32-40, 33-40, 33-47

[andym79]

Hi guys, you may have seen from my other thread that I am looking at getting a 33 or 35 calibre rifle based on the 30-30 case.

The 32-40 (essentially a the same as a 38-55 or 30-30 case) is meant to be like the 38-55 a potentially very accurate cartridge. I read that harry pope had great success with a wildcat of his the 33-40. Which is simply a 32-40 chamber with a .338 groove diameter, but it must be breech seated rather than using fixed ammo. The 33-47 is the 32-40 chamber opened up to the 33 cal so that fixed ammo can be used.

The questions I have are:

1. does anyone shot 33-47, if so please share all you know about it.

2. I can get a 33-47 reamer from Pacific tool, the the 33-47 reloading die are however a much bigger problem. I could either buy or form brass to 32-40 and then fireform it in the chamber to the 33-47. CH4d however only make 33-40 dies, would these work or would the portion of the neck nearest to the mouth be undersized for the chamber and split after a few firings?

3. I assume that a 33-47 would cycle okay through a 30-30 94 action as the 38-55 does as and it much the same only wider at the neck?

[TXGunNut]

My answer to you first question is "no" so of course I have little else to offer other than encouragement. My question, to help guide others trying to offer helpful tips, is what are your goals and expectations? I'm a fan of the 38-55 and 32 WS so am naturally interested in the 32-40. I'll be interested in your project, please keep us posted.

[andym79]

I want a round that has the inherent benefits of the 38-55 and the 32-40 for cast boolits as in a long neck to provide plenty of support.

I prefer straight and tapered cases over bottle necks, I may be wrong, but I believe that they are more conducive to achieving accuracy with less experimentation that is the case for bottlenecks, when using cast bullets!

I think that the bottle neck case is more efficient to maximize velocity, but the straight and tapered case gives a more equal (often lower pressure) to initiate movement of the projectile.

I have the 38-55 and its a great cartridge, I have the 30-30 and it terms of accuracy it good, but I can never make it sing like the 38-55. I would not mind a 32-40 (I have always considered, though I maybe wrong, that the 32WS is so close to the 30-30 that it was a wonder Winchester ever launched it). Whilst I have read a lot of good things about the 32-40, I figured I would like a projectile a bit larger than the 30-30 offering i.e .338 or .348 and have read that Mr Pope had a lot of success with his 33-40.

[andym79]

Just read this, is that the real reason for the birth of the 32 special? It would make sense

"Hey fellows...
Frank Barnes in Cartridges of the World suggests that the .32 Winchester Special was introduced 13 years after the .30-30 in response to customers wanting a cartridge that would allow them to consume their stockpiled blackpowder. Winchester did some testing and this is what they came up with. A .32 caliber bore with a cartridge case that fit the existing action and a rate of twist that optimized using black powder (http://www.walmart.com/search/?query=black+powder) as a propellant while negating the effects of fouling.

This is one reason many of the old, old 32 Special's bores are shot. There are several in my family that where purchased for this very reason and they are wall hangers now because not enough time was spent cleaning barrels."

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Almost nobody now alive has done this, but it should work well - about as well as the standard cartridges, which is about all the reason some people need to create a wildcat cartridge.

The shorter length of the .30-30 case shouldn't be enough to cause much disadvantage, when forming a .32-40 or similar. But if you limit your new case to .30-30 length, it might give you a very slight edge in accuracy from a commoner and perhaps more certain source of brass than the .38-55. We have seen some once popular cases go out of production lately, but the .30-30 should remain available in the days of the ray-gun.

You might save money, and have equipment more versatile for other projects, by using a .32-40 chamber reamer with removable bushings (or a lathe turned brass bushing tapped into the larger bore), and a separate neck and throat reamer. I'd also look at the Wikipedia article on machine tapers, in case one works out right. I have had good results by drilling parallel reamers on the lathe, with carbide drills, and inserting a pilot.

[andym79]

I am seriously considering building it as a single shot rifle based on either a Martini (could you get it to work on the cadet frame or would it need to be the enfield, I really hope it would work on the cadet as they are more common and cheaper ), Ruger 1 or High wall action.

[northmn]

Neither the 38-55 or the 32-40 will give their potential in a lever gun and you would be wasting money on the wildcats. Basically I am talking about the history of the two cartridges. Pope dealt with single shot target rifles. The 32-40 set an accuracy record at 200 yards that held for very many years. The 38-55 designation came in through Schuetzen shooters muzzle loading or breach seating bullets such that a whole case of powder could be used. The 32-40 was essentially loaded the same way. With the single shots they also used heavier bullets and the 32-40 as in over 300 grains for the 38 and 200 or so for the 32 which was developed off the 38 basic case to reduce felt recoil.
The original loads for the 30-30 were listed at a 165 grain bullet at 1965 fps or something like that. With powder development it got increased to what we see today. The 32 special was a modernized 32-20 in that it was made in "smokeless" barrels and permitted hotter loads than the 32-40's which were not made with those barrels in the 94. WW marketing claimed it filled the gap between the 30-30 and the 30USG (30-40 Krag) Always wondered what I would want to shoot where I would be under gunned with a 30-30 and over gunned with a 30-40. Some early 32Specials were said to be offered with an extra BP sight.
Many on the Marlin forum enjoy the old 32-40's and they are fun to shoot. I don't know if some of the Italian single shots are made in 32-40 or not. Seen some Uberti's made in 30-40 and kind thought about playing with one as with smokeless and common 30 cal bullets it would be a great cast bullet combo.

DP

[Premod70]

From the sources I read the 32 Special filled a void left by the 30/30. The 30/30 performed poorly with black powder reloads so Winchester came up with a cartridge that handled both forms of powder by using a common and popular .32 bullet combined with a deep groove slow twist barrel; a compromise like all compromises, it didn't serve the needs as well as thought.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

I am seriously considering building it as a single shot rifle based on either a Martini (could you get it to work on the cadet frame or would it need to be the enfield, I really hope it would work on the cadet as they are more common and cheaper ), Ruger 1 or High wall action.

I'd usually advise against chambering a Cadet for a rifle in this head size, but most of the reasons are reduced for a tapered case of moderate pressures. Some people do chamber the .32 Special and load it heavily, resulting in difficult insertion and ejecting, especially under a scope,, and heavy recoil. Even worse, I think, is using a high pressure round, usually .22 centrefire, on that case, for in addition to those snags there is a possibility of swelling the small diameter barrel threads. I don't think this would be dangerous, but it could cause difficult or impossible extraction. The cartridges you suggest would probably be all right if you don't plan on scoping the rifle, and would require only canting it sideways to tip the round out if you do. Once in a while the fired case may bounce back into the chamber, but you won't be using it for dangerous game.

[OverMax]

Don't know the actual reason why the 32 Special was developed by Winchester as I missed that meeting in Winchesters conference room. But I do know its ballistics exceed all others commented here. As far as:

The 32-40 (essentially a the same as a 38-55 or 30-30 case) is meant to be like the 38-55 a potentially very accurate cartridge. Same light wall construction in bass yes and without doubt at its prime time in history the 32-40 actually showed better accuracy than the 38-55. Anywho.
Given some thought to your wanting of a 33-40 or 33-47. If there was a benefit in mass production of either cartridge they would yet be marketed today. Although there were oh so many wild cat cartridges developed in times past many simply duplicated what was currently marketed or showed so little ballistic benefit simply died on the vine. I kind'a think. Like the Hall of Fame quite a few of those old cartridge tinker/ inventors perhaps even the inventors of your 33-40 & 33-47 had visions of Grandeur with their name imprinted on base of a cartridge.
BTW the 38-55 mass produced in 1876 is the mother brass to more cartridges than most members here can name. Wanting to swage 32-40 _ 33-40 or 33-47 you can swage down in caliber with the 38-55 and still hold tolerances and measurements tight on all. I seldom swage a smaller cartridge case into a larger caliber. To much case capacity loss is the usual un-wanted ending of doing that..

[northmn]

32-40 is best made from 38-55 brass as 30-30 will yield a shorter case as it does with the 38-55. One thing is that we are talking about BP cartridges. Being a straight case the 38-55 made it into smokeless use better than a tapered 32-40. Cases need cleaning using BP as well as the barrel and true bottlenecks, while they existed, were more of a PITA to clean. The 38-55 started out life according to some as the 38-55 Everlasting which was a heavier walled case. Schuetzen shooters for example, could use the same case for all shots and would clean and load between shots. Eliminates differing case capacity issues. Also may help explain the 32-40 design.
The target shooting theory of the time was that the best accuracy came from smaller cases and lighter powder charges using heavier bullets. May still have some merit in smokeless but a 32-40 loaded to BP ballistics could be accomplished in a case about the size of the Russian AK47 cartridge using smokeless. I can even exceed them in my 357 Rossi.

DEP