.32 H&R Mag J frame and .327 Federal Magnum K Frame

[PoorKnight]

Would anyone besides me buy either of these? I am buying my second .32 H&R Magnum J-frame and considering buying the 3-inch barrel 632 .327 Federal -- but just to shoot .32 H&R Magnum. I find the 6 shot cylinder of the .32 in a J-frame appealing and I find I can shoot the .32 VERY ACCURATELY out of a J frame.

I am a runner and I run early in the morning. One morning, about 5 am, in the dark, on a 5 mile run, I found myself being chased by a rabid fox and had to defend myself by throwing the newly-delivered newspapers at it until it finally ran away. That day I went out and bought a Ruger SP101 in .357 Magnum to carry while jogging.

Unfortunately, the Ruger kicked badly and had about a two-foot muzzle flash when shooting .357 Magnum JHPs. The accuracy with both .357 Mags and .38 Special +P was also quite disappointing - I had shot competitively when I was in the USMC and expected better. It was also quite heavy and weighed me down while running - so I traded it at the gun store for a J frame S&W in .22 -- with an 8 shot cylinder. Although this little aluminum revolver was a pleasure to carry, the accuracy wasn't great and it had the worst trigger I have ever had the misfortune to encounter.

Then I read about the S&W Airweight .32 H&R revolvers. I immediately traded the .22 for a 432 PD in .32 H&R Magnum - I had done a little research, and while the .38 is certainly a more powerful round on paper than the .32 H&R, out of a 1 3/8 barrel they are basically equivalent, according to the one article I read, and you have 6 shots vice 5, and the .32 H&R is an intrinsically accurate round.

I have to say that I am a believer in the argument that the .32 H&R Magnum is the most efficient and accurate round out of a snub-nosed revolver. I can shoot .32 H&R snubbies MUCH more accurately than .38s -- not just on the range, I shot a 6 foot diamondback rattlesnake that was at the foot of my deerstand in the eye at 10 yards with this little revolver a couple of years ago. Unfortunately, I seem to be in the minority and S&W stopped making these excellent little revolvers -- too bad, because I really like them.

Fast forward to the .327 Federal magnum -- why isn't S&W making these in a K frame? The old .32 H&R 16-4 seems like the PERFECT platform for this round! I purchased 16-4 and had Bowen Classic Arms ream the cylinder out to accept the .327 Fed - and them took Chuck Hawk's advice and zeroed it for 100 yards. This is an awesome hunting pistol - perfect for game up to and including hogs out to 100 yards. Extremely accurate, hard-hitting, easy recoiling, and VERY flat shooting, this is an awesome varmint and small to medium game hunting pistol.

So, I want S&W to build lightweight J frames in .32 H&R Magnum, and long-barreled, adjustable sight K-frames in .327 Federal magnum. Instead, they build heavy short-barreled J frames in .327 Federal and discontinue the .32 H&R. WHY OH WHY?

 

[samwood]

I got tired of waiting for Smith and Wesson to sell the 32 cal revolvers I was hoping for.

Like you, I purchased a 432 and had a 16-4 reamed to 327 by Mr. Bowen.

In addition I had him build me a 6" K frame in 327 federal using a Model 15 frame, a Model 48 cylinder and barrel from a couple of well used revolvers with very little original bluing left. I don't think my total investment exceeded the cost of a new Smith K frame by more than $100 after I sold the 48 frame.

This is what I ended up with.

 

[peyton]

I feel your pain!! I probably own 20 32 H&R magnum revolvers. The j frame is perfect and the recoil is minimal. My daughter in law has arthritis and shooting it does not bother her at all.
The problem with S&W company is they are listening!!

 

[scout]

PoorKnight,

You know S&W made an even lighter J-frame .32 H&R mag than the 431/432, right? The 331/332 has a titanium cylinder and shrouded steel barrel liner. I don't remember the exact weights, but it is appreciably less weight (-2 oz.?) if that is better for you. Also the earlier ones were made without the lock. They can be found, with patience and diligence.

Also check out Buffalo Bore's "Heavy" loadings to add versatility to this caliber. I think it is Double Tap that loads the Barnes all-copper bullet in .32 H&R. The bullet looks a little light, but I want to look into it further based on the performance of this bullet design in the Cor-Bon DPX line.

 

[AKAOV1MAN]

I have a small clutch of the J frame .32 Mags. Have the new J frame in 327, and just had my M16 32-20cylinder reamed out to .327, now I have both cylinders (.32 Mag and .327 Mag) for the 16. The Buffalo Bore .32 Mags are quite good IMHO, I like the heavier 130 gr SWC, will make a substantial impression on any critter, 2 or 4 legged.

 

[Gunhacker]

I fell in love with the .32 H&R Mag the first time I took my 16-4 out to the range. I bought that 16-4 back when they first came out and since then I have added a 432PD, another 16-4 and a Ruger SP101 to the fold.

I recently sent one of the 16-4's to Dave Clements (Clements Custom Guns) and had the cylinder reamed to .327 Federal, he did an excellent job.

