Are you kidding me?!

[yahoody]

….Sometime back (Lustrum or so), Jim Finch (aka Longhunter) was doing a process by which he narrowed the upper section of the Hammer on USFA guns to eliminate and drag in the Hammer Channel.  Appears Standard has incorporated that.  Sometimes I wish I still had my Mill (sigh).  Couple thou off each side of the hammer makes for a super smooth hammer function.  Beyond that little improvement, it's a pretty close copy of USFA.

One aint much of a hand if you can't do that with a file    But hell yes!  Trim a hammer down prior to fitting (dropping in)  if you don't have the ability to fit one right so it don't rub at the get go.   

I don't see cutting the sides of the hammer down as an improvement.  Nice sales gimmick at LWH's bitd though, but rather a band aid to a poorly fitting hammer or a hammer done with no hand fitting.   Passing that off as an improvement is really reaching.

[The Pathfinder]

Ok, so the USFA was a 'replicant' of a Uberti, with refinements, and the Standard is a 'replicant' of the USFA, with modifications. I think I've got it now.

[Cholla Hill Tirador]

Ok, so the USFA was a 'replicant' of a Uberti, with refinements, and the Standard is a 'replicant' of the USFA, with modifications. I think I've got it now.

 One could say that at least in modern times, Uberti started the trend with their slightly larger(than Colt) framed revolver, then USFA followed, then Ruger with their New Vaquero and finally Standard. So IMO the more.accurate statement would be that Standard is a high quality knock-off of a Uberti.

  CHT

[Advertising]

[Coffinmaker]

Yahoody:

Well yeah.  I can and have done that with a file, but I find as I become more and more "seasoned" I have also become more and more lazy.  Likewise, I got real tired of the taste of ground steel and quit tuning springs.  Much much easier to buy after-market reduced power springs and be done with it.  Plus in the event the "owner" decides to go finger poking, the spring is easily replaced and fit.

It does however, rather annoy me when what is suppose to be "High End" gun needs my ministrations or someone like me, to be CAS playable.  Of course, if you don't care about "time" nor excess wear, you can shoot em right out of the box.  I don't personally know anyone who had done that more than a single match though.

CHT and Pathfinder.  Both positions are eventually essentially (hate auto correct) correct.  If you closely follow the evolution, with one exception (Ruger) USFA copied Uberti and Standard copied USFA.  Standard acquired USFA machines at auction following the demise of USFA.  Other than outside appearance, Ruger didn't copy anybody.  I have never liked Ruger excepting their M-77 and the # 1.

[Professor Marvel]

SInce we are having a lively and entertaining discussion, I thought I would stir the pot a bit....

Standard is apparently intent on promoting that ONLY THEIR GUN is COMPLETELY PERFECT.
it has no blemishes, no warts, and oh, pay no attention to the scum in town, they did not buy "somebody elses machines",
or software, hey did everything from scratch. If you listen to the mouthpiece, they would have you believe they invented CNC.

oh, and BTW  "clocked" or "timed" screws are not that hard to do. High end gunsmiths on the continent have been doing
this for several centuries to impress the Rubes. Especially on fine rifles and shotguns. Especially for the gullible Upper Crust.

One of the old trade secrets is to use "shop screws" until  nearly the end, then run "perfect blanks without slots"  in,
 mark where the slots need to go, back em out , and cut the slots. Magic Computer Pixie Dust makes it even easier.
apparently Standard dials them just a tad short then torques the living he77 out of them.

In another thread on CAS CIty, There was a link over to the "other colt"  website/forum where a writer had recieved a new Standard
for review. he was posting his findings there almost real-time, to the great entertainment of all.

He was discussing the high points and wonderfullness along with the (all true) various less-than-perfect blemishes .

Suddenly the thugs goons brown shirts corporate moutpiece at Standard contacted him, cancelled the review, and demanded the gun back immediately, saying that it would be sent to another writer apparently "with a better attitude".
Who apparently drank the kool-ade.

It seems that only the kool-aid counts for Standard, not the truth.

