Guys, Somewhere, from out of the blue, I got struck by a bolt of lightning that gave me a desire to have a Colt Ace. I've read whatever information I could find and noticed that some versions appear to be more reliable than others. Just curious if there's a consensus on what's a better version to be on the lookout for? Thanks!
-
Whether you're a greenhorn or a seasoned veteran, your collection's next piece is at Bass Pro Shops. Shop Now.
Snigley
Please forgive my lack of knowledge on these attractive pistols. My memory muscle is telling me that they had a “floating chamber”, which was a trouble-prone invention of Remington. The only reason I know/care about this is that I stumbled across and purchased a LOVELY Remington 550 semi-auto rifle at an estate sale a while back. To my shame, I haven’t broken it down, cleaned or fired it yet. However, when I brought it home, I did a spot of research on the troublesome floating chamber.
It is possible that later versions of the Ace had non-floating chambers, but do NOT quote me on that.
The Ace is a handsome/beautiful piece. Many attempts have been made to duplicate it for regular 1911 frames with varying degrees of success. I suppose if I found a nice Ace, I’d put it in the vault and find something less finicky for daily use. Which probably doesn’t help you.
That’s it. I’m out. Not being particularly helpful and now I NEED an Ace.
Thanks……
It is possible that later versions of the Ace had non-floating chambers, but do NOT quote me on that.
The Ace is a handsome/beautiful piece. Many attempts have been made to duplicate it for regular 1911 frames with varying degrees of success. I suppose if I found a nice Ace, I’d put it in the vault and find something less finicky for daily use. Which probably doesn’t help you.
That’s it. I’m out. Not being particularly helpful and now I NEED an Ace.
Thanks……
Are you referring to the Colt Ace, or Colt Service Model Ace with the floating chamber? They are completely different pistols. The floating chamber was invented by David Marshall "Carbine" Williams.
You will encounter more post war versions of the Colt Service Model Ace pistol (1978-mid 80's) than the pre-war version. Either will be expensive. They are collectable and fun "plinkers" but if your end goal is accuracy there are many better and cheaper options out there.
The Colt Ace is a high quality pistol with a shorter slide and barrel (4 3/4") without the floating chamber that is beautifully finished in typical re-WWII fashion and will be expensive. Again, if accuracy is your end goal there are much cheaper and better options.
You will encounter more post war versions of the Colt Service Model Ace pistol (1978-mid 80's) than the pre-war version. Either will be expensive. They are collectable and fun "plinkers" but if your end goal is accuracy there are many better and cheaper options out there.
The Colt Ace is a high quality pistol with a shorter slide and barrel (4 3/4") without the floating chamber that is beautifully finished in typical re-WWII fashion and will be expensive. Again, if accuracy is your end goal there are much cheaper and better options.
Snigley I have one purchased around 1979-82 and shot the snot out of it. I never had a feed, extraction or other problem with it. It wasn't a target pistol but I was able to hang with the target pistol shooters I shot against. I did have an Aimpoint grip scope mount on it with a red dot. The only issue was my front sight would come loose and needed it fixed. If you get one are you looking for a shooter or collector? I would get a shooter and have a blast with it. Either way last time I looked on Gunbroker you are looking at $1800-2500. Way more than I paid on a going out of business sale back then.
As you surely read, there are two types of Colt .22s that look like a 1911 type, and one is more reliable. The Ace is the original, mostly made pre-WWII. It had a lightened slide that was purpose made to shoot .22 LR, and is usually very reliable and accurate.
The other type came out after the Ace, and was called the Service Model Ace. It was made with a floating chamber barrel that was meant to replicate the recoil of a 1911A1 shooting the .45 ACP. The floating chamber has historically been less reliable, unless you rigorously clean it every box of ammo, 50 rounds or so. If you research it, that was it's Achilles heel. For every one person that says they are reliable and accurate, 50 people will say they are not. You will not get a 100% consensus on anything, including if pineapple belongs on pizza. But most gun writers for 50-75 years reported the Service Model Ace was unreliable. As do most users/owners. That's as close to a consensus about a product as I've ever seen in my life.
For that reason, the original Ace used to be more expensive. I haven't closely followed prices but do see the Service Model Ace seems to be chased by a lot of newer shooters/collectors. But sometimes a cult following will make something less good....more expensive.
The other type came out after the Ace, and was called the Service Model Ace. It was made with a floating chamber barrel that was meant to replicate the recoil of a 1911A1 shooting the .45 ACP. The floating chamber has historically been less reliable, unless you rigorously clean it every box of ammo, 50 rounds or so. If you research it, that was it's Achilles heel. For every one person that says they are reliable and accurate, 50 people will say they are not. You will not get a 100% consensus on anything, including if pineapple belongs on pizza. But most gun writers for 50-75 years reported the Service Model Ace was unreliable. As do most users/owners. That's as close to a consensus about a product as I've ever seen in my life.
For that reason, the original Ace used to be more expensive. I haven't closely followed prices but do see the Service Model Ace seems to be chased by a lot of newer shooters/collectors. But sometimes a cult following will make something less good....more expensive.
I have all the "collectables" I want. Most of the guns I own weren't particularly collectable when I bought them, and years later they're too valuable to shoot. I want something I can shoot (has already been shot, but well cared for). I've wanted a 1911 but didn't want a 45 for plinking. The Ace seemed to be a two-world compromise, but by that token, I don't want a shooters nightmare.
This site (among just about any other gun site) has a practical consensus that the Service Model Ace is unreliable, if not kept spotlessly clean after every shooting session. This is the typical thread (this question is asked a LOT):
https://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=430264
A quick search shows more consensus here.
https://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=430264
A quick search shows more consensus here.
I follow these pistols on the Auction Sites. You wont be able to touch a Colt Ace for under 3K or a SM Ace for under 2K. As I said previously, there are several far cheaper options to get into a fun reliable 1911-22 plinker.
The ace came first with non floating chamber it wasn’t very reliable either, and the service ace was an effort ( which failed) to make it more reliable and try to replicate more recoil for training purposes.
They made the original ace starting in 1930, with the service model ( floating chamber coming out in 1935. Pre war versions of either are insanely expensive
In the early 1980’s colt started running the service model again for a while. These are the most common and still run over a grand.
I understand wanting the original colt, but if your goal is to replicate 1911 feel in a 22, modern conversion kits like marvel or Nelson work much better are far more accurate, and much less expensive
They made the original ace starting in 1930, with the service model ( floating chamber coming out in 1935. Pre war versions of either are insanely expensive
In the early 1980’s colt started running the service model again for a while. These are the most common and still run over a grand.
I understand wanting the original colt, but if your goal is to replicate 1911 feel in a 22, modern conversion kits like marvel or Nelson work much better are far more accurate, and much less expensive
I own and shoot a Colt Conversion Unit. It is identical in function to the Colt Service Model Ace. What is great about both is that the design allows the 1911 design to operate, well, just like a 1911 should. Full slide function with slide stop open at last round fired, magazine empty.
Yes, the floating chamber does require cleaning. Specifically, de-carboning, after about 100 rounds. But, prior to that the pistols are completely "reliable" and real fun to shoot. And, as far as accuracy, it's a pistol. Therefore it is highly likely that it is way more accurate than 99% of the shooters abilities.
The Colt "Conversion Unit" stamped ones are typically priced way lower than the ones stamped "Ace." I don't know what the market is like for them now. You'll just have to see.
Yes, the floating chamber does require cleaning. Specifically, de-carboning, after about 100 rounds. But, prior to that the pistols are completely "reliable" and real fun to shoot. And, as far as accuracy, it's a pistol. Therefore it is highly likely that it is way more accurate than 99% of the shooters abilities.
The Colt "Conversion Unit" stamped ones are typically priced way lower than the ones stamped "Ace." I don't know what the market is like for them now. You'll just have to see.
"I've wanted a 1911 but didn't want a 45 for plinking"
From the O.P.'s (above) post in Post#5, it doesn't look like he has a 1911 pistol to put a 22 Conversion Unit on.
I'm a Colt guy through and through, but if you are looking for a reliable 1911-22 style pistol to plink with that is reasonably accurate and wont break the bank, look at Walther/Colt, GSG/Sig, Browning, Kimber(?).
From the O.P.'s (above) post in Post#5, it doesn't look like he has a 1911 pistol to put a 22 Conversion Unit on.
I'm a Colt guy through and through, but if you are looking for a reliable 1911-22 style pistol to plink with that is reasonably accurate and wont break the bank, look at Walther/Colt, GSG/Sig, Browning, Kimber(?).
I was in the same? boat, got to missing my old Ser 80 Gold Cup, didnt want to chase brass or reload the 45acp any more....
