32-20 moderate pressure loads

[leftiye]

Some of you may remember my posts looking for loads a little more robust loads than what the Lyman books offer (it really looks to me like Lyman put zero effort into those compilations, merely regurgitating loads from previous books), but useable in stronger classic arms. Such loads as I was looking for, I might add, are as rare and hard to find as proverbial chicken's teeth. So, I'm offering these loads to 32-20 owners to consider, and utilize.

First, these are researched only, and I have not tried them. It should be realized that "pressure signs" don't exist in this pressure range, so my testing would be inconsequential anyway. If you get any pressure signs, then you are at least in the .32 magnum area (21000 psi.), probly more like in the .38 special +p area (28000 psi.). Second, they are from sources that did give pressure data as between 16000 and 21000 psi. Pressures will vary in your particular gun, so exercise procedures that obviate danger. That being said, they are in what Paco Kelly calls the strong side of the second (middle) group of rifles and pistols. That is, maybe on the hot side for first half of the 20th century guns. Do not use in Police Positive Specials, nor any of the "little" revolvers, not for early S&W swing out double actions before 1905 model.

All are for 115 grain boolits like the 3118 and 311316 Lyman, velocities are from rifle for the most part.

AA1680 15.0 grs. 1300fps. rev./1700 rifle
AA2015 16.0 grs. 1500 fps.
Lil' Gun 12.0 grs. 1600 fps.
4227 12.0 grs. 1400/1600 fps.
2400 10.0 grs. 1500 fps. Rifle
4759 11.0 grs. 1400 fps.

These are not starting loads, they are listed because they are supposed to have the pressure range aforementioned. I would say to exercise caution, or to work up loads from below these charges, obviously. Know also, that as you reduce these loads with these slow powders at low operating pressure for the powder, velocity drops drastically as does pressure. Also burning efficiency goes down the drain. They are an attempt to find higher velocities at lower pressures than would normally develop at these velocities. Strikingly, 1680, 2015,4759 all seem to ignite fairly well at these pressures and somewhat lower maybe. 10.0 grs. of 2400 is a long time standard load for the 32-20. H110 and 296 were not considered because they have heavy ignition inhibitors, and become dangerous therefore at lower than magnum pressures. Lil Gun has been used in very reduced loads in the .22 hornet (Beagle article, 7 or 8 grs IIRC, and others), and should be safe here.

[Bret4207]

The only caveat I'd offer is that with the 2 boolits mentioned at speeds over 1400 fps you tend to do a great deal of damage to edible game. For coyotes and such, have at it and watch them drop.

[Le Loup Solitaire]

I got mixed up in 32-20 by using it in my Ruger Blackhawk that normally uses 30 Carbine rounds. I wanted to eliminate the seating problems when/if there were any...when rounds that were too long tied up the cylinder (sometimes) plus the 32-20 did afford a rim for seating on so if a round was a bit short then there was no problem with round going too deep and getting weak firing pin strike. I used the same load for the 32-20's as the 30 Carbine....12-13 grains of 4227. A slight case trimming was necessary. Functioning and accuracy were good/the same....no leading. Bullet was/is the RCBS 120 grain round nose. Just as noisy but burned clean. LLS

[leftiye]

I was starting to expect that there weren't going to be any replies to this thread.

LLS, In a strong gun like a Ruger, .30 carbine starting loads afford a place to begin with working up loads for 32-20. Not all of the powders available will produce low enough pressures for to be safe in some of the older guns though. What you have there is a .30 carbine whether you use 32-20 brass or not. The 32-20 brass should be trimmed to carbine length (or what fits in your chamber). There is a shelf at the front for the mouth of the case to headspace on. What I'm getting at is that there shouldn't be any cartridges long enough to protrude from the front of the cylinder.

Bret, Understood about meat damage at velocities Above 1400 fps. Probly should be loaded like an overgrown .22 bullet for squirrels and rabbits. But like mountains to climb, it is there. That goes for these velocities and those even higher. Probly useful for deer, and as a carry load for whatever, 2 legged threats, whatever. For pistols, I just wasn't able to get excited about Lyman velocities, plus it would be nice to duplicate the 1200 fps loads in pistols for small game, and give the pistols more authority if one had to defend self against hogs or 2 legged animals. Good to hear from you!

[superbee]

I appreciate the data and the insights, leftiye. As you stated in your orginal post, data in this velocity / pressure area is limited.

[Bret4207]

I have a 311359 I bought specifically for small game with my 32-20 rifles. The 311316 will literally cut a grey squirrel in half at 1550. OTOH, I wouldn't hesitate on a deer with that load if given a proper shot. The spire point 359 is reputed to be much kinder to game than the FN.

[Canuck Bob]

Here is a link to Paco Kelley's article that divides the 32-20 into pressure ranges for appropriate guns. Please note that one must be careful to use data that corresponds a safe gun.

http://www.leverguns.com/articles/paco/3220wcf.htm

[superbee]

Here is a link to Paco Kelley's article that divides the 32-20 into pressure ranges for appropriate guns. Please note that one must be careful to use data that corresponds a safe gun.

http://www.leverguns.com/articles/paco/3220wcf.htm

That 14.5 grains of AA1680 load for 100/110 grain cast bullets - is it a level one load (13, 000 CUP) or a level 2 load (21, 000 CUP)? It is listed in both places in the table, so there is obviously an error somewhere.

I wonder which one is correct?

Also on the table, 16.5 grains of AA1680 gives 1920 fps / 21, 500 CUP with a 90 grain bullet, and gives 2000 fps / 25, 000 CUP with a 100 grain bullet. Could that be possible?

[Green Lizzard]

superbee i load a case full in a hornet, heavy bullets go faster i guess it makes more pressure

[35remington]

I have shot many, many fox squirrel with the Lee C113F cast of linotype or of HTWW's out of a 30-06 at 1550 fps and they were hardly cut in half. Simply a hole in soft tissue with a bit more damage if bone was hit. Not sure how this bullet would be any different than the aforementioned, but I invite posters to try it themselves with a bullet of this sort and see if something is "cut in half."

I suggest it is not all that damaging. Find out for yourself. If cast of soft WW's at the same speed the bullet will expand on closer shots and do considerably more damage, so avoid softer bullets.

FWIW, John Wooters frequently mentioned shooting squirrels with the hard cast 257312 GC out of the 25-20 at nearly 1800 fps "and discovered no damage other than a neat hole through them." What you use for alloy and hardness matters, so the speed of 1550 fps is hardly damaging all by itself if combined with a suitably hard bullet. If your best accuracy is in this range and the bullet is hard, have at the tree squirrel and recover them intact.

All the bullets mentioned here are flatpoint bullets.

[superbee]

superbee i load a case full in a hornet, heavy bullets go faster i guess it makes more pressure

That would make sense. Thanks Lizzard:smile:

[leftiye]

That 14.5 grains of AA1680 load for 100/110 grain cast bullets - is it a level one load (13, 000 CUP) or a level 2 load (21, 000 CUP)? It is listed in both places in the table, so there is obviously an error somewhere. I wonder which one is correct?

Also on the table, 16.5 grains of AA1680 gives 1920 fps / 21, 500 CUP with a 90 grain bullet, and gives 2000 fps / 25, 000 CUP with a 100 grain bullet. Could that be possible?

Concerning the 14.5 1680 load. Unless I'm mistaken the lower pressure is correct. I had a full range of loads for 1680, and that is where it fit in the progression of charges/pressures. I had forgotten about the apparently misquoted load. As I stated in the OP, the 15.0 load was between 16000 psi, and 21,000 psi., probly on the lower side. I've opted to start with 4227, being as I have two canisters of it. I'm also a bit leery of a powder that slow (1680) at such low pressures, though it may ignite well, but I have no experience with that.

As for the higher pressure load, I am not/wasn't concerned with that as it was higher pressure than many of the older guns can withstand. At present, I'm not interested in light boolit loads in almost anything.

[Bret4207]

I have shot many, many fox squirrel with the Lee C113F cast of linotype or of HTWW's out of a 30-06 at 1550 fps and they were hardly cut in half. Simply a hole in soft tissue with a bit more damage if bone was hit. Not sure how this bullet would be any different than the aforementioned, but I invite posters to try it themselves with a bullet of this sort and see if something is "cut in half."

I suggest it is not all that damaging. Find out for yourself. If cast of soft WW's at the same speed the bullet will expand on closer shots and do considerably more damage, so avoid softer bullets.

FWIW, John Wooters frequently mentioned shooting squirrels with the hard cast 257312 GC out of the 25-20 at nearly 1800 fps "and discovered no damage other than a neat hole through them." What you use for alloy and hardness matters, so the speed of 1550 fps is hardly damaging all by itself if combined with a suitably hard bullet. If your best accuracy is in this range and the bullet is hard, have at the tree squirrel and recover them intact.

All the bullets mentioned here are flatpoint bullets.


Okay, so I guess I'm a frickin' liar now. Sure as hell am glad I came back tot his hole.

[45 2.1]

Bret, there will always be people who will have the direct opposite opinion.... here and elsewhere. And most of those are people you have to qualify everything to death for because they don't understand conventional wisdom for the type of rifle/cartridge combination. Most people wouldn't be using a FMJ type cast boolit with a small game cartridge either, but some will.

[Bret4207]

Maybe you're right Bob. To be completely technically accurate there were bits of sinew and hide holding the 2 halves of the squirrels together I shot before deciding the 311316 at BHN 12 at an average of 1550 (some as high as 1600ish IIRC) shot at approx 25-35 yards while the animal was in the classic "hunched up" sitting position and were hit at an upward angle which caused the majority of the far side ribcage, lungs, bowels, backbone and most of the other organs to be missing on recovery of the squirrel. These are not the large greys you see in the city park, but the smaller northern grey about twice the size of a red squirrel or 3x the size of a chipmunk. To be totally accurate I should not have used the term "literally" since it was only when you picked the animal up and held it up to look at it that you got the impression that the approx. 3/4" of sinew and hide holding the 2 halves together made it look like it was cut in half in practical terms.

Cleaning them was LITERALLY simple though.

[35remington]

Before two guys who have no reason to get all sideways and conspiratorial about a simple comment go on further, reread it please, both of you. 45 2.1, I fully understand conventional wisdom, because I've applied it in this case. Many times.

"If cast of soft WW's at the same speed the bullet will expand on closer shots and do considerably more damage, so avoid softer bullets." Hmm.

Did anybody miss this part of the above post? Think I have any experience in this area with soft bullets? Why do you suppose my bullets are hard for small game hunting at this speed? Guess what BHN air cooled WW's are? BHN 12, as per my measurements. Sound familiar? Since Bret did not mention bullet hardness in his first post about damaging impacts, but rather in his post after mine, and we are essentially in agreement, what is there to complain about?

From my considerable experience in using this bullet cast hard on small game, "devastating" damage isn't in the cards. FWIW. So there is no reason to avoid the 1550 fps speed if that produces your best accuracy when the bullets are hard. Didn't I say just that?

Now, fellas, what do we have to argue about? I must have missed something important, but I don't think so. Please enlighten me.

FWIW, the C113F gets 1550 fps from my '06 using 9 grains W231, and hits on the thick/thin junction of the crosshairs at 4.5X at fifty yards when the rifle is zeroed at 200 with a 150 jacketed at just under 3000. The rifle is light and handy and I've shot considerable small game and coyotes with it for that reason but not so many deer, ironically.

Bret, try hard cast for small game at this speed. That's all you should take away from this.........and that I did mention the softer bullets were to be avoided before you mentioned the bullets you were using were........soft.

[Bret4207]

I have shot many, many fox squirrel with the Lee C113F cast of linotype or of HTWW's out of a 30-06 at 1550 fps and they were hardly cut in half. Simply a hole in soft tissue with a bit more damage if bone was hit. Not sure how this bullet would be any different than the aforementioned, but I invite posters to try it themselves with a bullet of this sort and see if something is "cut in half."

As someone who has thrown himself on the sword multiple times here to please the over sensitive readers that didn't like the exact terms I used and who was later banned for doing just that, I've found it best to review what I'm about to post to see if I might unintentionally piss off someone I don't really intend to by accidentally calling him a liar or something like that.

[cbrick]

There sure is something to the soft boolit and damage. A few years back when I first got my Ruger 30 Carbine I loaded a light load at about 1000 fps with Lyman 311410 HPPB & 32-20 brass & 4759. California ground squirrel at about 35 yards (the dang things dig up the birms). BHN 8-9, one shot & flap laying on his side. I went & looked at it & there was 30 cal hole in his ribs & not any blood. I rolled it over to see the other side and hhmmm, there was no other side from the shoulder to the hips.

In the OP 4759 was listed at 11.0 gr, I've been using 10.0 gr which I worked up from 8.5 gr. The starting charge didn't work unless you consider patterns working, it got better with each .5 gr increase. I'll try another 1/2 gr & see how that works but I still want a mouse phart load a bit quieter than the 30 Carbine is noted for in the Ruger. The Ground squirrels aren't all that tough. The boolits I just cast for this gun are from the MP 311-410 with 12 BHN.

Rick

[Dan Cash]

I shoot an Accurate RNFP 105 gr over 9 gr 2400. The bullet is cast of 16:1 alloy. I have not chronographed the load but it does not leave much of a grouse and makes an awful wound on a jack rabbit, I doubt it would cut a squirrel in half, it would simply render it to mush. You have to shoot something sometime to really grasp tissue destruction.

[35remington]

"but I invite posters to try it themselves with a bullet of this sort and see if something is "cut in half."

Gee, would a bullet of this sort be a "hard cast or heat treated bullet" as was specifically mentioned?

I wasn't sure how the bullet differed from the "aforementioned" ones you used to splatter your squirrel in my first post here until you cleared it up for me in a later post (thanks for making my point BTW).....you were using the soft bullet I counseled against! Why so bent out of shape?

Best to read the post first and see if you have a common agreement......which we do......before getting all offended. Agreed?

I called no one a liar. I simply and clearly suggested a hard cast bullet would not do that, and simply and clearly suggested a soft one does. Before I even knew you were using a soft bullet. No disagreement here. The only unfortunate thing was your reaction to something you already agree with.

[enfield]

holy **** people get upset easy, I shoot my 32-20 and have fun doin it !! in fact I just made another one .

[leftiye]

I just missed buying a Remington model 25 32-20, and did get a model 25 in 25-20. This is relevant as pertains to Enfield's counsel about having fun! Cain't wait until it gets here. Will keep looking for a 32-20.

As for the pizzing match, we should all shoot a small animal and see what we believe. I've seen Bret caution about higher velocities before, and have no doubt he messed up some squirrels. With a flat nosed boolit, I have no doubt at higher velocities that could happen (soft or hard). Please don't take offense if you're on the other side of things here. Considering what velocities a lot of people shoot 32-20, I suspect that these loads I've listed might well be considered hot. Look first at your gun's strength for safety's sake. Then look at your game for damage, and adjust as necessary. That's if you can't manage head shots, heh, heh.

[Bret4207]

I can remember when Mdl 25's in 25WCF and 32WCF were available for well under $100.00 on the used market. Why I didn't buy every one I saw was mainly because back then I was working for $2.15 an hour! That was a weeks paycheck before anything else came out. No one had a credit card back then either! Sweet, lovely guns. Wish I could find one...or 10!

[cbrick]

No kiddin Bret, to think of the "deals" I could have gotten in years past on guns, cars etc. I once had the chance to buy a show room original condition 1956 Ford Thunderbird for $1,800.00, problem was that in the early 60's for a high school kid that was about every dime of three years income.

Rick

[Bret4207]

Yeah, IIRC my "golden opportunity" was a 65 (?) Impala SS that was absolutely mint for $1800.00. Might as well have been $18 million!

[Aunegl]

I've been shooting a TC 10" -32/20 for decades in IHMSA Field Pistol and Big Bore classes. In the Field Pistol, I was using a RCBS 130 SP. In Big Bore, I was using a RCBS 165 Silh. for chickens , pigs and turkeys. With the 200 meter rams, it was a RCBS 200 Silh. After reading Paco Kelley's article, I wonder if the loads I was using would be considered Level Four?

[35remington]

It's a firmly held opinion on my part, true.....but then I've shot an awful lot of game, not with a 32-20, but with 32-20 loads using a 32-20 suitable bullet (casts at 0.313" before I size it to .310") at 32-20 "medium" velocities, in a 30-06. I initially cast the bullet of linotype because I had an awful lot of it and it made nice shiny bullets. One cavity of the C113F shot better than the other, and it was not hard to get groups with that cavity that didn't average much over a half inch at fifty yards which was very pleasing.

As it was, the load had few downsides in my then opinion for shooting small game yet being an all around load capable of taking the larger varmints. Damage with a double shoulder shot (try to avoid those but they do happen) was certainly more than a .22's but still reasonable, and the killing power was so much better while still being suitable for smaller game that I made absolutely no changes. Velocity was high enough to make hits in the field easier than a 22's as well up to 100 yards. That covered almost everything I shoot.

When I got the urge to shoot them of straight ACWW's hits on tree squirrels on the closer shots produced some bulging innards out of the exit wounds that went out through the abdominal cavity.....so I knocked that off, but the expansion would supposedly help a bit on the larger critters. Thing was, killing power didn't seem to be lacking on the bigger critters even when the bullet does not expand. So back to the nonexpanding version I went.

The reason a lot of critters were shot was I thought a great deal of that load and carried it as my main "small game and whatever" loading in that rifle for over a decade, essentially supplanting my .22 even for small game when going after squirrels alone. So let me say that even though I don't shoot a 32-20, I do in ballistic reality, and I'm convinced of how well it does nearly everything well for everything short of deer.

Bret has maintained that the 32-20 has produced very damaging wounds at the 1550ish fps velocity for years and has said so in print on many occasions, which contrasted greatly with my experience, but I've always said nothing about it despite having seen it several times. Given the particulars of my loading and my considerable experience with it it was time to comment.

"Not sure how this bullet would be any different than the aforementioned" means that "possibly there is something going on here that I don't know about that might influence the results."

There was.

I also stated some conditions where the damage could be quite noticeable...... if a softer bullet was employed. I saw that as an attempt to explain differing observed results......and what I suspected to be true was confirmed.

I was and am absolutely dead sure of my observations that a hard bullet at 1550 doesn't have to be extremely damaging. And it's not. It's just right for all around use. I like that velocity or one near it (but certainly not greatly exceeding it as noise is annoyingly increased and bone damage goes up greatly) as I think that makes the ballistics as nearly all around as possible for all small game and varmint shooting that I am likely to do.

A couple hundred fps slower might make it slightly less damaging for a squirrel only load, but then I lose some of the advantages of trajectory and killing power on the larger critters. I'll stand with what I've got. I am sorry the thread got a bit contentious, but the comment was truly as much a request for additional information and to clarify the conditions under which the observation applied as it was a statement of absolute certainty on my part. And it was me being really certain (no mistaking that, huh?) because I've been happy with the load for quite some time now. I do not feel the 32-20 could be ruled out for small game use simply because the bullet was going 1550 fps. Bullet hardness modifies whether that statement was true for me or not.

[Bret4207]

35 I've dropped it. I know what happened in my "considerable experience" over the last 30 years using the 32-20/311316 and what works for me. I don't have linotype to speak of nor do I want to harden my alloy or boolits up since they work so well in so many other instances. If you're experience differs, fine, it differs. If you're happy with what you have, fine. I'm not calling you a liar or implying anything of the kind. I'm also not going to stop relaying what my experiences have been. I'm done with it.

[35remington]

Never thought you did. Just clarifying, as considerable misunderstanding appeared to be present.

[leftiye]

Well guys, I'm a bit embarrassed. These loads ARE some hot. I just tested for pressure the 12.0 gr. load of 4227. I made one up to check pressures prior to making some to test for accuracy. The Rem 1 1/2 primers must be quite soft and it extruded back into the firing pin opening, locking up the Colt official police. The case didn't stick, but did show some scuffing, and some expansion (.005"). I made another one up with 11.0 grs, the primer survived. It's probly a good idea to use these soft primers as a pressure gauge for this caliber. Expansion was the telltale 1/2 thou. less than the 12.0 grain load, and scuffing was minimal. In stronger guns, the 32-20 can be/is loaded into the magnum pistol pressure range. There, CCI primers would be fine, magnum persuasion probly necessary. The Starline brass could stand it easily. But thas another story. The 11.0 grain load showed mild pressure signs (still) which in my gun I'll accept even though this probly indicates pressure that is a little high still. In a "K" frame size gun, these weren't mild recoiling mouse phart loads! But I like 'em! Probly won't shoot these at targets or very often though.

[35remington]

Most of the HV 32-20 loads were specially warned against for use in revolvers and were in the upper 20,000's in terms of pressure. The Remington 1/12's are soft as they will pierce with the warmer loads used in rifles. I found this in the 25-20 where I normally like to use pistol primers in preference to small rifle primers. In fact the Remingtons will pierce while their Winchester small pistol equivalents will not.

When a 115 approximates 1700 fps or better in a rifle the HV moniker applies. Given that some will crowd or exceed this velocity greatly with a similar weight bullet (the 218 Bee is the same case and has a SAAMI limit of 12,000+ CUP higher than the 28,000 odd of the 32-20) 1700 fps is just warming things up.

[35remington]

Incidentally, 28,000 is about 10,000 higher than 38 Special +P, so anything truly generating that kind of pressure is way way above what some of the older revolvers were intended to handle.

[leftiye]

"Revolvers" is a broad term. There are revolvers and there are revolvers. Huge range of different strengths. Plus, one should recognize that due to these varying strengths that Saami pressures are probly minimal. Reality lies in the actual case in the actual chamber. What doesn't stress the chamber nor bulge the barrel, and doesn't do so if used for many rounds (and what makes any difference happens in a relatively few rounds) is the actual pressure capability of that gun. Not every load is meant to be used as everyday fare. look at the "defense" loads. Chronographed velocities have zilch to do with what is safe or unsafe pressure. Except to indicate higher or lower with a given powder. A given pressure will occur at widely varying velocities with different powders.

I'm not advocating using any given pressure level in any of your guns. In my guns what doesn't hurt them may scare you a bit. I wouldn't use the 12 grain load, but it didn't hurt the gun. The 11 grain load is warm, but it won't hurt the gun. There is a whole raft of 32-20 revolvers out there that I expect these loads would hurt. There is a whole raft of 32-20 revolvers out there that are way stronger still also.

[Bret4207]

I didn't realize you were using these in a revolver. I was talking rifles. I have a Colt Army Special 32-20, the forerunner to your OP. I think people underestimate the strength of these since they were the same platform as the Python. But I've gotten over the "hot 32-20 in a revolver" stage", if for no other reason than the noise level. I used to shot Elmers recommended 10.0 2400/311316/311008. It was pushing things a bit much for me. I forget the load I used recently that worked so well, but I think it was 4759 maybe. I'll try to remember to look it up.

[leftiye]

Thanks, please do. At present I'm getting a closer look at what these loads seem like in person. Final goal is a load that I can use in both a rifle and pistol. That will probly be a Model 25 Rem. rifle, so too hot ain't too good, and I'll compromise to a medium load probly. I'm not going to shoot them in my Colt Police Positive Special, nor my S&W hand ejector 4th change. Though the Smith could probly handle them. Just is a bit much. Like you say, there is a good probability that other factors like noise, tissue damage on edible game, could enter in. Anybody else who experiments with these loads, or similar loads, please post your results here to help out.

For really red-eyed staring crazy loads there is always the.30 carbine blackhawk or buckeye special. Plus others that can really take the pressure, so I'm not in any state of need to push the pressure horizon too much here, just wanted a little bit less anemic load for the colt.

[35remington]

Yep, revolvers vary. I'd feel a lot better with a Colt SAA in 32-20 than some of the other smaller guns.

One comment though......"Chronographed velocities have zilch to do with what is safe or unsafe pressure."

Actually, for 32-20 HV loads, they do. Suggesting that HV loads of 1700 fps plus (velocity obtained in rifle length barrel) are inadvisable to shoot in many 32-20 revolvers is still a correct statement no matter the powder used, because generated pressures are still too high for many revolvers. Whether the powder be Unique, 2400, 4227, or anything else that is suitable.

[leftiye]

Too high of pressure for "Many revolvers". "Inadvisable?" Didn't I say that? I said it about all of these loads. Yes it is a correct statement. It is not about velocity.

If you set the velocity high enough, you will finally be right. I'm not sure that 1700fps is high enough. The 1680 load just might do it within pressure limitations. But there WILL come a point that the best choice of powder will be unable to produce the target velocity at all, let alone with acceptable pressures. That is about the cartridge, not about your chronograph.

I'm not going to take Bret's place as your adversary in meaningless argument. If you choose to blather further, I will not answer.

[Bret4207]

I've done a little chronographing of loads in both the Colt and my Savage 23. The Colt loads that will do around, say, 1K fps will usually be in the 1250-1300 fps range. Seems like you'd have to go to something slower than 2400 for the rifles. Finding a balance point in both platforms is going to require some compromise. The biggest problem I've had is getting trying to get a Colt load that will print close to POA. My Colt is hardly minty, but I hesitate to drill the one hole for a Wondersight, much less mill the top strap for an S+W J frame adjustable sight, which would be the cats really. It would make that gun soooo much more useful. I'm just a big chicken when it comes to surgery though!

[35remington]

1700 is high enough.

Pressures considered safe enough for all revolvers top out at around 1400 fps in rifles using 4198 and Reloder 7, which are equivalent to and slightly slower than 1680. Factories had access to any powder speed they wanted in noncanister powders and all factory loads of this speed were suggested not to be used in revolvers and marked on the box.

A matter of record.....peruse loading data as well.

Doesn't matter if you reply. Just emphasizing 1700 is quite fast enough as stated and I didn't pull it out of thin air.

[leftiye]

Gotta agree with you Bret about the sights. One could remove the front sight and turn the barrel true, and put a nice banded front sight of modern thickness in patridge contour with a white rear surface and a line down the middle on the rear of the sight, then with a S&W rear sight you'd have a chance. Did they make Millet sights for J frames? So much easier to machine, no t-slot involved.

[leftiye]

FWIW, A starting load for Lil' Gun would seem to be 12 grains with the 115 grain boolit being used here. I'll pressure check a couple of these and get back to you here.

[leftiye]

Well, it turned out that 10.5 grs of Lil' gun was probly a max. load. Though with any other primer, more might be considered. I consider all of these loads to be maximum in terms of the old but not ancient revolvers like my S&W Hand ejector, or Colt Official Police. I guess I should have used this terminology sooner, I guess (again) that my research was predicated on pressures, and I wasn't looking for max. loads. In modern guns, and with primers which don't employ tin cups, these can all be used. And they are impressive! Though they still are far short of today's top loads.

Also, I think my sources (which gave pressure info in psi) either were using guns that produced less (maybe a lot less) pressure than my gun does, or their testing was faulty. The pressures they gave shouldn't have done any of this. Even the loads that I stepped down from should have produced milder results.

FWIW, these loads (that I have tested so far - 10,5 grs. Lil' Gun, 11.0 grs. of 4227 ) all expand cases, show scuffing, and fail to pierce the Rem 1 1/2 primers just about the same as the kieth 10.0 gr. 2400 load. This was done to give something to compare with.

As I almost forgot to mention, overall ctg. length for all of these with a 3118 Lyman 115 gr. boolit was 1.54".

[Bret4207]

What were your sources on psi? Test barrels react differently than a revolver, but you already knew that.

[fouronesix]

leftiye,
I like the 32-20, particularly with moderate pressure/vel loads since I load for a 1st gen Colt SAA, original Win 92 and original Win 73. I also have the same 3 gun battery in 38-40.

I may have missed it, but didn't see Rel 7 posted in the thread. The most accurate (I don't know why) 32-20 load I've found has been 11.5 gr Rel 7 under the 311316 Lyman of fairly soft alloy. That load seems to act a lot like the BP equivalent loads I use in larger rifle calibers such as 45-70 with 5744. The Rel 7 seems to leave a few semi-burned ghost kernels but that's easy to overlook when the vel SDs are low and accuracy is so good! Just a thought about another possible powder or load combination to look at.

[leftiye]

Bret, I looked at anything I could find that gave actual pressures. I didn't include any word of mouth (mainly because I couldn't find any), nor anything I didn't think authoritative. Manuals mainly, Ken waters (though he didn't supply pressures, but did give his ideas on pressure signs) Pet Loads as a guide, Paco Kelley's main article, etc. In the end I did have loads that bracketed the targeted pressures from above and below and extrapolated to the desired pressure from them. I've got to say that I suspect all of them to be higher than I estimated, and that the pressures I found might have been erroneous, though I did say to approach from below, and that they were neither proven loads nor mild loads. Still and all, AFTER sorting it out I think there are (or will be) a bunch of outstanding loads living in there (somewhere).

Fouronesix, I hate to say it but I didn't see much data on Rel7. Paco Kelley gave data on 2015which is in that speed of powder range, (I think). I was afraid that 1680 might be too slow, so maybe it was my mindset. Anyway thanks for the data.

[fouronesix]

Rel 7 is the "slowest" listed in Lyman data for 14" barrel and the 311008 bullet:

12.4 gr -- 1038 fps -- 6,500 CUP
15.5 gr -- 1405 fps -- 16,000 CUP

Additionally, and intuitively you'd think something like 2400 would be one of the best powders for the 32-20. But, having tried different suitable powders I had on hand including: Trailboss, 4227, 2400 and Rel 7 I found something different from what was expected. While Trailboss works very well for the lighter, plain base bullets (an expected result)- 2400 did not work well for any bullet in any of my guns. That doesn't mean it won't work well in another gun or for another bullet type or alloy.

The Rel 7 under the 311316 was the clear winner across the board- even though the data suggests it's at the far end of the slow burn rate side for the 32-20.

[leftiye]

There's a lot of data/ experience with even heavier boolits in the 32-20 mainly from silhouette shooters. Some saying it approaches the .300 whisper with (not 250 grainers but) heavier boolits. I'm getting swayed towards the slower powders in the cartridge. It resembles the 45LC in the large case, low pressure scenario, but it's starting to look as if that unlike the Colt round, the 32-20 squeaks by and performs with a full case (while virtually nothing does that in the .45). As for killing power, 357 Maximum shot a deer with a 1200 fps load, brp boolit through the lungs and it walked about 30 yds IIRC. They's a bunch more poop this ctg. can apply.

[fouronesix]

I surely don't know how all that works out other than looking at the data. Since 1680 probably would act about like Rel 7, may be worth a try with the 100-115 gr bullet. I never tried 1680 in the 32-20. I have less than 1/4 lb of it after using it in some 222 loads year ago and have a bunch of Rel 7. You may be right in that the 32-20 has a very slightly lower expansion ratio so that could account for why the slower powder works ok with the heavier bullets???

If I ever re-visit the 32-20 for work up, I still think 2400 or 4227 "should be" the go to powders so may have to try them again- even though they didn't produce my best accuracy. The current Lyman data clearly favors them for potential accuracy (lower pressure/velocity SDs) in the moderate pressure and velocity range you're interested in. The older Lyman data however lists 4227 as the most accurate but at the high end of 14 gr of 4227 under the 115 gr bullet at 1865 fps. That's way more poop than I'm interested in, considering the original Colt I load for. I'd reserve that one for the Win 92 only but avoid loading higher than the lowest common denominator- namely the Colt.

[Bret4207]

Years back just before Shooters closed down and we went to Aimoo I did some tests on a cow carcass. I put it all don on Shooters and they up and disappeared with my data! Anyways, the 311316 from the 32-20 gave all sorts of surprising penetration in that test, but that was from a Savage 23 rifle. The old timers where I grew up considered the 32-20 a halfway decent deer rifle and after seeing what it will do I understand their thinking. It's certainly not for Joe Sixpack and the Hail Mary shots across a bean field, but up close and personal it's a killer.

[leftiye]

"The older Lyman data however lists 4227 as the most accurate but at the high end of 14 gr of 4227 under the 115 gr bullet at 1865 fps." fouronesix

I'm starting to wonder if my official police does produce higher than normal pressures. I could only get 11.0 grs of 4227 in there without perforating primers. I did set the barrel back to get an .005" barrel/cyl. gap and shimmed the crane to get headspace nice and tight. Maybe thas it. 14.0 grs would be outright scary.

[fouronesix]

No I won't go anywhere near 14 gr of 4227 either. The Win 92 will no doubt handle it but if I need more poop I'll just use a normal load in a 30-30. I know more than a couple of Colt SAAs were disassembled when Winchester got the bright idea to offer such high performance loadings in some of the pistol/carbine ammo. Folks didn't read the box, loaded it in a Colt and kablooie.

Have you tried 4759 or 5744 in the 32-20? When I cycle back around to shooting the "short" cartridges again, I should try some 5744 in both the 32-20 and the 38-40.

Too many project and too little time :(

[leftiye]

Definitely worth looking at 5744, and 4759. 5744 has been said to be accurate but slow, and rarely gets top velocities in most ctgs. Someone had an instance where it outperformed the other powders, but I disremember what caliber that was. I chose not to mess with 4759 this time around because it is so bulky. Way back when I was exploring the unknown with the 45 LC, 4227 didn't get it because being bulky it produced higher (initial I believe) pressures (signs) and lower velocities (chrono) than say Blue dot which was my final choice. That was about 1981, before everybody started using the hot loads now in use. 1250 fps with lee 250 SWC 16.0 grs Blue Dot. Heat treated boolits and bullet Master lube, then 50/50 lubed. Anyway I kinda expected 4759 to pressure out before things got moving. But it is worth a look see.

[cbrick]

I use 4759 in both the 30 Carbine and 32-20 and with 32-20 brass in the 30 Carbine with the 311410 (130 gr). I measured both cases with water weight a few years ago and the 32-20 case has 5% more volume by weight. In the 30 Carbine using 32-20 brass I started with 8.5 gr 4759 with poor results meaning poor groups and poor chrono numbers. 9.0 gr was an improvement with 9.5 gr better yet. Now using 10.0 gr 4759 and fairly happy with it.

leftiye is correct though, if top velocity is what your looking for 4759 isn't the right choice. I was looking for mild loads in the Ruger 30 Carbine for use on CA ground squirrels at 40-50 yards and for that it's a fine easy shootin load.

Rick

[Newtire]

Brett, you have to understand that the midwestern fox squirrels get mighty big, fattening up on corn like they do. I've seen some that were so fat they couldn't climb trees anymore. More than once people have brought them in to the scales with a deer tag tied on to them.😜

[square butte]

Sadly, Brett has been gone from Cast Boolits for over 3 years

[Newtire]

Sadly, Brett has been gone from Cast Boolits for over 3 years I see a few of the people I could count on for good info that have been banned. I never even looked. Yeah, it's a bad deal that some are gone like that.

[Outpost75]

Coming late to the party here, but reading the thread. FWIW I've had best luck in the .32-20 in an original 1873 Winchester with 12-14 grs. of RL7 or 12-13 grs. 4198. Use the same loads in Ruger .30 Carbine revolver with .32-20 brass with fine results.

The .32-20 brass ALWAYS gets loaded with mild loads also suitable for the '73, only .30 Carbine brass gets "hot" loads, so there is no way to make a stupid mistake.

Mild loads with Accurate 31-120TG and 4198, when assembled in M1 carbine brass DO cycle the M1 carbine OK.