.32 Special experiments

[26Charlie]

This experiment started because I bought a quantity of .32 cal. JSP 170gr. bullets listed in Uncle Henry's. (If you are in Maine, you know Uncle Henry's - or you could look it up) Anyway, they worked well with 30.0 gr. Vihta-Vuori N-133 powder in both a Marlin 336SC and a Winchester M94. 5 in 4.1" @ 100 yd. from the Marlin, and 6 in 6.3" @ 100 yd. from the Winchester. This is wrist-rest from the bench, a technique Pietro has explained in other posts. The sights are peep rear on both rifles, bead front on the Marlin and post front (I just filed off the bead to leave a skinny post) on the Winchester.

Then, I looked at a box of CB loads I loaded for the M94 before I had the Marlin, and said to myself, "I don't need both rifles sighted with JSP's, so set the sights back where they were and shoot a group with the CB load." This was the Lyman 170 gr. GC 323470 Loverin design, 17.0 gr. MP-5744, and CCI 250 primer. I loaded these 20 years ago, and don't have any more of that powder. 5 went into 4.8" @ 100 yd., still very satisfactory.

I say very satisfactory, because I am 75, hard to see the sights clearly now, little tics and twitches to the bench position can throw a shot out a couple of inches, and so forth, but these groups from hunting rifles are still beer-can accuracy at 100 yards, good for me.

[358 Win]

I shot my very first buck at age 12 using a 1948 Winchester Model 94 chambered in .32 Win Special. I now own that Model 94 purchased from my Uncle Jack after my discharge from the USN in 1973. I also own another Model 94 from 1969 in .32 Win Special and two Marlin 336SC's, one from 1951 and one from 1957. Both Marlins are scoped and both have conventional rifling. My two favorite cast bullets are the RCBS 08-170 bullet sized to .3225" and Ranch Dog RD321-170C sized to .3234". I drive the RCBS bullet to 1650 fps and 2240 fps. The Ranch Dog bullet I launch at 1744 fps.http://i824.photobucket.com/albums/zz169/bobddville/Grand%20Lodge%20Tour/IMAG0024.jpg (http://s824.photobucket.com/user/bobddville/media/Grand%20Lodge%20Tour/IMAG0024.jpg.html)http://i824.photobucket.com/albums/zz169/bobddville/Grand%20Lodge%20Tour/th_IMAG0023.jpg (http://s824.photobucket.com/user/bobddville/media/Grand%20Lodge%20Tour/IMAG0023.jpg.html)

First photo is a group fired with the RCBS 08-170, 182 grain bullet at 2240 fps and the second photo is the Ranch Dog 321-170C, also at 182 grains and both lubed with Javalina Alox. Both groups were at 50 yards fired from my 1957 Marlin 336SC.

358 Win

[OnHoPr]

Well, since both of you gentlemen have and have had the 30-30 and 32 special for a number of years gaining experience with each, which do you consider the better of the two concerning the shortest runs after the shot?

[OverMax]

I haven't shot any Loverin thru mine. But I do have a old 321297 Lyman for it. (94) No peep Just open barrel sights. My 100 yrd groupings are a bit tighter than yours but not all that much different. So you were born in the steel penny year. I'm 4 behind you. See good yet. But my knee's are shot. BTW: I found the best powder for my 32 G/C use is AA 2230. Ball powder I believe it is. Lately I've been considering some kind of NOE 323 mold to use for paper patching. But non have been chosen for a NOE discount. "Some day I'll get lucky and catch one on sale."
Enjoy your 32 Special and thanks for firing up this 32 Thread.

[26Charlie]

Both have 170 gr. JSP loads from same powder capacity cases. It would depend on the animal, and where you hit it.

The lore was that the .32 Spl allowed reloading with black powder, because the twist of 16" was the same as the old .32-40, while the .30-30 twist of 10" fouled quickly. My personal opinion was that the marketing department of Winchester dreamed up the idea of the cartridge and this explanation, (the M94 was offered in .32-40, after all), so that they could offer a higher powered .32 to compete with the .32 market but not risk .32-40 older, weaker guns with higher powered smokeless .32-40 ammunition. If there are stories about reloading the .32 Special with black powder I haven't seen them.

[oscarflytyer]

RCBS 08-170 same mold as the 32-170-FN? Just bought that one for my '52 94. Yet to cast, yet to load (cast or Js) for it.

[Earlwb]

They were discussing it in this old thread here http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?80156-32-Win-Special-and-cast-plus-BP

As I understand it, the black powder guns wound up with .32 caliber or 8mm being about the smallest one could use without getting too much fouling from black powder or semi-smokeless powder. A smaller bore rifle would foul out in just a few shots if that many. The .32 Special came out after some European military powers went with 8mm caliber rifles too. So there is a precedence already there in using 8mm (.32 cal).

If you look at the muzzle loaders, .31 to .32 caliber was the smallest they commonly made. Those were usually called squirrel guns. So I think it makes sense that .32 cal would be the smallest for black powder etc.

I also think that the slower rifling twist rate was probably what doomed the .32 Win Special to the history books. As the bore wore out the accuracy suffered a lot. Thus for someone that did a lot of shooting, they would wear out the rifle bore too fast in comparison with other guns. I did not read anything about the .32-40 having this problem of barrel wear leading to less accuracy though. So maybe Winchester screwed up somehow with the .32 Win Special.

[OnHoPr]

Very interesting comments gentlemen. Well, you see I am sort of a claustrophobic when it comes to deer hunting. It doesn't mean I won't sit in brushy woods if that is where the deer are traveling. I have been known to sit on a feed pile once in a great while too, but not usually. I tend to shoot my deer in field scenarios where my deer have been taken from the short 100 yards to the long 150 yards mark, though I have shot deer under 50 yards and over 200 yards. This condition that I have makes me a BC junkie. When you start getting to that 150 yd mark the wind can play havoc on low BC boolits. Also, in is not uncommon to see an animal above the 225 lb mark every couple of years. They are also not giving the magazine cover photo shots. Since general cast boolit velocities play around the 2000 fps mark BC does come into interest. I have been deliberating about the larger than .30 cal. So, this leaves the 32, 35, 38, 44, and 45 cals to think about. Since AARP has started sending me more junk mail the 444 Marlin and 45-70 to fight the wind @ 200 yds might have a little more push back on the shoulder in my waning years. So, this leaves the 32, 35, and 375 cals. The 38-55 and 375 Win sound look pretty good as does the 358 Win and 35 Whelan (which I have an infatuation with). With the 32 cals, BC can get high even with the cast boolit with weight and diameter in the 32 Spec and 8x57. Another couple that have cross my noodle in the 338 Fed and the 9x57 that give the teeter totter deliberating effect when really starting to look at the ballistics. A rebore of a Savage 170, Rem 141, Glenfield 30, or mauser was being considered which means twist could be adjusted.

[northmn]

I really do not have experience with the 32 and was reading this out of interest. However the comment about BC brings back my use of a 188 grain bullet in my 30-30 that worked beautifully. It was driven at about 2000 fps through my chronograph. I took a very nice deer at 140 paces from my tree and it was laying on its belly, it dropped so fast. Lung shot. I have always preferred the heavier cast bullets in hunting use as they do retain velocity much better. Like the 208 grain bullet I used in my old SMLE. I always thought the 32 Special missed the boat by using the relatively light 170 grain bullet.
As to BP uses. There were smaller bores like the 25-21 SS and the 22 predecessor to the Hornet. Fouling depends on a lot of issues, including powder type and lube. My 25 flintlock works best with the old Grafs Schuetzen powder on that issue.

DP

[catskinner]

I have loaded black in 32 Special and got 32-40 ballistics.

