1903 Peacemaker base pin

[10-96]

Hello ya'll, it's me again. My Dad sent me home with an inherited Colt Single Action- dates to 1903. His father-in-law took it in on trade against a case of beer somewhere in Oklahoma prior to his enlistment shortly after the Pearl Harbor attack. The guy said he'd come back to the beer joint and make good on the $$ for the beer- he never did.

Anyhow, it's a .38-40 WCF, most of the blue is gone off the bbl and ejector shroud. The base pin was stuck tight (rusted in) for who knows how many decades. A lot of work was went to in trying to get it out with Lord knows what all kinds of pliers and is pretty boogered up. I cleaned up and straightened the base pin- but it'll never look even halfway decent again. I ordered a retaining latch spring and a new pin, but the description says "Fitting required". What kind of fitting is required for a replacement Colt-made 1st Gen base pin?

Everything else looks very good and I don't see anything that looks like it would effect structural integrity. It's just got a case of the uglies. A few years ago when my dad took possession of the pistol- somebody told him not to fire a 1st gen Colt with .38-40's. Anybody have any valid reasons why this would be a bad thing to do with smokeless cowboy loads?

 

[Dixie Gunsmithing]

The base pin, (cylinder pin), may have to be fitted for the correct length, so the groove will match up with the retaining screw. In other words, when the pin bottoms out against the breech face, and into its recess, the grove may be slightly off. That would be the only fitting, unless they have the diameter too fat, then you are in for a bunch of work, however I doubt that.

I am not sure on these, but rounds using smokeless powder may be too much for them, and require a lower pressure round. That is how the .38 special came into being, where it was first black powder, and now it is still a low pressure round when compared to others. That revolver being from 1903, it could very well be the same.

 

[RickB]

I think Colt warranted their guns against smokeless powder prior to 1903, but I'd still be wary about shooting it with modern smokeless loads.
I used to subscribe to a collector magazine that recommended shooting only blackpowder in guns designed during the BP era and made prior to WWI.
That might be overly cautious, but you can blow-up a gun only once.

 

[g.willikers]

Here's a video of Hickok45 shooting both BP and smokeless loads in a couple of generation 1 Colts.
One is of the BP era and one of 1901 vintage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yceuluh_pJE

 

[10-96]

Interesting.

Who started making (and when) the base pins with the safety groove as is found on my Uberti Remington clones? These are the pins that can be pushed in an additional notch to hold the hammer back just a bit.

I didn't even think to see if the pins would swap out between my Remington 1875 or 1890 clones and my father's Colt. Might have to look into that when I get home.

 

[James K]

The transition for SAA black powder to smokeless is usually given as 1896, serial number 165,000, the same time the base pin retainer was changed from the vertical screw to the crossways latch. The frame change was from wrought iron to steel, making it much stronger.

Note though, that those guns are still well over a century old, so only light smokeless powder loads should be used.

The use of the base pin with two cuts that can be moved back to block the hammer was used, AFAIK, on the Hammerli-made Interarms SAA clone named the Virginian Dragoon and was called the "Swissafe".

The patent has most likely expired by now and it could be used by anyone, but I'm not sure exactly how it would work on a Remington.

Jim

 

[MJN77]

The frame change from a set screw cylinder pin retainer to a spring loaded cross pin in 1896 is NOT a sign of being made for smokeless powder. The cross pin was seen as early as 1892 on some SAA models and as far back as 1878 on the double action lightning revolvers. Colt did not factory warranty the SAA for smokeless powder until 1900 at about serial number 192,000. In 1901 Colt started stamping the "verified proof" marking on the left front of the trigger guard to certify that the guns were made for smokeless powder. It is a little "vp" in a triangle.

 

[James K]

I used a widely published serial number and date, but there seems to be a lot of doubt as to the exact date/number at which the change was made. In actuality, it was probably phased in over some time and SN range, since Colt made frames and then stockpiled them for later assembly, serial numbering them just before final hardening and finishing. So, if new and old frames were mixed in the part bin, it is very likely that for some transition period, the assemblers themselves did not know whether the frame they were working with was the old or new type.

Jim

 

[MJN77]

1896 is when the spring loaded cross pin became standard on the SAA. Not when they were deemed safe for smokeless powder. The earliest I have seen it claimed to be safe was 1898, not 96. Still, 1900 is the date that I have seen the most in knowledgeable sources. Colt never referred to the cross pin frame as a "smokeless powder frame". That was thought up by collectors and SAA clone makers.

 

[10-96]

I don't recall seeing the triangled VP stamp- again I'll have to look for it when I get home.

This working for a living thing sure cuts into my firearm tinkering & shooting time!

 

[James K]

There is just about zero real solid evidence of anything in that era, but one thing is certain - the "experts" are all over the lot.

But "the change" just might have taken place earlier. I found a reprint of an 1896 article on the newest Colt, the New Police .32 (the .32 Colt New Police cartridge is interchangeable with the .32 S&W Long). The photo of the gun shows the VP mark, and .32 S&W Long was loaded with smokeless powder almost from the start, and Winchester was loading many rounds with smokeless by 1896. (S&W introduced their first solid frame swing cylinder the same year, and it has been accepted as being OK with smokeless powder.)

So how about this thought? Colt knew by 1896 that smokeless was on the way, and that the old SAA would have to be upgraded. So they made the change then, and indicated that change by altering the base pin retention method. That way, the factory would know for sure what guns were upgraded. They didn't publicize the change because they didn't want to tell the world that their earlier guns were weaker, so they just sat tight for a few years before saying that they would warrant their guns for the new powder, knowing that the then-current production was already the improved model.

Jim

 

[MJN77]

But "the change" just might have taken place earlier. I found a reprint of an 1896 article on the newest Colt, the New Police .32 (the .32 Colt New Police cartridge is interchangeable with the .32 S&W Long). The photo of the gun shows the VP mark, and .32 S&W Long was loaded with smokeless powder almost from the start, and Winchester was loading many rounds with smokeless by 1896. (S&W introduced their first solid frame swing cylinder the same year, and it has been accepted as being OK with smokeless powder.)

Honestly, none of this has anything to do with the SAA.

They didn't publicize the change because they didn't want to tell the world that their earlier guns were weaker, so they just sat tight for a few years before saying that they would warrant their guns for the new powder, knowing that the then-current production was already the improved model.

So instead of telling the "world" that their earlier guns couldn't handle smokeless powder, but their new ones could, Colt would just let the people blow their hands off by trying to shoot smokeless cartridges in their older SAAs? Makes sense to me.
At the turn of the last century every gun company was more than happy to announce that their product was strong enough to be used with that new, more powerful and cleaner burning smokeless powder that was becoming more popular by the day. I don't think Colt would be any different.

 

[James K]

"Colt would just let the people blow their hands off by trying to shoot smokeless cartridges in their older SAAs? Makes sense to me."

I am not sure how Colt could stop them from firing whatever they had on hand, but they didn't blow anything off. Factory smokeless powder cartridges are perfectly safe in a pre-change SAA in good condiiton. It was only when folks (like one Elmer Keith) decided to "hot rod" the loads that the old guns, and a lot of new ones, let go. FWIW, I have fired a fair number of .45, .44-40 and .38-40 SAA's with modern smokeless loads and still have all my original body parts.

Jim

 

[MJN77]

Factory smokeless powder cartridges are perfectly safe in a pre-change SAA in good condiiton.

Whatever you say, even if it goes against common wisdom.

FWIW, I have fired a fair number of .45, .44-40 and .38-40 SAA's with modern smokeless loads and still have all my original body parts.

If you're referring to antique SAAs, all I can say is just because it can be done, (at least for a little while) doesn't mean it's a wise decision.

To those that just HAVE to shoot smokeless powder in old guns, I heartily advise them to use only light "cowboy" loads. The steels used before the turn of the last century in the manufacture of firearms were not as strong as those used in modern firearms. A lot of the guns from that era were made from wrought iron. Antique guns have been known to blow up when fired with smokeless powder cartridges. Not just "hot" loads either, but "standard" loads. Some blow after a lot of rounds. Some after one or two. Use at your own risk.

 

[James K]

OK, so today we go all anal over the idea of shooting smokeless powder cartridges in antique guns.

What in the h*ll do you think the folks who owned those guns used in the century or so since the factories quit loading black powder cartridges? They shot factory smokeless loads, that is what they did, and the guns didn't blow up nor did pieces of fingers fly all over the place. Ammunition factories keep pressures for the old rounds on a par with black powder loads and no one worried until about the last 25 years when some of the "super power" newbies started reading too many gunzines and began loading as much fast-burning powder as they could hammer into cases.

The main danger of smokeless powder use is in antique shotguns, and even there the danger is minimal unless the gun is in poor condition, the shell length is wrong, or the shell is a "high brass" load.

Jim

 

[Hawg]

What James K said.

 

[MJN77]

Whatever you say.

 

[RickB]

I witnessed a revolver blow-up, last weekend. .38 Specials in a .357, suspected double charge. I'd really rather not see my 117yo peacemaker with the top half of the cylinder blown off, so I go ahead and load blackpowder for it.

 

[MJN77]

I saw the aftermath of a S&W DA top break, circa late 1880s early 90s, that was fired with smokeless Winchester 200 grain soft point 44-40 ammo. Little over half a box ruined the barrel latch and the cylinder. Now he has a wall hanger.

What in the h*ll do you think the folks who owned those guns used in the century or so since the factories quit loading black powder cartridges?

Ammunition companies manufactured black powder loaded cartridges into the 1950s. Some folks also reloaded their own, just like now.

OK, so today we go all anal over the idea of shooting smokeless powder cartridges in antique guns.

Why all the hostility? You mad?

 

[James K]

Golly, I was around in the 1950's and don't recall any black powder cartridges being loaded at the time. But then a lot of folks know a lot of things I don't.



Jim