Cas City Forum Hall & CAS-L
Special Interests - Groups & Societies => USFA CSS => Topic started by: yahoody on August 04, 2018, 08:05:08 PM
-
Just had a short conversation on collecting USFA guns. The big concern was the paper work and box the gun had with it or was in. With these guns pushing $2500+ and clearly a step ahead IMO of any SAA built to date including the newest "Standard" I find it had to believe anyone is actually willing to pay $2500 for a handgun, when they don't actually know what makes the late model USFA guns the REAL Standard for a SAA. It aint the paper work that is for sure since damn near every thing USFA and USPFA before them published was pure fabrication.
But here ya go...what I was told "serious collectors" look for, "the Indian" from the Denver Public Library :) Like always…, my advice is "buy the gun not the story".
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-L5UCIXb9zzU/W2XhOUu5UzI/AAAAAAAAuh0/e3agncYrUzoA4ZuBXmyGgLss5T6FCVpqACLcBGAs/s1600/DSC09405.JPG)
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-iEGq6F9TSTA/W2ZNIMll6HI/AAAAAAAAuiY/LbkwYgrJB74JiyFuPjTi7WhiyOkUDa2WgCLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_9816.JPG)
-
If Standard is able to stay the course, I'd imagine USFA's will drop in price.
What, in your experience with the new Standard revolvers, makes them of lower quality than a USFA? I've owned a few USFA's myself and agree the quality is very, very high, but by no means unable duplicated, or perhaps even bettered since there are on cast parts in the Standard.
CHT
-
If Standard is able to stay the course, I'd imagine USFA's will drop in price.
I 'd have to say Standard needs to get in line and produce something better than 3rd Gen Colt or the last USA made USFAs. Not been done so far past the speculation. If they produce a better gun it is still just a "pre war" model, no other calibers besides .45 (not even a 45 acp yet) and no BP frames. Going to be awhile before you see the premium USFA guns drop in price IMO. In fact because there will be no more of them and they are already well known premium quality SAA I'd bet they go up in price not down.
What, in your experience with the new Standard revolvers
None besides an educated look at the photos and the obvious Uberti/USFA specs they have admitted to and are using to built their own version. I did ask Standard and got answers to some very specific build questions.
I've owned a few USFA's myself and agree the quality is very, very high, but by no means unable duplicated, or perhaps even bettered since there are on cast parts in the Standard.
No one has built a better (tighter tolerances) SAA that USFA but Freedom Arms that I am aware of. Although not surprisingly Uberti was getting there with current production until they switched to the new the hammer/safety. Colt sure hasn't in over 50 some years if then. And Colt now uses a number of cast parts. So far just by the options and roll marks Standard hasn't upped the game any IMO. I just took a USFA gun apart while typing this and don't see any cast parts. Newest third Gen Colt cast parts? Start with the trigger guard.
"Buy the gun not the story". True with any Colt, true with any USFA and certainly true with a new gun that has yet to prove itself.
-
But here ya go...what I was told "serious collectors" look for, "the Indian" from the Denver Public Library :) Like always…, my advice is "buy the gun not the story".
My Dear Yahoody -
You hit the nail on the head.
there are a relatively new breed of wanna-be "gun collectors" swarming the market and artificially driving up prices,
who really have no interest in firearms at all, but are simply considering them another "investment".
These seem to be the same folks who buy high-end "anything" for profitable resale, not for use.
Gold, Bitcoin, Cars, houses, wives whatever. Now they have turned their sights on "collectible firearms".
Since I am famous for my cheapness frugality, it should come as no surprise that I buy cheap economically priced (but quality!) goods .... and then keep it forever, reparing, etc... We make our old-school Whirlpool appliances last 10-15 years, minimum. Mrs Marvels Subaru Legacy Sedan is now over 25 years old and still going strong! altho I did lay in a supply of freon for it a bit ago...
If I ever manage to snag a USFA , it will most likely be a Rodeo and I will follow in your footsteps to refinish it, then shoot the he77 out of it!
at the prices I am seeing, I doubt that I will ever justify a new SAA Standard...
yhs
prof marvel
-
Very well said, and 100% IMO :)
-
Wow, it is hard to believe anyone would honestly consider the paperwork and box the determining factor over the actual firearm in the box. Seriously!
Personally, if I were looking to purchase a quality shooting single action army type revolver I believe I would find and buy a 100% USA made USFA Rodeo over most if not all of what is currently available. The only difference between them and the Premium USFA is CC and bluing. Yes, that original CC and bluing look is nice and adds to the overall value but I don’t think it affects the guns smoothness of operation and accuracy since they were both built with the same quality in mind.
I hope the Standard Manufacturing SAA’s are of exceptional quality as I would like to see someone else pursue the standards set by the later produced USFA’s. I certainly don’t think Colt will.
-
.Personally, if I were looking to purchase a quality shooting single action army type revolver I believe I would find and buy a 100% USA made USFA Rodeo over most if not all of what is currently available. The only difference between them and the Premium USFA is CC and bluing...
Agreed. This one started out as a Rodeo. But when I found it capable of one hole groups at 25 Yards and able to cut three playing cards in three shots I thought it something special. While I still own a few premium USFA guns, haven't shot one since.
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-2k3sGXEcqnA/Wb7FfNv76XI/AAAAAAAAsLM/K91VaeIxpvsk6YkOTh46EC8Q4XpU1SKrACLcBGAs/s1600/DSC01470.JPG)
These are the Rodeos I shoot now when ever I get the chance.
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vqZ1d3KIWaw/WeuzDtoDvhI/AAAAAAAAsRY/jqxovJckTmgSNgzBCTk_aERXUlwXLVaswCLcBGAs/s1600/DSC01676.JPG)
-
LOL - I sure ain't no collector! If I could talk myself into spending the money for the USA made USFA BP frame 45 Colt in the first picture, the first thing I would do after taking the it out of the box (which along with the paper work would get tossed up on a shelf) would be to shoot it, with black powder. Guns weren't made to be collectibles, they were made to shoot.
People turned some of them into something to hoard and treasure as objet d'art. The rest of us think of them as tools to do their proper work. In this case, shooting half inch holes in the intended targets. (smile)
Dave
-
.Guns weren't made to be collectibles, they were made to shoot.....the rest of us think of them as tools to do their proper work. In this case, shooting half inch holes in the intended targets. (smile)
Aint that the truth. I might collect a few guns but I surely don't collect worthless paper and boxes.
How may times you heard the story of empty gun boxes, extra grips or parts and loose ammo at a yard sale but not a gun in the house? Takes all kinds as we know. Just not my interests. I just want mine to be made well and shoot even better. Those are the guns I collect.
-
Aint that the truth. I might collect a few guns but I surely don't collect worthless paper and boxes.
How may times you heard the story of empty gun boxes, extra grips or parts and loose ammo at a yard sale but not a gun in the house?
Takes all kinds as we know. Just not my interests. I just want mine to be made well and shoot even better. Those are the guns I collect.
We saw all this last century with winchester commemoratives - early on blokes bought em with only the money in mind - "Limited Edition" collectables - new in the box - unfired - blah blah - fifteen years later they started coming out of the woodwork and for a while you could buy a nice one for cheaper than a new AE 30/30 - I bought a O F Winchester cheap kept it a year unfired - walked in my gunroom one day and that thing was sneering down at me from its perch - grabbed it and a few shells and out we went - three touching at fifty yards - holy smokes !!! The next weekend I got serious with it and shot a couple nice ten shot groups using a plastic fertiliser bag half full of dirt for a rest on the roof of my old subaru - would you believe - that plastic bag took the gold plating off right along the underside of the action (only the sharp edges) so ruined it as a NIB collector for ever - now I had me a real nice shooter - I lucked onto a stash of once fired brass cheap at a shoot - got me a mold off Mr LEE - had a set of dies already - one more nice gun on the rack ready to go to work. Still have not figured out how I managed to leave that one on the rack for a year unfired - take it down - talk to it - oil it - put it back - boring!!!!!!!!!
-
I would agree...a gun is tool , a tool is meant to be used , that it's lot, to exist and to be used.
I do own a few Civil War Colts & a Grizwold & Gunnison that I do not fire. They had been fired in their day but their condition &/or historical value preclude, safely doing so today....
I also have , several pre-1900 collectibles which I do shoot...1891 Winchester , S&W Russian ,Krag to name a few.
But if I own a gun such as a 3rd Gen. Colt or USPFA USFA or S&W Schofield it has been shot....
As to paper, or Box or shipping sleeves I didn't as a rule keep them , but I have some I saved stuffed away...
But to some , the BOX, papers or sleeve is something to be coveted , some have even made money reproducing such items
or selling to the collectors .
There is I suppose , gold in them there paper, boxes & sleeves ....
-
There is I suppose , gold in them there paper, boxes & sleeves ....
Yea, but they're just bumps, not real hills. (smile)
Dave
-
It has always struck me that the original SAA was a mass produced military sidearm built to a price. Like the 1911, it was meant to be a little loose, a little rattily, and able to kill a horse at close range if needed.
All this swiss watch precision stuff we like to attribute/apply to it now really means not a whole lot . . . (I will now retire to my bunker to await the barrage.)
-
It has always struck me that the original SAA was a mass produced military sidearm built to a price. Like the 1911, it was meant to be a little loose, a little rattily
Since you are fishing, I'll bite ;D
Not sure where you got the loose and rattily idea but it is wrong on both counts. Not the SAA and not the 1911.
The original Pre WWI Colt 1911s were some finely finished, tight and accurate guns. Fit by hand by guys that knew what they were doing. They weren't worn out, several times rebuilt, from surplus parts, 1st WW guns they reissued in Korea or RVN decades later.
Find an original early Colt 1911 and take a look. Those early 1911, military and commercial guns both, put the current "custom shop" Colt production to shame in every way.
The Colt SAA? Orginal guns were, again, build by craftsmen who cared about what they were making. Take a look at any of the early 1st Gen guns that were issued and unused or any of the early civilan models. Some dang nice guns, rock solid lock up and shot to point of aim with the right ammo.
Colt has never equaled them. USFA came close in some ways but not others.
There was a reason the early Colt revolvers were so treasured and respected. It is because they were actually finely crafted tools.
And they shot like they were just that, a finely crafted tool.
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ofFy0XWXPCE/W3kA1WN_D-I/AAAAAAAAuqI/1r26188RG2oeYA86kpKpVz2lPF2AOjr1gCLcBGAs/s1600/target1.jpg)
-
Have to agree with Yahoody! The build tolerances the Colt factory used says anything but "sloppy". They learned in the " open top" era that "loose" doesn't get better, it gets worse. Attention to fit and hardening parts that should be but aren't can give a "run of the mill" Italian offering (open top or top strap version) an incredible change in its mechanical accuracy and it's disposition!!
( not piling on, just my observation and what education I've gained from those willing . . . Jim Martin in particular . . . )
Mike
-
Drydock and Yahoody are both right in a way. The SAA was originally designed (intended) as a service weapon, not a match or target handgun. As such it wasn't meant to shot little tiny groups, but it was required to hit a man sized target at some distance and to put a horse down. I think these requirements were both within 100 yards.
At the same time the SAA wasn't "loose" or "rattling" when newly issued. They were as finely crafted as any of the brand new cap and ball Colt revolvers. Colt was looking for market share everywhere. You don't get that with a poorly fitted gun but rather one that would impress potential buyers.
The SAA was indeed a service revolver by design, but it was a magnificent one at that. (smiley face goes here)
Dave
-
As such it wasn't meant to shot little tiny groups, but it was required to hit a man sized target at some distance and to put a horse down. I think these requirements were both within 100 yards.
No question that was what the US Army asked for on the design...the gun needed to kill a horse and a man adroitly within a reasonable distance. More an issue of ammo though that the gun's design. Even the cap and ball revolvers of the day were capable of fine accuracy and thousands of them already "mass produced". What Colt delivered was more than capable power wise for the ammo. So much that it was toned down several times to get a more usable and manageable handgun with the required power. The new Colt was also quite capable and did set world records for bullseye shooting at the time...or at least the ones S&W didn't :)
Nothing wrong with a gun that will do both...big caliber and lot of energy in the old black powder 45 Colt ammo and a delivery system from Colt that was fully capable of fine accuracy...like hitting a man at 100 yards with a gun typically shot with one hand back in the day. Original guns out there still capable of doing both.
This one is a youngster and nothing special, shipped July 1900, and still has the original barrel. Just past 118 years old today. Hitting a 1/2 size steel IPSC target at 100 yards is no chore with 230 smokeless loads. Everything on this gun, which is proffed for smokeless, is still within US Army specs. except the barrel length.
