Smith And Wesson Forums banner
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,310 Posts
Congratulations!
In it's day, the .32-20 was a pretty hot cartridge but no current reloading manuals reflect that now. I have an old Hodgdon reloading manual that lists 1700 fps loads but no other manual comes even close to that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,385 Posts
Congratulations!
In it's day, the .32-20 was a pretty hot cartridge but no current reloading manuals reflect that now. I have an old Hodgdon reloading manual that lists 1700 fps loads but no other manual comes even close to that.
That's the rifle loading. Don't put that into a revolver 😮
 
  • Like
Reactions: jeepnut

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,385 Posts
CP1961 - a huge difference in strength between this S&W and that Ruger Blackhawk.
Yep. Buffalo Bore warns their high power loads are for Ruger only- and that's for new guns.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,310 Posts
CP1961 - a huge difference in strength between this S&W and that Ruger Blackhawk.
I never said there wasn't.

What I said was that there were once published loads for the .32-20 that were far hotter than you can buy today or find reloading data that matches those velocities. The load I mentioned can be found in Hodgdon #26 and there is no disclaimer that the load was to be used only in Ruger Blackhawks. The .32-20 cartridge has been reduced in pressure substantially by SAMMI. to the point that it's now about the same power level as a .32 H&R Mag, if that.

Don't get me wrong--I would not personally shoot that 1700 fps load in any .32-20 of mine an am not suggesting that anyone else do so. All I'm saying is that the .32-20 used to be a much higher velocity cartridge than it is today.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
116 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
cp1969: I wasn’t trying to put words in your mouth or start an argument on .32-20 loads; I didn’t know anything about the round until I bought the gun and read about it. Sorry if my post offended you - not my intention at all.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top