[Loaded]

Springfield Armory
"The Oldest Name in American Firearms"

Springfield Armory is a name as synonymous with American firearms as it is with American freedom. Founded by the premier commanding general and the first U.S. President, it was George Washington who designated Springfield Armory as the country's first arsenal in 1794.

The original Springfield Armory served the country through wars and foreign conflicts for nearly one and three-quarters centuries, before it closed its New England operation in 1968.

In 1974 Robert Reese acquired the Springfield Armory name and identified the growing need for match-grade M1A rifles, in the civilian as well as the military marketplace. Re-located in Geneseo, Illinois, the reborn Springfield Armory stormed back onto the American firearms scene, with the superior quality .308 caliber M1A rifle, an aggressive marketing campaign and an eager and excited consumer base.

With its rugged, battle-proven designs and unmatched reliability, SA quickly developed its new civilian market, well ahead of any competition, successfully making the transition from military arms to sporting firearms.

In the 1980s, brothers Dennis and Tom Reese, who'd been working for the company in various capacities for several years, officially purchased Springfield Armory from their father. One of their first additions was to begin manufacturing high-quality 1911 pistols, .45 caliber handguns popular in the law enforcement and personal protection marketplace.

The Reese brothers also identified the growing profile of 1911 competitive shooting and the custom pistol market which it supported. Soon, Springfield Armory recruited and fielded the finest competitive shooters in the country, a reputation which continues to make Team Springfield a leader on the tournament circuit.

While many have tried to imitate its 1911 success, Springfield Armory maintains its position as an industry leader, offering manufacturing tolerances and professional gunsmith quality unmatched in other factory-grade firearms.

Today, from its receipt of an unprecedented contract to supply 1911s for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to its dominance in competitive shooting, Springfield Armory continues to raise the standards by which firearms manufacturers are judged.

---------------------------------------------

Sounds pretty impressive to me. Regardless whether you like their products or not it looks as though they are a company to be reckoned with.

Loaded

[Mike Irwin]

Well, the Springfield Armory of today and the military arsenal that was run at Springfield, Massachusetts, have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with each other, other than the fact that they share a name.

They make decent firearms.

I have one of their MilSpec 1911-A1s, and it's a great .45 semi-auto.

[Mike Irwin]

In that sense I think you're incorrect, Vic.

Ford has been in continuous production as a private company since its inception, making products for the consumer market.

Same with the other companies that you name. Yes, the otherships has changed over the years, but it's always been organized around the fact that the company is an on-going concern.

Sprinfield Armory, as a government facility, wasn't. It made firearms for the military, but not for the consumer market.

To the best of my knowledge, the only thing that Reese got was the name. Not the buidlings, not the equipment, and I don't think any of the people, either.

[Mike Irwin]

Vic,

I know you're bright enough to be able to grasp this concept.

Yes, Colt has been swapped, traded, etc. many times.

But through it all Colt still made guns, the same guns they had been making before, with the same staff they had had, in the same facility, on the same machinery.

It was an UNBROKEN lineage of firearms manufacturing that stretched back to the establishment of the Colt company in what, 1847?

While Colt was being sold half a dozen times in the 1900s, they were STILL making guns at the same plant with the same staff, and people were buying them.

While Colt was going in and out of receivership, they were STILL making guns at the same plant and the same staff, and people were buying them.

That's an ENORMOUS different between Colt, Ford, and other companies that you mention.

Springfield Armory as established by Reese had NO Sprinfield Armory Arsenal staff, they had NO Springfield Armory Arsenal equipment, and they had NO Springfield Armory Arsenal facilities. They had the NAME only, in a location roughly 1,000 miles apart from the Springfield Armory Arsenal.

There's simply no comparison, especially not the kind you're trying to make.

The legacy of staff, equipment, product line, and facilities makes the situation MUCH different than the one you're trying to paint. A change in ownership doesn't mean a whole lot if the face of the company doesn't really change. It just means that someone else is now signing the paychecks.

Colt et al didn't, every time they were sold, liquidate the facilities and machinery, starting fresh in a new location, and with a new staff that had never worked for a Colt company before.

After you've been here awhile, you'll get a feel for my posting, and you'll understand that I don't give a rat's rump about Colt's reputation. It's been almost 10 years since I owned a Colt-manufactured firearm, and there are none in my near future.

[Tamara]

It's customary to offer attribution for quotes.

[Standing Wolf]

In 1974 Robert Reese acquired the Springfield Armory name...

It's just the name. There's all the difference in the world between a thing and its name.

[dfariswheel]

And the oldest gun company in America is.....Remington.

In business since 1816.

[Brian D.]

Oldest or longest running don't necessarily mean best, right? 60 Minutes is about the longest running thing on TV these days, and it flat out stinks! Not cracking wise, just trying to keep my perspective as I scroll thru here...

[Jim March]

Vic, learn to copy and paste URLs, so we can see what you're pointing to.

For example, I'm doing something interesting here:

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=read_count&om=18&forum=DCForumID15

A "URL" is the thing that starts with "http://" at the top of your web browser screen. You highlight it, hold down the CTRL key, and hit "C" for copy. You then go into anyplace where you're typing text, hold down CTRL and hit "V" for paste.

THAT is what Mike meant by "naming your source".

[Porter Rockwell]

Vic, you'll find no Made In Brazil stamps on Colts or Rugers.
The word oxymoron leaps to mind when reading the Springfield U.S.A propoganda.

[Mike Irwin]

"There's all the difference in the world between a thing and its name."

At least someone grasps the point I'm making.

[MMcCall]

...and somewhere, Beretta reps are reading this thread and laughing ;)

[Kaylee]

gotta admit.. I always considered Springfield Inc.'s use of the name and flaming bomb logo -- to say nothing of their add copy -- just a hair's breadth short of fraud... if not right over the line. Kinda like to old saw of naming some tiny South Pacific island "Usa" to be able to stamp "MADE IN USA" on cheap imported dolls and toy trains.

That said... I can't really complain about the quality of their products.

-K

[Mike Irwin]

"...and somewhere, Beretta reps are reading this thread and laughing."

Yeah, yeah. They're just a flash in the pan.

You watch. They'll fold any day now.

[JohnKSa]

Vic,

You're still not getting it, are you.

Colt. Bought and sold, lots of different presidents, leadership changes, etc. But through all that, there has been a CONTINUITY from beginning to end. ONE company.

Remington. Been in business for a lot of years. Been through a lot of changes. No longer makes handguns. But through all that, there has been a CONTINUITY from beginning to end. ONE company.

Springfield Armory. CEASED TO EXIST. Someone bought the rights to the name and trademark and began making guns using the trademark. Not on the same equipment, not with the old employees, not with the same anything. Completely NEW company took on the name of an OLD no longer extant company and began making guns using the OLD trademarks and name. TWO companies.

Armalite. CEASED TO EXIST. Eagle Arms bought the rights to the name and trademark and began making guns using the trademark. Not on the same equipment, not with the old employees, not with the same anything. Completely NEW company took on the name of an OLD no longer extant company and began making guns using the OLD trademarks and name. TWO companies.

Springfield Armory and Armalite are both names that have a lot of history associated with them. That's why the NEW companies wanted to use the old names.

They know that people will hear Springfield Armory and think of the company that made rifles during the Civil War.

They know that people will hear Armalite and think of the company that designed one of the most successful service rifles in the history of the U.S.

BUT, when people think that, they are COMPLETELY MISTAKEN. There is absolutely no connection between the Springfield Armory of today and the Springfield Armory of the Civil War or between Eagle Arms and the Armalite that designed the M16. They just happen to share common names and make similar products.

[Tamara]

Kaylee -- How so? The father and two brothers bought the rights to the name. Do you think the same of Colt and that silly looking horse? The Colt company of today is about as much the original as Springfield is!

Not so.

Yes, the ownership of Colt has changed hands many times since it was first bought out by investors. Springfield, on the other hand, was a new start-up company in Geneseo, IL that bought nothing but the right to use the Springfield name and logo.

Colt is still in Hartford, CT, where Sam set the company up lo these many years ago. Geneseo, IL, on the other hand, is not even in the same time zone as Springfield, MA.

Through all the changes of ownership at Colt, employees have continued doing what they do, the machinery is retained (sometimes long after it should've been replaced... :uhoh: ), and only the address the electric bill gets sent to changes. Springfield Armory, Inc. got not one employee, nut, bolt, or dust bunny from the eponymous U.S. arsenal.

[C.R.Sam]

Springfield Armory "The Oldest Name in American Firearms."

Looks false to me.

Earlier American gun makers.

Springfield has not been in continous operation.


Pretty well covered in detail in previous posts.

Sam

[SelfProclaimedExpert]

"The Oldest Name in American Firearms."

What, then, is an OLDER name in firearms?

Just name. Not company.



Name.






It would be just as true as Armalite or Stoner advertising "the most innovative name in American firearms" (well, if Stoner is, which I doubt).

Or "Jesus"; the most holy first name in Mexico.

[Mike Irwin]

"Springfield Armory. CEASED TO EXIST. Someone bought the rights to the name and trademark and began making guns using the trademark. Not on the same equipment, not with the old employees, not with the same anything. Completely NEW company took on the name of an OLD no longer extant company and began making guns using the OLD trademarks and name. TWO companies."

Even that's not correct, John.

Springfield Armory Arsenal was NEVER a manufacturer of civilian firearms. Springfield NEVER developed arms for public consumption.

One could NEVER walk into a sporting goods store in 1820, 1880, 1920, or 1950 and say "Hey, I see Springfield Armory has a new rifle for the deep pine woods hunter out this year. I want to buy one for me and one for my Dad."

Springfield Armory Arsenal's ONLY customer was the Federal Government. The ONLY way you could get one of their firearms new was to join the Army, Navy, or Marine Corps.

If you were a civilian and wanted to purchase a firearm made at Springfield Armory Arsenal you had to wait until the Army declared it to be surplus and sold it to one of the big surplus dealers -- Hartley & Graham, Bannerman, etc.


I've explained the concept of continuity repeatedly, and it's just not sticking, or getting through.

Springfield Armory Arsenal and Springfield Arsenal have no continuity.

Colt does.

Ford does.

Remington does.

What Vic is claiming is not unlike claiming that Springfield Armory Arsenal became, essentially, a completely new entity every time the President, the commander in chief of the military and by association the CEO of Springfield Armory Arsenal, changed due to an election.

That's ludicrous.

[Loaded]

Hmm..........
The original Springfield Armory served the country through wars and foreign conflicts for nearly one and three-quarters centuries, before it closed its New England operation in 1968.

In 1974 Robert Reese acquired the Springfield Armory name and identified the growing need for match-grade M1A rifles, in the civilian as well as the military marketplace. Re-located in Geneseo, Illinois, the reborn Springfield Armory stormed back onto the American firearms scene, with the superior quality .308 caliber M1A rifle, an aggressive marketing campaign and an eager and excited consumer base.

In the 1980s, brothers Dennis and Tom Reese, who'd been working for the company in various capacities for several years, officially purchased Springfield Armory from their father. One of their first additions was to begin manufacturing high-quality 1911 pistols, .45 caliber handguns popular in the law enforcement and personal protection marketplace.

Now my turn -
Sounds to me like Vic has a valid point. Only 6 years elapsed between Springfield's shutdown and new ownership. Colt ceased production for 4 years when their union workers went on strike. (Plus, the countless ownership changes with Colt through conglomerates, private investors, etc.) I know... it was still in business (in name only), but there was no production going on. And one more interesting observation -- Not a one of you have answered the original question... "Can anyone dispute this fact?" Nothing in Springfield's bio is false or misleading. Yet most of you have taken this opportunity to "bash" Springfield, while in the same breath shamelessly defend Colt. Especially when Colt wasn't even the topic of this thread.

[SelfProclaimedExpert]

Loaded, read my post.


I'm willing to bet that Colt went back into production at the same location, with at least some of the old employees making the same products on the same machines.

The point being made here is that Springfield has NO continuity to the past. Not one physical link to the old facility and people.


Sig Sauer is now going by the name "Sigarms", but no one says it's not the same company. If Colt changed it's name we would still have plenty to attach the new company to the old one. If SA wasn't SA it wouldn't have any link at all - just like Enterprise, Armscorp and Fulton Armory.

Maybe Enterprise arms should change its name to "Union Switch and Signal" or "American Harvester" so they would be magically transformed into an old name in military firearms.

If only UMC would call itself "Lake City", then I'd buy their crummy ammo.

[Tropical Z]

For some silly reason,ive always been annoyed by Springfields claim.To me its false advertising.

[Loaded]

Loaded, read my post.
I'm willing to bet that Colt went back into production at the same location, with at least some of the old employees making the same products on the same machines. The point being made here is that Springfield has NO continuity to the past. Not one physical link to the old facility and people.


SPE - And you and others wonder why Colt is sitting at the bottom of the barrel while Springfield and Kimber have skyrocketed to the top. Maybe Colt should get with the program and eliminate their "dead weight" (read union workers) and modernize their old factory and modernize their way of doing business to the private sector.

Perhaps they could exhume good ole Mr Colt and prop him up in the original office overlooking the sweat shop and invite those who worship Colt in for a company tour. They could brag "We are still the original company" to the tour group. Meanwhile, their sales suck, their marketing is dismal to say the least, no 1911's to be seen on any shelf at a shop (except some trade-ins), they have gone into receivership, bankruptcy, constant change of ownership and yet the Colt cult is still there thinking they are #1.

Hey, I own a Colt. But i'm a realist. They are old, outdated, out marketed by other companies and they are basically Dead in the water. In other words.... time to abandon ship cuz they're sinking and sinking fast!

[C.R.Sam]

One, for starters.

Rappahannock Forge. Made muskets at the Hunter Iron Works, Falmouth, VA. Just one of many predating the revolutionary war.

Sam

[Duncan Idaho]

I'm a Springfield Armory Junior Park Ranger. :phttp://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=438884

[SelfProclaimedExpert]

SPE - And you and others wonder why Colt is sitting at the bottom of the barrel while Springfield and Kimber have skyrocketed to the top.

No, I don't. Where did you read that? Colt is on the bottom because they made no effort to stay on top for 50 years. GM found itself in a similar situation 10 years ago.



Sam,

Where can I buy a Rappahannock Forge rifle?

[C.R.Sam]

Don't know.
Found it in Hank Bowman's "Antique Guns"....Arco Publishing, 1955.

Sam

[Mike Irwin]

"Colt is on the bottom because they made no effort to stay on top for 50 years."

Bingo.

I've posted about this a number of times in the past.

Essentially, after World War II, Colt largely ABANDONED the civilian market.

They surrendered the strong share of the civilian/police revolver market they once had to Smith & Wesson by refusing to innvoate and market.

Smith repeatedly caught them flat footed with new features and, more importantly, new cartridges for both revolvers AND semi-autos.

Colt never took meaningful steps towards the development of a semi-automatic handgun.

In the 1960s, with the exception of the 1911 and a few revolvers, Colt converted most of their production over to the AR series of rifles for the military. The civilian market was a small by product of that, and one that they actually half-heartedly served.

When the Wonder9 craze hit, though, that's when Colt's decisions came back to haunt them. In spades.

Colt had no viable offerings in the semi-auto handgun market, and sales of their few revolver lines and the 1911s came virtually to a standstill because it's not what people were interested in at that time.

To add insult to injury Colt, which had considered the AR rifle contract to be theirs forever, was beaten out by FN on a huge procurement.

Those two factors there started Colt's nearly 10 year flirtation with bankruptcy and receivership.

Even when Colt tried to introduce double action guns, they were pretty much disasters. The Double Eagle was only moderately well received, but when the problems with it became known, its sales slowed to a trickle.

The Colt AA2000 was a freaking disaster.

After the Wonder9 fiasco settled out, and the magazine capacity ban was adopted, Colt's products started picking up again.

But, they chose to get rid of their revolver lines just as revolvers were making a come back.

They introduced the .22 Cadet, and immediately were sued by I believe Coonan for trademark violation. As an aside, though, that gun should have made it. It was a SWEET .22 semi-auto, but it couldn't compete with the already established Ruger and Browning.

Yeah. Colt's last 50 years have been a legacy of poor choices and poor management, but that doesn't negate the fact that it's still the same Colt, in the same factory, with the same lineage, and the same workforce, as it was when the company started.

[Matt G]

Closed due to the fact that almost half the people in this discussion (and all of one side of it) are the same person, and he's both banned.

Carry on, friends. :)