CWLONGSHOT
Well-Known Member
Im thinking it was a group buy or similar.
.32 H&R
- Thread starter richhodg66
- Start date
Intel6
Active Member
Brad, I think I also have that mould, group buy from many years ago. It is a 120 gr. .32 bullet but it is more of a RN with a small FP. I use it in my .32 MAG's, my T/C barrel really likes it.
Here it is loaded in .32 MAG (second from the last) along with some of the other bullets I cast and load in .32 H&R Mag.
Speaking of cast bullets in 30 caliber, up through 35 caliber, my personal and limited experience with the 32 Mag (revolvers) has led me to feel there is more to be had in an optimum than a maximum with the crartridge.
Squeezing the most velocity from it has not seemed to do much more than extend range a very slight bit, but usually at the cost of accuracy to a point exceeding the benefits of the small increase in range. Surely there is a perfect balance of the highest velocity with X-bullet and Y-powder to be found, but I limit what powders I'll keep on hand. This way I have MORE of a flexible powder as opposed to a little of this and a little of that, dedicated to a specific gun load.
My ideal has seemed to always shake out to NOT a "light" bullet, NOT too fast and definitely NOT too HARD. Bullets on the heavier end of t he spectrum - 98 to 110 or 120 grains, 50/50 lead/WW and faster than the older straight-walled 32s - meaning not trying to achieve hand-loaded 32-20 rifle ballistics. I do not own a round-nose or pointy bullet mould, so usually fail to mention the virtue of a flat nose for dispatching pests. "Magnum" seems a bit of a misnomer for the the 32 Mag, but that's what they called it. Doesn't mean we have to force it to work outside its core competencies. Let it do what it does best - better its predecessors by a very useful margin.
Accuracy can be VERY gratifying and effectiveness on wild mammalian quadrupeds under 40# is significantly more decisive than any 22 rimfire I've ever used or seen used. 25 YARDS. If it's within 25 yards, it COULD be a threat, but not necessarily, so if I can get one to shoot withing an inch and a half at 25 yards, it is sufficient. MORE than sufficient would be very welcome and is possible. Shooting at 50 yards becomes a bit more of a challenge, but I'm not likely to bother with a trail critter at that distance unless it's one I've been after for a while - and if I were acticley looking for one, I'd have the rifle anyway. As an "incidental" trail gun, the 32 Mag is a gem, but there's a lot to be had from it within a band of "power" which is often overlooked - NOT max, NOT the mildest paper-punchers, but significantly more "punchy" that its predecessors, such that it makes a worthwhile difference.
Squeezing the most velocity from it has not seemed to do much more than extend range a very slight bit, but usually at the cost of accuracy to a point exceeding the benefits of the small increase in range. Surely there is a perfect balance of the highest velocity with X-bullet and Y-powder to be found, but I limit what powders I'll keep on hand. This way I have MORE of a flexible powder as opposed to a little of this and a little of that, dedicated to a specific gun load.
My ideal has seemed to always shake out to NOT a "light" bullet, NOT too fast and definitely NOT too HARD. Bullets on the heavier end of t he spectrum - 98 to 110 or 120 grains, 50/50 lead/WW and faster than the older straight-walled 32s - meaning not trying to achieve hand-loaded 32-20 rifle ballistics. I do not own a round-nose or pointy bullet mould, so usually fail to mention the virtue of a flat nose for dispatching pests. "Magnum" seems a bit of a misnomer for the the 32 Mag, but that's what they called it. Doesn't mean we have to force it to work outside its core competencies. Let it do what it does best - better its predecessors by a very useful margin.
Accuracy can be VERY gratifying and effectiveness on wild mammalian quadrupeds under 40# is significantly more decisive than any 22 rimfire I've ever used or seen used. 25 YARDS. If it's within 25 yards, it COULD be a threat, but not necessarily, so if I can get one to shoot withing an inch and a half at 25 yards, it is sufficient. MORE than sufficient would be very welcome and is possible. Shooting at 50 yards becomes a bit more of a challenge, but I'm not likely to bother with a trail critter at that distance unless it's one I've been after for a while - and if I were acticley looking for one, I'd have the rifle anyway. As an "incidental" trail gun, the 32 Mag is a gem, but there's a lot to be had from it within a band of "power" which is often overlooked - NOT max, NOT the mildest paper-punchers, but significantly more "punchy" that its predecessors, such that it makes a worthwhile difference.
