Smith & Wesson 327

[Raptor]

When some one talks of firepower,the image that it conjures up is that of a machinegun. Somehow the words, hand gun and firepower do not come to my mind at the same time.

a la spandau ballet, sir? seen a modified indian bren in action at a military range...i was like ' o poop ...o poop ....o poop '

[BowMan]

Bowman how did you come up with ME figures without muzzle velocity figures?

The link that TImmy gave has muzzle velocity in fps. I used the same formula that XL has quoted or alternatively this link can be used. You just need to enter bullet weight and muzzle velocity and press calculate.

http://www.shooterscalculator.com/bulle ... energy.php

It's a bit queer but the second post attributed to me was not typed by me!!!

[BowMan]

Hi XL,

Correct me if I am wrong but the Sig P220 and Sig P226 are both full sized handguns so will it be fair to compare M.E. with a snubby revolver?

Also Sig P225 is most compact of the three but it will still have a barrel length of 3.9 inches.

The highest M.E. from these figures is from a 6 inch revolver but then the longest barrel of the handguns is 4.9 inches.

I say too many variable factors to really make for a good comparison.

Better still let's not make this a revolver vs semi auto thread and enjoy a fine revolver for what it is!

What are your thoughts?

Regards

[TC]

Raptor,

When a pistol jams,clearing the jam is a pretty simple process and you can do it yourself.

When a revolver jams,it is an oh shit! moment and you require a gunsmith

Winnie... let me share two old stories.

Several years ago, out of sheer ignorance and impatience of a 14 year old, I had inserted a couple of VERY VERY old 9mm rounds in my uncle's WWII vintage Luger P 08 and fired. The first shot went down the range albeit with a very unfamiliar low noise. I should have noticed the difference in noise signature but at 14 I was more eager to squeeze the trigger. The second shot sounded like a "BURP" , some smoke came out of the breech and nothing seemed to leave the muzzle. Realising that I have done some serious damage to the world's most wonderful pistol I held the weapon pointed towards the target for five minutes and then tried to pull the toggle. It wont lift.

Damage done - a bullet tightly seated halfway down the barrel and a swelled and cracked case jammed at the breech.

My uncle, who was my guru and a gunsmith of the highest order (calling him genius would be a gross understatement) took two days to bring back the Luger to its old form. He did not scold me but just said : "Remember, never judge the age of a cartridge by the shine on the casing. Always check the box. The age of the box, unless some idiot has swapped it, tells you how old a cartridge is and whether it should be fired at all."

Second experience :

Another uncle of mine, a judge during the turbulent 70s in Bengal, used to carry a service issue .38 Smith and Wesson. It was just a carry weapon and he never had to fire it. One day, just to check whether the weapon was in order he went to our country home and loaded all six chambers with cartridges that came with the weapon at the time of issue. He fired. The first two shots went down fine. The third left with a lighter report. That was the alarm signal but my uncle did not realise it. He went on. The fourth shot went like a hand cannon !! My uncle stopped and we decided to check the weapon.

Damage done - The third bullet, thanks to old powder, had got lodged about an inch behind the muzzle and the fourth bullet pushed it out and cleared the barrel. Luckily the barrel did not crack. Neither did it bulge. This was sheer luck as, in incidents like these, both can happen. The rifling however had been damaged. There were four of five deep scars on the grooves and muzzle end. The weapon would never shoot straight again.

Just thought of sharing two experiences of jamming : one with a pistol and the other with a revolver. Both weapons were in fine working condition. The culprits were old cartridges. Till now I have not personally experienced any jamming caused by mechanical failure of any of my pistols or revolvers. By mechanical failure I mean some of the following :

Broken or bent extractor, extractor retaining pin or extractor spring etc
Broken or bent hammer spring, hammer retaining pivot pin, firing pin, firing pin retaining pin, firing pin spring etc
Broken or bent sear, sear rod, sear spring etc
Broken or bent trigger pivot rod, trigger ratchet, trigger spring etc

Cheers

TC

[Raptor]

so basically, if your number's up...... it's up!

[timmy]

XL thanks for the hard evidence figures. My mental calculation of the author's figure of ~5000 ft-lbs for eight shots for a 2" barrel worked out to something like 630 ft-lbs per round. To me, this level of muzzle energy from a 2" barrel 357 meant only one thing: BS! There was no way, in my mind, that any 357 from a 2" barrel snubby was going to be twice as powerful as a 45 ACP or 9mm.

There is only so much powder, no matter how quick-burning it is, one can burn in a 2" barrel!

Correct me if I am wrong but the Sig P220 and Sig P226 are both full sized handguns so will it be fair to compare M.E. with a snubby revolver?

Answer:

1. Take a Sig P220 or P226 and place it on a table.

2. Take a 2" barrel snubbie revolver and lay it on the table next to the Sig.

3. Take a revolver of the same model as the snubbie, but with a 4" barrel, and place it on the table next to the other two handguns.

Now, when one is comparing handguns for carry and concealed use, by looking at these three guns on the table, you will have your answer as to what is fair to compare.

[BowMan]

Hi Timmy,

The post by XL was about BALLISTICS and not CONCEALIBILITY. Based on those figures I feel we are comparing apples to oranges.

As regards suitability of this versus that, let me quote one of Masaad Ayoob's commandments (I hope you are a believer );

"Maximize Your Firearms Familiarity
The more you work with the firearm, the more reflexively skilled you will become in its emergency use and its safe handling. If your home defense shotgun is a Remington 870, then when you go claybird shooting or hunting, use an 870 pump gun with a barrel and choke appropriate for each task. If you are a target shooter who uses the 1911 pistol platform at bull’s-eye matches and have become deeply familiar with it, it makes sense to acquire a concealable 1911 to use as your carry gun, so that the ingrained skill will directly transfer. If a double-action .44 Magnum is your hunting revolver, and another double-action revolver is your home defense gun, it makes sense to choose a carry-size revolver as your concealment handgun when you’re out and about.

Consider training classes or competition shoots where your chosen defensive firearm is appropriate to the course of fire. This skill-building will translate to self-defense ability if your carry gun ever has to be used to protect innocent life and limb. If training ammunition is too expensive, consider a .22 conversion unit for your semiautomatic pistol or a .22 caliber revolver the same size as your defensive .38 or .357. The more trigger time you have with a similar gun, the more confidence and competence you’ll have with the gun you carry, if you can’t afford to practice as much as you’d like with the carry gun itself."

That couples with what TC has narrated should be more than sufficient to indicate that we have been barking up the wrong tree when it comes to this revolver vs semi auto debate. All has been said and done but no side has been able to convince or convert one from the other.

Does it all not come down to familiarity and personal preference?

Regards
BowMan

[Raptor]

on a lighter note-personal favorite is a Minimi! the problem is............it's too damn costly! :p

[timmy]

Bowman:

The post by XL was about BALLISTICS and not CONCEALIBILITY. Based on those figures I feel we are comparing apples to oranges.

You are quite right, XL's post is about ballistics, and was specifically a response to what I had written as a commentary on the author's dubious claims about the imaginary advantage of this revolver over a 45 ACP and 9mm pistol as a carry and conceal weapon.

But while we are informing each other about what things are about, may I remind you that XL's, yours, and my posts are all in a thread about a snub nosed revolver, and that the chief rationale behind such a weapon is concealability? Thus, I cannot accept your implied assertion that my comment was irrelevant. In other words, I do not feel as if I am comparing apples to oranges. If I were, what would be the need to post counter-arguments to my statements, such as the supposed reliability advantage of revolvers over semiautos? If we are going to have the discussion comparing carry and conceal weapons (which again, after all, is the purpose of a snubby in the first place), it is not consistent to engage me on those grounds and then midstream, allege my comments to be irrelevant when the current is not traveling in an advantageous direction to your hypothesis.

Regarding Massaad Ayoob in general and the piece you quoted in particular: I feel it is relevant to post his comments Ina discussion of handguns, particularly when the topic is not specifically hunting handguns.

I agree that there is an advantage to practicing with the same guns one carries, and that there is an advantage to developing reflexive familiarity with a certain type so that, when the chips are down, one will instinctively respond in the most advantageous way.

However, let us be frank here: Ayoob was a lifetime law enforcement officer, whose job was to put his life in harm's way every day, including being out in many situations of a spontaneous nature. How many of us, on this board, are in that category? How many of us use a handgun 24 hours a day, 7 days a week?

I will be the first to answer my own questions and say I do not. I seldom carry a handgun. I am a recreational shooter. I shoot mainly hand loaded target rounds and other than some loads I developed long ago from recipes others researched, am chiefly concerned with the accuracy and expense of my ammunition, rather than the velocity and penetration.

That said, I have shot quite a bit and have an up close and personal acquaintance with subjects like jamming and reliability with my four semiauto pistols, four double action revolvers, and the single action revolver that I do shoot. I also have familiarity with the guns and performance of those guns owned by some others, to varying degrees.

While I find Ayoob's comments interesting from an academic standpoint and helpful from a personal one, because his advice comes from a much different world of shooting (life and death, which, thank goodness, I don't share), I don't feel the need to hone my skills to such a degree and limit myself to certain handguns to do so. I have a menagerie of handguns that were purchased solely on the basis of what interested me at the time I bought them, and when it comes to shooting them, the pleasure of promiscuity outweighs the functionality of fidelity to a specific type.

So, for me, having my Detective Special revolver about the house, loaded and ready, makes a lot of sense, and when I do carry, stuffing a closed up, compact semiauto that doesn't have a lot of angles, projections, and bulges, or a lot of places to collect lint and loose change makes a lot of sense.

If someone has only one handgun, then using that handgun for all purposes makes a lot of sense.

Doing what one likes makes a lot of sense, as well.

However, I'd still maintain that making unsupportable performance and reliability claims does not make much sense, which is why I called BS on the article in the first place. As such, my comments (as I have already stated several times) concern an inept writer and not an interesting handgun.

[Glock 25]

(I know fully well that we are not going to get it in India,except in certain circumstances like TR.But, that should not stop us from learning about the good stuff around.)

This bad boy packs an eight round cylinder and chambered for .357 Magnum.

The S&W 327

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/ ... rrorView_Y

[ Image ]
[ Image ]
[ Image ]
[ Image ]
[ Image ]
[ Image ]



Review:

http://www.humanevents.com/2010/12/14/s ... nd-wonder/

The unique aesthetics of the S&W Performance Center’s Model 327 revolver immediately attract attention on dealers’ shelves. It shocks the visual senses. First, the large-frame chassis combines with two-inch barrel sports Cocobolo wood round butt finger groove grips from Ahrends. To give the reader a sense of scale, the frame is derived from the Model 29 .44 Magnum N-frame. The oversized titanium cylinder holding eight rounds of .357 Magnum is another clue that something out of the ordinary is going on. The proprietary S&W barrel lock nut, which mates the stainless steel barrel insert to barrel shroud, is another anomaly. Finally, the combination of three different manufacturing materials–alloy frame, stainless steel barrel, and titanium cylinder and barrel shroud–confirms that the Model 327 is not your ordinary revolver.

Comparing the Model 327 to snubby revolvers is inevitable, but misplaced in my opinion. The Model 327 is certainly not going to fit in your front pants pocket, and should not be thought of as a snubby on steroids. The S&W 327 is a primary concealed carry handgun, not a backup weapon.

In choosing a carry handgun, practitioners must consider size, weight, capacity, and cartridge potency. The one trait that can not be compromised is reliability. Revolver aficionados always lay claim to reliability as a hallmark feature. With the eight-shot .357 Magnum Model 327, revolver lovers have a weapon featuring the same capacity as the legendary 1911 pistol. In a nutshell, some individuals are just more comfortable carrying a revolver. This can be based on several threads of reasoning: prior training and familiarity with revolvers, inherent reliability and simplicity compared to semi-automatics, no external controls necessary to get a revolver into action, ability to better manage trigger control with a double-action revolver, and greater physical requirements of operating an automatic’s slide compared to a revolver’s operations. The S&W Model 327 magnifies all of the revolver’s positive traits and minimizes revolver weaknesses such as capacity and size.

The S&W Model 327′s eight-round capacity gives a 33 percent increase in firepower over six-holed revolver cylinders. The .357 Magnum cartridge represents the near-perfect combination of controllability, power, accuracy, and lethality in a pistol cartridge. I challenge the reader to add up the foot pounds (ft/lbs) of energy stored in the Model 327′s cylinder and compare it to the number of 9mm, .40 S&W, or .45 ACP rounds required to equal that amount of energy. Eight, 125-gr .357 Magnum rounds combine for 4,992 ft/lbs of energy. To equal this you need 15 rounds of 9mm, 11 rounds of .40 S&W, and 13 rounds of .45 ACP. This is not a scientific study, but I think it gets my point across.

The inclusion of moon clips with the Model 327 shows the S&W Performance Center’s attention to detail. The ability to use either moon clips or regular loading methods is a feature reserved for high end pistolsmith work. The moon clips greatly reduce reload times and make it more convenient to carry extra ammunition. Other S&W Performance Center tweaks found in the Model 327 include the Lothar-Walther custom barrel featuring polished button rifling. The custom barrel is secured inside the titanium barrel shroud by a special lock nut system used by S&W. A Wolff mainspring and traditional sear ensure a smooth double action trigger.

The single action trigger measured a crisp 3.5 lbs with no creep, using a RCBS trigger gauge. Range testing utilized Black Hills Ammunition, Winchester, Hornady, and Federal ammunition. Both .38 Special and .357 Magnum loads were used with bullet weights of 125 gr, 140 gr, and 158 gr loads. A huge benefit for anyone who carries a .357 Magnum revolver is the ability to practice with .38 Special loads; they are more economical and not as harsh in terms of recoil and muzzle blast as the magnum loads. The importance of this is not something to be underestimated. I practice with .38 Special rounds when I want to work on shooting fundamentals without wrestling with the .357′s full power recoil and muzzle blast. Practice with .38 Special ammunition aids in building confidence, and exposes recoil-induced bad habits.

My two adolescent sons had no problems controlling the 21 ounce Model 327 when firing .38 Special loads. The large-frame grip size deserves much of the credit for this. Full power .357 Magnum loads proved problematic and uncomfortable for them. The two-inch barreled Model 327 does cause quite a stir when shooting .357 Magnum loads, with the 125 gr varieties seemingly producing more muzzle flash and blast than the heavier bullet loads. I found the two inch barrel more than adequate for a personal defense revolver. A longer barrel would only have diminishing returns by increasing weight and complicating concealability without contributing much more to the potency of the weapon.

Range evaluation consisted of a test regimen of engaging multiple steel and paper targets, firing while moving, reloading from cover, and engaging targets from behind barricades. The moon clips proved a definite advantage in reloading during these scenarios. I did not bench rest the S&W Model 327, as I feel this is worthless information for a handgun with a two inch barrel. The Model 327 with its fixed rear sight and red front ramp proved more than capable of ringing steel targets 25 yards away. In fact, when having the time to deliberately aim and fire, steel man targets more than 100 yards away were not safe. That is more than enough accuracy for a personal defense handgun. One quirk I discovered with the S&W Model 327 is that empties did not fall free from the cylinder no matter how hard the ejector rod is struck. Close scrutiny determined that the ejector rod could not have been made any longer to remedy the problem. I do not want to make too big of a deal of this, because a quick swipe of the hand dropped the cases free before sliding in another eights rounds via moon clip.

Another side note to my range experience is that after thousands of rounds fired through automatic handguns, I quickly relearned that revolvers require a slightly different firing grip. Thumbs ahead do not work well next to a revolver’s cylinder. Thumbs need to be curled inward toward the frame. This lesson was learned early in nearly 500 rounds fired during numerous range visits.
The S&W Model 327 is a viable personal defense handgun that levels the playing field between revolvers and semi-automatic handguns. The Model 327 is no small snubby and should be thought of as an equal to the 1911 and high capacity polymer handguns. Some will not abandon the classic 1911, while others will not forego the high capacity polymer frames. As with most things related to firearms, handgun selection is a personal decision often based more on intuition than fact based reasoning. Eight rounds of .357 Magnum in a reasonably sized, light weight, reliable package will bring many handgunners back to the revolver fold. It is a viable concealed carry firearm for people looking for something more than a small .38 Special revolver, and something less complicated than a large semi-auto pistol.

What a beauty it is

[xl_target]

Hi XL,

Correct me if I am wrong but the Sig P220 and Sig P226 are both full sized handguns so will it be fair to compare M.E. with a snubby revolver?

Also Sig P225 is most compact of the three but it will still have a barrel length of 3.9 inches.

The highest M.E. from these figures is from a 6 inch revolver but then the longest barrel of the handguns is 4.9 inches.

I say too many variable factors to really make for a good comparison.

Better still let's not make this a revolver vs semi auto thread and enjoy a fine revolver for what it is!

What are your thoughts?

Regards

Bowman,
Those figures that I posted were specifically to debunk the authors claim that:

Eight, 125-gr .357 Magnum rounds combine for 4,992 ft/lbs of energy. To equal this you need 15 rounds of 9mm, 11 rounds of .40 S&W, and 13 rounds of .45 ACP. This is not a scientific study, but I think it gets my point across.

Not only is it not a scientific study but the author apparently subscribes to the theory that everyone else is an idiot and is incapable of thinking for himself. Unfortunately, this arrogance is common state of many journalists. (Note to our own dearly beloved TC - you obviously are not included in this category). According to his figures, the .357 mag will give you 624 ft. lbs of ME. Sure, out a six inch barreled revolver! No way are you going to get that out of a two inch snubby.
I posted the figures to show what is typical out of a 2" snubby, what is typical out of a 6" revolver with some semi-auto figures thrown in for comparison. Using real world figures, we see that out of a 2" snubby, we are going to get a combined average of 2,888 ft. lbs of energy. We also see that with 9 rounds of 9mm (SIG P225), we end up with 2854 fps and with 8 rounds of .45 ACP (SIG P220), we end up with a combined 3072 ft lbs. So we can safely say that one of his major arguments is BS.

Some other thoughts on the subject:
The .357 Magnum is a cartridge known for its muzzle flash. You need a longer barrel to burn up all that powder. if you have a snubby, it will continue to burn as it comes out of the barrel. There is no way that you're not going to get a huge amount of muzzle flash out of a 2 inch snubby. At night, in a unlighted or poorly lighted area, you are going to lose all your night vision if you fire that snubby. The figures quoted for the SIG P225 are with a special load using blended powders that are formulated for low flash (Hornady Critical Defense).

Here is a photo of Dan Coonan firing his iconic .357 Magnum semi-auto pistol.

That is out of a five inch barrel! So imagine what the flash is going to look like out of a 2 inch snubby

Another point that that author makes is about the concealability of the weapon.

Eight rounds of .357 Magnum in a reasonably sized, light weight, reliable package will bring many handgunners back to the revolver fold. It is a viable concealed carry firearm for people looking for something more than a small .38 Special revolver, and something less complicated than a large semi-auto pistol.

Guys, have you handled a full size Smith 44 Mag? They have a huge frame.
As Tim said, put all these handguns side by side and they will have similar profiles with the semi auto's being quite a bit slimmer. So, as far as concealability goes, it's no great shakes compared to a compact 9mm pistol or even a full sized P220 in .45ACP. "Less complicated than a large semi-auto pistol"? What is complicated about a semi auto (large or small)? John Browning would be laughing his behind off at that reporter's advocation of that as an excuse.
I could go on but as with most gun mags that depend heavily on advertisers, their regurgitations need a pinch of salt to aid digestion.

Now don't get me wrong, I like guns and if I could sing, I would sing the "I like Guns" song out loud. However to prevent a lot of unnecessary throwing up from the folks around me at present, I will refrain. I'm sure this Smith will be like the rest of their line and will be a fine handgun. I just think the author went kind of overboard on the buckets of crap he was trying to pass out to justify the use of this handgun. The diehard revolver guys will say "see this is the best thing since sliced bread" and the semi-auto aficionado's will say "this is a bloated piece of "beep" and no advantage over my Hewlett-Packard Laser Smasher".

Its just another gun that may or may not fit your needs. Nothing brilliant or exceptional or even really different.

[timmy]

XL, I think you are right on in your comments.

As far as the revolver vs semiauto argument, I have them both and I like them both. I will confess that I tend to see the semiauto as more advanced, more refined, and more efficient as a mechanism and a tool, but as I said, I have both and feel comfortable using either.

One reason I always liked the double action revolver is because as a young family man, I had very little money and shooting meant reloading. I other words, if I had to rely on factory ammo, I could not shoot, period. For the reloader, a grave disadvantage is the way it will fling your precious brass all over the landscape with no regard for the owner's pocketbook. Indeed, brass ejected from a semiauto will remind those of you familiar with the farm of a recalcitrant horse that uses every opportunity and excuse to head for the bard when there's work to be done. The brass takes a devilish, delightful glee in hiding under every sagebrush or down every gopher hole!

This was never a problem for me on the range, where I seldom encountered any other shooters and could leisurely pick up my brass without worry of loss or feet smashing it. But out in the field, where I did significant amounts of shooting, it was a totally different issue. That's what got me into revolvers, specifically Colt double action revolvers.

As I look at this one, I would be interested in one with an 8" or so barrel and a sleeve that put weight on the barrel end (even a 10" or 12" barrel wouldn't be bad!) and a mount on the frame for an optical sight. The long barrel would give a big performance boost! If the alloy frame would stand up to lots of shooting, it would be a good move toward getting weight out at the muzzle, where it does the most good.

What I like about the gun is getting materials other than steel into the mainstream. Plastic, Carbon Fiber, Aluminum Alloy -- whatever, if it will do a better job, then it is welcome, as far as I'm concerned, depending on the job I would like for it to accomplish.

Now regarding XL's final comment, he does have a point: S&W has taken a long-existing design and used different, lightweight materials and an 8 round cylinder. The design is, therefore, evolutionary and not at all groundbreaking. Certainly, it's not like some of the really modern double action revolvers we've seen coming out lately.

But I do like this one anyway. Would I buy it? No, probably not. There are too many other guns that interest me more, and old Colts would be at the top of that list, both in semiauto and revolver form. But I still enjoyed looking at this one and reading about it, minus the BS.

[Vineet]

well sir Timmy I am not a technically oriented person but about the age old 'revolver versus pistol ' debate from a very practical point of view- a revolver never jams...pistols do.

Raptor, all I can say regarding your assertion that "a revolver never jams...pistols do" is that, as charitably and respectfully as I can put it -- is just plain wrong. I'm sorry, but I know better.

When people say "revolver don't jam...pistols do", what most of them want to say is that pistol is more sensitive to ammo and fouling which may cause malfunctions in them and this is correct. But they don't use the right words and end up saying "revolver don't jam...pistols do", to which most gun gurus object.

[timmy]

well sir Timmy I am not a technically oriented person but about the age old 'revolver versus pistol ' debate from a very practical point of view- a revolver never jams...pistols do.

Raptor, all I can say regarding your assertion that "a revolver never jams...pistols do" is that, as charitably and respectfully as I can put it -- is just plain wrong. I'm sorry, but I know better.

When people say "revolver don't jam...pistols do", what most of them want to say is that pistol is more sensitive to ammo and fouling which may cause malfunctions in them and this is correct. But they don't use the right words and end up saying "revolver don't jam...pistols do", to which most gun gurus object.

Sure, the mechanism of a semiauto is dependent upon the power of the fired round to cycle it, where the mechanism of the double action revolver is dependent on the shooter's finger.

My experience with semiautos is more limited than some. Others have had wider experience with more types and can comment on the newer ones, but mostly, my experience has been that magazine springs are much more of an issue to worry about than ammunition choices.

What many seem to ignore is that a revolver is a much more "open" mechanism than a semiauto. When it is carried, if lint, pocket paraphernalia, grit, dirt, and other assorted junk work their way into the action (which is not that hard to have happen), it will jam the revolver. On the other hand, a semiauto is a much more "sealed" mechanism with fewer parts working at less critical angles. So, it is not so susceptible to this sort of problem.

For example, take the World War 1 context, where constant exposure to mud and filth was common. The test of sticking the weapon in a bucket of water and then into a bucket of sand would always affect a revolver to a much greater degree than it would a semiauto.

Another factor that has been brought up is bad ammunition. True, a squib load may not operate a semiauto's action. For a revolver, one can just pull the trigger again, but for a semiauto, one must rack the slide to feed a new round, and perhaps need to clear a smokestake -- a jam caused by the empty case.

Whether the round fires or not will affect either a revolver or semiauto the same.

If the squib causes the bullet to lodge in the barrel, either weapon is out of action.

However, if the squib causes the bullet to lodge in the cylinder to barrel gap of the revolver, it will be jammed and out of action. A semiauto can be cycled (rack the slide) to clear this. A Webley type of break open action, like the IOF, could probably clear this kind of a jam by opening the action. A swing out cylinder revolver, like a Colt or S&W, is out of action until one visits the gunsmith, unless you know how to handle the situation, but in any case, the gun is out of the fight for the time being.

However, let's bring this discussion down to a more practical level.

Most of our members here who live in India will be choosing either an IOF Ashani or IOF 32 Revolver. We have beat the subject of advantages and disadvantages here to death, but let me say that I'd find the Revolver preferable, because one carry it ready to fire, but the Ashani must be cycled to make it ready. A lesser advantage favors the Ashani: it is more compact and less likely to get hung up when it is pulled out of a pocket, purse, or waistband.

Here, a lot depends on what you want the gun for and how you intend to use it, and then what you are familiar with and comfortable using plays a large part, as well.

In either case, I would turn over heaven and earth to find some good, new, reliable ammunition. I personally would not be comfortable with IOF ammo, as I have no experience with it. (That could change after i gained experience shooting it, though.) However, if I could get a box of Winchester, Remington, Federal, Sellier & Bllot, Fiocchi, Aguila, Core Bon, Hornady, or some similar brand, I would squirrel it away and use that only for carry use. I'd make sure it was new, clean, and good by firing some of it first. I'd store it in the coolest, driest place I could find, and make sure it was clean. If it began to corrode, I would shoot it for practice and get some new ammo for my stash. This is what I would do for ammo I had to depend on to save my life. For practice, of course, one could use whatever was available and serviceable.

Since we are all here at IFG, I assume that everyone here is going to maintain their weapon, keeping it clean, stored properly, etc.

Given this, whether one is choosing the 32 Revolver or the Ashani is simply a matter of preference.

And, if someone gets hold of a Tokarev TT33 or used Colt or S&W snubbie, what I've said still holds. The issue of bad ammunition is largely one for the old stove society to argue about, because all of us here will be careful to take precauations to ensure we always have good carry ammo. So revolver or semiauto, we aren't affected by that issue. We keep our weapons maintained, so revolver or pistol, we aren't blindsided by a non-functioning piece.

My objection in this thread is based on the rejection of the assertion that revolvers are somehow superior in reliability and/or suitability to semiautos for carry use. I feel that such a point is neither true or sustainable. If one prefers one over the other, I have no quibble with them. Each design and type has its own advantages and disadvantages, which are not changed by passions and preferences. In any case, the assertion that revolvers are superior to semiautomatics certainly has not been sustained in this thread.

[Raptor]

well sir timmy, thank you for that comprehensive post. Since my chances for owning an imported revolver/pistol are negligible. I will soon have to decide on which of the IOF offerings choose in .32 caliber and when I do ,your kindness is clearing up certain misconceptions I had about pistols(partially due to my very limited experience with them) is sure to stand me in good stead. At the moment it would be rather premature to pester you but may I reserve the right to call upon your invaluable expertise at a later date prior to making the final decision?