Blown up Triple Lock

[reflex264]

I am still working on my Hndgun Hunting book. One of the chapters is brief history of the evolution of hunting handguns. One part in particular
involves the early S&W .44 Specials. I have read it numerous times in the last 40 years and from a few different sources that Elmer Keith blew up some triple locks as he kept going hotter with the .44 Special. We know that S&W decided to increase the strength of the hand ejectors starting with serial number 16,600 by using a new steel alloy and heat treating the cylinder. My S&W letter for my 1927 2nd model hand ejector even states this.
Now the question: Does anyone know if Elmer actualy ever said he blew up a triple lock? One of the sources for this information stated that Elmer let him see a box full of blown up triple locks. The person that stated this after some digging has a lot of holes in his stories about Elmer. In a recent discussion someone that I know was a friend of Elmer's he said that Elmer never blew up a triple lock. I told him I woulds start tracking down the sources before procceding. I want this as factual as possible. Does anyone here actually know?

[taffin]

Elmer admitted to blowing up at least one Colt Single Action but I have never seen anything in print about the same thing happening to a Triple-Lock. Unless you have solid verification I wouldn't say anything about Blown up Triple Locks. Some believe that the Smith & Wesson is weaker than a single action. After the .44 Magnum came out he wrote of tests with the Smith & Wesson Magnum and the Ruger Super Blackhawk. The Ruger blew; the Smith stretched.

[reflex264]

May 6, 2024 11:34:49 GMT -5 taffin said:

Elmer admitted to blowing up at least one Colt Single Action but I have never seen anything in print about the same thing happening to a Triple-Lock. Unless you have solid verification I wouldn't say anything about Blown up Triple Locks. Some believe that the Smith & Wesson is weaker than a single action. After the .44 Magnum came out he wrote of tests with the Smith & Wesson Magnum and the Ruger Super Blackhawk. The Ruger blew; the Smith stretched.

Thank you Sir. I have about decided the whole thing about the Triple-Lock is fantasy. I have been searching and while I find numerous acconts of it I haven't seen one speck of proof.

[kings6]

If JT hadn’t read about Elmer blowing up a triple lock then I doubt it ever happened. I think I read where JT has collected a copy of all of Elmer’s articles so if he has not seen that in writing then I’d bank on it.

[reflex264]

May 6, 2024 23:23:06 GMT -5 kings6 said:

If JT hadn’t read about Elmer blowing up a triple lock then I doubt it ever happened. I think I read where JT has collected a copy of all of Elmer’s articles so if he has not seen that in writing then I’d bank on it.

That is my thinking too. I found numerous references in online posts but no evidence of it ever happening. I am calling it a myth.

[aciera]

May 6, 2024 11:34:49 GMT -5 taffin said:

Elmer admitted to blowing up at least one Colt Single Action but I have never seen anything in print about the same thing happening to a Triple-Lock. Unless you have solid verification I wouldn't say anything about Blown up Triple Locks. Some believe that the Smith & Wesson is weaker than a single action. After the .44 Magnum came out he wrote of tests with the Smith & Wesson Magnum and the Ruger Super Blackhawk. The Ruger blew; the Smith stretched.

“Rugers blew but S&W stretched “
Do you know if it was with the same loads?

[lockhart]

I read an article in Guns & Ammo, written by Keith, and they took a model 29, and
a Ruger Superblackhawk, and screwed blank barrel inserts into each, then they fired
full house loads in each, the Ruger blew apart at the top strap, the model 29 bulged
the top strap! But in metallic silhouette shooting, which came MUCH later, the Smith's
would be out of time, spewing bullet fragments back at the shooter, within a year of
every month competition! Not many folks use Smith & Wesson in big bore silhouette these
days!

[aciera]

May 7, 2024 16:57:33 GMT -5 lockhart said:

I read an article in Guns & Ammo, written by Keith, and they took a model 29, and
a Ruger Superblackhawk, and screwed blank barrel inserts into each, then they fired
full house loads in each, the Ruger blew apart at the top strap, the model 29 bulged
the top strap! But in metallic silhouette shooting, which came MUCH later, the Smith's
would be out of time, spewing bullet fragments back at the shooter, within a year of
every month competition! Not many folks use Smith & Wesson in big bore silhouette these
days!

Thanks. The cast does not stretch well.

[bradshaw]

Missing from this conversation, a few knowns and unknowns:

Known
* Cylinder for S&W Triple Lock predates steel and heat treatment formulated for .44 Magnum.

* M-29 stop notch centers approximately .250” (1/4’) from .44 case head.

* Super Blackhawk stop notch centers approximately .575” (1/2”+) from .44 case head.

* M-29 and SBH stop notches----both are about .040” deep.

* M-29 stop notch is directly over chamber (12 o’clock).

* SBH stop notch is slightly offset (about 11:40 o’clock).

* Using a Federal .44 Mag case with .163” web thickness: 1) M-29 stop notch centers .087” ahead of case web; 2) SBK stop notch centers .412” ahead of case web.

* Stop notches are quite a bit forward the case web on the Super Blackhawk. This is a function single action lockwork. Stop notches on the S&W are just a pinch forward of the case web. This is a function of double action lockwork.

Unknown
* Pressure threshold and TTP (Time to Pressure) threshold for 100 rounds; 5 rounds; 1 round----fired in M-29 cylinder; fired in SBH cylinder.

* Pressure threshold and TTP for respective cylinders with slow, with medium, and with fast powder.
David Bradshaw

[awp101]

May 7, 2024 21:07:41 GMT -5 bradshaw said:

Unknown
* Pressure threshold and TTP (Time to Pressure) threshold for 100 rounds; 5 rounds; 1 round----fired in M-29 cylinder; fired in SBH cylinder.

* Pressure threshold and TTP for respective cylinders with slow, with medium, and with fast powder.
David Bradshaw

I would add “what kind of load” to the list of unknowns. Was it a “full house” factory load or a proof load? Or a hand load that approached a proof load?

Unless those questions are considered as part of your pressure threshold questions…

[bradshaw]

awp101.... as lockhart alludes, the S&W N frame with .44 Mag metallurgy is no match for the Ruger Blackhawk/SBH frame in strength and durability. An experiment, of you will, conducted in silhouette over thousands of silhouette matches, backed up in technicolor by the creations of John Linebaugh and the Howitzer Tribe. I haven’t heard anyone willing to compare S&W vs Ruger cylinder metallurgy straight up. On a design which has the cylinder stop (bolt) directly over the chamber, or very close, and forward of the case web, it’s easier in use odd number chambering than to relocate the cylinder stop.

Revolvers which considered stop location in design include the Ruger Redhawk and Dan Wesson Model 44. Both of which by virtue of the lost wax casting process incorporate “solid frame” construction. Versus sideplate design, a virtual necessity of the drop forging process. It’s fallacious to compare revolver frame strength on the basis of investment casting (lost wax) and drop forging----without testing the same frame, one investment cast, the other drop forged. To machine away the outer skin of a drop forging removes its much ballyhooed linear grain strength. The homogenized grain orientation in investment casting continues after its outer skin is removed. This is not to declare drop forging obsolete, merely to emphasize both processes intelligently performed remain incredibly viable.

Somewhere around 1980 I walked into McBrides Gun Shop, just off Lamar Boulevard in Austin, Texas. One of the McBride boys was behind the counter, engaged with a young, handsome, highly excited customer. Ripe for entertainment, I listened in. The young man had sent his M-29 back to Smith & Wesson. The factory had contacted him with the offer to flat-rate a new Model 29, but it would have a 6” barrel in place of the original’s 6-1/2” barrel. As the 6-1/2 inch had been discontinued, it was no longer available. The customer greatly appreciated S&W offer to flat rate a new revolver, but the half inch difference in barrel length seemed like the end of the Earth.

I remember the story like I’m still standing there. The young man loaded 100 rounds of .44 Magnum, with the intention of impressing some friends. Somewhere in the Hill Country he commenced to demonstrate the awesome power of the .44 Remington Magnum. He and his friends took turns firing "90 rounds" of “240 grain bullets, each loaded with "10 grains of Bullseye.” For the finale, the last 10 of 90 rounds were loaded with “12 grains of Bullseye.” Our handsome macho man would inaugurate the finale.

And here the story gets hazy. I don’t remember whether our hero got off one, or two rounds.... KA-BOOM!

Shouting, “Yellow light blinded me in both eyes! I could not hear! My gun... in pieces!”

Catastrophic failure
History shows that when a cylinder lets go, the frame is damaged. If the top strap is merely bent, the frame may be salvageable. When one chamber bursts, it usually bends the top strap. When the top three chambers blow off, it usually peals up the back of the topstrap. Or, takes off the whole topstrap.

Battering
Rugers don’t shoot loose the way a Smith does. Silhouette provided ample evidence. Silhouette also demonstrated a tight Ruger doesn’t batter at all. And a properly made Model 29 which is firmly fitted----and kept in tight condition----also holds up very well. Once we get into heavier bullets the S&W starts to batter. My silhouette veteran 8-3/8” never saw a bullet over 240 grains. Al Plaas at Smith & Wesson kept it beautiful, set the barrel back, etc., and it’s tight as a Swiss watch.

Back in the early days when rams were set full-foot, it required a stout blow to topple em. This is where the Rugers with heavier bullets didn’t back down. Yet we still lost rams; wobbly stands, warped targets, mud on their feet, that was a given.
David Bradshaw

[rjm52]

If EK blew up a Triple Lock he would have said so just like the incident with the SAA...which if you read he didn't "blow up".

A balloon head .45 Colt case blew out at the web and blew the loading gate off cutting his finger...hardly a catastrophic failure of the cylinder or frame.

[bigmuddy]

The SAA Bob mentions is the only “blow up” I recall reading about as well, at least in Elmer’s writings. I have read many times, usually on gun forums, that he “blew up several guns” developing his heavy 44 Special loads, but never from the man himself.

Dan

[reflex264]

May 8, 2024 9:13:44 GMT -5 rjm52 said:

If EK blew up a Triple Lock he would have said so just like the incident with the SAA...which if you read he didn't "blow up".

A balloon head .45 Colt case blew out at the web and blew the loading gate off cutting his finger...hardly a catastrophic failure of the cylinder or frame.

He did say he blew up a SAA. He explained it all in American Rifleman and relayed the info to Chauncey Thomas who investigated the incident and examined the gun and ammunition for Elmer. The cylinder of that gun was destroyed. This part is well documented.

[rjm52]

Ok...thank you... I just can remember the one incident.

Bob