I agree that this Colt Pistol is a Government Model and not a 1911. The listing would be more correct if listed as 1911/Government Model

 

This is kind of like the guys who have cylinder throats in their revolvers instead of chamber throats in their cylinders. How about a Government model of 1911.

 

The magazine appears to be military, not commercial, too.

 

Wouldn't the correct magazine for C327 also be a type 1 exposed baseplate?

 

The earliest Government Model magazines were Keyhole with low temper line. The brightly polished commercial mags didn't come along until after the Keyholes.

[

 

Scott, According to Clawson, 43 Government Models were assembled on March 9, 1912. It wasn't until June 25, 1912 that Colt reported the problem for which their solution was the punch and slot magazine. My question is in March of 1912, almost four months before the keyhole magazine was conceived, what magazine was included with the 43 Government Models assembled on March 9, 1912?

 

Just look at all the Very Nice pictures ! (What is that saying about a "1000 words" ?)

The picture of the magazines with C 9 is inconclusive,---it looks like there is a Type I, but it shows evidence of military style mag pouch storage.

There could be a forum member(s) that has/have access to 1st day GM Pistol(s), maybe they will respond.

 

I have been trying to be better about making this distinction, myself. Now for my dumb question- I realize the distinction for Colt models, but what are we supposed to call the commercial offerings from OTHER manufacturers?

 

I haven't examined any of the first 50 Government Model pistols produced. I have examined a few of the next 50-60. But haven't examined one that early that was all original.

Just because Colt didn't report the problem until June 25th doesn't mean they weren't aware of the problem earlier than that date. Nor do I know how early they may have developed and tested the first Keyhole magazines. There were changes throughout military production which were first used in commercial pistols.

Until we examine known all original Government Models in the first batch, I'll admit I don't know what magazines they may have had. But I do think there is ample evidence of several original examples in the C300-C900 range with the low temper line Keyholes to know those magazines were used then.

 

Often when studying or discussing the minutia of guns, gun parts or gun companies we have to rely on educated guesses, supposition and speculation until more concrete proof surfaces. It's necessarily more difficult with original magazines, the most easily changed part of the pistol. Suppose Colt, at some point in 1912, realized they had a problem with the magazine lips cracking and had already shipped/sold many pistols with the Type 1 magazines. The brand new Government Model was very popular and Colt would not have wanted it to become common knowledge that the magazine, without which the pistol is virtually useless, is prone to cracking. Suppose once Colt created the keyhole "fix" they quietly exchanged any Type 1 magazines for the "new and improved" punch and slot magazines. Some got exchanged, some did not. Of course this is pure speculation but it's not unprecedented. Remember the factory altered 1900 sight safety. This could explain why C303 has a keyhole mag which I believe is original and C406 carries a Type 1 which I also believe is original to the pistol.

PS. The punch and slot may have been a quick fix while Colt looked for better steel but it didn't always work as intended.

 

The thread went into more interesting and relevant topics of the magazines. Arguing semantics (what word someone uses) is quite trivial. Like complaining when someone says "hand me a Kleanex" with "but those are NOT Kleanex brand tissues!" I'm sure a huge part of America in the 20th century saw any 1911 derivative and called it a 1911. I know all my WWII era uncles and my father did.

 

One might consider the discussion of M1911 vs Govt. Model an argument of semantics. However, it isn't just semantics to the readers who are new collectors and still learning. I can't recall how many people have brought me commercial Govt. Model pistols thinking they'd purchased a military M1911. Values are not remotely close to the same in most cases. I believe, as collectors, we have a responsibility to help others learn. Dumbing it down doesn't seem to help anyone.

 

Believing the pistol one has is the exception to the rule of evidence examined will allow him to imagine anything he wishes.

 

Hey Scott, I finally got it, you were referring to my #13 post! Sometimes I'm not as quick as I used to be but in my defense you were a little cryptic with just a touch of snarky thrown in for some reason. With regard to my post, I started my hypothesis with "Suppose" and ended with "Of course this is pure speculation". It was simply an exercise in inductive reasoning. Respectfully, your statement "The earliest Government Model magazines were Keyhole with low temper line" seems to leave no room for dissenting opinions or future evidence. However, you did open the door a little when you said "I'll admit I don't know what magazines they may have had" and neither do I so we're all good!

 

Correcting someone using "1911" as a generic term can come off snotty but I agree with Scott that dumbing it down doesn't serve anyone.

 

I thought this was pretty neat, from a 1918 Colt's catalog that came with a boxed 1902 Military.
It drove home that I was using the wrong term, but it's easy to slip and use "Commercial 1911" sometimes

 

Slightly off topic...but I’d be curious to hear what the more senior collectors have to say about the way actual WW2 and WW1 vets described their pistols? From my experience in both reading books and talking to family WW2 Vets, none of them have ever referred to the M1911 or M1911A1 by its official military designation.
The “Colt 45” and simply “45 Auto” are the most noted names I’ve heard.

 

I doubt there are many collectors here who've collected long enough to have purchased from WWI veterans. When I started collecting in 1977, in the first 5-10 years, I purchased several pistols from WWI vets. I heard them call their pistols several things, including 1911, 45, 45 auto, Colt and even "revolver".

Veterans, in general, are/were not experts on military nomenclature or the history and development of the weapons they were issued and used. They were generally given only limited training with a pistol; only basic safety, handling and use. Unless veterans actually have/had their pistol in their hand, most couldn't even tell you the manufacturer or whether it was a M1911 or 1911A1 when asked. And even if you tried to explain the difference, most didn't grasp the differences.

Not knocking anyone who served or carried a pistol, but as collectors we shouldn't rely on anyone's ignorance of the facts to determine how we refer to weapons or discuss them with others less knowledgeable.

 

I also believe that we collectors, especially on a written site like this forum, should use the correct nomenclature. Corrections should not be seen as critical or snooty, but as a way to get everyone on the same page to further interest, collecting, research...

I learn quite a lot from old timers including collections/pistols that I've purchased from veterans - but take some of their info with a grain of salt. Read the books, do the research and share your thoughts w/ others as on this forum.

 

The only reason I didn't qualify my first post was because we weren't discussing the first 50 GM pistols. We were discussing the OP's C3xx subject pistol; then you showed your C4xx pistol.

 

Talk about semantics. It was Colt that named their semi-auto 45 ACP offered to the general public The Government Model ....

 

Official or Tradmarked words that are now generically used for any similar product:
Zipper
Dumpster
Windbreaker
Crock Pot
Chapstick

Colt 1911

 

Zipper? How many different things could that be.

 

It astounds me that some insist it is OK to use incorrect terminology just because such terminology is "generically used for any similar product." To do so only perpetuates the incorrectness to those new to the field.