did Indy have a 1911???

[Magnum Jones]

When I refer to Colts, I'm talking about the autoloaders. I have never owned a Colt six shooter. The few I have held seem like fine firearms. I don't think I have even shot a Colt revolver.
I am an auto pistol fan. To compare an autoloader to a revolver is like comparing a jet fighter to a p51 mustang. Both work well, but look at the new technology it is going in the autoloader direction. I know they are making new large frame revolvers out of titanium with the excepition of the springs , hammer and barrel. Seeing how you can not rifle titanium they need a steel liner in the barrel. And still weigh in under two lbs. even in large calibers.
Colt autoloaders are excellent firearms, just when and if you buy one be prepared to spend more money on top of the high price for the Colt name to get it dialed in.

[rbxb]

When I refer to Colts, I'm talking about the autoloaders. I have never owned a Colt six shooter. The few I have held seem like fine firearms. I don't think I have even shot a Colt revolver.
I am an auto pistol fan. To compare an autoloader to a revolver is like comparing a jet fighter to a p51 mustang. Both work well, but look at the new technology it is going in the autoloader direction. I know they are making new large frame revolvers out of titanium with the excepition of the springs , hammer and barrel. Seeing how you can not rifle titanium they need a steel liner in the barrel. And still weigh in under two lbs. even in large calibers.
Colt autoloaders are excellent firearms, just when and if you buy one be prepared to spend more money on top of the high price for the Colt name to get it dialed in.

A Colt needs gunsmithing to further accurize as opposed to a S & W autoloader????
I remember combat handgun training. The ones with the most hiccups, jams, stovepipes & other such malfunctions were the Rugers, S & W and the coveted Sig Sauer. ( all 9mm semiautos) This is not just my opinion. Its a matter of experience. I thought we were comparing dbl action revolvers...S&W (Mack) & Colt ( Peterbilt)
To get back to topic ....
.... the S& W is more fitting of a revolver for Indy as I dont picture him a stickler for a fine tuned firearm ( especially the way he tosses it about) For him its a means to an end, a "tool". to be treated with aplomb until required.

Gun safety is between the ears....never point at what you don't intend to destroy... Cheers

[Magnum Jones]

When I refer to Colts, I'm talking about the autoloaders. I have never owned a Colt six shooter. The few I have held seem like fine firearms. I don't think I have even shot a Colt revolver.
I am an auto pistol fan. To compare an autoloader to a revolver is like comparing a jet fighter to a p51 mustang. Both work well, but look at the new technology it is going in the autoloader direction. I know they are making new large frame revolvers out of titanium with the excepition of the springs , hammer and barrel. Seeing how you can not rifle titanium they need a steel liner in the barrel. And still weigh in under two lbs. even in large calibers.
Colt autoloaders are excellent firearms, just when and if you buy one be prepared to spend more money on top of the high price for the Colt name to get it dialed in.

A Colt needs gunsmithing to further accurize as opposed to a S & W autoloader????
I remember combat handgun training. The ones with the most hiccups, jams, stovepipes & other such malfunctions were the Rugers, S & W and the coveted Sig Sauer. ( all 9mm semiautos) This is not just my opinion. Its a matter of experience. I thought we were comparing dbl action revolvers...S&W (Mack) & Colt ( Peterbilt)
To get back to topic ....
.... the S& W is more fitting of a revolver for Indy as I dont picture him a stickler for a fine tuned firearm ( especially the way he tosses it about) For him its a means to an end, a "tool". to be treated with aplomb until required.

Gun safety is between the ears....never point at what you don't intend to destroy... Cheers

In a nut shell yes. There are alot of variables in your question. What model and year of S&W.
If they have hiccups what were you feeding them?? Autoloaders like some ammo over others.
Ask anyone who works on firearms, IMO all I am saying is that Colt is not a take out of the box gun and shoot. Not the only one but over rated.

[J_Weaver]

In a nut shell yes. There are alot of variables in your question. What model and year of S&W.
If they have hiccups what were you feeding them?? Autoloaders like some ammo over others.
Ask anyone who works on firearms, IMO all I am saying is that Colt is not a take out of the box gun and shoot. Not the only one but over rated.

I've talked to many folks recently in my search for a 1911. 95% of them agreed that as of now, Colt is producing some of the best 1911's on the market. If you bought your Colts back in the 90's then yes, I'm sure they weren't up to par as Colt had a very near death experience in that decade and their QC was known to have greatly slipped.

[rbxb]

When I refer to Colts, I'm talking about the autoloaders. I have never owned a Colt six shooter. The few I have held seem like fine firearms. I don't think I have even shot a Colt revolver.
I am an auto pistol fan. To compare an autoloader to a revolver is like comparing a jet fighter to a p51 mustang. Both work well, but look at the new technology it is going in the autoloader direction. I know they are making new large frame revolvers out of titanium with the excepition of the springs , hammer and barrel. Seeing how you can not rifle titanium they need a steel liner in the barrel. And still weigh in under two lbs. even in large calibers.
Colt autoloaders are excellent firearms, just when and if you buy one be prepared to spend more money on top of the high price for the Colt name to get it dialed in.

A Colt needs gunsmithing to further accurize as opposed to a S & W autoloader????
I remember combat handgun training. The ones with the most hiccups, jams, stovepipes & other such malfunctions were the Rugers, S & W and the coveted Sig Sauer. ( all 9mm semiautos) This is not just my opinion. Its a matter of experience. I thought we were comparing dbl action revolvers...S&W (Mack) & Colt ( Peterbilt)
To get back to topic ....
.... the S& W is more fitting of a revolver for Indy as I dont picture him a stickler for a fine tuned firearm ( especially the way he tosses it about) For him its a means to an end, a "tool". to be treated with aplomb until required.

Gun safety is between the ears....never point at what you don't intend to destroy... Cheers

In a nut shell yes. There are alot of variables in your question. What model and year of S&W.
If they have hiccups what were you feeding them?? Autoloaders like some ammo over others.
Ask anyone who works on firearms, IMO all I am saying is that Colt is not a take out of the box gun and shoot. Not the only one but over rated.

Im trying to clearly understand your thinking....
You're advocating that a S & W 9mm semi auto is a more desireable, reliable & has smoother action "out of the box" than a Colt.!??

My dear hoosier freind, you gotta put that crack-pipe down. LOL , just kidding...

As a side note ... successfully feeding crappy, inconsistent, ammo is a
testament to a well built firearm. The S&W pistols fail at this test miserably. I've been there...seen it happen . None of this has anything to do with Indiana Jones

Cheers

[Fatdutchman]

.... the S& W is more fitting of a revolver for Indy as I dont picture him a stickler for a fine tuned firearm ( especially the way he tosses it about)

A S&W is not a fine tuned firearm? Are you totally insane? I have never seen a revolver as smooth, slick, well fitted and finished as a Smith and Wesson. Even the precious Colts. Especially the older Smiths. Superb in every way. The '90's weren't great, and the ones from this decade generally aren't as nice as earlier ones (and newer ones), but they still were pretty good.

"Well, a Python was certainly nicer than any Smith" you might say....but a Python cost three times as much!!! The Diamondback was always an above-average grade gun too. The local gunshop has two nickel Diamondbacks. One .22, one .38. Very pretty little guns. They want $500+ for each of them....

By the way, I bought a Colt "1991a1" back when they were brand new. A piece of @#$%. Well, it functioned, I suppose, but it wasn't what it should have been. I sold it off and bought a Springfield Armory. A much finer piece. Now, I wish I had kept the thing (in it's original box and everything)....have you seen what people are asking for these stupid things?!?!? The pre-1990's ones are supposed to be much nicer.

S&W autos (again, particularly from the 1990's) had their share of problems. Reliability and accuracy. I remember reading about some of them and how people were trying to "accurize" them and nothing they did would work to satisfaction. Probably why they have been changing their models constantly over the last 15-20 years.

[Michaelson]

If you were comparing post war Colts and Smiths, yes, I believe you'd be dealing with a neck and neck comparison in terms of quality and toughness. My friend above mentions several excellent Colt models, but they're all after WW2, and were not in the Colt lineup until well after the war. We're talking about comparing weapons like the Colt New Service to the Smith HE (Indy's gun) that WERE direct model/industy competitors.

Pre-war, though, sorry.....Smith so far outclassed Colt in terms of fine tuning and toughness that Colt could only dream about. The HE (hand ejector) was a variant of the Smith 'triplelock' design that locked the cylinder at 3 points. That concept was the strongest action every made, but proved too expensive to continue to make as the Depression ground industry down, and Smith pared back on their design and machining in order to save a buck. Folks just couldn't afford this design anymore.

Colt, on the other hand, kept it simple, and just used their tried and true two point lockup, but for what ever reason, left the ejector rod totally exposed and hanging out there unsupported under the barrel. This design flaw remained in design clear into the 50's! If (make that 'when') the rod was bent in a situation, it jammed the cylinder, and made ejecting of spent shells impossible. Smith, on the other hand, had a protection lock at the end of it's ejector rod, and later completely encased the rod in steel LONG before Colt woke up and smelled the coffee.

As a final thought, it wasn't until the late 70's, early 80's that Ruger brought the triplelock design back, and re-introduced it's beefy Ruger Redhawk with the 3 point lockup system that Smith had created back in the 30's.

So, pre-WW2, Smith was the best revolver made in the world. Period. After WW2, it was a toss up between Colt and Smith for that honor.

Oh, and this just isn't my personal opinion. This has been the opinion of a LOT of old gunsmith and gun writers for years, and can be found all through the gun literature as well. I'm just another voice.

Regards! Michaelson

[Fatdutchman]

Actually, the Colt locked the cylinder only at the rear. The front was, as stated, hanging out loose. (on the Police positive, New Service, Dick special, etc) I'm not sure how the Python does...not familiar with it.

The Smith uses the two-point lockup...one at the rear of the cylinder pin, one at the front, under the barrel.

Colt did boast the dubious advantages of the cylinder rotating into the frame, and the cyl. stop notches cut between the chambers.

[Michaelson]

You're right about the single lock up on the old Colt system. That's and even stronger point of Smith's strength vs Colt's old practice of holding onto the old designs of the time.

The triplelock locked at the pin, front of cylinder, and the paw/cylinder stop at the rear of the cylinder when in full lockup (3 locking points). THAT'S why it was so dang expensive to make, but when in time, you could drive nails with it with every round fired.

Regards! Michaelson

[rbxb]

If we are talking post war revolvers
Large frame chambered for .357, The Python with its smoother action, diamond tapped ribbed barrel, fully shrouded ejector rod "out of the box" is the sweeter of the two.
Not more reliable than the model 19 ...just an improvement -go price them.

Now Semi Autos -
- I've handled the springfield "1911" ultra compact. My buddy back home in KY says his is very accurate. I trust his judgement. It looks & feels good to handle but I've read on several other boards -gunbroker, ar15.com, 1911, etc that the internals on the springfields are brazilian & very cheesy. This is not personal experience just what I've read. I also have very little experience with the Browning P35 but what time I got to spend with one I can only give it praise.
I've fired many a 9mm semi-auto service issued Smiths ...IMHO they would make decent fishing weights (along w/ the Ruger P85's)

I've logged a lotta time behind a Colt 1911 semi auto
from a Mustang .380, 38 Super to 45 acp in various configurations -Combat commanders , Gov model, Concealed Carry & presently a Colt defender (45 3" bbl)
One of them had a slide not locking back on empty issue. & admittedly my own Defender had to be throated & ramped to feed corbons & hydro shocks without incident (most certainly a 90's manufacture QC issue)
It is my belief that given ones possible, immediate need to protect himself or third person & the opportunity presented itself to choose between brands "out of the box" in that instant. I'd run to the Colt section.

[Michaelson]

If we are talking post war revolvers .....

That's just it....we're not. Indy was pre-war, so....

Regards! Michaelson

[rbxb]

If we are talking post war revolvers .....

That's just it....we're not. Indy was pre-war, so....

Regards! Michaelson

Yes, yes, Back to Indy.
Then the Smith revolver would have been a fine choice for Junior.
Although I'd preferred the P35 for reasons already discussed.
Hey I wonder what Peter would charge for a kevlar lining ??? just a thought %$#@!

[Michaelson]

Actually, U. S. Wings DID make an Indy jacket with Kevlar lining a few years ago, but after a few runs, stopped, as the cost was unreal. But, it has been done, and most all of the jackets were sold to military personnel going overseas !

Regards! Michaelson

[rbxb]

Michaelson,
In in an effort to further fan these flames..
You said "pre war, Smith made the best revolvers period"
I assume you mean WW2 .. lets not forget the Colt Peacemaker single action revolver that took the country by storm post civil war

yup, I like to stir it up with a big boat oar. LOL

Your pseudo-scoundrel pal southwest of the Mighty Mississip

[Michaelson]

True, but let's not forget they made not long after the Peacemaker a set of the worse revolvers known to ever have been submitted for military review (and accepted no less because the Colt representative had an inside track with the committee at the time), the long Colt .38 Army and Navy models of the 1890's! JUST in time for the Spanish American War!

They were used in the Phillipines, and soldiers stated they were better used if dropped into socks and then swung over the head like a club.

Regards! Michaelson

[rbxb]

and soldiers stated they were better used if dropped into socks and then swung over the head like a club.

Regards! Michaelson

LOL !!!!!!!!!!
Hilarious!!!
good one!

[Fatdutchman]

I would prefer the Smith and Wesson break open revolver (#3) myself over a "Peacemaker".... The phrases "SAA" and "quick reload" just can't be uttered in the same breath!

I have always wanted one of the Russian models with the triggerguard hook..... Or maybe a Merwin, Hulbert &Co.........

Don't forget the infamous Colt Thunderer double action revolver. They look neat, and no doubt were well made, but the design wasn't the best, and they were known for breaking down....a lot.

The problem with the Colt DA army/navy service revolvers wasn't the gun, but the pipsqueak cartridge it was chambered for! Hence, shortly afterward, the introduction of the Colt New Service... a much more manly gun!

[Michaelson]

The were prone to main spring breakage like the Thunderer as well.

Regards! Michaelson