[Tranter45]

Earlierthis year I purchased a 1902 Military - serial 38492 circa 1916. Ran into the seller recently and he sold me a spare magazine (for $65).

The mags are similar but have a couple of differences. Hoping that someone can clue me up on which (or perhaps both??) are correct for this Colt.

The mag in the 1902 when I purchased it (he may have mixed them up?) is marked "MIL COLT 38 CAL". Other is marked "PAT'D SEPT 9. 1884". Retaining slots are similar and both fit perfectly.

I was suprised to see such an early patent date on a Colt mag - 16 years before release of the first semi-auto? John Moses must have been working on this design for a long time.

 

[DadDuck]

Actually I don't believe either is correct for your vintage.The mag that reads "Mil colt 38 cal" is for a late model 1902. The other one is an earlier circa 1903, 1902. Yours should be plain no markings or should read Cal .38 over colt. either way 65.00 for either is a good deal.

 

[Oyeboten]

As DadDuck says above.

The one with the Patent Date is for a circa 1903 Military Model....the one with the 'Mil Colt 38 Cal' is for one which was some ways later or toward the end of the run.

Proper Magazine for yours, would have a 'plain' base, no text stamping on the Base.

The "Pat'd Sep't. 9th 1884" Patent reference, relates to James Paris Lee, and his patent for the invention of the detachable Box Magazine.

This was an invention which was independent of John Browning, or, Colt.


I may have an extra one ( 'plain base' ) if you wanted to trade for the earlier one, which would be right for my 1st year Military Model.

The earlier yet version of the 'Patent' Magazine for the m1900 and earliest Sporting Models, and I think, the very earliest Military Models, was Nickel Plated, then, it was Blue for a little while, then the Patent info was left off after that.


We could let forum members decide what the difference is, in value, if any, if you wanted to trade.

 

[DadDuck]

If it were me, I would make the trade straight up. As neither comes available often. And having the correct magazine just makes everything seem right.

 

[Tranter45]

I would have no problem with a straight swap that would benefit us both but I think a mag may be considered a major part that requires import/export permits and assorted red tape.
Thanks for sorting out the patent date.

 

[DadDuck]

Hell, they let me into your country with no problem then they even let me leave. Crazy world when you can't send a 100 year old parts without giving it any thought.

 

[Oyeboten]

I thought 'Antique' Gun Parts were exempt.

Longs as it is 'parts' and not a Receiver/Frame anyway.

 

[Tranter45]

I thought 'Antique' Gun Parts were exempt.

Longs as it is 'parts' and not a Receiver/Frame anyway.

Message sent.

 

[Oyeboten]

Okay...we will each look into our own half of the thing then, for what is required paperwork-permit-bureaucracy wise.

`