reloadable .32 rimfire brass

[Chev. William]

For your information: Quoted from the "Buffalo Arms Co." web site:
"Swiss and Schuetzen Sporting Black Powder has the following granule size:

1Fg .047"-.063"

1 1/2Fg .035"-.054"

2Fg .026"-.054"

3Fg .020"-.034"

Available in Swiss Powder Only 4Fg.... .009"-.020"

Available in Swiss Powder Only Null B.... .009"

Available in Schuetzen Powder Only Re-enactor... .009"-.063" "
Quote finished.
My take is that the Swiss 'Null-B' is Everything that will pass through a .009" screen, all the way to 'dust'.
The Schuttzen "Re-enactor" would have a very wide range of ignition and burn speeds due to its variable mix of screen size powder granules.
Best Regards,
Chev. William

[w30wcf]

Chev - I think .5gr of 4F would work fine for this purpose. Its kind of the inverse to what I used to do 25-30 years ago, before I learned the right way to load black powder cartridges. I used to put a little smokeless like 2400 (5% - 10% of the BP charge weight) against the primer and then load the BP. This helped reduce fouling. Now we need to go the other way around!

ndnchf,
As you probably know, back in the black powder era, the only primers available had been designed to ignite b.p. and were very mild. So, when the smokeless era began in the mid 1890's, those folks that wanted to try the new fangled powder soon found out that the b.p. primers they had been using did not reliably ignite the new powder. At that time, the factories did offer primers that were hotter specifically for smokeless but the folks soon found out that they could use the milder b.p. primers if they placed a small amount of b.p. in the case first, followed by a load of smokeless, all was well.

That was, if the powder used was DuPont No. 1 or No. 2 bulk smokeless which filled the case to capacity, therefore holding the b.p. charge in place against the primer. With dense smokeless powders that did not fill the case, one would have needed to place a paper wad over the b.p. charge to hold it in place.

Fast forwarding 119 years, if the b.p. charge was placed directly into the blank and held in place with a tuft of cotton, that would likely work just dandy with 2400 and similar burning rate powders.

It would be interesting to see if faster burning powders like Titegroup were loaded directly into the blank and held in place with a tuft of cotton or paper wad would work aok without using a b.p. kicker. Faster burning powders are used in standard .22 l.r. cartridges but the larger expansion ratio of the .32 L.C. may or may not be an issue.

Chev. William,
I am using Swiss Null B in reloading .22 L.R. b.p. cartridges and it has a very even small grain size with no dust at all. I guess that's why it runs around $30 / lb.

w30wcf

[Chev. William]

Chev. William,
I am using Swiss Null B in reloading .22 L.R. b.p. cartridges and it has a very even small grain size with no dust at all. I guess that's why it runs around $30 / lb.

w30wcf

W30wcf,
I was basing my comment on the listed description from Buffalo Arms, so I Humbly Stand Corrected by your actual knowledge fo the 'Null-B' BP.
Thank you for the correcting comment.
Best Regards,
Chev. William

[ndnchf]

W30wcf - thanks for the primer on early primers - very interesting. I was familiar with the weaker BP primers, but not things shooters of the day did to deal with the changing technology. I've never used titegroup, but it would be interesting to see how it would work.

[w30wcf]

Chev. William,
That's what I would have thought too if I hadn't actually had the opportunity to work with Swiss Null B.

ndnchf,
I was trying to recall where I had read about the use of b.p. as starting charge for smokeless when using the mild b.p. early primer. So I retrieved my copy of THE COMPLETE GUIDE TO HANDLOADING by Philip Sharpe (1937) which is an excellent reference book for historical information on reloading .

He has two full chapters on primers.....quite an interesting history! Anyway, I found it. "Both types were occasionally used by handloaders with black powder primers, when a small priming charge of black powder was first inserted into the bottom of the shell." "Both types" referred to the Bulk and Dense type smokeless powders.

It wil be interesting to learn from your experiments how much of a b.p. priming charge it will take to ignite the charge of 2400 reliably.

With regards to Titegroup, other powders with faster burning rates like Bullseye, Clays, etc. would work pretty much the same. The ? is though, if the larger expansion ratio of the .32 would still give a similar result as the .22 LR cartridge which typically uses 1 - 1 1/2 grs of powder although the .32 would use more at 2 - 2.2 grs.....

w30wcf

[ndnchf]

W30wcf - I'm going to look for a copy of that book. It sound like a great reference from the early smokeless era. I will probably try .5 gr of 4F as a priming charge in my .32 extra longs. I think it will make a big improvement with the 2400.

[w30wcf]

ndnchf,
Yes, it is a wonderful book filled with lots of really interesting, historic info. He also has a couple of chapters on Black Powder in addition to smokeless. There were, I think, 3 editions with each one adding more information to the first. The second one on this list looks like it would be a good one.....
http://www.abebooks.com/book-search/...rtby/2/page-1/

It will be interesting to learn if the .5 gr charge does the job.

I decided to convert one case today just to try it in my 1892 Marlin. I used a .22 LR primed case and when fired, I must say that the report was not as loud as a centerfire primed case but there was no doubt that it had fired (24" barrel).

THANK YOU for all the detailed information that you have provided!

I don't know the length of the blank cases you are using but I found that 2.2 grs. of Titegroup will fit into a .22 Short case with about 1/16" to spare....just enough to put a paper wad in the mouth. 2.0 grs of Bullseye filled the case competely so a piece of tape over the case mouth would be needed.

I plan on test firing the one round tomorrow using the 2.2 / Titegroup charge. I'll report back.......

w30wcf

[ndnchf]

w30wcf - that's a pretty good price for an original edition. I found a free downloadable pdf version, but a document that size is too hard for my aging eyes to read on a computer screen, I'd rather have a hard copy to sit back and read in my comfy chair. I see Cornell has a new reprint for $29.95, but I'm not sure which edition it is.

http://www.cornellpubs.com/old-guns/...p?item_id=3731

But for $10 more, I'd prefer the one you found.

I was using empty .22 blanks used for dog training in my .32XLs. It sounds like the .22LR case you tried had a stronger priming compound. So that may be the simple answer. I have several brands of .22 short, long and LRs, I'll try some of each and see what the difference is.

My smokeless knowledge and experience is very limited. Being a BP guy for the last 30+ years, I just havent used much of the stuff. I have a little 2400 left from the early 1980s, some old XP5744 and I recently bought some Trail Boss. That's what have to experiment with right now. If I were to buy another can of smokeless for use in the .32, what would you recommend?

Just wondering how filling the .22 short case with smokeless and a wad will work in the .32 case. It seems like the
.22 case would blow out if there is not an equal amount of pressure on the outside of it's case. When I loaded mine, I poured the powder in from the mouth allowing it to go both inside and outside of the .22 blank on the theory that this would keep pressure equal on both sides ofthe .22 case wall. It seemed to work, as the .22 case was not deformed after firing and was easy to knock out afterwards. So it will be interesting to see how you your filled and wadded .22 case works. Looking forward to your range report.

[Chev. William]

My thoughts are that the .22LR case with only a Thin paper 'wad' or a tuft of poly fill will not generate enough pressure to be deformed as the pressure of the expanding gasses will find easy path into the .32ExL case and then build up pressure until the Bullet begins its travel down the barrel.

From my reading I find there are at least two schools of thought as to which range of Smokeless powders would be best for making low peak pressure loads for these older cartridges.

One group advocates very fast burning powders with low charge weights to get a quick, sharp peak presure to expand the case before the bullet moves out of the mouth of the case into the rifling.

A second group advocates using slower burning powders to generate a slightly slower rise in pressure and a lower peak pressure to get the bullet moving while smoothly expanding the case softer neck and mouth to form the chamber seal.

Which group is right will need to be determined by careful experiments over time with several rifles and cartridges.

I do know that in my 'playing around' with "QuichLOAD" software and the .25ACP cartridge and longer variants postulating a roughly 22" barrel length, I found that the slower range of powders would yield a slightly higher MV and somewhat lower and later Peak pressure for the charge weights I tried.
This held for a range of case lengths from about .605" to 1.350" in my runs of the software.
Such software runs are THEORETICAL and have not yet been verified by physical testing by me, I am still waiting for my test rifle to be completed.

Best Regards,
Chev. William

[w30wcf]

I fired my test cartridge with the .22 Short case and 2.2 / Titegroup. I am happy to report that the round fired fine with about the same report as the standard center fire cartridge. It looks like the temps will at least get above freezing possibly next week so I will run a round across the chronograph to see if the velocity is comparable to the center fire case with the same charge.

Thankfully, the spent rimfire case was removed as easily as it was inserted into the case. Chev. William's thoughts were correct regarding no case distortion.

w30wcf

[ndnchf]

That's great to hear w30wcf. I'm hoping for some warmer weather here in Virginia too, but it doesn't look like it will happen anytime soon. In fact, they are starting to talk about another big storm coming up from the south and arriving here Wednesday night. I guess ole man winter is not done with us yet.

Tonight I loaded up 10 rounds of .32 Extra Long using .5gr of 4F as a priming charge inside the emptied blank case. I added a small piece of toilet paper as a wad to hold it in place. Then inserted it into the .32XL case and added 6.0 gr of 2400. The 2400 filled the remaining space in the .22 blank and outside of it up to a level about 1/4" below the bullet's base. The blank was completely covered when looking into the case, I could not see the blank at all. But I digress, a while back w30wcf graciously sent me some bullets from his new Accurate mold (sorry, I can't recall the mold # at the moment) and I wanted to try them. These bullets have an additional driving band compared to the Lyman 299153 which I expect will make them more stable. But I found that the loaded round would not chamber because the additional driving band was engaging the rifling before the round was fully seated. The band measures about .050" long, so I trimmed 10 of my cases .050 shorter. After doing this they chambered just fine.

Here are a couple rounds. On the left loaded with the 299153 bullet and on the right the Accurate mold bullet. In front is another empty .32 XL case and a blank (sorry they are a little blurry). You can clearly see the differences in the two bullets.



In the #2 rolling block I've tried the 299153 bullet with 3F BP, APP 3F, and straight 2400. None of them have shot well. But the bore is in pretty rough shape and I'm sure that is a major cause of the inaccuracy. But I want to give the Accurate bullet a chance and see if its extra driving band surface area will work better. I'm not holding my breath on it, but it is certainly worth a try.

[kootne]

ndnchf, I'm not much of a smokeless powder guy but I remember 2400 is what I think we loaded in Dad's .44 magnum back in the '60's. Just a bit of concern that you don't over pressure things altho that #2 certainly will take more than the Favorite and similar actions.
I have a Hodgons 2009 "Annual Manual", which is showing pressure tested loads for a .32 H&R Magnum. Here is the load info that seems closest to what I'm guessing you are looking for; (I can't remember your exact case length)

Case; Federal
Barrel; 5"
Trim; 1.070
Twist; 1-16
Primer; Federal 100
Bullet; 90 gr. HDY LSWC dia. .314 col=1.350"

starting loads maximum loads
powder......grs......vel.......pressure(cup)...... ..grs........vel........pressure
HS-6.........4.6......845......10,900................ ..5.0........963......14,800
Autocomp..3.4......874......10,400................ ..3.9........997......14,500
Universal....3.0.....819........8,400............. .....3.2........908......11,500
231............2.8.....828........9,600........... .......3.2.......919.......12,500
HP-38........2.8......828........9,600............... ...3.2.......919.......12,500
Trail Boss...2.4......751......10,700..................2 .8.......785.......11,300
Tite group..2.4......819......10,500..................2 .8........911......13,300

These seem like quite mild loads to me, there are others listed with various jacketed bullets that move out faster. If you want I can post some for the 90 grn. jacketed loads that reach 11-1200 fps and pressure to 18-19,000 cup.
I feel the need to note if these loads are put up in the shorter .32 long cases that pressures will undoubtably go up.
kootne

[kootne]

Wow, all that work to carefully space stuff in columns and when I hit post, it all crunched together. they say today's kids are technology natives, I am a technology illegal immigrant. hope you can decifer.
sorry,
kootne

[ndnchf]

Kootne - thanks. My case length is 1.100" and 1.150", pretty close to what you posted. I can read the data ok, thanks for posting.

[kootne]

Hopefully putting all those periods in makes my post regarding loads more ledgible
kootne

[ndnchf]

I decided to test the .22 blank shown above with .5gr of 4F as a priming charge only. I wanted to see how much of a BANG it would give. I put in the .5gr of 4F and put a small piece of TP as a wad to hold it in place. I test fired it in the garage. To my surprise the 4F did not ignite! It was blown into the bore about 6" along with the TP wad. I think the original .22 blank priming charge is very weak with the main powder charge poured out. After this I tried a CCI .22 short with bullet pulled and powder dumped. It made a noticable, but small bang with no powder in it. I then added .5gr of 4F to another CCI .22 short case with a wad and tried it. BANG it went, although still pretty mild. So after this I decided to disassemble the rounds I made up the other day and replace the .22 blanks with CCI .22 short cases with 1.0 gr of 4F as a priming charge. So the two loads I made up are:

1. - 6.0gr of 2400 over a CCI .22 short case primer with 1.0gr of 4F and the Accurate #31-090S bullet
2. - 2.9gr of Trail Boss over a CCI .22 short case primer with 1.0gr of 4F and the Lyman 299153 bullet

To arrive at the Trail Boss load I looked at what kootne posted above and then filled then did the standard Trail Boss calculation for a starting load. With a .22 short case in place I filled the caes to the top with Trail Boss, that came to 4.23gr. The starting point is suppose to be 70% of the full case load. 70% came to 3.29gr. But then since I was adding 1.0gr of 4F BP in the primer, I wanted to reduce it a little further. 60% = 2.82gr. So considering the 4F is a slight wildcard, I settled on 2.9gr as my load.

