Here are images of my .44 Hand Ejector 1st Model, S/N 15.















































There has been some discussion of this revolver on this thread:

They Placed 1st. and 2nd.

REMARKABLE.
(and you take outstanding pictures)

Outstanding 1st Model HE, every aspect of that grand old S&W is remarkable especially the grips. Shame our British cousins felt the need to cover it with so many stamps.

Magnificent photos. It intriges me that such an early serial numbered model would have made it to the UK. I wish that gun could talk.

That is one FINE revolver! Ditto on the Magnificent photos.

__________________
Ken

Documentary photos don't get much better than those. Guns don't get much better either. What a spectacular piece of art. Every ton of ore that was crushed to retrieve the steel from which that gun was made deserves our undying thanks for guarding its cargo so well since the formation of the solar system. Well, OK, that's a little overboard, but I am really pleased to see that gun in such detail.

I look forward to hearing further reports on this fine revolver as you learn more about it.

__________________
David Wilson

What a beautiful revolver - and photos to match. Thanks much,

Jerry

That TL is simply stunning and your photography makes observing the gun as good as handling it in person! TLs have always been the holy grail of Smiths for me.

I'm surprised to see the front locking bolt plug proud to its recess.

Thank you for showing your acquisition and in such detail,

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

The grips sure seem well matched, and nicely figured, but did they shrink at the top, or what?

The UK proofs may indicate a gun sent to Britain in 1940...or not. Can anyone here tell by the stamps when it was proofed?

I note that this is a .44, not a .455, and the early serial number MAY suggest that it was indeed sent to Britain soon after being made.

Thanks to all for you comments. Please keep them coming.

You have lost me on that question. The grips fit perfectly to my observation.

Yes, there is a ready answer. This revolver was submitted to the Birmingham Proof House for commercial proof in 1952. Stamped just behind the trigger on the left side is the Birmingham private viewer's date mark:





A close-up of the stamp:



This mark, with the "B" on left, the "C" on right, and "5" below tells us that the revolver was inspected by the 5th ranked viewer of the Birmingham Proof House in 1952.

There are no martial marks on the revolver at all. It never was in the hands of the British military, as it would have the "broad arrow" and a military acceptance mark in that event.

Now I'm at the edge of my understanding of British proof laws. I believe their laws would require the firearm to undergo proof upon importation. This would mean either military acceptance or civilian proof. If I am correct in this belief, then the stamps attest the fact that the revolver was imported to Britain in 1952.

As a corollary, we see many S&W revolvers that went to England for WW1. They bear British military acceptance stamps that were applied upon receipt and inspection by the military. When discharged from military service (generally after 1945) they were again stamped with the "broad arrow" (but backward, tip to tip) indicating release. Those that were privately sold in England then went to the commercial proof houses where they received their array of commercial proof stamps, including the "NOT ENGLISH MAKE" stamp. That latter stamp brackets the date of commercial proof to the period of 1925 (when that stamp was introduced) through 1954 (when it was discontinued). So the stamps on those revolvers were applied in three occasions: military acceptance, military discharge, and civilian proof.

So in conclusion, this revolver tells us it was privately imported to England in 1952. At some point in time it made it back to the U.S.; certainly before 1968, as it bears no U.S. import marks mandated in 1968.

There very well may be others who are better versed in British proofing. If so, please speak up.

I my earlier post I expressed a tentative opinion of the British law as regards importation of un-proofed firearms. I went back to the books in an effort to solidify my understanding of the obligation. Here is an excerpt from Nigel Brown, British Gunmakers, Volume One, page 260:



From this passage I conclude: (1) if imported commercially the firearm must be submitted for proof within 28 days; and (2) if imported privately (i.e. an individual immigrates to G.B., bringing the firearm) there is no direct requirement for immediate proof, but the owner is under restrictions as to its use, and certainly cannot sell or transfer it without first submitting it for proof.

Undoubtedly this revolver was manufactured at the earliest date of production; probably in the first batch in 1907. It was proofed in Birmingham in 1952. Certainly it didn't stay in S&W's inventory until 1952. I deduce it arrived in England either by sale on the secondary market or under the personal ownership of an immigrant. That leaves only a very slim possibility (immigration) that its first appearance in Britain was prior to 1952. As an aside, I'm not convinced that British customs would release an un-proved firearm to an arriving immigrant without first requiring proof.

We always say we wish these guns could talk. This one does have a few words to say if we listen.

Look at the pics of the gun laying on its side, and note the bevel at top of grips.
You are taking the shadowline which appears in the side shots as a gap. The grips fit superbly.

