S&W 1 1/2 caliber

[rta72]

Hey guys and thanks again for the good comments.

I did think about the rim sitting outside the cylinder, but i dont have a case on hand to measure the rim thickness. There is a visible rim inside each chamber at the same place. It could be at my gun has been shot only with .32 RF short ammo? I was thinking of the .38spl issue when shot in .357mag cylinder. Allthough I don't know if it is the same result i these old cylinders, but the rim inside the chamber seems to be roughly in same depth as would a case mouth of 32 RF short be situated in. Again I don't have case in hand to test.

As for the reference, it does say that .32 RF short Smith & Wesson was developed for models 1 1/2 and 2. As Gary said it might be that its just wrong.

Great pictures Gary! If you have time it would be nice to see a photo with the cylinder and .32 RF long on the other side and .32 RF short on the other. I'll see of I can take a photo of the rim inside the cylinder, allthough it might not be visible im photo.

Edit: I read the refence book more carefully and actually it says on .32 Smith & Wesson Short that it was originally used on New Model 1 1/2 and 2, but it doesn't say that Short would been designed for 1 1/2. Just that it was patented by Smith & Wesson in 1860. So think I just misunderstood that part. And on the .32 Smith & Wesson Long it says that it was introduced for the model 2 in 1861. On the other hand an other book says that Model 2 caliber was .32 RF Short, but it is a more general knowledge book and might be erroneous.

This is the photo portrayed with .32 Smith & Wesson Short. Probably because it could use .32 RF Short, but little bit confusing to the reader. [emoji23]

 

[glowe]

. . . There is a visible rim inside each chamber at the same place. It could be at my gun has been shot only with .32 RF short ammo?

As for the reference, it does say that .32 RF short Smith & Wesson was developed for models 1 1/2 and 2. As Gary said it might be that its just wrong. . . . [/IMG]

No need for a photo, because you are correct in your assumption that the ring will match the case length of a 32 Short, but your cylinder does not have a "rim" inside the chamber. The original cartridges were black powder with fulminate of Mercury priming compound, both very bad actors on metal. Shooting only one box of 32 Shorts and not cleaning the gun after each use will make a permanent ring at the top of those cases. That is what you are seeing, simply a corrosion ring. Use a micrometer and measure the diameter of the rear and front of the cylinder chambers. They will measure the same Whoever you are referencing, IS wrong, not might be wrong! Just out of curiosity, what books are you using for reference? The most accurate source of information out there is the bible of S&Ws, Robert Neal & Roy Jinks, Smith & Wesson 1857-1945. The section on Model 1 1/2, 2nd Issue states 32 RF Long for ammo. Of course these models would shoot the 32 Short and in the 1860s, most people probably used what the found available without concern. Ammo stores in the Old West were most likely few and far between and ammo would have been almost impossible to find during the Civil War.

I am sorry to say that most people writing out there have no idea what they are talking about when referencing S&W Tip-Up revolvers. Just a couple of examples are below.

David LaPell writes: The Number 1 was chambered for what was known as the .32 Long and in 1865, Smith & Wesson brought out their Number 1 ½ revolver in .32 Short. Smith & Wesson made these revolvers until 1865 with more than two hundred thousand produced.

Wikipedia states: The .32 Short was designed in 1860 by Smith & Wesson for their Model 2 revolver. In 1868 they introduced the .32 Long in the Model 1½ Second Issue revolver. quoted from a book by Jeff Kinard, Pistols: An Illustrated History of Their Impact.

Bottom line is that the Model 2 was introduced in 1861, not remarkably the same year as the introduction of the 32 Long. It matters not when the patent was filed for the 32 Short, but when and where is was first used. I use a lot of information out of the Frank Barnes book, but some info is just wrong. He states that "the 32 RF Short was first used in Model 1 1/2 and Model 2 S&Ws." This is incorrect since the Model 1 1/2 was not introduced until mid-1865, more than 4 years after the Model 2. He states the same thing in reference to the 32 RF Long, that "it was introduced in 1861 for the Model 2", which is correct. Lastly, a well respected source for S&W information is Supica and Nahas, Standard Catalog of Smith & Wesson, who state the Model 1 1/2, 1st Issue was designed to use 32 Short, but would fire a 32 Long round. Well if they designed a cylinder long enough to fit a 32 Long in, then the gun was really designed for the 32 Long but could shoot 32 Short?? The book also states that the Model 1 1/2, 2nd Issue was designed for 32 Long cartridges??

 

[merl67]

Then i start browsing the web and i see reload kits for 32 short rf and 32 long rf.

I bought six of the reloadable 32 rimfire cases I could not get them to work for me you may get better results...

 

[rta72]

Thank you for the clarification!

I use a lot of information out of the Frank Barnes book, but some info is just wrong. He states that "the 32 RF Short was first used in Model 1 1/2 and Model 2 S&Ws." This is incorrect since the Model 1 1/2 was not introduced until mid-1865, more than 4 years after the Model 2. He states the same thing in reference to the 32 RF Long, that "it was introduced in 1861 for the Model 2", which is correct.

It's a local book, but those the exact same sentences I wrote about earlier. The book states as reference multiple editions of Barnes Cartridge Of The World and punch of other books. I need to look in to that S&W bible if it would be available here.

Here it is. I paid roughly $600 and I have no idea if it is fair price to pay or not, because I have literally seen zero early smiths for sale in the local market. Hopefully some others would come available in the future. For example model 1. Those early rimfire deringer's would also be extremely interesting, not smiths though I think?

Sorry for the worst lighting conditions ever

 

[glowe]

I do not believe I saw what country you live in, but European prices for vintage S&Ws seem to often be higher than here in the US. I have sold to a few countries in Europe in the past and the buyers had no problems importing antique S&Ws, but am sure some countries have strict import laws. If you can buy from Amazon, just look for the latest reprint of Jinks book and order it. It is available both used and new in the 1996 edition.

$600 might be a little steep here in the US, but not an outrageous price. You might check your country's import laws on antiques for future reference.

 

[mmaher94087]

rta72, the barrel length looks to be 4"; 10.16 CM? If my eyes are correct; that is a rare length for that model and will demand a premium.

 

[glowe]

Mike, I think it is standard 3 1/2". The cylinder of a Model 1 1/2 is about 1 3/16". The barrel length past the extractor rod tip is the same. I tried to compare the cylinder and barrel extension in the OP's picture and they come up being the same.

 

[rta72]

Barrel is 9 cm ~ 3.5" so no luck there. Guess that was fair enough price as I've seen none on the market. Quality seems good for the price.

Importing should be quite straight forward, as antiques are unregulated. The import charge and shipping bring the price up and need to be prepared to prove to the customs that the gun is antique and not "modern" cartridge gun. But need to keep that in mind for future, because you guys have so awesome market for these.

There is an android app for models 1, 1 1/2 and 2 by HLebooks. Any experience on that?

Smith & Wesson revolver Mod. 1 - Apps on Google Play

 

[mmaher94087]

Well, drat! I hoped - but Gary was correct.

 

[rta72]

Is there any other way to get any information from the gun besides the request form to SWHF?

 

[first-model]

Is there any other way to get any information from the gun besides the request form to SWHF?

What else are you looking for?

The major S&W books (Neal and Jinks, McHenry and Roper, Supica and Nahas, etc.) tell much of the history of the Model 1 1/2. And in terms of any specific Model 1 1/2, the factory letter will give you the additional details of when the gun shipped from the factory, who it went to (99% of the time it's to the Storrs / Robinson sales agency in NYC), and possibly the gun's original configuration (barrel length, grips and finish).

Unfortunately, that's the end of the paper trail for most Smith & Wessons from this era, unless there's something else with the gun to give you a clue about where it ended up (engraving, an original sales receipt, etc.).

Mike

 

[rta72]

Mainly I meant that is there anyway how I could search for the info for myself? glowe gave me a estimate on shipping year, but it would be fun to search for the info also by myself. That factory letter would be awesome, but that is little bit steep at the moment (almost $90 with shipping to and from overseas), not saying that it's not worth the money, but need to delay getting it a while.

 

[first-model]

Mainly I meant that is there anyway how I could search for the info for myself? glowe gave me a estimate on shipping year, but it would be fun to search for the info also by myself. That factory letter would be awesome, but that is little bit steep at the moment (almost $90 with shipping to and from overseas), not saying that it's not worth the money, but need to delay getting it a while.

Not really, unfortunately. Many of us have built our own databases of known serial numbers and shipping dates, and by my estimates your gun was probably shipped late in December 1865 or early in January 1866. The problem, of course, is that guns didn't always ship in sequential order of serial number, so you're really at the mercy of the factory's shipping records to know for sure.

Safe money has your gun going to the Storrs / Robinson sales agency in New York, because that's where virtually every gun from this era went. Again, there's a very outside chance that yours was one of the few that didn't, but given that it's not a "fancy" gun (with engraving and such), the chances of it not having gone to Storrs / Robinson is pretty miniscule.

In terms of its original configuration: your gun probably has the 3 1/2" barrel, which was the standard length for a Model 1 1/2. The blued finish and walnut stocks are also very likely factory ... most of the time when the stocks don't match, it's because the distributor swapped them out for fancy stocks (mother of pearl, ivory, etc.). And if you remove your wood stocks, one of them should be stamped on the inside with your gun's serial number. If that matches, then you know that at least one of the grip panels is correct (and the other should match, in terms of wood and finish).

As I'm often reminded when I letter my garden-variety Model 1's, the only real nugget of information I'm going to get is the exact ship date. And candidly, at this point, I'm more interested in having that for my serial number database than I am because of some particular significance to that date.

