Colt Commander from 1975, leave it like it or upgrade sights??

Claybuster said:
Myopic mindset to alter a pistol to make it shoot better? I disagree completely.

So apparently does Colt.

http://www.colt.com/Catalog/Pistols/Lightweight-Commander

O4840XE_450w_zpsunnsydwf.png
Click to expand...

Congratulations.

You missed the point entirely and confirmed what I said at the same time.

It matters not what sights that are mounted on a new gun, but it does when it's a classic old pistol that has remained in it's original configuration for over 40 years.

And, your inability to understand what I mean, affirms that myopic mindset.
 
If it was a "new in box"gun,with original box and papers I would leave it alone,as changing sights would destroy any collector value(and old,pristine Colts are certainly collectible),however your Colt looks like it has a bit of wear and tear on it so I wouldnt have any issues personally with putting some decent sights on it
 
GLS_1956 said:
I bought my first 1911 in the 70s as well, after a trip to the range the factory "Coltwood" grips came off and went into the trash as Pachmyr's rubber grips went on, soon followed with a flat Pachmyr mainspring housing, and a longer trigger. Those were the things I felt competent to change on the gun by myself.

After a few more years I decided to have those terrible little sights replaced with larger fixed sights, a trigger job, and have the feed ramp polished. Those were all done by a gunsmith who regularly attended the OKC Gunshows, I gave him the gun on a Saturday and got it back the next day. I never regretted having the work done.
Click to expand...

I owned a Colt Series 70 in 1972, and I agree that the Coltwood grips were inappropriate for use when I bought it.
I replaced them with checkered walnut and stored the originals away in case I sold it to someone who might want them.
Had I chosen modifications then, it would not have mattered, because this would then have been a new gun with no value as a classic firearm.

That's the entire point.
It doesn't matter now whether you like the sights now, or the original grips now, or anything original about the gun now.
It should remain in it's original form now, because it's a classic old firearm that is 40+ years old.

Too many classic old guns have been hacked up by short-sighted people who concluded that, because they did not have huge collector value at present, that it did not matter in the least.

I've seen many guns, once cheap and plentiful, become uncommon and expensive over the years, but only in their original form.
The ones butchered when they were cheap and plentiful, are worth far less.

However, I'm basically wasting my breath, since the wisdom of preserving these classic guns is wasted here.
 
sevoman said:
If it was a "new in box"gun,with original box and papers I would leave it alone,as changing sights would destroy any collector value(and old,pristine Colts are certainly collectible),however your Colt looks like it has a bit of wear and tear on it so I wouldnt have any issues personally with putting some decent sights on it
Click to expand...

The concept that a firearm must be new and pristine, be in it's original box, complete with original papers, in order to have collector value is a misconception.

Certainly, this adds to the value, but it doesn't make a gun without these things not worth preserving.

If a gun had to be perfect to have collector value, then those old 1866 Yellowboy Winchesters and those 1850s and 1860s Colt cap & ball revolvers would have no value.

I doubt that they have their boxes or papers either.
 
Lonesome Donkey said:
Congratulations.

You missed the point entirely and confirmed what I said at the same time.

It matters not what sights that are mounted on a new gun, but it does when it's a classic old pistol that has remained in it's original configuration for over 40 years.

And, your inability to understand what I mean, affirms that myopic mindset.
Click to expand...
Classic old pistol? Hardly. Colt made hundreds of thousands of these guns and there is nothing particularly special about them. Evidently you cannot distinguish between a true classic and a fairly run-of-the-mill production firearm.
 
Lonesome Donkey said:
The concept that a firearm must be new and pristine, be in it's original box, complete with original papers, in order to have collector value is a misconception.

Certainly, this adds to the value, but it doesn't make a gun without these things not worth preserving.

If a gun had to be perfect to have collector value, then those old 1866 Yellowboy Winchesters and those 1850s and 1860s Colt cap & ball revolvers would have no value.

I doubt that they have their boxes or papers either.
Click to expand...
Is there something unique or special about the OP's pistol that he and the rest of us are not aware off? From what I can see and what the OP has stated, it is a everyday, off-the-shelf used pistol. As for any future value like c1860 firearms, maybe it will be worth a lot more in the year 2150? Or long since melted down by a Liberal government. Who's to know, right?

If you want to "save" this pistol, offer to purchase from the OP. Then the OP can purchase a current production pistol.
 
Last edited:
NVShooter said:
So what are you gonna do...get a different gun, leave this one alone, rarely if ever shoot it, put it away, rarely look at it, so that at some point down the line, it "may" become "more valuable". Then, maybe, a whole buncha years down the line, if it does become a little more valuable (lots of those guns around), whatcha gonna do with it then. Sell it for a few more dollars? Give it to someone you care about? Die with it? Lots of sentimentality floating around here. If you really like shooting it, get a professional job done on the sights so that you enjoy shooting it. If you get a different gun, you sure aren't going to be enjoying shooting this gun any more. Which is fine. There are lots of other guns you might like to shoot as well. However, don't have any illusions about this turning into a "collectible" gun any time soon...especially when you have to compete with guys who have original boxes, hang tags, original cleaning kits, and all that other associated stuff that collectors find desirable. My opinion obviously, not slagging other folks for theirs. Let us know what you decide.
Click to expand...


 
Thanks for all the opinions and advices!

It's not that I can't afford another handgun, is that I like this one but hate the sights. I will treat this one as I treat my Mosin PU, crappy optics/sighting system by today's standards but interesting by the historic context.

So this Commander will remain as it left the factory, with the scars acquired in his life.

Thanks and regards,

Eric
 
I'd personally have no issue replacing the sights but I'd use a stake on front and something that uses the rear dovetail without modification. Trijicon, Harrison and 10-8 all make rear sights that would work.

For grips I'd likely throw on some checkered hardwood. In the car world they'd call it a restomod. Update it but keeps the stuff that makes it a classic.
 
Ganderite said:
Change the sights. Install sights that use the existing stake on system in the front and the existing dovetail in the back. Save the rear sight. It can be re-installed later, if desired. A new front sight can be installed later that matches the one you take off.

The "special tool" to remove the front sight is called a pliers.
Click to expand...

/\ This! Or I'd learn to use the stock sights. Either way, do not remove any metal from the slide. The 1911 with stock sights killed many enemies of the free world. That means they work well enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom