COLT HAS SOLD OUT!!!!

U

ursus

New member
I have spoken to two dealer friends who have heard that Colt has sold out in order to reap
federal govt. benefits. They were given the military contract for the M4 until 2010 and were given big bucks for R&D for the smart gun technology. The last batch of civilian AR's are due out in Oct. That's it. Can any other dealers verify this??
 
Colt rumors of their demise, of treachery, gov contracts, selling out and ceasing civy sales run rampant. I sometimes wonder if Colt starts these rumors themselves for the sake of publicity. Since Colt is in business to make $$$$, it makes no sense for them to give up their market share of civilian sales. I just don't see it happening.
 
Good Guy,
With the stock market the way it is, there must be terrible pressure to show growth.

How many Colt products do civilians buy annually?

How many Colt products will the government buy annually?

How will government activities limit civilian ownership of Colt guns?

If Colt can get government money to become the authority on "smart guns", Colt can leap ahead of other manufacturers in the civilian market.

And on and on.

Bookkie would be the one to tell us about number-crunching your way to profitability by taking money from the government to beat your competition. And even bookkie would need to know the (ahem) "private" agreements to evaluate the deals effectively.

I sure do worry about this "smart gun" business. It would be easy for a government to dictate which firearms would be eligible to be upgraded to "smart gun" status. Then outlaw the rest.

Naw. I'm paranoid. Can't happen here. Ask the Aussies....
 
The scary thing about "smart" guns is the liability aspects for manufacturers who didn't incorporate it into their products in the past. One may be held liable for not making an item as safe as it could have been made. The senseless thing about this bit of legal fiction is that it actually may impede product development. Gee, if we make it safer, then we'd get sued for all the old ones we made before. This happened to Ruger with regards to their Blackhawks revolvers. The first ones didn't have the transfer bar and when the subsequent ones did, the plaintiff alleged that the early production models should have too. Tort reform now!

OK, enough rant.

------------------
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt
 
Dennis
I would like too SEE a contract written as described between Colt and the US gov. It is not logical at all (yeah, I know...). Without proof it is nothing but barber shop/beauty parlor gossip.
As for smart gun technology, we already have it. Mas Ayoob seems rather fond of the "ring on the finger" activated safety conversions done on S&W revolvers with regards to LE and child safety. I like the idea myself under "special" circumstances since it doesn't rely on electronics. I don't have a problem with a smart gun OPTION. Government mandates are another matter entirely, though. We'll see.
 
The big problem with "smart" gun technology, the electronic version, is that little box government employees will carry around which deactivates everyone else's guns for a hundred yards around.
 
I have faith in American ingenuity. the government makes a way to shut down the smart gun, someone will come up w/ a jammer to jam
their jammer. of course it would be illegal,
but , what the hell :)

------------------
what me worry?




[This message has been edited by longhair (edited August 07, 1999).]
 
Good Guy,
Yep, I agree about keeping "smart guns" an option. I'm just worried where it could end up going. Guess time will tell....
 
I know this is going to start a war, but why are people so obsessed with Colt? I hit a lot of gun boards. Colt has a lot of unhappy customers, esp. in CAS. Their ARs aren't milspec and everything with that horse on it costs a mint. Now we have the politics of the company to deal with. Why don't we just stop buying Colts. I try not to deal with companies I don't like. Let's send a message.
 
I heard the same thing about a month ago from my dealer who had just spoken to his rep at Colt.

Frankly, I would not doubt it.

------------------
John/az

"The middle of the road between the extremes of good and evil, is evil. When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..."

http://www.countdown9199.com
 
Yes I have stopped buying Colts. Here's why:

1. Their AR-15 are not Mil Spec (Buy Bushmaster). Plus they make em with those 1/7'' twist on the barrels. That is good for the 62grainers and up but overspins your 55grainres (Which happens to be the most available and common bullet weight for the .223)

2. Although the Python is a SWEET .357 mag it costs you a couple of mortgage payments to buy the thing.

3. Ditto for the SAA.

4. Now that Kimber makes the best 1911 gun on the market, who needs Colt?

5. And now they are trying to tap the hunting rifle business w/ this "light rifle". Thanks but i'll stick w the m700s and m70s.
 
I've stopped buying Colts also, since they cost a lot, and don't work right and/or are poorly finished, even with the top of the line Guns like the Python and Gold Cup I have, both from their (snicker) "Custom Shop." I've sent my Python back three times, spent ~$300 to fix the Gold Cup (not improve function, mind you) b/c I didn't trust Colt to do it right, and sent a broken DS-II in, only to get it sent back badly out of time.



I only owned one good one, and let myself get nailed three more times, hoping the last was just a fluke.



Smart guns and safety you say? Does not working right count as Safe Gun technology?



As to the sellout rumours, consider that Colts Yearly production is around what Ruger and S&W make in a week, and you can see how their being killed by other manufacturers who make better guns for less. They could only benefit from a government contract, esp. since the marketing costs are unecessary then. If they can use this to get an edge over the other two, so much the better for them. Sam Colt made a fortune during the Civil War making revolvers then charging the government double what they'd sell for on the civilian market. Remington made a better gun and charged half as much, which was what changed the prices he charged.
 
I agree, buy SW revolvers, Bushmaster Ar's if you like Ar weapons and the Heck with Colt. Last night on AE's History of the Automatic pistol, at the end of the show, Colt was talking about their smart electronic pistol they are trying to develope. You know what they can do with that idea. John Browning sure wouldnt approve of these Colt boys today.
 
Just talked with Jon Tank from Tank's Rifle Shop. He said that rumor has been floating around for sometime, but nothing from any of his credible sources...including Colt folks.

It just doesn't make any business sense as civilians buy tons of them. Also, in Colt's recent newsstand annual they took a very progun stance. It would be foolish to undo that by ceasing production of the AR-15.

- Anthony
 
I was under the impresssion the "smart gun" is supposed to switch on "fire" when the battery is dead. I wonder if one could just yank out the battery and make the gun "dumb."
 
A second opinion regarding Colt:

Colt was for a long time the ONLY company that offered NEW pistols to Certified instructors at HUGE discounts... PROMOTING shooting...

I dont remember anyone else doing that... offering 900 dollar guns for only like 400...

As a company Colt has to do what it has to do to survive. I dont see them as SELLING OUT.

------------------
"But I don't want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.
"Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: "we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."

RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE
 
Supporting Kodiac's posting, I received my copy of Law Enforcement Activity Division (L.E.A.D.), a newsletter for NRA certified LE firearms instructors. Colt is again offering huge savings to qualified buyers. Some AR rifles a little over $600 and their 24" SS target model is about $824. I'd guess its about dealer's cost.

------------------
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt
 
The August issue of Small Arms Review has a full page article on page 8, claiming that this is not the case.

Chuck
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top