Educate me on Colt 1892, 1894, 1895, etc.

I can't be sure with the info I have, but I think it would be after about 1926, so unless the gun went back to Colt more than once, I think it was put on by an owner. That was probably one of the most commonly lost parts on Colt revolvers; just firing them often loosened the rod head and they fell into the tall grass and were gone.

Jim
 
Well, no sign of Colt rebuild marks, which doesn't mean much. It still has the original barrel.
fe44bccb2e4c18e53d0ec1cedbf343ca.jpg

All assembly numbers match on both.
 
The original barrels were made for an outside lubricated 150 grain bullet of .376" diameter; the Army cartridge, which was inside lubricated, had a bullet diameter of .357" as did all the commercial cartridges since c. 1892. But I can't find that the barrel dimensions were changed until c. 1903 when the revolver was modified to use .38 Special. That might explain why those guns had a reputation for poor accuracy.

Jim
 
Old Sam Colt refused to allow a DA when he was alive because he believed that accuracy was more important than quantity of fire. Imagine what he would have thought about these old girls. They really were the new wave as now all military's have sacrificed old world accuracy for rapidity of fire.
 
Last edited:
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:
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:
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:
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.

standard.jpg


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

attachment.php

attachment.php

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • colt 1901.jpg
    colt 1901.jpg
    241.7 KB · Views: 266
  • serial number.jpg
    serial number.jpg
    237.4 KB · Views: 257
  • barrel markings.jpg
    barrel markings.jpg
    184.7 KB · Views: 258
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:
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.
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top