Fitz Special project

[JohnnyCremains]

I have this old Army Special which I bought for $170 as it had a cracked forcing cone. I replaced the barrel with a 2 inch and had my gunsmith put a new front sight on it.
Since I wasn't all that partial to the gun after it was finished I decided to Fitz it. It's not perfect but I didn't want it to be since I wanted it to match the worn patina.

Here it is before:



And after:

 

[Cosmoline]

Nice! There's another one of these around the forum somewhere. It's a design that says "Git in da car, mug!"

 

[shafter]

Why???

 

[rcmodel]

This issue of the American Rifleman has a decent article on some of the real Fitz Specials known to exist.

rc

 

[bikemutt]

Old Fuff may need to up his heart meds if he sees this

 

[357 Terms]

Thats great!

Looks like it was pulled out of a time capsule.

 

[Remllez]

Very nice piece Johnny, there were a lot more of them in the good old days...

 

[Cosmoline]

FYI here's a link to that recent article:

http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/the-fitz-special/

 

[Sam1911]

You know...as many times as I tell myself I'd not want a Fitz'd "heater," and how impractical the modifications are, and ... awww, shucks. That's just cool as all heck!

 

[JohnnyCremains]

I did it primarily for the experience. I always thought these were interesting revolvers and orginal Fitz Specials are worth thousands of dollars. So making one out of a worn old Colt that I bought as a parts gun made sense to me. I've got a hair over $300 in it now including what I paid for it. Fun little blaster.

 

[rcmodel]

I had an old friend in the 60's who ran a pawn shop here in town.

He carried a brace of homemade Fitz Special 1917's somewhere? in his pants all the time.

He was a big man with big hands, and could come up with those two guns faster then you could dump in your drawers if you tried to rob him I betcha.

Upside down in his hands ala Fitz as often as not.

rc

 

[Old Fuff]

Yup, the job was nicely done...

But I would remove the single-action notch, as I don't believe it has any place on a bobbed hammer.

Why the cut-away trigger guard? Because it reduces bulk and makes it easier to get a finger on the trigger in the confines of a side pocket. I have observed that most "Fitz" critics have absolutely no experience with one.

When I was much younger, and therefore knew everything there was too know, I ask Charles Askins (who was a big Fitz fan) if the cut-away trigger guard wasn't dangerous?" He gave me a cold stare and answered - using language I won't repeat here - "That were I to get into a shooting and survive I'd quickly learn that there were a lot of things that were more dangerous then a cut trigger guard."

 

[JohnnyCremains]

Why remove the SA trigger notch? I've heard other people say this as well and I never understood it. It doesn't hurt anything by being there. I can still cock the gun with my thumb and shoot it SA if I want. I don't understand the logic. I would like it explained to me.

I love the Col. Charles Askins quote by the way

 

[Sam1911]

Why remove the SA trigger notch? I've heard other people say this as well and I never understood it. It doesn't hurt anything by being there. I can still cock the gun with my thumb and shoot it SA if I want. I don't understand the logic. I would like it explained to me.

Part of the problem is that you CAN still cock it SA. Losing the thumb spur makes doing so a whole lot trickier than it would be, and makes lowering the hammer if you don't take a shot quite a bit more dangerous still. It can be done -- and it often WAS done. But it might be thought of as playing with fire.

It also goes against the purpose of the modifications, which are all about absolute speed at extreme close range -- nothing to do with careful, precise, aimed SA fire.

So...those are the arguments against.

Having said that, I do believe Mr. Fitzgerald liked to checker the top of the remaining portion of the hammer for just this purpose (SA cocking) so for a traditional reproduction I wouldn't see the problem.

 

[scramasax]

Very nice. My father has a cpp that was returned to him after it was stolen in the '50s and used in a bank robbery. The sb had cut the 6" bbl down to 2". I've been considering doing a Fs on it just for S&G.

Cheers,

ts

 

[BSA1]

It was a shame to ruin a old gun by cutting the trigger guard. But to each his own.

 

[Remllez]

I've seen a couple up close and noticed a very simple crosshatch pattern on top of the hammer nub, presumably for single action work, similar to what Sam1911 observed. It would give me the willies trying to lower the hammer on a hot chamber.

For that reason I agree with the oldfuff and would remove the notch thereby removing temptation. That modification in my opinion would make the gun safer without having any impact on the overall look of your piece.

I commend you for a job well done, your revolver is visually stunning and the patina makes it look like a treasure found in a cigar box amongst your granddads possessions left for you to go through.

With a period correct holster you would have what amounts to an instant classic custom made for you by someone you know and trusted.....

 

[SaxonPig]

I hope John Fitzgerald is burning in Hell for encouraging foolish people to ruin a revolver by cutting away the trigger guard. I am surprised any gunsmith would do this as it presents real liability issues.

 

[Old Fuff]

I can still cock the gun with my thumb and shoot it SA if I want. I don't understand the logic. I would like it explained to me.

Sure thing.

The total Fitz conversion with all of its features was supposed to result in a revolver that could be quickly employed and brought into action in a close distance emergency. This is not a situation where it's likely one would need or use the single-action option. The hammer was bobbed because of the presumed use of side pocket carry, or in any case concealed under some kind of garment where a conventional hammer spur could get snagged. However, as Sam pointed out, cocking a bobbed hammer is more difficult - especially under stress or in a hurry - then with the hammer spur intact, and can (and has) led to an unintentional discharge. I personally know of two such instances, and neither would have happened if the revolver and been modified to double-action-only.

While the Fitz Special snubby is well known, many are unaware that Colt and others somestimes made a partial conversion, where some features were included, but not all. Perhaps the best known was Col. Askins', Colt New Service .38 Special that had a 4" barrel, King custom rib and sights, and a cut-away trigger guard - but no changes to the hammer or rounding of the butt. It was carried in a regular Border Patrol holster of the kind issued issued at the tme.

In the hands of a competent and practiced double-action shooter the Fitz was an effective weapon at distances up to - and sometimes further - then 50 yards. This was much more then the designer intended, and brings the need of a single-action option into question, especially when it adds unnecessary risk.

The Fitz Special was not intended to be any kind of general service or target gun. It was and is, a special purpose weapon and nothing else.

 

[Old Fuff]

I hope John Fitzgerald is burning in Hell for encouraging foolish people to ruin a revolver by cutting away the trigger guard.

Well what you are expressing is an opinion, which you have every right to have. However, as Jeff Cooper once remarked, "The value of an opinion is directly related to the person's knowledge and experience of the subject." In this case you are up against some individuals that had considerable experience when it came to gunfighting. They had been there and done that. Have you?

I am surprised any gunsmith would do this as it presents real liability issues.

I am not sure what they would be - perhaps in theory but apparently not in practice. At this time in some places you might be right, but during the "Fitz era" when Colt made these revolvers on a special order basis they were never sued, nor was any gunsmith I ever heard of. Perhaps you might look up some case law an enlighten us?

 

[JohnnyCremains]

Thanks for the explainations. I get it but I'm going to leave my SA notch
I can cock it easily and I'm never going to lower the hammer on a live round. I would only use SA at the range so I would have no reason to lower the hammer on a live round.

And to Saxon Pig...burn in Hell? Isn't that a little extreme??

Please note above that I cut up a gun that I bought for $170 with no finish, pitted all over and had a cracked forcing cone. I certainly wouldn't cut up any nice gun that was in better condition. Remember, Colt made hundreds of thousands of these things...there's no shortage of them.

 

[Bikewer]

Having been in police work since '68 and having carried revolvers for the first 20 or so of my 40+ years, I well remember such modifications.
I had a couple of bobbed-hammer revolvers; a J-Frame Smith and also a big N-Frame 1917 in .45 ACP.
Never had any problem with the single-action mode; just start the hammer back double action and then catch the top of the hammer with your thumb.
Lowering....Much the same. Keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction....

Never did quite agree with the cut-away trigger guard; it was pointed out that dropping the weapon might result in it bending and rendering the weapon useless.
Bill Jordan recommended that if you did anything you might have the trigger guard "releived" a bit; just have the forward portion thinned a little.

 

[Cosmoline]

The trigger guard on a DAO revolver with a reasonably stout pull and an exposed hammer is not vital for safety. Remember that the guard was introduced to handguns in the early days of C&B development, when all revolvers were single action and the primary use was carry on a charging horse. But when you have suitable leather and training, the DAO exposed hammer revolver is highly unlikely to create a danger. You make a point of keeping the thumb over the hammer when holstering (which you should do anyway), so in the unlikely event the trigger gets pushed you feel the hammer come up first. And realistically of course these are designed for last-ditch use and would not be drawn and reholstered repeatedly.

 

[Remllez]

Oldfuff has a point,

When anyone tries to fit this gun into a modern day context they may have a point, but these guns were built in a different era and the gunsmiths that did these conversions were pioneers in CUSTOM gunfighting revolvers.

You couldn't walk into a gunstore and point at a true Fitz conversion and take it home. And John Q Public didn't walk around with these guns!! This point seems lost on some here but not all of us.

People that use flawed logic as the basis of their opinions cause all sorts of contention. The person that built this gun is not going to sell it to anyone! It's HIS gun to do with as he chooses. He did a beautiful job and didn't "butcher it." Open your minds just a little and let some fresh ideas in there.

 

[mavracer]

I want one, That is so cool.