I was musing the other day over a couple of revolvers in my collection, both made within a year of each other in the early 1920s. Those were wild times, with Prohibition and gangsters - the "Roaring Twenties." I thought it would be fun to compare them, one from Colt and one from S&W. I will probably turn this into an article, but I thought I'd give you a peek at what I came up with!

John



In the “Roaring Twenties” the standard police sidearm was a .38 Special revolver. These guns were also most often preferred for home protection by the citizenry at large. Although the newer semiautomatic pistols were finding favor, the revolvers made by two dominant manufacturers were very popular as personal self-defense arms. Those two competing companies were Colt and Smith & Wesson. While similar in appearance, each brand's products had features which distinguished them. The 1920s proved to be a turbulent decade, with prohibition in full force and organized crime becoming a real challenge for the police.

The two revolvers illustrated here were among the most common made by each firm to meet the law enforcement needs of the ‘20s. We’ll take an in-depth look at each and compare them.

With Smith & Wesson, its flagship revolver was the Military and Police, or M&P model. This was a six-shot revolver utilizing a medium-size frame, in various barrel lengths. Colt’s main offering was the Police Positive Special, also a six-shot revolver on a slightly-beefed up smaller frame. A variety of barrel lengths were also offered by Colt at the time. For each brand, the hands-down favorite caliber for law enforcement was the .38 Special.

Representative specimens of each revolver are compared here. Both of them have six-inch barrels, and both are .38 special firearms. Here are their comparative specifications.

The S&W M&P featured here was manufactured in 1923. It’s known now to collectors as the Model of 1905, fourth change. It weighs one pound and 15 ounces, and measures almost exactly 11 inches from muzzle to butt heel. The Colt Police Positive Special came from the factory in 1922. It’s from what collectors now call the first series. It’s a bit lighter than the Smith at one pound and 8 ounces; its length is somewhat shorter at 10.5 inches. The grip and the frame of the Smith are somewhat beefier than on the Colt, and the barrel is a bit thicker in diameter. Both are equipped with checkered wooden grip panels. The Colt standard at the time was checkered rubber for the grips, but this one had the upgraded wood examples. Both guns have square, rather than rounded grip frames, a style much preferred by law officers of the day.

The cylinder release pushes forward on the Smith, while the Colt must be thumbed rearward. The Colt cylinder rotates clockwise when viewed from the rear. The hand, which pushes the cylinder around, is located on the left side and tends to force the cylinder into the frame. The Smith cylinder rotates counterclockwise, and the action of the hand, located on the right side, tends to push the cylinder out of the frame. The Smith “K frame” action was introduced in its first form in 1896; the “D frame” Colt Police Positive action in 1907. Both actions in the 1920s provided internal safeties to prevent the hammer going all the way forward until the trigger was pulled completely to the rear. The S&W system was improved in the 1940s, while the Colt system continued on into the 1980s.

The Smith has a three-point lockup for the cylinder. From rear to front, these are the center pin protruding into the rear surface of the frame’s cylinder window, the cylinder stop clicking into a slot in the circumference of the cylinder, and a locking bolt in the barrel lug fitting into a hole in the tip of the ejector rod. The Colt has no barrel lug, and thus has only a two-point lockup; a hefty projection on the cylinder release fitting into a hole in the middle of the ejector star, and the cylinder stop fitting into a cylinder slot. The Colt two-step hand continues to press against the cylinder ratchet at the moment of firing, however, making for a tight lockup at that moment. In contrast, the single-step Smith hand slides off the ratchet at that point, and a small bit of cylinder wobble will always be present at the point of firing. Whether or not this makes a practical difference in accuracy is debatable.

The extractor rods are different. The one on the Smith is hollow to accommodate the center pin’s movement when the cylinder is released, and as mentioned, it’s latched by a bolt in the barrel lug. The Colt’s extractor rod is solid, and as no barrel lug is present it’s just “out there” unsecured by anything in front of the frame. The Smith’s internal springs are a mixture dominated by coil springs, while the Colt uses mostly more complex leaf springs. The removable sideplate of the Colt is on the left side, while on the Smith & Wesson, it’s on the right. Famed exhibition shooter Ed McGivern preferred the Smith action over that of the Colt for smoothness. The Colt system is trickier to work on, so the Smith internals are much preferred by gunsmiths who are faced with working on both. In my subjective opinion, the double action trigger pulls are about equal in poundage, with a slight edge to the Colt with a bit lighter pull. The Colt action can be “staged” easier than the Smith, pulling back with a double action pull to the point where the cylinder locks, and then completing the pull to fire it. This technique is not, by the way, recommended by the experts, but bears mentioning. The single action letoffs weighed 6 ¼ pounds for the Colt, and 5 pounds for the Smith.

