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

[Molly]

"Not to nitpick, but for the sake of future readers, I'll point out that the .32 S&W long and .32 new police are dimensionally and pressure wise, completely interchangeable. "32 colt" however could refer to .32 short or long colt, which should not be used in a gun chambered for the above rounds. The .32 short or long colt use a heeled bullet in a smaller diameter case, much like the 22 long rifle."

I have heard differently. the .32 Short Colt and .32 Long Colt are marked as such, while the .32 Colt and .32 Colt New Police have been purported to be dimensionally identical. (This is what I was told by the vendors of such revolvers on Gunbroker.com.)

A "snub-nosed" .32 Colt (or Colt New Police) would work well at 'waltzing distances" to "settle someone's hash" and "stop the action" with a properly placed slug.

Scott

Sorry Scott, but I believe that NoZombies has the correct information. PISTOLS chambered for these rounds may have been dimensionally identical, but the rounds themselves are not. The .32 Short and long colt are rebated base designs similar to the .22 LR, with most of the bullet hanging outside the case. The 32 S&W Short, the .32 Colt New Police, the .32 S&W Long, the .32 H&R magnum and the .327 magnum are all dimensionally identical except for length, and are of designs that fully enclose the body of the bullet, or nearly so.

[gunfan]

Sorry Scott, but I believe that NoZombies has the correct information. PISTOLS chambered for these rounds may have been dimensionally identical, but the rounds themselves are not. The .32 Short and long colt are rebated base designs similar to the .22 LR, with most of the bullet hanging outside the case. The 32 S&W Short, the .32 Colt New Police, the .32 S&W Long, the .32 H&R magnum and the .327 magnum are all dimensionally identical except for length, and are of designs that fully enclose the body of the bullet, or nearly so.

What about this? It is a Detective Special with a rollmark that reads ".32 Colt." Clearly, it is chambered in .32 Colt New Police.

http://www.gunsinternational.com/Col...n_id=100240286

Scott

[olafhardt]

When I blow up the left side of the gun it says 32 colt N P which means 32 s&w special. My new pocket says colt da 32 and it will not chamber a 32 s&w or s&w long. My police positive is marked 32 police ctg and eats 32 s&w longs like popcorn.

[NoZombies]

Scott, the Detective special is marked for the New Police cartridge ("32 COLT NP CTG") and is indeed the same chambering as the 32 S&W long.

Any ".32 colt" without the new police or "colt's police ctg" designation, will use one of the heeled bullet cartridges, unless the gun is mis-marked.

[Molly]

What about this? It is a Detective Special with a rollmark that reads ".32 Colt." Clearly, it is chambered in .32 Colt New Police.

http://www.gunsinternational.com/Col...n_id=100240286

Scott

Gunfan, my saying that orange is blue does not make it true. You must realize that there are any number of ways information can be mistakenly presented. Honest error is one, misprints is another, and simple carelessness can account for more. I've dealt with Mr. Salter, and found him to be as good as his word. I strongly suspect that if you email him for clariification, he will clear up any confusion.

Meanwhile, here is an abstract of a case dimension table that you can find on our CastPics site that you may find enlightening:

Nominal Cartridge …………………………………Caliber Neck Shldr Base Rim Rim Case
Caliber Name ……………………………………… Blt Dia. Diam Diam Diam Diam Width Lngth
0.32 Colt …………………………………………0.312H 0.313 None 0.318 0.374 0.050 0.92
0.32 Colt Long ………………………………None 0.313 None 0.318 0.375 0.050 0.84
0.32 Colt Long; Inside Lube …………0.299 0.313 None 0.318 0.375 0.050 0.84
0.32 Colt Long; Outside Lube ………0.320 0.313 None 0.318 0.375 0.050 0.80
0.32 Colt Short; Inside Lube …………0.299 0.312 None 0.315 0.374 0.052 0.64
0.32 Colt Short; Outside Lube………0.312H 0.312 None 0.315 0.374 0.052 0.64
0.32 Smith & Wesson ……………………0.312 0.335 None 0.335 0.375 0.055 0.61
0.32 Smith & Wesson ……………………0.312 0.335 None 0.339 0.375 0.055 0.61
0.32 Smith & Wesson Long……………0.312 0.335 None 0.335 0.375 0.055 0.93

Sorry, but you'll have to study it a little, because I don't know how to make the columns line each entry p correctly.

Notes: An "H" after the bullet diameter indicates a heeled bullet like a .22 LR has. Also, the 'inside lube' bullets for the .32 colt was smaller than the caliber because it was a hollow base design that the powder explosion would enlarge to fit he bore, much like a Minne' ball.

[NoZombies]

Sorry, but you'll have to study it a little, because I don't know how to make the columns line each entry p correctly.

Here ya Go Molly, I fixed the formatting, added the .32 new police, and fixed some of the dimensional errors based on my database of measurements of the actual cartridges. Please note that the "32 colt" will chamber either the .32 long or short colt cartridges:


The HB notation means that it uses a Hollow Based bullet.

[Molly]

Here ya Go Molly, I fixed the formatting, added the .32 new police, and fixed some of the dimensional errors based on my database of measurements of the actual cartridges. Please note that the "32 colt" will chamber either the .32 long or short colt cartridges:

Thanks NoZombies, yer a good man to have handy.

Warning: 'Nother long post.

Some time back, Dale 53 and I were planning some water penetration tests, and promised to report them when we could. Unfortunately, a number of things caused quite a delay in getting to those tests, but this weekend I got around to at least SOME (very abbreviated) testing.

The .32 Long load I tested was 8.0g H110 under a 100g SWC, WW primers, and a heavy crimp, tested in a 3 inch barrel revolver. The control was a .38 Special with 4.50g HP38 under a 178g SWC tested in a 2.5" barrel revolver. Both of these loads are near or at maximum for the cases, at least in my opinion. (I believe the .32 S&W load might be increased a little: Case expansion ws minimal, primers were not flattened, and they extracted easily. I would not be comfortable increasing the .38 Special load. Both guns were recently purchased new, and should be at least representative of their types.

The test media was three liter polycarbonate soda bottles full to the brim with tap water and capped. Three liters is three thousand grams, or (at 2.2 pounds / liter) 6.6 pounds of water.

Distance was 30 feet, which is probably unrealistic in terms of arms length combat survival , but not unreasonable if considered in the light of deactivating hazards located across a big living room or down a hallway. Be that as it may, it's what I used.

The 38 special had a definite edge in performance. The bullet penetrated fully. Striking the bottle midway, it blew the cap off, caused some minor splitting of the bottle, and knocked it down, spraying a little water, and alowing the rest to dribble out slowly.

In contrast, the .32 Long also penetrated fully, blew the cap off the bottle, and knocked it down, but didn't produce any splitting or spraying. All of the water loss went out with the cap (very little) or dribbled out the holes.

Comments: I was not surprised that the 38 Special beat its little brother. "A big boxer will almost always whip a smaller boxer of equal skill." (Dunno who said that, but it's convincing.) I tested it mostly because I wanted to have something to judge the .32's performance by. (Also, years of having "ALWAYS run a control for your test" drummed into me by bosses in the lab may have had some residual effect.(BG))

I have mixed reactions to the performance of the .32 Long: I'd hoped (without any real reason to) that the higher velocity and lack of compressible air pocket) would produce at least some splitting and spraying of water. It didn't. But the enthusiasm with which its bottle fell over and quivered while its 'lifeblood' leaked out gave me the galloping willies at the thought of it happening inside my tender hide. Full penetration of that sizable jug suggests that it wouldn't lack penetration to reach the central nervous system, but the reduced hydraulic effect was disquieting, as it suggests that the rapid incapacitation ordinarily attributed to shock would be notably less with the .32 than with the 38.

