1917 Colt 45 Worth $$


PDA






Turk
December 7, 2007, 08:12 PM
I'm looking at a 1917 Colt 45 US army. The frame is in good condition with any average bore, cyclinder is tight. I want to use it for my woods carry sidearme so I plan to have it reblued. I can get is for $475.00. Any one have a book that lists a 1917 worth?

Thanks,

Turk

If you enjoyed reading about "1917 Colt 45 Worth $$" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Gator
December 7, 2007, 09:13 PM
A $475 Colt 1917 will be worth $250 after you reblue it. Why not get a more modern stainless steel gun? For $475 and the cost of reblueing you can get a nice S&W Mountain Gun.

Turk
December 8, 2007, 09:12 AM
Gator wrote

A $475 Colt 1917 will be worth $250 after you reblue it. Why not get a more modern stainless steel gun? For $475 and the cost of reblueing you can get a nice S&W Mountain Gun.
Itís not about getting my money back itís about that I like the feel and looks of the 1917. I have big bore hand guns 357 mag., 357 Max., 41 Mag, 44 Mag., 45 Colt, 454 Caus., 480 Ruger, 444 Marlin, 45/70 Govt. so any of the revolvers makes a good woods carry gun but 45 Colt in lower pressure loading still is a formable round. If in big bear country Iíd carry my 454 even though Iím not particlur found of the round but it is a super duper dragon killer. Even better is a 870 with slugs

Have a good day.

Turk

MCgunner
December 8, 2007, 09:58 AM
I bought one for 100 bucks, but it was loose and out of time and even after my smith tuned it up a bit, it was still pretty ratty. Check it out before you buy it, make sure it's not a worn out POS. Back then, it was "NRA good". :rolleyes: You could get a VG for 150 which MIGHT have been shootable. On top of all that, I found out the thing wouldn't shoot lead bullets due to the shallow rifling. I don't keep guns that won't fire lead bullets, so I sold it.

Just buy a modern gun. No way those old things are worth 400+, not as a shooter. If you're a collector, well, you have a collector's mentality. An Indian head nickel may be "worth" ten grand with such a mentality, but to me it's worth a nickel. I read about a new release from smith of an old design .45 ACP revolver, model 20 something I think it was. Forget. Think it was in a recent "American Rifleman". The price was high, of course, but a new gun after all and I don't think they put a lock on it IIRC.

Joe Gunns
December 8, 2007, 04:02 PM
The new .45acp revolver from Smith is the 22-4. I understand that it is basically the Thunder Ranch version without the TR markings. Has the lock. I got one anyway and like it. Nice trigger, good balance. I think the checkering on the stocks a bit sharp. Normally I would replace 'em, but they have nice figure so am going to try a Tyler T-Grip and see if my old-man-skin can toughen up enough not to get sore after 100 rounds. Cost was in the mid $500's w/tax IIRC.
James

rcmodel
December 8, 2007, 04:26 PM
It would be a shame to reblue an original 1917. Way to many of them have been chromed, chopped, and otherwise butchered over the years.
It a piece of American history, and the few remaining good ones should be left alone!

If you just want a .45 ACP revolver, S&W & Taurus has made, and still makes them.

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j219/rcmodel/KTOG/1224.gif
rcmodel

Old Fuff
December 8, 2007, 04:50 PM
The 1917 (Colt New Service) was a rugged tank of a gun, and it has a positive hammer block that insures it can safey be carried with 6 rounds - something that Smith & Wesson 1917's didn't have.

I would prefer a New Service in .45 Colt, but the .45ACP or auto-rim will do.

I wouldn't bother to have it reblued though. The new blue will soon start to wear, and you'll be back where your are now. If it were to be done right, the refinishing could come close to 1/2 of the gun's price - and wouldn't make any difference in the way it shoots. Safe queens (I have some) should be perfect, but those that are still working should look it. ;)

Vern Humphrey
December 8, 2007, 05:21 PM
You say "45 Colt in lower pressure loading still is a formable round."

I may be wrong, I take it this particular gun is in .45 Colt, not .45 ACP. If that's true, beware! The Model 1917 was only made in .45 ACP, and this gun must have been converted from that cartridge. Unless it was done by the factory, or a really knowledgeable gunsmith, you'll have problems -- because it isn't a simple matter of reboring the throats, or changing the cylinder. The hand and other parts must be swapped out and tuned for that converson, as well.

MCgunner
December 8, 2007, 05:28 PM
Hm, has a lock? Darn. I must have been reading between lines or something. LOL For 550 NEW, though, I'll take a new 22-4 any day over a 1917 for 400 plus. It'll shoot better, it'll be new, likely will have normal rifling that will stabilize cast bullets (a major requirement of mine.)

Old Fuff
December 8, 2007, 07:24 PM
Hm, has a lock? Darn.

No, not a lock - a hammer block. If the revolver is dropped, or a blow hits the hammer, a round under the firing pin won't fire. Because of the hammer block the revolver is safe to carry with all of the chambers loaded. The design was incorporated into all Colt double-action revolvers by 1908.

In 1908 no one would have even suggested putting an internal lock into a handgun, and any gunmaker that did would have soon gone bust.

Or do you mean the new Smith & Wesson? I thought this thread was about the Colt model 1917...

S&W is cutting rifling barrels with a EDM system - the rifling is more shallow then that in a model 1917 Colt or S&W. These days everyone is suppose to use jacketed bullets....

JBP
December 8, 2007, 07:31 PM
The Model 1917 was only made in .45 ACP, and this gun must have been converted from that cartridge.

I have a 1917 U.S. Army that I picked up off one of the auction sites for $385 last year and the barrel is marked 45 Long Colt. The 1917 Civilian/Commercial models marked "Colt Model 1917 Ato Ctge" were .45 ACP.

XavierBreath
December 8, 2007, 08:59 PM
I know next to nothing about the Model of 1917, so I consulted the SCS&W (http://xavierthoughts.blogspot.com/2006/12/supicas-third-edition-is-out.html). According to Supica and Hahas, the model of 1917 came in .45 ACP or .45 Auto Rim. Good condition=$475. Very Good= $700. Fair=$375. Poor=$275. I'm not certain these prices are still current, although I'm looking in the 3rd edition.

I would agree that the cost of the gun and a re-blue would be detrimental as well as uneconomical, but to each his own. I think I would just oil it, and carry it if I was to actually use the revolver. If it's a situation of wanting to prevent corrosion, and you don't care about the collectible aspect, then go whole hog and have the thing hard chromed. I can't believe I said that.......but it will be more applicable for your purposes, and the finish will hold up better. The greater suitability of the more rugged finish on a gun you want to carry will be offset by the corresponding drop in collectability.

But for myself, I would just oil it and tote it. This would preserve and add to the history of the gun. There is a certain freedom that comes with a gun that bears carry marks. It's liberating when the gun is no longer a collectible, but a tool.

44and45
December 8, 2007, 09:00 PM
I'm amused at the opinions about restoring model 1917 revolvers. :) Who the heck sets the rules on what one should do with their own property, is there antiquity laws by gun archyologist who demand such.

My S&W M-1917 was mechanically sound and tight, the bore had no rust or pits.

But the outside blue'black finish looked like it had been dragged behind a dirt bike through rocks and brush. :what:

Found a good gunsmith to restore its bluing, and replaced the wood grips with some originals I found from a guy in Alaska.

Now I could have left it in its pitiful condition, but I'm an old man and won't be passing this way again. Nuts to leaving to some money grubbing dealer who would like to make a neat profit on its sad original conditon. :neener:

Now don't get your shorts in a bunch, its my property and my money that went into restoration. When I kick the bucket they can throw it in the pine box with me...bound to be some of you out there wanting to dig this one up.

Jim


http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e321/44and45/P70300121917gripson37B650X.jpg

rcmodel
December 8, 2007, 09:15 PM
I have a 1917 U.S. Army that I picked up off one of the auction sites for $385 last year and the barrel is marked 45 Long Colt.Then it isn't a 1917.

If it says "U.S. Army Model of 1917" on the butt, and "United States Property" on the barrel, it should be .45 ACP/.45AR.

