Colt 1878-1902 Frontier DA

[Zulch]

I own multiple Smith & Wesson revolvers.  I like them a lot.  Fairly easy to do some basic work on them-- st least ones from the second half and the 20th and 21st century.  The J frames, due to the geometry, seem to be hardest to get stellar triggers on.

Dave, thank you. I've been told buy a few folks that the Military & Police models in .38 S&W Special are very nice? I was looking at this one here for example.
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/1057717064. I do like the longer barrel.

[Dave Shooter]

The K-framed .38 Special is such a nice balance of size and power, it's no wonder they filled so many police holster for so long.  The Model 10 is the more recent iteration of the M&P.  Last one I acquired was  a Model 10-7 with a 5 inch barrel.  My nephew has it currently.   Hopefully he's enjoying it.

[G Dog]

I strongly agree with Dave Shooter that the Smith & Wesson K
Frame is the ideal cartridge revolver.  I have one manufactured in 1957 that my dad got that year as a new Deputy Sheriff patterroller.  (He worked LA’s jungle-land).  After a while he made r/h detective and carried a Browning High-Power,
but that K Frame was always his favorite.  At that time the S&W Target Masterpiece was de rigueur for LAPD and the LASD uniformed people.  It was also the first revolver that I ever shot.  I use it at the range two or three times a year.  That sucker has seen the elephant but still has its blue.  It’s a 6 inch of course and a terrific pleasure to shoot.  It  wom’t let you miss.

[WECSOG]

I'm a big fan of K-frame .38 Specials. Last one I bought was one of the round butt 10-7 snubbies J&G was selling with no barrel for about $150 awhile back. Actually I bought 2 of them. One I returned to snubbie configuration with a $100+ 2" factory barrel; the other I replaced the ejector rod with the longer one and put a $15 barrel on. This was a pre-model number (WWII era) barrel that was originally 5" but had been cut to 4". I cut it further to 3" and put a sight on it. It's ugly but it sure shoots good!

[Zulch]

Thanks Dave, G an WECSOG for your input! Now I know the K frame is a good investment based on your report. So what do you fellers think of the 1917 N frame revolvers? I really like the looks of that model as well. As I have said previously, I've also been looking at the Colt line of New Service models dating back to the early 20th century. I have a couple of friends who have said that the Colt was a more robust platform than the Smith & Wesson? I really would not know that but am open to some input from the forum here. I have never owned a real Colt (just replica) and have never owned an S&W. I know, I know. I need to get busy because i ain't getting any younger. Plus with the current political and economic situation these guns aren't getting any cheaper. I just want a shooter and not a pristine example of a gun. Caliber is another thing I am on the fence about. I have an RM conversion chambered in .38 spl. I do not have a .45 caliber period. My thoughts have been practical in nature when thinking about a purchase. The practical side of me says go with a .38 spl because I already have the RM and also a Rossi '92 SRC chambered in .357. The unpractical side of me wants a .45. The .45ACP Colt New Service seems attractive due to the abundance of .45 ACP on the market. That takes me to this question. I have read of half moon and full moon clips for those old new Service models. Am I correct in that those older Colt ACP chambered guns will need the full moon clip to accommodate the ACP round? If so, what is the deal with the half moon clip? Clip may not even be the proper name but I know you guys understand. Thanks again all. Bottom line here is, do I go with Colt or Smith & Wesson.
I'm curious about this Colt 1909 US Army revolver 45 LC gun? Here is a link to GB. https://www.gunbroker.com/item/1063408019
Any thoughts?

[Dave Shooter]

Some of the earliest .45acp revolvers had cylinders that were bored through, meaning you had to use clips to contril headspace.  All the ones I've seen, both S&W and Colt,  had actual headspace ledges in the chambers.  These you can shoot with loose .45acp rounds, you just have to pick, pry, or poke the empties out.

The sole Colt 1917 I've got to spend time with had a really heavy trigger, and it wasn't much fun to shoot double action.  Smiths I like better in that regard.  My remaining .45acp revolver is a S&W Model 25-2.  After some work it has a very nice trigger.

[Zulch]

Some of the earliest .45acp revolvers had cylinders that were bored through, meaning you had to use clips to contril headspace.  All the ones I've seen, both S&W and Colt,  had actual headspace ledges in the chambers.  These you can shoot with loose .45acp rounds, you just have to pick, pry, or poke the empties out.

The sole Colt 1917 I've got to spend time with had a really heavy trigger, and it wasn't much fun to shoot double action.  Smiths I like better in that regard.  My remaining .45acp revolver is a S&W Model 25-2.  After some work it has a very nice trigger.

Thank you for your comments. That is good information to know while I am looking around at all the options.
Is yours similar to this one?

[Dave Shooter]

Different grips, but yes.

[Zulch]

I've seen some revolvers on GB that said they were Parkerized and some Cerakoting? I read some about these methods. One guy says his gun for sale had been painted. I asked him to explain and he merely replied I dunno it's painted. HAHAHA. I can only assume with some of these old guns that the original bluing was all but gone and they opted to use one of these methods instead of traditional bluing. Any thoughts about this and does doing this to a gun devalue it? I am referring to the 50 years or older Colts and S&W's guns specifically. 

[G Dog]

Paint is no fun.  A rattlecanned piece looks dumb AF.  If camouflage on a long arm is the goal then there are better ways to get there.

Since you asked, Zulch, yes.  Paint on an antique will 186 its value.

[Zulch]

Paint is no fun.  A rattlecanned piece looks dumb AF.  If camouflage on a long arm is the goal then there are better ways to get there.

Since you asked, Zulch, yes.  Paint on an antique will 186 its value.

Thanks G. I kind of figured it would make it less desirable and devalue it. I will stay away from the guns that appear to have a matte finish.

[Captainkirk]

Actually there are several models that come from the factory with matte black finish. Personally I think they are ugly and unauthentic looking. But that's just me.

[Zulch]

Actually there are several models that come from the factory with matte black finish. Personally I think they are ugly and unauthentic looking. But that's just me.

Thanks Cap. Are we talking early 20th century Colt's and S & W's?

[G Dog]

Z, you may want to distinguish between a  matt finish and something painted.  A factory matte finish on some guns can look really good.  We all probably have some semi autos that are matt on top of the slide and the bottom front and on the frame.  That’s not paint.

[Zulch]

Z, you may want to distinguish between a  matt finish and something painted.  A factory matte finish on some guns can look really good.  We all probably have some semi autos that are matt on top of the slide and the bottom front and on the frame.  That’s not paint.

Thank you G. Is Cerakote or Parkerized finishes applied much like traditional factory bluing? I've heard some folks really like these finishes. Example here: If I were looking for a Colt New Service revolver pre WWII and the original bluing was not on the gun but someone has Parkerized it would it be considered devalued because it lacked the original bluing finish?