32-20 vs 25-20 in a rifle.

Post by **Old Savage** » Tue Dec 03, 2013 11:05 pm

What do you fellas think?

abcollector · Post by **abcollector** » Tue Dec 03, 2013 11:20 pm

one of each!

ollogger · Post by **ollogger** » Tue Dec 03, 2013 11:27 pm

Very good question, could be interesting topic
prairie dogs & coyotes is bout all ive shot with either one, both worked very well
for me its a draw

ollogger

vancelw · Post by **vancelw** » Tue Dec 03, 2013 11:55 pm

Whichever one you have/find the matching revolver ........

I have a .32-20 Browning 53 I haven't shot nearly enough.....and can't afford a pistol to match

Sixgun · Post by **Sixgun** » Wed Dec 04, 2013 12:58 am

OS,
327 vs 350 in a 68 Camaro.

Not much difference. One has a little more torque. One is a bit more versatile. One sold more than the other. One uses a bit more gas/ propellant. Both will get you there. They are what they are.

A practical guy has both. A smart guy has both in all variations. You know, the RS, the SS, and then there was the RS/SS. In our world, we have the Winchester, Marlin, Rem., .......-----6

AJMD429 · Post by **AJMD429** » Wed Dec 04, 2013 1:30 am

How about 218 Bee...???

I haven't had a chance to shoot it much at all, but I have a 32-20 and a 218 Bee in the Marlin 1894 CL, although (alas) not a 25-20. I figured there would be a more substantial difference between the extremes, so sought out a 218 Bee instead of the 25-20. I did almost jump on a 256 Win though, which would have sort of filled that niche using the 357 Mag action version.

Anyway, the little shooting I've done with the 218 Bee leaves me thinking of it as a 'fun' round, though I'm not able to say there is an 'accuracy' or 'flat trajectory' tradeoff vs. the 32-20 yet (suppose the latter is a bit of a given, but my shooting and lack of load development time hasn't enabled me to see the former).

I am also not really expecting any short-action levergun to have a very 'flat' trajectory anyway, so from a practical perspective, would not be able to make the case for anything but the 32-20, since I can also get a nice handgun in the chambering (love to have a Ruger SP-101 in 32-20 made up), but not as easily a 218 Bee or 25-20, except in a Contender.

Nicknack · Post by **Nicknack** » Wed Dec 04, 2013 3:32 am

I have both, but I find the 32-20 more accurate than my 25-20 I'm still trying to find the magic spot reloading the 25-20.
By the way I have two original 1892's to compare with each other.The brass is a bit more available for the 32 WCF as you have Winchester,Remington and Starline but only Winchester and Remington make 25-20 brass, if your not into sizing down 32 into 25.In Australia we have more commercial lead bullet makers making bullets for the 32-20 than the 25-20(only one).
But then again they are both nice,Just my two bobs worth.

w30wcf · Post by **w30wcf** » Wed Dec 04, 2013 7:44 am

Old Savage,
I don't have a .32-20 but the .25-20 is one sweet caliber.
Someday when you have some time on your hands check out this interesting thread on reloading the .25-20.
Lots of info including bullets, loads, accuracy, etc.
http://www.marlinowners.com/forum/reloa ... aders.html

w30wcf

Sixgun · Post by **Sixgun** » Wed Dec 04, 2013 9:58 am

If I had to choose one over the other, the 32-20 would win out. About anything stuffed in the 32 shoots good, plus, in a pinch, it will chamber and fire all of the 32 S&W and Colt handgun rounds, even the 32 automatic.---6

Post by **Old Savage** » Wed Dec 04, 2013 10:51 am

Wow, just wrote a long reply and it disappeared regarding the 32-20 barrel availability making either or both possible. And it disappeared.

Well at 6848 mi. the Jeep decided it wants an oil change, have to get that done then pick up the little Colt SA in 22/22 and look at that 25-20 again.

John/Jack sorry I haven't gotten back to you about the complication Latimer introduces with evidence of a posterior lower cervical wound with the WC clearly documenting the back wound on the body. I'll get around to it. Holiday, 25-20 and all. That 25-20 thread on MO certainly has the details.

Thanks all for the points and ideas. Six, I have a 327 Fed that serves much the same purpose in a small hand gun.

piller · Post by **piller** » Wed Dec 04, 2013 11:03 am

Is anyone willing to send me their rifle for me to test those calibers for a couple of years? I haven't shot either one. I have looked at the reloading tables, and the .32-20 uses a bullet that is interchangeable with the .327 Magnum. The published velocities are basically the same, and PillHer has a .327 that I have shot. Extrapolating the data and fun from the pistol she has in .327 to what could be in a rifle, I would probably like a .32-20 in a carbine or rifle very much. For shots less than 100 yards at targets deer sized or smaller, it sounds great to me. From what I have heard about the .32-20, the people who have them really like them.

Marvin S · Post by **Marvin S** » Wed Dec 04, 2013 8:05 pm

I have four of each and still cant tell you. I do think the 32 is easier to get cast to shoot well in. Both are THE gun for these tight ammo and reloading componet times if casting your own. Get whichever gun is the best deal when ready. To me bore condition is very important.

missionary5155 · Post by **missionary5155** » Wed Dec 04, 2013 8:33 pm

Greetings
Depends on application to me.
The 32-20 and the 25-20 can propel a 90 grain cast bullet at near the same velocity. The 25-20 will have a shade less drop at 200 yards. But the 32-20 can easily use 115-125 grain cast bullets for thumping big ground hogs through the shoulders. I do not see a 90 grainer breaking both shoulders on larger than 35 pound ground hogs. Some of our ILLinois "grounders" get to near 50 pounds and they are capable of a fast run on 3 good legs. But bust both those front shoulders and they are not moving away fast.
For smaller lighter critters I dought it really matters except for a slight better trajectory with the caliber .25.
Brass avilability.. 32-20 is easy generally. I do not look for 25-20 but seldom see it for sale. Molds... again I think there are 2x as many 32-20 molds floating about.
For me I like to be able to carry my 32-20 Dan Wesson when hauling my 1873 or the Savage about. The DW gets the duty when crawling through ditches and wood edges. Nice only needing one caliber in the pocket. I have never held a 25-20 revolver. I am sure they are out there.... But how many companies have made 32-20 ? Most ??
So I lean real heavy to the larger 32-20. If nothing else bigger holes are always better.
Mike in Peru

missionary5155 · Post by **missionary5155** » Wed Dec 04, 2013 8:50 pm

Howdy
For the fun of it I went to Gunbroker to see about available firearms and supplies.
Leverguns.. 23 for sale in 32-20 ..... 13 for sale in 25-20
Revolvers.. 32 for sale in 32-20 ..... 0 for sale in 25-20
Brass ....... 10 entries in 32-20 ..... 1 entry in 25-20
Bullets ..... 1 entry in 32-20 ..... 1 entry in 25-20
Dies ....... 6 entries in 32-20 ..... 3 entries in 25-20

Mike in Peru

JerryB · Post by **JerryB** » Thu Dec 05, 2013 12:55 am

Get the 32wcf, I have had mine since the fall of 1953 and I enjoy it more than any rifle I have owned. I have some great loads for it, especially the 85 and 100 grain XTP HP with 5744 and 2400. It ain't a long range gun but you can sure tear up stuff with one.

Post by **Old Savage** » Thu Dec 05, 2013 11:02 am

Well boys the 25-20 it is. Thought we had DROSed a handgun but it was a long gun form so the Marlin came home. $135 to change the $123+ barrel. Discovered I have a very good source of cast 86 gr 25s from a friend. So 25 for now.

Had there been two rifles I think I would have taken the 32-20 but one will no doubt come along eventually.

thanks for all the interesting input.

KirkD · Post by **KirkD** » Thu Dec 05, 2013 1:04 pm

I found that Woodchucks would usually expire on the spot when shot with a 32-20 but would often make it to and down their hole when shot with a 25-20. Consequently, my preference is the 32-20.

Post by **Old Savage** » Thu Dec 05, 2013 1:27 pm

This one is never likely to shoot anything larger than a ground squirrel.

Mike Armstrong · Post by **Mike Armstrong** » Thu Dec 05, 2013 2:48 pm

I've had a .25-20 since I was 7 (that's 63 years); still have three. Have had many .32-20s over the years, too; still have a Colt Bisley I bought in Mexico (actually I traded it for a Colt "Frontier Scout" SA .22) that I keep mainly for auld lang syne, and a Winchester "Lo-Wall" 1885 single shot.

.32-20 has several POTENTIAL advantages: as a "survival gun" it shoots a whole bunch of .32s, maybe not accurately, but lethally at close range. As a dual-purpose rifle/revolver round (Colt made a VERY few OP-frame .25-20s, but that's all the .25-20 revolvers, except custom jobs). And as mentioned, the "Cowboy" business has somewhat restored its popularity, so guns and brass are easier to find than the .25-20.

The first two of these "advantages" were really mainly important back a long time ago. The other is current.

That said, I'd never get rid of my .25-20s and have gotten rid of most of my .32-20s.

An issue only (so far....) for us sad Californicates is that many .32-20s have an odd bore size and if I'm correct nobody makes a .311 lead-free bullet yet. Plenty of .308s but many .32-20s don't shoot those very well. There are .257 lead-free bullets that work OK with the .25-20.

AJMD429 · Post by **AJMD429** » Thu Dec 05, 2013 6:43 pm

Mike Armstrong wrote:An issue only (so far....) for us sad Californicates is that many .32-20s have an odd bore size and if I'm correct nobody makes a .311 lead-free bullet yet. Plenty of .308s but many .32-20s don't shoot those very well. There are .257 lead-free bullets that work OK with the .25-20.

Hmmm.... Maybe you could load up some of those 30-caliber 'Accelerator' sabots with 225 gummy-tips in them; assuming they'd obturate the 0.311 bore enough, just think of the advantages:

1. you'd have loads that would probably close to duplicate the 25-20 ones anyway, maybe faster, plus
2. you'd irritate bureaucrats by using "the same caliber bullets that an AR-15 uses", and
3. you'd irritate tree-huggers by spewing not lead, but nasty plastic sabots, and gummy-tips all over.

Post by **Old Savage** » Thu Dec 05, 2013 7:24 pm

AJ, not sure you are giving this the gravity it deserves

JerryB · Post by **JerryB** » Thu Dec 05, 2013 7:36 pm

OS, I have loaded the Speer 100 grain Plinker bullet in the 32-20 and had a very accurate load with it.

6pt-sika · Post by **6pt-sika** » Thu Dec 05, 2013 8:24 pm

Had atleast two of each cartridge in Marlin levers , had one of each in Winchester 1892's and had a Marlin lever n 218 Bee .

And at the moment I do not own a Bee , 25-20 or 32-20 .

Liked them all , but really have no need for any of them now .

Same can be said for lever in 32 H&R MAG , 30 Carbine , 357 MAG , 32 Long Colt .

rangerider7 · Post by **rangerider7** » Fri Dec 06, 2013 12:42 pm

I use my Winchester 53 32-20 on coyotes and my win 1892 rifle 25-20 on turkey. My choice if I could only have one is the 32-20 because you can have a matching revolver. RR7

bcp · Post by **bcp** » Fri Dec 06, 2013 1:45 pm

32-20 vs 25-20 ?

The best way to decide is to match whichever one is stamped on the barrel.

Bruce

KirkD · Post by **KirkD** » Fri Dec 06, 2013 2:10 pm

The 32-20 is even more vintage than the 25-20. The 32-20 was first introduced in 1882 for the Winchester Model 1873. The 25-20 was introduced in 1895 for the Winchester Model 1892.

Post by **Old Savage** » Fri Dec 06, 2013 2:27 pm

So Kirk, in keeping with my general approach I am shooting the more modern cartridge and You also in keeping are using the more vintage. We meet at 1954 with Old Savage and my old Savage 99 from whence I took the name, also 54 vintage.

w30wcf has pointed out a very interesting link to reloading the 25-20 on Marlin Owners which I shall have to study.

KirkD · Post by **KirkD** » Fri Dec 06, 2013 2:36 pm

What a coincidence ... both rifles made in 1954. That must have been a choice vintage year for rifles and men.

QCI Winchesters · Post by **QCI Winchesters** » Fri Dec 06, 2013 6:38 pm

I have both, but my .25-20 has a sewer pipe bore, so I have not used it. I have used the .32WCF extensively, however, and am very fond of it. Raccoons are tough to kill, and a 115gr. bullet and 18gr. FFFG puts them down every time. I hit one that was running full tilt once, big "THUD" and he stopped in his tracks, DRT. Of course, it took five shots to establish range and lead, lol! I have never shot mine at paper, when I first brought it back to life, I noticed a couple of cans that were standing at the 100yd. target stand. Two cans with two shots, that was all I needed to know for accuracy. If I can hit them, standing freehand, I can dang well hit a coon.

Post by **Old Savage** » Fri Dec 06, 2013 9:26 pm

Kirk, who would argue but, I have both .300 and .250 from that year.

QCI Winchesters · Post by **QCI Winchesters** » Fri Dec 06, 2013 9:30 pm

Old Savage wrote:Kirk, who would argue but, I have both .300 and .250 from that year.

I have a dad, a .300, a .30-30, and a .22 from the same year.

I agree, a good year!

KirkD · Post by **KirkD** » Fri Dec 06, 2013 10:10 pm

Old Savage wrote:Kirk, who would argue but, I have both .300 and .250 from that year.

Nice! Did you do that on purpose? Or did it just so happen that your two Savages were built in that year?

Post by **Old Savage** » Sat Dec 07, 2013 2:59 am

Just happened, one was a gift, the other just showed up at the right time.

Mike Armstrong · Post by **Mike Armstrong** » Sat Dec 07, 2013 1:10 pm

QCI, my Lo-Wall .25-20 also had a "sewer pipe" bore (very common in older smallbores). I had it relined and it shoots like a new gun.

Incidentally, it was in .25-20 W.C.F. originally; most of these are in .25-20 SS. Mine was marked .25 WCF and woudn't chamber the .25-20 SS; too long.

Post by **Old Savage** » Sat Dec 07, 2013 1:56 pm

Next to decide which 32-20 resizing die to buy to start the 32-20 to 25-20 process. RCBS typically over resizes in my experience. Might work as a mid step in reduction. Choices seem to be Lyman, Lee, RCBS and Redding.

southfork · Post by **southfork** » Sun Dec 08, 2013 3:13 pm

rangerider7 wrote:I use my Winchester 53 32-20 on coyotes and my win 1892 rifle 25-20 on turkey. My choice if I could only have one is the 32-20 because you can have a matching revolver. RR7

If you're to shoot a turkey with a 25-20, do you aim for the head (and thus not ruin any meat), or where? Head shots on turkeys are kind of tough, no?

QCI Winchesters · Post by **QCI Winchesters** » Sun Dec 08, 2013 7:42 pm

Mike Armstrong wrote:QCI, my Lo-Wall .25-20 also had a "sewer pipe" bore (very common in older smallbores). I had it relined and it shoots like a new gun.

Incidentally, it was in .25-20 W.C.F. originally; most of these are in .25-20 SS. Mine was marked .25 WCF and woudn't chamber the .25-20 SS; too long.

Yes, sadly, many .25-20's and .32WCF's have rotten bores from smokeless powder. I was reading about Townsend Whelen's experience with a Winchester 1892 in .25-20, and how even with the utmost care in cleaning, accuracy was fading after only 200 rounds. My .32WCF was likely used mostly with black powder, as that ammo was cheaper at the time it was new. The bore is only lightly pitted and accuracy is fine.

KirkD · Post by **KirkD** » Sun Dec 08, 2013 8:01 pm

I wonder if the poor bores were more to do with a period of mercuric primers. I have a reproduction of an 1896 Winchester catalogue and see that in 1896 both 25-20 and 32-20 were offered in smokeless powder. I would think that most Model 1892's saw a lot of smokeless powder from day one since, at the time, it was billed as cleaner. Mercuric primers, however, were very corrosive. I had a 1903 vintage Model 1892 32-20 that I had for several years and put a lot of shots through, certainly more than 200, and I did not notice any deterioration in accuracy at all.

QCI Winchesters · Post by **QCI Winchesters** » Sun Dec 08, 2013 8:23 pm

KirkD wrote:I wonder if the poor bores were more to do with a period of mercuric primers. I have a reproduction of an 1896 Winchester catalogue and see that in 1896 both 25-20 and 32-20 were offered in smokeless powder. I would think that most Model 1892's saw a lot of smokeless powder from day one since, at the time, it was billed as cleaner. Mercuric primers, however, were very corrosive. I had a 1903 vintage Model 1892 32-20 that I had for several years and put a lot of shots through, certainly more than 200, and I did not notice any deterioration in accuracy at all.

The problem as I understand it was a combination of the corrosive priming, and the high nitroglycerin content of the powders used. The .32WSL had the same issues, which is why you seldom find the Winchester 1905 with a really nice bore. Same with the older .22's, the early .22 smokeless loads destroyed a lot of barrels. Sharpshooter powder was supposed to be really bad.

Not sure how popular the smokeless loads were with practical folks, the BP stuff was still being loaded well into the 20's, and was cheaper than smokeless. BP would have been easier to clean up, compared to smokeless with corrosive priming. Particularly in the .32WCF, which produces very little fouling when loaded with BP. Even after firing 30-40 shots, one wet patch, a few dry ones, and an oily patch, the bore is clean. Try that cleaning procedure with smokeless corrosive loads, and you are in for a nasty surprise. It would have entailed cleaning with Winchester's Crystal Cleaner or something even more toxic, over a period of days, if you did not want a pitted bore.

KirkD · Post by **KirkD** » Sun Dec 08, 2013 8:49 pm

I've not heard of that before, but maybe there is something to that. One thing I do know is that it is particularly hard to find an original '92 25-20 with a nice bore.

QCI Winchesters · Post by **QCI Winchesters** » Sun Dec 08, 2013 9:19 pm

KirkD wrote:I've not heard of that before, but maybe there is something to that. One thing I do know is that it is particularly hard to find an original '92 25-20 with a nice bore.

It sure is hard to find .25-20's with even reasonably good bores, nearly all that I see out here are sewer pipes. I think smokeless was a lot more popular in the .25-20, too. Townsend Whelen wrote in "The American Rifle" (1918) that he tested several loads in his 1892, and settled on Winchester's standard smokeless load. As he knew that Sharpshooter smokeless powder was hard on barrels, he cleaned it very carefully after each use. It was first scrubbed with ammonia swabbing solution, then dried, thoroughly oiled, then swabbed with Marble's Nitro Solvent Oil. Even with such care, the bore was pitted by 300 rounds, and by 600 it was so badly pitted that it would not stay in 2 1/2" at 50 yards. The .32WSL was so bad that he figured the 1905 would need a new barrel every year if you shot it a lot.

earlmck · Post by **earlmck** » Sun Dec 08, 2013 11:10 pm

Old Savage wrote:Next to decide which 32-20 resizing die to buy to start the 32-20 to 25-20 process. RCBS typically over resizes in my experience. Might work as a mid step in reduction. Choices seem to be Lyman, Lee, RCBS and Redding.

I don't think you'll need to start with a 32/20 sizer die -- you just need to run a .311 or so neck expand die in to make sure the necks are nicely round before starting the squeeze-down process. Any dents would become wrinkles, so just make sure you don't have any dented necks to start.

QCI Winchesters · Post by **QCI Winchesters** » Sun Dec 08, 2013 11:31 pm

earlmck wrote:
Old Savage wrote:Next to decide which 32-20 resizing die to buy to start the 32-20 to 25-20 process. RCBS typically over resizes in my experience. Might work as a mid step in reduction. Choices seem to be Lyman, Lee, RCBS and Redding.
I don't think you'll need to start with a 32/20 sizer die -- you just need to run a .311 or so neck expand die in to make sure the necks are nicely round before starting the squeeze-down process. Any dents would become wrinkles, so just make sure you don't have any dented necks to start.

I made some .25-20 out of .32WCF and it never even occurred to me to run them through the .32-20 die first. I just pushed a tapered pen into the case mouths to make sure they were not dented, and put them through the .25-20 die. Just don't use Remington brass, it sucks eggs.

Post by **Old Savage** » Mon Dec 09, 2013 5:35 am

Occurs to me I might use the Redding 32 Mag die to do the neck.

Rusty · Post by **Rusty** » Mon Dec 09, 2013 7:31 am

southfork wrote:
rangerider7 wrote:I use my Winchester 53 32-20 on coyotes and my win 1892 rifle 25-20 on turkey. My choice if I could only have one is the 32-20 because you can have a matching revolver. RR7
If you're to shoot a turkey with a 25-20, do you aim for the head (and thus not ruin any meat), or where? Head shots on turkeys are kind of tough, no?

Aim for the base of the neck where it joins the body, the head is movin around too much.

2520WHV · Post by **2520WHV** » Tue Dec 10, 2013 12:29 pm

There is NO easy answer to this!

I have used both extensively for many years. They both are so good it's hard to pick a winner!

I have Savage Model 23's in both calibers.... I have come to testing both together on my 85 yard range. They seem to group better. They almost seem to compete for the tightest group and both are extremely accurate with their favorite loads.

I put having both calibers as the best possible answer. If you don't, you'll lose a little in the big picture.

2520WHV

Canuck Bob · Post by **Canuck Bob** » Tue Dec 10, 2013 6:31 pm

Its worth nothing but here is my process for a 32-20 purchase when looking for an older cartridge 92. When I checked both brass and bullets, Horn. XTPs, were on the shelf for the 32-20. 218 Bee and 25-20 weren't. Lyman sizing dies were available for cast bullets and loading dies were available in 2 brands for the 32-20. 218 Bee and 25-20 weren't. That is outstanding availability for Canada at the time.

I know little about casting but folks generally advise newcomers to start with larger calibers first. My fingers just seem to fail me when loading below 30 cal.. I drop bullets and spill powder. I know it is a simple thing to learn but no sense lying about it. Loading my Hornet is challenging and sometimes I wish my 32-20 was a dreaded Commie 7.62 for cheap ammo and real sturdy brass.

After all that my bucket list includes a Browning 92 clone in either 25-20 or 218 Bee. Sensible and guns need not be a requirement of any decision to purchase.

carbluesnake · Post by **carbluesnake** » Tue Dec 10, 2013 9:10 pm

Practicality has nothing to do with either. Make it easy on yourself. Buy both for Christmas, and let your wife choose which of the two she wants. A good wife would even cast bullets for herself and you. Merry Christmas.

QCI Winchesters · Post by **QCI Winchesters** » Wed Dec 11, 2013 1:55 am

it occurred to me today... The old .32WCF is one of the most expensive rounds to shoot if you buy factory ammo, at least in my neck of the woods. Yet, if you reload, it is one of the cheapest.