"Cowboy" .45 SAA Questions

[HMMurdock]

I recently accquired an EMF/Uberti Hartford "Peacemaker" SAA clone in .45LC and I am quite taken with it. Fantastic marksmanship and it makes you feel not only like a man, but an American Man! Seemingly excellent quality and very stunning to behold.

It has peaked my interested in other SAA's, but the Hartford has me taken with the historical accuracy of the piece concerning the no-transfer bar safety, the proper hammer clicks, etc., the three frame pins as opposed to two, etc. What else could be done to make this more historically accurate without degrading the quality of the piece?

My .45 is done in the replica of case hardened steel. As I understand it, this is how the original Army SAAs were done in the 1800's. What other finishes would be historically accurate? I see plenty solid blue and stainless Model-P's but were they available in these finishes in the 1800's?

How powerful of a .45LC load can I safely put through my EMF/Uberti, and how do those loads compare with other commerical loads (like .38spl/.357mag, etc)?

I understand that the original Colts were mostly produced in .45LC but also .44-40 to be compatible with the lever action carbines of the time. How does .44-40 compare to the performance of .45LC?

I apologize if these questions have been asked too many times, but I was not able to find the answers. Thanks in advance and please excuse my ignorance for any misstatements I have made.

 

[mavracer]

I belive most originals were either case hardened or nickel finished.the uberti replicas are pretty accurate historically.the ubertis are not rated for +p ammo but www.buffalobore.com has 2 std pressure loads that are stompers a 200 speer GD at 1100fps and 250 LSWC at 1000fps. IMHO the first is as good of SD load as any and the second would take most any game you would want to hunt with a handgun (not dangerous ie big bears) dear,boar and such.45colt and 44/40 are pretty close power wise in std loadings. in strong modern guns ie ruger blackhawk 45colt can approch 44mag ballistics.
ps 45lc and long colt are not correct nomenclature as there is no 45 short colt just call it 45 COLT FYI.

 

[Hawk]

ps 45lc and long colt are not correct nomenclature as there is no 45 short colt just call it 45 COLT FYI.

They make something of a point of this at sixgunner.com.

However, these guys
http://www.coltsmfg.com/cmci/revolvers.asp

have taken to calling it "Long Colt". I note USFA still calls it ".45 Colt" - I suppose this lends credence to USFA having "out-Colted" Colt.

That muddies the waters. If Ford started calling the Taurus something else, it would presumably be their option to do so. Ditto Colt with "Long Colt".

 

[HMMurdock]

Thanks for the correction on nomenclature-- makes sense.

So the modern stainless replicas would be a mimick of the original nickel-plates? Do any of the modern replicas come in nickel?

Thanks for the tip on ammo. It sounds like the standard loads are pretty powerful. I can find some "fps charts" to compare that to other rounds. .44-40 ammo is significantly more expensive than .45 Colt, no?

You guys are always a great help. Thanks, as always.

 

[mec]

Shot side by side, the feel of the Uberti replicas is pretty much indistinguishable from the originals. They did make the SAA in .44-40, 38-40 and .32-20 as companions to the Winchester rifles plus a bunch of other calibers in lesser numbers. The Ubertis are very well set up and accurate though they may feel a bit rough straight out of the box, a couple shooting sessions has them smoothed out very well.

This group is typical of off-hand from 25 yards but was shot over the chronograph at 50 yards. I was sitting on the ground with my back rested and using my knees for a rest. It's a Uberti/cimarron Model P in 32-20- no more nor less accurate than their larger bores.

Some of the Uberti's have coil spring/plunder hand spring arrangements and some have wire springs for the trigger and bolt. This one came with the coil/plunger arrangement and an original type leave trigger/bolt spring. If there is any different feel from well tuned original colts, I can't tell it though the first generation often had heavier mainsprings and trigger pulls. The Uberti has a separate basepin/cylinder bushing like the originals. It does not have a removable firing pin bushing. Also, the first generations had a dished out area in the top strap just over the Barrel/cylinder gap, probably to prevent black powder build up from tying up the cylinder rotation. Current uberties tend to have optimum chamber/bore size relationships while with the originals this was hit or miss. They also come with front sights tall enough to adjust elevation. The gun will probably shoot low but if you carefully file the front sight, you can bring it into register. Recent ones seem to be right on for windage.

 

[Father Knows Best]

The most accurate reproductions of original 19th century Colts are currently being made by the United States Fire-Arms Manufacturing Company, aka "USFA" or "U.S. Fire-Arms" in Hartford, Connecticut. In fact, they even make them in an old Colt factory. You can get them in almost any caliber, with correct details such as the "black powder" frame (with a screw that retains the cylinder pin instead of a cross-pin). You can even have them custom finished using authentic bone case hardening (done by Turnbull Restorations), salt blueing, etc. They're expensive, though. Figure $1200-2500 depending on model, options, finish, etc.

Colt also still makes the SAA through its custom shop. I believe they are offered in .357 magnum, .44-40, .44 Special, .45 Colt and perhaps some others. Prices start at around $1300 and go up, again depending on options and finishes.

And yes, they are available in real nickel plate finish from all major manufacturers, including Colt, USFA and Uberti.

Here's a pic of my 3rd gen Colt SAA in .44 Special:

And here it is with a pair of Uberti replicas of the 1875 Remington. All came from the factory with nickel plate finishes:

 

[Fisherman_48768]

ps 45lc and long colt are not correct nomenclature as there is no 45 short colt just call it 45 COLT FYI.

True to a point, but at the time there was another 45 cal handgun (S&W #3 and the 1875 Schofield) in use along with the 45 cal rifle, this lead to logistical/supply problems for the government supply personnel.
As I understand it, the 45 Colt was called Long 'Colt' to distinguish it from the 45 S&W 'Short' cartridge. The S&W ctg could be fired in those Colt guns chambered for the Longer Colt ctg but the longer ctg would not chamber in the shorter S&W chambers. Then along comes the 1901 Colt (1911 Automatic)which shoots the Colt 45 or as we know it the 45 ACP. All three ctgs and various guns firing them were in use by the US Government at the same time.
Now throw in a supply request for 45 Cal Pistol Ctg's from a remote post and see what you get, hopefully you had the pistols for the ctgs coming your way. Many times they did not and it did create problems for the troops.
Terminology to differentiate the various 45 cal ctgs was developed, maybe not officially but you can bet that the troops invented their own designations.
45 Gov't = 45/70/405 or 500 was for the rifle and carbine, Springfields
45 Colt = for the Colt 1873
45 S&W = for the Colt 1873 and #3 S&W/Schofield
Colt 45 = 45 Automatic

 

[Father Knows Best]

Fisherman 48786 got it ALMOST right, but not quite.

To begin with, all cartridges have an "official" name that is bestowed by the creator of the cartridge. Colt invented the .45 Colt cartridge for the Model P, or Single Action Army, and Colt & Co. called it the ".45 Colt" cartridge.

Smith & Wesson indeed also came up with a .45 caliber revolver cartridge about the same time, at the request of the U.S. Army. It used the same diameter bullet (.452, give or take a few thousandths), but in a shorter case made necessary by the shorter cylinder of the S&W top-break revolver designs then in existence. The S&W cartridge also had a more prominent rim so they could be reliably grabbed by the ejector on the S&W revolvers. S&W called it's cartridge the ... [wait for it] ... ".45 Smith & Wesson." The U.S. Army bought a few thousand Smith & Wesson revolvers chambered for that cartridge. Those revolvers came to be known as "Schofield" for one Major Schofield of the U.S. Army who had suggested modifications to the S&W No. 3 revolver to make it more suitable for cavalry use, and today both the modified revolver and the cartridge bear his name, at least unofficially. Thus, the cartridge is commonly referred to today as the ".45 Schofield", though that is technically not its "correct" name.

As noted, the .45 Schofield cartridge could be chambered in and fired from the Colt revolvers, but the .45 Colt cartridge could not be fired from the S&W revolvers due to the shorter cylinders and chambers of the S&W revolvers. It never caused a supply issue, however, because the U.S. Army realized almost immediately that the .45 Colt cartridge as designed was seriously overpowered and could not be fired effectively by most soldiers. As a result, the Army never issued true ".45 Colt" ammunition after 1874. The Army's main ammunition source, the Frankford Arsenal, stopped manufacturing it in August of 1874 -- less than a year after adoption of the Colt revolver. Instead, the Frankford Arsenal manufactured only .45 S&W cartridges, which were issued by the Army for use in all revolvers. With its standard load of around 28 grains of black powder instead of the .45 Colt round's load of 40 grains, it was much easier to shoot, and plenty effective at the ranges handguns were actually used.

The revolvers that ammo was being used in, however, were almost all Colts, as the Army never bought more S&W's after the initial evaluation order, so for the next 30 years or so the Army was making, buying and issuing nothing but .45 S&W cartridges for nothing but .45 Colt revolvers. Odd, but true.

The only place any "confusion" may have occurred would be the commercial market. If some cowboy walked into a general store and asked for .45 cartridges, he would have needed to specify the S&W variety or the Colt variety. Since the obvious difference between the two was cartridge length, but both could be used in guns chambered for ".45 Colt", you can easily see how folks might start asking for the "long" or "short" versions.

 

[HMMurdock]

Fascinating.

That reminds me of another question, my EMF came with the screw in the front and specified on the box as "old model", I believe, and I suppose this is the "black powder" frame. When were the SSAs no longer made with this front screw and what is it's significance?

 

[YosemiteSam357]

Here's a link that describes the Old Model vs. Pre War frames. Note too there are differences between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd generation Colts. I'm not sure how the "models" vs. the "generations" overlap. (I'm still learning this stuff, too.)

This has a lot of good info about SAAs in general, and some of the specifics of the Pietta and Uberti offerings.

FWIW, I don't believe Stainless Steel had even been developed when the first SAAs rolled off the line, but I may be wrong.

I would still be a little leary of those high powered Buffalo Bore rounds, but that's just me. I've got a Ruger Blackhawk in .45 Colt, as well as a Pietta SAA clone I just picked up over the weekend. The Pietta is only going to see "standard" loads (~250gr @ ~800-900 fps). But that's just me.

-- Sam

 

[SaxonPig]

I think the SAA was made in about 26 different calibers from 22 LR up to 476 Eley caliber. I believe the 44-40 was actually the most popular caliber but I may be wrong.

I have one genuine Colt SAA (3G 44 Special) and three clones in 45 Colt. Two are EMF Hartford Models (by Uberti) and the other is by Armi San Marcos. The only difference I have noted is the San Marcos model has a small safety in the hammer but it’s hard to even find if you don’t know it’s there. Otherwise, all four revolvers look and feel very similar to me. EMF used to advertise their parts as being usable for original Colts.

The Colt wears genuine ivory while the EMF clones have polymer stocks.

 

[tipoc]

Any Colt SAA or clone of the same can safely handle loads up to about 1000 fps with a 250 gr. bullet. The exception to this will be older Colts particularly those built before the advent of smokeless powder. But any modern gun can safely handle any load up to that 1000 fps level without stressing them. Above that and stronger guns are needed.

From 1873 to about the turn of the century was the era of the black powder frames. One of the chief characteristics of these was that the release for the base pin was a screw which entered the front lower portion of the frame and held the base pin in place. To remove the cylinder for cleaning you had to have a screw driver or similiar tool with you. IIRC in the late 1890s Colt went to the current push button type release for the cylinder base pin. They also changed the metallurgy of the frmes and cylinders to handle the different pressure curve of the new smokeless powders.

44-40 was in fact the most popular caliber as it could be matched up with a levergun.

Nickel was the most popular finish, in the west at least, because it was easier to care for than the blued. No guns were made in stainless steel in the U.S. till the 1970s or around than. S&W was the first with a wheelgun.

tipoc

 

[Father Knows Best]

I don't know why people keep saying that 44-40 was the most popular caliber, because it wasn't. Colt's factory records are almost complete with the exception of the first 30,000 guns, which were almost all U.S. Army orders and are generally agreed to have been almost exclusively .45 Colt. For the remaining guns (well over 500,000 before WWII stopped production temporarily), more than half were .45 Colt. The second most popular caliber was .44-40, but .45 Colts still far outnumbered .44-40's. In the post-war years, the edge was even larger, as the two most popular chamberings became .45 Colt and .357 magnum. See any Colt reference book for details.

 

[cane]

Of course Father, that's Colts, what about all the others. The Winchester lever action rifles, Marlins, Bullards, pistols such as S&W, Remington, etc. Not everyone owned or could afford a Colt's.

 

[Father Knows Best]

Um, yeah, but this entire thread is about Colt Single Action Army revolvers. At least two posters above specifically stated that the most popular caliber for the Colt SAA was 44-40. That's simply wrong.

If you're asking about the most popular revolver cartridge in the old west, the answer is probably a .32, as the most common revolvers were actually the inexpensive top-break 32's. After that, the various cartridge conversions of muzzle loading revolvers like the Colt 1851 and 1860 and the Remington 1858 were the most common, as those revolvers were available in huge numbers after the civil war and were much cheaper than new cartridge guns from the big makers like Colt and S&W. As for the Remington cartridge revolvers, well, they had no impact as they pretty much didn't exist. The Remington model 1875 had a total production run of about 25,000. 10,000 of those were sold to Egypt. Another 2,000 or so were purchased by the Bureau of Indian Affairs for tribal police. The rest were sold in bits and pieces here and there, with the most common chambering being the 44/100 (aka 44 Remington Ameican). Many of those were left unsold when Remington went bankrupt in the 1880s. The bottom line is that Remington model 1875s were almost non-existent on the frontier in the old west.

