Referring back to my earlier post, the whole generation 1 vs generation 2 thing is a retroactive perspective that overlooks the era of the original Contender design.
Back then, if you were familiar with the particular model, you understood that there were a number of important variations.
The “original” Contender did not have an adjustable trigger stop, did not have the “easy open” frame, and had the one-piece bolt in the barrel underlug.
The adjustable trigger stop and the two piece bolt were helpful inprovements. Together they consituted a new version of the Contender.
As the gun was being used for heavier recoiling cartridges operating sometimes at high pressure, the “easy open” action helped address case set-back which could make opening the action more of a challenge. The change was accompanied with a new trigger profile which was not to everyone’s liking.
Also, this change introduced spare parts logistical issues.
At the same time, T/C made changes to the hammer mounted safety lever and the firing pin selector. Fortunately, hammers were all interchangeable, but it was yet another spare part headache!
Then, there were the important sight variations. The original rear sight was mounted with two screws. A design change involving a four screw mount was accompanied with a new, proprietary scope mount and line of optics. For the first time ever, a handgun manufacturer offered a complete (and high quality!) handgun-mount-optic system. Up to then, the only game in town was the Bushnell Phantom, a mediocre scope (well, it was a Bushnell, after all) of low magnification (1.3 & 2x) and plain cross reticle, recoil resistent all the way up to the 38 Special. Plus, the mount was a “gunsmith only” drill and tap affair. The T/C system allowed the end-user to install and configure scope or sights to their own needs.
Other sight variations were to come. And, in the midst of all this were the many barrel variations: original short octagonals, the 10” (octagonal or bull), and “Super 14” bull barrel.
The short-lived Armor Alloy II (there was no Armor Alloy I…weird!), added a new problem: for the first time, there was a Contender variation that violated the idea of across-the-board barrel & frame interchangeability.
Many of us were not amused, and the Armor Alloy II variation was mostly rejected marketwise, and subsquently discontinued.
Fortunately, T/C never lost sight of their heritage, as underscored by their Steve Herrett commemorative Contender (see attached image). While I am not a fan of most “commemoratives”, this one was tasteful yet still utilitarian. And, for a couple hundred bucks over the price of the standard model, still within the budget of many shooters and collectors.
Anyhow, the bottom line is, to retroactively throw all of these variations into one heading under “Generation 1”, is, to me, a gross oversimplification, to say the least.
By the time the so-called “Generation 2” version came along, it just appeared to me to be a “mini-me” (sorry, Austin Powers) version of the Encore.
The grace, handling, balance, and yes, style of the “real” Contender was over.
Requiescat in pace
Last edited by 6string; 05-01-2024 at 07:06 AM.
|