Smith & Wesson Triple Lock - Owned & Modified by R.W. Loveless

I'm amazed that there are folks out there who have never heard of Bob Loveless. I started reading gun magazines in the late '60s and his knife designs were mentioned and photographed often.

While I realize I'm older than many here on the forum, Loveless blade and handle designs are still discussed in the media.
 
Per the factory letter, this Model 19-2 with a rare 5-inch barrel was made by S&W for Bob Loveless. It was shipped in August 1965. I did not know anything about him when I acquired this .357 Combat Magnum, but soon learned how highly sought after and expensive his knives were. Click on the photo for a better look.

Bill

doc44-albums-combat-magnums-picture190-model-19-2-rare-5-inch-barrel-k594899-august-1965-a.jpg
 
Loveless modified Triple Lock .44

I am the guy who gave bravo2five the .44 Triple Lock. I'm not sure how I could prove that Bob gave me the gun, but here the story on my association with him: I first met Bob Loveless when he visited my camera shop in Long Beach, California sometime around 1980. He had called looking for information on a particular pair of Leitz binoculars (6x24 Amplivid), and was surprised that I knew what he was talking about and that I did have some information on them. Bob was always interested in binoculars and particularly Leitz products and he had a long time love of Leica cameras. Since I was a Leica dealer we had a lot in common to talk about and he visited my shop regularly up until I closed it in 2007, often spending a Saturday afternoon looking at cameras and having conversations with me and members of my staff, and customers. Bob was also very generous to his friends and once he gave me a S&W Model 41 that he had modified extensively. He later got it back from me and either gave or sold it to someone else.
We traveled to Switzerland together in 1992 and visited a number of Swiss machine tool makers including Schaublin. That was a trip to remember. I don't remember if Bob gave me the Triple Lock .44 or traded for photographic stuff. I do remember he had it refinished by Mike's
44ykh8jb
Gunsmiths in Long Beach. I hope this helps clear things up.
 
Last edited:
Is it possible that all of the modifications weren't actually done by Bob if the re-finish wasn't?

For whatever my two cents are worth, to me at least I would suspect that it was at least partially modified before he got it.

I've been looking at his knives and other modified guns, and I can say that he really made beautiful things. This Triple Lock is not.

I've been chatting about the gun with another forum member here and I have to say that I hate the gun. The blue job is all wrong, the polishing is unpleasant to me, the front sight is put in the wrong place, isn't the right shape, detracts from the lines of gun completely ruining the overall look. Wearing a set of post 67 target stocks is just the corn in the poop sandwich.

This gun evokes very strong feelings in me.

And then...the hammer. It's a work of beauty with the only flaw being its not yet case colored. Looking at his other work I can absolutely see him having made that hammer.
 
I accept the statement of mckay44.
If I was interested in the gun his statement would prove to me that the gun had belonged to Loveless.
I think for most of us, modifications to a Triple-Lock would decrease the value.
Whatever the value is I think would be enhanced to a Loveless fan.
 
Bob was also very generous to his friends and once he gave me a S&W Model 41 that he had modified extensively. He later got it back from me and either gave or sold it to someone else.

This seems to be a very common theme and kinda funny if it didn't happen to you. Most people I talked to had a similar experience or knew someone who had that happen. Actually someone here on the Forum said they had to "give back" the Field Gun that Bob had gifted them.

I believe everything you have said. Thanks for the story.

Jim
 
I don't remember if Bob gave me the Triple Lock .44 or traded for photographic stuff. I do remember he had it refinished by Mike's
44ykh8jb
Gunsmiths in Long Beach. I hope this helps clear thing up.

Okay, so here's positive proof this revolver was refinished by Mike's Gunsmiths, and not Bob Loveless. Mckay44's statement that Bob Loveless once owned this revolver can't be proven definitively, but it really doesn't matter as there are not high dollar stakes involved here. It's a reblued revolver, not factory work, and modified, and should be valued as such. With the statement that "Oh, by the way, Bob Loveless once owned this revolver". I would pay more for original ownership of a firearm by an individual that is a household name, like a President, or a renowned individual, or someone who is iconic in firearms—like Annie Oakley or Ed McGivern. An owner of a modified and reblued revolver, bought on the secondary market, becomes a neat story and not much else. There are thousands of firearms just like this one all across America.
 
I like it.
Bob Loveless is an icon in knife making. So having his name attached to it is interesting for sure.
Even without his name attached to it I like it. Not everyone buys a revolver and keeps it hermetically sealed for posterity. Some just like them, modify them to their taste and shoot them. Enjoy them with their friends and don't even think about tomorrow.
Think about Elmer Keith's SSAs that he modified to his taste.
I think it is a very cool revolver and if I saw it in a gun shop and could afford it I would buy it. YMMV and after reading this thread it certainly does. 😂😎
 
The Gerber Guardian is a nice boot knife designed by Loveless.
I still have one and gave others as gifts to family members.
Not sure if the Guardian II has his name on blade.

A Loveless knife in picture.
From the old Gun Digest Book of Knives.
Not being a metal man I made my blades from
Gaboon Ebony and Carbon Fiber in the '70s.
Not quite sharp enough to shave with, but stick it in,
snap it off, and leave a lasting impression. :eek: :D
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2231.jpg
    IMG_2231.jpg
    96.7 KB · Views: 85
  • IMG_2229.jpg
    IMG_2229.jpg
    22.5 KB · Views: 65
So......with that stance......I suppose a King Super Target Triple Lock would be of ZERO interest to you......am I correct?

Well, I don't know about that!

Once upon a time, I was prowling around in David Carroll's back room---and came upon one of many pistol rugs with a tag on it---said "Triple Lock-King". I figured it for a fixed sight gun with maybe a King front sight on it--or maybe a Cockeyed Hammer. I opened it up anyway.

I almost dropped my teeth at that point! Here in my grubby little paws was a King Super Target Triple Lock---pretty much brand spanking new!! I'd always wanted one of these things---probably wanted a K frame more than anything else, but then we all have to make sacrifices now and then---and home it goes with me.

The real point of this little ditty is I knew it was a King Super Target right off---probably could have figured it out in the dark---as could a good number of folks in this forum. I dare say a goodly number more could do the same if I was to show a picture of it----all without any documentation of its provenance whatsoever. This gun here presents as exactly what it looks like----a nicely refinished Triple Lock.

Given the desire to have it present as something more, more work needs to be done.

The end.

Ralph Tremaine
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure why he would after essentially being called a liar in the post right above your's.

I'm sure he has read my pre-warning first post, (#9,) about comments and speculations that would be given. I had a feeling.

I mean no intended offense to anyone who was offering their opinion. We all have them.

Jim
 
I'm sure he has read my pre-warning first post, (#9,) about comments and speculations that would be given. I had a feeling.

I mean no intended offense to anyone who was offering their opinion. We all have them.

Jim

Offering an opinion is one thing.

mckay44 said Bob Loveless personally gave him the gun and the specific statement proffered was…

. Mckay44's statement that Bob Loveless once owned this revolver can't be proven definitively…

That's not an opinion that's an accusation.

He SAID Loveless gave him the gun.

You either believe that or you don't and if you tell a man that you don't believe the words he offered, you're calling him a liar.

Which is pretty easy to do from behind a keyboard.

And lest my statement be anything but clear, I personally consider behavior like that cowardly.

That's not how you treat people in any community virtual or otherwise.
 
Offering an opinion is one thing.

mckay44 said Bob Loveless personally gave him the gun and the specific statement proffered was…



That's not an opinion that's an accusation.

He SAID Loveless gave him the gun.

You either believe that or you don't and if you tell a man that you don't believe the words he offered, you're calling him a liar.

Which is pretty easy to do from behind a keyboard.

And lest my statement be anything but clear, I personally consider behavior like that cowardly.

That's not how you treat people in any community virtual or otherwise.

No, I've been around long enough to see many "claims" fail to hold up due to facts proving otherwise, intentional or not. Many firearms are bringing big bucks simply with claims such as "attributed to", "reported to be", etc.

You have irrefutable claims, those that can be proven as true, 100%:

A revolver with a factory letter stating this revolver shipped to the 26th President of the United States, a revolver used as evidence in a trial, listed by make, model, and serial number, matching a revolver in hand, assuming, of course, that serial numbers have not been altered, which is usually the case.

Then you have claims that may or may not be provable, but are possible. A revolver shipped to Frank Butler. Which one? The one associated with Annie Oakley, or one of the other 65 or so Frank Butlers in America during that time frame. As opposed to shipping to Frank Butler of a specific address associated with Annie Oakley's husband. Or the reverse, such as Frank Butler of Portland Oregon, for example, a place Annie Oakley and her husband never resided.

Then you have claims passed down by family folklore. Such as my father was friends with a lawyer who had a client whose father was on the RMS Titanic and this revolver my father gave me was given to him by this lawyer who stated his client from many years ago whose father was on the Titanic that he had this revolver with him on the Titanic. Might or might not be true.

Or, the above situation is an actual event, involving a revolver shipped around 1900. Let's say this revolver had this story associated with it, and a factory letter showed that this revolver shipped 2 years after the Titanic went down. Then the claim is easily disproven.

Then there are claims that are not quite right, but are proven or disproven by the factory letter. Folks forget things over time. Someone inherits a few revolvers, says a particular revolver was given to him by Ed McGivern. Letters are obtained for these several revolvers. The one given to this individual, as per their claim, shipped to a hardware store, but the other revolver the individual didn't say anything about letters as shipped to Ed McGivern.

Then there are claims that can't be proven or disproven, but add little or no value to a firearm. The individual who says that he was given this revolver by Bob Loveless AND states it was reblued elsewhere, most likely the facts. He's not even trying to claim Bob Loveless did the work, or at least the reblue, on this revolver.

Then there are outright fabrications, intended for financial gain. My revolver was used by Jesse James. How do I know this? His mother sold my grandfather his gun. Jesse James' mother bought old guns and sold them in her later years for profit, these guns having no association with Jesse James whatsoever.

Then there are claims that must be true because they have a notarized letter. The notary only affirms the individual before them is that individual and signs the letter in front of the notary. The notary is not verifying claims as factual, or not.

So, in this case, the individual who claims this revolver was given to him by Bob Loveless and even gave information that did not enhance the status of the revolver—there's a 99%+ chance his statement is true.

The claim I'm going to make about my Smith & Wesson revolver belonging to Teddy Roosevelt. I'm doing that to reap vast rewards. Probably a 99% chance my claim is false. When I tell you it's a Registered Magnum and you tell me my revolver cannot have been manufactured before 1935 and President Roosevelt passed away in 1919–well, now you've just proven I'm a liar.

You have to be careful out there! One big name auction house makes a fortune for their clients based on a very shaky "attributed to" and gives a long story about the times, the individual, etc, while very craftily ignoring or proving the very weak claim.
 
One thing to consider her is that no one here is trying to profit from this gun. It was a generous gift and the provenance is now proven. Like any type of art its relevance and beauty is subjective. Bashing such a gift is callus and low class.

As it turns out, the donor even stated this revolver was not reblued by Bob Loveless, which supposedly devalues this revolver, if it even deserved a premium if Bob Lovelless did the work, which remains baffling to me.

If Carol Shelby cut the barrel on a Smith & Wesson revolver and reblued it, would you pay more for it? I wouldn't. My cardiologist does a great job and is well known for being a top notch cardiologist. But if he offered me a revolver that he modified and reblued, would I pay more for it? Absolutely not.

The OPs revolver is a generous gift from a friend. Fun to shoot, but worth as much as any other Triple Lock revolver reblued with a chopped barrel and replaced stocks. For goodness sakes, Roy Jinks has done more with regards to Smith & Wesson revolvers than anyone else, saving the records when the old factory was demolished circa 1970, writing various books and articles about Smith & Wesson revolvers, etc and he has sold off his top notch collection, original, rare, and with condition, and my observations are that none of his revolvers brought any more because he owned them.

Edit: How is being truthful bashing a gift? I never bashed it. I simply am of the opinion that I wouldn't pay a premium no matter who did the work, as modified from original. Others seemed to think a premium was warranted if Bob Loveless did the work, for whatever reason that escapes me.

This revolver is an interesting shooter. If someone offered it to me, I'd be tickled pink, but I would also have no delusions as to its actual value. To me, a value of $1000 for such a heavily modified revolver would be a stretch.

If I was given this revolver as a gift from a special friend, I would cherish it and keep it forever. Which the OP likely will do. If I obtained this revolver in a trade with a few other revolvers or bought it really cheaply, I'd keep it for awhile, then probably trade it for something else, or sell it to buy something better. I think others might as well. I have a gun given to me by a now deceased friend shortly before he died. Does it serve any purpose? No. I really cannot shoot it as it has Damascus barrels (although studies by Sherman Bell about 20 years ago seem to disprove the notion that Damascus barrels are unsafe to shoot). But will I ever part with this wallhanger? Unlikely.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top