Re: Iver Johnson 32SW Safety Automatic

27
Antiquus wrote:Wow 2.5 grains of Bullseye for a .32S&W Long pushing a 100gr cast compared to 2.3gr now, 87 years later.
What do you think is different, powder or belief of safe levels?

My guns from the 20s are the same steel as they were when new, discounting any extreme abuse, so I wonder what changed.
Image
Image
Image

Puffing up is no substitute for smarts but it's a common home remedy

Re: Iver Johnson 32SW Safety Automatic

28
Simmer down wrote:
Antiquus wrote:Wow 2.5 grains of Bullseye for a .32S&W Long pushing a 100gr cast compared to 2.3gr now, 87 years later.
What do you think is different, powder or belief of safe levels?

My guns from the 20s are the same steel as they were when new, discounting any extreme abuse, so I wonder what changed.
Better lawyers and liability lawsuits. :D
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: Iver Johnson 32SW Safety Automatic

29
Simmer down wrote:
Antiquus wrote:Wow 2.5 grains of Bullseye for a .32S&W Long pushing a 100gr cast compared to 2.3gr now, 87 years later.
What do you think is different, powder or belief of safe levels?

My guns from the 20s are the same steel as they were when new, discounting any extreme abuse, so I wonder what changed.
There are quite significant differences between load data from even contemporary, trusted sources, .2 grains is not much.

I'd use BP in a revolver that old, just to err on the safe side.
Image
Image

Re: Iver Johnson 32SW Safety Automatic

30
My remark was more amazed it was so much the same.

Lawyers, yea, but but between then and now there's been a huge revolution measuring chamber pressure, and gun metallurgy. The gun metallurgy issue alone should drive loads way lower, but didn't so apparently there's never been much of a lawsuit. Another factor is we measure weights much better commonly, if you notice in 1929 the recipes were all .5gr steps, probably as good as a home reloader did in the day. So it appears Bullseye is the same stuff, and although that's surprising as I think about it, it was probably the most common powder then as now, and messing with the characteristics is fraught with danger to the maker and the users.
When only cops have guns, it's called a police state.
I carry due to toxic masculinity.......just other people's.

Re: Iver Johnson 32SW Safety Automatic

31
Antiquus wrote:My remark was more amazed it was so much the same.

Lawyers, yea, but but between then and now there's been a huge revolution measuring chamber pressure, and gun metallurgy. The gun metallurgy issue alone should drive loads way lower, but didn't so apparently there's never been much of a lawsuit. Another factor is we measure weights much better commonly, if you notice in 1929 the recipes were all .5gr steps, probably as good as a home reloader did in the day. So it appears Bullseye is the same stuff, and although that's surprising as I think about it, it was probably the most common powder then as now, and messing with the characteristics is fraught with danger to the maker and the users.
Also could be better primers causing better ignition of the powder, thus need to reduce the amount.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: Iver Johnson 32SW Safety Automatic

32
Some calibers the pressure can be the same cup or psi. Plus when the testing is done it is done with a specific lot of powder and there is only slight but still difference between lots. I have an Ideal Lyman handbook from the late 40s and early 50s and the tables are different for some and the same as todays for some.

Re: Iver Johnson 32SW Safety Automatic

33
In a sense virtually all .32 S&W caliber guns are 'black powder' guns; factory loads used black powder right up to the start of WW2. I'm not sure that anyone resumed making guns in this chambering after the war- Maybe H&R? I'm not sure. When the switch was made to smokeless powder they needed to insure that it would not blow these guns up. A number of people at the S&W forum reported using modern loads in older guns, right back to the S&W 1-1/2 made in the 1870s. No one reported any damage to guns, and even 'crappy' guns weren't damaged.

You need to use your own best judgement of course, but personally I feel no hesitation firing these in any major manufacturer's gun if it is in good condition.
"Aim for their foil beanies! It's the only way to be sure..."
https://tinkertalksguns.wordpress.com
https://www.facebook.com/michael.t.pearce.7

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests