Smith and Wesson should bring back the Triple Lock
- Thread starter Driftwood Johnson
- Start date
The smiley, especially well under the last word was a horribly easy clue but if you are at all familiar with the poster, you'd have known when you saw the subject line paired with the author, you knew before clicking as I did. 
However, to the subject...
My XVR and Model 69 both have ball-detente crane lock-up that a hundred years of K & N frames never had, so maybe we at least mention them?
However, to the subject...
My XVR and Model 69 both have ball-detente crane lock-up that a hundred years of K & N frames never had, so maybe we at least mention them?
Driftwood Johnson
New member
Thanks for the compliment.
However...............
I saw one of those ball-detente lockups a couple of years ago.
Hardly the same as the deep engagement of the third latch on the Triple Lock.
But as duly noted earlier, S&W excels at driving the cost out of production, and while a ball-detente is not as elegant as the third latch of the Triple Lock, it apparently serves its purpose.
I will be the first to admit the Triple Lock was over engineered. The third latch really was unnecessary, and it was expensive to produce. The price of the Triple Lock was $21 when ordered from the factory. Sales were slow about 2,200 per year were sold. So after making only 15,375 44 Hand Ejector First Models (the Triple Lock) the third latch and the protective shroud were eliminated for the 44 Hand Ejector Second Model in 1915. The savings realized from simplifying the design allowed the factory to sell the 2nd Model for $19. Two dollars was a considerable savings in 1915.
44 Hand Ejector 2nd Model
The shroud came back for the 3rd Model, but that is a different story.
I know it isn't the same as some "official" figures, but I calculated several years ago that about 1900 the U.S. dollar was equal in buying power to $40 in modern terms, one English Pound to about $200; today, I would make that $45 and $225 in 2016 dollars. So $2 a gun pre-WWI would be a fairly large savings, equal to $90 or so today.
As to the Ladysmith, several sources have said that it was listed as being in .22 Long because the use of Long Rifle would be too much pressure for the cylinder. But it seems that was not the case. The actual problem was that the early .22 LR cartridges were not crimped; they were intended to be handloaded into a rifle chamber. When a .22 LR cartridge was fired in the Ladysmith, the recoil caused the bullet to jump forward and keep the cylinder from rotating (where have we heard that before?). So S&W designated the gun as for .22 Short and .22 Long only.
(Of course today's owners would be well advised not to fire those guns at all; they are too fragile and too valuable to risk just to see if they go bang.)
Jim
As to the Ladysmith, several sources have said that it was listed as being in .22 Long because the use of Long Rifle would be too much pressure for the cylinder. But it seems that was not the case. The actual problem was that the early .22 LR cartridges were not crimped; they were intended to be handloaded into a rifle chamber. When a .22 LR cartridge was fired in the Ladysmith, the recoil caused the bullet to jump forward and keep the cylinder from rotating (where have we heard that before?). So S&W designated the gun as for .22 Short and .22 Long only.
(Of course today's owners would be well advised not to fire those guns at all; they are too fragile and too valuable to risk just to see if they go bang.)
Jim
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
I remember an ad in Shotgun Times years ago for a 'Volcanic' in 22LR. Never saw one or a real writeup.
What I want are 4 barrel Sharps. That's because I love Yancy Derringer.
HJS made them in 22 LR, IIRC. I saw a table full of them for $100 each in Sarasota, FL. years ago. But I was from out of state and it wasn't worth the trouble. They also made a single shot 380 that Wiley Clapp wrote up.
I see that Iver Johnson is talking about one and has prototypes but haven't seen it out.
Now there is no real reason for it except nostalgia.
What I want are 4 barrel Sharps. That's because I love Yancy Derringer.
HJS made them in 22 LR, IIRC. I saw a table full of them for $100 each in Sarasota, FL. years ago. But I was from out of state and it wasn't worth the trouble. They also made a single shot 380 that Wiley Clapp wrote up.
I see that Iver Johnson is talking about one and has prototypes but haven't seen it out.
Now there is no real reason for it except nostalgia.
I happen to have in front of me a Sharps 4-barrel (.30 RF) and an H&R breaktop hammerless in .32 S&W. They are about the same size, though the H&R barrel is 3", so the overall length is about an inch more than the Sharps. The revolver, with a 5-round cylinder, is not much bulkier than the derringer.
Had I been faced with a choice of one or the other as a carry gun in the late 19th century, there is no doubt in my mind which it would be. The H&R has more power, is double action, has automatic extraction (empties in the Sharps have to be poked out or pried out with a fingernail), is easier to reload, and holds 5 rounds vs. 4.
Jim
Had I been faced with a choice of one or the other as a carry gun in the late 19th century, there is no doubt in my mind which it would be. The H&R has more power, is double action, has automatic extraction (empties in the Sharps have to be poked out or pried out with a fingernail), is easier to reload, and holds 5 rounds vs. 4.
Jim
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Yeah, but Yancy carried them right after the Civil War. One in each sleeve, one in each vest pocket and one in his hat.