What ever happened to Colt?

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).
Click to expand...

You need to come out to the wild west, and take a look. I see two or three Colts every weekend at local matches, and those guns aren't left at home when we travel. I've found USPSA shooters don't stray very far from what they're used to. Want a hi-cap .40? Get a STI. Want an Open 9mm? Get a STI. Want a single stack .45? Get a STI. That's what I see on the competition-oriented forums, but if you go to the 1911-oriented forums, it's usually Kimber, Springfield, Colt, with only the sequence varying.
 
So what about those Colt AR-15's? Are they worth hanging onto for the name/collector's value, or would you say "dump 'em"?
 
that whole patent infringement thing would land them in hot water again.
Click to expand...

I just had a vision of the patent problems back in the 1850's nad 1860's. First Colt owned the patents for reliable revolvers, and then S&W owned the use of the patent for loading metal cartridges in the back of the cylinder.....

But the patents aren't 'protected' (or whatever the legal term is) for more than, I think, 7 years. Heck, even if it is twice that, is Kahr still owning the use of any patent they had when they built the first little DA autoloader?

Bart Noir
 
Wildalaska put it best. Colt is doing what I wish most gun companies would still do. They make very nice guns, and a reasonable price.

All 1911's are not created equal. I would not waste my money on a new Remington one by any means.:barf:
 
So what about those Colt AR-15's? Are they worth hanging onto for the name/collector's value, or would you say "dump 'em"?
Click to expand...
From what I've seen, anything with the Hartford Horsie on the side will retain its value, and in most cases, appreciate. I know a guy who paid $1500 for an 80's Sporter with the correct handguards and old two-position stock recently and considered it a deal.

Now if they could just keep the front-sight paint from falling off the things.
 
but it seems that Unions and high labor cost started the downhill slide.
Click to expand...

Most unfair to blame labor for what was bad management.

I was squadded next to a guy who was offered the job of running Colt Manufacturing.

He went to Colt. Colt had old outdated machines and obsolete production lines. He claimed the entire problem with Colt was with the owner. The owner was sucking out the profits and not investing in the company.

Colt has a real problem now that their M4 monopoly has ended. They neglected the commercial market as they had all the right connections to keep the military contracts for decades. These contracts were very profitable.

It was a big surprise to them when FN under bid them on M16's. FN has won every military contract they were allowed to bid on. The Army decided to grant Colt a monopoly on the M4 production (politics) but that ended.

Bushmaster broke the Colt monopoly on civilian AR15's by winning a court case.

People will buy Colt SAA's just for the name, but Cowboy Action Shooting will fade when something new and shiney changes the public mood.

I have read that the new Colt M1911's have improved, and that market is still good, but there are a lot of players in the M1911 market.

Colt has the name, but they have also cheapened it by selling the name for use on non firearm products. Like knives. Some really awful knives are Colt branded.

Some people will buy anything with the Colt name, don't know if that is enough to keep Colt afloat.

I really thought they were stupid to walk away from the D frame revolvers. Detective Specials were the best in its class at the time.

Now the most popular handguns at the range are 9mm and 40 S&W's.

What does Colt have to offer those guys?
 
After they go belly up they will sell their trademark like Winchester did and someone will begin production for the mass market under the old name. I can't believe that Colt didn't jump on the bandwagon with subcompact autos like everyone else in the industry did. They lack the will to compete.
 
If you want a Officers size aluminum frame, Colt offers the Defender. It doesn't have night sights and has MIM parts. To get nights added you have to ship off the slide and have them installed, which likely adds $150 to the cost of the Defender.

Kimber offers the Ultra Carry with night sights and a officers size aluminum frame, it also has MIM parts.

The Colt Defender will cost as much as the Kimber Ultra Carry when nights sights are added.

Colt offers only a few models and few (if any) have night sights.

I think consumers are tired of buying a 1911 and then have to shipp it off to have desirable features added.

IMO Colt tried back in the early - mid 1990's with the Enhanced models; I was willing to spend the extra $ to have the features the Enhanced models posessed.

I can't stand shooting the basic 1911 with a narrow grip safety, and I want night sights on any pistol carried for SD. Apparently many in the market place are like me and that's why Kimber is doing well. They offer a variety of models with many features; Colt would do the same if they wanted to compete.
 
Funny, I cant imagine why folks think that selling everything you make (and then some) without advertising is not successful.

Unlike the gun of the month companies that need to force their distribs to buy product, or blow out their non selling pistols to discount houses.......

Business model: Do a few things right here in the USA, dont use cheap castings and offshore polymers, dont buy barrels in Korea and MIM in Israel, do things traditionally, do them right and rely on the sophisticated gun buyer (a whole bunch of us) who demand ultra quality and workmanship in a reasonably priced, traditional package. It works.

WildicantbeleivethespurslosttowiganAlaska ™©2002-2010
 
Last edited:
Every manufacturer has had issues with quality and missing the market's needs, and Colt was no exception. Nowadays they make a very nice product at a reasonable cost for what you get, so what's not to like about that? I own several older Colts ( 3 woodsmans, a 1911 blued gold cup, a third series SAA, a trooper, and a diamondback) and would not hesitate to buy a new one, in fact a 70 series stainless gold cup is still on my wish list....
 
I can't believe that Colt didn't jump on the bandwagon with subcompact autos like everyone else in the industry did. They lack the will to compete.
Click to expand...
I don't see how those statements are necessarily related, nor how the latter proves the former.

I know the little pocket guns are all the rage, but that's not the only market segment out there. By your yardstick, Freedom Arms, Uberti, heck, even Glock, also lack the will to compete.

I'd much rather see Colt stick to doing a few things well, rather than branching out into new designs that may or may not work out. We've got plenty of mainstream gun makers doing that.

If you want a Colt subcompact, SIG makes some now. ;)
 
Someone says the new owner is sucking out the profits and not investing in the company. That may be true but the only reason for the company's existence is to enrich the owner or owners. That's the theory, anyway. It can do that and still lose money. The reality, especially in a widely held corporation, is that the company enriches the top management more than the owners, who are the stockholders. The other theory is that the first object of a business is to stay in business, which is the only one that affects the employees.
 
Colt made some great guns and I do think they tried to make some changes. The Colt Cadet 22 pistol was almost a clone of a High Standard pistol. It was a great shooting gun but they didn't sell. Too bad they like so many other good American companies are not what they used to be or are now out of business.
 
They took the average American gun owner for granted. They assumed they had it made. They thought nobody could come up with something better.
They got in bed with the enemy.

Same story as many corporations. Just a different verse.
 
Funny, I cant imagine why folks think that selling everything you make (and then some) without advertising is not successful.
Click to expand...
Only good if all fixed and variable costs are covered, and a profit is made.

It depends on the number sold required by the business, not that all production is sold.
 
As far as using CNC machines... I pretty sure they all use CNC's now. Every Mom and Pop can afford a CNC machine and a CadCam system.

Mike Mattera
 
:barf:Colt makes all the money they could want & more, from Military Contracts, what could they possibly need you for ???:barf:
 
When I was much younger and thinner there were only 2 serious manufacturers of serious handguns for Americans, Colt and Smith & Wesson.

Now, look at the ads in any gun publication now and the choice is overwhelming. This includes many excellent foreign designed guns.

Colt no longer shares a stranglehold on the American handgun market. The world is better now.

While I would be interested in seeing Colts name on a good revolver, I am satisfied with my Rugers and S&W products.

I'd also like the Dodgers to return to Brooklyn. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top