I love old shooters. I got this one in hand today. This New Century 1st model 44 HE underwent a front sight replacement in it's past. It is a pretty nice large bore hole puncher in spite of the nose job. It needs a trip to the range and then a good cleaning. When it is placed in certain light angles, it appears that someone buffed around the edges. I will see if I can do a better job of showing the issue when weather permits.

Are there any recommendations to clean the medallions in the stocks?

Attached Images

	PXL_20220728_220808169.PORTRAIT.jpg (153.2 KB, 304 views)
	PXL_20220728_220731185.PORTRAIT.jpg (152.7 KB, 280 views)
	PXL_20220728_204741090.PORTRAIT.jpg (64.0 KB, 292 views)
	PXL_20220728_204732500.PORTRAIT.jpg (123.7 KB, 283 views)

__________________
Matthew Conrad

For medallions I have used a small amount of Brasso on the end of a Q Tip and gently rub. I take my time and before long, they look new.

Nice shooter grade Triple Lock, by the way. I am envious.

__________________
NRA Life Member

That "old shooter" is not too shabby!!!

Ralphn Tremaine

IIRC the early medallions were gold washed. Be very gentle.

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!

Pretty nice shooter.

What does the barrel measure? I'm wondering why the front sight was modified.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

The barrel measures 6.5 inches. That is a good question that I have no knowledgeable answer for. I bet we could make up a real doozy though. Maybe he shot high and figured this would zero him in.

__________________
Matthew Conrad

Show a pic of the medallions.

__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett

Here are photos of the medallions Lee

Attached Images

	PXL_20220729_002440793.PORTRAIT.jpg (86.7 KB, 132 views)
	PXL_20220729_002542262.PORTRAIT.jpg (84.6 KB, 117 views)
	PXL_20220729_005318525.PORTRAIT.jpg (90.8 KB, 369 views)
	PXL_20220729_005230396.PORTRAIT.jpg (86.5 KB, 117 views)

__________________
Matthew Conrad

As Muley said, they were originally gold washed. That provided a surface that looked like gold, cause it was , but they had a rather matte appearance. They were NOT shiny like a piece of gold jewelry. For that reason, I do not polish them with anything like brasso or Flitz.
Lay them on a table or counter where you can leave them safely for days. NOTHING you put on the medallions should touch the wood. You have a dished medallion, so that ain't too hard to do. Put a couple of drops of a good light oil like Rem Oil or even WD-40 in them, but don't spray it. I use the small 1 oz Rem Oil bottle to control the drops. Spray the WD-40 into an old oil bottle with a spout so you can control the drops if you use WD. Let em soak a couple of days to soften the gunk. Even hard pressure from a Q-tip can rub off the soft gold wash if any remains. It doesn't look like you have much gold left, but you might find some under the gunk. You can see the difference in the gold and the brass if any remains. Use paper stem Q-tips to wipe them in a couple of days. You might need to use a toothpick. You might need to use some acetone on a Q-tip. Wet the Q-tip, then touch a paper towel to remove the excess that will overflow onto the wood. Go slow. Be gentle. Be patient.

__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett

Totally agree with Lee about not using any type of abrasive. Brasso applied will polish the oxidized brass and make the medallions look good for a while, but it also scrubs off that thin layer of gold and you end up with brass medallions that will darken with time again. As a matter of fact, I would not do anything with your medallions other than letting some Dawn detergent soak on them for a few minutes and using a moist soft cloth, wipe away the Dawn. Let dry and apply a microcrystalline wax for future protection.

Many of these gold washed medallions are found in far worse condition than yours. I only see a few small areas of oxidized brass and mostly dirt on the gold wash. Great old gun, but too bad about the front sight as it is unfortunately the first thing that caught my eye.

Attached Images

PXL_20220729_005230396.PORTRAIT.jpg (160.5 KB, 309 views)

__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515

Just curious, were you aware of the front sight issue when you purchased this revolver? I saw this revolver offered for sale at auction recently and noted it seemed fairly good—until you looked at the front sight. I moved on and at the time of the auction, almost bid on it, completely forgetting about the concern. Which can happen from time to time. If I owned this revolver, I’d be inclined to get it fixed. Maybe Ford’s can do it?

On the other hand, it does have the “been there done that” look.

I'm jealous...I would love to have a nice 6-1/2" Triplelock like yours in my modest collection. And I wouldn't be bothered in the least by the modified front sight! I think it's interesting that the original half-moon front sight was cut off and a new sight base was dovetailed in its place. It looks like the half-moon was then re-installed into that sight base. There's got to be some good history there. Your New Century, including the stocks, is in great condition. As long as you paid accordingly for the Triplelock with modified front sight, you picked up a very nice vintage revolver. Enjoy!

Nice old shooter. Let us know how the POA is with that front sight.

And you will still have an altered gun. I find a lot of period modifications interesting. I'd just leave it alone.


It appears to me that the base is the original base forged with the barrel. The original blade was removed and the base was slotted for the new blade. That front sight may be a little higher than the original blade, possibly on purpose and the reason for doing it. Or, it could have been done to replace a blade that was damaged or filed down too far.