A marvelous gun. I'm sure it could tell an interesting story. God only knows how it made it to Britain in the 50's and back, but I'm glad it came home!

Judging by your avatar and knowledge of Brit proofs, I surmise that you are interested in and knowledgeable about English weapons?

__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett

It's my understanding that firearms have to be commercially proofed before that can be sold commercially.
Military guns are occasionally found that do not have commercial proofs because the owner bought it while in the military and never sold it through a commercial shop. (I have a .455 TL that was purchased/issued (officers had to purchase their own sidearms from the Army/Navy store)by a Captain in the Medical Corps. When discharged he went back to Australia and took the gun with him, so no Comm/ proofs.

I might guess that your .44 found its way to Britain in private hands (or a direct order to S&W) so it wasn't proofed upon arrival. It stayed in private hands until 1952, when someone decided to sell/export it and had it proofed.

This gun really needs a letter!!

__________________
Dean
SWCA #680 SWHF #446

Minutiae be damned. Beautiful revolver,beautiful stocks,beautiful pics! That does it for me. Thanks for posting!
f.t.

__________________
South Carolina-God's country

My greatest passion, and the one that's most demanding on my wallet, is the collecting, loading ammo for, and shooting double rifles, primarily British. One cannot fully engage in that endeavor without studying the British proof laws over the past 150 years. Those laws are complex and archane. I know of no single reference source that fully explains them. Usually reference must be made to several sources of information. There are two references that stay within reach. One is Nigel Brown's work from which I quoted above; the other is Gerhard Wirnsberger, The Standard Directory of Proof Marks. To a much lesser degree there is some material in S. P. Fjestad, Blue Book of Gun Values.

I have been a long time participant, and I enjoy Administrator privileges, on NitroExpress.com. That is an international forum centered on guns and hunting, with a particular focus on double rifles. Most of that board has gone private now, so unfortunately one doesn't get the flavor of it by simply dropping in. The avatar I'm using here, as well as the moniker, are the same as I use on NE.com. The avatar is a photo of the business end of a very nice Alexander Henry .577 BPE double in my collection.

This is not a thread about double rifles, but here's a peek at five nice British double rifles in my custody (the Henry .577 is on top):



Now back to the matter at hand. We were talking about British proof marks in the context of my Triple Lock. I posted an excerpt from Nigel Brown in my earlier thread. Here's an excerpt from the same source, page 267, showing the chart for the Birmingham viewers' date code stamps. A lot of S&W revolvers bear Birmingham proofs, so some members might find this interesting:



Now to put them on the same page, here again is the close-up of the date stamp on my Triple Lock ("BC5" = 1952, 5th ranking viewer):

Most excellent post, gun, grips and photographs. Thanks! One wonders if a possible reason for the trip to England would have been to keep it from the hands of our honored compatriot, Mr. Elmer K., who might on his own have submitted it to certain exquisite 'proofing' procedures.

Seriously, much appreciation for sharing this nonpareil example of a Triple Lock.

Regards,

Dyson

First, it was a priviledge to view this magnificent piece! I concur with the comments regarding proof and entry into commerce. I have seen several and own an S&W that escaped proof. Interestingly I own a New Zealand Victory that passed the proofhouse in Ulm in 1983. These things happen.

Again thanks.

Great info. on British Proofing, by Texas Star and CptCurl, much appreciated by this commonwealth country member, called Canada, cheers Dale Z!

Splendid stuff.
Beginning as a teenager, I became an avid reader/collector of African hunting books. That led to an interest in doubles. I've never had the means to pursue it deeply, having only owned two. Collecting ammo for them can be an expensive hobby! If time ever permits, I'll check out NitroExpress.com, having only glanced around a few minutes since you mentioned it.

Back to #15-
What do you know of the gun?
I assume you bought it in the US and did not import it. Is any history available, even recent?
I was hoping someone else might broach the subject, not wishing to be indelicate. No one has, and it is such a significant gun, I have to raise the discussion-
I'm reasonably sure the gun is reblued, and I wondered if you knew it. Being familiar as you are with Brit sporting arms, I'm sure you're aware of their fetish for 'freshening' guns when they show wear. Do you think one of the English houses did it? I think that may be the most likely possibility since it is such a high quality job.
No offense intended, and I hope you were already aware of it.

__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett

Beautiful pics and a maginficant revolver. Thanks

__________________
John 1:17
NRA Life Benefactor

Lee, thanks for your comments about the double rifles. I can go on-and-on about them, but not here.

