Correct statement for the .32-20. However, not for the .32 Special. Actual groove diameter was spec'd at .320 but tolerance allowed for up to .321. Most consider them to be .321 groove diameter and that is the size of the jacketed bullets. The .323 groove is for an 8mm.Originally Posted by Eutectic
MTWeatherman,
You are correct of course. Sorry to slip a little "metric" in my data....
Eutectic
Well…
Still don’t believe the .32 Special was developed with the black powder handlers in mind…it defies logic. As earlier pointed out, the .32 Special barrel carries the same spec’s as the .32-40s. Obviously they used the .32-40 barrel in designing it. Question is, did they use that barrel so they could satisfy the black powder crowd, or as I believe, to hold down tooling costs with the net result being black powder capability?
Indeed, as stated earlier, let’s go back to the times of introduction. In 1895 when smokeless powder had yet to be fully accepted, Winchester introduced the .25-35 and 30-30. That was the transition era when it may have made sense to introduce a “bridge” smokeless powder cartridge that was black powder compatible. Obviously, Winchester had no concern for the issue in 1895. Seven years later in 1902, smokeless powder is now proven, widely accepted, adopted by the world’s military, sportsmen are rapidly upgrading to the new high performance smokeless cartridge (witness the rapid adoption of the .30WCF), black powder is rapidly becoming obsolete and it is now the .32 Special is introduced. Why? To allow the .32-40 crowd to have a black powder rifle that will shoot commercial smokeless ammunition? To make a new cartridge available so people could handload black powder since smokeless was so unsafe? I think not. Well…OK so maybe smokeless wasn’t easily available to handloaders so maybe Winchester thought you might want to pay the added cost of a .32 Special rather than a .32-40 so you could upgrade to smokeless later. Well, then what makes you think smokeless would ever easily be available so why buy something you may never be able to fully utilize. Why not just buy a .32-40 and plan to use black powder now and smokeless when available or just get yourself a 30-30 purchase commercial ammuntion and be done with it? Maybe too many of those 30-30s were blowing up with handloaded smokeless so Winchester decided there would be a demand for a smokeless round to handle black powder since obviously they’d now want to load black instead. Flies in the face of every handloader I know. I would guess they would quit handloading, switch powders or reduce the load as they’ve always done and will continue to do. In short, in spite of Winchesters advertising, I can’t accept the fact there was much demand for a new black powder cartridge in 1902. I’d bet it was a rare .32 Special that ever saw black powder. It made no difference to most shooters- they were not handloaders. They bought their rifles for hunting performance and purchased commercial ammunition.
The .32 Special has its black powder barrel because Winchester wanted to develop their new, more powerful cartridge on the cheap. Basically they put a 30-30 chamber in a high grade .32-40 barrel to accomplish it. And why not? That .32-40 It was a proven design to the Shuetzen boys who proved it to be one of the most accurate barrel designs of the day. They were accomplishing accuracy difficult to match today…shooting groups with 200 gr. Bullets at 1300 fps out of those 16 inch twist barrels. It certainly could handle a 170 grain at 2000 fps.
However, because of that barrel the .32 Special can handle black powder. I can see the advertisers setting up. Advertise it…might be a plus to a few but say we did it for them…not us. Hell, while we’re at it, since the .32 stock sights won’t work with black powder, let’s sell an black powder sight and make a few more bucks. Now you wouldn’t expect Winchester to say the “.32 Special can handle black powder because we wanted to maximize our profits” would you? Better to say it can handle black powder to fill a demand, whether or not much existed.
The .32 Special was introduced for its power…plain and simple. Power and smokeless powder is “front loaded” in all those early ads. Black powder capabilities weren’t. If black powder capability were the overriding concern you’d see something to the effect: “Winchester is proud to introduce a new black powder cartridge that will fire more powerful smokeless powder commercial ammunition. Kind of like saying “Ruger is proud to introduce a new .44 Special handgun that will fire more powerful .44 Magnum ammunition. That’s not the way it’s done. You front load the important part…then as now, power sells. The .44 Mag can handle the .44 Special because it carries the “genes” of its parent…the .44 Special. The .32 Special can handle black powder because it carries the genes of its parent…the .32-40.
