Iver johnson 32 top break

[Monac]

Old Stumpy said "Actually, this revolver was made at a time when quality was a given, not an empty promise."

I did not say H&R or Iver Johnson revolvers were of low quality. They were safe when fired with the ammunition they were made for. What they were not was highly accurate, for the reasons I noted. They were intended for short range self defense, and were adequate for that. Anyone who expects a good group at the range with them, or even reliably hitting soup cans at 50 feet, is going to be in for a disappointment, IMO.

Old Stump also said: "And, I'm sure that 99% of the members here would be able to visually tell the difference between .38, .32, or .22 caliber without a "household object". "

I am sure of that too. What I wanted was some convenient way for people who come here and ask what caliber the gun they are holding in their hands is to find out. We fairly often get questions from people who are not familiar with firearms.

PS - I think people of the period under question (say, 1880 to 1930) would be amused to hear it referred to as a time when quality was a given, not an empty promise. The urgent need for the Pure Food and Drug Act in 1906 suggests otherwise. Quality is never a given unless you shop carefully and pay enough for it. This just my opinion, of course, and yours is just as good about a time when neither of us were around.

 

[Hillbilly Hydrographics]

Thanks for all the help everyone. And the iver johnson is a 38 not a 32 it had a broke lifter and when ordering one to match the broke one i seen that the lifter for the 32 is shaped different. So 38s&w it is.

 

[Monac]

Thanks for all the help everyone. And the iver johnson is a 38 not a 32 it had a broke lifter and when ordering one to match the broke one i seen that the lifter for the 32 is shaped different. So 38s&w it is.

That is a better cartridge, with some actual punch to it. Also the gun is bigger, which makes for a somewhat better grip.

What is easier to find, 38 S&W or 32 S&W ammunition? 38 S&W was my first impulse, but I have not tried to buy either for years and years.

 

[Old Stumpy]

PS - I think people of the period under question (say, 1880 to 1930) would be amused to hear it referred to as a time when quality was a given, not an empty promise. The urgent need for the Pure Food and Drug Act in 1906 suggests otherwise. Quality is never a given unless you shop carefully and pay enough for it.

You are comparing apples and oranges.
Obviously that act had nothing to do with firearms.
And, if you purchased an American-made revolver from a reputable name brand, you knew that it would work properly.

 

[Hillbilly Hydrographics]

That is a better cartridge, with some actual punch to it. Also the gun is bigger, which makes for a somewhat better grip.

What is easier to find, 38 S&W or 32 S&W ammunition? 38 S&W was my first impulse, but I have not tried to buy either for years and years.

Sportsmans guide has both 32s&w and 38s&w i have allready ordered a couple boxs of ppu 38s&w 18 bucks a box for 50 rounds.

 

[TTv2]

Old Stumpy said "Actually, this revolver was made at a time when quality was a given, not an empty promise."

I did not say H&R or Iver Johnson revolvers were of low quality. They were safe when fired with the ammunition they were made for. What they were not was highly accurate, for the reasons I noted. They were intended for short range self defense, and were adequate for that. Anyone who expects a good group at the range with them, or even reliably hitting soup cans at 50 feet, is going to be in for a disappointment, IMO.

I've had good accuracy with my H&R top break .32, it's capable of banging Evil Roy plates at 50 yards pretty consistently if you know where to hold, but it's definitely not made for that purpose. Within 15 yards the old top breaks are very capable guns, but they do suffer from bad ergo's in the extremely small grips and heavy triggers.

There are so many of these top break revolvers out there that somebody could probably make a living making larger grips for them.

That is a better cartridge, with some actual punch to it. Also the gun is bigger, which makes for a somewhat better grip.

What is easier to find, 38 S&W or 32 S&W ammunition? 38 S&W was my first impulse, but I have not tried to buy either for years and years.

While .38 S&W is interesting, I do not think it is any better than .32 S&W Long, which some top breaks were made for. If it's .38 S&W and the OG short .32 S&W... yeah, I think .38 would be better and would be more worth handloading vs the shorty .32's, unless you already have other .32's and have bullets and dies for.

For factory options, it's slim pickings with .32 S&W, only Magtech, Remington, and I think Winchester make any ammo for it, but Magtech is the cheapest option regularly being $10 less a box than the Rem or Win ammo. For .38 S&W, there's more manufacturers and again, your best bet is to buy non-US made ammo due to price. Good news is you have more options as it looks like PPU, Fiocchi, and Magtech make ammo for it.

And if you didn't already know, either ammo is pretty much an online only type thing.

 

[Steel Hayes]

While .38 S&W is interesting, I do not think it is any better than .32 S&W Long, which some top breaks were made for

With the .32S&W having roughly 760 FPS and 120ft-lb compared to the .38S&W which has 820 FPS and 240 ft-lb,
The .38 S&W is a better round( not by much).
I prefer the .32 myself and both rounds are very easy to find, my LGS carries quite a few of both rounds from different manufacturers.

 

[RevolvingGarbage]

With the .32S&W having roughly 760 FPS and 120ft-lb compared to the .38S&W which has 820 FPS and 240 ft-lb,
The .38 S&W is a better round( not by much).
I prefer the .32 myself and both rounds are very easy to find, my LGS carries quite a few of both rounds from different manufacturers.

You should absolutely NOT be getting .38s&w up to (let alone over) 800 fps in any American top break revolver. I suspect such a load would even loosen a Webley or Enfield before long.

146gr bullets should stay around 600-700 fps for a smokeless rated top break load.

 

[Steel Hayes]

You should absolutely NOT be getting .38s&w up to (let alone over) 800 fps in any American top break revolver. I suspect such a load would even loosen a Webley or Enfield before long.

146gr bullets should stay around 600-700 fps for a smokeless rated top break load.

Absolutely correct, not sure how I typed in 820, standard was 780.

 

[RevolvingGarbage]

Absolutely correct, not sure how I typed in 820, standard was 780.

I think 780 with a 146gr bullet would still be too spicy for an American top break revolver. That load would be no problem for basically any solid frame .38S&W, however.

 

[Steel Hayes]

I think 780 with a 146gr bullet would still be too spicy for an American top break revolver.

I have an older(1909)H&R Hammerless(.38S&W 5 shot) top break that I’ve shot hot loads through, H&R’s and IJ’s are tougher than most people realize.

 

[Monac]

With the .32S&W having roughly 760 FPS and 120ft-lb compared to the .38S&W which has 820 FPS and 240 ft-lb,
The .38 S&W is a better round( not by much).
I prefer the .32 myself and both rounds are very easy to find, my LGS carries quite a few of both rounds from different manufacturers.

I thought TTv's figures for 32 S&W sounded kind of hot, so I tried to look up specs for it. All I got was confused. Take this post, for example: https://www.marlinowners.com/forum/...essure-specifications-32-s-w-32-s-w-long.html

Just as they say the only man who knows exactly what time it is is the man who has only one clock, I guess the only time I knew exactly what performance different cartridges had was when I had only one cartridge reference.

PS of 3/17/20 - It turns out Steel Hayes had the figures I wondered about, not TTv2.

 

[Steel Hayes]

All I got was confused

I had to go back and check, now I’m confused and will stand corrected on the 2 rounds.

 

[TTv2]

I never put any numbers in my post on the different .32 S&W's and .38 S&W, I just said that .38 is better than the short .32, but between .38 and .32 S&W Long, I really see no difference between them. They're both just going to poke a hole, but the .38 will poke a very slightly larger hole, but not enough to make a difference and we know that the .32 S&W Long is capable of hitting 12+ inches of penetration in gel, so it's more than sufficient for the task of self defense.

The biggest pro of the .32 vs the .38 tho in the top breaks is the same as it is today: one more shot and less recoil.

As for what Steel Hayes said, I've shot some hot (or at least I thought they were hot) loads from my .32 top break and I felt that for self defense they would be fine, but they're not something I would want to shoot often from that old gun. Could you do it from a .38? Probably, but I get the feeling given the bigger bullet on the same size frame would wear it out a lot faster.

How much faster that would be is something not even an expert would probably know. I would still rather have the .32 because if I'm in need of that much more power in a .38 revolver, I'd just get a .38 Special and be done with it.

 

[test drive]

I used to collect old IJs and H&Rs for fun. I still have a 1920 H&R top break .32 short with the 2 inch barrel or “bicycle “ model made for smokeless powder. Very small 5 shot and drops in any pocket. Still fairly tight and I shoot it from time to time. Now I would never do it but .32 auto fits perfectly. If some one would make this again with modern steel it would make a great ambi gun for a bug that’s fast to reload.

 

[TTv2]

I used to collect old IJs and H&Rs for fun. I still have a 1920 H&R top break .32 short with the 2 inch barrel or “bicycle “ model made for smokeless powder. Very small 5 shot and drops in any pocket. Still fairly tight and I shoot it from time to time. Now I would never do it but .32 auto fits perfectly. If some one would make this again with modern steel it would make a great ambi gun for a bug that’s fast to reload.

I've thought the same, even asked people their thoughts on the idea last year and the response from the critical thinkers was that any top break would likely cost more than a standard swing out revolver do today and they would require a shorter case than the typical .32 Mag or .38 Special due to strength issues I guess. That would leave short cases like .32 ACP, .38 Short Colt, maybe .45 Cowboy Special if you didn't mind the larger size.

The reason it'll never happen is the market really doesn't seem interested in them outside of repros like the Uberti Schofield and the NAA Ranger.

 

[Monac]

Does 32 ACP actually extract properly from revolvers with star extractors? I would have thought the semi-rim was too small for reliable extraction, but live and learn.

 

[TTv2]

Does 32 ACP actually extract properly from revolvers with star extractors? I would have thought the semi-rim was too small for reliable extraction, but live and learn.

There may be some brands that have a smaller diameter for the rim and cause issues, but I've yet to have any issues with extraction of .32 ACP in a revolver.

The only issue I've had is in a Ruger SP101 .327 where the thinner rim of the .32 ACP caused the case to slam back against the recoil shield and impale the primer on the firing pin thus locking up the gun. Firing pin was stuck in/on the primer so the cylinder couldn't open, the cylinder couldn't rotate, thus all that could be done was to pry the case off with a wedge like a flat screwdriver.

The two .32 Mag revolvers I have have never had an issue shooting .32 ACP.

 

[silvermane_1]

Old Stumpy said "Actually, this revolver was made at a time when quality was a given, not an empty promise."

I did not say H&R or Iver Johnson revolvers were of low quality. They were safe when fired with the ammunition they were made for. What they were not was highly accurate, for the reasons I noted. They were intended for short range self defense, and were adequate for that. Anyone who expects a good group at the range with them, or even reliably hitting soup cans at 50 feet, is going to be in for a disappointment, IMO.

Old Stump also said: "And, I'm sure that 99% of the members here would be able to visually tell the difference between .38, .32, or .22 caliber without a "household object". "

I am sure of that too. What I wanted was some convenient way for people who come here and ask what caliber the gun they are holding in their hands is to find out. We fairly often get questions from people who are not familiar with firearms.

PS - I think people of the period under question (say, 1880 to 1930) would be amused to hear it referred to as a time when quality was a given, not an empty promise. The urgent need for the Pure Food and Drug Act in 1906 suggests otherwise. Quality is never a given unless you shop carefully and pay enough for it. This just my opinion, of course, and yours is just as good about a time when neither of us were around.

Old Stumpy said "Actually, this revolver was made at a time when quality was a given, not an empty promise."

I did not say H&R or Iver Johnson revolvers were of low quality. They were safe when fired with the ammunition they were made for. What they were not was highly accurate, for the reasons I noted. They were intended for short range self defense, and were adequate for that. Anyone who expects a good group at the range with them, or even reliably hitting soup cans at 50 feet, is going to be in for a disappointment, IMO.

Old Stump also said: "And, I'm sure that 99% of the members here would be able to visually tell the difference between .38, .32, or .22 caliber without a "household object". "

I am sure of that too. What I wanted was some convenient way for people who come here and ask what caliber the gun they are holding in their hands is to find out. We fairly often get questions from people who are not familiar with firearms.

PS - I think people of the period under question (say, 1880 to 1930) would be amused to hear it referred to as a time when quality was a given, not an empty promise. The urgent need for the Pure Food and Drug Act in 1906 suggests otherwise. Quality is never a given unless you shop carefully and pay enough for it. This just my opinion, of course, and yours is just as good about a time when neither of us were around.

Old Stumpy said "Actually, this revolver was made at a time when quality was a given, not an empty promise."

I did not say H&R or Iver Johnson revolvers were of low quality. They were safe when fired with the ammunition they were made for. What they were not was highly accurate, for the reasons I noted. They were intended for short range self defense, and were adequate for that. Anyone who expects a good group at the range with them, or even reliably hitting soup cans at 50 feet, is going to be in for a disappointment, IMO.

Old Stump also said: "And, I'm sure that 99% of the members here would be able to visually tell the difference between .38, .32, or .22 caliber without a "household object". "

I am sure of that too. What I wanted was some convenient way for people who come here and ask what caliber the gun they are holding in their hands is to find out. We fairly often get questions from people who are not familiar with firearms.

PS - I think people of the period under question (say, 1880 to 1930) would be amused to hear it referred to as a time when quality was a given, not an empty promise. The urgent need for the Pure Food and Drug Act in 1906 suggests otherwise. Quality is never a given unless you shop carefully and pay enough for it. This just my opinion, of course, and yours is just as good about a time when neither of us were around.

Old Stumpy said "Actually, this revolver was made at a time when quality was a given, not an empty promise."

I did not say H&R or Iver Johnson revolvers were of low quality. They were safe when fired with the ammunition they were made for. What they were not was highly accurate, for the reasons I noted. They were intended for short range self defense, and were adequate for that. Anyone who expects a good group at the range with them, or even reliably hitting soup cans at 50 feet, is going to be in for a disappointment, IMO.

Old Stump also said: "And, I'm sure that 99% of the members here would be able to visually tell the difference between .38, .32, or .22 caliber without a "household object". "

I am sure of that too. What I wanted was some convenient way for people who come here and ask what caliber the gun they are holding in their hands is to find out. We fairly often get questions from people who are not familiar with firearms.

PS - I think people of the period under question (say, 1880 to 1930) would be amused to hear it referred to as a time when quality was a given, not an empty promise. The urgent need for the Pure Food and Drug Act in 1906 suggests otherwise. Quality is never a given unless you shop carefully and pay enough for it. This just my opinion, of course, and yours is just as good about a time when neither of us were around.

Actually the Pure Food and Drug Act had more to do with Upton Sinclair's The Jungle and Snake Oil salesmen than anything else there Monac.
P.S. I have no idea why it quoted the above posts 4 times.

 

[Monac]

There may be some brands that have a smaller diameter for the rim and cause issues, but I've yet to have any issues with extraction of .32 ACP in a revolver.

The only issue I've had is in a Ruger SP101 .327 where the thinner rim of the .32 ACP caused the case to slam back against the recoil shield and impale the primer on the firing pin thus locking up the gun. Firing pin was stuck in/on the primer so the cylinder couldn't open, the cylinder couldn't rotate, thus all that could be done was to pry the case off with a wedge like a flat screwdriver.

The two .32 Mag revolvers I have have never had an issue shooting .32 ACP.

Thanks, TTv2. I've never actually tried doing that, and it's good to get first hand knowledge.

 

[MZ5]

32 Auto will neither reliably fire nor reliably extract from my SP101 in 327 Federal Mag. The LCRs in 327 don't seem to have either of those troubles, though I don't quite understand why there would be a difference.

 

[test drive]

The 32 acp or maybe a new “mini-mag” could be made to work in the revolver since it would head space off the mouth of the shell and I’m sure exatraction problems could be worked out. This type of revolver is really small and as I said would be great as a bug or recoil sensitivity. The top break makes it truly ambi and fast reloads. The possibilities warrant a new look.

 

[Monac]

The 32 acp or maybe a new “mini-mag” could be made to work in the revolver since it would head space off the mouth of the shell and I’m sure exatraction problems could be worked out. This type of revolver is really small and as I said would be great as a bug or recoil sensitivity. The top break makes it truly ambi and fast reloads. The possibilities warrant a new look.

The problem that I have when I think of a revolver like that is that I can't figure out how to make it better than a Kel-Tec P-32. And making the price competitive seems tough too. This may explain why North American Arms, which makes mini-revolvers in 22LR and 22 Magnum has never made one in 32 ACP, which would otherwise seem logical.

 

[Old Stumpy]

P.S. I have no idea why it quoted the above posts 4 times.

Me either.
Me either.
Me either.
Me either.

 

[valenzo]

I have this Iver Johnson - on the bottom of the butt of the gun it has this "pat june 1696 aug 2596. I know I have to remove the grips to find the serial. this was my dad's. its pretty cool. I had to share!