Apparently yes. They DO still make Single Action Army's and they are finely made revolvers.
Did Ruger ever have to decide if they should concentrate resources on Military contracts or the Civilian market?
Answer is no they didn't.
The trials and tribulations of the Colt company have been pretty well documented. The company hasn't always made the greatest decisions.
To think Colt stopped making D/A revolvers because they were junk is a bit foolish in my opinion.
The GP is a very good revolver at it's price point and a very good revolver in general. I don't think anyone will argue that, but it's not a pre lock 27, 586, Python or King Cobra.
Also worth asking???? Does Ruger use expensive Union labor to build it's guns?
When discussing why Colt's were so expensive, that probably needs to be factored in. ]
Well, I never said Colt made a bad product. I just said the price difference between it and the Ruger is not justified by whatever benefit loyal users claim. Is a slightly better trigger worth $300 more to me? Nope. I put the sight of my Service six (a fixed sighted gun), and hit what I aim at.
As for being too proud to make an inferior product, I am calling BS on that one. Colt is a company that exists to make a profit. They stopped making those revolvers because they weren't making a profit. because more people were buying Smiths and Rugers.
S&W won the police contracts more then Colt. When were they trying to get military contracts? 30 years ago? So when they didn't get them they could have turned their attention back to making quality revolvers. They didn't. I don't know why. Does Beretta not make any other handguns, rifles, and shotguns because of the M9 contract?
Colts are sweet guns. But they are way more expensive than a S&W or a Ruger, and the average Joe couldn't justify their higher price for what he wanted to do with it. so they went away.