I am rather familiar with the N frame action, mostly the short action but I have done some work on the long actions. The New Century is something I have never handled, let alone removed the sideplate!

What are the differences in the actions (parts etc) between the NC and, say, a 1917?

I might be getting a New Century. The owner says the cylinder does not rotate. I suspect a missing hand or handspring but know nothing of the internals.

Thanks in advance.

Kevin

__________________
Unshared knowledge is wasted.

I have both, but have not peeked under the hood of either, as they are both working well. I do not believe there is any difference, or very little between the two. Hopefully others with more experience will be along shortly.

__________________
Randy

I acquired one early last year with a similar problem. It was in very nice condition and had me shaking my head at first. The cylinder was so hard to turn it was very difficult to even pull the trigger. I removed the cylinder and found it gummed up with what appeared to be cosmoline. I used some acetone and added a drop of gun oil. Problem solved~

You may want to try this first off.

Triple Lock internals:





Outdoorsman:



The TL hammer and trigger are different. I think the TL action is slightly shorter too but more knowledgeable can confirm/dispute that.

__________________
SWCA: 3154
SWHF: 552

I can see a difference in shape where the trigger and hammer interface. Also, on the hammer, there appear to be two “bearings” or bushings and one on the trigger. There is a corresponding wear pattern visible when the hammer is cocked. We’re these used to center the parts in the slot?

Thank you.

Kevin

__________________
Unshared knowledge is wasted.

Not sure if this helps but here’s a function 3D video to break down a triple lock function.

Smith & Wesson Triple Lock - YouTube


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A major difference in the 1917 and the TL is the way it locks up. The Triple Lock locks in 3 places and the ejector is a bit complex, more so then the 1917.

Attached Images

IMG_0411.jpg (67.0 KB, 81 views)

From another thread:

__________________
SWCA: 3154
SWHF: 552

Kevin,

To answer your question about the thrust bushings:

They are found on most hand ejectors of the same era as the TL and earlier but does not make them unusable in later guns. You're correct, the importance is that they center the action parts in the frame; old world craftsmanship we'll not see again. Hammers and triggers with bushings can also be found 'spilling over' into early 1917 production.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

Thank you all. Without the TL in hand some of the answers are “muddy” but when I have one in hand, things will clear up.

Kevin

__________________
Unshared knowledge is wasted.

I have heard the third lock can be difficult to maintain. Any truth there or repeating a myth?

Kevin

__________________
Unshared knowledge is wasted.

The only problem I ever heard about the triple lock being difficult to maintain was that the English thought it might interfere with locking up the piece when covered with mud, the same feeling they had about the enclosed ejector rod, hence the 2nd Model Hand Ejector's popularity.

I've never heard that nor have I experienced it.

The British complaint about mud jamming the the extractor/locking mechanism was based solely on speculation on their part since they hadn't even issued any TLs to troops yet let alone had any battlefield experience with them!

It's also thought by some that it was also a ploy to get the price per gun lowered. When it was replaced by the 2nd Models .455 and .44 w/o the third lock and shroud, the price was reduced by about $2 each. But S&W did that to be more competitive with Colt's New Service, not because of problems with the third lock or extractor shroud under the barrel.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

After hearing and reading accounts of the miserable, muddy conditions of the Great War, I can readily understand the Brits concern, they had been fighting under those conditions since the 14 and 15th centuries when the only thing you could really count on was cold hard steel. For practical reasons I was never attracted to the fully enclosed ejector shroud whose only practical purpose is to prevent the ejector from being bent while the revolver was being used as a club. I find the 2nd Model to be the most visually attractive of all of the N-Frames, I know I am in the minority with this opinion. I appreciate the 1st Model for its mechanical properties and design attributes but...If it was all that great it would have stood on its merits, I understand $2 is $2 but at the height of the Depression the company came out with the Registered Magnum which made no monetary sense at all. Other manufacturers that produced amazing items like Duesenburg, Cord/Auburn, Lincoln...all were either sold for pennies on the dollar or disappeared from production. Somehow S&W survived and the Great Wars probably significant reasons. Interesting subject...

If the mud situation was that bad, wouldn’t it get under the star and jack things up? Something is smelling rotten in Denmark!

Kevin

__________________
Unshared knowledge is wasted.

good thread. i look forward to these sort of posts. now, a little more knowledge that's mine, no! you can't have it back.

thanks for sharing. krs/kenny

__________________
Too good

Out of curiosity I tried a TL hammer in a 1917. It fit, but would not function quite right. I think I could have fiddled with it and got it going, but received a 1917 hammer I used it. I wanted to keep the TL hammer as is just in case I ever need. I had to adjust the fly on the 1917 hammer anyway. The TL action appears to be the same as early 1917s prior to the addition of the side plate hammer block. I do not know why S&W would have reinvented the wheel to make the same gun simpler, when they could just delete the 3rd lock cuts, dump the complicated shroud and parts, change the center pin, its springs and associated small parts and they would be off and running. The action itself worked excellent and nobody was complaining about it.

The TL action was a "short action" due to the hammer fly (DA sear) shape (but not as short as the post WWII short action). The fly change also required a change in the point of the trigger, the reason TL triggers/hammers won't function correctly in the 44 2nd model and the Model 1917 unless both are changed as a set.

NOTE: Some claim the changes to the trigger and hammer fly came after the 1st few 44 2nd models and the Models 1917 began production. But I have not had the opportunity to confirm that.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819