Can You Identify This 1911?

[texagun]

Just received my copy of Brownell's 1911 Catalog #2 this morning. It has a photo of a beautiful 1911 on the cover. Can anyone identify the vintage of this gun from the photo?

Edited to add after reading the text inside the front cover:
It was delivered to the army in 1918 according to the text and it is Serial Number 256,770. It was near the beginning of the 4th lot made for the government that year.




http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y46/w5lx/Brownells1911Catalog.jpg

[Doran]

The slide and slide stop are later than the frame.

[Scott Gahimer]

I agree, it's a great photo. However, it's too bad they didn't at least put a proper slide stop and magazine in it...at least for the cover shot. Doran already mentioned the slide. It just makes you wonder. It's unfortunate more thought wasn't given to the pistol for the photo.

[RickB]

It is what they say it is, even if the slide, slide stop and mag are not original to the frame. If the gun was in Uncle Sam's hands for a long time, it's amazing that the gun is as original as it appears to be. My M1911 was delivered straight from a U. S. arsenal in the early '60s, looking almost identical to that piece; some parts not original to the manufacture date, but still looking pretty "right", considering.

[Scott Gahimer]

It is what they say it is, if "it" is the frame. The other mis-matched parts...who knows? We just know the mag is at least 3 years earlier production, the slide is from a pistol at least a little later, and the slide stop isn't even an M1911 part.
We know the pistol is mis-matched. And yet the blue finish is at or near new condition and appears to match perfectly. That doesn't remind me of a pistol as it left the military. I suspect the pistol has been commercially refinished later and is merely serving as a photo prop.
I think they missed the boat not using something with at least an original appearance for a cover shot. Clearly not done by collectors for collectors who would know the difference. I suspect they just looked up the shipping info on the serial number and assumed nobody would know the difference. Chances are good, they didn't know. If they had known the difference, I suspect they might have used a different pistol.

[rondawg]

I'd like to follow you around Scott, and pick up all your "rejects". I'd be tickled pink to have that gun, regardless of the flaws.

And why did the early magazines have lanyard loops on them?

[daveohno]

You guys are a tough audience. Sharp eyes here!

[Scott Gahimer]

And why did the early magazines have lanyard loops on them?

That's a good question, and has been asked since they first appeared.
The short answer is so they could be attached to a lanyard...but you already knew that.:)

The idea of a lanyard loop magazine never was very practical in the first place. The pistol already has a lanyard loop. Which would you rather drop and lose...the pistol or the magazine? Multiple lanyards makes no sense whatsoever.

Most believe the lanyard loop was specified with the cavalry in mind. But it still didn't make much sense. Yes, it's a nice thought to be able to secure your magazine from loss. But...good intentions don't always prove to work out in the field.

It was decided to drop the loop prior to our involvement in WWI. So it didn't have anything to do with speeding up production for the war. It just never proved to be necessary or practical.

The last Colt pistols to be shipped with lanyard loop magazines were the 1915 mfg.
Springfield Armory continued to ship their lanyard loop magazines with pistols until they were depleted. It is believed that only the last few SA pistols in 1917 had the new mags without the loop.

[RickB]

It is what they say it is, if "it" is the frame. The other mis-matched parts...who knows? We just know the mag is at least 3 years earlier production, the slide is from a pistol at least a little later, and the slide stop isn't even an M1911 part.
We know the pistol is mis-matched. And yet the blue finish is at or near new condition and appears to match perfectly. That doesn't remind me of a pistol as it left the military. I suspect the pistol has been commercially refinished later and is merely serving as a photo prop.
I think they missed the boat not using something with at least an original appearance for a cover shot. Clearly not done by collectors for collectors who would know the difference. I suspect they just looked up the shipping info on the serial number and assumed nobody would know the difference. Chances are good, they didn't know. If they had known the difference, I suspect they might have used a different pistol.

I have the catalog in hand, and the gun is in anything but like-new condition. There is heavy wear on the dustcover, and other scratches and dings overall. As I said, it looks all but identical, down to the "wrong" slide stop, to the pistol my dad got straight from Benecia Arsenal, 42 years ago. Just because it isn't original, doesn't mean it's fake.