__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett

And I fully agree! I was thinking along the lines of if I had this one having bid on it forgetting about the repair. But, when you throw all that out the window, the repair is intrinsically interesting—as long as said revolver is purchased at the right price. I have a DA First Model with a half of a dime fitted as the front sight. Have I made any effort to change this? Absolutely not, it’s significantly more interesting than the original front sight.

Not only has the front blade been replaced, but each end of the base has been shortened either by filing or the barrel was removed and turned on a lathe to true up both ends of the base. The cuts are especially evident at the front of the base on both sides.

The little nick in the rim of the medallion shown in this photo can be gently pushed back into place. The brass is relatively soft and can be "massaged" with the tip of a very small screwdriver tip using magnification to help see your progress. I've successfully fixed several like this.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

Thank you Lee and Gary for the medallion cleaning methods. I will update as I progress.

MRCVS, I had the .44 marked for watch and had actually got it mixed up with another lot in my head. I am happy with the outcome. It is a .44 that has potential to be a righteous shooter. It has not been overly abused, buffed out or made unusable. It is not original or correct and that is one reason I was not afraid to purchase it. I got a historic triple lock at $1300 hammer price. Granted, that doesn't count the juice, but I am a sucker for pre war N frames. TLs are the best.

As far as the sight repair, I cannot tell if the original sight base was cut completely off and replaced with another makers, or if the original base was shortened in length, a new blade pinned into it, and the whole sight soldered back on to the barrel? I do not think it was dovetailed under all the soldering.

__________________
Matthew Conrad

The base is where it has always been, IMO. It was simply slotted, a new blade added, and both ends filed to make the new blade flush on the ends, and the blue touched up. I doubt there is any solder anywhere.

__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett

Here's an unmoified front sight for lenth comparison:


Photo credit: Troystat & Bigl1911

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

You are 100% correct. The gunk that was in the previous photos is what made me think there was solder. Great eye!

Attached Images

	PXL_20220729_215138950.PORTRAIT~2.jpg (56.6 KB, 54 views)
	PXL_20220729_215253736.PORTRAIT~2.jpg (39.4 KB, 56 views)

__________________
Matthew Conrad

Thank you for your honesty! I appreciate that. Some get really “funny” when you discuss how much was spent on a firearm.

I am glad a closeup of the offensive front sight was finally included. For the life of me, I could not figure out what was wrong with the original!

Me, I like altered sights. It shows a previous caretaker was serious about hitting the target.

Kevin

__________________
Unshared knowledge is wasted.

I found this area of corrosion on the top strap at the gap area between the forcing cone and the Cylinder. Are these areas of concern? What might need adjusted by a gunsmith to stop this from getting worse?

Attached Images

	PXL_20220730_154257266.PORTRAIT.jpg (152.3 KB, 52 views)
	PXL_20220730_154330142.PORTRAIT.jpg (46.1 KB, 44 views)

__________________
Matthew Conrad

Bkack powder fouling cup. Machined there by design to prevent unburned black powder from binding up cylinder rotation....am I am expert? no, i asked the same question after buying my first N frame Smith & Wesson from the 19 teens....very nice old shooter, nose notwithstanding...you will love how it shoots.

Robert
SWCA #2906

__________________
Robert
SWCA #2906, SWHF #760

The front sight alteration was just taken a bit far by the 'smith when they used a file on the bbl surface in front and behind the sight base.
That cut rather deeply into the bbl radius and left the noticable lower areas there.
unless a safe-edge file was used, it may have left file teeth marks on the front and rear face of the base/blade.
Cleaning those up may have led to the less than 90* bbl to base angle.

All in all not a bad job though when done with the simple intentions of making the gun shoot where you point it.
There was/is some pitting around the muzzle area, but I'm not sure that had anything to do with 'fixing' the front sight up.

The new Blade looks a little wider than those narrow originals,,maybe it's just the close-up pic.
Does the rear sight notch show any widening to satisfy a thicker front sight blade,,or maybe even some 'targeting' (windage) adj?

Neat pistol. Love those TL's.
I'd leave the medallions alone as far as the gold is concerned. Ain't much thickness there to begin with.

As noted above, the oval is a black powder fouling cup. The actual frosty looking pitting was probably caused by corrosive primers.

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!

As a former machinist, it almost looks to me as if the smith that did the front sight used a lathe to turn back the area in front. Notice how that slight undercut is very uniform and vey round. Also looks like cutting tool marks up the front of the sight base.

__________________
Robert
SWCA #2906, SWHF #760

I still contend that the front sight base was either removed/added back or in some other way modified. If you compare the photo submitted by Hondo44 in Post #19 you see a very clean line where the sight base is attached to the barrel, and the barrel is completely round and smooth around the sight base. In the OP's Post #20, you see the sight base is flared where it is attached to the barrel, as if it was dovetailed or extra material added to secure the sight base. Just one man's observation and opinion.

Nothing was done to modify the rear. It remains original, other than some previous pitting mitigation A

Attached Images

PXL_20220731_120918995.PORTRAIT.jpg (44.9 KB, 20 views)

__________________
Matthew Conrad