What a good idea, Twaits! Maybe quite a few photos of these grand old revolvers will turn up. These Colts have been ignored in years past and perhaps with some justification for they seem mechanically primitive. Still, they are functional and apparently did give reasonable service from the 1890s through the early part of the twentieth century. Over 250,000 were made which indicates market success and and general acceptance by its users. The sub-variants given the successive model names would seem to indicate product improvement on the fly but are really no different than the many changes made to the Smith & Wesson K-Frame Hand Ejector over the course of its long life, both before and after it acquired the Model 10 designation.

What I've grown to like about them is their appearance. They look modern, yet quaintly antiquated. Their lines are graceful and elegant. They are very much a product of their age. Much happened in the United States and world wide when these Colt revolvers were current and in general use. I think they are attractive revolvers.

They don't give the impression of being really strong revolvers and their cartridges aren't powerhouses. The .38 caliber models got a bad reputation as having woefully inadequate stopping power during their heyday. While the .38 Long Colt is not potent, it apparently did suffer from some bad lots of ammunition provided to the armed services. I've read that some contractors produced substandard ammunition that wasn't up to military specifications. The .38 Long Colt, if loaded to specification, would have to be a better self defense choice than a .380 ACP.

I think the .41 Long Colt would have made a good choice for personal self defense back in the day. The 32-20 would be a handy choice for the fellow who had a rifle so chambered.

I feel kind of bad about these old revolvers because I ignored them for so long. My very first Colt revolver is the Model 1901 that I still have. I got it over 30 years ago for nothing more than to plug a hole in a budding U.S. military collection. I didn't properly appreciate it then for its own qualities. I imagine I will acquire a few more of these Colt D.A.s in coming years. I'd love to have one nickel example like yours. Those don't come along that nice very often.

Model 1901 .38 Long Colt (serial number 1208 so is a reworked early model)

New Navy .32-20 from 1906. This one is the dog I purchased off of GunBroker for $50 last year about this time. It had both missing and broken parts and a hammer that had the firing pin ground off. All it lacks now is a good cylinder stop with attached cylinder stop spring and it will be in shooting order.

New Navy .41 Long Colt produced in 1901. This one was purchased as a parts doner for the .32-20 above but proved to be so nice mechanically that it seems a shame to break it up. The .41 Long Colt is said to be an inaccurate round but this one shoots tight groups.

 

I'll play.

Here's a Model 1901 U.S. Army.

Here's a 1907 New Navy in 32-20.

Here's a Model 1905 U.S.M.C.

Here's a New Navy 41.

Last, but certainly not least, is a New Army 38.

 

Oh, so that's what they looked like brand new.

Great stuff!

 

Absolutely amazing!!!!

Handguns over 100 years old that look that good!!

Thanks for posting the photos.

 

Does anyone make heel based, black powder loaded bullets for .38 LC?
I have a box of Goex black powder cartridges but the accuracy is dismal because they don't load them using heel based bullets.

 

twaits...i don't know if they use a heel based bullet or not, but i get good accuracy out of mine with (smokeless) ultramax. dead on at 25 yards. it's been clearly established that, after the turn of the 20th century, the military used smokeless in all marks of the 1892 revolver then in service.

 

But I think the bore diameter is different on the earlier guns. The old chambers that are bored straight through for .38 LC I think were designed to shoot heel based black powder ammo. The later guns had a shoulder in the chamber. I am no expert on this but I know I had terrible accuracy with my other 1892 that was made in '94 and the bore looked pretty good. Also Charlene shot his 1889 (pictured above) that I believe has a pretty nice bore with the same ammo and the bullets were actually keyholing at a fairly close range.

 

A guy from Montana traded my great grandfather a 38DA and a Police Positive Target for a tank of gas in Jamestown, ND back in the 1920s. Times were tough.

I think that it's wearing grips from an Army Special. The PPT has a "new" set of non-taped grips now. They were almost as hard to find as .22WRF is these days.

 

This thread is back from the dead! I enjoyed it too much to let it rest in peace.

Here is my nickel model 1896 in 38 colt. I plan to letter it. SN 79XXX. I just got it a few weeks ago. When I got my 1896, I was really happy to see traces of the vibrant fire blue on the trigger and hammer. The hammer is still bright on the lower portion, in the last photo.

Does the "N" in the yoke cut out mean nickel finish?

I guess Twaits is on to something, these Colt DAs are uncommon in nickel or did you mean model 1892s specifically, Twaits?

 

I'm pretty sure that I discovered here on the Forum that the "N" stands for Navy. The stocks would appear to also suggest that you have a New Navy rather than a New Army. I don't think I've ever learned as much from haunting any other forum than the Colt Forum. Most I've learned on other brands of firearms I got from books. Most I've learned about Colts was acquired right here.

That "N" and differences in stocks styles is the only difference I know of between the New Army and the New Navy. I've always wondered why Colt bothered with marketing what appears to be the exact same revolver design with two different model names and insignificantly different stocks styling.

Hope I learned my lessons well in this instance of advising you on the "N" marking.

Your revolver is very pretty in my opinion.

 

Beautiful gun Midrangewadcutter. I meant 1892s but all of the early Colts are less common in nickel

 

I'm pretty sure that I discovered here on the Forum that the "N" stands for Navy. The stocks would appear to also suggest that you have a New Navy rather than a New Army. I don't think I've ever learned as much from haunting any other forum than the Colt Forum. Most I've learned on other brands of firearms I got from books. Most I've learned about Colts was acquired right here.

I believe that's correct. I recall coltdaguy stated that some time back. My New Navy has the "N" stamp.

 

1894 New Army

Here is a picture of 1894 New Army Revolver. Circa 1898 to 1899.

 

Ok, too many nice specimens around here; it´s time to see an ugly one.

Here´s my only New Army, SN 244xxx, .38 Long Colt:

You can see the original thread here: http://www.coltforum.com/forums/colt-revolvers/38983-1892-new-army-navy-did-i-do-ok-pics-added.html

So far I was able to repair (replace) the broken hand spring so now it can be used in DA.

Unfortunately I didn´t find enough time to repair the broken firing pin. However I´m not quite sure if I´ll ever do that. I think I´ll just make a display case for it.

 

Excellent Thread! These pistols on here are very nice, I am almost ashamed to post mine. Does anyone know what the "T" under the serial number on the frame means. I am very new to Colts. One again guys, nice pistols.

1912 Colt Army Special 38.

I just realized the dates you have on the thread, sorry about posting a model outside the date range.

 

To restore or not...

I've had this for over a decade. Got it from a young man at a gun show in VA for cheap (he offered it at $80, I mistakenly gave him three $20s and a $50 - don't regret it in the least, best $110 I've ever spent on a gun), in the shape seen minus the grips (I fabricated those from a junk box set of later unknown target grips). Mechanically sound, functions fine and locks up tight, barrel good for it's age. I know it's not one of the first 5000... but hope that maybe it's one of the later "replacements" mentioned in the Blue Book. I sent off for a factory letter to be sure, should have it by Thanksgiving. Doesn't matter to much to me, I'll never sell it. I had almost 30 years in the canoe club and fell hard at first sight of the anchor. All assembly numbers match and there are no "star" proofs, but there is an "anchor" or "trident" proof on the bottom of the barrel near the assembly number. Cylinder has no locking lug cuts, so it's first version.

What I really want to do is have it professionally restored. Yes, I checked with Turnbull, no, they don't deal with Model 1889s. What I'd really like to know, other than hearing any opinions or being pointed at better knowledge, is does ANYONE know of ANYONE who can do a really good professional job restoring this revolver? Not refinishing, but actual restoration. I found the Lanara website and have been discussing it with Sal. I am impressed so far, can anyone speak to his results? I know the probable cost and am willing to sell of other items to fund the cost, it just helps with the Mrs if I get good recommendations first/too.

Thanks all.

10/12/2013
Just got my authentication letter back from the Colt Archive. My revolver was part of a shipment of 40 guns sold to the US Government and shipped to the US Navy Yard on January 15th, 1892. Caliber ".38/c", 6" barrel, blue "Government finish", and type of stocks not listed (so I would assume plain walnut).

Looks like I now have proof positive that it's the real deal, a military un-modified first issue 1889. And it's not one of 5000, it's one of 40. Guess it's time to get back in touch with Mr Lanara. Wish me luck!

 

This is a Model 1895 New Navy Commercial DA that I recently purchased from a forum member.

The blue is original, but worn and fading in spots. Mechanics (timing and lockup) are excellent. This gun was made in 1907 (SN-290319) - you may notice the new frame style introduced just before the model was discontinued. Another interesting fact is this gun is actually chambered in .38 Special even though it's marked "COLT DA 38".

Several of you may have wondered why I called this a "New Navy" when it obviously has New Army Commercial stocks. The frame cutout is marked with an "N" indicating Navy. This mark and the stocks are the only difference between the Army and Navy models.

The Army stocks are replacements, probably done early in it's life. The stocks are marked "W. M. Bean Topeka". One of our forum members found from the 1910 Census that William M. Bean was a quarryman in Topeka, Kansas.

Anyway, I'm happy to have a good example to study.

Buck

 

Poor quality cell phone photo, but New Pocket DA sn 4XX born in 1894.

 

Here's mine, an 1896 New Army. I'm sure it's an older reblue, but I like it anyway. Mechanically, it's perfect. I'd love to get new grips for it. The fakey looking poorly checkered 1905 type grips are gross, I think!

 

This is my addition to this post. Colt M1901

 

NavyO I would not touch that M1889. I'm not sure why this thread has been bear for so long especially since I feel a run on these old Colt D.A.'s over the past year. I'll add my 1895 Navy to this survey. Its SN 181xxx, an unaltered gun produced in 1895. Its within 2000 numbers of TR's M1895 Navy which he used in the charges up Kettle and San Juan Hills.

My M1985 Navy is shown with a period Navel Officer Belt, correct USN marked flap holster and a Pattern 1889 cartridge box complete with the C. J. Ehbets Cartridge Feed Pack.

 

Colts DAs 1889-1908

I guess there's room for another old ugly 1895 Model 38 DA. It's mechanically sound and I use it when I don my "Old Rough Rider" costume and shoot in NCOWS (National Congress of Old West Shootists) matches.

 

Very nice example Mr. Bell.

 

MrRush,

That is an absolutely gorgeous rig you have! I just get excited looking at your photos. I was told early on when I startted picking up some early Colt revolver to stay away from the early DA firearms as they had "weak actions". Well, I did not feel that way, but still know they are over 100 yrs old. They had to start somewhere and I don't plan on going into combat with them, LOL.

Here is photo of my earliest Colt Swing-out Cylinder DA Revolver;

 

Another nice example. I ignored these old 38 DA's for years, but flawed or not they have earned their place in history.

 

Top is a New Army (1896) from 1900. Bottom is a New Army (1892) lettered to the Illinois Adjutant General 12/1894.