[GunnyG]

It looks an awful lot like mine.....

http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc68/gunnyg_photos/AR15/Couple-o-1911s.jpg

So, what would be the correct slide, slide stop, etc be for a Colt Model of 1911 U.S. Army, ser No 220xxx, made in 1918? The sights on mine are definitely not A1. Even so, I felt it probably wasn't entirely factory original, but considering the price I paid, I'm still not arguing a bit. Someone had put on an arched MSH. I thought it had been arsenal refinished at some point in it's life. Was the DCM doing that kind of work on the stuff they sold, back then?

After I got it, it took me a few years (and gunshows, when gunshows were gunshows, darn the luck!) to find a USGI smooth flat MSH that was a good color match for the finish.

[RickB]

Like the gun on the catalog, your slide appears too late for your frame. Yours should have the rampant colt at the rear, and more sharply-rounded "stirrup cuts" on the front of the slide. The slide on my gun may be too early; it has the central pony, but the rounded cuts at the front; a sort of transition slide that perhaps shouldn't appear as late as the 296,000 serial number would indicate. Still, I know Bubba didn't put that slide on there. :)

[Scott Gahimer]

Just because it isn't original, doesn't mean it's fake.

I fully agree. Non-original or refinished doesn't mean fake to me.
BTW, even though 296xxx may be a little late for a transitional slide in most cases, that's close enough on any gun to believe it might be original. 6000 numbers at the time that pistol was made was only a few days apart. Could have easily been in the mix at the time.

[elijdub]

Well i thought y'all might be interested in reading the correspondence i had with Brownells about the gun on the cover of their #2 catalogue:

Here's what i said:

How's it going?I just wanted to write to let you know about some internet talk going on right now. On the M1911.ORG forum there is a discussion about your current catalogue cover and the M1911 on it. Most believe that it's not the gun you suggest it is in your description. I think we'd all benefit from some kind of explanation. For instance, it's been determined that the slide is incorrect for a 1918, the slide-stop isn't a m1911 part at all, and the lanyard loop magazine isn't "period correct". Just wanted to let you know, in the hopes you can give us some info about the gun. Thanks, and looking forward to a reply,
Eli Wayne
One of three threads in which it's being discussed:
http://forum.m1911.org/showthread.php?t=41070

And here's what they most courteously wrote back:

Good afternoon, Eli: Thank you for your interest in the pistol featured on the cover of ourlatest 1911 Auto Catalog, #2. Unfortunately, we do not have any additional, detailed information at this time for the pistol in question. It certainly would be interesting to have it examined in further detail by the Colt factory someday, as some of the points you addressed are also intriguing to us. We presented the photo as a good representation of the vintage pistols of that era and provided only the information thought to be true based on the published data for its particular serial number. We cannot and do not wish to dispute its complete authenticity as to whether it came out of the factory exactly as shown in the photo, nor do we intend to mislead anyone. The pistol was purchased as it appears in the photograph. Wha twe know for certain is the gun is a vintage Colt in great condition, and that it made a nice subject for our 1911 catalog cover photo. Maybe in the future, the gun will be further examined to determine if there are inconsistencies in its parts for the period it was manufactured. Then, we can provide more information about it in a future catalog.
Best Regards,
Steve SchmidtCatalog ManagerBrownells, Inc.

I thanked him for his response, and wished them well.


Any thoughts?

[Scott Gahimer]

Sounds like you got to the right guy. He provided what appears to be an honest and courteous answer.

Sounds like it was just as suspected; they didn't know there was anything wrong with the pistol, and didn't intend to mislead anyone or misrepresent anything. It just made a nice photo.

My comments regarding the pistol had nothing to do with whether it was misrepresented, or whether they misled anyone. I don't think they did. Anyone looking close enough to notice what's wrong with the pistol shouldn't be relying on Brownell's catalog for historical information regarding authenticity. Brownell's does not represent their catalog as a reference source. I've never encountered anyone carrying around their Brownell's catalog to buy a 1911.:)

BTW, just for clarification, their slide could be correct on a 1918 or 1919 pistol, but just not that one. The serial number of their 1918 pistol is too early for that slide marking. Their slide came from a pistol after about s/n 275xxx-290xxx. That was the transition period for the markings.

The only thing you might have done to offer help would have been to suggest Charles W. Clawson's 3rd Edition (2003 or 2004)Collector's Guide.
I'm glad you provided them a link to the forum. I hope it will be useful in the future.

[GunnyG]

The value of a commodity is determined solely by what someone is willing to pay for it.

Maybe I'm more pragmatic when it comes to things like these. I look to buy shooter grade collectibles that represent what my ancestors carried during their service, that have been used, and coming from that point of view I have been pleasantly surprised.

And of course, I wouldn't pass up buying (if I had that kind of money) a P-51B Mustang because it had been sent through a military depot level refurbishment facility where it was re-engined and had new instrumentation and updated radios installed. Especially if I was planning to fly it, rather than parking it on a museum hangar deck. I come from a military maintenance background. I know that things get repaired, etc. in the span of their military career.

Pistols like the one shown on the Brownells catalog, and mine, have been shot, have been in the supply system long enough to have needed to be refurb'd by our gov't arsenals (hmmmm...they must've seen action in a war or two,) before they went home with GIs or were sold through the CMP.

On the other hand, I wouldn't even consider paying the exorbitant market price for artifacts deemed "correct" by a bunch of collectors, although I know where I could find such fine examples if I were so inclined. In fact I'll be seeing Glenn again in a couple of weeks!

[GunnyG]

I fully agree. Non-original or refinished doesn't mean fake to me....

And solely in the pursuit of getting top market price, less scrupulous people have been known to create the appearance of a pistol, etc. being all "correct" through parts swapping, refinishing, and other restoration measures.

The Dec '07 issue of the American Rifleman (pg .24) had an article about a Douglas Turnbull restored Marlin 1893. It had been awarded, and subsequently lost, a collector's medal for it's material condition had it been unrestored, or at least had been declared as having been restored.

Caveat Emptor. Sometimes it really is too good to be true, especially if there is a lot of money to be made.

[Scott Gahimer]

I look to buy shooter grade collectibles that represent what my ancestors carried during their service, that have been used...

I come from a military maintenance background. I know that things get repaired, etc. in the span of their military career.

Pistols like the one shown on the Brownells catalog, and mine, have been shot, have been in the supply system long enough to have needed to be refurb'd by our gov't arsenals (hmmmm...they must've seen action in a war or two,) before they went home with GIs or were sold through the CMP.

On the other hand, I wouldn't even consider paying the exorbitant market price for artifacts deemed "correct" by a bunch of collectors...!

I respect everyone's decision regarding what they might wish to collect and/or shoot. In fact I'm happy we all don't want the same things.

I too come from a military background, but perhaps not as extended as yours. I only served one tour of active duty some 30 years ago as an MP who ultimately instructed at the MP School. In that brief period of service I believe I saw more than my fair share of .45s. And honestly, I don't remember the specific details of a single one of them. I wasn't a collector then. They were a tool for the job. I was young and didn't know a thing about them, except how to shoot and maintain them. That's all we were supposed to know.

I often hear guys today speaking of when they served and citing all the details of the weapons they carried. When I was in, nobody knew who made what frame. Nobody even considered a .45 collectible. By that time, thousands had been released through the DCM (there wasn't any CMP at that time). But all this talk about backgorund doesn't address the issue.

When we talk about weapons being repaired "in the span of their military careers", what does that really mean? What military career? Without some documentation or true provenance, we can't know anything about the vast majority of .45s seen today regarding their "military careers". It has been more than 45 years since pistols were released for sale through the DCM.

Does anyone really believe that most of the DCM pistols sold for $17 have remained in the exact same condition and state since they were sold? Many, if not most, of those pistols were bought to carry and shoot, or to modify and build up into target pistols. The bulk of the original boxed DCM sales pistols I've seen and owned over the years were in near new to new refinished (Parkerized) condition when sold, and consisted of mixed parts. I've thinned most of those out of my collection, but have retained one boxed DCM sales piece with the DCM s/n sales paperwork that is documented in the National Archives as being with the 501st MP Bn. in 1945. That pistol, because of my MP background, has some significance to me...but I know it was rebuilt after 1945 and has mis-matched parts on it. It went through Augusta Arsenal, probably in the early 1950s, and shows all the signs of a complete AA rebuild of that era. It is not original, but it is as it left the arsenal.

Wear and mixed parts doesn't necessarily have anything at all to do with any action seen in "a war or two". Fifty to ninety years after the fact, why would anyone believe that wear or mixed parts on a pistol constitutes anything about it's military career. These pistols have been in commercial hands too long to draw conclusions or dream up war stories about them.

I've got several pieces with official military documentation from the National Archives regarding their military service. I've got more pieces bought directly from WWI and WWII veterans and their direct heirs that were brought home with the veterans from war. All those pistols are still original finish, matching and exceptionally nice condition because we didn't fight those wars with pistols. They were secondary weapons.

