Can you Identify these revolver models?

B

blabablab

Inactive
Hello,
I need some help identifying these models of revolver's. They are both in 32 S&W Long caliber, both made by H&R, and both are top break's. One has an ejection rod that must be manually pushed, and one has the auto-ejection feature. I have attached a picture. Thanks!
 

Attachments

  • pix204812962.jpg
    pix204812962.jpg
    105.3 KB · Views: 190
The top one is a Manual-Ejecting Top Break, First Model Second Variation. The manual ejecting model was actually the first H&R top-break revolver, made in 1885-1887; the Second Variation was made 1888-1889. There was a Second Model, even more rare than the First Model. Apparently, H&R was in a patent dispute with S&W over automatic ejection, and the manual ejecting revolver was H&R's response while the patent issue was settled.

The bottom revolver appears to be the Auto-ejecting First Model, Second Variation. These were made contemporary with the Manual-Ejecting Model, 1887-1889.

Jim
 
If they are that old, caliber is actually .32 H&R, the .32 S&W Long did not come out until 1896 with the Hand Ejector (swing out cylinder.) They will accept .32 S&W Long but remember, they are "black powder" guns. Not that they didn't get used with smokeless when that became available, but we are told to be careful about that now.
 
The OP said they were .32 S&W Long; that is obviously not so. Goforth says they were made for .32 H&R (aka .32 M&H).

I have always been confused about the .32 H&R. Goforth mentions it in connection with the very first top breaks, but does not show a catalog mentioning that caliber. Later catalogs show either just ".32 CF" or clearly state "S&W" cartridge.

I know of no H&R revolver that is marked for .32 H&R, though I would like to see one.

The older H&R .32 revolvers I have seen have seen have either no chamber shoulder or have a shallow one that is farther out than needed for the .32 S&W. My guess, FWIW, is that the cartridge was made for M&H in a special length. (Due to the way the M&H works, case length is critical and .32 S&W is too short to function properly.)

Then, H&R discovered that the more powerful M&H round would fit in its revolvers and got the ammunition makers to list it for the H&R as well. But (again, MHO) there were no H&R revolvers specifically made, stamped or advertised as being for the ".32 H&R." Goforth does show one box label for the American Double Action reading "C.F., H.&R. Long 32 or S.& W. Short Cartridges", with the "32" larger, but box labels are cheaper than steel stamps.

Thoughts?

Jim
 
"I know of no H&R revolver that is marked for .32 H&R, though I would like to see one."

Picture #7
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=506661461

I've been wondering about the .32 Charter Arms guns. I used to think that the early ones were .32 S&W, and the later ones .32 H&R Mag, but have seen things that suggest some of the later (1980s) guns were .32 S&W. No clues here:
 

Attachments

  • CA sn 1033635 32HR int-85 dsc-89.JPG
    CA sn 1033635 32HR int-85 dsc-89.JPG
    28.7 KB · Views: 22
"I know of no H&R revolver that is marked for .32 H&R, though I would like to see one."
Click to expand...

None of what you posted has any relevance to the guns being discussed in this thread.
 
Hi, Carmady,

That gun is chambered and marked for the .32 H&R Magnum, a modern cartridge and quite a bit more powerful than the 19th century .32 H&R.

Hi, gyvel,

The relevance is in the caliber of those guns, which I believe was .32 S&W, not .32 H&R. I agree that the caliiber is really not importand unless the OP plans to shoot the guns.

Jim
 
The relevance is in the caliber of those guns, which I believe was .32 S&W, not .32 H&R. I agree that the caliiber is really not importand unless the OP plans to shoot the guns.
Click to expand...


Hey Jim,

I was making reference to the one poster including a link to a modern H&R revolver that has no bearing on the items the OP is asking about.

I guess it's safe to assume in the golden age of cutthroat competition, H&R wanted their own ".32 Harrington & Richardson" cartridge featured on their guns instead of the competitor's name. The same would go for Merwin & Hulbert, and Colt with their .32 New Police.:D
 
I can't seem to find any dimensions for .32 H&R(not magnum). If anyone can let me know. However, my loaded BP 32 S&W Long fit in the cylinder like a glove, so I assume these will work. I do plan on shooting them. One other question for those more knowledgeable than me out there, I have a bit of play in the cylinder on both of these(considerably more than my 32 S&W first model lemon squeezer of the same relative years). When I squeeze the trigger and the hammer falls, the cylinder is lined up perfectly(at least when I tested it), however I can manually rock the cylinder back out of alignment a little bit(enough so about 1mm of the cylinder is visible looking down the bore), and when released it does not swing back to alignment. Is this normal for these pistols, or is this something I need to fix? I already purchased a replacement lever and spring assembly, which is what I figure may help.
 
I collect & shoot alot of these pocket doubles in both 32 & 38... I've not found any brand of 32 center fire pocket double that did not accept 32 S&W shorts ( & yes I load & shoot these in all my guns ) or any 38 center fire for that matter that didn't chamber 38 S&W shorts, I have a hand eject 38 as well as a hand eject 32...

BTW... I don't think those are the original grips on the 32 Hand Eject... they should look like this one...

this one was one of my best deals on Gun Broker... I paid $43.00 plus shipping for this one 3 years ago :eek:

I've heard these are much more durable than the auto eject models, & have a longer stroke to allow for complete extraction, & less chance of trapping a case under the extractor star

attachment.php


attachment.php
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top