.32-20 or .38 S&W? *.38 S&W, not .38 Special*

[35 Whelen]

I've been down the road and back with the 32-20, NEVER again. It is a ballistic nightmare in a handgun (E.S.'s of 100-200 fps) and only behaves with light loads and has deafening muzzle report with heavy loads.

The 38 S&W can be handloaded very close to .38 Special velocities (158 gr. cast @ 750+ fps and more) in modern revolvers and as someone else mentioned bullets are far easier to find than those for the 32-20.

35W

 

[Speedo66]

My issue with .32-20 is that you have rifle loads and handgun loads and old ammo can be mislabeled and blow up a handgun. .38 S&W doesn't have that issue.

Though with .38 S&W, like the .32-20, you still must use due diligence to determine if the gun is suitable for smokeless powder.

Also, the configuration of the gun, break top or solid frame, is also a consideration as to power of .38 loads.

 

[Miami_JBT]

Though with .38 S&W, like the .32-20, you still must use due diligence to determine if the gun is suitable for smokeless powder.

Also, the configuration of the gun, break top or solid frame, is also a consideration as to power of .38 loads.

I have one top-break in .38 S&W. The rest are all solid frame guns. The top-break is a S&W .38 Double Action Second Model made between 1880 to 1884. The rest are modern guns like a post war S&W .38 Terrier I-Frame, British contract Colt Official Police and S&W Victory, a Enfield No2MkI*, and even a S&W Model 33-1 J-Frame.

The top-break is fed a diet of powder-puff BP loads and the rest just get whatever commercial stuff I have in my ammo cans. Even some surplus FN military contract ammo made in the 1950s.

The issue I have with .32-20, is that even older commercial ammo loaded for a rifle can blow up modern solid frame guns chambered in .32-20. That's what's kept me from getting into it. I'm not worried about scrounging up old ammo in .38 S&W for my solid frame guns since they're all originally built to be tough.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

"I saw recently something I did not know and it was that S&W made I frames for the .38 S&W, thus my thinking is if people want a smaller than a J frame revolver that's in a .38, the .38 S&W would be the solution."

Yes, the 38 Regulation Police was built on the I frame. It chambered the 38S&W round, but because it was considerably smaller than a K frame 38, the 38 Regulation Police was only a 5 shot revolver.

The 32 Regulation Police was built on the same I frame as the 38 Regulation Police. This photo shows a comparison of a K frame 38 at the top, and a 32 Regulation Police at the bottom. I don't have a photo showing the 38 Regulation Police and a K frame 38, but they were the same size.

The I frame eventually morphed into the modern J frame. This photo shows stainless J frame 22 Kit Gun at the top, and a 32 Regulation Police at the bottom. Again, the 38 Regulation Police was the same size as the 32 Regulation Police. The 32 Regulation Police was chambered for 32 S&W Long. There are a couple of rounds next to the 32 Regulation Police in this photo.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

I hear tell the 32-20 can be tricky to reload.

Hogwash.

The 32-20 is no more difficult to reload than 44-40 or 38-40.

Yes, the brass at the case mouth is very thin. About .007 on average. So extra care must be taken to set the seating/crimp die correctly. If the die is not set correctly, the brass at the case mouth can crumple. This is because the brass is so thin, that as the case neck rises to fold into the crimp groove, if the die is set just a few thousandths too low, the thin brass cannot bulldoze its way into the lead bullet. Instead, the neck will tend to crumple. 45 Colt brass tends to be about .012 thick at the case mouth. So if the dies are not set perfectly, the thicker brass of the 45 Colt round will bulldoze right into the bullet without crumpling. I have been loading 44-40 and 38-40 for many years, and discovered this a long time ago. Simply set the seating/crimp die correctly and there will be no crumpled necks.

Here is an example of a 44-40 round with a crumpled neck. I did this on purpose to illustrate the point. The seating/crimp die was not set correctly.

Oh yeah, there are no carbide dies for the WCF cartridges (44-40, 38-40, 32-20 and 25-20). So case lube must be used. How difficult is that?


The four 32-20 rounds on the left in this photo are my reloads. The four on the right are factory loads. How difficult can it be?

Regarding firing modern smokeless ammo in an old 19th Century rifle, think about it this way: The steel surrounding the chamber of just about any rifle is much thicker than the steel surrounding the chambers in a revolver. So firing mild Smokeless loads in most antique rifles is not going to be a problem. I was firing Smokeless 44-40 in an old Winchester Model 1892 for quite a few years before I started reloading with Black Powder. Not a problem. Revolvers are a different story. I never fire Smokeless ammo in any of my antique revolvers.





