Iver Johnson 32S&W top break, black powder or not.

[Connor_brokengun2132]

I’ve recently purchased a 32 S&W short top break revolver (as the name of the thread suggests) and well am having trouble figuring out if it was meant for smokeless or black power cartridges. There is a leaf spring or flat spring not sure what it’s called in the back and from what I’ve read that means it’s a black powder gun. Any insight is appreciated!

On another note I have a H&R 32 s&w long that has a leaf spring as well and I think that’s smokeless. I digress.

 

[Mosin77]

I’d err on the side of black powder pressures. Those IJ guns were never robust and excessively durable on the best of days. Most of the old ones I’ve handled (dozens) have been broken in some way.

 

[Jim Watson]

Leaf spring, one-way cylinder stop notches, owl facing forward mean pre-1909 manufacture. Official Internet Black Powder Rating.
But I bet Grandpa shot smokeless when he could afford it.
How much shooting do you plan?

 

[Connor_brokengun2132]

Leaf spring, one-way cylinder stop notches, owl facing forward mean pre-1909 manufacture. Official Internet Black Powder Rating.
But I bet Grandpa shot smokeless when he could afford it.
How much shooting do you plan?

Honestly not too much I ordered of box of smokeless before really looking into it. I would probably shoot it one time and use the rest in my H&R. I got a decent deal when it came into the shop I work at so I figured why not… appreciate the information on the grips and what not. It looks like it was taken care of but the barrel is a bit worn out. So perhaps smokeless was used.. im assuming the black powder rounds aren’t the easiest thing to find anymore ?

 

[Mosin77]

Honestly not too much I ordered of box of smokeless before really looking into it. I would probably shoot it one time and use the rest in my H&R. I got a decent deal when it came into the shop I work at so I figured why not… appreciate the information on the grips and what not. It looks like it was taken care of but the barrel is a bit worn out. So perhaps smokeless was used.. im assuming the black powder rounds aren’t the easiest thing to find anymore ?

Correct assumption. You could roll your own but realistically once you do it once you probably won’t want to again. The shooting experience isn’t earth-shattering. So I can’t really recommend buying the dies and cases to reload one unless you have tons of disposable time and money.

 

[dickydalton]

I’ve recently purchased a 32 S&W short top break revolver (as the name of the thread suggests) and well am having trouble figuring out if it was meant for smokeless or black power cartridges. There is a leaf spring or flat spring not sure what it’s called in the back and from what I’ve read that means it’s a black powder gun. Any insight is appreciated!

On another note I have a H&R 32 s&w long that has a leaf spring as well and I think that’s smokeless. I digress.

It is a First Model from the 1880s and 90s so it was BP. I have an engraved one that I have fired some smokeless rounds through.

 

[Connor_brokengun2132]

It is a First Model from the 1880s and 90s so it was BP. I have an engraved one that I have fired some smokeless rounds through.

So I could fire perhaps 10-15 rounds through this and be okay ?

 

[dickydalton]

So I could fire perhaps 10-15 rounds through this and be okay ?

I'm not saying that but I shot more than that.

 

[Connor_brokengun2132]

I'm not saying that but I shot more than that.

Sounds good. I will keep that in mind thank your for the input.

 

[Mr. Mosin]

Black Powder- no four pins

 

[Michael Tinker Pearce]

These guns were not made for smokeless, but when smokeless was introduced the only guns made for it were military rifles. Manufacturers, who were no more fond of being sued than anyone, tailored the loads for older 'black powder' guns. If the gun is fit to shoot at all a few rounds of factory ammo shouldn't hurt it. Your decision, that's just my opinion.

Iver Johnson was one of the better American top-breaks, second to S&W. Some funny history with the Iver Johnsons. When they introduced the four-pin models the brag was that they were 'for smokeless powder.' What did they do with the large stocks of barrels and cylinders left over from the older model? Registered a new brand, U.S. Revolver and made a simplified version of the action of the old 'black powder' models and sold them at a bit lower price point. These were advertised as 'suitable for all modern ammunition,' which at the time meant smokeless powder. Mind you none of these guns was robust by modern standards, but a lot of the customer base seldom fired their revolvers so I suppose the possibility of accelerated wear wasn't much of an issue.

 

[TTv2]

So I could fire perhaps 10-15 rounds through this and be okay ?

A key uncertainty with shooting smokeless in a black powder top break is it's unknown how much smokeless ammo that these have already seen.

I recall reading something about Hopkins and Allen revolvers that they lasted over 900 rounds of smokeless and I don't believe they were ever built for smokeless. They broke not far above 900 rds, so a few dozen smokeless rounds in any top break is more than fine if they're in good condition.

I just choose not to buy black powder top breaks, I'd rather have something that was built for smokeless unless it's for an obsolete obscure cartridge where loading data for smokeless doesn't exist.

 

[Speedo66]

Black Powder- no four pins

These are the four pins @Mr. Mosin is referring to, the line of them between the trigger and the cylinder.

They are a true indicator of whether the gun is smokeless, without taking the grips off to check if it has a coil spring.

The OP’s gun only has two.

 

[halfmoonclip]

Mind you none of these guns was robust by modern standards, but a lot of the customer base seldom fired their revolvers so I suppose the possibility of accelerated wear wasn't much of an issue.

I've a minty S&W 'lemon squeezer' that looks like it has never been fired; it was loaded, and stuck in a drawer, sometime in the 19th Century. Even today, some small guns simply don't get fired all that much; doubt too many LCPs are actually worn out from excess shooting.

Correct assumption. You could roll your own but realistically once you do it once you probably won’t want to again. The shooting experience isn’t earth-shattering. So I can’t really recommend buying the dies and cases to reload one unless you have tons of disposable time and money.

Already have dies to load .45 Colt, and actually ran 100 rounds of BP. It was no end of messing around; cobbled a loading funnel for Station #2 on a Dillon 550, and made a powder dipper from a spent .45 ACP case.
Having loaded them, haven't fired a one; two boxes remain in my ammo stash. Just didn't feel like a 'soap and water' cleaning session on a .45 Colt gun.
Really wish someone would make a 'smokeless' load that replicated BP smoke, with the easy charging/noncorrosive nature of Trailboss....and you can't get even that, currently. Where are all the CASS folks?
Moon

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

Around 1900 Iver Johnson redesigned their revolvers, using better steel. These revolvers were fine to shoot with Smokeless ammunition.

There are three telltale indicators of whether or not the revolver has been redesigned for Smokeless ammunition. The little owl on the grips faces backwards, the hammer spring is a coil spring, and the cylinder locking slots have a hard edge both top and bottom. Like this.

On earlier Iver Johnsons, with the earlier steel the little owl on the grips is facing forward. The cylinder notches only have one hard edge. And the hammer spring is a leaf spring. Like this.

Your revolver clearly has a leaf spring, so it is not meant for shooting with Smokeless ammunition.

Yes, it is unknown if the revolver has been previously shot with Smokeless ammo, a lot of the older guns were. It is also unknown if shooting it with Smokeless ammo has damaged it. I have several small old Smith and Wesson Top Breaks chambered for 32 S&W (there is no such thing as 32 S&W Short). I take them out and look at them every once in a while, but I do not shoot them with modern Smokeless ammo.


Here is a little Smith and Wesson 32 Safety Hammerless. I would not shoot it with modern Smokeless ammo.

 

[Jim Watson]

Blackhorn 209 seems the most advanced of the fake powders. A friend loads it in his .500 S&W Monster Magnum for plinking ammo.

 

[Jim Watson]

I read a poster to say that the first and second level top breaks, Smith, IJ, HR, would handle some amount of smokeless but warned against it in third tier guns. Not because of strength but because of wildly varying dimensions. He cited a revolver - maybe H&A or F&W - with a very undersized barrel. He though black powder would squish a soft bullet through ok but smokeless and maybe a hardcast bullet would be hazardous.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

I have used American Pioneer Powder (APP) for "Black Powder" loads in 38S&W. It is a Black Powder substitute that does not require special bullets with special Black Powder compatible bullets. Regular smokeless bullets can be used. APP would be fine for loading into 32 S&W.

