Which SSA and why is Colt so expensive

[Lovesbeer99]

I've been looking around for an SAA and noticed that the most popular is the Ruger Vaquaro, but people still prefer Colts. If everyone had enought money they would buy Colts, it's just that colts are too expensive.

So are they worth it? will they last longer or shoot better? What about Cimarron, Uberti, Beretta?

When will Smith come out with an SAA?

 

[Drail]

For precisely the same reason that Harley Davidsons are so expensive. People are willing to pay a significant premium for a brand name.

 

[coinshooter]

US ARMS makes a good one. Ruger is a very good pick.

 

[Lovesbeer99]

I've got a bid on a Cimarron. It's made from Uberti parts, but hand fitted by Cimarron. I've heard mixed things about Uberti, but only good things about Cimarron. Go figure.

I'm just wondering, In 100 years will my Cimarron (if I win) be just as cool as a colt?

 

[Dienekes]

We have a few classic fixed sighted SAAs, the oldest being an 1882 vintage Colt. I owned a 3rd Gen.Colt .44 Special in the late 80s. Nice looking gun but the front sight was too low--a real problem--and it was not all that well put together. I decided the old one was a better gun and traded the .44 Special off. (Most of my SAA shooting was with adjustable sighted Rugers anyway.)

My wife got interested in them recently. First on her list was something in charcoal blue--"they're so pretty"--so we ordered up a Cimmarron. When we got it home I ran a patch through the barrel and the tool marks were horrible--I've thrown away better barrels. We were able to get a refund on it and she got a similar Uberti that was okay. It actually shot very well, but the internals are rough and I don't think they're all that durable either. It won't be shot a whole lot which is probably a good thing.

She just went to the other extreme and ordered a US Firearms SAA in full nickel. From what I have heard and seen of them, it ought to be at least as good as a Colt, and I suspect actually better. We'll find out as it will be an exact duplicate of the 1882 gun.

Finally, I picked up a Ruger New Vaquero gloss stainless in .45 Colt about a year ago. Indistinguishable from a Colt from a short distance away, and a hell of a nice gun; classy looking, great feel and balance, and a fine shooter. The most bang for the buck, IMHO. I don't think you could break it if you tried. Previous to that I had an OM Vaquero--bullet proof, but it was too big and clumsy to suit me.

I've been fooling with SAAs for almost 50 years now; I would happily choose the NM Vaq and have no second thoughts about it. If quality and "show and tell" are the goals (and money is no object) the USFA is awfully nice.

 

[AJD]

I guess I don't buy that you are just paying the for the Colt name.

Why does USFA cost $800+ and why does the STI Texican cost over $1000+?(Both American made)

Just the "name"?

Also Colt Manufacturing Company isn't exactly rolling over in cash. If they had such an enormous margin of profit as some suggest, then they wouldn't be using old milling machines from WWII and barely holding on. Although they did recently add CNC machinery.

My guess is that the hand labor itensive SAA design combined with American Union workers paid by the hour doesn't combine for a cheap handgun.

 

[9mmepiphany]

the finest SAA style gun i've ever handled was the Freedom Arms and a close 2nd was the USFA (which is a closer copy to the original Colt)...i haven't handled a STI yet. yes they are all expensive and domestically manufactured...part of the expense is american labour cost, but i really don't believe they is less handwork to produce (not finish) them than a Uberti.

IMO Colt doesn't rise to the level of FA or USFA and isn't much better than the Italian clones. so in my mind, you are paying for the name when you buy a Colt. however, if it's important to you, the Colt will always have better resale value

 

[AJD]

Yeah, the finish is a lot of the cost. This can be seen with the USFA Rodeo. Same exact gun just a matte blue finish and it costs around $300+ less than a blued and CCH USFA.

I've had recent Colt's and USFA's. I still have the USFA's.

 

[Pilot]

I paid $450 for a USFA Rodeo a few years ago. Hardly paying for the name.

Colts have great history and are good guns. I'd like to have one someday.

 

[vanfunk]

I've had a few 3rd generation Colts and all have been excellent shooters - accurate, reliable, well made - clearly a cut or two above the Ubertis. Were they $500 better? Dunno - that's a personal decision, unanswerable as an absolute. I can say that my recently acquired early 2nd generation Colt SAA is by far the nicest single action I've ever had the pleasure of handling, from any manufacturer. Mine even came with a factory-fitted .45ACP cylinder, for not much more than a current-production 3rd gen. would have cost. The deals are still out there for the old Colts, you just have to watch and wait, then have cash at the ready when your dream gun makes its appearance. Intrinsic value may not mean much if you're never going to sell it, but it's clear that the Colts will appreciate (or at least not diminish in value), and the Ubertis, Vaqueros, USFAs and STIs will not, no matter how well made they are. My opinion is that Colts are worth it - it's whether or not a Colt would be worth it to you that matters, and only you can answer that one. I will say, though, that if you really want a Colt, you won't be fully satisfied with anything else...

vanfunk

 

[rishooter]

Usfa/colt

I have a 2nd generation Colt in .38 Special that I shoot a lot and really like-it's dead on at 36 feet and the ammo doesn't put me in the poorhouse($7.95 for good commercial reloads-swc)-I paid $1000-it was marked $1225.
I bought a USFA .45 Blue& case colored SAA for $635.It has a "glass rod" trigger and is a pleasure to shoot.The fit and finish are equal to or better than Colts I've seen.The USFA has two parallel scratches on the frontstrap of the grip,but they arent noticeable unless you're looking for them.Both are 5.5" barrels.
I just recently bought a 5.5" barely used New Vaquero-it's ok ,except for the lack of the "4-click" action.OTOH you can carry it with 6 rounds.

 

[peacemaker45]

Colts are made from considerably better steel than the Italian guns, and finished extremely well. Neither one has the internals fit all that well.

Also, the Colt SAA isn't a mass produced gun, it's a custom shop job. Economy of scale works against them.

Nearly all cowboy style guns come more like pre-assembled kits than finished guns. I suspect that the various manufacturers are aware that the two markets they are selling to are cowboy shooters, who will have the actions finished and tuned by gunsmiths, and collectors and people looking for a curiosity, who really don't care. They're not selling service pistols.

Ruger and USFA are the only two that are particularly usable out of the box, and even they benefit dramatically from action work. The USFA, in particular should have the hand spring coiled, for reliability.

~~~Mat

 

[BigBlock]

Same reason people still pay ridiculous prices for Smith and Wesson revolvers. They're an entirely different company than they used to be - new owners, new designs, new manufacturing techniques, and that gawd awful hole in the side...but people still pay big bucks for new ones because of that big S&W stamp.

They could start stamping Taurus guns with the Colt or the S&W logo and I bet people would start paying more for them.

 

[Jim K]

For a using gun, it is hard to beat the Ruger. It is just plain more rugged and durable than any of the 1873-design competition.

But if you want tradition, I agree that USFA is about the closest you will come to the feel and look of the pre-WWII Colt SAA. The modern Colts are good, but just (IMHO) don't "feel right".

BTW, I agree that the Colt name sells their guns; they are good, but I have never bought one that I didn't need to "tune."

Jim

 

[Lovesbeer99]

Thanks for all the responses. I have a bid on a Cimarron and it all goes well, I'll win it tonight. If not, I'll just be patient.

 

[Onmilo]

Ruger Vaquero revolvers stand up far better to the fast shooting in Cowboy Action Matches.

Colt IS, and always will be, the original.
Everything else, no matter who made it, is still a copy.

Cimarron and USFA offer some of the best copies and SAA revolvers are well known for breaking springs, especially when you try to run one as fast as a double action revolver to win a match.

The originals were rarely, if ever, fired as quickly as you will see attempted in a cowboy match.

 

[PRM]

Buy American - Buy Quality

I have a Colt SAA that dates back to the 60s. The gun is an everyday carry piece and is super in all aspects. I sent it back to Colt a few years ago and had a .45 ACP cylinder fitted to it. Now, I have the capability of .45 ACP which is cheaper, and the .45 Long Colt when I want it. Do I think the Colt was worth the extra price, absolutely.

I have been shooting Ubertis since the early 80s and have had good luck with them.

I have also owned two Cimarrons and both out of the box required work. My Lightening had to have a new firing pin fabricated for it (original was too short, barely touched the primers). I could have sent it back and waited a couple of weeks - but a local gunsmith fixed the problem for $25.00 in 2 days.

The Bisley I bought from Cimarron was a different story. The final finish on the cylinder was so aggressively buffed before bluing that it would not lock up - had to be replaced. The cylinder bolt spring failed three times, the last time, less than a week after being replaced. The main spring snapped once and had to be replaced. In order to get it working right the hammer assembly was also replaced. Last, some brands of ammo would not load and required barrel sanding and re-coloring the frame at the loading gate.

The folks at Cimarron are good to deal with. I know you can get a lemon with anything touched by human hands - but that gun went off the scale.

Italian guns are ok and a lot of fun - but nothing like a Colt or USFA. To me, over a life time of owning a gun the cost difference is negligible. You get what you pay for.

 

[BigBlock]

Colt IS, and always will be, the original.
Everything else, no matter who made it, is still a copy.

I'd have to say some of the copies are more original than the actual Colts. Isn't it USAF that bought the old Colt factory and is making guns on original Colt equipment? Even Colt can't claim that, and the current production SAA is totally different than the one from the 1870s.

So in that regard, the only REAL Colt that isn't a copy is the very first original ones Colt made.

Although I do agree, speaking of revolvers in general, everything else revolver is a copy of a Colt. I also think if you're going to buy a copy of a famous American firearm, it should be made in the USA regardless of brand.

 

[Lovesbeer99]

Well I just won my first SAA at auction. It's a Cimarron Model P Pre-War model in 357 with 5 1/2 inch barrel. Barrel and cylinder are blue and the rest is case hardened (not sure if it's actual or just a case hardened finish but I'll find out soon enough). It has the wood grips with the medalion. I won it for for 315.00 and the owner says he was the only owner and it only has 50 rounds through it. He has a few items up for sale so he either lost his job, or decieded to move to Austrailia. Either way I wish him luck. Just hope I'm not getting scammed cause he has no current feedback.

If I like the SAA style and feel the need, I can always get a colt later.

 

[22-rimfire]

Hope you enjoy it. I believe Colts are better, but you pay a lot for the slightly better revolver. Rugers are just fine too.

 

[dwave]

Why so expensive? There are 4 reasons:

1.C
2.O
3.L
4.T

Its in the name.

 

[RippinSVT]

IF I had a real Colt SAA, it would stay in my safe, warm and cozy. I don't know why, but I've read how revered they are for years and I don't think I could bring myself to actually USE one.

That being said, I just bought a New Vaquero in .357 with the case-coloring and 5.5" barrel. I'm pretty much in love with it.

 

[Hawk]

I'd have to say some of the copies are more original than the actual Colts. Isn't it USAF that bought the old Colt factory and is making guns on original Colt equipment? Even Colt can't claim that, and the current production SAA is totally different than the one from the 1870s.

Actually, USFA moved out of the historic building and is using CNC extensively. They're still in Hartford so perhaps this is a nit-pick.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Fire_Arms

Economies of computer-driven machining could only be realized if the machinery could fit through the door, but the historic brick armory was not accommodating in this regard. USFA purchased a new site in late 2001 (its current 4-acre (16,000 m2) campus) to expand operations in Hartford, and until 2003 maintained both the historic Armory and the new facility for the production of Lightning magazine rifles, new Model 1910 automatics, and its historically accurate Single Action Army revolvers. The historic Colt Armory was sold to investors represented by Goodrich Corporation in 1997 and was divested in about 2001 to Homes for America's Robert & Rebecca McFarlane.

The post-2003 current production Colt has the removable bushing that some would say makes it closer to the 2nd generation than the earlier 3rd generation production. There is that matter of the white hammer and hot-salt bluing which would arguably make the USFA Pre-war and the Turnbull Open Range closer copies of the first generation product.

However, one will pay dearly for the Turnbull Open Range - it's up considerably from the Turnbull finished USFA Cowboy Classic.

"Paying for the name" in the case of the Colt certainly seems plausible but I'm not sure it's accurate. Both STI and Turnbull have less well known names and charge more for their copies - a little in the case of the STI and a lot in Turnbull's case.

Of the close copies with similar finishes made in the U.S. Colt's pricing seems competitive. They're priced just under a USFA Pre-war level for a "Single Action" level of finish but they do barely slide under STI and make it under Turnbull's pricing without even having to duck.

Of the not-so-close copies, Colt's is generally well under Freedom Arms and well over Ruger. It's identical to neither. The Freedom Arms is worth the tariff and Ruger is worth its price.

IME, the Italian stuff is much improved over that of several decades ago - I had one made with an alloy so magical it could be both brittle and soft at the same time - but that was a long time ago.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Thanks for all the responses. I have a bid on a Cimarron and it all goes well, I'll win it tonight. If not, I'll just be patient.

I have a Cimarron and it shoots fine, been totally reliable, and has a nice looking finish.

For a low volume shooter it's great.

 

[cinteal]

I'm just wondering, In 100 years will my Cimarron (if I win) be just as cool as a colt?

No. You bought a piece of junk. You should be ashamed. Replica . . . .

Now a scoundrel like me, nobody would think I could do better. And, not being all bad . . . I'll give you $2.50 for it.

The answer really is, "no". I don't see the US Military issuing single actions again, and there are few peacekeeprs today that use peacekeeprs. The Cimarron just won't have the history of the Colts. But with the money you saved, you can shoot more rounds in the fine gun you bought, or your great, great grandchildren will have a slightly bigger inheritance in 100 yrs