When was this first used?

That's one for Bill Cross, Roy Jinks, Don Mundell, of anyone else with more or less immediate access to reams and volumes of such information. On the other hand, folks who already know the answer, such as Hondo44, JP@AK, David Wilson, and a handful of other such students may not be challenged by such a simple inquiry.

It'll be interesting to see who gets it right.

Ralph Tremaine

Lawrence "dust bin" Shufflebottom, he tripped over one at the factory and yelled "Keep that dang Triple Lock offa the dadburn floor!"


I'm sure the experts will back me up on this.

__________________
When words fail, music speaks.

That's a darned good question.

I could be wrong (again) but I don't think there is a definitive date to be found.

In fact Roy Jinks states in his books that it is a nickname. And in his "History of S&W" that handgun enthusiasts came up with the name.

It very well could have even originated in the S&W tool room a very long time ago. We've seen several of these factory nicknames make into the S&W catalogs as Model names such as K22, K32, K38, etc. But to my knowledge "Triple Lock" was not one of those.

It's likely in the same realm as other enthusiasts' terms such as Pre Model, 5 screw, etc. In other words nickname introductions that were not documented anywhere until well after they were first coined verbally.

I'm very interested in the opinions of our learned S&W gurus.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

I have to ask…

As per Hondo44, it is a nickname created by handgun enthusiasts.

So, why is the term “Triple Lock”, although unlikely to be factory terminology, at least in their literature, acceptable, whereas the term “Lemon Squeezer”, which also is of non institutional origin, deemed, on a very good day, to be unacceptable, and on a bad day, downright chastised?

Good question! The only answer I can come up with is that not all enthusiasts like the same thing. Some like the 44 S&W Special New Century, others prefer the 455 version.

Perhaps Triplelock is preferred because it sounds “cooler” than New Century?

I, too, am curious about the origin.

Kevin

__________________
Unshared knowledge is wasted.

Lemon squeezer although somewhat descriptive, sounds derogatory for such a neat firearm. TL is descriptive, but it's also clever and has panache.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

Hardly anybody, including the vast majority of modern S&W owners, has any idea what a Triple Lock is or could be.

On the other hand, the New Departure would obviously be much too easily mistaken for the real thing

Attached Images

F58AEEC6-A106-471F-9CF5-30A8ABD50499.jpeg (26.5 KB, 233 views)

Well…

Lemon squeezer makes complete sense, as it would be a clever way to draw attention to the fact that there is a safety feature that requires the manual application of a squeeze to enable the revolver to fire. It might even have been a smart marketing ploy had that term been used when the New Departure was being manufactured. Of course, it wasn’t, but had it been a contemporary term. Nothing derogatory about that at all, except it is frowned upon.

Triple Lock is a term likely created by collectors, or maybe earlier as an internal term at Smith & Wesson???? Hence, the creation of this thread. It demonstrates the strength of the revolver, relative to the .44 Hand Ejector Second Model. I would guess it came out after the Triple Lock revolver was discontinued, demonstrating its relative strength, that is, relative to later models.

My preference would be to use New Departure and New Century, but no one really knows what you are talking about, and New Century really made sense relative to the Triple Lock revolver as the new century was nearly a decade old once the Triple Lock was available for purchase.

And the really obscure for the Triple Lock revolver is Model of 1908. That phrase alone allowed me to purchase a very nice Triple Lock Target Model revolver at auction very cheaply once as none of the other bidders recognized it for what it was.

Since I didn’t receive a definitive response to my question, giving this further thought, here is what I surmise:

If I had to guess, the term New Century was used internally at Smith & Wesson up until the .44 Hand Ejector Second Model came out, at which point, the terms New Century and .44 Hand Ejector First Model were used interchangeably and the term Triple Lock started to be used amongst aficionados decades later, probably post WWII.

I will go out on a limb and state that the company never used the term, at least on any pre-WWII 44 revolvers. in my mind, this type of question is best answered by reviewing factory catalogs.

Starting off using the 1909 and 1912 catalogs, the guns was named simply a 44 Military/Model 1908. When the TL feature was reintroduced, the model was named 44 Model 1926/New Century/.44 Target. None of the catalogs mentioned "Triplelock" anything.

__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515

That wouldn’t surprise me. Of course, the Model of 1908 along with the New Century Model makes the most sense, at least in the early days of production.

I forgot about it being the Model of 1908 when I wrote the response that I did earlier today. Many collectors do…

Well, I might have to change my mind. Ran across this flyer that does look like it could be a factory flyer? Interesting description: "Triple Lock Tree" printed before 1910.

