I recently acquired a Colt Single Action Army that may very well be one of only two made by Colt. If so, this is truly a very rare gun!

The Colt Single Action Army was first produced by Colt in 1873 in 44 Russian and 45 Colt calibers. Here is a recent find that appears to be one of only two SAA's made in 1875 in 38 Colt caliber, and this particular gun was evidently unknown to the experts because it has never been mentioned in any of the books.

In his book "Colt Revolvers and the US Navy 1865-1889", C. Kenneth Moore devotes 10 pages including detailed close up pictures of Colt SAA serial number 16737, which was shipped to the US Navy in 1875 as a test gun. The gun I have is serial number 16829, and is identical to the Navy test gun.

Concerning the Navy gun sn 16737 Moore states in his book: "Fortunately, this arm was located during the course of research in a private collection. The Colt Factory has no shipping nor any other record of it. However, sufficient proof has been found to determine it is the first .38 caliber Colt Single Action Army revolver shipped. The Colt Factory may have retained another revolver in this caliber for its own use, but there was no evidence located to this effect. As will be seen, it was shipped from the Colt Factory on July 7, 1875, to the "Bureau of Ordinance, Navy" for testing." (Emphasis added by me)


My gun has all matching numbers; frame, trigger guard, backstrap, cylinder, barrel and grips, the assembly number on the frame and loading gate match. All the numbers are identical and of the "early style" configuration. The barrel is 6 1/2" long and the address lettering on the top is of the early "script" style. It is chambered in 38 Colt, the chambers are drilled straight through; the rear of the chambers are .382" and the fronts are .379". It chambers 38 Short & Long Colt, 38 Special and 357 Magnum. It will not chamber 38 Colt New Police or 38 S&W. Interesting to note that the rifling is not the early "narrow lands" type, and not the later "wide lands" type, but different from any I have seen before. It has 6 lands & grooves, but the lands are wider than the grooves!.

It is in excellent condition, retaining some of the original case colors and bluing, with no pitting. The bore is in excellent condition, with no pitting. The overall appearance of the gun is one that was carried or handled a lot, but not fired very much and/or was cleaned thoroughly afterward, with no corrosion from black powder evident.

I contacted the Colt Archives Dept, and they have no shipment record of either sn16829 or sn 16737. The Archivist said that this is not unusual with the early guns, as records are incomplete for this period.







[img]http://i181.photobucket.com/al...t%20Gun/SAA1875-32_zps61f7c528.jpg[/img]
[img]http://i181.photobucket.com/al...t%20Gun/SAA1875-24_zps6623b6fc.jpg[/img]
[img]http://i181.photobucket.com/al...ct%20Gun/SAA1875-8_zpsa0f59046.jpg[/img]

Outstanding!

Wow! That's a beauty. My grandfather was a huge Colt SAA collector, along with Winchester 1873s, and would have loved to see that piece. Hope you can track down its history!

If I ran across one of that rarity and significance, I'd do as much research as possible, then have a competent appraiser verify its authenticity. That's probably a six figure gun, based on the last Walker I saw for sale

I trust you're not going to shoot any .357 magnums in it?

MAN! That is a sweetheart of a Colt. Even thought it will chamber a .357 I damn sure wouldn't fire one in it. A lot of the early .38's had bored through chambers that would and a lot of them got blown up!

I would shoot it with standard velocity or cowboy loads though without compunction.

Damn and who would've expected it to be in such good condition! I see traces of case colors all over the frame and it has obviously never been buffed by the gorilla that did so many other old Colt's. That is a real gem! Do you think it shipped as a 6�"?

i thought the 38colt came out in the 1890's?

The 38 Colt wasn't introduced until around 1886. A prototype cartridge and gun certainly could have been built for some tests, but proving that would be hard to do. A 6 1/2 inch barrel is certainly different, as is the 38 stamp on the trigger guard. The earliest model did have a 2 line patent date ending in 1872 until 1877.

The knurling on the hammer seems different from that era, but it could still be correct.

Whatever this gun is, it certainly looks real and has the patina and condition that make it look legitimate. I would never pay a premium price for something like this without ironclad provenance that it is real. If it is real, the sky is the limit on it's value...

The .38 Colt rimfire came about in 1872 and then the centerfire version in ~1874. Both in the Richards-Mason conversion of the 1851 and 1861 Navy .36's.

"The knurling on the hammer seems different from that era, but it could still be correct."

Good eye, Shrapnel! It is a later period replacement hammer. Fortunately, I had a proper period hammer with the correct knurling pattern that I installed in the gun after the pictures were taken.

The barrels on both the Navy gun and my gun are 6 1/2" and came from the factory in that length. Moore quotes in his book communication between Colt and the Navy concerning the specifications required by the Navy of a 6 1/2" bbl and 38 Long Colt caliber.

quite a beauty!

I am not trying to pick things apart, but the other thing i noticed was the "blue" of the heads of some of the screws to me don't quite match the patina of the rest of the revolver. Now on the other hand, quite possible i am off base.
what intrigues me about this stuff is a early 44.40 i have that the barrel was cut down. The head of the colt collectors group in the state saw it and called it an "indian gun" in that indians often did that to early colts. I ain't good enough to know the truth of it. I should post a picture for comment.

When a gun of that rarity and significance comes along, the first thing I worry about is that it's a fake. There are guys out there who will spend years properly aging a gun to make everything look right, and some are so damn good that even the experts don't catch them.

I gentleman I know did a re-finish job on a Dickson round action 16 bore that was so perfect it took a first place in a Concours event. The judges thought it was essentially a new condition gun, when in fact, it had a good lifetime of hunting before Steve refinished it and made it all right again. Then he told everyone it was refinished, and people were appalled. They thought he was trying to put one over, but he had told a whole bunch of people that he re-did the gun. He just wanted to see if the judges couldn't tell. Well the judges were pissed becuase they couldn't tell (quite honestly, even knowing up front, I couldn't see much evidence of refinish other than the fact a 100 year old gun looked perfect).

Some are just that good with refinishing, but some are just as good with aging (those are the SOB's you have to watch for). The refinish guys are the SOB's you want to know when it comes time to finish your gun.

I learned a little about aging a gun when I bought a Winchester 1897 that was completely brown patina on the right side, and nearly silver on the left side from the way it was stored. So I cleaned up the patina on the right side, and added patina on the left side so the gun didn't look so goofy.

I once saw a S&W #1 that had Jesse James scripted on the backstrap. The gun was well used, and rust pitting went into the scripting. It was a fake, and even under a magnifying glass, I couldn't tell; you had to actually use a microscope to tell (and I still wouldn't know what to look for). But someone engraved the name into an otherwise good #1, and then spent months and months aging that script to blend and look right. Essentially ruined the gun, because now anyone honest is very afraid to sell it lest it get back into counterfeit circulation.

If I had that gun, the first thing I would do is get it authenticated by the best in the business. The one red flag is the rifling issue. 1- being nearly perfect. 2- If it's truly unique from anything else that Colt had at that time, that is suspect; but there can be a good reason.

The rifling should match other .38 revolvers they made at that time because it's not real logical for this one revolver to have a completely unique barrel from other .38 revolvers Colt's made. If they have .38 barrels/barrel-stock around, it makes sense they'd use that and not something unique (unless they were experimenting).

But I don't have a clue off the top of my head if Colt's made any other .38 revolvers that time. 1875 was the year they designed the cartridge, so they obviously had something they were working with, but I don't recall off the top of my head if anything was actually offered to the public that early (I wanna say they didn't have any .38's of any model back then, but I don't trust my memory). If there weren't any others, that really complicates authentication because you have really only have one good source for authentication...the other .38.

The obvious would be to reach out to the owner of the one known and authenticated to see if the barrel rifling matches, as well as everything else.

Looking at the photos, my first reaction is that it's in great shape for a gun of that age. Second is that everything does appear to match in appearance, so it looks righteous from the photos.

If it's the real deal, that is one hell of a great find. I wish you the best of luck. If you get it authenticated, I'd love to hear how it all goes.

That's a good catch. Those screws are Nitre blued and with the heads sticking out as far as they do, they should wear much faster than anything else around. Color Case is MUCH tougher than Niter bluing. So what does that mean?

