Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Is a High Wall – Thin Side, made in 1889, in .32-20 caliber, unusual at all ? I thought
the smaller chamberings were generally Low Walls.
Also, for being the second-most numerous chambering, there don’t seem to be
many .32 WCF’s for sale.
Don’t know if there are any records of calibers by High Wall or Low Wall but I have a 3 digit High Wall made in very early 1886 in 32-20 with a #2 barrel and a Low Wall 32-20 made in 1888 with a #1 barrel.
"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
January 26, 2011
Offline
I owned a High wall in 25-20 SS for quite some time but have now sold it another member. It had a #3 30″ barrel. I’ve also seen quite a few high walls in 22LR target variations.
~Gary~
Have one (HW) with a 30″ #3 brl, pistol grip, SST, ’90s vintage. Gun is in very nice shape with excellent bore, but a dealer I knew carried it around to shows for about a year with little interest; people would pick it up, take one look at the caliber marking, and set it down quickly. Finally, dealer became so disgusted he sold it to me at a big discount over his initial price. I’ve shot it a lot, and it’s quite accurate, but have to admit it’s hard to know what to do with a 10-11 lb .32-20.
Online
The 32 WCF (32-20) was the most common of the center fire cartridges made for the Model 1885. Approximately 40% of them were high-walls, with 60% low-walls. The first several hundred made were all high-walls. No, it is not uncommon to find a thin-side high-wall in 32 WCF.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
The 32 WCF (32-20) was the most common of the center fire cartridge made for the Model 1885. Approximately 40% of them were high-walls, with 60% low-walls. The first several hundred made were all high-walls. No, it is not uncommon to find a thin-side high-wall in 32 WCF.
Bert
Bizarre, considering that this cartridge is overpowered (and unnecessarily expensive) for small game and underpowered for deer. Suppose it would make a good turkey round, and would be perfect for dispatching porcupines, but otherwise, its popularity, especially in a SS, is hard to figure.
clarence said
Bizarre, considering that this cartridge is overpowered (and unnecessarily expensive) for small game and underpowered for deer. Suppose it would make a good turkey round, and would be perfect for dispatching porcupines, but otherwise, its popularity, especially in a SS, is hard to figure.
“Bizarre” is rather strong in regards to the 32-20’s popularity. A Single Shot in 32-20 WCF would be more for target shooting as opposed to hunting. And…while the store bought ammunition for this caliber is ridiculously priced due to the low demand for it and driven solely by avarice (compare the cost of producing components for the 32-20 vs. the 30-30 and then compare the shelf prices of both), the cost of reloading 32-20 ammo is quite cheap. Once the brass has been purchased I can reload a 32-20 for 3¢ for the primer, 2.5¢ for the powder and 2.5¢ for the lead. About 8¢ per round for reloads vs. about 86¢ for store bought ammo. (Store bought 30-30 ammo runs about 70¢ per.)
"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
Wincacher said
“Bizarre” is rather strong in regards to the 32-20’s popularity. A Single Shot in 32-20 WCF would be more for target shooting as opposed to hunting. And…while the store bought ammunition for this caliber is ridiculously priced due to the low demand for it and driven solely by avarice (compare the cost of producing components for the 32-20 vs. the 30-30 and then compare the shelf prices of both), the cost of reloading 32-20 ammo is quite cheap. Once the brass has been purchased I can reload a 32-20 for 3¢ for the primer, 2.5¢ for the powder and 2.5¢ for the lead. About 8¢ per round for reloads vs. about 86¢ for store bought ammo. (Store bought 30-30 ammo runs about 70¢ per.)
Gee, you think that many original purchasers of ’85s were target shooters…as opposed to hunters? Surprising, if true, especially because the .32-20 never had any reputation as a target cartridge, as did the .22-15, .25-20 SS, .32-40, and a number of others.
Was not referring to modern ammo costs, but to costs at time of original purchase–cost compared to price of RFs, such as the very popular .32 RFs, along with .22 RFs of course.
The 32 WCF cartridge is capable of surprisingly excellent accuracy in a single shot rifle, and many of them were used as target rifles versus hunting rifles. Generally speaking, the Model 1885 was primarily a “target” rifle first, then a hunting rifle secondarily.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
The 32 WCF cartridge is capable of surprisingly excellent accuracy in a single shot rifle, and many of them were used as target rifles versus hunting rifles. Generally speaking, the Model 1885 was primarily a “target” rifle first, then a hunting rifle secondarily.
Bert
Have been going through Campbell’s books for insight into why .32WCF would have been most common chambering (I’d have guessed .32-40 or .38-55), finding nothing relevant, but Cartridges of the World notes that “Winchester once advertised it as a combination small game and deer cartridge.” Such an assertion (though certainly false as it applies to deer) would have been understandably attractive to the many shooters hoping to find the (mythical) “all around” cartridge.
But considering the huge number of chamberings available in the SS model, what does “most common” actually mean in terms of numbers manufactured? Is it known what percentage of total SS production was in .32WCF? The answer to that would shed light on whether this model was regarded by contemporary buyers as primarily a target, as opposed to hunting, rifle. If .32WCF amounted to, let’s say, 20% of production, then we ought to consider what purpose the other 80% were being used for.
By “target shooting” I presume you mean informal shooting, “plinking,” rather than formal match competition, because the cartridges popular in both Schuetzen & Creedmoor shooting were popular topics of discussion in the shooting press of the time, and you don’t find .32WCF being advocated for those purposes. (The maker par excellence of guns for “fun-shooting,” I’m sure everyone knows, was Stevens.)
Clarence,
I realize that you are a relative newcomer to the WACA forums, and are most likely unaware of the caliber survey that I completed a few years ago (there are older topics on this forum were I listed the totals by cartridge). The cartridge survey covers serial numbers 1 – 109999 (the records are missing for serial numbers 110000 – 140000).
In regards to the 32 WCF, it made up 11.484% of the total production. The 32-40 made up 10.153%, and the 38-55 was just 6.902% of the total. By far the most common cartridge found in the Model 1885 was the 22 Short, with 14.945% of the total production (during the later years in the 110000 – 140000 serial range, the 22 Short accounted for nearly 50% of the production).
I am preparing an article for the WAA Collector magazine discussing the Model 1885 caliber/cartridge production totals… it will dispel a fair number of misconceptions and myths.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
The cartridge survey covers serial numbers 1 – 109999 (the records are missing for serial numbers 110000 – 140000).
In regards to the 32 WCF, it made up 11.484% of the total production. The 32-40 made up 10.153%, and the 38-55 was just 6.902% of the total. By far the most common cartridge found in the Model 1885 was the 22 Short, with 14.945% of the total production (during the later years in the 110000 – 140000 serial range, the 22 Short accounted for nearly 50% of the production).Bert
Invaluable and fascinating info–just what I was hoping to find. (I’ve got one in that 6.9% category–scarcer than I thought.)
That 50% of late production must refer principally to Winders…right?
Yes,
The vast majority of the Model 1885s in the 110000 – 140000 serial range were 2nd and 3rd variation Winder Muskets.
6.9% is a very large number in regards to the caliber production for the Model 1885, and the 38-55 is not a “scarce” cartridge in the Model 1885.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Folks,
Let me comment a little about the appropriate nature of the .32-20 as a deer cartridge. I believe it is still legal in many states that have minimum caliber requirements due to the bullet diameter. Since my state does not allow rifles, I am having to go by hear say in this particular matter. However, relating history, an old, deceased family friend homesteaded in northern MN. His rifle was an 1892 SRC in .25-20! Percy shot everything with that as it was what he had! He shot a ton of deer, both in and out of season. He fed his family with that diminutive cartridge. He trapped and it would dispatch trapped critters without shooting them up. He killed at least one black bear with it, numerous “critters” such as coyotes, wolves, badgers, one wolverine, bobcats, etc. His story about how to hunt deer was illustrative. He would sneak into a swamp, stand on top of a white pine stump (he helped log off the northern forest of white pines, too), break a stick so any nearby bedded deer would stand up, then shoot them. Once he did that, shot a small buck which jumped behind a screen of brush. Percy sat down for a cigarette and to let the deer die. As he started in, it jumped up again and he shot it again (shooting right behind the shoulder). After another wait, he walked over and found two dead bucks that were nearly identical.
I should think a .32-20 would deliver a killing shot quicker, and more reliably, than a .25-20. By the way, the 1892 SRC had no finish the last I saw of it. I tried to get it, but it went to a grandson who promptly traded it in on a modern bolt action. I dearly would have loved to have had Percy’s rifle, just for the stories and history of it that I had been privileged to learn from him in his old age. Last use I knew was when his widow shot a bobcat that was at her back door one winter. Helen was a tough character as well, but as sweet as they came. Grand people, living very close to nature. If a .25-20 was enough for them, the .32-20 surely would also suffice. Would I choose it for me? No. Then maybe I am not as good a woodsman to get as close as Percy did. He undoubtedly picked his distances and his shots to ensure a kill.
My two cents worth on the subject.
Tim
Tim,
I too know people who have taken a lot of deer with a 32-20. The scrubby whitetail that infest the southeastern part of the U.S. are easy to kill with a well placed shot.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Interesting observations tim tomlinson but:
The 25-20 cartridge is actually more powerful than the 32-20.
1) The 32-20 is really a .31 caliber and the 25-20 is really a .26 caliber.
2) The 32-20 factory load fires a 100 grain bullet @ 1210 fps with a muzzle energy of 325 ft. lbs.
3) The 25-20 factory load fires an 86 grain bullet @ 1460 fps with a muzzle energy of 407 ft. lbs.
So, whether one is hunting a large Midwestern white tail deer, or a Southwestern mule ear deer or a Southeastern scrubby white tail, the ballistics indicate that a 25-20 is a better choice over a 32-20, if those are the only two choices available.
"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
My Dad’s favorite rifle was a winchester 92 in 25-20. I would not want to guess how many mule deer he killed with it. I know of one license that he bought.
November 7, 2015
Offline
Bert H. said
Tim,
I too know people who have taken a lot of deer with a 32-20. The scrubby whitetail that infest the southeastern part of the U.S. are easy to kill with a well placed shot.
Bert
Most deer here in TX will fall to a well-placed shot from a 32WCF as well. I recently loaded up some 30-06 loads for a young hunter that weren’t much more powerful than the 32-20. He killed a nice buck last weekend. Another advantage for the subsistence hunter is that these diminutive cartridges are generally much quieter than larger rifle cartridges.
“2) The 32-20 factory load fires a 100 grain bullet @ 1210 fps with a muzzle energy of 325 ft. lbs.”
this load with lead bullet , is very wimpy and not accurate for a Win 1892
It is the down- loaded newer (CAS short range , safety correct) in case some one used in handgun or a 73 Win
the long discontinued HV 32-20 intended for a mod. 92 action or hand load can add a lot more power for hunting
good potent hand loads for mod 1892 or strong rifle action ,are listed in 70’s era Lyman manuals
I cant comment on 1885 early rifles ,but expect the high walls could take a potent load
32-20 can be a very versatile cartridge in a strong rifle action
since the 25-20 (necked down 32-20 ) was introduced later for the mod 92 and stronger rifle action , no legally correct need for a down-load weak version
Phil
TXGunNut said
Most deer here in TX will fall to a well-placed shot from a 32WCF as well.
I don’t doubt it. Most deer anywhere will fall to a well-placed shot from a .22LR–a favorite tool, I’ve read, of professional poachers. I’ve killed dozens of the big, half-wild, Nubian goats (rams running 150 lbs.) that roamed my dad’s ranch by spreading horse feed on the ground, which allowed me to approach to 35-40 yards; one well-placed shot in the ear was all it took. So is the .22LR a good deer round?
Well-placed shots with a 7×57 allowed Karamojo Bell to kill hundreds of African elephants; so is the 7×57 a good elephant gun?
Some of you defenders of the .32WCF for deer hunting should demand that the publisher of Cartridges of the World remove this statement from the next edition: “It is much too under-powered for deer-sized animals, and will wound far more often than it will kill.” Real men, I suppose, don’t loose sleep over wounded game animals, but in that respect I guess I’m just a bleeding-heart crybaby.
But what does Frank Barnes know about hunting anyway? Here’s what my boyhood (and old-age) hero, Col. Whelen, said about this cartridge in The American Rifle: “…a very good cartridge for small game, and will even kill deer if one is lucky enough to strike a vital spot, but it should not be used as a deer gun, as far too large a percentage of the game fired at will simply be wounded.” Another crybaby.
Question to ask about any hunting cartridge is not how does it perform under ideal conditions, but how can it be expected to perform under the adverse conditions likely to be encountered in the field.
1 Guest(s)
