H&R Young America .22L

[RevolvingGarbage]

I managed to wrestle this off gunbroker for a price almost decent all things considered.





I already have a .32S&W Young America, and I was expecting this to be the same gun with a slightly higher amount of smaller diameter holes in the cylinder.

(.32S&W on top, .22 Long below)


Not so!

The .22 version apparently has the same size grip but the upper part of the frame is considerably smaller, and the cylinder is even smaller and lighter than the already very tiny .32 version. They still managed to fit 7 rounds of .22 Long in this, though the rounds pictured are .22CB Shorts. I suspect the gun would eat standard pressure .22 short without being beat to death, but for the most part ill be using these to be on the safe side.

It was listed as non functional for lack of a mainspring. Im thinking it clearly was refinished at some point, though it appears to have been decently well done. It also needs a new flat spring to power the sear for single action, a refreshed cylinder pin retainer spring, and a little work on the cylinder friction detent to really bring it back to like new, but it does work at least. It’s always nice when repairs end up being only simple stuff.

I really think these guns deserve more of a cult following. I doubt we will ever see a time when the line between functional firearm and comically small curio gets so perfectly straddled as with these little double action revolvers from days gone by.

(1911 and S&W Perfected for size comparison)

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

Neato!

My Dad has a Vest Pocket, which I believe is built on the larger YA frame but with a sightless 1" barrel. He still carries it from time to time.

Nice Perfected Model too.

 

[TTv2]

OP, neither of your Young America's are rated for smokeless. I'm sure the .22 can handle the very weakly loaded CCI .22 Long, but I wouldn't do much Hi velocity .22 Short in it. The .32 you can load with black powder or substitutes, I would recommend Triple 7.

The .22 can be aimed thanks to the firing pin on the hammer being visible while cocked, stack the firing pin with the front sight blade like a straight 8 type of sight and find where it groups. The POA and POI will not match, windage is usually dead on, elevation will be what you're trying to determine.

The .32 YA can be loaded with .32 Long wadcutters as the chambers are bored straight thru. The guns can handle the recoil, but the detent/latch that retains the cylinder pin doesn't have much surface to engage the groove in the pin and the springs are weak, so after one shot the pin begins to walk out. I've read that people disassemble the latch and replace the spring with something much stronger, but then you pretty much can't remove the cylinder without great force.

I do agree that these revolvers do not get enough recognition, they have their place in US firearm history as they are still the second most produced double action revolver in US history behind only the S&W Model 10. Considering that the Young America hasn't been manufactured since Japan attack Pearl Harbor that's pretty impressive and shows that 80-140 years ago people were just as interested in a very small, light, and affordable handgun for close range use.

I have been trying to raise awareness for smaller framed revolvers about the size of the Young America, built specifically for .22 or .32 caliber, but with modern improvements like an actual rear sight, a swing out cylinder, replaceable front sight (for a night sight if one desires).

Nobody can tell me they wouldn't have an interest in a 5 shot .32 S&W Long that weighs 10oz or a 7 shot .22 LR that weighs 6oz as I would think an aluminum frame is possible and especially if the price was about $300.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

I dunno about a modern .32 SWL CCW piece....the ammo is probably too obscure and $$ for any serious sales. Even the little Taurus .380 revolver flopped pretty bad for whatever reason.

Now, I agree with you that a modern 7/8 shot, DA, swing-out, 22LR S&W Ladysmith/ Rossi Princess clone using quality materials and priced under $300 would be a hit. I cant understand why NAA (for example) doesn't bite on that one.

 

[RevolvingGarbage]

OP, neither of your Young America's are rated for smokeless. I'm sure the .22 can handle the very weakly loaded CCI .22 Long, but I wouldn't do much Hi velocity .22 Short in it. The .32 you can load with black powder or substitutes, I would recommend Triple 7.

The .22 can be aimed thanks to the firing pin on the hammer being visible while cocked, stack the firing pin with the front sight blade like a straight 8 type of sight and find where it groups. The POA and POI will not match, windage is usually dead on, elevation will be what you're trying to determine.

The .32 YA can be loaded with .32 Long wadcutters as the chambers are bored straight thru. The guns can handle the recoil, but the detent/latch that retains the cylinder pin doesn't have much surface to engage the groove in the pin and the springs are weak, so after one shot the pin begins to walk out. I've read that people disassemble the latch and replace the spring with something much stronger, but then you pretty much can't remove the cylinder without great force.

I do agree that these revolvers do not get enough recognition, they have their place in US firearm history as they are still the second most produced double action revolver in US history behind only the S&W Model 10. Considering that the Young America hasn't been manufactured since Japan attack Pearl Harbor that's pretty impressive and shows that 80-140 years ago people were just as interested in a very small, light, and affordable handgun for close range use.

I have been trying to raise awareness for smaller framed revolvers about the size of the Young America, built specifically for .22 or .32 caliber, but with modern improvements like an actual rear sight, a swing out cylinder, replaceable front sight (for a night sight if one desires).

Nobody can tell me they wouldn't have an interest in a 5 shot .32 S&W Long that weighs 10oz or a 7 shot .22 LR that weighs 6oz as I would think an aluminum frame is possible and especially if the price was about $300.

I actually prefer the unobstructed sight picture on the .32 without the firing pin nose in the way, even if it does serve as a quasi rear sight. I got pretty accustomed to the flat top rear with shiny silver blade arrangement and with a six o clock hold it works with the POI of that gun anyway.


I know better than to try anything advertised a s High velocity or High speed even in .22 Short. Regular 29gr@1050 .22 Short is definitely more powerful than the blackpowder rounds these guns were originally made for, but they did continue to make these into the smokeless era. My thinking is any extant examples have likely seen a fair amount of .22 Short in their lives already. What else could people have realistically been shooting in them for the last 30 years?

I thought about exploring reloading shortened .22lr cases with 4F if I can find the equipment...

Anyway, I’ll report back when I see how she shoots with the CB Shorts. It would be cool to have a chrono for that actually. Those are advertised as 29gr@710FPS but thats got to be out of a rifle, right? Anyone got any guesses? Over 500FPS out of a 2” or less barrel?

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

You may see the same or even higher speeds out of a short barrel. Low-velocity .22s such as CBs and Colibris tend to slow down in anything over 14" because they have already consumed all their powder before the bullet exits the bore.

 

[TTv2]

I dunno about a modern .32 SWL CCW piece....the ammo is probably too obscure and $$ for any serious sales. Even the little Taurus .380 revolver flopped pretty bad for whatever reason.

Now, I agree with you that a modern 7/8 shot, DA, swing-out, 22LR S&W Ladysmith/ Rossi Princess clone using quality materials and priced under $300 would be a hit. I cant understand why NAA (for example) doesn't bite on that one.

Did you pay attention to .32 S&W Lg prices online prior to the pandemic? They were going for $2 more than a box of .38 was, which at the time was around $20. If you're telling me that 40 cents a round is too expensive then I can't imagine how anything priced higher than 9mm still sells.

It's .32 S&W that actually does fit your criteria of obscure and expensive for ammo sales, those were going for 60 cents/rd pre-pandemic.

I talked about this recently, the reality is regardless of whatever .32 it is the .22 would sell 10x more. The idea here is a manufacturer can make a frame meant for 5 shots of .32, then stuff as many .22 LR chambers in it, 6, 7, or 8, whatever works because the selling point is it's a small revolver that's properly sized for a smaller than .38 caliber. A 100gr bullet going 600 fps is going to penetrate better than any .22 will and the trigger will be better too.

 

[TTv2]

I know better than to try anything advertised a s High velocity or High speed even in .22 Short. Regular 29gr@1050 .22 Short is definitely more powerful than the blackpowder rounds these guns were originally made for, but they did continue to make these into the smokeless era. My thinking is any extant examples have likely seen a fair amount of .22 Short in their lives already. What else could people have realistically been shooting in them for the last 30 years?

They weren't shooting them. H&R's have always been cheap, disposable revolvers and cater to people who can't afford anything better or couldn't afford to shoot much.

Let's not forget that the world prior to the internet was largely run by hearsay and rumors, if you walked into a pawn shop in the 80s or early 90s and saw and H&R it was probably priced for $50 that the LGS down the street sold to the pawn shop because they don't sell "junk" guns.

 

[Dave DeLaurant]

They weren't shooting them. H&R's have always been cheap, disposable revolvers and cater to people who can't afford anything better or couldn't afford to shoot much.

I get your point, but labeling H&R revolvers like these as disposable is a bit of a stretch.

There was a grade quite a bit below the H&R, H&A and Iver Johnson products, AKA "suicide specials." Many were solid frame single actions made in Belgium to a price (under $1) and often similar in basic design to the Colt New Line pocket revolvers of the 1870s. Typically hand fitted and made from the cheapest materials. Check out a repro Sears catalog from the 1800s for examples -- these were the bottom-priced revolvers with no manufacturer given. Instead, they bore hyperbolic names like "Bang-up," "Little Giant," "Swamp Angel," and "Tramp's Terror".



I'd compare the old H&R and IJ revolvers with guns made today by Hi-Point or Charter Arms. Simple, functional guns that were durable within limits. I would happily choose an H&R revolver over some military sidearms like the Japanese Type 14, Spanish Campo Giro or Italian Glisenti/Brixia.

And while I'll grant that "can't afford anything better" is a fair statement, another way to put this is that they served people who didn't care to spend more for their limited need. Homeowners, with little interest in shooting but seeking viable protection. Cops, who wanted an inexpensive backup piece. Shopkeepers, to keep near the register just in case.

And, sadly, petty criminals and assassin favored them too.

 

[RevolvingGarbage]

They weren't shooting them. H&R's have always been cheap, disposable revolvers and cater to people who can't afford anything better or couldn't afford to shoot much.

At least this one did get shot quite a bit between being refinished and being sold to me.

Take a look at the carbon build up evident in these pictures on the frame above the forcing cone, and also on the bottom of the frame at the front of the cylinder.

 

[halfmoonclip]

these were the bottom-priced revolvers with no manufacturer given. Instead, they bore hyperbolic names like "Bang-up," "Little Giant," "Swamp Angel," and "Tramp's Terror".

A late buddy had a considerable accumulation of such things, generally without serial numbers. Really love the names (and the 'Swamp Angel' was a Civil War siege mortar!)

Hey, RevolvingGarbage, did the spurless revo come from the factory in that form? Yeah, the old crocks are interesting, and usually not a lot of money.
Moon

 

[RevolvingGarbage]

A late buddy had a considerable accumulation of such things, generally without serial numbers. Really love the names (and the 'Swamp Angel' was a Civil War siege mortar!)

Hey, RevolvingGarbage, did the spurless revo come from the factory in that form? Yeah, the old crocks are interesting, and usually not a lot of money.
Moon

From what I can recall, I also won that one on GB and it came to me in exactly the shape and configuration it’s in now. I have seen a lot of the H&R pull pin revolvers with that smooth back spurless hammer and I believe it was a factory option. The ability to fire single action is retained, but you really kind of have to prime it with the trigger to lift the hammer enough to get a thumb around it, and then it can be brought back to full cock ready to fire with a very nice single action pull. This is assuming of course that your single action sear is present and functioning with a spring properly applying forward pressure to it.

I had a different .32 Y.A. years ago that had a spur hammer and I like both spur and spurless for different reasons. The spur makes the gun easier to use as a sort of micro Kit Gun, but the spurless smooth hammer carries better.

 

[TTv2]

I get your point, but labeling H&R revolvers like these as disposable is a bit of a stretch.

There was a grade quite a bit below the H&R, H&A and Iver Johnson products, AKA "suicide specials." Many were solid frame single actions made in Belgium to a price (under $1) and often similar in basic design to the Colt New Line pocket revolvers of the 1870s. Typically hand fitted and made from the cheapest materials. Check out a repro Sears catalog from the 1800s for examples -- these were the bottom-priced revolvers with no manufacturer given. Instead, they bore hyperbolic names like "Bang-up," "Little Giant," "Swamp Angel," and "Tramp's Terror".

View attachment 1177705

I'd compare the old H&R and IJ revolvers with guns made today by Hi-Point or Charter Arms. Simple, functional guns that were durable within limits. I would happily choose an H&R revolver over some military sidearms like the Japanese Type 14, Spanish Campo Giro or Italian Glisenti/Brixia.

And while I'll grant that "can't afford anything better" is a fair statement, another way to put this is that they served people who didn't care to spend more for their limited need. Homeowners, with little interest in shooting but seeking viable protection. Cops, who wanted an inexpensive backup piece. Shopkeepers, to keep near the register just in case.

And, sadly, petty criminals and assassin favored them too.

I don't think H&R's are disposable, I think in the past a lot of people thought they were because they're cheap.

I think H&R is the best brand for top break revolvers given the affordable price and while the Young America is questionable in execution, it's about the best super small .22 or .32 revolver you can get for the money.

IDK if Hi Point or Charter are fair comparisons to H&R revolvers as we know Hi Point and Charter can go thousands or rounds before a failure while H&R it seems they don't have a high round count ability. IDK, I've only put a couple hundred down in my .32 top break and .22 Young America and they're still chugging along, but I do wonder how long they can go.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

From what I can recall, I also won that one on GB and it came to me in exactly the shape and configuration it’s in now. I have seen a lot of the H&R pull pin revolvers with that smooth back spurless hammer and I believe it was a factory option. The ability to fire single action is retained, but you really kind of have to prime it with the trigger to lift the hammer enough to get a thumb around it, and then it can be brought back to full cock ready to fire with a very nice single action pull. This is assuming of course that your single action sear is present and functioning with a spring properly applying forward pressure to it.

I had a different .32 Y.A. years ago that had a spur hammer and I like both spur and spurless for different reasons. The spur makes the gun easier to use as a sort of micro Kit Gun, but the spurless smooth hammer carries better.

AFAIK all the Vest Pocket models had the bobbed hammer. My Dad's does. Ya, you can cock it for an SA shot, but it takes triple-jointed thumbs.

 

[GRIZ22]

I have a YA blued in 32 short. It's 100% reliable and sometimes carry it in my coat pocket in wintertime. It'd give me a chance to get to my main battery.

 

[halfmoonclip]

The ability to fire single action is retained, but you really kind of have to prime it with the trigger to lift the hammer enough to get a thumb around it, and then it can be brought back to full cock ready to fire with a very nice single action pull. This is assuming of course that your single action sear is present and functioning with a spring properly applying forward pressure to it.

We had some of this discussion elsewhere here, about bobbing S&W hammers. Yeah, you can cock a spurless hammer, but getting it uncocked can be, well, interesting. I really wouldn't want to try it under stress.
Always debated grinding off the single action sear while removing the spur, but then, somewhere down the road, somebody might try to cock it, and have the hammer get away. So I let the sear in place.
A friend has a DAO K-gun from the factory; I need to find out if it has the single action sear.
Moon