S&W Triple Lock Compared to Colt New Service

[rhmc24]

Just to satisfy my own curiousity -- maybe of interest to others.

The Colt New Service is a more massive revolver than the S&W Triple Lock. I checked out the basic differences in my 1906 New Service .45 Colt and .44 Special Triple Lock of ca 1912, contemporaries, use-wise. The Colt has 7 1/2" barrel and the S&W 6 1/2. DA trigger pull reach is 3/16" greater on the Colt, width of frame 1/10" wider, barrel 3/32" more diameter at mid point, grip 3/16" longer and the Colt weighs 3 ounces more. My early S&Ws & Colts seem about the same in smoothness of action but the Colt DA trigger pull is quite a lot heavier, probably seems even heavier due to the longer reach to the trigger.

 

[Sebago Son]

It's akin to comparing a Cat D-7 vs. a Coup De Ville.

The Smith was a refined beauty that the British decided was not rugged enough or more accurately, was too finely fitted, for trench duty.

The Colt was a massive beast of a gun that while not as precisely made, did well in two World Wars and numerous smaller actions around the globe for over 80 years.

This is quite probably the last New Service / Army Model of 1917 to see active duty.

It served with a family friend who was a Marine Captain during Desert Storm.

I have been told informally that it earned two more notches in "The Sandbox"

 

[DCWilson]

In general, each company had large, medium and small frame revolvers, with a couple of minor tweaks to smaller sizes as the years wore on. The Colt version of each size was always slightly larger than the corresponding S&W size. That's why Colt could chamber the hot .38/44 Police loads in their mid size Army Special/Official Police frame (".41 frame") whereas S&W had to put out a .38 caliber N-frame to handle the power of the zippy new load.

 

[jimmyj]

Colt is a larger frame/stronger weapon
Smith and Wesson action is smoother

 

[handejector]

The Colt version of each size was always slightly larger than the corresponding S&W size.

Perfect proof that it takes 'more' Colt to equal an S&W.

 

[rhmc24]

I have 3 New Service from 1902-1917 in too-good-to-shoot condition that have glassy smooth actions. A couple shooters have got a bit gritty. Of 5 S&W TLs, couple of them seen better days, all are glassy smooth, probably because S&W hardened all their parts while Colt did not.

 

[Texas Star]

The Colt grip is more comfortable, handling recoil better. Until S&W came out with the Magna grips, recoil into the web between thumb and trigger finger was uncomfortable for many people. It is most noticeable in heavier calibers.

Colt began uisng their internal Positive Lock to prevent a discharge if the gun was dropped in 1905. S&W did not incorporate such a feature until the US Navy required it late in 1944, after a Victory Model was dropped on a ship deck and discharged, killing a sailor.

Colt's metallurgy was always better, acording to author Jan Stevenson. That may be why they listed the .38/44 load for their small .38 Specials. (But I think that firing many would result in accelerated gun wear. Colt later said that they suggested that the factory inspect steel Detective Specials after they'd fired 3,000 rounds of the milder Plus P loads. Light alloy frames like the Cobra and Agent were due for inspection after just 1,000 rounds.)

Colts often do not shoot to the sights, and a gunsmith may have to rotate the barrel slightly to bring the sights into proper alignment. I once almost failed quaification in the USAF due to firing an Official Police that shot left. The range officer let me switch to a Victory Model S&W and I -was able to muddle through to a Marksman score. Normally (shooting S&W's) I scored at Expert or Sharpshooter level.

Colt's cylinder timing is not as durable, and it costs more to have one tuned...if you can even find a modern gunsmith who can do the job! Colt fixed that on their MK III and later guns, but those had other issues. And gunsmiths still often cannot work on them.

I think that's a fair summary of the brands. Oh: the New Service frame is huge, and unless you have really big hands, the S&W will probably fit you better. I say this after owning two New Service .45's, both of which I liked.

 

[Texas Star]

I have 3 New Service from 1902-1917 in too-good-to-shoot condition that have glassy smooth actions. A couple shooters have got a bit gritty. Of 5 S&W TLs, couple of them seen better days, all are glassy smooth, probably because S&W hardened all their parts while Colt did not.

Are you sure about that? I understood that S&W surface hardened, but that Colt and Ruger have always hardened triggers and hammers all the way through. I have certainly seen Colts with very smooth actions, and at one time, they were common on the Python model.

 

[rhmc24]

I'm sure to this extent based on working inside 1917 & '20s NSs. I have been able to file any of the parts I needed to. Mainly in fixing those that don't go to battery with slow cock and reworking hammer and sear engagement. I have been able to return a couple of real dogs to respectability. My S&W experience is less, in that I have never had any with the common Colt problems. Others often say you can lengthen Colt hands with a blunt chisel because they are soft but don't try it on a S&W because they are hard and will break.

I have quite a bit of experience with carbon steel, making parts and springs. I don't mean that Colt left their parts soft. They are apparently hardened to a little less than a carbon steel spring - which is still file-able. It won't do you best file any good but it's possible when you can't get into a sharp crotch with a little diamond file.

 

[SDH]

I'd be willing to trade this dandy New Service on a triple-lock if anyone is interested? 1930s .45 Colt.
(BTW: Sold!)