No, you have not offended in the least. It does not embarrass me to discuss the condition of a firearm. They are machines, not family relations. I have no trouble being objective about them.

And yes, I was aware the finish has been freshened, certainly following application of the proof stamps, as they are blackened. There are areas of the gun that have been polished lightly while other areas don't appear to have been polished and seem to have original finish underlying. The "reblue" clearly is rust blue and not a hot dipped caustic finish. All lines of the gun are preserved.

You mention the British penchant for "freshening up" their guns, and that is exactly what came to my mind when I received this gun. My theory is that there was a bit of "freshening up" after the application of the proof stamps, and not because it was down in condition.

I have had the pleasure to correspond with David Wilson about this gun on several occasions, both before and since acquisition. What follows is a passage from an email message I sent him the day after I received it:

Incidentally, it was after cleaning the TL and comparing side-by-side the two revolvers referred to, that I took the photo with which I started the other thread with my play on words about "placing 1st and 2nd".












My "guts" photos from that evening aren't very good. I took them hand-held under the bright glaring lights of my workbench. Nevertheless, I'll post them for what it's worth:













There is slight evidence of light pitting, assumably from storage in a holster, in very limited areas of the gun. What little polishing was done in the "freshening up" was not heavy enough to undermine this very light pitting. This can be seen most prominently on either side of the barrel, just behind the muzzle.











The revolver is absolutely pristine on the inside, and its bore and chambers are flawless: like new. You can see that almost all the color hardening remains on the hammer and trigger. The locking cam on the yoke is darkened somewhat from the "freshening" but it still retains colors and was not polished.

I don't know anything of the history and hope somehow to find more on it myself. I just recently bought the gun from a dealer in Louisiana. He didn't seem to have any background on it either. I do intend to request a factory letter. I've not done that and would appreciate any pointers on how it's done and how to get the most information. My last factory letter was from Purdey's about a .303 double rifle.

1897 Purdey .303 British

(Ha ha! I ended up with a double rifle after all!)

Please keep the comments and information coming.

Lee,
What's the give-away?? The only thing I could see is that the current blueing just doesn't seem to have the "luster" that S&W put on their guns of the period.
(Or could that just be because of being 100+ years old??
I don't have the luster I used to either...)

__________________
Dean
SWCA #680 SWHF #446

Curl,

Not that it matters, I too suspected a refinish when I noticed the darkness of the triple lock cam insert and the extended plug for the front locking bolt. It's still a splendid, rare and unique piece of S&W history.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

I'm glad to see someone bought this revolver. I had my eye on it for a while but hesitated because I could not inspect it in person. It is even better than I thought it would be. I just want to add my praise to the chorus and say thanks for the clear, professional pictures.

We are having a good time discussing what we observe about the condition of this wonderful revolver. I mentioned in a post above I had discussed it by private email with David Wilson before buying it and then just after I received it. I quoted a passage from one email above, but there was a more detailed account of my observations in another email. I've just looked that up and found it.

My photos are a pretty good representation of the revolver, but it might be interesting to other members for me to post my verbal description from the first inspection I had. Even though "a picture is worth 1000 words" there are times that words describe things a photo won't show.

So for the sake of discussion, here is a quote of an email I sent to David only moments after I opened the shipping package on January 25 (date stamp on the email is 1/25/12 @ 4:13 pm):

Here let me point out that the seller had represented it as refinished. However, his photos weren't the best, and they left open the possibility, however slight, that the seller was wrong. That's why I said I had been hoping against hope it was just the description of an overly cautious seller. In short, I was hoping for an unlikely windfall.

Here's a passage from a followup email I sent later that same evening (9:00 pm):

So now, not only do you have my best effort at photos, but also my candid observations of the gun in hand. Again I want to thank David Wilson for his kindness in letting me "gnaw on his ear." His advice and opinions have helped me. David, I hope you don't mind my saying that!

These relics of the past are fascinating. Each one has its own history and its own character. We observe and experience the physical character. Sometimes we can only guess and day-dream about the history. In my mind this 1st Model must have been in the very first production batch of the Triple Locks. It shared the same workbenches at the same time as #1. That's pretty cool in itself.

In all likelihood the only additional history to discover will be the contents of a factory letter. Yet there's the possiblity that someone reading these posts will know a significant tidbit to contribute. Maybe there's a prior owner with knowledge of its history.

Let the discussion continue.

Curl, my ear is just fine. I assure you that I learned more from our exchange of emails than you did! As I recall all I offered was a couple of thoughts about refinishing and some speculation about proof marks that turned out to be completely off base.

I'm really enjoying this thread, which ought to be listed in the "Memorable Thread" index. The proofing information alone is worth the price of admission. The fine photos are just gravy.

__________________
David Wilson

Earlier I promised to report once I received the S&W letter. After some delay, here's my report.

I must confess having had the greedy hope that this revolver would letter to some prominent and well-known public figure of the time. Fall-back position would be some interesting geographic placement indicated. My luck with S&W is about the same as my luck with the Virginia lottery or at a gaming table at Las Vegas. Snilch.

Golcher B

Yeah, that's right. Golcher B. Could be I'm ignorant and just don't recognize the name. After all, he or she is so prominent as to just use an initial for a last name. Anybody kin?





Ok, it's one thing to be stumped by a name, but what really sets my head spinning is the statement that this revolver was proofed under the 1904 rules and again in 1977. Wow! I thought I had some references on English proofing and I thought I knew something about the subject. The 1952 Birmingham viewer's date stamp is clear as a bell.

Either I need to go back to school or the Birmingham Proof House gave a goofy opinion. And if I'm wrong (which is always a front-row possibility), then Nigel Brown and Gerhard Wirnsberger are all wet too. After all, I got my information from their reference works. My analysis, based on their reference works, is set out above and I won't repeat it here.

I am not privy to the inner sanctum here; and I can't join the S&W Collectors, not knowing anyone in my hick town to sponsor me, but if anyone has the ear of Roy Jinks, I would love to know what information he supplied Birmingham, and what exactly the Birmingham Proof House said back in return.

In the end, it's still the 15th .44 Special ever made in commercial production.

What a neet revolver with lots of questions still to be ans.!

There was a specialty firearms store on Montgomery Street in San Francisco called Clabrough and Golcher.

It was destroyed in the earthquake:



And I'm not sure of the date of incorporation, but there was a Golcher Brothers sporting goods company, perhaps formed from the wreckage of C&B.

Hmm, an image import link is no longer working. Here's the link to a business letter with a Golcher Bros.letterhead.

http://www.sfgenealogy.com/sf/histor...s/hpltb062.jpg

Rats! Not working now. Seems like there must be an access counter that blocks that page after too many hits. I hope others can see it, but I get a 403 error on my computers.

Sounds like you have a storied California gun!

__________________
David Wilson

A quick internet search revealed William Golcher as a US partner of J.P. Clabrough, the Birmingham gunmaker and a family of Golchers as New York gunsmiths of the percussion era.

__________________
I need ammo, not a ride.

Google or Bing will give you some more links for Clabrough and Golcher individually and as partners. Both men came from British gunsmithing families and met in England during a return trip from the US in the 1870s or 1880s. Sounds like travel to and from England was not unheard of for a Golcher.

The last Golcher to run the business was Benned Golcher, who retired in 1949. He might be "Golcher, B" in S&W records, but in 1909 he would have been in his early 20s. Even if working in the gun store, he might not have been the designated recipient for firearms orders.

Anyway, there is enough here to get you started, I think.

__________________
David Wilson

I feel as though I have had a history lesson, complete with a slide show. Thank you, all.............

__________________
dd884
JMHO-YMMV

Thank you all for sharing the histories of the 44 and the 303 found it fascinating. Frank

So "Golcher B" may well be shorthand for Golcher Brothers. That's interesting. A Google search turns up various pieces of information to indicate that firm was active at the time #15 was shipped.

I suppose it always will remain a mystery, as I have no idea how to pursue it further. Would anybody know whether the records of Golcher Brothers still exist, and where?

I downloaded the referenced image of Golcher Brothers letterhead and placed it on my server. Here it is:








Frank46, I'm glad you enjoyed the little .303 Brit. It's a peach!

Thanks to all for this interesting information. Please keep it coming. I would still like to unravel the conundrum of Roy's statement about the proof marks.


Cheers!

I gained a bucket load of knowledge today. Thanks for posting about your Triple Lock. Its a beautiful revolver and its history is fascinating.

Charlie

__________________
SWCA # 2294

CptCurl,

Thanks again for sharing that unique specimen with us. On a sidebar, you may want to pull the yoke and cylinder using caution not to let the cyl hold open device, a pin and spring 'fly' from the yoke hinge when separated from the frame.

