Chronograph tests are finished; time to gather the results in one place. We’ll go from small to large. Each load will list the barrel length it was fired from, and I have used guns of typical length for self-defense use. The guns used in the test were made when the cartridge was current technology, meaning some of them date as far back as the 1880s.

I used two brands of primers for these loads, Federal and CCI small pistol primers and Federal large pistol primers. The difference between the brands did not show in chronograph results, and while it may not make a difference I’ll list them anyway.

The majority of the loads use Unique. This was one of the first commercially available smokeless powders, and so I was often able to find ‘period-correct’ load data for old cartridges. If the cartridge was originally a black powder cartridge I will list that load first. I’m actually using Hodgden’s Triple-7 FFFg black powder substitute for a variety of reasons, but hereafter I will simply call it ‘777’ for convenience. I have also measured the charges in the modern fashion, by weight rather than the old method, which measured by volume. I’ve done my best to recreate original factory loads, and while I doubt I’ve nailed it perfectly they are probably at least in the ball park.

I’ve included three 19th C. cartridges that are (effectively) no longer produced; .32 Colt Long, .38 Colt Short and .450 Adams. In the cases of the Colt cartridges I had guns on hand to shoot them, so why not? For these two I have tried to replicate the original factory BP loads. For .450 Adams I have listed a pair of black powder loads and one modern load using Unique. Once again I had the guns to shoot it and already reloaded it, so why not? Also, there are many fine old Bulldog revolvers and Webleys chambered for this round, and load data is scarce for BP loads and non-existent for smokeless.

The data presented represent the results of the average of 3-5 shots. Chronographs vary, and temperature, humidity, altitude etc. can affect results. Consider the data an approximation, not The Gospel.

I’ve recounted the origins and history of most of these cartridges already, so let’s get straight to the results.

.32 S&W

88gr. LRN, 3.5gr. 777, CCI500 primer (balloon-head case)

3-1/4″ barrel 471 fps. 43 ft./lbs SD:40

I’m not convinced that this genuinely represents the ballistics of the original load, though from some of the descriptions of it’s ineffectiveness it might…

88gr LRN, Remington Kleenbore (antique ammunition)

3-1/4″ barrel 615 fps. 74 ft./lbs SD: 14

88gr. LRN, Remington Target (modern ammunition)

3-1/4″ barrel 611 fps 73 ft./lbs SD: 17

At a guess Remington hasn’t changed their recipe for this cartridge in the last 100 years…

.32 Colt Long

87 gr. heel-base LRN, 6.8gr. 777, CCI500 primer (balloon-head case)

3-1/4″ barrel 739 fps. 105 ft./lbs SD: 20

.32 S&W Long/.32 Colt New Police

98gr. LRN, 9gr 777. CCI500 primer (Balloon-head case)

2″ Barrel 738 fps. 119 ft./lbs SD: 12

I only tested this from my 2″ Detective Special… a friend’s wife fell in love with the 4″ S&W so it was no longer available when testing this load. What can I say? I’m a sucker for a woman in love…

98gr. LRN, Remington Target (modern)

4″ barrel 694 fps. 105 ft./lbs SD: 18

2: barrel 643 fps. 90 ft./lbs SD: 32

96gr LRNFP, 3.0gr. Unique, Federal #100 primer

4″ Barrel 739 fps. 116 ft./lbs SD: 15

2″ Barrel 691 fps. 102 ft./lbs SD: 22

96gr, LRNFP, 4.3gr. Unique, Federal #100 primer

4″ barrel 1089 fps. 253 ft./lbs SD: 31

2″ Barrel 984 fps. 206 ft./lbs SD: 53

This is a maximum pressure load; start 10% lower and work up.

96gr. LRNFP, 4.0gr Power Pistol, Federal #100 primer (+P)

4″ barrel 1184 fps. 281 ft./lbs SD: 41

2″ barrel 1090 fps. 253 ft./lbs SD: 45

This load should only be fired in the strongest of revolvers, or better yet guns chambered for .32 H&R Magnum of .327 Federal Magnum.

.32-20 / .32 Winchester Centerfire

96gr. LRNFP, 12.7gr. 777, CCI500 primer (balloon-head case)

4″ Barrel 837 fps. 149 ft./lbs SD: 12

96gr. LRNFP, 3.7gr. Unique, Federal #100 primer

4″ Barrel 744 fps. 118 ft./lbs SD: 35

96gr. LRNFP, 5.5gr. Unique, CCI500 Primer (maximum-pressure load. Start 10% lower and work up)

4″ Barrel 942 fps. 189 ft./lbs SD: 18

100gr. Copper-washed LRNFP (antique)

4″ barrel 779 fps. 135 ft./lbs SD: 23

115gr. LRNFP (antique)

4″ Barrel 761 fps. 149 ft./lbs SD: 13

.38 Colt Short

125gr. Dry-lubed heel-base RNL, 10gr. 777, CCI500 primer

2-1/2″ barrel 544 fps. 82 ft./lbs SD: 19

.38 S&W

Some data had to be omitted, as the results were skewed by using a gun of inferior quality. Loads are limited to those safe for top-break revolvers.

145gr. RNL, 7.0gr 777, CCI500 Primer

3-1/4″ barrel 636 fps. 130 ft./lbs SD: 16

1-5/8″ barrel 566 fps. 103 ft./lbs SD: 7

145gr. Winchester (modern)

1-5/8″ barrel 535 fps. 92 ft./lbs SD: 39

These bullets are quite undersized, and keyholed frequently

125gr. TCL, 2.7gr. Unique, Federal #100 primer(.357 bullet diameter)

1-5/8″ barrel 621 fps. 107 ft./lbs SD: 21

This is specifically formulated as a low-pressure ‘antique-friendly’ round.

150gr. LSWC, 2.7gr. Unique, Federal #100 Primer

1-5/8″ barrel 672 fps. 150 ft./lbs SD: 14

160gr. LSWC, 2.7gr. Unique, CCI500 primer

3-1/4″ barrel 754 fps. 202 ft./lbs SD: 24

1-5/8″ barrel 722 fps. 185 ft./lbs SD: 31

.38/200

No data yet; these will be chronographed during the ballistic gel tests

.450 Adams

138gr. .451 Lead Ball, 10.0gr. 777, Federal #150 primer

2-1/2″ barrel 628 fps. 121 ft./lbs SD: 16

210gr. copper-washed LSWC, 7.5gr 777, Federal #150 primer

2-1/2″ barrel 551 fps. 142 ft./lbs SD: 9

215gr. TCL, 4.0gr. Unique, CCI300 primer

2-1/2″ barrel 639 fps. 195 ft./lbs SD: 7

Approach this load with caution. Start at 3.5gr. and work up

As always, you use this load data at your own risk. The writer assumes no liability for the use or misuse of this load data. Only use these loads in a good-quality firearm that has been inspected to insure that it is safe to fire. When in doubt DON’T.

So there we are. Next step is testing these loads in Ballistic Gel, and I may be testing some loads with modern hollow-points or other modern bullets, and I’ll report on their velocities at that time. These test will likely occur later this spring; such testing can be pretty involved, not to mention expensive.

Michael Tinker Pearce, 5 march 2020

If you like what you see here, please consider clicking the link above and supporting me on Patreon.

This is a post from Active Response Training, and it is very much worth thinking about. https://www.activeresponsetraining.net/born-to-intervene?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ActiveResponseTraining+%28Active+Response+Training%29

I have long maintained that my first and foremost responsibility is to myself and to my family, and I firmly believe this. With that in view I am always determined to temper my responses with that consideration… and when faced with a situation last fall, I didn’t.

I was coming out of a store and saw a large man and a small young woman engaged in an argument. The man then grabbed her by the arm and appeared to be trying to force her into his car. I know that domestic disputes are one of the most dangerous situations to intervene in. The sensible thing to do would have been to get in my car and call the police, while keeping an eye on things and recording the license plate etc. I didn’t.

As soon as he started using force common sense departed. I set down my purchases and approached to about twenty feet away and engaged the man verbally. Words were exchanged, and at my suggestion the young woman went into the store to get help, and in the end the fellow drove away. Yeah, there’s more to it than that but the exact details don’t matter. The point is as soon as his action triggered me I responded in a manner that was prone to disaster, without even thinking about it, and it’s mostly luck that things did not end badly.

Of course in the aftermath I immediately started thinking about everything that could have gone horribly wrong, what I should have done etc. Because of that experience Greg’s post above hit a nerve. It’s well and good to have good intentions and a commitment to acting sensibly in a crisis… but you might not. Be prepared for that to occur.

Michael Tinker Pearce, 2 March 2020

If you like what you see here, please consider clicking the link above and supporting me on Patreon.

This time we’re departing from the gun world into a topic that does not directly relate, but one near and dear to many of our hearts.

Beer and social gatherings go together like ham and cheese, peanut butter and chocolate… you get the drift. But alcohol and guns? A world of NO. Which is a shame in some ways; there are few common experiences more satisfying than an ice-cold IPA or Lager on a blistering summer afternoon. But when the guns are out the beer isn’t. Period.

Sure, there are non/low alcohol beers (traditionally know n as ‘small beers) like Sharp’s and O’Douls, but they are barely palatable. Caliber from Guinness is better but it’s still not great, and since they’ve ‘improved’ the flavor I’ve pretty much stopped bothering. Until recently you were pretty much out of luck finding a genuinely good beer with 0.5% alocohol or less. Now, however, craft brewing has come to NA beers, and I am one happy camper.

Traditionally the way that Near beer has been made has been to make beer and boil off the alcohol. This massacres the complex flavors and and subtle tones that beer-lovers treasure. Guinness discovered that they could circumvent this by reducing the pressure, and thus the boiling temperature, so that these subtleties were not entirely lost. Craft brewers have taken to employing this method (with varying degrees of success) and produced some pretty decent brews. Others have utilized strains of yeast that produce very little alcohol, and by not distilling the beer it retains the full range and character of a true beer.

At Christmas one of my kids brought over a selection of NA craft brews. I learned to drink beer in Europe, and loved a good stout. I liked a Bud or Miller OK, but my true love was European beers. Unfortunately the craft brew revolution occurred after I quit drinking. He’d been listening to me lament this fact for years, and took it upon himself to find a solution, and I’ll be damned if he didn’t. Let me share what we discovered, then and since.

Bravus Brewing Amber Ale

Bright yet full-bodied, roasty maltiness with a hint of sour and brown-sugar sweetness. It has a distinctive, pleasant aroma that is characteristic of Bravus, possibly a result of the strain of yeast they use. A friend who is quite the beerficianado, pronounced that he would drink it in preference to many of the craft-brew ambers he likes.

Bravus Brewing Oatmeal Stout

A very satisfying stout, bursting with chocolate and hints of coffee and smoke, with a smooth, carmelly mouth feel. This is a damn good stout, and never mind the lack of alcohol.

Surreal Brewing 17 Mile Porter

This is a strong, tasty Porter. Up front is chocolate and roasted malt, with smoke and a hint of coffee in the background. Pleasantly light carbonation completes the experience. A little watery in the finish, but I really, really like this one.

Partake IPA

This is the least of the beers I am reviewing, but that doesn’t mean it’s bad. It has some hoppy bitterness to it, but lacks the maltiness you expect in an IPA. It’s also rather watery. Don’t get me wrong, it’s good, and having only ten calories to a can it has an argument in it’s favor. Overall I’d say it’s very drinkable, but only about 90% of where it would ideally be. Still, if presented with an ice-cold can on a hot summer day I’d be happy enough.

Conclusion

People’s tastes vary, and I can only recommend based on what I like. But if you like beer these are worth trying. One peculiarity I have discovered with the stout and porter; these beers are usually served at room temperature, but these NA brews really shine when cold. Another thing to note- these beers are all pretty low calorie, usually 50-100 calories; that’s less than a can of soda.

Guns and alcohol absolutely do not mix… but maybe guns and beer can now. I’m looking to exploring this world more, and of you folks are interested I’ll report my findings.

ADDENDA: From the response I have received on social media I did not make myself clear. This applies to the social events surrounding a range day; you should not drink anything while actually on the range, unless your favorite drink recipe includes particulate lead. This would be for times when you might legitimately be drinking soft drinks or hot beverages.

Michael Tinker Pearce, 24 Feburay 2020

If you like what you see here, please consider clicking the link above and supporting me on Patreon.