Identify Hand Ejector "First Model" .455

[rand2021]

Thank you all for any advice on this pistol. After looking through the similar posts I would like to see if anyone can confirm it is a First Model, and if the proof marks show it is a civilian model. Listed as First Model and mistakenly as .45 in the store, then corrected to .455. Just not sure which version, which once known I will purchase it.

I am including the pictures that I have of the pistol that includes the serial number from the butt, although it seems there might be a letter missing. It is stamped .455 CTG and unfortunately, I didn't get a measurement of the barrel but appears to be 6". Sights are simple fixed sights, with a strain screw on the grip strap, a swivel, and 5 screws.

I am hoping for some confirmation of it beging first model and how to test for .455 chambering? I think I saw something stating you could put in a .45LC, but I don't know if then that means yes .455, or no? Sorry for any lack of info and please let me know if there is more you might need.

Thank you!

 

[Wiregrassguy]

Welcome to the forums from the Wiregrass! It is a .455 Hand Ejector, 2nd Model. The 1st Model is a triple lock with the 3rd lock in front of the cylinder on the frame and they fall in the 5000 and below serial number range. Does the rear face of the cylinder have the serial number showing?

 

[DARE]

Here is a 1st Model and a 2nd Model so you can see the difference. Both of mine are .44 Special but look the same as the .455. Your .455 will not use .45 Colt unless it has been modified. Easiest way to tell would be to try to chamber a .45 Colt round.

1st Model

2nd Model

 

[Goony]

I agree with Wiregrassguy, a .455 Mark II Hand Ejector 2nd Model. The opposing broad arrows indicate that it belonged to the British military and then was sold out of service. The last digit in the caliber marking does appear to have been added; is there a number underneath the barrel that matches the serial number on the butt?

Also, I'd remark that the stocks are later replacements. I'm attaching a photo of my example that's retained its originals.

 

[Muley Gil]

Welcome to the Forum.

As noted, it is a 2nd Model .455 and was sold to the British government during the 1st World War. The barrel should be 6 1/2", measured from the front of the cylinder to the end of the barrel.

If you can, please post a picture of the cylinder, taken from the rear face. We need to see the length of the chambers.

 

[rand2021]

Wow, you are all very quick! Thank you all so much - to answer some of the questions I do not have a picture of the rear face so I am not sure if a serial number is there but could get another picture while stopping by. I think the numbers on the crane are assembly numbers as they don't match the serial number. Is that correct?

And you are saying if a .45LC fits, then it was converted? So .455 is smaller than a LC? Sorry, not familiar with the round at all.

I also don't have a picture of the underside of the barrel, so I will get a couple more pictures for everyone to look at!

If serials were to match, what condition do you all think this is in? % wise?

Thank you all once again - this was very helpful information.

 

[Wiregrassguy]

.45 Colt has a thicker rim than .455 Ely. So, one way to modify for Colt is to mill the face of the cylinder to provide headspace. Another way is to countersink the chambers so the Colt cartridge seats below the face of the cylinder. Both need the chambers to be reamed for the longer cartridge.

 

[Kinman]

I agree with the rest on your 2nd Model H.E. in .455. I am a fan of the 2nd model because I think it just looks better than the 1st, 3rd and 4th without the extractor shroud. I've been told or read somewhere that after using the 1st model in the mud in the beginning of WWI and finding an inability to close the cylinder due to mud and crud keeping the extractor rod from having enough clearance the Brits requested that the shroud be removed from the 2nd Model as well as the extra lock and its tight clearance, problem solved and from a mechanical point of view it makes sense, especially if you take into consideration how miserable the working conditions were in the trenches. I have owned and fired both models and can find nothing better about the 1st Model other than the super coolness of the extra lock.

 

[BillyMagg]

Hummmhhh!

I agree with the rest on your 2nd Model H.E. in .455. I am a fan of the 2nd model because I think it just looks better than the 1st, 3rd and 4th without the extractor shroud. I've been told or read somewhere that after using the 1st model in the mud in the beginning of WWI and finding an inability to close the cylinder due to mud and crud keeping the extractor rod from having enough clearance the Brits requested that the shroud be removed from the 2nd Model as well as the extra lock and its tight clearance, problem solved and from a mechanical point of view it makes sense, especially if you take into consideration how miserable the working conditions were in the trenches. I have owned and fired both models and can find nothing better about the 1st Model other than the super coolness of the extra lock.

Hummmhhh! who gives a **** what the British think about the original, gorgeous, priceless, "1st Model, New Century"?? and to be honest, isn't this kind of like saying you really like the looks of "Hillary"? as opposed to "Melania"?

but to give you "extra credit", you do acknowledge the "super coolness" of the extra lock??? and with out that extractor shroud?? where are we gonna keep the extra lock??

So make mine a "triple lock",, actually make it a double!! wait, wait! sorry, I can only afford ONE!

and keep your dang gum guns out of the mud!!! nobody's revolver is gonna work after a mud bath!!! put it in a baggie if you must!!!

I think I'm done, mods, feel free to edit, slash, eliminate, or even delete, but I just had to say it!! I do like all Smith and Wesson 44 specials, but there is really only 1 Smith and Wesson 44 Hand Ejector, 1st Model, New Century, there, I'm really done now!