They could be replaced screws. Why? Beat's the hell out of me. Not unreasonable that in the lifetime of a SAA that old that a screw or two would break or some other reason need to be changed (buggered up, etc.). But all 3, that's odd.

These old guns are the proverbial "enigma wrapped in a mystery". I've seen fully authenticated originals that have had weird anomalies like that. Where everyone agrees the gun is righteous, but not one person can come up with a solid reason why something is out of place.

The owner could have decided to take the gun apart at some point and completely trashed a screw. Or lost one, and then realized when he bought a replacement, the 3 wouldn't match; so bought a set of 3 replacements. Just no way to tell.

That's one thing I miss from Arkansas. A friend who deals in fine guns occasionally gets these mysteries, and it's all kinds of fun to try to unwrap the mystery.

Colt SAA's are almost in a world of their own collecting-wise. Relatively to other collectibles, lots of them were made, but besides the rare variants, even common guns are desirable. For instance, the 41 Colt is much rarer than the 45 Colt but the 45 Colt 1st gens will almost always bring more given the same condition. That said, ultra rare examples bring the most and high condition guns bring more than lesser ones. This particular specimen is nearly unique. The circumstances lend credence to its not having been cut. Cutting the barrel lowers the value dramatically. That said, if the barrel on this gun has been cut, I don't know how much it would effect things since the rarity of the piece so far overshadows the other details. Cut barrel, refinish, mixed numbers...these are the big value killers. I don't think the gun has been refinished. A knowledgeable collector as the OP obviously is, should be able to tell rather easily if the barrel has been cut, claims of super-fakers notwithstanding. Some screws apparently have been replaced. Replacement screws have the least impact on value of any detectable replacement on an SAA. On two extremely high condition guns, one with replacement screws and one without, the one without would bring more money...but it would be hard to tell that the screws were replacements (assuming fitting screws of the correct period's appearance) on a high condition gun in the first place!

All that said, I don't think a few replacement screws affect the value of this gun at all. The reason they appear to be replacement screws is the difference in appearance of the screws in question and a couple of other screws on the gun which are pretty obviously original or very old replacements.

Your post is all over the place and makes no sense. For instance, why would everybody agree the gun is "righteous" when it had obviously replaced screws? I don't know what a "righteous" SAA is, but evidently one with totally original parts, which is not what one with replacement screws is. That said, replacement screws do not kill the value of the type of gun that normally has them. ie a SAA with enough wear on it to tell it has replacement screws. True experts will replace lost screws with the same type of screws that the lost screws were. Aging a screw is a lot less of a process than a whole gun and lots of collectors replace non-numbered parts. So no way to tell what? That just sounds ignorant.

The case colors look good and could easily be original. Screws that have bluing on the frame wouldn't wear any more than the frame, as a holster wouldn't touch the screws anyway.

The overall condition of the gun appears excellent and regardless of barrel length, the numbers match and so does the condition. I like the gun for what it is, not what it could be. Without absolute proof of it being a test gun, it is a very nice early first generation gun that is easily worth what a first generation gun with that much finish would bring...

I guess I didn't make my point well.

It's righteous if the gun is not a fake, and actually is what it appears to be. The screws won't change that. The issue of the screws is just why are 3 screws different. When evaluating to determine if something really is what it's supposed to be, you look for inconsistencies; things out of place.

I didn't say anywhere that the screws changed the value, that wasn't my point. Just saying that 3 changed screws draws scrutiny when looking at the gun. Hell, we don't even know for certain that they are replaced; just speculating based on photos, which is pretty weak.

I'm just saying they're inconsistent. That cold me something, or it could just mean someone replaced the screws, that's all.

Here's the thing. The screws protrude higher than the frame, and the case colors are worn off. So you have an area where there is no case coloring left, and then a very lighly worn screw right next to it. So how did the case hardening go away without the screws being affected? The other screws match the patina of the rest of the gun, but these don't. Also, all the other screws show deformation marks from being assembled and disassembled, yet those 3 screws have screw slots that are perfect.

The screws are originally Nitre blued, which is notorious for not holding up well. So if the case colors are faded, worn, etc., it just makes sense the screws would have worn also. If they were recessed into the frame and below the area that's missing the case colors, then your statement would make sense. But you can clearly see from the photos that the screws project beyond the frame on either side.

Case colors will fade with time, it isn't a case of wear only...

You made your point, it's just that your point made no sense because once again, you think you know a lot more than you know.

I agree to an extent and will give the nod to your greater experience. I will say though that the internet has been a game-changer in gun sales and this is very true in the sub category of antique firearms. There have always been guys who will take a chance on a gun to get verification. In almost every collector or antique dealer's collection you'll see a couple of "coulda' been a contenduh" type guns that the guy just can't get verified, probably with a couple more that he found out weren't. It would surprise me if you don't have a couple of these. heheh But besides that, the internet has broadened the accessibility to these guns to such an extent that I think there are a lot more guys who are just inexperienced enough to take a chance on these guns. Not that they don't know the technical details, but that they haven't added those "almost" and "coulda' been" guns yet. lol

I don't see any reason for the hostility.

Gungeek: "The one red flag is the rifling issue. 1- being nearly perfect. 2- If it's truly unique from anything else that Colt had at that time, that is suspect; but there can be a good reason.
The rifling should match other .38 revolvers they made at that time because it's not real logical for this one revolver to have a completely unique barrel from other .38 revolvers Colt's made. If they have .38 barrels/barrel-stock around, it makes sense they'd use that and not something unique (unless they were experimenting).

But I don't have a clue off the top of my head if Colt's made any other .38 revolvers that time. 1875 was the year they designed the cartridge, so they obviously had something they were working with, but I don't recall off the top of my head if anything was actually offered to the public that early (I wanna say they didn't have any .38's of any model back then, but I don't trust my memory). If there weren't any others, that really complicates authentication because you have really only have one good source for authentication...the other .38.

The obvious would be to reach out to the owner of the one known and authenticated to see if the barrel rifling matches, as well as everything else."

According to a well respected Colt SAA authority: "The rifling is of the early style, equal distant lands and grooves, but most of those early 38 barrels were left over percussion navies, turned and used on the model 1877 double action."

[u][/u][i][/i]

Okay, if that makes you feel better...I don't know chit...you can just ignore everything if that makes you feel better.

That's a helluva piece regardless of whether you ever find out the story behind it!!!

Regardless of what has been posted and who wants to argue with who, I like your Colt.
Best of luck on your continuing research and please keep us posted on your progress.
Thanks for posting and, especially all the pictures.

Ernie

Typically I ignore quite a bit of your drivel but it doesn't make me feel anything one way or the other. Just some clarification for you.

I expect you don't. Your registration is 2013. Some good advice would be to tread lightly and not jump into [bleep] you don't know anything about. Thus far you come off as pretty knowledgeable about some handgun issues. You've agreed with me on some stuff, and that's a good start. On this, you summed it up when you said you didn't see. When you don't see, maybe it's best to watch until you do.

I didn't "jump into [bleep]" and my registration date is irrelevant. I really don't give a damn what history you guys have. My point, is that there is no reason to pollute THIS thread with whatever personal bullshit you guys have going on. It's juvenile to pollute every unrelated thread with your personal garbage. If you don't like people commenting on your little spat, don't do it or relegate it to PM's. Just like your comments to me. Call someone out for all to see and it has nowhere to go but downward.

I might've only registered HERE last year but I didn't just fall off the turnip truck. I know bullshit when I smell it.

I know a little about a lot of things. I know a lot about very few things. I mention what little experience with fakes because I thought it was interesting. I know when I was shown fakes, good fakes that someone spent a good deal of time and money to create (and ruined otherwise very collectible guns); I found it interesting the lengths that otherwise talented gunsmiths would go to make a very dishonest buck. Ethan doesn't appreciate what I've shared, okay fine. He thinks I'm FOS; fine. Everyone can judge for themselves.

I still say that job one would be to get the gun authenticated if you can. There are some guns that are never fully authenticated because the collectors world become divided.

Mind your own damn business and GFY.

Edited to say: I mean seriously, you come in here and are talking to guys who have been here forever when you've been here a year and start moralizing and telling everybody how to behave. Take that [bleep] to some metrosexual clothing site or something. Nobody here GAF.

Like I said, petty and juvenile. If it's posted on the open forum for all to see, it's everybody's business. I'm sure the OP appreciates you running his thread into the gutter with your utter stupidity.

This place needs a friggin' enema.

This revolver can be authenticated by the Colt archive department, correct?



Travis

I think the OP has a cool gun and I am enjoying the information and speculation that people are bringing to the table. I would not expect a 135 year old gun to have never been upgraded or worked upon, so piecing together the history is not an exact science.

I don't have any insight to add except for the condition of the screws.

For whatever reason, the nitre blue on the old Colt screws seems to hold its color and gloss.

This New Police from 1905 has lost much of its finish, but the screw heads still maintain a glossy blue finish,.....much better than it appears in the pic.

The OP said "no" to that.

That's a nice piece Bristoe.

If you don't like it, leave. You're talking about cluttering the place up but yet you've made two or three off-topic posts. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out...or do.

I missed that.



Travis

Not all you missed! Last weekend with the fouled 17...

Do you know anything about Colt's? Or are you a Ruger guy?



Travis

He prefers Taurus.

I believe the OP said that Colt had no record of ever shipping that gun. I think this one may be beyond Colt's to authenticate. You have to go to someone who specializes in this sort of thing. I've never had much taste for collectibles, but I have friends who are into them (none who are into Colt's SAA's though...but if you want a Purdey checked out...).

Kinda like Winchester, you always went to Madis or the Cody Museum for authentication. Both have (had in the case of the Late Mr. Madis) copies of the books from early Winchester on up to WWII, which goes a long ways. Madis being one of the foremost experts could take things a bit further.

I don't know who does this for 1873 Colt's though.

Well folks, I tried to do the forum and the thread the respect of taking this stupid pissing match to PM's but Ethan doesn't want to do that. Carry on my wayward butt-hurt son.

Either Taurus or Ruger has an advantage over Colt, as you can always throw the gun at whatever it was that you were shooting at with those pieces of junk...

Look you sniveling anal puppet, I'm not the one PMing somebody and worrying about stupid [bleep]. Like I said before, if you don't like how people carry on here on this site the solution is very simple. Perhaps a site featuring purses or shoes would be more to your preference. I didn't get any farther on that PM than where you cursed me and I just deleted the second one without opening it, so quit cluttering up my inbox.

Was that before or after you told me to go screw myself???

Keep padding your post count, since you obviously think it entitles you to act like an idiot. You're a child and a coward.

Apologies to HClark as I bow out of this thread. I didn't realize a couple of pithy comments would upset the new Eunuch and he would start [bleep] and spitting all over the joint.

Very nice and interesting gun. I hope you'll keep us apprised of what you find out about it.

OK, you're an Uberti man. We get it.



Travis

Yeah, I was under the impression Colt could answer anything for a fee but that obviously is not the case.



Travis

I will answer anything for a fee.

I believe Colt's used to have an on staff historian like S&W did (maybe still does), but I think that went away in the late '80's/early '90's.

Colt's has been victim of corporate buyouts that just raped the company of anything great and left a shell of what they once were. I would love to see Colt build up their civilian market to its former greatness, but the seem to still be 99.9% focused on the military. The dumb part of that is, everyone knows the M16/M4 will eventually be replaced, and since Colt's is not an innovative company, it won't be a Colt that replaces the M16/M4.

They still have historians research your Colt and will mail you back a certificate of authenticity and a history of the gun.

I think the older SAA's are about $300.00. More moderner Colts are $75.00.



Travis

What in God's name is your problem?????????

Pieces of junk? Really? Most of the Colts I have handled over the years left a lot to be desired -- not the case with my Rugers.

Colt's 1873's are beautiful and classic, but not what I'd call robust and durable. I'd expect most Taurus or Ruger revolvers to be far more durable than the 1873.

No, Colt was a victim of its own Holding Company, Colt Industries, who sucked the life out of Colt Firearms, and also Fairbanks Morse engines and Holley Carburetor (and probably others).

Colt had union problems in the 80's, and went bankrupt in the 90's, and new investors stepped in - they hired General Keys to run it in 2002, where most people agree they have turned things around.

I wouldn't call it a turn around, because you have to include the military division of Colt's. They have certainly turned the quality around on their civilian guns. I think Colt's makes a first rate 1911 these days, and the reintroduction of the New Frontier revolver was a stroke of genius; gotta give them props for that.