Many berate the .32 H&R as a "mouse magnum" and ask why waste ones time with it, but most judgements are probably based upon the anemic Federal factory loadings purposely kept low for the hokey H&R revolvers at the time.

The handloaded stuff that I use in my Ruger SP101... I sure wouldn't want to be the backstop for the targets that I practice on with it.

 

[Green Frog]

I read this thread with great interest as I am in somewhat the same frame of mind. I owned a 16-4 when they first came out but foolishly sold it while chasing after something I thought I "needed" more.

Flash forward to the present, with the fairly recent release of the 327 Fed Mag, etc. and the itch started up again. After off-forum discussions with a couple of names you all would recognize, I decided that the planets were in the proper alignment and I made three orders in quick succession. I now have a Model 617-1 barrel and cylinder in hand, and a Model 67-1 revolver should reach me today or tomorrow. I will have the barrel rebored and rifled to .313"-.314" and the cylinder recut to 327 FM chamber specs and have it all assembled by a good smith. I'm thinking this will definitely be a keeper! Out of curiosity, has anyone else had this done, and if yes, by whom?

Regards,
Froggie

PS I've tentatively named this project the "Model 616, the gun S&W should have built but never did."

 

[cgt4570]

I also had Mr. Bowen build a K-327 for me a couple years ago and I love it. It's a pre-model 15 frame, re-chambered K-22 cylinder (so the case heads are recessed like all good magnums should be), and it wears a factory full-lug 8-3/8" Model 16-4 barrel. Optics are a Leupold VX-3 variable with vintage Beuhler rings and mount. It's a tack driver.

 

[noah228]

I would buy the J frame for sure. I was fortunate to find a NIB S&W 431 32 mag. a couple of years ago and its a great little shooter. Decent trigger and quite accurate. From what I have read the Buff. Bore +P 32 mag ammo can take the little 431 into typical 38 +P power range. I had a SP101 in 32 mag but it had some QC issues and I was not satisfied with it so I sold it. My LGS has a S&W 632 327 mag with the 3" ported bbl. NIB. I never liked ported bbls. but I am thinking about it. If S&W would only release the 631 4" kit gun once again I would probably buy two! S&W marketing seems a little out of touch sometimes IMO.

 

[Green Frog]

I could relate to a 4" (Kit Gun style) Model 631 with adjustable sights or even if they were to jump up to a 6" target version like the old pre-War Regulation Police Target if they were to deem them worth building... of course I would have to hold my nose with regards to the IL they would "have" to put on it, and the MIM parts, but "you can't always get what you want." (with a proper anniversary nod to the Rolling Stones. ) I'm absolutely sure my "Model 616" will never go into production @ Smith, so I'll just make my own and not even wait for it.

Froggie

 

[Rule3]

I bought the new 632 Pro (no lock, night sites) Love that little gun. I reload, so ammo is not a problem. I think to be a truly effective round it needs a longer barrel. If you have the $$ Freedom Arms makes a beauty , SA only.

 

[Clean Break]

Poor Knight,

here I was, feeling cantankerous and all ready to chime in with my opinion that .32s are a gap between the .22 lr. and .38 spl. that doesn't really need to be filled, being the die-hard .22 & .38 fan that I am. Paying more for harder-to-find
ammo that does less than the more powerful, fully manageable and cheaper .38s seems counter-intuitive to me. In fact, though I have a .22 WMR cylinder for my Ruger Super Single Six, I never use it for the same reason (and that .22 lr. cylinder gets the job done so well, on so many different kinds of creatures, but then, so does my Military & Police. (So goes the thoughts of this [and likely other] "experts" who've never actually shot a .32).
Well, dead is dead and if you can drill snakes with confidence with said .32s.... that speaks to me... and rabid foxes BEWARE!!!

Samwood: Gorgeous Revolver!

You guys are killing me. I wish we could send a few rounds downrange with you up in the Cascade Mountains just so I could try some of these clearly in-between, misfit guns out to point out the error of your ways.


Green Frog: You had to go and mention the "House Band" didn't you. Did you know salmon bite better when the Rolling Stones or Jimi Hendrix are played loud?

Sorry for the fishing hijack, it's what I do. C.B.

 

[eliminator]

Would anyone besides me buy either of these?

I would buy the .327 16-4 K frame today if it were offered!

 

[Green Frog]

"Green Frog: You had to go and mention the "House Band" didn't you." Clean Break

Yeah, only sometimes you gotta get it done yourself if you wanna "get what you neeeed!"

The biggest advantage of the 32 family of cartridges over the 22 rimfire is that you can pick any one of 5 different cases from 32 ACP to 327 Fed Mag and load them to suit the situation and your mood. In this case you can indeed "get what you want" and "get what you need at the same time! Any more, my 22s (K-22 and pre-War I-frame Heavy Frame Target) get shot when I'm too lazy or in too big a hurry to do a little reloading. When the "Model 616 Project" is completed, I see a lot more dust on the 22s! It should do anything a K-22 will do and most things a sanely loaded 357 will do, and be at home all along that spectrum.

