30-30 vs. 32 Winchester Special

Even more interesting...

I'm finding indications that Lightning wasn't introduced until 1899. Which means that it could not have been the original powder for the .30-30 and .25-35.

But, Lightning was one of the first truly successful commercial smokeless powders. Many earlier attempts were quickly phased out as the chemistry and manufacturing became better understood.
 
Found this article online about the 25-35 Winchester.
http://www.rifleshootermag.com/ammo/ammunition_2335am_100307/
The author mentions that Marlin chambered a similar cartridge and called it the 25-36. So then when Googled the 25-36 Marlin there were threads on the Marlin Owners Forum and one of them had this:
It is illustrated in the 1897 Marlin catalog as the 25-36-117 Marlin
Smokeless - 117 gr. / 2,000 fps
Black Powder - 117 gr. / 1,450 fps (36 grs of FG)
Click to expand...

http://www.marlinowners.com/forum/3...rd-calibers/80689-marlin-25-36-questions.html

So maybe, just maybe, the case capacity for the 25-35 was considered to be 35 grains of FG. That might explain that designation.

Thanks for the research, guys. Interesting stuff coming up about a sweet little cartridge---25-35. Too bad is so obscure.
 
Last edited:
Okay Lads, I knew I had kept my 1937 copy of Philip B Sharpe's reloading guide on hand for more than enjoyable reading……. However…….. No joy on solving the "35" question.

Highest weight charge listed is 32 grains of 4320 behind a 87 grain Lead HP. for 2730fps out of a 26" Bbl.

in the classic 117 grain SP, 4320 is still the heaviest charge listed at 28 grains for 2295fps.

So the "35" remains elusive

I believe the "36gr FG" wins the cupie doll
 
Last edited:
The smokeless powder of the early days didn't play fair with the traditional double number system that had developed for black powder rounds.

I think it is entirely possible that the second 30 in 30-30 and the 35 in 25-35 had nothing to do with the actual powder charge they were loaded with, but were catchy, even rhyming numbers, easy to remember, and familiar in style from the black powder days.

The public was simply allowed, possibly even encouraged to assume the second number was the powder charge weight, like it was in black powder loadings, but I don't recall any factory information specifically stating it was...

After all, a .25-32.7 or a .30-28 simply doesn't sound as good as a .25-35 or a .30-30. :D
 
This wouldn't be the first time the cartridge name was not entirely representative of an actual specification. 270 sounds more catchy than 277 to most, 221 Fireball,222 Rem,223 Rem,225 Win..... etc.
 
There is a nice 32spl Win1894 with original box from the 1940s at the Buda Cabelas.

I bought a cherry 94 30-30 (30WCF). I want something I can find ammo and shoot. They had another nice one with a flat band I debated buying instead but had less finish and not as nice wood.
 
“If there is such a thing as a most useless cartridge, the .32 Spl. would certainly cop the prize.”


Frank C. Barnes 1918-1992 Author of Cartridges of the World
My 9th edition 2000, has that edited out.

I am trying to find the joke I remember from an earlier edition where he compares the 30-30 and 32sp and describes those who can find a difference.

I just ordered the 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th, and 8th editions from Ebay.
I will see if I can find it.
 
As far as differences between the 30WCF and the 32 Winchester Special, about .013" is about it. The 32 Winchester Special was brought out to supplant the older black powder 32-40, and the "special" part of the cartridge was that rifles chambered for it were more expensive (or vice versa). Shooters of that era correlated bullet diameter with energy (as we also do nowadays, to a certain extent). Bottlenecked cases do indeed offer more power in a more compact format. Copper jacketed bullets allow higher velocity than plain lead bullets. So it made sense that a new smokeless, bottlenecked, copper jacketed 32 was indeed "special" when compared to the 30 WCF or the older lead bullet, tapered case, black powder 32-40.
“If there is such a thing as a most useless cartridge, the .32 Spl. would certainly cop the prize.”
Click to expand...
Clark, I believe Frank Barnes said that about the 32 WSL, precursor to the 30 Carbine.
 
Great article! It jives with my own experience that 8 mm hits harder than .30-06 shooting watermelons.

I think .32 Special would be better (than 30-30) for game larger than deer which means nothing to the majority of deer (only) hunters but maybe to some deer hunters in some locales who might have an off chance at something bigger. And if you are specifically hunting something bigger than deer such as moose, elk, or black bear you probably want something more powerful yet than 32 Special. So it suffered from being squeezed into obsolescence by market forces both at the top and bottom.

