32 S&W (short) w/Win244

[TheAbe]

First post! Good to be joining this community. Lots of questions on various topics, mostly reloading, and here is the first.

I recently acquired an old Iver Johnson safety hammerless (3rd model) in 32 S&W (short...just clarifying), and I was looking to reload for it. I have new brass (Winchester) and 78gr Acme .313 boolits. I have read there is some data for 78gr cast using Win231 in the Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook, and that the max load was around 2.5gr with an impressive (for 32 S&W) 800fps. Can anyone confirm?

In the meantime, I do not have any Win231 at the moment, but most of a jar of Win244, which is rather new and doesn’t have a lot of load data for...older cartridges yet. I have noticed, though, that Win244 is just a bit slower than Win231, and for 9mm, .380 Auto, and a few others that have load data for both, Win244 seems safe in anything that can use Win231, and generally the max load will be a bit more for Win244 than Win231, with 244 also giving slightly higher velocities for the same chamber pressure.

All that being said, what are everyone’s thoughts on using Win244 in 32 S&W, and does anyone have the capability of calculating the theoretical results of a 2.0gr load behind the 78gr Acmes?

Thanks!

[racepres]

Afraid I know Not what 244 is..
I am in the process of loading a 90gr SWC over 1.0 gr Trail boss... in that short little case, I will Not even push that 90 grainer down to the crimp groove... just barely covering the Grease groove should get it nicely..
Maybe we compare Notes!!!
Note... this will Not be for a Break Top.. Rather a 4" solid Frame H&R 6-shooter
Tho my youngest has a break top!!

[TheAbe]

On my long list of items I need to buy is a chronograph. I have 45 rounds loaded up so far, so that should make for some good testing (pressure and accuracy) when I next get to the range. I think my IJ has a 3” barrel. I actually picked up 22LR of the same style with a 7-round cylinder. The timing was bound, and today I was able to free it by filing the hand just a bit. Appears to function fine now though I still need to take some measurements. They make a fun pair, 32 and 22. I’ll post which works better once I’ve tried them out.

Let me know how the 1.0gr Trail Boss behind the 90gr projectile goes.

[uscra112]

A chronograph does not tell you much about pressure when it comes to comparing powders. Faster powders have to produce higher peak pressure to deliver a given velocity than will a larger charge of a slower powder. Easy to fool yourself if you don't appreciate that little factoid.

I'd be reluctant to be learning the characteristics of a new powder with no data using a fragile old gun like your Iver Johnson. (BTW I have one, a hammerless, that came to me from my Dad.)

My Quickload software doesn't know anything about Win 244.

[racepres]

I truly believe that I would Unlikely be looking for 800 fps out of your break-top..
I think 600 would be plenty.. I also believe that there is No Free Lunch... Higher Velocity can Only come from Higher Pressure...or perhaps a longer pressure curve... which the 32S&W does Not have enough case capacity to realize...
My First question, for the Chrony use, would be, what others are safely getting from that boolit, and that (Type at least) firearm..

[uscra112]

Velocity is best predicted by the area under the pressure/time curve. So longer but with a lower peak is indeed the holy grail. Thing is, little old revolvers have such short barrels that "longer" isn't much of an option.

Me, I've shot my I.J. break-top so little that I've never reloaded for it. Nor have I fired it across the Chrony, so I don't even know what factory ammo does.

Fat lot of help I am.........

[racepres]

Velocity is best predicted by the area under the pressure/time curve. So longer but with a lower peak is indeed the holy grail. Thing is, little old revolvers have such short barrels that "longer" isn't much of an option.

Me, I've shot my I.J. break-top so little that I've never reloaded for it. Nor have I fired it across the Chrony, !!!so I don't even know what factory ammo does.

Fat lot of help I am.........

In the case of the 32S&W... there simply is No Room in the Case either!! Tho friends have had Fair luck with 71 gr 32 ACP projectiles... seated very shallow... Since they are J-Word rounds, and slightly undersize... I don't use Em... Not in my .32's anyway!!!

[TheAbe]

Thanks for the reply uscra! I was hoping Quickload would have Win 244 data, but I think the powder was only released in 2019, so even the manufacturer doesn’t have much for it, though it is probably the most available powder in my area (probably because nobody knows what to do with it). What does Quickload say about Win 231 with a 78gr Acme .313 in 32 S&W? I’m using Federal primers. I can always buy a bottle of Win 231 if I need to.

Chronograph is more of an add-on, for curiosity’s sake. I am more interested in my fingers remaining intact, and to a lesser extent my revolver. I might need some armored gloves once I go to test my Baby Hammerless in the future...

[TheAbe]

Thanks for the reply racepres! Indeed, 800 FPS seemed a bit excessive a quoted velocity, but I wasn’t sure. One of the reloading shops I frequent has a library of books for reference while in-store, and that should include some of the older Lyman Cast books where supposedly this data came from.
Anyone have a copy of that book with data for Win 231? It’ll save me about an hour of driving...and the cost of whatever I buy there...it’s never an inexpensive trip.

[racepres]

^^ Yes, per Lyman 47th
77gr lrn (most weigh 78 plus) 231 start at 1.9 do not exceed 2.5
for reference
I use Red Dot, start at 1.4 do not exceed 1.9
I have Not been to 1.9, still at 1.4, .. But I also use a 90gr boolit.

I did find some range Notes.. not precise, as I scribbled it down at the Range.
My Friend loaded some 71gr ACP projectiles .. into ACP brass...as he was using an S&W long revolver. (note ACP brass is actually Longer than .32 S&W)
He was getting a wide velocity swing (I believe because of Undersize Bullets), from 650 to 700 FPS (4 inch Barrel)
over 1.5 gr of Bullseye..The starting load for that bullet in ACP according to my Lyman Book!!!
Of note also from that session... 1.8 gr Bullseye, under a Hornady 90gr HBWC, in S&W Long brass, clocked 800fps out of a Ruger 32H&R, sporting the 9-1/2 inch barrel. I noted that I felt it should be reduced looking for better accuracy..
Somewhere I will need to confirm my High Preference for AA#5 in all loads .32 except "business" loads for the H&R Mag Jacketed Bullets..

Nothing specific for you..Except...I would Not be setting a velocity Goal with that revolver..

[uscra112]

Would need to know the PRECISE seating depth of that Acme bullet to build up a QL model. Tiny cases are hyper-sensitive about seating depth.

[Larry Gibson]

Some information that might be of interest;

32 S&W factory pressures

I recently inquired at several LGSs regarding any 32 S&W or 32 Short colt cartridges they may have laying around. I ended up with several sample of 32 S&W of various makes of unknown vintage. The purpose for the acquisitions was to pressure test them. I pressure tested them a couple days ago and had interesting results. I also ended up with full box of Western 32 Short Colt which I’ve not tested yet.

The test firearm was a Contender With a 10” barrel chambered in 32 H&R Magnum and a strain gauge affixed over the chamber at the prescribed SAAMI location for pressure measurement. The gauge was connected to the Oehler m43 and its attendant software in a laptop. I was able to measure the pressure and muzzle velocity of the assorted 32 S&W cartridges.

As a reference:

32 H&R Magnum
Federal 32 H&R 85 gr LSWC factory ammunition ran 1217 fps (987 fps out of 6 ½” Ruger SS) at 18,200 psi.
A Lee TL 90 gr SWC over 3.2 gr Bullseye ran 1128 fps at 16,500 psi

32 S&WL;

Federal factory WCs; 12,000 psi
Lee TL 90 gr SWC over 2.8 gr Bullseye ran 1060 fps at 16,800 psi (880 fps out of my M30 S&W with 3” barrel)
Lee TL 90 gr SWC over 3.2 gr Bullseye ran 1165 fps at 19,300 psi.
98 gr cast SWC over 2.5 gr Bullseye ran 944 fps at 15,000 psi.
98 gr cast SWC over 4 gr Unique ran 1101 at 19,000 psi

The results of the 32 S&W factory ammunition;

Winchester Western 86 gr Lubaloy LRN; 786 fps at 18,900 psi
Winchester W-W; 727 fps at 15,300 psi
Winchester [WRA]; 729 fps at 16,300 psi
Remington [R-P]; 676 fps at 14,200 psi
Federal [F C] 86 gr FMJRN; 833 fps at 17,900 fps
Winchester [WRA] 86 gr FMJRN; 780 fps at 14,000 psi

The average pressures for the 32 S&W ran from a low of 14,000 psi to 18,900 psi. The 32 S&W is presumed to be a lower pressure cartridge than the 32 S&WL because it is the shorter cartridge. That presumption is probably based off similar cartridges such as the 38 SPL/357 Mag, the 44 SPL/44 Mag, etc. Thus, those presumptions has always led to the belief that using the 32 S&W in the old H&R and Iver Johnson top break 32 S&WL chambered revolvers was “safer” because of the less psi of the 32 S&W cartridge…….we see from the actual psi of numerous 32 S&W factory loads that is not always the case……..

I'm not saying 32 S&W ammunition is unsafe in 32 S&WL chamber top break revolvers just saying there's not a lot of difference, in pressure, between the two cartridges as is thought.

[TheAbe]

Thank you very much! All fantastic info!

[uscra112]

Looking forward to the .32 Short Colt data, since several of my "boys' rifles" use that round.

[racepres]

Excellent info Larry
I have seen your tests before
Since I am Not using a blowback semi Auto for S&W Long
I am secure with 32S&W loadings
Not sure I wish to push into ACP pressured yet

[uscra112]

I've been trying ro reconcile Larry's numbers with my Quickload models, and I can't even come close.

Example: Winchester Western 86 gr Lubaloy LRN; 786 fps at 18,900 psi

That pressure should be delivering around 1200 fps from a 10 inch barrel.

QL cautions that their results are only estimates, but in ten years I've never seen a model that was THAT far off.

[rintinglen]

Getting back to the OP's question, Lyman's Cast Bullet Handbook #3 shows 1.9 start to 2.5 max with WW231 for the 311-252 with an OAL of .860 for the 32 S&W. Your 2.0 grain load of 244 with a similar boolit should be perfectly safe and give about 600 fps, perhaps a smidge less from a 3 1/2 inch BBL.

[Larry Gibson]

uscra112

I've noticed similar discrepancies between QL estimates and actual psi measurements, especially with pistol cartridges. My suspicion is the QL program does not correctly account for the expansion ratio with such cartridges. The Winchester Western 86 gr Lubaloy LRN factory cartridge had just 1.8 gr of a ball powder. While the fast burning powder may crate the higher than expected psi in the chamber it just does not have the volume potential to push the bullet down the barrel to the QL's calculated velocity. Note the Federal 32 H&R 85 gr LSWC factory reference ammunition shot during the same test actually gave 1217 fps at 18,200 fps. That ammunition had 4.2 gr of a small grey flake powder. That amount of powder obvious had the produced volume to push nto the higher velocity at the same pressure with the same barrel.

[uscra112]

Looking forward, as I said, the .32 Colt data. A cartridge I have much more experience with.

One parameter I can only guess at is the seating depth those S&W cartridges use.

Expansion ratio? I'll have to think on that idea. I don't see that QL has any factor accounting specifically for volume of gas evolved from the deflagration. Boyles' Law will apply, however, so maybe it isn't necessary.

You were firing a very short round in a much longer chamber. How much gas was getting past the bullet during that long jump to the leade?

Lastly, and not wishing to give offense, as a superannuated automotive process gaging guy I have to wonder about how well calibrated your strain gage system is. What is the protocol? Does it correlate well with the copper-crusher lab instruments? Does it have a linearity or bias issue when used for such low pressures? Information I would stand a chance of knowing had I ever had one to work with, but of course I haven't.

Phil W.

[uscra112]

I just noticed the "hidden Hilda" button that pops up a window where the expansion ratio of the powder is displayed, so my previous post is already obsolete. :oops:

[HumptyDumpty]

My limited chronograph data:

1.2gr Red Dot, 73 Grain ACME Bullet- 498, 532, 451, 515, 494 FPS

Random assortment of vintage BP rounds (likely featuring 80-90 projectiles): 653, 620, 631 FPS

One BP round of my own creation, with the aforementioned ACME bullet: 725 FPS

All rounds were fired through a solid-framed H&R 733, with a 2 1/2" barrel. Just for those who might be interested, 2.7 grains of Red Dot in a 32 S&W Long case, from the same revolver, propels a 100gr SWC to nearly 900 fps. I've had alot of fun playing around with the 32 S&W short and Long. I did get ahold of some 71 grain, 32 cal HP's, and made a few 32 S&W short "Defensive +P" rounds. I seem to have misplaced my notes, but it was over 2 grains of Red Dot. Fired from an SP101 for safetie's sake, It had the same recoil and muzzle blast as a stout 32 long. Unfortunately I failed to get a good chronograph reading. :(

[TheAbe]

And this is exactly the type of conversation I had hoped would occur here. Can’t wait to start threads on a few other cartridge loadings.

In the meantime, my seating depth for modeling purposes is ~.193”, with an OAL of .874” for the brass I’m using. As for the discrepancies in the model vs experimental data, there could be some issue modeling such a small case due to the internal case geometry being rounded at the base instead of perfectly flat. With such a small volume this might actually make a difference. Also, depending on the age of the rounds tested, could there be some increased pressures due to changes in the chemical composition of the powder over time? I’ve heard that, for example, much of the 8mm Mauser surplus rounds from Turkey have undergone a bit of decomposition over time, and as a result are significantly hotter than they were when they were made. If we’re talking decades, those tested 32 S&W rounds could have similarly changed. The supposed max pressure for 32 S&W is only 12,000 psi right?

[HumptyDumpty]

And this is exactly the type of conversation I had hoped would occur here. Can’t wait to start threads on a few other cartridge loadings.

In the meantime, my seating depth for modeling purposes is ~.193”, with an OAL of .874” for the brass I’m using. As for the discrepancies in the model vs experimental data, there could be some issue modeling such a small case due to the internal case geometry being rounded at the base instead of perfectly flat. With such a small volume this might actually make a difference. Also, depending on the age of the rounds tested, could there be some increased pressures due to changes in the chemical composition of the powder over time? I’ve heard that, for example, much of the 8mm Mauser surplus rounds from Turkey have undergone a bit of decomposition over time, and as a result are significantly hotter than they were when they were made. If we’re talking decades, those tested 32 S&W rounds could have similarly changed. The supposed max pressure for 32 S&W is only 12,000 psi right?
I'm not sure that this would apply in the case of black powder, though I seem to recall reading somewhere that, if it gets wet and subsequently dried-out, it can become a bit more powerful. I have no idea if that is true or not. I've yet to encounter any smokeless powder that had become noticeably more spicy with age, though I have definitely heard some stories. And yes, the pressure limit is very low.

[Larry Gibson]

uscra112

Expansion ratio? I'll have to think on that idea. I don't see that QL has any factor accounting specifically for volume of gas evolved from the deflagration. Boyles' Law will apply, however, so maybe it isn't necessary.

It is most often thought barrel length has the greatest effect on velocity. However, it is actually the expansion ratio which has the greatest effect. Expansion ratio is the ratio of the volume of the bore from the base of the bullet to the muzzle compared to the volume of the case to the base of the bullet. An expansion ratio of 10 to 1 simply means the bore is 10 times that of the case volume. With such an expansion ratio the bore volume doubles in 1/10 the length of the bore from the base of the bullet to the muzzle. To quote from "Firearms Encyclopedia, Harper & Row"; "a 38 SPL revolver with a 6" barrel actually has a greater expansion ratio than many rifles with 20" barrels."

You were firing a very short round in a much longer chamber. How much gas was getting past the bullet during that long jump to the leade?

Perhaps some, but given the ES of 32 fps for the test (7 shots) it appears to have been consistent.

Lastly, and not wishing to give offense, as a superannuated automotive process gaging guy I have to wonder about how well calibrated your strain gage system is. What is the protocol? Does it correlate well with the copper-crusher lab instruments? Does it have a linearity or bias issue when used for such low pressures? Information I would stand a chance of knowing had I ever had one to work with, but of course I haven't.

The gauges are calibrated by the manufacturer and a calibration factor is given. That calibration factor is entered into the program. If a strain gauge is replaced the new gauge will have a new calibration factor which is entered into the program before use. The use of "reference ammunition" is then used before any testing of loads is done. In this case the "reference ammunition" is Federal factory ammunition of a known psi. The 18,200 psi the Federal reference ammunition tested at the beginning of the above tests is only 100 psi different from the stated pressure of the ammunition. That is well within expected test to test variation.

FYI, piezo transducers as used with modern pressure guns are actually strain gauges. Many manufacturers additionally use strain gages on their test firearms in lieu of or in addition to piezo transducers.

The "protocols" I follow are SAAMI protocols as out lined in their manuals.

[Larry Gibson]

[QUOTE=TheAbe;5492709].......... Also, depending on the age of the rounds tested, could there be some increased pressures due to changes in the chemical composition of the powder over time? I’ve heard that, for example, much of the 8mm Mauser surplus rounds from Turkey have undergone a bit of decomposition over time, and as a result are significantly hotter than they were when they were made.

Having shot up a lot of that Turk 8mm ammo with headstamps dated in the mid '30s up through the mid '40s and still having several thousands of it to shoot I have pressure tested a lot of it. I have found no evidence of decomposing powder. What I have found is the cases were apparently not annealed correctly and the case necks, if not already slpit can easily be split. In other words, the cases are brittle which also causes difficult extraction. As to being loaded "hotter" they are loaded to European, specifically German, standards of velocity and pressure which, of course, is "hotter" than US standards. However, that is not in the context of "hotter" as meaning excessive pressures.

If we’re talking decades, those tested 32 S&W rounds could have similarly changed.

Before testing any ammunition other than my own loads I always pull down a few rounds and inspect. No indication of powder decomposition was found. This is also done to enter the load data into the program.

The supposed max pressure for 32 S&W is only 12,000 psi right?

Wrong. The SAAMI MAP (Maximum Average Pressure) for the 32 S&W cartridge is 17,000 psi. The MPSM (Maximum Probable Sample Mean) is 18,300 psi. Interesting to note is the MAP for the 32 S&WL is 15,000 psi and the MPSM is 16,200. That was the point of my post showing actual measured pressures and pointing out the old myth of "it is safe to shoot 32 S&W in old 32 S&WL revolvers because the pressure is less with the 32 S&W". That is not the case as we see from the actual measured pressures.

[uscra112]

As of midnight I'm farther from reconciling the QL models to Larry's data than I was before.

But I can confirm that the SAAMI MAP is 17,000. and that the 12,000 figure quoted in that old Speer manual is the CUP (copper-crusher) value. (Wiki by the way, as always, is misleading. Quotes the CUP value without identifying it as such.)

17,000 seems awfully high for these old guns.

I've long used a value of 14,000 psi for black powder. Obviously variable depending on granulation. Am I close?

@theAbe - would you take a few of your fired cases and very carefully measure the water capacity in grains weight? I want to confirm (or debunk) the volume as found in the QL database. Also check that .193 seating depth. That depth leaves no room for the typical 231 or Bullseye powder charges commonly quoted.

Edit: .874" would be a case length closer to S&W Long. Nominal length for the short is .605". Which one are you loading?

Another semi-relevant datum I've turned up: A 1904 Stevens catalog states that the .32 Short Colt was loaded with 9 grains of black, but that cartridge is slightly smaller in diameter and uses a heeled bullet that seats only .125 into the case.

All in all, if S&W short is being loaded hotter than the Long version, it's certainly a caution to owners of these old guns not to shoot factory ammo in them. Given the number of old .32 Short revolvers rescued from sock drawers that their ammo might be used in, it's either irresponsible on the ammo-makers' part, or those guns are stronger than we've been led to believe all these years.

