Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2  Send TopicPrint
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) .32/20 reduced load. (Read 10090 times)
Gaz
Participating Member
*
Offline



Posts: 48
Location: Australia
Joined: Oct 3rd, 2008
.32/20 reduced load.
Sep 21st, 2017 at 7:57pm
Print Post  
Hi, could anyone please give me some advice on loading a 32/20 to reduced velocity for plinking?
I want the noise and power to be as low as possible.
I have some Trailboss powder.
Should I use a filler to keep the powder to the rear?
I would appreciate any load data or tips. Thank you.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
colo native
Oldtimer
*****
Offline



Posts: 760
Location: Barren Ridge, Va
Joined: Dec 27th, 2007
Re: .32/20 reduced load.
Reply #1 - Sep 21st, 2017 at 9:00pm
Print Post  
I would suggest you get a old lyman loading book and look at the unique loads...   works for me...   trust No one who gives u his load!!!!!!



  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
svartkruttgris#369
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 2980
Location: Colorado, Norway, Sweden
Joined: Oct 28th, 2014
Re: .32/20 reduced load.
Reply #2 - Sep 21st, 2017 at 9:40pm
Print Post  
Use 32 S&W Long loads from maker of Trailboss, which is a rather fast burning powder. In the bigger 32-20 case they will give even lower chamber pressures. Because such 32 S&W Long loads are for revolvers, you will have to estimate velocities in rifle barrels. With initial test shooting be sure to check bore for stuck bullets, thanks to too low pressures.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
marlinguy
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline


Ballards may be weaker,
but they sure are neater!

Posts: 18055
Location: Oregon
Joined: Feb 2nd, 2009
Re: .32/20 reduced load.
Reply #3 - Sep 21st, 2017 at 10:42pm
Print Post  
3.0 grs. of Red Dot, or 3.5 grs. of Green Dot with a 115 gr. cast makes a load that's very mild, with no recoil, and low report. No fillers needed, or wanted.
  

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ballardhepburnmich
ASSRA Board Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 598
Location: Scotts,mi.
Joined: May 20th, 2015
Re: .32/20 reduced load.
Reply #4 - Sep 21st, 2017 at 11:36pm
Print Post  
Absolutely no filler with Trailboss.
Lee
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Marlene
Senior Forum Member
****
Offline



Posts: 276
Joined: Oct 30th, 2015
Re: .32/20 reduced load.
Reply #5 - Sep 22nd, 2017 at 12:24am
Print Post  
The manufacturer's listed starting load of Trail Boss is very mild. Much lower will start sticking bullets. I suggest starting there.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Gaz
Participating Member
*
Offline



Posts: 48
Location: Australia
Joined: Oct 3rd, 2008
Re: .32/20 reduced load.
Reply #6 - Sep 22nd, 2017 at 1:17am
Print Post  
Thanks. Yes I am very much aware of the possibility of  stuck bullets after bulging a barrel with a stuck .22 Z bullet. My rifle is a rolling block so it will be easy for me to examine the bore if I do not see the bullet strike.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
svartkruttgris#369
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 2980
Location: Colorado, Norway, Sweden
Joined: Oct 28th, 2014
Re: .32/20 reduced load.
Reply #7 - Sep 22nd, 2017 at 11:20am
Print Post  
Gaz wrote on Sep 22nd, 2017 at 1:17am:
Thanks. Yes I am very much aware of the possibility of  stuck bullets after bulging a barrel with a stuck .22 Z bullet. My rifle is a rolling block so it will be easy for me to examine the bore if I do not see the bullet strike.


Excellent! But I would additionally suggest getting into habit of ALWAYS checking bore after each shot with such light loads, especially since it is to easy with a roller. Shot-to-shot pressures can vary widely with such light loads, even with fast burning powders. With such powders I generally make it a practice to have powder in reproducibally same position, most often as it would be in a horizontal cartridge, a common position when shooting. My favorite practice is to put rifle in shooting position and then use trigger hand to "sharply" tap side of chamber before shooting. Works well for me.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
marlinguy
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline


Ballards may be weaker,
but they sure are neater!

Posts: 18055
Location: Oregon
Joined: Feb 2nd, 2009
Re: .32/20 reduced load.
Reply #8 - Sep 22nd, 2017 at 2:27pm
Print Post  
I see very little std. deviation over my chronograph when using shotgun powders for reduced charges in my .32-20. Same with Unique in my .32-20's. It gives maybe 35-50 fps deviation. Not enough to affect accuracy, or bullet travel.
  

