My 73rd Birthday Gift? resolved

[AndyUSMC1107]

I finally resolved my quandary. I have a Hopkins & Allen XL Double Action 6 shooter, roll-marked XL3 in .32 Merwin Hulbert caliber. The latter accounts for why this neat little revolver will chamber .32 S&W Long cartridges. As the print ad from an 1887 catalog shows. My piece has the folding hammer spur, side mounted spent case Ejector, like a Colt SAA and (not shown) right side loading gate. If it was an identical Merwin Hulbert & Co. revolver, it would include a butt-mounted lanyard ring. I have a coupla’ boxes of .32 S&W Long low pressure wadcutters coming. I have the skills to create a set of ancient mineralized Mastodon ivory grips that would really set my vintage revolver off!

 

[Pat Riot]

Nice...and I'll bet it was a fun learning experience.

Let us know how it shoots.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Note what I said in the other post about how your cylinder locks up. The slots on the cylinder do not engage the bolt on both sides, it is the hand that prevents the cylinder from rotating backwards. Please be sure the cylinder locks up tight before you attempt to shoot it.

No comment on whether or not 32 S&W Long ammo will be safe to shoot in it, low pressure or not. Hopkins and Allen may not have been using the best steel when those were being made. Remember what I said about your revolver being sold at a lower price point than a Merwin Hulbert.

 

[AndyUSMC1107]

Note what I said in the other post about how your cylinder locks up. The slots on the cylinder do not engage the bolt on both sides, it is the hand that prevents the cylinder from rotating backwards. Please be sure the cylinder locks up tight before you attempt to shoot it.

No comment on whether or not 32 S&W Long ammo will be safe to shoot in it, low pressure or not. Hopkins and Allen may not have been using the best steel when those were being made. Remember what I said about your revolver being sold at a lower price point than a Merwin Hulbert.

Got it. But looking at the catalog print of the M-H & Co. X.L. Dbl. Action 3 1/2” with folding hammer and side extraction @ $4.75, it is obvious (to me anyway) that the H&A and the MH & Co. revolvers were made on the same tooling. I get “the lower price point” but kinda’ like a Base Cadillac and a high end Chevy...both are GM products... I’m having a wee bit o’ trouble wrapping my brain around the concept of a pile of superior steel laying beside a pile of inferior steel...perhaps it’s just me...you’re the one w/ much deeper knowledge RE: H&A/M-H & Co. But, I do find it interesting that in my quest for provenance I’ve found that X.L. was one of the product lines marketed by H&A.

RE: chambering 32 S&W Longs in my B-D G

 

[AndyUSMC1107]

Got it. But looking at the catalog print of the M-H & Co. X.L. Dbl. Action 3 1/2” with folding hammer and side extraction @ $4.75, it is obvious (to me anyway) that the H&A and the MH & Co. revolvers were made on the same tooling. I get “the lower price point” but kinda’ like a Base Cadillac and a high end Chevy...both are GM products... I’m having a wee bit o’ trouble wrapping my brain around the concept of a pile of superior steel laying beside a pile of inferior steel...perhaps it’s just me...you’re the one w/ much deeper knowledge RE: H&A/M-H & Co. But, I do find it interesting that in my quest for provenance I’ve found that X.L. was one of the product lines marketed by H&A.

RE: chambering 32 S&W Longs in my B-D G

...ift (sorry, fat fingers). I should NEVER have asked you...or anyone else that question! Your response was “spot on.”

 

[AndyUSMC1107]

Note what I said in the other post about how your cylinder locks up. The slots on the cylinder do not engage the bolt on both sides, it is the hand that prevents the cylinder from rotating backwards. Please be sure the cylinder locks up tight before you attempt to shoot it.

No comment on whether or not 32 S&W Long ammo will be safe to shoot in it, low pressure or not. Hopkins and Allen may not have been using the best steel when those were being made. Remember what I said about your revolver being sold at a lower price point than a Merwin Hulbert.

It’s interesting to note that Iver Johnson top break.32s retailed for +/- $6. While the obviously superior H & A/M, H & Co. design retailed for $4.75 (M, H & Co. ...”higher price point.”) I can’t find the $ for the “lower price point” H & As. Possibly a little earlier production?

 

[Dave T]

Andy,

I'm curious why you think your Hopkins & Allan and the small framed Merwin & Holbert are the same or made on the same tooling. Every M&H I've ever seen have two piece frames in which the front of the frame and barrel rotate 90 degrees and pull forward to extract the empty cartridge cases. The pictured H&A has a one piece frame. These two designs probably call for different machining and quite possibly different steels, hence at least some of the difference in prices.

YMMV,
Dave

 

[AndyUSMC1107]

Andy,

I'm curious why you think your Hopkins & Allan and the small framed Merwin & Holbert are the same or made on the same tooling. Every M&H I've ever seen have two piece frames in which the front of the frame and barrel rotate 90 degrees and pull forward to extract the empty cartridge cases. The pictured H&A has a one piece frame. These two designs probably call for different machining and quite possibly different steels, hence at least some of the difference in prices.

YMMV,
Dave

Dave, if you look at the M, H &Co. 1887 catalogue print ad @ the top of this post for a M, H XL Double Action revolver. The M, H is the EXACT image of my H & A (pictured under the title: “My 73rd
Birthday Gift”). If it quacks like a duck...if it says M, H & Co.... it must be a duck...