Rethinking 32 S&W long ---‐-‐-‐‐--‐---‐---‐-----‐-

[fredcoyote]

Oddball .32 trio

Just recently within the last year caught wind of the old 32 cartridge. I never knew of the 32 magnum centennial which is what caught my attention. Buffalo bore hardcast wad cutters are potent pills I'm comfortable carrying. Long wad cutters a hoot.
Short reloads are pop gun fun.

Top-cheap Taurus 32 tackle box gun.

Middle- 65' Colt detective special with a numerich 32 Magnum conversion they used to sell.

Bottom- S&W 632 (one of two they're so cool!)

Next might be a 32 barrel for my Thompson?

Fight the Good Fight...

Fred

 

[old tanker]

The S&W Hand Ejector (.32 S&W Long) from 1903

Colt Pocket Positive (.32 New Police) dates to 1907

S&B makes a respectable version of the old flat pointed Colt N.P cartridge. Like the man said, "A pocket pistol you have beats a cannon in the safe at home."

 

[Warren Sear]

I enjoy my S&W .32, 3" barrel, square butt.

I am convinced it would be better than any .25 or .32 auto if needed.

I hand load my ammo, using various weight bullets that I cast.

Mine will easily completely penetrate two 2x6's. I was told the bullets would bounce off wood. That is not true, at least with the .32 Long, in my experience.

 

[BC38]

I enjoy my S&W .32, 3" barrel, square butt.

I am convinced it would be better than any .25 or .32 auto if needed.

I hand load my ammo, using various weight bullets that I cast.

Mine will easily completely penetrate two 2x6's. I was told the bullets would bounce off wood. That is not true, at least with the .32 Long, in my experience.

So it will penetrate 3"-3-1/2" of wood? That sounds pretty good. What kind of wood?
Penetrating that much pine is quite a bit different than penetrating that much oak.

 

[rockquarry]

So it will penetrate 3"-3-1/2" of wood? That sounds pretty good. What kind of wood?
Penetrating that much pine is quite a bit different than penetrating that much oak.

More of a novelty than something useful. If you already have a .38 Special you're in good shape with a much superior cartridge.

 

[BC38]

More of a novelty than something useful. If you already have a .38 Special you're in good shape with a much superior cartridge.

Yeah, I do. I also have a couple of 32's and a 327.
Still curious as to the answer to the question I asked Warren Sear though.

 

[Warren Sear]

So it will penetrate 3"-3-1/2" of wood? That sounds pretty good. What kind of wood?
Penetrating that much pine is quite a bit different than penetrating that much oak.

3" of softwood, probably pine. Definitely not oak.

 

[Warren Sear]

More of a novelty than something useful. If you already have a .38 Special you're in good shape with a much superior cartridge.

One advantage of the .32 over the .38 is the .32 will give one more shot in similar diameter cylinders. Is that significant? That is a question only the user can answer.

 

[rockquarry]

One advantage of the .32 over the .38 is the .32 will give one more shot in similar diameter cylinders. Is that significant? That is a question only the user can answer.

Not significant to most.

 

[BC38]

Not significant to most.

Opinions differ.

The 32 S&W Long is a pretty weak cartridge, but that is why a 32 H&R magnum is much better. Pretty much any modern 32 S&W Long can be reamed a little and handle 32 H&R magnums easily.

A 100gr H&R magnum generates the same ME as a 158gr 38 Special +P

A 90gr H&R Magnum generates the same ME as a 130gr 38 Special.

Having a sixth round with the same ballistic performance in the same size package with milder recoil can be an advantage.

JMO, YMMV.

 

[alwslate]

Take two common 2x4s of common yellow pine construction lumber and clamp them together, about 3&1/4" thickness of wood. If you think a .32 long out of a snubby will shoot through them be ready to be disappointed.

 

[Echo40]

For as often as folks parrot the opinion that anything less than .38 Special or .380 ACP is inadequate for self-defense, folks often forget that .32cal bullets dominated the Law Enforcement/Concealed Carry market for decades until HP bullets became common.
The reason for this is that these .32cal cartridges (namely .32 S&W and .32 ACP) were plenty effective with solid, non-expanding or otherwise minimally expanding projectiles, but softpoints and HPs tend to stop short of vitals because they just don't penetrate deeply enough onces they've expanded.

So as long as you load a .32 with solid bullets, it will do the job just fine with proper shot placement, and there's virtually no risk of collateral damage because even if the shot exits out the back of the target, it's going to have lost most of its energy, ergo it will most likely just plop to the ground, assuming it comes out at all.

 

[rockquarry]

Opinions differ.

The 32 S&W Long is a pretty weak cartridge, but that is why a 32 H&R magnum is much better. Pretty much any modern 32 S&W Long can be reamed a little and handle 32 H&R magnums easily.

A 100gr H&R magnum generates the same ME as a 158gr 38 Special +P

A 90gr H&R Magnum generates the same ME as a 130gr 38 Special.

Having a sixth round with the same ballistic performance in the same size package with milder recoil can be an advantage.

JMO, YMMV.

When you get into foot pounds of energy, you're treading closely on textbook theory rather than something of practical value. Maybe not strictly easy chair gunfighting stuff, but close enough. Maybe it's best to get a decent handgun chambering then practice with it.

 

[rockquarry]

For as often as folks parrot the opinion that anything less than .38 Special or .380 ACP is inadequate for self-defense, folks often forget that .32cal bullets dominated the Law Enforcement/Concealed Carry market for decades until HP bullets became common.
The reason for this is that these .32cal cartridges (namely .32 S&W and .32 ACP) were plenty effective with solid, non-expanding or otherwise minimally expanding projectiles, but softpoints and HPs tend to stop short of vitals because they just don't penetrate deeply enough onces they've expanded.

So as long as you load a .32 with solid bullets, it will do the job just fine with proper shot placement, and there's virtually no risk of collateral damage because even if the shot exits out the back of the target, it's going to have lost most of its energy, ergo it will most likely just plop to the ground, assuming it comes out at all.

"Parroting" has nothing to do with it, unless maybe you're a YouTuber and prefer to spread erroneous information. There are minimum cartridges for various purposes. It's much like today's popular fad of using the minimal .223 for deer hunting when far better cartridges are available. Hardly a point worth arguing.

 

[Racer X]

just because you can drive nails with a brick doesn't mean a hammer isn't a better tool for the job. I bet throughout the history of mankind, a rock has even killed a grizzly. Doesn't mean you should count on it.

The idea of a small frame high capacity 32 revolver is why they invented the .327 Federal. I have my grandmother's .32 S&W top break, and a subsonic .22LR round has more energy. My grandfather was a sherrif and took it off a perp, and gave it to his wife in case anyone came after the sherrif's wife. She chose to rely on the family 1958 Remington .44 cap and ball. Let that sink in.

 

[BSA1]

Take two common 2x4s of common yellow pine construction lumber and clamp them together, about 3&1/4" thickness of wood. If you think a .32 long out of a snubby will shoot through them be ready to be disappointed.

I tried this experiment once. I fired two rounds into pine 2" x 4"'s. One bullet passed completely through the first board (1 1/2") and enter the second board just far enough for me to see it's base.

Second bullet also passed completely through the first board but only dented the second board. The bullet was not deformed and could easily been used again if handloaded.

I wish I would have a piece of Oak to try also.

 

[rockquarry]

You can get decent velocity with handloads in .32 Long, but you're still dealing with very little in the way of a bullet. Much more "powerful" than the regular .32 S&W cartridge with it's 80 grain bullet. I chroographed some of these (old Remington factory load) some years back. Muzzle velocities were in the 500 fps range; probably wouldn't penetrate much. These were probably safe to shoot as long as backstop material was very soft and the bullets didn't come back at you.

 

[Warren Sear]

Take two common 2x4s of common yellow pine construction lumber and clamp them together, about 3&1/4" thickness of wood. If you think a .32 long out of a snubby will shoot through them be ready to be disappointed.

That's exactly what I did. I was actually quite impressed with the .32 Long! The upper bullet hole in the board is the entry of the .32 Short, and the bottom one is the .32 Long as seen from the front of the first board after shooting both cartridges.

The .32 Short penetrated one board and started into the second. The .32 Long went through both boards completely.

The red arrow points to the base of the .32 Short bullet, which penetrated the first board completely, then buried itself up to its base in the second board.

 

[BC38]

When you get into foot pounds of energy, you're treading closely on textbook theory rather than something of practical value. Maybe not strictly easy chair gunfighting stuff, but close enough. Maybe it's best to get a decent handgun chambering then practice with it.

That's easy to say - until things like old age, arthritis, or other disabling conditions make it impractical.

One size doesn't fit all, and if I get to the point that a 32 SWL is the most powerful thing I can handle, I'll use it thank you very much. Beats the hell out of a sharp stick.

Maybe you'll be lucky enough to never be in that position, but for those that are, your suggestion is totally meaningless.

As Forte Smitten Wesson pointed out, there have been plenty of bad guys put in the ground with a 32 caliber bullet.

 

[BC38]

That's exactly what I did. I was actually quite impressed with the .32 Long! The upper bullet hole in the board is the entry of the .32 Short, and the bottom one is the .32 Long as seen from the front of the first board after shooting both cartridges.

The .32 Short penetrated one board and started into the second. The .32 Long went through both boards completely.

The red arrow points to the base of the .32 Short bullet, which penetrated the first board completely, then buried itself up to its base in the second board.

Nah, can't be. That must be some of that YouTube erroneous information.

 

[Whistlebritches]

I enjoy my S&W .32, 3" barrel, square butt.

I am convinced it would be better than any .25 or .32 auto if needed.

I hand load my ammo, using various weight bullets that I cast.

Mine will easily completely penetrate two 2x6's. I was told the bullets would bounce off wood. That is not true, at least with the .32 Long, in my experience.

One hears a lot of nonsense like that, especially from mall ninjas, that think ears dont bleed, after shooting pistols in a vehicle, as presented in 9 out of 10 action movie.

I owned a couple of those way back, 6 rounds, a nice carry gun, one a three inch.

I handloaded, Lyman had loads that were entry level 32 HR loads, of course with the advisement, "dont shoot in top breaks".

Having had and shot, and tested, many of modern handgun round, at some time or the other, its not one I would plan to carry to a fight, but it might prevent the fight from getting out of the favor of the guy carrying it.

A small gun in hand, is worth two 44 mags left at home.

 

[rockquarry]

In the '50s and '60s, "penetration" tests used 3/4" pine boards placed 15 feet form the muzzle. According to the tables in the 1962 Shooter's Bible, the .25 Auto and the .32 S&W penetrated 3 boards. The .32 S&W long did 4 boards, the 9mm, 10, and the .38 Special went through 7.5. I'm not sure what this tells a shooter. Could it be considered as anything close to useful information?

 

[BSA1]

I see the negative replies about the .32 S&W long. It makes me
think to my self, if detractors are so sure of the uselessness of
this round they should grab their fielders mitt, head down to
first base and catch a few to prove their point.

Can I defend myself at the same time using my weapon of choice?

Might be a big difference if someone is trying to kill you at the same.

As I post often; Don't confuse being lethal with stopping power.

 

[Beemer-mark]

In the '50s and '60s, "penetration" tests used 3/4" pine boards placed 15 feet form the muzzle.

The pine board test dates from the 19th century.

 

[rockquarry]

The pine board test dates from the 19th century.

I never implied these were valid "testing" methods, but it appears that nonsensical reasoning was around long before YouTube.

 

[rockquarry]

That's easy to say - until things like old age, arthritis, or other disabling conditions make it impractical.

One size doesn't fit all, and if I get to the point that a 32 SWL is the most powerful thing I can handle, I'll use it thank you very much. Beats the hell out of a sharp stick.

Maybe you'll be lucky enough to never be in that position, but for those that are, your suggestion is totally meaningless.

As Forte Smitten Wesson pointed out, there have been plenty of bad guys put in the ground with a 32 caliber bullet.

Nothing is absolute, there are always exceptions and, as you said, "one size doesn't fit all". I merely stated that a reliance on foot pounds of energy is getting into the theoretical rather than the practical. There's little point in arguing such.

 

[alwslate]

That's exactly what I did. I was actually quite impressed with the .32 Long! The upper bullet hole in the board is the entry of the .32 Short, and the bottom one is the .32 Long as seen from the front of the first board after shooting both cartridges.

The .32 Short penetrated one board and started into the second. The .32 Long went through both boards completely.

The red arrow points to the base of the .32 Short bullet, which penetrated the first board completely, then buried itself up to its base in the second board.

Sorry but I'm going to have to call foul on this test. Your ammo looks like cast bullet handloads from a 3" revolver not factory soft swaged bullet ammo from a snubby.

 

[Warren Sear]

Cry foul all you want. I showed the results I had with my gun and my cast bullets and hand loaded ammo. Please show your results with your gun and whatever ammo you use.

 

[BC38]

Sorry but I'm going to have to call foul on this test. Your ammo looks like cast bullet handloads from a 3" revolver not factory soft swaged bullet ammo from a snubby.

Well, first off, he never claimed it was factory ammo - and that wasn't stipulated anywhere by the naysayers. In fact he specifically said it was his handloads. So I'm not sure that is really pertinent - a lot of us handload.

Secondly a 3" barrel is generally regarded as a snub nosed in pretty much all other calibers - but not 32 SWL? So I guess the definitions are different for J-frames? Any J-frame with a barrel over 2" isn't a snub nosed? Is that the "official" definition now?

Seems to me like we're moving the goalposts to suit our position...

 

[Whistlebritches]

After my comments, I started rethinking my past 45 years in the gun trade.

I recall shooting in a dump, 45 Hardball, against refrigerator doors, and cat converters from a muffler, the rounds bouncing back, landing near our feet, distance maybe 20 yards.

I would still say my original comments were true, but I started thinking that the answer, would depend on what kind of wood. And whether or not it was solid, and changed how much energy, was transferred into the target.

"all things being equal" rarely applies in shooting. Too many variables.

The old great movie "shane" was apparently the first movie, that used the gag, the bad guy being blown back by getting shot.

At least the movie got the noise of the shot inside a building correct, but the rest, was total fantasy.

Thankfully ,very few of us have seen human blood, from a military or law enforcement standpoint.

But, a few of us COULD perhaps fill a pickup bed with various jackrabbits, ground squirrels, prairie dogs, coyote, and the odd stray cat.

But those that pay attention, all offer evidence on bullet and velocity differences.

Consider a round nose 38, compared to the Keith type bullet, the Keith type is a bit deadlier even similar velocities.

John Taylor, who killed more elephants than some of us kill ground squirrels notes "only one time, did an elephant fall backwards"

I always chuckle, the Brits conquered the then known world, with their 38 SW, 200 grain bullet, going maybe 700 FPS on a down hill shot, out of the 4 and 5 inch Webley, not a "magnum" by any stretch.

Dad filled me in on the "Moro" legend details, he was in the islands inWW2

1, When we changed to the 45, we were still using the 38 Colt, slight less poop, than the later 38 Special.

2, Even in WW2, they were still in a bolo fighting culture, they wore canvas wrappings around their chest, and those lanyards on the fore arm and legs, were take along tourniquets.

3, they chewed beetlenut, rather an old school pep pill

Few of these facts, ever are found in the books.

One likely cant buy effective commercial ammo now, but again, the handloads in the books, are right at entry level 32 HR.

But probably dont shoot them in the old Sat Night Special models.