Colt Forum banner

121 - 140 of 148 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,518 Posts
View attachment 680717 View attachment 680719

I recently inherited a hammerless .380 from my father. It appears to be serial number 196, manufactured in early 1909, which would qualify for the list.
What is the stamping on the right side of the receiver?

As you may already know, the grips on it are "Franzite" -- a fairly popular aftermarket grip maker from pre-WWII into the 1960s. You might want to keep an eye out for a set of proper original grips, if you wanted to make it more original.

I also see that the safety/hammer pin (they are one and the same) is missing its set-screw that should be threaded in on the right side. If you shot the gun without that set-screw, there is the potential that the safety/hammer pin could drift out. Replacement set-screws are available.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Thank you. I will have it repaired (and checked out by a professional) before I try to use it.

I assumed the grips were aftermarket (they are also slightly too small) but I didn't know the type or the timeframe. It looks like the correct grip is shown in the first picture on this page:

Colt Pistols and Revolvers for Firearms Collectors - Model 1903 .32 ACP & Model 1908 .380 ACP Pocket Hammerless Factory Grips

The stamping on the receiver reads "C. CARSON TO B.C. SULLIVAN" - no clue who either of those individuals might be.
 

·
Premium Member
all can view my website
Joined
·
1,851 Posts
I bid one time and quit. Poor description and as is, two things I don't care much for.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
I’ve had this piece for years. Obtained it through a co-worker. It is original with exception of the grip screw (as you can see it isn’t that wonderful blue) and I unfortunately don’t have an original mag. Traded a C-note for it. Took it to the range once. Functioned perfect. It’s officially retired.
 

·
Premium Member
all can view my website
Joined
·
1,851 Posts
Great first post. Thanks for joining us.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,605 Posts
Discussion Starter #132 (Edited)
Thanks for the addition Bosco13703.

#314 is I believe owned/was owned by member "Ozarkhawg". It may be documented somewhere in the "Got Hammerless?" thread if you have the patience to look through it. :)

Colt 1908 Type II list.GIF
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
108 Posts
It's interesting that, with all the recorded 3-digit examples, there still isn't a single known survivor (to us, anyway) in the 900 range.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,605 Posts
Discussion Starter #137
True, although there are bigger gaps elsewhere in the list.
1256-1494
3169-3496 (gap of 327!)
3496-3754
4038-4406

1909 is just a very lean year, with only 19 of 2,089 pistols accounted for. I own five of these pistols, but none from 1909.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
108 Posts
There may be bigger gaps, but it's not a linear scale. The rate at which collectible pistols are noticed and reported increases exponentially as serial numbers decrease. The most extreme example is the 1-100 range, where we have 10 known pistols - by far the highest percentage of a one hundred-number bracket in the entire list. If all brackets were weighted the same, this would be an extreme anomaly. But intuition tells us otherwise: it's to be expected, since one and two digit pistols always command attention and are sought after by collectors.

For me and many others, three digit examples still fall in to that "WOW" category - not as special as the lower numbers, but with only 900 made, they are still special, and survival (and inevitably reporting) should be substantially higher than the 4 digits.

For the serial number 100-1000 range, we have:

100-200: 5 known
200-300: 3 known
300-400: 3 known
400-500: 4 known
500-600: 5 known
600-700: 3 known
700-800: 4 known
800-900: 4 known
900-1000: 0 known

There's really not enough data to identify statistical anomalies, but I still find it enjoyable to observe the numbers, and I do think it's slightly odd to have three or more reports in every other three digit bracket, but not the 900's. Not weird, but a little strange.

What is really weird is to have no reports of single digit guns other than serial number 1. That still surprises me.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
330 Posts
What other single-digit was just reported?
But taking the "only 1 from 1:9 reported", not really strange when you look at other 9 digit ranges at random in the database.
On the other hand the single-digits may have been pulled back for special people originally, and probably still do exist somewhere in a collection or three.
 
121 - 140 of 148 Posts
Top