32 S&W (short) w/Win244

[TheAbe]

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

[Larry Gibson]

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

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

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

[Rattlesnake Charlie]

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

[hoodat]

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

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

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

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

[racepres]

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

[racepres]

darn...double post !!!

[racepres]

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

[TheAbe]

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

[TheAbe]

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

[Larry Gibson]

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

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

[shooting on a shoestring]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[TheAbe]

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

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

[TheAbe]

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

[Larry Gibson]

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

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

[jonp]

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

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

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

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

[racepres]

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

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

[TheAbe]

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

[TheAbe]

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

[TheAbe]

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

Thoughts?

[uscra112]

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

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