[TheAbe]

Thank you Larry for clarifying, and clearing up my confusion about the maximum pressure of the cartridge. That makes a lot more sense now. Also gives me a bit more respect for the cartridge. As for the revolvers, has anyone performed mechanical tests on the various parts of some of the old “smokeless safe” revolvers to see just how strong or weak they really are? It would be a pain, and one would need a strain tester or the like... sorry, my background is in materials engineering, and now I’m thinking along that path. It would seem the weak points would be the cylinder and possibly the top latch and the pin that holds the barrel assembly to the frame. The latch and pin would take a reduced force though since much of the pressure is being expended on the bullet forward vs pushing the barrel forward.

As for the cartridge measurements, does the cartridge need to be fired or would an unfired empty suffice? And you want the full case capacity right, not including the bullet-seated part? I will re-measure: empty case is 0.600”, bullet is 0.467”, OAL is 0.870”. Seating depth is about right. Case depth is 0.420”. The discrepancy is that I’m not actually using Win 231, but Win 244. 231 has a VMD of .0931 cc/gr whereas 244 has a VMD of .0789 cc/gr (using the Lee term here). 244 takes up less space in the case. 2gr of 231 would be .1862 cc 2.0gr 244 would be .1578 cc. Sounds like I should back out that seating depth a bit otherwise I might go overboard with pressure, even with a 2.0 gr load....or am I completely off-base there?

Based on my micrometer measurements (I’ll measure with water later) the ID of the cases is .309” and the case capacity after the bullet is seated to the depth I have it should be about .279cc with a total capacity of an empty case around .516 cc.

[uscra112]

Fired only because it'll have the spent primer in place to keep the water in.

[TheAbe]

Oh ok. As I do not have any fired yet, I will instead prime an intact, spent primer into one of my cases (or a few of them) for that purpose.

[trapper9260]

Hope Outpost post on here he know also about the 32 , Larry knows what he doing and help me in the past also. It is interesting for the test Larry comes up with. He is a big help. The Abe just ask what you need help with and someone is willing to help you . I shoot 32 S&W in my 327 s also 32ACP it .

[TheAbe]

The more the merrier! And yes, I shall, as I have lots of questions that the answers I have not seen posted or printed. Going to see if I can do the water test now, and will be back with results shortly.

[TheAbe]

Ok, first time doing this, and of course I pick one of the smaller cartridges to attempt. Surface tension meant that the water in these cases made a very nice dome at the top, which could throw off the results a bit. I took two measurements for each: 1) the dome just visible over the mouth of the case; and 2) where the case was full and the dome rising out quite a bit. If I were to pick, I’d use the former measurement, but here are the averages of five cases for both measurement types: 7.4gr and 7.9gr. The former translates to about .480g or .480cc. The latter translates to .512g or .512cc. Not too far off from my micrometer measurement, with the difference explained by the curvature of the case base.

[racepres]

[QUOTE=TheAbe;5492709].......... Also, depending on the age of the rounds tested, could there be some increased pressures due to changes in the chemical composition of the powder over time? I’ve heard that, for example, much of the 8mm Mauser surplus rounds from Turkey have undergone a bit of decomposition over time, and as a result are significantly hotter than they were when they were made.

Having shot up a lot of that Turk 8mm ammo with headstamps dated in the mid '30s up through the mid '40s and still having several thousands of it to shoot I have pressure tested a lot of it. I have found no evidence of decomposing powder. What I have found is the cases were apparently not annealed correctly and the case necks, if not already slpit can easily be split. In other words, the cases are brittle which also causes difficult extraction. As to being loaded "hotter" they are loaded to European, specifically German, standards of velocity and pressure which, of course, is "hotter" than US standards. However, that is not in the context of "hotter" as meaning excessive pressures.

If we’re talking decades, those tested 32 S&W rounds could have similarly changed.

Before testing any ammunition other than my own loads I always pull down a few rounds and inspect. No indication of powder decomposition was found. This is also done to enter the load data into the program.

The supposed max pressure for 32 S&W is only 12,000 psi right?

Wrong. The SAAMI MAP (Maximum Average Pressure) for the 32 S&W cartridge is 17,000 psi. The MPSM (Maximum Probable Sample Mean) is 18,300 psi. Interesting to note is the MAP for the 32 S&WL is 15,000 psi and the MPSM is 16,200. That was the point of my post showing actual measured pressures and pointing out the old myth of "it is safe to shoot 32 S&W in old 32 S&WL revolvers because the pressure is less with the 32 S&W". That is not the case as we see from the actual measured pressures.

Lucky me.. to have "learned" about the 8X57 JS via Turk and European ammo... Not US mfg... a quick google search reveals Much about that.
Now the Darn little 32's I would be willing to bet good hard earned $ that. originally, the 32S&W Long was "hotter" than 32S&W.. especially knowing they were originally (32S&W certainly) black powder Ctgs... now, the 32 acp... hotter due to being Newer, and no existing firearms restrictions. Above all that, common sense Should tell us that a Longer Case is Not wise...ie 32ACP in a 32S&W chamber..
Having typed all that Mumbo Jumbo... I feel secure in choosing 32S&W "pressures" in my 32S&W Long, solid Frame, Revolver.
But... No reason to go to 32ACP "pressures" even in the long, since some kind soul invented the 32H&R Mag..
Must go back to the Break top revolvers tho.. I do Not believe that the majority of them were designed for much more "Use" than self defense...and therefor, the Latch should live thru that encounter... this was Not a target/plinking piece, that I can figger...
so... yes a Chronograph, 78 gr lead boolits, and about 500-600 FPS.. should, theoretically ... be "kind" to that firearm..

Note... All absolutely Supposition on my behalf... certainly Not Scientific, nor even perhaps Verifiable... Just my $0.02

[uscra112]

@TheAbe - should have mentioned it - a drop or two of liquid dish detergent in a cup of water will reduce that meniscus.

[uscra112]

@TheAbe - should have mentioned it - a drop or two of liquid dish detergent in a cup of water will reduce that meniscus problem.

Your 7.4 grains is 30% more than what's in the QL database. Might just be a difference in brass mfgr. The tiny .32 Short case is incredibly sensitive to this, and also to seating depth. Plugging in your 7.4 grains, and a bullet of 78 grains seated .193 deep, I get reasonable numbers now for pressure and MV using 1.5 grains of 231. (I'm using my own I.J.'s barrel length of 4.0 inches, muzzle to recoil shield.)

Now we really need some chrono data on that load. Due to my wretched back pain troubles I'm not able to do it just now. (Can't even walk as far as the backyard range.) I've refined the QL model about as much as I can at this distance. Still can't get anywhere near Larry's MV numbers.

[TheAbe]

With the meniscus removed I’m getting an average of 7.6gr H2O. So yes, I’m curious about what QL would say about that load as well as a load of 2.2gr everything else being equal.

On the subject of IJ top-breaks, I haven’t fired these yet but both my .32 and .22 appear to have a cylinder gap of .014 inches, is that a problem? What does your IJ’s gap measure? Obviously I’d be keeping well aware of the location of my fingers in any case.

[hoodat]

I'll weigh in with my experience with this little cartridge, and the little top-break pea shooter pistols of that vintage.

I was always a big Bullseye powder fan, but when it came to throwing these tiny charges of less than two grains, I found that my RCBS Uniflow measure was more accurate and less problematic with HP38/WW231 than with my old Bullseye standby. The HP38 seems to be slicker grains (maybe graphite) and doesn't smudge and stick like the Bullseye does in the tiny gap necessary for only a grain or so of powder. I would use my Lil Dandy, but don't have the bushing required for the tiny charge.

I concur on the 1.5 gr. charge of HP38. and am using a 77gr. Laser Cast round nose seated at .880". (as per Lee instructions)

Of the various top-breaks I've had, I judge the Smith and Wessons to be the highest quality, and most durable of the various brands. I've also got a theory concerning how to keep these little pistols in decent shape. The tension of the top latch and hinge screws should be maintained so neither becomes loose, allowing the sloppy fit that is noticeable in many of these older guns. I believe those two mounting points work together for the strength of the system and I've seen some that were made dramatically better simply by tightening those screws.

This blued model (S&W) is 100 % pristine mechanically, and probably 90% cosmetically, and a real hoot to shoot. jd

307338
307339

[uscra112]

Just eyeballing it, I'd say the gap in mine is at least .015, and the end shake is close to that, too. These weren't target guns. Meant as "belly-guns", which one friend claims to mean that you stick the muzzle into your opponent's (or victim's) belly before pulling the trigger. Before modern medicine, one round into the intestines meant a slow, agonizing death from peritonitis, as happened to President Garfield. Pretty effective deterrent.

[uscra112]

1.5 grains of Bullseye, HP38, or W231. The model can hardly tell the difference. Of Unique go to 1.8 grains. Calculated pressure ~9,000 psi, (CIP method). MV in the 650 fps area from 4" barrel. Actual MV value certainly less due to the large cylinder gap. Needs verification by Chrony.

[hoodat]

The cylinder gap on the one pictured above is .009", and as mentioned is pretty much good as it gets mechanically. The internals on these Smiths are beautifully fitted and finished, -- like a Swiss watch. Amazing to consider that they sold for around 7 to eleven dollars.

307342

[TheAbe]

Thanks for the info on gaps. Anyone else feel free to contribute, as I am curious. Going back, I measured my feeler gages with a caliper, and the very edge, the part I was able to get between the cylinder and barrel, on my .014” gage was actually as low as .010” depending which part was measured. Based on this, and comments to this point about gap in other top breaks, I’m satisfied that mine are probably ok to shoot, though I will be cautious taking them each through their paces.

[Larry Gibson]

@TheAbe -........... Still can't get anywhere near Larry's MV numbers.

The MV I posted are from a 10" Contender barrel as noted in the post. Since the test was a comparative test of different ammunition the velocities were lisdted for comparison only.

With any safe 32 S&WL or 32 S&W loads you won't get close to those velocities with a short barreled break top revolver.

[Rattlesnake Charlie]

Excellent response and data Larry. I'm about to load some .32 S&W for my grandfather's Iver Johnson top break. I do have a 2 cavity RCBS 32-84-RN and a 1 cavity Lyman 313249 so as long as I stick to posted COL I should be good. I also have some old Lyman reloading manuals. Will try to find them in storage shed and post the data back here.

