Colt Producing New Model 1903 Pistols

[Monac]

The original "General Officer Pistol was not unique or special in any way. They were in fact drawn from regular inventory. What was special was a belt and holster set that came with the gun.

Apparently the only feature that make the new guns a GOP is a certificate that comes in the box. Some astute buyers might get a price break by purchasing one of the regular Parkerized guns if they don't care about the paperwork.

Old Fuff, I apologize if this is nitpicking, but the 32 automatics Colt made specifically for the armed forces (as opposed to the ones that were in stock at Colt at the time of Pearl Harbor) did differ in one way besides the parkerized finish and the US Property markings: they were fitted with Colt 1911 style front and rear sights. For this reasons, Colt 1903 collectors usually refer to them as a "Type 5".

I rather doubt they will bother to fit these new guns with two different types of sights, though, so you are probably correct when it comes to these guns. Of course, it might save them a little money to buy GI 1911 style sights in the aftermarket rather than make 1903 style sights themselves.

 

[Old Fuff]

Yup, I did overlook the sights although I have pointed out before that during the 1903-1946 production era the rear sight dovetail and front sight slot were the same as those used on .45 Government Model pistols being made at the same time. I have no idea if the forthcoming .32's will have the correct sights or not.

 

[tipoc]

Not many do know what type they will be. Or what other changes there will be. We'll see soon I expect.

tipoc

 

[Peter M. Eick]

Well I missed that it was a 32 and not 380.

Pass.

I was only interested in a 380 and would have coughed up the money just to get one to shoot.

Sigh..... Back to looking for a nice 380 to shoot.

 

[CraigC]

It's too expensive! It's too expensive! It's too expensive!

It ain't 1990 any more. There are no more $400 N-frames. No more $300 Blackhawks. Let's put things in perspective. A friggin' Ruger Redhawk's MSRP is almost $1100. Nothing special, just a plain Redhawk that has been in production for decades. Read it again, $1100!!! A Super Blackhawk Hunter is $900. A stainless GP is almost $800. Considering how much work goes into what is the best SAA made to date, $1300 seems a bargain. Colt is also making a very good, well finished 1911 for $850. S&W is stamping "Classic" on crap and charging $1200 for it.

$1300 for a very well made, well fitted and well finished 1903 that hasn't been made since before most of us were born, that's a pretty good deal.

The optimist in me sees Colt as doing something very interesting, without going full retard on something like the 2000 model. They're making some very good guns and here is one more. I wish them all the luck in the world. The rhetoric of cynics, critics and pessimists notwithstanding.

I was only interested in a 380 and would have coughed up the money just to get one to shoot.

A .380 version is supposed to be in the works.

 

[Vodoun da Vinci]

$1300 for a very well made, well fitted and well finished 1903 that hasn't been made since before most of us were born, that's a pretty good deal.

Me Too...that's what I'm sayin'....

VooDoo

 

[Old Fuff]

Well if you two are big-time fans... maybe. To be honest I am too. But frankly for $1300 (maybe more depending on finish) I'll shop around for something in the former 1903-1946 era.

If the bore and magazine(s) are in good shape I could bead-blast and Parkerize one on a camp stove for very little money.

Then claim it was issued to General McFuff.

 

[Lone Star]

I've read that the .32's were overall more reliable than the .380's. Anyone know about this?

Supposedly, the issue was in how the extractors were sometimes not fitted well on .380's, despite the rimless .380 probably being less likely to gum up in feeding over the semi-rimmed .32.

When I was very small, I recall a comic strip called, "Vic Flint." I think the characters used these Colt Model M's. Anyone else recall that?

 

[CraigC]

Well if you two are big-time fans... maybe. To be honest I am too. But frankly for $1300 (maybe more depending on finish) I'll shop around for something in the former 1903-1946 era.

Name one firearm that can't be had for less on the used market.

 

[toivo]

If the bore and magazine(s) are in good shape I could bead-blast and Parkerize one on a camp stove for very little money.

Then claim it was issued to General McFuff.

Was that General Farf McFuff? I'll give you $2000 for it.

 

[Old Fuff]

As soon as I can find a gun, I'll have General McFuff's name engraved on it, and finish Parkerizing it, I'll give you a call.

I regret to tell you that the bore ain't too good. The General considered cleaning his pistol to be beneath him.

 

[Vodoun da Vinci]

I've read that the .32's were overall more reliable than the .380's. Anyone know about this?

I own 4 Pocket Hammerless pistols all in .32 and have shot many others in .32 and .380. They were extremely well built and functional pistols even if they had been neglected finish wise....other than the fact that the .380 in the Pocket Hammerless is not my cup of tea (recoil) I never had any trouble with them function wise. The Colts were designed before fancy bullet profiles and some of them may have issues with flat noses or hollow point in either caliber *but* 10 minutes worth of polishing on the feed ramp and they seem to be totally reliable with anything I ever tried to shoot in them.

That said, the gun was designed to shoot the .32 ACP and the guy who designed them was a firearms genius of sorts. The gun shines in .32 in my opinion and the .380 was an after thought but the guns seem fine with the .380 albeit they seem rather "pushed" with .380. I shoot some pretty hot .32 in mine and they have never missed a lick nor do they seem to be getting "beat up" in any way.

The same guns in .380 seem to be stressed especially with some of the hotter SD ammunition that is out there. But this is just my opinion - the guys I know who have/shoot the Pocket Hammerless in .380 get on just fine with them. As I do with my .32's.

I wanted to add to this discussion that I can find an original Colt 1903 (I prefer the type III built after 1918) and have it tricked out with new springs, hard chrome, and end up with a custom Pocket Hammerless built on the platform for less money than one of these new ones. After thinking about it, I'd probably take a "wait and see" on the new release until I see exactly what they are gonna do and the quality, ergonomics, functionality, or lack there of. I'm not a collector, I'm an aficionado of the type. They are shooters for me. Buying one as a collectible if it's not a shooter? Like I said, I can buy an original and have it tricked to my wildest dreams for the same amount. I'll have to wait and see but I still have to say I'm drooling. Seriously, I don't think some of us who do not own these guns and have not shot one realize how many guys will buy these up. I'll bet it surprises you how well these move...they make outstanding carry pieces. If they get built right and the fit and finish, ergos, and functionality are retained I think a new one might be in my future but I'll have to see them produced first.

VooDoo

 

[tipoc]

Over the years I've owned and shot a good deal from 2 of the 32s and 4 of the .380s. Functioning of both rounds was beyond reproach.

I've read that the .32's were overall more reliable than the .380's. Anyone know about this?

Not in my direct experience nor in anything I've read or heard. They both work well.

The .32 acp was designed by Browning as a semi-rimmed cartridge and made it's appearance in 1899 in a gun he did for FN. It was known as the 7.65mm Browning in Europe. It made it's first appearance in the U.S. in the M1903 in well 1903 as the .32 acp.

The .380 is also a Browning designed round and first appeared in the U.S. in the M1908, the very gun we are speaking of in 1908. In Europe in first showed up in 1912 as the 9mm Browning short, or 9mm Kurz, 9x17, etc.

So I don't think the placement of the .380 in the M1903, making it the M1908, was an afterthought. Browning and Colt did a good job on both guns.

tipoc

 

[Jim K]

The first Browning-designed cartridges were semi-rimmed because he started with revolver rounds and kept reducing the rims until they worked OK in pistols. It never occurred to him to support the case on its mouth; that idea came from one Georg Luger, when he tried expanding the 7.65 Parabellum to 9mm and the shoulder disappeared.

By 1905, JMB had gotten the word and the .380 ACP and .45 ACP are straight, rimless cases.

Actually, there was an "in between" cartridge, the semi-rimmed 9mm Browning Long, made for a blowback pistol that FN hoped would be able to compete with Luger's new toy. (It didn't, but both turned into pretty much dead ends.) But Colt wanted a pocket model and St. John scaled the FN Model 1903 pistol down and produced the Colt Pocket Model Hammerless, which we call the M1903 hammerless. (The Pocket Model Hammer was a dual link pistol in .38 ACP.)

