Just picked this up today.
Attached File

Nice piece - Im always curious about that choice of caliber, how did you come to choose it?

Good question.  I have two other j frames in 38 special.  A humpback Model 38 in 38 spl. and a 642 38 spl. + P.  I was looking for 6 shots and a lower recoiling round in a j frame.  I have heard good things about the 32 H&R Mag and like the fact you get 6 shots.  I haven't shot it yet, so the jury is out.  

Regards

I love my 432. So much easier to shoot than any .38 J frame I've ever shot.

Looking good.

I love my 632UC so far.

BC I don't have any 38spl/357mag revolvers at all.
So, my choice came down to the best pocket revolver caliber without concern for caliber commonality.

32 HR has less muzzel blast, recoil,  and one extra round over 38.
38 recoils more like a 357 in lightweight snubbies.
Best of all, 32HR seems to better in gel tests over 380acp and equals most 38 rounds.  
Only the 38 rounds that try to mimic 357 do better than 32 in gel tests..
But then we're right back into the excessive muzzle blast and recoil problems.
I do have and carried a Ruger LCP and never enjoyed shooting it.

The 632UC replaced the LCP as the daily BUG/deep carry NPE peice.

Also you have the option of shooting 32 S&W, 32 S&W long as well. I even had an old I frame 32 that would shoot and extract 32 acp!
Lots of versatility. I am a revolver fan myself and for me alloy frame J’s in 38 do beat you up, for me 50 rounds of standard pressure 38’s maxes out a practice session. And in 38, due to the short barrel, very little performance is gained going to plus P let alone 357 mag in guns so chambered. Many years ago a friend bought one of the first scandium 357’s. I shot one cylinder and said no thanks

I bought a .327 Ruger LCR just before Smith announced the new .32 J frames.

I actually love the little LCR and I carry it with Lost River Ammo wad cutters which it really seems to like. BUT.... I'm a S & W guy deep down and now I want one of the .32 J frames as well.

I want one, just not at that price.

Same, I'm a poors (more specifically, I have .38s and it's hard to justify buying the .32 and getting into another caliber right now).  I stupidly sold my last .32, a 4" .32 S&W Long that was a great shooter.

I'm curious if the cylinder is long enough to ream the chambers to 327 mag

Pocket surprise

If they'd make it in 327fed with a 2.5" barrel, I'd be in.

The taurus 327 I got works great, so.....why go backwards to 32h&r?

I have a small gaggle of .32 caliber revolvers. Currently, I have two I-Frames in .32 S&W Long plus a J-Frame along with two Top-Breaks. A hammerless New Departure "Lemon Squeezer" and a Double Action, both in .32 S&W (Short). Getting a .32 H&R has been something on my want list. I like .327 Federal Mag on paper. But .32 H&R Mag for me is the sweet spot.

I am interested in a Taurus 327, especially since they're under $300 online right now. And if I were to get one, it'd be this model. And I'd slap on the older Model 85 boot grips on it.





But .32 H&R Mag is a sweet spot for compact revolvers in my opinion.

Plus, the Taurus 327 is built off the Taurus 856. Which is a large gun than a S&W J-Frame.

Widths:
J-frame - 1.306"
85 - 1.356"
856 - 1.41"
K-frame - 1.445"

The 856/327 has a larger cylinder window. The frame, from topstrap to ahead of the trigger guard, where the crane hinges, is also larger too.

The S&W J-Frame physically is a smaller gun than the Taurus 856/327.

By that logic, The .357 revolvers work great so..... why go backwards to .327?

In the case of S&W's 431/442 & 631/642 vs the Taurus 856/327, it comes down to size. The Taurus is physically a larger gun. As a .38 Special, it holds six rounds of .38 Special. But the gun isn't capable of handling .357 Magnum due to the thin cylinder walls. It seems it can handle .327 Federal Mag since the cylinder walls are slightly thicker with a .32 cartridge.

With the S&W J-Frame, since they're building it off the .38 Special and not the .357 Magnum capable 340/360/640. The guns probably can't handle the pressure for .327 Federal Mag. Plus, you're getting six shots instead of five as you do with .38 Special or .357 Magnum in the J-Frame.

Now, as for the comfort of shooting it. I've cranked off full-power .357 Mag from a J-Frame and man, it leaves an impression. A painful one.

I've heard shooting full-power .327 Federal Mag is similar to .357 Mag.

Personally, if I were to purchase the Taurus 327, it'd probably be carried with .32 H&R Mag anyways. But, the J-Frame is a manageable with .32 H&R Mag and it is a smaller gun, but still a six shot piece.

What made the .327 popular was in guns like the SP101. Where it was a five shot .357 Mag but a six shot in .327 Federal Mag.

As I said, the S&W J-Frame is smaller than the Taurus 327/856.



You're getting a six shot .32 H&R Mag in a platform that is traditionally a five shot .38 Special. The Taurus is a six shot .38 Special and a six shot .327 Fed Mag.

So, both are an upgrade. With the S&W, you're getting an extra round. With the Taurus, you're getting more power. Because Taurus doesn't make a six shot .357 Mag that's the size of the 327/856. The Taurus 605 is a five shot .357 Mag gun.

.32 H&R Mag is supposed to be giving you .38 Special +P and .327 Federal Mag is supposed to be giving you .357 Mag.

100grn hydrashock factory load out of my Taurus 327 was about as the same as shooting 158grn out of my 686+.

I was ready for the pain but it wasn't like everyone said it was.  

I often find myself wondering if people lamenting the fact that the 432/632UC are not offered in .327 Federal have actually fired .327 Federal.  I don't have a 432UC yet.  I just bought one online yesterday and it hasn't arrived yet.  I have a 332.  It has the titanium cylinder and is a little bit of a handful even in .32 Magnum.  I also have a LCR in .327.  It is reasonably pleasant to shoot with all .32 Magnum ammunition and with the .327 Federal 85 grain Hydrashok reduced recoil load (not sure they still make it, I have several boxes hanging around).  With the .327 Speer 115 grain Gold Dot (again, not sure if this is still offered), it is just as unpleasant as a .357 Magnum LCR shooting full power ammunition.  

A Smith Airweight, even if it could stand up to the increased pressure and recoil of the .327, is not the proper vehicle for that cartridge.  The reality is chambering the 432/632 in .327 would have required the Scandium frame and would have bumped the cost up to at least that of the 340 M&P.  What would one really get out of that?  The ability to use ammunition with more blast, flash, recoil, and expense that doesn't have an established history of working better than .32 Magnum.  When I carry my LCR it is either with the .327 85 grain Hydrashok or some variety of .32 Magnum.  I wish .32 Magnum ammunition was more readily available.  The big advantage .327 does have (at least for now) is the availability of 50 round boxes of practice ammo from Federal.  .32 Magnum from all the "major players" seems to be 20 round boxes only.  There is a reasonable supply of .32 S&W Long practice ammo in 50 round boxes.  That works for a .32 Magnum gun, but the experience is not the same.

In a vacuum I think the .38 Special is a better cartridge than the .32 Magnum.  It has way better ammunition availability and price, a solid track record going back many decades, and can shoot bigger, heavier bullets at similar velocities.  However, we don't operate in a vacuum.  The .32 is much easier to control in a J-frame size gun, more pleasant to shoot, offers a 20% increase in ammunition capacity over a .38 J-frame, and still has adequate performance (at least in theory).  Both guns are trade offs.  My current around the house gun is the above mentioned 332 with CT-405 laser grips.  It weighs basically nothing, so I don't notice it is there most of the time.  Once the 432UC gets here and I can test it, it will probably replace the 332 as my house gun.  It weighs a little more, but the sights are a huge improvement over the 332.  My eyes are now 23 years older than when I made my ARFCOM account.  Seeing standard fixed revolver sights is nearly a thing of the past for me.  I'll swap the CT-405 grips onto the 432UC and have sights I can see and a laser in case I have to shoot from a weird position.  

When I go out in the world carrying revolvers I still mostly carry .38 Specials or 9mm LCRs.  However, I think the .32 Magnum has a place.

I just scored one of these on gunbroker today for a fair price. Looking forward to seeing what the recoil impulse is like.

I am a died in the wool S&W guy but in my opinion the Ruger LCR has a better trigger than the S&W J frames. The LCR is very close in trigger pull to the S&W K or L frame.

Shooting a revolver well is very much all about the trigger.

Correct me if wrong but doesn't the 32 H&R mag (in a small gun) fall between 38spl and 38spl+P ?

My old pocket carry gun is a S&W 442 that is rated for +P . I carry it only with standard 38spcial because I can get off 5 well placed shots is a reasonable time frame.
When I try a run with +P I find to get good hits I have to slow way down or my accuracy suffers.

Perhaps I should try the LCT in 32 H&Rmag . I might get a touch more power than the standard 38 spl and also have 6 shots.

I also find the black sight to be easier to see than the silver alloy sights on my 442

How’s the QC on your example. I decided to pass on the UC guns after reading too many complaints.

Mine is great. Front sight 100%. Crane gap is good. Zero problems.

How are the sights regulated?

By computer? Shoots POA with everything I've put through it so far elevation wise, but it does shoot a bit left.

Not familiar with this caliber.....now curious......I'm starting to like revolvers more and more.

Not really. The 32 H&R is pretty weak, about like a 380 acp. The 327 Federal is a HUGE step up, gets really close to 357 magnum. For some numbers, in a 2" barrel 32 H&R I would expect a 85gr 900-1000 fps. In the same gun a 327 Federal I would expect a 100gr over 1250-1300 fps.

Why a company would chamber a revolver in 32 H&R now I have no idea. It's not a bad round if you want it, but they work great in a 327 Federal chamber, so why would you bother making a 32 H&R chamber? Then again, I don't understand why companies still put a groove in a frame and call it a "sight" when they could add a far superior dovetail rear like that just as easy.

A jframe in 32 is a fantastic mixture of conceal ability and shoot ability.

327 mag requires a steel frame or an expensive scandium frame.

I fitted some of the Taurus boot grips to my 432.  One of my favorite grips with my long fingers.  You can see where I ened-up over drilling the pin hole.

Attached File

How much of a whip is needed to beat a dead horse?

Everything that is old is new again.  S&W probably reintroduced a snub in 32 H&R Mag because of licensing issues with Ruger & Federal.  Smith needed a competitive offering to .327 Fed guns.  They dug out the .32 H&R Magnum proofs.

They will sell some guns to a niche.  It will eventually peter off for the same reasons as it did in the past.  It is a solution is search of a problem.

No new self defense caliber will be widely accepted by the public until it is adopted by a major military or law enforcement agency.  The odds of a NATO power widely issuing a new revolver, let alone one in a new caliber, is nil.

A better buggy whip is still a buggy whip.

That may be true, but how much does it matter? I ask that honestly, I can't find the numbers. This 632 in 32 H&R is listed at 16.3 ounces. The Ruger LCR in 327 Federal with same barrel length is listed at 17 ounces. I realize they are different brands and models, but I don't see why the weight would be that much different for so much more capability.

I really doubt this is the issue. S&W used to make the same exact model chambered for 327 Federal. They were released very early just after the Ruger SP101. The only problem for S&W is they were both much more expensive, and they came with that goofy porting as though a snub nose wasn't loud and flashy enough. Plus S&W at that time had a really poor reputation in revolvers. They did not sell nearly as well as the Rugers, and the caliber was not the problem.

A steel frame concealed hammer Jframe weighs about 22-ounces

@dump1567, do you write for Revolver Guys? Because they just did an article about Taurus grips on a S&W and did the same thing.

It was a steel frame gun and weighed in at 24 ounces.



https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/smith-wesson-model-632-327-fed-mag-revolver/

I wish I knew how to write.  

I actually saw someone on the S&W forum post about these grips last year.  So, I ordered a couple off Ebay to give them a try.  They were right.  But unless you've got skills, you're stuck with the Taurus logo.  And it's hard to drill the correct pin hole depth without accidently punching all the way through.

I didn't realize they were such tanks. That's almost as much as a Ruger SP101. I guess in that context a 32 H&R makes sense, but they make those Airweight models in 357 magnum, you would think they could work for 327 federal too.

The .32 H&R is made out of Aluminum. The .357 Mag is made out of Scandium.

Yeah, scandium frames. They start at about $1050 and no fun to shoot with magnum ammo.

And most people will never fire 5-rounds of 357 Mag from a scandium JFrame. I’ve seen recoil junkies that love 44Mag stop, bleeding, after two rounds.

Or .327 Fed Mag out of one if it was made.  But we have an obsession with “more power”.  Most of which isn’t needed for 2 legged self-defense.

I've done ten; shoot, reload, shoot. My knuckle was bleeding a little but I can say I did it.    Definitely not fun and I usually carry .38 +Ps in it but I'll occasionally do a cylinder of .357s just for practice.

All I know is the 327 Federal in a 17 ounce Ruger LCR is not horrible. It's not what I consider enjoyable, but you could shoot 100 rounds in a day just fine. They are like shooting 38 special +p.

They also work great with 32 H&R... and 32 Long, and 32 short. I've even shot 32 acp in mine a time or two. Seems pretty dumb not to chamber for 327 federal.

It’s a great gun and the .327 is far better than .32 h&r which is pretty anemic. I’ve always found steel frame lcrs with tamer grips heavier and bulkier than j frames. 38sp+p is and has always been the best airweght j frame cartridge imo. I had a 432pd, just hard to find quality ammo unless you hand load. And no snake shot in .32.

It’s cool s&w made it but they need to do something in .327 fed. Personally I’d take the 340m&p over a 432.

My 432uc arrived and sadly I have a dim front sight, so I’ll be sending it back off to S&W for warranty. I had read a few posts about qc issues and was disappointed to see mine was one of them. There is also a large gouge in the top of the frame which is under the finish. Bummer but I’m still excited to shoot it.

Just a suggestion, It might be a good idea to run 100 + round's of mixed ammo prior to sending it in,
It's quite possible you'll find additional issues that could be addressed / documented in the same trip back to S&W.

Looking at getting a 442 UC

How are you guys liking yours?

I'm happy with my 642 UC, for me, the sights took some getting used to but I've found if I put the ball in the bottom of the U rear I'm good with WC's and 132 PMC shoot pretty close to same POI as a practice round. The trigger was a little heavier than I expected but smooth at about 10.5 lb out of the box, after a few hundred dry fires and live rounds I put in an Apex kit and as it was completely bone dry put a little Lucas Extreme on the right spots. I've got just over 1000 rd's through it now and the trigger has settled in at a consistent 8.5 lb's. I'm running CT 405 grips and have it in my pocket 14hrs a day 7 days a week. I would suggest checking it out well before taking it home, Lipsey's is great but S&W is know for poor QC and some UC's have had issues.

Nice gun. Could you tell if the manual that comes with the gun says that it can shoot .32 long? Thanks.