My Ruger New Model Single Six .32 Project.

[Chev. William]

Last month I had some "Disposable Funds" and choose a Used Ruger New Model Single Six in .32 H&R Magnum as a 'Project'.

The 'Project' is to fit it for interchangeable cylinders for various cartridges.
there Are two 'families' of .32 Size cartridges.
S&W family of Cartridges of .337 body diameter.
These range from .32 auto, at .680 case Length, to .327 Fed. mag., at 1.200' case length.
Colt family of cartridges of .318" body diameter.
These range from .32 Extra short (RF), at .398" case length, to .32 Extra Long (RF), at 1.150" case length and .32 Short colt (CF), at .650" case length, to .32 Long colt, at .916" case length, plus 'Mildcat' Cf versions of the RF Case lengths and up to 1.200" or so.

I am currently planning the S&W family will be done in Blued Steel cylinders and the Colt family will be done in Stainless steel Cylinders for Visual differentiation of the two case Body Diameters.
For best theoretical accuracy, a cylinder will be made for each Cartridge.

I have not yet Figured out a Marking method to inexpensively label the Various Cylinder's Calibers.

The first two to be made, in addition to the Original .32 H&R cylinder are .32 Auto and .32 Long Colt. The Long Colt one will have chambers that will accept cartridges made from .912" long cases and Accurate Mold 311090A cast Lead bullets.
Obviously it will also accept cases down to.78" length with outside Lube Heeled bullets.
I doubt I will use the later, and undersized, Inside lube bullets of the .32 Long Rifle series.

Best Regards,
Chev. William

[jonp]

Interesting. I think the S&W will be the most popular. You would have to order the cylinders and have a gunsmith fit them or send the gun to you to have them fitted?

[Chev. William]

I have been buying cylinders off of Ebay and from "www.gunpartscorp.com" so they are sent tome and I take them to my gunsmith for the chamber re-cut and eventual fitting.

So far, I have not received back either of the two re-cut .32 sized 6-shot cylinders back for inspection.

When I bought the .32 H&R Ruger, we measured and tried the .22-mag and LR cylinders in it and they 'fit' with an obvious big gap between the front and the forcing cone.

It seems like Ruger used the same overall Length dimension for both the .22 cylinders and the .32 H&R cylinder but moved the main bulk of the cylinder forward by the rim thickness so the same length along the 'chamber' is farther forward in the Frame. both my gunsmith and I believe it will work with the barrel and forcing cone set back and the original .32 H&R Cylinder Front cut back some to match the New forcing cone position.

From what i gather from my reading, the .327 FM version has a Longer Cylinder body but still uses the same over all length for the cylinder in the frame, with the forcing cone cut to flush (or almost flush) with the frame, to accommodate the longer cartridge.

Best Regards,
Chev. William

[Mk42gunner]

For marking the cylinders, I would try electro-chemical etching.

Robert

[35remington]

If anything would be a worthless duplication of effort to no good purpose, making separate cylinders in 32 S and W Long and 32 Long Colt would have my hearty nomination.

But it's not my money, of course.

[Chev. William]

35remington,
I don't follow your comment:
"If anything would be a worthless duplication of effort to no good purpose, making separate cylinders in 32 S and W Long and 32 Long Colt would have my hearty nomination."

The Two Cartridges are different diameters in the Body (S&W=.336" and Colt=.318") so would not work in one cylinder interchangeably.

Why do you think making two separate cylinder would be a 'waste of Money'?

Best Regards,
Chev. William

[35remington]

Because there's little difference in the performance of the two cartridges. Long Colt cases are more expensive, harder to get and require a heeled bullet in accomplishing the same thing. No difference in performance while racking up more expense in obtaining identical performance and spending more money on another cylinder. This is when "wants" totally depart from any practicality.

Rather like buying a Toro and a Lawnboy push mower to mow the same yard. The Smith and Wesson Long makes good sense. A Smith Long and a Colt Long does not. If you want to be different, get the Colt Long cylinder made instead, but getting both made is like putting mudflaps on a sledgehammer.

Save the money for 32's that don't overlap to anywhere near this degree. Heck, make it for a super shorty or magnum 32 if you want. A 32 Smith and Wesson (shorty cartridge) cylinder would be great fun. My own "wild hare" thoughts run like that myself. Absolute minimum expense to shoot and plinking and small game centric without putting a crud ring in a longer chamber.

I just see what you propose as essentially equivalent to making two 32 Smith and Wesson longs, only with more hassle and even more expense. The performance equivalency would be of the same nature.

I am with you in spirit as I love 32 revolvers myself. I just have a different view on practicality of choices. For example, I can make a pretty fair case for the short 32 Smith and Wesson chambering,'believe it or not.

[Chev. William]

Point Taken.

My thinking was to be able to test loads in a Robust action for my .32 Long Colt actions of lessor Strength, such as 1894 Stevens Favorite in 32 Long converted to CF.

The .32 S&W Long was because of The "crud ring" and reduced accuracy due to the bullet 'rattling' in the longer chamber before reaching the cylinder throat of the .32 H&R chambers.

I am already having a .22LR 6-shot cylinder re-cut to take .32 Auto cartridges so the Project is in its beginnings.

Also the intent of trying to use Stainless Steel Cylinders for the "Colt family" is the thought of firing Black Powder (BP) Loads in the 'Colt sized' cartridges along with Smokeless Loads, hoping for easier clean up from the BP use.

My .38 Colt DA "Lightening" Sheriffs/Storekeeper revolver is tedious to clean up after using BP loads but still fun to shoot so I do it. I find Two Minimum cleanings separated by 24 hours is the Minimum I can 'live with' and three are more comfortable. Submerging that 100+ year old revolver in Hot Soapy Water is not my Idea of Good things to do. Luckily it still has about 85% of its original Nickel Finish.


Best Regards,
Chev. William

[35remington]

One of the things that surprised me about the 32 long Smith is that velocity variations are somewhat high with powder positioning extremes. Since it is smaller than the 38 Special case I figured it might be better in that regard, but it is actually somewhat worse. I figure the modest operating pressure is mostly to blame, but elevate pressures and volume of powder fill to a level where things improve and the loads are hard on my I frame Smith and 1919 manufacture Colt Police Positive.

With a stout Ruger one could load the short 32 Smith and Wesson case to 32 ACP type pressures and equal or better 32 long ballistics with better consistency due to the small case. NOE's RCBS 98 SWC clone and the 313492 wadcutter clone they offer are ideal for the short case as both seat shallowly and work well with the 32 Smith and Wesson's small capacity. A snugly throated cylinder mating well with the barrel's groove dimensions would be the ideal low cost plinker and small game gun. Roundball loads would be notably efficient, and the larger rim of the 32 would have appeal over the ACP case.

When I am lazy, which is a lot of the time, I simply slather Wonder Sludge (TC Bore Butter) over the fired black powder revolver and clean more thoroughly when I feel like it. Sometimes this is a considerable length of time. No rust ever develops and the fouling/sludge mixture wipes off easily in preparation for the next shoot. Very little time and effort is expended in so doing.

Such are my impractical dreams along these lines in custom chambered 32 revolvers, as it probably just makes more sense to load the RCBS 98 WC to 750 fps in the long case and forget the whole idea. But it would be nice to load the SWC type bullets of shallower seating depth to better levels of ballistic consistency. In the meantime, when such things matter, I can just point the barrel skyward and lower it before I shoot, I guess.

[gwpercle]

People with disposable funds get to dispose them however they please, go for it !
Life's short , do what makes you happy.

[35remington]

Certainly do agree, it's his money. Be as impractical as you want. But speaking for myself, even "mad" money has limits. And lots of cylinders cost real money. I would get what I want with minimal overlap at first and save the more extraneous stuff for last, with "extraneous" following one's own reasoned judgement, which of course varies with the person judging.

[Earlwb]

I wonder if the cylinders are long enough for the .30 Carbine cartridge. That might be another possibility for the pistol too.
I think it will be very interesting to find out what your results will be from your testing. This is an awesome way to go about it. I like it.

[Chev. William]

I believe, from memory, that the .30 Carbine Cartridge OAL is about 1.680" and the case length is about 1.290". It is a Tapered Rimless Body design so I doubt it would both fit and be safe to fire in a 'Single Six' Cylinder at the nominal MAP of 40,000psi.

It is chambered in the Larger Ruger Frames though.

Best Regards,
Chev. William

PS: that brings up the Possibility of .45 Win. Mag. in a "Bearcat" or "Redhawk" Frame size. Chev. William

[Chev. William]

I was informed of a Difference in Bullets specifications between US and European Practices for .32ACP cartridges and it seems rather important.

The US reloading manuals seem to say the bullets are .312" diameter.
The CIP Standards for Europe Say the Bullets are .308" +/-.001" Diameter after conversion from Metric.
What is Correct????
What effects does this difference have on Accuracy, or Interchangeability?

best Regards,
Chev. William

[Chev. William]

Today my gunsmith pushed a slug through my .32 H&R Ruger New Model Single Six of 1985 Vintage and we measured the bore as .303" and Grooves as .312" Diameters.
This seems to be slightly big for CIP standards but about right for SAAMI recommendations.

My old (about 110 years) J.Stevens A&T Co. Barrels seem to measure about .300" bore and .306" to .308" Grooves, which seems to be closer to CIP.

Reasonable since SAAMI did not get going until about 1926, some 30 years after my Barrels were made.

Best Regards,
Chev. William

[NoZombies]

The colt series of cartridges should only require a single cylinder, as the heeled base bullets are of the same diameter as the case, and a .32 S colt chamber should be identical to a .32 L Colt chamber.

I am aware of the inside lubed hollow based version of the L cartridge, but it would do you no good to have a .303 throat with that, as you would want the bullet to start expanding as early as possible, rather than being held closed in the cylinder and expanding at the jump to the forcing cone.

[Chev. William]

The .32 Colt family have a case diameter of .318" and my bullets are of .311" to .314" diameter. I do have Accurate mold 311090A bullets with a .301" heel and a .311 Driving Band size. These Are a 'inside Lube Groove' design with one generous lube groove on the Heel and no exposed Lube nominally outside The case. This Bullet, if I remember correctly, has a .100" long driving band so will Chamber if loaded in a .912" long Case for ".32 Long" J.Stevens Rifle Chambers. I would expect similar length chambers in my Ruger would accept similar Loads.
Yes, a "Short" can be fired in a "Long" Chamber.
Perhaps an "Extra short" could also, but how would its resulting accuracy be? about Half inch of "rattle bore" between case mouth and chamber throat sounds like a potential for Poor Results.

Best Regards,
Chev. William

[NoZombies]

Chev, I just measured several brands of factory .32 colt ammo I have on my shelf, and they all come out within a thousandth or two of the same. Case measurement at the base is .314-.316 with the same diameter at the case mouth, and each one also sports a heel based bullet of the same diameter as the case with the exception of the hollow based inside lubed stuff, which seems to have bullet diameters between about .300 and .301.

All of my .32 rimfire measures .313-.314 for both heel based bullet and case diameter.

[Chev. William]

Then The dimensions you quote Would be Correct for the Family, I Stand Corrected.
Now I need To figure out why my Dial Caliper is giving 'high' readings.
I will look into that tomorrow after I handle my business errands in the Morning.

Just For the Frustration, my local Forecast is for Rain tomorrow.

My "Shop" is my back Patio under a 10'x20' Shelter tent.
My "Reloading Bench" is a 1" thick by roughly 2 foot by 8 foot Marine Plywood Folding Leg Table set up under the shelter tent with my Reloading Press "c-clamped" to the edge over the leg near one end;

Comfortable most of the time but can be 'poor' in a rain storm or high winds.
My Propellants, Primers, Brass, and Bullets are Stored in Surplus WW2 era 'M1' 50 Cal ammo cans and some later 'M2' 50 Cal.and 40mm ammo cans.

Best Regards,
Chev. William

[NoZombies]

Then The dimensions you quote Would be Correct for the Family, I Stand Corrected.
Now I need To figure out why my Dial Caliper is giving 'high' readings.
I will look into that tomorrow after I handle my business errands in the Morning.

Just For the Frustration, my local Forecast is for Rain tomorrow.

My "Shop" is my back Patio under a 10'x20' Shelter tent.
My "Reloading Bench" is a 1" thick by roughly 2 foot by 8 foot Marine Plywood Folding Leg Table set up under the shelter tent with my Reloading Press "c-clamped" to the edge over the leg near one end;

Comfortable most of the time but can be 'poor' in a rain storm or high winds.
My Propellants, Primers, Brass, and Bullets are Stored in Surplus WW2 era 'M1' 50 Cal ammo cans and some later 'M2' 50 Cal.and 40mm ammo cans.

Best Regards,
Chev. William

Chev, it wasn't my goal to correct you, just relay my findings. I went and measured because I questioned my memory when you posted your numbers, not as an attempt to prove you wrong.

If you ever get to FL, look me up, I think we've got a lot of similar interests and I bet we'd have fun at the range!