Since being bit by the S&W bug I have been watch diligently for a S&W M1917.

The other day I walked into a small rural gun shop and there was a M1917! I thought I found one.

Upon inquiring I found in was a Colt and not a S&W. The M1917 looked to be completely original and in very good condition. The price was reasonable.

My question is should I hold out for a S&W or jump on the Colt?

Secondly, what is the difference between the Colt and S&W M1917?

__________________
Vietnam Veteran, 68-69

Nothing wrong with owning both, especially if the Colt is a good deal.

__________________
Jim
Many K and N Frames

Jump on the Colt if price and condition are right. The differences are mainly in appearance. Both are chambered in caliber .45 ACP, and require clips (readily available and cheap) to allow proper ejection of empties. Both are modifications of pre-existing large frame civilian revolvers for military service. and in equivalent condition, are valued similarly by collectors. You really need one of each. During extensive testing of revolvers by the U. S. Army prior to the adoption of the M1911 semi- auto pistol, the large frame Colt revolver was judged to be superior in performance to the similar S&W large (N) frame revolver, and as a result, the very similar Colt M1909 (in .45 Colt) was briefly adopted for service use prior to the issuance of the M1911. This is my pair of .45 Colt M1909s, both are modifications of the Colt "New Service" revolver.



I'll add that finding a M1909 in any condition is unusual, let alone in the condition of those two shown. Most of the relatively small number issued saw hard service in the Philippine jungles during the early 20th century, and not very many survived.

Machining and finish on the Colts comes nowhere close to the S&Ws.

It's a long story, but I ended up with both.... I like having them both to compare & contrast.

How about a side by side pic?

Anytime I find a WW1 or WW2 era Colt, S&W, anything in good original configuration and "reasonable" I adopt it. There getting harder and harder to find every day. Chances are (slim) if you don't like it you could trade it for something that is worth/costs more in the near future. If you like it and have the $ then take it home with you. Kyle

The locking mechanism of the Colt lacks the front lug under the barrel as seen on the S&W. I count this as a negative except when bobbing the barrel off short, then the Colt has the advantage, as no allowance needs to be made for the lug during alterations. JMHO, of course, and in the original configuration I prefer the Smith.

Froggie

It own one of each and like both. One big difference is the size. The Colt seems huge compared to the S&W. Almost like an "N" frame compared to a "K". The original finish is more refined on the Smith, but be aware that many from both companies were refinished after WW1. A lot of them were parkerized. Some of the very early Colt's were only set up to shoot with moon clips. The head spacing was not set to accept 45acp without them. I think the early ones were sent back to change this. The S&W came from the factory with the ability to load both ways. Both can shoot 45 auto rim.The action on my Smith is smoother, but the Colt locks up like a bank vault. The double action on both is heavy, but the Colt is really heavy.I believe the later Smiths had a heat treated cylinder, but someone else will have to confirm that.The serial number on the Smith is the same as the number on the butt. The butt number on the Colt is an arsenal number and is about 150,000 different than the serial number. Of course the Smith has a pinned barrel. The very early S&W guns had hammers with concentric arcs on the sides and the stocks were concave at the top. These generally bring a premium. The only ammo I shoot is standard velocity, 230 grain ball, but many guys shoot lead. NO +P. These guns are closing in on being a century old. Before you shoot one, it doesn't hurt to have a gunsmith check it out. These guns are two of my favorite shooters. It is really cool to shoot a piece of history. Hope this helps. Happy new year.

In a side-by-side shooting comparison, the rougher finished Colt is easier on my hand than the S&W. The hump above the wood on the S&W is pretty rough on the web of my hand.

Ken

I have both and they are great shooters, both were in the $600-700 price range and both were in 100% mechanical condition. I like the feel and looks of the Smith but you need both. So far I have a ratio of 6/1 in favor of the Smith. If condition and price are right go for it!

And then you can start collecting military holsters, belts, and ammo pouches for them. Both revolvers fit in the same holster. Originals are tough to find.

If you can afford both - get both

Colt 1917







S&W 1917










The differences are very subtle. The Colt has what I call a shark's fin front sight, the S&W has a rounded sight.

The grip angles are slightly different and the Colt's grip is slightly larger.

I shoot both of mine and the Colt fits my hands a little better, but the S&W is more accurate and has a better trigger.

__________________
Rick
SWCA #2727 , SWHF #435

Quote from OP: "Upon inquiring I found in was a Colt and not a S&W. The M1917 looked to be completely original and in very good condition. The price was reasonable."

You might want to spend some time on the web researching the Colt 1917, especially pictures, to be sure you know how to identify original finish. A couple earlier responses mentioned that the Colts are not finished as well as the S&Ws. True, and an original finish may appear not to be; it will show machine marks on the frame behind the cylinder and on the end of the barrel towards the cylinder as far as the front sight. These marks may appear so "rough" as to suggest they were added later, maybe during a clumsy refinish. This is not the case, more likely a Colt 1917 that does not exhibit these machine marks has been refinished. I don't have time to dig out my 1917s and photograph them but you should be able to find examples easily on the web. If the Colt 1917 you're looking at is in the $500 range, probably not much risk, if mechanically good it is worth that as a shooter. If you're looking at one in the $1000 to $1500 or more range you'll want to be sure it is in original condition; those are not easy to find these days. Good luck.

Jeff
SWCA #1457

Here's a picture of a S&W and Colt 1917. Both guns have been refinished in nickel, but you can see some of the differing characteristics. S&W on top and Colt on bottom.

__________________
Guy
SWHF #474 SWCA LM#2629

Don't pass up one to get the other. Neither is common at an affordable (for me anyway) price any more.

I've had both (more or less), having previously owned (and foolishly traded) a S&W, and currently owning a New Service similar in configuration to a Colt M1917.

The difference is that between any Colt & S&W revolver. The lockwork, controls, etc., are different. In general, it's easier to get a decent D/A trigger pull from an S&W. The Colts "stack", getting heavier as you squeeze the trigger. To ME, the Colt his a bigger handful, based on my previously owned S&W M1917 and my various N frames.

I definitely wish I still had that Smith '17.

As I have told before - my FIL was a WWII Air Force Doctor.
Early on he was posted to Africa.
During pre-deployment briefings in DC, he was issued 2 -1917s.
He gave one to another guy during the Pan Am flying boat trip over.
He carried his 1917 all over West Africa.
But he could not remember if it was a Colt or a Smith.

__________________
NRA LIFE MEMBER

Wow, thanks guys for all of the great information. I will re-check the finish on the Colt looking for machining marks. If it continues to call me (like it has) I will most likely take it home.

I do remember the size of the Colt being larger than I expected. Also came with ammo pouch and clips.

It is a 3 hour trip just to see it!

BTW the finish is not parkerized, definitely worn blue but not abused. And, we spent some time talking about the demerits of re-finishing nice old guns.

__________________
Vietnam Veteran, 68-69

I side with those who say you should get both. But if the budget permits only one, get the Colt now and then sell it to finance the Smith when it comes along later -- if you find you still really want the Smith version. It is true that the Colt finish is rougher, the Colt frame is more massive and that the grips are a little different. I have Smith-adapted hands and the Colt grip shape still feels a little odd to me. Others prefer it, however.

A little eye candy, including my Uncle Ralph's campaign hat. (Not his guns, though.)

__________________
David Wilson

One cannot expect wartime production revolvers to have the quality of finish of a prewar revolver, and that's not even a valid issue for criticism of the Colt. The pre-WWI Colt New Service revolvers have magnificent glossy deep blued finishes, fully the equal of anything you will find on a S&W. But the time and money spent on achieving such a finish is unjustifiable when rapid production during a wartime period is the goal. These revolvers were meant to be used to kill the enemy, not dazzle them with the beauty of their blued mirror finish. You will see M1917 Colts with what appears to be wire brush metal treatment, which is exactly how they were made. I had a Colt M1917 some years ago which had no discernible blue remaining anywhere, yet it was mechanically perfect and rust-free. I always wondered if it left the factory that way. I wish I still had it.

You mentioned that the price of the Colt was "reasonable". Since no one here is in a position to buy it out from under you, can you say how much the asking price was?

Note that there is also a Colt forum, and all of the really serious Colt nutcases hang out there. And there are several of those who specialize in the Colt New Service and M1917 revolvers.

Here are a couple for comparison.




Both are fine revolvers and are well constructed and fitted to mil spec. The Colt appear to be rougher because it is dull blued over an arsenal grade buffing. What might appear to be milling marks are in gact buffing marks.

Many, including myself, believed the Colt design to be inferior to the Smith because of its lack of a forward cylinder lock. However, I've come to appreciate that Colt's design makes a forward lock unnecessary because of its stronger internal lock-up design and because its cylinder rotates into the when the trigger is pulled.

__________________
Rush

I have both and I have a definite preference for the S & W. Both/either are great companion pieces to a 1903 Springfield or a 1917 Enfield.



Here's a comparison of both with a Victory Model:

The asking price is $820.

__________________
Vietnam Veteran, 68-69

Well if the Colt is in nice condition and i wanted a Colt id sure buy it. In the area I shop in thats a fair price. I own both and collect both and i find the S&W to be a much better gun. But Colts in DA of any type have gone up in value quite a bit because they dont make a DA of any kind. And may not make anything much longer. Now, we all know if anything they will restructure but i suspect any Colt SAA or DA to skyrocket as they already have been. All that said id say buy it because if you have the extra money and you dont, odds are you would have wished you did. But if I had to choose one or the other id chose the S&W for design and useability. It is for sure a better built gun and i am a Colt kind of guy. Id shoot the fire out of a S&W all day long. A colt would get so loose it would need some repair. And its not an easy fix as you probably already know.

"... i find the S&W to be a much better gun."

May I ask in exactly what way(s)? I'd really like to know.

Even though my sentiments lie with S&W (have three military S&W 1917's and one commercial 1917), I would seriously consider getting that Colt at that price, assuming good condition.
I have one 1917 Colt, and might have two, if I found one like that.

A local pawn shop recently had a Colt 1917 which had been scrubbed badly and nickle plated with a brass replacement ejector rod knob. It was priced at $775 and I told myself that it would never sell at that price. When I went back the next week it was gone. (!)

"I believe the later Smiths had a heat treated cylinder, but someone else will have to confirm that."

Per the US Government, all S&W 1917s were heat treated.

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!

I knew I would be asked that question. Dont get me wrong I love Colts. Maybe I cant get past the old DA's they made but I think the 1917's suffered the same issues all the other early DA's have. They wear differently than S&W 1917's do and they wear quicker. Most of the issues that come up on the Smiths can be repaired easily. With the Colt its not that easy and the parts are harder to find and the repairs are only short lived. They lose time rapidly and loosen up easier and faster and thats not usually an easy fix. The locking system is "better" on the S&W in the sense that its stronger and easier to tighten up when they become problematic. In all honesty the Colt is probably every bit as good as the S&W but I seem to find more Colts that arent useable than i ever have S&W's. Im no gunsmith but im pretty good at repairing firearms and have made some repairs that some "gunsmiths" couldnt make. Maybe someone has a better way to fix the old Colts but of the ones i have bought for projects i have not gotten very far with them. Maybe when i see one of the old DA's i run away too fast. I just think they wore out easily. Maybe they get used more than the S&W. Who knows. Maybe im wrong. Thats just been my experience. Hope i didnt hurt any Colt owners feelings. Im a Colt guy and a S&W also.

Having come across decent examples of both recently, the Smiths have a lot going for them. They are smaller, lighter, better looking, better finished, and have a lighter double action.

The Colts look great until compared side by side with a Smith.

To me, the Colt 1917 has more felt recoil compared to a S&W 1917 IF the Smith is wearing Magna grips. The service grips that came standard with the S&Ws hurt my hand more than the Colt grips.

While I do prefer the S&Ws, I once carried a Colt 1917 as a police duty gun for close to a year. Shot an almost perfect score with it as well.

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!

Looks like the days of picking them up in gas stations for $75 are gone along with $0.89 regular.

Never picked up a S&W 1917 I didn't want to take home. Never picked up a Colt 1917 that I couldn't talk myself out of and darned few that weren't out of time. The big Colts never fit my hands. The Army Special/Official Police/.357 frame, though felt like they'd used my gloves for patterns.

If you find it awkward, too heavy, whatever - wait for a Smith. If it hangs right for you and the lockwork is solid, as so many others have said - go for it.

__________________
I need ammo, not a ride.

I believe the Colt 1917s were just an adaptation of their New Service line. Not sure about the S&W predecessor.

Mine shoot well and project "power" if you're looking down the wrong end of the barrel. But, I think the S&Ws appear more refined.

I vote for one or two of each.

Yes, the Colt 1917 is a New Service chambered in .45 ACP.

The S&W 1917 evolved from the original N frame, the New Century aka the Triple Lock. S&W built TLs in .455 for the Brits at the beginning of WW I. The Brits wanted the barrel shroud dropped and the factory did so. Thus began the 2nd Model Hand Ejectors in .455, .44 Special, etc. The 1917 is a 2nd model HE, heat treated and chambered in .45 ACP.

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!

$820.00 for a Colt 1917 sounds a bit high to me but it does seem to
be that on the auction sites the Colts do bring more than the S&Ws if
condition is equal. Before I put much money into any older Colt
revolver I would want to know the action was not worn excessively.
Hear is a pic of my Colt 1917 to show what the original finish with
machining marks looks like. Most of the Colts I have seen on the
auction sites look to have been refinished in one way or another.

Attached Images

008.jpg (81.7 KB, 102 views)

The Colt was more reliable in the mud and trenchs than the SW.I would go Colt.

My dad occasionally would mention the 1917 he carried in WWII, sometimes just referring to his .45 or .45 revolver. He had his sister buy it and send it to him overseas. I asked him one time if it was a Colt or Smith and Wesson. He gave me a disgusted look (typical Dad) and said it was a Smith and Wesson, why would I have a club like that Colt?

Just before he returned from Japan (Nagasaki), he sold it to a buddy who gave it to someone else to turn in so he could bring back his 1911. He didn't know about that deal until years later or he wouldn't have sold it.

Got a picture of my dad in early WW2 wearing the Colt on gaurd duty at the Army Air corp station in Pennscola FL.

Several have mentioned that the Colt may be out of time. It probably is, but, so what? Such a condition is common on old Colts, but generally has no effect on shooting, and certainly has no effect on the collectability of the revolver.

My answer to these Colt versus Smith & Wesson timing discussions is that, yes, double action Colt revolvers do go out of time with extended use, but double action Smith & Wesson revolvers are always out of time!

The common Colt double action design (as introduced in the 1898 New Service and the 1908 Army Special, and finally ending with the Python in 2006) is such that, as the trigger is pulled, the cylinder is rotated tightly against the cylinder stop, eliminating ALL play in the cylinder at the moment of firing. The hand is what applies the pressure to the cylinder to hold it against the cylinder stop (the bolt), so the shock of firing causes wear on the hand. The wear on the hand will slowly progress to the point that the hand will not rotate the cylinder into final lockup if the hammer is cocked slowly. However, pulling the trigger will always force the cylinder into tight lockup at the moment of firing, so the worn hand really has no effect on function of the gun at the moment of firing. Inertia from more rapid cocking will also carry the cylinder into preliminary lockup with the bolt in the cylinder stop notch even before the trigger is pulled and the hand applies pressure to the cylinder.

On the Smith & Wesson double action design as introduced on the Military & Police in 1899, the hand does not lock up the cylinder at any time, and does not take the shock of firing. The cylinder is free to "float" at the moment of firing, held only by the bolt in the cylinder stop notch. The amount of play in the cylinder varies from gun to gun. (Older Smiths tend to have less play.) The only Smith I have that does not have play at the moment of firing is an early Triple Lock, which is about the finest fitted firearm I have ever seen of any brand. The cylinder on every other Smith revolver I have has some play at the moment of firing. The Colt Mark III/V action is like the Smith action in that the hand does not apply pressure to cylinder at any time after rotating it into firing position. (The Colt Mark III/V action is actually more like a Ruger action since it uses a transfer bar ignition system.)

This lack of play in a Colt at the moment of firing is said to be the reason for the generally superior accuracy of a Colt revolver. Replacement of the hand on a Colt from time to time is the price paid for the Colt "bank vault lockup" system. A Colt hand can be "stretched" by peening and, if done properly, can double or triple the life of a Colt hand.

When considering near century-old military revolvers as collector pieces, with occasional firing for recreation, the timing issue is irrelevant. Buy the Colt and then buy a Smith & Wesson when you find one. Keep both as examples of what America did to arm its soldiers in the Great War.

Now that that is settled, you can begin your search for the accouterments that are needed to make your Model 1917 collection complete! Good luck.

I don't believe Colts are as prone to mechanical wear as some believe. At last count, I have eight pre-War (both wars) large and medium frame DA Colt revolvers, the earliest dating from 1910. All show extensive use and all are still in perfect time and lock up tight. I doubt that any of them have ever required repair. The biggest problem is that if one does require more than a simple parts change for repair, there are few around who know how to work on them. And new parts are seldom available. Colt dis-assembly is no more difficult than with a S&W.

I have gone hot and cold from post to post on the Colt versus the S&W. Every time I think I should wait for a Smith someone post a tremendous positive on the Colt!

Now I have to look at the Triple Lock and I do not think I can pass on the Colt M1917!

__________________
Vietnam Veteran, 68-69

What a fun an informative thread. Next we should compare and contrast the S&W Schofield and the Colt Single Action Army.

I have had an on and off romance with the old New Service guns for over 40 years. I had a beautiful pristine one in my hands and had to let it go.



I finally found another I could afford about 6 mos ago but traded it off. I thought I had them out of my system until one appeared in a pawn shop last weekend.

