SAAMI max is 16,000 CUP.   I have a European database that lists it much higher.   I suspect the 16k is the "low" pressure limit for old revolvers.  I've looked at some of my old paper manuals, hoping for a pressure for the "High Speed" loading they used to sell for rifles, but no go.

uscra112 wrote on Dec 17^th, 2017 at 6:45am:


Phil,
Agree that the 16,000 CUP is the SAAMI MAX for the old WRA Model 1873 rifles, S&W M&P revolvers, etc.

The old Accurate Smokeless Powder Number One Loading Guide has a section on the 32-20 Winchester [HV-92] , which states:
     "These loads were developed in a pressure barrel and then fired through a Marlin 1894 rifle with a 22" barrel for velocity. The maximum loads listed below do not exceed the pressures produced in our test barrel by Winchester factory ammunition headstamped for use in the Model 92 lever action. If your firearm is not safe for use with these "HV-92" loads, use the data for the 32-20 handgun (not the Ruger / T/C data)."
     The pressures that Accurate shows for their various loadings in this 32-20 Winchester HV-92 section range between the values of 20,000 CUP to 23,800 CUP.
These higher pressures do reduce the usable life of the 32-20 cartridge case.

Barrabruce wrote on Dec 17^th, 2017 at 4:47am:


Consider the 30-30 Wesson.  (1880's round made with .357 Max brass)

As I search my memory (sometimes pretty iffy), I cannot recall hearing of anybody that had wildcatted the 'ol .32-20 into anything. Is it just because everybody was searching for a zillion-feet-per-second performance, or had they just passed it by because they viewed it as unworthy of changing?
Until a bunch of old farts looking to do something "different" near the turn of the last century it remained just a stogy old cartridge with a checkered reputation to begin with. I had one for a while, and tired of searching out new cases because of the  lousy life expectancy, and getting so-so performance at that. 
I never doubt that the performance of a sensible wildcat from this case might be good. But, the fact remains that it's just a piss-poor choice for that compared to lots of other options. Just my viewpoint. Loose the hounds..........

There are at least 3 makers of modern 32-20 brass. In my long experience WW 32-20 brass is thinnest and has shortest lifetime before splits cause cases to become trash. Starline 32-20 is most consistently best and I seldom lose cases, even at chamber pressures likely above 25.000 psi. Remington brass is what I use for serious, higher pressure load (25.000 psi and above) -- however, some batches of Remington 32-20 brass have "grooved necks" that greatly shorten the number of times they can be used.

With both 32-20 and 44-40 brass the more critical factor for safety is thickness of brass in head and first mms above rim. I have yet to have any failures of either "weak" brass near the rims, even with "high" chamber pressures in guns that lock up tightly and have little looseness (Ruger 44-40 and 32-20 revolvers (latter 30 Carbine chambered that have cylinder gap allowing use of rimmed brass)), newer Brazillian 1892s, and original Win LW 32-20s.

I have used Waters' method to pretty good advantage mostly with belted cases where the method is quite useful because of high pressure to begin with. It works on high pressure 'normal' cases too. Note that the measurements are taken from fired cases that are not overpressure in his method. Same chamber should be used for comparisons, of course.
With low pressure cases, such as a .32-40, I don't think you'd get anything worth noting (if yer not hotroddin' them). If you get a ring around one of those it's most likely bad brass no matter the pressure. Maybe case stretch or headspace, for examples.  But, I've got .32-40 cases that have been fired dozens of time without any change at all. Just my take on that

True, and because of that, the subsequent loads are no higher than the first (factory) load. In likelihood, anyway. 
I do like having a way to check that I'm still in safe territory, and Waters' method is to only one I have any faith in. I can't get uniform readings from things like primer shape- some high pressure ones stay ordinary looking while known modest loads may show flatter shaped. The case body tells a reliable tale, though, and I'm glad somebody besides me still thinks of it. Several places I've been involved in discussing that way have been with guys who disliked the it. I think they need better micrometers and better record keeping. It's not perfect, but it's cheap.