TargetTalk

Hi,

Seems like the Manurhin 32WC revolver might be quite esay one to reload according to this comparison:
http://hem.bredband.net/nfdt/32SWL/index.html

After been using the Manurhin 32 for a while now I'm really happy how easy it is to reload for accuracy. It shoots amazing groups!
I was using the Pardini HP for years for the ISSF Centre Fire, but never found it that easy.

Another thing I like shooting the Manurhin is the balance and direct trigger. After modifying an anatomical Nill grip a bit, removing wood from the left grip part, making it almost a standard revolver grip, but with a rest, I got a excellent balance.

Shooting the centre fire rapid part with the direct trigger is something I really like (I never became a friend shooting the rapid with "first/second stage trigger" on the HP).

regards,
MFR

I agree that the Manurhin 32 match is awsome. I have also shot with several simi autos for centerfire and never really got the hang of it until I shot the Manurhin. The balance and trigger as you say is very nice and I have made my bests results in both slow and rapid fire stages with it. So for me the re-cocking between shoots in the rapid fire stage is no disadvantage but then again I am no centerfire expert. I love the feel of the recoil, much similar to a free pistol but more powerful off course. I put a Rink grip on mine, much better than the Morini grip that came with it IMO. I don't re-load so can't comment on the ease of that I use Magh Tech factory loaded.

TB wrote:I agree that the Manurhin 32 match is awsome. I have also shot with several simi autos for centerfire and never really got the hang of it until I shot the Manurhin. The balance and trigger as you say is very nice and I have made my bests results in both slow and rapid fire stages with it. So for me the re-cocking between shoots in the rapid fire stage is no disadvantage but then again I am no centerfire expert. I love the feel of the recoil, much similar to a free pistol but more powerful off course. I put a Rink grip on mine, much better than the Morini grip that came with it IMO. I don't re-load so can't comment on the ease of that I use Magh Tech factory loaded.

I aggre about that free pistol feeling, very nice and consist recoil! Regarding the re-cooking I also agree, not a problem, almomst a nice therapy between the shoots. Have you been meassure the velocity of factory MaghTech in a chronograph?
I will do some speed tests with different loads later on.

The only thing I miss is a little bit wider front sight, don't know if thats available.

No I have not tested the Maghtech in a chronograph but comparing the factory info of the different brands of 32 WC the Maghtech are the slowest and Lapua the fastest.

You can order different sizes of front sights but as with everything else from Manurhin it is very expensive. I asked about it some time ago and the price was about $140!!! I had a friend with the right machinery to widend the rear sight a little since there was almost no air between the sights.

Hi,
I uploaded a video showing the smooth recoil I get when using Fiocchi bullet, 1,35gr VV310 powder and Fiocchi leadless primer
The second shot wasnt that perfect as the first shoot, but still a 10.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKkWvbHtrzo

What I will do next is to try an even weaker load, about 1,2gr.


//MFR

Greetings,

Where do you purchase the Fiocchi bullet?

What diameter is the bullet?

In what quantities is the bullet packaged?

With kind regards,

Dave Wilson

fc60 wrote:Greetings,

Where do you purchase the Fiocchi bullet?

What diameter is the bullet?

In what quantities is the bullet packaged?

With kind regards,

Dave Wilson

Hi,
I buy them from a local dealer in Sweden. They are 313 WC hollow base, coated with something like teflone(?), don't remember exactly. They comes in boxes of 500.

Dispite I got some good groups with this load, I still think that HN314 (greased) might be a bether option for the Manurhin.

I will also test Lapua bullet later on

//MFR

Reagarding the 25m Rapid fire stage (duelling), I think its a great advantage using a Revolver with a direct trigger. It gives you a very relaxed and precise lift.
You don't have to deal with any "first stage" trigger part during the lift, that effects the muscel tones in the arm and hand/finger.

Actually, I dont really understand the point using a two stage trigger, but I guess its very indvidual.

//MFR

MFR wrote: Actually, I dont really understand the point using a two stage trigger, but I guess its very indvidual.

//MFR

I guess you're right, it's individual. I for one like two stage trigger, but in many cases you can adjust the modern pistols to quite a large degree. The revolvers I have shot haven't had any adjustments except the hammer spring tension, you pretty much need a gunsmith (or comparable skills) to change the way the trigger works.

The balance between trigger stages and how it breaks is only one aspect of trigger adjustment. The distance and angles are also often adjustable in pistols, but rarely in revolvers. This is more important for me, as I have quite small hands. Finally, one thing I don't like about many DA revolvers is that the trigger returns to the forward position with quite strong spring force after the trigger breaks.

Well, that's just the trigger. I have to say I'd like to have a good .32 or .38 target revolver. Not because I feel it would be superior to a good pistol (I shoot MG4 and love it), but it's just another one of those "I want" things...

Mika

mika wrote:

MFR wrote: Actually, I dont really understand the point using a two stage trigger, but I guess its very indvidual.

//MFR

Finally, one thing I don't like about many DA revolvers is that the trigger returns to the forward position with quite strong spring force after the trigger breaks.


Mika

Hi,

On my Manurhin I don't have the problem with the trigger returning forward with force after the shot. Actually, Its no force at all , and after the shot I just let the trigger return back. The trigger on the Manurhin also have a adjustable "trigger stop" screw.

//MFR

MFR,

I believe the Manurhin is in its own league as a target gun from the beginning. And there are certainly other great revolvers, both competitive and enjoyable. I guess it really is a matter of taste, and mine just happens to favor pistols fot the aforementioned reasons. All of which may not even be valid, like you pointed out regarding the Manurhin's trigger.

I certainly hope I get an opportunity to shoot a Manurhin .32. By the way, is their cylinder for full length .32 S&W Long or wadcutter only? Are there any WC only revolvers? The ability to shoot a wider variety of bullets is obe advantage the revolvers have at least in this caliber.

Mika

mika wrote:MFR,

I believe the Manurhin is in its own league as a target gun from the beginning. And there are certainly other great revolvers, both competitive and enjoyable. I guess it really is a matter of taste, and mine just happens to favor pistols fot the aforementioned reasons. All of which may not even be valid, like you pointed out regarding the Manurhin's trigger.

I certainly hope I get an opportunity to shoot a Manurhin .32. By the way, is their cylinder for full length .32 S&W Long or wadcutter only? Are there any WC only revolvers? The ability to shoot a wider variety of bullets is obe advantage the revolvers have at least in this caliber.

Mika

The cylinder is full length (see the link above, showing some ammunition tests in ransom rest).

//MFR

I have shot both the Manurhin .32 and the .38 side by side for a number of years and the .38 is the better cartridge. It is easier to load for than the .32 and is more fogiving to load variations. Every now and then the .32 will throw a flyer 40 to 50 mm out of the group.
I have also shot a number of auto's against the revolvers and while the techniques vary slightly, the total scores did not, only a couple of points in it.
Generally the precision score from the revolver will be a few points higher than the auto, but the rapidfire scores from the auto are easier to shoot a higher score.
You need to train a lot more to get the revolver rapidfire scores up to the auto scores.
Having said that, there is little you can do to bring the auto's precision scores up to the revolvers score.
The revolver will win if the rapidfire is highly trained and the auto is always trying to catch up in rapidfire.

David M wrote: Having said that, there is little you can do to bring the auto's precision scores up to the revolvers score.
The revolver will win if the rapidfire is highly trained and the auto is always trying to catch up in rapidfire.

Is the ease of shooting the reason why most people are shooting autos in CF also on the top level? I'd expect more top shooters to opt for revolvers, if that would give them an edge, even if it required a lot of practice. Also, there must be something to the popularity of the .32 compared to .38.

Mika

mika wrote:...Also, there must be something to the popularity of the .32 compared to .38. Mika

Spencer's hypothesis #3 - a bigger lump of lead is inherently more accurate than a smaller lump of lead

Left-hand drive is more popular than right-hand drive - is one better than the other (other than one was favoured by Napoleon because the English did it the other way)?

Spencer wrote: Spencer's hypothesis #3 - a bigger lump of lead is inherently more accurate than a smaller lump of lead

I guess that hypothesis is not very well proven by empirical evidence. .22 lr is quite accurate at the ranges it's designed for, and in long-range shooting the calibers are not really that big. 6 mm PPC is very good at 300 m, as is .308 Win which does quite well at longer ranges as well. No trend to bigger calibers. Actually, airguns are extremely accurate, although at short distances only.

Left-hand drive is more popular than right-hand drive - is one better than the other (other than one was favoured by Napoleon because the English did it the other way)?

That probably is really only a matter of taste ;) Although it would be really nasty if the choice were different in neighboring countries with a lot of pass-through traffic, like continental Europe.

Mika

mika wrote:

David M wrote: Also, there must be something to the popularity of the .32 compared to .38.

Mika

Maybee managing the recoil is easier with the .32?

//MFR

MFR wrote:
Maybee managing the recoil is easier with the .32?

//MFR

It's lower, although I guess it is more significant in sports like the CISM rapid fire, where you fire multiple shots in a row. Actually, recoil is one thing I've been wondering about in .32. It's a really low power round, and firing it from a revolver, it doesn't feel much different from a .22. But in autos the difference is quite noticeable. I wonder if it is the lighter (than the whole gun) mass of the slide accelerated to a significant speed and then suddenly stopped by the frame somehow feeling different from the whole gun recoiling together during the whole process. Or like a shotgun fired fired with its butt an inch forward of your shoulder hurting while held against the shoulder it doesn't feel like much, although the total amount of moving masses is the same.

Mika

mika wrote:

David M wrote: Having said that, there is little you can do to bring the auto's precision scores up to the revolvers score.
The revolver will win if the rapidfire is highly trained and the auto is always trying to catch up in rapidfire.

Is the ease of shooting the reason why most people are shooting autos in CF also on the top level? I'd expect more top shooters to opt for revolvers, if that would give them an edge, even if it required a lot of practice. Also, there must be something to the popularity of the .32 compared to .38.

Mika

In which aspects "must" the rapid fire be harder with a revolver? With right technic I even think it might be easier, but again it might be very individual.

I also find it good for the shooting development not to have "hundreds" of adjusting possibillities, for instance, changing the trigger position and so on...

Focus on wrist, stadiness, sights and trigger control and I think you will be a winner with the revolver. But finally it will be the training hours that desides if you become a 570 or 580 shooter.

//MFR

MFR wrote: In which aspects "must" the rapid fire be harder with a revolver? With right technic I even think it might be easier, but again it might be very individual.

The ISSF CF "rapid fire" is easy for a revolver as well, but the CISM type rapid fire is quite different. 5 shots in 6 seconds using a revolver is challenging, to say the least.

I also find it good for the shooting development not to have "hundreds" of adjusting possibillities, for instance, changing the trigger position and so on...

Well, you can just leave them as they come from the factory. That's what you do with a gun that doesn't have the adjustments. I don't really see where possibilities become a problem, but lack of them may be one. Unless of course some possibility, like an adjustment, somehow makes a gun unreliable or somehow limits its usefulness in some other way.

Focus on wrist, stadiness, sights and trigger control and I think you will be a winner with the revolver. But finally it will be the training hours that desides if you become a 570 or 580 shooter.
//MFR

Yes! I'm afraid I'll never be a 580 shooter, maybe not even 570, regardless of the gun.

Mika