1937 Colt M1911A1 45 ACP Ultra RARE 1st Order

9025 Views 65 Replies 20 Participants Last post by JohnnyP, Apr 17, 2018

stan3

Discussion Starter · Mar 28, 2018

Was asked to look at this: https://www.gunbroker.com/Item/759806819

Even though most will not be in a position to acquire a 1937 M1911A1,---is the barrel correct (Sans "P")?

Reactions: 3

1 - 20 of 66 Posts

RPD57

· #2 · Mar 28, 2018

Stan, why would you even question the missing "P" on the barrel as being correct, YES it is correct.

The US military did not require the "P" inspection stamp on the slide & frame on the early A1's at that time, why would the barrel have one

From what I see, that pistol has its rare correct original barrel in it

The 710xxx serial number range A1's are extremely rare, when you do see one, likely has a replacement barrel

Reactions: 5

FireBlue

· #3 · Mar 28, 2018

stan3 said:
Was asked to look at this: https://www.gunbroker.com/Item/759806819

Even though most will not be in a position to acquire a 1937 M1911A1,---is the barrel correct (Sans "P")?

Stan - Your question is a great example of a Clawson 15 year and Meadows 9 year stand still in Colt 1911 collecting knowledge advancement since their last books were published. Both these men did a tremendous service to the collecting community, but the community has done little to take the ball and advance things since. Also, consider that Clawson made plenty of revisions in his third edition. Could there have been more to come ? Hint - Yes.

Two things to be certain of for the folks that wrote the books:
(1) They didn’t see every pistol.
(2) Not every pistol they saw and considered correct was correct.

There is no published evidence that Clawson ever saw a 100% correct version of the pistol in hand that you reference. The only one ever tied to his publications had the comment “this Pistol’s barrel was probably changed.”, as it did not even have the proper “In the White” ejection port area.

The preceding military orders were always purported to have matching H’s on the slide, frame, and barrel. Before that, the first M1911 had no marks anywhere. Would you accept an “H” stamped barrel in a first day gun ? The M1911A1 no “P” stamps anywhere version could possibly even have lower in-tact survival rate than the no “H” stamps anywhere M1911 version. You could support this theory with the fact that both Clawson and Meadows documented more correct M1911 first order pistol examples than M1911A1 examples. Something to think about… Yeah, I know, I will take a first day 1911 over a first order M1911A1 any day, but nonetheless...

You are looking at a 100% correct first military order M1911A1 in that link. Enjoy it ! Colt made more that 1,000,000 military M1911A1s and this one is functionally a 100% correct 3 digit serial number M1911A1, since the serial numbering started at 710,000 , not 1 like the M1911s.

See less See more

Reactions: 3

Rick Bowles

· #4 · Mar 29, 2018

FireBlue said:
Stan - Your question is a great example of a Clawson 15 year and Meadows 9 year stand still in Colt 1911 collecting knowledge advancement since their last books were published. Both these men did a tremendous service to the collecting community, but the community has done little to take the ball and advance things since. Also, consider that Clawson made plenty of revisions in his third edition. Could there have been more to come ? Hint - Yes.

Two things to be certain of for the folks that wrote the books:
(1) They didn’t see every pistol.
(2) Not every pistol they saw and considered correct was correct.

There is no published evidence that Clawson ever saw a 100% correct version of the pistol in hand that you reference. The only one ever tied to his publications had the comment “this Pistol’s barrel was probably changed.”, as it did not even have the proper “In the White” ejection port area.

The preceding military orders were always purported to have matching H’s on the slide, frame, and barrel. Before that, the first M1911 had no marks anywhere. Would you accept an “H” stamped barrel in a first day gun ? The M1911A1 no “P” stamps anywhere version could possibly even have lower in-tact survival rate than the no “H” stamps anywhere M1911 version. You could support this theory with the fact that both Clawson and Meadows documented more correct M1911 first order pistol examples than M1911A1 examples. Something to think about… Yeah, I know, I will take a first day 1911 over a first order M1911A1 any day, but nonetheless...

You are looking at a 100% correct first military order M1911A1 in that link. Enjoy it ! Colt made more that 1,000,000 military M1911A1s and this one is functionally a 100% correct 3 digit serial number M1911A1, since the serial numbering started at 710,000 , not 1 like the M1911s.

Forgive me but your comments seem a bit harsh, have you examined this pistol? Is this your auction? Lastly, have you written a book? Of course information is put forward every day ...as is conjecture, supposition and creative guesswork. It must be difficult and expensive to publish a book much less revise it.

Reactions: 5

Berkeley492

· #5 · Mar 29, 2018

Wow, is this really a potentially $30K+ A1????? I have a very early Commercial A1 produced (probably a first day) in 1924 that is still in immaculate condition and I don't see how it could be worth anywhere near that kind of $$$'s. Is the fact that it is a military issue that drives the price up?

Firearm Gun Trigger Gun barrel Gun accessory

Firearm Gun Trigger Gun barrel Gun accessory

See less See more

2

Reactions: 2

FireBlue

· #6 · Mar 29, 2018

Rick Bowles said:
Forgive me but your comments seem a bit harsh, have you examined this pistol? Is this your auction? Lastly, have you written a book? Of course information is put forward every day ...as is conjecture, supposition and creative guesswork. It must be difficult and expensive to publish a book much less revise it.

Comments like this are why I VERY INFREQUENTLY ever post to forums. and spend little time reading them...

Reactions: 2

Scott Gahimer

· #7 · Mar 29, 2018 (Edited)

RPD57 said:
Stan, why would you even question the missing "P" on the barrel as being correct, YES it is correct.

The US military did not require the "P" inspection stamp on the slide & frame on the early A1's at that time, why would the barrel have one

From what I see, that pistol has its rare correct original barrel in it

The 710xxx serial number range A1's are extremely rare, when you do see one, likely has a replacement barrel

Rich,

I've not examined this pistol, so I do not know if the barrel is original. However, military barrels began being proof tested in February 1913 (as soon as the military received the necessary ammunition) and all M1911 pistols after that, and all the 1924 M1911A1 pistols also had "P" proofs on the barrels.

Perhaps, in the early 1937 production pistols, Colt wasn't fully up to speed on requirements for the military pistols. It had been 13 years since they'd produced any...and we know there was miscommunication in getting the Model markings moved to the receiver, which didn't get corrected until 1938.

Could the barrel be original? Yes. Is it original? I wouldn't even have an opinion without first examining the pistol. But should the 1937 M1911A1 barrels have had a "P" proof? Yes, I think so.

See less See more

Reactions: 5

kwill

· #8 · Mar 29, 2018

FireBlue said:
Comments like this are why I VERY INFREQUENTLY ever post to forums. and spend little time reading them...

Fellow Texican:

Those seem like pretty reasonable questions to me. Clawson and Meadows were not infallible but they spent thousands of man hours researching and writing their books, published under their real names at great expense. You want us to question their findings yet take you, an anonymous and infrequent poster, at face value. Who are you?

Respectfully,
Kevin Williams

Reactions: 5

RPD57

· #9 · Mar 29, 2018

Scott, I hope you get to examine this pistol to look over. If the missing P barrel is original, that will be a confirmed variation encounter.

Reactions: 1

FireBlue

· #10 · Mar 29, 2018

kwill said:
Fellow Texican:

Those seem like pretty reasonable questions to me. Clawson and Meadows were not infallible but they spent thousands of man hours researching and writing their books, published under their real names at great expense. You want us to question their findings yet take you, an anonymous and infrequent poster, at face value. Who are you?

Respectfully,
Kevin Williams

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]Kevin - Please allow me to respectfully share that you are misinterpreting my words. I imagine it would be difficult for anybody to respect the contributions of Charles Clawson and Scott Meadows to the Colt 1911 collectors community much more than I. It is impossible for any person to see every 1911 example. It is also assumedly impossible for anybody making lots of generalizations and conclusions based upon a limited number of samples decades after issue to not find reason to revisit some of those conclusions based upon more and/or better later data. Clawson helped immensely by getting things rolling with his observation conclusions and Meadows similarly with his stronger view towards actual military records. They will forever be elite in their dedication and contributions. Scott Gahimer has probably done the most since with the immense value of his photo library. Joe Poyer has also added notable value, as have Doug Sheldon, Sam Lisker and others. However, as a collector community, we still judge too critically based upon just the stand-alone groundbreaking work of Clawson. I intuitively doubt that Clawson did what he did for it to stand as still as it formally has in the collection community. There is plenty of room to grow with all the technology advancements, etc.. We have the benefit of all that I’ve referenced as a starting point now. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]Let us not confuse Clawson as an ending point. That’s my basic point. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]Finally, I shouldn’t have to share my name on a public forum to be taken seriously. I think the words stand ok alone. Look at the photos, understand what I’ve shared and make your own conclusions. And with that, I retreat back to seclusion. With Respect, FiredBlue[/FONT]

See less See more

Reactions: 5

Scott Gahimer

· #11 · Mar 29, 2018

RPD57 said:
Scott, I hope you get to examine this pistol to look over. If the missing P barrel is original, that will be a confirmed variation encounter.

I suppose it all depends on who buys the gun. But yes, if I get to examine it, I'm sure I'll have an opinion.

A few months ago, I examined a pretty nice 1937 GM that, of all things, had a "P" proofed barrel from 1937 in it that matched perfectly on the barrel, receiver and slide. Bright chamber, COLT 45 AUTO marked and no "G" on the bottom. It was either a rejected military barrel, or surplus barrel from the 1937 contract. I lean towards surplus, because it had the "P" proof. If rejected, I doubt it would have had the proof mark applied.

This barrel, if original, may simply be an anomaly. While I've seen a few 710xxx pistols, I'm not sure I remember any that were all original, IMO. I distinctly remember one that was an outright fake, engraved serial number and all.

Reactions: 4

stan3

Discussion Starter · #12 · Mar 29, 2018 (Edited)

RPD57 said:
Stan, why would you even question the missing "P" on the barrel as being correct, YES it is correct.

The US military did not require the "P" inspection stamp on the slide & frame on the early A1's at that time, why would the barrel have one

From what I see, that pistol has its rare correct original barrel in it

The 710xxx serial number range A1's are extremely rare, when you do see one, likely has a replacement barrel

RPD57,

Why question it? Well, the books don't cover/document a sans "P" barrel in any 1937 M1911A1. The last updated book,---Meadows 1920 - 1945, Vol II (fresh off the press), page 31, still has the barrels with a "P". And, documents it was required by: "indicating firing and acceptance in accordance with the Ordnance inspection procedure established in January of 1936". The pistol in question is one of 500 shipped on 18 March 1937. If early 37 barrels were not "P" marked, then most would agree, that at some point they were marked.? (Those books DO document the sans "P" receiver and slide.)

Why question it,---maybe this thread will help further educate us!? Have examined a few M1911A1 1937 pistols. They seem to have (the very few examined) a somewhat unique feature with the barrel marking. (Know where there is one [an early sans "P" receiver and slide],---maybe that curator will respond.?)

Have NOT Examined the Pistol in Question. However, so far, in this Thread, with the responses it has so far,---is there more.....???

Best Regards,

P.S. ALL input/responses very Welcome!

See less See more

Reactions: 4

stan3

Discussion Starter · #13 · Mar 29, 2018 (Edited)

FireBlue said:
Stan - Your question is a great example of a Clawson 15 year and Meadows 9 year stand still in Colt 1911 collecting knowledge advancement since their last books were published. Both these men did a tremendous service to the collecting community, but the community has done little to take the ball and advance things since. Also, consider that Clawson made plenty of revisions in his third edition. Could there have been more to come ? Hint - Yes.

Two things to be certain of for the folks that wrote the books:
(1) They didn’t see every pistol.
(2) Not every pistol they saw and considered correct was correct.

There is no published evidence that Clawson ever saw a 100% correct version of the pistol in hand that you reference. The only one ever tied to his publications had the comment “this Pistol’s barrel was probably changed.”, as it did not even have the proper “In the White” ejection port area.

The preceding military orders were always purported to have matching H’s on the slide, frame, and barrel. Before that, the first M1911 had no marks anywhere. Would you accept an “H” stamped barrel in a first day gun ? The M1911A1 no “P” stamps anywhere version could possibly even have lower in-tact survival rate than the no “H” stamps anywhere M1911 version. You could support this theory with the fact that both Clawson and Meadows documented more correct M1911 first order pistol examples than M1911A1 examples. Something to think about… Yeah, I know, I will take a first day 1911 over a first order M1911A1 any day, but nonetheless...

You are looking at a 100% correct first military order M1911A1 in that link. Enjoy it ! Colt made more that 1,000,000 military M1911A1s and this one is functionally a 100% correct 3 digit serial number M1911A1, since the serial numbering started at 710,000 , not 1 like the M1911s.

FireBlue,

Thank you for your input.

On your: "Could there have been more to come ? Hint - Yes." , and your: "to revisit some of those conclusions based upon more and/or better later data". Specifically, can you help us document "Other early M1911A1 1937 pistols with sans "P" barrels"? Any help you offer might help us all. Thanks.

Best Regards,

P.S. On another note/issue you mentioned, do you have pictures of an early un-marked COLT barrel you will post? Thanks. (Been asking about those barrels for may years.)

