Avatar
Search
Forum Scope




Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
Lost password?
sp_Feed sp_PrintTopic sp_TopicIcon
Some questions on 32WS bullets
sp_NewTopic Add Topic
Avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Forum Posts: 956
Member Since:
December 30, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1
January 25, 2015 - 12:35 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

I’ve been handloading for a 32WS TD Rifle I have.  So far it has been interesting.

I figured I could just go about anywhere and get a box of 32WS ammo to start with but that was not the case out here in the sticks.  I’m also a little leery about modern factory ammo in a 1903 gun and I personally like to shoot lighter loads.  I ordered some dies.  At that time the only appropriate bullets I found in a limited search were the 321″ Hornady FTX 165 grain.  That worked out well as I have wanted to try them since Rex recommended them about two or so years ago on this forum (and so far they have performed well). 

I talked to a neighbor who happened to have a box of old reloads that I could have.  I would never shoot somebody’s reloads, especially unmarked.  Although all twenty were properly headstamped 32WS (R-P, SUPER-X, etc.), they were mixed brand and two were actually loaded with 170 grain .308″ FP bullets.  Ten of the twenty were empty cases but some of those had cratered primers and they got discarded.  After some study, weighing and measuring I came up with nine cases that I felt would be safe to load after I pulled the bullets.  Case stretching has been almost non-existent during load development with the Hornady FTX bullet and neck sizing only.  Thankfully this rifle appears to not have any head space issues either.  

Today I was also very fortunate to find some more cheap hand loads and I gave the inertia puller a good workout.  I wanted to find some traditional 170 grain flat point bullets to load along side the FTX bullet so all is good.   Through these three total boxes I found eight or nine different 170 grain bullets.  I’m still new to loading ammunition.  I’m curious; does anyone know about the bullet with two cannelures and why would it have them?

 

Thanks,

Brad

 

a.jpgImage Enlarger

 b.jpgImage Enlarger

sp_PlupAttachments Attachments

Regards

Brad Dunbar

http://1895book.com/

Avatar
Ontario Canada
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 584
Member Since:
April 23, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2
January 25, 2015 - 2:48 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Brad I have used the Hornady FTX 165 grain in 32-40 and 32spcl , and it worked well for me. I have mainly used the traditional Flat point 170 32 spcl bullet . Speer # 2259 ,Hornady used to make one as well. I think production of both are discontinued , due to dwindling demand of this once popular bullet , but  some should be around in old Stores ,They were plentiful in Canada , but The best deal was when I was in New Jersey about 15 years ago for $10 /box 100. I have used them mostly in 32-40 where the 32 spcl cannelure is in the wrong spot for crimping   I dont crimp as I use a snug neck tension and shoot single shot, and dont hunt

I think the forward cannelure of your dual is for 32-40 and rear is for 32 spcl. Can you hold the rear cannelure beside a 32 spcl case and check if the OAL would be correct. although it wouldnt leave much bullet in the case ? ( Im curios about It now , but doubt there is many around ) I think I have read about the dual way back , but dont remember using them

I have been shooting 32 spcl lately as I have a couple 94 OBR’s , one with DST. I have good luck with H4198 . As Jacketed are getting scarcer and Prices are soaring I am switching to lead and have had good luck with RCBS 32-170 Gas check. Ive tried a couple other mold #’s that were good as well

Phil

Phils-Schuetzen-compressed.jpg 

Avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Forum Posts: 956
Member Since:
December 30, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
3
January 25, 2015 - 3:19 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Phil

The cannelure up toward the point of the bullet is where it was seated for 32WS.  Like you, I’m curious what the cannelure way down by the base of the bullet would be used for.

Thanks,

Brad

Regards

Brad Dunbar

http://1895book.com/

Avatar
South Texas
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1042
Member Since:
March 20, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
4
January 27, 2015 - 6:51 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

I havent found anything online other than the mention of some pistol cartridges having a double cannelure to provide a double crimp on certain loads.  I would venture to guess the top cannelure is used for both the 32WS and the 32-40.  The second one on there may be if you wanted a second crimp but I dont know why.  The case length and AOL are relatively the same for 32WS and 32-40 calibers (AOL differing by 10/1000″).  I thought it could potentially be used for some other cartridge that uses a double cannelure but havent found one yet.  The only close bullet size is for the 8mm Mauser, 8MM Remington Magnum and 8MM-06 having a bullet diameter of 0323″.   

DSC_0245-Copy-3.JPG

1892takedown @sbcglobal.net ......NRA Endowment Life Member.....WACA Member

"God is great.....beer is good.....and people are crazy"... Billy Currington

Avatar
Ontario Canada
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 584
Member Since:
April 23, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
5
January 27, 2015 - 7:27 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

There actually is a bit of difference between 32-40 and 32 Spcl. The 32-40 has a longer case by .090 ,  2.130 as opposed to the 32 Spcl at 2.040.

Also according to my Lyman 46th the oal of the 32-40 is shorter by .065 , 2.500 as opposed to 2.565  32Spcl.

So .090 +.065 makes a difference of .155 difference in crimping cannelure dimension.Leading me to think that was the reason for two cannelure  I dont think I have ever used 32-40 bullets , but 32 spcl bullets were always plentiful and cheap ,till recently

Altho in Brads pic the gap between grooves does look a bit bigger than .165 , also the rear cannelurure seems too far back, and his measurement of the positioning states that the front groove is correct for 32Spcl.

My buddy says that the double groove could be to lock lead core better with Jacket ? but I think I have read somewhere about a bullet having the double cannelure for 2 different Cartridges

Phil

Phils-Schuetzen-compressed.jpg 

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 201
Member Since:
September 11, 2008
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
6
January 27, 2015 - 8:20 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Maybe for the 8,15x46R Schuetzenpatrone?

 

I found this picture: 8,15x46R and 32-40

815x46r_32-40.jpgImage Enlarger

 Steff

sp_PlupAttachments Attachments
Avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Forum Posts: 956
Member Since:
December 30, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
7
January 28, 2015 - 11:49 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

I read the complete volume of Pet Loads by Ken Waters regularly.  It’s been very helpful to me in complete volume form and I’d recommend it to anyone who loads ammunition.  It’s even informative reading the articles about calibers I will never load for as there are nuggets of learning throughout.  He measured the various cannelure locations on bullets used for 32WS and that helped me identify some of the bullets I have.  I still don’t know for sure about the dual cannelures.  I do know it looked familiar to me when I saw them; I just can’t remember where I saw them before.

Thanks for the ideas,

Brad

Regards

Brad Dunbar

http://1895book.com/

Avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Forum Posts: 956
Member Since:
December 30, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
8
January 29, 2015 - 11:14 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

I looked through some 1940s and 1950s Winchester and Western Ammunition Handbooks here and found some information.  There are pictures of bullets with two cannelures in each book.  They refer to the cannelure as a “special knurl” in the 1941 Winchester Ammunition Guide, 3rd Ed.  In “Features of the New Winchester Silvertip Bullets” the “Special knurls bind together lead core, “nickel-silver” jacket and outer jacket”.  The second cannelure or special knurl is also shown in a cross section of a soft point bullet in the 1948 Western Ammunition Handbook but it’s reason for being on the bullet is not noted.  Sounds like Phil’s buddy was on the right track.

Brad

Regards

Brad Dunbar

http://1895book.com/

Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 532
Member Since:
December 27, 2007
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
9
February 2, 2015 - 4:54 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

I reload both .32-40 and .32WS (A few 1904-13 Takedowns)  The .32-40 cannelure is forward, toward the nose, of the bullet compared to a .32 Special cannelure.  That one near the base of your bullet is an unknown to me also.  For jacketed I use Speer 170 gr .321 FnSp in both–add my own cannelure for the .32-40.  Currently working on finding a good gas-checked bullet to use in both types of Winchesters.

What powder have you chosen to use?

Wishing you good shooting with your .32 Special.

Avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Forum Posts: 956
Member Since:
December 30, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
10
February 3, 2015 - 12:32 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

So far I’ve been using H4895 and IMR 4064.  I have a few others available to try also.  I hope to get to the range this week sometime.

