How About A .32 Gun, Just For Fun - Any One ?

[Pete44ru]

.

[Hobie]

Neat!

[BAGTIC]

Great!

Do you have the next page (p.66)? The text ended in mid sentence.

I love 32's. I have several revolvers (.32 S&W, .32 S&W Long, .32 H&R) and a rebored H&R singleshot rifle in . 32 H&R.

[Rimfire McNutjob]

Fantastic info. Seems like we were recently discussing this. I'm on the lookout for the Winchester 32 Colt loading. Will be watching for the rifles.

[Doc Hudson]

NEATO!!

I'd loe to have a rifle like that! Especially if it would handle the more common .32 S&W Long cartridges.

[okdee]

I have one that came through my Grandfather. It is simply so perfect and light and shoots on a straight line!

Pretty hard to find parts, you almost gotta buy a beatup/broken one for spare parts. Or know a great gunsmith, that lives nearby.

Cheers,
Dee

[J Miller]

This is great. I kept the adds for reference. They simply do not make guns like they use to. Nor ammo for that matter.
Reading these old adds is like a little adventure story. Nothing like the dry lifeless adds we have now.

A 100 years too late, I was borne a 100 years too late.

Joe

[Kansas Ed]

Nice ad. Thanks, I also appreciated the nod to Bad Bad Leroy Brown in the title...didn't think anyone caught that did ja...

Ed

[Remington40x]

.32s are fun. I own two Ruger .32 H&R revolvers (a Bisley small frame 6-1/2 inch and an SP101 4-inch) which are among the most accurate revolvers in my safe. Cheap to feed (at least if you reload) and fun to shoot. And I liked them so much, I had a Browning Lo-Wall (this is a leverguns forum, after all) .22 Hornet set back one thread and rebored to .32 H&R as well. It is scoped at present, so I still need to mount a set of iron sights on it (probably a tang sight in the rear and a globe front sight with spirit level) and I'll have a miniature long range shooter.

I've looked at the Marlin .32 H&Rs several times, but I want one with a semi-pistol grip, 24 inch barrel and 2/3 magazine. The cost of the custom work to get there is too rich for my blood, especially since you can get close to what I want with a Browning Model 53 in .32-20 for a fraction of what the custom Marlin would cost.

I do have one .32 I'm only lukewarm about - a CZ Model 52 that weighs as much as most full-size 9mm pistols but is chambered for the .32 Auto. Nice 12 pound trigger pull to help with accurate shooting, too. Won it in a raffle, and thought it might be fun. The ammo is too expensive, the pistol too large and heavy for concealed carry in a pocket and the trigger and sights are insufficiently fine for decent target shooting. But, it's stout, well made and goes bang every time, so even if it's not one of my favorites, it lives on in the back of the vault.

[pokey]

Nice ad. Thanks, I also appreciated the nod to Bad Bad Leroy Brown in the title...didn't think anyone caught that did ja...

Ed

have to have a razor in his shoe.

[pokey]

A 100 years too late, I was borne a 100 years too late.

Joe

me too, maybe 100 isn't enough anymore though,150?

[Ysabel Kid]

I don't think one of those would "fit in your pocket for fun". Do you keep a "razor in your shoe"?

[w30wcf]

Here's some more in depth information including bullet & cartridge pics on the Marlin .32:
http://shootersforum.com/showthread.htm?t=57159

This is great. I kept the adds for reference. They simply do not make guns like they use to. Nor ammo for that matter.
Reading these old adds is like a little adventure story. Nothing like the dry lifeless adds we have now.
A 100 years too late, I was borne a 100 years too late.
Joe

Joe, me too!

Great!
Do you have the next page (p.66)? The text ended in mid sentence.
I love 32's. I have several revolvers (.32 S&W, .32 S&W Long, .32 H&R) and a rebored H&R singleshot rifle in . 32 H&R.

Here's the next page...


w30wcf

[Buck Elliott]

I WANT ONE --- NO, I WANT TWO ! !
No need to get greedy, I reckon...

[Winnetou]

This is superb information. I am currently restoring a heavy barrel Stevens Tip-Up rifle with original Stevens tang and Beech sights, in .32 centre-fire. I have a box of Winchester .32 Short Colt, to try it out when it is done. But the regular load will be the .32 Long Colt, with black powder.

A Marlin 1892 has been on my “acquisition list” for quite a while.

[colo native]

I had on many years ago, it had a place in the butt stock to keep either fireing pin, if the cf pin was in the action the rf pin was in the butt..

[fatoldfool]

That ad is so neat! I just gave mys son 7 .32 rimfire shorts today. We took his 92 to the range and I fired 3 centerfire colt cartridges in it. With hearing protection I didn't think it went off. It does not make as much noise as a .22 !!! I fired the next two shots without hearing protection. Super sweet little rifle!

[w30wcf]

Winnetou,
Glad to hear that you found the information useful. If you haven't had a chance to visit the link I referenced in my earlier post, there is more good info there. Your Stevens Tip Up rifle sounds pretty neat. Hope it works out well for you.

fatoldfool,
Yes, the factory ammo is pretty quiet...except for the reloads with black powder! Now that's a hoot!

w30wcf

[76/444]

Very neat !!!

[Winnetou]

w30wcf, the Shooter’s Forum thread, to which you kindly provided a link, is indeed excellent. I have saved the entire thing to my files. Thank you!

I look forward to shooting the Stevens rifle. This rifle was sound when I acquired it; the work I am doing is almost entirely cosmetic in nature. It would be easy to put the rifle together now and try it, but I decided to wait until restoration is complete. With its very heavy barrel, Swiss butt-plate, and very fine tang sight, this rifle should be easy to shoot accurately, simplifying experimentation with loads.

The .32 Long Colt would seem to be an ideal small game load. It would be wonderful to see a factory rifle revive it (Uberti’s Baby Rolling Block would be a splendid platform). It should be feasible—after all, the Winchester 1876 has been successfully re-introduced, and none of its calibres had been on the market for decades; now, I can order .50-95 cartridges from more than one source! Whilst dreaming, one might well wish for a “Colt Trilogy”: matching rifles in .32, .38, and .41 Colt (all of which were chambered in rifles in the 19th century).

[JohndeFresno]

Thank you for the terrific post, Pete - Wonderful Americana! ...I can still say that, can't I?

Does anybody know the equivalents to DuPont Nr 2 and King Nr 2 powder?

[w30wcf]

w30wcf, the Shooter’s Forum thread, to which you kindly provided a link, is indeed excellent. I have saved the entire thing to my files. Thank you!

I look forward to shooting the Stevens rifle. This rifle was sound when I acquired it; the work I am doing is almost entirely cosmetic in nature. It would be easy to put the rifle together now and try it, but I decided to wait until restoration is complete. With its very heavy barrel, Swiss butt-plate, and very fine tang sight, this rifle should be easy to shoot accurately, simplifying experimentation with loads.

Winnetou, you are most welcome. If you need any bullets to try please send me a PM.

Thank you for the terrific post, Pete - Wonderful Americana! ...I can still say that, can't I?
Does anybody know the equivalents to DuPont Nr 2 and King Nr 2 powder?

John,
I have a litttle experience with DuPont No. 2 which is a bulk smokeless powder. I obtained a small qty from dissected .44-40 cartridges where the recommended load was 17 grs. which completely filled the case capacity. In the .44-40, 17/4227 or 4759 is the ballistic equivalent. I did try 4 grs. of the reclaimed DuPont No. 2 bulk smokeless powder in the .32 Long Colt / '92 Marlin and it averaged around 1,000 f.p.s. which is pretty close to the factory 960 f.p.s. ballistics.

I have no experience with King No. 2, but according to early data for the .44-40, it is the equivalent of DuPont No. 2.

w30wcf

[JohndeFresno]

John,
I have a litttle experience with DuPont No. 2 which is a bulk smokeless powder. I obtained a small qty from dissected .44-40 cartridges where the recommended load was 17 grs. which completely filled the case capacity. In the .44-40, 17/4227 or 4759 is the ballistic equivalent. I did try 4 grs. of the reclaimed DuPont No. 2 bulk smokeless powder in the .32 Long Colt / '92 Marlin and it averaged around 1,000 f.p.s. which is pretty close to the factory 960 f.p.s. ballistics.

I have no experience with King No. 2, but according to early data for the .44-40, it is the equivalent of DuPont No. 2.

w30wcf

Thanks, Jack.

This is the powder can of the King's Smokeless powder, from an online archive of very old powders -


...And from a December 1899 issue of Recreation Magazine:

[KCSO]

I rebuilt one last year for a friend and made the reversibible firing pin and a spare. We have shot it with both rim and center fire shells and it is a nice small game rifle. My wife combo is a Ruger 32 H and R single six bisley and a Marlin 32 H and R and both are mostly shot with 32 S and W longs.

[w30wcf]

John,
Thank you for the vintage pics. Here's one of a DuPont No 1 Bulk Smokeless can top and bottom.
DuPont No. 2 would have been packaged in the same type of can.


w30wcf

[Winnetou]

The canister pictures are delightful. I have often wondered why duPont have not reintroduced their original bulk smokeless powders (intended to be loaded bulk-for-bulk of black powder loadings), now that black powder cartridges are again extremely popular. There have been attempts to re-invent this concept, such as IMR’s Trail Boss (not truly bulk-bulk, and performance inferior to black powder), and Blackthorn.

King’s also made a “semi-smokeless” powder that was popular in .22RF cartridges. This was supposedly similar to duPont’s Lesmok, also popular in .22RF.

However, in my opinion, black powder is an ideal firearm propellant, being very easy on guns, while delivering splendid performance (and bumping up undersized lead bullets).

[jeepnik]

Fellas, if you will remember, Leroy wasn't the one to worry about. I believe he got cut in a hundred places and shot in a couple more.

Oh and as to the OP. That's great. I love that old stuff. Bygone days seemed to have an appeal to levergun folks.

[w30wcf]

Winnetou,
The one issue with the DuPont No 1, No 2 and Schuetzen (No 1 recolored) is that they were sensitive to moisture which would affect ballistic performance.....higher moisture content= lower velocity. No doubt, a modern form of them could be made today with no affect from moisture. As you indicated, Trail Boss is a step in that direction but is much too fast burning.


SEMI SMOKELESS - Among some of the .32 Colt center fire cartridges that I have was a box of PETERS Semi Smokeless. I have since disassembled the cartridges and reclaimed the powder since the cases split lengthwise from the ones I fired. I tried annealing the brass, and reloading the powder but they stilll split anyway. First time I ever had that happen. Velocity of the PETERS Semi Smokeless was just shy of 1,100 f.p.s.

I have a keen interest in Kings Semi Smokeless having worked with this powder taken from .44-40 cartridges. It has proven to be wonderfully accurate in the .44-40 and gives velocities about 10% higher than black (1,430 f.p.s. / .44-40) at pressures claimed to be the same as black powder. According to Phil Sharpe, the formulation contained all the ingredients of black powder with the addition of 20% nitrated wood cellulose.

BLACK POWDER - U.M.C. Headstamped black powder .32 Long Colt cartridges clocked an average of 1,031 f.p.s. I had to dissect the cartridges, replace the primers (did not fire) with Rem 1 1/2's then reassemble prior to shooting. I do shoot some b.p. cartridges in the '92, but only ones loaded with SWISS b.p. It is the only b.p. that I tried that will not foul out (hard ring of fouling in the last few inches of the barrel (Goex & Schuetzen do "foul out").

w30wcf

[Winnetou]

Thanks for the additional data, w30wcf. I have always assumed that the semi-smokeless powders were a mixture of black and smokeless powders—a sort of simplification of the duplex loadings that were so popular at the time. I am delighted to see this essentially confirmed. Some years ago, in a book by Sam Fadala, it was mentioned that a partial canister of King’s semi-smokeless powder had been found, and that shooting tests seemed to indicate it was “nothing but black powder”. I knew that could not be right, but it does give some insight into the unscientific manner in which such inquiries are often conducted.

In principle, if the correct single-base nitrocellulose powder could be determined, it could be mixed with Swiss black powder to create a true duplicate of semi-smokeless powder. On the other hand, if semi-smokeless powder was mixed by adding the nitrocellulose to the black powder components before processing, the matter is entirely different. This would have to be undertaken by the black powder manufacturers.

When you handled the semi-smokeless powder, were the grains entirely of one kind?

I should think that, even more than “bulk-for-bulk” smokeless powder, semi-smokeless powder would benefit the shooting world through reintroduction. The excellent accuracy you obtained from it is entirely consistent with accounts from the past.

