Authenticity of various Bisley clones?

[David Roberson]

I have a Bisley Vaquero that I enjoy shooting a lot, and I am considering another Bisley by another company. Any comments about the authenticity of the Bisleys made by the various Colt clonemakers? I know Cimarron claims its Bisleys are authentic and others are not, but I don't know what they base that claim on (or why their Bisleys, presumably made by Uberti, aren't just as authentic as all the other Uberti-made Bisleys). I've looked over an EMF Bisley Hartford (made by Armi San Marco) and it seemed fine except for poor fitting of the grips to the grip frame.

I'd prefer to get one that is as authentic as possible to the original, so I'd appreciate any insights into whether there's any discernible differences among the various Bisley clones that are out there.

 

[Steve Smith]

I have no idea about the other Bisleymakers from an historical point of view. However, there is another matter here. Bear in mind that John Linebaugh only uses Ruger Vaquero Bisley frames for his .475 Linebaugh loads...with his reputation, I'm sure that there's a reason. Actually, maybe Ruger is making other designs that Linebaugh can use now, but his website says that he only uses the Bisley Vaquero because of it's strength.

 

[MRH]

I had two outstanding Ruger Bisleys -- a Blackhawk .44 mag 7-1/2" and a Vaquero .357 5-1/2". Both were comfortable to shoot, easy to point, and extremely sturdy.

I can't say that about the Cimarron Bisley that I had, a .357 4-3/4". Completely different feel than the Rugers -- certainly more authentic, but just couldn't get used to shooting it. The grip angle was too extreme for me, whereas the Ruger's was not.

But if I was getting a clone and not a Ruger, I'd get the Cimarron over the others. I do think they have better quality control than the other firms, and outstanding customer service if you do have a problem.

 

[Malpaso]

Rugers aren't authentic because they're slightly larger overall than the orignals. They are, however, better.