I would have to say that the .32 S&W will likely be a less effective manstopper than the .38 Special. That does not mean it is ineffective. A bug stepped on by a boot is just as dead as one hit with an artillery shelll. I would also have to say that very few people indeed who received one of those .32 SWC slugs would express any interest in anything except the distance and direction of the nearest medical facility.

Granted, someone hopped up on narcotics isn't likely to be stopped by the .32, but then neither is he likely to be stopped by a 38, for he wouldn't feel either injury. Such people have been known to continue walking after two torso hits from a twelve guage shotgun. The only thing that will stop them is a direct hit on the central nervous system, and the penetration of the .32 load is entirely adequate for that. It is also entirely adequate for inflicting very serious injuries. Whether that meets minimal performance criteria for "a manstopper" is something you will have to decide for yourself.

WARNING! Do NOT replicate these loads in a .32 Long revolver. See details below in post 351.

[gunfan]

between the .32 Short Colt, .32 Long Colt, the .32 S&W and the .32 S&W Long.

Sometimes the manufacturers were "their own worst enemies." While their competitors manufactured a "standardized' cartridge and stuck with it, Colt had a horrible tendency to abandon their own patented heel-type bullet then forsake it upon discovering that oil would seep past the bullet and contaminate the propellant.

On top of that, then the nomenclature rollmarked on the side of the revolver's barrel is about "as clear as mud."

The people at Hartford could have done a better job of marking their revolvers, thus avoiding further confusion.

Idiots.

Scott

[NoZombies]

between the .32 Short Colt, .32 Long Colt, the .32 S&W and the .32 S&W Long.

Sometimes the manufacturers were "their own worst enemies." While their competitors manufactured a "standardized' cartridge and stuck with it, Colt had a horrible tendency to abandon their own patented heel-type bullet then forsake it upon discovering that oil would seep past the bullet and contaminate the propellant.

On top of that, then the nomenclature rollmarked on the side of the revolver's barrel is about "as clear as mud."

The people at Hartford could have done a better job of marking their revolvers, thus avoiding further confusion.

Idiots.

Scott

Yeah, the turn of the 20th century was a very confusing time! And that's without even getting into the rimfire variants, or the European equivalents. Suffice it to say that the .32 was very popular as far as nominal caliber goes, and as a result, every Horrace, DB, and Sam had their own variation, some simply renamed with no other changes, some completely different dimensionally.

I have to completely agree with your earlier statement that a round or six of .32, whether it be S&W, Colt, or Colt N.P., would cause most n'er-do-well's to rethink their chosen vocation in short order.

[gunfan]

I took out my new (to me) Taurus Model 74 (nickel-plated, six-shot, three-inch barreled, adjustable-sight revolver chambered for the .32 S&W Long cartridge) for the first time today. It was dead-nuts accurate!

I also took out another new (to me) 1991-vintage, "E" frame (aluminum alloy "J" frame) hammerless (DAO) "Airweight" revolver chambered for the .32 H&R Magnum cartridge. This little "belly-gun" was also a superb shooter! (For $345 I didn't fare too badly at all!)

I also took out a brand-new Cobray-brand "Leniad" .45 LC/.410 Bore single-shot derringer. This little thing was a real "hoot" when the trigger is pulled! (It isn't for wimps, but it is fun nonetheless!)

Scott

[Molly]

Warning. The load data posted above (#347) is TOO HOT for ordinary .32 Long revolvers. Despite the lack of sticky extraction or flattened primers, I have managed to damage an almost new S&W M30 with them (Bent the crane.)

They seemed to function just fine last time I took the gun shooting as reported in the above post, and no problems were encountered in shooting several boxes of them. However, when shooting them yesterday, things went well for a bit, and then I encountered sudden problems in that without apparent reason, the cylinder did not want to close with its ordinary ease. Closer examination today was puzzling at first, with no apparent cause for the problem, but persistence paid off. A sudden gleam of white (not blued) steel brought my attention to a slightly polished spot where the crane mates with the frame, showing interference and binding.

I can fix the frame easily enough, as the damage was slight: Just enough distortion to put some resistance to the last little bit of closing the cylinder. But I will back sharply off the level of the loads I use in it. And while I believe the load of 8.0g H110 under a 100g SWC, WW primers, and a heavy crimp can be increased without causing sticky extraction or flattened primers, I will reserve such loads for my Ruger 32 H&R Magnum. and will regard something like 7.0 to 7.2g of H110 as maximum for my M.30.

A wry apology is not inappropriate here: I've often scorned 'hotrod' reloaders, and suggested that "If you want more power, don't overload, just buy a bigger gun." And here I am, hoist on my own petard!

It should be obvious that the M30 S&W is a quality firearm, and is far stronger than any breaktop and the vast majority of solid frame revolvers available in .32 Long. You are warned that such loads are very likely to seriously damage or destroy most 32 S&W Long revolvers. If you decide to replicate these loads, the results will be on your own head.

Edit: Reference entry 355 below, where I report that this load seems excessive only for the M30. It seems quite acceptable in a Ruger 32 H&R Mag and in a H&R 32 Long.

[gunfan]

Warning. The load data posted above (#347) is TOO HOT for ordinary .32 Long revolvers. Despite the lack of sticky extraction or flattened primers, I have managed to damage an almost new S&W M30 with them (Bent the crane.)

They seemed to function just fine last time I took the gun shooting as reported in the above post, and no problems were encountered in shooting several boxes of them. However, when shooting them yesterday, things went well for a bit, and then I encountered sudden problems in that without apparent reason, the cylinder did not want to close with its ordinary ease. Closer examination today was puzzling at first, with no apparent cause for the problem, but persistence paid off. A sudden gleam of white (not blued) steel brought my attention to a slightly polished spot where the crane mates with the frame, showing interference and binding.

I can fix the frame easily enough, as the damage was slight: Just enough distortion to put some resistance to the last little bit of closing the cylinder. But I will back sharply off the level of the loads I use in it. And while I believe the load of 8.0g H110 under a 100g SWC, WW primers, and a heavy crimp can be increased without causing sticky extraction or flattened primers, I will reserve such loads for my Ruger 32 H&R Magnum. and will regard something like 7.0 to 7.2g of H110 as maximum for my M.30.

A wry apology is not inappropriate here: I've often scorned 'hotrod' reloaders, and suggested that "If you want more power, don't overload, just buy a bigger gun." And here I am, hoist on my own petard!

It should be obvious that the M30 S&W is a quality firearm, and is far stronger than any breaktop and the vast majority of solid frame revolvers available in .32 Long. You are warned that such loads are very likely to seriously damage or destroy most 32 S&W Long revolvers. If you decide to replicate these loads, the results will be on your own head.

Yuppers! I won't abuse my .32 Long revolvers in that fashion! A well-placed, full-powered .32 S&W Long will outperform a .22 Winchester Magnum any day of the week.

When properly placed, the .32 Long works well. the .32 H&R Magnum takes the cartridge to an entirely new level of performance.

Scott

[bowhunter]

i know a man that was shot with a 32 long. he had the gun stuffed in his front pants around his gut, his frind said let me see that pistol. his friend grabbed the handle and pulled it out.. and guess what happened? yea the 32 went bang! he said he looked at his friend and said you shot me. his friend said yea right, then he saw the blood. at that point he wanted help! he said when they got him to the emergency room they laid him on a table, he heard two doctors talking one said maybe we should send him to a bigger hospital, the other said no he want make it to another hospital i think it hit his kidney and if it did he will probably die anyway! they did surgery it hit his kindey but he lived. it went through him and came out his back. he said it stopped him cold....

[gunfan]

i know a man that was shot with a 32 long. he had the gun stuffed in his front pants around his gut, his frind said let me see that pistol. his friend grabbed the handle and pulled it out.. and guess what happened? yea the 32 went bang! he said he looked at his friend and said you shot me. his friend said yea right, then he saw the blood. at that point he wanted help! he said when they got him to the emergency room they laid him on a table, he heard two doctors talking one said maybe we should send him to a bigger hospital, the other said no he want make it to another hospital i think it hit his kidney and if it did he will probably die anyway! they did surgery it hit his kindey but he lived. it went through him and came out his back. he said it stopped him cold....

God saw fit to let him live! People think that the .32 Long is little more than a .22 Long Rifle... we know better, don't we?

Scott

[Molly]

Reference my post 351. Having several boxes of 32 Long loaded with 8.0g H110 and a hefty
swc, I undertook to recover the cases by firing them in my Ruger 32 Mag. This worked very well, and the cases dropped out with no primer flattening or bulged cases. Thus emboldened, I tried them in my 32 mag H&R revolver. I got the same results.

This load seems quite moderate in the .32 Mag and the H&R 32 Long, but seems to be far too hot for the S&W. What could be causing pressures in the M30 to be so high that they bent the frame?

[olafhardt]

Molly , I chronyed my load of 3.2 of unique and a 90 grain swc which was below max in the two reloading manuals I had at the time . It came out 1135 out of a six inch colt police positive.Older publications have much larger charges (check Ackley) . I think the 32 SWL may be quirky. I have come to the conclusion that 32's are not for being pushed ln the older calibers. For a light weight I like my S&W 637 booger blaster 38 special.

[Piedmont]

Molly, You are at least 15 years behind the curve if you think your observations of primer flattening and case extraction are allowing you to predict pressures.

[olafhardt]

Molly , after a sleepless night of cogitation , I am wondering if you might have encountered a tiny load variation of detonation. Even a small pistol primer should fill the tiny 32 case with fire. Of course 110 is a slow powder for a 32 SWL. Maybe detonations occur frequently in these tinies; however detonation of 3 grains may be much less than detonation of 11 grains. The fact that detonation has proved so dificult to repeat could be the reason you havent seen this before. I will stick with light loads of fast powders in my 32's.

[Molly]

Molly, You are at least 15 years behind the curve if you think your observations of primer flattening and case extraction are allowing you to predict pressures.

Mebby so. But I've been able to read - not PREDICT - relative pressures with considerable reliability for my purposes. And I'll tell you that any load that lets the cases drop out of the chamber of their own weight, and do not show primer flattening or severe case bulging right up to the web should let you wear that revolver completely out without encountering any damage.

Yeah, I know about transient pressure peaks that are so high they greatly exceed the supposed maximums for the round, but are so brief that they leave no evidence on the case. But I also know that they are almost invariably associated with very fast burning powder, and for the .32 long, H110 is one of the very slowest powder that can be used with any satisfaction.

[Molly]

Molly , after a sleepless night of cogitation , I am wondering if you might have encountered a tiny load variation of detonation. Even a small pistol primer should fill the tiny 32 case with fire. Of course 110 is a slow powder for a 32 SWL. Maybe detonations occur frequently in these tinies; however detonation of 3 grains may be much less than detonation of 11 grains. The fact that detonation has proved so dificult to repeat could be the reason you havent seen this before. I will stick with light loads of fast powders in my 32's.

Not too bad a thought Olaf, but H110 (and similar spherical powders) are noteworthy for the extreme consistency with which they measure through volumetric powder measures. So it doesn't seem likely. I will also note that I was using a fixed measure (a 'Lil dandy" to throw the powder charge, so it's not at all likely that it was a mis-charge either. Even if it were a matter of mischarged cases, the primers would have been flattened and the cases wouldn't fall free. So while your thought might be a decent explanation for what happened, the evidence seems to be against it being the CORECT explanation.