sp101 32 H&R

[lawboy]

Well, mozied on down to the local dealer and picked up my ruger sp101 32 H&R Magnum today. I got a 3-inch used in excellent shape with hogues on it and an action job for 370 plus the usual tax and other nonesense.
I must say, it is very interesting comparing this gun side by side with my K-frame 38s and Magnums. Regardless of which you perfer, it is obvious that some good thinking went into both designs, and that the engineers who designed them had totally different manufacturing methods and capabilities in mind when they did so. Some cool stories are told in these designs!
Anyhoo, My real question is whether my starting loads in 32 Long and 32 Magnum cases sound reasonable. I must have 50 loading manuals but there is precious little info. regarding bullets over 100 grains for these cartridges. I have spent the last five nights reading every 32 thread on this board and I gleaned a TON of info.
My loads are as follows:

32 Long Magtech cases, Wolf primer, 2.0 Bullseye, Lyman 3118 at 115grs, OAL 1.205;
32 Magnum Starline cases, Wolf primer, 4.0 Green Dot, Lyman 3118 at 115grs, OAL 1.360.

Am I in safe territory starting out?

[Harry O]

Of course, the SP101 was designed about 90 years after the K-frame S&W. I think people learned a few things during that time. Not a slap against the SP101. I have one of the early ones (short cylinder, .38 Special) along with several J-and K-frame S&W's. It is just comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges.

Your Bullseye load is not at all a problem. In fact, it is mild. Haven't used Green Dot, so I cannot comment on that. I have a bunch of info I have collected on the .32 Magnum and the .32 Long before that. What powders and bullet types are you looking for?

[lawboy]

Of course, you are right, the guns were designed in two very different eras to be sure. Still, it is interesting.
Well, I only have the one mould right now. I hope to have an rcbs 32-98gr swc mould here shortly though. Also, I am having buckshot hollowpoint one cavity of my lyman 3118 so that will in effect, be another bullet to play with.

as far as powders on the shelf that might be suitable, I have: BE, GD, Unique, 2400, 296, IMR4227, 800X. I would like to work up a good, accurate load (sub 2-inch at 25yrds) that will run 900fps with the 115, out of magnum brass. The target load in the Long cases will be an easy one and will be worked up with the lighter rcbs bullet when I get the mould.

[Harry O]

I use the same bullet (Saeco 98gr) at two different hardnesses for two different loads in a Ruger Single-Six. Yours should be equally strong. I also have a S&W 631 that I will NOT shoot anything heavier than factory loads in. The plinking load is 3.2gr of WW231 and a hardness of Bhn 9-10. The slightly heavier (but not much) load is 4.5gr of Unique with the same bullet. Both are accurate, but WW231 meters easier. These are not as strong as the factory load, but are heavier than .32 Long loads. Plenty good for small game. I have a Lyman 311316 GC, but have only used it in the 32-20.

When the bullet is cast with Bhn 18-19, you can use 2400. It will depend on the smoothness of the barrel, but 6.2gr works well for me. That is as powerful as the .32 Factory load, or maybe hair more.

Check what diameter you need. My Ruger works well sized to 0.312", but can take 0.313" if I am very careful when loading. Since my S&W will not take anything more than 0.312", I use that for both. Several of my older .32's (Colt and H&R) can take 0.314". I have best luck with the largest diameter that will chamber in that particular gun.

You can go higher than that in the Ruger (but NOT in my S&W J-frame), but I have to go to jacketed. I have tried the 85gr and 100gr Hornady XTP bullets with good results. After a little playing around, I decided to stay with the 85gr for the .32 Magnum and reserve the 100gr for my 32-20's. Anyway, I have gone up to 8.5gr of 2400 with the 85gr bullet. Ejection was a problem, but the load was accurate. That is always a problem with the Single-Six, but more so with this load. I ended up working down to 7.5gr before I got easy ejection. Also accurate.

I also did some playing around with Trail Boss. It worked well in my lightweight Colt PPS in 32-20, so I decided to try it in the .32 Magnum. It works, but no point in using it there. The case is small enough that the lightweight powder is not needed to keep from double-charging it. I also tried SR4756, which works well for heavy loads in a heavier-duty 32-20, but it was nothing special in the .32 Magnum.

I have no experience with the other powders.

[Dale53]

I have a Ruger SP101 and use it quite a bit. My target load is 2.8/ 231 behind a Lee GB 100 Keith (casts .314" and I size to .313") using .32 S&W L cases. If you wish to use the .32 H&R Cases, I use 3.2 in the magnum case.

For a full load, I use a .314/120 RF GB mould bullet ahead of 10.0 H110 (this gives 1100 fps in my 6" barreled S&W 16-4).

I just LOVE the .32's (only have four of them...[smilie=1:)

Dale53

[9.3X62AL]

I hope Big Slick chimes in here shortly. He is doing some VERY intrepid work with an SP-101 x 4", and has taken the caliber several notches above anything I have tried in my Ruger SSM or the S&W 16-4 x 6".

