I've been told that it was safe to shoot modern factory .32 S&W loads even in 19th century guns originally designed for Black Powder, provided that they are quality guns and in good condition. Appealing to the group mind here- is this true? I'm told factory loads for this round used black powder right up until WW2, and when they switched to smokeless it would only have made sense to formulate loads that were safe in older guns.

I have seen .32 S&W fired in Clerke 1st revolvers and not explode. If they are safe in that piece of carp, should be right OK in your gun. I believe modern loads are 85 gr @ about 600 fps IIRC. Joe

__________________
Behavior Creates Destiny

Interesting that you bring that up. A few weeks back I found a very nice S&W antique in .32 S&W that had been refinished very nicely and it was not at a bad price either. I thought it was about time to add an antique to my S&W collection but then the big question came up: Can I shoot it?

The shop proprietor, who I respect as far more expert than me on older/antique guns, told me no, that I shouldn't shoot it and he went into a long speech on the whole black powder vs. smokeless powder thing.

I left the gun in the shop a little disappointed, but I haven't forgotten about it. Still, I have no use for a fancy decoration. It needs to be functional or forget about it.

I'll be very interested to see what the forum's antique experts have to say on the topic.

Ammunition manufactures Must load down to the oldest firearm that will shoot the ammo The 45/70 rifle loads by Remington can safely be shot in the old trap door guns .32 -s&w ctg. is also down loaded to be shot in QUALITY guns S&W,Colt Some H&R, I.J. Notice i said QUALITY firearms. Do you realize how many law suits the ammo .companies would have to fight if they over load cartridges

The currently .32 S&W ammo is loaded to a very mild velocity, and is perfectly safe in any old .32 that is in good condition. I have several dating back to .32 Single Actions of the 1870's to 1880's that I have fired current ammo in, with no difficulties or damage. They are so mild it is less than an 22 RF.

__________________
H Richard
SWCA1967 SWHF244

I have fired many top break firearms with modern factory loads with no problems. But as stated above they need to be in good condition. I just finished firing a .32 single action with factory rounds to see if they were any more accurate than my reloads, they weren't.

__________________
Tom
NRA Pistol Inst

Just to play the devil's advocate ...

... the most modern antique firearm is at least 118 years old. Metallurgy and manufacturing have come a long way since 1898 (and before). I'd also suspect a lot of the "quality" firearms from that era wouldn't pass modern quality control checks, so it's probably best to be wary of these subjective assumptions about what constitutes "quality" and what doesn't.

I'm not sure that any manufacturer is obligated to charge their ammunition to the oldest gun that will chamber it. SAAMI specifications take a lot of things into consideration, but I've never read anything empirical to suggest that this is a consideration. Maybe it is, but if I'm going to expose myself to the risk of shooting a gun this old, I'd still like to have more than some assumptions on which to base my safety (and the safety of the antique I'm about to shoot).

Black powder does indeed have very different characteristics than modern smokeless powder, and there are numerous examples of black powder guns that were blown to bits by smokeless powder.

The logical course of action, in my humble opinion, is to not shoot modern ammunition in antique firearms. There's been endless debate about whether the top break S&W's from the late 19th century can chamber modern ammo, and I know a lot of people do it ... but that doesn't make it a safe or smart thing to do.

A parting thought: every day there are fewer of these old guns left. Do we really need to speed up their demise with wear and tear, or (worse yet) their possible destruction from modern ammo?

Mike

I am PLEASED that you responded to this thread in this fashion. I recently responded to a similar post in a different thread and just about got my head ripped off! Prepare for the same: New Model 3 Frontier 44-40

I don't think I could have said it better than you did. Most, however, disagree with us!

Most people aren't historical metallurgical experts, or ballistic engineering experts, etc. And the fact that some guy shot a top break .32 with modern ammo in his backyard doesn't constitute "proof" that it's safe.

And to be clear: I'm not emphatically saying that it isn't safe. I'm simply saying that I don't know, and that (in my opinion) the number of unknowns, a preponderance of caution and the dwindling number of these guns makes not shooting them a wise choice.

People are free to tear up my opinion and ignore it. That's cool.

Mike

As .32 Smith and Wesson (.32 short) is meant to be shot in the top breaks, but should not be shot in the top breaks(?) what is the purpose or point to the load then? We are not talking .357 Mag here. The .32 short is loaded to and meant to be shot in the old .32 cal top breaks.

__________________
A Snider squibbed n the Jungle

Good question.

The .32 S&W was originally designed as a black powder cartridge for the Model 1 1/2 (which dates back to the 1870's, well before smokeless powder had been devised). Black powder, as you may know, has entirely different ballistic qualities than modern smokeless powder (which is what modern ammunition is charged with).

So: modern .32 S&W ammo is (we think) dimensionally identical to 19th century .32 S&W ammo, and it seems to chamber in the .32 top breaks just fine. What we don't know is if the pressures generated by the modern ammo are safe for black powder guns.

I'm not taking that chance.

Mike

Interesting point. Just off the top of my head, is there such a thing as a "modern" 32 S&W revolver? (i.e. post WW2)

__________________
Dean
SWCA #680 SWHF #446

I should think that the "modern" Smith & Wesson originated with the first hand ejector, with the Model of 1896. By 1908, certainly, with the . 44 Hand Ejector First Model, and maybe earlier, the "modern" revolver had arrived, as these are safe to shoot with smokeless powder, so post WWII is an era much later than when the "modern" Smith & Wesson had arrived.

The pressure curve is steeper in a smokeless load compared to BP, but I bet peak pressure is identical or less. I wouldn't be shooting that .32 S&W not because it's dangerous but rather @ $1/rd I'll shoot .44mag. Joe

__________________
Behavior Creates Destiny

In fact, Are there any "modern" guns actually chambered in .32 S&W ??. I suppose you could consider some of the late S&W top-breaks as "modern". (After all some were made up as late as the 1930's.) However most people( non-collectors) can't tell the difference between an 1880's model and a 1920's model and still might want to fire "Grandpa's" gun once of twice. If it is in reasonable condition, why not???
As for myself, I have a number of BP guns and I only fired a few of them. I load with whatever the correct load of the time was, but not so much for "safety" but more for nostalgia. I know that they more than likely will go bang and may have a modicum of accuracy, but I have modern guns that shoot much, much better, so why waste my time and effort on shooting the old ones. I have several I would not be afraid to shoot and several that I wouldn't shoot on a bet. (Mainly because of rarity and/or high condition. After all old guns have been known to blow up with BP also.)

Bottom line..... So until someone comes out with a pocket pistol chambered in .32 S&W +P and factory ammo is available, I wouldn't be adverse to shooting a decent conditioned, common top-break with the current crop of commercial ammo. (However, I would be a little cautious with most of the Belgian or Spanish varieties...)

__________________
Dean
SWCA #680 SWHF #446

Just as an aside, before the Cowboy action sport took hold, .45 Colt remained loaded and even in smokeless powder loads, was and is safe to shoot in in the Single Action Army.

The ammo companies keep the old guns alive by making the ammo available and safe to use in the old guns.

__________________
A Snider squibbed n the Jungle

Remington's .32 S&W factory load fires an 88 grain lead bullet at a screaming 600 fps from a 3 inch revolver. Lyman #45 shows an 84 grain lead bullet using 1.4 grains of Bullseye to hit 608 fps, 1.3 grains of Red Dot to hit 629 fps. That's mouse fart power to me.

If those loads are too stiff, 1.0 grain of Bullseye (that's 1/7,000th of a pound) for 442 fps, or 1.5 grains of Unique for 476 fps.

I have a S&W .32 Double Action Top Break 4th Model with the barrel cut to 2-1/2 inches. Nickel with black rubber stocks, shipped in 1888, it looks like a toy we used to get in our breakfast cereal boxes.

I have a S&W .32 Single Action, 3-1/2 inch barrel, nickel with mother of pearl stocks, shipped in August, 1879.

I bought two boxes of Winchester .32 S&W Ammo and shot them through the double action. Kicked like a .22, but felt ssslllooooooooowweeeeerrrrr. They sounded like, "poop poop poop."

A few years later, I bought the .32 Single Action. I reloaded the 100 empties with the Speer 98 grain wadcutter, seated out a bit, and 1.0 grains Bullseye in 25 cartridges, 1.4 grains Bullseye in 25 cartridges, 1.5 grains of Unique in 25 cartridges and 2.0 grains of Unique in the last 25 cartridges.

I shot them. No drama and not much a difference between the lesser loads and the not-much-more-than lesser loads. They all fired, little recoil or noise.

With both guns, the empty cases fell out of the cylinders by just pointing the rear of the cylinders down and shaking them gently. The cases all had soot on about 1/3 of the outsides of the cases, indication there wasn't
enough pressure generated to seal the chambers and burn the powder completely.

It didn't do any harm to the guns that I was able to tell.

I won't recommend that anybody shoot anything without making sure your gun is in good working order.

If it gets a clean bill of heath, I doubt that a box or two of either Winchester or Remington-Peters will do your handgun any damage.

I would caution people that these guns are not very robust, even when they were made. Even the quality guns shooting this cartridge weren't for a lot of shooting. They were designed to be shot when you were accosted. not for shooting the Steel Plate Challenge or ICORE.

This question comes up every now and then. The answers
are the same as above. If I was just plinking, I'd use something
newer.
When I started looking for a handgun that would fit
my hands, I ended up with a bunch of BreakTop S&W's.
Since I was looking for a working gun, I only bought those that were in good condition, and asked my gunsmith for an opinion before I
tried them out. They all seemed okay, but they weren't for
regular practice. Once I Knew they worked okay, that was about it.
Like it was stated above, I realized that the ballistics were
so anemic that I ended up with modern handguns for regular
use and retired the BT's.
Personally, I won't own a firearm that doesn't work, or that
I'd be afraid to shoot.
Those old BT's sure are pretty, though.
TACC1

I have four S&W 32 top breaks, SA, DA, and safety hammerless. Also have several Iver Johnson and H&R, top breaks and solid frame types. I've shot most of them with factory and my own reloads using Trailboss, Bullseye and FFFG black powder behind 85 to 90gr lead bullets.

Some observations:

1. Black powder loads had the heaviest recoil, followed by the Remington factory loads. My loads with 1 to 1.5 gr Bullseye were even less and the Trailboss loads were so mild that I had to check the barrel after the first shot to be sure the bullet cleared it!.

2. The quality of all of my S&W top breaks is head and heels above the others. They have withstood the test of time better than their imitators.

3. Trailboss loads are the way to go. you just can't get any lighter than them. I used a .3CC Lee powder measure dipper to get a non compressed load with 88 gr lead bullets. cast from an old Ideal multi loadind tool. Bullets were tumble lubed with Lee's liquid Alox.


I think BUFF has a valid point. These types of revolvers were mainly used as deterrents and shot little. I found that it was very difficult to run more than two cylinders full of the black powder loads through them before the actions was too gummed up to operate.

There is no reason not to enjoy shooting your old S&W top breaks. Well maybe I wouldn't shoot a pristine LNIB example. But all mine are shooter grades to varying degrees of condition and solid enough to have a little fun putting small holes into things. Just be careful of what you're plugging away at. They could bounce back!

John

Consider that the 32 Safety was manufactured until 1937. There was no documented difference in the overall strength of the later models than the pre-1898. Obviously hundreds of thousands were routinely used in the smokeless era. After the initial resistance to smokeless powder at the turn of the century, S&W accepted and guaranteed their products with the proper use of smokeless powder.

There is nothing to suggest that the manufacturing process changed for any top-break S&W after the transition to smokeless powder. The 32 DA was made until 1920, the 38 Safety was made until 1940 and the 38 DA made to 1911. Hoglegs were made well into the Twentieth century as well. 44 New Models were made up to 1912 and the 44 DA went until 1913.

It has to be mentioned that the 38 Perfected was intended to offer a stronger design when it was introduced in 1909, but was never embraced by gun owners and ceased production only 10 years later. The Safety revolvers, on the other hand, continued in production for many decades.

I have been waiting a long time for someone to show me the "improved metallurgy" that would have been offered by S&W in the early 1900s as compared to the late 1800s but have never seen such a document. I think some put way too much emphasis on metallurgical developments as the reason why older S&Ws are dangerous with smokeless powders. It's metallurgy and not alchemy and improvements during the times we are talking would not have been meaningful in this discussion.

So now those who commonly use smokeless powder in old S&W revolvers are called lazy, and inferred to be stupid and reckless??

