Educate me on Colt 1892, 1894, 1895, etc. - Page 2

finloq · November 19, 2014, 02:00 PM

Interesting: I just called Colt to order a letter for the 1889. Paul was surprised that the Colt was upgraded with the cylinder stops but still had the original (1884/1888 patent dates) barrel. It'll be interesting to see if they come across any records of the upgrade. I wouldn't expect them to as I am sure that the original shipment records and their repair/refurbish records are probably not kept together or synced in any way. We'll see in 100 days.

mapsjanhere · November 19, 2014, 04:36 PM

Quote:

But I can't find that the barrel dimensions were changed until c. 1903 when the revolver was modified to use .38 Special.

Jim, my 1905 is still marked 38 long colt, was that change universal?

James K · November 19, 2014, 07:45 PM

The barrels, AFAIK, were never marked that way; the only markings were "COLT D.A. 38", "COLT D.A. 41" or "32 W.C.F." (no "COLT"). The guns that were made to also use .38 Special had the normal "COLT D.A. 38" marking.

All military revolvers were in .38, and carried the appropriate marking.

On the Colt response, I am not surprised. Apparently, the military upgrade contract called for replacement of any unserviceable parts, and it would not be strange to find a barrel that had been in Navy service in the days of corrosive primers to be unserviceable. But in the upgrade of a civilian revolver the barrel would probably not be replaced unless the customer specifically asked that it be done.

Jim

finloq · November 19, 2014, 08:48 PM

You're right. It would come down to how much the customer was willing to pay.

IE:
Stage #1 upgrade : $7
Stage #2 upgrade : $13

Just an idea.

Note: the barrel is in excellent condition, slightly worn but with well defined lands and grooves, not a bit of pitting.

Mk VII · November 20, 2014, 04:00 PM

This is #225940 (15706 in the Navy's series), A M1895 New Navy from the Navy's last contract in 1903. The lanyard ring was probably added later, as many were.

This gun was passed to England in 1940 and reamed out to accept the .38/200 cartridge.

finloq · November 20, 2014, 04:19 PM

Were these lent/sold to Britain as aid in WWI?

Mk VII · November 20, 2014, 04:33 PM

No, only in 1940. A quantity of them, and other materiel, were sold via the U.S. Steel Export Corporation (set up for the purpose) to Britain.

finloq · November 20, 2014, 04:45 PM

I am surprised that the U.S. Gov't kept these in arsenal storage for 3 decades.

James K · November 20, 2014, 09:01 PM

Those were part of an FDR "sneak" program to send U.S. arms to England in a way that evaded the Neutrality Act before the Lend-Lease Act was passed (Mar. 1941). Supposedly, the U.S. was simply selling off obsolete arms to a private company, as had been done many times before; what the "private company" did with them was obviously not the responsibility of the U.S. government.

I have also seen a civilian New Army revolver with English 1950's proofs that might have been bought by the British Purchasing Commission when they took everything in Colt's warehouse that would shoot.

Jim

mapsjanhere · November 22, 2014, 10:29 AM

Well, good that I didn't go by memory and started stuffing 38 special in mine. On closer inspection it's a 1901 not a 1905 as I thought.

finloq · February 7, 2015, 02:33 PM

Update, according to Paul at Colt: this is a New Army Model 1894 that was part of a shipment sent 12/22/1894 to the Adjutant General of Illinois. Ie: the Illinois National Guard.
6" barrel, .38LC, blued, with wooden grips.

Being ordered with the military style grips for the Illinois National Guard/Militia/Volunteer Army (whichever they were called in 1894) I assume that Colt used the same larger frame base that they were already producing for the U.S. Army as they would fit the existing wood grips, instead of creating a new smaller style of wood grip for a single shipment.

According to Best, all military contracts of the time were fulfilled using the wider based frame of 2 1/8" with wooden grips. The civilian production used gutta percha grips on the smaller 1 7/8" base. The Naval contract of 1895 is the first military contract that specifically lists the smaller frame with gutta percha grips. Best does not mention what size frame base was used for the Army contracts of 1894 or later but does specifically list the Army orders of 1892 as being the larger frame base.

finloq · February 7, 2015, 02:45 PM

References:

If Best is correct and he is the only expert that I can name on these models.

He mentions that the Army contract(s) of Model 1892 have the bell shaped 2 1/8" butts as were the original Navy contracts. Page 71, first paragraph and Appendix page 235, second paragraph.

Best mentions that all Naval contracts for the Navy 1895 were fulfilled with 1 7/8" bases and rubber grips, so I would assume that all frames manufactured after or about 1895 were the smaller 1 7/8". Appendix page 238, first paragraph.

James K · February 8, 2015, 03:16 PM

I made an error in the chambering in my post above. The original guns were made for a cartridge having a heel type bullet, which had the same outside diameter as the case, like a .22 LR. Those chambers were bored straight through and will accept .38 Special and even .357 Magnum.

When Colt changed over to .38 Special about 1903, they put shoulders in the chambers. Those will accept .38 Special, as they were intended to, but not .357. That went along with the change in barrel diameters. I can find nothing to indicate that any change in the metal used was made when the change to .38 Special was made. No change was made in the barrel marking.

To summarize, with guns in good condition, .38 Special should be safe enough with the standard loading; +P, +P+, and .357 Magnum should never be used. As to the black/smokeless powder issue, Frankford loaded the .38 Long Colt cartridge with black powder into 1900, when they changed to smokeless; I have seen no indication that the latter was not intended for normal use. Commercial ammunition was loaded with smokeless prior to that date. The cylinder material and diameter is the same as those of the succeeding Colt Army Special, which was made in the smokeless powder era.

Jim

November 19, 2014, 02:00 PM	#26
finloq Member Join Date: October 2, 2010 Posts: 73	Educate me on Colt 1892, 1894, 1895, etc. Interesting: I just called Colt to order a letter for the 1889. Paul was surprised that the Colt was upgraded with the cylinder stops but still had the original (1884/1888 patent dates) barrel. It'll be interesting to see if they come across any records of the upgrade. I wouldn't expect them to as I am sure that the original shipment records and their repair/refurbish records are probably not kept together or synced in any way. We'll see in 100 days. Last edited by finloq; November 19, 2014 at 02:10 PM.

November 19, 2014, 07:45 PM	#28
James K Member In Memoriam Join Date: March 17, 1999 Posts: 24,383	The barrels, AFAIK, were never marked that way; the only markings were "COLT D.A. 38", "COLT D.A. 41" or "32 W.C.F." (no "COLT"). The guns that were made to also use .38 Special had the normal "COLT D.A. 38" marking. All military revolvers were in .38, and carried the appropriate marking. On the Colt response, I am not surprised. Apparently, the military upgrade contract called for replacement of any unserviceable parts, and it would not be strange to find a barrel that had been in Navy service in the days of corrosive primers to be unserviceable. But in the upgrade of a civilian revolver the barrel would probably not be replaced unless the customer specifically asked that it be done. Jim Last edited by James K; November 19, 2014 at 07:51 PM.

November 19, 2014, 08:48 PM	#29
finloq Member Join Date: October 2, 2010 Posts: 73	Educate me on Colt 1892, 1894, 1895, etc. You're right. It would come down to how much the customer was willing to pay. IE: Stage #1 upgrade : $7 Stage #2 upgrade : $13 Just an idea. Note: the barrel is in excellent condition, slightly worn but with well defined lands and grooves, not a bit of pitting. Last edited by finloq; November 19, 2014 at 08:53 PM.

February 7, 2015, 02:33 PM	#36
finloq Member Join Date: October 2, 2010 Posts: 73	Educate me on Colt 1892, 1894, 1895, etc. Update, according to Paul at Colt: this is a New Army Model 1894 that was part of a shipment sent 12/22/1894 to the Adjutant General of Illinois. Ie: the Illinois National Guard. 6" barrel, .38LC, blued, with wooden grips. Being ordered with the military style grips for the Illinois National Guard/Militia/Volunteer Army (whichever they were called in 1894) I assume that Colt used the same larger frame base that they were already producing for the U.S. Army as they would fit the existing wood grips, instead of creating a new smaller style of wood grip for a single shipment. According to Best, all military contracts of the time were fulfilled using the wider based frame of 2 1/8" with wooden grips. The civilian production used gutta percha grips on the smaller 1 7/8" base. The Naval contract of 1895 is the first military contract that specifically lists the smaller frame with gutta percha grips. Best does not mention what size frame base was used for the Army contracts of 1894 or later but does specifically list the Army orders of 1892 as being the larger frame base. Last edited by finloq; February 7, 2015 at 02:59 PM.

February 7, 2015, 02:45 PM	#37
finloq Member Join Date: October 2, 2010 Posts: 73	Educate me on Colt 1892, 1894, 1895, etc. References: If Best is correct and he is the only expert that I can name on these models. He mentions that the Army contract(s) of Model 1892 have the bell shaped 2 1/8" butts as were the original Navy contracts. Page 71, first paragraph and Appendix page 235, second paragraph. Best mentions that all Naval contracts for the Navy 1895 were fulfilled with 1 7/8" bases and rubber grips, so I would assume that all frames manufactured after or about 1895 were the smaller 1 7/8". Appendix page 238, first paragraph.

November 20, 2014, 04:00 PM	#30
Mk VII Senior Member Join Date: November 23, 2000 Location: England Posts: 455	This is #225940 (15706 in the Navy's series), A M1895 New Navy from the Navy's last contract in 1903. The lanyard ring was probably added later, as many were. This gun was passed to England in 1940 and reamed out to accept the .38/200 cartridge.

November 20, 2014, 04:19 PM	#31
finloq Member Join Date: October 2, 2010 Posts: 73	Were these lent/sold to Britain as aid in WWI?

November 20, 2014, 04:33 PM	#32
Mk VII Senior Member Join Date: November 23, 2000 Location: England Posts: 455	No, only in 1940. A quantity of them, and other materiel, were sold via the U.S. Steel Export Corporation (set up for the purpose) to Britain.

November 20, 2014, 04:45 PM	#33
finloq Member Join Date: October 2, 2010 Posts: 73	I am surprised that the U.S. Gov't kept these in arsenal storage for 3 decades.

November 20, 2014, 09:01 PM	#34
James K Member In Memoriam Join Date: March 17, 1999 Posts: 24,383	Those were part of an FDR "sneak" program to send U.S. arms to England in a way that evaded the Neutrality Act before the Lend-Lease Act was passed (Mar. 1941). Supposedly, the U.S. was simply selling off obsolete arms to a private company, as had been done many times before; what the "private company" did with them was obviously not the responsibility of the U.S. government. I have also seen a civilian New Army revolver with English 1950's proofs that might have been bought by the British Purchasing Commission when they took everything in Colt's warehouse that would shoot. Jim

February 8, 2015, 03:16 PM	#38
James K Member In Memoriam Join Date: March 17, 1999 Posts: 24,383	I made an error in the chambering in my post above. The original guns were made for a cartridge having a heel type bullet, which had the same outside diameter as the case, like a .22 LR. Those chambers were bored straight through and will accept .38 Special and even .357 Magnum. When Colt changed over to .38 Special about 1903, they put shoulders in the chambers. Those will accept .38 Special, as they were intended to, but not .357. That went along with the change in barrel diameters. I can find nothing to indicate that any change in the metal used was made when the change to .38 Special was made. No change was made in the barrel marking. To summarize, with guns in good condition, .38 Special should be safe enough with the standard loading; +P, +P+, and .357 Magnum should never be used. As to the black/smokeless powder issue, Frankford loaded the .38 Long Colt cartridge with black powder into 1900, when they changed to smokeless; I have seen no indication that the latter was not intended for normal use. Commercial ammunition was loaded with smokeless prior to that date. The cylinder material and diameter is the same as those of the succeeding Colt Army Special, which was made in the smokeless powder era. Jim