 

[handejector]

Colt began uisng their internal Positive Lock to prevent a discharge if the gun was dropped in 1905. S&W did not incorporate such a feature until the US Navy required it late in 1944, after a Victory Model was dropped on a ship deck and discharged, killing a sailor.

S&W installed a hammer block in the 38 M&P with the 1905-4th change in 1915.
The gun that killed the sailor HAD a hammer block which malfunctioned. The Gov't informed S&W no more guns would be accepted till they submitted an acceptable design to prevent the malfunction.
Hellstrom and some engineers worked round the clock for 3 days and 3 nights and developed the modern hammer block which was accepted.

 

[Oyeboteb]

If it was back then, ( or now, ) and, I needed a Side Arm...far as whether it would be an S&W New Century, or, a Colt New Service, I would have had to just shut my Eyes hard, and, flip-a-Coin...

Either way, I'd win...

The New Century does have more to satisfy as far as the Engineering details of the mechanism, so it does pull out ahead there.


Sebago Son - Wow...very nice metion there of your New Service.

Does my Heart good to hear of one still being carried and relied on for what it was meant to offer.

Good for you!

A few years back, I hired on to assist in some Tree Surveys and taking Tree Core Samples and Trunk measures and related way up in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, this under some Contractor working under some subset of the Dep't of the Interior, and, I carried a New Service in .45 Colt.

I never asked permission, and, no one ever said "boo", so...felt right, and, Camping out way up in the Mountains there, it felt doubly right.

 

[Oyeboteb]

In general, each company had large, medium and small frame revolvers, with a couple of minor tweaks to smaller sizes as the years wore on. The Colt version of each size was always slightly larger than the corresponding S&W size. That's why Colt could chamber the hot .38/44 Police loads in their mid size Army Special/Official Police frame (".41 frame") whereas S&W had to put out a .38 caliber N-frame to handle the power of the zippy new load.

Well, S & W did advertise their K-Frame 'M&P' Revolvers as suited to ( the then, new, ) .38-44 or 'Heavy Duty' Cartridges, advertising Ballistics as 158 Grain RNL and 1200-ish FPS, including in one advertisement I recall, the image of a 2 Inch, Round Butt 'M&P', just to drive their point home.

Colt, similarly, advertised their Police Positive Special and Detective Special as being suited for the .38-44 or 'Heavy Duty' Cartidges of the day ( mid 1930s )...so...

My Guess?

In either of those small Frame Revolvers, that would likely tend to hurt!!

For SD Carry, may as well if one can handle it...but, I am sure it was tacit that that was ALL those Revolvers were suited to oblige of that Cartridge.

Lol...

 

[Muley Gil]

Back about 1980, I had a pre war Police Positive Special in .38 special. I had loaded some .38 rounds to the max 158 gr bullet loads listed in the old Lyman manual, for use in my M19 and M28.

Just for the heck of it, I shot some out of the PPS. Yes, they DID bite!

 

[Gen.Eric Colt]

Steve Dodd Hughes Sir,I believe we went to college together. I see life has treated you well since those days. Nice colt, looks like mine. Lloyd

 

[keithherrington]

Although I'm a dedicated Smith'o'phile, I'll never get rid of my New Service in 38-40 made in 1918.

 

[A10]

That is one pretty pony Steve, Would you be interested in trading for a Sig P250? I could manage to part with it if you really wanted to trade!

 

[Dave T]

The Smith was a refined beauty that the British decided was not rugged enough or more accurately, was too finely fitted, for trench duty.

Despite some family connections that go back to England I'll never forgive the Brits for that. We could have probably had the Triple Lock up to the introduction of the dreaded MIM parts and other cost saving measures...but no, the British insisted on the 2nd Model 44 HE instead. (smile)

The Colt grip is more comfortable, handling recoil better.

Texas Star, you hand must be shaped quite a bit differently than mine. I've never seen (or held) a Colt DA grip that was close to comfortable, let alone controllable. YMMV!

Dave

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

Texas Star, you hand must be shaped quite a bit differently than mine. I've never seen (or held) a Colt DA grip that was close to comfortable, let alone controllable. YMMV!

Dave

True, but the same for S&W. Although Pachmayr and Tyler eventually took care of the problem, neither of the Big Two were very competent in grip design. S&W even recognized it, making a factory grip adapter for a little while.

 

[Texas Star]

True, but the same for S&W. Although Pachmayr and Tyler eventually took care of the problem, neither of the Big Two were very competent in grip design. S&W even recognized it, making a factory grip adapter for a little while.

If you lads will try the Pachmayr Presentation grip and think carefully, I think you'll find that its oval shape much resembles an enlarged Colt grip. It's exceptionally comfortable in my hand.

I've never seen anyone mention that, but it occurred to me last year, and I think I have something there.

The basic Colt grip does fit my hands better, but aftermarket grips solve that, and Colts lose cylinder timing far faster than do S&W's, and their fixed sight guns often need the barrel turned to get the sights aligned. I've given up on Colt, but they feel good in my hands. This has been true from the Detective Special to the New Service.

If your hands do not like the same grips as mine do, I'm sorry to learn that. It's probably a genetic flaw in your family tree...(I was going to put a laughing Smilie here, but can't when I add later material. The images don't appear in Editing mode.)