The problem here, is that since WWI, MOST major makers (like S&W) have never used copper as a substrate because of the problems associated with it. And they've been quite clear about this - Roy Jinks issued a statement on behalf of S&W, for example, and we know. The copper substrating technique is very old-school, and on a larger commercial scale it's not as cost-effective. The problem is that Colt has never made a statement about when (if) they changed, and for a long time they've outsourced the finishing.
If it's a factory finish from '66 it's likely not copper substrated. If it's an independent nickel job, or a factory job from after they started out-sourcing the plating (no longer done in West Hartford), then you have no guarantee one way or the other and you need to keep Hoppe's away from it. I've had a lot of nickel guns (love them), and I treat any S&W factory nickel job just like stainless or Hard Chrome to be honest. Nickel plating was the 19th century of stainless, in a way. That's why it was worth a premium then, not for show.
Renaissance wax is good stuff, but it's also old tech. It's a very good wax, I've used it, but it's not magical. I'd be more inclined to try the new generation of ceramic waxes - they have amazing properties wrt to adhesion, wear, and hydrophobicity. IMO, if you decide to treat this as a potential copper-lined aftermarket/3rd party job, then keep the hoppes away from it and do treat it differently.
Ok ,now if anyone knows anything about old Colt New Army's in .41 Long Colt, go to the revo section. I don't know squat really about them and someone is offering me one at what appears a good price. That's what I logged in to do...
