Metalurgy, strength of S&W Topbreaks

roy45

Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2008
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
I heard someone a while ago claim that S&W used "wrought iron???" for these guns?!?!?
He also claimed that Iver Johnson used better metal?!?!?!?? I am, to say the least, Extremely
skeptical of this ......This man works for a major
firearms retailer......My assumption is that
S&W used the very best available materials, workmanship, and heat treatment for the time.
Can someone tell about this?
 
Register to hide this ad
I heard someone a while ago claim that S&W used "wrought iron???" for these guns?!?!?
He also claimed that Iver Johnson used better metal?!?!?!?? I am, to say the least, Extremely
skeptical of this ......This man works for a major
firearms retailer......My assumption is that
S&W used the very best available materials, workmanship, and heat treatment for the time.
Can someone tell about this?
 
well, I've never heard of an instance of a gunshop clerk being wrong...
 
icon_biggrin.gif
icon_biggrin.gif
icon_biggrin.gif


I know what you mean. I could RETIRE if I had a dollar for every wrong statement I've heard by some nitwit working in a gun shop or sporting goods store.

T-Star
 
There's probably no single answer to this question because these guns were made over very long periods of time - the .38 Topbreak was introduced in 1876 and manufactured until 1940!

This covers the transition from black to smokeless powder and the introduction of heat-treated cylinders in 1920. I would assume the later guns had better steel than the early ones. Even if the guns were produced today with modern metallurgy (imagine a Ti/Sc topbreak in .357 Magnum), the locking mechanism was frail and probably wouldn't stand up to high pressures.

There have been many threads discussing the wisdom of using even low pressure smokeless loads in the older guns, with no general agreement.
 
Well, the fella that said S&W top break revolvers used wrought iron was not too far wrong.

American and european gun makers indeed used wrought iron for frames, barrels, and cylinders well into the 1870s and for more than a decade after that even after better materials became available. Even the famous US Springfield Armory made rifle barrels throughout the 1880s from forged and welded steel strips, finally transitioning to deep hole bored barrel blanks roller forged to shape and diameter. The reason was simple: The Bessemer open hearth steel manufacturing processes were still in their infancy, and the finer grained steel produced from iron ore and coke was still only available in small batches, much as it had been for several hundred years. For black powder pressures, wrought iron barrels, frames and cylinders were strong enough. It wasn't until the invention of smokeless powder propellants in 1885 that metallurgy advanced enough using nickel and related alloys to make stronger barrels that would withstand smokeless powder pressures.

I would not count too much on S&W using the latest available steel in their revolver production for their first 100 years. Remember the rash of split forcing cones, stretched frames, and bulged chambers that revolver shooters experienced in the 1960s when high performance .38 Special ammunition first came out? S&W announced that it was not advisable to fire jacketed HP ammo in revolvers made before the frame stamping of model numbers (pre 1958-59). Yep, you guessed it. S&W was known to use a mild grade of automotive quality steel in it's K frames and barrels during the 1920s thru 1950's, and the guns would not stand up to extensive use of what we now call +P ammo.
 
Howdy

I will agree with John Traveler. Don't confuse wrought iron with cast iron. Cast iron is very brittle and is not suitable for gun making. A frying pan is made of cast iron. Wrought iron is very different. It also goes by the name of malleable iron. The name implies that this type of iron can be formed by heat and pressure. Not so with cast iron, it has too many impurities in it, including too much carbon in it and simply fractures if it is stressed. Bronze was actually preferred for cannon barrels over cast iron for many years because bronze was less likely to crack and split. Flintlock rifles often had barrels welded up from malleable iron strips, not steel. And Damascus shotgun barrels often had iron mixed in with the steel in the laminations.

The Bessemer Process was patented in England in 1855, making mass production of inexpensive steel practical. Steel had been used for hundreds of years previous to that for knives and swords, but the processes of making such steel was more of an art than a science, and it could only be produced in very small quantities. Gun making demanded a consistant controlled processes for large quantities of strong, inexpensive steel.

I have done my best to research what type of iron or steel was used by S&W during the second half of the 19th Century, and I have not come up with much. But I can tell you what their competitor down the river in Hartford was doing. Colt used high grade malleable iron for cylinders and frames for the first Single Action Armies in 1873. Serial numbers from 96,000 to about 180,000 (1883-1898) had cylinders and frames made from steel resembling modern low/medium carbon steels. After 1898 Colt started using medium carbon steel, but it was not until 1900 that Colt felt confident enough in the strength of their guns to factory warranty them for Smokeless powder.

Like I say, I have not been able to come up with much information about the materials S&W used, but they were just as smart as Colt, and I doubt if they had access to any better materials than Colt did. I would bet even money that S&W were also using malleable iron for cylinders and frames at the same time that Colt was.
 
Driftwood,

I find your Colt manufacturing history interesting. I'm a half-assed student of American Industrial technology history, and find that of the many reasons that the north eastern seaboard developed into the famous Yankee manufacturing center was the proximity to the coal mines of West Virginia, the iron ore of northern Michigan and relatively easy barge transport of these materials by river, lake, and canal. I was surprised to read that the first Bessemer steel smelter was installed in the Detroit area in 1856...just a year after the patent was granted in Britain! The combination of convenient water transportation, power for mills, proximity to coal and ore, etc was what brought steel making to Pennsylvania. Apparently blacksmith's forges were everywhere since pioneer days, but mass produced goods came from mainly Europe and Britain up to the American Civil War. The CW itself was a terrific boost in the arms, cannon, and steel/iron industries. Early wrought iron (malleable iron) or "semi-steel" was done up by small regional smelters in the tradition pioneered by the Spaniards, French, Belgians, Germans, and Italians as it had been done for several hundred years: by open hearth furnaces, where the usefull by-product was cast iron for cannon balls, cooking vessels, church bells, etc. The better-quality wrought iron was used for cannon, and side tracked for small arms production. I am currently checking into the history of the early US steel manufacturers, and if I find anything useful to the manufacturing history of S&W, I will share it.

John
 
John

An American named William Kelly worked on the same process of injecting high pressure air into molten iron as Bessemer did as early as 1851, apparently procuring a patent here in 1856. But history bestowed Bessemer's name on the process. A Bessemer type converter was set up in Troy NY as early as 1856. But early Bessemer steel was not always suitable for arms making. The injection of high pressure air left the steel relatively porous. It was not until Sir Joseph Whitworth, of Whitworth hexagonal bore fame, developed his hydraulic compression process to collapse the bubbles in molten steel that steel truly became a mass produced product useful in firearms manufacture. The steel produced by the Whitworth process was variously known as Whitworth Steel, Fluid Compressed Steel, or just plain Fluid Steel.

I can recommend to you an excellent book on the subject, Fighting Iron, A Metals Handbook for Arms Collectors, by Art Gogan. This book is understandable by a layman like me, and he goes into great detail about the various metals, and methods of producing them, used by arms makers for hundreds, or even thousands of years. You can find this book at Amazon for $28.

I completely agree with you about the rise of the Industrial North East due to the ease of transportation of materials by barge and canal boat. Indeed, it has been speculated that without the completion of the Erie Canal in 1825, funneling the agricultural wealth of the midwestern heartland from the Great Lakes to the Hudson River, New York City would never have grown into the shipping goliath that it eventually became, dwarfing the trade of any other East Coast city.

Water power was responsible for the growth of industry in the North East in the first half of the 19th Century, but it was soon eclipsed by steam power. Many streams and rivers dry up enough in the summer to cut down on the power they can produce. In addition, there is only a finite amount of mechanical power available in any water source, dependent on the head of water. But one could always add another boiler and stationary steam engine if one needed more power for a growing factory. Many suppose that Colt built his factory along the Connecticut river in order to harness the water power. This is incorrect, the Connecticut was never harnessed for power by Colt, he got the land cheap because it was swampy, and he could get iron and steel, as well as coal for his powerhouse, conveniently barged to the site. Look at any late 19th Century illustration of manufacturing facilities, and you will always see tall smokestacks belching smoke from a steam powered powerhouse.

I will quibble with you slightly about manufactured goods coming mainly from England and Europe up until the War Between the States. The textile industry was well established here in the North East, in mill towns like Lowell Mass as early as the 1820s, and Lawrence Mass in the 1840s. In fact, Francis Cabot Lowell stole the technology used in his first mill directly from England. The British were trying to keep the technology to their shores, but Lowell visited the newly built industrial city of Manchester and owing to his photographic memory and mechanical apptitude was able to draw plans for textile machinery and spirit them back to the US during the War of 1812. Mill towns began springing up along major rivers wherever there was a decent head of water, and textiles were produced from Southern cotton, then shipped all over the US.

In fact, it can be argued that the Yankee system of manufacturing, particularly fabricating metal parts, stands in stark contrast to the English system. The Brits believed in individual craftsmen working at their individual machines creating parts with great precision. The Yankee entrepreneur instead relied on mass production to turn out huge quantities of slightly less precise, but still completely servicable parts. That is also why England became known for extremely high quality firearms, while Colt, S&W, Remington, et all were swamping the world with reliable, dependable repeating firearms. Colt set up a factory in London because of the demand for his products. No Englishman set up a factory here.

Lastly, lets add railroads to all that waterborne transportation. Steam railroads were a mature technology by the time of the War Between the States, and the North could not have become the industrial juggernaut it did without railroads crisscossing the country side where canal boats could no go.
 
Originally posted by arfmel:
well, I've never heard of an instance of a gunshop clerk being wrong...

I think you you could perhaps notice that I had some doubts....The "clerk" in question works in the "Gun Library" department at a Cabellas.
 
Well, whether or not you believe what gunshop clerks tell you, he was essentially correct about firearm manufacturers using wrought, or malleable iron before affordable, high quality steel was readily available. Steel produced prior to that time by the puddling method or the cruciable method was either unsuitable, of unreliable consistancy, or just too expensive for mass production of firearms. Don't forget, these companies were producing huge quantities of firearms in factory settings. They were not producing them one at a time like the village gunsmith did. Factory requirements were not necessarily the same as those of a village gunsmith.

I can't comment about Iver Johnson's steel vs Smith & Wesson's, but I can tell you that regarding your statement 'My assumption is that S&W used the very best available materials, workmanship, and heat treatment for the time' malleable iron was the best available material at the time we are talking about.

In addition to the examples I gave about Colt, the very first Henry rifles had iron, not steel or brass, frames, and so did the first Winchester Model 1873 rifles.
 
MagTech has a "new" .32 Long ammo out that is a 98gr. SJHP meant for self defense in a .32 Long, not magnum or anything....

would this ammo be too much for the older hand ejector models if it is still within SAAMI specs?
 
Back
Top