Losing faith in Colt ?
- Thread starter rebs
- Start date
It seems to be true that the AR platform will be supplanted in the not distant future. The 1911 platform is not the sure-fire way to win a government contract any more. I think we can all agree on the basic truth of that
if so, why would it be a smart business move for Colt to plan on offering weapons platforms that the US military is already going to phase out? that doesn't seem to be the right side of the curve to be on. Making the new next great thing for today and tomorrow would seem to be wiser than making the new great thing from the 1960s, if military contracting was the goal, in my opinion. It's also my opinion that tooling up for obsolescence is a bad idea
if so, why would it be a smart business move for Colt to plan on offering weapons platforms that the US military is already going to phase out? that doesn't seem to be the right side of the curve to be on. Making the new next great thing for today and tomorrow would seem to be wiser than making the new great thing from the 1960s, if military contracting was the goal, in my opinion. It's also my opinion that tooling up for obsolescence is a bad idea
There are several issues involved in what Colt offers now, not the least of which is that the future military rifle field competition is over-crowded with new variations on the AR theme, with both domestic and foreign hopefuls like FN, and Colt does not have a huge R&D budget to play around with.
Trying to win a contract with a new design would be a substantial and expensive gamble.
I'm sure Colt has evaluated the projected lifespan of the M16 & its market. The US orders weren't & aren't the only market for that platform. They know it can't go on forever, but they're still trying to increase their presence in the industry in general & that's hard to do in their situation.
With limited R&D resources, a crowded field of competition for new military design contracts, and a steady market for the moment in their line-up, they're still slowly recovering from the past.
Give 'em time.
Denis
Trying to win a contract with a new design would be a substantial and expensive gamble.
I'm sure Colt has evaluated the projected lifespan of the M16 & its market. The US orders weren't & aren't the only market for that platform. They know it can't go on forever, but they're still trying to increase their presence in the industry in general & that's hard to do in their situation.
With limited R&D resources, a crowded field of competition for new military design contracts, and a steady market for the moment in their line-up, they're still slowly recovering from the past.
Give 'em time.
Denis
Dfariswheel
New member
Again, the US military is not going to buy a new rifle for general issue and will continue using the M16 platform for the foreseeable future.
The decision was made long ago to continue using the M16 platform until there's a genuine breakthrough in technology for a rifle or ammo.
The decision is based on it not being economical to spend billions of dollars developing and fielding a new rifle unless there's an overwhelming advantage to do so.
In short, the military isn't going to spend billions just to get a piston rifle with a different kind of folding stock especially when money is so tight.
The users of the M16 series, (the people actually shooting bad guys with it) are satisfied with the current rifle, so no one sees a need to change until something MUCH better is invented in arms or ammo technology.
Until then, you'll continue to hear the monthly breathless reports that the military is looking at a new rifle.
The military is ALWAYS looking at a new rifle to keep up on the technology. They may even buy a few to test, but they aren't going to be general issue until the Laser rifle in the 40 megawatt range is invented.
And last, every M4 rifle the military buys, by any maker, Colt gets a $5.00 fee so they're in no trouble.
Business is booming for Colt and they're doing fine.
The decision was made long ago to continue using the M16 platform until there's a genuine breakthrough in technology for a rifle or ammo.
The decision is based on it not being economical to spend billions of dollars developing and fielding a new rifle unless there's an overwhelming advantage to do so.
In short, the military isn't going to spend billions just to get a piston rifle with a different kind of folding stock especially when money is so tight.
The users of the M16 series, (the people actually shooting bad guys with it) are satisfied with the current rifle, so no one sees a need to change until something MUCH better is invented in arms or ammo technology.
Until then, you'll continue to hear the monthly breathless reports that the military is looking at a new rifle.
The military is ALWAYS looking at a new rifle to keep up on the technology. They may even buy a few to test, but they aren't going to be general issue until the Laser rifle in the 40 megawatt range is invented.
And last, every M4 rifle the military buys, by any maker, Colt gets a $5.00 fee so they're in no trouble.
Business is booming for Colt and they're doing fine.
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
$5 huh? You think they can make it off that? You think SW makes $5 off every M&P?
"If they run out of the right part just before a production run, or in the middle of one, they just substitute one from another bin intended for another model."
PRetty sure I won't be thinking about a new production Colt after reading that. For that pricetag I better get the part I ordered.
"If they run out of the right part just before a production run, or in the middle of one, they just substitute one from another bin intended for another model."
PRetty sure I won't be thinking about a new production Colt after reading that. For that pricetag I better get the part I ordered.
John,
Colt has been doing that for several years.
As I said, they don't have the money to tie up in large inventory so they project as best they can & if a scheduled production run comes up & they might be short 10 hammers, 15 triggers, or 12 whatevers as far as small parts go, they won't re-schedule a 500-gun run just to wait for another batch of parts to come in from a vendor.
I've had a GM that had a different MSH than specs called for, I've seen reports about different sights, safety levers, and so on.
It's nothing like sticking 500 blue slides on 500 stainless pistols, just an occasional small part deviation.
If you can't live with that occasional small risk, then by all means go elsewhere.
Denis
Colt has been doing that for several years.
As I said, they don't have the money to tie up in large inventory so they project as best they can & if a scheduled production run comes up & they might be short 10 hammers, 15 triggers, or 12 whatevers as far as small parts go, they won't re-schedule a 500-gun run just to wait for another batch of parts to come in from a vendor.
I've had a GM that had a different MSH than specs called for, I've seen reports about different sights, safety levers, and so on.
It's nothing like sticking 500 blue slides on 500 stainless pistols, just an occasional small part deviation.
If you can't live with that occasional small risk, then by all means go elsewhere.
Denis
Eh, my WWI repro came with all advertised parts. But the custom shop may be more tight about such things or something. Anyway, I certainly didn't pay a premium for it. $1,000 for a beautifully blued 1911 made with exceptional components and built with very good attention to detail... I feel like I stole it. Any other company capable of building such a creature would charge at least double that.
It makes my brazilian Springfield look and feel like the cheaply made clunker it is.
It makes my brazilian Springfield look and feel like the cheaply made clunker it is.
bigkrackers
New member
I have no horse in this race, pun intended, but from a recent article I read, Colt has three "new" guns being offered now. The article lists the series 80 Gold Cup with an OK trigger and some old parts mixed with new ones. Sounds like Colt is trying to get rid of old inventory by piecing together a stop gap 1911. The Mustang, which is a .380 that is heavier and bigger than a lot of sub-compact 9mm but, according the the article, has a better trigger than the Gold Cup. Then the SAA is a $1400+ cowboy revolver that has what large market? They won't bring back the Python because their isn't a big enough market but they will put out a $1400 cowboy gun where Ruger and Uberti have basically Colt clones for half the price.
I wonder if Colt could bring back the Python for the same price as an Ed Brown 1911. People don't seem to have a problem spending $2500-$3000 for a custom 1911.
Colt gave away the civilian gun market a long time ago and they aren't going to get it back by recycling guns. They need to compete with HK, Sig, Glock and S&W. I don't see that happening. They have lost their Government contract and are currently surviving on M4 sales which will be severely diminished once their is no more Mil-spec.
It's always a bit tragic when great American gun companies become lazy and complacent. They stop innovating and get left behind for some foreign investment group to scoop up and begin crapping out junk with an iconic brand name.
I wonder if Colt could bring back the Python for the same price as an Ed Brown 1911. People don't seem to have a problem spending $2500-$3000 for a custom 1911.
Colt gave away the civilian gun market a long time ago and they aren't going to get it back by recycling guns. They need to compete with HK, Sig, Glock and S&W. I don't see that happening. They have lost their Government contract and are currently surviving on M4 sales which will be severely diminished once their is no more Mil-spec.
