32 Winchester Special

[Mattj4867]

Hi all! I just purchased a 1949 Winchester 94 (flat band) and it is chambered in 32 Winchester special. My research only shows that 165gr and 170gr bullets can be loaded. I was wondering if there are heavier or lighter bullets for this rifle. Also, what are your favorite loads for it. Thank you everyone!

[jmorris]

I don’t have answers to your question but I do have a lightly used RCBS pair of dies for the caliber. If you are interested you might save me the money of buying another firearm and I could save you money on dies.

[FrankenMauser]

The 'niche' of the .32 WS has always been 'heavier' bullets from a cartridge very nearly identical to .30 WCF (.30-30), with a lot of emphasis on cast bullets and a twist rate better suited to black powder reloads. And, it has never really been a popular cartridge.
As such, 'heavy' is where it lives.

You may be able to find lighter options as special order items from custom bullet makers, but I am not aware of any major manufacturer that makes 'light' bullets for the .32 WS.
Alternatively, you might look into drawing-down (resizing) .323" bullets to .321". But, if you even consider such, be sure to slug the bore first. It might already be .323"...

[condor bravo]

If you intend to use cast bullets, consult www.montanabulletworks.com. Their standard 8mm/.32 Spec bullet is available as a 170 gr flat nose with gas checks and diameter from .321 to .324. Also a 190 gr 8mm round nose with gas checks and same diameter selections. Price in the vicinity of $25 to $28 per hundred. My favorite .32 S load is the 170 gr and a max load of Trail Boss powder, hunting just paper of course.

[Sure Shot Mc Gee]

32 spec shoots quite well with lighter in weight cast. Lazy 1-16 barrel twist is the reason for that. Lyman 321427 is what I've shot in the past. Little 134 gr G/c bullet with the right powder charge impressed me and is a dandy for small game found on the woodsy trail when I was dead-headed back to the cabin from my deer stand.

[Bayou]

I've got a 1947 vintage Win in 32 Win SPL. I've been using Hornady 165 grain FTX projectiles. They provide good accuracy.

[Mattj4867]

If I use a projectile greater than 170gr, should I use the same data for the 170gr.

[condor bravo]

What powder you are considering. If you were using Trail Boss just continue to use Hodgdon's recipe for a max load without bothering to weigh the charge. Using other powders, the charge could be increased for the lighter 170 gr according to loading manually specs.

A max load of TB is to fill the case to the level where the base of the bullet will be after it is seated. The load will be mild.

[T. O'Heir]

"...only shows that 165gr and 170gr..." Your research is only seeing Hodgdon's site data. The real issue is finding jacketed .321" bullets and proper data for 'em. Doesn't appear that anybody makes anything but a 165 or 170 anyway.
The rifling being 1:16 is the primary issue. That's a BP cartridge twist.
"...use the same data for the 170gr..." Um, no. Be ok for a 175ish, but not heavier.

[44 AMP]

My research only shows that 165gr and 170gr bullets can be loaded.

You need to do more research!

I was wondering if there are heavier or lighter bullets for this rifle.

Yes.

About the only jacketed bullet common for the .32 Special is the 170gr FP. My old Lyman book (1970s) also lists a 137gr, 164gr, and 184gr cast bullets.

Literally, about any .32/8mm bullet close to the bore diameter can be used, with varying degrees of success, IF you load the ammo correctly for the bullet, and the gun. The listed bore of the .32 Special is .320-.321"

Finding reloading data for anything other than the usual 170gr and a few cast bullets will be problematical. Finding data with modern powders for anything other than the standard bullet will be serendipity. There may be some, ask the bullet makers...

Ammo loaded with anything other than the flat point, or blunt round nose bullet should be used as single shots, ONLY.

The history of the .32 Special is unique, and a bit interesting. In a way, its kind of the original cartridge version of "lite beer".
It was "more power, less fouling, shoots great!" sort of...

Early 1900s ads contain a lot of over-inflated (and sometimes outright bogus) claims, but they do still give a general intent. The early ads for the .32 Special said the round was intended for those who wanted more power than the .30-30, but less than the .30 Govt (.30-40 Krag) round.

The caliber and twist of the barrels meant when (re)loaded with black powder, they didn't foul "badly". (usually compared to the .30-30 with its smaller bore and faster twist)

Those same early ads also strongly warned against ordinary folks reloading with smokeless powder. They said it was dangerous if done by anyone other than the factory experts....

Personally, I think Winchester came up with the .32 Special as a way to sell their stock of .32 caliber barrels, when interest in the .32-40 began to wane...

One thing to be aware of, its been a "given" for generations that .32 Special barrels can lose their accuracy, well before they look like they should.

Meaning, compared to other calibers, a .32 Special bore can look good (not excessively worn), and still not shoot well, compared to an equally worn looking .30 cal barrel. Doesn't apply to every single one, of course, but enough of them have done this, over the years that its kind of expected, and has been written about in many places, for a long time now...

My Dad had a .32 Special, and it did it, sort of. With no change in anything we could determine, one year, it just decided to shoot everything 6" lower than the sights could be set for, from then on.

Not saying it will, but you should be prepared for the possibility that your 1949 94 might look great but not shoot great.

If it doesn't shoot well with standard ammo, don't give up all hope, there are things that can be tried (cast bullets) that might produce acceptable accuracy.

on the other hand, it might still shoot just as well as it ever did. Lots of 94s got used for generations without being shot all that much. Only shooting your gun will tell you what it does, or doesn't do.

Good Luck!

[gwpercle]

After digging through loading manuals dating back to 1967 I can only find data for one jacketed bullet 170 grain FP.

Cast bullets did better Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook Edition #3 has data for three bullets .
A 137 grain , 164 grain , and 184 grain.
Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook Edition #4...back to one ...170 grain.

Not much data floating around out there.

If you use data for a 170 grain and the bullet is heavier, and it depends on how much heavier , you would reduce the powder charge. I have data for a 184 grain cast lead bullet but not for a jacketed bullet. Their is a difference when using cast lead and jacketed bullets...the charges differ.

What are you trying to do, with what bullets and what powders do you have access to. Be specific, when it comes to reloading the details matter .
Gary

[FrankenMauser]

Other than the 137 gr data above, this is the only data I have for something other than a 160-220 gr bullet (spanning reloading manuals from 1950 to present):


1960 Lyman 42nd Edition:
.32 Winchester Special
110 gr jacketed bullet, .320"
No seating depth given.
(Powder, "suggested load", max charge.)
2400, 18.5 gr, 20.0 gr
4198, 29.0 gr, 36.0 gr
Hi-Vel, 29.0 gr, 35.4 gr
4895, 32.0 gr, 36.0 gr
3031, 32.0 gr, 37.0 gr
4320, 35.0 gr, 39.0 gr
Unique, 14.0 gr

The extant 'classic powders' above have changed a bit over the years. If you choose to apply this charge table to modern versions or Hodgdon versions, do so with caution.

[jag2]

I never understood why Win developed the 32s but that’s another story.
I can tell you my experience, I don’t shoot it that often but the accuracy was always fairly good. When the 170 flat points got hard to find I bought some lead, same weight. After a while I noticed that my accuracy wasn’t as good as before. I finally got some jacketed and went to the range, accuracy was back like before. Testing both at the same time, jacketed good, lead not so much. It was like I had two different guns. My final decision, it was just going too fast for lead. Certainly could be other factors but basicly the round was designed around the 170 jacketed bullet, stick with it.

[Mike Irwin]

"I never understood why Win developed the .32s..."

I can tell you exactly why. Even better, Winchester's period advertising can tell you exactly why and in no uncertain terms...




Winchester developed the .32 to meet the demands of those who simply didn't believe that smokeless powder would ever replace black powder, and Winchester brought out the .32 to meet that market niche.

Regarding cast bullets in your Special not shooting well... your velocity likely is too high. Cut it back. Winchester did develop the .32 with jacketed bullets, but it also designed it (rifling twist) to be reloaded with black powder and cast bullets, which gives a lower velocity than jacketed with smokeless.

[shootbrownelk]

I'll second that Hornady leverevolution pointed flex tip load. Works great out of my 94 in .32 SPL.

[44 AMP]

Winchester did develop the .32 with jacketed bullets, but it also designed it (rifling twist) to be reloaded with black powder and cast bullets, which gives a lower velocity than jacketed with smokeless.

I'll add that the .32-40 and the .32 Special use the same bore size and rifling twist rate. (at least in the Win Model 94). As far as I can tell, the only difference between a .32-40 barrel and a .32 Special barrel is the chamber and the markings.

I have no proof, but I still maintain it was likely that Winchester invented the .32 Special as a "new and improved" round the public would buy, so they could use their existing stock of .32 caliber barrels when sales of the .32-40 began to drop. Might not be what actually happened, but it makes a good story!

[Mike Irwin]

"I have no proof, but I still maintain it was likely that Winchester invented the .32 Special as a "new and improved" round the public would buy, so they could use their existing stock of .32 caliber barrels when sales of the .32-40 began to drop."

And I don't believe that to be the case, 44. I know we've discussed this before...

The biggest reason for the .32 WS not using old .32-40 barrel blanks is that the .32 WS was developed as a smokeless powder round, and even though Winchester provided the option of it being reloaded with black powder, they still envisioned it as being primarily a smokless powder round. I've never been able to find any indication that they ever provided the round loaded with black powder, which I think is a pretty clear indication of their intentions.

The new smokeless powders that were available to Winchester at the time this round as developed burned quite hot, and were just hell on the early, softer steels.

Winchester knew this when developing the Model 94 and it's two smokeless cartridges, the .30-30 and the .25-35.

To provide greater durability, Winchester pioneered use of the new nickle steel alloys in the guns chambered for the new smokless powder.

The new powder technology and the new barrel steel (which was quite a bit more difficult to machine due to its hardness) resulted in Winchester delaying release of the .30-30 and .25-35 rifles.

Winchester did not offer nickle steel in rifles chambered in .38-55 and .32-40 for quite a few years, but all of the early .32 WS rifles (granted, I've only seen a few) I've seen have had nickle steel barrels.

There's another problem, too, especially with the theory that Winchester brought out the .32 WS to "use up existing .32 caliber barrels."

What stock of .32 barrels?

The 1894 was the first repeating rifle Winchester offered in .32-40. I sincerely doubt that Winchester had a ton of barrel blanks sitting around in .32 caliber just waiting for some purpose to be useful. The .32-20, which used a different rifling twist, was still a viable seller in the Model 1892 when the 1894 was introduced, and the .32-40 was still a viable seller when the .32 Winchester Special was introduced in 1901.

Sorry, but your scenario just doesn't work out. It's an interesting thought, but I just don't think that it matches the reality of what was happening at Winchester at the time.

I'm trying to find some early 1894 advertisements or catalog pages that will give both specifications and prices, but so far no love.

[Mike Irwin]

OK, so far no joy in finding an early Winchester 1894 advertisement, but I did fine one hell of an interesting Sears catalog statement...

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c6/a3...bd5019cf6e.jpg

It gives warnings on how not to blow up your gun by using the wrong smokeless powder when reloading. I've never seen anything like that before.

But, it DOES talk about the Winchester 30-30 rifle having a nickle steel barrel.

AH! Found a reprint of the entire catalog!

https://archive.org/stream/catalogue...e/302/mode/2up

Nothing specifically in the write up on the .30-30/.25-35 saying that they have nickel steel barrels, but they are several dollars more expensive than the .32-40/.38-55, which would be in line with a rifle using an advanced barrel steel.

[Mike Irwin]

Another very interesting observation. That catalog is from 1902.

The Sears catalog refers to the cartridges as the .25-35 and .30-30, NOT Winchester's standard .25 and .30 WCF.

I knew that .30-30 and .25-35 was nomenclature introduced by other companies, but I didn't think that it was catching on that early.


Interesting that there's no mention of the .32 Special in that catalog, too.

And, it's also very interesting to note how much more expensive the Savage 1899 is.

[Mike Irwin]

OK, sort of getting closer.

Sears catalog 124's write up on the rifles states that the .30-30 and .25-35 have nickel steel barrels. They are, as before, more expensive than the .32-40 and .38-55.

But, there's no listing for the .32 Special. Maybe Sears considered it to be such a niche item that they didn't want to handle it...

https://archive.org/stream/catalogno...e/902/mode/2up


But, Sears is selling .32 Winchester Special ammunition, 170-gr. bullet, either full metal jacket or soft point jacketed.

60 cents for 20. About $15 in today's money.

[Jim Watson]

I recall a gunzine article about reloading the .32 Special with black.
Results with then standard Goex were not great.
But the author found a very old can of DuPont powder and tried it. Business picked up right away with higher velocity, better accuracy, and less fouling.
Even so, top velocity was little if any better than .32-40, it was still black powder. Seems like that would play hob with the "smokeless powder sights" offered on rifles of the day.

Somebody once advanced the idea that the "Special" calibers denoted rounds available with factory smokeless but to be reloaded with black. .32 Winchester Special, .38 Special, .44 Special.

[Mike Irwin]

"Somebody once advanced the idea that the "Special" calibers denoted rounds available with factory smokeless but to be reloaded with black. .32 Winchester Special, .38 Special, .44 Special."

Yeah, that was me. I've done so several times over the years.

Those are the only three production cartridges ever so named.

In the case of the .38 and the .44, both were S&W rounds. The .44 was the last commercial round ever introduced as a black powder round.

.38 Special black powder factory loads were available right up to before World War II; I don't know about the .44 Special.



"Results with then standard Goex were not great."

It's pretty much agreed by many sources that the black powder available today isn't even remotely close to the quality of the powder available in that propellant's heyday.

"Even so, top velocity was little if any better than .32-40"

The .32-40 and the .32 Winchester Special cases have similar capacity; I believe the .32 WS case will hold a bit more powder. But, with black powder, a little bit doesn't really make a different in the round's ballistics. It takes a lot to get an appreciable boost in performance.

[44 AMP]

Might not be what actually happened, but it makes a good story!

Perhaps you're right, I certainly have nothing more than a hunch to go on. Perhaps is wasn't a stock of already cut .32 barrels they wanted to use, but an attempt to maximize the use of the tooling to cut .32 cal 1-16 twist barrels.

The need to use nickel steel, and the difficulties working it MIGHT have been an unforeseen complication that came up after the decision was made to go ahead with the .32 Special" project. I don't know, and unless we find someone's diary that explains what actually happened in detail, I doubt we ever will know, for certain.

As to the name "Special" added to a round, you might be right about that, too. What I've always heard only applies to the pistol rounds, that they were "Special" because the cases were longer than the "standard" previous rounds in those calibers. .38 S&W Special is longer than .38 S&W, and .44 Special is longer than .44 Russian...longer case, holds a little more powder, a little more "bang" for your buck, so, its ..."Special".

Longer case wouldn't apply to the .32 Special, but it was marketed as being more powerful than the .30-30, and perhaps that was what made it "Special"?

After H&H brought the term "Magnum" into the shooting world, it seems there were no more "Specials" but there were "Magnums".

And then there's the oddball, .38 Super. Couldn't properly be a Magnum, because there was no increase in the case size, only in the pressure of the loading. So it became "Super" instead of Magnum, or Special.

Any idea when the .38 Super became the .38 Super +P?? My Dad had a .38 Super in the 70s, and my (increasingly inaccurate) memory tells me the ammo boxes and cases said ".38 Super". I will admit to not paying any attention to that caliber for decades, so I was a bit surprised coming back to it, and finding the ammo marked .38 Super +P nowadays..

It is a little surprising to hear that results with today's black powder aren't "as good" as black powder once delivered.

I suppose I shouldn't be all that surprised, I've found a lot of things in my life that aren't as good today as they once were..

[Mike Irwin]

"Perhaps is wasn't a stock of already cut .32 barrels they wanted to use, but an attempt to maximize the use of the tooling to cut .32 cal 1-16 twist barrels."

No. It's already been shown that Winchester was responding to customer requests. That's proven in their advertising of the day.




"The need to use nickel steel, and the difficulties working it MIGHT have been an unforeseen complication that came up after the decision was made to go ahead with the .32 Special" project."

No. It wasn't. By the time the .32 Special was first offered for sale, in late 1901, nickel steel barrels had been in production for almost 7 years.

Why would nickel steel barrels suddenly be a problem when literally tens of thousands of .30-30s and .25-35s were rolling off the production lines every year -- WITH nickel steel barrels?

Fact -- It wasn't.

Again, Winchester developed the .32 Special due to customer demand. The magazines of the time are literally full of debates over whether the new smokeless powder technology was going to last. A large enough number of people who wanted Winchester 1894s decided that they didn't want to find themselves with a suddenly obsolete rifle.


The earliest examples of barrel markings on a .32 Special that I've been able to find are from a rifle made in 1912. The barrel is plainly market Nickel Steel.

.32-40s and .38-55s from the same time frame are not marked nickel steel because they were never, as far as I can tell, made with nickel steel barrels.

The only change to the steel used in the .32-40 and .38-55 barrels came around 1932 when ALL Winchester barrel blanks -- lever action, bolt action, shotguns, etc., were switched to Winchester Proof Steel.

Winchester proof steel was the first of the chrome moly steel alloys. It was easier to work than nickel steel and, overall, proved to be more durable.

Just to be clear, here's the timeline

1894 -- Winchester introduces the Model 1894 in the blackpowder .38-55 and .32-40 cartridges. Although smokeless powder cartridges were advertised, there were problems with both obtain smokeless powder and with producing the new nickel steel barrels required for use with the new smokeless powder.

1895 -- Winchester introduces the smokeless powder .30-30 and .25-35 cartridges. 1894s chambered for those rounds have the new nickel steel barrels. Rifles chambered for the older, black powder .38-55 and .32-40 rounds retain the old Winchester barrel steel.

October 1901 -- In response to customer demands, Winchester introduces the .32 Special. The new cartridge was developed with smokeless powder, but the round can be, if the shooter desires, reloaded with cast bullets and black powder. .32 Specials are manufactured with nickel steel barrels.

1932 -- Winchester adopts the new chrome moly steel - known as Winchester Proof Steel - and replaces ALL previous barrel steels throughout the Winchester product line.

[Mike Irwin]

Regarding the three Special cartridges, I will admit, that is PURE speculation on my part, but it's speculation that fits the known facts -- sort of.

The fly in the ointment is that Winchester and S&W weren't connected in any appreciable way. They didn't, as far as I know, have any development projects, so it would be odd, but not impossible, for the companies to have come up with the Special nomenclature all on their own.

But, Special makes more sense for Winchester's use with the .32 than S&W's, because the .32 WS WAS a special purpose round.

The .38 Special was originally developed with black powder, and as far as I know, didn't fulfill the same sort of requirement (a round for shooters who wanted the option of using either black or smokeless).

In the case of the .38 & .44 Specials, from this distant view it even appears that S&W as a corporation wasn't all that sure that smokeless powder was going to stick around. That could explain why the .44 was developed as a black powder round in 1907 (the last round to be commercially developed with sacred black).

Again, as I said, all of this is speculation on my part, but it's speculation that fits at least the larger pattern of known facts.




".38 S&W Special is longer than .38 S&W"

The .38 Special was never based on the .38 S&W. The .38 S&W was a developmental dead end. S&W based the .38 Special on a lengthened .38 Long Colt round to give it greater powder capacity -- 21.5 grains as opposed to 18 grains.

That said, I don't believe that the special nomenclature as used by S&W had anything to do with a lengthened case.