Yesterday got this matte nickel 1917 S&W (not a "classics" model).

[Bill Akins]

My cousin called me the day before yesterday and told me he had a S&W 1917 in what looks like matte finish nickel that he wanted to sell. So yesterday I went over to see what it looked like. Of course the nickel isn't factory on any 1917 S&W. Not a bad looking matte finish nickel plating job though it was obviously done decades ago judging by the looks of some old rust coming through around the grip strap edges. Old rust that you can tell took decades to get there. So the nickel plate has to be pretty old itself.

It's a U.S. military model, the barrel, cylinder and frame serial numbers all match. 5 digit serial number so it may have seen WW1 service. Missing the lanyard ring but I can easily get a lanyard ring off ebay, although most likely won't find a nickel plated one, so if anyone here has a nickel plated 1917 lanyard ring they want to get rid of, please let me know.

It appeared to have original wooden grips that only had a few small dings in their bottoms. Bore and rifling is excellent as is the whole revolver overall. Nice piece except for just a little rust coming through the nickel at the edges of the front and rear of the grip straps. Cousin gave me a good deal at $350.00 and it went home with me. Getting hard to find good deals like that on these, nice that my good deal came from a family member. No family history associated with the revolver though.

Cylinder lockup is tight with absolutely no play of any kind on hammer back or hammer down. This makes the fourth 1917 S&W I've owned (still have three), and surprisingly all of them even at their advanced ages have all had MUCH tighter cylinder lockup than any modern revolver I've ever examined.
Just a little rust on the edges of the front and back grip strap. Otherwise it appears in excellent condition. I took the original wooden grips off it and put on a set of Jay Scott wide stag grips that fit my hands much better. Here's a few pics.

.

 

[5thShock]

I like it. A lot. Just the right piece of iron for prospecting or the poker table. Let it tell you a story.

 

[Archie]

Nice Revolver there.

If you're going to use those grips, you'll need a Tyler T-grip to not beat your middle finger knuckle on the back of the trigger guard.

 

[Bill Akins]

Archie wrote:
Nice Revolver there.
If you're going to use those grips, you'll need a Tyler T-grip to not beat your middle finger knuckle on the back of the trigger guard.

Thanks Archie. I'm wondering exactly how the Tyler T grip would aid my hand grip on my revolver. I have big hands. Thin grips do not work well in filling my hands and I also need a long grip to avoid my pinky finger from slipping off the bottom of the grip.

In looking at the Tyler T grips, it strikes me that they may do two things that are not advantageous to a better grip....at least for me and other shooters like me that have big hands.

Using the Jay Scott extra depth width fake stag horn with laminated wood grips, they fill my hands better than any other double action revolver grip does. I don't want the looks of a target grip, and I like the old school "magna" type looks of the extra wide Jay Scott grips which very adequately fill my hands due to their extra depth width. When I grip my Jay Scott grips, the middle knuckle of my middle finger is indeed pushed up tightly against the rear of the trigger guard.

But that does not cause me a problem because my knuckle is tight against the rear of the trigger guard and rides back with the recoil instead of getting pounded. This is because my knuckle is ALREADY tightly against the rear of the trigger guard and not a fraction away from it. Kind of like a rifle stock being tight against the shoulder and riding the recoil rather than the rifle stock being held loose against the shoulder where it then pounds the shoulder under recoil. I just fired two moon clips (12 cartridges) out of my matte finish S&W 1917 for my first time shooting it yesterday to see how it would operate. The revolver operated perfectly hitting to point of aim and no problems with my middle finger's middle knuckle being pounded by the rear of the trigger guard. With it being tight against the rear of the trigger guard, it rode the recoil without any problems. For me, recoil of .45 acp is nothing much anyway.

So there are two factors regarding these Tyler T grips that I don't understand that I hope you Archie or someone can elaborate upon to help me understand how they might aid my large hands grip. If I am missing something and they can....then great. But I don't as yet see it.

1. If my middle knuckle of my middle finger without a Tyler T grip is already tight against the rear of the trigger guard, what advantage does the Tyler T grip do for me besides taking up more space to drive my knuckle even further forward and downward?

2. I notice that the Tyler T grip takes up space and forces the shooter's fingers further downward on the revolver, thus driving the pinky finger off the bottom of the grip for large handed shooters.

See these below pics. First my newest mattel nickel S&W 1917 revolver with extra depth width, fake stag, plastic on wood laminated, Jay Scott grips, without a Tyler T grip. These extra wide depth laminated grips very adequately fill my hands unlike some thinner depth magna style grips do, and most importantly, they still allow my pinky finger to wrap around the grip and not be forced off the bottom of the grip. I have the exact same numbered extra depth width Jay Scott grips on two of my S&W 1917's now. I was lucky to recently find at Sarco the exact set of extra width Jay Scott new old stock grips still sealed in the original package from the 1960's that I already had on my commercial model blue S&W 1917 revolver, and those are the ones on my matte nickel 1917...

Here's the EXACT same model number set of extra width, fake stag with wood laminate Jay Scott grips on my commercial blue S&W 1917 that I also now have on my matte nickel 1917. These are just a little more yellowed and worn from age....

See how much extra depth width these particular Jay Scott grips have than another magna style set of grips have.....

Now compare how much more large hand filling, these wider extra width depth, Jay Scott grips are than another aftermarket magna style grip are. Jay Scott extra width depth grips on the right compared to the thinner depth width grips on the left.....

Next another 1917 snubby barrel N frame S&W revolver with the Tyler T grip adapter installed.....

See how in the above pic the Tyler T grip adapter by its taking up space, not only forces the middle knuckle of the middle finger MORE forward, but also forces ALL of the fingers more DOWNWARD, thus forcing the pinky finger off the bottom of the grip for large handed shooters. I hate that and usually will not buy a handgun that forces my pinky off the bottom of the grip.

So here is my overall impression and please explain to me how I might be in error.

It is my impression that the Tyler T grip seeks to give a better hand filling grip by making the horizontal length of the grip longer rather than making the depth of the grip wider as my Jay Scott grips do. By the Tyler T grip adapter doing that, it appears to me to not only drive the knuckle of the middle finger more forward, but also drives that knuckle and indeed drives all the fingers more downward, thus driving the pinky finger either almost, or totally off the bottom of the grip for some larger handed shooters.

I do not see an advantage for large handed, long fingered shooters to use the Tyler T grip. Am I missing something here?



.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Yea add a Tyler T grip and maybe a nifty cross draw holster.

You could do worse, much worse, than have that shoot'en iron to go down the river with.

It's good as any, better than most.

Deaf

 

[Bill Akins]

Thanks Deaf. Like you said, "it's as good as any, better than most".
I like it a lot. I must, I've got three now.


.

 

[bamaranger]

quit

Those beefy 1917's have always held an attration for me, though I'd like mine in .45 Colt, not acp. Maybe soemday.....

But...those are nice revolvers Bill, congatulations.

 

[Bill Akins]

Yesterday I installed a Wolf reduced spring kit in my matte nickel 1917 S&W. The kit came with three reduced power trigger return springs (13lbs, 14lbs & 15lbs) to choose from and one reduced power mainspring for the hammer. I installed the 13lb trigger return spring and hammer mainspring. The difference it made in the trigger pull was dramatic. The action was already slick, but now it is even slicker and with much less force required for double action operation. I'm very pleased with the Wolf reduced power springs kit.


.

 

[Sharpsdressed Man]

Bill, your gun looks exactly like a 1917 a friend of mine had done in "Nitex", a nickel or electroless nickel finish offered years ago. His was done in 1977-1979, and he sold it a few years after that in Ohio. Could it have ended up in Florida? Who knows.

 

[OldMarksman]

For those of us who are really old, that's one fine looking revolver.

I've handled them but have never fired one.

IIRC, the early ones did not have a positive hammer block (the one they had was spring loaded), so you should probably have it inspected, cleaned, and lubricated to make sure it moves freely.

 

[Bill Akins]

SharpsDressedMan wrote:
Bill, your gun looks exactly like a 1917 a friend of mine had done in "Nitex", a nickel or electroless nickel finish offered years ago. His was done in 1977-1979, and he sold it a few years after that in Ohio. Could it have ended up in Florida? Who knows.

Wouldn't that just be a hoot if it was the same revolver? Can you check with your friend to see if he still has a record of the serial number so I could check it against mine?


.

 

[Bill Akins]

OldMarksMan wrote:

For those of us who are really old, that's one fine looking revolver.

I've handled them but have never fired one.

IIRC, the early ones did not have a positive hammer block (the one they had was spring loaded), so you should probably have it inspected, cleaned, and lubricated to make sure it moves freely.

Thanks OMM. I think so too. Fire one if you know anyone who has one. You'll like it. Regarding the hammer block. I've had the sideplate off and the revolver apart, inspected it, cleaned it, oiled it, and replaced the factory hammer mainspring and trigger return spring with a reduced power Wolf spring kit. The internals are in excellent like new condition. Everything is working perfectly. Since the hammer block on the 1917 can be overcome and broken if the revolver falls on its hammer on a hard surface, it has been suggested by some people to keep the chamber under the hammer empty. I've heard there was an incident during WW2 where someone on guard duty on a ship dropped his and it struck the deck very hard on the hammer, broke the hammer block, discharged the revolver's cartridge which hit the guard and killed him. My understanding is that event encouraged S&W to build a more positive hammer block in their later models.


.

 

[Bill Akins]

I received all three of my S&W 1917's without their lanyard rings. As you can see in the pics in my very first post in this thread, my matte nickel 1917 didn't have the lanyard ring. There are some aftermarket, recently made, lanyard rings out there on e bay that are currently being made. But I was able to get three original factory lanyard rings for my 1917's and I installed them.

It is next to impossible to find a S&W 1917 factory lanyard ring in nickel. So when I got this one for my matte nickel 1917, it came in blue. So that it would closely match the rest of the revolver, I buffed all the blue off it and then sprayed it with clear polyurethane and baked it in my shop oven til the coating was very hard. Came out pretty good. It's a bit shinier than the rest of the matte nickel finish revolver, but matches pretty well. Here's a couple of pics of it installed.....

I like my 1917's a lot so I take pains with wanting them to have their lanyard rings and grips that fit my hands properly and lightened hammer main springs and lightened trigger return springs so they will operate at their maximum optimum.

On my commercial blue model 1917 I installed a #17 Ace trigger shoe and find that the ridges on the trigger shoe dig into the pad of my trigger finger and prevent my finger pad from moving sideways on the trigger, which insures that my trigger finger stays in the same position all the way through my functioning the trigger. Here's a pic of the #17 Ace trigger shoe I bought....

and a pic of the trigger shoe installed on my blue commercial 1917. You can also see the lanyard ring I bought and installed too....

The Ace trigger shoe is especially helpful on double action trigger functioning where it keeps my finger consistently in the same position on the trigger without my finger sliding its position sideways on the trigger as it is functioned. Not only does the trigger shoe spread out the load on the finger so there is less felt trigger load, but it makes my functioning the trigger consistent each and every time without my finger pad sliding sideways on the trigger as I function it and I believe will aid accuracy. Consistency is the key to accuracy. So I plan to pick up two more #17 Ace trigger shoes to put on my two other 1917's.



.