A New Colt 1903 Hammerless?– SHOT Show 2015

If you have never been to SHOT Show it is hard to get a grasp on how huge this show is and how many firearms there are to see. I read somewhere that if you walk every single isle, on all the floors and in all the rooms, that it would add up to about 40 miles. I know by Friday my feet felt like they had walked 40 miles. What I am trying to convey is that there is so much stuff, noise and people that it can be difficult to find something that truly stands out and is a surprise when you see it.

What's old is new.

What’s old is new.

I’m talking mind blowing type stuff. My mind got blown on Thursday at SHOT. I had seen and found some truly cool and innovative things, but not at the level that spoke to me.  I was certainty not expecting my mind to be blown at the Colt booth either. Nothing against Colt at all, but they are a monolithic bastion of tradition. Consistent.

When I was handed a 1903 Colt Pocket Hammerless at the Colt booth I had 3 thoughts run through my head.

  1. What the hell is this doing here?
  2. Man, this thing is in great shape!
  3. Wait a minute, I think this is new?!

I was right. It is new. Mind blown. Colt has teamed with U.S. Armament Corp., the guys that made the Gatling gun a few years back, to remake the old John Browning classic. Now they are making the 1903 in the General Officers Pistol version. Be sure to watch your interview with Curt Wolf who is the man behind this project.

Should we hold our breath for a re-release of the Snakes?

Should we hold our breath for a re-release of the Snakes?

Here is the break down on what is planned for this run:

  • .32 ACP Type 2 (which means no magazine disconnect).
  • 3500 currently in production, should be available in a couple of months.
  • 2000 will be Parkerized.
  • 1000 will be blued.
  • 500 with same serial number and information about the General the original pistol was issued to.
  • Colt Custom Shop will be doing a small run in Royal Blue and Nickel Pearl.
  • Base model will have an MSRP of $1,395 no word on the others at this time.

After US Armament finishes the 3,500 run, the tooling will be given to Colt. What will they do with it? A 1908 in .380 maybe? An update to 9mm? Pure speculation on our part here. But it would be awesome.

colt 1844
colt 1847
colt 1846
colt 1845
{ 133 comments… add one }
  • john jandura June 21, 2017, 7:17 pm

    it’s nice except for the price, fortunately for my budget I only stumbled onto this development today, otherwise I might have sold a kidney to buy one, mags for originals are available at gun shows but are scarce and a bit pricey, they occasionally pop up on e-bay, there is a silver lining here, I purchased an original about ten years ago manufactured in 1919, in factory nickel finish with plastic pearl grips and an extra a set of black plastic grips, its value has more than tripled since then, it’s a real piece history; just watch the old gangster films, not mention the gangster of the twenties, thirties, and forties, enuff said J J

  • Joe April 12, 2017, 2:36 pm

    I checked my 1903 and my 2 1908s compared them to the photos of the muzzle and the rear of the slide.
    This gun is a piece of crap! If you have a 1903 or ’08, check out the photos next to your gun.
    I no longer want one.

  • Steve Munson October 27, 2016, 8:15 pm

    I have the blued version. And I was more than happy to pay their price. I have a Colt 1903 made in 1923. It was from an estate sale. The gun was never fired and is as is new. Of course I would not fire it, but the desire was there. So when the 1903 became available I jumped on it. Of course the one made in 1923 is hand fitted and the blue finish is unbelievable. I once asked for 4000 and the person who saw the pistol said he didn’t think I would let it go but did not have that much money. His question was what would I do with a 1903 that was perfect. That’s a good question. What would you do with the Mona Lisa. Now back to the one I bought. It did have a problem with a broken sear. One call, e-mail a shipping label, shipped Tuesday returned Friday same week. I shot 75 rounds before the sear broke and at 20meters ever shot was in a five inch circle (Four inch low). I am a very happy owner of a shoot able Colt 1903. And when the 1908 comes out I will be back in the line.

  • TimS October 11, 2016, 7:04 am
  • RC June 17, 2016, 6:17 pm

    Where can you get extra mags for this from?

  • GAP May 20, 2016, 4:02 am

    Carried one for first 10 years of policingprimary issue pistol for general duties, changed over to 1910 Browning .32ACPs until they were replaced by SW MP Model 10 in .38 special (modernising we were) for left handers had a bad habit of knocking the safety on at the wrong time. I still have two in the collection and I’m going to modernise the rattler to .32NAA, safety catch both side, dovetail the slide & install night shights trim under the trigger for a higher grip, see if I can get the magazine release moved up to the “American” position and glue some pads on the bottom of the magazines, then I’m going to take it out to the Range and have some fun & bring back some memories.

  • Robin December 12, 2015, 11:10 pm

    You had me all the way up to the point where you said it would sell for $1395. REALLY? What a lost opportunity to seize a sizeable portion of the concealed carry market. About two and a half times what it is really worth IMHO, unless you’ve got money to burn and just have to have one.

  • AUSTIN BAILEY October 13, 2015, 12:49 am

    These old 1903’s are great guns. I own 6 of them and if something ever happens and I should have to sell all my guns, these would be the last to go. At 100 years old they are still dependable and accurate. I like the new repo but at $1400.00 I can get myself a couple more of the originals. As for a carry gun, I have one of the 32,s with me every where I go. I can stop anybody I need to stop and not have to worry about killing someone behind them. Can’t guarantee that with a .45.

  • Dennis Taylor September 6, 2015, 2:10 am

    I’d love to have one in royal blue finish with fire blue screws and color case hardened grip safety and trigger.

  • Billy August 26, 2015, 9:13 am

    Just outstanding! I owned a brace of .32’s years ago – best instinctive pistol ever. Like shooting with your finger (good thing too, since you spend more time looking for those puny sights instead of through them). Would love to have one in .380/royal blue. Sooo classy. Not like the combat tupperware on the market today – no class, no soul, no style.

    Now if they would only start producing the Colt 1909 in .45 Colt again. Pretty sure I’d drain the bank account to acquire a brace of those…

  • Rick August 5, 2015, 10:45 pm

    I have a Colt 1903 .32 cal made in 1914. Serial # 170241. Got the Colt letter and it was shipped to Milwaukee Wisconsin October 14, 1914. Was well worth the $75.00 for the history. I see the MSRP is around $1,300.00 for the clone. I’d like to find out what the price was back in the day mine was new. Any ideas?

  • coreyhesse July 9, 2015, 12:53 pm

    Nice, but production run to little, price too high, and no 9mm browning short.

  • Mark June 14, 2015, 2:15 am

    I apologize if this has been answered prior. Any leads on a release date?

  • John May 12, 2015, 10:28 am

    when will the new Colt 1903 be released

  • Moe May 8, 2015, 11:59 pm

    I hope this means that colt will produce enough extra mags that they’ll also be available to those of us with antiques. My 1903 was produce in 1905 and still shoots great. My grandfather bought it used when it was just a few years old. My father kept it for awhile. This makes me the forth owner and the gun has already outlived three of them and I suspect it outlive me as well. NOTHING HAS BETTER ERGONOMICS , including my brand new Canik tp9 as.

  • Moe May 2, 2015, 3:06 am

    I have a 1903 made in 1905.I would love to have one of these. But here a great question, Will we be able to buy mags, now that they are going to be tool up for it anyway?

  • Moe May 2, 2015, 3:05 am

    I have a 1903 made in 1905.I would love to have one of these. But here a great question, Will we be able to buy mags, now that they are going to be tool up for it anyway?

  • Kerry April 11, 2015, 6:52 pm

    Is this what Colt thinks is going to bring them back from the brink of going out of business? Keep ignoring the consumer Colt and you will soon be dust in the wind. LMFAO!

  • Richard Varner March 11, 2015, 8:33 pm

    That is not a Type 2,maybe type 4.

  • TZAZ March 3, 2015, 4:29 pm

    At the price they are going to sell for a person can get a really nice oridginal.

  • Conrad February 10, 2015, 1:30 pm

    I luv the .32 acp I carry one every day. Look forward to this coming out. But you really should make enough so that you can sell them for $700 a piece. $1400 is a hard sell.

    • Thomas May 1, 2016, 4:47 am

      Amen to that brother. Especially the awful finish’s Colt puts on there autos. You can see horizontal scratch marks on the slides.

    • RPDailey March 23, 2018, 6:24 pm

      HARD SELL….. NO Just plain stupid…….Good Bye Colt

  • mike February 8, 2015, 2:42 pm

    That doesn’t appear to match the fit and finish of the original, by a mile.

  • Steve February 8, 2015, 7:17 am

    I own a 1905 .32 hammerless and a 1926. The pistols are a real joy to shoot. Mine have been reliable and accurate. I don’t shoot them much due to their age and value, but a new production in .32ACP would be just what the doctor ordered. It is a truly concealable, snagless carry piece that garnered much favor from law enforcement and gangsters alike back in the day. In .380 it was a reasonable sidearm for officers and pilots during WWII. While not the most powerful cartridge in our arsenal I would not want to be staring down the barrel of a 1903 in .32ACP. One thing I do know is that you will hit what you’re aiming at when you pull the trigger and can do it repeatedly until the magazine is empty. Congrats to Colt for bringing out a classic that needed to be reproduced. Now if only they could get the price closer to $1100. What the heck, I’m going to get one anyway and I think they are banking on that.

  • Marty February 6, 2015, 5:15 pm

    My dad had one manufactured in 1919. It was fun to shoot but I recall it was never that accurate. The sights-rear sight-was very small and difficult to line up. The other thing I recall as a young guy-I’m 72 now-was that the slide didn’t lock back on the last shot. My dad use to keep it in his bed stand at night. When he had a stroke and passed away the gun went missing after EMS left.

  • Mark February 5, 2015, 12:02 pm

    When I was stationed in Germany in the early 70’s all the German Polezi carried were Walther PP in.32ACP
    I asked one of the cops one day why they didn’t at least carry a .380?
    He told me a .32 would shoot through a car door, and a .380 wouldn’t.
    I mentioned this to a member of my club, and he said that was total bullcrap.
    One of the other members voulenteered a rusty VW beetle that was going to be scrapped, to use for a test.
    I used 3 different .32’s and two .380s.
    I had 3 different brands of .32 ammo, and 2 different .380’s
    The .32 went through the door window up or down every time .
    Rem .380 FMJ did not.
    The plus P ammo did, in the .380, but in my S&W Walther PPK would sting the shooting hand.
    The stated vel. on the boxes of ammo ,in both calibers were almost identical, with the exception of the +P, so I guess the smaller bullet dia. allowed easier penetration.
    I have a small Spanish made .32, that I carry in my back pocket all the time, and if I am working in a high crime neighborhood, I carry a Beretta 84 with a 13 +1 capacity, plus 2 spare mags. on me.
    A cop asked me for my permit one day as I was unloading ladders off the roof of my van, my shirt raised up high enough to see my Beretta. He asked me if I had any other weapons , as he had secured my .380 as he was checking my permit.
    I told him I had a .32 in my back pocket.
    He asked what I was afraid of, and I told him ”Absolutely nothing!”

  • Arthur February 5, 2015, 8:37 am

    Seems to be quite a few folks here that don’t know about the 32acp much. On paper it would seem that the old 32 is far outclassed by the 380. Not so fast. The 32acp penetrates better than the 380. I have fired both as well as 38 special 9mm and 45 into phone books. In a tiny cartridge like the 32, you will be seeking to reach the vital areas and shot placement is the key. These shots I fired were with a 1903 and that barrel lenth. I would like to see a regular production of these complete with modern style sights. I don’t carry my 1903 I just love to shoot it and as such, I hope we can get spare magazines that work correctly as a result of this limited run.

  • Tim February 5, 2015, 7:44 am

    while your reproducing old guns where is the 380 mustang government that you promised a year ago. that would satisfy me and most that would like to se the 1903 in 380. the people want what the people want! great carry gun not that I want to shoot someone but just in case someone wants to shoot me!

  • steve February 4, 2015, 10:35 pm

    are all of the slides going to get scratched to hell like the one in the picture just from the slide cycling?

  • Geoff February 4, 2015, 12:43 pm

    I applaud the effort – and it looks like a good effort was put into it, buy as ANY of you out there with an original will immediately notice from the excellent close up photos, even with the latest CNC machinery we just can’t duplicate the incredibly close and amazing machining tolerances that they somehow achieved back in the glory days of manufacturing. Take a look at that close-up muzzle shot, then pull out your original – look at the machining of the slide to frame from the close-up of the rear view – not even close I’m afraid. Why would I pay $1,300 for one of these when I can get a solid original for $500 (or less)???

    However, again, love the idea and the effort!

  • BRASS February 3, 2015, 9:36 pm

    .380 works for me, but with .32 I might as well carry a .22 or .22 mag. It’s a pocket pistol so .380 is fine, I don’t expect a nine, but .32? Probably not.

    • buffalochip1 February 4, 2015, 5:21 am

      You’re quite correct that .380 ACP was an admirable product improvement over .32 ACP, but .32 ACP is still significantly more powerful than any .22 LR pocket pistol, when you equalize the LR ballistics for the short barrel. Yes, it’s not your first choice, but you could be stuck with far worse. Forget about the hollow point .32 ammo and use 71 grain FMJ in the Colt M1903 to obtain decent penetration, and train for head shots. (The 1903 is very accurate for its breed, and 7 to 15 yard head shots are easy, even with the dinky sights.) The FMJ round will reliably penetrate a human skull at pocket pistol ranges, something no short barrel .22 can boast. Also, the .32 feeds reliably in a pocket autoloader design, far better than .22 LR in any bullet configuration or material. I have an M1903 that was made in 1927, have shot multiple hundreds of rounds through it, and it has NEVER malfed — ever! And it’s a very rare .22 pocket pistol that can make a similar claim. Yes, .32 ACP is an underpowered round, but the idea that the .22 LR is superior for pocket pistol defensive purposes is absurd. The .32 ACP wins that one, hands down, and it ain’t even close.

      I’d take it over the .22 Magnum as well, which is a small pocket revolver proposition only (no really dinky .22 Magnum autoloaders), due to its overall cartridge length and fairly high pressure. And to make matters worse, the magnum also loses a tremendous amount of its velocity advantage out of tiny pocket pistol barrels. It does, however, make a helluva lotta noise, and a big flash as well — so you may scare ’em to death better with the baby rimfire magnum! Otherwise, stick with the .380 or .32 in that type of gun — they were purpose-built for that job, for very good, specific, and well-thought-out reasons — especially for the first decade of the 20th century. And while the M1903 and M1908 are on the large side for that type of gun nowadays, they pack very flat, and hide deceptively well versus their weight as a result. Gee … that Browning dude knew his stuff … 🙂

      • terry seale February 4, 2015, 8:22 pm

        Thanks, Buff. Great report and very persuasive. 71 grain FMJ it is.

        I am definitely raising the price on the three Colt 1903s that I have left in my collection. I don’t want to part with any of them but cash is tight and I will hold them as long as possible in expectation of a Python-like market price explosion. It sure is overdue. The Chinese 1911 is a fine product as far as it goes, and I am certain that a Chinese M1903 would find a huge and profitable market in the US. I’d certainly buy one or two since I can’t buy this new Colt at this price to shoot!

        • buffalochip1 February 5, 2015, 1:50 pm

          In round numbers, Colt made a half million M1903s, so there’s a lot of them out there, especially beat up and refinished ones. Nevertheless, if yours are in nice shape, original, and especially if they are all of different types (I’m sure you already know that there were four basic types, plus the military variations) — I’d sure try to find a way to hold on to them, at least the ones that are in “collector” condition. They are becoming steadily more valuable, especially the 95%+ ones that haven’t been refinished, and as you say, there will be a tipping point at which there will be a price run on these.

          I don’t expect a Python-like explosion, which was started by a zombie TV series in which the star carries a 6″ stainless Python — the 21st century equivalent of Dirty Harry — but I do think the collector market is finally starting to discover how nice the pre-WWI bright and pre-WWII charcoal blued, finely fitted-and-finished M1903 and M1908 Colt pocket autoloaders really were. (This goes for the M1908 vest pocket .25 ACP also, when they’re in collector condition.) There will always be a lot out there in ratty condition that won’t be worth much, but nice ones will continue to appreciate, and will make a big run at some point. If yours are nice ones (clean, original, and 95%+), try to keep them.

          And be sure to find yourself an M1908 (the .380 version) in collector condition, while you can still do so without having to empty your 401K — these have already started to get expensive, as production was only about 20% or so of the .32 version — but it’s a must-have for a Colt collector. Great stuff — and Happy Collecting! 🙂

  • thunderbolt612 February 3, 2015, 9:20 pm

    Great idea, Nice gun, Waaaaaaaaay Overpriced!!!!!!!

  • terry seale February 3, 2015, 8:30 pm

    This is a splendid development! John Browning’s design remains brilliant. My sole complaint is the magazine release, which requires two hands and is remarkably clumsy. Surprised Browning did not incorporate the thumb-release magazine once he had perfected it for the 1911. Perhaps insufficient available space.

    Fabulously concealable, flat, accurate, snag-free and streamlined even before the word existed, this sidearm provided more shots than the existing revolvers, was easier to reload quickly, fit comfortably and securely in most every hand, female or male, made target re-acquisition after fire smoothly rapid. The .32 ACP round was perfectly adequate for European and Asian police work and civilian self-defense. Colt’s famously superior robust steel, Browning-trained machinists and hand-fitters, elite inspectors, world famous engravers, eccentric and creative marketing executives, unparalleled pride in workmanship, legacy of interchangeable parts, remarkable one-off presentation arms of fine art presented by the factory to kings, potentates, presidents, heads of state and world heroes, iconic traditions ever emerging from under the Blue Dome by the Connecticut River are all integral with America’s assent to the technological, political, military, economic, democratic, governance, academic, and cultural dominance, leadership, and inspiration that it is known for today.

    The Seecamp .32 embodies the best features of the 1903 Pocket Hammerless Colt, and we have heard no complaints about its utility or effectiveness in action. If you need lethality, you shoot him in the head after your shot has punched him in the chest. Caliber .38 Special lethality was no real help to Bernie Goetz, so .32 Silvertip or HydroShok seems good enough for me, especially close up aiming for the face.

    One does wonder, nonetheless, why hasn’t anyone fabricated the hell out of this genius design, which is well into the public domain for over 90-odd years now, even with lower grade steel than Colt’s. It was perhaps the most successful and numerous commercial self-loader apart from the 1911, and–if you have any plans for a film noir thriller or period piece–YOU NEED THIS GUN!

  • Julio lopes February 3, 2015, 7:49 pm

    Base Model $1400 ? What am I missing? Aesthetically this gun shares more in common with an Auto Ordinance 1911 with the OD green parkarized finish, classic sights and crappy grips (minus the hammer of course)and I bought one for $300. Can someone enlighten me, I love the classics almost as much as the next guy but dishing out close to fifteen hundred for a reproduction chambered in 32ACP hell even chambered in 9mm the salesman is going to have his work cut out for him.

  • OFBG February 3, 2015, 7:34 pm

    I have to go with the others who questioned the price. Unless the “street price” is about half the MSRP quoted, I would go for a worn original (which I have seen for $500 or less within the last year) before this new one.

  • BlueRidgeGunner February 3, 2015, 7:05 pm

    I hope I work as well at 100+ years old…

  • Ron February 3, 2015, 7:00 pm

    (my original comment was in the wrong place – sorry)
    The text says a Type II – but I don’t see a barrel bushing.
    Without a magazine disconnect – wouldn’t this be considered a type III?

    • Sam Trisler February 3, 2015, 8:54 pm

      You are right, that would be a Type III. I went off of what Curt told me at SHOT Show and didn’t think to check. I might have misheard him, but I have Type II in my notes. Sorry about that. The important part to me was no magazine disconnect!

  • Buffalochip1 February 3, 2015, 6:39 pm

    Would love to see a 1903 in .32 or a 1908 in .380 with the original pre-1915 commercial Colt finish — high gloss rust bluing on a highly polished surface, with fire blued small parts, and originally styled hard rubber grips with the old style Colt logo. Yes, I know we wouldn’t get the original barrel length, but this original finish and trim would be very cool and would sell very well, even at a premium. Colt Custom Shop — how about making us a few?

  • howard2374 February 3, 2015, 6:10 pm

    First, I’m glad that Colt is having new 1903’s made. I have an original .32 & love it. Now many more will be able to enjoy this classic. Second, Remington needs to take a lesson from Colt (and maybe Colt learned a lesson from Remington) regarding the ill-fated Model 51. (I have an original Model 51 [.380]. It is clearly superior to the 1903 from safety, ease of use, and the clip ejection button.) The retro Model 51 tried to incorporate new (advanced?) technology, and it failed miserably. The lines of the ‘new’ Model 51 were even changed! Remington deserved the bad press, they earned it. They should have stayed with the original design, duh. (I hope my grammar, spelling, and typos are all correct for you editors out there.)

  • BlueTrain February 3, 2015, 5:00 pm

    Is this the gun I would sell all the others that I have in order to buy? Perhaps, if chance lets met get to the dealer before someone else. I was in a division headquarters company in the 1960s and the arms room had two of them. I wasn’t allowed to touch them, however.

  • BA Taylor February 3, 2015, 4:25 pm

    Looks pretty nice. I wonder if that barrel will fit my original?

  • Mr. Farknocker February 3, 2015, 3:20 pm

    Great! Got one of these little suckers in fabulous shape. With the re-intro of this little pistol, it means more magazines will be available for the avid collector. For all of the nay sayers who complain about the .32 ACP round being too small, go look at the FBI statistics on kill shots for this round and I think you will be surprised to find that it exceeds the .380, 9mm .40 and other rounds. Yeah you may credit the high kill numbers to the age of the round but the fact remains that it has proven itself as a lethal round.

    • buffalochip1 February 4, 2015, 6:32 am

      Absolutely true, Mr Farknocker. It’s obviously not the first choice of shooters in the 2nd decade of the 21st century, but both the gun and the round are better by far than what they’re being given credit for — and the lowly .32 ACP is closer ballistically to .380 ACP than it is to .22 LR or .25 ACP, the rounds to which it is most often compared.

      No one would argue for the .32 ACP when better choices are clearly available — especially since the product-improved .380 ACP (1908) can be made to run on just about every platform the .32 will run on, and the 9×19 on platforms only a bit larger. But that doesn’t mean that the .32 turned into chopped liver the day the .380 was born. After over 110 years, the .32 ACP is still a far better pocket pistol round than any .22 rimfire — folks that claim superiority to various .22 RF loads fail to correct the .22 ballistics for the tiny barrels. The .32’s 71 grain FMJ is easily good for 900 FPS / 130 ft lbs ME, while the .22 LR is lucky to hit 900 FPS with a 40 grain LHP, which only churns up energy in the 80 ft lb range. And most LR rounds are slower than 900 in most pocket pistol barrels. By the time the real chronograph figures are in, the end result is often a 40-something grain bullet with a an 7XX-8XX muzzle velocity, and an energy figure that barely pushes the envelope of the traditional 60 ft lbs required for a cartridge to be considered as a realistic lethal threat.

      The ugly truth is that .22 LRs have terrible ballistics out for dinky barrels. The .25 ACP is lucky to break 700 FPS, and only has energy in the .22 LR range, with similar performance issues. (But it at least feeds well in most guns, a huge bugaboo in dinky .22 LR autoloaders.) Conversely, the .32 ACP, with its old low-capacity stubby case, its very fast burning powder, and its relatively heavy 71 grain FMJ slug (still the best load), will reliably penetrate a human skull at any reasonable range, and will penetrate vital organs with good center-mass hits, as long as there’s no body armor involved. It’s no exaggeration to consider it the first serious and really useful pocket pistol cartridge on the chart, glancing up from the bottom — along with the gun, and its Browning-designed sister, the FN M1900, most impressive efforts for the turn of the 20th Century. They’re still viable and useful firearm and cartridge combinations today — all the gun really needs is for someone like Ed Brown to work up an extended safety lever, some higher visibility sights, and a grip safety bump for the little beast, and it would be entirely ready to soldier onward for another 100 years. Hats off to Colt for dusting this one off the shelf and bringing it back to the market.

  • Chad February 3, 2015, 2:49 pm

    I’m laughing at all the 9mm comments. If you want a Browning-designed 9mm, you can go 1911 or Hi-Power.

  • Pete February 3, 2015, 12:45 pm

    I sure hope they make a couple little changes: allow for the sights to be changeable so better ones can be put in if desired, and make the firing pin drop-safe. And do a run of magazines for all those owners of the originals who need new mags please!

  • john adams February 3, 2015, 12:37 pm


    • buffalochip1 February 3, 2015, 6:53 pm

      Pythons have gone nuts on the used market for a number of years, since the star of the zombie TV series endeared the model to yet another generation of shooters. I think Colt could have sold a fair number of them at a substantial price, if they had reintroduced them a couple of years ago as a limited production item out of their Custom Shop, so long as they didn’t overproduce them. (You would always want to keep supply a little bit behind demand on something like this.) I’m amazed that they failed to do so, as I think they could have made a bunch of money on it, and enhanced their brand as well. Now the TV series is on its last season; might be a bit too late now to cash in on this. Another opportunity lost for Colt, which has let tons of opportunities for revolvers go by the board. I think they have a nice item here in this 1903 .32ACP, but by and large their marketing skills are in the tank. Hopefully this one works out for them — even a blind hog finds an acorn sometimes, as the saying goes.

  • arnolld February 3, 2015, 12:32 pm

    Wow, I have a 03 and a 08 and absolutely love both. That are handsome, shoot sweetly and accurately. The 380 would be great reintroduction, couple with a contrast site. Then If Browning would do a alloy frame for the High Power, both of my life long “Why don’t they make a….” will be answered.

  • Coltman February 3, 2015, 12:16 pm

    Until COLTS MFG CO, INC gets out of Connecticut and buys back the Union’s ownership portion, their products will always be very expensive. Personally, I’ll never understand why the moment this company gets the least bit solvent, they replace the top management, discontinue taking Custom Shop orders from small but dependable dealers and begin to spiral downward over and over. It’s just like Groundhog Day!

  • R.L. Louis February 3, 2015, 11:55 am

    ~$1,400 msrp is a bit steep for a single action 32ACP, even if it is a Colt. More of a collectible or range toy, IMO.

  • petru sova February 3, 2015, 11:50 am

    Don’t count on the grips to be hand checkered either like the old ones. Guaranteed they will be machine cut checkered and we all know what kind of quality that is – zero.

  • Brian February 3, 2015, 11:49 am

    For those who want to talk about using this as a carry gun, this is intended as a collector/shooter. .32ACP is fun to shoot in most pistols. My wife loves to shoot her 1935 Walther PP and VZ-61 Scorpion. She bets her life on a Smith 642 though.
    As far as this Colt goes, I will look to get her an original for a lot less so that she can experience it’s old world charm and joy.

  • petru sova February 3, 2015, 11:48 am

    OK before we all get too excited here we have to ask some down to earth questions. Is the new gun made of modern junk castings or is it made with the same quality forged steel of the original? Of course you can bet the barrels are not made to the original specs as the rifling is certainly not going to be the old fashioned deep groove hand cut rifling. Still its nice to know someone is at lease making an attempt to produce one of the older designs even it is ersatz amongst the modern sea of puke garbage plasticky pistols. Now if we could just get FN to make the Model 1910 again as it was way more concealable than the Colt M.

    By the way did you know the .32 ACP was chosen over the .380 ACP by the German Army because the .32 would penetrate a steel helmet and the .380 would not. So much for Gun writer myth that the .32 was a worthless caliber even with the original old style ammo.

  • Lyndon Johnson February 3, 2015, 11:02 am

    Have two Wathler PP’s, one in 22 and one in 32 and love them both. Can put a full mag in the head at 15 yds and if that ain’t a stopper ah’ll run. As always the old firstsoldier.

  • E.L. Thompson February 3, 2015, 10:58 am

    Forgive my ignorance, but what does ‘no magazine disconnect’ mean? You can’t drop the mag? If so, do you gotta load it one round at a time?
    I want one as well, but $1400 bucks is toooo steep for my blood.

    • Sam Trisler February 3, 2015, 11:12 am

      Some of the later generations of the 1903 had a magazine disconnect. A gun with a magazine disconnect will only fire if a magazine is in the gun.

    • Nick February 3, 2015, 11:28 am

      It just means the gun WILL fire without a magazine inserted. When you unload a charged Automatic, you drop the mag and point in a safe direction, and rack the slide to eject the chambered round. Weapons that HAVE a magazine disconnect are NOT supposed to shoot with no magazine in them. It’s really NOT a consideration to worry about if you just practice treating ALL weapons as if they will discharge at ANY time if the trigger is pulled. In a hand to hand situation where you might be struggling with an attacker for control of your weapon it would be handy to be able to drop the slide and render the weapon inoperative, then you could just concentrate on beating the $hit out of him. Hence the addition of the “Magazine Disconnect”.

  • dan229 February 3, 2015, 10:44 am

    I hope Colt makes the Cobra or Agent again. I like six shooters that fit fiveshooter j-frame holsters. Maybe crimson trace will make a laser for it. Revolvers go bang every time.

  • Mike February 3, 2015, 10:42 am

    To me the appeal is that it is a reproduction of the original. I don’t want it in 9mm with 3-dot sights; I’ve got an M&P Shield that has those features. I want something that is as near the original as possible. Then all I’ll need is a trenchcoat and a fedora and I’ll be ready to roll!

  • Charles February 3, 2015, 10:37 am

    Once again Colt misses the mark. Limited production? So only those connected and with money to burn in this economy will be able to get one. Might as well be made of unobtainuim.

  • TVPC58 February 3, 2015, 10:31 am

    Colt, like S&W, should have a Classics line of handguns. It would be great to have the Woodsman, Diamondback, Python, Anaconda, etc. back in production. The problem will be the price, although they could mitigate this by the new CNC production methods. Like some of the commenters said, you could find an original 1903 for about the same price. However, some other newly made models could be priced under what the originals are selling for now. I wonder if an outfit, like Armscor/Rock Island, would jump in and do a 1903 or 1905, etc. at a reasonable price?

  • Lou Conover February 3, 2015, 10:11 am

    Considering I recently purchased a Colt 1908 in .380 online for $800 in excellent condition I’ll pass on these at $1400.00. My “antique” is the smoothest shooting .380 I’ve ever experienced. Colt needs to do a price reality check.

  • James Carter February 3, 2015, 9:54 am

    If Colt makes the Python again, I will sell my house, my truck, my wife and buy me two or three. But I will keep my Dog !

    • Rob February 3, 2015, 10:45 am

      Why is Colt wasting their time on old relics? Why did they abandon the staple of their lines over the past 50 years? This could be someone in charge attempting to save a company which is failing.

      • Skip February 4, 2015, 1:52 am

        Colt is wasting time on old relics for the same reason that Sig Sauer, Kimber, and many other fine handgun makers are:
        Some of us like John Browning’s designs, and the simple fact that today, a hundred years later, they still function well.
        Rohrbaugh makes the comment with his weapon, that they should be carried , and used when you actually need to shoot someone. Not recommended to shoot very often. Plus, you need to change springs quite often. I can’t get into buying a carton of springs each time I buy a carton of ammunition.
        I have a few Colts, mostly new, in boxes, and with papers. I don’t recall them mentioning that it was best to just carry them around , and just shoot it enough to be familiar with the “controls”

    • tom February 3, 2015, 11:57 am

      I thought I read somewhere that it would be virtually impossible for Colt to bring Back the classic revolvers like the Python, Cobra, Anaconda, etc due to Colt having destroyed the dies and other machine parts needed to manufacture the guns. That and the folks with the skill to make them have long since retired or have passed on.

      Why Colt ever got out of revolver manufacturing is beyond me. A corporate strategic mistake. Was it fear of lawsuits from the anti-gun lobby? Costs of production? I don’t know but gun makers have been trying to keep up with demand so Colt lost out on the opportunity to make huge sales of their classic as well as modern designs.

      I have a Colt Lawman Trooper MK III and while that was considered a “duty” or “working man’s” gun it’s still great with a beautiful blued finish. I kick myself for not getting a Python or other classic Colt make in the mid 90’s when they sold for around $500 to $700! Now they are 2 1/2 times as much if not triple.

  • Jeff Frischkorn February 3, 2015, 9:50 am

    A very sweet-looking pistol and I suspect a very nice shooter, too. Alas, the $1,400 figure is more than daunting for this retiree’s pension. Sad, very sad…

  • Mark Davis February 3, 2015, 9:50 am

    I have an original 1903 in 95% condition. It’s a great gun. It fires like a dream. I hope the new ones are just as good.

  • Brian February 3, 2015, 9:39 am

    I own 4 originals in .32acp. These pistols have always been my favorites. The ergonomic shape a thin profile always made me think; why wouldn’t Colt make these today, as the pocket pistols have had such great success in recent years. I would certainly buy one in 9mm if the form factor remained the same!