The sights on these guns are practically identical, with a groove in the top strap for the rear sight, and a half-moon style front sight. A slight edge in visibility goes to the Smith, as the rear sight groove is squared off rather than “U” shaped, and the front sight is slightly thicker. Fit and finish on both guns is comparable, with a slight edge to the Smith for its lustrous bluing.

I won’t address accuracy here; there are too many factors to consider which impact on this quality. Literature from the period showed both guns to be on a par with each other in this department. As far as handling is concerned, I much prefer the beefier Smith & Wesson; the Colt seems almost too diminutive to stand up to rough usage, although in practice it certainly did.

Which would I choose if I were a police chief in the 1920s? In retrospect, both guns had a lot going for them. The Colt would certainly feel lighter in a holster, while the Smith seemed more robust and handled more positively, with marginally better sights. My unit armorers would probably prefer the Smith to work on. I’d sooner hit a thug over the head with a Smith than a Colt; a bent ejector rod could disable that revolver a bit easier. The U.S. Bureau of Investigation, forerunner to the FBI, which was not organized until 1934, used S&W M&Ps. In the final analysis, Colt pretty much gave up on the revolver business by the 1980s, while Smith & Wesson continues to march on with an impressive array of revolver choices to this day. However, both of the guns reviewed here were more than suitable for that time in history, and each of them helped significantly to make the 20s roar!

(c) 2013 JLM

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

What a fantastic article! thanks!

__________________
Always bet on stupidity.

As always, enjoyable reading. Thank you!

Thanks, John; keep pumpin' out the articles, and I'll
keep enjoying them.
TACC1

So any idea why Colt approved 38/44 loads in the Police Positive while S&W would not for the M&P? They seem so similar.

John-

Before publishing, you may want to mention the Colt Army Special becoming the Official Police model about 1926, to encourage police sales. It is on a heavier frame than the S&W, as you surely know. And it saw wider police use than did the Police Positive Special pictured. I think Boston and some other departments did issue the PPS. It would be lighter to carry, and some cops then wore the revolver under the uniform coat, so as not to alarm the public, I guess.

And the PPS, usually seen with shorter barrels, became the basis for the snubnosed Detective Special.

Finally, Colt barrels often had to be turned slightly to adjust bullet impact on target. Also, the cylinder timing was hard to keep adjusted; it wore sooner than an S&W did. You may know that Chas. Askins had to turn the barrels of most of the .38 New Service Colts when he bought guns for the Border Patrol.

But the S&W extractor rod could loosen and jam the gun. They didn't fix that until the early 1960's, by changing the thread direction of the extractor rod.

Yes. According to firearms authority Jan Stevenson, Colt's metallurgy, esp. the heat treating, was simply better than S & W's. Also, just because Colt listed the ammo as useable didn't mean that they were endorsing its regular use in the gun. But the ad dept. didn't want you to realize that.

BTW, you are confusing the Police Positive with the gun in the article, the Police Positive SPECIAL, which has a longer frame and cylinder and which takes .38 Special ammo, not the shorter .38 S&W, also called the .38 Colt New Police.

S&W didn't "list" the M&P for .38-44 ammo partly because they didn't want customers complaining that it shook the gun loose sooner, and because they wanted to sell their larger gun made specifically for that ctg.

Great post, as always.

very interesting. Thanks for posting

__________________
Cheers, Charles
SWCA #2442

I have had m&ps, regulation police, police positives, offical polices etc. I do think it would be fair to compare the M&P with the offical police and the police positive with the s&w regulation police.
I will say that police positive with that long of a barrel must be rare. I think all I have seen had 4" barrels. Both those guns you have are in beautiful condition.

cotl also said during that time that 38/44 loads could be used in the police positive special,but the gun would have to serviced sooner than it would with standard velocity ammo. believe i read this in one of the wilson books on colts.

Interesting & entertaining as usual.

Thanks for sharing.

If Smith & Wesson never made D/A Revolvers, Colt would be what I'd own. That said, I prefer the S&W D/A revolvers over the Colts.

When it comes to 1911's it's Colt all the way. I also love the Colt SAA, but the classic J, K & N frame Smiths (pre circa 1996) are the best there ever was IMHO.

I don't know for sure, but in spite of its smaller size, the Colt PPS has a cylinder about the same size as the S&W. And note that the locking cuts in the cylinder are not central over the chambers, they are offset, which probably resulted in a more pressure-worthy cylinder.

John

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

Good points, and right on, as usual! Thanks!

John

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

Beautiful pic and great story!

I have had to turn most of my Colt D/A barrels or hold left/right to get them to "print" correct.

All of my S&Ws have been close (2 inches to exact) dead on windage wise at 25 yards. With tailored reloads I can get all of my S&Ws to print dead on.

I like the Colts for their history and their "lines". I really like the Official Police best of all. It can handle .38-44 loads easily and can make "minor-357". But a S&W L-Frame takes the cartridge power further and the DA pull better.

However I still like my Colts.

__________________
Have guns...will shoot'em.