|
|
07-27-2015, 02:12 PM
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Edwards Plateau
Posts: 354
Likes: 1,020
Liked 552 Times in 167 Posts
|
|
22/32 counter-bored?
Beneath the scrapes, gouges and bluing loss is what I believe to be
a heavy framed target 22/32. The back of the barrel appears to have
been chamfered excessively.
Have any of you seen this done and why was it done?
Serial number is 1636**. Number on the extended stocks is 1474.
It has a star stamp below the SN indicating factory return.
Thanks for help and comments.
Last edited by hivel37; 07-27-2015 at 05:57 PM.
Reason: Hopefully to clarify
|
07-27-2015, 06:20 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Michigan Western UP
Posts: 12,916
Likes: 3,028
Liked 14,263 Times in 5,435 Posts
|
|
The only thought that comes to mind is that the gun might have been shaving bullets and the forcing cone was bored out to eliminate that issue??I just looked at a couple of my 22/32 HFTs and they have a very thick forcing cone that has a flat face with rifling all the way to the rear of the barrel. Maybe the timing was a a tad off and that was a simple fix, but that is only one opinion.
__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515
|
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
|
|
07-27-2015, 11:34 PM
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Edwards Plateau
Posts: 354
Likes: 1,020
Liked 552 Times in 167 Posts
|
|
Gary, thanks for the reply.
I can't find my feeler gauge to measure the barrel/cylinder gap,
but it's very close. I guess the chamfer was a way of dealing with
dirty ammo of 100 years ago.
|
07-27-2015, 11:46 PM
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Posts: 19,208
Likes: 11,815
Liked 20,511 Times in 8,548 Posts
|
|
I agree with Gary.
S&W felt that their craftsmanship and precision did not need forcing cones on HE barrels and did not exist until the engineering order of August 14, 1922 mandated the forcing cone for HE's.
Your HFT was made prior to that date so had to be added later.
__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819
Last edited by Hondo44; 07-28-2015 at 04:26 AM.
Reason: Corrected typo on date, sorry Ralph.
|
07-28-2015, 12:34 AM
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Pikeville, Tennessee
Posts: 6,025
Likes: 910
Liked 9,880 Times in 3,633 Posts
|
|
I am now totally bumfuzzled!!
My 22/32 (HFT) is #444707---shipped March 8, 1927. The aft end of the barrel is EXACTLY as Gary described his---rifling all the way to the rear. Then I went hunting for the engineering order of August 22, 1922 Jim mentioned---and couldn't find it (in N&J---which is the only place I know to look).
And so, how come my (much later) barrel is as an early barrel-----and where do I find this engineering change order----unless it's something that popped up in a letter----as some of these goodies sometimes do?
Many thanks!
Ralph Tremaine
|
07-28-2015, 04:32 AM
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Posts: 19,208
Likes: 11,815
Liked 20,511 Times in 8,548 Posts
|
|
Ralph,
I'm the one that's bumfuzzled! Typed too many 2s. Sorry about that.
N&J Pg 235 near the top of the right hand column. It doesn't use the term forcing cone. It states: "...barrels chambered to lead ball to rifling w/o shearing..."
__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
07-28-2015, 10:34 AM
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Edwards Plateau
Posts: 354
Likes: 1,020
Liked 552 Times in 167 Posts
|
|
Mine made a trip back to the factory.
Does this work appear to be factory work to you guys?
Maybe on a Monday?
|
07-28-2015, 01:05 PM
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Pikeville, Tennessee
Posts: 6,025
Likes: 910
Liked 9,880 Times in 3,633 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by hivel37
Mine made a trip back to the factory.
Does this work appear to be factory work to you guys?
Maybe on a Monday?
|
In a word, NO! In two words, ABSOLUTELY NOT!!
It appears to be the work of a--------------------never mind.
Ralph Tremaine
|
07-28-2015, 02:22 PM
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Edwards Plateau
Posts: 354
Likes: 1,020
Liked 552 Times in 167 Posts
|
|
Thanks everyone.
|
07-28-2015, 03:16 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pennsylvania,USA
Posts: 1,399
Likes: 385
Liked 517 Times in 326 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by hivel37
Does this work appear to be factory work to you guys?
|
hivel37,
I'm in full agreement as to what Ralph (rct269) has already noted...*ABSOLUTELY NOT FACTORY WORK*!!
And just so you're aware of what it should look like...The photos below show the difference between an Early Barrel (Left Photo) before the Order Change & a Later Barrel (Right Photo) after the Order Change was implemented!!
And on a side note...While in the process of taking a few quick photos...I ran across something interesting I was never aware of in all my years of collecting these that very well may have been an early attempt at correcting the Shearing/Shaving issue prior to the August 1922 Order Change!!
That being...Seems the Cylinder Throat Diameter on Very Early .22/32 HFT Cylinders is approx. (.003") Larger than those produced a bit later...(Very Early Cylinders measuring approx .2285") vs (Later Cylinders measuring approx .2255")!! I can't say for certain exactly when this change occurred given I no longer have near as many in my collection as I once had that are within Serial No. Ranges close enough to make an educated assumption...Sorry!!
