New .32 Ultimate Carry coming

[demkofour]

Just introduced on the Lipsey**™s website- Ti cylinder and AFR/Hamre Forge grips in the UC package**¦ win-win-win!
Thanks to Jason at Lipsey**™s and our own nyeti


Admin Edit-
Pic Added!!!

Wholesale Firearms / Shooting Sports Distributor - Exclusive Firearms - Handguns, Shotguns, Rifles, Silencers, Shooting Sports Accessories - Lipseys.com

 

[ladder13]

Lipseys should buy S&W

 

[demkofour]

And… Wholesale Firearms / Shooting Sports Distributor - Exclusive Firearms - Handguns, Shotguns, Rifles, Silencers, Shooting Sports Accessories - Lipseys.com

 

[NY-1]

Lipseys should buy S&W

Lipsey's, and the revolver enthusiasts and experts they've enlisted as consultants (thanks, nyeti!), clearly know what the market has been clamoring for over the course of the last two and a half decades! No locks, Mountain Guns, and 32H&R J-frames? They're on fire! I sincerely hope they're able to sway more of S&W's revolver thinking from here on out. (Let's see a return to the pre-lock frame shape and I'll be over the moon...more than I already am as a result of these recent announcements!)

 

[nyeti]

Just introduced on the Lipsey**™s website- Ti cylinder and AFR/Hamre Forge grips in the UC package**¦ win-win-win!
Thanks to Jason at Lipsey**™s and our own nyeti

Wholesale Firearms / Shooting Sports Distributor - Exclusive Firearms - Handguns, Shotguns, Rifles, Silencers, Shooting Sports Accessories - Lipseys.com

We built the first one out of parts and I have been daily carrying it for about six months. It is truly the Ultimate Carry revolver. Thanks to Jason Cloessner for making it happen.

 

[ladder13]

Looks like the Shot Show started early.

 

[ladder13]

We built the first one out of parts and I have been daily carrying it for about six months. It is truly the Ultimate Carry revolver. Thanks to Jason Cloessner for making it happen.

Good to have you on the inside.

 

[stainspoop321]

Woah….

I've been on the hunt for a 332 Ti for a LONG time. I'm glad I haven't found one as that 632 Ti is calling my name

 

[stainspoop321]

What I am seeing is a newfound resurgence and love for some pretty darn cool revolvers. Lipsey's and S&W are putting out great ideas like the UC.

Just like many, I've dealt with poor QC and am wary due to said issues but if those are worked out and I can get my hands on one before purchasing, I'll be scooping up a new Ti in no time.

Keep it up whoever is responsible for this!

 

[epj]

Wow! That's a lot of Binks for a.32 cal revolver. I would like to see a 3-4" with adjustable sights. Better yet, maybe a K frame with 327 thrown in the mix.

 

[Dutch87]

What I am seeing is a newfound resurgence and love for some pretty darn cool revolvers. Lipsey's and S&W are putting out great ideas like the UC.

Just like many, I've dealt with poor QC and am wary due to said issues but if those are worked out and I can get my hands on one before purchasing, I'll be scooping up a new Ti in no time.

Keep it up whoever is responsible for this!

I have to say, I came here a little while ago to learn about J-frames and stayed to learn about some other things too. I'm new to revolvers, so I do that ole "2 ears and 1 mouth thing" and let the greyer members who shot these things since before I was born share what they've seen. I don't post much here


I remember not long after I started browsing, there was a thread where some of the guys mentioned that, we live in an age where a lot of the younger folks ONLY seem to be interested in the plastic, soul-less, striker fired guns with an MRD (and they really seem to struggle to hit anything without them sometimes )
And for better or worse, we were going to be stuck with tons of options along that ^ highway.

Luckily, as time went on, we get the UC series, and now they're expanding the options.

Right now I'm going back and forth on: Do I get a 442UC? Or some variant of 432UC. I'm just concerned about the 432/632UC Quality control.
And, perhaps the maintenance of the titanium cylinder makes me wonder.

 

[.455_Hunter]

I am just glad it's not another over-stylized sub-compact 9mm polystriker. There are enough of those on the market already.

 

[chief38]

I know it is human nature to constantly be on the hunt for a better mouse trap, but a 6 shot 32 mag revolver is a bad one IMHO! It just is a mouse trap that makes little sense to me when their are way better calibers in higher capacity guns that are a smaller package.

The Ruger LCP MAX comes in at just over 10 ounces, is as flat as a board, holds 10+1 or 12 +1 rounds of .380acp and shoots what in my opinion is a better round - and I am no fan of the .380! It reloads a hell of a lot faster and can be easily slipped into any pocket. Reloading is also a lot faster than a revolver and ammo is readily available pretty much anywhere. A 9 mm Sig P365 weighs in at 17 1/2 ounces and is admittedly a little larger (but thinner) but packs a hell of a lot more wallop with it's 10 + 1 or 12 + 1 9mm rounds. Let us not forget what the purpose of a SD gun really is!

I believe that the revolver in question is just a bad idea that isn't needed and will be short lived. To anyone considering getting one for SD purposes..... I would encourage to rethink this particular choice. IMHO this gun is nothing but a marketing ploy and an attempt to charge high prices for specialty ammo.

 

[Dahak]

In the process of saving up for a 432 UC and now the 432 UC Ti is being listed.
Oh decisions.

On the Lipsey's website, the TI model does not specify chamfered charge holes but does say UC enhancements. Is the Ti cylinder chamfered?
Other than weight, what does a Ti cylinder bring to the table? There was some mention of additional maintenance above, but I don't have the background knowledge to read between the lines.

