First time reloading .32 S&WL

[target tech]

Just shot my first .32L reloads, and was wondering about my choice of load. I used 2 grains of Bullseye over a 100gr DEWC at a very consistent 830fps out of a 4" kit gun. I was just wanted some reinforcement that this is a good load and these number sound about right.
I'm positive I got this load from one of the many .32L threads on the forum. I was just looking at my Hornady loading book and 2 grains of bullseye is off the chart.
It didn't seem hot, and i was shooting it out of a J frame. It was also scarry accurate. I'm just hoping modern books are geared down for the old break top revolvers.

I shot a couple Magtech wadcutters across the screens and they only clocked at about 650fps,

 

[M29since14]

Your load sounds a bit more aggressive than what I use, but not enough that I would be concerned about using it in a modern (solid-frame) revolver.

 

[ICTwadcutter]

With 100 gr coated swc I use 2.3 bullseye or 2.5 W231 for best accuracy out of my 4 inch M30-1. Your DEWC are probably seated a bit deeper so 2.0 bullseye sounds about right. Agree with previous post that these are good loads for sturdy modern hand ejectors but perhaps a bit warm for top breaks. Happy shooting.

 

[rockquarry]

Use a book; much safer than using anything suggested on an Internet forum. If you have to use Internet information make sure it's a reputable source like that of a large bullet manufacturer or large powder distributor.

 

[Sistema1927]

Use a book; much safer than using anything suggested on an Internet forum. If you have to use Internet information make sure it's a reputable source like that of a large bullet manufacturer or large powder distributor.

Except.....

Realize that the books are going to take into account that there are lots of top breaks that won't handle stout loads while a modern hand ejector (especially a J-frame) will allow much better performance.

One needs to know what they are doing, but if you stick to book values you will in no way get the best performance with this caliber and firearm combination.

 

[rockquarry]

Except.....

Realize that the books are going to take into account that there are lots of top breaks that won't handle stout loads while a modern hand ejector (especially a J-frame) will allow much better performance.

One needs to know what they are doing, but if you stick to book values you will in no way get the best performance with this caliber and firearm combination.

You're right and you make a good point. One does need to know what they are doing. Handloading requires a degree of competence not obtainable instantly from an Internet forum, YouTube, etc. Unfortunately, it appears some get a less than safe and satisfactory handloading education in this manner today.

I've loaded for the .32 S&W Long using cast bullets in two modern (1970s) S&W revolvers. I used Lyman data. No doubt performance could be enhanced slightly for modern guns, but when you make online recommendations with hotter and perhaps untested data, you have no idea who will use this. They may not be experienced handloaders. I'll stick with my original comment as I think it's sound.

 

[teletech]

Your load sounds a bit more aggressive than what I use, but not enough that I would be concerned about using it in a modern (solid-frame) revolver.

It's worth remembering that even among solid-frame guns there are considerations like the frame size of the gun and if it was made before they started heat-treating cylinders or after.
In this case the OP is using a J-frame, so the tempered cylinder is a lot tougher than, for instance, an early I-frame Hand Ejector. I have seen it suggested that the later I-frame guns with tempered cylinders are actually stronger than J-frames since the window is smaller and thus stiffer for it's size. I prefer to use the lightest load that will give me good accuracy for recreational use of a firearm that's been around for anything from half a century to well over a century at this point just to improve the odds it will still be in good shape in another century.

 

[M29since14]

It's always good to be careful when handloading. In particular, cartridges made for a particular weapon, like a solid-frame S&W .32 Long, probably should be identified so that they are not used in weaker guns. I've always been a bit amazed that the various component companies who publish data for .45 Colt will provide "Ruger only," and "Contender only," data when the chance of those cartridges being used might damage a weaker gun. I guess they figure some things we need to take responsibility for ourselves, and I agree with that philosophy.

I use a bit lighter charge of 700-X in my .32 wadcutters, mainly because they have always been exceptionally accurate. I do not own any older .32 revolvers, but of course I have no way to know what might happen to my ammo when I'm no longer here to shoot it.

 

[H Richard]

One thing you don't seem to find in print is loading data specifically for the powder coated bullets. I always load to Cast bullet specs, but know the advertising allows them to be loaded much hotter. I would think they have been out long enough now for some data to be published, however probably because there is no consistency from the many different suppliers it would be difficult to do.

 

[mtgianni]

If you're concerned I would drop the velocity to 775-800 fps. Accuracy should still be outstanding. This is especially important should an I frame find it's way to your place.

 

[Green Frog]

I don't like to post the load I use in my I frame 32 HEs but will state that I have used 95-105 gr SWCs, both cast and swaged, using a heavier charge of Bullseye than the OP cited. In even my 32 HE Snub (post War Transitional) I experienced no problems or signs of over pressure. My suggestion would be to check two or more known sources for tested data and start with them.

Froggie

 

[nbedford]

I use 2 - 2.1 grains of Bullseye for my 98-100 grain cast .314" semi-wadcutters. I based it on Hatcher's Textbook of Pistols and Revolvers published about 1937 or so. His factory loads which used the 98-100 grain lead round nose were sitting on 2 - 2.1 grains of Bullseye. In my S&W 32 HE 5th Change and in my S&W 631 - the 2 grain loads of Bullseye averaged about 650 fps, and the 2.1 grain Bullseye about 680 fps. With a new to me Lee 90 314 mold I have settled on 1.9 grains of Bullseye for the 90 grain .314" swc.

 

[target tech]

Considering the gun is chambered for .32 H&R mag and my model 60s are 38 special, I'm not worried about hurting a modern stainless J frame with an extra tenth or two of BE. I was just curious about the anemic nature of the .32 load data in the books.
I don't reload anything hot, I stick to old tried and true stuff. My .357s that I run my 92 and 73 for plinking are maybe .38 spl +P.

 

[glenwolde]

Sounds right to me. I even went and re-read

The .32 S&W Long: A Handgun Hunter's Perspective - By Glen E. Fryxell

You could back off a little and see if you maintain accuracy. But if not I think you're O.K. right where you are.

 

[moosedog]

The loading data books have been downgraded over the years mostly because of liability fears.
2.grs of Bullseye under a 100gr 32 caliber lead bullet is what I have used for years in J and K frames with no ill affects.
I use my books from the 1970's and 1980's since I still use Bullseye, Unique and 2400.
Now I know someone is going to come on and say "I heard they changed the formula for Unique or 2400" so the old data is obsolete which is total internet garbage.
The only thing they did was that Alliant made it cleaner burning, but loading data is the same. Have fun, the 32 S&W Long cartridge is an inherently accurate cartridge.

 

[rockquarry]

When I work with a new handgun cartridge, I try a variety of cast bullets of various weights and diameters and several powders and do a lot of group shooting from a 25-yard benchrest. I also like to use two guns if possible.

That's what i did in 2008 when I bought two like-new S&W .32 Long revolvers (one a 4" and the other a 3", I think) that were made in the '70s. Without digging out range notes from back then, I'll say that the most accurate load in my guns was with an 88 grain bullet (RCBS mould) sized in a .314" die and loaded with Bullseye powder. Muzzle velocity was 830 fps in the 4" gun. I tried other powders, no doubt the usual ones.

 

[nbedford]

When I work with a new handgun cartridge, I try a variety of cast bullets of various weights and diameters and several powders and do a lot of group shooting from a 25-yard benchrest. I also like to use two guns if possible.

That's what i did in 2008 when I bought two like-new S&W .32 Long revolvers (one a 4" and the other a 3", I think) that were made in the '70s. Without digging out range notes from back then, I'll say that the most accurate load in my guns was with an 88 grain bullet (RCBS mould) sized in a .314" die and loaded with Bullseye powder. Muzzle velocity was 830 fps in the 4" gun. I tried other powders, no doubt the usual ones.

My Lee 90 314 throws a .314 swc; so I see no need to do any resizing. One more thing, with the 90 grain my S&W 631 4" really likes 1.9 grains of Bullseye, but the group began widening with 2 grains, and even more with 2.1 grains of Bullseye. It never ceases to amaze me how much difference a tenth of a grain of Bullseye can make. Y'all know that 1.9 grains just dusts the pan.

 

[Ivan the Butcher]

I was at a gun store a few years ago and the had Hornady 90 gr Lead SWC 400 count boxes for $10 each, I took all 3 (one was an older 500 count box.
I also Load the Gas Checked version of Lyman 3118, 117 RBFP. This is the Colt 32 New Police bullet! For those pre WWI Mangrum loads!

Ivan

 

[jcelect]

327

S&W made only 1 gun for the 327 Federal Mag, and it was a J frame. Also S&W made a few different models chambered for the 32 H&R mag and many of those were J frames! Compare your 32L to the 32 H&R mag!
jcelect

 

[Green Frog]

S&W made only 1 gun for the 327 Federal Mag, and it was a J frame. Also S&W made a few different models chambered for the 32 H&R mag and many of those were J frames! Compare your 32L to the 32 H&R mag!
jcelect

That's why I called it "Project 616, the Gun S&W Never Made but Should Have." Every time the mention of a K frame 327 Fed Mag comes up, the interest is off the charts. I guess the bean counters at Springfield have NO real interest in building any new or different revolvers unless they are in some awesome heavy caliber suitable for hunting Tyrannosaurus rex or larger "dangerous game." Can you honestly say there is likely to be a greater demand for a .500 revolver than a .327? Not whining, just wondering.

A selling point for the 357 Mag was that if desired one could also shoot 38 Spl ammo in it. Now look at the 327 that also eats 32 S&W and S&W L as well as 32 H&R (and even 32 ACP in a pinch) and the Model 616 and 16-5 should be in production next week and introduced in all the Gun mags with great fanfare.

Froggie