Colt 1892 in 41 Colt- Is this an antique and is it the closest we can get to a "modern" handgun with antique status?

[mearkat32]

I saw this 41 colt for sale on an american website, they said according to the serial number its made in 1894 which would make it antique.

Is the Colt 1892 the closest to a modern handgun with antique status? Since it's a swing out cylinder double action revolver, just like a modern smith and wesson today

 

[mkrnel]

No, that would be a Mauser C96 semi auto.

 

[MosinMan13]

That’s a silly question.

 

[tiriaq]

Yes, it is a swing out cylinder double action revolver and is deemed antique.
Perhaps the biggest difference between it and a modern Colt swingout cylinder double action revolver is in the design and construction of the lockwork. Since the 1889s and 1892s were manufactured, the lockwork has been improved dramatically. The old ones leave a lot to be desired from that point of view. In addition, the .41LC cartridge is not in the same class as more modern ammunition.

 

[Deng577]

I've seen some with Hogue grips rechambered in 38special that were still antique. But yeah, this is about as good as it gets.

Makes me wish we could buy LBRs like the UK.

 

[scianna54]

AI knows the answers.

 

[tokguy]

I'm going to go with it ain't as good as it gets.
It looks great at a glimpse... lock works are a bit of mess.
I would put forth that the Swiss and Swedish pistols are far superior.

 

[LawrenceN]

If I were looking at a good double action antique pistol, I'd be looking at at high condition Smith and Wesson double action in .44 Russian. IMHO, the .44 packs more "oomph" than the .41 or the .455 Webley's. If I weren't such a fan of those particular revolvers I'd love to find a high condition .45 Schofield single action. Both the Colts and S&W's have a very good ejection system compared to the old Colt single actions. I have an extremely good S&W (picture 1) as my bush carry piece but I've had the pleasure of having some phenomenally nice Smiths pass through my hands like the one in pic.2.

 

[tokguy]

The one nice thing about an 89/92 is it's a medium sized revolver at best. It has a nice size if you have smaller hands.
It's been a while since I shot mine, but they are pretty spicy in the hand.
S & W's have a reputation for clocklike internals. Can't say myself, but I found my 2nd model S & W to be tighter than my New Service.

 

[Puma]

Remember, it was designed for Black powder pressures.

 

[tokguy]

Remember, it was designed for Black powder pressures.

Still new to the game?

 

[LawrenceN]

Remember, it was designed for Black powder pressures.

I've heard both sides of this black powder vs. smokeless debate. As a wonderful gentleman in Michigan told me, "pressure is pressure"! Even the old pistols were designed around a specific working pressure and even had a safety allowance, If you don't exceed that pressure what damage can you do? Black powder is a true explosive and the pressure spikes immediately upon ignition. Smokeless powder is a propellant and gradually spikes to maximum ignition. Logic would dictate that a sudden explosive pressure spike would be more potentially stress inducing than a more gradual pressure curve. I load HP38 in my .44 Russian to no ill effect.

 

[Ninjaturkey]

My personal .38 Special build. Modern cylinder, modern prohib length barrel and hogue Python grips. I've shot a fair bit of smokeless off the shelf ammo and had only one issue being the firing pin would crater and get stuck in the primers and the double action would not work. Shortening the firing pin fixed the issue. And it takes speedloaders and fits in my police surplus leather Don Hume holster that I got in like new condition on Ebay for $30 USD. No PAL required, what magnificent gun laws we have.