1917's: S&W vs. Colt

sodacan · Sep 11, 2023

I am a huge fan of 45acp revolvers, and especially fond of the 1917 guns from WWI. Here are some photos of them side by side. As you can see, the size difference is very evident. Also obvious is the finish difference, with the S&W being much more refined. Mechanically, the differences really show up when shooting them. Both have heavy double action trigger pulls, but you need a tractor to shoot the Colt. Both are all original and both were made in late 1918. Really fun at the range. It is very cool to shoot a piece of history.

Borderboss · Sep 11, 2023

Outside of design characteristics, it's hard to compare operating features such as trigger pull on guns that are over 100 years old. A lot can happen to an action in that time.

I do like the size difference in favor of the Smith, along with the ejector rod locking capability to keep the action more solid. I also like the size of the grip frame on the Smith compared to the Colt.

sodacan · Sep 11, 2023

I've owned and fired more than a few, and the trigger pull differences have been consistent.

austintexas · Sep 11, 2023

I think they are both good revolvers but I think the Colt seems clunkier, kinda like comparing a Ford Thunderbird to a Kaiser Manhattan. If you are old enough to know what a Kaiser is.
SWCA 892

Muley Gil · Sep 11, 2023

While the S&W 1917 does fit my hand better, I once shot a 59/60 qualification score with a Colt 1917. The only modification I did to it was to bend the mainspring a mite. The trigger pull was still heavy, but it was very smoooth.

TheTinMan · Sep 11, 2023

Here is what I know: I have a nice Colt 1917 and need a nice Smith & Wesson.

P.S. the double action trigger pull on my Colt is so stout that it is above the 12 pound maximum my Lyman gauge can measure. I figure if 3 or 4 guys with spikes on their helmets come around the corner in the trench, it just doesn’t matter.

RMFnLA · Sep 11, 2023

FWIW, the S&W lockwork is significantly more robust than the Colt.

That being said, I’ve always liked the way Colts feel in my hand.

sodacan · Sep 11, 2023

Muley Gil said:
While the S&W 1917 does fit my hand better, I once shot a 59/60 qualification score with a Colt 1917. The only modification I did to it was to bend the mainspring a mite. The trigger pull was still heavy, but it was very smoooth.

The one you missed was probably the one I hit. LOL

erikpolcrack · Sep 11, 2023

I have both and like the S&W more than the Colt, but several people who have fired both my guns have said they like the Colt better. I also have a Model 1955 that I love and shoot a lot, so the Smith just feels more natural to me.

mikerjf · Sep 11, 2023

I seem to recall that the s&w has steps in the cylinder for headspacing; the Colt was thru-bored. So you can shoot the S&W without clips. True?

ImprovedModel56Fan · Sep 11, 2023

AFAIK, the Colt was missing steps only in the beginning. They were soon made the same as the S&W revolvers, and could be fired without clips just like the S&W's.

sodacan · Sep 11, 2023

ImprovedModel56Fan said:
AFAIK, the Colt was missing steps only in the beginning. They were soon made the same as the S&W revolvers, and could be fired without clips just like the S&W's.

Correct. I believe that Colt also replaced the cylinders on the original production guns.

Heinz · Sep 11, 2023

have an S&W 1917. Shoots very well. I have looked at several 1917 Colts but cannot bring myself to buy one. I might pick up another Smith, mine is a bit nice for a shooter.

MG34/bar · Sep 11, 2023

Have had many 1917s, both Colt & Smith. Both are large revolvers, but the Colt seems huge for my normal size hands. Often wondered how WWI era troops (who were smaller than people today) ever reached the trigger on those. However, looking in the old GI manuals I realized that the guns were usually shot only single-action, so the trigger reach was doable.

jeeps · Sep 11, 2023

Had at least 3 of each over the last 50 years. The Colt is stronger and the barrel is not prone to damage as the SW Pencil barrel dents easy being so thin. Both are good,but I will take the Colt every time in harms way.

Hondo44 · Sep 11, 2023

I've read that the Colt had charge holes (like cap and ball revolvers) instead of chambers (with the head spacing shoulder) on the first 30,000 they produced.

Jack Flash · Sep 11, 2023

I have a repo M1917 holster that both makes fit in, but the Colt is a really tight fit.

As far as fit and finish, Colt had a long history of providing sidearms for the Armed Services and I surmise they knew the government inspectors wanted something that worked, without wasting time and expense on a beautiful finish that would just get ruined riding around the battlefield in a holster.

Hondo44 · Sep 11, 2023

A friend has a Colt I've seen and handled. The machined surfaces are so rough it looks like it just came off the milling machine and the barrel off the lathe. And it had a parkerized finish.

Artyldr01 · Sep 11, 2023

I just picked up an all original S&W to go with my awesome, twice-rebuilt (Augusta and Rock Island Arsenals) Colt. The Colt is definitely a tank compared to the Smith. I adore them both!

Sent from my SM-G781V using Tapatalk

ruger 22 · Sep 11, 2023

I am a die hard Smith fan but if I had to shoot one of these monsters for a steady diet I would pick the Colt. Much more comfortable in my hands.

1917's: S&W vs. Colt

Member

Attachments

Member

Member

SWCA Member

US Veteran

Member

Member

Member

US Veteran

Member

US Veteran

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

SWCA Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads