1917 with custom smoothbore barrel?

[Clarence Boddiker]

I've noticed a store has an M1917 in .45 Colt with a custom smoothbore barrel without an ejector rod socket and what look like K-frame Magnas, for C$449 (about US$350).

I've read the smoothbore was used for trickshooting, but I can't find any other info.

Another store has 5.5" Model 1950 Military barrels for C$99 (about US$75). Is there anything of interest as is or should I only consider it for a barrel swap?

 

[Muley Gil]

Welcome to the Forum.

In the US, a smoothbore handgun is considered a sawed-off shotgun and thus illegal. If it was built that way at the factory, the BATF-E could consider it a curio.

Yes, the 1950 .45 Military barrels are desirable. Unfortunately, they can't be imported into the US.

 

[Walkingwolf]

Welcome to the Forum.

In the US, a smoothbore handgun is considered a sawed-off shotgun and thus illegal. If it was built that way at the factory, the BATF-E would consider it a curio.

Yes, the 1950 .45 Military barrels are desirable. Unfortunately, they can't be imported into the US.

Not illegal with a tax stamp.

 

[824tsv]

I'm assuming the O.P. lives in Canada. His location is Ontario.

 

[Hondo44]

Sounds like a good deal if otherwise the 1917 is in good condition.
Likely it was used with military 45 ACP survival shot cartridges or cut down .410 shells.

Double check that the cyl hasn't been modified like over boring the chambers or boring straight thru and removing the chamber shoulder. Otherwise, you'll only be able to shoot 45 ACP with clips.

Is the smoothbore illegal in Canada?

If so, buy and take possession w/o the barrel.

 

[Walkingwolf]

I'm assuming the O.P. lives in Canada. His location is Ontario.

My mistake, I didn't notice his location, I should have looked first.

 

[cgt4570]

Sounds like a fun project! Are you sure it's a U.S. 1917 and not a Canadian purchased .455? If you can do the work yourself, then swapping out the barrels should be well worth it. If you have to pay a gunsmith to do the work, then you might be in to it for more than you could sell it for. BTW, I don't understand Muley's comment about barrels not being re-importable into the U.S.?

 

[Muley Gil]

Sounds like a fun project! Are you sure it's a U.S. 1917 and not a Canadian purchased .455? If you can do the work yourself, then swapping out the barrels should be well worth it. If you have to pay a gunsmith to do the work, then you might be in to it for more than you could sell it for. BTW, I don't understand Muley's comment about barrels not being re-importable into the U.S.?

A while back, a member posted about the 1950 barrels for sale. I inquired and was informed that they couldn't be sent back into the US, unless they went through an importer.

 

[Clarence Boddiker]

I thought it was Any Other Weapon.

Anyway, I am in Canada. The Firearms Act of 1995 does not mention short barreled shotguns or rifles, so long as the barrel was manufactured at that length, not cut down afterwards. This is about the only positive thing I can say about it, and I'll leave it at that.

The ad says 1917 and the store has a number of .455 Hand Ejectors (I already have one, bought privately a while ago), though the gap between the frame a cylinder, where the cartridges headspace, looks too thin for .45 Auto in moon clips, much thinner than my 1950 Target, but wider than .455. It may be a .455 shaved for .45 Colt, or the cylinder may have been replaced.

 

[Clarence Boddiker]

Looking at photos on Armslist, it looks like M1917s have a thinner gap than my 1950 Target. Not sure why that is. Maybe it's just the angles in the photos.

I can email the store to ask for pictures. I'll ask for a photo of the cylinder open and butt (the lanyard loop is missing). If it was shaved, there won't be any serial numbers, and if it is a 1917 it should say "US Army Model 1917" on the butt.

 

[Muley Gil]

A gunsmith with the proper tools could fit one of those 1950 barrels to the 1917 with the smooth bore barrel.

 

[Pisgah]

Look at that 1917 closer. The rifling in their barrels is extremely shallow, designed for military .45 ACP "ball" ammo, and the barrel can look smooth-bored on casual examination, especially if a bit dirty.

 

[jimmyj]

odel 1917

Sounds like a good deal if otherwise the 1917 is in good condition.
Likely it was used with military 45 ACP survival shot cartridges or cut down .410 shells.

Double check that the cyl hasn't been modified like over boring the chambers or boring straight thru and removing the chamber shoulder. Otherwise, you'll only be able to shoot 45 ACP with clips.

Is the smoothbore illegal in Canada?

If so, buy and take possession w/o the barrel.

*** The early Colt Model 1917s did not have the chamber shoulders

 

[Hondo44]

Look at that 1917 closer. The rifling in their barrels is extremely shallow, designed for military .45 ACP "ball" ammo, and the barrel can look smooth-bored on casual examination, especially if a bit dirty.

Yes, but he said there's no front locking lug on the barrel. Sounds like a replaced smooth bore barrel blank.

 

[Hondo44]

*** The early Colt Model 1917s did not have the chamber shoulders

True, the first 30,000. But I believe he's posting about a S&W 1917 on this forum.

 

[Clarence Boddiker]

Update: The store got back to me. It's been sold, and so has one of the barrels. I guess that serves me right for procrastinating.

I should probably post some photos.

 

[Jim Watson]

Looks like the buyer got a nice revolver kit. Assuming the same guy bought gun and standard barrel.

 

[JSR III]

That is not a 1917 barrel and front sight so someone else has played with this gun in the past. If I'm reading the tag correctly the caliber is listed as 45 LC.

 

[Club Gun Fan]

That is not a 1917 barrel and front sight so someone else has played with this gun in the past. If I'm reading the tag correctly the caliber is listed as 45 LC.

James, your good!!! Stevie Wonder could see that was not an original 1917 barrel.

 

[JSR III]

True. But since Stevie Wonder is not a member of this forum, I felt that it was important to point that out.

PS: the correct word is you're and not your. Stevie asked me to point that out for you.