I shall save your additional information to my files.

[w30wcf]

Winnetou,
The King's Semi Smokeless was a blended powder in that all the components were mixed together. The same is true for Lesmok. I remember reading of Sam Fadala's experience with the powder.

Near as I can determine, King's Semi Smokeless was invented around 1897 and it was patented in 1899. As far as I know, Lesmok was never available to handloaders. Winchester first began offering Lesmok cartridges around 1911 or so. I know that the DuPont facility that produced Lesmok, the walls of the containment buiding were twice as thick as the ones for b.p. Don't know about King's. Below is a pic of the powders:


The King's Semi-Smokeless formula as written by Sharpe:
20 parts nitrated wood cellulose
60 parts saltpeter
12 parts charcoal
8 parts sulpher

Weight wise, King's Semi Smokeless is about 20% less than black and Dupont Lesmok is about 30% less than black.

Being the experimenter that I am (To date, I still have all my fingers.) I have tried mixing 20% of some smokeless in with black powder (Swiss & Schuetzen) to replicate the King's SS performance. So far, results have been encouraging. More testing to be done.......................

w30wcf

[JohndeFresno]

Excellent - saved under "Old Powders!"

[otteray]

I am slowly working up loads for the little Marlin using IMR4227 and ACC5744.
This is as far as I am, so far:
Untrimmed cases, L.L.Alox outside lubed, heel based, cast lead, 90+ gr.
1.8 gr 5744 220fps 18" low @ 25 yrds I brought a borescope to check the bore after each shot if i didn't hear the paper impact.
1.8 gr 4227 240fps 6" low
2.7gr 4227 400fps POA @ 25 yrds
Then my chrono battery died!!

2 gr Bullseye 990fps +1 1/2" POA @25 yrds
_________________________________________-

32 Short Colt
1.5 gr Unique 550 fps +1 1/2" POA @ 25 yrds

No cubby for the spare firing pin under my stock that I just checked!

[Winnetou]

Now that is a wonderful post, w30wcf! More superb information for my files........ It is pleasant indeed to see mystery and misinformation fall away to the sunlight of reality.

I think it quite bold to experiment with the smokeless/black powder mixture, at twenty per cent of the former. Perhaps it is also bold to state it on an internet forum. On many forums, this would bring a chorus of “know-it-alls”, with no experience whatever, yet all of them certain that you might as well load your cartridges with dynamite!

Still, I can appreciate that some minor trepidation might reasonably attend the process, even if a long tradition of duplex loading would seem to heartily support it. One can not consider the charge of smokeless powder independently—say, that the twenty per cent quantity of the particular smokeless powder is safe for the calibre and bullet—without considering the fact that the black powder takes up the remaining space in the case. Thus, it would seem to be desirable that the twenty percent quantity be significantly lower than the safe “smokeless alone plus air space” charge.

Of course the powder mixture may not actually replicate the processed semi-smokeless powder in combustion qualities, unless the smokeless nitrocellulose-based powder selected happens to have burn rate modifiers that approximate the characteristics of neat nitrocellulose that has been mixed with black powder ingredients and subjected to the extensive black powder grinding, caking, and milling processes. And the very act of mixing the smokeless with black powder no doubt alters the burn rate of the former. The combination of factors involved is quite complex.

Yet, as along as you obtain good results and no signs of undue pressure, experimentation with loads will accomplish vastly more than theoretical speculation.

I’ll be very keen to hear the results of your experiments. Please post here when you can.

I greatly appreciate your excellent contributions to these discussions.

[w30wcf]

otteray,
I think you will find that 7 grs. of 4227 will be just about right - around 1,050 f.p.s. (7 gr /H4227/ Rem 1 1/2 primers - my rifle)
2.0/Bullseye was used in the early factory .32 Long Colt factory loading (as you may already know).

winnetou,
Thank you for the kind words. I will send you a PM regarding the smokeless powders I have tried so far at 20% of the total charge in the .44-40. Since the actual weight of the Kings Semi Smokeless factory load in the .44-40 was 32-33 grs., I used that as the total charge weight for the combo of b.p. & smokeless. Thank you for your interest.

w30wcf

[otteray]

w30wcf,
Thanks for the 4227 info!
I'll continue working my loads up some more, then.