Renumbered Colt Artillery , false or real
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11
Like Tree17Likes

Thread: Renumbered Colt Artillery , false or real

  1. #1
    Junior Member

    Member #
    29614
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    18
    Liked
    18 times

    Renumbered Colt Artillery , false or real

    Hey guys , i have a Colt artillery with S/N 2443 in fine condition , but the cylinder and barrel are renumbered in S/N 4243 in the past .See J. Kopec letters and Colt letter .Who has seen this on a cylinder with a ''K " stamp on the rear ? See the pictures.Thanks RENE
    DSCN0993.JPGDSCN0982.JPGDSCN0960.jpgDSCN0894.JPGDSCN1050.JPG

  2. #2
    Junior Member

    Member #
    29614
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    18
    Liked
    18 times

  3. #3
    Junior Member

    Member #
    29614
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    18
    Liked
    18 times
    DSCN0882.JPGDSCN1069 (2).jpgSo, i hopr somebody can help me .
    René Belgium
    krag96 likes this.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    ColtForum.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    Junior Member

    Member #
    29420
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    21
    Liked
    11 times
    Very interesting! I am sure that our expert will come to your aid. The Kopec letter seems to explain most of the mystery but I am sure there will be more information coming. Please keep us informed.

  6. #5
    Senior Member

    Member #
    12263
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    My boots are stained with Confederate soil
    Posts
    1,151
    Liked
    592 times
    I think everything is explained in Mr Kopec's letter. I would have suspected the grips dated 1903 may have been placed on this gun well after refurbishment and I would question the integrity of the cylinder with numbers stamped on the face, rather than the side, of the cylinder (which is something I had not seen before). However, Mr Kopec's letter provides plausible scenarios to describe the discrepancies.

  7. #6
    Supporting Member
    Supporting Member

    Member #
    22168
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    12,297
    Liked
    12414 times
    The K was used widely on parts towards the end of Cavalry production. I also have a couple Artillery models that have the K on such parts as the backstrap and on the cylinder.
    Based on the 1987 letter, everything appears correct on the gun. I wonder why Kopec wants it back again to re-examine, but I assume it is because he has much more data now than he had in 1987. I do not like the fact that he wants to charge you extra for the re-exam, but medical doctors do the same thing.

    I just read comments by mrcvs and I will add that I don't recall ever seeing any serial numbers on the side or back face of the "K" marked replacement cylinders.
    Maybe Rick will know since he has seen many, many more than I have.
    Last edited by saintclair; 05-19-2017 at 10:26 AM.
    Hootch56 likes this.

  8. #7
    Senior Member

    Member #
    12263
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    My boots are stained with Confederate soil
    Posts
    1,151
    Liked
    592 times
    I re-read the letter Mr Kopec wrote in February. It seems he now questions what he wrote in 1987 regarding the cylinder and grips. Note in my previous post, I stated that John provided a plausible hypothesis, but I didn't state that I thought it was necessarily correct. I think he may now believe that the grips were placed on this gun well after 1901/03 and that the integrity of the cylinder might be in question.

    I think that a reassessment could be warranted. Not everyone gets everything right on the first try. For example, I am a veterinarian and saw a dog recently with a dermatitis. The first step is to treat as though it is a condition responsive to antibiotics--e.g., a bacterial infection responsive to cephalexin. At recheck, it either responded or didn't. It looked suspiciously like ringworm (and this was a differential initially and the clients were warned of the zoonotic potential). So the next step was to treat with an antifungal (fluconazole). Of course I charge a recheck fee, which is lower than the initial appointment fee. John surely would be entitled to a reassessment fee. Of course, it is his decision what to charge, but I might be inclined to charge somewhat less for the "recheck".
    saintclair likes this.

  9. #8
    Supporting Member
    Supporting Member

    Member #
    2274
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    478
    Liked
    1239 times
    The 2 letters show how much knowledge has been gained since 1987. Based on what has been documented since, we know the gun was not altered by Colt in 1901 but by the Springfield Armoryl in 1998. As Mr. Kopec says in his 2017 letter, we also know that Colt was not paid to re serial number parts during the 1900-3 refurbishments, not even new replacement parts having no serial numbers. We also know that Colt has no record of this gun being returned for additional rufurbishment after 1901

    As Mr. Kopec states this renders the 1987 letter in question in light of the unanswered questions regarding this Artillery.
    mrcvs likes this.

  10. #9
    Supporting Member
    Supporting Member

    Member #
    22168
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    12,297
    Liked
    12414 times
    With the dog dermatitis, some immediate corrective treatment was needed. With your 1987 letter, the longer you wait to have the gun reassessed, the more knowledge Kopec will have. One issue is he is about 89 years old, I think. Let's hope he lives well past 100.
    mrcvs, MrRush and Rick like this.

  11. #10
    Senior Member

    Member #
    458
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Mi. USA
    Posts
    2,163
    Liked
    836 times
    Just an opinion here but I think the cylinder number is bogus. The transposed numbers on the barrel is a distinct possibility. The grips may have been replaced at some point in it's history. Moore does state that the majority on the 85 were sent back to receive some kind of repair. Unfortunately there seems to be a lack of evidence proving that. All in all, I'd be okay with the grips and transposed numbers but would have a problem with the cylinder.
    mrcvs and saintclair like this.


 
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Home | Forum | Active Topics | What's New

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-15-2013, 02:39 PM
  2. Renumbered ?
    By jls77 in forum Colt Revolvers
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-31-2009, 09:20 AM
  3. colt test firing(?True/False)
    By wbray1966 in forum Colt Revolvers
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 01-13-2009, 02:01 AM
  4. false advertisement on my Colt Python Revolver
    By wbray1966 in forum Colt Revolvers
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-03-2008, 11:04 AM
  5. colt custom shop question , True or false
    By tankerfrank in forum Colt Semiauto Pistols
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-22-2007, 05:32 PM
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
We are not associated with Colt's Manufacturing LLC. We are an enthusiast site comprised of Colt Fans.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3
Copyright © 2017 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.