 

[James K2020]

Interesting, I've shot my .32 Hammerless 3rd Model New Departure with modern ammo. It's such a pipsqueak load I can't imagine it causing any damage. Also used modern ammo in my .38 Perfected and it seemed just fine.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

Interesting, I've shot my .32 Hammerless 3rd Model New Departure with modern ammo. It's such a pipsqueak load I can't imagine it causing any damage. Also used modern ammo in my .38 Perfected and it seemed just fine.

View attachment 1203415
View attachment 1203416
View attachment 1203417

Wow, that Perfected is......perfect!

 

[Rubone]

Mine has later grips but is definitely black powder only. Low serial number from 1895!

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

I have said this a bazillion times.

It is not the maximum pressure achieved by Smokeless ammo vs Black Powder ammo.

It is the pressure curve.

Ammunition loaded with Black Powder has a much gentler pressure curve than Smokeless ammo.

Smokeless ammo has a much sharper pressure spike than BP ammo.

It is the sharp pressure spike that can cause the older steel (and malleable iron) cylinders of old guns to fracture.

The old steel (and iron) is better able to withstand the gentler pressure curve of Black Powder than Smokeless ammo.

Yes, Grandpa may have put some Smokeless ammo through the old guns, and they may have survived just fine, but you are taking a chance.

Here is a Merwin Hulbert cylinder that did not survive being shot with Smokeless ammo.

I would never dream of shooting Smokeless ammo in any of my large caliber antique #3 Smith and Wessons.

Yes, there are Smokeless powders that can roughly duplicate the pressure curve of Black Powder, but they are not powders most would typically load into handgun cartridges.

Don't ask me for specifics, I argue about this with a guy on the Smith and Wesson forum occasionally, but I do not recall what powders he was recommending.




Regarding the Perfected Models, they were manufactured from 1909 until 1920. Perfectly fine to shoot with ammunition loaded with Smokeless powder.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Mine has later grips but is definitely smokeless only. Low serial number from 1895!
View attachment 1203425

I think you meant to say Black Powder only???

 

[James K2020]

Driftwood, I've always appreciated your knowledge and insight on S&W handguns. You've probably forgot more than I could ever know. As far as the Hammerless .32, I've only shot it a few times and it's a bit of a safe queen however when I did there was so little percussion from the cartridges I used, it's hard to believe they could burst the cylinder. If that does happen it wouldn't be a great loss, I did get for a small price and I'm not that sentimental. I may just take it out again and try to prove I'm wrong. Hopefully not. It is a cool little pistol.

 

[Slamfire]

Steel from the 1880's! Study the history of metallurgy and you will learn just how much they did not know about steel in the 1880's. Process controls were sight, taste, smell, and not much more. Any analysis of steels from that period show erratic compositions, with lots of residuals, because they were unable to remove non oxidizing elements such as copper, chrome, nickel, aluminum, etc. Expect lots of slag and impurities. A Locomotive book I have documents period arguments over cast iron versus steel. Cast iron was a mature technology, steel was not. Steels of the period are going to be plain carbon steels with a lot of crap, which weakens the steel in unpredictable ways.

And what you should most concerned about is fatigue lifetime. Cycles to failure under stress. I was on the email chain of a question to a modern black powder match barrel maker. The steel he used is something considered OK for sewer pipes. Really low grade stuff, but OK for blackpowder. Many black powder rifle barrels were wrought iron, something you can't harden due to lack of carbon. It was butter soft, which allowed country blacksmiths to forge barrels around mandrels, and cut the rifling with a steel cutter hook. Something that soft, I would absolutely not use smokeless. I don't care if someone says they will go 900 rounds, the next one might go on the first cylinder.