British proofed Triple Lock without import/export markings

[mrcvs]

Here is my latest Triple Lock, picked up just this morning. It was shipped 16 Dec 1914 to Remington Arms - Union Metallic Cartridge Co, agents for the British Government. However, this revolver lacks the import markings and consequent export markings back to the States. Obviously this one never made it to the United Kingdom. Or did it and somehow avoid import and export stampings. It seems to me British proofing would have occurred in Britain and not in the States and the barrel and each cylinder chamber contains a proofmark.

See attached photograph for reference.

[deadin]

If I recall, importer marks weren't required until around 2002(?). This one probably came in before that. It having British proofs means it was sold commercially and wasn't a battlefield bring-back

[Absalom]

Some things need straightening out here:

The gun needed neither “import or export markings” in Britain, nor “importer stamps” for return to the US as long as it came back up to 1968.

If it has British proofmarks, those could be military acceptance proofs and stamps from when it was put into service in Britain or British commercial proofs when it was surplused out. We’d need to see pictures of the marks.

[mrcvs]

In comparison, here's one that shipped to the United Kingdom for the "Great War" effort and, according to the markings, returned to the States in 1951. My understanding is that this was required...

[mrcvs]

And, as requested, photographs of the Proofmarks on this particular revolver...

[WCCPHD]

I have one that has similar marks. Mine has been converted to .45 Colt.

Mr. Jinks reported (see below) when I asked for a ship date.

"Bill, .455 H.E. First Model serial 5642 is one of the rare commercial shipments. It was shipped in April 1915. I hope that this helps. Roy"

I listed the serial number and showed photos in a thread asking for serial numbers. This thread (page 2) discusses this particular gun and opines on its provenience.

Looks like yours may be similar.

[mrcvs]

If Commercially shipped, then where? In the UK?

[S&W ucla]

If it does not have the British proofs but does have the broadarrow, does that mean it was Canadian issue? Crossed pennants?

[Absalom]

Originally Posted by mrcvs

And, as requested, photographs of the Proofmarks on this particular revolver...

If those are the only British marks, that would indeed mean the gun went to Britain, but did not enter regular military service and consequently received no acceptance stamps. The "crown over V" is the view mark of the London proof house, not military. It letters to the agent of the British Gov't, but it may have gone over as a private order by a British officer; as far as I've read, the practice to let officers privately purchase sidearms ended with, not before WW I.

Originally Posted by mrcvs

In comparison, here's one that shipped to the United Kingdom for the "Great War" effort and, according to the markings, returned to the States in 1951. My understanding is that this was required...

That one has all the stamps one would expect from a military specimen: Enfield acceptance, out-of-service, and Birmingham commercial proofs. The latter were required for military guns sold commercially after service as military proofs were not sufficient. Your other one would be fine, and would not need further proofing before sale or export, since it has the London marks.

[Absalom]

Originally Posted by S&W ucla

If it does not have the British proofs but does have the broadarrow, does that mean it was Canadian issue? Crossed pennants?

Crossed pennants are usually an Enfield military proof. Your picture does not enlarge well enough to read the details on the top back frame, but if there is an E with the marks under the arrow, that's Enfield, and it would be British.

One thing I'm not sure about is when Canada started using the "broad arrow in a large C".

[AlanDavid]

mrcvs: From what you say revolver 2703 does not have any British military acceptance/inspection marks. This will make it a commercial import into the UK. It may well have been purchased privately by an officer but there is no way of knowing this for sure. The revolver has London proof marks which is interesting as December 1914 was around the time when the S&W agency in the UK went from John Osborne in Birmingham to Wilkinson Sword Co in London. If it was part of a final order to Osborne I would expect to see Birmingham proof marks, but we have London proof marks so I think it would have been sold by Wilkinson. Most interestingly your letter just says Remington as the UK agent, which I would expect to see for a military wartime shipment arrangement - but it would seem they also handled commercial shipments as well. This is new information as far as I know, at least to me!

Regards

Alan David
Sydney

[mrcvs]

Originally Posted by AlanDavid

mrcvs: From what you say revolver 2703 does not have any British military acceptance/inspection marks. This will make it a commercial import into the UK. It may well have been purchased privately by an officer but there is no way of knowing this for sure. The revolver has London proof marks which is interesting as December 1914 was around the time when the S&W agency in the UK went from John Osborne in Birmingham to Wilkinson Sword Co in London. If it was part of a final order to Osborne I would expect to see Birmingham proof marks, but we have London proof marks so I think it would have been sold by Wilkinson. Most interestingly your letter just says Remington as the UK agent, which I would expect to see for a military wartime shipment arrangement - but it would seem they also handled commercial shipments as well. This is new information as far as I know, at least to me!

Regards

Alan David
Sydney

You summed up very well my confusion as well. Lettering to Remington, as agents of the British Government, I would have thought that this would have been imported into the United Kingdom for military purposes only. Also, because there was such a need for these revolvers for military purposes, I am surprised that these would be available for commercial purposes. Especially so early in the war (December 1914).

[Hondo44]

Originally Posted by WCCPHD

I have one that has similar marks. Mine has been converted to .45 Colt.

Mr. Jinks reported (see below) when I asked for a ship date.

"Bill, .455 H.E. First Model serial 5642 is one of the rare commercial shipments. It was shipped in April 1915. I hope that this helps. Roy"

I listed the serial number and showed photos in a thread asking for serial numbers. This thread (page 2) discusses this particular gun and opines on its provenience.

Looks like yours may be similar.

Bill,

Not wanting to contradict Roy, but I believe he miss-spoke based on his published serial numbers for the 455 TLs in his book S&W 1857 - 1945. You actually have a .44 H.E. First Model, factory chambered/converted to 455 because it has a serial # in the 44 Spl serial range, but not in the known ranges of the 455s sold to the Brits.

That makes it a Non-British contract TL in category 0. following, and quite rare:

0. "Rare misc. non-Brit Contract commercial production/shipped .44 H.E. 1st Models (TL) chambered in .455", with no Smith & Wesson or cartridge marking.


Below is production for the British Contract:

1. “44 Hand Ejector-1st Model Triple Lock”, 812 (666 military & 146 commercially sold all with known serial #s) in the 44 Spl # series, factory converted to 455, with no Smith & Wesson or cartridge marking.

2. “455 Hand Ejector-1st Model Triple Lock” #1 thru #5461.

[mrcvs]

So, the "rare" commercially sold .455 Webley, converted from .44 Special Triple Lock revolvers, are 146 in number? It appears that's what you are inferring and that is what accurately defines my revolver in this configuration. I did not realize, as previously stated or inferred, that any were commercially sold. It seems that this would be unlikely to occur, except it did occur, as there was such a military demand for these revolvers.

[mrcvs]

Incidentally, full disclosure here. I will report what I paid for this one, as in all fairness, I did report what someone else recently paid for their Triple Lock: $1536.40, on Saturday. My bid was $1200. 20% buyer's premium (23% if by credit card, but I paid by check), + $240, or $1440. Add in 6% Pennsylvania sales tax and $10 in FFL fees and the grand total was $1536.40.

[Hondo44]

Originally Posted by mrcvs

So, the "rare" commercially sold .455 Webley, converted from .44 Special Triple Lock revolvers, are 146 in number? It appears that's what you are inferring and that is what accurately defines my revolver in this configuration. I did not realize, as previously stated or inferred, that any were commercially sold. It seems that this would be unlikely to occur, except it did occur, as there was such a military demand for these revolvers.

No YOUR # 2703 is not one of the 146 rare coml shipped category 1. converted 44 Spls, it's a category 2., made originally as a 455. Bill's #5642 isn't either and is very rare as a category 0. Here's the only serial #s in his # 5642 category 0., that I've been able to record so far:


0. "Rare misc. non-Brit Contract commercial production/shipped 44 TL 1st Models chambered in .455."
Including a non-Brit Contract special order TL subset of 25 standard .44 1st Model TLs in the .44 serial # range chambered in .45 Eley (per letter) with 5” barrels, shipped Nov. 1, 1912. Thx to Jim Fisher for bringing these to our attention and sharing documentation! See #5751 below.
A Scarce 5 Inch Triple lock shipped to Canada in April of 1915

