Buying first Colt SAA (clone) - Cimarron vs Taylor's & Co

Status
Not open for further replies.
Howdy Again

Rant Mode On: You are probably all getting tired of me saying this, but what is it with the four clicks?

(Disclaimer: I have real Colts and they do click four times when I cock the hammer. I still have one Uberti Cattleman in the safe and it clicks four times too. I have a bunch of New Model Rugers, some with half cock hammers so they click three times, some in their original condition so they only click twice I even have a few old Three Screw Rugers and they click four times too, just like a Colt. There is even such a thing as five clicks*, I'll describe that in a moment)

When I cock a single action revolver prior to shooting it I am always wearing ear plugs, so I don't hear the clicks at all. I always cock the hammer briskly, so if I were to remove my plugs the sound of the clicks would be a ratchety blur. Distinct clicks would not be recognizable, and I probably could not tell if there were two, three, four, or even five clicks.

I think this business of thinking about four clicks probably goes back to the old western movies, or maybe the western TV shows of the 1950s (yes, I am that old that I remember them). There was always a scene where someone, either a good guy or a bad guy would cock his revolver slowly and deliberately. The four clicks were clearly audible, although you still probably could not count them. But it was a very definite sound effect, that slow ratchety sound as the hammer was cocked. I suspect the directors wanted this sound included because it was very dramatic and somewhat threatening. It usually got the attention of the intended target, although usually too late. It usually preceded a good guy getting shot. (We will talk about the ratchety sound of a double action cylinder being spun in the movies while the gun is open some other time)

Flash forward to now, and the only time I cock the hammer of a single action revolver slow enough to actually hear the separate clicks is if I am up late at night watching an old oat burner on TV. I may have a revolver in hand (hopefully I remembered to unload it, knock on wood) and I may be pretending to shoot the bad guys. I would never pretend to shoot a good guy. That is the only time I can even hear the clicks, because I don't have ear plugs in, and even then, unless it is a particularly bad guy, like maybe Dutch Henry Brown (google him). I usually don't cock the hammer slowly enough to threaten him. It is just like that ker=chunk sound a pump shotgun makes when you work the action. Very cool and threatening on TV, not so much in real life (my favorite trap gun is an old Winchester Model 12, and I just put 75 rounds through it yesterday. Plugs in, didn't really notice the ker-chunk sound.)

So anyway, to all you guys who just have to have four clicks, exactly when are you going to be able to count all four clicks?

Rant Mode Off.

*Five Clicks. Typically with a four click single action revolver, the first click is when the hammer goes to the 'safety cock' position, #2 is when the hammer goes to half cock, the loading position, #3 is when the bolt pops up against the cylinder, and #4 is when the hammer goes to full cock and the bolt pops into the locking slot on the cylinder simultaneously. At least that is what is supposed to happen when the hammer goes to full cock. More often, the revolver is ever so slightly out of time, and the hammer goes to full cock a teeny bit before the bolt pops into the locking slot. On most single action revolvers, the hammer has enough over travel that even though it has gone to full cock, the hammer can still rock back a little bit further so the hand can push the cylinder around a teeny bit more so the bolt can pop into place, locking the bolt at battery. I can just hear the purists yelling that gun is out of time. Maybe so, but all my Colts do it, both 1st Gens and 2nd Gens. It is very subtle, I have to restrict the motion of the cylinder with my thumb to hear it, but most of my 'four click' revolvers are actually 'five clicks' if I listen close enough. This is an acceptable situation because when cocking a single action revolver I always give the hammer a strong yank, and the cylinder builds up enough momentum that it rotates that last teeny bit even if the hammer has already gone to full cock. And if I did not cock the hammer briskly, that little bit of over travel will bring the cylinder to battery anyway. This situation is much preferable to the opposite situation, where the hand has pushed the cylinder all the way to battery, but there is not enough slop between the hand and the hammer to allow the hammer to keep going all the way to full cock. I had this happen with one of my 'original model' Ruger Vaqueros. It was so tightly timed that the hammer did go to full cock and the cylinder locked up precisely at the same time. When I changed out the hammer for an after market half cock hammer, things had changed just enough so the hand did not allow the hammer to go to full cock once the cylinder went to battery. I had to file a teeny bit off the hand to allow the hammer to go to full cock at the same time the cylinder locked up.
 
I prefer the feel of the Colt type action. It absolutely feels different from New Model Ruger type actions and I know the clicking contributes to that but I don't really care how many clicks it makes.

I know that Colt owns the rights to the name "Single Action Army" but I'm not a manufacturer. "SAA" has become a generic term like Kleenex. It's easier to refer to them all as SAA's, just as it is with 1911's and AR15's, than it is to learn all the stupid names the replica manufacturers have had to come up with for them.
 
3 of the pictures I posted in this thread are REAL COLT's TOO with factory letters. The rest are clones or Rugers.
neener neener....
 
I will answer Driftwoods question . The reason I am against the the retractable firing pin system , is because it is like what S&W did with the Internal lock . It is a sellout and letting the lawyers run your company . It also adds moving parts and most moving parts require more maintenance and fail sooner than a non moving part . It just loses some history when you change it . So if they are going to change the operation of the trigger and firing pin , I prefer to buy American and Ruger’s SAA clone .
 
So anyway, to all you guys who just have to have four clicks, exactly when are you going to be able to count all four clicks?
Every time I shoot it. I wear electronic muffs. Not everyone shoots like you do. I can tell the difference and feel the difference.

Plus you have to go to half cock when loading a real SAA type action. Then back two more clicks to lower on an empty chamber.

Saying the four clicks make no difference is to me akin to saying putting an automatic transmission in a Shelby Cobra makes no difference in the experience. It does.
 
Howdy Again

I said it was a rant. Just my personal opinion. As I stated, I have real Colts, 5 2nd Gens and 3 1st Gens.

Yes, I can tell the difference between holding and cocking them vs a Ruger, slightly over a dozen at last count.

Regarding loading one, skipping one, then loading 4 more I have been doing that since dinosaurs roamed the earth. In fact I installed after market half cock hammers in my CAS Vaqueros so they would load the same as my Colts.

And as I said, the only time I actually listen to the clicks is when I am drawing a slow, careful bead on a bad guy on TV late at night.

Otherwise, if I am shooting them I can't hear the clicks with my ear plugs in, and besides, when the hammer is cocked briskly the clicks are just a rapid ratchety sound, too quick to distinguish the individual click.

I have never owned a high powered muscle car, cars are just transportation as far as I am concerned.

Interestingly enough though I still drive a clutch, I do prefer the more intimate contact with the road a clutch affords to the more mushy performance of an automatic transmission. Unfortunately 2019 was the last year clutches were available in the car I drive. So my next one will most likely be an automatic. One more concession to the modern world.

[QUOTE="red rick, post: 11646680, member: 103360]"The reason I am against the retractable firing pin system, is because it is like what S&W did with the Internal lock . It is a sellout and letting the lawyers run your company . It also adds moving parts and most moving parts require more maintenance and fail sooner than a non moving part[/QUOTE]

Ever seen a broken firing pin on the hammer or a Colt or a Smith and Wesson? I have. The tip of the firing pin on my favorite Colt snapped off years ago and I had to install a new one. I've seen the tips of firing pins snapped off on S&W revolvers too. So much for moving parts needing more maintenance.

Why do you think Ruger went to frame mounted, spring loaded firing pins way back in the 1950s? Because they did not break. I have never heard of a Ruger firing pin breaking. And even if it did, it would be much easier to replace a frame mounted, spring loaded firing pin than replacing the whole hammer.

How about these firing pins? Ever try to find a replacement for a broken one?

pl33jTFdj.jpg

pnZzkCdPj.jpg
 
I had no idea the debate/discussion that my questions could have set off… I've been an autoloader and bolt action shooter, and I didn't realize the way wheel gun guys feel about this stuff. But, I really appreciate the perspective provided so far; I’ve learned a lot!

I plan to use this gun for fun only, so I’m leaning toward getting an old model SAA clone. I’d rather replicate the antique experience, so I’m ok with loading only 5 rounds. After reading through this post, and shopping around, I’m leaning toward getting this:

https://www.cimarron-firearms.com/u-s-v-artillery-45-lc-5-1-2-standard-blue.html

Does anyone have one? Any thoughts?

Thanks to all for the info
 
Does anyone have one? Any thoughts?

Howdy Again

I have no idea if that one has a retracting firing pin or not. Looking closely at one of the photos, I can see the firing pin projecting through the frame, so I suspect it does not have the retracting firing pin.

What I can tell you is that model is what Cimarron is calling their 'Old Model'.

Originally, the cylinder pin of the Single Action Army was secured by a screw angled up at the front of the frame. Notice Cimarron says their 'Old Model' is representative of the period from 1873 until 1896. In fact the modern spring loaded cross latch first appeared on some SAAs as early as 1892, but it became a standard feature in 1896. This photo shows the spring loaded latch on a 2nd Gen Colt. Please pardon how dirty the front of the cylinder is. The model you are interested in has the screw securing the cylinder pin. If you look closely at the photos on the Cimarron site you can barely see it. The screw head is domed and is almost flush with the front of the frame.

pmzbHTlIj.jpg




The other thing about that model is it has the older 'Bullseye' style ejector rod handle. Basically a donut shaped handle. The later Colts had a 'crescent shaped' ejector rod handle like this:

poDOXIp9j.jpg




Nothing wrong with either of those features, they are representative of the Early Colts. However if you want to remove the cylinder in the field you will need to have a small screw driver to remove the screw so you can pull out the ejector rod. And you have to be careful you don't lose the screw in the grass. That is why the spring loaded latch was developed, you did not need a tool to remove the pin, and there was less chance of losing something in the grass.

I had a Cimarron with those features many years ago, and it was a lemon. The front sight was not on straight. But I doubt that was typical, it was just that one.
 
The Cimarron "old model" use a cylinder pin retaining screw that requires a screw driver to release. The Uberti versions use a thumb screw that's easier to remove, although not accurate to the original Colt SAA.

spring-loaded-cylinder-pin-retainer-view-1.png

FWIW, the original Colts with the front screw retainer were designed for black powder cartridges, whereas the spring loaded side screw plunger frames were made for smokeless. This only applies to the original colts from 1873 to about 1896. It doesn't apply to modern versions or replicas which are made with modern steel that work fine with smokeless powder.

Here also a photo of the different ejector rod types that Driftwood mentioned. The round one goes with the old frames, the crescent shaped one with the new models

difference-in-sights-ejector-plunger-grips.png
 
FWIW, the original Colts with the front screw retainer were designed for black powder cartridges, whereas the spring loaded side screw plunger frames were made for smokeless.

That is slightly incorrect, but it is a common misconception.

Original Colt Single Action Army revolvers with the spring loaded latch to hold the cylinder pin are often referred to as having a 'smokeless' frame. But as I said earlier, that feature first showed up on some target models as early as 1892. By 1896 the spring loaded latch was a standard feature. But Colt did not officially factory warranty the Single Action Army for Smokeless Powder cartridges until 1900, four years after the the spring loaded latch became a standard feature. Colt held off on factory warrantying the frame and cylinder for Smokeless Powder cartridges until the steel being used for the cylinders was adequately heat treated, which did not occur until 1900. So when Colt aficionados use the term Smokeless frame, there was at least four years when Colt did not have confidence in the cylinders being able to withstand the pressures generated by Smokeless Powder.

In 1901 Colt began stamping VP in an inverted triangle on the left front corner of the trigger guard. VP stood for Verified Proof and it was Colt's way of saying the revolver in question had been proofed for Smokeless Powder. In the close up below of a Bisley Colt from 1907 the arrow is pointing to the Verified Proof mark.

po4bwEhTj.jpg




Here is the Verified Proof mark on a 2nd Gen Colt from the 1970s.

pnI5zmyjj.jpg




Yes, I am splitting hairs, but that is the discrepancy in saying a Colt from between 1896 and 1900 has a Smokeless Frame.


As Dudemeister says, this is all moot with modern replicas. Whether they have a 'black powder' frame, or a 'smokeless frame', they are all made of modern steel that can take cartridges loaded with Smokeless Powder.
 
I will answer Driftwoods question . The reason I am against the the retractable firing pin system , is because it is like what S&W did with the Internal lock . It is a sellout and letting the lawyers run your company . It also adds moving parts and most moving parts require more maintenance and fail sooner than a non moving part . It just loses some history when you change it . So if they are going to change the operation of the trigger and firing pin , I prefer to buy American and Ruger’s SAA clone .
It has more to do with import regulations than lawyers and "selling out".
 
I hope this is not drifting off the subject. I think it would be helpful to the OP and others trying to choose between Taylor/Cimarron and Pietta/Uberti. I have a gun labeled Cimarron but I can’t tell if it is Uberti or Pietta. Looking at previous posted pictures and descriptions I can see nothing different. This gun also has “ four clicks”. image.jpg image.jpg
 
Well... I bought one:
https://www.traditionsfirearms.com/...5.5-inch-barrle-color-case-hardened-sat73-003

It looks very similar to the Artillery SAAs; I like that more subdued look.

I believe it's made by Pietta, and it has the internal firing pin and a transfer bar safety. Most likely, I'll be getting another SAA clone in nickel or polished stainless, with the traditional/standard Colt design.

I'll post a pic when I get it.
 
Nice. I'm sure you will enjoy it.
I have many guns but my SAA clones are by far my favorite. I'm always on the lookout for another one to add to my collection if the price is right.
 
I prefer the feel of the Colt type action. It absolutely feels different from New Model Ruger type actions and I know the clicking contributes to that but I don't really care how many clicks it makes.

I know that Colt owns the rights to the name "Single Action Army" but I'm not a manufacturer. "SAA" has become a generic term like Kleenex. It's easier to refer to them all as SAA's, just as it is with 1911's and AR15's, than it is to learn all the stupid names the replica manufacturers have had to come up with for them.

Exactly! They are called 1911's regardless of who makes them, if it's an actual Colt style four click action and otherwise a copy of a SAA I don't have a problem with calling them SAA's regardless of what the manufacturers have to officially call them.
 
The Cimarron "old model" use a cylinder pin retaining screw that requires a screw driver to release. The Uberti versions use a thumb screw that's easier to remove, although not accurate to the original Colt SAA.

View attachment 944806

FWIW, the original Colts with the front screw retainer were designed for black powder cartridges, whereas the spring loaded side screw plunger frames were made for smokeless. This only applies to the original colts from 1873 to about 1896. It doesn't apply to modern versions or replicas which are made with modern steel that work fine with smokeless powder.

Here also a photo of the different ejector rod types that Driftwood mentioned. The round one goes with the old frames, the crescent shaped one with the new models

View attachment 944807

They also come with the regular screw. Or at least my Cimarrons have.
 
I hope this is not drifting off the subject. I think it would be helpful to the OP and others trying to choose between Taylor/Cimarron and Pietta/Uberti. I have a gun labeled Cimarron but I can’t tell if it is Uberti or Pietta. Looking at previous posted pictures and descriptions I can see nothing different. This gun also has “ four clicks”.View attachment 947962View attachment 947963
 
Well... I bought one:
https://www.traditionsfirearms.com/...5.5-inch-barrle-color-case-hardened-sat73-003

It looks very similar to the Artillery SAAs; I like that more subdued look.

I believe it's made by Pietta, and it has the internal firing pin and a transfer bar safety. Most likely, I'll be getting another SAA clone in nickel or polished stainless, with the traditional/standard Colt design.

I'll post a pic when I get it.

Yes, they're made by Pietta to Traditions' specs, with a transfer bar.

But here is what I found funny. It's from their description: " All models have steel frames and are authentic reproductions."

AUTHENTIC REPRODUCTIONS.... as opposed to fake reproductions, I suppose?
 
"Yes, they're made by Pietta to Traditions' specs, with a transfer bar."

Thanks for the confirmation Dudemeister.

I'm looking forward to getting it home.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top