Titan ReloadingInline FabricationLoad DataRepackbox
MidSouth Shooters SupplyLee PrecisionReloading EverythingRotoMetals2
Wideners
Page 36 of 38 FirstFirst ... 26272829303132333435363738 LastLast
Results 701 to 720 of 750

Thread: The .32 S&W Long as a man-stopper

  1. #701
    Boolit Grand Master
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Central VA
    Posts
    5,513
    Dacula, it sounds like you married into a very interesting family… the kind we enjoy talking about after statutes of limitations have run! When I mentioned studying my family tree to my maternal grandfather, he suggested that I would find horse thieves hanging from the branches. Although while living, outlaws can be a problem in the family, as long gone ancestors they add interest to the family history.

    BTW, there is a county in SW VA that still proudly proclaims itself “Moonshine Capitol of America” so your in-laws were probably part of an old and highly regarded tradition.

    Back to the point of this forum, I enthusiastically suggest casting and reloading for the 32s. This is a great caliber to start on. It tends to be one I like to load for relaxation.

    Froggie

    PS Your Colt would require more details to identify. It’s too small to be a New Service Model, and I’m thinking it may be what was called the Official Police, or perhaps Police Positive, with the caliber being designated as Colt New Police which except for a slightly different bullet nose is identical to the 32 S&W Long. One set of reloading tools will work for both.
    Last edited by Green Frog; 01-28-2022 at 10:58 AM.
    "It aint easy being green!"

  2. #702
    Boolit Mold
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3
    Frog,

    There are two next to each other, Patrick and Henry counties in VA. Those are the moonshine capital of the world. Or so they say. Totally the Hatfields and the McCoys! That's where they're from!

    Everybody has mason jars of white lightning or peach brandy, btw. Great for heading off head colds.

    It's a New Police, I can see it from the picture. I gave it to my best friend and his dad refinished it, it looks so much better than it did when I had it...

  3. #703
    Boolit Master

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Washington County, NY
    Posts
    921
    Quote Originally Posted by Green Frog View Post
    Although we’re supposed to be talking about the 32 S&W Long here, in the reloader realm I really don’t see that much difference between it and the 32 H&R. One of my great regrets is not getting one of the 4” adjustable sighted stainless Model 631 when Smith was making them... I just didn’t find out about them until they were discontinued and the prices keep climbing faster than my disposable income.

    Froggie

    I just auction bought a 1969/1970ish 31-1 4” in .32 S&W long. Not that cheap,.....a shill bidder stepped in on the last day. I did some looking around on the site and saw this shill bidding up the seller’s wares on about five recent guns and winning none. The shill was also a FFL with an address 23 miles from the seller. I don’t believe in coincidences.

    I had decided to stop bidding but my last $25 I increased must have got to their let her ride point. It ran it up at least another $150 over where the other bidders were out.


    It should have been under 400 the way it was running without the shill.


    Anyways I am looking for components and dies. Brass and bullets and or a mold. Things are still pretty tight on this caliber.

    Any preferred dies? I normall buy redding, rcbs, or Hornady but might try my first Lee carbide set. I have reloaded since the 80’s and never bought a lee set.

    I might buy some Buffalo Bore loads just to have something to try and reload with.

    Anyone know what brass they use?
    Last edited by Lance Boyle; 05-03-2022 at 09:34 AM.

  4. #704
    Boolit Grand Master
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Central VA
    Posts
    5,513
    Lance,
    Congrats on your new acquisition. Sorry the shill was able to successfully run it up on you like that though. Loading for it is pretty straightforward. I have or have used in the past die sets from Lee, Lyman, and RCBS, all with success and satisfaction. Currently I have RCBS dies on my Dillon and Lyman dies on my All American turret press (cranked up high for 327 FM).
    I start any testing of a new-to-me 32 S&W Long with bullets in the 95-105 grain range (SWC) and a light to moderate charge of Bullseye or 231. Brass seems to last forever like that. I still like the original Ideal mould for 32-20, the old 3118 (now 311008) at about 116-118 grains in the Long cartridge if I want a little more punch.

    Froggie
    "It aint easy being green!"

  5. #705
    Boolit Master

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Washington County, NY
    Posts
    921
    Thank you!

    I just got done ordering my .32 starter kit.

    Hornady Nitride 3 die set, the were only a few bucks more than the Lee Carbide.
    A bunch of .312 95 grain cast performance bullets
    some MTM ammo boxes
    high spender Lapua brass, I am lol’ing at that for this project. I did check with John at GI Brass who was quick to get back to me. He had some mixed headstamp brass for $32/100 or new PMC for $50/100. Mixed isn’t in my comfort zone even for pistol. The Lapua was cheaper than the PMC. The part I am laughing about is I seldom buy Lapua even for my custom heavy barrel long distance rifles! I can be frugal!

    I have some bullseye,W231, CFE Pistol, WST, even Unique and 2400 and some choices of SPP primers already. I can get started anyways. I have no idea what the cylinder throats have for diameter yet.


    New project in the works.

  6. #706
    Boolit Buddy
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NH
    Posts
    237
    Check the throats on the S&W. May or may not be suitable to use the 0.312" cast bullets. In my experience, the 32s tend to be all over the map with regards to throat dimensions. But, I have to admit that I never have checked a S&W!

  7. #707
    Boolit Grand Master
    Mk42gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Butler, MO
    Posts
    9,020
    The RCBS 32-098-SWC seems to be a decent mold for both the .32 S&W Long and the .32 H&R Magnum. Both of mine drop a skosh more than .314" so they get ran through either a .314 or .313" sizer.

    You may get lucky and have the .312" work, but it seems like all my S&W .32s have .313"+ throats.

    Red Dot works well for the little cartridge too. Truthfully, I think almost any powder faster than Unique can be made to work.

    I too wish I had bought one or more of the 4" Model 631's when they were being made.

    Robert

  8. #708
    Boolit Grand Master
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Central VA
    Posts
    5,513
    I size everything to .313” for consistency’s sake. It’s the limiting factor for my recreated K32’s throats. Most of my moulds are just kissed or evened out by the 313 size die so it’s all good.

    People talk about how easily they can find a load for their 38 Spls, but I find the 32 S&W Long to be just as versatile and forgiving. I really haven’t experimented with the H&R or the Fed Mag enough to make the same blanket statement about them, but am confident they will continue to please.

    Froggie
    "It aint easy being green!"

  9. #709
    Boolit Master

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Washington County, NY
    Posts
    921
    Now I feel like a dummy ordering them before measuring. Eagerness.

    I also should have ordered an extra seater or crimp die to split the functions.

  10. #710
    Boolit Master

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Washington County, NY
    Posts
    921
    My ideal is a 4” model 16 in .32 H&R. Or perhaps a S&W 616 stainless. I think I made that one up!

    A lever gun in .327 to play with it would be fun. Would prefer a .32 H&R there too but I am about 20 years or $2k short there.

  11. #711
    Boolit Grand Master
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Central VA
    Posts
    5,513
    Never fear, Lee sells a “Factory Crimp Die” that will take care of the final step for you. I have one on my Dillon and another on my All American.
    "It aint easy being green!"

  12. #712
    Boolit Grand Master
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Central VA
    Posts
    5,513
    You can still buy a Model 16-4 with 4” barrel… just bring your check book! They are out there.

    OTOH, the semi-mythical Project 616 will require that you find the parts and have one built for yourself. I guess one of them may have changed hands, but I don’t know about it. Mine is definitely not for sale. You can gather up a Model 66 and a 6 shot cylinder and 4” barrel from a 617 and take them with a pocketful of money to Andy Horvath. The current wait is about a year.

    Froggie
    "It aint easy being green!"

  13. #713
    Boolit Buddy
    Join Date
    Jan 2021
    Posts
    178
    I happen to like the 30 caliber pistols, maybe not as manstoppers but they sure would do in a pinch. Handgun wise I've a 1905 4th change 32-20, S&W 31 32 Long (the blued photo, keeping with the threads title), a S&W 631 32 Magnum (silver photo) as well as a Ruger Single Six 32 H&R, and the full sized Ruger Blackhawk in 327 Federal. Somewhere in the late 1980's I ordered a S&W model 16 with a 4 inch barrel for Silhouette shooting. It was to much gun for the round. That full lugged barrel seemed to over whelm the little 32 H&R. Somewhat similar to the full sized Blackhawk 327 compared to the 32 H&R Single Six. The 32's are better in the smaller framed pistols. At least for field work. If I'd known Ruger was going to open the Single Six's frame and chamber it as a Single Seven I would have waited for the smaller pistol.

  14. #714
    Boolit Mold
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    27
    I've found 40:1 alloy is a pretty good expander at 32 SWL velocities.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails IMG_7047.jpg  

  15. #715
    Boolit Buddy
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Powder Point Bridge
    Posts
    474
    Quote Originally Posted by Kuduking View Post
    I've found 40:1 alloy is a pretty good expander at 32 SWL velocities.
    Interesting data and well-presented. Thanks.

    Here are some thoughts:

    1) In my (limited) experience, I've had to reduce the measured penetration in my batch of C-B gel by about 20% to match the predictions of the mathematical models (MacPherson and/or Schwartz) for penetration in "real" 10% ordnance gelatin. That seems to hold, more or less, for your data shown. The best example would be the nicely "mushroomed" bullet in the middle where the models predict about 8" of penetration compared to the 10" measured in C-B gel.

    2) For the red round nose bullet, the models predict about 23" of penetration. So, that bullet must have "tumbled" in the C-B gel.

    3) The two 116 grainers are interesting. The penetration predictions of the models depend (in some cases critically) on the nose shape of the bullets. But those flat-tops don't exactly match the classic "mushroom" shape of an expanded JHP or the perfectly flat shape of a cylindrical wadcutter. As a "mushroom," the models predict about 19" for the 0.39" bullet in "real" gelatin -- so, maybe about 2 feet in C-B gel. That ain't right! But modeled as a cylinder, the predicted 13" in "real" gelatin compares favorably with the 15" measured in the C-B gel. In other words, that bullet penetrated like a WC and not like a JHP.

    4) On the other hand, the bullet on the far right matches the predicted 9" for a JHP better than it does the 7" prediction for a WC. My guess is that the top of that bullet has a bit more radius to it than the 0.39" bullet.

    5) The 96 grain FN bullet that was not recovered has a predicted penetration of about 29" modeled as a truncated cone. With the 0.8 conversion factor, that would be about 36" in C-B gel. Close enough for government work.
    "Totalitarianism demands, in fact, the continuous alteration of the past, and in the long run probably demands a disbelief in the very existence of objective truth.” --George Orwell

  16. #716
    Boolit Mold
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    27
    Well... I don't give much credence to theoretical models when dealing with topics like terminal ballistics. The formulation of these models consist of large doses of incomplete and highly individualized data, a limited data set of observations, and the assumptions of the creator. There have been many of these models over the years. They have value, but also their own set of absurdities, so much so that to rely on any single one of them is probably not advisable.

    Internal and external ballistics results - velocity, pressure, trajectory, wind deflection, etc - have relatively reliable predictions from theoretical models, as the physics involved are more amenable to mathematical solutions. Although, those who shoot rifles at long distances, would tell you that the models are not completely precise either.

    When dealing with terminal ballistics, theory and practice more often that not, differ significantly. The many variables that exist defy exacting results: specific test media (type, composition, consistency, test conditions), barrel twist rate (bullet rotation and yaw), exact bullet composition, variablity and shape, and most significantly - the reaction of the living target. Just to name a few.

    It's akin to testing the same ammunition out of the same box in two otherwise "identical" firearms, and being surprised the velocities obtained are not identical. And that testing is subject only to the factors of interior and exterior ballistics, and not adding all the variables of terminal ballistics.

    Having been involved and familiar with terminal ballistic testing in LE for many many moons, the results obtained are often enough not consistent with actual performance in the intended medium - mammalian tissue. Sometimes yes, other times not. The FBI has tested hundreds of samples of ammunition over the years. A large number of loads - from the same manufacturer with identical bullet, nearly identical velocities in the same test firearm - gave differing results. The theoretical models don't hold up well in actual testing of every load.

    While what I posted above is a basis of comparison in known media, and has validity to that extent, taking any such results - or theoretical models - as gospel, isn't an approach I find to be realistic. The practice I follow is to also consider, to the extent it exists, other results. This includes hunting performance, alternative test media, anecdotal reports, and shooting reports.

    Of course these other "tests" have their own biases and flaws, which need to be considered:

    Eg. Shooting bullets into water. Water is an inelastic and largely uncompressable media, which grossly overstates the expansion characteristics of a bullet. My eyes glaze over when I see these as "test results". Fun to watch depending on the container, but totally irrelevant, unless shooting water jugs is your goal.

    Eg. Compilation of shooting incidents. This includes individual hunting stories, shooting incident databases, "one-shot stop" tables (LOL), war stories, and associated subjective tales. The variables involved are vast, and the views of the participants almost entirely subjective. The data collected is usually painfully limited. If the data set spans thousands of users, with an identical load and firearm, over a period of decades or more (like .45 ACP 230 Ball in an M1911), you could draw some conclusions. Data sets short of that, require some very careful parsing of the source, and the author. Entertaining reading, that has sold stacks of books and magazines.

    Eg. Ordinance gelatin testing. This type of testing is an excellent basis for comparison. But it in no way reliably predicts actual results. The number of disconnects between great gelatin rounds and subsequent actual performance is quite large. Not in every case, for sure, but in enough to say this testing protocol was not delivered on tablets from the Mount. In one notable incident - of many such incidents - local police shot an offender multiple times with a .40 round which at the time was the FBI duty load (I imagine that is why that PD selected it). The recovered bullets could have been reloaded and fired again - no expansion. Yet the ballistic testing was spectacular! Doesn't mean that bullet would not perform as tested in another shooting event - there is simply no 100% accurate prediction. Yet... there are as many "true believers" in this methodology, as in the "folklore" fold.

    There are many more examples of the variability of terminal ballistics results. As a science it is a field of considerable unknowns, and many inconsistencies. I get a good chuckle when I read the strident comments of those that reject any round that doesn't meet some closely-held belief and/or widely-disseminated "standard" (which when examined in its context doesn't apply to 99% of the people espousing it).

    In my LE career I variously carried heavy loads in .38 Special +P, .357 Magnum, .45 ACP and .40 Auto. They were appropriate for the jobs I was doing at the time. They were accurate and powerful at 50 yards, could hit a man-sized target at 100 yards if you had to, were able to shoot through the types of barriers that armed resisting felons often took over behind, struck a heavy blow against such violent offenders that were accustomed to fighting the police and were prepared to be shot, and of course were completely reliable.

    Now that I'm retired, the need to pack large heavy iron, and festoon myself with copious spare ammo, and a BUG, simply doesn't exist. That's not my job anymore - and it's not most people's job either. The .45 calibre is a fine home defense gun, the .357 comes hunting with me, and .40 rests comfortably retired. When I'm out and about, a .38 +P, .32 Auto or new .30 SC is plenty of gun. If I'm traveling, the 9mm is a universal calibre these days, and if I need a "bigger gun" for some reason, I like the Super 38.

    If forced to rely only on .38 S&W Long, I'd be happy as clam, and not give it a second thought. YMMV.
    Last edited by Kuduking; 05-13-2022 at 05:31 PM. Reason: spellcheck

  17. #717
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    760
    So fun to reread as well as the new converts to the .32.

  18. #718
    Boolit Grand Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Lincoln, Nebraska
    Posts
    6,063
    Sooo…anyone have any experience with the recent 32 Charter Arms lightweight. I’m having thoughts of being the beta tester for a very soon in the future concealed carrier with modest skills. I mean the aluminum one.

    So yes re evaluating the 32 Long as a manstopper. I would load mostly Longs in the H and R chamber. Not going for stunning velocities here.

  19. #719
    Boolit Grand Master
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Central VA
    Posts
    5,513
    Your post was a little disjointed there, 35. If I read it correctly, you are asking about an aluminum alloy frame Charter Arms revolver in 32 H&R. Your plan is to examine whether it will be suitable for concealed carry for a third party, who will mostly carry it loaded with 32 S&W Longs. Does that about sum it up?

    If I interpret it correctly, this sounds like a good plan. I would quickly suggest that high performance factory loads be used for carry while high quality reloads be used for practice, starting with mild target loads in deference to the intended user’s “modest skills”. An outstanding but still relatively mild recoiling factory load that I really like in my “little guns” is the 32 S&W L JHP sold by Georgia Arms at what is (these days at least) a reasonable price. For starting reloads at target levels I like 95-105 gr SWCs behind 2.2-2.5 gr of Bullseye or an equivalent load of HP38. Then as your friend’s skill and confidence increase, more powerful loads can be used. I wouldn’t go to full house loads for even the 32 H&R magnum-wannabe for routine use in that alloy frame, but would feel good about carrying a cylinder full of them and occasionally running them through as part of my practice regimen.

    Please be sure to keep us informed on how your “beta test” of the little CA revolver works out and what the end user does with it long term.

    Regards,
    Froggie
    "It aint easy being green!"

  20. #720
    Boolit Grand Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Lincoln, Nebraska
    Posts
    6,063
    That’s pretty much it.

    Have been a very avid reloader of the 32 Long for some time now. Have tested and shot a great many loads some detailed here and elsewhere. Not looking to replicate 38 recoil in a 12 ounce gun, but rather stay in the range of a 98 wadcutter at 660 to 700 or so. More is not helpful for this person having tried before and I want her to hit with a gun she will actually carry. Malfunction clearance drills are not possible at her level of interest so small autoloaders are out.

    Her level of interest is not such that she will “graduate” to higher levels of power and recoil. She just isn’t that type, despite what we might wish otherwise.

    Some people are just that way. Not enthusiasts surely.

Page 36 of 38 FirstFirst ... 26272829303132333435363738 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Abbreviations used in Reloading

BP Bronze Point IMR Improved Military Rifle PTD Pointed
BR Bench Rest M Magnum RN Round Nose
BT Boat Tail PL Power-Lokt SP Soft Point
C Compressed Charge PR Primer SPCL Soft Point "Core-Lokt"
HP Hollow Point PSPCL Pointed Soft Point "Core Lokt" C.O.L. Cartridge Overall Length
PSP Pointed Soft Point Spz Spitzer Point SBT Spitzer Boat Tail
LRN Lead Round Nose LWC Lead Wad Cutter LSWC Lead Semi Wad Cutter
GC Gas Check