colt or usfa

[Shadow Catcher]

Doc,

To me, there is no controversy any more. When I think of USFA, I automatically think of the highest quality SAA on the market.

Also to me, I want a historically accurate SAA and the USFAs fit that bill better than the new Colts.The beveled cylinders and BP frames are special order items from Colt.

The little pony on the grips or on the frame just doesn't mean much to me anymore, because any knowing, truthful six-gun aficionado cannot deny the quality of USFA.

Well - we all have our feeling about what we have spent our money on, and our reasons for claiming it was a right decision.

I think that a SAA made by Colt is a nice gun and one worth owning, if for no other reason than it being the real thing.  The fact that they're making them as well as they ever have and that they perform as well as one could ask is pretty cool too. 

A bunch of cowboys love the quality of a COPY - one made even better (in their opinion) than the original, and that's fine for them - they want the gun they want, and USFA makes it for them.

I still have all my Rugers, and they'll shoot ammo that would make a USFA into fragmented steel, and they look enough like the originals that they're also allowed into the fantasy game we play . . . .

Look - a Colt is a Colt and the others  . . aren't.  Some folks love 'em and that's fine, but we're talking opinions, and frankly they're all fine firearms.

I like my Rugers, my Colts, and frankly most other guns I own.  I like Colts better than USFA because of a lot of intangibles, and because they work.  Others have different reasons for what they like.  This will never be settled . . so instead ask why you want to own a particular gun - what you are going to do with it, and what criteria matter in your purchase and use.

If resale is important after use - use gunbroker and other auction sites to show you who holds value.
If gunsmithing choices matter look and see who charges what to do what work on them.
If shootability matters - well go to a local match or two and see what others have to say and to show.
If what others think matters - then let others make your decision . . . .

USFA has more choices and more variations, and they make damn fine guns, not a one of which would bother me to own - they're excellent quality.  I spent what I did to have a Colt - because I have other Colts and other brands, and because I like the Colt brand a lot.  I'll support them and hope they get better and better every day . . . .

Shadow Catcher

[Marshal Deadwood]

I bet most that perfer Colts have never handled and shot USFA's. It's night and day, with USFA far ahead.

MD

[Blackpowder Burn]

As Shadow Catcher says, there are many intangibles that factor into an individual persons decision.  I certainly understand the desire to own a Colt - there's something very cool about owning an original from the company that first introduced the gun over 135 years ago.  However, I don't quite have the required money to spend on Colt's.  I do insist on buying an American product whenever possible, and the USFA's are definitely that at a significantly lower price than Colt.  And I have been extremely happy with their quality and customer support.  I love my USFA's and will buy more of them in the future.  I'm already planning on a pair of Rodeo II's in 32-20.

[Mossyrock]

Let me guess, you're a gun dealer and you sell USFA.

Why do USFA guys always !@#$% about Colt but not Ruger. Ruger isn't even close to being the real thing.

I don't care what you shoot, but don't start mouthing off to others about what they shoot.

Colt made junk for awhile. I have a SAA that is proof of that. However, they've gotten their act together in recent years and their current guns are of very high quality. That can't be denied. I don't think anyone would be dissatisfied with a so-called fourth gen.

And yes, 1st gens can still be shot and shot well.

Friend, the last Colt SAA I bought was two years ago.  The smallest chamber throat that gun had was .455".  The biggest was .458".  Of the six chambers, two of them weren't even ROUND.  When I called Colt, their response was that those measurements were "within specs"!  They also made the statement to me that they don't build their guns to be shot; they are for collecting!  That  SAA and subsequent phone conversation lost Colt a life-long customer.  Face it...this is NOT the Colt that our fathers shot, carried, and depended upon to save their lives.  Brand loyalty is one thing....but the brand has to be loyal to US, too.

[jplower]

For holding value, the Colt is the way.  The casecolor is real, not the rub off kind that need varnish like turbulls found on usfas.  The usfs will never be able to compete with Colt in the resale market.  They have made a mistake of pricing these way too high, thinking the quality would overcome the fame of the Colt name, but that is not reality.  In their favor, they are probably better shooters due to a closer tolerance in the chamber mouths.  I spent three days in the Colt factory ten years ago and discovered a whole lot of reasons why they have odd features, like the thin hammers and big sights.  Turns out that in the late sixties, the tooling for drilling the hammer and frame screw holes were wearing, so to compensate for a twisted hammer, the hammer was thinned out  to fit in the frame slot!  Also, the chamber mouths in a .45 are .456, increased in size because of over zelous legal worries about blowups.  Colt uses forgings for the backstrap and hammer that are machined, USF uses flat stock milled to spec.  Colt uses forgings for their frames, USF cuts them from cold sheet stock of 4140.  A forged frame is in theory stronger. I have samples of these rough forgings if anyone would like a photo posted.

[Blackpowder Burn]

Jplower,  I hate to tell you this, but the Turnbull casehardening, is the real bone and charcoal case hardening, such as used on original Colts.  And as for price, the USFA's are far less expensive than a Colt.  So you get the best of both worlds - 100% US manufacture, lower price, closer manufacturing tolerances and real case hardening.  As far as the theoretical difference in forgings vs milled steel - maybe.  But for the cartridges and pressures we're dealing with it doesn't make a nickels worth of difference.  Both are far stronger than the metallurgy available in the late 1800's - and there are lots of those guns still around.  Based on what you say about the Colt factory 10 years ago you really have to wonder why a reputable company would do the things you describe rather than fix the root problem.

That being said, whatever you buy is a personal preference.  Colt's certainly have the name recognition and nostalgia.  I would like to own both, but my budget doesn't allow me to purchase Colt revolvers. 

And I'm tired of everyone trashing the other guy's preferences.

[jplower]

I've had personal conversations with Doug Turnbull who admitted that his "Color" is not hard, only cosmetic.  He claimed he could make a hard surface, but was afraid to  warp the f rames.  One of the reasons he varnishes over the color is to keep it from rubbing off.  When it eventually flakes or chips, the color underneath is dull.  Not so with colts.  I would hope that he is hardening the frames now, but his fear of warpage makes me doubt it.  This is the reason the color is so brilliant, it has not been brought to a hot enough temp to really harden the surface.  the 4140 steel USF uses is hard enough with a mild heat treat for a frame, it doesn't evenn need case color.  Turnbull's is not like original Colts, and this is from many collectors I associate with.  Maybe some Winchesters, the 86 in particular.  You might try a test:  go under your trigger guard and try scratching the frame with a screwdriver.  If it scratches the metal, well, a driver is pretty soft compared to real hardening.  I'd be interested in the results. 

[jplower]

One other MAJOR problem that Colt has delt with for over 35 years was the effect of the UAW on the workforce.  I don't think USF is unionized, does anyone know?  At Colt, every step of the process is subject to union demands and rules.  While there, I saw a man who refused to be trained on CNC equipment because he was two years away from retirement.  This one man was in charge of ALL the machines that created SA cylinders.  All manual machines and some very old, in fact, the fluting machine was built in 1897!  They had three CNC's sitting on the dock that could have been used.  It's not that Colt didn't want to built better and sharper guns, they had to fight for every new improvement!  We're lucky that the guns today are better than ten years ago

[Fox Creek Kid]

FWIW, Colt has recently installed new high tech CNC eqpmt. Sure, Colt has problems at times like all gunmakers, including USFA. Some early USFA´s were not exactly stellar.

But what you want and shoot what you want. My only ¨beef¨ with USFA is that they ¨overshoot¨ their customers´expectations. Has everyone forgot the mythical 1875 Remington they were going to make? They spend a lot of time making prototypes that never see the light of day. Aside from that they make a great SAA clone.

[Harley Starr]

FWIW, Colt has recently installed new high tech CNC eqpmt. Sure, Colt has problems at times like all gunmakers, including USFA. Some early USFA´s were not exactly stellar.

But what you want and shoot what you want. My only ¨beef¨ with USFA is that they ¨overshoot¨ their customers´expectations. Has everyone forgot the mythical 1875 Remington they were going to make? They spend a lot of time making prototypes that never see the light of day. Aside from that they make a great SAA clone.

Words of wisdom Fox Creek!

[Old Doc]

I've had personal conversations with Doug Turnbull who admitted that his "Color" is not hard, only cosmetic.  He claimed he could make a hard surface, but was afraid to  warp the f rames.  One of the reasons he varnishes over the color is to keep it from rubbing off.  When it eventually flakes or chips, the color underneath is dull.  Not so with colts.  I would hope that he is hardening the frames now, but his fear of warpage makes me doubt it.  This is the reason the color is so brilliant, it has not been brought to a hot enough temp to really harden the surface.  the 4140 steel USF uses is hard enough with a mild heat treat for a frame, it doesn't evenn need case color.  Turnbull's is not like original Colts, and this is from many collectors I associate with.  Maybe some Winchesters, the 86 in particular.  You might try a test:  go under your trigger guard and try scratching the frame with a screwdriver.  If it scratches the metal, well, a driver is pretty soft compared to real hardening.  I'd be interested in the results. 

On his website, Turnbull refers to his process as color case "hardening". There is a reference to the risk of warping frames but the implication is he developed a process which hardens but avoids the risk of frame warpage. If Colt can do it, not sure why Turnbull couldn't.

[bluejay]

My advice, buy the best you can afford, and shoot it with pride, wether it is a Colt, USFA, Ruger, Uberti etc. 

Amen to that.

I bought a used good condition Colt double action. I can enter the Colt club with that. $200
I bought a used Uberti cattleman. I can enter the Cowboy club with that. $400

By the way, I have never seen a USFA product for sale in Canada, new or used? I think they would do well, as new Colts are very thinly available up here. Some people can afford a couple of each, but they don't make it up here. It is possible that American demand is covering all they can make?

[RRio]

It is possible that American demand is covering all they can make?

Absolutely. 

[Colt Lover]

USFA go for $1000. Thats only a couple hundred less than the real thing. I don't buy the argument that they are so much less $.

[Wolfsburg]

I've heard scuttlebutt that Colt's quality has improved considerably just within the current year. Can anyone confirm, deny, or at least elaborate on that? I too am someone who might be in the market for a Colt 1873-style SA at some point and will probably either get a Colt or an USFA. I have been very impressed from what I've seen and read regarding UFSA's offerings but I want to keep my options open and don't want to count Colt out, if they really have improved in a significant way.

[Charlie Bison]

I've heard scuttlebutt that Colt's quality has improved considerably just within the current year. Can anyone confirm, deny, or at least elaborate on that? I too am someone who might be in the market for a Colt 1873-style SA at some point and will probably either get a Colt or an USFA. I have been very impressed from what I've seen and read regarding UFSA's offerings but I want to keep my options open and don't want to count Colt out, if they really have improved in a significant way.

Wolfsburg,

The current thirds are magnificent.  I have 3 SAA's made in 2010 and they are right up their with my USFA's, if not better. Get the Colt and you will never look back.

[Wolfsburg]

Thanks for the input, Bison. That is great to hear!

[Old Doc]

I've heard scuttlebutt that Colt's quality has improved considerably just within the current year. Can anyone confirm, deny, or at least elaborate on that? I too am someone who might be in the market for a Colt 1873-style SA at some point and will probably either get a Colt or an USFA. I have been very impressed from what I've seen and read regarding UFSA's offerings but I want to keep my options open and don't want to count Colt out, if they really have improved in a significant way.

I think it goes back further than just the current year but how far back is hard to tell.

[Duke York]

I currently own just 3 Colt Peacemakers, 2 2nd Gen and 1 3rd Gen Colt.
There is no comparison. The 3rd Generation is a different sixgun that looks like a Peacemaker but has the 1/4 cock or safety notch too far back (unlike 1st and 2nd) and a base pin bushing that has been sweated in. The change to the design of the hammer means that if you take a high grip (which I do) you may find the hammer coming back into the web of your hand and may need to shorten the spur a little (which I did) There are several annoying changes caused by Colts' scrapping the 2nd gen machinery.
Now, my early 2nd Gens shoot to point of aim and are beautiful, accurate sixguns that I will never part with. The 3rd gen had a cockeyed front sight that required filing to make it shoot straight.
I have owed a few 1st Gen over the years, and love my Colt Peacemakers.

If Colt still made the originals or even the 2nd Gen to the same quality as they did in the 1960's, I would not be shooting a pair of nickel .357  USFA's today. The USFA is a 1st Generation model as good as the best 1st Gen Colt's which were made in the 1920's and 1930's.

By the way, here in Australia a new Colt in B&C currently retails for over $3,000 with nickel costing $300 more. Our dollar is worth 90c on the US dollar.

Duke York
SASS 15978

[COLT_45_SAA]

Everyone knows only a Colt is a Colt-For me the 2nd Gen SAA is all she wrote.
Have a custom USFA that I love to shoot as well ,but I'll always have my Colt.