View Full Version : Singer barrels and Magazines
SINGER BARRELS and MAGAZINES----Now Morphed into a HIGH POLISH ARMY (SEE THREAD # 21)
I have not posted much---but I do enjoy the information. I hope I am doing this correctly.
For you experienced collectors---How do you identify a real Singer barrel and a real Singer Magazine? (Any pictures that show the details?)
Thanks
Ken Hill
04-23-2014, 02:37
A Singer and its small parts has many different marking, polishing and machining differences from the standard 1911A1. Posting the details of these differences would give the fakers an edge no one wants them to have.
Mr. Hill,
Thank you for your response. I understand your concerns, but I thought I would ask the question anyway to see if there would be a response. I have had the the opportunity to examine two Singer barrels (or believed to be Singer barrels), but there are not many examples out there for a good education. I have examined one Singer magazine (maybe two), but again not enough (real?) examples for a good education. The next time I get the chance (if I get the opportunity again) to examine a few I will try to spend some time to better educate myself.
Ken Hill
04-24-2014, 08:10
Stan ... post good pictures and you should receive good/reliable commentary!
Mr. Hill and other collectors,
I do not have a possible Singer barrel to post pictures of. But, here are some pictures of a colt barrel. It has no markings at all. What period is it from and what Colt pistol would it have shipped in?
Thank you for any information you can give.
From what the Clawson book states, all the barrels were marked at least with a P and various other markings such as Colt 45 Auto. I see unmarked barrels frequently around, probably so that got out of the factory untested. I would suggest getting the Collectors Guide to Colt .45 Pistols by Charles W. Clawson.
From what the Clawson book states, all the barrels were marked at least with a P and various other markings such as Colt 45 Auto. I see unmarked barrels frequently around, probably so that got out of the factory untested. I would suggest getting the Collectors Guide to Colt .45 Pistols by Charles W. Clawson.
Thank you for your reply. With some help, I have checked Mr. Clawson's big book and Collectors Guide and Mr. Meadow's 1911 book. Some collectors say it might be a early Colt barrel (one that would not have had the sub-inspectors mark---but, they have not seen one before). I was hoping someone on the forum with some early Colt barrel experience would help identify this barrel.
Maybe no one on the forum has seen a barrel like this before either. Thank you for your help.
Scott Gahimer
05-05-2014, 09:00
The surface preparation is not correct for an early, unmarked Colt barrel, but the barrel also appears to be possibly refinished. So, with that in mind, that may account for no visible markings. The lug is correct for a barrel made within the first couple years.
The surface preparation is not correct for an early, unmarked Colt barrel, but the barrel also appears to be possibly refinished. So, with that in mind, that may account for no visible markings. The lug is correct for a barrel made within the first couple years.
Thank you for your response. It might have been refinished. But it does not look refinished if you examine the actual barrel and not a picture (the barrel has oil on it in the previously posted pictures). Do you think all the early barrels were prepped/finished by the same person. I wonder how may people were making Colt barrels when they started making the 1911.
I will try and find some other pictures to post. (It looks like I payed attention when another person posted those previous pictures for me--[I hope]--the 1st and 3rd pictures here are old, the other two were taken with the first five pictures posted before.)
Scott Gahimer
05-06-2014, 09:00
The first variation unmarked Colt barrels had a distinct combination of extremely coarse (dull) finish and extremely smooth (highly polished) finish that I do not see on your barrel.
The first variation unmarked Colt barrels had a distinct combination of extremely coarse (dull) finish and extremely smooth (highly polished) finish that I do not see on your barrel.
Mr. Gahimer and collectors,
Yes, I think I know what you mean---(but I have not had the opportunity to study a first variation unmarked Colt barrel. [Just like the Singer questions that started this.]) Would a first variation unmarked Colt barrel look the same (or similar) as a horizontal H with serifs barrel? If so, I have studied a few of them.
This barrel came in a early Colt 1911 Military. I will try to post pictures. (I do not have many pictures of it [good pictures that is]---I watched someone try to take some quick pictures and they did not turn out well---Like trying to take a picture of a mirror---And I have not taken any pictures of it---not sure that I can.) So, when it was handed to me and I focused on the top of the barrel visible at the ejection port, I believed the barrel was wrong. When I took the barrel out and examined it---I could not (positively) ID it. And, that and the invitation to post pictures for help is why I posted pictures of it. It looks like a early Colt barrel with original finish. (After a few months of communication with the owner, I believe the barrel might have been in the pistol when it was acquired by a family (their) member prior to WW1---and, yes, I know---no way to be sure.) Anyway, the barrel is still a mystery.
Thanks for all your help.
The first variation unmarked Colt barrels had a distinct combination of extremely coarse (dull) finish and extremely smooth (highly polished) finish that I do not see on your barrel.
Mr. Gahimer and Collectors,
Still not sure what you mean. I hope to post some more pictures of other early barrels to see if they fit your description of "distinct combination of extremely coarse (dull) finish and extremely smooth (highly polished) finish". If this post works out I will have 5 pictures of two different early barrels. Do they fit your "distinct combination of extremely coarse (dull) finish and extremely smooth (highly polished) finish"? If so, then a first variation unmarked Colt barrel would look like these but without any marks? Thanks for your help. (Number 2 and 3 are the same barrel and 1 and 4 are of the same.) (I found another old picture in an email of the top of the receiver that the barrel I cannot ID is in--it is a mystery also---I will try to post it in another post.)
Here is what the top of the receiver [that has the mystery (for me) barrel] looks like. Do you have an idea when it was made? Thank you for all your help.
I am going to try to get a picture of the barrel installed in the pistol.
Stan ... post good pictures and you should receive good/reliable commentary!
My previous posts may be barrel boring and I do not have any pictures of a suspected Singer magazine, but I do have pictures of a magazine that I am unsure of. Any of you collectors know what this magazine is? Thanks for any help you can offer.
It looks like an early Colt mag.
Mr. Gahimer and Collectors,
Still not sure what you mean. I hope to post some more pictures of other early barrels to see if they fit your description of "distinct combination of extremely coarse (dull) finish and extremely smooth (highly polished) finish". If this post works out I will have 5 pictures of two different early barrels. Do they fit your "distinct combination of extremely coarse (dull) finish and extremely smooth (highly polished) finish"? If so, then a first variation unmarked Colt barrel would look like these but without any marks? Thanks for your help. (Number 2 and 3 are the same barrel and 1 and 4 are of the same.) (I found another old picture in an email of the top of the receiver that the barrel I cannot ID is in--it is a mystery also---I will try to post it in another post.)
No additional help or comments on the forum (on this or my other questions)? I did have inputs/comments/questions off the forms. (Some interesting comments and that same old question.)
One person suggested there was no consistent pattern to the characteristics of very early barrels, ones that were made before approximately 100 to 200 pistols were made. They said the top of receiver picture could be of a pistol made before approximately 150. Any comments or ideas on what they think/said? Thanks for any additional help.
Here is what the top of the receiver [that has the mystery (for me) barrel] looks like. Do you have an idea when it was made? Thank you for all your help.
I am going to try to get a picture of the barrel installed in the pistol.
No additional help or comments on the forum (on this or my other questions)? I did have inputs/comments/questions off the forms.
One person identified 5 or 6 distinct features from this one picture and said this receiver could have been made before about pistol 150. They told me where to research it.
It looks like an early Colt mag.
I did have additional comments off the forms.
One person identified 3 distinct features from the five pictures and said this magazine was most likely made before the 1911 pistol. They told me where to research it.
P.S. This magazine has no connection to the barrel/receiver/pistol questions I have posted. I think it would fit in it---I know it fits and fictions in other 1911 pistols.
I did have additional comments off the forms.
One person identified 3 distinct features from the five pictures and said this magazine was most likely made before the 1911 pistol. They told me where to research it.
P.S. This magazine has no connection to the barrel/receiver/pistol questions I have posted. I think it would fit in it---I know it fits and fictions in other 1911 pistols.
OK, I will try to summarize some of my questions and the information I received---Thank you all for the information you provided, on and off the forum.
With the response "A Singer and its small parts has many different marking, polishing and machining differences from the standard 1911A1. Posting the details of these differences would give the fakers an edge no one wants them to have." and, "Stan ... post good pictures and you should receive good/reliable commentary!", and with the forum responses I got. I have to presume that if I think I have posted good pictures and do not get comments---that: 1. They are not good pictures after all., and/or, 2. No one (even the advanced collectors) knows what is pictured., and/or, 3. If someone knows they do not want to share their knowledge (and give the fakers an edge)., and/or, 4. They are not sure and do not want to comment., and/or, 5. Who knows (fill in your own reason)?? So, I will comment on some of my questions/pictures, and if no one corrects me, my statements are good to go, or at least as good as---see 1.-5. above!?
On my early Colt barrel pictures and questions, my statement,"One person suggested there was no consistent pattern to the (add--final machining, clean-up, and preparation for bluing) characteristics of very early barrels, ones that were made before approximately 100 to 200 pistols were made. They said the top of receiver picture could be of a pistol made before approximately 150.", is as good as any.
On my early Colt magazine pictures and questions (I hope I do not help those fakers---but there should be only 3 to 5 people that might be interested in faking this). Apparently, it is an extensively used unmodified 1910 magazine. Extensively---because it shows signs of being shot a lot. Unmodified---because it still has the flat follower, and the magazines where modified to add the dimpled follower prior to the 3rd trials. (Yes, I know, it looks like the left front lip was modified [increased radius]. Maybe that was done to correct a follower/slide stop interference problem.) (I have only one verbal source [from a master collector] for the 1910 "magazines where modified to add the dimpled follower prior to the 3rd trials".)
Still working on information evident from the top of receiver picture and additional pictures (I hope).
Here is what the top of the receiver [that has the mystery (for me) barrel] looks like. Do you have an idea when it was made? Thank you for all your help.
I am going to try to get a picture of the barrel installed in the pistol.
Here are some of the comments and information I received on this question (all off this forum---where are all the public comments?). However, thank you for all the help I got off the public forum. Top left side, counter clock wise (from the previous picture):
1. High polish nitre (fire) blue plunger tube, ser. # range (SNR) 1 to 2400.
2. Early 1912 shaped safety lock plunger, SNR 1 through 1912(?). (Really, someone studies plungers?!)
3. Hand checkered high polish fire blue thumb safety, SNR 1 to about 150.
4. High polish fire blue ejector (I can't see the fire blue?). SNR 1 to 2400.
5. E, with serif, (has a punch jump) assemblers mark, is Wallace C. Wetherell (1908 -?) or William E. Greaves (SNR unknown or ?). Assemblers mark started after approximately 50.
6. Early 1912 looking disconnector. (How can you tell this from this picture?)
7. No ordnance inspectors (sub-inspectors) mark. It was omitted up to the approximate range 101 to 282.(?). Then started with serif H at 6 o'clock.
So, from the previous picture of the top, if the parts and markings are original, this receiver was made between 50 and about 150. Any comments?
I have not had time to try to get fresh pictures. Here is another old emailed picture of the top.
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.
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
07-08-2014, 05:23
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.
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,
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
07-13-2014, 10:44
The serial number definitely appears to have been stamped after the finish was applied.
http://i59.tinypic.com/2zdvlhg.jpg
Note the shallow recess in the grips to match the thin head screws.
2782727828278292783027831
More pictures of the Replacement Pistol.
More pictures of the Replacement Pistol.
Some details of the mag that is in the Replacement Pistol.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.