It's always a bit tragic when great American gun companies become lazy and complacent. They stop innovating and get left behind for some foreign investment group to scoop up and begin crapping out junk with an iconic brand name.
Again- the $1400 "cowboy" gun (which the New Frontier isn't, by the way) is a variation of a model that's already in production.
Many of the parts are interchangeable with existing Single Action Army models.
It's far easier & far cheaper to produce a variation using a large percentage of parts already in the vendor network and already in inventory channels than it is to start up a complete NEW gun with none of that in place.
The Python, which many have some difficulty in understanding, would be to all intents & purposes an entirely new gun from the manufacturing viewpoint.
Yes, Colt has made 'em before, but that equipment, those workers, and most of the remaining parts inventories are long gone.
Contrast that with ongoing current SAA production, where the machinery's in place, the workers are trained, the parts are being either bought from established vendors or machined in-house.
The New Frontier requires a different frame/topstrap, and different sighting arrangements. Other than those, cylinders, triggers, hammers, firing pins, springs, ejector rods, bolts, gripframes, and so on are or can be interchangeable between the NF and the SAA.
What Colt is using now to service existing Pythons is essentially remnants of old parts stock. It's my understanding that they are not making or buying new parts for old Pythons.
Unless Colt decides to start up new Python parts processes, those will eventually run out, just like barrels for S&W Model 19s, 27s, and 28s have, and at some point in the not too distant future Colt will no longer be able to service existing Pythons.
And, comparing the Python to an Ed Brown 1911 isn't valid, there's a much larger market for high-end 1911 pistols than there is for high-end DA revolvers.
Colt is not lazy & complacent, they've done a remarkable job in recovering from the mess created by decades of bad management prior to the General's tenure there.
Also again- few people understand how close Colt was to going under completely.
With limited money & resources, they had to make the best of what they inherited.
Denis
Many of the parts are interchangeable with existing Single Action Army models.
It's far easier & far cheaper to produce a variation using a large percentage of parts already in the vendor network and already in inventory channels than it is to start up a complete NEW gun with none of that in place.
The Python, which many have some difficulty in understanding, would be to all intents & purposes an entirely new gun from the manufacturing viewpoint.
Yes, Colt has made 'em before, but that equipment, those workers, and most of the remaining parts inventories are long gone.
Contrast that with ongoing current SAA production, where the machinery's in place, the workers are trained, the parts are being either bought from established vendors or machined in-house.
The New Frontier requires a different frame/topstrap, and different sighting arrangements. Other than those, cylinders, triggers, hammers, firing pins, springs, ejector rods, bolts, gripframes, and so on are or can be interchangeable between the NF and the SAA.
What Colt is using now to service existing Pythons is essentially remnants of old parts stock. It's my understanding that they are not making or buying new parts for old Pythons.
Unless Colt decides to start up new Python parts processes, those will eventually run out, just like barrels for S&W Model 19s, 27s, and 28s have, and at some point in the not too distant future Colt will no longer be able to service existing Pythons.
And, comparing the Python to an Ed Brown 1911 isn't valid, there's a much larger market for high-end 1911 pistols than there is for high-end DA revolvers.
Colt is not lazy & complacent, they've done a remarkable job in recovering from the mess created by decades of bad management prior to the General's tenure there.
Also again- few people understand how close Colt was to going under completely.
With limited money & resources, they had to make the best of what they inherited.
Denis
With the loss of government contracts, colt might be close to going under again ? How long can they ride on their prior reputation if that's what they are doing ?
I must be naive or something since I was always under the impression that colt was a big company and made all its own parts in house. I didn't realize that colt bought parts from different vendors. It seems to me that they are like a lot of other somewhat less famous companies that buy some of the parts, manufacture some of their own and do the assembly.
I don't see where that makes them any better than a Rock River, Stag, Windham Weaponry or the original Bushmaster and other brands etc etc..
I must be naive or something since I was always under the impression that colt was a big company and made all its own parts in house. I didn't realize that colt bought parts from different vendors. It seems to me that they are like a lot of other somewhat less famous companies that buy some of the parts, manufacture some of their own and do the assembly.
I don't see where that makes them any better than a Rock River, Stag, Windham Weaponry or the original Bushmaster and other brands etc etc..
While I agree with much of what you've said, the market for existing Colt Pythons is insatiable. Ed Brown, not as much. I think the cost of making a new true Python would price it out of the ability of most people to afford. As it is now, even beat up Pythons with some rust on them regularly sell for over $1,000, if they are one of the 1st Gens. 3-digit Pythons are selling in the $6K+ range and 2-digit pythons are in the $8K-$10K range.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
I have visited the Colt factory on multiple occasions. There are lots of people out in the factory who have been there for anywhere from 25 to 40 years. But ... 19th century? Depending on how you view it, the 19th century ended in either 1900 or 1901. That's 111 or 112 years ago. Why are you surprised there are no 19th century workers left? There are still plenty of 20th century craftsmen in their ranks.4V50 Gary said:
Colt didn't discontinue the Python because of a lack of workers. They discontinued it because it was too expensive to manufacture and couldn't be sold at a competitive price in a competitive market ... coupled with legal and liability issues that led the then-board of directors to stop selling to the civilian market.
You need to do your homework. The ARs are made by a separate company and they have nothing to do with the production of handguns for civilians. In fact, even the ARs that are sold to civilians are made by Colt's Defense (which is a separate company from Colt's Manufacturing), then bought by Colt's Manufacturing and re-sold.rebs said:
Colt's manufacturing treats its civilian customers better than 90 percent of the handgun makers out there.
180 employees is LOW? You've obviously not spent much time in gun factories. A few years ago I toured the Para-Ordnance factory -- the original one, in Canada. At the time, Para was second in production only to Kimber and was turning out probably between 40,000 and 60,000 guns a year (they wouldn't tell me the figures). I doubt they had 50 people in the whole place, and that would be including the secretaries in the front office. Para made ALL the parts for their guns, in-house.Slamfire said:
Last edited:
Ruger began making their own barrels in 1990 when they bought their first hammer forged barrel machine. As of a couple of years ago, eight people made all of Ruger's barrels.
http://firearmshistory.blogspot.com/2010/05/rifling-manufacturing-hammer-forged.html
8 people.
Ruger sold 1.2 million guns in 12 months.
http://firearmshistory.blogspot.com/2010/05/rifling-manufacturing-hammer-forged.html
8 people.
Ruger sold 1.2 million guns in 12 months.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
They do make most of their small parts in-house, at least for the 1911s. I'm not sure on what DPris is basing his statement. For some 1911 models Colt buys Smith & Alexander magwells, mainspring housings, and beavertail grip safeties. Hammers? Colt makes them. Sears? Colt makes them. Slide stops? Colt makes them. Barrel links? Colt makes them. Barrels? Colt makes them. Other than some of the specialized small parts for particular models, Colt does make their own small parts.rebs said:
Does Colt make their own springs? Nope. And I doubt that any gun manufacturer today makes its own springs. Why would they? Making springs is very technical. With modern purchasing and distribution, it would be just silly for a gun maker or a widget maker to try to make springs they can buy for less from a company that specializes in making ... springs.
I've never had a Rolex but I've owned a few Colts, even including a Single Action Army. And I've owned the copies, too. I'd rather have a Colt any day. There really is a difference in the quality, at least as I see it, though I'm not sure they shoot any better. But does a Rolex keep better time? What do I know? I don't even wear a watch.
SPEMack618
New member
What were the legal and liability issues of the Python, over, say a S&W M-19?
Rolex makes all of their parts inhouse or in Rolex owned factories. True quality means that the manufacture has the expertise, resources evidenced by enough people willing to pay the price for an Inhouse product. Pythons were made by Colt Inhouse - when Colt was on par with Rolex.
BTW, a standard Rolex watch only cost $70 in 1955; does anyone know what a 1955 Python originally sold for? I'd bet the prices were pretty comparable.