A Deadly Load for the 32 H&R Magnum

[Talyn]

The 32 H&R Magnum was introduced in 1984 by Federal Cartridge, at the behest of Harrington & Richardson, a venerable company that supplied revolvers to the economy end of the market. It’s nothing more than the 32 S&W Long lengthened by a seventh of an inch.

the 32 H&R was a disappointment to many – including, apparently, Federal, because in 2008, it introduced the 327 Federal Magnum. This is the 32 H&R case lengthened another eighth of an inch (.125 inch).

https://www.handloadermagazine.com/a-deadly-load-for-the-32-h-r-magnum

 

[Sld1959]

I can see someone not already invested in .38/.357 mag strongly considering the .32 family of .327/32 hr it has a lot to offer.

 

[BarryinIN]

I don’t about the Lehigh Defense bullets, but I am a fan of the .32 H&R Mag.

I call it my “reloadable .22” when loaded with cast bullets and TiteGroup but it’s more than that. The factory loads are limited by the H&R revolvers it was designed for, so in turn a lot of load data is pretty tame. Brian Pearce had a good article in Handloader a few years back with loads meant for the Ruger SA and some others. He didn’t get crazy with it, but he boosted the speed some.

I have mostly loaded for a Ruger Single Six, but have a S&W 431PD also. Bullets from an NOE Molds copy of the RCBS 32-102SWC get shot the most, but the Sierra 90 JHP does well also.

It’s economical. I can load a lot of them and it seems like the powder level hardly moves in the powder measure. I should try a lighter bullet mould meant for the .32 ACP (Around 60 grains). That could be a real component stretcher.

The 32 H&R Mag has more bark than some expect. It’s only my opinion, but I think a lot of people would be better served by a 32 H&R Mag snub than a 38 Spl.

 

[ECS686]

What makes the 32 H&R shine is small J frame revolvers. You can stuff 32 S&W long in them with a 6th round. Not much recoil more than a 22 Mag and with full target wadcutters will cut a hole and get to the goods. And being Centerfire it will have more reliable ignition and can have a better trigger than a 22 Rimfire that has to have a heavier trigger for reliable Ignis when talking Wheelguns.

As far as 327 mag that also has a place and works better in a steel frame like Ruger SP101 the new 3” Lipseys makes a perfect trail gun stuff it with deep penetration 327 mags for whatever and then 32 H&R and 32 S&W Long for anything else.

 

[ajkidd58]

has anybody tried making 32 H&R +P loads using trimmed 327 Mag brass? Granted the powder charge would have to be adjusted for a reduced capacity but the stronger case may facilitate a higher-pressure 'strong gun/blackhawk only' H&R mag load? Just a thought...

 

[ECS686]

has anybody tried making 32 H&R +P loads using trimmed 327 Mag brass? Granted the powder charge would have to be adjusted for a reduced capacity but the stronger case may facilitate a higher-pressure 'strong gun/blackhawk only' H&R mag load? Just a thought...

Not sure what the point would be. How can one tak a 32 H&R “Magnum “ or and “Magnum” Amd brand it a plus P it sort of already is, I mean maybe Mazimum would be a better claim but that’s what the 327 is for

But everyone is free to do whatever

 

[youngolddude]

The .32 Mag. is perfect for the Single Six and the wife enjoys hers. Smaller hands fit the grip better than a standard size Ruger or Colt. Her loads take down knockdown shotgun targets easily and still are comfortable to shoot. I see other people using heavier .38 loads just for knockdowns, which sometimes are misloaded (heavies are used on static plates) and they have pooch loads left for the knockdowns.

 

[Grayfox]

I have a S&W 16-4. Great gun and I have experimented some with the .32 H&R. It never really impressed me any. It does nothing a plain old .38 Special can't do better.
These days I mostly use my 16-4 for target shooting using .32 Long ammo.

 

[ECS686]

I have a S&W 16-4. Great gun and I have experimented some with the .32 H&R. It never really impressed me any. It does nothing a plain old .38 Special can't do better.
These days I mostly use my 16-4 for target shooting using .32 Long ammo.