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7l5v5yndl1k/W2ZbhCLFjkI/AAAAAAAAujI/ji5svWwT8EocVxVtHLusNLOrmNlyAajugCLcBGAs/s1600/DSC09460.JPG)
Same gun is very capable shooting excellent groups off hand at 15 yards poa/poi.
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eOY8tqbyTBc/W2Uzo0zlLYI/AAAAAAAAuhc/K3CYb9i-GIk57tbmRXKdUfIxAOt4m9fzgCLcBGAs/s1600/DSC09375.JPG)
-
No, I think not. I've handled GI issue weapons of all types, including museum kept unissued GI SAAs, and 1911s, not to mention NA&Ns and 1909s. They all have just a touch of looseness to them. Just a touch, a touch of rotation when locked up, a bit of endshake. This does not affect their reliability, or general accuracy, but does make them easier to manufacture in numbers.
I've also handled beautiful presentation pieces, gifts, custom guns, private purchase sidearms, that do indeed put a watch manufacture to shame, but not something issued to a Grunt. These also tend to be the best preserved firearms, and may skew what we think of as 19th/early 20 century hand fitting.
Don't confuse this with the rattle of a shot out 50 year old 1911 at the end of its service life, that's not what I mean. I just think some folks have this unrealistic expectation of tolerances in what were general issue weapons. .A man once handed me a beautiful Canadian issue 1911 made in 1916. Barely had any blue worn off the slide rails. With just a touch of lateral play. Hold it close to your ear and shake it hard, and you could just barely hear it. As intended.
This was steam engine technology after all. All slide actuated handguns have their basis in the single bar Locomotive Crosshead.
They certainly could do it. But for most guns they did not have to.
-
Every one gets an opinion based on their own experiences and prejudices.
These also tend to be the best preserved firearms, and may skew what we think of as 19th/early 20 century hand fitting.
Always a spectrum of what was done "hand fitting" then and now. I'll take the best. You are welcome to the rest.
-
I'm no expert but I believe the tolerances to which military SAA's must adhere are described in Kuhnhausen's SAA Shop Manual.
-
Since they are built within "tolerances", they are certainly not " bank vault " tight (nor would you want them that way) but I wouldn't describe the as issued revolver with "loose" and "rattily". I have handled original shooter grade, 1863 produced Armys that weren't "loose" or "rattilly" (save for the plunger possibly, I honestly don't remember). Quite possibly differing opinions of the meaning of "loose" and "rattilly". -- After posting, I re-read Drydock's last post and see more clearly his meaning of " rattilly " so, moot point.-
Just for the heck of it, I just checked 3 new in the box cartridge S.A.'s (a R.M. conversion in 38spl, '72 Open Top in 45C, and '58 Remington in 38spl . All Uberti products). The Remington had no perceived endshake. None had any rattle. The "arbor" guns haven't been corrected yet but will end up with .0015"- .002" of endshake. Maybe Uberti does a better build than a lot of folks want to give them credit for?!
Mike
-
Helps to remember that the original Colt 1873 was made to shoot BP...and lots of it without cleaning. Given to a typical trooper likely meant even less cleaning. That and the documented "camp swaps" where guns were cleaned as a group and reassembled without the original parts. So no question there was some "flex" in the original guns. I sure would not call them loose. If they were loose you couldn't swap parts and still have functioning guns. A high quality SAA doesn't work that way.
Uberti? Very little hand fitting done today. Thank goodness! You can drop in a new cylinder or hammer and have as "perfect" a gun as when you started. That is a good thing. Pretty amazing actually. You can't do that with a current Colt.
Current Uberti and Colt? I have both and I'd give the nod to Uberti as being a better quality firarm...by a lot. The Uberti costing between 20 and 25% of the current Colts makes it a one sided argument to me. What ever the Uberti looses in cosmetics it makes up for in their ability to shoot POA/POI. Competition between handguns brands begins and ends with, "do they shoot!" for me.
-
<snip>
Uberti? Very little hand fitting done today. Thank goodness! You can drop in a new cylinder or hammer and have as "perfect" a gun as when you started. That is a good thing. Pretty amazing actually. You can't do that with a current Colt.
Current Uberti and Colt? I have both and I'd give the nod to Uberti as being a better quality firarm...by a lot. The Uberti costing between 20 and 25% of the current Colts makes it a one sided argument to me. What ever the Uberti looses in cosmetics it makes up for in their ability to shoot POA/POI. Competition between handguns brands begins and ends with, "do they shoot!" for me.
Funny you should mention that.... I just took possession of a current production (Date code CT) Uberti Flat Top from Dixie Gun Works. It's a 44-40, but I have no interest in that cartridge for a handgun, and intend to order a .44 Special cylinder in a couple of weeks. So to satisfy my primal urge to shoot, I just took the cylinder out of my 2011 production Cimarron Model P, dropped it into the Flat Top and headed out behind the shop with a few dozen rounds of handloads. I was astounded by the accuracy of this revolver...it ties with my USFA as the most accurate revolver I've ever owned, but the target sights and the wide trigger make it much, much easier to shoot.
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h6/308Scout/Uberti%20%20Flat%20Top/429383%2075%20yds_zpscffdwn5r.jpg) (http://s60.photobucket.com/user/308Scout/media/Uberti%20%20Flat%20Top/429383%2075%20yds_zpscffdwn5r.jpg.html)
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h6/308Scout/Uberti%20%20Flat%20Top/429244%2075%20yds._zps4xukd8sv.jpg) (http://s60.photobucket.com/user/308Scout/media/Uberti%20%20Flat%20Top/429244%2075%20yds._zps4xukd8sv.jpg.html)
Don't mean to take the thread down a bunny trail....
CHT
-
Don't mean to take the thread down a bunny trail....
You didn't. I know you have a few other Ubertis that shoot just as well (or almost) from prior posts. But you have stumbled on the USFA and now Standard's secret...very little or no hand fitting required on a updated Uberti CNC program.
For the chit you were giving me the Colt forum good to see you are starting to get what is actually happening.
I too am using a 44 Special cylinder in my Flat Top and that 44-40 cylinder in a 4 3/4" BP frame gun that the 44 Special cylinder came out of. The cylinder gap on the BP .44wcf Swap gun is now .0015" and the things shoots like a laser with 200 gr bullets and Unique. The 4 3/4" is so good as a 44wcf that I lost interest in the Flat Top.
-
You didn't. I know you have a few other Ubertis that shoot just as well (or almost) from prior posts. But you have stumbled on the USFA and now Standard's secret...very little or no hand fitting required on a updated Uberti CNC program.
For the chit you were giving me the Colt forum good to see you are starting to get what is actually happening.
I too am using a 44 Special cylinder in my Flat Top and that 44-40 cylinder in a 4 3/4" BP frame gun that the 44 Special cylinder came out of. The cylinder gap on the BP .44wcf Swap gun is now .0015" and the things shoots like a laser with 200 gr bullets and Unique. The 4 3/4" is so good as a 44wcf that I lost interest in the Flat Top.
I've been aware of the non-need of hand fitting for a long time, that's why I own so many Uberti's. However I have a deep appreciation for craftsmanship and have for years wanted a superbly built, beautiful SA revolver. Before USFA went out, I spent much time on their site planning my eventual purchase. That is why I'm so thrilled that Standard is dipping their toe in the water.
I was giving you scbidt because of a the nitpicking posts about the Standard's being too much of this or not enough of that. Just be glad there's someone giving the SA business a go!
CHT
-
A Standard with one piece grips and their required (so they say) sales tax runs over $2000. 100% prepaid, shipped to your FFL
Much as I like the USFA guns I also was well aware of the bs line they had going early on with refinished Ubertis for 4xs their cost just to get a nice cosmetic finish. I'd suspect the same BS right up till the end.
Now we have Standard building guns on the old USFA mills, even less hand fitting with up dated Uberti based programs and a $2000 price tag. Give me a break. That kind of non sense needs to be nit picked.
I aint buying the Koolaid there any more than I did with USFA. Anyone that does should buy that gun for $2000 and smile while trying to get their pants back on. I have every generation of Colt, more than one USA made USFA and more and more Ubertis that cost under $500 delivered to my door. Most importantly as you know the guns shoot.
And the current Ubertis are every bit of the Colt's or USFA guns as a tool. When you factor in the price, there is no comparison. I could have Turnbull refinish a Uberti and still be money ahead.
The tool steel discussion reminds me of the original MIM discussions on the 1911. Time alone has proven that much to do about nothing.
-
All very true Yahoody, but some of use just want what we want, and aren't you glad. Wouldn't it be a dull world if everybody wanted or was satisfied with the same thing?
dave
-
A Standard with one piece grips and their required (so they say) sales tax runs over $2000. 100% prepaid, shipped to your FFL
Much as I like the USFA guns I also was well aware of the bs line they had going early on with refinished Ubertis for 4xs their cost just to get a nice cosmetic finish. I'd suspect the same BS right up till the end.
Now we have Standard building guns on the old USFA mills, even less hand fitting with up dated Uberti based programs and a $2000 price tag. Give me a break. That kind of non sense needs to be nit picked.
I aint buying the Koolaid there any more than I did with USFA. Anyone that does should buy that gun for $2000 and smile while trying to get their pants back on. I have every generation of Colt, more than one USA made USFA and more and more Ubertis that cost under $500 delivered to my door. Most importantly as you know the guns shoot.
And the current Ubertis are every bit of the Colt's or USFA guns as a tool. When you factor in the price, there is no comparison. I could have Turnbull refinish a Uberti and still be money ahead.
The tool steel discussion reminds me of the original MIM discussions on the 1911. Time alone has proven that much to do about nothing.
So, where did you get that Standard is using USFA's CNC equipment and programs??? SURELY you read on their site: 12. Did we acquire another company to do this? No, everything was built new from the ground up. All manufacturing, designing and testing are done in house. Do you have some concrete information that shows Standard is lying???
You say you're not buying their "Koolaid" any more than you did with USFA, but then you state "I have....more than one USA made USFA....", which leads me to believe you've already ingested Koolaid, more than once by your own admission!
If you don't like the price of the Standard (which is equal to, or in some cases less than a comparable US-made USFA), then don't buy them. Pretty simple.
Oh and I agree with you regarding the having Turnbull finish a Uberti for less than the cost of a new Standard, but come on, as much as I LOVE Uberti's, they're still not built to the level of quality as a USFA, and presumably, a Standard. My Uberti Frisco is a tack-driving little hussy, but there's just no comparison to the fit, finish and feel of it and my USFA Rodeo. I have always intended to, and will have my Frisco refinished with CCH and a really good blue job, but I'll essentially be "putting lipstick on a pig" when comparing it to a USFA.
CHT
-
Uh hu...…
And all USPFA and USA guns were totally made in the "USA". Really? We all know now that wasn't true. Well everyone but the guy who just bought a $1400 Uberti with a USPSA label. Pity the fool.
I own USFA guns but I didn't believe the hype then and don't believe the hype now.
It I a wonderful world...everyone gets to spend their money as they see fit and believe what they choose.
I one were to ponder it for a moment, did a couple hundred thousand in CNC milling centers and the Uberti programs to run them really simply disappear in CT's? USFA was 10 or 12 miles from Conn. Shotgun. I have been told by reliable sources (ya I know but there ya go)...that is where the machines went. And no one wonders why the Standard is a Uberti spec'ed clone and not a Colt sized gun? People really do want to believe it aint true :)
Do I care past that...not really. You are welcome to the last word.
-
You are welcome to the last word.
Naaa....rumors and hearsay.
CHT
-
Uh hu...…
And all USPFA and USA guns were totally made in the "USA". Really? We all know now that wasn't true. Well everyone but the guy who just bought a $1400 Uberti with a USPSA label. Pity the fool.
I own USFA guns but I didn't believe the hype then and don't believe the hype now.
It I a wonderful world...everyone gets to spend their money as they see fit and believe what they choose.
I one were to ponder it for a moment, did a couple hundred thousand in CNC milling centers and the Uberti programs to run them really simply disappear in CT's? USFA was 10 or 12 miles from Conn. Shotgun. I have been told by reliable sources (ya I know but there ya go)...that is where the machines went. And no one wonders why the Standard is a Uberti spec'ed clone and not a Colt sized gun? People really do want to believe it aint true :)
Do I care past that...not really. You are welcome to the last word.
As a SAA smith since 1978, I can yell you when it comes to Colt, USFA, Uberti, and Pietta, Take the rollmarks and the finishes off and do a dimension check on them, you would be hard pressed to be able to tell them apart. It's all in the rollmarks and finishes.
-
RRio,
I've always suspected that. Had a discussion (politely :) with friend of mind the other day, that if you ; taped over the 3 screws and 2 pins(Rugers) and taped over the front of the cyl. pins,(long front-Rugers), put a batch on the table and walked by at 6-8 ft. you'd be hard pressed to tell which was which without maybe ,,,, maybe, staring at them. If you like, and am happy with what you've got, so be it. Just my view.
Isom
-
... I can yell you when it comes to Colt, USFA, Uberti, and Pietta.....you would be hard pressed to be able to tell them apart. It's all in the rollmarks and finishes.
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.
-
Personally care, I do not. So long as your Light Saber powers up when you hit the switch, everything else is academic.
-
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.
-
The Captain is an observant fellow ;D
Machines, CNC program and even their test targets….
Although I suspect someone inside Standard was sending a very public message with that one 8) I enjoyed a good laugh seeingthat old target used with the new Standard guns.
The USFA test target below that was included with Standard Mfg #US35. No one @ Standard seems to be trying very hard if the test targets are being shot at 12 yards. Among the obvious here, but that kind of stuff sure doesn't help them deny there is no connection to the old USFA. A test target is just the tip of the iceberg.
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-2cGcd51fxIk/W67xoLN_9EI/AAAAAAAAvMw/YHEhS0exbX00-BysylIfHn_7oBndpXtWQCLcBGAs/s1600/standard%2Btarget.jpg)
-
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.
Just as USFA reproduced SA's exactly imaged Uberti's?
-
So, is the Standard a clone of a clone? ???
-
YEEEE GODS. NO!! First and foremost, I personally hate the term "CLONE" Makes my teeth hurt. Were any of them actually "Clones" they would be exact and they are NOT. Really really close though. Really close.
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.
Betcha tiffin you was wanting a 45 ACP cylinder to optimize for C45S brass a Uberti would mostly drop right in. Little rubbin-n-buffin.
Oh ...... forgot ...... Replicant. They be Replicants. Banish "Clone" from the Lexicon ....... PLEASE!!!!!!
-
You heard ? Donnelly is going to remake the Nagant...…. superb fit & finish ...
NO ? …………………….neither did I ;D
-
….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 ;D 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.
-
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. ;D
-
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. ;D
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :D
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
No visual differences.
::) that is as silly as saying there are no visual differences between a Colt, Les Baer and Caspian 1911 frames.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Hi Odie :D
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.
-
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?
-
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 ????)
-
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.
-
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
-
Hi Odie :D
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.
-
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.
CHT.
I think the devil got his tail in the fire an lost his focus -- we talkin about fix somethin thats broken not break somethin thats fixed already
I been tryin to get a decent trigger on my ruger single six (22), took the trigger block / transfer bar out for a test - yup that was heaps better -- little touch dangerus though . Now if that shooter had a decent halfcock safety notch the transfer bar would be down the toilet in an instant - but it has to go back in cuz I shoot it in company. Put up with the creepy trigger - maybe improves my shootin if I can beat it.
-
RRio-n-Greyhawk-n-others .......
Converting some guns to Coil Spring and Plunger is fairly simple. A new hole is drilled in the frame above and just to the right of the Back Strap Screw. I use Stainless Ruger parts for the spring and plunger. Care must for the angle of the bore. I DO NOT suggest trying to use the Grip Frame screw hole re-bored, or even a special drilled out Grip Frame Screw with spring. Using the grip frame screw/hole runs the chance of the spring and plunger putting asymmetrical pressure on the hand, causing binding. I center the bore on the hand so the plunger runs in the middle of the hand.
I have never questioned the reliability of flat "Main Springs." Unless one does something stupid with them, they simply don't break. The actually belong under a 3/4 Ton Dodge, but they don't break. Hand springs break. Those whom own a few, or several may never experience a broken hand spring. Those of us whom see and work on several hundred on the other hand, see quite a few broken hand springs.
There are always those whom suffer from severe "hardening of the attitude." If it's worked for a hundred years, it works for me attitude. Or in some cases, I got stupid and it's your fault. If you know small parts are present you simply deal with them. Some are well opposed to progress and improvement. One of the benefits of coil springs is the lack of "stacking." Oh, and while were at it, THE safest single action handguns on the PLANET have Transfer Bars.
There are choices available. We can all choose our particular features. We have the option of selection. Being critical of improvement and progress is rather short sighted. Some time back, there were those who found serious flaw with the wheel.
-
RRio-n-Greyhawk-n-others .......
Converting some guns to Coil Spring and Plunger is fairly simple. A new hole is drilled in the frame above and just to the right of the Back Strap Screw. I use Stainless Ruger parts for the spring and plunger. Care must for the angle of the bore. I DO NOT suggest trying to use the Grip Frame screw hole re-bored, or even a special drilled out Grip Frame Screw with spring. Using the grip frame screw/hole runs the chance of the spring and plunger putting asymmetrical pressure on the hand, causing binding. I center the bore on the hand so the plunger runs in the middle of the hand.
I must be a good copycat this is how I did mine
I have never questioned the reliability of flat "Main Springs." Unless one does something stupid with them, they simply don't break. The actually belong under a 3/4 Ton Dodge, but they don't break.
Ahh yes but not so difficult to tune em back - no law that sez the tension screw has to be gorilla-ed down to the max -sometimes with a bit of a tweak we can turn that dodge pickup leaf into a mercury cruiser spring
Hand springs break. Those whom own a few, or several may never experience a broken hand spring. Those of us whom see and work on several hundred on the other hand, see quite a few broken hand springs.
4 guns five springs so far
There are always those whom suffer from severe "hardening of the attitude." If it's worked for a hundred years, it works for me attitude. Or in some cases, I got stupid and it's your fault. If you know small parts are present you simply deal with them.
just sayin if you have pulled that colt down innumerable times and used to the parts and where they reside it is darn easy to forget you changed the handspring over to a plunger and ooops there it goes again Some are well opposed to progress and improvement. One of the benefits of coil springs is the lack of "stacking." Oh, and while were at it, THE safest single action handguns on the PLANET have Transfer Bars.
cant disagree with that - the tradeoff on my old ruger seems to be a creepy crummy trigger - I would willingly backtrade that system for the half cock notch safety on any one of those spagetti colts we have - I can work on those
There are choices available. We can all choose our particular features. We have the option of selection. Being critical of improvement and progress is rather short sighted. Some time back, there were those who found serious flaw with the wheel.
yeah but ---that depends on who the improvement is in aid of - there are plenty of "improvements" that do not benefit function or durability but are instead about cheapening the manufacturing process OR as you and others often point to safety improvements = lawyering
-
I have single actions because I love the history of them and their roll in the settling of the West, where I live and once was a deputy sheriff. I shoot them to experience what using them was like in in the late 1800s and early 1900s. That includes shooting black powder (or substitutes) to make that experience even more realistic.
Coil springs destroy that experience, not as bad as the New Model Ruger has screwed it up but it "just ain't right".
YMMV,
Dave
-
Coffinmaker:
Thank you. ;)
-
RRio,
Happy to Oblige. If need arise let me know and I'll gladly provide the part numbers (from Brownells) and the drill size. I will caution folks, when making this change, take your time with the drill and use plenty of OIL. If the drill snaps, your done for the day and are back to the old flat spring.
Greyhawk,
I couldn't agree more. Some improvements really do improve the breed. Some are stupid and just done to cut manufacturing cost. The "enhancement" comes closes to mind, I Uberti, in their infinite wisdom "improved" the Ladle (loading gate) on the 1866. Improved it from one that never broke, to one guaranteed to break. STUPID!! Improvement is wonderful. Just making it cheaper to make is STUPID!!
-
RRio,
I couldn't agree more. Some improvements really do improve the breed. Some are stupid and just done to cut manufacturing cost. The "enhancement" comes closes to mind, I Uberti, in their infinite wisdom "improved" the Ladle (loading gate) on the 1866. Improved it from one that never broke, to one guaranteed to break. STUPID!! Improvement is wonderful. Just making it cheaper to make is STUPID!!
I could not agree with you more. I have always wondered why they changed that.
-
Dave T, done right, I don't think you'd know until you took it apart to clean it. I replace all but the main spring with coil springs. Biggest difference is no broken springs which, I would think, extends the "experience" (unless you're looking for the occasional "surprise" broken spring for the nostalgia part of it . . . ).
Mike
-
There are always those whom suffer from severe "hardening of the attitude." If it's worked for a hundred years, it works for me attitude. Or in some cases, I got stupid and it's your fault. If you know small parts are present you simply deal with them. Some are well opposed to progress and improvement. One of the benefits of coil springs is the lack of "stacking." Oh, and while were at it, THE safest single action handguns on the PLANET have Transfer Bars.
There are choices available. We can all choose our particular features. We have the option of selection. Being critical of improvement and progress is rather short sighted. Some time back, there were those who found serious flaw with the wheel.
If I came across as being critical of coil springs, I apologize. I just have no use for them myself, and while I'm not against "improvement", as it were, I'm not among those who believe that improvement automatically obsoletes that which was "improved" upon. Much of what we think of as lacking in durability and quality, such as flat springs, was that way simply due to lacks in technology 100 years ago.
My SA's all get wire trigger/bolt springs and that's it. Coil springs IMO are a field maintenance headache and make revolvers more difficult to disassemble that flat springs. My keyring sports a Proto screwdriver with which I can, if necessary, completely disassemble a Colt-style SA with flat springs.
CHT
-
Mike,
For a little over 10 years I regularly shot a collection of 1st Gen Colts with full power black powder loads. I shot in two or three CAS matches each month, plus practice and just having fun. Never broke a spring in any of the SAAs.
And having had a collection of OM Ruger Flattops which I shot extensively for years, yes I would notice the difference.
If you like modifying single actions, more power to you. But don't tell me I should do so or like it when it's done.
Dave
-
Why Dave!!, I didn't say you have to or that you have to like it !! I just said "done right", I don't think you'd be able to tell (silly me!)
The done right part means it has the right sounds and " feel" of a Colt (which is the goal). Rugers are over sprung and don't feel or sound like a Colt. Not to mention, the trigger spring and plunger in the 3screw isn't conducive to optimum trigger feel which is why I change that to an inside the frame trigger spring (feels like it's supposed to!!)!
Thanks for the "extra power" though, I do enjoy modifying single actions.
Mike
-
I have to admit that it is much easier to achieve a silky-smooth feel to the cocking cycle with the plunger mod in place of the flat hand spring, and it DOES eliminate broken hand springs. But as done by the Italians and most tinkerers, there IS a trade-off in terms of how positive everything feels.
With the flat hand spring, I've polished the heck out of the rear of the hand slot in the frame, followed by a mirror polish on the tip of the hand spring itself and still not managed to get as slick an action as I can with the plunger mod. I'm not sure why a plunger sliding along the back of a hand is smoother than a flat handspring sliding along the back of the hand slot, but it is.
Regardless, the way the Italians and most tinkerers do it, the back of the hand has the same contour as before. And as the hand rises, the hand spring loses leverage the higher the hand goes. By half-cock, there is much less forward spring tension by the hand against the ratchets than there would be if it had a flat hand spring. And this has a negative effect on cylinder braking.
For example, on my 2nd Gen. Colt, the long angled portion on the front of the hand below the top tooth is very close to the sloped backside of each ratchet tooth as the cylinder rotates. If the cylinder tries to rotate any faster than the hand is rising, those two surfaces will engage, keeping the cylinder from outrunning the hand. And on half-cock for loading or unloading (as long as it was timed correctly), this braking effect keeps the chambers lined up perfectly with the loading port cutout. If I rotate the cylinder slightly past the half-cock "click" and let go, the cylinder will positively spring back into position, because of that nice, strong hand spring. I can rotate mine almost to the next "click", and it will still spring back into position. Try that with a modern Uberti sporting the plunger; it typically won't do that.
I know that's a "nitpick", but I like strong braking pressure from the hand, and I just don't get that with the typical plunger mod. Many here will disagree completely with me that braking pressure is important at all, but I like it. So the typical plunger mod is a trade-off between feel and function. But all is not lost.....
Other tinkerers recognize the plunger mod's weakness and do more than just remove the hand spring and drill a hole through the back of the frame; they also modify the backside of the hand, adding material to make it gradually thicken towards the bottom. Done right, this cancels out the reduction in leverage by causing the hand to compress the spring more as the hand rises. I've seen pictures of other's mods where they silver-solder this steel "shim" to the back of the hand. Looks like a lot of work to get right, but that's what I'd want done if I modded any of my SAA-style revolvers. I wish Uberti and Pietta would re-contour the backs of their hands, but if you look at them now, they look exactly the same as the ones with the flat spring--they're just missing the spring.
