What would you rather have? A Martin guitar/mandolin or a Triple Lock revolver?

M

mrcvs

SWCA Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
3,725
Reaction score
7,526
I am readingMartin Guitars: A History, Volume 1, by Johnston and Boak. From page 65, a price list dated 01 February 1918, which reveals that the cheapest guitar was $4 more than the Triple Lock revolver and $6 more than the .44 Hand Ejector Second Model, which, at $19, was developed as the Triple Lock at $21 was a slow seller. And a Triple Lock was more than only the cheapest mandolins.

An 01 February 1918 price list iOS actually a good date for comparison as the last bulk order of Triple Lock revolvers was 01 January 1918 to Shapleigh Hardware, only a month prior, and Triple Lock revolvers only trickled out of the factory after that.

Bonus points, and I don’t know the answer. If a Triple Lock revolver was $21 then, how much was a Target Model Triple Lock revolver?

Edit: I should have mentioned I created this thread because I was surprised at how much a Martin guitar cost at that time. I never would have guessed the cheapest guitar cost more than a Triple Lock revolver.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1998.jpg
    IMG_1998.jpg
    84 KB · Views: 95
  • IMG_1999.jpg
    IMG_1999.jpg
    76.6 KB · Views: 72
Last edited:
I don't know but I hear United Airlines breaks guitars...they just steal guns.
 
I’d take the guitar, but I always wanted to play mandolin, so it’s a tough choice.
 
I guess I should have stated this wasn’t necessarily a poll, but feel free to comment if you would rather have a guitar or a Triple Lock revolver. I just was pointing out how during the time of the Triple Lock revolver, most guitars cost more than a Triple Lock revolver. Which was surprising to me as it seems any ne’er do well from that era/hobos/castaways seemed to have, if anything more than the clothes on their back, a harmonica or a guitar. If they had a revolver, something small and much less costly. Given that an itinerant might carry a guitar, it didn’t come across as being something particularly expensive.
 
lihpster said:
Can't play a musical instrument but I can shoot, so....
Click to expand...

I agree with Phil. I like to listen to music, but I could shoot a triple lock and enjoy the heck out of it.
Now the guitar players on here will be torn and break out in a sweat just thinking about it. 😂
 
If you want a Mandolin you would appreciate a Gibson F5
made by a Lloyd Loar.
Minty 1922 in pic.
That's a 1933 C1 Martin Arch Top being restored and neck modified hanging next to a 1800s Cello from Cremona.

Stained glass made by my Uncle who loved Jazz on the Flute.
Headed the Jazz Society in Vegas long ago.
Good thing he never heard me on the Piccolo. LOL
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5692.jpg
    IMG_5692.jpg
    43.9 KB · Views: 65
  • IMG_2113.jpg
    IMG_2113.jpg
    96 KB · Views: 65
  • IMG_0178.jpg
    IMG_0178.jpg
    75 KB · Views: 56
Last edited:
As I read the book, a Triple Lock Target sold at the same price as the fixed sight version--------$21.

As an aside, never mind it's already been mentioned, the triple locks were selling at about the same rate as refrigerators to Eskimos---and the S&W folks were NOT happy!! Enter the .44 HE 2nd at $19----same gun--without the 3rd lock, and without the ejector rod shroud. It's worth noting the 2nd Model stayed in production until 1937.

As another aside, my 2nd Model Target was 1 of 39 identical guns sold to a New York City distributor at what HAD TO BE a close-out price of $17 each-----shipped May 14, 1940---and I'm taking bets as to how much of the savings were passed on to the retailers-----I'm figuring exactly NONE!

I'm also figuring the S&W folks did a little happy dance to be rid of that inventory---never mind they probably didn't make more than a dollar per gun on that deal. My figuring goes like this: It cost $17 to make a Registered Magnum. The only significant difference between an RM and a .44 2nd Target is the barrel rib---with the checkering on top. The checkering figures to have been done with two passes on whatever checkering machines are called, so figure it cost them $16 to make a .44 2nd Target.

And I don't remember which book said any/all versions of the Triple Lock sold for $21, but I can most certainly find it again, and quote the passage, if anybody wants to know.

Ralph Tremaine
 
Last edited:
I'd probably vote for the Martin as well. I have a 100 year old Martin..........um..........ukulele. :D

My mother bought it in a second hand store probably in the late 30's. As kids, we used to laugh at her strumming the uke to the few songs she could play. When cleaning out her house after she passed, I found it in a closet. I was just about to toss it when I looked at the head stock, which read "C F Martin & Co. Nazareth, PA". There was no serial number, so (from info I found online), it was made before 1926. There's no real way to know exactly when. Needless to say it did not go to the dumpster.
 
Last edited:
rct269 said:
And I don't remember which book said any/all versions of the Triple Lock sold for $21, but I can most certainly find it again, and quote the passage, if anybody wants to know.

Ralph Tremaine
Click to expand...

Ralph,

You are correct. The literature states any and all Triple Lock revolvers cost $21. I don’t see how that’s possible, as why would Smith & Wesson offer features such as Target sights and not charge more, and also, if Smith & offered any and all additional features at no additional cost, about 1 in 10 Triple Lock revolvers would be of the standard configuration, instead of what seems to be the ratio today amongst existing Triple Lock revolvers—approximately 1 in 10 are of the Target Model configuration.

But I regard the literature like a factory letter. If that’s what it states, and so it must be—until definitively proven otherwise.
 
mrcvs said:
Ralph,

You are correct. The literature states any and all Triple Lock revolvers cost $21. I don’t see how that’s possible, as why would Smith & Wesson offer features such as Target sights and not charge more, and also, if Smith & offered any and all additional features at no additional cost, about 1 in 10 Triple Lock revolvers would be of the standard configuration, instead of what seems to be the ratio today amongst existing Triple Lock revolvers—approximately 1 in 10 are of the Target Model configuration.

But I regard the literature like a factory letter. If that’s what it states, and so it must be—until definitively proven otherwise.
Click to expand...

And that's perzactly why I remembered it----it makes NO SENSE AT ALL!!

Ralph Tremaine

Now I don't know the when of all this---when it started----when it stopped (if it stopped), but the 1925 catalog has this to say about targets: "Trigger Pull: A trigger pull of from 5 to 7 pounds is standard for our fixed sight arms---while on arms fitted with target sights the standard is trigger pull is 3 to 4 pounds." It goes on later, speaking of M&P Targets in particular: "----------a special type of trigger pull is desirable--not by any means simply a very light trigger pull, but one having the peculiar quality termed "short and crisp" by shooters. This not only requires a special type of notch and trigger point, but requires a different adjustment of the working parts of the action."

In an effort to see if I could determine the when of all this, I checked the S.A. trigger pull of the 14 M&P Targets in my collection of target guns. These guns ranged from 1902 to 1936 in ship dates. Each and every one of them was identical---3.5 lbs---right down the line!! Now given all this is particularly applicable to M&P targets, we can't assume it also applies to N frame guns, but moving ahead a few pages in this catalog we come to " The .44 Target" (It's a 2nd Model.)---and the "Standard Trigger Pull: 3 to 4 lbs." (It doesn't say anything else of significance to help us understand the whys and wherefores of this one price for all business with the Triple Lock.)

Now crafting these several differences into target guns takes extra time which translates to extra cost---now, then, and at the time of the Triple Lock(!!)---which makes this one price of $21 for all even more spooky.

If you can come up with someone who does seances, maybe we can get enlightened.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Goony
A Rather Interesting 1917
Replies
8
Views
674
robertrwalsh
R
quinn
Triple Lock Provenance Fun
Replies
6
Views
522
mrcvs
M
moosedog
Curtis Harlow's art work on my Triple Lock
Replies
10
Views
711
rct269
R
B
What do I have?
Replies
11
Views
345
glowe
glowe
G
Triple Lock franken gun
Replies
4
Views
388
gmarshall99
G

Latest posts

Back
Top