Jim

 

[Old Fuff]

Name one firearm that can't be had for less on the used market.

It depends on their condition and what they are, but they're a lot of guns made during an earlier time which may cost more then one of the same kind made today.

At various auctions I occasionally see ordinary but mint condition Colt 1903 .32 pistols selling anywhere from $600 to $900. Ones in the original box with papers may break the $1000 barrier. We have yet to see them, but I doubt that this "2nd. Generation" will be better in terms of fit and finish then the original ones.

If this new issue is not superior (and substantially so) to the older ones, that can be purchased for the same money or less, why should I want what amounts to being a reproduction?

 

[ttarp]

I'm still not buying this "Reproduction", and "Copy" stuff. Different manufacturing methods have been used for 1911's for quite a while now, and I don't see too many folks calling the Colt 1991 a copy of a 1911, they generally call it a 1911.

We have yet to see them, but I doubt that this "2nd. Generation" will be better in terms of fit and finish then the original ones.

I also doubt they will be the same quality, but outside of custom shops, what gun is made with the same craftmanship today?

 

[TennJed]

It's too expensive! It's too expensive! I
It ain't 1990 any more. There are no more $400 N-frames. No more $300 Blackhawks. Let's put things in perspective. A friggin' Ruger Redhawk's MSRP is almost $1100. Nothing special, just a plain Redhawk that has been in production for decades. Read it again, $1100!!! A Super Blackhawk Hunter is $900. A stainless GP is almost $800.

Interesting, I have never really paid much attention to MSRP and didn't realize the Ruger's had such high MSRPs. I do try to keep up with actual price they end up being. Redhawk MSRP for $1100 actual price $750. GP101 MSRP $800 actual $590. Blackhawk Hunter MSRP $900 goes for $670

I know as a general rule MSRP is higher, but I didn't realize it was that much higher. Can we expect the 1903 to actually sell for $900 or $1000 or will the limited production numbers keep the 1903 at (or above) MSRP?

http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/...4/Ruger+KRH44+Redhawk+.44+Mag+7+12"+Stainless

http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/...uger+1705+GP-100+KGP-141+6RD+357MAG38SP++P+4"

http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/index.php/cPath/21_49_1814/Ruger+Revolvers/

 

[Vodoun da Vinci]

The only modern guns I have seen that feature the same tight tolerances and outstanding fit and finish of the old M1903's I have examined are high end customs and stuff like the Dan Wesson autos and top end stuff. And that stuff usually starts at where we are starting to cry "OMG" on listed price of the new Pocket Hammerless.

I'd be really surprised and impressed if anyone could offer a new made Pocket Hammerless with the kind of fit and finish I have seen on the originals for $1300 - $1400. I'd have to see that....

VooDoo

 

[Old Fuff]

I know as a general rule MSRP is higher, but I didn't realize it was that much higher. Can we expect the 1903 to actually sell for $900 or $1000 or will the limited production numbers keep the 1903 at (or above) MSRP?

It will be interesting to find out. I am sure this is a high price/low quantity offering because the maker doesn't see a sustained market at the MSRP. This pistol has a substantial body of fans, and that may make it possible to sell the proposed limited run at (or close to) the suggested price - especially if the overall economy doesn't tank.

On the negative side, Smith & Wesson's Classic line of limited, new reproductions of earlier popular models hasn't been particularly successful, partly because the MSRP has been higher then one can buy one of the original equivalent's in like-new condition for. Also some of the reproductions have features (internal locks, MIM lockwork, etc.) that many potential buyers strongly object to. This may or may not apply to the pistol we are discussing.

The new pistol will undoubtedly have a frame and slide machined from bar stock using CNC controlled machines. Done right this can produce some excellent fits, but it is questionable if it will be equal or better then Colt's previous practice of using selective selection of frames and slides to accomplish almost zero-tolerance fits. We will have to wait and see.

 

[Panzerschwein]

I hope they make enough of these to get around, very cool pistols but a limited production number value can and almost certainly will to some extent of more or less judging by current market demand drive the cost up.

 

[tipoc]

On the price:

When Colt first offered the Marine Corp CQBP the MSRP (Manufacturers Suggested retail Price) was well under 2 grand. Street price could be about 1400-1500. But a sizable number of the guns were bought up by dealers and offered on Gunbroker and elsewhere for over $2000. which was well above the MSRP. On gun forums Colt was widely denounced for selling them at such a high price. But they weren't, Colt wasn't selling them at that price.

Dealers had discovered that they could sell the gun at several hundred above MSRP and folks would buy them. Demand was higher than expected. This year Colt raised the MSRP to $2100.

So as far as price goes we'll see. They could be lower than the MSRP, which is the usual case, or demand could drive them higher.

tipoc

 

[Panzerschwein]

I'm suprised they didn't re-release the 1908 version which is a .380, for the CCW market that's ever growing.

 

[toivo]

I'm suprised they didn't re-release the 1908 version which is a .380, for the CCW market that's ever growing.

I think they're intending to. That said, I don't see these reissues as aimed at the CCW market. More of a collector's item and range fun gun, I think.

 

[Monac]

The Colt 32's were more reliable than the 380's. The 380's apparently had a problem with ejection. The Shanghai Municipal Police, which was under the command of the redoubtable Col. William Fairbairn, equipped all if its Chinese officers with Colt 1908 380's, and modified all of them with a small flat spring in the slide to push the barrel to the right for improved ejection.

In the Second World War, the US Navy issued more Colt 380's than the US Army, and also had problems with ejection. They had Colt investigate, and Colt fixed the problem by modifying the ejector, rather than using a spring. Guns so modified were were stamped with an "M" in front of the serial number, creating the "M-Series Colts", which caused confusion among Colt collectors for some time.

Many existing commercial Colts may be good with 380 because in the 70-105 years since they were built, a sufficiently skilled gunsmith may also have adjusted them.

All the above is quoted from memory from John Brunner's Colt Pocket Autos book and various articles by Donald Simmons. I may have gotten details wrong because I don't have them here at my computer.

This article has pictures of a Shanghai modified pistol:

http://www.coltautos.com/mmsmp4.htm

 

[tipoc]

Monac thanks for the reference to the issues with the .380. I took a quick look and see that I have to revise my opinion. While I had no issues with the .380 pistols that I owned it doesn't mean that there weren't.

In his book "The Colt Pocket Hammerless Automatic Pistols", John Brunner notes that Fairbairn chose the .380 pistol for the Shanghai Municipal Police and on page 105...

"Fairbairn was not alone in his view that the Colt pocket pistols were particularly suitable for Oriental police use for many thousands of them were sold in other Asiatic countries...He was, however, alone in concluding that this pistol, which was intended for infrequent private use, was not entirely suitable for the kind of heavy duty use to which he was subjecting it. He, therefore, developed a number of modifications for the pistol which were built into existing pistols by the SMP Armory and, eventually incorporated by the Colt factory into subsequent new orders." (my emphasis).

Brunner supplies a detailed description of what these changes were and which were incorporated by Colt.

On page 86 and 87 Brunner describes the ups and downs of the U.S. military issues with the gun. The issue was that Colt used the same ejector on both guns. Now the .380 round is wider than the .32 so when the .380 case struck the ejector it did so not at the edge of the case, like with the .32acp but more towards the center, which was enough off line that it occasionally caused stovepipe jams. No one commented or seemed to notice this from 1908 to 1930 till Shanghai MP did.

Brunner thinks that factory workers knew of the issue and worked to correct the ejector problem at the factory but it may have been let go over time or it may have been that the SMP put the gun to heavier use and thus exposed a weakness.

The U.S. Army had the gun, issued to officers, but did not spot the problem. The Navy did though as they apparently actually shot the guns. It was the Navy that pressed the issue asking for repairs during WWII. The issues were solved. However this was one of Colt's more popular and successful models and many thousands would have hit the streets with the ejectors in them for the .32, unmodified by the factory.

However Colt did not make any more of these guns after the war.

More of this can be found with Brunner in his book.

Thanks again to Monac for pointing this out.

tipoc