[Oleg Volk]

A while back, I shot one owned by a friend. It was very accurate, despite slightly heavy trigger. The size seemed similar to a KT P32. .32S&W is anemic (70% of .32acp) and I am curious if the same size gun was ever made in .32 Long.

[Josey]

No. I own a few. They are neat. The trigger is a real neat piece of engineering. They couldn't be made today for $1,000.00 each. A marvel of precise fit and complicated interlocking parts. The next bigger S&Ws were 38 S&W.

[dogngun]

These old guns are great fun to shoot and can be bought very cheaply if you know what to look for.I recently bought two Iver Johnson top break revolvers, one from 1922 in .38 S&W, and one from 1921 in .32. They were not made in larger calibers.

I agree, they are interesting, fascinating guns, and they were personal protection to many folks for a lot of years. ( The I J top breaks were in production from the 1890's till 1941) They are an overlooked part of history.

NOTE: most of these guns made after 1910 or so are safe with modern ammo, but many of the older guns are designed for black powder. Learn something about your gun before you shoot it.

Mark

[Josey]

A quick and dirty method of ID between BP only and nitro proofed breaktops, owlheads, dogsheads or suicide specials. If the cylinder freewheels with the hammer at rest, the revolver IS BP only. A more involved check involves removing the grips and checking the mainsprings. Coils were BP and flat or arched with tension screws are nitro proofed.

[pauli]

"lemon squeezer?"

[Old Fuff]

Josey:

I think you have it backwards. The flat mainsprings came first, and the coil springs later. All S&W "Safety Hammerless" revolvers had flat mainsprings and a strain screw, as do that company's early Hand Ejectors.

[Old Fuff]

Oleg:

Smith & Wesson made two sizes of Safety Hammerless revolvers, a small 5-shot/.32 S&W and a larger 5-shot/.38 S&W. Both were popular and the .38 remained in production until 1940 or 41 when the company retooled for war production.

Smith never made a model chambered for the .32 S&W Long cartridge I think part of the reason is that the round wasn’t introduced until 1896, and then in S&W’s first swing-out cylindered Hand Ejector. By then the interest in top-break revolvers was starting to decline, and it was hardly worthwhile to design and build a new gun other then a Hand Ejector. As it was they didn’t get around to this until 1952 when the introduced the Centennial (later model 40).

During the late 1920’s the little 32 was advertised as a better choice then the “other maker’s” .25 Vest Pocket Automatic. It was obviously more powerful as mouse-guns go, and according to S&W it was safer to carry, and if necessary could be fired while pointed toward a close-up adversary while still in the user’s pocket. Can’t do that with an automatic – at least not for more then one shot.

The double-action trigger pull is usually heavy – partly for safety reasons, and partly because primers during the late 19th and early 20th centuries weren’t as sensitive as they are now. However the pull was designed so that it noticeably lightened just before the hammer was released. Consequently one who was experienced and practiced with a “Safety” could be very precise at the short ranges it was expected the guns would be used at. However the maker recommended “point and shoot” over aimed fire with these models. They were also the only revolver made by a major U.S. manufacturer that had a grip safety – which they claimed made the gun safe in a pocket – with or without a holster – and was also “child resistant.”

Owners included President Teddy Roosevelt, and the late Col. Rex Applegate who carried a .38 as a back-up during World War Two.

[Josey]

I may not have been clear. The S&W you cite is correct. The IJ, H&R, H&A, cartridge oddballs like 32 and 38 rf were what I was referring to. There are exceptions. You do need to know what to look for. There are all manner of Velodogs and design rip offs from Belgium too. The free wheeling cylinder is a fairly reliable test. S&W did transition from spring steel mainsprings to coil but, their nitro proofed centerfire pistols overlapped. S&W even restarted production while actually continuing serial number series. It can get confusing. The shape of the sideplate, type of trigger guard and other visual clues will tell which model you have, 1st, 2nd or 3rd in 32 S&Ws.

[The Rabbi]

I am pleased to see myself described as Oleg's friend. Feeling is mutual of course.
Yes, it is my .32 and a terrific little gun. I keep it in my left jacket pocket for those "odd social" situations where I might have to fire it through the jacket. It isnt likely to kill anyone, just stun them enough while I haul out the Smith 329 and put the kybosh on any ill-intent.
I also have a .38 S&W. I am having a tough time finding ammo for it though. Any help from my friends?

[Tamara]

I also have a .38 S&W. I am having a tough time finding ammo for it though. Any help from my friends?

We stock it at the shop. Get Oleg to remind me and I'll try to get a box or two into his hands.

[Tamara]

However the maker recommended “point and shoot” over aimed fire with these models.

...and they enforced that recommendation via the vestigial sights on the gun. :D

[Old Fuff]

>> ...and they enforced that recommendation via the vestigial sights on the gun. <<

Sights?? Who uses sights? Anyway the last ones they made had the front sight as part of the barrel forging, and were wider. Someone must have gotten the messsage. For some unknown reason "knifeblade" thin front sights were used on most 19th century pocket revolvers. Jeff Cooper came along 100 years too late ....

[FPrice]

"lemon squeezer?"

So-called I believe because it has a safety lever which must be depressed in order to fire. The safety is a "bar" that runs along part of the backstrap. You must have a firm grip on the pistol, especially with the palm of the hand in contact with the safety in order to fire.

I guess it's sorta like squeezing a lemon.

[The Rabbi]

Front sights? Mine has an enormous blade that about dwarfs the barrel. Rear sight is close to non existent but I suspect that front sight makes for some fast aiming.
Tam, thank you kindly. I will bug Oleg, kak vsegda.

WWJD=
We Want Jack Daniels.

[mtnbkr]

D. B. Wesson developed this gun after learning that a child accidentally killed themself with a S&W revolver. It was designed to be difficult, if not impossible, for a child to fire. He had his grandson (7 at the time, I think) test it during development.

How many people would be up in arms if S&W brought out a similar gun today...

Chris

[FPrice]

Did it look like this?

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=983462

[The Rabbi]

This is the gun. Hope this works.

[Jim K]

I have never had any trouble firing modern .32 S&W (Short) ammo in any of the old revolvers, and believe the concern about black powder vs smokeless is a bit overrated. The ammunition makers were and are well aware of the limitations of the guns in which .32 S&W is likely to be fired, and the pressures do not exceed those of black powder rounds.

The business about the cylinder free-wheeling (assuming the gun is in good order) is due to the type of lockup or lack of it, and has no real relationship to the gun's capability to take smokeless powder. Many of the old DA guns, both pre- and post the smokeless powder era, had no cylinder lock when the hammer was at rest, and no rebound mechanism either. The safest way to carry was with the hammer down on a fired cartridge.

On the other hand, S&W's very first revolver, the Model 1, first issue, has a positive cylinder lock mechanism when the hammer is down, although it would be a long time before S&W came up with a hammer rebound system.

Jim

[Tamara]

Heck, why pass up a chance to post a pic? :)

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=725675

These things were designed to be child safe, and they succeeded at their design brief. Grip safety aside, no child could pull the trigger without the aid of two grown men, a mule, and a chainfall. :scrutiny:

Other than the ninety-something pount DA pull, it's a sweet little gun. :D

[FPrice]

The shop I got my S&W at also has a roughly 1895 nickled specimen that looks a lot like yours except the nickle is coming off in a few places (maybe 20-30%). They want about $220 IIRC. But since I have one, I can't see getting another that is in worse shape.

[dogngun]

Mr Keenan, I believe you are right. The limited power of the .32 S&W will possibly "shoot loose" an old BP revolver over time, but I don't think anyone is risking a catastrophe by shooting these old guns with modern ammo on occasion if they are mechanically sound.

They are all lots of fun to shoot.

Mark

[guy sajer]

They are sweet little guns and getting tougher to find the nice ones . I'm trying to find a .38 to go with my .32 Safety 2nd Model .

http://thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=355051