M1917 45 ACP Classic

[mososodbob]

The new S&W Classic series 1917 .45ACP revolver.

Does anyone have one of theses yet? Your impression? Current source and cost?

I have a old WWII era one that was refinished with a parkerized finish...however, seeing one in a recent ad with a nice polished blue finish got me saying "I got to have one of those".

I carry a 1911 for work, this will be for play or not so serious work.

Bob

 

[mososodbob]

The new S&W Classic series 1917 .45ACP revolver.

Does anyone have one of theses yet? Your impression? Current source and cost?

I have a old WWII era one that was refinished with a parkerized finish...however, seeing one in a recent ad with a nice polished blue finish got me saying "I got to have one of those".

I carry a 1911 for work, this will be for play or not so serious work.

Bob

 

[dsf]

Just a subjective opinion, but if you want the new 1917 because it's a neat gun and has a classic look, fine. If you're going to buy it instead of a real 1917 I think (I know I would be) dissappointed.

 

[mososodbob]

I'm trying to see if we have anyone on this list with objective experience with this new gun.

My "real" 1917 is a "GI gun". It shoots fine and will hold black on a 25yd bullseye target. Good enough, but looking to see if the new gun in the classic line is as advertised and be a better shooter?

I want a new 1917 because of its looks; it is in a claiber that I really like, and for the cool factor. I'm a gun hobbyist who is into acquiring (for use) verses "collecting" for a collection. So having a "real" (read vintage) 1917 is less important than having one that I can carry and shoot.

None are in the stores here yet...most vendors don't even know about this model...checking to see if any of you have handled one and provide some feedback on fit / finish / and most importantly, a range report from shooters.

For sailing1801: Can you expand on your disappointment? Could it be the cost of the new one verses a good "real" one? Quality of material used? New design verses old? I know I would not like that locking do-dat on the new Smiths...but can live with it if I can leave it in the unlock mode (like my HK USP).

Bob

 

[TwoGunsStanding]

There was a write up in Am Hangunner by Taffin, I believe. Basically good reviews, but I would have thought accuracy could have been a little better (just imepression, can't remember the specifics). I have a newer Model 21, and it is very accurate, and Scott Mulkerin of SDM Fabricating has stated that he believes the newer S&W's to be better made because of the steel, and newer machining processes. He has worked on many of them since the Mim parts came about. The new 1917's are a bit different, and the "purist" might be disappointed. Guns have the hole for the key, and firing pin mounted on the frame. Hammer stroke is shorter, and trigger pull is different because of that. They would make a very durable replacment for the old 1917. My solution is to buy TWO old ones, in the event that I ever wear one of them out. I think I got both of my British 2nd Model HE's for less tha the price of one at retail on some of the new deluxe N-frames. Everyone I know that has a Model 22 likes it, and it is basically the same as the new 1917, but with a 4 inch barrel.

 

[Tom M]

I love mine. It's very accurate with my handloads, and very easy to shoot. No quality problems whatsoever. If you want a really nice gun to shoot, and aren't worried about collectability, this is your pistol. Most dealers don't stock these, but you can always order one. Check prices at Bud's gun shop for good deals.

 

[Agent6-3/8]

I've looked at a few of them in shops, but don't own one. For a good looking and fun shooter, it gets my nod. I know this is beat to death, but...its too bad they have the lock...

 

[deanodog]

I don't have any expierence with the 1917 but I have a model 21 and a model 22 which I have been very satisfied. I would hate to part with either. The lock doesn't bother me on a classic when the original is unaffordable.

 

[Marksman41]

I remember reading in one of the boards here that soon (if not already) it will be possible to order these Classic line revolvers without the lock.

 

[mososodbob]

Everyone: Thanks for the feedback. Good info.

I hope the rumor of the Classic line going to be made w/o the lock becomes a fact.

Follow up questions:

1)What is the "Altamont Wood" grip. Is it some composite material? Treated wood?
2) Are the MIM parts cased harden like the forged parts?

For Tom M: The grip panels on your gun; were they factory or after-market? It also appears the trigger and hammer had been "jeweled finished". Something you had done...or just the photo? Does the nickeled finished guns have the traditional case-harden finished trigger and hammer? or comes with the bright finished as an option? The photo on the S&W site shows a dark colored hammer and trigger. Thanks for the lead on Bud's gun shop.

Bob

 

[Tom M]

The grips were made for me by Don Collins.
Don Collins Grips

I polished the standard MIM trigger and hammer, and took them to my 'smith for jeweling. I had to polish out the mold lines.

"Altamont" is the name of the company that makes the factory grips. I personallly don't like them, which is not to say they aren't any good. My experience has been that they do not fit properly. Some folks like them. It's subjective.

 

[dsf]

Originally posted by mososodbob:
I'm trying to see if we have anyone on this list with objective experience with this new gun.

My "real" 1917 is a "GI gun". It shoots fine and will hold black on a 25yd bullseye target. Good enough, but looking to see if the new gun in the classic line is as advertised and be a better shooter?

I want a new 1917 because of its looks; it is in a claiber that I really like, and for the cool factor. I'm a gun hobbyist who is into acquiring (for use) verses "collecting" for a collection. So having a "real" (read vintage) 1917 is less important than having one that I can carry and shoot.

None are in the stores here yet...most vendors don't even know about this model...checking to see if any of you have handled one and provide some feedback on fit / finish / and most importantly, a range report from shooters.

For sailing1801: Can you expand on your disappointment? Could it be the cost of the new one verses a good "real" one? Quality of material used? New design verses old? I know I would not like that locking do-dat on the new Smiths...but can live with it if I can leave it in the unlock mode (like my HK USP).

Bob

My disappointment is mostly appearance based. I'd bet the new model is made to tighter tolerances and made out of better materials with perhaps an exception for the MIM parts - call it a tie on that one I suppose. Except that MIM can't be case hardened and doesn't have the right look. The lock, the frame mounted firing pin, the front lock up stud and extractor rod head, the cylinder stud - they're all different than the original and my feeling is that if something is going to be a replica it ought to be an exact match.

I feel the older Smith action is much smoother than the new. Mine hasn't seen much use, so I don't think it's been worn in, I think it was finished that well. The new one is not.

Standing on its own, I think the new 1917 is a great gun. I bought a new Model 21 and like it very much. So getting a 1917 because it's a good gun seems fine, but as a replica I'd say it doesn't quite make it.

 

[Noah Zark]

Originally posted by sailing1801:

My disappointment is mostly appearance based . . . The lock, the frame mounted firing pin, the front lock up stud and extractor rod head, the cylinder stud - they're all different than the original and my feeling is that if something is going to be a replica it ought to be an exact match . . .

+1. Exactly why I didn't buy one. All set to do the papers, cash in hand, and that comparatively HUGE barrel lug just screamed "WRONG!" at me.

Noah

 

[Stophel]

Originally posted by mososodbob:
2) Are the MIM parts cased harden like the forged parts?

Bob

I have found that the MIM parts are NOT case hardened mild steel, like the old forged parts (which have an un-fileable rock hard surface). My model 21-4 had a really super light SA let off, and I later noticed a "push-off" problem. I found the notch on the hammer to simply not be deep enough, and I filed it just ever so slightly deeper (which I would never have been able to do with a case hardened part). The part was relatively hard (I'll estimate a Rockwell hardness of about 55). Stiff, but fileable, and I did not notice it filing harder when I started over when I finished. This means it is apparently some kind of through-hardening tool steel, which is just fine, especially for doing this kind of work!

I also filed off the parting lines on the sides of the hammer, and did my best with the trigger, though there are deep dimples on either side near the top that you just can't do anything with. MIM may well be strong and reliable enough, but by golly, they could sure do a better job at making them look better.


I think accuracy, or lack of it, is generally more reliant on the particular individual gun, rather than the model or type. Sometimes you get winners. Sometimes you get losers.

 

[DP]

Shot a test sample today, with five different factory ACP loads.
Accuracy was not all that good, but it was an overcast day.
The recurring headspacing problem in shooting without clips is still there. It was too cold to be messing with moon clips, and 14 rounds did not fire during the session. Had to give up on the Black Hills stuff entirely, with 9 misfires, and BH is ALWAYS good ammunition. Primer strike would seat them deep enough into the chamber to have to be tapped out, but not hard enough to fire.
My Model 22, and a TR 325 sample I tried a while back both showed the same inconsistencies between chambers.
I hauled out my older Modello De '89 with firing pin on hammer when I got home, grabbed two of the three "problem" ammo boxes, ran up the hill again & 13 rounds that would not fire in the '17 lit up just fine.

This is not a problem if you always use clips, just an advisory that you SHOULD always use clips on the newer .45 ACP Smiths if you want reliable ignition with ACP loads.
Otherwise, the trigger is better on this sample than the one on a Miculek 625 I had here.

Denis

 

[Bullseye Smith]

I have one and after a little trigger work it done fine. It may not be the best shooter I have, but for a fixed sight gun it is in the top 3 in the "N" frame.

 

[Tom M]

Since I reload, I always use .45 Auto Rim cartridges in ACP revolvers. Never had a misfire.

 

[DP]

Auto Rim brass headspaces on the case rim, doesn't matter how the chambers are cut. It's another excellent way to increase reliability in the current Smith .45s.
Denis

 

[Stophel]

Well, if you shoot ACP with the clips like you're supposed to, you won't have any problems!

 

[deanodog]

I like shooting both auto rim and ACP. It is good to have the option.