32 H&R Magnum Chrono Results

[billmc2]

Last week I posted my results of 32 S&W Long using the Load data from the Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook 4th Edition. You can find that thread here: https://castboolits.gunloads.com/sho...Chrono-Results

When reading Lyman's book I noticed that the powder charges for the Saeco #326 100 gr semi-wadcutter, using Accurate No 5, was the same for 32 S&W Long and 32 H&R Mag. The book shows different, higher velocities in the 32 Mag. Noted they used a 4" revolver for the S&W testing and used a 5" Universal Receiver for 32 Mag.

I could not understand how using a larger case volume with the same powder charge would give higher velocities. So I wrote to Lyman and asked. This was the conversation

I have a copy of the Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook, 4th Edition which I assume is the 10th printing.

I am relatively new to hand loading and I've just gotten my first bullet mold in 32 caliber. I was looking at two loads you have listed and I’ve encountered something I do not understand and were hoping you could explain them to me. These are loads for the 32 S&W Long and the 32 H&R Magnum. They are on pages 239 and 241. Both of these loads are using the Saeco #326 mold. Both loads use Accurate #5 powder.

For the 32 S&W Long you show a starting load of 3.1 grains of powder with a starting velocity of 627 feet per second. The maximum load is shown to be 3.6 grains of powder with a velocity of 733 feet per second.

The 32 H&R Magnum shows a starting load of 3.1 gr with a starting velocity of 821 ft/sec. The max load is shown to be 3.6 gr with a velocity of 893 ft/sec. This load is also show to be the most accurate.

Aside from the case length, I do not see any difference between these two loads. I would expect to see the 32 H&R Magnum to have greater powder charges to achieve greater velocities. With the lesser case volume of the 32 S&W Long, I would expect higher pressures for the same charge, thus creating higher velocities.

While not exactly the same, I notice a similar condition when using Titegroup powder. For the 32 S&W Long the starting and max powder charges are 1.8 gr @ 628 ft/sec and max 2.1 @ 742 ft/sec. The 32 H&R Magnum is shown to be starting 1.9 gr at 815 ft/sec and max 2.2 gr at 892 ft/sec. Will 0.1 gr of powder in a larger case really cause almost 200 ft/sec difference at the starting charge value?

I’ve been discussing these loads on the Stopping Power web forum. Folks there can’t explain these differences to me. Someone suggested that there might be a misprint in the handbook. Can you please confirm that the published loads are correct and, if so, explain what happens that causes the same powder charges producing different results between cartridges?

Thanks for your help.
Bill


Hello William,



We agree that the velocities do look a little odd, but we confirmed that these were the correct numbers received during testing. There are a couple of factors that came into play however. One, was that the barrel on the 32 H&R was 1” longer than the 32 S&W. A larger factor however is that our 32 H&R test barrel does not have a cylinder gap were as the S&W revolver used in the 32 S&W data does. A barrel with no cylinder gap will maintain pressure longer and produce higher velocities. We will make a note on this however and recheck the data when we’re able.

Best Regards,

Customer Service

Lyman Products / Raytech Industries

475 Smith Street, Middletown, CT 06457

Phone: 800-225-9626

Email: Customerservice@Lymanproducts.com

I've just finished measuring my 32 Mag loads. This was a Brass Arsenal Mold .32 98 Gr SWC Keith. I powder coated using Powder By The Pound. These were fired from a Charter Arms Undercoverette with 2" barrel. Starline brass. Accurate No 5 powder. CCI 500 primer. Load data was from the Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook, 4th Edition; Saeco #326 100 gr. ProChrono chronograph.

I cast the bullets used in the 32 S&W test and the 32 Mag test at the same time. The powder and primers came from the same packaging in both cases. As I expected the 32 Mag loads did not show higher velocities compared to 32 S&W. I used the same revolver for both measurements.

