flyingfeathers
Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2013
- Messages
- 59
How do they compare? I have shot the Colt D-frames. Which is the superior gun?
Colt Police Positive vs. S&W model 10
- Thread starter flyingfeathers
- Start date
- Status
Old Dog
Member
I find the Model 10 points better (for me); the cylinder latch on the S&W is more intuitive, easier to engage, the trigger (in SA) seems better to me on the Smith ... but we've got a Police Positive in the family with exquisite bluing and I (very slightly) give the nod on finish to the Colt). I favor the Smiths (the K frame is perhaps my favorite handgun ever), but have not shot enough Colt revolvers to get used to that DA trigger pull ...
I for one don't have enough experience with the Colts to say which one would be the superior revolver. Eagerly awaiting some of our experts to the check in ...
I for one don't have enough experience with the Colts to say which one would be the superior revolver. Eagerly awaiting some of our experts to the check in ...
PRM
Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2008
- Messages
- 2,111
I've got both. The Colt is by far my personal favorite. Although, my S&W gets carried more simply because the Colts are not made anymore and some repair parts if they were ever needed (doubtful) are getting hard to get. I will always shoot and treasure my Colts, but for daily use, I guess I'd have to go with the Smith.
Last edited:
Driftwood Johnson
Member
Howdy
One of my favorite subjects.
It is a little bit difficult to compare the Model 10 and the Police Positive (or Police Positive Special as the 38 Special version is called) because they are on different frame sizes. The Colt is built on the same frame as the Detective Special, and it is slightly smaller than the Smith K frame. The next larger frame size for Colt is the one the Officer's Model is built on and it is noticeably more massive than a K frame.
If you ask me, and you did, the K frame is the perfect size for a 38 Special revolver. It's all in the cylinders. When Smith developed both the K frame and the 38 Special cartridge to go along with it in 1899, they came up with the perfect combination of size and weight, at least in this shooter's humble opinion. They did it again in 1908 when they built the New Century model, popularly called the Triple Lock and the 44 Special cartridge to go along with it. The perfect size for a 44 or 45 caliber revolver. Handle a Colt Model 1917 sometime. It is a much larger and I think a more awkward gun than the Smith version.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy shooting a Police Positive as much as the next guy, but I just think the K frame is the ideal size for a 38. That's partially why I collect Smiths, and not Colts.
Ergonomically, I feel the Smith is a superior design. Pushing the thumb latch forward on a Smith is the simplest way to open a cylinder. Easily done with one hand as long as one does not slam the cylinder open. For me, it always requires two hands to open up a Colt, I have to hold the gun with two hands in order to hook my thumb over the release and pull it back. Not as shooter friendly a design as the Smith.
Another feature that makes the Smith a better design is the spring loaded latch at the front of the ejector rod. I feel this makes for a more secure lock up, with the cylinder prevented from hinging open from both the front and the back. This feature has been standard on every S&W swing out cylinder revolver with the exception of the Model 1899, which was only made from 1899 until 1903, like this one.
After that, S&W always put a latch at the front of the ejector rod, whether it was a shrouded one like this:
Or an unshrouded one like this:
Colts on the other hand, usually only secure the cylinder at the rear.
Then of course there was the Triple Lock, but that's another story for another time.
I don't do all that much work on the inside of Smiths, they usually don't need it. But from the Gunsmith's point of view I believe the nice, simple straight S&W mainspring is a lot simpler to thin down than the Colt's V shaped design.
Now, in all fairness, as a collector and shooter mostly of older Smiths, I do have to admit that the hammer design of the older guns left something to be desired. It's pretty easy for the thumb to slip off the hammer spur when firing single action with the older design, particularly on a hot, sweaty day. The knurling was not very pronounced, and the hollow in front of the knurling was shallow enough that the thumb could easily slip off when cocking the hammer.
In the late 1940s there were some transitional hammer designs that addressed this issue, such as the hammer on the K-38 at the top of this photo.
But once the short throw hammer was developed, with its new profile and deep knurling, the problem of slippery thumbs went away with Smiths.
So there you have it from an extremely biased shooter and collector why I like DA Smiths over DA Colts.
One of my favorite subjects.
It is a little bit difficult to compare the Model 10 and the Police Positive (or Police Positive Special as the 38 Special version is called) because they are on different frame sizes. The Colt is built on the same frame as the Detective Special, and it is slightly smaller than the Smith K frame. The next larger frame size for Colt is the one the Officer's Model is built on and it is noticeably more massive than a K frame.
If you ask me, and you did, the K frame is the perfect size for a 38 Special revolver. It's all in the cylinders. When Smith developed both the K frame and the 38 Special cartridge to go along with it in 1899, they came up with the perfect combination of size and weight, at least in this shooter's humble opinion. They did it again in 1908 when they built the New Century model, popularly called the Triple Lock and the 44 Special cartridge to go along with it. The perfect size for a 44 or 45 caliber revolver. Handle a Colt Model 1917 sometime. It is a much larger and I think a more awkward gun than the Smith version.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy shooting a Police Positive as much as the next guy, but I just think the K frame is the ideal size for a 38. That's partially why I collect Smiths, and not Colts.
Ergonomically, I feel the Smith is a superior design. Pushing the thumb latch forward on a Smith is the simplest way to open a cylinder. Easily done with one hand as long as one does not slam the cylinder open. For me, it always requires two hands to open up a Colt, I have to hold the gun with two hands in order to hook my thumb over the release and pull it back. Not as shooter friendly a design as the Smith.
Another feature that makes the Smith a better design is the spring loaded latch at the front of the ejector rod. I feel this makes for a more secure lock up, with the cylinder prevented from hinging open from both the front and the back. This feature has been standard on every S&W swing out cylinder revolver with the exception of the Model 1899, which was only made from 1899 until 1903, like this one.
After that, S&W always put a latch at the front of the ejector rod, whether it was a shrouded one like this:
Or an unshrouded one like this:
Colts on the other hand, usually only secure the cylinder at the rear.
Then of course there was the Triple Lock, but that's another story for another time.
I don't do all that much work on the inside of Smiths, they usually don't need it. But from the Gunsmith's point of view I believe the nice, simple straight S&W mainspring is a lot simpler to thin down than the Colt's V shaped design.
Now, in all fairness, as a collector and shooter mostly of older Smiths, I do have to admit that the hammer design of the older guns left something to be desired. It's pretty easy for the thumb to slip off the hammer spur when firing single action with the older design, particularly on a hot, sweaty day. The knurling was not very pronounced, and the hollow in front of the knurling was shallow enough that the thumb could easily slip off when cocking the hammer.
In the late 1940s there were some transitional hammer designs that addressed this issue, such as the hammer on the K-38 at the top of this photo.
But once the short throw hammer was developed, with its new profile and deep knurling, the problem of slippery thumbs went away with Smiths.
So there you have it from an extremely biased shooter and collector why I like DA Smiths over DA Colts.
Last edited:
BSA1
member
Ah Grasshopper if you were only around 30 years ago to read about the debate in the gun magazines about S&W vs. Colt revolver debates. Driftwood Johnson gave a good summary of some the differences that were argued about. One issue he did not mention was the direction the cylinder rotated. Was the Colt stronger because the cylinder rotated clockwise into the frame vs. the S&W which rotates counterclockwise away from the frame?
Dframe
Member
I'm a Colt guy. Nuff Said!
I have both...well, a Colt Diamondback and a S&W M-15...and they each have a lot to recommend them.
The hammer travel of the S&W is shorter and can be tuned very nicely. The Colt can be tuned even more, but it takes a more talented smith.
The Colt D-frame is a bit stronger as the bolt locks up between the cylinders as opposed the the S&W's being directly over the cylinder (this is the weakest part of any chamber)
The front latch on the ejector rod does help alignment of the S&W cylinder as the hand tries to push it out as it advances it. The Colt hand rotates the cylinder into the frame and locks the it up at the point of ignition
The hammer travel of the S&W is shorter and can be tuned very nicely. The Colt can be tuned even more, but it takes a more talented smith.
The Colt D-frame is a bit stronger as the bolt locks up between the cylinders as opposed the the S&W's being directly over the cylinder (this is the weakest part of any chamber)
The front latch on the ejector rod does help alignment of the S&W cylinder as the hand tries to push it out as it advances it. The Colt hand rotates the cylinder into the frame and locks the it up at the point of ignition
SwampWolf
Member
Have both. Will keep both.
SwampWolf
Member
Great post, Driftwood Johnson!
Driftwood Johnson
Member
Howdy Again
Yeah, I left out that bit because frankly, I don't think it matters at all. The cylinder has to be pretty bound up before the hand can actually shove the crane open. If the cylinder is that bound up it is going to be difficult to shoot the gun anyway. If the cylinder rotates reasonably freely, it should not matter at all which direction it rotates. I felt that way thirty years ago too.
What a great thread! I really regret ignoring the Colt revolvers back when they were available new.
A couple of months ago I went off to find a Smith Model 15, but I found a Colt Detective Special instead and bought that (but not until I learned how to evaluate its timing!). It has a different feel than a Smith - it's a little smaller than a Smith K frame and fits my shorter fingers a little better, and I really like the feel of the cylinder closing. It doesn't make the Colt more functional than the Smith any more than a Rolex is more accurate than a drugstore watch, but the feel is enough different that I enjoy it more.
It will last my lifetime and it will be up to my heirs and assignees to sell it.
A couple of months ago I went off to find a Smith Model 15, but I found a Colt Detective Special instead and bought that (but not until I learned how to evaluate its timing!). It has a different feel than a Smith - it's a little smaller than a Smith K frame and fits my shorter fingers a little better, and I really like the feel of the cylinder closing. It doesn't make the Colt more functional than the Smith any more than a Rolex is more accurate than a drugstore watch, but the feel is enough different that I enjoy it more.
It will last my lifetime and it will be up to my heirs and assignees to sell it.
BSA1
member
You are probably correct about which way the cylinder rotating not making a difference but it was one of the things gunwriters argued about 30 years ago.
Thank you for a great post. I have been in the market for a while for a Police Positive Special in 32-20 so reading this is a lot of fun.
Thank you for a great post. I have been in the market for a while for a Police Positive Special in 32-20 so reading this is a lot of fun.
rcmodel
Member in memoriam
As much as I like old Colts.
And I own a few too.
I have long felt the S&W was a superior, longer lasting, more abuse resistant, easier to work on if necessary design.
Most of my old cop friends who carried them for many years on the job felt the same way.
It got even more so now, after they no longer make them, with the scarcity of Colt repair parts.
rc
And I own a few too.
I have long felt the S&W was a superior, longer lasting, more abuse resistant, easier to work on if necessary design.
Most of my old cop friends who carried them for many years on the job felt the same way.
It got even more so now, after they no longer make them, with the scarcity of Colt repair parts.
rc
I don't think it matters much either. I only mentioned it to address the point you made:Driftwood Johnson said:
The Colt doesn't need the front support as the hand isn't trying to push the cylinder out
I think bigger points are the stronger location of the bolt notches and the hand rising up to lock the action prior to the hammer falling. This makes the Colt a stronger action...just from a mechanical stand point...and it makes lockup tighter, which unfortunately means the action take more of a battering when fired.
ArchAngelCD
Member.
I have shot both and more and I personally feel the S&W revolvers are a better fit for me. Add to that the fact the Colt revolvers have been out of production so long replacement parts and Gunsmiths who know how to work on Colt revolver are both in short supply.
IMO there is nothing like an old S&W K frame and the famed smooth Smith trigger. Anyone who never shot the older hand fit revolver will not know how wonderful the older S&W triggers really were. The new stuff just doesn't compare.
Here is a photo of my 1948 S&W M&P. It's probably my favorite shooter along with it's smaller sibling, the Chief's Special.
IMO there is nothing like an old S&W K frame and the famed smooth Smith trigger. Anyone who never shot the older hand fit revolver will not know how wonderful the older S&W triggers really were. The new stuff just doesn't compare.
Here is a photo of my 1948 S&W M&P. It's probably my favorite shooter along with it's smaller sibling, the Chief's Special.
Lots of interesting points given here. While I am a Colt collector and got started over 30 years ago when $150 bought a good used police positive special, I agree that the K frame smith perfectly compliments the 38 special cartridge for range or duty use. All of the pre-war and post-war Police positives that I have owned required a pachmayr grip adapter for myself to shoot comfortably and especially with Plus P ammo. But a PPS will fit easily in cargo pants pocket or purse as its smaller. The 1977-79 version of the Police Positive (and the seldom encountered 94-95) is an attempt to beef up the gun that used a heavier barrel and longer fuller stocks and is a wonderful shooter but I cant say its better than the Smith 10. I will say the Colt Diamondback adds enough weight and feel to easily level the playing field but that is straying off the original post.
Back when we carried revolvers as duty guns, it was very common for officers to carry a S&W K-frame (M15) in their belt holster and a Colt D-frame (usually Agent or Cobra) as their BUG...that way they could both be reloaded using the same speedloaders
JohnnyCremains
Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2011
- Messages
- 285
Size wise a Colt Army Special or Official Police is a better comparison than the Police Positive Special.
This is true...as I alluded to in Post #21.
The usual comparison is between the D-frame and the J-frame...Detective Special vs. Chief Special.
The two companies frame sizes were never really direct comparisons until you go to the large frames. Colt usually offered larger frames in each use category
The usual comparison is between the D-frame and the J-frame...Detective Special vs. Chief Special.
The two companies frame sizes were never really direct comparisons until you go to the large frames. Colt usually offered larger frames in each use category
The early Colt DA just before the year 1900 actually turned the cylinder to the left, just like a S&W. That's where they learned the awshoot about the cylinder needs to be anchored at both ends or else the hand works against the crane, a natural weak spot in any swing out cylinder. The Colt work around of this shortcoming was to make the cylinder rotate right. That's why they rotate to the right.
OldCavSoldier
Member
Have both. Like both. Prefer the Smith because I can shoot it better and more comfortably.
- Status
