Old Shooting Times

[Green Frog]

I’m looking for a copy of the December, 1992 issue of Shooting Times, the one in which Skeeter listed his early tests of 32 H&R loads before pressure testing and sanity reared their twin ugly heads. Does anyone have a copy they would be willing to loan, sell, or copy (the article)? Please drop me a PM.

TIA~Froggie

[contender1]

Are you sure of that date? Skeeter passed in 1988 if I recall. Now,, if ST did a re-print of his article,, you are correct I'd assume.

[scattershot]

Found this from 2007, right here. Hope it helps.

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."

[Green Frog]

I obviously was given the wrong date. Looks like I’m seeking the November, 1985 issue. I want it for reference only, not to load from… I’ll need to drop back 20% or mor to get my starting load. Fortunately my testing will be in full sized Blackhawks and custom K frame, so I should have a good margin of safety.

I sometimes wish j had followed the advice he gave me personally at what would be his last NRA Meeting. He told me I should get a 32 H&R barrel for a Contender. No chance of pressure damage likely with that combo!

Froggie

[vhntr1]

Found this from 2007, right here. Hope it helps.

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."

Great read,i miss those day when i was a kid i could not wait for the next issue of shooting times!

[Green Frog]

Great read,i miss those day when i was a kid i could not wait for the next issue of shooting times!

I miss those days when the gun magazines had real, informative articles instead of thinly disguised advertisements shilling for some manufacturer! :(

Sure, I like to read about the next new gun or other shooting product, but factual data that the reader can go out and duplicate for himself, and DIY articles on useful loading or gunsmithing have gotten pretty thin on the ground in all of the current crops of gun mags. The ratio of square inches of advertising vs information has gotten worse too!0 Nice color pictures though. :roll:

Froggie

[ddixie884]

Lotta truth here............

[Jtarm]

I miss those days when the gun magazines had real, informative articles instead of thinly disguised advertisements shilling for some manufacturer! :(

Sure, I like to read about the next new gun or other shooting product, but factual data that the reader can go out and duplicate for himself, and DIY articles on useful loading or gunsmithing have gotten pretty thin on the ground in all of the current crops of gun mags. The ratio of square inches of advertising vs information has gotten worse too!0 Nice color pictures though. :roll:

Froggie

There’s definitely more ad space and less content, but don’t think for a second the gun writers of yore weren’t promoting products for their advertisers.

In particular, they glossed over quality issues. Hidden behind some glowing product reviews was that the gun had to be sent back to the manufacturer multiple times before they found a specimen that worked.

I quit reading most gun rags in the early 90s when an issue of American Handgunner contained a manufacturers full-page ad on the inside cover proclaiming their product the best ever. Inside was a review of the product by a staff writer with a heading taken verbatim from the ad.

[Green Frog]

Sadly, that’s been my experience as well, Jtarm. I inherited a collection of The American Rifleman that goes all the way back to the late 1920s, and watching the deterioration of content quality, especially since about the Sixties, makes the changes obvious. Some of the other gun mags seem to have “held on” for as much as another decade or so, but all seem to have gotten sucked down the vortex of over-commercialization.

I used to like Handloader and Rifle prior to the time they became available on the newsstands. When their target market was devotees who were willing to subscribe, the quality had to be high to attract those subscribers; for the mass market, not so much. I could go on, but I’m probably “preaching to the choir!”

Froggie

[shooting on a shoestring]

I think it’s the natural life cycle. I’ve seen it with magazines, various clubs and even on this internet forum. It starts informally with a small group of like minded people enjoying and discussing their hobby.

Then a few more join in. Someone recognizes that even more people could enjoy it if they’d just formalize a bit and publish a newsletter, form the club, start the internet forum. At that point the founders are pleased to see their pet hobby gaining traction and new people sharing in the fun.

About that time someone sees the need for a little funding to keep the necessary business items in motion. So it’s time for a sponsor, advertising, club membership dues etc… That necessitates some political organization in the form of an Editor, President, Treasurer, Secretary and such.

The people who actually started the thing serve their time in the required political office but really just as a duty. Once served, they migrate back to their hobby and those less qualified at the hobby soon fill the political vacuum. The words are, reach more people, raise more money, have more meetings, expand…

Then comes a point where the founders are diluted with newcomers and the thing they started has a life of its own. The wisdom, knowledge and fun shared in the once small group evaporates and is replace by the quest to reach more people, raise more money, have more meetings, expand…the uniqueness is gone.

It runs on momentum for awhile. Then comes the decay in interest because the good guys are gone. The content becomes trivial. Those interested in the actual hobby prefer to do the hobby and not bother with the club or read the material.

Then a couple of them having fun with their hobby in loose association with each other, decide it could be better if they’d just formalize it a little…

[ddixie884]

Sounds right to me...........

[RJM52]

A lot of god observations in the above posts...money takes over everything...

As to the .32 H&R "high pressure" loads... The Single-7 is rated to operate at 45k psi with .327 Federals...so we are worried about what in a Single-Six with a .32 H&R... Would I want to shoot those loads in one of the original H&R guns...no, but in just about any other gun made for the .32 H&R I would be comfortable...

To me it is like the original .38-44 rounds...they were rated for the guns and steel of the times... New snubbies can take 9mm rounds of 35k psi so why are we worrying about rounds that probably don't even generate 30k psi...


Bob

[Green Frog]

Bob, you seem to have come to the same conclusions I have… tying the round to H&R was probably a mistake. If it had been called the “32 Ruger Magnum” from the start, there probably would have never been a 327 Federal Magnum, but the earlier cartridge had to be so wimpified to live down to its name, so its potential as a factory loading was always a disappointment in the market. I’ve owned a Buckeye Special Blackhawk and a S&W 16-4 in the caliber,
And neither of those is limited to wimpy loads, no way, no how!

While I have now owned a couple of 327s and disagree with both the detractors who say it’s an bad cartridge design and those who say K frame Smiths and full sized Blackhawks are too much gun for a 32, I just smile and keep stoking them with every straight side 32 case ever made. Truth to tell though, I probably could have done just as much with a 32 H&R “Magnum” if it hadn’t been hampered from the start by low powered factory loadings for guns that should never have had that chambering. SKEETER WAS RIGHT!

Froggie