30-30 vs. 32 Winchester Special

Why would Winchester not want to sell as many rifles or as much ammunition as they could to a hunting public that would know the reasons behind a larger bullet.

Many years ago, I went hunting with an older fellow that carried a .32 Special, he got his deer opening day, while we sat there talking about it, we could hear lots of what he said were 30-30 rounds going off, then the deeper sound of a .32 Special. "Hear that, when you hear the .32 Special go off, it's a one-shot hunt. Those 30-30 boys will be blazing away all season."
 
No way is an increase of bullet diameter by (+.020") going to be noticed by anything, unless your aim was off by more than .010".;)
 
When you are talking about limits on velocity, such as black powder shooters are accustomed to, the mass of the bullet and its diameter are the only two things you can vary. To the minds of the 19th century riflemen, who were still shooting black powder well into the 1920s, 32 bore was a "small bore". Heck, the breach loader was newfangled to them. Smokeless powder? Pshaw! Only a passing fad. Just didn't make sense that a 30 bore could be effective against game animals.

Many serious target shooters of the late 1870s through 1890's preferred muzzle loaders in a 40 bore, and many of the target shooters using breach loading Ballards, Winchesters, Stevens, etc., still loaded their bullets down the tube from the muzzle. You would have a hard time convincing them that the 30 bore was better than, let alone as good as, the 32 bore.

Even so, the turn of the century 6mmPPC cartridge was the 32-40. You wanted to win a shooting match, you shot a 32-40. It was the accurate round to beat. The reputation for accuracy of the 32 bore had been around for several years at the time of the introduction of the 30 WCF. 30 bore didn't have that cachet.

Same holds true today. Tell a WW2 infantry veteran that the 223 round is better than the 30-06 and see his reaction. No matter the statistics, ballistics, and logistics, I warrant you will have a hard time convincing that old dude.

Sometimes you gotta look at the world through the eyes of old, hidebound, traditionalists. ;) They spend money too! --If you are selling rifles, you might do well to sell them what they want.

The phenomenon of hydrostatic shock even today sounds like hoo doo, when you consider the effect of a 45-70, a nice big fat heavy bullet with great momentum does have its merits in the arena of terminal performance. --You don't see professional guides in bear or buffalo or lion country carrying a 4000 fps 204 Ruger, now do you?

For the mindset of the time, going smaller than a 32 bore just didn't make sense to a lot of the old timers who fought in such places as Shiloh, with 58 caliber Minie balls, and for some I'm sure it was a bit of a stretch to accept a breach loading repeater.

Given the choice, I would probably choose the 32 over the 30. But then I guess I'm a hidebound traditionalist.
 
Last edited:
Many serious target shooters of the late 1870s through 1890's preferred muzzle loaders in a 40 bore, and many of the target shooters using breach loading Ballards, Winchesters, Stevens, etc., still loaded their bullets down the tube from the muzzle. You would have a hard time convincing them that the 30 bore was better than, let alone as good as, the 32 bore.
Click to expand...

LOL, that's not even close to the truth. Pope used 30 calibers 33-40 was one of his personal chamberings. He also shot a 38-72. Niedner was using calibers in the 20's, 25 Highpower, 22 Highpower, 28-30 necked to 23, that's just to name a few. Another thing, when you breach seat you don't do do it from the muzzle end, you use a special tool and push it into the lands from the breach side then load your cartridge. Those sharpshooters of way back often times would silver solder their barrels onto the receiver to even get more accuracy.

Pope, Neider and Mann all used smaller calibers and virtually none of them were muzzle loaders.
 
Last edited:
I'm not so sure. The 30-40 Krag used by the army had to have had some influence in favor of 30 caliber. And then came the 30-06.

I think the 32 WS was the better choice for the reloading hunter prior to quality commercially available smokeless powder. And by the way it's a bigger caliber too.

It's probably safer to reload with black powder, right? Especialy back in those days. More forgiving, less chance of extra powder causing a blow up.
 
SquirrelMan, Most people are correct. It is an obsolete cartridge. I recently talked to someone that traded one off because a box of .32 special ammo cost $48. I still pick up 30-30 for around $16 a box. Maybe in a grocery store in Maine or West Virginia you can still find it at a reasonable price.
The majority of the people on this forum reload and really don't notice the prices of box ammo. I have a couple .250 Savages, and I would have to say they are obsolete also, judging by the cost of box ammo(If you can find it).
 
You have confirmed my statement. Most people think 32 Special is obsolete.

Sportsmans Guide has Hornady 32 Special right now for $20.70/box - all you can afford.

300 Savage is really high, but there are a whole lot of 32 Specials still out there.
 
On ammoseek there are many sources of 32 spl. But none of them are cheap.

So you have to pay $1 a pop instead of 75¢ a pop for factory ammo. And you can't just stop off at Walmart and pick up a box of shells, sporting goods, and some groceries while you're at it on the way to the deer lease.

But if you stumble onto a bargain price 32 spl. it just might be worth it.

It might be fun to reload with black powder.
 
I would have to guess Sportsman guide came across a big closeout dumping of .32 special and cannot get rid of it. I bet there are a heck of a lot more .300 Savages out there (And still being used) than there are .32 specials. Why would .300 Savage cost more?
 
I read somewhere 32 special was in the top ten most popular cartridges well into the 1960s.

Those rifles are mostly all still out there quietly putting meat in the freezer for someone. Handed down by a father or uncle.
 
I would welcome a nice old 94, 36, 336 in 32spl. I've hand loaded for a long time and there are enough components out there to keep one shooting.
 
I would really like to know where you read that. Even Frank Barnes wrote that it was one of the more useless cartridges out there.
 
So…. about .015 larger in diameter
within 100 fps of a 30WCF
only factory loads are 170gr these days and right at the .30WCF velocity.

Looks to me like all y'all have got a bit of a fetish worship thing goin' on.

Think I'll stick with my useless ol' 30WCF.
 
I happen to have three hundred year old .32 Winchester Model 94s in my gun locker. Obsolete yes but then so is the Model 94 so it really does not to me as I ride and drive obsolete vehicles every day. When you have skill obsolete works just fine when you reload em yourself.
 
If one of you guys will throw a bit more coal in the pot-belly stove, and open up another barrel of crackers, we ought to get this one settled before New Years and welcome in 1905 with an agreement.

Jim
 
I have found this to be an interesting subject, especially when I learned something new. I found post #16, by Wyosmith to be most interesting. The 30-30 is a decent cast bullet shooter. But with deeper rifling, the 32 Special might be even better with cast bullets.
 
Why would someone think "it was one of the more useless cartridges out there"? Almost a twin to the 30-30, unless you don't handload and go through large amounts of ammo you have a very useful brush gun.
 
"I would really like to know where you read that. Even Frank Barnes wrote that it was one of the more useless cartridges out there."

You sure you're not thinking of the .32 WSL, the round that was the origin of the .30 Carbine.

Barnes did call the .32 WSL one of the most useless rounds around, but I don't recall him ever saying/writing anything like that about the .32 Special.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top