Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Question about .32-40 threads

I'm curious about something. All of a sudden TWO .32-40 threads have appeared on "Ask The Gunwriters," apparently because of my recent article on a Marlin Model 1893 in .32-40.

But many of the comments on the two threads (perhaps most) suggest the poster did not read my article. In fact some even posted information on the .32-40 that was prominent in the article."Ploughman" posted something about how the .32-40 did NOT originate as a Winchester cartridge, despite often being listed as one today--or even in older manuals. But I began the article by explaining all of that--which of course indicates Ploughman did not read the article.

When I started posting on the Campfire almost 20 years ago, I'd been lurking for a little while--but finally posted when a member posted in "Ask Ken Howell" (the original title of this forum until some more gun writers started contributing) that one of my recent articles was pretty good. He summarized the article in 2-3 sentences--whereupon several other members started arguing with him, saying I was FOS. This was because he couldn't include the entire article (say 300 paragraphs with far more details).

Which is why I'm asking this question: How many of the members commenting on the .32-40 threads have actually read my article? I ask this because, in the past couple years more and more members, have obviously posted on this forum without reading many articles (not just mine) from various gun writers. Of course, the nature of the Internet encourages immediate comments--often from people who haven't read anything beyond the subject header.

But I find it interesting that the Campfire is trending toward what I first noticed way back when, with a lot of comments from people who haven't read the articles brought up on "Ask The Gunwriters."

I didn't get my copy of Rifle 312 until today 7/30 and I posted on 7/28. You think I annoy you? You ought'a see me around women.

I posted w/o having read the article. I still don't have a .32-40. -sniff-

And another thing, maybe I shouldn't post on "Ask a gunwriter"...'cause I ain't. I never had the good fortune to graduate from high school, not to mention college, which is obvious. But, it seems the subject of threads here interest me more than any other. And thus far, religion has not reared it's head here.

Poor baby!

I still don't have my copy either....

I didn’t read the article yet (haven’t gotten my copy yet) but can’t wait to read it - so I didn’t have any comments on the article - joined the thread as am interested in these grand old cartridges and what others have to say (sifting through the information for any nuggets I can glean😁).

PennDog

I just got my copy today, sat down with an adult beverage and read your article before dinner. I tend to look for your writing first because of this type of article. As I posted in the other thread I liked it a lot and now I want a .32-40.
All you gunwriters are enablers, just like your type of rifles the best. Although Terry Wieland writes about single shots a lot, my favorite.

I have read the article, enjoyed it, haven't commented until now, don't think I've ever even seen a .32-40


Mike

Bet you have. They are reclusive sorts; hide in the shadows at gun shows they do.

Ha!

Maybe....Of course now the looney is kicking in and I want one


Mike

DD and ROTR, you guys go down to the Hunting Rifles forum and check out "The Official 32-40 Hunting Thread" we's getting ready.

flintlocke,

It was decided long ago that any member could post on "Ask the Gunwriters"--partly because if you're posting on it, you ARE a gun writer!

Mule Deer

I enjoyed the article and agreed the 32-40 was quite adequate as a deer caliber, albeit distance and shot placement was a given. I recognize that my post on load development was beyond the black powder loads but was satisfied with the capabilities shown from the early 20th century HI-V loads.

For modern single shot rifles, the opportunity to use spitzers from swaged 8mm opened up more options. But, the Hornady FTX 165's intended for 32 special could be considered in the loads shown in the early 1900's; again only with rifles with stronger actions and nickle steel and NOT with the Stevens, Ballards, and others of the mid-late Black Powder rifles of the 19th century. I suspect that cannelure for the 32 Special won't line up with your OAL experience to get proper feeding, still thought it worth mentioning..

Not surprisingly I also found the 32-40 to be a good minute of deer accuracy, at least in my TCR. As I noted in my post, I am looking forward to an article from you on your hunting with the Marlin. As I am now pushing 80 years and no longer able to do much more than sessions at the local range, I find articles like yours and Terry Wieland refreshing from the latest 500 yard whizz bang. I'd say keep it up with articles on your experience in finding and using rifles and cartridges from the late nineteenth to early 20th century, they can still perform with given thought and use.

Now wouldn't it be fortuitous if some Norwegian Gun Guru type stumbled across a vintage .38-55 with an excellent bore at some obscure gun show in the inter-mountain west?
Talk about Feng Shui. Them Chinamen got nothing on a lucky Norwegian.

My magazine arrived today, I haven't yet reached that point in the gun rag yet.

Have no fear, I will read it. But not having a .32-40, I will likely not comment on the article other than to say "Where can I find one cheap" as I am on a fixed income and working on other things too.

Which reminds me, I did read Mr Wieland's article on the .25-20 Single Shot and want one of those too. I wonder how the bullets I'm trying to get to work in the "regular" .25-20 and .256 WinMag might work in a Single Shot version?