[hoodat]

I am in possession of some pretty old reloading manuals, and thought I'd look back in some concerning this cartridge. My oldest book that I've found so far is the "Ideal #38 Handbook", dated 1951. Only bullet listed for this round was the Ideal 87 gr., #313249.

Bullseye powder @ 1.4 gr. was listed at 725 fps. the other powders listed mentioned "Estimated Safe Load", and estimated velocities. :wink:

One thing I'd like to note, was that in those days, you hardly EVER found mention of OAL concerning pressure. It was talked about in relation to magazine length, and accuracy, but I've never found mention of it relating to safe pressure, velocity, etc.

I started loading in the early seventies, and my first book was Speer #8. Even that book hardly talks about OAL with regards to pressure variation. I'm not trying to justify that omission, just noting it. Back in those days, most of us simply measured a factory cartridge, or used the length of our magazine or cylinder to set our length. Or often the position of the lube or crimp groove. jd

[racepres]

Chronographed some .32S&W loads. 90 gr CRN, seated to just cover the grease groove. 1.1 Gr of Trail Boss. avg 475FPS ES was 34.
Sure are Mild in the 4"H&R chambered for S&W Long.
Same 1.1 gr load, but 100gr SWC, again seated just covering grease groove gave 485 FPS 37 ES..
Based Solely on Feel, I would Not be afraid to run these in the Break Top the youngest owns.. especially since haphazard Offhand shooting was pretty much right on target..abt 35 ft. only.
Next "go" will be with either Bullseye, or??? wish I still had some AA#2 left!!! No Ball Powders here unfortunately.

[racepres]

darn...double post !!!

[racepres]

Updated loading FWIW
90gr cast RN PB, 2.0 gr SR7625 Gave 490-530 FPS ..
Tried it because I like 7625 in S&W Long..
What have you tried ATT Abe??

[TheAbe]

Ok, heading to the range tomorrow to have some fun with my IJ top-break (FINALLY!!). Have 99 rnds with 2.0 gr and 9 each of 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3gr of Win 244 over a 78gr ACME cast RN. No chrono, but I’ll be watching for performance, feel, sound, and of course any of the subtle signs of over-pressure.
Incidentally, I did email Hodgdon, about Win 244 in 32 S&W, and also about 6.5 StaBall in both 7.65x53 Mauser and 6.5 Carcano, and for all three they said, “We don’t have a test barrel for those cartridges, so we can’t give you any load data.” Oh well, maybe I’ll ask around here...

[TheAbe]

So are spent casings supposed to look like this out of a revolver? 308981 primers are flat with odd bulges. Not sure if it’s the gun or the load, but I only tried 20 rounds and extraction seemed a bit...sticky. Only fired the 2.0 rounds, and the revolver just seemed to act off, so I stopped. I was able to hit paper at 10 yds, but I didn’t really have time to improve on with this one...
Thoughts anyone?

[Larry Gibson]

Appears the IJ is out of time for one and possibly headspace is excessive(?).

If I had a Win 244 or Staball and the other componants you are using I could pressure test the 32 S&W and the 7.65 Argentine.

[shooting on a shoestring]

I propose a theory that you’re seeing effects of low pressure and a cylinder with some end shake on your primers.

The theory goes when the hammer hits the primer the cylinder is driven forward, the primers fires putting pressure into the cartridge primer pocket and drives the primer backward partially out of the primer pocket. The backward moving primer pushing against the firing pin and hammer mass gets distorted (flows) towards the circumference of the primer. Then the powder charge combustion builds pressure in the case and begins to push the boolit forward and the case is blown both outward to the chamber wall and backward to the breech face. The distorted (flowed) primer gets re-seated flush, resembling a high pressure rifle primer.

The sticky extraction you feel could be the chambers have worn to larger diameters at the front of the chambers where the brass cases are the thinnest and there is more drag between the expanded case and chamber wall.

The more end shake, the more exaggerated the effect. The slower the powder the more time allowed for the primer to flow while partially unsupported by the pocket.

Of course the opposite may be true. It may be you’ve just got high pressure.

I suggest you do some measuring. Measure the inside diameters of the chambers near the front and rear for comparison. Also measure velocity to see if you’re getting low or high velocity. Low velocity would lend credence to the low pressure theory.

[TheAbe]

Larry: thank you for the insights. I didn’t mention previously, but in firing the revolver missed a couple shots in sequence when fired relatively rapidly. In other words, chambers 1-3 would fire, it would skip 4 (cylinder passed 4), then fire 5. Cycling through again, 4 would fire fine. I’m thinking it’s not in “perfectly functioning” condition.

As for pressure testing, it would be a bit pricey to send components separated, but I’d be happy to send you loaded samples. Is there a PM function in this forum? Otherwise let me know and I’ll send you emails to arrange what would make for a good set of test cartridges. It would do myself and the community good to have some decent pressure data for loads for these newer powders that the manufacturer won’t be testing.

[TheAbe]

Shoestring: that is a very plausible theory, especially with my IJ. If we can get these pressure-tested (by Larry, or anyone similarly equipped, though I doubt there is anyone), that would eliminate or confirm high/low pressure as an issue.

[Larry Gibson]

It is typical of older IJs that are out of time for the hammer to drop before the hand has rotated the cylinder sufficiently for the cartridge to be lined up coaxial with the firing pin and barrel. What you see in that firing pin skid is indicative of that. Sounds like the IJ does need a bit of work. If you can't do it yourself, it is hard to find someone who can. A gunsmith would be prohibitively expensive even if you found someone willing to fix it. Usually, those old IJs are not worth the money to fix as, with a gunsmith, you will have more into it than it is worth well before it is fixed.

Too bad you don't live closer, I like to tinker with those old revolvers.

[jonp]

It is typical of older IJs that are out of time for the hammer to drop before the hand has rotated the cylinder sufficiently for the cartridge to be lined up coaxial with the firing pin and barrel. What you see in that firing pin skid is indicative of that. Sounds like the IJ does need a bit of work. If you can't do it yourself, it is hard to find someone who can. A gunsmith would be prohibitively expensive even if you found someone willing to fix it. Usually, those old IJs are not worth the money to fix as, with a gunsmith, you will have more into it than it is worth well before it is fixed.

Too bad you don't live closer, I like to tinker with those old revolvers.

I had a Rossi 357Mag that would do exactly that and the primers were a close approximation of the OP's. Gave some blowby, too. Enough that I didn't think the fixing cost was worth the pistol, it wasn't and I sold it.

Bought it at Ruff's Liquor and Ammo in Flagstaff now Sporting Goods or something. Bought the Rossi, a bag of reloads and a 12pack of Budweiser. Put it all on a credit card. They had a drive-up window, too.

[racepres]

1.5 grains of Bullseye, HP38, or W231. The model can hardly tell the difference. Of Unique go to 1.8 grains. Calculated pressure ~9,000 psi, (CIP method). MV in the 650 fps area from 4" barrel. Actual MV value certainly less due to the large cylinder gap. Needs verification by Chrony.

Just the other day...
32S&W (short), with that 90grRN, seated just covering the lube groove (I gotta get an OAL), over 2.0 gr Unique, 4" bbl H&R chambered for 32S&WL... 636 FPS avg... accurate and good SD... tho I did Not record it..Was foolin with 38SP at that time!!!!
I would say your calculations nailed it.. Note my OAL is Not Spec for 32S&W..
Do Not feel anything but Mild...and I will be loading some more just because they were Fun!!

[TheAbe]

Ok, so I fired another 16 rounds through it the other day with a slightly different mix. I used CCI primers instead of Federal, with the idea the harder cups might deform less on firing. Also used 2.1 gr of Win 244 under an Acme coated boolit. Seemed...a lot of flash but I was able to hit the center of the target (once) at 8 yds once I got the sights figured out, then handed off to my friends I was with.

[TheAbe]

Ok, I think the CCI primers were the key to eliminating the deformation issue, however I was likely also using a bit too much powder. Talking to the owner of my preferred local reloading store, he looked up the 32 S&W in the latest Lyman CB reloading manual, and recommended I back off to 1.5gr over the 78gr ACME’s. He also had a box of 500 90gr HBWC’s that I bought (also to try out in my muzzleloader), that he recommended I try those with 1.0gr or 1.1gr of the Win 244. Thinking how low the velocity was going to be I was hesitant at first, but then he commented, “Look, you’ve got guns that have much higher velocities already. You’re using this one to plink at 5-15 yds, why push the envelope and risk damaging it. Just enjoy it.”
I took his recommendation and loaded up 50 of the 90grs, fired all of them on my next range trip. And you know what, he was right. I’m currently pulling and reloading all my 2.0 & 2.1gr powder loads down to 1.5g, and we’ll see how those go, but the lighter load is well suited to that little IJ hammerless. I’ve actually found it serves as a good pistol for training an even trigger pull: 20lb trigger, small grips, and requires a full release to properly advance, my fingers are getting muscle memory on proper movement.

[TheAbe]

I looked up a photo of what a HBWC round is suppose to look like, and I was surprised to find that they’re generally loaded even with the case mouth. Not going to do that with 32 s&w, though perhaps with 1.0gr of the 244 I’d be fine. But that got me to thinking: I understand it’s generally frowned upon to load 32 s&w long wad cutter rounds into a 32 s&w short, but what if they were loaded using a “short” recipe? The extra brass would only serve to shield the bullet that would otherwise be sticking out in the open. Cartridge chamber space behind the bullet could potentially be the same as it would for a short.

Thoughts?

[uscra112]

Powder space would have to be EXACTLY the same as the Short round. In these small cartridges, tiny changes in seating depth produce large changes in pressure.

Personally I never had the best accuracy out of my Colt .38 target revolver using flush-seated wadcutters. Seating out so that the bullet enters the throat to center it up has always been noticeably better. As in group sizes half what the flush-seated ammo would do. I know there are generations of revolver shooters who won thousands of matches using flush-seated wadcutters, but I cannot see how.