Number 2 Army 32 “CENTERFIRE”

[BMur]

Yes, it’s been altered. No, it’s not factory.
The Conversions are very interesting to me since they were more often period altered to centerfire for more reliable discharge.
I’m just wondering if anyone has seen one of these before.
This one was machine altered with a floating firing pin. Extremely well done.
Conversions were very common during the 1870’s timeframe. I’m wondering if this was part of a contract?

I’ve documented several contracts but never for the Number 2 Army. Even the SFPD altered several Colt conversions to centerfire around the turn of the century.


Murph

 

[BMur]

Pattern

I just found this in the Number 2 Army survey same serial number range.

Sure looks like a contract pattern to me.

Murph

 

[shown50]

Factory or not that’s very cool!

 

[BMur]

Period alteration

The serial number and multiple examples in the survey support the alteration being contracted between 1870-1875. The centerfire rounds of that period that would chamber and fire in the Number 2 Army would be the 320 revolver cf and the early Colt 32 cf both outside lubricated and match the number 2 chamber and bore specs perfectly.

Once Smith & Wesson introduced the 32 cf in 1878, converting this model to centerfire would no longer be an attractive option.

Makes me wonder what a letter for one of these would reveal. Primarily, what year they were shipped, how many were shipped together, and where they were shipped might just point the finger at a significant and historical variation of this model.

Murph

 

[shown50]

The serial number and multiple examples in the survey support the alteration being contracted between 1870-1875. The centerfire rounds of that period that would chamber and fire in the Number 2 Army would be the 320 revolver cf and the early Colt 32 cf both outside lubricated and match the number 2 chamber and bore specs perfectly.

Once Smith & Wesson introduced the 32 cf in 1878, converting this model to centerfire would no longer be an attractive option.

Makes me wonder what a letter for one of these would reveal. Primarily, what year they were shipped, how many were shipped together, and where they were shipped might just point the finger at a significant and historical variation of this model.

Murph

This is earlier than I normally collect but it’s got my interest peaked! Any idea how many were converted? I love period alterations and conversions that kept a tool functional for the owner. I wonder how many gunsmiths offered this conversion at the time.

 

[mmaher94087]

I would like to see a larger sampling than the two shown. It might reveal a more modern conversion. A friend wants to convert his #2 to CF and it is in the 47 - 48 range. I would think his work would be modern looking and obvious.

 

[BMur]

Patterns

It’s pretty easy at this point in the research to cast doubt without a lengthy survey performed. I only posted this thread as a point of interest since I have never actually seen a centerfire.

Converting a Number 2 today to centerfire would require custom ammunition loaded as the 32 cf will not chamber in the Number 2 Army. You would have to use an antique bullet mold that casts outside lubricated bullets( those molds are rare and expensive) and somehow reform centerfire brass that will chamber in the old Rimfire cylinder.( Good luck with that!)

Probably why it’s not common. The original ammo is 100 years obsolete!

I was hoping some collectors would provide surviving examples that might expand upon these unique center fires. The example I posted is not a modern alteration. It is definitely a period conversion to chamber the early outside lubricated rounds I posted.

We need to see more of them to confirm a pattern and method of conversion that is consistent in order to verify a contract or a significant number converted in that serial number range.

Murph

 

[glowe]

Roy Junks book references experimental models produced by S&W, along with variations of each model offered by the factory. Other researchers have done similar works, all without mention to this model being manufactured in 32 centerfire. There have been no referenced centerfire calibers listed for the Model 2. I have a 1881 US Cartridge catalog and there are also no listing for 320 in it. Since it was developed by Webley for use in English revolvers, I know of no US made gun manufactured in that caliber and doubt that ammunition would have even been available in any large quantities here in the US. Perhaps these revolvers ended up in England and were converted there for use with the .320 Revolver.

What I can find on this caliber, it was introduced in 1868. The Model 2 in the 47,000 serial number range would have shipped around 1866, so that serial number range could not have left the factory in centerfire configuration designed to use for 320Revolver cartridge.

 

[BMur]

32 Colt centerfire

The U.S. manufactured 32 centerfire that would chamber in the Number 2 Army was the “early” outside lubricated 32 Colt Newline centerfire cartridge introduced in 1874 in the Newline series. It’s identical to the 32 Long Rimfire except that it’s a centerfire. The British 320 revolver cf was also available in the U.S. since 320 Bulldogs were being sold here as well. The 320 Bulldog center fire was available in 1870.

I located other surveys that confirm the following serial numbers with the centerfire alteration.

Serials:

10452
10455
10782

25290

47298
47308
47177

53253
53565

70384

These serial numbers definitely follow a pattern of batch conversion. Notice also in the photos the exact same type conversion technique was used with a floating centerfire pin ( serial number 70384) The alteration is identical!

The pattern is now obvious in both batched serial numbers and method of alteration. This is not a modern alteration. Someone was consistently altering these Number 2 Army’s in batches for some specific client for several years.

Murph

 

[BMur]

Timeline

If we focus on the Bulldog history for just a moment you can clearly see a documented change to cartridge availability.
Photo 1 was the early 1872 advertisement that included the early 32cf that would chamber in the altered number 2 Army.

However by 1880 in the 2nd photo, calibers became limited and specific to modern cartridge designs.

What this basically supports is the altering if the Number 2 Army to centerfire was a very early concept. Post 1880 it DOES NOT FIT.

So the alteration was most likely performed Pre-1878 when the new S&W 32 cf was introduced and WILL NOT CHAMBER in the number 2 Army cylinder.


Murph

 

[BMur]

Cartridge reference

Here are some photos of applicable 32cf cartridges that would chamber in the Number 2 Army. They are very early pre-1880 cartridges. That is why a modern conversion to centerfire is not realistic.

Murph

 

[desi2358]

The 32 Long Colt cartridge was originally loaded with an outside lubricated bullet. However, Colt later changed to using a bullet that fit inside the case and had a hollow base (much like a Minie Ball) that was intended to allow the bullet to expand into the rifling once it left the case. This allowed for a cleaner inside lubricated load. It was intended to be fully interchangeable with the old outside lubed bullets and continued to be loaded into at least the 1980's bu Winchester and Remington.

There is also a 32 Short Colt round which continued to use the old outside lubricated bullet. Any forearm chambered for the 32 Long Colt can also shoot the Short version. The short version was still available wholesale (Remington brand) as late as the 2010's though it may have been old stock. So, at least theoretically, someone who had one of these converted S&W No. 2 revolvers would still be able to find ammo that fit it.

There have been a number of posts on the Cast Boolits forum on loading for the old Short and Long Colt round. Seems brass is still available, at least some of the time. The majority seem to prefer the outside lubed bullet as being slightly more accurate and less work to cast (not needing a base plug for the hollow base).

These converted guns are neat bit of history, much like the cartridge conversion of old cap & ball revolvers. And they could have stayed in use for many years even long after more modern designs made the effectively obsolete. Still worked and ammo could still be found and for many users that was enough. I would love to find one, get some 32LC brass and load up some rounds to see how well they can shoot.

 

[kscharlie]

I will most likely get a ding for this, but...if you do a search on the big auction site for "smith wesson 32 centerfire", you will find the aforementioned serial # 47308. No, it's not mine, nor do I have any connection to it. Just happened to see it two days ago, then this thread popped up.

OK Mods...ding me now or ding me later.

 

[BMur]

Complicated Cartridge History

It’s not my fault so don’t take this personal.
All centerfire 32’s manufactured after Smith & Wesson introduced the 32cf in 1878 WILL NOT CHAMBER IN THE number 2 ARMY REVOLVER.
See photos.

The first photo is an 1878 Smith & Wesson 32cf design next to a post 1880 32 Colt Long centerfire. They both have .311 lead bullets and case diameter of .339. Way TO BIG for the number 2 Army chamber.

Photo 2

Depicts the 1880 Colt 32cf next to the 32 Rimfire. You can easily see that the .319 diameter 32 Rimfire Long is much smaller than the 32 Colt cf.

Cartridge history at this time is hard to follow and complex but the simple fact is any 32cf case made after 1880 will not chamber in the Number 2 Army unless it’s based on the early design that I posted photos of in my last post.

And that is why converting a number 2 Army to centerfire after 1880 would be a bad idea.



Murph

 

[wlw-19958]

Hi There,


If the aforementioned No. 2 Army is up for sale or auction, this
thread will be locked. The rules prohibit posting pics or discus-
sions of them (I've run a foul of this; mea culpa).

Just to get my two cents in, There is no proof that these were
done in batches. There is nothing that gives the time frame and
the sequence these alterations were done. It stands to reason
they were done in the 19th Century but there isn't any proof
unless some ledger is found that documents when these were
done and whether they were done by the same smith.

For all we know at present, these could have been done by an
enterprising gunsmith that advertised in a periodical or used a
broadsheet posted in a populous city to offer this service. The
order of serial numbers could have been random to the order
they were modified.

Also, one would have to examine them to ascertain if they were
all modified in the same way (and hence, by the same smith).
Without more documentation, this is all supposition and not
proof.


Cheers!
Webb

 

[BMur]

Fun subject

Well,
I never referred to any auction with this thread and I’m sure with a simple web search you could probably find one of these listed serial numbers for sale so “whatever”!!

I’m just trying to have some fun with an interesting subject that needs more research. If you’re motivated to research this is an interesting subject. If you’re motivated to sink the ship, Go for it. Zero impact on my end.

Go back to re-runs.

Murph

 

[wlw-19958]

Hi There,

I will most likely get a ding for this, but...if you do a search on the big auction site for "smith wesson 32 centerfire", you will find the aforementioned serial # 47308. No, it's not mine, nor do I have any connection to it. Just happened to see it two days ago, then this thread popped up.

OK Mods...ding me now or ding me later.

It was this post claiming one of the No. 2’s was on a major auction
site. They didn’t say whether it was a current auction or a com-
pleted one. If the auction is a complete one, then no foul. If it is
an active or upcoming auction, then it is technically a violation.

Personally, I would like members to have the ability to discuss
items that are currently for sale or auction so they can have in-
put from experts about the correctness of said items in order to
have the knowledge to make an informed decision about a pur-
chase or to point out any particulars for the edification of our
Group.

But we all have agreed to follow the rules of this site and we run
the risk of being sanctioned for disobeying the rules.


Cheers!
Webb