SAA Comparison: Colt 2nd Gen Vs USFA

[silicosys4]

Some time ago I purchased a USFA Single Action .44 spcl 5 1/2". A 100% USA made USFA case colored revolver was one of my bucket guns, I was reading Elmer Keith's "Hell I was there" at the time so the .44spcl being his preferred cartridge for the SAA and the fact that I was already set up to reload .44spcl made sense when I found this one at auction in LNIB condition with being sold by the original owner who only wanted the same price the bought it for. It was listed it as a buy-it-now auction so I gave it a good look, made sure it was 100% USA made, then hammered that buy it now button. I was not disappointed when it came, and it is a pleasure to look at, handle, and shoot.



While the USFA gave me an appreciation for a finely crafted SAA's, it also gave me an itch for a genuine Colt SAA. My first exposure to single actions and revolvers in general came from the 1981 move "The Legend of the Lone Ranger". I remember thinking that the nickel SAA that the Lone Ranger carried was the coolest looking gun ever made.

Flash forward 30 years or so. I walk into a LGS that I rarely visit because its tends to have higher prices than elsewhere in town, and certainly higher than I can find online. I was there to buy some Unique powder that I'd found there for a decent price, and lo and behold found my second bucket revolver, a genuine Colt SAA in pretty decent shape, a 1969 production nickel 4 3/4" gunfighter barrel length just like I remember from my youth. It was in.357 which I quiet honestly prefer over the .45 colt because I'm already well invested in .357 and .38spcl reloading components and gear. It was a decent price, The box looked amazing, and I had the money. So when my fiancee told me I should get it, that was all the convincing it took.





According to what I've read, depending on your source, the 2nd gen Colt SAA's, particularly the early to mid range 2nd gen SAA's, are arguably the highest quality Colt SAA's ever made, surpassed only perhaps by the late 3rd gen SAA's.
USFA's have the reputation of being one of the finest SAA clones made, perhaps even surpassing Colt in quality. I have seen online discussions about the comparisons in quality between the two, USFA and Colt, with varying opinions either way, each with merit.

However, I have not seen an actual comparisons between a Colt and a USFA, and I personally am kind of surprised by the comparison in quality. Yes, this is and anecdotal study, but I think it does illustrate a few worthwhile points. After having both in my hands, my opinion definitely leaning one way as to which gun is the better built specimen.

So I thought it would be interesting to compare the two. This comparison will primarily focus on the quality of manufacture in the fit and finish of each gun. As far as the accuracy and shootability of both guns, that will have to come later when I have the time to take both to the range.

First off, lets compare the quality of finish on the guns. The finish on the USFA is, in a word, flawless. With gorgeous case coloring by Turnbull done in the traditional bone and charcoal method, the USFA is genuinely an art piece.




Pictures don't do the case coloring justice, it really has to be seen in person or photographed with a much better setup than I have to be appreciated.

The Colt is also very nicely finished. Granted, the Colt is 40 or so years older than the USFA and was definitely shot a fair amount, but it was well taken care of and still has a lot of unmarred finish left on the frame.



Where they differ are on a few area of the frame and cylinder.
The frame inside the hammer channel on the Colt is unpolished,



While the USFA is slightly more polished


Not a huge difference, but definitely more polishing time spent on the USFA.

Also visible in the two above pictures are the grip frame to frame fit. The USFA is definitely tighter, with a seam between the two that is so tight it is hard to actually see any kind of gap, while the Colt has a tactile, definable seam between the grip frame and the frame. I am not sure that this is a completely fair comparison, as the nickel plating would add thickness to the fitted frames of the Colt, making a seamless fit difficult if not impossible.

The next area I would like to compare is the hammer fit in the hammer channel of each frame.
Compare the Colt



to the USFA



The hammer to frame fit is visibly tighter on the USFA.

Another point of comparison is the hammer to grip frame fit.
Here on the Colt you can see the frame of the gun is proud of the back hump of the hammer while on the USFA it is a flush fit. (sorry for the watermarks from here on out)




While both have hammer to frame drag marks, the Colt actually has less pronounced drag marks than the USFA.



