Hello All: I thought I would look for a J frame in 32 Federal Magnum. I had one eons ago but sold it. I didnt know the model and called S&W. A customer service supervisor said without a serial they could not tell me a model number. I said I only want to know what model number(s) were chambered for that. So much for that . I went to S&W website and there are none being made currently.

Does anyone know how i can find one?
Thanks for any input

__________________
Gun Control= Using Both Hands

327 Federal Mag perhaps??

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

haris1, as you have already determined, they are no longer being made by S&W.
Try searching the auction sites for a model 632, 632-Pro, being sure that it's chambered in .327 Fed. IIRC, some may be chambered in .32 magnum.

Good luck.

yes 327 federal magnum

__________________
Gun Control= Using Both Hands

Stick with 38 Special.

If you need six round capacity look for a used Colt Detective Special or the new Kimber K6XS. They are both great snubnose revolvers.

If you want a 32 Fed Magnum, but can't find one from Smith and Wesson, there are alternatives. I went with a Taurus 327 and am quite happy with it, with about 600 rounds through it in the past 2-3 months.



I'm not trying to push a Taurus here, but they are available in the $350-450 range. The 3" pictured came with two grips, a tritium night sight, factory bobbed hammer, and was drilled and tapped for an RDS, mount included.

That 327 will surprise you if you go into it thinking "It's just a 32." It has some serious "pop" to it.

__________________
John 3:16 .

Thanks so much !!

__________________
Gun Control= Using Both Hands

The 632 was .32 H&R Magnum
EDIT- (these were the 90-91 mfr. 632's)

Whats interesting about the 327 federal magnum is that recoil is low
but muzzle energy is 500 ft pounds with a 100 gr bullet going 1500
feet per second

__________________
Gun Control= Using Both Hands

Here's the 632-1. S&W couldn't give them away when they were making them, but now they're pretty hard to find. My 631 in 32 H&R is more fun to shoot though. The 632-1 would probably make a good carry gun now but given the prices I think I'd probably go with a J frame 38 special rather than pay two or three times as much for one of these.

Jeff
SWCA #1457

Nice 3" also, at the price point- i would buy one just to cover a caliber i never use, loving snubs makes it easy.
Mike

Fire 6 rounds of factory ammo and the palm of your hand WILL want have a discussion with you!
It's not a 44 or a light weight 357 but it gets your attention!

Attached Images

001.JPG (250.2 KB, 83 views)

Another alternative is a Ruger SP-101. I have one as my EDC.

It is a snappy round! I had a Ruger LCR in .327 FM and it was downright unpleasant to shoot. I traded it and picked up the SP-101 and even it can be a handful, but much better than the LCR.

Attached Images

IMG_2044.jpg (71.0 KB, 49 views)

__________________
USS Brewton FF1086
SWCA#3597

Take a look at the Ruger LCR in .327 Fed Mag. Or stick with .32 H&R Mag in the model 432UC or 632UC.

Here's my Ruger. Decided to let it go since I got my 432.

__________________
Watch & Pray

What a mess! OP, if you had a small 32 Mag chambered S&W (actually 32 H&R) it was probably either a Model 631 or 632... back then probably the former. Also, when H&R introduced its 32, somebody at S&W had an accidental good idea and made the Model 16-4, a K (mid sized) frame in 4, 6, and 8 inch barrels (or thereabouts). They made ca 5000 of them +/- and forgot to tell the publicity department, and they were less than fast selling. I had one of these, but like a puppy chasing butterflies, I saw something else and left it behind.
The most recent offerings in the 32 genre were mostly in 32 H&R in the J platform. A few 327 Fed Mag J frames were released (escaped?) but most of us have never even seen one.
The dream among the aficionados is a Model 16-5, a K frame 327 FM, preferably sans Hillary Hole, but it’ll never happen!
And that’s about all there is to report on S&Ws in the 32 calibers for at least 30 years.
Froggie

I am with the Detective Special gang. Six rounds in a sexy package similar in size to a J frame.

