US Firearms revolvers vs Colt revolvers

[kaschi]

How do you guys feel these two SA revolvers compare to one another in terms of quality? About 2010 not long before the company went out of business, I bought a US Firearms SAA (caliber 45 Colt) with 7 1/2" barrel. To my eyes it is a thing of beauty. From my understanding, it was completely made in the USA (no Italian parts) and was on sale on the company's website. At the time, I paid about $800 NIB plus S&H and dealer transfer fees, etc.
Now, I'd like chalk off another "should have" revolver from the bucket list and that would be a real Colt SAA. They are pricy but are they really better than the US Firearms products which sell for less? There are many NIB ones still out there. I am leaning toward a 32-20, 44-40 or 38-40 (hopefully with a 41 Long Colt cylinder--but that would be a long shot to find one of those). Let's hear your thoughts on the topic. By the way, I just want to mention that I definitely do not want an Italian SA revolver. Not prejudice, do love those Beretta's semi autos!

[GunnyMack]

Though I don't own either, I'm sure they each have their strong points.
Colt is after all a Colt. Ya get what ya pay for.
Although the new manufacture USF probably has better steel, but then again you never know.

I like my Rugers fine, would I buy another brand? Sure.

Like they say, opinions are like .... Everyone has one.

[Nate Kiowa Jones]

Early on the US Patent Firearms had some issues. Mainly because they were made from Uberti parts. In that time frame the uberti's lock works were loosely based on the pre 1900 style parts but without upgrades like hardened bolt cams and hardened firing pin/ recoil bushings in the frame. With hard use (CAS) they tended to go out of time. (rind around the cylinder)
When they started making their own parts (as USFA) the gun are based on the late 2nd gen style lockworks.
My opinion is the the USFA's are the very best SAA clone made.
Particularly from the time frame (1990's to early 2000's) when the Colt SAA's of that era were dicey QC. I had Colt here from their Custom shop that just didn't work.

[Marvin S]

I do regret not buying more USFA revolvers before the prices went up. I feel they are as good or better.

[Griff]

I have two Colt SAAs, both 3rd gens that I compete with ... made in '76 & '79. In nearly 32 years of competitive use, they've seen their share of wear. A slight understatement. I have no idea of how many rounds have been thru either of 'em... But they just keep chuggin' along. Yes, they've been modified over the originals... but only the main, hand and bolt/trigger springs. The most important thing was getting the timing was set correctly before I really gained any speed with them.

I've only had to have one cylinder replaced, sent it in for excessive endshake, and it came back with a new cylinder of the late 3rd gen style and removable bushing. It was reblued also.

I only shot the 1st one for about 6 or so matches before having it timed by Bob Munden. The 2nd was timed and springs replaced before I ever used it competition. Colts are made from the best of steels... I'd rather start with a gun made of quality steel than try to reheat treat a gun of unknown steels. I do have 3 clones, and while 2 of them have gone thru this process, if they hadn't been free to begin with, I'd have spent much more than I have on the Colts.

I also have a 2nd gen Colt also, it has only had the timing set and springs replaced. It saw far less competition as it was my wife's gun, and she stopped competing about 11 years ago.

I wouldn't hesitate to purchase another Colt, nor would I hesitate to buy a USFA if one presented itself.

[M. M. Wright]

