Steel Hayes
Member
I have no compunctions about firing my 1898 H&R topbreak.....WITH the proper propellant!
With smokeless powder, it’s just asking for a dangerous accident.
Help Identifying An Iver Johnson
- Thread starter Havok7416
- Start date
- Status
I have no compunctions about firing my 1898 H&R topbreak.....WITH the proper propellant!
With smokeless powder, it’s just asking for a dangerous accident.
The images going through my mind at the time were images of rolling blocks. At one time I had an in print article where a BPCR shooter had his vintage rolling block come apart. Looked pretty much as some of the rolling blocks on this page. Catastrophic Failures of Rolling Block Rifles
And I found Chuck Hawks claiming the Dutchman is a fraud.
Without a time machine no one is going to be able to go back in time and prove accident rates in the 19th century. I think the good thing is, we both agree, on not shooting the things now. We don't want to hurt someone now.
kBob
Member
Slamfire,
Maybe if my GG Gramps and the other Floridians that broke the Federal line at Franklin had some dang backup,YOUR GG Gramps could have finished the war in a prison camp!
I think if I want to shoot an 1880s to 90s BP top break I will break out the Speer primer powered plastic jobbers or make up some primer powered wax loads....as I have done.
Maybe if my GG Gramps and the other Floridians that broke the Federal line at Franklin had some dang backup,YOUR GG Gramps could have finished the war in a prison camp!
I think if I want to shoot an 1880s to 90s BP top break I will break out the Speer primer powered plastic jobbers or make up some primer powered wax loads....as I have done.
The important take-home message with regards to the Sears Roebuck ad from 110 years ago is the fact that it still has forward facing owl grips.
This was in an era when other major manufacturers, such as Colt and Smith & Wesson were advocating smokeless ammunition, as it was widely available by this time.
Two possibilities here--either Iver Johnson was "late to the party" relative to smokeless ammunition or they purposely changed the direction of the owl and were very conservative when creating a smokeless vs black powder transition. (Of course, there is a third option--the graphics in the advertisement do not accurately reflect that being currently produced.)
I have one of these manufactured the year prior to the ad. I will have to make an effort to find it--and see which way the owl faces.
This was in an era when other major manufacturers, such as Colt and Smith & Wesson were advocating smokeless ammunition, as it was widely available by this time.
Two possibilities here--either Iver Johnson was "late to the party" relative to smokeless ammunition or they purposely changed the direction of the owl and were very conservative when creating a smokeless vs black powder transition. (Of course, there is a third option--the graphics in the advertisement do not accurately reflect that being currently produced.)
I have one of these manufactured the year prior to the ad. I will have to make an effort to find it--and see which way the owl faces.
Driftwood Johnson
Member
Howdy Again
Regarding the strength of an old revolver when it was manufactured vs how strong it is today, I would say the only factor would be corrosion.
If a revolver, particularly one from the Black Powder era, was cleaned properly back then, then there should be no corrosion and the gun should be just as strong as it was when it left the factory.
However if it was not properly maintained, and there is corrosion present, all bets are off.
I have lots of old guns from the Black Powder era. Old Winchesters, a Marlin, quite a few Smith and Wessons, and three Merwin Hulberts.
It has been my experience that finding bright shiny bores and chambers in a firearm from the Black Powder era is a fairly rare experience. Not unheard of, but most of my Black Powder era guns have pitted bores and chambers. This is an indication that they were not always well cared for. So as a rule, I never shoot any of these guns with anything but Black Powder. Yes, it is possible to reproduce Black Powder pressures and pressure curves with Smokeless powder, but generally speaking these are not powders that are generally used in revolvers. So I don't go there, I only shoot my old revolvers with real Black Powder. Rifles not so much. The breach and locking mechanism of most rifles is usually much stronger and thicker than with a revolver. So many old rifles from the BP era, even though they exhibit a pitted bore, are reasonably safe to shoot with light Smokeless loads, as long as the mechanism is in good working condition. Revolvers are a different story. The weakest part of most revolvers is the thin section of metal between the chambers and the cylinder locking slots. If a revolver is going to let go, that is where the failure usually starts.
That is what happened to this old Merwin Hulbert.
The cylinder first let go at the locking notch, then the crack propagated along the thinnest sections of the chambers. One piece lifted off and took the top strap with it. Notce how the two neighboring chambers almost let go too.
I own this Merwin now with a custom new cylinder and a custom new top strap.
This 44-40 Open Top Merwin I would not dream of firing with Smokeless powder. Only Black Powder.
The same with a couple of Smith and Wesson New Model Number Threes, a couple of Schofields, and a Russian model. Plus a whole bunch of S&W Pocket Pistols. I would not dream of shooting any of them with anything but Black Powder because they were designed and built during the Black Powder era.
Colts are a little bit different, Colt started marking their revolver with a VP in an upside down triangle for Verified Proof shortly after 1900. This meant the steel was strong enough for Smokeless powder loads.
I have a couple of 1st Gen Bisleys from 1907 and 1909 that I could probably safely shoot with Smokeless loads, I just choose not to.
So again, I will not shoot any revolver that was designed and manufactured during the Black Powder era with Smokeless powder. If it is not in good condition I won't even shoot it with Black Powder. In fact, unless it is a collectable, I won't even buy it at all.
Yes, I do have a few collectable BP era guns that I do not intend to shoot at all, even with Black Powder. Like these S&W Tip Ups. I bought them because I am a S&W collector, and they have fascinating mechanisms. But since Black Powder 22 Rimfire shorts are not available anymore, they will not get shot by me.
This #2 OId Army was converted from 32 Rimfire to 22 Rimfire by sleeving the barrel and chambers. I felt the sleeves were probably strong enough to take the pressure of Smokeless ammo, so I have fired it with low powered 22 Longs from CCI. But it is an old gun, everything dates from 1862, and I don't want to overdo it by shooting it too much.
So, why should an old revolver not be as strong as when it was made?
My answer would be corrosion. In a revolver, if I see a lot of corrosion, I am not going to shoot it with modern Smokeless loads.
As for the Iver Johnsons, the BP models were perfectly safe with Black Powder when they were made. They were not safe to shoot with Smokeless. That is why IJ changed the steel at the turn of the Century. I would not shoot one of the BP era ones with Smokeless today or 100 years ago.
By the way, regarding pitted barrels, it has been my experience that with a pitted barrel, reasonable accuracy can be expected out of any old revolver or rifle, as long as the rifling grooves are still strong.
P.S. Not revolvers, but much has been noted about shooting old Damascus barreled shotguns today. Again it is a matter of time and corrosion. There are many, many feet of welded iron and steel in a Damascus barreled shotgun. While it was probably proofed at the factory, and was perfectly safe to shoot when new, there is no reliable way to know if hidden corrosion has attacked the welds over time, and whether the gun is still safe to shoot.
Corrosion and time.
Regarding the strength of an old revolver when it was manufactured vs how strong it is today, I would say the only factor would be corrosion.
If a revolver, particularly one from the Black Powder era, was cleaned properly back then, then there should be no corrosion and the gun should be just as strong as it was when it left the factory.
However if it was not properly maintained, and there is corrosion present, all bets are off.
I have lots of old guns from the Black Powder era. Old Winchesters, a Marlin, quite a few Smith and Wessons, and three Merwin Hulberts.
It has been my experience that finding bright shiny bores and chambers in a firearm from the Black Powder era is a fairly rare experience. Not unheard of, but most of my Black Powder era guns have pitted bores and chambers. This is an indication that they were not always well cared for. So as a rule, I never shoot any of these guns with anything but Black Powder. Yes, it is possible to reproduce Black Powder pressures and pressure curves with Smokeless powder, but generally speaking these are not powders that are generally used in revolvers. So I don't go there, I only shoot my old revolvers with real Black Powder. Rifles not so much. The breach and locking mechanism of most rifles is usually much stronger and thicker than with a revolver. So many old rifles from the BP era, even though they exhibit a pitted bore, are reasonably safe to shoot with light Smokeless loads, as long as the mechanism is in good working condition. Revolvers are a different story. The weakest part of most revolvers is the thin section of metal between the chambers and the cylinder locking slots. If a revolver is going to let go, that is where the failure usually starts.
That is what happened to this old Merwin Hulbert.
The cylinder first let go at the locking notch, then the crack propagated along the thinnest sections of the chambers. One piece lifted off and took the top strap with it. Notce how the two neighboring chambers almost let go too.
I own this Merwin now with a custom new cylinder and a custom new top strap.
This 44-40 Open Top Merwin I would not dream of firing with Smokeless powder. Only Black Powder.
The same with a couple of Smith and Wesson New Model Number Threes, a couple of Schofields, and a Russian model. Plus a whole bunch of S&W Pocket Pistols. I would not dream of shooting any of them with anything but Black Powder because they were designed and built during the Black Powder era.
Colts are a little bit different, Colt started marking their revolver with a VP in an upside down triangle for Verified Proof shortly after 1900. This meant the steel was strong enough for Smokeless powder loads.
I have a couple of 1st Gen Bisleys from 1907 and 1909 that I could probably safely shoot with Smokeless loads, I just choose not to.
So again, I will not shoot any revolver that was designed and manufactured during the Black Powder era with Smokeless powder. If it is not in good condition I won't even shoot it with Black Powder. In fact, unless it is a collectable, I won't even buy it at all.
Yes, I do have a few collectable BP era guns that I do not intend to shoot at all, even with Black Powder. Like these S&W Tip Ups. I bought them because I am a S&W collector, and they have fascinating mechanisms. But since Black Powder 22 Rimfire shorts are not available anymore, they will not get shot by me.
This #2 OId Army was converted from 32 Rimfire to 22 Rimfire by sleeving the barrel and chambers. I felt the sleeves were probably strong enough to take the pressure of Smokeless ammo, so I have fired it with low powered 22 Longs from CCI. But it is an old gun, everything dates from 1862, and I don't want to overdo it by shooting it too much.
So, why should an old revolver not be as strong as when it was made?
My answer would be corrosion. In a revolver, if I see a lot of corrosion, I am not going to shoot it with modern Smokeless loads.
As for the Iver Johnsons, the BP models were perfectly safe with Black Powder when they were made. They were not safe to shoot with Smokeless. That is why IJ changed the steel at the turn of the Century. I would not shoot one of the BP era ones with Smokeless today or 100 years ago.
By the way, regarding pitted barrels, it has been my experience that with a pitted barrel, reasonable accuracy can be expected out of any old revolver or rifle, as long as the rifling grooves are still strong.
P.S. Not revolvers, but much has been noted about shooting old Damascus barreled shotguns today. Again it is a matter of time and corrosion. There are many, many feet of welded iron and steel in a Damascus barreled shotgun. While it was probably proofed at the factory, and was perfectly safe to shoot when new, there is no reliable way to know if hidden corrosion has attacked the welds over time, and whether the gun is still safe to shoot.
Corrosion and time.
Last edited:
Driftwood Johnson
Member
Howdy
I did not notice your reply before I replied.
With Colt it is very easy. Any Colt Single Action Army manufactured after 1900 should be safe to shoot with Smokeless powder, as long as it is in good mechanical condition and all that stuff. I would not put barn burners through one, but if you stay withing SAAMI specs, and the gun is in good shape, any Colt made after 1900 should be fine. Look for the VP on the trigger guard, which started showing up sometime early in the 1900s.
Smith and Wesson is a bit harder to pin down. There is no hard and fast date for Smiths. I have been over this time and time again on the S&W forum. I doubt if Colt had access to steel that was any better than S&W could get, just a little bit north on the Connecticut River, but there are no easily definable dates for when Smiths had been proofed for Smokeless ammo.
This is a scan I made of a Smith and Wesson catalog from 1905-1906. Notice they expressly say they will not guarantee their revolvers if used with Smokeless ammo.
A number of years later, S&W relented and said their revolvers were safe to fire with Smokeless ammo, but it is not well documented as to exactly what year that was.
lewwallace
Member
panwnshop buy....$60 1992. safety hammerless 3rd model. shot once 38 s&w. never again
Sears ad featured earlier is from nineteen eight. This revolver of mine dates from nineteen seven. Both feature forward facing owl heads. So unlikely a graphic in the ad features an earlier graphic. So, several years after other manufacturers were advocating smokeless powder, Iver Johnson was still manufacturing black powder revolvers.
Interesting. Did Iver Johnson perhaps believe that smokeless powder was a passing fad?
Interesting. Did Iver Johnson perhaps believe that smokeless powder was a passing fad?
kBob
Member
oh, look, the Glock Safety trigger they made such a big deal of in 1907.
-kBob
-kBob
Monac
Member
kBob
Member
Monac,
Thanks, I had not noticed the firing action le frrancasie which I think was about 1921. The little French auto with the pop up Barrel and spare round loop on the magazine. Now TWO 1907 designs make me wonder what Smith and Wessons lawyers were doing during the whole original Sigma debate.
At one point my wife considered being a patent lawyer and described such as this as either a nightmare or winning the lottery, depending on which side you are on.
Meanwhile what ever else it is, orpington's little hootie owl pistol is a QT with its concealed hammer and safety trigger.
Thanks for posting it orpington!
-kBob
Thanks, I had not noticed the firing action le frrancasie which I think was about 1921. The little French auto with the pop up Barrel and spare round loop on the magazine. Now TWO 1907 designs make me wonder what Smith and Wessons lawyers were doing during the whole original Sigma debate.
At one point my wife considered being a patent lawyer and described such as this as either a nightmare or winning the lottery, depending on which side you are on.
Meanwhile what ever else it is, orpington's little hootie owl pistol is a QT with its concealed hammer and safety trigger.
Thanks for posting it orpington!
-kBob
- Status
