Win. 1885 Low-Wall Project

[DeadWoodDan]

I have an older 1880's rifle chambered in 32-20. I believe the sear is broken but have not tore this down yet. Little to no rifling left. The rifle condition is what I would call good patina, not a collector. I would like to make this into a shooter again and thinking 32 H&R mag. I know it will need re-barreled or lined but was not sure about changing to a different caliber? Also if possible who would you recommend for such a project?
thanks DWD

[Bad Ass Wallace]

The rifle would be best if relined and chambered to an original calibre. I have a low wall so relined in 32WCF and it is a terrific shooter with a 103gn Lee boolit and 9.5gn of Winchester 296 powder, it would be comparable to the 32H&R.

[GARD72977]

I like the idea of a 32 H&R. The gun will have no more value as a 32-20. I.think I becomes more intresting as a 32 S&W long or 32 H&R.

[Jedman]

I also like the idea of relining it to 32 H&R. I have a rifle in 32 H&R and did it with a .308 groove barrel and it works fine.

Jedman

[Bigslug]

Stick with .32-20 - - the inheriting generations will look at the original barrel markings and thank you. Also no change to the extractor. Starline makes brass, so no challenge there. John Taylor is a poster on this site and does a splendid re-line job.

If I was going to do a caliber change - .357 Mag.

[Nobade]

Performance will be virtually identical and 32-20 will operate at lower pressure. I'd keep the original chambering.

[DeadWoodDan]

I know the performance is on par between the two calibers. My biggest reason, and it may sound silly, is I have a RBH in 32mag and thought it would be convenient to possibly use one load for both. I do have everything for both calibers, brass & dies so that is not of concern. To me those thin walls on the 32-20 are very annoying if anything else while brass prep and reloading. I have nothing against the 32WCF but favor the 32Mag. I have a Rossi lever in .357 so feel this really deserves a 32 cal.

I imagine barrel re-line will cost the same regardless of caliber. So looking at cost of new extractor and additional cost to rechamber. Other than that am I missing anything?

[Green Frog]

About 30 years ago I rechambered a 32 rf low wall to 32H&R and bushed the firing pin as a sort of “proof of concept” project. Even with the original barrel with marginal bore, it showed promise, but back then a steady supply of quality brass wasn’t available, so I sold it. :?

I would contact John Taylor on this forum and get my name in line on his list. You will have a high probability of getting a really good shooter, even though it’s not an original low wall caliber. I kinda wish I’d kept mine all those years ago. :cry:

Froggie

[ndnchf]

If its an older 1880s vintage rifle, I would definitely stay with .32-20. These older rifles are made of softer steel. We are only temporary caretakers of these old rifles. There is no telling how a future owner might load .32 H&R Magnum.

[DeadWoodDan]

If its an older 1880s vintage rifle, I would definitely stay with .32-20. These older rifles are made of softer steel. We are only temporary caretakers of these old rifles. There is no telling how a future owner might load .32 H&R Magnum.

I don't disagree the 32mag being higher in pressure but not as high as 32 Federal or .357 Mag. I did a little reading trying to understand the differences and what others have done. Just waiting to talk to a few Smiths to see what suggestions they have.

[dverna]

I know the performance is on par between the two calibers. My biggest reason, and it may sound silly, is I have a RBH in 32mag and thought it would be convenient to possibly use one load for both. I do have everything for both calibers, brass & dies so that is not of concern. To me those thin walls on the 32-20 are very annoying if anything else while brass prep and reloading. I have nothing against the 32WCF but favor the 32Mag. I have a Rossi lever in .357 so feel this really deserves a 32 cal.

I imagine barrel re-line will cost the same regardless of caliber. So looking at cost of new extractor and additional cost to rechamber. Other than that am I missing anything?

Go with your gut. .32-20 has nostalgia....but the .32 Mag makes a lot of sense. Easier to reload.

[uscra112]

Can't see any reason to worry about .32-20 brass being "thin". You can't load it up to high pressures for a Low Wall anyway.

[DeadWoodDan]

Can't see any reason to worry about .32-20 brass being "thin". You can't load it up to high pressures for a Low Wall anyway.

The brass wall is thin. If you have never prepped/loaded .32-20 then you are missing out. It can easily be damaged just by chamfering the mouth. Only way I can explain it is paper thin compared to other calibers I've reloaded. I'm not worried about pressures. The difference between 32-20 and 32Mag is small compared to jumping up to the 327.

[GARD72977]

I love the idea of a 32h&r. It would load on a dillon 550.

I'm doing a Remington Hepburn in 327 Federal. I have no intention of loading hot. I want the extra capacity to load a slightly slower charge to reduce powder weight SD. I'm thinking of marking the barrel 32. 1 2\10

I like the idea of ease of loading. The 32h&r is pretty straight foward. There is a sizing problem with 327 dies. They need to be opened up a few thousandths.

[uscra112]

I've loaded a ton of .32-20, and .22 Lovell, and .25 Hornet, all of which often have neck walls as thin as .005", with no difficulty at all. If you're having trouble, is it possible that you're trying to seat bullets without flaring first? Simply chamfering these thin necks to ease seating, as is the usual practice for rounds with neck walls .010" and up, just isn't enough, and really should be omitted.

[DeadWoodDan]

uscra112, I've tried using LEE expander and purchased NOE expander. It's not that I can not do it, I have been successful and reloaded many of them in a S&W. I think it's just the nature of the round/brass that makes it more complicated or gives me more headaches than its worth. It takes a little extra attention and slight mistake and a case is ruined. This is primarily the main reason to convert to the 32mag. As I mentioned I have a RBH that would feel good as a walk around companion.

John T. and I have corresponded and once he gets set back up it will be going in. With that said I am looking at sights. I know the Marbles looks and is as periodic as you can get but reviews are mixed on current quality. MVA has an exact copy but twice as much. Other than using this to take a few squirrels and possible critter that crosses my path I don't see shooting it more than 50-100 yds.

[Green Frog]

I love the idea of a 32h&r. It would load on a dillon 550.

I'm doing a Remington Hepburn in 327 Federal. I have no intention of loading hot. I want the extra capacity to load a slightly slower charge to reduce powder weight SD. I'm thinking of marking the barrel 32. 1 2\10

I like the idea of ease of loading. The 32h&r is pretty straight foward. There is a sizing problem with 327 dies. They need to be opened up a few thousandths.

I was a little surprised when you mentioned a Dillon Progressive to go with loading a Winchester single shot but then it dawned on me that you were including feeding the OP’s revolver from the same output as well. I agree with this in context... a shooter could take an afternoon at the bench with his Dillon and have a sufficient supply of ammo for both guns to last for several outings.

I worry some about modern chamberings for antique arms... but mostly if the rounds have to be downloaded from factory standards to be safe. From my personal research it appears that factory 32 H&R ammo is well within allowable pressure limits for a low wall in good condition. If you are concerned about what a determined idiot can cobble together at the reloading bench, I would submit that no chamber in any arm is safe. We constantly hear about such people overloading and destroying even arms in their original chamberings. You can’t fix stupid, sometimes you just have to let Darwin hold sway.

Back to the 32-20 discussion, there can be no doubt that its brass is more delicate than 32 H&R. A modern straight wall case just has to be easier to work with. If you get too ham handed, you can ruin any brass, but the 32 H&R Mag gives you a little more margin of safety (error?) especially when sizing and belling. I have both a Navy Arms/Uberti SAA copy and an old brown Smith 32-20 M&P in my safe now and I once owned a beautiful, all original 32-20 high wall with a graceful #1 octagon barrel. I often wonder what I would be doing with it now if I’d had the foresight and financial ability to keep it, but 25 years ago I had neither. :cry:

Froggie

PS You could mark the Hepburn barrel “32 Extra Long” and be historically correct.

[marlinman93]

If it was mine it would stay a .32-20, and I agree with those who are saying it's value will be higher if kept in the original chambering, even with a liner. Very few people will be put off by lining the barrel, and keeping it the original caliber. But most people who love these old guns will not take a second look once they find out it's a .32 Mag.
And the old myth that you can have a pistol, and a rifle in the same caliber, and have ammo that shoots equally well in both is rarely true. Either the groove diameter is slightly different, or the twist rate for a pistol is different than it is for a rifle. So you'll likely end up loading one bullet and charge for the pistol, and another for the rifle. So nothing gained by them sharing a common caliber.

[DeadWoodDan]

No argument in one load for two firearms. But would like to think a competent gunsmith can do his/her best to accommodate and find a happy medium. Also like anything else the next owner if he/she wishes can return it to factory chamber. The only argument I see to not go forward is any modification at all will de-value a firearm. In this case this one was used as intended for and shows it. It's not a collector nor am I so just wanting to make it into something I will shoot often. I don't see that happening with the .32-20. And like anything else even though I will have two firearms of the same caliber when finished I have multiple molds/designs to try. Glad to see everyone's thought process on chamber conversion. This will help in the end possibly even change my mind, you never know.

[AntiqueSledMan]

Just me, but I'd go with the .32 Ideal.

AntiqueSledMan.

[uscra112]

The chamber wouldn't quite clean up. Good thought though. Would definitely be historically correct.

[DeadWoodDan]

Just me, but I'd go with the .32 Ideal.

AntiqueSledMan.

That's a New one for me, had to google it. Sounds Nostalgic but again using today's knowledge and components the 32Mag still wins in my book. Thanks for adding this! It's good to learn something new everyday!
The .32 Ideal was developed by Reuben Harwood (Iron Ramrod) and the Stevens company so that shot out .32 rimfire and .32-20 rifles could be rebored and rechambered to a strong, solid-head, straight shell, which in blackpowder days was considered the most up-to-date design available. Stevens offered this reboring service for this and a number of other Stevens calibers. According to most sources, the .32 Ideal was too much of a compromise for its accuracy to be competitive with .32-35's and .32-40's, but nowadays, with the doctrine of small cases and smokeless powder at full loading densities, it might be worth a second look.

The proper bullet was the obsolete Ideal 32359, or, if you're lucky, the Perfection mould 32360.
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?80998-quot-32-Ideal-quot-Cartridge-(Low-Wall)

[uscra112]

It's the first and maybe the only American 8mm cartridge. Brass is fairly easy to make from 5.56x50R, which is still pretty common in Europe. I've got three Stevens rifles, all originally chambered for the round. NOS made moulds for me.

[ulav8r]

I would keep it as a 32/20, as that is the first centerfire cartridge I hunted with and like it. If you want something different go for it but DO Not sleeve the barrel. Remove the barrel so it can later be lined and chambered to 32/20, keeping the factory marking and it's value.

Removing the factory marking and re-marking to a different caliber will destroy it's value when you, or your heirs, decide to sell it. Setting it up as a switch barrel without altering the receiver might also be a possibility.

[GARD72977]

Just reline it to 32 mag and do not mark the barrel. There is no danger of shooting the wrong caliber in it. The 32-20 would not fit and any 32 cal that fits would be fine.

[Mk42gunner]

My opinion, keeping in mind it is your rifle:

The .32-20 makes sense for your heirs, or if you think you may sell this rifle.

The .32 H&R would be a decent choice for all the reasons noted above.

My choice would be the .32 S&W Long. For some reason a Low Wall in .32 S&W Long just seems right to me.

Robert

[AntiqueSledMan]

The chamber wouldn't quite clean up. Good thought though. Would definitely be historically correct.

Hello uscra112,

I had to look at my drawings, your correct.
I've just seen it listed as a way to freshen up .32's including the 32-20 WCF.
Thanks for pointing that out to me, I have a High Wall in 32-20 which is pretty rough.
I had contemplated chambering & boring to .32 Ideal,
guess I'll have to re-think that one.
Maybe a 32-40.

AntiqueSledMan.

[uscra112]

Stevens themselves touted it for restoring .32-20s in their catalogs, several of which I have (as reprints from Cornell). But they must have been counting on cutting the Ideal chamber pretty big.

[DeadWoodDan]

The 32 Ideal brass is not getting any cheaper at 3.76 a piece WOW! I didn't look any further as that just is not practical. That has to be in the top ten list of most expensive rounds. It is a very interesting cartridge and ahead of it's time when they came out with it. I do admire the marketing concept very much!

[Bent Ramrod]

I’ve found that I can get by using well-annealed 7.62 Nagant revolver cases, blown out straight, in my .32 Ideal. The cases come out a little short, and, (using the foreign Fiocci cases) there’s a lot of attrition, but they do work in a pinch. Maybe Starline shells, properly annealed, would crack less on firing. In any case, they save wear and tear on the expensive turned Rocky Mtn shells while I develop loads.

Low Walls have been redone to .357 Magnum, and certainly seem to do OK with Model 92 grade .32-20 loads, so if I had revolvers chambered in one of the new .32s, I would probably set up the rifle to match. For me, though, the .32-20 is king.

Nobody’s written a Blues song about the .327 Federal.:mrgreen: Until that level of Coolness is reached, I’ll stick to the good old caliber.

[uscra112]

Just reline it to 32 mag and do not mark the barrel. There is no danger of shooting the wrong caliber in it. The 32-20 would not fit and any 32 cal that fits would be fine.

This is the final answer. Do it for the H&R magnum or .327 Federal, and later you can run a .32-20 reamer into it to restore the original chambering.

[gnoahhh]

Nobody’s written a Blues song about the .327 Federal.:mrgreen: Until that level of Coolness is reached, I’ll stick to the good old caliber.

Right up until I read that I was leaning in favor of the .32 H&R. Anybody who can reference Robert Johnson in connection with a caliber choice is ok in my book!! For me it would be .32-20

"She got a .38 Special but I believe it's most too light
I got a .32-20, got to make the caps alright."

[uscra112]

Right up until I read that I was leaning in favor of the .32 H&R. Anybody who can reference Robert Johnson in connection with a caliber choice is ok in my book!! For me it would be .32-20

"She got a .38 Special but I believe it's most too light
I got a .32-20, got to make the caps alright."

Dang, gnoahhh, you have a good memory. I covered several RJ numbers with my college blues band, but that one never came to mind.