New Starline brass error.

[Tycer]

I was measuring the size of the 32-20 brass that came from my Rem 92 (GENEROUS chamber there) and I noticed the shoulder was much farther forward than the unfired rounds in the same case. Sure enough, Starline sent me 500 cases with a set-back shoulder. I have already prepped and primed all 500, so they will need to be fire formed. I spoke with their tech Hunter who asked if I could send him a couple of cases. I will. I'd like to not have to waste the primers, powder and time to fire form all these.
What do you think I should ask for as compensation?

Left to right: minimally sized to drop into the 92, loaded unsized new, unsized new.

[BenT]

Is the shoulder where the specs say it should be? My 94 Marlin in 32-20 ,manufactured in 2004, chamber pushes the shoulder farther forward than spec after firing. I adjust my sizing die so I don't set the shoulder all the way back to spec, easier on the brass. The Starline brass has been holding up just fine.

[Tycer]

It's about 0.060" back from current SAAMI spec (0.816" from rim face) and 0.080" back from the old drawings(0.903"). My chamber is set to the old numbers with a bit of extra girth at both the shoulder and base.

Old drawings:
http://stevespages.com/jpg/cd3220winchester.jpg

Current:
http://www.saami.org/pubresources/cc_dr ... hester.pdf

[Old Ironsights]

Well... As they are useable after fire forming (vs unusable because of a too-high shoulder) I would not complain too much, and let the gods of karma sort it out. Starline will be/hopefully is glad to be made aware of the problem and may do something nice for you without asking...

[AJMD429]

I just got a bunch - will have to check them.

But. . . . since they headspace on the rim, other than a bit of reduced accuracy the first firing (due to energy expended expanding the brass farther than usual), will it really matter. . . . ???

[Tycer]

I just got a bunch - will have to check them.

But. . . . since they headspace on the rim, other than a bit of reduced accuracy the first firing (due to energy expended expanding the brass farther than usual), will it really matter. . . . ???

Other than them being just 500 wasteful noisemakers? No.

[AJMD429]

Here's one of the new Starline's I just got from MidwayUSA.com, in between two Remington factory loads of probably 1970's and 1980's vintage. Nothing I had to measure them with could reveal a distinct difference, but you can see a bit of difference.

32-20 Cases.jpg

[Tycer]

Interesting. The one on the right looks the same as the new brass but the one on the left seems to have the shoulder a bit farther forward.

[Buck Elliott]

The .38-40 and .44-40 suffer from the same pronounced mis-match between cartridge and chamber, in many older guns.. Winchester chambers were notoriously oversized, especially regarding shoulder placement, and Colt's revolver chambers were even worse..

Many commercial loading dies, combined with conventional loading practices, did little or nothing to help the situation, and often left the reloader with cartridges that might fit one gun of that caliber, but fail to chamber in another gun made for the same nominal ammunition.. It sometimes became a hair-tearing experience, and many sizing dies had their mouths cut back or ground down to shorten the head-to-shoulder length, if needed..

I believe SAAMI has been working, the last few years, to tighten up the standards and tolerances for some of the old, bottle-necked cartridges, in an attempt to make modern guns and modern ammo more dimensionally compatible, without rendering older guns or ammo obsolete in the process.. It becomes a matter of compiling a lot of information, and deciding on the best allowable minimum/maximum dimensions.. The job is only slightly more difficult than raising the Titanic...

[Canuck Bob]

Please excuse my idea if it is not appropriate. I would just load up that brass and use it to fireform as load development and plinking ammo. The Rim controls headspace and bullets could be seated a little long into the rifling to eliminate all headspace. If Starline would allow you to not return the stuff and issue a credit against future purchasing to cover fireforming all is well. Companies are always friendlier to credits and no return/shipping hassles in my experience.

[Tycer]

Please excuse my idea if it is not appropriate. I would just load up that brass and use it to fireform as load development and plinking ammo. The Rim controls headspace and bullets could be seated a little long into the rifling to eliminate all headspace. If Starline would allow you to not return the stuff and issue a credit against future purchasing to cover fireforming all is well. Companies are always friendlier to credits and no return/shipping hassles in my experience.

That would suit me fine.

[Mike Armstrong]

I ASSUME (you know where that sometimes gets you....) that the original poster means a Winchester 92; otherwise I'm stumped.

I know that Colt .32-20 chambers, at least the older ones, often blow the brass out straight, and resizing it in normal dies works the brass so much that it doesn't last long, presumably one reason you see complaints about the .32-20 being "hard to reload." My 1906-vintage Bisley SA does this; my 1926-vintage Army Special DA doesn't. Sometime in the 20 years between those guns births, Colt changed specs or at least reamers!

My only other recent .32-20 was a Savage 23C bolt action, which I just sold. It had a very tight chamber that maintained the shoulder well.

[Chuck 100 yd]

Like BenT said, I just load and shoot them using my standard load. When I reload I set the die to NOT set the shoulder back any more. They are then fire formed to my chamber and shoot great either way new or after fire forming and reloading.

[Mike Armstrong]

Yeah, Chuck, I read ya. The ctg. functions just fine without a shoulder, all right.

I guess that it was designed with the taper and the shoulder to avoid feeding problems in the original '73 action, just like the .44-40 and .38-40 that preceded it, although you would think that Winchester would have been confident in their actions feeding straight cases, since the '66 does just fine.

[Cast Bullet Hunter]

Tycer,

You are worrying about way to much. With all the original 1873 Winchester cartridges there has always been an exceptional amount of variation. You want to see a difference between fired and un-fired, try .38-40. The shoulder is so far forward in most guns chambered for this cartridge thatthe neck is shortened by about 1/2 its' length to about 5/32".

All three, .44-40, .38-40, and .32-20 have been around since 50-60 years before SAAMI was ever created, so any SAAMI dimensions are somewhat arbitrary anyway.

Both .32-20 and .44-40 chambers have always had shoulders in them as pictured in the above cartridge/chamber drawings, while the original cartridges were shaped as a straight taper, they had absolutely no shoulder. When fired the cases had a distinct shoulder, but when re-sized with early dies they were re-sized to the straight taper. Think how that worked the brass! I have Lyman dies from the late 1950s for both .32-20 and .44-40 and guess what? They size both cases to straight taper!

Worrying about a few thousandths of an inch in where the shoulder is located seems a little silly, doesn't it! I am more concerned with the case length varying from 1.265" to 1.312".

[Tycer]

I'm not worrying. It's just new to me. The 32-20 is my only foray into the old cartridges. All the new brass I have match the drawings in my Lyman manuals and I've used those manuals measurements to check fired cases. The fact that the Starline brass shoulder was .080" farther back than my drawing was odd. Couple that with my known load not shooting well raised my concern. Now that I know that I need to change my practice of using new brass for load development I am less concerned. I think that Starline will like to know their shoulder is ..060" shorter than the SAAMI spec they use, but I don't expect anything from Starline. I'll just load the rest of the brass with a.pinch of clays ant the Magnus 202s and work on trigger control and off hand stance.