Colt 1903 - my INITIAL response ...

[dhcustomwork]

Just picked up this little 1903 from a fellow member here. I was looking for a good functioning shooter that I could send off for special treatment without really adversely affecting any collector value. This was a great choice as it was in really good condition under the hood, but definitely had seen better days on the beauty front. Apparently someone's kids decided they wanted to scratch their initials all over the side of daddy's gun.

Once this thing got to me, I had planned on immediately sending it off to be hard chromed. Today I decided to just clean it up myself for now. Once I shoot this one a while; I'll be sending it in to Nutmeg for some engraving and a new finish. If I'm going to have the finish redone it might as well be dam cool when I do.

Here's the before:



Here's the after:

 

[capcyclone]

Nice job. Is it just the angle of the camera - or were you able to rub out the initals that were carved into the side? Looks nice!

 

[kBob]

Those look like chain of evidence markings. In the way back leos were encouragd to scatch their initials into the finish of a gun to be able to identify it later. So if "RY" was the officer that picked it up at a crime scene, he might mark it, then the property book guy might mark it, then the tool mark specialist might mark it and then RY might get it back for some part of the investigation and remark it.

A lot of folks that got stolen guns returned had more damage from the police evidence marks than the bad guys made on the guns. My father-n-law had a .38 Colt revolver his grandfather carried during service in WWI as a Privately owned arm, and his father carried it during WWII service. His home in NJ was broken into and the lock box busted open and the gun and others taken. WHen it turned up in NYC he had to go through lots of hoops to get it back and there on the side plate were evidence markings that ruined the collector value and just made a family herloom ugly.

At least some tect books suggested scratching initials inside the trigger guard, but atleast into the early 1970's despite serial numbers on the guns LEOs were still scratching finishes in plainly seen places with safety pins and paper clips.

Nice refinishing job. I really like the gun you have in the pictures.

-kBob

 

[golden]

Great gun

Customwork,

That is a great looking shooter, but I have seen 3 that had been chromed and was less than impressed. Somehow, it just seemed out of place on a class like the 1903.

I found that mine would shoot very accurately and was limited mostly by the sights. They were usable, but not a match for the night sights on my SIG 232.

The only thing that I think I would really change is the safety lever. I found it small and not that easy to flick off. I would probably carry it in condition 3, with the chamber empty and a full magazine. FIOCCHI jhp and WINCHESTER Silvertip worked without any problems in mine.

Keep a lookout for original COLT magazines, the prices are getting outrageous.

Jim

 

[dhcustomwork]

Thanks guys. The initials have been removed instead of covered up. While it's not a professional refinish, it's certainly a lot better to look at IMO without the initials glaring at me. I could have left it as is and shot the pee out of it until sending it to Nutmeg .... if I weren't so friggin anal about it.

I used a process of hand finishing with no power tools involved. I read all the time where the best refinishers out there do hand work so they don't mess up any of the markings if it can be helped. I used a combo from 600 to 1000 grit wet sanding, then buffed and polished. I use G96 bluing creme as it seems to react faster and hold longer than others I've tried so far. Once the surface is prepped, I hear the part in the oven until its just slightly to hot to touch. The heat allows the bluing to react and set in more evenly IMO. I rub small amounts of bluing in until it's dried. Then rinse and wipe down with cold water to neutralize the bluing. Then completely dry before repeating a couple more times. Only after three or four coats do I lightly go over it with 0000 steel wool to even the finish. Usually the steel wool takes off a lot more bluing than you think it should initially. But after then doing the whole process over again 3-4 more times, I end up with the final product.

I could have spent a few days at the bluing; repeating that process as many as 30 times, if I wanted to keep it like that long term. But this will give me a certain limited time frame and good indicator of when its time to send it off to Nutmeg. Also lets me save a bit more $ to have them do the job I have in mind.

Thanks also for the LEO info. Never would have thought about that.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Nice home refinishing job!

I found that G96 bluing creme, used with Brownell's Oxpho Blue did an outstanding job, almost indistinguishable from the dark factory blue on some guns. Now that Oxpho blue is available in creme, I'll be tempted to try to the both cremes, together, in alternate applications if I ever get another gun needing that sort of attention.

Touchup was needed, now and then, on the front and back straps, and that was about it. Certainly didn't seem worth a costly professional job.

 

[dhcustomwork]

Thanks for the info, Walt. Never thought of alternating products for each coat. Sounds like something I may try next time.

Here's a couple more pics and the holster I threw together for it.

 

[jj1962hemi]

Like Jeff Lebowski's rug, that holster pulls the whole thing together! It's a real beauty!

 

[Buzsaw]

1903 is a great belly gun, love the holster. What kind is it?

 

[wlewisiii]

Nice use of the dime.

If it wasn't for the old nickel job that has to be stripped, I'd be tempted to do this to my HSc. It looks well worth the effort - very nice work indeed. Thank you for sharing it.

 

[bigfatdave]

Whoever scratched that crap into the finish should get a chance to digest their own teeth for a while.

Nice temporary refinish, and that's a nice holster, too.
Thanks, wlewisiii, for pointing out the dime! Perfect choice, did you happen to have it on hand, or did you seek it out, dhcustomwork?

 

[dhcustomwork]

Thx guys.

The holster is a dhcustomwork. I picked up the dime at a small coin shop a few blocks from my place. I'm putting together an IWB for it, too. Too accurate, reliable, and darned cool not to put in the carry rotation.

 

[bigfatdave]

Mine is so close to the size of a subcompact 9x19 gun that I haven't bothered to consider it as anything but a range toy.

Seems redundant when I own a PPS.

There's surely nothing wrong with it as a social work gun, so long as it is reliable with your chosen ammunition.

 

[OilyPablo]

Nice work. I was going to suggest getting it tank blued after a nice sanding job, but you did fine. I have a couple beater guns that I had reblued and they look like a factory job.

Again - great find!

 

[dhcustomwork]

Mine is so close to the size of a subcompact 9x19 gun that I haven't bothered to consider it as anything but a range toy.

Seems redundant when I own a PPS.

There's surely nothing wrong with it as a social work gun, so long as it is reliable with your chosen ammunition.

Have to agree that there is an abundance of "better" compact SD guns on the market. I'll actually have my compact .45 for my main SD carry when the situation dictates; but this will fill most of my needs when I'm around my area.

Some would never carry this with a chambered round; siting the risk of accidental discharge if dropped hard in just the right way. But in the right holster with the proper retention (and not having it drawn unless defending your life) I think those chances are close to naught. These were successfully carried for a looooong time. And I for one still wouldn't want today's .32 hp to the face or chest.

 

[berettaprofessor]

Just look at the fit between frame and slide in the OP's pictures. That gun was made when quality was more than an advertising slogan.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Some of the older guns are beautifully made. But technology and metallurgy has advanced, and they've found ways of doing things that don't always require the same precision or fine hand work -- yet they still get the same (and sometimes better) results. Investment Casting, CNC equipment, MIM parts, etc.

With a lot of these older guns, parts don't easily interchange -- and hand fitting is required when doing replacements. Nowadays you get that sort of fitting isn't always required.

 

[bigfatdave]

Some would never carry this with a chambered round; siting the risk of accidental discharge if dropped hard in just the right way. But in the right holster with the proper retention (and not having it drawn unless defending your life) I think those chances are close to naught. These were successfully carried for a looooong time. And I for one still wouldn't want today's .32 hp to the face or chest.

Oh, I wouldn't want to be shot with one either (at least it's classy, I guess I wouldn't be as embarrassed as I would be to be shot with a rusty no-name revolver or a ring-of-fire gun, or a glock)
I just compared the weight of my PPS and my 1903, and saw no advantage to carrying the 1903. It would make a dandy OC gun, though, as a political statement and conversation starter.
'''this gun is over 100 years old, how do you congresscritters propose to "ban" it, exactly?'''

===

Just look at the fit between frame and slide in the OP's pictures. That gun was made when quality was more than an advertising slogan.

Yep, and I've seen pictures of the tedious hand labor that went into making these. It is fascinating, but I wonder what a gun with that many hours (days?) of skilled hand-work would cost to produce these days?
I love shooting my 1903, and I also enjoy handing over "the 100 year old gun" to friends on the range (they like shooting it, too, I actually had a request to pack it in last time I took one friend shooting)
And I am fascinated at the engineering that goes into the gun - when I saw how the barrel locks and unlocks with the frame, I wanted to jump up and down gibbering madly, it is flat-out brilliant! There are a lot of engineering marvels in that little package, many of which are in the m1911 as well. Some things that are awkward in the 1903 were improved in the 1911 as well, I own mine as much as a museum piece and engineering example as I do to shoot it - luckily mine also has very little collector value, it was refinished in an extremely mediocre way.

 

[dhcustomwork]

Yes indeed these are certainly built by some caring and skillful hands. Technology may have advanced a lot, but style and cool factor matched with reliability hasn't.

That said; if I already owned a 9x19, I'd more than likely opt to carry that first.

When my 3rd one arrives, it will become the carry piece. The 95% finish ones stays put away, and my refinish gets sent off to become an heirloom. No idea what lies ahead for all the others that may follow.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

...but style and cool factor matched with reliability hasn't.

This response will seem like disagreement, but it's not really that. Just a different perspective on some of the same points.

It's hard to discuss "style and cool factor" as those are very subjective values. The older guns are often quite attractive, but much of that is due to the level of finish and the beautiful deep bluing seen on many of them. Modern guns finished to the same standards can be be very attractive and have "style," too.

• I have a SIG P226 X-Five in .40 and a SIG P220 Super Match that are every bit as well made as the Colt we're describing, with fit and finish as good or better than almost any of the older guns. You pay a price for that level of product nowadays, but you paid a price for it then.

• A high-gloss, dark blue (blued) CZ-85 from the early 1990s is a thing of beauty, too. You can get the blued CZs, still, from the CZ Custom Shop for about a $100 premium, but be prepared to wait a while for these "special order" guns. But if you like the blued finish, it's well worth the wait.

I have no experience with the Colt we're discussing, and it may be a uniquely reliable .32 a.c.p. pistol, but a lot of the guns from that era were just OK, not outstanding. With the possible exception of the Colt in question, I'd argue that reliability and durability has, in most ways, actually IMPROVED with most newer gun, as many of the older semi-autos weren't always the best. My favorite, the Luger (P-08) was reliable as long as it was kept very clean -- and that was one of it's short-comings as a military weapon.

I don't think any of the guns from that era could come close to keeping up with a modern SIG, Glock, H&K, S&W*, Ruger*, or CZ in terms of shots fired without failure.

The Colt in questions IS very handsome, and was widely used. But, if you read about the lawman and military men of the period, especially the ones doing the heavy lifting, most of them weren't really into .32 a.c.p. Folks out to do serious work used rifles, shotguns, and .45s (and a few larger caliber revolvers.)

I suspect the Colt 1903 was a "gentleman's" gun, carried a lot and used a little -- as is the case with most "carry" guns, nowadays.

____
* Upon rereading my response, I see that I neglected to include Ruger and S&W in that list of modern guns that are known for exceptional reliability. I corrected that error. Beretta might be added to the list, too, as I've had a number of them, and only a "Tomcat" ever gave me a hint of problems, and it was an early production gun.

.

 

[dhcustomwork]

Very well said, Walt. Again, you won't get an argument from me on any of your points.

The style and cool factor IS totally subjective. Just check out the "cool factor" thread. Nearly everyone will have a different opinion on the matter.

I have to admit that my reliability comment is based on very limited personal experience, and mostly derived from lots of researched comments and opinions. I think the fit and finish on these early Colts really surpassed many other makers of the day; therefore giving them a much higher reliability factor. They just don't seem to break down much and haven't seen many complaints anywhere about it not functioning. They just go bang when they should.

I like your observation of the 1903 being more of a gentleman's gun. Doubt this was ever intended to be a serious workhorse. But as a good little carry piece or backup, it should fit in as nicely today as it did back in the day.

Here's my little CCW I made for it. Very comfortable and easy to use from the 4:30 position.

 

[dsk]

[QUOTE-dhcustomwork]Some would never carry this with a chambered round; siting the risk of accidental discharge if dropped hard in just the right way. But in the right holster with the proper retention (and not having it drawn unless defending your life) I think those chances are close to naught. These were successfully carried for a looooong time. And I for one still wouldn't want today's .32 hp to the face or chest.
[/QUOTE]

Do a Google search on Steve Malloy, who was an avid shooter and editor of SWAT magazine. He was killed inside his own home in 2009 when a .32 M1903 he was carrying fell out of its holster and discharged, striking him once in the chest. He tried to crawl through his garage in an attempt to reach neighbors for help, but he didn't make it. The Colt M1903/1908 pistols are not considered drop-safe and should really be carried with an empty chamber.