70 series Colts real ones not repros My old Nickle plated model.

[Master Blaster]

The other day it dawned on me that I have been shooting my Kimbers and newer colt gold cup (1999) too much lately, putting undue stress on all of those MIM and cast parts. So I took out my 1976 vintage 70 series government model, which I bought for the princely sum of $325 about 5 years ago. It is nickle plated with the mat finish they called Colt guard. It has the standard ejection port, and blued controls, short steel trigger, round mainspring housing, standard grip safety, and the mag well is not even beveled. The barrel is original and is marked Colts 70 series MKIV .45 ACP.
I got it with two colt magazines that are also mat nickle plated.
The only thing I replaced are the original pachmayer wraparounds with colt emblem. I replaced them with cocobolo double diamonds. I also replaced and the 70 series bushing with an Ed Brown. The gun was some kind of a special model that came with the halfmoon front sight, but had dovetail mounted MMC miniature adjustible rear sights. The gun had been fired once or twice before I bought it by the original owner, and had lived under the counter in a liquor store for about 23 years. The owner was a friend of my dad's and had retired from the liquour business and did not want the gun, he had no work done to the gun at all, and even gave me half a box of 23 year old hardball ammo. It was dusty and dirty when I bought and had a few scratches but cleaned up nicely.

So last week I took it out to the range with 100 rounds of ranier ballistics semi wadcutters loaded with 4.3 grains of N310 in 6x fired cases.
The gun is very accurate and shoots almost as well as my kimbers. It functioned flawlessly inpart due to the loose slide to frame fit.
When I got it home I stripped it and cleaned it. The machining on the inside of the old colt is very rough lots of milling marks, and the lines of the slide on the outside and less than perfectly even, some small milling marks are visible on the outside under the nickle finish as well. One thing that surprise me was how rough the machining on the lower barrel lugs is, they are shaped just fine and are even, but the machining is rough, not the smooth perfect machining I have on all of my more modern pistols. It does not appear to affect function in any way though.

You can definately tell that there was NO CNC machining on this gun

It was all done by hand and somewhat sloppily.

I have heard alot of nostalga lately from Tuner and Old Fuff so I thought I would give a report on my old Colt. It is truely a classic, and the handwork shows some of it not so good cosmetically anyway.

 

[wally]

Your's is from the era of when Colt first started going down hill and living off their reputation.

I've one I got new in the early 80s (shortly after the series 80 came out) and it was worse, needed new ejector and dremel work on the ejection port to work with the 200gr H&G 68 style hard cast lead SWC. I put on Millet sights, slightly extended mag release, and ambi safety. Its served me well ever since. Many thousands of rounds thru it shooting at local IPSC matches.

The extractor broke back in '96 when I was shooting my CHL qualifier. Been fine ever since. Its still the gun I take to the range most often. The Collet bushing hasn't broke yet

--wally.

 

[Old Fuff]

The late 1970's weren't exactly Colt's Golden Age, and for that matter the guns made during World War Two (1941-45) are roughly machined, but they worked and were dependable. If you want to see fine machining and finishing examine a pistol made by Colt between 1911 and 1940.

However I think you will find that your '76" era .45 has components made of steel forgings and machined bar stock, that these parts seldom fail over the long term, and with good ammunition it is reliable. These were the hallmarks that made the gun famous and established it's reputation.

The guns that Colt is making today are well made. Unfortunately all of the internal parts aren't. This shortfall can be corrected by replacing those that might be questionable, but it's unfortunate that this is (or might be) necessary - depending on how you feel, and for what purpose the arm will be used.

 

[BluesBear]

Time travel?

1976 + 32 = 2008


Ask this question in 4 more years.


If the ammo box is in good shape I'd be interested in buying it either with or without the old ammo.

 

[boogalou]

I picked up a neglected Series 70 last fall that was made in 1978. I shot it enough to decide it was worth keeping and after installing a Ed Brown bushing, its at the gunsmith's right now getting reblued along with the installation of some King's HB sights.

 

[grendelbane]

I once owned the twin sister to your pistol. I still own two of her half sisters.

I have heard many complaints about the series '70s over the years, especially the collet bushing. I currently have 3 pistols with collet bushings in them. All 3 shoot quite well, and I haven't broken one yet. (Knock on wood!). I do believe that they are inappropriate on a .38 Super if you intend to shoot hollow points. My .38 Super Gov't model Series 70 has always been picky about what it would eat. I recently bought an old slide and barrel to finish completion of my dream pistol. I thought I would drop the new barrel in my old gun to see how it would perform. The old style barrel, (thin, with a conventional bushing), gobbled up everything I could throw at it.

Twenty years ago, I thought this might be the case. My father, uncle, and next door neighbor all said, "Do you think that you are smarter than the engineers at Colt?".

They are all gone now, but yes, I guess I was.

 

[wally]

However I think you will find that your '76" era .45 has components made of steel forgings and machined bar stock, that these parts seldom fail over the long term

Note in my post I mentioned my Series 70 Colt forged extractor broke after only 12-13 years of shooting

--wally.

 

[wally]

? time travel

1976 + 32 = 2008

I don't get the significance of this?

--wally.

 

[dsk]

The late 1970's weren't exactly Colt's Golden Age, and for that matter the guns made during World War Two (1941-45) are roughly machined, but they worked and were dependable. If you want to see fine machining and finishing examine a pistol made by Colt between 1911 and 1940.

I have seven GI Colts from the 1941-1945 era, and all of them put many modern commercial pistols to shame in the fit and finish department. No "rough machining" on any of them. That being said, the pre-war commercials were even better yet, with nary a single cosmetic flaw to be found anywhere.

Regarding the "new" Series 70's vs. the originals, I feel the new ones are made far better on the average. Unfortunately you can still find a dog on occasion, but at their best the new guns are better than anything Colt's made since the mid 1960's.

 

[Old Fuff]

Wally

>> Note in my post I mentioned my Series 70 Colt forged extractor broke after only 12-13 years of shooting <<

Oh darn ... Some days it doesn't pay to get out of bed.

By the way, how many rounds did you touch off during those 12-13 years?

DSK

In relative terms some of the WW-2 guns were roughly machined, or more to the point toolmarks weren't polished off, but they worked fine.

 

[BluesBear]

Wally,

The original post stated.
So I took out my 1976 vintage 70 series government model, which I bought for the princely sum of $325 about 5 years ago. ... The gun had been fired once or twice before I bought it by the original owner, and had lived under the counter in a liquor store for about 32 years.

1976 + 32 = 2008

It has since been edited and corrected.

 

[BigG]

Regarding the "new" Series 70's vs. the originals, I feel the new ones are made far better on the average. Unfortunately you can still find a dog on occasion, but at their best the new guns are better than anything Colt's made since the mid 1960's.

I agree with dsk.

I would add that most of the Series 80 pistols I've examined also beat the original Mark IV Series 70s for quality and workmanship. JMHO

 

[dsk]

In relative terms some of the WW-2 guns were roughly machined, or more to the point toolmarks weren't polished off, but they worked fine.

I think the best examples of what you're saying aren't Colts, but rather the late-war Remington Rands with the Blanchard-cut slides. The Blanchard machines were used to surface grind the slide flats and left big swirls across the face of the slides. It cut down the time and cost to machine the slides but sure looked like hell.

 

[Old Fuff]

>> I think the best examples of what you're saying aren't Colts, but rather the late-war Remington Rands with the Blanchard-cut slides. The Blanchard machines were used to surface grind the slide flats and left big swirls across the face of the slides. It cut down the time and cost to machine the slides but sure looked like hell. <<

No, I wasn't picking on any particular contractor. Excluding very early Colt's the wartime production 1911-A1 pistols were "rough" if compared to military 1911's made during 1918-1819 and all prewar commercial guns. However this lack of "cosmetics" and finer internal finishing did not effect the way they worked, and a substantial number were still in service when the Beretta M-9 was adopted in the early '80's - and a few are still in use today in Iraq and perhaps elsewhere.

My core point is that even a roughly finished (in relative terms) 1911 pattern pistol is dependable if the parts that comprise it are correctly made and fitted, and they are made from the right materials. Some current commercial makers have compromised this pistol's well-known and justifiable reputation by using questionable materials in certain applications and slighting on workmanship and inspection during the production process. In my view even Colt was guilty of doing this at times during recent years. While today’s production doesn't match the finishing and polish done during the prewar years, and some lockwork is not made the way is was formally, it is clear the company is trying to do better. Those who are familiar with earlier Colt's and are committed to higher standards, can have their cake and eat it by swapping out parts they consider to be inferior and replacing them with something better. It is however, unfortunate that this practice may be necessary.