That’s where a lot of these 32 H&R and 327 Fed have an overlooked option. Running 32 S&W Long!

I kick myself for passing on a pristine S&W 16 earlier this year!

 

[Grayfox]

Over on the S&W Forum, members have discovered that the cylinder in the J-frame .32 Long guns is long enough to be reamed out to take the .32 H&R round. Its becoming a fairly common modification on the older .32 S&Ws and gives the little pocket gun some extra punch. However, its not long enough to take the .327 Fed.
The K-frame 16-4 can accommodate the .327, but these guns are on the rare side and its inadvisable as such a mod drops the value considerably.

 

[Shibadog]

Please don’t talk about the 32’s. I’ve been secretly lusting after one for years but have thus far been able to talk myself out of it-now here y’all go, and if I’m not careful hill cost me some $$$

 

[FNFAN]

Okay, how many 32 H&R Magnums could you fit in a cylinder diameter of 1.710"? I'm thinking 10 with nicely beefy walls between each chamber. We already know you can fit 8 .357's....

 

[Grayfox]

Please don’t talk about the 32’s. I’ve been secretly lusting after one for years but have thus far been able to talk myself out of it-now here y’all go, and if I’m not careful hill cost me some $$$

Everybody should have a couple of .32s around. Great little guns, accurate and almost no recoil.
Here are mine. The little 2" snub was my wife's gun. She loved it.
But of course, these are revolvers. There's always the .32 acp as well.

 

[Captain O]

How do people feel about the Charter Arms "Undercoverette"? I have heard varying stories about accuracy.

I have 3 .32 Long revolvers (2.5" barreled H&R 732, 3" barreled Taurus Model 74, 3.25" S&W I Frame, and a 2" S&W Centennial Airweight Model 632 in .32 H&R Magnum).

Fill me in.

 

[RedGoat]

I've always looked at the .32 cal revolvers (as well as the .30 carbine Blackhawks) as nifty small game/varmint eradication and plain ol' plinking rounds. However, I can't really claim to have vast amounts of hands-on experience with them. I've always tended to just fall back to my rimfire guns for such tasks. Also, for whatever reasons, guns chambered for these cartridges just don't turn up very often in the firearms emporiums that I haunt.

 

[Captain O]

If you don't (or can't) realize the power of the .32 H&R Magnum in its full-power context, then you haven't been looking. This is typical of the "myopic-American" philosophy-belief that "a bigger bore is a better bore".

Back in the early 1980's, I knew a man who routinely took his S&W revolver out hunting bobcats and had more than one mounted in his house.

 

[RedGoat]

If you don't (or can't) realize the power of the .32 H&R Magnum in its full-power context, then you haven't been looking. This is typical of the "myopic-American" philosophy-belief that "a bigger bore is a better bore".

I think that underestimating the power of any cartridge is a failing of many of us. I blame the shill drivel foisted off on us by the constant loud whine of the publicity engine fueled by so-called gun writers. It used to be delivered in written form via the printed gun rags, now it is pushed at us via the interwebs.

I formerly looked down my nose at the 9mm, the 38 Special, and even the 357 Magnum. Then, one day, it clicked in my mind: The old .36 caliber Navy cap and ball revolver made many a widow through the output of its business end. The aforementioned cartridges are direct descendants of that venerable and proven weapon. The .32 caliber is much the same. It was a respectable caliber well before the days of centerfire cartridges. With modern bullet technology and smokeless powder velocities, none of these cartridges / calibers are to be sneezed at. They are now more effective than ever before. We are too often guilty of falling prey to the siren song of the press.

I'll add this lengthy assertion (at the risk of starting a controversy): Handgun cartridges (of any caliber) are inferior "stoppers" (of both types of critters: two legged and four legged) compared to a full power rifle round. In hunting the four legged kind, one chooses to use a handgun for either the challenge or because it is what's at hand whenever the target presents itself. In self-defense against either the two-legged or four-legged kinds, handguns are tools of convenience, not necessarily the optimal tool of choice. In both use cases, bullet placement is crucial, and if the desired result is not obtained immediately, keep shooting (one at a time, as well placed as possible, please and thank your very much) until the necessary result IS obtained.