3rd generation Colt pistol

[Rudy Thompson]

What is the story on the third generation Colt pistols?
Are they good shooters or should they stay in the box?

 

[Zonie]

Both the Second Generation and the Third Generation (Signature) Colt pistols are in the "Collectible" class of the black powder pistols.

Unfired and cared for they are worth far more than the Italian made revolvers. If they have been shot and left any trace of it anywhere, their value falls drastically.
That said, even though the value falls, even at this lower value, they are still more expensive than a pistol made by Uberti or other Italian companies.

 

[Tom A Hawk]

Both the Second Generation and the Third Generation (Signature) Colt pistols are in the "Collectible" class of the black powder pistols.

Unfired and cared for they are worth far more than the Italian made revolvers. If they have been shot and left any trace of it anywhere, their value falls drastically.
That said, even though the value falls, even at this lower value, they are still more expensive than a pistol made by Uberti or other Italian companies.

It was my understanding that the components were manufactured by Uberti and assembled and finished in the USA. Is that not correct?

 

[wb78963]

look up Mike Beliveau Duelist 1954 he did a video on them.
This link may work

 

[Zonie]

It was my understanding that the components were manufactured by Uberti and assembled and finished in the USA. Is that not correct?

Not according to the Blue Book of Modern Black Powder Values. It says that ALL of the machining on the Colt pistols was done in the USA. They did use castings that were supplied by Uberti for the cast parts like the frame. Things like the screw holes and other machining is required for cast parts.

 

[arcticap]

What is the story on the third generation Colt pistols?
Are they good shooters or should they stay in the box?

A reputable expert C&B gunsmith was asked which generation Colt was better and excerpts of his replies follow:

" .....My perspective on this subject is purely from a functionality position. What I have to do to these (named) copies is a much bigger scope than a modern made Uberti or Pietta!! (Yes, they are that much better!!!) Of course the revolvers mentioned were made 40-50 yrs ago and the parts reflect (sadly) that time period. Never the less, they can all be brought to be an unbelievable state of precision (enough to easily rival your favorite S.A. revolver)!.... "

John Doe stated:
" What rings in my brain is Jay Strite, among others, telling me that the newer Uberti's are better guns than the 2nd and 3rd generation Colt's....."

Gunsmith's reply:
"John Doe, you're exactly right! Jay told you the truth!! Today's Uberti copies are the best appointed revolvers available! The action parts are something Sam Colt would have had a fit over (very impressive). A corrected and "tuned" version of a current production offering would be the "best" Colt (other than an excellent 1st Gen.!)
Of the 2 offerings mentioned by the OP, one is about as good as the other . . . they have antiquated "modern" parts (absolutely suck!!) and are best as "display" pieces. On the other hand, they can be made into excellent shooters but they require the most work."

 

[Zonie]

Could be right about the new Uberti's being better than the Colt made guns but, when you buy a gun with an official "Colt" marking, you are paying for the fact that Colt (or one if its authorized companies) made it.

Without naming names, there are a lot of pistols that are as good as or better than the ones offered by Colt but they are made by companies that aren't as old or as established as Colt. The same can be said about S&W. People often pay extra just for the fact that a well known gun maker made the gun.

 

[arcticap]

I think that shooting tuned C&B guns is over-rated unless a person is involved in competition or demands the tightest spec.'s.
There's the shear joy of being able to shoot a beautifully finished gun that was part of the renaissance of the sport.
I don't think that there's that much of a functional difference if shooting at moderate distances.
As a matter of fact, if the gun is cruder internally or doesn't have the most precise spec.'s then it should be considered to be more authentic, and more similar to one of the originals.
How refined does a C&B revolver need to be to enjoy shooting it?
Even if a person loses 1/2 the value of the Colt by shooting it, they're going to spend almost that much to acquire a better modern specimen to then turn into a shooter anyway.
So whether the Colt is fired or not, it ends up nearly being a wash in the end.
I'll bet that just like with the current production guns, some will shoot better than others.

 

[Phfinneuss]

I have been firing the 2nd Gens since the 80s. As of now, I have at least several examples of each of them. I do fire and maintain them. I ve also had a number of the 3rd Gens. The 2nd Gens are e x c e p t i o n a l l y superior to any thing out there!, in fit, finish and operation. Some have quality issues. With the 3rd Gens, it s just the opposite. There is a great number of them with quality issues that make them nearly inoperable. I ve had to get rid of almost all of the ones I had. The ones I do have and fire are with exceptional quality and reliability.

So, it is, unfortunately, hit and miss with the 3rd gens. Shame.

An interesting note,- The original Walkers wern t made by Colt. Nor were the 3rd Gens. The B I G difference is, Colt went to the contracter and asked for the Walkers to be made. Whereas with the 3rd Gens, the maker went to Colt and asked if they could make them (no oversight by Colt).

There is a ref above to a youtube presentation my Mike Beliveau. He is exceptionally hard on the 3rd Gens and makes more than several errors pertaining to their details.

 

[Gun Tramp]

There is a great number of them with quality issues that make them nearly inoperable. I ve had to get rid of almost all of the ones I had.

I tried a Signature Series "third generation" model. When I realized I'd bought junk, I called CBAC in Brooklyn (on a Saturday morning, no less) and who answered but Mr. Anthony Imperato himself! He was very kind and spent quite a bit of time on the phone with me. Explained how he'd brought "his Italians" over to assemble the parts on this side of the pond, etc. I explained to him that I was a shooter and used a second generation model, to which he replied, "so you want to shoot these? Hmmm...most people don't buy these to shoot." Even the replacements sent had loose arbors...

 

[Gun Tramp]

when you buy a gun with an official "Colt" marking, you are paying for the fact that Colt (or one if its authorized companies) made it.

Absolutely. I would have nothing less than the Colt name and blame no one but myself that the quality wasn't as expected; the CBAC catalogs were gorgeous. On a positive note, aren't the third generation frame and loading lever truly color case-hardened?

 

[Art Caputo]

I own a 2nd gen, and two 3rd Gen 1851 Colt Navy’s. While I‘M not not crazy about the silver blackstrap and trigger guard on the 3rd gens, they are all well made, reliable, and exceptionally accurate.
perhaps I got lucky.

 

[jonathan butcher]

This thread definitely caught my attention. Recenty I bought a beautiful 3rd Gen 1860 Armyl. But. It had operational problems that were apparant upon initial inspection and which weren't disclosed by the SELLER. Fortunbately they accepted a return. Two days later I stumbled across a 2nd Gen 1860 Army Limited Edition which came with all the extras ( bullet mold, powder flask and even a Colt Letter) and shipped in a beautiful wood case. Made in 1980. Really nice gun which cyclced as advertised. It was also considerably more money but I'm glad I was able to return the 3rd Gen to the shop I bought it from. Here's the 2nd Gen I bought;

Here's the 3rd Gen;

 

[Phfinneuss]

Your conversation with CBAC/A. Imparato is a very unfortunate revelation as to the lack of spirit and pride that went into, an otherwise beautiful gun! I mean, all the v e r y extensive hand work that went into their 'lustrous Colt Finish', including the accessories, took the majority of attention. The functionality of them, yeah, second place. Why? For e x a c t l y the implied reason that you stated in your post,- Through their experience, they felt 'eye candy' over actual use, was the better option, within the market at that time etc. Taking minimum care to meet the 'fireability' of them. Also, if the quality that went into their finish, was also applied to their functionality, the cost of each one would be economically unacceptable. You know?

Simply put, they really were not meant to be fired beyond a novelty once in a while , , thing.