I don't currently own a USFA but I have Colts, all three generations and I shoot them. Not as much as I once did but more than most people except other SASS shooters. I burn mostly black powder in mine, especially the first gens. My current main match pair is one second gen and one third. Both are full blue 4 3/4 inch 44-40s with ivory grips. The second gen was made up from a commemorative by Alan Harton. I did change the springs as he tends to set them up as Colt would have back in the day. The third gen came from the Colt custom shop and had to go back for a new cylinder. Just terrible chambers from when it was new but they made it right. It is hard to find USFAs cheaper than third gen Colts. My friends who shoot them say they are just as good or better than Colt but will they hold their value like a Colt?
My current back pocket gun is a 4 3/4 inch Bisley in 41 Colt which has some beautiful stag grips that are so yellow and smooth. I like the challenge of making the old ones shoot. Someone here I think, sold me the correct mold for the hollow base bullet it requires and it is amazing how well it groups since the bullet is .026? smaller than the bore so it has to expand that much to engage the rifling.
I am partial to Colt and love to shoot them. If you must shoot early first gens be sure to look for the little triangle on the front left of the trigger guard with VP in it. (verified proof) Just because it has the cross pin to hold the cylinder pin don't think it's a smokeless powder gun. I have one made in 1902 that is not verified for smokeless and it does not have the screw to retain the cylinder pin either.
If you are going to buy an SAA I recommend Colt for the long haul. Mine have seen hard shooting with black powder and will go six stages with only a spritz of Ballistol about midway through the day.

[marlinman93]

I looked at both Colt and USFA SAA pistols once, and just couldn't make up my mind. The Colt I figured would hold it's value better, but the USFA was as nice looking as the Colt, for a little less money. In the meantime I stumbled across an AWA (American Western Arms) SAA in the same .45 Colt caliber I wanted. It was used, but like new in box. Seller wanted $250, so I jumped on it quickly. I've compared it to Colt and USFA, and I think it holds up very well to both.

http://www.awaguns.com/PDFs/Cat21Ultimate.pdf

[Ben_Rumson]

I scoped out a Colt 1970s era to purchase but it was already out of time NIB,so I passed. In reading one of Hatcher's books he said he thought the SAA got its popularity because it could always be made to fire even if it was broke Turning the cylinder by hand etc.

[kaschi]

That's interesting about the Colt SAAs being dicey from about 1990-2000 regarding the quality control. Somehow I remember Mike Venturino writing about that for revolvers from the late 70s into the 80s. I could be wrong though. What I have taken note of is that on some of the websites selling firearms, older Colts from that particular period seem to sell for less than new production ones. Your help is most appreciated!

[Griff]

That's interesting about the Colt SAAs being dicey from about 1990-2000 regarding the quality control. Somehow I remember Mike Venturino writing about that for revolvers from the late 70s into the 80s. I could be wrong though. What I have taken note of is that on some of the websites selling firearms, older Colts from that particular period seem to sell for less than new production ones. Your help is most appreciated!

I think that rumor began over the Colt "Cowboy", their attempt to build a SA with a transfer bar.

[Nate Kiowa Jones]

That's interesting about the Colt SAAs being dicey from about 1990-2000 regarding the quality control. Somehow I remember Mike Venturino writing about that for revolvers from the late 70s into the 80s. I could be wrong though. What I have taken note of is that on some of the websites selling firearms, older Colts from that particular period seem to sell for less than new production ones. Your help is most appreciated!

I think that rumor began over the Colt "Cowboy", their attempt to build a SA with a transfer bar.

The Colt Cowboy was somewhat of a fiasco. But, in the early 90's the Colt QC was spotty. (don't know exactly when things improved) Off the top I can remember 4 different Custom Shop SAA's that made it here with issues. One was a local feller that had bought a 7.5 in 44-40. Worked fine until you loaded it. With a headspace gage it would bind up part way around the cylinder. First thought was high primer, nope. Shallow chambers, nope. Put the Cylinder in the lathe with a dial indicator in the face. There was about .012" runout. That high spot was binding at the barrel gap. The sad part is they actually sent a test target. No way.

Not an SAA but a custom shop Python. The owner was a firearms instructor for the Texas Dept. of Corrections. He call me and said he had the rear sight adjusted all the way over to the right and the gun still shot 2 foot to the left at 25 yds. So he brought it to me. After checking it to see if it was loaded, the first thing I did was look down the barrel from the muzzle end and you could clearly see the barrel was not fully turned in, to vertical. In other words the front sight was laid over to the right. Again, they had sent a test target with it. No Way did that gun shoot that target.