Who would like to see a 5 shot .32 caliber revolver?

[Dragline45]

I was wondering if anyone else including myself would like to see a 5 shot .32 caliber revolver, Smith & Wesson might call it an I frame. If made in .327 you would have the option of .32 mag and .32 long and if my thinking is right also .32 s&w if anyone can find it. Or perhaps an even smaller package than the .327 if made for .32 mag or .32 long. A step down below the J frame would be absolutely perfect for pocket carry with its slightly shorter length and slight smaller cylinder. Some can make the argument that a .32 long isn't adequate for self defense but when you have a revolver rivaling the size of pocket autos ill take 5 rounds of .32 long, .32 mag or .327 over say 7 rounds of .32 acp.

.32 s&w, .32 long, .32 mag, .327 mag

 

[ThomasT]

It'll never happen. Besides I have a 431PD thats weighs less than 15oz and is a 6 shot gun. Its loaded and in my nightstand. The 327 never struck a chord with me. I have three 32 long revolvers and would't have any problem using one of them for SD with my handloads that shoot a 100gr bullet 850fps.

I do like 32s and anything that gets more of them on the market makes me happy. Good luck with your dream gun.

 

[Dragline45]

I wouldn't go as far as saying it would never happen, with the introduction of the .327 I could see Ruger one day making a 5 shot revolver built around it. Also if Smith & Wesson will step up and build the bigger X frame for larger calibers, why wouldn't they build a smaller frame for smaller calibers

 

[Winchester_73]

I was wondering if anyone else including myself would like to see a 5 shot .32 caliber revolver, Smith & Wesson might call it an I frame.

Hmm....well the I frame has been discontinued since the 50s, and the J frame is slightly longer for 38 special but otherwise the same...so....I think they would still want make it a J frame. The J frame can handle 6 shots in 32 cal, such as the models 30 and 31.

I suppose if you want smaller than a J frame for carry, you would be asking S&W to make an entirely new frame of which there is almost no demand for so I'm quite certain they would never make it. Most people think the J frame is small enough and with 32 cal, you get an extra shot compared to 38.

what you want would be comparable to the old 1 1/2 frame which was for the model 1 1/2 SA and the 32 DA.

 

[Dragline45]

you would be asking S&W to make an entirely new frame of which there is almost no demand for

I beg to differ. Small pocket pistols have always been big and just look at the recent introductions of Smith & Wesson's bodyguard 380 and Rugers LCR, LCP and LC9. There is most definitely a market and demand for small concealable guns so why wouldn't there be for the introduction of a brand new smaller framed revolver. Especially since many pocket autos are not as reliable as their full size counterparts, an ultra small revolver would be perfect. Like I said in a previous post, Smith and Wesson eventually made the X frame for larger calibers, why not make a smaller frame for smaller calibers?

 

[Bill DeShivs]

If the gun were made as a 5 shot .32 ACP, with a cylinder shortened commensurately, the gun would sell well. .32 ACP is more powerful than .32 Long.
The Long, Magnum, and .327 would make the cylinder-hence, the gun, longer.

 

[Dragline45]

32 ACP is more powerful than .32 Long.

Was not aware of that, looks can be deceiving

 

[Winchester_73]

I beg to differ. Small pocket pistols have always been big and just look at the recent introductions of Smith & Wesson's bodyguard 380 and Rugers LCR, LCP and LC9. There is most definitely a market and demand for small concealable guns so why wouldn't there be for the introduction of a brand new smaller framed revolver. Especially since many pocket autos are not as reliable as their full size counterparts, an ultra small revolver would be perfect.

The problem here is that since the 38 is the gold standard, and your new frame wouldn't hold 5 38s, this new gun, the model Z we will call it would only appeal to the 32 for SD crowd which is far from the majority on this issue. Many people who like the 32 for SD enjoy the 6th round from a J frame and many people's hands are just small enough for a J frame, and so you want a smaller frame? Even the guns you mention are 380, which would require a J frame to be 5 shot capacity. A better comparison / analogy would be your model Z compared to the demand for small 32 autos, and once again, very little demand. Most people refuse to carry smaller than a 380. Many say a 380 is too small anyways.

If you were right, S&W would have beat your mind to the punch and this thread wouldn't exist. All of these companies have people who try to come up with new models which will sell.

 

[Dragline45]

.327 magnum and .32 magnum are on par with a .380 and above a .32acp so it would still meet certain peoples needs for a true pocket revolver. Also by your logic since very little people carry a .32 its not profitable for any gun company to make them.

 

[Winchester_73]

If the gun were made as a 5 shot .32 ACP, with a cylinder shortened commensurately, the gun would sell well. .32 ACP is more powerful than .32 Long.

I disagree. How many people would want the smaller, harder to handle 5 shot 32 vs the 6 shot 32 thats already on the market? How many people want the reliability of a revolver with the power of a 32 acp? Not many...

I think the gun would need something special for it to sell, like buy one get one free or perhaps 22 compatibility, or a free case of ammo.....something more than this concept itself.

 

[Dragline45]

I think the gun would need something special for it to sell, like buy one get one free or perhaps 22 compatibility, or a free case of ammo.....something more than this concept itself.

Or the fact that it would be a small 5 shot compact revolver that sits comfortably in a front pocket. Plenty of people carry 2 shot derringers, why not a small 5 shot .32 revolver.

How many people want the reliability of a revolver with the power of a 32 acp? Not many

Is that a trick question?

 

[Bill DeShivs]

I would think if the 5 shot .32 acp were available, LOTS of people would buy them-for themselves and for others. A woman (and lots of men)would probably carry the little revolver over any auto. an awful lot of people carry NAA mini revolvers, and they are single action. I would buy one just to have it.
All the "minimum caliber" stuff notwithstanding- having a simple to operate, very small, D/A revolver in .32 acp sure beats not carrying a gun at all.

If the gun were chambered in H&R mag or that .327 super long thing, you might as well carry a "J" frame .38.

 

[mj246]

If the gun were chambered in H&R mag or that .327 super long thing, you might as well carry a "J" frame .38.
-Bill DeShivs

I disagree. For a lot of people the trouble in concealing the j-frame is width, not length. If they could make a 5 shot 32 mag or 327 with a smaller cylinder (and therefore less maximum width), I think it might provide for a decent niche of shooters/CCWers, including those who want a 32 for recoil purposes. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't work well with 327 though because it is high pressure (therefore needing thicker cylinders) and from what I've heard only really light on recoil compared to 357, not 38, but a 32 mag has similar ballistics to 380 and a bare minimum sized 5 shot 32 mag revolver would probably compete well with the pocket 380s IMO.

I highly doubt it would happen though, because the 32mag is not a common and popular enough caliber today to make it take off the necessary amount to make short term profits.

 

[jmr40]

I wouldn't buy one.

 

[Maxem0815]

Not to sure that the .32 S&W is all that popular. I have a small collection of .32's anything from .32 RF up to .32 H&R Mag. The 327 is just another long 32 guys I know who have them want to get rid of them. I would carry my .32acp for self defense and home defense a shotgun and .45 now to hunt rabbit, squirrel, and fun plink a 32/20.
Just my two cents.
Mace

 

[FrankenMauser]

.32 ACP is more powerful than .32 Long.

Apples to oranges. You're comparing a high pressure cartridge that is typically loaded with 60 to 71 grain projectiles, to a low pressure cartridge that is typically loaded with 80 to 100 grain projectiles.


You might as well be comparing 9mm to .45 Auto. We know where that debate ends up.

With handloads in modern revolvers, it's a completely different subject. The .32 S&W Long can be pushed substantially beyond SAAMI's ridiculously conservative limitations. (Handloads in SD firearms is its own debate, and doesn't belong in this thread; but the cartridge is worth far more than it is being given credit for.)

I would think if the 5 shot .32 acp were available, LOTS of people would buy them-for themselves and for others.

I wouldn't, and don't know anyone that would. .32 S&W Long would be an absolute minimum, to get any kind of attention on the market. Even then... it's questionable.

If the gun were chambered in H&R mag or that .327 super long thing, you might as well carry a "J" frame .38.

I have exactly that, as well as a .327 Blackhawk. I'd rather carry a 5-shot .327 "I" frame, than the 5 shot .38 J-frame. A 1,500 fps Hydra-Shok or Gold Dot vs a 900 fps Hydra-Shok or Gold Dot (that was actually designed for 1,100 fps)..?.. I'll take 1,500. Hydrostatic Shock does incredibly nasty things to mammals.

 

[Magnum Wheel Man]

1st off... I carry alot of these 5 shot 32's already... but mine are antiques... I also do have a S&W 6 shot J frame air weight in 32 H&R magnum

BTW... IMO, litterally no CCW gun fires a bullet fast enough to really use the word "hydrosatatic shock"... even a 125 grain 357 mag is not got the snot a 45-70 does out of a carbine & my expirience, shows the 45-70 doesn't get much actual hydrostatic bruising

... I got the chore as "the new guy" of field dressing all the deer the 1st 2 years I joined my father in laws hunting party ( many many years ago ) but while doing dressing duty for two years, I learned alot about hydrostatic "blood shot" around different cartridges wound channels... 243, 30-06 had similar bruising, 300 win mag, had much more than the 243 or 30-06... 45-70 from a carbine & 357 maximum ( from a 6" revolver ) exhibited almost no "blood shot" or bruising from hydrostatic shock... in the 2 deer I field dressed that had been shot with a 6" 357 maximum both exhibited nearly no bruising... I can't imagine the 327 from a carry length revolver ( especially a snubbie as was the topic of discussion ) would get any hydrostatic bruising

I'm not sure at what velocity ( or energy ) is needed to effectively get hydrostatic shock, but would suspect over 2000 fps is needed since the 45-70 was just under 2000 fps & showed little to no hydrostatic bruising

 

[2damnold4this]

Why not just carry an old six shot .32 I frame if that's what you want?

 

[357 Terms]

With the way the 327 took off I doubt any handgun manufacturer is gonna make any special platform for the .32 cal.

 

[micromontenegro]

Since the NAA mini revolvers sell like hotcakes, I think a quality, DA revolver substantially smaller than a J frame would sell even better- no matter what caliber it came in.

Myself, I am looking high and low for an I frame in .32 S&W Long (not easy to find here). If they made a smaller one, I'd stand in line to get one. Would also get it in .32 ACP, or even .22 LR. I'd love to have a tiny DA revolver- and I don't think I am alone.