The only pistols we can know might be (like the) the ones our ancestors carried during their time in the service are those still all original, or those with true military documentation and a concrete chain of custody. But even DCM rebuilds, once sold to the public, may have been altered over the past 45 years. Many DCM sales guns were not arsenal marked. IMO, the refinished and mis-matched guns to seek IMO are the ones that are arsenal marked, and show they've not been redone since. Those pistols, too, have a lot of things to look at to determine their originality and authenticity. Everything that's been thrown together and/or refinished over the years is not a military rebuild.

Originality speaks for itself. The key is knowing what to look for. I've seen dozens of Turnbull restorations. Once you get them in your hands and shine them with a light, it's obvious they've been restored. Even the fake wear some restorers put on guns does not constitute aged wear. Even the best original M1911 and M1911A1 pistols show their age, if you know what to look for.

Refinished and mis-matched pistols with big stories of military careers are common. They're all over the Internet auctions and sales sites each week. Sometimes the pistols and their stories change every time they're sold. Those types of pistols don't really impress me. They're possibly good shooters that might have some mis-matched mixed history behind them...but behind them is where it will stay. Once refinished and mis-matched, without concrete documentation, it's all just wishful thinking.

Price has nothing to do with originality. I've paid some big prices, and I've paid some very modest prices for the same sub-variation pistols over the years. The price has nothing to do with what you get. Knowing what to look for is what determines what you get. If it's a good piece and I can swing the money part of the deal, I normally buy. The price only reflects what you have to pay. It doesn't reflect anything at all about the pistol's originality or value, either way.

My point, as a collector, is not to look down my nose at refinished and mis-matched pistols or those who own them. I truly don't.
My point is that it is important to see and know the difference. Collectors don't determine what's right or wrong with a pistol...the merits of the pistols do that. A true collector only reports what he sees and how that relates to dozens...or hundreds of others he has observed. Some agree and others don't. That's how it will always be. That's the fun of collecting. Now and then we learn something new. Best regards to all.
Scott

[Scott Gahimer]

BTW, here is a pistol in the 240,000 serial range...just a little lower than the pistol on the cover page of the catalog. You'll notice the rampant colt is at the rear of the slide.
http://i18.tinypic.com/6t4i26h.jpg

[GunnyG]

BTW, here is a pistol in the 240,000 serial range...just a little lower than the pistol on the cover page of the catalog. You'll notice the rampant colt is at the rear of the slide.
http://i18.tinypic.com/6t4i26h.jpg



Very nice!! Thank you for sharing that! The attention you pay to those fine details really helps to build the wealth of knowledge about the Model of 1911. It is nice to see such fine examples, and to have individuals such as yourself sharing that knowledge really helps foster appreciation and understanding for our history. If every 1911 ever made for US gov't contracts was kept that original, not many of us would think there was anything special about them.

Provenance would then be only thing that made a particular pistol special. I realize that I'll never knowingly see the exact pistol my Grandpa Morrison carried in WW1, because little details like what the serial number of his pistol was, have been lost over time.

I'm happy to have a (a) a Colt 1911 that was made for WW1 US gov't contracts, and (b) a pistol similar to what he carried at one point in time. That is as close as I will, or need, to get. I'm comfortable with the knowledge that my pistol has been refinished (a long time ago), and is on at least its third barrel (who knows where the Colt barrel went, the Springfield barrel that it had when I got it was quite pitted, so I dropped in a surplus HS barrel)

I certainly didn't mean to sound as if I was disparaging your collector's perspective. If anything, I felt like I was defending those of us who, admittedly, have compromised those qualities for the sake of value.

John Ford is cited as having demanded at least credibility, if not authenticity, when he filmed his cavalry trilogy (Fort Apache/She Wore a Yellow Ribbon/Rio Grande). I'd like to think that my collecting habits are in keeping with that philosophy.

[Scott Gahimer]

... I realize that I'll never knowingly see the exact pistol my Grandpa Morrison carried in WW1, because little details like what the serial number of his pistol was, have been lost over time.

Gunny, thanks for the kind remarks. I thought I'd share a photo I use on my business cards. It's not the greatest pistol in the world, but it's the one I consider to be the centerpiece of my collection. When I do displays, yes people comment on the Singers...but there are few pistols that have the appearance of an early Colt. Even the women that are with their fellas notice this pistol and comment on the beauty.

Who knows? Maybe Grandpa Morrison had one just like it...
http://i4.tinypic.com/7xbp2mr.jpg