The 32 acp revolver

[Pelo801]

Every so often the subject of 32 cal revolvers comes up. And every time several chime in with their desire for a 32 acp revolver, but scaled down to fit the round. Now I would also be interested in something like that.

And generally someone refers to having this revolver modeled after one of the NAA mini revolvers. So my question is this, is it because of the single action of this revolver type? For this 32 acp revolver to remain scaled down to that size would it need to be single action? For my intended use of this revolver I would prefer double action. Making it double action, would that add to the size?

 

[WestKentucky]

Yes it would add to the size, but it can be done in an I (eye) frame size or smaller. The big issue is that the frames no longer exist in production, and it would be stinkin expensive to develop a frame for 1 or 2 calibers. The DA action would add to frame length slightly, but would still be pretty small. Smallest conceivable size would be roughly equivalent to a 32 safety hammerless, which is doable with modern materials, or a similar sized hand ejector.

 

[Sarge7402]

First go ahead and buy one of the S&W, Colt, Charter Arms or Rossi .32 revolvers. And then shoot the .32ACP in them. The 32 ACP is semi rimmed with enough of a rim to be held in it's proper place by the star ejector in most solid frame .32 revolvers. Skip the top breaks, and the Iver J's and H&R's even if chambered for the .32 S&W Long.

Me I have a very nice rossi that someone had lopped about a half an inch of barrel from and now only shoots point of aim with .32 ACPS

 

[ArchAngelCD]

Yes it would add to the size, but it can be done in an I (eye) frame size or smaller. The big issue is that the frames no longer exist in production, and it would be stinkin expensive to develop a frame for 1 or 2 calibers. The DA action would add to frame length slightly, but would still be pretty small. Smallest conceivable size would be roughly equivalent to a 32 safety hammerless, which is doable with modern materials, or a similar sized hand ejector.

The revolver wouldn't have to be as large as an I frame. There are 12oz J frames out there shooting 38/357 rounds so there's no reason why you couldn't make one to shoot the 32 ACP instead.

 

[cal44mag]

I have two 32 caliber revolvers.

My 31-1 in 32 S&W long shoots 32 acp well. Accurate and reliable.

My 431PD Airweight revolver in 32 S&W long gets light strikes sometimes on 32 acp (but never on 32 long or H&R).

The rounds extract just fine with either gun.

 

[WestKentucky]

The revolver wouldn't have to be as large as an I frame. There are 12oz J frames out there shooting 38/357 rounds so there's no reason why you couldn't make one to shoot the 32 ACP instead.

I frame is smaller than j frame. And to shrink down to 32 size you would be right at the I frame size. A j frame can hold six .32s comfortably (maybe 7 but that's tight and you don't have much of a cylinder wall left) so you drop to a 5 shot and shrink a j frame a touch...Yep back to I frame.

The gun the OP is asking about is essentially a Smith model 30 with 32acp cylinder rather than 32 long. You could still do that exact setup if you use modern material and heat treat the cylinder. Could you shorten frame length 1/8" yes...would that change things...not really.

And to the OP, if you want a great gun for a good price, look for a 30-1. It's a j frame so it is a touch beefier, but they heat treated the cylinders and they can handle 32acp so long as they aren't +p type loads. That's how I run mine...but now my 32acp ammo goes to my 32acp since I finally found one to snatch up.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

I have seen a Clerke First .32 S&W revolver that was fired with .32 ACP. It did shoot them -- the headstamp of the cartridge case was impressed into the soft white metal of the breech face. I will not insult Zamak which does have industry standards -- that Clerke First was pot metal. The semi-rim allowed the case room to piston back against the breech under pressure. A steel revolver might take it, but not an alloy frame.

At one time I did have a steel Iver Johnson top-break in .32 S&W Long but never fired .32 ACP in it. I would prefer a .32 ACP revolver to be solid frame of steel.

S&W offered the I frame in .32 S&W Long (six shot) and .32 S&W (five shot); slightly smaller than the J frame revolver. It would make a robust but compact basis for a .32ACP revolver: very compact if the chamber length was scaled proportional to the .32ACP cartridge.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

I don't know why I thought the I frame was larger than the J frame but I did. My mistake!

 

[Carl N. Brown]

^ I did not realize the M frame was out of sequence until I looked. The progression in size of S&W frames is:
M original .22 Ladysmith frame (smallest)
I small .32 frame (e.g., Model 30 .32, Terrier .38S&W, .22 Kit Gun)
J small .38 frame (e.g., Model 36 .38 Chiefs Special)
K medium .38 frame (e.g., Model 10 .38M&P)
L medium - large caliber frame
N large caliber frame (e.g., .44 S&W, .45ACP, .44Mag.)
X super magnum frame (e.g., .500 S&W Mag.)

 

[Monac]

What is a 32 ACP revolver meant to accomplish that a Kel-Tec P-32 cannot, aside from being bulkier (in width, at least) and holding fewer shots? If you do want to go down that road, remember that 32 ACP is only semi-rimmed, so a NAA non-ejector, pull-pin kind of revolver is probably your best bet. This could be single or double action, but DA makes it bulkier than SA. Any kind of top-break or swing-out cylinder gun is going to need some kind of trick extractor for reliable ejection, IMO.

Now that I think of it, that Taurus revolver that was chambered for 380 ACP is probably the closest thing to this that has been on the market recently. In the pre-1945 past, some German or Belgian manufacturers may have made cheap revolvers in 32 ACP.

 

[RX-79G]

The NAA Mini is small in part because it doesn't need a trigger long enough for leverage against a mainspring, and a trigger guard big enough to cover such a trigger.

I don't think the front to back distance savings from the lockwork differences or short cartridge nearly as important as width and height.

 

[natman]

What is a 32 ACP revolver meant to accomplish that a Kel-Tec P-32 cannot, aside from being bulkier (in width, at least) and holding fewer shots?

An excellent point. Here's some pictures of a Kel-Tec P-32 compared with an I frame S&W:







The revolver is a 4" 22LR Model 34, but even if it were a snubnose, it would still be considerably larger than the Kel-Tec, especially in the crucial concealment dimension of width.

 

[RX-79G]

This size .32 revolver is probably a better example than an I frame:

 

[Michael Tinker Pearce]

I've often thought that a .32 Double Action would be pretty cool in .32 ACP, especially cut for a star-clip. Much closer to the Kel Tec in size, and with modern materials and heat treatment it would work out fine. People have shot .32 ACP in some of these guns, but it's not recommended. .32 ACP is significantly higher pressure than .32 S&W, and while it won't blow them up it will beat them to death before too terribly long. Mine won't chamber them.

 

[Panzerschwein]

I'd love to see an NAA scaled up juuust enough to chamber 5 rounds of .32 ACP.

 

[Gordon]

Owners of Walther PP 7.62 would have no need or no desire . I have an old S&W 31 I frame 3" in .32 S&W Long and it is a great trail gun and in an emergency will fire .32 acp. , other wise I'll stick to my PP

 

[Monac]

I think that the idea for a 32 ACP revolver often comes from looking at the tiny 5-shot 32 S&W top-break revolvers made from the 1880's to the 1920's or so (like the one in Michael Tinker Pearce's post). 32 ACP is very similar in size to 32 S&W, so this looks like a doable thing. But 32 S&W is one of the most powerless cartridges to ever grace God's green earth, while 32 ACP has some real bite to it - it is more powerful than 32 S&W Long, for example. I do not think it is practical to make a 32 ACP revolver that is close in dimensions to these old 32 S&W guns. I could easily be wrong - I often am - but even if it was, it would still be bulkier, more expensive to make, and hold fewer shots than the Kel-Tec.

What might make sense would be a NAA-style revolver in 32 Magnum, which would offer more punch than a 32 automatic OR a standard velocity 38 Special in a very compact package. I think NAA actually made a prototype of such a gun, but did not pursue it further, for unspecified reasons.

As a complete aside, it was H&R's tragedy that, having developed the 32 Magnum, they could not offer any really appealing guns for it. All of their 32 Magnum revolvers were at least as bulky as a small frame 38 Special by S&W, Taurus, or Rossi, did not hold any more rounds, and looked clunkier. As far as I can recall, if anyone made money off of 32 Magnum, it was Ruger, with their slick Single-Sixes chambered for it.

All the above is just me shooting my mouth off, of course. I like revolvers, especially 32's, and would be glad to see something new and interesting in that caliber.

 

[Michael Tinker Pearce]

I think that the idea for a 32 ACP revolver often comes from looking at the tiny 5-shot 32 S&W top-break revolvers made from the 1880's to the 1920's or so (like the one in Michael Tinker Pearce's post). 32 ACP is very similar in size to 32 S&W, so this looks like a doable thing. But 32 S&W is one of the most powerless cartridges to ever grace God's green earth, while 32 ACP has some real bite to it - it is more powerful than 32 S&W Long, for example. I do not think it is practical to make a 32 ACP revolver that is close in dimensions to these old 32 S&W guns. I could easily be wrong - I often am - but even if it was, it would still be bulkier, more expensive to make, and hold fewer shots than the Kel-Tec.

It would be perfectly possible to make a .32 ACP top-break the same size as a S&W .32 DA. Remember, people have shot this cartridge through these revolvers, with the only negative effects being difficulty to extract the fired rounds and rapid wear. Modern alloys, heat treat and engineering could easily overcome these problems. That being said they would be enormously more expensive than a Kel Tec, arguably less practical and the market would be very limited. It's also worth considering that S&W stopped making top-breaks because swing-out cylinder guns were stronger, cheaper to produce and can be reloaded just as fast. I'm not holding my breath for a new top-break from S&W... But ya gotta admit, it would be neat-o!

All the above is just me shooting my mouth off, of course. I like revolvers, especially 32's, and would be glad to see something new and interesting in that caliber.

How about an ultra-light six-shot J-Frame with a shortened cylinder and frame that takes 'moon clips' to insure positive ejection despite the .32 ACP's tiny rim? Or an ultra-light 6-shot J-Frame that shoots .32 Magnum, .32 Long, .32 S&W and .32 ACP interchangeably?

 

[RX-79G]

Or an ultra-light 6-shot J-Frame that shoots .32 Magnum, .32 Long, .32 S&W and .32 ACP interchangeably?

I don't see any reason that a J frame .327 Magnum couldn't take all of those plus .32 ACP. .32 ACP has the same case diameter and is below .327 Magnum's max pressure of 45,000 psi. Actually, a .32 Mag pistol should be fine, too.

 

[Tallball]

I have five 32 caliber revolvers. One is an old I-frame Smith and Wesson in 32 long. I also have a Charter Arms Undercoverette in 32 H&R magnum and an NEF (H&R sister company) in the same caliber. My favorite is my Single Six, also in 32 H&R magnum. My SP101 in 327 magnum has the worst trigger of the lot. I won't shoot 32acp through the S&W because 32acp generates considerably more pressure than 32 S&W long, so I doubt it would be good for that old veteran. I have no qualms about shooting it out of the 32 magnum revolvers, because they were designed to withstand more pressure than it generates anyway. I think I have owned six 32 magnum revolvers. IIRC, two would shoot 32acp just fine, two would shoot some rounds but not others, and two wouldn't shoot it at all. My WAG is that it has something to do with the lengths of the firing pins.

Here is a gratuitous picture of my I frame. It was made around 1915.

 

[Blacksmoke]

I read that Winston Churchill, a gun enthusiast of some experience, asked his driver/bodyguard at the start of WWII which weapon he carried. It was a S&W .32 top break. Winston started packing a 1911 in his overcoat from then on.

 

[GonzoGeezer]

Some Nagant revolvers imported into the US (Century was one of them) were repackaged to include a .32 ACP cylinder. At the time it was thought .32 ACP ammo would be easier to find and cheaper to shoot than 7.62x38R. It's cheaper, but Nagant ammo is readily available. I had to get my gunsmith to do a little fitting to get it to work in my 1932 Tula.

 

[Monac]

GonzoGeezer, I hate to spread rumors and potential misinformation, but weren't there reports about the use of 32 ACP cylinders causing problems with the forcing cones of the Nagant revolvers? Owing to the gas-seal design of the Russian Nagant and its ammunition, I could believe that their forcing cones were not as sturdy as those of other guns.

32 S&W Long is substantially less powerful than 32 ACP and might not cause the same problems, or at least not as quickly.

I apologize if this turns out to be nothing but hot air.

 

[zaitcev]

Now that I think of it, that Taurus revolver that was chambered for 380 ACP is probably the closest thing to this that has been on the market recently.

Taurus 380UL is not that close to universal .32 revolvers. It's designed for moon clips and will not shoot .38 SPL, although it uses the frame from Taurus Model 85.

 

[golden]

Guys,

I have an solid frame, H&R .32 S&W long with a 4 inch barrel. It is an accurate revolver for the size and design, especially when I use wadcutters. I tried some .32ACP in it and they worked fine, BUT, THE GROUP WAS AT LEAST TWICE AS LARGE AS A GROUP OF 98 GRAIN LRN .32 S&W LONG I had just fired.
The .32ACP has a much longer jump to the forcing cone and this may effect accuracy, at least in my gun.

I would skip .32ACP in a revolver and just find a nice pistol for this caliber. I had a WALTHER PP, but found that it kicked harder than my PPK, so I kept the PPK and sold the PP. It was a nice gun otherwise. If you are wondering why the PP would kick harder, just examine the grips on the PP and PPK, they are different and the PPK are more rounded, making it much more comfortable to me.
I also had a COLT .32ACP model 1903 and it was a great range gun.
At present, I use two different models of BERETTA in .32ACP. The model 82, a single stack version of the CHEETAH family (about the same as the .380ACP model 85) and the model 3032 TOMCAT. The Tomcat is a terrific pocket pistol that is easy to use due to the flip up barrel.
The model 82 is one of my favorite range guns. It kicks only a little harder than a compact .22 rimfire, but can be a lot more useful for self defense.

Jim