EARLY S&W Revolvers...

[FPrice]

I was perusing a local gunshop tonight looking for unusual or rare handguns. I think I succeeded.

The first was a blued S&W break-top in .32 caliber. Took a few moments to pique my interest but the more I looked, the more curious I got. Memorized a few details and came home to my Supica and Nahas. Turns out this appears to be a S&W .32 Safety Hammerless 2nd Model, dating back to about 1908 by the serial number. The left side blueing looks pretty good for it's age but the right side seems to be worn off. The clerk behind the counter talked about the backstrap which looks like the "lemon squeezer" and mentioned what he called a "lemon squeezer" next to it. Turns out this seems to be a S&W .32 Hammerless Safety 1st Model. I figure this one dates to the late 1890's.

How much of a S&W collector am I? Should I go for one/both? I wonder if they are safe to fire?

Decisions, decisions.

 

[Mike Irwin]

I have a friend who regularly shoots his 2nd Model Safety Hammerless .32.

Fun gun, but hard to get a decent grip on so that the safety is depressed.

 

[FPrice]

"I have a friend who regularly shoots his 2nd Model Safety Hammerless .32.

Fun gun, but hard to get a decent grip on so that the safety is depressed."

Thanks Mike, I knew I could count on you to talk some sense into me.

 

[Jim K]

Plus - One of the safest guns ever made when small hands are about. Many are found in near new condition as they were often "bureau drawer" guns. Nickeled ones look nice if the nickel is intact.

Minus - Guns are old and parts are not available. Grips are often cracked, but J frame grips can be easily fitted. Nickel is seldom intact and often looks like heck.

Still a fun gun and I think we would all be surprised at how many are walking around in pocket and purse right now.

Jim

 

[C.R.Sam]

And, if you have senior citizen eyes; the front sight can be a bear to find except in the best of lighting conditions.

Ammo is generally pretty pricy. But that isn't much of a factor for most who shoot em rarely. We are set up to reload for em. Not sure why.

Mine are nickel, I think you are lucky to find blue.

Sam

 

[Hutch]

As shooters, I think they leave much to be desired. The specimen I shot wouldn't hold 'em in a peach basket at 7 yards. I may not be good, but I'm not that bad.

 

[mec]

Also chambered for .38 S&W
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0BTT/146_24/61861511/p1/article.jhtml?term=safety+hammerless

 

[Old Fuff]

Over the years I have had several, in both .32 and .38.

As a rule of thumb I think it's better to use those that have the "lift-up" latch rather then earlier ones for shooters. These were all made after smokeless powder was intorduced while earlier ones go back to the late 1880's.

I agree about the sights, but in old advertisements (which I have) S&W recommended that these were intended to be close-range weapons that should be more "pointed" then aimed.

Sam is right (again). Most of them were nickel plated, not blued - as many were carried close to the body and this was long before stainless steels were thought of.

Replacement grips and other parts are usually available from Numrich/Gun Parts Corp. at www.e-gunparts.com

If you carefully examine one that's in good shape you will see fit and polish that puts today's work to shame, but of course the materials aren't as strong. The internal lockwork is made like a fine watch, but taking one apart and reassembling it can turn a preacher to strong drink.

Ammunition is available, but too expensive to use for much plinking.

Dry firing without loading the chambers with fired cases can result in a broken firing pin. When looking at a revolver you might buy always check the pin to be sure it isn't broken.

During the middle 1920's S&W advertisements made a point of saying that they were much better then a .25 automatic (obviously taking a jab at Colt). While this isn't saying a whole lot I'd agree with the observation.