Battle of 1917: Colt vs. S&W

[@John.VanSwearingen]

A fun note about the history of these revolvers: the US government seized control of Smith & Wesson during 1917 in order to control its labor practices-it was facing a potential strike and unionization attempts, so the federal government stepped in and seized S&W’s stock, controlled its factory, and limited the company to $1 in annual profits during the War. The government left S&W as the “employer” of the laborers to prevent having to pay them as civil servants. After the War, the federal government “awarded” S&W less than a third of the value of the 1917 contract.

[@hrfunk]

Thanks John. I was aware of most of that, I just didn't want to go into it in the video. I wanted this one to be more of a fun shooting video.

[@John.VanSwearingen]

@@hrfunk well your results certainly showed that, nationalized or not, one revolver certainly handled better for you!

[@ftdefiance1]

I recall reading about this. Smith and Wesson was adamant about not recognizing unions and told the Government war production was secondary to preventing Unions from being established..

[@daveweed2765]

Yep. Leave it to the government to give you less and charge you more. Maybe Smith and Wesson should be Wesson and Smith now, right?

[@paulscountry456]

They did not mess around back when lawyers were rare,they wanted to Win.In ww2 they just took 600 sq miles near me for Hanford plutonium production for ww2,just came it and moved people out.Those old revolvers are so fun.

[@frankhinkle5772]

Excellent evaluation and good production. I have a S&W 1917. I never carried it on-duty, but did use it as a home protection gun. I worked with a Sheriff's detective who had two cut-down 1917s (3" NFD) that he carried inside his cowboy boots. He was a Fugitive guy, and none of us questioned him about his choice of guns or carry method. He was a "Good Man."

[@deadeye566]

I enjoyed your review of the two 1917 revolvers. I was a bit surprised to find out that on both revolvers, the single action was hard to use. I was also mildly horrified to see what that guy had done to the S&W 1917. That shouldn't happen to any gun, let alone a classic.

[@SpartacusColo]

In the hope that it really needed a refinish to avoid becoming a hunk of rust: at least the resale value should be lower, and the next owner can get it striped and professionally blued.

[@dangerman007]

I own one Colt revolver and several Smith & Wesson's from the early 1970's. My Colt trigger does stack compared to the Smiths. For what it's worth...

[@danbyers8462]

Really cool video! I recall early in my days in the Seabees we had to qualify with the M1911 one handed. Quite difficult but managed to qualify expert on standard 25yd range. Only "crew served" weapons gunners would carry/issued m1911 and officers. That was back in 1974. ( Yup old guy) Lol!

[@sgtmajtrapp3391]

Have had a 1917 Colt and multiple 1917 S&W revolvers. One of the Smith guns I had cut to 4 inches with S&W adjustable sights. A friend in a small agency used the converted Smith while his personal duty gun a S&W Model 57 .41 magnum. ( yes all of us were a bit envious as our agency issued .38 Special Model 67 revolvers) I still have a S&W 1917 that belonged to my dad, his first home defense revolver, paid $60.00 for the gun. I also had OLD UGLY as I called it. This was a 3" New Service bobbed hammer revolver in .45 Colt. I carried it with 2 speed loaders as my OFFICE gun when in charge of Background Investigations and special investigations for the Sheriff ( did small jurisdiction investigations for police chief candidates). I understand cut down guns like OLD UGLY were used by lawmen and others, in the 20's and 30's when those long over coats with deep pockets were in vogue, giving them a powerful big bore PRIMARY Or Second gun.

[@hrfunk]

Interestingly I recently saw an old S&W revolver chopped down to 3" with adjustable sights added. It was chambered in .455 and was probably produced for Englad during the war. If it had still been in original condition, it might be in my safe right now. Oh well.

[@sgtmajtrapp3391]

@@hrfunk I am a fan of the Webley revolvers in .455 had several decades ago. Most are shaved sadly. I have a Mark IV Cogswell and Harrison shaved...and use .455 bullets like the original 265 grain but loaded in .45 Auto Rim brass to .455 Webley ballistics. Neat gun. Been a fan since I was in high school and the heyday of surplus. Got my first Mark IV .455 converted to .45 ACP when I was 16? Saved up $35.00 to get it. Later came a 1917 S&W the first of many.

