455 Second Crown over 11 on Butt

[Texas Star]

No theory, to quote List of Changes 17463 5 Jul 1915: The Mark I Smith & Wesson pistol is that described by the Trade as the "Old Model". The Mark II, known as the "New Model", is distinguished by having the numeral II stamped on the left side of the frame. The "Old Model" was of course the Triple Lock.

The late Tony Edwards did extensive research into British Military Small Arms Ammo. He gave velocity figures as: Mk I Black Powder 700 fps; Mk I Cordite 600 fps; Mk II (cordite) about 600 fps. The 750 fps Dominion "455 Colt" was I feel sure intended for the RCMP's (stronger?) Colt New Service revolvers.

Peter

I agree that the Colt is stronger, but .455 Colt shouldn't be a problem for the S&W, either.

BTW, I've read that ammo boxes of some lots of MK III (HP) and IV (wadcutter) .455 ammo are marked as not being authorized for use against European foes. It was evidently thought to be so brutal that it was meant only for use on savage native peoples in colonies.

 

[Dave_n]

If memory serves me correctly the double broad arrow marking stands for "sold out of service". Dave_n

 

[Texas Star]

If memory serves me correctly the double broad arrow marking stands for "sold out of service". Dave_n

Yes, that's been addressed here and on other sites, numerous times. It's in this very thread. (See Post No. 9)

But guns sold directly to officers won't have the Broad Arrow at all, unless Sold From Stores.

 

[glowe]

I agree that the Colt is stronger, but .455 Colt shouldn't be a problem for the S&W, either.

BTW, I've read that ammo boxes of some lots of MK III (HP) and IV (wadcutter) .455 ammo are marked as not being authorized for use against European foes. It was evidently thought to be so brutal that it was meant only for use on savage native peoples in colonies.

Why is the Colt any stronger than an N frame S&W that ultimately became a 357 & 44 Magnum?

I have a Canadian Military 12 pack from WWII (1942) that is Mark VI. That ammo was available in WWI starting in 1915, so if the II had something to do with the ammunition marking, why didn't S&Ws have a "VI" stamp?

On the other hand, The "II" stamping does not appear to be S&W factory applied, as it was stamped by hand and appears heavier and lighter and at times not perfectly vertical?? So why would England label it II if it referred to the gun model? Roy does name both the TL and 2nd Model as 455 Mark II Hand Ejectors.

 

[PJGP]

I have a Canadian Military 12 pack from WWII (1942) that is Mark VI. That ammo was available in WWI starting in 1915, so if the II had something to do with the ammunition marking, why didn't S&Ws have a "VI" stamp?

On the other hand, The "II" stamping does not appear to be S&W factory applied, as it was stamped by hand and appears heavier and lighter and at times not perfectly vertical?? So why would England label it II if it referred to the gun model? Roy does name both the TL and 2nd Model as 455 Mark II Hand Ejectors.

The jacketed bullet Mark VI was not introduced to service until 1940. The lead bullet Mk II, introduced in 1898, was the standard round until then and most certainly from 1914 onwards (Thanks to Texas Star for picking up my typo).

As regards to the II on the revolvers, I have editied my previous post above to make the wording on the LoC more clear; Roy is wrong. The II marking was applied by Enfield to distinguish between the two S&W models. Not every British soldier or armourer knew what a Triple Lock was!

Peter

 

[PJGP]

To my knowledge (which is admittedly limited and which I currently cannot support with sources), the large C-with-broad-arrow was NOT applied as the Canadian military property mark during WW I, but was adopted at some point in the inter-war years.

Anyone know more about this? The only thing which would contradict that would be .455's lettered as delivered directly to Canada, stamped with the C. Can anyone show one of those?

I knew that I had seen something on this subject and have just found it!

In his book "Worldwide Webley" Steve Cuthbertson reproduces a letter dated 11th December 1911from the South African Government Secretary for the Interior to the SA High Commissioner in London regarding the adopotion of the Arrow in U SA ownership mark. The final paragraph reads:

"I may state that Canada has adopted Arrow in C as their Ordnance mark and Australia Arrow in D".

Peter

 

[Texas Star]

The jacketed bullet Mark VI was not introduced to service until 1940. The lead bullet Mk IV, introduced in 1898, was the standard round until then and most certainly from 1914 onwards.

As regards to the II on the revolvers, I have editied my previous post above to make the wording on the LoC more clear; Roy is wrong. The II marking was applied by Enfield to distinguish between the two S&W models. Not every British soldier or armourer knew what a Triple Lock was!

Peter

Peter-

I'm sure it was a misprint, given your vast knowledge, but .455 MK IV ammo was a Man Stopper round, a full wadcutter. MK V was the same, but the bullet was of a different lead alloy. MK III was a full wadcutter HP.

MK II lead was the standard service load in WW I.

I think this is the first error that I've seen in your posts. Proves that even the best aren't infallible, I guess.

 

[Texas Star]

Why is the Colt any stronger than an N frame S&W that ultimately became a 357 & 44 Magnum?

I have a Canadian Military 12 pack from WWII (1942) that is Mark VI. That ammo was available in WWI starting in 1915, so if the II had something to do with the ammunition marking, why didn't S&Ws have a "VI" stamp?

On the other hand, The "II" stamping does not appear to be S&W factory applied, as it was stamped by hand and appears heavier and lighter and at times not perfectly vertical?? So why would England label it II if it referred to the gun model? Roy does name both the TL and 2nd Model as 455 Mark II Hand Ejectors.

Gary-

I think it's generally known that Colt metallurgy was superior to that of S&W in most models. Jan Stevenson commented on this years ago in, Guns or in his book of pistols and revolvers.

Colt was also heat treating cylinders before S&W. The S&W .455's were not heat treated. The US M-1917 was, but only at US military insistence.

You are 'WAY off base in comparing special S&W models like the .357 Magnum, which used special steels and heat treatment to WW I S&W .455's.

Without measuring, I think the Colt New Service also had a larger, thicker cylinder. It's a bigger gun.

Peter has already corrected your post about MK VI ammo, so I won't address that.

 

[PJGP]

Peter-

I'm sure it was a misprint, given your vast knowledge, but .455 MK IV ammo was a Man Stopper round, a full wadcutter. MK V was the same, but the bullet was of a different lead alloy. MK III was a full wadcutter HP.

MK II lead was the standard service load in WW I.

I think this is the first error that I've seen in your posts. Proves that even the best aren't infallible, I guess.

It is called a typo Tex! Yes, you are correct.

Peter

 

[Valmet]

According the the letter, the revolver was "shipped from our factory on December 4, 1915 and delivered to Canadian Government, Ottawa, Canada.".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I owned 35711 and it shipped to "agents of the British Government" in NY, NY on Jan 6, 1916.

 

[AlanDavid]

As far as the Canadian inception marks are concerned on the base of the grip straps on .455 revolvers, I belive these may not necessarily not identify an individual inspector unlike a British inspection stamp.
The reason I say this is that in the documentation concerning the inspection of 4,000 Remington Model 14 1/2 44/40 rifles on behalf of the British government by Canadian inspectors it was stated that the rifles would be stamped on the wrist with the number 3. See attachment. A small batch of 250 Ross rifles which the British had purchased were to be stamped with a different number, which may have been 5, but document not to hand. It would seem unlikely that just one inspector would be given the task of inspection all 4,000 Remington's.
I think Canada did their own thing as far as inspection markings rather than following British practice.
Regards
AlanD

 

[Monty05]

That is one lovely revolver. I have not seen one any where near that condition