My First Model 1896

glowe · #1 03-26-2015, 12:02 PM

I finally found a 32 HE at auction a couple of weeks ago and got it home to clean up. The gun has a 6" barrel that I do not see for sale too often, along with a mirror bore. Serial number is 10,XXX, shipped in 1900. I was really impressed by the condition, except that the cylinder has lots of deep scratches, which I knew before I bid. I wanted a shooter and am happy with the gun. I can only speculate as to why the gun is pristine, but for the cylinder.

The action was stiff and I found the usual dried oil/grease inside when I took off the sideplate. It cleaned up nicely and now the action is proper and smooth. My question is whether anyone can tell me if a small washer on the hammer stud has ever been encountered by others? I did not find one listed on the schematics I have access to, so suspect it was added. After cleaning and lubricating, I reassembled the gun with the washer in place, but upon tightening the sideplate screws the action would not cycle. Remover the washer, and it worked perfectly. I see no play in the hammer without the washer, so do not know why it was in there? Any speculations would be appreciated. Next step is to get it out to the range. A few before pictures below.

glowe · #2 03-26-2015, 12:06 PM

. . . and a few after pictures.

jmace57 · #3 03-26-2015, 02:25 PM

Gary - sorry I probably cost you a few bucks as I think I was bidding against you on that!

Wiregrassguy · #4 03-26-2015, 03:18 PM

Man, she cleaned up nicely! Too bad about the cat scratches, tho.

Does the hammer drag on the frame? That's usually what those bearings are used for.

glowe · #5 03-26-2015, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wiregrassguy

Does the hammer drag on the frame? That's usually what those bearings are used for.

I cannot feel any drag and there are no marks on either side of the hammer, so just not sure why the washer was installed. One interesting thing was that the sideplate screws seemed a little loose and all came out easily. After cleaning when I replaced the screws, I fully tightened them and that is when the mechanism bound up. I also could not get the sideplate seams to fully seat with the frame. After removing the offending part, everything fit like a glove. It may remain a mystery.

BTW - this was the first Model 1896 I have disassembled and I will tell you it was a real bear to put back together. Totally different from its successor, the Model 1903. It is not a user friendly gun to work on.

glowe · #6 03-26-2015, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmace57

Gary - sorry I probably cost you a few bucks as I think I was bidding against you on that!

Hey, without a little friendly competition, I would probably buy way too many cheap guns. I bought it at the OC Auction a couple of weeks ago.

Hondo44 · #7 03-26-2015, 05:46 PM

Gary,

Congrats on a scarce configuration.

Do the marks on the cyl look like scratches or rust damage that's been 'cleaned up'?

I can only speculate on the reason for the wear pattern on the cyl and sides of the barrel.

It sat in a holster when not in use and has acidic damage from the leather. Or if shot at a range, it was laid down on a rough or concrete bench between shooting it.

glowe · #8 03-26-2015, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hondo44

Do the marks on the cyl look like scratches or rust damage that's been 'cleaned up'?

That is what is puzzling. The scratches are in a circular pattern and travel around the cylinder. Kind of reminds me of improper removal of old top-break cylinders that are scratched by the latch. Whatever is was, the cylinder was moving when the scratching occured.

Skeetr57 · #9 03-27-2015, 10:45 AM

Gary: The 1903, no change is also quite different inside than either the 1896 or later changes of the 1903, but they aren't difficult to work on. The biggest difference is the trigger spring, which is longer than the hammer spring, and which has snaky shaped, thin part on the right side that powers the hand and the rebound function.

glowe · #10 03-27-2015, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeetr57

Gary: The 1903, no change is also quite different inside than either the 1896 or later changes of the 1903, but they aren't difficult to work on. . .

I have worked on all the Model 1903s and find them so much easier than the 1896, but eventually, they all go back together. For others who are reading this thread, The first two photos are of the insides for the No Change Model and the last 3 are of a Third Model with improved hammer block in the sideplate. The hand was retracted in the pictures.

The big problem with the 1896 is that 4 parts have to be installed simutaneously. The trigger, rebound lever, trigger lever, and hand, all while compressing the trigger spring and holding back the hand.

Back to my original question one more time - has anyone ran across a washer installed on the hammer stud or was it someone's idea of how things should have been done at the factory? The revolver works perfectly without the washer, so the answer may be the latter.

Skeetr57 · #11 03-27-2015, 10:40 PM

Gary, I would call that hammer block in the second .32 the first type, since the earlier guns had only a rebound lever, and not a true hammer block as a separate part. The pin in the side plate both activates the hammer block and tensions the hand, which is why the hand shown in the picture has fallen back. The second type hammer block is activated by a ramp on the hand bearing against a tab on the hammer block to move it out of the blocking position. There is a separate spring, or spring loaded lever, inside the trigger that keeps the hand in contact with the cylinder.

