Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
I’ve always admired loyalty and enthusiasm! Good rave.
"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
Ordered an RCBS 32-170FN mold as that bullet has a gas check and weighs in at 170 grains. That would be more appropriate for an accuracy comparison than the Lyman 321298 I have as that one is only 151 grains and no gas check, so the velocity would have to be kept down.
"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
Wincacher I think you will like that bullet . It is the best Cast I have tried. To Me , I think GC is worth the extra in almost all cases . I am after the best accuracy I can get That RCBS is good in the following with Exc bores in 2 94’S 32 Spcl ,Hiwall , 94 in 32-40 ( Equals the Speer 170 FN) .Havent tried in a pitted bore yet but suspect it would be better than a plain base
Good luck and please post results
Phil
25-20, thanks for the encouragement. Will follow up, probably before Easter as we are already having Spring weather way down here.
"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
Winchacher, A friend has the RCBS mold and has used it in his Model 64 WInchester with good results.
There is some .32 Special cast bullet info contained in these links:
http://www.marlinowners.com/forum/336/130728-soooooo-what-32-win-spl-advantage.html 1st page
http://www.gmdr.com/lever/lowveldata.htm Scroll down to the .32 Win Special
w30wcf
Brad,
Nice rifle! I see that it has the special Smokeless and Black Powder rear sight. Neat!
Over the years folks have asked Why did Winchester introduce the .32 Special when it performs pretty much like the .30-30?
My thought is that the .32-40 caliber had been popular since it’s introduction in 1884 and had a devoted following. I believe that many of these .32-40 users asked Winchester to offer a more powerful .32 caliber cartridge that would give better results on big game. Thus the .32 W.S. was born. No doubt the fact that Winchester said that it could be reloaded with black powder and give good results, would have been important for the black powder crowd that still wasn’t convinced about the new fangled smokeless powder. If they didn’t like the smokeless loading, all was not lost. Perhaps that was Winchester’s thought process(?).
Fortunately, I have a copy of the Jan, 1902 Winchester Catalog and here is what it says:
“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 .”
Interestingly, I wonder if Winchester ever tested b.p. in the .32 W.S. since the ballistics quoted were exactly the same as the .32-40 ……….. and…. the case will hold more than 40 grs. of b.p.(!) I think that there is a very good possibility that if the .32 W.S. was introduced before the .30 W.C.F. / .30-30, it would have been the .32 W.S. that prevailed. The .30 W.C.F. /.30-30 gained a glowing reputation on performance on game (as would have the .32 W.S.) early on and its effectiveness was promoted in the early Winchester and Marlin catalogs, but the .30 W.C.F. / .30-30 had a seven year head start……….
w30wcf
w30wcf
You’re stealing my thunder
I’m in the process of researching and writing an article about the early 32WS. Yes, Winchester did have black powder load data and results. With the 32WS a guy could have either a black powder load very similar to 32-40 or a .32 cal. smokeless load more powerful than the 32-40 WHV loads (Introduced 1905 I believe)…all out of the same rifle. Maybe the article will be some old news for the advanced collector, but for Joe average collector like me I think it will somewhat informative. I really don’t want to go into it too much more or there won’t be much new to share.
Glad you like the gun
Brad
The argument about the .30/30 versus the .32 Special still continues amongst the older generation in my neck of the woods as well. My grandfather has a .32 carbine with button mag and he killed a pile of deer with it. His friends used the .30/30, .33 Winchester, .35 Winchester, .38/55 and one guy favoured the .35 Remington in the old model 14 carbine. I was a kid and remember being at the camp sitting like a mouse in the corner listening to those old fellows running down the others choices for a deer rifle. It was all good natured banter and every one of those guys was deadly with a rifle in the woods. I remember one guy asked my grandfather why he liked the .32 Special so well, Gramp replied, “Cuz it kills ’em so dead.” I guess that pretty much sums it up, dead is dead.
Hi Folks!
Don’t want to steal a thread, but it sounds like you might be able to help me.
A few months ago I picked up a Winchester 1894 take down in 32 Special. I got it right as it was locked up solid and wouldn’t come apart. I removed the wood and stuck it in a barrel of Kroil oil for a few day. It then came apart with ease.
The bore is 99%. The action is tight and smooth. Only issue is the mating between receiver and barrel assembly is the slightest bit loose. I have a number of Winchester TDs and they are all much tighter. Does anyone know if there is a method to tighen this up?
I’m taking it to Missouri in a couple weeks to hunt whitetails. I found a box of Speer 170g bullets at my local gun shop. Havent settled on a load yet. Will do more shooting this weekend.
I need to order a Cody letter to see if what I have was shipped this way. Seems like many of these features might have been special order?
Ser # 339624 DOM 1907
Take Down
Pistol Grip
Short Mag
Octagon to round barrel
Crescent Butt Plate
Marbles “Improved” front sight
Marbles tang sight
Drilled and tapped for side / scope mount
If anyone has more info on this rifle I’d appreciate hearing about it.
Lots more pictures here:
http://public.fotki.com/Rbertalotto/things-that-go-bang/1894-winchester-tak/
THANKS!
The plain pistol grip guns are really neat in my opinion. With a good bore you should be able to come up some decent loads once you tighten the TD up. There are three screws that you can adjust evenly against the mating surface of the joint behind the forearm, provided there is adjustment left. You could probably search for some earlier forum posts on this. Here’s one:
I would think the take down, plain pistol grip, 1/2 magazine and 1/2 octagon barrel would show up in the letter.
The tang sight is a Lyman No.1. That and the Marble’s Improved Front Sight were available in 1907, but I can’t tell whether they are original to your rifle or not. The rear barrel sight appears to be one of later manufacture and is not original to the rifle.
Good luck hunting,
Brad
Two cannalures, the rear one is likely there to hold the lead core better in place. Years ago, they gave more a dam about ammo than they do now, especially in 3030 or 32.
If you like you could cast some bullets. Get an old platters peanut can, a bent spoon, some slip on gas checks, and mould some cast bullets from wheel weights, in a lee mould.
About 21 grains of 2400 should give you about 1800 fps.
1 Guest(s)
