Edit: It may be worth noting for anyone visiting this thread for the first time that you will eventually find as you read through it additional information on the gun found in the factory letter and soon documentations from the historical foundation.


So this just arrived from gunbroker. I've been developing my S&W addiction over the past few years and I decided a while back that I both really love shooting .44 special, and that on N frames 5" barrels balance the best, in my opinion at least.

When this gun came up for auction I just couldn't resist.

I also broke my camera taking pictures of it. So please pardon pardon the full shots of the gun, they are not what I wanted. When I can replace the camera I will get some better shots.

After the pictures here I will have a bit of a rundown of what I *think* this gun is, but I am relatively new at S&W collecting and always amazed by the knowledge on this forum, so if you can correct me where it is needed I would appreciate it. Also, if you have anything to add that would be fantastic.






The sights seem to be very interesting to me. They appear to be added by dovetailing them in.





















Here's what I think this gun is:

1) Factory 5" .44 special triple lock. I assume this because the text appears centered on the barrel

2) Early production gun given the 4 digit Serial Number, First year?.

2) Factory refinish some time in the mid to late 1930s. I'm guessing this because:

• The Magnas are of course not original to the gun, but are certainly Pre-War.
• The front sight is, as I understand it, a later design.
• There is a Star next to the Serial Number.
• The finish appears to be very similar if not exactly the same, to other Pre-War guns I own.

Of course this is a gun I will be sending off for a letter on.

Do you guys think that this is something they should be able to come up with some documentation on at the S&W Historical Foundation? As I understand it they should have records digitized from the period of time that this gun was re-finished?

That is a beauty.

__________________
Twogunnes
John 3:16

Those sights have nothing to do with the factory. Having said that, we always have to
keep in mind the guideline "Never say never". Still in all, those sights have nothing
to do with the factory.

The star on the butt indicates it went back for something - maybe a refinish,
maybe some maintenance work, maybe a barrel change, etc.

I doubt the Historical Society will have any information about it. A letter will be
helpful as to its original configuration.

While you had the grips removed, was there anything stamped on the grip frame ?
Is there any service department marks on either the grip frame, or under the barrel ?

Mike Priwer

Like Mike said,

The sights are not original, but nicely done.

Great old Smith

__________________
"IN GOD WE TRUST"

Looks like an 8 and a 1, and then something that looks like it could be a B in a diamond? It's partially obscured by pitting.




On the reverse we have an F and a B

Smith did make a rare variation called the Military Target for use in Britsh matches like Bisley where drift adjustable, but not screw controlled, sights were permitted. That being said, I agree that the rear sight is probably not by Smith, but one never knows without the research (and sometimes not even then).

Bob

To All,

Below I've attached a few photos of a Factory-Installed Triple Lock Drift-Adjustable Rear Sight!! As you can see both the Sight Blade as well as the method of installation, although very well executed, are very different than the Rear Sight installed on the OP's Triple-Lock!! Still in all...Given the S&W "Never Say Never" philosophy...I believe the OP's TL is deserving of a "Letter"...just in case!!

Attached Images

	Bisley TL Drift-Adj. Sight.JPG (132.3 KB, 2892 views)
	Bisley TL Drift-Adj. Sight 1.JPG (139.7 KB, 2547 views)
	Bisley TL Drift-Adj. Sight 2.JPG (130.3 KB, 1568 views)

__________________
Masterpiece

Fantastic, thank you.

I have to say that you guys on this forum are so far ahead of me in terms of knowledge it humbles me.

That is one of the nicest and appealing (to me) New Centuries I've ever seen. Had I seen that on GB I would have been so tempted to bid on it, even if I had to beg and borrow money to get it. (smile)

Congratulations to the OP on a great find and acquisition.

Dave

__________________
RSVN '69-'71
PCSD (Ret)

When I came across it I just sort of sat there staring for 5 minutes. Ultimately I hit the buy it now because I knew that no matter who had done the work on it, I would still be happy with it. Also, if I didn't buy it I would regret that forever.

When I actually received the gun I was just as happy as I thought I would be. It feel's very "right" in my hand. I really like the feel of pre-war magnas. The lockup is extraordinarily tight. The action is of course as one would expect.

All in all I think that no matter what the history of the gun turns out to be (if I can even discern much about it) I'll still be very happy with it.

Those stocks can be restored and refinished to like-new condition, and I would probably do that were they mine.

I'm certainly considering it.

I must admit though, I think I am a bit weird when it comes to collecting. I enjoy a pristine example of an original gun, sure, but I also really like the idea that a gun has seen honest use.

My registered magnum is pretty beat up, but aside from missing the rear sight (which I will eventually fix whenever I can find a dang replacement) I'm actually happy with the overall condition of it. It's a gun that went to mexico and somehow came to be hanging on a nail in a wood shed in Washington state, and it looks like it. It shoots great, so I kind of feel like refinishing it is almost a shame in a way. I might as well just buy another one that has already been re-finished.

I sort of feel the same way about the chip in the stocks on this gun, it's honest wear. I certainly plan on shooting this gun. I think the part of me that wants to collect really nice things wars with the part of me that wants to collect historically interesting things. I'm not sure yet which side will win out over these stocks.

I agree. I always feel that a worn gun with refinished, redone, or "freshened" stocks stands out like a sore thumb.
Nice piece, btw. I'd be more than happy to own and carry it.

I gotta show this to my gunsmith.
I have been looking at the current crop of PD tradeins but was deterred by the hogwallow sights. This looks like a way to get something I can see on a gun inexpensive enough to tinker with. If I can catch FLGs interest on something like this, he won't charge a lot.

Pictures of the RM please.

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!

That's a nice one!

__________________
Sheriff Russell Cottle. ret

As to the factory-installed fixed rear sight blade - is there some documentation for that?

As to the <B> on the grip strap, that should be the service department marking for
a blue refinish.

Mike Priwer

Yes...It "Letters" to England!!

__________________
Masterpiece

Sure thing, the new camera arrived, so I could snap some.

I actually have a question about it I should probably ask here. This sight on ebay right now isn't 100% correct, it should have 2 holes, but do you guys know if it would work? The K-Frame here doesn't, the screw hole is in the wrong spot. I've been after a rear sight for nearly 2 years now and can't seem to find the right one. Seeing as I paid so little for the gun spending a few hundred on a sight would be no problem, if this one works, even if its slightly wrong, I think it would fit the overall aesthetic of the gun.

So my RM is, um. There's a bit of a story:

I didn't really know what they were, but I was at a gunshow and a guy set it out on a table right in front of me. The table was all knives plus this one gun, he wrote out a sticker with $150 on it, and stuck it to the gun. I was smart enough to realize that any N Frame .357 was worth $150, even if it was just in parts. I picked it up, checked the action, it all seemed to be good. It had two flaws however. It was wearing a set of smooth Herretts which didn't suit it at all, and the rear sight was gone with an extra hole in it:



Sitting above it there is the closest to a correct sight I have been able to find, which I can only imagine must be K-Frame:



Eventually found a set of pre-war magnas for it, they were damaged and repaired. I have a slight amount of fitting I still need to do, but I am pleased with the overall effect. In truth I just love shooting this gun and want to get it back to shooting exactly as it did when it shipped, even if it doesn't look anything like it did back in '39.





Lettered out to having been shipped to an outfit that exports to Mexico:



After that it came to be hanging in the woodshed of the guy I bought it from. He said it had been there since he moved into the house and had just brought it to the show because he figured someone would want it.

I was very pleased about 2 hours later when I got it outside in the light and it dawned on me what the little REG 4XXX meant.



Here is another shot of the Triple Lock, going to have to mess around with light some more to get a better picture still:

I like 'em both.

"Sitting above it there is the closest to a correct sight I have been able to find, which I can only imagine must be K-Frame:"

Jist wrap some 'lectrical tape around that sight. That'll hold it.

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!

Sixgun,

I don't think you can do better than that sight on Ebay. It's from an N frame and just needs another threaded hole and a screw. Post war pre 27s and Model 27s have the micro click sight of course and also the finely checkered rear sight tang to match the top strap checkering. But the registered mag photos I have do not show that on the RMs.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

Yep, they are also wider. The first one I tried was one of those checkered rear sights, which sadly don't fit. I modified one by removing steel from both sides to put it on, but it's still not right.

I guess I'll have to get in a bidding war over that sight then. I figured modifying this K frame target sight would be a lot more work since it requires the extra hole and length.

Thanks for the information.

Which 'extra hole' are you refering to..
..the large hole in the sight tang cut in the frame right by where the top strap checkering is a bit worn off?

Or.. the extra screw that the K frame adj sight has just in front of the elevation adjustment screw?

The larger hole in the top strap (down in the sight tang cut) is aftermarket and probably from a 'scope mounted on the revolver at one time. That would also make sense for the 'went missing' rear sight.

The sight on Ebay is the early style adjustable that only has the elevation screw in front of the blade.
S&W later added the small 'lock' set screw that your K frame pre-war sight has. Sits right in front of the elevation screw.

There is not enough room on the 'flat' in front of the elevation screw on the early sight on Ebay to install a lock screw,,and have it look right. It'd be down onto the rounded tang portion. If used, I'd leave it alone. Only a purist would know the difference.

I'd guess to be correct the Mag should have the later style with the lock screw and I think you can see the tiny dot impression it made when it was there just in front of the T slot cut out.

The Ebay sight is missing the elevation screw and nut plus the tiny attachment screw for the tang (unless they are still inside the envelope).
They are not common parts. You can probably switch the K frame elevation parts over but I can't guarantee anything.
Nor am I sure that the early style (Ebay sight) and the later style (that goes on the Magnum) had the same tang hole spacing for the attachment screw dispite being both N frame sights.
Just some thoughts.

,,it's never easy is it..


I'd cut and weld the tang on the K-sight. You're already more than half way there.
It's the later style w/the lock screw. It's only missing some length in the tang. Cut it back to remove the K frame attachment hole and extend from there.
You still have to come up w/a tang attachment screw but there's no cash outlay for something you are uncertain it will fit.

Very nice find. I see bricks of .22's for that now..
Well worth the time to restore it.

Thanks, this helps tremendously. I was already assuming that the K-Frame Rear sight was a lucky find (snagged it for $12 off of ebay randomly, before I really knew what I was looking for).

Any go-to smith around here for such work? At this point the last thing that I want to do to the gun is to get that sight working correctly. As I mentioned I plan on keeping this gun as a shooter, and maybe some day if I decide I really need to, get the full restoration.

Honestly, I'm not a handy man when it comes to such things, especially when I am concerned about destroying the only sight I have been able to come up with in a couple years of looking.

How does that fixed rear sight blade actually letter ? Could you reproduce that
portion of the letter ?

As to that rear sight assembly for the reg mag, a good machinist could weld a
piece on to it, to lengthen it. Perhaps even cut it open first, weld a piece in, and
then dress it out, and blue it. I think it would come out very nice.

Mike Priwer

The letter is a couple posts up. It says Square Notch Rear sight, which I believe is the same as what I have with this K frame sight.

I'll just have to find a good machinist to do the work. Our here in the Seattle area I have yet to find someone I would trust to do the work.

Heck, I brought it into one guy and he immediately informed me that he wouldn't touch it because he had a reputation to protect. When I asked him what he meant by that he informed me that someone had really screwed up the hammer on the gun and he didn't want his name associated with it.

When I tried to explain to him that this was correct for Registered Magnum hammers he would hear nothing of it. The really funny part was that some guy who was also in there was picking up his Triple Lock. I really hope that smith didn't do something terrible to it.

Excellent points! Yes I meant the elevation lock screw. But I certainly overlooked the fact that the flat for the lock screw is not long enough! Thanks for pointing that out.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

Sixgun,

I think some others have given good advice about modifying the K frame sight. Don't worry about screws, there are several old parts suppliers, and two that I know of that reproduce the screws you will need.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

Thanks for sharing, that is a beautiful piece of American firearms history.

There seems to be two different guns/letters, that have me confused a bit.

First - as to Sixguns triplelock - I assume you do not have a letter for this gun?
If you do have one, could you reproduce the relevant part of it here ? The letter that
is posted above is for the reg mag, with the missing rear sight assembly - right ?

Second - as to Masterpieces triplelock with drift-adjustable rear sight - you have a
letter on this gun, apparently. It shows it being shipped to England. Could you
reproduce the relevant portion of that letter here ? I'm interested in what it says
about the sight(s) .

Thanks for posting the documents, Mike Priwer

Yes. That did get confusing. Sorry.

No, I don't have a letter for the Triple Lock yet, I just got it. Sending off for the letter this next week.

The factory letter arrived:



Is Roy saying that the factory did the sight conversion here? Because that's absolutely awesome if they did.

Sixgun,

Bravo! That's an absolutely awesome letter! And yes he's saying that the factory did the sight conversion!

Also he must have taken a special interest in your gun to look up the repair order. That info is only occasionally
included in a letter and maybe why it took a little over a full year to get it. But well worth the wait!!

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

WOW, possibly unique factory sights. Beautiful. That is REALLY an extraordinary gun.

and 44 special

Both guns, with letters, are pretty cool. Congrats.

I wish you could get that type rear sight now.
Sometimes adjustables are too prominent, and hogwallows are too hard to pick up.

Now we likely know why the *sight work* looked so nicely done.

Cool stuff!

As the saying goes with S&W in relation to the sights, never say never! Great acquisition and letter!

__________________
Get off my lawn!

Mr. Strumpet, please put together a photo album or slide show with all your beautiful guns & letters. Feeding them to us piece-meal like this is kinda cruel. You have an astonishing pile of six-shooters!

__________________
Why, I aughta.....

Yeah, will see about doing that. Honestly in the $600 of letters I sent off for there were really only 4 that I found particularly interesting.

When I have some time I'll make a thread that's just guns with letters, maybe there's more of interest in some of them then I know.

Sixgun,

The more I look at those factory sights on your 44 Spl TL, the more extraordinary I feel they are; both the rear blade with the integral finely serrated hump behind the blade mimicking the adjustable sight, and the front blade with the undercut Patridge rear vertical surface!!

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

Yeah. I've mentioned this before, but even before the letter I kept coming back to this as being my favorite gun. I've just sent off for a Historical Foundation search. I hope this work was done sometime in the range of records they keep, maybe find out some more.

When the gun first came on my radar on Gunbroker I was particularly weak to it because I had just found a copy of Sixguns by Keith and was reading and re-reading it. I felt (maybe correctly?) that whoever had the work done was either someone who knew Keith or was at least someone who followed his work. The sights, Magnas, 5" Triple lock all seemed a bit too much like what someone reading him in the 1930s would have wanted to turn such a gun into.

I really, really didn't expect the sights to be S&W factory. I was confident the bluing was, but not the sights.

And I must admit, the K scratched into the butt fueled a bit of a fantasy that it somehow was Elmer's at one time (which I don't think it ever was).

I know the records for the 1930s have been completed at the SWHF. I suspect that's
what Roy referenced to confirm the factory work. It will be very interesting once you receive copies
of the actual work order and any existing correspondence!
(You know, like the letter from Elmer )

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

Hey, hey,

Don't do that, I get my hopes up easily only to be dashed when it turns out to have been dumb old McGivern who ordered the work.

In any case I would like to take a moment to thank you and the fine people who organize and contribute to this forum. The S&W Standard Catalog got me started, but you guys in this place are what really keeps me going. I don't think I would even know about many of these incredible guns without you guys.

One of my great joys in this hobby is the hunt for that next awesome thing. Certain guns (and even a couple boxes) I do absolutely love owning, but I can't play with them when I am sitting in airports, or at the office. With an eye trained by looking at the glorious and amazing guns you guys have, and the information on the most interesting and rare of the old smiths, I have a chance to spot stuff like this and own guns that are really worth cherishing.

I look forward to many years hanging out with you guys, and when I finally get off my butt and join the club seeing you out in Spokane.

I would imagine I should probably bring this one with me?

Bit of an update for anyone that is interested. Before I throw it in here, I have to say that the SWHF is amazing, super nice folks there. I'll throw scans of these documents up whenever they arrive, they sound like they are going to provide some really fascinating reading.

This raises a lot of questions in my mind I must say. Nickel? Shortened Barrel?

I suspect this gun is going to provide mystery for years to come.

Why are you apologizing for the photos? Good show man, good show!

Eh, my brother is a professional photographer, I have an unusually high bar set in my head for what a photo should look like I guess. Little bit of sibling rivalry kicking around the back of my head I guess.

Beauty! Would like a set of those sights on my 44 HE.

Very nice gun. One question, Roy's letter says blue finish but the SWHF letters say the finish was changed from nickel to blue. What's going on there? We're you able to get some clarification on that? Looks like it was refinished in blue based on the stamping on the frame.

There's more going on here than meets the eye. I don't believe we have the entire story from the archives, only how it was originally shipped in blue and later the sights modified from Roy's letter, and a much later part that has been digitized already.

There must be another chapter in between, not yet digitized, possibly where it was sent back to be nickeled by the same or former owner. Then the owner in the documented return trips to the factory that we know about, had it returned to its original blue finish. It's interesting that with the return trips we already know about, there's a star stamp but no date stamps.

This is clearly a case where the additional information only raised more questions. And we haven't even seen the actual documents yet.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819