I may have an opportunity to buy a New Mod #3 .32 Target. It is rough, maybe 10% finish left. But, it is surprisingly tight and the chambers and bore are shiny. A .32 Long will chamber, so since these were made up until 1910 it might be possible for that chambering?
I have no idea what these may value at, and the SCSW4 doesn't seem to be much help. I know there weren't large amounts made in this chambering or as a Target, but would the value be a few hundred or a couple thousand? Sorry, I can't get pictures. Just looking for a ballpark range. Thanks
Caliber should be .32/44 S&W Target if the gun is one of that model. ( probably has a 4 digit serial number) Very similar to the .32 Long, but a longer case where the bullet sits inside the mouth of the case. Very hard to come by original .32/44 ammo but if you want to shoot the gun, .32 S&W long or .32 S&W will work. It's also possible the gun is a New Model 3 in the target version and special ordered in .32 Long, or .32 S&W, caliber. So, H Richard, which S&W are you looking at ? Ed.
So why no pictures or serial number?? Is the cylinder bored through? The 32-44 and 38-44 Target are very similar and take standard .314 and .360 bullets respectively. As Ed states, the bullet was loaded fully loaded into the case, making the chamber slightly larger than a standard 32 or 38 S&W. The case was the length of the cylinder. I do not have a 32-44 in my collection, but that cartridge should look like the 38-44 I reload and shoot below. Original loads would have used a round-nosed bullet or a round ball in gallery loads.
My own 'New Model 3' in '.32 - 44', the Cylinder is bored with a small 'step', to accept a normally Seated Bullet which extends out from the Cartridge Case, and the Cylinder Bores and Barrel's "Groove-to-Groove" are .322.
I gather there were two different length .322 Diameter Bullet '.32 - 44' Cartridges ( and with them, their respective Cylinder Chamber details ), one Cartridge being the full length of Cylinder, where the projectile was/is seated entirely inside the Cartridge case, and, the other, as mine is, where the Cartridge is of a conventional kind, and that both of these Cartridges were of the same diameter, and Barrel's Groove-to-Groove, likewise, taking the same .322-ish diameter Bullets.
With this, it also does seem one could Order a New Model 3' chambered for .32 S&W Long, or maybe even .32 S & W, both of which are of a smaller .312 ish diameter Bullet and smaller diameter ( and shorter to much shorter ) Cartridge Case.
Image showing some of the 'full length' .32 - 44 Cartridges -
32 Long was not mentioned by Roy as a caliber for this model, but one might think a very late example could have been chambered that way, BUT if an early serial number, 32 Long was not around until 1896?? I suppose that someone could have had it re-chambered in 32 Long?
32 Long was not mentioned by Roy as a caliber for this model, but one might think a very late example could have been chambered that way, BUT if an early serial number, 32 Long was not around until 1896?? I suppose that someone could have had it re-chambered in 32 Long?
I can not say I have seen one ( a New Model 3 in .32 S&W or in .32 S&W Long ) only that I have accepted provisionally that those Chamberings could be ordered if one wanted...and I have heard it said here on the forum somewhere along the line, that they were understood by some to have existed.
Oh! Just remembered! Someone had one on Facebook in an S & W Group there, which he was confident was .32 S&W Long. I lost track of that conversation though.
Of course, a person could mistake either ( ".322 / .323" ) .38 - 44 Chambering, at-a-glance, or at a naive glance, for being .32 S&W / .32 S&W Long.
Now, if someone were to look at mine, and chamber some .32 S&W Long Cartridges, they might suppose it to be .32 Long, but, it is not...and the .32 S&W Long Cartridges are a little loose, a little too small in diameter, and a little too short in length.
You would think if it was an odd caliber that it would be caliber stamped? 32 S&W would be a special order For sure and pretty rare.
Smith & Wesson top breaks are known for having case stops in the chambers. Only exception I can think of is the Winchester rifle calibers.
So “if” it was a special order 32 S&W it should have case stops in the chambers that would match the length of the intended caliber.
Big difference in case length between the 32/44 and the 32 S&W Long or short. You should be able to clearly see the case stops in the chambers. If they are way towards the front? It’s a 32/44. If more towards the middle or back? You have yourself a special order target and very rare.
I may have an opportunity to buy a New Mod #3 .32 Target. It is rough, maybe 10% finish left. But, it is surprisingly tight and the chambers and bore are shiny. A .32 Long will chamber, so since these were made up until 1910 it might be possible for that cambering?
I have no idea what these may value at, and the SCSW4 doesn't seem to be much help. I know there weren't large amounts made in this chambering or as a Target, but would the value be a few hundred or a couple thousand? Sorry, I can't get pictures. Just looking for a ballpark range. Thanks
Be careful here. Check Phillip Sharpe on Handloading. .32 S&W long carries a .311-.312" width bullet whereas a .32-44 New model 3 carries an actual .32 Caliber in .323"caliber so I cannot see how that statement could be factual.
Finish ... baaah ! For a shooter as long as the mechanical condition is most important, safety-wise.
The New Model 3 is NOT for the average gunsmith to repair. You need so seek and find someone who specializes in the New Model 3s, yours truly included.
Parts can cost a small fortune and there are no actual fit replacement while I have heard of some mechanics that alter replacement parts from the repro Model3s .e.g.Navy Arms, etc. I cannot attest to any of that being factual. I use only original S&W parts.
Going back to the start, NEVER buy a New Model 3 unless it has been examined by a knowledgeable mechanic.
At the condition / blue coverage you mention, I expect there to be a bit more wrong with it than just missing some blue.
Proceed with caution. Save to buy one in better condition rather than a "fixer-upper" here.
I may have an opportunity to buy a New Mod #3 .32 Target. It is rough, maybe 10% finish left. But, it is surprisingly tight and the chambers and bore are shiny. A .32 Long will chamber, so since these were made up until 1910 it might be possible for that chambering?
I have no idea what these may value at, and the SCSW4 doesn't seem to be much help. I know there weren't large amounts made in this chambering or as a Target, but would the value be a few hundred or a couple thousand? Sorry, I can't get pictures. Just looking for a ballpark range. Thanks
I'm better armed with information now, but auction isn't for another month. The value is above where I feel comfortable buying, but I will be actively bidding when the time comes, keeping fingers crossed.
I'm better armed with information now, but auction isn't for another month. The value is above where I feel comfortable buying, but I will be actively bidding when the time comes, keeping fingers crossed.
Ahhhh...if you can go see it again, see if there is a step in the Cylinder Chambers, and if allowed, try an empty .32 S&W Long Cartridge Case, and see if there is some wiggle room laterally, or not...and see if it goes in all the way or goes in only to .32 S&W ( short ) length.
This will tell you a lot then, every which way.
I do not really have much useful clue about value for these, since sellers have wide ranging conditions offered ( when they do come up ) for prices which usually make little or no sense at all.
I was lucky getting mine, as no one else bid, and starting bid was very comfortable.
Otherwise, even the Service configuration ( non Target ) New Model 3s, I have seen minty ones sell for under 2 grand, and utter worthless beat and bad bore, worn out timing ones being offered for twice that, if I maybe did not follow up to see if any one bid or bit.
Welcome to the wonderful world of old Guns..! Lol...
Gents, I'm sure you all know that because of age and illness, the majority of my S&W & Colt collection is being sold off gradually. No auctions.
I have several New Model 3 shooters, like 3 in 32-44 a few in .38-44 and several in .44 Russian that would not hemorrhage money to own. Additionally you know EXACTLY what you're getting.
Then again, if you like New Model 3s in the condition that realistically require you to hemorrhage $$, well, I have those, too. Including a 2nd model Australian (1 of 3 known to remain),
AND ... a New Model 3 Target in .45 S&W Schofield which is the only one known to exist since Robert Neal's went missing about 20 years ago. (Not missing ... he sold it but no one knows who purchased it). A photo of Robert Neal's is in Neal & Jinks.
Also have loads of parts and other such for the American 1st issue , 2nd issue, Russians 1, 2, 3, New model 3, Schofields,etc.
When I did see the item, it did have a slight step in the chamber, and I had a .32 Long round with me and it slid right into the chamber as if it was made for it. I did not have any measurement tools with me to check bore or throats. It was originally presented to me to be a 38 caliber, but the one picture I saw didn't look right which prompted me to have a couple rounds of different calibers in my pocket when I went to see it. I have been reasonably familiar with #1's and #1 1/2's, but not #2's or #3's. I'm in that part of my life where I have been selling off a number of my collection, but still have the urge to add something different if it could be obtained for a reasonable price.
Here is the rub for it being a factory 32 Long . . . is it an early or late gun? If early, I could not have left the factory in a caliber that did not exist when the gun was built???
I always assumed that the 32-44 would have been made the same as the 38-44, full length of the cylinder, but have never found any details. Come to find out 32-44 that was mentioned above, shows up in an old S&W catalog. The 1900 S&W catalog shows clearly that the 32-44 is a shorter round than the 38-44, therefore requiring a stepped chamber in order to achieve accuracy for this round. The standard nomenclature used in black powder loads do not apply with this caliber or the 38-44, since there would be no way to get 44 grains of BP in the case, but rather the 44 referred to the gun, 44 Single Action.
Here is the rub for it being a factory 32 Long . . . is it an early or late gun? If early, I could not have left the factory in a caliber that did not exist when the gun was built???
I always assumed that the 32-44 would have been made the same as the 38-44, full length of the cylinder, but have never found any details. Come to find out 32-44 that was mentioned above, shows up in an old S&W catalog. The 1900 S&W catalog shows clearly that the 32-44 is a shorter round than the 38-44, therefore requiring a stepped chamber in order to achieve accuracy for this round. The standard nomenclature used in black powder loads do not apply with this caliber or the 38-44, since there would be no way to get 44 grains of BP in the case, but rather the 44 referred to the gun, 44 Single Action.
Please see my images above - Post No. 6 -
I posted an image showing the .32 - 44 Cartridges which are the full Cylinder Length version ( for the .44 Russian Length Cylinder )...same length as the 'full length' .38 - 44 Cartridges ( which also came in a shorter version at least as far as period info of the time indicated in Cartridge illustrations-descriptions).
These 'full length' .32 - 44 Cartridges are too long of course for my .32 - 44 New Model 3, as mine takes the shorter version, and my Cylinder chambers 'step' to the Cylinder Bore.
Both the .32 - 44 and the .38 - 44 each had the full length version of the Cartridge, or, the shorter, Stepped-Cylinder Chamber version of the Cartridge.
Just bought a big, THICK circa 1904 Book which has tons of info about Cartridges and Arms of the time, but I have not had a chance to look at it yet, will look soon, and I'll post any illustrations or other info as apply to these Cartridges.
Gents, I'm sure you all know that because of age and illness, the majority of my S&W & Colt collection is being sold off gradually. No auctions.
I have several New Model 3 shooters, like 3 in 32-44 a few in .38-44 and several in .44 Russian that would not hemorrhage money to own. Additionally you know EXACTLY what you're getting.
Then again, if you like New Model 3s in the condition that realistically require you to hemorrhage $$, well, I have those, too. Including a 2nd model Australian (1 of 3 known to remain),
AND ... a New Model 3 Target in .45 S&W Schofield which is the only one known to exist since Robert Neal's went missing about 20 years ago. (Not missing ... he sold it but no one knows who purchased it). A photo of Robert Neal's is in Neal & Jinks.
Also have loads of parts and other such for the American 1st issue , 2nd issue, Russians 1, 2, 3, New model 3, Schofields,etc.
Please check your private messages here at the forum!
Could they be 320, since they are not stamped? I can guess that if S&W made a full length case in 32-44, they would have placed it in their catalog?? I am just supposing here, but am wondering if there was only one 32-44 cartridge and that was the shorter one? Your unstamped cartridges could maybe be 320??? I am not finding comparisons and differences in the two calibers? I have an old 1881US Cartridge Catalog, but the do not list any of these target cartridges. Barnes book does not list either caliber target rounds either??
International Ammunition Association lists only a short 32-44 Target round.
.32-44 S&W/Target
bullet Dia .318 - .324
rim Dia .406 - .411
case length .967 - .980
Also, the only images that I can find on an Internet search show a short case 32-44 only. Here is one link to a closed auction.
