There were a couple posts here lately about the triple lock revolvers and it got me thinking. (Warning #1: Me thinking. #2: What is one and why are they so expensive?) I looked in The Book, and I see they really didn't make very many, so there's that. Plus, somebody said they were the best revolver ever made; not sure if that was meant "at the time" or something else. I understand how only a few ever manufactured and being a good product add value to almost anything of a mechanical nature. Cars, Guns, Motorcycles and Knives usually top the list. Question from me is about the Triple Lock Hand Ejectors. Are they really good guns and, if so, why weren't more of them made? For what people are paying for them, they must be well-made revolvers as well as being fairly hard to come by. ($$$$) I just wonder why they quit making them?
Triple Lock Revolvers
- Thread starter jeffrefrig
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Yes, they're really good. (I'm one of those obsessive, compulsive types that takes every gun completely apart for a welcome bath. The Triple Lock blew my mind!! It wasn't built as it was because it needed to be for any other reason than if God built a gun, that's the way He'd build it.)
Why weren't more of them made? Because the great unwashed didn't appreciate the fact that it costs a little more to go first class.
They quit making them because they could make the 2nd Model to sell for $2 less------------and the great unwashed would buy that. (That $2 was about 10% of the purchase price.)
Ralph Tremaine
There are two philosophies extant within the world of manufacturing:
One is we will be successful if we build the best possible product for the price.
The other is we will be successful if we build our product for the lowest possible cost.
S&W subscribed to philosophy #1 back in the days of the Triple Lock-----and could be described as going overboard with that gun---at that time. There are those who believe today's consumers, armed with considerably greater discretionary funds would beat the doors down for the opportunity to buy a Triple Lock quality gun.
Ralph Tremaine
Why weren't more of them made? Because the great unwashed didn't appreciate the fact that it costs a little more to go first class.
They quit making them because they could make the 2nd Model to sell for $2 less------------and the great unwashed would buy that. (That $2 was about 10% of the purchase price.)
Ralph Tremaine
There are two philosophies extant within the world of manufacturing:
One is we will be successful if we build the best possible product for the price.
The other is we will be successful if we build our product for the lowest possible cost.
S&W subscribed to philosophy #1 back in the days of the Triple Lock-----and could be described as going overboard with that gun---at that time. There are those who believe today's consumers, armed with considerably greater discretionary funds would beat the doors down for the opportunity to buy a Triple Lock quality gun.
Ralph Tremaine
Last edited:
You can google triplelock revolver and find some good articles about the history of these guns that will answer your questions. In a nutshell, the triple lock was introduced in the early 20th century as a new revolver design by S&W where the cylinder swung out to the side of the firearm for loading and unloading. Previous designs were top breaks.
The new revolver, called New Century, is the triple lock. The frame of the revolver was now a single solid forged piece, instead of the two-piece frame of the top break models, so it was thought to be stronger. The addition of the third locking lug also contributed to the strength of the gun. Remember, these guns were made to fire large calibers, and the 44spl was a new caliber at the time, so the gun was built around that cartridge.
Many people consider this design a superior one to anything that has been built, then or now, but there is some debate as to how much the third locking lug really contributed to the strength of the gun.
My understanding is that the third locking lug was eliminated for a couple of reasons: 1) it was expensive to build and had to be hand-fitted to the gun, and 2) there was some concern that this feature may actually cause problems in the field if mud/dirt prevented the user from being able to lock up the cylinder.
Once this feature was eliminated, S&W never brought it back.
There are more details to the story, but that’s the gist of it.
Some famous shooters and handloaders in the past really loved these guns.
I really like them too!
The new revolver, called New Century, is the triple lock. The frame of the revolver was now a single solid forged piece, instead of the two-piece frame of the top break models, so it was thought to be stronger. The addition of the third locking lug also contributed to the strength of the gun. Remember, these guns were made to fire large calibers, and the 44spl was a new caliber at the time, so the gun was built around that cartridge.
Many people consider this design a superior one to anything that has been built, then or now, but there is some debate as to how much the third locking lug really contributed to the strength of the gun.
My understanding is that the third locking lug was eliminated for a couple of reasons: 1) it was expensive to build and had to be hand-fitted to the gun, and 2) there was some concern that this feature may actually cause problems in the field if mud/dirt prevented the user from being able to lock up the cylinder.
Once this feature was eliminated, S&W never brought it back.
There are more details to the story, but that’s the gist of it.
