32 Winchester Special vs 30-30 Winchester

"I believe the switch from nickel-steel barrels to the later barrels was quite a bit earlier, though I'm not sure when."

As it began to investigate the new smokeless powder for the .30-30 and .25-35 cartridges to be chambered in the newly designed Model 1894 rifle, Winchester ran into two problems that caused the rounds to be held back until 1895...

1. Powder. Smokeless powder technology was still in its infancy, and it was still giving American manufacturers fits. It was hard to manufacture consistently, many batches began to decompose almost as soon as they were made and had to be discarded, and the US military was taking almost all suitable powder from commercial manufacturers (primarily Lafflin & Rand at this time) for use in the .30-40 Krag.

2. Barrel steel. The new hot burning smokeless powders required harder nickel steels. Not only were those steels more durable, they were a lot harder to machine, which resulted in Winchester having to update a lot of its equipment and its manufacturing techniques.

The end result was that when the Model 1894 hit shelves, it did so with the older, softer steel barrels and in the blackpowder .32-40 and .38-55 cartridges.

It wasn't until late 1895 that Winchester could manufacture market quantities of nickel steel barrels and that smokeless powder was available in quantities sufficient to support commercial sales of .30-30 and .25-35.


Additional note on early smokeless powder.

After the US Navy and Marine Corps dropped the 6mm Lee Navy in the early 1900s there were millions of rounds of original ammunition left over.

After some years in storage, Bannerman's of New York bought the rifles and ammunition.

It was found that, due to issues with the original powder, the vast majority of the ammo was unusable due to the cases being badly damaged or destroyed by the acid released as the powder broke down.

Apparently all of the ammunition was considered to be a loss and it was destroyed, apparently by dumping it into the Hudson River off Bannerman's Island.
 
In Renneberg's Winchester Model 94 A Century of Craftsmanship he states, "After approximately 1933" the stronger "Winchester Proof Steel" barrels were made and continue to be made of this steel "to end of production."
 
Proof Steel was Winchester's term for chromium-molybdenum alloy steel, which had been developed in either the late 1920s or early 1930s and which was very quickly adopted by the firearms industry (and which remains the basic standard today).

The new chromoly steels were stronger than the old nickle steel, were apparently easier to work, and were also cheaper.
 
"The bad part of this is that when there gets to be some very moderate wear in the barrel the accuracy gets very bad."
Click to expand...

This often quoted bit of 32 Special "lore or myth" comes from Frank Barnes otherwise great book "Cartridges of the World" where he claimed a 32 Special with a worn barrel becomes "hopelessly inaccurate" to the point where it "won't hit a flock of barns."

However, in Clay Harvey's also excellent book "Popular Sporting Rifle Cartridges," he counters this claim with an excerpt from Ken Waters who had an early model 1894 with a rough and well worn bore but nevertheless would shoot 2.75 in 5 shot, 100 yard groups and 3.75 inch 15 shot groups, all with a peep sight.

Now, I've never really seen the point in debating what a rifle with a rough and worn out bore will or won't do but I do think it's worth mentioning that this piece of the 32 Special myth might be just that, a myth.

I have had rifles with dark, rough and worn barrels shoot surprisingly well (1898 Turkish mauser, 2 inch 100 yard groups) and some (2 grove, 1917 US Enfield) that wouldn't hit a large coffee can at 20 yards. I've never had a worn out 32 Special so I can't comment.
 
Here is what I was taught about the 30-30 and 32 Special.
I believe it is accurate info.

When Winchester came up with the 30 WCF (later called the 30-30) it was a barrel made with a .302 bore and grooves .003 deep which made the groove to groove diameter .308. .003 deep grooves will hold and give good results with jacketed bullets but not the softer lead bullet. There was demand for a cartridge that could be used well with Black powder and lead bullets. So Winchester cut the same barrel blanks with deeper rifling, grooves cut about 3 times deeper. If you take the .302 bore and cut grooves in it at .0095 deep you come up with the .321 groove to groove. That gave a much better bite of the bore to a lead bullet and gave deeper grooves that would not pack with black powder fouling as fast as the shallow grooves in the 30-30.

In my gunsmithing of 75 to 100 year old 32 special rifles, I have slugged the bores and found these measurements to be spot on, so I believe the info to be accurate.

We now shoot hardened lead and gas checks in the 30-30 and with the correct lube and hard bullets I have seen good accuracy from them even with black powder, but they are not as easy to get accuracy from with black powder loads as the old 32 specials. That what I have been told and my experience bears this out too.


As a side note I am told that the "newer" 32 specials made in the 1960s did not use the same barrel blanks as the 30-30s, having larger bores so the grooves on the late 32 specials are not as deep as those made in the first 40 years of production. That is not something I have been able to verify, but it may be so. Maybe someone reading this can give us bore and groove measurements from a late period 32 spl, but I am only relaying what I was told here.

By the mid 50s it seems lead bullet/black powder loads were no longer popular and the 32 specials were thought to be used only with smokeless and jacketed bullets just like the 30-30, so the old .302" bore blanks were not used on the 32s anymore. Something about .309 was used for late production guns with grooves of only about .003 to 004 deep. Can someone out there verify this for us?
 
I haven't slugged any old barrels, but the difference in groove depth mentioned above would surprise me. Ive not heard of the 30-30 or any other US 30 cal being other than .300" bore, .308" groove (or that's the target, if not the actual end result). The SAMMI specs show the figures mentioned as well. Its interesting to note that the SAMMI specs on the 32 spl show the rifling depth as about 2 1/2 thou, versus the 4 thou depth of the 30-30. The stories of worn 32 spl bores not shooting as well aren't too hard to understand in that light.

I don't recall the figures on the 32 spl, but looking it up and doing that math comes up with those figures for rifling depth on the 32.

I certainly wouldn't fault anyone for wanting a 32 spl, just for the unique factor if nothing else. Yes, its not a big expense to load ammo, though when I decided I wanted some more 30-30 loads around, once I started pricing brass and all the other components, it was about the same money to buy loaded ammo at walmart ($13-$15 something/box). Other than surplus, that was the first factory rifle ammo Ive bought in maybe 30 years. That is one actual advantage of the 30, ammo is relatively cheap, and easy to find. Even if one reloads, that can mean something.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Wyosmith, for your excellent post. Hopefully, someone will slug some more bores and post their findings to fill in some of the remaining blank spots. All the hear-say is good for what it's good for, but more of the real measured numbers will gain us better understanding on this topic. Old 32 Specials vs later production versions is a valid concern. Obviously, we are mainly viewing this subject with a primary focus on the Winchester rifles and carbines; but in our peripheral vision, in would be good to know how Marlin and others handled the bore and groove dimensions. The 32 Winchester Special continues to be something of an enigma. On the one hand, it appears to be a redundant and unnecessary duplicate of the 30-30 with no real advantage and perhaps some failings. But on the other hand, the similarity between the two may be more superficial than we realize, and the 32 Special could have some distinct advantages for certain purposes. Like perhaps catering to a niche market of backwoods-type fellows that want to cast their own bullets and reload.
Hopefully this thread will keep going long enough to unravel more of the mysteries of the 32 Winchester Special.
 
Just my experience. The Marlin 336 30-30 I had with a 4x scope would give my 1.5" 5 shot groups at 100 (1" 3 shots) with jacketed bullets, but would only give me 4-5" groups with either of the two cast bullets I made with Lyman molds (these same bullets will shoot MOA from my 03-A3).

My Win M94AE 32 WS with a Lyman tang sight shoots both jacketed and lead very well. Around 2 to 2.5"
 
Last edited:
I said this in post 20, and I'll say it again...

""The bad part of this is that when there gets to be some very moderate wear in the barrel the accuracy gets very bad."

Sort of true.

In my experience accuracy degrades quickly if you're trying to shoot cast bullets with blackpowder out of a worn bore.

If your bore is worn, there's generally little to no effect on accuracy with jacketed bullets and smokeless powder."

My guess is that Barnes' information was based on people doing the same thing I did -- soft lead bullets, black powder, and a .32 Special with a worn bore.
 
Pathfinder45: RE 336 micro groove

Correct! I knew about the poor accuracy with lead, but wanted to check it out myself.
 
Well, Mike1, I don't know from first hand experience, but I read that Micro-groove can be made to shoot cast bullets pretty well, but you have to get the alloy/hardness just right, so it has a reputation for being finicky about it. I know from first hand experience that it works darn well with the 22LR rimfire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top