Why would S&W/Lipsey's choose .32 H&R

[Green Frog]

Real world experience. I bought a 431 32 H&R. I then found a spare cylinder for sale, bought it and reamed it to 327. WOW, I am not recoil sensitive at all and while it is not painful, it is what I will call quick and difficult. Small light guns are like small light bullets, they achieve higher velocities than heavier ones. Between that and the small grip frame it is way more difficult to quickly get back on target for a second round. I also tried it in a 642 frame with a 43 barrel installed. Same story of course.

I am going to put that cylinder in a steel frame

Speaking of real life experiences, once upon a time I got a mistaken listing for 231 in a S&W Long that was later discovered to be marginal overloaded for a 32 H&R! To compound my error, I stuck them in my transitional I frame snub. This was not a happy experience, but happily didn’t damage the gun.
In a K frame or Blackhawk, they were actually kinda fun! Use the right gun for the power level you’re shooting.
Froggie

 

[peyton]

I still am waiting for my 632 UC to arrive at my gunshop. We placed an order for it in March

 

[Doug M.]

Go read the original strings about the platform. The decision criteria are explained. Note that member "Nyeti" was one of the folks behind this gun, and his work/team was based on years of experience in high risk LE and teaching revolver skills. (You can search the forum for some of the reports of his work in a gang enforcement unit in a very rough area; one of their duty weapons for an extended period was a Smith in .45 Colt. They did good work with that platform. He is a friend of friends and has likely forgotten more than most of us will ever know.) The ability to shoot the platform well and have it with you all the time drove most of the decision train.

 

[Model 15-4ever]

Go read the original strings about the platform. The decision criteria are explained. Note that member "Nyeti" was one of the folks behind this gun, and his work/team was based on years of experience in high risk LE and teaching revolver skills. (You can search the forum for some of the reports of his work in a gang enforcement unit in a very rough area; one of their duty weapons for an extended period was a Smith in .45 Colt. They did good work with that platform. He is a friend of friends and has likely forgotten more than most of us will ever know.) The ability to shoot the platform well and have it with you all the time drove most of the decision train.

Here's your "decision train": $$$$$$$$ in the pockets of S&W and Lipsey's.

I have a bit of experience with violent criminals, and daily carry and use of firearms, especially revolvers. About 34 years worth. I wouldn't put most of that nonsense - big grips and big sights - on an airweight J frame, designed to be carried discreetly in a pocket or an ankle, and used inside 30 feet. Save that for a belt gun.

But bells and whistles sell like hotcakes.

 

[Doug M.]

Nope. The criteria were designed by people who are honest to goodness experts and they were able to persuade Lipseys and S&W that it would sell. 2 very different issues and steps. The fact that these criteria do not apply/appeal to you or any other person means you don't buy one. There are still a significant number of people for whom these revolvers have appeal.

I have lots of neat ideas for semi-custom S&Ws and no measurable chance of getting them implemented unless I win a huge lottery.

 

[nyeti]

Here's your "decision train": $$$$$$$$ in the pockets of S&W and Lipsey's.

I have a bit of experience with violent criminals, and daily carry and use of firearms, especially revolvers. About 34 years worth. I wouldn't put most of that nonsense - big grips and big sights - on an airweight J frame, designed to be carried discreetly in a pocket or an ankle, and used inside 30 feet. Save that for a belt gun.

But bells and whistles sell like hotcakes.

I avoid most of these threads at this point, but I will address this. I was heavily involved in the .32 H&R decision. It allows a 6 shot gun that has a recoil impulse that is much easier for most people to shoot. I usually carry Buffalo Bore or similar.32 Long that has great performance in Gel through 4 layer denim that has proven to be a good means of determining performance. To have the gun handle .327 Fed Mag (a round I really like in a steel gun) would require Scandium that would have increased cost a ton and been miserable to shoot. I find most people who want .327 Federal Magnum have never shot one in a small Airweight gun.

Sights….The sights are designed to be fast, 24/7 visable and workable to provide suitable accuracy if your opponent chooses not to be close. Those sights allow viability of the gun to work outside a role of inside 10 yards. We run our training classes with a standard of the black of a B8 Bull that just happens to correspond to the size of the target required for rapidly disabling human targets in both the head and upper chest and these sights add a big advantage of a shooter being able to make that shot on demand at ranges greater than 30 feet and do precision work inside that range.

Grips….you are a screwdriver away from putting anything on you want. I have five .32 UC’s and not a single one uses the factory grips. I have prototypes of our own design (sorry the forum does not allow me to mention our company) but I believe they will be optimal on these guns and I also use the old CT 405 Laser Grips on my dedicated pocket gun.

Experience…I have successfully shot enough felons to have validated my training work. My students have successfully shot enough felons really well to validate our training. I run two large revolver training events that include The Pat Rogers Memorial Revolver Round Up at Gunsite that is likely the largest dedicated revolver training event in the country with over a 100 students and we are doing the East Coast one next weekend with over 60. If other people’s experience and background leads them to a different place, great. Do you.

Jason Cloessner of Lipsey’s got S&W to build the J frame many of us have wanted for the last fifty years. He brought in knowledgeable people with solid real world experience for a change instead of social media influencers as sounding boards and for testing. And reading a ton of the comments you could not give a lot of people free steak without complaints. Has there been QC issues at S&W….yep. Out of our realm, but we have related as much as we can to try to get that corrected. These are basically PC guns being built in regular production to keep costs down. They could easily be PC guns with higher profits if it was all about the money and not about trying to deliver a viable small defensive revolver to the masses that does not need sights, and action job, and other common modifications that would void the warranty and need a gunsmith to do. Sorry if people do not like a dead stock out of the box gun that has highly desirable features from the factory.

 

[1sailor]

So, the answers to my original question seems to be that the 327 Federal produces excessive recoil in a lightweight pistol. And Scandium would not only have been too expensive, it does nothing to reduce recoil. I asked the question because I am not familiar with the 32's and it made me curious. I was not aware that the 327 produced so much recoil. I have been carrying a 357 airweight (M&P340) for several years and I do understand about recoil. With 357's it's manageable but certainly no fun. With no real-world experience myself I just figured that any of the 32's would be a lot more manageable. So, it looks like I may have actually learned something. I was attracted to them and originally considered one as a replacement for my M&P340. I prefer the sights they come with over those on most snubbies. I may still go that way.

 

[nyeti]

So, the answers to my original question seems to be that the 327 Federal produces excessive recoil in a lightweight pistol. And Scandium would not only have been too expensive, it does nothing to reduce recoil. I asked the question because I am not familiar with the 32's and it made me curious. I was not aware that the 327 produced so much recoil. I have been carrying a 357 airweight (M&P340) for several years and I do understand about recoil. With 357's it's manageable but certainly no fun. With no real-world experience myself I just figured that any of the 32's would be a lot more manageable. So, it looks like I may have actually learned something. I was attracted to them and originally considered one as a replacement for my M&P340. I prefer the sights they come with over those on most snubbies. I may still go that way.

I love the M&P 340 and have several. With severe arthritis in my hands I shoot 148 wadcutters in them. The Scandium is stronger than aluminum which is what is needed for .327 Fed as it is the .32 version of .357 magnum. Again, great in bigger guns, suck in little guns and there is really no big gain from a wound ballistics standpoint.
The beauty of .32 H&R is you can tailor shooting anything from .32 Short that is about like .22 to .32 Long that is downright pleasant to .32 H&R that would be like a good defensive round in your M&P 340. The benefit is a 20% increase in capacity and a gun that is easy to actually spend time training on.

 

[MajorD]

I have been to several round ups and can say all the features in the UC’s are very well thought out by people who know and depend on revolvers. My personal opinion on alloy J frames is while I don’t consider myself recoil sensitive I also do not enjoy shooting guns that beat me up either. In my 442, about 60 rounds of wadcutters or standard pressure lead round nose is my limit before it isn’t fun anymore, and my on target results start to suffer.
The 32 H&R and by extension the S&W long, would certainly allow more practice with less punishment plus from a carry perspective having 6 rounds instead of 5 is great.