The Firearms Forum banner

Iver Johnson Model 1900 22 cal

7K views 30 replies 4 participants last post by  Mark Huton 
#1 · (Edited)
Hi TFFers, newbie to posting here, I have a technical question. My gun had no letter code so it's a black powder model but I'm wondering what parts were strengthened in order to allow them to fire smokeless ammo post 1909. I'm thinking the cylinder for sure and possibly the barrel. Numrich has both for sale but the cylinder is listed as a Type 1. I wanted to know what Type 1 meant (it sounds like it would be BP because they made those first, but not everything makes sense) so I spoke to a customer service rep, he didn't seem to know much. I know that it's unlikely I'm the first to think of swapping out parts to make these guns work with smokeless so it may not be possible. But I figured it wouldn't hurt to see if anyone knew for sure. Thanks in advance. Mark
 
#2 ·
Hi Mark. Welcome to TFF. I'd say the frame and cylinder were beefed up. Sounds like you're plan may be to swap the cylinder to make it safe for smokeless. That ain't gonna work and is a good way to come up a finger or two short. I'm not sure about the 1900 but I know in the Top Break Safety Hammerless the cylinders are completely different in the way they secure to the frame. How about a picture or two.......good ones, so we can see what you have there?
 
#3 ·
Thanks for your reply Firpo. What you say makes sense but I'm wondering if (since it's a 22) that was actually done. There's probably not too many people still alive that could say with certainty but I'm hoping to find out for sure. Because even if the cylinders available through Gun Parts are for BP, I might be able to find a parts gun that's post-1909. I really like this little jewel, lightweight, 7 rounds and want to at least use it for a snake gun if nothing else.

I'm a bit behind the curve in terms of posting pics-still have a flip phone. But it's in fairly good shape for a black powder gun, most of the ones I've seen online look pretty pitted. The cylinder pin is broken off though, and the part that's left revolves with the cylinder so they're probably rusted together.
It's been doused with Kroil and I'm deciding how far I want to go with it. If I were able to retrofit it to fire smokeless rounds it would be worth messing with the pin. My neighbor looked at it and said we might be able to knock out the pin from the back if we took off the hammer. (he's a machinist)
On a slightly different subject, I've seen a recommendation on TFF (by Shrek73 if memory serves) that only CB ammo be shot through these BP guns, but was wondering (if I'm unable to retrofit it to fire smokeless rounds) if .22LR shotshells could be fired? In particular the Federal shotshells that open up as opposed to the CCI. My thinking is they might not develop that much back pressure since there's not a solid bullet mass to create it. Pure conjecture on my part, so any knowledge/educated opinions on that subject would be appreciated.
 
#4 ·
The model 1900 is a solid frame, most of the Black Powder frame references are for the top break actions. Pictures of the revolver would be really helpful. The Model 1900 didn't change in design during its 41 years of production.

There was a Type I made till 1917 and a Type II that was made from 1918-1941, but that only refers to the stampings.

I believe the types cylinder NUMRICH is referring to are fluted and non-fluted.

What is the full serial number under the grip?
 
#6 ·
The model 1900 is a solid frame, most of the Black Powder frame references are for the top break actions. Pictures of the revolver would be really helpful. The Model 1900 didn't change in design during its 41 years of production.

There was a Type I made till 1917 and a Type II that was made from 1918-1941, but that only refers to the stampings.

I believe the types cylinder NUMRICH is referring to are fluted and non-fluted.

What is the full serial number under the grip?
The serial number under the grip is 5321 with no letter code. I think it might have been made in 1900. The cylinder is fluted and the top strap says "DOUBLE ACTION MODEL 1900" with no address. I'll see if I can get one of my friends to take a pic and upload it.
 
#8 ·
It is a Type I and was made in 1900, the first year of production.

Nobody can tell if your revolver would be safe to shoot by photos alone. Modern .22lr ammo far exceeds what was produced when this revolver was designed and manufactured. I would still recommend .22 cb or subsonic .22 shorts if you want to fire it. Remember it is over 117 years old and you have no idea what the previous owner had put thru it.
 
#9 ·
Thanks for the info Shrek, it's good advice.

Is there anyone who can tell me which parts were strengthened in the I.J. Model 1900 when they went from black powder to smokeless powder? As Shrek noted, the Model 1900 didn't change in design during it's 41 years of production. It's possible that they used stronger metals in every part of the post 1909 guns, that they only strengthened some parts, or that they changed nothing. My guess would be the second choice. It'd be even better if they changed nothing, but that's unlikely.
 
#10 ·
Found a few more pieces to the puzzle.

I talked to a guy about my gun today and he said that in order to shoot smokeless in the Model 1900, I.J. changed the cylinder and the internal parts. And that they gave the barrel a rifled bore. He sounded like he knew what he was talking about and it made sense to me because my bore is smooth (unrifled) and the frames of the various BP and smokeless guns that I've seen seemed to look the same.

But then I came across this old TFF thread:
https://www.thefirearmsforum.com/threads/iver-johnson-model-1900-7-shot-22.82138/
In it Mr. Goforth writes:
"I.J. MODEL 1900 SECOND MODEL (SMOKELESS POWDER)---------1909-1941
Exact same specifications as the First Model except cylinder and internal parts hardened for smokeless powder loads and as listed below."
Which agrees with what I'd heard, but the first poster in that thread (with the smokeless gun) provided pictures and the top of his revolver looks slightly different that my 1900-year- made gun. I was able to take a pic of my gun and so anyone can compare them and see that my BP gun has an opening in front of the hammer whereas the later model smokeless gun in this thread does not.

Leather Material property Metal Architecture Ceiling
 
#11 ·
The fact that there's a difference between my BP gun and the one in the older thread lends some credence to Firpo's idea that the frame was "beefed up" when the switch was made to smokeless powder. OTOH my gun is the first year of production and the other example was said to be made in 1941 so it's possible that the change in the frames was made a little (or even a long) time after 1909. I'm going to keep my eyes out for any pics of the top of an early smokeless gun, say the period between 1909 and 1920. If anyone else has access to pics of the top of a Model 1900 22 cal in that year range, please post them. Thanks, M
 
#13 ·
Shrek,

A friend of mine who is knowledgable about guns was skeptical that it wouldn't have rifling.
Then after I saw a old post where someone said that their BP 1900 had weird rifling, I was wondering if I'd been able to see down into the barrel well enough with my flashlight. Between my old eyes and the cylinder being stuck in the gun (because the pin is broken off) I couldn't get a real good look. But I plan to take it apart this week (with the help of my machinist friend) and get a better look at what I've got to work with.

I really appreciate your input, and particularly your advice to be cautious with these old BP guns.
 
#15 ·
Thanks RJay, hopefully I'll be able to get a better look at it after I get the cylinder out.
I see you're from Goodyear, my parents used to live there in the 90's and I was just there last month visiting my sister in PHX-it sure has grown out to the west there.
 
#16 ·
We got the gun all apart last week, other than separating the barrel from the frame. Soaked everything in gasoline for a few days and took a brush to the pieces. Then for a few days I left everything in a pie plate in the sun to evaporate out the gas fumes. (still a little smell though) When I get an hour or two I'll do a more thorough cleaning. Now that the cylinder is out I can clearly see (as RJay said) rifling in the barrel. I bought another cylinder on ebay (from a later smokeless gun) and the last cylinder pin that Numrich had for this model. Once it's all back together I plan to shoot only CB shorts in it , that is unless and until I could assure myself that the frame wasn't changed between the BP and smokeless guns and I can replace all the internal parts in my BP gun with smokeless ones. If I did that I would use it for a snake gun and shoot LR shot shells through it. But, as it is, that doesn't seem prudent. CCI says their 22LR shot shells push 31 grains of #12 down a (I'm assuming rifle) barrel at 1000 fps whereas their 29 grain 22 CB shorts are only going 710 fps at the muzzle.
 
#17 ·
I recommend a penetrating oil or Kroil the next time you want to soak a gun. It is definalty safer than using gasoline. It would seem that you have gone thru a lot of unnecessary steps for this project. Also consider this revolver is over 110 years old. It will not stand up to much abuse.

As I mentioned before, Bill Goforth's book states the difference between a Type I and Type II was the stampings on the top strap. The Type I was made till 1917, and Iver Johnson switched to smokeless top breaks in 1909. Smokeless powder was introduced in the early 1900's, and it does not make any sense that they would wait another eight years to strengthen their Model 1900 frames.

Numrich has Type I and Type II Cylinders, and the only difference appears to be that the Type I is fluted. The solid frame US Revolvers were essentially the same as the Model 1900, except the had the round barrel and non-fluted cylinders. US Revolver and Model 1900 parts are interchangeable, which leads me to believe the Type II they list on Numrich actually refers to US Revolvers.
 
#18 ·
Thanks Shrek. I especially appreciated your thoughts on smokeless powder and the 1900 frames and the interchangeability of US Rev. Co. solid frame parts with the 1900.

I looked through the old postings on TFF and found one about a US Revolver Co. gun that I think is the solid frame equivalent of the 1900. It's "drills" post with an answer by b.goforth Here it is:
https://www.thefirearmsforum.com/threads/22-cal-us-revolver-co.42847/

This particular part of Mr. Goforth's answer especially caught my eye, "this revolver small frame 22 rimfire u.s. roevolver co. double action serial number D49628 was manufactured in 1930, there were 3,000 of this model manufactured that year. it is entirely safe with modern 22 short or long standard velocity ammo, i would not fire 22 long rifle ammo in it." because it definitively answered my question about using 22LR ammo in these guns. It appears to tell me that in the opinion of one of the foremost authorities on Iver Johnson firearms, even in the guns made for smokeless powder, it's not a good idea to fire 22LR bullets.

Here's a webpage that might interest some readers, it shows the development and availability of the Winchester 22 cartridges in the late 19th and 20th centuries:
http://22box-id.com/USA/Winchester.pdf

The "HISTORY" section in the beginning shines a light into how many different types of 22 cartridges were being sold during the first 2 or 3 decades of the 20th century. I also found this interesting note at the top of the second page of the "RED AND GREEN SMOKELESS Issues section:
"Also, why are .22 Long Rifles not yet known to exist. They seem to have been manufactured in the 1905 thru 1915 period."

So, within the period between 1900 and the 1940's when the I.J. Model 1900 was produced, there were evidently a lot of changes in 22 ammo. Consequently there would have been a whole range of possible choices of bullets to put in these guns. And as far as I can see, my gun doesn't even say 22 cal. on it, much less 22LR.

Does anyone know of any small, lightweight 22LR double-action revolvers that are reasonably priced? The S&W 317 is nice but very costy and the NAA mini-revolvers are everything I'm looking for except DA.

Even though I can't fire LR's in it, there's a lot to like about the 1900, and having taken it apart gives me even more appreciation for it.
 
#20 ·
That's a neat looking piece, thanks for sharing Shrek. Excellent photo too. It gives me another IJ series to be on the lookout for. Being in California, the only options we have are private party transfers or consignments at a dealer, which limits what's available with these older guns. For those more fortunate, I just saw a Cadet 55S-A on ** in 22mag. No grips, but otherwise it looks like it could be a good little shooter.
 
#25 ·
OK, back to the Model 1900. I went to the PO Box today and picked up 2 packages. The first one was from Numrich/Gun Parts Co. and it was the cylinder pin that I spoke of earlier in this thread. The second package contained a cylinder that the eBay seller says is from a smokeless 1900. When I got home I opened both packages and proceeded to insert the pin into the cylinder.
But the pin was too big/cylinder center hole too small. So then I tried to put the smokeless cylinder into my BP frame but it was too big to go in. Then I put the new pin into my old cylinder (the one that came with my gun) and it fit perfectly. It makes sense that IJ might make the smokeless parts incompatible with the earlier BP guns. But in looking at the Numrich parts for the 1900, no distinction is made between BP and smokeless parts. And in my research I've never come across any reference to incompatibility. I'll be calling the eBay seller tomorrow to check that he's 100% positive the cylinder came from a M1900. But in the meantime, does anyone know for sure if a M1900 made in the year 1900 should, or should not, have compatibility issues with smokeless parts (in particular the cylinder)? Thanks
 
#27 ·
Here's a pic of the two cylinders side by side (smokeless on the right). The BP one is very sightly larger in circumference and the length of the main body front to back is actually the same, but the protrusions on both ends (is there a name for these?) are longer in the smokeless. The longer protrusions make it so the cylinder will not fit into the frame.
Metal Cylinder Glass Silver
 
#28 ·
Just got off the phone with my eBay seller and explained the situation. He said he's got a bunch of different cylinders of different lengths and to just send the one he sold me back with the dimensions for the one I have.

The seller could have been mistaken that he sold me a M1900 cylinder (although he seemed pretty certain about the fact that it was for an I.J. M1900 smokeless).

Is the difference between BP and smokeless metal readily apparent? The two I have sure look different, but that's too small a sample from which to draw a general conclusion.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top