Does this Gun Use Black Powder or Smokeless Powder? Dating H&R .32 Cal. Vest Pocket

[MackHR]

Hello All,

Would greatly appreciate help in properly dating the production period (FIRST Model or SECOND Model period) for my H&R .32 Cal. Vest Pocket Safety Hammer Revolver.

For "SAFETY" reasons, I want to know what type of ammunition that I would load into this gun. I want to know if this either a "Black Powder Only" First Model gun or a later produced Second Model that shoot .32 cal. S&W short "smokless" cartridges.

If it is a First Model, where do I buy black powder cartridges for it?

If it is a Second Model, what .32 S&W cal. low power smokeless cartridges do you recommend to "safely" shoot in the gun without it suffering metal fatigue that would lead to an explosion of the revolver chamber ultimately?

This is a "VERY SMALL" antique gun meant for CCW only. It has no sights of any sort on it. The gun appears as though it was never fired. It is in excellent condition for its age I would say.

IDENTIFYING MARKINGS:

There no markings as to what caliber it is, but I know it is a .32 caliber weapon.

On the "butt" of the gun is engraved (see pictures):

H. & R. Arms Co.
Worcester. Mass. U.S.A.

On the inner strap of the handle is engraved a SIX DIGIT number (numbers only, No Letters).

On top of gun is engraved:

VEST POCKET
SAFETY HAMMER

As one can only know the "period" produced as older antique H&R weapons are hard to date, I hope the info I provided would be enough for H&R collectors, etc. to properly date a production period for the gun, so I know whether it is "black powder only" or the later "smokeless powder" type weapon.

Thanks to you all!

I have posted on several sites to try to obtain a definitive answer for obvious safety reasons. Thanks again.

[JDA58]

http://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.php?t=240280

check out this to see if it will help

[Gunsnwater]

If it was shot and it is black powder only, it would not look that good. Don't go on that advise alone, but it's a good bet.

[knight0334]

It is a "Vest Pocket, Safety Hammer, 2nd Model Medium Frame". Which means it is a smokeless model, made between 1905 and 1941. Since it doesn't have a letter at the beginning of serial number it is a 1905 to 1939 production with no way to narrow it to which year.


It is chambered in .32S&W - the short one. Remington still loads .32S&W. I use it in my daily pocket revolver - a 1915 production Hammerless Small Frame.

If the timing is correct, it locks up good, the bore and chambers are nice = it is worth about $170.


Since Bill Goforth, James Hauff(32 Magnum), and James Ritchie(jamesjo), the only vetted H&R historians, have passed away, I have been trying to fill their shoes on H&R. I'll answer what all I can here and at thefirearmsforum.com.

[MackHR]

Thank you all for your comments and expert info thus far. It's greatly appreciated!!!

As to serial number, I posted a photo of the number visible (I'm not sure if this a re-used by the Company a serial number or production lot number). I got a comment that there is a serial number under the handle grips. Should I remove the grips (as they're old/fragile) or is the six digit number (whatever it actually is from the Company back then) engraved on the inner handle strap sufficient to identify it either as a "black powder" or "smokeless powder" gun?

To help identify even further (I'm concerned about safety), is this "EXACT" engraved identification used only on post 1905 models and not before 1905? I received a comment that "Made in U.S.A." was placed on the butts of these .32 Vest Pocket Safety Hammer revolvers later in manufacture probably post 1920's. I am ignorant in these details obviously and need your kind help.

Any further comments would be appreciated.

Thanks to all.

[knight0334]

What makes yours a 2nd model is that the manufacturers name and address is on the butt of the gun instead of the top strap. That model right there is one of the few made after 1905 that doesn't have the caliber stamped on it because the barrel was too short. 99% of all other 1905 and later H&R's had the caliber stamped on them to denote their smokeless proofing. Any 1905 & later H&R with a longer barrel that would allow a caliber stamping, but doesn't have the stamping, would still be a blackpowder gun.

And with that serial number and the address on that gun, and the condition, I'd guess it was a later production.


Serial numbers before 1940 with H&R guns means pretty much nothing.

The late 1890's had some lettered serial numbers, but they are only for supportive evidence when ID'ing the model and variation. The only ones pre-1940 that matter are the Sportsmans where "D" means Double Action and "S" means Single Action.

