Smith vrs. Colt

I have always been a Smith man as most of my competition was ppc matches and bowling pins.
I never cared for the Colt double action stacking.

Now that I only shoot revolvers for fun I picked up a Colt Officers Match made in 1947. Locks up tight and the timing is spot on and oh my gosh how this gun shoots single action!!! The sights still stand out pretty good for my old eyes and the trigger breaks at a sweet no creep 2 pounds. With wadcutters groups are right around an inch at 25 yards. As good or dare I say better than my K 38. I am impressed! Compared to the Colts of the late 60s early 70s this is a whole different critter.

This one may be a keeper!

I have an addiction, for me they are all keepers.

They all do the same thing; some do it better; all depends on how they feel to you and how good they shoot for you ?

It's sort of like the old Ford vs. Chevy argument. Some like one, some like the other. I had some experience with both during my younger years. I started off as a Colt man because of that single action you mentioned and a perception that they were a bit more rugged. PPC competition changed me over to being a Smith man, as there is nothing for double action like a well tuned Smith. Now, with those years far behind me I still treasure both, but am more of a Uberti type in the revolver department. None of them beat a good 1911, but all have their area in which they shine. :Fire:

DG

Back before there was Cylinder and Slide I worked with Bill and we tunef.my Model 28 and put on a patridge front sight and I shot that loose in three years. Some claimed that the twist in the Colt was better suited for wadcutters but my Smith was good enough for a NE Nebraska Championship. As soon as I could I switched to a 1911 and still carry one. But I never felt unarmed with a wheel gun.

My peeve was when speed loaders came out we couldn't carry them as the asst. Chief said they looked funny on the duty belt.

I had a Taurus that felt pretty good, at the time I couldn't afford a "good" 357 . With it as trade fodder I got a SS Ruger Sec 6 about a year later . It was definitely better than the Taurus 66 with a cleaner break and lighter pull .
Then I inherited a very early M10 S&W with very few rounds fired . It was like greased glass and in that moment I discovered that the Sec 6 had sand in the action and gravel faces on everything that had an engagement face . When I acquired the 1918 1917 Smith I discovered the definition of the slick trigger. Moms 1917 Colt not so much but it was no worse than the 47' M10.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harter66

… in that moment I discovered that the Sec 6 had sand in the action and gravel faces on everything that had an engagement face ...

---

Actually, your description is not a bad one. At the time, Ruger was using sintered metal technology and the engahgment surface would indeed resemble a cinder block. They could be tuned but it took a lot of work!

Kevin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KCSO

Back before there was Cylinder and Slide I worked with Bill and we tunef.my Model 28 and put on a patridge front sight and I shot that loose in three years. Some claimed that the twist in the Colt was better suited for wadcutters but my Smith was good enough for a NE Nebraska Championship. As soon as I could I switched to a 1911 and still carry one. But I never felt unarmed with a wheel gun.

My peeve was when speed loaders came out we couldn't carry them as the asst. Chief said they looked funny on the duty belt.

---

Did he saddle you with dump pouches or belt loops. I could see and ankle holster in play with those limitations.

Have never owned a Smith. But my Colt Official Police stacks a bit in double action. The single action has zero creep and has a beautiful break. I would not consider myself a competition grade shooter or whatever the top tier shooter are called., but I can keep it in a 2 inch circle at 10 yards. The Security Six I recently picked up is that good with 38 special, at least. Shooting 357 for the first time, I can keep 200 rounds in a 4 inch circle at the same distance. The Ruger has not been shot nearly as much as the Colt that's almost 40 years older, but double action is better than the Colt. The single action is pretty good, lighter than my 1911.

We had belt loops and for range we ran them two up and two down staggered. We loaded two rounds at a time.

The Colt Officers Model 38 Special is great, I have one and love it. Compare it to a S&W 38 Special Hand Ejector Target with 6" barrel. They are pretty similar. I do think it's a matter of personal tastes, they both shoot great.

I inherited a Python that has one of those smooth as glass triggers. It also works well in DA, but, it does not like speed. Tried IPSC type stuff for a while and it needed a tune after just a few sessions. Since then it has been restricted to more precise work and a lot of SA shooting. That is what it excels at.

I've only had a few other revolvers, Taurus and Ruger. The two Taurus (85 and 605) were both really nice DA pistols, really smooth and fairly 'fast' (they seem to copy the S&W action). The SP101 was not as smooth but 'felt' like a tank in comparison. I learned to shoot it even with the more difficult trigger. That learning curve actually made me better with my semi-autos as well.

I love wheelguns, but I almost always shoot a bottom feeder better. The grip shape of most autoloaders fits me better, even compared to aftermarket revolver grips. Also, most revolver sights are still firmly stuck in the nineteenth century. As much as I love my S&W 637, 10-5, Charter Undercover, and Ruger Service Six I tell customers that pretty much any small .380 or 9mm is a better value and more user friendly for most people.