  • Willysguy February 3, 2015, 9:35 am

    I’ve been hoping for over 30 years that Colt would start making the 1903’s again! It is my favorite Colt design, after the 1911. But at $1400 apiece there is no way I can buy one. Oh well, looks like I’ll just have to keep waiting….

  • Joe February 3, 2015, 9:21 am

    I have two .32s and two .380s. They all shoot great and are mostly in great shape. That remake is
    a little pricey though. A Ruger LC9s works just as well for a third of the price. Damg near the same size

  • PT Pete February 3, 2015, 9:21 am

    Cal. 32 Auto ,as we call it, was sufficient to send Hitler to hell. Fun round to shoot and makes a lot of noise. I will be in line to buy one when they are available.

    • Bruce February 3, 2015, 9:49 am

      Yes but Hitler put the gun to his head and pulled the trigger. why carry a .32 when you can get the gun in .380. I carry an original .380 and have for 20 yrs. Great gun and very accurate at self defense distances. The easiest gun I own to put in my waistband other than my Remington .380. Great Idea and when they make it in .380 I will be on the phone with the custom shop.

      • Moe May 8, 2015, 11:41 pm

        nothing wrong with the .38 but the .32 shoots a little better, gets the job done, holds one more round and is more economical to shoot.

  • eli February 3, 2015, 8:44 am

    please do a 1903 in 9mm I would buy the crap out of one

  • Fred Ash February 3, 2015, 8:43 am

    I like it; however, for the money, get a Rohrbaugh.

  • jmg169 February 3, 2015, 8:40 am

    Yes, please on the possible “snakes” reproduction. I have a .22 Diamondback, and would love a 22WMR and .38Spl version, not to mention a Python. Hoping the Colt folks will work with this group again for a redux of these awesome revolvers.

  • Indagila February 3, 2015, 8:34 am

    All well and good but price point is a killer for a pocket rocket. I would like to see two things from Colt, since they seem interested in retro, and retro in the firearms world is good, if price is doable for the common man. A 1905 in .45acp and the wonderful Colt Woodsman Match Target in .22. Had one of those and sold it, worst gun deal I ever made.

  • EP February 3, 2015, 8:14 am

    Love the gun. Have one. Love the revival as well. But honestly, the parkerized version which reminisces back to war time service pistols are so homely compared to the high polish blued ones and for the base price listed that is approaching $1500, one could get a vintage piece in the box that is in mint condition.

    Nonetheless, get them out there and into peoples hands! The more the better!

  • Dphariss February 3, 2015, 8:11 am

    9×19 would require a lot of design rework

    • Mark Tercsak February 17, 2015, 11:06 pm

      I believe it has already been done, the company I believe is Cylinder and slide, the pistol has a internal hammer much like Remington’s R51 the original was a 32 acp also the new is 9×19 mm Parabellum, the Cylinder & Slide Pistol is in 45 Acp and was a few thousand Dollars.

  • Flep Vandergaard February 3, 2015, 7:52 am

    It looks great! I hope that Colt does offer it in 9x19mm. .380 ACP would work, too. Such an easy gun to conceal in an IWB holster. I won’t carry my grandfather’s original pistol.

  • Frank Johnston February 3, 2015, 7:48 am

    Brilliant idea and bring it back in 380 and 9mm. Three dot sights and night sights as an option. A wonderful design and idea that was genius from the start.Cheers to you all. Keep up the good work.



  • S.M. Camp February 3, 2015, 7:41 am

    Make it in .32 NAA!

  • DeadTiredDave February 3, 2015, 7:40 am

    I meant, 1903, but now I see it’s a reproduction . . . so, I understand. Yes, I just put up the sign over my desk : READ AND YOU WILL GO FAR.

    • Moe May 8, 2015, 11:35 pm

      Colt wanted folks to be able to take it out of their pocket without it hanging up on the hammer.

  • DeadTiredDave February 3, 2015, 7:33 am

    I understand the value of keeping my wife hammerless, but what’s the advantage of a hammerless 1911?

  • doc wilcox February 3, 2015, 7:23 am

    Purists complete. Please hurry with the .380……
    Gota have one.

  • Maximgun88 February 3, 2015, 7:16 am

    I have an original in .32, would love to see 380….or even scale it up just a little for 9mm….and take my money!

    • Joel L. February 3, 2015, 11:20 am

      A nine would be hard to do since the 1903/8 is a blowback design.

      • Chicagobill February 3, 2015, 10:11 pm

        Does this pistol not blowback. Help me understand why .9 won’t work? Thanks!

        • Rick s February 7, 2015, 1:29 am

          A 9 mm will work. One example of an 9mm blowback is the Astra 600. A very well made sturdy trustworthy pistol.
          they were made for years in not only 9 x 19 but 9 mm Largo too. A great gun a number of which were purchased by the Nazis. Also our .45 ACP caliber Grease Gun, a fully automatic machine pistol used by our tank crews was of the blowback design.

  • Rudy Parayo February 3, 2015, 7:02 am

    Knowing the CA Dept. Of Justice, this gun will NOT be allowed for sale in this state.

    • Robert February 3, 2015, 10:19 am

      Simple solution, MOVE!!!

      • dan229 February 3, 2015, 10:35 am

        Harder to do in your 70s. California was a free state when I moved here 58 years ago. I’m afraid I’m screwed.

        • John February 3, 2015, 10:54 am

          I moved out when I was 54. Have never looked back. Have lived in Kentucky and now Colorado (Elbert County) both very firearm friendly. Life’s good in a free state and 70 isn’t too old to move, unless there’s grandkids, then not so much!

          • Dave Mitchell February 3, 2015, 12:01 pm

            I moved to Arizona from New England (NH), and although NH was gun-friendly, we were surrounded by Socialist states. I spent my early years in Massachusetts (70 now), and would REFUSE to live in any Socialist state today, of which Calif. leads the list. I won’t even go there. If he American patriots all left Calif., then the state would shrivel up and die, which is what’s happening these days…a shame too, because it’s not necessary. Morons in Ca. keep voting in the kooks to run the state and their lives. When I find extra $$$ I send it to the National Rifle Association every month, as they are our freedom-loving American FRONT LINE today! Thank you.
            An old (U.S.) soldier from Newfoundland

        • e February 3, 2015, 1:18 pm

          Well…it sure was nice 40 and more years ago, wasn’t it? I think most of CA started to become Commiefornia around the mid 80s. I mean it’s always been known as the land of nuts and fruits but it got really bad in the 90s. But kids could walk around fields with rifles in the 70s and nobody did or said anything. Destruction of land as a result of greed and overgrowth changed our way of life forever. Some parts in Northern CA and very few in So. CA are still ideal open spaces where guns aren’t equated with evil.

      • Gregg February 3, 2015, 4:49 pm

        So stupid when people say that. I’m not going to move from the place where I was born, went to school, became part of the community, raised my children and payed my taxes. If you don’t like California’s laws, please join me and VOTE! I noticed that none of you moved out of the US when the current Prez was elected…

  • solstar February 3, 2015, 6:29 am

    too techie , did understand a thing !

    • Fred Ash February 3, 2015, 8:40 am

      Should illiterate people be allowed to carry handguns???

      • Chad February 3, 2015, 2:51 pm

        Are their lives less valuable than yours?

  • Steve February 3, 2015, 6:11 am

    I have one of the originals. It shoots great and I love it. Except for some safety features and maybe sights not many handguns are better than this.

  • Roy February 3, 2015, 4:54 am

    I want one!

  • Dan February 3, 2015, 3:21 am

    Need to do a run in .380! They were great little pistols, but .32 is worthless!

    • Jay February 3, 2015, 7:40 am

      No offense intended Dan, but with current high quality defense ammo the .32 is a great choice for those who are recoil sensitive or just don’t want the snappier recoil of a .380 acp. Besides, I’ve never met anyone who would volunteer to stand in front of one.

      That said, I would be really interested in a 9mm version. My better half has an original 1903 in .32 and it’s a joy to shoot.

      • Joel L. February 3, 2015, 11:18 am

        A 9mm is unlikely since the M1903/8 is a blowback design. Making it a locked breech would necessitate a complete redesign. Sorry.

      • ScottyGunn February 3, 2015, 5:04 pm

        The concept is to to reproduce a rare classic. I had a Colt 32 officers. It actually had been issued to a Major. That is what they are duplicating here, not a new defense gun. Almost all the originals were 32 acp.
        Nice to see Colt doing this. They can’t seem to produce anything really cutting edge new, so going with the classics works, too.

        • Ken February 8, 2015, 11:46 am

          I have two 1903’s in .32. and two 1908’s (not the .25 smaller pistol also a 1908) Colt made the pistol in both calibers. 1903/.32 from 1903 thru 1945 for 572215 numbers and 1908/.380 from 1908 thru 1945 for 138009 of those.
          Although the .32 is nicer to shoot they’re both easy to manage, but back then a .38 caliber pistol was considered a large one and many, including many large police departments found the .32 to be completely adequate.

      • David Parker May 8, 2015, 2:53 am

        Jay, I agree with both aspects of your comment. RIAC news-lettered a video about the evolution of Colt semi-autos and I was smitten by their charm. I see they left off the sight-safety.

    • Gwen Montgomery February 3, 2015, 8:54 am

      I have 1908 pocket model made in 1921 about 90 percent factory finish fun to shoot . Thank about making 1908 better power same size thanks Madd Monk

    • charlie February 3, 2015, 10:08 am

      Your comment is worthless.

    • Jerry Hyres February 3, 2015, 10:21 am

      Worthless unless it is pointed at you!

    • John February 3, 2015, 10:59 am

      I have a 1903 build in 1921 and it is a sweet shooter. And although I don’t carry it, it would be a great carry gun since it’s light, slim, and no trigger to get caught on pockets, etc. But it’s true, it doesn’t hit as hard as a 380, if that’s important.

    • Anthony dimillo February 3, 2015, 11:01 am

      I want to know if they made the lower in poly or did they keep it all steel, I am currently producing a aluminum lower with the steel upper to keep the weight down

      • moe May 8, 2015, 11:13 pm

        It’s Steel.

    • daniel bartoni February 3, 2015, 11:09 am

      carried a colt 1909 380 off duty for years. also have a 1903 colt 32 in mint condition doth guns are easy to conceal and a joy to shoot.

    • Chad February 3, 2015, 2:47 pm

      Unless you just want to take it out and shoot it. Do you need a big cartridge for that? Not everybody buys guns thinking of shooting people with them. But as a .40 and .45 guy, I consider .380 useless. So there you have it.

    • Larry Mallory February 3, 2015, 3:03 pm

      I want a couple of these, sign me up! I’m IN

    • Ron February 3, 2015, 6:16 pm

      the text says a Type II?
      I don’t see a barrel bushing.
      Isn’t this a type III?

      • Moe May 8, 2015, 11:23 pm

        Type I has the bushing but not type II or III.

    • Gary February 4, 2015, 9:40 am

      If you take a look at history, a .32 and a cyanide capsule took down the most evil man in history. One Adolph Hitler

      • MJ December 23, 2015, 8:53 pm

        Not quite……Stalin was way worse.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend