No, to say 'Colt' on it is not enough. Colts now don't look like Colts then. USFA bridged that cosmetic gap, for awhile, and it's the LINES of the 1st gen SAA that I was after -- lines the USFA faithfully produced. I can't afford a 1st gen SAA, and any I could would be white and worn. So I bought a USFA because it has the lines of a 1st gen Colt. I know it's not a Colt, I don't care that it's not a Colt, and were it not for the patents that prohibited USFA from calling their guns Colts -- which they arguanly were, in a crazy way -- they would have done it. They came as close as they could, and were forced to take 'Pt' out of their rollmark because it was too close. USFA made a better Colt than Colt, and I'm fine with the USFA rollmark. Who here owns a USFA because they wanted a Ruger clone? Who slides their USFA in a modern copy of Meana leather? Anyone? I'd rest my case there, but it wouldn't matter -- I asked a simple question, the response to which seems to be (a) uniform misunderstanding of what I'm saying, and (b) not-so-thinly disguised disdain for even thinking of it. So OK. This clearly wasn't the place to ask this question.