I took delivery of a triple lock today: this .455 Hand Ejector First Model. The serial number is 358, which pretty much means it had to have shipped in October of 1914. It probably went to Remington in NY, which was the designated recipient for revolvers produced under S&W's British contract. I may letter this gun at some point, but I don't feel a burning need to do so as there is less mystery about the dates and destinations of military contract guns than there is for commercial products.







The barrel, cylinder and ejector star also have the 358 number on them. I didn't look to see if the crane number was the same.


The gun now chambers .45 Colt. The chamber case shoulders are deeper than for the .455 Webley Mark II round.




Not surprising in a gun of this early date, the top strap has a fouling pocket.




This wouldn't be a triple lock thread without a photo of the characteristic crane wedge associated with the mechanism that gave the gun its name.




Inside, the gun is very clean. A previous owner obviously went through at some point, but it may have been a while ago. The lockwork, though clean, was bone dry. The last lubrication it got was some time back. Check out the case coloring on the hammer!




I think the gun has been refinished, but it was a long time ago and it was very well done. [EDIT: Changed my mind on this. See posts below on why this is probably the original finish.] There are a few minor dents and dings that have been blued over, and there are many more scratches, dings and rough spots that have accumulated since the presumed re-blue. I think the logical time to refinish it would have been when it was converted to .45 Colt. But if that's when it happened, the gun was not much shot afterward. The cartridge impact circles on the recoil shield are very faint, which suggests to me that it did not see a lot of use in recent years. The stocks fit well and may be original to the gun. I think I see some numbers written on the back of the right panel, but I cannot determine what they are even with bright angled sunlight.

The fitting of the sideplate shows how careful the refinishing was. Also, protruding pins and studs were not flattened in an over-aggressive pre-blue polishing.



The gun carries proof or ordnance marks, including crossed flags, facing broad arrows, and a crown over a couple of characters I can't quite read. If someone can tell my what these mean or symbolize, I would appreciate it.



The crossed flags are also on the rear cylinder face.


The lockwork is smooth and precise. There is no push-off. Endshake and side play are minimal and within spec. The chambers are shiny, as you can see in the photo above. The bore has a few spots in it that may come out with repeated cleanings. If not, the flaws will be few. Overall, the bore is in excellent condition.


I have been hoping to spot an affordable TL for some time, and this one fills the bill very nicely. A little rough outside, but to all appearances mechanically sound. I intend to shoot this. I presume that low-speed cowboy loads are in order?

__________________
David Wilson

The crossed flags are proof marks. Sometimes you see them on every chamber and on the frame.

The facing broad arrows are a "Sale Mark", meaning it was released from government stores for sale on the civilian market.

There appears to be a "stack" of markings that as best I can make out are:
Broad Arrow - Military acceptance mark
Crown - Indicates that this is, theoretically at least, the king's property
{A two-digit number? ending in "6"} - Indicates the individual inspector
E - Inspected and accepted into service at the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield Lock, by inspector x6

Quote:

Not surprisingly for a gun of this early date, the top strap has a fouling pocket.

Could you expand on this? Did the factory machine this fouling pocket into the top strap, perhaps a carryover from the blackpowder days?

By the way, that is a great acquisition. I would love to have one just like it. Being converted to .45 Colt is not all bad... much easier to find brass for it. I would only fire pretty tame loads in it, but I tend to be very conservative in that regard.

__________________
You're shy a few manners.

Thanks for the quick tutorial on the markings. I'll try again tomorrow in better light and see if I can tease out the mystery character.

Yes, the fouling pocket is a holdover from black powder days. The factory milled those into frames as late as the early to mid 1930s. Some early Heavy Duty models have them, for example, and if I recall correctly, a 1935 M&P target model in my safe also has one.

I definitely will not try any hot rounds in this revolver. Cowboy rounds or home-brewed low pressure/low-speed rounds will be the way to go.

__________________
David Wilson

David, very nice pick up and what a serial number. The pictures are great and show tremendous detail. Thanks for sharing.

__________________
James Redfield
LM #497

Congrats David! That is defimately one to be proud of. I am no TL expert, but I have learned a lot since buying mine. The serial # should also be on the rear of the third lock latch plate, or "wedge" as you called it.

I would definately stick with the lowest listed loads for the .45 Colt in any manual, or in commercial form, the mildest cowboy loads I could find since the chamber walls are even thinner on your gun than on my .44 special, and the steels of the early TL's were not heat treated, though from what I am learning some of the last ones shipped were getting at least some heat treating.

I enjoy the heck out of shooting mine. It is a piece from the distant past, and firing it is a link to that time for me.
It makes me feel sorta like Indiana Jones or someone along those lines when I fire it.

"Latch plate." Thank you. I try to keep current with terminology, even when its currency is a century old. And you are right, I can see the 358 impressed on the back of what I will no longer call the wedge.

Going back to the post on proof marks, the two characters under the crown seem to be "Z6" with a line under them. Working with raking light on the gun itself, I just don't see the E that Jack Flash mentioned.

__________________
David Wilson

David,
Nice find!! I have it's brother, serial # 718, so they probably traveled across the Atlantic in the same box.
When I lettered mine it merely said it was delivered to Remington Arms Co. as they were the purchasing agent for the British Government at that time. I am currently away from home so I can't check the shipping date on the letter but will do so when I get back sometime in early June.

As said in the earlier thread, the crossed flags are acceptance marks probably put on by Remington. The "stack" mark was put on by the Brit armory when received and is translated as Jack indicated.

This gun was never sold "commercially" as it isn't all whacked up with Brit proof marks. My TL is named to a specific RAMC Captain (MD) and in my research I wrote to the Imperial War Museum and here is an excerpt of their reply:
(I was wondering about Medics being armed.)

Have you actually tried a .45 LC in the chambers?
I ask because the "shoulders" in the original chamber were set to also accept the .455 Mk1 cartridge which is longer than the Mk2. Usually when rechambered for the .45LC there was also some work done on the cylinder face or standing breech to accommodate the thicker rim of the Colt. (Sometime this was merely cutting a slight "rebate" into the chamber mouth.)

__________________
Dean
SWCA #680 SWHF #446

I'm thinking what you're calling a line under the "Z6" is the top of an "E". Perhaps this mark was poorly struck, and / or got partially defaced during the reblue(?)

Anyway, what a nice find. You've managed to stir up a great deal of envy!

__________________
You're shy a few manners.

Neat old gun. I love them.

Bad News, David- You're wrong.
You are going to have to show me some more pics to convince me it is reblued.
If you dent blued steel, it is quite possible to have a blued dent, just like it is possible to have a dent on your car with the orig paint still in it.

__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett

Very nice I hope to someday have a pre-war N-frame

Congrats David, I am still looking for my TL. Thanks for the pics.

I hate it when knowledgeable people come along and show me up.

I'm beginning to feel whiplashed on the refinished/unrefinished question here. The auction house called it "apparently refinished" or something like that. I looked at the photos and thought, "No." So I bid on it and eventually won it after a short tussle with someone else who wanted a TL. Then I picked up the gun and saw why someone might think it had been reblued. The blued dents were part of it, but also the ejector rod and knob looked like they were made yesterday. Here's a photo I just took with the wrong color correction factor, so the gun looks kind of sepia.



What I didn't realize until sometime in the last hour is that the front of the knob on a TL ejector rod does not look the same as the knob on the usual dual-lock gun. Since the latch plate does the work of pushing the linked detention pins out of the way of the closing crane, there is never any contact with the front of the knob, which therefore does not need to be beveled and will not show friction marks under any circumstances. As for the unscratched rod itself, I guess I have to attribute its remarkable condition to the fact that it is mostly surrounded by the shroud that characterizes the New Century models and makes the third locking point possible in the first place.

So I am now back to thinking that this is the original finish, which would explain why the bottoms of the proof marks are not blued and why the proof mark edges stand proud of the surface in a couple of cases. If the gun had been refinished, those high edges would have been polished down, and then the marks would have picked up blue from ensuing process.

So thanks, Lee, for making me take another look at this.

To take a run at other questions: I don't have any .45 LC ammo right now, so I haven't tried a round for fit. I have some brass around here somewhere but haven't turned it up yet. I'll try the fit when I find it, but I don't think there is any doubt. Here's a better photo of the cylinder's rear face showing the partial recess needed to accommodate the slightly thicker .45 Colt rim in the converted .455 revolvers.




