Colt Model 1908 .380ACP For CCW ?

[Jim K]

FWIW, the early Model M's could fire if dropped, but later they added a sort of "half cock" notch to catch the sear if the hammer jarred off. I don't know the serial number at which the change was made, but can probably find out if necessary.

EDITED TO ADD: Ooops, I see that Fuff already covered that. Darn, it is hard to get one up on that guy!

I consider those guns pretty good for carry and carried one (in .32) for a while. The safety is too small, but easy to take off. For a while, someone made a safety for those with a larger thumbpiece, but I have not seen it for a long time.

Jim

 

[Armybrat]

Handgun safeties back in the day were pretty small & awkward on a lot of different makes. To me the Remington M51 is not too bad:

 

[BSA1]

I think a updated model of the 1908 would be a excellent choice for Colt to reenter the concealed carry market with. It's thin profile makes it easy to carry and single stack magazine easier for shooters will small hands.

Better sights, larger thumb safety and a firing pin block should not be hard to design. Like the other comments though original 1908's are not good carry pieces.

 

[Nom de Forum]

I think a updated model of the 1908 would be a excellent choice for Colt to reenter the concealed carry market with. It's thin profile makes it easy to carry and single stack magazine easier for shooters will small hands.

Better sights, larger thumb safety and a firing pin block should not be hard to design. Like the other comments though original 1908's are not good carry pieces.

I agree an updated version would be an excellent choice for Colt. These pistols are pocket pistols, rather large ones, where a thumb-safety could be inadvertently disengaged without being noticed. Eliminating the thumb-safety and relying on a FPS that requires the trigger to be pulled would not make the pistol any less safe if carried in an appropriate pocket holster.

 

[Jim K]

No, but I don't see anyone today being able to market a single action auto pistol without a manual safety. Aside from state and local laws, folks now are just too safety conscious not to want that extra level of security. I know that there are some folks who brag that they carry a 1911 cocked and with the safety disengaged, but one slip and they would have a huge lawsuit. (A poster on another site some years back said that he carried his SAA Colt fully cocked and that anyone who thought it was unsafe was a fool or worse. I took note of his location and decided to avoid the area!)

jIM

 

[Monac]

Wasn't the recent Remington R51 a single action pistol with just a grip safety (which is not what I think of as a manual safety)? That was one of the things I found confusing about it.

 

[Old Fuff]

Concerning sights:

Those who are considering upgrading the sights on these pistols that aren't collector grade should be aware that during the lifetime of Colt's Pocket Pistol the rear sight dovetail and front sight slot were exactly the same as those found on the larger .45 Government Model. The rear sight itself was different however. Given the wide range of sights that are available for the 1911 platform today, this opens some interesting options.

A simple and inexpensive solution is to install a .125" wide front sight, and enlarge the original rear sight's notch to match. Going forward from there presents few if any limits.

 

[Jim K]

Yep, Monac, you are right. I had forgotten about the R51, and yes, it has no manual thumb safety, only a grip safety. I guess we will see how that works, especially in CA where they seem to require guns to have all kinds of things to prevent them from firing.

Jim

 

[Vodoun da Vinci]

A simple and inexpensive solution is to install a .125" wide front sight, and enlarge the original rear sight's notch to match. Going forward from there presents few if any limits.

Wow! Thanks for that tidbit! I have a 1903 .32 that just arrived that is a candidate for this treatment!

VooDoo

 

[Old Fuff]

Wow! Thanks for that tidbit! I have a 1903 .32 that just arrived that is a candidate for this treatment!

I sure wish that all of this was in a sticky... 'cuz I keep repeating myself from thread to thread.

 

[Gun Master]

Gun "Authorities"

I sure wish that all of this was in a sticky... 'cuz I keep repeating myself from thread to thread.

Please continue repeating, my friend !

I've found at least these few types of authorities on THR:
1. People with a wealth of info, that give advise in a relaxed, refreshing manner.
2. Authorities that know their subject matter, but seem rushed and frenzied.
3. "Blowhards" that may know some info (or may not), that have an agenda and don't mind being nasty.
I'm sure there are others, also.

IMHO you are in group #1. (above).

Thanks for your knowledgeable info, and the manner in which you do so.

 

[BigG]

I have one but don't really consider it a good tool for the mentioned reasons and also don't trust any gun that is older than I am for defensive work unless it's the only one. It's not.
A pistol I like better is a Browning 1955.


It's a lot smaller and sleeker. Small sights though but shoots like pointing a finger.

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

I carried my 1903 for quite some time overseas. More as a back-up but often the sole firearm.
Reasons being; dimensions, .32, freakishly accurate and a relatively quiet discharge.

Even when it was the only thing on me, I couldn't warm up to carrying a round in the chamber. Just too many ifs to try to offset with the time of racking a round. The safety - even if trustworthy is awkward enough to help offset the slide manipulation time.

Loved the size, loved the feel and won a bunch of money and drinks against other fella's hide-aways in accuracy competitions.

Were I to do it again, I'd look for a sacrificial slide to weld up and re-cut some more aggressive engagement panels front and rear.

Ultimately - after a few months, I ended up using my CZ-83 more but would often long for the slim Colt.

 

[Gun Master]

FN Browning .380

I have one but don't really consider it a good tool for the mentioned reasons and also don't trust any gun that is older than I am for defensive work unless it's the only one. It's not.
A pistol I like better is a Browning 1955.


It's a lot smaller and sleeker. Small sights though but shoots like pointing a finger.

Looks a lot like the Colt 1908 .380ACP, except the rounding on the muzzle end of the slide. The safety looks the same as the Colt 1908. Same guy invented both guns. What a beauty!

 

[Nom de Forum]

No, but I don't see anyone today being able to market a single action auto pistol without a manual safety. Aside from state and local laws, folks now are just too safety conscious not to want that extra level of security. I know that there are some folks who brag that they carry a 1911 cocked and with the safety disengaged, but one slip and they would have a huge lawsuit. (A poster on another site some years back said that he carried his SAA Colt fully cocked and that anyone who thought it was unsafe was a fool or worse. I took note of his location and decided to avoid the area!)
jIM

I am not so sure about that if we are both discussing a "thumb-safety" when using the phrase "without a manual safety". I think a fully cocked SA semi with a trigger activated firing pin safety using trigger lever safety like the Glock or a two piece pivoting trigger and with a trigger or better yet sear blocking grip safety may sell.

 

[golden]

Condition 3 + ammo check

GUNMASTER,

I have a COLT 1903 in .32ACP, which is the same as the 1908, except the caliber. It is a very nicely made gun, but to heavy for pocket carry. I would not carry it if I had something a bit more modern, like a BERETTA 84/85, SIG 232 or WALTHER PPK.

If I did decide to carry it, the first thing is that I would carry it with a loaded magazine and an empty chamber. I would draw the gun and rack the slide as I brought it up for firing. This is not the best way to present a pistol for defense, but it is the only way I would carry it. I consider the safety lever on the 1903/1908 to small to operate reliably.

The second thing is your choice of ammo. The .380ACP is the minimum to use for defense according to many gun writers and in my opinion, only if you have expanding ammo, like a good hollowpoint. The problem is that the 1903/1908 was not designed to use hollowpoint ammo. My 1903 will not feed FEDERAL Hydra Shok ammo with 100% reliability. It will feed FIOCCHI jhp and WINCHESTER Silvertip jhp. Since I already use COR BON Powerball ammo which has a large hollowpoint with a small plastic bead inserting into the hollowpoint, that is what I would use. I have used it in other calibers and it works well.

If you can find a reliable hollowpoint load for your 1908, make sure it will shoot at least 60 rounds at a time without jamming or misfeeding.
The new HORNADY Critical Defense load may work for you. I have found it shoots well in my GLOCK 42.

The sights on the 1908 are too small, but still usable. Just practice to get used to them.
The other suggestion is that you practice magazine changes on a regular basis as the heel clip used by the 1903/1908 is slower than the push button magazine release used by the 1911 and later pistols.

Good luck,

Jim

 

[kokapelli]

GUNMASTER,

I have a COLT 1903 in .32ACP, which is the same as the 1908, except the caliber. It is a very nicely made gun, but to heavy for pocket carry. I would not carry it if I had something a bit more modern, like a BERETTA 84/85, SIG 232 or WALTHER PPK.

If I did decide to carry it, the first thing is that I would carry it with a loaded magazine and an empty chamber. I would draw the gun and rack the slide as I brought it up for firing. This is not the best way to present a pistol for defense, but it is the only way I would carry it. I consider the safety lever on the 1903/1908 to small to operate reliably.

The second thing is your choice of ammo. The .380ACP is the minimum to use for defense according to many gun writers and in my opinion, only if you have expanding ammo, like a good hollowpoint. The problem is that the 1903/1908 was not designed to use hollowpoint ammo. My 1903 will not feed FEDERAL Hydra Shok ammo with 100% reliability. It will feed FIOCCHI jhp and WINCHESTER Silvertip jhp. Since I already use COR BON Powerball ammo which has a large hollowpoint with a small plastic bead inserting into the hollowpoint, that is what I would use. I have used it in other calibers and it works well.

If you can find a reliable hollowpoint load for your 1908, make sure it will shoot at least 60 rounds at a time without jamming or misfeeding.
The new HORNADY Critical Defense load may work for you. I have found it shoots well in my GLOCK 42.

The sights on the 1908 are too small, but still usable. Just practice to get used to them.
The other suggestion is that you practice magazine changes on a regular basis as the heel clip used by the 1903/1908 is slower than the push button magazine release used by the 1911 and later pistols.

Good luck,

Jim

So you would, according the tests here- http://mousegunaddict.blogspot.com/2012/05/ballistics-testing-cor-bon-powrball-380.html not even reach the FBI MINIMUM PENETRATION depth?

 

[Nom de Forum]

So you would, according the tests here- http://mousegunaddict.blogspot.com/2012/05/ballistics-testing-cor-bon-powrball-380.html not even reach the FBI MINIMUM PENETRATION depth?

Do we really know if these tests are equivalent to FBI testing criteria? Has the Sim-test media being used been sufficiently tested for accurate reproduction of gelatin media results? Is the person doing these tests scrupulously paying attention to the details of conducting tests? Having posed those questions, I am not surprised that PowerBall did not meet the FBI's minimum penetration standard.

 

[BigG]

Looks a lot like the Colt 1908 .380ACP, except the rounding on the muzzle end of the slide. The safety looks the same as the Colt 1908. Same guy invented both guns. What a beauty!

If you see them next to each other, the Browning is much smaller and sleeker than the Colt.

 

[kokapelli]

Do we really know if these tests are equivalent to FBI testing criteria? Has the Sim-test media being used been sufficiently tested for accurate reproduction of gelatin media results? Is the person doing these tests scrupulously paying attention to the details of conducting tests? Having posed those questions, I am not surprised that PowerBall did not meet the FBI's minimum penetration standard.

I understand what you mean, but ther are a number of different 380 gelatin tests on the Internet like this one from "brassfetcher"- and they all seem to be pretty consistent, or at least fairly close in their results. http://www.brassfetcher.com/380ACP/380 ACP 10% gelatin results.pdf

The people that do these tests try to emulate the FBI tests pretty closely.

 

[Nom de Forum]

I understand what you mean, but ther are a number of different 380 gelatin tests on the Internet like this one from "brassfetcher"- and they all seem to be pretty consistent, or at least fairly close in their results. http://www.brassfetcher.com/380ACP/380 ACP 10% gelatin results.pdf

The people that do these tests try to emulate the FBI tests pretty closely.

Thanks for the reply. I am familiar with brassfetcher and others finding that many .380 loads have less than stellar penetration. I am more curious about the SIM-test media accurately duplicating the media the FBI uses. I was also unfamiliar with the tester you provided a link to. Thank you for giving me a new source.

 

[golden]

Yes i would kokapelli

KOKAPELLI,

I carried the COR BON Powerball when I carried a WALTHER PPK in .32ACP. I had plenty of confidence in the ammo to expand. That is what I wanted. Unlike the FBI, I do not intend to shoot through windshields or winter parkas which are pretty rare in Florida.

The .32ACP and .380ACP are low powered rounds, so I want them to expand as much as possible. If the FBI does not approve of this, so be it. It fits my criteria of getting the most stopping power out of the smallest gun.

First, however, they must feed reliably, which is why I tried the Power Ball in the first place. I have found it to feed as reliably as ball ammo in six different guns. One of those is a SIG P-6 police trade in (SIG 225 is the same gun). It would NOT FEED ANY HOLLOWPOINT including the usually reliable REMINGTON jhp. A Dutch cop put me onto his department load, the GECO BAT. Since they are very had to find in the U.S., I ended up using the Powerball in 9m.m.
In pocket pistols like the BERETTA Tomcat, NAA Guardian, WALTHER PPK and so on, I have never had any trouble getting this load to feed. I cannot say that about any other expanding ammo.

Jim

 

[Gun Master]

Ballistics Tests Relativity

I know gelation is supposed to simulate density of the human body, in current penetration tests.

For me, at least, this doesn't satisfy my understanding the effectiveness of (in this case) the .380ACP. It still seems silly to be shooting into a huge glob of Jello for ammo tests.

It is OK if others value this procedure, and if it supports their rationale for such.

Does anyone long for "the good old days" of how many 7/8" pine boards will the round penetrate, or how many inches of a phone book it can puncture, or how large a hole, etc.......?

Now I can relate to that.

 

[kokapelli]

KOKAPELLI,

I carried the COR BON Powerball when I carried a WALTHER PPK in .32ACP. I had plenty of confidence in the ammo to expand. That is what I wanted. Unlike the FBI, I do not intend to shoot through windshields or winter parkas which are pretty rare in Florida.

The .32ACP and .380ACP are low powered rounds, so I want them to expand as much as possible. If the FBI does not approve of this, so be it. It fits my criteria of getting the most stopping power out of the smallest gun.

First, however, they must feed reliably, which is why I tried the Power Ball in the first place. I have found it to feed as reliably as ball ammo in six different guns. One of those is a SIG P-6 police trade in (SIG 225 is the same gun). It would NOT FEED ANY HOLLOWPOINT including the usually reliable REMINGTON jhp. A Dutch cop put me onto his department load, the GECO BAT. Since they are very had to find in the U.S., I ended up using the Powerball in 9m.m.
In pocket pistols like the BERETTA Tomcat, NAA Guardian, WALTHER PPK and so on, I have never had any trouble getting this load to feed. I cannot say that about any other expanding ammo.

Jim

Ok, if you think expansion is what counts most than that is what you should carry.

I will stick with what will most likely reach vitals.

 

[kokapelli]

I know gelation is supposed to simulate density of the human body, in current penetration tests.

For me, at least, this doesn't satisfy my understanding the effectiveness of (in this case) the .380ACP. It still seems silly to be shooting into a huge glob of Jello for ammo tests.

It is OK if others value this procedure, and if it supports their rationale for such.

Does anyone long for "the good old days" of how many 7/8" pine boards will the round penetrate, or how many inches of a phone book it can puncture, or how large a hole, etc.......?

Now I can relate to that.

How times have changed! We now have better ways of killing pine boards and phone books.