Why USFA Revolvers Command High Prices

[Major 2]

Colt SAAs are still made. As I said, in batches.

Right you are.... they make runs (batches)... STOP.... then begin Re-producing them again    

[Buck Stinson]

I'm afraid I have to agree with Craig C.  I have collected Colt revolvers, amoung other things, for many years.  I have a good number of 1st gen pistols and a few 2nd gens.   As a hard core SA shooter, I must say that all of my USFA revolvers (in various calibers and barrel lengths) will out shoot my Colts any day of the week.  The fit and finish is as good as it gets, when comparing to the 1st and early 2nd generation Colt SA.  Don't get me wrong, I love my Colt pistols, but if a person is looking for an exteremely well made Colt-type single action that not only looks great but shoots well, you can't beat the USFA revolvers.  To go one step farther, I would not trade any of my USFA pistols for a new Colt.  Just my opinion.

[petrinal]

 in  my opinion the finish, specially the blueing in USFAs revolvers, was over done. To much polishing. Colt  has allways made their revolvers with a more subtle finish, unblemished, but less brigth, deeper.

as a matter of fact, the blueing on second generation COLTS, quite subtle, less polished, drives collectors crazy...that´s why some of them would prefer a gun made in 1969 to one made in 1979 as it is my case. Most original Colts of the first generation, specially the military, were not as bright as some experts have made us believe...a lower luster was preferred by the old timers when it comes to blueing.

in the accuracy aspect, I have not tried USFAs,  but I could get my Colts to shoot in 1,5" at 25 meters, one hand.

[Buck Stinson]

Comparing the finish on military contract 1st gen Colts with those finished for commercial sales is like the difference between night and day.  All of the high finish commercial grade 1st gen Colts that I own are high polish, beep blue, just like the commercial grade USFA guns.  The military issue Colts and those copies made by USFA are NOT as highly polished.  Even the blueing process is different on the government contract guns than on the commercial guns.

[Capt. John Fitzgerald]

I'm with Buck on this one.  Out of the box accuracy of my USFA's far exceed that of my new Colt SAA's.  I too have been buying and collecting Colt SAA's for many, many years now (bought my first one in 1967) and currently own over two dozen of them, all three generations, plus an odd assortment of 1877's, Bisleys. derringers, percussion, etc. (actually I guess I am more of an "amasser" than a collector).
I currently own 8 USFA's and all of them have proven to be very accurate, producing sub 2" groups at 25 yards.  Unfortunately I cannot say that for some of my 3rd generation Colts.  As a matter of fact - and this is an exception, not the rule - the most inaccurate gun I have ever owned was a 3rd generation Colt.  Best I could ever get out of it was an 18" group at 25 years, shooting from a bench.  It was a nickel plated, 4 & 3/4", produced in 1997.  In addition to being wildly inaccurate, the first time I shot it all of the nickel plating blew off of the front of the cylinder.  When I contacted Colt I was advised, and this is the honest truth, that they made their SAA's for collecting, not for shooting.  I'm pretty sure that attitude has changed in recent years!   

[Pettifogger]

I'm with Buck on this one.  Out of the box accuracy of my USFA's far exceed that of my new Colt SAA's.  I too have been buying and collecting Colt SAA's for many, many years now (bought my first one in 1967) and currently own over two dozen of them, all three generations, plus an odd assortment of 1877's, Bisleys. derringers, percussion, etc. (actually I guess I am more of an "amasser" than a collector).
I currently own 8 USFA's and all of them have proven to be very accurate, producing sub 2" groups at 25 yards.  Unfortunately I cannot say that for some of my 3rd generation Colts.  As a matter of fact - and this is an exception, not the rule - the most inaccurate gun I have ever owned was a 3rd generation Colt.  Best I could ever get out of it was an 18" group at 25 years, shooting from a bench.  It was a nickel plated, 4 & 3/4", produced in 1997.  In addition to being wildly inaccurate, the first time I shot it all of the nickel plating blew off of the front of the cylinder.  When I contacted Colt I was advised, and this is the honest truth, that they made their SAA's for collecting, not for shooting.  I'm pretty sure that attitude has changed in recent years!   

Your muzzle velocity must have been really low.   

[Capt. John Fitzgerald]

Not as low as my spirits were!  Learned a valuable lesson that day.  I had bought the gun to match another nickel plated 4 & 3/4 that I had with the intention of making up a cased set.  The first gun had elephant ivory grips so, before taking number two to the range, I had ivory grips made for it as well.  Big mistake!  That was $400+ down the drain in addition to what I paid for that worthless piece of #%&@!  I managed to get rid of in in a trade to a guy who only wanted it because it looked so pretty.  I was up-front and honest about the gun and took a bath on the deal.  I suppose I should be thankful that I got anything at all out of it.  Ah, well...