Attached Images

34E3BD36-179C-4518-8930-7D9B6E672BBD.jpg (132.4 KB, 62 views)

__________________
213th FBINA

Lol…I forgot how ugly they were until I saw your picture. I got rid of mine about 3 years ago.

__________________
USS Brewton FF1086
SWCA#3597

I like my LCR 38, but I view it simply as a functional tool like a Glock.

News from the symposium is that there may be a new K frame .32 in the very near future…

__________________
SWCA #3929, SWHF #1010

If your heart is set on acquiring a 6-shot 327 magnum, then your best bet right now is probably the Taurus model 327. I picked one up last year for around $350 and am quite happy with it so far.
Taurus decided to resume production of this model again sometime last year.
Unlike S&W who has stubbornly refused to resume production of any of their revolvers chambered for this particular cartridge.
If a 32 H&R magnum will scratch the itch for you, then the recently released S&W "32 Ultimate Carry" revolvers may be a viable option for you. Assuming you can find one.
Good luck in your search...

__________________
Send lawyers, guns & money...

Like the .357SIG, I always thought it was a neat cartridge that was marketed to the wrong size gun. This talk of 100 grains at 1500fps won't get realized from a 2 or 3 inch pocket gun. It suffers from the same problem as the .357 Magnum...medium bore, lots of powder, not enough barrel. I think a .327 FM with a 5" or 6" barrel would be pretty neat, especially as a 7 or 8 shooter, but not a snub. You're definitely getting 300-400 fps over .32 H&R, and also getting a lot of flash, noise, and recoil too. I seriously doubt the added velocity will amount to anything at snubnose distances.

__________________
Psalm 27:2

I hear you... BUT, since muzzle energy is calculated as

E = M x V^2 (Muzzle Energy = Mass [bullet weight] times Velocity SQUARED),

that extra 300-400 fps of velocity with a bullet of the same weight (compared to the 32 H&R) adds a LOT of kinetic energy.

Kinetic energy is what does damage in a flesh and bone target.

That seems like a reasonable trade off for the extra muzzle flash and noise.

JMO, and YMMV....

__________________
Send lawyers, guns & money...

I can get into the low to mid 1400’s without much trouble out of my 3” Ruger using coated lead bullets. I think I could easily push a jacketed 100 grain hollow point past 1500. Ultimately, I’d like to get a 120 grain XTP up to 1500. That would push the ME up to 600 FPE and be a heck of a personal defense round.

Attached Images

IMG_4105.jpg (64.8 KB, 19 views)

__________________
USS Brewton FF1086
SWCA#3597

If you can find one of these, a Lipsey Ruger GP-100 in .327. Has a very nice trigger (not the usual Ruger), 5" barrel and enough weight to be comfortable with .327 ammo.

Attached Images

Lipsey .327-1.jpg (52.4 KB, 57 views)

__________________
Jim
Many K and N Frames

Respectfully, the argument over the kinetic energy v momentum in terminal ballistics has raged for many decades.

It is not “kinetic energy” (the force required to accelerate a given mass to a given velocity) that “does damage in a flesh and bone target.” It is the bullet. This seems grossly simplistic, but it matters.

The bottom line, IMHO, is the oft-repeated phrase, “All handgun rounds suck.” Because they do.

Velocity matters. Bullet mass matters. But where that bullet goes matters much, much more than either.

I will never tell someone which caliber/cartridge they should use. I would, however caution that they probably shouldn’t use numbers on a page to make their choice.

__________________
Mark Lathem

I own a Taurus 327 2" version. Here's a picture from the factory website.


Recoil in such a small gun is not low, it is pretty unpleasant to shoot with full factory .327 ammo. Note that for some reason, the 2" has a spur hammer and can be cocked and fired single action, while the 3" has a bobbed hammer and is double-action only.

The 2" guns are very common on Gunbroker right now, the 3" less so. Be aware that Taurus has a habit of coming out with a particular model and making lots of them, but then stopping and then they become difficult to find. So if you want one, get it while you can.

1500 FPS?............What load and barrel length?

__________________
S&W Accumulator

.327 Fed Mag is still a bit "snappy" in a steel frame 3" Ruger Sp101. Yes, I did have to do some polishing and shim the hammer to get a decent trigger pull. (Shown here with .357 and .38 cousins.)

__________________
Only a cold warrior

I have a 4.2 inch sp101 in 327 federal Mag. The federal 85 grain rated at 1400 fps is much easier to shoot than the federal 100 grain 1500 fps version but that one is ok also. I had to have a trigger job done so that my daughter could pull the trigger more than a few times. She won't shoot the 327 fed mag, will shoot 32 h&r mag but prefers 32 S&W long. This gun is very versatile. Will also shoot 32 S&W short and (I am told) 32 acp. The ruger is more expensive than Taurus but nowhere near as expensive as a Smith would be. It's also a higher quality gun than the Taurus. They also make a 3 in model.

One thing about the .32 H&R Mag in a steel cylinder, is they can be reamed out to 327 FM very easily, as many on this board have done. I've seen many stories of pleased shooters having done so.


The light weights, leave alone, the 32 H&R is plenty in the J Frames or your shooting hand will complain to you.

__________________
H Richard
SWCA1967 SWHF244

Very good post and you're certainly right, but many have no interest in logic.

No, it's not for sale (yet)

Attached Images

DSC02456 (Medium).JPG (86.8 KB, 66 views)

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

Maybe it's military experience, or being old-school, but the point of velocity against two legged targets is, beyond a certain point, to increase the point blank range, create standoff, or in certain cases to penetrate barriers/armor.

I just don't see the gain at snubnose/house/dark alley distances, and no one has been able to definitely prove a gain to me. Big bores against wild animals are a different story --- now I kind of want 30-40 inches of penetration at close range.

Over and over again I read self and home defense stories where the good guy/gal had a .22...or an old .32 top-break...or a .38 Special with ancient LRN...or, yes, a 9mm. It's very rarely a common big bore and NEVER an enthusiast death ray cartridge like .50AE, 9x23, .460 Rowland, etc.. I admit that this is self-selecting as people in bad neighborhoods where most of the encounters take place don't have the funds for magazine cover handguns.

From an innovation standpoint, cramming the most cartridge into the lightest and smallest form factor is interesting, but the law of diminishing returns still holds.

__________________
Psalm 27:2

You are right in saying the KE of accelerating the bullet isn't what does the damage. It is the KE the bullet imparts to the target that does the damage.

You make good points, but isn't the debate about KE vs momentum for terminal ballistics pretty much always comparing HEAVIER bullets moving slower vs lighter bullets moving faster?

That isn't the comparison I was making, because a lot of the 327 Fed Mag SD ammo is loaded with a bullet OF THE SAME weight as the H&R Mag loads. So that debate really isn't pertinent. I think we can all agree that with the same weight bullet the faster round with higher KE is going to have better performance for SD purposes.

Also KE is just one benefit of velocity. Another major benefit of the higher velocity is more penetration AND better, more reliable expansion of hollow point SD ammo. Bigger, deeper holes are always better when trying to stop an aggressor.

To me, both of those facts seem pretty logical and self-evident.

__________________
Send lawyers, guns & money...

I’ll do you a favor and send you $500 for it when you get bored!

I love my LCR .327 and enjoy shooting .32 S&W Long wadcutters and .32 H&R Mag WCs. Recoil wise, .32 Long WCs are like shooting .22 LR except more accurate, and H&R Mags are like shooting .38 SPL WCs.

Again, diminishing returns. If 9x19 is good, why not 9x25 Dillon? You can easily scoot a 115gr north of 1700fps with a 5" gun. But you end up with pretty snappy recoil plus lots of flash and noise. Good choice if you need to make handgun shots out past 100 yards, but that's very few of us. There are folks & agencies out there with requirements like that, hence the 7.5FK.

I think we're arguing over preferences vs. hard facts, really. I like 'sweet spot' gun + ammo combinations that don't try and push the envelope too hard. I don't think magnums make good SD snubnose guns, but to each their own.

__________________
Psalm 27:2

Up in post 24, that Lipsey GP100 is a great gun. I had that one and a regular 6” GP in 327 Fed Magnum. I took both into a local gun shop to see if he’d take one on trade for a 629-6. The kid waiting on me took them both into the back and came right back out and said the owner would take the Lipsey for just about what I paid new for it. I was happy so that’s all I care about. The 327 6” Ruger has an excellent trigger. Hardly any kick. I do wish I could find a nice S&W in 327 FM, if they in fact DO exist! Double ear protection is almost a necessity! I like the caliber; I’d like to see more available, especially from S&W.
The 32 caliber has been around for a few decades and they don’t beat the palm of my hands at all. Plus, the 327 will shoot all of the 32 caliber cartridges; if you can find them on the shelf somewhere if you don’t reload.

__________________
Waiting For The Sun.

I think we're having a discussion - not an argument. Arguments get emotional. I prefer to discuss the subject by presenting the facts as I understand them, and why they influence my opinions and preferences.
I choose 9x19 parabellum with 13 rounds of good high performance SD ammo because I can get comparable performance to 5-shot J-frame 357 magnum revolver in a small concealable package (P365) the same size and with 7 more rounds. And it shoots better for me - with less recoil to boot.
I don't choose the more powerful 9x25 Dillon because it would be require toting around a gun with the size and weight of a FS 1911.
If there were 9x19 ammo with the performance of the 9x25 OR if the 9x25 were available in a package the size of the P365 I'd be carry one of them instead.
If I'm going to carry a small gun with only 5-6 rounds I want ammo that as much speed, power, and KE as I can handle and shoot well.
But that's just me.

__________________
Send lawyers, guns & money...

For those looking for the S&W revolver in the 327 Mag caliber and can't find one, make one! This is the gun that S&W should have produced!

This is a 16-4 chambered in the 327 Mag. The cost of the rechambering is not very high and is easy to do for most gunsmiths. Your cost will be in finding he 16-4!
jcelect

Cool idea, but I could never do that to an original, valuable, pricey, scarce gun like a Model 16.

Now if I had a second cylinder for it...

__________________
Send lawyers, guns & money...

I'm not really a Taurus guy, but that ticks just about all the box's.

Any other details?

This one’s not for sale either.

And as previously mentioned, the 16-4’s make a good platform for the .327 IMO but if slick as these two 4”, I dunno if did the right thing or not? Both are high condition so only did one. If had to do over, I’d probably keep original and get 2 cylinders, one for.327 and maybe
other in.32-20? I’d also get the longer barrel, 6 or 8 to utilize the potential of the .327.

I agree 100%! However, in the picture, this gun appears to be in much better condition than it actually is! The gun pictured came to me as it is today. The previous owner bought it from someone that used it as a truck gun, so the exterior is in rough shape, but the internals are in great condition!
For those that would consider having another cylinder chamber in another caliber, I ask, "Where are you going to find another cylinder for a 16-4?"
jcelect

Who says you’ve gotta start with a Model 16 cylinder? K-22 cylinders make perfect “blanks” for this kind of project. Or at least they did for my Project 616 (Mod 617 cylinder rebored to 327 FM) and my faux 16-3 (Mod 17 cylinder rebored to 32 S&W L). In fact I’ve got a stainless 648 cylinder that may become a 32-20 cylinder if I live long enough.
Froggie

The frame lug (for the original .32 HRM cylinder) will be in the wrong place for a re-chambered M17 cylinder.

Edit - meant to say cylinder stop.

I wouldn't even hope to be lucky enough to locate another 16 cylinder, that's why I reamed the -4 to .327 to begin with. I'd hope to maybe find something to modify but it's currently not even near the stove, let alone on a burner.

any 6 shot K 22 Cylinder can become a 327 cylinder.

It is easy to machine the recess off the back of the K22 cylinder. In fact you only need to machine off part of it as the lug only sticks out of the frame maybe .05 or so. Or you can set the frame lug back .045 and run a recessed cylinder.

I have 3 K frame 327 cylinders made that way, my J frame was made from a J frame 32H&R cylinder and is not recessed.

I know from experience the 327 in an alloy J frame is way snappy. I do not recommend it