ASSRA Forum - .32/20 reduced load.

ASSRA Forum › General › Reloading the Single Shot Rifle › .32/20 reduced load.

(Moderator Group: Moderator)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Page Index Toggle

Pages: 1 [2]

Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies)

.32/20 reduced load. (Read 10110 times)

uscra112 Frequent Elocutionist Offline Posts: 4079 Location: Switzerland of Ohio Joined: May 7^th, 2007	Re: .32/20 reduced load. Reply #15 - Sep 23^rd, 2017 at 10:38am	Print Post
	George Babits wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2017 at 9:53am: I guess I am missing something here, as I don't see why anyone would want a reduced load in the 32-20 cartridge anyway. I've been shooting 11g of 4227 and the 115 bullet for many years in several 1892 Winchesters and a #2 Remington rolling block. The recoil is so mild that I just can't imagine why anyone would need a reduced load. Both my daughters learned how to shoot with that #2 Remington when they were in the early years of grade school. George If a .32-20 is what you've got, and you'd like to use it in the backyard for plinking or close-in garden defense, a "cat-sneeze" load that won't set the neighbors' hair on fire is just the thing.

	<div class=
	IP Logged

marlinguy Frequent Elocutionist Offline Ballards may be weaker, but they sure are neater! Posts: 18055 Location: Oregon Joined: Feb 2^nd, 2009	Re: .32/20 reduced load. Reply #16 - Sep 23^rd, 2017 at 10:57am	Print Post
	George Babits wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2017 at 9:53am: I guess I am missing something here, as I don't see why anyone would want a reduced load in the 32-20 cartridge anyway. George Lots of reasons to enjoy a reduced load in .32-20, and not just because of recoil. Any rifle of much size wont ever be abusive recoil in .32-20, even with hotter loads. But unless I was hunting with my .32-20, I see no reason to ever go beyond 1200 fps myself. Most of mine are in the 1000-1200 fps range. I enjoy having my powder go farther, and also the mild report. I've shot my .32-20 with these loads out to 500 yds. and it does great for me, with good groups. The lighter loads are like shooting a .22LR rifle, but cheaper since I can reload the .32-20!

	(You need to *Login* or *Register* to view media files and links)
	IP Logged

JCHannum Senior Forum Member Offline Posts: 435 Location: Toledo Joined: Aug 8^th, 2007	Re: .32/20 reduced load. Reply #17 - Sep 23^rd, 2017 at 11:00am	Print Post
	Hogdon suggests 2.5g to 2.8g of Trailboss for a 90g cast bullet and 2.2g to 2.5g for a 115g cast bullet. There is a wide variation in load suggestions in the Lyman books over the years, becoming increasingly lighter. The 4th. Edition Cast Bullet manual suggests 7.8g to 9.7g 4227 for a 115g cast bullet while the 45th Edition manual suggests 12.0g to 14.0g 4227 for a 115g gas check bullet with the 14g load as tha accuracy load. The 45th edition does stress that those loads are not for black powder guns or hand guns. I generally use 4227 or Unique with loads at the lighter end of the spectrum, strictly for plinking and paper.

	Jim H.
	IP Logged

svartkruttgris#369 Frequent Elocutionist Offline Posts: 2980 Location: Colorado, Norway, Sweden Joined: Oct 28^th, 2014	Re: .32/20 reduced load. Reply #18 - Sep 23^rd, 2017 at 1:20pm	Print Post
	uscra112 wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2017 at 1:37am: Red Dot is sufficiently bulky and at the same time easy to light that it is ideal for "cat-sneeze" loads. For backyard loads I'd look for some of Hornady's 90 grain hollowbase wadcutters. Another vote for Hornady's 90 grain HBWC. I used this bullet for years in a Swedish Nagant Officer's Model 7,5 Nagant revolver. Full-length 32-20 cases fit nicely into chambers and this 0,311" bullets can be seated in the full-length case. With full case loads of 777 ffg and a single 0,320 wad on powder resulted in excellent 800 fps loads that expanded fully into 0,321" bore and shot really nice groups out to 50M.


	IP Logged

svartkruttgris#369 Frequent Elocutionist Offline Posts: 2980 Location: Colorado, Norway, Sweden Joined: Oct 28^th, 2014	Re: .32/20 reduced load. Reply #19 - Sep 23^rd, 2017 at 1:32pm	Print Post
	George Babits wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2017 at 9:53am: I guess I am missing something here, as I don't see why anyone would want a reduced load in the 32-20 cartridge anyway. I've been shooting 11g of 4227 and the 115 bullet for many years in several 1892 Winchesters and a #2 Remington rolling block. The recoil is so mild that I just can't imagine why anyone would need a reduced load. Both my daughters learned how to shoot with that #2 Remington when they were in the early years of grade school. George Another vote for 11gr 4227 RIFLE load. Another old standard velocity 32-20 RIFLE load is 8,0-8,5gr 4759 under 115-120 gr bullet. Both shoot well or better in my 32-20 original Win LW, much better than pistol powder revolver loads. My serious hunting loads use a few grains more of each powder and have always been 1-shot "instant" kills on turkeys with flat-nose bullets, enough so that careful shot placement is needed to avoid ruining yummy turkey breast meat.


	IP Logged

32 ballard xl Full Member Offline Stand on your hind legs, and shoot like a man. Posts: 129 Location: Akwesasne, New York Joined: Feb 20^th, 2011	Re: .32/20 reduced load. Reply #20 - Oct 20^th, 2017 at 3:30pm	Print Post
	marlinguy wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2017 at 2:51pm: Yes, it seems my results vary quite a bit from yours! I've shot reduced loads in both my old Marlin 1894 .32-20, and my Ballard #2 and Remington #2 in the same .32-20, and had some really great groups. I've always thought the .32-20 was an inherently accurate cartridge, as any gun I owned in this caliber with a good bore shot very well! Have a few handguns in .32-20 also, and like the rifles they perform well. Yes, I had great results with 4.5 grns of Unique at the Cough, Gag, and Strangle Club years ago in Grant, Michigan. Rifle was a 24" 1873 Winchester with a single set trigger. 3/4 inch group @ 100 yds. Ideal mold similar to WRA 115 bullet, cast dead soft. Bee's wax and Carnuba mixed together.

	Ballards are best!
	IP Logged

beltfed Frequent Elocutionist Offline Posts: 1826 Location: Central Wi Joined: Dec 20^th, 2007	Re: .32/20 reduced load. Reply #21 - Oct 20^th, 2017 at 8:36pm	Print Post
	5 grains Unique under the Lyman 311316 of 9+1 ww/lino gas checked shot very well for me nice "powder puff" load for plinking easily out to 100 yds This load worked well in my friend's Colt Pre War SSA It also works well with the plain base 3118. beltfed/arnie


	IP Logged

Green_Frog Frequent Elocutionist Offline "It ain't easy being green" ASSRA Life #281 Posts: 4164 Location: Lynchburg, VA Joined: Apr 18^th, 2004	Re: .32/20 reduced load. Reply #22 - Oct 25^th, 2017 at 1:38pm	Print Post
	Maybe it's just me, but I can't get too excited about extra light loads in rifles nor hollow base wadcutters at any speed or power. The former is just asking for a stuck bullet IMHO, and the latter (with the light, soft skirts needed to be effective in a pistol length barrel) have the likelihood of leaving a skirt behind in the bore. For the OP's quest I would suggest 85-95 grain SWCs in front of the lightest loads of fast powder recommended by the Lyman manuals or the powder manufacturers, but never less. YMMV, but that's what I would do, and I would be surprised if the felt recoil was significantly more than that of a 22 LR. Froggie


	IP Logged

BP Frequent Elocutionist Offline Posts: 8039 Location: Westside Joined: Aug 27^th, 2006	Re: .32/20 reduced load. Reply #23 - Nov 30^th, 2017 at 3:28pm	Print Post
	Froggie, I agree with your thoughts about this. My bullet choices for quiet cat-sneeze garden loads have been the Ideal/Lyman #313492 and #313445 plain bases, and the #311419 without the gas check.

	There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading, the few who learn by observation, and the rest who have to pee on the electric fence and find out for themselves. Proud Noodlehead
	IP Logged

Page Index Toggle

Pages: 1 [2]

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

« Board Index ‹ Board Top

Top

ASSRA Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.6.12!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2026. All Rights Reserved.

Valid XHTML

Valid CSS

Powered by Perl

Source Forge

Page completed in 0.8549 seconds.