HELLO everyone,
I found this video on YouTube about comparison between .22 revolver and .32 revolver. I think it is very well made so thought of sharing with fellow enthusiasts. Where in India do we have such ranges as shown in the video? Respected members please suggest similar range where we can go and practice fire.
.22 LR vs .32 s&w long revolver comparison
-
black_knight
- Fresh on the boat
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2021 10:22 am
.22 LR vs .32 s&w long revolver comparison
Last edited by black_knight on Sat Nov 13, 2021 3:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Peacefulguns
- Almost at nirvana
- Posts: 136
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 5:49 pm
Re: .22 LR vs .32 s&w comparison
Looks to be a good review.
-
timmy
- Old Timer
- Posts: 3027
- Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:03 am
- Location: home on the range
Re: .22 LR vs .32 s&w long revolver comparison
I liked this review because it was informative. I learned a few things from it. This is a huge improvement over some of the rubbish we've seen posted here purporting to be "reviews" of late. Here are my comments, based on what I've learned from watching:
1. He calls the 22 a "J Frame" and the 32 a "K Frame." I don't know if this is official IOF nomenclature, but the 22 does look to be about the size of a Smith & Wesson J Frame revolver (on which the "Chief's Special" snubbie is based) and it does appear, from what I can see, to have some similarities to the Smith & Wesson. The 32 might be about the size of a Smith & Wesson K or L Frame; I can't say for sure. Unlike the Smith & Wesson, however, it is based on the Webley break open design. It is larger and probably heavier that the 22 in any case.
2. I can't say that I was impressed with the accuracy of the shooting. I don't know whether this is due to the skills of the shooter, the inaccuracy of the revolvers, or the quality of the ammunition (or some combination of these factors). I know that some may say that the shooting skills might be due to the lack of practice that ammunition quotas impose, but I would respond that it's been quite sometime since I've been shooting handguns before I got here, and I'm seeing this sort of shooting as "lacking" from a self-defense perspective, whatever the cause.
3. The 32 misfired once when being shot double action, but fired the same round when fired single action. While this may well be attributable to the quality of the ammunition, I would chiefly find fault with the gun. Double action does not have quite the hammer travel in a double action revolver than single action, so the problem here is a light hammer strike in double action. This performance indicates that the 32 is not suitable for self defense in its current state. Either the gun should be discarded (sold?), returned to the factory to correct the defect, or taken to a gunsmith to be fixed. If the gun does not reliably go "bang" when it is fired, it cannot be trusted and is, in my opinion, useless as a self-defense arm, though it might have application as a "range toy."
4. The 32 failed to eject once. While not quite as serious as failing to go "bang," it is still a critical negative. One might carry without reloads, fair enough, and there's five rounds available (even if they might not all reliably fire). But if one expects to carry reloads, this failure precludes that ability, which might be needed to save one's life.
5. The 22 shot better. Whether this was due to the shooter's ability to control the gun that has less recoil, or whether the gun is more accurate than the 32, or whether the quality of the ammunition was better (or a combination of these factors), I cannot tell. Still, the 22 performed well and fired all of its rounds. The slower reloading process is inherent in the solid frame design (although the quality of the 32 negated this advantage) and there are eight, rather than five rounds available. Here, I note that the 32 is unsafe to carry with a loaded chamber under the hammer, so it is effectively a "5 shooter." This makes the failure to fire even more critical, and increases the seriousness of jams during attempts to reload it. I can't comment about the safety of the 22 when there's a round under the chamber. This is certainly something that should be checked on the 22 before it is carried in this manner.
My analysis from a self defense perspective. Hands down, I would go for the 22 as a carry weapon, given the choice between these two as they are shown. This video highlights the NECESSITY of range time and practice, not only to improve skills, but to identify whether a gun is reliable enough for use. The 22 seems to be. For the 32, were I to have to carry it, I would tie a long string around the trigger guard so that I could swing it around my head and hit someone with it if required to defend myself.
The 22, being smaller (and, I assume, lighter) would also have an advantage for a woman to carry. It is more concealable, in a purse or handbag, for example, and also is easier to shoot for someone who has relatively little shooting experience and may be recoil-sensitive. (32 S&W is no barn-burner, either, but still, the 22 has less, and this would be an advantage.)
If 22 ammunition is available from sources other than IOF (even if at an increased cost), I would also see this as a distinct advantage to using the 22, since one could load it with something of known reliability, at least when carrying it.
This is an American site that tests a number of cartridges and ammunition brands for penetration. Note that the graphs show the performance of each shot fired in relationship to the 305 mm minimum penetration level considered necessary for effective self-defense. Also pay attention to the different barrel lengths tested for each brand, as this does make a significant difference in most cases. For both of these rounds, minimum or sub-minimum performance means that firing more than once may be necessary (a consideration that works against the 32 in the video's case).
22 Performance:
https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/pocket ... ults/#22LR
32 Performance:
https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/pocket ... ts/#32Long
What is noteworthy about these tests, besides the use of ballistic gel to get meaningful results, is the test of 32 S&W Long. Very few places will test this cartridge because it is seldom used for self-defense outside of India. For this reason alone, these tests are significant.
1. He calls the 22 a "J Frame" and the 32 a "K Frame." I don't know if this is official IOF nomenclature, but the 22 does look to be about the size of a Smith & Wesson J Frame revolver (on which the "Chief's Special" snubbie is based) and it does appear, from what I can see, to have some similarities to the Smith & Wesson. The 32 might be about the size of a Smith & Wesson K or L Frame; I can't say for sure. Unlike the Smith & Wesson, however, it is based on the Webley break open design. It is larger and probably heavier that the 22 in any case.
2. I can't say that I was impressed with the accuracy of the shooting. I don't know whether this is due to the skills of the shooter, the inaccuracy of the revolvers, or the quality of the ammunition (or some combination of these factors). I know that some may say that the shooting skills might be due to the lack of practice that ammunition quotas impose, but I would respond that it's been quite sometime since I've been shooting handguns before I got here, and I'm seeing this sort of shooting as "lacking" from a self-defense perspective, whatever the cause.
3. The 32 misfired once when being shot double action, but fired the same round when fired single action. While this may well be attributable to the quality of the ammunition, I would chiefly find fault with the gun. Double action does not have quite the hammer travel in a double action revolver than single action, so the problem here is a light hammer strike in double action. This performance indicates that the 32 is not suitable for self defense in its current state. Either the gun should be discarded (sold?), returned to the factory to correct the defect, or taken to a gunsmith to be fixed. If the gun does not reliably go "bang" when it is fired, it cannot be trusted and is, in my opinion, useless as a self-defense arm, though it might have application as a "range toy."
4. The 32 failed to eject once. While not quite as serious as failing to go "bang," it is still a critical negative. One might carry without reloads, fair enough, and there's five rounds available (even if they might not all reliably fire). But if one expects to carry reloads, this failure precludes that ability, which might be needed to save one's life.
5. The 22 shot better. Whether this was due to the shooter's ability to control the gun that has less recoil, or whether the gun is more accurate than the 32, or whether the quality of the ammunition was better (or a combination of these factors), I cannot tell. Still, the 22 performed well and fired all of its rounds. The slower reloading process is inherent in the solid frame design (although the quality of the 32 negated this advantage) and there are eight, rather than five rounds available. Here, I note that the 32 is unsafe to carry with a loaded chamber under the hammer, so it is effectively a "5 shooter." This makes the failure to fire even more critical, and increases the seriousness of jams during attempts to reload it. I can't comment about the safety of the 22 when there's a round under the chamber. This is certainly something that should be checked on the 22 before it is carried in this manner.
My analysis from a self defense perspective. Hands down, I would go for the 22 as a carry weapon, given the choice between these two as they are shown. This video highlights the NECESSITY of range time and practice, not only to improve skills, but to identify whether a gun is reliable enough for use. The 22 seems to be. For the 32, were I to have to carry it, I would tie a long string around the trigger guard so that I could swing it around my head and hit someone with it if required to defend myself.
The 22, being smaller (and, I assume, lighter) would also have an advantage for a woman to carry. It is more concealable, in a purse or handbag, for example, and also is easier to shoot for someone who has relatively little shooting experience and may be recoil-sensitive. (32 S&W is no barn-burner, either, but still, the 22 has less, and this would be an advantage.)
If 22 ammunition is available from sources other than IOF (even if at an increased cost), I would also see this as a distinct advantage to using the 22, since one could load it with something of known reliability, at least when carrying it.
This is an American site that tests a number of cartridges and ammunition brands for penetration. Note that the graphs show the performance of each shot fired in relationship to the 305 mm minimum penetration level considered necessary for effective self-defense. Also pay attention to the different barrel lengths tested for each brand, as this does make a significant difference in most cases. For both of these rounds, minimum or sub-minimum performance means that firing more than once may be necessary (a consideration that works against the 32 in the video's case).
22 Performance:
https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/pocket ... ults/#22LR
32 Performance:
https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/pocket ... ts/#32Long
What is noteworthy about these tests, besides the use of ballistic gel to get meaningful results, is the test of 32 S&W Long. Very few places will test this cartridge because it is seldom used for self-defense outside of India. For this reason alone, these tests are significant.
“Fanaticism consists of redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim.”
saying in the British Royal Navy
saying in the British Royal Navy
-
winnie_the_pooh
- Veteran
- Posts: 1767
- Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 1:49 pm
Re: .22 LR vs .32 s&w long revolver comparison
The IOF made guns are bad but their ammo is pathetic.It would rank as some of the worst in the world.A member had referred to S&B ammo as bad but compared to the KF ammo ,it is world class.The reason why the .22 revolver did better than the .32 is because of that.
The surprising thing is that while there is a lot of talk of making better guns, there is not much about making better ammo.Even the Indian army is using KF ammo in their newly bought SIG rifles.
Looking at the range I would guess the reviewer is from the armed forces who are the largest consumers of ordnance factories products. Hence the ready acceptance of manner in which the guns are functioning and the comment that the .32 revolver would improve with use.
The surprising thing is that while there is a lot of talk of making better guns, there is not much about making better ammo.Even the Indian army is using KF ammo in their newly bought SIG rifles.
Looking at the range I would guess the reviewer is from the armed forces who are the largest consumers of ordnance factories products. Hence the ready acceptance of manner in which the guns are functioning and the comment that the .32 revolver would improve with use.
-
4X4
- Almost at nirvana
- Posts: 164
- Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2020 1:55 pm
Re: .22 LR vs .32 s&w long revolver comparison
A very good review and comparison there.
I saw the other uploaded Gun reviews too on YouTube , all very well made.
I saw the other uploaded Gun reviews too on YouTube , all very well made.