The SP-101 is a VERY strong platform. The only revolver I'm aware of that might exceed its strength is one of the Ruger Blackhawk/Buckeye Special limited production swap-cylinder 32 Magnum/32-20 critters. Those are likely indestructible. I imagine my S&W 16-4 has some "reserve strength" that can handle a bit more than the H&R-level loadings that factory ammo is limited to--but I am loath to run it really hard. RCBS 98-SWCs (GREAT boolit!) do very well to 1100 FPS, and the Lyman #313631 (SWC/GC) just gets more accurate the harder it gets run. THAT ONE needs a little experimentation. Same story with a 120 grain flatnose plain base Mountain Molds design, and the Lyman #311316--run 'em faster, and they'll start to shoot well.

22 years with the 32 Magnum........I love the caliber.

[lawboy]

Thanks to all for the comments. I plan to go out and shoot the gun today for the first time with the loads mentioned above. I hope all goes well. I will report back. Regards.

[Harry O]

I missed the part about .32 Long cases. Dale53 is right on that. You should reduce the loads when used in Long cases -- at least for revolvers chambered for the .32 Long. Your gun would be strong enough to use the 3.2gr WW231 load in a Long case, but it would be at higher pressure and the soft lead bullet might not take it. I would think there would be no problem using the higher load with Long cases and the harder bullet, however.

I used to use .32 Long cases in the .32 Magnum when no one was making the Magnum case for reloaders and the ones that Federal made were brittle. Now that Starline is making the Magnum brass, I don't use anything other that Magnum in the Magnum chambers anymore.

Red Dot and Bullseye can be used interchangeably with what I have listed for WW231 above. Both are good for light and medium loads. Red Dot does not meter very well and Bullseye meters well enough, but not quite as good as WW231.

As a caution, I had no problem with accuracy using most bullets (any of them that have a rounded part to the front side of the bullet -- which definitely includes the RCBS 98gr) in the Magnum revolver with shorter Long cases. HOWEVER, I did not have good accuracy with Hornady swaged 90gr hollow-base wadcutters when used with the shorter cases. Accuracy was no problem with the same bullet and load in the longer case.

BTW, here are some published loads in the powders you asked about. I have no experience with any of them, so use standard cautions.

Green Dot and 115gr plain-base cast = 2.5gr at 855fps; 2.8gr (max) at 920fps
Green Dot and 98gr plain-base hard-cast = 3.5gr (max) at 1,010fps
Green Dot and 85gr jacketed = 3.5gr (max) at 1,035fps
WW296 and 100gr jacketed = 9.1gr at 311 meters/sec; 9.9gr (max) at 323 meters/sec
4227 and 85gr jacketed = 8.5gr to 9.5gr (max), no velocities given
4227 and 90gr JHP = 10.0gr (max), 1,079fps
800x and 85gr jacketed = 2.5 to 3.7gr (max), no velocities given

[Skrenos]

Hmmm, I wonder now how fast I'm pushing those pills now. You state 3.7gr max with 800x. I've been pushing a 100gr lee RN with 5.5gr of 800x. I need to break out the chrono and see how fast they're coming out of a 3" sp101.

[Adam10mm]

I hope Big Slick chimes in here shortly. He is doing some VERY intrepid work with an SP-101 x 4", and has taken the caliber several notches above anything I have tried in my Ruger SSM or the S&W 16-4 x 6".


No kidding. I think this will call him out. Oh 'Slii-ick, where arrrrrrre youuuuu??

[9.3X62AL]

Apparently, Slick is crazy-busy with work right now. He'll jump in when he gets clear, I imagine.

[mainiac]

Every time I see mention of 800x and the .32 mag, I grin,because ken waters raved about it in his pet loads. I tried it as well, but luckily it didnt shoot no better than any other powder. I said luckily, because 800x has to be the worst powder ever designed! I have numerous powder measures, and never found a measure that would throw 800x accurate. Id rather watch wet paint dry,than weigh every charge! Speaking of Mr. Waters, is he still alive and with us?

[NVcurmudgeon]

Every time I see mention of 800x and the .32 mag, I grin,because ken waters raved about it in his pet loads. I tried it as well, but luckily it didnt shoot no better than any other powder. I said luckily, because 800x has to be the worst powder ever designed! I have numerous powder measures, and never found a measure that would throw 800x accurate. Id rather watch wet paint dry,than weigh every charge! Speaking of Mr. Waters, is he still alive and with us?

Good call, maniac. I just re-read KWs Pet Loads article on the .32 H&R, which reminded me of the time I read his .45 ACP article. According to Mr. Waters, 800 X is the best thing to happen to the .45 ACP since John Browning. I got a couple of cans and found it to meter about as well as gravel. It did entertain the kids when I lit a train of 800 X in the back yard. Arrrrgh!

[Adam10mm]

Apparently, Slick is crazy-busy with work right now. He'll jump in when he gets clear, I imagine.
I seriously wonder what he does. I try not to pick into people's personal lives but he is just an interesting guy.

[lawboy]

Well, I chronoed the loads yesterday.
The 2.0grs of bullseye in Long cases under the 115gr Lyman 3118 was good for 700fps. out of the 3-inch SP101.
The same bullet in Magnum cases over 4.0 of Green Dot went 1,000fps.
I am going to try 4.5grs Green Dot next.
Thanks to everyone for their help.

Incidently, this gun came with the hogue rubber finger groove grips. Does anyone make a larger grip for this gun? In need a little more reach to the trigger so my hand does not cramp up from pulling the trigger.

[EMC45]

800X is HUGE!!!!!!

[Harry O]

More so than most calibers, the .32 Magnum has to be matched to the strength of the gun it is shot in. That leads to a very wide range of what is actually "maximum".

The original H&R's (and I would also consider my S&W J-frame in the same category), should not be shot at anything more than factory load pressures. I believe that is about 22,000psi. Then there is the Ruger Single-Six and S&W K-frame. They can go considerably more than factory loads. I believe the loads I shoot in my Single-Six are around 28,000-30,000psi. Then there is the heavy frame Ruger 32-20/.32 Mag convertible (and some place the SP-101 in that category), that could take rifle pressures if you are so inclined.

Just make sure you don't shoot a load for a heavier gun in a lighter gun. Although I have not done this with a .32 Magnum, I have done it with a 32-20. It did damage the gun.

Just to get the pot perking, somewhere I have copies of Skeeter Skelton's articles on the then-new .32 Magnum Single-Six and his handloads. He was getting about 1,450fps from it (from memory) in his first article. In his second article, he said that a .32 Magnum manufacturer requested, received, and tested his loads in their pressure gun (not named, but only Federal was making them). They tested out at nearly double the SAAMI maximum pressure (again from memory, it was around 40,000psi). He withdrew the load publicly, but he said he would continue to use it himself. He said he had a lot of confidence in the little Ruger. He died shortly after that (not because of his handloads), so he did not shoot it for long, but when he died, I understand he still had all of his fingers, so he must have known something about handloading.

[9.3X62AL]

That velocity-class.....1450 FPS--is where Big Slick is running his SP-101 last time he posted info regarding his work. If you happen to run across copies of that article, I would be interested in obtaining a copy Harry. Lemme know, sir.

My first 32-20 WCF revolver was a Colt Police Positive Special. I didn't run things warmly at all in that delicate little critter. Same story for the 1906-made Colt SAA Bisley x 4.75"--too valuable to run hard. I have a S&W M&P x 5" that I'll run 6.0 grains of SR-4756 under Lyman #311316, but that's about as warm as it gets. The Colt SAA gets 5.5 grains MAX. All of these "long in the tooth" revos are too nice to bend.

A couple years ago, I got ahold of Lyman #313631, a SWC/GC 100 grain casting likely purpose-designed for the 32 Magnum. It shoots so-so at 850-900 FPS, but the faster you drive it--the better it shoots. I tried it in my Marlin 1894CCL in 32-20 at 1600 FPS+, and it shot quite well. I don't like that narrow nose profile up against primers in that tube mag, though--the levergun is a two-shooter with that one. More recently, I've run this boolit with substantial amounts of 2400, WC-820, and AA-7 to the neighborehood of 1300 FPS in the S&W 16-4 x 6", and it shot a lot better than at lower speeds. The Starline cases fell free when the muzzle was turned up after opening the cylinder, too.

[AZ-Stew]

I have an article from American Handgunner, written in the 80's by their handloading editor, the late Dan Cotterman. Dan was to the 32 H&R what Elmer Keith was to the .44 Magnum. Dan started experimenting with hot loads in the .32 S&W Long back in the 60's.

Some of the loads in Dan's article run on the warm side, as well. If I recall, he was shooting them in the H&R and Ruger revolvers which were the only ones available at the time. S&W hadn't yet jumped into the .32 H&R market.

I'll try to remember to post his loads this evening when I get home and have access to the magazine.

Regards,

Stew

[Harry O]

Back in November 1985, Skeeter Skelton wrote in Shooting Times: "Our first "keeper" load was comprised of a cast RCBS 32-98 grain flatpoint bullet, sized .312 and weighing 100 grains, over 8.7 grains of 2400 powder. This round made one-inch groups at 20 yards and registered 1,227fps on my Oehler Model 33. Another selected handload proved substantially more potent -- the Hornady 85 grain JHP over 9.4 grains of Accurate Arms No. 7 powder for 1,448fps and two inch groups from a sandbag rest."

A while later, he published that a "large ammunition maker" tested those loads and sent the following: "Your handload with the Hornady 85 grain bullet, fired in our pressure barrel, gave a velocity of 1,503 fps and a pressure of 38,940 psi. The 100 grain cast bullet gave a velocity of 1,263 fps and a pressure of 30,940 psi. For comparison, the Federal 95 grain lead bullet, fired in the same barrel, gave 1,038 fps and 21,500 psi."

Still later, in September 1986, Skeeter said about his Nov. 1985 article: "I believe, and still believe, that the Ruger Single-Six will stand up to this load with no problems, but I cannot -- and will not -- recommend it to others.......The little Ruger is an exceptionally strong revolver -- and the ONLY one in which I would fire such a load. My work with this gun/load combination was purely for my own edification, and anyone else who tries it does so entirely on his own responsibility."

Sounds to me like someone got spanked.

[Bret4207]

Every time I see mention of 800x and the .32 mag, I grin,because ken waters raved about it in his pet loads. I tried it as well, but luckily it didnt shoot no better than any other powder. I said luckily, because 800x has to be the worst powder ever designed! I have numerous powder measures, and never found a measure that would throw 800x accurate. Id rather watch wet paint dry,than weigh every charge! Speaking of Mr. Waters, is he still alive and with us?

For 800X whatcha need is a B+M Visible Powder Measure. It WILL cut the powder without issue. That, according to some folks, is a problem. I leave that decision up to the user.


As far as I know Ken, My Hero, Waters is still alive. I corresponded with Ken Howell, the former Editor of Handloader and the man I wish was still running it, and he stated Kens wife was suffering from a long illness at that time, maybe 3-4 years ago. Ken is about 90 now I believe. He did recently appear in print somewhere, maybe 6 months ago. I think he's about done though. He's one of those guys I'd like to meet, although I understand he's just a quiet kind of guy, not much to say about anything. He shines whens he writes. He'll go on my short list of favored writers with Elmer, Skeeter, Naramore, Mattern, Sell, Ackley, Sharpe, Landis and Whelen. (Note the lack of names like Resse, Sundra, Libourel, Boddington, Koalis, Fortier, Ayoob, etc, etc, etc..... [smilie=1:)

[tommyn]

I use Lil Gun in my 32 mag with great results.

[Skrenos]

I use Lil Gun in my 32 mag with great results.

I was basing my 800x load on Lil Gun actually. Clark (we all should know who he is), says if you take a load with Lil Gun and halve it, you get an approximate load for 800x.

[lawboy]

Well, I tried the 4.5grs of Unique under the 115gr Lyman 3118. Fired 100 rounds offhand at the 20-yard indoor range tonight. It is a nice load. I was able to make a lot of X-ring hits on the 20-yard bullseye rapid fire target shooting two-handed double action and the shots all when where the sights were pointed. I don't think I will go any higher with Green Dot. I guestimate the velocity to be in the 1100fps range as the 4.0gr load chronographed right at 1000fps. This ia 3-inch SP101. I like this gun! IF ONLY RUGER HAD PUT A REAL ADJUSTABLE SIGHT ON IT!

I AM EDITING TO CORRECT A MISTAKE. THE LOAD I TRIED IS 4.5GRS OF GREEN DOT, NOT UNIQUE. THE UNIQUE WOULD LIKELY HAVE A MORE GRADUAL PRESSURE CURVE THAN THE GREEN DOT, BUT WOULD BURN DIRTIER. THE GREEN DOT LOAD WAS EXTREMELY CLEAN.

[Dale53]

Lawboy;
>>>IF ONLY RUGER HAD PUT A REAL ADJUSTABLE SIGHT ON IT!<<<

THAT is a masterpiece of understatement! I have a 4" SP101 and with every bullet I tried, it shot entirely too high to be useful. I thought of various methods of solving this but all of them were too expensive for my taste. In addition, I have some vision issues. I ended up with a Red Dot sight on mine and couldn't be happier. This wonderful little revolver is a hoot!!

My pistolsmith was not particularly enamored of my idea with the Red Dot (on such a small revolver) but he is squite accommodating. He took a blank Weaver base and milled it to match the "two step" surfaced of the revolver frame. I absolutely LOVE the set up. Excellent range of adjustabiliby (can handle just about any bullet weight you desire) and I CAN SEE!!

The picture shows a 30 mm Red Dot. I have since changed this for a 1" Red Dot and it is much more in proportion to the small size of the revolver and works just as well. You can click on the photos and get a larger picture.

I know that Red Dots are not for everyone, but anyone who needs a fully adjustable sight and/or has vision problems it is an answer. "It works for me!"

Dale53

[Harry O]

Well, I tried the 4.5grs of Unique under the 115gr Lyman 3118. It is a nice load.

That is a good load. In fact, Unique is good to outstanding with about everything that has a short barrel. Now, if it would only meter like Bullseye, WW231 or any kind of ball powder, it would be perfect.

[lawboy]

DALTE53, I saw your comments and photos on another thread and have been thinking about having a red dot mounted on mine ever since. I think I will go with the doctor optic or similar small single-lense sight. I am shopping around for one now.

[Dale53]

lawboy;
Frankly, I would prefer the Doctor sight on MY SP101 but have been put off by the price. When I ran onto the Bushnell Red Dots (bought four and should have bought a dozen) I tried them out and really liked them. They have a wide range of adjustment (don't know about the Dr.) that I find helpful.

I haven't yet made a Kydex holster for mine, but will do so (I have the materials but haven't got roundtoit, as yet).[smilie=1:

At any rate, I LOVE the Red Dots!:Fire::Fire:

Dale53

[lawboy]

Dale, I did not exactly buy a Doctor as I ageee, the price is prohibitive for this project. I bought a much cheaper sight of that style for $60. I am maily after the small size and light weight of that kind of sight. I will sight it in for dead on at 25 yards and then leave it alone. I plan to use just a few loads in the gun so that should not be a problem. I can't wait to shoot some squirrels with the red dot mounted using the hollowpoint bullets I will make when I get that 3118 back from Buckshot!

[Dale53]

lawboy;
You and I are pretty much in the same camp.

However, you will not need hollow points for squirrels. My 25/20 flat nose bullets give "one shot stops" on squirrels whether in the head or through the "slats" without serious meat damage.. A .32 caliber 100 gr. Keith SWC will do the same. I always try for a head shot with a rifle unless no head is presented, but am happy with a body shot with a handgun.

One shot, one kill...

Dale53

[AZ-Stew]

After re-reading Dan Cotterman's article, I decline to post his loads. They're hotter than Skeeter's, and some of them were shot in a K-32 back in the 60's, long before the advent of the .32 H&R. Some of them were truly remarkable.

This should tell us that the K-frame Smiths in .32 (.32 S&W L or .32 H&R) are as durable as the Ruger Single Sixes, even though Smith would never admit it. I intend to try some "advanced" loads in my two M-16 Smiths. I intend to be very careful, though, because I can't stand the idea of damaging one of these irreplacable revolvers. I just believe that the 21,000 psi (or CUP) SAAMI pressure limit for this round is a gross underload. The M-19 Smiths could handle the .357 Mag at full power, and while they had heat-treated cylinders, the M-16 revolvers have more steel around the cartridges. I believe it's pretty much a trade-off.

If I find any loads that are worth mentioning (SAFE, fast, accurate), I'll post them here.

Regards,

Stew

[Dale53]

One thing that puzzles me, just a bit. All of the talk is about "how fast" we can run most any cartridge under discussion. Now, of course, it IS important to know where the limits are so that we can avoid going over the "limit". However, we seem overly fascinated with how fast we can drive ANYTHING.

How about we just realize that 90% of most of what we shoot is at paper. It doesn't take much to perforate paper.

I'll give you an example: the Schuetzen shooters shoot mostly at 200 yards with plain base lead bullets. The "sweet spot" in velocity seems to be 1400-1500 fps. These guys are shooting score matches with the "center" 1.5" in diameter. The "center" scores 25. Ten shots give you a "possible" of 250. Further, the bullet must be half in the scoring ring to receive the higher value. So, to shoot a possible (250X250) you have to have a ten shot group, at 200 yards, of 1.5" that is PERFECTLY placed. Yet, the year before last, one of our number (Jim Borton) had shot 9 perfect scores during matches. Several other shooters have shot one or more perfect scores.

So, why aren't we more concerned with better shooting at reasonable velocities? I have been shooting more revolvers than rifles, recently, and I am still of the mind that shootable, reasonable velocities for the purpose (targets) is more desirable (and certainly safer) than trying to get every last FPS (foot per second) out of our loads.

I have done a fair bit of hunting (not nearly as much as many of you, but a good bit nonetheless) and even hunting loads do not require the last bit of FPS that is MAYBE available.

Just a few thoughts...

Dale53

[Lloyd Smale]

im with dale

[longhorn]

I'm in agreement with Dale and Lloyd, too, but I will note that the most accurate loads in my Single Six are definitely all on the "warm" side--as in, too "warm" to admit to! Most of my efforts are in the opposite direction--accuracy with minimal blast and recoil, but some cartridges seem to respond best to being pushed hard. My .340 was an example, but it didn't take me long to have all that fun I could stand.

[AZ-Stew]

Dale,

If it means anything to you, I bought a new S&W M-57 (.41 Mag) in about 1976. In it's life it's had maybe 300 210gr jacketed bullet loads at full power shot through it. It's had literally thousands and thousands of 900 fps cast bullet loads shot through it. Why? Because that load does what I want it to in that gun. I don't need to hot rod it. Same with a number of my rifles.

On the other hand, I have several rifles that dote on loads that cause short case life. And in the case of the .32 H&R, the cartridge would be close to pointless unless it is capable of posting speeds considerably in excess of those produced by the .32 S&W Long.

If speed wasn't important, we's all shoot .38 Specials in our .357 Magnum guns.

You're right. There's no need to stoke every handload in every gun to the max, but on the other hand, there's nothing wrong with it when more accuracy or needed power can be obtained safely.

Regards,

Stew

[9.3X62AL]

My experience with the 32 Mag has shown the accuracy potential in the caliber to differ from boolit to boolit. RCBS 32-98-SWC is accurate from 700 FPS to well past 1200. It is my go-to casting in this caliber. Lyman #313631, a 100 grain SWC/GC, is not real impressive in my S&W until velocities get past 1000 FPS. It gets better as it goes faster, too. Same deal with a Mountain Molds 120 flat-nose I had made for the 32-20 revolvers--it doesn't come into its own until at or over 1000 FPS.

The caliber is a natural for small game and similarly-sized vermin. That it has been underloaded since Day 1 is pretty well understood, but not a lot of data is out there for it anyway. The most comprehensive set of data available is the dated and rather conservative information in the RCBS Cast Bullet Handbook. Because the boolit lends itself to a wide spectrum of velocities with accuracy, this data remains useful. But it is safe to say that a LOT of work needs to be done--or perhaps re-done--concerning the 32 Magnum and potential as a field caliber.

Sadly, the focus of the 327 Magnum being introduced by Federal Cartridge seems limited to self-defense venues and short-barrelled wheelguns. That is a fine application, but ignoring its field capabilities will cripple sales in my view. Federal intro'd the 32 Magnum as a combo field and defensive caliber in 1984, and there was nothing wrong with the dual-purpose concept at that time or at present.

[Dale53]

If I still had an "in" in the powder industry (he had the singular lack of consideration to die on me:() I would have him run some actual test loads through his pressure barrel so that we could KNOw what pressures we were asking with our loads in the .32 H&R magnum.

I would be perfectly content to have some "high end loads" in the 30,000 lb category (max at 30,000 psi) for my 16-4 and SP101. I definitely will NOT be shooting any that hot through my 631.

The closest I have seen is Ed Harris' article on the .32 H&R Magnum regrding tests
he ran when he worked for Ruger:

ate: 24 Mar 94 19:33:34
From: Ed Harris
To: All
Subj: .32 H&R Mag. +P+ Test Data

The machine "loading limit" for the .32 H&R Magnum cartridge is 20,000
p.s.i., but handloaders often try to get higher velocities than factory
ammunition in strong guns such as the Ruger SP101 and Single-Six.

The problem in attempting to do this is that no pressure tested data is
available to approximate ".357 Magnum" equivalent pressures which are known to
be within the design limit of the Ruger revolvers. I state here for the
record that Sturm, Ruger and Company does not condone the use of reloaded or
handloaded ammunition, and these loads are not approved by them or anybody
else.

I worked up these loads in my own Ruger Single-Six revolver. The 85-gr. loads
work quite well and extract easily, but the 100-gr. loads, while they worked
OK in an SP101 having roller burnished chambers, gave sticky extraction in the
Single Six. I felt it wouild be useful to know what the difference in
pressure was between loads which extracted easily and those most handloaders
would agree were crowding the "envelope." The relative difference is about
7-10,000 psi. Loads in the 30,000 psi range worked fine in both revolvers,
but those approaching 40,000 gave problems in the Single Six.

These pressure data were obtained using an Oehler System 82 and .32 H&R Magnum
SAAMI dimensioned pressure/velocity test barrel. All loads were assembled in
new factory primed Federal cases. All P & V data are corrected to calibration
test firings of SAAMI Reference ammunition in accordance with standard
industry practice.

100-gr. Hornady XTP, 4.5 grs. SR-7625
Mean 1180 f.p.s., 37,846 psi - REDUCE 5%
Range 32 4785
Sd 9 1524

85 Hornady XTP, 5.0 grs. W231
Mean 1317 f.p.s. 32,851 psi - OK
Range 57 6445
Sd 17 1925

85 Hornady XTP, 4.5 grs. SR-7625
Mean 1216 f.p.s. 27,882 psi - OK
Range 85 9692
Sd 26 3006

100 Hornady XTP, 5.0 grs. W231
Mean 1264 f.p.s. 40,202 psi - REDUCE 5%
Range 32 6006
Sd 12 1999


The above 85-gr. loads should be safe in the Ruger SP101 and Single Six as
listed. Prudent reloading practice demands you should reduce the load 5% and
work up cautiously to these charges, to provide a safety margin for any
variations in guns or components.

In my opinion the same charges with the 100-gr. bullets are excessive, as
evidenced by sticky extraction, and must be reduced a minimum of 5 percent,
and that charge reduction considered maximum. The charge listed should be
reduced by 10% for initial trials in your revolver.

The above data are provided for the information of experienced handloaders
only who adapt or use the above at their own risk.



In Home Mix We Trust, Regards, Ed


I just wish that he had done some work with slower powders as I believe that he would have received a greater performance level with the slower powders (just like every other high performance revolver case out there) within the 30,000 pressure envelope. Nonetheless, I am happy to have THIS information available. I thank Ed Harris for making this available to us. If more pressure data was available, we could then load to higher performance levels without "straining" our revolvers. I would think that would be a plus for all reloaders of this wonderful little cartridge.

I am singularly unmoved my the announcement of the 327 Magnum. What I want is better data for my .32 H&R's. At the same time, I "ain't" gonna hold my breath waiting for it. There are too many of the "less sturdy" platforms out there (the "J" frame Smiths and the H&R revolvers) chambered for the H&R for them to do that. However, they could do the same thing that was and is being done with the .45 Colt and define the stronger designs and limit the 'high performance" loads to those dedicated platforms.

Hey, that's an idea. Maybe we could start an association similar the old "44 Associates" (call it the ".32 Associates") and campaign with a powder company (Hodgdon comes to mind as the logical one) to run some tests for us for inclusion in their loading manual.

Dale53

[Nueces]

I'll join, Dale. Always thought the 44 group should have called themselves the '44 Specialists', though.

Thanks for the EH letter - I also collect a lot of his work.

I'm looking forward to the 327, but I probably will not get one of the new SP-101s. Possible platforms include the Diamondback, Smith K-frame, Colt Officer's Model and Ruger Bisley. Instead of getting a 32-20 cylinder for the Dan Wesson 732, I think I'll just take the original cylinder out to 327.

Whatever 'powder blending' Federal is doing to achieve their ballistics, I hope that blend is cannistered for us 32 Associates.

Mark

[9.3X62AL]

I won't be running a reamer into my 16-4's chambers. A swap cylinder for the 327 Magnum would be a more likely scenario, but even that begs the question of "*** for?". The 32 Magnum in factory flavor is a pretty decent rat whacker and bunny buster. I want something AT LEAST 35 caliber for social interactions, and 40 caliber+ has even more appeal. Running the 32 Mag past factory ballistics has a lot of merit esoterically and recreationally, but after 20+ years with the caliber it hasn't occurred to me to hot-rod it much past Federal specs. Such loads would work fine for varmints, but the few 85/90/100 grain XTP's I've used on jackrabbits in several 30/32 caliber pistols at 1200 FPS+ have shown that table fare shouldn't be an expected result from the hunting.

[Dale53]

Al;
I pretty much have to agree with you. I have shot my .32's thousands of times but nearly all have been with target loads. Frankly, if the truth be known, w/c's work just fine on both paper and bunny wabbits. However, currently I am shooting the 100 gr Keith in .32 S&W L cases and loving every minute of it.

I'm with you on "Edible small game" - target velocitiy is MUCH more practical for that (and I get that out of S&W Long cases).

While it would be good to have some real data for "heavy but safe" loads for the occasional varmint hunt, most of what I do in the field is "Edible Small Game". And-d-d-d, like many of us MOST of what I do is shoot paper.

Dale53

[Nueces]

10-4 on y’all’s satisfaction with the H&R. I like it, too. Lately, though, I’ve been working with a Freedom FA-97 in 32-20, 7 ½” barrel. With my new CED chronograph, I’ve seen 1500 fps from plain-base 115-grain boolits, without leading. This is field/varmint territory, and there is room for more performance.

For many moons, I’ve wanted a straight case 32 that would offer similar performance and also allow use of boolits of weights >120 gr at velocities achieved by the 100s in the H&R. The sort of thing the 357 Max offered over the 357 Mag. The straight case allows carbide sizing and the smaller base diameter (than the 32-20) allows chambering in smaller revolvers. And, I figure case neck wall thickness will be a good deal greater than that on the 32-20, so cases will be robust and take a firm roll crimp.

I predict a lukewarm market reaction to the 327, but I’m going to stock up on brass and have fun with it.

Mark

[Skrenos]

I predict a lukewarm market reaction to the 327, but I’m going to stock up on brass and have fun with it.

Mark


Why? It doesnt provide anything to the reloader that a .32 mag cant provide. The 327 case is only 1/8" longer. That doesnt provide any appreciable powder capacity increase.

[Bullshop]

Well I wonder, as I recall the differance between the 38/357mag and 44 special/44mag is 1/10" length. But I think for those the length differance was to prevent chambering in the shorter chambers not to gain capacity. The longer cases were loaded to higher pressure but the 1/10 length gain was not in itself to increase case capacity. Still 1/8" is more than 1/10" gain in length/capacity.
BIC/BS

[9.3X62AL]

The idea that the new "Magnum" has a lengthened case to prevent usage in the H&R revolvers of S&W J-frames might be the answer to my "*** for?" posed earlier. The current info--new and sparse as it is--is skewed toward self-defense/CCW orientation. One thing for sure--it has been a LONG time since any 32 caliber handgun cartridge was touted as a "self-defense" caliber.

For me, it remains a "whatzis". Of course, I am pretty "32'd out"--32 SWL, 32 Magnum, 32-20 (2 of those), 30 Luger, 30 Mauser/7.62 Tok (3 of those), 7.62 x 38R Nagant, 32 ACP (2 of them), and even a 7.65 MAS M-1935 pistol. Another 32 caliber or handgun would be like shaving hair from an elephant--not much substantive change.

[lawboy]

A bit more 32 Magnum trivia.
Was out in the shop this evening just winding down a bit. Rummaging through the cabinet where I keep my component bullets, I came across a partial box of Sierra 125 grain jhp softpoints in 125-grain flavor with crimping cannelure. These are part no. 2020 and touted for the 30-30.
So I get to rolling one of those nice, long, sleek pills in my fingers. An idea was forming ever so slowly. Walked over to the lube sizing bench and plucked a Lyman 3118 cast bullet out of a plastic tube full of same awaiting lube sizing to .313 for the sp101. Sat both the Sierra and Lyman down on the bench -- Well I'll be, not very much difference in bullet length surely not enough to prevent chambering in the sp101. AND, the location of the cannelure on the jacketed bullet places almost exactly the same amount of bullet shank inside the case as with the cast bullet. The reduction in bullet diameter should counter any would-be pressure increase due to bullet jacket and the extra 10grs of bullet weight ...
A quick check with a bullet in the muzzle of the revolver indicates that it will grip the rifling enough to to spin ...
Broke out the 30 M1 Carbine loading dies and sized the first half inch of six 32 Magnum cases. Gave them a very slight bell, charged with 4.5 of Green Dot and seated six of the Sierra bullets to OAL of 1.462. Will fire them tomorrow night and report back.
Now I know these bullets are designed to operate at 30-30 velocities but still they sure do look cool in the cylinder of the sp101!

[9.3X62AL]

Lawboy--

I'm glad to know I'm not the only one to do things like that. I call it "Frankensteining".

[lawboy]

Shot the 125-grain sierra jhp 308 bullets today. Offhand, 20 yards, 4-inch group, no keyholing, just six perfectly round holes.

Rummaged a little more in the bullet cabinet and came up with a partial box of OLD winchester jacketed 110-grain 30 Winchester bullets. these are jacketed softpoints and they micced at .311. Loaded them with the same procedure set forth above and will fire them tomorrow night. Loaded 24 rounds with 4.5 of green dot.
fun, fun, fun!

[Newtire]

I like the milder loads myself. Have found a few great ones using heavier charges and still have some experimenting to do that way. That 100 gr. category shoots good slow or fast for me. I have a tendency to get better results with the faster loads but could just be beginner's luck.

Now I have a Lee 90 gr. SWC and was hoping someone could give me a starting point for that in the .32 mag. and or .32-20.

[Dale53]

Newtire;
You can use the same loads that I use with the Keith 100 gr GB:

I have a Ruger SP101 and use it quite a bit. My target load is 2.8/ 231 behind a Lee GB 100 Keith (casts .314" and I size to .313") using .32 S&W L cases. If you wish to use the .32 H&R Cases, I use 3.2 in the magnum case.

For a full load, I use a .314/120 RF GB mould bullet ahead of 10.0 H110 (this gives 1100 fps in my 6" barreled S&W 16-4).

I just LOVE the .32's (only have four of them...)


Those are somewhat above the factory .32 S&W L but pleasant to shoot and they shoot quite well in all of my .32's.

Dale53

[BigSlick]

Great thread.

I for one am seriously excited about the .327 Federal.

No, I don't see anything from the limited initial information that I've reviewed that makes me want to go out and buy one, but it IS fantastic news to see a new .32 cal offering.

I really hope this will provide the opportunity for bullet mfrs to introduce a few new options that will be useable in the 32 Mag. Also, more than anything, I'm hoping some new reloading data can come out of all of this.

I've been working with the 32 Mag in my 4" SP101 for about three months now and have been working to try and find where this caliber really performs. Published data, being so weakened to allow for the pot metal and lighter construction guns in 32 H&R is nearly anemic.

I've never been one to hot rod a caliber, and certainly don't have any intentions of doing so with the .32 Mag, but I would *at least* like to have some reasonable published data centered around modern guns of robust construction.

I've been running 100 and 115gr bullets in the 13-1400 fps range for a while in the SP101 32 Mag and have experienced zero problems with pressure signs other than a slightly stick ejection with XTP's past about 1300 fps. With cast boolits, not one problem.

I *might* buy a .327 cylinder *if* it's a straight swap with the .32 Mag SP101, but even if that happens, it will be long after brass and load data is available, and only then if I see something I have to have that I can't achieve with my existing setup.

Maybe, if we're all lucky, Smith (and others) will produce models in the caliber that will open up some options for .32 fans. Something along the line of a 327M&P in 32 or .327 Mag would be a dream gun. This along with a decent lever gun.

I expect Smith will pony up an offering, due to Federal's producing ammo. Probably a CCW offering along the line of a 332/432 J frame. Again, maybe if we're lucky, the caliber will catch on enough to enlighten the masses about the fun/utility factor of a good .32 cal.

Maybe then, some of the mfrs will pull their head out and take advantage of a market largley ignored, the market for a fun gun. No tacticool ninja ****, no game players, or safe queens, something to take advantage of possibly the biggest firearms market that has ever existed.

The 'I shoot for the fun of it' market.

You would think with all their research and marketing geniuses, they would have figured this out a long time ago.

Like the rest of us.
________
Vaporizers (http://vaporizers.tv/)

[9.3X62AL]

Hear, hear Slick.

My own thoughts on your "fun gun" assertion is that relatively little honest and objective "market research" goes on at our mainstream gunmakers. It almost seems that an inbred relationship between gunrags and gunmakers exists, in which the gunrags' horrendously inaccurate measure of the consumers' wants and needs is the largest barometer used to assess where the wind lies. In fact, the situation is so inbred that the family tree is beginning to resemble a date palm.

Mainstream gun press--like the rest of the mainstream media--is dying due to inability and/or refusal to adapt to the speed of modern communication, and to the feedback that results from same. Gunmakers need to stop watching that barometer, and get outside and see what the weather is REALLY like.

Good to see you back, sir.

[BAGTIC]

Why? It doesnt provide anything to the reloader that a .32 mag cant provide. The 327 case is only 1/8" longer. That doesnt provide any appreciable powder capacity increase.


It will produce about 25% increase in case capacity, the exact percentage being greater with heavier bullets than with light ones

Consider how many rifle shooters rechamber stand chambers to 'Improved' one that offer far less capacity increase than that.

[Skrenos]

I dont see the .327 mag offering 25% increased case capacity. That would be 125% of the capacity of the 32 magnum. 25% will be 1/8 inch, so you're saying the powder length is only 1/2" in the .32 magnum? From my measurements, it's almost 1 inch. That would equal out to around a 10% increase in powder capacity.

Rifle shooters rechamber to improved versions by blowing out shouders and removing taper. They do it more for case life more than powder capacity.