These are my results:



Name: 32 H&R Mag 3.6 gr Accurate No 5
Notes: Arsenal Mold 98 grain LSWC Charter Arms Undercoverette 2 inch
Shots: 6
Average: 723 ft/s
SD: 10 ft/s
Min: 707 ft/s
Max: 733 ft/s
Spread: 26 ft/s
Power Factor Average: 70
Power Factor Low: 69
Power Factor High: 71
Barometric Pressure: 30.3 in Hg
Temperature: 58F
Weight: 98 gr.
Powder : 3.6 gr Accurate No 5
Primer : CCI 500
Bullet : Arsenal Mold 32 cal 98 gr Keith
C.O.L.: 1.400”
Trim to Length : 1.065”

Name: 32 H&R Mag 3.5 gr Accurate No 5
Notes: Arsenal Mold 98 gr LSWC Charter Arms Undercoverette 2 inch
Shots: 6
Average: 726 ft/s
SD: 15 ft/s
Min: 701 ft/s
Max: 753 ft/s
Spread: 52 ft/s
Power Factor Average: 71
Power Factor Low: 68
Power Factor High: 73
Barometric Pressure: 30.3 in Hg
Temperature: 58F
Weight: 98 gr.
Powder : 3.5 gr Accurate No 5
Primer : CCI 500
Bullet : Arsenal Mold 32 cal 98 gr Keith
C.O.L.: 1.400”
Trim to Length : 1.065”

Name: 32 H&R Mag 3.4 gr Accurate No 5
Notes: Arsenal Mold 98 gr LSWC Charter Arms Undercoverette 2 inch
Shots: 6
Average: 695 ft/s
SD: 7 ft/s
Min: 690 ft/s
Max: 707 ft/s
Spread: 17 ft/s
Power Factor Average: 68
Power Factor Low: 67
Power Factor High: 69
Barometric Pressure: 30.3 in Hg
Temperature: 59F
Weight: 98 gr.
Powder : 3.4 gr Accurate No 5
Primer : CCI 500
Bullet : Arsenal Mold 32 cal 98 gr Keith
C.O.L.: 1.400”
Trim to Length : 1.065”

Name: 32 H&R Mag 3.3 gr Accurate No 5
Notes: Arsenal Mold 98 gr LSWC Charter Arms Undercoverette 2 inch
Shots: 5
Average: 660 ft/s
SD: 5 ft/s
Min: 652 ft/s
Max: 666 ft/s
Spread: 14 ft/s
Power Factor Average: 64
Power Factor Low: 63
Power Factor High: 65
Barometric Pressure: 30.3 in Hg
Temperature: 59F
Weight: 98 gr.
Powder : 3.3 gr Accurate No 5
Primer : CCI 500
Bullet : Arsenal Mold 32 cal 98 gr Keith
C.O.L.: 1.400”
Trim to Length : 1.065”

Name: 32 H&R Mag 3.2 gr Accurate No 5
Notes: Arsenal Mold 98 gr LSWC Charter Arms Undercoverette 2 inch
Shots: 6
Average: 643 ft/s
SD: 10 ft/s
Min: 628 ft/s
Max: 657 ft/s
Spread: 29 ft/s
Power Factor Average: 63
Power Factor Low: 61
Power Factor High: 64
Barometric Pressure: 30.3 in Hg
Temperature: 59F
Weight: 98 gr.
Powder : 3.2 gr Accurate No 5
Primer : CCI 500
Bullet : Arsenal Mold 32 cal 98 gr Keith
C.O.L.: 1.400”
Trim to Length : 1.065”

Name: 32 H&R Mag 3.1 gr Accurate No 5
Notes: Arsenal Mold 98 gr LSWC Charter Arms Undercoverette 2 inch
Shots: 5
Average: 650 ft/s
SD: 11 ft/s
Min: 638 ft/s
Max: 671 ft/s
Spread: 33 ft/s
Power Factor Average: 63
Power Factor Low: 62
Power Factor High: 65
Barometric Pressure: 30.3 in Hg
Temperature: 59F
Weight: 98 gr.
Powder : 3.1 gr Accurate No 5
Primer : CCI 500
Bullet : Arsenal Mold 32 cal 98 gr Keith
C.O.L.: 1.140”
Trim to Length : 1.065”

[P Flados]

FYI,

I ran a table of loads though Quickload. Note that Quickload barrel length is muzzle to breech, so I used 3.5". For revolvers I also subtract 50 fps from the predicted speeds for cylinder gap loss. Your results are quicker than expected.

Cartridge          : .32 H&R Magnum
Bullet             : .311, 98 gr x 0.60” Long
Seating Depth      : .267 inch 
Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 1.400 inch = 35.56 mm
Barrel Length      : 3.5 inch = 88.9 mm
Powder             : Accurate No.5

Step    Fill. Charge   Vel.  Energy   Pmax   Pmuz  Prop.Burnt B_Time
 %       %    Grains   fps   ft.lbs    psi    psi      %        ms

-23.8   30     3.20    611      81    7070   3475     59.3    0.801
-21.4   31     3.30    629      86    7473   3655     60.5    0.781
-19.0   32     3.40    646      91    7891   3838     61.7    0.762
-16.7   33     3.50    663      96    8324   4025     63.0    0.744
-14.3   34     3.60    681     101    8773   4214     64.2    0.726

[billmc2]

P Flados, thank you for taking the time to do that.
I think the reason I had higher velocities is due to still learning how to correctly crimp the cartridges. I think I may have had to much of a crimp on those. I've changed my method of doing it, but I haven't had a chance to run some more through the chronograph yet.

My complaint is with Lyman and what they've published in their Cast Bullet Handbook, 4th Ed. For the Accurate N0 5 powder, Lyman uses the same charge weights for both 32 S&W Long and 32 H&R Mag. They claim higher velocities for the 32 Mag even though the case is larger and the charge is the same. Your results align more with Lyman's results for 32 S&W Long.

oldbear1950, I think, had a similar complaint as I do. Using the same bullet, the Saeco #326 and Bullseye, for the 32 S&W Long they have a starting charge of 2.1 gr and a velocity of 628 fps; max charge of 2.4 gr with 730 fps. Looking to the 32 H&R Mag, they show a starting charge of 1.8 gr with a velocity of 792 fps and a max charge of 2.1 gr at 878 fps.

I realize that I'm still very new at this reloading game but I'm pretty sure you are not going to get a higher velocity, from a larger case, with a smaller charge.

They do a similar thing with Titegroup as well. There is something wrong with Lyman's data; I suspect it is with the 32 Mag loads. I don't have the software nor anyway of testing what they've published. I have to question their work. If it is wrong here, where else can it be wrong?

In their 50th ed of their Reloading Handbook they only show a couple of cast bullets that they show in the Cast Bullet Handbook. Of the two they list there, they read the same as in the Cast bullet book, but they don't have the Seaco bullet in both books. In my studying about reloading I've seen it recommended more than once, to use multiple sources when developing loads. From this I can see why they recommend that.

I don't have enough experience to determine how dangerous this could be. I thought if I commented about in this forum, at least some people will be aware.

[P Flados]

For the Lyman data, I will say that they probably are just reporting test results. This is a normal industry practice. With each test there are variabilities such as burn rate variations, case capacities, bullet pull / crimp, and gun variations. There are also potential issues with their testing methods or test equipment.

Now one of their their test was with a test receiver. This will typically push pressures and velocities up given that the chamber is usually on the tight side.

The other test with a revolver gets into much bigger "issues". Throat diameter, throat length, cylinder gap can all impact results. My Ruger 4.2" SP-101 in 327 has reliably shot "slower than expected" with every load I have put over a chrono. I have had other guns that shot "faster than expected".

In an ideal world, they would have an analytical tool (like Quickload). They would have the ability to "benchmark" the software with their powder batches and "proven loads". Then when they run any "new" test, they could flag any result that is outside of some tolerance. Any flagged result would then be investigated to see what caused the variation. However, this would be extra cost for them with minimal means for them to "recover" any additional revenue to cover their costs.