Historically Correct OEM 1st Generation

The Wizard · May 25, 2010, 12:45:52 PM

Just got done visiting USFA's website and saw this is new for 2010. Is it just hype or is there really something to frame wiondow size, small cylinder profile and early flutes-beveled cylinder.

Capt. John Fitzgerald · May 25, 2010, 06:28:27 PM

Current standard USFA SAA's are a bit larger than the Colt, in both frame and cylinder. The "historically correct" models are the exact same size as the Colt.

Buck Stinson · May 26, 2010, 10:33:38 AM

I have several high condition 1st generation Colt's, so I did a little measuring, comparing these to my USFA, which was made I think in 2003. My USFA is a 4 3/4" .44-40, smokeless frame and cylinder bevels to match the 1905-1920 period Colt. The Colt I used in comparison is an 1890 vintage 4 3/4" .44-40 with black powder frame and the roll die barrel marking"COLT FRONTIER SIX SHOOTER". These two guns have the same size and shape to the cylinder flutes, but because of the difference in vintage, 1890 versus post turn of the century, the cylinder bevels are not the same. This is a correct feature on the USFA with smokeless frame. Measured with a digital caliper, the 1890 Colt cylinder was 1.652 diameter, compared to 1.672 on my USFA. Putting that in perspective, the difference is the thickness of 5 sheets of 20 lb. printer paper. Now I can only speak for myself, but that will never convince me to pay another $900 to $1000 for the "NEW" USFA, when their current production is as good as it gets.

RRio · May 26, 2010, 12:03:40 PM

Quote from: Buck Stinson on May 26, 2010, 10:33:38 AM
Now I can only speak for myself, but that will never convince me to pay another $900 to $1000 for the "NEW" USFA, when their current production is as good as it gets.

I would have to agree with that.

jphendren · May 27, 2010, 06:02:22 PM

I also agree with the above. I wonder why building the revolver with a .020" smaller cylinder and frame window cost so much more. In fact, it seems it would not cost anything extra once the equipment is set up. Recently, thanks to another USFA forum member, I was able to fire four different USFA revolvers along with my Colt SAA during the same outing. There is no detectable difference between Colt's cylinder size and USFA's in practical use.

Jared

Capt. John Fitzgerald · May 28, 2010, 12:01:31 AM

In addition to the cylinder and frame window, the frame itself is also a bit larger. Just measure at the back of the frame where the back strap attaches. That being said, the only way you would notice is if you did measure.
I have to agree, that's a lot of money for something that no one would ever notice.

Buck Stinson · May 28, 2010, 09:20:47 AM

Just out of curiosity, I put both my 1st generation Colt and my USFA on a digital postal scale. I wanted to see how close they were in weight. Remember, these are the same two guns I mentioned in my post up above dated May 26. I don't know how you could get any closer in weight. The USFA weighed in at 2lbs, 6oz and the 1890 vintage Colt weighed 2lbs, 5.9oz. Again, why pay a premium for the "New" historically correct model.

jphendren · May 28, 2010, 10:20:32 AM

I see that USFA states "Early Flutes - Beveled Cylinder" on the Old Armory Original website; doesn't my O.W. Ainsworth have a beveled cylinder? How about early flutes? The only other thing that I can see aside from cylinder/frame size, that is different, is the sight trench that leads into the rear v-notch. Oh, it also mentions specifically a tapered front sight blade, but again, my Ainsworth has that as well.

Jared

Nueces · June 08, 2010, 07:17:56 PM

I have 3 USFA SAAs and my good friend has 5 Colts. 2 of them are from the 1800s and we have mesaured them and his Rodeos and my SAAs and there really isn't a lick of difference. There is more difference between the older Colts and the new ones than between the USFAs and the Colts. I think we saw .02" difference between colts on cylinder diameters.