Froggie

Froggie

 

[W.E.G.]

S&W isn't making K-frame .327's for the simple reason that the demand is not there.

I have no reason to disbelieve the OP's report of disappointment with the Ruger .357.

I find it very surprising that any Ruger wheelgun in .357 caliber would be inaccurate with quality .38 Special standard-velocity ammo. I can see where it might take some training to reach the point where the shooter is getting the most out of it.

Hot-loaded .32, whether it be H&R mag, or the new "Federal" round, is good for anything that one might ask a hot-loaded light-bullet .357 to do.

I think if you are going to consider the .327 as a hog gun for 100 yard shots, you need to look at something other than the gun you might take along on your daily jog.

As a compromise, you might like the Ruger Single-Six in .32
Not very expensive as new guns go.
I'm right fond of mine.
But you do have to cock it between shots.

 

[Green Frog]

S&W isn't making K-frame .327's for the simple reason that the demand is not there.

I fear you have hit the nail on the head with that one statement. That's why I had the confidence to begin building my own prototype... I won't be able to find it on the dealer's shelf... EVER!

If they weren't satisfied with selling all the Model 16-4s they could (or would) make back in the early '90s, they sure wouldn't find today's specialized market conducive to selling the kind of numbers the bean counters would demand of a new model. IIRC they made a total of about 8800 and they were sold over a time frame of about 3 years or so. It wasn't until they were announced to be discontinued that they disappeared like a puff of smoke.

This attitude is especially noticeable now with the decreased emphasis on their old, "obsolete" K-frame design anyway; in all calibers. If it isn't made with thermoplastic in the frame, with a magazine large enough to hold off a large biker gang, and in some exotic caliber (or at least one expressed in mm or starting with a four) it just won't be "worthwhile" for them. More's the pity. Of course, if they did make a limited run of them, there would be complaining about the execution, slower than expected sales (after the first rush) and a quick discontinuation of the model leading to the creation of yet another unobtainable collector's item.

Thus endeth the rant!
Froggie

 

[PoorKnight]

I find it very surprising that any Ruger wheelgun in .357 caliber would be inaccurate with quality .38 Special standard-velocity ammo. I can see where it might take some training to reach the point where the shooter is getting the most out of it.

Hot-loaded .32, whether it be H&R mag, or the new "Federal" round, is good for anything that one might ask a hot-loaded light-bullet .357 to do.

I think if you are going to consider the .327 as a hog gun for 100 yard shots, you need to look at something other than the gun you might take along on your daily jog.

My 'daily jog" gun is the .32 H&R 432 PD J-frame Airweight.

The 100 yard hog gun is a S&W 16-4 K frame with the cylinder converted to .327 Federal Magnum, 6 inch barrel.


The Ruger SP101 snubnose revolver was too heavy for the daily jog AND not as accurate as the snubnose .32 Airweight. But the Ruger was built like a tank. A tank bumping along in a fannypack isn't a pleasant sensation.

And, as far as training, I had already been on the 1st Marine Division pistol team, had my 5th award Expert for both rifle and pistol, commanded a sniper platoon and a recon company, scored a perfect score qualifying with both the 9mm and the .38 Special at the Dept of State firearms qualification, 3 years in a row, prior to the encounter with the rabid fox.

So I'm not a novice shooter.

I like both the .38 Special and .357 Magnum rounds, but not in snub-nosed revolvers. I find I shoot a snub-nosed .32 H&R appreciably faster and more accurately, especially under stress, than the .38 or .357 snub-nosed.

All that said, I only use my J frame as a carry gun while running, exercising, or wearing shorts and T shirt. My everyday carry gun is a Glock 26 or Glock 19.

As for the .327 Federal, it's just neat that it is so flat-shooting so it makes a nice hunting revolver. The .357 Mag or .38 Special is clearly a better all-around revolver, especially in a 4-inch K or L frame.

I guess most people aren't interested in accuracy in a snub-nosed revolver -- they would rather have knockdown power. I, on the other hand, am willing to sacrifice some power - just a little - for the appreciable increase I get in speed and accuracy. But I'm not willing to go all the way down to a .22, so the .32 and .327 work well for me.

 

[PMRet]

I'm also a fan of both K and J frame revolvers chambered in .32 caliber. The K frames are great target guns, extremely accurate with very little recoil. The J frames are accurate, managable, and as mentioned before offer the advantage of 6 shots. As far as I'm concerned, the old original Model 632 Airweight Centennial in .32 Magnum is just about the perfect pocket gun.

 

[mag318]

Interesting thread, I hope someone at Smith & Wesson peruses these. I love my Model 632 and would love to see a K frame chambered in 327 Magnum. As AKAOV1MAN (Hello Capt. Jack) did is probably the only way to ever get a K frame so chambered.

 

[PMRet]

My plan is to have a separate cylinder rechambered to .327 for one of my 16-4's instead of altering the original.