If it says all that on the butt, and is a .45 Colt, it most likely has been converted with a new barrel & cylinder, or it started out as a Commercial Hand Ejector model and shouldn't say "U.S. Army Model of 1917" on the butt.

There were a very few 1917's made and sold commercially in .45 Colt, but they are extremely rare. And they were not military.

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j219/rcmodel/KTOG/1224.gif
rcmodel

savit260
December 8, 2007, 09:17 PM
Wouldn't a U.S. Army Colt New Service in 45 Colt be a model 1909 instead of 1917 (45acp)?

MCgunner
December 8, 2007, 09:32 PM
No, not a lock - a hammer block. If the revolver is dropped, or a blow hits the hammer, a round under the firing pin won't fire. Because of the hammer block the revolver is safe to carry with all of the chambers loaded. The design was incorporated into all Colt double-action revolvers by 1908.

In 1908 no one would have even suggested putting an internal lock into a handgun, and any gunmaker that did would have soon gone bust.

Or do you mean the new Smith & Wesson? I thought this thread was about the Colt model 1917...

Yeah, I was talking about the 22-4. In regards to the thread, all I'm sayin' is why pay 400-700 bucks for a 1917 for a shooter when you can get the 22-4 for 550? I have no particular reverence for the 1917, just another old revolver IMHO. So there's some history behind it? So what? I buy guns to shoot. I don't run a museum. If all you want to do is shoot, the new gun makes more sense IMHO.



S&W is cutting rifling barrels with a EDM system - the rifling is more shallow then that in a model 1917 Colt or S&W. These days everyone is suppose to use jacketed bullets....


ALL MODELS!?!? You MUST be joking! Well, that settles it then, no new Smiths for me. When did they do all this? My bud's 80s era 686 shoots wadcutters and cast .357s pretty decent. No wonder all the complaints about not hitting squat past 7 yards with a 642. All this time I figured they just couldn't shoot! Maybe they were using 158 SWCHPs?

Hmmm. HOW IN HECK could you build, say, a .45 Colt and not build it to stabilize cast bullets? This is puzzling.

rcmodel
December 8, 2007, 09:36 PM
Wouldn't a U.S. Army Colt New Service in 45 Colt be a model 1909 instead of 1917 (45acp)?You are right!
I was talking Colt and thinking S&W!
Another Senior Moment, ala Brain Fart!

But regardless, if it's a U.S. Property marked 1917 Colt, or 1917 S&W, it wasn't chambered for .45 Colt originally.

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j219/rcmodel/KTOG/1224.gif
rcmodel

mnw42
December 8, 2007, 09:43 PM
I have on of the Thunder Ranch Revolvers and I like it. It was in the used case and came with a T-grip installed. I've tried it with out, but the grip is too small for my hands.

http://images.filecloud.com/596056/trr-lh-m.jpg


As for the Colt.... I'd love to have one and $400-$500 seems to be what you are going to pay for one. You might be able to find a Colt new service in .45 ACP or .45 Colt. I'd pick a .45 Colt New Service over my TRR as a woods gun.

XavierBreath
December 8, 2007, 10:03 PM
Jim, that's a nice looking revolver.

I think the desire in many folks to preserve older firearms comes from a time about 50-60 years ago. M1911A1s were available for $50-100 a piece back then. They were purchased, hot rodded, tweaked into race guns, scoped, cut up, cut down, and experimented on by the finest gunsmiths of the time. This experimentation literally spawned handgunning as we know it today.

The M1911A1 wasn't being made anymore though. Then came along the US government to destroy remaining pistols in their inventory rather than sell them as surplus. The price of previously common M1911A1s went from $50 to $2000 in a period of approximately 50 years. The latest and greatest jump came in the last decade. We are seeing the same thing start to happen with Smith & Wesson Victory Models now. These are military firearms with a very definite history. The Model of 1917 has the same potential.

It is true that a man may do whatever he desires with his own property. It is true that you can't take these things with you, and you may as well enjoy them. No problem there. If you want to take a WWII vintage Willy's Jeep and lower it with chrome rims and fat tires, install a kicking boom boom stereo, and string pom poms around the canvas top, that is your right if it is your Jeep. If you want to take a Porsche 356 and put mud tires on it, paint it camo and go jumping into mud pits with it, same thing, it's your vehicle. Just don't be surprised as those around you look on in wonderment as you make their property more valuable in the marketplace by decreasing the finite supply.

