Colt's Decision to Cut Back on Civilian Sales

D

D Crockett

New member
I, for one, was shocked and dismayed at Colt's recent decision to discontinue production and sales of many of their
firearms. I understand that they are not as
financially strong as they used to be and are fearfull of the lawsuits against the
industry. It is still very disappointing
that they are abandoning the customers that
have been loyal to them for generations.

It almost smells of a deal made w/ our current anti-arms political leaders to
save themselves money.

If anyone has any more information(not just
rumor) on this I would certainly like to
here it.

Dave
 
I heard again yesterday that Colt has been closed down altogether and a liquidator was brought in and cleaned them out. I have not read anything of this but ou think the anti gun media would have had this in headlines


Merry Christmas and to all a good night :)
 
I have covered this at length in other threads, but Colt is not going out of business, they are not discontinuing civilian sales. In fact a couple of weeks ago they decided to continue to produce the cheaper 1991A1 line of autos. So all that was dropped was Mustangs and anything with DA capability. All I can say is as a business consultant the reorganization of the company by splitting it up and putting it under a holding company was a brilliant move. Remember the litigation that prompted dropping the Pony and Pocket Nine pistols was a lawsuit for patent infingement from Kahr, not the suit by the cities. The reason the DA revolvers were dropped is because of the high cost of union labor to machine and fit them together. If the handgun division goes bankrupt watch for it to reopen with DA revolvers built on CNC equipment in a right to work state.
 
jeff - I understand your post but I still
recall the quote from a Colt VP saying that
they don't see their current gun line
being used for self-defense. He also said
that maybe they could be but that wasn't
their purpose. I guess that bugged me more
than cutting unprofitable lines.
 
Glenn, then maybe they are keeping the 1991A1 series as a target gun? ;)

Seriously, if a VP from Colt said that I would be interested to know if he still works there. They have been laying off hundereds of people including management. I question where you heard the quote. If we were to believe the liberal media, as many posters on this board seem to, we would believe the article in the Wall Street Journal, which was picked up by the national media that everyone believes, that said Colt was discontinuing the sale of guns to the public. That was back in Sept, 3 months ago, and Colt's are still being sold. Go to the Colt website and read the press releases for more information.
 
Colt is a UAW (United Autoworkers) shop, they can't compete. I would look for their civilian sales to go under unless they can find a lower cost mfg. facility over seas.

[This message has been edited by Patrick Graham (edited December 26, 1999).]
 
Jeff - I went and found this from a previous
rec.gun post.

# From the NY Times # http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/101199ct-colt.html
#
# "This winter's pared-down product line is to include designer sidearms, with grips of rosewood and buffalo horn.
#
# "These certainly could be used for self-defense, but they aren't made for that," Joseph J. Cartabona, Colt's director of handguns, said Sunday. "You take these to the range on the weekend for target shooting, or maybe for cowboy-action shooting, which is getting to be very, very big. They dress up like Annie Oakley and Wild Bill and shoot while on horseback. "
 
Oops - posted before I finished.

It could be the case that this guy was
discussing the SAA line only and the
comment is out of context. But it
certainly didn't sound very RKBA to me.

Glenn
 
Glenn, I think Colt was putting a positive spin on what they are doing, ie. creating collector grade firearms. Firearms that are not intended to hurt people. If the mainstream media, especially the NY Times, publishes a positive use for a firearm besides giving an individual the power to take a life, I think we win. I never considered myself a firearms collector, but I do now to avoid the arsenal tag. It is all about semantics and having the general public, who mainly don't care about guns one way or the other, think of the gun owners in a positive light. One of the toughest arguments for a firearms owner to discuss with an anti-gunner is that guns are made for killing. To a 'fence sitter' that is a tough argument to defeat. I can beat it because I argue gun control issues all the time, but many people just say that guns are used for target shooting. Well, sorry, but a fence sitter will not agree that a recreational activity enjoyed by a minority is more important than manufacturing 'killing machines.' The more positive spin we get the better off we are. I am certainly happy that the Colt reps did not try to explain the business reasons for creating different companies and placing them under a holding company. The Times would have run a very negative gun article involving a foreign national investment banker sheltering money so he can declare bankruptcy, bust a union, and not have to pay any judgements resulting from the lawsuits filed by many cities and the federal govt. I think Colt is making an excellent business decision and I think the spokeman for Colt handled the interview beautifully which allowed positive press for firearms in the NY Times. After all, people who dress up like Annie Oakly and Wild Bill and shoot guns for fun at targets, are not very threatening to the majority who don't care about guns. They might even take the kids out to watch these adults all dressed up like cowboys. Much better than taking them to an IDPA or IPSC match and watching them combat shoot on human shaped targets. This is a good thing. I would have preferred for Colt to stand up and be tough in their public statements, but that would not have played well in the press. As gun owners we must not be looked at as threatening group, as the militia units are viewed by the public, but as doctors, lawyers, and professionals who have a hobby no more threatening to them than coin collecting is.
 
This is an interesting debate and I certainly see your point. However, that strategy stands the risk of us going the way of the UK. The gun organizations there stressed the "sport"
and harmless nature of their hobby. I've read their publications and they mocked us. They made fun of humanoid targets in US matches as we were gunslingers and loonies. Most denied the lethal nature of their guns. Thus, when Dunblane occurred - of course, guns are too dangerous to be around for sport. No one attacks a school yard with a bowling ball.

So not looking like Militia Nazis is a very good thing. I get flamed sometimes as I mention we get bad PR from this stuff at gunshows.

So we get good PR from sporting use. But we can't forget the lethal nature of the firearm as being the real reason for our right to possess them.

I'm very professional and talk to antis all the time. The argument I make is personal self-defense. The argument for defeating the
government doesn't sell at all.

I would have preferred it if the Colt exec.
could have not made the comment on self-defense.

The UK is a classic example of such a disaster if we go to "sporting" and "collecting".

Colt wouldn't have been in such a fix if they had been able to make a decent commercial handgun other than the 1911. They are the
driving force that keeps the smart gun viable.
Beretta chose another path. Sig seems to
be caving although their ridiculuous gun may be a guerilla warfare attack.

So Colt might have made decent business decisions - folding to Kahr, for ex. but their rhetoric is just a little off. Remember their
President talking the national license awhile ago.
 
I am glad he at least made a reference to self defence with 'These certainly could be used for self-defense' comment, which at least acknowledges the proper use and the use that most people already think a gun is used for. I am just glad he is also mentioning multiple legitiment and legal uses for handguns to get us positive press in a notoriously anti-gun publication.

I think that the smart gun, as far as Colt is concerned, may be going away. Sandia Labs has gotten much further along in development and is getting federal funding. Without the federal dollars there is no incentive for Colt to continue looking into it.

As far as Mr. Stewart goes, the FORMER president of Colt Manufacturing who gave the interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer pushing for more restrictions, he was fired in Sept 1998, and replaced by Dr. Silwa, after an intense internet campaign and boycott. I am happy to say that I had a part in organizing that and got to meet with Don Zilkha at the Atlanta SHOT Show to thank him for his support. He was not a happy camper, the gun community really hammered Colt in 1998 over Stewart's remarks. As far as I am concerned they deserved it and brought it upon themselves. Mr Zilkha admitted that he was not a gun person, but that he really learned a lot about gun owners during the boycott. He had never seen, and did not realize, that gun people were such a motivated and vocal consumer group. I am a big defender of any company, provided there is a good reason for their position. I do not own any Colt products, but I support Mr. Zilkha's restructuring effort in an attempt to save his company and to screw the unscrupulous cities that are attempting to sue him out of existance. Remember, it is his $40 million on the line and his decision to how to run that company for the maximum profit. Colt only exists today (he bought it out of bankruptcy in 1995) to make him a profit. If it loses money, he will sell off the assets and fold the company. Some gun owners seem to think that since he is not putting all the assets of the company on the line, with the potential to lose his $40 million investment and fight for principal, that he deserves to be boycotted. Obviously it's not their $40 million that they are willing to risk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top