Haycreek
Member
I am looking at a Ruger Speed Six in 32 H&R Mag. Does anyone have opinions regarding this caliber? Seems a little weak to me, but how does it shoot and reload?
32 H&R Mag Opinions
- Thread starter Haycreek
- Start date
- Status
Dollar An Hour
Member
There are some big .32 H&R mag fans on this forum - gunfan comes to mind.
Ballistics approach .38 Spl with the right loads for defense, but you'd better reload if you're going to practice alot. I think Georgia Arms and/or Black Hills make some good .32 H&R.
I still think S&W's discontinued 431/432 J-frame Airweight six-shot .32's are super cool.
Ballistics approach .38 Spl with the right loads for defense, but you'd better reload if you're going to practice alot. I think Georgia Arms and/or Black Hills make some good .32 H&R.
I still think S&W's discontinued 431/432 J-frame Airweight six-shot .32's are super cool.
MCgunner
Member
I'm still waiting to see what NAA releases. I think it could be cool.
chief
Member
.32 mag
I have had a real thing for modern .32 revolvers. I enjoy the shooting and reloading, it seems modern data for the little guns is as rare as hen's teeth. From a defense standpoint I would prefer a larger caliber. I love the .32 but can't honestly think of a niche for it, I just like it! By the way the .32 loves cast bullets for plinking and in a tight gun they give awesome accuracy.
I have had a real thing for modern .32 revolvers. I enjoy the shooting and reloading, it seems modern data for the little guns is as rare as hen's teeth. From a defense standpoint I would prefer a larger caliber. I love the .32 but can't honestly think of a niche for it, I just like it! By the way the .32 loves cast bullets for plinking and in a tight gun they give awesome accuracy.
MCgunner
Member
Got a friend that carries one on Colorado hunting trips as a sidearm to his rifle. It's just there because it's light and handy. He can pot one of those mountain grouse (blue grouse???) with it, rabbits, but the whole point is it's accurate and light and more powerful than a .22. His is a Ruger SSM single action and it shoots really well. He loads some rather spicy handloads for the thing, too, that I wouldn't shoot in a normal revolver.
I can't see that it'd do anything a .38 can't do, though. I have a 3" J frame .38 that's accurate and just as handy as a Ruger SSM. But, he likes it and that's all that matters.
I can't see that it'd do anything a .38 can't do, though. I have a 3" J frame .38 that's accurate and just as handy as a Ruger SSM. But, he likes it and that's all that matters.
Haycreek
Member
32 H&R Mag
Thanks for your replies. I reload a lot of calibers, and would reload the 32 H&R Mag, the cast bullets catch my interest. The revolver would be a Ruger Speed Six, which is very strong, and has a 4 inch barrel. Hmmm, it would mean another set of reloading dies, and brass and bullets. It does sound like a good shooting revolver, still pondering, I know I would buy the speed six if it was a 38 sp or 357 mag. Thanks
Thanks for your replies. I reload a lot of calibers, and would reload the 32 H&R Mag, the cast bullets catch my interest. The revolver would be a Ruger Speed Six, which is very strong, and has a 4 inch barrel. Hmmm, it would mean another set of reloading dies, and brass and bullets. It does sound like a good shooting revolver, still pondering, I know I would buy the speed six if it was a 38 sp or 357 mag. Thanks
P. Plainsman
Member
I had no idea such a gun existed.
Anyway, the .32 H&R Magnum is an accurate, sweet-shooting cartridge. It has potential as a backup gun in the super-light six-shot snubbies from S&W and Taurus. In this role it offers ballistics comparable to a .380ACP pistol, in a lighter, highly reliable package.
The .32 Mag also makes a nice "kit gun" or small game caliber, in appropriate revolvers, for what John Taffin once termed "woods loafing." A Speed Six chambered in .32 Magnum would fall in this latter category.
You do need to handload to bring the most out of the cartridge. There's some decent factory ammo; I like to mail order the JHP load from Georgia Arms (http://www.georgia-arms.com/pistol.htm) which was around $13/50 last I checked. But in general one must be willing to hunt a little and exercise care in selection, particularly for defense.
For factory plinking ammo in this caliber I prefer Black Hills (90 gr FPL and 85 gr JHP) to the Federal offerings.
For defense I would stick with Georgia Arms.
A Speed-Six in .32Mag? Snap it up just for the rarity of it, I've been into Rugers quite a while and have never even heard of one. I've got a 3" SP-101 in .32Mag and have to say I enjoy it more every time I shoot it and I liked it a lot when I bought it. I think it can do darn near anything the .38spl can do and you get a sixth round of it in the SP-101 platform plus you get adjustable (windage) sights. Yes it's pretty much a reloader specific caliber as not much exists for it but I only shoot relaods anyway so it's a nonissue with me. I did email Cor-Bon and they said they were going to look into putting some out.
Haycreek
Member
32 H&R opinions
I have been at the range with my speed six today, MY MISTAKE, the revolver in question is a SINGLE SIX !! some time I must have a tunnel vision .. It may be a interesting caliber, but I plan now to stick with my 22, 380,9mm, 38special, 357 mag, 45 ACP, 44 special, 44 mag, 45GAP, .223 Rem, 7mm super mag and 7-30 Waters in handguns. Thanks for your opinions.
I have been at the range with my speed six today, MY MISTAKE, the revolver in question is a SINGLE SIX !!
some time I must have a tunnel vision .. It may be a interesting caliber, but I plan now to stick with my 22, 380,9mm, 38special, 357 mag, 45 ACP, 44 special, 44 mag, 45GAP, .223 Rem, 7mm super mag and 7-30 Waters in handguns. Thanks for your opinions.Hammerdown
member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2004
- Messages
- 213
Tha small but amazing .32 H&R Magnum...
Hello
S&W really dropped the ball on this caliber. They seem to be still focused on the age old .38 Special..{YAWN}.. and STILL are. Don't get me wrong I have a few in .38 special as well, but they are not the do all smaller caliber for today's hungry handgun enthusiast. The .32 H&R Magnum got bad press at it's release in the very early 80's. It was designed for a revolver frame meaning the H&R that could not stand up to the durability that is built into the revolvers from S&W or Ruger. H&R was a decent gun, and I HAVE owned a few of them as well,and am NOT raining on the Parade of H&R owners out there but they folded the deck when they closed there doors shortly after development of this non popular round, and few followed there lead of enthusiasim on this caliber. I handload for all my H&R .32 caliber revolver's and this is what one need's to do in waking up this round and seeing what it is trully capable of. I have been lucky to land a few revolver's that were previously offered by S&W and will keep them as well. Too bad S&W pulled the plug on this one, as I feel the .32 round is a super accurate one that was not approached to it's higest level, or saw the fame it rightlt deserves. Just my thoughts on it. Hammerdown
Hello
S&W really dropped the ball on this caliber. They seem to be still focused on the age old .38 Special..{YAWN}.. and STILL are. Don't get me wrong I have a few in .38 special as well, but they are not the do all smaller caliber for today's hungry handgun enthusiast. The .32 H&R Magnum got bad press at it's release in the very early 80's. It was designed for a revolver frame meaning the H&R that could not stand up to the durability that is built into the revolvers from S&W or Ruger. H&R was a decent gun, and I HAVE owned a few of them as well,and am NOT raining on the Parade of H&R owners out there but they folded the deck when they closed there doors shortly after development of this non popular round, and few followed there lead of enthusiasim on this caliber. I handload for all my H&R .32 caliber revolver's and this is what one need's to do in waking up this round and seeing what it is trully capable of. I have been lucky to land a few revolver's that were previously offered by S&W and will keep them as well. Too bad S&W pulled the plug on this one, as I feel the .32 round is a super accurate one that was not approached to it's higest level, or saw the fame it rightlt deserves. Just my thoughts on it. Hammerdown
P. Plainsman
Member
Hammerdown, you're killin' me with those pics.
However, I have carried it (a S&W 642 was not available). I prefer at least a .38+P for a primary or sole carry, as I stated above. Nevertheless, the .32 SP can rip off its six shots accurately about as fast as you can pull the trigger. I recently did some rapid "combat" shooting with the Ruger, double action at about 10 yards. Groups were excellent -- actually better than those produced with my beloved 4" S&W 629 loaded with hot .44 Specials.
Finally, unlike the featherweight S&W and Taurus .32 Magnum snubs, you could run feisty handloads in the SP101 without impairing its soft shooting qualities. If you were willing to sacrifice some handiness, the 4" barrel SP would be an even better platform for such exploration.
Best of all for general shooting and handloading would be one of Ruger's rare, adjustable-sighted .32 Magnum Super Single Sixes, but they are long out of print and getting hard to find. Or a sweet long-barreled S&W 631 or 16 like Hammerdown's, above. Again, out of print and expensive. Awfully neat guns.
Very true. I think of my 3" barrel .32 SP101 more as a kit gun than a concealment/defense gun.
However, I have carried it (a S&W 642 was not available). I prefer at least a .38+P for a primary or sole carry, as I stated above. Nevertheless, the .32 SP can rip off its six shots accurately about as fast as you can pull the trigger. I recently did some rapid "combat" shooting with the Ruger, double action at about 10 yards. Groups were excellent -- actually better than those produced with my beloved 4" S&W 629 loaded with hot .44 Specials.
Finally, unlike the featherweight S&W and Taurus .32 Magnum snubs, you could run feisty handloads in the SP101 without impairing its soft shooting qualities. If you were willing to sacrifice some handiness, the 4" barrel SP would be an even better platform for such exploration.
Best of all for general shooting and handloading would be one of Ruger's rare, adjustable-sighted .32 Magnum Super Single Sixes, but they are long out of print and getting hard to find. Or a sweet long-barreled S&W 631 or 16 like Hammerdown's, above. Again, out of print and expensive. Awfully neat guns.
Cosmoline
Member
What I find odd is how so many of the .32 H&R offerings are actually quite HEAVY (Single Six, SP-101, Marlin levergun, etc). And while the .32 gets ignored for the most part, S&W & Taurus keep churning out smaller and lighter .357's. Many under a pound, which is abjectly stupid and completely impractical. Why not design some of these ultra-lights for the .32 H&R Mag so they might actually be functional?
There are all kinds of ammo sources online.
I started a whole thread about .32 Mag ammo sources a month ago, which includes explanations and links.
I get so tired of people telling other people that they'd have to reload to use a .32 Mag. That is simply NOT correct.
See this thread for .32 Mag Ammo links:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=189990&highlight=.32+magnum+ammo
I also started another thread about where to buy the .32 Mag guns: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=190035
I started a whole thread about .32 Mag ammo sources a month ago, which includes explanations and links.
I get so tired of people telling other people that they'd have to reload to use a .32 Mag. That is simply NOT correct.
See this thread for .32 Mag Ammo links:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=189990&highlight=.32+magnum+ammo
I also started another thread about where to buy the .32 Mag guns: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=190035
Why no light weight .32 Mags?
Quoting Cosmoline: "What I find odd is how so many of the .32 H&R offerings are actually quite HEAVY (Single Six, SP-101, Marlin levergun, etc). And while the .32 gets ignored for the most part, S&W & Taurus keep churning out smaller and lighter .357's. Many under a pound, which is abjectly stupid and completely impractical. Why not design some of these ultra-lights for the .32 H&R Mag so they might actually be functional?"
===========================================
From Wbond: S&W did make some very light (13.5 oz) .32 Mag revolvers, but they've been discontinued. Taurus still makes a mid-weight one (17 oz). The heavier (28 oz) Rugers are most popular of the .32 Mags. Why, why, and why?
I think that the light .32 Mags had way to much kick to appeal to recoil sensitive people (like me), but not enough power to appeal to those with a good recoil tolerance. Hence, the lighter .32s S&W have gone the way of the dodo bird.
The heavier Rugers are dandy for recoil sensitive people and seem to be popular. The mid-weight Taurus is less popular, but holding on so far.
If I had healthy hands, I still wouldn't want a harder kicking 13.5 oz S&W .32 Mag. However, if I had healthy hands, I would prefer the Taurus. Since my hands are arthritic, I prefer the heavier Ruger.
I think that explains why the lighter S&W .32 Mags are discontinued.
However, it would be most sensible if all three were made (light, med, and heavy), but the public is not sensible.
Quoting Cosmoline: "What I find odd is how so many of the .32 H&R offerings are actually quite HEAVY (Single Six, SP-101, Marlin levergun, etc). And while the .32 gets ignored for the most part, S&W & Taurus keep churning out smaller and lighter .357's. Many under a pound, which is abjectly stupid and completely impractical. Why not design some of these ultra-lights for the .32 H&R Mag so they might actually be functional?"
===========================================
From Wbond: S&W did make some very light (13.5 oz) .32 Mag revolvers, but they've been discontinued. Taurus still makes a mid-weight one (17 oz). The heavier (28 oz) Rugers are most popular of the .32 Mags. Why, why, and why?
I think that the light .32 Mags had way to much kick to appeal to recoil sensitive people (like me), but not enough power to appeal to those with a good recoil tolerance. Hence, the lighter .32s S&W have gone the way of the dodo bird.
The heavier Rugers are dandy for recoil sensitive people and seem to be popular. The mid-weight Taurus is less popular, but holding on so far.
If I had healthy hands, I still wouldn't want a harder kicking 13.5 oz S&W .32 Mag. However, if I had healthy hands, I would prefer the Taurus. Since my hands are arthritic, I prefer the heavier Ruger.
I think that explains why the lighter S&W .32 Mags are discontinued.
However, it would be most sensible if all three were made (light, med, and heavy), but the public is not sensible.
I tell people it's mostly a reloading proposition due to the fact that if you want to shoot it much it's going to cost you a lot of money in factory ammo as the factory stuff is priced by volume of production. Cheap .38 and 9mm is available everywhere due to the volume of rounds produced, the .32Mag is always going to be higher cost because of shorter production runs. I like it as a reload as a pound of powder goes a long way in this small cartridge and when I start to cast a pound of lead will go a long way as well. It's a lot of bang for your buck to reload it. Why anybody who shoots and isn't filthy rich doesn't reload is beyond me anyway.
Hammerdown
member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2004
- Messages
- 213
Handloading for the .32 H&R Magnum
Hello Tim
Uncertainty would be my Guess.
I know PRIOR to reloading, Fear of adverse effects was another concern. Most Ignorant on the subject of careful handloading make excuses that reloads are no good, evil, dangerous, and can ruin a gun. This is simply NOT true, if careful observations are made, rechecking of stages are done correctly and correct loading data is adhered to. After doing it for over ten years, I find much satisfaction in knowing it was ME that made the tighter group effects caused by careful handloading practices, NOT some machine. It is a yearning as well to perfect a load and make the smallest possible group when one finds the sweet spot in a barrel. Today many of the CHEAP ammo is lower cost than GOOD components used in handloading, and this seems to be an attraction to a low self esteem individual's well. Regards, Hammerdown
Hello Tim
Uncertainty would be my Guess.
I know PRIOR to reloading, Fear of adverse effects was another concern. Most Ignorant on the subject of careful handloading make excuses that reloads are no good, evil, dangerous, and can ruin a gun. This is simply NOT true, if careful observations are made, rechecking of stages are done correctly and correct loading data is adhered to. After doing it for over ten years, I find much satisfaction in knowing it was ME that made the tighter group effects caused by careful handloading practices, NOT some machine. It is a yearning as well to perfect a load and make the smallest possible group when one finds the sweet spot in a barrel. Today many of the CHEAP ammo is lower cost than GOOD components used in handloading, and this seems to be an attraction to a low self esteem individual's well. Regards, HammerdownI see your point, I have dispelled the "Fear Factor" several times over the years by teaching people to handload and once they see how safe, economical and rewarding it can be they inevitably buy the gear and get started. I've been at it about 15 years and boy am I glad I did as now that I'm stuck in California I can't find cheap ammo anywhere. Anybody near Sacramento wanting to learn, give a shout and we'll make and ammo man (or woman) out of you.
Good shooting.
Good shooting.
Quoting CasingPoint: "I came across some info recently that basicaly equated the recoil of a 13 oz. .32 MAG snub nose with the recoil of a 22 oz. +.38 snubby. Nine ounces does not seem like much unless a person intends to pocket carry. Unfortunately I was unable to attend a nearby gun show today and look for discontinued S&W 431 and 432 PD's."
From Wbond: Yes. Your info sounds about right, according to my experiences. Either would be fine for someone who is not recoil sensitive. However, for someone with serious hand problems (I have arthritis and one hand is held together by 4 screws) that is too much recoil. This is why I prefer the heavier Rugers (28 oz). Taurus makes a very nice midweight (17 oz) that is a wonderful compromise in recoil and concealability and is the best price at around $300 online.
I think the S&W .32s would be dandy for someone who is NOT recoil sensitive. The Taurus .32 is ideal for someone who is moderately recoil sensitive (a lot of women for example). The Ruger .32s are ideal for someone who is extremely recoil sensitive (like those with medical problems with their hands).
I should also note that my hand surgery is several years old and healed as good as can be. However, when my hand surgery was more recent (artificial joints), then a .22 Mag like a Taurus 4" barrel .22 Mag was best for me because it was the only option that offered no recoil with good penetration. A .22 Mag with a 4" barrel isn't an ideal weapon, but it's much better than nothing. 3 or 4 shots on target has a good chance of stopping someone, though not as fast as I'd like. Compared to that, my current .32 Mag seems like a canon.
Also, I do not find the .32 Mag ammo to be that expensive online. See this thread for .32 Mag Ammo links:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthrea...32+magnum+ammo
From Wbond: Yes. Your info sounds about right, according to my experiences. Either would be fine for someone who is not recoil sensitive. However, for someone with serious hand problems (I have arthritis and one hand is held together by 4 screws) that is too much recoil. This is why I prefer the heavier Rugers (28 oz). Taurus makes a very nice midweight (17 oz) that is a wonderful compromise in recoil and concealability and is the best price at around $300 online.
I think the S&W .32s would be dandy for someone who is NOT recoil sensitive. The Taurus .32 is ideal for someone who is moderately recoil sensitive (a lot of women for example). The Ruger .32s are ideal for someone who is extremely recoil sensitive (like those with medical problems with their hands).
I should also note that my hand surgery is several years old and healed as good as can be. However, when my hand surgery was more recent (artificial joints), then a .22 Mag like a Taurus 4" barrel .22 Mag was best for me because it was the only option that offered no recoil with good penetration. A .22 Mag with a 4" barrel isn't an ideal weapon, but it's much better than nothing. 3 or 4 shots on target has a good chance of stopping someone, though not as fast as I'd like. Compared to that, my current .32 Mag seems like a canon.
Also, I do not find the .32 Mag ammo to be that expensive online. See this thread for .32 Mag Ammo links:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthrea...32+magnum+ammo
.32 mag equal to .380? I think it depends on barrel length.
There have been considerable comparisons of .380s to .38 Special with regard to stopping stats.
Based on this:
A .380 beats a .38 Spl 2" barrel by a wide margin. Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume a .380 would beat a .32 Mag 2" barrel by a wider margin.
A .380 is equivalent in performance to a .38 Spl 3" barrel. A 9x18 with typical 3.75" barrel is equivalent to a .38 Spl 4" barrel.
The only way a .32 Mag is going to match a .380, is if the .32 Mag has a 4" barrel. The only way a .32 Mag is going to beat a .380 is if the .32 has a 5" or longer barrel.
The comparison between the .380 and .38 Spl is well documented. My information on the 9x18 and .32 Mag is my best guess based on the fact that we know a .32 Mag isn't quite up to a .38 Spl.
I love the .32 Mag because I'm recoil sensitive and the .32 Mag and .380 are the most I can handle on a regular basis. Sometimes, when arthritis acts up worse than usual, I'm stuck with my .32 ACP. If it gets really bad, I make due with a 4" barrel .22 Mag Taurus.
My point is, I love the .32 Mag, but let's not fool ourselves by exaggerating it's stopping potential. It has decent potential in a moderate recoil package. But I plan on a double tap policy because I'm not confident in one shot. It's a great round, but it's not a cannon, unless you get a 5" or 6" barrel and a hot load in a Ruger, but who wants to carry that around?
There have been considerable comparisons of .380s to .38 Special with regard to stopping stats.
No data was given on the barrel length of the .380s, but most common .380s have 3.5" barrels, others usually have a 3.75" barrel. So we can assume it was usually 3.5" barrel, or very near to that.
The .38 Spl one shot stop stats were given for 2" barrels, which are weak performers, and for 4" barrels which are adequate performers.
Based on this:
A .380 beats a .38 Spl 2" barrel by a wide margin. Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume a .380 would beat a .32 Mag 2" barrel by a wider margin.
A .380 is equivalent in performance to a .38 Spl 3" barrel. A 9x18 with typical 3.75" barrel is equivalent to a .38 Spl 4" barrel.
The only way a .32 Mag is going to match a .380, is if the .32 Mag has a 4" barrel. The only way a .32 Mag is going to beat a .380 is if the .32 has a 5" or longer barrel.
The comparison between the .380 and .38 Spl is well documented. My information on the 9x18 and .32 Mag is my best guess based on the fact that we know a .32 Mag isn't quite up to a .38 Spl.
