Guidance SAA Replicas

[curioushooter]

Does anybody know of the following configuration of a SAA replica:

Modern (after 1990) Uberti Manufactured
45 Colt
1860 Army Grip
4.5-5.5" Barrel
Retractable firing pin or hammer block safety

[DougGuy]

This is a VERY high quality replica, probably the best on the market with fit, finish, and true to original design: https://stdgun.com/single-action-revolver-case-colored-45-lc/

323708

I think shooters are getting wise to this, less than a year ago they were $1899 I think.

Uberti will be much more affordable, but not of this quality. Ya gets what ya pays for with the SAA market.

Ok, here's the lowdown:

Never before in history has an effort been put forth to produce the finest single action revolver.

To start, this entire gun is made of solid 4140 steel; there are no inferior cast or metal injection molded parts used. No other maker of this type of gun can make such a claim. Additionally, the precision machining equipment used in the manufacture of our guns is the absolute finest in the industry and because the machining is done in-house, quality is carefully controlled. Even the very best parts are of little value without the hands and minds of experienced gunsmiths. The master gunsmiths here at Standard Manufacturing are versed in making iconic guns that include the Ansley H. Fox, Parker, and Model 21 double shotguns.

Upon close inspection of our Single Action Revolver, you will immediately recognize that this gun is something very special. With its perfect fit between all of the parts to the hand polishing and stoning. From the deep blued finishes to the traditional bone and charcoal color case hardening on all of the metal surfaces.Even all of the screws are perfectly timed from north to south. Our Single Action Revolver is true to form, which is to say the man who designed this gun originally would immediately recognize it as his own, as would the legends of the Wild West.

These guns are available for immediate delivery starting at $1,895, plus $60 shipping and handling to your local FFL dealer. As a special introductory and limited time offer, we are providing a lifetime warranty on these Single Action Revolvers.

**NOW OFFERING 2 PIECE CHECKERED GRIPS AND FANCY WOOD ONE PIECE GRIPS.**

[jreidthompson1]

https://www.uberti-usa.com/cartridge-revolvers/1873-el-patron-and-el-patron-competition

States 1860 grips for the EL PATRÓN GRIZZLY PAW

Sent from my SM-G781V using Tapatalk

[Hick]

I would take a look at the Cimarron, which is made by Uberti to the Cimarron standards. It has the retractable firing pin. I bought the 44-40 version (Model P) not the 45-- they are very good quality. Not sure if the grip is exactly what you are looking for, but you might want to check them out.

[curioushooter]

States 1860 grips for the EL PATRÓN GRIZZLY PAW

Yes I was aware of this model. I do not know if it has a retractable firing pin or a hammer block type safety. Is this on all new stuff?

I bought a 1875 Taylor's Outlaw (for about 1/6th the current price of those standard manufacturing pieces) and was overall impressed by the quality, though the grip wood to metal fit is pretty disappointing. The throats measured basically .452-453". Finish is excellent. Timing is right on. This is unusual in my experience for single sctions both my Ruger Flattop, Uberti 1873 SAA/Cattleman II, and Pietta 1860 Army have timing defects (both the bolt coming up before it should and both not being as tight or as well fitted with the notches-to-bolt). The 1875's gap would take a .004" feeler but not the .006" in front of any chamber but would sort of take a .002"+.003" on one. There is very little end play but no binding cylinder rotates freely. The hole bored for the pin is rough though and really should have been polished better. The chambers/throats have a good smooth finish. Barrel inside finish seems very good as well.

The hammer block safety is ingenious and trustworthy IMO. There is a hole bored through from the safety notch (4-click gun) to the pivoting hammer block. The plunger that rides in this hole is spring loaded and resets the hammer block to the non-interference position when there is no trigger sear pushing on the plunger. When you place the hammer into the safety notch (1st of the 4 clicks) the trigger sear pushes on the plunger which swivels the hammer block into a position that interferes with the back of the frame so the hammer CANNOT go the last 3/16" and allow the floating firing pin to make contact with a primer. It would take incredible force necessary to destroy completely the hammer/frame to crush this block and allow primer contact, likely at a velocity unlikely to detonate the primer. You must mind to KEEP one's finger off the trigger when lowering the hammer to de-cock however. So a user could fumble it, but unlike the traditional safety notch on a original Colt this safety can be trusted and one can dispense with practice of only loading five in your six-gun. The best thing is that the trigger is excellent. The first Single action that I though has a decent trigger. Not only is the Remington trigger wider and has a nice rounded face, the break is perfectly clean and about 3 lbs. Whacking the revolver with my hand and fully cocked doesn't let it fall neither does dropping it on carpet, earth or turf. The design of the hammer block basically leaves the 4th click notch (the fully cocked notch) unaffected buy the safety mechanism, so it capable of being a very good trigger. The retractable firing pin isn't like this as the trigger sear actuates the plunger in the FULLY COCKED position adding some creep and resistance. I like the hammer block better except for aesthetics, and it retains the original 4-click design and the ability to visually see that the revolver is "ON SAFE" by the hammers position.

The Remington design is sturdier in many ways than the Colt (with a single grip/frame piece). I understand that Uberti SAAs are forged frames, but there are many things that suggest to me that the Remington is cast (does anybody know?). The Rem frame has a thicker and wider top strap though the frame is a bit narrower around the barrel. One of the odd things I didn't expect about the Remington is that there is a big flat milled on the barrel to accommodate the ejector housing. I figured it would be like a Colt with a round barrel and the ejector frame curved to fit the barrel. I don't like this as it makes the barrel thinner and I would think does nothing for accuracy or strength. The cylinders are shorter on Remingtons so many of the popular cast bullets for the SAA do not work in the Remington if you want to crimp in the crimp groove, but there are options and the Remington exceeds the SAAMI spec 1.6" of 45 Colt.

Turns out I really like the 7.5" barrel length's handling. I thought it would be ridiculous, and really just bought this because it was such a bargain. But its looks are growing on me almost as fast as the handling. I prefer front heavy everything. Just easier for me to shoot well. I learned too that you can basically just extend the Remington's two piece grips beyond the end of the frame like on a S&W to make the grip longer. This is what I plan to do since the grip is pretty mediocre anyway. I'm still waiting to get the bullets cast up and lubricated for it. Hoping the sights are regulated! But already consigning myself to having to put a dovetail front on so that it can be dialed in.

[gnappi]

When I was looking for a reproduction I found that the SAA action shooting folks use them extensively so that tipped the scales to the Italians for me.

So, I now have a couple of Uberti made Cimarron revolvers (.45 Colt and .357 mag) and a Pietta made Cimarron (.45 Colt) and IMO they are as well made as my Rugers. As a matter of fact, the Uberti stainless models are the nicest looking of any SS revolver I've owned and that's a few.

I have no idea whether the innards of them are mim but I personally don't care if they are. One of my all time fave S&W .44's has mim parts and it has never had an issue.

[jreidthompson1]

"Yes I was aware of this model. I do not know if it has a retractable firing pin or a hammer block type safety. Is this on all new stuff?"

A quick Google search indicates that older models used the cylinder pun safety and newer ones use the retractable firing pin.

From 2012 article
https://www.handgunsmag.com/editorial/review-uberti-el-patron-cms/138180

Recent video
https://youtu.be/Z80tjCqs3uA?si=Z2tV1INaqW0hoUVW

Sent from my SM-G781V using Tapatalk

[Green Frog]

If you are looking at the Uberti line of SAA clones give Taylor’s a look. They not only offer a wide variety of options (barrel length, grip style, finish, etc) but offer their Taylor Tuned option that gives a slick action right out of the box. I bought one several years ago directly from the Taylor’s store, Taylor Tuned “Smoke Wagon” in 45 Colt for Cowboy Fast Draw events. It never disappoints!
Froggie

[Der Gebirgsjager]

If money is no object, I'd say try one of the Standard Mfg. models. For most of us, though, they're a bit out of reach.

It's been my experience that you'll seldom go wrong with a Uberti, but like any handgun that has been produced for what is now a lot of years, their are different vintages of Ubertis that had various design changes, some of which should be avoided. For example, for awhile they had a hammer mounted internal safety that tended to chew up their insides. I have a .44-40 Smoke Wagon that is satisfactory in every respect, and believe it or not, a pair of stainless steel Ubertis stamped Stoeger in .45 LC that are just fine.

Back to the Standard, if I was going to invest that much money I might look into a 2nd Gen. Colt. Your requirement for a retractable firing pin or hammer safety is noted, but in the past they've usually proven to be a problem in durability and/or practicality for field use. No problem at the range, but if you're out wandering through the woods and suddenly need to draw and fire, dealing with the Swiss Safe cylinder pin push/pull or a hammer mounted roller as was found on the Armi Jager revolvers could be a liability, as could be a transfer bar that decides to malfunction and allow it's tip to jam against the rear bottom of the firing pin. Generations of SAA shooters learned to carry the hammer down on an empty cylinder. That's one of the beauties of the original hammer design in that simplicity often translates to reliability.

If you spring for a Standard we'd sure like some photos and a range report! :Fire:

324206

[35 Rem]

I much prefer the original simple firing pin that mounts in the face of the hammer. Any mechanism that is retrofitted to such a simple design can't help long term reliability. Leave one cylinder empty and carry with confidence that the gun will fire every time. I see that Taylor has retrofit hammer and trigger to change even the new Uberti guns to the original design. Thankful that I have two original design 45 Colt guns already.

[curioushooter]

"Yes I was aware of this model. I do not know if it has a retractable firing pin or a hammer block type safety. Is this on all new stuff?"

A quick Google search indicates that older models used the cylinder pun safety and newer ones use the retractable firing pin.

From 2012 article
https://www.handgunsmag.com/editoria...ron-cms/138180

Recent video
https://youtu.be/Z80tjCqs3uA?si=Z2tV1INaqW0hoUVW

Sent from my SM-G781V using Tapatalk

I've found that when buying these things you must look at exactly the one you intended to buy. Reviews, even from publications, cannot always be trusted. The retractable firing pin is clever in the sense it looks like the original, but it doesn't have 4-clicks and results in the trigger being somewhat complicated but the system. The quality of the trigger of my 1873 Uberti with retractable firing pin is inferior to the hammer block on the 1875 Uberti.

[curioushooter]

I much prefer the original simple firing pin that mounts in the face of the hammer. Any mechanism that is retrofitted to such a simple design can't help long term reliability. Leave one cylinder empty and carry with confidence that the gun will fire every time.

With a hammer block safety the firing pin mounts in the face of the hammer in the same way as the original. And the trigger quality is not diminished. From a design standpoint the original designs were poor, basically unconscionable, as the 1858 and 1860 cap and ball revolvers both have safety notches/pins that allow you to rest the hammer between the chambers. This could have been easily incorporated into the original design. Instead everyone just carried around a potentially dangerous unsafe firearm, as I don't believe that anybody practiced carrying only five rounds in their six-gun, especially after carrying cap and ball revolvers with all six chambers loaded for a generation.

To me the the hammer block safety retains the original function, doesn't diminish the trigger, allows the carrying of all six and adverts the possibility of someone doing something dangerous, and has only the minimal trade off of changing the look of the cocked hammer slightly. There appears no diminished reliability either and seems more robust than the retractable firing pin. It could potentially increase the trouble of cleaning.

In any event I understand that all of these replicas will have some safety going forward because the ATF doesn't allow their importation without a safety device.

[DougGuy]

I don't believe that anybody practiced carrying only five rounds in their six-gun, especially after carrying cap and ball revolvers with all six chambers loaded for a generation.

I know of one that carried 1 shy, hammer on empty chamber. In John Wayne's last film "The Shootist" the last thing he does before leaving his room and board is load the last chamber, and head to the Metropol.

[RJM52]

They don't call a SAA a SIX-SHOOTER for nothing...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-A7uokxQ-c

[35 Rem]

I've looked at the diagrams over the years and thought the way that "new" safety worked was sort of like an internal transfer bar. That little plunger rod inside the hammer seems to come up behind the firing pin and I'm assuming force the pin forward to it's firing position only when the trigger is held to the rear so that it can strike the primer. When the trigger is not held fully back, I'm assuming the plunger rod inside the hammer drops and once again the firing pin floats inside it's bore. Is that not correct?

The only other safety I'm aware of with these guns is the basically worthless deal where you have two notches in the cylinder base pin and push it backward to the point where it interferes with the hammer falling. I don't really mind that one because it keeps the lawyers happy and only makes the base pin a bit too long compared to the originals. I've never used it on the guns I have with that feature except to verify that it worked.

I'm having trouble visualizing how the SAA could have incorporated a "between chambers" safety the way the earlier percussion revolvers did. The hammer on those guns actually rested against the cylinder so that it could fit down into the "halfway" notches (for lack of a better term). The SAA hammer is captured iside the frame and can't reach the cylinder in the same way. I'm sure you are right about most people carrying 6 rounds back when these guns were new. Most still do today except us true gun enthusiasts who are more aware of gun designs and safety. I do wonder how so many of the old cowboys managed to get up to 10 or 12 rounds in a Colt SAA though?!? :bigsmyl2:

[elmacgyver0]

If money was no object, why wouldn't you just buy a Colt?
The Uberti Cattleman works just fine for my purposes.

[jreidthompson1]

"The only other safety I'm aware of with these guns is the basically worthless deal where you have two notches in the cylinder base pin and push it backward to the point where it interferes with the hammer falling."

There's the third safety type mentioned above where on the first click a physical hammer block is engaged between the hammer and the frame

Sent from my SM-G781V using Tapatalk
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20240307/110ff2fb066d78fd7dda50d9b7c2f4db.jpg

[DurangoDave]

As RJM52 pointed out with that video, Colt originally told users to load up all 6 rounds and trust the safety notch. Then after WWII when Colt started making the SSA again they started telling people to load only 5 rounds.
The Shootist was filmed in 1976.
We are now much more safety conscious than ever.

[DurangoDave]

I'm not saying anyone should carry a SSA with 6 live rounds but that's what they did. That safety notch is stronger than people think (but I still won't recommend trusting it)
Skip to 5:30 in this video.


https://youtu.be/bSvF7HgKVR8?t=328

[elmacgyver0]

"The only other safety I'm aware of with these guns is the basically worthless deal where you have two notches in the cylinder base pin and push it backward to the point where it interferes with the hammer falling."

There's the third safety type mentioned above where on the first click a physical hammer block is engaged between the hammer and the frame

Sent from my SM-G781V using Tapatalk
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20240307/110ff2fb066d78fd7dda50d9b7c2f4db.jpg

The newer ones, newer than the ones you show have a transfer bar built into the hammer and do not have the base pin safety.
A lot of purists stick their noses up at them, but they actually work very well.

[jreidthompson1]

This link shows diagrams of all three

http://www.ubertireplicas.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/LIBRETTO-Istruzioni-SINGLE-ACTION-2016.pdf

Sent from my SM-G781V using Tapatalk

[elmacgyver0]

I believe the whole load one, skip one, load four malarky has more to do with clumsy people's thumbs slipping off the hammer than anything else.

[Nobade]

This link shows diagrams of all three

http://www.ubertireplicas.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/LIBRETTO-Istruzioni-SINGLE-ACTION-2016.pdf

Sent from my SM-G781V using Tapatalk

Thanks for that link!
Yet another reason I'll avoid Uberti and stick to Pietta for the time being. That and Uberti doesn't have a stud on the barrel for the ejector housing, they just D&T the barrel for a screw that rips out from recoil eventually.

[alfadan]

How about the Traditions brand SAA? I watched a guy on YouTube shooting one in 357 and it looked nice.

[Hick]

I believe the whole load one, skip one, load four malarky has more to do with clumsy people's thumbs slipping off the hammer than anything else.

Yep! and count me among them. I always load 1, skip 1 load 4 because some of my single actions require you to pull the trigger in order to lower the hammer. I'm just clumsy enough to need to cultivate a safe habit.