Only problem verifying the above is...If in fact this was an Engineering Order...It's highly unlikely we'll ever know for certain since it would have been ordered before Joseph Wesson decided to start recording the In-House Engineering Changes in 1919...Just thought what I found may be of interest!!!!
__________________
Masterpiece
|
07-28-2015, 05:35 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Michigan Western UP
Posts: 12,916
Likes: 3,028
Liked 14,263 Times in 5,435 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masterpiece
. . . And just so you're aware of what it should look like...The photos below show the difference between an Early Barrel (Left Photo) before the Order Change & a Later Barrel (Right Photo) after the Order Change was implemented!! . . .
|
Hey, do I see dust on your 22/32 HFTs in those photos!!!!!!
__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515
|
07-28-2015, 07:11 PM
|
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Massachusetts USA
Posts: 9,575
Likes: 3,695
Liked 8,924 Times in 3,545 Posts
|
|
A .22/32 HFT bearing a serial number in the 163,XXX range "should" have shipped between May and September 1912 and have a Paine front sight and U notch rear sight.
The change order to have MADE IN USA added came down in May of 1922 per H. Wesson and the change order to go back to the larger over sized two screw extension stocks and switch from the Paine front sight to the Patridge came down 8-29-1923 also per H. Wesson.
Not that you could not have either of these options prior to these dates, but standard guns were shipped without them.
It is possible that the gun went back as noted by the star for a barrel change and that is why it has a Patridge front sight and square notch rear.
I don't have that gun in my database so if you could PM me the full serial number I will add it. Putting serial numbers together with stock sequence numbers is really helping to get a handle on when the first 3,000 guns were shipped as S&W kept no records.
__________________
James Redfield
LM #497
|
07-28-2015, 07:26 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pennsylvania,USA
Posts: 1,399
Likes: 385
Liked 517 Times in 326 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by glowe
Hey, do I see dust on your 22/32 HFTs in those photos!!!!!!
|
Gary,
Can't get anything by you...Can I?? Actually one has a bit of dust along with a tiny bit of light carbon on underside of the topstrap given it's the one I shoot when the mood strikes me!!
The other one is just Plain Ole' "Gun Fuzz" from inside the Rug where it...Along with most of the others...Spend most of their time anymore...Ha!!~Ha!!
__________________
Masterpiece
|
07-28-2015, 08:31 PM
|
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Massachusetts USA
Posts: 9,575
Likes: 3,695
Liked 8,924 Times in 3,545 Posts
|
|
I just looked at mine with serial number 163467 and it is not reamed at the rear of the barrel.
__________________
James Redfield
LM #497
|
07-28-2015, 10:38 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pennsylvania,USA
Posts: 1,399
Likes: 385
Liked 517 Times in 326 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSR III
I just looked at mine with serial number 163467 and it is not reamed at the rear of the barrel.
|
James,
I'm sure you're aware of this...Although for the benefit of others...A .22/32 HFT in that Serial No. Range shouldn't be unless it was returned to S&W for the Upgrade, Barrel Replacement, Etc. after the Order went into effect Late 1922..Or possibly by a Gunsmith some time later in it's life!!
Near as I can tell by the data I've accumulated over the years...The Earliest Serial No. Range you'll likely see .22/32 HFT's having the Engineering Order implemented is somewhere in & around the Range of the one I posted photos of...Serial No. 364845...Or in close proximity to it!!
__________________
Masterpiece
|
07-29-2015, 07:28 AM
|
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Massachusetts USA
Posts: 9,575
Likes: 3,695
Liked 8,924 Times in 3,545 Posts
|
|
Sorry if my post was confusing. I wasn't suggesting that a barrel in the 163,XXX range should have a reamed barrel merely showing that another example from that period was not. See my earlier post where I suggested that the barrel was possibly a later replacement due to the later sights and star marking.
__________________
James Redfield
LM #497
|
07-29-2015, 08:13 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pennsylvania,USA
Posts: 1,399
Likes: 385
Liked 517 Times in 326 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSR III
Sorry if my post was confusing. See my earlier post where I suggested that the barrel was possibly a later replacement due to the later sights and star marking.
|
James,
Your Post was not confusing at all & is why I noted...(I'm sure you're aware of this)...Sorry if My Post came across sounding like you weren't aware!!
I mainly wanted to let the OP & Others know...Even if theirs had a Replaced Barrel or returned to S&W for some sort of Rework...It would have been after Late 1922 if it had the Improved Lead-In/Forcing Cone if their Revolver's Serial No. was much lower than in the Range I noted...Which is the earliest I've found one having it when originally manufactured!!
__________________
Masterpiece
|
07-30-2015, 06:29 PM
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Edwards Plateau
Posts: 354
Likes: 1,020
Liked 552 Times in 167 Posts
|
|
Thanks for all the information, guys.
I've been entertaining grandsons (or the opposite) and slow getting
back here.
The barrel on this piece is numbered to the frame, so obviously no change
there.
I traded for the gun a couple of months ago and being excited to have a
HFT, no matter the condition, I failed to see the cavernous forcing cone.
At any rate, I'll gather up some standard and sub-sonic ammo and see if
it'll shoot.
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
|
|
|
|