I love the .32 Mag because I'm recoil sensitive and the .32 Mag and .380 are the most I can handle on a regular basis. Sometimes, when arthritis acts up worse than usual, I'm stuck with my .32 ACP. If it gets really bad, I make due with a 4" barrel .22 Mag Taurus.
My point is, I love the .32 Mag, but let's not fool ourselves by exaggerating it's stopping potential. It has decent potential in a moderate recoil package. But I plan on a double tap policy because I'm not confident in one shot. It's a great round, but it's not a cannon, unless you get a 5" or 6" barrel and a hot load in a Ruger, but who wants to carry that around?
Last edited:
P. Plainsman
Member
Most of the above claims do not appear to be supported by the ballistic data I've seen lately. Some may hold up, but only if references to ".38 Special" are understood to exclude the +P loads that are overwhelmingly chosen today for defense use in .38 revolvers of all sizes.
I'll proceed in order:
False, unless we are excluding all the .38+P loads that people actually carry in snub .38s these days. Speer's short-barrel Gold Dot .38+P, for example, is widely available. It has been reliably clocked as pushing a 135 grain bullet to 860-870 fps from a 2" barreled snub. The Remington lead hollowpoints are good for 158 grains at 800 fps from a snub. Both rounds use effective expanding bullets.
I'm not aware of many .380s that can hang with those numbers, longer barrel or no -- let alone surpass them. Even the notably hot Cor-Bon .380 is just in the running (90 gr @ 1050-1080 from a 3.5" barrel). Most .380s are well behind.
There is also anecdotal evidence supporting the properly-loaded .38 snubby as delivering more punch than a .380 pistol, for example at the end of this comparison:
http://www.gunweek.com/2005/feature0620.html
And Mr. Camp's observations and data are of interest:
http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/Comparisonof9x18mmMakarovetc.htm
If so, then it could not be on account of either bullet mass or bullet velocity. The Georgia Arms .32 Mag load has been clocked as pushing a 100 grain slug at around 975 fps from a 2" barrel revolver. The company claims its 85 grain .32 Mag load yields higher velocities than that. Most .380s use 90-95 grain slugs at 900-1050 fps (in barrels from 3.5" to 4"). In short, on both bullet mass and velocity, the .32 Mag snubby, with proper factory ammo selection, is right on par with a .380 pistol.
(I agree that this parity disappears if one chooses the weaker sorts of .32 Mag ammo. The Black Hills JHP has been clocked at 85 gr @ 870 fps, and that is indeed lighter than typical .380 defense rounds.)
If one wishes to give an edge to the .380 due to its wider bullet, that's fair, but it is hard to discern a "wide margin" in the comparison.
If the .32 Mag has a 4" barrel, one would expect it to be able to exceed the ballistics of a .380, given the numbers for .32 Mag snubbies above.
Last edited:
The only way a .32 Mag is going to match a .380, is if the .32 Mag has a 4" barrel.
Unless the shooter is using GA Arms ammo for his .32 mag. Then his 85gr bullet will exceed 1000 fps from a 2" snubbie.
Oops, I stand corrected. It is the 100gr that does 1,000 fps from a 2" barrel. The 85gr will do about 1,100 from a 2".
here's the gunblast article with the 100gr chrono:
http://gunblast.com/WBell_SW32s.htm
-David
Unless the shooter is using GA Arms ammo for his .32 mag. Then his 85gr bullet will exceed 1000 fps from a 2" snubbie.
Oops, I stand corrected. It is the 100gr that does 1,000 fps from a 2" barrel. The 85gr will do about 1,100 from a 2".
here's the gunblast article with the 100gr chrono:
http://gunblast.com/WBell_SW32s.htm
-David
To Plainsman:
Also, to Cookekdir:
I was basing on stopping stats I've read, not ballistics. That statement sounds odd, but there isn't a clear relationship between the two.
I've talked to Georgia Arms about their .32 Mag ammo and their velocity claims are for a 6" barrel .32 Mag. That is the test barrel length they use. Furthermore, I've heard from a number of people that their 100 gr JHP doesn't expand. I don't know about the expansion, but I think the 85 gr JHP would be better.
Most other makers of .32 Mag are using 6" barrel test guns. Federal uses 5", which I like about Federal. Now Stars and Stripes Ammo and Texas Ammo both make .32 Mag ammo for 2" snubbies that throws an 85 gr JHP at 1010 or 1020 from a 2" barrel. That should be 1040 or 1060 from a 3" barrel. They also make ammo for 6" barrels like the other manufacturers.
I don't have a chrono, but my .32 Mag figures are based on what the manufacturers told me on the phone and in emails. They were talking about a 6" barrel for their test gun. They gave me estimates for 2" and 3" barrels, but they don't know from testing, except for Stars and Stripes and maybe Texas Ammo.
With all due respect, it sounds to me like you guys are using .32 Mag figures for 5" and 6" barrels and attributing them to 2" barrels. Now if you have a chrono and a 2" barrel, then I won't argue with that. But do you? I don't have a chrono, but I got my info from the manufacturers.
I guess until I get a chrono, I don't have anything more to say on this subject. Hopefully, I can afford a chrono soon.
======================================================================
P.S. - have you shot Georgia Arms ammo? It made my Ruger dirtier in 12 shots than 100 rounds of the Federal does. It was so dirty it was almost like black powder. Honest. In fact, I've got 250 rounds of the GA 85 gr JHP ammo that I don't want to shoot. Would you like to have it for free? Just pay for shipping and it's yours.
I personally recommend Federal, Stars and Stripes, and Texas Ammo.
Also, to Cookekdir:
I was basing on stopping stats I've read, not ballistics. That statement sounds odd, but there isn't a clear relationship between the two.
See http://www.internetarmory.com/handgunammo.htm
http://www.stoppingpower.net/commentary
http://www.chuckhawks.com/readers_choice_pistol_cartridges.htm
Observe that the first two sources specifically state the .38 Spl +P from 2" barrel is beaten by the .380 in actual shootings. The third source does not consider .38 Spl barrel length, but just says the .380 and .38 Spl are about equal. The first two sources are comparing .38 Spl +P to .380. The 3rd source does not specify if it means .38 Spl +P or standard pressure.
Regarding .380 vs .38 Spl 2" barrel: I stand by my statement that the .380 wins by a good margin. However, if you want to compare to .38 Spl +P, then the .380 is still a little better or equal according to all 3 sources. I think .38 Spl +P kicks to much in a 2" gun. A .380 doesn't kick that much, which is an advantage for follow-up shots.
http://www.stoppingpower.net/commentary
http://www.chuckhawks.com/readers_choice_pistol_cartridges.htm
Observe that the first two sources specifically state the .38 Spl +P from 2" barrel is beaten by the .380 in actual shootings. The third source does not consider .38 Spl barrel length, but just says the .380 and .38 Spl are about equal. The first two sources are comparing .38 Spl +P to .380. The 3rd source does not specify if it means .38 Spl +P or standard pressure.
Regarding .380 vs .38 Spl 2" barrel: I stand by my statement that the .380 wins by a good margin. However, if you want to compare to .38 Spl +P, then the .380 is still a little better or equal according to all 3 sources. I think .38 Spl +P kicks to much in a 2" gun. A .380 doesn't kick that much, which is an advantage for follow-up shots.
I've talked to Georgia Arms about their .32 Mag ammo and their velocity claims are for a 6" barrel .32 Mag. That is the test barrel length they use. Furthermore, I've heard from a number of people that their 100 gr JHP doesn't expand. I don't know about the expansion, but I think the 85 gr JHP would be better.
Most other makers of .32 Mag are using 6" barrel test guns. Federal uses 5", which I like about Federal. Now Stars and Stripes Ammo and Texas Ammo both make .32 Mag ammo for 2" snubbies that throws an 85 gr JHP at 1010 or 1020 from a 2" barrel. That should be 1040 or 1060 from a 3" barrel. They also make ammo for 6" barrels like the other manufacturers.
I don't have a chrono, but my .32 Mag figures are based on what the manufacturers told me on the phone and in emails. They were talking about a 6" barrel for their test gun. They gave me estimates for 2" and 3" barrels, but they don't know from testing, except for Stars and Stripes and maybe Texas Ammo.
With all due respect, it sounds to me like you guys are using .32 Mag figures for 5" and 6" barrels and attributing them to 2" barrels. Now if you have a chrono and a 2" barrel, then I won't argue with that. But do you? I don't have a chrono, but I got my info from the manufacturers.
I guess until I get a chrono, I don't have anything more to say on this subject. Hopefully, I can afford a chrono soon.
======================================================================
P.S. - have you shot Georgia Arms ammo? It made my Ruger dirtier in 12 shots than 100 rounds of the Federal does. It was so dirty it was almost like black powder. Honest. In fact, I've got 250 rounds of the GA 85 gr JHP ammo that I don't want to shoot. Would you like to have it for free? Just pay for shipping and it's yours.
I personally recommend Federal, Stars and Stripes, and Texas Ammo.
Last edited:
Hammerdown
member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2004
- Messages
- 213
Handloads in the .32 H&R Magnum Round
Hello
I have experimented alot with this round. I have loaded and shot 60 Grain Gold dot bullets. I also used a magnum primer and dispensed Hogden H-110 in a max. load of 12.5. This chrono graphed at an amazing 1530 F.P.S. out of my Model 16-4 shown above with a 6" barrel. The average group size was an inch at 15 Yard line as well. The extracted fired shells showed No evidence of sticking, splitting, or flowing primers. This led me to believe the load could be loaded hotter, but for safety and respect of my S&W I declined to load any more than stated.It was a handful at this loading, and I saw no reason to go further and I would NOT recomend this load in any ones revolver, as all will act different and should be worked up slowly from a small charge rate as well. This velocity showed me that the .32 H&R mag. is capable of the same speed of a .357 Magnum and proved it is VERY underated as a factory load which can not come close to what can be handloaded.It is a known Fact that anyone making factory loads will keep them WELL under there full potental as they need to be safe in ANY revolver frame they are shot in on a liability level. This is the reason one must roll there own to unleash the real potental of any given round.. Regards, Hammerdown
Hello
I have experimented alot with this round. I have loaded and shot 60 Grain Gold dot bullets. I also used a magnum primer and dispensed Hogden H-110 in a max. load of 12.5. This chrono graphed at an amazing 1530 F.P.S. out of my Model 16-4 shown above with a 6" barrel. The average group size was an inch at 15 Yard line as well. The extracted fired shells showed No evidence of sticking, splitting, or flowing primers. This led me to believe the load could be loaded hotter, but for safety and respect of my S&W I declined to load any more than stated.It was a handful at this loading, and I saw no reason to go further and I would NOT recomend this load in any ones revolver, as all will act different and should be worked up slowly from a small charge rate as well. This velocity showed me that the .32 H&R mag. is capable of the same speed of a .357 Magnum and proved it is VERY underated as a factory load which can not come close to what can be handloaded.It is a known Fact that anyone making factory loads will keep them WELL under there full potental as they need to be safe in ANY revolver frame they are shot in on a liability level. This is the reason one must roll there own to unleash the real potental of any given round.. Regards, Hammerdown
To Hammer Down:
I find your post very interesting.
Unfortunately, my arthritis makes me unable to shoot anything that hot.
Also, if I may point out, you said 6" barrel. I think a 2" barrel could not benefit from a load that hot and no one would want to shoot it anyway due to recoil and muzzle flash.
Any statements I made earlier referred to factory loads.
In a smaller 2" gun with factory loads, I think the .32M is outclassed by the .380.
However, with a longer barrel, a .32M can outclass a .380, which is what I said originally.
Obviously, the .32M has a lot of reload potential, as you've shown.
I think the real question for me is this: Can a .32M gun of same size and weight outclass a .380? I think not, if using factory ammo. For example, a 2" Taurus .32M against a Firestorm or Bersa .380. Similar size and weight guns, but the .380 is going to be more potent with factory ammo, IMO. This is based on comparisons of .38 Spl +P 2" to .380, in which the .380 comes out on top.
Thanks for your informative reloading post.
I find your post very interesting.
Unfortunately, my arthritis makes me unable to shoot anything that hot.
Also, if I may point out, you said 6" barrel. I think a 2" barrel could not benefit from a load that hot and no one would want to shoot it anyway due to recoil and muzzle flash.
Any statements I made earlier referred to factory loads.
In a smaller 2" gun with factory loads, I think the .32M is outclassed by the .380.
However, with a longer barrel, a .32M can outclass a .380, which is what I said originally.
Obviously, the .32M has a lot of reload potential, as you've shown.
I think the real question for me is this: Can a .32M gun of same size and weight outclass a .380? I think not, if using factory ammo. For example, a 2" Taurus .32M against a Firestorm or Bersa .380. Similar size and weight guns, but the .380 is going to be more potent with factory ammo, IMO. This is based on comparisons of .38 Spl +P 2" to .380, in which the .380 comes out on top.
Thanks for your informative reloading post.
- Status
