Howdy
I have owned a couple of Cimarrons over the years.
Cimarron used to spread it around that their revolvers and rifles were better than any other importer's stuff, that extra work was done at the factory to make their stuff better. That has largely been debunked over the years. While Cimarron specifies specific finishes and markings that are different than other importers, inside, where it counts, the mechanics, fit and finish of their imports are no better, and no worse, than any other importers.
I have owned two Cimarrons over the years, both part of their Cattleman series. The first one I bought about 15 years ago. 45 Colt, it had a bright, almost robin's egg blue finish on the barrel and cylinder, mimicking the finish on some of the very early Colts. I found out the hard way this was not a robust finish, within a year the sweat from my palm completely removed the blue from the backstrap, causing the steel to turn a battleship gray color. A minor complaint, I knew the finish would not be robust. But in addition to that, this revolver had the absolute worst trigger pull of any revolver I have ever owned. Gritty, with a decided hitch in its get along. As if that wasn't bad enough, the barrel had not been screwed in properly and the front sight leaned visibly to one side. Yes, if I had known then what I kown now, I would never have bought it, but I didn't so I did. Within a year I had parted company with that revolver, using the money as a down payment on a Ruger Vaquero. OK, maybe this one was not a typical example of a Cattleman, maybe it was a Friday afternoon gun, but it was truly a dog.
Not to be completely disillusioned with Cimarron Cattlemen, a couple of years later I came across another one. This one was 45 Colt also, but with a more standard, modern blue. No problems with this one, I still have it, although I don't shoot it much because I have a couple of Colts that I shoot more often. Overall, not a bad revolver. It does not have the quality of a Colt, but it does not have the price tag of a Colt either.
A few comments: Don't be taken in by all that guff Cimarron has published about how they have perfectly reproduced the old Colts from antiques and not from drawings. Everybody does that. There are no drawings to reproduce old revolvers from. Any drawings that existed would have been proprietary information of Colt's and they would not be handing those out to anybody. And the bit about updating the design to eliminate the weaknesses of the old design is a lot of window dressing too. Basically all they did was replace the old leaf style spring for the hand, which was prone to breaking, with a coil spring mounted under one of the grip screws, very similar to what Ruger does.
Yes, that spring along with the split/trigger bolt spring is the most likely spring to break in the old Colt design. But it ain't a huge deal.
Do be sure whether or not you are looking at the new action Uberti has started making which incorporates a firing pin that floats in the hammer and retracts when the trigger is released. That is a brand new design, quite different from the original Colt design, and it has not been around long enough to evaluate how well it holds up.
Personally I would not buy one of the old style revolvers with the screw in front holding the cylinder pin in place. Colt replaced that style for good reason around 1892 or so because the spring loaded transverse latch was simply a better idea. Plus, I shoot Black Powder, and if I need to remove the cylinder at the range for any reason, I don't want to be fumbling around for a tiny screwdriver. But that's just me. I will say, judging from the photos, Cimarron has replicated the original style of screw. Countersunk into the frame so it barely protrudes at all. Some models have a knurled thumb screw that protrudes from the front of the frame for the obvious reason that you don't need a screwdriver to remove it. However if one wants a replica that replicates a Colt to the 'nth' degree, Colt never put a knurled cylinder pin retention screw on any of their revolvers.
Not sure what rear sight Cimarron is using these days. On mine, which is quite a few years old now, the rear sight replicates the original 'V' groove sight very well. When Colt brought out the 2nd Gen Colts in the mid 1950s, the rear sight was reconfigured to a square shape. Not as traditional, but much easier for old eyes to see.
In this photo, the squared off 2nd Gen Colt rear sight is on the left, the Cimarron/Uberti V groove rear sight is on the right. Although the V groove replicates the rear sight on an old Colt, the squared off 2nd Gen style is much easier for my old eyes to see.
Actual rear sight of a 1st Gen Bisley Colt.
Regarding octagon barrels on a revolver, sorry Craig, gotta disagree with you on that one. Those are all Cap & Ball revolvers you have pictured in your second photo. Yes, octagon barrels were common with the Colt and Remington C&B revolvers. But Colt never put an octagon barrel on the SAA. Oh, maybe they did on some custom models, but it was never a production item. And when Remington brought out their cartridge revolver in 1875, the octagon barrel of the 1858 Model had given way to a round barrel.
So no octagon barrelled SAA replicas for me.