The snow is about to hit here, so I'm not sure when I'll get to the range. But I'm anxious to try these out.

[w30wcf]

Today was a day of discovery.

I made a brief trip to the range this afternoon to do some testing. It was in the 20's and a bit windy. Brrrrrr. I kept the components in my pocket to keep them a bit warm.

Rifle: 1892 Marlin 24" .32 LC

But first, I decided to make a trip to Lowes this AM and picked up these boxes of .22

I dissected 3 each to find out what powder charges they contained..... 1.6 / 2.2 / 2.6 grs respectively

Since I only had 1 case converted to use .22 r.f. I decided to first try the powder charges in .32 LC cases (.91") primed with CCI 500 small pistol primers and then seated 31-090A bullets.
I positioned the powder to the rear prior to firing to duplicate the position in the power cartridges.

2 power level ...- 786 f.p.s. / 2 shot average
3 power level ...- 975 f.p.s. / 2 shot average - closest to factory cartridge load
4 power level - 1,124 f.p.s. / 1 shot

Those were encouraging results and would indicate that the power level 3 cartridge placed into the modified .32 Colt case would pretty much replicate factory ballistics. However, the rimfire primer may not give the same result as the small pistol primer. I will find that out next week.......

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next up were the .22 cases charged with 2.2 / Titegroup.......
They produced 910 f.p.s. average. The same charge in the standard .32 LC case
ignited by a small pistol primer = 940 f.p.s. so that is pretty close.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ndnchf,
I tried 5.5 /2400 which, in a standard .32 LC case with a small pistol primer previously averaged around 1,100 f.p.s.
primer - 1.0 / 4F in a .22 case - 895 f.p.s which is 200 f.p.s. less

So.... I decided to try a .22 b.p. blank - 1,184 f.p.s. (additional 84 f.p.s. due to the b.p. charge)



The .22 Blank contains about 2 1/2 grs of b.p. (difference in weight between fired and unfired)

So it would seem that the ideal weight of b.p. to ignite 2400 would be greater than 1.0 gr. and less than 2.5 gr.

To be continued......

w30wcf

[ndnchf]

W30wcf - wow, I've read this twice and am still digesting it - very interesting! I've long wondered what these blanks would do. I just want to make sure I understand one thing. You took the powder from the duo-fast blanks and used it in the .32 LC cases? Any idea what powder it is? I bought the .27 cal green Ramset blanks from Home Depot and dumped the powder and tried the empty blanks in .32 cases I made. But I was afraid to use the mystery powder. If the #3 duo-fast blanks could be used as-is to power the .32LC rounds, it would really simplify loading. Of course this leads me to wonder which duo-fast would be good in the .32 extra long. Maybe the 4?

I have 20 rounds of .32 XL loaded using the .22 short case with 1.0gr of 4F for priming. Maybe I should have doubled that? Well, maybe next time around. I looked for those black powder blanks locally, but was unable to locate any. I would like to try some.

This is all very interesting. Thanks for all the experiments and sharing the results!

[tomsp8]

The idea of using the Duo blanks alone, as primer and powder, in the modified cases was a thought of mine
as well, but since I'm new to bp cartridge loading, wanted to stay with the bp. My only concern would
be "depriming" the spent blank. The crimp in the blank might open enough to make it hard to drive it
back out easily?

[w30wcf]

ndnchf,
Yes, I transferred the powder charges from the .22 Duo-Fast into standard .32 LC cases. When I saw the amount of powder they contained, I felt that it was safe to at least try the number 2. After seeing that velocity, I felt comfortable to try the number 3. I only loaded 1 round of the number 4. Perhaps the number 4 would be ideal for the larger capacity .32 E.L. case. Tests using the actual Duo-Fast .22's will give us a better idea of what they will do in the converted .32 LC cases.

Based on the results, the powder used approximates pretty much the same burning rate as Bullseye, and a bit faster than Titegroup.

tomsp8,
The blank was removed as easily as it was seated. The end has a roll crimp.
http://media.midwayusa.com/productim...0x%20blank.jpg

w30wcf