Just to satisfy my own curiousity -- maybe of interest to others.

The Colt New Service is a more massive revolver than the S&W Triple Lock. I checked out the basic differences in my 1906 New Service .45 Colt and .44 Special Triple Lock of ca 1912, contemporaries, use-wise. The Colt has 7 1/2" barrel and the S&W 6 1/2. DA trigger pull reach is 3/16" greater on the Colt, width of frame 1/10" wider, barrel 3/32" more diameter at mid point, grip 3/16" longer and the Colt weighs 3 ounces more. My early S&Ws & Colts seem about the same in smoothness of action but the Colt DA trigger pull is quite a lot heavier, probably seems even heavier due to the longer reach to the trigger.

It's akin to comparing a Cat D-7 vs. a Coup De Ville.

The Smith was a refined beauty that the British decided was not rugged enough or more accurately, was too finely fitted, for trench duty.





The Colt was a massive beast of a gun that while not as precisely made, did well in two World Wars and numerous smaller actions around the globe for over 80 years.

This is quite probably the last New Service / Army Model of 1917 to see active duty.



It served with a family friend who was a Marine Captain during Desert Storm.



I have been told informally that it earned two more notches in "The Sandbox"

In general, each company had large, medium and small frame revolvers, with a couple of minor tweaks to smaller sizes as the years wore on. The Colt version of each size was always slightly larger than the corresponding S&W size. That's why Colt could chamber the hot .38/44 Police loads in their mid size Army Special/Official Police frame (".41 frame") whereas S&W had to put out a .38 caliber N-frame to handle the power of the zippy new load.

__________________
David Wilson

Colt is a larger frame/stronger weapon
Smith and Wesson action is smoother

Perfect proof that it takes 'more' Colt to equal an S&W.

__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett

I have 3 New Service from 1902-1917 in too-good-to-shoot condition that have glassy smooth actions. A couple shooters have got a bit gritty. Of 5 S&W TLs, couple of them seen better days, all are glassy smooth, probably because S&W hardened all their parts while Colt did not.

The Colt grip is more comfortable, handling recoil better. Until S&W came out with the Magna grips, recoil into the web between thumb and trigger finger was uncomfortable for many people. It is most noticeable in heavier calibers.

Colt began uisng their internal Positive Lock to prevent a discharge if the gun was dropped in 1905. S&W did not incorporate such a feature until the US Navy required it late in 1944, after a Victory Model was dropped on a ship deck and discharged, killing a sailor.

Colt's metallurgy was always better, acording to author Jan Stevenson. That may be why they listed the .38/44 load for their small .38 Specials. (But I think that firing many would result in accelerated gun wear. Colt later said that they suggested that the factory inspect steel Detective Specials after they'd fired 3,000 rounds of the milder Plus P loads. Light alloy frames like the Cobra and Agent were due for inspection after just 1,000 rounds.)

Colts often do not shoot to the sights, and a gunsmith may have to rotate the barrel slightly to bring the sights into proper alignment. I once almost failed quaification in the USAF due to firing an Official Police that shot left. The range officer let me switch to a Victory Model S&W and I -was able to muddle through to a Marksman score. Normally (shooting S&W's) I scored at Expert or Sharpshooter level.

Colt's cylinder timing is not as durable, and it costs more to have one tuned...if you can even find a modern gunsmith who can do the job! Colt fixed that on their MK III and later guns, but those had other issues. And gunsmiths still often cannot work on them.

I think that's a fair summary of the brands. Oh: the New Service frame is huge, and unless you have really big hands, the S&W will probably fit you better. I say this after owning two New Service .45's, both of which I liked.

Are you sure about that? I understood that S&W surface hardened, but that Colt and Ruger have always hardened triggers and hammers all the way through. I have certainly seen Colts with very smooth actions, and at one time, they were common on the Python model.

I'm sure to this extent based on working inside 1917 & '20s NSs. I have been able to file any of the parts I needed to. Mainly in fixing those that don't go to battery with slow cock and reworking hammer and sear engagement. I have been able to return a couple of real dogs to respectability. My S&W experience is less, in that I have never had any with the common Colt problems. Others often say you can lengthen Colt hands with a blunt chisel because they are soft but don't try it on a S&W because they are hard and will break.

I have quite a bit of experience with carbon steel, making parts and springs. I don't mean that Colt left their parts soft. They are apparently hardened to a little less than a carbon steel spring - which is still file-able. It won't do you best file any good but it's possible when you can't get into a sharp crotch with a little diamond file.

I'd be willing to trade this dandy New Service on a triple-lock if anyone is interested? 1930s .45 Colt.
(BTW: Sold!)

S&W installed a hammer block in the 38 M&P with the 1905-4th change in 1915.
The gun that killed the sailor HAD a hammer block which malfunctioned. The Gov't informed S&W no more guns would be accepted till they submitted an acceptable design to prevent the malfunction.
Hellstrom and some engineers worked round the clock for 3 days and 3 nights and developed the modern hammer block which was accepted.

__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett

If it was back then, ( or now, ) and, I needed a Side Arm...far as whether it would be an S&W New Century, or, a Colt New Service, I would have had to just shut my Eyes hard, and, flip-a-Coin...

Either way, I'd win...

The New Century does have more to satisfy as far as the Engineering details of the mechanism, so it does pull out ahead there.


Sebago Son - Wow...very nice metion there of your New Service.

Does my Heart good to hear of one still being carried and relied on for what it was meant to offer.

Good for you!

A few years back, I hired on to assist in some Tree Surveys and taking Tree Core Samples and Trunk measures and related way up in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, this under some Contractor working under some subset of the Dep't of the Interior, and, I carried a New Service in .45 Colt.

I never asked permission, and, no one ever said "boo", so...felt right, and, Camping out way up in the Mountains there, it felt doubly right.

Well, S & W did advertise their K-Frame 'M&P' Revolvers as suited to ( the then, new, ) .38-44 or 'Heavy Duty' Cartridges, advertising Ballistics as 158 Grain RNL and 1200-ish FPS, including in one advertisement I recall, the image of a 2 Inch, Round Butt 'M&P', just to drive their point home.

Colt, similarly, advertised their Police Positive Special and Detective Special as being suited for the .38-44 or 'Heavy Duty' Cartidges of the day ( mid 1930s )...so...

My Guess?

In either of those small Frame Revolvers, that would likely tend to hurt!!

For SD Carry, may as well if one can handle it...but, I am sure it was tacit that that was ALL those Revolvers were suited to oblige of that Cartridge.

Lol...

Back about 1980, I had a pre war Police Positive Special in .38 special. I had loaded some .38 rounds to the max 158 gr bullet loads listed in the old Lyman manual, for use in my M19 and M28.

Just for the heck of it, I shot some out of the PPS. Yes, they DID bite!

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!

Steve Dodd Hughes Sir,I believe we went to college together. I see life has treated you well since those days. Nice colt, looks like mine. Lloyd

Although I'm a dedicated Smith'o'phile, I'll never get rid of my New Service in 38-40 made in 1918.

That is one pretty pony Steve, Would you be interested in trading for a Sig P250? I could manage to part with it if you really wanted to trade!

__________________
Even older, even crankier....

Despite some family connections that go back to England I'll never forgive the Brits for that. We could have probably had the Triple Lock up to the introduction of the dreaded MIM parts and other cost saving measures...but no, the British insisted on the 2nd Model 44 HE instead. (smile)

Texas Star, you hand must be shaped quite a bit differently than mine. I've never seen (or held) a Colt DA grip that was close to comfortable, let alone controllable. YMMV!

Dave

__________________
RSVN '69-'71
PCSD (Ret)

True, but the same for S&W. Although Pachmayr and Tyler eventually took care of the problem, neither of the Big Two were very competent in grip design. S&W even recognized it, making a factory grip adapter for a little while.

If you lads will try the Pachmayr Presentation grip and think carefully, I think you'll find that its oval shape much resembles an enlarged Colt grip. It's exceptionally comfortable in my hand.

I've never seen anyone mention that, but it occurred to me last year, and I think I have something there.

The basic Colt grip does fit my hands better, but aftermarket grips solve that, and Colts lose cylinder timing far faster than do S&W's, and their fixed sight guns often need the barrel turned to get the sights aligned. I've given up on Colt, but they feel good in my hands. This has been true from the Detective Special to the New Service.

If your hands do not like the same grips as mine do, I'm sorry to learn that. It's probably a genetic flaw in your family tree...(I was going to put a laughing Smilie here, but can't when I add later material. The images don't appear in Editing mode.)

No smilies necessary, TX*; your observations on grips make more sense than most.

Bob Murphy in his book "Colt New Service Revolvers" identifies 9 different grip frame patterns for the New Service during it's long production life... to which do you refer?....

Having had the task of restocking a couple of these guns I can tell you that finding origionals that fit correctly is a real challenge. I will say that the last of the production series from the 1939/40 era give better hand... the eariest guns seem to hold more like a Bisley to me...

Drew

Took my New Service in 38-40 to the range today. Used Blackhills Cowboy load (180 grain RNFP at about 800fps), and Ten-X Cowboy (180 grain RNFP at about 1050fps). Liked the Ten-X much better than the Blackhills and the gun shot to sights at 25 yards. Also shot my 625 Classic in 45 Colt. What has always impressed me about the S&W is how smooth and effortless the action is and how comfortable the grip is in comparison to the NS. Now the S&W had Nill Classics on it and the Colt had the original gutta percha grips but still the difference is extraordinary. The quality of the double action on the NS does leave a lot to be desired once you're used to a S&W. Having said that the NS is hell for stout and not a bit delicate.
Keith

The Colt New Service is a great wonderful robust pistol, unfortunately for us who collect target models, they are few and far between compared to find a S&W HE target TRIPPLELOCK/NEWCENTURY Frame! I have both a a Colt NST and a S&W REG MAG, and it would be hard to chose wich one I would chose over the other, as the work that the fine old S&W and Colt craftsmen put into these fine target arms, cannot be matched today! I have small hands and still enjoy the Colt, but I must admitt the S&W is more conducife to my needs. Now if you took and combined al the great things of both pistols into one, well there son would be the ultimate fine revolver! Dale Z in Canada!

I have owned a Triple Lock and as nice as the action was (and it really was) the gun's achille's heel is the fact the cylinder isn't heat treated, so no moderate loads in such a fine old gun. Where as the New Service is built like a tank, literally. I put some money down on a commercial New Service in .45 Colt and I can tell you that it doesn't quite have the action of the Smith but it isn't all bad either. To me the Smith is better action wise as long as the loads are kept within reason (keep in mind the age of these guns) but the New Service is no slouch. One of the big problems shooters found with the Colt is the grip, its very hard to reach the trigger well. Kind if glad I kept one of my Pachmayr grip adaptors for a New Service to help out.

__________________
Vaya con Dios

At the time the New Service was designed, shooters didnt think in terms of double action shooting, It was a gentlemans world and you shot duelist style, and single action.Growing up in the fifties and sixties we were still taught that way.I have always thought of the NS as a single action with double action capabilities. Being a very long time user of a Colt New Service,( Bought mind in 1965, 25$ mail order, pre 68 gun law I was 15) I found that the grip like every one else, must have been made for some one with hands like a catchers mitt. Early on I read Ed McGivern's fast and fancey shooting .In the book he shows a good way to hold a NS for shooting, fast or otherwise.Still a grip adapter works well also. There is little out there about slicking up one of these guns , but Howe in "The Modern Gunsmith" advised on the 1917 models to check the hammer stud and trigger stud for proper fit both to the hammer and trigger and to the frame. Lastly, primers caps were made out of much thicker metal when these guns were new, than today requiring a harder hammer fall( This is true about most guns prior to WW1) I installed a Colt Python mainspring about 40 years ago and have never had a miss fire from to light a hammer fall. Please dont stick a screw driver between the spring arms and cock it, bending the mainspring,Not only will your gun be possibly subject to a broken mainspring (Most often when youre out shooting) this trick also puts the gun out of time, ever so little, but it will add up. As I said I did these things years ago and have never had to work on this gun again, and when ever I thought I needed a revolver for self defence , this is the one I have always reached for. As for the S&W HE. I own one of them too. The only problem I have with a S&W is the cylinder release button. It is very hard to operate left handed, as I am. I have to shift the gun to my right hand. Thats not a design flaw with the Smith, but rather with me.

+ 1 for Sebago Son's asessment of the New Service grip shapes.
I can attest that the earlier models' gripframes (like this ca. 1920 in .45 Colt) are much closer to a Bisley than anything else!
Over the years I'v noticed that the TL's certainly have an easier double-action trigger-pull.
Accuracy?
I've never seen any significant difference.
In addition to its use as a handgun, the Colt would function very well as a club.
Don

__________________
OGCA Life
NRA Life

Don,

Excellent example of an "Improved Model" not many around from that period in this good a condition.

Good to see you post Brother...

Drew

A friend of mine, Ed Toth, who is a real New Service aficionado past on some research he did on the NS. Soon after its introduction it became a favorite of professional gunmen and lawmen, especially in 38-40 and 44-40. Many of the the guns owned by these fellas will have the front sight filed down about half way. That was because the gun was sighted in to hit high at gun fighting ranges. The accomplished shooters of the day would normally use the belt buckle as the aiming point but wanted the gun to hit higher on the chest for better effect. The favoring of the two bottle neck cartridges was for two reasons: both had the reputation for being good mankillers while being easy to handle, and the guns were faster to unload and reload than a straight walled case such as the 45 Colt or 44 Special. According to Ed, double action was the preferred method of firing since the action was always fast and relatively close.

Toth, in law enforcement himself, used to carry a NS in 38-40 improved, rechambering a 357 Mag cylinder from a late model gun and doing all the remaining gunsmithing himself.

Keith

Tough for me to compare a Triple Lock S&W to a Colt New Service as I don't have a T-lock, but I do have S&W N-frames to compare it to. I like them both and have no problem reaching the NS trigger but my S&W N-frames have better DA.

Rod

here's a picture of my New Service, 45 Colt, 1919.

I have been trying to find a TL for years. Usual story, when I have the $, I can't find the gun. When I don't have any money they seem to be everywhere.

I do have a NS though, it's one of 500 Colt parts cleanup guns made in the early 30's using surplus M1917 frames and M1909 barrels, cylinders & other obsolete parts.

Unfortunately it has been refinished

Refinished, it's still a great gun. Here is my refinished TL shooter I just got and my New Service shooter, original 60%.