Colt DA or Colt SAA

cory moffat

cory moffat

Member
Rating - 100%
24   0   0
Location
Chief Lake Prince George BC
I am thinking about my next antique in 41 colt. I would appreciate any info on the colt double action and SAA you can offer. Are they any good? Why is there such a price difference between the two. I am looking for something to bush carry.

I take good care of my guns so it will last. I want to get the most reliable revolver.
 
Maybe it's just my personal bias speaking, but generally the earlier Colt double-action revolvers had reputations for being (1) too fragile, (2) too difficult to work on internally, or (3) both.


Plus, the SAA's commands a huge price premium for their being "real" Western guns, thanks to Hollywood.
 
As mentioned .41 Colt was made for Colts first double action...the Thunderer which proved to be less than reliable, it is also a very difficult round to reload for as it is a heeled bullet.
 
If you've not handled one yet, the Thunderer is rather dimunitive, size wise.
The 1889 and 1892's are medium frames at best.
But if you are the type of fellow that has a fairly decent understanding of equipment / machines, you will do fine with any of the aforementioned Colts. Realizing of course that they are delicate; definitely not a tank like a SAA.
I've got to have put 500-600 rds through my '89. Realizing that is a BBQ gun not a primary tool or 'Bear Defence weapon' ( definite sarcasm font here )
BBQ gun meaning at the Family affair (or is this a Sask only tradition...?) in the country when the cousins break out the rifles the next day to show off ( and shoot cans or such ) you have a definite one-up'er.
And I myself have not tried the heeled bullet; I use the HB, which is easy enough but requires pure lead though.
 
I have both a Thunderer and a SAA and would chose the SAA by a long margin. The cylinder lock on the Thunderer is weak in my opinion; it sticks out a relatively long distance and locks on notches in the back of the cylinder. Also even though I replaced the broken cylinder lock and the "grass hopper spring" and the sear, my gun still cannot be shot single action and I can only speculate why. The SAA by comparison is strong and simple. Perhaps I just lack a decent understanding of equipment

cheers mooncoon
 
I've seen posted pic's of your longguns Mooncoon; I'm fairly certain that you have a ' Decent understanding of equipment' at least as far as BP goes
Not offence intended. I don't mean to slight anyone.
The only real advantage to the DA Colt's over SAA is cost. As I'd stated the "SAA is a tank", whereas perhaps saying "the old DA Colt's are finicky things" would be a better statement.
If I could afford the SAA, I likely wouldn't have spent the the time and scrutiny to interpret with the DA wanted to work properly.
Perhaps comparing them to automobiles might be better; SAA's is like American muscle; they work well and their bulletproof simplicity is an upside. Point & shoot.
The DA's; are something that needs tuning regularly and careful handling for proper function. Examine carefully prior to using as the hand or cyl latch may be worn / chipped causing the timing to be askew ( this is more concerning the '89...the '92 is a great improvement). The Thunderer's... I've handled them and casually examined them, no expert by any means when it comes to them.
But if cost is an consideration, the DA Colt can be had for about 1/3 the cost of a SAA in 41 LC. Just need to be a lot more attentive.
 
Colt's two models in DA/SA that shot .41 Long Colt are the 1877 Thunderer and 1889 & 1892 New Army & Navy, but I'm going to assume you were referring to the New Army and Navy model. They are very decent guns, not overly fragile but not tanks. Their internals are not impossible to work on, though spare parts are difficult to find. The 1892 and later variations have a better locking system for the cylinder.

The SAA are strong guns, fairly simple internally, newly made spare parts are easy to find as well as resources for working on them. Also, if you rechamber to a modern caliber you gain a cylinder and barrel of modern steel.

I think reliability wise the SAA is a better choice. For bush carry the DA is easier to reload, you can use Safari Land Comp II speed loaders for the K-Frame S&W, but you need to mod them slightly for .41 Colt. These can also be rechambered to .38spl but you need a Colt Police Positive barrel and ultra rare .38spl cylinder for the late model New Army & Navy.

If you were actually considering the Thunderer my advice is don't consider it. From my experience they are not even close to reliable and very difficult to work on.
 
I think the model name of the Thunderer is not from the noise made when shot but rather from the general tones of appreciation made by gunsmiths working on them. My best argument in favour of that explanation is that the Exasperator and the Frustrator were felt to have less customer appeal :>) :>)

cheers mooncoon
 
I've often wondered if someone had a patent on a DA revolver that Colt was afraid to infringe on?
Because Colt went backwards on the mechanisms of 'Thunder & Lightning' revolvers and the 1889 Navy. Really; what were they thinking?
Whoever spearheaded that change of design probably should have been fired, at the very least sent to the operation in Anchorage, Alaska.
The design was already out there, the Starr DA used it is the 1st to my mind. There are undoubtedly more that I've disremembered as well.
 
41 Colt said:
Colt's two models in DA/SA that shot .41 Long Colt are the 1877 Thunderer and 1889 & 1892 New Army & Navy, but I'm going to assume you were referring to the New Army and Navy model. They are very decent guns, not overly fragile but not tanks. Their internals are not impossible to work on, though spare parts are difficult to find. The 1892 and later variations have a better locking system for the cylinder.

The SAA are strong guns, fairly simple internally, newly made spare parts are easy to find as well as resources for working on them. Also, if you rechamber to a modern caliber you gain a cylinder and barrel of modern steel.

I think reliability wise the SAA is a better choice. For bush carry the DA is easier to reload, you can use Safari Land Comp II speed loaders for the K-Frame S&W, but you need to mod them slightly for .41 Colt. These can also be rechambered to .38spl but you need a Colt Police Positive barrel and ultra rare .38spl cylinder for the late model New Army & Navy.

If you were actually considering the Thunderer my advice is don't consider it. From my experience they are not even close to reliable and very difficult to work on.
Click to expand...



IIRC, some of the 1878's also were chambered in .41 Colt ?
 
cyclone said:
IIRC, some of the 1878's also were chambered in .41 Colt ?
Click to expand...

You may be right, the OP should specify which Colt DA he is referring too. I've never handled one but I think those ones are stronger than the Thunderer & New Army Navy guns. I think they are fairly rare though.
 
tokguy said:
I've often wondered if someone had a patent on a DA revolver that Colt was afraid to infringe on?
Because Colt went backwards on the mechanisms of 'Thunder & Lightning' revolvers and the 1889 Navy. Really; what were they thinking?
Whoever spearheaded that change of design probably should have been fired, at the very least sent to the operation in Anchorage, Alaska.
The design was already out there, the Starr DA used it is the 1st to my mind. There are undoubtedly more that I've disremembered as well.
Click to expand...

It was the same fellow that held the patents on the SAA loading gate and cylinder, and that was essentially responsible for the designs of the SAA, the Thunderer/Lightning, as well as later being responsible for taking Browning's single shot rifle and turning it into the 1885 Winchester.

Guys name was William Mason, and he was to production engineering, what JM Browning was to coming up with ideas.

The 1877 models are watchmakers guns. All the moving parts have to be correct, wear must be repaired or adjusted out, and they must be treated with a gentle hand, else parts break.

About the only guns I have seen that were more complicated, so far, have been the Freund Patent conversions of the Remington Rolling block Rifles into a lever action opening rifle.

Cheers
Trev
 
tokguy said:
I've often wondered if someone had a patent on a DA revolver that Colt was afraid to infringe on?
Because Colt went backwards on the mechanisms of 'Thunder & Lightning' revolvers and the 1889 Navy. Really; what were they thinking?
Whoever spearheaded that change of design probably should have been fired, at the very least sent to the operation in Anchorage, Alaska.
The design was already out there, the Starr DA used it is the 1st to my mind. There are undoubtedly more that I've disremembered as well.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with tokguy in regard to the mechanism of the 1889. This was the first revolver to ever feature a swing-out cylinder, a patent which has subsequently been copied by every revolver manufacturer to present day. In terms of cylinder lockup, the 1889 locks pretty solid when parts are in proper spec. The hand keeps the cylinder from rotating in one direction, a tooth on the latch keeps it from rotating the other. The only issue with the the 1889 is that when the gun is NOT cocked, the cylinder can rotate counter-clockwise. With spent rounds in some chambers, and live rounds in others, inadvertent rotation could lead to the hammer accidentally falling on an empty chamber at an inconvenient time. As such, they were fairly quickly redesigned to incorporate the bolt that prevents the cylinder rotating when uncocked... AKA, the model 1892. With good condition parts, the 1889 is as shootable as any other revolver.

IMHO, the model 1889 was sheer genius. As a collector item, its gold, because only around 30000 were made. The 1892s are more common, and alot cheaper than a SAA. I love them for the genius of the design. The only trouble is, commonly worn parts (latch and ratchet) haven't been made for some hundred years. Aftermarket custom-fit hands are still available. As rare as the parts are, gunsmiths that can competently work them are even more rare. As such, if you intent is to simply blast an antique in the bush, parts and service are readily available for the SAA, so that would be the logical choice. Save your $$.
 
The swing out cylinder was a step ahead, except for the fact that it rotates the wrong way.
Relying upon the Cylinder latch / stop is not a step ahead. It's a step backwards; you have much less power to hold it in place due to it's extremely close proximity of the ratchet to the axis provided by the cylinder pin. Without measuring & just doing the math in my head; I'd say that securing it on the outside of the cyl as opposed to at the ratchet gains you... 4 to 5 times the holding capabilty? Engineers; help us out here.
There is a reason that an '89's value is less than an '92's; it's a flawed design
 
The Model 1878 DA comes in 41 Long Colt as well (I had one). I still have a 1892 in 41 Long Colt and a SAA in 44 Special. The 1878 is a good hefty handgun and falls in the middle price range wise between the 1892 and a good SAA. The 1878 would make a good bush packer (strong and reliable) but the 41 Long Colt is a fairly lame round as far as a major stopping round on any sort of larger forest/bush predator. Just my $0.02 (if we still had pennies).
 
tokguy said:
While a 41 LC quite handily trumps a 38 spl...
Click to expand...

38 special has a max pressure rating of 17,000 psi
41LC has a max pressure rating of 13,000 psi.

A 158 gr bullet loaded to max in a 38 spl will make 300 ft/lbs energy
A 200 gr bullet loaded to max in a 41LC will generate about 290 ft/lbs.

By playing with powders and bullets you might raise those energy figures by 10-20 ft lbs.
In their natural state they are about the same in the power department.
 
I remember reading an article I wished I kept regarding real life experience between the 41LC and 38 Special. On paper you are right the 38 Special is better, but I guess in real life the 41LC was a better man stopper.
 
Found said:
I remember reading an article I wished I kept regarding real life experience between the 41LC and 38 Special. On paper you are right the 38 Special is better, but I guess in real life the 41LC was a better man stopper.
Click to expand...

It's like saying you read an article that says a dog is a better tennis player than a cat. It might be true but since they both suck at tennis, it's a pointless discussion. :)

Don't put too much stock into a magazine article. People who write articles are subject to bias and opinion just like the rest of us. I can tell you from playing with old pistols and milk jugs that neither one has much manstopping ability, and even the lowly .22 long rifle will penetrate better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom