silicosys4
Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2012
- Messages
- 3,720
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
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
Attachments
Last edited: