.32 S&W ballistics, best load?

[cluttonfred]

This is going to make the folks following the thread about .380 ACP effectiveness laugh, but here goes. As I mentioned in another thread, a nice little .32 S&W Iver Johnson top break caught my eye, so I have been wondering exactly how weak is .32 S&W (the original, not .32 S&W Long). The numbers are pretty modest, to say the least (per Wikipedia):

.32 S&W
Bullet weight/type Velocity Energy
85 gr (6 g) Lead 705 ft/s (215 m/s) 93 ft·lbf (126 J)
98 gr (6 g) Lead 705 ft/s (215 m/s) 115 ft·lbf (156 J)

Still, if you were going to carry one, you'd want the most effective load possible. I'm assuming an early 20th century gun intended for smokeless power loads. Maybe a hard cast wadcutter, the heck with expansion, just go for penetration and sharp edges?

 

[rbernie]

just go for penetration and sharp edges

That'd be my approach.

 

[Panzerschwein]

Hard cast wadcutter moving as fast as you can sefely get it methinks.

With good shot placement, wouldn't be much to laugh at. Better than a .22 or a .25 ACP.

 

[golden]

Really?

Most of the IVER JOHNSON'S I have seen are short barreled, so I doubt you will get even 705 fps. It is possible you will be down in the 600 to 650 fps range!

If you want to carry something that weak, you may be better off with the .25ACP. I know I would pick a .32 S&W Long or even better a .32ACP first and load it with COR BON Powerball. I carried that for several years and felt well protected.

Jim

 

[.455_Hunter]

Howdy!

85 gr (6 g) Lead 705 ft/s (215 m/s) 93 ft·lbf (126 J)

This is the available .32 S&W load, the other one is the .32 S&W Long load.

Here is a thread I started about the .32 S&W from 2009...

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=368103

from above:

Quote by RyanM- According to MacPherson's equations a .312" bullet that weighs 85 gr at 680 fps should penetrate almost exactly 18" in bare gelatin (18.01").

According to my own equations, denim only reduces penetration by about 1/2", assuming the bullet is a hard enough alloy to not get deformed by the denim.

Also getting a wood penetration of 4-3/4" in white pine, if the bullet doesn't deform at all. 3 boards corresponds to it flattening out to about .420", which is probably about right for a soft lead bullet hitting wood.

Keep in mind that gelatin is one thing and people are another entirely. A soft lead bullet at that low a velocity is quite likely to glance off bone if it hits at any kind of angle. Generally, you want at least 800 fps on a reasonably heavy, hard bullet, to punch through bone reliably.

I have a .32 Small Frame Safety Automatic Hammer (Third Model), Blued, Serial # A307XX (1911)- It has some mild finish wear, but has perfect mechanics. I have used it as CCW piece, being significantly smaller than a J-frame, and the five Winchester Super-X .32 S&W loads are no joke. I get about 680 fps and 85 fpe (much better than a .25 ACP) with these loads out of the gun, and the LRN bullet penetrates 4-5 gallon jugs of water, similar to many modern JHP loads from of more powerful calibers.

Enjoy!

 

[grter]

Know what it is, how and whent to use it. If someone is good with it then it's nothing to laugh at.

Another caliber war. Like we don't already know it's not one of the top calibers in terms of power.

 

[golden]

Caliber war-are you kidding?

GRTER,

I think when a person says that they want to carry a gun for personal defense, they should understand what it is capable of.

The .32 S&W is not an improvement on a .22lr if you use hollow point ammo like the STINGERS. If is not just weaker than the .38 Special or .380ACP or even the .32ACP.

It is much less capable. So what if it penetrates. The .38 Special round nose lead was a well known over penetrator and it had the nick name, the WIDOW MAKER for the many failure to stop incidents. The .32 S&W long was worse than the .38 Special and the .32 S&W will be worse still.

What would be the attraction here. Better trigger? Better sights? Faster reload?

This is one of those guns that really is better than nothing, but only just!

Please tell me where I am wrong.

Jim

 

[MrBorland]

The OP didn't ask for anyone's opinion on the effectiveness of the round. And for all anyone knows, they're well aware of it's capabilities. So let's not go off-topic by turning this into a caliber war.

 

[perldog007]

I carried a Colt New Pocket for a bu . Old timers told me that all loads were equally effective because the only way to use that system was muzzle to hide..... other wise I was advised to use it along with another system such as a knife or club .....


So yes, I applaud any effort to pay attention to ballistics in the calibers folks carry most and understand the least.


On a serious note, I settled on PMC RNL for my .32 because it turned out to be unusually accurate, yeilding results I don't see very often at my skill level ( mediocre for a range rat ).

If I found something that had shockingly better stopping potential I would consider a switch giving up a little accuracy. I normally need at least 2" at 25 yds capable for me to keep them in 5" at 15 yds timed fire or 6" at 5 yds rapid fire.

I have met my 'criteria' with less capable systems than 2" @ 25 yds but that's the margin of accuracy I like to compensate for my own shortcomings in that area..

 

[grter]

GRTER,

I think when a person says that they want to carry a gun for personal defense, they should understand what it is capable of.

The .32 S&W is not an improvement on a .22lr if you use hollow point ammo like the STINGERS. If is not just weaker than the .38 Special or .380ACP or even the .32ACP.

It is much less capable. So what if it penetrates. The .38 Special round nose lead was a well known over penetrator and it had the nick name, the WIDOW MAKER for the many failure to stop incidents. The .32 S&W long was worse than the .38 Special and the .32 S&W will be worse still.

What would be the attraction here. Better trigger? Better sights? Faster reload?

This is one of those guns that really is better than nothing, but only just!

Please tell me where I am wrong.

Jim

These old guns look really nice and are fascinating. I would find them a pleasure to shoot despite their relative shortcommings in the eyes of most people.

They will not blast holes through car doors like a knife through soft butter but I would not be very surprised if they can shoot very straight in the hands of someone well versed in it's use.

All in all I can see these things being more fun at the range than a plain jane modern gun.

 

[perldog007]

GRTER,

I think when a person says that they want to carry a gun for personal defense, they should understand what it is capable of.

The .32 S&W is not an improvement on a .22lr if you use hollow point ammo like the STINGERS. If is not just weaker than the .38 Special or .380ACP or even the .32ACP.

It is much less capable. So what if it penetrates. The .38 Special round nose lead was a well known over penetrator and it had the nick name, the WIDOW MAKER for the many failure to stop incidents. The .32 S&W long was worse than the .38 Special and the .32 S&W will be worse still.

What would be the attraction here. Better trigger? Better sights? Faster reload?

This is one of those guns that really is better than nothing, but only just!

Please tell me where I am wrong.

Jim

You are wrong in hypothetical scenarios you haven't been in, You are wrong in real world scenarios you haven't been in. You were wrong during westward expansion when the pocket .31 revolvers outsold all others, you are wrong today when small inexpensive minor caliber handguns are still the most popular and most used by the populace.

You were wrong in 1998 when I bought a beat up 1938 Colt New Pocket in an oversized holster and qualified with it, beating all other revolver scores that day except my own, come to think of it all the scores except my own.

This was not bought for 'stopping power'. I Knew a man that had eaten a cylinder full of .32 as a rookie and made a full recovery. In my plan it was close range, last resort, and which ever hand held it the other would wield a razor sharp knife or expandable baton on a decent day.

The best gun is the one you have on you when you need it. In that regard the .32 shines. Will us experts know that 'anything less than a .380 is marginal at best... " and all that the rest of the world goes blissfully along with the 'wrong' gun. Most of them get away with it clean too, so you're wrong there as well.

Don't sweat it tough, it's taken me fifty three years to realize that everybody is smarter than perldog007, and they'll be quick to tell you so. Don't expect your mileage to vary on this score....

 

[MrBorland]

Once again, folks, the general effectiveness of the round isn't the topic. Which .32S&W load would be most effective is. Let's stick to the topic, please.

 

[Old Fuff]

What's the best load?

It depends on what revolver you purpose to use it in. First of all some that have been proposed (Colt's lines of hand-ejector/pocket models) are really chambered in .32 Colt New Police, that for all practical purposes is the same as .32 S&W Long. In these you can use the less powerful .32 S&W, but they're is no good reason to do so.

To my knowledge all of the revolvers specifically chambered in .32 S&W were various single action/spur trigger guns made during the 1800's that should be dropped from consideration as a CCW today. The rest are top-breaks made by various makers (again including S&W, as well as Harrington & Richardson and Iver Johnson) that featured a double-action trigger pull and were made as late as 1940, give or take. Both of the latter manufacturers also offered solid frame models that required removing the cylinder and using the cylinder pin to eject fired cases. For obvious reasons I wouldn't consider them to be a good candidate for CCW.

With an understanding that all of the above started life in the later 1800's and some lasted up to 1940, very careful selection should be used if one is to pick one to shoot and/or CCW.

The best (in relative terms) were the S&W .32 Safety Hammerless/3rd. Model, made between 1909 and 1937. The other is Iver Johnson's small frame/Safety Automatic (with conventional hammer) 3rd model made between 1913 to 1941; or hammerless, 3rd. model, made between 1910 and
1941.

Browning based his .32 ACP cartridge on the .32 S&W round. Some starting loads for the former can be used in the .32 S&W, but only in revolvers such as the ones mentioned above. For example, a 71 grain bullet backed by 2 grains of Bullseye. DO NOT EXCEED!

The only advantage offered by the .32 S&W cartridge is that it can be used in revolvers notably smaller then current-day S&W J-frames because they are built around shorter, 5 shot/.32 cylinders (not 6). If this size difference is a critical consideration in making a choice that's one thing. Otherwise they're better options.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Next thing we will see is the 'best' load for the .22 short.

Considering the 5 shot .32 revolvers have poor grips, poor sights, poor trigger pull, poor ballistics, I'd just regulate it to the 'fun' shooter on the range.

I have three .38 S&W revolvers, one a Webley top break pocket model, Colt Police Positive used by Chase Manhattan Bank, and S&W RAAF service revolver, but I would not consider them for CCW at all.

But IF you were going to handload the .32 S&W, I'd suggest the Hornady 95 gr. SWC. Nice little SWC with soft lead.

Deaf

 

[jimbo555]

You could drill a hole and insert some poison for added deadliness.

 

[4v50 Gary]

I'd be happy to find 32 rimmed cartridges. I generally don't see those on the shelves.

 

[golden]

I cannot resist

Perldog,

Since you did not state a single, rational reason why I was wrong, I am not going to worry about.

I really doubt you were around when .31 caliber cap and ball guns were popular, but I am old enough to remember the .38 Special round nose lead load not only being the dominant police ammo, but nearly the only police ammo and a number of police officers paid the price for it.

So pardon me if I move on to the 21st century and advise against using a VERY POOR CHOICE for self defense and suggesting something more effective.

Despite your rant, I have carried a 32 as a back up or off duty carry. However, it was a .32ACP WALTHER PPK or if that was too big, then a BERETTA Tomcat. I went to the trouble of trying to find the most reliable, but still effective ammo.

One way I did this was to ask advise of others. You know what, isn't that what the OP was asking, for the most effective load?
The problem is that with the .32 S&W, the threshold is so low, that I do not believe there is an effective load. Wadcutters will not be much more effective, it at all with such a low velocity.

Jim

 

[golden]

Old fuff

I tried some .32ACP ball in my H&R .32 S&W Long revolver and was surprised by lack of accuracy. I fired some 98 grain lead round nose afterward and the .32ACP group was twice the size of the 98 grain rounds.

Jim

 

[Old Fuff]

I'm aware that bad accuracy can be a consequence, but sometime the lighter bullets work fine. Lyman did make a mold (311252) for a 77 grain/LRN, but finding one, and a matching lube/sizing die could be a trip! According to one reloading book .32 S&W bullets can run up to .315".

I can easily understand the results you got, but the O.P. simply ask for some loading data - which I provided with some editorial comments.

Back when... Smith & Wesson advertised that their little .32 Safety Hammerless was superior to Colt's .25 Vest Pocket Model. I agree but won't stick my neck out any further.

 

[golden]

Magtech makes 32 s&w

Gary,

In my area (central Florida), the only newly made .32 S&W seems to be from Brazilian maker MAGTECH.

I shot some and they had very mild recoil.

Jim

 

[Old Fuff]

I'd be happy to find 32 rimmed cartridges. I generally don't see those on the shelves.

You sometimes don't because of low demand. Ordering over the 'Net will turn up loaded cartridges and new brass in : .32 S&W Long, .32 H&R Magnum and .327 Magnum. .32 S&W tends to be much harder - especially today, with the general ammunition shortages. However if a dealer (or individual) shops around it will occasionally be found. Expect it to be expensive.

 

[Twiki357]

The Mexican ammo maker Aguila makes 32 S&W Long ammo. They don’t list the “short” 32 S&W on their website.

 

[cluttonfred]

I am overseas right now, so it's a moot point, but just out of curiosity, does anyone know of a source with new (not vintage) .32 S&W (not Long) in stock? I am coming up empty. Thanks!

 

[golden]

Only the magtech

Fred,

The only recently manufactured .32 S&W that I have seen in Florida is the MAGTECH ammo. I have seen ammo from the big name manufacturers, but cannot tell how old it is.

I know that some companies list it, but a lot of them are not making the less popular calibers right now.

Jim

 

[Gordon]

Lee 90 grain SWC cast soft and .312" and I use 1.4 grains of Bullseye in excellent condition 1910 and later top breaks, it is snappy and get 680 fps from a 3" tight barrel.