I guess I'm just nuts...

[SaxonPig]

I read and hear discussions about purchasing new firearms and nobody ever seems to even discuss buying the original.

"Should I get an Imbel FAL or a Century?"

"Should I get a Springfield Armory 1911 or a Les Baer?"

"Which SAA clone is best?"

The list goes on and on. Well, I have a confession to make. In most cases I actually prefer the original.

My AR15? Colt.




My FAL? FN.




My 91? H&K.




I do have a couple 1911 clones but my favorites are the real deal.








Same situation with the SAA.




I realize that in many cases the original models cost more. But isn't anybody interested in owning the original? Do we not even consider buying the genuine article?

 

[deafdave3]

I'm with you on that one. I wish I could have one of the original Colt AR-15.

 

[Rail Driver]

I have a Colt A1 Upper that I got in trade... but I couldn't even dream of affording a complete Colt rifle right now. The cost is prohibitive. The same goes for my RIA 1911... I'd rather have gotten a Colt, but can't afford one.

It's not just that it's more expensive to buy the original... It's a LOT more expensive.

I'm not saying I don't like my CMMG AR, or my RIA 1911, but having the original is like a "pinnacle achievement" sort of thing for those of us that don't have money coming out their ears and safes full of multi thousand dollar guns.

 

[rozziboy18]

i love the origanals but cant aford them to same my life. one day......one day i will have a saa if it kills me to do so!

 

[9mmepiphany]

While I understand the sentiment.

I've, at one time or another, owned all of the very nice guns you've posted. IMO the only ones that hasn't been improved upon has been the HK 91...maybe the FN FAL.

Technology has improved and other then the love for the dancing pony, U.S. FireArms produces a better product than Colt in their SAA. A superior product, if you look at quality control and workmanship is also offered by Freedom Arms.

 

[cleardiddion]

Simply put:
Cost

 

[Shear_stress]

Simply put:
Cost

Yeah, seriously.

I read and hear discussions about purchasing new firearms and nobody ever seems to even discuss buying the original.

Is this a serious concern of yours, or are you just looking for an excuse to give yourself a big old pat on the back for the things you're able to afford? Because if it's the latter well then bully for you I guess.

 

[essayons21]

As you mentioned in other posts, you bought those rifles 30-40 years ago. Many consider original guns of that age to be more collectible, and would often have a less expensive, modern copy for a shooter.

Not to mention the obvious, but where can I buy a brand new Colt 1970s pattern AR-15 for the same price as a CMMG M-4gery, which I consider a superior carbine.

 

[Skribs]

I think you're nuts, because as a psychology major, I think everyone is nuts. If you want to spend the money on the originals, though, go ahead. That's why they're for sale - people want them.

 

[bannockburn]

While I can appreciate your sentiment in regards to wanting the original, it is not always feasible, affordable, or available. It's not as if most of us wouldn't prefer the original, it's just that it's simply not always realistic to have those kind of expectations. For many people an original Colt or H&K or FN isn't going to happen, especially in today's economic environment. So when financial circumstances allow, you buy the clone that best suits your needs and desires. In other words, I would rather have the $400 Uberti SAA, and enjoy shooting it, rather than just dream about being able to afford the $1200 Colt SAA.

 

[CraigC]

In the case of the SAA, it so happens that USFA builds a better SAA than Colt ever did and a comparable model to a new "4th" generation Colt is $400 less. For Colt money you can get the Pre-War model that is very, very close to the original 1st generation SAA.....only better. Head and shoulders above anything Colt has produced since before the war. I'd rather have a quality sixgun that is true to the originals, precision built with modern steel, than a famous name on an overpriced replica. In Colt's defense, the SAA has been FAAAAR better the last couple years than any 3rd generation previous. USFA is just better.

Somehow I get the feeling the same is true of AR's and 1911's. I hear lots of myths and legends but little fact. Though I would like to have a new Gold Cup, if they are as good as the SAA's.

 

[SaxonPig]

Essayons21- You are correct. I did buy several of the pictured guns many years ago. When I got the AR there were no clones on the market. Same with the HK. Not true with the other models. I am not wedded to always choosing the original marque but I at least consider it.

Shear stress- I will not dignify your comment with a reply. Have a nice day.

 

[goon]

The other side - What does the original offer me that the "replica" doesn't?
I'm a shooter. I don't really feel the need to pay more money for something if all it gets me is bragging rights. I'd spend the extra money on ammo.

 

[awgrizzly]

Collectors vs shooters... some of us are both

 

[EddieNFL]

My AR15? Colt.

If you want an original, sell the Colt and start looking for an Armalite.

 

[therewolf]

Not being an expert or anything, I was going to mention that the ORIGINAL AR-15 was manufactured by Armalite: however, IT was rushed into production prior to a safe evaluation and test period, and renamed the "M16" by the Army.

The first Armalite AR-15s were real pieces of crap, however, with substandard firing chambers and parts, so you're probably better off with your Colt, which, though unoriginal, is a much better quality weapon of the same design.

IMO, many of us poor folk just can't "keep up with the Joneses" and pay the rather inflated cost created by reputation and demand for some manufacturers, like Colt. If we could afford it, then there'd be no point in discussing alternatives, would there?

For example: Springfield makes a respectable 1911A1 at about half the cost of a Colt of the same type.

 

[hso]

That's nice, but there never were that many "original" FALs or H&K military rifles in the U.S. and they were pricey. There are even fewer real original selective fire ones, if you want to get picky about it, and they're exceptionally pricey.

Also, the FAL was made in many countries under license from FN and on FM equipment so who's to say the Imbel isn't an original?

Given the opportunity I'd be happy to add an FN FAL to my collection, but the price is just not warranted if you're a shooter.

OTOH, I do have a Colt SP-1 as does my wife (that we shoot). She has a pre-B CZ 75, but prefers her .45 Tangoglio. I have a couple of ord marked Colt 1911s and a couple of WWII FN P35s as well as a couple of Inglis HPs, but I'd rather shoot my 70 Series Satin Nickel Commander or Paras or my FM Detective HP or BHP 2-tone . Its all in whether you want to shoot them or collect them (OR both).

 

[cleardiddion]

I think you're nuts, because as a psychology major, I think everyone is nuts.

Best quote ever.

 

[XxWINxX94]

I read and hear discussions about purchasing new firearms and nobody ever seems to even discuss buying the original.

I agree 100%.
While cost is a factor, there are some deals to be had. I know some of the Uberti revolvers and rifles run as much new, as old Winchesters and Colts do old. Granted they won't be in the same condition, but you can still say you have "the original," and that, to me, is alot better than saying "I have the copy." However I'm more of a collector, but I shoot my share too.

 

[Hatterasguy]

I prefer an original as well, since I like to collect firearms. I want a good example with all its faults, they also tend to hold their value better.

Sadly my state is still under the assault weapons ban so I'm somewhat limited by name. Ie I can't own an FN Fal, but a DSA version is perfectly fine, or a G3 is illegal but a PTR91 isn't.

Lame.

 

[EddieNFL]

The first Armalite AR-15s were real pieces of crap, however, with substandard firing chambers and parts, so you're probably better off with your Colt, which, though unoriginal, is a much better quality weapon of the same design.

Since you brought it up...

There are lots of 1911 manufacturers I choose over Colt. Same for ARs and I would take a Freedom Arms over a Colt SAA, but I have little interest in collecting.

Don't misunderstand, if a relative left me a first generation SAA or some other historical piece, I would treasure it till I left it to my kids, but I'm not looking to run out and buy one.

 

[ToBNamedl8r]

I collect books and I want first editions for resale and cheap reprints to read. I guess if I collected guns I might want originals, but right now I want my guns to be utilitarian and therefore affordable. I can see both sides of this but I think most folks are out for purpose and value rather than collectability and investment.

 

[awgrizzly]

I have a pair of Colt percussion revolvers made by Colt. I have a Colt Navy Conversion made by Cimarron, which isn't a real Colt but helps illustrate a tale. I have a Colt SAA, made by Colt. I intend to purchase a S&W Number 3 Schofield replica. I don't have plans to shoot any of these. I shoot others.

I wish I had a true Colt Conversion and Schofield, but alas I must make due. The above represents a story of the old West, the development of the revolver and famous competition between Colt and S&W. That's the value to me, what I enjoy. I have other stories stashed in my vault as well.

Though it's true that a modern S&W double action is a better gun than all of the above and less expensive, it would not serve the same purpose. To each their own.