It does however, rather annoy me when what is suppose to be "High End" gun needs my ministrations or someone like me, to be CAS playable.  Of course, if you don't care about "time" nor excess wear, you can shoot em right out of the box.

And oh my yes... there is what Coffin said - $2000 and in the REAL WORLD it still requires fussing......


THEN we suddenly find out that they ONLY built a limited run of 1000 guns.... which are all apparently sold....

Is anyone else disturbbed dismayed concerned wondering about this latest  version of
The Emporer's New Clothes?

mystery! mayhem! limited numbers! the corporate mouthpieces are all aglow over the "buzz" they generated ....

yhs
prof troublemaker

[OD#3]

I have to agree with Yahoody here.  Much more than coincidence that Standard is now reproducing SAA's that exactly image those manufactured by USFA.

They don't exactly image USFA.  There are some differences in some frame and trigger guard contours.  And the hammer has a pressed-in cam, unlike Uberti or USFA.  I also have some "in-process" parts from USFA.  Either the machining process was aborted part-way because of some problem, or they were calibrating fixtures or jigs.  But just comparing Standard's photos from their FAQ of partially-machined parts to the ones I have from USFA, I can tell that not all the parts are set-up exactly the same way for machining. 

Make of that what you will.  I have heard (from people who should know) that Standard did, indeed, purchase USFA's machinery.  I'm inclined to believe them.  I really don't know.  Standard denies this.  But if they DID acquire USFA equipment, I suspect that it wasn't just a simple matter of installing the machines and running the same CNC programs.  They're doing things a little differently. 

[RRio]

Except for the part where Pietta copied Colt on frame and cylinder size.  USFA ran a CNC program based on the Uberti just as Standard is doing now.

So have to disagree, not just roll marks and finishes.

 No visual differences.

[RRio]

Yahoody:

Well yeah.  I can and have done that with a file, but I find as I become more and more "seasoned" I have also become more and more lazy.  Likewise, I got real tired of the taste of ground steel and quit tuning springs.  Much much easier to buy after-market reduced power springs and be done with it.  Plus in the event the "owner" decides to go finger poking, the spring is easily replaced and fit.

It does however, rather annoy me when what is suppose to be "High End" gun needs my ministrations or someone like me, to be CAS playable.  Of course, if you don't care about "time" nor excess wear, you can shoot em right out of the box.  I don't personally know anyone who had done that more than a single match though.

CHT and Pathfinder.  Both positions are eventually essentially (hate auto correct) correct.  If you closely follow the evolution, with one exception (Ruger) USFA copied Uberti and Standard copied USFA.  Standard acquired USFA machines at auction following the demise of USFA.  Other than outside appearance, Ruger didn't copy anybody.  I have never liked Ruger excepting their M-77 and the # 1.

I wish to hell we had "Thank You" or "Like" buttons, 'cause I woulda liked the hell out of your post.   

[LonesomePigeon]

If Standard bought USFA's CNC machines at auction then they didn't buy CNC machines from USFA, they bought them from an auction house.

[Cholla Hill Tirador]

If Standard bought USFA's CNC machines at auction then they didn't buy CNC machines from USFA, they bought them from an auction house.

  I've never really understood what difference the CNC machines they're  using makes. I mean if they bought used ACME brand CNC equipment that once belonged to USFA, Ruger, Remington,  General Motors or Billy Bob's Truck Stop Trinkets, what the heck does it matter?

  CHT

[Coffinmaker]

LP .... Um yer point??  If the machinery came from the USFA factory floor, whether you wrote the check to USFA or an auction house, your still purchasing machines that are ex-USFA.  That you wrote a check to auction, is meaningless.

