?Value on a N Mod #3 ?

[glowe]

I hope H Richard is not getting too bored here, but this caliber is proving to be an interesting topic for me, since I love the odd-balls. The 320 RR had the same cylinder as the early 44 Russian NM#s, so maybe any full cylinder length 32 round could be for the 320 if it is 1 7/16" long. I found five 32-44 revolvers from current and closed auctions, and they were numbered 719, 901, 4075, 22073, and 32,008. Since the first long cylinder found on a NM3 had to occur no earlier than 1886 ( around #15,000) three of the five listed had a short cylinder, the same as the 320 RR.

I would love to find a non-step cylinder in 32-44 that was factory, but after searching quite a bit, I cannot find a full length 32-44 stamped cartridge, only the short ones. Hopefully, Ralph or others who have studied these odd-ball calibers will add to the conversation. I did run across a note on two of the auctioned NM3s that said only 299 of this caliber were made, but that is still more than I would have thought.

Last bit of information to ponder is that the NM# was offered in 320 Revolving Rifle caliber!!!!!!!! So my guess is that there was never a full length 32-44 Target round made??? It makes sense that if any NM3 has a bored through cylinder it is a 320 caliber not 32-44. All 32-44 Target guns should therefore have a step in the cylinder. I would guess that a factory 320 RR NM3 would be exceedingly rare!! Iam sure, however, that I am probably wrong???

 

[H Richard]

Gary, I did get ship date from Roy on this, and he didn't mention "It's an interesting piece" as he usually did if it was unusual. Ship date June 1898.

 

[Oyeboteb]

I hope H Richard is not getting too bored here, but this caliber is proving to be an interesting topic for me, since I love the odd-balls. The 320 RR had the same cylinder as the early 44 Russian NM#s, so maybe any full cylinder length 32 round could be for the 320 if it is 1 7/16" long. I found five 32-44 revolvers from current and closed auctions, and they were numbered 719, 901, 4075, 22073, and 32,008. Since the first long cylinder found on a NM3 had to occur no earlier than 1886 ( around #15,000) three of the five listed had a short cylinder, the same as the 320 RR.

I would love to find a non-step cylinder in 32-44 that was factory, but after searching quite a bit, I cannot find a full length 32-44 stamped cartridge, only the short ones. Hopefully, Ralph or others who have studied these odd-ball calibers will add to the conversation. I did run across a note on two of the auctioned NM3s that said only 299 of this caliber were made, but that is still more than I would have thought.

Last bit of information to ponder is that the NM# was offered in 320 Revolving Rifle caliber!!!!!!!! So my guess is that there was never a full length 32-44 Target round made??? It makes sense that if any NM3 has a bored through cylinder it is a 320 caliber not 32-44. All 32-44 Target guns should therefore have a step in the cylinder. I would guess that a factory 320 RR NM3 would be exceedingly rare!! Iam sure, however, that I am probably wrong???

Good mentions!

Of course, the .320 ( full length ) Cartridge ( or full length for a .44 Russian Length cylinder anyway ) would function the same as the .38 - 44, and if one had ordered a Target Pistol in .320, one was free to load for it as one pleased, and to be using it in Target Work...and it would have offered advantage for 50 Meter Targets, compared to the shorter Cartridge.

Given that the .320 Cylinders for the Revolving Rifle were on Hand anyway, and their Barrels having had the same Groove-to-Groove diameter as the Barrels of the 'short' .32 - 44, it seems to me that a .320 Target Revolver would have been an easy one to supply if ordered.

I hope I ave not added to any confusions here - when I got my .32 - 44, and soon on also got my little gaggle of "full length" .32 - something Cartridges, I was not at all even thinking about the .320 Revolving Rifle nor that the Cartridges I did get, may have actually been meant for it.

But even with this in mind, I see no reason why S & W would not have happily supplied a Target Revolver chambered for them, since it would have been a very nice Cartridge for Target Work, and, especially for the longer distances, compared to the 'shorter' .32 - 44 Cartridge.

 

[Oyeboteb]

Gary, I did get ship date from Roy on this, and he didn't mention "It's an interesting piece" as he usually did if it was unusual. Ship date June 1898.

Hi Richard,

Please win the Auction once it comes up, so we can figure out what your NM3 is chambered in.

Lol...

How did you get a Ship Date from Roy?

Any time I have looked to that portion of the Forum, the 'waiting list' is always maxed out..!

 

[opoefc]

The posters's pictures of the cylinder's chambers show a step about 3/4ths of the way down the chambers. A .320 Revolving Rifle cylinder does not have a step as it's bored straight through. Original factory NM#3s in .320RR caliber are extremely rare. I've only seen two in the last 75 yrs. Ed.

 

[glowe]

Ed, it was not the cylinder that I was questioning, but the fact that there is such a thing as a full cylinder length 32-44?? I think that Oyeboted's image of ammo could have been 320 RR, but they were not marked. His gun with the stepped cylinder would be proper to accept a 32-44 Target round, which is less than 1" long.

I don't think that H Richard knows if the NM3 he is interested in has a step or not?? My semi-educated guess is that if it is bored through, it might be a 320 caliber and if it has a step, a 32-44??

I have not been able to document a 32-44 cartridge that was be as long as the cylinder. The 32-44 guns that I have found at auction, a couple that show the cylinder had a step and all vintage ammo found is the short case variety.

 

[mrcvs]

Any time I have looked to that portion of the Forum, the 'waiting list' is always maxed out..!

Look right NOW. 4 available requests as we speak.

A few years ago you really had to be on top of this to get your request in, but lately, you don't have to move so quickly.

Often Roy has less than 5 requests to fulfill when he checks on a daily basis or even less frequently.

 

[mmaher94087]

Oyeboteb, the cartridges in Post #6 are .320 RR. There is not a 'full length' .32-44 cartridge. A .32-44 case will be ~.980".

 

[BMur]

32/44 Target

Here are a couple photos of my 32/44 Target cylinder. Almost 4 digit serial number. Case stops in chambers are in the same place as the earlier photo.

I also measured the chambers:

Throat: .318

Chamber: .346

Chamber depth( to chamber case stop) .945

I used a dial caliber and a depth gage. Both are very accurate.

Interesting, my chamber depth seems to be too shallow for the 32-44 cartridge. I don't have an original cartridge but what is listed on this thread seems to be too long. It could be the thickness of the head though. Yeah, that's what it is.

The .32 long is listed at .920. So that's under by quite a bit. I can see how it would drop right in and "appear" to be correct.

Murph

 

[Oyeboteb]

The posters's pictures of the cylinder's chambers show a step about 3/4ths of the way down the chambers. A .320 Revolving Rifle cylinder does not have a step as it's bored straight through. Original factory NM#3s in .320RR caliber are extremely rare. I've only seen two in the last 75 yrs. Ed.

Thank you Ed!

The "OAL" for the .32 - 44 Cartridge for my Cylinder seems to be 1-1/32nd inches.

Depth of Chamber, 31/32nds of an inch.

 

[delcrossv]

.002 jump is pretty tight . 31/32 is .969 (rounded up)

Off the IAA site:

.32-44 S&W/Target

bullet Dia .318 - .324
rim Dia .406 - .411
case length .967 - .980

32 S&W Long

bullet Dia .296 - .322
rim Dia .364 - .387
case length .893 - .940

32/44 S&W cartridge - General Ammunition Collector Discussion - International Ammunition Association Web Forum

 

[Oyeboteb]

Oyeboteb, the cartridges in Post #6 are .320 RR. There is not a 'full length' .32-44 cartridge. A .32-44 case will be ~.980".

Okay...

Thanks!

 

[BMur]

case length

Case length includes the thickness of the head. The head of the case stays outside of the chamber with a rimmed case. So you have to account for head thickness. Which reduces case length from .967 to under .945 so it fits. The head thickness is at least .025 or more.

I'm having a problem with that bullet diameter of .324 though. That would never chamber in my target 32/44. The throat on all 6 chambers mic's at .318. Right on the money on all 6. Its a precision gun so tolerances would be tight. That much variance is kinda "not" believable?

Maybe on a later gun that has a chamber that's bored straight through? I don't know.

The more I think about that variance the more ridiculous it is. As an example? The .38 special is .358....If you try to load a .361 bullet into the case and chamber it? It won't go in. That's only .003 difference....I don't know of any gun that can chamber a bullet with .006 variance. Unless is a hollow base bullet designed to expand but those are way undersized. Not oversized.

Well, actually if we are talking about the Black powder ERA? Then we are including "outside lubricated bullets".... Those most definitely did have huge variances from one firm to another.
However, chamber specs also varied so it's kind of a horse of a different color. The .32/44 was inside lubricated so the chamber specs were limited to very tight tolerances. That's really the one advantage to outside lubricated bullets over inside lubricated bullets. Chamber specs allowed significant variances in bullet selection. But that was a different ERA. Totally different design specs.

Murph

 

[delcrossv]

Imperial War Museum says .321

.32-44 Smith & Wesson | Imperial War Museums

Seems rather snug for a .318 throat. Only .318 bullet is my old 8x 57 German Commission rifle (although I do shoot modern .323's in it from time to time.) I do have a bunch of Kynoch .318 bullets that I have to load up.

Strange.

Edit. you may find this interesting

320 S&W Rifle - General Ammunition Collector Discussion - International Ammunition Association Web Forum

 

[Oyeboteb]

Imperial War Museum says .321

.32-44 Smith & Wesson | Imperial War Museums

Seems rather snug for a .318 throat. Only .318 bullet is my old 8x 57 German Commission rifle (although I do shoot modern .323's in it from time to time.) I do have a bunch of Kynoch .318 bullets that I have to load up.

Strange.

Edit. you may find this interesting

320 S&W Rifle - General Ammunition Collector Discussion - International Ammunition Association Web Forum

Nice Links!

Nice to have the refresher also that it was F. E. Bennett who was behind the introduction of the .32 - 44, and Ira Paine, behind the introduction of the .38 - 44.

I'd love to find some links which have detailed info on their Target Records and images of their Targets..!

That'd be fun..!

 

[orbruce]

Case length includes the thickness of the head. The head of the case stays outside of the chamber with a rimmed case. So you have to account for head thickness. Which reduces case length from .967 to under .945 so it fits. The head thickness is at least .025 or more.

I'm having a problem with that bullet diameter of .324 though. That would never chamber in my target 32/44. The throat on all 6 chambers mic's at .318. Right on the money on all 6. Its a precision gun so tolerances would be tight. That much variance is kinda "not" believable?

Maybe on a later gun that has a chamber that's bored straight through? I don't know.

The more I think about that variance the more ridiculous it is. As an example? The .38 special is .358....If you try to load a .361 bullet into the case and chamber it? It won't go in. That's only .003 difference....I don't know of any gun that can chamber a bullet with .006 variance. Unless is a hollow base bullet designed to expand but those are way undersized. Not oversized.

Well, actually if we are talking about the Black powder ERA? Then we are including "outside lubricated bullets".... Those most definitely did have huge variances from one firm to another.
However, chamber specs also varied so it's kind of a horse of a different color. The .32/44 was inside lubricated so the chamber specs were limited to very tight tolerances. That's really the one advantage to outside lubricated bullets over inside lubricated bullets. Chamber specs allowed significant variances in bullet selection. But that was a different ERA. Totally different design specs.

Murph

The bullets cast with a original 32-44 S&W bullet mold and run through the long loading tube come out to exactly .320. The same as the 320 Revolving Rifle bullet diameter. Makes me think the 32-44 cartridge was derived from the 320 Revolving Rifle cartridge. Other than my observations and experiments I have no other proof that this correct however.

B. Mower

 

[model3sw]

The bullets cast with a original 32-44 S&W bullet mold and run through the long loading tube come out to exactly .320. The same as the 320 Revolving Rifle bullet diameter. Makes me think the 32-44 cartridge was derived from the 320 Revolving Rifle cartridge. Other than my observations and experiments I have no other proof that this correct however.

B. Mower

Active thinking there. The .32 RR bullet mold is near exactly one of the .32-44 molds ... I think the 84 or 94 grain ??? Just jump in to help guys.

I haven't had meds nor coffee yet so can't even bend to get some books from the bottom shelves without seeing stars. Sal

 

[BMur]

Bore dynamics?

I like this part of the hobby the most...Dialing in?

I decided to slug and mic the bore for the forum. My results are below. My largest diameter .32 Lead bullet is from a Civil War mold that mic's at .319. Unfortunately, its just a little too small for an accurate measurement of the Groove diameter as can be seen in the bullet(slug) photo? You can see very clear contact signature on the lands but very little contact with the Groove. So the slug is too small.

However, from my experience slugging bores? I can also see about 5% contact with the groove at the cut of the lands under magnification. That mic's at .320. The lands mic at a tall .309.

So I agree with B. Mower's results of a .320 bullet diameter for the 32-44 as the correct bullet selection for this caliber.
However, the undersized throat should be telling us something about bullet selection for this firearm?

I'm suggesting that the original bullet was actually a hollow base bullet that was "slightly" undersized and designed to expand to meet the .320 groove diameter. That would explain everything.

I know for a fact that some of the original target bullets for the 38-44 are shown clearly in period loading manuals having hollow base bullets that would have expanded to meet the larger Groove diameter.

Very common design of the black powder ERA and very accurate. So in my opinion the original bullet for this Target 32-44 would have been a .318 Hollow base pure lead bullet that would have left the .318 throat and expanded within the bore to meet the .320 Groove diameter. Resulting in an extremely accurate firearm.

Ideal actually made a Hollow base .32 loading tool. Extremely rare but I would bet that bullet would function in this firearm perfectly. Probably made specifically for it. I don't know.




Groove: .320
Land: .309

Murph

 

[H Richard]

So, it would appear a .313 Speer hbwc of pure lead may just function, but may not be the most accurate.

 

[BMur]

correct bullet selection?

I would think the HB .313 is probably a bit undersized but look at the .41 Long colt? .386 hollow base for a .405 Groove diameter? and it works but I wouldn't call it a nail driver that's for sure. You could pop holes in a basket ball at 25 yards though so? Not target spec's though.

Here is a photo of the correct bullet for the target pistol?
This is from a reproduction 1894 Ideal loading catalog. They actually had a "specific tool" that was designed to mold and load the cartridge for the Target 32-44 and 38-44.

** Notice the Hollow base bullet? That's the one I would choose to shoot but its only speculative at this point without testing it to prove it's accuracy. Makes sense though that it would be a nail driver! It appears though that they only offered it in the 38-44 and not the 32-44? So I don't know?

*** I also looked thorough my Historical list of "ALL" known Ideal molds and tools? It's hard to believe but they actually did NOT make a mold for this caliber!

Only in the field loading tool is listed as molding a bullet for this caliber so the spec's of the bullet are unknown unless you have the "EXTREMELY RARE" tool? So that's going to be really hard to find I'm sure!

There was a later tool that manufactured a hollow base .32 caliber that was introduced in about 1898. (PHOTO 2). That is listed as the 32 Long though so it's definitely also undersized.

Very interesting that they did not manufacture a mold for this caliber! There must have been no public demand for this round. Therefore, it's really rare.

**** Smith & Wesson had the heeled bullet for the 32-44 in the "Peanut Mold" that was sold in the kits? In another thread recently( Reloading tools) a member photo'd a peanut mold in his collection that I was able to identify from my catalogs as a target bullet.
It probably was for the 32-44. Rare bird for sure. Still probably not the most accurate round though since it's a heeled bullet? The hollow base would probably out shine that round at the range but you'd have to have a mold made for it. That can be performed custom at various mold makers outfits. Probably run over $100 for a single cavity hollow base mold but it would make huge a difference in accuracy I'm sure. "ALL" in the smaller Target black circle!

Murph