Colt brand guns

[jtward01]

All,

I recently purchased a Colt 1851 Navy revolver, one of the so-called Second Generation guns that were fit, finished and assembled at the Colt factory from imported parts.
Given that Sam Colt frequently used sub-contractors to produce parts, and in some cases complete guns, what's the feeling among BP gun collectors toward these recently produced guns? Are they considered "real" Colt firearms, or are they just another imported clone?

What about the "Signature Series" guns, which were built in the US from Italian-made parts by a new company licensed by Colt to use the name? (Remember, Colt's first commercially successful revolvers, the so-called Patterson Colts, were built by a sub-contractor.)

 

[Zonie]

Well, I guess if Colt bought the parts, and Colt put them together and shipped them out to the market, they must be Colt guns.

Having said that, I personally can't see spending the extra money Colt thinks they should cost when I can get a replica made by the same Company that made the parts for a LOT less.

I know many people bought these guns with the intention of selling them years from now for large profits. Perhaps they will find people who will buy them, I don't know.

I do know though, that like the Winchester Commemoratives, the market for them is extremely small and if the gun has been shot, it isn't worth much more than any other "fancy" commercial gun that has been shot.

Sense you own some of these, congratulations! If your thinking of shooting it, IMO, don't.

If your thinking of buying another one which has been shot, offer a reasonable amount (similar to a Uberti's price) and enjoy using it for what it was really made for: Shooting!

 

[tcsmokepole]

I have a 2nd generation '60 army. I paid 450.00$ for it. I thought these new Colt's were made by Henry.

 

[Liver eatin’ Johnson]

The fit and finish on them is beautiful and I see no reason not to shoot it for years to come. I shoot my Colt Python all the time without considering the price I paid for it so why should these Colts be any different? Probably because there are other nearly identical guns for 1/4 the cost but then they aren't Colts are they? :winking:

 

[RussB]

The fit and finish on them is beautiful and I see no reason not to shoot it for years to come. I shoot my Colt Python all the time without considering the price I paid for it so why should these Colts be any different? Probably because there are other nearly identical guns for 1/4 the cost but then they aren't Colts are they? :winking:

LEJ...I "think" the reference here is to the Black Powder firearms that started showing on the market around 1992.
Such as my own "Colt, 1861 "Signature" Musket".
I agree with you...real Colts ARE the real thing. :agree:

OTOH, this is a very good question, and I wish Jim Webber would jump in here with some "good" answers. I will try with what little bit I think I know on the subject.

It is my understanding, these guns have absolutely nothing to do with the Colt Firearms Co. of today. There was well written disclaimer to this effect in the box that came with mine.
I was so disgusted I threw it away, along with a Warranty that covered nothing...and I mean NOTHING, at their expense. If you wanted repair work done, it would all be at your expense, out of your pocket.

Rumor...note; "Rumor", has it that all Colt Black Powder firearms are manufactured by Uberti (Not to be confused with Pietta) UNDER AGREEMENT, AND LICENSE, OF THE COLT FIREARMS CO. Parts are made in Italy and, not all, but many, are assembled...to include final fitting & timing, here in the US,.....but, by the workers from Uberti! (An agreement between Colt Firearms, Colt Historian Society, and the Labor Unions, I'm told)
It also took several years for the N-SSA to approve this rifle for use because of it's "mixed" heritage.

Now, having said all that. Let me say, I have come to really like my Colt Musket. I find no fault with it that is not common to any other musket of it's style, and regardless of it's manufacturer.
Is it worth the money I paid for it?????..... (I "think" I paid just over $550 a few years ago)...this was about what you paid for a good Springfield, or other comparable musket at the time.
The only thing about the gun I wish was different is the twist rate. It is a 1:72, and at the time I bought this rifle, I was a "dyed in the wool" round ball shooter.
I still am for that matter, but I wish this particular rifle had a faster twist, as I have become quite a fan of the 1:48....and even faster, for long range shooting.

As far as shooting these rifles/handguns and what it does to value...I have no clue. If I own it, I shoot it.
And, as far as holding value, I see many guns just like mine at Gun Shows and they are all priced from $500 to $600, and I think that is too much for a "used" gun. These dealers all try to tell you they aren't made any longer and the price will only go up. Again, I don't have a clue.

I'm sure there are others, along with Jim Webber, who can give us a better and more detailed history of these current black powder guns....I CAN tell you, They are NOT made by Colt! But then, I have to wonder if that would make any real difference when it comes to shooting. (I'm quite sure it does when it comes to collecting).
Russ

 

[jtward01]

According to the book "Colt's Single Action Army Revolver, The Legend, The Romance & The Rivals" by Doc O'Meara, the 2nd gen. guns were produced from 1973 to 1982 with 88,736 produced (35,000 of those were 1851 Navy models, outselling the Python during those years). These guns were built with Ubreti-made parts, then fit, finished and assembled at the Colt factory and carried the full Colt warranty.

The 3rd gen. guns, the Signature Series, were on the market beginning in 1994. Like their predecessors, they were built from imported parts - but assembly was done by Colt Blackpowder Arms, a company formed under license from Colt and run by the same folks who are making the current lever action Henry rifles. Any warranty was from CBA. I've already run into some folks who feel the Signature Series guns aren't really "Colt" firearms.

I'm not really concerned with who made what. I think I've got a pretty good handle on that. I'm just curious as to people's attitudes toward these guns. I only own the one, so far, but if I do buy more BP guns I'd like to know if these guns will hold their value as well as any typical Colt or S&W used as a shooter or will my $500 Colt and a $150 Uberti both sell for $99 as used guns?

 

JT,
I don't know any more than you do, actually less, didn't know about the assembly differences. What I do know is that I have two C&B revolvers, a Lyman 1860 army and a "colt" 2nd generation 3rd model dragoon. The difference in the fit, finish and overall quality of these two is like comparing a Lada to a mercedes. If I were to put both up for sale today would the colt fetch alot more than the Lyman? don't know, don't care. Is the same quality difference evident between the colt and a Uberti? don't know, never held one. Is the quality of the colt very good? yes

Cody

 

[ndbilly]

I own one of the "Signature Series" in 1861 Navy. I haven't fired it and probably won't, not because I think it has or will have any collector value but because it's just so darned pretty I don't want to do anything that will diminish its appearence. When I hold it, I feel like Chief Dan George's character in "The Outlaw Josey Wales" when he holds up a piece of red hard rock candy and says, "But this one's not for eating. Just for looking through." I never said I was rational about firearms.

 

[tcsmokepole]

My '60 is the signature model, and I've fired it. If there will ever be any collector value for it,I figure it won't be in my day.

 

[Gatofeo]

I have a Colt 2nd generation 1851 Navy I bought new about 1983. I've put about 2,000 rounds through it, mostly balls but a few conicals.
It's lost its bluing and acquired that old, silvery gray patina of gun metal. It looks just like an old original, but it's in much better shape than most you encounter.
And yes, it's still accurate and a fine shooter.
Some disdain the Colt black powder revolvers reintroduced in the 20th century, because their major parts came from Uberti in Italy. Frankly, I don't feel that way.
To me, this is still a Colt. It says "Colt Patent" on the frame and "Adds (address) Samuel Colt - New York City" on the barrel. That's enough for me.
I don't understand why, but these black powder Colts raise more wrath among shooters than other makes. No one seems to rage about Winchesters made by Miroku in Japan, or Brownings made by FN in Belgium.
Oh sure, they prefer guns made in the U.S.A. but the Winchester and Browning guns are pretty much accepted, except among purists.
My 2nd generation 1851 Navy, when new, bore a rich blue/black finish. Even the screw heads were polished to a slight rounding of the edges, and deep blue. It was a marvelously made revolver then, and still is --- though it shows a few dings.
One thing about the Colt 2nd generation: It requires balls slightly larger than .375 inch. In the booklet that accompanied this revolver nearly 20 years ago, Colt recommended a .378 inch ball.
I've used the .375 ball in it, but it's nearly a slip-fit.
I use a .380 inch ball, either cast myself or purchased from Warren Muzzleloading of Arkansas. See its website at www.warrenmuzzleloading.com
The Warren balls have no sprue and appear to be swaged. It offers a huge variety of balls and projectiles in many sizes, as well as other accessories. It's a great site.
I've been using Warren .380 inch balls for over a year now and have not found ONE bad one in the 300 or so I've sent downrange.
I use .380 inch balls for all my .36-caliber revolvers: The aforementioned Colt, a Pietta-made .36 Remington and an Armi San Marcos repro of the 1862 Colt Police.
You have a real Colt, in my opinion.
I've heard that the Signature Series suffered a lot of quality problems, but I've never heard a bad thing about the 2nd generation Colts. Hang onto it, you've got a good shooter.