I have obtained a very good condition 1889 Colt DA 41. The serial number is 29,8XX, the original finish blue and the barrel is four inches long. If the total production of these was about 31,000; would this one have been produced in 1894? Of the 31,000 total, does anyone know how many were in .41 instead of .38 caliber? Thank You for any information. Mark.
1889 Colt Army&Navy DA41
- Thread starter MHarrisIV
- Start date
- Status
Missionary
Member
Greetings
Should you decide to shoot your .41 Colt over ay Castboolits/Reloads in the Revolver Forum there is some excellent info to get you started on a better trail.
Mike in Peru
Should you decide to shoot your .41 Colt over ay Castboolits/Reloads in the Revolver Forum there is some excellent info to get you started on a better trail.
Mike in Peru
andrewstorm
member
colt 41 da new army/navy
Recently I discovered that these revolvers were purchased in the 1890s by the us government in both 38 colts DA and 41 cal DA your revolver was made before 1895 all remaining revolvers were updated with the cylinder notches if yours doesn't have the notches its rare,all are considered 1889s,/96 and all revolvers with serial no.s 115,000 and lower were made pre 1899, these guns were made for the navy in both 41 and 38 cal,contrary to popular belief Ive seen a colt letter stating this,proof house . com can tell you the exact year of manufacture,nearly 300,000 of these guns were made total,Ive seen a nice very good condition 41 DA with navy markings go for 900.00 usd,although the majority sell for considerably less,the original smokeless load was 3.5 gr bulls eye under a 195 grain heeled bullet of 405 diameter mv 720 fps these guns accepted 41 short and extra short DA as well as 41 long DA cartridges original cartridges were outside lubricated.search "loading the 41 colt "for more info.....
Recently I discovered that these revolvers were purchased in the 1890s by the us government in both 38 colts DA and 41 cal DA your revolver was made before 1895 all remaining revolvers were updated with the cylinder notches if yours doesn't have the notches its rare,all are considered 1889s,/96 and all revolvers with serial no.s 115,000 and lower were made pre 1899, these guns were made for the navy in both 41 and 38 cal,contrary to popular belief Ive seen a colt letter stating this,proof house . com can tell you the exact year of manufacture,nearly 300,000 of these guns were made total,Ive seen a nice very good condition 41 DA with navy markings go for 900.00 usd,although the majority sell for considerably less,the original smokeless load was 3.5 gr bulls eye under a 195 grain heeled bullet of 405 diameter mv 720 fps these guns accepted 41 short and extra short DA as well as 41 long DA cartridges original cartridges were outside lubricated.search "loading the 41 colt "for more info.....
Attachments
Last edited:
Hi, andrewstorm,
I think you are confused about those revolvers, and I can assure you that you are not the only one.
The gun we call the Model 1889 and the subsequent models were certainly made in both .38 Long Colt and .41 Long Colt. But the military contract models were made only in .38; the .41 was strictly for the civilian market. Further, the military never made, never contracted for, and never issued any .41 LC ammunition. All military contract models had wood grips; all except for the USMC Model of 1905 were smooth.
They were not all Model 1889's. While Colt did not indicate improvements by model number, the Army did, and accordingly had Colt mark the Model 1892, Model 1894, Model 1896, Model 1901 and Model 1903. The Navy also referred to the Model 1895 but did not put that designation on the guns.
The confusion comes in because Colt sold two civilian versions as the "New Navy" and the "New Army", the difference being only in the design of the hard rubber grips. Those were available in both .38 and .41 but were not military contract guns and do not have the military markings on the butt. Any .41 revolver with military butt markings is certainly a fake, possibly made up from a genuine contract gun with a .41 barrel and cylinder.
The gun pictured is a civilian "New Navy Model' in .41 caliber; it is not a Navy contract gun.
Jim
I think you are confused about those revolvers, and I can assure you that you are not the only one.
The gun we call the Model 1889 and the subsequent models were certainly made in both .38 Long Colt and .41 Long Colt. But the military contract models were made only in .38; the .41 was strictly for the civilian market. Further, the military never made, never contracted for, and never issued any .41 LC ammunition. All military contract models had wood grips; all except for the USMC Model of 1905 were smooth.
They were not all Model 1889's. While Colt did not indicate improvements by model number, the Army did, and accordingly had Colt mark the Model 1892, Model 1894, Model 1896, Model 1901 and Model 1903. The Navy also referred to the Model 1895 but did not put that designation on the guns.
The confusion comes in because Colt sold two civilian versions as the "New Navy" and the "New Army", the difference being only in the design of the hard rubber grips. Those were available in both .38 and .41 but were not military contract guns and do not have the military markings on the butt. Any .41 revolver with military butt markings is certainly a fake, possibly made up from a genuine contract gun with a .41 barrel and cylinder.
The gun pictured is a civilian "New Navy Model' in .41 caliber; it is not a Navy contract gun.
Jim
My 1889 Colt DA 41 was not retrofitted with a cylinder stop. Weren't most of the military .38s in this model retrofitted with them to conform to the specifications of the later models? I would still like to know how many of the 31,000 1889's were made in .38, and how many in .41 caliber. The Bluebook says that original, unmodified, Navy marked .38's are rare and some have been faked.
Jim K: You say that Colt sold two civilian versions of the 1889 as the "New Navy" and the "New Army" and that the only difference between them was the design of the hard rubber grips. Can you explain the difference? For example, which one is pictured in andrewstorm's post? Mark.
Hi, MHarrisIV,
Please read the last line of my earlier post. The New Army grip had a circle with the word "COLT" at the top in an arc and a rampant colt underneath. The early guns had the date "1892" below the pony, but that was dropped on the later models. The New Navy had the word "COLT" in elongated letters as shown on andrewstorm's gun. I think it would be more accurate to say "civilian versions of the Model 1892" but even that might not be truly accurate. The problem is that the Army and Navy did use the "Model year" system but Colt really didn't. So a civilian gun made in, say, 1892, and just like the Army Model 1892, would be a "New Army". But a civilian gun made in 1903, with all the upgrades of the Army Model 1903, would still be the "New Army".
FWIW, most of the Colt model dates so beloved of collectors, like "1851 Navy' or "Model 1908 pocket model", were never used by Colt; they were adopted by collectors so they could know which "pocket model" or "new model" was being discussed.
I don't have a breakdown on the calibers of those revolvers, and I am not sure there is one, short of delving into the Colt records. As to the upgrade, I doubt if any civilian revolvers were upgraded unless an owner sent his gun into Colt with a request that it be done. In the Navy, they knew where the guns were and there was a mechanism for them to be called in and upgraded. No such system existed in the civilian world (they didn't do factory recalls in those days).
I did make an error in the previous post. I said that all the government contract guns had wood grips; that is not true, as some Navy models had hard rubber grips with the elongated COLT on them.
Jim
Jim
Please read the last line of my earlier post. The New Army grip had a circle with the word "COLT" at the top in an arc and a rampant colt underneath. The early guns had the date "1892" below the pony, but that was dropped on the later models. The New Navy had the word "COLT" in elongated letters as shown on andrewstorm's gun. I think it would be more accurate to say "civilian versions of the Model 1892" but even that might not be truly accurate. The problem is that the Army and Navy did use the "Model year" system but Colt really didn't. So a civilian gun made in, say, 1892, and just like the Army Model 1892, would be a "New Army". But a civilian gun made in 1903, with all the upgrades of the Army Model 1903, would still be the "New Army".
FWIW, most of the Colt model dates so beloved of collectors, like "1851 Navy' or "Model 1908 pocket model", were never used by Colt; they were adopted by collectors so they could know which "pocket model" or "new model" was being discussed.
I don't have a breakdown on the calibers of those revolvers, and I am not sure there is one, short of delving into the Colt records. As to the upgrade, I doubt if any civilian revolvers were upgraded unless an owner sent his gun into Colt with a request that it be done. In the Navy, they knew where the guns were and there was a mechanism for them to be called in and upgraded. No such system existed in the civilian world (they didn't do factory recalls in those days).
I did make an error in the previous post. I said that all the government contract guns had wood grips; that is not true, as some Navy models had hard rubber grips with the elongated COLT on them.
Jim
Jim
Last edited:
vanfunk
Member
I don't think there is a "38 load that can be fired safely in a 41." The .41 Colt is really its own thing. A Single Action Army in .41 Colt may be fitted with a .38WCF cylinder, as the .38WCF (38-40) and the .41 share the same nominal bore diameter. This cannot be accomplished in the New Army/Navy series, as the cylinder simply isn't big enough. Fact is, there isn't much interest in the ol' 41, sadly, so ammo is always going to be expensive. Gad custom cartridge loads for it, whenever they have brass, or they will reload your brass if you send it in. They can load either black powder or smokeless, and with either the older, heel-type bullets or the newer, inside lubed .386 diameter ammo used in the later guns.
HTH,
vanfunk
HTH,
vanfunk
andrewstorm
member
Jim K...........
This may be a revolver contracted by the war dept and built by colt,pre ww 1, I hope its not a fake,as no one has much intrest in these revolvers there was certainly more than one made ,and the war dept(NAVY) had any ammo they asked for anytime they wanted it.Free your mind and the rest will follow,i will investigate what cal revolvers were actually used by all u s forces.as with the lend lease act,england pressed browning a5 shotguns into service,and examples are so marked,please anyone who owns a navy marked colt post pictures for compairison.
This may be a revolver contracted by the war dept and built by colt,pre ww 1, I hope its not a fake,as no one has much intrest in these revolvers there was certainly more than one made ,and the war dept(NAVY) had any ammo they asked for anytime they wanted it.Free your mind and the rest will follow,i will investigate what cal revolvers were actually used by all u s forces.as with the lend lease act,england pressed browning a5 shotguns into service,and examples are so marked,please anyone who owns a navy marked colt post pictures for compairison.
Attachments
Last edited:
I fail to understand why you continue to claim that that gun is original. It is not only a fake but a very bad fake. I am not going to get into much detail because I don't see any point in helping a faker to improve the product, but if you are the one who paid a grand for that gun you are not as smart as you think you are.
Jim
Jim
andrewstorm
member
faker
I am not the owner of the peice,nor do I belive you are an authority on colts, if you are, please refrence your cordentials, are you the colt resident historian?can colt be wrong about thier own product?Who would fake one of these revolvers,and the paper work? And why,your attitude reminds me of another gun guru who swore no ruger mini 14 were ever issued to military troops in other countrys or issued to us military forces after much investigation,he defered to my facts on the matter.but I could be wrong,please show pictures of a real U S N issued revolver,so I can see the difference,since you have so many.
I am not the owner of the peice,nor do I belive you are an authority on colts, if you are, please refrence your cordentials, are you the colt resident historian?can colt be wrong about thier own product?Who would fake one of these revolvers,and the paper work? And why,your attitude reminds me of another gun guru who swore no ruger mini 14 were ever issued to military troops in other countrys or issued to us military forces after much investigation,he defered to my facts on the matter.but I could be wrong,please show pictures of a real U S N issued revolver,so I can see the difference,since you have so many.
andrewstorm
member
others who may be interested?
Jim Grow up,you werent there,If you were please state your refrence,I never insisted that this revolver wasnt fake, I ONLY ASKED YOU FOR EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY,which you couldnt or wouldnt provide.
Jim Grow up,you werent there,If you were please state your refrence,I never insisted that this revolver wasnt fake, I ONLY ASKED YOU FOR EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY,which you couldnt or wouldnt provide.
Last edited:
ironhead7544
Member
.41 LC brass can be made from .38 Special brass. The rim is the same size. Looks a little odd but pressures are low. Did a little research on the .41 LC as there is a new revolver being made for it. Also brass is available but expensive.
- Status
