Why no .32 rimfire anymore?

D

Dragline45

New member
With the popularity of .22lr for plinking why haven't they brought back the .32 rimfire? Even though it would be slightly more expensive than .22lr it would be nice to have a more powerful round available that can be bought extremely cheap and in bulk. .22lr's are plenty of fun but if my MKIII could shoot .32's for around the same price it would be freaking awesome!
 
The .32 Rimfire uses a heeled outside-lubricated bullet like .22LR, i.e. the diameter of the bullet is the same as the diameter of the case, and the base is undercut to fit into the case mouth.

This design has several drawbacks. The exposed bullet lubricant tends to pick up dirt, which can subsequently damage the bore. The bullet is vulnerable to being knocked out of the case by rough handling. The heeled shape has a lousy ballistic coefficient. The bullet has to be shoved through powder residue left by previously-fired rounds, which can lead to chambering problems after the gun is fired several times.

Finally, in larger calibers, the bearing surface of the bullet- the part that touches the rifling- is relatively small in proportion to the overall bullet mass compared to a conventional bullet. This tends to make such bullets relatively inaccurate. This is probably the primary reason why the various flavors of .32 Rimfire and .44 Rimfire are obsolete. The .22LR does not suffer from this problem nearly as badly as larger-caliber cartridges because it uses a relatively slender bullet.

Another interesting historical note is that Colt introduced several outside-lubricated centerfire cartridges around the end of the 19th century, but all of them are now historical footnotes, whereas similar contemporary inside-lubricated cartridges from other gunmakers are still with us (such as .38 Special and .32 S&W Long).
 
there is no need for it.

the .32 rimfire was never super popular on its own. it was small and handy with low recoil and the guns for it were small and handy to use.

The 32 smith and wesson eliminated it. and well the 38 smith and wesson based on the heeled 38 short colt replaced that..
 
Thats too bad, it would be nice to have some cheap plinking other than .22lr. Just another reminder I need to start reloading.
 
It probably wouldn't be all that cheap.

Just the metal alone is almost 2.5x that of .22 Rimfire. Add to that the cost of powder and lube, as well as machines and tooling to handle it. Even at 2.5x RF you are almost in the 9mm cost range.

Add to the fact that you cannot reload .32 Rimfire that I know of.

Plink with .38 or 9mm, then reload.

My cost to reload my .38 is around 13 cents per round. Could be cheaper but I do not cast my own bullets yet.
 
Guarantee the ammo makers that you will buy, say, 50 million rounds a year, and you be up to your boot tops in .32 RF.

Jim
 
And really it wouldn't be to hard to convert a .32 RF to a .32 CF. Then, as stated above, you could reload to keep costs down.
I doubt that I've saved one cent by reloading, I have however gotten to shoot way more times for the dollar.
 
Centerfire cartridges are much more reliable than rimfires are. There are several successful centerfire cartridges including .32 S&W, .32 Short Colt, .32 ACP, .32 S&W Long and .32 H&R Magnum that deliver equal or better ballistics than the .32 rimfire with the advantages of centerfire priming. As with many other rimfire cartridges like .41 and .44 rimfire, the .32 rimfire began to die as soon as successful centerfires with similar ballistics came about. The .22 rimfires have held on because there are no popular .22 centerfires with similar ballistics to them.
 
Centerfire cartridges are much more reliable than rimfires are. There are several successful centerfire cartridges including .32 S&W, .32 Short Colt, .32 ACP, .32 S&W Long and .32 H&R Magnum that deliver equal or better ballistics than the .32 rimfire with the advantages of centerfire priming. As with many other rimfire cartridges like .41 and .44 rimfire, the .32 rimfire began to die as soon as successful centerfires with similar ballistics came about. The .22 rimfires have held on because there are no popular .22 centerfires with similar ballistics to them.
Click to expand...

I'm aware centerfire rounds are superior in every way I was just wondering why there was no other cheap rimfire ammunition to go along with .22lr
 
"Another interesting historical note is that Colt introduced several outside-lubricated centerfire cartridges around the end of the 19th century"

Colt wasn't the only one. Smith & Wesson and other designers did, too. That was the prevailing design up until the early 1870s when the Russian Government instructed S&W that they wanted a bullet of a uniform diameter that would allow the grease grooves to be protected inside the case.

The .44 Russian is generally regarded as the first "modern" cartridge.

S&W's earlier centerfires, such as the .44 American, were outside lubricated cartridges.

By about 1880 virtually all new designs were inside lubricated, and many of the older designs, such as the .38 Long and Short Colt and the .41 Colt were simply converted to inside lubricated cartridges.

To make those smaller diameter bullets compatible with all of the older guns that were designed for the larger, outside lubricated bullets, the new bullets had a very large hollow base that would (hopefully) expand into the rifling upon firing.

Other cartridges, such as the .44 American, were simply allowed to go obsolete and were never converted to the new design.
 
"I was just wondering why there was no other cheap rimfire ammunition to go along with .22lr"

The problem is the ammo probably woudln't be very cheap compared to similar centerfire cartridges.

The .22 is cheap due to volume manufacture and sales. Literally billions of rounds of .22 are produced each year.

Other rimfire cartridges have appeared in recent years, such as the 5mm Remington and, perhaps the most successful of them all, the .22 Winchester Magnum, but they still don't sell in numbers that even remotely approach the .22 LR. The 5mm was even discontinued for many years due to poor sales.

I suspect that larger caliber rimfires would be even more tightly confined to niche status.

The various .17 rimfires have seen a fair amount of success, but even so they're still lagging far being the almost universal acceptance of the .22 LR.
 
A 5MM Remington aficionado told me there were problems with that cartridge-erratic ignition and pressure problems due to problems getting the correct amount of primer in the rim. Plus the 32 is not that popular in this country.
 
A 5MM Remington aficionado told me there were problems with that cartridge-erratic ignition and pressure problems due to problems getting the correct amount of primer in the rim. Plus the 32 is not that popular in this country.
Click to expand...

That may be true of a particular load that was being (re)developed when Centurion (Aguila) brought 5mm Rem Mag ammunition back to the market, a few years ago. But... 5mm Rem Mag doesn't have any more 'inherent' problems, than any other rimfire. If a company can't produce a good .22 WMR rimfire hull, they can't produce a good 5mm Mag rimfire hull. The basic technique doesn't change.


What is far more likely, is that the shooters were dealing with rifles that had been modified, or improperly cared for. Many, Remington 592s were converted to 5mm Centerfire, so they could still be used, with no 5mm Mag ammo available. Being re-converted back to 5mm Rem Mag (when Aguila released the Centurion product) may have resulted in damage or misalignment of the firing pin.

And, then, of course, you have thousands of rifles that sat, unused, in the corner of their owners' closets. Letting a rifle sit for 40+ years often results in poor performance, when it finally gets used again. Springs that have lost power, lubricants that have solidified, dust in the workings... these are all likely culprits, that could cause light strikes and "erratic ignition".
 
Last edited:
Even though it would be slightly more expensive than .22lr it would be nice to have a more powerful round available that can be bought extremely cheap and in bulk.
Click to expand...
What makes a cartridge cheap? Amount of material used? No. If that were the case, 243 ammo would be cheaper than 308.

One of the costs of ammunition is setup/changeover time of the multi-million dollar equipment used to produce ammunition in high-volume manufacturing sites. 22LR is cheap because of the volume manufactured. The equipment runs pretty much around the clock, which makes it cheaper to run than short run, stop and start products. 22 Short used to be cheaper than 22 LR because it uses less materials and there was sufficient volume to keep prices low, but 22 Short is getting expensive since volume is now so low. Last box I saw was about $5.

One of the most successful gun product launches of the last 50 years was the 17 HMR. Manufacturers made rifles for it, ammo manufacturers made ammunition for it, and it was all well coordinated (which you would expect, since the 3 main participants were Hornady, Marlin, and Ruger, an ammo maker and two gun makers), so they had immediate volume. Remington could have had a similarly successful product launch 43 years ago when they launched the 5mm Remington Rimfire Magnum, but they flubbed it.

And to answer the hidden question or assumption in your question, 32 RF would not be more powerful, due to the concerns about the fitness of older firearms (see 7X57, 8X57 threads).

So, why would anyone bring back a product that has been obsolete for 20+ years, incur all the product development costs, buy new equipment,develop new firearms (all this in the middle of a recession), and incur all the liability costs of some dufus sticking one into an old BP 32 RF gun and blowing up his hand?
 
TANSTAAFL.

Even though it would be slightly more expensive than .22lr it would be nice to have a more powerful round available that can be bought extremely cheap and in bulk.
Click to expand...

How much cheaper would you want it? Nothing is free, especially performance........ and copper, and lead.......

Part of the reason .22lr is so cheap is the economy of scale- a .32 rimfire would be a micro-niche cartridge, and thus much more expensive..... compounded by the fact that it takes more material (lead and brass).....


Q: What would a .32 rimfire do that a current .32 centerfire already does not, only cheaper and better?

A: Nothing, unless you count collectibility or unreliability as features.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top