Centerfire revolvers with no throats? And H&R Young America questions

[TTv2]

Got an H&R Young America .32 recently, it was made in 1940 or 41, and I wanted to measure the throats to see what they were and what I found was it had no throats; the ID of the chamber is .337" the entire length of the cylinder.

I was surprised to say the least and in addition to that there is a sizeable .030" barrel cylinder gap. Well, at least I think it's .030", I figured any number beyond that was meaningless because whatever the deal is the gap is big enough to drive a truck thru.

This has me wondering, legitimately wondering, were these meant to shoot .32 S&W Long wadcutters? I measured the cylinder and it's dead on .920" in length, the same dimension as the length of the .32 S&W Long case. The gap and the lack of a throat means that there is plenty of room to load and fire .32 S&W Long wadcutters in this revolver.

Doing a little research, it appears that H&R was advertising these as available in both .32 S&W and .32 Rimfire. I'm not too up to speed on the specs of .32 Rimfire ammunition, but if it used a heeled bullet like .22 rimfire does, then I can understand the throats being the same diameter as the chamber given the nature of heeled ammunition, but it would sure be well, cheap of H&R to use the same cylinders for both .32 Rimfire and .32 S&W.

Whatever the deal is, with no throat being present, in addition to potentially being able to shoot .32 wadcutter, it would allow me to take .32 S&W Long brass and trim it down to be a perfect length to use with the 95gr bullet I had been wanting to use in this revolver.

 

[TTv2]

The plot thickens...



So, the ad shows it's available in .22 and .32, both S&W and Rimfire, but also states "long and short", but doesn't specify whether that's .22 or .32 centerfire or .32 Rimfire. Wikipedia shows the OAL of a .32 Long Rimfire being over an inch, which would be too long unless it used a wadcutter bullet, and the same would go for .32 S&W Long.

 

[chicharrones]

Where's the firing pin on your gun in relation to the chamber diameter? At the rim, or centered?

 

[RevolvingGarbage]

I also have a Young America, .32S&W. I believe the lack of throats has more to do with simplicity of manufacture than with compatibility with heeled ammunition. The barrel to cylinder gap on mine is about .025 so not great either. It will spit crap at you when you fire it.

 

[TTv2]

Where's the firing pin on your gun in relation to the chamber diameter? At the rim, or centered?

Center. Why you ask?

 

[TTv2]

I also have a Young America, .32S&W. I believe the lack of throats has more to do with simplicity of manufacture than with compatibility with heeled ammunition. The barrel to cylinder gap on mine is about .025 so not great either. It will spit crap at you when you fire it.

I've no doubts that the lack of a throat was to reduce costs during production, but I cannot help but wonder if there was some intention of making the YA capable of shooting .32 wadcutter. Given the design of the Young America was changed around 1905 to handle smokeless, I'd have to find out if .32 S&W Long wadcutters existed back then.

 

[Monac]

I doubt there was any intent to make these guns suitable for wadcutters, which were strictly for target shooters then, not for self defense. Somebody who bought a gun as cheap (in the sense of inexpensive, not bad) as a Young America was not going to buy special ammo for them back then. They were for people who wanted to spend the minimum required to get a gun that worked. IMO, anyway. Which is to say I agree with Revolving Garbage.

PS - I am not sure if the Russian Nagant 1895 revolver has a conventional throat. That may have been something the gas-seal system may have reduced or eliminated the need for. Can anyone check?

 

[chicharrones]

Center. Why you ask?

Considering the straight through diameter chambers, and the mention of .32 rimfire heeled bullets, the thought crossed my mind of the cylinder being from another gun if the firing pin in the frame was centered.

But @RevolvingGarbage indicates that's likely not the situation.

 

[Monac]

The plot thickens...

View attachment 984535

So, the ad shows it's available in .22 and .32, both S&W and Rimfire, but also states "long and short", but doesn't specify whether that's .22 or .32 centerfire or .32 Rimfire. Wikipedia shows the OAL of a .32 Long Rimfire being over an inch, which would be too long unless it used a wadcutter bullet, and the same would go for .32 S&W Long.

Maybe 22 Short and Long were still referred to as S&W cartridges by gunmakers like H&R, and that is what the catalog refers to, not 32 S&W Short and Long?

I am just spitballing here, but Smith & Wesson invented 22 Short back in the 1850's, and 22 Long sometime later. They were stuffy enough about it that when the 22 "Lady Smith" was introduced back around 1900, they only made it in 22 "S&W Long", and not 22 Long Rifle, even though the latter had been around for about 15 years by then.

I am not firing on all cylinders today, so I stand ready to be informed that this is a dumb idea.

 

[.455_Hunter]

I agree that the lack of throats is probably cost savings measure and not a design feature. What does the cylinder gap measure with cases in the cylinder?

 

[TTv2]

Considering the straight through diameter chambers, and the mention of .32 rimfire heeled bullets, the thought crossed my mind of the cylinder being from another gun if the firing pin in the frame was centered.

But @RevolvingGarbage indicates that's likely not the situation.

There's no number on the cylinder, so I cannot say if that is or isn't the case. That said, I doubt that H&R was making anything in .32 Rimfire from 1940 and on.

 

[TTv2]

I agree that the lack of throats is probably cost savings measure and not a design feature. What does the cylinder gap measure with cases in the cylinder?

Ah, didn't think to measure with cases in. With cases in the gap is somewhere between .015" and .018"

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

I know nothing about H&R revolvers.

But I can fill in a little bit of information about 32 Rimfire ammo. This box was made by UMC. I have another box somewhere, but this box was handier for a photo. I don't know when this box was made, but it is clearly quite old, all the bullets have a coating of white lead oxide, which they did not have when they left the factory. Yes, this ammo uses heeled bullets, the bullet and the copper, not brass, cases are the same outside diameter, about .315-.317. Just like modern 22 Rim Fire ammo, the bullets were outside lubricated, with two lube grooves each, but the bullet lube has long since dried up. As can be seen, these 32 (yes they are the Long version) cartridges are slightly shorter than a standard, modern 32 S&W Long. The Rimfires are 1.223 long. The 32 S&W Longs are 1.276 long. I have a box of 32Colt New Police, which is the same as 32 S&W Long, except the bullets have a flat point. One in hand right now is 1.252 Long.

I am just spitballing here, but Smith & Wesson invented 22 Short back in the 1850's, and 22 Long sometime later. They were stuffy enough about it that when the 22 "Lady Smith" was introduced back around 1900, they only made it in 22 "S&W Long", and not 22 Long Rifle, even though the latter had been around for about 15 years by then.

Smith and Wesson did not invent the 22 Short. What we know of today as the 22 Short was invented by a Frenchman named Flobert. Daniel Wesson used this cartridge for their very early No. 1 Tip Up revolvers.
Like these:






Smith and Wesson built the tiny 'M' frame Ladysmiths from 1902 until 1921. Left to right in this photo are a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd model Ladysmith.






I don't think S&W was being 'stuffy' about chambering the Ladysmith for 22 Long. A 22 Long Rifle will fit into the chamber without sticking out the front of the cylinder, and the cylinder will turn, no problem. Yes, I have checked it out. UMC designed the 22 LR in 1884. But the Ladysmith is so tiny that a 22 Long Rifle would probably damage it.






All three models are simply marked 22 S&W CTG (short for Cartridge) nothing is stated regarding Long, Short, or Long Rifle. I take my cue from what the Standard Catalog of Smith and Wesson says, that these tiny revolvers should never be fired with modern ammo.

 

[Monac]

I did not read TTv2's posts clearly enough, and therefore was trying to answer questions that no one had asked. I also got the concept of "cylinder throat" mixed up with "forcing cone" which did not help any. This is a long-winded way of saying I was wrong.

I am a bit confused by Driftwood Johnson's post. My point, irrelevant though it was, was that at the time the catalog in TTv2's post #3 above was written, many people thought of 22 Short and Long as Smith & Wesson cartridges. Certainly S&W seems to have, by stamping "FOR 22 S&W CTG" on the M-frame Ladysmith revolvers so well photographed in his post. Thus saying "for S & W cartridges, short and long", as the catalog does, does not need to be a reference to 32 caliber ammunition.

I hope I have not added more obtuseness to what I contributed before.

 

[TTv2]

I did not read TTv2's posts clearly enough, and therefore was trying to answer questions that no one had asked. I also got the concept of "cylinder throat" mixed up in my mind with "forcing cone" which did not help a bit. This is a long-winded way of saying I was wrong.

I am a bit confused by Driftwood Johnson's post. My point, irrelevant though it was, was that at the time the catalog in TTv2's post #3 above was written, many people thought of 22 Short and Long as Smith & Wesson cartridges. Certainly S&W seems to have, by stamping "FOR 22 S&W CTG" on the M-frame Ladysmith revolvers so well photographed in his post. Thus saying "for S & W cartridges, short and long", as the catalog does, does not need to be a reference to 32 caliber ammunition.

I hope I have not added more obtuseness to what I contributed before.

It appears that when it comes to the .32 S&W family of cartridge, even .32 H&R Mag, that it is nothing short of a complete cluster of misinformation, gut feelings, and an echo chamber where people have repeated said misinformation and opinions for decades.

I've been in contact with Larry Gibson over on castboolits and he's straightened a lot of things out for me wrt the S&W and S&W Long, SAAMI pressures, and some other things.

He also is not an H&R expert (at this point the only person who can be considered an H&R expert I think we all can agree on is the late Bill Goforth) but he would have no reservations about shooting .32 S&W Long wadcutters in my revolver and his opinion is that given how late a production model my Young America is, it likely was intended to shoot .32 wadcutters.

I, however, am of the belief it's a bit of both in that H&R wanted to make a revolver that could shoot this popular new wadcutter target load that wasn't too shabby for self defense work, but could also shoot the aging .32 S&W short (albeit poorly), while also reducing costs by boring the chamber straight thru. I don't think it had anything to do with being a late production model tho and I'm betting the ad I have in post #2 is just poorly worded or misleading.

"Oh, yes, these H&R Young America's can shoot short and long .22 or .32 S&W, but only a certain kind of .32 S&W Long with this fancy new wadcutter bullet that makes shooting paper much more fun!"

Of course, now it makes me wonder if earlier models of the Young America did have at some point in time actual throats. Unfortunately, so few people own these guns or have an interest to and also post their findings on forums.

What I do know is that the .32 S&W Long top breaks that H&R made did have throats, at least mine does. It has me wondering now about whether .32 S&W "short" top breaks had them too or if they were "throat-less" like my Y. America is.

Hey, bottom line is in order for me to find out, I have to buy more .32 S&W chambered revolvers and that's not such a bad thing.

 

[Jonesy814]

I did not read TTv2's posts clearly enough, and therefore was trying to answer questions that no one had asked. I also got the concept of "cylinder throat" mixed up with "forcing cone" which did not help any. This is a long-winded way of saying I was wrong.

I am a bit confused by Driftwood Johnson's post. My point, irrelevant though it was, was that at the time the catalog in TTv2's post #3 above was written, many people thought of 22 Short and Long as Smith & Wesson cartridges. Certainly S&W seems to have, by stamping "FOR 22 S&W CTG" on the M-frame Ladysmith revolvers so well photographed in his post. Thus saying "for S & W cartridges, short and long", as the catalog does, does not need to be a reference to 32 caliber ammunition.

I hope I have not added more obtuseness to what I contributed before.

Not trying to be argumentative, but multiple sources credit S&W as developing the 22 short. While the Flobert was no doubt the inspiration, it was different in that it was basically a percussion cap with a pellet on top, with no propellant, and are about half the height of a 22 short.

 

[Tallball]

I have an H&R topbreak that says 32 S&W ctge on the side, but the cylinder is plenty long enough to hold 32 S&W long.

I have read that certain of the H&R top breaks with specific markings are safe to shoot 32 S&W long.

I have done it occasionally, but I'm not recommending that anyone else try it.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

No cylinder throat implies to me cartridges with heeled bullets where bullet diameter = case diameter, as with the classic progression of .22 rimfire: .22 BB bulleted breech cap, .22 S short, .22 L long, .22 EL extra long, .22 LR long rifle, .22 CB conical bullet cap.

Very early in transition from cap'n'ball to cartridge were larger caliber cartridges both rimfire and centerfire that used heeled bullets the same diameter as the casing.

 

[TTv2]

I have an H&R topbreak that says 32 S&W ctge on the side, but the cylinder is plenty long enough to hold 32 S&W long.

I have read that certain of the H&R top breaks with specific markings are safe to shoot 32 S&W long.

I have done it occasionally, but I'm not recommending that anyone else try it.

If it's a 6 shot, it's a .32 Long. If it's a 5 shot it's supposed to be .32 Short.

 

[TTv2]

No cylinder throat implies to me cartridges with heeled bullets where bullet diameter = case diameter, as with the classic progression of .22 rimfire: .22 BB bulleted breech cap, .22 S short, .22 L long, .22 EL extra long, .22 LR long rifle, .22 CB conical bullet cap.

Very early in transition from cap'n'ball to cartridge were larger caliber cartridges both rimfire and centerfire that used heeled bullets the same diameter as the casing.

This is a gun made in the 1940s, by then heeled calibers larger than .22 were obsolete. Furrthermore, the diameter of .337 is way larger than what .32 rimfire bullet diameter is of .316 to .318.

So, I don't think it was meant for .32 Rimfire.

 

[Monac]

If it's a 6 shot, it's a .32 Long. If it's a 5 shot it's supposed to be .32 Short.

I believe that you are right when it comes to Iver Johnson revolvers. When it comes to Harrington & Richardson, I think they briefly had their own long 32 cartridge for a while before Smith & Wesson came out with 32 S&W Long. And when it comes to Marlin...

A fair number of people don't know Marlin ever made double-action top-break revolvers. Theirs were even closer copies of the S&W 38 than the IJ's or the H&R's. Here are some pictures picture of one: https://www.thefirearmsforum.com/threads/marlin-1887-38-top-break-revolver.137677/

They were called the Model 1887, which meant Marlin started making them before S&W introduced 32 S&W Long. Yet they made a 6 shot 32 caliber version, and it will only accept 32 S&W, and not 32 Long. I know because I own one, which I bought because I assumed it was in 32 S&W Long, which is a cartridge I like a lot. I was surprised to find it it had a chamber step to keep cartridges longer than 32 S&W from being chambered.

It seemed odd to me that someone would want a gun that size in 32 S&W, but I suppose there were 32 fans even before there was a 32 Long.

I am sorry to be the nitpicky, "Well, actually..." guy, but perhaps some will find it of interest.

 

[TTv2]

I believe that you are right when it comes to Iver Johnson revolvers. When it comes to Harrington & Richardson, I think they briefly had their own long 32 cartridge for a while before Smith & Wesson came out with 32 S&W Long. And when it comes to Marlin...

A fair number of people don't know Marlin ever made double-action top-break revolvers. Theirs were even closer copies of the S&W 38 than the IJ's or the H&R's. Here are some pictures picture of one: https://www.thefirearmsforum.com/threads/marlin-1887-38-top-break-revolver.137677/

They were called the Model 1887, which meant Marlin started making them before S&W introduced 32 S&W Long. Yet they made a 6 shot 32 caliber version, and it will only accept 32 S&W, and not 32 Long. I know because I own one, which I bought because I assumed it was in 32 S&W Long, which is a cartridge I like a lot. I was surprised to find it it had a chamber step to keep cartridges longer than 32 S&W from being chambered.

It seemed odd to me that someone would want a gun that size in 32 S&W, but I suppose there were 32 fans even before there was a 32 Long.

I am sorry to be the nitpicky, "Well, actually..." guy, but perhaps some will find it of interest.

I was talking about H&R's because that's what the person I quotes was focusing on. The only H&R 5 shot .32 that was .32 S&W Long that I know of was the Model 1905, but that's a solid frame, not a top break.

I have no idea what Iver Johnson's .32's were.

Didn't know Marlin made revolvers. Guess they didn't make them for long, H&R seemed to control the market for the inexpensive, civilian revolvers for a long time. .32 S&W Long didn't come out until 1896, so not a surprise an 1887 revolver wasn't chambered for it.

 

[Tallball]

My little H&R topbreak holds six rounds. I can't hit the side of a barn with it, but it goes bang every time. I thought it would be fun to own a topbreak revolver, and it was an easy to find, inexpensive option that shoots a caliber (32 S&W long) that's not hard to get hold of.

If I had the money I would own one of those SA topbreak S&W reproductions.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

I can understand the throats being the same diameter as the chamber given the nature of heeled ammunition, but it would sure be well, cheap of H&R to use the same cylinders for both .32 Rimfire and .32 S&W.

---
There was a war on. LOTS of shortcuts were taken to try and maintain war goods production and still meet the needs of the civilian public. The country was also still in the economic depression and funds for things like guns and ammo were short for nearly everyone.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

I have an H&R topbreak that says 32 S&W ctge on the side, but the cylinder is plenty long enough to hold 32 S&W long.

I have read that certain of the H&R top breaks with specific markings are safe to shoot 32 S&W long.

I have done it occasionally, but I'm not recommending that anyone else try it.

It's also good to remember there were OTHER .32's than just Colt's and S&W's flavors. I've seen reference (Flayderman's Guide, old ammo boxes, the Gun-Data site etc.) to a .32H&R which predates the magnum by a hundred years. There was at one time (1886-1905) a .32 H&R and a .32 H&R Long. The former was nearly identical to the S&W - same relationship as .32 Colts New Police has to .32 S&W Long - but the latter was longer than the .32 S&W, shorter than the .32 S&W Long and did not survive the black powder era but was produced prolifically in black powder. From what I've read and practiced, the .32 H&R Long revolvers made for that cartridge are safe to shoot with .32 S&W, even in smokeless, as long as they are mechanically sound, but the longer .32 S&W Long in smokeless *may* stretch the limits of those actions and the nose of a factory loading bullet is right up on the edge of the cylinder. I doubt a factory load will ka-boom a cylinder but it may stretch the locking hasp or sheer the retaining pins with extended use. The cheap gun companies back then actually produced some pretty good guns - witness the numbers of I-J, F&W, H&R, US Revolver Co. "cheap" guns which not only survived but are still in use - but there's no sense pushing them too hard.

When S&W and Colts built revolver for smokeless, they tended to over-build them so modern handloads can give new life to those guns. Be careful, be safe, stick to published, reliable data.

BTW: If anyone has published data for the old .32 H&R or .32 H&R Long, pass it along, please. I have an older H&R automatic ejector model which is for .32H&R Long. I've been trimming S&W Long cases to 0.875" and loading them with 8 grains of FFFg under a card wad, soft wad, and 100 grain DEWC. Works great and very accurate but obviously not "correct". I'd like to make a box of correct loads, just to have, but can't find a recipe.