The .32 S&W Long as a man-stopper

[Javelin Dan]

OK, thanks! However, as is always the case when learning something new, each answer raises new questions. Due to liability issues with hand loads in the unlikely event of a self defense scenario, I intend to load the H&R with Buffalo Bore ammo and hang it on the bedpost. However, I would like to learn to load a similar round to shoot for practice. BB shows two loads for the .32 long:





32 S&W LONG (32 COLT NEW POLICE) - 100 gr. Hardcast Wadcutter 900fps



AND


32 S&W LONG (32 COLT NEW POLICE) - 115 gr. Hardcast FN 800fps


If I follow Molly's logic, when considering two bullets of different weight traveling at roughly the same speed, the heavier bullet will always deliver the greater amount of energy. However here, the bullets are different types and weights and displaying different speeds. Would the 100 gr. wadcutter be more destructive at 900 fps. or the heavier 115 gr. flat nose at 100 fps. less?


Olafhardt – you say some loading manuals have inaccurate and confusing info. How would I know the difference from one to another? I seem to see “Lyman's Reloading Manual” referred to here and on other forums most often and I think I saw it on the counter at Fin. Would that be a good place to start? Inquiring minds want to know...

[Wayne Smith]

Yes, get the Lyman 49th edition. It will tell you everything you need to know about reloading. They push their own equipment, but so does everyone else. Get the manual, read the first few chapters on reloading, and get back to us.

Between a wadcutter at 900fps and a flat nose at 800fps I'll take the wadcutter, simply because the velocity difference will make a difference. Both boolits will be effective and 15gr weight won't make a lot of difference.

[35remington]

The H and R you possess probably should not be loaded above Ed Harris's suggestions for the standard 32 long loadings, which is a 98 grain bullet at around 850 fps at the fastest. No "plus P" loads for that make of revolver. This presumes a 4 inch barrel or longer.

In other words, for frequent practice, don't try duplicating the Buffalo Bore loadings. There is no need. Most likely your sights are regulated for 98 grain bullets and the 115's will hit a bit high anyway.

Given the large meplat of the wadcutter, I'd go that route for a defensive load. Penetration will be vastly adequate at the rated speed. Remember that repeat fire is important to any shooting you do. Second only to shot placement.

The wadcutter at 900 carries 180 foot pounds energy, the 115 at 800 163. The large nose flat on the wadcutter transfers said energy better while penetrating plenty.

[Javelin Dan]

Magtech® Revolver Ammo.

Magtech® Handgun Ammo - accurate and reliable. Brass-cased, non-corrosive, Boxer-primed and fully reloadable.

• Caliber: .32 S&W® Long Ammo
  
• Bullet Style: Lead Wad-Cutter
  
• Bullet Wt. Grains: 98
  
• Muzzle Velocity (F.P.S.): 741
  
• Muzzle Energy (ft.-lbs.): 119

OK, so here's the one ammo I can find “relatively” easily and reasonably priced. Should I just call it good with this load in the H&R and try to learn to load to these specs?

One more question - If after I purchase Lyman's manual and have more beginner's questions (and I will!), should I bring them to this thread, somewhere else on the site, or some other forum? I'm obviously new here and don't want muck up the works by bogging down the conversation with rudimentary questions. Thanks to all!

[Outpost75]

With a cast 100-grain full wadcutter flush seated a charge of 1.7-2.0 grains of Bullseye is appropriate. If you use a SWC bullet similar to Saeco #325, seated out and crimped in the crimp groove a charge of 2 grains of Bullseye approximates factory velocity and 2.4-2.5 is as far as you should go.

[olafhardt]

I don't have Lyman 49 but I do have Lyman Pistol and Revolver 3 and Lyman 47. 47 shows similar and heavier loads for the 32SW (not SWL!!) than the 32ACP and what I found to be extremely over powered loads for the 32SWL. It's first published date is 1992. The P&R 3 (2004) has much saner loads. Some of the old stuff is really insane. A rule of thumb might be to never use over 3 grains of any fast powder in the 32SWL and that should be done with caution. From what I have read a hard cast 32SWL at 6-800 fps will put a hole through a guy which is all a 45ACP hardball will do. Every of several living creatures I have shot with a 22 lr has either run off or died. That said my bedside companion is a 357.

[trapper9260]

Since you going with cast also try to find the Lyman Cast Book 3rd Ed that will help you on casting beside the 49th.I learn casting from just reading the 3rd Ed and then pick up more being on here and some other sites.I shoot 32 S&W Long and other 32's. If you looking for more brass check on here for some that might have some also on gun brokers.

[9.3X62AL]

The data presented for the Magtech wadcutter load looks like SAAMI spec loading, safe for any revolver in good mechanical shape chambered in 32 S&W Long. As others have mentioned, the H&R 732 is not a revolver in which factory load rates should be exceeded.

[Outpost75]

H&R used the same frame size as the 732 for their .32 H&R Magnum revolvers, and that cartridge defines its upper design limits. I agree that heavier loads are not for steady use as they will loosen the gun prematurely, but up to 850 fps, 2.5 grains of Bullseye, as listed by Hatcher (1935) or Sharpe (1937) with 98-grain lead bullet for the S&W Hand Ejector Model 1903 are acceptable for "occasional field use" and my 732 handles them with no issues. However the 2.5 grain load is reserved for hunting and 2 grains of Bullseye is the recreational plinker.

Attachment 134478

[EMC45]

H&R used the same frame size as the 732 for their .32 H&R Magnum revolvers, and that cartridge defines its upper design limits. I agree that heavier loads are not for steady use as they will loosen the gun prematurely, but up to 850 fps, 2.5 grains of Bullseye, as listed by Hatcher (1935) or Sharpe (1937) with 98-grain lead bullet for the S&W Hand Ejector Model 1903 are acceptable for "occasional field use" and my 732 handles them with no issues. However the 2.5 grain load is reserved for hunting and 2 grains of Bullseye is the recreational plinker.

Attachment 134478

Had the same pistol and my best shooting came with the Lyman 311-252 77gr. RN bullet believe it or not. Shot right to point of aim and was pretty darn accurate. Now my Smiths on the other hand are fed a steady diet of RCBS 32-098 and they don't complain......

[9.3X62AL]

My odds-on favorite bullet for the 32 S&W Long and 32 Magnum has been the latter bullet mentioned by EMC--the RCBS 32-098-SWC. From 700-1200 FPS, it has been a tackdriver in every revolver I have owned in these 2 calibers. In 92/6/2 alloy it casts large enough (.3155" or so) to size properly for the .314" throats on my S&W 32 caliber wheelguns, and at .313" does well in my 1901 Colt New Police x 6" with its slightly tighter dimensioning. When the lighting is proper--and I can see the knife-blade nickeled front sight of this little beast--it shoots very well.

[Javelin Dan]

OK folks, just started back to work last week, but as soon as I recover a bit financially, I'll be ordering a Lee's single stage anniversary starter kit and a Lyman's 49^th edition. I'll keep an eye on this thread to see if anything comes up that I should know. Once I get started I'll check back with any progress/questions.




Before I go dark, I just wanted to comment on something I've seen mentioned here and on other forums about casting (presumably harder) bullets out of “Linotype” lead.




My Dad was a lifelong printer – worked for several shops early on, then opened and operated his own print shop for a number of years before closing it to go work for a publishing company. He had his own Linotype machine – damnedest contraption I've ever seen! If you're interested, look here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?. It had a gas fired melting pot, and the desired text was typed on a typewriter-like keyboard. In just a few seconds a flat lead bar with a line of type on the end of it was sent down a slide and automatically stacked in proper order in a “magazine” until an entire page was completed. The magazine was then loaded into a “hand-feed” press that reciprocated forward and back as the operator fed and removed the paper one page at a time. A real hand crusher if ever there was one. The bars could then be melted down and reused from one job to the next. Thankfully, new and better printing methods rendered this operation obsolete. (Edit: If video doesn't work, try here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mFtroOIv3o).




When Dad closed his shop, he stored the equipment he couldn't sell in an old garage. Stored with it were boxes and boxes of old used lead “Linotype”. Everything laid there and rusted until the garage collapsed under its own weight. All the contents (including the type) were hauled away for scrap to make room for a new garage. Funny how paradigms change...one man's potion is another man's poison.

[9.3X62AL]

I defer to Outpost 75's far deeper experience and expertise in load recommendations for a given revolver. I exercise an abundance of caution with nice old wheelguns like my little jewel of a Colt NP or my Colt Police Positive x 4" in 38 S&W.

[Doc1]

I've been here for years and previously paid scant attention to this thread, thinking "Who the 'ell cares about the .32 S&W?" Then a few nights ago I realized how long - and how long-lived - the thread was and started reading. Man, it's addictive. This is one of the more interesting threads on the entire site!

I do have an old .32 S&W revolver (which I very rarely shoot) as well as dies and brass for it, but I mainly load the cartridge for use with subcaliber chamber devices to shoot out of my 30-06 and .308s. These make efficient and quiet combinations for use as a pest control tool and with the difficulty of finding .22 LR in recent years I find that they are a useful .22 substitute at the closer ranges. I'm out in the country so I could legally blast away with centerfire rifles at 2 a.m. if I had a mind to, but I'm considerate of my neighbors. When I fire the .32 S&W through one of my rifles at the rabbits or possums in our garden at night, the nearest neighbors say they don't even hear it.

As to the merits of the little .32 as a defensive round, I'm afraid I remain unconvinced. Handguns - all of them - are poor combat tools, but if I'm forced to use one I want it to deliver as much energy downrange as possible. This doesn't mean that it's always practical to carry a .44 Mag, but even in modern pocket pistols it's possible to find 9mm, 9mm Mak and .380s that are as small as anything in .32 S&W or even .32 acp. I can see no reason to sacrifice the greater energy of more powerful cartridges when they can be had in pistols that are no larger than those firing less powerful rounds.

As an example, I have two alloy-framed Hungarian FEG PPK clones. One is in .380 and the other is in .22 LR. The little pistols are dimensionally identical and equally easy to carry. For defensive purposes, there is not a single good reason to carry the .22 instead of the .380. Similarly, I have a KelTec sub-compact 9mm which is (for all practical purposes) no larger than the PPKs. Again, it makes no sense to carry the .380 when I can carry the more powerful 9mm.

Once we get beyond the realm of pocket pistols and move into full-sized defensive handguns, I (again) always prefer more power. Though I own and have always liked the P35 Hi Power, I'm not a big 9mm fan. No, I'm not starting yet another useless 9mm vs. .45acp debate, but am pointing out that in a full-sized combat handgun I want roaring, dance with the pressure demons, top-o'-the-charts .357 Magnum or .45 acp power and yes, I hand load to get there. No, I can't, no matter how I slice the numbers, get there in 9mm. I sometimes, though rarely for practical reasons of size and weight, will CCW my .44 Mag. No. It is NOT too powerful! There is no such thing as "too powerful" in a fighting handgun! I'm unusual in that I'm really not a revolver or auto partisan. Both are tools with different strengths and weaknesses in my view. Nothing more. I really don't care if I only have six rounds of .357 as opposed to fifteen or seventeen...or a hundred, rounds of 9mm. In 99.9% of handgun combat scenarios, if I haven't saved my bacon within the first two rounds being fired, a truck full of extra ammunition wouldn't do me the slightest bit of good.

Best regards
Doc

[EMC45]

Good points Doc.

[Biggfoot44]

WOW ! I am an intermittent visitor here, and only recently found this thread , and have now finished it. I like .32's , and for a cpl years used a M31 as a BUG. Discusions * about .32SW Long ( and similar ) suitability for social purposes must be viewed in context. There is a certain floor level to be considered a reasonably serious defensive/ duty handgun. We can debate exactly where the line is , but if I arbitarialy threw out .38 Spl +P from 4in bbl , it will give a general idea. A .32 fall short of that. BUT there are a boatload of defensive guns short of "that" , millions of people buy them , and a signifigent % of said owners consider them of useful for at least some defensive purposes. It is within this context we should look at .32's generally , and the specific loading. 9.3x62AL brought up an important point in post #372 - Accuracy and modest recoil. By extention this means the capability of precisely placing shots , quickly. In low powered cals this is especially needed. May be just my personal sampling , but pocket size .380's are punishing to my hand , and to be generous are "combat accurate @ close distances" . .32 Long J Frames ( and my FEG and CZ .32acp's ) are pleasant to shoot , and accurate. Molly's prefered 115-ish FP/ SWC at warm vels will certianly meet is desired deep penetration. A 100gr SWC at similar vel may well also provide aall the penetration reasonably of use aginst two legged threats. For that matter .32acp fmj @ full Europaen specs still has signifigent penetration. If I have more time and disposable resources , it would be fun to engage in various testing. To sumize , the niche is plenty of power . Opps mean to tap - Plenty of Penetration , reasonable power , while having signifigently less recoil than .38Spl. Warm .32 Long , factory level .32Mag , and full loaded .32acp fit that niche. Meanwhile in the earlier parts of this thread in tangent discusion of and comparison to the .38Spl there was some miscomunication of nomenclaature and semantics. Molly frequently refered to .38Spl "Police Loads" , he was meaning the std vel 158 RNL . And indEed , these woyuld often say Police Load , or Servicwe Load , so similar on the box. This was the typical LE load from early 1900's thru 1960's . Louisania Man refered to the FBI Load , which was also widely adpoted by LE nationwide from the early 1970's , up to today in those few still using revolvers. This is 158 LSWC/HP @ +P vels. Totaally different level of performance from the 158RNL.

[Outpost75]

These bullets from Accurate have given fine results in my 1970s-era Colt Police Positives and Detective Special using 6 to 6.3 grains of #2400. Pressure approximates the .32 H&R Magnum so DO NOT use in older guns. 114D was designed as a heavy bullet for the .32 Long, 125D is actually a .30 cal. rifle bullet, but works well in revolvers having tighter cylinder throats. 134D was designed as a heavy bullet for rook rifle use subsonic, but I found it accurate and deeply penetrating in strong .32 revolvers. It gives the same cartridge OAL as .32 H&R Magnum ammo when loaded in .32 S&W Long brass.

Attachment 147156Attachment 147157Attachment 147158

[35remington]

The 32 long has never needed to be hot loaded to achieve this "adequate penetration" everyone seems to be concerned about. I've done a fair amount of penetration testing of the 32 revolver cartridges lately and they surpass anybody's minimums in that regard.

The old timers knew what was required in that time to do what was needed. Sometimes we forget that.

[Outpost75]

The 32 long has never needed to be hot loaded to achieve this "adequate penetration" everyone seems to be concerned about. I've done a fair amount of penetration testing of the 32 revolver cartridges lately and they surpass anybody's minimums in that regard.

The old timers knew what was required in that time to do what was needed. Sometimes we forget that.

The Accurate 31-134D when fired from a Ruger with 6.3 grs. of #2400 in .32 S&WLong brass is 900 fps from a 4-5/8" barrel and shoots through both shoulders of a deer broadside. Equal to. 38 Special +P.

[35remington]

When I think of the cartridge I go back in time to what it was for most of its usage as originally intended. My revolver has something to do with that. When it is loaded as it used to be its penetration is also decent enough for the purposes of this thread. The man stopping part will continue to be debated but I suggest the penetration part need not be.