My dad is a Colt SAA fan and ownes a 1970's model Peacemaker in .22lr/wmr. It is a good shooting gun and I hit well with it. We did some shooting this weekend swaping guns back and forth and had a great time. I was using my Single Six and noticed that my Ruger just felt like it was a more solidly built gun than the Colt. Is this the case or will the Colt hold it's own in the long run (quality wise, not value)? Thanks.

Ever since I very closely examined and measured them side by side about 1972, I have felt that the Single-Six was a sturdier .22. Having said that, I doubt that you'd shoot the Colt to destruction.

One thing to consider when comparing guns is the manufacturing process. Ruger likes to cast their handgun frames while Colt and others drop forge theirs. Cast frames tend to be on the larger and heavier side so the first impression is that it is the stronger gun. In reality, Ruger IS the stronger gun when talking about high pressure loads but for normal pressures either manufacturing process will turn out a gun that will do the job. Just my dos centavos.

The Colt Peacemaker 22s are holding their own versus everything else. They were well made little guns, and of course are no longer available. But, to me, the Ruger Single Six feels better than anything else I own, or have owned. The Colt grip area, much like the Ruger XR3, feels a little cramped compared to the regular Single Six XR3-RED.

Were they made in other calibers than 22? Those were the models that I was more concerned with. Nice to know about the forging. I have small hands and like the smaller frame better.

I've had a Peacemaker since 1972 in 45 LC. I wouldn't trade it for anything. Very well made and fun to shoot.

The centerfire Peacemakers (SAA's) and New Frontiers were made on an entirely different frame size than the .22's.