[OverMax]

Because of the winchesters twist chosen for their 32 special (1-16) so to appease those who wanted on going B/P use thinking smokelesss powder was a passing fad.
My Special actually shoots lighter bullets more accurate than heavier. In my cartridge tuning experience. To a point a heavy powder charge showed better accuracy with a 170 gr than any mid range powder charges.

Considering a 32 Special has better specs than either the 30-30 or 35 Remington. I often wondered how much better the 32 Special would have been ballistically with a smokeless twist rate (1-10 perhaps?) 30-30 would have been discontinued long ago. 35 Remington perhaps never made.

[MostlyLeverGuns]

I have gotten outstanding accuracy in two Marlin 336's using both the 170 jacketed and a 200 grain NEI bullet cast by Bullshop. The 200 grain bullet shoots 2 inch groups at 200 yards from the scoped 24" SC. According to M.L.McPherson, under size bullets are the most likely reason for that drivel about worn out barrels, an INTERNET rumor before the Internet. I own several 'worn-out' barrels on different rifles that shoot very well. I have found that the .32 Special gets about 10% more velocity than the 30-30 with the same bullet weights. With 170,s the 20" 30-30 is lucky to make 2100 fps, while I find 2300 is easily reached with the .32. The 1-16 twist was a convenience, Winchester was already making .32-40's. The .32 Special has always been touted as more powerful than the .30-30. It is, though marginally. The 30-30 has the 30-40 Krag and 30-06 to help on its success over the .32 Special and .35 Remington. Marketing did exist in the early 1900's just like today. 25 Remington?, 30 Remington?, 32 Remington? 338 Marlin? 300 Ruger? 32 Winchester Special? 308 Marlin? 308 TC? All somebody's better idea to sell a rifle. I like the .32 over the .30-30, the .35 Remington needs a rim to be a really great cast cartridge with mild loading.

[longranger]

32 Win. Special was a no brainer for Winchester.With the advent and use of the new at the time smokeless powder.Many shooters at the time reloaded B/P cartridges and the 32-40 being the small bore accuracy cartridge of the day and it was popular. Winchester had hundreds if not thousand of barrels bored to the 32-40 spec. and not chambered. Reloading components were not going to be available for the 30-30 for some time. 32-40 was falling out of favor with new cartridges being developed.Taking the 30-30 and necking to .32 and using black powder worked very well with 32-40 barrels they already had available and people could reload using their existing equipment. The early .32 Win. Spec. in the Mdl.94 had reversible elevators on the rear barrel sight,one side for smokeless and the other for B/P.When smokeless powder became common and available Win. discontinued the reversible elevator and continued for many years chambering the .32 Win Special.

[OverMax]

The early .32 Win. Spec. in the Mdl.94 had reversible elevators on the rear barrel sight,one side for smokeless and the other for B/P.

When I read this (above) I knew one of my collectable winchesters had such a rear sight. (Two rear blades.) The taller of the two blades is forward of the smaller one and folds forward out of the way when not in use..
Funny thing is?_ Such factory original rear sight is on a 1905 (long barrel 1894 model) in caliber 30 WCF.
Why such a rare Rear 2-bladed sight for 30-30 use?__ Barrel is Nickel steel.

[Guesser]

I have seen those "RARE REAR" sights on M94 rifles in 25-35, the rifles had 26" octagon barrels and crescent butts.

[northmn]

The 30's have a better BC than the 8mm's. The military's devotion to the 30 for so many years must have reflected that. Down range the 32 Specials difference in velocity starts to shrink and by 200 the 170 30-30 may actually exceed it. Whether 200 is a practical difference is open to debate as is the differences between the 2 anyway. I have shot a few deer with the 300 Savage and the 303 British which are more powerful than either and can't really say there was a difference between them and the 30-30. 32 Special is a good cartridge but was not designed to its best profile. I always thought that the argument given about using up 32-40 barrels and tooling was probably the reason for its existence.


DEP