Why 32-20 for a revolver?

[shooting on a shoestring]

Recently I’ve come across some M&P 32-20’s in good shootable condition. I keep passing them up because I am already blessed with revolvers in 32 SWL, 32 H&R and some in 327 Federal. That covers everything 32-20 can do and with straight wall cartridges. So I don’t “need” a 32-20 right?

But, I started thinking about that bottle neck cartridge in a revolver. There aren’t any modern ones because at modern pressures it seems they tend to bind up revolvers. Once the cartridge case backs up against the frame at firing, the shoulder gets blown forward and doesn’t allow the case to move forward like straight walled cases do once the pressure is relieved. That was the big knock against the .221 Fireball.

I get that in the 1880s it was a black powder rifle cartridge at 10k or so psi. So having a companion revolver was a decent idea and the revolvers must have worked out ok bc there were lots sold.

But in modern times with heat treated cylinders and modern brass that can run serious pressures why would one choose a 32-20 over the other three 32’s mentioned above? It seems to me the 32-20 in a revolver has about the same power, boolit weight and velocity as 32H&R but with the drawbacks of a bottleneck case (shoulder set back, shoulder collapse in reloading, cylinder binding, brass stretching). Yet I read in other threads people want 32-20 revolvers. Makes me wonder if I’m missing something. Am I?

[dubber123]

Not really, if just the bore size and power are the main considerations, then the 32-20 doesn't do anything that several other more modern cartridges won't do better, and without the thin, bottlenecked brass to deal with. I just like old guns, and have a pair of M&Ps in 32-20 as a result. I didn't find mine as ornerous to get shooting well as many report, but they aren't exceptional in any way either.

[Dan Cash]

Get some experience with the 32-20 before condemning it for high pressure back up of brass etc. I do not think one can load a .32-20 hot enough to back brass out of the chamber and lock up the cylinder without bursting the gun. My personal .32-20s are a Colt Army Special , an Uberti 1873 and a Marlin 94. They all get the same ammo; 105gr bullet, 9.5 ge 2400. Velocity is quite serviceable and brass life seems unlimited. I have gone to 10 grains of 2400 but brass life gets short and extraction is a bit sticky. The .32-20 is not a .221 Jet.

The .32-20 and its related cartridges were bottle necked in order to get more black powder in a cartridge of a specific length to fit 1873 Winchester and 1873 Colt chambers. Modern smokeless powders do not require such length for sufficient propellant thus the efficacy of the .32 Mag and .327 Mag. All three are super cartridges and the .32-20 and 327 are probably the best two of the three. Take your pick and enjoy.

[Guesser]

I own, cast and load for 5 Colt revolvers in 32-20 and 1 Ubertti Cattleman in 32-20. I like the old guns. That and my very first revolver is my Grandfathers Colt Bisley in 32 W.C.F. That gun got me started casting and loading in 1956. I can't give it up. There is a mystic in 32-20 revolvers that cannot be defined. I have never seen a decent S&W in 32-20 that I would pay the asking price for but I sure would like to have a nice one and maybe I'll find one at next weeks gun show. As it is now I use my 4" Colt PPS and my 6" Colt AS a lot.
I also have all the other 32 revolvers covered from the obsolete 32 Colt all the way to 3 models chambered in 327. But it is the 32-20 that is my first love......

[bones37]

shooting on a shoestring,
I don't know if this makes any difference but, I have revolvers in 32 long, 32 H&R, and 327 Fed., and I still want the 32-20. Now it might have something to do with I just recently picked up a mint NIB Marlin 1894CL in 32-20 because the Henry 327 just has many issues(the gun, not the cartridge).

I will admit however that I would like a "modern" K frame (or Ruger GP100) size revolver WITH adjustable sights due to age/eyesight. I would also like a Ruger Bisley with adjustable sights and a 5" barrel, and have considered having one "built" if I could find a suitable donor gun.
bones37

[Harry O]

I once had a S&W .22 Jet and had nothing but trouble with it backing out and tying up the gun. By downloading the cartridge and wiping the chambers with carbon-tetrachloride before each use (to remove all grease), I was able to use it. By then, it was no fun. I got rid of it.

On the other hand, I have shot the 32-20 in handguns for the last 55 or so years and NEVER had it back out and tie up the gun. I have shot light factory loads to handloads at least equal to the .32 H&R Magnum in handguns and close to the .327 Magnum in rifles. For power in a .32, the 32-20 was all there was until just recently.

Besides, I like it. It is a fun caliber and it is chambered in a number of fun guns.

[Outpost75]

The .32-20 in standard pressure loadings suitable for older revolvers approximates the factory ballistics of the .32 H&R Magnum.

Unless you are into the pure nostalgia of shooting the old, beautifully made revolvers, there is nothing the .32-20 does which cannot be done with the .32 S&W Long in a strong, modern revolver.

With hand loads the .32 H&R Magnum and .327 Federal equal the heavy rifle-only .32-20 loads for the Winchester 1892, which are not suited for revolver use, except in the Ruger Buckeye Special and Freedom Arms.

So, unless you just happen to like old revolvers for what they are, shooting them with the mild loads for which they were intended, you don't "need" a .32-20. But if you come into a nice heirloom gun, you might "want" one just because.

With standard pressure loads not exceeding 16,000 psi, there is no issue with .32-20 cases backing out in the old revolvers.

Here is some velocity data for .32-20 loads fired in typical revolvers and a rifle, so that you know what you can expect:

.32-20 Ammunition in Rifle and Revolver

Ammunition Description___________Colt Police Positive 5”_____Savage Sporter 25”
Rem-UMC 100-grain lead
Kleanbore “Dogbone” box 1930s____898, 44 Sd, 116 ES_______1302, 15 SD, 38 ES

WRA 100-grain lead
Red & yellow box 1950s_____________854, 33, 87_______________1263, 18, 53

W-W 100-grain lead
Flat primer, white box, 1990s_________778, 27, 69_______________1172, 18, 65

R-P 100-grain lead
Bridgeport, CT 1970s________________780, 24, 67_______________1181, 17, 52

Standard Pressure .32-20 Hand Loads for Rifle or Revolver

Bullet, Little Dandy#, Pdr. Chg.____Colt Police Positive 5”_________Savage Sporter 25”
Remington .311” 100-grain JSP_____930 fps, 16 Sd, 45 ES________1230 fps, 26 Sd, 79 ES
LD#4, 4.9 grains AutoComp

Accurate 31-105T

LD#1, 3.2 grains TiteGroup_________858 fps, 22 Sd, 61 Es_______1133 fps, 30 Sd, 67 ES

LD#4, 3.4 grains Bullseye__________861 fps, 19 Sd, 47ES________1173 fps, 18 Sd, 54 ES

LD#3, 4.5 grains AutoComp________912 fps, 19 Sd, 53 ES _______1260 fps, 21 Sd, 55 ES

LD#4, 4.9 grains AutoComp________ 943 fps, 32 Sd, 71 ES_______1315 fps, 32 Sd, 118 ES

LD#10, 7.5 grains Alliant #2400_____991 fps, 24 Sd, 65 ES_______1348, 29 Sd, 69 ES DO NOT EXCEED!

LD#13, 10.0 grains IMR4227_______985 fps, 25 Sd, 61ES________1280 fps, 53 Sd, 176 ES

LD#17, 13 grains IMR4198________974 fps, 21 Sd, 94 ES________1326 fps, 46 Sd, 138 ES

Accurate 31-114D

LD#3, 3.0 grains Bullseye_________741 fps, 35 Sd, 92 ES________1041 fps, 26 SD, 78 ES

LD#4, 3.2 grains Bullsye__________861 fps, 20 Sd, 54 ES________1173 fps, 18 Sd, 52 ES

LD#13, 10.0 grains IMR4227______962 fps, 27 Sd, 62 ES_______1268 fps, 62Sd, 224ES

Attachment 228420Attachment 228421Attachment 228422Attachment 228423

[9.3X62AL]

I currently own and run three handguns and one rifle in 32/20 WCF. I have yet to experience any of the "setback" spoken of herein with the revolvers, but I limit 100 grain bullets to less than 900 FPS and the 115-120 grainers to the 800 FPS level. The high velocity loads are stored in labeled containers (RIFLE ONLY) to prevent their use in revolvers.

There is just a bit of a shoulder on the 32/20 cartridge, but no two of my firearms in this caliber have their chamber shoulders in the same place. Passing through the RCBS sizing die resets the shoulder back, and the rounds do not hang up when chambered. Brass lasts for 6-8 firings before "burn-throughs" in the cases' shoulder area start showing up (W-W and R-P brass). Starline brass seems to be tougher stuff--it does not develop these burn-throughs, but is only .001" thicker than the old-line makers' cases. The SL cases are not as prone to stretching as the W-W and R-P cases were, either. You still need to exercise care when processing the SL cases through the dies, but they don't fold or get weird creases as readily as the W-W and R-P have. W-W and R-P cases will tweak and fold up if stared at intently, I swear--kind of a PITA, really.

The acquisition and use of Starline brass in 32/20 WCF has been a true upgrade to my reloading hobby.

[murf205]

Attachment 228433Why a 32/20? Because they are a bit nostalgic for me. 1st centerfire I ever shot, 1873 Win. As a boy of around 7 or 8, it was magic! Never had any set back problems with mine and just like 9.3x62AL said Starline is the go to brass for my S&W 32/20. Everybody that shoots it wants to buy the old gun! Why a 32/20? Why not?
BTW, Outpost, that old Colt looks just about perfect, drool drool!

[shooting on a shoestring]

Ok, it seems the folks with first hand experience have soundly dispelled the set back issue...there isn’t one.

Thanks Outpost. Wow you have some data! I’ll peruse it a bit more carefully as time permits.

So it seems I’m on target in that 32-20 falls right in with the other 32s I currently enjoy. Not anything to be gained in ballistics.

The answers that folks are choosing the gun first for enjoyment and deal with 32-20 bc that’s the gun’s caliber, I can see that. Nostagia. Good enough reason.

Guess I’ll either have to keep deciding not to get one, or give in.

[Harry O]

Like Outpost75, I agree that the factories reduced the power of 32-20's some years ago. Back in the 1950's, the factory load was about equal to the current .32 H&R Magnum (usually with a slightly heavier bullet at a slightly lower velocity). Somewhere in the 1950's (or maybe early 1960's) the 32-20 loads were reduced. When I got my first chrono, I tested some old factory 32-20's against newer factory 32-20's. The newer ones were 100 to 125fps less speed than the older ones. I am NOT comparing "rifle only" loads to newer loads, either.

If you are shooting factory 32-20's, you don't know why it was so popular in the past.

[9.3X62AL]

One other little secret to refining 32/20 WCF performance........the Remington 6-1/2 primer. In 22 Hornet, 25/20, 30 U.S. Carbine, and 32/20 my accuracy was enhanced across the board via their use, and chronography supports this independently--smaller SD and ES. All of my 32/20 revolvers ignite the Rem small rifle primers just fine, double or single action.

Ken Waters in his "Pet Loads" column in Handloader chose SR-4756 as his go-to fuel for 32/20 revolver loading. IMR took that fuel off the market a few years ago, and I did a bit of necromancy with Alliant Herco to assess its suitability as a substitute. Herco is close grain-for-grain in weight to the old SR-4756 as far as external ballistics results are concerned, but I have proceeded with caution in absence of lab-tested data. I AM NOT AND DO NOT RECOMMEND FOLLOWING MY LEAD IN THIS PROJECT. Start low and work up SLOWLY--resulting velocity between the powder weight increments is an inference, and NOT a conclusion in absence of lab-tested data.

[Outpost75]

+1 on the Remington 6-1/2 primers in the .32-20 and also in the .30 Carbine and 7.62x25.

I've had wonderful results with AutoComp in the .32 ACP, .30 Carbine, 7.62x25 and in the .32-20.

3 grains in the .32 ACP, 4.5 to 5 grains max. in the .32-20 and 7.0-7.5 max. in the 7.62x25 and .30 Carbine.

[cas]

That was the big knock against the .221 Fireball.

I believe you're thinking of the .22 Jet.


There's one big thing your 32 SWL, 32 H&R and 327 Federal will never do. Be a .32-20.

You don't have a .32-20 = You need a .32-20. It's pretty simple.

[RED BEAR]

i would love to have one. the old guns are what i like most very few new guns really get my attention.

[9.3X62AL]

i would love to have one. the old guns are what i like most very few new guns really get my attention.

Cimarron Arms lists their Colt SA repros in 32/20 WCF, in several barrel lengths. I suspect these revolvers are actually Uberti or Armi San Marco products. My repro Colt SA in 44/40 WCF is a VERY well-made firearm, by Uberti.

[one-eyed fat man]

Another admirer of the .32-20 cartridge. Here are three from Hartford and a couple from the heathens across the river.

New Army (1907)


Army Special (1925)


Police Positive Special (1922)


S&W Hand Ejector (1903)


S&W Hand Ejectors (1907)

[Thundarstick]

I'm not a 32-20 fan. Back in those days, sure, but today, why bother? For the size cylinders the old 32-20 takes up, just move to the 357 if it's power and speed you crave. Nope, I'm a 32 fan for the straight walled cartridges, but have never been enamored by the 32-20.

[bones37]

Cimarron Arms lists their Colt SA repros in 32/20 WCF, in several barrel lengths. I suspect these revolvers are actually Uberti or Armi San Marco products. My repro Colt SA in 44/40 WCF is a VERY well-made firearm, by Uberti.

9.3X62AL,
I've been looking at the Cimarron Model P, the standard version (not the jr.) but I am currently undecided at the moment. It is re-assuring to hear that Your revolver is well made. Thank You, Sir.

bones37

[shooting on a shoestring]

Bought one.
First time to post a pic.