M1917 Colt versus S&W

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 

Attachments

  • 008.jpg
    008.jpg
    81.7 KB · Views: 103
Last edited:
The Colt was more reliable in the mud and trenchs than the SW.I would go Colt.
 
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.
 
Got a picture of my dad in early WW2 wearing the Colt on gaurd duty at the Army Air corp station in Pennscola FL.
 
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.
 
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.
 
I have gone hot and cold from post to post on the Colt versus the S&W. Every time I think I should wait for a Smith someone post a tremendous positive on the Colt!

Now I have to look at the Triple Lock and I do not think I can pass on the Colt M1917!
 
I have had an on and off romance with the old New Service guns for over 40 years. I had a beautiful pristine one in my hands and had to let it go.

Colt45_zps76a0065e.jpg


I finally found another I could afford about 6 mos ago but traded it off. I thought I had them out of my system until one appeared in a pawn shop last weekend.

So now I have another, it's not as pretty as some and has ugly grips, but it's tight as a bull's butt in fly season. Thom Braxton brought me 3 pairs of grips to try out today.

Maybe this one will cure the itch.
 
I'm going to have to confess my own general appreciation for the New Service varieties. While I prefer the Smith 1917 to the Colt version by a small amount, there are several big Colts that have no exactly comparable model in the S&W lineup or that compare favorably to the ones that do exist. Several months ago I came into a 1909 Army in pretty good shape; I guess some would compare it to the .455 HE second model in .45 Colt, but for some reason that doesn't feel exactly right to me. I still need to do some tune-up work on it before I will shoot it, but that is one big and admirable handful of gun.
 
Interesting comments about the quality of finish on the Colt versus the S&W. Was it possibly due to Colt's more recent contracts with the US Army giving Colt a clear idea of exactly what the Army wanted? Colt manufactured the government model M1909 as previously mentioned, and of course their newest design, the M1911 auto-loader. By 1917 Colt got the message loud and clear that the Army did not want to pay for a beautiful finish that would be quickly degraded by rough and tumble holster duty.

Maybe S&W never really got the message. Collectors today may love the fit and finish of the S&W M1917, but at the time, the Army was not impressed. Frustrated at the perceived slow rate of production at S&W, the US Government took control of the company in September, 1918, and managed it till the war ended.

About the size difference between the two revolvers - I have a repo holster that a S&W M1917 fits in perfectly. But a Colt M1917 is a really tight fit, probably too tight. I assume if the Colt rode around in the holster long enough, the leather would stretch to improve the fit (?)

Someone mentioned the .455 revolver that S&W made under contract for the Brits earlier in the war. Colt supplied them with .455 revolvers as well. So after you get your set of M1917s from each company, you will "need" to do the same for the .455. :D
 
Jack Flash

Someone mentioned the .455 revolver that S&W made under contract for the Brits earlier in the war. Colt supplied them with .455 revolvers as well. So after you get your set of M1917s from each company, you will "need" to do the same for the .455. :D


You hush up yo mouth, you hear!!! Don't need no durn help from you!!!:rolleyes::D
 
Last edited:
The original WWI flap holsters fit both the Colt and S&W revolvers equally well. Reproduction holsters may not. I do have a reproduction holster from IMA (an excellent reproduction with great workmanship by the way) which fits the Colt 1917 perfectly - not tight and not loose. I have compared it side-by-side with the real thing, and there is very little difference, except for condition. I recently bought a reproduction holster from Sarco, and it's almost as good as the IMA, except its leather is not quite as thick as IMA's.
 
Most of the original M1917 holsters were of the "Butt-forward" type, i.e., if worn on the right side, the butt was forward. That was a carryover from horse cavalry days when a trooper carried his saber into battle in his right hand. and drew his pistol from his holster using his left hand. At one time, I had a very interesting posed 8 x 10 photograph of a large group (maybe 20 or so) of U. S. Army officers (may have been National Guard, but I don't know) taken sometime in the 1930s, and all wore the butt-forward carry M1917 holsters and revolvers and Sam Browne belts. Of course, I couldn't tell whether they were Colts or S&Ws. I don't know about the IMA holsters, but the Sarco holsters are available either as butt-forward or butt- backward.
 
Last edited:
To identify a factory original finish on a Colt 1917 take a look at the area surrounding the front sight. If you see a section that appears to have been taped off with a smoother polish than the rest of the barrel, you have one with an original finish. This is where the solder was cleaned up after the front sight was installed. I you look very closely at this pic you can see the outline next to the front sight. As mentioned earlier, the Colt's didn't have the "commercial grade" polish jobs that the S&W 1917's had.

Many 1917's were re-furbished by the Army for service in WWII. These guns have a Parkerized finish, and include additional inspectors marks.

The Colt's are suited to larger hands, and have a bit longer trigger reach IMO.

My personal 1917 has virtually no original finish left (except in some protected areas), was not re worked for WWII, and has all it's original inspection marks intact, sharp and clear.
At nearly 100 years old (shipped the last week of 1917) it locks up and times exactly as a Colt should with ZERO play.
Although the trigger pull is quite heavy, it's smooth as butter, and is probably the most accurate revolver I own. Shoots 230gr ball perfectly to the sights. My friends call this one "The Lazer" due to it's accuracy.
Clearly it's seen some hard use over the last century, but functions exactly as it should.

 
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.

Guilty as charged.

Buck
 
Back
Top