I liked the idea of the 32 H&R Mag when it came out. I just couldn't explain why!
I know I didn't consider it for defense.
I figured anything the .32 Mag could do, so could the .32-20...and more. Why one would need more from a .32 is not for me to answer, however.
I mostly thought the .32 Mag would be fun, and wanted a small to medium frame revolver in the round to goof around with. Something handy, but more than a .22. I thought the lead bullet at around 100 grains at around 1000 fps would make a nice bang, use little powder and lead, and be easy on guns.
I felt the S&W 16 (full lug) they made briefly was the finest .32 Mag, but was probably a little heavy for what I had been thinking about with that big ol' barrel lug. It looked nice, but should probably been a little trimmer. Maybe with a lighter K-22 size barrel?
Oooh, idea: A K-frame .32 Mag, with a 3 or 3.5" tapered barrel, and fixed sights. It would be like a mini-Model 21, or M22, or 1917. I'm not sure what it would be for, besides "just because", but that's reason enough sometimes.
Yep, a reintroduction of a K-frame .32 mag might be nice. But a K-frame cylinder is long enough to handle the .32-20, which can outperform the .32 Mag (if one feels the need), so if they made it in one caliber, people would cry for the other.
Of course, twin cylinders is a thought.
But, it's still a plinker, or "trail gun", and I don't think people are knocking down gunshop doors for trail guns.
The Ruger Single-Six 32 Mag is kinda slick. I think I saw more of them than anything. You get the markets of the plinkers and the Cowboys with that. A short-barreled Single Six .32 might be handy.
For something.