British proofed Triple Lock without import/export markings

mrcvs · Mar 3, 2018

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 · Mar 3, 2018

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 · Mar 3, 2018

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 · Mar 3, 2018

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 · Mar 3, 2018

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

WCCPHD · Mar 3, 2018

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 · Mar 3, 2018

If Commercially shipped, then where? In the UK?

S&W ucla · Mar 3, 2018

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

Absalom · Mar 3, 2018

mrcvs said:
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.

mrcvs said:
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 · Mar 3, 2018

S&W ucla said:
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 · Mar 5, 2018

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 · Mar 5, 2018

AlanDavid said:
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 · Mar 5, 2018

WCCPHD said:
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 · Mar 5, 2018

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 · Mar 5, 2018

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 · Mar 5, 2018

mrcvs said:
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 · Mar 5, 2018

Hondo44 said:
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 · Mar 5, 2018

AlanDavid said:
...... 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 · Mar 5, 2018

mrcvs said:
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 · Mar 5, 2018

High magnification photograph of the British proofmark

I believe this was requested.

WCCPHD · Mar 5, 2018

Hondo44 said:
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 · Mar 5, 2018

WCCPHD said:
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 · Mar 5, 2018

Absalom said:
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 · Mar 5, 2018

Hondo44 said:
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 · Mar 5, 2018

S&W ucla said:
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 · Mar 6, 2018

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

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

AlanDavid · Mar 11, 2018

Absalom said:
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 · Mar 11, 2018

AlanDavid said:
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 · Mar 11, 2018

Absalom said:
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 · Mar 13, 2018

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

British proofed Triple Lock without import/export markings

Member

Attachments

US Veteran

SWCA Member, Absent Comrade

Member

Attachments

Member

Attachments

Member

Member

Attachments

SWCA Member, Absent Comrade

SWCA Member, Absent Comrade

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

SWCA Member, Absent Comrade

Member

Attachments

Member

Attachments

Member

SWCA Member, Absent Comrade

Member

Member

SWCA Member, Absent Comrade

Member

Member

Similar threads