ladysmith was not a whole lot of fun, this round kind of solves that problem for me.

 

[MatthewVanitas]

Since it's a 3", I just assumed it's a kit-gun rather than a CCW piece.

Am I wrong? Is it marketed as a CCW piece in S&W lit? Then again, I have no idea what role "kit gun" plays in the current firearms market.

It's also solid steel, and S&W doesn't really seem into steel CCW guns, with the 60 and 640 being some of the few exceptions. Not that you can't carry a 686 or anything, just that S&W doesn't seem to make many steel guns designed specifically for the carry market, having dropped the 696 snubby, etc.

 

[PAPACHUCK]

I went to the Shot Show and I saw, held, and fondled the S&W 632.

Me likey!! Me cannot afford it though.

 

[krs]

I have a 3" J frame round butt revolver in .38 special and would have to qualm if it were defined as a pocket pistol. Even with a relatively large and long aftwemarket grip the pistol is quite small, as amall as a 442 but with a little bit longer barrel. This is the only photo that shows the one I mean, and it's currently socked away with an original grip installed.

The added barrel is not enough to redefine the pistol, IMO.

 

[Old Fuff]

Well Smith & Wesson's small I-frame revolvers had 3 1/4" barrels, as did the .38 Safety Hammerless top-break. Both were considered to be pocket pistols in Grandpa's day. My father registered his 4" K-frame, Military & Police revolver about 1928, and they classified it as a pocket pistol.

They just don't make pants like they used to... The whole world gone bust.

 

[Sarvisian]

I really like the .327 and will be buying one of the new Smiths to go with my SP-101. The SP-101 recoil is really negligible, it's loud, but actual recoil is light. With the comp on the Smith, and knowing that the higher the pressure the more useful a comp is, this should make for a very quick follow up shot. My 432 will not be given up however, it's just too good to let go.


I agree with the folks hoping for a longer barrel or a K frame. Personally the .327 would be absolutely perfect in the 5" J frame, I've got both the .357 and .22lr versions and they're wonderful but the .327 would be perfection to me.

 

[ThomasT]

I like 32s but don't think I'll buy in on the 327. With brass prices and the price of the new gun I think I will just be happy with the 32 mag and 32 SWL.

I do wish that S&W would bring back the 631 in 32 mag. Thats my quest gun and has been for 2-3 years.

I have 2 Ruger SS 32 mags, an SP101 32 mag and a 431 PD. I also have a model 31 w/4" barrel and a 3" model 30. None are just what I want. I think the 631 would be the perfect trail gun.

I am glad to see new interest in the 32s though.

I forgot but I also have the Marlin 94CB in 32 mag. I told you I like 32s.

 

[Old Fuff]

I forgot but I also have the Marlin 94CB in 32 mag. I told you I like 32s.

Well, there's a lot to like...

 

[Roper1952]

I'm lucky enough to own a Ruger Buckeye Blackhawk in 32 H&R and 32-20. The gun has a 6 1/2 inch barrel and a steel grip frame. Recoil? What recoil?

If I really had to, I'd see who's making 327 mag cylinders, but I don't think I'll have to. The 32-20 is just fine...

 

[MatthewVanitas]

Out of curiosity, how is the .32 H&R, or .327, for long-range target shooting?

I don't hunt or anything, just curious if it's any good for punching paper or knocking over cans at long range, compared to other revo cartridges.

Or is something like the .218 Bee, .22 K-Hornet, or 25-20 a better long-range revo cartridge? Or are the larger calibers like .41 Mag or .357 a better deal?

 

[Stainz]

The 3" 60 'kit gun' has an adjustable sight and HiViz front, while weighing .4 oz less than the 3" 632. It's MSRP is $782... and you can buy ammo at Wally World for it, .357M or .38 Special.

Really want a 5" J-frame? You have a current choice - 8-shooter .22 rimfire 63 (MSRP $790 - 28 oz) or 5-shot .357M/.38 Special 60 (MSRP $822 - 26.3 oz). Both can be fed from WallyWorld, too.

I even got rid of my neato Dillon .32 dies... count me out!

Stainz

 

[Old Fuff]

Out of curiosity, how is the .32 H&R, or .327, for long-range target shooting?

At one time both 32 H&R Magnum and .32-20 cartridges found some favor with metallic silhouette shooters for use up to 100 yards/meters. As handguns go they have a flat trajectory and low recoil, the latter being important for hand-held accuracy.

When used in European target pistols .32 S&W Long wadcutters will make one-hole groups at 25 meters off of a machine rest, and some have done almost as good at twice the distance.

 

[MatthewVanitas]

At one time both 32 H&R Magnum and .32-20 cartridges found some favor with metallic silhouette shooters for use up to 100 yards/meters. As handguns go they have a flat trajectory and low recoil, the latter being important for hand-held accuracy.

At the risk of being ignorant: are the .44/.41/.357 still better for, say, smacking a big gong at 200yd and such though?

On a related note, a local gunshop has a Ruger .32 H&R Single Six, adjustable sights 4.5" for $389, with hopefully some room to wiggle down. I'm pretty tempted, though I kinda wanted a longer barrel. Then again, that's $100 less than any comparable revo would cost me on GunBroker, so maybe I can start with the 4.5", shoot it a bit, and then sell it to change barrel sizes if that turns out to matter much to me.

 

[Old Fuff]

... are the .44/.41/.357 still better for, say, smacking a big gong at 200yd and such though?

Yes they are, because the smaller rounds run out of steam, but it requires packing a larger, heavier revolver and ammunition. Each kind has its own place.

On a related note, a local gunshop has a Ruger .32 H&R Single Six, adjustable sights 4.5" for $389,

If you're interested in a light, easy to carry .32 for plinking or as a field gun I'd jump at it, even if the seller wouldn't come down. A 4 5/8" (real length) barrel beats the 3" kind under discussion, and the adjustable sights are advantageous. So are the larger stocks.

 

[MatthewVanitas]

If you're interested in a light, easy to carry .32 for plinking or as a field gun I'd jump at it, even if the seller wouldn't come down. A 4 5/8" (real length) barrel beats the 3" kind under discussion, and the adjustable sights are advantageous. So are the larger stocks.

Well, it's been an interesting day. I was down in San Antonio for a meeting, hit up a few pawnshops, and now I have not one, but two .32H&R Single Sixes (and a Camillus MkI Navy knife, long story). But I'll put together some pics and start a new thread about it in the next few days.