I have a late Model 30-1 in .32 S&W Long and am thinking of buying a Manson reamer and taking it to .32 H&R Magnum. Seems to be a fairly simple procedure for someone with some mechanical skills. I've been told to put layout fluid (Dykem) on the face of the cylinder to see when the headspace portion of the reamer touches the cylinder and other than that, anyone offer any suggestions? I am a retired Mercedes-Benz mechanic and have used reamers for 30 years.
thanks,
Stu

While I am not questioning your mechanical ability, I would question weather or not the old model Smith can handle the Magnum load. If you covet that revolver you might find out first if a gun built in that time period is strong enough for the cartridge you are thinking about using in it. I am not a metallurgist so I don't know but would be cautious...... Just saying.

chief38, thanks for the consideration. All of my research points to the metallurgy being good enough for the pressure of a 32H&R Magnum. 21,700 psi SAAMI. The .38 Special +P is 20,000 psi with much thinner cylinder walls from the same time period. S&W state that any revolver with a model number is good for +P pressures.
Stu

I don't know the issues on the strength of the 30-1 but I sure like the ideal of the finished product. I have reamed cylinders but only to make them uniform. I'm sure you have the knowhow to do it fine. Let us know how it turns out.

I have done that to (7) 30-1 and 31-1 cylinders. It is really quite simple as the amount of material being removed is very minimal and can be done by hand if you can secure the cylinder to prevent damage to its finish. Just turn the reamer in carefully till the rim of the reamer barely touches the cylinder.

Thanks jd330, just what I had thought.

Stu

You mention that you have done seven... I'm curious as to whether any of them were subjected to a lot of firing with the 32 H&R rounds? In other words, how do they hold up? I provided a favorite young niece of mine with a 30-1 for personal protection while her Marine husband was deployed. I'm wondering whether I could safely "up the ante" for her. Her hubby likes to shoot and I'm sure it will see a lot of use while he is stateside. Any estimates of round count or similar data would be most appreciated!

Froggie

Froggie,
I contacted Hamilton Bowen about doing the cylinder. He said that S&W, in their infinite wisdom, has never explained the heat treating of the .32's compared to the .38's of the same era and he would like to do a Rockwell hardness test to be sure, but other than that he was happy to do the cylinder. He saw no problems with the conversion. Only drawback he saw was if the chambers in my cylinder were already over-sized for .32 (they are not) then there might be a slight step from the end of the old chamber into the lengthened section (at SAAMI minimum) but could be polished out and wouldn't mean anything anyway.

Stu

That's the exact info I needed, Stu! I teach part time at a community college with a very well equipped machine shop. I can do a Rockwell Test there, I believe. That would be more than a little cool if I could provide the little one with a little gun with a bigger bite! I guess I should compare that cylinder to the one on my Baby Chief (or use a Chief's Special?) to know how close it comes?? Thanks again, and any further input welcome.

Froggie

Froggie, if you Rockwell test the 30-1 would you please post the results.
thanks,
Stu

Roger that. After the craziness here settles down, I'm hoping to take the cylinder from the 30-1 and my old Baby Chief in and get them both hardness tested. I'll try to post the comparison as soon as it is done. If I had kept the 30-1 instead of giving it to the niece, it would just about be a done deal and I'd have the reamer out already!

Froggie

If your hardness testing comes out as I think it will, I have 3 sitting in a row just waiting and I'm gonna order the Manson reamer ASAP. All this time I've been thinking I had to build a 16-4 and they've been sitting in the safe in disguise. :~)

Stu

Please include the testing results. I have 2 32 Hand Ejectors from the early 50's that I would love to do. I currently love the 32 H&R mag in my 16-4, (which I have not opened to 327).

I have Just last weekend reamed the cylinders in 4 .22RF's with a Manson finish reamer in SAAMI standard. I can report firing 100 rounds HV plus 50 rounds Hyper Vel with no difficulty ejecting any with just my thumb. Previously I had a couple I had to beat out after just 3 or 4 cylinderfulls.

__________________
H Richard
SWCA1967 SWHF244

I have well passed the 2000 round mark in the 30-1 that I carry and shoot the most (a nice, but finish challenged piece) and it is as tight as ever. My H&R loads aren't hot but they are hotter than 32 long loads. No flattened primers, which the 32 H&R is famous for in anything nearing brisk

Littlest niece just showed up a few minutes ago with the aforementioned Model 30-1. "But I like my little gun just like it is... I don't want to change it!" says she.

"Well, I was thinking of reaming the chambers out so you could shoot 32 Mags in it too." says I.

"OHHH! That sounds like a good idea. Yeah, you can do that." says she.

Measurements Tuesday, results posted Tuesday night, and (hopefully) reamer ordered soon thereafter. :!

Froggie

Sounds like a good idea to me.

__________________
dd884
JMHO-YMMV

H Richard
I was re-reading the thread this morning and realized you were talking about early 50's cylinders. I presume that is pre-model numbers or are you considering model number guns? We are only discussing model number guns that are good for +P loadings from 1957 forward. If you do Rockwell test a pre-model number gun, it would be very interesting to know the results as I think S&W have always maintained there was some sort of metallurgy change at that point in 1957 that made the guns safe for +P loadings.
thanks,
Stu

I'm looking for someone in this area that can do Rockwell hardness testing before I go any further, and yes they are 52 and 53 guns.

__________________
H Richard
SWCA1967 SWHF244

H Richard, I've got a late '40s HE snub in 32 S&W that I use as a CCW. I thought about chambering it to 32 H&R for semi-magnum level performance, but I'm a little leery of that for long term value of the gun as well as the pressure issues. If I could find another post-War I-frame cylinder floating free, I might run a Rockwell on that one and alter it, but the early post-War I-frames are getting a little to valuable to go altering willy-nilly, and with the original gun, once it's done, it's done. I've previously stated my feelings against permanent alterations of old discontinued guns (especially those in respectable condition) but you'll have to let your conscience be your guide there. Remember though that the I-frame has a shorter cylinder too!

Froggie

I just measured the cylinders on i and j frames. We have 1.250 on the i and 1.490 on the j (both .32's). The min/max cartridge length for the H&R is 1.300 for a min and 1.350 for a max. Case length is only 1.075 so you could load wadcutters or other short bullets but I think the problem, if we can believe S&W, will be the heat treating change they talk about from 1957 forward. Really looking forward to your testing Froggie. REALLY want to order that .32 H&R chamber reamer. Might force me to go on the 30-1 and 31-1 hunt with some seriousness. Anyone know of an easy way to put adjustable sights (NOT a Wondersight) on those puppies?

Stu

Stu; I don't think there is a "easy" way to install adjustable sights on a 30 or 31. You would have to mill out a channel to install the sights, and then raise the height of the front sight a little. Froggie, I don't think I would attempt to do a "pre" model 30, especially my little 2" which is nearly unfired. I am interested in the heat treatment of these cylinders, as I do have a +P load for the 32 Long which currently I only shoot in my 16-4.

__________________
H Richard
SWCA1967 SWHF244

Makes me think of all those Heavy Duty and Outdoorsman's that were ruined by reaming the chambers to .357 mag...

I presume you are referring to their collector value?

Stu

Froggie, any word yet on Rockwell testing?

Stu

We're just about going into exams at the college, so the lead teacher in that dept. asked me to wait about 2 weeks until the dust settles a little before I come down and do the measurement. What I will get, though is a good Rockwell C reading, just what we need to compare by.

Froggie

Thanks Froggie, I've just switched to stand-by mode :~)

Stu

To help the hours of waiting for test results I decided to order a new mold from Tom at Accurate for my .32's. Thought you folks might like to see it.
Stu

What do you expect the results to weigh out? In the 90-100 grain range?

__________________
H Richard
SWCA1967 SWHF244

I wanted them right at 100 gr. Tom @ Accurate is pretty good about hitting his target weights. I had him do 36-155WT for me for my .38's and I had requested 158 gr. and they come out of the sizer at 157.8 gr. He's pretty good about getting that right. I've tested the .358 bullet at the range and it is holding 1.5 - 2" at 25 yards from a rest. It's pretty accurate, so I'm hoping this .314 version will also be a tight grouper. I'm sure a bit of powder workup and I'll be able to get down to about inch groups at 25 yards (he hopes!)
Stu

Received the mold a few days ago and cast a few hundred yesterday. They are casting with range lead/wheel weight lead at 101.6 - 101.8 gr. They are measuring .3144 - .3150. I'm sizing now and will load some today to test this week.
Stu

That full wadcutter looks pretty formidable. So far I've bought swaged HBWCs in that caliber plus a DC mould that is reported to drop a 95 gr button nosed WC. I think for the 32 S&W L that should be heavy enough for pure target use, and for everything else in this caliber I like JHPs and LSWCs. H&Rs and FMs get SWCs in the 115-125 gr range.

Froggie

Mr Frog...Any updates on the reaming question, have a M-30 standing by? thanks...TED