CHT ..... Quite.  The real difference is in the programming the machines use to produce parts.  From the description provided by OD#3, there are some external differences from USFA.  Those differences would make the Standard offering their own, even if USFA parts are more or less "drop in"

If we pay enough attention, It starts with the 1st Generation Colt.  The second generation is a replicant of the first, as is the Third, Then up jumps Armi San Marco, a replicant of the 2d Gen Colt right along with Uberti, also replicating the 2d Gen Colt (with enough dimensional differences to keep them out of court), and Pietta, a replication of the 2d Gen Colt.  So the dominoes tumble right along.  Now Standard pops up and also replicates the Colt.  My question ...... So long as we have well made, good functioning replicants of the original 1873, whom cares whom makes it??  The Exception:  If it's to be a High End gun, it shouldn't require the ministration of after-market parts and adjustments.  "If" we are going to play CAS with it, the closest thing to CAS ready out of the box is the Pietta GW II.  Sorry, but Standard left some things undone that really improve the breed.  Shame on them.  Especially for a measly 40 Bucks.

[yahoody]

No visual differences.

  that is as silly as saying there are no visual differences between a Colt, Les Baer and Caspian 1911 frames.

[LonesomePigeon]

My point was just that Standard is not necessarily lying to the public. USFA made the best SAA replicas ever made and I think Standard is making a legitimate attempt to equal or surpass that without running afoul of any legal issues that might arise if they just made an exact copy of a USFA.

[OD#3]

I rather doubt USFA patented anything about how they were making their typical SA's.  Perhaps something like the Omnipotents, maybe, but I think one could exactly duplicate every contour found on every part of a USFA and not run afoul of Doug Donnelly in any legal sense.  Personally, I think Standard's frame contour at the front of the topstrap is less graceful than USFA, Uberti, Pietta, or most Colts.  The STI Texican was even more abruptly contoured in this area (too abrupt, I thought).  I don't know why Standard shapes their topstraps this way or the top inside of their trigger guards the way they do, but I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with legal concerns. 

[Coffinmaker]

Hi Odie   

Quite True.  The only people one might run afoul of in day past was Colt.  Colt held Patent or Trade Mark on the SAA.  In more recent years, it was more Trade Mark than Patent.  Most Patents expired a LONG time ago.

Unless I miss my guess, the more recent manufacturers of Colt Replicas wanted little differences to be able to call what they were making their own.  Also, there was/is an attempt to prevent parts interchange between brands.  That was marginally successful.  There are parts between the manufacturers that are interchangeable and some that will suffice with a bit of knowledgeable fitting and adjustment.

If our going to tout your product as the "FINEST" why on earth not address the most common failings in the design and eliminate them.  A while back, AWA USA introduced a Ruger style Coil Spring and Strut for the Main Spring.  AWA also offered it up as a "Kit" to retrofit existing SAs.  Ruger, Pietta and finally Uberti finally went to Coil Spring and Plunger for the hand.  Standard stuck with the flat spring.  Seems some silly.  Sure, a well made flat spring will last a good long time, but Coil & Plunger is smoother.  Plus forever.  I do convert all the Cap Guns I set up for CAS to Coil & Plunger. 

[RRio]

but Coil & Plunger is smoother.  Plus forever.  I do convert all the Cap Guns I set up for CAS to Coil & Plunger. 

Where do you get the springs & plungers? Are you drilling &tapping a new hole, or using the backstrap screw hole?

[greyhawk]

Where do you get the springs & plungers? Are you drilling &tapping a new hole, or using the backstrap screw hole?

I only done a couple (Coffinmaker is the expert here) - first one I used a lil spring some retard had put in my Browning 71 rifle as part of a rebounding firing pin setup (I converted back to '71 winchester specs) second one I went shopping for the spring and ya make the plunger - new hole and the backstrap holds it in like a ruger - ONE BIG PROBLEM - ya get used ta pulling yr blackpowder colt down to clean it with the flat hand spring ----so undo the grip screws, take the grip off, new lil hand spring and plunger falls out in the grass or in the sawdust on the workshop floor, ya spend an hour down on hands and knees wid a magnet finding the bits,
------- a little shallow grub screw tapped in to retain it would be nice but I dont reckon there is room to do it ? (this is where Coffinmaker clears his throat and enlightens us with the finishing touches ?)

[OD#3]

I've only done one--on a Uberti Walker replica.  It was an inexpensive firearm, and it was larger overall, so there was more real-estate to work with.  I used the spring from a Browning HI-Power magazine disconnect safety that I'd removed (don't we all?).  I made the plunger out of an old drill bit the same size as the one I used to drill the hole through the back of the frame.  But one can also buy a new Ruger spring and plunger from outfits like Brownells, and that's what most people do.  I didn't try to secure mine with a threaded stud in the back. Neither does Pietta.  But Uberti does.  Frankly, I don't like that securing stud.  It has very fine threads, and it is difficult to align and screw back in once one has disassembled everything.

[Cholla Hill Tirador]

If our going to tout your product as the "FINEST" why on earth not address the most common failings in the design and eliminate them.  A while back, AWA USA introduced a Ruger style Coil Spring and Strut for the Main Spring.  AWA also offered it up as a "Kit" to retrofit existing SAs.  Ruger, Pietta and finally Uberti finally went to Coil Spring and Plunger for the hand.  Standard stuck with the flat spring.  Seems some silly.  Sure, a well made flat spring will last a good long time, but Coil & Plunger is smoother.  Plus forever.  I do convert all the Cap Guns I set up for CAS to Coil & Plunger. 

 If I may play devil's advocate....Where do you draw the line??? I mean if you're going to use coil springs, why not put a transfer bar in it? And the feature that allows the cylinder spins when the loading gate is opened? And the cylinder should spin in either direction, as well.

 I personally prefer the flat springs. A few weeks back I was working over the trigger of a new Uberti Flat Top and grew quite tired of fiddling with the tiny plug screw, spring and plunger, R&R-ing it every time I reassembled the revolver to test the trigger pull. Even worse, a couple of years ago I was hunting javelina and arrowheads in deep SW Texas very near the border (where you'd best be armed 24/7, 20 miles from the nearest paved road with no utilities of any kind. One afternoon I bent over to pull a rock out of the bottom of a hole we'd dug. The hammer thong on my holster had worked its way loose and my revolver slid from the holster and fell into the bottom of the hole, completely submerged in dirt that was only slightly more coarse than Gold Medal Flour. I had to completely disassemble the revolver, down to the frame and barrel, and clean every nook, cranny, hole and mortise of that nasty, powdery dirt. Thank God I didn't have to fiddle with those three tiny pieces. As it was, I was able to disassemble and reassemble the revolver using one screwdriver.

   You must also realize that if Standard has chosen to incorporate a coil hammer spring and the plunger for the hand, cries of agony would have ensued with the masses wailing that the manufacturer had deviated from the original design, thereby rendering the revolver wholly overpriced and not worth it's weight in scrap iron.

  In their original form, Colt SA's and various facsimile's thereof are easily serviced and cleaned, even in the field, if necessary, and I like it that way.

 CHT

[greyhawk]

Hi Odie   



If our going to tout your product as the "FINEST" why on earth not address the most common failings in the design and eliminate them.  A while back, AWA USA introduced a Ruger style Coil Spring and Strut for the Main Spring.  AWA also offered it up as a "Kit" to retrofit existing SAs.  Ruger, Pietta and finally Uberti finally went to Coil Spring and Plunger for the hand.  Standard stuck with the flat spring.  Seems some silly.  Sure, a well made flat spring will last a good long time, but Coil & Plunger is smoother.  Plus forever.  I do convert all the Cap Guns I set up for CAS to Coil & Plunger. 

At the risk of bein sacrcastically chastised almost to the point of death - I am gonna disagree just a teensy bit
Been foolin round with cowboy guns since 1965, NEVER saw a (properly fitted and adjusted) flat main spring break - winchesters, oobertis, eyetalyian colts. On top of that, the coil mainspring guns I have had (still got a couple) are a right PITA to take apart where the flat spring guns are a piece of cake. Gimme a flat mainspring any day!!!
Spagetti handsprings are a different story, after five busted ones I/we got kinda tired of that - maybe colts were better made ? not gonna attempt to argue that - but the continental ones have been the weak part of the gun by a mile.