44and45
December 9, 2007, 09:36 AM
Quote:

Just don't be surprised as those around you look on in wonderment as you make their property more valuable in the marketplace by decreasing the finite supply.

===================================================

Oh I'm more than happy to make you sellers and buyers happy about increasing the resale value of your old guns. After all, you wouldn't want the 1950s prices of the OLd Hunter's Ads posting these guns for $24.95 to still be that price today...would you.

I also don't owe anyone the legacy of my old revolver as to the supply drying up...my restored revolver is still here and not dried up.

The reason these old revolvers are in demand is the sole fact that a demand is created by the I've to get me one of those crowd. And who beats the drum for that assembly, why its the sellers to the collectors who fall into that scenario. This is the siren call to the suckers, create a demand by offering your wares at higher prices, there is always some chump who will start the ball rolling and create the demand for more suckers.

The demand didn't begin after WW-1 did it. It didn't begin after WW-2 did it. In all honesty it begin about 10 to 15 years ago.

Another thing, I didn't chop and channel my gun, like your auto description so profusely illustrated...I tried to restore it to its original condition so I could look upon it and admire it while shooting it. It was a scratched up mess that had more nicks and dents than a German tank on the Russian front lines, it looked pitiful but worked fine.

There are some guns I wouldn't try to restore, those that belong to historical personalities. Or the gun just doesn't need a reblue job because it has some minor wear on its finish.

But if it looks like a basket case, I don't want to own it or shoot it.

Jim

Old Fuff
December 9, 2007, 10:22 AM
After all, you wouldn't want the 1950s prices of the OLd Hunter's Ads posting these guns for $24.95 to still be that price today...would you.

Knowing what I do now, I'd be delighted... :evil:

I make a practice of restoring older guns, especially those that can be bought because the have something wrong with them that no one else wants to bother to fix. But when it comes to refinishing whatever gets refinished often gets put into the safe queen side of the picture, and nothing gets refinished where doing so would substantially reduce the value.

My everyday worrking guns sometimes look it. Refinishing wouldn't last long and I'd be back where I started. I'll use others for show and tell... ;)

BikerRN
December 9, 2007, 10:59 AM
If it's a Colt, chambered for the 45 ACP and marked "United States Property" I'd snatch it up. Mine has a Parkerized finish. :)

I keep mine in the safe and only take it out a few times a year to shoot. If it's the Commercial Version, made for the civilian market it isn't such a good deal but would be fine as a "wood's gun". I wouldn't re-blue or refinish any gun. You will ruin whatever value your gun has unless it's a pitted rusted wreck.

That's my $0.02 on the matter.


Biker

Onmilo
December 9, 2007, 11:07 AM
I sold this one a few years back for $550.00 and the buyer wasn't squabbling.
It too has a parkarized finish, Anniston Arsenal rebuild marks, and a Post Office use provinance.
http://www.fototime.com/D43BD636E4270C9/standard.jpg

44and45
December 9, 2007, 01:54 PM
Wow, that means I might get half that for my reblued POS that some regard as ruined because it was refinished and had original period grips replaced. :D

Jim

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e321/44and45/P7230033good692X.jpg

Old Fuff
December 9, 2007, 02:13 PM
I would expect that your refinished S&W will indeed fetch a higher price now that it's refinished - but most likely from a shooter, rather then a collector. That of course doesn't matter - money is money.

The problem is - if and only "if" - you don't keep it that way the investment in refinishing - from a resale perspective - will be anything from slightly to substantially lost if you continue to use it under less then optimal conditions. Apparently you don't care, but others in the same boat might. Quality refinishing is not inexpensive.

Turk's basic New Service would run him $475.00. Quality rebluing could add another $200.00, which would bring the total up to $675.00. In today's market that amount isn't unreasonable, but I can think of some other chocies for a woods-gun that might be a better, and less expensive to buy.

But in the end it boils down to what you want, and how much money you have to spend. All we can do here is lay out the various options.

44and45
December 9, 2007, 02:39 PM
Yes, it probably really is worth more money to a shooter, rather than a collector...but the obvious assumption of the collectors is that it is ruined.

Ruined for them, but not to everyone who favors a good gun to own and shoot.

I realize there are those who would be perfectly happy to own a scared up dented, nicked, slightly rusty, pitted barrel, working gun...but I don't happen to care for firearms in that condition.

I doubt very much my old revolver would have brought in the price Onmilo's refinished NS got...before I had it polished, re-blued, and regripped...$250 would have been about tops if you weren't too fussy...but everyone is who is buying a gun. They have to beat you down on your price. 'Hey! You want how much for that scared up, dented, rusty POS.' :barf:

Sound familiar. :D

Jim

jdomin
December 9, 2007, 03:00 PM
its your gun, do with it as you want. If it were me I make it the way I wanted, after all I'm paying for the work.... tell the others to flush twice

BlindJustice
December 9, 2007, 03:24 PM
Turk mentioned the M1917 is .45 Colt - this means
it was likely converted from a .45 ACP cylinder and it
should not cost as much as an unaltered M1917.

XavierBreath
December 9, 2007, 04:01 PM
I'm amused at the opinions about restoring model 1917 revolvers. Who the heck sets the rules on what one should do with their own property, is there antiquity laws by gun archyologist who demand such.No, past prices paid for particular guns in a particular condition are usually used as a precedent for prices that are presently paid. As the availability of popular models drops due to wear and tear, destruction, and collectors socking them away speculating on the future, prices tend to go up. The higher condition guns go up the quickest, because their numbers drop the most over time. A 98% gun becomes a 90%, then an 80% and etc as time goes by. No gun returns to 100% original finish. As collectors continue to accumulate guns in lower conditions, they run out of variations. Then they join the condition race, chasing after the ever more elusive examples in higher conditions, simply to continue the joy of collecting. Most must sell in order to continue to acquire, and they have discovered what they like. Often, to contine collecting, these folks go after condition rather than variation. There is nothing wrong with that.

Collecting guns is not about making a personal mountain of blued steel and walnut that you can not take with you when you die. It's about making friends, enjoying each other's company, and shooting historical firearms. It's a pleasurable pastime, much the same as that of people who enjoy antiques, vintage automobiles or and other acquisition type endeavor. Some do collect in seclusion, packing stuff away like a rat, but most collect as a type of social endeavor with people who share common interests. This is why you still find collectors at gun shows talking to each other rather than simply scanning the pages of Gun Broker every night.

Now don't get your shorts in a bunch, its my property and my money that went into restoration. When I kick the bucket they can throw it in the pine box with me...bound to be some of you out there wanting to dig this one up.Are you looking for someone to get their shorts in a bunch sir? Frankly, nobody really cares what you do with your property.

the obvious assumption of the collectors is that it is ruined.No, to a collector, it is refinished. There is a difference.

Ruined for them, but not to everyone who favors a good gun to own and shoot.Non sequitur. You assume collectors do not favor a good gun to own and shoot.

I realize there are those who would be perfectly happy to own a scared up dented, nicked, slightly rusty, pitted barrel, working gun...but I don't happen to care for firearms in that condition.That does not mean that others are wrong for not caring whether their gun has a battered but oiled finish rather a re-blue, just as you are not wrong for making the decision to re-blue your firearm. Others do not have to follow your lead with their property.

I doubt very much my old revolver would have brought in the price Onmilo's refinished NS got...before I had it polished, re-blued, and regripped...$250 would have been about tops if you weren't too fussy...but everyone is who is buying a gun. They have to beat you down on your price. 'Hey! You want how much for that scared up, dented, rusty POS.'Just tell 'em it's not for sale and go on your merry way. There is no need to re-blue a gun just because of what someone might say, just as there is no need to refrain from doing so because of what someone might think.

Another thing, I didn't chop and channel my gun, like your auto description so profusely illustrated...I tried to restore it to its original condition so I could look upon it and admire it while shooting it. It was a scratched up mess that had more nicks and dents than a German tank on the Russian front lines, it looked pitiful but worked fine.I don't think I said anything about chopping and channeling a Jeep or a Porsche. I spoke of them being repainted, different tires being installed, and having pom poms dancing about the canvas top. No chopping or channeling is required for that. Of course, you could if you wanted to.

