- Status
351 WINCHESTER
Member
Colt Philippine or Alaskan.
rcmodel
Member in memoriam
Based on the serial number you provided.
It was made in 1892.
It is either a:
Model 1877 Colt Lightening in .38 caliber?
Or a Model 1877 Colt Thunderer in .41 caliber?
Regardless, if it isn't already broken, it soon will be if you play around snapping it and such.
The lock work is very fragile, and nearly impossible to repair anymore.
So, don't mess with it or set around snapping it at the TV!
rc
It was made in 1892.
It is either a:
Model 1877 Colt Lightening in .38 caliber?
Or a Model 1877 Colt Thunderer in .41 caliber?
Regardless, if it isn't already broken, it soon will be if you play around snapping it and such.
The lock work is very fragile, and nearly impossible to repair anymore.
So, don't mess with it or set around snapping it at the TV!
rc
Last edited:
silicosys4
Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2012
- Messages
- 3,722
Looks like a Colt Lightning
http://www.littlegun.info/arme americaine/colt/colt 1877 lightning avec ejecteur-02.JPG
Yup, rc beat me to it
http://www.littlegun.info/arme americaine/colt/colt 1877 lightning avec ejecteur-02.JPG
Yup, rc beat me to it
Jim Watson
Member
Pre-broken.
The hammer is down and the trigger back.
The hammer is down and the trigger back.
rcmodel
Member in memoriam
Yes it is!
Good eye Jim!!!
I couldn't get past cussing about the upside down picture!
rc
Good eye Jim!!!
I couldn't get past cussing about the upside down picture!
rc
rcmodel
Member in memoriam
The Schofield was not as widely accepted as you would imagine.
Colt owned the market with the more powerful SAA, and folks thought they could do no wrong after that.
It seems to me, Colt continued to remain about one generation behind S&W DA design, even after the more modern swing-out cylinder designs came along from both companies.
rc
Colt owned the market with the more powerful SAA, and folks thought they could do no wrong after that.
It seems to me, Colt continued to remain about one generation behind S&W DA design, even after the more modern swing-out cylinder designs came along from both companies.
rc
Nom de Forum
Member
Using a loading gate and manual ejector rod is much more durable for a gun being used with black powder, corrosive priming, cartridge rims of sometimes questionable quality, when depending on a revolver in places often far from a competent gunsmith. There is also the style factor influencing marketing. When the most famous handgun in the World is a Colt Peacemaker that uses a loading gate and manual ejector rod it tends to influence customer expectations.
Gordon
Member
geez I would sell that Lightning now before it breaks! They fetch a good price pre broken. About $1000-$1200 for that one.
rcmodel
Member in memoriam
But, as Jim Watson pointed out in post #5.
It's already broke.
Thinking back on it, I have seen very few that weren't.
I had one Lightening years ago when I was still a pretty competent pistol smith.
I worked for weeks trying to replace a broken spring in one and the new springs broke faster then I could fit the next one.
Finally gave up, mounted it in a shadow box, and sold it at the next gunshow!
rc
It's already broke.
Thinking back on it, I have seen very few that weren't.
I had one Lightening years ago when I was still a pretty competent pistol smith.
I worked for weeks trying to replace a broken spring in one and the new springs broke faster then I could fit the next one.
Finally gave up, mounted it in a shadow box, and sold it at the next gunshow!
rc
WVGunman
Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2014
- Messages
- 381
Were these modern springs? What was the problem?
rcmodel
Member in memoriam
Yes, they were modern reproduction springs.
All the original old Colt factory replacement springs broke by 1899!
The design over-stressed the springs, and there was nothing you can do about it except keep fitting & replacing them until you might eventually get lucky.
I never had the patience to keep trying after the third or forth one.
rc
All the original old Colt factory replacement springs broke by 1899!
The design over-stressed the springs, and there was nothing you can do about it except keep fitting & replacing them until you might eventually get lucky.
I never had the patience to keep trying after the third or forth one.
rc
I have three of those guns and the original springs still work. The better gun makers really did know how to make flat and V springs in those days, something modern makers can't seem to figure out. Still, spring breakage is pretty common in both the Double Action Model (called the Model 1877 by collectors*) and the Double Action Army (called the Model 1878). The springs are tapered and properly tempered; replacements are stamped from thin sheet steel and are generally not strong enough even if they don't break.
The real problem with those old guns is that once they experience some wear they get out of time and parts are not available.
Jim
*The names "Lightning" for the .38 and "Thunderer" for the .41 were not used by Colt; they were invented by Meacham as a advertising gimmick. AFAIK, the term "Rainmaker" (for a .32) was not used by anyone until relatively recently, and there is even some question as to whether such a gun was ever marketed.
JK
The real problem with those old guns is that once they experience some wear they get out of time and parts are not available.
Jim
*The names "Lightning" for the .38 and "Thunderer" for the .41 were not used by Colt; they were invented by Meacham as a advertising gimmick. AFAIK, the term "Rainmaker" (for a .32) was not used by anyone until relatively recently, and there is even some question as to whether such a gun was ever marketed.
JK
- Status
