I saw (first one ever maybe) a Colt 1911 chambered for 38spcl wc's today.
I have a S&W model 52-1, and I am wondering how the Colt compares to the
S&W. Has anyone here shot the Colt 1911 in 38spcl, and how does it compare to the 52? Thanks, Willyboy

the difference is the same as chicken salad and chicken poop!

__________________
Mike 2796
SoFo Bunch member

Wow, I was ignorant of this model, until this thread. Now I want one.

Sorry for not contributing anything of value, but I thought I'd tell you.

I have a genuine Colt 38 Special wadcutter gun. It absolutely will not run! I called Jim Clark Jr. to talk to him about it and he said: Yeah, they won't run!! Jim Clark Sr. I believe built some 1911s to shoot 38 wadcutters so Colt decided to produce some. They missed something important. I just cleaned mine and put it away.

S&W Model 52s will run as long as the ammo fully seats the bullet inside the brass and has a roll crimp at the mouth.

__________________
Bob.
SWCA 1821

A couple of years ago I did a very informal side by side shooting comparison between my Colt GCNM .38 Mid Range (1969 Vintage) and my S&W Model 52-2 that I purchased new in 1990.
I shot both using my own hand loads (3.0g W231 under a 148g HBWC). The pistols were shot indoors at my club's 20 yard range and I shot them off hand (bullseye style-1 handed). As you can see by the targets, it was close but the S&W took top honours. I personally prefer the grip angle of the Colt and it's trigger was very nice and crisp but the Model 52 trigger is legendary. If I was competing in a competitive bullseye league I would be shooting the S&W.
Now, I don't claim to be a good shot, I'm over 60, my eyesight isn't what it once was, and I'm sure I had a few coffee's before heading to the range that day.....

Attached Images

	IMG_0828.jpg (78.0 KB, 141 views)
	IMG_0834.jpg (74.5 KB, 137 views)
	IMG_1217.jpg (107.7 KB, 90 views)
	IMG_0115.jpg (78.1 KB, 97 views)

I just saw S&WIowegan's post. My Colt has the MKIII barrel. I know the previous barrel revisions had issues running and I think Colt finally figured out the issues with the MKIII, but by that time it was too late to save the Model and it died a slow death. My Colt run's well, but I don't shoot it or the Model 52-2 regularly. I also have a Jim Clark Sr built Colt .38 Special Kit pistol (Clark Model 61-S) that shoots very well, but again I would be taking the S&W to a bullseye match.

Attached Images

IMG_0696.jpg (104.1 KB, 42 views)

That is what Im talking about. 52s run with some clean ammo.
Colt mid range, now that is funny!

__________________
Mike 2796
SoFo Bunch member

"Colt mid range, now that is funny!"
I'm not sure I follow you, the Model 52-2 barrel hood is stamped .38 Special Mid Range...

The Colt made 38 wadcutter 1911s were, at best, a bad joke played at the expense of their customers. Unreliable and inaccurate, they just are not target pistols.
They are not to be confused with the masterpieces built by hand by gunsmiths such as John Giles or Jim Clark.
These preserved the classic 1911 feel with better accuracy, reliability and trigger quality than a S&W 52, and they'll do it with cast bullet handloads!

See attached picture.

Best Regards,
Jim

PS: That's a 50 yard group with H&G #50 cast WC over 2.7 grains Bullseye. 5 shots in less than 1.25".

Attached Images

image.jpg (105.3 KB, 101 views)

Come on , dont be tedious. It is a mid range wad cutter load.
Giles, Clark and Chow made art. They could not improve on a 52.
All you guys are youngsters.

__________________
Mike 2796
SoFo Bunch member

If memory serves, the Colts were blow-back actions, w/o a barrel lug - the MkIIIs had a chamber something like a MP-5 with a grooved chamber, and perhaps other small changes, The 38 Spl. Kit barrels did have the lug - I still have one in the basement somewhere - I thought about mating it with a .40 slide, as the case head and rim diameter are pretty close.

Thank you all for the comments. I didn’t know Colt made a 38 1911 until
I saw this one. There would be too much uncertainty to buy one just to
try it out in light of all the problems mentioned. Willyboy

A good friend of mine bought a 52-1 in the 1980s.
He never liked the grip. For him, a 1911 grip is perfect.
He bought a .38 wadcutter top end for one of his 1911s.
He is very happy with it.
He sold the 52-1 to me.
Now, you know how I was able to find a 52 that I could afford.

I love 1911s, but I'd wanted a 52 since I was about 10 yrs old.
What's not to like about a 52?

__________________
What would Jim Cirillo do?

Attached is a page from the Giles catalog, complete with their accuracy guarantee.

A full house Giles 38 wacutter was more than twice the price of a M52, and for very good reason.
The M52 is a factory gun, averaging at best 3" @ 50 yds with match ammo. It's not fitted anywhere near what a great gunsmith could do with a 1911, nor will it shoot as well.

Attached Images

image.jpg (73.5 KB, 86 views)

Lots of tricks in those 50s & 60s 1911s.

Attached Images

	DSC04428.jpg (75.7 KB, 69 views)
	DSC04429.jpg (48.0 KB, 68 views)
	DSC04430.jpg (58.3 KB, 70 views)
	DSC04426.jpg (111.2 KB, 68 views)

I have a 1961 tuned buy Fred Kart in the 60s.

Attached Images

DSC03916.jpg (108.3 KB, 37 views)

I have a 52-2 & a Mark 3 Colt GCNM, both of which I shoot weekly. Both have red dot sights. The S&W magazines are much easier to load and easier to find. The Colt mags are a killer on your fingers, finally made a device to push the button down to make it easier. They are sharp at the top and I use a shooting glove when loading them. The trigger on the 52 just plain whips the Colt, the Colt has a lot of take up before sear engagement. The Colt throws the cases about 15 feet away, the 52 keeps them close by. Both shoot very well. I've shot 1911s for many more years than the 52, so the Colt grip feels more familiar to me. Both function 100% with good ammo.

batman, what red dot and mount do you use on the Colt?

I have the same set as 824tsv and batman4706, a Model 52-2 and a Colt Nat'l Match MkIII (with ribbed chamber). I also ran the same side-by-side comparison as 824tsv, and even used the same load of 3.0 grs of 231 and a 148 gr HBWC.

Not surprisingly, the 52 came out on top, but only slightly. I have no issues with either pistol, both run like tops. I have also observed that the Colt is a bit more forgiving as far as bullet seating depth is concerned, with the 52 requiring that the HBWCs be fully seated. Although I handload for both, my local range has a requirement that all ammo used must be purchased on site. The company that manufactures their 'remanufactured' ammo seats deep enough for the Colt, but the same loads in the 52 are problematic, so the Colt gets a bit more range time.

Both will stay with me all the way to the Big Dirt Nap.

My M52 is more accurate than a friend's Colt and has a better trigger and sights.
But the grip shape and angle feel funky to hands molded to a 1911 and I think if I were a serious bullseye shooter, I would just shoot my .45 in Centerfire and Bigbore.
But I'm not, so the .38 is just a "centerfire plinker."

The mount is one that replaces the right grip panel. They are on Ebay for $50. I have a a Nikon P-Tactical on it, I also run Vortex Venoms on several of my guns. I have a number of red dots including Leupold and Trijicon, but the Nikon & Vortex are the best bang for the buck.

Thoughts from the past. Never a good pistol shot, but tried them all. I collect 52s and have Colt NMs and a Mid-Range (unfired).
Looking back, early 1911s in 38 were hand built and often used Kart bbls. They were accurate, reliable, expensive, and had the 1911 grip/balance. S&W 52s were (are) beautiful, well built, accurate pistols, but a bit sensitive to grip and ammo and a different grip. Many (most?) 2700 shooters finally found that the 1911 in 45ACP worked for both (Mid-range and 45) legs with less trouble, cost, and practice. Although 2700 (Bullseye) is now somewhat out of favor compared to the newer sports, would guess that few 38 autos are seen there today. I doubt that they would fit in (or qualify) for the newer styles of competition.

Like me, the days of the 38 Auto for competition are about over, but it has been a great run. Hope that the S&W 41s have some time left.

__________________
TOMBECK

In Bullseye the consensus is shoot 45 for Center Fire and 45 as you have to master 45 to get the best overall score. Many Bullseye shooters have noted that if they shoot a .32, 9mm or .38 in Center Fire their 45 scores suffer even though their CF scores are good. Using a 22 and a 45 also means you only have to learn two triggers/grips (or one with a Nelson or Marvel conversion) instead of three.

I shoot my M52 for International 25m Center Fire events and for fun but use the 45 when I need points in Bullseye 22/CF/45 competitions.

I have a Colt Government Model that started life in 1958 as a .38 Super. Some where along the line someone converted it to .38 Special. It shoots like nobody's business. A friend of mine collect Giles guns and also collects Colt M1911's. He has looked at it and con not say who made it, but he did show me things that Giles did to his conversions. My gun has all the same type of mods that Giles did, but he does not think it was a Giles gun.Will put it up against any 52 that I have fired.

__________________
USMC 69-93 Combat Pistol Inst.

Long, long ago in an earlier century I shot my M52-2 against another shooter with a Colt 38 Spl wadcutter gun. He had lots of alibies (failure to feed) and I never had a single one. I shot cast Lyman DE wadcutters with a solid base seated flush with case mouth and a roll crimp.

In the 1911 match he beat me, but I always beat his alibies in the CF match. 22 LR was a toss up.

__________________
S&WHF 366

Those Lyman flat base dewcs are bad to the bone in a 52.

I know a gunsmith in the SF bay area that used to work for Bob Chow and he makes 1911's that shoot the mid range wadcutters and he told me that the barrel used is a big deal and that the Colt "kit" gun barrels only have one locking lug and that makes all the difference in making a 1911 in that caliber shoot well. His are really nice and are very accurate, also cost much more money than I can justify.