What us a Maximum load in an Marlin 1893 in 32-40?

[southfork]

When I bought my early 1893 Marlin rifle years ago, I also got some 32-40 ammo that the seller had reloaded. I noticed that he recorded on the box that his reloads used 170 gr Spear jacketed bullets, 4895 powder and clocked at 1700 FPS. I was wondering if It is safe to reload the 170 grain jacketed flat nose Spear bullets to obtain more velocity, e.g., something in the 2000 FPS range? About how many grains of 4895 powder should be considered a maximum load in this caliber with this 1893 Marlin lever action rifle? Appreciate any suggestions, with any powder considered.

[Pisgah]

A quick perusal of online sources indicates to me that you are probably at about the max now.

[Pete44ru]

.

I'd even be leery of using those, in a 100-odd year old square bolt Marlin. (Jes' sayin' )



.

[rjohns94]

40 grains of holy black I'm thinking

[BrentD]

40 grains of holy black I'm thinking

+1 for sure

[southfork]

Just to clarify something: this 1893 Marlin is not the "Black Powder" model. It was made for smokeless powder.

Didn't the model designation of these Marlin rifles evolve something like this: 1893 > 93 > 36 > 336 ? And I thought that the 1895 is basically the 336 design too.

So were the earlier square bolt 1893s less stout in design for some reason?

Since I also have a Winchester Model 1894 (made in 1899) in the 32-40 caliber (which I have never fired), what say ye about the mentioned 1700 FPS smokeless load in that rifle? I'm pretty sure that Winchester 94 has never been fired with black powder because the bore is mirror bright.

I've decided to use nothing but black powder in my 1873 and 1876 Winchesters, but for smokeless era lever guns, I want to use smokeless, and need a good, safe, 32-40 load that works in either the 1893 Marlin or the 1894 Winchester.

[BrentD]

Just to clarify something: this 1893 Marlin is not the "Black Powder" model. It was made for smokeless powder.
...
I'm pretty sure that Winchester 94 has never been fired with black powder because the bore is mirror bright.

Just because you don't have to load black doesn't mean you shouldn't. And you can look through any of a dozen of my rifles and shotguns, some of which have shot tens of thousands of rounds of blackpowder and they are all mirror bright.

Why do you feel the need to go 2000 fps? Or even 1700 for that matter? What will 2k do that 1.7k won't?

[Blaine]

IMO, it's time to look at some published/tested loads in a book, or online from a powder company data base.

[Griff]

Yes, the design change to an enclosed rear frame & round bolt increased the design strength of the action. Pressing the envelope with that open frame will cause it to stretch upward, possibly allowing some lesseningg of bolt engagement. Unlike the mdl94 Winch/. the 1893/93/36/336 family only has engagement over half the bolt.

The 32-40 is NOT a 32WS, don't try making it do things it can't in that action.

40 grains of holy black I'm thinking

+1 for sure

+2!

[Pete44ru]

.

Besides the design strength differences, all of the above responses didn't even mention the basic difference in metallurgy between a rifle of that vintage and a more modern rifle like a 336 - AND who knows, today, what pressures that 1893 has seen over the past 100 years, and has any possible negative results hidden somewhere inside the metal of receiver, barrel and/or bolt ?

Ans: Nobody knows - why I (et al) suggest treating any such firearm with the respect due it's age.

SO, it's marked "smokeless"........... FWIW, the smokeless loads available when that gun was so marked are nowhere near the strength & pressures of modern smokeless loads - and the smokeless powder, itself, has evolved to another place, also.

The only thing worse to see, than destroying a fine rifle, would to see someone destroy a fine set of eyes (or worse).

.

[Chuck 100 yd]

For me, the maximum listed loads are a definite "do not pass" point when talking older guns.
I start at or near the starting loads and work up until I get desired accuracy. If I need more power, I need a bigger gun!
Be safe!

[Hobie]

Need more rifle? Get more rifle...

[earlmck]

I don't have a 32/40. I don't have a Marlin 1893. But I would certainly not pass up a good deal in 32/40 Marlin 1893 (or 1893 in 30WCF for that matter). But near as I can tell from all the advice we are giving friend southfork he shouldn't go much past black powder pressures in this old rifle.

But don't a number of us levergunners own and shoot this same 1893 in 30WCF? And presumably use factory loads if so inclined?

But if the Marlin 1893 is OK with 30WCF present day factory ammo, then southfork should be able to hit 1900 fps with his 4895 powder without going ballistic, according to my old Lyman 44th edition (only load book I have that shows 32/40 loads).

I can well understand fully respecting the age of the weapon and therefore using published max loads as definitely the max you'd ever load. But then southforks original question comes to play: Just what the heck is this max load?

My old Lyman book says it should be 30 grains of IMR 4895 giving 1892 fps from a 20" barrel, so somewhat over 1900 from a 24" bbl.
I consulted QuickLoads and it thinks 28 grains would be max but predicts a bit over 1900 with that load from 20" bbl.

I suppose if I got the aforementioned "good deal" in such a rifle I'd be shooting lead at around 1700 fps, but if I wanted a jacketed bullet I'd be thinking start with around 24 grains of IMR 4895 and test a string of loads up to 28 grains looking for accuracy.

Unless the consensus here that there is something about 32/40 in Marlin 1893 that is truly needing it limited to black powder pressures.

So I guess that is my question -- is the Marlin 1893 in 32/40 really that weak?

[Pete44ru]

My old Lyman book says it should be 30 grains of IMR 4895 giving 1892 fps from a 20" barrel, so somewhat over 1900 from a 24" bbl.
I consulted QuickLoads and it thinks 28 grains would be max but predicts a bit over 1900 with that load from 20" bbl.

Since it's about the rifle, and not the barrel, can you tell us what rifle was used to develop those loads, and how old it was ?



.

[earlmck]

My old Lyman book says it should be 30 grains of IMR 4895 giving 1892 fps from a 20" barrel, so somewhat over 1900 from a 24" bbl.
I consulted QuickLoads and it thinks 28 grains would be max but predicts a bit over 1900 with that load from 20" bbl.

Since it's about the rifle, and not the barrel, can you tell us what rifle was used to develop those loads, and how old it was ?.

Yeah Pete, they used Win 94's for the firing. This load book dates to 1967 and doesn't show any pressure data so I assume they weren't using pressure barrels back then. They note that the "Accuracy Load" was with 20 grains of IMR4198 for 1422 fps and the "Factory Duplication Load" was with 18.8 grains of IMR 4198 for 1284 fps. So the factory load is for black-powder strength guns, obviously.

Maybe my question(s) should be: 1) Marlin 1893/30WCF owners, do you feel OK shooting factory 30/30 in these?
and 2) Is this the same action they used for the 32/40 -- smokeless rifles like southfork is shooting?

[KWK]

I'll side with earlmck: were it mine, I'd be willing to load it to near .30-30 pressures, in other words, the old .32-40 HP loads.

That 170 @ 1700 load is about equal to the old HV loads, which Whelen lists as 165 gn at 1750 fps at about 31,000 psi/crusher (that's more or less CUP). The HP loads were 165 @ 2065 and 35,000 psi/crusher. The smokeless 1893 were designed for .30 WCF, which Whelen lists as 160 @ 2000 at about 36,000 psi/crusher. Missing in Whelen's data is the barrel length; it was likely 26", I believe.

Using modern 170 gn bullets, I'd be willing to try for 1950 fps; I'd have no worries at 1750 fps.

[Griff]

So... you guys think Marlin modified the design to enclose the back end of the receiver for purely esthetic reasons?

Well... the answer is, NO! They changed the design because the old 1893 couldn't handle the repeated pounding that the pressures of the .30-30 gave it. Do a little reading on the subject... you'll find plenty of verification that this was the reason for the change to an enclosed bolt, you needn't take my word for it. Yes, it WAS chambered in this gun... that doesn't mean that taking a 100+ year old gun of an antiquated, black powder design and firing modern ammo in it is "safe".

In a Winchester 1894/94 or the Marlin 36 & 336, the .32-40 can be woken up with those .30-30 pressures... but in an 1893? I think a little respect for the ol' gal would be warranted.

If I'm sounding a little like Terry M... I'll take that as a compliment.

[Sixgun]

If you have (like you said) the smokeless variety, the 1893 Marlin will handle the same pressures as the early 1894 Winchester. I have and have shot all the calibers extensively in both rifles (including the Marlin "black powder" version) for many years. (Except that hard to find 25-36 )

But...like most old guns, variables come into play. For one, the 32-40 does not have the case capacity of the 32 Spl. so your not going to match it's velocities with the same pressures. Then there is wear and tear.....how's the mechanics? Any sloppiness? Headspace issues? Also, the 32-40 case is not built as thick as the 30-30/32 Spl.

If it's good and sound, go ahead with those 4895 loads.


Here's a couple I chronographed over the years.

24 grains IMR 4895 with the 170 Speer-----1689

My all time favorite
20 grains of AA 5744 with the 170 gr. gas check RCBS. 1785

These loads are more than safe, but I have always put 1800 as the most velocity that is comfortably shot in the 32-40. Running them any faster is hard on the rifle. In the black powder version of the 1893 I kept them at 1600. The black powder version and the smokeless powder 1893's are identical except the barrels on the BP versions was made with a softer steel.

By the way, you can gain around 200 fps with cast bullets vs. jacketed (weight for weight) with the same pressures and the deer/steel target/rock is never going to know the difference.

The case colored 1893 takedown in my avatar is in 38-55 and it has eaten up 3700 rounds with a 270 grain cast at 1550, which would be pretty close in pressures vs. the 32-40 with a 170 cast at 1700. And that's been since I owned it. Was made in 1901. It's as tight as the day it was made. ----6

[KWK]

... you'll find plenty of verification that this was the reason for the change to an enclosed bolt.