But the problem is, Colt's is over 90% supported by military contracts, and when the US drops the M16/M4; they're screwed because they have no backup plan.

I thought FN had the contract now?

The last I read Colt has the M4 contract, FN the rifles contract. Colt also has a contract on the 1911 for the Marines.

There were reports a few weeks ago Colt was buying LWRC for $60 million; but so far I have seen no official confirmation.

I don't see the Colt M4 going anywhere for a long time.



Travis

Back on the subject of SAA's - I recently bought a USFA China Camp from a relative that needed money. My one previous SAA was a 3rd Gen Colt New Frontier, which was really good looking, but not well fitted.

This USFA does feel pretty nice in the hand, and with the action well fitted, works smoothly and precisely - probably how 1st Gen Peacemakers felt in their day, and maybe how a mint example still feels today.

I still prefer the Ruger Bisley grip for stout loads, but after handling this USFA, I see why the SAA became so iconic in its day...

...but now I gotta be careful not to slip a "Ruger only" load into the China Camp

It's a very tough act to follow that's for sure. But they are getting long in the tooth, and inventories will be well worn out by the time we wrap up the war. There are "better" designs out there, but when you adopt a new rifle, you know there are going to be bugs. Most of those bugs are related to materials and manufacturing, not the design itself. So you really want to make a switch during peacetime, not in a war like we did last time. But I think when the war is over, the M4 will be slated for replacement inside of 10 years.

Of course there has been no less than 4 of 5 programs to replace the M16 since it was adopted, so who knows. Like I said, it is a rather tough act to follow.

Well if all you bull shooters will allow me, I'll get back to the subject at hand. Colt will send you a letter saying what configuration the gun was in, the date shipped, and who it was shipped to for $150 if it is in their shipping record books. However, there is one record book missing, and entries are jumbled and incomplete for the early years.

I talked to Ron Graham, the leading authority on civilian Colt SAA's today, and he is excited about examining the gun. I will ship it to him in a couple of weeks, and if it is genuine, hope to get a letter of authentication signed by him.

Screw shipping it.... if he is THAT 'excited', he'd be falling all over himself to fly/drive out to see it......

That is a very nice SAA, it's a great find and could be a historic one too.
There are many sources available for it's history, John Kopec is one contact.
Colt Letters cost $100, I have one and another on the way.
They do not include any history, only how it left the factory and where it was sent.
Here are examples of my three generations on SAA. Top one is a 1920 that was sent to the Browning Brothers Shop in Ogden UT, middle is a 1963 and bottom is a 2008 (this one is out getting ivory grips, engraving and nickelplating) .
There is just something special about Colt SAA, maybe because of my cowboy days as a kid in the 50's .

Bad ass.



Travis

Let us know how it turns out. You have a real find there.

"There are many sources available for it's history, John Kopec is one contact."

jbmi,
I talked to Kopec shortly after getting the gun. He was interested in it, but declined to examine it because it is not a military Colt, which is his specialty. He was the one who suggested that I call Graham.

You are correct that Colt letters are only $100 (and take about 3 months to get); I had the $150 in my head because for the extra $50 they will give you the info over the phone with the followup letter arriving about two weeks later, and that's the way I do it.

Freakin' Colt snobs...






Travis

Update on Colt;

I never got renewed contact with Ron Graham, guess he wasn't as "excited" about the gun as I originally thought!!! However, I did send it to Dave Lanara, the man that Graham uses for his restorations, and has probably closely examined more SAA's than Graham has! Here is his letter of "authentication":

Ho...lee...schit.

That is simply beyond cool.

Very cool!

Well done. Congratulations!

I guess Kopec was wrong about it not being military.

He was right. The navy never ordered em.

Take that, all you doubters...

Sweet

Thank you for putting this up, it has been a pleasure examining the excellent photographs of such a rare and lovely object. Plans?

I'm very happy to be wrong, I guess I should be less cynical.

hclark,

Congratulations sir, how utterly fantastic! I'm so glad it all worked out, you have an amazing find there.

Yowza!

some cold blue and truoil and that thing will look like new.