32-20 At the Range for the First Time

[glowe]

I recently acquired a 32-20 M&P, 2nd Change, shipped from the factory in 1908. Action is rock solid and condition is fine. After doing some research on this caliber, I took several loads to the range to test velocities before reloading all my brass.

Wanting to keep everything light, I used a few powders and velocities ranged from 700 to 990 fps, using a 93 grain .311" 38 S&W RNFP bullet. I used a light bullet to help keep pressures down. For powder, I used Unique, Bullseye, and experimented some with Promo. Bullseye and Unique loads were, as always, good solid loads. My Promo loads were very mild, with lower recoil, but got decent velocities.

32-20 93 Promo 3.0 Pufflon 813
32-20 93 Promo 3.3 Pufflon 830
32-20 93 Promo 3.5 Pufflon 930
32-20 93 Promo 3.5 - 815

As you can see, I also tested Pufflon filler with the Promo powder. I got the lowest standard deviations from the Pufflon loads, lower than Unique and Bullseye without Pufflon. Interesting that velocities increased by slightly over 100 fps with the filler.

My basic question is what velocity range is good for both accuracy and the continued health of my 100 year old HE? I have seen 1200 to 1300 fps velocities in this cartridge and wonder if I would be pushing the old M&P?

 

[mi2600]

I have six 32-20s, four S&Ws and two Colts. I have read several times that these guns were made for lead bullets and the metal will not stand up to heavy, jacketed loads. As a result, I just enjoy shooting them.

 

[bmcgilvray]

Great topic thread! I'm glad to see your data.

The pre-1920 Hand Ejectors didn't receive the heat treat processes that the later ones did. It wouldn't be advisable to subject one of them to really heavy .32-20 loads.

That said, I did all my .32-20 experimental handloading with a 1906 vintage 4-inch Hand Ejector and got away with it. Some of the loads were in the 1200-1300 range you mention. Heavy charges of Unique and also IMR 4227 were used to achieve such velocities.

"Got away with it" is key as the handloads had to be abusive. I incrementally increased the powder charges, watching for pressure signs such as sticky extraction and flattened primers. These weren't observed to occur, even after the loads became fairly enthusiastic. What was observed was that the cylinder would bind badly if the loads were pushed "too far." The bottleneck design of the cartridge would contribute to this issue, tying up the revolver pretty effectively. The loads worked fine until a line was crossed and then a tied up revolver was the result.

I have a late vintage .32-20 Hand Ejector now and have matured beyond feeling the need to push it to extremes. The first .32-20 revolver was traded away long ago and still "seemed" to be fine. I'm sure I was hard on it though.

Love the .32-20 cartridge. It's one of my very favorites, in both rifle and revolver.

 

[Skip Sackett]

Shot one in a Colt revolver once. I was surprised at the accuracy of that gun. Even the owner, whom I out shot, was impressed.

It was with factory rounds too. At 50 yards I was hitting hand sized rocks pretty consistently.

Good report except the lack of pictures!

 

[glowe]

Since I was shooting into a snowbank, not much to see. The old girl I took to the range was a round butt and a real rough character that I picked up under $200 as a shooter. It was in really bad shape on the outside, so I reblued it and added square butt grips for better control. The gun performed flawlessly, with perfect lockup and no end shake. I will be loading a couple boxes and am anxious to see how accurate it is. Anyway, here are a couple of before and after photos.

 

[bgrafsr]

Nice job on the reblue.

 

[Beaver]

Reblue

Boy howdy, I guess that turned out OK. Local shop, or somebody big-time? Beaver

 

[glowe]

Beaver - The gun was refinished in my basement. I have a fair amount of experience with rust bluing old double barreled shotguns and followed David Chicoine's book, Gunsmithing Guns of the Old West for metal preparation. Lots of pitting, but I was able to remove a substantial amount of them.