.32 or another .40...???

[Don Steele]

OK, here goes. I've been enjoying my 40 caliber SMR for about a year. Really like the 40 caliber. All my other muzzleloaders are 50's. I'd like to get a brass mounted Lancaster next for the collection. I intend to stay with one of the smaller calibers. At the present time, I'm trying to decide between a .32 and another .40. The reason for the .40 is obvious..I am already fully "set-up" for it. All the accoutremounts and do-dads. If I get a .32, I'm going to have to go shopping for all that stuff. I shoot targets, almost exclusively from the 25 and 50 yd lines. Hunting doesn't enter into the equation.
I'd be interested in hearing from folks who have experience with both to see if there's appreciable differences.
Thanks.

 

[Mickc01]

Honestly, Don, just for some variation and for the fun of it, I'd consider a fairly large caliber.

There are many, many more learned people on here than me but if you are going with an early (you didn't say) Lancaster it would be appropriate to get one in say .58 cal. In my small but selective collection I have everything from .40 to 10 gauge. I enjoy target shooting and plinking (spell?) with all of them.

Speaking from experience, there is a very different feel in going from a .40 to .60 caliber rifle. I think you would very much enjoy that difference. Do let us know, and see, what you decide...Mick C

 

[BrownBear]

I'll second the 58 caliber suggestion rather than a 32, and certainly not another 40. For paper whanging I doubt you'll anything particularly "entertaining" about the drop in caliber. But the 58 will be a whole new world, and ultimately both challenging and fascinating.

My firm believe is that a jump or drop in a single ball size is barely noticeable, but skipping one or two is an eye opener. Going up from a 50 to a 54 is okay, but going from a 50 to a 58 is dramatic. I have a pretty full array of calibers, but seldom take a 50 and 54 to the range together. It's more likely a 50 and a 58 or a 54 and a 62.

My twitch for sure, but that's what you asked for.

 

[wattlebuster]

If just paper hunting then I would either stick to what I already had or go bigger. My fat fingers dont handle the little roundballs very well plus I hate going below a 3/8ths ramrod. But these are just my personal reasons why I dont go below 40 an your mileage will of course vary :idunno:

 

[nwtradegun]

had a mowery 32. it was a bear to clean. could only get 3 or four shots before I had to clean it.

 

[galamb]

Why not consider a 38 and shoot with the cool kids.

38 is no longer popular although it was once "mainstream".

All your "40 stuff" can likewise be used (save the patch jag).

If you don't want to cast your own balls, Hornady for sure (I know because I buy them) and possibly Speer produced .375 roundballs which are used in 36 cal cap/ball guns - fit perfectly with a .010 patch in my 38...

 

[Dean2]

If it is all about shooting paper and max convenience than another 40 makes sense. I have a 32 and really like it but then my next smallest is a 50 Ca, 54 and 62. I don't have any problems with fouling, it is no harder to clean than any other flinter I have and it uses very little powder, 10 to 20 grains. It works great on small game, but that isn't part of your criteria. 32s are really easy to sell, there are always lots of people looking for one.

Outside of a smaller puller and ramrod attachments I really don't see much difference in the Accoutrements required to shoot a 40 versus a 32. For straight paper punching I don't actually see an advantage to two guns the same or close in caliber versus one, unless the existing one isn't shooting well. If you are just adding another gun to a collection and want to shoot it, I can easily see why staying with a 40 makes perfect sense.

 

[hanshi]

Having a .40, myself, as well as a .32 and a .36, I can't see getting another .40 when you already have a good one. I don't hunt much at all anymore, and like you; I shoot targets. Powder is expensive so the less it takes to make the gun work, the better (for me). At the range I shoot my .32 and .36 more than any of the others. During a full shooting session I normally don't have to swab the bore out even once and the accuracy stays shot after shot. If you use the right lube - a liquid lube - The bore will have just the fouling from the first shot. Also a thick patch is needed; I use a .024" patch lubed with Hoppes BP lube. As far as cleaning goes, the .32 is no more prone to fouling than a .54. I cast my own ammo and Lee molds are cheap. If you are determined to go larger, the .54 would be my recommendation. It shoots moderate charges very well and won't break the bank.

 

[Richard Brinkman]

Go with a 36 and you'll soon forget both the 32 and 40. My 2 cents worth.

 

[mooman76]

I was going to say, cut the difference and go with the 36. 32 is good too though.

 

[Gene L]

I'd go with the .40 just because. I think it's a neat caliber and very accurate, generally.

I constantly see cries for heavier caliber rifles and for shooting round balls, I simply don't understand why. They use more powder, more lead and if you're putting holes in paper, I see no need for a heavy caliber rifle.

I'm not a bigger game hunter, squirrels are about all I'm going to shoot that has a parent. I like both my .32, .36, AND .40 rifles.

 

[tenngun]

If just paper hunting then I would either stick to what I already had or go bigger. My fat fingers dont handle the little roundballs very well plus I hate going below a 3/8ths ramrod. But these are just my personal reasons why I dont go below 40 an your mileage will of course vary :idunno:

:thumbsup: I never had a .32, but a .36 was just dinky to load. Itty bitty parts. Though .32 seems not much smaller it's almost half sized compared to a .40. A .22 will kill paper as well as a .58 or .75 but bigger is a whole lot easier to handle. A .45 with a 13/16 or a profile swamped can be fine and dainty.

 

[Curt]

I have to agree with everyone I have owned all the calibers mention but the 38 is it awful nice choice. I have been shootingr 40 calibers now for a couple of years maybe three and I really like those for Target shooting and hunting. And they make a very light rifle in the right barrel size. But I wouldn't mind owning all of them again.

 

[Don Steele]

Friends,
I appreciate the thoughts and suggestions. That's why I posted the question here. I knew there would be a variety of ideas offered.
I'm not going larger, until or unless I find myself living someplace that I can hunt larger game than Whitetail and Hogs. My 50's are plenty for those critters and I have gotten to the place in my life where heavy recoil, just for fun..ain't much fun.
Another complication to this search is that I'm Left-Handed and don't shoot right hand flintlocks very well. I've tried.
Last time I was at his shop, Tip Curtis had a nice LH 36 cal. "Carolina style" longrifle that felt pretty darn good but 36 is so close to 40, but NOT 40...it didn't seem worth the effort to add a 36 to the battery. Hence, I'm looking more seriously at a .32. I know it's not typical for Lancaster style rifles, but I'm less concerned about Historical accuracy then simple enjoyment.
This will be a Late-Lancaster, smaller butt rifle. Probably 42", swamped, brass mounted.
Thanks again folks...I appreciate the conversations offered. :hatsoff:

 

[Captjoel]

I think you should have at least one of each caliber. The biggest problem I have had with the small bores used for target shooting is seeing where the hole is down range on the paper. If I forget my spotting scope, I get a good workout walking across the field, back and forth after each shot.
With a large bore rifle, say a 54 or 60 caliber, those nice big holes show up from the shooting line without any visual aids.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

When I read the title to the thread, I would've said, "Get the .32", since they are great in the woods, BUT if you're just shooting targets, then I wouldn't worry about getting the tiny caliber. IF you don't have a good shooting .40 caliber pistol, you might want to consider getting that instead, as they can be fun too.

Yes? No? :idunno:

LD

 

[Pete G]

Having always been a strong proponent of "Have at least one of everything" I would usually vote for the 32, but it is just wrong for a Lancaster, even late style.

My vote goes to either a Lancaster in 45 or another SMR in 32.

 

[don hepler]

Here's a suggestion. Do you have a swamped barrel now? If you don't.....get one, regardless of caliber. Also, the smaller calibers, can be make in smaller barrels. My 40SMR is a straight barrel and heavy. I would love to have the same rifle with a swamped barrel. They handle so nice, and shoot off-hand, so much better.

Just a thought.

 

[jbwilliams3]

If it were me... I'd sell all but one of the .50's and get a .54 or .58 in an earlier style AND get a smaller caliber in a later style. That is, unless all of your .50 cals are irreplaceable and you can't part with them. Personally, I like having one gun in a particular bore size that I am proficient with. I suppose it would be different if I was a collector.

 

[Micah Clark]

Having always been a strong proponent of "Have at least one of everything" I would usually vote for the 32, but it is just wrong for a Lancaster, even late style.

My vote goes to either a Lancaster in 45 or another SMR in 32.

Oh boy . . . I'm building a TVM late lancaster and chose .32 because I liked the lancaster style the most, but wanted a good "squirrel" gun for the woods.

Never considered that it isn't historically Kosher. . not that I am all that concerned, but I assumed that there were small caliber Penn Rifles . . I thought that the only caliber specific makes would be fowlers, and Hawkens both of which would be larger calibers in smooth fowlers and rifled Hawkens (that were big game plains rifles).