Merwin Hulbert 4th Model Pocket Model Target - Scratched an Itch

[Johnm1]

I have wanted a Merwin Hulbert revolver for a couple of years. Like everyone else, I'd prefer the pocket Frontier with a short barrel and skull crusher grip frame in 44-40. But they go for Stupid Money even in non-functional condition condition. My itch was for the uniqueness of the extraction method. As such, any 32, 38, 44, action, either single or double, would scratch the itch. I got it from Simpsons so it's almost a guarantee I overpaid for it. But it's what I wanted.

Technically, this is described as a pocket model, Target. It is chambered in 32 SWL and holds seven rounds. It is double action. But could be purchased in single action as I understand it. It's one of the later models. I'm not sure how they can describe this as a pocket with a 5 3/4" barrel. And the sites are pretty minimal, so how do you describe it as a Target Model other than it has a longer Barrel. Here are some pictures from (edit to add my pictures):





And the accurate description

32 Caliber; good bore, fair grips, 5.5'' barrel, MERWIN & HULBERT MEDIUM FRAME 7 SHOT 32 REVOLVER IN ANTIQUE FAIR CONDITION DUE TO MISSING ITS FOLDING HAMMER SPUR. THE REVOLVER RETIANS APPROX 85% OF ITS NICKLE PLATED FINISH WHICH EXHIBITS OXIDATION OVERALL. THE BORE IS BRIGHT WITH WORN BUT DISTINCT RIFLING ALONG WITH LIGHT OXIDATION PRESENT. THE HARD RUBBER GRIPS HAVE A CHIP OUT OF THE BOTTOM RIGHT PANEL. THE LEFT PANEL IS INTACT IN VERY GOOD CONDITION. THE DA/SA ACTION FUNCTIONS PROPERLY AND IS SMOOTH, TIGHT AND IN TIME., s/n 224xx

All I really need to do is fabricate the folding Hammer spur. Reality is I will replace all of the coil springs hidden by the trigger guard. It is a very odd action. In lieu of a V spring for the trigger return it uses a lever off of the hammer stirrup and the force of the mainspring to return the trigger to the forward position. It is actually much easier to deal with than a Smith & Wesson or one of the other lesser brands. It cleaned up pretty well I have some really poor photographs. (Edit text regarding pictures)

It was almost fully functional when I received it. It would not reliably hold on the half cock notch though it held very well on the full cut notch. I surmised it had something to do with the sear spring and it was. I disassembled the trigger guard and rearranged the sear spring and now it is fully functional.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

Awesome score!
I've always thought M&Hs were neato.

I love Simpson's, if you want something weird right now they are the folks to go to. I think their prices are actually fair (usually) and you do know what you're getting.

 

[Jim Watson]

Caliber is likely .32 H&R/M&H made for the odd MH selective unloading.
I read that .32 SWL is too long for the empties to fall free, but you can try it.
I am sure Driftwood Johnson will recommend against smokeless

 

[Dave T]

Please tell us, the unwashed masses, who or what "Simpson's" might be.

Dave

 

[Jim Watson]

Simpson Ltd

Simpson Ltd

Firearms for the Finest Collectors

simpsonltd.com

 

[Johnm1]

Awesome score!
I've always thought M&Hs were neato.

I love Simpson's, if you want something weird right now they are the folks to go to. I think their prices are actually fair (usually) and you do know what you're getting.

The ‘usually’ is operative here. Sometimes they make a mistake and a firearm is gone on the first day. Generally, they are a little higher than what they go for on GunBroker and Lord knows GunBroker can get crazy at times. Other times, they have really high prices but they sell. I get it, the frontier pocket is really popular. They have one for over $5000 right now if I’m not mistaken they have another one at $12,000. Either one is crazy to me.

Caliber is likely .32 H&R/M&H made for the odd MH selective unloading.
I read that .32 SWL is too long for the empties to fall free, but you can try it.
I am sure Driftwood Johnson will recommend against smokeless

I loaded up some dummy rounds to test extraction and selective extraction. The Smith & Wesson long drops out just fine. As far as selective extraction, that doesn’t work so well. It seems the unfired rounds can get cockeyed in the cylinder and up against the recoil shield preventing closing of the cylinder. I’m still toying with it but as long as the extraction works, I’m good with it. Selective extraction is really the neat part about the design, but not necessary for shooting. Unless I would get into a gun battle and needed to do a combat reload using this gun. That probably isn’t real likely.

 

[Jim Watson]

A picture of .32 MH showed a lot of bullet out of the case an a post said the bullet nose was nearly to the front of the cylinder. Maybe a maximum OAL would line them up for retention.

 

[Johnm1]

A picture of .32 MH showed a lot of bullet out of the case an a post said the bullet nose was nearly to the front of the cylinder. Maybe a maximum OAL would line them up for retention.

The dummy rounds were using an 85 grain JHP crimped at the crimp groove. I'm all for longer/heavier bullets and if that makes the selective extraction work, all the better. I haven't done any research on the MH rounds. I understood it was close enough to the SWL to be interchangeable. I could be wrong about that though.

 

[Johnm1]

Regarding the differences between 32 MH and 32 SWL, there doesn't appear to be much. Empty case length isn't an issue with this particular revolver. The space created when opening the cylinder is large enough to drop the empties. The base and neck diameters are really close between SWL, H&R/MH (0.002").



Now the issue I had with selective ejection is almost certainly related to the rim diameter of the PPU brass I used for my dummy rounds. The SWL and the H&R/MH cartridges have a rim diameter of 0.375" and the PPU brass has a rim diameter of 0.370/0.371". When the cylinder is opened the rim retaining ring on the center pin appeare to hold onto the cartridge but because the rim diameter on the case is smaller in diameter then it should be the outer ring isn't able to hold the other side of the case.




The ring on the center pin is generous, maybe too generous,and the rim thickness fits easily. But the rim on the outer ring is small and the rim thicknes of thre SWL cartridge might be an issue once I find a cartridge case with a 0.375" rim diameter.

Reality is in normal operation selective extraction/ejection isn't really an issue. But it is part of what drew me to the Merwins.

 

[orpington]

I am sure Driftwood Johnson will recommend against smokeless

I’ll beat him to it. TRUST ME when I say you ONLY want to fire black powder rounds in a Merwin & Hulbert revolver.

 

[Jim Watson]

Yes, but he has one blown up to prove it.

 

[Johnm1]

It will never see smokeless powder.

But the rim on the outer ring is small and the rim thicknes of thre SWL cartridge might be an issue once I find a cartridge case with a 0.375" rim diameter.

After a night's sleep I thought about the outer rim and the rim diameter of the cartridge case. The outer ring cannot retain the rim by the thickness of the cartridge case rim like the inner ring does. If it did the empties could never come out except through the loading gate. I'm guessing here, but I surmise that the inner ring actually does retain the rim of the case. The rim diameter must be great enough to barely push up against the outer rim in order to keep it aligned. So I'm back to the thought that just the rim diameter is the cause of selective extraction / ejection being unreliable.

Maybe it is time to summon Mr. @Driftwood Johnson to see what his experience is with Selective extraction/ejection.

It would be nice if he had experience with 32 H&R/32 M&W. But in the Merwin Hulbert line of revolvers, this model is the only model that uses the 32 M&W. I have read that some of the Hopkins and Allen revolvers used the cartridge before the introduction of the 32 SWL and I guess it is possible there are other makers that used the cartridge, but I doubt it. But all of that is internet research and not written research and subject to interpretation. For the life of me I can't find my SAAMI book. Often they have dimensions for obsolete cartridges. I'm not so sure they have this one though.

 

[Johnm1]

Below as an excerpt from the international cartridge collectors forum that might add a little bit of information on the 32 M&H. A beveled case rim would make sense here. I've got to search through my bullets see if I have anything heavier than the 88 grain JHP that I used for my dummy rims. Though it does appear the 32 M&H loaded with an 88ish grain bullet.

From the cartridge collectors forum

32 H&R/M. H. & Co

Rich IAA JOURNAL #384 has an article on the 32 H&R Long. I’m not sure it answers any of your questions. Ray

forum.cartridgecollectors.org

The .32 Harrington & Richardson cartridge is the same as the .32 Merwin & Hulbert; you’ll note on the side of the that the cartridges are ‘Adapted to Harrington & Richardson and M.H. & Co’s Double Action revolvers’. I believe the rounded rim cartridges are UMC made and are original to the box. These 88 grain bullets are lighter than the .32 S&W long bullet, but they look very similar. Its hard to say who made the bevelled rim cartridge, as a number of copmpanies used this style rim at some point in their production, including UMC.

 

[Johnm1]

Here is a visual update on the current state of the finish. Before and after pictures:

Before. Notice the dark area on the side plate.


After


Before notice the two spots on the barrel just in front of the cylinder.


After


The results are obtained by rubbing the dark spots with balled up aluminum foil. I don't pretend to be an expert on what happens when you do that, but it is my understanding that if you rub vigorously enough to generate Heat aluminum oxide is produced. From observations, it appears the aluminum foil is softer than the nickel plating but harder than the dark spots / oxidation. It takes a lot of Cycles to make the dark spots lighter or in some cases even disappear. As it is the raw steel will oxidize again only this time it will be more subdued. Multiple Cycles appears to remove it completely. But I mean a lot of Cycles. Once it is gone the affected steel can be polished which offers some protection from re-oxidation. It is still in the experimental phase, so don't go to the bank on this one.

Some will argue that I'm removing patina. And I suppose that is correct. In my mind I'm removing rust or converted rust and making the firearm more appealing to the eye.

 

[Jim Watson]

I like it.
People talk about replating or even brush plating flawed nickel.
Why, unless for real restoration of a high end gun?

 

[Johnm1]

I just noticed this excellent thread by Driftwood Johnson

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/a-photo-essay-about-merwin-and-hulbert-revolvers.792725/

It has a lot of background information on the workings of these revolvers.

 

[Johnm1]

The results are obtained by rubbing the dark spots with balled up aluminum foil............. It takes a lot of Cycles to make the dark spots lighter or in some cases even disappear. As it is the raw steel will oxidize again only this time it will be more subdued. Multiple Cycles appears to remove it completely.

The aluminum foil may be a deadend. Although it does temporarily reduce the dark spots, once I try to polish it it returns to its darkened color. For that matter as soon as I hit it with oil it darkens. I'm beginning to think particles of the aluminum foil are embedded into the oxidation and once it becomes wet the aluminum particles are washed away..

I did a test on a junker gun and the only way I was able to remove the oxidation was worth an abrasive. Once the oxidation is removed by abrasive it can be polished. But the aluminum foil by itself apparently does not remove the oxidation. It does remove carbon pretty well though. And it does that without damaging the nickel.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Well, my ears have been burning all day, so I guess I better add my two cents to this post.

A couple of things off the top of my head: The chart showing the 32 S&W Long cartridge being introduced in 1903 is incorrect. The 32 S&W Long cartridge was introduced in 1896 along with the Smith and Wesson 32 Hand Ejector 1st Model (the Model 1896). This one shipped in September of 1899.

Next, don't get hung up on the names of Merwin Hulbert revolvers. Your revolver is built on a relatively small frame, so that is why it is sometimes referred to as a 'pocket model'. Nothing to do with barrel length, it is more about the frame size. With a short barrel, that revolver would have been easy to conceal in a pocket.

In this photo, my 44-40 Merwin Hulbert 'Pocket Army' with its 7" barrel is pictured with a Smith and Wesson Schofield revolver. Why in the world MH called this model the Pocket Army is beyond me, as you can see it is a large belt pistol, pretty much the same size as a Smith and Wesson Schofield. Granted, this model was also available with a 3 1/2" barrel, but the frame was still very large and a pocket would need to be very large to conceal it.

The array of small frame Merwin Hulberts was mind boggling, there were a great many of different 38 and 32 caliber Merwin Hulbert revolvers. Here is an interesting photo from Art Phelps' book The Story of Merwin Hulbert & Company Firearms. This is the closest photo I found in Phelps' book of a 32 caliber MH that looks a lot like yours. Interesting story, Frank Hamer was the Texas Ranger that headed the lawmen who killed Bonnie and Clyde.

About the 'selective extraction' myth: You have hit the nail on the head. When I attempt to do that 'selective extraction' business, what usually happens is the live rounds shift, do to gravity, and it is difficult to close the revolver again on the loaded rounds because they have shifted enough that the cylinder cannot 'swallow' them again as the revolver is closed, without repositioning the rounds a little bit. It always requires a bit of fussing to get the cylinder closed on the live rounds again.

You can see in this photo of my 44-40 Pocket Army that the rounds have shifted as the cylinder was opened, and the cylinder would not close up on the live rounds again without wiggling them a bit to get them to line up with the chambers again. This would not be a very effective technique in combat, because it is impossible to pop live rounds into the cylinder while it is open, fresh rounds MUST be inserted one at a time through the loading gate once the revolver was closed up again. I suppose this 'selective extraction' business was good advertising copy in the 19th Century, but practically speaking, in my experience, it does not work.

Incidentally, I just tried the same thing with this 38 caliber pocket model Merwin Hulbert. I loaded 3 live 38 S&W rounds and 2 spent 38 S&W cases, When I popped it open, the empties fell out, with a little bit of persuasion, but the live rounds shifted enough that I could not close the cylinder without wiggling them a bit to realign them with the chambers.

Finally, Black Powder vs Smokeless: My Pocket Army was made sometime between 1881 and 1883, when the Third Models, the ones with a top strap first appeared. I have no accurate information of when Merwin Hulbert stopped making revolvers. The last catalog I have seen was the John P. Lovell Arms Co. catalog of 1890, with an extensive listing of MH revolvers. Merwin Hulbert Company records were lost in a fire, so I have to assume the company ceased operation sometime in the 1890s. Colt did not specifically factory warranty the Single Action Army for Smokeless ammunition until 1900. Their thinking was the steel they were using was finally strong enough, with heat treating, to take the pressure spike of Smokeless ammo. About 36 miles up the Connecticut River in Springfield MASS, Smith and Wesson's 1900 catalog specifically recommended against using Smokeless ammunition in their revolvers. So I doubt if Merwin Hulbert, in Norwich Connecticut had access to steel that was any better than the steel Colt and S&W were using. So NONE of my pre-1900 revolvers ever gets fired with Smokeless ammunition. Not my Colts, not my Smiths, and certainly not my Merwin Hulberts.

 

[Johnm1]

As always, an excellent response from Mr Johnson. Your posts must take a long time to create. And I appreciate your efforts.

It is interesting that Frank Hamer had and used a seven shot 32. I suspect Frank would have been shooting 32 SWL when he was active. By the 1930s I would suspect the 32 M&H was obsolete. I wonder if the 32 H&R was available in the 1930s?

It is disappointing that the selective extraction doesn't work as advertised. I found some 32 long with a longer bullet and tried those as well. Same results. I still wonder if the correct rim diameter would help. Probably not but .005" under sized rim diameter
can't help.

Thanks again.

 

[Johnm1]

I suspect Frank would have been shooting 32 SWL when he was active. By the 1930s I would suspect the 32 M&H was obsolete. I wonder if the 32 H&R was available in the 1930s?

I found this post on the Firearms forum that has a good explanation of the timeline for the 32 H&R/ 32 M&H.

.32 H&R and .32 M&H Long

www.thefirearmsforum.com

The other .32 M&H was the .32 M&H Long, dating from about 1885; this was the same as the .32 H&R (no "Long"). The .32 M&H Long was made for a larger .32 M&H revolver, with a longer cylinder and a longer extraction throw; apparently, M&H made that gun specifically to use the .32 H&R, which they then had made, calling it the .32 M&H Long. The dimensions were the same as the .32 H&R. It was discontinued under either name around 1915.

It looks like the 32 H&R stopped being produced in 1915.

 

[BobWright]

One of my early gun books showed a photo of a short barreled, spur trigger, "skull cruiser" fripped M&H revolver "certified" as having belonged to outlaw Juaquin Murietta. This, despite the fact that he was killed long before the Merwin Hulbert revolvers.

I'm not into vintage revolvers, but MHs are intriguing, and yours is a handsome specimen. Thanks for posting.

Bob Wright

 

[Johnm1]

One of my early gun books showed a photo of a short barreled, spur trigger, "skull cruiser" fripped M&H revolver "certified" as having belonged to outlaw Juaquin Murietta. This, despite the fact that he was killed long before the Merwin Hulbert revolvers.

I'm not into vintage revolvers, but MHs are intriguing, and yours is a handsome specimen. Thanks for posting.

Bob Wright

I’m pretty sure a gun described like that is on GunBroker right now.

 

[Jim Watson]

One of my early gun books showed a photo of a short barreled, spur trigger, "skull cruiser" fripped M&H revolver "certified" as having belonged to outlaw Juaquin Murietta.

A collector, offered a revolver claimed to have belonged to Pancho Villa, said that the man must have been followed by a pack mule loaded down with guns, all of which he subjected to heavy wear. The one in question was a Merwin & Hulbert, too.

Back when you could bring back such souvenirs, a TVA Public Safety Officer showed a MH brought back from Mexico. It was a short round butt .44, finished in 100% rust, but mechanically complete.

 

[orpington]

Well, my ears have been burning all day, so I guess I better add my two cents to this post.

A couple of things off the top of my head: The chart showing the 32 S&W Long cartridge being introduced in 1903 is incorrect. The 32 S&W Long cartridge was introduced in 1896 along with the Smith and Wesson 32 Hand Ejector 1st Model (the Model 1896). This one shipped in September of 1889.

Next, don't get hung up on the names of Merwin Hulbert revolvers. Your revolver is built on a relatively small frame, so that is why it is sometimes referred to as a 'pocket model'. Nothing to do with barrel length, it is more about the frame size. With a short barrel, that revolver would have been easy to conceal in a pocket.

In this photo, my 44-40 Merwin Hulbert 'Pocket Army' with its 7" barrel is pictured with a Smith and Wesson Schofield revolver. Why in the world MH called this model the Pocket Army is beyond me, as you can see it is a large belt pistol, pretty much the same size as a Smith and Wesson Schofield. Granted, this model was also available with a 3 1/2" barrel, but the frame was still very large and a pocket would need to be very large to conceal it.

The array of small frame Merwin Hulberts was mind boggling, there were a great many of different 38 and 32 caliber Merwin Hulbert revolvers. Here is an interesting photo from Art Phelps' book The Story of Merwin Hulbert & Company Firearms. This is the closest photo I found in Phelps' book of a 32 caliber MH that looks a lot like yours. Interesting story, Frank Hamer was the Texas Ranger that headed the lawmen who killed Bonnie and Clyde.

About the 'selective extraction' myth: You have hit the nail on the head. When I attempt to do that 'selective extraction' business, what usually happens is the live rounds shift, do to gravity, and it is difficult to close the revolver again on the loaded rounds because they have shifted enough that the cylinder cannot 'swallow' them again as the revolver is closed, without repositioning the rounds a little bit. It always requires a bit of fussing to get the cylinder closed on the live rounds again.

You can see in this photo of my 44-40 Pocket Army that the rounds have shifted as the cylinder was opened, and the cylinder would not close up on the live rounds again without wiggling them a bit to get them to line up with the chambers again. This would not be a very effective technique in combat, because it is impossible to pop live rounds into the cylinder while it is open, fresh rounds MUST be inserted one at a time through the loading gate once the revolver was closed up again. I suppose this 'selective extraction' business was good advertising copy in the 19th Century, but practically speaking, in my experience, it does not work.

Incidentally, I just tried the same thing with this 38 caliber pocket model Merwin Hulbert. I loaded 3 live 38 S&W rounds and 2 spent 38 S&W cases, When I popped it open, the empties fell out, with a little bit of persuasion, but the live rounds shifted enough that I could not close the cylinder without wiggling them a bit to realign them with the chambers.

Finally, Black Powder vs Smokeless: My Pocket Army was made sometime between 1881 and 1883, when the Third Models, the ones with a top strap first appeared. I have no accurate information of when Merwin Hulbert stopped making revolvers. The last catalog I have seen was the John P. Lovell Arms Co. catalog of 1890, with an extensive listing of MH revolvers. Merwin Hulbert Company records were lost in a fire, so I have to assume the company ceased operation sometime in the 1890s. Colt did not specifically factory warranty the Single Action Army for Smokeless ammunition until 1900. Their thinking was the steel they were using was finally strong enough, with heat treating, to take the pressure spike of Smokeless ammo. About 36 miles up the Connecticut River in Springfield MASS, Smith and Wesson's 1900 catalog specifically recommended against using Smokeless ammunition in their revolvers. So I doubt if Merwin Hulbert, in Norwich Connecticut had access to steel that was any better than the steel Colt and S&W were using. So NONE of my pre-1900 revolvers ever gets fired with Smokeless ammunition. Not my Colts, not my Smiths, and certainly not my Merwin Hulberts.

An excellent post, as always. However, you write your .32 Hand Ejector First Model shipped in September of 1889. I believe you mean September of 1899.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Oops.

Correct. That 32Hand Ejector, 1st Model shipped in September of 1899.