[@HSmith-uk9hl]

I've owned both. My father bought a 1917 Colt as an NRA member through the DCM in the 1930's. Brand new for $12.50. For many years the Colt was my father's bedside handgun. I inherited it upon his passing. In the 1990's I bought one of the 1937 Brazilian contract S&W 1917's. The S&W, although showing quite a bit of carry use, was matching and very tight. At 50 yards I was able to put 5 of 6 shots in the head of a silhouette target. Both are fine revolvers and both are superbly accurate. I do, however, favor the S&W primarily due to the grip. The Colt grip tends to rotate downward in my hand due to recoil. The more prominent hump on the S&W grip backstrap offers better control in my experience. The S&W was sold and the Colt has been given to my son.

[@T30-z5w]

I have an S&W 1917. The gun hurts with 230 grain ball with those tiny original grips so I shoe horned a set of Pachmeyer grips on to it. Now it shoots great. These old S&W guns have slightly bigger frames than the regular post war N frame.

[@LYLEWOLD]

Tiger Stripes for the win! Fun shoot-off, HR. Thanks

[@boostimalaka1]

This was the era of big heavy revolvers. The Webley Mk VI in .455 was known for inflicting serious wounds because of the heavy bullet. It was proven during the Thompson - LaGarde Tests.

[@travischapin886]

Chief, Thank you for showcasing these old revolvers that was interesting for sure.

[@hrfunk]

You're welcome Travis. Thanks for watching!

[@keithtate1241]

Thoroughly enjoyed your battle of 1917. This was a very informative video and much appreciated. Two beautiful wheel guns and one bizarre paint job 😁.

[@danbyers8462]

Worked as an election official in my township yesterday and after a 15 HR day was too groggy this morning to catch your live feed! ( Meow, meow!) Lol!

[@hrfunk]

No problem Dan. I hope you like the replay.

[@happyhaunter_5546]

the 1917 is my favorite sidearm to use in Rising Storm 2: Vietnam. The game really paid attention to details, like being able to load three with a half moon clip and not dump al the rounds out, and even being able to stage the hammer for precision shots. It's not hard to get one-shot kills at 50m and beyond with it.

[@hrfunk]

I'm not much of a gamer myself, but I can say the real things are fun to shoot!

[@BLACKRIFLEREVIEWS]

Outstanding Howard I had both of those wheel guns .45ACP in the early 70's they were fun to shoot .I wish I had kept both of them .I liked the S&W the best.The both had property of U.S .stamped on them I shot bowling pins 🎳 with them.

[@marco529]

I've been shooting my 1860 .44 one handed since I got it. It's a different kind of shooting.

[@oubliette862]

I figured out why the firing pin was binding up. the firing pin retention plate became loose, when the slide would unlock the plate would move and catch up on the trigger disconnector, binding the pin and grooving the ejected shell primer. the retention plate became lose because the firing pin spring was over compressed on the pin not providing the tension to hold the plate in place. the spring got that way from being dry fired I suspect. I got it used so....fortunately I noticed when I did and nothing got messed up to bad. I remember telling the store guy to not dry fire that gun when I asked to look at it cause it would mess it up. I enjoyed the video great stuff, I'll hold my water about that guns looks lol.

[@hatchetjack1031]

Great video Lance Corporal! I am blessed to own a 1917 S&W DA .45, and a 1917 Colt ARMY SPECIAL .38. Stock up on moon clips!

[@hrfunk]

I’ve got quite a few and I’m always looking for more.

[@sgtmajtrapp3391]

Always felt the S&W had a better trigger than the Colt 1917 neither you would find outstanding as compared to more modern double action revolvers. Classic guns. Carried mine in the woods now and then.

[@charlesgroves3096]

That was a pretty interesting video. I love the classic pistols. I don't believe I can hold those big guns up one handed anymore. Great video.

[@hrfunk]

Thanks Charles!

[@gutWrench9mm]

Very cool that was more in depth than expected and free !!

[@roykiefer7713]

This was a great, fun and very innovative video. I thank you for it and I enjoyed in immensely. I was also delighted that the boys from Springfield, Mass, won so decisively. However, I’d respectfully suggest there are at least two important - and enduring - lessons, which are illustrated through this video’s content. > Fundamentally sound and excellent designs / products prevail. We live in a “golden age” handgun environment, dominated by effective, high capacity, polymer, striker fired weapons that fire lighter/faster projectiles. But, either of those .45 ACP M1917’s remains a formidable weapon (I wouldn’t feel under-armed with either revolver in virtually any realistic defensive scenario). My parents retirement neighbor was a retired NJSP Captain. He and I would occasionally share a beer or shoot together. As you’d expect, he owned quite a few sidearms, but his “bedside companion” was a Smith N Frame model 25 chambered in .45 ACP. Why? Becuase he was incredibly accurate with it. Woe be to any felon who broke into his home, a single 230 grain round (regardless of the projectile’s design) traveling at maybe 850 FPS would near-certainly cause the criminal to have a VERY bad day. My N Frame, 625-9 Mountain Gan is similarly wonderfully accurate . . . and ONLY HITS COUNT, regardless of the age of the design or modern “bells and whistles.” > That Smith M17 became the basis for all S&W N Frames (even before the term “N Frame” was invented) - large, double action, S&W wheel guns, including the .38/44, the .357, .41 and .44 magnums, and so forth. They are still manufactured, they still sell well, and they still provide outstanding performance and durability, becuase their basic design was excellent and it accommodates continuing enhancements.

[@frankhinkle5772]

ONLY HITS COUNT. I might write that on my range bag.

[@hrfunk]

They are also still a lot of fun to shoot!

[@MrThomass281]

I have both. I like my Smith and Wesson more than my Colt.

[@bencrane8505]

Great video about two old warhorses. Sad that I missed the premier, but i turned the live chat on to watch and see what the gang said while I watched tonight.

[@davealt3401]

That was a very entertaining video. I always wanted to compare the two myself. Thanks for doing it.

[@hrfunk]

You're welcome Dave. Thanks for watching!

[@johnherr3579]

Morning HR, good comparison video. I knew the Smith would win. I've always thought S+W actions were better than Colts.

[@hrfunk]

Thanks 👍

[@geofftimm2291]

Wisdom from the media in my youth, Colts were favored for single action target shooting, but the S&W was favored for double action target shooting. Geoff Who was born in the first half of the last century.

[@walksfletcher]

I enjoyed this very much. However My old S&W has a very smooth and fairly light double action trigger pull. The 1917 Colt has a double action pull that does "stack up" but the single action is also fairly light. I find it a bit difficult that 100+ yr old guns are anything but smooth.

[@lord1557]

Dirty. just need a light oil cleaning.

[@dgilly6704]

Great video! I wish Colt or Smith would manufacture these again as part of their classic line.

[@hrfunk]

Smith made some in their “Heritage Series” years ago, but nothing recently.

[@vantabercrombie8683]

That was a fun video Howard and enjoyed it very much. I will have to say that if you awarded points for looks the Colt would win hands down.

[@joeguillory8776]

It would be great if you ran a double handed speed drill using the same format.

[@alans3023]

I haven’t even seen this yet but I’m already wishing it included that other great .45 revolver - the .455 Mk VI Webley in service with Great Britain’s armed forces. What a comparison that would be, especially as the .455 cartridge uses a heavier bullet but at a much lower velocity than American .45 rounds. A future presentation perhaps…

[@hrfunk]

Believe it or not, I saw an S&W revolver chambered in .455 at a gun show a couple of months ago. I would have been interested in it were it not for the fact that someone had “customized” it. The barrel had been cut down to about 3”, an adjustable rear sight had been added, and the grip was converted to a round-butt. Too bad, it was probably one of the revolvers sent to England during the war. Had it begun original, it might well be in my safe right now.

[@alans3023]

@@hrfunk Thats a shame. Another day maybe.

[@boostimalaka1]

I own a 1918 Webley MK VI with Australian markings. It returned with a soldier during the war. It is in caliber .455 MK II. This revolver was phased out during WW2. Most of the surplus Webley revolvers had the cylinder shaved to accept moon clips to shoot the .45 ACP. The issue many owners don’t know is the .455 is rated at 11,500 PSI where the .45 ACP is around 18,000 PSI. The Webley revolvers are built strong and have fired thousands of .45 ACP rounds before anyone experienced a problem.

[@alans3023]

@@boostimalaka1 I never got the opportunity to try one when I was shooting here in the UK. What’s the .455 like compared to 45 ACP (which I did shoot a lot). How does the recoil compare?

[@boostimalaka1]

@@alans3023 In a comparison it’s subjective. I imagine with the advantage of .45 ACP with reloading . The .455 MKII load could be duplicated. I unfortunately don’t reload and pay an exorbitant amount per box to shoot the old Webley. It sure is an epic time at the range!

