DWalt
Member
Note that there is also a Colt forum, and all of the really serious Colt nutcases hang out there. And there are several of those who specialize in the Colt New Service and M1917 revolvers.
M1917 Colt versus S&W
- Thread starter Trinidad Bill
- Start date
BRush
Member
Here are a couple for comparison.
Both are fine revolvers and are well constructed and fitted to mil spec. The Colt appear to be rougher because it is dull blued over an arsenal grade buffing. What might appear to be milling marks are in gact buffing marks.
Many, including myself, believed the Colt design to be inferior to the Smith because of its lack of a forward cylinder lock. However, I've come to appreciate that Colt's design makes a forward lock unnecessary because of its stronger internal lock-up design and because its cylinder rotates into the when the trigger is pulled.
Both are fine revolvers and are well constructed and fitted to mil spec. The Colt appear to be rougher because it is dull blued over an arsenal grade buffing. What might appear to be milling marks are in gact buffing marks.
Many, including myself, believed the Colt design to be inferior to the Smith because of its lack of a forward cylinder lock. However, I've come to appreciate that Colt's design makes a forward lock unnecessary because of its stronger internal lock-up design and because its cylinder rotates into the when the trigger is pulled.
BearBio
Member
I have both and I have a definite preference for the S & W. Both/either are great companion pieces to a 1903 Springfield or a 1917 Enfield.
Here's a comparison of both with a Victory Model:
Here's a comparison of both with a Victory Model:
OP
Trinidad Bill
US Veteran
The asking price is $820.
Well if the Colt is in nice condition and i wanted a Colt id sure buy it. In the area I shop in thats a fair price. I own both and collect both and i find the S&W to be a much better gun. But Colts in DA of any type have gone up in value quite a bit because they dont make a DA of any kind. And may not make anything much longer. Now, we all know if anything they will restructure but i suspect any Colt SAA or DA to skyrocket as they already have been. All that said id say buy it because if you have the extra money and you dont, odds are you would have wished you did. But if I had to choose one or the other id chose the S&W for design and useability. It is for sure a better built gun and i am a Colt kind of guy. Id shoot the fire out of a S&W all day long. A colt would get so loose it would need some repair. And its not an easy fix as you probably already know.
Last edited:
DWalt
Member
"... i find the S&W to be a much better gun."
May I ask in exactly what way(s)? I'd really like to know.
May I ask in exactly what way(s)? I'd really like to know.
Even though my sentiments lie with S&W (have three military S&W 1917's and one commercial 1917), I would seriously consider getting that Colt at that price, assuming good condition.
I have one 1917 Colt, and might have two, if I found one like that.
A local pawn shop recently had a Colt 1917 which had been scrubbed badly and nickle plated with a brass replacement ejector rod knob. It was priced at $775 and I told myself that it would never sell at that price. When I went back the next week it was gone. (!)
I have one 1917 Colt, and might have two, if I found one like that.
A local pawn shop recently had a Colt 1917 which had been scrubbed badly and nickle plated with a brass replacement ejector rod knob. It was priced at $775 and I told myself that it would never sell at that price. When I went back the next week it was gone. (!)
"I believe the later Smiths had a heat treated cylinder, but someone else will have to confirm that."
Per the US Government, all S&W 1917s were heat treated.
Per the US Government, all S&W 1917s were heat treated.
I knew I would be asked that question. Dont get me wrong I love Colts. Maybe I cant get past the old DA's they made but I think the 1917's suffered the same issues all the other early DA's have. They wear differently than S&W 1917's do and they wear quicker. Most of the issues that come up on the Smiths can be repaired easily. With the Colt its not that easy and the parts are harder to find and the repairs are only short lived. They lose time rapidly and loosen up easier and faster and thats not usually an easy fix. The locking system is "better" on the S&W in the sense that its stronger and easier to tighten up when they become problematic. In all honesty the Colt is probably every bit as good as the S&W but I seem to find more Colts that arent useable than i ever have S&W's. Im no gunsmith but im pretty good at repairing firearms and have made some repairs that some "gunsmiths" couldnt make. Maybe someone has a better way to fix the old Colts but of the ones i have bought for projects i have not gotten very far with them. Maybe when i see one of the old DA's i run away too fast. I just think they wore out easily. Maybe they get used more than the S&W. Who knows. Maybe im wrong. Thats just been my experience. Hope i didnt hurt any Colt owners feelings. Im a Colt guy and a S&W also.
Rick_A
Member
Having come across decent examples of both recently, the Smiths have a lot going for them. They are smaller, lighter, better looking, better finished, and have a lighter double action.
The Colts look great until compared side by side with a Smith.
The Colts look great until compared side by side with a Smith.
To me, the Colt 1917 has more felt recoil compared to a S&W 1917 IF the Smith is wearing Magna grips. The service grips that came standard with the S&Ws hurt my hand more than the Colt grips.
While I do prefer the S&Ws, I once carried a Colt 1917 as a police duty gun for close to a year. Shot an almost perfect score with it as well.
While I do prefer the S&Ws, I once carried a Colt 1917 as a police duty gun for close to a year. Shot an almost perfect score with it as well.
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,530
- Reaction score
- 6,207
Looks like the days of picking them up in gas stations for $75 are gone along with $0.89 regular.
Never picked up a S&W 1917 I didn't want to take home. Never picked up a Colt 1917 that I couldn't talk myself out of and darned few that weren't out of time. The big Colts never fit my hands. The Army Special/Official Police/.357 frame, though felt like they'd used my gloves for patterns.
If you find it awkward, too heavy, whatever - wait for a Smith. If it hangs right for you and the lockwork is solid, as so many others have said - go for it.
Never picked up a S&W 1917 I didn't want to take home. Never picked up a Colt 1917 that I couldn't talk myself out of and darned few that weren't out of time. The big Colts never fit my hands. The Army Special/Official Police/.357 frame, though felt like they'd used my gloves for patterns.
If you find it awkward, too heavy, whatever - wait for a Smith. If it hangs right for you and the lockwork is solid, as so many others have said - go for it.
mi2600
US Veteran
I believe the Colt 1917s were just an adaptation of their New Service line. Not sure about the S&W predecessor.
Mine shoot well and project "power" if you're looking down the wrong end of the barrel. But, I think the S&Ws appear more refined.
I vote for one or two of each.
Mine shoot well and project "power" if you're looking down the wrong end of the barrel. But, I think the S&Ws appear more refined.
I vote for one or two of each.
Yes, the Colt 1917 is a New Service chambered in .45 ACP.
The S&W 1917 evolved from the original N frame, the New Century aka the Triple Lock. S&W built TLs in .455 for the Brits at the beginning of WW I. The Brits wanted the barrel shroud dropped and the factory did so. Thus began the 2nd Model Hand Ejectors in .455, .44 Special, etc. The 1917 is a 2nd model HE, heat treated and chambered in .45 ACP.
Last edited:
$820.00 for a Colt 1917 sounds a bit high to me but it does seem to
be that on the auction sites the Colts do bring more than the S&Ws if
condition is equal. Before I put much money into any older Colt
revolver I would want to know the action was not worn excessively.
Hear is a pic of my Colt 1917 to show what the original finish with
machining marks looks like. Most of the Colts I have seen on the
auction sites look to have been refinished in one way or another.
be that on the auction sites the Colts do bring more than the S&Ws if
condition is equal. Before I put much money into any older Colt
revolver I would want to know the action was not worn excessively.
Hear is a pic of my Colt 1917 to show what the original finish with
machining marks looks like. Most of the Colts I have seen on the
auction sites look to have been refinished in one way or another.
Attachments
Last edited:
Sven
Member
My dad occasionally would mention the 1917 he carried in WWII, sometimes just referring to his .45 or .45 revolver. He had his sister buy it and send it to him overseas. I asked him one time if it was a Colt or Smith and Wesson. He gave me a disgusted look (typical Dad) and said it was a Smith and Wesson, why would I have a club like that Colt?
Just before he returned from Japan (Nagasaki), he sold it to a buddy who gave it to someone else to turn in so he could bring back his 1911. He didn't know about that deal until years later or he wouldn't have sold it.
Just before he returned from Japan (Nagasaki), he sold it to a buddy who gave it to someone else to turn in so he could bring back his 1911. He didn't know about that deal until years later or he wouldn't have sold it.
Several have mentioned that the Colt may be out of time. It probably is, but, so what? Such a condition is common on old Colts, but generally has no effect on shooting, and certainly has no effect on the collectability of the revolver.
My answer to these Colt versus Smith & Wesson timing discussions is that, yes, double action Colt revolvers do go out of time with extended use, but double action Smith & Wesson revolvers are always out of time!
The common Colt double action design (as introduced in the 1898 New Service and the 1908 Army Special, and finally ending with the Python in 2006) is such that, as the trigger is pulled, the cylinder is rotated tightly against the cylinder stop, eliminating ALL play in the cylinder at the moment of firing. The hand is what applies the pressure to the cylinder to hold it against the cylinder stop (the bolt), so the shock of firing causes wear on the hand. The wear on the hand will slowly progress to the point that the hand will not rotate the cylinder into final lockup if the hammer is cocked slowly. However, pulling the trigger will always force the cylinder into tight lockup at the moment of firing, so the worn hand really has no effect on function of the gun at the moment of firing. Inertia from more rapid cocking will also carry the cylinder into preliminary lockup with the bolt in the cylinder stop notch even before the trigger is pulled and the hand applies pressure to the cylinder.
On the Smith & Wesson double action design as introduced on the Military & Police in 1899, the hand does not lock up the cylinder at any time, and does not take the shock of firing. The cylinder is free to "float" at the moment of firing, held only by the bolt in the cylinder stop notch. The amount of play in the cylinder varies from gun to gun. (Older Smiths tend to have less play.) The only Smith I have that does not have play at the moment of firing is an early Triple Lock, which is about the finest fitted firearm I have ever seen of any brand. The cylinder on every other Smith revolver I have has some play at the moment of firing. The Colt Mark III/V action is like the Smith action in that the hand does not apply pressure to cylinder at any time after rotating it into firing position. (The Colt Mark III/V action is actually more like a Ruger action since it uses a transfer bar ignition system.)
This lack of play in a Colt at the moment of firing is said to be the reason for the generally superior accuracy of a Colt revolver. Replacement of the hand on a Colt from time to time is the price paid for the Colt "bank vault lockup" system. A Colt hand can be "stretched" by peening and, if done properly, can double or triple the life of a Colt hand.
When considering near century-old military revolvers as collector pieces, with occasional firing for recreation, the timing issue is irrelevant. Buy the Colt and then buy a Smith & Wesson when you find one. Keep both as examples of what America did to arm its soldiers in the Great War.
Now that that is settled, you can begin your search for the accouterments that are needed to make your Model 1917 collection complete! Good luck.
My answer to these Colt versus Smith & Wesson timing discussions is that, yes, double action Colt revolvers do go out of time with extended use, but double action Smith & Wesson revolvers are always out of time!
The common Colt double action design (as introduced in the 1898 New Service and the 1908 Army Special, and finally ending with the Python in 2006) is such that, as the trigger is pulled, the cylinder is rotated tightly against the cylinder stop, eliminating ALL play in the cylinder at the moment of firing. The hand is what applies the pressure to the cylinder to hold it against the cylinder stop (the bolt), so the shock of firing causes wear on the hand. The wear on the hand will slowly progress to the point that the hand will not rotate the cylinder into final lockup if the hammer is cocked slowly. However, pulling the trigger will always force the cylinder into tight lockup at the moment of firing, so the worn hand really has no effect on function of the gun at the moment of firing. Inertia from more rapid cocking will also carry the cylinder into preliminary lockup with the bolt in the cylinder stop notch even before the trigger is pulled and the hand applies pressure to the cylinder.
On the Smith & Wesson double action design as introduced on the Military & Police in 1899, the hand does not lock up the cylinder at any time, and does not take the shock of firing. The cylinder is free to "float" at the moment of firing, held only by the bolt in the cylinder stop notch. The amount of play in the cylinder varies from gun to gun. (Older Smiths tend to have less play.) The only Smith I have that does not have play at the moment of firing is an early Triple Lock, which is about the finest fitted firearm I have ever seen of any brand. The cylinder on every other Smith revolver I have has some play at the moment of firing. The Colt Mark III/V action is like the Smith action in that the hand does not apply pressure to cylinder at any time after rotating it into firing position. (The Colt Mark III/V action is actually more like a Ruger action since it uses a transfer bar ignition system.)
This lack of play in a Colt at the moment of firing is said to be the reason for the generally superior accuracy of a Colt revolver. Replacement of the hand on a Colt from time to time is the price paid for the Colt "bank vault lockup" system. A Colt hand can be "stretched" by peening and, if done properly, can double or triple the life of a Colt hand.
When considering near century-old military revolvers as collector pieces, with occasional firing for recreation, the timing issue is irrelevant. Buy the Colt and then buy a Smith & Wesson when you find one. Keep both as examples of what America did to arm its soldiers in the Great War.
Now that that is settled, you can begin your search for the accouterments that are needed to make your Model 1917 collection complete! Good luck.
DWalt
Member
I don't believe Colts are as prone to mechanical wear as some believe. At last count, I have eight pre-War (both wars) large and medium frame DA Colt revolvers, the earliest dating from 1910. All show extensive use and all are still in perfect time and lock up tight. I doubt that any of them have ever required repair. The biggest problem is that if one does require more than a simple parts change for repair, there are few around who know how to work on them. And new parts are seldom available. Colt dis-assembly is no more difficult than with a S&W.
