Is my US property 1917 S&W 45 junk?

[jim in Anchorage]

Have owned it for better then 10 years now but fired it very little, 50-80 rounds hard ball in half moon clips. Always thought it was a quality gun but I read in one of the COTW books the barrel is soft, the cly is weak and that's why the low pressure, lead bullet .45 auto rim was developed.
Is this true? Do I just have a wall hanger?

 

[Barry the Bear]

Its one of the finest revolvers ever made! Also I was under the impression that .45 AR was invented cause some people didnt like moonclips. Take,Love,Shoot it.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

The same issue of COTW [10th] also calls it a "fragile" revolver. I don't buy it till proven otherwise.

 

[jimmyraythomason]

There's one on a local trading forum for $1,000. Pretty pricey "junk".

 

[artpotts]

Not!

I bought mine about 30 years ago at a gun show, from the guy who got it out of a bulk bin at Montgomery Wards about 1965. He had a ventilated rib and adjustible sights installed, so killed any collector value. He said 185gr semi-wadcutters gave the best accuracy so thats mostly what I've used, but I've also fired plenty of 230gr ball with no issues.
I remember reading a question years ago about rechambering in 45LC and the writer didn't think that would be a good idea, possibly the cylinder is too short?

 

[BCRider]

If they were as fragile as the author says in that book then I'd expect to see a lot more stories about blown out barrels and cylinders. Yet when I went surfing to find out info about my Brazilian contract 1917 I didn't come across any such stories. So I tend to chalk this one up to one man's opinion. And just because he has enough cred to write in that book doesn't mean he's right all the time.

I'd also have to ask myself "fragile compared to what?".

And just what is "COTW"? Googling for "cotw" in connection with other terms isn't turning up anything obvious. Lots of references to show and other acronyms but nothing that seems to connect to this case in terms of a book.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

Ya I'm not going to buy it's junk till proven. The same write up that say's it's a "weak" revolver say's the throats are bored oversize to reduce pressure from the "high pressure" 1911 loads. Mine will not pass a .452 bullet. That's oversize?

 

[Dframe]

Thats a pile of bovine feces. Excellent gun. And BTW the AR was invented for the SOLE purolse of providing ammo to those who didn't like using clips. Same basic ballistics just with a rimmed case.

 

[tinygnat219]

They survived WWI, and a good chunk of them went to WWII as well. They also seem to have served the Brazilians well enough too. Fragile? These revolvers aren't that at all.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

COTW= cartridges of the world. Sorry about that I just don't like typing. 10th edition, page 318. This a is possibly just a guess by the author.

 

[sheephearder]

If the gun is in good mechanical shape there is no reason to call it junk. This is the same gun (but not in 44 sp) that Keith used to shoot hot/hot 44 sp in for a lot of years. The steel should be of the same hardness as they were constructed in the same time period.

If it were mine I would shoot standard loads with out concern, but not + P or other hot loads. Not every opinion you read is valid, possibly not even mine.

 

[moxie]

Please send it to me and I will subject it to a thorough evaluation and inform you of my findings.

 

[justashooter in pa]

i have a 1915 that is identical but originally in 455 webley for canadian contract. it has been re-cut to 45 ACP and eats everything i throw at it, all day long.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

Alright this is what got my concern. Page 318, 10 th edition cartridges of the world, under the .45 auto rim-
"Cylinder throats in these revolvers were considerably oversize. Bill Falin chief ballistician at Accurate Arms has suggested that this might have been done by design, as a simple means of mitigating chamber pressure when standard .45 ACP loads where used".

Skipping a sentence or two, it go's on- "This might well have been a necessity to keep these somewhat fragile revolvers in one piece."

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

It was the 1917 COLTS that had the issues with chamber throats. Never heard of a problem with the S&W's. Use any standard pressure .45 acp. Here is a gun show find, a S&W 1917 already chopped, with new grips and matte blued finish.

[/URL][/IMG]

 

[Jim K]

COTW really should stick to cartridges. While an excellent book, it has had some whopping mistakes, such as the statement that the .276 Enfield is the same as the .280 Ross!!

There is a bit of truth in the statement about the S&W 1917. Model 1917 S&W's are chambered for the .45 ACP, a cartridge having greater pressure than the gun was originally designed for, but they have a long history of giving good service with few problems. Denigrating the S&W is usually a tactic of S&W haters, or fans of Ruger or Colt revolvers. The Colt New Service was the basis for the Model 1917 Colt revolver, but it too had its problems in service. As noted above, both revolvers were retained and served in WWII, though in a rear echelon capacity.

Jim

 

[AlexanderA]

At one time I had both a 1917 S&W and a 1917 Colt. These are quality, well-made guns. I sold them because the ergonomics didn't suit me. Just too big and clunky. If I had it to do over again, I would keep them just for the collector value. Shooting them is an unpleasant experience unless you have really large hands.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

That's a sweet hart SDM. I might add my 1917 has a world class DA and SA trigger pull-from the factory.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

Mine had a slight lockup/alignment issue, but now that is corrected and the trigger is darn good, thanks to Kent Singletary in Glendale AZ. He know the ins and outs of a S&W revolver.

 

[Kleanbore]

Post 16

Like E F Hutton, when Jim K speaks, people listen. Same holds true of Jim Watson and a few others here.

The Smith 1917 does not have the later "positive" hammer block, and I think I would have a gunsmith take a look at it for the condition of the spring, possible corrosion, and caked old lube, but there are others here who can comment on that.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Have owned it for better then 10 years now but fired it very little, 50-80 rounds hard ball in half moon clips. Always thought it was a quality gun but I read in one of the COTW books the barrel is soft, the cly is weak and that's why the low pressure, lead bullet .45 auto rim was developed.
Is this true? Do I just have a wall hanger?

Indiana Jones used it, and that is good enough for me.

Deaf

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

I like to think that the "best" Indiana Jones gun was a S&W 2nd Hand Ejector in .455 converted to .45 Colt (many that entered the US were done so, to attract the US buyer). Here is a pair, with appropriately shortened barrels. My all time favorite revolver; so good, I had to make up a second in case I ever wear out the first. .......

[/URL][/IMG]

 

[Old Fuff]

The 1917 model Smith & Wesson was a variant of that company's .44 Special hand ejectors, and made from the same materials. The barrels were made from forgings, not bar stock. They were proof tested to the same government standards required of the model 1911 .45 pistol.

Anyone who would call them "fragile" is sadly lacking in both knowledge and experience.

The .45 autorim cartridges was intended to be used when 1/2 moon clips were not desired. Over time they were available in both lead bullet and copper jacketed/lead core styles, the former being the more popular.

 

[Cocked & Locked]

I've never viewed the 1917's as fragile. Neither the S&W or the Colt...even when customized slightly.

 

[skoro]

Only if it's damaged and/or inoperable.

I've fired many 45acp and auto rim cartridges through mine over the years and it's as good as anyone would expect a well cared for 96 year old revolver to be. Soft metal? Sure - the heat treatment and steel alloys from that era isn't up to modern standards, but I'd have no hesitation using standard 45 acp or auto rim ammo. It would be best to avoid +P, in my opinion.