I saw some discussion on this question in a different forum. Curious what this crowd might think about carrying a Model of 1917 revolver for Self-Defense?

The .45 ACP revolver is about as good a defensive tool as there is IMHO (powerful, quick to reload), and this opinion has been held by many over the years. Look at the Jovinos, Jerry Micheluk 625s, PDs, and now the Night Guard series. But would you trust your life to a 90+ year old machine? Assume that the gun would first be checked over by a smith and tested for 50 or 100 rounds. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

I also have a Model 1917, and it's a fine handgun. For quite a few years it served as my home defense weapon. If yours is in good shape, I don't see why it wouldn't be trustworthy. But for concealed carry, it would be a real load. The 1917s are LARGE and heavy, making them difficult to keep concealed.

__________________
With S&W, you're holding history in your hand

A lot sooner than I would trust it to a new machine with an unnecessary *** add-on that occasionally ties the gun up.

If the metal is getting so old that it has gray hair which is threatening to clog up the mechanism, or if the metallurgy never was up to necessary modern standards, then I would reject the gun for age. Neither is the case with the 1917.

No concerns at all as long as it is mechanically sound. I have never carried a 1917 but for many years a finish challenged 1917 Brazilian was my nightstand gun. They are great guns.

Why not trust a M1917? All you have to do is put bullets in it and pull the trigger. A M1917 is a heavier and cost more than a plastic *** but what do you think your life is worth? Larry

If it is in proper working order, I certainly would carry it. I think you could do a lot worse than a 1917 with good ammo. They were the platform used to make the highly regarded Fitz Special, considered by many of us as one of the best concealed revolvers of all time.

If I were a mugger, I'd be honored to be shot with such a historic weapon!

__________________
Thirty characters. Exactly...

Yes, it would make for interesting discussion in the evidence room.

Pre which war? Pre WWII, definitely yes. Pre WWI, maybe. But 1917 isn't pre WWI, so I'd use it.

__________________
NRA Life Member

I would not be concerned about reliability/function, old guns work fine.

I would not carry something that I felt was valuable or had any significance as a family heirloom. I would only carry something that I considered disposable and easily replaced. If you had to use it, it will sit in a police evidence locker rusting away for a long time.

__________________
Common sense isn't so common.

I would happily carry a pre-war S&W or Colt as long as it was in fine mechanical shape. Old guns are better than most of the new
plastic master blasters. I regularly carry a late 1960s S&W Model 28-2 .357 as an LE duty weapon. Extremely reliable weapon with punch, accuracy and a little class to it.

My father uses a 1946 S&W pre Model 10 .38 and it has never failed.
As long as you make sure the gun is reliable with the load you carry, you will be fine. I know of some WWII rebuild 1911s that were still serving as late as 2004 in Afghanistan and the men who carried them loved/trusted them. Guns were made to last back in the day. I"m going to hold out on the Glocks still being carried 60-80 years from now!
I would put a WWII rebuild Colt 1911 in my holster before I would carry a Glock!

Sir, I'd rather not, but if it were all I had, I could make do with it.

JMHO, and YMMV.

Hope this helps, and Semper Fi.

Ron H.

__________________
Wishin' don't make it so.

that is still completely serviceable and gets used for 100 or so rounds every month. It would be a little hard to conceal but it could be done however as one of the earlier posters noted, I wouldn't carry something I was attached to as if used for self defense it will spend at least a fair amount of time in police custody and evidence rooms/lockers are not the best storage for fine old warriors.

__________________
Big bang, much smash'em.

I carry a Taurus sometimes, so I guess there's no reason not to carry a 90 yr. old Smith.

Thanks for your comments. I think so too. As far as concealability goes, I am having a beater that had barrel damage cut down to 3.5", so it will be shorter. I sometimes carry a 4" Model 29 now. As far as it being heavy, it should end up lighter than most 3 or 4" N frames as it has no ejector shroud and a thin barrel profile. Service grips or Magnas will be lighter than targets.

As far as it getting locked up if it were to be used for real goes, if it saved my life that wouldn't bother me. I'd look for another one, plus I have other guns. What about people who carry around a $2000 or 3000 1911 such as a Wilson, Ed Brown, or Nighthawk, etc. Theirs could keep mine company on the shelf in evidence locker along with the H&Rs & Iver Johnsons.

I would not hesitate to carry an older firearm if it has been cared for. I have a Colt 1911 US Navy with a 4 digit serial number (made in 1912). The gun works reliably. I also have a Colt 1911 civilian with a low four digit serial number (1913), and it works reliably. I have a Winchester 1892 (made in 1893), and it still works reliably. I have a Springfield Model 1873 rifle (made in 1878). I would definitely prefer a modern rifle, but that old gun was well cared for, and it still works.

A pre-War Smith & Wesson revolver in well cared for condition for self defense? I would not hesitate to use it to protect my life.

As long as it was mechanically sound, why not?

I wouldn't pack a collector grade '17 but one with a cut down barrel and less than stellar finish is nothing special...

__________________
"Shall not be infringed"