Choosing a 32 s&w long breaktop

[psweigle]

I have found several old break tops within 50 miles of me and I am wondering what the wise men of this forum would recommend. I'm looking for the "ruger Blackhawk" of the era, and yes, I know that all of them are pretty week, I'm just wondering if there is one manufacturer and model that is better built than the rest. Any help would be appreciated.

[Outpost75]

S&W New Departure Safety Hammerless. Collectible quality.

[Walkingwolf]

You are not going to find a Ruger tough breaktop from that era. You may find shootable, or collectable, but not Ruger strong.

[psweigle]

You are not going to find a Ruger tough breaktop from that era. You may find shootable, or collectable, but not Ruger strong.

I'm well aware, just looking for one that is tougher than the others. I'm pretty sure that there are people here that have had or do have revolvers and can point me to the more stout.

[psweigle]

S&W New Departure Safety Hammerless. Collectible quality.
I'm not sure, but I think there may be one of those available. What makes this model more stout than the others?

[Outpost75]

I'm not sure, but I think there may be one of those available. What makes this model more stout than the others?

Later ones after about 1930 were heat treated.

[rintinglen]

The top of the line, Hammer-the hammer- derived Iver-Johnson guns of post WWI manufacture are not bad guns of the type and would be much cheaper than a S&W. Steer clear of the older BP H&R guns-the cylinder lock up on those that I have seen is terrible. However, the 999 Sportsman 22s are pretty good guns, especially the 1930's guns. I would also make sure that the gun was in fact chambered for the 32 S&W Long, not the 32 S&W.
I have a 38 S&W breaktop Mnfrd. by Forehand, IIRC, that My Grandfather carried during his brief period of service as a Township Constable, sometime in the late 20's early thirties. The trigger pull is something enormous, yet it is reasonably accurate, if you can work through the stiff trigger.

[psweigle]

There is an Iver Johnson 3" break top 32 s&w long for sale at a LGS just over the mountain from me, what are the things, other than the standard revolver stuff, that I should look for?

[gwpercle]

I would prefer a real Smith & Wesson , the Iver Johnson's and others were made to sell cheaper than S&W , sometimes the materials and craftsmanship (hand fitting) were not as good as S&W.
More S&W's were made and finding replacement parts is easier.
The S&W Double Action 4th model top break I have is well made and fitted.
What to look for ? Wear , loose parts , when slowly cocking does the cylinder lock up properly, lots of blue, rust in the barrel, does the action open and close smoothly, does the ejection mechanism work properly. Will the gun fire. That's mostly it !
Gary

[psweigle]

Thanks Gary, I figured a s&w would most likely be a stronger action. How does yours shoot? I have a pretty good stock pile of brass, so what boolit and weight are you using?

[psweigle]

Later ones after about 1930 were heat treated.

So I would want the third model or newer, correct?

[Hickory]

1949 is as far back you'll go on any Rugers, but you'll not find a 32 of any sort from Ruger until 1981.

[Drm50]

Smokeless powder era break tops are all junk except the S&Ws. H&Rs, Iver Johnson and many
lesser known makes at the turn of Century were sold by the thousands, Saturday Night Specials.
There were a lot less S&Ws sold, that's why they are high priced today. The only break top that
is stronger are the Brit. Webleys. H&R and IJ made these pistols under many different labels and
store brands. H&R had connections with Webley in early 1900s.

[bouncer50]

I have never seen a I J or H R top break in 32 long but i seen a lot of them in 32 short. The 32 long would be to long in the shorter cylinder.

[psweigle]

This is why I like this forum. I knew there had to be someone who shots them and can stater me in the right direction.

[ikarus1]

So I would want the third model or newer, correct?
My 3rd model 38s&w was made in 1890s but it locks up great and shoots straight with factory smokeless ammo.
I would recommend it

[psweigle]

Showed you how little I know, I thought the 3rd models were from the 1930's. Is it chambered in 32s&w long?

[Harry O]

I shot a bunch of "suicide specials" or "Saturday-night specials" that I was given when I was young (over a period of several years). Most of them broke very quickly. Not the barrel or cylinder, but the small parts; bolts, levers, springs, top-break-locks, etc. When that happened, it was not worth fixing.

When it comes to break tops, all of them are a step above the bottom of the line, but there are variable quality even in them. The ones that have a solid frame (don't break-top or side-break) and you have to remove the cylinder to reload are the bottom of the line. Stay away from these. One very obvious thing to look for is the notches in the cylinder. A better gun will have a half-round notch for the bolt that is DEEPER than the tapered groove leading up to it (look at a new revolver to see what I mean). There are plenty of old ones that do NOT have a separate notch. The groove just ends with no place for the bolt to lock. These are made to be shot double action and the momentum of the cylinder is supposed to keep it in correct time. However, the cylinders will actually bounce back after hitting the end of the tapered groove. Guns with this feature are very bad. Expect them to spit lead sideways. Stay away from them. Also look for looseness in the top-break latch. They should be VERY tight, even difficult to move. I had one (in .32 S&W) that was a little loose. Fairly quickly, the gun would unlatch upon firing and eject the case over my head. It was impossible for me to tighten the latch. so that was the end of that. Cheap guns were not made to be fired. They were made to be loaded and put in a bedroom drawer that was easy to get to quickly from bed. Many of the ones I had had the blueing worn off on one side and looked brand new on the other side.

I probably went through close to a dozen cheap guns. All but one broke fairly quickly. The only one I still have from that time period is a S&W Model 1883 double-action (although it is in .38 S&W rather than .32 Long). After about 135 years, it is still working. I think that says something about the quality of the design, material, and workmanship of S&W.

[psweigle]

Thank you sir for a world of good information. So, it looks like I'm going to be trying to find a s&w at this point. Many local shops in my area to look through.

[Harry O]

One thing I forgot. Check the chambers in the cylinder closely. The cheap guns bored them straight through. They will not be the least bit accurate unless you shoot them with a hollow-base bullet. Better guns have an easy-to-see line around the chamber, near the front of it (the throat) signifying a smaller diameter section to start the bullet straight. That, along with the type of notches on the outside of the cylinder will separate the cheap ones from the better ones.

Like I said before, I never had one of the revolvers let go violently. I did have a small single-shot derringer that blew out the side of the chamber. It was for .22 rimfire, did not have any sights, was a smooth-bore and the hole was visibly bored off-center. It was made in Spain. It was not really the guns fault. I later found out it was made for .22 Short cartridges (it was only stamped .22 though). I was shooting .22LR in it. Being a smoothbore, they fit. Eventually, the thin side blew out. It was a non-event. Surprisingly, I could hit empty pop cans thrown out about 15 feet or so with it. By sighting down the barrel at an imaginary point about 6" to 9" in front of the can and about a foot to the left, it would hit the can about half the time. It would usually penetrate the front, but the bullet would get caught in the can, failing to penetrate the far side. Of course, this was a steel can, not aluminum. It was fun while it lasted.

[psweigle]

I will make sure I look for the cylander throat.