Colt New Service vs S & W 2nd model / Triple Lock

tokguy

tokguy

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
93   0   0
Location
Buffalo Republic
Am I the only one who considers Colt's New Service to be a 'Hog' compared to the Smith?
The Colt has a main spring that could be used in a set of Drill pipe elevators as well as that dumb-*ss, backward cylinder latch.
I've never found old DA Colts to offer reliable lock up; right from '89 through to the New Service.
I just read an article about Prohibition era border patrol using them and what ' Silky smooth triggers' they had...just about sprayed tea all over the keyboard!
Mind you; I am somewhat admiring of Colt's 1911 and SAA designs. But the early DA's... underwelming IMO
Despite it's counter-clockwise rotating cylinder, the Smith 2nd is sure a slick unit compared to the New Service. Ergonomically it just feels...Mo 'betta.
Anyone's thoughts?
 
Love the new service, it's a big heavy robust monster that evolved from the genius of the model 1889 New Navy and culminated with the Python. Lockup well... precision clockwork tends to need tuned sometimes. Some of these revolvers have been out of production for a long time..
 
How many Smith's were in the first, second, and Korean wars? The Colt was pinnacle in its day. I consider the Smith to be a modern improvement. Colt has a pedigree (Peacemaker), but I believe over time the Smiths became more refined. I wouldn't take away anything from either. Both respectable firearms in their own right.
 
Darkwater said:
Love the new service, it's a big heavy robust monster that evolved from the genius of the model 1889 New Navy and culminated with the Python. Lockup well... precision clockwork tends to need tuned sometimes. Some of these revolvers have been out of production for a long time..
Click to expand...

The New Navy broke good ground with it's tip out cylinder and a decent DA mechanism . But they went backwards with the cylinder timing and lockup system, it is not an improvement over the SAA lockup in any way that I can see. The 1892's are an improvement on the '89's, but still a poor locking system at best.
Colt's early DA cylinder stop doesn't engage the the cylinder at 6 o'clock like a S & W, but rather at 5:30( exaggerated for easier understanding; that is slightly early on the New Service & late on the '92). The cylinder stop doesn't fully engage the notch squarely, hence it wears one side faster...and tends to wear itself out of time.
A '92 has 3 cylinder stop systems and a still a goat Roping as far as timing.
Not a Colt fan boy at all.
I'm sure the new offerings are slicker 'n snot on a doorknob...but their intial offers struggled with timing issues and HEAVY trigger pulls.
Winter doldrums are strong around this house, lol. This is my version of existential pondering as the snow falls thick and heavy outside the window, lol
 
Last edited:
I'm a triple lock fan, think it was one of the best forms of cylinder lockup in a revolver ever devised. I also like New Service revolvers. I once had the chance to use a Target Master that had a very, very low round count. The difference between that and my pretty worn wartime NS's was like night and day. Guy wouldn't sell it though. Oh well. I don't find much to prefer between the S&W second model, or either of the 1917's, in Colt or S&W. I will say Colts are designed for guys with BIG hands, which explains why I find them easier to shoot. FWIW - dan
 
tokguy said:
Am I the only one who considers Colt's New Service to be a 'Hog' compared to the Smith?
The Colt has a main spring that could be used in a set of Drill pipe elevators as well as that dumb-*ss, backward cylinder latch.
I've never found old DA Colts to offer reliable lock up; right from '89 through to the New Service.
I just read an article about Prohibition era border patrol using them and what ' Silky smooth triggers' they had...just about sprayed tea all over the keyboard!
Mind you; I am somewhat admiring of Colt's 1911 and SAA designs. But the early DA's... underwelming IMO
Despite it's counter-clockwise rotating cylinder, the Smith 2nd is sure a slick unit compared to the New Service. Ergonomically it just feels...Mo 'betta.
Anyone's thoughts?
Click to expand...

If you compare the 2 guns in a vacuum without knowledge of their history, then yes, the Triple Lock & Second Model Hand ejector are much more ergonomic in todays world.

If you look at them from their design stand points, and the issues they were addressing when they were designed and first debuted, I place the Colt NS head and shoulders above the S&W's.

A simple exercise is to take examples of both guns, and pull on a pair of leather gloves, then operate them...

All of a sudden the Colt fits your hand perfectly, the Smith, not so much.

This is partially a function of the fact of when the guns were designed, and their designed purpose.

In 1897 when the Colt was designed, motor cars and motor transport functionally didn't exist. The Colt was designed to bring military & hunting/defense firearms into the modern double action era, they were aimed at the cavalry, killing horses & enemies and outdoorsmen killing large dangerous animals.

The cylinder was designed around .44-40/.45 Colt and the .455/.476 British service cartridges, the largest and most powerful cartridges in common military & hunting use. As a note, the .455/.476 were chambered in the 1873 & 1878 Colts, but the chambers had to be bored off centre and out of line with the bore in order to have rim clearance.
34ycn7a.jpg

top is Canadian Contract Boer War, bottom Canadian Private Purchase WWI
2s6tro6.jpg

Left is 1939 RCMP order, right is 1919 RNWMP

The S&W in contrast debuted in 1908, chambered ONLY in the .44 Special cartridge - loaded to .44 Russian black powder pressure levels - 246grain bullet at about 750 fps - a target shooting and self defence cartridge.

When the British desperately went to S&W in 1914, S&W had to re-dimension the cylinder diameter, and initially rebored (the documentation isn't clear) or rebarrelled, existing .44 special revolvers to .455.

When S&W started manufacturing .455 "Triple Locks" they started at serial number 1. S&W considered the .455 TW a new model as they had to make enough changes to the guns.
102nt6b.jpg

Top is a .455 TW & bottom .455 Second Model Hand Ejector Target - as shipped to Remington in 1916 for the British Purchasing Commission

Commercial triple locks in cartridges other than .44Spc & .455 are EXTREMELY rare, and suspect as reworks rather than factory.
 
Last edited:
Everything is better with pictures.

And of course the back story on the New Service as to why it looks like a teenager with acne.

A different time, no doubt. Hmmm....found a large caliber unregistered handgun under the floorboards. No worries...register it.
Mind you, one can still bring unregistered one's into the system today.
 
Good point LE, as a Cavalry pistol the Colt would likely shine. I would rather have the Smith 'Going over the top', because the Colt is a behemoth of a pistol. But it's size would also make it ideal for caving in skulls from a mount.
The Mod's didn't even have to throw water on us this time, lol
Nice pistols BTW. I tend towards 'Shooter Grade' as well...I shoot them. That New Service of mine is rather bedraggled...it's time under the floor didn't help it's finish. But I can't justify a refinish as it'd lose it's markings. It came with a rather awful set of acrylic red grips, lol. Almost like red mother-of-pearl, would have even been better in fake White m-o-p ( I know..."Son, only a pimp in a Louisiana whore house carries pearl handled revolvers, these are ivory.")
Cheers
 
As to difference in weight Colt is 2 ounces heavier than S&W.
Colt is also 1" shorter.
I believe that Colt made the NS cylinder larger to accommodate the .455" ctg for the British market which was significant at the time.
The S&W grip has always seemed skinny to me.
 
This is an interesting thread. My first two pistols were one of each of these, bought at the same time. I couldn't make up my mind, and the salesman got frustrated and offered me a deal.

The Smith excells at double action; the Colt on single. In SHTF scenario, I'll take the Colt as easier to fix.

Can't agree with generalization that Colt DAs are all poor: my two Officer's models; one in 38, one 22 are better than any of my S&W.
 
Love my Officer's Model .22. Had it for 60 years. If I ever find a NS in .45 Colt at a bargain price I will grab it. Don't really NEED one, but you know how it goes. BTW, if you ever watch "The Englishman's Boy" movie, the central character shoots the film producer and his bodyguard with a NS at the Hollywood party.
 
I had a lot of fun with a New Service in .44-40 when I was a kid. I cast my own bullets and reloaded with black powder using an old tong tool. I used to shoot a lot of bush rabbits in the wintertime and still remember that sheet of flame when you touched one off in the early morning or late afternoon. That big old gun was a handful for a 12 year old kid, but it sure was fun.

Since then I've owned one in .455 and another US Model 1917 in .45ACP. I'd like to try a S&W Triplelock some day. Elmer Keith liked them both.
 
green said:
As to difference in weight Colt is 2 ounces heavier than S&W.
Colt is also 1" shorter.
I believe that Colt made the NS cylinder larger to accommodate the .455" ctg for the British market which was significant at the time.
The S&W grip has always seemed skinny to me.
Click to expand...

Colt also supplied heat treated cylinders on the NS before 1909 but S&W didn't heat treat their N-frame cylinders until 1917-19 (again the documents are unclear).

S&W revolvers were kind of "low rent" in terms of materials & fitment compared to Colt into the 1950s. That doesn't apply to the special guns by the way; for example the debut of the .357 "Registered Magnum" in 1935.

S&W "K" frames were not certified for high pressure .38special loads until the late 1950s; Colt small frames ("D" frames) - which are significantly smaller than S&W "K" frames- were rated for high pressure (ie.38-44) 38 special from the late 1920s.

A contemporary view is Chic ###lord's 1960 book "Handgunner's Guide" which compares S&W K frames to grenades when loaded with (what became) +P 38 Special loads.
 
Last edited:
green said:
As to difference in weight Colt is 2 ounces heavier than S&W.
Colt is also 1" shorter.
I believe that Colt made the NS cylinder larger to accommodate the .455" ctg for the British market which was significant at the time.
The S&W grip has always seemed skinny to me.
Click to expand...

Actually my S & W is slightly heavier, but that could be the Pachmyer grips...which greatly add to enjoyment for shooting it. Mayhaps a set of custom grips might increase my enjoyment of the NS, can't hurt it's value...like so many that follow me home, it's a shooter. It does tend to skip past the notch when DA is used with any speed, but the NS DA pull isn't as nice as the S & W's...it'd get SA most time anyhow
The medium frames are about on par DA wise against the S & W though.
Thanks for the responses all, may have to scrutinize the NS when Break Up hits, give it a better tryout...maybe it holds some unseen tricks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom