Smith and Wesson New Century

Status
Not open for further replies.

StrawHat

Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2007
Messages
5,568
Location
NE Ohio
I picked up the New Century 455 about a week ago. Gordon was kind enough to make me a non-refutable offer on his so it is now in my custody. Not as rough as I expected but not pristine. The cylinder was stiff so before I got there the dealer slathered the revolver in Ballistol. The action works but is sluggish. The cylinder swings out but stiffly. The ejector rod and nut are loose and back out easily. The stocks are new. The lanyard ring and stud are missing. It has proof marks on the barrel and cylinder. The cylinder proofs are between the flutes on the rear of the cylinder and also in each flute. Once we move and my shop is set up, it will be getting the acetone/ATF bath it deserves. It appears to have been converted to 45 long Colt perhaps. The back of the cylinder has been shaved and maybe the frame also? There is a chunk out of the recoil shield on the thumb piece side. As I mentioned, not pristine!

In the time I have had it, I have wiped it repeatedly and oiled it judiciously. It has responded but still needs it’s spa day.

The good news is it is a Triple Lock and I could afford it! I will try to replace the stocks, lanyard ring and stud. Not sure if the conversion will effect my plans, I would like to replicate the 1907 trial TL in 45 S&W Special.

A few pictures as it arrived.

29C95BBA-241D-4760-811E-58EF1E3F4A7E.jpeg BB0E347A-F8AF-41CC-A3E5-7CAF213A1933.jpeg DBECD7E2-4CF6-454F-96BE-F85E38D8E627.jpeg

The serial number puts it in the first batch of revolvers shipped to Remington UMC, agents for British firearms acquisition.

Your comment and questions are welcome.

Kevin
 
Howdy

Ah, Triple Locks. Glad to see you were able to get your hands on one.

For a long time, the Triple Lock, officially known as the 44 Hand Ejector 1st Model, and alternatively as the New Century, was my grail revolver. This was back when you could not touch one for under $1000.

I have a few now.

But first, let's talk about an interesting 44 Hand Ejector 2nd Model.

A fairly large number (666 I believe) of Triple Locks was sent to Great Britain in 33 separate shipments, from April 1912 to April 1916, the majority of which shipped October 21, 1914. I believe all were chambered for the .455 Mark II cartridge. But the Brits were not happy with the large shroud under the barrel. They were concerned the revolvers could be disabled in the field by mud collecting around the ejector rod in the shroud. Smith and Wesson introduced the 44 Hand Ejector 2nd Model in 1915. It lacked the underbarrel shroud and the fancy third lock of the Triple Lock. Whether because of the Brit's concerns about mud, or simply because it made the 2nd Models more competitive in the market place is unclear, but according to Roy Jinks in his book History of Smith and Wesson the Triple Lock retailed for $21 while the 2nd Model retailed for $19. The $2 difference was due to eliminating the cost to manufacture the third latch. $2 was a significant sum in 1915, an inflation calculator states it would be $52.30 today.

During the years when a Triple Lock was out of my financial reach I bought what was sold to me as a 44 HE 2nd Model for a reasonable price. Chambered for 44 Special of course. Notice the lack of the shroud under the barrel and the lack of the third latch.

pnUXk8Dgj.jpg

pm7dxxA7j.jpg




But after a while I became intrigued by the interesting markings on it. Yes, chambered for 44 Special.

po1sjlJFj.jpg




But I was curious what this marking was on the bottom of the butt.

po1tQn71j.jpg




And this strange looking mark on the frame.

pmCULtnQj.jpg




Most curious of all, on the flat under the barrel where the Serial Number should have been duplicated instead I found this mark.

pnxWLLmzj.jpg




Some guys over at the Smith and Wesson Forum told me what I had was actually a 455 Hand Ejector 2nd Model that had been converted to 44 Special.

So I had it lettered. Turns out they were correct. What I have is a 455 Hand Ejector, 2nd Model.


pnkOuHqnj.jpg


As the letter states at the end, it appears my revolver was converted to 44 Special at the factory at some point. The diamond shaped mark under the barrel is a typical marking S&W put on revolvers they had modified. The lack of a SN there shows that is not the barrel the revolver shipped with. The crown shaped mark on the bottom of the butt is a British proof mark, and the odd shaped marking on the frame is the Canadian Broad Arrow. Just like the British Broad Arrow but with a C around it for Canada. At one point I bumped into the dealer I had bought the revolver from and mentioned all this to him. I wasn't looking to get any of my money back, I just thought he would find it interesting. The look on his face told me he knew this all along. Live and learn when collecting old guns.



Anyway, I'm lucky enough now to own a few Triple Locks. All chambered for 44 Special. This nickel plated one shipped in October of 1915.

pnzWkyxUj.jpg


plBt619Lj.jpg




The Holiest of Holies, a target model that shipped in 1913.

pnc5uYxuj.jpg


plbJk7tUj.jpg




But my favorite is this well worn one that shipped in 1907. That is what Roy Jinks told me, despite most references stating the Triple Lock first shipped in 1908. Although most of the blue is worn off, that is oxidized steel we are looking at, and the checkering almost completely gone from the grips, it still locks up tight as a bank vault and is great fun to shoot. I got this one for a song, because it is so worn on the outside that none of the high end collectors looked at it twice. $650 out the door a few years ago.

pmKfgwaLj.jpg


pmlkAJ6ij.jpg



Interesting the way the chambering is called out. Not the typical 44 S&W SPECIAL CTG marking, just 44 S&W CTG. Roy told me he suspects the stamp with SPECIAL in it had not been made up yet. The Serial Number on this one is very low, under 200.

pl5YM06xj.jpg




Anyway, those are my Triple Locks.

I hope you have fun with yours. Don't forget when you take it apart that all these early N frame Hand Ejectors had a tiny spring and spring plunger inserted into a hole in the yoke. There is a dimple in the frame somewhere that the plunger indexes into. The idea was to keep the cylinder open all the way when it was swung open for loading. Lots of times the spring and its plunger are missing, having rocketed off to Pluto and beyond when an unwary kitchen table gunsmith disassembled the revolver for the first time.
 
Last edited:
...Howdy

Ah, Triple Locks. Glad to see you were able to get your hands on one...


Those are interesting revolvers you have! Not planning to letter this one. It went to Remington UMC and then to Britain.
The hold open pin, already lost in someone’s carpet or rafters. The spring is still there and I have a couple of pins. Looking for a lanyard stud and ring.

So, your is an early production, 1907. Nice. I know that S&W supplied several, some say up to a dozen, TLs to the Army Trials of 1906. So they were in the R&D phase.

Thanks for sharing yours!

Kevin
 
Howdy

Ah, Triple Locks. Glad to see you were able to get your hands on one.

For a long time, the Triple Lock, officially known as the 44 Hand Ejector 1st Model, and alternatively as the New Century, was my grail revolver. This was back when you could not touch one for under $1000.

I have a few now.

But first, let's talk about an interesting 44 Hand Ejector 2nd Model.

A fairly large number (666 I believe) of Triple Locks was sent to Great Britain in 33 separate shipments, from April 1912 to April 1916, the majority of which shipped October 21, 1914. I believe all were chambered for the .455 Mark II cartridge. But the Brits were not happy with the large shroud under the barrel. They were concerned the revolvers could be disabled in the field by mud collecting around the ejector rod in the shroud. Smith and Wesson introduced the 44 Hand Ejector 2nd Model in 1915. It lacked the underbarrel shroud and the fancy third lock of the Triple Lock. Whether because of the Brit's concerns about mud, or simply because it made the 2nd Models more competitive in the market place is unclear, but according to Roy Jinks in his book History of Smith and Wesson the Triple Lock retailed for $21 while the 2nd Model retailed for $19. The $2 difference was due to eliminating the cost to manufacture the third latch. $2 was a significant sum in 1915, an inflation calculator states it would be $52.30 today.