I am also sympathetic to Dave T's criticisms. And again, there's a trade-off. I prefer the positive feel of traditionally-weighted flat springs. Because every factory Colt I ever cycled had heavy springs, that's what feels "right" to me. I recently switched out the mainsprings and trigger/bolt springs on my Colts with Lee's Gunslinger spring kits. The action is much lighter now and correspondingly smoother to operate, but it feels "wrong". I'm keeping the spring kits in there for now, because I recognize that they DO lessen wear to the sear surfaces, bolt legs, hammer cam, and cylinder stop notches. Were I a competition single-action shooter, the question of springs would be a "no-brainer". But I'm not, and the feel of cocking a traditionally-constructed single-action is part of the enjoyment of shooting them. I also agree with Cholla that had Standard gone with a plunger handspring, there would have been howls of derision, no matter how much competitors value coil springs.
And seriously, who's gonna compete in Cowboy Action Shooting with a $2,000 revolver? I'm sure as heck not, and I seriously doubt anyone else will either. The USFA that Marshal Deadwood just sold to me had only been fired 6 times, because he couldn't bring himself to run it hard and fast in competition. And I don't blame him. If I was going to compete with a single-action, it would be a Uberti or Pietta, highly modified with coil springs and plungers, and everything else I had to do to make it fast and easy. And if I wore one out, I'd just buy another (they're certainly inexpensive enough). An older Colt, USFA, and now Standard are for lazy plinking fun and the enjoyment of shooting something traditionally and finely crafted. They can certainly be pressed into service if need be, but their primary purpose is for the former.
But since this is a Cowboy Action Shooting forum, I'll have to defer to the preferences of those who actually compete in the sport this site is all about. Frankly, it is a nice surprise that there are even subforums here for Colt and USFA, as most competitors won't actually risk accelerating wear on expensive single actions through competitively shooting them. Dave T was quite the intrepid competitor for using original 1st Gen Colts in CAS matches, and I know that others have and do this, but I bet they don't care all that much about speed when they're doing so.
-
OD#3
-
OD#3,
With flat hand springs, you need to also polish the outside side of the hand (all corners broken) as it will be in contact with that side at all times (don't worry about the inside side). Breaking is very important as to the problem of throw-by and is why I use a larger diameter spring and pushrod (plunger) than the Ruger item. The contour of the backside of the hand is easy to manipulate so needed tension can be maintained.
Though all S.A.s come with heavy factory actions that maybe "feel right" (because of your expectations) , it doesn't discount that a lightened action can "feel right" or "correct" as well!! Heck, a Casio watch may "feel right" but so does a Rolex !! They both tell time but the real point is all about refinement.
Individual coils can allow a really light hammer draw (with all the appropriate clicks) coupled with a rather heavy trigger pull . . . . . something you can't really do with flats. Triggers are so influenced by the main spring, it is sometimes impossible to get more than a 2 1/4 - 2 1/2 lb trigger with flats . . . . not good if the customer wants a 3 lb trigger pull.
As you stated in your post, a light action is much more forgiving to the shooter and the revolver which is something that folks should consider . . . .
Mike
-
Hey Mike,
Please don't take my above remarks as casting aspersions on yours, Coffinmaker's, or anyone else's ministrations to improve the actions of SAA-style revolvers. Whatever one can do to improve the smoothness of the action is time well-spent. One area where a lightened spring seems the only way to reduce drag is the bolt spring. But this is mostly because every manufacturer, it seems, likes to leave the cylinder stop leades full of transverse machine marks. These are impossible to stone out unless one wants to refinish them afterwards, so I can certainly see utility with using a lighter bolt spring--both to reduce felt drag during the last bit of cocking--and to reduce the amount of wear that can develop on the bolt legs and hammer cam.
But a relatively heavy mainspring doesn't really bother me, as long as everything is smooth. It is an entirely subjective feel, I know, and a heavier mainspring will wear out a sear earlier. But as long as the only resistance to cocking I feel is coming from the spring and not from parts dragging, I'm happy. So I'm still on the fence about lightened mainsprings. I have to admit that my Colts are much easier to cock now that they have those Lee Gunslinger springs in them, but they still feel "wrong". Again, entirely subjective and based on what I'm used to, but I don't know if I'll ever take a liking to them. We'll see.... Right now, they're helping to protect against accelerated sear and bolt wear, so I'm keeping them in.
I'm curious as to what you do to your hands--add metal to the bottom, or remove from the top? If there was a way to have the best of both worlds with the plunger (push rod) hand spring--smoother working but still with the same braking pressure as before--I'd be more appreciative of the plunger modification. But the way Uberti and Pietta do it now, there's still a trade-off between feel and function.
Regardless, though many of the tuning techniques are arguably improvements, I think it is unrealistic for anyone to expect to see them in any factory single-action that closely copies the SAA. What you're paying for on the Standard is a gun entirely machined from barstock, with excellent metal fit, smooth internals and a nice, old-world finish. I think Standard's marketing language, "Never before in history has an effort been put forth to produce the finest single action revolver..." quite a bit over the top. Comparing mine with a USFA premium, I'd say that Standard is very, very close in quality, even surpassing USFA in a few small details. But it is not the finest factory single action that ever was. I just think it is the finest US-made SAA-style single action being produced today, flat springs and all. And it bugs me just a little when folks deride their effort for not having included a plunger in place of the hand spring and a wire spring for the bolt/trigger spring. Those just wouldn't be traditional. And despite Standard not setting out to directly reproduce a specific generation of Colt, I think most collectors still appreciate that they use the traditional flat springs.
Besides, had they incorporated all the tweaks developed by CAS gunsmiths, no one would send any to you or other tuners for custom work.
-
I like flat springs for authenticity and ease of dis/reassembly. I like medium heavy springs and 3 - 4 lb. trigger. To me that is "right" for an out-of-the-box gun, unless it's being marketed specifically for racing or target shooting. If the parts are well fitted and well polished the springs don't feel so heavy and if the trigger is crisp it's good.
-
OD#3,
I absolutely don't take your remarks as "casting aspersions"! Everyone has their own idea of "perfection" which includes a mixture of "what I'll put up with". You even say that a heavy mainspring is OK if everything else is smooth . . . and I understand what you mean. It's just that a heavy main won't ever beat a main that is lighter (all else being the same). I know it's not all about speed but you don't have to race just because you have a race car! (But, you have a race car if you ever change your mind!!)
