32-20 with Modern Ammo

[DWalt]

Every time the topic of .32-20 revolvers come up here, invariably someone warns against using HV ammo. It would be very unlikely that could happen as almost all of the HV ammo has long since disappeared into the cartridge collectors domain. Not that you couldn't find some at an estate or garage sale, etc., but that would also be highly improbable.

 

[Muley Gil]

All the HV 32/20 I have or have seen is some type of jacketed ammo. I'm no sure if they made such ammo with lead bullet.
When I started loading 32/20 & 25/20 years ago I bought jacketed bullets.
That didn't last long I've never came across original revolvers or rifles that didn't do better with cast bullets. It's always been a challenge to find 32/20 with excellent bores because a lot of them lived through BP days.[/QUOTE]

I think it was the corrosive primers more so than the black powder. I have left my muzzle loaders up to a month without cleaning with no ill effects-no pitting whatsoever.

 

[Drm50]

Every time the topic of .32-20 revolvers come up here, invariably someone warns against using HV ammo. It would be very unlikely that could happen as almost all of the HV ammo has long since disappeared into the cartridge collectors domain. Not that you couldn't find some at an estate or garage sale, etc., but that would also be highly improbable.

How many Wives Tales can you think of having to do with guns and ammo? For some these are the Gospel. That's why they never die. They are passed down from father to son.
Having said that it isn't smart to use any ammo that you don't know origins of. The ammo shortage has brought out all kinds of ammo to the market. Every little LGS has ammo coming in out of the woodwork. Especially hand loads. Use to be shops would not knowingly sell unknown hand loads because of liability. It is against the law to make and sell ammo without license.

 

[Retired W4]

Drm50, that is a fine looking Marlin carbine you have there. I know a couple people around here that would love to have something like that.

 

[BSA1]

Matter of fact the old Hi Velocity ammo is labeled for rifles only and either the Win or Rem also says not for use in 1873 Wins.
So rifles only means no revolvers, really not that hard to figure out.
Any 32/20 ammo made in last 50yrs isn't the hi-vel for rifles only.

Really?

The 32-20 was originally a black powder cartridge. It was the fourth most popular cartridge in the Colt SAA and the #1 most popular cartridge in the Colt Bisley. It was considered to be a prime Target cartridge.

If my experience with my Uberti 1873 Carbine accurately reflects the same performance back then it was no wonder it was popular for use in rifles and carbines.

Time marches on and smokeless powder arrives. Sometime during the early 1900's Colt starts heat treating the cylinder of the SAA and says it is safe for use of smokeless ammunition in them.

Only now the new fangled smokeless ammunition isn't safe for revolvers and the 1873 rifle/carbine. It is sold for rifle use only.

Yet Colt is manufacturing new SAA chambered in the 32-20. But smokeless ammunition is unsafe for it.

Wait the situation gets worse. Smith and Wesson introduces their large frame double action revolver in 32-20. It becomes a popular handgun carried by leo's. Yet commercial ammo is too hot for use in it?

I think not. I think the rifle only warning was concern about use in guns that had not been heat treated and manufactured with modern steel as blackpowder era guns could not safely withstand the higher pressure ammo.

Historical research shows that one of the reasons the 32-20 became popular in the 1930's was for use against bandits. Like the 38 Super lawmen needed more powerful ammunition to penetrate the heavy steel use in automobiles. So the ammo of choice? Why rifle only labeled of course. If I was a pre-WWII lawdog I would be carrying the S&W HD loaded with rifle only label ammunition.

There I go again. Rambling about my favorite cartridge.

 

[Muley Gil]

Really?

The 32-20 was originally a black powder cartridge. It was the fourth most popular cartridge in the Colt SAA and the #1 most popular cartridge in the Colt Bisley. It was considered to be a prime Target cartridge.

If my experience with my Uberti 1873 Carbine accurately reflects the same performance back then it was no wonder it was popular for use in rifles and carbines.

Time marches on and smokeless powder arrives. Sometime during the early 1900's Colt starts heat treating the cylinder of the SAA and says it is safe for use of smokeless ammunition in them.

Only now the new fangled smokeless ammunition isn't safe for revolvers and the 1873 rifle/carbine. It is sold for rifle use only.

Yet Colt is manufacturing new SAA chambered in the 32-20. But smokeless ammunition is unsafe for it.

Wait the situation gets worse. Smith and Wesson introduces their large frame double action revolver in 32-20. It becomes a popular handgun carried by leo's. Yet commercial ammo is too hot for use in it?

I think not. I think the rifle only warning was concern about use in guns that had not been heat treated and manufactured with modern steel as blackpowder era guns could not safely withstand the higher pressure ammo.

Historical research shows that one of the reasons the 32-20 became popular in the 1930's was for use against bandits. Like the 38 Super lawmen needed more powerful ammunition to penetrate the heavy steel use in automobiles. So the ammo of choice? Why rifle only labeled of course. If I was a pre-WWII lawdog I would be carrying the S&W HD loaded with rifle only label ammunition.

There I go again. Rambling about my favorite cartridge.

While I also love the .32-20 cartridge, having had at least one handgun in that caliber since 1975 and have owned a dozen or so revolvers and rifles, there are three fallacies in your post.

The first .32-20 that S&W built was the 1899, a medium frame.

By the 1930s, S&W had discontinued building .32-20 revolvers; they were still in the catalog, but the factory had enough already built. Sales were at an all-time low for that round.

The Heavy Duty was only offered in .38 special, although some of the 1930s catalogues list the .44 Special as an option. It was never offered as a factory chambering in .32-20.

 

[ISCS Yoda]

Maybe I missed this..........

Wouldn't modern .32-20 ammunition designed for cowboy action shooting be completely safe and reliable in any S&W revolver designed to shoot smokeless powder?

Maybe not but I figured I had better ask.............

 

[Jim Watson]

"Cowboy" ammunition is generally a code word for "underloaded" and is a common recommendation for old guns.

I have read that .32-20 revolvers are disproportionately subject to bulged barrels.
Is that so, and if so, what is the current theory?

 

[weatherby]

First, .32-20 is and always has been a rifle cartridge in all loadings! There have never been any commercial loads marketed specifically for revolvers! This rifle cartridge was adopted by both Colt and S&W, and all commercial ammunition except the 80 grain high velocity hollow-point is appropriate for revolvers. Any load with a bullet of 100 to 120 grains is appropriate for revolvers, regardless of when loaded! This includes lead and jacketed bullets.

The 80 grain High Velocity loading was the only load that was marketed with a warning against use in revolvers!!!!!

You mentioned .32 Special. This is a rifle cartridge chambered in the Model 1894 Winchester, a totally different animal.
The velocities you list or various .32-20 loads are what would be seen when fired in a rifle, not a revolver. You will not find a warning against use in revolvers on the boxes of any .32-20 ammunition, made at any time, except the 80 grain high velocity hollow point load!

All your post succeeds in doing is muddying the water for people who seriously want to have an authoritative answer!!!!!!!!!

That old muddy water.
These seem to contradict a lot of what you posted ?
Note it's a 20 round box
That it does indeed say important not for revolvers.
Also note the velocity and that's for a 115 grain jacketed bullet.

 

[JP@AK]

Paul
Good old Dominion ammo. When I bought my first .32-40 Marlin Model 1893, back in the mid 1970s, I went around to all the gun shops in Portland, Oregon, to see what I could find in the way of ammo for it. I managed to secure 6 or 7 boxes of Dominion 170 grain .32-40s. Great stuff. I reloaded some of those cases 3 or 4 times. One of the boxes is sitting on a shelf just above where I am at this moment.

 

[Muley Gil]

That old muddy water.
These seem to contradict a lot of what you posted ?
Note it's a 20 round box
That it does indeed say important not for revolvers.
Also note the velocity and that's for a 115 grain jacketed bullet.

I would say that those comments above applied to US made ammo. And IIRC, that ammo also dates to the '50s-'60s.

 

[weatherby]

I would say that those comments above applied to US made ammo. And IIRC, that ammo also dates to the '50s-'60s.

You will not find a warning against use in revolvers on the boxes of any .32-20 ammunition, made at any time, except the 80 grain high velocity hollow point load!

Must have missed that part of the authoritative
Discussion

 

[Drm50]

"Cowboy" ammunition is generally a code word for "underloaded" and is a common recommendation for old guns.

I have read that .32-20 revolvers are disproportionately subject to bulged barrels.
Is that so, and if so, what is the current theory?

I have dealt in 32/20s, revolvers and rifles for years. I've never seen a bulged barrel 32/20 revolver. A bulged barrel is caused by bore obstruction. I'm sure there could be cases of separated cores in early jacketed ammo. That it is some kind of plague is a stretch
It's about the same level as revolvers blow up by the old Hv rifle ammo. Now I have seen several 357s with bulged barrels from
target loads with 1/2 jacket bullets, throwing the core.
In 32/20 I've herd of people shooting 32 S&W in them. That could possibly also leave a bullet in bore. About shooting through car bodies also sounds like a wives tale. I don't know what bullet they had back in 20s & 30s would be much of an AP bullet.

 

[glowe]

You will not find a warning against use in revolvers on the boxes of any .32-20 ammunition, made at any time, except the 80 grain high velocity hollow point load!

Must have missed that part of the authoritative
Discussion

Paul, there were at least two boxes with heavier bullets pictured in this thread. The Dominion box above states "Do not use in revolvers" and the Western Super-X box states "For use in rifles only". The topic has been beaten to death, but old ammo without known velocities or pressures. especially with jacket bullets, should not be used in vintage S&W revolvers.

 

[DWalt]

I have dealt in 32/20s, revolvers and rifles for years. I've never seen a bulged barrel 32/20 revolver. A bulged barrel is caused by bore obstruction. I'm sure there could be cases of separated cores in early jacketed ammo. That it is some kind of plague is a stretch
It's about the same level as revolvers blow up by the old Hv rifle ammo. Now I have seen several 357s with bulged barrels from
target loads with 1/2 jacket bullets, throwing the core.
In 32/20 I've herd of people shooting 32 S&W in them. That could possibly also leave a bullet in bore. About shooting through car bodies also sounds like a wives tale. I don't know what bullet they had back in 20s & 30s would be much of an AP bullet.

I also do not remember seeing any .32-20 revolver having a bulged barrel, and do not know why any bullet would shed its jacket. But I have heard tales about it happening. I have fired a few rounds of .32 Long in a .32-20 revolver and nothing bad happened. Long ago I had a friend who was accidentally killed by a .32 Long bullet fired from a .32-20 revolver. I don't know why a .32-20 bullet would be any better than a .38 Special bullet in penetrating a car body.

 

[gmborkovic]

This discussion reminds me of back in the 60s at the speed shop.
You could buy 5gal. cans of racing fuel. Clearly printed on the can, in red,
top and front, "For modified race track cars only". Enough said! Right?
Some did not heed the warning. Oh well. If it says rifle only, it means rifle only.

 

[BSA1]

The first .32-20 that S&W built was the 1899, a medium frame.

By the 1930s, S&W had discontinued building .32-20 revolvers; they were still in the catalog, but the factory had enough already built. Sales were at an all-time low for that round.

So what was the best model for me to carry pre-registered magnum time?

What would be the best model for shooting today? I reload all of my 32-20 ammunition and never brought any commercial manufactured stuff.

 

[Retired W4]

This discussion reminds me of back in the 60s at the speed shop.
You could buy 5gal. cans of racing fuel. Clearly printed on the can, in red,
top and front, "For modified race track cars only". Enough said! Right?
Some did not heed the warning. Oh well. If it says rifle only, it means rifle only.

Mike, I'm thinking that had to do with the way they taxed that off road fuel.

Great informative discussion on the 32-20 ammunition. I have my ammo dealer buddys watching for any thing available now.