Last edited:
Bret4207
At the casting bench in the sky. RIP Bret.
IIRC I hit 2300 in a 32-20 rifle. The GC makes a big diff there. Same for the various lever guns chambered in 32 Mag. GC isn't a dirty word. OTOH, there's no sense in my using the 311316 in a 32 S+W Long out of my K32. All depends on how fast you want them to move.
Not to put words in your mouth or twist what you said, but this pushed a button regarding revolver/carbine combos.
While I have been messing with the idea of one load I can have available to do reasonably decent work )MOST of the time) in both the revolver and carbine (in 357 Mag), it's not always about just that either. Having the commonality between the two arms in terms of moulds, dies, powders, brass, etc. is a huge benefit, especially when such commodities are dear.
One load in anything is never going to "do it all," especially do it all WELL. There's a whole lot of ground within which ONE load could do MOST, which is not insignificant, but there is also always that call to have a few specialized loads as well.
Since I really don't get time to hunt these days, one of the big "plusses" in the 357 Mag for me is that (the way I hunt) it is a bit of a moot point and the 32 Mag would probably do almost everything I need to do. One moderate load to suit the revolver AND carbine and maybe ONE specialized load for the carbine only, which would stretch the range a tad for 50 or 65 yard shots on vermin/varmints, which would let me engage such targets without fiddlin' with sights or "fudging" too much on holdover.
Bret4207
At the casting bench in the sky. RIP Bret.
My days of trying to hotrod a 32-20 are done. I found out I could do what I wanted, but the cost in brass and to the old Savage was more than I was willing to bear. My 32-20 revolver is a Colt Army Special, which (if I had guts enough) should be wearing adjustable sights. As it is, it's hard for me to shoot accurately compared to a rifle. While there may be a "do all" load for both the Savage 32 and Colt, it's a quest I've not pursued. The Smith K32 is sooooooo much easier to hit with and it's quieter to boot!
Last edited:
richhodg66
Well-Known Member
Brett, is the Savage you mention one of the 23 bolt actions?
All of which makes a very good point in terms of seeking optimums instead of maximums. Having a gun specific to each of a few hundred applications is impractical, namely in that you cannot always predict the specific scenario for which each is intended as you try to pick one from the safe before heading out. Settling on the 90-plus percent is a lot less nerve rending. I've gone deer hunting with a shotgun and slugs, only to see plenty of deer 300 and 400 yards away. I've gone woodchuck hunting with a hot-stepping 25 cal. center-fire, only to be presented with ten and fifteen-yard shots.
I love the 32s, and especially the 32 Mag, but when I limited what I care to keep track of and maintain, I passed on that caliber in deference to one I've never liked much - the 357 Mag. I reasoned that I wouldn't want to try to push the 32 past a certain limit for the small, but significant percentage of extremes, excepting the even smaller percentage of really extreme extremes. I actually load very few full-power 357 loads, having the latitude in "power" to be able to take it easy on the brass and powder. I would be shooting a 32 similarly, and MAYBE missing an "opportunity" once in a blue moon, but such an opportunity would be a range-thing and I've never been one to press that much either, prefering to be (or get) closer anyway.
I'm not saying my choice was the universally "better" choice, but that if we accept certain rather inconsequential "limitations," any one of the cartridges we chose can be a great pleasure to shoot without the headaches of asking it to do more than it really needs to do. Sure is a lot easier on brass too! This is especially important for any of the "older" or less faddish cases which are being supported less every year and is quite costly when some is available.
Bret4207
At the casting bench in the sky. RIP Bret.
It is. I never had any gas leakage or anything, but those hot loads just seemed pretty hard on her. Lovely old rifle, not worth getting an extra 2-300 fps. In fact, most of what I do is nicely done at 1600 or so, and not just in the 32-20!
CWLONGSHOT
Well-Known Member
Many a 25/20, 32/20 and the newer 257 Winchester magnum was RUINED by hot rodding!!
I looked for a marlin 357,for years!!!finally found one,put a receiver site on her,and it is some sweet!
I use 12.5-2400/358429
In this rifle,and my revolvers,,most accurate,in everything!
Have to crimp over the front drive band,in order to feed in marlin.the handguns shoot these short ones,splendidly,as well.
Drive on over, I will make you a deal on a Marlin 357.
Intel6
Active Member
Both my .32 mag's shoot great. I have had the S&W 16 since the 90's and have shot lots of Mag and S&WL through it. I have gotten some amazing groups with it in my Ransom rest shooting HBWC's in S&WL brass. The T/C barrel is more recent and it seems to really like the heavier bullets in the LEE 120 gr. RNFP and the RCBS spire point that is 118 grs.
The 357 Mag comments...
That's where I ended up when I was picking and choosing which would stay and which would go. BUT, if I still had the desire to maintain a passel of guns, a 32 Mag revolver/carbine combo would be very, very high on the list. Of course, it would then make sense to also have a Contender Carbine barrel for it too, really.
The 357 does do for me all a 32 would, but the 32 is just too cool. I sure don't mind enjoying those which others have paid for, so I keep coming back to this thread.
That's where I ended up when I was picking and choosing which would stay and which would go. BUT, if I still had the desire to maintain a passel of guns, a 32 Mag revolver/carbine combo would be very, very high on the list. Of course, it would then make sense to also have a Contender Carbine barrel for it too, really.
The 357 does do for me all a 32 would, but the 32 is just too cool. I sure don't mind enjoying those which others have paid for, so I keep coming back to this thread.
CZ93X62
Official forum enigma
I love LOVE LOVE 30-32 caliber handguns. Every post I have seen both here and in That Former Site that dealt with this subject ALWAYS got tons of attention. There is a definite following for mid-caliber handguns.
30 Carbine Blackhawk--superbly accurate, and louder than Hell's Drumline when run at full power. It likes bullets between 100 and 130 grains in weight. My best is a plain base 118 grain that looks like a short plain-based #311440. Run at 850-900 FPS it isn't blasty and they stack on top of each other.
32 S&W Long--a delight to shoot, older revolvers should stick to the 95-100 grain castings at 700-750 FPS. A pound of powder goes a long long way. Post-war Colts and S&Ws can go past 900 FPS without too much fuss & bother. 85-100 grain weights have worked best for me.
32 H&R Magnum--I have a S&W Model 16-4 x 6" revolver that is the most accurate revolver I have ever owned or fired--bar none. Most of its shooting is with the RCBS #32-98-SWC castings, and though it can run them faster I choose to run them at 900-1000 FPS. There is no finer small game or varmint revolver ever made. 85-100 grain bullets have done the best work here as well.
32/20 WCF--I have 3 of these revolvers and a levergun as well. I could write for hours about these guns and their ammo, but I'll sum things up here. The 110-130 grain bullets do better work than do the 85-100 grain bullets have. This is based on over 50 years of loading and firing these cranky, quirky arms and cartridges. Also, Starline brass in this caliber is the single largest upgrade the chambering has ever received. Priming is not uber-critical with the wheelguns and 1880s load levels, but in rifles the use of Rem #6-1/2 primers will decrease group sizes markedly. CCI #550 primers seem to have the same effect. In rifles the SP primers are not quite enough, and the SR are a bit too much. The Rem 6-1/2 was developed for the small-cased rifle rounds like 22 Hornet, 25/20 WCF, 30 Carbine, and 32/20 WCF HV. SPM caps seem to duplicate the #6-1/2 primers' effects closely, but this needs further work for me to say this conclusively.
The bullets that do good work in the 30 Carbine also do good work in the 32/20 WCF. #311316 is my high-velocity champion in the Marlin 1894CCL, it stays accurate to 1900 FPS+. My 118 grain PB design for the 30 Carbine casts at .315" in 92/6/2, so It gets sized at .313" for the 32/20 and then squeezed down to .311" and .309" for the Carbine BH. Ben sent me my first #311008 mould some months ago, and I have some 32/20 revolver loads put up with those now.
'008' is the classic 32/20 bullet, but it is not without its quirks. It lacks a crimp groove, and its case mouth was meant to be crimped around the bullet ogive. A column of black powder was meant to support the seated bullet as the cartridges shunted down a tubular magazine. The late John Kort used 25.0 grains of RL-7 as a full-density BP substitute in 44/40 cartridges, so I did the logical & heretical thing and used 12.5 grains of RL-7 under some '008's just for grins. It worked. There are a few zombie grains left in revolver bores, but rifles do better work. BP velocities result, about 875-900 FPS from 5" barrels and 1200-1225 from the Marlin. Rem #6-1/2s were used throughout, revolvers and rifle.
327 Federal--Another great cartridge that combines the best attributes of the many other mid-calibers into one do-it-all chambering. For the record, my 4" SP-101 has the dubious distinction of being even louder than the Carbine Blackhawk with full-snort loadings. I don't have the time-in-grade with the 327 that I have with the above critters, but I do like what i have seen. I'm thinking that a Henry levergun in 327 might be a worthwhile addition to the fleet.
30 Carbine Blackhawk--superbly accurate, and louder than Hell's Drumline when run at full power. It likes bullets between 100 and 130 grains in weight. My best is a plain base 118 grain that looks like a short plain-based #311440. Run at 850-900 FPS it isn't blasty and they stack on top of each other.
32 S&W Long--a delight to shoot, older revolvers should stick to the 95-100 grain castings at 700-750 FPS. A pound of powder goes a long long way. Post-war Colts and S&Ws can go past 900 FPS without too much fuss & bother. 85-100 grain weights have worked best for me.
32 H&R Magnum--I have a S&W Model 16-4 x 6" revolver that is the most accurate revolver I have ever owned or fired--bar none. Most of its shooting is with the RCBS #32-98-SWC castings, and though it can run them faster I choose to run them at 900-1000 FPS. There is no finer small game or varmint revolver ever made. 85-100 grain bullets have done the best work here as well.
32/20 WCF--I have 3 of these revolvers and a levergun as well. I could write for hours about these guns and their ammo, but I'll sum things up here. The 110-130 grain bullets do better work than do the 85-100 grain bullets have. This is based on over 50 years of loading and firing these cranky, quirky arms and cartridges. Also, Starline brass in this caliber is the single largest upgrade the chambering has ever received. Priming is not uber-critical with the wheelguns and 1880s load levels, but in rifles the use of Rem #6-1/2 primers will decrease group sizes markedly. CCI #550 primers seem to have the same effect. In rifles the SP primers are not quite enough, and the SR are a bit too much. The Rem 6-1/2 was developed for the small-cased rifle rounds like 22 Hornet, 25/20 WCF, 30 Carbine, and 32/20 WCF HV. SPM caps seem to duplicate the #6-1/2 primers' effects closely, but this needs further work for me to say this conclusively.
The bullets that do good work in the 30 Carbine also do good work in the 32/20 WCF. #311316 is my high-velocity champion in the Marlin 1894CCL, it stays accurate to 1900 FPS+. My 118 grain PB design for the 30 Carbine casts at .315" in 92/6/2, so It gets sized at .313" for the 32/20 and then squeezed down to .311" and .309" for the Carbine BH. Ben sent me my first #311008 mould some months ago, and I have some 32/20 revolver loads put up with those now.
'008' is the classic 32/20 bullet, but it is not without its quirks. It lacks a crimp groove, and its case mouth was meant to be crimped around the bullet ogive. A column of black powder was meant to support the seated bullet as the cartridges shunted down a tubular magazine. The late John Kort used 25.0 grains of RL-7 as a full-density BP substitute in 44/40 cartridges, so I did the logical & heretical thing and used 12.5 grains of RL-7 under some '008's just for grins. It worked. There are a few zombie grains left in revolver bores, but rifles do better work. BP velocities result, about 875-900 FPS from 5" barrels and 1200-1225 from the Marlin. Rem #6-1/2s were used throughout, revolvers and rifle.
327 Federal--Another great cartridge that combines the best attributes of the many other mid-calibers into one do-it-all chambering. For the record, my 4" SP-101 has the dubious distinction of being even louder than the Carbine Blackhawk with full-snort loadings. I don't have the time-in-grade with the 327 that I have with the above critters, but I do like what i have seen. I'm thinking that a Henry levergun in 327 might be a worthwhile addition to the fleet.
Last edited:
Having been a long-time 44 Special nut, I understand how those of us so-afflicted can get the idea that a company would sell truckloads of the the blasted things if they'd only MAKE them! In reality, we 44 Special nuts are a pretty insignificant minority among gun buyers.
HOWEVER, I don't think Rossi could go wrong in offering a 32-caliber 92. THAT would possibly get me to fall off the wagon and buy something new.
HOWEVER, I don't think Rossi could go wrong in offering a 32-caliber 92. THAT would possibly get me to fall off the wagon and buy something new.
Bret4207
At the casting bench in the sky. RIP Bret.
Ooooo! Count me in if the price is something a normal person could afford!!!