Reloading for Model 91 in 32 H&R or 32 MH Long

Slug the bore

The easiest way to tell is to "slug" the bore and measure the findings.

The 32-44 : The bore should slug to .323

The 32 Smith & Wesson both long and early standard: .312

The H&R 32 Long "early cartridge": .308

I've proven this by slugging all calibers listed and documenting barrel lengths, serial numbers, and slugs are bagged and tagged. I have the slugs if anyone want to see photo's. The 32 H&R slugs undersized because it was designed for an undersized hollow based bullet.

There was a following for an early hollow base bullet for some years during the early Black Powder cartridge Era. It's very difficult to follow but it did exist for a while. The theory is sound using black powder but very dangerous with smokeless because of the early undersized bores. I've traced the change that took place in the early 1890's in my opinion was an attempt to standardize the caliber. Eventually all manufacturers went to the .32 Smith and Wesson but not until "after" many thousands of guns were manufactured with undersized bores...Pretty dangerous from a smokeless perspective.

If the OP's bore slugs to .312 than it was originally a 32 Smith & Wesson Long or short. Both are the same diameter. It has to slug to .308 in order to be designed for the early H&R 32 Hollow based round.

Ideal actually made a hollow based 32 Long round in their 1891 tool. Listed as a 32L.I.L.( 32 Long Inside Lubricated) I have one if someone wants to see it. I can post a photo. That's one of the rarest Ideal tools made. Not unlike the Op's 32 H&R number 1 tool.

Murph
 
Last edited:
I don't have the material to slug the bore. I did measure the end of the barrel and it was .312 so its a standard Smith and Wesson bore size.

So with using the bullet cast from the 32 H&R mold, the slightly shorter case, and seating the bullets a little deeper in the case with less black powder I should be under the 38 S&W pressure and definitely under the 32 S&W Long pressure. I guess it may be wise to invest in a chronograph too.

" Lastly, do not use Puflon and black powder. Puflon is highly compressible and cannot be loaded to assure full compression of the BP. While it does away with air space, there is no way to assure a 1/16" compression of the powder so you can get erratic velocities and maybe some bullets stuck in the barrel. "

Thanks for the above info on using Puflon as a filler Gary. Good to know!
 
A lot of CAS C&B and BP shooters put non-gunpowder filler in their revolvers to allow light loads, all they have to do is ring a plate maybe 10 yards away. I have heard of grits, corn meal, and semolina.

I don't know what the Army did when they cut .45 Colt loads from 40 to 30 grains.
 
A lot of CAS C&B and BP shooters put non-gunpowder filler in their revolvers to allow light loads, all they have to do is ring a plate maybe 10 yards away. I have heard of grits, corn meal, and semolina.

I don't know what the Army did when they cut .45 Colt loads from 40 to 30 grains.

Quite true, fillers such as cream of wheat are a common item for target shooters in cap & ball events and work well for reduced loads in blackpowder cartridge revolvers.

As to the army they actually went to the shorter S&W Schofield case as their standard 45 Government round. If they did issue any reduced charge rounds based on the 45 Colt case they were likely loaded with fiber wads under the bullet to take up the free space. This was a common method used by major companies such as UMC and Winchester for reduced power target loads during that era.
 
From Post 20, a minor boo-boo of no moment here, but could perhaps mislead/confuse others down the road:

"The principal of the 32-44 and 38-44 was to fill the chamber completely with brass right up to the rifling." That's the case with the 38-44, not so with the 32-44. The 32-44 chamber has a shoulder (and then a fairly lengthy throat to the end of the cylinder). (I don't remember who I asked, about why they hadn't employed the zero throat concept of the 38-44 with the 32-44 (and it's just as well), but their non-response response was the 32-44 was intended for use indoors.)

Ralph Tremaine
 
Last edited:
Antique Target calibers

I think we have to drill down on the early concept of the "Target Gun"... The reality is these early target guns were designed for optimum accuracy under "ideal conditions".

Anyone who has actually been on a target team and shot competitively at the range knows the secret to accuracy is versatility at the range. The 32-44 did not offer versatility.

There was one bullet design for "Gallery" indoor shooting ( round ball) see photo's and one for "Target" outdoor shooting. That's it. Both bullets were for close range of about 10-20 yards distance.

On a sunny day when there is no wind and you're shooting under a covered shooting table with a cold soda and the sun directly above you? Maybe you can shoot at a 50-yard target accurately. Perhaps even a 100 yard target with a shoulder stock. Any other conditions would be comical.

That is why the 44 Russian was "KING" at the range at "ALL" times. Because even during the Black Powder ERA the round offered huge versatility in both bullet design/weight and powder charge by volume.

That's exactly what a target shooter needs to be a successful and competitive target shooter. One day it's sunny and mild and the next its windy and cold. Or I've been to many matches in the Valley of California with the dreaded "Tule Fog"...Bone chilling cold and gusty wind.

They don't cancel matches because of fog or wind. You are expected to adapt. That's where multiple loads and bullet weights, seating depths, types of Lubricant come into play. The adjustable sights don't help with wind. That's a Hollywood fallacy. A heavier bullet and powder charge help much more to dial in your target under windy conditions. The adjustable sights are designed to adapt to load and bullet selection not wind. Wind is never constant. Unless you're a Hollywood hero.

You didn't have those choices with the early target guns. "EXCEPT" for the 44 Russian. "KING" of the target calibers.

If I was the OP I would load multiple bullet types since there are several for the .312. Including a wadcutter! and each having a different powder charge variance of 2 grains. This is to find the optimum load and bullet that the barrel likes at any given distance. Log all results at the range.


Murph
 

Attachments

  • DE7590AD-E02D-4CEB-BC90-16C07667AD0F.jpeg
    DE7590AD-E02D-4CEB-BC90-16C07667AD0F.jpeg
    44.2 KB · Views: 2
  • F86CD263-2FF6-4126-8AAB-3FBEA9FC1EB5.jpeg
    F86CD263-2FF6-4126-8AAB-3FBEA9FC1EB5.jpeg
    35.2 KB · Views: 2
Last edited:
Bullet selection?

Here are just a few for the .312-.313 bullets available out there. There are also wadcutters, hollow based bullets, mult-grooved flat tip, etc. So, a lot to play with.

The variance from bullet types is huge on paper. I've seen the same load seated to the same depth using the same lubricant have a variance of 9" on paper just based on bullet type.

Murph
 

Attachments

  • B739D496-8949-416F-B201-7F9300CB52C5.jpeg
    B739D496-8949-416F-B201-7F9300CB52C5.jpeg
    40.7 KB · Views: 3
  • E5ADA993-DEA2-4C78-93D8-0D9E340B0B99.jpeg
    E5ADA993-DEA2-4C78-93D8-0D9E340B0B99.jpeg
    39.8 KB · Views: 5
  • 6E7C259A-BCC9-43F8-A198-6EF429BC5A92.jpeg
    6E7C259A-BCC9-43F8-A198-6EF429BC5A92.jpeg
    39 KB · Views: 4
  • 621AC7D5-739D-4DFA-884B-3333318C3F1E.jpeg
    621AC7D5-739D-4DFA-884B-3333318C3F1E.jpeg
    52.3 KB · Views: 3
  • 612AA896-6465-4A82-ABF7-754D52710C5A.jpeg
    612AA896-6465-4A82-ABF7-754D52710C5A.jpeg
    36 KB · Views: 3
Last edited:
Thanks Murph. Will keep my eyes out for some of those.312-.313 bullet molds. Right not the only one I have is on the end of the reloading tool.
 
Aluminum molds

I’ve used these many times. They work great and they are easy to find.

Murph
 

Attachments

  • 89086C99-D465-48D4-ACBF-935C6BDA82C6.jpeg
    89086C99-D465-48D4-ACBF-935C6BDA82C6.jpeg
    33.1 KB · Views: 8
  • 8B22AEF3-8937-47E8-9994-2325EA834299.jpeg
    8B22AEF3-8937-47E8-9994-2325EA834299.jpeg
    11.7 KB · Views: 6
Very interesting project you have here. I commend all who have contributed and helped with it.
Steve
 
Back
Top