35 Whelen
Member
For some reason I have an insatiable desire to buy one of these old 45 ACP revolvers. Anyone have any experiences with them?
35W
35W
Experiences with S&W and/or Colt 1917's in 45 ACP?
- Thread starter 35 Whelen
- Start date
- Status
The Evangelist Cowboy
Member
They are sweet shooting revolvers. The N frame weight makes the .45 have a smooth recoil. As previously stated stick to normal pressure ammo or if you want to load higher check out the more modern offerings by Smith or Ruger.
AZAndy
Member
I don't have a 1917 (though my father does), but I do have a 625 and a 325. Fun to shoot, and moon clips are a hoot. You just toss the bundle of cartridges in the general direction of the cylinder and poof! it's loaded.
jar
Contributing Member
Love them, both the Colt New Service and Smith 1917 formats. In fact I always have two loaded and locked in easy access safes for in house considerations. When I lived in Phoenix back in the 1960s it was also the gun I always carried when wandering the deserts and mountains.
Lucky Derby
Member
Nice guns. I have an updated version, the 625.
Biggest difference between the Colt & the S&W is you can shoot the S&W without the moonclips if you want/need. The Colts the rounds just go right through the Chambers.
Biggest difference between the Colt & the S&W is you can shoot the S&W without the moonclips if you want/need. The Colts the rounds just go right through the Chambers.
Tallball
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2014
- Messages
- 7,790
I also opted for the 625, being pretty much the same revolver, but with nice big adjustable sights.
It's one of my very favorite handguns. I rarely go to the range without it.
One nice thing is the big fat 45 caliber round. It makes me look like I'm a better shot. If you put a few dozen 45's through the middle of a paper target there's just one big hole there. Similarly good shooting with a 22 just doesn't look as impressive.
My friend shot it yesterday and was surprised by the mild recoil. Neither of us thought that it felt much different than 38 special in a K-frame.
I don't even bother with moon clips for range use. They empty brass shakes out easily enough. I feel that I'd spend more time and effort loading and unloading the clips than it takes me to finish taking out the occasional piece of brass that only came out of the chamber halfway.
It's one of my very favorite handguns. I rarely go to the range without it.
One nice thing is the big fat 45 caliber round. It makes me look like I'm a better shot. If you put a few dozen 45's through the middle of a paper target there's just one big hole there. Similarly good shooting with a 22 just doesn't look as impressive.
My friend shot it yesterday and was surprised by the mild recoil. Neither of us thought that it felt much different than 38 special in a K-frame.
I don't even bother with moon clips for range use. They empty brass shakes out easily enough. I feel that I'd spend more time and effort loading and unloading the clips than it takes me to finish taking out the occasional piece of brass that only came out of the chamber halfway.
AZAndy
Member
I should have mentioned the sights! The 1917 has the usual set of patented S&W Completely Invisible Sights™ that all their revolvers before about 1940 had. Modern .45's are a great improvement in that regard.
Cornhusker77
Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2008
- Messages
- 624
I've got a Colt 1917 Army.
I don't know if the barrel was original or if someone replaced it with the shorty, but it shoots pretty good.
I can load and shoot this one without moon clips, but moon clips are easier and faster to load and unload.
I don't know if the barrel was original or if someone replaced it with the shorty, but it shoots pretty good.
I can load and shoot this one without moon clips, but moon clips are easier and faster to load and unload.
mcb
Member
As I understand it was only early Colt 1917's that had straight thru chambers. It was done initially just to meet war demand and only initially. They did later starting using proper chamber reamers. I have a buddy that has a Colt 1917 that will head space correctly without the moonclips.
I have a S&W 625. It is by far the most fun revolver I own. I often wish USPSA had not changed the rules as I really did enjoy shooting matches with it.
Lucky Derby
Member
Good to know that Colt fixed that issue.
OP
OP
35 Whelen
Member
Yep, the small sights are a bit of a concern since I'm now on the far side of 55.
35W
The
AZAndy
Member
I'm with ya (62). It's mostly just that the front sight is really narrow. Slapping some fluorescent paint on the back of it would help, but the one I shot is my dad's gun, so I didn't. All my older S&W revolvers do have the paint. On a couple of them, you can't even see the front sight if the hammer is down. I've been wondering if maybe people just didn't use sights for a few decades there.
Last edited:
Col. Harrumph
Member
I have both and prefer the Smith because I'm not a gorilla. If you have BIG hands you'll like the Colt. But only if they're BIG.
Driftwood Johnson
Member
Howdy
The Colt Model 1917 is a REALLY big revolver.
At the top of this photo is a Colt New Service. This is the same frame the Colt Model 1917 was built on, although the detail near the trigger guard is slightly different. But it is the same basic frame.
Below is a S&W 1917. Notice how much bigger the frame of the Colt is.
Personally, I prefer the N frame Smith to the huge Colt.
The Colt Model 1917 is a REALLY big revolver.
At the top of this photo is a Colt New Service. This is the same frame the Colt Model 1917 was built on, although the detail near the trigger guard is slightly different. But it is the same basic frame.
Below is a S&W 1917. Notice how much bigger the frame of the Colt is.
Personally, I prefer the N frame Smith to the huge Colt.
.455_Hunter
Member
My Grandfather was in the AEF on a Vickers MG crew and carried the M1917 Colt. I picked-up one to honor his service pretty soon after Uncle Sam started providing me a regular pay check. I am a big fan of the New Service, adding a 1908 production .38 WCF to the stable and always on the lookout for a nice M1909, the finest US Army sidearm to ever serve our soldiers in combat.
375supermag
Member
Hi...
I have had a S&W 1917 for quite a few years.
I shoot .45AutoRim in mine because I don't like messing with the moon clips.
I also replaced the grips with a set of really nice Hogue wooden finger grooved grips.
I used it for several years as my primary carry gun when hiking.
Haven't shot it in years...no reason, just replaced with adjustable sighted revolvers.
I should load up some rounds and take it to the range and get reacquainted with it.
I have had a S&W 1917 for quite a few years.
I shoot .45AutoRim in mine because I don't like messing with the moon clips.
I also replaced the grips with a set of really nice Hogue wooden finger grooved grips.
I used it for several years as my primary carry gun when hiking.
Haven't shot it in years...no reason, just replaced with adjustable sighted revolvers.
I should load up some rounds and take it to the range and get reacquainted with it.
The Evangelist Cowboy
Member
Cool gun. Looks like the barrel was cut to my eyes and the sight moved back.I've got a Colt 1917 Army.
I don't know if the barrel was original or if someone replaced it with the shorty, but it shoots pretty good.
I can load and shoot this one without moon clips, but moon clips are easier and faster to load and unload.
Iron Sight
Member
I really enjoy 45 acp in revolvers. Prefer Auto Rim loads over Moon Clips.
Attached is a pic of my Smith & Wesson 22-4.
Attached is a pic of my Smith & Wesson 22-4.
Regarding the “early bored through Colts”, has ANYBODY actually seen one? I have been shooting and collecting for almost half a century and have never even met anyone who had one. I wonder if the military replaced the cylinders as they refitted them at the Armories?
Kevin
Kevin
- Status
Similar threads
