.455 Webley Triple Lock

[Promo]

Pictures are available in much larger 3200 pixel width size at this link, if that is of any help in the verification: Imgur: The magic of the Internet


@glowe, I'm a bit puzzled that you name 1914-1915 as time frame for my revolver, whereas user mrcvs in the second post in here named 1907 to mid 1910 as production time frame for it. How does this fit to each other?

 

[22hipower]

@glowe, I'm a bit puzzled that you name 1914-1915 as time frame for my revolver, whereas user mrcvs in the second post in here named 1907 to mid 1910 as production time frame for it. How does this fit to each other?

glow and mrcvs will probably clarify it but perhaps the confusion stems from the guns built for Great Britain for WWI the first of which were Triple Locks in .455 and shipped in 1914/1915 or thereabouts.

Your gun is earlier, at least based on the concave grips which were used from the beginning of production through 1909 and perhaps in to 1910.

Jeff
SWCA #1457

 

[StrawHat]

Grips, are they serial numbered to the frame?

I ask because I will frequently use earlier stocks on my revolvers.

Kevin

 

[glowe]

The 1st Models in both 44 and 455 were manufactured until 1915, until the barrel ejector rod shroud was removed, resulting in the 2nd Model 44 and 455. If the factory had leftover concave stocks from pre-1910, they could have easily used them on your revolver, maybe because it was headed for England. All these 455s will date right at the end of the production run for the 1st Model. Easy check, since the right stock should have the serial number stamped on the backside. Don't forget to check the serial number on the barrel. Cannot quite make it out with your pictures? The factory did provide 7 1/2" barrels in the 44 Special TLs and could have rebored it to 455. If the barrel serial number matches, the barrel could be factory.

Sounds like you should definitely get a factory letter and share it with here.

 

[handejector]

Thanks for the pics.
I see the proofs now. They are not located where they were on the guns we see from 1914 onward!
IMO, yes- you have a "Bisley" target gun built well before WW I and numbered in the 44 serial range simply because there was not yet any other series to number it in.
The checkered trigger is original.
I believe the sights are original unless it is determined that these "Bisley" rear sights were added in England.
The 5451 number you mention on the yoke (crane in Colt language) and frame are indeed just assembly numbers applied to keep fitted parts together before the serial numbers were applied. If you look closely at the rear edge of the yoke in the narrow gap between it and the cylinder, you will find a serial number. You have to wipe the gunk off, use a flashlight, and possibly look through a chamber.

If you check for a grip number, it will be in pencil on the top half of the RIGHT grip. Right and left on a gun are determined in firing position. The number can be degraded by rust, wood oxidation, and oil, so looking in various lighting at various angles might help. Sometimes digital pics will show a number your eye can't pic up. Again, try varying light and angles.

The 455 Mark II Hand Ejector, 1st Model was made in 1914-1915 in serial number range 1 - 5,000.

Gary,
you are correct on the WW I contracts for the Brit government, but we now know there were quite a few 455s made before the War in the 44 serial range.
These Bisley Targets are one variation, and a few dozen 5 inch 455s are known to have shipped to Canada commercially in 1912 and possibly before.

This model was designed to shoot 455 Webley Mk II ammo. ......................Calibers for the Webley revolver were quite confusing, with the early calibers including 476 Eley, 476 Enfield MKIII, 455 Colt, 455 Revolver MKI, 450 Revolver, 450 Short, 450 Adams and the 450 Colt. All of these calibers were said to fire in Webley revolvers, but the shorter chambers of the S&W 455 revolvers allowed only a few to work.

That is not correct.
ALL S&W 455s I have ever handled had the LONG chambers of the 455 Mk I. That makes sense cause you hate to get stuck in some far corner of the Empire with only the old, long ammo!

 

[Promo]

You were right, in fact even twice the serial on the crane!

Sorry, no serial visible on the right grip. Also a picture attached of it.

 

[mrcvs]

You want to look inside of the shroud for the serial number on the barrel.

 

[handejector]

You were right, in fact even twice the serial on the crane!

Sorry, no serial visible on the right grip. Also a picture attached of it.

Say "yoke - yoke - yoke"
It is only on the yoke once. The other number is on the part called the 'yoke cam'.

 

[handejector]

You want to look inside of the shroud for the serial number on the barrel.

He already showed it---

 

[MHF]

The fixed rear site? Isn’t that to comply with the bisley rules? I remember a post on that couple months ago.

 

[Promo]

You want to look inside of the shroud for the serial number on the barrel.

I've had posted this, unfortunately tough visible in the pictures. Attached is a cutout of this image - being stamped 4086 there as well it is matching too.


Does anyone know if the Smith & Wesson Factory Letter would answer as to whether this has left factory in "Bisley Target Configuration"?

 

[22hipower]

Does anyone know if the Smith & Wesson Factory Letter would answer as to whether this has left factory in "Bisley Target Configuration"?

The letter will tell you the configuration in which it left the factory. Whether it left in "Bisley Target Configuration" you probably won't know until you get the letter.

Jeff
SWCA #1457

 

[mrcvs]

The letter will tell you the configuration in which it left the factory. Whether it left in "Bisley Target Configuration" you probably won't know until you get the letter.

Jeff
SWCA #1457

My guess is the letter will not reference Bisley at all. I think it will state it’s a half or Semi Target Model revolver, which means the rear sight was added, or as a Target Model, which means the work is factory, perhaps with wording this was a Special Order revolver, with no reference as to what that means, but, of course, it means the rear sight is the type found on your revolver and not the more typical one.

I suspect this revolver was shipped to Charles Osbourne & Son, Birmingham, England. If not a factory rear sight, perhaps the work was performed there.

 

[glowe]

. . . That is not correct.
ALL S&W 455s I have ever handled had the LONG chambers of the 455 Mk I. That makes sense cause you hate to get stuck in some far corner of the Empire with only the old, long ammo!

No wonder my 455 revolvers are not very accurate. With a long chamber and a short cartridge, the jump from casing to cylinder bore reduction can upset the bullet enough to affect accuracy, especially with a cone shaped bullet with short base.

 

[Masterpiece]

Does anyone know if the Smith & Wesson Factory Letter would answer as to whether this has left factory in "Bisley Target Configuration"?

Promo,

Now that Don Mundell is doing the Letters it's hard to say how he's going to note the Drift-Adj. Rear Sight...All I can say is when Roy Lettered these he generally notes them being shipped in the configuration as in the Letter I've attached!!

I also believe there's a very good probability Your Revolver was one of the 25 Revolvers in the shipment noted in the Letter...Can't say with absolute certainty, but most likely!!

 

[470Evans]

No wonder my 455 revolvers are not very accurate. With a long chamber and a short cartridge, the jump from casing to cylinder bore reduction can upset the bullet enough to affect accuracy, especially with a cone shaped bullet with short base.

I have given up using the traditional Webley style bullet and the MKII cases in my 455s. I have found enough of the Dominion MKI cases and have had better success using them along with the 454424 Keith style bullet or the RCBS 270SAA.

 

[mrcvs]

Promo,

Now that Don Mundell is doing the Letters it's hard to say how he's going to note the Drift-Adj. Rear Sight...All I can say is when Roy Lettered these he generally notes them being shipped in the configuration as in the Letter I've attached!!

I also believe there's a very good probability Your Revolver was one of the 25 Revolvers in the shipment noted in the Letter...Can't say with absolute certainty, but most likely!!

If I had to wager money, I’d bet the OPs revolver is in this shipment as well and is identical to yours. Can you post photographs of yours, especially the rear sight?

 

[glowe]

. . . I also believe there's a very good probability Your Revolver was one of the 25 Revolvers in the shipment noted in the Letter...Can't say with absolute certainty, but most likely!!

The serial number on these revolvers are then numbered in the 44 Special range?? If so, they are not part of the 455 TL British military order which has the same serial numbers up to 5000? That certainly makes identifying them a bit confusing.

 

[Promo]

Promo,

Now that Don Mundell is doing the Letters it's hard to say how he's going to note the Drift-Adj. Rear Sight...All I can say is when Roy Lettered these he generally notes them being shipped in the configuration as in the Letter I've attached!!

I also believe there's a very good probability Your Revolver was one of the 25 Revolvers in the shipment noted in the Letter...Can't say with absolute certainty, but most likely!!

Thank you, this is excellent information and they are super close serial-wise too (4054 on letter, 4086 here with me)! Would you mind letting me know whether you own or have owned the serial number 4054 mentioned in this letter? Are you possibly able to tell if the rear sight on this is the same as with my revolver?

 

[Masterpiece]

Would you mind letting me know whether you own or have owned the serial number 4054 mentioned in this letter? Are you possibly able to tell if the rear sight on this is the same as with my revolver?

Promo,

While I currently don't own the Revolver...I do have a few photos I've attached which should confirm the Drift-Adj. Rear Sights are identical!!

I also apologize the photos aren't as clear as I'd like them to be ,but this Revolver's Condition didn't survive the test of time as Your Revolver did...I did the best I could to edit them a bit for clarity so you could use them for comparison...Hope they'll be of some help!!