Some famous shooters and handloaders in the past really loved these guns.
I really like them too!
Last edited:
Mr. Tremaine makes a good point about the cost differential. Average wage for a working main in 1915 was about 28 cents an hour, so a $2 difference in price amounted to about a day's wages.
StrawHat
Member
The New Century revolver is an interesting study just by itself. Originally submitted to the Army for testing in 1907, S&W had great hopes for it and chambered it in the proprietary 45 S&W Special hoping the Army and the public would accept it. The Army said no and that is as far as S&W went with that cartridge. The revolver was introduced to the public in 44 S&W Special. Britain was anticipating problems in Europe and looking for weapons in this country. It was not long before the New Century was chambered in 455 for them. It was the thought that the mud of the trenches “could” cause problems with the third lock and the ejector shroud that caused S&W to create the 2nd Model dooming the Triple Lock to obsolescence.
It is a mechanical marvel. I have one that went to England to help the British War Effort.
Many of the 455s were converted to 45 long Colt or to accept the 45 ACP cartridge after WWI to make them more salable to the American public. The cylinders on the New Century were not heat treated so loads need to be kept on the light side for those two cartridges.
Kevin
It is a mechanical marvel. I have one that went to England to help the British War Effort.
Many of the 455s were converted to 45 long Colt or to accept the 45 ACP cartridge after WWI to make them more salable to the American public. The cylinders on the New Century were not heat treated so loads need to be kept on the light side for those two cartridges.
Kevin
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2012
- Messages
- 1,393
- Reaction score
- 7,103
jeffrefrig,
I’m lucky to be the caretaker of two shooter grade Triple Locks. Mechanically they are marvels of a time long gone. I hope you get a chance to handle one in the future. Like all old S&Ws the best way to really appreciate them is hands on.
I’m lucky to be the caretaker of two shooter grade Triple Locks. Mechanically they are marvels of a time long gone. I hope you get a chance to handle one in the future. Like all old S&Ws the best way to really appreciate them is hands on.
It was also the introduction of the N frame, a design that is still lusted after to this day. The amount of complex machining and hand fitting required to build this gun would price it in the stratosphere today.
I love this thread... like the OP I hope to handle one of these scarce mechanical marvels of the past new century.
I'm fairly certain were I to encounter a TL on one of my regular sojourns, it would come home with me if the budget allows. Unfortunately, this has yet to happen. -They truly are scarce!
For now, I'll be content with admiring what others have found and with reading the excellent historical notes put forth here.
Stay well, everyone!
-Bill
I was lucky to run across this .455 Triplelock that was converted to .45 Colt by shaving the cylinder face. I would have preferred it in original condition but couldn't pass it up. When would I see another?
There are some pictures of one of mine on this forum (early hand ejectors). I don't know how to post a link, but the title is A King Super Target, and it appeared February 15, 2018.
Ralph Tremaine
Ralph Tremaine
noro
Member
I had.an early.one in the 70's and foolishly traded
it off for a model 29. Boy, was I stupid?
it off for a model 29. Boy, was I stupid?
Did someone say "Triplelock"?
We call it "Triplelock" and "New Century", but it was also tagged as "Gold Seal" at some point. Reference: The History of Smith and Wesson Firearms by Dean K. Boorman, page 50. Would anyone know more about how the TL got this name? Obligatory pics: Target Model with 1930's factory refin, .455 nickel refin, and a seasoned traveler from old El Paso.
We call it "Triplelock" and "New Century", but it was also tagged as "Gold Seal" at some point. Reference: The History of Smith and Wesson Firearms by Dean K. Boorman, page 50. Would anyone know more about how the TL got this name? Obligatory pics: Target Model with 1930's factory refin, .455 nickel refin, and a seasoned traveler from old El Paso.
Last edited:
Well it’s descriptive and has a “ring” to it: when all other hand ejectors of the period had only one cyl/yoke lock (rear of cyl) or two (including front end of extractor rod), the TL had the 3rd between front of yoke and rear of extractor rod shroud.
Likely coined by the marketing dept.
Last edited:
raljr1 notes I make a good point about the cost differential (post #4). I appreciate the compliment, but that point (specifically the $2 aspect----$21 vs. $19) was made 45 years ago by Roy Jinks in his History of Smith & Wesson.
Ralph Tremaine
Ralph Tremaine
OP
Thanks! There's some interesting reading here.
Similar threads