Thanks,

Brad

Regards

Brad Dunbar

http://1895book.com/

Avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Forum Posts: 956
Member Since:
December 30, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
11
February 4, 2015 - 1:05 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

My main goal with loading 32WS was to develop some experience and attachment to a particular rifle and learn some new things along the way.  I have other rifles I’d prefer to hunt with and other rifles I prefer to target shoot with.  However I thought a guy ought to know what he has for a rifle at some point so I gave it a whirl.  Here is a picture of it.  Many of you have seen this rifle before in posts of mine from a few years ago, serial number applied August, 15 1903.

1.jpgImage Enlarger

I’d imagine many of you reading this probably grew up with something chambered in 32WS.  I didn’t so hopefully you don’t cringe or chuckle too much reading this!  I had a limited number of brass to start with and my first firings were starting loads from a seated position.  I give a lot of credit to all of you that shoot with open sights.  It took me awhile to get something consistent going.  My fired brass and primers looked good and the cases had hardly stretched when I partially resized them and measured.

2.jpgImage Enlarger

Here is a 50 yard target I had from shooting in the prone position using the 165 gr. FTX bullet, Super-X brass, Remington 9 1/2 primers and IMR 4064 and H4895 powder.  The bottom three shot group was actually shot when I turned the target clockwise 90 degrees.  I felt there was potential here but was not so impressed with my results.  At a minimum I needed to adjust windage by moving the rear sight to the right.  It also looked like my elevation was going to be quite high at 100 yards considering my point of aim was at the bottom of the bull.  Luckily, the rear sight was in fact a little to the left of center to begin with and there was room to adjust the rear sight down.  It’s pretty easy to adjust elevation on this particular rear sight and I also carefully shifted it to the right for my next attempt.

 

4.jpgImage Enlarger

I took the time this morning to go to a proper range and sit at a bench.  Now that I had a few 170 grain flat point bullets I wanted to try them as well.   I think these bullets are Winchester-Western based on the measurements from Ken Waters’ Pet Loads.  If not, they are very similar.  Here they are pictured below side by side.  If you notice a shiny ring around my primer pockets, that was caused by a couple stray wires on my primer pocket cleaning tool.  I stayed on the low end of the reloading data with both bullets.  No need for me to push it here.  My loads with the Hornady 165 gr. FTX bullet consisted of one “fouling shot”, three at 30 grains IMR 4064 and five at 31 grains of IMR 4064.  My W-W 170 gr. loads consisted of three each 29, 30 and 31 grains H4895.

 

3.jpgImage Enlarger

I limited my loads with the 170 grain flat point bullets to three each because I don’t have many bullets!  I just wanted to determine if the rifle would be accurate or not.  Two starting groups ranged from 3-4 1/2″.  Here is the best result I had using 31 grains of H4895.  I was happy enough with my sight adjustments considering I was now about 2″ high at 100 yds. with this load.

 

5.jpgImage Enlarger

 

 I was able to use a  larger amount of the 165 grain FTX bullets shooting this rifle.  Here are a couple targets and the final one with that bullet:

6.jpgImage Enlarger

7.jpgImage Enlarger

In conclusion I am very happy with getting a five shot group in the neighborhood of 2″ with open sights.  If I spent the time developing a great load and installed a tang sight I’d imagine the average group would shrink.  No need for that here however.  It was a good experience with using open sights for a change.  I guess we all could argue about whether an average Model 1894 takedown rifle is as accurate as an average Model 1894 solid frame rifle.  I know that Mr. Waters seemed to make it a point in his articles to mention avoiding them(and installing aperture sights).  I will take some of you other guys’ word for it that they are as accurate as you say.  Regardless, my objective was to see good results without changing anything on the rifle and I’m happy enough with that.

Brad

sp_PlupAttachments Attachments

Regards

Brad Dunbar

http://1895book.com/

Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 532
Member Since:
December 27, 2007
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
12
February 5, 2015 - 5:00 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Appears you were having a good day–reloading and shooting!  And yes, with a tang sight, those groups would tighten.

I’ve been reading all that I can find for a month now on loads for .32WS’s.  Many folks who mention H4895 use 34 grains–Waters’ load.  I’d have to look it up, but do know our rifles shoot best with just a bit lower charge.

I was out today testing cast loads for our .32’s.  The decision is a choice between H4895 and RL7.  The bullets are a bit heavy, around 196 grains.  28.8 grains of H4895 and 25 grains or RL7 were tied for accuracy.  Both hit the targets with the same sight position as used for the jackets.  I plan to load another batch of each–trying 25+grains to see if the RL7 can tighten another 1/2 inch.  Also need to test crimps with and without the Lee FCD.  Soon I hope to get a cast 170gr bullet to load for.

Do you need more jacketed and/or lead bullets to play with?  I have a good supply I can tap into for you.

PS–We love our takedowns and their accuracy.  My sons and I expect our rifles to toss a bullet nearly perfectly.  If we miss, it is the shooter, not the rifle.  Ours are 26″ octagons, and we have the same in non-takedowns; no difference in performance/accuracy.

Avatar
Ontario Canada
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 584
Member Since:
April 23, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
13
February 5, 2015 - 12:50 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Brad  Nice gun , write-up, and good results. you can see well. I could too at one time. Last usage of notch rear and blade front , I had to paint the tip of the blade orange , Which helps a lot, but now have to use Apertures front and Tang to see true results. These 94 cals are a pleasure to shoot. Rewarding accuracy with load developing ,and not punishing on the Body. Ive been shooting 25-35 lately and it is especially mild, even with the European factory ammo. 6.5 X52R, and amazingly flat shooting. Ive also been shooting 32SPCL and have been using 4198 with good results in the 19 – 22 gr range with all bullets around 170 gr Jacketed and GC’s

Phil

Phils-Schuetzen-compressed.jpg 

Avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Forum Posts: 956
Member Since:
December 30, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
14
February 5, 2015 - 3:04 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

I think I had an above average day shooting for me.  I know I have some other days when it’s a struggle to get consistency, maybe too much coffee!  I guess there are a few things I could do yet that might improve the accuracy also; increasing the charge, adjusting the COL, trying other bullets etc.  I didn’t go into this wanting to develop a perfect 32WS load for the rifle however.  I wanted to spend some time with a rear sight made specially for the gun in question.  It was very enjoyable see what kind of potential was there and I believe I put enough rounds through it to get an idea.  To be honest, I probably won’t ever tote this rifle through the brush.  It sounds like the 32WS is a cast bullet shooter’s dream, at least from what I read.  I imagine some of you guys that shoot cast can really turn in some good results.  If I ever start shooting cast bullets I will probably revisit this rifle and maybe install a tang sight for the occasion.

I can’t explain why my first target pictured in the post at 50 yds. was so poor in comparison.  The fliers really opened them up.  I suppose there are a bunch of factors that can result in a poor outing.  Laying on a sheet of cardboard in the snow vs. sitting on a bench was probably one of them.

I’ll let you know if I need some more bullets FromTheWoods.

Thanks,

Brad

Regards

Brad Dunbar

http://1895book.com/

Avatar
New Mexico
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 1167
Member Since:
December 1, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
15
February 5, 2015 - 3:36 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

Great post, Brad!

I’ve got a 94 rifle that looks identical to yours (made in 1923) but came with s Lyman tang sight when I bought it in 1978.  (Already sent you photos).  The point is, your story got me enthused about taking this sucker out to the range.  I haven’t fired it since 1978.  Just checked my inventory and found I have 200 once-fired cases that would have been W-W factory loads I shot back then.  I never kept any records and I can’t remember now how it shot, but I have a vague recollection about reading that the 32WS was not as effective compared to the 30-30 and was never a big seller.

I’ll cast some lead bullets, work up some loads this Winter and post my results here when done.

1876-4-1.jpg

"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." 

Avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Forum Posts: 956
Member Since:
December 30, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
16
February 5, 2015 - 4:32 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Good luck with the reloading.  Glad you are inspired!  I’ve been doing quite a bit of research lately on the 32WS cartridge in the Model 1894.  I think I’ve read in several places that the 32WS was unpopular, not a big seller, etc.  I don’t think that matches the facts however.  There were a very large number of ’94s and its variants chambered in the caliber, besides a few in some of the other models, and then also in guns of other manufacture.  I have been finding quite a few interesting things about the cartridge in its early days from some other WACA members and hope to submit an article that will shed some light on the caliber and hopefully be an enjoyable read as well.

Thanks,

Brad

Regards

Brad Dunbar

http://1895book.com/

Avatar
New Mexico
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 1167
Member Since:
December 1, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
17
February 5, 2015 - 4:56 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

As I recall, an old-timer in Columbus, OH, back in the ’70’s who owned a gun shop there (Red Boggs, Long Rifle Gun Store) told me that the problem with the 32WS was that there wasn’t a need for 2 32 caliber chamberings for the Model 1894.  He was sure that the 32-40 was a much superior round and that caused the 32WS to never attain the popularity of the other Model 94 chamberings.

1876-4-1.jpg

"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." 

Avatar
Ontario Canada
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 584
Member Since:
April 23, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
18
February 5, 2015 - 5:12 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

There has been much discussion and a steady stream of articles in Gun mags over the years on the rivalry between 30-30 and 32 spcl ,and possibly the most frequent topic in evenings at the hunt camp while having a drink or 2 ,  throughout more than 100 years in all of North America. I know it was fairly popular in the 60’s as it was about the 3rd most common case (after 30-30 and 303 Brit ) that I found scouring the deer runs and hunt camps collecting cartridges as a kid.

All seems a little funny now , perhaps the most touted argument of the 32spcl fans was that its larger diameter of  bullet was a better brush cartridge, a better killer , and was better for bigger game like Moose

While the 30-30 fans reasoned that their faster twist rifling would give better accuracy long term, with the 32spcl twist of 1 in 16 , meant to accommodate its ‘Special’ characteristic of being suitable for both the new smokeless powder or the traditionally trusted Black powder , would be all over the hillside with bore wear

I have to agree with Wincachers old timer I sure like the 32-40

Phils-Schuetzen-compressed.jpg 

Avatar
New Mexico
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 1167
Member Since:
December 1, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
19
February 5, 2015 - 6:18 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

Is this the greatest website, or what?  Like being in your favorite old-time neighborhood gun shop on a Saturday morning, sipping coffee and swapping tall tales with all the great Winchester minds that are out there!

While 25-20’s comments about accuracy make a lot of sense, my 32WS has a 9 barrel and my 32-40 as a 7+ barrel, so they both should shoot quite accurately.  I don’t have a 30 WCF in a 26″ rifle configuration, only in carbine, so an accuracy comparison for that caliber wouldn’t be suitable.  Will load some of both 32’s with the same bullet and report back on my results.

1876-4-1.jpg

"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." 

Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 532
Member Since:
December 27, 2007
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
20
February 5, 2015 - 10:48 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

“…the 32WS was not as effective compared to the 30-30….”  Hey!  Them’s fightin’ words!

Not as effective–  I’ll lay this myth to rest, right here, right now.  The .32WS is the superior rifle.  My Dad’s rifle was a .32 and my first deer rifle was a .32.  I killed my first few deer with .32’s.  My family still shoots a slew of .32’s.  A cousin of mine, you know–the one born 14 days before I was born–he had a Thuddy-Thuddy for his deer rifle.  I never saw him down a deer. (Of course, we never did hunt together.  But that has nothing to do with this!)  I saw many a massive buck fall to the .32 Special.  So, OBVIOUSLY, the .32 Winchester Special is a far superior caliber than the undesirable .30WCF. Long live the .32 Winchester Special!   END OF ARGUMENT!

Forum Timezone: UTC 0
Most Users Ever Online: 778
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
clarence: 6278
TXGunNut: 4964
Chuck: 4560
1873man: 4277
steve004: 4160
Big Larry: 2323
twobit: 2289
TR: 1710
mrcvs: 1702
Forum Stats:
Groups: 1
Forums: 17
Topics: 12639
Posts: 109893

 

Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 1745
Members: 8786
Moderators: 4
Admins: 3
Navigation