So, is this the reason for the success of the infamous H&N 32 HBWC?

John Bickar was kind enough to send me a few samples of the infamous and unobtainium H&N 32 cal HBWCs and after comparing them to Speer's counterpart found this ...

The diameter of the H&Ns were far more consistent than the Speer's staying close to .315" and only varied .0005", usually less.  The nominal .314" Speer's on the other hand varied from .3115" to .314".  I don't know what the H&Ns were supposed to be but based on my samples I would say .315".  The H&N website however doesn't show a .315" bullet.  Strange.  I also found the H&N diameter to be consistent throughout the bullet length.  I can't say the same for the Speers.  The H&Ns also seemed more concentric than the Speers.

The weight of the Speers were more consistent than the H&Ns and only varied at most 1 gr. out of 10 samples.  The H&Ns varied 3.3 grs. over the same sample size. 

The lube on the H&Ns are carried in 2 fairly deep lube grooves.  I don't know the type of lube but it seems to be a typical wax composition.  The Speer lube coats the entire surface of the bullet and seems quite hard.  The Speer too has 2 grooves but they are more shallow than the H&N and are knurled.

I haven't had a chance to check the hardness of the lead yet but suspect the H&Ns are softer.  More on that later unless someone else has done the test.

The overall length of the H&Ns measure .600" while the Speers were .550".  The depth of the hollow base on the H&Ns measure about .196" while the Speers were about .241".  The nose on the H&Ns is very shallow ogive.  The nose on the Speers look almost flat and slightly recessed from a thin rim around the circumference.  The skirt at the hollow base on the H&Ns has a thickness of about .049" while the Speers are a little thicker at .067".

I have no idea what any of the above has to do with the success or accuracy of the H&N over the Speer bullets but as some have already mentioned the larger .315" diameter probably has something to do with it, especially with some barrels.  I suspect the consistency in diameter with the H&N is also a contributing factor.  What say you?

HBWCs usually need to be LARGE, compared to other bullets for that cartridge, for best accuracy and you must be sure that, when seating the bullet, the OD does not change.
PS: Speer and Hornady HBWCs for the .32 are quite inaccurate compared to factory .32 S&W L wadcutter ammo, both averaging about 4.00" groups at just 25 yards, while all the factory ammo I have tried does 1.25-1.95". Really like Fed 98gn factory ammo.

My apologies for the trivial post (mine) above but I'm trying to think through a process of swaging my own 32 HBWC taking the best attributes of the proven H&N bullet into consideration for the design.  I intend to proof the die set on a manual press and if successful move it over to a more productive machine.  Basically, for now, I'm looking to duplicate the H&N form in a swaged bullet of .3155" dia. without lube grooves.  Lube grooves would then be rolled into it as a second operation along with applying a slight chamfer at the base of the bullet, the latter being an improvement over the H&N IMHO.  Finally it would be lubed and sized to .315".  Anyway that's my plan.

Edit:  Forgot to mention that I expect to eliminate the parting line as others have found found in the H&N bullet.  Although most of it is removed while sizing some of it remains on the nose and in the lube grooves.  It probably doesn't have much effect on accuracy but it can't hurt.

Beeser, if you get swaged bullets, id be interested in buying a hundred or so without the lube groves for a coating experiment

H&N emailed me in an email that their HBWCs are in fact cold forged with a split die.  On to making my own die.

Edit:  They also do not make the projectile in .315" anymore, only .312" - .314".

Speer plinkers can be reswaged into almost h&n and performed admirably. I wish Hornady would make their 90 gr .314 hbwc again. As Tony the Tiger would say They're Grrreat!

I think less weight gave higher velocy with benefits to slow twist barrels

Dave our 32 wizzard to comment in 5...4...3...2...1...

bruce martindale wrote:Speer plinkers can be reswaged into almost h&n and performed admirably. I wish Hornady would make their 90 gr .314 hbwc again. As Tony the Tiger would say They're Grrreat!

I think less weight gave higher velocy with benefits to slow twist barrels

Dave our 32 wizzard to comment in 5...4...3...2...1...

I don't see the advantage of swaging an existing projectile over starting from a fresh blank unless to preserve a lube groove.  The Speer HBWC has a couple of knurled impressions that don't look deep enough to hold much lube.

anybody measure the Lapua .32 heads? they are the only good bullet that seems to be available now.

I'm measuring .3144 - .3146.  Each head is round.

Greetings,

Never found a load in which the new Lapua bullets shot well.

Best I got was ten ring at 50 yards with a custom BarSto barrel.

I eagerly await the posting of 50 yard X-ring ten shot groups with the new Lapua bullet.

Cheers,

Dave

A quick check for hardness of the H&N and Speer 32 HBWCs indicates they are about the same, BHN 8.0.  The test was done on a Lee Lead Hardness Testing Kit.  I don't know how accurate the number is but the indentations made were almost identical in width

Based on everything I've found so far I'm going to conclude that the larger diameter of the H&N and its consistency is the key to the success of the H&N.  Anything left out for consideration?

I have no experience with these bullets.  But quality of the base, i.e. free of imperfections, is a key element of every accurate bullet I have known.

Dr.Don wrote:I have no experience with these bullets.  But quality of the base, i.e. free of imperfections, is a key element of every accurate bullet I have known.

Good point.  I failed to mention in my earlier post that some of the Speer bullet hollow bases were loaded with whatever was used in the lube coating process.  The H&Ns were obviously sized/lubed and were very clean and crisp at the base.