Colt Officers Model Match (or Special) vs Smith & Wesson K 38
- Thread starter dgludwig
- Start date
), any opinions as to which of these classic revolvers was the best shooting iron in their time and why you think so ?Dfariswheel
New member
The old Colt Match revolvers were favored by a lot of champs.
This is because the famous Colt "Bank Vault" lockup gave more consistent accuracy.
For the same reason, the Colt Python has always been, on average, the most accurate modern double action revolver.
The older Colt action locks the cylinder tightly in PERFECT alignment with the bore, so the bullet makes a perfect entrance into the barrel.
This means the bullet isn't distorted and accuracy is better.
The S&W works in the same way as all more modern revolvers.
In these, the cylinder is allowed to be slightly loose at the moment of ignition, and this allows the bullet to align the cylinder with the bore.
This means that the bullet never enters the bore perfectly and always gets slightly deformed, degrading accuracy.
The old Colt action had to be in absolutely perfect adjustment just to work properly, and this made the guns more expensive to make, since the guns had to be hand fitted.
The S&W and all modern revolvers require less hand fitting, but accuracy isn't what it could be.
For these reasons, the AVERAGE Colt revolver would out shoot the AVERAGE S&W.
The old time target shooters must have agreed, since most period photos from the 20's and 30's show teams and top shooters armed with Colt's.
This is because the famous Colt "Bank Vault" lockup gave more consistent accuracy.
For the same reason, the Colt Python has always been, on average, the most accurate modern double action revolver.
The older Colt action locks the cylinder tightly in PERFECT alignment with the bore, so the bullet makes a perfect entrance into the barrel.
This means the bullet isn't distorted and accuracy is better.
The S&W works in the same way as all more modern revolvers.
In these, the cylinder is allowed to be slightly loose at the moment of ignition, and this allows the bullet to align the cylinder with the bore.
This means that the bullet never enters the bore perfectly and always gets slightly deformed, degrading accuracy.
The old Colt action had to be in absolutely perfect adjustment just to work properly, and this made the guns more expensive to make, since the guns had to be hand fitted.
The S&W and all modern revolvers require less hand fitting, but accuracy isn't what it could be.
For these reasons, the AVERAGE Colt revolver would out shoot the AVERAGE S&W.
The old time target shooters must have agreed, since most period photos from the 20's and 30's show teams and top shooters armed with Colt's.
Dfariswheel
New member
The older Colt action like the Python CAN be more "finicky" but in my experience most of that is caused by abuse.
People shoot the Colt's by yanking the trigger as fast and as hard as possible in double action, and cock the hammer single action by giving it a hard jerk.
Another abuse is "Bogarting" the gun by opening and closing the cylinder by giving the gun a flip of the wrist.
Many people don't realize they're abusing a revolver, because no one has ever showed them the correct technique of shooting double action.
You don't jerk the trigger, you "stroke" it....fast.
Believe it or not, world's fastest revolver shooter Jerry Michlek is NOT jerking the trigger super fast, he's actually stroking it with a surprisingly gently pull.
In any even, this wasn't an issue with the guns under discussion, since these were target revolvers shot single action only.
The owners would have shot you if they caught you mistreating one of their prized target pistols, by doing anything but gently cocking the hammer.
The kind of shooting they did, along with the light "Mid-range" lead bullet target loads they shot, and I don't think it was possible to wear a revolver out, no matter how much they shot it.
People shoot the Colt's by yanking the trigger as fast and as hard as possible in double action, and cock the hammer single action by giving it a hard jerk.
Another abuse is "Bogarting" the gun by opening and closing the cylinder by giving the gun a flip of the wrist.
Many people don't realize they're abusing a revolver, because no one has ever showed them the correct technique of shooting double action.
You don't jerk the trigger, you "stroke" it....fast.
Believe it or not, world's fastest revolver shooter Jerry Michlek is NOT jerking the trigger super fast, he's actually stroking it with a surprisingly gently pull.
In any even, this wasn't an issue with the guns under discussion, since these were target revolvers shot single action only.
The owners would have shot you if they caught you mistreating one of their prized target pistols, by doing anything but gently cocking the hammer.
The kind of shooting they did, along with the light "Mid-range" lead bullet target loads they shot, and I don't think it was possible to wear a revolver out, no matter how much they shot it.
Both are fine revolvers for b'eye shooting. They were the two seen the most on the line. The Python was a favorite also.
Many years ago (late '60's) I had both, shot them both a lot. The Smith K-38 will hold up longer to more rounds and it doesn't take any abuse to get a Colt OM out of time. One day they are fine, the next they are spitting lead left and right!
Even with "mid-range" 148 gr. HBWC's.
One K-38 that I had was SA only just for b'eye shootin'.
I also shot two Pythons later on, same problems as the OM but damn fine revolvers. The added weight of the Python made it settle in there just right especially with the right set of over sized grips.
If given the choice today, I would say...K-38 but, I would love to find an original late '60's OMM today.
Many years ago (late '60's) I had both, shot them both a lot. The Smith K-38 will hold up longer to more rounds and it doesn't take any abuse to get a Colt OM out of time. One day they are fine, the next they are spitting lead left and right!
Even with "mid-range" 148 gr. HBWC's.One K-38 that I had was SA only just for b'eye shootin'.
I also shot two Pythons later on, same problems as the OM but damn fine revolvers. The added weight of the Python made it settle in there just right especially with the right set of over sized grips.
If given the choice today, I would say...K-38 but, I would love to find an original late '60's OMM today.
Person of Interest
New member
Either will shoot better than most of us can. I think the Colt was considered the king back in the day. Colt usually bored the barrels .001 smaller than the S&W tubes and it is possible this gives increased accuracy with lead bullets.
Obviously I couldn't make up my mind.
Officers Model .38 circa 1949:
S&W Model 14-3 circa 1974:
Obviously I couldn't make up my mind.
Officers Model .38 circa 1949:
S&W Model 14-3 circa 1974:
The old timers I knew preferred the OMT to the OMM. They complained of the sights on the newer OMM. I have both the Colt and the S&W. My OMT will outshoot my K38, but not by much and that could change with another pair of revolvers.
With all the stories of the Colts going out of time you would imagine that there would be plenty of Colt qualified gunsmiths when you consider the number of the old action Colts still in the world. That should be quite a business just in itself, but in reality the 'smiths aren't that readily found and you still see old Colts just perculating along on the ranges.
With all the stories of the Colts going out of time you would imagine that there would be plenty of Colt qualified gunsmiths when you consider the number of the old action Colts still in the world. That should be quite a business just in itself, but in reality the 'smiths aren't that readily found and you still see old Colts just perculating along on the ranges.
That "solid" Colt lockup depends on the second stage of the hand forcing the cylinder against the cylinder bolt (cylinder stop). With wear, the hand can actually force the cylinder out of alignment, a fairly common condition on older guns. It is arguable whether the S&W system is any better, and there is no doubt the older Colts shoot and shoot very well. One factor is that they are a bit heavier than the comparable S&W.
But also, comparing the late K-38 with the skinny barrel, bead sighted guns of the pre-WWII period is not really fair. The .38 S&W's of that period were OK and shot well, but they were not in a class with the K-38 Masterpiece of the post WWII era. Colt's heavy barrel simply shot better. Later, the hand fitting that Colt's needed at the factory became too expensive and corners were cut; the result was that many shooters went to S&W, whose less precise fitting and "drop in" parts kept costs down while accuracy of the heavy ribbed barrel brought the S&W guns up to the Colt in accuracy.
Jim
Jim
But also, comparing the late K-38 with the skinny barrel, bead sighted guns of the pre-WWII period is not really fair. The .38 S&W's of that period were OK and shot well, but they were not in a class with the K-38 Masterpiece of the post WWII era. Colt's heavy barrel simply shot better. Later, the hand fitting that Colt's needed at the factory became too expensive and corners were cut; the result was that many shooters went to S&W, whose less precise fitting and "drop in" parts kept costs down while accuracy of the heavy ribbed barrel brought the S&W guns up to the Colt in accuracy.
Jim
Jim