This Smith and Wesson 32-20 Hand Ejector left the factory in 1916. I'm not sure if S&W was heat treating cylinders yet, but I have fired plenty of factory 32-20 ammo through it as well as my reloads. Not a problem.

This 32-20 Colt Police Positive Special shipped in 1926. Again, no problem firing factory ammo or my own reloads through it.

 

[Riomouse911]

silicosys4: technically speaking, the Merwin Hulbert you pictured is chambered for 38MH, not 38S&W.

It looks like I have the same revolver.

The 38CAL marking refers to the 38M&H cartridge. Very similar dimensionally, and 38S&W rounds will chamber in mine, but they are not quite the same round.

I have lots of 38S&W revolvers, these Perfecteds are my favorites.

But I gotta tell you, I have a real sweet spot for 32-20. At the top of this photo a Winchester Model 1892 that shipped in 1911. Notice the octagonal barrel. At bottom left, a Smith & Wesson 32-20 Hand Ejector that shipped in 1916. Lower right is a 32-20 Colt Police Positive Special that shipped in 1926. Before the Pandemic it was not all that hard to find factory 32-20 ammo, I still have a few boxes. But I also have dies, brass, and bullets for 32-20. Just a little bit fussy to load because of the slight bottleneck. There are no carbide dies for 32-20, so the brass has to be lubed before sizing/decap.

Driftwood, a question.

Are those Top break revolvers with a thumb release? What device does what on your Perfected trio?

Thanks!

Oh, between the two a .32-20 for me.

Stay safe.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

The Perfected Models were unique.

These were the last Top Break revolvers that Smith and Wesson introduced, they were made from 1909 until 1920.

They had a thumb latch on the side, as well as a traditional Top Break release latch on the top strap. In order to break open the revolver, both devices had to be operated simultaneously. Only operating one or the other feature would not allow the revolver to be broken open. I have read that it was possible with a 'normal' Top Break for a bad guy at close quarters to reach over the top of the revolver and open the top latch, rendering the revolver harmless. Supposedly that was the inspiration for the development of the "belt and suspenders" concept of the Perfected models.

Personally, I think that logic is hogwash. I have tried reaching over the top of a Top Break pointed at me to break it open, and it is not easy to do. The Perfected Models were developed after S&W had finalized the design of their standard Hand Ejectors. Notice the Perfecteds were the only S&W Top Breaks with the trigger guard integral with the frame, just like a Hand Ejector. Notice too the Perfecteds employed a Rebound Slide, just like a Hand Ejector. Earlier Top Breaks had a very different mechanism.

In fact, the mechanism of a Perfected was pretty much a duplication of a Hand Ejector.

Here is the lockwork of a Perfected.

Here is the lockwork of a K-22 Outdoorsman from the 1930s.

Notice the integral trigger guard on this Perfected, vs the trigger guard which is a separate piece on this 38 Safety Hammerless, 3rd Model. If you look at all the other Top Breaks, including the big #3s, they all had trigger guards which were separate pieces from the frame.

I think the reason the Pefected Models had the Belt and Suspenders approach was simply because they were the last gasp of the Top Breaks while S&W was moving on to Hand Ejectors.

 

[Bazoo]

Hogwash.

The 32-20 is no more difficult to reload than 44-40 or 38-40.

Yes, the brass at the case mouth is very thin. About .007 on average. So extra care must be taken to set the seating/crimp die correctly. If the die is not set correctly, the brass at the case mouth can crumple. This is because the brass is so thin, that as the case neck rises to fold into the crimp groove, if the die is set just a few thousandths too low, the thin brass cannot bulldoze its way into the lead bullet. Instead, the neck will tend to crumple. 45 Colt brass tends to be about .012 thick at the case mouth. So if the dies are not set perfectly, the thicker brass of the 45 Colt round will bulldoze right into the bullet without crumpling. I have been loading 44-40 and 38-40 for many years, and discovered this a long time ago. Simply set the seating/crimp die correctly and there will be no crumpled necks.

Here is an example of a 44-40 round with a crumpled neck. I did this on purpose to illustrate the point. The seating/crimp die was not set correctly.

Oh yeah, there are no carbide dies for the WCF cartridges (44-40, 38-40, 32-20 and 25-20). So case lube must be used. How difficult is that?


The four 32-20 rounds on the left in this photo are my reloads. The four on the right are factory loads. How difficult can it be?

Regarding firing modern smokeless ammo in an old 19th Century rifle, think about it this way: The steel surrounding the chamber of just about any rifle is much thicker than the steel surrounding the chambers in a revolver. So firing mild Smokeless loads in most antique rifles is not going to be a problem. I was firing Smokeless 44-40 in an old Winchester Model 1892 for quite a few years before I started reloading with Black Powder. Not a problem. Revolvers are a different story. I never fire Smokeless ammo in any of my antique revolvers.





This Smith and Wesson 32-20 Hand Ejector left the factory in 1916. I'm not sure if S&W was heat treating cylinders yet, but I have fired plenty of factory 32-20 ammo through it as well as my reloads. Not a problem.

This 32-20 Colt Police Positive Special shipped in 1926. Again, no problem firing factory ammo or my own reloads through it.

Awesome information, thank you for sharing! Do you know if there was Higher pressure 32-20 ammo made for the winchester 92 like there was for the 44-40?

 

[Walkalong]

I too used to read about.32-20 being tricky to reload, necks are thin/crush easily, etc, but I never had an issue with it.

Love my .32-20 Model 1905

 

[Miami_JBT]

The Perfected Models were unique.

These were the last Top Break revolvers that Smith and Wesson introduced, they were made from 1909 until 1920.

They had a thumb latch on the side, as well as a traditional Top Break release latch on the top strap. In order to break open the revolver, both devices had to be operated simultaneously. Only operating one or the other feature would not allow the revolver to be broken open. I have read that it was possible with a 'normal' Top Break for a bad guy at close quarters to reach over the top of the revolver and open the top latch, rendering the revolver harmless. Supposedly that was the inspiration for the development of the "belt and suspenders" concept of the Perfected models.

Personally, I think that logic is hogwash. I have tried reaching over the top of a Top Break pointed at me to break it open, and it is not easy to do. The Perfected Models were developed after S&W had finalized the design of their standard Hand Ejectors. Notice the Perfecteds were the only S&W Top Breaks with the trigger guard integral with the frame, just like a Hand Ejector. Notice too the Perfecteds employed a Rebound Slide, just like a Hand Ejector. Earlier Top Breaks had a very different mechanism.

In fact, the mechanism of a Perfected was pretty much a duplication of a Hand Ejector.

Here is the lockwork of a Perfected.

Here is the lockwork of a K-22 Outdoorsman from the 1930s.

Notice the integral trigger guard on this Perfected, vs the trigger guard which is a separate piece on this 38 Safety Hammerless, 3rd Model. If you look at all the other Top Breaks, including the big #3s, they all had trigger guards which were separate pieces from the frame.

I think the reason the Pefected Models had the Belt and Suspenders approach was simply because they were the last gasp of the Top Breaks while S&W was moving on to Hand Ejectors.

The frame for the Perfected and for the Hand m-Ejectors were made from the same rough forging. Cheaper for S&W from a manufacturing standpoint. One rough forging means less overall costs.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

The frame for the Perfected and for the Hand m-Ejectors were made from the same rough forging. Cheaper for S&W from a manufacturing standpoint. One rough forging means less overall costs.

Do you have any documentation to back that up? I find it hard to believe. Perhaps a bit of over generalization.

In this photo a Perfected is at the top, an I frame 32 Regulation Police is at the bottom. Both revolvers are roughly the same size. If Smith and Wesson was using the same rough forging both, the top strap would have to be machined away to make the Perfected, and there would need to be enough metal in the forging for the bulbous pivot for the barrel of the Perfected. I doubt all that extra machining would justify the savings of using one forging for both.

But I could be wrong, do you have any documentation to back up what you said?

The Perfected and the Third Model Single Shot (sometimes known as the Perfected Target Pistol) did indeed share the same basic frame.

Even though it was a single shot pistol, the Third Model Single Shot could be fired double action. Pretty much all that is missing from the mechanism of the Perfected pictured below this is the hand and the groove for the bolt the thumb piece attaches to.

 

[Bazoo]

I appreciate your posts @Driftwood Johnson . Thank you for sharing your knowledge and your pictures!

 

[Miami_JBT]

The only box of the stuff I have, and no gun for it.

 

[Dave DeLaurant]

Apologies if I missed some text on this thread. I just scanned through things and didn't spot any pics of domestically-produced British revolvers in the .38 S&W camp. I used to have 2 Mk. IV Webleys and a S&W Victory, but now I'm down to just this one here:



I hope to add .38 Enfield someday if a nice specimen crosses my path at the right price.

Also, has anyone mentioned the bore size of the .38 S&W? Not a problem with factory ammo, obviously, but something for handloaders to be aware of.

Some .38 S&W revolvers shoot some .357" bullets quite well, however the correct bullet diameter is .361"



When I handload .38 S&W, I use either pure lead .357" HBWCs or .361" RNs from Matt's Bullets:

38 Smith & Wesson

I'm still a neophyte with the 32-20, but I like it. New brass is unobtanium at present, but there will be more. Bullet choices are plentiful however.

 

[.455_Hunter]

I like the .32-20, but I love the .38 S&W, probably because it was the chambering of my first defensive sidearm- an Enfield No. 2, Mk 1* DAO that my Dad got for me when I was 14 in 1990. Its a pretty good rush at 15 to monitor a mountain lion over the sights of your drawn Enfield while simultaneously trying to illuminate the cat with the warm glow of a 2D flashlight fitted with a PR2 bulb.

Later in life, I have found the S&W I-frame Terrier in .38 S&W to be an outstanding carry pistol- very compact and sufficiently powerful to ensure deep soft target penetration with a heavy bullet.

 

[Speedo66]

My go to for unusual ammo is AIM Surplus.

They carry .38 S&W by PPU at a somewhat reasonable price of $28 a box of 50. They do not carry .32-20.

This was a consideration when I bought my smokeless rated Iver Johnson in .38 S&W.

 

[TTv2]

Besides the Webley and Enfield top breaks, when I think about .38 S&W, I think my preference is a solid frame because the US made top breaks were less than robust and asking for them to stay tight with 150gr loads was asking a lot. The British top breaks were built for 200gr and built far stronger.

This isn't to say the .32 top breaks are a bad choice, I believe they're the better choice for a top break's longevity.

Good news is there's plenty of solid frame .38 S&W options to choose from.

 

[Dave T]

I would vote for the 32 WCF because it is a black powder cartridge. That is my preferred way to shoot these days..

Dave

 

[TTv2]

I would vote for the 32 WCF because it is a black powder cartridge. That is my preferred way to shoot these days..

Dave

Uh... so was the .38 S&W

 

[PapaG]

Interesting thread. My nephew came across a 38 S&W revolver and asked if I could load a few shells for it. Since I have my brothers Smith in the same chambering I began looking for brass. I stumbled on two bags of 100 each at a great price. I loaded ten each for us using the butter soft hollow based 147 grain wadcutters over a charge of fffg.
They went bang and provided us both with a chance to inspect the innards of the guns during the obligatory mess cleanup.
Ill take 32-20.

 

[golden]

In reality, if it was my first handgun, I would leave the store and look someplace else.

I almost bought an old COLT Police Positive in .38 S&W about 40 plus years ago, but ammo was scarce even then. I have bought a .38 S&W ALBION which was issued by the BRITISH Army during WW II, but that was because of my interest in historic weapons, not because it would ever be fired anyplace but the range. After firing it with REMINGTON factory ammo, I discovered that the BRITS are the toughest people in the world, since this thing has such unpleasant handling and recoil.
A .357 SIG 229 that I was also shooting that day was quite pleasant compared to the ALBION, with its poorly shaped grip frame.

I have also had several .32 S&W Long revolvers and still have my H&R 734 because it is pleasant to shoot. My dad was having trouble shooting a .38 Special, he only wanted a "SNUBBY" and my S&W model 38 was too much for him. So I bought a couple of .32 revolvers. However, if I need a gun for defense, I would go out and get a 9m.m. or .38 Special with at least a 4 inch barrel.
Both rounds are obsolete, but the .32 Long at least has the advantage of lower recoil.

I could see myself in my 80's shooting wadcutter ammo from one, but I think a .32 ACP pistol would be a better choice.

Jim

 

[dogkinkead]

Firstly, the .38 S&W cartridge, NOT a .38 Special that is a S&W.

I'm enjoying the opinions of others on these unpopular caliber topics, I never would have thought the .45 GAP would get almost 40% in a poll. Revolvers are a bit tough because it's not easy to compare two that are similar in power and ammo price/availability.

The theoretical situation here is you just turned 21 and you want to get your first revolver and you want to leave the store with it that day. The only available revolvers at the store are a .32-20 and a .38 S&W. They have Colt's and Smith's in both, the .38 Webley, H&R and Iver Johnson's, heck, they even have a Ruger Security Six in .38 S&W.

For this question the gun isn't really important, so what caliber you choosing and why?

32-20 because I have at least one older S&W in that flavor and two rifles. 38 S&W just doesn't cut it. Yeah, 32-20 disappeared for a while but it's coming back.