[@steveww1507]

I had a1917 S&W made in 1937 for the Brizan Police . What a great gun mine had a decent action . I miss that gun

[@Helm-w1q]

I won my battle between these fine revolvers. Since I have two hands I figured there was plenty of room for both. I have since 1965 . Best way to lighten up that hammer/trigger pull, replace the springs use a Python main spring in the Colt. Same size less tension. For the Smith there are after market spring kits. You should change these springs out anyways. They are over a 100 years old and weak.this is the first step to a good action job,and in these old war horses it's all that's needed. More tips another time Enjoy

[@hosedragger-204]

I just picked up a Smith & Wesson 1917 earlier this week at a gun store that just opened here in my town a few weeks ago.

[@hrfunk]

Good for you! I hope you enjoy it.

[@SHADOWACTUAL]

Alright, alright. I’m getting a revolver for my next weapon.

[@joeblowfromidaho3642]

What a cool idea! I had a gut feeling the S&W would win. P.S. I would love that cerakote job on my 5" 686+ PC revolver!

[@ewfisher89]

I picked up a S&W 1917 a month ago (serial number dates to around February 1918). Awesome revolver, and my first S&W revolver.

[@hrfunk]

You picked a good one for your first.

[@ewfisher89]

@hrfunk my dad has a Model 28 Highway Patrolman (6 inch barrel with magna grips), but the 1917 is the first one wholly mine. I really like it.

[@876mpr]

Interesting. The action on my Colt 1917 is very heavy, but my Smith is commercial grade smooth. It is a 1937 Brazilian contract. No matter, I never fire them in double action anyway. The Smith is an overall nicer and better shooting revolver, so the results aren’t surprising. Handloaders definitely have an advantage in being able to use Auto Rim cases and cast bullets.

[@johnh4957]

I went back into your archives to see if you had shot an original 1911 for comparison to these m1917s, did find your video about the 1911R1 with better sights. It really demonstrated the faster speed in shooting, higher capacity and Much better accuracy (taking into account better sights and newer manufacture).

[@hrfunk]

I’ll have some similar 1911 info in my next video.

[@stantheman5163]

Very nice comparison. Would have been interesting to know the actual pull weights of those triggers. Regardless, great one-handed shooting with the S&W at 25 yards.

[@dalekidd420]

Interesting sidenote: BOTH 1917 revolvers were issued by Canada's RCMP, from the 1920's until well into the 1950's, whey they finally adopted the S&W M&P (aka. Model 10). I can't help but think they must have been an absolute bear to carry concealed. One thing that's always made itself apparent to me when shooting old handguns: the "good old days" really weren't all that good! Those old revolvers ARE tough to shoot well, especially without any modification to the grip (such as a Tyler T-adapter). As you alluded, the finish on the Smith certainly wasn't to my taste. Did you confiscate that one from your local drug dealer? It looks like someone wanted a pimped-out Desert Eagle but couldn't afford it... LOL!

[@hrfunk]

Agreed!

[@Tadicuslegion78]

The channel C&rsenal has great in depth videos on these guns

[@jamesvatter5729]

Going to have try that with the Colt. It definitely is a tough action!

[@jasonwalls6806]

Another good video and excellent shooting as always Chief

[@hrfunk]

Thanks Jason!

[@gew1898]

That poor S&W. Someone should send it to Turnbull for a makeover.

[@logicaredux5205]

The Smith looks like a Star Wars blaster with the color scheme. I like it!

[@hrfunk]

Ha ha! I'll pass that on to the owner.

[@garyK.45ACP]

These were a good expediency...much better than putting old Model 1892 Army revolvers in service with their .38 Colt cartridge. I have both in my collection, basically for collecting purposes. The S&W is all original, the Colt was parkerized at some point. I shoot both of them occasionally and use .45 Auto Rim cases when I do, and handload them with cast lead bullets. I don't use the moon clips (I don't even have any moon clips) They don't particularly fit my hands very well. I wear 2XL gloves. I added a Tyler T grip adapter to them, which helps, but still not a good fit. I don't use them enough to invest in custom grips for them. FWIW, when my oldest son was a teenager, he liked to use the Colt 1917 for casual "bowling pin" matches at our local club. Despite a bunch of other guns he could choose from, he picked the Colt 1917🤷‍♂️ He did pretty well against most shooters using semi-autos in competitions where the goal was to knock down 5 bowling pins in the fastest time. A 6 shot revolver is fine for that...IF you don't miss very much.

[@hrfunk]

Thanks Gary! For what it's worth, neither one of these revolvers fit my hand very well either. Still they were a lot of fun to shoot!

[@steveb6103]

I grew up shooting the Colt. And about the time this video was released. I picked up a Smith. The question is, what is the bore condition of both? The rifling on both of mine is in the good range, with the Smith being a little better. After all, the Colt was used to teach 3 generations how to shoot!

[@hrfunk]

The bore was good on both of these.

[@badgerrrlattin35]

Looks like there is a premium on the Colts now; but back in the '80's when I almost bought one, the Colts and S&Ws were the same price. Was gunna get a Colt, but sadly, it never happened.

[@Dunkleosteusenjoyer]

I'm glad you didn't spend too long on the history and focused on them as actual firearms. There are too many videos of old guns where some nerd who never fired them read the wikipedia article about it. This is a great comparison, even though my horse lost the race. I like that Smith. There are many like it but that one is his.

[@chasa4347]

Very nice video HR! I didn't know that these revolvers were put into WWI service until now. I'm glad S&W came out on top, my S&W would not have been pleased by a Colt win! A quick question - I've always been told that dry firing a revolver with the firing pin on the hammer (unless using snap caps) would lead to disaster beyond imagination. Your thoughts? Look forward to your next video!

[@hrfunk]

Thanks Chas. With the exception of rimfire revolvers, I don't worry a great deal about dry firing.

[@chasa4347]

@@hrfunk - thanks for the response! I learn something new every video

[@YellowHammer26]

Great comparison and really well done 👍👍

[@hrfunk]

Thanks Lance!

[@dennishein2812]

The heavier hammer and trigger pull was something they were used to in WW1. We have just gotten to used to smooth easy triggers.

[@hrfunk]

I wonder too if it was intended to help insure reliable ignition if the clips had any “springiness” to them.

[@dennishein2812]

@@hrfunk entirely possible. Primers May have been a lot less reliable then.

[@thomaswhite2802]

Watching it at work, don’t tell my boss, great job

[@hrfunk]

Mum's the word!

[@thomaswhite2802]

@@hrfunk ha ha👍👍

[@marvinacklin792]

I inherited a sw 1917 from my father. It has a beautiful blue job and checkered walnut grips.

[@hrfunk]

Sounds like a great wheelgun. Thanks for sharing.

[@skipboyer1889]

Hmmm… Imagine that! The S&W won! Kinda like when you shoot a 1911! Lol My Dad’s 1917 had a hair trigger in SA. The DA was good too. The only problem was cylinder/barrel timing. It was not as good as it was in the beginning and shooting lead through it showed you that. Often, it would give you more than just powder back in the face! Good video. I love S&W, 45ACP revolvers!

[@hrfunk]

So do I. The one in the video looks weird, but it’s a shooter!

[@tmatt1999]

Good video, I didn't know they had double action back then.

[@hrfunk]

There were double-action revolvers in the latter couple of decades of the 19th century, but they really started catching on after 1900.

[@stuartgrimm6048]

Fun. You could pit the Enfield M1917 against the M1903 or even it’s brother the Pattern 14.

[@hrfunk]

I could if I could ever get hold of a 1917!

[@stuartgrimm6048]

@@hrfunk I’ve got a P14 with a new Criterion barrel, you’ve got a M1903 and my brother has an M1917. We should get together! I’ve been wanting an M1917 for years but availability and price have been obstacles I just can’t overcome.

[@lowspeedhighdrag]

Liked the video. Also noticed the holster you were wearing. Nice looking rig. Was it an issue one, or custom? New or old?

[@hrfunk]

It’s a repro. It also belongs to my friend.

[@onpsxmember]

Have you tried a bigger tripod with a reflective foil to shield the cameras from the sun? I had fun watching.

[@hrfunk]

No I have not. I need to look into something like that.

[@terrystover7365]

Well, it's easy to see why the grandaddy of pistol shooting, Bullseye/Conventional Pistol separates the men from the boys. Try shooting slow fire at 50 yards with one hand. Good video.

[@danoneill2846]

I have 2 S&W that shoot 45 Colt the only Colt I have owned is Colt ammo

[@kevinward8915]

Great video, have owned both in the past, but they are long gone.

[@hrfunk]

Too bad they got away. Thanks for watching.

[@jason60chev]

HR.....The S&W 1917 can be loaded and fired without the clips, but you must poke the empties out with a stick, twig, etc.

[@hrfunk]

I wasn’t sure about that, so I didn’t mention it in the video. Thanks for the info!

[@chipsterb4946]

Cerakote tiger stripes and red highlights on cylinder RHEEEEeeeeeee!!! 😝

[@jeffgavin]

dam, you have all the fun.

[@SierraBravo347]

My boys Won....Smith AND Wesson. 👍🏻Always did and still Do prefer S&W.

[@frawg5269]

I like those stiff hammer springs, no question about a light primer strike

[@hrfunk]

Yep, and I suspect that's precisely why the springs on these revolvers were as heavy as they were.

[@danoneill2846]

Many Thanks I think Indiana Jones had a sawed off S&W

[@OldManMontgomery]

I have fired both the S&W and the Colt M1917 revolvers. I have owned and used several of the S&W versions. They are both strong and valid arms. However, the S&W is far better designed and constructed and is a much better arm to use. The Colt double action trigger pull is horrendous. It is gritty and the pressure to operate the trigger is both heavy and varies during the pull. On the other hand, the Colt is a little heavier and serves better as a boat anchor.

[@pauloventosa1486]

Sharing with my friends that have S&W Brazilian Contract.

[@hrfunk]

Are they still plentiful?

[@pauloventosa1486]

@@hrfunk Howard. They are. In the hands of collectors.

[@jennifernichols9468]

HR I like the smithy pimp gun

[@balancedfordaylight1]

you should get a model 325 thunder ranch and do a comparison between it and the two 1917's

[@hrfunk]

I would love to. I don't see those very often.

[@chrischiampo7647]

Reminder Set HrFunk 💨🔫😀👍🏼❤️

[@benmaxwell3808]

I like both guns but smith always wins. They broke the code and perfected the double action.

[@theepicgamerultimate4831]

Wow how military sidearms improved in shoot ability, I wonder if the S&W Victory model would have been easier to shoot.

[@hrfunk]

If I get my hands on one, I’ll let you k ow!

[@oboyfishfly]

The cylinders rotate in opposite directions if i recall

[@hrfunk]

That is correct.

[@billy56081]

I have one of each sitting next to me as I watch this.

[@hrfunk]

Do you have a preference?

[@billy56081]

I prefer the Colt, although my Smith is pretty beat up.@@hrfunk

[@tommcqueen3145]

Good show I always wondered why they came up with a 45 acp revolver other then just for the sake of doing it

[@hrfunk]

Yep. Wartime expedience was the reason. Thanks for watching!

[@carloparisi9945]

Hello, similar guns but a huge difference in score, in the end. What is the determining factor of this difference?

[@hrfunk]

I can't really say. I didn't feel like great difference when I was shooting them. Maybe the S&W is just more mechanically accurate.

[@Paladin1873]

I much prefer the S&W 1917 to the Colt 1917, but in fairness I must point out the S&W is sporting Magna style grips which are not period correct. The Magna grips allow for better purchase with the hand. I own a fair number of pre-WWII S&W revolvers and a few older Colts. I have yet to discover one I consider easy to shoot DA, and that's including the much heralded Triple Lock. In this regard I have found the writings of some old guard pundits such as Elmer Keith to be off the mark when claiming the early makes were smooth as silk out of the box. Maybe the milk soured.

[@hrfunk]

I think some of those old time accounts might have been a bit romanticized. You are correct, the grips on the S&W are not period correct. Even so they still did not fit my hands well, nor did the Colt's. So in that regard, I still thought it was a fair shoot-out.

[@Paladin1873]

@@hrfunk I would have been surprised if the Colt out-shot the S&W. The S&W was a superior design.

[@christopherbishop4927]

Panzer blood Smith 1917 takes the Win

[@alexander0125]

> 4:57 jeff cooper popularizing 2-handed shooting Uh-oh he said it. tHaT MeAnS ThEy'Re AcTuAlLy HaNdS GuNs!

[@oldcop18]

Those guns looked to be VERY heavy making one handed shooting quite a chore. I’m guessing north of 40 ounces each?

[@hrfunk]

I didn't weigh them, but that sounds about right.

[@johnzajac9849]

HRF uses the long-neglected word, 'pistoleer'. Fans of Westerns might recognize the Spanish word, 'pistolero'. Not well-known is the word, 'fatalist', which was used in the 19th c. to refer to a gun fighter.

[@hrfunk]

I shamelessly stole that term from the movie "Tombstone".

[@johnzajac9849]

@@hrfunk No worries! It's in the public domain.

[@doranmaxwell1755]

I have a minty 1917 Smith Most do not know that while it looks just like a modern Smith but uses the 'long' action which makes it slower to cock single action but makes it smooter DA

[@sammyboy4996]

You would be surprised and shocked 😲 no hope......

[@gangstalker69]

christ that poor s&w, should of just had it parkerized so hed have a WWI era finish and a WWII era finish

[@Wyrdrock]

Aside from shooting ability, is there on that you personally like more, for aesthetics, or feel ect? Personally I've always been a S&W fan and don't care much for Colts (in revolvers at least) so I'd be lying if I didn't say that I feel somewhat vindicated in my prejudice.

[@hrfunk]

I have been in S&W fan my whole life.

[@stealthysam7761]

Where did you get your cool black holster?

[@hrfunk]

From the same friend, who loaned me the Revolvers.

[@Joe5561000]

I really hope that "desecrated" S&W was a Brazilian contract and not a WWI model.

[@hrfunk]

No, unfortunately it was a US Army model.

[@tmartin3151]

That’s a great video, but if I was a feller like yourself I wouldn’t be asking your buddy with the smith for advice on color schemes or decorations. I have a feeling he’s the kinda guy who still has shag carpeting.

[@craigbenz4835]

Those teeny tiny hammer spurs couldn't have helped much single action shooting. Tough course of fire, but you did well.

[@hrfunk]

Thanks Craig!

[@arnbo88]

Did the Colt M1917 have the chambers head spaced allowing insertion of single cartridges without a half moon clip? Initially Colt had a smooth chamber but then copied S & W head spacing. I wonder if the earlier Colt vs the later Colt M1917's had differences in accuracy.

[@hrfunk]

The one I used in the video was a later production revolver. It did have the same chamber dimensions as the S&W revolver. However, I did not try firing it without the clips.

[@arnbo88]

@@hrfunk I'd like you to compare the Colt M1917 vs. the Colt 1911 (closest to original base model). I'm curious if the extra barrel length and lack of slide action would give the revolver a slight edge over the 1911 velocity wise. When I first got my S&W Model 25-2 I tried everything from single round, half moon clips, full moon clips and a speed loader with .45 Auto Rim cartridges. The Model 25-2 had exceptional sights and a very good trigger giving me 30cm groups @100m. Since a revolver does not rely on recoil it allows greater ammunition choice. I'd be curious what it would read on a chronograph.

[@hrfunk]

I’m sorry. I already returned the revolvers to their owner. Maybe I can borrow them again some time for a video like that.

[@bobanderson6656]

If you had just tallied up the shots in the vitals, the Colt would have been more competitive. All those torso hits would have resulted in dead Huns........ Interesting that you could dial in the Smith a little better though......

[@hrfunk]

I was a little surprised I shot the S&W so much better too. There wasn't much difference in the feel of the revolvers when I was shooting.

[@davidkachel]

My 1917 S&W isn't as "fabulous" as the one your friend owns, but a nice revolver, nonetheless. Mine is a 1937 Brazilian Contract version (eat yer heart out), stumbled upon at a gun show. BTW, I didn't see this video until May 20, despite being subscribed and on the list to get notices. You don't suppose youtube is hiding your videos, do you?

[@hrfunk]

Many of my subscribers have reported similar issues. I’m not sure what KZbin might be up to. Check your bell icon, and make sure you are set to receive all notices. Also, if you don’t see a video for a while it’s a good idea to check my channel and see if I’ve posted some that you didn’t receive notices for. Thanks for watching!

[@ftdefiance1]

I wonder if the after market grips on the Smith gave it an advantage. The factory original design isn't hand filling

[@hrfunk]

Neither of the revolvers had grips that fit my hand very well. I don't really think there was an advantage one way or the other.

[@ftdefiance1]

@@hrfunk good to know. I bought a Smith 1917 and my brother bought the Colt. I haven't fired them except dry fire and they are different cats

[@josephmckinney9660]

My 1917 Smith & Wesson has a set of Pachmayr grips installed by a previous owner. These fit my hands well and the gun is comfortable to hold and shoot.

[@SpartacusColo]

Had to have been the paint job. Tiger stripes rule?

[@MrZonacat1]

That was a fun video.

[@hrfunk]

Thank you!

[@vitodelorto1796]

Sweet guns❤🇺🇸