So the .32 Long was introduced in 1877 and was loaded with black until 1903... or so sez Wikipedia.

Does that mean my 1896 swing-out heirloom could be damaged by today's factory ammo? (I don't mean to shoot with it regularly, I'll just make some noise on Independence Day).

If not, or if only BP loads are safe, does anyone know of a source? I handload, but I won't be shooting the old girl enough to justify a set of dies.

I have a 1896 and I shoot regular .32 factory ammo out of it without problems. Just stay away from hot loads. Modern SAAMI loadings are pretty mild.

It's been a while since this question has come up here, but the answer is that today's smokeless .32 S&W and .32 S&W Long factory cartridges are perfectly safe to use in an 1896. Factory smokeless loads in .32 S&W and .32 S&W Long were (and are) loaded fairly lightly, producing chamber pressures in the range of the old black powder loads. The information you quote is incorrect. The .32 S&W Long cartridge (center fire, NOT the old rimfire .32 Long) was developed at the same time as the 1896 revolver. The .32 S&W, a shorter (but otherwise similar) cartridge, was developed in 1878 for use in the various old-style top break revolvers. You can use either cartridge in your 1896. Smokeless cartridges were available from the very start of 1896 revolver production and there is a good chance that most 1896s have fired mainly smokeless cartridges during their lifetimes.

Welcome to the forum.

I agree 100% with everything DWalt posted!

"The .32 S&W Long, also known as 7.65x23mm,[2] is a straight-walled, centerfire, rimmed handgun cartridge, based on the earlier .32 S&W cartridge. It was introduced in 1896 for Smith & Wesson's first-model Hand Ejector revolver. Colt called it the .32 Colt New Police in revolvers it made chambered for the cartridge."

Quoted from WikipediA here: .32 S&W Long - Wikipedia

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

In 1901 a .32 Hand Ejector cost $10.50-$11.25 at Sears & Roebuck, depending on barrel length. (Topbreak DA and Safety Hammerless were more expensive.)
$1.25 for genuine pearl handles.

.32 S&W was $.39 a box for black powder, $.50 for smokeless. There was not a listing for .32 S&W Long smokeless but BP was $.45 a box.

I bet Grandpa shot smokeless when he could afford it.

Thanks, everyone! I have testimony from my two aunts (both in their 90's) that their grandmother (my great-granny) used the piece to shoo off hobos from trying to use the back yard privy during the depression. Many a rail-rider was scared off but no one, AFAIK, was holed. Given the state it came to me in, I'm guessing great-granddad, who operated a barge/ferry across the Ohio, from Paducah to Golconda, picked it up in a pawn shop. I've had it lettered, and Mr. Jinks tells me it left Springfield wearing blue... but it came to me with a coat of nickel, with most of the markings buffed off. Anyway, I doubt that BP loads were available in the 1930's Dogpatch.

I can't say for sure whether .32 BP loads were still available in the 1930s, but there were some revolver calibers which were. Even .38 S&W Special, for which BP loads were still listed in the 1936 Remington ammunition catalog. I can't imagine many of those BP loadings in any caliber were being sold at that time or any reason why anyone would want to use them. So far as I know, at least in the USA, cartridges used in semiauto pistols were always loaded only with smokeless powder. Many believe that smokeless powder is a fairly recent development, but in the USA, duPont (and some others) began manufacturing it in the early 1890s. And European manufacturers were making it (and exporting it to American cartridge companies) even before that.

I bought some modern .38 Special Black powder ammo (Geox Black Dawge) from Midway several years ago, but I see it has been discontinued. Other than being really smokey, there wasn't a lot of noticeable difference. I suppose this was made for the Cowboy Action Shooting crowd.

No, I don't recall why I thought it was a good idea at the time. It must have been on clearance or something.

The .38 S&W Special cartridge was originally designed to use BP, but it didn't take very long for it to be nearly completely converted to use smokeless powder. The ballistic performance of the early BP load was about the same as, if not a little better than, the later smokeless loads. But the smokeless loading is, well, smokeless and it doesn't gum up your revolver quickly like shooting BP ammo does.

Where did you get the information that the .32 S&W Long dates to 1877? The .32 S&W was introduced in 1878 and the Long, AKA Colt New Police and Colt Police Positive were not introduced until 1896, concurrently with the S&W .32 Hand Ejector and the Colt New Police Revolver. Reference is "U.S. Cartridges And Their Handguns", Charles Suydam, (C) 1977.

__________________
Gunsmithing since 1961

Has anyone else noticed that Model 1896 revolvers have almost completely dried up in the for sale market? I follow way to many auctions and always make sure I dig out 32 HE 1st with every search. As little as a couple years ago, they were quite commonly found for sale, but now I rarely find one available to buy.

Barnes book almost got it right in that he stated that the cartridge was developed for the S&W 1st Model, but then goes on to state that the gun was introduced in 1903. I don't know much about the 32 Long Colt but that caliber dates back to the mid-1870s. They do chamber in the 32 Long revolvers, but are not the same round. Have never found any information that caliber was a forerunner to the 32 Long, but the resemblance is maybe more than coincidence??

__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515

Don't have an opinion of the 1896 availability but in the period you mention it definitely seems that we've seen many more posted on this forum as new acquisitions.

AFAIK, the 32 S&W long had not parent cartridge and was a 'first' from everything I've read.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

The factory would certainly have wanted potential gun buyers to think that was the case, but the bullets are the same diameter, the case is the same length, the rim is the same diameter, and the OAL is the same.

Only difference is that the case of the original 32 Long Colt had a heeled bullet, the case and bullet was .313", while the 32 Long was inside lubricated and the case was .335". As I noted, the 32 Long Colt would have fired in the S&W, but the S&W cartridge would not have fit in the Colt.

So the only change was that the more modern internal lubed bullet 32 Long cartridge was designed to replace the outdated heeled bullet cartridge. Bottom line is that almost every dimension is identical and it seems unlikely that it was just coincidence in my mind.

__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515

It is the .32 Colt New Police cartridge which is essentially the same as, and interchangeable with, the .32 S&W Long. Both date from 1896. One could say that the .32 S&W cartridge is the parent of the .32 S&W Long cartridge, as the only dimensional difference is in the case length. The .32 Long Colt cartridge is somewhat different from the .32 Colt New Police as it has a smaller diameter case and originally used a heeled bullet, which was later changed to a smaller diameter inside lubricated bullet. The .32 Colt and .32 Long Colt cartridges are not interchangeable with the .32 S&W and .32 S&W Long cartridges. There has always been some confusion on this point as Colt chambered some of its revolvers in both calibers (.32 Long Colt and .32 Colt New Police). The .32 Colt and .32 Long Colt cartridges are long obsolete and very difficult to find. The .32 S&W and .32 S&W Long cartridges are relatively easy to find.

I wasn't clear on the parent cartridge. I should have stated the 32 S&W had no other brand parent cartridge. Smith had a 32 RF well before any of Colt's .32s whose case dimensions are almost the same and lead one to believe Colt likely developed from the 32 RF by making it a center fire.

The 32 S&W (shorter) from 1878 was of course the parent ctg. to the 32 S&W Long being almost identical except for length.

The companies were very proprietary about their cartridges and that's one reason Colt and S&W would rather be flogged than chamber their gun for another's cartridge. Hence why the two separate, but almost identical cartridges.

Smith undoubtedly made their 32 center fire cartridge to not only be different from Colt's, but different as in a larger case diameter. That would make their guns more flexible to shoot both brands in the days when there wasn't a Walmart on every corner. The Colt can only shoot 32 Colt. Or, it's just a figment of my imagination.

NOTE: DWalt beat me to the draw! I had to go to the store before finishing my post.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

I have fired both the .32 long colt and the .32 S&W long in the same S&W M1903 revolver and in every case the Colt cartridge case split because it was so undersize, and accuracy was terrible due to the undersize bullets.

__________________
Tom
1560

A 32 Long will not chamber in a 32 LC gun, but the 32 Long Colt will not only chamber in the 32 Long revolvers, but would fire just fine. Case is slightly smaller than the 32 Long, but all other dimensions are identical including the bullet. Still say, the similarity was not a total coincidence.

Again, one can argue that the 32 S&W could have copied the 32 Short Colt, which was introduced earlier, around 1875. The dimensions of both are identical except for the case diameter. The bullet was heeled and .313". I think the demise of the early 32 Colt line of ammo was when the company developed the inside lubricated bullets, requiring them to resize the bullet down to .299" in order to chamber in the Colt revolvers. I assume that accuracy may have suffered. Obviously S&W prevailed and offered superior ammunition to the customer. Their calibers survived, while the Colt calibers disappeared.

__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515

(.32 short and long) Colt likely developed from the 32 RF by making it a center fire.

Close enough for government work.
Marlin made .32 lever actions that came with centerfire and rimfire firing pins.