32 Win Spcl to 30-30 Conversion?
Forum rules
Welcome to the Leverguns.Com General Discussions Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here other than politics... politely.
Please post political post in the new Politics forum.
Welcome to the Leverguns.Com General Discussions Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here other than politics... politely.
Please post political post in the new Politics forum.
-
- Levergunner
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 9:40 pm
32 Win Spcl to 30-30 Conversion?
I have a pre-64 Winchester 94 Carbine that was my Dad's that is chambered in .32 Winchester Special. When you can find 32 Win Spcl ammo, it runs about $32 a box. I am wondering how extensive and costly it would be to have a 'smith rebarrel it to 30-30 (ammo almost half as expensive and 10 times easier to find). I'm not worrying about it's collectors value because Dad already had it drilled and tapped for a side-saddle scope mount. Plus, it's Dad's rifle. It would be the last thing I sold if I needed to. And, no, I don't reload, so that isn't my solution.
So is it practical and feasible? Anyone know of a 'smith that does this sem-regularly?
Thanks in advance.
So is it practical and feasible? Anyone know of a 'smith that does this sem-regularly?
Thanks in advance.
- Streetstar
- Advanced Levergunner
- Posts: 4008
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:58 am
- Location: Oklahoma
Re: 32 Win Spcl to 30-30 Conversion?
For the cost of this conversion you could buy 10 boxes of 32 special and for most people that would be a lifetime supply. But if you like keep an eye out for a cheaper 3030 she can shoot to your hearts content if you want to. Because the proper number of lever guns to have is N plus one
----- Doug
Re: 32 Win Spcl to 30-30 Conversion?
I agree with buying a .30-30 to shoot. The .32 Win Special is pretty much limited to 170 grain bullets. The .30-30 goes from the 125 grain Managed Recoil brand up to 170 grain bullets. It is more versatile just due to the variety of bullet weights. I like the .32 Win Special, and it is useful for anything that a 170 grain .30-30 would be useful for. Reloading for it is the same as reloading for the .30-30, but as you do not reload, that is not really anything to consider. As to recoil and accuracy, I cannot tell any real difference. Neither one kicks much.
If you are determined to shoot that particular rifle, it might be best to start reloading. The lead bullets which were available before this current shortage were reasonably priced then, and they were effective on everything from deer to wild pigs to black bear.
If you are determined to shoot that particular rifle, it might be best to start reloading. The lead bullets which were available before this current shortage were reasonably priced then, and they were effective on everything from deer to wild pigs to black bear.
D. Brian Casady
Quid Llatine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur.
Advanced is being able to do the basics while your leg is on fire---Bill Jeans
Don't ever take a fence down until you know why it was put up---Robert Frost
Quid Llatine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur.
Advanced is being able to do the basics while your leg is on fire---Bill Jeans
Don't ever take a fence down until you know why it was put up---Robert Frost
-
- Senior Levergunner
- Posts: 1072
- Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:12 pm
- Location: Bushwhacker Capitol, Missouri
Re: 32 Win Spcl to 30-30 Conversion?
Learn to reload. The .32 Special was made with cast bullets and black powder in mind.
- vancelw
- Advanced Levergunner
- Posts: 3950
- Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 1:56 pm
- Location: 90% NE Texas and 10% SE Montana
Re: 32 Win Spcl to 30-30 Conversion?
.32 Special beats .30 wcf any day!
I have a model 94 and a 336A-DL.
Cheaper to sell your rifle and buy a 30-30 than to rebarrel.
Or...buy the 10 boxes and be done with it.
I have a model 94 and a 336A-DL.
Cheaper to sell your rifle and buy a 30-30 than to rebarrel.
Or...buy the 10 boxes and be done with it.
"Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one less scoundrel in the world." - Thomas Carlyle
- GunnyMack
- Advanced Levergunner
- Posts: 10702
- Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 7:57 am
- Location: Not where I want to be!
Re: 32 Win Spcl to 30-30 Conversion?
Buy a 30-30( type doesn't matter) then lay out the funds for a press, dies for both 30-30 & 32, powder, primers and bullets.
OR
Find a local that does reload and strike a deal for them to load for/with you.
Just my $.02
OR
Find a local that does reload and strike a deal for them to load for/with you.
Just my $.02
BROWN LABS MATTER !!
Re: 32 Win Spcl to 30-30 Conversion?
Deleted.
Last edited by Ray on Sat Apr 30, 2022 6:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
m.A.g.a. !
Re: 32 Win Spcl to 30-30 Conversion?
Sourcing a barrel is the biggest cost. Watch Ebay and check Numrich for used barrels. Once you have a barrel figure about $100 to swap them out. But like others say you can buy a used 30-30 for the cost of this conversions and have 2 guns. I you want to shoot you 32 special reloading is the best option. Reloading isn't a hassle, it is relaxing adult, quiet time.
- marlinman93
- Advanced Levergunner
- Posts: 6639
- Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 3:40 pm
- Location: Oregon
Re: 32 Win Spcl to 30-30 Conversion?
Not really. The .32 Win. Spl. didn't even arrive on the market until 1902 and the first cartridges were loaded with smokeless powder, and jacketed bullets, at high velocity (for that time). I don't believe the .32 WS was ever loaded with BP by any ammo maker, and I've never seen any factory cast loads either.
As for rebarreling your gun to .30-30, it's not a viable option. Better to either sell it or keep it, and find another shooter quality Win. 94 in .30-30. Might be slightly higher, but still a much better way to go.
Pre WWI Marlins and Singleshot rifles!
http://members.tripod.com/~OregonArmsCollectors/
http://members.tripod.com/~OregonArmsCollectors/
Re: 32 Win Spcl to 30-30 Conversion?
I have used both cast and jacketed in the .32 WS, and both work. IMR3031 gives wonderful accuracy. LVR powder gives higher velocity, but I don't seem to have as good of accuracy with it. I have tried a couple of others, but I keep coming back to IMR3031 for the .30-30 and the .32 WS for the accuracy that I get. Speed may be nice, but accuracy is more important to me. My son likes my .32 WS with Speer Jacketed bullets and a low end load of IMR3031. He can hit with it.
D. Brian Casady
Quid Llatine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur.
Advanced is being able to do the basics while your leg is on fire---Bill Jeans
Don't ever take a fence down until you know why it was put up---Robert Frost
Quid Llatine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur.
Advanced is being able to do the basics while your leg is on fire---Bill Jeans
Don't ever take a fence down until you know why it was put up---Robert Frost
Re: 32 Win Spcl to 30-30 Conversion?
oh man, its your rifle now, so definitely do what you please, but here are two reasons NOT to rebarrel it.
1. it was your dad's rifle. I'd keep it exactly how he had it.
2. an original 32 special is way rarer are cooler than a 30-30. Don't get me wrong. the 30-30 is an awesome cartridge, but the 32 special is every bit as effective (if not more so) and is so much more unique/interesting/etc. 30-30s are a dime a dozen, but not so for the 32WS
Everyone else's comments and recommendations are right on. By the time you buy a barrel and pay a smith to swap them out, you could buy easily 10 boxes of 32 special ammo - which will last for a very long time.
OR - you could (should) consider reloading for the 32 special. Its very easy. I just loaded up some for my 32WS this summer with great success. I used 170gr hornady FP bullets over some 3031.
1. it was your dad's rifle. I'd keep it exactly how he had it.
2. an original 32 special is way rarer are cooler than a 30-30. Don't get me wrong. the 30-30 is an awesome cartridge, but the 32 special is every bit as effective (if not more so) and is so much more unique/interesting/etc. 30-30s are a dime a dozen, but not so for the 32WS
Everyone else's comments and recommendations are right on. By the time you buy a barrel and pay a smith to swap them out, you could buy easily 10 boxes of 32 special ammo - which will last for a very long time.
OR - you could (should) consider reloading for the 32 special. Its very easy. I just loaded up some for my 32WS this summer with great success. I used 170gr hornady FP bullets over some 3031.
- Scott Tschirhart
- Advanced Levergunner
- Posts: 4559
- Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2020 2:56 pm
- Location: San Antonio, Texas
Re: 32 Win Spcl to 30-30 Conversion?
I would love to have a rifle like that in .32 Win Special! Keep it as is and enjoy it.
-
- Senior Levergunner
- Posts: 1072
- Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:12 pm
- Location: Bushwhacker Capitol, Missouri
Re: 32 Win Spcl to 30-30 Conversion?
The .32 Special was factory loaded with smokeless, but its selling point was its facility for reloading with black powder.marlinman93 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 12:19 pmNot really. The .32 Win. Spl. didn't even arrive on the market until 1902 and the first cartridges were loaded with smokeless powder, and jacketed bullets, at high velocity (for that time). I don't believe the .32 WS was ever loaded with BP by any ammo maker, and I've never seen any factory cast loads either.
As for rebarreling your gun to .30-30, it's not a viable option. Better to either sell it or keep it, and find another shooter quality Win. 94 in .30-30. Might be slightly higher, but still a much better way to go.
Re: 32 Win Spcl to 30-30 Conversion?
Deleted.
Last edited by Ray on Sat Apr 30, 2022 6:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
m.A.g.a. !
- marlinman93
- Advanced Levergunner
- Posts: 6639
- Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 3:40 pm
- Location: Oregon
Re: 32 Win Spcl to 30-30 Conversion?