But nowadays in many places we have feral hogs coming into play that didn't exist in prior decades. Perhaps that bargain basement 32 Special's extra oomph would pop a pig with a little more authority than the more popular 30-30.
 
Last edited:
The 32 Winchester Special was brought out to supplant the older black powder 32-40, and the "special" part of the cartridge was that rifles chambered for it were more expensive (or vice versa).
Click to expand...

That was discussed here some time ago. I did some looking in contemporary catalogs, and that is apparently not the case.

This is a later advert from one of the big sporting goods houses of the time:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1928-ADVERT...eating-1890-1903-1895-1894-1892-/311116071599

I can't find the earlier one I referenced, but it was pre WW I, and the prices were the same.


Only three cartridges in the US ever took the name "Special," the .32 WCF, the .38 S&W Special, and the .44 S&W Special.

All were designed and introduced at roughly the same time, around 1900, and all had one thing in common...

They were either available from the factory in both smokeless and black powder loadings, or they could be hand loaded with either black or smokeless.

The .38 Special was initially developed with black powder and was only adapted to smokless as it was being introduced, and the .44 Special was the last cartridge to ever be developed/introduced as a black powder round.
 
Clark, I believe Frank Barnes said that about the 32 WSL, precursor to the 30 Carbine.
Click to expand...


He did, as well as the .35 WSL.

I'll never stop believing that the military would have been far better served by using the .351 WSL cartridge as the basis for the carbine round.
 
Oh, and in case anyone is wondering if Winchester truly did introduce the .32 as a round that could be reloaded with black powder because the old fuddy duddies who didn't think smokeless was going to last?

Take as look at this Winchester advertisement from probably the 1905 time frame...

WIN-ad4049a.jpg
 
That is a cool add Mike and really sums up it's reason for it's introduction. My cousin and I were shooting his Canadian Centennial 94 when I found a 32WinSpl in the box. Good for me as I didn't have one in my collection yet, good for him I caught it.
 
http://www.leverguns.com/articles/3030history.htm

This sheds light on the earlier discussion as to what the second 30 in 30-30 refers to.

Over the past 8 years or so, I had located a number of old .30 W.C.F. headstamped rounds at cartridge collector shows. I dissected a number of them and found several rounds that contained 30 grs. +- .5 grs. of a stick type powder which was somewhat translucent in color. Winchester lab. records from 1895 indicate that 30 grs. of DuPont .30 Caliber Smokeless Powder was used in the early loadings.
Click to expand...

Also of note is the variety of loads available back in the day. One of which really piques my interest, a factory round specifically designed for small game; of particular importance to depression era farming families who could only afford 1 gun that had to handle everything from moose down to rabbits, squirrels, turkeys, and other critters for meat that you don't necessarily want to be blowing up with the family deer rifle.
 
Last edited:
KCub, interesting article. He's the first person I ever heard of who actually pulled early cartridges to weigh the charges. So, it was a 30-gr. charge of smokeless.

Interesting that apparently the first rounds were loaded with Du Pont powder, too. Du Pont had a LOT of trouble getting the manufacturing process down for smokeless powder.

Also, I've deleted the bulk of your quote of that article. It's copyrighted material, and we have a policy regarding that at TFL: http://thefiringline.com/forums/announcement.php?a=94
 
Here is another tidbit, I used to have a 1907 Winchester catalogue (now residing with a friend, so I can't see it right now)

In the ads for the .32 Special, not only does it state that it is good for loading with black powder, it also states that loading with smokeless powder should not be attempted by ordinary folks, and only their experts (factory) could do it safely.

Now, this may seem like advertising BS, typical of the era, but there WAS a grain of truth to it, at the time. Smokeless powders didn't reach the safe, stable levels we take for granted until some years later.

In those early days, the reloader could never be sure that the next can of smokeless powder was going to behave like the last one, despite having the same name on it. Black powder had a long history of being "stable" from lot to lot and batch to batch, something smokeless of the era did not.

Eventually the recommendation not to handload with smokeless was dropped from the catalogues, the language of "larger caliber than .30 Winchester but not so powerful as the .30 Army, which could be loaded with black powder" was retained for some time.

Note the careful phrasing and what it does, and does not say.
 
I've said that before, 44, nitro smokeless was a new, not fully understood, and not fully mature technology.

The first smokeless powders were being released to consumers, powders like Unique and Bullseye, but it's unclear if those were canister powders or if there was loading information developed for each batch.

Some of the companies also wanted to sell ammunition, which was more profitable than selling components.

Oh boy... I just found that Google has digitized Munsey's Magazine!

I'm going hunting Winchester ads!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top