Vs



Another noticeable difference is the finish on the rear cylinder face.
Colt



Vs USFA



Here is the biggest difference though, and its one that I'm really quiet quiet disappointed in the Colt for. There is a large gap between the front of the Colt's trigger guard and the frame. Like, this big.



The screw is as tight as I dare to turn it. This was a huge letdown for me. I know this is an anecdotal case and is probably and anomoly in colt quality of that era, but I wouldn't accept this kind of gap in a new Uberti and I'd return something like this in a newly produced gun.
This is the biggest difference between the USFA and the Colt, that of the fitment between the frame and trigger guard. The Colt is like this, while the USFA is seamless and perfect.



Look at that seamless line. You can run your fingernail over the USFA and not find a seam whereupon the Colt has obvious and tactile seams that are unacceptable to me even for a nickel plated gun. I can live with it but I know it will always be there.



So thats it in a nutshell. The USFA is the irrefutable winner in a comparison in machining and assembly quality between these two particular examples. While I'm still mostly happy with the Colt, I'm even happier with the USFA

 

[bannockburn]

silicosys4

Congrats on the single action acquisitions! That color case hardening on the USFA is definitely this side of awesome while the late '60s, nickel plated Colt is still worth the price of admission!

Enjoy your good fortune and let us know how they compare at the range!

 

[ontarget]

Beautiful pair of SAAs. Both gorgeous. Nice to be able to compare side by side.

 

[magyars4]

Excellent analysis.
Thanks for the write up and pictures

 

[unclenunzie]

Those pictures took a lot of time and I appreciate the comparative detail level you have shared. Enjoy them both in good health.

 

[.38 Special]

Thanks for that, Silico. I hope you will continue the write-up with function and accuracy testing.

 

[LightninST]

Thanks for the pics and write up !
Congratulations on owning 2 great examples of the Colt SAA .

 

[The Bushmaster]

And now we will have a short discussion of a 1966 Colt SAA in .357 Mag. Ser #418XXSA.

You must have a newer Colt then mine as all the discrepancies you have mentioned in your evaluation are not present in my second generation 4 3/4" Colt that I purchased new in 1966. The only thing different is that the [once] beautiful case hardened frame has faded over the years. My Colt has seen thousands of rounds (mostly hand loads) ran through it and has taken two Blacktail deer. Even after all these years of use on the range and in the mountains the fit and finish is still better then your Colt (except for the wear and tear character scratches and such). It still locks up tight.

The only thing that I have changed is the grip panels. The original panels were damaged when I did an "unautorized" dismount from a horse.

 

[CraigC]

Great sixguns, both of them! You really have to have a late model USFA and take it apart to appreciate just how good the machine and finish work are. They are literally almost as nice on the inside as the outside. For me, a domestic USFA with new springs feels like a finely tuned precision instrument. While a professionally tuned SAA feels just like a Uberti. There are some Colt's that I want, particularly some 2nd generation .44Spl's "just because" but they will pale in comparison to the USFA's I already own. That's okay. I love them all!

 

[AustinTX]

What a great review! Thank you for taking the time.

I haven't handled hundreds of Colt SAAs or anything, but I have seen a number of them across many decades of production. From everything I've seen, your conclusions hold generally as well. A late-model USFA is a truly remarkable piece of craftsmanship. I'd still like to pick up the right Colt SAA at some point to join my USFA.

Such a shame that USFA essentially offed itself by going all-in on that idiotic Zip gun. Though perhaps they were already in trouble before that.

You really have to have a late model USFA and take it apart to appreciate just how good the machine and finish work are. They are literally almost as nice on the inside as the outside.

True!

 

[Dave T]

According to what I've read, depending on your source, the 2nd gen Colt SAA's, particularly the early to mid range 2nd gen SAA's, are arguably the highest quality Colt SAA's ever made, surpassed only perhaps by the late 3rd gen SAA's.

Years ago I fortunate enough to own 6 First Generation Colts. During that time frame I owned, handled and fired a number of 2nd Generation Colts. Sorry but there's no comparison. A SAA produced in the late black powder period or the early smokeless years is much more like your USFA than your Colt, or any 2nd Gen Colt I every handled.

Any yes, people will differ on this point of view but that's my experience with Colts. I currently own a number of US sourced USFA revolvers, all in 45 Colt. If you include chamber mouth measurements for guns chambered in 45 Colt, USFA beats even the better 1st Gen Colts. The ones I had measured anywhere from .454" to .457" (sometimes on the same cylinder) and this held true for 2nd Gen guns as well. All the late production USFAs I own measure .452"-.4525".

YMMV,
Dave

 

[CraigC]

A SAA produced in the late black powder period or the early smokeless years is much more like your USFA than your Colt, or any 2nd Gen Colt I every handled.

I agree 100%. This is a well put together gun for a 3rd generation but the bright polish and hot salt bluing makes it a long way from an early gun.



The USFA Pre-war is just a lot closer to the blackpowder guns than any 3rd generation. Unless it's a custom shop gun ordered with period correct finishes, which seem to be few and far between.

 

[Steve S.]

I have a sequential set of 3 USFA revolvers in .45 Colt; at the time, it was obvious to me that the USFA revolvers were amazingly superior to the Colt quality I owned at the time. So my Colts went and the USFA revolvers were ordered/ purchased - in turn, I am fairly confident that I have the only three sequential standard revolvers equipped with Bisley CC hammers in existence - I still have them to this day and they are not going anywhere. In my perfect world, my USFA revolvers would show the Pony logo but alas, they do not. I am very pleased with my USFA revolvers - classic perfection.

 

[Rexster]

Congratulations, silicosys4! Beautiful sixguns!

I have largely convinced myself that my several USFA Single Actions, including one Turnbull-finished, make it unnecessary to acquire any “real” Colt SAA sixguns, and that if I just really must have a Colt-manufactured revolver, I will get much more value for my dollars by finding a nice DA Colt.

 

[.455_Hunter]

It's really too bad that USFA went the way of the .22 Zip.

 

[1KPerDay]

It's really too bad that USFA went the way of the .22 Zip.

Yeah. A true tragedy.

 

[CraigC]

Truly. From what I've gathered, they tried to do too much in house. Towards the end, they were making their own screws and doing all their own finish work. The guns were impeccable but because of the Colt Kool Aid, they were just unable to get the asking price the guns should have commanded. They were under-appreciated and under-priced. At a time when you could order one and get it within a short time, the standard hot salt blued SAA was $800 and the super premium Pre-war was $1200. At a time when the inferior Colt was $1200. Today, that is almost unfathomable. Those two guns above cost me the same $1200 and the USFA's were blown out at CDNN. I paid a sickening $676 for my 12/22 and $500 for my Rodeo II. There is no way they made any money on them. It's not that USFA failed, the market really failed USFA. I think if they were to start up today doing what they were doing at their peak, the result would be different.

 

[Paul7]

Years ago I fortunate enough to own 6 First Generation Colts. During that time frame I owned, handled and fired a number of 2nd Generation Colts. Sorry but there's no comparison. A SAA produced in the late black powder period or the early smokeless years is much more like your USFA than your Colt, or any 2nd Gen Colt I every handled.

Makes sense, my pre-war Colt DA revolvers are superior to later models.

I thought the USFAs had blued sides to the hammer like early Colts. The OP one does not, am I missing something?

I haven't had a chance to handle a USFA but my Colt SAA is superior to the clones I've had.

 

[1KPerDay]

That's sad to hear. It's like they were 2 or 3 years ahead of the market. If they could have just held on and "stuck to their guns" it might be a different story. Such a weird end to the company though.

 

[The Bushmaster]

That's what's nice about my Colt SAA that I purchased new in 1966. It cost me $136. and change. My how the dollar has devalued over the years.

 

[CraigC]

Makes sense, my pre-war Colt DA revolvers are superior to later models.

I thought the USFAs had blued sides to the hammer like early Colts. The OP one does not, am I missing something?

I haven't had a chance to handle a USFA but my Colt SAA is superior to the clones I've had.

Originally they were all case colored. Later on they blued them and polished out the sides, like Colt's. Maybe more to distinguish them from the Pre-war???

 

[silicosys4]

Well, they are giving me bad news over at the Colt forum. The consensus seems to be that since the cylinder numbers do not match the serial numbers, the Colt is likely a rebuilt parts gun and was refinished at some point. I'll admit this is a surprise to me, since the markings are crisp and clear.

If that is the case, then I'm going to see if I can't return the gun for a refund. I paid too much IMO for this to be a mismatch refinished parts gun.

 

[Paul7]

Well, they are giving me bad news over at the Colt forum. The consensus seems to be that since the cylinder numbers do not match the serial numbers, the Colt is likely a rebuilt parts gun and was refinished at some point. I'll admit this is a surprise to me, since the markings are crisp and clear.

If that is the case, then I'm going to see if I can't return the gun for a refund. I paid too much IMO for this to be a mismatch refinished parts gun.

Agreed, they should have told you that and priced it accordingly.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

Sorry I have not chimed in before now, I just got finished taking some photos that may be interesting.

First off, let me say I do not own any USAF revolvers. I wish I did, but I don't. We won't go into why. I have handled a few of them over the years, I am not all that familiar with them, except what everybody says about how they were better than Colts.

I consider myself lucky enough to own four 2nd Gen Colts. All are chambered for 45 Colt.

From top to bottom, a 7 1/2" model that left the factory in 1973. I bought it probably around 15 years ago and I have shot it extensively in Cowboy Action, exclusively with ammunition loaded with Black Powder. It has some honest holster wear after all that shooting, and the colors of the Case Hardening have faded a bit, more about that in a moment. It has also been slicked up considerably and had other work done to it. The one below it also left the factory in 1973. That one is pretty much As Like New in the Box. This is the only one that came with the original box. The box has been taped up a bit, but the box does bear the correct serial number. The colors of the Case Hardening are still outstanding on this one, as will be seen in some of the following photos. Next below that is a 4 3/4" SAA that left the factory in 1963. The colors are still outstanding on it, just not as exuberant as the colors on the one above it. Last is my very favorite revolver in the world, a 2nd Gen that left the factory in 1968. Close examination will show that there is almost no blue nor case colors remaining on this revolver because somebody who owned it before me thought it would be cool to 'antique' it. This idiot even carved some notches into the grip, which a smith removed by welding some new steel into the notches. Besides being artificially antiqued, this is a parts gun. The grip frame parts are not original to that frame. And 20 years or so of my Black Powder loads have taken a toll on the finish, the barrel now has a very nice brown 'patina' and the cylinder is oxidized almost black.






The first thing I thought was interesting about the Original Poster's post was his comment about the 'hump' near the hammer not matching the contour of the hammer. Frankly, until I read this, I never even looked closely at the contour of the hump vs the shape of the hammer. I have been shooting Colts for 20 years now, and just never thought about that.

This is the 1963 4 3/4" revolver. The contour of the hump closely matches the shape of the hammer, or maybe it is the other way around. Of the four Colts, the shapes match each other better on this one than the other three. As can be seen, there are still lots of colors left on the frame.






This is the 1973 7 1/2" revolver that is almost Like New In The Box. While we're at it, let's compare the amount of colors left on this one vs the one just above. Neither one exhibits any fading, this one just has more colors than the other. Permit me to diverge just a bit to chat about the colors of Case Hardening. Without going into huge detail about the Case Hardening process, just let me say the colors are a byproduct of the process, nothing more. During the 19th Century gun manufacturers each came up with their own jealously guarded process for Case Hardening to produce the most brilliant colors possible. Other than eye appeal, the colors add nothing to the function of Case Hardening, which is to provide a hard outer surface to the relatively soft steel, to protect against wear. The colors of true Case Hardening are relatively fragile, they will fade with age, even strong sunlight can cause the colors to fade. Extensive exposure to Black Powder fouling probably causes the colors to fade, and the colors can easily be removed with strong chemicals. An application of Naval Jelly will wipe the colors right off. Anyway, getting back to the hump and the hammer shape, not as close a match up on this 2nd Gen, the hammer is a little bit proud. As far as I can tell everything inside this one is original, it has not had any 'slicking up' done to it. Everything functions fine, but the hammer spring is quite strong and the action could use a little bit of tuning.






This is the other 7 1/2" 2nd Gen from 1973. As I mentioned earlier I have been shooting this one quite a lot for about 15 years, pretty much exclusively with Black Powder. It still has nice colors, but they have faded a bit. Some nasty wear marks on the cylinder that I probably caused, even though I don't recall the particulars. Some oxidation on the sides of the hammer. Notice the fit of the hammer screw in the frame. I have never been particularly pleased with that screw, it sits a little bit proud of the frame. It should be slightly sub flush. The relationship of the 'hump' to the hammer contour is quite similar to the example above. A really good smith performed his magic on this Colt when I first got it, the hammer spring was a leaf suspension spring from a Mack Truck, and the full cock notch on the hammer had to be welded up and recut. After he performed his magic, with some other tuning thrown in, this revolver is as sweet as they come and a pleasure to shoot. Those are not the original grips, they are a pair of 2nd Gen grips from somewhere else that the Smith had laying around.






Last but not least is my old War Horse 1968 'parts gun'. Notice how nice and subflush the hammer screw is. That is the way it should be. We can see the grip frame is not a perfect match to the frame, because they did not leave the factory together. Yes, the screws are snugged up, the parts of the grip just do not match the frame perfectly. Replacement grips, and lots of internal work make this one the sweetest shooting of the bunch. Almost no case colors left, but as I said the colors are just a byproduct of the process. The outer layer of the steel is just as hard as when it left the factory.








By the way, I have to say that in my personal opinion the shape of the 'hump' on the frame and how closely it mimics the shape of the hammer is a non-issue. Clearly, the shapes have varied over the years. I will get out my 1st Gen Bisleys and we cam examine the shapes at another time.




This is the 4 3/4" 2nd Gen from 1963. A little bit of freckling on the frame below the cylinder in a spot without any color. A tiny amount of wear on the trigger guard, but the fit to the frame is perfect.






This is the almost Like New in the Box 7 1/2" 2nd Gen from 1973. The fit of the trigger guard to the frame is perfect. Yes, a teeny bit of buggering of a couple of the screws, and they do not fit absolutely perfectly. Which reminds me of the big deal a lot of folks are making these days about the screw heads on the revolvers being manufactured by Standard Manufacturing and how the screw slots are all oriented vertically. Completely unnecessary in my humble opinion.






Here is the other 7 1/2" from 1973. Yup, lots of scarring on the cylinder. Yup, that hammer screw is a real eyesore as far as I'm concerned, but I've lived with it for a long time and am not going to do anything about it. The fit of the trigger guard to the frame is perfect. Notice the spot of blue missing on the underside of the trigger guard from holster wear.






Here's my old War Horse. Yup, the fit of the trigger guard to the frame is not perfect, because like I said the grip frame has been replaced. But look how perfectly the screws are nicely sub flush. I have been inside this old girl many times, but have somehow managed to not bugger up the screw slots. Credit goes to Brownells MAGNA-TIP hollow ground screw drivers. The other thing I have always found interesting about this old girl is how much thicker the bow of the trigger guard is. Sorry, I did not measure the width in comparison with the others, so I don't know if somebody filed away some of the radius on the edges or not.






As I say, I don't own any USFA revolvers, so I am not qualified to talk about them. I will say this though. I firmly believe that every surface inside a revolver does not have to be polished to the nth degree. Only the surfaces that rub or bear against each other need to be smoothed up to reduce friction. If a particular surface of a particular part is moving through space and not interacting with another part, there is no need to smooth or polish it any more than it was when it left the factory. I did not take a photo, but there are slight milling marks on the frames of my Colts in the slots where the hammer strikes. Pretty much like the OP's photo. My personal opinion is it does not matter at all. Nothing is gained by polishing that surface, all that happens is the hammer smacks it when it falls. Polishing away the slight milling marks that are there accomplishes nothing,

 

[Steve S.]

Agreed. 100% polish and 0% manufacturing marks is impractical and aesthetically unnecessary (some areas are just never viewed or seen). My three USFA revolvers are highly finished in every nook and cranny that I can see with a flashlight (the guns guts have never seen the light of day on my watch so what I can’t see is what I can’t see to describe).
That kind of polish is a feel good thing and a costly one at that. I have had the lock off of a Shiloh Sharps I have owned in the past - the guts looked like a fine watch mechanism. Again very unnecessary but I still experienced the wow factor. Not necessary, not practical but it is somehow fulfilling to own that kind of quality as a giddy gun owner. My guns are a hobby and any enhancements to my hobby adds more enjoyment to the hobby - the fun factor.