.32 Win Special and cast plus BP

[Multigunner]

I've been interested in the .32 Winchester special for awhile, had intended to build a bolt action in that caliber on an old Lithgow action so I've looked up whatever I could find on the cartridge.

I found this page sometime back and the following just didn't ring true to me.


Here are the basics of the oft printed "facts" explaining the impetus behind Winchester's invention of the 32 Winchester Special (WS):

It is said folks had been trying blackpowder handloads in the 30-30 and were having trouble with powder fouling because of the small bore and unusually fast rifling twist, compared to typical blackpowder bores. It is claimed that Winchester introduced the 32 WS, to provide a similar chambering that was more amenable to blackpowder loads. This cartridge, simply the 30-30 case necked up and chambered in a barrel with a significantly slower rifling twist (1/16 versus 1/12), works well with blackpowder.

The 32 WS does have a slower rifling rate - 1:16-inch compared to 1:12-inch for the 30-30 - and its bigger bore should be less prone to powder fouling. Therefore, this explanation seems plausible enough. For why else should Winchester introduce a cartridge so similar to its already extremely popular 30-30?

Several years ago, I came upon a copy of Winchester's 1916 catalogue. Imagine my surprise when I found the following detailed explanation as to why Winchester had introduced the 32 Winchester Special:

The .32 Winchester Special cartridge, which we have perfected, is offered to meet the demand of many sportsmen for a smokeless powder cartridge of larger caliber than the .30 Winchester [original name for the 30-30] and yet not so powerful as the .30 Army [now known as the 30-40 Krag].

That was the entire explanation! There was not so much as a hint about any connection to using blackpowder reloads, facilitating handloading or other such nonsense!

The catalogue went on with a simple explanation of why the 32 WS was able to deliver a significant increase in power, when loaded at the same pressure, compared to the 30-30. Published ballistics in that catalogue verified this claim. The 32 WS was credited with generating about 10.6% more muzzle energy than its progenitor.

After considering pertinent facts and upon reflection, I suspect most would agree: The evidently invented story is unfounded, perhaps even a bit ridiculous.

In the first place, why would Winchester make any effort to help anyone avoid buying Winchester ammunition? This makes no sense. In the second place, it was only very recently that any of the major ammunition manufacturers finally faced the music and joined us handloaders, rather than fighting us. To the later point, Winchester's 1916 catalogue lists and analyzes gun and shooting related items from A to Z, in amazing variety and diversity. Nevertheless, there is not so much as a single mention of handloading, despite listing of various components. Yes, Winchester wanted to be in on the sales of handloading components but they certainly were not anxious to encourage the practice.


http://www.levergun.com/articles/special.htm

Later I found this
From Forest and Stream 1921


The passing of the old big-bore, blackpowder rifles have left in their wake three distinct classes of guns: smokelesspowder rifles, black-powder rifles and those adapted to either high-velocity smokeless or black-powder loads. This classification should be taken into consideration before attempting to choose a rifle. High-power rifles, like the 250-3,000, 30-30 and 30 Government, are intended for smokeless powders only, and blacker semi-smokeless powders cannot be used in them with any degree of success. These rifles have very rapid twists, a majority of them giving a bullet a complete turn in every ten inches as it passes through the barrel. Rilles having smokeless steel barrels and a comparatively slow twist of rilling, such as the 32 Special and some of the 32-40 and 38-55 calibers, are equally adapted to black, semi-smokeless, low-power smokeless or high-velocity cartridges. The twist of rifling in the guns of this class range from one turn in sixteen to one turn in twenty inches.

All rifles not having smokeless steel barrels belong to the black-powder class, and in such guns a high-velocity load cannot be used with safety. However, low-power smokeless-powder cartridges that give a slightly increased velocity over black-powder loads can be used in them with good results. The blackpowder rifles of to-day are the survivors of a once great class of black-powder ritlcs ranging from big, bulky cartridges, like the 38-90-217, 40-110-260, 45-125500, 50-100-450, etc., down to the small 22-caliber cartridges. The twist of rifling in a majority of these guns was comparatively gentle, some only having one turn in sixty inches.


http://books.google.com/books?id=xUsoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA502&lpg=PA502&dq=.303+savage+rifling+twist&source=bl&ots=9X1YrB7i7H&sig=Jw8GJBGg6myPzldceS0amUzx4FI&hl=en&ei=pXqxS7jmK4SClAejk4TVBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAUQ6AEwADgU

I'd long heard that the .32 Winchester special was a fairly modern type cartridge which bridged the gap between the Black Powder era and the smokeless era.
Its the main reason the cartridge is of interest to me.
Also every source book on handloading in the pre WW2 era makes no bones about the often incredibly poor choices of smokeless powders available to hand loaders in those days.
Reloaders blew up many a fine .30-30 when it first hit the market, due to the very unpredictable nature of available smokeless powders, and it was not as well received at first as we might think. The .30-40 Krag also suffered from highly erosive and sometimes unpredictable powders.
Also hand loading was far from unpopular for American hunters and target shooters, in fact it was a necessity for most who relied on their rifles for a living.
Those who did not reload for some reason often turned in their fired cases to a local gunsmith who reloaded them for a nominal fee, or paid someone they trusted to work up a load for them. The same has become more common in Britian these days though traditionally British target shooters did not go in for reloading as much as American hunters and target shooters.

I'd have to say that the arguments in the linked article from Leverguns.com just don't hold up.

My interest in the .32 Winchester is precisely that spoken of in the Forest and stream article. Components may become hard to find at a reasonable price, and may be impossible to find at all one day, so one may end up having to make his own powder and primers if worse comes to worst.

[jh45gun]

I have read that the 32 special was made for those that wanted to reload with black powder. Which is why they made the slower twist ect. I think that makes sense since the 32 special is about a twin to the 30 WCF performance wise. No reason to make it unless they wanted a gun that you could reload with black powder for those that thought the smokeless powder was not as good.

[Multigunner]

Some of the smokeless powders available back then turned out to be downright dangerous.
I've run across free downloads of books on guns and reloading from pre WW1 which illustrate the effects of some of those powders, fine shotguns blown to splinters for example.

Besides Smokeless or "white powder" as they sometimes called it, there were "brown powders" and composite powders made by mixing black powder with nitrocellulose. Winchester used a composite powder for its "lesmoke" line of pistol and .22 rimfire cartridges for awhile.

Besides the hazards of unstable and often poorly mixed smokeless powders there was the problem of mercuric primers embrittling brass if smokeless was used instead of BP. Black Powder fouling insulated the inside of a brass case from contamination by the mercuric fumes or salts. Smokeless leaving less fouling had no such protective qualities. A cartridge fired only with BP could last for a great many more loadings than a case used with smokeless.

The extreme temperatures of the early high nitroglycerin content powders, approaching 5,000 degrees in some instances, also made use of plain base cast bullets a problem, any blowby at all could melt the bullet base and heavily lead the bore in a very few shots.

Metal fouling from jacketed bullets was just then becoming a serious problem, with few effective solvents, and those often injurious to the bore surface.

While the higher velocity and tough jacketed bullets of the factory loads were very useful in hunting larger game, just as today many centerfire rifles were as often as not used with reduced loads to take wild turkey and prairie hens rather than game of deer size and up.

BP fouling while it built up quickly was far easier to clean up without resorting to expensive and sometimes hard to find nitro solvents.

Taking all that into account its easy to see why those who wanted to reload often chose the safer and less expensive black powder with cast bullets, even if it meant sacrificing performance.

You probably couldn't pack enough black powder into a .32 special case to cause pressures the gun couldn't handle, but the same couldn't be said for smokeless.

[NickSS]

actually winchester did not make the 32 spl. with the idea of it being loaded with black powder when they came out with the cartridge around 1907. They would not have had a market for a gun like that as the 94 winchester was being made in 32-40 which can be loaded to the same velocities as the 32 spl and the rifles cost less. The black powder 94s were made with old steel and cost a couple bucks less than the ones made for smokeless cartridges. When winchester advertised the 32 spl upon introduction the sold it as more powerful than the 30-30 (which it is). The rifling twist they chose was the same as they put in all their 32 cal rifles at the time so the same blanks could serve for 32-20, 32-40 and 32 spl.

[Richard B]

My next big project is to develope some cast bullet loads for a Marlin 336 of 1961 vintage in .32 WS. This rifle is not micro groove so should be an interesting project. I am finding it difficult to find suitable moulds but have just got an old Ideal mould for 151 grain bullets. I am going to the Calgary Gunshow this weekend so hope to find some treasures there.

[bruce drake]

Richard. Buy Lee's 8mm 175gr RN mold. Mine drops at .323 and shoots great as cast in my 94 Winchester (1936 vintage) in 32 Spl.

Bruce

[sundog]

Bruce, yes, the 8mm Lee boolit works. But, the Ranch Dog 32-170-FN is actually the bees knees and apparently currently available:

http://www.ranchdogmolds.com/

Micheal's method of checking and dipping (LLA) works, too.

I would opt for it first. If I just wanted to spend a lot of money, I would get the RCBS 32-170-FN which is the standard to which the 32 Win Spl can achieve greatness. I do like RCBS moulds, a lot, but I guess I've never mentioned before...

Castpics has some 32 Win Spl load data.

[jh45gun]

I don't buy into the fact that the 32 special was any more powerful than the 30/30 it is close enough in power that they are about twins. I have also seen a lot of old 30 WCF barrels that still look darn good I cannot say that about some 32 specials I have seen some where pretty bad giving me the though that they were shot with black powder and not taken care of as well as they should have been. First buck I ever shot was with a Winchester 32 special a family friend bought at a rummage sale years ago for 5 bucks. I know why it was so cheap my dad borrowed it so I could have a gun for my second deer season and that would have been 1965. You could not hit beans with that gun I tried to sight it in my dad did and so did a couple of other guys at the gravel pit where folks sighted in their guns in the area. Dad gave me a choice use a shotgun with slugs which would have made more sense but I wanted a rifle like every one else. So I used the 32 special and a nice ten point ran up to me during a drive and I shot and missed. I shot again at his chest and hit him in the neck. (PURE LUCK due to the inaccuracy of the gun) When we were trying to sight in that gun we never looked at the bore I did not know that much about guns at the ripe old age of 13 and I know my dad thought there was something wrong with the sights. I suspect now that the problem was a half shot out bore.

[sundog]

I just had another idea (that can be VERY dangerous) prompted by another ongoing thread. How about paper patch a 30 cal, say a 31141, or something similar? Might try it myself just fer grins & giggles...

[bruce drake]

SunDog,

I'll support Ranch Dog's design as that is great looking Flat Point! I was pointing out a readily available mold for him to start with to get that 32 Win smoking.

Payday is coming. I might have to pick one of those FP molds up myself.

Bruce

[sundog]

I think I mentioned it before. Michael shipped me one of the prototypes of his RD 32-170 for testing early on. It had some dimension issues with the GC diameter, but usable. I later bought one of the production run. Good boolit. The prototype is now a PLAIN BASE! I tried some reduced charge plinking loads, Begorrah!

[jlchucker]

Interesting stuff. I have a reprint copy of a 1905 Winchester catalog. On page 42 it tells about the 32 special. The 32Winchester Special Cartridge, which we have just perfected, is offered to meet the demand of many sportsmen for a smokeless powder cartridge of a larger caliber than the 30 Winchester and yet not so powerful as the 30 US Army , and which could be reloaded with black powder and give satisfactory results....We load this cartridge with smokeless powder only, but are prepared to offer (components and tools)...for loading black powder only. We do not advise hand loading or reloading of this cartridge with Smokeless powder by individuals.

[MTWeatherman]

Multigunner,
I'm no cartridge historian, but have an interest in the .32 Special as I have one (consider it to be among the best cast bullet cartridges ever made and highly recommend the RCBS bullet). You've obviously done some research and I found those references interesting. I'd read McPherson's article but hadn't seen the Field and Stream. W30WCF, a member here, is a cartridge historian and hopefully, he'll weigh in. This issue has been touched on in a previous thread:

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=26928

McPherson's excellent article at Levergun, which you have linked, is a worthwhile read for anyone interested in the cartridge. He discusses a lot of the myths associated with it.

It does seem to me, that the only one who could truly tell us why the cartridge was created would be Winchester itself. They said it was for more power and I see no reason to not believe them. The .32 Special was the last cartridge Winchester introduced for the '94. It never made any sense to me that after having immediate acceptance of the smokeless 30-30 and 25-35, Winchester would suddenly decide they needed a smokeless powder cartridge that could handle black powder. Those wanting a black powder .32 already had the cheaper .32-40. I'm with NickSS on this one. I think it was just a matter of convenience due to the existing tooling for the .32-40. Basically, they just upgraded the barrel metal and created a smokeless ".32-40 Magnum" by blowing out the case. Keep in mind that the .32-40 had a sterling reputation for accuracy with the 16 inch twist...it was a well used target cartridge and since a .32 caliber was already accepted by the black powder crowd, Winchester may have thought the .32 Special could win the holdouts over.

As to difference in power between the .32 Special and the .30-30: With equal pressure, the .32 Special will deliver more muzzle energy...it has to...it is pure physics. The larger diameter of the .32 bullet dictates it. McPherson discusses this at length in his article. As promised by Winchester, that difference was there in initial loading of the cartridge but then disappeared as pressures were dropped to bring it more in line with .30-30 ballistics. However, it doesn't apply to the handloader. That 10% energy advantage is still there. As to whether or not that 10% advantage over the 30-30 and a larger caliber bullet would be noticeable in killing power, that argument will go on forever. To put that 10% advantage into perspective, note that with a 180 gr. bullet the .308 Winchester offers an 11% energy increase over the .30-40 Krag (that 30 U.S. Army Winchester referred to in their .32 Special promotion). I believe most .308 users will feel the difference is noticeable. However, as with the .32 Special and the .30-30, impossible to prove. As always, bullet placement is the most important factor in a clean kill.

[Multigunner]

Interesting stuff. I have a reprint copy of a 1905 Winchester catalog. On page 42 it tells about the 32 special. The 32Winchester Special Cartridge, which we have just perfected, is offered to meet the demand of many sportsmen for a smokeless powder cartridge of a larger caliber than the 30 Winchester and yet not so powerful as the 30 US Army , and which could be reloaded with black powder and give satisfactory results....We load this cartridge with smokeless powder only, but are prepared to offer (components and tools)...for loading black powder only. We do not advise hand loading or reloading of this cartridge with Smokeless powder by individuals.

I think your cited catalog entry pretty much settles the mystery. It says exactly what I'd always heard about BP only being recommended for reloading at the time.
Smokeless powders were still the new kid on the block, and most were highly energetic and subject to deteriorations that could make them dangerous.

One of my old resource books available as a free PDF tells of many accidents involving smokeless powders, especially cordite, when cartridge manufacturers in Britian worked up maximum loads in mild weather there and the cartridges were then later used in tropical heat. Manufacturers then came around to tayloring the powder charge to the expected environment.

Articles like that from Leverguns.com illustrate a modern shooter/writter looking back on this sort of question without taking fully into account the conditions and thinking of the day.

Having had a few problems with deterioration of old powders I made a point of looking into the factors that could make older powders, and old ammo, unsafe.

Also I had reason to investigate some claims of the strength of some turn of the century actions that bridged the gap between the black powder era and the smokeless era.


While black powder if not properly cleaned soon after shooting can cause serious rusting of a bore, mercuric and potassium choride primer salts are far more destructive than the powder itself. I learned this long ago when I used some old spanish corrosive percussion caps with a Colt 1851 clone. Caps fired to burn out oil in the chambers before taking the gun out to shoot could rust the chamber badly within hours even when no powder charge was used. When non corrosive caps were used BP fouling alone didn't rust the bore unless left for several days.

Another cause of wear to rifling, and to some extent moving parts, in the Pre WW2 sporting and military rifles was the use of ground glass in the priming compounds.

PS
From post 29 in the previous .32 special disscussion
A quote from the 1902 Winchester catalog.

“The .32 Winchester Special Cartridge, which we have just perfected, is offered to meet the demand of many sportsmen, for a smokeless powder cartridge of larger caliber than the .30 Winchester (.30-30) and not yet so powerful as the .30 U.S. Army (.30-40), which could be reloaded with black powder and give satisfactory results.

The .32 Winchester Special Cartridge meets all of these requirements. Loaded with Smokeless powder and a 165 gr. bullet, it has a muzzle velocity of 2,057 foot seconds. With a charge of 40 grs. of black powder, the .32 Winchester Special develops a velocity of 1,385 foot seconds, which makes it a powerful black powder cartridge .”


and the comment from the Leverguns article

Here are the basics of the oft printed "facts" explaining the impetus behind Winchester's invention of the 32 Winchester Special (WS):

It is said folks had been trying blackpowder handloads in the 30-30 and were having trouble with powder fouling because of the small bore and unusually fast rifling twist, compared to typical blackpowder bores. It is claimed that Winchester introduced the 32 WS, to provide a similar chambering that was more amenable to blackpowder loads. This cartridge, simply the 30-30 case necked up and chambered in a barrel with a significantly slower rifling twist (1/16 versus 1/12), works well with blackpowder.


and


Several years ago, I came upon a copy of Winchester's 1916 catalogue. Imagine my surprise when I found the following detailed explanation as to why Winchester had introduced the 32 Winchester Special:

The .32 Winchester Special cartridge, which we have perfected, is offered to meet the demand of many sportsmen for a smokeless powder cartridge of larger caliber than the .30 Winchester [original name for the 30-30] and yet not so powerful as the .30 Army [now known as the 30-40 Krag].

That was the entire explanation! There was not so much as a hint about any connection to using blackpowder reloads, facilitating handloading or other such nonsense!

Obviously the author didn't look far enough back. The 1902 and 1905 catalog entries reflect the conditions at the time the cartridge first came along, by 1916 reloaders had become more acclimated to using smokeless so BP loadings were not as important.

The US Ordnance depart had since about 1904 begun using the less erosive pyro cellulose powders for the .30/06 and Duponts MR and later IMR powders were begining to show up for the reloader. Before that reloading with smokeless could be a risky proposition and damaging to the bore.

[StarMetal]

I shoot the Lee 8mm bullet in my vintage 32 and it's excellent. In fact I harvest a deer with it last season, 100 yard shot. Watch the newer RCBS molds because they drop 50/50 alloy at .321, which is exact groove size and you should shoot a slightly fatter bullet then that.

I go along with the idea that the 32 was for dual purpose powder reloading. If they had a 32-40 why would they make an entirely new rifle with old bore dimension. In other words slower twist and shallow rifling.

It's true the 32 is more powerful then the 30-30. Like the other poster said physics dictate that. The slower twist and larger bore allow an increase in velocity with a lower pressure then the 30-30 plus the fact as the larger bullet goes down the bore the pressure decreases faster because more volume is presented.

Great rifle and caliber.

BABore is coming out with a new 32 bullet, so wait before you buy.

[jh45gun]

If it is more powerful it is not by much as look at any reloading book the 30WCF and the 32 are pretty much twins in performance. If you guys want to say that some what larger bullet does it then fine believe that but seeing them side by side I cannot see that much difference that it would make that much of a difference. No critter is going to tell any difference.

[Multigunner]

Improvements in propellants pretty much settled any objections shooters may have had about the .30-30 making the slow twist .32 special less atractive as time went on.

This book
"The Gun and its Development" the 1910 printing
http://books.google.com/books?id=vIffAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+gun+and+its+development&source=bl&ots=x3JooLnboI&sig=CleGd_59BjjDSxy65SnxAvMvXSk&hl=en&ei=TlayS7eIJIOdlgf6-7CWBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAg

Gives a pretty clear picture of the hazards of reloading using the smokeless powders of the day.

from page 564


6. No nitro-compound is trustworthy. Of late years the older explosives have become more variable, and the new ones show no improvement. It seems impossible to get successive batches of any one explosive exactly alike. Testing every batch of each explosive delivered, and having deliveries in bulk every month of the year, the author confidently asserts that sportsmen using these nitro-explosives are absolutely at the mercy of the manufacturers, who are a law unto themselves in so far as they issue the explosive of whatever strength it may happen to be. Not in one instance, but several, has the author discovered that the explosives delivered to him are far from being identical in quality with those previously delivered from the same factories. If these faulty explosives were weaker, it would be merely a matter of business to return them, and insist upon the right quality being delivered, but as in most instances they are stronger, and occasionally even double what is recognised as normal, so as to indicate dangerous pressures in the crusher gauge, it is a question whether or not the lot should not be at once destroyed. It is a very difficult matter indeed to re-manufacture or to manipulate in such a manner as to reduce the strength uniformly and without deteriorating other qualities—as stability—of the explosive. Possibly such explosives as may be rejected by the maker furnished with the instruments necessary to test the explosives delivered to him, are sold to persons not in a position to prove that the strength is dangerous. It is no less dangerous if shipped to a colonial buyer, and the mere possibility of such a thing occurring—even by accident—ought to awaken gun-makers and sportsmen to the need there is for a Government test being applied to gunpowders as well as to guns. For explosives of any and every strength to be in use, whilst guns are meant only for explosives of a known strength, renders the proof of guns futile in so far as the test is regarded as safeguarding the public. Who should test the powder, and to what tests it should be subjected, are matters of less concern than that some test should be applied at once, and by the gun-makers, if no other authority will undertake the work forthwith. For the sportsman it is sometimes a difficult matter to know when a powder is exerting an excessive strain, but very reduced patterns obtained from a gun whose shooting is known are a sure sign of increased pressure, and a trial of the cartridges should be at once instituted when such are observed.

[StarMetal]

The 30-30 and 32 Special are loaded for just about identical ballistics in the reloading books today. If you had a chrono and pressure gauge you would find out per pressure that the 32 blows the doors off the 30-30. A classic example that is similar is the 8x57 Mauser pitted against the 30-06 and here the 8mm has less powder capacity then the 06 and give the 06 a run for it's money.

Take a look at Hodgdon's online reloading data. For a 170 grain jacket and H4895 powder a load of 32.0 grains gives 2122 fsp at 30,500 psi for the 32 Special. For the 30-30 with the same weight bullet and 30.5 grains gives 2138 fps at 35,200 psi. Look at the difference in pressure. Now that's the max load for the 30-30, but the starting load for the 32. The max load for the 32 is 34.5 grains which gives 2283 fps at 36,100 psi. The 32 is more efficient.

[Multigunner]

The 30-30 and 32 Special are loaded for just about identical ballistics in the reloading books today. If you had a chrono and pressure gauge you would find out per pressure that the 32 blows the doors off the 30-30. A classic example that is similar is the 8x57 Mauser pitted against the 30-06 and here the 8mm has less powder capacity then the 06 and give the 06 a run for it's money.

Take a look at Hodgdon's online reloading data. For a 170 grain jacket and H4895 powder a load of 32.0 grains gives 2122 fsp at 30,500 psi for the 32 Special. For the 30-30 with the same weight bullet and 30.5 grains gives 2138 fps at 35,200 psi. Look at the difference in pressure. Now that's the max load for the 30-30, but the starting load for the 32. The max load for the 32 is 34.5 grains which gives 2283 fps at 36,100 psi. The 32 is more efficient.

The WW1 154 gr S bore 7.92 actually out performed the WW1 .30/06 150 gr load.

I would agree that loaded to its full potential that the .32 Special would out perform the .30-30 for the reasons given, but I'd figure this was less by design than by chance. The slow twist of the .32 Special is not as well suited to smokeless powder velocities. Lack of precision accuracy with the slow twist at full velocity may be one reason that loads were stepped down.

I haven't run across many descriptions of the rounds shooting qualities, but those I have read always rated it second best in accuracy compared to the .30-30. At least with factory ammunition.

[StarMetal]

The WW1 154 gr S bore 7.92 actually out performed the WW1 .30/06 150 gr load.

I would agree that loaded to its full potential that the .32 Special would out perform the .30-30 for the reasons given, but I'd figure this was less by design than by chance. The slow twist of the .32 Special is not as well suited to smokeless powder velocities. Lack of precision accuracy with the slow twist at full velocity may be one reason that loads were stepped down.

I haven't run across many descriptions of the rounds shooting qualities, but those I have read always rated it second best in accuracy compared to the .30-30. At least with factory ammunition.

Just with that one powder Hodgdon listed it out performs the 30-30 at the lawyer loadings.

I wouldn't say a 30-30 will out shoot a 32 Special with cast bullets, and if it doesn't what would lead one to think it would with jacketed?

By today's standards (lawyer reloading and factory ammo) I see them equal.

[Marlin Junky]

I don't know about the .32 Spl being more powerful than the 30-30. I don't think the 16" twist of the .32 can handle 200 grain boolits but the 10-12 twist of the 30-30 sure can. Now, if one were to build a custom .32 with a 12" twist then the .32 may become noticeably more powerful than the 30-30. I've got an old Marlin 336 (10" twist) with a long throat and a 24" barrel that puts 5, 180 grain boolits into one ragged hole at 50 yards and starts them out at over 2300 fps using AA-2520; and, there's a significant amount of air space remaining in the case. I haven't tried a 100% density load of H-380 yet. H-380 will propel RCBS 30-180FN cast of 50/50 and weighing 200 grains (ready to fly) at over 2100 fps; however, while pressure seems normal, cases need to be full length sized after every other reload.

MJ

[felix]

Multigunner, more velocity is equal to more potential stability, and thus lessens the twist requirements. ... felix

[Multigunner]

Just with that one powder Hodgdon listed it out performs the 30-30 at the lawyer loadings.

I wouldn't say a 30-30 will out shoot a 32 Special with cast bullets, and if it doesn't what would lead one to think it would with jacketed?

By today's standards (lawyer reloading and factory ammo) I see them equal.

I doubt the difference in accuracy would be significant, with the variation in accuracy between one rifle or another being as great any way, but the 1:12 twist of the .30-30 1894 rifle would be better suited to bullets in that weight class at velocities approaching 2,000 FPS or higher than a 1:16 twist.

One reason I put my plans of a bolt action .32 Special on hold was that a barrel with a twist rate tighter than 1:16 while it might prove more accurate at smokeless powder and j word bullet velocities would negate the advantages of the slower twist at cast bullet velocities.

If I wanted to take the least expensive route in having a barrel made for this project I could simply obtain a 8mm Mauser barrel to shorten at the shank and turn to fit or use a blank made for the 8mm.
The .321 bullets used for the .32 Special have been used sucessfully for the downloaded Remington 8mm mauser cartridges for many years, so at maximum velocities a .323 mauser bore with 1:9.5 would work fine, and even allow for heavier bullet loads, but it would not be as efficient at the lower cast bullet velocities as the original 1:16 twist .321 bore.

[felix]

MG, I would opt for the mauser case with a longer neck to help eliminate some erosion using high pressure loads. A 30-06 case reformed with a standard 30-30 neck length, leaving the shoulder the same. Case capacity is about perfect for 2400 fps, the no-fuss max velocity for boolits. Pick projectile, then pick twist with the shortest throat possible. 16 twist with 0.005 lands would be my pick using 180 boolits. ... felix

[Eutectic]

The rifling twist they chose was the same as they put in all their 32 cal rifles at the time so the same blanks could serve for 32-20, 32-40 and 32 spl.

Nick, the .32-20 barrels made by Winchester I have are 1 in 20" twist.

Eutectic

[StarMetal]

Don't forget that the 32 bullet is shorter in comparable weights to the 30-30 and that lessens the twist requirements, not necessarily by that much though. It's the bullet length not the weight, but as we know length gets longer as weights go up.

Felix here's one for you, not a hard one. What happens to the twist rates if we use depleted Uranium bullets which are much more dense then lead?

I wouldn't be so sure about a 32 not stabilizing a 200 grain bullet. I've shot 72 grain bullets out of my 16 twist 22 Hornet and it should not have stabilized them but it did.

[Multigunner]

MG, I would opt for the mauser case with a longer neck to help eliminate some erosion using high pressure loads. A 30-06 case reformed with a standard 30-30 neck length, leaving the shoulder the same. Case capacity is about perfect for 2400 fps, the no-fuss max velocity for boolits. Pick projectile, then pick twist with the shortest throat possible. 16 twist with 0.005 lands would be my pick using 180 boolits. ... felix

I was intending to shorten a Mauser barrel at the shank then rechamber for the .32 Special. I've reloaded for the 8mm Mauser in the past, its a good cartridge but not what I'm looking for.

I have a Lithgow No.1 action which I had planned to use, but I'm now leaning more towards a falling block single shot.
I'm looking towards a lightweight , handy, quick takedown rifle, barrel length for a single shot could be 26 inches, for a repeater 22 inches at the same OAL. I prefer that a rifle muzzle clear the ground by several inches if the rifle is held down to my side by one hand at the grip.
The .32 Special is more than enough gun for any local game, and I'm looking at its versatility in a wide variety of of possible loads for use on game as small as squirrel up to Black Bear and everything in between.
As I get older the heavier kicking centerfire cartridges such as the .303 are becoming less attractive and they are more powerful than necessary, also reduced power loads in these are not so efficient, though useable.

I'm also beginning to get interested in alternative propellants, not just BP but also the more esoteric powders such as Ammonpulver.

I have some old books which give detailed instructions on making mercuric primer compounds, primers may be the hardest component to get in the future.

PS
I remember that Harry Pope could get consistent one hole groups at 200 yards from the .32-40, and that cartridge along with the German 8.15X46R were the two most popular target rifle cartridges in this power range. The .32 Special should prove as accurate, and have the advantage of available higher velocity loads should the game call for it.

If I complete this project I will explore the possibility of wringing out the maximum performance the round is capable of. Its velocity vs pressure advantage over the .30-30 is a definite plus.
In a strong SS action the cartridge could be loaded to its full potential, with only the strength of available brass as the limiting factor.

[felix]

Should drop the twist requirements quite a bit, Joe. We can up the velocity making a new standard go-to value, like to 2700, which would help the twist requirement even more, albeit slightly. I'd attempt a 20 twist for a nominal yardage of 200 with the 323 boolit. ... felix

[Four Fingers of Death]

Just looking at the figures, an old smelly (what we call SMLEs :) ) with a used 8mm barrel and the cases necked up would make a passable 32Special. Probably easier to chamber the gun for 32Special.

[felix]

MG, I hear you loud and clear. The standard lever gun with the 32 special is about all the recoil I can stand for an hour or two outing at the local dump. ... felix

[felix]

That would be a very good option for a rimmed case, FFoD. ... felix

[Multigunner]

Just looking at the figures, an old smelly (what we call SMLEs :) ) with a used 8mm barrel and the cases necked up would make a passable 32Special. Probably easier to chamber the gun for 32Special.

One advantage of the .32 Special chambering is that at local shooting spots just before deer season one can gather buckets full of once fired .30-30 brass that can be necked up to .32.

Various wildcat .303 rounds have been popular in Canada and Australia for generations. Only problems with these is that good quality reloadable .303 cases aren't so cheap and easy to find in the US. Any good .303 cases I have will be saved for my .303 rifles.

The 1899 Remington Lee rifles of .30-40 were offered in .32 Winchester in later years. The only real modification was a magazine blocked for the shorter cartridge.

Rebarreling No.1 Lithgow actions to .30-30 has become fairly common in Australia in recent years. The smaller case has a big enough rim that it works fine with the standard extractor and ejects okay.

Though as I said I'm leaning more towards a compact single shot in .32 sp now. I instead may barrel the lithgow for the 7.62X39 , which has also become a fairly common conversion.

[jh45gun]

Not knocking the 32 special but I guess a lot of folks felt like I do they just like the 30 WCF better for what ever reason. Which is why the thirty thirty over sold the 32 special.

[MTWeatherman]

The 30-30 and 32 Special are loaded for just about identical ballistics in the reloading books today. If you had a chrono and pressure gauge you would find out per pressure that the 32 blows the doors off the 30-30. A classic example that is similar is the 8x57 Mauser pitted against the 30-06 and here the 8mm has less powder capacity then the 06 and give the 06 a run for it's money.

Take a look at Hodgdon's online reloading data. For a 170 grain jacket and H4895 powder a load of 32.0 grains gives 2122 fsp at 30,500 psi for the 32 Special. For the 30-30 with the same weight bullet and 30.5 grains gives 2138 fps at 35,200 psi. Look at the difference in pressure. Now that's the max load for the 30-30, but the starting load for the 32. The max load for the 32 is 34.5 grains which gives 2283 fps at 36,100 psi. The 32 is more efficient.

Now take a look at the barrel lengths those loads were chronographed in. The .32 Special is a 20 inch carbine. The 30-30 is a 24 inch rifle. Put the two on a level playing field and you can cut about 50 fps from those quoted 30-30 velocities. That would give the .32 Special about a 200 fps advantage with 4895 powder.

[hydraulic]

In support of the proposition the .32 Special was made to be used with either smokeless or black powder---my Winchester 94 rifle made in 1910 came with the .32 Special rear sight which was graduated on one side for black powder and for smokeless on the other side.

[MTWeatherman]

Not knocking the 32 special but I guess a lot of folks felt like I do they just like the 30 WCF better for what ever reason. Which is why the thirty thirty over sold the 32 special.

Problem was, 30-30 appeared in 1895. .32 Special didn't show up until 7 years later so was trying to compete with an established cartridge. Same thing happened to the .280 Remington. Ballistically superior to the .270 but .270 was too well established and the .280 couldn't gain a foothold.

.32 Special did better than the .280 though...Winchester dropped the .32-40, the .38-55, and the .25-35 before they buried the .32 Special in 1973. Not too bad...she had a good run, lots of friends and lived to see 71 years of age when she died. No small amount of cast bullet shooters would like to see her resurrection.

