|
|
Post by jplower on Apr 6, 2011 12:46:22 GMT -5
Here's some real case color and military blue
Could not get the photos to load, can anyone help?
Thanks
JPL
|
|
|
|
Post by thomasmblack on Apr 6, 2011 17:24:05 GMT -5
I am rather fond of my USFA in 44 Special. It is wonderfully accurate and better made than the Colt NF that I bought back in the early 80's. I have always felt that when you bought a Colt you were buying a lot of name but this is just my 2 cents worth.  Tom Black |
|
Hobie
.30 Stingray
Posts: 206
|
Post by Hobie on Apr 6, 2011 20:27:36 GMT -5
Well, this topic just won't die, will it? I guess I can add that I was looking at a Colt 4-3/4" blue and color-case .45 Colt where I work (so I LOTS of time to examine it) and just can't get excited enough (after years of wanting to get one) to put down $1275 for it. The fit of the stocks isn't as good as my USFA of the same configuration and finish and I'm not a fan of the "muted" color case.
|
|
|
|
Post by maxcactus on Apr 6, 2011 21:13:24 GMT -5
Okay, that was just plain funny!!
And where, JPLOWER, are you finding Colts for LESS $$ than a USFA? There must be one heck of a line going out that fella's front door! And if those criticisms you leveled at the USFAs are the worst you can do, I'll take a dozen, thank you! And if we could FIND a "real antique Colt cavalry" model, I think it would set us back quite a bit more than any USFA, especially in like condition! ;D
USFAs are outstanding tools in virtually every way and there's no need for comparison. The differences are so miniscule as to be unnoticeable and insignificant.
Max.
|
|
|
|
Post by jplower on Apr 6, 2011 23:13:07 GMT -5
Well Max, if they are so insignificant, it's just personal taste that makes us buy one or the other. If all things are practically equal, there's little left to compare except why there are two sixgun manufactures in CT instead of one, AND a market for both! It's really interesting to see the loyalty USFA owners have for the company, something that Colt should acknowledge. They would love that market share. The sad thing is that they start out with better materials, specs and processes than USF and then allow janitors to get into the production line with no training. I have been in the plant and seen it all, worked in the custome shop for four days on prototypes, talked with the supervisors and empolyees, watched as union labor squabbled over job bids, training schedules and retirement demands. The company has a terrible problem on its hands and still manages to turn out a great product. USF has none of those worries. Colt still prides itself on using US made materials, in spite of the Italian black powder parts. The uproar over that years ago in magazine articles caused them to drop the Italian connection. They have been taking bids from outside contractors for parts like barrels and cylinders, small shops right in our back yards, in order to beat the union malaise. And then there's the history of the company. For all these reasons, I'll buy the Colt first. The rich kid who decides to build look alikes for a hobby did not help shape our history, but his own. But that's America, and he is making modern history for us to enjoy as much as we do Colts. Bless them both.
|
|
|
|
Post by wheelgun on Apr 6, 2011 23:47:24 GMT -5
Anybody hear about a Custer gun Colt was going to bring out a few years back? Did it ever get off the ground?
|
|
|
|
Post by CraigC on Apr 7, 2011 10:06:27 GMT -5
Well Max, if they are so insignificant, it's just personal taste that makes us buy one or the other. If all things are practically equal, there's little left to compare except why there are two sixgun manufactures in CT instead of one, AND a market for both! It's really interesting to see the loyalty USFA owners have for the company, something that Colt should acknowledge. They would love that market share. The sad thing is that they start out with better materials, specs and processes than USF and then allow janitors to get into the production line with no training. I have been in the plant and seen it all, worked in the custome shop for four days on prototypes, talked with the supervisors and empolyees, watched as union labor squabbled over job bids, training schedules and retirement demands. The company has a terrible problem on its hands and still manages to turn out a great product. USF has none of those worries. Colt still prides itself on using US made materials, in spite of the Italian black powder parts. The uproar over that years ago in magazine articles caused them to drop the Italian connection. They have been taking bids from outside contractors for parts like barrels and cylinders, small shops right in our back yards, in order to beat the union malaise. And then there's the history of the company. For all these reasons, I'll buy the Colt first. The rich kid who decides to build look alikes for a hobby did not help shape our history, but his own. But that's America, and he is making modern history for us to enjoy as much as we do Colts. Bless them both. Sorry gent but USFA has been using domestically sourced parts for 10-11yrs. Your posts are so full of misinformation I do not even know where to begin. You obviously don't know what you're talking about, your information is incorrect and/or outdated and you have an axe to grind. If you wanna buy nothing but Colt's, have at it, nobody's gonna fight you for them. Personally, I'd rather spend LESS on a better sixgun, built more precisely out of BETTER materials than MORE for just a name. Because these days, all Colt is is a name and they're banking on that famous name. The current Colt is as much a replica of the original as any other. There is FAR more spirit of the original 1st generation guns in a USFA Pre-War, as well as features and finishes, than a new Colt. At least they have been trying to build a better SAA in the last couple years because most 3rd generation SAA's are atrocious for a $1200 gun. PS, there's a very good reason why Hamilton Bowen builds his $10-$15,000 Keith #5 replicas on new USFA Flat-Top Target models and not Colt New Frontiers. They are better places to start and don't require as much work. |
|
mikied
.240 Incinerator
Posts: 18
|
Post by mikied on Apr 7, 2011 11:13:31 GMT -5
Craig - I had heard that Colt quality has improved in the last few years. Is this not true? Not arguing with you, just wanting information. I have saved up and am comtemplating buying a nice single action. I currently have some Rugers, but just wanted to 'step up' a bit. However, my money is hard-earned, as is most, and I want to get the right thing the first time.
|
|
|
|
Post by jplower on Apr 7, 2011 11:14:47 GMT -5
Craig, if this is true, why has it taken USF 10 years to reduce the diameter of their cylinders and the frame window, which have the identical dimensions of the Italian clones? These have been Italian, and no matter what USF says, unless they prduce a parts manefest for you that proves otherwise, there's no other reason for this size mistake at such a prestigous firm dedicated to making the legend live. Plus, there are no forgings in their guns, all flat stock milled to spec. The book is out on which is stronger.
As far as "spirit" in the USFA, to give it that classic look which makes the spirit, the sight needs to be shaped properly, the hammer needs better shaping, the casecolors are too gaudy and not even hard, the grip profile is still Italian, the top strap is nearly as thick as a Ruger, not a graceful antique look, the varnished frame is not authentic, the triggerguard shape is all wrong. They claim interchangibility, but Colt screws won't fit into the straps because the holes are too small, another Italian feature. Oh yes, and there's that missing four letter word.
Be honest about Bowen, he builds them from USFs brecause of availability and cost. There are very few NF Colts out there to buy, not to mention the soft frame whcih makes it easy to work, as would any good craftman. But, I bless both companies and have no bias, just like to lay it out for all to see. I hope one of the firms gets it really together and makes a truly authentic sixgun that any collector would be proud to own. I know I would.
|
|
|
|
Post by CraigC on Apr 7, 2011 12:24:58 GMT -5
Who cares about the diameter? It results in a stronger sixgun and I have no issue with that. They are certainly NOT using Uberti parts and the fact that they are the same diameter as Uberti's design is not proof of such. They are cut from barstock, in-house. The frames are cut from domestically sourced forgings, not Uberti. The hammers, triggers and all the other parts are cut from barstock, in-house. Brian Pearce has proved how strong these guns are by rechambering .44Spl's to .44Mag. If you really think that Colt frames are stronger, prove it.
The frames are hardened and brilliantly colored, protected by a clearcoat. Not varnish but clear lacquer. If you don't like it and would prefer muted colors along with a ham-handed polishing job, spend another $200 and buy a Colt.
If you take such exception to the miniscule differences between these guns and 1st generation Colt's, then you must REALLY despise the new Colt's. Particularly the 3rd generation triggerguard shape. At least USFA gives you the option of an authentic 1st generation replica, complete with carbona blue finish, blackpowder frame and color cased hammer. All Colt gives you is hot salt blue and a white-sided hammer.
An overly thick topstrap???
Bowen builds them on USFA's because they are the most suitable. On my planet New Frontiers are relatively common and readily available. The problem is that most 3rd generation guns are overpolished and in his words, not worth saving. He also procures them in the white, therefore they are not hardened. If the current USFA's were Uberti parts, why wouldn't Bowen just save some money and build a $15,000 engraved and carved ivory stocked custom sixgun from $300 Uberti Flat-tops???
The bottom line is that USFA builds a better SAA than Colt does. Your argument is manufactured and full of holes. No bias? Please, don't insult my intelligence. You may or may not have something to say but right now, all you look like is a troll with an axe to grind. Spreading lies and misinformation.
|
|
mec
.240 Incinerator
Posts: 7
|
Post by mec on Apr 7, 2011 12:45:43 GMT -5
45 2010 1.6-1.63! 45 1998 1.6-1.5 .45 1957 1.52-1.51 .45 1910 1.42-1.38 .45 1882 1.47-1.42 usfa PreWar/Uberti 1.6 Tho older ones have a rear to front taper. My new one has a front to rear taper. The 1910 Colt cylinder will fit and function in the USFA but not vice-versa. None of the colts have been refinished and have original measurements. At the time Bowen wrote Custom Revolvers, the USFAs were in transition from Italian to Domestic manufacture. At that time, he recommended replacing the uberti lockwork with Colt. Also, at that time, he preferred USFA quality to Colt- though Colt has improved across the board in recent years. The cylinder throat measurements on my new Colt SAA are .452" rather than the extremely large measurements on fairly recent ones. I do not know if this is a fluke or not. I get almost exactly the same accuracy from the Colt as from the Pre-War though I haven't bothered shooting it from the bench or even two-handed  With WWI Colt reissue at 25 yards "NRA" slowfire |
|
|
|
Post by jplower on Apr 7, 2011 13:47:57 GMT -5
Craig, bottom line is that USFs are nothing more than pretty clones with the same dimensions as the Uberties for triple the money. If you feel comfortable buying them, that's OK. I've said bless both shops. If strength was a factor relative to size, Colt would have increased their cylinders diameter years ago. I don't think your that niave to believe that USF would not tap a cheap, available source for parts from Italy when everyone else is doing the same thing. If you have been at their plant and have see the stock and processes, and are convinced that the bar and flat stock is not from Italy, fine. If not, go look, and while you're at it, try the gouge test on one of your USF casehardened frames if you dare, you have 50% chance of getting a soft one. You can take a gun writer's opinion with a grain of salt, they write wonderful stuff about nearly every gun they get just for the freebees. And please, stop with the childish name calling, civility needs to be maintained here. Frankly, if all the efforts at throwing accolades about USF had been put on Colt, (public pressure), they would have made pleanty of changes. They are thick over there in the marketing department and only move after brick walls fall, but they do move.
|
|
|
|
Post by brionic on Apr 7, 2011 15:56:30 GMT -5
"Be honest about Bowen, he builds them from USFs brecause of availability and cost."
This is laughable and absurd. Mr. Bowen builds what his customers want to pay for.
Your comments are suspicious and your screen name is fictitious. Why not state your name and credentials? Then perhaps you might be taken seriously. Otherwise, PLONK.
|
|
cj3a
.30 Stingray
Posts: 403
|
Post by cj3a on Apr 7, 2011 20:00:42 GMT -5
Little to easy to blame the unions for Colts problems. Colts poor management started the whole industry of building AR-15's, 1911's and Single actions. Ruger, Les Bear, Bushmaster and others are laughing to the bank each day for there failures.
|
|
|
|
Post by jplower on Apr 7, 2011 20:14:10 GMT -5
I am being taken seriously judging by all the comments. Hamilton is as cost conscience as any other gunsmith or businessman. Suspicion generally indicates there's truth lurking between the lines. When all the fictitous names here are changed to the real ones, I'll join you. Until then, you experts can chew on my comments and do some research. Don't believe all you read in magazine articles, they are written by persons who enjoy receiving favors from those they write about. Every magazine has a disclaimer regarding any data published as it relates to shooting. There are no guarantees of total honesty or integrity. Most of the time, they print what will sell products. It's business as usual, and the reader shoujld choose to be informed with many sources, not just one or two.
|
|
