Colt SAA's

[6pt-sika]

What is the general opinion of the present manufacture Colt Single Action's ?

I have Ruger Blackhawks and they're nice . But have had a certain desire of late to get a Colt or two

I'm intrested in Colt's in 32-20 , 38-40 , 44-40 and 45 Colt . They seem readily avaiable based on what I've seen in Gunbroker .

[Dave Berryhill]

Unless you're set on getting a Colt, I'd take serious look at U.S. Firearms SAA's.
http://www.usfirearms.com/

[6pt-sika]

Unless you're set on getting a Colt, I'd take serious look at U.S. Firearms SAA's.
http://www.usfirearms.com/

I've looked at the USFA quite a bit as well !

But I think I would prefer it with the Colt name stamped on it ! I recently inherited a nice old Colt Buntline Scout in 22LR with a 9.5" barrel . Awhile back I had a Colt New Frontier Scout Buntline in 22LR with a 6.5" barrel but traded that one off !

Now my biggest intrest in the Colt SAA is a 32-20 ! Already have a Blackhawk Buckeye Special in 32-20/32 MAG . But I think I need a SAA with a 7.5" barrel in 32-20 ! Or perhaps a 5.5" barrel .

[KCSO]

Judging from the last Colt SAA I got in I would rather have a Cimarron! I am afraid that a lot of the price of a Colt is for the name rather than fit and finish. It is sure dissapointing to put $1200 or more into a gun and have a $600 dollar gun fitted more carefully.

[dubber123]

Judging from the last Colt SAA I got in I would rather have a Cimarron! I am afraid that a lot of the price of a Colt is for the name rather than fit and finish. It is sure dissapointing to put $1200 or more into a gun and have a $600 dollar gun fitted more carefully.

I agree totally. A fellow at the club waited a long time for one from Colt, special ordered with his name engraved, etc. He showed it to me, and while I didn't let on, it surely had the WORST fit and finish of ANY gun I have seen in a long time. Big grinder marks finished over, poor parts fit. For the money, I would be extremely disappointed.

[bushka]

there are certain guns you can buy over the internet sight unseen,
then there are those you must see before you buy.

Colts fall into the latter IMHO although Ive never ever seen a bad one except my late second generation saa that has serious corner rounding issues,which I
then relegated to official shooter grade,and it still shoots 6 inches left at 25.

[McLintock]

If you're willing to spend Colt prices on a 32-20, you might consider a Ruger Old Model Blackhawk .357, converted to 32-20. I think you'd have a much better gun than any Colt or clones. Colt type sights aren't noted for extreme accuracy potential. Hamilton Bowen does this conversion on your gun for $1000 for the base price, plus any extras you might want. He presently has one with a 7 1/2" barrel with several extra cost items for $1700 on his website. I've currently got an Old Model 30 Carbine with a 32-20 cylinder fitted to it and with the 7 1/2" barrel on it, it will shoot cottontail sized targets out to 100 yards without too much problem. I'd like one on the smaller frame of the .357 though, so I'm trying to figure a way to get one. I've also got the Buckeye Special and sure like the 32-20 for shooting; I'm not much of a pistol shot but they're fun and easy to shoot.
McLintock

[Bent Ramrod]

I have a Cimarron "Old Style" 7-1/2" SAA in .32-20 with the bullseye ejector and the screw holding the cylinder pin and it's worth every penny of its modest cost. Shoots closer to point of aim than any other SAA I've ever experienced and it's at least as accurate as my rebuilt Colt Bisley .32-20. Unless you have to have four particular letters stamped on your revolver, I would recommend a Cimarron.

[Dennis Eugene]

Well you asked for the general opinion and you sure got it. Still want a colt? Dennis

[Lloyd Smale]

I agree with whats been said but i know personaly that ive never owned a colt saa and a usfa would not fill the void. I think every sixgunner sometime in his life should own a real colt saa and its a void i need to fill myself.

[Lucky Joe]

I agree with whats been said but i know personaly that ive never owned a colt saa and a usfa would not fill the void. I think every sixgunner sometime in his life should own a real colt saa and its a void i need to fill myself.

I too agree, Colt won't take the loads a Blackhawk will, the finish is generally not as it should be, neither is the fit, also costs way too much. The colt stamp just says Old West, Early America, John Wayne, Roy Rogers, Indians, Deserts, Saturday Afternoon Movies, and this list could go on and on.

As Lloyd said "it's a void I need to fill myself" and I need to do it before that stamp represents something other than what it does and should be. "There's just something about a Colt".

[Poygan]

I can't address the current manufacture but I had a Colt .45 and, as a shooter, it was mediocre. Mine was a third generation. I prefer the Rugers although the two I bought recently were under whelming. One arrived with blister rust on it. I should have kept looking for old models....

[Calamity Jake]

The current generation colts are not made in USA. Uberti makes the parts, ships them to colt where they are assembled in USA. With very poor quality I might add!!!!!

I own many uberti's and everyone shoots good, fit and finish is good. You can't run fast enough to give me current generation colt.

[Mumblypeg]

I have owned Colts and sadly they are not what they ought to be. I had a 3rd Gen SAA in 44 spl. and tried every thing I knew at the time( may know a little more now) to make it shoot and it never did so I traded it at a gun show for my first Ruger #1, no regrets at all. Still got a Colt peacemaker .22, beautiful little thing... but it won't shoot for crap! My Ruger single six shoots in the same hole. Have or had 70series .45 and Trooper MKIII that shot great but single action Colts? They sure LOOK good but I haven't had any luck with them.

[bisleyfan41]

Colt won't take the loads a Blackhawk will, the finish is generally not as it should be, neither is the fit, also costs way too much.

And you'd still be willing to pay $1200+ for one? Not me...not even for $200.

I need to do it before that stamp represents something other than what it does and should be. .

I think it's already way past that point. The Colt name and company is nothing close to that of THE original Colt company. Especially if it's true that they're using imported parts from a competitor. The current company should be stripped of the right to use the name "Colt". Sam Colt is probably suffering from motion sickness due to the continuous rolling over in his grave. They can't make a decent SAA, 1911 or AR-15 and they were The Original, the one you must have. They could be leading the market with all these platforms if they had any real leadership at all. Embarrassing

[Four Fingers of Death]

The current generation colts are not made in USA. Uberti makes the parts, ships them to colt where they are assembled in USA. With very poor quality I might add!!!!!

I own many uberti's and everyone shoots good, fit and finish is good. You can't run fast enough to give me current generation colt.

That don't sound right, if it was, the Colts would be a better gun

I recently bought a pair of Piettas in 44/40 to compete in classic cowboy. Admittedly, they were competition prepped, but alongside my mate's Colt they look twice as good. I have a Colt 1911 a pair of Cavalry commeratives Colt Army cap and ball guns and an old Police Positive, I'd still like a genuine Colt to round off my Colts though. Gonna have to close my eyes one day and order a 45 Colt!

[ktw]

I agree with whats been said but i know personaly that ive never owned a colt saa and a usfa would not fill the void. I think every sixgunner sometime in his life should own a real colt saa and its a void i need to fill myself.

I would be interested in hearing your opinion as to why a USFA would be deficient and Real Colt(tm) would not. I can understand it from a collecting/investment point of view, but from a shooting perspective?

-ktw

[Freightman]

Do not throw rocks at me, but I am a shooter if a gun isn't accurate it will be sold, rifle or pistol. Saying that I have a Taurus SAA 45 7.5" blue that I bought brand new $289 OTD went to the range and a fellow shooter had a "New" Colt $1300 OTD if you took the names off and ask a stranger which revolver cost the most looking at the fit and finish the Taurus would win hands down. Accuracy I do not know if he can shoot any better or not but his groups were patternes at 25yds and go down the page to see the Taurus accuracy I posted the other day.
For $1000 difference I can buy a lot of ammo, and have a better looking gun. Colt should be ashamed!
I know it has a transfer bar firing pin only means I can carry 6 rounds insteed of 5, who knows I may need that one round.

[Bent Ramrod]

If someone wanted the magic and historical romance and careful hand craftsmanship that "only a Colt" could provide, I could see them saving their money and investing in a good (but not too good) condition pre-war SAA for shooting. Or, if they wanted to dream and drool and gloat, a pre-smokeless one in mint condition with a factory letter certifying it was shipped to Dodge City in 1878. But I don't get the attachment to the current production, especially when the cost is factored in.

I've read several threads on other sites which go on about how "there's nothing like a Colt." Then, to illustrate the superiority of the brand, they narrate how they saved until they could buy the Real Thing, and sent in the order, specifying that as soon as the factory finished it, they should sent it directly to whichever gunsmith does the slickest competition action jobs. After another several months, and about a fourth more of the original cost of the gun thrown in, the reworked jewel is in the happy customer's hand. And there's "nothing like it."

Well, for a total of maybe $1600 and months of time, there'd better be "nothing like it." I guess I'm asking for trouble by inquiring why there wasn't already "nothing like it" at the $1250 or so original price. If I was going to spend that kind of money, I'd spend it on the pre-war gun and let it go at that.

I read Kuhnhausen's book in order to fit a .44 Spl cylinder to my Uberti .44-40 Flat-Top Target. Kuhnhausen went on at length about how the Italian copies were a dismal collection of untrue surfaces, slanted and crooked holes, soft parts and poor fitting jobs. I found none of this to be true either in the Uberti or in the Cimarron, which came along later. I'll fully stipulate that I'm nowhere near Kunhausen as a pistolsmith, but a crooked hole or soft part doesn't require that much sublety to notice, especially when fitting a major aftermarket part, and I didn't (and don't) notice them.

If there is such a thing as "brand voodoo," Colt has it for sure! What I can't understand is why it works only in this instance. When Winchester changed their Model 70 after 1964, they actually had sounder rifles of equal or better accuracy, although the fit, finish and aesthetic was compromised some. But people shunned them like they were radioactive. Somehow, Colt manages to do the exact same thing and get away with it. Knowledgable aficionados look for "pre-CBS" Fender guitars and "pre-Garcia" Sakos. What would a "post-XXX" Colt have to look and function like?

[C1PNR]

I'm with Lloyd on this one. In SAA, a Colt is a Colt! All the rest are pretenders.

Having said that, I admit to having a RBH in .45 Colt, a Uberti in 44 WCF, and various and sundry other handguns, but NO Colt SAA.

Some day I will fill that "void" with a real one. I don't know if 1st or 2nd Generation, .45 Colt or .44 WCF, but it will be a Colt.

I also plan to have either a Cimarron or USFA, too. Because as mentioned, they are true value for the money.

But every old Single Action shooter NEEDS to have at least one Colt SAA!