I have an older 1880's rifle chambered in 32-20. I believe the sear is broken but have not tore this down yet. Little to no rifling left. The rifle condition is what I would call good patina, not a collector. I would like to make this into a shooter again and thinking 32 H&R mag. I know it will need re-barreled or lined but was not sure about changing to a different caliber? Also if possible who would you recommend for such a project?
thanks DWD
The rifle would be best if relined and chambered to an original calibre. I have a low wall so relined in 32WCF and it is a terrific shooter with a 103gn Lee boolit and 9.5gn of Winchester 296 powder, it would be comparable to the 32H&R.
Hold Still Varmint; while I plugs Yer!
I like the idea of a 32 H&R. The gun will have no more value as a 32-20. I.think I becomes more intresting as a 32 S&W long or 32 H&R.
I also like the idea of relining it to 32 H&R. I have a rifle in 32 H&R and did it with a .308 groove barrel and it works fine.
Jedman
Stick with .32-20 - - the inheriting generations will look at the original barrel markings and thank you. Also no change to the extractor. Starline makes brass, so no challenge there. John Taylor is a poster on this site and does a splendid re-line job.
If I was going to do a caliber change - .357 Mag.
WWJMBD?
In the Land of Oz, we cast with wheel weight and 2% Tin, Man.
Performance will be virtually identical and 32-20 will operate at lower pressure. I'd keep the original chambering.
I know the performance is on par between the two calibers. My biggest reason, and it may sound silly, is I have a RBH in 32mag and thought it would be convenient to possibly use one load for both. I do have everything for both calibers, brass & dies so that is not of concern. To me those thin walls on the 32-20 are very annoying if anything else while brass prep and reloading. I have nothing against the 32WCF but favor the 32Mag. I have a Rossi lever in .357 so feel this really deserves a 32 cal.
I imagine barrel re-line will cost the same regardless of caliber. So looking at cost of new extractor and additional cost to rechamber. Other than that am I missing anything?
About 30 years ago I rechambered a 32 rf low wall to 32H&R and bushed the firing pin as a sort of “proof of concept” project. Even with the original barrel with marginal bore, it showed promise, but back then a steady supply of quality brass wasn’t available, so I sold it.
I would contact John Taylor on this forum and get my name in line on his list. You will have a high probability of getting a really good shooter, even though it’s not an original low wall caliber. I kinda wish I’d kept mine all those years ago.
Froggie
"It aint easy being green!"
If its an older 1880s vintage rifle, I would definitely stay with .32-20. These older rifles are made of softer steel. We are only temporary caretakers of these old rifles. There is no telling how a future owner might load .32 H&R Magnum.
I don't disagree the 32mag being higher in pressure but not as high as 32 Federal or .357 Mag. I did a little reading trying to understand the differences and what others have done. Just waiting to talk to a few Smiths to see what suggestions they have.Originally Posted by ndnchf
Go with your gut. .32-20 has nostalgia....but the .32 Mag makes a lot of sense. Easier to reload.
Don Verna
Can't see any reason to worry about .32-20 brass being "thin". You can't load it up to high pressures for a Low Wall anyway.
Cognitive Dissident
The brass wall is thin. If you have never prepped/loaded .32-20 then you are missing out. It can easily be damaged just by chamfering the mouth. Only way I can explain it is paper thin compared to other calibers I've reloaded. I'm not worried about pressures. The difference between 32-20 and 32Mag is small compared to jumping up to the 327.
I love the idea of a 32h&r. It would load on a dillon 550.
I'm doing a Remington Hepburn in 327 Federal. I have no intention of loading hot. I want the extra capacity to load a slightly slower charge to reduce powder weight SD. I'm thinking of marking the barrel 32. 1 2\10
I like the idea of ease of loading. The 32h&r is pretty straight foward. There is a sizing problem with 327 dies. They need to be opened up a few thousandths.
I've loaded a ton of .32-20, and .22 Lovell, and .25 Hornet, all of which often have neck walls as thin as .005", with no difficulty at all. If you're having trouble, is it possible that you're trying to seat bullets without flaring first? Simply chamfering these thin necks to ease seating, as is the usual practice for rounds with neck walls .010" and up, just isn't enough, and really should be omitted.
Cognitive Dissident
uscra112, I've tried using LEE expander and purchased NOE expander. It's not that I can not do it, I have been successful and reloaded many of them in a S&W. I think it's just the nature of the round/brass that makes it more complicated or gives me more headaches than its worth. It takes a little extra attention and slight mistake and a case is ruined. This is primarily the main reason to convert to the 32mag. As I mentioned I have a RBH that would feel good as a walk around companion.
John T. and I have corresponded and once he gets set back up it will be going in. With that said I am looking at sights. I know the Marbles looks and is as periodic as you can get but reviews are mixed on current quality. MVA has an exact copy but twice as much. Other than using this to take a few squirrels and possible critter that crosses my path I don't see shooting it more than 50-100 yds.
I was a little surprised when you mentioned a Dillon Progressive to go with loading a Winchester single shot but then it dawned on me that you were including feeding the OP’s revolver from the same output as well. I agree with this in context... a shooter could take an afternoon at the bench with his Dillon and have a sufficient supply of ammo for both guns to last for several outings.
I worry some about modern chamberings for antique arms... but mostly if the rounds have to be downloaded from factory standards to be safe. From my personal research it appears that factory 32 H&R ammo is well within allowable pressure limits for a low wall in good condition. If you are concerned about what a determined idiot can cobble together at the reloading bench, I would submit that no chamber in any arm is safe. We constantly hear about such people overloading and destroying even arms in their original chamberings. You can’t fix stupid, sometimes you just have to let Darwin hold sway.
Back to the 32-20 discussion, there can be no doubt that its brass is more delicate than 32 H&R. A modern straight wall case just has to be easier to work with. If you get too ham handed, you can ruin any brass, but the 32 H&R Mag gives you a little more margin of safety (error?) especially when sizing and belling. I have both a Navy Arms/Uberti SAA copy and an old brown Smith 32-20 M&P in my safe now and I once owned a beautiful, all original 32-20 high wall with a graceful #1 octagon barrel. I often wonder what I would be doing with it now if I’d had the foresight and financial ability to keep it, but 25 years ago I had neither.
Froggie
PS You could mark the Hepburn barrel “32 Extra Long” and be historically correct.
"It aint easy being green!"
If it was mine it would stay a .32-20, and I agree with those who are saying it's value will be higher if kept in the original chambering, even with a liner. Very few people will be put off by lining the barrel, and keeping it the original caliber. But most people who love these old guns will not take a second look once they find out it's a .32 Mag.
And the old myth that you can have a pistol, and a rifle in the same caliber, and have ammo that shoots equally well in both is rarely true. Either the groove diameter is slightly different, or the twist rate for a pistol is different than it is for a rifle. So you'll likely end up loading one bullet and charge for the pistol, and another for the rifle. So nothing gained by them sharing a common caliber.
No argument in one load for two firearms. But would like to think a competent gunsmith can do his/her best to accommodate and find a happy medium. Also like anything else the next owner if he/she wishes can return it to factory chamber. The only argument I see to not go forward is any modification at all will de-value a firearm. In this case this one was used as intended for and shows it. It's not a collector nor am I so just wanting to make it into something I will shoot often. I don't see that happening with the .32-20. And like anything else even though I will have two firearms of the same caliber when finished I have multiple molds/designs to try. Glad to see everyone's thought process on chamber conversion. This will help in the end possibly even change my mind, you never know.
Just me, but I'd go with the .32 Ideal.
AntiqueSledMan.
Posting Permissions
| BP | Bronze Point | IMR | Improved Military Rifle | PTD | Pointed |
| BR | Bench Rest | M | Magnum | RN | Round Nose |
| BT | Boat Tail | PL | Power-Lokt | SP | Soft Point |
| C | Compressed Charge | PR | Primer | SPCL | Soft Point "Core-Lokt" |
| HP | Hollow Point | PSPCL | Pointed Soft Point "Core Lokt" | C.O.L. | Cartridge Overall Length |
| PSP | Pointed Soft Point | Spz | Spitzer Point | SBT | Spitzer Boat Tail |
| LRN | Lead Round Nose | LWC | Lead Wad Cutter | LSWC | Lead Semi Wad Cutter |
| GC | Gas Check |
Reply With Quote
