2400 powder behind 170 gr jacketed bullet, .32-40

[orpington]

Lyman 49th edition does not even have .32-40 load data, which is surprising, since it has data for more obscure rounds. So I must refer to older Lyman reloading manuals. The older edition I have lists using 2400 powder. This is primarily a pistol powder, but it IS a published load! Any foreseeable problems? I have tried several other published loads, and black powder loads, and accuracy is fair at best.

Pictures is page 80 of Lyman, 44th edition.

 

[the Black Spot]

Actually 2400 (IIRC) was originally a rifle powder. I have used it in 444 marlin, 30-30, and 303

 

[Don McDowell]

2400 works alright in the 32-40 as does 5744, but AA 9 seems to be the best in the single shot rifles.

 

[1KPerDay]

.32-40 was originally a BP cartridge, right? Would it be correct to assume that any published loads would be generally safe in an 1894 in good condition?

 

[orpington]

.32-40 was originally a BP cartridge, right? Would it be correct to assume that any published loads would be generally safe in an 1894 in good condition?

Yes, originally a black powder load. Okay to shoot with smokeless as a carbine dating from November of 1915. Bore is fine, but never shot great with the IMR loads listed, nor with FFG and FFFg loads. Hence the desire to try 2400. I have never tried AA 9.

 

[1KPerDay]

So octagonal bore rifle probably not smokeless safe, right?

 

[orpington]

So octagonal bore rifle probably not smokeless safe, right?

Not necessarily. What's the serial number? I think octagon barreled rifles in the 1894 were produced until about 1936, several decades after smokeless powder was introduced.

 

[Jesse Heywood]

So octagonal bore rifle probably not smokeless safe, right?

You need to check the serial number to get the year built. Also some will say smokeless powder.
The octagonal barrel doesn't date a gun, except to say probably pre WWII.

 

[joneb]

I've had good results with Accurate's 5744, I think it was developed as a BP substitute.

 

[Jesse Heywood]

Orpington -- I've been reading about the .32-40 in Ken Waters' Pet Loads. You would benefit from a copy. I have a friend with a 94 in this caliber, and I've been trying to borrow it to work up some loads.

According to Ken, he had accuracy issues due to bullet size and design. Did best with hard cast lead sized .322-.323. With lead, seat off the lands between just touching the lands and 1/16" off. With jackets, seat just short of the lands, not touching. Realize that jacketed bullets are probably designed for .32 special, and are slightly undersize.

Powders. For light loads with lead, Unique, 2400, 4227 4198. for more than paper punching, use medium burners 4064, 4895, 3031, N-201.

Ken's article is only 4 pages, but it's like trying to drink from a fire hose.

 

[orpington]

I do have Ken Waters' Pet Loads. I didn't even think to check that out again.