Could they be 320, since they are not stamped? I can guess that if S&W made a full length case in 32-44, they would have placed it in their catalog?? I am just supposing here, but am wondering if there was only one 32-44 cartridge and that was the shorter one? Your unstamped cartridges could maybe be 320??? I am not finding comparisons and differences in the two calibers? I have an old 1881US Cartridge Catalog, but the do not list any of these target cartridges. Barnes book does not list either caliber target rounds either??
International Ammunition Association lists only a short 32-44 Target round.
.32-44 S&W/Target
bullet Dia .318 - .324
rim Dia .406 - .411
case length .967 - .980
Also, the only images that I can find on an Internet search show a short case 32-44 only. Here is one link to a closed auction.
Let's see if we can find Cartridge Data for the .320 'Revolving Rifle' and go from there.
I may have been complaisant - Seller I got my little hand full from said they were ".32 - 44" ( as such ), but, may be they are actually "320"s for the 'Revolving Rifle' that was based on the New Model 3.
1881 would be too early I think for any mentions of .38 - 44 or .32 - 44, as they did not come about for some while, and I htink that around ten years had gone by from the introduction of the New Model 3, till they did come about, about from the requests of some of the more prominent Target Shooters of the Day, who wanted a little lighter Cartridge than the erstwhile .44 Russian...and, I am not sure when that was, other than late or very late 1880s I t-h-i-n-k.
I just double checked my little Gaggle of "32" Cartridges, and the Cartridge Body is the same length as my Head Stamp "38 -44" Cartridges.
This is part of what had encouraged me to suppose the ".32 - 44" had full Cylinder Length ( Cylinder being .44 Russian length ) as well as, the short Cartridge.
I have seen images of .38 - 44 Cartridges which also were shorter than cylinder length, even though they had their Bullets inside the Case, the Cylinder Chamber would have been stepped, for their being shorter, as well as one could have loaded the shorter ones to have the Bullet seated in a conventional way if one wanted to...since the stepped Cylinder Chamber / Bore would accept this.
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???
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.
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.
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..!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..!
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.
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
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.
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!
HB's make sense with a .318 case throat but a .320 land diameter.
My question would be what modern case could be trimmed to fit the chamber but hold a .318 bullet?
HB's make sense with a .318 case throat but a .320 land diameter.
My question would be what modern case could be trimmed to fit the chamber but hold a .318 bullet?
.32-20 / .32 WCF Cases can be shortened, and their upper area expanded...base of .32-20 Case is a perfect fit, but .32-20 is a tapered body, ( and .32 - 44 is a straight no taper Case ) but once expanded, and fire formed, will likely be just dandy.
This is what I am about to be doing, soon as my expander Die gets here.
My own .32 - 44, the Cylinder Bores are .322, Barrel Groove-to-Groove is .322.
I’m amazed at the variances in bore dynamics posted on this thread for a Target Gun?
However, any Antique Firearm was manufactured in the Black powder ERA and that ERA was totally different than the smokeless ERA. This thread is just further proof of that.
These Target guns saw both ERAs so you must mic your specific gun and match bullet to bore. You can’t rely on what someone else’s Target gun mics at!
His may have been manufactured during the smokeless ERA and yours being a much earlier Black powder ERA gun might just have totally different bore dynamics. I’d bet on it!
Gotta do your own homework on this one.
I’m amazed at the variances in bore dynamics posted on this thread for a Target Gun?
However, any Antique Firearm was manufactured in the Black powder ERA and that ERA was totally different than the smokeless ERA. This thread is just further proof of that.
These Target guns saw both ERAs so you must mic your specific gun and match bullet to bore. You can’t rely on what someone else’s Target gun mics at!
His may have been manufactured during the smokeless ERA and yours being a much earlier Black powder ERA gun might just have totally different bore dynamics. I’d bet on it!
Gotta do your own homework on this one.
