An old wivestail???|Page 2|Winchester Rifles|Forum|Winchester Collector

Steve,

I know that you have shot and do like to shoot you’re rifles. What in particular do you like about shooting you’re .32 Special, with that style of rear sight on it. Not being familiar with that style rear sight, is it the graduations? If I remember correctly, and without looking into my library here, is it a type of ladder sight, with the sliding graduated adjustment on it?

I did find it interesting that in you’re post, you quoted what Winchester stated, that it was graduated for the B/P, and the smokeless powder! Interesting.

Thanks for sharing!

Tony

Anthony said
Steve,
I know that you have shot and do like to shoot you’re rifles. What in particular do you like about shooting you’re .32 Special, with that style of rear sight on it. Not being familiar with that style rear sight, is it the graduations? If I remember correctly, and without looking into my library here, is it a type of ladder sight, with the sliding graduated adjustment on it?
I did find it interesting that in you’re post, you quoted what Winchester stated, that it was graduated for the B/P, and the smokeless powder! Interesting.
Thanks for sharing!
Tony
  

Tony –

My eyes aren’t great and iron sights and eye glasses are not a great combination for me.  As far as rear sights go, the .32 Special Smokeless sight isn’t as bad as others for me.  However, what has worked the very best for me (by a country mile) is this rear sight:

View post on imgur.com

I have the same 1894 reloading tool and mold, new in the box.  Label reads for “Black Powder Only”.

Maverick said

Bert H. said

steve004 said
Were they sighted in at the factory with either smokeless or black powder?  I don’t quite see how they would have done this with the .32 Special given they didn’t offer black powder cartridges in this chambering.

Steve,
Take a close look at the picture of scanned copy of the 1905 catalog I posted earlier in this topic.  Directyl below the high-lighted box is the ballistics data for the 32 W.S. black powder loading.  While Winchester may not have offered factory (commercially) loaded BP ammo for the 32 W.S., they apparently did load and test it.
Bert
  

They offered to the public and stated “We load this cartridge with Smokeless powder only, but are prepared to furnish primed shells, full metal patched, metal patched soft pointed, or plain lead bullets, and reloading tools, for loading with black powder. We do not advise hand loading or reloading of this cartridge with Smokeless powder by individuals.”, on the original announcement flyer.
They sold the Winchester Model 1894 Reloading Tool in 32 W.S. and as the flyer state you could use 40 grains of black powder to reload with. The flyer is an early flyer as it describes the 165 grain bullet, which was later changed to 170 grains.

On the reloading tool boxes the end labels also recommended using Black Powder Only. Winchester discouraged the public from reloading with Smokeless Powder not wanting to risk the liability from a lawsuit.

Sincerely,
Maverick
  

I found this interesting as well.  I was struck by their statement that the 32 W.S., loaded with black powder, makes it a, “powerful black powder cartridge.”

And of course, their recommendation that individuals not attempt to load with smokeless powder but they’re all for individuals loading with smokeless powder.  I always think of black powder as being more volatile than smokeless powder, so this is counter-intuitive to me.  Was the main worry that handloader would put too much smokeless powder in the case and that couldn’t happen with black powder.  

And finally, I didn’t spot any mention of the need for sight adjust between smokeless powder vs. black powder loads.  There is quite a difference in velocity between the two.

I’m really enjoying all of this information – thanks Bert and Maverick.

Thanks for posting the catalog page. 

I’m still struggling to understand how the sight is graduated for both smokeless and black powder cartridges – when the velocity difference between the two is quite substantial.