Colt Thunderer

tokguy said:
1892's are better but still not a perfect design. 1889's have an exremely weak locking system. Someone will be along to say their's locks up like a Bank Vault soon.
And that would be them trying to sell it to you. Because they are still a weak system. You can make them work, but basically you can't let anyone not familiar with the design handle it. They want to grab the cylinder and wiggle it...which is bad for 89's, puts stress on their weakest point. The cylinder latch, which the revolver relies on for proper lockup.
Colt SAA is the trick...if you've 4 -5 K $ to spend, lol.
Click to expand...

Sage advice for certain and thank you for the heads up on 1892's.

If I had 4-5k to spend on a Colt SAA it probably wouldn't be in 41LC ;)
 
Yes.That is good advise for sure.I just wanted a Colt but my Lotto numbers havent come in yet so a Thunderer is my first choice.I dont mind tinkering around with it.Like I said,I can make almost any part at work.
 
I think the 1889's are an improvement on the the Thunderers, they are a tad bigger in the hand too. The basic commonality of parts with the 92's is a plus as well. They rely (timing wise) on being balanced between a ledge on the cylinder latch & the hand. I think they are a tad forgiving with HB bullets as the bullet is originally.385 going into a .405 (IIRC) bbl. The skirt on the base is flared by this point but the nose of the bullet is still undersized (I'd imagine anyhow)
Not ideal by any means, but I've probably shot mine ( almost SA exclusively) 700 - 800 times. After the initial reworking, it's been fine. But allowing a dunderhead 30 mins with it would probably do it in.
As you are a toolmaker Atomicsauce you'd be able to rework and keep an 1889 working quite handily I'd think. They are just 1st generation 92's and following Colt wheelguns. No hammer blocks or safety features to complicate the mechanism.
But they don't 'look' like antique...if that matters to you. They are more like what you would expect a Prohibition era ganster to pull out of his overcoat.
 
I have one i have never fired because the cylinder and barrel lineup are a bit off shown in video below.



but they are a nice looking gun and more affordable than a saa i don't think i will ever have the money to buy unless i sell off a big part of my gun collection
here is mine.

 
mooncoon said:
I bought a Thunderer with a broken cylinder lock, missing "grasshopper spring" (its the double spring described by trevj. I bouth replacement parts from Coltparts.com and while no criticism with the supplier, I can only fire the gun double action. I think the problem may be balancing the two sides of the grasshopper spring but everything is concealed inside and certainly not conspicuous as to where the problem is. I certainly would not want to work on another Thunderer

cheers mooncoon
Click to expand...


Many accounts I've read about the Lightning/Thunderer involve issues with "not pulling-through" sufficiently with trigger-pressing to engage the double-action, as well as with people trying to fire them in single-action.


It appears proper function with the Lightning/Thunderer revolvers involved treating the firearms as double-action-only.
 
atomicsauace said:
Yes.That is good advise for sure.I just wanted a Colt but my Lotto numbers havent come in yet so a Thunderer is my first choice.I dont mind tinkering around with it.Like I said,I can make almost any part at work.
Click to expand...

with respect, I'm a tool and die maker as well, and i'd not want to touch an early colt DA revolver. The problems not making the parts, it's getting the d@#$ thing timed and working. (for more then 3 shots). And the springs are a PITA.

Could i do it, yes. But i have better things to do with that 6 months. The parts are teeny!
 
Wow, I didn't think it was that hard.
I built mine from a shoebox of parts; installed an new cylinder latch & hand ( which requires tuning for the timing ) and a spring or two.
Might even have fabbed another spring IIRC.
But I'm just knuckle dragging oil trash :)

Edit; but it was an '89, not a Thunderer...they may suck way more
 
Last edited:
I have owned 7 Thunderers. At the moment, I have 3.
I have rebuilt 2 to "as-new" condition. They have fired every time in SA and DA flawlessly, for approx 1200 rounds each.
Some parts I bought, some I made, ALL had to be fitted. As for being complex, its a matter of perception. 1 person may design and build an engine by hand and think nothing of it, while another may struggle just to change spark plugs.
All that it really comes down to, when fitting and timing these Colts, is understanding basically how 4 parts interact with each other.

Also, the 1877's must have worked pretty good at one time to be used by the likes of Billy the Kid, John Wesley Hardin and Doc Holiday!
 





I own 3 thunderes currently. They are very nice guns for looking at, I would pass on buying one as a shooter though. You should also consider how thin the cylinder walls are on the .41 thunderers vs the 1889,1892, and the SAA in .41 if you are planning on using smokeless...

Steve
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom