Rubone
Member
Your right, typing faster than my brain. Fixed it, thanks.I think you meant to say Black Powder only???
Your right, typing faster than my brain. Fixed it, thanks.I think you meant to say Black Powder only???
How's the accuracy and velocity compared to real Black and other subs?I have used American Pioneer Powder (APP) for "Black Powder" loads in 38S&W. It is a Black Powder substitute that does not require special bullets with special Black Powder compatible bullets. Regular smokeless bullets can be used. APP would be fine for loading into 32 S&W.
I didn't say they could go 900 rounds, that was what Hopkins and Allen was saying with brand new ones about 100 years ago.Steel from the 1880's! Study the history of metallurgy and you will learn just how much they did not know about steel in the 1880's. Process controls were sight, taste, smell, and not much more. Any analysis of steels from that period show erratic compositions, with lots of residuals, because they were unable to remove non oxidizing elements such as copper, chrome, nickel, aluminum, etc. Expect lots of slag and impurities. A Locomotive book I have documents period arguments over cast iron versus steel. Cast iron was a mature technology, steel was not. Steels of the period are going to be plain carbon steels with a lot of crap, which weakens the steel in unpredictable ways.
And what you should most concerned about is fatigue lifetime. Cycles to failure under stress. I was on the email chain of a question to a modern black powder match barrel maker. The steel he used is something considered OK for sewer pipes. Really low grade stuff, but OK for blackpowder. Many black powder rifle barrels were wrought iron, something you can't harden due to lack of carbon. It was butter soft, which allowed country blacksmiths to forge barrels around mandrels, and cut the rifling with a steel cutter hook. Something that soft, I would absolutely not use smokeless. I don't care if someone says they will go 900 rounds, the next one might go on the first cylinder.
That's great information however I believe my gun was made in the 1920s, most likely late in that decade.Steel from the 1880's! Study the history of metallurgy and you will learn just how much they did not know about steel in the 1880's. Process controls were sight, taste, smell, and not much more. Any analysis of steels from that period show erratic compositions, with lots of residuals, because they were unable to remove non oxidizing elements such as copper, chrome, nickel, aluminum, etc. Expect lots of slag and impurities. A Locomotive book I have documents period arguments over cast iron versus steel. Cast iron was a mature technology, steel was not. Steels of the period are going to be plain carbon steels with a lot of crap, which weakens the steel in unpredictable ways.
And what you should most concerned about is fatigue lifetime. Cycles to failure under stress. I was on the email chain of a question to a modern black powder match barrel maker. The steel he used is something considered OK for sewer pipes. Really low grade stuff, but OK for blackpowder. Many black powder rifle barrels were wrought iron, something you can't harden due to lack of carbon. It was butter soft, which allowed country blacksmiths to forge barrels around mandrels, and cut the rifling with a steel cutter hook. Something that soft, I would absolutely not use smokeless. I don't care if someone says they will go 900 rounds, the next one might go on the first cylinder.
No Idea. I was shooting up close at a Pocket Pistol target at a SASS match. Too close to miss, so accuracy was not an issue, and no idea what the velocity was.How's the accuracy and velocity compared to real Black and other subs?
Who are you going to believe? Google or folks with actual experience?The way I understand it, if the owl's head is facing forward the gun is good for modern ammunition, whereas if it's facing towards the rear it's a black powder gun. (Google it)
You say you have a cool gun, so why risk its destruction?Driftwood, I've always appreciated your knowledge and insight on S&W handguns. You've probably forgot more than I could ever know. As far as the Hammerless .32, I've only shot it a few times and it's a bit of a safe queen however when I did there was so little percussion from the cartridges I used, it's hard to believe they could burst the cylinder. If that does happen it wouldn't be a great loss, I did get for a small price and I'm not that sentimental. I may just take it out again and try to prove I'm wrong. Hopefully not. It is a cool little pistol.
That's great information however I believe my gun was made in the 1920s, most likely late in that decade.
I didn't say they could go 900 rounds, that was what Hopkins and Allen was saying with brand new ones about 100 years ago.
Is there a book (for the non-technical reader) you could recommend about the evolution of steel, or of iron and steel? I would like to know more about this subject, but the Wikipedia articles tend to go right over my head. I've never been able to grasp what "malleable iron" was, for instance. (It was a popular material for the frames of 32 and 38 top break revolvers, I believe.) I thought it was some way of making mild steel out of cast iron, but that is quite wrong. I think.Steel from the 1880's! Study the history of metallurgy and you will learn just how much they did not know about steel in the 1880's. Process controls were sight, taste, smell, and not much more. Any analysis of steels from that period show erratic compositions, with lots of residuals, because they were unable to remove non oxidizing elements such as copper, chrome, nickel, aluminum, etc. Expect lots of slag and impurities. A Locomotive book I have documents period arguments over cast iron versus steel. Cast iron was a mature technology, steel was not. Steels of the period are going to be plain carbon steels with a lot of crap, which weakens the steel in unpredictable ways.
And what you should most concerned about is fatigue lifetime. Cycles to failure under stress. I was on the email chain of a question to a modern black powder match barrel maker. The steel he used is something considered OK for sewer pipes. Really low grade stuff, but OK for blackpowder. Many black powder rifle barrels were wrought iron, something you can't harden due to lack of carbon. It was butter soft, which allowed country blacksmiths to forge barrels around mandrels, and cut the rifling with a steel cutter hook. Something that soft, I would absolutely not use smokeless. I don't care if someone says they will go 900 rounds, the next one might go on the first cylinder.
Is there a book (for the non-technical reader) you could recommend about the evolution of steel, or of iron and steel? I would like to know more about this subject, but the Wikipedia articles tend to go right over my head. I've never been able to grasp what "malleable iron" was, for instance. (It was a popular material for the frames of 32 and 38 top break revolvers, I believe.) I thought it was some way of making mild steel out of cast iron, but that is quite wrong. I think.
Sweet I appreciate all the infoHowdy
Around 1900 Iver Johnson redesigned their revolvers, using better steel. These revolvers were fine to shoot with Smokeless ammunition.
There are three telltale indicators of whether or not the revolver has been redesigned for Smokeless ammunition. The little owl on the grips faces backwards, the hammer spring is a coil spring, and the cylinder locking slots have a hard edge both top and bottom. Like this.
On earlier Iver Johnsons, with the earlier steel the little owl on the grips is facing forward. The cylinder notches only have one hard edge. And the hammer spring is a leaf spring. Like this.
Your revolver clearly has a leaf spring, so it is not meant for shooting with Smokeless ammunition.
Yes, it is unknown if the revolver has been previously shot with Smokeless ammo, a lot of the older guns were. It is also unknown if shooting it with Smokeless ammo has damaged it. I have several small old Smith and Wesson Top Breaks chambered for 32 S&W (there is no such thing as 32 S&W Short). I take them out and look at them every once in a while, but I do not shoot them with modern Smokeless ammo.
Here is a little Smith and Wesson 32 Safety Hammerless. I would not shoot it with modern Smokeless ammo.
The way I understand it, if the owl's head is facing forward the gun is good for modern ammunition, whereas if it's facing towards the rear it's a black powder gun. (Google it).
I thought this one was excellent: Fighting Iron: A Metals Handbook for Arms Collector's
It really was not until the Bessemer converter, circa 1870's, that thousands of pounds of steel could be made at one time. After the Bessemer converter came a number of processes that produced carbon steels with less cost, and somewhat better quality. Development of alloys really took off post WW1 with experiments in alloy steels. This book The Story of Knife Steel: Innovators Behind Modern Damascus and Super Steels is also excellent, as the history of knife steels is the history of tool steels. By the way, knife nerds is an excellent resource for understanding heat treatment and the tradeoffs between hardness, and toughness, for example. Knife makers are a small consumer of steels, knife companies piggybacked over what was developed for industry. Big industry drove the development of advanced alloy steels, particularly the automotive and aerospace industries.
This author has created an enormous amount of information on the history of swords, and steels. You can go through it all, I copied the URL leading to pdf's of steel processes.
Iron, Steel and Swords
Ironmaking
The Iron Trade
10.2.4 Bloomeries
From Bloomeries to the Blast Furnace
The Making of Crucible Steel in Antiquity
10.5.2 Making Steel up to 1870
Making Steel after 1870
Making Steel Things
[/QUOTE]The Bessemer process was patented in 1856, not the 1870s.
[/QUOTE]But frankly, I have never been able to figure out why most arms makers were still using malleable iron well past that.
Smith and Wesson used iron for the frame of the Schofield model, 1875 - 1877.
Colt was using iron for frames and cylinders until 1883.