5642 – NO CTG ROLLMARK shipped April 1915, a rare commercial shipment per Roy
5724 - NO CTG ROLLMARK 455 single gun shipment April 28,1915, from Canada
5751 - Caliber is 45 Eley, shipped in 1912 in a commercial order of 25, 5” guns to H. Robitsek, Canada
5788 - NO CTG ROLLMARK, Canadian 6 1/2” barrel shipped June 4, 1915 in an order of 5 to Hurd & Co.
7827 - NO CTG ROLLMARK, in Germany


1. “44 Hand Ejector-1st Model Triple Lock”, 812 (666 military & 146 commercially sold all with known serial #s) in the 44 Spl # series factory converted to 455, with no Smith & Wesson or cartridge marking. The serial #s for the 146 and where and when they shipped are on page 203, S&W 1857 - 1945, and they're all in much higher serial # ranges than yours. Most weren't sold until 1918.

Apparently once S&W began producing the category 2. TLs below, they quit shipping 44 HE 1st models converted to 455.


2. “455 Hand Ejector-1st Model Triple Lock” #1 thru #5461.

[mrcvs]

Originally Posted by Hondo44

The 146 are rare but yours is more rare. Here's the only serial #s in your category I've been able to record so far:


0. "Rare misc. non-Brit Contract commercial production/shipped 44 TL 1st Models chambered in .455."
Including a non-Brit Contract special order TL subset of 25 standard .44 1st Model TLs in the .44 serial # range chambered in .45 Eley (per letter) with 5” barrels, shipped Nov. 1, 1912. Thx to Jim Fisher for bringing these to our attention and sharing documentation! See #5751 below.
A Scarce 5 Inch Triple lock shipped to Canada in April of 1915

5642 – NO CTG ROLLMARK shipped April 1915, a rare commercial shipment per Roy
5724 - NO CTG ROLLMARK 455 single gun shipment April 28,1915, from Canada
5751 - Caliber is 45 Eley, shipped in 1912 in a commercial order of 25, 5” guns to H. Robitsek, Canada
5788 - NO CTG ROLLMARK, Canadian 6 1/2” barrel shipped June 4, 1915 in an order of 5 to Hurd & Co.
7827 - NO CTG ROLLMARK, in Germany


1. “44 Hand Ejector-1st Model Triple Lock”, 812 (666 military & 146 commercially sold all with known serial #s) in the 44 Spl # series factory converted to 455, with no Smith & Wesson or cartridge markinghe serial #s for the 146 and where and when they shipped are on page 203, S&W 1857 - 1945, and they're all much higher serial #s ranges than yours. Most weren't sold until 1918.

Apparently once S&W began producing the category 2. TLs below, they quit shipping 44 HE 1st models converted to 455.


2. “455 Hand Ejector-1st Model Triple Lock” #1 thru #5461.

So how many others out there are like mine and what explains exactly what I've got??? Much thanks in advance.

[Absalom]

Originally Posted by AlanDavid

...... Most interestingly your letter just says Remington as the UK agent, which I would expect to see for a military wartime shipment arrangement - but it would seem they also handled commercial shipments as well. ......

Don’t just focus on the “UK agent” section of the letter. If you look up top, it specifically states “British Government Contract”.

Historically speaking, S&W records and therefore the letters have been very precise about the conditions of sale and the contracts under which guns were sold. The default assumption should be that if it says government contract, it was a government contract and not a commercial sale. Any diversion of the gun from that would have happened later.

[Hondo44]

Originally Posted by mrcvs

So how many others out there are like mine and what explains exactly what I've got??? Much thanks in advance.

MRCVS,

Please refer to my edited post #16.

Your # 2703 is one of exactly 5461 in category 2. 455 HE 1st Models:

2. “455 Hand Ejector-1st Model Triple Lock” #1 thru #5461.

[mrcvs]

I believe this was requested.

[WCCPHD]

Originally Posted by Hondo44

MRCVS,

Please refer to my edited post #16.

Your # 2703 is one of exactly 5461 in category 2. 455 HE 1st Models:

2. “455 Hand Ejector-1st Model Triple Lock” #1 thru #5461.

Not wanting to hijack the thread, but do you know how rare my gun is?

Thanks in advanced.

Bill

[Hondo44]

Originally Posted by WCCPHD

Not wanting to hijack the thread, but do you know how rare my gun is?

Thanks in advanced.

Bill

Well I've been following these early 455 non-contract TLs for some time. And as you see above, I've only identified 29 including yours!

Now the only other regular production TL non-standard calibers are:
45 Colt, 44 S&W Russian, 44-40, 38-40 (most of those being 1 or 2 per caliber); a small quantity of 22LR, and 1226 in .450 Eley. So 29 is not a lot!

[S&W ucla]

Originally Posted by Absalom

Crossed pennants are usually an Enfield military proof. Your picture does not enlarge well enough to read the details on the top back frame, but if there is an E with the marks under the arrow, that's Enfield, and it would be British.

One thing I'm not sure about is when Canada started using the "broad arrow in a large C".

I added this one to Hondo44's database. Here is pic of proofmarks. Anyone have a clue what "D-6-Q.B." stands for?

mrcvs- please forgive slight leaning on your thread. Your TL has so many proof marks I thought it might be a good thread to discuss the many marks. Lots of knowledge in the answers here, Thanks to all those helping out!

[WCCPHD]

Originally Posted by Hondo44

Well I've been following these early 455 non-contract TLs for some time. And as you see above, I've only identified 29 including yours!

Now the only other regular production TL non-standard calibers are:
45 Colt, 44 S&W Russian, 44-40, 38-40 (most of those being 1 or 2 per caliber); a small quantity of 22LR, and 1226 in .450 Eley. So 29 is not a lot!

Thanks much.

I assume the cylinder having been shaved to allow .45 Colt diminishes the value.

[Absalom]

Originally Posted by S&W ucla

I added this one to Hondo44's database. Here is pic of proofmarks. Anyone have a clue what "D-6-Q.B." stands for?
..!

Yes, as I suspected, those marks under the broad arrow are acceptance stamps from RSAF Enfield, meaning the gun was physically present and inspected/proofed in Britain. Unfortunately, I have no insights to offer on the grip inscription.

[mrcvs]

Originally Posted by WCCPHD

I assume the cylinder having been shaved to allow .45 Colt diminishes the value.

Yes. These consistently sell in the $800 - $850 range.

[AlanDavid]

Originally Posted by Absalom

Don’t just focus on the “UK agent” section of the letter. If you look up top, it specifically states “British Government Contract”.

Historically speaking, S&W records and therefore the letters have been very precise about the conditions of sale and the contracts under which guns were sold. The default assumption should be that if it says government contract, it was a government contract and not a commercial sale. Any diversion of the gun from that would have happened later.

Where the term British Government Contract is used I think it is being used as a description for the gun, anyway it reads that way to me.
This is definitely a commercial pistol, so the fact that it did ship to Remington even though it was not part of a military order, still stands.
Commercial shipments of Colt and S&W handguns to the UK did continue into 1915, by which time the war had developed into one of attrition involving large numbers of men.
Regards
AlanD
Sydney

[Absalom]

Originally Posted by AlanDavid

Where the term British Government Contract is used I think it is being used as a description for the gun, anyway it reads that way to me.
This is definitely a commercial pistol, so the fact that it did ship to Remington even though it was not part of a military order, still stands.
Commercial shipments of Colt and S&W handguns to the UK did continue into 1915, by which time the war had developed into one of attrition involving large numbers of men.
Regards
AlanD
Sydney

Pardon me if this question has an obvious answer (my forte is more WW II ), but what marking or other actual physical evidence would distinguish this gun as having been shipped by Remington as commercial rather than government contract PRIOR TO ARRIVAL in Britain? Is there a WW I equivalent of the P proof of WW II on BPC and L-L guns applied at the factory that right off the bat identified military contract guns?

[mrcvs]

Originally Posted by Absalom

Pardon me if this question has an obvious answer (my forte is more WW II ), but what marking or other actual physical evidence would distinguish this gun as having been shipped by Remington as commercial rather than government contract PRIOR TO ARRIVAL in Britain? Is there a WW I equivalent of the P proof of WW II on BPC and L-L guns applied at the factory that right off the bat identified military contract guns?

This is based on my research, and quite possibly may not be fully correct:

I did some research, and maybe I should have tried to stay more awake in my US History class. History is so much more interesting when it involves a Smith & Wesson revolver!

In any event, the rules of the Hague Convention of (18 October) 1907 (and previous to this, 1899) dictated conduct during the Great War (WWI). The Laws of War: Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War (Hague XIII): Article 6: "The supply, in any manner, directly or indirectly, by a neutral Power to a belligerent Power, of war-ships, ammunition, or war material of any kind whatever, is forbidden."

The United States had adopted a stance of neutrality in August 1914; however, many of the rules of the Hague Conventions were violated in World War I.

So, this is why these revolvers were shipped to Remington Arms - Union Metallic Cartridge Co, instead of to the British Government.

[Mk VII]

We should recall that officers were required to purchase their firearm, either from commercial sources, or from Government store on a repayment basis (in which case it would be marked with the two arrows face-to-face to show it was the owners personal property and that he would not be charged with possessing stolen public property). Imports of guns continued for sale, to some degree, through most of WW1

[mrcvs]

Resurrected because it addresses similar questions in a recent thread with equal confusion.

[Hondo44]

Originally Posted by WCCPHD

I have one that has similar marks. Mine has been converted to .45 Colt.

Mr. Jinks reported (see below) when I asked for a ship date.

"Bill, .455 H.E. First Model serial 5642 is one of the rare commercial shipments. It was shipped in April 1915. I hope that this helps. Roy"

I listed the serial number and showed photos in a thread asking for serial numbers. This thread (page 2) discusses this particular gun and opines on its provenience.

Looks like yours may be similar.

Bill and mrcvs,

Since this thread the serial number range of .455 TLs is now confirmed by Roy to actually go to 5800 including the commercially shipped guns which changes many statements in this thread made back in 3/18.

"Since the factory did not keep any records of the cut off at the end of a model change, it has taken years to put together all the data to obtain the correct serial ranges. I have to tell you that in the game of collecting S&W's for 50 years I still am learning about various models and changes I did not think were possible when I started this research.” Roy 8/25/18

Triple Lock 455 HE 1st Model Discovery/Puzzle

[mrcvs]

Hondo44,

Thank you for that information.

So that there is no confusion: From what you say, it sounds like there were 15,376 Triple Lock revolvers produced commercially in calibers other than .455 Webley--by far and away most commonly .44 S & W Special. Another ~5800 were produced in .455 Webley. Therefore, ~15, 376 + ~5800 or ~21176 Triple Lock revolvers, of which ~5800 numbered 1 to ~5800 exist, or existed, with duplicate identical serial numbers, one being in .455 Webley and the other not--again, by far and away in .44 Special?

[Texas Star]

Originally Posted by S&W ucla

I added this one to Hondo44's database. Here is pic of proofmarks. Anyone have a clue what "D-6-Q.B." stands for?

mrcvs- please forgive slight leaning on your thread. Your TL has so many proof marks I thought it might be a good thread to discuss the many marks. Lots of knowledge in the answers here, Thanks to all those helping out!

Note opposing Broad Arrow points, meaning Sold Out of Service. Probably sold to an officer or may have had the marks added when sold as surplus.

[Absalom]

Originally Posted by Texas Star

Note opposing Broad Arrow points, meaning Sold Out of Service. Probably sold to an officer or may have had the marks added when sold as surplus.

That’s one of the things for which I’d like to find out the definite answer.

The definition of the double broad arrow is variously given as “sold out of stores” (implying sold to an officer or other person entitled to buy a gun from military inventory) or “sold out of service” (implying it was retired from military use, thus surplused).

The mark is no longer found on any surplused British Service revolvers of the WW II era, including pre-Lend-lease guns which still show British property marks. Of course by that time officers were no longer required to privately purchase sidearms as part of their kit.

[Hondo44]

Originally Posted by mrcvs

Hondo44,

Thank you for that information.

