1906: 32-40 vs. 30-30

[saw whet owl]

I found the following article in a Google book review of Recreation magazine, Volume 25 (edited by George O. Shields).

In the article, which originally appeared in Recreation in 1906, the author (a Mr. FJ De La Fleur) explains why the 32-40 rifle is marginally more powerful than the 30 WCF, and backs his argument up with published ballistic data of the day!

I love 32-40's and 32 Winchester Specials, so I enjoyed the article, which appears below, and thought many of you might as well.

Much Confusion

There seems to be some very different ideas as to the relative powers of 30-30 and 32-40 high power rifles by recent articles that have appeared in Recreation. This confusion has evidently resulted from the titling of the various 32-40 smokeless powder cartridges.
On page 82 of Catalogue No 72, issued by the Winchester Repeating Arms in October 1905, I find the following: 30 WCF, weight of bullet 170 grains, velocity 50 feet from muzzle 1,960 feet per second, energy 50 feet from muzzle 1,449 foot pounds and then follows the figures for penetration trajectory etc. On the same page in this catalogue, lower in the same column, we find also the following: 32 WHV, weight of bullet 165 grains, velocity 50 feet from muzzle 1,700 feet per second, energy 50 feet from muzzle 1,058 foot pounds, and then giving penetration, trajectory, etc. From the above figures there should be no doubt that the 30 30 cartridge, as here described, is more powerful than the 32 40 cartridge described on the same page of the Winchester Catalogue. But can this 32-40 truly be called a high power cartridge? We think not. At least, it is not the cartridge which the users of the 32-40 have in mind when they speak of the power of that rifle.

On a further examination of the figures given for the various cartridges we notice that the 32-40, described above, is the only 32-40 cartridge loaded with smokeless powder mentioned in the Winchester catalogue, while in the Marlin and Savage catalogues, which we also have before us, there are mentioned two cartridges loaded with smokeless powder besides the short range cartridges. These two smokeless powder cartridges mentioned and described in the Marlin and Savage catalogues are distinguished as Smokeless and High Power Smokeless. From this distinction we may conclude that there is a difference in the power of the smokeless powders used in these various cartridges, which is just the case. Going a step further, we learn that the Winchester Company does not manufacture a 32-40 rifle with anything but the soft steel barrel used for black powder or low power smokeless powder, unless the smokeless barrel is specially ordered, and then at an extra cost, making the price of this 32-40 not only higher than the same rifle with the soft barrel but more expensive than the grade of gun which this company places on the market with the smokeless steel barrel. The 32-40 cartridge with high power smokeless powder can be safely used in the Marlin model of 1893 and the Savage model of 1899, but cannot be safely used in the 32-40 Winchester as that arm is found on the market today. If one desires to use such a cartridge in the 32-40 Winchester, then one must not forget to order the nickel steel barrel, and in addition stipulate that the gun be sighted for this high power cartridge - then he will be politely reminded of the additional cost.

The 32 40 cartridge described as the WHV 32-40, for which the ballistic data is given in the Winchester catalogue, is a cartridge made for the Winchester 32-40 rifle as that arm is found on the market. And as that arm is offered with a soft steel barrel made for the use of black powder, this WHV 32-40 cartridge made by the Winchester Company and described in that catalogue, is in reality a low power smokeless powder cartridge, as such would only be safe to use in such an arm. Any 32-40 in which only this Winchester so-called "high velocity" ammunition can be used is, without doubt, an arm of less power than the 30-30. But it must be remembered that it is the cartridge, not the rifle, which gives the power, all other things being equal. The true high power 32-40 smokeless cartridge, according to the UMC figures, gives an average muzzle velocity of 2,065 feet per second, with an energy of 1,558 foot pounds. The figures given in the Savage catalogue are somewhat lower than those of the UMC Company, but even with the Savage ammunition the 32-40 high power cartridge gives both greater velocity and energy than the Savage 30-30.

I have been recently told by two persons connected with the Savage Arms Company, whose connection with that company places them in a position to know, that the high power 32-40 cartridge shows by their tests a greater velocity than the Savage 303, the gun on which this company has built its reputation; though the figures given in the Savage catalogue do not disclose that fact. The Marlin figures are practically the same as those of the UMC Company.

