Colt 1909 and/or 1917 questions.

[Lurch37]

I profess to knowing very little about Colt revolvers but, since I haven't seen any good 1911 stuff lately I've managed to confuse myself even further by looking at some older revolvers here.

The latest is a very nice Colt 1909. From what I can figure out, other than a few cosmetic differences and of course the caliber, they both were used by the Military correct?

I would love to hear any thoughts and opinions about one or the other or both if you have one.

Thanks!

 

[Dfariswheel]

Both the 1909 and the 1917 were nothing more then military versions of the Colt New Service revolver.

The 1909 was more or less a "stop gap" revolver for the military to replace the failed Colt New Army & Navy in .38 Long Colt.
It was the .38 Long Colt that fail in the Philippines during the Moro uprising, and the Army had to refurbish and shorten the barrels of Colt Single Action Army revolvers as emergency replacements for the .38's.

Since it took some time to decide to adopt an automatic pistol, and to develop the Colt 1911 .45 auto, the 1909 was bought to fill in until the 1911 was ready.

The 1909 was basically just a Colt New Service large frame revolver in .45 Long Colt.
It was issued to the Navy, Army, and a slightly modified version for the Marines.

During WWI, there weren't enough 1911 pistols to go around, and General Pershing wanted as many combat troops as possible armed with pistols.
So, the government bought Colt and S&W large frame revolvers chambered in the standard .45ACP, and using "half moon" clips to load them.

About the only difference between the Colt 1909 and 1917 is the caliber.
Both had 5 1/2" barrels, dull blue finishes, and smooth walnut grips.

Both guns are very high quality, strong and accurate pistols.
Values on both are going up fast.

 

[Lurch37]

Dfariswheel, thank you for the info, although this statement concerns me a bit:

Both had 5 1/2" barrels, dull blue finishes, and smooth walnut grips.

This particular 1909 that I am looking at seems to have not a dull blue finish, but one of a more polished look. It has all the markings of a Military Accepted sidearm, on the underside of the barrel, on the heel of the grip strap, and various proof marks on the sideplates.

Thoughts?

 

[.351winchester]

Is the serial on the bottom of the butt? I'd like to get a 17 some day and have it made into a Fitz Spl, with a shortened grip frame. Relocating a serial number turns off a lot of smiths for all the hassle.

 

[Lurch37]

Yes it has the numbers on the butt and the swivel also. Here is a link to what the one I'm looking at looks like as far as the finish goes. The one I'm looking at does NOT have those "mystery" markings like the one in the AA ad.

http://www.auctionarms.com/search/displayitem.cfm?itemnum=8576847


Thanks

 

[.351winchester]

You get that hogleg (the one like it). Actually never heard of the 1909 before, just the "Army" in .38, and .41 Colt, and New Services.

 

[Webleymkv]

One big difference between the 1909 and 1917

The 1909 is worth considerably more money than the 1917 in comparable condition as the 1909 is much more rare.

 

[James K]

I have had some friendly discussions as to whether the Model 1909 was actually adopted as the standard service pistol, or only purchased as a stop-gap until an automatic pistol was available.

FWIW, my arguments for adoption are that 1) it was given a model number, 2) holsters and other equipment were made for it, 3) special ammunition was made for it, 4) that no one in 1909 knew when or even if an auto pistol would be adopted, 5) it was used as the standard against which the Colt and Savage auto pistols were tested. On the latter, note that the revolver fired 6000 rounds, shot for shot with the auto pistols; it had two malfunctions, both due to dead primers, and no breakages.

The ammunition was not the .45 Colt (".45 Long Colt") as often written. The issue ammunition was the Revolver Ball Cartridge, Model 1909.

When the Model 1909 was first tested by the Army, they found that the small rim of the .45 Colt (which had been no problem in the rod ejection Model 1873), caused ejection problems in the Model 1909. So the Army made its own cartridges at Frankford, giving them a larger rim. There was no contract production and no cartridges were ever made for the civilian market. But the Army did not issue .45 Colt cartridges or the .45 Army cartridge (the round made for use in either the Model 1873 or the Schofield) with the Model 1909 revolver, only Model 1909 cartridges.

One note of interest is that except for the larger rim, the Model 1909 round is identical to the .45 Colt, but cannot be used in the SAA Colt unless loaded in only every other chamber, making the old "six shooter" into a "three shooter."

Here are some pics. The top is a comparison of the Model 1909 cartridge (R) with the regular .45 Colt (L). The other compares the .45 Colt (R) with the .45 Army Revolver cartridge; this one is Benet primed.

Jim

 

[Lurch37]

Thanks for the info Jim.

I didn't realize it used special ammo though. I am under the impression though that one can fire the .45 Long Colt ammo in a 1909 safely correct?

 

[Dfariswheel]

Yes.

The M1909 IS an "official" issue pistol.
As Jim said, it has an official model number, it has US Government serial numbers, holsters, ammo, etc.
There was an official US Government inspector stationed at Colt's to inspect and pass the guns for US use.

Issue may have been limited and for a short time, but it WAS an official arm.

 

[James K]

Yes, the Model 1909 can be fired with standard .45 Colt ammo, but like all older guns, avoid "hot" loads. Colt made the New Service in .45 Colt for decades and never even considered the problems the Army encountered with extraction.

I never have had any doubt the Model 1909 was officially adopted, not just purchased (like the S&W M&P's in WWII). But not everyone agrees.

Jim

 

[Lurch37]

Dfaris and Jim, again I thank you for the comments.

I am still wondering about that finish on the one I am considering purchasing since I don't see it as having a dull blue finish as Dfaris decribed earlier. I don't know if you looked at the link to the AA ad but the finish on that 1909 is similar to the one I am looking at.

 

[Dfariswheel]

By "dull blue" I mean it didn't have the commercial bright polish, glossy blue.

The finish is a blue, but a more brushed, satin look.

 

[Lurch37]

Ok thanks Dfaris, I feel safer now in pursuing the aquisition of it.

 

[RickB]

You'll also see "left-handed" holsters for the M1909 and M1917. Of course, the holsters are intended not to be worn on the left hip, but in a cross-draw position on the right hip, so cavalrymen could draw the revolver with their left hand while their right was occupied with the saber, or "twist" or "cavalry" drawn with the right hand. The M1942 holster, for the M1917 revolver is merely a "right handed" version of the earlier one, for wear with the revolver butt to the rear, on the right hip.