1905 first change 32-20

[Dave.357]

I bought this 32-20 two weeks ago.I had ammo on hand
but it was loaded to hot for a gun of this age .
Normally I would of borrowed my brother’s rifle and shot
the ammo at targets to get the brass. With the prices of
Powder ,primers and bullets I pulled the bullets out of 100
Of them and saved the components.
I reloaded the primed brass with appropriate load for a black powder age revolver.
I shot the gun from 12 paces (about 10 yards) weather was terrible ,cold and misting rain so I did not mess with bench
And sand bags to test accuracy.
Shot at 5” gong with fresh white paint
on it so it was easy to see hits. First six hit the gong two were
left hand edge hits other four close to center .
Bad news is sights a finer than frog hair.
I bought it because it is a very clean gun in a good woods
caliber but I am going to sell it and look for one with
Heat treated cylinder and betting sights.

 

[DWalt]

Your revolver will be safe to shoot any .32-20 ammunition, unless It has been handloaded up to rifle-only levels. There is a lot of steel thickness around the chambers, and heat treatment is superfluous for even those .32-20 K-frames made prior to WWI. Not much you can do about the poor sights provided as standard on M&Ps made prior to the mid-1920s. The grips are probably original, and date yours as being pre-1911. Difficult to find grips of that style. I would not be in a hurry to sell it.

 

[JP@AK]

Nice looking piece. 6 1/2" barrel. In nice shape. Very cool.

Would you care to share the serial number so I can add it to my list? PM, if you prefer to keep it private. Thanks.

 

[Dave.357]

Nice looking piece. 6 1/2" barrel. In nice shape. Very cool.

Would you care to share the serial number so I can add it to my list? PM, if you prefer to keep it private. Thanks.

S/N 26489 gun is about 90% condition with good barrel and
Cylinder all numbers match. Can not see any # inside grips
They look original but who knows.

 

[JP@AK]

S/N 26489

A nearby serial number shipped in May, 1906, but one not much higher didn't leave Springfield until April, 1908. I have two in the 30000 range that shipped in 1907. Obviously, there isn't much consistency.

 

[4K2022]

I should open a book before I type, but what about the flanged barrel at the frame? Isn’t that, the main indication of a first “change” ?

 

[Retired W4]

...Can not see any # inside grips
They look original but who knows.

I believe the serial number on the right stock panel is written in pencil. If you take a very bright light and shine it on an angle over the wood you might see the remnants of the graphite. Good luck.

 

[DWalt]

The early wood grips were serial numbered by pencil on the back, and after they get any gun oil, etc., on them the numbers sort of vanish. Sometimes using a bright light helps. I have one pair with a very legible penciled SN, my others are far from it. One pair I have shows no evidence that any number was ever there.

 

[Alk8944]

I should open a book before I type, but what about the flanged barrel at the frame? Isn’t that, the main indication of a first “change” ?

The "flanged" barrel as you put it began on the 1902 1st change. As DWalt stated, any .32-20 ammunition is OK to shoot in that gun, including current Remington "Express" loads. The only ammunition to avoid is the .32-20 Hi-Speed loaded with an 80 grain round-nosed hollow point bullet. Those are head-stamped HS, Hi Speed, etc. depending on manufacturer That was intended strictly for the Winchester Model '92 and equivalent Marlin and was loaded to higher pressure. It was not to be shot in 1873 Winchesters either! It is unlikely you will find any of that as it has not been loaded since ca. 1965.

Just to be clear, .32-20 is a rifle cartridge, and all commercial ammunition is so labeled. S&W and Colt adapted their revolvers to .32-20 with no ammunition restrictions except the Hi-Speed load noted. Even though there was black powder ammunition loaded for the .32-20 clear into the 1920s smokeless ammunition was manufactured since at least 1902. There is no reason to be concerned about strength of any S&W revolver just because of age, as long as it is in good mechanical order!

One of my very first S&W revolvers, about 1963, was a 1902 1st change 6 1/2". I still own it and shoot it. Yours looks much better than my 1902. Because of a lack of understanding when I was a new re-loader, and because my first Lyman manual did not make a distinction between rifle and revolver loads for .32-20, this gun has been shot with loads that would scare the snot out of me now. It sustained no damage whatsoever! The only ammunition I would avoid is any labeled as +P from one or two of the "boutique" ammo makers!

Enjoy the gun you have, don't worry about the cylinder, it is not an issue!!! If you want a later model one then all means buy one. The cartridge is a lot of fun to shoot.

If you hand-load don't believe the stories about how delicate the cases are! As long as you are careful with it, and not a slam-bam loader, you will have no issues with cases. Be aware there are two different case lengths that only makes a difference when hand-loading them. Remington are 1.315" and all others are 1.275". Either length is fine as long as you don't mix them, then crimping is a problem.

I own, I believe, 12 .32-20s. I have about 6 S&Ws from the 1902 all the way to nearly end of production in 1929 or 1930, 2 Colts, and a Marlin rifle, as well as a S&W Model 16-2 re-chambered for .32-20. I like the cartridge and have over 60 years experience with it. In case you have any questions about the cartridge please feel free to PM me.

 

[DWalt]

Earlier in the 20th Century, more powerful loadings of old "frontier cowboy" cartridges became available in several sizes which were intended for rifle use only. Those included not only .32-20 but also .38-40 and .44-40. They were not intended for use in revolvers or Winchester 1873 rifles because the mechanical lockup at the breech was fairly weak as compared to the later Winchester 1892 and several other rifles by other makers. The idea was the same for all three - use a lighter weight jacketed expanding bullet loaded to a somewhat higher velocity for better performance on wild game than standard lead bullet loadings with lower MVs. Of course shooters being shooters, many naturally used the rifle-only loads in handguns because who doesn't want more power? Generally there were no consequences to that, but there were stories that the barrels of some .32-20 revolvers were splitting at the forcing cone entry as a result of firing the HV rifle ammunition. Personally, I have not seen a single example of such a forcing cone split. The factory .38-40 and .44-40 HV loads were never very popular and didn't last long, but the HV .32-20 loading hung on well into the 1960s. Today, those HV .32-20 cartridges are obsolete and purely collector items, except I think they may remain in the product lines of some of the boutique ammo makers, such as Buffalo Bore and Underwood. Any factory .32-20 load (remember when you could buy them?) made today is perfectly safe to use in any revolver of any age chambered for it. Same is true for normal factory-equivalent .32-20 handloads.

Old data suggests that, fired from a rifle, the HV .32-20 cartridge with an 85 grain JHP bullet will produce a MV in the 1600 to 1800 ft/sec range depending on barrel length. Not too far away from the .30 Carbine. But not exactly in the ideal Deer hunting category.

Another topic. Over 50 years ago when I lived in Maryland, I knew a guy who hunted Deer with a Winchester Model 43 bolt action rifle in .32-20. It worked OK for him, but long shots there were a rarity. 50 yards or less were normal. No idea what ammunition he used.

 

[Dave.357]

The ammo I took apart was loaded for Ruger that
that is listed as being strong enough for the high speed
loads.
I would not chance these loads in a very
Nice 115 year old gun.

 

[Dave.357]

I listed this gun as a 1905 first change,
am I wrong?

 

[DWalt]

I listed this gun as a 1905 first change,
am I wrong?

That is correct.

 

[Retired W4]

A nearby serial number shipped in May, 1906, but one not much higher didn't leave Springfield until April, 1908. I have two in the 30000 range that shipped in 1907. Obviously, there isn't much consistency.

Consistency? S&W? My 1905, 1st (lettered as such) with SN: 94608 shipped February 27, 1907. That is consistent with SCSW.
I didn't know if you had that one in your data base Jack.

 

[JP@AK]

My 1905, 1st (lettered as such) with SN: 94608 shipped February 27, 1907.

That one has to be a .38, right? On a .32-20, it would be in the 1920s.

 

[4K2022]

Your revolver will be safe to shoot any .32-20 ammunition, unless It has been handloaded up to rifle-only levels. There is a lot of steel thickness around the chambers, and heat treatment is superfluous for even those .32-20 K-frames made prior to WWI. Not much you can do about the poor sights provided as standard on M&Ps made prior to the mid-1920s. The grips are probably original, and date yours as being pre-1911. Difficult to find grips of that style. I would not be in a hurry to sell it.

Wonder Sight? before selling give one a test run. And you a chance to prove, you really need to keep one on hand.

 

[Dave.357]

Wonder Sight? before selling give one a test run. And you a chance to prove, you really need to keep one on hand.

Front sight very thin, not sure that it would
help. I have a 16-4 that is a lot easier
to see.

 

[DWalt]

I have a wondersight on an earlier M&P. It doesn't help the sight picture much, but at least it does allow some sight adjustment. I am just neutral on that idea.

 

[glowe]

. . . Would you care to share the serial number so I can add it to my list? . . .

Jack, there is a project currently underway to develop databases on K frame revolvers, so you might want to consider sending your data to the SWHF for inclusion.

My eyes are not the best, but I can still do some reading without glasses. I am not sure why so many people cannot see those sights? I have a prescription and have shooting glasses without bi-focals and shoot these guns without issue. I do concentrate on early target K frames now, many of which have very thin front sights, but again not a problem for me.

Maybe I am missing something since I am not a great off-hand shot, but believe I can see the sights well enough at arms length. I do know that I just cannot hold steady enough to be a bullseye shooter with any type of sights. I also know that I should not shoot at black bullseye targets with black sights, even if there is a bead is on the front sight. Orange or white bullseye targets work best for me.