Iver Johnson Model 67 Viking

[tinkerpearce]

Finally got my Iver Johnson Model 67S Viking working.  An internet pal sent me a link to the cylinder I needed so I could fix it, and it works a treat now.

 
The cylinder is actually for a Model 66 Trailsman, and it dropped right in.  Curious, I looked up the Model 66, and I'll be darned if I can tell the difference between it and the Model 67.  Information about these guns is surprisingly hard to come by on the internet. It seems that both guns were available in .22LR, .32 S&W Long and .38 S&W.  One claim I found was that the Viking was made from 1958-1974, and another source said they were made until 1975.  Any information would be appreciated.

It's kind of amazing to me in that all the wide internet there is no Iver Johnson Forum, or even a Facebroke page!

[alukban]

I am in love with that gun!

I love me the oddballs

[jeffh]

Such a shame the old "cheap" guns have gone defunct. The top-break models especially appeal.

How many times have I turned my own nose up at these little cuties at gun shows and in seemingly endless numbers, like "ALICE clips" and beer can pull-tabs - everywhere you once looked. Not so much these days.

They always seemed to be between $45 and $75 and in a shallow glass display case with various old, severely battered coins, beaten and rusty slip-joints with receding celluloid scales, a campaign button or two for people you've never heard of and always - ALWAYS a promotional bottle opener or two for the local feed store or "Bob's Marathon."

The beauty of these little guns was lost on me, and I believe two things were at play; 1) that they were not overly powerful and 2) that they were always very carefully and deliberately displayed with various over-valued whimsy. "That guy" was at every show - EVERY show - I'd EVER been to, from the time I was a teen until now, just shy of 60. I couldn't tell you what he looked like either, or whether he was fifty different guys, the same guy, old, young - or even not a guy at all. I could never make eye contact for fear of giving away the mild contempt I felt, or betraying the embarrassment I felt for some poor coot who seemed to have fallen asleep in 1899 and had just woken the morning of the show.

Now, I feel that embarrassment for myself for not having had the sense to appreciate the fine machining, intricacy and detail - ATTENTION to detail.... We couldn't build these guns to day. I have a soft spot for H&R, High Standard, Iver Johnson pistols - in my heart. I HAD a "soft spot" in my HEAD in my younger days when I ignored them when they were more plentiful and very inexpensive.

Very cool little revolver there, Tinker.

[oddshooter]

Yup, I like those top break H&R's. Last year I picked up a mint one in 32 H&R magnum. She functions well and looks like new. It is a fun gun, but I couldn't imagine shooting my hot .32mags in it. It just doesn't "feel" like it could withstand too much battering.   It makes tons of sense now why so many factory rounds are under-powered.   My Rugers and 
Dan Wessons are like tanks in comparison.

I picked it up because I've kinda fallen for the 32 H&R mag; even a little more even than the 327 federal magnum.    I thought it might be cool shooting the gun from the company that brought us that FINE caliber.


Prescut

[jgt]

I seriously doubt I will ever rise to the awareness level to appreciate them. So feel free to take my share.

[oddshooter]

Yep, my H&R design is kinda ugly and very angular (squared edges). It was just too funky to pass up; and the price was right.

Prescut

[tinkerpearce]

Nov 21, 2020 11:10:59 GMT -5 jgt said:

I seriously doubt I will ever rise to the awareness level to appreciate them. So feel free to take my share.

This one is certainly the most inelegant top-break I own; it seems like an almost random collection of lines, angles and curves flying in loose formation; I find it a bit ugly actually.  Nonetheless It's interesting to me as one of the last center-fire production top-breaks made in America, and when it was offered I snapped it up.  Next I'll be looking for an H&R Defender .38 S&W to go with it.  The Viking shoots quite well in single action; the double action trigger is not bad at all, but I have big, meaty hands and the hammer-spur hits my hand when firing double-action, which makes accuracy more challenging.  My target at seven yards is acceptable I suppose, but with my better guns I shoot targets like this rapid-fire and this was not rapid-fire.

 
I'm never going to love this gun; to me the interest is simply in the history of it and seeing what was available in the shallow end of the pond.

[x101airborne]

Tinker, I guess it is like Steam Punk and Blacksmithing. I have even done some small art projects just cause I liked it, not because it was practical.
I still have a H&R swing out cylinder 38 S&W that I dont know why I still have it. Once you close the cylinder it wont fire the first time I attempt to, but the second chamber will fire and every round after. Open the cylinder and it does it every time.
I still think history is the best and always appreciate something cool.

[jeffh]

Nov 21, 2020 12:29:39 GMT -5 tinkerpearce said:

Nov 21, 2020 11:10:59 GMT -5 jgt said:

This one is certainly the most inelegant top-break I own; it seems like an almost random collection of lines, angles and curves flying in loose formation; I find it a bit ugly actually...............

There are a lot of ugly guns.  I'm not talking "Glock-Ugly," I'm talking no reason in the world for BEING ugly - ugly.  Charter Arms' revolvers started out with what I consider a "classic" revolver aesthetic in the first stint.  The stuff they make today has some definite ugly issues which are not inherent to the design - just cheap.

I'm a Charter fan too though, so my tastes in pretty guns is not going to be nearly as refined as that of most of you.

The machining and workmanship in a lot of these old guns is what I'm fond of.  Even the "cheap" stuff had a good finish on it.