Is Colt off anyone's S___ list?

Agree with Jeff's points, however there are still good reasons to leave Colt on the hit list.

They bowed to the "politically correct crowd" once too many times:

1. iColt (no smart guns for me, thank you); and

2. Transitional AR15 rifles (you don't see any transitional Bushmasters, do you?).

Justin
 
Jeff, I wouldn't say that Colt dropped only those items that weren't selling well or were involved in a patent suit. Remember the Detective Special and Magnum Carry? Those were both great weapons (possibly the best things Colt had on the market) and I didn't hear of any issues with those. They were the only revolvers I was considering buying. Dropped simply because Colt didn't want the image of selling concealable weapons. Bunch of nimrods!
 
jt, iCOlt is no more. It was intended to me profitable on govt handouts, when those stopped iColt was shut down. Zilkha is not going to spend his money unless it is profitable. The transitional AR's were an agreement with the old Colt Manufacturing prior to Zilkha puchasing the company out of bankruptcy. It was part of an agreement with the state of Ct. when the state retirement system invested $10 million of the state retirement fund into the company. The stipulation was that Colt would make the AR-15 less offensive and less easy to convert to full auto (non M-16 standard pins), hence the development of the AR-15 Sporter. Of course after 9/14/94 Zilkha bought the company and by that time the configuration for the AR-15 'type' rifle was standardized by the feds and called the Match Target.

Buzz, the revolvers were dropped for financial reasons. You may have bought one, but not many other people did. They are much more labor intensive to build than autos and the return numbers were huge. Colt was buying guns back left and right, especially Anacondas and included many Pythons. If a gun did not meet a level of profitability it was dropped. It was cheaper than attempting to improve the quality. To make the revolvers reach a certain profitablity level, on par with O-model's and SAA's, would have required an improvement in quality and that would necessitate a price hike that would not permit them to be competitive considering what S&W, Ruger, Taurus, and Rossi are selling for. Remember that Colt frames, like S&W, are forged so S&W is the main competitor and S&W had found ways to cut production costs while still maintaining some quality for the last 20 years. There was no conspiracy to not sell concealable guns. The Defender was a best seller, as was the entire XS-series, and was profitable. As a result it was never considered to be discontinued. Colt just never sold many revolvers compared to S&W or Ruger. I don't like Colt revolvers, don't own even one, but I do own a Ruger and more than a dozen S&W's. Like the 2000 and the Double Eagle, they had discontinued the Detective Special and various other models over the years (Cobra, Agent) they just didn't sell well enough. The other concealables, Tek-Nine, Pocket Nine, and Ponys were pulled due to litigation, as the famous Colt letter said, but it was litigation from Kahr over patent infringement over the offset barrel lug. Anyone claiming tht Colt sold out is passing along rumors from a letter that was never authorized, in fact the author was fired over it, and is repeating things they hear in gun shops and the article that was written in the Wall Street Journal. Colt has dropped many guns from production over the last 100+ years, it is a business decision based on profitability, nothing more, nothing less.
 
Jeff,

That is great news! I didn't know that iColt went under.

But that doesn't change anything. Colt is not the hero there -- it absolves them from nothing. The fact that they tried to cram smart guns down our throats did not change -- the market (or their ineptitude in producing a decent smart gun, heh) did the job for us. If Colt had voluntarily dissolved iColt and renounced their support of smart guns, then I'd be first in line to buy a Colt. But that didn't happen, did it?

I think you've got the wrong "transitional" AR15. I mean the ones with the flash hider but no bayonet lug. Again, Colt bowed to PC pressures. You don't see any transitional Bushmasters, do you?

Colt is still on the hit list and I see no good reason to remove it.

Justin
 
jt,
They didn't try 'to cram smart guns down our throats'. They got govt funding to develop a technology that could produce a marketable item. Once perfected, many LEA's would have gone for it. It wasn't their 'ineptitude in producing a decent smart gun' it was the funding cut because Sandia Labs in N.M. had gone much further with the technolopy. Given enough time and money Colt could have done it too.

'If Colt had voluntarily dissolved iColt', they did, once the development funding was cut. The they project was entirely supported by govt tax dollars, no money coming in to pay for it and out it went.

I still wouldn't by one no matter what they do.

'I think you've got the wrong "transitional" AR15. I mean the ones with the flash hider but no bayonet lug'. Yes, but those were produced prior to 9/14/94. Zilkha did not buy Colt Manufacturing out of bankruptcy until 1995. That was done under previous owners for the reasons I mentioned, the state retirement fund. The state wanted more, that is where those odd little reciever blocks came from too. All that was done before the current owners bought the company. So, for the transitional rifles you refer to, you would have to blame someone that is no longer associated with the company, not the current Colt mgmt.
 
I didn't buy a revolver, but I was thinking about one. Plus, I always wanted a Python (too much time spent admiring Hawk on Spencer for Hire).

I have to agree about quality. The Pony I had blew chunks.
 
Jeff,

Good points but unfortunately it still doesn't change anything.

No one disputing that they got government funding. The objection is with them taking the government funding -- to cram smart guns down our throats. See what's going on in Maryland -- smart guns are a requirement in 2004 (?).

We all know that smart guns are a bad idea. Colt was taking government handouts to force upon us a bad idea. The correct course of action would have been to ignore the government funding and publicly denounce smart guns (like Beretta).

So the government cut the funding -- Colt did not stand up and said "to hell with you guys, smart guns are a bad idea!" They would have happily taken government money and produced a smart gun, given enough time and money (as you correctly observe). Traitors.

Regarding the "no bayo lug" AR15s, that doesn't absolve Colt of anything either. It doesn't matter when they were produced or under whose management. As far as I'm concerned, Colt is Colt is Colt, assets purchased out of bankruptcy or not (M&A work is what I do -- the corporate entity may be the different, but in essence it's the same company).

Doesn't matter if it's current Colt management that sold us out or if it was Samuel Colt hisself! They bowed to PC pressures to produce that abomination of an AR15 and the crime is done. If current Colt management is to be embraced for support of our gun rights, then they should have publicly condemned the production of those guns.

Again, if Colt was really sorry about those stupid rifles and the smart gun kinderspiel, they should have come out and apologized for taking government money to develop smart guns and for making those transitional guns. There has been no such action -- therefore, the stance regarding Colt cannot change.

I'm no Cooperite, but he's got a point with his Commentaries -- people forget treason like this far too easily. You gotta keep reminding them otherwise the passage of time will cause people to forget the lessons that history has taught us.

So I'm not Jeff Cooper, but remember that appeasement never works, Neville Chamberlain; remember and ask why Lon Horiuchi is still walking free; remember Waco; remember Bill Ruger's support of the 1994 AWB/high-cap ban; and remember Colt's treasons outlined above.

I say again, there is no reason to let Colt off the hook. They're not sorry for what they did so they don't deserve our support.

Justin

[This message has been edited by jthuang (edited May 04, 2000).]
 
Back
Top