.32 Win Special and cast plus BP

[Multigunner]

I've been interested in the .32 Winchester special for awhile, had intended to build a bolt action in that caliber on an old Lithgow action so I've looked up whatever I could find on the cartridge.

I found this page sometime back and the following just didn't ring true to me.

Here are the basics of the oft printed "facts" explaining the impetus behind Winchester's invention of the 32 Winchester Special (WS):

It is said folks had been trying blackpowder handloads in the 30-30 and were having trouble with powder fouling because of the small bore and unusually fast rifling twist, compared to typical blackpowder bores. It is claimed that Winchester introduced the 32 WS, to provide a similar chambering that was more amenable to blackpowder loads. This cartridge, simply the 30-30 case necked up and chambered in a barrel with a significantly slower rifling twist (1/16 versus 1/12), works well with blackpowder.

The 32 WS does have a slower rifling rate - 1:16-inch compared to 1:12-inch for the 30-30 - and its bigger bore should be less prone to powder fouling. Therefore, this explanation seems plausible enough. For why else should Winchester introduce a cartridge so similar to its already extremely popular 30-30?

Several years ago, I came upon a copy of Winchester's 1916 catalogue. Imagine my surprise when I found the following detailed explanation as to why Winchester had introduced the 32 Winchester Special:

The .32 Winchester Special cartridge, which we have perfected, is offered to meet the demand of many sportsmen for a smokeless powder cartridge of larger caliber than the .30 Winchester [original name for the 30-30] and yet not so powerful as the .30 Army [now known as the 30-40 Krag].

That was the entire explanation! There was not so much as a hint about any connection to using blackpowder reloads, facilitating handloading or other such nonsense!

The catalogue went on with a simple explanation of why the 32 WS was able to deliver a significant increase in power, when loaded at the same pressure, compared to the 30-30. Published ballistics in that catalogue verified this claim. The 32 WS was credited with generating about 10.6% more muzzle energy than its progenitor.

After considering pertinent facts and upon reflection, I suspect most would agree: The evidently invented story is unfounded, perhaps even a bit ridiculous.

In the first place, why would Winchester make any effort to help anyone avoid buying Winchester ammunition? This makes no sense. In the second place, it was only very recently that any of the major ammunition manufacturers finally faced the music and joined us handloaders, rather than fighting us. To the later point, Winchester's 1916 catalogue lists and analyzes gun and shooting related items from A to Z, in amazing variety and diversity. Nevertheless, there is not so much as a single mention of handloading, despite listing of various components. Yes, Winchester wanted to be in on the sales of handloading components but they certainly were not anxious to encourage the practice.

http://www.levergun.com/articles/special.htm

Later I found this
From Forest and Stream 1921

The passing of the old big-bore, blackpowder rifles have left in their wake three distinct classes of guns: smokelesspowder rifles, black-powder rifles and those adapted to either high-velocity smokeless or black-powder loads. This classification should be taken into consideration before attempting to choose a rifle. High-power rifles, like the 250-3,000, 30-30 and 30 Government, are intended for smokeless powders only, and blacker semi-smokeless powders cannot be used in them with any degree of success. These rifles have very rapid twists, a majority of them giving a bullet a complete turn in every ten inches as it passes through the barrel. Rilles having smokeless steel barrels and a comparatively slow twist of rilling, such as the 32 Special and some of the 32-40 and 38-55 calibers, are equally adapted to black, semi-smokeless, low-power smokeless or high-velocity cartridges. The twist of rifling in the guns of this class range from one turn in sixteen to one turn in twenty inches.

All rifles not having smokeless steel barrels belong to the black-powder class, and in such guns a high-velocity load cannot be used with safety. However, low-power smokeless-powder cartridges that give a slightly increased velocity over black-powder loads can be used in them with good results. The blackpowder rifles of to-day are the survivors of a once great class of black-powder ritlcs ranging from big, bulky cartridges, like the 38-90-217, 40-110-260, 45-125500, 50-100-450, etc., down to the small 22-caliber cartridges. The twist of rifling in a majority of these guns was comparatively gentle, some only having one turn in sixty inches.

http://books.google.com/books?id=xUs...=0CAUQ6AEwADgU

I'd long heard that the .32 Winchester special was a fairly modern type cartridge which bridged the gap between the Black Powder era and the smokeless era.
Its the main reason the cartridge is of interest to me.
Also every source book on handloading in the pre WW2 era makes no bones about the often incredibly poor choices of smokeless powders available to hand loaders in those days.
Reloaders blew up many a fine .30-30 when it first hit the market, due to the very unpredictable nature of available smokeless powders, and it was not as well received at first as we might think. The .30-40 Krag also suffered from highly erosive and sometimes unpredictable powders.
Also hand loading was far from unpopular for American hunters and target shooters, in fact it was a necessity for most who relied on their rifles for a living.
Those who did not reload for some reason often turned in their fired cases to a local gunsmith who reloaded them for a nominal fee, or paid someone they trusted to work up a load for them. The same has become more common in Britian these days though traditionally British target shooters did not go in for reloading as much as American hunters and target shooters.

I'd have to say that the arguments in the linked article from Leverguns.com just don't hold up.

My interest in the .32 Winchester is precisely that spoken of in the Forest and stream article. Components may become hard to find at a reasonable price, and may be impossible to find at all one day, so one may end up having to make his own powder and primers if worse comes to worst.

[jh45gun]

I have read that the 32 special was made for those that wanted to reload with black powder. Which is why they made the slower twist ect. I think that makes sense since the 32 special is about a twin to the 30 WCF performance wise. No reason to make it unless they wanted a gun that you could reload with black powder for those that thought the smokeless powder was not as good.

[Multigunner]

Some of the smokeless powders available back then turned out to be downright dangerous.
I've run across free downloads of books on guns and reloading from pre WW1 which illustrate the effects of some of those powders, fine shotguns blown to splinters for example.

Besides Smokeless or "white powder" as they sometimes called it, there were "brown powders" and composite powders made by mixing black powder with nitrocellulose. Winchester used a composite powder for its "lesmoke" line of pistol and .22 rimfire cartridges for awhile.

Besides the hazards of unstable and often poorly mixed smokeless powders there was the problem of mercuric primers embrittling brass if smokeless was used instead of BP. Black Powder fouling insulated the inside of a brass case from contamination by the mercuric fumes or salts. Smokeless leaving less fouling had no such protective qualities. A cartridge fired only with BP could last for a great many more loadings than a case used with smokeless.

The extreme temperatures of the early high nitroglycerin content powders, approaching 5,000 degrees in some instances, also made use of plain base cast bullets a problem, any blowby at all could melt the bullet base and heavily lead the bore in a very few shots.

Metal fouling from jacketed bullets was just then becoming a serious problem, with few effective solvents, and those often injurious to the bore surface.

While the higher velocity and tough jacketed bullets of the factory loads were very useful in hunting larger game, just as today many centerfire rifles were as often as not used with reduced loads to take wild turkey and prairie hens rather than game of deer size and up.

BP fouling while it built up quickly was far easier to clean up without resorting to expensive and sometimes hard to find nitro solvents.

Taking all that into account its easy to see why those who wanted to reload often chose the safer and less expensive black powder with cast bullets, even if it meant sacrificing performance.

You probably couldn't pack enough black powder into a .32 special case to cause pressures the gun couldn't handle, but the same couldn't be said for smokeless.

[NickSS]

actually winchester did not make the 32 spl. with the idea of it being loaded with black powder when they came out with the cartridge around 1907. They would not have had a market for a gun like that as the 94 winchester was being made in 32-40 which can be loaded to the same velocities as the 32 spl and the rifles cost less. The black powder 94s were made with old steel and cost a couple bucks less than the ones made for smokeless cartridges. When winchester advertised the 32 spl upon introduction the sold it as more powerful than the 30-30 (which it is). The rifling twist they chose was the same as they put in all their 32 cal rifles at the time so the same blanks could serve for 32-20, 32-40 and 32 spl.

[Richard B]

My next big project is to develope some cast bullet loads for a Marlin 336 of 1961 vintage in .32 WS. This rifle is not micro groove so should be an interesting project. I am finding it difficult to find suitable moulds but have just got an old Ideal mould for 151 grain bullets. I am going to the Calgary Gunshow this weekend so hope to find some treasures there.

[bruce drake]

Richard. Buy Lee's 8mm 175gr RN mold. Mine drops at .323 and shoots great as cast in my 94 Winchester (1936 vintage) in 32 Spl.

Bruce

[sundog]

Bruce, yes, the 8mm Lee boolit works. But, the Ranch Dog 32-170-FN is actually the bees knees and apparently currently available:

http://www.ranchdogmolds.com/

Micheal's method of checking and dipping (LLA) works, too.

I would opt for it first. If I just wanted to spend a lot of money, I would get the RCBS 32-170-FN which is the standard to which the 32 Win Spl can achieve greatness. I do like RCBS moulds, a lot, but I guess I've never mentioned before...

Castpics has some 32 Win Spl load data.

[jh45gun]

I don't buy into the fact that the 32 special was any more powerful than the 30/30 it is close enough in power that they are about twins. I have also seen a lot of old 30 WCF barrels that still look darn good I cannot say that about some 32 specials I have seen some where pretty bad giving me the though that they were shot with black powder and not taken care of as well as they should have been. First buck I ever shot was with a Winchester 32 special a family friend bought at a rummage sale years ago for 5 bucks. I know why it was so cheap my dad borrowed it so I could have a gun for my second deer season and that would have been 1965. You could not hit beans with that gun I tried to sight it in my dad did and so did a couple of other guys at the gravel pit where folks sighted in their guns in the area. Dad gave me a choice use a shotgun with slugs which would have made more sense but I wanted a rifle like every one else. So I used the 32 special and a nice ten point ran up to me during a drive and I shot and missed. I shot again at his chest and hit him in the neck. (PURE LUCK due to the inaccuracy of the gun) When we were trying to sight in that gun we never looked at the bore I did not know that much about guns at the ripe old age of 13 and I know my dad thought there was something wrong with the sights. I suspect now that the problem was a half shot out bore.

[sundog]

I just had another idea (that can be VERY dangerous) prompted by another ongoing thread. How about paper patch a 30 cal, say a 31141, or something similar? Might try it myself just fer grins & giggles...

[bruce drake]

SunDog,

I'll support Ranch Dog's design as that is great looking Flat Point! I was pointing out a readily available mold for him to start with to get that 32 Win smoking.

Payday is coming. I might have to pick one of those FP molds up myself.

Bruce

[sundog]

I think I mentioned it before. Michael shipped me one of the prototypes of his RD 32-170 for testing early on. It had some dimension issues with the GC diameter, but usable. I later bought one of the production run. Good boolit. The prototype is now a PLAIN BASE! I tried some reduced charge plinking loads, Begorrah!

[jlchucker]

Interesting stuff. I have a reprint copy of a 1905 Winchester catalog. On page 42 it tells about the 32 special. The 32Winchester Special Cartridge, which we have just perfected, is offered to meet the demand of many sportsmen for a smokeless powder cartridge of a larger caliber than the 30 Winchester and yet not so powerful as the 30 US Army , and which could be reloaded with black powder and give satisfactory results....We load this cartridge with smokeless powder only, but are prepared to offer (components and tools)...for loading black powder only. We do not advise hand loading or reloading of this cartridge with Smokeless powder by individuals.

[MTWeatherman]

Multigunner,
I'm no cartridge historian, but have an interest in the .32 Special as I have one (consider it to be among the best cast bullet cartridges ever made and highly recommend the RCBS bullet). You've obviously done some research and I found those references interesting. I'd read McPherson's article but hadn't seen the Field and Stream. W30WCF, a member here, is a cartridge historian and hopefully, he'll weigh in. This issue has been touched on in a previous thread:

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=26928

McPherson's excellent article at Levergun, which you have linked, is a worthwhile read for anyone interested in the cartridge. He discusses a lot of the myths associated with it.

It does seem to me, that the only one who could truly tell us why the cartridge was created would be Winchester itself. They said it was for more power and I see no reason to not believe them. The .32 Special was the last cartridge Winchester introduced for the '94. It never made any sense to me that after having immediate acceptance of the smokeless 30-30 and 25-35, Winchester would suddenly decide they needed a smokeless powder cartridge that could handle black powder. Those wanting a black powder .32 already had the cheaper .32-40. I'm with NickSS on this one. I think it was just a matter of convenience due to the existing tooling for the .32-40. Basically, they just upgraded the barrel metal and created a smokeless ".32-40 Magnum" by blowing out the case. Keep in mind that the .32-40 had a sterling reputation for accuracy with the 16 inch twist...it was a well used target cartridge and since a .32 caliber was already accepted by the black powder crowd, Winchester may have thought the .32 Special could win the holdouts over.

As to difference in power between the .32 Special and the .30-30: With equal pressure, the .32 Special will deliver more muzzle energy...it has to...it is pure physics. The larger diameter of the .32 bullet dictates it. McPherson discusses this at length in his article. As promised by Winchester, that difference was there in initial loading of the cartridge but then disappeared as pressures were dropped to bring it more in line with .30-30 ballistics. However, it doesn't apply to the handloader. That 10% energy advantage is still there. As to whether or not that 10% advantage over the 30-30 and a larger caliber bullet would be noticeable in killing power, that argument will go on forever. To put that 10% advantage into perspective, note that with a 180 gr. bullet the .308 Winchester offers an 11% energy increase over the .30-40 Krag (that 30 U.S. Army Winchester referred to in their .32 Special promotion). I believe most .308 users will feel the difference is noticeable. However, as with the .32 Special and the .30-30, impossible to prove. As always, bullet placement is the most important factor in a clean kill.

[Multigunner]

Interesting stuff. I have a reprint copy of a 1905 Winchester catalog. On page 42 it tells about the 32 special. The 32Winchester Special Cartridge, which we have just perfected, is offered to meet the demand of many sportsmen for a smokeless powder cartridge of a larger caliber than the 30 Winchester and yet not so powerful as the 30 US Army , and which could be reloaded with black powder and give satisfactory results....We load this cartridge with smokeless powder only, but are prepared to offer (components and tools)...for loading black powder only. We do not advise hand loading or reloading of this cartridge with Smokeless powder by individuals.

I think your cited catalog entry pretty much settles the mystery. It says exactly what I'd always heard about BP only being recommended for reloading at the time.
Smokeless powders were still the new kid on the block, and most were highly energetic and subject to deteriorations that could make them dangerous.

One of my old resource books available as a free PDF tells of many accidents involving smokeless powders, especially cordite, when cartridge manufacturers in Britian worked up maximum loads in mild weather there and the cartridges were then later used in tropical heat. Manufacturers then came around to tayloring the powder charge to the expected environment.

Articles like that from Leverguns.com illustrate a modern shooter/writter looking back on this sort of question without taking fully into account the conditions and thinking of the day.

Having had a few problems with deterioration of old powders I made a point of looking into the factors that could make older powders, and old ammo, unsafe.

Also I had reason to investigate some claims of the strength of some turn of the century actions that bridged the gap between the black powder era and the smokeless era.


While black powder if not properly cleaned soon after shooting can cause serious rusting of a bore, mercuric and potassium choride primer salts are far more destructive than the powder itself. I learned this long ago when I used some old spanish corrosive percussion caps with a Colt 1851 clone. Caps fired to burn out oil in the chambers before taking the gun out to shoot could rust the chamber badly within hours even when no powder charge was used. When non corrosive caps were used BP fouling alone didn't rust the bore unless left for several days.

Another cause of wear to rifling, and to some extent moving parts, in the Pre WW2 sporting and military rifles was the use of ground glass in the priming compounds.

PS
From post 29 in the previous .32 special disscussion
A quote from the 1902 Winchester catalog.

“The .32 Winchester Special Cartridge, which we have just perfected, is offered to meet the demand of many sportsmen, for a smokeless powder cartridge of larger caliber than the .30 Winchester (.30-30) and not yet so powerful as the .30 U.S. Army (.30-40), which could be reloaded with black powder and give satisfactory results.

The .32 Winchester Special Cartridge meets all of these requirements. Loaded with Smokeless powder and a 165 gr. bullet, it has a muzzle velocity of 2,057 foot seconds. With a charge of 40 grs. of black powder, the .32 Winchester Special develops a velocity of 1,385 foot seconds, which makes it a powerful black powder cartridge .”

and the comment from the Leverguns article

Here are the basics of the oft printed "facts" explaining the impetus behind Winchester's invention of the 32 Winchester Special (WS):

It is said folks had been trying blackpowder handloads in the 30-30 and were having trouble with powder fouling because of the small bore and unusually fast rifling twist, compared to typical blackpowder bores. It is claimed that Winchester introduced the 32 WS, to provide a similar chambering that was more amenable to blackpowder loads. This cartridge, simply the 30-30 case necked up and chambered in a barrel with a significantly slower rifling twist (1/16 versus 1/12), works well with blackpowder.

and

Several years ago, I came upon a copy of Winchester's 1916 catalogue. Imagine my surprise when I found the following detailed explanation as to why Winchester had introduced the 32 Winchester Special:

The .32 Winchester Special cartridge, which we have perfected, is offered to meet the demand of many sportsmen for a smokeless powder cartridge of larger caliber than the .30 Winchester [original name for the 30-30] and yet not so powerful as the .30 Army [now known as the 30-40 Krag].

That was the entire explanation! There was not so much as a hint about any connection to using blackpowder reloads, facilitating handloading or other such nonsense!

Obviously the author didn't look far enough back. The 1902 and 1905 catalog entries reflect the conditions at the time the cartridge first came along, by 1916 reloaders had become more acclimated to using smokeless so BP loadings were not as important.

The US Ordnance depart had since about 1904 begun using the less erosive pyro cellulose powders for the .30/06 and Duponts MR and later IMR powders were begining to show up for the reloader. Before that reloading with smokeless could be a risky proposition and damaging to the bore.

[StarMetal]

I shoot the Lee 8mm bullet in my vintage 32 and it's excellent. In fact I harvest a deer with it last season, 100 yard shot. Watch the newer RCBS molds because they drop 50/50 alloy at .321, which is exact groove size and you should shoot a slightly fatter bullet then that.

I go along with the idea that the 32 was for dual purpose powder reloading. If they had a 32-40 why would they make an entirely new rifle with old bore dimension. In other words slower twist and shallow rifling.

It's true the 32 is more powerful then the 30-30. Like the other poster said physics dictate that. The slower twist and larger bore allow an increase in velocity with a lower pressure then the 30-30 plus the fact as the larger bullet goes down the bore the pressure decreases faster because more volume is presented.

Great rifle and caliber.

BABore is coming out with a new 32 bullet, so wait before you buy.

[jh45gun]

If it is more powerful it is not by much as look at any reloading book the 30WCF and the 32 are pretty much twins in performance. If you guys want to say that some what larger bullet does it then fine believe that but seeing them side by side I cannot see that much difference that it would make that much of a difference. No critter is going to tell any difference.

[Multigunner]

Improvements in propellants pretty much settled any objections shooters may have had about the .30-30 making the slow twist .32 special less atractive as time went on.

This book
"The Gun and its Development" the 1910 printing
http://books.google.com/books?id=vIf...ed=0CBIQ6AEwAg

Gives a pretty clear picture of the hazards of reloading using the smokeless powders of the day.

from page 564

6. No nitro-compound is trustworthy. Of late years the older explosives have become more variable, and the new ones show no improvement. It seems impossible to get successive batches of any one explosive exactly alike. Testing every batch of each explosive delivered, and having deliveries in bulk every month of the year, the author confidently asserts that sportsmen using these nitro-explosives are absolutely at the mercy of the manufacturers, who are a law unto themselves in so far as they issue the explosive of whatever strength it may happen to be. Not in one instance, but several, has the author discovered that the explosives delivered to him are far from being identical in quality with those previously delivered from the same factories. If these faulty explosives were weaker, it would be merely a matter of business to return them, and insist upon the right quality being delivered, but as in most instances they are stronger, and occasionally even double what is recognised as normal, so as to indicate dangerous pressures in the crusher gauge, it is a question whether or not the lot should not be at once destroyed. It is a very difficult matter indeed to re-manufacture or to manipulate in such a manner as to reduce the strength uniformly and without deteriorating other qualities—as stability—of the explosive. Possibly such explosives as may be rejected by the maker furnished with the instruments necessary to test the explosives delivered to him, are sold to persons not in a position to prove that the strength is dangerous. It is no less dangerous if shipped to a colonial buyer, and the mere possibility of such a thing occurring—even by accident—ought to awaken gun-makers and sportsmen to the need there is for a Government test being applied to gunpowders as well as to guns. For explosives of any and every strength to be in use, whilst guns are meant only for explosives of a known strength, renders the proof of guns futile in so far as the test is regarded as safeguarding the public. Who should test the powder, and to what tests it should be subjected, are matters of less concern than that some test should be applied at once, and by the gun-makers, if no other authority will undertake the work forthwith. For the sportsman it is sometimes a difficult matter to know when a powder is exerting an excessive strain, but very reduced patterns obtained from a gun whose shooting is known are a sure sign of increased pressure, and a trial of the cartridges should be at once instituted when such are observed.

[StarMetal]

The 30-30 and 32 Special are loaded for just about identical ballistics in the reloading books today. If you had a chrono and pressure gauge you would find out per pressure that the 32 blows the doors off the 30-30. A classic example that is similar is the 8x57 Mauser pitted against the 30-06 and here the 8mm has less powder capacity then the 06 and give the 06 a run for it's money.

Take a look at Hodgdon's online reloading data. For a 170 grain jacket and H4895 powder a load of 32.0 grains gives 2122 fsp at 30,500 psi for the 32 Special. For the 30-30 with the same weight bullet and 30.5 grains gives 2138 fps at 35,200 psi. Look at the difference in pressure. Now that's the max load for the 30-30, but the starting load for the 32. The max load for the 32 is 34.5 grains which gives 2283 fps at 36,100 psi. The 32 is more efficient.

[Multigunner]

The 30-30 and 32 Special are loaded for just about identical ballistics in the reloading books today. If you had a chrono and pressure gauge you would find out per pressure that the 32 blows the doors off the 30-30. A classic example that is similar is the 8x57 Mauser pitted against the 30-06 and here the 8mm has less powder capacity then the 06 and give the 06 a run for it's money.

Take a look at Hodgdon's online reloading data. For a 170 grain jacket and H4895 powder a load of 32.0 grains gives 2122 fsp at 30,500 psi for the 32 Special. For the 30-30 with the same weight bullet and 30.5 grains gives 2138 fps at 35,200 psi. Look at the difference in pressure. Now that's the max load for the 30-30, but the starting load for the 32. The max load for the 32 is 34.5 grains which gives 2283 fps at 36,100 psi. The 32 is more efficient.

The WW1 154 gr S bore 7.92 actually out performed the WW1 .30/06 150 gr load.

I would agree that loaded to its full potential that the .32 Special would out perform the .30-30 for the reasons given, but I'd figure this was less by design than by chance. The slow twist of the .32 Special is not as well suited to smokeless powder velocities. Lack of precision accuracy with the slow twist at full velocity may be one reason that loads were stepped down.

I haven't run across many descriptions of the rounds shooting qualities, but those I have read always rated it second best in accuracy compared to the .30-30. At least with factory ammunition.

[StarMetal]

The WW1 154 gr S bore 7.92 actually out performed the WW1 .30/06 150 gr load.

I would agree that loaded to its full potential that the .32 Special would out perform the .30-30 for the reasons given, but I'd figure this was less by design than by chance. The slow twist of the .32 Special is not as well suited to smokeless powder velocities. Lack of precision accuracy with the slow twist at full velocity may be one reason that loads were stepped down.

I haven't run across many descriptions of the rounds shooting qualities, but those I have read always rated it second best in accuracy compared to the .30-30. At least with factory ammunition.

Just with that one powder Hodgdon listed it out performs the 30-30 at the lawyer loadings.

I wouldn't say a 30-30 will out shoot a 32 Special with cast bullets, and if it doesn't what would lead one to think it would with jacketed?

By today's standards (lawyer reloading and factory ammo) I see them equal.