What ever happened to Colt?

The new owners told Vladimir Klintonov to go to HELL and the company is prosperous again.
Click to expand...

Correction:

The new owners kow-towed to Clinton, and installed a lock that is subject to the same forces as the natural recoil of a firearm and on the same axis of that force. The result is a gun that can lock itself when the owner doesn't want it to lock.

Then, despite an effort by some in the gun culture to continue an S&W boycott, the S&W apologists tried to tell us all that locks are okay in revolvers.

All I know, is I bought a no-lock Smith 642-1 in 2008. Smith CAN make a no-lock revolver. They just choose not to except in limited circumstances. I'll only buy them when produced without locks.

As far as Colt?

Their quality is great right now. I'm happy with them staying small and boutique if the quality stays there. I can buy a Colt whenever I want, I have several stocking dealers in town.
 
An M1991 pistol can't be had no for under $750, when it's actual worth is probably more around the $600 mark considering it's made with a lot of MIM and plastic parts to cut costs down
Click to expand...

Colt has fewer MIM parts than just about any 1911 maker. At last count, it was three parts. If you count the delrin mainspring housing, the cheapest Colt has one plastic part (just like $2000 "Custom Shop" pistols from another maker). Consider that Wilson Combat charges $250 extra to blue their guns; and people whine about a blued Colt that costs $100 more than parkerized or painted pistols made in Brazil? Maybe ask why those offshore guns cost as much as they do, rather than why the Colt is so "expensive"?
 
The new owners told Vladimir Klintonov to go to HELL and the company is prosperous again.
Click to expand...
That's not how I'd have put it, but you're right :)

Like S&W in 2000, Colt needs to do several things to prosper:

  • Pay attention to what the civilian market wants
  • Produce it at a competitive price
  • Distance themselves politically from the Zilkha regime
  • Negotiate better union contracts, and
  • Make guns where the sight paint doesn't fall out.

They've made some progress. Their newer 1911's are very well made, and although I hate the plastic trigger, my 2009 Delta Elite is doing very well for me. In price and feature-set, they're somewhat competitive with the Kimbers. Their AR-15's are still the darling of folks who adore the platform, and apparently the little touches in manufacture make them worth the extra clams.

As far as their DA revolvers, I'm to understand that we're unlikely to ever see them again. The way I've heard it told, the old machinery was either stripped or allowed to rust into oblivion, and the guys who knew the tooling have either retired or passed away.

With CNC machining and such, it might be possible for them to bring out something close, but then we're up against the veritable Grendel's Mother of the gun culture: us.

People will be quick to bash the new revolvers because they're not using Royal Blue. Then they'll gripe because Colt decides to make some in Royal Blue, but it's too expensive. Then they'll gripe because it just doesn't look as good as the old Royal Blue.

Then, heaven help us, someone will find an MIM part somewhere in the gun, and the internet will catch fire. I mean, literally, catch fire. Computers everywhere will melt like the Nazi guy in Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Someone will shoot one badly, then post their targets as "proof" that they're not as accurate as the 1977 one they overpaid for. Someone else will run 60,000 rounds of Super Vel through one, then complain that they "shoot loose" with only moderate use.

You may ask yourself, how do I predict such things with such uncanny accuracy? Am I psychic? No! It's because I hear all the same things about Smith & Wesson from people.

Personally, I'd rather not see them attempt to innovate significantly. They really don't need to. Colt has massive brand recognition, and it hasn't been sullied by their massive mistakes in the past. Most companies would kill for that.

Think about it: given the choice between two otherwise identical .45's, how many of us would shell out, say, $75 extra for the Colt? I'm guessing most of us.

Then again, when I think of the words "Colt" and "innovation" in the same sentence, I think of the Double Eagle and the All American. Perhaps I'm biased. However, if I were in charge of Colt, I'd focus on continuing a few iconic products and doing it well.
 
Colt needs to do several things to prosper:
Click to expand...

They are prospering just fine.

As far as Colt?

Their quality is great right now. I'm happy with them staying small and boutique if the quality stays there. I can buy a Colt whenever I want, I have several stocking dealers in town.
Click to expand...


Exactly. The sell everything they make, to wit: steel and metal forged, low MIM count, high quality, reasonably priced 1911s and SAAs to discerning shooters who demand more than MIM and plastic and third world pricing.

No Walmart mass production guns like Taurus or Smith and Ruger. No gun of the month club like Smith and SIG with 99 page SKU lists. No MIMed over marketed overpriced junk like Kimber.

Colt: Do a few things, do them right.

Half the folks whinging about Pythons couldnt afford them anyway:D


WildrifethatponyAlaska ™©2002-2010
 
Well at least maybe Colt could have some inventory out to the distributors. It's darn difficult to find many Colt 1911's in the Chicago area. It seems like nobody has them.
 
No Walmart mass production guns like Taurus or Smith and Ruger.
Click to expand...
Ouch! Not sure I agree, but I'm right with you on this:

No gun of the month club like Smith and SIG with 99 page SKU lists.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to the SIG Elite Carry, the Elite Platinum, the Platinum Carry, or the Elite Match, or the Tactical Elite P226? :)

You're right in that Colt's focus is where it needs to be, in terms of quality over insane variety. Still, I had the paint fall out of the front sight on my Commander in 1989, and the same thing happened to my Delta Elite in 2009.

And I'm not alone. Seriously, what is it with them and sight paint? While we're at it, I...umm...well, that's really the only complaint I've got.
 
Well at least maybe Colt could have some inventory out to the distributors. It's darn difficult to find many Colt 1911's in the Chicago area. It seems like nobody has them.
Click to expand...


Well they got to buy them. Put in an order. I get $100,000 plus of them every year...in spurts, but I get them.:D


Wildthisweekitsseries70sAlaska ™©2002-2010
 
Well after several years Wildalaska and I agree on something :rolleyes:
Colt is a good buy for the money Thats why I have 1 Goverement 3 Commanders 2 officers and 1 each Defender and New Agent and 2 little Mustangs
 
I feel that the Mustang, Pony, Pocket Nine etc would sell well, if actually being in production.

The Detective Special II and Magnum Carry, ditto. And a new lightweight one would sell well, but they can't call it the New Agent, since they used that for a semi-auto that doesn't have sights on it. :eek:

The New Cobra would sell. Especially if it had an engraved cobra on the barrel like the King Cobra. :D

Colt made a deal with the Klintoon administration not to sell firearms to the peons (us) in exchange for guaranteed government contacts
Click to expand...

I really don't accept that argument at all. That would be in direct violation of the statutes for awarding US Gov. contracts, and other companies would have sued instantly.

Bart Noir
Whose most recent purchase is an Official Police.
 
I feel that the Mustang, Pony, Pocket Nine etc would sell well, if actually being in production. The Detective Special II and Magnum Carry, ditto.
Click to expand...
That brings us back to the point about the 9,432 separate SKU's that Colt would have to produce and dealers would have to stock. It gets really confusing and expensive.

Their 1911's are phenomenal these days, and I think that has something to do with focusing on two core lines.* Compare that to the bewildering number of models Kimber maintains.

I'd squeal like a schoolgirl on helium if they'd bring back Commanders in 9mm, though. :)

* Except for the sight paint falling off. Did I mention that?
 
Makes you realize that any company, no matter how big, can fall.

I think that OSHA and labors were a necessary step but grew out of control. A parasite that devoured the host. These drove and continue to drive business under or away from the US. Sad but true.

These need to be reighned in.
 
Gunmakers in general are viewing the immediate future with caution.
The Obamascare Bubble has begun to burst, and there are people in the industry who fear a widespread market collapse due to a two-pronged depression effect from lower sales due to a reduction in panic buying, and lower sales due to many panic buyers who will be dumping new or nearly new guns on the used market out of buyer's remorse when things fully calm down.

This may take a while, but I've heard one insider say those companies who don't have a financial safety net squirreled away to carry them through might possibly even go under. I'm hoping that's an extreme that doesn't happen, but....

In the meantime, Colt (always cash-strapped) is looking at variations on what they're already mostly tooled up to make that don't involve either major R&D or major stocking expenses.

They tell me they're looking at bringing DA revolvers back, but not the Pythons, and not this week.
 
I think Colt may have eroded some of their manufacturing capability for a most excellent labor benefits package.
 
I actually owned some Colt stock years ago. It was interesting to read published financials, none of which I still have. They went private for some reason. The mention of all the variations that some manufacturers offer has been true of Colt over the years as well, and I'm only speaking of the last 20 or 30 years. Including the .380 models, they offered about every combination of features in regular production pistols you could think of. About the only one missing was a full size, 5-inch barrel, with an alloy frame. I'm certain, based on pistols I've owned from Colt, Springfield Armory and Thompson, that Colt was the best. Others like Wilson and Kimber I've never owned. They were too expensive.

Some of their better known revolvers in the past never actually sold in large numbers, like the Single Action Army, though "large numbers" is imprecise. Even in the percussion days, the pocket revolvers sold in greater numbers than the large ones, or so I understand.

Part of the problem, if there is one, is their image, sort of. People seem to turn up their nose at anything new from Colt, although some offerings might be less than perfectly executed. But why did they discontinue the .380 models or the large frame revolvers. I had some of the .380 single actions (much better than the pre-war pocket autos, in my opinion, and I've owned a few of both) but the .44 and .45 DA revolvers came and went before I had one.

Ruger, who by the way don't offer that many revolvers anymore, are fairly innovative and reasonably priced, mostly. I bought a P345 this year but I can't afford any of their rifles any more. But Ruger doesn't try to be a Colt even though just about everyone else seems to try to produce a copy of one. What does that tell you?
 
it can't be just about the 'name' (as in "BFD", ay?)

I have participated in USPSA competition for over fifteen years, attending at least 200 matches east of the Mississippi, yet have never-ever-ever seen anyone competing with a modern Colt 1911 (I have seen maybe three Pythons, and a like number of old "It was my Dad's" or such 1911s).

I assume their product isn't good enough. Even the 'best' modern examples of their 1911 were as good as some of the good Taurus examples I've handled; some were as bad as the bad examples.

(To me, it's horrifying to state "Colt = Taurus", but that's my experience.)
 
Colt stupidity

Here is one example of Colt stupidity.

Maryland has a law requiring new handguns sold in the state to be accompanied by a fired cartridge case to be put in the state police computer data base. (The necessity or usefulness of such a law is debatable, but it is the law.)

Colt simply refuses to do that, even though other makers (S&W, Ruger, Taurus, Kimball, etc.) do. That means that a dealer cannot sell a new Colt handgun in Maryland without jumping through some ridiculous and expensive hoops, and adding $50-100 to the cost. (The gun can be bought from an out-of-state dealer, so it is a "used" gun, or it can be fired by a federally licensed manufacturer to obtain a case - the law requires only that it be fired by a manufacturer, not necessarily by the one which made the gun.)

The result is that most dealers won't even bother with Colt; they will steer their customers to other makers of guns that are as good or better than the limited Colt line.

Could Colt just go along, as others do, and keep the MD trade? Sure. Why don't they? They won't say. A matter of principle? They have had no principles in anything else. MD sales too small to bother with? That seems more in line with Colt thinking, which has always treated the civilian market with contempt.

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