Top Break .32s Rock!

TTv2

Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2016
Messages
4,900
I haven't shot my H&R top break .32 SW Long for a while. Got a bunch of brass recently and figured, why not? After being reminded why I like it so much I realized it's probably my best shooting .32 revolver, better than the SP101 and Charter Professional. Double action is a bit heavy, but extremely smooth, single action is also heavy, but crisp break and it all adds up to rarely missing the target.

I've been wanting a longer barrel version, but boy are they rare to find in the S&W Long chambering in working condition. I'm sure the smaller frame 5 shot .32 S&W top breaks are just as well shooting, I do plan to buy one of those too, but I don't think they're as strong as the 6 shot H&R top breaks.
 
View attachment 1170863

You mean like these? Relics of a bygone era. 5 shot 32 S&W revolvers. I’ve owned them 25 years. If you shot someone with that round and, they found out about it, it sure would piss them off!
Well, those are all 5 shooters. Get yourself a 6 shooter top break .32 and you'll see the light.

The biggest issue I'm having finding a 5 shot .32 top break is one with an exposed hammer. I'm not opposed to DAO, but since it's not a carry gun I don't see the point of a DAO range gun/collectible.
 
Well, those are all 5 shooters. Get yourself a 6 shooter top break .32 and you'll see the light.

The biggest issue I'm having finding a 5 shot .32 top break is one with an exposed hammer. I'm not opposed to DAO, but since it's not a carry gun I don't see the point of a DAO range gun/collectible.
How about an 8 shooter in 327 Federal? Of Course it’s not a top- break.
 
Heres one of my H&R auto ejector 20230910_080542.jpg top breaks in 32 long. It was a mess when i got it its been completely tore down and rebuilt. It started life nickle plate. Since the plating was in terrible shape it got sanded and polished and i blued everything but the cylinder and it got a new coat of nickle plate. Ive got several more H&R, iver johnson and US top breaks in different states of construction.
 
I am not sure if you are aware of this, but Smith and Wesson never made any Top Breaks chambered for the 32 S&W Long cartridge.

They were all chambered for the 32 S&W, sometimes known as the 32 S&W Short. Here are a few. Notice how short the cylinders are, just right for the 32 S&W cartridge. And the 38 S&W too, of course.

yDmOxT.jpg



l0zoI0.jpg



4IjBYu.jpg


2rxaJy.jpg





Smith and Wesson developed the 32 S&W Long cartridge for their first revolver with a swing out cylinder, the 32 Hand Ejector, 1st Model, also known as the Model of 1896.

IxhSf7.jpg





My favorite 32 S&W Long revolver is this K-32 Masterpiece.

Pv6Hkh.jpg
 
I am not sure if you are aware of this, but Smith and Wesson never made any Top Breaks chambered for the 32 S&W Long cartridge.

They were all chambered for the 32 S&W, sometimes known as the 32 S&W Short. Here are a few. Notice how short the cylinders are, just right for the 32 S&W cartridge. And the 38 S&W too, of course.

yDmOxT.jpg



l0zoI0.jpg



4IjBYu.jpg


2rxaJy.jpg





Smith and Wesson developed the 32 S&W Long cartridge for their first revolver with a swing out cylinder, the 32 Hand Ejector, 1st Model, also known as the Model of 1896.

IxhSf7.jpg





My favorite 32 S&W Long revolver is this K-32 Masterpiece.

Pv6Hkh.jpg
H&R was ahead of S&W then, Smith really missed out offering a top break in the .32 Long.

Never understood the need for a grip safety on a double action only revolver.
 
I've never understood why top-break revolvers didn't become more popular than swing-out cylinder revolvers (kinda like why did VHS beat out Betamax?). As always, many thanks to Driftwood Johnson for coming in and showing us so many glorious pics of his wonderful collection.
 
I am not sure if you are aware of this, but Smith and Wesson never made any Top Breaks chambered for the 32 S&W Long cartridge.

They were all chambered for the 32 S&W, sometimes known as the 32 S&W Short. Here are a few. Notice how short the cylinders are, just right for the 32 S&W cartridge. And the 38 S&W too, of course.

yDmOxT.jpg



l0zoI0.jpg



4IjBYu.jpg


2rxaJy.jpg





Smith and Wesson developed the 32 S&W Long cartridge for their first revolver with a swing out cylinder, the 32 Hand Ejector, 1st Model, also known as the Model of 1896.

IxhSf7.jpg





My favorite 32 S&W Long revolver is this K-32 Masterpiece.

Pv6Hkh.jpg







I finally caught you give wrong information ! I was darn hard and took years but :


"And the 38 S&W too, of course."


I think you will find all the S&W top break cylinders in .32S&W are MUCH shorter in .32 S&W than in .38 S&W !!! The little .32 S&W Hammerless top breals look like 4/5th models of the same in .38 S&W , not that it makes a Tinker's Darn. :)
 
Last edited:
I think you will find all the S&W top break cylinders in .32S&W are MUCH shorter in .32 S&W than in .38 S&W !!! The little .32 S&W Hammerless top breals look like 4/5th models of the same in .38 S&W , not that it makes a Tinker's Darn. :)

Right you are.