Because only Winchester truly knows the true “whyfors” of their .32 Special development, only they can answer the question and the only real statement we have from them is their evolving advertising statement. Not the best source. So, don’t think we will ever know the true answer of why they selected the .32-40 specs for the .32 Special. I believe it was convenience and cost cutting. I have no problem understanding the reasoning behind differing opinions discussed and respect those opinions. Once one forms an opinion, It’s tough to change it…true for all of us…didn’t change my opinion and doubt I changed yours. This dissertation simply offered as an explanation of mine. Indeed, figure the issue has been pretty well argued out at this point. Not to say it has been resolved. Totally expect it to reappear in some form in a future thread. The .30-30, .32 Special debate has been going since 1902. That’s 108 years and counting. That will reappear also.
However, I will editorialize a bit to say that whether or not the .32 was developed for black powder use, is really a moot point to anyone but a historian. In utilizing that .32-40 barrel, Winchester hit a home run with the .32 Special…a cartridge capable of superb accuracy…which has the versatility of firing cast bullets to jacketed performance and even utilize black powder if you wish. In spite of the rumor that 16 inch twist is too slow…no small amount of its capability is directly related to that 16 inch twist which is actually a perfect choice for the cartridge…ideal for the commonly loaded 170 grain bullets and able to handle the 200s as well…even at reduced velocity.It's my guess that if the situation had been reversed and the .32 introduced in1995 and the 30-30 in 1902, the outcome would have been reversed as well. The 30-30 would have been the one dropped. The .32 Special offers capabilites beyond the .30-30 and the .30-30 has no niche the .32 can't fill. However, as one of the first high velocity hunting rounds the .30-30 was an immediate hit and gained an immediate follwing and so the die was cast. FYI, the 30-30 has a faster twist that necessary… unless you’re planning on shooting the 220s. Bullets are actually overstabilized with most loads. If you doubt me, measure your bullets length and diameter and run them through an online twist calculator.
Last edited by MTWeatherman; 03-31-2010 at 03:13 PM.
I DOUBT IT. Nice thing about the 30/30 is the faster twist barrel and the 30 caliber which allows for lots of different size bullets of various weights. Just because the 30/30 came first does not mean that is the reason that the 30/30 lives on. It lives on because folks like it. The 25/35 is obsolete too and was dropped just as the 32 special was. Here is how popular the 30/30 is. Back during WWII according to an article I just read. Farmers and Ranchers could get an allotted number of ammo with a ration card during the war. They had three choices they could get. 22LR, 12 Guage and 30/30. From what I have read the 30/30 does well with the light bullets like 113 grain all the way up to those 190 grain loads folks use with heavy cast bullets or Silvertip pulled bullets so I think the 30/30 stabilizes just fine with a variety of loads. Lets face it it does not matter what any of us think the 30/30 is alive and well and the 32 special is on the way of the DODO bird except for those that reload for it and those that still may take it out once a year hunting.
Last edited by jh45gun; 03-31-2010 at 04:19 PM.
A gun is like a parachute: If you need one and don't have one, you won't be needing one again.
Personally I think the 32 special may be a "better" cartridge than the 30-30 but when you get down to the brass tacks I think it would have been better served with a heavier bullet, say 190 grains which may have been driven at 2100 or so. One of the problems on this "power" issue is that at what level does it give more power/ I have shot several deer with a 30-30 and have found it very adequate. My daughter has shot a few with one also. A 32 would not have done any better nor any other caliber. Is the extra power something that would make it better for black bear or elk? Both would require a little attention to shot placement. The extra power of the 32 special was a solution looking for a problem as it just does not show any appreciable increase. The 30-30 seems to have a catchy name or something but its stayed with us. Some make the mistake of thinking the 32 was in between the 30-06 and the 30-30. The 30 government at the time of inception was the 30-40 Krag. That is actually a very small niche to fill. The 30-30 is also darned accurate with cast bullets and very forgiving. I have used cast on the last 5 deer with great results. Because other were referring to the 32-20 I did so also without thinking. The 32-40 set records in Schutzen matchs and was a Schutzen cartridge originally.
Northmn
There may be a slight bit of more power but not that great like I said for all intents and purposes both cartridges are close enough in ballistics that no critter is going to know the difference.
A gun is like a parachute: If you need one and don't have one, you won't be needing one again.
Very rarely do you and I even come close to agreeing . But I gotta say I agree with your opinion of the 32 Special !
And what you say about the 32-40 was the main reason I became intrested in that cartridge many years ago
Parker's , 6.5mm's and my family in the Philippines
Well the .32 Special does not increase the power of the 30-30 enough to really put it in a distinct separate niche. Indeed, more powerful but still too close to the 30-30. .30-40 Krag class would have been the next distinct niche up. Tough to justify both and the most popular won. That's marketing.
If Winchester had done things the right way...and not tried to use an existing barrel, they would have necked the 30-30 up to .35 caliber and created the .35 Winchester. That was a niche Remington was all too happy to fill with the .35 Remington.
I do believe that the primary purpose of the .32 Special was to create a more powerful cartridge for the '94. If they could have lengthed the case to create more power, I believe they would have done so...but couldn't due to feed problems. If they could have chambered it for the .30-40 Krag (too long) , I believe they may have done so. Indeed, I suspect they'd have been all too happy to take their 30-30 barrels and chamber them to .30-40 Krag. If they could have done it, there'd have been no .32 Special. They'd have kept the 30-30 and brought out the .30-40 in 1902.
Why? Because the push was on for higher performance smokeless cartridges. The .30-40 Krag had a good reputation as a powerful big game round...and Winchester was worried about the competition. I believe that since they couldn't approach the .30-40 performance in the '94, they downplayed its necessary. They were thinking about it...that's why they mentioned the 30-40 in their .32 Special ads. Best they could do was split the difference between the .30-30 and the 30-40 with the .32 Special so the ads said there was demand for more power than the .30-30 but less than the Krag and Winchester was providing it. I don't believe that statement any more than the black powder thing. Winchester would have provided a .30-40 class rifle in the '94 if they could have done so. It was a popular cartridge at the time.
Why would Winchester be obsessed with the .30-40? Well , more theory. Let's go back to 1902. Several years earlier, the 8mm '98 Mauser had absolutely blown the .30-40 Krag out of the water, both as a cartridge with it's much higher velocity and as a strong accurate rifle. So, the U.S. was in the process of developing its own high velocity military round. The '03 Springfield was well underway in development when the .32 Special was introduced in '02 although the official cartridge wasn't fine tuned until '06 when the 30'06 appeared. Winchester knew what was happening and knew that the market was about to be flooded with the higher powered surplus 30-40 Krag rifles. Winchester introduced the .32 Special to try to reduce the energy advantage it carried...it couldn't equal it but did the best it could.
Unless someone finds some internal documents from the now defunct Winchester on what the actual thinking was back in '02, we'll never know. I don't think advertising statements carry much weight...anymore than you can trust them today. Hope you don't believe all those pharmaceutical ads either. As always, they're designed to sell you a product, not supply complete information.
Don't forget Winchester did have a medium power cartridge in the model 86 called the 33 WCF that was not that popular either and became obsolete. The 38/55 should have been more popular too. As far as the 35 Remington goes that was the only 35 that really took off to any amount. Very few Americans never cared for the 35 calibers except for that one just like they ignored the very good 6.5 calibers.
