Model 1917

[cjwils]

The Colt 1917 and the S&W 1917 were built for the same purpose and use the same ammo. Were they built with the same design? Are there any major differences? Does anyone have experience with both and can state an opinion about how they compare?

 

[ronnie gore]

1917

i have one of each and they are totaly different.
try google for each gun and you will see the differences

 

[DWalt]

Pretty much a matter of personal preference. In my opinion, one's no better than the other. I have a Colt 1917 (and two other Colts) and fire it a lot. I also have three N-frame Smiths, but not M1917s. People with smaller hands would probably prefer the Smith 1917.

 

[Muley Gil]

When the First World War started, the US military did not have enough 1911 semiautos on hand to outfit the expanded troops. Both S&W and Colt were buliding large frame revolvers. S&W had their .44 caliber N frames and they had also been building .455 revolvers for the Brits for several years. Colt had their New Service which was built in .45 Colt and .455 as well. Several other chamberings were available too.

S&W had patented the half moon clip in 1916, enabling the rimless .45 ACP cartridge to be extracted from a revolver.

The two revolvers are very different internally, but function in a similar manner; both have swing out cylinders, fixed sights, and can be fired both in single action and in double action modes.

 

[DWalt]

I have found the Colt to be a little simpler to disassemble and reassemble than a Smith - but you shouldn't have to do that very frequently. I have experienced more mechanical problems with Smiths than Colts, but that could be due to several things unrelated to design.

 

[cjwils]

So here are some follow up questions. I have seen information on the internet (which may or may not be good) that says the Colt 1917 has smooth chambers which requires use of half moon clips, but the S&W 1917 has rims inside the chambers which allows a 45 ACP cartridge to headspace on the case mouth. Does one method work better than the other? Can the Smith 1917 be used without half moon clips? Does the 45 auto rim cartridge work well with the Smith 1917? Seems to me that if the chamber is designed to headspace on the case mouth, but the case has a rim, there might be inconsistent performance.

 

[DCWilson]

I own and shoot both. The S&W N frame is slightly smaller than the Colt New Service frame, so if size is an issue there's one answer right there. But the Colt Grip has a bit more forward "roll" at the butt, which happens to position the gun better in my fist than any Smith can achieve. There is a reason those awkward-looking Bisley grips kept being made -- they promote accuracy. The Colt 1917 does not have a Bisley grip, but it has more of a wrist-favoring angle than the Smith 1917 does. (Or so my hands and forearms tell me after a .45 day at the range.)

They are both excellent revolvers. If you are familiar with the interior of one, the other will look like a different planet the first time you pop a sideplate. But if you are not into interiors, just find a way to shoot them both, and get the one that is the best mix of comfort and accuracy in your hands.

Then get the other one a year later.

Last minute add to hit your last questions. Yes, you can shoot ACP without a moon clip, but you have to push the empties out individually from the front of the cylinder with a stick; the ejector star won't work. You can shoot .45 AR with no problem; these guys knew how to mill chamber dimensions, and there is no conflict between a cartridge supported on its rim and the inner shoulder that supports the case leading edge.

EDITED TO ADD: I have this hat photo that I posted a few months ago. It shows the two varieties of 1917 beside one another. If you stare at them you will see the design differences that have been mentioned.

 

[BRush]

To supplement David's picture, here are the two from a different angle. I might add that the colt will have a less polished, shiny finish.

 

[handejector]

I have seen information on the internet (which may or may not be good) that says the Colt 1917 has smooth chambers which requires use of half moon clips, but the S&W 1917 has rims inside the chambers which allows a 45 ACP cartridge to headspace on the case mouth.

The very early Colt 1917's do not have the sharp sholder in the chamber for headspacing and must be used with moon clips. Later ones have the sholder and can usually be fired without clips.

All S&W 1917's have the sharp sholder and can be fired without clips.

45 AR will work in all of them.

 

[BUFF]

The shoulders in the chambers were part of the military's specifications for chamber dimensions. The Army was unhappy with Colt and Colt supplied replacement cylinders to the Army. Most of the early Colts with the incorrect chambers had the cylinders replaced during depot maintainance or if the gun was there for other repairs. You don't see a lot of the original, shoulderless Colts around.

 

[Ross3913]

The reason for the same designation is that before WWII, the Army used the year of adoption as the model number. E.g. M1873, M1909, M1919, etc. It worked OK when the Army didn't buy much, but in WWI they had to buy a bunch of stuff in 1917 for the war, so there's alot of differen things that were "M1917". Obivously it causes confusion. When it became apparent that the world was probably headed for war, the US changed the system to the "M" model number. Hence we get things like the M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, M1 steel helmet, M1 ammo can, etc.

It's changed slightly to deal with prototypes, but we're still using the same number sequence today. E.g. the M4 Carbine is the 4th carbine (M1, M2, M3 previous).

 

[cjwils]

Please pardon my ignorance, Ross3913, but I don't see the connection between your post and my questions above.

 

[Cavaliere]

More on the 1917. I am presently the high bidder for this one on gun broker ....

Well, that's less than you would expect to pay for one of S&Ws "Classic" 1917s with the safety lock, so I suppose it's a reasonable price. I'm using the word "reasonable" because I'm not exactly thrilled with the look of the finish on the cylinder, which (in my opinion) makes the gun a shooter, not a high ticket collector item.

With shooters bore and mechanical condition are paramount considerations so if the gun locks up tight and has a decent bore, I'd say go for it. It's gotta be better than most of those Brazilian contract guns floating around out there.

 

[gaucho1]

I think the GB 1917 is way overpriced at $750.

Shows definite evidence of refinish.

Shooter grade, would be worth $500 tops, but that is still high.

Sorry for the harsh comments, but I think with time you can do much better.

 

[Maximumbob54]

I didn't see anyone mention it so I will. The rim on the Auto Rim is thicker than normal to take up the moon clip space. They will have full reliability when used. I have thought about buying some to use with SWC bullets, but you are missing out on the glory of a full moon clip of 230 grain FMJ... The fastest revolver reload there is...

 

[Teddydog]

My very first thought upon viewing the auction photos was that it was an over-polished reblue.

Rob

 

[Ross3913]

Please pardon my ignorance, Ross3913, but I don't see the connection between your post and my questions above.

I was addressing your original question about if they were the same design. Often people think it's the same design from the "M1917". While that original question was directly answered, some people invariably wonder why they have the same model number if they're different. I was just closing the loop on that because the confusion you had on whether they are the same or different is quite common. It was more directed at anyone that might be wondering why they were both M1917s since they were different designs, rather than a narrowly defined direct answer to one of your questions.

The answer to why they have the same, and therefore confusing, model number is answered in my post. Because that's just the way they did it back then.

I didn't think it was too off-topic, since it addresses a common confusion on the design that you yourself expressed in your original post.

 

[cjwils]

Thanks for your comments everyone. The administrator pointed out that this forum has a rule against mentioning a specific auction item on a specific commercial site, so some of my questions above have been removed. I may still proceed with my interest in a 1917, but not certain at this time.

 

[cjwils]

Did all S&W 1917's originally have a rather dull finish? Is there a name for such a finish? Did any originally have a shiny blue finish?

 

[mkk41]

The S&Ws had a nicer finish than the Colts. The earliest ones were finished to the same degree as commercial guns. The Colts had tooling marks and the sideplates seem high on some. All were blued. Most were glassbeaded and parkerized during arsenal overhaul , before reissue during WWII..

 

[cjwils]

Got a 1917

After kicking around the idea for some time, I broke down and bought a Smith & Wesson 1917 from an online auction. I might have paid too much, but that is done with now. It has been refinished, so I don't expect it to be a serious collector's item. I want it to be a shooter. The action is nice and tight, and the bore is excellent for its age. However, I am surprised at how heavy the single action trigger pull is. Is that typical? The double action pull seems normal. I spoke to a gunsmith, who said he could lighten the single action pull with about one hour's labor ($85). I would like to know if experienced 1917 owners think getting a trigger job would be a good idea.

 

[Cavaliere]

If you are planning on doing a lot of shooting, yeah, I'd invest in the trigger job. And don't feel bad about what you paid for your '17; you didn't over pay, you just paid next year's price.

 

[cooker]

Gotta love "glass half full" thinking,I think I will commit this to memory for when the wife questions certain purchases.

 

[dbl barrel]

i too bought a model 1917. mine has a nickle finish, lanyard stud removed and pachmeyer grips. 350. it shoots really good and the single action trigger is nice. wanted one in original condition but couldn't really justify the price as i wanted it for a woods gun. it actually shoots better than my model 22 thunder ranch and no infernal lock. oops i meant internal lock.

 

[cm289]

Here's my "new" Colt. I don't have the history on it, but it's been parkerized and the butt's been slightly rounded- serial #204XXX. I'm still on the hunt for the S&W-