Colt or Clone?

Vinnie Harold · January 30, 2011, 10:44 AM

Back again!

I recently received my USFA SA from Long Hunter Shooting Supply. The pistol is beautiful, and the action work is silky smooth. My range officer asked if he could see the weapon because he shoots SA, and he could not get over the action. He asked if it came from the factory like this, and I explained how Jim, from Long Hunter did work on it. He knew of Jim's work, and so now I knew I had a wonderful pistol.

I thought that I was done, but now I've decided I need one in a 71/2" barrel.

I have been on line to Colt, and their 1873 Peacemaker model (cat. P 1870) looks just like what I want. It retails for $1300.
I have decided I will not go the $2000 and up price for an original 2nd generation colt so the $1300 new one is "affordable".

But USFA makes a Custer Battlefield model of the 1873 Peacemaker made to look like it is actually over 100 years old. The price of that is a whopping $1750 - or a Henry Nettleton Calvery Revolver for $1700.

Now, while I do not necessarily NEED the aged look in the Peacemaker, I am impressed with the tightness and performance of my first USFA.

In your opinion is the quality of the USFA better than the new Colt to "justify" the additional cost? Yes, I want a Colt, but a new Colt, for me, is not like actually REALLY having Colt.

Vinnie

rep1954 · January 30, 2011, 11:04 AM

vinnie, USFA makes a great gun at the standard SA price and a good value also. I can not reason what they start to ask for some of thier sepcial SA's.
I personally would not invest that kind of money into the Henry Nettleton if I were you but get another gun from Long Hunter with the barrel you want. I'm sure you would appreciate the standard finish better in the long run shooting all that ammo you got with the savings.

Winchester_73 · January 30, 2011, 11:11 AM

Quote:

I have decided I will not go the $2000 and up price for an original 2nd generation colt so the $1300 new one is "affordable".

There seems to be many 2nd generation SAAs for less than $2000. Is the calvary model 7.5 45 colt variant rare in a 2nd generation or something?

Buzzcook · January 30, 2011, 12:31 PM

Buy the Colt. If you can afford it, there's no reason not to.

L_Killkenny · January 30, 2011, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Buy the Colt. If you can afford it, there's no reason not to.

Actually the answer is there's no reason to afford a Colt. Ya pay for the name and there are better guns. USFA being one.

LK

gyvel · January 30, 2011, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Actually the answer is there's no reason to afford a Colt. Ya pay for the name and there are better guns. USFA being one.

True enough, but, unfortunately, a few years down the road if you decide to sell, the Colt is going to be a lot easier to get rid of.

Wildalaska · January 30, 2011, 01:04 PM

Curent Colt SAAs have better fit and finish than any of the clones, and I daresay I have played with them all.

It is also the only real SAA, just like the only real 1911 is made by Colt.

A new SAA can be had for as little as $999, street. It will hold its value far better than any clone, even if you shoot it.

WildwehavetowsheriffsmodelsthatkeepscreamingmynameAlaska ™©2002-2011

dgludwig · January 30, 2011, 02:41 PM

Quote:

But USFA makes a Custer Battlefield model of the 1873 Peacemaker made to look like it is actually over 100 years old. The price of that is a whopping $1750 - or a Henry Nettleton Calvery Revolver for $1700.

Now, while I do not necessarily NEED the aged look in the Peacemaker,

I guess I've never understood the thinking behind artificially "aged" Peacemakers. If anybody is going to knock my revolvers around enough to make them look like they've "been rode hard and put away wet", it will be me, thank you. But I have no objection whatsoever if somebody wants somebody else to inflict "aging" on their sa revolver to add a sense of historical significance or an air of authenticity to it. Whatever floats your boat.

DPris · January 30, 2011, 04:07 PM

I worked with a Custer Model, and liked it.
BUT: It will come oversprung & nowhere near as smooth as your USFA from Long Hunter.
Just expect to do some action work on top of the purchase price.
Denis

Jim March · January 30, 2011, 04:35 PM

Two things:

* Longhunter will also pre-tune higher-end USFA models...he has access to USFA's entire catalog. I wouldn't pay $1700 for an "artificially aged" critter(!) but if I wanted a pretty SA, the base model SA with a full finish is just under a grand list price from USFA. The premium to have Longhunter tweak it first won't be bad...and while the comparison between a high-end USFA and a current production Colt will be pretty similar, a Longhunter-tuned USFA will out-shoot and out-last a Colt any day of the week.

* You can also have Doug Turnbull strip and upgrade the finish on a Rodeo to whatever you want.

basshunter · January 30, 2011, 04:44 PM

All things considered I would buy the Colt. Always remember when you want to sell or trade, the Colt brand will pay off for you.

Model-P · January 30, 2011, 06:02 PM

Quote:

the base model SA with a full finish is just under a grand list price from USFA.

That is so, like, yesteryear. Get with the times, man.
http://www.usfirearms.com/cat/single...n-revolver.asp

Model-P · January 30, 2011, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Yes, I want a Colt, but a new Colt, for me, is not like actually REALLY having Colt.

rep1954 · January 30, 2011, 08:12 PM

Model-P, what are you trying to say? Are you saying Colt doesnt make the SAA themselves or do you mean because it's not the same as a second or first generation SAA. If thats so then any SAA made after the pinch frame is not a Colt SAA. Ever since it's conception the Colt SAA has under gone many changes.

Model-P · January 30, 2011, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Model-P, what are you trying to say?

Vinnie Harold, the op, said it, not I. I'm still trying to figure it out myself!

Winchester_73 · January 30, 2011, 08:35 PM

He probably means to say that a new SAA is not like having an old one. But then again, he is interested in getting a clone, which is farther from a first generation SAA than a 4th generation SAA because at least then, its still a Colt.

The only solution is for him to go out and buy a real first generation - just don't forget to post pics...

rep1954 · January 30, 2011, 08:48 PM

Vinnie Harold, the op, said it, not I. I'm still trying to figure it out myself!

Model-P I went back and read the original post and stand correctly informed now. Didnt catch what you were saying with that post but now I understand.
Not my first brain fart for the day.

Jim March · January 30, 2011, 09:00 PM

"Starting at $1,150". Whoops. Yeah, they've gone up some.

As to Colts produced today being "authentic"....

I had a chance to compare and handle several Colts at a large gun show in Arizona, and compare them to my gun and a bone-stock USFA Rodeo.

When I first picked up a Colt 1st Gen dating to 1913, I held it in my usual pinkie-under hold and put my thumb on the hammer. And got the shock of my life - the feel and placement of the hammer tip was identical to my gun - a New Vaquero.

Except my NewVaq has a lower SBH hammer on it - has since a couple months after I scored the gun in 2005.

So...puzzled, I started doing some comparisons. I found two post-WW2 Colts, 2nd and 3rd gen, that had the "too high a hammer" feel I had been unfond of when I first scored my NewVaq. I found two more pre-war Colts including a mediocre-condition black power frame from before 1895 and yet again, the hammer reach was lower like I'd set up on my gun. A USFA Rodeo matched the ergonomics of the OLD Colts and my (modified) NewVaq.

Upshot:

1) USFA is making a more "period correct" gun than Colt.

2) Colt's machines for making the pre-war SAAs was left outside to rust during WW2. The post-war guns are VERY different from the pre-war.

3) Ruger's NewVaq cloned the (arguably improper) ergonomics of the post-WW2 Colts, and in swapping the hammer to an SBH type (similar to what's on the Montado and "SASS special" NewVaqs) I had restored it to period-correct handling (if not looks) without realizing it.

If I was buying one to SHOOT and the choice was a Colt for $1,300 or a USFA for $1,150...I'd go with a USFA.

Because it's the Colt that is the inferior clone, weirdly enough.

Model-P · January 30, 2011, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Because it's the Colt that is the inferior clone, weirdly enough.

Trust me, there is NO cloning going on in Colt's laboratories! The bloodline of the current Single Action Army is still pure Colt.

DoctorXring · January 30, 2011, 11:32 PM

.

Colt, USFA, Ruger New Vaquero. I would keep the list with those
three.

I handled and fired a friends New Vaquero at the range the other
day. I was quite impressed with the fit and finish on this gun.
Since Ruger retooled, their single actions are just superb. I have
a recent Blackhawk and a Bisley and they are great. For the money
they are impossible to beat. And if you want tank-like reliability
and a super strong gun, park here. It's not totally "correct" as
per history, but it handles like it. The New Vaquero is a very
nice gun.

But if you want "exquisite" you will have to go with USFA. They are
at the top of the heap right now for a Colt SAA "clone".

If you want a very fine SAA with a historical name attached to
it, go Colt SAA.

You can't go wrong with these three.

good shooting, dxr

.

Jim March · January 31, 2011, 01:41 AM

Quote:

Trust me, there is NO cloning going on in Colt's laboratories! The bloodline of the current Single Action Army is still pure Colt.

Nope. It rusted to death in the '40s.

Model-P · January 31, 2011, 02:13 AM

Quote:

It rusted to death in the '40s.

Apparently not!

Jim March · January 31, 2011, 03:10 AM

"Model P":

If you actually own a Colt, list what period it is from. Then grab it in one hand, your strong hand, and put your thumb on the hammer.

What part of your thumb does the tip of the hammer hit?

If it's hitting in the middle of your thumb's pad (outer section where your thumbprint is), then the ergonomics of that gun is wrong for you.

These pics show where my hammer's tip is landing - right on the joint:

The second pic shows my thumb starting the cocking stroke, folding down over the hammer, but not yet moving the hammer in this pic. It's about to move if I put any more pressure on.

If I took these pics with a 1st Gen Colt I'd get the exact same result, within one or two millimeters tops. This is of course based on my preferred hold, a "pinkie under" as shown. With the hammer in this position, my cocking strong is absolutely secure. With the hammer tip in the middle of the thumb pad, it isn't near as secure and this is what drives people to off-hand-cocking, which is the work of the devil if we're talking about actually using an SA in a fight.

If I did this with a post-WW2 Colt (production re-started in 1955 or 1956 depending on who you believe), I wouldn't get the same result. I'd be forced to use a grip that is not as fast or accurate for my hand size.

USFA cloned the proper pre-war ergonomics. They're closer to the real thing than a current-production Colt.

Model-P · January 31, 2011, 04:17 AM

The proportions of the gripframe of the Single Action Army started changing from the very beginning. It's no great secret that SAA gripframes have increased slightly in size throughout the history of the model. Therefore, if you are going to base your assertion that the present Colt SAA is just a clone of what you decided is a "real" Colt SAA based on "ergonomics", then you are fighting a losing battle because you would have to subjectively pick what point in time to freeze the dimensions and call them "proper". Anyway, what is "proper" for you may be improper for someone else, and what is proper for someone else may be "improper" for you.

Regardless of how moot it all is, here's what I found on mine. I have a 1916 and a 2009 Colt Single Action Army, as well as a 2nd generation hammer to measure.

Measuring from the "crotch" at the rear of the hammer to the tip of the spur, all three hammers measure the same 1.5". Measuring from the tip of the hammer spur to the toe of the butt on both SAAs gives the same 4.9". When I grip both with my pinky under the toe, not surprisingly my thumb hits the spur at the same place on both (About the middle of the thumb pad- I don't normally wrap my pinky under, and my hands are probably smaller than yours).

I will say, though, that the way the stocks fit the hand can change the perceived "ergonomics", and that fit can vary due to several factors, including differences in dimensions, angles, as well as thickness of the stock. A SAA with eagle stocks, for example, fills the hand quite a bit more than eagleless stocks do, and I can see how they could change the ergonomics of hammer reach for some people. Perhaps that is a factor for you.

While your experiences with your sample guns may differ from mine, it's hardly a basis to say that the current Colt Single Action Army isn't really a Colt Single Action Army, though I suppose there have always been some who have felt that way ever since the "rebirth" of the SAA in 1955.

gak · January 31, 2011, 10:52 AM

Jim and Model-P, you both make good points. All I know is, without measuring (for the moment) among my three samples I have - a "4th" Gen Colt, USFA Rodeo and New Vaquero (plus a Cimarron Model P as comparison as well), the stock New Vaquero hammer is too high swept. And I'd venture to say that at least 50% of those who either have owned or handled -- that I have talked to -- have the same observation..."Ruger went too far." I am away from these guns at the moment, but the other two/three examples seem "about right," my recollection (power of suggestion?) being the new Colt's a "little higher" than the Rodeo or Cim, but not as "radically" swept back" as much as the New Vaq. (The Rodeo--and Cim--being more patterned directly off 1st Gens as Jim said). My next reaction after getting my New Vaquero(s) has been--for both grip and hammer--why didn't they just copy the darn Colt verbatim (any gen)?!...since they were re-patterning their Vaquero line that direction anyway! Although, as Model P says, Colt's changed grips/frame as well, they somehow always seem "just right" to me, the 3rd/4th gen's for sure being more hand filling, but still "right-on" even for my smallish hands.

So now, two NVs in the stall sport SBH (actually Montado) hammers, and the third's about to...though I may just put a "regular" BH hammer on that. I understand they are not as radically swept as well.

January 30, 2011, 10:44 AM	#1
Vinnie Harold Senior Member Join Date: January 8, 2009 Posts: 115	Colt or Clone? Back again! I recently received my USFA SA from Long Hunter Shooting Supply. The pistol is beautiful, and the action work is silky smooth. My range officer asked if he could see the weapon because he shoots SA, and he could not get over the action. He asked if it came from the factory like this, and I explained how Jim, from Long Hunter did work on it. He knew of Jim's work, and so now I knew I had a wonderful pistol. I thought that I was done, but now I've decided I need one in a 71/2" barrel. I have been on line to Colt, and their 1873 Peacemaker model (cat. P 1870) looks just like what I want. It retails for $1300. I have decided I will not go the $2000 and up price for an original 2nd generation colt so the $1300 new one is "affordable". But USFA makes a Custer Battlefield model of the 1873 Peacemaker made to look like it is actually over 100 years old. The price of that is a whopping $1750 - or a Henry Nettleton Calvery Revolver for $1700. Now, while I do not necessarily NEED the aged look in the Peacemaker, I am impressed with the tightness and performance of my first USFA. In your opinion is the quality of the USFA better than the new Colt to "justify" the additional cost? Yes, I want a Colt, but a new Colt, for me, is not like actually REALLY having Colt. Vinnie

January 30, 2011, 04:35 PM	#10
Jim March Senior Member Join Date: February 14, 1999 Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA Posts: 7,417	Two things: * Longhunter will also pre-tune higher-end USFA models...he has access to USFA's entire catalog. I wouldn't pay $1700 for an "artificially aged" critter(!) but if I wanted a pretty SA, the base model SA with a full finish is just under a grand list price from USFA. The premium to have Longhunter tweak it first won't be bad...and while the comparison between a high-end USFA and a current production Colt will be pretty similar, a Longhunter-tuned USFA will out-shoot and out-last a Colt any day of the week. * You can also have Doug Turnbull strip and upgrade the finish on a Rodeo to whatever you want. __________________ Jim March

January 30, 2011, 08:35 PM	#16
Winchester_73 Senior Member Join Date: December 20, 2008 Location: Pittsburgh PA Posts: 2,863	He probably means to say that a new SAA is not like having an old one. But then again, he is interested in getting a clone, which is farther from a first generation SAA than a 4th generation SAA because at least then, its still a Colt. The only solution is for him to go out and buy a real first generation - just don't forget to post pics... __________________ Winchester 73, the TFL user that won the west

January 30, 2011, 09:00 PM	#18
Jim March Senior Member Join Date: February 14, 1999 Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA Posts: 7,417	"Starting at $1,150". Whoops. Yeah, they've gone up some. As to Colts produced today being "authentic".... I had a chance to compare and handle several Colts at a large gun show in Arizona, and compare them to my gun and a bone-stock USFA Rodeo. When I first picked up a Colt 1st Gen dating to 1913, I held it in my usual pinkie-under hold and put my thumb on the hammer. And got the shock of my life - the feel and placement of the hammer tip was identical to my gun - a New Vaquero. Except my NewVaq has a lower SBH hammer on it - has since a couple months after I scored the gun in 2005. So...puzzled, I started doing some comparisons. I found two post-WW2 Colts, 2nd and 3rd gen, that had the "too high a hammer" feel I had been unfond of when I first scored my NewVaq. I found two more pre-war Colts including a mediocre-condition black power frame from before 1895 and yet again, the hammer reach was lower like I'd set up on my gun. A USFA Rodeo matched the ergonomics of the OLD Colts and my (modified) NewVaq. Upshot: 1) USFA is making a more "period correct" gun than Colt. 2) Colt's machines for making the pre-war SAAs was left outside to rust during WW2. The post-war guns are VERY different from the pre-war. 3) Ruger's NewVaq cloned the (arguably improper) ergonomics of the post-WW2 Colts, and in swapping the hammer to an SBH type (similar to what's on the Montado and "SASS special" NewVaqs) I had restored it to period-correct handling (if not looks) without realizing it. If I was buying one to SHOOT and the choice was a Colt for $1,300 or a USFA for $1,150...I'd go with a USFA. Because it's the Colt that is the inferior clone, weirdly enough. __________________ Jim March

