.32 Winchester Special

[insanelupus]

With a recent trip to a gun show I've found myself in possession of a used Winchester 94 in .32 Winchester Special (1951 manufacture date).  It's only had maybe 100 rounds through it.  It was carried with a wet hand (slight discoloration on the forearm) and the stock has pushed a little brush (some scratches one dent) but looks solid and the price wasn't bad. 

I'm fixing to reload for it.  I know some folks (mostly old timers) used them for elk but there are better cartridges for that.  I'll mostly use it for whitetails. 

Anyone have much experience with the cartridge?  On paper it's not much more than the .30-30 and I've heard that from others, just kind of curious about other people's experiences.

[TribReady]

Excellent little deer round.  Better than the .30-30 with a little more distance.

The .32 Winchester Special, introduced in the Winchester Model 94 rifle along with the .25-35 and .30-30, is the one .32 caliber cartridge that has been a substantial commercial success in North America. Also adopted by Marlin and Savage for their popular lever action rifles, it has sold in the millions. Today the .32 Special is an orphan, as no new factory made rifles are offered for it as I write these words. But there are a lot of good used rifles in the caliber floating around, and it will be with us for many years. Factory ballistics tables show a 170 grain bullet at a MV of 2250 fps, and this load remains one of the finest 200 yard deer and black bear cartridges ever devised. (For more on this see my article "Ideal Deer Cartridges.")     **From www.chuckhawks.com

[Lone Star]

While I agree that the .32 Win Spl is a fine deer cartridge, it is really no better than the .30-30.  An advantage of perhaps 100 fps makes no real difference in the field at this power level, and neither does 0.013" in bore diameter.  They are peas in a pod.  Still, I would not sell one to buy a .30-30 - the .32 Spl cartridge should serve very well.

Hawks' notes are suspect.  The cartridge was introduced in 1902, seven years after  the .30-30 and .25-35 (COTW, Winchester Collectors Assn, etc.).  I have trouble believing that milliions of M94s so chambered exist, given the low popularity of loaded ammo and bullet selection.  I have found no reliable production numbers.  One of the finest 200-yard   game cartridges ever devised - in an unscoped M94?  Right.   


.

[Graybeard]

I honestly have no clue who this Chuck Hawks guy is that folks on the internet seem to love to quote. What is his claim to fame? Where should we know him from? What has he done to be quoted so often? I have no answers to any of those questions. But I must admit I've seen a ton of BS quoted as being from him whether correctly or incorrectly attributed to him. I must admit the above seems to pretty much fall into that same category.

[victorcharlie]

Isn't he a guy who knows how to set up a web site so all the major search engines find him first?

[Graybeard]

I got no clue maybe so. He might be the world's foremost expert for all I know it's just that I never ever heard of him until folks started dropping links to things he says around the internet. I've never gone to his site or really read much of what he has to say so have no real opinion about him one way or another. But from time to time when folks quote something like the above that is short enough to read I do. Some of it I agree with and some sounds like a huge pile of bovine excrement.

[Slamfire]

With a 16" twist, it'll loose accuracy sooner than a .30-30. You could load it with black powder, though and not get too much fouling to shoot a whole magazine .  I passed up a fine Remington once cause it was chambered for .32 Rem. another deader'n dead cartridge. 

[coyotejoe]

With a 16" twist, it'll loose accuracy sooner than a .30-30. You could load it with black powder, though and not get too much fouling to shoot a whole magazine .  I passed up a fine Remington once cause it was chambered for .32 Rem. another deader'n dead cartridge. 

I too read in "Cartridges of the World" Frank C. Barnes comment "once the bore of a .32 Special begins to go, you can't hit a flock of barns with it". I found that rather comical since on the previous page he had praised the 32/40 as being an exceptionally accurate round. The .32 Special is just a 32/40 blown out to bottleneck case form and loaded with jacketed bullets at higher velocity, bore diameter and twist rate are exactly the same. I think Mr. Barnes wrote more from personal prejudice than from personal experience and he just had a prejudice against the .32 Special.

[Lone Star]

Perhaps so, but there were  differences.  The .32-40 used deeper grooves than the .32 Special did since it was designed for lead bullets/black powder, and if the Special barrels became worn they well may have given worse accuracy.  And they may indeed have worn faster than the .32-40....primers and smokeless powders at the time were not the best, and shooters often did not clean their barrels correctly.  They were used to using water to clean BP, but the deposits from the new primers/powder really needed nitro solvent.  Thus many old .32 Special barrels suffered and wore rapidly (the same thing happened to the .25-20 but worse due to the smaller powder charge in the smaller bore).  .30-30s suffered too, but apparently the different twist worked better. 

Barnes was just quoting what many other gun hacks had been parrotting for many years.    I too think that the problem was probably blown out of proportion.

[Graybeard]

That really is the single biggest problem I have with magazine writers as a group. Someone long ago commented about most everything and since then none of them seem to need to do it themselves they just rehash what was said 50 years ago. Do any of them really get out and do anything to learn for themselves?

[Siskiyou]

It is hard to believe that the typical deer hunter in the “age” of the .32 Special fired enough rounds to wear out the barrel.  I am thinking of the tight times Americans faced with the Great Depression.  Then WWII came along and the residents living along Americas coast hung on to their ammunition incase the enemy invaded.  I have read of citizens guarding bridges in Northern California after a Jap sub(s) sunk shipping off the Coast.  I have seen pictures of the locals armed with deer rifles ready to take on the Jap invasion. 

My point is that during depression people could not afford to buy a lot of ammunition, and when the war came it was hard to get.  So that is a large block of time that a .32 Special was fired only a few times a year.

I can remember my Dad having a Winchester M64 in .32 Special in the early 50’s.  It had a Lyman tang peep sight on it.  I would bet that he never fired more then a box or two of shells in it every year.  He was more likely to plink with a .22.

So if your typical hunter fired two boxes of shells a year, it would take him twenty-five years to shoot up one thousands rounds.  I would think the barrel has more life in it.

A friend of mine has a .32 Special.  I doubt that it has been out in the field in forty years.  His family switched to 30-06’s in the 50’s and 60’s and never looked back. 

I believe that has become the trend with the .32 Special and less so with many 30-30’s.  Every once and a while I’ll take my 30-30 out to make sure it is on target, but I do not shot it a lot.  And the 30-30 has been kept alive with loss leader sales on 30-30 ammunition.  While 30-30 ammunition has been readily available between nine and twenty dollars the price on .32 Special has been nineteen dollars and up.  I suspect with the increase in ammunition prices it will go over $30 a box of twenty.

When it came to cleaning his .32 Special Dad always used Hoppe’s No. 9, the same stuff he used on his shotgun.

Youngest brother bought an old Long Tom octagon barrel .32 Special when he was in high school.  As a veteran .270 guy I kind of looked down my nose at the rifle until he showed me some of the targets he had shot using the buckhorn sights.  And the proof was in the freezer when he took a buck with it.

[coyotejoe]

That really is the single biggest problem I have with magazine writers as a group. Someone long ago commented about most everything and since then none of them seem to need to do it themselves they just rehash what was said 50 years ago. Do any of them really get out and do anything to learn for themselves?

  Yep Greybeard, that has been a pet pieve of mine for many years. Some writer presents his theory like "I believe it may be so". Some other writer, having read the first writer and wanting to show how well informed he is will say " the current thinking is thus". Then some other writer, having read both of those will say "experts now agree" and from then on it is "common knowledge" even though no one has ever tested the theory!
  Look how long it was believed that big heavy slow moving bullets were champion "brush busters". I recall some writer claiming the 45/70 could "cut a chord of wood and still kill a deer".  Some writers did try to test that theory and when they failed to get the results they expected they still quoted the "brush buster theory".

[Lone Star]

It is hard to believe that the typical deer hunter in the “age” of the .32 Special fired enough rounds to wear out the barrel.  I am thinking of the tight times Americans faced with the Great Depression....

By 1930 the .32 was dropped from M94 rifles - it clearly was not popular.  But you do not need to shoot a rifle a lot to destroy the bore.  In the first two decades of the 20th century shooters were just becoming used to smokless powder, and many cleaned their rifles like they did when shooting BP - with water.  Many believed the hype that smokeless powder didn't need frequent cleaning.  Thus many rifles form that period are found with damaged bores.  All it took was two shots with early ammo and then a week behind the kitchen door in humid weather to pit a barrel badly.  You have to look at these things in historical perspective, not filtered through 21st century thinking.....





.

[insanelupus]

By 1930 the .32 was dropped from M94 rifles - it clearly was not popular.

Do you mean the .32 WCF or the .32 Winchester Special?  The later was available in the Model 94 up into the '70's if I remember correctly. 

[victorcharlie]

I say one of the biggest problems with guns of that era was the ammo which used corrosive primers.

Because of corrosive primers the guns really had to be deep cleaned and lubricated properly each time they were fired.  The ones that were fired and not cleaned had short barrel life.

As the firearm had to be cleaned much more the cleaning process itself could have been destructive over time.

Now, with non corrosive primers and cleaner powders, lack of cleaning doesn't damage a firearm nearly as fast.

[Lone Star]

Do you mean the .32 WCF or the .32 Winchester Special?  The later was available in the Model 94 up into the '70's if I remember correctly. 

According to COTW, the .32 Winchester Special was dropped from M94 production in 1930 so it was unavailable new during the Depression.  It was periodically reinstated on a sporatic basis after WWII until the 1990s, but was never very popular.  The M94 was never chambered for the .32-20 (.32WCF).



.

[EdinCT]

 I remember the 32 Special being offered new when I started hunting in the early 70s. I picked up one used and it has worked well for deer when we use it. But I not sure if I would say any better than a 30-30. It has always left a short heavy blood trail.
  I have seen alot of them in New England but not as many as 30 wcf. Has far has the barrel issue I don't buy it, I think of one of Hitlers generals saying that the beauty of a lie is that if you tell it often enough it will be true!

[victorcharlie]

I'd love to find a Marlin 336 in .32 Winchester special that's in decent shape for a fair price.

[Don Fischer]

I wish my eyes were still good enough to use open sights. something in some of those old cartridges and cast bullets would be a hoot! I've really been getting the urge to get some kind of rifle just for cast bullets. I've got enough lead in the shop to keep me in bullets the rest of my life.

[T.R.]

This is my Pennsylvania friend named Bill.  He has slain dozens and dozens of whitetails with his 32 Special.   None got away.   His wife bought it for him in the early 1950's and it still works like new.  Bill told me he never has adjusted the sights in all these years.  No need, it still shoots right on out to about 125 yards or so.

Bill thinks his 32 Special is more powerful the more common 30-30 but I don't care to argue with my friend!
TR

[coyotejoe]

Well I can see why "none got away",  He lassoes them before he shoots!

[Argonaut]

My .32 was made in 1950 and shows honest but light wear. The barrel looks fine, and I shoot it a fair amount (until I broke off the front bead).  I bought an RCBS 170 grain bullet mold and a box of gas checks To be able to practice with it without undue barrel wear.  There are folks who sell cast rifle bullets. These bullets really save money in bullets and power, case life and best of all. barrel wear.  Really something to think about trying. leading isn't really the problem you might believe if you stay at recomended velocities for the bullet type you might be using considering the type of lube and wether or not it has a gas Check. (which is a copper cup on the base of the bullet). I shoot these bullets in all my .30 cal. rifles also. 

[rex6666]

Graybeard
i have seen this Hawks guy on another forum lots he changes his story seems like to fit the question, not very consistant to me any way.


i was glad some one brought up the fact that Bill was roping those deer first, i noticed
that right off

[Sweetwater]

I started casting back in the '80's so I could continue shooting IHMSA after the kids started coming along. I thought cast bullets were for targets and cheap practice. That being true, I also found them to be great for hunting and took several antelope, a deer and an elk (though it is not an elk rifle) all with my own cast bullets in my M94 32WSPL circa 1927. Most of what I had read about cast bullet failures I found not happening. What I did find was a new appreciation for wheelweights and the satisfacton I get from sending them downrange. Most game I shoot can't tell if it's a 32WSPL or a whatever ultramag - it still goes in the freezer. Just put the bullet where it goes. The rest is fundamental.

Regards,
Sweetwater

[insanelupus]

Sweetwater,  I actually just started getting the casting bug and the .32 Special was one of my primary candidates.  I just picked up a 321297 181 grain GC mold.  What kind of velocities and bullet weights were you using?

[Sweetwater]

A quick check of my records indicated that I used a borrowed LEE mold, very much like your 321297. It was listed at 170gr and my wheelweight mix came in at 183gr. Near pure lead came in at 188gr. Straight linotype was on the money at 170gr, but I made very few of them. Not a lot of lino in my cabinet. This was a GC mold and I did use gas checks most of the time. I know some don't, but my experience is that if it has a shank, put one on it, unless you are running very mild stuff, like less than 1500fps.
 
I had two 32's at this time, my old 1927 M94Winand a relatively new 1972 M94Win with little or no wear on it. It had spent most of its life in our local pawnshop, in and out like clockwork until its owner lost it all and moved out. It was the princely sum of $165 back in '93 and like new. It did shoot better than my older one, but the action was rougher. Just needed some wearing time. I put some JB Paste on the moving parts and it seemed to speed the process and removed a lot of the roughness. Both rifles liked this bullet with 17gr H4198 and no gas check and no crimp for about 1350fps book velocity (I had no chronograph then) for a very light 'popgun' load. My kids were all 6-years old and under then, and the two oldest ones (both girls) shot this load quite a bit. I was using mainly fast powders during this time, and found some combinations worked well and others either keyholed or went everywhere.

All shooting was done offhand at a paced 50yards.
All following loads are crimped, gas checked, and no fillers were used.

      8gr Hercules Unique for about 1250fps
      9gr     "          "        "     "     1350fps
 14.8gr     "         2400    "     "     1335fps
 16.5gr     "           "        "     "     1530fps

    32gr Hodgdon's H335  "      "     2100fps 


I've loaded H335 up to 33.5gr and decided 32gr was easier on the old rifle and I no longer had the newer rifle. Nothing magic here. H335 is not my favorite powder, but I had some on hand and it did work ok. I used this load on two antelope, a buck at 100 yards and a doe at 165 yards - one shot each. It also accounted for a Muley buck at 90 yards with one shot. The Elk I shot that Fall was a small 3-year-old cow. We had a foot of new snow on top of a 2 foot base of snow. I got so excited I could see my heart beat in time with the sights going up and down! She was near 150 yards, but I got lucky and shot her through both jugulars. She just stopped in shock and there was a real heavy blood flow from both sides of her neck. I never saw anything like it. She would have bled to death in short order, but the follow up shot went into her brain and it was over. Shooting an Elk doesn't make it an Elk RIfle, but, like I said, I got lucky. 
I still have Nosler Partitions on the shelf for the available calibers, but I can't deny that wheelweights do work. The proof is in the freezer.

In jacketed bullets, both rifles prefered Hornady 170's over Speer 170's (Hornady's would stay inside an inch at the paced 50 yards, again shooting ofhand). The load of choice was 33gr of IMR 4064 for about 2000fps. None of these loads are hot in my rifle.

Hope this helps. I don't go out for maximum velocity anymore. I shoot for fun and food and fun.

When it ceases to be fun, I shall cease to do it.

Regards,
Sweetwater
   
 

[45/70fan]

Hornady's website shows a new Leverevolution load for the 32 Special using 165gr bullet at 2410 fps.

[The Gamemaster]

One of my outlaw neighbors has a 32 Special.

I wouldn't say that they get a lot of game with it. 

But they had 11 kids and 5 freezers full of deer meat every winter.

They shot so many deer, that they actually gave some away when I was a kid.

I would be more worried that they would run out of bullets and couldn't just go into a store and buy more.

If I owned one , I would have at least 20 boxes of ammo for it, because if they ever quit making it, you will pay $50 a box for ammo.

The deer lasso trick - is one of the things that I taught many people. 

That was the first time I ever saw someone take a picture of it though.

[Sweetwater]

I was quoted $50 for a box of factory 38-40 Ammo at one of our better Sport Shops. I just wanted some factory stuff to compare my handloads with in my Great-Grandfather's '73 Winchester circa 1883. Needless (at least for me) to say, I politely declined and found some elsewhere at half the price. Still a hefty cost I thought. I've got about 100 pieces of brass for it, and that should be more than enough as it is only an occasional shooter now. As for the 32, I've got nearly 150 pieces of brass for it, and it is basically retired. My 40-82WCF only has 40 pieces of brass left, but that's still enough for its purpose. My working rifles all have several hundred pieces of brass so, let them raise the prices for factory ammunition. We'll be OK as long as we can stay in primers and powder, and scoff some wheelweights every now and then.

regards,
Sweetwater

[insanelupus]

Sweetwater,

Thank you, that helps considerably.  I've just bought a 25-20 Marlin 1894 CL that I may put a cast load together for too in the future.  Right now I'm just getting started on cast and this 32 has me thinking it's a perfect candidate to play with.  Thanks again, much appreciated.