Rubone
Member
Your right, typing faster than my brain. Fixed it, thanks.
Iver Johnson 32S&W top break, black powder or not.
- Thread starter Connor_brokengun2132
- Start date
TTv2
Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 4,994
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.
TTv2
Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 4,994
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.
RUT
Member
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)
James K2020
Member
That's great information however I believe my gun was made in the 1920s, most likely late in that decade.
Driftwood Johnson
Member
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.
As I think I stated, the reason I like APP is because unlike real Black Powder or most of the substitutes, it does not require a Black Powder compatible bullet lube. Smokeless bullets with smokeless bullet lubes work fine with APP.
I was using these .359 diameter Smokeless bullets, for my 38S&W loads, and did not want to pan lube them with BP compatible lube, so I used them as is with APP.
I was shooting them out of this S&W Perfected which left the factory in 1917. Technically I could have been shooting Smokeless out of it, because of the date it was manufactured, but I was shooting Black Powder that day, so I was using rounds I had loaded with APP.
Driftwood Johnson
Member
Who are you going to believe? Google or folks with actual experience?
As I said earlier, the little owl faces backwards on Iver Johnsons with the better steel for Smokeless powder.
Of course, somebody may have substituted newer grips on one of the older Iver Johnsons, so the owl maybe facing forward.
Remove the grips and there will be a coil spring for the hammer on the Smokeless revolvers.
The best indicator is the shape of the cylinder locking notches.
The notches on a smokeless Iver Johnson will have a hard edge at the top and bottom.
Like this:
This is a Black Powder Iver Johnson. Notice the little owl is facing forward, If the grips were removed a leaf type spring for the hammer would be seen.
Lastly, and most important, observe the shape of the cylinder locking notches. Just one hard edge.
You say you have a cool gun, so why risk its destruction?
I don’t get the aversion to black powder; really, a lot of tap water and a solvent such as Ballistol, and you’re good to go.
You might just live to regret the destruction of ANY 19th Century weapon, when they are all you can get. Think it might never happen? Look how quickly handgun laws became restrictive in Canada—and that might make your little Safety Hammerless revolver a bit more valuable than you think it might be—north of the border.
Then it is a smokeless pistol, however, 1920's is still inferior to modern steels in terms of residuals (that was only fixed post WW2), micro inclusions, and the use of alloy steel was rare. Do not push old steel.
An electrical line hook made in 1921 failed and caused the largest, to that date, wildfire in California.
PG&E Alerted To Risk of Worn Hooks Back in 1987
PG&E Alerted To Risk of Worn Hooks Back in 1987
PG&E was alerted more than 30 years before the deadly Camp fire about the failure risk of worn steel hooks like the one that snapped and caused the most destructive wildfire in state history, documents obtained by NBC Bay Area’s investigative unit show.
www.nbcbayarea.com
PG&E was alerted more than 30 years before the deadly Camp fire about the failure risk of worn steel hooks like the one that snapped and caused the most destructive wildfire in state history, documents obtained by NBC Bay Area’s investigative unit show.
According to a February 1987 engineering evaluation, the company ordered the tests of two worn hooks that were found on a transmission line in Contra Costa county – hooks that look chillingly similar to ones taken from the nearly 100-year-old transmission line blamed for the fire that left 85 dead.
The two grooved hooks, as well as a third hook with no visible wear, all failed at loads far lower than capacity. The PG&E report called for more testing of hooks in stock for its system, especially given that unworn hook failed at about one quarter of the load it was supposed to handle. That was actually worse than the two worn hooks, however, which failed at about one third of the specified capacity of 30,000 pounds.
The report can be found here:
Old steel varies considerably.
Old Joe remembered a 1930 National Geographic ad in which Chrysler bragged that its cars could go 33,000 miles before valve grinding. I did find a 1932 Chrysler Imperial owners manual pdf on the web, and it had a section on valve grinding.
Start at page 52 https://www.web.imperialclub.info/Yr/1932/32Owners/Page052.htm
I really doubt anyone here has ground their valves recently. Our metallurgy is much better.
Last edited:
Product liability did not exist as a concept back then.
Had a friend die in January due to peritoneal mesothelioma, a cancer in the stomach lining due to asbestos. My guess, dusty brake drums, or asbestos in the air ducts at work.
So, I can’t see how this pipe would be good for your health, never mind the tobacco.
RUT
Member
>>As I said earlier, the little owl faces backwards on Iver Johnsons with the better steel for Smokeless powder<<
I think I'M the one who had things backward, as my IJ has the owl facing backwards and looks just like the one you pictured. My bad....
I think I'M the one who had things backward, as my IJ has the owl facing backwards and looks just like the one you pictured. My bad....
the Black Spot
Member
FYI: Black powder is easily cleaned up using Windex w/ vinegar
Just have to clean sooner(within 24 hrs).
Just have to clean sooner(within 24 hrs).
Monac
Member
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.
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
WestKentucky
Member
Lots of folks talk about the grips but I don’t trust that because grips are easy to change. I only really look at the cylinder because if anything is gonna give up, the cylinder is first to go. That cylinder appears to have the deep cuts seen on BP rated guns so that’s where I would plant my flag. I have shot smokeless, and will probably do so again, but very light loads and not a heavy volume of those.
OP
OP
Connor_brokengun2132
Member
- Joined
- May 27, 2021
- Messages
- 25
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.
OP
OP
Connor_brokengun2132
Member
- Joined
- May 27, 2021
- Messages
- 25
RUT
Member
Mine is coil, so I'm good to go.
Driftwood Johnson
Member
The Bessemer process was patented in 1856, not the 1870s.
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.
The point of the Bessemer process was to remove impurities from molten iron by blowing air through the molten metal. Although decarburizing iron had been known for hundreds of years, the processes for doing so were expensive and steel was only made in small quantities by those processes. The Bessemer process made mass production of relatively inexpensive steel possible. So I still fail to understand why Colt and Smith were using iron so much later.
By the way, I highly recommend the Gogan book for laymen to understand not only about steel, but copper and its alloys too.
[/QUOTE]
We live in a world where expectations of speed are projected on the past. Today, it seems the entire World will see something posted on Twitter in under an hour. And people expect that speed for everything. I have noticed in one thread, that the poster expected that if the M14 was type classified on a particular date, that meant that instantly all US Arsenals automatically were filled with M14s. When it fact, it took years to make the millions that were wanted.
Bessemer’s converter was patented when you say, but that does not mean it was accepted by industry. Bessemer had to go sell the process, and he trying to license the thing. Industry was skeptical, live long enough, consume enough media, every day there is some end of history thing being promoted. Early adopters tend to get burnt. And it turns out, Bessemer developed his process with Swedish ore, which was low in phosphorus, and his first license efforts were a failure, because the ores the licensees used where high in phosphorus. Bessemer almost went bankrupt at that point, but luckily, someone invented Spiegeleisen which fixed the immediate problem of phosphorus.
If you look at time, it was not until the 1870’s that the Bessemer process, and other steel making processes, really took off:
World Production of steel.
Processes used:
Charts from 10.5.3 Making Steel after 1870
[/QUOTE]
The railroads were also slow to adopt the steels of the era in their locomotives. Yes, period steel was used on rails, but those same rails failed all the time. I think the best answer is, early steels varied considerably in quality, were the new, unknown kid on the block. There were no established test data, testing standards, iron and steel were purchased by "reputation". And manufacturer's already have established supply chains, production facilities geared to the old materials, and all have been burnt by hucksters selling miracle solutions. ("Green Energy" anyone?)
Production engineers hate change anyway. Once they get that production line stable, they fight change. Change in anything on a production line causes all sorts of problems. But it is not only production engineers that resist change, as a general rule, the organization is incapable of self reform, organizations only respond to external forces. And there are lots and lots of examples of corporations that failed, because they would not change with the times.
Driftwood Johnson
Member
Slamfire:
Thanks for that great explanation. Other than the date of the patent, I did not know Bessemer had so much trouble getting industry to accept his process. And you make a good point about engineers not accepting the new steel right away. That goes a long way towards explaining why it took so long for steel to make inroads into the firearms industry.
Thanks for that great explanation. Other than the date of the patent, I did not know Bessemer had so much trouble getting industry to accept his process. And you make a good point about engineers not accepting the new steel right away. That goes a long way towards explaining why it took so long for steel to make inroads into the firearms industry.
