- Joined
- Jan 28, 2025
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 3
Anyone else see the .32 H&R momentum leading to a K frame announcement in the near future?
S&W .32H&R
- Thread starter gunguy1960
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Not in the current climate - IMO!
pokey074
Member
Anything’s possible. I certainly wouldn’t mind.
geeollie
Member
Did S&W at one time, make a K frame 32 that looked like a Centennial?
I seem to remember it being Titanium or Scandium or Kryptonite???
I seem to remember it being Titanium or Scandium or Kryptonite???
I can see it if a distributor has the idea and commits up ordering at least 1,000 of them.
Which is exactly how we got the .32 H&R UC models. Lipsey's had the idea, and committed to initial orders of 1,000 of each of the 4 models.
Remember, the end user is not S&W's primary customer. Their primary customers are gun distributors (Lipsey's, Davidsons, etc) and large retail chains (Cabela's/Bass Pro, Academy, etc).
If enough people pester Lipsey's for a .32 H&R or .327 Federal Magnum K-frame, that might help.
Which is exactly how we got the .32 H&R UC models. Lipsey's had the idea, and committed to initial orders of 1,000 of each of the 4 models.
Remember, the end user is not S&W's primary customer. Their primary customers are gun distributors (Lipsey's, Davidsons, etc) and large retail chains (Cabela's/Bass Pro, Academy, etc).
If enough people pester Lipsey's for a .32 H&R or .327 Federal Magnum K-frame, that might help.
They had a K Frame, the 16-4 in 32 H&R Mag. Many have opened it u to 327 Mag and been very pleased.
I'm not sure when they dropped it from the line, but with the increased interest I would think it would be re-introduced, and (hopefully) in 327 Mag.
I'm not sure when they dropped it from the line, but with the increased interest I would think it would be re-introduced, and (hopefully) in 327 Mag.
ezb57
Member
I think with the aging demographic of gun owners, lighter recoiling calibers are gaining interest.
Whether or not .32 mag or .327 actually deliver lower recoil compared to .38 Special is debatable, but the interest in it and .380 as an alternative to 9mm seem to be increasing IMO.
Whether or not .32 mag or .327 actually deliver lower recoil compared to .38 Special is debatable, but the interest in it and .380 as an alternative to 9mm seem to be increasing IMO.
Last edited:
Green Frog
Member
If we all present a united front, it may work in our favor. It would be logical (at least to me) to ask for a Model 16-5 that would be built on the same lines as the Model 19 but in 327 Fed Mag. I would suggest 4 & 6” barrels to see how well they sell with 8 3/8” added later if interest is sufficient. Of course there would be no IL and the original frame profile would be restored. To make it truly classic, it would also need recessed chambers, but that might be a bridge too far.
So what do you think?
Froggie
PS Of course we could always push for the stainless version, a Model 66 in 327 Fed Mag… call it a Model 616.
So what do you think?
Froggie
PS Of course we could always push for the stainless version, a Model 66 in 327 Fed Mag… call it a Model 616.
The top end 100g 327 Federal rounds from Speer and Federal that I chronographed several years ago had energies in the low 357 Magnum range - well beyond any +P 38 Special loads. They were mightily uncomfortable for ME to shoot in the 2" Ruger LCR that I was using. The milder 85g rounds that I tested had energies about equal to a +P 38 Special (with equivalent recoil, physics being what it is), but I could already get that power in Buffalo Bore 100g loads in 32 H&R with shorter cases that came closer to full extraction in 2" revolvers than the 327 Fed cases.
The hottest 327 Federal rounds are quite tolerable in a Ruger Single Seven, though, and give 7 shots in a package that's smaller than the typical 6-shot 357 Magnum revolver.
I'd be in favor of the Mod 19 frame & barrel combination in .327 Fed. What makes it so versatile it will handle 327, 32 H&R, 32 S&W Long, and 32 S&W. 4 calibers in one handgun to suit your needs.
The 327 federal loads, both 85 grain and 100 grain shoot just fine in the Ruger SP101 but I prefer the 85 grain with less recoil.
If we all present a united front, it may work in our favor. It would be logical (at least to me) to ask for a Model 16-5 that would be built on the same lines as the Model 19 but in 327 Fed Mag. I would suggest 4 & 6” barrels to see how well they sell with 8 3/8” added later if interest is sufficient. Of course there would be no IL and the original frame profile would be restored. To make it truly classic, it would also need recessed chambers, but that might be a bridge too far.
So what do you think?
Froggie
PS Of course we could always push for the stainless version, a Model 66 in 327 Fed Mag… call it a Model 616.
I agree completely except for one thing. I think a 3 inch barrel would be perfect.
Last edited:
Don't forget the .32 ACP! It fires in most .32 Long evolvers.
Green Frog
Member
You have the right to your own opinion, but having shot my full house fire breathing loads I’m my Project 616, I feel like four inches is short enough. What do you hope to accomplish by going shorter? If it’s about carrying, I would suggest a 3” J frame in 32 H&R, then stoke it with Buffalo Bore ammo for “serious” work.
HRichard said:
I couldn’t have said it better myself. At 75, I don’t need to make the ground shake every time I pull the trigger, and those 32 S&W L rounds I reload are about the cheapest target ammo I can get. A “classic” Model 19 with chambers and bores reduce to 327 Fed Mag is a dream gun for us old farts. Long live the Model 16-5!!!
Froggie
ezb57
Member
I think the point about better exraction should not be missed.
max503
Member
Just because it makes sense to us doesn't mean they'll make one.
They would cost as much as two or three 9mm's so few will buy them.
I don't see it happening.
They would cost as much as two or three 9mm's so few will buy them.
I don't see it happening.
Last edited:
A .32 Magnum with an 8 3/8" barrel with or without underlug in either blue or stainless would have to go home with me. Providing it passes pre-purchase inspection. A four inch would be good, too. I bought a 16-4 with a 6 inch barrel a couple of years ago, but it doesn't get used much. My tatty 8 3/8" bbl. -4 gets the lion's share of rounds downrange, still.
.327? Only if there's no .32 Long or .32 Mag options in a K frame. I got .357s, .41s and .44s for that sort of thing.
.327? Only if there's no .32 Long or .32 Mag options in a K frame. I got .357s, .41s and .44s for that sort of thing.
For me, I sorta look at it as though I'm buying a .357 Magnum, knowing right off the bat I'm loading .38Special also. Whether for easier practice or whatever. That's why, back when, I bought a new Ruger .327 Fed Mag with 6" barrel. It will even shoot .32ACP without that adapter thing maybe 4 out of 7 tries. As I've mentioned before, Lipsey did a nice job making the 5" blue and wood, especially in the .327 FM. They gave me an offer I couldn't refuse for that on a trade-in. I would not feel underarmed if the first thing I grabbed was the .327FM. The 6" barreled GP100 weighs .25 oz. more than the 629-6, 6" .44Mag. So even with the 120(?) grain .32 FM or H&R it's like shooting a K22.