A gun is like a parachute: If you need one and don't have one, you won't be needing one again.
Our disagreements are probably along the line traditional ML's and not so much lever guns. I go back to the old timers I knew when I was younger. For some of them a box of shells was good for up to 5 years, most probaably shot a little more, but not near to the level of today. Some of the more "powerful" cartridges may have stimulated little interst. The 300 Savage did after 1920. We do have moose in Northern MN and more than a few were shot by a 30-30 in the good old days and it was considered adequate for any of their needs. One old timer talked about shooting a calf and being treed by mama as he only put one shell in his rifle. Mostly I think the extra power was more a longer range thing as the 300 Savage definitely makes for easier hits a longer range. Probably more popular in the West. I used to see and hear about a lot of 94's with a peep site and the insert thrown away. The 94 was just a very handy rifle to have along wherever you went. All that extra power is more of a modern thing.Very rarely do you and I even come close to agreeing . But I gotta say I agree with your opinion of the 32 Special !
And what you say about the 32-40 was the main reason I became intrested in that cartridge many years ago
Northmn
You're absolutely correct. .35 class rifles have never done well in the United States. Don't forget the .348 and .358 Winchesters. However, in most cases, the calibers fell by the wayside as the rifles chambering them were discontinued. The '86 Winchester, the '71, 88, and 100 Winchesters. The .38-55 died just like the .32-40 because it became obsolete with advent of smokeless powder. However, the '94 lived on and I'll bet a .35 Winchester offering would have been at least as popular as the .35 Remington(which was discontinued by Remington along with the rifle handling it. At least it would offer a distinctly separate niche from the .30-30 (more so than the .32 Special)...distincty larger caliber handling distinctly larger bullets. Don't forget, the '32 survived until 1973. Odds would be pretty good that current Marlins would be handling a .35 Winchester as opposed to the Remington for the simple reason that it would be a rimmed case like their other offerings. If so, it would to alive today along with their .30-30.
and yes...believe the U.S. missed the boat in not looking at the 6.5s closer...feel the same way about the 8mms. Believe part of it may be related to WW1 and WWll. After U.S soldiers were shot at by those metrics, think they developed an anti-metric bias. "Good old .30 caliber, now that's American". Understandable attitutude to have but doesn't change the fact that there are some very good "metrics" out there. The 8mm and 7mm Mausers are outstanding cartridges yet no commercial offerings in the U.S. I'm aware of. Closest would be the 7mm-08s similarity to that 7X57 and it had to start as a wildcat.
Well I believe WW Greener knew what he was talking about and many other contemporary sources bear out the very poor quality control of smokeless propellants available to handloaders before WW1.
It wasn't always the fault of poor manufacture, many such powders developed instability due to indifferent storage and shipping, air conditioning was still practically unheard of, and there were numerous shipping accidents due to over heated ships holds and feight cars.
One reason handloading fell out of favor among British target shooters was the danger of degraded powders. I've had my own aventures with degraded powders, of more recent vintage and theoretically far more stable than those of the turn of the century.
A very few of those old powders were remarkably stable, but these were the minority and as yet unproven.
Cordite was considered the most stable, and when properly manufactured and stored it lived up to the claim, but millions of pounds of cordite were condemned at one point due a simple manufacturing error that resulted in mercury contamination, leaving Britian with very little ammunition it could trust.
At one point government supplied .303 ammunition blew up or damaged a large number of privately owned and expensive target rifles at Bisley. There was a stink over that you can bet.
The same source quoted a London Gunmaker as saying that the majority of broken guns brought to his shops was due to cordite.
Temperature sensitivity was great with many early smokeless owders, loads worked up for hunting in winter or fall could wreck a gun in summer heat or the south western deserts.
When maximum loads were reached maximum deviations in pressure became greater, leading to the rash of cracked Krag bolts when the .30-40 government load was stepped up a mere 3,000 CUP.
The Mauser cartridges are all excellent designs, and probably were more popular in the US than most might believe, but due to pre 1898 rifles chambered for these rounds few cartridge manufacturers in the US want to load them to their full potential.
Before WW1 few American shooters considered the bolt action to be a proper sporting rifle, with sources of the day identifying it as "the Military Bolt rifle".
Smaller bore 7mm/280 high velocity cartridges had been marketed in the US and Canada early on, but the quality of propellants once again made these less efficient and safe than they would have been if marketed post WW2. The .276 British was a powerful cartridge but use of Cordite doomed it to a very short usable bore life, with massive muzzle flash.
The .30/03 using a double base powder and only a few hundred FPS greater velocity than the Krag with the same .220 grain bullet had less than half the bore life, and stripped its jackets so often that jacket removal tools were at one time standard issue in cleaning kits.
By 1916 the Dupont MR powders and the IMR powders already in the works made handloading with smokeless reasonably safe, and fairly high quality surplus powders , and over production, made such powders less expensive and easier to find.
One small advantage of the .30/.303 commercial cartridges was the availability of condemned Krag ammo as a source of cheap bullets, and sometimes usable powders, which the handloader soon learned to check for signs of degradation in storage. The ammo might not be safe for use in a Krag but only a few cartridges in any lot need be defective for the lot to be condemned, leaving the rest a reasonably safe source of components.
Condemned Krag ammo was a major source of components during the rationing of WW2. Same for old stocks of WW1 era .30/06, with bullet points filed off to produce flat nosed bullets for tube magazines.
The last is not a recommended practice, though Townsend Whelen fired thousands of such clipped bullets in .30/06 rifles with no problems.
For quite some time before WW2 .30/06 rifles were rather scarce and hard to find on the civilian market. The Bannerman cobbled together .30/06 rifles were a stop gap since production of new rifles was mostly geared towards military contracts.
Theft of US Springfield rifles became a problem for awhile, I've read a number of old documents dealing with such thefts, including breakins at armories during times of civil unrest.
I think the Model 71 and the 348 failed because it cost so much more then a 30/30 Marlin or Winchester. It was a nice lever gun. Plus just like the Model 12 it was costing Winchester too much money to make and be competitive so they dropped it. I remember back when I was a youngster most folks had Winchester Model 94s or Marlins in the groups we hunted with. A few had Savage 99's and a few had the 71's those that had the 71's usually had money.
A gun is like a parachute: If you need one and don't have one, you won't be needing one again.
It is true those rifles costs more and probably why many didn't buy them, but another reason is that in the neck of the woods I grew up in many didn't feel the need for that large and powerful of a caliber. Most hunted with 30-30's, the 99 Savages, the Model 14 Remington, Mosin Nagants, and 98 Mausers....lots with the 32 Special. Those that couldn't afford a rifle used their shotguns with slugs.
Another possible reason for the .30-30 being more popular that the .32 Special was the very common practice of using auxillary chambers to fire .32 SW cartridges in .30 caliber rifles for small game hunting.
The only pistol cartridges with .321 bullets were the 8mm Lebel and similar European military revolvers.
Also cat sneeze loads using no.1 buckshot were very common for killing rats and birds around the farms, I've read of this practice using the .303 and .30-40 Krag, and the .30-30 would be suited to it as well.
It was common to break down old swollen 16 gauge buckshot shells, No.1 shot being the largest I could find for my 16 gauge when I had one, and using a pinch of the shot shell powder and a no.1 shot to pop rats and such without scaring the livestock. One cost saving measure was to knock out a fired berdan primer, knock flat the firing pin impression, and place a couple of cut out dots from cap buster roll caps in the cup then reseat it. The same could be done with a boxer primer, though the anvil would need to be re inserted as well.
Yep...money is definitely part of the equation. Success of the 30-30 (and .32 Special) is very much tied to the '94 Winchester...a well balanced, fast operating, compact rifle which was offered at relatively low cost.
Winchester did have a lever that was able to handle the higher powered smokeless cartridges of the late 19th and early 20th century...the 1895. It also had the advantage of a box magazine allowing it to use spitzer bullets. It was offered in .30-40 Krag and eventually, the 30'06. In .the 405, it was Teddy Roosevelts favorite and he used it to take about every animal you can name in Africa.
However, the 1895 was a "rich man's rifle". It was expensive...too expensive to gain a major market foothold so disappeared like the '71. It must have been frustrating to Winchester to realize that if they could mate .30-40 Krag performance to the '94 they would have another hit on their hands...with acceptance possibly approaching their 30-30 for the big game western hunters. For reasons discussed in my earlier post they couldn't do it...but I believe the .32 Special represented their best effort.
A .30-40 with a flat nosed bullet would have been fine in a tublar magazine lever gun, sort of like the .307 adapation of the .308 to lever guns.
A limiting factor for the Model 94 is its relatively weak extraction. The larger diameter the cartridge case the more it grips the chamber walls when expanded. The narrow .30-30 and .32 Special cases at moderate pressure levels along with the lug spring back which slightly loosens the fired case, made functioning no problem. A higher pressure cartridge or cartridge of the same pressure range using a wider case body would be more difficult to extract, a problem noted by some .375 owners and one which limits the maximum performance of this round in a Winchester lever action.
I understand some Model 94's have a cut out over the extractor to allow the shooter to press down on the extractor with his thumb while extracting a sticky case.
The .30-06 Model 95 worked fine with WW1 era 1906 ball at 150 gr bullet and 2700 fps, but when owners later used M1 ball and sporting loads at the same pressure levels they found that headspace began to increase. A 5,000 or so increase in CUP made the difference.
Some who have bought the repro Model 95 in .30-06 have reported similar problems despite theorectically better metalurgy and heat treatment. Others seem to have had no headspace problems with their repros. 50,000 CUP seems to be just within the limits of the design, with 55,000 CUP being on the edge, with some rifles holding up while others made the same day do not.
I wouldn't mind having a .30-40 0r .303 Br Model 95 but if I had a .30-06 chambered 95 I'd be very careful of the pressure levels I subjected it to.
PS some years back I watched a documentary on Russian black market arms dealers. A police survelance tape showed some dealers unloading a truck full of Winchester model 95 muskets in 7.62X54r. These rifles had proven to be too sensitive to mud to be used as frontline rifles in WW1, but many had been given to Partizans in WW2, and lost or stolen Model 95's show up now and then over there even today. It would be great if a few thousands were to show up on the market at a reasonable price.
The lever rifle Winchester should have kept making was the Model 88.
Maybe along with the 100 if they would have made A BETTER TRIGGER SYSTEM. That is the biggest complaint I have heard with these two guns.
A gun is like a parachute: If you need one and don't have one, you won't be needing one again.
I was going to say something about the gas check dimension thing but didn't. I just bought one of the .32 special's and the shank is too large. Seating the gascheck is really a bear. I had the same issue with the .30 caliber. I like the design but would like a better fit of the gascheck.
Posting Permissions
| BP | Bronze Point | IMR | Improved Military Rifle | PTD | Pointed |
| BR | Bench Rest | M | Magnum | RN | Round Nose |
| BT | Boat Tail | PL | Power-Lokt | SP | Soft Point |
| C | Compressed Charge | PR | Primer | SPCL | Soft Point "Core-Lokt" |
| HP | Hollow Point | PSPCL | Pointed Soft Point "Core Lokt" | C.O.L. | Cartridge Overall Length |
| PSP | Pointed Soft Point | Spz | Spitzer Point | SBT | Spitzer Boat Tail |
| LRN | Lead Round Nose | LWC | Lead Wad Cutter | LSWC | Lead Semi Wad Cutter |
| GC | Gas Check |
Reply With Quote