How does the Colt - Officer's Model Special - .38 Spl. - 6" Barrel compare with the Smith &W Model 14 6 in barrel.

In accuracy and shootability. In value?

Appreciate your input.

Centex Bill

Value is subjective. I guess see what they're actually selling for.

The Colt is "supposedly" more accurate due to the double hand lockup etc. I say supposedly because this assumes everything is in proper time etc. (for both the Colt and Smith.) Also supposedly because most people simply aren't such good shots. Take the most accurate one and jerk the trigger and see what happens.

As for shootability, now this is something real. I'm assuming that since these were both Bullseye revolvers, we are talking SA type slowfire? I believe it boils down to what the shooter likes best. I personally find the Colt SA "snappier" and the Smith "smoother". I don't know if that really makes sense when we're talking SA pull. The Smith just sort of "slides" off a bit smoother. I find that if it's been awhile since I've shot the Colt, it takes me a few cylinders to settle in. Again, that's just me. If we're talking DA, well everyone knows Colts stack. Just look it up on the internet. Seriously, yes an untuned Colt stacks a bit more than a Smith, but it's not like you can't do good DA work with a Colt.


These are just my opinions of course.

The Colt has a bit more barrel twist rate also. 1:14 I think. I'd have to look it up to make sure as opposed to the 1:18.75 of S&W.
I know all the PPC guns of years gone by were installed faster twist rate barrels than factory S&W's.

__________________
Where we go one, we go all

Bluetopper you're correct. I forgot about that!

It's the Indian, not the arrow.

__________________
Kevin Williams SWCA1649 HF208

This was my post about those two in September of last year:

Two fun .38 target revolvers

I don't know anything about money though.

The Smith & Wesson Model 14 covers a much longer time period of production. The Colt Officers Model Special was only produced from 1947-1951 if I remember right. Comparing a 5-screw Model 14, I would say that it is a far more attractive gun than the Officers Model Special. With the plastic “Coltwood grips” and that funky front sight ramp, it’s not a pretty gun.

Based on my limited experience, again with 1950s production from both manufacturers, I would say that the Colt might have a better single action trigger pull but the S&W double action trigger is superior in terms of smoothness, etc.

You can’t reasonably compare a 1950s production Colt with a 1970s Smith & Wesson. A lot happened to domestic firearms production in those 20 years and much of it wasn’t good. I have a 1976 Model 25-2 that looks great on the outside. However, the machining marks, etc. inside look like it was made by a guy who got fired from the Pinto plant for sloppy work.

I have both and can't see any difference in accuracy but I'm not much of a revolver shooter anyway from an accuracy perspective.

As to value, I think the Colt is generally priced higher but because there are so few of that specific model compared to the the S&W Masterpieces. Certainly not because it is a better looking or better designed product, it isn't, at least not in my opinion.

Curious though as to why you're limiting the Colt to the Officers Model Special?

This thread needs some pictures. Here are a couple Colts, one of the OM Specials and an Officers Model Target from around 1948 and my 14-1.

Jeff
SWCA #1457

I keep planning on taking both of mine to the range together at the same time. Was waiting until I found some wadcutters again. Then I found some and 'still' have not made it yet. Ah well, someday soon.

John, is that funky lighting or is the S&W painted yellow forward of the grips???

In the days of bullseye shooting…Colt ruled in single-action shooting and S&W ruled double-action shooting. The actions made one better than the other depending on course of fire.

Of course either could be tuned for incredible performance by a knowledgeable ‘smith.

I've owned a couple of Model 14s over the years and they were good shooters.
I also own a Colt Officer's Model made in 1940. The SA trigger is superb and I believe its the most accurate .38 I've ever owned.
But I also confess that a previous owner had some work done on it.

I own a few of each, and I like them all. If I didn't I wouldn't have them. They are each a different breed of the same animal.

I had one Colt Officers Model----well and truly breathed on by Roper's lads---and 3-4 S&W K-38's----and never fired any of them (except when one of the K-38's was my go-to gun for machine rest ammo testing----so can't comment about standing on your hind legs, and shooting either.

The one thing I can tell you is the Colt is a wooly booger to assemble---which I did only once following its welcome bath. Actually, I did it twice---it didn't work the first time around. S&W's are mind numbingly simple to assemble-----virtually idiot-proof.

The only tale about the Colt concerns my gunsmith's reaction when I took it to him to show-off. It's worth a preamble up front----my gunsmith was a WIZARD!! That said, he sat on his three-legged stool, wearing his leather apron, and puffing on his pipe----and oohed and awed in all the right places where Roper's lads had laid hands on it. Then he said, "You know, I hate these (bad word) Colts, but whoever did this action job REALLY knew what they were doing!"

I reckon that's high praise for Roper's folks---and somewhat less for Colt.

Aside from that, the Colt is undeniably UGLY!!----comparatively speaking.

Truth be known, when I decided I wanted to collect target guns---a mere 60 some-odd years ago, I chose S&W because Colts were plug UGLY by comparison-----U G L Y!!!!----and they still are----all except for that Python. Those are not too shabby!!

As to what I'd buy today, I flat don't know because I haven't held a current S&W product in my hands for a loooooooong time. The reason (my reason) for that is my appraisal of S&W's changing philosophy goes like this: In the beginning (1857) their philosophy can be stated thus: We will be successful if we build the best possible product for the price. Along about the mid-1950's it started to change---and it kept on changing. As it stands now, my appraisal of their philosophy goes like so: We will be successful if we build our product at the lowest possible cost.

I spent a fair amount of time sitting in the chair of the senior marketing officer for a company doing business nationwide. As such, I can tell you that's not how you win friends and influence people. On the other hand, it works great for increasing your profit margin-----for a while.

Next comes the question: How long is a while?

The answer is "a while" is a longer period than "awhile"-----so hope springs eternal---I hope.

Were I to be asked to consult for S&W, my advice would be, "Don't press your luck!"

Fear not! My one and only consulting gig was for a little old lady in the trucking business. That ended over 20 years ago---but it lasted nine years, so I figure I was doing something right.

A word about S&W N frames----like that 25-2 the Tin Man speaks of (^^^). I collected target guns---from the beginning to the end---the end being the end of the five screws. I had a Registered Magnum---most certainly a target grade gun, but not a target gun as I chose to define them---but a more than significant gun in S&W's history. I'd heard all the tales about them being hand made---even having been told the checkering on the rib and top strap was done by hand. (I didn't know whether to laugh or cry at that one!!) That aside, it was my practice to completely disassemble each and every S&W that came to live here for its welcome bath. (I say "completely disassemble", I didn't mess with barrels or action studs. I like to think that's because my Momma didn't raise no dumb kids. It's either that or a healthy fear. I had at least one each of every pre-war N frames. My observation was there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between an RM and any other N frame. Then (Bless his heart!) Bill Cross came along and told us it cost $17 to build an RM. My reaction was "I KNEW it!!!". Of course I didn't know it until he told us. That said, there is a dime's worth of difference between an RM and other N frames---the rib and the top strap are checkered.

The End!

Ralph Tremaine

As an aside, my first of only two Triple Locks most certainly qualified as an exquisitely finished gun on the inside-----comparatively speaking. It was a first year target. My second one came along from like six years later----plenty good enough, as in "close, but no cigar!"

By comparison to the $17 to build an RM--I had the 22/40 S&W gave to Philip B. Sharpe. When I got it, I fired off a request to SWHF for all the paperwork they had on this gift---figured there'd be a ton of it. There was one piece of paper---the invoice charging off their cost to make the gun to their Advertising Account----$14.55. I figured the 55 cents was the cost to ship it to Maine. I'll leave it to you to compare the cost to build a 22/40 vs. an RM, but $3 sounds about right to me. We can debate the hype attendant to the RM another time.

Reflection of something in the background when I was taking pics. Was thinking I need to retake that pic upon noticing that myself.

To answer the Op's questions, they are about the same accuracy wise from any era they were both made. The Colt OM will be more expensive because S&W made perhaps twice as many for any given period. Simply put, there are a lot more S&W's on the market of any size.

__________________
S&WHF #946
S&WCA #3824

They are both great shooters. They wouldn't have lasted for decades if people weren't buying them. As far as shootability goes, I'd vote for which ever one has grips that fit your hand better. Some people prefer Colt and some people prefer S&W.

S&W's are generally easier to find and cheaper so they are probably the better value, but If you find a Colt in good condition at a good price there is no reason you shouldn't buy it if it's something you want. The price difference will vary from vendor to vendor and gun to gun but they generally should be pretty close - maybe $100 or $200 more for a Colt depending if we are talking about average shooter vs LNIB.

I’m watching this thread with interest. I’ve had a fleet of S&Ws for forever but have recently become interested in the various Colt Officers models. They seem to be the only reasonably priced Colt DA offerings and have a great reputation for accuracy. Personally I think the Python’s ribbed and lugged barrel is ugly as homemade soap and my fashion sense doesn’t like that they’re the “in” thing since I’m not much of a herd animal. But the Officer’s Models, aside from the Special, have that great 1900-1930’s styling.

The associated history with Fitz, Bullseye, Camp Perry, etc add to the mystique for me.

I hope to find one soon in nice but used shape to shoot and find out for myself if there’s any magic there.

Colt made the Officers Model Target, Officers Model Special and Officers Model Match...depending on era. Many Colt aficionados believe the Officers Model Special is the best. The Officers Model Target...especially those made in the 1930s are simply exquisite and offer some of the finest fit and finish or any revolver. During the Depression there wasn't as much demand for handguns and the assembly workers really took their time with assembly since there was little rush otherwise.

I'm partial to the Officers Model Match from the '50s and '60s. Their rear sights had been perfected and are very affordable and available compared to earlier iterations. An excellent .38 Special Officers Model Match will go for $1k or less in most cases...a .22LR example is somewhat more expensive in equal condition. I have a late '50s .22LR with a buttery smooth action and is exquisitely accurate.

THE best shooting revolver I have ever owned was a Colt Officer's Match with the King treatment, no cockeyed hammer but tuned very nicely. That was in single action...
It couldn't hold a candle to my Marvel 1911 conversion but it was a .38. I could also outshoot it with my Model 52 Smith using the same bullets. I have never taken the time with a double action revolver to get any better than military or police qualifications, it does not interest me. I have a friend that can outshoot me double action while I use single action, any revolver...he does not like serrated triggers, I almost snookered him one time.

But I was able to find these 2. I do love them both

I shot Bullseye for several decades back in the 1970s thru early 90s and have used both the Colt OMT, OM Special and K-38s.
The difference in accuracy between the Colts and S&W is really so slight, if any that I never noticed it.
Maybe if they were in a Ransom Rest you may be able to distinguish one or the other but my biggest drawback with the Officer Model Special was the front weight of that bull barrel. Both are fine guns and the pre wars are in a field of quality all their own.

I have owned a Colt Officers Model Target in both .22 and .38 and currently own a Colt Officers Model Match in .22 and .38. I have also owned a Smith & Wesson K-22 Outdoorsman and a .38 M&P Target Model, and currently own a K-22 Masterpiece and K-38 Masterpiece. I always looked down upon the Colt Officers Model Special, thinking the barrel contour and plastic stocks were ugly. Of course I didn't know that they were made in somewhat limited numbers and now they are getting more expensive.

So I have owned Colts and S&W examples of their target models from several different eras, but I never shot them side by side with the same ammo at the same time. All I can say with regards to accuracy is it would be hard to tell any difference. Same with SA trigger pulls. DA trigger pulls were another story with the S&W's being preferable to me. And the S&W's of all eras seemed to fit my large hands better although the choice of stocks and things like a Tyler T-Grip can change that considerably.

Here are a K-38 Masterpiece and Officers Model Match .38 made within a year of each other. They are both examples of those two companies premier target grade revolvers and I'm sure received similar levels of finishing and fitting. I like them both. I really need to do a side by side comparison with some good wadcutter ammo.

Attached Images

Colt OMM .38 and S&W K-38.jpg (114.5 KB, 56 views)

I only have a few Colt revolvers, but two of them are Officers Model Specials (4th issue). This iteration was produced from 1949-1952. I believe there were about 4K produced in 38 Special and 2K in 22lr. They are only OM's that have the straight heavy bull barrel and the only revolvers that have the " Coltmaster" adjustable sight. I don't shoot the 38 much, but the 22 is extremely accurate with no modifications, except for the target stocks.

Attached Images

20190417_114550.jpg (206.8 KB, 54 views)

They're both very good , the Colt has a faster barrel and a tighter lock up but is more fragile than the Smith and tends to go out of time with hard use. The Smith has a better action as it does not stage DA. Most shooters wouldn't shoot better than either.

While I prefer Coke, Pepsi is just fine.

While target revolvers are more expensive & better looking, I owned a Colt New Service 38 WCF with a 7 1/2 inch barrel that easily outshot everyone elses handguns at the gunrange using any brand ammo or reloads.

I like those Specials, sodacan. When I was younger I thought they were on the weird side of strange. Once my tastes changed I hardly ever saw one at all, much less for sale.

That is interesting. I have two Colt New Service in 38 WCF, one 5.5 and one 4.5 inch. I like those big Colts but while fun revolvers neither could compete on accuracy with my OM Special or my S&W 14s, certainly not with me pulling the triggers.

Jeff
SWCA #1457

Indeed the Officers Model Special is an unusual Colt version, made only from 1949-52, Few were made and they are extremely desirable to Colt collectors. The "Workhorse" Colt Target revolvers were the Officers Model Target (OMT) and later, the Officers Model Match (OMM). Both were built on the Colt E frame, and the most significant difference between them was the sight design. Which is better is a matter of personal opinion. As is the difference between Colts and S&Ws. Such debates are time wasters.

I have a m14 and a omm and accuracy is equal. I just picked up a model 357 and compared it to my m28 and once again equal.

I have an OMT and an OMM. I also have a Colt 3-5-7, which is essentially a .357 version of the OMM (and is the predecessor of the Python). That is my favorite, as I shoot better with it than any other revolver I have, Colt or S&W.

It comes down to the shooter and his abilities. The Colt and the Smith are for all intents and purposes equal in mechanical accuracy. There might be some measurable differences if placed in a rest...but once in the hands it comes down to the shooter.

I recently took my 14-4 and my Colt OMM to the range for a shoot-out.

This is by no means scientific. I was shooting at 10 yards, offhand. I realized years ago that my offhand groups at 10 yards are identical to my groups at 25 from a rest. So I shoot a few and take an average. These aren't the only targets I shot, but they're typical of the bunch.

I was testing the Hornady 148 HBWC against Berry's 148 DEWC.

As far as the value of either, I'd check the gun auction site to see what people are asking, and what they're actually selling for.

Attached Images

_DSC0008.jpg (97.9 KB, 44 views)

I’ve been out of the Bullseye game now for ten plus years. In the revolver legs I shot my model 14-3 mostly with a King cockeye hammer ( since sold hammer ). Being a smith the 14 was worked over by me just for Bullseye shooting swaged wadcutters. The revolver balanced well in my hand, shot better than me according to my Ransom Rest and never hiccuped. Slow, timed and rapid fire always shot SA.

My Colt Officer Model Target Heavy Barrel has original optioned Ropers and shoots as well as my go-to 14 but it’s just too nice for range competitions. This is a late 30’s revolver, hand fitted and has an action smoother and tighter than any revolver I’ve ever owned or worked on. These are very special but a PITA to modify or work on. Funny but this gun prefers cast double end wadcutters

Rick

Attached Images

	IMG_0455.jpg (53.2 KB, 26 views)
	IMG_1580.jpg (29.2 KB, 25 views)

Way back when, like in the 70s, I had a stock Mod 14. It was the variation with no gas ring on the cylinder.
I also had a Ransom Rest and access to a range that had a 6" steel post set in concrete with a 1/2" steel plate welded on top for the Ransom to bolt to. STEADY! It was a measured 50 yards from the target boards.
With Federal wadcutters, that 14 would consistently shoot 6 rds into a 1-1/2" group. Sometimes better, never worse.
I never tested a Colt.

__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett

Proofreading my comment, I sound like a cranky old fart. My apologies but I stand by my conclusions.

After WWII, Smith & Wesson recovered faster and produced a full lineup of beautiful revolvers in the 1950s and 1960s. Colt made a few superb revolvers like the Pythons; however, in general their quality never came back across the full line and generally declined after 1960 with the exception of the snake guns.

I’m sorry but the Officers Model Special is the ugliest of the Officers Model line. Who really wants “Coltwood” plastic stocks? I did recently acquire one because my lineup of Officer Model Colts was missing this one:


Compare that to an Officers Model 3rd Issue. (This is a .22 made in 1943.)


And I paid considerably more for this S&W Model of 1950 .44 than the Officers Model Special with zero regrets:


I started collecting pre-1961 Colts first, frankly because I could afford them. They are beautiful revolvers (with the exception of the Officers Model Special); however, they are a bear to work on and they are more susceptible to going “out of time” than Smith & Wessons. There is only 1 gunsmith I know of that I would trust with a vintage Colt. The single action trigger pull can be superb, but Smith & Wessons are better in double action absent an action job.

Wow!...Who wouldn't?...Gorgeous!......Ben

__________________
Cogito, ergo BOOM!...

My handgun ability is left or right handed, possibly thru shared DNA documented with 2 of my distant cousins, Wyatt Earp & Wild Bill Hickok.

S&W has significantly more robust lockwork than the old Colts, but the old Colts always feel better in the hand, at least to me.

__________________
Richard

Nice revolvers. The only Colt revolver that I have shot was an Official Police, 6 inch barrel made in the early 60's. It shot great but I prefer the feel of the trigger stroke on the S&W revolvers.

Was watching a GB auction that finished last night on a OM Special. Was quite surprised at the final price. Yes, it is shooter grade and does not have original grips, but still. About half what I paid for my OM Match.


Just a moment...

I was watching that and even put in an early bid. I didn’t go higher because A: it was an unadvertised reblue and probably more importantly B: someone had filed the notch wider on the very hard to find rear sight. I was prepared to machine a new replacement for the rear but I’d have had a bunch of hours in it.

"I’m sorry but the Officers Model Special is the ugliest of the Officers Model line. Who really wants “Coltwood” plastic stocks? I did recently acquire one"

Well let me know when you put that ugly gun in the classifieds.

Can you point out where you see signs of a re-blue? The pins are all proud and not flattened and the stamps appear sharp. Certainly some wear but indications of a re-blue aren't obvious to me so point them out, I'm eager to learn what I've overlooked. As to the rear sight, it looks exactly like the one on my OM Special. How can you tell that it was filed? Yes, it appears wider than on mine, in the picture, until I bring the rear sight of mine as close to my eye as it is in the picture of the one that sold, and then it looks the same.

I think someone got a pretty good deal on that one.

Jeff
SWCA #1457

I have had MANY of the Colts since my dad collected Colts...He shot an Officers Model Match and my mom shot a Police Positive Target. I sold my dad's match gun since I acquired a Diamondback .38 that was more accurate with my wadcutters than dad's. My mom's gun, the PPT .22 was my first gun, and dad had Ivory stocks put on a the factory, so I still have it and love to shoot it. All the Colt.38's were outshot by my S&W Model 52 and my 5" RM. However, recently, I bought a new Python in 4" and had my gunsmith do an action job (too much Positive Sear engagement) and it is VERY accurate and NOW has a near perfect trigger.... I still have dad's Diamondback factory engraved .22, UNFIRED in Customshop box... To Be Sold only after MUCH enticement.

Attached Images

	Police Positive 22.jpg (69.3 KB, 25 views)
	Diamonnback eng.22.jpg (70.5 KB, 27 views)
	52-2.jpg (71.9 KB, 24 views)
	Reg. Mag_2.jpg (70.1 KB, 20 views)

__________________
Terry
SWCA, SWHS, IWLA, NRA

The barrel and cylinder had a plum color and the polishing marks on the cylinder that were visible in one picture looked exactly like the result of spinning the cylinder against a medium Scotchbrite wheel on a buffer. Not that it was a horrible job with washed out side plate seams or anything, but also not a factory grade refinish.

The top view photo showing the rear sight clearly shows the bottom of the notch to be bright in the white and uneven as opposed to the original matte blued appearance of the rest of the rear sight.

Thanks, my old eyes still don't see evidence of a reblue and the "white" on the rear sight appears to be light reflection to me. But I've been fooled before. Still think I'd have willingly paid considerably more than it sold for on GB.

Jeff
SWCA #1457

I lost my nearby FFL early this year, as he moved and decided not to renew again. His wife has dementia and he is going through many of the things I have been going through with Mom. It has made it easier not to spend money by buying off GB. He used to live about 1/4 mile away from my house in the same neighborhood. I would have placed a bid if he was still here.

Also that Colt obviously has been shot a lot. If I could check the timing, carry up, and endshake in person, that would be one thing. Off GunJoker? Nah.