Although the War Department intended to migrate from revolver to semiautomatic as its handgun, their first testing protocol did not yield a satisfactory semiauto. Colt's New Service revolver was chosen as an interim replacement for their unsatisfactory Colt .38-caliber revolvers, circa 1909.

The New Service had been in production since 1898. But to meet specifications several changes to the basis New Service occurred, such as integral safety, different frame profile, altered extractor rod.

And there was competition, also in production. Smith and Wesson's New Century first model revolver and Webley's .45-caliber Mark V top break were available with or without comparable modification.

That Colt revolvers had been the traditional military revolver manufacturer might have been a factor. But the totally unsatisfactory Colt revolver that the New Service replaced in 1909 was also a Colt. And, in theory, that should have been a factor as well.

I have no idea whether the War Department tested revolvers to identify the interim revolver or just chose the New Service because they always chose Colt. Selection of its semiautomatic occurred after exceptionally rigorous testing among several competitors. And perhaps surprisingly, the only handgun that tested as well as the 1911 pistol was the 1909 revolver.

What I have read is that the Colt New Service was thought of as a more rugged revolver than the S&W Triple Lock. It was thought the Colt would be more dependable under the mud and dust combat situations.
The S&W with its more complex lockup could be rendered out-of-action more easily.
Just what I have read.

Simple answer: larger caliber in the New Service.

quote:

Originally posted by Shootshellz:
Simple answer: larger caliber in the New Service.

That dog don't hunt. The New Century First Model responded to War Department needs in 1917. The NC 1st Model was modified to reduce its cost while improving durability to become one of the substitute standard pistols for the AEF.

The Webley WG series' cylinders were long enough for 45 Colt/Govt.

And the New Service changed its lock work to include an integral hammer-blocking safety during its acceptance trials to become the 1909 series.

Since all three revolvers were in production [in basis model form] when a short-term revolver was selected. circa 1908, why choose Colt? Were any of the others tested?

You ever been in combat and had to resort to a handgun? I have and the semi auto is easier to load in the stress of combat. No loose rounds to fool with. No need to break it open and load individual cylinders. It is very simple to hit the button, drop a mag and slam a fresh one home. Matter of fact, combat reloads are a part of any military training.

Additionally, the 1911 is a piece of superb craftsmanship. It is mechanically simple, very rugged, easy to field strip and reassemble, easy to clean and it packs a big wallop. The fact it is still made in its original form after more than 100 years attests to the genius of its designer, John Moses Browning, the same guy that created the Winchester lever action rifle, the A-5 shotgun, to 50 machine gun, the BAR and countess other.

Plus, the Webley wasn't made by an American company. Colt was.

TommyII:

While I suspect origin had something to do with the decision, there had to be much more than American manufacture to select Colt.

1. Krag - not American origin

2. M1903 rifle - Mauser derivative for which United States paid royalty on every one manufactured until patents expired. The war did not terminate this royalty agreement.

3. Smith & Wesson also an American manufacturer, had a reputation comparable with Colt. And they had a comparable mechanism-revolver in production.
***
So I think I still in confusion.

quote:

Originally posted by Naphtali:
TommyII:

While I suspect origin had something to do with the decision, there had to be much more than American manufacture to select Colt.

1. Krag - not American origin

While the Krag cartridge isn't American, the Springfield rifle that the U.S. adopted and issued to the troops was. Note, we are not talking about cartridges, we're talking about the weapon platform itself. This is a big difference.

2. M1903 rifle - Mauser derivative for which United States paid royalty on every one manufactured until patents expired. The war did not terminate this royalty agreement.

Again, the rifle that was issued was by Springfield and other American manufactures, it wasn't made by Mauser. The fact they paid a royalty does not negate the fact that the weapon itself was made in America. Last thing a nation wants when it needs to outfit its troops is to depend on other nations in order to obtain arms. It is better to supply them from your own nation.

3. Smith & Wesson also an American manufacturer, had a reputation comparable with Colt. And they had a comparable mechanism-revolver in production.
***

Yes, but it was still a revolver. As I noted, the semi-auto is a better sidearm for combat. That is precisely why every military unit around adopted them. Nobody uses revolvers any longer as an issued side arm. There is a reason for that and I have already given them.

So I think I still in confusion.

Your confusion lies in focusing on and talking about revolvers when the USA was switching to the semi-auto for issued side arms to troops. The revolver is a great gun and had a long run. But there are better options for a side arm for troops. I did 25+ years in uniform and I was never issued a revolver, always a semi-auto. That being said if I wasn't issued a semi-auto and could only get my hands on a revolver, I'd take it. But I'd upgrade to a .45 ACP or a 9mm as quickly as I could.

TommyII:

My query does not pertain to the semiautomatic pistol. Rather the Ordnance Department judged no semiautomatic satisfactory during the (about 1905, or so??) tests a few years earlier. They decided to acquire a small (about 30,000 in total, I believe) revolvers to satisfy the armed forces' need for a better (by whatever standard they chose to mean "better") double action revolver to replace the unsatisfactory .38-caliber Colt DA revolver and the SAA and (1878??) DA revolvers that had been used during the Philippine insurrection campaign. You are correct. Revolvers were never intend to remain the primary side arm. They were intended to serve effectively until a satisfactory semiautomatic pistol was selected as primary - hence my use of the word "interim" is the query's title.

Regarding origin and manufacture of foreign designs, the point I attempted to make is that there would have been nothing to prevent the government from trying to arrange for domestic manufacture of foreign weapons. The government had recent and current (circa 1908) experience doing precisely that.

FYI: There is an interesting article on the Colt Model 1909.

Malloy, John, "Colt's 1909 Military Revolver," Gun Digest 44th Annual Edition (1990). Northbrook, IL: DBI Books, Inc.

Naphtali: Once again, larger caliber. Dog hunts fine. The U.S. military choosing a WEBLEY? That made me laugh.......

It was much easier to bribe the necessary government officials before the IRS came along...

ISS

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
It was much easier to bribe the necessary government officials before the IRS came along...

ISS

AHA!

"When you have eliminated the impossible, what remains must be the truth." Sherlock Holmes

John Malloy, in his 1990 Gun Digest article, "Colt's 1909 Military Revolver," on page 125, writes "The Colt Positive Safety had been patented in 1905 and had impressed Ordnance officials. It placed a bar of steel beneath the hammer at all times except when the hammer was drawn back and the trigger pulled. This bar also prevented the opening latch being operated if the hammer were cocked , and prevented cocking if the latch were open."

If I remember correctly, Smith & Wesson's Military & Police and New Century revolvers lacked such a positive hammer blocking safety. I don't know if Webley large-frame revolvers had such a hammer block safety.

It is possible that Ordnance simply chose the best big-bore revolver available at that time!

22:

I prefer to agree with you that the War Department chose the best big bore revolver available at the time . . . which kind've reverts to whether they tested [several] revolvers to identify "best" as occurred with the semiautomatic selection?

You mention Colt having a hammer blocking safety in 1905. The safety was not available on the New Service until the War Department specified its incorporation. Regardless whether the New Century revolvers had a like-functioning safety as Colt's, I suspect S&W would have complied as did Colt.

Regarding the Webley, I believe its mechanism causes firing pin to retract within its standing breech after hammer drop, similar in function with myriad break-open hammer guns and rifles. And keep in mind the revolver series had been British Army issue (and officers' private purchase) since 1887. Having been used in truly unpleasant places, serving as a "stopping" pistol successfully in situations comparable with "dealing" with Juramentados on Mindanao, I wonder how it was concluded being inferior to the New Service? The only explanation that makes even left-handed sense is chauvinism - that is, not made in America. But how does this make sense when the Krag was foreign, and the government was paying royalties to Mauser for every M1903 rifle made?

My head hurts from the War Department's logic maze. I guess there's one other reasonable possibility - Colt bribed whoever needed to be bribed. How reasonable is this? Dunno.

quote:

My head hurts from the War Department's logic maze. I guess there's one other reasonable possibility - Colt bribed whoever needed to be bribed. How reasonable is this? Dunno.

Come on now, politics and political influence always plays a role in these things. Without it, the M 16 would be just another footnote in firearms history.

Grizz

Let's be clear about where some US weapons design came from; here are some examples;
1795 Springfield: copied from the French Charleville Musket
1816 Springfield; copied from the French Charleville Musket.
1861 Springfield; US design
Trapdoor series; US design.
Krag: Entirely Danish design with US designed cartridge.
1903 Springfield; We copied the 1893 mauser and made some changes; all of which made the result worse.
1917 Enfield; British design
M1 Rifle; US design
M14; US
M16; US
M240 MG; Belgian
M9 Pistol; Beretta.
I could go on but it was fun.

I may not be fully knowledgeable about the whys of it, but my recollection of the history was that the US got involved in the Spanish-American war and as a result learned that civilized nations were using small bore sidearms in the european tradition of a pistol is more a badge of rank than a weapon.

We adopted the .38 long colt revolver on that basis.

Of course, one of our "just desserts" of that conflict was that we were now "protector" of the Philippines, having taken over that task from the spanish, and of course, needed to introduce "civilization" to the Filipinos. As is usually the case, some objected.

In the course of jungle fighting, it became obvious that a side arm was a fighting implement to save your life.

The .38 LC aint.

Troopers still remembered and had used in the indian wars the old Colt SAA, and remembered its effectiveness at stopping determined enemies at close range. Since it was officers who had pistols, and they were getting killed, they promptly reissued the SAA's they had.

Of course, part of why they had been replaced (in those days, the war department was anything if not cheap...) was they were worn out, and there were not very many functional SAA's. The colt new service was one of the few revolvers at the time that was large enough to be rechambered to the current large bore pistol round in hand, namely the .45 (long) Colt.

Colt already had the contract, and it was not that hard for them to replace the planned .38 revolver with .45, so the government changed the contract to .45 revolvers. S&W would have required going to the .44 or a schofield length cartridge, which would have been a logistical nightmare. Similarly, trying to change to an English Webley design would have been a logistical nightmare (and it also is no where near long enough to accommodate the .45 colt round that was what we had to get into the troops hands...) While I am sure there were some US officers who had them, as at that time an officer buying his personal weapon was acceptable) they were not supported by the US government (ie no ammo) and the .45 colt was more effective than the british .455 anyhow. No big "bribery" or other vast conspiracy, just simple cheapness and logistics.

Our experience with the Moros in the Philippines convinced the Army brass that a large bore pistol was essential, and thus the new contract proposal was for a .45 bore pistol that had performance more or less what the old SAA round had, and this ended up being the .45 ACP. While at this time a number of foreign designs were invited to compete, US nationalism was in full swing, and even if a non US gun had been demonstrably better, it is likely that it would not have won at that point.

Browning's pistol design ended up being the best of the lot, and thus the 1905 was modified and became the 1911.

When WWI rolled around they still had not made enough of the 1911 to equip the military, so the 1909 was dusted off again, modified to shoot the .45 ACP and relabeled the 1917. Given that .45 ACP is much shorter, S&W models could work with this cartridge, you did have S&W supplying the US with their version of the revolver.

Of course by the time WWI was around, old Blighty was in no position to sell the US pistols, but rather the reverse occurred.