Hopkins and Allen revolver

[cat_IT_guy]

My grandfather gave me this revolver today, it was his fathers. Grandpa never shot it, great grandpa, maybe... I found the following verbiage on the gun.

Hopkins & Allen Arms Co
Norwich Conn
USA Pat'd Aug 21 1906
Safety Police
F5XXX



I've been researching all afternoon. It doesn't appear to be a collector piece or anything special really. It seems to be double action only which came as a bit of a surprise to me. It's a six shot gun, believe it's a 32 S&W cal. I've read that smokeless powder in these guns isn't recommended.... Sound right?

I don't see shooting it much mostly keeping it around as a conversation piece. Having said that I'd love to shoot at least a cylinder or two through it. I will be inspecting it very closely before trying anything. The cylinder can be rotated a bit when the hammer is down. This concerns me a bit, should it?

Having some trouble finding 32 black powder loads. I do reload but hate to setup for reloading just to shoot it a few times. Seems I can special order a box if I'm willing to be patient and pay almos $1/shot to do so. Any Better options?

Anything else interesting or unusual about this gun?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Kaeto]

Due to length of cylinder I believe it might be .38 S&W not .32. A lot of that style of revolver were DA only. The barrel length and grip style are unusual for H&As of that period. It makes me think that it was a target version

This is a more common .32 H&A. Notice how short the cylinder appears? That is what makes me think yours is a .38

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

I doubt if it was manufactured as a double action only gun. If it was, why is there a spur on the hammer? The spur on the hammer is there so it can be cocked, single action style. Most double action only revolvers did not have an exposed hammer, like this Smith and Wesson Safety Hammerless.




Some of these guns had an unusual 'safety ' feature. Try pushing the trigger forward before cocking the hammer.

The cylinder can be rotated a bit when the hammer is down. This concerns me a bit, should it?

Yes. Of course it depends on how much it rotates. Almost all revolvers have a small amount of rotational play when they are at battery. A qualified gunsmith can tell you if it is safe to fire.

You are not going to find any Black Powder loaded 32 S&W ammunition, unless you find an antique box of ammo.

Personally, I would probably not try to fire it. Hopkins and Allen guns were inexpensive and not high quality. Probably better to keep it as a family keepsake and not try to fire it.

 

[Kaeto]

There were plenty of DA only top breaks made with a spurred hammer.

 

[Panzerschwein]

Love the old top breaks. Beautiful guns guys.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

There were plenty of DA only top breaks made with a spurred hammer.

Really? I am intrigued. Can you name some?

 

[billspencer1956]

Old 38 and 32 caliber in the top breaks carried the designation SW both shorter then today's rounds. 38 SW has a slightly larger diameter too. You will have to make your own ammunition. I collect and shoot top breaks. You can do blanks or very low power loads. Use 357 bullets, the original bullets in 38 SW was 360. Today's regular brass will have to be trimmed down to fit the chambers. Just remember the old revolvers are not capable of handeling modern power loads.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy Again

There were two 32 caliber cartridges Smith and Wesson developed.

There was the 32 S&W (sometimes mistakenly referred to as 32 S&W Short), and there was the 32 S&W Long.

The round on the left in this photo is a 32 S&W. It was developed in 1878 and loaded with Black Powder for Top Break revolvers just like the 32 Safety Hammerless in my earlier photo. The round in the middle is the 32 S&W Long, developed in 1896 for the 32 Hand Ejector, First Model. The round on the right is the 32 Colt New Police, virtually identical to the 32 S&W Long except it carried a flat nosed bullet.





The revolver at the top of this photo is the S&W 32 Hand Ejector First Model. This is the revolver the 32 S&W Long was developed for. The revolver at the bottom is the 32 Safety Hammerless, which fired the older 32 S&W round. Notice the comparative lengths of the cylinders in the two revolvers and notice the comparative lengths of the two cartridges. The shorter 32 S&W round could be fired in the gun at the top, and every other revolver
chambered for the 32 S&W Long, but obviously the older Top Break's cylinder is too short for the longer round.




Judging from the OP's photo, if the revolver is indeed 32 caliber, it is chambered for the longer 32 S&W Long.

 

[Jim Watson]

The Safety Police was made from 1908 til 1917.

Bill Goforth was of the opinion that the H&As should be considered black powder only, even though .32 S&W (or .38 S&W) is not loaded any "hotter" than it ever was.
I bet Great Grandpa shot smokeless in it whenever he could afford it.

If it cycles double action only, it is broken. Maybe just a flat spring which can be replaced, maybe an action part.

 

[J-Bar]

cat IT guy,

What a beautiful piece of family history! Clean it, oil it, respect it and love it as memory to your grandfather.

We should all be so lucky to get an heirloom like this.

 

[cat_IT_guy]

Thanks all for the responses so far. I just measured the width of the chambers, looks like about .34" (Im sure its more precise than that, but I am not). Cylinder measures 1.220-1.225" long (again, about the extent to which I can accurately measure an object).

Jim said:

If it cycles double action only, it is broken. Maybe just a flat spring which can be replaced, maybe an action part.

I think you are on to something. Played with it some more tonight, it feels like it wants to catch at full cock in single action, but that a part may be rounded off or worn out.

Dare I try to disassemble to clean and inspect? Figuring that the screws are 100 years old, my thought is to hit it with some liquid-wrench or similar to loosen them to reduce risk of stripping or trashing the screw-heads. Is this (liquid-wrench or like alternative) ok for finish?

 

[Jim K]

That Safety Police has an interesting action. If you pull the trigger and then release it slowly and watch the hammer, you will see that it moves up and down. That was H&A's answer to the hammer block or transfer bar situation; they used neither. When the hammer is up (at rest), it cannot strike the frame-mounted firing pin. When the hammer is cocked (either SA or DA), it lowers and can strike the firing pin. If it fires only DA, it is broken.

According to the catalog, they were made in .22, .32 S&W Long, and .38 S&W. I have never seen one in .22 and they must be pretty scarce.

Jim

 

[Jim Watson]

Very drop and impact safe. Said not to be as sturdy as the IJ transfer bar action. Which I guess yours demonstrates.

 

[Kaeto]

Thanks all for the responses so far. I just measured the width of the chambers, looks like about .34" (Im sure its more precise than that, but I am not). Cylinder measures 1.220-1.225" long (again, about the extent to which I can accurately measure an object).

Jim said:


I think you are on to something. Played with it some more tonight, it feels like it wants to catch at full cock in single action, but that a part may be rounded off or worn out.

Dare I try to disassemble to clean and inspect? Figuring that the screws are 100 years old, my thought is to hit it with some liquid-wrench or similar to loosen them to reduce risk of stripping or trashing the screw-heads. Is this (liquid-wrench or like alternative) ok for finish?

I wouldn't disassemble it without a guide to doing so. If it's internals are anything like my H&Rs you could end up not being able to reassemble it.

 

[evan price]

I picked up an old Hopkins & Allen a few years ago. What I was able to research from some old timers was that at one time there was a bespoke 32H&A cartridge. I load and cast my own ammo and use 32s&w long brass and it works fine. I don't shoot it much and keep the loads lite. Good luck with your heirloom.

 

[Jim K]

The Safety Police in .32 was made for the .32 S&W Long and is OK with smokeless powder loads. Some writers considered them the ultimate refinement of the top-break revolver. They probably would have become more popular had the company survived its financial problems in 1915.

I do not recommend disassembling the gun; I know of no availability of parts. It is possible that the failure to stay cocked is due to dirt or old grease. I suggest taking off the grips and spraying the heck out of the internals with G96 Gun Treatment or Gun Scrubber and see what happens.

Jim

 

[cat_IT_guy]

Many thanks to all for the responses. Im learning a ton about this little piece of history.

I want all to know that I respect their opinions. I will be taking the gun to a smith for checkout. If they suggest its safe to fire, I'd like to try a few of, basically, the weakest loads I can find. I guess I just cant shake the feeling that guns are meant to be fired.

If it checks out and I decide to shoot it, something like this TenX cowboy load seems like it would be the way to go (and has been recommended elsewhere as roughly a BP alternative):
http://www.munireusa.com/ten-x-cowboy-ammunition-32-s-w-long-78-grain-lead-round-nose-box-of-50/. It is advertised as being safe to shoot in "first gen guns" and checking out the specs, 78gr at ~575, the pressure has got to be pretty light. Agree? Or do I want it so bad Im not thinking right?

 

[BCRider]

I'll bet those loads generate even less power than if they were honest BP loads. Competition cowboy action ammo tends to be really down in the "mouse fart" power level.

Even being that old there should be something on the gun that says what it's chambered in. If not then at least look into the chambers for a ridge part way down that is the transition step from the case diameter to the throat diameter. The depth of that shoulder will aid in identifying the round it shot along with the chamber diameter. As well the diameter of the throat will point to the bullet diameter and again lead you to more accurately identifying the round the gun is chambered for.

 

[Pudge]

Driftwood, it is my understanding that Forehand and Wadsworth made a double action top break with a spurred hammer, and Hopkins and Allen picked it up and produced it for a while as the Forehand model of 1901.

 

[Jim K]

The folding hammer spur was patented by Samuel S. Hopkins, Jan. 27, 1885, and used after that as an option on Hopkins & Allen and Merwin & Hulbert (made by H&A) revolvers, as well as on Forehand revolvers after the assets of that company were acquired by H&A in 1902. It was not part of the F&W assets.

My experience with two revolvers having the folding spur is that, while they seem a good idea, they are not that great in practice. If the spur is folded down for thumb cocking, it flies back up when the gun is fired, so it must be continually brought back down as long as single action firing is to be continued. The second problem is that the spur is sharp, and firing even a cylinder full single action is a tad bit painful.

Jim

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Driftwood, it is my understanding that Forehand and Wadsworth made a double action top break with a spurred hammer, and Hopkins and Allen picked it up and produced it for a while as the Forehand model of 1901.

I said that I doubted anybody would manufacture a double action only revolver with a spur on the hammer. Of course there were plenty of double action revolvers with a spur on the hammer.

Here is one.



The revolver that Kaeto shows has a folding spur type of hammer like Jim K is talking about. Normally a spring keeps the spur down against the frame, so the revolver could be drawn from a pocket without snagging. To cock the hammer one pulls back the spur with the tip of the thumb and then the hammer can be cocked.

 

[Pudge]

Driftwood,it is my understanding that the Forehand 1901 is double action only.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy Again

Forehand and Wadsworth, later just Forehand Arms Company, was eventually taken over by Hopkins and Allen, although some of the old F&W designs continued to be produced by H&A. F&W did make a Double Action Only Top Break, but it had a shrouded hammer completely covered by the frame. If they made a Double Action Only Top Break with a spurred hammer, that's news to me, but of course I don't know everything.

http://www.gunauction.com/buy/9828498



I can't imagine why any company would put a spurred hammer on a DAO revolver, unless they were so cheap they were using the same parts as a regular Double Action gun.

 

[Pudge]

I don't disagree with your logic. I'm far from certain as to the correctness of my understanding, and was unable to find where I learned that "fact" (I wanted to link to it so that you might offer an opinion as to its veracity). Records are not great that far back (the design is from the late 1800's), and less complete from companies which are no longer going concerns. I handled a Forehand by H&A and it had a hammer spur and only functioned in double action and when I researched it, I found that it did not have a single action option. But like I said the available records are poor, and what I found may well be incorrect.

 

[Jim K]

Hi, Driftwood,

"Some of these guns had an unusual 'safety ' feature. Try pushing the trigger forward before cocking the hammer."

To quote another fellow, "Really? I am intrigued. Can you name some?"

I have heard that before, but the guns I was able to check turned out to have broken or defective trigger return springs.

Jim