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
svartkruttgris#369
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 2980
Location: Colorado, Norway, Sweden
Joined: Oct 28th, 2014
Re: .32/20 reduced load.
Reply #9 - Sep 22nd, 2017 at 2:46pm
Print Post  
marlinguy wrote on Sep 22nd, 2017 at 2:27pm:
I see very little std. deviation over my chronograph when using shotgun powders for reduced charges in my .32-20. Same with Unique in my .32-20's. It gives maybe 35-50 fps deviation. Not enough to affect accuracy, or bullet travel.


Never had much better than +/- 100 fps, which gave so much vertical stringing that such loads were totally useless for hunting. Quit such useless nitro "revolver" loads long ago in favor of 100gr bullets with "rifle" powders for non critical shooting and standard velocity 120-135 gr or higher velocity loads with 4759, 4227 etc. for hunting. 

So-called "revolver" loads have long given excellent performance in my 44-40s but never in my 32-20s. "Rifle" loads were even better in my 44-40s.

Obviously, our personal experiences differ substantially.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
marlinguy
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline


Ballards may be weaker,
but they sure are neater!

Posts: 18055
Location: Oregon
Joined: Feb 2nd, 2009
Re: .32/20 reduced load.
Reply #10 - Sep 22nd, 2017 at 2:51pm
Print Post  
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.
  

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
svartkruttgris#369
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 2980
Location: Colorado, Norway, Sweden
Joined: Oct 28th, 2014
Re: .32/20 reduced load.
Reply #11 - Sep 22nd, 2017 at 7:06pm
Print Post  
No apparent difference in appreciation of 32-20 performance, just loads that have worked really well for me. Mine have been scoped single-shot hunting rifles for foxes, turkeys, javelina and similar sized critters at ranges of 40 to 130+ M with flat nosed bullets at 1400-1700 fps muzzle from full-case or nearly so loads, all one-shot kills, so far. 2-shot groups from cold barrel and solid rest are nearly always less than 2-3 cm from POA at these ranges. Actually, it is only 1st shot groups from cold barrel that count. Better than that I do not need nor can even use presently, thanks to failing eyes and loss of fine muscle control. More than 3-shot groups are waste of ammo for hunting rifles. Only once in 50 years of hunting with CF rifles have I needed a 2nd shot. These are not plinking rifles or "target" rifles.

For whatever it might be worth, a fellow shooter that is also fond of 32-20 rifles, but for MS rather than hunting, went through 10s of "pistol powder" loads to find one that was reliable for 100M MS target shooting (10-shot groups). He shoots nominally much better rifles than I use for hunting and is also a reloader with decades and decades of reloading experience.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
uscra112
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 4079
Location: Switzerland of Ohio
Joined: May 7th, 2007
Re: .32/20 reduced load.
Reply #12 - Sep 23rd, 2017 at 1:37am
Print Post  
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.
  

<div class=
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
George Babits
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 1151
Joined: Sep 27th, 2012
Re: .32/20 reduced load.
Reply #13 - Sep 23rd, 2017 at 9:53am
Print Post  
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
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
jy3855
Senior Forum Member
****
Offline



Posts: 368
Location: California
Joined: Jul 13th, 2015
Re: .32/20 reduced load.
Reply #14 - Sep 23rd, 2017 at 10:24am
Print Post  
There has been one suggestion of a lighter bullet - the Hornady HBWC. Let me make another suggestion - the Lee 311-93-1R mould intended for the 32 S&W. Power will be less at the same velocity and with a shorter bearing surface, easier to drive out of the barrel if you manage to stick one trying for the lowest speed possible. 

Hmmm... now that I've said that, I may have to try it myself, though not at very low speeds.

My 1970's era Lyman cast bullet manual gives starting loads for a 91 gr GC bullet (311419) in the mid 1,000s to high 1100s for various powders in a 24" Marlin rifle: Red Dot - 3.5 gr, Green Dot - 3.8, Unique - 4.5, 700X - 3.0. You might try working carefully back from these.

« Last Edit: Sep 23rd, 2017 at 10:31am by jy3855 »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 
Send TopicPrint