| Error creating thumbnail: File missing Join our Discord! |
| If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here. |
Talk:Smith & Wesson Mk II Hand Ejector: Difference between revisions
(New page: == Reason for the design change. == There are several reasons why the Triple Lock design was changed to the MK II.) |
Zackmann08 (talk | contribs) (→Merge?) |
||
| (12 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Reason for the design change. == | == Reason for the design change. == | ||
There are several reasons why the Triple Lock design was changed to the MK II. | There are several reasons why the [[Smith & Wesson 44 Hand Ejector Series#44 Smith & Wesson 1ST Model "Triple Lock" (1907-1915)|Triple Lock]] design was changed to the [[Smith & Wesson 44 Hand Ejector Series#44 Smith & Wesson 2ND Model (1915-1940)|MK II]]. First of all the cylinder crane lock was found to get clogged up with dirt and mud in the trenches - making it difficult ,if not impossible, for the British soldiers to close the cylinder. When there was no shooting going on this was irritating, but not fatal. But in combat could be fatal. In addition to this very serious flaw the S&W engineers concluded that the third lock wasn't necessary since the 44 frame was strong enough with just the cylinder ejector rod lock and the rear lock. With this revelation the S&W accountants concluded (actually they had been telling management this for several years) that it took too much time and money to machine the crane lock.The Triple Lock design went away and quickly moved into Legend. | ||
The ejector rod shroud went away for basically the same reason that the thrid lock went away. However in 1926 S&W would bring back the ejector rod shroud with the | |||
introduction of the [[Smith & Wesson 44 Hand Ejector Series#.44 Smith & Wesson 3RD Model "Wolf and Klar Model" (1926-1941)|.44 Smith & Wesson 3RD Model]]. If you should ever come across a genuine Triple Lock be prepared to pay a pretty penny for it (regardless of the caliber). --[[User:Jcordell|Jcordell]] 18:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:I actually had to pass up a British contract .455 Triple Lock (one of 5000) that was selling for $800 last month. It was painful! Interestingly the British had originally rejected the Triple Lock because of the jamming problem, but later sent another message to S&W saying they'd take whatever they could provide until changes could be made. - [[User:Nyles|Nyles]] | |||
About a year ago I found a .455 Triple Lock that had been converted to 45acp and refinished. Even with that conversion and re-blue they wanted $1,000.00 for it. I went with a [[Smith & Wesson Model 20|Pre-War S&W Heavy Duty]] instead, but it was interesting getting a chance to actually handle a Triple Lock. --[[User:Jcordell|Jcordell]] 13:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
:Hey, either way you got a pretty cool piece out of it, I'm very much in the market for a pre-war Heavy Duty. In fact I'd rather have an original Heavy Duty than a rechambered and reblued Triple Lock, but that's just me, I've always been fascinated by it. - [[User:Nyles|Nyles]] | |||
I know what you mean. Everytime I take the Heavy Duty to the range I feel like I should be in an episode of the Untouchables. --[[User:Jcordell|Jcordell]] 17:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
== Merge? == | |||
Wouldn't it make sense to merge this with the [[Smith & Wesson 44 Hand Ejector Series]] page? --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] 15:42, 12 December 2011 (CST) | |||
:I would say yes.... --[[User:Zackmann08|Zackmann08]] 11:23, 7 January 2012 (CST) | |||
Latest revision as of 17:23, 7 January 2012
Reason for the design change.
There are several reasons why the Triple Lock design was changed to the MK II. First of all the cylinder crane lock was found to get clogged up with dirt and mud in the trenches - making it difficult ,if not impossible, for the British soldiers to close the cylinder. When there was no shooting going on this was irritating, but not fatal. But in combat could be fatal. In addition to this very serious flaw the S&W engineers concluded that the third lock wasn't necessary since the 44 frame was strong enough with just the cylinder ejector rod lock and the rear lock. With this revelation the S&W accountants concluded (actually they had been telling management this for several years) that it took too much time and money to machine the crane lock.The Triple Lock design went away and quickly moved into Legend.
The ejector rod shroud went away for basically the same reason that the thrid lock went away. However in 1926 S&W would bring back the ejector rod shroud with the introduction of the .44 Smith & Wesson 3RD Model. If you should ever come across a genuine Triple Lock be prepared to pay a pretty penny for it (regardless of the caliber). --Jcordell 18:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- I actually had to pass up a British contract .455 Triple Lock (one of 5000) that was selling for $800 last month. It was painful! Interestingly the British had originally rejected the Triple Lock because of the jamming problem, but later sent another message to S&W saying they'd take whatever they could provide until changes could be made. - Nyles
About a year ago I found a .455 Triple Lock that had been converted to 45acp and refinished. Even with that conversion and re-blue they wanted $1,000.00 for it. I went with a Pre-War S&W Heavy Duty instead, but it was interesting getting a chance to actually handle a Triple Lock. --Jcordell 13:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hey, either way you got a pretty cool piece out of it, I'm very much in the market for a pre-war Heavy Duty. In fact I'd rather have an original Heavy Duty than a rechambered and reblued Triple Lock, but that's just me, I've always been fascinated by it. - Nyles
I know what you mean. Everytime I take the Heavy Duty to the range I feel like I should be in an episode of the Untouchables. --Jcordell 17:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Merge?
Wouldn't it make sense to merge this with the Smith & Wesson 44 Hand Ejector Series page? --Funkychinaman 15:42, 12 December 2011 (CST)
- I would say yes.... --Zackmann08 11:23, 7 January 2012 (CST)