Attached Images

triple Lock Tree.jpg (42.1 KB, 133 views)

__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515

I don't recall any factory ads or flyers referring to a square "handle"...That doesn't mean it didn't happen, just that my memory doesn't include an example......Ben

__________________
Cogito, ergo BOOM!...

Yup, just confirmed that the term Triple Lock came from the factory. Also, found that an entry using the term square handle was used in a catalog that ran from around 1908 to 1912 named "the Revolver. Only place I found the term in any of my catalogs.

One other interesting point is that The New Century is often referred to as a Triple Lock (not by the factory), but only had two locks. Go figure.

Attached Images

	IMG_20220508_0002.jpg (67.5 KB, 131 views)
	IMG_20220508_0001.jpg (82.2 KB, 130 views)

__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515

I will venture a wild guess here. Take it for what it is worth.

At the time of the Triple Locks development, the Government had been buying and using a lot of Colt double action revolvers. There was a very well known problem that they were shooting loose much sooner than they should. Colts only locked up in one spot.

When Smith decided to enter the large caliber, big frame, side-swing revolver market, they wanted their debut to show the world that weak lock-up was never going to be a problem with their product. Some might say that their gun was over-engineered. Some might say it was just right. But I think that all would say that it is the most beautiful thing to ever come out of a gun factory.

The factory had worked hard to demonstrate to the world that weak lockup was never going to be a problem with them. I have no trouble imagining that the factory could have been behind this nickname.

__________________
NRA Life Member

*
Pardon me if I am wrong or sound unduly pedantic, but the 3rd model/1926 was not a Triple Lock as far as I know, and I don't recall having heard it referred to as such. The barrel shroud on the TL included the additional locking lug. The 2nd model did not have it (the shroud and the lug as far as I know) for reasons related to the British orders as I understand it. The 3rd model had the shroud, but not the lock. I don't recall ever hearing of the reason for bringing back the shroud. It is also my understanding that the 2nd and 3rd models overlapped in production by several years.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.

I have a 455 New Century built and shipped in 1914. It has a lock on the ejector rod, a lock in the yoke and a lock on the rear of the cylinder that fits into the recoil shield.

What lock is missing?

Kevin

__________________
Unshared knowledge is wasted.

Interesting. That would be worthy of getting Roy's opinion about the factory origination of that flyer on the member forum.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

You're absolutely correct, only the ".44 Hand Ejector 1st Model - .44 Military", AKA Model 1908 .44 Military - New Century (nick named the Triple Lock) had three locks.

Neither the ".44 Hand Ejector - 2nd Model" nor ".44 Hand Ejector 3rd Model" AKA Model of 1926/Wolf & Klar Model, were TLs. They both did retain the front locking lug under the barrel, however.

The 3rd Model reintroduced the extractor shroud under the barrel at the request of Wolf & Klar as a distributor exclusive model (which it was for the next decade) based on market demand from Southwestern lawmen. It's been reported that this part of their customer base wanted the robust shroud and extra weight, after having previously owned or observed the TL, the .44 HE 1st Model, (for all we know they may have wanted the TL with 3 locks to be put back into production.) Obviously it wasn't, although they did get the shroud reinstated, but apparently S&W balked at providing the 3rd lock, if it was ever requested.


The British were reportedly pedantic about the complicated TL mechanism remaining functional under battlefield conditions but it is thought likely more so about the cost of the revolver. After all, the TL survived the USA Army trials of 1906.

Recognize, at the demise of the TL in 1915 the retail price drop was about $2 or ~10%. TLs were slow sellers and were not competitively priced with rival gun makers, which is reported to be the main reason for eliminating the 3rd lock/shroud. It should be noted that S&W had already designed the .44 HE 2nd Model sans shroud and 3rd lock before British complaints.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

I hope you will edit that post to correct it. That is going to cause a LOT of confusion. Did you mean to say "When the barrel shroud was reintroduced"?



Here is what the catalogs actually say:


1940 Catalog-




1941 Catalog-
It is pretty obvious that the Factory only changed the picture and the Model Name and failed to edit the text which describes a 44-2nd Model and is incorrect for a Mod 1926!


They DID edit the text for the Target and it is correct-

Attached Images

	1940 Mil.jpg (72.2 KB, 77 views)
	1940 Tar.jpg (59.3 KB, 75 views)
	1941 Mil.jpg (73.5 KB, 73 views)
	1941 Tar.jpg (59.1 KB, 75 views)

__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett

Lee, I wonder why the 5" 1926 was available in blue only. My 1st shipment 1926 (January 1927) came in nickel. Plus, the factory didn't mention the finishes available on the 4" at all.

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!

My GUESS >
They were selling only what they had in the vault, and they were out of 5" nickel. They were not building most commercial models because they were focused on wartime production, and they had probably suspended nickel plating already.

__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett