Top Break revolvers and Steel

[GEM]

For a modern top break in production in a light round - 32 SW Long

https://webleyscott.in/products/mkiv-32-pocket-revolver

Frame Material Steel
Barrel Material Carbon Steel

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

For a modern top break in production in a light round - 32 SW Long

https://webleyscott.in/products/mkiv-32-pocket-revolver

Frame Material Steel
Barrel Material Carbon Steel

Next time I’m in Delhi I’ll inquire about one.

 

[mnrivrat]

Maybe not a S&W top break, but H&R and Iver Johnson made many a .32 S&W Long top break.

Really ? Could you provide more information. Model numbers, pictures, any place I can view or read about them. I have a number of old H&R's ,and IJ's , and in 50 years of personal experience I do not recall ever seeing one. I would like to see one if you can help I would appreciate it. Refresh my brain cells please. And most of all I want one.

 

[TTv2]

Really ? Could you provide more information. Model numbers, pictures, any place I can view or read about them. I have a number of old H&R's ,and IJ's , and in 50 years of personal experience I do not recall ever seeing one. I would like to see one if you can help I would appreciate it. Refresh my brain cells please. And most of all I want one.

H&R and those who made advertisements in catalogues did a terrible job of it, but if basically if the same model revolver was available in .38 S&W, the .32 version was .32 S&W Long. This usually meant that the 6 shot .32's were all .32 S&W Long while most 5 shot .32's were the .32 S&W.

The only 5 shot I know of that was a .32 S&W Long was the solid frame Model 1905.

 

[mnrivrat]

H&R and those who made advertisements in catalogues did a terrible job of it, but if basically if the same model revolver was available in .38 S&W, the .32 version was .32 S&W Long. This usually meant that the 6 shot .32's were all .32 S&W Long while most 5 shot .32's were the .32 S&W.

The only 5 shot I know of that was a .32 S&W Long was the solid frame Model 1905.

Thanks for the information. I honestly have not seen the 6 shot S&WL chambering on a top break IJ or H&R revolver. The case length of the .32 S&W long is greater than the .38S&W by .145" and I did not think the top break cylinder of the .38S&W was made long enough to accommodate the .32 S&W long cartridge. I however never paid all that much attention to the IJ & H&R guns other than ones I bought for parts or to repair when I thought I would have the time. I have been to busy working on my S&W guns, and fell into poor health making me to dysfunctional to look at my accumulated pile of those cheaper top breaks. Perhaps I might even have one ? . I will have to look at the ones I have a bit closer. I shoot that .32 S&WL in my 1896 and 1903 models of S&W HE models as well as in my Taurus with the .32 H&R chambering. I guess I have a little research to do.

 

[TTv2]

Thanks for the information. I honestly have not seen the 6 shot S&WL chambering on a top break IJ or H&R revolver. The case length of the .32 S&W long is greater than the .38S&W by .145" and I did not think the top break cylinder of the .38S&W was made long enough to accommodate the .32 S&W long cartridge. I however never paid all that much attention to the IJ & H&R guns other than ones I bought for parts or to repair when I thought I would have the time. I have been to busy working on my S&W guns, and fell into poor health making me to dysfunctional to look at my accumulated pile of those cheaper top breaks. Perhaps I might even have one ? . I will have to look at the ones I have a bit closer. I shoot that .32 S&WL in my 1896 and 1903 models of S&W HE models as well as in my Taurus with the .32 H&R chambering. I guess I have a little research to do.

Case length is irrelevant when it comes to a revolver cylinder, it's overall length that does. The .38 S&W always seemed to use unusually long bullets.

 

[Speedo66]

There was an announcement about it five years ago, and a single example was shown, but it does not appear to have been launched.

Re: the Anderson-Wheeler, It appears on their website they’ll take orders for them.

Perhaps they’re produced when ordered because they mention many variations that the customer can specify.

 

[Tallball]

I own two H&R revolvers that are almost identical. They both have something like "32 S&W CTGE" stamped on the barrel. They are both six-shooters. I don't recall the exact details, but I did some research a few years back, and if you had the right year/model of H&R 32 revolver, it would load and fire 32 S&W long just fine.

I got them for something like $130 apiece OTD. The first one I purchased only fires about five shots out of six, but the second one functions correctly. (The first one became my potential "parts gun".)

The tiny sights and small size make it difficult for me personally to shoot them very well, but they are fun and in normal times the ammo isn't hard to find.

This is the uglier of the two revolvers. The other one looks and works a little better.

The cylinder spins freely when the weapon isn't cocked. IIRC, my Russian Nagant pistol was that way, too.

I just thought it would be cool to add a (non 22lr) top-break revolver to my "collection" that was affordable and shot ammo that wasn't too hard to find. One day, when I have way more money than sense (that might not be a lot of money), I'd like to have one of the Schofield type reproductions.

Harrington and Richardson top-break 32 caliber revolver

• Tallball
• Dec 8, 2018

 

[mnrivrat]

TTv2 Wrote: "Case length is irrelevant when it comes to a revolver cylinder, it's overall length that does. The .38 S&W always seemed to use unusually long bullets"

Certainly overall length sets the required length of the cylinder, but since the case length contributes to the overall length it is not irrelevant to me. It would take its part in establishing bullet lengths/weights available for a given cylinder length. I understand what you mean by overall length establishing the required length of the cylinder, but the .145" difference in case length is not a minor factor . I think I have a H&R or a IJ in .38 S&W . I will measure the cylinder length and I also have factory ammo in both cartridges, so I will do some research to establish my stubborn thoughts, realizing the .38S&W was an established chambering prior to the .32 S&WL cartridge it puzzles me they would develop the .38S&W firearm to accommodate a overall length to support a long bullet in the .38S&W gun. I am curious , and stubborn , so will have to do the research to settle my mind to those issues. My older Speer manual does not give a spec on OAL. So is of no help.

PS: Tallball- If your guns are marked as you indicate they are not chambered for the .32S&W long, but rather for the .32S&W (sometimes referred to as the "Short")

 

[Jim Watson]

In 1939 (Stoeger's catalog reprint) both H&R and IJ offered top break revolvers in .32 S&W Long.
They were six-shooters, apparently the same size guns as five shot .38 S&W. IJ called that gun the ".32 Special." (Which name stuck to the .32 S&W Long ammo for many many years in some areas.)
They still listed the five shot .32 S&Ws which were smaller but not much if any cheaper.

And if you really want to get weird, there was previously such a thing as .32 H&R, their own cartridge. Here is what I found on it ten years ago (the links do not work any more.)
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...hort-not-mag-info-needed.614526/#post-7581962

I gather the cylinder is long enough for .32 S&W Long but we then get into the powder "rating" debate, these revolvers predate smokeless powder by a good bit.

There was also a similar .32 Merwin & Hulbert with Just Right case and OAL for the peculiar MH selective extraction system.

Heck, the 1911 ALFA (German) catalog shows a S&W knockoff top break in .38 Special.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

In 1939 (Stoeger's catalog reprint) both H&R and IJ offered top break revolvers in .32 S&W Long.
They were six-shooters, apparently the same size guns as five shot .38 S&W. IJ called that gun the ".32 Special." (Which name stuck to the .32 S&W Long ammo for many many years in some areas.)
They still listed the five shot .32 S&Ws which were smaller but not much if any cheaper.

And if you really want to get weird, there was previously such a thing as .32 H&R, their own cartridge. Here is what I found on it ten years ago (the links do not work any more.)
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...hort-not-mag-info-needed.614526/#post-7581962

I gather the cylinder is long enough for .32 S&W Long but we then get into the powder "rating" debate, these revolvers predate smokeless powder by a good bit.

There was also a similar .32 Merwin & Hulbert with Just Right case and OAL for the peculiar MH selective extraction system.

Heck, the 1911 ALFA (German) catalog shows a S&W knockoff top break in .38 Special.

Flayderman makes mention of a .32 H&R Long in the H&R Shell Extracting Revolver of 1886-1888 and the Automatic Ejection DA Revolver of 1887 on.

The .32 S&W Long did not come out until 1896, so the .32 H&R Long was a distinct cartridge from ten years earlier. The late Bill Goforth says it was only made until 1905.

This exactly. It’s not that H&R or I-J “chambered” their automatic or other top-break revolvers for S&W long, they bored their chambers through to save money. The.32H&R long wasn’t very much shorter than the S&W long when it came out ten years later so yes, you can stick a .32S&W long in a .32H&R long and fire it. Will it blow up? Probably not but it will get loose and go out of time eventually.

 

[Tallball]

32 S&W "short" is supposed to have a max pressure of 12,000 psi.

32 S&W long is supposed to have a max pressure of 15,000 psi.

They seem to be typically loaded to about the same muzzle energy levels.

 

[Jim Watson]

SAAMI spec gives the Long a 40% advantage in energy.
85@700 = 92 ft lb
98@775 = 131 ft lb

 

[TTv2]

32 S&W "short" is supposed to have a max pressure of 12,000 psi.

32 S&W long is supposed to have a max pressure of 15,000 psi.

They seem to be typically loaded to about the same muzzle energy levels.

If you've seen some of my posts on this topic recently, the SAAMI pressure for .32 S&W "short" is actually 17K PSI.

I know, sounds weird that the shorter S&W is, on paper, more powerful than the S&W Long, but the deal is the pressure for the S&W Long is set at 15k PSI for wadcutters for the semi auto target pistols. In solid frame revolvers, both can safely handle 17K PSI, the top breaks its best to keep to 15K PSI.

For any sort of self defense use, the .32 S&W is as good as .32 S&W Long, better perhaps considering how much smaller and lighter the revolvers are. For those .32 S&W revolvers with bored thru chambers, they allow the shooting of the .32 Long's wadcutters, which we know from the Lucky Gunner videos are adequate in terms of penetration.

 

[TTv2]

Flayderman makes mention of a .32 H&R Long in the H&R Shell Extracting Revolver of 1886-1888 and the Automatic Ejection DA Revolver of 1887 on.

The .32 S&W Long did not come out until 1896, so the .32 H&R Long was a distinct cartridge from ten years earlier. The late Bill Goforth says it was only made until 1905.

.32 H&R Long... a true definition of an obsolete cartridge.

This exactly. It’s not that H&R or I-J “chambered” their automatic or other top-break revolvers for S&W long, they bored their chambers through to save money.

This is something I'm wondering about with the .32 S&W revolvers since I got my Young America with the bored thru chambers is are all the .32 S&W "short" revolvers made this way, or just some of them? Like, I can see making them that way a few years after ammo started being offered in the wadcutter in 1915, but prior to that boring the cylinder thru would have been counterproductive to accuracy.

 

[mnrivrat]

Thanks to all who have given input on this. And thanks for the clarifications and history. I just learned a lot. Now for a search to find a nice shootable example, and to dig into what I have to see if I already have one.

 

[Monac]

Really ? Could you provide more information. Model numbers, pictures, any place I can view or read about them. I have a number of old H&R's ,and IJ's , and in 50 years of personal experience I do not recall ever seeing one. I would like to see one if you can help I would appreciate it. Refresh my brain cells please. And most of all I want one.

Here is a 6-shot top-break 32 S&W Long H&R: https://www.gunbroker.com/item/895138664
The large grips and long barrel are unusual.

This one is more ordinary: https://www.gunbroker.com/item/888283066

Here is another, not as nice: https://www.gunbroker.com/item/895621958

This one has the bobbed hammer: https://www.gunbroker.com/item/895571268
Frankly, I think this gun's finish is TOO perfect, but I have a nasty suspicious mind so that's probably just me. Some 100 year old guns really are this nice.

Here's a hammerless one: https://www.gunbroker.com/item/890155480
The trigger mechanism is busted.

This is what's left of one: https://www.gunbroker.com/item/891948851

And one more for the road: https://www.gunbroker.com/item/888423186
Apparently mother of pearl grips make it worth a ton of money. To somebody.

All of these are for sale on GunBroker right now. They are not rare, but it can be easy not to see them if you don't know they exist, because you have to look carefully at the cylinder flutes to tell the difference.

I used to own one of these. It had really big brown plastic factory grips, because it had the "Rice grip frame", like the later 38 Defender of WWII. I sold it because the sights were tiny, the single action trigger pull was bad, and the double action pull was much worse. It was in very good condition, though.

I still have a 6-shot top-break 32 Long Hopkins & Allen Safety Police. I don't know that it is a better shooter than the H&R would have been, but I just like the Safety Police model.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

Here is a 6-shot top-break 32 S&W Long H&R: https://www.gunbroker.com/item/895138664
The large grips and long barrel are unusual.

This one is more ordinary: https://www.gunbroker.com/item/888283066

Here is another, not as nice: https://www.gunbroker.com/item/895621958

This one has the bobbed hammer: https://www.gunbroker.com/item/895571268
Frankly, I think this gun's finish is TOO perfect, but I have a nasty suspicious mind so that's probably just me. Some 100 year old guns really are this nice.

Here's a hammerless one: https://www.gunbroker.com/item/890155480
The trigger mechanism is busted.

This is what's left of one: https://www.gunbroker.com/item/891948851

And one more for the road: https://www.gunbroker.com/item/888423186
Apparently mother of pearl grips make it worth a ton of money. To somebody.

All of these are for sale on GunBroker right now. They are not rare, but it can be easy not to see them if you don't know they exist, because you have to look carefully at the cylinder flutes to tell the difference.

I used to own one of these. It had really big brown plastic factory grips, because it had the "Rice grip frame", like the later 38 Defender of WWII. I sold it because the sights were tiny, the single action trigger pull was bad, and the double action pull was much worse. It was in very good condition, though.

I still have a 6-shot top-break 32 Long Hopkins & Allen Safety Police. I don't know that it is a better shooter than the H&R would have been, but I just like the Safety Police model.

None of them say “Long,” they all say “.32S&W Ctg.” You won’t find “Long” specified by H&R or I-J until the post-war era; and even then I’ve only seen it on solid frame revolvers.

 

[Jim Watson]

Post #35
I have the 1939 Soegers reprint with .32 SWL HR and IJ topbreaks listed.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

Post #35
I have the 1939 Soegers reprint with .32 SWL HR and IJ topbreaks listed.

Can you post a scan of it please? I have yet to see a barrel scroll on a pre war H&R top break that reads, “.32S&W Long Ctg”. I’d like to see that and save it for future reference. Thanks.

 

[Monac]

None of them say “Long,” they all say “.32S&W Ctg.” You won’t find “Long” specified by H&R or I-J until the post-war era; and even then I’ve only seen it on solid frame revolvers.

I noticed that. But all of these actually do take 32 S&W Long. As I said, I owned one of them. It took 32 Long RNL ammunition perfectly well. I bet an H&R catalog would specify that they were for both the 32 S&W and 32 S&W Long rounds.

I wonder if H&R just used the same roll stamp on these 38-frame guns made for 32 S&W Long as they did for their small frame revolvers made for 32 S&W only? I would not be surprised if this is why the stamping on the former did not specify "Long".

The only exceptions would be revolvers made before, or just after, S&W introduced the 32 Long round. Those would be made for 32 S&W, plus maybe H&R's own short-lived 32 Long round. I have a Marlin revolver that is a 6 shot 32 that will not take Long ammo; Marlin began making its copy of the S&W 38 DA top break in 1887, about 9 years before the introduction of the Long cartridge.

 

[Jim Watson]

 

[Monac]

Thanks very much, Jim Watson. I was trying to find information about H&R's own 32 Long, made before S&W came out with the 32 S&W Long, and I think I came up with one of your posts from at least 10 years ago.

BTW, that must be a pretty late catalog. I am surprised to see these guns priced as high as $15.

 

[TTv2]

I still have a 6-shot top-break 32 Long Hopkins & Allen Safety Police. I don't know that it is a better shooter than the H&R would have been, but I just like the Safety Police model.

I don't talk much about the H&A's because I don't have much interest in them given I have no idea what models are black powder only and which are smokeless and I've yet to find anyone else who would know.

H&R's are easy to identify which are smokeless and which aren't. Iver's aren't too tough either.

 

[Johnm1]

ideOTE="TTv2, post: 11870187, member: 239307"]I don't talk much about the H&A's because I don't have much interest in them given I have no i idea what models are black powder only and which are smokeless and I've yet to find anyone else who would know [/QUOTE]

According to the Mr. Goforth

in H&A's 1910 catalog H&A attempted to prove the "safety po;ice model" was safe with smokeless powder by making the statement "-----923 rounds of smokeless powder cartridges were fired from one revolver------" but the true facts of this statement is, on the 924th round the revolver failed. this is the basis of my statement that all H&A revolvers should be treated as "black powder only" today. From. https://www.thefirearmsforum.com/threads/hopkins-and-allen-top-break-revolver.60072/

I have always considered all H&A` s as black powder including the Forehand 1901 that could have been made for smokeless.