|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the M1917 revolver article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- I don't know, it was gone when I got here. If you can find one that's decent quality, it might add to the article. Deathbunny 18:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... I'm not quite sure how to set up an image, what with the copyrights and stuff. I know world.guns.ru has a picture, but it's not the best quality. I found this http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Smith_and_Wesson_Hand_Ejector_1425.jpg on the commons. It's a second-model hand ejector, only difference is that it's in .455. Might that work? 126.96.36.199 21:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- To be honest, I'm not sure how different the two weapons are. My suggestions are to haunt the US government history and military history pages for a shot. Perhaps Military History Institute's digital archive for an old manual you can pull a picture out of and clean up. Deathbunny 21:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I just maybe thought that a picture of a 2nd-model hand ejector in a slightly different chambering might work. But as I said, world.guns.ru has one. The American-180 page has an image from world.guns.ru, so I could probably get permission to use their M1917 image too if I asked. 188.8.131.52 21:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- By all means, I think a picture and a little more detail on the differences might be useful. Deathbunny 01:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Who got rid of the picture of the S&W version?
I've put that picture here twice today. Apparently soembody really doesn't want that picture in the article It is a good picture, here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:19172.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcumpston (talk • contribs)
This seems to be the problem: M1917 revolver; 22:28 . . (-92) . . Asams10 (Talk | contribs) (rv: again, please look at how you're supposed to put a picture in and reinsert it if you please.)'' Apparently my methodology and not the picture offended an expert. If anyone wants this picture in the article, by all means, have at it. It seems to fit very nicely with what several people discussing this article have requested. It is a clear picture of a Smith and Wesson Hand Ejector Model 1917 with a serial number that places its manufacture. According to Supica and Nahas, prior to April 1918. the picture contains stacked half moon clips loded with .45 auto ball cartridges and a couple of the .45 Auto Rim cartridges developed to allow case ejection without using the loaded clips. Not being a "wikipedian," I'm not conversant with the finer points of constructing one of these articles. I have learned that some contributors do not mind formating these contributions in the interest of actually improving a given article. --Mcumpston (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Did my comments make it look like I was questioning the good faith of your edits? If so, I'm sorry if you got that impression. You're getting awful defensive, these were intended as healthy nudges to learn how to do it. You seemed to have been able to insert pictures properly in another article. Just copy the format of pictures in other articles and, please, WP:Assume Good Faith. --Asams10 (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Why is a citation needed in the colt section of the article?
It's obvious? Why would anyone question the idea that a rimless bullet would slide forward in the cylinder of a weapon designed for rimmed ammunition? Take a 3 inch diameter PVC pipe put a 2 inch diameter PVC pipe inside of it, flip it so that the openings are at the top and bottom and see if the smaller tube falls out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
The paragraph that states: "The S&W M1917 is distinguishable from the Colt M1917 in that the S&W cylinder had a shoulder machined into it to permit rimless .45 ACP cartridges to headspace on the case mouth (as with automatic pistols). The S&W M1917 could thus be used without the half-moon clips, though the empty cases would have to be poked-out manually through the cylinder face, since the extractor star cannot engage the rimless cases." seems to be in error. I own both vintage Colt and S&W 1917 revolvers. The Colt example has proper .45 ACP chambers with shoulders for headspacing. The S&W revolver is "through-bored" and can take cases as long as .45 Colt. My S&W revolver may have been altered with later "through-bored" chambers (I suspect it has been), but the all-original Colt 1917 was factory-made with standard .45 ACP chambers with shoulders for proper headspacing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- The Army was unsatisfied with the original through-bored cylinder of the Colt 1917, and Colt responded by altering the design with a .45 ACP headspaced cylinder. The Army ordered the design change in November 1917, and Colt had already been manufacturing the revolvers for three months. The first 30,000 or so had the through-bored cylinders. Over 100,000 were then made with shouldered cylinders. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)