|
Post by tinkerpearce on Jan 19, 2020 23:05:50 GMT -5
Introduced in 1896 for the new S&W Hand Ejector revolver, cartridges were originally loaded with black powder with a round-nose lead bullet. By the time the Model 1903 was produced the transition to smokeless powder was made. Colt adopted the cartridge, but used a flat-nose bullet and called it ‘Colt New Police.’ While it has fallen out of favor in the US, .32 S&W Long remains popular internationally, particularly for target shooting. Not surprising, as the cartridge has always had a reputation for exceptional accuracy. Modern commercial loads are low-velocity and low-powered. While light hollow-point bullets are offered they do not expand at these low speeds. S&W Model 1903 Hand Ejector (top) and a Colt Detective Special (bottom) The test guns for this cartridge are a S&W Model 1903 Hand Ejector with a 4″ barrel, and a Colt Detective Special with a 2″ barrel. 98gr. LRN, Remington commercial ammunitionS&W- 4″ barrel- 694 fps. 105 ft/lbs SD: 18 Colt- 2″ barrel- 643 fps. 90 ft./lbs SD: 32 Definitely what I call a ‘lawsuit load,’ well under SAAMI pressure limits for this cartridge. Pretty much designed to punch holes in paper and not break really bad guns. 96 gr. LRNFP, 4.3gr. Unique, CCI500 primer
S&W- 4″ barrel- 1089 fps. 253 ft/lbs SD: 31 Colt 2″ barrel- 984 fps. 206 ft/lbs SD: 53 This load was taken from Sharpe’s 1937 ‘ The Complete Book of Reloading,’ and does not exceed SAAMI pressure limits for this cartridge. Quite a difference from factory loads! Still, I would restrict the use of this load to good quality firearms in good condition… and fire them sparingly. 96gr. LRNFP, 4.0gr. Power Pistol, CCI500 PrimerS&W- 4″ barrel- 1148 fps. 281 ft/lbs SD: 41 Colt 2″ barrel- 1090 fps. 253 ft/lbs SD: 45 While I don’t have access to scientific pressure-measuring equipment, I think this is almost certainly a +P load, and would only use it sparingly in the strongest revolvers. As you can see from the results above, particularly the Unique load from Sharpe’s book, there is a lot of un-tapped potential in this cartridge. At these velocities I think it very likely that a well-designed hollow-point would both expand and penetrate adequately, even from a 2″ barrel. When we get to the gel tests we shall see…
|
|
erich
.30 Stingray
Posts: 393
|
Post by erich on Jan 20, 2020 1:00:34 GMT -5
I have been using Sharpe's load with Unique for years, and I get results just like yours. Excellent load for my solid frame guns!
|
|
|
Post by eagle1899 on Jan 20, 2020 8:45:30 GMT -5
32 S&W Long is a fun cartridge!!!
|
|
|
Post by Cholla on Jan 20, 2020 10:37:54 GMT -5
96 gr. LRNFP, 4.3gr. Unique, CCI500 primer
S&W- 4″ barrel- 1089 fps. 253 ft/lbs SD: 31
Colt 2″ barrel- 984 fps. 206 ft/lbs SD: 53
This load was taken from Sharpe’s 1937 ‘The Complete Book of Reloading, ’ and does not exceed SAAMI pressure limits for this cartridge. Quite a difference from factory loads! Still, I would restrict the use of this load to good quality firearms in good condition… and fire them sparingly.
96gr. LRNFP, 4.0gr. Power Pistol, CCI500 Primer
S&W- 4″ barrel- 1148 fps. 281 ft/lbs SD: 41
Colt 2″ barrel- 1090 fps. 253 ft/lbs SD: 45
While I don’t have access to scientific pressure-measuring equipment, I think this is almost certainly a +P load, and would only use it sparingly in the strongest revolvers.
As you can see from the results above, particularly the Unique load from Sharpe’s book, there is a lot of un-tapped potential in this cartridge. At these velocities I think it very likely that a well-designed hollow-point would both expand and penetrate adequately, even from a 2″ barrel. When we get to the gel tests we shall see… Interesting stuff! Your chrono results are interesting. Your second load of 4.0 grs. of Power Pistol gives higher velocity than 4.5 grs. of Unique. Given that Power Pistol(one of my favorite handgun powders)burns slower than Unique and you used a lighter charge than the Unique load, I would've expected a lower velocity from the Power Pistol load. At any rate, thanks for posting this as it's a nice break from all the other calibers. Cholla
|
|
|
Post by x101airborne on Jan 20, 2020 10:50:56 GMT -5
Years ago I gave my son a Buckeye Special in 32 H&R Mag. Shortly after, I got a smoking deal on 32 long brass from someone who bought it by mistake. We have been trying different loads for years but never chrony'd any. Thanks for the information!
|
|
|
Post by oddshooter on Jan 20, 2020 11:46:34 GMT -5
tinkerpearce, I gotta stop reading your posts. You continually get me in trouble with new interests. I've been real happy with 32-20, 32 H&Rmag, and the 327fedmag; but, those 32 S&W long loads look magical. Back to the loading bench. Prescut
|
|
|
Post by eagle1899 on Jan 20, 2020 11:50:15 GMT -5
I use alot of Promo(Red Dot equivalent) in everything.
My go to loads for 32 Long
2.8 grains with a 78RN
2.3 with a 90TC
I need a Chrony
|
|
|
Post by 500fksjr on Jan 20, 2020 13:49:49 GMT -5
4.3 is a great load...as is 2.0 gr of titegroup an a 100 grn pill its about 810 over a chrono...
|
|
|
Post by bushog on Jan 20, 2020 15:47:24 GMT -5
How accurate are the .32 longs in a .32 H&R or a .327 Federal?
|
|
|
Post by x101airborne on Jan 20, 2020 16:24:42 GMT -5
How accurate are the .32 longs in a .32 H&R or a .327 Federal? Only difference in my Sons gun is less noise from the longs and the point of impact at 50 feet is about an inch off.
|
|
|
Post by wheelguns on Jan 20, 2020 16:53:37 GMT -5
When I got my 32 hrm single six bisley, I was waiting on some reloading stuff for the caliber. Nobody had any 32 hrm ammunition, so I picked up some 32 swl. It shot good but high, and left a horrible carbon ring in my cylinder. Much worse than shooting 38’s in a 357
|
|
|
Post by oddshooter on Jan 21, 2020 11:39:54 GMT -5
hey whellguns,
that horrible ring I'm betting was from the factory ammo. Some manufacturers don't spend much on powder and you can see the results. The velocity they reach is pretty anemic as well; which makes it much worse. I almost quit shooting the 32s, when only shooting factory, because old weak 32 guns made manufacturers nervous about selling even medium load 32s.
I doubt it was from the S&W long in the H&Rmag cylinder because I've down this with 32 handloads and didn't see a problem. I really dislike hard extraction and so I watch this pretty closely.
I've found factory 38 special that did leave a nasty ring after several hundred rounds. Luckily that was years ago; I shoot handloads almost exclusively now and use a lot of Vihtavouri, which is very clean burning.
Prescut
|
|
|
Post by wheelguns on Jan 21, 2020 11:55:10 GMT -5
hey whellguns, that horrible ring I'm betting was from the factory ammo. Some manufacturers don't spend much on powder and you can see the results. The velocity they reach is pretty anemic as well; which makes it much worse. I almost quit shooting the 32s, when only shooting factory, because old weak 32 guns made manufacturers nervous about selling even medium load 32s. I doubt it was from the S&W long in the H&Rmag cylinder because I've down this with 32 handloads and didn't see a problem. I really dislike hard extraction and so I watch this pretty closely. I've found factory 38 special that did leave a nasty ring after several hundred rounds. Luckily that was years ago; I shoot handloads almost exclusively now and use a lot of Vihtavouri, which is very clean burning. Prescut I think you are correct. I haven’t shot anymore of the longs through it since though. I handload about everything I shoot nowadays. My 32hrm supplies arrived, and I don’t have any 32swl guns around.
|
|
|
Post by bradshaw on Jan 21, 2020 12:17:10 GMT -5
When I got my 32 hrm single six bisley, I was waiting on some reloading stuff for the caliber. Nobody had any 32 hrm ammunition, so I picked up some 32 swl. It shot good but high, and left a horrible carbon ring in my cylinder. Much worse than shooting 38’s in a 357 ***** Unaware of a .32 Hornady Rimfire Magnum (“32 hrm”), I looked it up. Near as I could find, .32 Harrington & Richardson Magnum, which seems to fit. David Bradshaw
|
|