So now I have another, it's not as pretty as some and has ugly grips, but it's tight as a bull's butt in fly season. Thom Braxton brought me 3 pairs of grips to try out today.

Maybe this one will cure the itch.

__________________
Eccentric old coot

I'm going to have to confess my own general appreciation for the New Service varieties. While I prefer the Smith 1917 to the Colt version by a small amount, there are several big Colts that have no exactly comparable model in the S&W lineup or that compare favorably to the ones that do exist. Several months ago I came into a 1909 Army in pretty good shape; I guess some would compare it to the .455 HE second model in .45 Colt, but for some reason that doesn't feel exactly right to me. I still need to do some tune-up work on it before I will shoot it, but that is one big and admirable handful of gun.

__________________
David Wilson

Interesting comments about the quality of finish on the Colt versus the S&W. Was it possibly due to Colt's more recent contracts with the US Army giving Colt a clear idea of exactly what the Army wanted? Colt manufactured the government model M1909 as previously mentioned, and of course their newest design, the M1911 auto-loader. By 1917 Colt got the message loud and clear that the Army did not want to pay for a beautiful finish that would be quickly degraded by rough and tumble holster duty.

Maybe S&W never really got the message. Collectors today may love the fit and finish of the S&W M1917, but at the time, the Army was not impressed. Frustrated at the perceived slow rate of production at S&W, the US Government took control of the company in September, 1918, and managed it till the war ended.

About the size difference between the two revolvers - I have a repo holster that a S&W M1917 fits in perfectly. But a Colt M1917 is a really tight fit, probably too tight. I assume if the Colt rode around in the holster long enough, the leather would stretch to improve the fit (?)

Someone mentioned the .455 revolver that S&W made under contract for the Brits earlier in the war. Colt supplied them with .455 revolvers as well. So after you get your set of M1917s from each company, you will "need" to do the same for the .455.

__________________
You're shy a few manners.

Jack Flash

Someone mentioned the .455 revolver that S&W made under contract for the Brits earlier in the war. Colt supplied them with .455 revolvers as well. So after you get your set of M1917s from each company, you will "need" to do the same for the .455.

You hush up yo mouth, you hear!!! Don't need no durn help from you!!!

__________________
Eccentric old coot

The original WWI flap holsters fit both the Colt and S&W revolvers equally well. Reproduction holsters may not. I do have a reproduction holster from IMA (an excellent reproduction with great workmanship by the way) which fits the Colt 1917 perfectly - not tight and not loose. I have compared it side-by-side with the real thing, and there is very little difference, except for condition. I recently bought a reproduction holster from Sarco, and it's almost as good as the IMA, except its leather is not quite as thick as IMA's.

Very nice!

U.S. WWI M1917/42 .45cal Revolver Leather Holster Embossed US ima-usa.com

__________________
Vietnam Veteran, 68-69

Most of the original M1917 holsters were of the "Butt-forward" type, i.e., if worn on the right side, the butt was forward. That was a carryover from horse cavalry days when a trooper carried his saber into battle in his right hand. and drew his pistol from his holster using his left hand. At one time, I had a very interesting posed 8 x 10 photograph of a large group (maybe 20 or so) of U. S. Army officers (may have been National Guard, but I don't know) taken sometime in the 1930s, and all wore the butt-forward carry M1917 holsters and revolvers and Sam Browne belts. Of course, I couldn't tell whether they were Colts or S&Ws. I don't know about the IMA holsters, but the Sarco holsters are available either as butt-forward or butt- backward.

To identify a factory original finish on a Colt 1917 take a look at the area surrounding the front sight. If you see a section that appears to have been taped off with a smoother polish than the rest of the barrel, you have one with an original finish. This is where the solder was cleaned up after the front sight was installed. I you look very closely at this pic you can see the outline next to the front sight. As mentioned earlier, the Colt's didn't have the "commercial grade" polish jobs that the S&W 1917's had.

Many 1917's were re-furbished by the Army for service in WWII. These guns have a Parkerized finish, and include additional inspectors marks.

The Colt's are suited to larger hands, and have a bit longer trigger reach IMO.

My personal 1917 has virtually no original finish left (except in some protected areas), was not re worked for WWII, and has all it's original inspection marks intact, sharp and clear.
At nearly 100 years old (shipped the last week of 1917) it locks up and times exactly as a Colt should with ZERO play.
Although the trigger pull is quite heavy, it's smooth as butter, and is probably the most accurate revolver I own. Shoots 230gr ball perfectly to the sights. My friends call this one "The Lazer" due to it's accuracy.
Clearly it's seen some hard use over the last century, but functions exactly as it should.