Most bottleneck cartridges work better with smokeless than with BP. The exceptions are the very large bottleneck cartridges like .44-77SBN, which often shoot better with BP.
I love the .32 Win. Spl., but wouldn't ever consider it a better BP round vs. smokeless. It will work, but certainly not "better".
I love the .32 Win. Spl., but wouldn't ever consider it a better BP round vs. smokeless. It will work, but certainly not "better".
Pre WWI Marlins and Singleshot rifles!
http://members.tripod.com/~OregonArmsCollectors/
http://members.tripod.com/~OregonArmsCollectors/
-
- Senior Levergunner
- Posts: 1072
- Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:12 pm
- Location: Bushwhacker Capitol, Missouri
Re: 32 Win Spcl to 30-30 Conversion?
No, it is not better. It was to accommodate those who had not yet transitioned to smokeless reloading. Smokeless was still a new technology to most who had always reloaded their own ammo.marlinman93 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 11:50 am Most bottleneck cartridges work better with smokeless than with BP. The exceptions are the very large bottleneck cartridges like .44-77SBN, which often shoot better with BP.
I love the .32 Win. Spl., but wouldn't ever consider it a better BP round vs. smokeless. It will work, but certainly not "better".
Re: 32 Win Spcl to 30-30 Conversion?
Sounds like the perfect reason to buy another rifle..
If you're gonna be stupid ya gotta be tough-
Isiah 55:8&9
It's easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled.
Isiah 55:8&9
It's easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled.
- vancelw
- Advanced Levergunner
- Posts: 3950
- Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 1:56 pm
- Location: 90% NE Texas and 10% SE Montana
Re: 32 Win Spcl to 30-30 Conversion?
The Tables are messed up, but you can figure it out.
________________________________________________________
WHAT MAKES IT /SPECIAL/?
*
By: M. L. McPherson
Synopsis: Debate over the ballistic virtues and
superiority of one chambering verses another are common.
The discussion comparing the 30-30 Winchester to the 32
Winchester Special demonstrates that these debates have
been going on for a long, long time.
Recently, I came on one of those buys that sets one's head spinning. We
were killing an hour at a gun store across town - waiting for rush hour
traffic to clear before heading home. I moseyed over to the used gun
rack and there it was a truly _special_ rifle!
The tang on this Marlin was marked, /Model 1936. /Its barrel read 32
Special. BY opening the finger-lever I exposed the serial number on the
underside of the tang, 303! Overall, though obviously used, the rifle
was in surprisingly good condition, with no signs of abuse.
It was one of those situations, perhaps typical. I wanted this rifle,
whatever the price but, being typically broke, I simply could not afford
to buy anything. After heaving a sigh of resignation, I turned the price
tag over - $189. I wanted to scream.
Instead, I dejectedly made my way home. I casually mentioned the
incident to my wife. She suggested hocking the car, if necessary, and
insisted that I immediately drive back across town and buy that rifle.
Never one to argue with the boss, I drove.
It was still there. After a few minutes of dickering, I owned it for
$175, tax included.
I have long wondered why the 32 Winchester Special chambering failed to
gain even a reasonable measure of popularity, while its parent
cartridge, the venerable 30 WCF (_W_inchester _C_enter _F_ire), is still
going strong after 100 years.
The 30 WCF is more commonly referred to these days as the 30-30. This
designation is reportedly a reflection of the caliber and the original
charge of the available smokeless powder. This, in turn, reflects a
carry-over from earlier and quite useful blackpowder cartridge
designations, e.g., 45-70-500 for 45-caliber, 70-grains blackpowder and
500-grain (cast lead) bullet.
As with so many things in this old world, sometimes what seems an
established fact turns out - upon closer examination - to be erroneous.
Someone makes a statement - perhaps an opinion based on nothing but
conjecture. Someone hears this opinion, assumes it to be true and
repeats it - as if it were a fact. Someone else hears this "fact" and
prints it. /Voilà,/ something that started as nothing but conjecture
eventually becomes a well-known fact.
Here are the basics of the oft printed "facts" explaining the impetus
behind Winchester's invention of the 32 Winchester Special (WS):
/It is said folks had been trying blackpowder handloads in the
30-30 and were having trouble with powder fouling because of the
small bore and unusually fast rifling twist, compared to typical
blackpowder bores. It is claimed that Winchester introduced the
32 WS, to provide a similar chambering that was more amenable to
blackpowder loads. This cartridge, simply the 30-30 case necked
up and chambered in a barrel with a significantly slower rifling
twist (1/16 versus 1/12), works well with blackpowder./
The 32 WS does have a slower rifling rate - 1:16-inch compared to
1:12-inch for the 30-30 - and its bigger bore should be less prone to
powder fouling. Therefore, this explanation seems plausible enough. For
why else should Winchester introduce a cartridge so similar to its
already extremely popular 30-30?
Several years ago, I came upon a copy of Winchester's 1916 catalogue.
Imagine my surprise when I found the following detailed explanation as
to why Winchester had introduced the 32 Winchester Special
/The .32 Winchester Special cartridge, which we have perfected,
is offered to meet the demand of many sportsmen for a smokeless
powder cartridge of larger caliber than the .30 Winchester
[original name for the 30-30] and yet not so powerful as the .30
Army [now known as the 30-40 Krag].
_That_ was the entire explanation! There was not so much as a hint about
any connection to using blackpowder reloads, facilitating handloading or
other such nonsense!
The catalogue went on with a simple explanation of why the 32 WS was
able to deliver a significant increase in power, when loaded at the same
pressure, compared to the 30-30. Published ballistics in that catalogue
verified this claim. The 32 WS was credited with generating about 10.6%
more muzzle energy than its progenitor.
After considering pertinent facts and upon reflection, I suspect most
would agree: The evidently invented story is unfounded, perhaps even a
bit ridiculous.
In the first place, why would Winchester make any effort to help anyone
avoid buying Winchester ammunition? This makes no sense. In the second
place, it was only very recently that any of the major ammunition
manufacturers finally faced the music and joined us handloaders, rather
than fighting us. To the later point, Winchester's 1916 catalogue lists
and analyzes gun and shooting related items from A to Z, in amazing
variety and diversity. Nevertheless, there is not so much as a single
mention of handloading, despite listing of various components. Yes,
Winchester wanted to be in on the sales of handloading components but
they certainly were not anxious to encourage the practice.
Finally - and perhaps most telling, why would Winchester have reinvented
the wheel, so to speak? From the very beginning, the Model-94 was
offered in the blackpowder 32-40 chambering. The 32-40 uses a tapered
version of the same basic case as the 30-30 and 32 WS - first came the
straight-sided 38-55, then the tapered 32-40, then the 30-30 and finally
the 32 WS. Those who wanted to save money by reloading with blackpowder
most likely would have - and certainly should have - purchased the less
expensive 32-40 - at $18 versus $23, the difference in cost would have
paid for enough components to make about 500 reloads.
In earlier catalogues, Winchester did mention that the 32 WS could be
successfully handloaded using blackpowder, they even offered a
replacement sight designed to work with blackpowder loads. So what? It
was true that the 32 WS could use blackpowder to advantage while the
30-30 could not, so Winchester advertised the fact. Is that equivalent
to proving that they invented the 32 WS for the sole benefit of
blackpowder handloaders? I think not.
Again, those with that interest would have been better served by buying
the less expensive 32-40 chambered version of the same rifle, which not
incidentally used the same bore and twist as the 32 WS. To me the answer
is obvious, Winchester simply bored and rifled their high-strength steel
using the same tooling as with the well-established 32-40 and then
chambered that tougher barrel for a necked-up version of the 30-30.
The 30-30 was designed by improving and necking down the 32-40 a
cartridge that was well established when Mr. Browning designed the
Model-94 and the cartridge around which he designed that action. As the
story goes, Browning never intended the rifle to chamber smokeless
cartridges. Folks at Winchester, recognizing the massive safety margin
of his design, built the rifle of nickel-steel and invented a new
smokeless chambering to be co-introduced with it in 1895. It seems
logical that they would modify the case design to prevent these
higher-pressure 30-30 loads from being chambered in blackpowder guns.
(Here, I have theorized - and I hope this does not someday become the
basis of another ill-founded "fact"!)
Enough history, let us compare the 32 WS to its vastly more popular
parent and see if we can figure out why the newer chambering never
caught on. It has been stated by many pundits - including some who
should know better - that these two cartridges are ballistic twins; this
just is not true!
The 32 WS and the 30-30 use the same basic case. Both are loaded to the
same nominal pressure and are chambered in virtually identical rifles.
Here the equality ends.
The 32 WS bullet has an 8.6% greater cross-sectional area. Consequently,
it can be loaded to generate significantly more power. This is a matter
of basic physics: Equal pressure acting on a greater area through an
equal distance will accelerate an equal mass to a greater velocity.
Another significant factor: The 32 WS has more usable powder capacity!
This may seem odd, since the cases are nominally identical, excepting
neck diameter. The explanation is twofold: When these have the same nose
shape and are the same weight, a 0.321-inch diameter 32 WS bullet is
shorter than a 0.308-inch diameter 30-30 bullet. Since both cartridges
must be loaded to about the same overall length the 32 WS bullet does
not enter as far into the case; the difference is worth about 1.2 grains
of usable capacity. Furthermore, standards call for 0.01-inch greater
overall cartridge length for the 32 WS. This adds another 0.2 grains to
usable case capacity. This is a total difference of about 1.4 grains.