January 31, 2011, 03:10 AM	#23
Jim March Senior Member Join Date: February 14, 1999 Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA Posts: 7,417	"Model P": If you actually own a Colt, list what period it is from. Then grab it in one hand, your strong hand, and put your thumb on the hammer. What part of your thumb does the tip of the hammer hit? If it's hitting in the middle of your thumb's pad (outer section where your thumbprint is), then the ergonomics of that gun is wrong for you. These pics show where my hammer's tip is landing - right on the joint: The second pic shows my thumb starting the cocking stroke, folding down over the hammer, but not yet moving the hammer in this pic. It's about to move if I put any more pressure on. If I took these pics with a 1st Gen Colt I'd get the exact same result, within one or two millimeters tops. This is of course based on my preferred hold, a "pinkie under" as shown. With the hammer in this position, my cocking strong is absolutely secure. With the hammer tip in the middle of the thumb pad, it isn't near as secure and this is what drives people to off-hand-cocking, which is the work of the devil if we're talking about actually using an SA in a fight. If I did this with a post-WW2 Colt (production re-started in 1955 or 1956 depending on who you believe), I wouldn't get the same result. I'd be forced to use a grip that is not as fast or accurate for my hand size. USFA cloned the proper pre-war ergonomics. They're closer to the real thing than a current-production Colt. __________________ Jim March

January 30, 2011, 11:04 AM	#2
rep1954 Senior Member Join Date: July 5, 2009 Location: Mid Western Michigan Posts: 1,187	vinnie, USFA makes a great gun at the standard SA price and a good value also. I can not reason what they start to ask for some of thier sepcial SA's. I personally would not invest that kind of money into the Henry Nettleton if I were you but get another gun from Long Hunter with the barrel you want. I'm sure you would appreciate the standard finish better in the long run shooting all that ammo you got with the savings.

January 30, 2011, 12:31 PM	#4
Buzzcook Senior Member Join Date: November 29, 2007 Location: Everett, WA Posts: 6,126	Buy the Colt. If you can afford it, there's no reason not to.

January 30, 2011, 01:04 PM	#7
Wildalaska Junior member Join Date: November 25, 2002 Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska Posts: 14,172	Curent Colt SAAs have better fit and finish than any of the clones, and I daresay I have played with them all. It is also the only real SAA, just like the only real 1911 is made by Colt. A new SAA can be had for as little as $999, street. It will hold its value far better than any clone, even if you shoot it. WildwehavetowsheriffsmodelsthatkeepscreamingmynameAlaska ™©2002-2011

January 30, 2011, 04:07 PM	#9
DPris Member Emeritus Join Date: August 19, 2004 Posts: 7,133	I worked with a Custer Model, and liked it. BUT: It will come oversprung & nowhere near as smooth as your USFA from Long Hunter. Just expect to do some action work on top of the purchase price. Denis

January 30, 2011, 04:44 PM	#11
basshunter Member Join Date: January 8, 2011 Location: iowa Posts: 35	All things considered I would buy the Colt. Always remember when you want to sell or trade, the Colt brand will pay off for you.

January 30, 2011, 08:12 PM	#14
rep1954 Senior Member Join Date: July 5, 2009 Location: Mid Western Michigan Posts: 1,187	Model-P, what are you trying to say? Are you saying Colt doesnt make the SAA themselves or do you mean because it's not the same as a second or first generation SAA. If thats so then any SAA made after the pinch frame is not a Colt SAA. Ever since it's conception the Colt SAA has under gone many changes.

January 30, 2011, 08:48 PM	#17
rep1954 Senior Member Join Date: July 5, 2009 Location: Mid Western Michigan Posts: 1,187	Vinnie Harold, the op, said it, not I. I'm still trying to figure it out myself! Model-P I went back and read the original post and stand correctly informed now. Didnt catch what you were saying with that post but now I understand. Not my first brain fart for the day.

January 30, 2011, 11:32 PM	#20
DoctorXring Senior Member Join Date: April 30, 2002 Location: The Republic of Texas Posts: 392	. Colt, USFA, Ruger New Vaquero. I would keep the list with those three. I handled and fired a friends New Vaquero at the range the other day. I was quite impressed with the fit and finish on this gun. Since Ruger retooled, their single actions are just superb. I have a recent Blackhawk and a Bisley and they are great. For the money they are impossible to beat. And if you want tank-like reliability and a super strong gun, park here. It's not totally "correct" as per history, but it handles like it. The New Vaquero is a very nice gun. But if you want "exquisite" you will have to go with USFA. They are at the top of the heap right now for a Colt SAA "clone". If you want a very fine SAA with a historical name attached to it, go Colt SAA. You can't go wrong with these three. good shooting, dxr .

January 31, 2011, 04:17 AM	#24
Model-P Senior Member Join Date: February 24, 2009 Posts: 727	The proportions of the gripframe of the Single Action Army started changing from the very beginning. It's no great secret that SAA gripframes have increased slightly in size throughout the history of the model. Therefore, if you are going to base your assertion that the present Colt SAA is just a clone of what you decided is a "real" Colt SAA based on "ergonomics", then you are fighting a losing battle because you would have to subjectively pick what point in time to freeze the dimensions and call them "proper". Anyway, what is "proper" for you may be improper for someone else, and what is proper for someone else may be "improper" for you. Regardless of how moot it all is, here's what I found on mine. I have a 1916 and a 2009 Colt Single Action Army, as well as a 2nd generation hammer to measure. Measuring from the "crotch" at the rear of the hammer to the tip of the spur, all three hammers measure the same 1.5". Measuring from the tip of the hammer spur to the toe of the butt on both SAAs gives the same 4.9". When I grip both with my pinky under the toe, not surprisingly my thumb hits the spur at the same place on both (About the middle of the thumb pad- I don't normally wrap my pinky under, and my hands are probably smaller than yours). I will say, though, that the way the stocks fit the hand can change the perceived "ergonomics", and that fit can vary due to several factors, including differences in dimensions, angles, as well as thickness of the stock. A SAA with eagle stocks, for example, fills the hand quite a bit more than eagleless stocks do, and I can see how they could change the ergonomics of hammer reach for some people. Perhaps that is a factor for you. While your experiences with your sample guns may differ from mine, it's hardly a basis to say that the current Colt Single Action Army isn't really a Colt Single Action Army, though I suppose there have always been some who have felt that way ever since the "rebirth" of the SAA in 1955. Last edited by Model-P; January 31, 2011 at 04:36 AM.

January 31, 2011, 10:52 AM	#25
gak Senior Member Join Date: February 28, 2005 Location: Aridzona Posts: 2,767	Jim and Model-P, you both make good points. All I know is, without measuring (for the moment) among my three samples I have - a "4th" Gen Colt, USFA Rodeo and New Vaquero (plus a Cimarron Model P as comparison as well), the stock New Vaquero hammer is too high swept. And I'd venture to say that at least 50% of those who either have owned or handled -- that I have talked to -- have the same observation..."Ruger went too far." I am away from these guns at the moment, but the other two/three examples seem "about right," my recollection (power of suggestion?) being the new Colt's a "little higher" than the Rodeo or Cim, but not as "radically" swept back" as much as the New Vaq. (The Rodeo--and Cim--being more patterned directly off 1st Gens as Jim said). My next reaction after getting my New Vaquero(s) has been--for both grip and hammer--why didn't they just copy the darn Colt verbatim (any gen)?!...since they were re-patterning their Vaquero line that direction anyway! Although, as Model P says, Colt's changed grips/frame as well, they somehow always seem "just right" to me, the 3rd/4th gen's for sure being more hand filling, but still "right-on" even for my smallish hands. So now, two NVs in the stall sport SBH (actually Montado) hammers, and the third's about to...though I may just put a "regular" BH hammer on that. I understand they are not as radically swept as well.