smallest colt revolver?

[leftiye]

I picked up a Colt .32 S&W long cylinder for cheap (on a whim, I have a bunch of PPS and other colt parts, and thought it might be found to be worth having) recently. It is almost tiny, with what I would consider minimum metal around the chambers, 6 shots. I have another of these plus an internal parts set, so I set about figgerin' out what gun these were for. These cylinders are about 1/16 to 1/8th in. smaller than a S&W model 30-1 cylinder.

I got to thinkin that while small, with the oversize grips, the S&W 30-1 isn't really pocket stuff, and maybe a small colt would be more pocketable. Theory being that while not a stopper round, one to the noggin might cause a dead a$$hole or knock him out, and so be useful. And six shots is better than two (derringer), plus some derringers are quite heavy (and not much accurate).

I think it is for a Colt pocket positive (from looking at pictures on gumbroken). Without going back into the 19th century, what is the smallest colt or S&W (just to be fair) revolter?

[rintinglen]

S&W Ladysmith M frame for the win.
9.5 oz, 2 1/4 inch (rare), 3 inch, 3 1/2, or 6 inch barrel 22 revolver. As events seemed to prove, it was a little too small, and was not strong enough for modern high speed 22 LR and S&W stopped making them cerca 1921.
The S&W 32 Hand Ejector was a direct competitor of the Pocket Positive and was pretty much the same size and weight. Though IIRC, Colt had a 2+ inch barrel version long before S&W. The S&W 32 snubbies didn't hit town until about the Korean War. The Pocket Positive was discontinued just before WWII and essentially replaced by the marvelous Detective Special (and it's Agent and Cobra siblings).

[9.3X62AL]

Leftiye--

If you would like, I have a Pocket Positive 32 S&W Long example from 1904, and can do a Tale of the Tape for you for comparison. These arms were also chambered in 32 Colt, which featured an outside-lubricated bullet design like 22 LR ammunition. Again like 22 LR revolvers, cylinders so chambered are drilled "straight-through", with no chamber step. Those chambered for the S&W inside-lubricated round have the visible "step" about 3/4 the length of the chamber from the extractor star.

[leftiye]

These cylinders are for the S&W .32 long (= Colt new police - dumbells were calling it that clear through the 50s), and do have the step where the case ends. Given the advent of small, powerful, auto pistols nowadays, this avenue of thought is probly already dead, but it does have its charm.

AL, Could you give me a measurement from top of topstrap to top of trigger area (outsides of frame), and from top of rear of grip to front of frame please?

With extra cylinders, I even thought of exploring how hot of a load could be useful. Careful workup should avoid damaging even the cylinder (it would stick before bulging), but having a cylinder to "burn" would avoid total stupidity.

[Mk42gunner]

leftiye,

Here is my two cents. You are not going to make the .32 S&W Long into a powerful cartridge no matter what you do with the small framed Pre War revolvers, so why take a chance?

My own S&W Hand ejector Model of 1903 doesn't instill much confidence for hot loads. I have decided to keep it at the 2.5 grains of Red Dot level, slightly warmer than the anemic stock loadings, but not what could be considered hot.

I also do not carry the .32 S&W Long for self defense. There are a plethora of better calibers and platforms for that these days.

stay safe,

Robert

[9.3X62AL]

Leftiye--

Topstrap to trigger bow, right at the trigger's intersect--1.840".

Recoil hump to flat surface directly underneath ejector rod's emergence from frame front--3.835". The frame front has a slanting aspect that frustrates finding a good measurement reference--I chose its longest point, and the most definite rearward point as well.

HTH.

[leftiye]

Thank you very much. This was all just a step up from a daydream, though finding the answer does have value. Thanks for indulging me.

[9.3X62AL]

No problemo.

I'm not prone to run the 32 S&W Long much past its 1899 ballistics--98 grain bullet at 700-725 FPS. In the context of the 32 H&R Magnum or 327 Federal, such performance is quite docile--but loads of this kind do good work all outside their "paper" ballistics. I have found for over 35 years that the 32 S&W Long is a FAR BETTER small game and varmint caliber from a revolver than is the 22 LR. The greater diameter (esp. when fronted by a flat point and sharp shoulder in a wadcutter or semi-wadcutter bullet) in concert with its heavier weight has terminal performance not found in the 22 LR. I would equate the 32 S&W Long's effects from a revolver (or autopistol, those are around too) to that of the 22 LR HV from a rifle, perhaps a notch ahead of that. Just my dos centavos after a lot of good years with the 32 SWL.

ETA--That "32 New Police" moniker for the 32 SWL began as a re-branding move by Colt Firearms, who did not wish to use Smith & Wesson's name or acronym on any part of their products. The Pocket Positive I pulled the measurements from is a nickeled 6" example, and its barrel stamping is "COLT NEW POLICE CAL. 32". This renaming did create some confusion, as there was once a plethora of 30 and 32 caliber revolver calibers in production with close resemblances that invited ammo misuse. The 32 S&W and the 32 S&W Long survive to this day, but most of the others are obsolete. Someone trying to revive outside lubricated bullets as an ammo upgrade would be better served by repairing 8-track tape decks, I suspect.

[leftiye]

I do understand your choice of loads, and I might even carry my police positive special in .32 S&W long someday and shoot potguts or whatever (it should stop rabbits purty well) with it just for fun. Probly won't be able to pass up the Kieth 32-20 loads in my Official Police though.

Al, You probly know this already, but many here do not.

For those who do not yet know,--- I'm one of those wierd folks who just might push a gun to destruction to find its limits. This would possibly be one of those cases. That being said, I would more likely (if I had an extra cylinder or two), not actually blow the gun up, but just push it some to see what was actually possible. Then of course never shoot any of those loads unless my life depended on it. And maybe not even make up any of those loads, just do it to find out what is possible. I am as well versed in safety as I need to be, and am also a rabidly autonomous person who won't just shut up and go with the crowd. If I know how to load loads that are well beyond the pale without damaging a gun or myself, that becomes part of reality, and therefore possible. Nay, probable.

[leftiye]

After getting your info on the Pocket Positive frame dimensions, and using the cyls that I have, I compared it to a Colt Police positive Special in .32 S&W long. (Note: It may be possible that the cyls that I have are for a Colt New Pocket revolver) First, the cylinders on the PPS are nearly twice as thick between chambers (.111 to .057"). The metal between the chambers and the outside is 50% thicker on the PPS than on the Pocket Positive(.079 to.053). The cylinders themselves are .154 bigger on the PPS. Overall, I'd guess the PPS cylinder to be at least twice as strong. What is striking is that the PPS is only in the range of a quarter of an inch taller than the PP (.272). And the frame length is about .379 longer. For the small difference in size the PPS is a lot more gun. Especially considering that it comes in .38 special caliber!

[9.3X62AL]

Intrepidity can be its own reward. I do a bit of that with Rugers--they are more readily (and affordably) replaceable.

The Police Positive Special was an upgrade of the Police Positive to contain the 32-20 WCF and 38 Special calibers. It featured a cylinder window 1/4" longer than the PP with a cylinder lengthened to fit these longer cartridges (per J. Serven's "Colt Firearms, 1836-1954" [1954]). If you have a PPS in 32 S&W Long, it is a rare variant--run it with its enhanced value in mind.

I sold off a PPS in 32-20 in favor of a S&W M&P, which is likely a mite stouter than the PPS. I wasn't running the PPS real hard, 98 grain RCBS SWCs at 950-1000 FPS and 115 grainers at 850-900. I put close to 1000 of those rounds through the little roller, at least half of that in double-action mode, but the timing and indexing was unaffected as best I could tell. The guy I sold the PPS to still has it, and won't sell it back. Drat him. I now have 3 medium/med-heavy framed 32-20 revolvers on staff, so need has little to do with getting back that PPS.