Bought deluxe GSG and it has tripped my trigger. Been pretty good, likes HV plated bullets and to run slightly wet.
Ive made a few mods because thats what we do with 1911's (not because it needed any of them).
A good friend prefers his 'Colt' branded clone. We seem to run about the same.
Bought deluxe GSG and it has tripped my trigger
. Been pretty good, likes HV plated bullets and to run slightly wet.Ive made a few mods because thats what we do with 1911's (not because it needed any of them).
A good friend prefers his 'Colt' branded clone. We seem to run about the same.
if you dont want anything collectable then just get a 22LR conversion for one of your 1911s.
good luck
good luck
Years ago I purchased a Service Model Ace brand new in the box. After receipt, I knew at that time - don't shoot it! I then did what most of us do, i.e., bought a "shooter". I could get almost 150 rounds out of the latter before the required cleaning (see the above posts). I purchased two more colt conversion units with no real improvement in reliability. And then I hit pay dirt, a Colt conversion unit on a dedicated Series 70 frame with five factory magazines. The gun had visited a knowledgeable pistolsmith sometime during its life, I am sure. I bought six more factory magazines, learned to slather on the Red and Tacky grease, lube the floating chamber with copious amounts of G96, load up the magazines with CCI Mini Mags and have at it. I can almost get 300 reliable rounds out of the piece without extensive cleaning.
I disagree with MajorD that the Post-War Service Model Ace came out in the early 1980s. The Post-War Service Model Ace came out in 1978. I have one (SM144XX) that letters as being shipped on April 20, 1978. (No build date is available.) Post-War Service Model Ace serial numbers started at SM14001 in 1978.
I agree with buckshot that copious lubrication helps keep the floating chamber from leading up. I have used Tetra Grease on the floating chamber since Tetra Grease came out, and I too can shoot several hundred rounds without cleaning. Cleaning is a breeze too. Try it on "unreliable" floating chamber Service Model Ace pistols and Conversion Units on Model O frames.
I agree with buckshot that copious lubrication helps keep the floating chamber from leading up. I have used Tetra Grease on the floating chamber since Tetra Grease came out, and I too can shoot several hundred rounds without cleaning. Cleaning is a breeze too. Try it on "unreliable" floating chamber Service Model Ace pistols and Conversion Units on Model O frames.
I have a service model Ace, and 2 Colt 22 Conversion Kits. Lot of fun to shoot. No issues with reliability as long as I keep the floating chamber clean.
![Image]()
I'm willing to tolerate the Ace. The one here goes an easy 200 rounds or a bit more before getting balky. In fact with most standard velocity .22 Long Rifle solids I've yet to run it long enough to find out how far it will go before choking. I just made an arbitrary limit to myself of cleaning it after about 200 rounds. Effectively I clean and lube it after every outing anyway, whether it fires 200 rounds or a single round.
For me, the pistol is well worth owning for its authentic balance and handling characteristic.
For me, the pistol is well worth owning for its authentic balance and handling characteristic.
I am another with positive experience with the ACE.
I purchased a nearly mint one (no box) and it has been very reliable and definitely accurate enough to be a good "can chaser" The other is another nearly mint one with box and papers. I have not shot that one....yet. Both are 1978 guns.
Anyhow, the one I shoot has been a blast. I usually don't shoot more than 100 rounds in a session but it never slows down on Mini Mags. I really like it.
Where they screwed up with the floating chamber was to not do it like Remington did with the 550 series. On a 550 (IF I recall correctly) when shooting long or long rifle (same case length) the case actually bridges the gap between the floating chamber and the fixed chamber. So the floating chamber doesn't recoil until the brass de-obturates. However, when shooting shorts, the case is only maintained by the floating chamber causing it to "boost" backward during the firing sequence, thereby cycling the gun. In this instance, the gases flow around the floating chamber which gets the gun dirtier more quickly than when shooting long or long rifle cases.
Colt's floating chamber however, is the length of the 22 lr cartridge case so, when the gun is fired, the gases can immediately flow around the floating chamber which dirties up the works quickly, like a 550 shooting shorts.
If Colt had used a shorter floating chamber sort of like a "delayed blow back" system where the cartridge case bridges the gap between a rear and front portion of the chamber, I think this would have made for an ACE that could shoot for a lot longer of an interval between cleanings by the virtue of holding the chamber closed until the pressure drops when the brass de-obturates. This means the action doesn't move until a larger volume of powder is burned thereby decreasing the amount of unburnt powder and crud in the chamber.
Strictly theory on my part.
Here is my "shooter" ACE in keeping with the spirit of the thread.
![Image]()
I purchased a nearly mint one (no box) and it has been very reliable and definitely accurate enough to be a good "can chaser" The other is another nearly mint one with box and papers. I have not shot that one....yet. Both are 1978 guns.
Anyhow, the one I shoot has been a blast. I usually don't shoot more than 100 rounds in a session but it never slows down on Mini Mags. I really like it.
Where they screwed up with the floating chamber was to not do it like Remington did with the 550 series. On a 550 (IF I recall correctly) when shooting long or long rifle (same case length) the case actually bridges the gap between the floating chamber and the fixed chamber. So the floating chamber doesn't recoil until the brass de-obturates. However, when shooting shorts, the case is only maintained by the floating chamber causing it to "boost" backward during the firing sequence, thereby cycling the gun. In this instance, the gases flow around the floating chamber which gets the gun dirtier more quickly than when shooting long or long rifle cases.
Colt's floating chamber however, is the length of the 22 lr cartridge case so, when the gun is fired, the gases can immediately flow around the floating chamber which dirties up the works quickly, like a 550 shooting shorts.
If Colt had used a shorter floating chamber sort of like a "delayed blow back" system where the cartridge case bridges the gap between a rear and front portion of the chamber, I think this would have made for an ACE that could shoot for a lot longer of an interval between cleanings by the virtue of holding the chamber closed until the pressure drops when the brass de-obturates. This means the action doesn't move until a larger volume of powder is burned thereby decreasing the amount of unburnt powder and crud in the chamber.
Strictly theory on my part.
Here is my "shooter" ACE in keeping with the spirit of the thread.
I've owned a couple of Service Ace pistols and shot one long enough to realize it needed cleaning often but was definitely fun. Not finicky on ammo but cleaning was a must after a couple of boxes shot.
Sold it to my brother years ago and kept the NIB unit.
A better choice for plinking, I've found, is an ATI/GSG .22 1911. I've shot mine for a few years and it has performed well and accuracy is acceptable.
It's not a 41 Smith but can usually be found for around $300.
The Umarex 1911-22 pistols are not reliable.
![Image]()
![Image]()
Sold it to my brother years ago and kept the NIB unit.
A better choice for plinking, I've found, is an ATI/GSG .22 1911. I've shot mine for a few years and it has performed well and accuracy is acceptable.
It's not a 41 Smith but can usually be found for around $300.
The Umarex 1911-22 pistols are not reliable.
I have a Colt Conversion unit that was bought new around 1977?, as I recall.
It never worked properly and was sent back to Colt 3 times. I once did get an entire magazine to fire without jamming. After one or two magazines, you have to remove the barrel, put it in a padded vice and use tools to extract the floating chamber from the barrel.
What a piece of junk.
I’m glad to hear that other people haven’t had issues with theirs. Colt was completely incompetent in repairing it.
It never worked properly and was sent back to Colt 3 times. I once did get an entire magazine to fire without jamming. After one or two magazines, you have to remove the barrel, put it in a padded vice and use tools to extract the floating chamber from the barrel.
What a piece of junk.
I’m glad to hear that other people haven’t had issues with theirs. Colt was completely incompetent in repairing it.
Re- Model 1911 Conversions- I have both the Marvel and Nelson conversions and use them on either a Caspian dedicated frame or a Colt M1911A1 frame. They function and are accurate. Both have thousands of rounds through them, and accurately. I once thought of getting a Colt conversion unit, but why? Either come up occasionally on the Bullseye Forum for less than new and without any waiting period. They can be had with good iron sights or with a base suitable for mounting a scope. Good for those whose function well and accurate enough for them, but the options are out there.
Range Con
Range Con
Every now and again I come upon one of these posts that prompts me to think about what to do with that Colt SM Ace that I bought new when I was in my early 20’s. (It’s a ”79”). Now I’m aging up, the eyes aren’t great for iron sights, I never use it, it takes up space in the safe, got to move everything around to get at it, and pretty much I can agree with everyone’s comments - good and bad. ( well, mostly good LOL ) ( keep that floating chamber clean ! ). So I get it out of the safe thinking I should take a picture of it and put it up for sale. Then I start to wiping it down, and looking it over, rack the slide a few times, check that trigger, seat a magazine, drop it out. Sigh. I guess I can find a spot in the safe for a while yet.
![Image]()
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