Since the 30-30 holds about 35 grains of powder, this difference exceeds 4%.
Finally, the slower rifling rate in the 32 WS spins the bullet slower.
Spinning of the 32 WS bullet consumes on about 60% of the energy that
spinning the 30-30 does. With less energy used to spin the bullet, more
is available to accelerate it. This effect, while minor, is real.
Unquestionably, and despite contrary claims by so-called experts: the 32
WS, when properly loaded to the same pressure and when used in rifles
with the same length barrel, will easily generate 14% more muzzle energy
than the 30-30. That significantly exceeds the difference between the
280 Remington and the 7mm Remington Magnum! External and terminal
ballistics are another matter.
The following tables assume 170-grain bullets with the same nose
profiles (such as the applicable Speer bullets). For this data, the 32
WS is arbitrarily given a conservative 10% advantage in muzzle energy.
As noted earlier, this agrees with early factory data and theoretical
results. Further, based on modern handloading data (see table one), this
is a very conservative difference.
*
Table one (1989 Winchester data):
*Load* *Powder* *Bullet* *Velocity* *Energy* * Pressure*
*30-30* *W748* *170* *2145 fps* *1735 ft-lb* *36,000 CUP*
*32 WS* *W748* *170* *2240 fps* *1893 ft-lb* *32,500 CUP*
*
**It is certainly possible that some slightly better powder choice might
increase the 30-30's power a few percent without increasing pressure
above this SAAMI maximum of 36,000 CUP (_C_opper _U_nits of _P_ressure).
However, it seems unlikely one could gain the full 9% it would take to
equal this 32 Special load, which is fully 10% below the SAAMI pressure
limit! Conversely, simply increasing the charge in the 32 WS load, as
necessary to achieve full SAAMI pressure, would result in a muzzle
velocity increase of 112-fps.
Modern factory ammunition data does not give the 32 WS much of an edge
because current factory 32 WS loads are held to significantly lower
pressure than factory 30-30 loads! Since the oldest 32 WS rifles are
somewhat newer and presumably in better repair than the oldest 30-30
rifles, I can see no sense to this approach.
When of equal weight and similar shape, 30-30 bullets do have a higher
BC and therefore retain velocity better. The question is, within
practical hunting ranges for these guns, does this BC advantage overcome
the initial velocity edge of the 32 WS. Compare the following data and
draw your own conclusions.
*
TRAJECTORY DATA: 30-30, 170-grain
*RANGE yards* *0* *50* * 100* *150 * *200* * 250* *300* *350*
*Velocity fps* *2150* * 2021* *1896* *1777* *1664* *1556 * * 1455* *1363*
*Energy ft-lb* *1745* *1541* *1356* *1192* *1045* *914* *799* *701*
*Path (LOS) inches* *-0.7* * 2.1* * 2.9* *1.3* * -3.2* *-10.8* *-21.8* *-37.1*
*5-mph Wind Drift inches* * 0.0* *0.2* * 0.7* *1.8* *3.4* * 5.5* *8.0* *11.3*
*
Maximum range for bullet path = +\- 3-inch, 198 yards with Zero at 168
yards.
*
TRAJECTORY DATA, 32 WS, 170-grain
*RANGE yards* *0* *50* * 100* *150 * * 200* * 250* *300* *350*
*Velocity fps* *2255 * *2111* *1973* *1839* *1714* *1595*
*1482 * *1379*
*Energy ft-lb* *1919* *1682* *1469* *1277* *1109* *960* * 829*
* 718*
*Path (LOS) inches* *-0.7* *2.1* *3.0* * 1.6* * -2.4* *-9.3*
* -19.5* *-33.8*
*5-mph Wind Drift inches* * 0.0 * * 0.2* * 0.8* *1.8* *3.5*
* 5.7* *8.3* *11.7*
*
Maximum range for bullet path = +\- 3-inch, 205 yards with Zero at 175 yards
/NOTE: This data assumes a very conservative 10% muzzle-energy
advantage for the 32 WS with identical nose profiles for bullets. If
loaded to the same pressure with best modern powders, the 32 WS
advantage is quite significant./
There you have it: a bullet form the 32 WS is still going faster at 350
yards, which is far beyond what most of us would consider the useful
range for this type of rifle! This much is clearly demonstrated: at any
reasonable hunting range, the 32 WS shoots flatter (with the traditional
170-grains loads) and delivers more energy than the 30-30.
Terminal ballistics are a bit harder to figure. With modern practices
and understanding, it should be a simple matter to construct either
bullet so that it provides desirable terminal performance. In the early
days of the 32 WS, this may not have been the case. If 30-30 bullets
were marginally stable, in terms of holding together on impact,
similarly constructed 32 WS bullets may have been prone to failures. If
this were true, word would have gotten around. I have no reason to
suspect that this happened. It should not have - other hunting
cartridges of the era worked at significantly higher velocities - but it
may have been an explanation as to why the 32 WS failed to compete.
I discovered one other possible explanation several years ago. I came
upon part of a box of 32 WS cartridges that must have been made in the
earliest years of this century. These loads feature an oversize primer -
0.25-inch diameter, which has a window in the copper (?) cup. A brass
(?) disk - with a "W" stamped on it - obturates this window. These
semi-balloon head cases are headstamped /W.R.A. Co./ above, /32 W. S./
below. Topping things off is a nickel-plated jacketed flat point bullet
with a "W" stamped on the jacket. Shaking one of these cartridges
reveals a somewhat loose charge of smokeless powder.
The box these cartridges came in was rotted and abused beyond
recognition and I felt there was no great collector value so, just for
fun, I chronographed three rounds.
Each fired with an interesting sound: "Click, bang, tu-tu-tu." Yes,
every shot was an audible hang-fire and each sounded as though the
bullet tumbled upon leaving the barrel - and I am certain that it did
because the bullets never hit the target! All gave respectable
(considering the age of these loads) and similar muzzle velocity -
average MV was 1900 fps.
Why should these bullets tumble? Examination of the remaining loads
revealed the puzzling answer. Maximum diameter of every bullet was 0.318
inches, which is quite odd for loads intended for use in a 0.321-inch
bore. With the worn bore in the well used and somewhat abused Winchester
'94 in which I tested those loads, those undersize bullets had no chance
of catching the rifling without obturating. Obviously the load did not
generate sufficient pressure to cause full obturation and the bullet
therefore tumbled - accuracy was nonexistent.
Now the ninety-four-million-dollar question: Why should Winchester
deliberately load 32 WS ammunition using a too-small bullet? As far out
at it may seem, I can imagine only one explanation, that is the 8mm
Mauser! What in thunder, you may ask, has the 8mm Mauser to do with
Winchester loading undersize bullets in the 32 WS?
Well, here is one possibility. When originally introduced, the 8mm
Mauser was loaded with a heavy 0.318-inch round-nose bullet and the
rifle was equipped with a shallowly rifled barrel. When a lighter
pointed-bullet load was adopted, a new rifling specification was also
adopted. In the newer design, the lands were the same diameter but the
groves were opened to 0.323-inch. This provided longer barrel life
before accuracy dropped off significantly, this was important in those
days of soft steel and somewhat corrosive and erosive loads. This design
also made it possible to shoot the older 0.318-inch bullets through the
newer barrel with reasonable accuracy. While European manufacturers
adopted separate 8mm Mauser loads, US manufacturers stayed with the
0.318-inch bullet.
I do not know if Winchester was loading for the 8mm Mauser when they
made the 32 WS cartridges I tested and measured. Again, it seems a long
shot but why else should the bullets in these 32 WS cartridges be made
undersize and at the exact diameter used for early 8mm Mauser bullets?
Perhaps Winchester was saving a bit of money by using the same sizing
dies for both 8mm and 32 WS bullets. Whatever the reason, it is likely
these undersize bullets shot okay in new, 0.321-inch, 32 WS barrels.
However, as noted, 0.318-inch bullets do not shoot worth a hoot in a
well worn 32 WS barrel.
The 32 Special has been branded as, "Prone to losing accuracy," after
its barrel sees lots of use. When undersize bullets are used, that is a
fact. On the other hand, the 30-30 is said to maintain useful accuracy,
practically forever - I suspect this is also quite true. However, when
correct diameter bullets are used, even well worn 32 WS rifles shoot
just fine. The same abused '94 noted above shoots surprisingly small
groups when any correct-diameter bullet is tested, so does my Marlin 1936.
So why did 32 WS rifles fail to sell? Several market forces worked
against it. First, I suspect that most folks felt no the need for more
power than the 30-30 offered - of those who did, most probably wanted /a
lot/ more power. Winchester would have been better off if they had
pushed 32 WS loads to the same pressure level as the 30-30, that
additional 50 fps would have mattered. Second, the 30-30 had a
significant marketing edge. When the 32 WS came along, the 30-30 was
already well established as the original high-velocity hunting cartridge
and 30-30 ammunition was much more readily available. Dealers were less
apt to order 32 WS chambered rifles. Since hunters seldom saw a 32 WS
rifle, they were less apt to buy one.
An similar situation exists today with the 30-30 and 35 Remington. For
many years, Marlin has offered the Model-336 in both chamberings.
Although the 35 Remington is almost certainly a better cartridge for the
uses for which most hunters would buy a 336, I have never actually seen
a 35 Remington chambered Marlin on a new gun rack! This, in spite of
examining literally thousands of guns on hundreds of gun racks. Dealers
just do not order 35 Remington chambered Marlins into stock. If you want
one, you will probably have to special-order it. At least that is the
way it is in the west.
One other factor should be mentioned, although I cannot believe it made
any real difference: the 32 WS kicks harder! It shoots the same weight
bullet faster and the rifle is a few ounces lighter because of the
bigger bore. I know of several people today who choose 150-grain 30-30
loads because those do not kick as hard as the 170-grain load.
Historically, some hunters may have chosen the 30-30 over the 32 WS for
the same reason.
One final thought: Since it was never very popular, ammunition factories
were not encouraged to offer different 32 WS loadings. While there has
been considerable choice through the years, when it came to 30-30 ammo,
one was usually lucky to find even one or two different loads for the 32
WS (all were 170-grain bullets).
What is so "special" about the 32 Winchester Special? Well, to me it is
more than just its name. It is the nostalgia and mystique, the romance
and speculation of days gone by, all brought into my life by this fine
old Marlin.
This cartridge is rather old.
Note window in 0.25-inch
diameter primer cup.
Even the bullet
jacket has a "W" stamped
on it!
Handloads bracket very early Winchester 32
Winchester Special. Speer's 170-grain Flat Point
has a ballistic coefficient of 0.297. Of all 30-30
bullets offered, only the Speer 170-grain FP has
a higher BC. At 0.304 versus 0.297, the
difference is meaningless! These Speer bullets
are the best offered for either cartridge, the BC
advantage is so great that these bullets deliver more
energy at 300 yards than competitive bullets do at
200 yards! With this Speer bullet loaded at top
realistic 32 WS velocity, about 2350 fps, this
cartridge becomes a legitimate 250 to 300 yard
deer chambering.
Two factors give the 32 WS about 1.4-grains
(4%) greater usable capacity than the 30-30:
Maximum overall length is 0.01 inches greater
and equal-weight bullets are significantly shorter.
Pictured are 0.308-inch and 0.321-inch Speer
170-grain Flat Point bullets.
This level of offhand 25-yard accuracy
is all that is needed in an open-sighted
hunting rifle. With a rest, I have made
sub-2-inch, 100-yard, 5-shot groups with this rifle.
________________________________________________________
WHAT MAKES IT /SPECIAL/?
*
By: M. L. McPherson
Synopsis: Debate over the ballistic virtues and
superiority of one chambering verses another are common.
The discussion comparing the 30-30 Winchester to the 32
Winchester Special demonstrates that these debates have
been going on for a long, long time.
Recently, I came on one of those buys that sets one's head spinning. We
were killing an hour at a gun store across town - waiting for rush hour
traffic to clear before heading home. I moseyed over to the used gun
rack and there it was a truly _special_ rifle!
The tang on this Marlin was marked, /Model 1936. /Its barrel read 32
Special. BY opening the finger-lever I exposed the serial number on the
underside of the tang, 303! Overall, though obviously used, the rifle
was in surprisingly good condition, with no signs of abuse.
It was one of those situations, perhaps typical. I wanted this rifle,
whatever the price but, being typically broke, I simply could not afford
to buy anything. After heaving a sigh of resignation, I turned the price
tag over - $189. I wanted to scream.
Instead, I dejectedly made my way home. I casually mentioned the
incident to my wife. She suggested hocking the car, if necessary, and
insisted that I immediately drive back across town and buy that rifle.
Never one to argue with the boss, I drove.
It was still there. After a few minutes of dickering, I owned it for
$175, tax included.
I have long wondered why the 32 Winchester Special chambering failed to
gain even a reasonable measure of popularity, while its parent
cartridge, the venerable 30 WCF (_W_inchester _C_enter _F_ire), is still
going strong after 100 years.
The 30 WCF is more commonly referred to these days as the 30-30. This
designation is reportedly a reflection of the caliber and the original
charge of the available smokeless powder. This, in turn, reflects a
carry-over from earlier and quite useful blackpowder cartridge
designations, e.g., 45-70-500 for 45-caliber, 70-grains blackpowder and
500-grain (cast lead) bullet.
As with so many things in this old world, sometimes what seems an
established fact turns out - upon closer examination - to be erroneous.
Someone makes a statement - perhaps an opinion based on nothing but
conjecture. Someone hears this opinion, assumes it to be true and
repeats it - as if it were a fact. Someone else hears this "fact" and
prints it. /Voilà,/ something that started as nothing but conjecture
eventually becomes a well-known fact.
Here are the basics of the oft printed "facts" explaining the impetus
behind Winchester's invention of the 32 Winchester Special (WS):
/It is said folks had been trying blackpowder handloads in the
30-30 and were having trouble with powder fouling because of the
small bore and unusually fast rifling twist, compared to typical
blackpowder bores. It is claimed that Winchester introduced the
32 WS, to provide a similar chambering that was more amenable to
blackpowder loads. This cartridge, simply the 30-30 case necked
up and chambered in a barrel with a significantly slower rifling
twist (1/16 versus 1/12), works well with blackpowder./
The 32 WS does have a slower rifling rate - 1:16-inch compared to
1:12-inch for the 30-30 - and its bigger bore should be less prone to
powder fouling. Therefore, this explanation seems plausible enough. For
why else should Winchester introduce a cartridge so similar to its
already extremely popular 30-30?
Several years ago, I came upon a copy of Winchester's 1916 catalogue.
Imagine my surprise when I found the following detailed explanation as
to why Winchester had introduced the 32 Winchester Special
/The .32 Winchester Special cartridge, which we have perfected,
is offered to meet the demand of many sportsmen for a smokeless
powder cartridge of larger caliber than the .30 Winchester
[original name for the 30-30] and yet not so powerful as the .30
Army [now known as the 30-40 Krag].
_That_ was the entire explanation! There was not so much as a hint about
any connection to using blackpowder reloads, facilitating handloading or
other such nonsense!
The catalogue went on with a simple explanation of why the 32 WS was
able to deliver a significant increase in power, when loaded at the same
pressure, compared to the 30-30. Published ballistics in that catalogue
verified this claim. The 32 WS was credited with generating about 10.6%
more muzzle energy than its progenitor.
After considering pertinent facts and upon reflection, I suspect most
would agree: The evidently invented story is unfounded, perhaps even a
bit ridiculous.
In the first place, why would Winchester make any effort to help anyone
avoid buying Winchester ammunition? This makes no sense. In the second
place, it was only very recently that any of the major ammunition
manufacturers finally faced the music and joined us handloaders, rather
than fighting us. To the later point, Winchester's 1916 catalogue lists
and analyzes gun and shooting related items from A to Z, in amazing
variety and diversity. Nevertheless, there is not so much as a single
mention of handloading, despite listing of various components. Yes,
Winchester wanted to be in on the sales of handloading components but
they certainly were not anxious to encourage the practice.
Finally - and perhaps most telling, why would Winchester have reinvented
the wheel, so to speak? From the very beginning, the Model-94 was
offered in the blackpowder 32-40 chambering. The 32-40 uses a tapered
version of the same basic case as the 30-30 and 32 WS - first came the
straight-sided 38-55, then the tapered 32-40, then the 30-30 and finally
the 32 WS. Those who wanted to save money by reloading with blackpowder
most likely would have - and certainly should have - purchased the less
expensive 32-40 - at $18 versus $23, the difference in cost would have
paid for enough components to make about 500 reloads.
In earlier catalogues, Winchester did mention that the 32 WS could be
successfully handloaded using blackpowder, they even offered a
replacement sight designed to work with blackpowder loads. So what? It
was true that the 32 WS could use blackpowder to advantage while the
30-30 could not, so Winchester advertised the fact. Is that equivalent
to proving that they invented the 32 WS for the sole benefit of
blackpowder handloaders? I think not.
Again, those with that interest would have been better served by buying
the less expensive 32-40 chambered version of the same rifle, which not
incidentally used the same bore and twist as the 32 WS. To me the answer
is obvious, Winchester simply bored and rifled their high-strength steel
using the same tooling as with the well-established 32-40 and then
chambered that tougher barrel for a necked-up version of the 30-30.
The 30-30 was designed by improving and necking down the 32-40 a
cartridge that was well established when Mr. Browning designed the
Model-94 and the cartridge around which he designed that action. As the
story goes, Browning never intended the rifle to chamber smokeless
cartridges. Folks at Winchester, recognizing the massive safety margin
of his design, built the rifle of nickel-steel and invented a new
smokeless chambering to be co-introduced with it in 1895. It seems
logical that they would modify the case design to prevent these
higher-pressure 30-30 loads from being chambered in blackpowder guns.
(Here, I have theorized - and I hope this does not someday become the
basis of another ill-founded "fact"!)
Enough history, let us compare the 32 WS to its vastly more popular
parent and see if we can figure out why the newer chambering never
caught on. It has been stated by many pundits - including some who
should know better - that these two cartridges are ballistic twins; this
just is not true!
The 32 WS and the 30-30 use the same basic case. Both are loaded to the
same nominal pressure and are chambered in virtually identical rifles.
Here the equality ends.
The 32 WS bullet has an 8.6% greater cross-sectional area. Consequently,
it can be loaded to generate significantly more power. This is a matter
of basic physics: Equal pressure acting on a greater area through an
equal distance will accelerate an equal mass to a greater velocity.
Another significant factor: The 32 WS has more usable powder capacity!
This may seem odd, since the cases are nominally identical, excepting
neck diameter. The explanation is twofold: When these have the same nose
shape and are the same weight, a 0.321-inch diameter 32 WS bullet is
shorter than a 0.308-inch diameter 30-30 bullet. Since both cartridges
must be loaded to about the same overall length the 32 WS bullet does
not enter as far into the case; the difference is worth about 1.2 grains
of usable capacity. Furthermore, standards call for 0.01-inch greater
overall cartridge length for the 32 WS. This adds another 0.2 grains to
usable case capacity. This is a total difference of about 1.4 grains.
Since the 30-30 holds about 35 grains of powder, this difference exceeds 4%.
Finally, the slower rifling rate in the 32 WS spins the bullet slower.
Spinning of the 32 WS bullet consumes on about 60% of the energy that
spinning the 30-30 does. With less energy used to spin the bullet, more
is available to accelerate it. This effect, while minor, is real.
Unquestionably, and despite contrary claims by so-called experts: the 32
WS, when properly loaded to the same pressure and when used in rifles
with the same length barrel, will easily generate 14% more muzzle energy
than the 30-30. That significantly exceeds the difference between the
280 Remington and the 7mm Remington Magnum! External and terminal
ballistics are another matter.
The following tables assume 170-grain bullets with the same nose
profiles (such as the applicable Speer bullets). For this data, the 32
WS is arbitrarily given a conservative 10% advantage in muzzle energy.
As noted earlier, this agrees with early factory data and theoretical
results. Further, based on modern handloading data (see table one), this
is a very conservative difference.
*
Table one (1989 Winchester data):
*Load* *Powder* *Bullet* *Velocity* *Energy* * Pressure*
*30-30* *W748* *170* *2145 fps* *1735 ft-lb* *36,000 CUP*
*32 WS* *W748* *170* *2240 fps* *1893 ft-lb* *32,500 CUP*
*
**It is certainly possible that some slightly better powder choice might
increase the 30-30's power a few percent without increasing pressure
above this SAAMI maximum of 36,000 CUP (_C_opper _U_nits of _P_ressure).
However, it seems unlikely one could gain the full 9% it would take to
equal this 32 Special load, which is fully 10% below the SAAMI pressure
limit! Conversely, simply increasing the charge in the 32 WS load, as
necessary to achieve full SAAMI pressure, would result in a muzzle
velocity increase of 112-fps.
Modern factory ammunition data does not give the 32 WS much of an edge
because current factory 32 WS loads are held to significantly lower
pressure than factory 30-30 loads! Since the oldest 32 WS rifles are
somewhat newer and presumably in better repair than the oldest 30-30
rifles, I can see no sense to this approach.
When of equal weight and similar shape, 30-30 bullets do have a higher
BC and therefore retain velocity better. The question is, within
practical hunting ranges for these guns, does this BC advantage overcome
the initial velocity edge of the 32 WS. Compare the following data and
draw your own conclusions.
*
TRAJECTORY DATA: 30-30, 170-grain
*RANGE yards* *0* *50* * 100* *150 * *200* * 250* *300* *350*
*Velocity fps* *2150* * 2021* *1896* *1777* *1664* *1556 * * 1455* *1363*
*Energy ft-lb* *1745* *1541* *1356* *1192* *1045* *914* *799* *701*
*Path (LOS) inches* *-0.7* * 2.1* * 2.9* *1.3* * -3.2* *-10.8* *-21.8* *-37.1*
*5-mph Wind Drift inches* * 0.0* *0.2* * 0.7* *1.8* *3.4* * 5.5* *8.0* *11.3*
*
Maximum range for bullet path = +\- 3-inch, 198 yards with Zero at 168
yards.
*
TRAJECTORY DATA, 32 WS, 170-grain
*RANGE yards* *0* *50* * 100* *150 * * 200* * 250* *300* *350*
*Velocity fps* *2255 * *2111* *1973* *1839* *1714* *1595*
*1482 * *1379*
*Energy ft-lb* *1919* *1682* *1469* *1277* *1109* *960* * 829*
* 718*
*Path (LOS) inches* *-0.7* *2.1* *3.0* * 1.6* * -2.4* *-9.3*
* -19.5* *-33.8*
*5-mph Wind Drift inches* * 0.0 * * 0.2* * 0.8* *1.8* *3.5*
* 5.7* *8.3* *11.7*
*
Maximum range for bullet path = +\- 3-inch, 205 yards with Zero at 175 yards
/NOTE: This data assumes a very conservative 10% muzzle-energy
advantage for the 32 WS with identical nose profiles for bullets. If
loaded to the same pressure with best modern powders, the 32 WS
advantage is quite significant./
There you have it: a bullet form the 32 WS is still going faster at 350
yards, which is far beyond what most of us would consider the useful
range for this type of rifle! This much is clearly demonstrated: at any
reasonable hunting range, the 32 WS shoots flatter (with the traditional
170-grains loads) and delivers more energy than the 30-30.
Terminal ballistics are a bit harder to figure. With modern practices
and understanding, it should be a simple matter to construct either
bullet so that it provides desirable terminal performance. In the early
days of the 32 WS, this may not have been the case. If 30-30 bullets
were marginally stable, in terms of holding together on impact,
similarly constructed 32 WS bullets may have been prone to failures. If
this were true, word would have gotten around. I have no reason to
suspect that this happened. It should not have - other hunting
cartridges of the era worked at significantly higher velocities - but it
may have been an explanation as to why the 32 WS failed to compete.
I discovered one other possible explanation several years ago. I came
upon part of a box of 32 WS cartridges that must have been made in the
earliest years of this century. These loads feature an oversize primer -
0.25-inch diameter, which has a window in the copper (?) cup. A brass
(?) disk - with a "W" stamped on it - obturates this window. These
semi-balloon head cases are headstamped /W.R.A. Co./ above, /32 W. S./
below. Topping things off is a nickel-plated jacketed flat point bullet
with a "W" stamped on the jacket. Shaking one of these cartridges
reveals a somewhat loose charge of smokeless powder.
The box these cartridges came in was rotted and abused beyond
recognition and I felt there was no great collector value so, just for
fun, I chronographed three rounds.
Each fired with an interesting sound: "Click, bang, tu-tu-tu." Yes,
every shot was an audible hang-fire and each sounded as though the
bullet tumbled upon leaving the barrel - and I am certain that it did
because the bullets never hit the target! All gave respectable
(considering the age of these loads) and similar muzzle velocity -
average MV was 1900 fps.
Why should these bullets tumble? Examination of the remaining loads
revealed the puzzling answer. Maximum diameter of every bullet was 0.318
inches, which is quite odd for loads intended for use in a 0.321-inch
bore. With the worn bore in the well used and somewhat abused Winchester
'94 in which I tested those loads, those undersize bullets had no chance
of catching the rifling without obturating. Obviously the load did not
generate sufficient pressure to cause full obturation and the bullet
therefore tumbled - accuracy was nonexistent.
Now the ninety-four-million-dollar question: Why should Winchester
deliberately load 32 WS ammunition using a too-small bullet? As far out
at it may seem, I can imagine only one explanation, that is the 8mm
Mauser! What in thunder, you may ask, has the 8mm Mauser to do with
Winchester loading undersize bullets in the 32 WS?
Well, here is one possibility. When originally introduced, the 8mm
Mauser was loaded with a heavy 0.318-inch round-nose bullet and the
rifle was equipped with a shallowly rifled barrel. When a lighter
pointed-bullet load was adopted, a new rifling specification was also
adopted. In the newer design, the lands were the same diameter but the
groves were opened to 0.323-inch. This provided longer barrel life
before accuracy dropped off significantly, this was important in those
days of soft steel and somewhat corrosive and erosive loads. This design
also made it possible to shoot the older 0.318-inch bullets through the
newer barrel with reasonable accuracy. While European manufacturers
adopted separate 8mm Mauser loads, US manufacturers stayed with the
0.318-inch bullet.
I do not know if Winchester was loading for the 8mm Mauser when they
made the 32 WS cartridges I tested and measured. Again, it seems a long
shot but why else should the bullets in these 32 WS cartridges be made
undersize and at the exact diameter used for early 8mm Mauser bullets?
Perhaps Winchester was saving a bit of money by using the same sizing
dies for both 8mm and 32 WS bullets. Whatever the reason, it is likely
these undersize bullets shot okay in new, 0.321-inch, 32 WS barrels.
However, as noted, 0.318-inch bullets do not shoot worth a hoot in a
well worn 32 WS barrel.
The 32 Special has been branded as, "Prone to losing accuracy," after
its barrel sees lots of use. When undersize bullets are used, that is a
fact. On the other hand, the 30-30 is said to maintain useful accuracy,
practically forever - I suspect this is also quite true. However, when
correct diameter bullets are used, even well worn 32 WS rifles shoot
just fine. The same abused '94 noted above shoots surprisingly small
groups when any correct-diameter bullet is tested, so does my Marlin 1936.
So why did 32 WS rifles fail to sell? Several market forces worked
against it. First, I suspect that most folks felt no the need for more
power than the 30-30 offered - of those who did, most probably wanted /a
lot/ more power. Winchester would have been better off if they had
pushed 32 WS loads to the same pressure level as the 30-30, that
additional 50 fps would have mattered. Second, the 30-30 had a
significant marketing edge. When the 32 WS came along, the 30-30 was
already well established as the original high-velocity hunting cartridge
and 30-30 ammunition was much more readily available. Dealers were less
apt to order 32 WS chambered rifles. Since hunters seldom saw a 32 WS
rifle, they were less apt to buy one.
An similar situation exists today with the 30-30 and 35 Remington. For
many years, Marlin has offered the Model-336 in both chamberings.
Although the 35 Remington is almost certainly a better cartridge for the
uses for which most hunters would buy a 336, I have never actually seen
a 35 Remington chambered Marlin on a new gun rack! This, in spite of
examining literally thousands of guns on hundreds of gun racks. Dealers
just do not order 35 Remington chambered Marlins into stock. If you want
one, you will probably have to special-order it. At least that is the
way it is in the west.
One other factor should be mentioned, although I cannot believe it made
any real difference: the 32 WS kicks harder! It shoots the same weight
bullet faster and the rifle is a few ounces lighter because of the
bigger bore. I know of several people today who choose 150-grain 30-30
loads because those do not kick as hard as the 170-grain load.
Historically, some hunters may have chosen the 30-30 over the 32 WS for
the same reason.
One final thought: Since it was never very popular, ammunition factories
were not encouraged to offer different 32 WS loadings. While there has
been considerable choice through the years, when it came to 30-30 ammo,
one was usually lucky to find even one or two different loads for the 32
WS (all were 170-grain bullets).
What is so "special" about the 32 Winchester Special? Well, to me it is
more than just its name. It is the nostalgia and mystique, the romance
and speculation of days gone by, all brought into my life by this fine
old Marlin.
This cartridge is rather old.
Note window in 0.25-inch
diameter primer cup.
Even the bullet
jacket has a "W" stamped
on it!
Handloads bracket very early Winchester 32
Winchester Special. Speer's 170-grain Flat Point
has a ballistic coefficient of 0.297. Of all 30-30
bullets offered, only the Speer 170-grain FP has
a higher BC. At 0.304 versus 0.297, the
difference is meaningless! These Speer bullets
are the best offered for either cartridge, the BC
advantage is so great that these bullets deliver more
energy at 300 yards than competitive bullets do at
200 yards! With this Speer bullet loaded at top
realistic 32 WS velocity, about 2350 fps, this
cartridge becomes a legitimate 250 to 300 yard
deer chambering.
Two factors give the 32 WS about 1.4-grains
(4%) greater usable capacity than the 30-30:
Maximum overall length is 0.01 inches greater
and equal-weight bullets are significantly shorter.
Pictured are 0.308-inch and 0.321-inch Speer
170-grain Flat Point bullets.
This level of offhand 25-yard accuracy
is all that is needed in an open-sighted
hunting rifle. With a rest, I have made
sub-2-inch, 100-yard, 5-shot groups with this rifle.
"Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one less scoundrel in the world." - Thomas Carlyle
- marlinman93
- Advanced Levergunner
- Posts: 6639
- Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 3:40 pm
- Location: Oregon
Re: 32 Win Spcl to 30-30 Conversion?
Well written Vance! And I couldn't agree more about the theory that Winchester wouldn't have brought out the .32 Win. Spl. when they already offered the .32-40 that's proven to work much better with BP than the .32 Spl. does.
I think the introduction of the .32 Winchester Special boils down to the same reason makers introduce new cartridges in existing models today. It's to sell more guns.
When they see a decline in sales for a particular model, they simply develop a new cartridge offering, and it gets some buyers to open their wallets to have the latest, best cartridge. This has gone on since guns were first made and sold. If they didn't do so, they'd only offer one caliber for one model, and sales would certainly be low.
I think the introduction of the .32 Winchester Special boils down to the same reason makers introduce new cartridges in existing models today. It's to sell more guns.
When they see a decline in sales for a particular model, they simply develop a new cartridge offering, and it gets some buyers to open their wallets to have the latest, best cartridge. This has gone on since guns were first made and sold. If they didn't do so, they'd only offer one caliber for one model, and sales would certainly be low.
Pre WWI Marlins and Singleshot rifles!
http://members.tripod.com/~OregonArmsCollectors/
http://members.tripod.com/~OregonArmsCollectors/
- vancelw
- Advanced Levergunner
- Posts: 3950
- Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 1:56 pm
- Location: 90% NE Texas and 10% SE Montana
Re: 32 Win Spcl to 30-30 Conversion?
That's McPherson...No credit to me at all.
But I DO love my .32 Special rifles...
And the other 3 dozen leverguns
"Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one less scoundrel in the world." - Thomas Carlyle
-
- Senior Levergunner
- Posts: 1072
- Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:12 pm
- Location: Bushwhacker Capitol, Missouri
Re: 32 Win Spcl to 30-30 Conversion?
As per my first post. The .32 Special can be successfully loaded with cast bullets and black powder. More to the point, modern powder or black, the .32 Special handles cast bullets very well.
Re: 32 Win Spcl to 30-30 Conversion?
I own many rifles chambered in both cartridges. If I had a bias, it would have been toward 30wcf, as I had one first and it was my "family's choice".
However, once I began loading for, and shooting, both chamberings, I started to change my mind. I found, as Mr. McPherson mentioned above, that the 32WS makes "better use of it's pressure".
I had always used IMR3031 in both cartridges. The difference is stark with this powder. I have switched to W748 in 30wcf to lower the pressure, while I continue with 3031 in the 32.
I also, with an average across multiple rifles, get a little better accuracy from the 32. This including rifles from both Winchester and Marlin, and barrel lengths between 16 and 24 inches in both chamberings. As of now, one of the most accurate lever action rifles I have owned is a Winchester 1894, circa 1898, that was returned to the factory and had a model 64 32WS barrel and magazine installed along with a 56 Lyman. This thing is incredible.
Now, all this blather aside, I would NOT rebarrel an original 94.
I would recommend finding another in 30wcf, however.
More is always better.
Best of luck to you.
However, once I began loading for, and shooting, both chamberings, I started to change my mind. I found, as Mr. McPherson mentioned above, that the 32WS makes "better use of it's pressure".
I had always used IMR3031 in both cartridges. The difference is stark with this powder. I have switched to W748 in 30wcf to lower the pressure, while I continue with 3031 in the 32.
I also, with an average across multiple rifles, get a little better accuracy from the 32. This including rifles from both Winchester and Marlin, and barrel lengths between 16 and 24 inches in both chamberings. As of now, one of the most accurate lever action rifles I have owned is a Winchester 1894, circa 1898, that was returned to the factory and had a model 64 32WS barrel and magazine installed along with a 56 Lyman. This thing is incredible.
Now, all this blather aside, I would NOT rebarrel an original 94.
I would recommend finding another in 30wcf, however.
More is always better.
Best of luck to you.
"Oh bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round.
Re: 32 Win Spcl to 30-30 Conversion?
To try putting things as close to a precise comparison as possible: Hodgdon reloading online lists the 170 grain bullet for a .30-30 using a 35.0 grain load of CFE 223 as giving 2,258 fps at 36,800 psi.
With the .32 WS using a 170 grain bullet and the same powder, CFE 223, the max load listed is 38.5 grains for a velocity of 2,359 fps at 36,600 psi.
With as many variables as possible held constant, the max load shows 3.5 grains more capacity in the .32 WS for a speed of 101 fps greater. The 200 psi lower pressure in the .32 WS is not all that much. Less than 0.6 percent pressure difference.
The velocities show 4.4% increase in favor of the .32 WS.
Hodgdon's published data correlates almost exactly with what McPherson found. Not that I would do it, but the .32 WS probably could handle a rounded up to 39.0 grain load which would obviously increase the pressure. How much? I don't know. As long as it is not a compressed load, I would expect a small boost in velocity. I would guess that it would about 20 fps on average. I also would guess that this would be close to the average deviation in velocity. The Model 94 would certainly handle that modest boost in pressure AS LONG as it was made in the 1940s or later. The steel improvements by that time were well documented. I am not going to be the test person, and I do not suggest that anyone should try this. I am just wondering about what is possible. If the .32 WS is not enough gun for something I happen to be hunting, and if I have time, the .45-70 Marlin would be a good step up. There is not anything in the immediate future which would require anything more.
With the .32 WS using a 170 grain bullet and the same powder, CFE 223, the max load listed is 38.5 grains for a velocity of 2,359 fps at 36,600 psi.
With as many variables as possible held constant, the max load shows 3.5 grains more capacity in the .32 WS for a speed of 101 fps greater. The 200 psi lower pressure in the .32 WS is not all that much. Less than 0.6 percent pressure difference.
The velocities show 4.4% increase in favor of the .32 WS.
Hodgdon's published data correlates almost exactly with what McPherson found. Not that I would do it, but the .32 WS probably could handle a rounded up to 39.0 grain load which would obviously increase the pressure. How much? I don't know. As long as it is not a compressed load, I would expect a small boost in velocity. I would guess that it would about 20 fps on average. I also would guess that this would be close to the average deviation in velocity. The Model 94 would certainly handle that modest boost in pressure AS LONG as it was made in the 1940s or later. The steel improvements by that time were well documented. I am not going to be the test person, and I do not suggest that anyone should try this. I am just wondering about what is possible. If the .32 WS is not enough gun for something I happen to be hunting, and if I have time, the .45-70 Marlin would be a good step up. There is not anything in the immediate future which would require anything more.
D. Brian Casady
Quid Llatine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur.
Advanced is being able to do the basics while your leg is on fire---Bill Jeans
Don't ever take a fence down until you know why it was put up---Robert Frost
Quid Llatine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur.
Advanced is being able to do the basics while your leg is on fire---Bill Jeans
Don't ever take a fence down until you know why it was put up---Robert Frost
- marlinman93
- Advanced Levergunner
- Posts: 6639
- Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 3:40 pm
- Location: Oregon
Re: 32 Win Spcl to 30-30 Conversion?
If I was going to choose a .32 cartridge to shoot BP, I'd choose a gun chambered in .32-40, as they usually have more appropriate twist rates suitable for BP and cast bullets. I absolutely love the .32 Win. Specials I've owned in 1893, and 1936, 36, and 336 Marlins. All were excellent shooting guns with cast bullets. But I shot mild smokeless loads of around 170 gr. cast at 1500-1600 fps. A little hotter than you could ever get with BP, but below factory smokeless loads.
Pre WWI Marlins and Singleshot rifles!
http://members.tripod.com/~OregonArmsCollectors/
http://members.tripod.com/~OregonArmsCollectors/
Re: 32 Win Spcl to 30-30 Conversion?
I was just pointing out the factory published max load differences. I do not always go to max load on handloads. It is not necessary to punish the gun and yourself. I do hunt with the most accurate loads I find, and that may or may not be max loads. Just my opinion, but I prefer best accuracy to top velocity if top velocity is not as accurate. A miss at 3,000 fps is still a miss, while a hit exactly where you want it at 2,000 fps is probably meat on the table.
D. Brian Casady
Quid Llatine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur.
Advanced is being able to do the basics while your leg is on fire---Bill Jeans
Don't ever take a fence down until you know why it was put up---Robert Frost
Quid Llatine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur.
Advanced is being able to do the basics while your leg is on fire---Bill Jeans
Don't ever take a fence down until you know why it was put up---Robert Frost
Re: 32 Win Spcl to 30-30 Conversion?
I understood your point. Not that you should push the round to its max, but that the 32WS can be pushed to higher velocities with lower pressures (and a larger diamter to boot), than the 30-30. I think that's fair to point out.piller wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 2:36 pm I was just pointing out the factory published max load differences. I do not always go to max load on handloads. It is not necessary to punish the gun and yourself. I do hunt with the most accurate loads I find, and that may or may not be max loads. Just my opinion, but I prefer best accuracy to top velocity if top velocity is not as accurate. A miss at 3,000 fps is still a miss, while a hit exactly where you want it at 2,000 fps is probably meat on the table.
I got 2160 with my below max load of 3031 under the hornady 170gr fp. The winchester powerpoints I chronied were right about at 2200 in my 20" barrel. Rifle is a late 40s flatband. 40 fps probably won't make a bit of difference.
Re: 32 Win Spcl to 30-30 Conversion?
Depending on crimp and ambient temperature, I have heard that there can be 40 fps difference in velocity within the same batch from some rounds. I am not a competition shooter, so I just make it as good as I can for my own use. I like IMR 3031 for my 32 WS. It gives good accuracy. It also works well in my .30-06 for 150 grain and 125 grain bullets.
D. Brian Casady
Quid Llatine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur.
Advanced is being able to do the basics while your leg is on fire---Bill Jeans
Don't ever take a fence down until you know why it was put up---Robert Frost
Quid Llatine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur.
Advanced is being able to do the basics while your leg is on fire---Bill Jeans
Don't ever take a fence down until you know why it was put up---Robert Frost
- Griff
- Posting leader...
- Posts: 21016
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 4:56 pm
- Location: OH MY GAWD they installed a STOP light!!!
Re: 32 Win Spcl to 30-30 Conversion?
Simple. Just put a .30-30 barrel on it. Everything else fits. But... as above, it's a family heirloom... leave it as it is and just get another mdl 94 in .30-30. Ain't nothing rare about them, and it'll have the same feel and fun factor without worrying about destroying any value in the family "hand-me-down"!Missing Michigan wrote: ↑Sun Nov 29, 2020 6:20 pmI have a pre-64 Winchester 94 Carbine that was my Dad's that is chambered in .32 Winchester Special. When you can find 32 Win Spcl ammo, it runs about $32 a box. I am wondering how extensive and costly it would be to have a 'smith rebarrel it to 30-30 (ammo almost half as expensive and 10 times easier to find). I'm not worrying about it's collectors value because Dad already had it drilled and tapped for a side-saddle scope mount. Plus, it's Dad's rifle. It would be the last thing I sold if I needed to. And, no, I don't reload, so that isn't my solution.
So is it practical and feasible? Anyone know of a 'smith that does this sem-regularly?
Thanks in advance.
Griff,
SASS/CMSA #93
NRA Patron
GUSA #93
There is a fine line between hobby & obsession!
AND... I'm over it!!
No I ain't ready, but let's do it anyway!
SASS/CMSA #93
NRA Patron
GUSA #93
There is a fine line between hobby & obsession!
AND... I'm over it!!
No I ain't ready, but let's do it anyway!
-
- Levergunner 2.0
- Posts: 213
- Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 1:59 pm
- Location: Stevens,Lancaster co Pa
Re: 32 Win Spcl to 30-30 Conversion?
Antone have a Win mod 64 in 32 spcl? I received mine from dad-inlaw 20 yrs ago. Just came from a gunshop and saw there were .32 spcl in Rem,Fed and Win. $22 a box but limited to any 2 boxes mix or match cal. Ammo is out ther just spend time crusing the gunshops and you will h patdirt.
Re: 32 Win Spcl to 30-30 Conversion?
I've been carrying a Win model 64 in 32 Win Special since the late 70's. It's taken more white tail deer than most folks see in a lifetime. Great rifle, will leave it to my son one day.308magtip wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 3:49 pm Antone have a Win mod 64 in 32 spcl? I received mine from dad-inlaw 20 yrs ago. Just came from a gunshop and saw there were .32 spcl in Rem,Fed and Win. $22 a box but limited to any 2 boxes mix or match cal. Ammo is out ther just spend time crusing the gunshops and you will h patdirt.
Re: 32 Win Spcl to 30-30 Conversion?
I've got one.
I also have an early 1894 rifle that was returned to the factory and had a model 64 front end installed. It too is in 32W.S.
I also have an early 1894 rifle that was returned to the factory and had a model 64 front end installed. It too is in 32W.S.
"Oh bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round.
Re: 32 Win Spcl to 30-30 Conversion?
My only model 94 in 32 WS. It really likes Speer bullets over IMR 3031.
D. Brian Casady
Quid Llatine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur.
Advanced is being able to do the basics while your leg is on fire---Bill Jeans
Don't ever take a fence down until you know why it was put up---Robert Frost
Quid Llatine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur.
Advanced is being able to do the basics while your leg is on fire---Bill Jeans
Don't ever take a fence down until you know why it was put up---Robert Frost
Re: 32 Win Spcl to 30-30 Conversion?
Deleted.
Last edited by Ray on Fri Apr 29, 2022 4:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
m.A.g.a. !
- marlinman93
- Advanced Levergunner
- Posts: 6639
- Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 3:40 pm
- Location: Oregon
Re: 32 Win Spcl to 30-30 Conversion?
I've always done as piller mentioned, and loaded for the most accurate load instead of the most powerful. There's usually not much difference in knockdown power, but accuracy difference can be significant, and that's the most important thing for me.
Pre WWI Marlins and Singleshot rifles!
http://members.tripod.com/~OregonArmsCollectors/
http://members.tripod.com/~OregonArmsCollectors/
- earlmck
- Advanced Levergunner
- Posts: 3541
- Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 12:10 am
- Location: pert-neer middle of Oregon
Re: 32 Win Spcl to 30-30 Conversion?
When Hodgdon came out with LVR powder they tilted the power factor in favor of the 30/30 over the 32 Special. LVR gives the 170 grain bullet an extra couple hundred fps over other powders we normally use in the 30/30 but doesn't do anything much for the 32 Spcl. But as I look at the Hodgdon reloading guide today I see that CFE223 now fills the gap for the 32 Spcl and puts it back in the lead by a slight bit if you were making decisions about such small differences.
In my 30/30 I have got my most accurate jacketed bullet load using LVR powder but I didn't get this accuracy until I took the the advice of experienced folks and gave my rounds an extra firm crimp. Out of my 24" barreled guns I get a tad over 2400 fps. Haven't chrono'd the 20" bbl carbine with the load.
I like to shoot the old guns and when I go out to shoot them I take a box full of tin cans so I'll have a target rich environment. When in such an environment it is awful easy to go through 50 to 100 rounds, especially if you have a couple grand kids helping. Can't imagine enjoying such shooting if I had to scrounge up factory ammo when handloads are so cheap and easy. That 30/30 /32 Special case with the gentle taper and beautiful long neck is a cast bullet reloader's dream.
In my 30/30 I have got my most accurate jacketed bullet load using LVR powder but I didn't get this accuracy until I took the the advice of experienced folks and gave my rounds an extra firm crimp. Out of my 24" barreled guns I get a tad over 2400 fps. Haven't chrono'd the 20" bbl carbine with the load.
I like to shoot the old guns and when I go out to shoot them I take a box full of tin cans so I'll have a target rich environment. When in such an environment it is awful easy to go through 50 to 100 rounds, especially if you have a couple grand kids helping. Can't imagine enjoying such shooting if I had to scrounge up factory ammo when handloads are so cheap and easy. That 30/30 /32 Special case with the gentle taper and beautiful long neck is a cast bullet reloader's dream.
The greatest patriot...
is he who heals the most gullies. Patrick Henry
is he who heals the most gullies. Patrick Henry
- earlmck
- Advanced Levergunner
- Posts: 3541
- Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 12:10 am
- Location: pert-neer middle of Oregon
Re: 32 Win Spcl to 30-30 Conversion?
earlmck wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 1:06 pm Thanks for posting McPherson's write up Vance. That was highly informative.
When Hodgdon came out with LVR powder they tilted the power factor in favor of the 30/30 over the 32 Special. LVR gives the 170 grain bullet an extra couple hundred fps over other powders we normally use in the 30/30 but doesn't do anything much for the 32 Spcl. But as I look at the Hodgdon reloading guide today I see that CFE223 now fills the gap for the 32 Spcl and puts it back in the lead by a slight bit if you were making decisions about such small differences.
In my 30/30 I have got my most accurate jacketed bullet load using LVR powder but I didn't get this accuracy until I took the the advice of experienced folks and gave my rounds an extra firm crimp. Out of my 24" barreled guns I get a tad over 2400 fps. Haven't chrono'd the 20" bbl carbine with the load.
I like to shoot the old guns and when I go out to shoot them I take a box full of tin cans so I'll have a target rich environment. When in such an environment it is awful easy to go through 50 to 100 rounds, especially if you have a couple grand kids helping. Can't imagine enjoying such shooting if I had to scrounge up factory ammo when handloads are so cheap and easy. That 30/30 /32 Special case with the gentle taper and beautiful long neck is a cast bullet reloader's dream.
The greatest patriot...
is he who heals the most gullies. Patrick Henry
is he who heals the most gullies. Patrick Henry
- earlmck
- Advanced Levergunner
- Posts: 3541
- Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 12:10 am
- Location: pert-neer middle of Oregon
Re: 32 Win Spcl to 30-30 Conversion?
earlmck wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 1:09 pmearlmck wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 1:06 pm Thanks for posting McPherson's write up Vance. That was highly informative.
When Hodgdon came out with LVR powder they tilted the power factor in favor of the 30/30 over the 32 Special. LVR gives the 170 grain bullet an extra couple hundred fps over other powders we normally use in the 30/30 but doesn't do anything much for the 32 Spcl. But as I look at the Hodgdon reloading guide today I see that CFE223 now fills the gap for the 32 Spcl and puts it back in the lead by a slight bit if you were making decisions about such small differences.
In my 30/30 I have got my most accurate jacketed bullet load using LVR powder but I didn't get this accuracy until I took the the advice of experienced folks and gave my rounds an extra firm crimp. Out of my 24" barreled guns I get a tad over 2400 fps. Haven't chrono'd the 20" bbl carbine with the load. This is my jacketed bullet hunting load and not what I shoot for every day enjoyment. For fun shooting I shoot cast bullets in the 1500 to 1700 fps velocity range.
I really do like to shoot the old guns and when I go out to shoot them I take a box full of tin cans so I'll have a target rich environment. When in such an environment it is awful easy to go through 50 to 100 rounds, especially if you have a couple grand kids helping. Can't imagine enjoying such shooting if I had to scrounge up factory ammo when handloads are so cheap and easy. That 30/30 /32 Special case with the gentle taper and beautiful long neck is a cast bullet reloader's dream.
The greatest patriot...
is he who heals the most gullies. Patrick Henry
is he who heals the most gullies. Patrick Henry
- earlmck
- Advanced Levergunner
- Posts: 3541
- Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 12:10 am
- Location: pert-neer middle of Oregon
Re: 32 Win Spcl to 30-30 Conversion?
Oh boy -- sorry for the multiple posts there. For some reason the site decided to make a new post each time I did an "edit". Never had that happen before. Maybe I'd better be more careful to get everything said right the first time (not my usual skill set unfortunately).
The greatest patriot...
is he who heals the most gullies. Patrick Henry
is he who heals the most gullies. Patrick Henry
Re: 32 Win Spcl to 30-30 Conversion?
It happens. Computers don't always do what we want them to do.
D. Brian Casady
Quid Llatine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur.
Advanced is being able to do the basics while your leg is on fire---Bill Jeans
Don't ever take a fence down until you know why it was put up---Robert Frost
Quid Llatine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur.
Advanced is being able to do the basics while your leg is on fire---Bill Jeans
Don't ever take a fence down until you know why it was put up---Robert Frost
Re: 32 Win Spcl to 30-30 Conversion?
Missing Michigan wrote: ↑Sun Nov 29, 2020 6:20 pm Plus, it's Dad's rifle. It would be the last thing I sold if I needed to.
At that point, it would only be half of Dad's rifle.
You could START reloading for a lot less than having it re-barreled.
Slow is just slow.
- Buck Elliott
- Member Emeritus
- Posts: 2830
- Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 12:15 pm
- Location: Halfway up Sheep Mountain -- Cody, Wyoming
Re: 32 Win Spcl to 30-30 Conversion?
JUST DO IT !!
There are literally Thousands of model 94 take-off barrels lying around I shops. Get one installed, and just go shoot it..
Keep the .32 barrel, just because..
There are literally Thousands of model 94 take-off barrels lying around I shops. Get one installed, and just go shoot it..
Keep the .32 barrel, just because..
Regards
Buck
Life has a way of making the foreseeable that which never happens, and the unforeseeable, that which your life becomes...
Buck
Life has a way of making the foreseeable that which never happens, and the unforeseeable, that which your life becomes...
- Buck Elliott
- Member Emeritus
- Posts: 2830
- Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 12:15 pm
- Location: Halfway up Sheep Mountain -- Cody, Wyoming
Re: 32 Win Spcl to 30-30 Conversion?
JUST DO IT !!
There are literally Thousands of model 94 take-off barrels lying around I shops. Get one installed, and just go shoot it..
Keep the .32 barrel, just because..
There are literally Thousands of model 94 take-off barrels lying around I shops. Get one installed, and just go shoot it..
Keep the .32 barrel, just because..
Regards
Buck
Life has a way of making the foreseeable that which never happens, and the unforeseeable, that which your life becomes...
Buck
Life has a way of making the foreseeable that which never happens, and the unforeseeable, that which your life becomes...
- Buck Elliott
- Member Emeritus
- Posts: 2830
- Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 12:15 pm
- Location: Halfway up Sheep Mountain -- Cody, Wyoming
Re: 32 Win Spcl to 30-30 Conversion?
JUST DO IT !!
There are literally Thousands of model 94 take-off barrels lying around I shops. Get one installed, and just go shoot it..
Keep the .32 barrel, just because..
There are literally Thousands of model 94 take-off barrels lying around I shops. Get one installed, and just go shoot it..
Keep the .32 barrel, just because..
Regards
Buck
Life has a way of making the foreseeable that which never happens, and the unforeseeable, that which your life becomes...
Buck
Life has a way of making the foreseeable that which never happens, and the unforeseeable, that which your life becomes...
-
- Senior Levergunner
- Posts: 1465
- Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 2:42 am
- Location: mechanicsville, md.
Re: 32 Win Spcl to 30-30 Conversion?
+1FLINT wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 7:13 pm oh man, its your rifle now, so definitely do what you please, but here are two reasons NOT to rebarrel it.
1. it was your dad's rifle. I'd keep it exactly how he had it.
2. an original 32 special is way rarer are cooler than a 30-30. Don't get me wrong. the 30-30 is an awesome cartridge, but the 32 special is every bit as effective (if not more so) and is so much more unique/interesting/etc. 30-30s are a dime a dozen, but not so for the 32WS
Everyone else's comments and recommendations are right on. By the time you buy a barrel and pay a smith to swap them out, you could buy easily 10 boxes of 32 special ammo - which will last for a very long time.
OR - you could (should) consider reloading for the 32 special. Its very easy. I just loaded up some for my 32WS this summer with great success. I used 170gr hornady FP bullets over some 3031.
Rossi 92 .357 lever , and a cz pcr 9mm
Henry .22 lever, Remington speedmaster 552 .22 lr
Marlin Glenfield .22 boltaction
gforce 12ga semi
Taylor's Tactical 1911 A1 FS in .45acp
winchester 1873 44.40
Marlin 336W .30.30
beeman sportsman rs2 dual caliber pellet rifle
henry .22 magnum pumpaction/octagon barrel
stag 5.56 m4 with reddot
Henry .22 lever, Remington speedmaster 552 .22 lr
Marlin Glenfield .22 boltaction
gforce 12ga semi
Taylor's Tactical 1911 A1 FS in .45acp
winchester 1873 44.40
Marlin 336W .30.30
beeman sportsman rs2 dual caliber pellet rifle
henry .22 magnum pumpaction/octagon barrel
stag 5.56 m4 with reddot
-
- Levergunner 1.0
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2019 1:50 pm
Re: 32 Win Spcl to 30-30 Conversion?
Dang Buck , your developing a stutter .Buck Elliott wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 1:05 am JUST DO IT !!
There are literally Thousands of model 94 take-off barrels lying around I shops. Get one installed, and just go shoot it..
Keep the .32 barrel, just because..