 

[StrawHat]

…

I've been told or read somewhere that after using the 1st model in the mud in the beginning of WWI and finding an inability to close the cylinder due to mud and crud keeping the extractor rod from having enough clearance the Brits requested that the shroud be removed from the 2nd Model as well as the extra lock and its tight clearance,
…

Actually, the British Army requested the change before they received the first shipment of TripleLocks. The reason? Cost. Cheaper to purchase without the extra lock.

As for tight clearances, the extractor, the cylinder hole, etc are all tightly fitted and even a small speck of un burnt powder can prevent any S&W revolver from functioning.

Kevin

 

[steelslaver]

First model 455 "Triplelock"

Second model 455

 

[Mike LaNier]

Indeed, Triple Locks are very cool, but boy, are they getting expensive! I have one of the 1100 or so 2nd Model Hand Ejectors that were sold as "War Surplus" when the 1915 Canadian contract was filled; Canadian proof marks, but no 'opposed arrow heads' that show the gun was 'de-mobbed' from government service; also, the '455' caliber stamp on the barrel was omitted and it has 'commercial' stocks. Sadly, the gun was modified to .45 ACP/Auto Rim. I've shot it; not terribly accurate, I suppose the .455 bore and the .451-452 bullets have something to do with that.

 

[Muley Gil]

Indeed, Triple Locks are very cool, but boy, are they getting expensive! I have one of the 1100 or so 2nd Model Hand Ejectors that were sold as "War Surplus" when the 1915 Canadian contract was filled; Canadian proof marks, but no 'opposed arrow heads' that show the gun was 'de-mobbed' from government service; also, the '455' caliber stamp on the barrel was omitted and it has 'commercial' stocks. Sadly, the gun was modified to .45 ACP/Auto Rim. I've shot it; not terribly accurate, I suppose the .455 bore and the .451-452 bullets have something to do with that.

If you reload, use .454" lead bullets over a mid to stout load of powder to "bump up" the bullet.

 

[handejector]

I've been told or read somewhere that after using the 1st model in the mud in the beginning of WWI and finding an inability to close the cylinder due to mud and crud keeping the extractor rod from having enough clearance the Brits requested that the shroud be removed from the 2nd Model as well as the extra lock and its tight clearance, problem solved and from a mechanical point of view it makes sense, especially if you take into consideration how miserable the working conditions were in the trenches.

That is just incorrect folklore.
S&W sent the Brits a sample TL before the War started. The Brits came back to them saying they liked it, BUT, how about making it cheaper and lighter by deleting the shroud and the middle lock. They did mention that it could possibly be jammed by dirt. So, S&W was working on developing the 2nd Model before the war started in Aug, 1914.
See History of S&W by Jinks, page 201.

 

[Kinman]

That is just incorrect folklore.
S&W sent the Brits a sample TL before the War started. The Brits came back to them saying they liked it, BUT, how about making it cheaper and lighter by deleting the shroud and the middle lock. They did mention that it could possibly be jammed by dirt. So, S&W was working on developing the 2nd Model before the war started in Aug, 1914.
See History of S&W by Jinks, page 201.

Thanks Lee, I dug out my copy and read up on the facts. It could still be argued that the Brits did find the extra locking lug problematic, and of course with the extra machining required for proper fitting an unnecessary expense for a wartime handgun.

 

[Kinman]

Hummmhhh!



Hummmhhh! who gives a **** what the British think about the original, gorgeous, priceless, "1st Model, New Century"?? and to be honest, isn't this kind of like saying you really like the looks of "Hillary"? as opposed to "Melania"?

but to give you "extra credit", you do acknowledge the "super coolness" of the extra lock??? and with out that extractor shroud?? where are we gonna keep the extra lock??

So make mine a "triple lock",, actually make it a double!! wait, wait! sorry, I can only afford ONE!

and keep your dang gum guns out of the mud!!! nobody's revolver is gonna work after a mud bath!!! put it in a baggie if you must!!!

I think I'm done, mods, feel free to edit, slash, eliminate, or even delete, but I just had to say it!! I do like all Smith and Wesson 44 specials, but there is really only 1 Smith and Wesson 44 Hand Ejector, 1st Model, New Century, there, I'm really done now!

That is the great thing about opinions, we are certainly all entitled to one. I have owned one 1st Model H.E. in .44 special for all of the reasons mentioned, but in the end outside of the coolness factor of the extra work required for the third lock can find nothing over the 2nd Model H.E. to which I have an odd attraction. In fact the only benefit I could think of for having an enclosed ejector shroud is for added weight to reduce felt recoil from heavy loads and in the event the handgun needs to be used as a club it does prevent the possibility of bending the extractor rod on something hard, while pistol whipping said object.

 

[BillyMagg]

That is the great thing about opinions, we are certainly all entitled to one. I have owned one 1st Model H.E. in .44 special for all of the reasons mentioned, but in the end outside of the coolness factor of the extra work required for the third lock can find nothing over the 2nd Model H.E. to which I have an odd attraction. In fact the only benefit I could think of for having an enclosed ejector shroud is for added weight to reduce felt recoil from heavy loads and in the event the handgun needs to be used as a club it does prevent the possibility of bending the extractor rod on something hard, while pistol whipping said object.

Awesome, send me some pictures of your first model, and an asking price!

 

[Kinman]

[URL=https://imageshack.com/i/pm7sl0rzj] [/URL]

Traded or sold it to a forum member years ago.