Fantastic detail photography! Great gun too!

Best,

Michael

Did any of ya'll notice that the hammer has the chafing bushings on it? This really interests me since I have been wondering what models these hammers were used on. For a long while I thought it was only on Triplelocks. But then I noticed in the Neal & Jinks book, back in the radiograph x-ray section, there appears a 2nd model .44 that has the hammer. So, anybody know any other models it was used on? Very nice gun by the way.

Roger

Memphis,

I don't know very much about the WWI guns and the variations. This little "thingys" in the hammer and trigger were new to me, but I have no possibility to comparing with other .455 HE's.

Thanks for your hint.

Swissman

I attended a gunshow in Montgomery AL yesterday and saw a .455HE for sale with holster that had Canadan markings. It was very much in the same condition as your gun. Asking price was US $1000.00, what caught my attention was the .44Spl Triple Lock with the price tag of $500.00. I almost broke my arm reaching for my wallet only to find out that one of the young workers had put the pricetag of a .44HE 2nd model on the gun. That gun had been sold on Saturday. What luck. The triple lock was not for sale.

Swissman: Nice revolver! I have one similar that is just slightly newer, with the same markings. My Jinks letter notes that these pistols were made for both Canadian and British troops during WW I, and that the markings on yours were generally (I know, imprecise term) for Canadian use. The Brits almost always had additional marks, as they proofed the cylinders and stamped "Not English Made" on most of the British issued guns. Again, this is just "generally". I suspect the revolver got to Europe via a Canadian trooper who then traded it for a good Swiss watch (or maybe good Swiss chocolate!)

MikeyL

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. It's inherent value is the equal sharing of misery." (Winston Churchill)

Nice gun, Swissman !
Your photos of the mechanicals are top-notch, too~
Kamerer, I think I have an extra set of gold-medallion grips around here...I'm looking for a set of non-medallions to replace them with.
Don

Very Nce find!

quote:

Originally posted by Memphis:
Did any of ya'll notice that the hammer has the chafing bushings on it? This really interests me since I have been wondering what models these hammers were used on. For a long while I thought it was only on Triplelocks. But then I noticed in the Neal & Jinks book, back in the radiograph x-ray section, there appears a 2nd model .44 that has the hammer. So, anybody know any other models it was used on?

Roger

I have a M&P and a 22/32 that both shipped in the summer of 1915, which would have been within a year or two of Swissman's 455. They both have the chafing bushings on the hammer, which would suggest that they were used all across the line of S&W's hand ejectors at the time, I, K & N frames. I have no idea when they started and ended using that detail.

BOOKS, boys- The BOOKS!
Anybody ever heard me preachin' that?

I don't understand WHY, in a field where a $250-300 gun is now considered a CHEAP gun, people won't invest around a hundred dollars in the 3 MAJOR works which will give you myriads of data-
Neal & Jinks: modern reprint $50 on ebay
History of S&W by Jinks: what? $20-25??
Standard Catalog: $30-35??

It seems everybody just wants to get on the net and ask instead of reading/learning. Hell, we don't even have to REMEMBER- just ask again tomorrow if you forget!
In 25 more years, nobody will even be able to read. Or compose a sentence. We will simply post pics. We will sit down at the computer, put electrodes on our heads, and communicate telepathically! No keyboard! I guess we won't even need to POST the pics, just think them into cyberspace!
The net is wonderful for sharing/spreading FACTUAL observations and new data, but it should not become a substitute for the BASIC knowledge which began with Neal & Jinks more than 40 years ago. The TROUBLE with the net is that it is just as easy to spread BS in the form of old wive's tales, illogical conclusions, rumors, etc.
We all know that SCSW, and other books, contain some errors that have now become fact to the poorly informed. Supica and Nahas have very graciously made an errata list available- print it, USE it, and make corrections IN YOUR COPY so you don't have to constantly refer to it.

I feel better now......
The rant over, this might be a good place to share a few points I learned from books and observation- the archaic way.
Chafing bushings were quite common in HE's early on. They seem to have first appeared in the 1903 32, and the 1905 38 and 32/20. They are in the 2nd and 3rd Ladysmith's. According to Neal & Jinks, they have nothing to do with FRICTION, but instead were intended to protect the FINISH on hammer and trigger from rubbing wear. They were, therefore, in the first N frames of 1908- the TL. They carried over into the 455 2nd models. They are in all 455's I have ever opened- both 1st's and 2nd's.
They were dropped from the K frame 1905-4th change in 1915. I PRESUME they were dropped from the I frame sometime around this time, but may have continued longer. I do not know if they continued through the end of the 3rd Ladysmith in 1921.

quote:

For a long while I thought it was only on Triplelocks. But then I noticed in the Neal & Jinks book, back in the radiograph x-ray section, there appears a 2nd model .44 that has the hammer. So, anybody know any other models it was used on?

Look again- I do NOT see that in my Revised Neal & Jinks. I DO see a 455-2nd with the bushings showing. HOWEVER, they DO appear in some of the earliest 44-2nd's. I just opened an extremely early 44-2nd(shipped 1917) to confirm this- it has them on hammer and trigger. I believe they are very short-lived in this model, and were gone before 1920- I THINK.
They do NOT appear in 1917's, most 44-2nd's, or 1926's as far as I know.

Another point on action length- did you know the earliest hand ejectors were actually "shorter action" on double action than what we saw on later models?? They are still about as long on SINGLE action, but the hammer falls much sooner on double action than it does on later models. This, by the way, is why the 455's have such an awful, HEAVY mainspring- if you look at WW I era Brit ammo, you will see a rather large BERDAN primer. They are NOT especially hard, just big, and BERDAN. The big, heavy Webley hammers that travel far had no trouble double action, but the shorter throw double action on the S&W took a heavy mainspring.
The double action throws were LENGTHENED on S&W's with the 1917, the 44-2nd's. I THINK it was the 1905-3rd's for the K frame. 3rd Model Ladysmith. Not sure which I frame 32, but I think they were the last to be lengthened- maybe just before or after 1920.
This was accomplished by adding the "double action takeover" to the trigger. The hammer is first lifted by the trigger pushing the double action sear, then a lower point on the trigger "takes over" by pushing a lower point on the hammer toe. The hammer falls off of this lower point. On earlier models like the TL and 455-2nd's, the hammer actually falls from the double action sear, having NOT come back as far. This further travel meant the hammer hit harder without having to have such a heavy mainspring. S&W was ALWAYS improving.

You might want to print this, cause I ain't typin' it tomorrow!

Lee,
Point well-taken!
On a practical level, simply inspect the case-colored sides of the trigger and hammer on a bushing-equipped (early!) gun, then take a gander at the later-model stuff, especially if it's had some use...
See silvery 'wear-lines' on the bushing-equipped guns?
Even though they're generations older?
NOOO.
keep on reading, gang!
Don

swissman;

Don't know what it would take to "smuggle" a few boxes of these into the country but here is a source for new empty cases:

http://www.huntingtons.com/cases_hornady.html

http://www.huntingtons.com/cases_grafhornady.html

Hi to all members,

I am really suprised about all this reactions. Again, many thanks to all the helpfull hints, sources for cases, historical backgrounds etc.

Handejector i've printed your work (the second part ) and put it to my "gun-papers". Now please allow me a comment to the first part:
I got the #2 and #3 book of Nahas/Supica and i got the german-language-version of Mr. Jinks book "History of Smith&Wesson" from 1977. I agree with you, they give me very much information and I really don't want talk down the importance of this books. But all this books will never bring the same fun, like when I hang around with this community here, and learn new things about guns via direct communication. I really appreciate this place here very much.

Greetings

Swissman

quote:

Handejector i've printed your work (the second part ) and put it to my "gun-papers". Now please allow me a comment to the first part:
I got the #2 and #3 book of Nahas/Supica and i got the german-language-version of Mr. Jinks book "History of Smith&Wesson" from 1977. I agree with you, they give me very much information and I really don't want talk down the importance of this books. But all this books will never bring the same fun, like when I hang around with this community here, and learn new things about guns via direct communication. I really appreciate this place here very much.

Hi Swissman,
I wasn't really ranting at you, or anybody in particular. You can tell from my post count that I enjoy it also!
I did not even mean to come off that strongly. I just see the same question on the forums over and over. I am just ALWAYS surprised that people won't spend the price of a box of ammo on the books!
Neal & Jinks was printed in German at one time, by the way. YOU would really enjoy it! IF I had to keep ONLY one book, it would be Neal & Jinks.

handejector, No problem at all. I did understand your point clearly and I don't feel attacked. I only want to say that i like the place here like the bar i vist from time to time, to talk with friends and have a beer.

Swissman

Man, do I feel guilty. I even have all the books that he's refering to, just apparently didn't remember it was a 455 instead of a 2nd model on the radiograph. I feel reprimanded and a much better man for it. And humbled to.



Roger

quote:

Originally posted by MikeyL:
The Brits almost always had additional marks, as they proofed the cylinders and stamped "Not English Made" on most of the British issued guns.

Not so MikeyL. The "Not English Made" was part of the 1925 commercial rules of proof, and most certainly was not applied during WW I. All you should find on a WW I gun that was not officialy sold off in England at some time after the war (ie one that was liberated or just kept by its wartime "owner")are crossed-pennants military proof marks and Enfield inspection stamp with broad arrow and II (for Mark II).

Peter