Enigmatic Triple Lock Revolver

mrcvs

Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
3,823
Reaction score
7,718
This one's a bit of a mystery. Sold today for $2700 plus commission.

It is a Triple Lock that shipped 30 March 1912, 6 1/2" barrel, British proof marks. Lanyard ring with offset serial number (5245) in butt to accommodate the lanyard ring. Would be interesting to see if it was from stock and later offset or if originally manufactured offset. This was as typical for export to the UK. The letter states it is in .44 S& W Special. Barrel is unmarked, which is surprising. In my experience, all .44 Specials are marked on the barrel. .455 Webleys are often unmarked. However, these are much later guns, these being in the range for export to Britain, circa 1914. So, the question is, is the letter in error and it is in .455 Webley? If not, how many of these might have shipped to Britain in .44 Special, as that calibre is as oddball over there as .455 Webley is here.

I wish I had this arriving soon to analyze, but $2700 with commission puts this one at over 3k. My bid was $2500 on this one. Maybe a forum member purchased this one and can chime in upon receipt.

S&W 1st Model Hand Ejector (Triplelock) Revolver |




Firearms & Military Artifacts

Firearms

Pistols

Revolvers

| Auctions Online | Proxibid
 
Register to hide this ad
It has no British military acceptance marks or military proofs, and since it shipped to a business called "... Exporters", I would assume it was a regular civilian item for commercial export. Acc. to the SCSW the .455 HE wasn't actually produced until Sept. 1914, obviously directly related to the war.
 
The third picture, showing a straight on side view, seems to depict a larger headspace gap between rear of cylinder and recoil shield than what I'd expect for the thin rim of the 455 cartridge.
This suggests that it is quite possibly chambered for 44 Special.
 
Yes, the two replies posted are likely true. So why isn't there a marking on the barrel as to calibre, especially this being .44 S & W Special? A precursor to the .455 Webley unmarked barrels although no real reason for this. This obviously could not be a military gun being that it shipped about 2 years prior to the events leading to WWI.
 
... So why isn't there a marking on the barrel as to calibre, especially this being .44 S & W Special? A precursor to the .455 Webley unmarked barrels although no real reason for this....

Hopefully Jim (Hondo44) will see this thread and has some input. I followed his research thread on the .455 but don't recall a good explanation WHY the earlier barrels had no caliber stamp. The same yet unclear reason could have applied to the .44 Special.

But since this one went to an exporter in 1912 and has London commercial proofs, it definitely was gone by the time the whole "converting .44 to .455" business got underway two years later.
 
A butt swivel is no big deal. They could be ordered on any S&W. I once owned a 1950-44 Target, standard 6-1/2" blue with all standard features, that had a lettered butt swivel.


The Brits had some savvy shooters, so one being ordered in 44 is not amazing to me. Perhaps he was going to tour the American west or some other country where he figured 44 Sp would be more available than 455.


Lack of caliber mark-
Nothin to do here but speculate. ;)
I've seen 455-2nds with unmarked barrels scattered all the way into the 60,000s. I can only assume that they were makin guns while they were makin a roll die. An early batch (or two, or three) of barrels were finished before the roll die was finished. That early, unmarked batch(es) got used all through production.
Not too hard to imagine (speculate) that the same thing happened with 44 Sp barrels. When the first TLs were built, there was no other caliber to mark, so no big deal if a few early ones did not have the cal. Some early, unmarked barrels got used late. ;)






Acc. to the SCSW the .455 HE wasn't actually produced until Sept. 1914, obviously directly related to the war.
True for the contract guns, but see the 5" .455 I showed in another thread shipped to Canada in 1912.






(isn't 'speculate' a strange word? sounds like it would relate more to spitting than to thinking. "You can specualte out that winder over there." :D)
 
Last edited:
My take:

TLs were used in the Bisley matches. This was a civilian order and has nothing to do with, and is too early for WWI 455 TL production.

It was originally made with the lanyard swivel and that's why the butt serial # was stamped offset. Added swivels were drilled thru the centered serial # and re-stamped on the left side of the grip frame under the grip panel.
 
Yes the swivel and offset butt serial number is definitely factory work. I was curious if this was manufactured as such or if removal of the swivel stud would reveal the original, or first stamped, butt serial number, centrally located, with the hole for the swivel drilled through it?
 
Also, although indeed factory, as the lanyard is not standard at this stage, unlike the later separately serial numbered .455 Webley military Triple Lock revolvers, wouldn't one expect the lanyard to be mentioned in the letter? In comparison, I own a First Model American and a Registered Magnum, both with non standard lanyard rings, and both letter with the lanyard ring feature.
 
... I was curious if this was manufactured as such or if removal of the swivel stud would reveal the original, or first stamped, butt serial number, centrally located, with the hole for the swivel drilled through it?

That's really physically impossible since the S&W swivel installation is just a hole and the stud does not cover up any more of the butt.

.... wouldn't one expect the lanyard to be mentioned in the letter? In comparison, I own a First Model American and a Registered Magnum, both with non standard lanyard rings, and both letter with the lanyard ring feature.

Yep, that's unusual. Normally the butt swivel is listed in the letter, when the gun shipped with it, whether ordered or whether standard feature (like on military models). But there are always irregularities in the old records and the letters, so that's not earth- shakingly weird either.
 
Look like London commercial proof marks to me as well. Interesting as Osborne was the U.K. agent for S&W at this time and was based in Birmingham, so I would expect to see Birmingham proof house proofs. Also the letter quotes an export company rather than Osborne. I know earlier entries in the shipping ledgers have Osborne stamped on the page with a rubber stamp.
Regards
AlanD
 
Yep, that's unusual. Normally the butt swivel is listed in the letter, when the gun shipped with it, whether ordered or whether standard feature (like on military models). But there are always irregularities in the old records and the letters, so that's not earth- shakingly weird either.

Yep. My 1908 TL went back on purchase for "embellishments" including a swivel. Shipped as a plain jane and the letter denoted it was a factory return of a new gun-hence no star etc.

YneJ7HY.jpg
 
Last edited:
Back
Top