When ID'ing H&R revolvers prior to 1940, here is what we look for:

1. Patent dates
2. Types of grips
3. caliber stamp
4. locations of manufacturer name and address
5. barrel type
6. number of chambers
7. location of a certain pin on the solid frame guns
8. receiver finish type
9. trigger guard finish type
10. revolver type(break top/solid frame)

[MackHR]

Thank you most kindly for the further clarification of this pistol being a "smokeless powder" gun. I am VERY grateful!!!!

Now that I have pistol identified for the proper type of ammo it uses, I will bring it to a gunsmith to check it out to assure that it is mechanically safe to fire. If it is not safe to fire (or cannot be fixed if need be), then I'll have at the least a really nice example of an H&R earlier pistol in any event.

I have no experience with early weapons like this. A safety concern I have is the "free" rotation of the cylinder for the gunsmith to address. When dry fired, the cylinder appears to lock properly aligning cylinder chamber with the barrel.

When the gun is in its normal carry state (trigger not touched at all), the cylinder rotates clockwise freely (viewed from the rear of the gun). Not knowing about this model at all (I am ignorant generally of most weapons, not all though), I would think there would be some type of "catch or detent" that would only allow the cylinder to advance one cartridge/chamber space at a time and not simply be "rolled" clockwise. The gun may be meant to be like this originally as the side "open" single port to load shells and eject spent shells "one at a time" is on the right side of the gun. On the few recent production revolvers I've handled -- they are not like this. These new ones were the type where cylinder is released from the frame and swings out by a button to load or empty spent brass. This H&R requires removal of the pin to get the cylinder out free from the frame.

From the rear of the gun when I rotate the cylinder "counter clockwise", the cylinder rotates back sometimes approximately 1/4 inch or maybe about 1/2 to almost 3/4 inch. It's not consistent. I do feel the "pin or lever" inside the frame that causes the cylinder to rotate clockwise when a shell is fired and advance the next round to be fired. It's my uneducated guess that it is this mechanism that is stopping the cylinder from rotating freely "counter clockwise", whereas the cylinder rotates freely "clockwise" when the trigger is NOT touched.

Any comments you care to make would be appreciated.

Thanks once again for your kindness!!!

[MackHR]

Forgot to mention another reason why I'm concerned with the apparently kind of "free" rotation of the cylinder. Not knowing better about the gun discussed here, if I decided to carry it, I'd want the hammer on an empty chamber if the gun is dropped accidentally.

Especially with some old (and perhaps newer, I'm not an expert here) "single action" revolvers, those who carried left a chamber empty for the hammer to rest on in case the gun was accidentally dropped resulting in an unwanted discharge of the weapon.

The notion of the "safety hammer" in the H&R's design appears to be (again, I'm ignorant here) first, was for easy draw of the double-action weapon (not snagging on clothing). Second, less chance of the weapon discharging if dropped, because the hammer was beveled close to the frame of the weapon. I don't know if H&R had a third safety beyond what I've described that would "stop" the hammer from hitting a live round in the chamber if dropped over a hundred years ago.

Put another way, I don't know if H&R way back then had an addition "safety design" built into the gun I don't know about. For example, currently made North American Arms single action mini .22 cal revolvers have a "notch" cut into the cylinder "between" chambers for the hammer to rest on when carried, so as "NOT" to have the hammer resting on a chambered round in the cylinder.

I don't know about my .32 cal. H&R I've posted about here how to handle the safety factor of not having a live round under a hammer if dropped. Perhaps the gunsmith or a forum expert like yourself may have some thoughts.

Thank you!

[knight0334]

Look at the locking notches on the cylinder... There isn't a lockup groove for the cylinder lock to engage for BOTH directions. So, it will rotate one direction when the pawl(lever) isn't engaging the ratchet. On that type of cylinder notch the cylinder lock can only lock rotation in one direction. That design uses the pawl(lever) to lock it from the opposite direction.

The more modern design has an additional groove cut in to use the cylinder lock to engage from both directions, alleviating the pawl(lever) from the duty of lockup.

[knight0334]

The "Safety" aspect was the Double Action only feature(although many did have the sear notch on the hammer for single action shooting. And the spurless hammer.