Yet another SAA clone? Yup. Finally here.

[StrikeEagle]

Any of you guys fondle a SAA from U.S. Fire Arms manufactured at the old colt plant? Fit and finish is superb, those guys are making nice guns, never shot one though.

Yup! I have one in .38 Spl... and it's about perfect. I cannot imagine the STI actually being 'better'. I'm really curious what the general opinion will be once some knowledgeable sixgunners have compared USFA, Colt and STI.

This is my favorite type of handgun and I'm pretty excited to see what happens with it.

 

[AJD]

I would like to get my hands on a Texican and see how it feels/shoots. The "deluxe" SAA market is getting a little more crowded it seems. I really do enjoy my two USFA guns.

 

[StrikeEagle]

ALD

Good stuff there.

What are those grips? I think that's something I'd like... they appear to be walnut, but a straighter, less fancy American type. The sort of thing that was found on the original. Am I right?

 

[AJD]

They are indeed American walnut. I honestly can't tell you much more, I had purchased these revolvers through Frontier Classic Firearms and Gary Granger who also works for USFA. The grips were factory done at an additional cost. They do appear similar to the grips found on USFA Inspector series guns excpet they don't have the inspector markings on them.

I go both ways with the hard rubber grips. On the one hand that is the most common grip that we see on the SAA so it does look "correct" but at the same time I find hard rubber to be about as plain and boring a material as you could possibly but on a SAA.

The Turnbull CCH on the frame and hammer, the beautifully polished Turnbull charcoal blue finish and the perfectly fit and nicely done walnut grips sure do make for one nice looking sixgun.

I also prefer smooth grips to checkered on single action revolvers. These are both .38 Special as well.

 

[Kman]

AJD, do you shoot these two? and if so are you seeing a turn line on the cylinder?

 

[AJD]

I've put around 150 rounds through each. All FMJ 130 grain. 7.5" shoots dead on and the 4.75" seems to shoot these a bit low and maybe a tad to the left. Then again its probably just me not being able to control the shorter barrel length as well as the 7.5".

These pictures were taken a few days ago and so far I have seen no turn ring at all. I have also brought the hammer to full cock and lowered it probably at least another hundred times on both. They look beautiful and cost a pretty penny but I don't shy for handling and shooting them without worrying about it. The only tiny hint of wear would be in the cylinder notches which is caused when you bring it to full cock and the cylinder is locked into place. Even then you have to look very close to see anything.

If your thinking about a USFA now would be the time. Go to their website and you will see they are offering a rebate on a number of there single action revolvers.

 

[Hawk]

I'm really curious what the general opinion will be once some knowledgeable sixgunners have compared USFA, Colt and STI.

Well, I'm nowhere near knowledgeable on revolvers generally or SAA clones specifically but Santa has provided a Turnbull and I can offer a couple layman type observations:

I believe the Turnbull Cowboy Classic is a USFA SA in all regards except the hammer is colored and it's in carbona blue. This may or may not be more along the lines of the USFA "pre-war". Anyhow, it's pretty.

The CCH is nice on both - not surprising as it's Turnbull on both. Both make the Uberti look a bit anemic by comparison. It's my understanding that CCH wears and fades quickly so this may be a temporary distinction.

When side-by-side, it's apparent the STI cylinder flutes are shorter and shallower than those on the Turnbull and the STI lacks any sort of bevel on the front of the cylinder. The Turnbull doesn't have the pronounced bevel which I understand is available to simulate early Colts but it still seems "more beveled" than the STI. I'd assume the USFA to be the more historically accurate but this is an assumption. Subjectively, the USFA cylinder treatment seems more attractive. I don't know if the STI's flutes are capable of causing distress in the more traditional minded. Ratty photo notwithstanding, the difference in cylinder treatment should be obvious in the attached pic.

The frames seem to be of a mildly different profile not noticeable unless side-by-side.

The Turnbull's lockup is tight. I had commented on the STI being solid but that was in comparison to the Uberti and Ruger. The USFA isn't giving up much, if anything, in this regard.

The STI has a "floating" firing pin not unlike the Uberti, the Turnbull's pin doesn't move. I have less than no clue if one way is preferable to the other.

The STI's trigger has less creep and is lighter than the USFA's. General operation also seems a good deal smoother but I've been known to confuse "light" with "smooth" before. I get the impression the STI feels like a USFA that's spent some time with a good SAA 'smith.

Personally, I'd give a slight aesthetic edge to the Turnbull/USFA and a slight functional edge to the STI but I can't picture anyone being unhappy with either.

Both are, no doubt, "shooter limited". Someone else will have to try to detect differences in accuracy.

 

[Pilot]

I've got the standard USFA Rodeo in .45 Colt. I can tell you it is one finely made pistol. Very accurate for this type of gun also. Its not as pretty as its case hardened brethren, but it does the job nicely. The Rodeo is priced more closely to a Ruger Vaquero than a Colt, STI or USFA's prettier guns. If you are looking for an SAA the Rodeo is a good compromise between the Rugers and Colt's, STI's. I paid $450 NIB for my Rodeo, but that was a couple of years ago. I know they have gone up a bit, but believe they are still sub $700 if you shop around.