Help Identifying An Iver Johnson

[Havok7416]

A friend of mine just received an Iver Johnson top break from a friend of his. It's in rough shape, but he asked me whether it can be salvaged (I think it's possible) and what the value is. From the pics he provided (below) there doesn't appear to be a model number or any identifiable marks other than what is on the top of the barrel. My friend tells me the gun is a .32 caliber, but he's apparently not sure which cartridge (I'm guessing it's a .32 S&W Long). I will likely get a chance to see it in person next week and will update this thread with what I find.

If anyone knows these old guns information would be appreciated.

EDIT: I do have a Blue Book that is a few years out of date but should give a rough ballpark on the value. He's not looking to sell this gun, merely fire a few rounds every year to remember his friend.

 

[Curator]

It looks like an Iver Johnson "safety automatic" revolver made from 1896 to 1941. This model had a trigger block safety so it could not discharge without holding the trigger back. It could be the 2nd model made for black powder shells, or the 3rd model made after 1909 for smokeless loads. You might do a search on its serial number to determine which one. Value depends on what someone is willing to pay. These go for less than $100 in rough shape to about $200 in good to fine shape. It could be chambered for either the .32 S&W (short) or the .32 S&W Long depending on when it was made.

 

[Havok7416]

Excellent, thank you! I will pass that along to him. Hopefully we can make out a serial number.

 

[Monac]

Per Driftwood Johnson's post in this thread:

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/iver-johnson-38-revolver-5-shot.738555/

I would suggest that the gun in THIS thread is a black powder gun. Since it is a 5 shot, it is either 32 S&W (not Long) or 38 S&W. The proportions suggest 38 to me, but I'm not sure. It is hard to find a buyer for one of these in this shape at any price, unless someone wants it for parts.

 

[Havok7416]

Being a blackpowder gun would certainly explain the corrosion. I see the owl orientation as described in Driftwood's post seems to indicate the era of the gun. There is a further post in the referenced thread that mentions the number of cross pins in the frame.

 

[il_10]

This is a black powder only model. It's likely safe to shoot if the timing is good, but be careful you don't put smokeless loads in it.

ways to tell at a glance:
The owl is facing towards the gun, in later guns the owl faces the other way.
There are only 2 cross pins in the frame, later guns have 4.
The cylinder notches are the earlier one-way style. Look up some other pictures to see what I mean, later guns won't let the cylinder freewheel on the bolt.

You can also take the grips off and note mainspring type. This will be a flat spring, later smokeless models used a coil spring.

ETA: I missed the link to Driftwood Johnson's post, he sums it up rather nicely!

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

The little owl is facing forward, the cylinder locking slots are of the earlier type, and if you take off the grips, you will see the mainspring is a leaf spring rather than a coil spring.

Most definitely a Black Powder era gun.

Besides the fact that there is plenty of corrosion on it, I would not shoot it, and it is not worth trying to repair.

 

[Slamfire]

I would not shoot it, and it is not worth trying to repair.

Even back in the day, these were considered suicide specials. Elmer Keith had a story of one of these disassembling in the hand of a shooter. And that was about 100 years closer to the manufacture of these pistols.

Maybe it was purchased from Sears Catalog sales:



This was the house brand version:

 

[Speedo66]

Interesting in the Sears ad the blue versions cost more than the nickeled ones. Also, depending on the brand, the optional pearl grips are 20-25% of the cost of the gun itself.

 

[il_10]

Bluing was more expensive because it required actual polishing. The nickel plating could hide surface imperfections.

I wonder what the 'pearl' handles were made of at the time?

 

[Monac]

Has anyone ever seen an Aubrey revolver in the flesh? Maybe the name is not marked on them. As far as I can recall, I have never seen one for sale, which seems strange for a product sold by Sears Roebuck during its heyday.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Even back in the day, these were considered suicide specials.

That's a little bit extreme. While they were not of the same quality as Colt or Smith and Wesson, thousands of these were made and I doubt if very many blew up.

 

[Monac]

True. In my experience, the Suicide Special term was applied mostly to the very cheap single action rimfire revolvers of the 1870's and 1880's. H&R's and Iver Johnsons were a distinct step up, costing at least twice as much (yes, even at the prices listed in Slamfire's post).

 

[Jim Watson]

Smith and Wessons were nearly three times the price.

 

[Slamfire]

That's a little bit extreme. While they were not of the same quality as Colt or Smith and Wesson, thousands of these were made and I doubt if very many blew up.

Then the risk to the owner of the Iver Johnson in question, is small enough to recommend shooting his pistol?

 

[Monac]

Then the risk to the owner of the Iver Johnson in question, is small enough to recommend shooting his pistol?

Definitely not. This gun was safe back when it was new, with black powder ammunition. Now it has endured a century of fairly indifferent treatment, and even though factories may have downloaded 38 S&W, it is still a smokeless powder round today, with a different pressure spike than this gun was engineered for. This is why Iver Johnson made changes to allow people to tell the difference between the black powder guns and the smokeless powder guns.

 

[Slamfire]

Definitely not. This gun was safe back when it was new, with black powder ammunition. Now it has endured a century of fairly indifferent treatment, and even though factories may have downloaded 38 S&W, it is still a smokeless powder round today, with a different pressure spike than this gun was engineered for. This is why Iver Johnson made changes to allow people to tell the difference between the black powder guns and the smokeless powder guns.

I know you mean well. Don't take this badly.

We lack data bases, in fact, I am going to say no one was taking data at the time, of blow ups of cheap 19th century firearms, or even expensive 19th century firearms. Any memory of these events is long forgotten. The Polly Anna affect is real, we look back at the past with rose colored glasses, probably due to innate human optimism. Without which, we would be pretty dour. What we do know, is that when any of these 19th century firearms have a metallurgical analysis, the steels, if they are steel, are inferior to the cheapest steels available today. Inferior in properties to modern steels of identical steel composition. Incidentally, most of those early revolvers were not heat treated. Metallurgy was a developing science in the 1890's, the first phase diagrams were coming out at the time. Iron was purchased on reputation. They did not have the chemical analytical technics we have today. The factories were run by gas light, if that, equipment run off belts, coming off a shaft turned by a steam engine. If that. Process controls were non existent. If the number of sampled defective product did not exceed a threshold, the lot was shipped, even though, sampling had shown, there was defective product in that lot. Because it was an Government entity, documentation is available for WW1 era Springfield Armory. I am aware of a 1917 Watertown report describing just how metallurgic ally poor the steels used in those single heat 1903 receivers. And that rifles were making it out the door, without heat treated receivers. That is a comment on the lack of process controls in the factories of the period. Anyone remember "Mary had a little lamb, And when she saw it sicken, She shipped it off to Packingtown, And now it’s labeled chicken" ? Springfield Armory did not have an incoming inspection, did not have a metallurgical department to verify the composition and properties of the steels they were receiving, and I believe SA was following industry practice. Metallurgical analysis of the rivets on Titantic is around, and the rivets have a lot of slag and impurties, just as the M1903 receivers. Incidentally, even today, your vendor is busily evaluating whether you are an idiot or not. And if you can't tell the difference between good product and bad, some day, you are going to be surprised about the money you wasted buying crap. Can you say, Kobe Steel? https://www.bbc.com/news/business-43298649 Corporations that don't perform their own subcontract surveillance, trust the QA of the vendor, I believe they get what they deserve.

Safety attitudes from the past have changed. Someone dying at work, or being injured, it just happened, and it was their tough luck. Products were defective and it was your tough luck. That was the way it was, people accepted it, and no big fuss was generated if or when a cheap gun blew up in someone's hand. They had a bad Calvinistic attitude at the time, which was, God protected the Elect from misfortune. So if something bad happened to you, it was proof that you were one of the damned, and you justly deserved what you got! With that being the group attitude, who is going to talk about their misfortune? Want to self identify yourself as a loser?

I don't believe the "safety" of those 19th century guns, even when new, would be tolerated in today's society. I would not recommend firing one, even if it was pristine, because I don't want the blood of someone else on my hands.

 

[Monac]

Slamfire? You are agreeing with me. I would not fire this old IJ with current ammunition either. Unless you are saying it was unsafe back when it was new, with black powder loads. I have never heard that this was the case, but as you point out, standards for both steel and safety were very different back then.

I guess you could say it would have been a consequence of the US not having proof laws. But I have not heard of IJs and H&Rs blowing up in ordinary use back then, and they seemed to pass European proof routinely - or once again, I have not heard of them failing it in quantity.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

I know you mean well. Don't take this badly.

We lack data bases, in fact, I am going to say no one was taking data at the time, of blow ups of cheap 19th century firearms, or even expensive 19th century firearms. Any memory of these events is long forgotten. The Polly Anna affect is real, we look back at the past with rose colored glasses, probably due to innate human optimism. Without which, we would be pretty dour. What we do know, is that when any of these 19th century firearms have a metallurgical analysis, the steels, if they are steel, are inferior to the cheapest steels available today. Inferior in properties to modern steels of identical steel composition. Incidentally, most of those early revolvers were not heat treated. Metallurgy was a developing science in the 1890's, the first phase diagrams were coming out at the time. Iron was purchased on reputation. They did not have the chemical analytical technics we have today. The factories were run by gas light, if that, equipment run off belts, coming off a shaft turned by a steam engine. If that. Process controls were non existent. If the number of sampled defective product did not exceed a threshold, the lot was shipped, even though, sampling had shown, there was defective product in that lot. Because it was an Government entity, documentation is available for WW1 era Springfield Armory. I am aware of a 1917 Watertown report describing just how metallurgic ally poor the steels used in those single heat 1903 receivers. And that rifles were making it out the door, without heat treated receivers. That is a comment on the lack of process controls in the factories of the period. Anyone remember "Mary had a little lamb, And when she saw it sicken, She shipped it off to Packingtown, And now it’s labeled chicken" ? Springfield Armory did not have an incoming inspection, did not have a metallurgical department to verify the composition and properties of the steels they were receiving, and I believe SA was following industry practice. Metallurgical analysis of the rivets on Titantic is around, and the rivets have a lot of slag and impurties, just as the M1903 receivers. Incidentally, even today, your vendor is busily evaluating whether you are an idiot or not. And if you can't tell the difference between good product and bad, some day, you are going to be surprised about the money you wasted buying crap. Can you say, Kobe Steel? https://www.bbc.com/news/business-43298649 Corporations that don't perform their own subcontract surveillance, trust the QA of the vendor, I believe they get what they deserve.

Safety attitudes from the past have changed. Someone dying at work, or being injured, it just happened, and it was their tough luck. Products were defective and it was your tough luck. That was the way it was, people accepted it, and no big fuss was generated if or when a cheap gun blew up in someone's hand. They had a bad Calvinistic attitude at the time, which was, God protected the Elect from misfortune. So if something bad happened to you, it was proof that you were one of the damned, and you justly deserved what you got! With that being the group attitude, who is going to talk about their misfortune? Want to self identify yourself as a loser?

I don't believe the "safety" of those 19th century guns, even when new, would be tolerated in today's society. I would not recommend firing one, even if it was pristine, because I don't want the blood of someone else on my hands.

Whoa, that's a whole lot to digest.

I tend to disagree with you that quality was quite as bad in the 19th Century as you seem to think.

I have worked on and off in plenty of old mill buildings throughout New England. Some of them still had the hangers in the ceilings for the over head shafts.

This old carpet mill is about a mile from where I live.






It used to be powered by a pair of steam engines. One is gone, the other one has been nicely painted and makes a terrific static display.






There are even some of the old pulleys still mounted in the ceiling, although all the drive belts are long gone.






There was nothing wrong with a steam engine driving over head shafts to power machinery. Electric motors had not been invented yet, and a steam engine was more reliable than water power. What is important is that power was delivered reliably to the machinery, not how the power was generated.

Light? That's why there were so many windows in the old mills, to let sunshine in.

Let's talk about the Springfield Armory for a minute. It was on the leading edge of the industrial revolution, developing new mass production techniques that had never been tried before. They were able to turn out thousands of rifled muskets during the Civil War. Many thousand. And although modern metal alloys were not available yet, what they made was completely servicable for the time. I doubt if we will record many instances of Springfield Armory muskets bursting in battle. The design was battle tested for the propellant available at the time.

(Yes, I am aware the iron cylinders of the Walker Colt were prone to blow up. They simply could not withstand the enormous powder charges the chambers could hold. That is one reason the Dragoons were sized down a bit.)

Changing over to Smokeless powder and the higher pressures it creates there was of course a learning curve until steel development could catch up to the higher pressures.

Anyway, I say again the Black Powder Iver Johnsons were not suicide specials. They were fine in their day for the ammunition that was available at the time.

This is the only Iver Johnson I own. I paid $100 for it a whole bunch of years ago. It is one of the Smokeless designs. I have no problem shooting it with modern factory 38SW ammunition. But I would not put modern ammo through one of the Black Powder revolvers.

 

[Slamfire]

Whoa, that's a whole lot to digest.

I tend to disagree with you that quality was quite as bad in the 19th Century as you seem to think.

I have worked on and off in plenty of old mill buildings throughout New England. Some of them still had the hangers in the ceilings for the over head shafts.

This old carpet mill is about a mile from where I live.

Interesting pictures, interesting buildings.

Lets talk about age. How does age make an old pistol unsafe? If it was safe to use back then, why is it unsafe to use now? Is that not the crux to the proposition previously, not to shoot an old black powder pistol, because it is old. And that a pistol being old, by just age alone, is now unsafe. But when it was new, just by being new, it was safe to use.

You know an adobe structure deteriorates from age. Those thick adobe walls you see on historical adobe structures are in fact deteriorating to dust, as the straw held within the mud composite, deteriorates. So we know that adobe walls become unsafe with age, but what about a steel structure? Is the steel in an old pistol, sitting within a drawer, just deteriorating into dust, with age? Is that why the old Iver Johnson, which used to be safe to use when new, is now unsafe?

Or was it always risky to shoot?

 

[Steel Hayes]

If it was safe to use back then, why is it unsafe to use now? Is that not the crux to the proposition previously, not to shoot an old black powder pistol, because it is old.

When first manufactured, IJ,H&R,American revolver co.,etc...were quite safe to fire the cartridge and powder made for them(Black Powder).
Today’s smokeless powder, I won’t consider firing in any of my antiques, but when I reload or buy BP cartridges online, I’ve shot plenty through all but 2 of my revolvers made before 1890.

 

[Slamfire]

When first manufactured, IJ,H&R,American revolver co.,etc...were quite safe to fire the cartridge and powder made for them(Black Powder).

Today’s smokeless powder, I won’t consider firing in any of my antiques, but when I reload or buy BP cartridges online, I’ve shot plenty through all but 2 of my revolvers made before 1890.

There are plenty of pictures to be found on the web of old blackpowder firearms that have burst firing black powder loads. If you want to shoot your antique, that is your decision, but don't dismiss the risks of the things.

Great avatar picture, was that a distant relative of yours in the Civil War?

 

[Steel Hayes]

Great avatar picture, was that a distant relative of yours in the Civil War?

Yes, great great grandfather.

 

[Slamfire]

Yes, great great grandfather.

Mine was from Ohio, one of the defenders of the redoubts in Knoxville TN against Longstreet, then went down to Atlanta, Battle of Resaca along the way, and then survived the Battle of Franklin and the Battle of Nashville. I hope they were not shooting at each other, at one time or another. I don't have any photo's, you are lucky to see yours.

 

[Monac]

There are plenty of pictures to be found on the web of old blackpowder firearms that have burst firing black powder loads. If you want to shoot your antique, that is your decision, but don't dismiss the risks of the things

There are also plenty of pictures of modern smokeless powder firearms that have burst firing smokeless power loads. Sure, they are generally handloads, but a lot of the burst blackpowder guns were muzzeloaders, where every load was a handload, more or less.

Look, you seem to be committed to the position that inexpensive old black powder revolvers were unsafe even at the time they were made, and you argue that the definition of "safe" has changed, so that guns that were considered safe back then would not be considered so now.

Except in the cases like that of the Colt Single Action Army, where the mechanical design makes it unsafe to carry with a live round in the chamber by today's standards, I don't think this is true. Basically, you are arguing that the gunmakers of that time, at least the inexpensive ones, did not know what they were doing. could not make safe guns (by today's standards) if they had wanted to, and did not feel they needed to, because the guns they made were "safe" by the standard of their time. This is simply not backed up by accounts of inexpensive revolvers bursting in normal service, AFAIK.

In Europe, they had a system of "proofing" ALL guns, specifically to avoid this. Cheap American guns were widely exported to Europe, and (once again, AFAIK) there seems to be no history of them failing proof in significant quantities.

Were the cheap guns of 130 years ago made of poorer materials, with more variable quality control of those materials, than cheap guns are now? Sure. With the ammunition they were designed for, if they were used today, would they be considered dangerous? There is just not enough positive evidence to say yes.

BTW, one thing we generally do not know about a 130 year old pistol is how much it has been fired, and with what, in those 130 years. Lots of shooting, or shooting with smokeless ammunition may have stressed it. That is one reason to consider an old gun to be less safe now than when it was new.