Probably not the answer you wanted ...

Mike

 

[rta72]

No, that's great info, thank you!

I would also be interested in how the gun ended up in the frozen backcountry of Europe? [emoji16] There have been a lot of Nordic immigrants to U.S. so it is possible it came in someones suitcase. Only sure thing is that it didn't come onboard Titanic. [emoji57]

I don't know how many of model 1 1/2 were exported out of U.S. and did that retailer you mentioned also do exporting.

That factory letter will be interesting to get some day.

 

[first-model]

I would also be interested in how the gun ended up in the frozen backcountry of Europe? [emoji16] There have been a lot of Nordic immigrants to U.S. so it is possible it came in someones suitcase. Only sure thing is that it didn't come onboard Titanic. [emoji57]

I don't know how many of model 1 1/2 were exported out of U.S. and did that retailer you mentioned also do exporting.

I don't believe that foreign orders were all that unusual. And I believe that the sales agent (Storrs / Robinson) would have handled the foreign shipping and such.

It's worth noting that the "sales agent" back then was responsible for the distribution of manufactured goods. Arranging for the transportation of goods and the reciprocal movement of moneys was not nearly as easy as it is now, especially when goods were going overseas, or even across the country to then-backwoods places like California and Oregon. I suspect most manufacturing companies like Smith & Wesson were happy to outsource this; it freed them to concentrate on just making the guns.

Mike

 

[rta72]

Thank you Mike for the info!

Sorry to go into basics, but are modern solvents safe to use to clean the bore and cylinder chambers?

I got Hoppe's no. 9 and Bore Tech Carbon Remover. I think the latter should be as it is ammonia free and I don't even know if ammonia is harmful to old metals? Bore Tech is more user friendly, but Hoppes might be more effective as carbon remover might not even be most suited for the task.

Is brass/bronze brushes safe to use?

One question more.

How tight the lock up when cylinder is in battery should be? Rock solid? No play at all? On longitudinal axis it has no play, but on rotational axis a tiny bit of wiggle, but so has all my modern revolvers too, this has maybe tiny bit more but it's 160 years old.

Edit. Actually just tinkered with a bit and noticed that when you press the trigger keeping hammer cocked it becomes virtually rock solid, but no idea if it has anything to do with anything.

 

[first-model]

Sorry to go into basics, but are modern solvents safe to use to clean the bore and cylinder chambers?

I got Hoppe's no. 9 and Bore Tech Carbon Remover. I think the latter should be as it is ammonia free and I don't even know if ammonia is harmful to old metals? Bore Tech is more user friendly, but Hoppes might be more effective as carbon remover might not even be most suited for the task.

Is brass/bronze brushes safe to use?

One question more.

How tight the lock up when cylinder is in battery should be? Rock solid? No play at all? On longitudinal axis it has no play, but on rotational axis a tiny bit of wiggle, but so has all my modern revolvers too, this has maybe tiny bit more but it's 160 years old.

Edit. Actually just tinkered with a bit and noticed that when you press the trigger keeping hammer cocked it becomes virtually rock solid, but no idea if it has anything to do with anything.

In my experience it's pretty normal for the lockup to tighten when the trigger is pulled. My preference is for there to be absolutely no wiggle at all, but I'm also not a gunsmith so I'd defer to others on this.

I use Hoppe's Number 9 on my antique guns when I clean them. I try to be very light in my cleanings of my antique guns, but I do use a standard bronze bore brush.

The residue from the old blackpowder ammo was quite corrosive, so it's not unusual to see a lot of pitting in the bores of these old guns.

Mike

 

[rta72]

The residue from the old blackpowder ammo was quite corrosive, so it's not unusual to see a lot of pitting in the bores of these old guns.

Mike

I suppose that small amount of pitting inside the bore doesn't really make a difference?

 

[rta72]

Now to the use of dreaded smokeless powder loads in these revolvers. I have gone through probably 500 to 1000 rounds of Navy Arms 32 Long and Short ammo back when it was available without issue. Plus I have shot every one of the guns pictured below. Have about 400 rounds left, plus a goal of shooting it ALL up before I get too old to see the sights. In case people think this is foolhardy, I have chronographed both original black powder loads and Navy Arms rounds to find that, while original 32 RF Long ran about 650 fps and Shorts were about 550 fps. Navy Arms ammo ran at 532 fps for Long and 425 fps for Shorts. That is about a 20% reduction in speed, which should equate to pretty mild pressures for the Navy Arms loads.

Being curious that was that Navy Arms 32 RF smokeless ammo made to be used in these old blackpowder guns? Or was there some gun chambered for 32 RF in the post blackpowder era?

 

[first-model]

I suppose that small amount of pitting inside the bore doesn't really make a difference?

It affects the value to a collector. That said, it's pretty hard to find one of these antiques with a perfect bore, and if you do the rest of the gun is probably also in mint condition ...

Mike