The invention of the Bessemer process in 1813 was the start of the economically feasible steel industry. Steel was introduced as an affordable commodity by 1850. Introduction of oxygen gave pig iron marvelous properties. The open hearth process invented in the 1860s basically improved the way steel was made and not the properties. Open hearth overtook the Bessemer process around 1900. Improvements in strength and ductility of steel from the 1880s into the early 1900s was minimal.

By 1880, yield strength of steel exceeded 30 ksi and in the late 1800s, steel was available with 47 ksi yield strength. Not until 1950s was this high strength considered standard. What we will probably never know is the exact steel strength used by S&W. We do know that the company always found ways of keeping costs of production down, but always provided a quality product, so my bet is high strength steel was used to make quality revolvers for a very long time.

Over-pressure loading is a real danger, and many - many firearms have been destroyed by exceeding the structural capabilities of the gun. Ammunition manufacturers have been making "standard" pressure ammunition forever (Buffalo Bore excepted). They continue to manufacture ammunition made to safely shoot in all makes, models, and ages of revolvers today. The last thing these companies want to do is face multiple lawsuits over the use of their 32 S&W ammunition for example, and am confident they have gone to great lengths to ensure the safe use in good quality top-break revolvers.

__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515

No, my implication was that we don't have empirical evidence to objectively say that this is OK. The "evidence" I've seen that it's OK is subjective at best, and in most cases largely anecdotal. All that proves is that someone, somewhere did something that didn't result in their gun blowing up.

I'm a historian, not a metallurgist. My interest in antique firearms lay primarily with preserving the past as best we can, such that future generations have unspoiled examples of the material culture to study. Subjecting a 100+ year old firearm to questionably high ballistic pressures is inconsistent with those tenets of historical preservation, and that's why I generally oppose it. But that's me, and everyone else's mileage will vary.

This is some of the first quantitative data I've read about this, and I'm appreciative of the opportunity to learn more about this.

As I mentioned before, I'm a historian and my interest is largely in the rise of Smith & Wesson as a business entity, at a time when the concept of a large vertically-integrated business was still novel. I make no claims to being an expert in metallurgy and the development of steel technologies, so I exercise an abundance of caution and encourage others to do the same. I believe there are experts out there (perhaps you're one of them?) that has access to the kind of testing equipment that would help us understand the metallurgic composition of these old guns, the quality of the forgings and casting, etc. And to that end, I would happily volunteer a few guns to advance our scientific understanding of this.

Mike

Mike, I have posted some pressure curve data a few times in the past, but I did not stop there. I have collected data on chamber pressures for many of the late 1800s BP cartridges. I have also been able to document SAAMI pressures for many of the calibers we discuss here on the Antique Forum. Differences are small. I also have a database of chronographed loads, from original BP to factory smokeless, to my hand loads. I have loaded lighter and heavier bullets, I keep velocities under original BP loads, and I register felt recoil where it can be determined.

All this data has led me to the conclusion that most currently manufactured ammunition in antique calibers run slower than original BP, felt recoil is lower, and performance on paper is just fine. Running these calibers from 500 to 700 fps with lighter bullets completely satisfies me on the safety of smokeless. What I do not have is a test barrel to generate pressure curves and that is something that there is little data on, but what is out there demonstrates that proper loading of smokeless powder cartridges can mirror that of BP.

As an example, below is my data-set for 38 S&W. All rounds were fired through a 38 DA with a 6" barrel. You can pick your own favorites, but even the slowest bullets hit the paper at 15 yards and who really needs more?? I have settled on a 3 grain Unique load with an original 145 grain RN bullet for most of my shooting. These numbers are only presented to show the comparisons of my testing, but no one should should rely on them to come up with loads for their guns. Do your own research and find something that makes you happy, or stick with the very mild factory ammunition that is loaded today.

Attached Images

38 S&W Load Testing.jpg (133.1 KB, 105 views)

__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515

Thank you Gary. This is the first empirical data I've read that compares original BP loads to modern smokeless loads.

I'm going to save your post, and I may reach out to you in the future with questions if you don't mind.

Mike

No problem. I know that some would argue that velocity comparisons cannot be reconciled with chamber pressures, but it has to have some correlation. It takes pressure to accelerate a projectile to a given speed and when you get the same velocities with the same weight projectile using different powders, you have to provide a similar back-pressure. My safety factor is keeping reloads and/or factory ammo below that of original BP loads. Can a gun break, absolutely, but that is a chance we all take when firing any type of ammunition. Do not, however, be deterred as it is worth the effort when we share the same experiences our ancestors had when shooting these fine old S&Ws.

__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515

Where's the curve? Show me the curve.
glowe says he has posted pressure curve data. Where?
I frequently hear and read about pressure curves but have not seen anything for a revolver. I used to have a little book that showed .30-06 pressure curves for every powder then on the market, no matter how unsuitable, I think including black. A guy here used an old NRA graph to justify smokeless in a Damascus shotgun. There was a report in the Double Gun Journal defending Damascus.

Nothing for revolvers. I guess I could buy a Contender and a Pressure Trace and do the work, but it would be a couple thousand dollars and a lot of time for something that seldom comes up for me, other than discussion. I dealt with the matter by selling my old revolvers to collectors.

I've always understood that BP "explodes" and smokeless "burns".

The difference is that with BP there is a maximum "spike" at the beginning and then the bullet is pretty much on its own the rest of the way down the barrel. Smokeless builds pressure all the way down the barrel thereby accelerating the bullet all the way. The balancing act for smokeless is to get the burn rate and barrel length co-ordinated so all of the powder is consumed just as the bullet exits. (Otherwise you're just wasting powder as it will burn outside the gun and have no effect on the bullet.

Now, take that same smokeless load and run it past the cylinder/barrel gap and into a short barrel of a handgun and it doesn't have much time to build any pressure. (That's why pistol powders are usually much faster than rifle powders. It's also why it is so easy to get an overload as fast powders don't take up much space in the case.)

On the other hand, BP spikes right at the start and a decently designed gun can be built to handle this maximum pressure peak. After that it's all downhill. Folklore says that you can't get enough BP in cartridge case to overload it. (I know all of the manuals I've read says to fill the case to where it takes a slight compression to seat the bullet. Wonder why that is??)
I agree that a steady diet of smokeless in a gun designed for BP will probably sooner or later cause problems as the gun wasn't designed for the smokeless pressure curve. This should be more prevalent in rifles where the curve has more time to build. Not so much in a revolver.

There's also the possible problem of loading too little smokeless in a case and experiencing what is called "detonation". (But this is a whole different subject.....)

__________________
Dean
SWCA #680 SWHF #446

It seems that this BP versus smokeless issue rears it head every six months or so. I think that S&W's own answer in 1909 to this question should resolve this.

Attached Images

SW1909CatPage.jpg (120.5 KB, 208 views)

__________________
Guy
SWHF #474 SWCA LM#2629

If it were only that easy Guy.

Jim, I am not trying to convert those dead set against using smokeless powder in vintage S&Ws. I have done the research and am satisfied that what I am doing with regards to reloading the grand old calibers of S&W is sound and safe. You are correct that most pressure curve data out there is for shotguns and I have lots of pressure curves for shotgun plus an old one from Dupont that shows pressures at 2", 3", 4", 5", and 6". It is so old that I do not even know where it came from anymore. The only observation one can make is that Dupont smokeless powder seems to be the average of several types of black powder. No details, no caliber, no ID of type of gun, but should not matter much if the numbers are accurate.

The Sherman Bell experiments and subsequent detailed study of BP versus smokeless in Doublegun Journal is another body of work that shows the proper selection of smokeless powders can duplicate the pressures of BP along a shotgun barrel. Let's assume that any large barrel firing a bullet of cup of shot at a given velocity will generate the same curve using the same powder. After all, you have a 70 grain BP load moving a 400 grain projectile in a shotgun barrel and why should that act differently with smokeless? If you don't like the fact that it is fired in a long barrel, just use the first 6" data set for comparisons. Can you just throw any smokeless powder into a case and call it good, absolutely not, but you can generate test data that will lead you to loads that will mimic the properties of BP and reduce them even further for paper targets holes will look the same. I have even done this for 32 Long rimfire before shooting my Model 2 revolvers. I had an old 2 Rimfire Rolling block and was able to get hold of some original BP loads for testing. I found average velocities, bullet weight, etc. and compared them to the Navy Arms 32 Rimfire ammo of the time to find that BP loads were faster than Navy arms ammo. Bullet weights were lower in Navy Arms ammo indicating that the company was providing slower lighter ammunition that I would guess provided lower pressures as well. Back in the 1990s I shot over a case of 32 Long and 32 Short ammo in Model 1 1/2 and Model 2 revolvers with no problems and a huge amount of satisfaction I might add.

I truly believe there was a lot of experimentation and safety considerations applied when Remington, Winchester, etc. came up with their smokeless loads for these vintage calibers and they would certainly be aware of the intended use of the ammunition. The last thing these companies would want is to market a cartridge capable of blowing up an old revolver and they have been at it for over a century already apparently without major issues. Where else would you fire the majority of 32 S&W or 38 S&W ammo than in an old top-break?? Sure maybe a British 38-200, but by far the majority was safely fed through old top-break revolvers.

Attached Images

	Untitled.jpg (158.3 KB, 67 views)
	Bells Curves.jpg (7.7 KB, 76 views)

__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515

Simple logic would tell you that the ammo manufacturers at the turn of the 20th century would not bring out a product that couldn't be used in the vast majority of firearms then available. Their market would have been very small if they didn't load the old BP cartridges to pressure levels that the BP guns could withstand. S&W was primarily concerned about hand loads using smokeless as a 1:1 substitute for black powder which was a recipe for disaster. As indicated by their catalog, they did not have a problem with commercial smokeless cartridges.

__________________
Guy
SWHF #474 SWCA LM#2629

Black powder does not "Explode". It burns just like all low explosives. BP burning rate depends on surface area, and that is controlled by grain size. FFFFg granulation is much like dust and burns the fastest, while Fg is the largest granulation used in small arms. Larger granulations, with individual grains the size of corn kernels were used in cannon, and even larger grains with one or more perforations was used in larger cannon.
The burning rate of smokeless powder is controlled both by grain size and by chemical composition. They may be coated to slow the burn rate or perforated to even out the burn rate. As a general rule, shotgun powders and pistol powder have about the same burn rate, and the peak pressure will be achieved in the first couple of inches from the ignition point. Or in other words, the peak pressure will occur within the cylinder of a revolver, or within the casing of the shotgun shell.
The chart shown above by Gary is showing pressure curves for some early DuPont smokeless shotgun powders compared to an equivalent charge of black powder, and shows that a smokeless load can be selected that does not exceed BP pressures.

__________________
Tom
1560

Tom,
Thanks! For 60+ years I've always thought that BP exploded. (After all it is listed as an explosive where smokeless isn't considered to be in the same class)
Also, from empirical observation, dropping a match on a pile of BP shows that it sure burns a whole lot faster than dropping a match on a pile of Bullseye.

As an aside, what's the difference between "explosion" and "detonation"??

__________________
Dean
SWCA #680 SWHF #446

Does anyone have experience or documentation of any topbreak S&W blowing up or becoming unshootable from using modern loaded vintage calibers. I would imagine the ammunition companies have ran their own test and probably have pushed the limits to know where the safety margin is for all the calibers they load for. Take the 8mm Mauser I have quite a bit of experience with both factory, surplus, and my own hand loads all the American brands are loaded with the German 88 Commision rifle in mind. I would imagine the ammunition companies have done the same thing and found the weakest type of topbreak or even tip up they thought would be used and loaded said ammo that would be safe in that gun. Just my uneducated two cents worth.

There are many types of "explosions". The rate at which the material burns (subsonic vs supersonic) determines whether an explosion is termed "deflagration" (subsonic such as all firearm ammunition igniting normally) or "detonation" (such as all high explosives such as TNT, dynamite, etc.).

Thus, a "detonation" IS an "explosion" but not all explosions are detonations.

A quick Google search brought up several web sites on the subject, one being Explosions: Deflagration Versus Detonation

"Does anyone have experience or documentation of any topbreak S&W blowing up or becoming unshootable from using modern loaded vintage calibers."

David Chicoine said that he was getting a lot more top breaks in to repair as CAS got popular. He interpreted that to mean that people were taking the easy way out and shooting the old guns with smokeless.
But I wonder if maybe the problem was that people were SHOOTING old guns more than their Grandpas did.

I wonder what the service life of a top break was for Walter Winans or the Bennett Brothers, who competed and practiced.

Jim thanks I wonder what kind of repairs he was getting. Those of us that have these know that the weak link in these are the springs mainly the smaller ones and that wear would come no matter what powder was used. I would imagine most are like me and do not shoot their antiques as much as their modern guns. I don't imagine people back in the day shot nearly as much for fun as we do today.

I think he mentioned top strap stretching and latch loosening.
But I no longer have the book.

I am quite sure that CAS shooters shoot more rounds with their antique revolvers than were ever shot by our ancestors. Ammunition was expensive in the late 1800s. I have a 1881 US Cartridge Catalog showing that 45 Colt was $24/1000, 44 Russian was $22/1000, down to 32 S&W for $12/1000.

Wages in 1880 were pennies per hour. Here are some average hourly wages:

Occupation . . . 1860 . . . 1870 . . . 1880 . . . 1890
blacksmith . . .0.178 . . .0.304 . . .0.259 . . . 0.271
carpenter . . . . 0.182 . . .0.410 . . .0.276 . . . 0.322
machinist . . . . 0.158 . . .0.260 . . .0.227 . . . 0.243
laborers . . . . . 0.098 . . .0.156 . . .0.135 . . .0.151

Laborers got 13 cents per hour. I would have taken a days pay to buy a box of 45 Colt ammo. I know my grandfather would not have "wasted" a single shot and when I received his one and only revolver, made in 1904, there was still a quarter box of early 1900s ammo that came with it. When someone says they received many guns for repair, I would not include something that was blown up as a repair candidate, so most likely springs, worn parts, etc. These guns were not new when the most recent owners came into possession, so who knows what indignities were bestowed from previous owners or wear from honest use over the last 100+ years before a CAS shooter got hold of it.

__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515

If someone is looking for a "modern" revolver with which to shoot .32 S&W, I suggest S&W hand ejectors model 30 and 31, which have been around in some form since 1903 (BTW, these revolvers are chambered for .32 Long, a "magnum" compared to .32 Short ). Mine shoots well.

Buck

Haggis,
i think the desire is to shoot the old S&W revolvers chambered for the 32 S&W, an older top break model, not simply to shoot the 32 S&W. TBH I find the shorter round harder to find and usually a little pricier.

But, lately I've been shooting any factory 32 S&W I find in my 32 hand ejectors, then reload them mild with Trailboss for the top breaks in my collection.

John

I just had to comment on the fallacy of the following statement:

"I'm not sure that any manufacturer is obligated to charge their ammunition to the oldest gun that will chamber it. SAAMI specifications take a lot of things into consideration, but I've never read anything empirical to suggest that this is a consideration"

There is most certainly an obligation, and a very strong one. And it is enforced by an army of trial lawyers who love to sue on even the weakest of product liability grounds if anyone is injured.

Many may not be aware that smokeless powder handgun ammunition has been factory loaded in the USA since 1896, and at that time there were no handguns made other than those for black powder cartridges.

Respectfully, someone that brings suit against an ammunition manufacturer because their 120+ year old gun broke is going to get laughed out of the courtroom.

I think we may agree to disagree on this one, and that's cool.

Mike

Then again, no ammo manufacturer is going to want the reputation of their ammo blowing up guns...... (Just sayin'......)

__________________
Dean
SWCA #680 SWHF #446

I will absolutely guarantee that if a shooter or bystander is seriously injured as the result of firing modern ammunition in an old gun, it will be far from a laughing matter in court. The litigant's attorney will argue that the ammunition manufacturer knew, or should have known, that their ammunition fit and could be fired in an old gun, thereby constituting clear negligence on the part of the ammunition's manufacturer to ensure that their product is safe in all guns. And the litigant would probably win, possibly big, absent an out-of-court settlement.

I don't think that most people here realize that the .32 S&W Long, the .38 S&W Special and the .44 S&W Special were all originally designed as BP cartridges. The extra case length was not needed to accommodate a charge of smokeless powder, but to accept more BP for more velocity, so all of the modern hand ejectors were designed around BP loaded ammo originally, but I don't hear people saying not to fire smokeless loaded ammo in a 1896 I frame .32 or a 1899 K frame .38 Special or an 1908 .44 triple lock. Recoil and velocity can not be used to compare smokeless and BP, only pressure counts. Black powder ammo with the same bullet weight and velocity will ALWAYS have more recoil than the same cartridge loaded with smokeless to the same velocity and with the same bullet weight. The only valid criteria to determine if a load is safe in a particular gun is the max pressure produced in comparison to what the gun was designed for.

__________________
Tom
1560