 

[Beju]

I have to say, I came here a little while ago to learn about J-frames and stayed to learn about some other things too. I'm new to revolvers, so I do that ole "2 ears and 1 mouth thing" and let the greyer members who shot these things since before I was born share what they've seen. I don't post much here


I remember not long after I started browsing, there was a thread where some of the guys mentioned that, we live in an age where a lot of the younger folks ONLY seem to be interested in the plastic, soul-less, striker fired guns with an MRD (and they really seem to struggle to hit anything without them sometimes )
And for better or worse, we were going to be stuck with tons of options along that ^ highway.

Luckily, as time went on, we get the UC series, and now they're expanding the options.

Right now I'm going back and forth on: Do I get a 442UC? Or some variant of 432UC. I'm just concerned about the 432/632UC Quality control.
And, perhaps the maintenance of the titanium cylinder makes me wonder.

FWIW, my septuagenarian father has become a big fan of red dots for indoor range shooting. He's put red dot equipped handguns in the hands of other older individuals to try out, and they're generally quite impressed with how their aging eyes pick them up compared to front sights.

He hasn't gotten a red dot equipped carry gun, but I think that's because he hasn't come across a semi-auto that he likes as much as his Kahr PM9.

As for UC QC, a lot of that is sadly just modern S&W. Both my father's early 632UC and my early 642UC shipped with out of spec yokes. That's not a UC-specific part, so I wouldn't be surprised if some of that bad batch made it's way in to basic 642s that we haven't heard about.

In the process of saving up for a 432 UC and now the 432 UC Ti is being listed.
Oh decisions.

On the Lipsey's website, the TI model does not specify chamfered charge holes but does say UC enhancements. Is the Ti cylinder chamfered?
Other than weight, what does a Ti cylinder bring to the table? There was some mention of additional maintenance above, but I don't have the background knowledge to read between the lines.

It's just a way to cut weight that can stand up to Magnum pressures. Not sure about chamfering or lack thereof on this new model.

Comparing the scandium .357 Magnum J-frames, the titanium cylinder 340PD is ~2 oz lighter than the steel cylinder M&P 340.

With the titanium cylinders, S&W just says not to fire Magnum loads under 120 gr and not to clean with abrasive scrubbing products to prevent cylinder erosion.

With that in mind, if you plan to shoot a lot of uncoated lead, especially .32 S&W Long, I would lean towards the steel cylinders that can withstand more abusive cleaning methods.

 

[Dutch87]

FWIW, my septuagenarian father has become a big fan of red dots for indoor range shooting. He's put red dot equipped handguns in the hands of other older individuals to try out, and they're generally quite impressed with how their aging eyes pick them up compared to front sights.

He hasn't gotten a red dot equipped carry gun, but I think that's because he hasn't come across a semi-auto that he likes as much as his Kahr PM9.

As for UC QC, a lot of that is sadly just modern S&W. Both my father's early 632UC and my early 642UC shipped with out of spec yokes. That's not a UC-specific part, so I wouldn't be surprised if some of that bad batch made it's way in to basic 642s that we haven't heard about.

Interesting - would it be possible to ID an out of spec yoke before picking the gun up and bringing it home? (Ex: "look for ________ when handling it")

 

[.455_Hunter]

I know it is human nature to constantly be on the hunt for a better mouse trap, but a 6 shot 32 mag revolver is a bad one IMHO! It just is a mouse trap that makes little sense to me when their are way better calibers in higher capacity guns that are a smaller package.

The Ruger LCP MAX comes in at just over 10 ounces, is as flat as a board, holds 10+1 or 12 +1 rounds of .380acp and shoots what in my opinion is a better round - and I am no fan of the .380! It reloads a hell of a lot faster and can be easily slipped into any pocket. Reloading is also a lot faster than a revolver and ammo is readily available pretty much anywhere. A 9 mm Sig P356 weighs in at 17 1/2 ounces and is admittedly a little larger (but thinner) but packs a hell of a lot more wallop with it's 10 + 1 or 12 + 1 9mm rounds. Let us not forget what the purpose of a SD gun really is!

I believe that the revolver in question is just a bad idea that isn't needed and will be short lived. To anyone considering getting one for SD purposes..... I would encourage to rethink this particular choice. IMHO this gun is nothing but a marketing ploy and an attempt to charge high prices for specialty ammo.

Good grief...

I think you need to change your avatar to a pocket polyspecial.

 

[Beju]

Interesting - would it be possible to ID an out of spec yoke before picking the gun up and bringing it home? (Ex: "look for ________ when handling it")

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.

 

[demkofour]

I know it is human nature to constantly be on the hunt for a better mouse trap, but a 6 shot 32 mag revolver is a bad one IMHO! It just is a mouse trap that makes little sense to me when their are way better calibers in higher capacity guns that are a smaller package.

The Ruger LCP MAX comes in at just over 10 ounces, is as flat as a board, holds 10+1 or 12 +1 rounds of .380acp and shoots what in my opinion is a better round - and I am no fan of the .380! It reloads a hell of a lot faster and can be easily slipped into any pocket. Reloading is also a lot faster than a revolver and ammo is readily available pretty much anywhere. A 9 mm Sig P356 weighs in at 17 1/2 ounces and is admittedly a little larger (but thinner) but packs a hell of a lot more wallop with it's 10 + 1 or 12 + 1 9mm rounds. Let us not forget what the purpose of a SD gun really is!

I believe that the revolver in question is just a bad idea that isn't needed and will be short lived. To anyone considering getting one for SD purposes..... I would encourage to rethink this particular choice. IMHO this gun is nothing but a marketing ploy and an attempt to charge high prices for specialty ammo.

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.

 

[murphydog]

Several posts have been deleted, mostly because of a problematic deleted post that was requoted.

From the Rules:

1. We ask that you conduct yourselves as ladies and gentlemen. Civil Discourse and Courteous Behavior shall be the norm.