British Contract .455 Eley Triple Lock Revolver

[Von der Goltz]

Here for your perusal is my S&W British contract Triple lock revolver serial number 4367 still in original .455 Eley chambering. I've sent off for the S&W Letter of Authenticity so should have shipping data in a few months.


British Military Broad Arrow property mark and inspection mark

cylinder shows serial number and British Military proof mark

 

[mcb]

Local gun shop had one of those a bit over a year ago. It was in spectacular shape, I almost bought it but the conversation of 455 brought out the fact that they also had a Webley Mark VI in the back. I ended up buying the 1916 Webley. Had I bought both the first thing shot with either would have been me by the wife.

 

[UncleEd]

I ended up buying the 1916 Webley. Had I bought both the first thing shot with either would have been me by the wife.

Aw. she loves you. I'm sure it would have only been a flesh wound.
And the two of you would laugh about it in years to come.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

When I first got into collecting S&W revolvers, my holy grail revolver was a Triple Lock, but they were all way out of my price range.

So I started looking for a 44 Hand Ejector, 2nd Model, the successor to the Triple Lock.

It did not take too long to find this one:





To those unfamiliar with this model, the 2nd Model did away with the legendary 3rd Latch of the 44 Hand Ejector 1st Model, the Triple Lock. Notice there is no massive underlug on the 2nd Model, which is what housed the 3rd latch. This was done to make the revolver simpler to manufacture, and allowed S&W to drop the price of the 2nd Model to $19, as opposed to the $21 price of the Triple Lock.

Anyway, shortly after I bought my 44 Hand Ejector I noticed some discrepancies.

The knurled knob on the front of the ejector rod did not have the typical large, mushroom shaped knob.



Like this:



Instead of the flat on the underside of the barrel having the serial number stamped there, there was this curious diamond shaped mark.



The underside of the grip had a curios crown shaped mark stamped there.



And most curious of all, was this strange mark stamped on the side of the frame.



So I sent off to Roy Jinks for a factory letter.

Some of you are already way ahead of me.

It turns out what I had was a 455 Hand Ejector, 2nd Model, that had been converted to shoot 44 Special.

The original barrel and cylinder had been replaced, hence the lack of the SN on the underside of the barrel, and the smaller knob on the end of the ejector rod.

The little crown on the butt was a British proof mark.

Most interesting of all, the strange mark on the side of the frame is a Canadian Broad Arrow. The typical British Broad Arrow, with a big letter C around it, to signify Canada.

I don't have the letter in front of me right now, but this one had been shipped to Canada in 1916, and marked accordingly.

At some point it was shipped back to S&W and converted to 44 Special. The diamond mark on the bottom of the barrel indicates the work had been done at S&W, although Roy did not have a specific date when it had been done.

Hope I have not hijacked this thread, but the title British Contract .44 Eley Triple Lock Revolver caught my attention.

I do have a few Triple Locks these days, all of them chambered for 44 Special, but I will not hijack this thread further by posting any photos of them.

Moderators: I am still ticked off about the photos that I post not coming through.

 

[Onty]

I am still kicking myself for passing a beautiful Hand Ejector in .455 Eley, but with target adjustable sights. I am not familiar with this type of revolver, but seems to me that fixed sight revolver was converted at one point to a target one. Whoever worked on it, he made a masterpiece!

 

[Odd Job]

Moderators: I am still ticked off about the photos that I post not coming through.

Edited your post, had to manually paste the image in. I'm not sure why it didn't work the way you had it.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Edited your post, had to manually paste the image in. I'm not sure why it didn't work the way you had it.

Thanks

This has been happening a lot these days.

I keep my photos on ImageShack.

I post normally, but if I post a few, in one thread as I did in this case, often one or two will not show up.

I do not know why.

Driftwood

 

[Von der Goltz]

Got the S&W Letter in just 3 weeks showing this pistol was shipped from the S&W factory to Remington-UMC NY purchasing agents for the British Government on January 7, 1915; details below:

 

[StrawHat]

Here is a New Century built for the British War effort, shipped in 1914.


I have since replaced the stocks with something more age appropriate.

Kevin

 

[StrawHat]

“Upon receipt of these revolvers, it was determined they were excessively heavy.”

I have heard this for many years. I still do not believe it. I doubt removing that portion of the shroud would save even two ounces. I do not have another 6.5” N frame in 455 to compare with mine but maybe Driftwood Johnson has a second model and can compare the two weights.

I do have a 4” Model 22-4 and a 4” Model 1917. The Model 22-4 with the reinforced shroud weighs 38.8 ounces. The Model 1917 weighs 36.3 ounces.

I guess I am wrong. That is 2.5 ounces difference. WOW!!!!

I would still like someone with a 455 Triplelock and a 455 Second Model to post the weights.

Kevin

 

[Mk VII]

I think it was just they wanted shaving something off the price.

 

[StrawHat]

The retail cost dropped $2. But, I believe you are correct AND this was in an era when Governments tried to conserve funds.


Kevin

 

[Tallball]

An underlug is one more place for dirt and mud to accumulate.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

Let's see if I can post a couple of photos today.

This is a nickel plated Triple Lock with a 6 1/2" barrel chambered for 44 Special. The fishing scale I am using is not super accurate, but it says this Triple Lock weighs 2 pounds, 10 ounces.






This is a 44 Special 44 Hand Ejector, 2nd Model, with a 6 1/2" barrel. My fishing scale says it weighs 2 pounds, 9 ounces.






The nickle plating on the Triple Lock is not going to affect the weight at all. Given that my fishing scale is not super accurate, the 1 ounce difference in weight between the two might actually be a little bit more. It was interesting to heft both revolvers, I can feel the difference in weight between the two. Probably because the slight extra weight of the shroud and the 3rd lock on the Triple Lock makes it a bit more muzzle heavy.


I do not believe there will be much difference between the weights of these two 44 Special revolvers, vs the .455 models.



I have looked through my reference books and I cannot find where I read it, but I am quite sure I read someplace that the Brits did not like the Triple Lock because they were concerned that in the field mud could get in the recess in the underlug for the ejector rod and tie the gun up. Again, not sure where I read it, but I am quite sure I read it somewhere. Perhaps on the Smith and Wesson Forum.

I know Don Mundell, who signed the letter. Don has probably forgotten more about S&W revolvers than I will ever know. Don has taken over most of the research for the historical documents from Roy Jinks. You will notice he signed himself as Assistant Historian, Roy Jinks is mostly retired at this point.

According to Smith and Wesson 1857 - 1945 by Neal and Jinks the .455 Mark II Hand Ejector, First Model (which is what the OP has) was only made from 1914 -1915. Serial numbers ran from 1-5000. "The British Government accepted this model only as a necessary substitute while the factory tooled for the production of a slightly lighter model which did not have the shrouded extractor housing and the third locking system."

According to History of Smith and Wesson, by Roy Jinks, the elimination of the shrouded extractor rod and triple locking system allowed the factory to reduce the price of the 44 Hand Ejector, 2nd Model from $21 for the Triple Lock (44 Hand Ejector 1st Model) to $19 for the 2nd Model.

 

[StrawHat]

An underlug is one more place for dirt and mud to accumulate.

But, if mud gets under the extractor star, the revolver is not functional. My point, they cited tight tolerances, mud, etc. without even trying them. Yet, those revolvers and there replacements were used very effectively in the trenches.

The $2 reduction was the deciding factor.

Kevin