.32 Double Action - DAO?

[cobretti]

This may seem like a very basic question, but I can't seem to find out if the .32 DA Top breaks were double action / single action or just double action? I seem to remember handling one in SA at one time...

 

[mmaher94087]

Hello, they are all "double action / single action" DAO was not invented yet.. but check with Al Gore.. maybe.....

 

[glowe]

Maybe you are thinking about the 32 Safety topbreak revolver. All are double action only, since they are hammerless.

 

[dogngun]

There are a very few hammer gun DAO topbreak Smiths in .32. I had one over 20 years ago that I spoke with Roy Jinks about and got a letter for, and then sold it for far more than I paid for it. I had thought it was simply an SA/DA with a broken part, but it was DAO from the factory.

 

[cobretti]

I have a .32 Double Action Fourth Model that does not have a single action function, as in the hammer does not lock back when cocked. I have a friend with the same model that appears to be DAO also. I've seen several in gun shops the same way, but cannot recall seeing a single action version. So...

 

[DWalt]

I think the correct answer is that virtually all .38 and .32 DAs left the factory as SA/DA. But a rare few were apparently shipped as DAO (I have never seen one). And of course all Safety Hammerless revolvers were DAO.

Actually, the original meaning of "Double Action" for a revolver was that the revolver could be fired by either manually cocking the hammer, or by just pulling the trigger with the hammer in the down position. That's where the "Double" came in, two (double) firing methods. Therefore any "Double Action" revolver could be fired both ways. So DAO as a revolver term is incorrect, or at least illogical, under the original definition of double action, and it probably should be called "trigger firing only (TFO)," or something similar. But that won't happen anytime soon, as DAO is by now too deeply entrenched as a description of no provision for manual hammer cocking.

 

[cobretti]

I just confirmed that my friend's gun is the same as mine; his hammer does not lock back into single action either and he had said virtually the same thing, that he thought something was broken, because it should work both ways. I also remember seeing an earlier version, with the inverse trigger guard, in a Gainesville pawn shop that was also DAO. So how rare are they? Is it worth the $50 letter? That's what I paid for the gun!

 

[mmaher94087]

Assuming that you have a revolver with an exposed hammer and with (maybe) an extremely rare example that I've never seen or heard of in 50 years of studying and collecting Smith & Wesson; your revolver has a defective (common) rear sear - the part that holds the single action hammer function.

 

[DWalt]

Assuming that you have a revolver with an exposed hammer and with (maybe) an extremely rare example that I've never seen or heard of in 50 years of studying and collecting Smith & Wesson; your revolver has a defective (common) rear sear - the part that holds the single action hammer function.

I'd agree with that. It's much more likely to be a broken sear than a DAO which came that way from the factory (if there even were any of those). Sometimes a broken sear can be repaired, but someone would have to look at it.

 

[cobretti]

Well, I took the side plate off, removed the hammer and cleaned the hell out of everything, but still no SA. I think the hammer / rear sear engagement hooks may be too worn to hold. The cylinder locks up nice and tight now, though. The hammer stirrup pin has separated from the stirrup, which doesn't look great, but it still works like it should. I guess after 120 years or so, things wear out. Anyone have an extra hammer / sear?