Full Wadcutters in the .32 H&R

Glen

Moderator
Staff member
With all of the interest in the new S&W Ultimate Carry (UC) J-frame guns from Lipsey's, I thought I would play around a bit with full wadcutter bullets in .32 H&R (I still can't bring myself to call it a "magnum"). One of the noteworthy results from this morning's trip to the range was the H&G #66 wadcutter (98 grains), sized .313" and lubed with 50/50 beeswax/moly grease delivered 1092 fps when loaded over 3.5 grains of Unique and fired from a 4 5/8" Ruger Single Seven .327 Federal. Velocities would obviously be lower in the 2" S&W revolver, and I would guess they would drop down very nicely into the 950-1000 fps range that people are talking about for defensive .32 WC loads. Accuracy was decent, and all pressure indications were normal. I also tested 4.0 grains of Unique, and velocities jumped up to 1206 fps, and group size was notably worse. Lipsey's just might be on to something here....
 

Attachments

  • 32 H&R and H&G 66 wadcutter.jpg
    32 H&R and H&G 66 wadcutter.jpg
    660.3 KB · Views: 23
There is a guy on YouTube, Gun Sam, who does gel and jug testing with various guns. He has several videos on wadcutters and thinks highly of the .32 H&R .
 
I think the 32 H&R Magnum (yes, I'll call it a magnum, but I understand Glen's viewpoint) is where we should have stopped in that progression from 32 S&W, 32 S&W Long and 32 H&R Mag.

I have been 100% satisfied with my current results of wadcutters in 32 S&W long and my former results with wadcutters in 32 H&R mag.

The wadcutter presents the maximum amount of frontal area for any caliber and in those smaller bores, it shines. Ranges are typically well within the limitation of a wadcutter bullet and accuracy is very good.

Times have changed some but I still think a couple of boxes of factory loaded 32 S&W Long or 32 H&R Mag will yield a 100 casings that will last many years. This is one of those places where reloading and casting can provide a lot of practice, a lot of pest control, a lot of small game hunting for not a lot of money.

Yes, .22 LR was cheaper at one time, but the 32 WC is far more effective and reloadable.
 
My only work with WCs in 32 SWL or Magnum was with the Hornady HBWCs at under 800 FPS. Accurate as all get-out, but a different animal entirely.
I just read this again, and it's not quite correct. I should say that in only SERIOUS shooting for accuracy involved these store-boughts. Among my first mold purchases in 1981 was Lyman #313492, a 92 grain button-nosed wadcutter. Some of my first home-cast bullets were for the 32 SWL and a 3" Model 31-1 that left in a divorce c. 1983.

#313492 got some love in 32 Magnum when I started messing with those in the mid-1980s as well, but by that time I also had the RCBS 32-98-SWC, and that design was love at first sight--and the romance remains almost 40 years later.

My recollector was out of the building when I made that post. It's so hard to find good help these days.
 
Last edited:
The .32 Long is quickly becoming a favorite of mine(again). Back around 2015 I wasn't casting much and was buying the Hornady Semi and Full Wadcutters for .32 S&W. Came in boxes of 400. The full WC's shot very well out of older H&R top breaks. Used 1.7 -2 grains of 700X. Went to load more about a year ago and the earth has seemed to run out of the Hornady lead bullets for .32 cal. So I have purchased 2 RCBS WC molds in 84 and 98 grain. I haven't worked up any loads yet but have loaded some with Bullseye. Would like to find a .32 mold with a hollow base. The longer hollow base maintain better axial alignment on older guns that don't have the reduced throat on the cylinder. I find that the rear of the bullet is still in the case as it is entering the barrel.

Bruce
 
Just got referred here by a comment on the forum where they can’t spell… I’ve come to the conclusion that J frames and 32 H&R (I agree Glen, it ain’t no magnum!) are a nearly perfect match. It seems to me that the mid-length H&R case is just right for SWCs in the 100-105 gr range +/-. I’ve got both swaged HBWCs and moulds for the button nosed and DEWCs, but when I want to go for target level accuracy, I like to go with a K frame 32 S&W L (and dream of a semiauto!). I guess my most accurate J frame might “rise to the occasion” but that’s really not the reason I have it.
I guess my bottom line is that I’d like for S&W to give us more K 32s so we can enjoy all the potential of all of the lengths of the 32!
froggie
 
I’ll mention powder… I started out thinking Bullseye was the be all and end all for mild, target level loads. Then I discovered (or rediscovered) HP38/231 and that has usually gotten the nod lately. It works great in 32 S&W L as well as H&R loads, from cat sneeze in the S&W Longs to some fairly stiff ones in the H&R.
Froggie
 
Years ago, when I started reloading, Bullseye was just not locally available. As a result of that geographic oddity, WW231 [HP-38] became my “go-to” handgun powder. I burned a lot of WW231 in 38 Special and 45 ACP casings. I also used it in other cartridges. While I was certainly aware of Bullseye and usually had a partially full can on the shelf, I just didn’t use it much. Fast forward to about 10 years ago and I decided to switch over to Bullseye for several of my loadings. Both Bullseye and WW231 are extremely useful handgun cartridge powders but over the long run I’ve probably burned more WW231.

WW231 is slightly bulkier and slightly slower burning than Bullseye and I think those traits may give it an advantage over Bullseye in some applications. Both powders meter well in powder measures, which is also a plus. Bullseye usually wins in the rounds per pound category which can be a factor if you burn a lot of it. As much as I’ve grown to like Bullseye, there are places where WW231 really shines. I will always keep both on hand and if I was forced to pick one over the other, I think WW231 would win out for its slightly better versatility in larger cases.
 
I’m new to the .32 game. I only have one. A Ruger single six in 32 H&R Mag. I only have one mold. An Arsenal copy of the RCBS 98gr SWC. I have mainly used Universal as my go to powder. The last time I loaded 100 rounds I used Titegroup. This offered pretty good offhand accuracy at 940fps.
I just loaded another 100 rounds the other night. 50 with Titegroup and 50 with 3.5gr of W231. I have heard a couple people now say they really like 231/hp-38 in the H&R. I got this pistol from a friend with the five cavity mold, RCBS carbide dies, and 500 pieces of Starline brass, 400 of the 500 were new.
 
The cartridge is very versatile as far as powders go, the sweet spot goes up in velocity as the powder get slower. Now after 40 years, people are starting to see how good the 32 H&R really is. In a revolver, 2400 is about the best combination of velocity and accuracy, IMHO.
 
I have not seen any load data for 2400. I’d like to try it out. I have plenty.
 
I have two WC 32 molds. The RCBS 98 and a Ideal 85 type 3.

Never pushed either hard. But both shoot very well @ 7-800 fps!

Mostly in 32 Long. Just a delightfully accurate easy shooting load.

CW
 
I’m new to the .32 game. I only have one. A Ruger single six in 32 H&R Mag. I only have one mold. An Arsenal copy of the RCBS 98gr SWC. I have mainly used Universal as my go to powder. The last time I loaded 100 rounds I used Titegroup. This offered pretty good offhand accuracy at 940fps.
I just loaded another 100 rounds the other night. 50 with Titegroup and 50 with 3.5gr of W231. I have heard a couple people now say they really like 231/hp-38 in the H&R. I got this pistol from a friend with the five cavity mold, RCBS carbide dies, and 500 pieces of Starline brass, 400 of the 500 were new.
3.5 gr 231/rcbs swc.....jackpot!!!!!