44 Triple lock Target with some interesting features (now lettered)

[M_conrad_0311]

Well, correct me if I'm wrong; but any sight blade which was attached/pinned in place would seem to be a target sight by definition. The front sight blade on a fixed sight gun is part of the barrel forging-----right?

Ralph Tremaine

I agree with your definition completely. I thought Muley Gil had concerns that the front sight may have originally been of the forged type. I too had concerns that it may be a "target conversion". Maybe because of the poor fit of the current front sight.

I was referring to the ways that I have seen the front sight base milled down for a conversion from a forged original. I have added a crude sketch for assistance in my explanation.

I have seen a lot of the bases milled flat to the widest upper part of the base and others milled to the top of the thinner concave area. I am not sure if the factory target barrel bases had these variances also?

 

[M_conrad_0311]

Serial number 14541. A bunch of these in this serial number range were standard Target Model revolvers that shipped 29 Dec 1917 and 01 Jan 1918 that shipped from Shapleigh Hardware in an attempt to sell if most of the remaining Triple Lock inventory.

This is SN 14341. That is good information to have. Thank you.

 

[mrcvs]

This is SN 14341. That is good information to have. Thank you.

The statement I wrote still applies to that range. I have 14200, a Target Model that shipped 01 Jan 1918 from Shapleigh Hardware.

 

[M_conrad_0311]

The statement I wrote still applies to that range. I have 14200, a Target Model that shipped 01 Han 1818 from Shapleigh Hardware.

You sure nailed it! It looks like your and my Target Triple Locks shipped together! The letter confirms that this one also left the factory with adjustable rear sight and a pinned front sight. The checkering to the trigger and current front sight blade were done after it left the factory per Don.

I am very happy to have the Letter's confirmation of the original target configuration. Please share your thoughts on the front sight blade and trigger. Would you leave the modified trigger and front sight in place, or consider a "correct" replacement? It would still not be "THE" correct front sight or trigger. The action is so smooth, I do not think I would want to replace the trigger. How would a replacement sight and trigger effect the.44's presentation/value/desirability?

 

[Truckman]

I didn't realize the shipping department worked holidays...Your gun shipped January 1, 1918 and I just acquired a lettered .32-20 Model of 1905 4th Change that shipped January 1, 1915...No rest for the weary I suppose......Ben

 

[Muley Gil]

I didn't realize the shipping department worked holidays...Your gun shipped January 1, 1918 and I just acquired a lettered .32-20 Model of 1905 4th Change that shipped January 1, 1915...No rest for the weary I suppose......Ben

New Year's Day was just another working day back then. Many places only closed on Sundays-no two-day weekends.

 

[Nightowl]

[QUOTE

I am very happy to have the Letter's confirmation of the original target configuration. Please share your thoughts on the front sight blade and trigger. Would you leave the modified trigger and front sight in place, or consider a "correct" replacement? It would still not be "THE" correct front sight or trigger. The action is so smooth, I do not think I would want to replace the trigger. How would a replacement sight and trigger effect the.44's presentation/value/desirability?[/QUOTE]

Personally, I would leave it alone. I consider the alterations as a part of it's history. It was done by someone who wanted to change it for whatever reason he was going to use it for and to his satisfaction. That is a great looking gun and I would be proud to own it, as is!

 

[Model19man]

You sure nailed it! It looks like your and my Target Triple Locks shipped together! The letter confirms that this one also left the factory with adjustable rear sight and a pinned front sight. The checkering to the trigger and current front sight blade were done after it left the factory per Don.

I am very happy to have the Letter's confirmation of the original target configuration. Please share your thoughts on the front sight blade and trigger. Would you leave the modified trigger and front sight in place, or consider a "correct" replacement? It would still not be "THE" correct front sight or trigger. The action is so smooth, I do not think I would want to replace the trigger. How would a replacement sight and trigger effect the.44's presentation/value/desirability?

I would not change anything. That revolver needs to go to the range.

 

[mrcvs]

Yes, I would leave it alone as well!

 

[Hondo44]

I have seen a lot of the bases milled flat to the widest upper part of the base and others milled to the top of the thinner concave area. I am not sure if the factory target barrel bases had these variances also?

Pre war target front sights all begin life as a 1/2 round sight integrally forged one piece with the barrel. Target guns had the round sight milled off leaving the fluted sides at the top of the base. In my observations over the years the factory sight milling did not vary.