Thus, taking the figures for the 30-30 from the Winchester Catalogue, which are the most favorable given for that caliber, and comparing them with the Marlin and UMC Company's figures for the 32-40 high power, we must conclude that the 32-40 high power is more powerful than the 30-30. We leave out of consideration the 32-40 WHV because, as we have above stated, that cartridge is in reality a low power cartridge made to be used in the soft steel barrel of the Winchester 32-40 rifle.

From the foregoing statements it must not be inferred that the writer does not consider the 30-30 cartridge an excellent one and the arm of that caliber an excellent arm, for such an inference would be incorrect; but as there seems to be considerable misunderstanding regarding the power of the 32-40 high power cartridge and the arm provided with a barrel strong enough to take such cartridge, also of the relative power of the 30-30 the above facts and figures are given.

FJ De La Fleur
Utica NY
From Google Book review of : Recreation, Volume 25, edited by George O. Shields

[Carlsen Highway]

That is very interesting. I imagine there was still a good deal of debate at that time over relative merits of different smokeless loads versus black powder loads and heavier bullets, the smokeless loads had only been commercially available for less than ten years at that time.

[Pete44ru]

.


Hummph !

I would have thought that once Winchester started to regularly offer their Model 94 in smokeless chamberings, they would also have simplified thing by also barreling those rifles with the proper barrels, ILO older-style soft(er) steel barrels.

Could it have been because the .32-40 was mainly a target round, and therefore performed better/longer with the softer steel barrels ?


.

[JohndeFresno]

Interesting. Thanks - and welcome to the forum!

[saw whet owl]

.


Hummph !

I would have thought that once Winchester started to regularly offer their Model 94 in smokeless chamberings, they would also have simplified thing by also barreling those rifles with the proper barrels, ILO older-style soft(er) steel barrels.

Could it have been because the .32-40 was mainly a target round, and therefore performed better/longer with the softer steel barrels ?


.

Could be. Did black powder rounds of the day (late 1800's - early 1900's) perform better with soft steel barrels? I would not think soft steel barrels would last / perform longer than the hardened steel alternative.

Perhaps Winchester had an inventory of .321" soft steel barrels which they wanted to get rid of.

[saw whet owl]

Interesting. Thanks - and welcome to the forum!

Thank you

[Bill in Oregon]

Saw Whet, nice find. I have always had a great admiration for the .32-40, and wish it got more respect in our day.

[Griff]

.
Hummph !
I would have thought that once Winchester started to regularly offer their Model 94 in smokeless chamberings, they would also have simplified thing by also barreling those rifles with the proper barrels, ILO older-style soft(er) steel barrels.
Could it have been because the .32-40 was mainly a target round, and therefore performed better/longer with the softer steel barrels ?
.

If anything, I think that it was them wanting to get ride of the soft steel barrels. I don't think that any of those Schuetzen shooters in the later 20th Century were relying on soft steel barrels... But... those slower rounds might just be a tad more accurate... I know for me, a little less recoil is a boon when target shooting.

Yet, out in the field, is there enough difference between the 30WCF, 32-40 or 32WS to matter one whit? Game shot properly with any of the three will be just as dead, just as quick. {Flame suit on!}

[JohndeFresno]

Yet, out in the field, is there enough difference between the 30WCF, 32-40 or 32WS to matter one whit? Game shot properly with any of the three will be just as dead, just as quick. {Flame suit on!}

Yup - researched several articles online from reputable sources, and that is the general statement about the demise of those .32 rifle calibers.

[marlinman93]

There was nothing wrong with the older BP barrels. Yes, they were not the nickel steel or smokeless steel barrels that replaced them, and were harder steels. But the main reason for these harder steel barrels was the advent of jacketed bullets more than smokeless powders. Jacketed bullets could wear out the slightly softer steel bores over prolonged use.
The .30-30, .32-40, and .32 Win Spl. have very little differences in performance or stopping power in equal firearms. The .32-40 did become a favorite of schuetzen competitors, but it was not initially a "schuetzen" or "target" round. It was a hunting cartridge brought out by Marlin in their Ballard rifle, and later it became a favorite for it's low recoil, and accuracy. In long matches, the low recoil had a major advantage in reducing shooter fatigue. It's still a favorite in schuetzen matches that are shot at 200 yds. for CF rifles.

[saw whet owl]

There was nothing wrong with the older BP barrels. Yes, they were not the nickel steel or smokeless steel barrels that replaced them, and were harder steels. But the main reason for these harder steel barrels was the advent of jacketed bullets more than smokeless powders. Jacketed bullets could wear out the slightly softer steel bores over prolonged use.
The .30-30, .32-40, and .32 Win Spl. have very little differences in performance or stopping power in equal firearms. The .32-40 did become a favorite of schuetzen competitors, but it was not initially a "schuetzen" or "target" round. It was a hunting cartridge brought out by Marlin in their Ballard rifle, and later it became a favorite for it's low recoil, and accuracy. In long matches, the low recoil had a major advantage in reducing shooter fatigue. It's still a favorite in schuetzen matches that are shot at 200 yds. for CF rifles.

Thank you for these explanations - interesting and informative

How popular were these schuetzen matches, and in what part (parts) of the country were they especially popular? What other cartridges were commonly used at schuetzen matches?

[w30wcf]

saw whet owl,
Welcome to the forum. Interesting article. Thank you for posting.

In doing a little research, I found that Marlin already had their 1893 chambered for the .32 H.P.S. (High Power Special) which was the same cartridge as Winchester's .32 W.S. (Winchester Special) so why soup up the .32-40? My thoughts are that possibly since the .32-40 had a number of followers that, from a marketing standpoint, Marlin / UMC decided to provide a loading that would be the equivalent in power to the .30-30 and .32 Special.

Ads from that period did indicate Special Smokeless Steel barrels for that cartridge. Since there is no defined shoulder like the .30-30 & .32 Special cartridges, I'll bet that the cartridge cases really stretched after the first firing....

w30wcf

[Bryan Austin]

I know this is an old topic, but I have been reading up a bit on just this issue on the 38-55 low pressure smokeless cartridges being used in the black powder barrels. I too have been reading these old magazines/books on the google books search engine.

I did find this, as an addition to this topic,

Recreation Magazine, 1899, page 298
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Re ... frontcover

Will the rifling of a Winchester 38-55 (common barrel) be injured by the use of a smokeless powder cartridge with soft point jacketed bullet? The Winchester people claim the gun is capable of handling this cartridge but whether it is harmful or not they do not mention. I have heard men say the jacketed bullet was ruinous to the rifling and to the accuracy unless used with the nickel steel barrel. No doubt many of RECREATION's readers would like to use this more powerful cartridge in their now accurate rifle but for the liability of their being ruined. Please let me hear the experience of some of the friends of RECREATION. ~R.C.G. Merriam Park Minn.


I referred this inquiry to the Winchester Repeating Arms Co and they reply:

Our 38-55 rifle will not be injured when 38-55 smokeless cartridges of our make are used. The bullet will not harm the rifling. Smokeless powder is more difficult to clean than black. Where smokeless powder cartridges are made to take the place of black powder cartridges in guns which were intended for black powder, such smokeless powder is used as will give the same pressures and same velocities as were obtained with black powder in the black powder cartridges intended for the gun originally. We do the best we can to have the combination give the same velocity as before, which it would be difficult to get same accuracy.

To me, it sounds like the concern back then was the rifling rather than blowing something up. The special smokeless barrel was for preserving the rifling from jacketed high speed bullets, not necessarily for tensile strength.

I am not going to pretend that I know what powders Winchester used for those cartridge. I will let someone else figure that out. However, Winchester did use a low-pressure powder for most, if not all of their W.H.V. loads. For the 44-40, "Sharpshooter" powder was used in Winchester's .44-40 W.H.V. loads. The box also notes, High Velocity, Low Pressure. Thus is the same for the 38-55 in regards to the box label...High Velocity, Low Pressure! The 44-40 never used a special smokeless barrel but does not mean an improved barrel was never used at some point. Just that the barrel was never stamped as such. Would appear to be the same for some others as well like the 38-40. However, the 38-55 at some point, I think, did offer a special smokeless stamped barrel.

Can anyone tell me if the Winchester Model 92' Special had anything to do with an improved barrel?

[Sixgun]

In the black powder dash calibers the powder they used was a semi fast powder such as sharpshooter or Lightning. I don’t read this, I take them apart and have taken apart probably 300 rounds of various calibers. I have never seen a case that was half filled or more. I’m talking 45-70’s, 90’s, 40-82’s, 40-65, on and on including b.p. from military 45-70’s.

I have taken that black powder and reloaded it in modern cases and one thing for SURE…the old black powder was much more explosive than anything made today that I’ve played with. Jim T will attest to what I just wrote.

As far as the 32-40, 32 Spl.,30-30 fiasco, there is no practical difference, maybe scientifically, but nothing an animal or a 200 yards target will notice…..when loaded comparably. ANY 1894 would handle the factory hi-vel loads as long as it was not 50,000 rds. a year…you get it.

I’ve got 44-40 rifles and handguns from 1880 on to the mid twenties…..in a normal sense, which means shooting a box or so a year means nothing when comparing cast vs jacketed …….it’s the powder that eats rifling.

And on those 44-40 rifles I have and have had, it was normal steel until around the turn of the century then there was a factory “clean up” of old barrels and after that it was all nickel steel except for the occasional rare order for say….a 40-82 in the year 1917 when they used up the old stock……but Winchesters had the habit of not marking the black powder calibers with a “nickel steel” marking but it would show under the barrel when you take the forend off….

It was such a controversy that Marlin actually had two different steels for their 1893’s….one was marked “for black powder” and these were in 32-40 and 38-55 calibers. I had both of them. The old timers back in the day swore you needed a special steel for BP.

What is a ‘92 “Special”?….never heard the term. Maybe B F O might know as he sure knows how to sell rifles right here that keyhole bullets.

Anyway, I experiment from time to time for the last 51 years and Jack Kort thought enough of me to give me his entire antique powder collection before he crossed the Great Divide…..this is about 20% of what’s in the box.



That Lightning powder is a blast….Jack and I shot next to each other at the Pa State Champs and I asked him, “what the f. you shooting out of that ‘94, it smells funny”. He toad me “Lightning”. I immediately stopped the entire state match to demand that he give me some.

[1894cfan]

My Grandfather passed on both of those and went with 32WSP back in 1911! Wish I had his rifle, Win 94 with 24" octagonal barrel! Went through a fire in the mid '60s and had to be re-blued due to smoke damage.

[FLINT]

Very interesting article!

I've got a 32-40 that dates to the 20s with a nickel steel barrel (though labeled as such UNDER the barrel). I think I have seen loads published for it that go up to 2000fps. I worked up a load with 165gr. soft points and 3031 and stopped at 1900fps because that seemed like enough. Worked great on the one doe I shot with it.

Regarding Sixgun's statement about smokeless loads in old dash cartridges. I have some 38-55 reloads that my grandfather (born 1907) made and they are definitely not more than half full of powder. also, some of those loads have weird little primers I think. i'll have to dig them out sometime. I think I made a post on here about it a while back.

[Sixgun]

Hey Flint…..when you get time, pull a bullet and dump the powder ona white piece of paper and I’ll tell ya what old pops used….

[Bryan Austin]

I’ve got 44-40 rifles and handguns from 1880 on to the mid twenties…..in a normal sense, which means shooting a box or so a year means nothing when comparing cast vs jacketed …….it’s the powder that eats rifling.

And on those 44-40 rifles I have and have had, it was normal steel until around the turn of the century then there was a factory “clean up” of old barrels and after that it was all nickel steel except for the occasional rare order for say….a 40-82 in the year 1917 when they used up the old stock……but Winchesters had the habit of not marking the black powder calibers with a “nickel steel” marking but it would show under the barrel when you take the forend off….

