Colt 1860 2nd Gen VS Ruger Old Army

[John V.]

Hope this is in the right forum? Which is better? Colt 1860 Army 2nd generation or the Ruger Old Army. I have a chance at either (both new) at a reasonable price. Either one will be used just for target shooting with my M/L club no real competition. I am kind of more drawn to the Colt because...well...its a Colt and the Colt 1860 in my opinion is just plain sexy. But I have never experienced a Ruger Old Army. I had a 1860 Pietta, but not anymore. What do you all think?

 

[Kansas Jake]

The Ruger is no longer made. If it was me I would probably grab it and look to add a Colt replica in the future and they can usually be purchased cheaper than the Ruger. Now if you are talking about the reissued Colts sold by Colt a few year back that is a different issue and I'd probably grab it. If the Colt is a replica by Uberti, Pietta, San Marco or some other import my preference would be the Ruger.

Having noted all that, it really comes down to what you want. You will have fun with either one.

 

[John V.]

Yes sir. I am " talking about the reissued Colts sold by Colt a few year back" I believe they are called 2nd Generation Colts?

 

[Kansas Jake]

That muddies the water a lot. I'd be drooling over both of them, but probably lean towards the Colt.

 

[Black Jack]

Brand new? I would be asking myself if there was a way to buy both.

 

[Coot]

Both are excellent guns and both are no longer made. "Best" in this case is more a matter of personal preference. I would be scratching for the $$ to buy both.

 

[John V.]

Both are excellent guns and both are no longer made. "Best" in this case is more a matter of personal preference. I would be scratching for the $$ to buy both.

Man do I ever wish I could, but it is just not in my cards right now. Believe me... I have crunched, and re-crunched my numbers and the $$$ are just not there for both. Well...short of not having lights, food etc... LOL!!

 

[Ray-Vigo]

You probably can't lose with this choice. The 2d gen Colts are generally really well-made, as is the Ruger. The Ruger is the stronger design with more modern features. If the Ruger has the adjustable sights, it will be the better target shooter probably because you can adjust to just what you want. The main reason to get the Colt is basically that you want a Colt 1860 Army and are more for the history side of the piece rather than the upgrades of the Old Army. If you ever plan to hunt, the Old Army is the better pick that way as well.

My pick would be the 1860 Army, but I enjoy the Colts most of all and don't mind the primitive sights and am more into the history side. The Ruger is the stronger, more practical revolver for hunting and (with adjustable sights) target shooting. Are you in this more for history or a practical shooter? Both will increase in value, though the Colt probably will gain more over time because of the name. Many of us wish we had this "problem" - but both of these are good choices.

 

[Gary Miller]

Bravo 4-4
Its kinda like red heads, blonds and brunettes. The worst I ever kissed was mighty sweet until they malfunctioned. I'm new to shooting these weapons, but I know what I like and when I'm wrong I fall in love with a new gun anyway, so all is well. You gotta figure out what you like. My Ruger is a tool for me. I'm rigging it to hunt. I like it a lot. I'm willing to pay for the experience. My Colt is as you described them, sexy. It's historic in a sense and a fine pointing streamline weapon. It might become my favorite when I shoot it. I got it for a great deal and I like it a lot too. Rear site is a small notch in the hammer. Not as conducive to practical low light woods situations etc. They tell me most are six o'clock hold guns. I will definitely get a Remington at some point. I'll probably get one with with raised front sight and adjustable rear, when I do. I'm sure purists or civil war buffs would cringe at my choices. If I really wasn't sure what I wanted and had the funds, I'd buy the best deal. Wait for a collectible at the right price or a reproduction with lot's of accessories that are gonna cost you plenty to buy separately anyway. I'm always looking for a good deal. Just my two cents on the topic.

 

[Gary Miller]

My wife(Brunette) just read my reply and offered her two-bits, which was; If I ever decide she's a malfunction and want to trade, I want be able to afford a new weapon anyway.

 

[M. De Land]

The parts were not made by Colt but were assembled I believe on consignment by Colt, if I got the scoop correct. Buy that I mean I'm not totally sure they were assembled at the Colt factory.
So I guess it is a sort of quasi Colt. They did put their name on it.
If your shooting for competition there is no choice but the ROA. Mine has adjustable sights and I've yet to see one that would not out shoot the owner.
The 60 was not designed to be a target gun but rather a man and horse killer.
It is a natural point and shoot gun rather than a carefully aimed arm.

 

[Zonie]

According to my information, the Colt 2nd Generation revolvers were made by Colt in Hartford, Connecticut.

The company bought the rough castings from Uberti in Italy and then machined and assembled them here.

This was in the years 1971- 1976.

In 1978 thru 1988, Colt farmed out production to Lou Imperato and Iver Johnson Arms in Middlesex, NJ who continued to machine and assemble the guns.
These guns during this period were made and inspected to Colts specifications and Quality Assurance standards.

All of the 2nd Generation pistols are considered to be genuine Colts in every respect.

The 3rd Generation Colts, 1995-2002, often called the Signature Series Models were manufactured by "Colt Blackpowder Arms Company" which was basically the branch of the old Iver Johnson that had taken over making the 2nd Series.

This was done under a licensing agreement with Colt and the resulting guns are considered to be genuine Colts.
This explains why another company could stamp the Colt markings on the guns.

These guns still used the Italian rough castings but the parts were machined, blued or color case hardened and assembled to Colt specifications in the USA.

 

[M. De Land]

Thanks Jim, that is good info and fills in a lot of gaps I had in what little I had learned of the 2nd and 3rd generation guns.
I was very interested in a Signature series 51 last year at the local Cabella'a Library as they call it.
I kept going back and looking at it but just never could pull the trigger on the purchase.
It had a name engraved on top the grip frame(obviously the Signature series) and they wanted $950.00 for it as I remember.
It was used but looked in remarkably good shape.
Was the Signature suppose to be some one famous in pistol lore or was it the original purchaser engraved on it by Colt? I forget now what the name was as I did not recognize it as famous.

 

[DOUBLEDEUCE 1]

The Signature Series guns have Samuel Colt's signature on the backstrap. The Signature accessories also have Sam'l Colt engraved on them.

 

[Wes/Tex]

I'd grab the M.1960 and never look back. Ruger always looked too techno-whizz for me! But then I'm just an old fart! :wink: :rotf:

 

[John V.]

According to my information, the Colt 2nd Generation revolvers were made by Colt in Hartford, Connecticut.

The company bought the rough castings from Uberti in Italy and then machined and assembled them here.

This was in the years 1971- 1976.

In 1978 thru 1988, Colt farmed out production to Lou Imperato and Iver Johnson Arms in Middlesex, NJ who continued to machine and assemble the guns.
These guns during this period were made and inspected to Colts specifications and Quality Assurance standards.

All of the 2nd Generation pistols are considered to be genuine Colts in every respect.

The 3rd Generation Colts, 1995-2002, often called the Signature Series Models were manufactured by "Colt Blackpowder Arms Company" which was basically the branch of the old Iver Johnson that had taken over making the 2nd Series.

This was done under a licensing agreement with Colt and the resulting guns are considered to be genuine Colts.
This explains why another company could stamp the Colt markings on the guns.

These guns still used the Italian rough castings but the parts were machined, blued or color case hardened and assembled to Colt specifications in the USA.

Zonie, Not to "stir the pot", but why do some folks not consider 3rd Gen Colts to be authentic Colts?

 

[Toomuch51]

According to my information, the Colt 2nd Generation revolvers were made by Colt in Hartford, Connecticut.

The company bought the rough castings from Uberti in Italy and then machined and assembled them here.

This was in the years 1971- 1976.

In 1978 thru 1988, Colt farmed out production to Lou Imperato and Iver Johnson Arms in Middlesex, NJ who continued to machine and assemble the guns.
These guns during this period were made and inspected to Colts specifications and Quality Assurance standards.

All of the 2nd Generation pistols are considered to be genuine Colts in every respect.

The 3rd Generation Colts, 1995-2002, often called the Signature Series Models were manufactured by "Colt Blackpowder Arms Company" which was basically the branch of the old Iver Johnson that had taken over making the 2nd Series.

This was done under a licensing agreement with Colt and the resulting guns are considered to be genuine Colts.
This explains why another company could stamp the Colt markings on the guns.

These guns still used the Italian rough castings but the parts were machined, blued or color case hardened and assembled to Colt specifications in the USA.

Zonie, Not to "stir the pot", but why do some folks not consider 3rd Gen Colts to be authentic Colts?

That is a good question. The guns were built from Colt's original blueprints and inspected not only by the assembler but also by Colt's own inspectors as well.

Consider this--Would you completely retool a substantial part of your factory just to produce a limited quantity of obsolete guns that had been out of production for over 100 years just to satisfy a small collector/enthousiast market?

 

[Larry Akers]

Which is better? IMO the Ruger. However, if it is to be a working gun (shot in competition), the Ruger is not allowed in "as issued" matches. Personally I like the open-top revolvers (it's what I shoot) and would probably opt for the Colt.

 

[ZUG]

Buy them BOTH -- NOW -- if as you say "they are a good price" :hmm: . You may not see them again at any price since they are disappearing.

 

[Calum]

'afternoon,

Personally I'd go for the Colt. It seems like you see less of them on the market, so the chance that a like Ruger will come along again is greater.

Like some have said, for me it's also the history of the Colt. I have several (Italian) Colts in the safe, along with a Ruger Old Army. The Colts get to the range, the Ruger is NiB. Got it as part of a trade, I cleaned the packing grease off it and it's lived in the safe since - it's the one gun I've never had a desire to shoot. And I can't explain why, I don't know...

Mike