Iver Johnson top break revolver
What changes did Iver Johnson make to the 38 S&W "Top Break" 5 shot revolver, Second Model, when they switched from black powder ammunition to smokeless ammunition?
I am interested in changes to materials used in production such as improved steel quality. Also, were there dimensional changes which were necessary to handle pressure increases such as larger diameter cylinders, thicker barrel walls, thicher chamber walls, thicher frame walls, etc.
My thought is that there were no such changes because the then new smokeless ammunition in 38 S&W brought to the market place by Remington and Winchester (and of course others) was down loaded to match the original blackpowder loading (not by weight of powder), which was about 640 FPS muzzel velocity.
It would have been inprudent for the ammunition manufacturers to bring high presuure 38 S&W smokeless ammunition to the market place, and discontinue black powder 38 S&W ammunition, when there was a zillion Iver Johnson Break Top revolvers out in circulation in the U.S. population.
Thanks for your input,
Creedmoormatch
I am interested in changes to materials used in production such as improved steel quality. Also, were there dimensional changes which were necessary to handle pressure increases such as larger diameter cylinders, thicker barrel walls, thicher chamber walls, thicher frame walls, etc.
My thought is that there were no such changes because the then new smokeless ammunition in 38 S&W brought to the market place by Remington and Winchester (and of course others) was down loaded to match the original blackpowder loading (not by weight of powder), which was about 640 FPS muzzel velocity.
It would have been inprudent for the ammunition manufacturers to bring high presuure 38 S&W smokeless ammunition to the market place, and discontinue black powder 38 S&W ammunition, when there was a zillion Iver Johnson Break Top revolvers out in circulation in the U.S. population.
Thanks for your input,
Creedmoormatch
0
-
Someone asked me if I could find some information on this particular revolver for them. It is a top break Iver Johnson double action revolver. It says it is a .32 Smith & wesson cartridge on the side of the original box. The box is also dated Dec 21,1916 and has a serial number 205xx located on the bottom of the trigger guard. I would like to know if this revolver is a black powder or smokeless version. I thought someone could determine this from either the serial number or the 1916 date. What little I've read, it sounds like it could be either. The person who owns this revolver doesn't reload so they were wondering where they could purchase loaded ammunition for it. I thought someone might know of some place that reloads for older vintage firearms. Any idea as far as value range goes in case this person wants to abandon this project and trade it in for something more modern as well as practical. 0 -
Owl Heads (IJ's) are not the best made revolvers and top breaks are not the strongest design. Be a lot safer to find black powder or equivalent loaded ammo. The Blue book lists A Safety Hammer and Safety Hammerless as break open in 32 S&W made from 1890's to 1950's.
I don't think there is a lot of collector/shooter interest in Saturday Night Specials so value is likely low, condition is everything, box will help.0 -
If the box is original to the gun and if it has a coil mainspring, it's a smokeless powder model.
The serial number with a letter prefix under left grip will identify year made.0 -
Commercially available .32 S&W (Short, not S&W Long) is deliberately loaded to milder pressures out of concern for the numerous break-tops still out there. These will be smokeless loads, so much easier to clean than BP. 1916 is well into the smokeless era and anything made then would be designed for smokeless loads. As 007 said, these are not the strongest designs out there, but IJ and H&R were reputable manufacturers and made a product that was lower priced while still being safe. I would have it checked by a gunsmith prior to firing. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
4 comments