.32 Safety Hammerless question

[browerpatch]

I have the opportunity to pick this revolver up at a reasonable price, but I'd like to know an approximate date range for the piece. It's a 3 inch barrel, and the catch on the tip is a bit different than I've seen. Is there a model designation other than "New Departure" or "Safety Hammerless"? The serial number is 88xxx. Would it be considered safe to shoot with modern .32 S&W short ammunition?

 

[mrcvs]

Yours is the first model variation with a push button latch.

Can you post photographs of the entire revolver? But, from what I can see, there are serious nicks in the recoil shield. As many of these remain pristine from spending over a century in a nightstand drawer, this significantly compromises yours and it might very well be that $200 is too much to pay, even if an antique.

We need more photographs to better judge this.

 

[browerpatch]

Yours is the first model variation with a push button latch.

Can you post photographs of the entire revolver? But, from what I can see, there are serious nicks in the recoil shield. As many of these remain pristine from spending over a century in a nightstand drawer, this significantly compromises yours and it might very well be that $200 is too much to pay, even if an antique.

We need more photographs to better judge this.

Left and right side of this revolver. I saw the nicks on the recoil shield but they don't impair the function. The gun locks up nice and tight, and the bore is pretty good, but for some light surface rust at the throat.

 

[mrcvs]

What is the seller asking for it? I'd want to pay not more than $250 for it—and that might be a bit on the high side.

 

[browerpatch]

What is the seller asking for it? I'd want to pay not more than $250 for it—and that might be a bit on the high side.

Less than $150.

 

[gmborkovic]

Low $200s sounds about right. Its not a carry gun or target.
Just a curio to shoot at the range once in awhile.

 

[mrcvs]

Less than $150.

If less than $150, go for it!

Being an Antique means there shouldn't be any paperwork involved.

 

[browerpatch]

If I acquire this gun, I'd like to shoot it from time to time. How well do these old things handle modern .32 short ammo? Should I consider pulling the lead ball, dumping the powder, and using black powder instead?

 

[Rpg]

Modern ammo is mildly loaded to be safe in these old guns.

No need to pull the bullet and substitute black powder: unless, of course, you've got too much time on your hands and can't resist fooling around with perfectly good ammo.

 

[mmaher94087]

Once you acquire this revolver, pay attention to the "stacking" of the trigger. There is a slight hesitation when pulling the trigger, which gives one a chance to sight the revolver, just before the hammer releases. It's a neat feature of these Safety Hammerless revolvers.

 

[browerpatch]

Once you acquire this revolver, pay attention to the "stacking" of the trigger. There is a slight hesitation when pulling the trigger, which gives one a chance to sight the revolver, just before the hammer releases. It's a neat feature of these Safety Hammerless revolvers.

My other one has that, and I find it a nice feature. This one has it also, but I think it will benefit from a thorough cleaning. The works just seem gummy. It locks up well, though, and there's no play in the hinge. Overall, it's a tight little gun! Glad to know modern ammo is mild enough for it. Thanks.

 

[Dosgatos]

Low $200s sounds about right. Its not a carry gun or target.
Just a curio to shoot at the range once in awhile.

I totally agree with this. I own about five of these, most like new in their original boxes, and never shoot them. The cartridge is close to worthless, and probably didn't fulfill its promise in the Bicycle guns. Speaking of which, the Bicycle version is probably the only version worth having, just because it is a curiosity. Modern ammunition (which is perfectly safe in these guns) can be found readily on the internet. When I got my first .32 I bought up all the ammo I could find, and most of it is still on the shelf. I paid $250 for a .38 Safety similar to the one in this discussion, just to have as a cheap truck gun. I've read some discussions that the .38 S&W is ballistically comparable to a .380 Auto, and I'd rather have that than a .32 S&W.

 

[browerpatch]

I don't suppose there's any such thing as a disassembly manual, is there?

Also, the serial #is 88xxx. Any information on date of manufacture or shipment?

 

[glowe]

Yes there is. David Chicoine wrote two books, Gunsmithing Guns of the Old West and Antique Firearms Assembly and Disassembly. The second book would be best for your project of cleaning up the revolver.

The 32 Safety, 1st Model was manufactured from 1888 to 1892, with 91,417 made. This model was followed by two more models resulting in 242,981 total being built. The serial number is high, so likely manufactured around 1890 to 1892. Ship dates are used to date a Smith & Wesson since shipping logs are available for all models of Smith & Wesson. Some manufacturing logs are privately held and may be available for that serial number, but not available to the Smith & Wesson Historical Foundation. I find three 88,000 serial numbers in the database and there are two that shipped in 1899 and one in 1900. The BATF recognizes all 32 Safety, 1st Models as antiques since all frames were completed before 1899.

As I recall, trigger stacking is more of a bad thing. It is mostly defined as a defect, a constant increase in trigger pull weight toward the end of the trigger's rearward travel. The only other term that might fit - maybe a 2-stage trigger. This type of trigger is defined as the trigger is pulled under steady pressure until the trigger pull weight quickly changes, and pulling beyond that point discharges the firearm.

That revolver would sell for $250 all day in this current market. Smooth metal, no pitting, well kept, plus the premium of easy sale without all the paperwork or FFLs.

Let me add a schematic. It is for a 1st Model or 2nd Model. Just save the photo to your computer.

 

[browerpatch]

Thank you. Great information. Many Thanks.