It was such a controversy that Marlin actually had two different steels for their 1893’s….one was marked “for black powder” and these were in 32-40 and 38-55 calibers. I had both of them. The old timers back in the day swore you needed a special steel for BP.

Anyway, I experiment from time to time for the last 51 years and Jack Kort thought enough of me to give me his entire antique powder collection before he crossed the Great Divide…..this is about 20% of what’s in the box.

That Lightning powder is a blast….Jack and I shot next to each other at the Pa State Champs and I asked him, “what the f. you shooting out of that ‘94, it smells funny”. He toad me “Lightning”. I immediately stopped the entire state match to demand that he give me some.

I can not tell you how happy I am that you replied! I miss John Kort and his emails! John is who got me started in this 44-40 early smokeless mess and I have enjoyed every minute of it since! I too have dissected many 44-40 cartridges and have been able to amateurly test them with the Pressuretrace strain gage system.

Of course, what you say correlates to everything I have seen in articles from the later 1890's to very early 1900's. Things (definitions) start changing a bit after 1925 and definitely after WWII.

Unbelievable about the mis-information that is out there today!!

You say it was the smokeless powders that wore out the bores and not the jacketed high speed bullet?...was it the low-pressure powder like Sharpshooter, or the faster 30 cal powders or both? This is what I have narrowed my armature research and I could really use some details.

Thus, back to the 44-40....Winchester's high-velocity, low-pressure loads never saw use in any special barrels that I can find. Only the smaller, faster 25-30 caliber cartridge types.

Like you said, I am up to the part with the 25-35/30-30 were Winchester made all of their 94' barrels with nickel steel, also according to Renneberg's Model 94 book. He said that the markings were not consistent until after sn# 12,000. He also states that ANY 32-40 and 38-55 marked "special steel" (I assume prior to the 12,000 serial number mark) was a special order...meaning they were typically not marked as such unless specially ordered (same steel used either way).

This all is consistent with old writings as well as a response from Winchester published in Recreation Magazine, 1899, page 298:

Our 38-55 rifle will not be injured when 38-55 smokeless cartridges of our make are used. The bullet will not harm the rifling. Smokeless powder is more difficult to clean than black. Where smokeless powder cartridges are made to take the place of black powder cartridges in guns which were intended for black powder, such smokeless powder is used as will give the same pressures and same velocities as were obtained with black powder in the black powder cartridges intended for the gun originally. We do the best we can to have the combination give the same velocity as before, which would be difficult to get the same accuracy.

330790437_592287052765671_6280831835161636347_n.jpg

327978416_726586442378685_3954628490677876554_n.jpg

[OldWin]

I think much like now, a lot of this lies with the marketing department.
In 1906, the 30wcf was still in its infancy as cartridges go. As we know, shooters are a traditional lot, many resisting change and "improvements". Not only the cartridge, but smokeless powder and "metal patched" bullets were still "on trial" in the minds of shooters. I've heard more than one example in my area of guys buying a new 1894 in 30wcf, only to sell it a short time later and return to the 44. This goes for the 32-40, and in my area especially, the 38-55. It was wildly popular here up to, and after, WW2.
I think much of this is simply companies hedging their bets. Winchester had a significant investment of capital in the 30wcf. I would guess much more than in the rifle that shot it. So while they certainly wanted it to sell, they weren't going to forsake the "grumpy old men" with money to spend. As mentioned above, any of these cartridges, loaded with either cast or jacketed, smokeless or black, were just as effective in most hunting situations.
Fast forward 120 years and now we can't find 30-30 shells on the shelf for the millions of rifles out there. But there are plenty for the new rifles chambered in redundant new cartridges they keep churning out.

[Sixgun]

Yea Jay….amazing, ain’t it? Can’t find 30-30 ammo but there’s loads of illegal drugs and sex toys available at the drop of a dime….

Bryan….powder and bullets both wear the rifling. ….the percentages change according to how hot the load is…the hotter the load, the powder takes the higher percentage of erosion. . Early powders were very corrosive and burned hot and would eat the soft steels of the day.

But the old guns also had issues with their locking…..steel was softer and with increased bolt thrust, excessive headspace would do the gun in before the rifling got shot out.

Even today cartridges such as the 25-06 or especially the 30-378 Weatherby will eat a barrel out in a thousand rounds with the 30-378 maybe lasting 5-600 rds….

Well, I’m talking in riddles here as it’s a fine line with powders, velocity, and bullet material all acting differently in different steels….so………there is a “formula” for eating out rifling with each type of steel and the load behind it…..takes a real pro to answer that question. With dash numbered cartridges it would take a lot of both to eat the gun as I have many 1880’s guns that have chewed up 3-5,000 rds and they don’t look any different than from day one and who knows what the gun was fed before I got it.

With modern steels I don’t think it’s possible to burn out any dash numbered cartridge gun’s barrel….the mechanics of the gun will slop up first.

Oh man! Did I hit home with anything?

NOTHING lasts forever except diamonds, Colts, and Winchesters.

[FLINT]

Hey Flint…..when you get time, pull a bullet and dump the powder ona white piece of paper and I’ll tell ya what old pops used….

Probably won't take apart any of those old bullets, but thanks for the offer. Did find the old post
https://levergunscommunity.org/viewtopi ... er#p705036

and here's a better pic of the case heads





Also, here's the post on my warm 32-40 load and results.

https://levergunscommunity.org/viewtopi ... wk#p863459

[Bryan Austin]

Bryan….powder and bullets both wear the rifling. ….the percentages change according to how hot the load is…the hotter the load, the powder takes the higher percentage of erosion. . Early powders were very corrosive and burned hot and would eat the soft steels of the day.

But the old guns also had issues with their locking…..steel was softer and with increased bolt thrust, excessive headspace would do the gun in before the rifling got shot out.

Even today cartridges such as the 25-06 or especially the 30-378 Weatherby will eat a barrel out in a thousand rounds with the 30-378 maybe lasting 5-600 rds….

Well, I’m talking in riddles here as it’s a fine line with powders, velocity, and bullet material all acting differently in different steels….so………there is a “formula” for eating out rifling with each type of steel and the load behind it…..takes a real pro to answer that question. With dash numbered cartridges it would take a lot of both to eat the gun as I have many 1880’s guns that have chewed up 3-5,000 rds and they don’t look any different than from day one and who knows what the gun was fed before I got it.

With modern steels I don’t think it’s possible to burn out any dash numbered cartridge gun’s barrel….the mechanics of the gun will slop up first.

Oh man! Did I hit home with anything?

NOTHING lasts forever except diamonds, Colts, and Winchesters.

absolutely!!!!...the typical powder and bullet wear I was familiar with. One would think after talking with folks or reading modern stuff now days that they would wear or blow up after only a few shots. Both the 1951' Winchester 94' 30-30 I have and the 91' Marlin 89' 44-40 I have, my dad got both about 1960 and made sure to get good actions and clean barrels. I was born in 66' and have hunted with both for 40 years. Both only get shot enough to check the sights before hunting...no target shooting.

Bryan as a baby with gun.jpg

Me and the 30-30

[Bryan Austin]

The 44-40's I have dissected, starting with what was said to be an E Remington, the photos and details are listed here
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... 1905899731

[308magtip]

60 plus years ago as a teen I borrowed my uncle's winchester model 1894 with a full oct barrell.I had a box of cartridges ,factory loads,lead bullets loaded with King's Semi-smokeless powder.These were carosive primed so water was the choice to clean the barrell.I also shot regular 32.40 loads in the gun. This was bought at a hardware store in Ephrata,Pa years before WW2 so the dom of this rifle is unknown.Was a very accurate rifle.I have a photo of uncle with a big buck citation he got from the Pa game comm in the 50's.Buck was shot on the hill above the Yellow Springs in Chester co.

[Sixgun]

Hey Flint…..when you get time, pull a bullet and dump the powder ona white piece of paper and I’ll tell ya what old pops used….

and here's a better pic of the case heads

hey Flint.....there's not a case in you box that was made after 1930. ---006

[FLINT]

hey Flint.....there's not a case in you box that was made after 1930. ---006

Woah, cool! thanks for the info.