In this photo, a 44 Double Action, chambered for 44 Russian is at the top, a 38 Double Action 4th Model chambered for 38 S&W is in the middle, and a 32 Double Action 4th Model chambered for 32 S&W is at the bottom. All are pictured with the appropriate cartridges. It is obvious the 38 Double Action cylinder is longer than the 32 Double Action cylinder because of the lengths of the cartridges. I did not mean to imply that 38 and 32 cylinders were the same length, I added the phrase about 38s as an after thought.

8TxVhx.jpg
 
H&R was ahead of S&W then, Smith really missed out offering a top break in the .32 Long.

Just my opinion, but I disagree with you. Although S&W continued making some of their Top Breaks as late as 1940, their emphasis had clearly shifted to solid frame revolvers with swing out cylinders. I suspect it was a matter of economics too. I suspect the longer 32 S&W Long cartridge would require a longer cylinder than S&W had been using for their 32 S&W and 38 S&W revolvers. I will pull one out later to see. Anyway, if a longer cylinder was required, that would require a longer frame to house it, and S&W may not have been interested in putting in the time (and money) designing a new Top Break with a longer cylinder and frame.
 
Just my opinion, but I disagree with you. Although S&W continued making some of their Top Breaks as late as 1940, their emphasis had clearly shifted to solid frame revolvers with swing out cylinders. I suspect it was a matter of economics too. I suspect the longer 32 S&W Long cartridge would require a longer cylinder than S&W had been using for their 32 S&W and 38 S&W revolvers. I will pull one out later to see. Anyway, if a longer cylinder was required, that would require a longer frame to house it, and S&W may not have been interested in putting in the time (and money) designing a new Top Break with a longer cylinder and frame.
Nobody was making top breaks during or after WW2, but S&W could have done a .32 Lg built on the .38 top breaks in the late 1890s.

But, IDK how it would have sold, the theory back then was bigger is better and having the same caliber in a bigger gun wouldn't have appealed to people; the reason H&R likely did it was to offer something in the new, longer, more powerful .32 caliber.
 
Nobody was making top breaks during or after WW2, but S&W could have done a .32 Lg built on the .38 top breaks in the late 1890s.

But, IDK how it would have sold, the theory back then was bigger is better and having the same caliber in a bigger gun wouldn't have appealed to people; the reason H&R likely did it was to offer something in the new, longer, more powerful .32 caliber.
H&R and Iver Johnson never missed their chance tho . The "large frame " Iver Johnson in .32 S&W long was their "Target" model on the .38 frame. The little .32 S&W was my wife's purse gun 10 years

1694751568739.png
 
Nobody was making top breaks during or after WW2, but S&W could have done a .32 Lg built on the .38 top breaks in the late 1890s.

But, IDK how it would have sold, the theory back then was bigger is better and having the same caliber in a bigger gun wouldn't have appealed to people; the reason H&R likely did it was to offer something in the new, longer, more powerful .32 caliber.

Webley was making top break revolvers during WWII. Most were the British 380/200 caliber (38 S&W). When I was a youngster dealers couldn’t give them away. You could buy one in near mint condition for $50. Today you will pay an arm and a leg for one in fair condition. I can’t imagine the ballistics of the 380/200 round but, that’s the British for you!
 
Right you are.

In this photo, a 44 Double Action, chambered for 44 Russian is at the top, a 38 Double Action 4th Model chambered for 38 S&W is in the middle, and a 32 Double Action 4th Model chambered for 32 S&W is at the bottom. All are pictured with the appropriate cartridges. It is obvious the 38 Double Action cylinder is longer than the 32 Double Action cylinder because of the lengths of the cartridges. I did not mean to imply that 38 and 32 cylinders were the same length, I added the phrase about 38s as an after thought.

8TxVhx.jpg

More than anything, I wish these old guns could talk. Can you imagine the stories they would tell?
 
I am not sure if you are aware of this, but Smith and Wesson never made any Top Breaks chambered for the 32 S&W Long cartridge.

They were all chambered for the 32 S&W, sometimes known as the 32 S&W Short. Here are a few. Notice how short the cylinders are, just right for the 32 S&W cartridge. And the 38 S&W too, of course.

yDmOxT.jpg



l0zoI0.jpg



4IjBYu.jpg


2rxaJy.jpg





Smith and Wesson developed the 32 S&W Long cartridge for their first revolver with a swing out cylinder, the 32 Hand Ejector, 1st Model, also known as the Model of 1896.

IxhSf7.jpg





My favorite 32 S&W Long revolver is this K-32 Masterpiece.

Pv6Hkh.jpg

Outstanding collection! I would love to conn you out of that K32! Those have gotten crazy expensive.
 
Back
Top