Hondo44 · #12 03-27-2015, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glowe

Back to my original question one more time - has anyone ran across a washer installed on the hammer stud or was it someone's idea of how things should have been done at the factory? The revolver works perfectly without the washer, so the answer may be the latter.

The spacer/washer/shim does not belong. Most of the early vintage models had "chafing washers" machined integral with the part like your sideplate, not a separate piece. I can't say which have or didn't have "chafing washers". My early models do.

Regardless, I would remove it, it's not factory. I suspect that's why the screws weren't tight, the action wouldn't function. I've seen sideplates tightened down on shims that were too thick and the sideplate was bowed. Check your sideplate for flatness.

glowe · #13 03-28-2015, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeetr57

Gary, I would call that hammer block in the second .32 the first type, since the earlier guns had only a rebound lever, and not a true hammer block as a separate part.

Thanks for the clarification, since I have read that the 1914 patent was for an improved hammer block, but not sure what could have proceeded it. The 1914 Patent clearly shows the details of the block.

glowe · #14 03-28-2015, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hondo44

The spacer/washer/shim does not belong. Most of the early vintage models had "chafing washers" machined integral with the part like your sideplate, not a separate piece. I can't say which have or didn't have "chafing washers". My early models do.

Thanks Jim. I have no idea why anyone would have added the washer, but it certainly functions better without it. The sideplate fits flush when screws are tightened. I think my hammer looks solid, with no provisions for chafing. I am thinking that all earlier models of top-breaks were also solid hammer guns as well. My Model 1899 has those chafing pins in place, but it was made 2 years after the 1896. SInce the 32 HE was made in 1899 or 1900 and the 38 HE was made in 1902, that may be the time of the improvement.

Skeetr57 · #15 03-28-2015, 02:52 PM

Gary, the first type of hammer block follows the 29 Dec 1914 patent closely, but the second type is nothing like the patent, although the barrels were marked with the original patent date until WWII. It may have been a moot point, as the patent would have expired after 14 years anyway.
The chafing pins apparently underwent a change at sometime also, as most I have seen appear to be hollow, or at least dimpled on the end, while yours appear to be solid and smooth on the ends.

glowe · #16 03-28-2015, 05:28 PM

Yup - my Model 1902 revolvers have the hollow rivet type pins. There are so many small changes that they are quite difficult to sort out. Here is a 1906 round butt Model 1902 hammer.

Starrider78 · #17 11-11-2016, 12:58 PM

COrrect. And in mine there are 3 other parts that take the place of the slide to rebound the trigger. I am goint to send you the pics and the one piece with the yellow pointer is the one I am trying to determine the directionin which it fits inside the rebound piece, at least I assume thats what it is I have never had a gun like this vome into my shop.
OK, I have attached 4 pics, the first 2 show the piece I am reffering to lying on the bottem left of the part that it fits inside of. The second 2 pics show the part I am referring to and the Spring that those 2 parts sit on to rebound the trigger and rotate the Cylinder. I am just trying to determine in which direction the piece with the yellow arrow goes. Or find a schematic of the Pistol/

mojave30cal · #18 11-11-2016, 01:10 PM

Wow! Very nice. That baby really shines. Did you use Renwax
on it?. I need to pick up an old beat up S&W and practice
taking the side plate off and removing the internals for cleaning.
I did purchase the book " The S&W Revolver A shop Manual
by Kuhnhausen for reference, but you can't beat the experience
of actually doing it.

Hondo44 · #19 11-11-2016, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starrider78

COrrect. And in mine there are 3 other parts that take the place of the slide to rebound the trigger. I am goint to send you the pics and the one piece with the yellow pointer is the one I am trying to determine the directionin which it fits inside the rebound piece, at least I assume thats what it is I have never had a gun like this vome into my shop.
OK, I have attached 4 pics, the first 2 show the piece I am reffering to lying on the bottem left of the part that it fits inside of. The second 2 pics show the part I am referring to and the Spring that those 2 parts sit on to rebound the trigger and rotate the Cylinder. I am just trying to determine in which direction the piece with the yellow arrow goes. Or find a schematic of the Pistol/

The part in question appears to me to be correctly positioned as shown in your second photo, which matches the photo in post #14.

Your last photo (4th) is too blurry for us to see. Only you can tell if your trigger rebound spring matches the one in the post #14 photo or the 1st photo in post #10.

I think your spring is like the post #14 photo, therefore, if you agree, use study that photo to orient the part for installation. The part's orientation matches the positioning in your 2nd photo, as I said.