.32 Win Special Parent Cartridge?

"I suppose one could say that that the parent cartridge is 38-55 or 32-40..."

The true parent cartridge of the .30-30 isn't the .38-55, it's an even earlier cartridge, the .38-50, which was introduced in 1876.

The .38-50 was an "Everlast, which used much heavier case walls than later cases.

In 1884 the .38-50 case was lengthened, the case walls reduced to a more modern thickness, and named the .38-55.

The .32-40 was also introduced at the same time.

What most people don't know about the .38-55 and .32-40 is that they weren't Winchester developments.

The .38-50 Everlasting was developed by Charles Ballard for his rifles, while the .38-55 and .32-40 were actually introduced while Marlin was making most Ballard named firearms.

Winchester apparently didn't pick up the rounds until the 1890s, first in its Browning single shots, and then in the Model 1894.
 
Depends on how far back up the family tree you want to go.
The .32 Winchester Special is the .30-30 head and body with
the .32-40 bullet diameter. Sounds like parents to me.
Wouldn't that make the .38-55 the grandparent and the .38-50 Everlasting the great grandparent? (And not to be confused with the .38-50 Remington which is a different cartridge altogether.)
 
"Wouldn't that make the .38-55 the grandparent and the .38-50 Everlasting the great grandparent?"

Eh.... whatever. No need to assign a complicated family tree to it.


"Someone should correct wikipedia."

As to what?
 
My first hunting rifle was a .32 Win Special 94 carbine that is my Dad's, and I remember him telling me that it never caught on like the 30-30, but one advantage to it was that you could pack it full of black powder and use it, which was handy for the poorer folks in the early 20th century.

Not to hijack the thread, but since we are talking about the .32 Win Special, does anyone know if there is any validity to this. I've never researched or attempted it, but just remembered him telling me that 20 years ago...
 
Yes.
The .32 W.S. was sold factory loaded with smokeless, but the slower rifling twist inherited from the .32-40 let it work when reloaded with black.
It was some time before you could get consistent enough smokeless to reload with anyhow.

A gunzine writer tried it out. Results with fresh black powder were pretty dismal but he found an old old can of DuPont powder. Velocity was higher, accuracy was better, and fouling lower.
 
Wow Jim, that's pretty cool. I'm going to have to look that up. Its funny you mentioned DuPont, and I assume you're talking about the time period DuPont powder being used... This is a West Virginia gun that I'm referring to (meaning original sale in the 30's), and my family is from Morgantown WV. Dad got it from an old friend that he used to farm with...

I also know that DuPont had a plant down in Charleston, that my Great Uncle worked at, which could explain this type of rifle's existence in this area.

I'll let my Pops know about this, and heck, I might try loading a few black powder rounds and putting them through it just to mess with it. :)
 
It's been a little confusing to me: parent cartridge of 30-30 is 32-40, 30-30 is parent cartridge of 32 Special. Yet 32-40 and 32 Special are not the same except for length and rim diameter.

32 really is Special. It hits hard at typical forest and foothill distances.

Jack
 
"It's been a little confusing to me: parent cartridge of 30-30 is 32-40, 30-30 is parent cartridge of 32 Special. Yet 32-40 and 32 Special are not the same except for length and rim diameter."

It can be confusing when people start talking about parent/child cartridges.

Generally, a cartridge is considered "the parent" if the rim diameter and case head diameter are nominally the same, even if the case length and bullet are completely different.

That's why the 7mm Mauser is considered to be the parent of the .30-06, and the .30-06 is considered to be the parent of the .308.

In the case of the cartridges we're talking about -- .38-50, .38-55, .32-40, .30-30 Winchester, and .32 Winchester Special, all of them share the same rim diameter, .506, and the same head diameter at the web, .422.

Obviously Winchester's designers weren't looking back at the .38-50 Ballard every time they designed a new cartridge, but they were continuing that cartridge's dimensional legacy (by the time the .30-30 came on the scene the .38-50 was pretty much dead).




"Not to hijack the thread, but since we are talking about the .32 Win Special, does anyone know if there is any validity to this."

As Jim said, yes, it's true. Winchester slowed the twist from 1-12 of the .30-30 to 1-16 for the .32 Special. This allowed better stability with heavier cast bullets and also helped reduce BP fouling that is inherent in faster twist guns.

The .32 Special has always had a reputation of its accuracy going to hell when the barrel starts to wear. That seems to have been true when using BP and cast bullets, but not so much when using smokeless powder and jacketed bullets.
 
"Results with fresh black powder were pretty dismal."

I know a lot of people who have used both old and newly manufactured powder, and they say that today's black powder is a far cry in quality from black powder in its heyday.
 
That is really awesome that Winchester designed a smokeless cartridge that could be 'retro-fitted' to use black powder. I was also unaware that it has a 1:16 twist. I honestly just assumed it had a 1:12 just like a 30-30 and didn't think anything of it nor give it a second thought.

I will definitely attest to what Jack said in that at typical distances in the mountains (75-150 yds or so) it definitely knocks the dog snot out of its intended target. I've seen the wound channels it causes on 250-300 lb black bear and what it left (or didn't leave) of the opposite side shoulders of the deer I've harvested with it. It is a very handy little carbine.

Very good info on this thread. :cool:
 
I have heard the claim that Winchester designed the 32 Special to be reloaded with black powder in case of dire need. First off, the 1:16 twist was the same as the 32-40, so Winchester didn't need to have two barrel twists. They also did this with several other cartridges when they first offered them; the 22 Hornet had the same bullet diameter and twist as the 22LR, the 405 had the same twist as the 40-82, and I'm sure there are other cases of the same occurring. Second, you can reload just about any of the old tapered case smokeless powder cases with black and lead and get acceptable results. But the biggest reason I have issues with that explanation is that a Winchester 1894 in 32 Special cost $25 more than the 1894 in 32-40 (nickel steel barrel! Remember, it was Special!). So note, that is a difference of one $20 gold piece and 5 Liberty silver dollars at a time when a skilled craftsman made $40 a month. If you were planning on reloading with black powder, you would probably just opt for the 32-40 and use the $25 for powder and lead. Just my 2 cents worth.
 
"Correct wikipedia on the parent cartridge. It's claiming it was based off the 30-30."

Ah, gotcha.

Really, saying it's based on the .30-30 is as true as not.




"I have heard the claim that Winchester designed the 32 Special to be reloaded with black powder in case of dire need."

I've never heard that.

In fact, Winchester marketed the gun to those who wanted a gun more powerful than the .30-30 (with the larger diameter bullet), less powerful than the .30-40 Krag, but which could also be reloaded with either black or smokless powder (there's the reason for the nickel steel barrel and higher cost).

Remember, in 1902, when the .32 Special was introduced, smokless powder was still seen as a new thing that was decidedly NOT a sure thing.

This image of a period Winchester advertisement is crappy, because it's a ghost of one that was subsequently removed from the page where google grabbed the thumbnail, but you can just make out the rational for the cartridge.

https://www.google.com/search?q=.32...om%2Fviewtopic.php%3Ff%3D1%26t%3D5479;617;438


This image is taken from Cartridges of the World (I think), and references a 1916 Winchester catalog, and goes on to discuss what you're talking about....

https://www.google.com/search?q=.32...rum.com%2Fshowthread.php%3Ft%3D172909;800;783


Personally, I think the Winchester advertisement trumps the contention that the option of loading with black powder wasn't a consideration. If it wasn't, if Winchester hadn't been getting calls for a more powerful and more versatile cartridge, why did they bother saying it in their advertising?
 
Regarding the word "Special..."

There are only three cartridges ever introduced in the United States with Special as part of their name -- .38 Special, .44 Special (both S&W rounds), and the .32 Winchester Special.

All were introduced in the transitional phase between black and smokeless powder, all were advertised as being suitable for use with either powder, the .38 and .44 were both originally designed as blackpowder cartridges (the .44 was the last cartridge designed around black powder in the United States)...

The interesting commonality between the three, when there wasn't much, if any, connection between Winchester and Smith & Wesson, seems to have been the Union Metallic Cartridge Company.

There are indications that both S&W and Winchester worked with UMC to develop their cartridge lines at this time (UMC didn't become a part of Remington until 1912).

While there's no proof, it could be than the .32 Special and its ability to switch between black and smokless at the user's whim could have been more a creation of UMC than of Winchester.
 
a Winchester 1894 in 32 Special cost $25 more than the 1894 in 32-40
Click to expand...

That sounds very strange. I don't know what the introductory price of the .32 Special was, but in 1901 a .32-40 cost $11.55 ($12.50 with octagon barrel) and a .30 Winchester Smokeless was $14.75 at Sears & Roebuck.
 
While there's no proof, it could be than the .32 Special and its ability to switch between black and smokless at the user's whim could have been more a creation of UMC than of Winchester.
Click to expand...

It could be, but I had a 1907 Winchester catalog, where, in the colorful language of the day, it tells of the new .32 Special, and specifically warns that reloading the .32 Special with smokeless powder should not be attempted...only their experts could do that, but reloading it with black powder was ok for us to do...

(I no longer have that book, so I cannot give you a direct quote, a good friend has the book now, I can give you a direct quote later...also, I know I did do a direct quote from it, on this very subject some time ago,..a search might turn up the thread...)

I think it reasonable to consider the .30-30 the "parent case" of the .32 Special, since it is a few years older, and is the generation directly preceeding the .32 Special. .38-55 (.38-50) is the base case for that family, so its just a matter of your point of view.
 
There was actually a lot of that going on in the early days of smokeless powder. Some companies didn't want to sell reloading materials for smokeless powder, some didn't really want to sell any reloading materials at all...

There were all sorts of warnings about how dangerous smokeless powder could be for the reloader, and in a lot of ways they were right.

It was very difficult for people used to black powder to grasp that a much, much smaller amount of smokeless powder was a LOT more powerful and gave higher velocities.

There are verified accounts of people ignoring the warnings and using high-energy smokless powder, filling the case up to the top, seating a bullet, and blowing their gun (and possibly themselves) sky high.

The only difference between the dumbasses back then and the dumbasses now is that back then their friends would point and laugh and call them Stumpy, while today their friends would talk them into filing a multimillion dollar lawsuit for injury, pain, suffering, emotional distress, and creating an unsafe product.

It wasn't really until after the First World War that most manufacturers finally got on board with reloading.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top