1917 Colt, oir 1917 S&W: Which Do You Prefer?

[SharpsDressedMan]

1917 Colt, or 1917 S&W: Which Do You Prefer?

Which way do you go? I've had both, and although the Colt is cool, the shortage of parts, gunsmiths, and grips for it make the S&W my choice. If someone gave me a Colt, I'd shoot it, but would always be leery that one day it would break and I'd have to retire it.

 

[Iggy]

I always thought I would like to get a Colt's model 1917 New Service Revolver, but could never find one I could afford.

I picked up this S&W US ARMY Model of 1917 last weekend at a gun show for a couldn't pass it up price.


Built in 1918. Loaned to the UK during WWII. I've got less than $400 in it including the elk horn grips.

I reckon I will muddle along with this pair of old timers. 45 HE Mk II Built 1915

 

[4v50 Gary]

A five screw S&W will also pose some parts problem.

The sear is no longer made and you have to buy used. Same with the hammer, hammer block, cylinder center pin (shoulder of pin was repositioned), hand and a bunch of parts related to the trigger. A 3 screw trigger is very different from a five screw trigger.

As for Colt, some parts can be fabricated by hand. This includes the hand & bolt. Other folks make replacement parts like the critical rebound lever (what a pain it must be to make one of those) and sear.

The S&W advantage is that it is easier to work on.

 

[Deaf Smith]

All of 'em now have parts hard to find.

But in WW1 if I had to pick... I'd have had S&W make me a 4 inch tripple-lock in .45 Long Colt and brought my own ammo.

Some did that. T.E. Lawrence used a Colt SSA in .45 LC in the Middle East.

Deaf

 

[MountainBear]

Prefer the S&W. The colts are okay, but I just have a thing for old S&W's...

 

[9mmfan]

I'll vote S&W, but I might be a bit biased. Of my six DA revolvers, all but one are Smiths.

I don't know if this one counts, as it was one of the Brazilian Contract "Modelo 1937s", it's been parked and the grips are reproduction. But hey, it's mine.

 

[bluekouki86]

Another vote for S&W here. I've got a heirloom nickel 1917 S&W.

 

[Derry 1946]

I prefer the S&W.

 

[Iron Sight]

Here's a modern version. Got it around a couple years ago and do enjoy it. S&W

 

[9mmepiphany]

I shot both,but don't own either. I preferred the Colt, because of the artistry of its cam-n lever V-spring powered action.

But I'm lucky, I know a pistol smith who can not only tune them, but can make replacement parts for them...he is very old school

 

[bannockburn]

Given a choice between the two, I would go with the S&W Model 1917 as well.

 

[mavracer]

If somebody would send me a Colt so I could shoot it I could give a better answer. For me I would be fine with either but if transported back to ww1 I want the Smith that I currently own as I already know it will work through the war plus another 95 years.

 

[Sir Paul]

Iron Sight, consider me jealous. I looked everywhere for a NIB Model 22, Model of 1917 , but never found one. Also, the $999.00 MSRP was hard to swallow. It is disappointing that S&W discontinued this model from their Classic line.

 

[pendennis]

Neither the Colt, nor the S&W are anywhere near comfortable to shoot with their standard stocks. I solved the problem, putting Pachmayr Presentation grips on both. That solved the grip comfort problem. However, the S&W tends to balance a bit better than the Colt.

Both are fun to shoot, and I would gladly carry either, when necessary.

I also own a Model 22 Model of 1917, and a Model 22-4 (4"), and they're both great guns to shoot.

 

[jeepnik]

While I have a few older Colts, I'm mostly a S&W guy. And there's only one reason. I like that the cylinder release is pushed on a S&W. It has always just seemed more natural to me.

Some folks say they prefer one grip over the other, or one trigger pull, or the sights. By comparison, the cylinder release may be a minor thing to some, but for me I like the S&W better.

Oh, and I also find it easier to use than the one's on Ruger revolvers. But that's just me.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The Colt is a big brute of a revolver -- it doesn't fit everyone, and the DA trigger pull is long. That said, I love the old New Service, and carry one in .45 Colt frequently.

 

[content]

Hello friends and neighbors // You're making me regret trading the S&W 1917.

If someone had not etched their DLN into the right side of the barrel I'd still have it.

It locked up tight and I could shoot six rounds faster and straighter than with the Colt.... so I'd say, for me comparing these two, the S&W... but I kept the pretty Colt.

 

[Bullet Bob]

A lot of people don't like the newer versions S&W put out since they're not exactly like the originals. That's OK by me, whatever floats your boat. Colt unfortunately doesn't give me the choice of buying a new one.

 

[Billy Shears]

I've owned them both. If I had large hands, I'd probably prefer the Colt. As it is though, I have to say the S&W fits my hand better. The only problem with the Colt is that it has a long trigger stroke, and when the hammer is at rest, that trigger is just a little too far forward to be a good fit to my hand, since I have relatively short fingers.

 

[Iggy]

There are some fine lookin' ol war hoss's bein' posted here.
Bullet Bob,
Those CH frames have a tendency to grow on you.. That's a good lookin' rascal.

 

[kBob]

While I would love to have a Colt and have a lotta "wish-Idas" over them,
I think the S&W is the better over all pistol.

Check it out! I just MOONED you guys!

-kBob

 

[Jaymo]

Colt.
If I were in the trenches of WW1, I'd be damned happy to have either.

Scratch that, I'd be damned happy to have either, right now.

Right now, I'm still looking at a Colt Army Special .32-20 that's been Parkerized.
Price is too high, considering the refinish.
The person who can authorize selling it for less than the marked price is out of town and won't be back until next week.
I may just let them sit on it for a good while. It doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

Another LGS has a New Service that was supposedly converted in the '50s by Numrich, from .455 to .357.
I like it, but it's loose, and I think the hand and/or ratchet is/are worn out.
The cylinder doesn't rotate quite far enough to lock up when cocked SA or DA.
Methinks .357 is a bit to hot for a gun that was designed/built for .45 Colt pressures.

 

[Cocked & Locked]

molested

I like them both

 

[Iggy]

You keep showin' those two and I keep shortin' out my keyboard droolin' over them.

 

[content]

I agree.... that adjustable sighted, pinto, snubbie, Colt, makes me start looking at some of my revolvers very differently.

Amazing the work a good smith a pull out. Very nice C&L.