need educated on colt/ s&w model 1917

Parts and service for the Smith are more readily available than for the Colt.
If the gun is going to be a shooter, then the Smith would be the better choice.
 
I sometimes think the danger is exaggerated; not many people drop their guns on a hard surface, only a fraction of those guns are loaded, and a still smaller fraction land in such a way as to discharge.

I would guess that the problem is greatest with SA revolvers, which tend to be "big boy's toys" and are used in fast draw, fanning, and so on, with (I would think) a greater likelihood of being mishandled.

Still, safety must come first, and no one should ever suffer an injury or death due to a gun accident. So, I can't disagree with carrying an empty chamber under the hammer on a gun without a functioning hammer block safety.

Jim
 
I have a Colt I bought a couple years ago... in a little worse shape than SPACE's... afterwards I ran across a guy that had a 5 gallon bucket full of new Autorim cases... mice had gotten in them, so some were stained & disposed of, but I had them coming out of my ears & sold them on my gun show table for the last couple years... I've gotten down on them now to enough for both guns ( my other is a Blackhawk with a custom 45 Autorim / ACP )

I'm not particularly attached to my 1917, other than it is my only Colt revolver...
 
James K said:
Might I ask those who own or have access to S&W Model 1917's to check and see if they have hammer blocks.
Click to expand...

Don't know if you are still wondering, but my Brazilian contract 1917 does have the block that slides into the side plate as the hammer is drawn back. Serial # is 203XXX.
 
I sometimes think the danger is exaggerated; not many people drop their guns on a hard surface, only a fraction of those guns are loaded, and a still smaller fraction land in such a way as to discharge.

I would guess that the problem is greatest with SA revolvers, which tend to be "big boy's toys" and are used in fast draw, fanning, and so on, with (I would think) a greater likelihood of being mishandled.

Still, safety must come first, and no one should ever suffer an injury or death due to a gun accident. So, I can't disagree with carrying an empty chamber under the hammer on a gun without a functioning hammer block safety.
Click to expand...

I too think it is exaggerated. In fact, before I started frequenting some gun boards I had never given a second though to fully loading a S&W with six rounds, regardless of whether or not it had a hammer block inside.

Single Action revolvers are a completely different story. The tip of the trigger and the lip of the so called 'safety notch' are much more fragile than the rebound slide in a S&W. All you have to do is look at the history. It was well known over 100 years ago that a Colt was not safe fully loaded with six rounds. That is exactly why so many revolver manufacturers went to rebounding hammers in the early part of the 20th Century. Iver Johnson even promoted the safety of their revolvers with their 'hammer the hammer' ad campaign.

Look at how thin the sear is. It does not take much force to shear it completely off, and then the gun is almost guaranteed to fire if there is a live round under the hammer. Not just dropping the gun could cause it to fire, a stirrup inadvertently dropped on the hammer could do it too.

interiorpartswitharrows.jpg



That's why Ruger completely redesigned the Blackhawk series and introduced the transfer bar in the 1970s. Just too much legal exposure.

One of these days I mean to take an old Hand Ejector without a hammer block in it, load it up with a primed empty case, and do a series of drop tests to find out just how unsafe they are. Don't forget, that Victory Model freak shipboard accident does not say how far the gun fell. I'm betting it fell a lot farther than waist high.
 
A big second on that. Those are excellent pictures and show just what Driftwood is talking about.

Ruger's redesign was not just to reduce the legal exposure. After a man died when an old style Ruger fell and discharged, Ruger was sued for enough that if they had lost, the company would have been kaput. They reached a settlement which involved a cash outlay, plus putting on the "billboard" warning and redesigning their SA revolvers so they would be safe if dropped.

There has been some flak from the extreme folks about both the warning and the redesign, but the choice was to accept those things or have Ruger go out of business. I for one am glad Sturm, Ruger is still around; the warning is a small price to pay and the new Ruger SA's really are better and safer than the old ones.

Jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top