Many of my customers have tired, arthritic thumbs (probably from not minding heavy mains lol!) so now, they need really light hammers to keep playing. My Dragoons (full time cartridge guns) have a just under 3 lb. Hammer draw and a just over 2 lb (+) trigger pulls. Big ol gun, easy to operate, big ol holes and extremely accurate. I say that to show: an 8 lb. Hammer x 10 shots is 80lbs your thumb moved. A 3 lb. Hammer x10 shots is 30 lbs. and equals longer lasting thumbs! [ I'd say improvement]
As for the bolt spring, it can be a big drag when cycling the action but taking it down to 2-3 lbs of force can make it all but disappear! [Definitely an improvement]
Bolt arm thining and cam height reducing/polishing can open up gobs of stored energy in a falling hammer. [Definitely an improvement for parts life and ignition reliability]
With just these "improvements" (which all can be felt), I can see a "Standard" Standard and a "Deluxe" Standard!!
As for your question about the hand profiling, I mark the tracking of the pushrod (each one is made custom for each revolver) and adjust the thickness accordingly. The Horse guns can be profiled to actually reduce tension at 1/2 cock while loading, and gain tension for braking action during the rest of the cycle. (Hands are hardened before final fitting)
Mike
-
Dave T was quite the intrepid competitor for using original 1st Gen Colts in CAS matches, and I know that others have and do this, but I bet they don't care all that much about speed when they're doing so.
OD#3,
Back in the mid 1980s I had two Ubertis I was not happy with when I stumbled upon a 1st Gen black powder Colt 45 in a local gunshot. Someone had cleaned it up and made it "purty" by rebluing the whole gun. Then they carried and shot it enough to make it look kind of tired. I bought it for the price of a Ruger Blackhawk and started loading black powder 45 Colt rounds. I was hooked.
I ended up with a collection of 1st Gen Colts that people had neglected or abused. I also was lucky enough to know an old gunsmith who understood the SAA. He rebuilt them in to decent looking and excellent shooting black powder 45s.
Life happened and I had to sell them all. Now in my retirement years, when I wanted to recapture the fun I had back then, I find I can't afford shootable 1st Gen Colts. Next best thing (and they ain't cheep either) are late production USFA single actions. They look, handle and shoot like those long gone Colts so I still get to smile when I go to the range and make some smoke.
Dave
PS: I never won a CAS match but my goal was always to shoot the stages clean. I managed to do that fairly regularly, but at non-competitive speeds.
-
Dang Dave, I hope I wasn't stepping on your toes. But I'm glad to hear that you were more concerned with running clean than fast. Refinished or not, I'd have been reluctant to run a 1st gen very hard myself. Shame you had to offload those 1st Gens. I guess we never know sometimes just how much some guns are going to appreciate. I still kick myself for letting an HKP7 go for $600. If I'd known they were going to quit making them....
Glad you've been able to recreate the 1st gen experience using USFA's. The only 1st Gen I ever had was made in 1912. It was originally in .32-20, but it had been returned to Colt in the 1950's and had been converted to .45 Colt with a new barrel, cylinder, and hammer. I liked its action, but having never handled an all original 1st Gen myself, I'll never know if mine was typical for a 1st Gen or a 1950's 2nd Gen. Like you, "life got in the way", and I had to sell it. Still regretting that.
Been shooting that BP Premium you got from Yahoody much? I haven't forgotten that I owe you a range report on the .44 Special Rodeo I got from you about that same time. It will be featured alongside a lot of other SA's soon.
-
OD#3,
Yea, I'm shooting it. Funny thing is, it is so well put together with a minimum barrel cylinder gap, it chokes on black powder (FFFg Old Einsford). Before finishing the second cylinder it starts dragging really bad. My solution has been to switch to Black M-Z. Twice now I've been through 20 rounds of Black M-Z at the end of a shooting session and the cylinder is still turning freely. Glad I tried that stuff. I can make smoke with my too well made USFAs (LOL).
Dave
-
Olde 'E' bogged my Standard up after about 20 rounds. Haven't tried it in any of the USFA's, but I suspect the results will be similar--the barrel/cylinder gap is about the same. I doubt I'll switch to Black MZ though, since I don't compete with my guns. It doesn't take much moose milk to get a fouled revolver back into shooting trim, and I can take my time to do that on the range.
-
DaveT, you might try some Swiss 3F, powerful but clean burning. Another tip, given to me by Mike "Goon", is liquid graphite on the base pin. I haven't actually tried it on an SAA but it worked good on a cap n' ball that was giving me trouble.
I shoot my USFA "Custer Battlefield" .45 Colt with real black powder. I've used Goex and Swiss in both 3F and 2F and I haven't noticed any issues, other than once I had to tap the base pin out after a session. I do put a lubed wad in the shell since my .45 bullet molds are made for smokeless and they have small lube grooves. I want to get a Big Lube mold.
-
LonesomePigeon,
I've been casting and shooting PRS Big Lube bullets with black powder for quite a while now. They carry enough lube to keep a rifle barrel from fouling out. So they're famous for being able to maintain accuracy throughout a match. But although they deliver adequate accuracy at CAS distances, they quickly lose accuracy at 100 yards and beyond (no surprise--PRS Big Lube admits as much). And they haven't helped me in avoiding foul-out with revolvers. I put about 20 of them through my Standard, loaded with 35 gr. 3f Olde 'E', and the hand still began having difficulty rotating the cylinder at that point.
I don't think they'll be your "magic bullet" for keeping your revolvers running any longer with BP, sorry to say. They certainly have their place in allowing long strings of fairly accurate rifle fire, but that lube doesn't seem to help keep a revolver's cylinder from binding up, at least in my experience.
-
As for the bolt spring, it can be a big drag when cycling the action but taking it down to 2-3 lbs of force can make it all but disappear! [Definitely an improvement]
Bolt arm thining and cam height reducing/polishing can open up gobs of stored energy in a falling hammer. [Definitely an improvement for parts life and ignition reliability]
With just these "improvements" (which all can be felt), I can see a "Standard" Standard and a "Deluxe" Standard!!
As for your question about the hand profiling, I mark the tracking of the pushrod (each one is made custom for each revolver) and adjust the thickness accordingly. The Horse guns can be profiled to actually reduce tension at 1/2 cock while loading, and gain tension for braking action during the rest of the cycle. (Hands are hardened before final fitting)
Mike
[/quote]
Mike thanks for posting this - a couple of good tips!
-
Greyhawk, thank you!! Glad to help if I can.
Mike