Build a K-Frame .32 Long?

[308 Scout]

I have a late model Hand Ejector in 32-20. I love the revolver but detest loading the cartridge.

I've recently begun loading the 32 S&W Long for a little I-Frame revolver and find the cartridge extremely easy to load. To that end, I'd like a .32 Long cylinder for K-Frame. The only semi-economical way I can think to do this is to find a K-Frame .22 LR or .22 Magnum cylinder and have it chambered in .32 Long, then have it fitted to my Hand Ejector (If necessary).

Just for grins, I swapped the cylinder out of my HE with one out of one of my Model 10's and they worked as they indexed and timed correctly.

Is there any other/better way this task might be accomplished?

 

[cgt4570]

I had Hamilton Bowen build me a .327 Mag several years ago. It will shoot .32sw, .32swL, .32Mag or .327mag. I used a pre-model 15 frame, a Model 16 8" barrel and a K22 cylinder. It's a tack driver.

 

[SP45]

if the model 10 cylinder times up, the barrel to cylinder ranges correctly and the head space and barrel cylinder gap are correct then it's good and that is the easiest without having one fitted.

 

[series guy]

Be prepared to pay $100 - $150 for a K22 cylinder. It will make a very nice conversion.

 

[Bushog]

Here are 2 K frames I had done in .327 Federal using centerfire K-frame donors, M17 and M617 cylinders and rebored M617 and M53 barrels. The blue gun has an auxiliary .32-20 cylinder. They're nice.

 

[Dieseltech56]

Wow this thread is making me want a 32 cal conversion

 

[308 Scout]

Here are 2 K frames I had done in .327 Federal using centerfire K-frame donors, M17 and M617 cylinders and rebored M617 and M53 barrels. The blue gun has an auxiliary .32-20 cylinder. They're nice.

Very nice Bushog!

Thanks for the encouraging words, guys. Guess I'll head over to the classifieds and post a "WTB".

 

[Bushog]

Be sure you get a "numbered gun" cylinder. ie a M17, M18, M48. You also have to be sure it's an early enough model to have the "thick" extractor. If it has a serial # stamped on it...no go...As I understand it the early ones with the numbers were not heat treated. Also, if ur looking for a barrel get one without the "lazy" ampersand on the early K22 barrels. Same problem... On the gun, make sure the rib width on your barrel matches the receiver. These things might save you some $$ from buying the wrong ones. It's not just plug and play to get them to come out right. Trust me on this.

 

[Green Frog]

308Scout, I too have had a couple of K-frames built in 32 caliber, a stainless 327 on a Model 66 ND and a copy of the Model 16-3 on a Model 14-3. In each case I used a 22 cylinder made of the appropriate alloy. That part of the conversion involved minimal problems, but as I did with my faux 16-3, you will probably need to have the rear face of the cylinder milled off to eliminate the chamber recesses... this way both of the cylinder will still fit without altering the cylinder stop. I have discussed both of these projects at length in previous threads (look for “Project 616”.)

The stainless gun is a magnum on a magnum frame, so it has recessed chambers. This whole project was based on the perceived need for a K-327, but really doesn’t relate to your build.

Since you are starting with a 32-20, you won’t have to change your barrel, so that’s a benefit. I wouldn’t worry about SN vs non-SN cylinders since all K-22 cylinders will likely be as new as or newer than your 32-20, but I would definitely limit chambering to 32 S&W Long in deference to the age of the frame itself. What you will have then is an homage to the very rare pre-War 32 M&P when you get done. I built both of my guns on much newer donors, but I had a slightly different goal in mind.

All of that being said, I am excited about your proposed build and see nothing but a winning idea there.

Froggie

 

[Green Frog]

PS These three threads will get you started;

My Faux K-32 is Here! Was the wrap-up thread describing building the "regular" K-32

Project 616 Was the main thread about building the stainless magnum

Also, we discussed something similar to your proposed project in this thread - Pre-WW II 32 Multi-Cylinders?

Hope this will help you avoid some of the pitfalls and get your project going in the right direction. BTW, since pre-War guns use the large bulge on the end of the extractor rod, I would advise setting this up with two complete cylinder and crane assemblies so you just need to remove one screw and change it all.

Regards,
Froggie

 

[ddixie884]

Good stuff.............

 

[rkittine]

Very nice. I will start loading .32 S&W Long WC soon for the three Bullseye Autos I have in the caliber. My understanding is that for Autos the round is a little more finicky to load.

Bob

 

[Green Frog]

Very nice. I will start loading .32 S&W Long WC soon for the three Bullseye Autos I have in the caliber. My understanding is that for Autos the round is a little more finicky to load.

Bob

I believe that’s more a function of the gun than the ammo. Unless there are some I’ve missed out on, the 32 Target Autos are all European in origin and require a full power round using a flush seated wadcutter, much like the S&W Model 52 we’re more familiar with by now. I would start with the mfg recommended load of Bullseye or 231 behind an appropriate .313” wadcutter, seated flush the finished with a taper crimp... other than a little bit of fine tuning, that should be all that was needed. Of. Ourse I’m a little prejudiced toward my 32 revolvers.

About 25 years or more ago the late Austin Behlert was at a NRA meeting and told me he was about ready to release a converted Model 41 in 32, and I know of at least one Colt Government Model that was converted to 32, but AFAIK, there has never been a truly production model of any 32 Target Auto (made in the USA.)

Froggie

 

[needsmostuff]

I have a late model Hand Ejector in 32-20. .

Is there any other/better way this task might be accomplished?

Yup, start with a different gun.

Sorry but to me this project and that gun sound like a primrose path leading to a deep dark rabbit hole.
Pre-war 32-20s were never known for their strength and many became stretched and warped when the loads were pushed. The long action will probably not play well with a newer ,short action cylinder plus you will be saddled with fixed sights that may or may not regulate to the new beastie .

All the conversions here were done on later model (numbered )K frames for a reason.
Then the question , is there a NEED to convert nowadays. Most of these conversions were done at a time when there were NO options available.
There are options now although most are in the Ruger camp.
This 32 mag Taurus is an economy option (under $300 OTD) if it can be found.

The new Charter Arms Professional also could be a fine plinker.

But my money would go to a 4" SP-101 bringing with it ADJ. sights and the option for much more robust cartridge options.

My thoughts are if you don't like the 32-20 , sell it . Conversions take months/years and cost much ,much, money and will never be cheaper than a new gun in the caliber you want.
Buy a capable new gun and be shooting the next day .
Then ,if you want , spend your money on trigger jobs and grips.

 

[308 Scout]

Yup, start with a different gun.

Sorry but to me this project and that gun sound like a primrose path leading to a deep dark rabbit hole.
Pre-war 32-20s were never known for their strength and many became stretched and warped when the loads were pushed. Plus you will be saddled with fixed sights that may or may not regulate to the new beastie. All the conversions here were done on later model (numbered )K frames for a reason.

I'm told it's a postwar revolver. Regarding the fixed sights, once I learned to properly shoot a revolver I found I no longer need to twiddle with sights and find well designed fixed sights on a properly made revolver not a hindrance in the least, even with different loads. But, its taken a lot of deliberate shooting to get to this point.

Then there is the NEED to convert nowadays. Most of these conversions were done at a time when there were NO options available.
There are options now although most are in the Ruger camp.
This is an 32 mag Taurus is an economy option (under $300 OTD) if it can be found.

The new Charter Arms Professional also could be a fine plinker.

But my money would go to a 4" SP-101 bringing with it ADJ. sights and the option for much more robust cartridge options.

Most Ruger's look like they were designed by Baikal in Russia; blocky, bulky, underfinished, and heavier than necessary, so they're out of the question. Don't want a CA or Taurus either.

My thoughts are if you don't like the 32-20 , sell it . Conversions take months/years and cost much ,much, money.
Buy a capable new gun and be shooting the next day .
Then ,if you want , spend your money on trigger jobs and grips.

I want a S&W, and if you can point me to a K-frame 32 Long for under 4 figures, you'll have my undivided attention.

 

[Muley Gil]

"I'm told it's a postwar revolver."

All of S&W's .32-20 revolvers were built by about 1930, although a few shipped post WW II. These may have been assembled after the war, but using pre war parts.

It is on hold right now, but I'm working on a M15 conversion to .327 Federal. I have a M16-4 cylinder that has been rechambered to .325 and a 6" M53 barrel that has been re-rifled to .32. I had an extra .32-20 cylinder and it appears to be a drop-in fit.

 

[308 Scout]

"I'm told it's a postwar revolver."

All of S&W's .32-20 revolvers were built by about 1930, although a few shipped post WW II. These may have been assembled after the war, but using pre war parts.

Yup, I was wrong, it's a 1940 production. Does this mean sbooting the 32 S&W Long will blow up my revolver?

 

[needsmostuff]

Don't want a CA or Taurus either. I want a S&W,

Well , a man's got to do what a man's got to do .
Just get your wallet open and keep it re-stocked

And Muley Gil is correct, no such thing as a post war K frame 32-20 S&W or Colt for that matter.

 

[Green Frog]

Needsmostuff, I have to disagree with your basic premise. The 32 S&W Long is by no means a high pressure round, and if the specific revolver that 308 Scout already has in hand is in good shape, the cost of obtaining a K-22 cylinder then having it rebored and reamed to 32 S&W Long and fitted to his revolver by a competent local gunsmith (not just a parts changer) would not be all that prohibitive, and his end product would be good for the purpose he’s proposing.

The various alternate guns you mention certainly are OK, but they are not Smiths. The OP asked about a specific possibility and although he did ask for suggestions, an outright statement to not do it was a little too harsh and absolute, IMHO. No offense intended, but having done a couple of the conversions with satisfying results, I just disagree.

Froggie

 

[needsmostuff]

The OP asked about a specific possibility and although he did ask for suggestions, an outright statement to not do it was a little too harsh and absolute, IMHO. Froggie

Well, I had no intention of being harsh . So apologies if that's the way it comes off.
But if you review my post you may notice the "quote " and my entire answer were framed around the question
" Is there any other or better way? "
I can think of many. But if the end result is required to be S&W k Frame(not mentioned in the original post )the options become fewer.
Can that gun be made to work ,sure . All you got to do is get long action lockwork to turn a short action cyl. and get the sights regulated for one cartridge to point where a different cartridge is sending a lighter bullet.
Will it be simple? I doubt it. Will it be cheaper than a new gun after parts and labor ?I doubt it. Will it be better than a new gun, who knows , that's an eye of the beholder and a how good is the gunsmith thing .
The converted K frames shown are beautiful things ,,,,but they did not come cheap,,,, or quick.
If this is a Vision Quest thing sure, go ahead and do it, why not.
I mean guys still make hotrods outta flathead Fords cuz that's what they want. But sadly a new plain jane Nissan Altima will probably out preform it.
None of that means anything if its got to , got to be S&W
For me this is now the Golden Days of 32s with wonderful store bought , ready to be shot guns available. Sadly none of them are S&W anymore.

Again, my opinion only and worth no more than that. Not meant to be harsh . I have willingly gone down my own "rabbit holes" in attempt to turn a sows ear into a silk purse and often just end up with a different kind of sows ear .
Just trying to save some "hindsight".