H&r 922

[32 Magnum]

Since Bluehawk was kind enough to post a picture of his "22 SPECIAL", I thought it might be fun to post pictures of a couple of mine.
First - a fairly early piece chambered in .22 Winchester RIM Fire - records indicate that somewhere around 200 pieces were produced in this chambering (I have two of those) making this one somewhat scarce. ALSO, this typifies some of the erroneous information contained in several of the "guides" which list one of the chamberings for the "22 SPECIAL" as being 22 Winchester MAGNUM Rim fire. Since the "22 SPECIAL" was discontinued around 1941-42 and the 22 WMRF was introduced in the early 1950's, the error should have been readily apparent to researchers. It was not.


Second - a fairly scarce variant of the "22 SPECIAL" with a 10" barrel (6" was standard) which H&R called the "EXPERT" model.

 

[jamesjo]

Jim,
As usual, SWEET!!
Jim

 

[OldShoe]

Thanks for your answers

32 mag thanks again (broken record, but I am grateful)
1250 is a GREAT number, I don't want to run hot ammo, but the bulk stuff is somewhat hot (1200-1250) that's all I was hopping for. I wanted to be able to use cheap -yet- copper plated (or brass washed for the golden bullets) rather then the waxy blazer*/thunderbolts

*blazers shot quite well, but I am a BIT concerned about that wax building up

 

[32 Magnum]

OldShoe,
Again, thanks for thanking.
One of the many things I've noticed about the pre-WW2 H&R .22 cal. revolvers (as well as a couple other brands' pieces) is that MODERN cartridges are very tight in the cylinder bores. This is nearly universal and no matter how much scrubbing with bronze brushes, solvent, cleaning agents, etc. - the cylinder bores remain difficult when inserting the .22 casings. I've also found that on the post-WW2 pieces, it is not nearly as difficult to charge the cartridges. I'm not sure of the reason, but I'm beginning to think that during the earlier days, the casing brass may have been a tad thinner. When the "high speed" .22s were introduced in the early 1930s, many of the cylinder designs, including H&R's, were changed - ostensibly to make them "safer" when using the new velocity rounds. I also know, from research, that this introduction involved a change to the powder - many previous loading involved varying proportions of black powder and nitro-cellulose based - to be all nitro based loads. H&R's solution was to add a "safety rim" around the breech end of the cylinder to prevent injury to bystanders caused by split casing and case head separations - a phenomenon which must have been a fairly serious problem at that juncture. This is one of the reasons that many folks will not recommend use of modern high speed or hyper velocity loadings in the older .22 revolvers - that and the fact that the metallugical qualities of the older cylinders seems to have been a bit weaker in design. I've seen quite a few old H&Rs as well as other brands, that have blown out cylinders - even from firing modern .22s. The chamber pressure (average max.) of modern .22 approaches 24k psi - so there is significant stress developed within the cylinder when firing "max" loads (even though still within the SAAMI high end specs.)
Check out the following pictures of M922 model 1 cylinders - before and after:

 

[Bluehawk]

Mine is 542871...early 1950's??

 

[Bluehawk]

Jim
Your research certainly beats mine!!!! My collection of H&R's is just 3-4 pieces as well as a few Iver Johnsons and a S&W model 1880 that need repairs /parts.

 

[OldShoe]

32mag
Yeah mine must be the 3rd variant it has those walls, so I got the "updated" one (ha)

On tight cases:

CCI (blazer) were quite "easy" (still have to push not drop) but didn't "catch" on the the entry
but I did notice the cheaper the ammo manufacturer the less consistent the fit

I am a novice and didn't now how normal that was.

 

[PabloJ]

I used to own target model with heavy flat sided barrel plus target style wooden grips and cute key that fitted into butt end to prevent hammer from being cocked. Small plastic piece that coupled hammer to the spring broke soon after bought the gun. It must have been made from some kind of high carbon tool steel as it rusted like spike left in the rain. While it was very accurate nine shot .22lr I would say it was the worst handgun I have ever owned. I hope you have better luck with yours.

 

[32 Magnum]

Pablo -
You had a Model 939 - which was near the top of the H&R handgun pricing and quality. The key in butt locking system was patented by H&R and first saw usage in 1959. I've owned three examples, 1st variation with hammer mounted firing pin and 2nd variation with transfer bar ignition/safety system. The vast MAJORITY of Model 939s that I have seen appear to have been very well taken care of and are/were in V.Good to Excellent condition. The broken nylon pusher head at the top of the main spring assembly is a commonly seen problem. Numrich Gun Parts Corp. offers replacements and they are easy to install. Too bad you had problems with your piece - I believe this to be the exception and not the rule, in this case, with this model.

 

[32 Magnum]

Bluehawk posted: "Mine is 542871...early 1950's??"
That serial number indicates production of your "22 SPECIAL" circa 1930 (preliminary research by B. Goforth).
Bluehawk posted: "Your research certainly beats mine!!!! "
No competition intended nor implied - just knowledge sharing. "Knowledge gained is worth nothing unless shared."