Colt 1860 2nd Gen VS Ruger Old Army

[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.

Do we know what serial number range the 1971-1976 2nd generation Colts would be?

 

[Artificer]

OK, well since no one yet has taken a curmudgeon position, I guess it is up to me. :grin:

I assembled and painted a M1860 Colt and a few other Plastic Models of historic black powder handguns in the early 60’s. Loved the look of the Colt.

In the early 1980’s when I sometimes led a band of Confederate Partisan Spies dressed as Federals, I decided to get a Navy Arms 1860 as a backup when we went behind Federal lines at Civil War “tacticals.” Loved the look of the revolver, but found it was just too heavy to be practical for use in that capacity in the Infantry.

I traded the 1860 in for a 1851 Colt w/full length barrel and carried it on a couple of tacticals and then for another five years or so as a Confederate Officer. I came to appreciate why the 1851 was so popular with Infantry Officers on both sides vs the 1860.

Of course had I been Cavalry, the weight of the 1860 would not have been cumbersome as it would have ridden in a saddle holster.

So what I would do is buy the Colt, leave it in unfired condition and look to trade it for an unfired Colt 1851 and then shoot that, if I wished.

The Ruger is a high quality revolver, but since it is not authentic, it has never appealed to me.

Gus

 

[Robert an saa fan]

Depending on whose information you believe the 1860 Colt 2nd Generations range of serial numbers is 201000 to 212540 or maybe as high as 212835.

The 1860's were made in the "F" series model designation from 1978 to 1982. The earlier model designation "C" series were only the 1851 Navy and 3rd Model Dragoon.

It is a personal decision on which is better to buy. A nice "problem" to have. That said a little more information would help us all to opine. Is the Ruger Old Army the common adjustable sight model or the fixed sight model. If fixed sight, what barrel length?

What is the price of each revolver?

 

[hanshi]

The Ruger is no longer made!? I hate that! I remember that back, sometime before he died, Bill Ruger stated in an interview that the Old Army would never be dropped. Ruger already had the reputation of dropping more great guns than some other companies manufactured! EGAD!

 

[Zonie]

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

I suppose because some folks think that the only factory that can make a "real Colt" is the one located in Hartford, Connecticut.

It's the same line of thinking someone might have if Ferrari hired a company to build Ferrari's in Rome.
To many, a real Ferrari must be built in Maranello, Italy.

Getting back to the 2nd Gen Colt, 1860 Army, the "Blue Book of Modern Black Powder Values" 3rd Edition says all of the 1860 Army's were produced in the years, 1978-1982.

These are the years Iver Johnson Arms in Middlesex, NJ was producing the 2nd Gen. pistols.

 

[FishDFly]

"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.

Ruger.

Wander any shooting line and the ROA is the pistol of choice. Enough said.

 

[M. De Land]

This gun did not have Sam Colt on the upper grip frame. It was nicely engraved but had some name I had never heard before which made me skeptical of it's authenticy.
It looked professionally engraved but I suspect the original Colt signature had been removed and the new owners name substituted. Then I thought that perhaps Signature series might have meant that the original owner could have his/her name engraved by Colt which makes no sense for resale.
That was the main reason I finally passed on it although Cabella's certified it the real deal.
Who wants a gun with the previous owners name professionally engraved on it?

 

[Ray-Vigo]

That's good information about the NJ production. The ones I've seen are great quality. It goes to show how much we've gotten used to "settling for less" in terms of percussion revolver quality today - Uberti or Pietta new. Pietta has gotten better over the years, but both Uberti and Pietta new today are not as nice as the 2d gen Colts and Ruger Old Armies I've seen.

 

[Grumpa]

It goes to show how much we've gotten used to "settling for less" in terms of percussion revolver quality today -

Agreed. Most folks would not want to pay the price for a replica made to the same quality standards as the originals.

I often show people my Uberti "London" Navy Colt, and tell them: "this is a gun made to shoot at the range, to get an idea what it was like in the "Old Days". Then I show them my original Colt 1860 Army: "This is a gun that was made to carry into battle, where your very life depended upon it."

You can feel the difference.

Richard/Grumpa

 

[nkbj]

Grumpa,
What are the types of differences? Or perhaps properly framed it would be asked what are the types, the sources, of the differences?
I would guess the shape of the grips and the amount of metal out front. What do you think looking at and handling the two?

 

[Zonie]

IMO, comparing a Colt 1851 Navy and a Colt 1860 Army is like comparing apples and oranges even if the guns are both originals.

For a fair comparison a new Uberti Colt 1860 Army would need to be compared with the original.

 

[M. De Land]

The other thing to keep in mind is that the 2nd and 3rd generation guns are metalurgically superior to first generation Colts.
First Generation frames were mild steel case hardened not what we refer to as alloy steel.At the time the best match rifle barrels were made of Sheffield pressure cast steel and next best was Remington cast steel. My guess is Colt incorporated the same technology for their hand gun barrels.
This all came about from the invention of the Besimer process of smelting iron into steel with the addition of carbon. Technically carbon steel is an alloy steel also but only when other alloying agents such as molybdenum, chrome, manganese ,nickle and other elements does it become known as alloy steel.
8620 or equivelent is what case hardenable guns are usually made from now days, was the scoop I got from an Uberti dealer when I bought their High wall.
8620 is a very good alloy steel for this role and is nearly as strong as Chrom-molly and yet it will case color nicely.

 

[nkbj]

Going off of memory they called it silver steel.

 

[Artificer]

IMO, comparing a Colt 1851 Navy and a Colt 1860 Army is like comparing apples and oranges even if the guns are both originals.

For a fair comparison a new Uberti Colt 1860 Army would need to be compared with the original.

Of course I agree that comparing an 1860 to an 1851 is like comparing apples to oranges. The 1860 was designed to do more damage to horses in the cavalry, while the 1851 was designed to shoot men. Both revolvers were better at what they were designed for than the other model.

It was not just my opinion, but the opinion of even the best NSSA shooters in the 70’s and 80’s that comparing the 2nd generation Colts to original Colts in the same models, was like comparing Plantains to Banana’s. Like Plantains, the 2nd generation Colts had to be “cooked” or adjusted/worked on to get them to work/shoot the best while the originals could be shot their best even when “raw” like eating a banana or not adjusted. The 2nd generation Colts “broke” when firing as much as NSSA shooters shot them, like Italian guns and not like the originals.

Now the majority of NSSA Shooters in those days shot either Original or Reproduction Remingtons as they were more accurate than the Colts for target shooting. However, the 20 to 30 percent of the NSSA shooters who shot Colts, did not find a significant increase in quality of the 2nd generation Colts over the better Italian made Colts, to justify the much higher cost of the 2nd generation Colts. So most NSSA shooters only bought the 2nd generation Colts as collector items.

While I worked on a lot more Italian reproduction revolvers at the NSSA Nationals over the years and to a lesser extent original Remingtons, Colts and a couple of original Rogers and Spencers; the quality of the parts to do trigger jobs and other fitting on the 2nd generation Colts was a whole lot closer and often the same as on the better Italian Revolvers as well. The 2nd generation Colts did not fit and feel like the original parts when replacements had to be fitted or the guns worked. The 2nd generation Colts were a noticeable “Step Up” from some Italian Revolvers, but very close as to be almost indistinguishable on the better Italian Revolvers, though the 2nd generation Colts may have been just a tiny bit better.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

BTW, in the 70’s and early 80’s, NSSA Sutlers like Scotty Moyer still had a fairly large supply of original/unused/NOS replacement parts for Muskets and Colt and Remington Revolvers that were left over from the UnCivil War. Most of those original parts had originally come from Bannerman’s or White’s as Post War Surplus and often still in the original grease. So when I needed an original part to fix a Remington or Colt, I just walked next door and bought the part/s from Scotty. (I only stocked repro parts.)

Those parts did need some adjustment to fit, as replacement parts were not true “drop in” parts, but much, MUCH easier to fit than the parts on the 2nd generation Colts that came from Colt. The original parts also “felt” and worked significantly better.

Gus

 

[Grumpa]

Zonie. MD and Artificer are all correct. And I am not comparing the 1860 Army with the 1851 Navy. The comparison is more one of quality, and quality control.

Colt (the originals) was making guns upon which lives depended. That is not the case with the replicas.

Not being a metallurgist, I don't know if the steel in the replica is any better than the steel in the 1860 Colt. The replica steel is certainly not equivalent to a contemporary cartridge revolver, or it wouldn't say "Black powder only". The replica is made to a price, for sale to "hobbyists"/re-enactors etc. I suspect that the rate of parts failure in the replicas exceeds that of the originals. I may be wrong?

I would stake my life on the original Colt (if it is in excellent mechanical condition). I would not feel comfortable doing so with the reproduction. This, even though the Navy "fits" me better (I have never liked the grip on the Army - unless I am wearing leather gloves, in which case it feels/fits better).

My opinion. Others may see things differently. :wink:

Richard/Grumpa

 

[M. De Land]

The making of steel had been around since the eleventh century but Bessemer was the one to discover how to make higher quality steel and on a mass production scale through the forced air capability of his furnace.
He got all the kinks worked out and patented his discovery in 1858 if I remember correctly.
That is why the best mass produced steel was coming from Sheffield England.
Remember shortly before that in 1847 the big Walker Colts were produced by Eli Whitney in the U.S. and were made of a very poor quality steel/iron and often blew up. The poor metallurgy at the time was the main reason for the Walkers large size.
The Bessemer process in 1858 allowed the later Colts to be made of better steel and the size could be reduced.
At the time of the first generation Colt production mass quantity and quality steel production was in it's infancy although Bessemer had learned at that time to introduce manganese which both strengthens steel and makes it more machinable.
Better grades of steel alloy began to show up in early 1900's or so at the transition to smokeless powder but did not make much of a appearance until WWII when our modern multi alloyed steel was invented.
In WWII Springfield bolt action rifles were initially made of Ordnance 10 series ( carbon steel) with some manganeze added for machinability.
Mid war nickle was added to receiver steel to make them tougher.
All 2nd and 3rd generation Colts were made of better grades of steel because of the technological advances and quality controls of open hearth steel production.

 

[Artificer]

In the mid 80’s at the SHOT Show in New Orleans and when Sue Hawkins was still the American Representative for EuroArms, Sue introduced me to Mr. Zoli of Zoli Arms. I was very respectful, but had to ask why their black powder revolvers were not up to the fine quality of for example, their modern shotguns. I told him I KNEW they could make better a quality ML arms because they had made and were making some of the best quality modern guns. Though I was no diplomat, I got it across that I was not insulting him or his products.

Mr. Zoli explained to me of course they could make their BP revolvers not only to the quality of fit, finish and feel of the actions as good as the originals; but using modern steels, they could make them better than the originals. The problem was they could not make the guns to those standards and still SELL them, as they would cost more than what enough people would pay to produce such quality. He further explained such a high quality Model 1851 would have to retail for about $260.00 and he could not sell enough pistols at that price to make it worthwhile. The BP revolvers his company made retailed for between $145.00 - 165.00 at that time to make a safe and operating pistol, though not up to original standards and they got a fair share of complaints about that cost. OK, that explained a lot to me as the very popular S&W Model 19 was retailing for about $240.00 at that time and VERY few folks would pay another $20.00 or more for a BP pistol. Certainly not enough people to make it worthwhile to produce them. That sure opened my eyes.

I had already learned a couple years before that at the S&W Armorers Academy, even with the most modern machining at the time and using precision tools, gauges and measuring instruments; that you could not just grab enough parts to make a modern revolver and assemble them and have it work correctly. I had been surprised how much hand fitting went into assembling them.

Further, even within the same acceptable minimum quality standards, some factory fitters make better guns than others. At Colt, the better fitters were selected to run their Armorers Academy when they still had one and others went into their Custom Shop.

Colt also had huge labor/management disputes in the 70’s and 80’s. I have no doubt this was part of the reason they farmed out making the 2nd generation Colts to others, after the initial run they did make.

In our period, those who worked at Colt assembling/fitting the original revolvers were paid pretty well compared to other factory workers at the time. It was as true then as now that when the pay is better, the product is better.

There was also another inducement on making the 1860’s and 1851’s during the UnCivil War, that we often don’t think about. Those fitters were making revolvers that their Sons, Nephews, other Kinfolk and people they knew had to depend on to survive the War and that along with Patriotic Fervor caused them to make the very best guns they could. While I can’t document this at the Colt factory during the UnCivil War, it has long been documented that the quality of arms made by Springfield and other Arms makers in WWII went up significantly because they were making guns “for their boys,” to use in combat. That is one Heck of an inducement to make the highest quality guns possible.

Gus

 

[M. De Land]

Great information Gus! One of the reasons I like the reproductions even when not up to original standards for fit and finish is that I know the steel quality is there to make a fine arm with some renovations.
My early Pietta 60 needed a new front sight, trigger, wedge and general smoothing up inside to make a good shooting revolver out or it. The front sight was replaced with a blade of brass scrap found in the shop and new trigger and wedge were made of A-2 tool steel I keep on hand.
The grips still don't fit to the frame like and original would but I probably will make some moose antler replacements one day. Just did a pair on a model 29 Smith that came out great. I really like the stag look although they will be out of place on the 60.

 

[don hepler]

I have or have had all of the pistols mentioned so far. The 2nd Gen Colt is the best 1860 model that you can get. If you chose the Colt, you will have the best one ever made, in my opinion. It is a real Colt by my thinking.

The Ruger is probably the strongest black powder pistol ever made, excluding the big Colts, like the Walker. It's hard to compare an 1860 to a Ruger. The Colt is the same design as the original, just using modern steel and machining. The Ruger uses all modern metals, coil springs, adjustable sights, and top strap design.

If you choose Colt, you'll have the best made 1860 ever produced. If you choose the Ruger, you'll have one of the best modern black powder pistols ever produced. The Ruger uses a lot of parts, that are used in Ruger Blackhawks.

My 2nd Gen Colts have been sold. Now I shoot Uberti's and I shoot the Ruger ever now and then.

I like the Dragoons, and the 1860 just for the pure fun of shooting. If I were hunting, I'd take the Ruger.

You need both, who am I kidding.