[petrinal]

Comparing the finish on military contract 1st gen Colts with those finished for commercial sales is like the difference between night and day.  All of the high finish commercial grade 1st gen Colts that I own are high polish, beep blue, just like the commercial grade USFA guns.  The military issue Colts and those copies made by USFA are NOT as highly polished.  Even the blueing process is different on the government contract guns than on the commercial guns.

you have been very lucky finding SAAs in such brand new condition, but in general I agree with you, but let me add that that is not the case with many of the exported revolvers, excluding BISLEYS and Flatops, which were very fine.. Many of these revolvers, had a more rugged finish and less polish, the "government finish", more akin to foreign taste. Many of these "goverment finish" revolvers made their way to the civilian US market as well.

it is my opinion that many first generation revolvers made after the 1920´s, had a less bright finish than many made in the last quarter of the XIX century.

the charcoal blueing, when mirror polished, gives a very brigth, electric finish, more on the blueing/purple side, than modern chemical finishes as made today by USFA and Colt. I prefer the more subtle finish of  the Colt Royal blue today, more characterized by being umblemished, rather than for being brighter.

there is much to talk about Colt finishes. The finest examples were allways, of course, sold in the US market, being the UK, maybe, the exception.

[Graveyard Jack]

Those are some mighty fine rose colored glasses you're using, petrinal. "Subtle" is not a word I would use to describe Royal Blue. Royal Blue is a modern hot salt blue not unlike anybody else's, including USFA. The only difference is in the polish. Unfortunately, it's the polishing that Colt has had a real hard time with through most of 3rd generation production. You'd have to be blind not to see that many 3rd Colt's are way over polished. Screw holes dished out, wallowed out lettering, dished bolt notches. The difference is that USFA's were polished PROPERLY. The flats remained flat, the edges remained sharp and the lettering stayed crisp. USFA's hot salt blue guns are far better polished and finished than any 3rd generation Colt. Easily at least as good as any Royal Blue Colt or early S&W.

An example:



The USFA Pre-war's finish is a dead ringer for pre-WWII Colt SAA's, only better. The blued parts are charcoal blued with that subtle soft luster of the originals. What you are seeing that you think is overdone is the case colored frame, gate and hammer. Newsflash, it's the clearcoat that makes the colors more vivid. Without the clearcoat, it looks just like a 1st generation Colt. Funny how the uncoated hammer on my New Frontier, colored by Turnbull, is a perfect match for the Colt-colored receiver.




The external finish is not the only difference. Colt has never been able to get their dimensions just right. From .44Spl's with .44-40 barrels to .45Colt's with .45/70 chamber throats. USFA does them right and they shoot wonderfully out of the box with properly sized bullets. Unlike my Colt with its .456" throats. The internal lockwork is as well finished as the outside. They are perfectly machined and all surfaces are smooth. No burrs, rough edges, or raw, unmachined surfaces. My Colt and Uberti sixguns all needed quite a bit of stoning of the action to get them smooth. All my USFA's needed was new springs.

But I don't expect a blinded Colt collector to admit any of this is true. I am a true student of firearms and shooting. I think the Colt story is a wonderful American success story and 90% of my three dozen revolvers are based on his (and William Mason's) designs. I make a very good living and can pretty much buy whatever I want. I look at these guns objectively and if Colt's were better, I'd buy Colt's. They are not. USFA built a vastly superior sixgun with more authentic finishes than Colt has used in 70yrs and so, my money went to USFA. I could give a damn about having that magical name if it's stamped on an overpriced, inferior product that bears little resemblance to the original.

[petrinal]

I am  afraid that you are repeating very old stories that took place during hard times for the company, facing bankruptcy. Colt is now making guns of unsurpassing quality, once his economic  and production troubles are  long gone, and as I said, that return to excellent quality from COLT is one of the reasons of the demise of USFA...just there is not such a big market for hight quality SAAS and many shooters will prefer buying a COLT instead of a clone, specially when their guns, now, are better than ever.

Not only USFA died, also Beretta went the same path.... whose clones were in the medium/upper segment of the market.

let me share some pictures of my 2010 revolver, in 44/40 and of my 45 colt, nickeled and engraved, from 1978. Quality is excellent.





URL=http://s949.photobucket.com/user/cesargijon/media/fotos%20full/007-3.jpg.html][/URL]


compare the case hardening in my revolver to the one you are showing in your pictures, my revolver is a less bright, less contrasty finish......and not overexagerated in tones and colours...it really resembles marble. It is wonderful, specially for a european who  dont like overexageration in finishes..


about flats being flats.....flats were flats in original  XIX century COLTS? I dont think so...as a matter of fact, inspectors rejected revolvers, in the old times, for not having their corners softened....like the USFA revolver you are showing in the last picture that should have their corners a bit more softened with some sanding during the manufacturing process.....  Compare with originals and with the pictures of my COLT...COLT SOFTEN CORNERS  and soften some flats near the corners on purpose, and they have been doing it since 1872..OR THE GUNS WOULD HAVE BEEN REJECTED BY MILITARY INSPECTORS.  They didnt want square corners in a gun used by a soldier.....I am also a student of antique guns. And that was the rule with all classic guns.

the very extended mania of flats with square corners, and in some cases  with even cutting or almost cutting corners, is more a creation of modern gun writers. If you want a gun with true flats that have almost cutting corners like the USFA you are showing, , you can find them in some cheaper Pietta models. Thats why they are cheaper..they didtn have to dehorn them, it cost money. But Colt has been doing it since 1872. You can also observe LUGERS, WEBLEYS, Mauser C 96s...and see how the old timers work....soft luster in most cases, and dehorned corners...and corners that are not square, but slighty sanded in most cases.







URL=http://s949.photobucket.com/user/cesargijon/media/069.jpg.html][/URL]





this is a COLT NATIONAL MATCH, from 1940, a commercial COLT, and an example of a wonderfully finished gun, without over polishing,  ala USFA, a mistake, by the way, that Colt made in some Colt Pythons and some other Royals blues, but that is no longer doing and just see the latest SAAs and Colt Frontiers...the finish is more in the modest  side when it comes to brightness, a deep finish, not overdone in brights...... Just compare this gun with the first  USFA revolver you are showing, which of course is not of my taste and an example of what must not be done.


URL=http://s949.photobucket.com/user/cesargijon/media/IMG_2788_1911.jpg.html][/URL]

Colt can make you a charcoal finish revolver, if you want





all these engraved beauties, if marked USFAs, would probably devaluate a lot..but they are Colt, so they are a good investment.


456" is too large? it is perfect, specially when some bullets are around 454...or even 455.....all my COLTS are capable of excellent accuracy, at 25 meters.

as I said, I am also a student of antique guns. I just have different opinions to you.

[Pettifogger]

Talk about slips in quality control, that first Colt doesn't even have any grips.   

[Graveyard Jack]

I am also a student of antique guns. I just have different opinions to you.

Delusional is the word I would use.

Colt is NOW making good sixguns, as in the last handful of years. Most of 3rd generation production is as I described. But yes, I agree that your 2010 Colt's are probably very good sixguns, a vast improvement over earlier years. That $1200 Colt is a good comparison to a $750 USFA. Which, I might add, is now selling for $1200-$1300.

Sorry but the rest is just laughable. .456" throats good? On what planet, when most commercial cast bullets are .452" You Colt true believers really can convince yourselves of anything.

Colt improved its guns because of USFA. USFA changed directions because their business practices and because the guns were made better than their prices would indicate. 180° from what one can expect from Colt.

PS, the case colors in that picture are very vivid because of the lighting. In person, it is much more muted. Like I said, it's the clearcoat that makes them stand out.

Newsflash, Turnbull is doing the case coloring on the new Colt's as well so you better get used to it. 

[petrinal]

That is rigth,   unfortunately   Turn Bull  is doing the case hardenings lately.....I prefer the previous Colt style. And I agree,  the troubles at Colt  fuelled USFAs.

Let me add that chambers of around 456 will let you shoot the venerable 455 webley.

this UBERTI has chambers that go from 458 to 462", and however by feeding the right bullet, I can get results like this one at 25 meters, one hand held. Yes, it is 25 meters, not 15 yards..and there is a flyer at the right. The load is 2F black powder with my own cast lead bullet. I dont buy bullets.



it took me  a year to get the load. In general, a tight chamber is good for accuracy, but if your chambers are big, just use a bigger bullet, and the gun will shoot like a champion...if the bullet is good, of course.

[Graveyard Jack]

I'd rather buy a sixgun with properly sized chambers/throats.

I don't cast bullets and probably never will.

[Doc Sunrise]

From petrinal - "in  my opinion the finish, specially the blueing in USFAs revolvers, was over done. To much polishing. Colt  has allways made their revolvers with a more subtle finish, unblemished, but less brigth, deeper."
"in the accuracy aspect, I have not tried USFAs,  but I could get my Colts to shoot in 1,5" at 25 meters, one hand."


As some of us here have done, you should at least shoot a USFA before making comparisons.  You will find we are not "Anti-Colt" as we all probably own Colts.  We actually are happy that Colt has cleaned up its act.  We are also happy there is some sort of competition, which is a good thing.  But we here on the "USFA Forum" seem to all agree that USFA guns have earned their own respect by first being well made as great shooters, and second being beautifully done in a traditional American way.  Of course there were exceptions that we all disliked, from many makers.  If Colt was always well made as a shooter and in fit and finish, there wouldn't be much to discuss.  But there was a good amount of time that Colt left the door wide open as their quality was just plain terrible. 

All in all, USFA made a great American gun that pleased many people as shooters and lookers.  I am very saddened to think it has come to an end, but it is what it is!  For now, and fitting the description of a collectible, there are interested buyers, and USFA is now definitely in a limited number.  Who knows, maybe this was just the USFA 1st Generation?   


 

[petrinal]

I agree with you.

all the best