Actually Jim, your Model of 1917 looks pretty nice to me, and I told you so. You might also check back and see that I suggested that the original poster consider a hard chrome job on his gun, which would be a more durable finish for his intended use. Not what I would do, not what you did, but what might work better for his purpose. Now tell me Jim, do you really think I am a hard headed collector type trying to mandate what people do with their own property?

Prices are arrived at through an agreement between a buyer and a seller. They may use past experiences and references based on compiled data to assist them in a fair market price. Simply because a person pays a price for a firearm greater than what it sold for thirty years ago does not make them a "chump" or a "sucker." Implying such is insulting.

This thread was started as a member's request for the general market value of a used firearm. It has degenerated into the same old argument over whether one should re-blue or refinish old guns. There are valid arguments pro and con.

On THR's Revolver Forum, we historically behave like gentlemen. Name calling and sarcasm is frowned upon. Boorish behavior is not mitigated by emoticons. I would like to see it stay that way.

Onmilo
December 9, 2007, 04:25 PM
Heck, I have always bought guns for the gun not the surface condition.
If I want to make it look prettier that is my perogative and nobody should deride somebody for doing whatever alterations they want with their guns.

I had my 1917 Smith black oxide refinished many years ago by Texas Armament Specialties.
It is a first year production, Gilbert H. Stewart marked example given to me by a WW2 vet and in simply sorry shape when I got it.
The only saving grace was the bore and chambers were in excellent shape because he had coated them with RIG before stashing the gun in his attic for about forty years.

I was so impressed by Texas Armament that I continue to use their services for customers who wish to have a firearm refinished in parkarizing.
This gun may not bring top dollar on the used gun market but to me, it is priceless.
http://www.fototime.com/9D3F6AA31C01B8D/standard.jpg

jwxspoon
December 9, 2007, 04:34 PM
Wow, that means I might get half that for my reblued POS that some regard as ruined because it was refinished and had original period grips replaced.

Jim

I don't buy my weapons with the intention of saving them to sell to others. Every weapon I own is fired as often as I can get around to it. I wouldn't hesitate to refinish an old weapon like a 1917. I could care less what any potential next owner might think. I bought them for me, not him.

jw

Javelin
December 9, 2007, 04:36 PM
yeah $450 is $300 too much!

44and45
December 9, 2007, 08:04 PM
Well, I think I've been duly derided, but that is OK with me...he did it without emoticons...but one heck of a lot of cut & paste which is far worse than using emoticons in smaller numbers.

Why has the forum made available the use of emoticons to use if its your opinion they are unfriendly or boorish.

When ones opinion is not going all that great they usually get C&P testy to show their disdain. If you could care less about what I do with my re-blued iron, why make it an object of your concern.

I've seen enough lawyer opinions here by cut & paste to see which way the wind blows on said gun issues.

Also seen the past social gangbangers who deride those who don't agree with their opinions, its usually the same people. (And no, I'm not going to C&P those people)

Its a sad day when a person can't discuss firearm issues without the cut & paste scenario. Oh look what this mean ole man said, and look what I countered with on his comments...crapola.

Using C&P to support your arguments is a waste of everyones time. Who has the inclination to go back and re-read every thing you copied from the C&P.

Or, should we all, just rollover, and believe your opinion is the best one.

I want to think those who have had the honesty to speak frankly about re-finishing their firearms. Those are honest and valid expressions of a persons personal property. And that is my take on it as well.


Jim :)

Justin
December 10, 2007, 03:04 AM
I cut and paste all the time from other posts. Nothing in the technique is meant to be disdainful. Quite the opposite, in fact. It allows one to respond to another's post point-by-point while keeping the thoughts and responses clear to those who are reading them.

Art Eatman
December 10, 2007, 09:29 AM
Less sarcasm would be helpful in this thread, for sure.

Cut&paste is the easiest way to respond to a specific comment, so long as the response is in context. Avoids wasting bandwidth in quoting non-pertinent parts of a post.

Name-calling and personal insults can often be a one-time event--whether to an invidual member or the membership at large...

Art

0007
December 10, 2007, 02:06 PM
Just a thought, but if you are going to use it as a "woods" gun, I would send it to Walt Birdsong and have his Black-T finish put on it. Won't have to worry about any surface/internal rust for the life of the gun. And it's a nice soft charcoal color.

I should say here that I have a couple of Colt 1917 U.S.Army marked revolvers, one re-finished and one not. The re-finished one sure is purty, but the other one has more character.

44and45
December 10, 2007, 02:58 PM
Guess I'll do a little cut and paste myself before the axe falls on me from Mr. Xavierbreath, as to his deriding cut and paste of a dire warning to me in a personal private message.

For the life of me, I cannot fathom where you moderators think I've personally offended the members here on this thread. Was anyone personally named...the answer is no. But unlike your direction of focus on me in the PM, and your backup bully fellow moderators on the thread, it clearly states who is not favored here among the troops with his opinions.

Yet there are a few who side with me in the same vain of opinion...but clearly do it without raising you moderators ire.


OK, C&P...as follows from jwxspoon:

I don't buy my weapons with the intention of saving them to sell to others. Every weapon I own is fired as often as I can get around to it. I wouldn't hesitate to refinish an old weapon like a 1917. I could care less what any potential next owner might think. I bought them for me, not him.

jw

And we have jodomin saying:

Its your gun, do with it as you want. If it were me I make it the way I wanted, after all I'm paying for the work.... tell the others to flush twice.

Thats enough C&P, I'm getting nauseated.

If I were really being disrespectful to the board members because my opinions don't jell with the moderators, then we have a very narrow field of view as to honesty being displayed.

My opinion is that collectors and dealers don't want to hear what some of us really think...its not good for their business traffic.

This is probably goodby for me, you can't say what you think if you're not in line with the cut and paste crowd.

Jim

Goodby...

Turk
December 19, 2007, 12:02 PM
I want to thank everyone that has responded to my question. When I went back to the dealer to look at the Colt 1917 I again asked if it was a 45 Colt and not the 45 ACP, which the sales person said yes. I looked at the cylinder and it looked like it was for the ACP round but the dealer insisted it was 45 Colt. I asked him to put a 45 Colt case in one of the cylinders and ops it wouldnít fit but a 45 ACP would fit. This goes to show even large dealers sometimes really donít know everything.

After thinking this over what Iím going to do is purchase a new Smith 1917 Classic in 45 ACP. I originally wanted a 45 Colt but the fact is I have a Ruger Bisley 45 Colt and a Ruger Super Red hawk 454/45 Colt Dragon Killer for hunting so I think Iíll go the 45 ACP round.

Let me say I never realized how fanatic some people are about restoring/refinishing old firearms. For me itís about what I like and want not what someone else thinks it ought to be. Iím not a historical collector but a shooter and I like good-looking firearms when Iím busting caps. I would not refurbish a firearm that has some significant historical value but $$ value is a different story . Refurnishing a Colt 1917 in the grand scheme of things means very little. The guns I have are not here to be passed on to someone else to make to make a few bucks. I know what Iím going to say next will be mortal sin to some but this summer my grandfathers LC Smith 12 ga. SXS is going to be sent to a gunsmith for restocking and re-bluing and I canít wait to take it bird hunting in the fall this was the gun I started hunting some around 1959-1960

You all have a good day.

Turk

Vern Humphrey
December 19, 2007, 01:05 PM
Some Model 1917s were comverted to .45 Colt. Be very careful about buying such a gun -- because of the difference in headspace, the geometry of the lockwork is wrong for such a conversion, and key parts of the lockwork must also be changed.

44and45
December 19, 2007, 03:02 PM
Good luck, Turk. In whatever you find yourself buying.

I really appreciate you speaking your mind in a thoughtful manner that says: I'm a shooter, not a collector but a gun shooting enthusiast that enjoys guns to shoot.

Please let us know what you get, and maybe a picture if you can manage it. Sure like to see that L.C. Smith scatter gun when its restored...what a thrill to own some restored beauty like that you can go hunting with. :)

Thanks, Jim

If you enjoyed reading about "1917 Colt 45 Worth $$" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!