I'll readily admit I've not looked for that. What I have come across over the years was that the round bolt was less expensive to make yet stronger. I hadn't read the square bolts were failing at normal .30 WCF pressures. Actually, it's not at all obvious the square bolt would be too weak; I can see it being a bit more springy and to have a lower ultimate strength. Perhaps the steel alloys in use then weren't up to the task of long life at .30 WCF pressures?

[earlmck]

So... you guys think Marlin modified the design to enclose the back end of the receiver for purely esthetic reasons?

Well... the answer is, NO! They changed the design because the old 1893 couldn't handle the repeated pounding that the pressures of the .30-30 gave it. Do a little reading on the subject... you'll find plenty of verification that this was the reason for the change to an enclosed bolt, you needn't take my word for it. Yes, it WAS chambered in this gun... that doesn't mean that taking a 100+ year old gun of an antiquated, black powder design and firing modern ammo in it is "safe".

In a Winchester 1894/94 or the Marlin 36 & 336, the .32-40 can be woken up with those .30-30 pressures... but in an 1893? I think a little respect for the ol' gal would be warranted.

If I'm sounding a little like Terry M... I'll take that as a compliment.

Uh...yeah, Griff. I guess I did think they changed for.... maybe not aesthetic reasons, but more for manufacturing economy reasons.
And I had not read anything about the 1893 not handling the 30WCF and so necessitating an upgrade. That's why this thread is very interesting to me: I had every intention of acquiring an 1893 in 30WCF. But if they are not strong enough to handle full loads on a long-term basis I am losing interest.

If it's good and sound, go ahead with those 4895 loads.

Here's a couple I chronographed over the years.

24 grains IMR 4895 with the 170 Speer-----1689

My all time favorite
20 grains of AA 5744 with the 170 gr. gas check RCBS. 1785

Sixgun, that 20 grains/5744 load surprised me as I didn't think it would be a mild load so I looked at the 32/40 in QuickLoad, just for grins. QL thinks your 24/4895 load would produce 1700 fps at about 20K psi, Sixgun. So almost exactly what you chronographed. But QL thinks your 20/5744 load would get 2000 fps and 32K psi, which I believe would be about what I'd expect with the batch of AA5744 I am using, because I am using 18 grains with 180 grain GC for 1750 in the larger cased 30/30. QL thinks you should get your 1785 fps with just a bit over 17 grains of that stuff for another 20K psi load. When you get a new lot of 5744 you might want to ease into it just in case your present lot is considerably slower than the average.

So it looks to me as though you Sixgun, with lots of successful Marlin 1893 experience, are using approximately 20K psi loads as opposed to the 30 to 32K psi range that would be needed to get the 1900 fps/170 grain load.

[6pt-sika]

When I had the Marlin 1893 32-40 I went with Venturino's load that was I think 13 or 14 grains of 5744 with the RCBS 32-170 also worked well with the Lyman 321297 . I killed a deer with that load using the RCBS bullet , rather nicely I might add . This load was maybe 1300-1350.

[southfork]

I appreciate all the great discussion. I've also acquired about three or four hundred lubed 170 grain cast GC bullets in .322 that I'm anxious to try out when reloading the 1893 Marlin. From the discussion above, I'll try to keep pressures under 20,000, using either IMR 4895 or the 5744 powders. I don't recall reading about that Mike Ventrino 32-40 load, but I may start with that, and possibly work my way up to 1700 FPS, depending...

Sounds like 1700 fps with 170 gr Speer jacketed bullets (the recipe I inquired about) is probably not out of line given that people shoot factory 30-30 ammo in their 1893 Marlins chambered for that round. If cast lead bullets go a little faster with the same amount of powder as Sixgun indicates, then that's icing on the cake.

[Sixgun]

Hey Southfork,
You wanna have some real fun with the 32-40?

Load a 170 gr. cast bullet with 6 grains of Unique....loose in the case......for right at 1000fps. If there is no wind, you will hit beer cans at 200 meters with it.....hardly no recoil.

To show you how weak factory ammo is (if you can find some for under $50 a box) the above load of 6 grains of Unique just about duplicates it. (7 gr. would duplicate it)----6

[6pt-sika]

I appreciate all the great discussion. I've also acquired about three or four hundred lubed 170 grain cast GC bullets in .322 that I'm anxious to try out when reloading the 1893 Marlin. From the discussion above, I'll try to keep pressures under 20,000, using either IMR 4895 or the 5744 powders. I don't recall reading about that Mike Ventrino 32-40 load, but I may start with that, and possibly work my way up to 1700 FPS, depending...

Sounds like 1700 fps with 170 gr Speer jacketed bullets (the recipe I inquired about) is probably not out of line given that people shoot factory 30-30 ammo in their 1893 Marlins chambered for that round. If cast lead bullets go a little faster with the same amount of powder as Sixgun indicates, then that's icing on the cake.

Word of advice with these old rifles . If you plan on shooting them ALOT shoot cast only as it a darn sight easier on the barrel then copper jacketed bullets . And they kill pretty well as a bonus !