New .32 Ultimate Carry coming

I like .32s and I like this gun. I've never had a .32 Magnum but I'd give it a try. It'll still shoot .32 S&W Long, .32 S&W, and .32 ACP. Lots of options in case of another Chicken Little ammo panic. Very lightweight, usable sights, six shots, decent grips, and not priced too badly given the prices of things today.

I'd say things are looking up at S&W.
 
Beju said:
In the case of my father's 632UC, it was pretty stiff to close, and it got worse over time.

In the case of my 642UC, I didn't even notice it, but S&W replaced it when they replaced my bum night sight.

My newer 442UC (I didn't learn my lesson the first time, and it was the one I really wanted, but I found the 642UC for a good price when they were getting marked up), on the other hand, has been fine from the day I picked it up.

FWIW, S&W having issues making yokes that consistently fit the frames without fitting/adjustment is nothing new. My father has a Model 60 no-dash that you can clearly tell had the frame filed at the factory to fit the yoke. It also has a terrible DA trigger that could use a real gunsmith's attention. I figured that it just needed a good cleaning, but nope, it was beyond the abilities of this parts-swapper.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Did they have to replace the frames totally, or just the yokes on those guns?
 
demkofour said:
Yup, you need to update your avatar….LoLoL

Regarding the little .380 and 9mm pistols you are referring to, I agree in part. Carrying a GLOCK 42/43 and/or another small and comparable pistol does have its place. But small 5/6 shot lightweight revolvers certainly have their place also. There is an enormous market out there in the real world for small easy to carry revolvers ("that always go bang"…) in the role as a BUG/off duty. S&W, Taurus, Colt, Ruger, Kimber and others would certainly not be committed to, and producing them, like they do, if that wasn't the case. Not to mention aftermarket support manufacturers (like holsters, grips, ammunition, etc. Their bean counters would never allow it.
I'm not dumping my small to midsized semiautomatic pistols, BUT I'm certainly not dumping my J Frames.
Click to expand...

I always used to hear that "Revolvers hug the contours of the body" and didn't really get that, until I tried it. I've found that to be true

I have a Sig, it's great! It's 23.3oz loaded, and verymuch gun-shaped (in terms of printing). My 638 with a 405 grip is about 16.9oz loaded with wadcutters, hides more easily.
They do feel different on the belt. Both are carryable, but the J-frame is smaller than the photos comparing the two suggest, it is easier to carry.

I live and work in a "non-permissive environment". Carry is not illegal, but would upset the villagers if they were to discover, to their horror that you were not unarmed.
Carrying something larger means either a wardrobe change or printing risk for me.

It's nice to know that with a revolver, I have a VERY reliable defensive handgun, that carries easily, is forgiving on what belt I'm wearing, all that.
 
The Model 342 and my 442 with self-installed titanium cylinders have been great over the years. Looking forward to a 432UC with Ti cylinder.

So happy with all of these new options.

I like my old and new Smiths but feel strongly that good, solid, new Smith & Wesson revolvers / products are important (1) because I want them and (2) to drive interest in SWCA and revolvers. This is why I pushed the "New Products Display" at last year's symposium. We'll do it again in 2025. I expect the 2025 New Products Display to be AWESOME.
 
KittenPics said:
Have you actually done ballistic testing on that microscopic barrel? It looks like a snubnose 38 sw would be better in a dark alley.

Some great things coming out from Lipseys this year but,,

I think a 32 magnum or 32 smith wesson LONG would be better, if it had a 4" barrel. Adjustable rear sight... mmmmmm that would be fun.
Click to expand...
Federal's offering a defense .32 H&R Magnum load; they used the UC for development.

Their results:

32 H&R Magnum 85gr. Hydra-Shok Deep:

Rated Velocity from 4" Vented Test Barrel: 1025 FPS

Actual average velocity from S&W 1-7/8" UC used in the testing protocols: 1012 FPS

Average calibrated bare ordnance gelatin penetration was 14" with average expansion size of 0.481".

Average calibrated heavy clothing (denim, fleece, dress shirt, t-shirt) ordnance gelatin was 14.5" penetration with average expansion size of 0.479"
 
Lipseys did a nice job on the GP100. 5" blue with wood grips, 327 Fed Mag. I traded it for a 629-6, used lightly. They gave me about what I paid for the gun (New) on the trade-in without giving it a second thought.
 
Last edited:
Will there be purchase discounts for beta/quality control testers?
 
Last edited:
Nice idea, but I'm still waiting for the 327 Fed Mag version. Watch any of the 327/32H&R - 380ACP comparison videos and you'll see a much better performance out of that "little" 32 barrel. Nice to have a good reliable revolver in a very flexible wide range of ammo. I have the Taurus right now, but I'd trade up to a S&W in a heart beat when it comes out.
 
Hapworth said:
Because they wanted lightweight frames and also to keep prices down; that meant aluminum only, no scandium, and that meant not being strong enough for .327 magnum.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Judging by the steel cylinder M&P340 starting at $979, a scandium frame UC would've been over $1000 MSRP.

A steel frame UC would've been ~24 oz with those G-10 grips.

In a Primary & Secondary podcast with some of the people involved in development of the UC models, they also said that S&W is tooled up to make aluminum J-frames at a higher rate than other revolvers.
 
Dutch87 said:
I always used to hear that "Revolvers hug the contours of the body" and didn't really get that, until I tried it. I've found that to be true

I have a Sig, it's great! It's 23.3oz loaded, and verymuch gun-shaped (in terms of printing). My 638 with a 405 grip is about 16.9oz loaded with wadcutters, hides more easily.
They do feel different on the belt. Both are carryable, but the J-frame is smaller than the photos comparing the two suggest, it is easier to carry.

I live and work in a "non-permissive environment". Carry is not illegal, but would upset the villagers if they were to discover, to their horror that you were not unarmed.
Carrying something larger means either a wardrobe change or printing risk for me.

It's nice to know that with a revolver, I have a VERY reliable defensive handgun, that carries easily, is forgiving on what belt I'm wearing, all that.
Click to expand...

I have to agree. I feel that my P365 is a better defensive weapon than any of my 38's or my 32 H&R j frame, but the J's are easier to pocket carry and doesn't scream "gun" like the P365 seems to do in most of my pants.
 
Did I see little plugs in those new frames where a lock would've gone, or are those something else?
 
New video on these Ti models from TFBTV. Jason Cloessner from Lipsey's has been knocking things out of the park with the revolver projects he's been heading lately to say the least!

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZf0CWsdae8[/ame]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Telecaster
Anyone have a 432?
2 3
Replies
53
Views
4K
Telecaster
Telecaster
S
New Ultimate Carry Lipsey's Model 442 - First Impressions
2
Replies
30
Views
8K
Eagle1*
Eagle1*
ddeanjohnson
  • Locked
WITHDRAWN --WTS- GUN BOOKS -- MAKE AN OFFER
2 3
Replies
45
Views
9K
ddeanjohnson
ddeanjohnson
ddeanjohnson
  • Locked
WITHDRAWN -- Collection reduction: 40 guns (15 S&W + Colts, etc.)
2
Replies
26
Views
11K
ddeanjohnson
ddeanjohnson
ddeanjohnson
  • Locked
WTS: vintage gun books (updated, new offering)
2
Replies
30
Views
9K
ddeanjohnson
ddeanjohnson

Latest posts

Back
Top