• You are using the old High Contrast theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

Colt 1903 Pocket Hammerless: Education Request

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mr. Mosin

Mr. Mosin

Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
2,115
I've been wasting time away on here and a few other forums, looking at photos and such, and I remembered my wannabe love affair with the Colt 1903 Pocket Hammerless. I know US Armament Corp did a run for Colt, and that got me curious about em; sadly I can't really find much about the guns themselves.

I know the '03 was in .32 Auto, the '08 was in .380, both were issued to US military officers, and both were used by several famous criminals. I also know that the .32 is supposed to be super-duper reliable, like... more reliable than Glock reliable; and the .380... basically isn't.

Is there any particular design details that stand out as revolutionary, any reason for the supposed awe-inspiring reliability ? There's *got* to be more to these neat little guns than my paragraph summary above.

As always, thank y'all in advance.
 
I like the Colt 1903 a lot, and I have owned several of them. Having said that, I would not have said they had a reputation for reliability greater than any other 32 automatic of similar quality and vintage. Guns of this period (say, from 1900 to about about 1970) were designed to feed round-nosed, full metal jacket ammunition, and most of the high-quality ones were pretty good at it. If the Colt is better than most in that regard, it may be because it was designed by John Browning. His design process was to build a prototype and work on that until it was a good reliable gun. Then, as I understand it, someone else would transfer the design to paper for the patent application.

The manufacturer would then use the patent drawings and the prototype to develop the manufacturing design. Colt at that time often did not use blueprints in the traditional sense, but used gauges, patterns, and highly experienced workmen to assure good working guns. This worked well on the 32 caliber 1903, but less well on the 380 caliber 1908, which had reliability issues that were not fully addressed until the Second World War.

A man named John Brunner wrote an excellent book on the Colt 32, 380, and 25 Browning automatics. What you want is the second edition, which is more complete. It is priced like a moon shot on Amazon (https://www.amazon.com/Colt-Pocket-...r+colt+automatic+pistol&qid=1603857199&sr=8-1) but there are lots of other places to look for it on the Internet.

The Colt 1903 is a great, classic gun. The main problem with it, in my opinion, is that it has gotten so expensive to collect. :)

PS - Brunner's book is pretty encyclopedic, and may constitute "too much information". There are probably other decent but less expensive alternatives, but I can't think of them right now.
 
Last edited:
Monac said:
I like the Colt 1903 a lot, and I have owned several of them. Having said that, I would not have said they had a reputation for reliability greater than any other 32 automatic of similar quality and vintage. Guns of this period (say, from 1900 to about about 1970) were designed to feed round-nosed, full metal jacket ammunition, and most of the high-quality ones were pretty good at it. If the Colt is better than most in that regard, it may be because it was designed by John Browning. His design process was to build a prototype and work on that until it was a good reliable gun. Then, as I understand it, someone else would transfer the design to paper for the patent application.

The manufacturer would then use the patent drawings and the prototype to develop the manufacturing design. Colt at that time often did not use blueprints in the traditional sense, but used gauges, patterns, and highly experienced workmen to assure good working guns. This worked well on the 32 caliber 1903, but less well on the 380 caliber 1908, which had reliability issues that were not fully addressed until the Second World War.

A man named John Brunner wrote an excellent book on the Colt 32, 380, and 25 Browning automatics. What you want is the second edition, which is more complete. It is priced like a moon shot on Amazon (https://www.amazon.com/Colt-Pocket-...r+colt+automatic+pistol&qid=1603857199&sr=8-1) but there are lots of other places to look for it on the Internet.

The Colt 1903 is a great, classic gun. The main problem with it, in my opinion, is that it has gotten so expensive to collect. :)
Click to expand...

Several videos/reviews I have watched seem compelled for some mysterious reason, to compare the 1903 to modern "modern" carry guns, ie, G42, G43. I'd carry a Colt '03 over a G42 or G43 simply because it wouldn't print, but some people can't grasp that.
 
Springs, ammunition, and magazines.

A blowback pistol firing relatively low-powered ammunition is highly dependent on properly calibrated spring rates in both the hammer, recoil (return-to-battery), and magazine springs. If any of these has lost tension, reliability problems will result. Likewise, if the springs have been replaced, and are too stiff, problem s will arise.

Likewise, if the ammunition does not closely replicate whetever template the designers used with regards to bullet weight and shape, burn rate, and maximum pressure, reliability will suffer.

Finally, if the magazines are poorly designed, or have easily damaged feed lips or followers, you will have problems.

Im not a fan of blowbacks in general, and especially for defensive purposes. Nearly every .32 and .380 blowback pistol Ive owned has jammed with some regularity- including my '03 and '08 Colts.

They are ok range toys, and may have been acceptable carry weapons when new, but I wouldnt bet my life on one now.
 
Last edited:
I don't have much to add to this, except to say that NIGHTLORD40K's experiences do kind of surprise me. I was aware the .380 version of the Model M (Colt never officially called the .380 version the 1908) was known to be less reliable than the .32 model. And it's telling that even after the introduction of the .380 ACP, the .32 ACP was still quite popular all the way through WWII.

My specific pistol is a Colt 1903 in .32 ACP, Type IV, which includes a magazine safety. It has been 100% reliable but I will only ever feed it 71gr hardball ammo. My reasons for this are:
1) It's what the pistol was designed around.
2) It's cheap and available.
3) The .32 ACP round doesn't have the power to both expand a bullet AND drive it through tissue and bone. Having to pick one, I'll take penetration along with reliable functioning.

Again, referring to my specific pistol, it has been 100% reliable in the limited shooting I've done with it, which is maybe 200 rounds of hardball so far. It's reasonably accurate, at least as accurate as I expect to be with what is essentially a large pocket pistol. Handling it takes a little getting used to, because it feels like a 2/3-rd scale pistol even in my little hands. There isn't much real estate available to generate friction for recoil control. And honestly, I'm not willing to put a 90+ year old pistol through the kind of ammunition and shooting schedule it would take to iron out the details to get comfortable considering it a "fighting gun". So it shall remain a fun little collectible shooter that comes out on mostly nice days at the range.

Lastly, I agree with the sentiment that the 1903 would be a superior carry piece to a more modern gun like a Glock 42, just in terms of how well it would conceal. It has much more organic edges, which hide much better than the big squared slide of a Glock or other modern pistol. I would just keep in mind the manual safety on the Colt is tiny and difficult to get a grip on in a hurry, and the 1903 doesn't have the drop-safety of a more advanced designs.

Finally, let's be honest, this thread needs pictures:
ZEmRix.jpg
 
The only revolutionary things about the Colt 1903 was that it was a Colt and US made. They are basically pretty well thought out and tend to be a somewhat natural pointer but there was a fair assortment of very successful 32acp pistols at that time.

The somewhat unique thing was that it was a US made semi-automatic in 32acp. In general, semi-automatics were European handguns of choice and while there had been several US made semi-automatics none had really been popular. The US was still revolver territory. But the Colt 1903 was good looking, had nothing that would catch on clothing if pocket carried, was for the time a high capacity handgun compared to revolvers and additional rounds could be carried in a more efficient package than a dump pouch.

Unlike some others, I have found my 32acp pistols to be as reliable as any of my other semi-automatics. I do make sure that wear items like springs get replaced and that key pieces parts get monitored for wear or damage. I also stick pretty much to plain Jane round nosed ammo; no hollow points, no hot rodding and tending towards European ammo brands.
 
I would be hesitant to readily shoot an original 1903. Those US Armament Corp re-productions ? I'd run em like I run anything else.
 
The most desirable of these, to collectors, are the U.S. General Officers' pistols. Since they run $2,000 and up, they are sometimes faked. Beware of spurious markings.

I have two, a Parkerized .32 and a blued .380. The .32 was actually issued to a named General in 1965, but the .380 has an unknown history.

Of the General Officers' pistols, the .32's were almost always Parkerized, and the .380's were almost always blued. Finding one in the opposite finish would be a great rarity. For years, I was looking for a blued .32 and/or a Parkerized .380 to "complete the set" but I finally gave up on the project when I realized it was an impossibility. Along the way, though, I ran into some fake ones (they never seem to get the markings quite right).

The WW2-era magazines for these are also rare and expensive. $100 and up if you can find them.

And then of course there are the leather accoutrements that were issued to Generals along with the pistols. These are rarer than the pistols themselves. The belts, holsters, and magazine pouches were russet leather in WW2, and then black leather after 1956. Reproductions have been made.
 
AlexanderA said:
The most desirable of these, to collectors, are the U.S. General Officers' pistols. Since they run $2,000 and up, they are sometimes faked. Beware of spurious markings.

I have two, a Parkerized .32 and a blued .380. The .32 was actually issued to a named General in 1965, but the .380 has an unknown history.

Of the General Officers' pistols, the .32's were almost always Parkerized, and the .380's were almost always blued. Finding one in the opposite finish would be a great rarity. For years, I was looking for a blued .32 and/or a Parkerized .380 to "complete the set" but I finally gave up on the project when I realized it was an impossibility. Along the way, though, I ran into some fake ones (they never seem to get the markings quite right).

The WW2-era magazines for these are also rare and expensive. $100 and up if you can find them.

And then of course there are the leather accoutrements that were issued to Generals along with the pistols. These are rarer than the pistols themselves. The belts, holsters, and magazine pouches were russet leather in WW2, and then black leather after 1956. Reproductions have been made.
Click to expand...

I don't particularly care about the collector's aspect. I want one just because of it's a .32 that actually shootable, with a heel mag release and SAO.
 
I have many 7.65mm or 32acp pistols, most of which are European vintage. But, I do have two Colt 1903s, one made in 1912 and the other in 1921. I love'em. They are very reliable and I shoot them well. I enjoy shooting 32acps and I do reload that caliber. While mine are matching numbers so to speak, they have much finish wear. So, they are less valuable I am not afraid to shoot them. Because the original grips are made from hard rubber or Bakelite, they are rather fragile and very expensive to replace. Original grips, if you can find them can be around $200 or so. I use repo Colt 1903 wood grips when I shoot mine to avoid crying if I break an original set.
Auto Ordinance offers some very decent quality 1903 mags. I use them instead of the originals, that are quite valuable. I think they are made buy TripleK, but labeled and made to Auto Ordinance's specs. This is according to Auto Ordinance representative that I spoke to some years ago. I understand that 1903 hammerless models can be quite challenging to detail strip. I will do that some day but I am not in a hurry. Its the only firearm I haven't detail stripped.
I hope you get one.
 
Eugen said:
I have many 7.65mm or 32acp pistols, most of which are European vintage. But, I do have two Colt 1903s, one made in 1912 and the other in 1921. I love'em. They are very reliable and I shoot them well. I enjoy shooting 32acps and I do reload that caliber. While mine are matching numbers so to speak, they have much finish wear. So, they are less valuable I am not afraid to shoot them. Because the original grips are made from hard rubber or Bakelite, they are rather fragile and very expensive to replace. Original grips, if you can find them can be around $200 or so. I use repo Colt 1903 wood grips when I shoot mine to avoid crying if I break an original set.
Auto Ordinance offers some very decent quality 1903 mags. I use them instead of the originals, that are quite valuable. I think they are made buy TripleK, but labeled and made to Auto Ordinance's specs. This is according to Auto Ordinance representative that I spoke to some years ago. I understand that 1903 hammerless models can be quite challenging to detail strip. I will do that some day but I am not in a hurry. Its the only firearm I haven't detail stripped.
I hope you get one.
Click to expand...

Depending on what happens in November, it's either far down my list, or on top of my list. Lol.
 
Mr. Mosin said:
I would be hesitant to readily shoot an original 1903. Those US Armament Corp re-productions ? I'd run em like I run anything else.
Click to expand...

Me, it would be the other way round, unless the original 1903 was mint-in-box. The 1903 is all steel, well engineered, and overbuilt for 32 ACP by today's standards. A modest amount of shooting (a couple of hundred rounds, say) would not hurt it or put much wear on it, IMO. The new production guns? They were made more for display than for use. I have not read anything about how well they work.
 
Monac said:
Me, it would be the other way round, unless the original 1903 was mint-in-box. The 1903 is all steel, well engineered, and overbuilt for 32 ACP by today's standards. A modest amount of shooting (a couple of hundred rounds, say) would not hurt it or put much wear on it, IMO. The new production guns? They were made more for display than for use. I have not read anything about how well they work.
Click to expand...

Carbon copy of the originals (minus a deeper trigger/sear interface), total parts interchangeability, entirely made of forged and machined steel- no MIM, no cast. I emailed US Armament Corp several months back when I first discovered em.
 
I have a 1917 vintage .32. I haven't shot it extensively, but it has been reliable so far. Of historical note, the .32s were issued to OSS operatives in Europe as they would be able to replace the ammo locally.

They are not drop safe, so if they are carried for self-defense, having a chambered round is risky.
 
JN01 said:
I have a 1917 vintage .32. I haven't shot it extensively, but it has been reliable so far. Of historical note, the .32s were issued to OSS operatives in Europe as they would be able to replace the ammo locally.

They are not drop safe, so if they are carried for self-defense, having a chambered round is risky.
Click to expand...

The originals are not drop-safe. The US Armament Corp ones are. They deepened the sear/trigger interface, and performed drop tests. Their production examples passed.
 
I think that nowadays any pistol that lacks a positive firing pin lock is considered to be not drop-safe, no matter what is done to secure the rest of the trigger mechanism. I would also assume there is a debate as to whether or not that makes sense. I could easily be wrong about either or both.
 
Last edited:
They're are quality guns that were produced in large enough quantities that you can still find them for reasonable prices and in decent condition. I have one from 1904 and another from 1922. The earlier one has a 4" barrel and a barrel bushing which hard to find in good condition. Mine is in poor condition, but it still shoots surprisingly well for having a bore that looks like a sewer pipe. The later versions seem to have many more examples that have aged well and finding one in excellent condition is relatively easy assuming you have ample funds.

My 1922 example shoots as good as any modern pocket gun. The sights are kind of puny, but I suppose that makes it easier to carry. They are a nice size but do have a little heft, which isn't surprising given the all steel construction. They are comparable to many of the small guns that have entered the market in the last 5 to 10 years, however those guns usually shoot 9mm, have larger capacity and weigh noticeable less. However none of the newer guns look as good the 1903.
 
I paid $100 for my Colt 1903 .32 acp. It shoots like a dream and even feeds my reloads with no problems. It looks like hell because nobody took care of it before me but it doesn't seem to mind. My 1910 FN .32 does the same.
 
If you have ever had a chance to handle and shoot a 1903 you could never say a bad word about it. Fit and finish is amazing. John Dillinger had one in his pocket when they got him. It was Al Capone's EDC. C'Mon Man!!! One of the all time great pistols IMO.
 
Monac said:
I think that nowadays any pistol that lacks a positive firing pin lock is considered to be not drop-safe, no matter what is done to secure the rest of the trigger mechanism. I would also assume there is a debate as to whether or not that makes sense. I could easily be wrong about either or both.
Click to expand...
In short, if it ain't lawyer-proof. And we all know, nothing is lawyer proof with a good enough attorney.
 
Mr. Mosin said:
I don't particularly care about the collector's aspect. I want one just because of it's a .32 that actually shootable, with a heel mag release and SAO.
Click to expand...

There are lots of "shootable" 32s available. I shot a guys 1903 at the range one day. Nice gun but nothing I would go in debt over. It wasn't better than my PP made in 1957 and there was no way I would trade my PP for his 1903 except to sell it and buy two PPs to replace the one I traded.

Here is an affordable 32acp if you just have to have one. And CZ has an excellent reputation. And since its more of a range toy than anything else it should scratch that itch just fine.

https://aimsurplus.com/ceska-zbrojovka-czech-cz50-32acp-pistol/
 
ThomasT said:
There are lots of "shootable" 32s available. I shot a guys 1903 at the range one day. Nice gun but nothing I would go in debt over. It wasn't better than my PP made in 1957 and there was no way I would trade my PP for his 1903 except to sell it and buy two PPs to replace the one I traded.

Here is an affordable 32acp if you just have to have one. And CZ has an excellent reputation. And since its more of a range toy than anything else it should scratch that itch just fine.

https://aimsurplus.com/ceska-zbrojovka-czech-cz50-32acp-pistol/
Click to expand...

Ive never shot a PP, but I can tell you the experience between my PPK and my Colt 1903 is night and day. The Colt has a simple and straightforward manual of arms with a nice SAO trigger, and felt recoil is very light and pleasant. But of course, everyone has different hands. I like the 1903 enough that if it were drop safe I’d carry one today, and in fact I’ve been known to tuck it into an overcoat pocket when going for a walk.

I wouldn’t go into debt for any gun, but IMO a shooter grade 1903 for 400-600 is well worth picking up. Pretty nice ones can be had without trouble for under 700 on Gunbroker. I don’t know that I’d pay much more than that personally, but then again, there are precious few guns I’d pay more than that for unless they were rarities with great historical provenance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
Question about a colt 1903
Replies
2
Views
330
golden
G
N
  • Locked
After Market Magazines for a Colt 1903 Hammerless
Replies
10
Views
3K
nero45acp
N
A
  • Locked
Colt 1903 Pocket Hammerless
Replies
20
Views
1K
searcher451
S
J
  • Locked
Colt Pocket Hammerless Model 1903 & 1908 Questions
Replies
3
Views
532
Tinpig
Tinpig
K
  • Locked
Original 1903 Colt hammerless mag?
Replies
4
Views
462
Onmilo
Onmilo
Back
Top