And here's a photo of the recoil shield. The wear from cartridge slap is visible but not pronounced. I keep thinking there ought to be some kind of index that could be developed to tell from the condition of a recoil shield roughly how many rounds went through any particular gun, but there are some significant variables to take into account. My subjective feeling is that this kind of marking indicates at least several hundred and possibly a few thousand rounds fired. But I don't think the gun saw sustained day-after-day, year-after-year use.




For those who follow prices, I have about $950 tied up in this gun. That's my $740 winning bid lifted by the house's 15%, California state sales tax (the auctioneer is just 15 miles up the road from me, which is convenient in one sense and costly in another), and the transfer fee. I was pleased with my buy before, and I'm more pleased now that Lee made me rethink the finish question and come to a different conclusion.

__________________
David Wilson

Good catch ... and great pictures, David! I'm glad to see you found one - even though that means there's one less TL out there for me to find.

Jerry

I think you're right. I got a magnifier on it this morning under strong light and it looks like the top and shorter second bar of the "E" are there, connected on the left by a vertical stroke. But the lower vertical stroke and the bottom bar are completely missing.

Theoretically this could be an "F", but is that a known mark?

Under Lee's prodding, I am no longer a believer in the re-blue theory. I think the finish on this gun is what's left of the original surface.

__________________
David Wilson

It is reamed to 45 Colt- no doubt about it.
The chambers look white to me- are they??
Further evidence of orig finish.

I agree on the proof marks NOT having been buffed. That is why I argued. We know they went on early in the gun's life, so if they are raised......

Sorry, but to argue again- you don't know what caused the cartridge slap on the recoil shield. Merely being loaded and bounced around for 94 years produces wear. Walking, horseback, autos, trains, trucks, airplanes.........
Also, cordite and Brit primers are very corrosive. The residue also gets on unfired cartridge heads and corrodes the recoil shield.
I doubt the gun ever busted 1000 caps.

Just FYI- the ejector knob on a TL is a separate piece.
BE CAREFUL- the ejector mechanism on the TL is UNIQUE to the TL. You ain't gonna find any parts......

__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett

Yup, chambers are white.

You can argue me into understanding one of my guns better any time you want to. I'm just glad that the judgment on this one is going in a good direction, rather than unmasking it as, say, a freehand Khyber Pass knockoff.

Thanks for the continuing education.

__________________
David Wilson

Wow David, Excellent gun. You really have great taste. Thanks for posting.

By the way.. is that a recessed cylinder I see there?

Roger

1/2 recessed.....

That is the best way to convert one of these 455's. The rim of the 455 is so thin, you have to increase headspace somehow. This is better than facing off the recoil shield.

__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett

I don't know.

I do know that you see the "stack" as I described commonly on these handguns and on Lee Enfield rifles. (Sometimes on the rifles it's Broad Arrow/Crown/E/Number instead of BA/Crown/Number/E as on your TL) but I don't think I've ever seen an "F". Of course, in WWII there was a factory at Fazakerly that made the No. 4 rifle, but I don't think that factory was in operation in 1914.

So now you've decided it's not even refinished? Rub it in, rub it in...

__________________
You're shy a few manners.

Very good photos and very informative and educational. I someday would like to have a Triple Lock. This will help in my search.

Congratulations on your purchase.

Of course now that you know it was not re-finished perhaps you should return it and demand your money back based on their estimate that it was!

__________________
Have guns...will shoot'em.

Give the Gorilla a Daniel Webster seegar. That was my thoughts exactly. I have a 29 with literally 1000's of rounds through it and there is no wear marks from the shell heads on the blast shield.

What an excellent suggestion! They misrepresented it!

David, knowing that you are the shy retiring type, I volunteer to give you your money back if you will ship the TL to me, then I will pursue the auction house to my complete satisfaction in this matter.

__________________
You're shy a few manners.

Thank you for this generous offer, but I am trying to be tough about my disappointment in their erroneous description of this gun. No more whining from me!

__________________
David Wilson

Steve, thank you for the help with terminology.

__________________
David Wilson

David:
Lee is correct.
That gun is not re-blued.
I have a few with that look exactly like that one.
Larry

Larry, thanks for the input. Comments from you, Lee and others have persuaded me that the catalog description was simply incorrect (or overcautious), and that underneath the scuffs and dings this gun has its original finish.

Still haven't had a chance to shoot it, but that day will come.

__________________
David Wilson

Hello, This gun is described nicely in "British Secondary Small Arms 1914-1919, Part 3," by A.O.Edwards. If you don't have access to this British publication, I will be glad to send you a photocopy of the relevant pages.
You might note my posting of today about my British triple-lock being stolen at the Chicago airport. Mine is/was serial 4197 of the 5,000.
Mike Carrick, [email protected]

Beautiful gun, and, as always, your comments are words of wisdom.

1932 38/44 heavy duty with a fouling pocket.I have two hd's with the pocket.Very nice triplelock you have there Dave.Regards MikeDSC_0003.jpg

David, I am late to this thread but thought you might enjoy seeing Triple Lock s/n 373 which shipped in March 1910. It is 44 SPL caliber. If I recall correctly the British had a separate serial number sequence.

__________________
John. SWCA #1586

John, nice one!

Yes, the .455 revolvers for the British had their own serial sequence.

__________________
David Wilson

David, I think it would be interesting to have one of each gun with the same serial number, don't know that I have seen that yet.

__________________
John. SWCA #1586

Another advantage to this sort of conversion is that, if done carefully, the counterbores will be small enough to allow the slightly larger but thinner .455 cartridge rims to still headspace on the rear of the cylinder. Thus, a "dual calibered" revolver. Here's an example which shoots both .45 Colt and .455 quite well:



Not that I would have done such a thing myself, what with several hundred .455 Fiocchi and CIL rounds to use! (The .455 has a sort of odd, hollow sounding report upon discharge, almost like you can hear the air rushing back into the bullet's wake.)

Now that's a barbecue gun! C.B.

Jay, it would never have occurred to me that a converted .455 could be a dual-chambered gun, but now that I have looked I see that the .455 Mk II rim diameter is .535" and the .45 Colt rim diameter is .512". Now I need to find a few .455 rounds or cases to see if mine still has enough rim support to shoot that cartridge successfully. Is there any risk of brass expansion or cracking right at the base of the case where it would be unsupported for a few thousandths of an inch of its length?

Is that serial number 336? If so, your gun and mine could have come off the assembly floor on successive days, or maybe the same one!

This thread is over 2 1/2 years old, and I was surprised to see it come back out of retirement. My thanks to everyone who has dropped a "like" on it and contributed further comments. This is still one of my favorite revolvers.

__________________
David Wilson

Have never seen any expansion in that area. It seems unlikely to be trouble given the web thickness of any modern round you'd care to shoot. Even an ancient balloon head case would probably be OK, given the low pressure, but it would be a bit mad to try given the scarcity of rounds that old.

BTW, for reloading purposes, I just use whatever combination of .45 Colt and ACP dies that do the job. I did cut down a .45 Colt seating die for crimping purposes, but the Fiocchi cases are so short that it won't fit but one press. The old CIL cases are longer. The best bullets were the W-W .456" dia. 255gr hollow based swaged lead bullets, but Winchester doesn't seem to sell them anymore.

That's actually a Second Model (or is it "First Change"? Not that it's directly relevant...) with part of the serial number blurred due to a minor case of paranoia or "sumpin'". Facebook does facial recognition on all photos on their site to identify and cross link the characters according a recent news report - I can't imagine what the real nefarious types are doing! But never mind...that dead horse has several of it's own threads.

ETA: But that Second Model is kinda historic in it's own right. Issued to a reconnaissance squadron (AKA "fighter squadron") in the Royal Flying Corps before it was renamed the RAF:



I'm still hoping a triple lock comes my way at some point! Yours seems particularly nice.

I have an Australian 1917 converted to .45 Colt and it is a joy to shoot with the Cowboy Action ammunition.

Hi, DCWilson
Just to complement this thread already a bit old, but still in time, I have in my collection a Smith & Wesson Triple Lock .455 Webley caliber, serial number 227 as the photo, all original and in perfect condition.

Please post photos, but feel free to start your own thread so your gun will get as much attention as it deserves!

__________________
David Wilson