Well, Frank has been dead for 12 years, so I think it's gonna be hard to get a revised opinion from him, at this point.

RSY

ChuckWagon:
Let me add to my last post.

I would imagine that Barnes simply was commenting humorously (in the quote I gave) that the dual capacity of the Win.32 Special as both a black powder and a smokeless powder cartridge didn't seem worthwhile in light of the developing smokeless powder cartridges, i.e., the 30-30 - particularly since the 30-30 was very early on making a name for itself

I hasten to say that I have no fixed views about the Win. 32 Special. I meant no insult and only offered the comment as what I thought was a humorous observation. I don't think he meant that the cartridge was no good. He was saying ,I believe, that the 30-30 was a better replacement and that the only advantage of the Win.32 Special was that it could be reloaded as a black powder cartridge - hence the humorous remark.

The 30-30 vs the 32 Special debate has gone on (and will continue) for a long time. In the real world the only difference between the two is .013".

Barnes wrote regarding the 32 Special, "It's a lot better than the 30-30 only if you don't think smokeless powder is really here to stay". This is in both the 3rd and 4th editions. He also wrote (also in eds 3 & 4) "Once the bore of a 32 Spl rifle begins to go, you can't hit a flock of barns with it". That is a crock of shit, and I know that from personal experience and I have a Model 94 made in 1913 to prove it. Frank Barnes was not the last word on everything. Matter of fact, sounds to me like he later changed his tune regarding the accuracy of 32 Spl's with bad bores.

Pecos45:

Please forgive MY ignorance. I understand why a collector would pay whatever he wishes to pay for a GENUINE,ALL ORIGINAL PARTS, Winchester Mod.92 (Personally, it's lost on me and at 74 I can tell you I saw many genuine Win. Mod.92s when I was a boy) But paying over a thousand dollars for a Japanese made reproduction?) Frankly, I enjoyed being called a "gun nut" for most of my life -but I'm beginning to wonder now if it wasn't an actual description of mental status.

For a using gun the Marlin 1894 makes a lot more sense. About half the price and is probably better finished and made in the USA to boot.

Paul:

In your case, your choices make sense. (I wish now I had kept a few of the 1871s (SA) that passed through my hands when young!) The Win.94 in 45 Long Colt is shooting a decent cartridge still available. The Win.92 was chambered for what? Cartridges like the 38/40, 32/20 ? If memory serves, the chambering for 44/40 was a black powder load and I sure wouldn't trust a smokeless load in those old timers. As you rightly point out, it may be a matter of cowboy mania. The whole thing reminds me of something that Fred Barnes wrote in an edition of "Cartridges of the World". He was commenting on the relative usefulness of the Win. 32 Special. (I never forgot the remark because I laughed out loud) He wrote: "The Win. 32 Special is a fine cartridge for those who don't think that smokeless powder is here to stay".

Gerald. Even the original 1892 Winchesters were strong enough for smokeless powder loads, but the brass for the 38-40 and 44-40 was a bit on the thin, AKA weak side and still is, IMO. An 1892 built with modern steel should be capable of handling just about any round that will fit and work through the action. I believe it's Rossi that is making a "92" replica in .454 Casull.
Paul B.

WHOOOOAAA there friend that was good for a laugh but it is a bit of fiction. Firstly Frank Barnes is the Author of "Cartridges of the world". I am going to take some liberties and publish his exact words. I hope he won't take exception but I just hate seeing such a fine caliber and author smeared with such non sense. There has been a lot of rubbish printed about the 32 Special and Mr.Barnes elaborates on that in his book with the following:
" There has been a mountain of bunk written about the 32 Special answearing the demand of handloaders who wanted to use blackpowder. Since the same rifle was origionally chambered for 32-40 at about one-half the price of the nickel steel 32 Special version, this seems fantastic. Those writers would have us believe that the man wanting to save money on ammunition would for no reason spend the price of two rifles for the privilege. The fact that blackpowder can be used successfully in the 32 Special, and the fact that Winchester once provided a blackpowder rear sight for the rifle certainly do not prove that the cartridge was invented to allow folks to do what they could already do with the much cheaper 32-40 Model 94. Much ink has been spilled claiming the 32 Special just wouldn't shoot straight after the barrel got a bit of wear. I have experimented with two 32 Special carbines, a very early Winchester and a 1936 Marlin. With bullets that fit, both shoot inside 3 inches at 100 yards with open sights. The Winchester had been so abused that is rifeling hardly showed until we thoroughly cleaned it. The bore is pitted but it shoots just fine."
As you can see Mr. Barnes not only did not publish such inflamitory remarks about the the venerable 32 Special he is indeed claiming it to be a fine caliber.

I see that I missed your humor. My apolagies. There is a lot of rubbish out there about the 32 Special in regards to blackpowder. I still have to dissagree with you as I find no such comments by Mr.Barnes. In the edetion I have he clearly states that the 32 special has the edge over the 30-30, indicating that if it is loaded to equal pressure it easily beats the 30-30 by 100 fps. The 32 also offers a higher ballistic coefficient. I simply can not find any thing written by Mr.Barnes in my library to support your hypothesis. Perhaps over time you have mistaken him with another author or perhaps it was published in a different article or book. The 30-30 can be loaded as a blackpowder round that would be historicly accurate. There was never a factory 32 Special Blackpowder round. The 30-30 on the other hand was introduced in 1895 as a black powder cartridge.The 30-30 may be a superior cartridge in your view but it is not one shared or supported by Mr. Barnes in Cartridges of the world. In point of fact I simply can not imagine any scenario that the 30-30 would be ballisticly superior to the 32 Special in nitro loads. IMO the 30-30 would indeed be a superior choice for the cowboy action shooter wanting to be historicly accurate. Not to be argumentative but I would submit that everything Mr.Barnes has written in this volume stands in stark contrast to the context of your origional post and alleged quote by Mr. Barnes.

ChuckWagon:

I misspoke when I said "fred" Barnes and, of course, meant Frank Barnes.

I stand by my post. Barnes,indeed,made the remark about the 32 Win. Special. In what edition of "Cartridges of the World", I just don't recall but it was some years ago. He was drawing a comparison with the 30-30 Win., one of the very first of the smokeless powder cartridges. (BTW, nothing in your quote refutes what Barnes was saying as quoted by me. He considered that the 30-30 was a superior cartridge and the record of the 30-30 proves it)

Quite right, I was wondering if anyone was going to catch my blunder.

Paul, thanx for the correction. I guess that's what happens when I put too much emphasis on a decaying memory and a single reference. It indeeed seems I was well off track the entire strand. I stand corrected. George Maddis's "The Winchester Book " adds that in 1894 the two calibers introduced in the 1894 were the 32-40 as you had mentioned and the 38-55. In late 1895 as you had suggested the 30-30 was added in Nickel steel "for smokeless" as was the 25-35. It gets a bit sketchy on the 32 WS and depending on the source it is commonly accepted that it was introduced in 1902. Which leads me to be even more befuddled by that quote from Mr. Barnes.