Hot loads for .32 H&R Magnum

[GeoDudeFlorida]

I have read in many sources, most notably Handloader Magazine, that True Blue is one of the best powders for snubbies.

Sure, but you didn’t ask if True Blue was the best or only powder for .32Magnum, you asked,

Anyone with experience with hot .32 H&R loads?

Then commenced to arguing and disagreeing with everyone who related their experiences. It’s a might strange.

 

[jski]

Sure, but you didn’t ask if True Blue was the best or only powder for .32Magnum, you asked,

Then commenced to arguing and disagreeing with everyone who related their experiences. It’s a might strange.

Just asking questions. Purely Socratic.

 

[CoalCrackerAl]

I looked where True blue is on the burn rate chart. I would use a faster powder for a snub nose. Titegroup meters decent,

 

[jski]

I looked where True blue is on the burn rate chart. I would use a faster powder for a snub nose. Titegroup meters decent,

They’re pretty close, True Blue and TiteGroup.

 

[CoalCrackerAl]

18th vs 58th.
burnratechartnew.pdf (loaddata.com)

 

[Mr_Flintstone]

The more I use computer modeling, the more things I find out that I never realized before.

One thing is that a 2” 32 H&R barrel is equivalent to a 3.5” barrel because the length of cylinder/chamber is added to the barrel length. That brings me to the next thing. A good amount of powder is burned in that short distance. Of course, it depends on the burn rate and density of the powder, but most non-magnum pistol powders will be almost completely consumed in a 2” 32 H&R Magnum revolver.

Looking at 6 gr True Blue as a control, and swapping other powders in GRT to get equivalent velocities and pressures I was a little surprised. Below is a comparison of the percent of powder burned in the barrel to reach approximately 1000 fps in 32 H&R magnum with an 85 grain XTP.
True Blue…..77.7%
N310………..100%
Titegroup…...92.3%
Bullseye…….93.6%
Unique………96.8%
AutoComp…..98.2%

What does that say? I don’t know. I just found it interesting. When you switch to powders like 2400, IMR4227, or H110, you lose a lot of powder out the end of the barrel, so it’s really inefficient, but that doesn’t negate the actual muzzle velocity. You just wind up paying for 30-60% of your powder that just goes to a big flame at the end of the barrel without an actual increase in performance.

 

[jski]

18th vs 58th.
burnratechartnew.pdf (loaddata.com)

Interesting. I was using this chart which gives a different picture of things.

 

[jski]

The more I use computer modeling, the more things I find out that I never realized before.

One thing is that a 2” 32 H&R barrel is equivalent to a 3.5” barrel because the length of cylinder/chamber is added to the barrel length. That brings me to the next thing. A good amount of powder is burned in that short distance. Of course, it depends on the burn rate and density of the powder, but most non-magnum pistol powders will be almost completely consumed in a 2” 32 H&R Magnum revolver.

Looking at 6 gr True Blue as a control, and swapping other powders in GRT to get equivalent velocities and pressures I was a little surprised. Below is a comparison of the percent of powder burned in the barrel to reach approximately 1000 fps in 32 H&R magnum with an 85 grain XTP.
True Blue…..77.7%
N310………..100%
Titegroup…...92.3%
Bullseye…….93.6%
Unique………96.8%
AutoComp…..98.2%

What does that say? I don’t know. I just found it interesting. When you switch to powders like 2400, IMR4227, or H110, you lose a lot of powder out the end of the barrel, so it’s really inefficient, but that doesn’t negate the actual muzzle velocity. You just wind up paying for 30-60% of your powder that just goes to a big flame at the end of the barrel without an actual increase in performance.

You are correct about H110. I used it and got very nice results but I know it to be a slow burning pistol powder. 11 gr of H110 got me ~1150 FPS and a mild recoil.

 

[CoalCrackerAl]

I checked my Lyman 51st too. They have the 2 powders moved up in the burn rates. But still quite a spread. This is one example of why we say to cross check different resources.

 

[Mr_Flintstone]

Interesting. I was using this chart which gives a different picture of things.
View attachment 1115970

Burn rate is a big factor, but so is the weight of the charge. Powders where you have a large volume charge won’t burn completely before they leave a short barrel even if they burn faster and you get good velocity. Those powders, even though you get good results, really shine with longer barrel lengths. Not a big deal. It just depends on what your goal is. I’m cheap, so I tend to use powders that work with the least waste.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

Burn rate is a big factor, but so is the weight of the charge. Powders where you have a large volume charge won’t burn completely before they leave a short barrel even if they burn faster and you get good velocity. Those powders, even though you get good results, really shine with longer barrel lengths. Not a big deal. It just depends on what your goal is. I’m cheap, so I tend to use powders that work with the least waste.

The weight of the load being pushed also makes a difference, as does the bore/groove and friction, etc.

The Taurus 731 is also ported, reducing the effective barrel length to 1-1/2” and the total chamber + barrel length to just shy of three inches. That might explain why my results are different than for the LCR .327Federal.

 

[jski]

Listened to Sam the Revolver Guy's channel last night and he was testing Federal's .32 H&R Mag v Speer's Gold Dot .32 S&W Long and the Gold Dot outperformed the Federal. Hence the need for .32 H&R +P loads when factory loads are that pathetically anemic!

 

[CoalCrackerAl]

I have long ago stopped chasing the fastest load possible. What is the reason for the plus p loads?

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

Listened to Sam the Revolver Guy's channel last night and he was testing Federal's .32 H&R Mag v Speer's Gold Dot .32 S&W Long and the Gold Dot outperformed the Federal. Hence the need for .32 H&R +P loads when factory loads are that pathetically anemic!

“Need”. Okay, now that’s funny!
You have to exceed recommended limits because of some factory loads “testing”? Okie dokey.
In the meantime, in the sane world, I just put together some test ladders using the 85gr XTP and Autocomp. Not because my current 3.2gr Red Dot load is “pathetic” - just the opposite, it’s a bit much - but because I want to see if the Autocomp will be less flashy and more controllable in the little snubby. Staying within Hodgdon online data at 4.2-4.6gr and trying three different primers. I only need 950fps for the XTP to do its job and 4.2gr out the short barrel will get me close.

 

[jski]

I have long ago stopped chasing the fastest load possible. What is the reason for the plus p loads?

Bullet expansion.

Speaking of that, I’ve seen a number of gel tests where the XTP bullets didn’t expand much at all even at greater that 1100 FPS. What’s the deal with that?

 

[Mr_Flintstone]

One thing that hasn’t been mentioned (and usually is) is potential legal problems with over-spec handloads. I could see the likely event of some liberal prosecutor saying that since a person exceeded published load data that they were making man-killers. Now, that may be a apparently farcical prospect, but also not out of the realm of possibilities if over-pressure loads were used in self defense. In a case like this, I would think it much more defensible to use reduced .327 Fed Magnum loads than supercharged .32 H&R magnum.

 

[wcwhitey]

I have stopped even bringing these things up. All that happens is the thread gets diverted, not to say that is what your doing. I just figure everyone has made up their own mind on the subject. With regards to making better ammo than the manufacturers it is also about impossible on a generic level. I can tailor rounds to better suit what a gun likes or a particular situation but in a broad sense it’s not better! I don’t fault the OP for trying but he has been given a huge amount of good advice from people here and I don’t think it moved the needle. Looking forward to range reports and detailed testing of the end result. It may very well come out similar to a light .327 if you get my drift!

 

[jski]

I have stopped even bringing these things up. All that happens is the thread gets diverted, not to say that is what your doing. I just figure everyone has made up their own mind on the subject. With regards to making better ammo than the manufacturers it is also about impossible on a generic level. I can tailor rounds to better suit what a gun likes or a particular situation but in a broad sense it’s not better! I don’t fault the OP for trying but he has been given a huge amount of good advice from people here and I don’t think it moved the needle. Looking forward to range reports and detailed testing of the end result. It may very well come out similar to a light .327 if you get my drift!

I'll report back.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

I can tailor rounds to better suit what a gun likes or a particular situation but in a broad sense it’s not better!

Yup! Absolutely right. In this case what’s interesting is the idea of downloading by using a smaller case at 1-1/2x capacity. As opposed to using a minimum or 3/4 load in a longer case. That’s been basically the rule of thumb for loading the old through-bored H&R’s for years. Start with a trimmed-to-length .32S&W Long and load it with black up to the base of a 77gr RN. What’s old is new again.