USFA or Colt SAA and Why?

[Doc Sunrise]

Pettifogger,
Believe me I am not trying to insult you.  I have a deep passion for Colt arms and I just wish they would get with the program and be what they should be.  I truly enjoy many types of arms that are quality made and I also must give credit where credit is due.  USFA builds an absolutely beautiful firearm consistently and deserves our attention, and thank God because their quality and crafstmanship here in America shows us and their competition what we as customers and shooters deserve.

[Kinda Sudden]

My apologies if you feel I was flaming you. I really did not mean to insult or flame you. I also like Colts and If Colt would get with it, I would buy one to have an example of a third generation. I wish you all the luck with whatever you choose to shoot.

                                                           K.S.

[Virginia Gentleman]

Doc Sunrise:  Another Kudos as well on this post too.  USFA is a shinning example of what American manufacterers can do if they really commit themselves to quality.  USFA has also restored the late 19th and early 20th century feel to gun making, from the felt covers they include with their guns to the nice logo and box they come in.  I also like their website that has a ton of great information on how they make their guns and even with the CNC machining and high tech equipment, they still do lots of handwork and fitting on the factory floor.  Just a thought, but Colt could really make themselves look great if they had USFA make guns or parts for them in the white and roll mark and finish them at their factory.  This way they would return to the 1st generation design and have a super high quality product that would not be misfitted or overbuffed.

[Advertising]

[Pettifogger]

Thanks to everyone that responded.  My faith in the Cowboy way is restored.  Does anyone know if USFA will do an etched barrel on the .44-40?  I just found out today that Colt won't do them anymore.

[Virginia Gentleman]

Forgive my ignorance, but what is an etched barrel?  Is it a type of engraving?

[Virginia Gentleman]

Forgive my ignorance, but what is an etched barrel?  Is it a type of engraving?

I did some research and think I know what it is, a frosted framed area where the roll marks go.  I am sure Turnbull could do it and a call to USFA might shed some light on whether or not they do it ala the Frontier Six Shooter.

[Fox Creek Kid]

No one can do the etched frame except Colt as it entails the Colt name, hence legal reasons. That's too bad as I would buy an etched frame Frontier .44 tomorrow from USFA if they could do it.

Go here & scroll down:  http://www.bar-w.com/saa-generations.html

[Virginia Gentleman]

I think if it was done on a USFA gun and it didn't say COLT there should be no legal issue. Colt can not patent a cut relief in a barrel or roll mark fonts. USFA may not want to do it because it is not their part, but I don't see why they could not come out with a gun with an etched area on the barrel...unless it said Colt somewhere.  So this is a slightly dished frosted area that a new roll mark would go on, interesting read.   

[Fox Creek Kid]

I think if it was done on a USFA gun and it didn't say COLT there should be no legal issue.

That's a good idea. Maybe it USFA etched "USFA Frontier Six Shooter".

[wdbarbe]

I have a technical question for someone who has both a Colt and a USFA and has taken both apart.  I heard the bolt on the USFA is designed like a Uberti and is different than Colt.  Is that true?  A gunsmith told me that the way the bolt runs over the cam is different and you can feel it while cocking.  Not really anything "bad", but there is a difference.  Would like to know if that is correct or not?
All the info listed here has been very helpful at least to me.  My decision would be based on performance first, then looks.  While I want a good looking gun, both Colt and USFA make what I feel are good looking guns.  So it would be performance that made the difference.  I have compared specs on a couple of sites and the cylinder bore and barrel diameters seem to be close as does the cylinder gap.  Give or take a thousandths I think. Accuracy seems to be similar.
I would still like to see a head to head competition someday, but I doubt any gun mag would do it since they don't want to insult their advertisers.
Guess maybe the way to go is buy both....

[Ten Wolves Fiveshooter]

Howdy WDbarbe

                          Go to www.gunfighterzone.com  click on General disscusion at the top, about 4 or 5 post down, is a post called Colt verses clons, by Dave Livingston, click on this and you will get your answer and see what there talking about.

                                            Ten Wolves
                   

[Sixshooter_45]

Try this link Colt vs. Clones  

[Virginia Gentleman]

That is a third generation part that to me looks less robust than the USFA and even the Uberti.  With proper fitting the USFA part can be just as smooth and probably the same thing with the Uberti.  All of my USFAs are smoother out of the box than any 2nd or 3rd generation Colt I have handled or shot.

[Virginia Gentleman]

I have a technical question for someone who has both a Colt and a USFA and has taken both apart.  I heard the bolt on the USFA is designed like a Uberti and is different than Colt.  Is that true?  A gunsmith told me that the way the bolt runs over the cam is different and you can feel it while cocking.  Not really anything "bad", but there is a difference.  Would like to know if that is correct or not?
All the info listed here has been very helpful at least to me.  My decision would be based on performance first, then looks.  While I want a good looking gun, both Colt and USFA make what I feel are good looking guns.  So it would be performance that made the difference.  I have compared specs on a couple of sites and the cylinder bore and barrel diameters seem to be close as does the cylinder gap.  Give or take a thousandths I think. Accuracy seems to be similar.
I would still like to see a head to head competition someday, but I doubt any gun mag would do it since they don't want to insult their advertisers.
Guess maybe the way to go is buy both....

I have done several head to head comparisions in shooting a USFA against a Colt 2nd and 3rd gen SAA and there was no comparison, the USFAs groups were 1/2" to 3" tighter than any of the Colts we tested.  We got the best groups out of the Colt using .454" sized bullets, but they still were not as accurate as the USFA with any ammo tested.  Fit and finish on the 3rd generation was well behind the USFA.  BTW, I have shot and handled several Uberti made Cimarrons that were better than the Colt for a fraction of the price too.

[Virginia Gentleman]

It seems there is a lot of Coltaholic Kool Aid drinking over there too.  The little horse seems to have powers over reality, physics and time.

[French Jack]

I looked over the post on the bolts, and saw what appears to be a misconception.  The top of the "legs" does not ride over the cam when cocking, the BOTTOM of the legs ride over the D-cam, and when the cam rotates, as the cam tapers out, the legs ride over the side of the D-cam and allow the bolt to pop up and complete the locking of the cylinder.  The finish of the bottom surface and the tension between the "legs" and the cam and frame are what dictates most of the resistance felt.  Properly fit and finished, there should be no difference in them.

Just my two centavos worth.

[RRio]

I looked over the post on the bolts, and saw what appears to be a misconception.  The top of the "legs" does not ride over the cam when cocking, the BOTTOM of the legs ride over the D-cam, and when the cam rotates, as the cam tapers out, the legs ride over the side of the D-cam and allow the bolt to pop up and complete the locking of the cylinder.  The finish of the bottom surface and the tension between the "legs" and the cam and frame are what dictates most of the resistance felt.  Properly fit and finished, there should be no difference in them.

Just my two centavos worth.

Thank you, French Jack ! That is 100% Correct!

[Virginia Gentleman]

I looked over the post on the bolts, and saw what appears to be a misconception.  The top of the "legs" does not ride over the cam when cocking, the BOTTOM of the legs ride over the D-cam, and when the cam rotates, as the cam tapers out, the legs ride over the side of the D-cam and allow the bolt to pop up and complete the locking of the cylinder.  The finish of the bottom surface and the tension between the "legs" and the cam and frame are what dictates most of the resistance felt.  Properly fit and finished, there should be no difference in them.

Just my two centavos worth.

French Jack:

Thank you for your post as it is truly "Mythbusting."

[WHITEWOLFDAKOTA]

Since we are having a shootout of the BEST made I'll throw the new STI Texican out there. This one seems to walk on water. What do you cowpokes think about this newbie against the top two here?

[Virginia Gentleman]

Since we are having a shootout of the BEST made I'll throw the new STI Texican out there. This one seems to walk on water. What do you cowpokes think about this newbie against the top two here?

I am sure from a quality, materials and machining perspective, it is a great gun.  Where I think it falls short for the CAS crowd will be in the authenticity department, really, really ugly 21st century style grips, billboard fonts in the roll marking, no patent dates and no blackpowder beveling on the cylinder.  Buying a Rooger and tuning it would be a lot cheaper than the $1250-1500 price tag for the STI Texican.