.32 Colt Conv. to .380

[Jim K]

Hi, guys,

I am doing some more measurements on Colt pocket hammerless pistols and slowly going nuts. The dimensions are all over the place. I will try to persevere and come up with something coherent. If you don't hear from me, contact the mental health people. I will be the guy sitting in the corner mumbling about .470" and .779" and 130769 and .32 caliber and stuff like that.

Jim

 

[Old Fuff]

Dr. Fuff believes that there is a correlation between the dimensions and when the gun was made. If we can survey enough guns vs. dates-when-mfg. some sense may come out of this. Also the outside dimensions of frames and slides may vary because of metal removed during polishing.

 

[ShootinDave]

I have a 1903 32 ACP. I am not sure why anyone would want to change such a nice old gun. Leave it the way it is and be glad in 20 years when you can pass it on to your youngster.

Mine came from great great grandpa, grandpa, dad, me.

I'm glad no one tinkered with it.

 

[Old Fuff]

ShootinDave:

Not to worry...

The "converting" we are discussing won't harm the gun, and in a few minutes after switching some parts it will be exactly the same as it was. I don't believe any of us would want to hurt what is a fine old pistol, but there is no reason to not do things that would increase its usefulness. Any modificatons that have to be made would be done on the new parts, and not the ones that came on the pistol.

If you post the serial number of your pistol (use xx for the last two numbers) we can tell you some interesting stuff, like the year it was made.

 

[Onmilo]

This is what happens when one works three jobs and has about an hour or two at most to do some posting on a message board,,,,,
I realized I was thinking and writing about both the Walther PP/PPK design and the Colt 1903 design at the same time about an hour after I posted and well on my way to job number two.

As such, please accept my whoops and my recommendations and observations about the Colt 1903-1908 hammerless conversions up to the point where I begin babbling about the slide lock.

 

[Old Fuff]

Ah so.....

Thank you for the explanation...

 

[ShootinDave]

I have a colt 1902 in 38 ACP and a 1903 in 32ACP.

I am out of town now, but have a picture. Looks like the serial on the 1903 is 4270XX.

From what I looked up I think it was made in 1923.

 

[Old Fuff]

Yup, that pistol was indeed made in 1923, and is what collectors call a Type 2. It should also have an improved firing system, with a hammer that has a half-cock notch (to catch the hammer if it accdentally follows down) and a inertial type firing pin of the kind used on the larger .45 Government Model.

When you get home you can check to see if the half-cock feature is there by first being sure the pistol is unloaded, then pull the trigger to lower the hammer. Next, pull the slide back about 1/4 inch. See if the grip safety has popped out, and the manual safety can be engaged. If so, you have the improvements explained above. If the grip safety doen't pop out and you cannot engage the manual safety, you don't. The change occured at "about" serial number 422,000 so your pistol could be either way.

 

[Iggy]

What is the opinion of pocket carrry of the 1916 vintage,1903 with a shell in the chamber and the safety disengaged.

I have heard opinions pro and con.. With the gun in a pocket holster and with the grip safety, I have always felt pretty safe, but I would appreciate the views of others.

 

[Old Fuff]

Can you have too many safeties...?

Well anyway, back during the 1920's and 30's, the Shanghai Municipal Police, whose weapons policies were determined by William E. Fairbrain (of Fairbrain & Sykes Commando Knife fame) ordered .380 Colt pistols for his smaller sized Chinese officers. At the time, Shanghai was one of the world's hot-spots, going on the several-gunfights-a-night plan.

Anyway, Fairbrain ordered Colt to instal a small screw above the safety to lock it out! Thereafter his men went with the grip safety and nothing else. This was the case up to the beginning of World War Two, and history has not recorded that they had any problems. Jeff Cooper's followers would likely swoon if they knew though...

I would note that after 1923 these guns had a half-cock notch to catch the hammer if it should accidentally fall. Iggy's pistol is probably not so equipped.

I never carried (or carry) the pistol with the chamber loaded unless the manual safety is engaged, but to each his own. My quick draw is timed with an hourglass these days...

 

[Iggy]

This has alway bugged me... I have a verrry nice 36 vintage Colt and the older one that is pretty scruffy.. When I get the urge to carry one of these old sweethearts I always grab the old one.

I am sure the newer version is probably safer, but it's just too purty to scuff up..

I know.. my leg is kinda cute too... decisions, decisions!!!!

I am like Ol Fuff.. I'm slowin' down a wee mite in the fast draw bidness.. Sneaky is good!!!

 

[Mac Attack]

I picked up a .32 ACP barrel and it fit nicely in my Colt 1908/.380 ACP (ser. 59xxx). Also, as has been noted by other members, .32 rounds fit in a .380 magazine. I haven't had a chance to shoot my handgun yet, but plan to this weekend. One thing I noticed is the .32 barrel does not fit as tight as the .380 barrel in the slide and at the muzzle.

 

[mnw42]

I saw a set in one of my dealer's cases. It was a 1903 with a complete .380 upper (slide, barrel, spring and 2 extra .380 mags) for $800 a couple of months ago. I was told that the original owner got the conversion from Colt so after they came out with the .380.

 

[Mac Attack]

Update

I had a chance to finally shoot my Colt 1903 .32 ACP barrel in my Colt 1908 .380 ACP handgun. I shot 100+ rounds of factory .32 ACP using both my existing Colt 1908 mag and an aftermarket 1903 mag. I did not have a single problem using the conversion barrel with either magazine. Therefore, I would not even bother purchasing a 1903 mag.

Also, the accuracy of the .32 was exceptionally very tight and more pleasant to shoot than the .380. I actually shot the .32 better than I did the .380.

So it is possible to convert from a 1908 to a 1903 by just changing the barrel.

 

[bannockburn]

Old Fuff

A couple of things come to mind; in 1906, did Colt ask Mr. Browning to come up with a more powerful round for the Model 1903, and that in collaboration with William Thomas of UMC/Remington Arms, design such a cartridge, the result being the .380 ACP? And didn't Mr. Browning then spend the next two years modifying the Model 1903 to function with the new round, eventually resulting in the Model 1908? If this were so, then wouldn't it explain the different measurements and dimensions which would make interchangeability between the two models somewhat questionable. As you pointed out, Colt ran the Model 1908 with its own run of serial numbers; if it were just another caliber addition (as was common with their revolvers), then why didn't they run the serial numbers in with the Model 1903 production? It would seem that in early production, at least, the Model 1908 was a dimensionally different gun than the Model 1903.
There was also a story I heard about the .380s that the Shanghai Police used during the time you mentioned. It had something to do with a cut-out made on the magazines that were issued to the police officers. It seemed that some of the officers had a penchant for selling their issued ammunition on the black market. They would then replace those rounds with some dummy ones as to give the appearance that the magazine was still fully loaded whenever weapons inspection came around. Eventually the higher ups caught on to this "practice" and had the magazines modified so that the primers could be seen through the cut-out slot in the back of the magazine. I have no idea if this is true or not. Just a story I heard (and I saw a magazine so modified, but couldn't verify by whom, or when).

 

[Old Fuff]

So it is possible to convert from a 1908 to a 1903 by just changing the barrel.

Yes and no. As you discovered it sometimes works, and in my limited experience it is more likely going from .380 to .32 rather then the other way around. One overlooked issue with this conversion is that the ejector may be too far outboard to hit the smaller rim the way it should. Extractor's may also cause problems. But what works, works. On the other hand it can be an expensive failure when it doesn't.

 

[oldgold]

AS I sit here typing this , I got three setting herein front of me. A .380 and two .32's. THe .380 mag willl slide in one but not the other of the .32's.The .380 mag is very tight in the .32 but will fit.

It fits in serial # 504xxx, but not in serial # 388xxx.

Mag well opening is .438" for the .380 and .428" and .410" for the .32's.

It feels like the slides would interchange with little fitting. The ,380 barrel is a little tight in the .32s but the .32 barrels fit right into the .380.

So it would apear that some might interchange and some might not.

The extractor in all guns appear to be the same. I would have thought the .380 would be shorter but it doesn't look to be. Since these are blow back guns unless the .32 is too tight to feed I don't see where it would be a problem..

Love these little pocket guns. Got five of them.

 

[Firepower!]

I doubt if its really possible. And if so, not worth it. Just get .380 if you like it that much. Just a suggestion.