Reactions: 3

colt_thompson

· #14 · Mar 29, 2018

Why wouldn't the seller send the pistol to Scott before the auction ? Seems like having the pistol verified in advance of the sale would provide higher bids

Reactions: 4

kwill

· #15 · Mar 29, 2018

FireBlue said:
Kevin - Please allow me to respectfully share that you are misinterpreting my words. I imagine it would be difficult for anybody to respect the contributions of Charles Clawson and Scott Meadows to the Colt 1911 collectors community much more than I. It is impossible for any person to see every 1911 example. It is also assumedly impossible for anybody making lots of generalizations and conclusions based upon a limited number of samples decades after issue to not find reason to revisit some of those conclusions based upon more and/or better later data. Clawson helped immensely by getting things rolling with his observation conclusions and Meadows similarly with his stronger view towards actual military records. They will forever be elite in their dedication and contributions. Scott Gahimer has probably done the most since with the immense value of his photo library. Joe Poyer has also added notable value, as have Doug Sheldon, Sam Lisker and others. However, as a collector community, we still judge too critically based upon just the stand-alone groundbreaking work of Clawson. I intuitively doubt that Clawson did what he did for it to stand as still as it formally has in the collection community. There is plenty of room to grow with all the technology advancements, etc.. We have the benefit of all that I’ve referenced as a starting point now.

Let us not confuse Clawson as an ending point. That’s my basic point.

Finally, I shouldn’t have to share my name on a public forum to be taken seriously. I think the words stand ok alone. Look at the photos, understand what I’ve shared and make your own conclusions. And with that, I retreat back to seclusion. With Respect, FiredBlue

FB,

I agree with you. However, that is at least one of the purposes of this forum and the reason stan3 started the thread. It is all about advancing the knowledge base. But there is plenty of misinformation published and too many posts where some anonymous assertion is backed up with "I once read somewhere...." or "my gunsmith said...." Clawson, Meadows, Pate, et al were careful to base their work an multiple observations, manufacturer shipping records and source documents. On a forum like this I think we should challenge the important books only when there is actual new verifiable information available, not anecdotal evidence or conjecture only. Agreed?

KW

Reactions: 5

Rick Bowles

· #16 · Mar 29, 2018

Kevin,

I'm guessing our anonymous expert has indeed examined this pistol. After all, both he and the 1937 A1 are in Texas.

Reactions: 4

Scott Gahimer

· #17 · Mar 29, 2018

I knew Chuck Clawson well and worked with him updating the info in his books for a number of years. He learned some lessons the hard way with the first book. While he endeavored to personally inspect as many guns as he could for more than 10 years prior to releasing the book, still he relied on some reports from a few collectors he trusted...which led to a few mistakes because those collectors either were not as knowledgeable as believed to be, or they simply relied on observations by others which turned out to be less than credible.

He typically always try to verify information through multiple sources and observations, but some examples are so rare, several simply were not available. A perfect example is the "Singer list" that has floated around for years. After having the opportunity to personally inspect several of the guns on those lists, I've gotten to the point I don't put much faith in the information on it because it comes from far too many sources.

In this case, it would certainly take more than one isolated example to compel me to believe it was "standard" for early production 1937 pistols to have commercial style barrels w/o a "P" proof. But as stated before, a simple examination of the pistol might confirm that the barrel is, IMO, original to the gun. If this barrel is determined to likely be original to the gun, then that will perhaps lead us to discover other examples.

However, because so many people over the years have fooled with pistols, swapping parts out to make them correct, according to the "books", it may be virtually impossible to ever come to a conclusion on a variation that is so infrequently encountered. Only time will tell.

See less See more

Reactions: 5

azshot

· #18 · Mar 29, 2018

Since the 1911(A1) barrels are not serialized, and are so easy to remove, I'm surprised how much concern is put on having an original barrel. Like having non-original wheels on a 1965 Mustang, you can replace them. I realize the point of this thread is to validate a particular gun, and to advance the knowledge of what WAS original though. But we're also talking value. If the gun is worth tens of thousands of dollars, surely it's because the serial number indicates it's early, and that it's finish is original. Are the springs original? Screws inside? Does anyone care? If a $30,000 rare 1911A1 isn't worth that due to a hot-swappable part being gone, how much is the barrel concern devaluing it? $500? $5000? $10,000 is a lot of money for a barrel with a couple of letters stamped, or not stamped on them. If I was a buyer, I'd be more into the whole...not that one part.

See less See more

Reactions: 4

Scott Gahimer

· #19 · Mar 29, 2018

Folks who can't see the difference are rarely ever willing to pay the difference. Originality with collectibles is always what drives the price to the top with the most advanced collectors. Originality is what separates the wheat from the chaff in high end pieces.

Barrels, slides and receivers create wear patterns. If I can see something has been changed, it impacts what I am will to pay and how desirable it is to me. I'm willing to let a lot of high condition guns pass by if they've had parts changed, simply because there are those still out there that are original.

Everyone doesn't think the same. That's why there are so many different markets in collectibles...and why there's always something for everyone.

Reactions: 5

shawnhoag

· #20 · Mar 30, 2018

I have this same barrel but it has an S in front of the lugs. I just assume it is for a 1937 GM. I’ll post up some pics later if anyone cares to compare. It’s in pristine original condition so you can see the finish well.
Shawn

Reactions: 2

1 - 20 of 66 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.