An Enigmatic Iver Johnson

Picked up this little .32 today. It's an Iver Johnson Model 1 (first Model, 2nd change) made in 1896 according to it's serial number. It has a 2" barrel, and a combination of features that are inconsistent with either a modified or factory gun. It's a bit of a puzzler, so I am hoping someone here can shed some light on it. The crown of the muzzle appears to be the factory crown-


This is well and good; they did offer a 2" barrel as far as I know. The finish on the crown exactly matches the rest of the gun. But the front sight groove is cut into the patent data on the top of the barrel, as you might expect of a gunsmith job, and is notably off-center. On the other hand it is a typical factory sight installed in what is other wise the standard fashion.


So, the gun is sending mixed signals. When IJ decided to offer a 2" barrel did they just cut-and-crown the stock barrel? Or did some gunsmith do it and had a tool to replicate the factory crown? I can't even guess which is more likely. Other than the 124-year-old finish it's a rather nice little gun with a good trigger pull. I haven't shot it to see if the sights allow it to shoot to POA.
So, what do y'all think? Sloppy factory work or gunsmith work?

entropy said:

The letters seem a bit 'faded', as if the top of the barrel was polished post production.

Click to expand...

That's an artifact of the picture; IRL they are quite sharp and 'like new.'

MachIVshooter said:

I would think modified. When I shortened one, that's exactly how I did it.
IIRC, the sideways owl is on BP guns with an upright owl on the smokeless models. Of course they are interchangeable, but at least that was the original configuration. The cylinder notches are the "right" way to ID a BP vs. smokeless pistol. Smokeless models won't freewheel with the hammer down. Of course, there was never a side latch smokeless model.

Click to expand...

It's definitely modified- the question is was it factory-modified? I didn't know they did that, and maybe as a policy they didn't, but I worked at Detonics back in the eighties and when you know someone inside 'policy' can go right out the window...

I get a big chuckle out of the BP vs. Smokeless model thing... by the time IJ and others introduced 'smokeless' models people had been shooting smokeless loads out of the guns for a decade or so. When IJ switched to smokeless models they used up the old 'BP' parts making simplified (cheaper) versions of the BP guns and marketed them as 'US Revolver Co.' guns... and said they were fine for smokeless. Ah marketing, though are ever a deceitful hussy!

Jim Watson said:

Yeah, I bet that when Grandpa could afford smokeless, he shot smokeless with none of the "rating" worries of his descendants.
I bet the ammo companies knew that, too; and loaded them no hotter with nitro.



Agrees with my thoughts. It is not the power/pressure of the ammo, it's the amount. The minor makes were not really meant for a lot of shooting and did not wear as well as Colt and Smith. There are CAS side matches for Pocket Pistols and a lot of old top breaks are rounded up for the purpose. But it is something you shoot five rounds a month with.

Click to expand...

Very cool work on the cylinder!
I've tested some early smokeless loads, they run about the same numbers as their modern counterparts in velocity and energy and are actually somewhat less powerful than BP loads in the same caliber. Pretty sure the ammo companies were no more interested in getting sued than modern companies, and early on in the smokeless conversion every gun was a 'BP gun.' Doesn't change the inherent quality or durability of the individual manufacturers, of course.

I think you are right about the differing qualities of guns; pre-war Iver Johnsons seem to be a bit below S&W in overall quality, and pre-war H&Rs below that. In durability? I've put somewhere between 3000-4000 rounds through my favorite 1909 S&W .38 Safety Hammerless (4th model) and they were all smokeless and hotter than factory ammo; but still loads that MD Smith rated as 'top-break loads.' The gun has handled it just fine. I would definitely not recommend trying this in an IJ or H&R centerfire revolver of the period! Their sporting .22s seem to fare better, but there's a lot less power to deal with.

I'll shoot these lower-quality revolvers with suitably gentle loads, but none has become the sort of favorite that gets the kind of shooting the S&W has done.

Jim Watson said:

I read a post about smokeless "rated" guns that said the really minor makes had weird dimensions, citing a F&W or H&A with very undersize bore that he said black powder would squeeze a lead bullet through, but smokeless would be dangerous.

Click to expand...

It's possible- I haven't had much experience with those brands. I do have a single H&A .32, and it slugged at .311- well within normal tolerances, but that's just one gun. Pressure is pressure; some powders like Red Dot have been measured against black powder and found to mimic it's chamber and down-bore pressure curves almost exactly. Still, a good rule of thumb is 'When in doubt, don't!' Just because I am confident in my ability to load smokeless for BP cartridge guns doesn't mean everyone should, and if someone is not comfortable with it BP works and isn't that big a pain to clean up.

OK, this mystery is solved- Someone posted pics of their factory gun's crown and top-strap, and this is definitely not a production gun. The quality of the gunsmithing is much higher than one would expect on an 'economical' revolver, but it's definitely aftermarket. Nonetheless it's a great little gun, and an excellent shooter. I shot this target yesterday at seven yards at a brisk pace. A little high, but a nice tight group. This is absolutely my favorite non-S&W top-break!