.32 Magnum with 120 gr bullet

[Dale53]

Well, I finally got to the range today with the TC Carbine in .32 Magnum along with my S&W 16-4 (6”). I was shooting the new Group mould .314”x120 grs. There is really little data available for this weight bullet in this caliber. You are pretty much on your own when trying to develop loads with this heavy bullet. I did a good bit of looking on the internet, asked for help from the good people here and then made some decisions.

I was going to use Surplus WC – 820 (the old slow lot from MacDonald). My Lee powder measure drops 9.5 grs and 10.7 grs, nothing in between. My target was 10.0 grs, so that was acceptable. I initially decided to use the TC because of its greater strength and then, if indications warranted it, to try the revolver.

My first load was the Lee Group bullet over 9.5 grs of WC-820 with an overall length of 1.415”. This puts the mouth of the case in the middle of the first band on the bullet. With heavy recoiling revolvers, I would not do this. However, this bullet, while heavy for the caliber, is light when we are talking about inertia displacement ( if heavy bullets are not crimped securely in a good crimp groove they can move forward after shooting a couple of rounds ahead of them possibly tying up the revolver). I didn’t think it would be a problem crimping in the middle of the first band and so, it did not prove to be.

The load average in the TC Carbine (22” SSK barrel groove diameter of .312”) was:
1532 fps, high of 1559, low of 1521, 38 fps extreme spread, SD of 11. This would have been even better if I had rejected the first fouling shot. However, I was happy. There were no pressure signs and the load was faster than I expected.

Second load was 10.7 grs of WC – 820. I would absolutely suggest you work up slower than this in a revolver. Pressure can rise quickly in this small case even using slow (for the cartridge) powder. The average was 1703 fps, high was 1715 fps, low was 1685, Extreme spread was 30 fps, and Standard Deviation was 13. This, again, I consider very good. There were absolutely NO pressure signs in the TC Carbine. However, note that the difference in 1.2 grs amounts to 171 fps in velocity. You don’t get that much velocity difference without a serious difference in pressure.

Both of these loads, used Federal 100 small pistol primers. I intend to use the same load, when I settle on it, in both rifle and revolver.

I also chronographed the two loads in my S&W 16-4 (6”). The 9.5 grs load showed average of 1112 fps, high of 1130, low of 1093, 37 fps exptreme spread, and 14 Standard Deviation. I got some primer flattening, but extraction was easy, even when all five were ejected at the same time.

The 10.7 gr load showed an average velocity of 1259 fps, high of 1277, low of 1240, 37 fps extreme spread and a standard deviation of 16. This load showed VERY flattened primers, heavy muzzle blast, but the cases all ejected easily. I believe that this load is a “bit much of a good thing”. I think that I will settle on the 9.5 grain load as “enough”.

Accuracy: I only shot a couple of groups with the revolver at 25 yards. The average was
1 1/4”. One group of five had four in ¾”. I believe with a little bit more work that this load will shoot under an inch. This was off a pistol rest. Our club’s Ransom Rest was damaged in our range house fire and is away being reconditioned at Ransom. I WILL do some Ransom Rest testing and will report further when possible.

The rifle turned in higher velocities than I expected. There were NO pressure signs even with the heavier load. None the less, I will be using a revolver friendly load in the rifle, also. After all, my intentions were a compatible pair. Further, I intend to use the load in my S&W Model 631 (4”) and I don’t consider that anywhere near as strong as I do the 16-4. There is absolutely no reason to “hot rod” this cartridge. I have .357’s and .44 magnums should I need a HEAVY load.

This is a really long post and I thank you for your indulgence.

Dale53

[9.3X62AL]

Lotta good info there, Dale--who cares about length with content quality like that?

My 32 Magnum work to date has all been with revolvers, and until I started giving the 115 grain Mountain Molds Short Fat Thirty (MMSFT) plain base a good kick in the aspirations, it didn't shoot very well in my Model 16-4 x 6". Once I got it moving more than 1100 FPS, things got better. I used WC-820 (faster lot, like AA-9) and 2400 for these tests, and 9.0 x WC-820 was as much as I tried--8.5 x 2400 was the upper limit with that fuel. My conclusions as far as I've gone here--the 90-100 grainers are a LOT more flexible in terms of accuracy at varying velocities in this caliber, and the 115-120's need to be driven at their upper limits to yield good results in my revolver.

I'm still mulling over a Ruger SP-101 x 4" in this caliber.

[StanDahl]

Thanks for the report, Dale, that covered two topics at once for me. I've got a Saeco 322 which is nearly identical to the Lee 314-120 gb. I've got a jug of WC 820, and Ruger Buckeye that needs something new to try. I lost my experimenting initiative since D.A. turned me on to the RCBS 98-032. Now if I could just get that WC820 fairy dust into the brass without making a mess.[smilie=b: I tried it once and just about gave up, it was so hard to contain. It didn't even measure very accurately, which I found surprising, given that the Lee Perfect usually is. (Perfect, that is.) Someone posted a tune-up for the Lee Auto-Disk that I'll have to work on next. Stan

[9.3X62AL]

"Fairy dust"/WC-820.......now, THAT'S funny! Unless it ties up yer powder measure, of course.

[Dale53]

StanDahl and Deputy Al;
One thing that i noticed when loading wc-820. It is SO fine that I fully expected to have the stuff all over the bench. I am using the Lee Auto Disc powder measure and my copy of this doesn't leak a grain. Hard to believe but the clearance is such that there is no binding and yet no leaking. Frankly, I was a bit surprised because that stuff (WC-820) is SO fine...

Incidentally, it measures exactly on point with my electronic scale and the Lee Auto Disc. Couldn't ask for better.

All of the above just goes to show that it doesn't matter what it is SUPPOSED to do, but what it ACTUALLY does with your equipment and set up. THAT is what counts.

Dale53

[Newtire]

I have heard about the Auto Disc measure leaking. I also heard it said that the Auto Disc "Pro" doesn't leak. I bought the "Pro" model & haven't had any leakage with H-4227. As soon as I find a gun show around here & grab a couple jugs of the WC-820 stuff, I will let you know.

[Dale53]

I have had the Lee Turret Press and Lee Pro 1000 (dedicated to the .32 H&R) for some years. I haven't looked at Lee's offerings in the powder measure area for quite some time (didn't need anything). I am fairly blown over by the upgrades that they have. I will just have to rectify that "post haste". They've got some nice items there.
If you haven't looked at the Auto Disc page for a while you might want to do so.

Dale53

[Dale53]

In re-reading my initial report in this thread, I notice that I did not mention any accuracy results with the rifle. I was using a junk scope that wouldn't focus at 25 yards (temporary expedient). So, I had a blurry scope but the single five shot group that I fires measured 7/16". Now 25 yards and a single five shot group don't mean much. However, it was NOT disgraceful, and I WILL let you know subsequent results at fifty and one hundred yards. If I get 1 1/2" groups at one hundred I will be pretty happy. This is not a target rifle but a sporting rifle and while I do have rather high expectations I am not unnrealistic (I hope).

Dale53

[Duckiller]

Newtire: Do gun shows in your area have surplus powder? So. Cal shows, Orange co & Glendale, have only one vendor that sells a limited selection of Win/Hodgon powders. Duckiller

[Bret4207]

A fine report Dale. I've been reading your posts on the Schuetzen sites for some time and you have a knack for getting things explained well, or at least this miserable wretch can follow it. Good job. Long live the 32's!

[Dale53]

Trr. Bret;
Many thanks for your kind words.

Dale53

[Bass Ackward]

There is really little data available for this weight bullet in this caliber. You are pretty much on your own when trying to develop loads with this heavy bullet. Dale53


Dale,

You are never alone fella. There is an infinite amount of reloading data available for any bullet weight up to 1000 grains if you want it. The 32 Mag is in Quickload. So you can build anything you want.

If you decide that you want more information or just to play with number from the results that you got to see just how .... well you guessed, use the PM feature and we can run it.

[longhorn]

I once (!) loaded up 50 rounds for my spiffy little Ruger Single Six with some 118gr cast and 2400--rather more than Deputy Al tried, but I load I swear I got from an old article by Ross Seyfried. Took 'em to an indoor range and fired a remarkable group (so small I stopped shooting and excised it from the target with my pocketknife for wallet safekeeping) with the first 6. What a great load--snappy recoil, but not alarming. I then discovered that the ejector rod wouldn't budge the empties, and I ended up tapping 'em out with a brass rod and rawhide mallet. I still have the other 44 rounds-well marked. Someday I'll run across a bullet puller and salvage the brass. Be cautious with 2400 in the 32mag.

[Blackwater]

Dale, how long is the barrel on that Contender? Reason I ask is, I know the pistols' report is SHARP, and I've already got as good a case of tinnitis as I want, but the carbine ought to be usable for me, I think? With the barrel starting so close to my ears, using a stock, I think even a 16 incher would be a bit sharp for me these days. I want to save all the hearing I can, and I already answer the phone when it's not ringing too much.

[Dale53]

Blackwater;
I ordered and received a 22" carbine barrel from J.D. Jones at SSK. It seems to be chambered well, as you would hope, and is the correct bore diameter (.312") for the .32 magnum. TC's barrels are .308 with a VERY generous chamber. I just don't believe that (TC's) will give the best results. I put my money where my mouth was:mrgreen: .

The carbine is VERY pleasant to shoot. I do wear earplugs (I too have all of the "tinnitis" that I need).

Incidentally, the 6" revolver was not bad with the 9.5 charge (which I consider max in the revolver) but the 10.7" went into another "state" altogether, IMHO.

Dale53

[Newtire]

Hi Duck,
Don't know if they do or not. I was just going to go to the next one and see. If not, I may have to just bite the boolit and order up some.

[Molly]

Dale (& others)

Nice report on the .32 Mag, thanks. But the caution about muzzle blast in hot loads is very appropriate: I once had a little Colt in .32 Long, and decided it would make a wonderful squirrel rifle a'la Colt's revolving rifle system. A friend rebarreled it with a section of .303 Brit barrel, and put a (permanent) butstock on it. It was really a thing of beauty. I sighted it in and went hunting. The first shot without earmuffs was the last: My ears rang for two days from a round of factory ammo. Any reload with enough power to get the bullet out of the barrel did pretty much the same thing (tested WITH earmuffs!!!). I sold it to a guy who wanted a wall decorator.

Durn it, you're getting me interested in the .32 Mag. I may have to think about rechambering the cadet Martini I'm building in .32 Long. Or maybe not: It's a lot easier to rechamber later if I decide I need it than to unchamber if I don't.

As for the problems with fine powder scattering everywhere, I don't know why YOURS did, but when I get the problem, it's usually static charges. If that's it, the problem will go away if you just wipe your plastic funnel (or plastic whatever) with one of those little anti-cling towels the wife tosses into the clothes drier. Or just dip in some ordinary dish detergent, and allow to dry for a day or two for an almost forever cure.

Regards,
Molly

[Dale53]

Molly;
You misunderstood me. I was EXPECTING that fine powder to be everywhere. However, I had NO powder scattered around. The Lee disc measure worked perfectly.

Regarding the .32 S&W Long vs the .32 H&R Magnum: My theory is that if you chamber for the longer case, you can load it at any level from "silent loads" to full house magnum loads with out ANY negatives. The only reason I can see to choose the Long over the H&R is if you have thousands of Long cases and don't want to spend the money on H&R cases. I actually DO have thousands of Long cases but went ahead and ordered 1000 Starline Cases (H&R) anyway.

One thing I am going to test pretty thoroughly and that is to see if there are significant accuracy differences between Long and H&R cases when shooting wadcutters in the magnum chamber. I have seen serious differences in some .357 magnums using .38 special cases vs magnum brass. I have always been lucky in this regard as my own .357's didn't seem to mind. I am looking forward to getting the Ransom Rest back as it takes most of the personal element out of the testing procedure with the revolver.

Dale53

[Molly]

Hi Dale,

> Regarding the .32 S&W Long vs the .32 H&R Magnum: My theory is that if you chamber for the longer case, you can load it at any level from "silent loads" to full house magnum loads with out ANY negatives.

Yes, I am familiar with the .22 S, L & LR and the .38 Short colt, .38 Long Colt, .38 Special & .357 combos (and others). And yes, they work pretty well, though I don't know any .22 position shooters who use the .22 short in their LR chambered match rifles. I don't have any problem with reduced loads: I've hunted squirrels and other small game with reduced loads in (IE) 30-06 and 30-40 Krag with complete satisfaction.

But I wanted a rifle for this specific use and nothing else. I even gave some thought to chambering it for the .32 S&W short, as that has plenty of power and accuracy for squirrels. For me, the .32 Mag - like the .30-40 and 30-06 - is just a bit of overkill for my needs. For that matter, so is the .32 Long, but it's close enough to satisfy me.

> The only reason I can see to choose the Long over the H&R is if you have thousands of Long cases and don't want to spend the money on H&R cases. I actually DO have thousands of Long cases but went ahead and ordered 1000 Starline Cases (H&R) anyway.

(BG) Well, I can't say that having two or three gallons of .32 Long cases was totally disregarded in my decision making process (VBG).

Molly

[Dale53]

Molly;
>>>But I wanted a rifle for this specific use and nothing else. I even gave some thought to chambering it for the .32 S&W short, as that has plenty of power and accuracy for squirrels. For me, the .32 Mag - like the .30-40 and 30-06 - is just a bit of overkill for my needs. For that matter, so is the .32 Long, but it's close enough to satisfy me.<<<

You know, if you chamber your rifle for the S&W short or long, it will give us a chance to do a side by side comparison of most any parameter we want to check. Then we will truly have answers instead of speculations:
1 - Which case actually works better for silent loads?
2- Which case works better for target/squirrel loads?
3-Which case works best with 100 gr bullets at target velocity? 120 gr bullets at
target velocity?
4 - We know the answer to - which case works best at high velocity, or do we?

In a Cadet rifle, the S&W Long will probably do nearly as well as the Magnum (higher pressures but still get similar velocity?) After all, I will be holding down my Carbine loads so I can shoot the same loads in the revolvers. You may not have the same constraints and we KNOW that the Cadet action is a very strong action.

Just some idle thoughts of an idle fellow...

Dale53

[only1asterisk]

Dale,

I'd like to run your loads through quickload. I need the length of your bullet and OAL of the loaded cartridge.

David

[Dale53]

David;
Bullet weight with my alloy is 118 grs. Bullet length is .634". OAL is 1.415".

I've been "talking" to Bass Ackward about Quickload and am leaning toward getting it. Frankly, the price is a bit "off putting" since I seldom wander outside the reloading manuals. However, in this instance there is virtually NO information in the manuals on heavy bullets in the .32 H&R Magnum.

Dale53

[only1asterisk]

The Quickload results were a little disappointing. I need data on your powder to refine things a bit. The best I can do right now is:

9.5 grains comes to 21-24k psi
10.7grains comes to 30-33k psi

Quickload is a great tool, but the farther you get from standard pressure bottleneck rifle rounds the farther off you likely to be with your results.

David

[Bass Ackward]

Quickload is a great tool, but the farther you get from standard pressure bottleneck rifle rounds the farther off you likely to be with your results.

David


David,

I don't find this to be a true statement if you make adjustments. And you really should as it pertains to your stuff. There is so much that you can do with it.

I go in an adjust for the variables like brass (case volume) Some can be off by as much as 21% depending on caliber / brand. Especially when you get away from those calibers where more effort is put into the brass for tollerances. :grin:

I am within 50 fps or less on everthing I do. "IF" I am not doing something wrong. Quickload is a computer program that gives you "perfect world" ignition, seal, bore condition, etc, etc. If you feed it the correct information!

When the chronograph and the computer don't jive, I better check my reloading techniques or start with filler or some remedial action. Then it comes right back. That's why I love it. Another check in the system.

[only1asterisk]

BA,

I agree, you need to take precise measurements and feed the software good data to get good results. I still believe the software routinely overestimates pressures/velocity in revolver rounds. Try slow powders in the 44 Magnum vs. real world results. I find that it sometimes often takes several more grains of powder to make pressure.

Don’t get me wrong, having used it I would never want to be without it, but I think it has limits.

David

[Bass Ackward]

Try slow powders in the 44 Magnum vs. real world results. I find that it sometimes often takes several more grains of powder to make pressure.

Don’t get me wrong, having used it I would never want to be without it, but I think it has limits.

David


David,

This is what I was talking about. I go down to RL#7 in a 44 and I am spot on with every bullet weight with full case loads. If I am not, I need a heavier crimp or a magnum primer or partial size my brass or a larger diameter / softer bullet. trying to get that real world "perfect" ignition that Quickload has established for me to compare myself to. When I finally get the seal right, I get the ignition. When I get both of those, velocity is spot on. Differences come from chamber size, throat size, brass hardness etc.

That was what I was refering to. Now if I am sure that I am doing .... everything correctly and I have a reduced charge, then I am just not generating the pressure to burn that small of a charge of "that" slow powder in "this" particular gun. I make a note of the cutoff or discontinue it's use going to a faster powder.

Example: If you went to say 4831 in a 44 Mag as an exageration, there is no way to get the seal because of powder speed. So in a way, Quickload is telling you to match it. When you have reached too slow of a powder for that gun / bullet / load combo / reloading technique you .... can't .... meet the standard. We have to understand the message.

If you can't match "perfection" of a Quickload projection, then back up in powder speed until you do. At least that's how I use it. Sometimes my "perfect" powder choice turns out to be a little faster than what is normally "common" knowledge for a particular caliber / weight bullet. That is how Quickload helps ME in this case.

When this becomes a problem of not being able to reach pressure by going up in powder to "correct" or meet the velocity projection. What will happen is that pressure seems non-existant and then all of a sudden you meet the criteria for a "seal" and now we get stuck case or worse because pressure spiked. Just bear that in mind.

[Dale53]

I had an opportunity to run out to the range for a bit this afternoon for some more work with the .314"X120 group buy in the TC Contender Carbine. I have installed an 8x32x44mm Simmons scope. It focuses correctly at 25 yards. I sighted in and shot a 1/2" five shot group at 25 yards. I then moved the target to 50 yards and shot a five shot group of 11/16". MY position on the bench was not good but a fairly steady position (the bench is low, made for pistol shooting off a rest). The wind was variable 10-15 mph. I did NOT have my wind flags there.

I also shot a 99x100 at 25 yards on the NRA rapid fire pistol target (standing, two handed with the S&W 16-4). I had one very wide 9 and the "X" count was not high. However, the 9.5 gr load (slow lot of WC-820) seemed to be working in the revolver, also. The load shot about 1" high from my zero for wadcutter target ammo in S&W L cases. I believe that I still have a way to go before I reach the potential of this rifle and load.

I am really impatient to receive my .313" sizing die. It's supposed to be in this week. I will next try sizing some bullets at .314" and use the factory crimp die to crimp in a separate stage. This might be the combination that puts the icing on the cake. I loaded a box of the 9.5 gr load crimping separately with the factory crimp die and this seemed just a bit more consistent. (I installed the four hole turret upgrade on the Lee Turret press).

After I get my new sizing die, I will shoot some 100 yard targets. That's where the "rubber meets the road". I'll have my wind flags out for that. Yep, I want to give the combination every chance. I wonder what the fellows and gals are getting out of their .357 and .44 rifles at 100 yards? I would expect that the .32 mag should at least be in the ballpark at 100 particularly with the heavy (for the cartridge) bullet.

There was one small nit. The extractor in the carbine barrel allows the cartridge to go right over the top into the chamber. My SSK .32 mag barrel for one of my other TC frames (10" barrel) will not allow you to slip over the extractor, even if you wanted to. On the other hand, this one is difficult to keep FROM slipping over the extractor. The extractor appears to be incorrect. I have sent an e-mail to SSK and am waiting to hear from them.

I have to say it. I feel like a kid with a new toy:mrgreen: (Remember, the difference between a man and boy is in the cost of their toys...).

Dale53

[Bodydoc447]

Dale,

What primer are you using in your 9.5 gr WC820 x .314-120 loads? Your results are very encouraging!

Thanks,

Doc

[Dale53]

Doc;
I am using the Federal 100 small pistol primer. They appear to be a bit "soft", however that is just what I want when I work up a load with a double unknown (surplus powder and heavy bullet for the cartridge).

I would suggest that you start the old "10% less" and work up .2 grs at a time to my load of 9.5 of WC 820. There are at least three different lots of WC 820 and they vary enough between lots to get into trouble. My lot is the old "slow lot" from MacDonald's of several years ago. However, it works really well in this application (in the rifle: extreme spread of 38 fps and SD of 11. In the pistol: extreme spread of 37 and SD 14). I could easily go up quite a bit in the rifle without pressure signs (after all the rifle is good for 50,000 psi with no problem) but my criteria is for a combination load safe in both rifle and revolvers (including my "J" frame S&W).

I really have no desire to have a "rifle" load AND a "revolver" load. However, if a person had a rifle only, then I would not hesitate. 10.7 grs will give you over 1700 fps with NO pressure signs in the rifle. I have no doubt that there is more power available in the rifle should you need it.

I'll probably shoot more wadcutter loads on squirrels then anything more powerful on other game. That is just speculation, of course. We'll have to see what happens down the road. It sure is interesting to play with this little carbine.
I have a Simmons .22 Mag 3-9x33 mm with adjustable objective scope ordered. It should be here sometime next week. It wil be more esthetically pleasing than the large 8x32x44mm target scope I have on the little feller, now.

Dale53

[Bodydoc447]

Dale,

Thanks. I generally start a little low, especially when working in the territory we're discussing. I have an older lot of the WC820 from Hi-Tech four or five years ago. Never hurts to work up. I like the Federal for just the same reason you describe....a little "softer" which I hope would let me know when to back off just a tad sooner than with Win or CCI primers. Of course, when I switch primers, I generally back off a little, too just to be on the safe side and work my way back to the sweet spot.

I don't have a .32 H&R rifle yet. I am considering the Marlin but am not in a hurry as I have a Marlin in both .32-20 and .25-20 for chasing squirrels and bunnies. I may have to put a Contender on the short list, too, though. For now I am just shooting the .32 H&R through single sixs.

Thanks for sharing your load development with us.

Doc

[Dale53]

Doc;
One thing I might mention. When I started my work on this caliber, my Lee Turret Press used a Lee Auto Disc powder measure. I really like this measure, but the available "holes" are not always what you wish when working up loads. In this particular case, the "holes" went from 9.5 grs and the very next hole was 10.7 grs. That is too far apart for working up loads, in my opinion. Since I was working with a strong rifle and I was not anywhere near top pressures for that rifle, I accepted the jump. However, in the revolvers, that is entirely too far between different charges. I stopped past my friendly Lee Dealer and picked up their micrometer conversion for the Auto Disc. This is MUCH nicer when working up loads.

Keep in mind, however, the micrometer conversion does not allow you to use as small a powder drop as the disc does. Of course, you can easily change it out to a disc of your choice. It is no harder nor slower to change out the micrometer slide than it is to change a disc. Really clever, clever, design (not uncommon for LEE as those people sure have the ability to think "outside the box").

Another thing - I got NO leakage with the ultra fine grained powder with either the disc or the micrometer slide. That was a nice development.

Dale53

[Bodydoc447]

Dale,

I've been using the same Lyman No. 55 powder measure for over 20 years. It was bought with hard earned money from a college summer job and has never failed me. It isn't as fast as I've heard the Lee powder measures are but it has always been very good at giving me the same volume of powder each time so the weights have been very uniform with just about everything I've tried to use. I agree with you about going from 9.5 to 10.7 grains can be a really big jump for pistol powders. When I try to work up to your 9.5 gr load I will load 10 at each 0.2 grain interval starting about 8.3. what the heck, I'll get more shooting in that way! Never can tell where the sweet spot will be for my single six.

I'm going to do the same with the Soup Can II boolits when that mold arrives. Brian reports about 0.313" as cast with his alloy. So I'll GC a few and lube them in my .313 die to see what they'll do, too.

Doc

[slughammer]

...
Keep in mind, however, the micrometer conversion does not allow you to use as small a powder drop as the disc does. Dale53

Lot's of great threads going on for the 32 mag. I myself have a S&W 16-4, and I just got around to shooting it after Christmas. Always found the 22LR in a revolver to be acceptable for squirrels but I wanted something was just a little less marginal. The thing that I'm trying to avoid is noise level and I'm going to be working with the faster powders to get as much burn inside the gun as I can. Last load I tried was 1.9gr of Clays with the RCBS 98gr SWC, unfortunately accuracy is not what it needs to be.

After about 100rounds on the single stage I set up an old PRO 1000 and am now using the Lee auto disk measure. I see your post about the adjustable powder bar conversion and I need to ask how far down can it go? CC? I plan on trying Bullseye next, (when I get back to it).