During the years when a Triple Lock was out of my financial reach I bought what was sold to me as a 44 HE 2nd Model for a reasonable price. Chambered for 44 Special of course. Notice the lack of the shroud under the barrel and the lack of the third latch.

View attachment 1000979

View attachment 1000980




But after a while I became intrigued by the interesting markings on it. Yes, chambered for 44 Special.

View attachment 1000981




But I was curious what this marking was on the bottom of the butt.

View attachment 1000982




And this strange looking mark on the frame.

View attachment 1000983




Most curious of all, on the flat under the barrel where the Serial Number should have been duplicated instead I found this mark.

View attachment 1000984




Some guys over at the Smith and Wesson Forum told me what I had was actually a 455 Hand Ejector 2nd Model that had been converted to 44 Special.

So I had it lettered. Turns out they were correct. What I have is a 455 Hand Ejector, 2nd Model.


View attachment 1000985


As the letter states at the end, it appears my revolver was converted to 44 Special at the factory at some point. The diamond shaped mark under the barrel is a typical marking S&W put on revolvers they had modified. The lack of a SN there shows that is not the barrel the revolver shipped with. The crown shaped mark on the bottom of the butt is a British proof mark, and the odd shaped marking on the frame is the Canadian Broad Arrow. Just like the British Broad Arrow but with a C around it for Canada. At one point I bumped into the dealer I had bought the revolver from and mentioned all this to him. I wasn't looking to get any of my money back, I just thought he would find it interesting. The look on his face told me he knew this all along. Live and learn when collecting old guns.



Anyway, I'm lucky enough now to own a few Triple Locks. All chambered for 44 Special. This nickel plated one shipped in October of 1915.

View attachment 1000986


View attachment 1000987




The Holiest of Holies, a target model that shipped in 1913.

View attachment 1000988


View attachment 1000989




But my favorite is this well worn one that shipped in 1907. That is what Roy Jinks told me, despite most references stating the Triple Lock first shipped in 1908. Although most of the blue is worn off, that is oxidized steel we are looking at, and the checkering almost completely gone from the grips, it still locks up tight as a bank vault and is great fun to shoot. I got this one for a song, because it is so worn on the outside that none of the high end collectors looked at it twice. $650 out the door a few years ago.

View attachment 1000990


View attachment 1000991



Interesting the way the chambering is called out. Not the typical 44 S&W SPECIAL CTG marking, just 44 S&W CTG. Roy told me he suspects the stamp with SPECIAL in it had not been made up yet. The Serial Number on this one is very low, under 200.

View attachment 1000992




Anyway, those are my Triple Locks.

I hope you have fun with yours. Don't forget when you take it apart that all these early N frame Hand Ejectors had a tiny spring and spring plunger inserted into a hole in the yoke. There is a dimple in the frame somewhere that the plunger indexes into. The idea was to keep the cylinder open all the way when it was swung open for loading. Lots of times the spring and its plunger are missing, having rocketed off to Pluto and beyond when an unwary kitchen table gunsmith disassembled the revolver for the first time.
Driftwood, that final Triple Lock is truly a gun Indiana Jones would be carrying through jungle or desert. Others may have found the finish to be worn... I find it to be perfect as-is :thumbup:.

Stay safe.
 
Oddly, the Triple Lock feature was removed at the request of the British because it was fouled by mud in the trenches.

Howdy Again

I understand my posts can be terribly long and boring, but I already stated that. As I understand it, the British did not like the Triple Lock because they were concerned mud might get into the space in the under barrel shroud around the ejector rod and disable the revolver. I do not know of any actual instances of this happening, just that it was a concern with the Brits. I also stated that the selling price for a Triple Lock was $21 at the time. Once the 3rd latch was removed the selling price of the 44HE 2nd Model dropped to $19. This information comes from Roy Jinks in his book History of Smith and Wesson. No doubt the reduction in cost made the 2nd Model more competitive in the market place. $2 in 1915 dollars translates to $52.30 today when I looked it up in an online inflation calculator.

It should also be noted, no matter how cool Triple Locks are, and yes they are very cool, the 3rd latch was overkill and completely unnecessary. The current system of latching the cylinder in two places, at the recoil shield and the front of the ejector rod has always been completely reliable and S&W never put a 3rd latch in any of their revolvers again. I am of course not referring to the present system on some of the newer Smiths that use a ball plunger at the front of the yoke to secure the front of the cylinder in place. One of many reasons why I never buy new Smith and Wesson revolvers anymore.

Perhaps, despite the risk of being long and boring, this would be a good place to illustrate the 3rd latch on a Triple Lock.

This is the 3rd cylinder latch on that beat up Triple Lock. In this photo the 3rd latch is protruding out of the bottom of the barrel shroud. The conventional latch that engages the front of the ejector rod can be seen protruding into the space in the under barrel shroud. Despite what it looks like, both of these latches are actually one 'U' shaped piece. One of the two shiny pins visible in this photo is what keeps the 'U' shaped piece in place.

po1UI7KRj.jpg




There is a 'plug' for want of a better word, fitted into the front of the under barrel shroud. The front of the 'U' shaped piece extends through the shroud. There is a strong coil spring inside the shroud that keeps the 'U' shaped piece pressed back, and I believe the lower pin is what is keeping the plug in place.

poT77Kmjj.jpg




A hardened steel insert was fitted into the yoke to receive the 3rd latch. Hmmm.....looks like I could have done a better job of cleaning the insert for this photo. Despite the Triple Locks being either blued or nickel plated, this insert was Case Hardened for wear resistance. Notice the wear mark on the insert from the 3rd latch riding up it over the years. Notice too a little bit of the colors are still present on this insert. This part was not pressed into the yoke, there is a tiny screw at the rear of the yoke keeping it in place. Anyway, the geometry of the hardened insert is brilliant. As the cylinder closes, the 3rd latch encounters the ramp built into the insert. The ramp wedges both parts of the 'U' shaped piece back against its spring. As the cylinder shuts all the way, the bottom of the 'U' shaped piece pops into the hole in the hardened insert, and the upper part of the 'U' shaped piece pops into the front of the ejector rod. The lower part of the 'U' shaped piece is slightly conical in shape, and the hole in the insert is also slightly conical, to match the shape of the bottom of the 'U' shaped piece. I'm going to have to look up the actual name of the 'U' shaped piece.

pnYssOVVj.jpg




Here is another photo from the side of the 3rd latch. Notice the slightly conical shape of the bottom of the 'U' shaped piece. The part of the 'U' shaped piece that extends through the under barrel shroud is also visible in this photo. As the cylinder closes, it pops out about 3/16" or so, then pops back as the cylinder goes to battery.

pnze6oHVj.jpg




This photo of my nickel plated Triple Lock shows the hardened insert in position when the cylinder is closed. The colors are pretty much gone on this insert.

pnn7qLKGj.jpg




So there you have it, eliminating the making and fitting of all those parts is what allowed S&W to charge $2 less for the 44 Hand Ejector 2nd Model.
 
Last edited:
The insert for the third latch is called a cam.

These were case coloured, as you state, Driftwood. Sometimes, on a very well refinished Triple Lock, a nickeled or blued cam is the best clue that a Triple Lock has been refinished. On less glorious examples, I look for this, or even buffing, at the cam interface with the rest of the revolver and it tells me immediately the Triple Lock is a refinish.
 
The insert for the third latch is called a cam.

These were case coloured, as you state, Driftwood. Sometimes, on a very well refinished Triple Lock, a nickeled or blued cam is the best clue that a Triple Lock has been refinished. On less glorious examples, I look for this, or even buffing, at the cam interface with the rest of the revolver and it tells me immediately the Triple Lock is a refinish.
Great tips.

Todd.
 
Nope, the U shaped piece, not the spring.

I just posted the question on the S&W Forum, maybe I will get a bite.

I tried Numrich Arms, they have a lot of schematics for a lot of S&W revolvers, but nothing on the Triple Lock.

Just looked in one of David Chicoine's books. He calls it a Locking Bolt, (as opposed to the Bolt, which is the part the Thumbpiece screws to) and the plug in the end of the shroud the Locking Bolt Cover. That's as close as I have gotten.
 
Last edited:
The “locking bolt” is sprung forward when it is out of the frame. If you look at the rear of an open cylinder, the ejector rod is flush with the rear of the star, not proud like earlier and later modelsdimple” in the recoil shield for the rod to ride in.

Kevin
 
Howdy Again

I understand my posts can be terribly long and boring, but I already stated that. As I understand it, the British did not like the Triple Lock because they were concerned mud might get into the space in the under barrel shroud around the ejector rod and disable the revolver. I do not know of any actual instances of this happening, just that it was a concern with the Brits. I also stated that the selling price for a Triple Lock was $21 at the time. Once the 3rd latch was removed the selling price of the 44HE 2nd Model dropped to $19. This information comes from Roy Jinks in his book History of Smith and Wesson. No doubt the reduction in cost made the 2nd Model more competitive in the market place. $2 in 1915 dollars translates to $52.30 today when I looked it up in an online inflation calculator.

It should also be noted, no matter how cool Triple Locks are, and yes they are very cool, the 3rd latch was overkill and completely unnecessary. The current system of latching the cylinder in two places, at the recoil shield and the front of the ejector rod has always been completely reliable and S&W never put a 3rd latch in any of their revolvers again. I am of course not referring to the present system on some of the newer Smiths that use a ball plunger at the front of the yoke to secure the front of the cylinder in place. One of many reasons why I never buy new Smith and Wesson revolvers anymore.

Perhaps, despite the risk of being long and boring, this would be a good place to illustrate the 3rd latch on a Triple Lock.

This is the 3rd cylinder latch on that beat up Triple Lock. In this photo the 3rd latch is protruding out of the bottom of the barrel shroud. The conventional latch that engages the front of the ejector rod can be seen protruding into the space in the under barrel shroud. Despite what it looks like, both of these latches are actually one 'U' shaped piece. One of the two shiny pins visible in this photo is what keeps the 'U' shaped piece in place.

View attachment 1001653




There is a 'plug' for want of a better word, fitted into the front of the under barrel shroud. The front of the 'U' shaped piece extends through the shroud. There is a strong coil spring inside the shroud that keeps the 'U' shaped piece pressed back, and I believe the lower pin is what is keeping the plug in place.

View attachment 1001654




A hardened steel insert was fitted into the yoke to receive the 3rd latch. Hmmm.....looks like I could have done a better job of cleaning the insert for this photo. Despite the Triple Locks being either blued or nickel plated, this insert was Case Hardened for wear resistance. Notice the wear mark on the insert from the 3rd latch riding up it over the years. Notice too a little bit of the colors are still present on this insert. This part was not pressed into the yoke, there is a tiny screw at the rear of the yoke keeping it in place. Anyway, the geometry of the hardened insert is brilliant. As the cylinder closes, the 3rd latch encounters the ramp built into the insert. The ramp wedges both parts of the 'U' shaped piece back against its spring. As the cylinder shuts all the way, the bottom of the 'U' shaped piece pops into the hole in the hardened insert, and the upper part of the 'U' shaped piece pops into the front of the ejector rod. The lower part of the 'U' shaped piece is slightly conical in shape, and the hole in the insert is also slightly conical, to match the shape of the bottom of the 'U' shaped piece. I'm going to have to look up the actual name of the 'U' shaped piece.

View attachment 1001655




Here is another photo from the side of the 3rd latch. Notice the slightly conical shape of the bottom of the 'U' shaped piece. The part of the 'U' shaped piece that extends through the under barrel shroud is also visible in this photo. As the cylinder closes, it pops out about 3/16" or so, then pops back as the cylinder goes to battery.

View attachment 1001656




This photo of my nickel plated Triple Lock shows the hardened insert in position when the cylinder is closed. The colors are pretty much gone on this insert.

View attachment 1001657




So there you have it, eliminating the making and fitting of all those parts is what allowed S&W to charge $2 less for the 44 Hand Ejector 2nd Model.
Since my Colt Officers Model Heavy Barrel .38 doesn't have the front latch that fits into the indentation in the ejector rod like the S&W’s do, how do those lock up?

Not sure how those work :).

Stay safe.
 
@StrawHat I really like your new (old) revolver. When you say “.45 S&W Special” are you referring to .45 S&W Schofield?
No. The 45 S&W, commonly referred to as 45 Schofield, was a substitute round for the 45 long Colt. The 45 S&W Special, aka the 45 Frankford, was an even shorter round. It was also designed to mimic the 45 S&W, kind of a rimmed version of the cartridge that became the 45 ACP. There was a fairly lengthy discussion of it on the S&W forum.

http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-hand-ejectors-1896-1961/239473-army-tests-triple-lock-1907-a.html


A condensed version,

“…My example of this cartridge is headstamped FA 4 06. Specs are:
Rim dia. .526
rim thickness .042
case dia. .470
case length .914
Overall length 1.296
cupronickle jacketed bullet dia. .452

Made only in 1905 and 1906, there were both rimmed and rimless cases.
In Charles R. Suydam's US Cartridges and their handguns it is stated that the charge is 6.9 grains of RSQ powder...”

“…It seems clear that this is indeed the .45 "Experimental" (or Frankford, or S&W Special) revolver round manufactured by FA for test use in the S&W and Colt revolvers included in the 1907 pistol trials. It would seem the differences in the round from the old original .45 Government (Schofield, M1877) round are in the use of smokeless powder instead of black powder, a slightly shorter case (which would be more efficient with smokeless powder), and a jacketed bullet rather than lead...”

“…The so-called "Cal. .45 Ball, Model of 1906" was developed in late 1905 by Frankford Arsenal for use in testing revolvers submitted for the Army trials that began in 1906. The case was rimmed, 0.923" in length, and was loaded with a 230-grain cupro-nickel jacketed round-nose bullet over 7.2 grains of Bullseye smokeless powder. The muzzle velocity was 800 fps.

10,000 rounds were ordered manufactured for the trials. The bulk of the casings were manufactured in April 1906, with most of the order being completed as loaded rounds by July of that year. The only reported headstamp is "F A 4 06". Evidently, both cannelured and uncannelured cases were made, with the cannelure being located on the case just behind the base of the bullet where it served to control seating depth.

It would seem that there was never any commercial production of this ammo, but the Union Metallic Cartridge Company provided 5000 rounds to Smith & wesson in June of 1906.…”

“…Here are some dimensions taken from Triple Lock SN 09. It is a pre-production item made for the army trials. It has a 6 1/2 inch barrel with no caliber markings. This gun was part of my brother's collection.

Headspace in gun: .055 (cylinder pressed forward)
Cylinder OD: 1.694
Clinder length: 1.580 (1917 cylinder is 1.535
chamber depth: .895
Chamber dia: .477
Throat dia of cyl: .454
The front of the chamber is tapered like any other rimmed cartridge chamber.…”


The cartridge in question was developed by the Frankford Arsenal specifically for the 1907 Trials. S&W was aware of the cartridge and hoping to land the contract, planned to introduce it commercially as the 45 S&W Special. They did not receive the contract and the rest, as they say, is history.

Kevin
 
The cartridge in question was developed by the Frankford Arsenal specifically for the 1907 Trials. S&W was aware of the cartridge and hoping to land the contract, planned to introduce it commercially as the 45 S&W Special. They did not receive the contract and the rest, as they say, is history.

OUTSTANDING! Thank you. :D
I learned something new and very cool today.
I had no knowledge of this round. :thumbup:
 
The Walnut in those Italian produced repro stocks is gorgeous and they fit super , they follow the original checkering pattern , the medallion of course is rather bogus. Now is the time to heliarc a touch of metal on the ding of the recoil plate if you are doing a total "resto" . Otherwise it could be a very functional triple Lock with a little TLC. I KNEW logically the ejector rod "nut"/ bushing were backing out, and the third lock gummed up . Personally I can see why they eliminated the third lock on that finely machined beast. Enjoy !
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top