So that there is no confusion: From what you say, it sounds like there were 15,376 Triple Lock revolvers produced commercially in calibers other than .455 Webley--by far and away most commonly .44 S & W Special. Another ~5800 were produced in .455 Webley. Therefore, ~15, 376 + ~5800 or ~21176 Triple Lock revolvers, of which ~5800 numbered 1 to ~5800 exist, or existed, with duplicate identical serial numbers, one being in .455 Webley and the other not--again, by far and away in .44 Special?

Correct.

1. Also before the Brit contract there are rare misc. early commercial production 44 TL 1st Models factory chambered in .455.

Including a pre Brit Contract special order TL subset of 25 standard .44 1st Model TLs in the .44 serial # range chambered in .45 Eley with 5” barrels, shipped Nov. 1, 1912. Thx to Jim Fisher for bringing these to our attention and sharing documentation! See #5751 below. Maybe 40 or so misc. 455s total.

EXAMPLES:

5724 - NO CAL ROLLMARK 455 single gun shipment April 28,1915, came from Canada
5751 - Caliber is 45 Eley, shipped in 1912 in a commercial order of 25, 5” guns to H. Robitsek, Canada
5788 - NO CAL ROLLMARK, Canadian 6 1/2”, 1 of 5 in an order to Hurd & Co. Com’l shipped June 4, 1915. (With Roy's new information above and the late shipping date, this is likely one of the 5800 455 1st model TLs.)
7827 - NO CAL ROLLMARK, in Germany

2. At the end of the Brit contract 291 more 44 TLs chambered in 455 were scrounged up at the factory and assembled with serial #s from the 44 Spl serial range ~12000 to 14000. Sold commercially although some have been documented as winding up across the great pond and used in WWI.

If you'd like a complete outline of all contract 455s I'll post again.

[mrcvs]

And, I forgot to mention, when I posted, there's the 12 Club Guns, bringing the total to 21,188.

[jlemay69]

Originally Posted by Hondo44

Correct.

1. Also before the Brit contract there are rare misc. early commercial production 44 TL 1st Models factory chambered in .455.

Including a pre Brit Contract special order TL subset of 25 standard .44 1st Model TLs in the .44 serial # range chambered in .45 Eley with 5” barrels, shipped Nov. 1, 1912. Thx to Jim Fisher for bringing these to our attention and sharing documentation! See #5751 below. Maybe 40 or so misc. 455s total.

EXAMPLES:

5724 - NO CAL ROLLMARK 455 single gun shipment April 28,1915, came from Canada
5751 - Caliber is 45 Eley, shipped in 1912 in a commercial order of 25, 5” guns to H. Robitsek, Canada
5788 - NO CAL ROLLMARK, Canadian 6 1/2”, 1 of 5 in an order to Hurd & Co. Com’l shipped June 4, 1915. (With Roy's new information above and the late shipping date, this is likely one of the 5800 455 1st model TLs.)
7827 - NO CAL ROLLMARK, in Germany

2. At the end of the Brit contract 291 more 44 TLs chambered in 455 were scrounged up at the factory and assembled with serial #s from the 44 Spl serial range ~12000 to 14000. Sold commercially although some have been documented as winding up across the great pond and used in WWI.

If you'd like a complete outline of all contract 455s I'll post again.

I have Sn. 12691 Roll Marked .455 6-1/2" with no foreign proofs or US Import marks that was shipped 2/1917.

[2152hq]

Originally Posted by Absalom

That’s one of the things for which I’d like to find out the definite answer.

The definition of the double broad arrow is variously given as “sold out of stores” (implying sold to an officer or other person entitled to buy a gun from military inventory) or “sold out of service” (implying it was retired from military use, thus surplused).

The mark is no longer found on any surplused British Service revolvers of the WW II era, including pre-Lend-lease guns which still show British property marks. Of course by that time officers were no longer required to privately purchase sidearms as part of their kit.

I'd throw a guess in that the mark is.. “sold out of service” (implying it was retired from military use, thus surplused).
My guess only based upon seeing the same mark on preWW1 and WW1 Lee Enfield and SMLE rifles.
Perhaps on earlier MH single shots too ?.
Seems like it would make it a general marking to indicate the above and not something special setting it aside for the sale of a sidearm to an Officer.