Does this theoretical revolver interest you?

Does the revolver described in the OP interest you?

  • Total voters
    97
  • Poll closed .
Since the main advantage of .32 over a .38 is cartridge diameter, why would you go to .32 H&R Magnum and not .327? The latter has a lot more power for just about the same bulk and weight.

Jim
 
I fail to see the attraction of such a diminutive little revolver? I am not enthralled with pocket carry in the first place.

Bob Wright
 
Bill DeShivs said:
If one were going to produce a pocket revolver in .32, the H&R magnum and even the .32 S&W long cartridges are far too long.
The gun should be chambered in .32 ACP.
You can't thin a revolver too much going from .38 to .32, but you can certainly shorten the cylinder and frame quite a bit.
Click to expand...
I second this idea. If someone could do a top-break revolver in the style of the old .32 blackpowder pocket revolvers--but in .32ACP, you could generate some excitement in the traditional revolver crowd as well as the cowboy-action shooters. Think S&W #3 revolver.....

Sent from my HTC Desire Eye using Tapatalk
 
I voted no because the J-frame is too small for my hand size. Something smaller would be un-usable.

I hope that's sufficient justification for saying "no" to not be slammed by those getting defensive about their love for 32s, since I didn't even mention caliber.

Dave
 
Just want to say my idea behind this revolver isn't to make the frame shorter and OAL shorter, but to make the width thinner.
Click to expand...

I'm a big fan of 'thinner' but the poor revolver is handicapped in this regard compared to semi-autos so put me down as interested but very unlikely to buy one.
 
I would rather have a shorter cylinder 5 shot .380 or 9 mm revolver. The LCR in 9mm could be shorter in length, but is built on the .357 frame I think.
 
I would be more interested in the NAA that Glen mentioned. Even more in a less scaled up NAA in 25acp. Not for a serious carry gun, or even double deep concealment BUG. But more just for a unique range toy.
 
I voted no interest, because I have no interest, and you did ask.

I simply have no interest in any centerfire revolver smaller than .38 caliber. I'm not interested in 9mm revolvers, and the only reason I have a .38 Special is because I accepted a Colt Agent (and a Mauser HSc .32acp) as trade for a rifle a friend wanted. Now that I have them, I am happy with them, but I had no interest in them, before, and none in anything further in that class of pistol.

If that makes me narrow minded in someone else's opinion, so be it.
 
I voted yes, as it does somewhat interest me as a lightweight field gun. I could even see it as a defensive carry choice. But... Though the concept does pique some interest it would be so far down on my list of guns I would ever buy, that I would likely never buy it unless I came into enough money to be independently wealthy. So there....
 
A top break limits power, in two ways. First, it provides a joint which, with any reasonable cartridge power, will expand as the gun is fired to the point where the gun becomes non-functional and/or dangerous. Second, the extractor/ejector throw is, in practice, limited to short (about .38 S&W length) rounds, ruling out the best revolver cartridges.

Jim
 
This idea for a tiny 32 caliber revolver just refuses to die. I own an S&W I frame, a 22LR Model 34, that's similar in size to the revolver wished for in this thread. I thought it might be interesting to compare it to a Keltec P32:



The S&W is somewhat bigger than the Keltec in profile. The Keltec is about the length of the S&W frame. Even with a snub nose the S&W would be longer.

The I frame window is 1.5 inches long. It would be a tight squeeze to fit a 327 Federal Mag in one. The 32 H&R Magnum, 32 Long or 32 ACP would fit.

There is a significant difference in width.





Due to the cylinder width the S&W is a lot wider, an inch and a half vs. 3/4 inch for the Keltec.

The biggest difference is weight. The Keltec unloaded with magazine weighs 8 ounces. The S&W unloaded weighs 24 ounces, which is three times as much. Now there is room to lighten the S&W, but 12 ounces isn't going to happen. If the barrel and chambers were opened to 32 caliber and the barrel were shorter and it was made with alloy / plastic it could be a lot lighter, maybe enough to get the weight down to a pound.

In which case it would only weigh twice as much.

IMO the only reason to use a cartridge in the 32 ACP class for defense is if you need a gun you can really conceal. That's much easier with a semiauto than a revolver. I can easily conceal the Keltec in a shirt pocket. There's no 32 caliber revolver that can do that.
 
Well, if we are just dreaming - I want a 4 barrel Sharps in 32 ACP - why, because I used to watch Yancy Derringer on TV and fixated on him carrying 5 of them at a time.
 
Thanks for the post Natman. That really illustrated revolver/semi thickness and overall size.

Nice revolver BTW. VERY nice.
 
I want to start by saying that I am a fan of this idea, or more accurately, I have been considering the same idea for quite a while but have never discussed it with anyone. My goal is to have the thinnest possible double action revolver in an acceptable defensive caliber.

With that said, I want to respectfully disagree with Natman on several points. I do agree that a .32 caliber revolver will not be quite as small as the smallest autos, but a revolver can be quite a lot smaller and lighter than an I-frame S&W. The I-frame is a 6 shot revolver, and the original post in this thread specifies a 5 shot revolver. I have recently had the opportunity to handle an old 5 shot top break .32, and the cylinder was almost toy like in size.

The .357 magnum S&W model 340 with titanium cylinder is listed as weighing 11.8 ounces, so the 12 ounce weight is also achievable. Admittedly, that weight might require the most expensive materials like scandium and titanium. But since the market will not support this design, and this gun will never be more than a fantasy, I might as well fantasize about a gun made just the way I want, and made with the best materials.

Natman, I also want to say that the flat latch model 34 is lovely.
 
straightshooterjake said:
With that said, I want to respectfully disagree with Natman on several points. I do agree that a .32 caliber revolver will not be quite as small as the smallest autos, but a revolver can be quite a lot smaller and lighter than an I-frame S&W. The I-frame is a 6 shot revolver, and the original post in this thread specifies a 5 shot revolver. I have recently had the opportunity to handle an old 5 shot top break .32, and the cylinder was almost toy like in size.

The .357 magnum S&W model 340 with titanium cylinder is listed as weighing 11.8 ounces, so the 12 ounce weight is also achievable. Admittedly, that weight might require the most expensive materials like scandium and titanium. But since the market will not support this design, and this gun will never be more than a fantasy, I might as well fantasize about a gun made just the way I want, and made with the best materials.
Click to expand...

Good points. It might be possible to make a 5 shot revolver that was smaller than an I frame and you might even be able to make weight with titanium and scandium. In the end you'd still have a thicker revolver with 5 shots rather than 7, weighing half again as much and costing 4 times as much as a p32. Which is why I agree with you; the market won't support it.

A lightweight 327 Fed Mag with a 4" barrel and adjustable sights would sure make a nice trail gun though. The market probably won't support that either.

straightshooterjake said:
Natman, I also want to say that the flat latch model 34 is lovely.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I think so too. I got it about 15 years ago at a local gun shop who was getting out of the handgun business due to byzantine CA handgun laws. The price was so low I didn't even haggle, which made the owner suspicious because he knew me well. I almost injured myself pulling my wallet out on this one. :D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top