[jh45gun]

Anyone have any statistics of numbers of 32 specials compared to the 30WCF?

[felix]

The copy I have was bought new, as I was told, in 1992. It has the cross-bolt safety which I have become to like in my older age. So, I bought a brand new out of the box 45 Colt with the cross-bolt safety. Both guns shot at the point of aim (80 yards or so) without any sight movement what-so-ever with "standard" loads, powder and boolit.
The RCBS, 170 (180) grainer, and the Lyman, 250 grainer, cowboy boolits respectively. Both guns need action smoothing, but that is all. Barrels are perfect for 120 offhand yards, out of the box. ... felix

[northmn]

The 32 special is more powerful than a 30-30 in that you have to look at actual ballistics and not published ones. A 32 special can be loaded to reach over 2200 fps with a 20 inch barrel (fairly easily) while the 30-30 does well to make over 2000 so there is a about a 200 fps difference. If you look at 30-30 data most are done out of a 26 inch test barrel. As to practical difference? The 30-30 is still around the 32 special isn't. I have read more than one source that claims that the BP load claims for the 32 special are mostly BS. Basically the 1-16 inch rifling was a tooling holdover from making the 32-40 and 32-20 as stated. In the days of the 32 special I question how important handloading was to the customer. In the brush country I grew up in I got to talk to quite a few old depression era "brushies" that made their living logging and farming and maybe even a little trapping (whatever turns a buck as they say) . Or heard stories about them. One used to carry his 32 special to the outhouse even. None reloaded, but most looked at a box of cartridges as about 18-20 deer. They were very careful about the shots they took and the rifles were guns of opportunity. They were rather casual about game laws and yet deer season was a big deal for a get together when it came around.

Northmn

[Eutectic]

Basically the 1-16 inch rifling was a tooling holdover from making the 32-40 and 32-20 as stated. Northmn

Sorry.... But some of you are asleep at the keyboard! The .32-20 is no more "common" tooling to the .32 Win Special than the .30-30 would be....

The .32-20 is actually a .31" with a .311"-.313" groove diameter and is cut with a 1 in 20" twist by Winchester. The .32 Win Special is .323"-.324" groove diameter and is cut with a 1 in 16" twist.

The .32-40 however could be the same tooling as bore/rifling dimensions are the same. Whether the barrel blanks were the same is questionable as Winchester was using different steels with higher pressure smokeless cartridges early on.

The .32-20 WCF and the .32 Win Special may both be ducks..... but they have a different "quack"!

Eutectic

[MTWeatherman]

Sorry.... But some of you are asleep at the keyboard! The .32-20 is no more "common" tooling to the .32 Win Special than the .30-30 would be....

The .32-20 is actually a .31" with a .311"-.313" groove diameter and is cut with a 1 in 20" twist by Winchester. The .32 Win Special is .323"-.324" groove diameter and is cut with a 1 in 16" twist.

Eutectic

Correct statement for the .32-20. However, not for the .32 Special. Actual groove diameter was spec'd at .320 but tolerance allowed for up to .321. Most consider them to be .321 groove diameter and that is the size of the jacketed bullets. The .323 groove is for an 8mm.

[Eutectic]

Correct statement for the .32-20. However, not for the .32 Special. Actual groove diameter was spec'd at .320 but tolerance allowed for up to .321. Most consider them to be .321 groove diameter and that is the size of the jacketed bullets. The .323 groove is for an 8mm.

MTWeatherman,

You are correct of course. Sorry to slip a little "metric" in my data....

Eutectic

[MTWeatherman]

Well…
Still don’t believe the .32 Special was developed with the black powder handlers in mind…it defies logic. As earlier pointed out, the .32 Special barrel carries the same spec’s as the .32-40s. Obviously they used the .32-40 barrel in designing it. Question is, did they use that barrel so they could satisfy the black powder crowd, or as I believe, to hold down tooling costs with the net result being black powder capability?

Indeed, as stated earlier, let’s go back to the times of introduction. In 1895 when smokeless powder had yet to be fully accepted, Winchester introduced the .25-35 and 30-30. That was the transition era when it may have made sense to introduce a “bridge” smokeless powder cartridge that was black powder compatible. Obviously, Winchester had no concern for the issue in 1895. Seven years later in 1902, smokeless powder is now proven, widely accepted, adopted by the world’s military, sportsmen are rapidly upgrading to the new high performance smokeless cartridge (witness the rapid adoption of the .30WCF), black powder is rapidly becoming obsolete and it is now the .32 Special is introduced. Why? To allow the .32-40 crowd to have a black powder rifle that will shoot commercial smokeless ammunition? To make a new cartridge available so people could handload black powder since smokeless was so unsafe? I think not. Well…OK so maybe smokeless wasn’t easily available to handloaders so maybe Winchester thought you might want to pay the added cost of a .32 Special rather than a .32-40 so you could upgrade to smokeless later. Well, then what makes you think smokeless would ever easily be available so why buy something you may never be able to fully utilize. Why not just buy a .32-40 and plan to use black powder now and smokeless when available or just get yourself a 30-30 purchase commercial ammuntion and be done with it? Maybe too many of those 30-30s were blowing up with handloaded smokeless so Winchester decided there would be a demand for a smokeless round to handle black powder since obviously they’d now want to load black instead. Flies in the face of every handloader I know. I would guess they would quit handloading, switch powders or reduce the load as they’ve always done and will continue to do. In short, in spite of Winchesters advertising, I can’t accept the fact there was much demand for a new black powder cartridge in 1902. I’d bet it was a rare .32 Special that ever saw black powder. It made no difference to most shooters- they were not handloaders. They bought their rifles for hunting performance and purchased commercial ammunition.

The .32 Special has its black powder barrel because Winchester wanted to develop their new, more powerful cartridge on the cheap. Basically they put a 30-30 chamber in a high grade .32-40 barrel to accomplish it. And why not? That .32-40 It was a proven design to the Shuetzen boys who proved it to be one of the most accurate barrel designs of the day. They were accomplishing accuracy difficult to match today…shooting groups with 200 gr. Bullets at 1300 fps out of those 16 inch twist barrels. It certainly could handle a 170 grain at 2000 fps.
However, because of that barrel the .32 Special can handle black powder. I can see the advertisers setting up. Advertise it…might be a plus to a few but say we did it for them…not us. Hell, while we’re at it, since the .32 stock sights won’t work with black powder, let’s sell an black powder sight and make a few more bucks. Now you wouldn’t expect Winchester to say the “.32 Special can handle black powder because we wanted to maximize our profits” would you? Better to say it can handle black powder to fill a demand, whether or not much existed.

The .32 Special was introduced for its power…plain and simple. Power and smokeless powder is “front loaded” in all those early ads. Black powder capabilities weren’t. If black powder capability were the overriding concern you’d see something to the effect: “Winchester is proud to introduce a new black powder cartridge that will fire more powerful smokeless powder commercial ammunition. Kind of like saying “Ruger is proud to introduce a new .44 Special handgun that will fire more powerful .44 Magnum ammunition. That’s not the way it’s done. You front load the important part…then as now, power sells. The .44 Mag can handle the .44 Special because it carries the “genes” of its parent…the .44 Special. The .32 Special can handle black powder because it carries the genes of its parent…the .32-40.

Because only Winchester truly knows the true “whyfors” of their .32 Special development, only they can answer the question and the only real statement we have from them is their evolving advertising statement. Not the best source. So, don’t think we will ever know the true answer of why they selected the .32-40 specs for the .32 Special. I believe it was convenience and cost cutting. I have no problem understanding the reasoning behind differing opinions discussed and respect those opinions. Once one forms an opinion, It’s tough to change it…true for all of us…didn’t change my opinion and doubt I changed yours. This dissertation simply offered as an explanation of mine. Indeed, figure the issue has been pretty well argued out at this point. Not to say it has been resolved. Totally expect it to reappear in some form in a future thread. The .30-30, .32 Special debate has been going since 1902. That’s 108 years and counting. That will reappear also.

However, I will editorialize a bit to say that whether or not the .32 was developed for black powder use, is really a moot point to anyone but a historian. In utilizing that .32-40 barrel, Winchester hit a home run with the .32 Special…a cartridge capable of superb accuracy…which has the versatility of firing cast bullets to jacketed performance and even utilize black powder if you wish. In spite of the rumor that 16 inch twist is too slow…no small amount of its capability is directly related to that 16 inch twist which is actually a perfect choice for the cartridge…ideal for the commonly loaded 170 grain bullets and able to handle the 200s as well…even at reduced velocity.It's my guess that if the situation had been reversed and the .32 introduced in1995 and the 30-30 in 1902, the outcome would have been reversed as well. The 30-30 would have been the one dropped. The .32 Special offers capabilites beyond the .30-30 and the .30-30 has no niche the .32 can't fill. However, as one of the first high velocity hunting rounds the .30-30 was an immediate hit and gained an immediate follwing and so the die was cast. FYI, the 30-30 has a faster twist that necessary… unless you’re planning on shooting the 220s. Bullets are actually overstabilized with most loads. If you doubt me, measure your bullets length and diameter and run them through an online twist calculator.

[jh45gun]

.It's my guess that if the situation had been reversed and the .32 introduced in1995 and the 30-30 in 1902, the outcome would have been reversed as well. The 30-30 would have been the one dropped. The .32 Special offers capabilites beyond the .30-30 and the .30-30 has no niche the .32 can't fill. However, as one of the first high velocity hunting rounds the .30-30 was an immediate hit and gained an immediate follwing and so the die was cast. FYI, the 30-30 has a faster twist that necessary… unless you’re planning on shooting the 220s. Bullets are actually overstabilized with most loads. If you doubt me, measure your bullets length and diameter and run them through an online twist calculator.

I DOUBT IT. Nice thing about the 30/30 is the faster twist barrel and the 30 caliber which allows for lots of different size bullets of various weights. Just because the 30/30 came first does not mean that is the reason that the 30/30 lives on. It lives on because folks like it. The 25/35 is obsolete too and was dropped just as the 32 special was. Here is how popular the 30/30 is. Back during WWII according to an article I just read. Farmers and Ranchers could get an allotted number of ammo with a ration card during the war. They had three choices they could get. 22LR, 12 Guage and 30/30. From what I have read the 30/30 does well with the light bullets like 113 grain all the way up to those 190 grain loads folks use with heavy cast bullets or Silvertip pulled bullets so I think the 30/30 stabilizes just fine with a variety of loads. Lets face it it does not matter what any of us think the 30/30 is alive and well and the 32 special is on the way of the DODO bird except for those that reload for it and those that still may take it out once a year hunting.

[northmn]

Personally I think the 32 special may be a "better" cartridge than the 30-30 but when you get down to the brass tacks I think it would have been better served with a heavier bullet, say 190 grains which may have been driven at 2100 or so. One of the problems on this "power" issue is that at what level does it give more power/ I have shot several deer with a 30-30 and have found it very adequate. My daughter has shot a few with one also. A 32 would not have done any better nor any other caliber. Is the extra power something that would make it better for black bear or elk? Both would require a little attention to shot placement. The extra power of the 32 special was a solution looking for a problem as it just does not show any appreciable increase. The 30-30 seems to have a catchy name or something but its stayed with us. Some make the mistake of thinking the 32 was in between the 30-06 and the 30-30. The 30 government at the time of inception was the 30-40 Krag. That is actually a very small niche to fill. The 30-30 is also darned accurate with cast bullets and very forgiving. I have used cast on the last 5 deer with great results. Because other were referring to the 32-20 I did so also without thinking. The 32-40 set records in Schutzen matchs and was a Schutzen cartridge originally.

Northmn

[jh45gun]

There may be a slight bit of more power but not that great like I said for all intents and purposes both cartridges are close enough in ballistics that no critter is going to know the difference.

[6pt-sika]

Personally I think the 32 special may be a "better" cartridge than the 30-30 . The 32-40 set records in Schutzen matchs and was a Schutzen cartridge originally.

Northmn

Very rarely do you and I even come close to agreeing . But I gotta say I agree with your opinion of the 32 Special !

And what you say about the 32-40 was the main reason I became intrested in that cartridge many years ago :wink:

[MTWeatherman]

Well the .32 Special does not increase the power of the 30-30 enough to really put it in a distinct separate niche. Indeed, more powerful but still too close to the 30-30. .30-40 Krag class would have been the next distinct niche up. Tough to justify both and the most popular won. That's marketing.

If Winchester had done things the right way...and not tried to use an existing barrel, they would have necked the 30-30 up to .35 caliber and created the .35 Winchester. That was a niche Remington was all too happy to fill with the .35 Remington.

I do believe that the primary purpose of the .32 Special was to create a more powerful cartridge for the '94. If they could have lengthed the case to create more power, I believe they would have done so...but couldn't due to feed problems. If they could have chambered it for the .30-40 Krag (too long) , I believe they may have done so. Indeed, I suspect they'd have been all too happy to take their 30-30 barrels and chamber them to .30-40 Krag. If they could have done it, there'd have been no .32 Special. They'd have kept the 30-30 and brought out the .30-40 in 1902.

Why? Because the push was on for higher performance smokeless cartridges. The .30-40 Krag had a good reputation as a powerful big game round...and Winchester was worried about the competition. I believe that since they couldn't approach the .30-40 performance in the '94, they downplayed its necessary. They were thinking about it...that's why they mentioned the 30-40 in their .32 Special ads. Best they could do was split the difference between the .30-30 and the 30-40 with the .32 Special so the ads said there was demand for more power than the .30-30 but less than the Krag and Winchester was providing it. I don't believe that statement any more than the black powder thing. Winchester would have provided a .30-40 class rifle in the '94 if they could have done so. It was a popular cartridge at the time.

Why would Winchester be obsessed with the .30-40? Well , more theory. Let's go back to 1902. Several years earlier, the 8mm '98 Mauser had absolutely blown the .30-40 Krag out of the water, both as a cartridge with it's much higher velocity and as a strong accurate rifle. So, the U.S. was in the process of developing its own high velocity military round. The '03 Springfield was well underway in development when the .32 Special was introduced in '02 although the official cartridge wasn't fine tuned until '06 when the 30'06 appeared. Winchester knew what was happening and knew that the market was about to be flooded with the higher powered surplus 30-40 Krag rifles. Winchester introduced the .32 Special to try to reduce the energy advantage it carried...it couldn't equal it but did the best it could.

Unless someone finds some internal documents from the now defunct Winchester on what the actual thinking was back in '02, we'll never know. I don't think advertising statements carry much weight...anymore than you can trust them today. Hope you don't believe all those pharmaceutical ads either. As always, they're designed to sell you a product, not supply complete information.

[jh45gun]

Well the .32 Special does not increase the power of the 30-30 enough to really put it in a distinct separate niche. Indeed, more powerful but still too close to the 30-30. .30-40 Krag class would have been the next distinct niche up. Tough to justify both and the most popular won. That's marketing.

If Winchester had done things the right way...and not tried to use an existing barrel, they would have necked the 30-30 up to .35 caliber and created the .35 Winchester. That was a niche Remington was all too happy to fill with the .35 Remington.

I do believe that the primary purpose of the .32 Special was to create a more powerful cartridge for the '94. If they could have lengthed the case to create more power, I believe they would have done so...but couldn't due to feed problems. If they could have chambered it for the .30-40 Krag (too long) , I believe they may have done so. Indeed, I suspect they'd have been all too happy to take their 30-30 barrels and chamber them to .30-40 Krag. If they could have done it, there'd have been no .32 Special. They'd have kept the 30-30 and brought out the .30-40 in 1902.

Why? Because the push was on for higher performance smokeless cartridges. The .30-40 Krag had a good reputation as a powerful big game round...and Winchester was worried about the competition. I believe that since they couldn't approach the .30-40 performance in the '94, they downplayed its necessary. They were thinking about it...that's why they mentioned the 30-40 in their .32 Special ads. Best they could do was split the difference between the .30-30 and the 30-40 with the .32 Special so the ads said there was demand for more power than the .30-30 but less than the Krag and Winchester was providing it. I don't believe that statement any more than the black powder thing. Winchester would have provided a .30-40 class rifle in the '94 if they could have done so. It was a popular cartridge at the time.

Why would Winchester be obsessed with the .30-40? Well , more theory. Let's go back to 1902. Several years earlier, the 8mm '98 Mauser had absolutely blown the .30-40 Krag out of the water, both as a cartridge with it's much higher velocity and as a strong accurate rifle. So, the U.S. was in the process of developing its own high velocity military round. The '03 Springfield was well underway in development when the .32 Special was introduced in '02 although the official cartridge wasn't fine tuned until '06 when the 30'06 appeared. Winchester knew what was happening and knew that the market was about to be flooded with the higher powered surplus 30-40 Krag rifles. Winchester introduced the .32 Special to try to reduce the energy advantage it carried...it couldn't equal it but did the best it could.

Unless someone finds some internal documents from the now defunct Winchester on what the actual thinking was back in '02, we'll never know. I don't think advertising statements carry much weight...anymore than you can trust them today. Hope you don't believe all those pharmaceutical ads either. As always, they're designed to sell you a product, not supply complete information.



Don't forget Winchester did have a medium power cartridge in the model 86 called the 33 WCF that was not that popular either and became obsolete. The 38/55 should have been more popular too. As far as the 35 Remington goes that was the only 35 that really took off to any amount. Very few Americans never cared for the 35 calibers except for that one just like they ignored the very good 6.5 calibers.

[northmn]

Very rarely do you and I even come close to agreeing . But I gotta say I agree with your opinion of the 32 Special !

And what you say about the 32-40 was the main reason I became intrested in that cartridge many years ago :wink:

Our disagreements are probably along the line traditional ML's and not so much lever guns. I go back to the old timers I knew when I was younger. For some of them a box of shells was good for up to 5 years, most probaably shot a little more, but not near to the level of today. Some of the more "powerful" cartridges may have stimulated little interst. The 300 Savage did after 1920. We do have moose in Northern MN and more than a few were shot by a 30-30 in the good old days and it was considered adequate for any of their needs. One old timer talked about shooting a calf and being treed by mama as he only put one shell in his rifle. Mostly I think the extra power was more a longer range thing as the 300 Savage definitely makes for easier hits a longer range. Probably more popular in the West. I used to see and hear about a lot of 94's with a peep site and the insert thrown away. The 94 was just a very handy rifle to have along wherever you went. All that extra power is more of a modern thing.

Northmn

[MTWeatherman]

Don't forget Winchester did have a medium power cartridge in the model 86 called the 33 WCF that was not that popular either and became obsolete. The 38/55 should have been more popular too. As far as the 35 Remington goes that was the only 35 that really took off to any amount. Very few Americans never cared for the 35 calibers except for that one just like they ignored the very good 6.5 calibers.

You're absolutely correct. .35 class rifles have never done well in the United States. Don't forget the .348 and .358 Winchesters. However, in most cases, the calibers fell by the wayside as the rifles chambering them were discontinued. The '86 Winchester, the '71, 88, and 100 Winchesters. The .38-55 died just like the .32-40 because it became obsolete with advent of smokeless powder. However, the '94 lived on and I'll bet a .35 Winchester offering would have been at least as popular as the .35 Remington(which was discontinued by Remington along with the rifle handling it. At least it would offer a distinctly separate niche from the .30-30 (more so than the .32 Special)...distincty larger caliber handling distinctly larger bullets. Don't forget, the '32 survived until 1973. Odds would be pretty good that current Marlins would be handling a .35 Winchester as opposed to the Remington for the simple reason that it would be a rimmed case like their other offerings. If so, it would to alive today along with their .30-30.

and yes...believe the U.S. missed the boat in not looking at the 6.5s closer...feel the same way about the 8mms. Believe part of it may be related to WW1 and WWll. After U.S soldiers were shot at by those metrics, think they developed an anti-metric bias. "Good old .30 caliber, now that's American". Understandable attitutude to have but doesn't change the fact that there are some very good "metrics" out there. The 8mm and 7mm Mausers are outstanding cartridges yet no commercial offerings in the U.S. I'm aware of. Closest would be the 7mm-08s similarity to that 7X57 and it had to start as a wildcat.

[Multigunner]

Well I believe WW Greener knew what he was talking about and many other contemporary sources bear out the very poor quality control of smokeless propellants available to handloaders before WW1.
It wasn't always the fault of poor manufacture, many such powders developed instability due to indifferent storage and shipping, air conditioning was still practically unheard of, and there were numerous shipping accidents due to over heated ships holds and feight cars.

One reason handloading fell out of favor among British target shooters was the danger of degraded powders. I've had my own aventures with degraded powders, of more recent vintage and theoretically far more stable than those of the turn of the century.

A very few of those old powders were remarkably stable, but these were the minority and as yet unproven.

Cordite was considered the most stable, and when properly manufactured and stored it lived up to the claim, but millions of pounds of cordite were condemned at one point due a simple manufacturing error that resulted in mercury contamination, leaving Britian with very little ammunition it could trust.
At one point government supplied .303 ammunition blew up or damaged a large number of privately owned and expensive target rifles at Bisley. There was a stink over that you can bet.
The same source quoted a London Gunmaker as saying that the majority of broken guns brought to his shops was due to cordite.

Temperature sensitivity was great with many early smokeless owders, loads worked up for hunting in winter or fall could wreck a gun in summer heat or the south western deserts.

When maximum loads were reached maximum deviations in pressure became greater, leading to the rash of cracked Krag bolts when the .30-40 government load was stepped up a mere 3,000 CUP.

The Mauser cartridges are all excellent designs, and probably were more popular in the US than most might believe, but due to pre 1898 rifles chambered for these rounds few cartridge manufacturers in the US want to load them to their full potential.
Before WW1 few American shooters considered the bolt action to be a proper sporting rifle, with sources of the day identifying it as "the Military Bolt rifle".

Smaller bore 7mm/280 high velocity cartridges had been marketed in the US and Canada early on, but the quality of propellants once again made these less efficient and safe than they would have been if marketed post WW2. The .276 British was a powerful cartridge but use of Cordite doomed it to a very short usable bore life, with massive muzzle flash.
The .30/03 using a double base powder and only a few hundred FPS greater velocity than the Krag with the same .220 grain bullet had less than half the bore life, and stripped its jackets so often that jacket removal tools were at one time standard issue in cleaning kits.

By 1916 the Dupont MR powders and the IMR powders already in the works made handloading with smokeless reasonably safe, and fairly high quality surplus powders , and over production, made such powders less expensive and easier to find.

One small advantage of the .30/.303 commercial cartridges was the availability of condemned Krag ammo as a source of cheap bullets, and sometimes usable powders, which the handloader soon learned to check for signs of degradation in storage. The ammo might not be safe for use in a Krag but only a few cartridges in any lot need be defective for the lot to be condemned, leaving the rest a reasonably safe source of components.
Condemned Krag ammo was a major source of components during the rationing of WW2. Same for old stocks of WW1 era .30/06, with bullet points filed off to produce flat nosed bullets for tube magazines.
The last is not a recommended practice, though Townsend Whelen fired thousands of such clipped bullets in .30/06 rifles with no problems.

For quite some time before WW2 .30/06 rifles were rather scarce and hard to find on the civilian market. The Bannerman cobbled together .30/06 rifles were a stop gap since production of new rifles was mostly geared towards military contracts.
Theft of US Springfield rifles became a problem for awhile, I've read a number of old documents dealing with such thefts, including breakins at armories during times of civil unrest.

[jh45gun]

You're absolutely correct. .35 class rifles have never done well in the United States. Don't forget the .348 and .358 Winchesters. However, in most cases, the calibers fell by the wayside as the rifles chambering them were discontinued. The '86 Winchester, the '71, 88, and 100 Winchesters. The .38-55 died just like the .32-40 because it became obsolete with advent of smokeless powder. However, the '94 lived on and I'll bet a .35 Winchester offering would have been at least as popular as the .35 Remington(which was discontinued by Remington along with the rifle handling it. At least it would offer a distinctly separate niche from the .30-30 (more so than the .32 Special)...distincty larger caliber handling distinctly larger bullets. Don't forget, the '32 survived until 1973. Odds would be pretty good that current Marlins would be handling a .35 Winchester as opposed to the Remington for the simple reason that it would be a rimmed case like their other offerings. If so, it would to alive today along with their .30-30.

and yes...believe the U.S. missed the boat in not looking at the 6.5s closer...feel the same way about the 8mms. Believe part of it may be related to WW1 and WWll. After U.S soldiers were shot at by those metrics, think they developed an anti-metric bias. "Good old .30 caliber, now that's American". Understandable attitutude to have but doesn't change the fact that there are some very good "metrics" out there. The 8mm and 7mm Mausers are outstanding cartridges yet no commercial offerings in the U.S. I'm aware of. Closest would be the 7mm-08s similarity to that 7X57 and it had to start as a wildcat.

I think the Model 71 and the 348 failed because it cost so much more then a 30/30 Marlin or Winchester. It was a nice lever gun. Plus just like the Model 12 it was costing Winchester too much money to make and be competitive so they dropped it. I remember back when I was a youngster most folks had Winchester Model 94s or Marlins in the groups we hunted with. A few had Savage 99's and a few had the 71's those that had the 71's usually had money.

[StarMetal]

I think the Model 71 and the 348 failed because it cost so much more then a 30/30 Marlin or Winchester. It was a nice lever gun. Plus just like the Model 12 it was costing Winchester too much money to make and be competitive so they dropped it. I remember back when I was a youngster most folks had Winchester Model 94s or Marlins in the groups we hunted with. A few had Savage 99's and a few had the 71's those that had the 71's usually had money.

It is true those rifles costs more and probably why many didn't buy them, but another reason is that in the neck of the woods I grew up in many didn't feel the need for that large and powerful of a caliber. Most hunted with 30-30's, the 99 Savages, the Model 14 Remington, Mosin Nagants, and 98 Mausers....lots with the 32 Special. Those that couldn't afford a rifle used their shotguns with slugs.

[Multigunner]

Another possible reason for the .30-30 being more popular that the .32 Special was the very common practice of using auxillary chambers to fire .32 SW cartridges in .30 caliber rifles for small game hunting.
The only pistol cartridges with .321 bullets were the 8mm Lebel and similar European military revolvers.

Also cat sneeze loads using no.1 buckshot were very common for killing rats and birds around the farms, I've read of this practice using the .303 and .30-40 Krag, and the .30-30 would be suited to it as well.
It was common to break down old swollen 16 gauge buckshot shells, No.1 shot being the largest I could find for my 16 gauge when I had one, and using a pinch of the shot shell powder and a no.1 shot to pop rats and such without scaring the livestock. One cost saving measure was to knock out a fired berdan primer, knock flat the firing pin impression, and place a couple of cut out dots from cap buster roll caps in the cup then reseat it. The same could be done with a boxer primer, though the anvil would need to be re inserted as well.

[MTWeatherman]

I think the Model 71 and the 348 failed because it cost so much more then a 30/30 Marlin or Winchester. It was a nice lever gun. Plus just like the Model 12 it was costing Winchester too much money to make and be competitive so they dropped it. I remember back when I was a youngster most folks had Winchester Model 94s or Marlins in the groups we hunted with. A few had Savage 99's and a few had the 71's those that had the 71's usually had money.

Yep...money is definitely part of the equation. Success of the 30-30 (and .32 Special) is very much tied to the '94 Winchester...a well balanced, fast operating, compact rifle which was offered at relatively low cost.

Winchester did have a lever that was able to handle the higher powered smokeless cartridges of the late 19th and early 20th century...the 1895. It also had the advantage of a box magazine allowing it to use spitzer bullets. It was offered in .30-40 Krag and eventually, the 30'06. In .the 405, it was Teddy Roosevelts favorite and he used it to take about every animal you can name in Africa.

However, the 1895 was a "rich man's rifle". It was expensive...too expensive to gain a major market foothold so disappeared like the '71. It must have been frustrating to Winchester to realize that if they could mate .30-40 Krag performance to the '94 they would have another hit on their hands...with acceptance possibly approaching their 30-30 for the big game western hunters. For reasons discussed in my earlier post they couldn't do it...but I believe the .32 Special represented their best effort.

[Multigunner]

A .30-40 with a flat nosed bullet would have been fine in a tublar magazine lever gun, sort of like the .307 adapation of the .308 to lever guns.
A limiting factor for the Model 94 is its relatively weak extraction. The larger diameter the cartridge case the more it grips the chamber walls when expanded. The narrow .30-30 and .32 Special cases at moderate pressure levels along with the lug spring back which slightly loosens the fired case, made functioning no problem. A higher pressure cartridge or cartridge of the same pressure range using a wider case body would be more difficult to extract, a problem noted by some .375 owners and one which limits the maximum performance of this round in a Winchester lever action.

I understand some Model 94's have a cut out over the extractor to allow the shooter to press down on the extractor with his thumb while extracting a sticky case.

The .30-06 Model 95 worked fine with WW1 era 1906 ball at 150 gr bullet and 2700 fps, but when owners later used M1 ball and sporting loads at the same pressure levels they found that headspace began to increase. A 5,000 or so increase in CUP made the difference.
Some who have bought the repro Model 95 in .30-06 have reported similar problems despite theorectically better metalurgy and heat treatment. Others seem to have had no headspace problems with their repros. 50,000 CUP seems to be just within the limits of the design, with 55,000 CUP being on the edge, with some rifles holding up while others made the same day do not.
I wouldn't mind having a .30-40 0r .303 Br Model 95 but if I had a .30-06 chambered 95 I'd be very careful of the pressure levels I subjected it to.

PS some years back I watched a documentary on Russian black market arms dealers. A police survelance tape showed some dealers unloading a truck full of Winchester model 95 muskets in 7.62X54r. These rifles had proven to be too sensitive to mud to be used as frontline rifles in WW1, but many had been given to Partizans in WW2, and lost or stolen Model 95's show up now and then over there even today. It would be great if a few thousands were to show up on the market at a reasonable price.

[StarMetal]

The lever rifle Winchester should have kept making was the Model 88.

[jh45gun]

The lever rifle Winchester should have kept making was the Model 88.

Maybe along with the 100 if they would have made A BETTER TRIGGER SYSTEM. That is the biggest complaint I have heard with these two guns.

[Newtire]

I think I mentioned it before. Michael shipped me one of the prototypes of his RD 32-170 for testing early on. It had some dimension issues with the GC diameter, but usable. I later bought one of the production run. Good boolit. The prototype is now a PLAIN BASE! I tried some reduced charge plinking loads, Begorrah!

I was going to say something about the gas check dimension thing but didn't. I just bought one of the .32 special's and the shank is too large. Seating the gascheck is really a bear. I had the same issue with the .30 caliber. I like the design but would like a better fit of the gascheck.

[Multigunner]

The prototype is now a PLAIN BASE! I tried some reduced charge plinking loads, Begorrah!
I've been planning to try a plain base bullet with a over the charge card wad, and work the loads up till I find its maximum velocity before problems set in.

The false muzzle .32-40 with plain base and the card wad used to seal the blank propellant cartridge worked great, so a similar loading in a case should work okay.

I've looked up bullet base damage photos in works on forensics and found some pretty good information there. Mostly with open base FMJ bullets rather than cast though.
The dimpling of open bases of recovered 9mm FMJ Bullets suggest that still intact grains of powder impact a lead base at fairly high velocity etching away material or at least leaving a roughened surface. With no jacket this roughening should extend to the edges of the base as well, promoting deformation of the base to allow blowby near the muzzle if pressures remain high enough.
A card wad should absorb this sort of impact as well as insulate the lead from heat of propellant gases, probably better than a gas check which would allow heat transfer.

Whether there would be any "patch slap" such as is observed with patched round balls is hard to say.

Propellants usually generate less oxygen than they consume, so card wads aren't burned up in the normal order of events.

I'm not too keen on adding fillers such as cream of wheat. In reduced loads in the 7.92x57 I used to place a tuft of dacron over the charge, and keep the loaded rounds base down till just before firing. I've also used a disc of cigarette paper over the reduced charge in both the 7.92 and cat sneeze .38 Special loads. The paper likely burned up before reaching the end of the barrel, never saw any sign that it exited anyway.

A over the charge card would also help prevent heat softened lubes from contaminating the charge.

Any recommendations on card materials?
Or experiances with card wads.

I may try this with my .303 , since the .32 Special is still in the offing.

[w30wcf]

Multigunner,
In this book http://www.amazon.com/Black-Powder-Old-West-Cap-N-Ball/dp/097263830X#noop there is an article entitled "Loading The .32 Winchester Special With Black Powder" by Kenny Durham. He used the SAECO #632 165gr. flat nosed plain based bullet over a Walters .03" fiber wad.

His best group came with 43.0 grs. of Swiss 1 1/2 FG which produced 1,441 f.p.s. and a 100 yard 5 shot group of 4" wide X 2" high. 4 of the 5 shots were in about 2 1/2".

The second best b.p. group came with Elephant FFG (obsolete now) which grouped 4 1/2" wide by 2 3/4" high. Velocity was 1,341 f.p.s. and the bullet holes show some scuffing on the target......signs of a marginally stable bullet.

Goex b.p. was also tried but apparently gave worse groups since he did not comment on them.

He also tried some Pyrodex RS and that produced 4"x5" groups at 1,481 f.p.s.

He was using the factory open sights for the testing and commented that a receiver or tang sight would tighten the groups some.

Interestingly, Winchester's claim of 1,383 f.p.s. with b.p. is the exact same velocity that they show for the .32-40 which would indicate that they most likely never shot the .32 W.S. with b.p.

I have shot the .30-30 with b.p. and IF I use Swiss, I can replicate his results with the .32 W.S. (My rifle does have a tang sight on it though....)

Have fun!
w30wcf