32 SW (short) overall cartridge length

[dagnnorb]

I was loading some 32 SW for a Stevens Pocket Rifle for my father over the weekend.

I ran into a small issue, the OAL is listed as .920" for 32 SW, everywhere that I looked online and in my books, but the Stevens would not chamber the cartridge. I tried 3 different bullets, and none would chamber. On one of the bullets I could see a mark on the lead where it was hitting the a step in the chamber. Kind of hard to explain, but there is noticeable geometry change in the chamber.

I loaded more and kept lowering the bullet seating die until the cartridges would chamber. I ended up seating the bullet to .850" and it chambered fine and fired fine. No issues.

My question... does anyone know if 100 years ago, the 32 SW was shorter in OAL than listed today?

I was loading with Trail Boss so there is no issue with decreasing the powder capacity, I followed the instructions for determining safe loading. All 9 shells fired fine. And the first round of shells i loaded, i shot out of my 327 Federal, and they all shot fine.

I am more curious about the shorter OAL i had to use. If it was a few thousands, i could understand, but .070" shorter seems extreme.

 

[Englishmn]

Found this it seems older guns may not be made to saami standards since they didn't exist at the time. This guy measured to .870 oal

I can check and see if I still have some old 32 short factory ammo and try to measure it after work.

https://www.massgunownership.com/32S&W.html

 

[dagnnorb]

thank you. I did look up SAAMI spec and it was listed at .880-.930". I may redo the seating again to see what max length fits in the chamber. I think ~.860" i could close, but i had to force... I backed off another .010" to give some space to lands.

 

[dagnnorb]

I read that article, looks like he seated to .870" because that is where crimp groove was, not necessarily to chamber. I am not concerned if I have to seat to .850", 0.6 grains of Trail Boss worked fine with that depth. I am using a lighter 75gr HC bullet, the only other bullets I had were 100 gr RN and WC and to get them to work, i would have almost no room for any powder by the time i get them seated to fit chamber.

 

[Englishmn]

Measured some remington 32 s&w 88gr lrn .910-.879 oals but bullet has narrow front .294 dia just above crimp and tapers down from there. May be the nose shape of the bullet you are using jamming in throat.

 

[dbmjr1]

The manual in my lap lists a COAL of .930", but all of the data calls for a .880 OAL.

Modern Reloading, Richard Lee.

 

[Englishmn]

You could always do a chamber cast and then know exactly what you have to work with.

 

[dagnnorb]

Englishmn... i am leaning towards your posting...I think the bullets used back then had a much smaller frontal diameter above the crimp and the step was very pronounced. I have seen several photos online showing bullets like that...

 

[dagnnorb]

I had the 75 gr TC bullets on hand for my 32 ACP... i think if i tried the 78 RN because of the step down in diameter, I may get the bullet seated further out and a larger powder charge...

 

[FROGO207]

Definitely the narrower shape would give you a longer OAL and more room in the case. Those old time rounds were all over the place as far as bullet shape and OAL. Some of my BP revolvers are wildly different. Some would chamber and shoot a 32 S&W long with a 100 grain RNFP if I had tried.

 

[Englishmn]

Here is a picture of one of the factory rounds.

 

[dagnnorb]

I can see that chambering ok in the gun... Opposed to the bullet i used with no step above the crimp groove.

finally got some gun pics from my father

 

[dagnnorb]

So last update, i got the chance to try a factor cartridge as shown above, it measured .920" and it chambered fine in the gun.. It is 100% the bullet shape that caused the issue. I have bullets ordered that should work.