As we all know, Triple Lock (and most other) Smith & Wesson revolvers were shipped notoriously out of sequence. However, I note the following with ten Triple Lock revolvers I am familiar with: And the "general" conclusion is that lower numbered revolvers shipped earlier and higher numbered ones shipped later. For example, 5 lower numbered revolvers all less than serial number 5000 shipped between January 1908 and September 1913. Four of the 5 shipped 1911 or before.

Conversely, 4 numbered in the 10,000 to 13,000 range shipped mid 1915 to late 1917.

One in the 6000 range shipped in 1916.

All in .44 Special.

The latest shipped one of the earlier Triple Locks, although not shipped until the last third of 1913, has original non medallion grips suggesting assembly prior to mid 1910.

Granted, a very small sample size, but is it possible that forging were in lots of 5000 or so, 5000 of which were shipped randomly until exhausted, at which point another 5000 or so were forged, numbers assigned and shipped until exhausted, etc?

That's a reasonable assumption considering set up time, need to produce other models etc.

__________________
SWCA #3356, SWHF#611

I'd bet money all 15,375 frames including `1400 converted to 455 at the factory and the ~5800 built as 455 TLs were forged in one lot of 20,000 frames or more most likely.

Those frames not built as TLs were built into British 455 2nd Models and/or 44 2nd Models. In fact the first 44 2nd model is numbered in the 14,000 range of TL #s.

The model 1896 32 HE 20,000+_frames were all forged in 1896 and sold up until 1903. That's why all are officially "antiques" for buying and selling.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

I seriously doubt that they were all forged at the same time. That not the way a manufacturer works when it has different departments for different operations.
Since there is no way to prove it, not much point in arguing hypotheticals.

If you look at the Gun Digest piece from the 1950s it shows various depts. doing various jobs at the same time. I'll bet that is the historic precedent as it was with most manufacturers that featured an in-house forging Dept.
That's my opinion.
BTW: How much money?

I'm thinking that S&W frames were built in batches, but size undetermined. Back in the late 70's I wanted a Mod 41 real bad, but several dealers couldn't order as there were none available. One told me the factory advised him a batch would be built in about 6 months. About 8 months later the 41's became available. Some where, possibly imagined, I heard the batches were 500 each, but that wouldn't seem to satisfy market needs.

__________________
H Richard
SWCA1967 SWHF244

There is one case for mass forging of S&W frames if history is properly documented. The 1st Model 32 HE, Model 1896 was manufactured in numbers similar to TLs and all frames were reportedly forged and numbered by 1898, so almost 20,000 frames were manufactured in less than two years and shipped over a 9 year period until sold out in 1904. Was that reality or just what was told to the BATF in order to get antique status??

Below is a chart of the TLs serial numbers versus ship date by year. Using the SWCA database and the year shipped it is clear that the majority of a certain serial number range was sold close together, but there were exceptions in almost every year. Some might be attributed to errors in entering data, errors in establishing ship dates, or some odd-ball calibers that got thrown in with the 44 serial number range. An example is the earliest 1912 entry, which was ordered in 38/44 caliber.

Not a collector of 44TLs so others can make the observations of what the charts tells us, I am just the statistician.

Attached Images

S&W Triplelock Ship Dates.jpg (40.5 KB, 107 views)

__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515

Gary,
Part of the problem with making assumptions is pointed out in your post and a previous one. "The 1st Model 32 HE, Model 1896 was manufactured in numbers similar to TLs and all frames were manufactured in less than two years" and "The model 1896 32 HE 20,000+_frames were all forged in 1896".
Which number is correct? or are these oft repeated speculation that we see around here? Would forgings over two years considered "one batch"? Where do these figures come from?
I respectfully submit that in the absence of documentation some things are simply unknown and lost to history. Speculation without considerable data is just that... no matter how frequently it is repeated. I don't deny documentation nor conclusions based on a large quantity of data compiled in a conscientious manner. "Data" here is often of the "cut and paste" variety with few sources sited.

I guess you have factual data that proves that very large batches of frames were NOT made????? Because if not, you should not be making assumptions either. I did not make any assumptions in my post, nor did I state that frames made over a two year period was "one batch", BUT Roy Jinks is very solid on the point that the Model 1896 were all made before 1899 so that is good enough for me. It was only meant to convey that it was certainly possible that many frames could have been and were made in a relatively short amount of time.

Also, sorry you consider my posts as cut and paste info, and if so, you are not obligated to read them in the future.

__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515

This graph reflects exactly what I would have expected it to look like had I taken my 10 data points and expanded them to a much larger sample size.

I stated my opinion as an opinion, sorry it pissed you off.

Having bought S&Ws over the last 40 + years, I remember having several gun shops try to order me a handgun and the shop owners told me that they had spoken with their distributers and that the factory wasn't building N frames at that time.

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!

Opinions are welcome but since you're so convinced "...there is no way to prove it..." I don't see a point to your question.

I don't see Gary expressing himself as "pissed off", just stating his opinion as well and w/o contention.

Since you're also a member of the S&WCA, the same information Gary and I are referring to is also available to you, so apparently you're not interested in it, rather call it "cut and paste", and just consider your opinion more accurate.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

We are each interested in different things. As Gary stated, triple locks, "Not a collector of 44TLs so others can make the observations...".
I simply took exception to your and Gary's different reporting of the same information about .32 frame forging with no reference sited, something you do all the time.
I don't cut and paste ever. You must have unlimited time and huge files of material and other people photos ready to suit most any topic that might come up. Congratulations, that is not my style.
My biggest point is that much of these things that collectors wonder about, and the original topic of this thread are simply questions that cannot be answered and that the speculation, when cut and pasted often enough, is taken to be fact.
Roy often says, to the effect that S&W was running a business, and not concerned with our later interests.
Steven Dodd Hughes

BTW: How much money did you want to bet?

My first and last definitive knowledge of how S&W worked came in the 1950's when I bought my first (and only) brand new in the box K-22---as an 18 year old on safari in Georgia from Missouri for exactly that purpose. It had the matte/satin finish. I wanted the "bright blue". It could be had in 6 months---because that's the way they did things---in batches----build these for a spell----then build those for a spell---and so on. And the next batch of K-22's wouldn't be along for 6 months. (My problem was solved by buying the gun with the funky finish, and sending it back for the shiny stuff---took 2 weeks.)

Anyhow, time passed---into the 60's, and as best I knew that practice continued. And then I didn't care for about 30 years---and still don't. And don't know/don't care how they did things before that

Given my blissful ignorance, I'm inclined to suppose they did and do as I would have done in their place at any particular point in time----and that's do my damnedest to run the business so as to make a profit----so my boss wouldn't fire my sorry butt. Now bear in mind it wasn't until the late 40's that anybody besides kinfolk came to be running S&W, so it ain't too likely anybody who should'a got canned got canned. Their focus was on building neat guns----not running a business----'cause that's what their daddy did.

Now, with the stage set as it is----with a businessman running S&W, there's no way in hell they forged a gazillion frames for anything, least of all a brand new and high priced gun like a Triple Lock-----not until they had a feel for how things were going to go. And even then, the throttle would be set at slow and easy---lest we bite off more than we can chew---and choke----and die----DEAD!!.

BUT----a businessman was nowhere near S&W when the TL came along---nor at any time before. Accordingly, they did what felt good---not necessarily anything that made any sense. Also accordingly, any and all speculation based on what makes sense is a waste of time and energy.

And finally, would anybody care to guess how many guns Ruger made up when they were starting out? Don't bother----they made one----and shipped it---AFTER they had the order----AND the money. And then they made another one. And then----------. And they NEVER borrowed a dime---or so they say.

The good old days------------------------

Ralph Tremaine

Well, Ralph, word has it that old D.B. was one hard nosed businessman. And like you say, it'd be nuts to run off thousands of frames with the hope that they'd sell.

Also, while I don't know the production capacity of S&W's forging shop in the early 1900's, I'd guess that they'd want to keep selling other models too.

Maybe they could rough forge 10,000 frames in a couple of months, but were I working there at that time, I'd have some job security issues with a large production run of a new, expensive, and not market tested gun

__________________
SWCA #3356, SWHF#611

Mine has a SN right at 2000 and shipped in 1913. The original grips have no medallion.

__________________
Dr. B

Actually the TLs were well tested...in the 1906 Army Trials. One gun was tested to destruction in the rust trial test. Smith was so confident in their new gun, that they ordered 10's of thousands new boxes for it.

Unfortunately marked for the 45 S&W Special which was the chambering for the Army trials. When they lost out to the 1911 45 Auto, guess where all the boxes went. They were used up on the British contract 455s with a new end label pasted on.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

Steven,

The above was the original question. He wasn't asking for a finite answer, recognize just merely for comments on his speculation.

When there's no way to know the answer to things in life, i.e., the pyramids, outer space, some diseases; therefore theories are postulated based on facts we do know. Nowhere is this more true than with S&W collecting. Very many of Roy's answers are just that, his best theories, hence his statement you referenced. Many members appreciate that much more than: "I don't know".

And that's also what many posters in this thread did, take what we know, use some cognizant reasoning, and postulate reasonable theories. If you want sources, just ask. Many times all we can say is from conversations with Roy. In the case of my original posted statements it was from Roy's published letter in the Journal to the BATFE and my conversations with him in which I try to clarify details.

For the question of this thread you're free to post the specific question to Roy on the members forum and then you too may get his answer or theory. But recognize, we work under certain parameters here, i.e., information from there, stays over there, not cut and pasted.

My in person conversations with Roy I treat differently, all likely do their own way, and may get different information or have more or less insight on an issue. Don't try to make a science out of everything S&W or make assumptions about unlimited time, no one has that and what if they did?

My best suggestion is don't take anything as fact, then you won't be disappointed, and take your quote of Roy to heart because that's all we got and all we're gonna get on many questions.

Do you want to bet on a moot point since you don't believe there's a provable answer....so why ask?

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

Much of what Roy states is speculation. The one that really surprised me relative to Triple Lock revolvers is that Roy admitted that when he states that a Triple Lock shipped with medallion or non medallion stocks, what Roy states in the letter is purely speculation and not based on records anywhere. I'm not saying Roy is right or wrong to do so, or that what I say is right or wrong, but all you really can say objectively is that non medallion stocks were used exclusively until mid 1910 until the introduction of the medallion stocks at this time. That's it! If it shipped before mid 1910, it had non medallion stocks. After mid 1910, either are possible, and the further removed one is from a mid 1910 ship date, there is increasing probability that the stocks are the medallion variety. But there is no reasonable date by which non medallion stocks were no longer utilized. I have a Triple Lock that shipped in September 1913 and it contains, in all likelihood, its original stocks. And I'm certain it wasn't the last one to ship with non medallion stocks.

Here is a thought that effects the length of a forging run.

It wouldn't take that long to change out the dies on the drop forge or change the size of the pieces going into the forge itself.

I speculate that Roy's has the greatest knowledge base to base his speculations on of anyone.

All of this insight and not ONE picture of a Triple Lock, or 1896?

For shame.

__________________
Dave

I have written a few things and deleted them, I may be over thinking things here?

Talking of forgings, the actual raw forging straight off the press?

Perhaps forgings is meant mean serialized frames?

Here's a few!

Attached Images

	20190224_085920.jpg (75.6 KB, 75 views)
	20181121_224824.jpg (67.7 KB, 72 views)

OK....

Here's a nice blingy one for 'ya.

__________________
SWCA #3356, SWHF#611

Thanks to all who posted pictures. Can't put it in the Ampersand without one!

__________________
Dave

Dave
I never get tired of showing 088! Shipped in 1906.
Don

Attached Images

	Triple Lock 1.jpg (70.4 KB, 74 views)
	Triple Lock 3.jpg (47.0 KB, 75 views)

__________________
Don Mundell

45Wheelgun,

There's lots of nicer 1896s around, but here's mine:

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

H44, "The model 1896 32 HE 20,000+_frames were all forged in 1896 and sold up until 1903. That's why all are officially "antiques" for buying and selling."

glowe, "There is one case for mass forging of S&W frames if history is properly documented. The 1st Model 32 HE, Model 1896 was manufactured in numbers similar to TLs and all frames were reportedly forged and numbered by 1898, so almost 20,000 frames were manufactured in less than two years and shipped over a 9 year period until sold out in 1904.

glowe, "Roy Jinks is very solid on the point that the Model 1896 were all made before 1899 so that is good enough for me. It was only meant to convey that it was certainly possible that many frames could have been and were made in a relatively short amount of time."

And Roy's answer to the question today, " that is a tough question to answer the frames are forged and I do not have any way to proof that all 20,000 units were forged in 1899. I have found that the BATF will use the shipping date as the manufacturing date as it is the only positive date that is available that list serial numbers. There are no records left that show production dates for parts such as frames. I wish I had a better answer for you."

My point is that you guys (especially Hondo44) state this stuff as if it were gospel, it isn't nobody really knows!
Roy admits he doesn't but you guys keep repeating stuff until folks truly believe it.

I've done lots of research on double guns from the 1840s up through the 1920s and have always been careful to stated facts, label speculation and be very careful about differentiating between the two.

Those points are not important here so. I think I have simply outgrown this forum as have many of the longtime genuine experts. I'll leave it to you guys...Have fun~~

Steven,


Be happy to think as you like and perhaps you'll have much less frustration as well.
Thank you.
Goodbye and have fun too,

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819