The .32 S&W Long as a man-stopper

[9.3X62AL]

This thread needs to be un stickled IMHO. It has gone beyond in the last 6 years.

Full agreement with Geezer's text. Funny how most threads concerning mid-caliber handguns "get legs" and continue for multiple pages. That was called a "clue" where I used to work, and it is one that gunmakers ignore in some depth. More's the pity.

[Frank V]

You know the "mid size" ctgs. are really very useful. For me they are too light for defense, but there are a TON of applications where they shine. One example is small game, varmint hunting, a trail gun as long as bears etc. aren't in the area, just plain fun.
I've never owned a .32, but the .327 is interesting & I think it'd make a great fun/trail gun.
Enjoy!

[9.3X62AL]

This thought just occurred to me after some rolling around of the idea. I have zero experience with the 327 Federal, but have run some Lyman 100 grain #313631 (SWC-GC) into the 1400-1450 FPS realm, which gets close to the 327's and to the 30 Carbine Blackhawk's tool-free dialing areas. Actually, this bullet's grouping improves as it speeds up past 1000 FPS in my S&W Model 16-4, and a number of folks here and elsewhere have complained about the bullet's lack of accuracy. Stoke it up, if so--see what occurs (assuming a platform stout enough for the venture).

So by proxy I do have a bit of time with 327 Federal loadings, courtesy of the Model 16 and the Carbine BH.

I began a process with the 32 H&R Magnum of creating loads with the RCBS 32-98-SWC that achieved 900-950 FPS. These have all shot with delightful accuracy, and the fuels have ranged in speed from WW-231 to Herco. These could also likely be created for the postwar solid-frame Colt and S&W 32 SWLs, as an adjunct to Skeeter Skelton's work with the 44 Special--raising velocities from the 700-725 FPS range of the parent calibers to something far more useful. I should note that I currently keep my stock of 32 SWL in the 700 FPS ballpark out of indulgence for the 1901 New Pocket I now have on board for the caliber. Just a quick thought while waiting for the NFL Playoffs to start back up.

[Thin Man]

Frank V - you don't know the fun you are missing out on from never having owned a 32 revolver. In my early handloading years that caliber was only a curiosity to me but later developed into a project seeking increased power. That quest began with load data published in an early Speer manual, about #7 or #8. Well, I could go look it up as I keep all my old manuals. As time passed and I honored the relative strengths of top-breaks, early swing cylinders and then later swing cylinders, I found there was more potential to the cartridge than I had ever suspected. I bought an almost new 3" S&W and found greater accuracy and group size than before with the 2" variants. Then came a Single Six 32 H&R Mag, nothing more than the 32 S&W L on steroids. Yikes, the fun began. All this got me started taking in additional 32 molds, now have seven (7) in .313 - .314 as-cast diameter with thirteen (13) in the .309 - .311 diameter range that can be Beagled to work. These include RN, RN-HP, RF, SWC and WC designs. The fun never ends. Powders? Yup, there is endless experimentation there. Most recently I have been burning AA9 under a 100 gr. Saeco 100 grain SWC with very tight groups. The fun never ends.

As for the 327 Federal, I'll pass on that one. Muzzle blast to rival the .30 Carbine is beyond my limit, especially since I have already lost most of my hearing. It has its place in the field, and for those who will use it I wish them the best, it just isn't for me.

Thin Man

[Frank V]

Thin Man, I'm thinking you are right, I've just never gotten into the .32s. I did have a .32WCF 92 Win at one time & it was a hoot.
Maybe one day......

[RJM52]

Well Frank...if I get to visit you this year I'll try and bring the 6.5" Freedom Arms with me... I think you'll like it for Jacks...

Bob

[Frank V]

Well Frank...if I get to visit you this year I'll try and bring the 6.5" Freedom Arms with me... I think you'll like it for Jacks...

Bob

Bob, I'm sure it'd work well as for the Freedom Arms their quality is well known. I have shot one in .454 Casull & it was quite accurate. I've thought about the Ruger Single Seven for a trail/small game gun, I think it'd be super .
Thanks.

[kingrj]

I happen to have an S&W .32 Long and I would rather have it than a sharp stick or a brick bat when it comes to personal defense...My shoulders are bad and I can't throw a brick bat like I used to...

[Green Frog]

Well, I'm on the home stretch to building another 32 revolver. This time it's going to be a straight up homage to the early post-War S&W K-32 with a factory original NOS barrel from Smith and a rebored K-22 cylinder, both of which to be transplanted onto an as-yet-to-be-determined donor revolver. This time it will have a 32 S&W Long chambering and probably be used mostly for target rather than man stopping... except for the enthusiasts that see it and stop by to drool on it!

Froggie

[RJM52]

Since my last post Jack Huntington worked his magic and now have a K-frame .327 Magnum that even looks original... Would post pics but have to figure out how now that Photobucket is holding everyone hostage...

The front sight is a little low for the 120 grain cast bullets but spot on with 85 grain Hornady XTPs. Have not chronographed anything from the gun yet...

Bob

[RJM52]

It worked!!

[RJM52]

Froggie...who is doing your conversion? Sounds like it is going to be a nice gun...

[rking22]

6 inch blued K frame !!!! Slobber Slobber Drool Oh man how I NEED one of those! Beautiful revolver.

[Green Frog]

RJM52, my Project 616 was done by Andy Horvath of LaGrange, OH. I'm thinking of going back to him, but haven't talked with him yet about getting in line for this job. How is Jack Huntington on quality, turn around time and price? This is going to be my last custom revolver for a while (yeah, right, we've heard that before ) so I'm taking my time and trying to get everything "just so."

Froggie

[Multigunner]

rking 22
"6 inch blued K frame !!!! Slobber Slobber Drool Oh man how I NEED one of those! Beautiful revolver. "

Haven't owned one yet but I do have three of the Crosman 38T CO2 replicas of the K38 with 6" barrel and the fully adjustable all metal target sights of two of these are a very close copy of the original sights. The grips and trigger pull are also fairly close copies. Balance and hold ability are excellent.
I have fired a model 19 that belongs to a friend on many occasions, its fairly close as well.
The 38T was used as a training revolver by several police departments and the USAF at one time.

Just can't beat the feel of guns like these.

[Green Frog]

when did it get put out that the 32 long was supposed to be a great manstopper round, or purchased for that intent?

Teddy went with the 32 originally because low recoil, decent accuracy, meant that it would be easy to get hordes of policemen trained to shoot at felons.

It has been repeatedly demonstrated with certainty; a hit with a 32 beats a miss with a 44 Mag. You can argue ballistics all you want, but the fact remains, controlled shots are more effective than more powerful but uncontrolled shots. If you can control your S&W 500 you will be quite effective with it, but if you close your eyes and flinch as you jerk the trigger, you better hope the muzzle blast disables the bad guy, because the bullet will probably miss.

Froggie

[Outpost75]

I find it interesting that the Colt 1851 Navy .36 cap & ball, the .380 ACP, .32-20 Winchester black powder round and the .32 S&W Long, in a modern loading with smokeless powder in a sturdy revolver ALL have about the same projectile weight, launched at very similar velocities. In its day the .36 Colt Navy was the choice of serious gunmen and killed its share of bad guys. People haven't gotten any harder to kill, but back then they didn't have movies, TV and gun magazines to cloud the issue...

[EMC45]

I have recently shot both my Model 30 and 31 S&W revolvers - 3in. and 1 7/8in. respectively. I do not feel under gunned AT ALL carrying either of these guns for defense. With the RCBS 32-098 over a charge of 2.7gr. Bullseye they are both very accurate and controllable. I know a face or lungs full of these SWCs will stop someone.

With the copy of the 3118 I have a mold for, it ups the potential for more FPE. I know paper ballistics are not the same as real world, but comparatively speaking, the .32 S&W-L is a good bit ahead of .22, .25 and the .32 ACP in regard to performance.

[Wayne Dobbs]

I find it interesting that the Colt 1851 Navy .36 cap & ball, the .380 ACP, .32-20 Winchester black powder round and the .32 S&W Long, in a modern loading with smokeless powder in a sturdy revolver ALL have about the same projectile weight, launched at very similar velocities. In its day the .36 Colt Navy was the choice of serious gunmen and killed its share of bad guys. People haven't gotten any harder to kill, but back then they didn't have movies, TV and gun magazines to cloud the issue...

What was the real world ballistic performance of the 1851 Navy? Bullet weight, powder charge, velocity? I've wondered...

[Outpost75]

A .375" pure lead round ball weighs about 80 grains. Full service charge was 24 grains of 3Fg for about 900 fps. Conical was a bit heavier and a bit slower, 95 grains and probably not over 850 fps. Have chronographed the round ball, but never the conical. The .44 cal. 1860 Army with 142 -grain round ball and 28 grains of powder gave about 770-800 fps, approximating energy of a .38 S&W or .38 Special wadcutter. Ruger Old Army with 146-grain .457 ball and 40 grains of modern Swiss BP gets 1000 fps, similar to 9mm Luger subsonic.