Murph
.218 Cylinder Bores and .218 Barrel's "Groove to Groove" actually might just be perfectly fine for a .32 - 44 using a .323 or .322 Bullet, now that I meditate on this some more -
So long as a normal ( and normally crimped ) Cartridge and Bullet will Chamber, the Bullet is of course smaller in diameter where it is out of the Case, than the portion of the Bullet which is in the Case, so, really, this would be just fine...
I was not thinking clearly when I mentioned that Bullets should be sized for the Cylinder Bores - this is true usually, or when one is shooting "Can of Beans" shape Wadcutters which have only one diameter to their entire length, and when these are loaded to hang out of the Case a ways, since if they are larger than Cylinder Bore size, they will not want to chamber.
Bullets smaller than Chamber diameter will promote 'Leading'.
But, Round Nose Bullets or Semi Wadcutters, seated normally, and crimped normally, as long as the Cartridge Chambers, the Bullets primary diameter, can be larger than cylinder Bore diameter, and all is well.
Just figured out, ".32 Winchester Self Loading" aka ".32 S. L." Brass would be a very nice candidate ( to be shortened ) for use in the .32 - 44 Revolvers.
Buffalo Arm$ was selling both reformed .32-44 S&W and .32 Ideal cases. Presently out of stock, but they do respond to phone calls. (got my .455 Mk1 brass that way).
Buffalo Arm$ was selling both reformed .32-44 S&W and .32 Ideal cases. Presently out of stock, but they do respond to phone calls. (got my .455 Mk1 brass that way).
Half the fun for me personally is to be able reload antique cartridges at a reduced cost. I prefer using loading Dies And Brass I already have on hand.
In this case though? I don’t have any Dies that would size a case to match the original 32/44. So it’s either use an alternate case that I have Dies for? Like the 32 Long? And use a case expander that I already have?
Or purchase new ( Reformed) 32 WSL cases which would also require Trimming and purchasing new loading Dies for that case. Sounds like a pricy proposition for an antique target gun that I Personally will rarely shoot.
I think I will use what I have since I honestly don’t plan on shooting my 32/44 often. I wonder how much Dies are for the 32WSL?
****Also if you look closely at the Buffalo Arms listing? The 32WSL brass that they want .79 cent per shell? They are reformed from another caliber case.
Half the fun for me personally is to be able reload antique cartridges at a reduced cost. I prefer using loading Dies And Brass I already have on hand.
In this case though? I don’t have any Dies that would size a case to match the original 32/44. So it’s either use an alternate case that I have Dies for? Like the 32 Long? And use a case expander that I already have?
Or purchase new ( Reformed) 32 WSL cases which would also require Trimming and purchasing new loading Dies for that case. Sounds like a pricy proposition for an antique target gun that I Personally will rarely shoot.
I think I will use what I have since I honestly don’t plan on shooting my 32/44 often. I wonder how much Dies are for the 32WSL?
****Also if you look closely at the Buffalo Arms listing? The 32WSL brass that they want .79 cent per shell? They are reformed from another caliber case.
Murph
.32 S&W Long is ten thousandths of an inch too small in diameter, so...dies for it would not work for .32 - 44.
The only Loading Die ( as such, vis a vie an ancillary expanding Die ) which one really needs I think, is a Seating Die, and this is likely fairly flexible, so long as it does not reduce the Case diameter, and I am still pondering what existing common-enough seating Die one can use for this...or, pondering on making one from some common enough smaller ID Seating Die like say '.32 - 20'.
I do not think these Cartridges need a crimp so long as one has some decent Neck tension. The Revolver is quite heavy, and the recoil of these would be very mild, so I doubt any Bullets would tend to creep forward on Recoil.
Shortening and using .32 - 20 Cases, one would need to have an expander Die to prepare the cases to accept the right diameter Bullets...since the .32 - 20 Case tapers somewhat, ( even below the neck-down area, the Body tapers, ) and will be too small for right diameter Bullets, if left 'as is' for having been merely shortened and not expanded.
It is possible that given the usual .321 Bullet diameter of the .32 WSL Cartridge, that the shortened Case might be just right 'as is', once shortened, since it is a slightly tapering case in its own way also as would be widening as one goes 'down'.Or it may need just a little expanding...if less than .32 - 20 would.
?Value on a N Mod #3 ?
Linear Mode
