Singer barrels and Magazines

[stan4]

I finally received some better pictures of the pistol. I will try to post pictures of the barrel in the pistol.

All of the parts (pins, screws, small parts) are period (and I think original finish), it has the smaller script U S property roll stamp and normal WGP final inspectors stamp (so, assembled [time frame] between No.115 and about No.300?). The parts have all been ID'ed, except the barrel and the question of why a No.10XX pistol (shipped 2 Mar. 1912) would have no sub-inspectors marks. (There are consensus opinions on those two questions.)

Thank you for your help.

[stan4]

Here are some pictures of the barrel in the pistol.

I realize this is a very esoteric topic---I hope to not be wasting your time.

Some general observations from my quest on this topic---most are common sense---but I had to try.
1. There is little---very little---information publicly available on early Colt 1911 pistols (Military or Commercial). I could detail my search, but that is a missive (and frustrating at that).
2. The information that is known or potential is well guarded (except for a few collectors/researchers). As was pointed out (and I agree and understand), most curators are reluctant to allow/offer their pistol(s) for study. (After all, there is only one GOOD outcome.)
3. Most of the informed opinions are based on one---and only one---pistol. No.39! (This is considering only very early 1911's---say, the 1st 400.)
4. Hmmmm----again, as some have pointed out, some, or several, or maybe a few, of the known other early pistols have some----well, you know----?
5. This very Forum. I brought this topic to the forums hoping there might be additional uninfluenced, direct observation, information. Still, someone studying this thread, might have helpful input---If so, I hope you will post or PM me. (If PM, I will keep your observations private.) Again, thank you to all that have responded.

I have been studying this pistol, off and on, for over a year and conferring with CWC (said it is OK to use him as a source) from the start. He called me again yesterday and during part of our conversation he emphasized he believes the pistol is a replacement pistol (RP) and that the barrel is correct and original to it. (I will try to get clear pictures of part of the serial number to post. Any pictures out there of a RP serial number?) I recently had the chance to spend a couple more hours studying it. This pistol has it's warts and freckles, but so far ALL the parts appear original from when it was prepared for and then blued. (Except, I have not disassembled the receiver yet [not sure if I will be allowed to do that] .) The receiver, slide, and barrel have been exclusive since they were blued.

[Scott Gahimer]

Stan:

Personally, the biggest obstacle I have is using the provided images to offer an opinion on such a pistol. I am confident, given the opportunity to inspect the pistol in-hand, there wouldn't be any question as to what's original and what, potentially, is not. I have personally examined No. 39 and several other early M1911 pistols and am confident the pistol, itself, would provide enough evidence to make an informed decision.

Online images, regardless of how good they might be, are a poor substitution for actually examining a pistol. I am familiar with replacement pistols, but based on the images provided, I'm not sure I see evidence to suggest that. May be, but images just don't provide enough detail.

The value of the pistol is greatly influenced, not necessarily by what people think it is, based on limited information and online images, but rather what it actually is...based on an actual inspection. I have come to the decision that I'd rather not offer an opinion on originality and/or value based on anything less than an actual inspection.

If people were making purchase decisions about images, that's one thing. But folks typically are asking for opinions to make purchase decisions on pistols, which involve a good bit of money. I'm confident I can offer an accurate opinion on pistols when I see them. I'm sure there are others, too, who can provide good information...given the opportunity to inspect the pistol. But, under the circumstances, we are all hampered by the limited information digital images provide.

[stan4]

Stan:

Personally, the biggest obstacle I have is using the provided images to offer an opinion on such a pistol. I am confident, given the opportunity to inspect the pistol in-hand, there wouldn't be any question as to what's original and what, potentially, is not. I have personally examined No. 39 and several other early M1911 pistols and am confident the pistol, itself, would provide enough evidence to make an informed decision.

Online images, regardless of how good they might be, are a poor substitution for actually examining a pistol. I am familiar with replacement pistols, but based on the images provided, I'm not sure I see evidence to suggest that. May be, but images just don't provide enough detail.

The value of the pistol is greatly influenced, not necessarily by what people think it is, based on limited information and online images, but rather what it actually is...based on an actual inspection. I have come to the decision that I'd rather not offer an opinion on originality and/or value based on anything less than an actual inspection.

If people were making purchase decisions about images, that's one thing. But folks typically are asking for opinions to make purchase decisions on pistols, which involve a good bit of money. I'm confident I can offer an accurate opinion on pistols when I see them. I'm sure there are others, too, who can provide good information...given the opportunity to inspect the pistol. But, under the circumstances, we are all hampered by the limited information digital images provide.

Mr. Gahimer,

Thank you for your post. I hope it will generate a few more.

Yes. I agree---completely, with paragraph 2. To paraphrase: "It is what it is", and the only way to determine what it is, is to personally examine it. But, I hope to solicit opinions (possibly pictures), and will welcome them all.

I originally had 6 points in my "general observations", the first one was: Pictures are not adequate to show the detail required to study this issue. I deleted it because it was redundant and because pictures are all I have to offer for visual observation. I hope these pictures are similar to the pictures in most publications and most (if not all) the other pictures posted on this forum. I hope it is OK to post some more pictures. (I hope for more input.)

I wonder, how many reasons there are to post pictures (be they good, average, or bad [yes, the pictures---but, I guess it could be the reasons also?])? Do I understand, that in paragraph 1---most of us should not offer opinions based on posted pictures? Or, maybe only on some select topics? Hopefully, this discussion will generate some more responses!

Paragraph 3,---what definition of value do you mean? Yes, I know $ are important to all of us, but I have not asked that question (or, have I?)? Does information have any value outside of it's $ value? (Or, is all information just about the $ value?---could be!) If my posts in this thread read or look like an advertisement, please forgive me.

Paragraph 4,---yes, I agree, anyone following this thread, should use caution, if considering purchasing a early Colt 1911, or for that matter, for even studying some (or maybe any) of the information in this thread. And, I agree, you offer accurate opinions on Model O Colts.

I will try to post some more clear pictures---I hope they will add additional information and generate some more input. Thank you for your response and all your past help.

Best Regards,

[stan4]

Here are pictures of the serial number. They show (I hope---as much as you can with pictures) why it is believed to be a Replacement Pistol?

Do the pictures show the following statement from CWC's Big Book p. 84: "Since the serial number was added after the pistol was blued, these pistols are easily identified by the absence of bluing in and around the numbers, which was removed by the stamping die." (or, see p. 3 of his collectors guide, edition 3)?

Note the intact bluing around the raised letters in the slide roll stamp.

[Scott Gahimer]

The serial number definitely appears to have been stamped after the finish was applied.

[stan4]

Note the shallow recess in the grips to match the thin head screws.

No 1xxx 041..jpgAU mag No 1XXX A N&#3.jpgNo 1xxx 042..jpgNo 1xxx 044..jpgNo 1xxx 043..jpg

[stan4]

More pictures of the Replacement Pistol.

[stan4]

More pictures of the Replacement Pistol.

[stan4]

Some details of the mag that is in the Replacement Pistol.