Tell me about Detective Specials

[forindooruseonly]

Hey everyone, I've got some questions about the Colt Detective Special. I was given a 2nd generation DS by my father years ago, and just bought a 3rd generation. Aside from the difference in ejector shroud and the grips, what changed between the two versions? What prompted the change? Cost cutting or just marketing?

My older one dates from the early 60s, while the newer one is from 1975. Is there going to be a difference in quality between the two? I haven't gotten mine through the FFL yet, but am curious as to what the consensus is on the quality of the 3rd generation revolvers. Is there anything I need to look for aside from the standard Colt timing and lockup?

Any wisdom or info about the 70's Detective Specials would interest me, thanks.

 

[ColtPythonElite]

There isn't much difference in the two other than the ejector rod, which you pointed out. I'm certain the adding of the ejector rod shroud was mostly just a change for style. I used to be one of the guys that found the older guns odd/antique/outdated looking, but changed as I matured...LOL...I now have guns with both styles of barrels. One is no better thant he other. Matter of fact, I have a shroudless Cobra that is a favorite carry piece. It's like carrying a feather.

Congrats on getting two fine weapons. IMO, there never was a better .38 Special made than the Colt D frame.

 

[Old Fuff]

The Detective Special is an excellent snubby that combines "compact-ness" with a 6-shot capacity. This has made it one of my all-time favorites. Fowever one of the things that makes it so good can sometimes cause it to be less so.

The internal lockwork design dates from 1908, and required skilled hand-fitting of the parts. As long as the services of experienced final assemblers was available at low cost everything was fine, but as labor costs increased, and in particular after a Union came into the picture things changed.

Management pressured the assemblers fo work ever faster, and sometimes (but not always) quality suffered. Therefore I would expect that the 1960's revolver might show better internal workmanship and fitting then one made in 1975. However this is not certain, so you'll have to reach a conclusion based on what you find between the two individual revolvers.

 

[Gordon]

The generation II ones had a tiny barrel and in the Agent version, at least could conceal with the S&W Chiefs Special IMHO. No the Gen 3 the barrel is effectively MUCH heavier and all the Gen 3s I have shot were much more accurate, at least fired by hand but I suspect even by machine. Also they seem better regulated to the sights. The internal lock work is the same. I think only Dferrishwheel would know the exact answer however!

 

[Old Fuff]

The internal lockwork is the same. Some minor changes but nothing of consequence here.

 

[forindooruseonly]

Thanks for the info everyone, that answers all the questions I had about it. I guess I'll have to do a little comparison and see what pans out. Either way, I'm pretty excited to put another Colt into the safe.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Either way, I'm pretty excited to put another Colt into the safe.

You'll have even more fun taking them to the range and shooting them.

 

[forindooruseonly]

You'll have even more fun taking them to the range and shooting them.

Oh yeah, absolutely!

 

[bikemutt]

One observation I have with my DS is that while the mass and size of the gun help to mitigate felt recoil, versus say a Smith Airweight or Ruger LCR, I find that the final shockwave ends up beating the heck out of my trigger finger. In short, I find it punishing in other ways from the little, light ones.

It might be poor trigger technique on my part too, have not had enough time to sort it out yet.

 

[Old Fuff]

You'll have even more fun taking them to the range and shooting them.

Oh yeah, absolutely!

I've always found my Detective Special's fun to shoot, but I don't try to turn them into junior Magnums. Some folks can't hit the broad side of a barn, even if they are inside and the door's closed. But the problem is they never learned basic marksmanship techniques - and that isn't the gun's fault.

 

[forindooruseonly]

don't try to turn them into junior Magnums

lol nah, since this is just a range/good times gun I'll probably just shoot my mild handloads through it anyways. Unfortunately, I'm recovering from a wreck and won't be able to make it to the range until January at earliest. Don't worry about me hitting a barn either, if this one is like my other. I do pretty well with it.

 

[Dr_B]

I recently bought one made in 1963 from a guy here on THR. It is the best snubby revolver I have ever shot. In fact, I shoot better with it than any other revolver I have ever fired except my 686, and even in comparison to that revolver its very very close. I can certainly shoot it better than my airweight and it conceals just as easily.

Its a shame they no longer make them. They are outstanding guns. That's why I bought another one.

 

[Old Fuff]

Don't worry about me hitting a barn either, if this one is like my other. I do pretty well with it.

Well then... I will consider you to be an exception to the rule.

Hope you get well soon. I had a bit of the same recently, but walked away in one piece.

 

[forindooruseonly]

Thanks Old Fuff. It could have been much worse, so I'm not complaining.

 

[awgrizzly]

If it means anything, all things being equal conditionwise, the 2nd generation is worth more, but the 3rd generation is gaining in value along with the other Colt DAs. As others have mentioned, the 2nd and 3rd are the same except for the shroud and grips. At the same time Colt dropped the .32 caliber. They are awfully nice revolvers from an age gone by and have thus become collectible.

 

[gyvel]

I'm certain the adding of the ejector rod shroud was mostly just a change for style.

Not entirely true; The ejector rod on a Colt is unsupported at the front, and extremely prone to damage if the gun is dropped or if it happens to hit something. The shroud was added to give the rod some protection.

 

[Old Fuff]

Colt's "unprotected" ejector rod goes back to 1888, and after Smith & Wesson incorporated a lug and lock on their ejector rod in 1902 the company advertising never failed to point out the vulnerability of Colt’s products.

However if you look at the Colt from the side and front (do unload the cylinder first ) you can see that bending the rod by a blow would be difficult. The bottom and sides of the barrel give it considerable protection from being hit with enough force to bend it. Considering the decades Colt revolvers were used it would seem that while there was a problem in theory, it wasn't so much so in practice. A number of bent rods I've observed got that way while the cylinder was unlatched and open, and someone pounded on the rod with a hard object while trying to extract some stuck cases. Colt's snubbies are the least likely to get bent because the rod is shorter then those used in revolvers with longer barrels.

In any case, Colt knew there was a perceived issue on the part of they're potential customers, and so addressed it when they changed the barrel to give it a more "modern" look.

 

[SwampWolf]

The shroud was added to give the rod some protection.

There is one supposed advantage to having a revolver with a "shroudless" ejector rod that I've heard argued and that is that one could conceivably close the cylinder on the revolver without a shroud having a slightly bent rod and perhaps still fire it, whereas a shroud with the attendant recess would possibly prevent the cylinder from being closed at all should the rod get bent while the cylinder was opened. An esoteric argument at best, perhaps, but probably having about as much merit as the likelyhood of an ejector rod getting bent because there was no shroud protecting it.