S&W mini top break revos?

[MatthewVanitas]

Greetings all. Recently hit by a desire to simplify, I've been cutting my firearms collection down to only the most practical of firearms. However, one completely impractical desire still haunts me: the need for a little S&W .32 top break revolver.

Everyone has their impractical custom dreams (don't they?), and mine is to tune and refinish a little top break revo. I had a few questions about this possibility:

1) Do all top-break revos eventually shoot loose? Or will a later-model S&W firing cowboy loads hold up reasonably?

2) Is there any website or publication that will tell the date/serial# range for the various models of this type? Reading past TFL/THR posts, it seems the metallurgy improved between 1890-some and 1940-ish.

3) Any major divergence in quality between the ".32 Double Action" and the ".32 Safety Hammerless"? Looking at the schematics at Numrich's website, it seems there's 48 moving parts on the SH, 34 on the DA.

http://www.e-gunparts.com/productschem.asp?chrMasterModel=1980z32 DOUBLE ACTION REVOLVER

4) Anybody have one, shoot one, and really enjoy it?

5) If you had one, enjoyed it, what would you have done to it to make it better?

Just indulging one of those strange gun-related desires. Thanks for any tips. -MV

 

[Jim Watson]

1. Yes. They seem to hold up well enough for the amount of shooting they get in CAS Pocket Pistol side matches, but I wouldn't run one through routine National Match Courses. The few that have been shot much got loose with contrmporary loads. But they are not expensive, have fun.

2. Blue Book has broad serial number - manufacturing periods according to the model variations. You ought to be able to tie one down to a few years.

3. Yes. A local advanced collector told me that the small frame double action hammer models were some of the most fragile name brand guns around; no better, if as good as Colt Lightning. The Safety Hammerless has a better reputation.

4. I have a .38 Single Action. If I had lived then, I would REALLY have wanted one for concealed carry, even if I had an Army or Navy revolver in a belt holster.

5. I would have bought a Safety Hammerless DA, the SA is not really competitive at CAS; and probably a .32, that .38 has more recoil than you might expect. Or a Perfected Model, and hope that they didn't care that it came out in 1909.

 

[MatthewVanitas]

I'm a bit hazy at some of the terms tied into these revos. What would a "Perfected" model be? Is "New Departure" also a model distinction?

I believe someone stated that the break-tops were built until 1940 or so. Are the last models markedly better? In other words, for maximum durability, should I buy a late-1930s model?

Thanks much for the advice; I've used this board and TFL to preplan every single firearm or accessory purchase over the last several years. I can only hope that the advice I've given to others might begin to repay the advice I've received.

 

[Jim Watson]

New Departure was the original model name for the Safety Hammerless. They were made in .32 until 1937 and in .38 til 1940.

The Perfected Model was .38 S&W only and has the trigger guard integral with the frame and a thumb latch like a Hand Ejector in addition to the top latch. It looks like you might imagine a top break Chief's Special. Made only 1909 til 1920 and not nearly as common as the older styles.

I don't know about metallurgy. The later models might well be of better steel and are the most common anyhow. Just depends on how long you are willing to look around before you buy.

But I have to wonder if they were not just assembling Safety Hammerless from parts on hand for about 20 years as they did with the No 3 New Model.

You need a real collector or specific reference book for more detail.

 

[Josey]

SA "Baby Russians" in 38 S&W were first. These were BLACK POWDER ONLY! The nitro ratings were OK'd for DA 32 S&W and 38 S&W around 1899. I believe they made ALL of the frames pre-1898. In 1909, S&W began trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear. Colt had left them behind with their small autos. The S&W answer was hammerless, varied in latches and finally resulted in the Perfected model. The powders, power, capacity and autos simply put the breaktops down. I suggest you start looking around, these small breaktops are going through the roof in price. I have seen nicer models going for $400.00. I don't suggest your use of these revolvers as a CCW or anything more than a part of a collection. CAS is ruining many of these fine old revolvers. The shooters just do not understand them. They are almost impossible to repair. Frame stretch, air gaps, latch failures, stress and metal fatigue are common in these old breaktops. The Perfected models use TWO latches for a reason! I hope somebody will reproduce these revolvers, Cimmaron is R&Ding a Merwin and Hulbert pocket revolver. Feel free to e-mail me.

 

[Old Fuff]

MatthewVanitas:

I am delighted to see your interest in S&W top-break pocket revolvers. I suggest that you purchase two books that will answer many if not most of your questions.

"Standard Catalog of Smith & Wesson (Second Edition)" by Jim Supica & Richard Nahas

(Also log onto Jim’s site at: www.armchairgunshow.com for an excellent selection of these guns.)

and

"Gunsmithing Guns of the Old West" by David R. Chicoine.

Smith & Wesson revolvers were rated to be use with CONTEMPORY black powder, semi-black powder and smokeless power after about 1903. Smokeless power was introduced in handgun loads around 1898.

For what it's worth, two gentlemen of note, Michael Reilly - who headed the Secret Service detail guarding president Roosevelt during the World War Two period and Col. Rex Applegate of OSS and hand-to-hand combat fame both carried .38 Safety Hammerless top-break revolvers as back-up guns during the early-middle 1940's. I highly doubt they were loaded with black powder cartridges. This is not to say however that **ANY** S&W top-break should be fired with modern loads.

Josey:

The Perfected Model was S&W's last attempt to keep the top-break revolver viable in an age that had gone to hand-ejectors. The reason for the second (thumb) cylinder latch was to prevent a bad guy from disarming a good guy or gal by reaching over the top of G.G's revolver, lifting the cylinder latch, and tipping the barrel down thereby disabling the revolver.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"Colt had left them behind with their small autos."

You would think so, but not really...

At least not in the sales end of things.

S&W's sales of the breaktops remained strong until the depression started to eat into the profits for all gun companies. Granted, sales did fall as S&W competed with itself by offering I-frame Hand Ejectors.

What really killed the breaktops, though, was the run-up to World War II.

 

[Josey]

Old Fuff, yes. The other reason was that some breaktops were flying open and dumping the other four rounds when fired. I have witnessed this. It is surprising! I do seem to remember a large order for H&R breaktops in 38 S&W prior to WWII. Many US breaktops in 38 S&W were sent LendLease to England in WWII. The problem with them was that 38-200 British rounds were TOO HOT for the breaktops. That was why the S&W factory produced a number of 38 S&W M&P models. I have a Canadian model myself.

 

[BluesBear]

Based on Catalogue information,

In 1884 there were advertisments for S&W "Automatic Revolvers" in .32 & .38 in both single action and double action models.

By 1888 S&W was advertising their .32 & .38 Concealed hammer double action revolvers with grip safeties.

In 1895 all were still offered.

By 1903 the single action models were gone and the hammerless models were referred to as the "New Departure".

 

[Old Fuff]

Josey:

Prior to Our entry into World War Two the British bought some H&R “Bobby†model revolvers in .38 S&W for police, not military use. They only held 5 rounds, where all of their military .38 revolvers held 6. In any case the “Bobby†revolvers passed rigorous proof testing without flying open, but were probably used with lighter commercial .38 S&W loadings in any case. I know of no written record that these guns failed the English in any way, and following the war H&R offered a similar revolver for the U.S. commercial market, and again there is no record of any problems with them. Of course they’re could have been some individual cases, but nothing that was widespread. Other then these relatively small orders, few top-break .38 revolvers were sent overseas. By January 1942 all production of top break revolvers had ceased, other then a limited number that were put together using parts-on-hand. These were either .22’s (for training) or .38’s (for domestic Defense Plant Guards).

The Smith & Wesson No. 2/38-200 revolver you refer to were intended to stand up to military use, and held 6 rounds. Since it was normally chambered in .38 Special there was nothing in .38 S&W loadings that would bother it at all. S&W originally proposed to provide these revolvers because they were one million dollars (in 1940 dollars!) in dept to the British because they had accepted an advanced payment to develop and manufacture a 9mm carbine that didn’t work out. Since the company was literally broke they repaid with revolvers rather then money. Later, throughout World War Two they were Lend-Leased to the U.K. and Commonwealth. By the way, take the grips off of your gun and look on the side of the frame for a letter “B†which may be alone or with another letter. Usually found near the mainspring seat area.

Some S&W “Perfected†revolvers were made without the extra thumb-piece latch. Again no record of problems, and I doubt the company would have done this if there had been. By 1920, when they discontinued the Perfected Model top-breaks were obviously obsolete, but they continued to make the Safety Hammerless models in .32 until 1937 and the .38 until 1941 without making any modifications in the way of a additional cylinder latch. Again, if there had been known problems they would have either discontinued these models, modified them along the lines of the Perfected Model, or at least placed a warning statement in their advertising. In truth they did none of this.

I have no doubt that you saw a (unidentified by brand or condition) top-break revolver fly open when it was fired. But considering all factors I think it was a failure of an individual gun, rather then a widespread occurrence.

The term “top-break†covers a lot of different revolvers, running the whole gambit from very bad to excellent. In addition most were made during the black powder era. While it is true that the worst and or oldest examples shouldn’t be fired, this doesn’t apply to all of them. In particular, S&W revolvers in good shape are usually safe to fire if one uses the correct ammunition that is contemporary with the gun. I would not hesitate to shoot a late production Safety Hammerless with current smokeless powder loads. I would not say the same about the same revolver manufactured during the 1880’s.

BluesBear:

The last *single action* S&W top-break revolver was the .44 No 3 New Model Russian that was discontinued in 1908. The last conventional *double-action* was the Perfected Model, which was discontinued in 1920. S&W continued to make their “Safety Hammerless†model .32 until 1937 and the .38 until 1941. The name “New Departure†was coined in a magazine review when the .38 revolver was introduced in 1888. S&W sometimes did use the term, but it wasn’t the company’s official name for the model(s).

 

[BluesBear]

Old Fuff,

I know the #3 was made longer. I was keeping with the intent of the original post and only referring to the .32 &.38 pocket models.

I used the New Departure moniker because that is how it is listed in the 1903 Schoverling, Daly & Gales catalogue.

Just as I used the term "Smith & Wesson Automatic Revolvers" because that is how they were advertised in the 1884 E.C. Meacham Arms Co. catalogue.

Smith & Wesson called their lemon squeezer revolvers "The New Hammerless Safety Revolver" in one of their 1888 ads.

 

[Old Fuff]

I don't know that it really matters. Regarding the Safety Hammerless revolvers I was going by descriptions in original S&W catalogs of the 1920's/early 30's which I have. Clearly, the days of the top-break Smith & Wesson were over following World War One, except for the Safety Hammerless/New Departure series. They only survived because the company didn't offer a hand ejector in a hammerless/grip safety version. That wouldn't come until 1952.

The real issue here is: Can one safely shoot one of these with modern smokeless powder cartridges. I contend that if the revolver in question is a Smith & Wesson, in good mechanical condition, made after 1905 or so - the answer is yes. Otherwise black powder handloads are a good option.

 

[Josey]

OK. I checked. The three models I have witnessed fail were known as Z-bars. This refers to the top latch. I am guessing that these should have a bit of trouble due to the latch operation. S&W did change/drop this type of latch. I also have seen Cimmaron clones of the #3 open up when fired. I wrote them off as Armi San Marco QC.