chicharrones
needs more ammo
The S&W 31 has the S&W hammer block, yes?
If so, the firing pin on the hammer design on those revolvers is safe to carry with all chambers loaded.
Why the Dearth of 32 Caliber Revolvers?
- Thread starter aaaaa
- Start date
- Status
The S&W 31 has the S&W hammer block, yes?
If so, the firing pin on the hammer design on those revolvers is safe to carry with all chambers loaded.
Yes.
OP
OP
aaaaa
Member
Not sure I undersand. The firing pin looks like this so I don't know would it have a protective block for carry?
OP
OP
aaaaa
Member
I don't know enough to say that but at the gun shop they thought that would be the case.
wcwhitey
Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 2,814
Yes it’s unsafe to carry, I would not want anyone to get hurt so I will take one for the team and take it off your hands!
I joke! It’s fine it has a transfer bar that keeps the firing pin from striking a primer until the trigger is pulled.
Oh and if your are considering buying one ask him if he has ammo. When he answers “No” you just started negations at $400. If he says yes get him to throw in two boxes at that price!
Last edited:
fxvr5
Member
- Joined
- May 26, 2017
- Messages
- 3,270
Smith & Wesson's use a hammer block which performs the same function as a transfer bar in terms of safety but operates very differently.
Last edited by a moderator:
wcwhitey
Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 2,814
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
OP
aaaaa
Member
He's got exactly two boxes of ammo and the gun appears to be one that is on consignment.
OP
OP
aaaaa
Member
Awesome video. The question is, does the 1980s revolver have this feature. After watching the video I can see that if it does, the hammer should move back slightly upon releasing the trigger (and my 686 Plus does exactly that). If it does, then the 31-1 does have the safety feature. Thanks!
Now if i were to carry this weak SD gun i might want the hammer bobbed, but that ruins the gun, and considering the bun is marginal for SD maybe worrying about a hammer hanging up on clothing is not at the top of the list. Besides I am not sure I would carry it as it is heavier than my 38 Special 642. And if I want to carry in a IWB holster, I have my 686 Plus as a much better option.
Nonetheless, I only have two revolvers and that is not enough. Can one really have too many revolvers?
Last edited by a moderator:
wcwhitey
Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 2,814
Everyone is different. I don’t see how if would be any improvement over your 642. If recoil is a problem there are standard pressure and reduced recoil loads to try first. That little .32 is nice and I would love to have one but personally I would not trust my life to something 40 years old of unknown history and then modify it to carry. As a range gun or walk the woods gun absolutely. Your mileage may vary.
OP
OP
aaaaa
Member
Surpringly, the same GS has a Model 30-1, which is very similar to the 31-1, but someone bobbed the hammer and put a shorter, rubber grip. That would be a nice carry piece if it had more umpff, and perhaps with Buffalo Bore cartridges it just might do. But they want $475 for that one and since it is butchered, I can't see paying half that much for it. May as well get the unmodified one.
Driftwood Johnson
Member
Howdy
It goes back to 1896 when Theodore Roosevelt was New York City Police Commissioner. In those days there was no standardization of the firearms police carried. Roosevelt standardized NYC police issued guns on the Colt 32 caliber New Police revolver. Considered a pipsqueak cartridge today, the 32 S&W Long, or the Colt version called the 32 New Police were very popular with law enforcement officers at the time.
Here is a size comparison of a K frame S&W Military and Police vs a S&W I frame 32 Regulation Police. The smaller I frame revolver was more convenient for pocket carry.
A size comparison between a J frame S&W 22-32 Kit Gun at the top and a 32 Regulation Police at the bottom.
The first revolver chambered for the 32 Long, the S&W 32 Hand Ejector, 1st Model, also known as the Model 1896. Not only was this the first revolver chambered for the new 32 S&W Long cartridge, it was the first S&W revolver with a swing out cylinder. 32 S&W Long cartridges on the left, 32 Colt New Police cartridges on the right.
A S&W Model 31 Regulation Police revolver.
The pièce de résistance 32 caliber revolver, the S&W K-32 Masterpiece, later known as the Model 16.
Yes, it is very accurate. Open sights before my cataract operations.
OP
OP
aaaaa
Member
32 S&W is very anemic. Ha, even the 38 S&W is anemic. Not sure if the 32 S&W long is any better than the 38 S&W.
Driftwood Johnson
Member
Every Smith and Wesson revolver manufactured since 1944 has all three of those features. Previous to that, there was a different style of hammer block in S&W revolvers.
This photo shows a typical hammer block in a S&W revolver. This is the style that has been inside every S&W revolver since 1944. There were other styles before that, but I am not going to get into that right now. The arrow is pointing to the hammer block. It is positioned exactly as it would be with the hammer down, between the hammer face and the frame. Also visible in this photo are the two other features in Larry Potterfield's video. Just below the hammer at the rear is the part that prevents the hammer from being cocked if the cylinder is open. It is easy to defeat this feature, but I am not going to get into that right now. At the bottom of the hammer can be seen the bump on the rebound slide that retracts the hammer slightly, so the firing pin will not contact a primer under the hammer. Those are the three safety features mentioned in Potterfield's video, and they have been in every S&W revolver for a long, long time. (Unless some idiot has removed the hammer block)
A transfer bar is completely different from a hammer block. Rather than blocking the hammer, as a hammer block does, a transfer bar transfers the blow of the hammer to a frame mounted firing pin. The arrow in this photo is pointing to the transfer bar in a Ruger New Vaquero. Notice the hammer is cocked, and the transfer bar has risen enough so that when the hammer falls, it will strike the transfer bar, transferring the blow to the frame mounted firing pin.
This is the mechanism of a Ruger New Vaquero. The thin vertical piece attached to the trigger is the transfer bar. Normally, when the hammer is down, the transfer bar will be retracted, and the hammer cannot contact the frame mounted firing pin. When the hammer is cocked, the trigger will rock back slightly. This will push the transfer bar up so that it is positioned directly behind the firing pin. When the hammer falls, it will strike the transfer bar, the blow will be transferred to the firing pin, and a cartridge will fire. When the trigger is released, the trigger spring will rock the trigger back forward enough to pull the transfer bar down, so the hammer cannot touch the firing pin. In this condition, no matter how hard the hammer is struck, it cannot contact the firing pin.
Only two? You have a lot of catching up to do.
halfmoonclip
Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2011
- Messages
- 2,764
aaaaa, there is more BS repeated in gunshops than enough; likely ranks right up with bartop racing. Don't believe everything you're told.
Driftwood and I went roundy-round about the safety of older Smiths without the actual hammer block, but they have had rebounding hammers, at least, thoughout the 20th Century. Easy check; with the hammer at rest, does the firing pin protrude thru' the recoil shield, like a traditional SAA?
Thirty twos are fun; I've a bunch of older autos in .32 ACP. Everything from a Savage (loved the ad!) to the original, .32 Scorpion. Yeah, you need to load for them; ammo is silly expensive. But it is an easy cartridge to load; bullets are readily available.
The semi rim can sometimes be a challenge, tho with ball, it's tough to get rimlock. Shorter hollow points are another matter.
aaaaa, that .32 revo would follow me home, but I'd never try to do anything serious with it. Woods walks and range runs would be fine.
Moon
Driftwood and I went roundy-round about the safety of older Smiths without the actual hammer block, but they have had rebounding hammers, at least, thoughout the 20th Century. Easy check; with the hammer at rest, does the firing pin protrude thru' the recoil shield, like a traditional SAA?
Thirty twos are fun; I've a bunch of older autos in .32 ACP. Everything from a Savage (loved the ad!) to the original, .32 Scorpion. Yeah, you need to load for them; ammo is silly expensive. But it is an easy cartridge to load; bullets are readily available.
The semi rim can sometimes be a challenge, tho with ball, it's tough to get rimlock. Shorter hollow points are another matter.
aaaaa, that .32 revo would follow me home, but I'd never try to do anything serious with it. Woods walks and range runs would be fine.
Moon
weregunner
Member
I am a fan of the .32s.
Here's the reasoning. Need a round for defense? The Federal 327 and .32H&R magnum cover that. Need a field cartridge? Those two cover that too. Unless you are in dangerous large game areas those two cartridges cover most uses. Need to show someone how to shoot, the .32 H&R magnum and .32 Long cover that. Versatility is the name of the game and the .32s have that.
Here's the reasoning. Need a round for defense? The Federal 327 and .32H&R magnum cover that. Need a field cartridge? Those two cover that too. Unless you are in dangerous large game areas those two cartridges cover most uses. Need to show someone how to shoot, the .32 H&R magnum and .32 Long cover that. Versatility is the name of the game and the .32s have that.
Blkhrt13
Member
The problem is there are older 32 revolvers about that are fragile in nature. There is no one willing to push them harder from a factory standpoint. The 327 is potent but I don’t think it caught on as so many get satisfied with the 38 special. I have a 1968 model 31 three inch 32 long. I love it. Wish I could figure out a way to get a modern bullet put together for it. I may have to see if I can get HP bullets for the 327. Reloading starts soon for me. I like that I get an extra bullet for the same size.
lincen
Member
The mighty .32 caliber is of great interest to me and I have probably 15 to 20 revolvers for the various rounds. That said, I never expect wide spread interest in that caliber. Obviously as the bad guys were rearming with higher calibers and higher capacities, law enforcement and even the average aware citizen moved away from the 32 caliber. Yet as I get older the 32 is what I enjoy shooting the most. Thankfully before this most recent ammo shortage I bought a significant amount of the various 32 rounds and in 2016 bought a reloading kit and all the necessary materials to reload the various 32 revolver rounds.
I get some great, small groups with my S&W Model 30 and 31 revolvers shooting 32 S&WL wadcutters. But, they both have fixed sights. My 32 caliber revolvers chambered in 32 H&R and 32 Federal Magnum do not do as well.
I'd like to get a K frame 32 S&WL revolver but S&W only made about 3000 over the entire production run of K-32's and Model 16-0 through Model 16-3. They are crazy expensive and about as easy to find as hen's teeth.
I keep hoping S&W would do a run of 32 S&WL K-frames in their Classic line of revolvers but that is probably akin to a forlorn hope.
I'd like to get a K frame 32 S&WL revolver but S&W only made about 3000 over the entire production run of K-32's and Model 16-0 through Model 16-3. They are crazy expensive and about as easy to find as hen's teeth.
I keep hoping S&W would do a run of 32 S&WL K-frames in their Classic line of revolvers but that is probably akin to a forlorn hope.
lincen
Member
I’ve posted these before but very happy to have bought these two Taurus revolvers last year. I have some nice S&W and Colt revolvers. The Taurus will never be that valuable but I must say that the upper model 76 has an excellent trigger and is very accurate. The bottom one was listed as a 32 long but the barrel was marked 32 magnum. I took the chance and knew at worst I could ream the cylinder a bit deeper for the magnum if needed. It was a complete 32 magnum but has no model number stamped anywhere.
Also, for years now you will read of folks reaming the cylinders about .080” deeper on the Smith and Wesson models 30-1 and 31-1 to accept the 32 magnum round. Even old times with significant reloading experience say that the 32 H&R magnum, (some debate the magnum status) is equal to many of their hot 32 long loads. Not recommending this or declaring it safe but I have done this to a rather beat up model 30-1 and have a good number of magnum rounds through it.
Also, for years now you will read of folks reaming the cylinders about .080” deeper on the Smith and Wesson models 30-1 and 31-1 to accept the 32 magnum round. Even old times with significant reloading experience say that the 32 H&R magnum, (some debate the magnum status) is equal to many of their hot 32 long loads. Not recommending this or declaring it safe but I have done this to a rather beat up model 30-1 and have a good number of magnum rounds through it.
chicharrones
needs more ammo
I’d like to see that revolver. I don’t have a problem with de-spurred hammers on certain revolvers if it was done well.
My 32 is a Colt Army Special in 32-20 Winchester which I thankfully have plenty of components to reload for. Factory ammo is hard to find and expensive. I too wish Smith & Wesson would do a 32 long in the classic K Frame as I love the caliber for plinking and target shooting.
OP
OP
aaaaa
Member
Seems like the more recoil the harder to get good accuracy on a target. I thought I noticed better groups with my .357 Magnum revolver when shooting 38 Specials, but it was just a few cylinders of shooting, so could be a fluke. But the S&W 32 Long is said to have great accuracy in a Model 30/31 and it has very light recoil.
- Status