As for pistol caliber rifles, the most popular chambering were the Winchester bottlenecks, i.e., the 25-20, 32-20, 38-40 and 44-40. But again, this entire thread has been about revolvers, not rifles, and specifically the Colt Single Action Army revolver.

 

[tipoc]

I don't know why people keep saying that 44-40 was the most popular caliber

Because we sometimes misremember. 150,683 SAAs in .45 Colt were produced during the run of the first gen guns. 64,489 were produced in 44-40. 38-40 was the next most popular followed by the 32-20. Of the .45s 37,063 were delivered to the U.S. Army. These guns were delivered from 1873 to 1891. According to "The Book of Colt Firearms" by R.L. Wilson.

At any rate "Doc" O'Mearas book on "The Peacemaker" is a good read. As is Mike Venturino's "Shooting the Colt SAA" and Taffin's "Big Bore Revolvers" In these books and others you can learn some on the Colt and it's variations, what is more "authentic" or not, and proper loads for the various guns. They are also fun reading.

tipoc

 

[HMMurdock]

On the modern variants, which finish holds up the best in harsh environments? The case-hardened steel or the nickel-plating?

 

[floridaboy]

Elmer Keith, in his book "SIXGUNS", plainly states that Remington used to make a "short" .45 Colt. He seemed to think it was a practice/gallery load. My guess is that he was referring to the Schofield round. But I wasn't around in the 1910-120 timeframe, he was.

 

[Jim Watson]

An American Man with an Eyetalian gun, eh?
Oh well.

Nickel plate was popular in pre-stainless days because it resisted chlorate primers, black powder, and sweaty hands, etc. But if it is worn, scratched, or otherwise penetrated and corrosion starts under it, nickel looks like crap; while a worn blue gun just has "character."

If I wanted a shiny gun, I'd get stainless and have it buffed bright.

Actual loadings of .45 "Long" Colt were all over the place. Introduced at 40 grains of black and a 250 gr bullet, they had too many guns fail proof test and the load was reduced to 30 grains, as shown in an 1884 catalog and an undated but probably earlier brochure. By 1890, cylinders were stronger and loads were back up to 40 grains. When the New Service came out in 1898, black powder was still in use and the new DA was advertised for .45 ammo with 35 grains of powder.

I have read that the very first .45 S&W "Schofield" ammunition had rims too large for use in the SAA. The Frankford Arsenal .45 Government had rims of a compromise diameter to not interfere in the SAA but to give more purchase to the automatic ejector of the S&W than the skimpy .45 Colt rim which only had to hold headspace against the hammer blow.
Colt solved that problem with guns for the British market but did not bother for Army contracts.

 

[Riot Earp]

There must have been some 1875 Remingtons in the Old West 'cause Frank James found himself one.

 

[Kaylee]

For what it's worth Mr. Murdock, I'd consider the historical inaccuracy of a coil handspring and wire bolt/trigger spring worth it. I'm a sucker for historical accuracy as much as anyone, but constantly replacing those tiny little leaf springs, especially on the Italian clones, is a pain in the tuckuss. The wire trigger/bolt spring is a drop-in replacement that can be done on an original pattern SAA or clone - the coil handspring needs to be either made that way or gunsmithed in. But those hand springs are the absolute weakest part of the design. Expect to snap them with some regularity if you use (or even handle) your SAA much. Neither updated spring is visibly different on the outside of the gun from the original design.

The USFA guns might have better metal in their springs and not require it - I've never owned one, so I don't know. All the Italian clones I've had experience with do.

For what it's worth, the Uberti innards are okay, the Pietta ones (and least the 1860 I had) look like garbage inside. The hand was some vaguely shaped lump of metal, not anything resembling an actual machine part.

And of the original finishes, I'd go for the blue/color case option for the same reason Mr. Watson mentions. Seems like every old nickeled gun I've ever seen is chipping around the edges and just icky looking, and least if it was ever used at all. If I wanted the bright finish, I'd just cheat and get stainless for longevity.


-K

 

[Father Knows Best]

There must have been some 1875 Remingtons in the Old West 'cause Frank James found himself one.

Some, but darn few. Only about 25,000 were produced. Of those, 10,000 went to Egypt. The remaining 15,000 sold poorly. It is known that the Bureau of Indian Affairs bought some for the Tribal Police, and photos from the late 19th century exist showing tribal police officers with nickel 1875 Remingtons, but it's believed that was fewer than 1,000 guns.

Remington failed to land any large orders other than the order for the Egyptian Army, and that was a big part of what led to Remington's bankruptcy in the 1880s. It didn't help that the original chambering of the 1875 Remington was a proprietary cartridge known as the .44 Remington American (aka the "44/100 Remington"). It had an old-style heeled bullet with a diameter around .455. By that time, however, heeled bullets were on their way out. The exposed lube tended to collect dirt, and they weren't as accurate as more modern cartridge designs like the .45 Colt, .44 Winchester Central Fire (aka .44WCF aka .44-40) and .45 S&W.

Remington apparently realized the mistake, and soon offered the 1875 revolver in .44 WCF/.44-40. It appears, however, that Remington did was take unsold 44/100 revolvers and refit them with .44-40 cylinders. They stamped a "W" behind the "44" on the frame to indicate it was chambered for .44WCF and not 44/100. They did not, however, actually change the barrels on at least some of the ones that went out, because there are numerous examples of 1875 Remingtons stamped "44W" and with .44-40 cylinders, but with barrels of more than .45 caliber. As you might expect, they suffered poor accuracy because they were shooting .430 bullets down .455+ bores.

Many of the original production run of 25,000 1875 revolvers were still in Remington's factory when the company went belly-up in the 1880s. Approximately 2-3,000 of those were rebuilt as the model 1890, with shorter barrels and different ejector housings.

So it is quite likely that fewer than 5-10,000 model 1875 revolvers actually found their way into the market during the Old West days. Compared to the hundreds of thousands of Smith & Wesson and Colt revolvers, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of cartridge converted cap-and-ball Colts and Remingtons, that made 1875 Remingtons quite rare indeed.

 

[Riot Earp]

I think everyone here knows that they weren't as common as Colts or S&Ws. But when you assert "As for the Remington cartridge revolvers, well, they had no impact as they pretty much didn't exist," I must take exception.

Even if Frank's gun was the only one--and of course it wasn't--then the model had an impact. Now, that impact might have been small compared with Colt's impact, but it wasn't nonexistant. Also, we weren't there, and I think it's presumptuous to draw such a conclusion when we don't know the numbers west of the Mississippi. If Frank bought one, then obviously stores were carrying them.

Yes, they were relatively rare, but not irrelevant. And there were other guns in the Old West that were much more uncommon than the '75. Pick on them if you wish.

 

[Father Knows Best]

I'm not "picking on" anything. I'm merely stating facts. Do some historical research, and you'll find that the most common guns on the frontier weren't Colts or S&W's, either, at least in civilian hands. Besides, Frank James wasn't exactly in the "old west" or on the frontier. He raided in Kentucky, Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa and, quite infamously, Minnesota, in the 1870s.

Also, we weren't there, and I think it's presumptuous to draw such a conclusion when we don't know the numbers west of the Mississippi.

So ... since we weren't there, we can't draw ANY conclusions about what might have happened? We might as well burn all the history books, then.

The fact is that we can look at all sorts of historical records, and draw conclusions from them. The Remington model 1875 revolver is well documented as a commercial failure. Besides Remington's own records, you need only look at surviving pictures of the old west, and newspaper accounts of the time. See or hear about any 1875 Remingtons? Nope, didn't think so, with one exception -- the letter that Frank James ostensibly wrote in praise of the revolver. Compare that to the thousands of photos of converted cap-and-ball guns, Colt SAA's, S&W's and other top-break cartridge guns, and it becomes pretty clear that the Remington model 1875 was exceedingly rare. Since they were extremely rare, and offered no technological or other innovation or improvement, it's a fair statement to say that they had virtually no impact on the old west. It's a myth, by the way, that the Remington was first revolver chambered for the 44-40 cartridge, as the Colt Frontier Six Shooter in 44-40 appeared on the market in 1875, well before Remington began converting 44/100 model 1875's to 44-40.

Now, I don't have anything against them. In fact, I'm quite fond of them, as you would realize if you noticed the picture up-thread that show a pair of nickel-plated Remington 1875 replicas. I have a third one that isn't in the picture, and I've owned others through the years. I find the model 1875 to fit my hands better than the Colt SAA, and I much prefer the lower hammer and wider trigger of the Remington. That's why I shoot them in cowboy action matches. But there is no doubt that the Remington is visible and popular today far out of proportion to its actual presence and visibility in the old west.