Winchester 94 32 special [Archive]

Char-Gar

03-01-2008, 04:30 PM

Well your situation is good news and bad news.

First the bad news! There are very, very few molds offered for the 32 Win. Special. You don't have much choice.

Now the good news! The one available is the 170 RCBS FN and it is a crackerjack and you don't need another mold. Every Winchester 94 in 32 WS known to man, shoots very well with this bullet.

More good news! You rifle has a 1-16 twist barrel and is a cast bullet shooting dream. You can push the aforesaid RCBS bullet at full factory velocity with excellent accuracy.

I have a 1959 vintage Win. 94 in 32 WS and it shoots the 170 RCBS bullets over 30/H335 with splended accuracy and a guestimated velocity of around 2.2K fps.

You can drop the velocity with others powders like 2400, 4759 etc. to around 1.7K fps and have a fine everyday rifle.

You have made a very, very good choice in rifle and caliber.. congradulations!!

Morgan Astorbilt

03-01-2008, 04:59 PM

DrJay1st

03-01-2008, 06:36 PM

I bought it to have a proper cast bullet caliber.
I'm gathering the gear to cast...In fact I've been cleaning up a lyman 450 over the last couple of days...lost one of the little washers...been 3 places trying to get a proper sized o-ring...I could bite a nail into! There's no way that I can justify what I paid and how much time and effort I've put into it...will I ever learn? Now I understand why some of you guys have a different sizer/lubricator for soft and hard lubes...that's the only way to go! These things are a pure bitch to clean up properly. It sat in a flammable liquid last night to soften some of the lube that must have come over on the ark. If I were retired with lot's of time on my hands, it would be different. I sure hope the gun turns out better!
I didn't know that I wouldn't have much choice as to molds. But you know that might not be a bad thing at all. Now I don't have to wade through so many options. This may be a blessing. Maybe this is exactly what I needed to cut my teeth on and have some success. I have been gathering some cast bullets and equipment to try in the guns that I presently have... but they might become frustrating before success...they aren't exactly cast bullet guns.
Any information on the 32 special is welcome...and if any of you guys have moved on to other calibers, maybe I can take some of your 32 stuff of your hands...a win/win...you get to buy something else with the funds.
I'm in the market for a 30-30 as well...don't have to have it today now that I've got the 32 coming...I can hardly wait.

I've cooled down some now...The venting/******** helped. If I don't want to spend the time, then I probably wouldn't enjoy this stuff so much. I really enjoyed reloading and piddling with guns back when I did it a lot...it's therapeutic doing something with my hands...I'm glad to be getting back into reloading, shooting, playing with my guns...and I'm sure I will enjoy casting my own....making tiny little groups, and giving someone that "I told you so" look when I put my next deer down.

Thanks for the info,
Jerry

DrJay1st

03-01-2008, 06:39 PM

This one was made in 1954. I hope that is good also?
Jerry

MTWeatherman

03-01-2008, 07:00 PM

Jerry, Just thought you might like to know, that the .32 Win. Spl. was brought out specifically for cast bullets. The Win 1894 in .30-30 was the first smokeless powder rifle and cartridge to be introduced in this country. When shooters on the frontier tried to reload using bullets they cast out of soft lead, they were disappointed to find the bullets stripped on the fast rifling, and the .30-30 began to get a bad reputation. Winchester increased the bore dia. a few thou., slowed the rifling to 16", and brought out the "new" cartridge, calling it the .32 Winchester Spl.

I've got good news and bad news also. The aforementioned was the good news. The bad news is, that the 16" twist will just barely stabilize the factory jacketed bullet, and when the rifling wears, the accuracy with jacketed bullets deteriorates much faster than a .30-30 will with the same bore cond...
Morgan

Morgan...
No offense intended here....please don't take it as such.

This information about the .32 Special has been circulating around so long that it has somehow achieved the status of fact. In fact it is "urban legend"...or perhaps could be better called a "rural legend" given the time frame it started in. However, there is simply no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that the .32 was brought out for cast bullets or black powder for that matter. It isn't true that the 16 inch twist will barely stabilize the factory bullet. In fact, a 16 inch twist is the ideal twist for a 170 gr. .32 caliber bullet...the 12 inch of the 30-30 is faster than necessary. There are no small amount of twist calculators out there that will confirm that. The 94 Winchester in .32 Special does have slightly shallower lands that the .30-30 but but by the time the .32 has its accuracy headed downhill...a 30-30 would be well on its way as well.

The .32 Special is basically a .32-40 magnum....same barrel dimensions and twist but upgraded steel and expanded case capacity. Choice of the .32 caliber bullet and twist was mostly likely based on the reputation of that .32-40...a fine target rifle of the first order. Where the .32 Special and cast is concerned, in my opinion, its all good news.

Here's one of the better histories of the .32 Special I've seen. Its a worthwhile read for anyone interested in this fine cartridge...and I consider it to be among the finest cast bullet cartridges ever made...especially when used in combination with that 16 inch twist.

http://www.levergun.com/articles/special.htm

DrJay...Winchester or Marlin?...not really important as 1954 would be an excellent year for either.

Morgan Astorbilt

03-01-2008, 07:30 PM

Thanks, no offense taken. This is how we learn. It must have been circulating a long time, I think I first read about it in a Jack O'Connor article in Outdoor Life, back in the fifties. His comments caused me to opt out of the '94, and buy a new Deluxe Mod.71(.348). Paid it of $10 a week ( I was 16yrs old). If I remember, I paid $136 for it new, back in 1956. Every week, I used to bring the $10 to the store, and the owner would take it off the rack and let me fondle it. Kept me going until next week. Still have it, it will be the last gun I let go....

Sorry I got off the subject. I'll check out the site, and also dust off my copy of Winchester by Williamson. It deals mostly with the history of the company in business terms, there may be something in there.
Morgan

floodgate

03-01-2008, 08:41 PM

MTWeatherman:

That's a fascinating article, and a good "Snopes' Job" on the .32 Special as a cast boolit rifle story!

One interesting point McPherson omits - when talking about the undersized early .32 Winchester bullets and their failure to stabilize - is that Winchester also specced the .30 WCF (.30-30) to use undersized jacketed bullets: they recommended 0.305" for the nominal 0.308" groove diameter.

Purely my own interpretation, but I suspect they were thinking about an intermediate bullet diameter between the 0.308" groove and 0.300" nominal bore, to allow for LATERAL displacement of the "excess" jacket material. If so, then IF the first .30 WCF's stabilized and the .32 WS's did not, it MIGHT be because the slightly higher pressure in the former (same powder charge; slightly smaller powder space, as McPherson demonstrated), and/or greater resistance from the faster twist, might JUST have been enough to make the .30 WCF obturate, and the .32 WCF fail to do so.

As I said, the last paragraph is pure speculation on my part; but I've long been curious about the early undersized .30 WCF bullets. John K (W30WCF): can you confirm, comment or expand on this??

Morgan: GOOD ON YA', keeping that .348. I sure wish I had kept the two I used to own: one a standard, late short-tang, the other an earlier long-tang Deluxe!

floodgate

cobbmtmac

03-01-2008, 09:43 PM

Jerry,

Just wanted to pass on to you, for such things as O-rings, if you call Lyman Customer Service @ 800-275-9626, then press 3, you will reach someone very helpful. They will mail you the proper O-ring at no charge and you will receive it in a few days. The same goes for RCBS @ 800-533-5000. These two companies are awsome:Fire:

If I understood correctly, you had a hard time cleaning your lube sizer. When I had the same situation, I heated up my B-B-Q, set the lube sizer on an old broiler pan and in a few minutes it was all melted out, then a little wiping and it was ready for a new life.:-D

Hey---floodgate, I think of you often, in fact have your e-mail and phone number on my desk. So sometime I will follow through, give you a call and come by.:coffee:

HeavyMetal

03-01-2008, 09:47 PM

I think you've done well!

A big plus for you is the fact it was made in the 50's! By then all the factory rounds were smokeless so you have less likely hood of a "lazy" shooter not cleaning the corrosive residue out of the barrel.

This is what really hurts the 32 Spec. I have one currently that was made in 1910. I had it rebarreled just after I bought it. The original barrel I spent 10 hours trying to get clean no luck! Found a guy in the gun digest selling new, NOS, still in the wrapper 32 spec barrels from a run made 1959! $125.00! Soon I will get around to finishing it as it has some issues with barrel bands from two different eras!

By the way I sure hope you don't think your 94 is a bench rest gun. It will shoot as well or better than most lever guns but minute of angle at 600 yards? not gonna happen!

I belive the load suggested in a previous thread was spot on (the 335 load) and groups in the 1/14 to 1 1/2 are do-able with the right sights.

DrJay1st

03-01-2008, 09:54 PM

Thanks guys! This such a helpful group. I'm glad I stumbled upon it. You guys are reponsible for reintroducing me to something that brought me such satisfaction in the past.
Keep it coming,
Jerry

Morgan Astorbilt

03-01-2008, 10:23 PM

Thanks, Floodgate, Mine is the short tang. Sure wish it was a long tang, besides having the bolt mounted peep sight, I believe they were made a little better.
Morgan

MTWeatherman

03-01-2008, 10:53 PM

Dr Jay:
Didn't really answer your original question. Chargar's advice is spot on...we're lucky that RCBS bullet is such a good one. You'll find universal acclaim for it from .32 Special owners on this board...myself included. I use 31.5 gr. 3031...drives the bullet (actually weights 178 gr with my mould and alloy) at 2080 fps from my '94 with excellent accuracy.

Morgan:
Suffering from a little '71 envy here myself. Wish I had a .348...just know the price I saw on the last one scared me.

Floodgate:
Yep...thought McPherson did a fine job on that one. Interesting that the old .30-30s were .003 undersized also...casts some doubt on the .318 Mauser theory for the .32. A little puzzled why Winchester would see the need to obturate jacketed bullets. However, here's a bit more ammunition (no pun intended) to add to your theory. The .30-30 was designed with .004 lands...while the .32 had .003. A .003 undersized bullet would be even a more serious issue in the .32 when it came to necessary bullet engagement in the rifling to obturate. While a .32 shoots very well with the proper sized bullets, undersized bullets can be more of an issue with it than the .30-30 (talking jacketed here...cast would be bad in either caliber).

I also wonder how many .32 Special owners cussed their .32's accuracy while feeding it 30-30 ammunition. I've known of those who've inadvertently done it...and one who claimed to have done it out of necessity during the depression when he couldn't afford to buy the .32s. Said you had to get really close, but you could do it. Suspect the tumbling bullet was likely pretty devastating.

hydraulic

03-01-2008, 11:19 PM

I have a Lyman 323470 mould for 8mm that I use in my Model 8 Remington .32 Remington. I size them .325 because that's the sizer i have, and load 21 grains of AA2230. This powder is between 3031 and 4895 in burning rate. It shoots accurately and the action functions perfectly. I also have a Lee mould that casts a plain base .32 bullet that I have not fired yet, although there are five rounds in the magazine with the rifle lying on the back seat of the pickup just waiting for the creek to go down so I can get out to the ranch. I'll post the results of firing that plain base bullet soon.

floodgate

03-02-2008, 03:22 AM

cobbmtmac:

I hope to get to the gunshow in Uke (Ukiah - that's "Haiku", spelled backwards) at the Fairgrounds in N.State Street tomorrow (Sunday) around mid-day. Check with Bob Fowler (usually second table S. of the entrance, against the wall), with a couple of nice single-shots and lots of other "good stuff") and he'll point you to me. I'd like to see ya' there.

Doug/floodgate

drinks

03-02-2008, 12:11 PM

I use the Lee 8mm gc in my 1900 , 1894 rifle, shoots nicely.

cobbmtmac

03-02-2008, 12:15 PM

floodgte,

I will miss you this time as I am playing in a Club Golf Tournament today. But believe me before to long I will be seeing you.:coffee:

Thanks, Mac

sundog

03-02-2008, 01:20 PM

WxMan, that's a great article. Thanks for the link. I have Mdl 94s in 30 WCF and 32 Win Spl and a Marlin in 35 Rem. My favorite is the 32 Win Spl. Best of breed, best of show.

mroliver77

03-02-2008, 01:53 PM

DRJ
I have the 321427 Lyman mold that drops a 140 gr(listed as 134)boolit. A short round nosed gascheck dude that shoots well for me. If you want some give me a yell and I can send a few for you to try out.
J

bobk

03-02-2008, 01:54 PM

I had a reloading mistake that taught me a lesson. I usually use Fed 150s for my standard large pistol loads. For some reason, I bought a box of Win large pistol primers, as an experiment. Well Win Large RIFLE primers are something I use a lot of. As it happened, I was working up a load for a .30-30, using a 110gr Barnes X bullet, intending to use it as a two-shooter.

I worked up the load with H-322, and when I stopped I had good velocity, and 1 1/8-1 1/4 groups, with a 4X scope on a Marlin that I sorta rescued. So, I'm all happy, until I realized that I had been using the pistol primers. Crap! I was going to load up a bunch with the "proper" primer, but as a check I figured I'd better try that load, to observe pressures. No pressure problems, but the load grouped 1 3/4-2 inches, consistently. I went back to the pistol primer, and the groups snuggled back up again. It has been my experience that primers usually don't make a big difference, but that doesn't mean that it never does. So, don't be afraid to experiment a little, as long as your base load is not tip-top max to begin with. I just discovered that my 6.5X55 likes Fed 215s. I can't tell you why these things work, though.

Bob K

DrJay1st

03-02-2008, 02:19 PM

So, I didn't do too bad with the 32! But I haven't heard a peep from the seller. Maybe he takes off for the weekend.

I can use 8mm? I'm assuming resized properly? Any problems using them?

PM to mroliver77

Thanks guys,
Jerry

MTWeatherman

03-03-2008, 01:07 PM

DrJay...
Short answer...yes you can use 8mm bullets if correctly sized.

However.... Most 8mm bullets are round nosed. Theory says you should use nothing but flat points in a tubular magazine. Reason being that under recoil, the primer of one cartridge slams into the bullet tip of the cartridge behind it. A pointed bullet could set off the primer of the cartridge in front of it. Flat points eliminate this risk...round points are in a grey area but are generally considered safe if the tip is of soft nearly pure lead such as you would find in jacketed designs. Harder cast bullet tips could pose some risk...at least in theory. Although I have never heard of anyone having a problem with a round point cast...fact is most don't use them in tubular magazines.

For hunting deer with cast you definitely want a flat point...operating term here is meplat. That creates much more tissue destruction than a round point would. You need to maximize the "energy dump" in the animal. You also want some decent bullet weight...I would consider 150 grains to be minimum but at least 170 a better choice.

I have the 323470 8mm bullet. It is a round point with a large amount of bearing surface. Because of that, I can successfully use it for light loads in my .32 Special minus gas check. I also have the Lee 175 grain 8mm which is a round point as well...both it and the 323470 shoot pretty well in the .32 at higher velocities with the gas check. However, when it comes to top performance...both for accuracy and pure raw energy potential when driving it, that RCBS 32-170-FN wins hands down. It has a good meplat, good weight, and is an ideal hunting bullet. When it comes to moulds currently in production, I would recommend no other mould for your listed purposes.

If you do use an 8mm bullet, suggest you bump those round noses into a flat point while resizing...just to be on the safe side.

HORNET

03-03-2008, 01:22 PM

FWIW, I believe that Lyman still lists the 319247, which casts at .321 out of my ancient Ideal version. 165 grain plain base intended for .32-40. You might want to slug the throat and see if it'll work but might need to beagle it a tad.

CENTEX BILL

03-03-2008, 02:47 PM

For all the readers of this thread:

The group buy for the 135 gr Gas check 32/8mm flat nose bullet is about to close.

We are almost at the 25 mold level. DON'T MISS OUT ON THIS BULLET.

Go to the group buy section and look under the 32/8mm lightweight gruop buy

Centex Bill

DrJay1st

03-03-2008, 03:07 PM

What are the typical bore dimensions for a 32 special? Ken waters says the lands are .003 tall...is that correct?
Midway has sizing dies in .321 and .323...just guessing but the right one is .323?

Jerry

MTWeatherman

03-03-2008, 04:07 PM

.003 it is.

Either may work...can't truly answer which would be best without slugging the throat and barrel.

Check the following link...you should find answers to many questions there:

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=23247

w30wcf

03-04-2008, 09:09 AM

+1 on the .32 W.S. Urban Legend that MTWeatherman indicated. Several past issues of the Speer Handbook have repeated this ad nauseum. Thankfully, as I understand it, the newest Speer Handbook does have an updated .32 W. S. description (Thanks to Mic) with the Urban Legend finally discarded.

Floodgate,
The .30-30 and .32 W.S. used undersized jacketed bullets up until about 1908 when they were changed to groove diameter.

Your reasoning sounds about right to me. Most likely, the early undersized "Metal Patched" jackets were soft enough to upset and fill the groove diameter and, thus, shot well.

That was the early part of the Smokeless Era, and perhaps the traditional thinking of the earlier b.p. bumping up undersized bullets carried through until at least 1908.

I do have some of the early .305"/.306" diameter "Metal Patched" .30-30 bullets and one of these days, I'll see just how accurate they were.

w30wcf

MTWeatherman

03-04-2008, 03:57 PM

Thanks for "weighing in" John. Couldn't resist throwing out one more piece of information on the "urban legend" issue before the thread died.

In an article on the .32 Special written by Gil Sengel, he quotes from the January 1902 Winchester catalog...year of the .32s introduction on its introduction. Same exact quote as in Mic's article...meeting demand for larger caliber etc. He also provided the ballistics from 1902...30-30 1280 foot pounds, .32 Special 1550 fp, and .30-40 Krag 1950 fp. Point being the .32 had a 20% energy advantage over the .30-30 and effectively split the difference between it and the 30-40... as advertised. If true, advantage was even greater than Mic reported in his article. To put into perspective, thats almost exactly the same percentage energy advantage that the .300 Win Mag has over the .30-'06. The .32 certainly was not a ballistic twin to the 30WCF.

Sengel did buy into the blackpowder idea since Winchester advertised it in the 1902 introduction. However, think Mic finally put this one to rest. The .32 could use black powder not by design, but because of it...32-40 barrel specifications.

Can't resist editorializing a bit myself:
In addition to what Mic pointed out so well, consider: .38-55 and .32-40 black powder cartridges were introduced in the then new '94 Winchester in 1994. .25-35 and .30 WCF smokeless came out in 1895. Winchester then waited until 1902 to introduce the final cartridge, the .32 Special. First year there were black powder loads then next year two smokeless. Now 7 years later, after Winchester has firmly established smokeless for commercial use (military had previously done so) and black powder is rapidly becoming obsolete... urban legend would have you believe that Winchester decides to appeal to this rapidly diminishing black powder market with their final introduction...the .32 Special. Say what??? Huh??? Makes no sense.

More likely...since the .32-40 was the premier target rifle of its day Winchester felt that caliber and twist was a winner and wanted to keep it for their new "magnum"...or at least saw no reason to change it. They simply had to cut a new chamber for a necked up 30-30 into a high grade .32-40 barrel and the increase in caliber would allow them to push up energy levels. An added advantage was that little new tooling was required. In hindsight, Winchester would have been better served in increasing caliber to .35. We could have a .35 Winchester in production today...and no .35 Remington.

A final note:
We casters are extremely lucky that Winchester went that route. The .32-40 was the premier target rifle for cast bullets in the late 1800s. We have that barrel in the .32 Special...a comparatively high velocity smokeless powder cartridge utilizing a barrel that's designed for...cast bullets. Name another one. That’s what truly makes it “special” and why it does its job so superbly.

Guess I've rambled on enough......

w30wcf

03-04-2008, 06:31 PM

MTWeatherman,
You are most welcome. Thank you for the additional information.
I agree. My thought is that the .32-40 caliber had been popular since it's introduction in 1884 and had a devoted following. I believe that many of these .32-40 users asked Winchester to offer a more powerful .32 caliber cartridge that would give better results on big game. Thus the .32 W.S. was born.

No doubt the fact that Winchester said that it could be reloaded with black powder and give good results, would have been important for the black powder crowd that still wasn't convinced about the new fangled smokeless powder. If they didn't like the smokeless loading, all was not lost. Perhaps that was Winchester's thought process(?).

Fortunately, I have a copy of the Jan, 1902 Winchester Catalog and here is what it says:

“The .32 Winchester Special Cartridge, which we have just perfected, is offered to meet the demand of many sportsmen, for a smokeless powder cartridge of larger caliber than the .30 Winchester (.30-30) and not yet so powerful as the .30 U.S. Army (.30-40), which could be reloaded with black powder and give satisfactory results.

The .32 Winchester Special Cartridge meets all of these requirements. Loaded with Smokeless powder and a 165 gr. bullet, it has a muzzle velocity of 2,057 foot seconds. With a charge of 40 grs. of black powder, the .32 Winchester Special develops a velocity of 1,385 foot seconds, which makes it a powerful black powder cartridge .”

Interestingly, I wonder if Winchester ever tested b.p. in the .32 W.S. since the ballistics quoted were exactly the same as the .32-40 ........... and.... the case will hold more than 40 grs. of b.p.(!)

I think that there is a very good possibility that if the .32 W.S. was introduced before the .30 W.C.F. / .30-30, it would have been the .32 W.S. that prevailed. The .30 W.C.F. /.30-30 gained a glowing reputation on performance on game (as would have the .32 W.S.) early on and its effectiveness was promoted in the early Winchester and Marlin catalogs, but the .30 W.C.F. / .30-30 had a seven year head start..........

Interesting history.
w30wcf

MTWeatherman

03-04-2008, 07:49 PM

Thanks again John...appreciated the quote. As you might guess, I have an interest in history...firearms and otherwise.

Share your feeling on the demise of the .32. If the .32 Special had been first, not only would it have prevailed, I doubt if we'd ever have seen the 30-30. The .32 would have had all the bases covered...higher velocity, more energy, more versatility (due to black powder ability), more appealing caliber to the late 1800s crowd. The smaller caliber was covered by the .25-35...release of the 30-30 would have accomplished little.

What I have difficulty understanding is why Winchester didn't release the .32 Special as their very first smokeless. Why not do the obvious and release a rechambered .32-40. Simply expand the .32-40 case to handle the higher powder capacity and mate it to a nickle steel barrel. No...first they expand the .32-40 case then neck it down to 25 caliber (I have a reference that says the .25-35 came first...not the 30-30...can you confirm that?)...then they neck it up to 30. New tooling required for both barrels. Seven years later they neck it back up to .32. Its almost as though Winchester went out of their way to make the point about the effectiveness of smaller calibers. Not only were they introduced in the black powder era, it bears noting it was also the big bore era for big game. They went really small caliber to start with then gradually worked their way back up. These were really revolutionary cartridges when they appeared. Perhaps Winchester wanted to draw in the black powder and big bore holdouts. As you pointed out, the decision to introduce the .32 Special would not only draw in those looking for improved ballistics, but a side effect would be to draw in some of the black powder and bigger bore crowd since a 32 was already a proven caliber at the time. Advertising was directed to accomplish that.

The guessing continues. As you say it makes interesting history. Too bad we don't have an internal memo from Winchester to confirm what they were really thinking at the time.

Bret4207

03-05-2008, 08:17 AM

Interesting thread. Reminds me of the 303 Savage thread we had many moons ago- undersize/oversize barrels, over size/undersize bullets, trying to find old info as to what was the truth and what was rural legend. Interesting stuff.

w30wcf

03-05-2008, 01:50 PM

MTWeatherman,

I also have an interest in history.... both cartridges and lever action rifles.

Winchester's .30 W.C.F. (May, 1895) came before the .25-35 but only by a month or two. .30-30 was the U.M.C. / Marlin designation for the .30 W.C.F. and it was announced in Sept., 1895. So, when using the .30-30 nomenclature, yes, the .25-35 came slightly before the .30-30 description, but not the .30 W.C.F.

Interestingly, by 1897, the .30-30 U.M.C. cartridge used a 170 gr. soft point bullet @ 2,000 f.p.s. making it more powerful than the .30 W.C.F. loading of a 160 gr soft point @ 1,970 f.p.s. That changed in 1904 when Winchester also adopted the 170 gr. as the standard bullet weight.

I believe the reason that Winchester adopted the .30 Caliber was because they had worked with Springfield Armory in the development of the smokeless powder .30 US Army (.30-40) in the 1889-1892 time frame.

The .30 W.C.F. / .30-30 and .25-35 are actually based on the .38-50 Ballard cartridge of 1876, not on the .32-40 that is often quoted. The .32-40 & .38-55 are longer versions of the .38-50.

Bret4207,
Ah yes, the .303 Savage. Here's some info from the 1904 Ideal Handbook:

"The original size of the .30-40 Gov't. and .303 Savage were the same as the .303 British, which are bored to .303" and use a bullet .311" in diameter. These have now been changed to .300" (.30 caliber) and use a bullet .308" which has become the standard for the American .30 calibers, though we believe the Winchester people are now making bullets .305" diameter for their .30-30 Winchester."

w30wcf

MTWeatherman

03-05-2008, 02:30 PM

My apologies to DrJay for hijacking his thread but it did take an interesting turn indeed in branching off.

John...you've obviously spent a significant amount of time...and likely investment in compiling this research. I thank you for making it available to us. Again...interesting information. FYI, in the event you may not have seen it, I'm attaching a link to an article by Mike Venturio on vintage '94s. It's what raised the question on the 25-35... and begs the question as to what his source of information was for the statement.

The link makes good reading for any interested in these old Winchesters. Here it is:

http://galleryofguns.com/shootingtimes/Articles/displayarticles.asp?id=2

floodgate

03-05-2008, 02:53 PM

One more hi-jack, re the .25-35. An early Ideal manual from the 1890s mentions that Marlin was experimenting with, and planned to release, their rifles in ".25-40". Clearly this got scaled back a tad and became the late, un-lamented .25-36; almost, but not quite, interchangeable with Winchester's .25-35.

floodgate

w30wcf

03-05-2008, 08:09 PM

MTWeatherman,

Thank you for the link. When that article first came out, I emailed Mike and asked him where that information came from. He said that it was in The Winchester Book by Madis. This is what the book says: "Difficulty was experienced on producing nickel steel barrels suitable for smokeless powder loads. By 1895, nickel steel barrels were being produced and the .25-35 cartridges using smokeless powder were introduced in the '94, and most important, Winchester also developed the .30 W.C.F. cartridge."

I spoke to George Madis about that, having met him previously at the Eastern Winchester Gun Show, and he said that it was not his intent to show the .25-35 as preceeding the .30 W.C.F. He acknowledged that the .30 W.C.F. came first, with the .25-35 following close behind.

The book "The Winchester Model 94" bears this out. It states:
The first caliber .30 W.C.F. gun was made on May 29, 1895
The first caliber .25-35 W.C.F. was made on July 18,1895

Floodgate,
Thank you for that information.

w30wcf

drinks

03-07-2008, 11:01 PM

Here is something else to chew on, I have a Win. 1894 rifle, nickle steel barrel, .32 W.S..
All the sites that show serial #s, show the rifle was made in 1900, so WHEN was the .32 W.S. introduced?

w30wcf

03-08-2008, 12:53 AM

Drinks,
Ah! Another little twist. Winchester receivers were made and then put into inventory. Rifles were made by assembling the different inventoried components in the assembly area(s). Thus, if a receiver stayed in the inventory longer than normal, as yours did, the serial number may date several years before the receiver was used to make a rifle.

The book "The Winchester 94" indicates that the first .32 W.S. was assembled on March 4, 1902 (serial number 27158). It also indicates that Caliber .32 W.S. guns have been noted with serials as low as the 15,500 range, but the shipping dates are 1902-1903.

w30wcf

Bwana Bob

09-19-2008, 08:22 AM

Hello Gents. I have been searching for an answer about cast boolits for my .32 Win Special/M94 for ages on the web and stumbled into what looks like the right place. Been catching up by reading the posts.

Question please: I bought my model 94 in .32 Win Special here to Africa when I moved here 19 years ago. I dusted it off the other day and thought I would take it to the range instead of my usual rifle.

I went to the local gun shop to buy some of my usual Hornady #3210 .32 Cal bullets to reload and I found out they had never heard of a .32 Winchester Special.

I then proceed to call every gunshop between here and Johannesburg (not many gun shops here) and nobody had ammo or bullets for my "wierd" calibre.

I did find one gun shop who said he had a RCBS Bullet Mould for a flat point 8mm 170 gr bullet, RCBS Part No 82000. The box says "Lyman Reference # 321317. He said it has been sitting on his shelf for decades.

I am hoping this is the right mould. I also found Hornady 8mm gas checks although I don't know if I need them with this mould. I also found a dusty old Lee manual bullet lubricating and resizing kit in size .321 so I picked it up too.

I hope I am going down the right path. I don't really have any exprience in cast bullets so would appreciate a comment on the available RCBS Mould and Lee resizer. (is resizing necessary?).

Much appreciated.

scrapcan

09-19-2008, 10:32 AM

Beagle has a good article on the 32 WS on Castpics.et under the article sby members

http://www.castpics.net/memberarticles/Cast%20in%20the%20.32%20Special.htm

Lots of good info on castpics also, make sure the new members know it is also out there.

sundog

09-19-2008, 10:40 AM

Bob, that boolit might work, but I'd bet .323 will work better than .321. You might need to Beagle the mould and lap the sizing die. As mentioned earlier, the RCBS 32-170-FN is the standard, and it is a good one.

You can use cast boolit reload data for the 30-30 as a reference. Pressure will be lower in the 32 W.S. so use the 30-30 data as a starting point.

Give us a range report when you get it going.

corvette8n

09-19-2008, 10:45 AM

Bob:
I also have Win 94 in .32ws, I shoot .323 sized cast in mine. I use gas checks but don't always need them. I don't have a mold at this time but did buy about 200
.323 gas checked flat nose 180gr(I think) bullets from Daniel at the Bull shop. You can search for links to his shop.
Although shipping from Alaska to S.A. may not be worth it.
My advice is to slug you bore or just shoot some sized and unsized to see which has better accuracy.

Glad to have you on the list, keep us updated with the rifle and post any pictures of game you get with it.

BTW I load up 10gr of Unique behind the cast bullet for a plinking round, lots of fun at 50 yards, recoil is like a .22

Leadforbrains

09-19-2008, 09:37 PM

Great thread! A short while ago I too bought a 94 Winchester in .32 WS off of gun broker. I haven't even shot it yet. My dear wife called me today ( I'm on the road) to tell me that my order from Midsouth that has my RCBS 170fn mold, Rcbs coyboy die set, sizer die , top punch and gaschecks just arrived today.
This thread and all the useful information is right on time. Thanks Guys! Y'all are great!

BustemAgain

09-20-2008, 02:14 AM

Sundog, Bwana Bob won't have to beagle that mold. It is the same design as the 32-170-FN ,it just casts at .325in. I would be honing that sizer to .323in though Bob.

Bwana Bob

09-22-2008, 04:52 AM

Thanks for all the assistance guys.

Well, I got a lead pot and started casting out of Linotype (printer's lead) and some pretty grusome boolets started appearing but pretty soon they were coming out nice and shiny and looking like store-bought boolits. I tapped in the gas checks and covered them all in Lee Liquid Alox lube and pushed them through the Lee resizer and they seem to shoot quite well. Haven't been able to Chroney them yet but will soon and let you know. The only powder I that is readily available here in South Africa is the local Somchem brand. I just copied the suggested load for a 30-30 which is 30 Grains of their S335 powder. The new cast boolets hit on paper at 60 yards, not too far off of where some antique Winchester Silvertip factory loads hit. Grouping was about 4 inches. Will be getting a friend to open my Lee sizer to .323 as suggested (my Lee resizer is 321) and playing around with the load and I guess that will help me close that group up a bit.

Think I am on the right track, thanks to all your help. I will be keeping an eye on the thread.

Alvin in AZ

09-23-2008, 02:45 AM

Wow, cool thread! :)
Me?
I'd be all over that 135 gr mold buy. :)

YMMV

I've loaded 110gr round nose in my 30-30 since mid 70's and that gun's hardly
ever shot anything else. (94 Win/1950 I was born owning that gun)

One time a black bear got in the way of the 110gr ~2240fps bullet and another
time a mountain lion got in the way too. ;) ...hound dogs did the hunting I just
did the shooting. :)

"jackrabbit shells"

Alvin in AZ

jdowney

12-05-2008, 02:39 PM

Wow! What a great thread!

I'm just about to start reloading 32 Win. Special for my 94, but it looks like I may get sucked into the whole casting thing too!

I have to admit the sizes have me a little confused, but I'm sure that will pass once I read some more.

shootrj2003

10-01-2010, 11:30 AM

I'm fairly new here[first post] ,not new to reloading but not real experienced at cast bullet reloading,Marlin 45-70,not much luck without a gas check with the Micro-groove barrel.
I'm hoping for better luck with my Marlin in.32 win. spl,It has the older ballard rifleing,I haven't shot them yet but I used a Lee 90274 sized to .322 "cutting "[Not as simple as that]the tip off to a .260 meplat making the bullets .810 long and they weigh at 164.5 gr. [I don't remember for sure the specs are out in the barn and its raining and I'm lazy so I'll use my memory, PLEASE forgive!] but after much deliberation and consultation with load books and taking into consideration the rifleing twist,alloy[ close to No.2],and wieght of the bullet and the fact that it is finally aimed at deer gittin'I loaded the first batch at 28.3 grns IMR 30-31.
Anyway,I was loking for data and happened upon this post and thought this would be an apprpriate addition to the fine intelligence I have encountered here and maybe you fellows could give me some feedback and projections ,good or bad , as to how this load is going to perform at the range when it stops raining!?