These parts are often rusted in place, especially after a re-blue if salts are not completely flushed from the hole. Extra cleaning and oiling of the hole is great preventative care.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

Jim,
Thanks for the tip. I have had this revolver and my Second Model both completely to pieces for cleaning and lubrication. In each case I was careful about the spring and detent in the yoke hinge. Both were free and without any grime or corrosion in the hole, I'm happy to say. Both went back to where they belong to lie quietly for another generation or two.

Again, good advice. Thanks!

On a very pleasant note, a friend was here for the weekend. We spent Saturday on the range with a number of S&W revolvers. I enjoyed shooting #15 and my .455 Second Model, along with my pre-25 and pre-14 (both 5 screw guns). It was a great day at the range, and #15 stood proud, shooting as accurately as I am able to hold it and see the sights.

Cpt. Curl,

the photos you took of your .44 are the best I've ever seen documenting a firearm. So many angles, well lit, calm letting the lines of the revolver speak for themselves in ways most guys with guns (or photograpers targeting guns) can't capture. It shows your knowledge and respect for the subject. Craft, documenting craft, well worded and researched ... more craft. I like your loading bench... you like the science of it all too, and evidently, you SHOOT to boot! Do you hunt? Ever tote one of those lovely double rifles to Africa?

I really like your Purdey .303 - the cutaway view of the locks is fantastic, what an indulgence in steel. The curves are nothing short of voluptuous.... the stockwork sublime, and evidently it has balance. Wow, they don't make rifles like that anymore.

I can't help but show off my .303 SMLE that I cleaned up and rubbed 20 coats of boiled linseed oil on, my bayonet & my S & W Military & Police. Living history... Clean Break.

Glad to hear that. I got a nicely refinished TL Target for a great price but had to drill out the detent parts and replace them. Turned out good, you wouldn't be able to tell but what a tedious job!
Those old Smiths are so fun to shoot and their accuracy and actions just put a smile on my face.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

Great thread, revolver and pics. Curl, if you want to start a thread and show off those doubles, it wouldn't hurt my feelings one bit.

__________________
Wayne
Torn & Frayed

Dang, you should never ask me about double rifles! I have no willpower when it comes to those things.

Everybody appreciates a nice "package." Here's what a couple of really nice packages look like from the 1880's:









BUT, this thread is about a S&W revolver. New Century .44 H.E. #15, so let's not get off topic.

I want to thank everybody for the comments. Your appreciation of my photographs is especially kind. I can take no credit for the beauty of this S&W revolver, but I did work hard to display that beauty for the forum. I'm no pro, but I try.

P.S. to wbraswell:

You asked for it, so I started a thread in the Lounge:

http://smith-wessonforum.com/lounge/...#post136532966

I came to this thread after visiting the "Double Rifle" thread.

What a pleasure to view this revolver and to sit on the side and "hear" the comments from the experienced collectors.

Magnificent pictures and information.

I would have liked to have been in the sporting goods store on the day in 1909. Imagine looking at the factory new Colt Single Actions, New Services and the Smith and Wesson New Model Number 3s that were probably available. As well the Smith and Wesson "swing-out cylinder" .32s and .38s.

And then the clerk behind the counter says; "Oh. Have you seen the latest issue from Smith and Wesson? It's a .44 Special".

__________________
Have guns...will shoot'em.

and next he would have said something like " the .44 is $18.50, but you can pay for it over time"


Charlie

Too bad it's Bubba'd with all those British Proof and Date Marks
Otherwise you would have a nice gun

__________________
Buy American
Vote Responsibly

I think that in his letter Roy made a comon mistake on the .455 caliber. He says that it was chambered for the .455 MkII, but I have never seen a S&W hand ejector so chambered. All I have ever seen are chambered for the .455 MkI case which is longer. The MkI cartridge was still being issued up into WWI, and it would have made no sense to make guns that would not take all available Marks of ammo.

__________________
Tom
1560

Well that's true but I wouldn't call it a mistake. The then current and intended cartridge was the 455 Mk II and Smith's revolvers marked only 455 (when marked).

But it's also true that every 455 Mk II HE Smith produced was chambered long enough for the 455 Mk I at the behest of the Brits.

It's not unlike all 357s will also chamber 38 Specials but they're all referred to as and marked 357.

Other examples are 44 Mag/44 Spl, 32 S&W Long/32 S&W, etc.; they're all referred to and marked by their primary intended cartridge.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

It made my whole evening just reading this thread. The research done and the knowledge shown are incredible.

Why can't threads like this one pop up as zombie threads occasionally!

__________________
Possum—The other white meat!

great post enjoyed it very much.john